Satans Mark/Cashless
See other Satans Mark/Cashless Articles
Title: Holdren's guru: Dispose of 'excess children' like puppies Science chief acknowledges Brown as inspiration for career in ecology
Source:
worldnetdaily
URL Source: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118497
Published: Dec 10, 2009
Author: Jerome R. Corsi
Post Date: 2009-12-10 10:26:29 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 2444
Comments: 6
This is the third of a three-part series of articles exploring Obama administration science czar John P. Holdren's self-acknowledged intellectual debt to geochemist and early ecological alarmist Harrison Brown. In the first part, WND reported Brown recommended pumping carbon dioxide into the global atmosphere in order to promote the food production needed to prevent starvation resulting from over-population. In the second part, WND examined Brown's endorsement of eugenics as a recommended means of controlling overpopulation to prevent ecological disasters. Geochemist Harrison Brown, a member of the Manhattan Project who supervised the production of plutonium, advocated world government in the 1950s to impose mandatory controls over population growth, carried out, if necessary, through sterilization and forced abortions. White House science czar John Holdren openly acknowledges Brown's writings influenced his decision to devote his career to the science of ecology. Holdren has echoed Brown's call for global government by advocating the United States should surrender sovereignty to a "Planetary Regime" armed with sufficient military power to enforce population limits on nations as a means of preventing a wide range of perceived dangers from global eco-disasters involving Earth's natural resources, climate, atmosphere and oceans. On page 260 of his 1954 book "The Challenge of Man's Future," Brown concluded "population stabilization and a world composed of completely independent sovereign states are incompatible." Writing that "population stabilization" is a goal "with which a world government must necessarily concern itself," Brown advised that "maximum and permissible population levels" for all regions of the world could be calculated by world government authorities using the rule that "individual regions of the world should be self-sufficient both agriculturally and industrially." Brown even contemplates infanticide as a permissible solution to overpopulation in extreme situations, writing that "if we cared little for human emotions and were willing to introduce a procedure which most of us would consider to be reprehensible in the extreme, all excess children could be disposed of much as excess puppies and kittens are disposed of at the present time." That Brown considers such a reprehensible reality a possibility is made clear on page 261, when he writes: "And let us hope further that human beings will never again be forced to resort to infanticide in order to avoid excessive population pressure." 'Pulsating mass of maggots' Imagining a world population growing out of control to as many as 200 billion people, Brown suggested on page 221 "a substantial fraction of humanity" was reproducing as if "it would not rest content until the earth is covered completely and to a considerable depth with a writhing mass of human beings, much as a dead cow is covered with a pulsating mass of maggots." Believing that there are "physical limitations of some sort which will determine the maximum number of human beings who can live on the earth's surface," Brown argued on page 236 that "there can be no escaping the fact that if starvation is to be eliminated, if the average child who is born is to stand a reasonable chance of living out the normal life span with which he is endowed at birth, family sizes must be limited." He continues to specify that the limitations in birth "must arise from the utilization of contraceptive techniques or abortions or a combination of the two practices." Brown openly endorsed putting morals aside. "The conclusion is inescapable," he continued on page 236. "We can avoid talking about it, moralists may try to convince us to the contrary, laws may be passed forbidding us to talk about it, fear of pressure groups may prevent political leaders from discussion the subject, but the conclusion cannot be denied on any rational basis." As far as Brown was concerned, government-mandated population control was necessary to prevent overpopulation. "Either population-control measures must be both widely and wisely used, or we must reconcile ourselves to a world where starvation is everywhere, where life expectancy at birth is less than 30 years, where infants stand a better chance of dying than living during the first year following birth, where women are little more than machines for breeding, pumping child after child into an inhospitable world, spending the greater part of their adult lives in a state of pregnancy." Ultimately, Brown resolves preventing overpopulation justifies government limiting human freedom, at least with regard to reproduction. On page 255, Brown announces "it is difficult to see how the achievement of stability and the maintenance of human liberty can be made compatible." How many births should be permitted? On page 262, Brown proposes a rule government officials can utilize to mandate birth control measures. "Let us suppose that in a given year the birth rate exceeds the death rate by a certain amount, thus resulting in a population increase," he postulates. "During the following year the number of permitted inseminations is decreased and the number of permitted abortions is increased, in such a way that the birth rate is lowered by the requisite amount." Next, Brown insists that in a year in which the death rate exceeds the birth rate, "the number of permitted inseminations would be increased while the number of abortions would be decreased." Brown formulates his rule as follows: "The number of abortions and artificial inseminations permitted in a given year would be determined completely by the difference between the number of deaths and the number of births in the year previous." Combining this rule with his desire to implement eugenics, Brown writes on the next page, "A broad eugenics program would have to be formulated which would aid in the establishment of policies that would encourage able and healthy persons to have several offspring and discourage the unfit from breeding at excessive rates." Brown openly acknowledged population control requires government limitation of human freedom. "Precise control of population can never be made completely compatible with the concept of a free society; on the other hand, neither can the automobile , the machine gun, or the atomic bomb," he wrote on pages 263-264. "Whenever several persons live together in a small area, rules of behavior are necessary. Just as we have rules designed to keep us from killing one another with our automobiles, so there must be rules that keep us from killing one another with our fluctuating breeding habits an with our lack of attention to the soundness of our individual genetic stock." Holdren follows mentor's lead Holdren's call for a planetary regime dates to the 1970s college textbook "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment" that he co-authored with Malthusian population alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich and Ehrlich's wife, Anne. The authors argued involuntary birth-control measures, including forced sterilization, may be necessary and morally acceptable under extreme conditions, such as widespread famine brought about by "climate change." Just as Brown had called for world government to control overpopulation to prevent eco-disasters, Holdren's call for a planetary regime was similarly motivated by ecological concerns. On page 943, the authors recommended the creation of a "Planetary Regime" created to act as an "international superagency for population, resources, and environment." Holdren clearly specified the Planetary Regime would be charged with global population control. On page 943, Holdren continued: "The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime should have some power to enforce the agreed limits." Holdren credits Brown with inspiring him in high school Holdren openly acknowledges his intellectual debt to Brown's 1954 book "The Challenge of Man's Future." In 1986, Holdren co-edited a scientific reader, "Earth and the Human Future: Essays in Honor of Harrison Brown." In one of his introductory essays in the book, Holdren acknowledged he read Brown's "The Challenge of Man's Future" when he was in high school and that the book had a profound effect on his intellectual development. Holdren acknowledged Brown's book transformed his thinking about the world and "about the sort of career I wanted to pursue." As recently as 2007, Holdren gave a speech to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in which his last footnote included Brown as one of the "several late mentors" to whom Holdren was thankful for "insight and inspiration." In the first slide of this presentation, Holdren acknowledged, "My pre-occupation with the great problems at the intersection of science and technology with the human condition – and with the interconnectedness of these problems with each other – began when I read 'The Challenge of Man's Future' in high school. I later worked with Harrison Brown at Caltech."
Poster Comment: 
John Holdren the face of EVIL!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Anybody who doesn't think this is inevitable is blind to unpopular reality. It IS going to happen.Maybe not in my lifetime,but it IS going to happen. The whole environmental movement is based on overpopulation and the effect it has/will have on the environment,and the whole push towards socialized medicine is also a part of this puzzle. Doctors WILL end up deciding who has the "right" to health care depending on their genetics,IQ,and the effect of any physical limitations may have on their ability to produce useful and needed work. Groups of "undesirables" won't be killed off,they will just be allowed to die off due to lack of proper medical care. Groups like Eskimos,Stone Age tribesmen from New Guinea,and most of Africa. There is no way the communist socialists that are pushing this will admit it or even allow themselves to recognize it,but it is true nonetheless. The fascist socialists DO recognize this,but there is no way they will discuss it in public at this stage. I see only two possible ways to prevent this from happening. The first is to make birth control mandatory as a condition for feeding them for people living in 3rd world shitholes,and the second is to start moving mankind to other planets. I don't see the first happening because the religious leaders hate the idea of lowering the population levels because it would decrease both their wealth and their political power. The only way to change this is for the Catholic Church to either do a 180 or birth control,or to be destroyed. Even then it won't stop mandatory abortions for the unwashed,but the good news is mandatory birth control will greatly reduce the number of abortions. IF the number of births can be sufficiently reduced to a level where the people in those areas can become self-sufficient and feed themselves,MAYBE they won't totally disappear from the face of the earth as a people. This is assuming of course that the elites don't decide to just eliminate them and replace them with workers from western countries whose genetics and family history are better known. Still,birth control is the ONLY chance they have of avoiding genocide. BUT,organized religion isn't the only group interested in keeping 3rd world population levels high at the present time. Right now the global robber barons of Organized Greed are getting even richer from the abundance of cheap labor. Of course,the time will come,and come pretty soon in historical terms,when feeding and providing for the poor will cost more than they get in profits from exploiting them,and that day is when the rubber will start to meet the road and things start to get ugly. Expanding mankind into space and on other planets is a real possibility,but I just don't see this happening in time to prevent what I write about above. For one thing,we have organized religion and other socialists screaming to spend the money to "feed the po" instead of on things like space exploration. The other is that I think the elites have already made the decision that this technology and ability is not going to develop in time to be practical,so they have already made the decision to go with "genocide by neglect" method. Meanwhile,all those of us in America can do is to keep fighting the good fight for sovereignty,and hope that we have fought it well enough that when the Global Government becomes a reality,Americans who believe in the values of the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution will be the ones sitting in the upper decision-making levels of this government. If it is the Chinese,and the international bankers from Europe,things are going to get very ugly,indeed.
Sorry if this seems like excessive pinging,but I think this is of interest to anyone interested in any of those subjects because of the obvious links.
Population control called key to deal www.chinadaily.com.cn/chi...12/10/content_9151129.htm COPENHAGEN: Population and climate change are intertwined but the population issue has remained a blind spot when countries discuss ways to mitigate climate change and slow down global warming, according to Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC) . "Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture," said Zhao, who is a member of the Chinese government delegation. Many studies link population growth with emissions and the effect of climate change. "Calculations of the contribution of population growth to emissions growth globally produce a consistent finding that most of past population growth has been responsible for between 40 per cent and 60 percent of emissions growth," so stated by the 2009 State of World Population, released earlier by the UN Population Fund. Although China's family planning policy has received criticism over the past three decades, Zhao said that China's population program has made a great historic contribution to the well-being of society. As a result of the family planning policy, China has seen 400 million fewer births, which has resulted in 18 million fewer tons of CO2 emissions a year, Zhao said. The UN report projected that if the global population would remain 8 billion by the year 2050 instead of a little more than 9 billion according to medium-growth scenario, "it might result in 1 billion to 2 billion fewer tons of carbon emissions". Meanwhile, she said studies have also shown that family planning programs are more efficient in helping cut emissions, citing research by Thomas Wire of London School of Economics that states: "Each $7 spent on basic family planning would reduce CO2 emissions by more than one ton" whereas it would cost $13 for reduced deforestation, $24 to use wind technology, $51 for solar power, $93 for introducing hybrid cars and $131 electric vehicles. She admitted that China's population program is not without consequences, as the country is entering the aging society fast and facing the problem of gender imbalance. "I'm not saying that what we have done is 100 percent right, but I'm sure we are going in the right direction and now 1.3 billion people have benefited," she said. She said some 85 percent of the Chinese women in reproductive age use contraceptives, the highest rate in the world. This has been achieved largely through education and improvement of people's lives, she said. This holistic approach that integrates policy on population and development, a strategy promoting sustainable development of population, resources and environment should serve as a model for integrating population programs into the framework of climate change adaptation, she said.
Like cattle barons, they feel they must control the size of the 'herd'.
We went to the Highschool to watch our daughter perform in a Christmas show. One of the fathers there had two young boys with him, prolly about 3 or 4 years- old. He had them both on leashes. Now, some people might believe in child leashes, but we do not. We believe it is demeaning to the children as it treats the children like dogs and it also reflects on the person as a parent. When did parents lose such control that they have to put their children on leashes? What ever happened to holding your children's hands? I know - I'm a bit off-topic, but it does mention treating children like puppies in the title.
Happy Birthday Jesus! Merry Christmas everyone!
I don't like parents who put leashes on their kids. Next time I see that I think I will give them some harsh words. Holding your kids hands is much better.
Holdren has echoed Brown's call for global government by advocating the United States should surrender sovereignty to a "Planetary Regime" armed with sufficient military power to enforce population limits on nations as a means of preventing a wide range of perceived dangers from global eco-disasters involving Earth's natural resources, climate, atmosphere and oceans.
#2. To: All, *Health*, *Religious History and Issues*, *Politics and Politicians*, *Environmental News* (#1)
#3. To: A K A Stone (#0)
#4. To: All (#3)
#5. To: A K A Stone (#0)
(Edited)
#6. To: mel (#5)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]