15 Julio 2009
del Sitio Web
Ni una palabra, en el informe de la
potabilidad del agua de 2009 de la ciudad de Chicago, de las
hormonas sexuales y fármacos encontrados en el lago Michigan en los
años anteriores; sospechoso ya que no se ha tomado ninguna medida en
todo este tiempo.
La fertilidad ha decaído un 50% entre los
hombres blancos europeos en 30 años.
No hay duda de que la contaminación ambiental de
la industria y los productos farmacéuticos ha contribuido, pero la nueva
investigación ha descubierto que otros
productos químicos conocidos como
Antiandrógenos están encontrando su camino en el
suministro de agua. La
Universidad de Exeter y la Universidad de Sussex tratan de comprender cuales
son y la forma en que los productos químicos que se emiten en las aguas
Los antiandrógenos se dan a los hombres que desean ser mujeres ya que
contrarrestan la masculinización asociada a la liberación de testosterona.
Los peces de los ríos británicos, aves, osos, águilas, ballenas, etc...
están siendo afectados: feminizando lo masculino y esterilizando.
También el agua proveniente de botellas plásticas puede afectar a nuestro
sistema endocrino porque está contaminada con estrógenos, hormonas femeninas
responsables de características sexuales, según se desprende de un artículo
publicado en la revista Environmental Science and Pollution Research.
Un tercio de las muestras que se preservaban en envase de vidrio, el 78% del
agua en las botellas plásticas y ambas muestras en envase mixto presentaban
"niveles significativos de actividad hormonal".
Ante todo, estoy a favor de los derechos de los homosexuales pero no me fío
de los políticos (tengan la palabra exo- delante, o no la tengan).
¿Porqué crees que se estará fomentando en este
momento histórico?, ¿normalizar una intoxicación en masa y ocultar
Alex Jones Expone Programa de Esterilización
del Sitio Web
Alex Jones emite un show de dos horas respecto al recientemente
desclasificado documento "Ecoscience - Population, Resources, Environment"
escrito por el asesor científico de
Obama, John P. Holdren.
En el libro, que data de 1977, John P. Holdren aboga por abortos forzados,
esterilización masiva mediante el suministro de alimentos y agua, e
implantes obligatorios para prevenir embarazos, cada medida bajo la
dictadura de un gobierno mundial totalitario controlado por una élite
científica de eugenesistas.
Obama Science Advisor
...Called For “Planetary Regime” To Enforce Totalitarian
Population Control Measures
by Paul Joseph Watson
July 11, 2009
In 1977 book, John Holdren advocated forced abortions, mass sterilization
through food and water supply and mandatory bodily implants to prevent
President Obama’s top science and technology advisor
John P. Holdren co-authored
a 1977 book in which he advocated the formation of a “planetary regime” that
would use a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of
population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs
conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily
implants that would prevent couples from having children.
The concepts outlined in Holdren’s 1977 book
Ecoscience, which he co-authored
with close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, were so shocking that a
February 2009 Front Page Magazine story on the subject was largely dismissed
as being outlandish because people couldn’t bring themselves to believe that
it could be true.
It was only when another Internet blog obtained the book and posted
screenshots that the awful truth about what Holdren had actually committed
to paper actually began to sink in.
This issue is more prescient than ever because Holdren and his colleagues
are now at the forefront of efforts to combat “climate change” through
similarly insane programs focused around geo-engineering the planet.
reported in April, Holdren recently advocated,
projects designed to cool the Earth,” such as “shooting pollution particles
into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays,” which many have
pointed out is already occurring via
Ecoscience discusses a number of ways in which the global population could
be reduced to combat what the authors see as mankind’s greatest threat –
overpopulation. In each case, the proposals are couched in sober academic
rhetoric, but the horrifying foundation of what Holdren and his co-authors
are advocating is clear.
These proposals include:
Forcibly and unknowingly sterilizing the entire population by adding
infertility drugs to the nation’s water and food supply.
Legalizing “compulsory abortions,”
i.e. forced abortions carried out against
the will of the pregnant women, as is common place in Communist China where
women who have already had one child and refuse to abort the second are
kidnapped off the street by the authorities before a procedure is carried
out to forcibly abort the baby.
Babies who are born out of wedlock or to teenage mothers to be forcibly
taken away from their mother by the government and put up for adoption.
Another proposed measure would force single mothers to demonstrate to the
government that they can care for the child, effectively introducing
licensing to have children.
Implementing a system of “involuntary birth control,” where both men and
women would be mandated to have an infertility device implanted into their
body at puberty and only have it removed temporarily if they received
permission from the government to have a baby.
Permanently sterilizing people who the authorities deem have already had
too many children or who have contributed to “general social deterioration”.
Formally passing a law that criminalizes having more than two children,
similar to the one child policy in Communist China.
This would all be overseen by a transnational and centralized “planetary
regime” that would utilize a “global police force” to enforce the measures
outlined above. The “planetary regime” would also have the power to
determine population levels for every country in the world.
The quotes from the book are included below.
We also include comments by
the author who provided the screenshots of the relevant passages.
Screenshots of the relevant pages and the quotes in their full context are
provided at the end of the excerpts. The quotes from the book appear as text
indents and in bold.
The quotes from the author are
Forced abortions. Mass
sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death
over American citizens.
The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the
person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or
These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations)
were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently
appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and
Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology - informally known as the United States'
In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now
firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they
wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs
intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized
from them against their will and given away to other couples to
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables)
"can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -
in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the
global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of
Americans' lives - using an armed international police force.
Impossible, you say? That must be an exaggeration or a hoax. No one
in their right mind would say such things.
Well, I hate to break the news to you, but it is no hoax, no
exaggeration. John Holdren really did say those things, and this
report contains the proof. Below you will find photographs, scans,
and transcriptions of pages in the book Ecoscience, co-authored in
1977 by John Holdren and his close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne
The scans and photos are provided to supply conclusive
evidence that the words attributed to Holdren are unaltered and
(UPDATE: Make sure to read the new statements issued by the White
House and by John Holdren's office in response to the controversy
raised by this essay - you can see them below following the Ecoscience excerpts, or you can jump directly to the statements by
This report was originally inspired by this article in FrontPage
magazine, which covers some of the same information given here. But
that article, although it contained many shocking quotes from John
Holdren, failed to make much of an impact on public opinion.
not? Because, as I discovered when discussing the article with
various friends, there was no proof that the quotes were accurate -
so most folks (even those opposed to Obama's policies) doubted their
veracity, because the statements seemed too inflammatory to be true.
In the modern era, it seems, journalists have lost all credibility,
and so are presumed to be lying or exaggerating unless solid
evidence is offered to back up the claims. Well, this report
contains that evidence.
Of course, Holdren wrote these things in the framework of a book he
co-authored about what he imagined at the time (late 1970s) was an
apocalyptic crisis facing mankind: overpopulation. He felt extreme
measures would be required to combat an extreme problem.
not you think this provides him a valid "excuse" for having
descended into a totalitarian fantasy is up to you: personally, I
don't think it's a valid excuse at all, since the crisis he was in a
panic over was mostly in his imagination.
Totalitarian regimes and
unhinged people almost always have what seems internally like a
reasonable justification for actions which to the outside world seem
Direct quotes from John Holdren's Ecoscience
Below you will find a series of ten short passages from Ecoscience.
Below each quote
is a short analysis by me.
Following these short quotes, I take a "step back" and provide the
full extended passages from which each of the shorter quotes were
excerpted, to provide the full context.
And at the bottom of this report, I provide untouched scans (and
photos) of the full pages from which all of these passages were
taken, to quash any doubts anyone might have that these are
absolutely real, and to forestall any claims that the quotes were
taken "out of context."
Ready? Brace yourself. And prepare to be shocked.
Click above image - LARGE FILE
really gets interesting starting at the 12th Chapter to the end of the book.
Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal
“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even
including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the
existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to
endanger the society.”
As noted in the FrontPage article cited above, Holdren “hides behind the
passive voice” in this passage, by saying “it has been concluded.” Really?
By whom? By the authors of the book, that’s whom.
What Holdren’s really
saying here is, “I have determined that there’s nothing unconstitutional
about laws which would force women to abort their babies.” And as we will
see later, although Holdren bemoans the fact that most people think there’s
no need for such laws, he and his co-authors believe that the population
crisis is so severe that the time has indeed come for “compulsory
In fact, they spend the entire book arguing that
“the population crisis” has already become “sufficiently severe to endanger
Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the
government; or they could be forced to have abortions
“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all
illegitimate babies be put up for adoption - especially those born to minors,
who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a
single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go
through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care
Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for
single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative
difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require
pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative
to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”
Holdren and his co-authors once again speculate about unbelievably draconian
solutions to what they feel is an overpopulation crisis.
especially disturbing is not that Holdren has merely made these proposals
wrenching babies from their mothers’ arms and giving them away; compelling
single mothers to prove in court that they would be good parents; and
forcing women to have abortions, whether they wanted to or not - but that he
does so in such a dispassionate, bureaucratic way.
Don’t be fooled by the
innocuous and “level-headed” tone he takes: the proposals are nightmarish,
however euphemistically they are expressed.
Holdren seems to have no grasp of the emotional bond between mother and
child, and the soul-crushing trauma many women have felt throughout history
when their babies were taken away from them involuntarily.
This kind of clinical, almost robotic discussion of laws that would affect
millions of people at the most personal possible level is deeply unsettling,
and the kind of attitude that gives scientists a bad name. I’m reminded of
the phrase “banality of evil.”
Not that it matters, but I myself am “pro-choice” - i.e. I think that
abortion should not be illegal. But that doesn’t mean I’m pro-abortion
don’t particularly like abortions, but I do believe women should be allowed
the choice to have them. But John Holdren here proposes to take away that
choice - to force women to have abortions.
One doesn’t need to be a
“pro-life” activist to see the horror of this proposal - people on all sides
of the political spectrum should be outraged. My objection to forced
abortion is not so much to protect the embryo, but rather to protect the
mother from undergoing a medical procedure against her will. And not just
any medical procedure, but one which she herself (regardless of my views)
may find particularly immoral or traumatic.
There’s a bumper sticker that’s popular in liberal areas which says:
“Against abortion? Then don’t have one.” Well, John Holdren wants to MAKE
you have one, whether you’re against it or not.
Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is
OK as long as it doesn’t harm livestock
“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that
seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility
control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and
social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such
sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development.
acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff
requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses
received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and
sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant
side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex,
children, old people, pets, or livestock.”
OK, John, now you’re really starting to scare me. Putting sterilants in the
While you correctly surmise that this suggestion “seems to
horrify people more than most proposals,” you apparently are not among those
people it horrifies. Because in your extensive list of problems with this
possible scheme, there is no mention whatsoever of any ethical concerns or
In your view, the only impediment to involuntary mass
sterilization of the population is that it ought to affect everyone equally
and not have any unintended side effects or hurt animals. But hey, if we
could sterilize all the humans safely without hurting the livestock, that’d
The fact that Holdren has no moral qualms about such a deeply
invasive and unethical scheme (aside from the fact that it would be
difficult to implement) is extremely unsettling and in a sane world all by
itself would disqualify him from holding a position of power in the
Page 786-7: The government could control women’s reproduction by either
sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control
Involuntary fertility control
“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite
the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be
easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted
under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional
possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted
at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited
number of births.”
Note well the phrase “with official permission” in the above quote.
John Holdren envisions a society in which the government implants a long-term
sterilization capsule in all girls as soon as they reach puberty, who then
must apply for official permission to temporarily remove the capsule and be
allowed to get pregnant at some later date. Alternately, he wants a society
that sterilizes all women once they have two children.
Do you want to live
in such a society? Because I sure as hell don’t.
Page 838: The kind of people who cause “social deterioration” can be
compelled to not have children
“If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by
overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required
by law to exercise reproductive responsibility - just as they can be required
to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns - providing
they are not denied equal protection.“
To me, this is in some ways the most horrifying sentence in the entire book
- and it had a lot of competition. Because here Holdren reveals that moral
judgments would be involved in determining who gets sterilized or is forced
to abort their babies.
Proper, decent people will be left alone
- but those
who “contribute to social deterioration” could be “forced to exercise
reproductive responsibility” which could only mean one thing - compulsory
abortion or involuntary sterilization. What other alternative would there be
to “force” people to not have children? Will government monitors be
stationed in irresponsible people’s bedrooms to ensure they use condoms?
Will we bring back the chastity belt?
No - the only way to “force” people to
not become or remain pregnant is to sterilize them or make them have
But what manner of insanity is this? “Social deterioration”? Is Holdren
seriously suggesting that “some” people contribute to social deterioration
more than others, and thus should be sterilized or forced to have abortions,
to prevent them from propagating their kind? Isn’t that eugenics, plain and
simple? And isn’t eugenics universally condemned as a grotesquely evil
We’ve already been down this road before. In one of the most shameful
episodes in the history of U.S. jurisprudence, the Supreme Court ruled in
the infamous 1927 Buck v. Bell case that the State of Virginia had had the
right to sterilize a woman named Carrie Buck against her will, based solely
on the (spurious) criteria that she was “feeble-minded” and promiscuous,
with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes concluding, “Three generations of
imbeciles are enough.”
Nowadays, of course, we look back on that ruling in
horror, as eugenics as a concept has been forever discredited. In fact, the
United Nations now regards forced sterilization as a crime against humanity.
The italicized phrase at the end (”providing they are not denied equal
protection”), which Holdren seems to think gets him off the eugenics hook,
refers to the 14th Amendment (as you will see in the more complete version
of this passage quoted below), meaning that the eugenics program wouldn’t be
racially based or discriminatory - merely based on the whim and assessments
of government bureaucrats deciding who and who is not an undesirable.
some civil servant in Holdren’s America determines that you are
“contributing to social deterioration” by being promiscuous or pregnant or
both, will government agents break down your door and and haul you off
kicking and screaming to the abortion clinic? In fact, the Supreme Court
case Skinner v. Oklahoma already determined that the Equal Protection Clause
of the 14th Amendment distinctly prohibits state-sanctioned sterilization
being applied unequally to only certain types of people.
No no, you say, Holdren isn’t claiming that some kind of people contribute
to social deterioration more than others; rather, he’s stating that anyone
who overproduces children thereby contributes to social deterioration and
needs to be stopped from having more. If so - how is that more palatable? It
seems Holdren and his co-authors have not really thought this through,
because what they are suggesting is a nightmarish totalitarian society. What
does he envision: All women who commit the crime of having more than two
children be dragged away by police to the government-run sterilization
centers? Or - most disturbingly of all - perhaps Holdren has thought it
through, and is perfectly OK with the kind of dystopian society he envisions
in this book.
Sure, I could imagine a bunch of drunken guys sitting around shooting the
breeze, expressing these kinds of forbidden thoughts; who among us hasn’t
looked in exasperation at a harried mother buying candy bars and soda for
her immense brood of unruly children and thought: Lady, why don’t you just
get your tubes tied already?
But it’s a different matter when the Science
Czar of the United States suggests the very same thing officially in print.
It ceases being a harmless fantasy, and suddenly the possibility looms that
it could become government policy.
And then it’s not so funny anymore.
Page 838: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family
“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter
of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters.
For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why
should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two
Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two
I’ll tell you why, John. Because the principle of habeas corpus upon
which our nation rests automatically renders any compulsory abortion scheme
to be unconstitutional, since it guarantees the freedom of each individual’s
body from detention or interference, until that person has been convicted of
a crime. Or are you seriously suggesting that, should bureaucrats decide
that the country is overpopulated, the mere act of pregnancy be made a
I am no legal scholar, but it seems that John Holdren is even less of a
legal scholar than I am. Many of the bizarre schemes suggested in Ecoscience
rely on seriously flawed legal reasoning.
The book is not so much about
science, but instead is about reinterpreting the Constitution to allow
totalitarian population-control measures.
Page 942-3: A “Planetary Regime” should control the global economy and
dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born
Toward a Planetary Regime
“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and
the United Nations
population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary
Regime - sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and
Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the
development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural
resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international
Thus the Regime could have the power to control
pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater
bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that
discharge into the oceans.
The Regime might also be a logical central agency
for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.”
“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 would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”
In case you were wondering exactly who would enforce these forced abortion
and mass sterilization laws: Why, it’ll be the “Planetary Regime”! Of
course! I should have seen that one coming.
The rest of this passage speaks for itself. Once you add up all the things
the Planetary Regime (which has a nice science-fiction ring to it, doesn’t
it?) will control, it becomes quite clear that it will have total power over
the global economy, since according to Holdren this Planetary Regime will
control “all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable” (which basically
means all goods) as well as all food, and commerce on the oceans and any
rivers “that discharge into the oceans” (i.e. 99% of all navigable rivers).
What’s left? Not much.
Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed
international police force
“If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed
international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people
have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a
world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first
step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an
The other shoe drops. So: We are expected to voluntarily surrender national
sovereignty to an international organization (the “Planetary Regime,”
presumably), which will be armed and have the ability to act as a police
And we saw in the previous quote exactly which rules this armed
international police force will be enforcing: compulsory birth control, and
all economic activity.
It would be laughable if Holdren weren’t so deadly serious. Do you want this
man to be in charge of science and technology in the United States? Because
he already is in charge.
Page 749: Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism
“Another related issue that seems to encourage a pronatalist attitude in
many people is the question of the differential reproduction of social or
ethnic groups. Many people seem to be possessed by fear that their group may
be outbred by other groups. White Americans and South Africans are worried
there will be too many blacks, and vice versa.
The Jews in Israel are
disturbed by the high birth rates of Israeli Arabs, Protestants are worried
about Catholics, and lbos about Hausas. Obviously, if everyone tries to
outbreed everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all. This is
another case of the “tragedy of the commons,” wherein the “commons” is the
Fortunately, it appears that, at least in the DCs, virtually
all groups are exercising reproductive restraint.”
This passage is not particularly noteworthy except for the inclusion of the
odd phrase “pronatalist attitude,” which Holdren spends much of the book
trying to undermine.
And what exactly is a “pronatalist attitude”? Basically
it means the urge to have children, and to like babies. If only we could
suppress people’s natural urge to want children and start families, we could
solve all our problems!
What’s disturbing to me is the incredibly patronizing and culturally
imperialist attitude he displays here, basically acting like he has the
right to tell every ethnic group in the world that they should allow
themselves to go extinct or at least not increase their populations any
How would we feel if Andaman Islanders showed up on the steps of the
Capitol in Washington D.C. and announced that there were simply too many
Americans, and we therefore are commanded to stop breeding immediately?
imagines that the attitude of every ethnic group in the world to John Holdren’s proposal would be: Cram it, John. Stop telling us what to do.
Page 944: As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that
must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000
“Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century;
the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last
opportunity to choose our own and our descendants’ destiny. Failing to
choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must
never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better
This is the final
paragraph of the book, which I include here only to show
how embarrassingly inaccurate his “scientific” projections were.
In 1977, Holdren thought we were teetering on the brink of global catastrophe, and he
proposed implementing fascistic rules and laws to stave off the impending
disaster. Luckily, we ignored his warnings, yet the world managed to survive
anyway without the need to punish ourselves with the oppressive society
which Holdren proposed.
Yes, there still is overpopulation, but the problems
it causes are not as morally repugnant as the “solutions” which John Holdren
wanted us to adopt.
SCREENSHOTS OF PAGES FROM ECOSCIENCE
It is important to point out that John Holdren has never publicly distanced
himself from any of these positions in the 32 years since the book was first
Indeed, as you can see from the first picture that accompanies
this article, Holdren prominently displays a copy of the book in his own
personal library and is happy to be photographed with it.
It is also important to stress that these are not just the opinions of one
man. As we have exhaustively documented, most recently in our essay, The
Population Reduction Agenda For Dummies, the positions adopted in this book
echo those advocated by numerous other prominent public figures in politics,
academia and the environmental movement for decades.
Consider the fact that people like David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, and
Gates, three men who have integral ties to the eugenicist movement, recently
met with other billionaire “philanthropists” in New York to discuss “how
their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population,”
according to a London Times report.
Ted Turner has publicly advocated shocking population reduction programs
that would cull the human population by a staggering 95%. He has also called
for a Communist-style one child policy to be mandated by governments in the
Of course, Turner completely fails to follow his own rules on how everyone
else should live their lives, having five children and owning no less than 2
million acres of land.
In the third world, Turner has contributed literally billions to population
reduction, namely through
United Nations programs, leading the way for the
likes of Bill & Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet (Gates’ father has long been
a leading board member of Planned Parenthood and a top eugenicist).
The notion that these elitists merely want to slow population growth in
order to improve health is a complete misnomer. Slowing the growth of the
world’s population while also improving its health are two irreconcilable
concepts to the elite. Stabilizing world population is a natural byproduct
of higher living standards, as has been proven by the stabilization of the
white population in the west.
David Rockefeller have no
interest in “slowing the growth of world population” by natural methods,
their agenda is firmly rooted in the pseudo-science of eugenics, which is
all about “culling” the surplus population via draconian methods.
David Rockefeller’s legacy is not derived from a well-meaning
“philanthropic” urge to improve health in third world countries, it is born
out of a Malthusian drive to eliminate the poor and those deemed racially
inferior, using the justification of social Darwinism.
As is documented in Alex Jones’ seminal film
Endgame, Rockefeller’s father,
John D. Rockefeller, exported eugenics to Germany from its origins in
Britain by bankrolling the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute which later would form a
central pillar in the Third Reich’s ideology of the Nazi super race.
the fall of the Nazis, top German eugenicists were protected by the allies
as the victorious parties fought over who would enjoy their “expertise” in
the post-war world.
The justification for the implementation of draconian measures of population
control has changed to suit contemporary fads and trends.
masqueraded as concerns surrounding overpopulation has now returned in the
guise of the climate change and global warming movement.
What has not
changed is the fact that at its core, this represents nothing other than the
arcane pseudo-science of eugenics first crafted by the U.S. and British
elite at the end of the 19th century and later embraced by Nazi leader Adolf
In the 21st century, the eugenics movement has changed its stripes once
again, manifesting itself through the global carbon tax agenda and the
notion that having too many children or enjoying a reasonably high standard
of living is destroying the planet through global warming, creating the
pretext for further regulation and control over every facet of our lives.
The fact that the chief scientific advisor to the President of the United
States, a man with his finger on the pulse of environmental policy, once
openly advocated the mass sterilization of the U.S. public through the food
and water supply, along with the plethora of other disgusting proposals
highlighted in Ecoscience, is a frightening prospect that wouldn’t be out of
place in some kind of futuristic sci-fi horror movie, and a startling
indictment of the true source of what manifests itself today as the elitist
controlled top-down environmental movement.
Only through bringing to light Holdren’s shocking and draconian population
control plans can we truly alert people to the horrors that
the elite have
planned for us through population control, sterilization and genocidal
culling programs that are already underway.