...Called For “Planetary Regime” To Enforce Totalitarian Population
Control Measuresby 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 pregnancies
|
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.
As we reported in April, Holdren recently
advocated,
“Large-scale geo-engineering 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 chemtrails.
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 italicized.
from http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
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 both?
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' Science Czar.
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 raise;
• 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 Ehrlich.
The scans and photos are provided to supply conclusive
evidence that the words attributed to Holdren are unaltered and accurately
transcribed.
(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 clicking
here.)
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.
Why 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.
Whether or 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 incomprehensible.
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
This book 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 population-control laws.”
In fact, they spend the entire book arguing that “the population
crisis” has already become “sufficiently severe to endanger the
society.”
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 for it.
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.
But what’s 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 - I 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.
To be 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 water supply?
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 moral issues.
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 be peachy!
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
government.
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 abortions.
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
practice?
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.
If 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 size
“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
children?”
Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having
more than two children?
Why?
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 crime?
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 environment.
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 implications exist.
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 international
organization.”
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 force.
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 planet Earth.
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 more.
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?
One 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 world.”
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.
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 published.
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 Bill 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 west.
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.
Elitists like 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.
After 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.
What once 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 Hitler.
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.
