John R. Houk
© June 23, 2011
This exposé demonstrates the thinking of the Obama Administration with his thoughts of “change”.
To those that are unfamiliar with anti-population terms of the early to middle 20th century here is a micro-primer that is in this post.
The origin of apocalyptic overpopulation theory
In his 1798 Essay on the Principle of Population, Thomas Malthus argued that the growth in the food supply is linear, whereas the growth in the population rate is exponential. Whenever the population exceeds the food supply, social turmoil erupts until drastic checks such as famines, wars, and epidemics lowered populations down to sustainable levels. The only way to avoid periodic disaster is to implement strict population controls, which have historically included both voluntary restraints, as well as coercive measures such as limits on family size and mass sterilization of “undesirable groups.”
Malthus was wrong
Malthus predicted a population crash by the middle of the 19th century. In reality, living standards have increased over sixty times since 1820 despite a tripling of the European population in the 18th century.1 Meanwhile, family sizes fell naturally without the need for coercive measures.
Nevertheless, modern Malthusians perpetually extend the date of the inevitable apocalypse to the near future. Faced with the astounding growth of agricultural yields which virtually eliminated hunger in the West, environmentalists are continually discovering new resources to run out of, whether fossil fuels, metals, land, or water.
The discrepancy is explained by two errors in the Malthusian model: the population growth rate is not exponential, while the potential growth in human productivity is.
Read More at the Malthusianism Link.
Ehrlich, one of the prominent thinkers in the neo-Malthusian tradition, argues that ‘…civilization is in imminent serious jeopardy.’  The roots of the problems are mainly to be found in Asia and Africa where populations are growing the fastest. He continues by saying that population growth at current levels is a relatively new phenomenon, and has particularly occurred from the 1950s onwards, but has roots back to the industrial revolution. Despite this, the problem, he argues, lies in the fact that population does not grow so fast that it is perceived by individuals, and hence not regarded as a problem. If we do not end the population increase, he predicts, there is a real chance that nature will do it for us.  This reasoning stems from a view that environmental degradation is caused by how many people there are, and not how many resources they use, a criticism that will explored below.
Ehrlich further argues that instead of having nature controlling the population for us, we have to do so ourselves, as this will be a more human way than having ‘nature wiping out the surplus’ of human population. Population growth is labelled a cancer-like disease that needs to be treated by lowering birth-rates to just under the human death rate, through the use of contraceptions.  He also believed that if policies of population control were not accepted willingly, they should be forced, like in India where he advocated that all men with more than 3 children should be forcibly sterilised. He has also glorified China’s one-child policy. It is such an attitude that has helped justify incidents of forces sterilisation that has taken place in Africa and other parts of the developing world.  [Full disclosure: two typos were corrected]
To read of the variations of Neo-Malthusianism read this rather tongue-in-cheek toned essay entitled, “The definitive guide to modern-day Malthusians”.
The global warming dispute starts with a doctrine which claims that the rough coexistence of climate changes, of growing temperatures and of man-made increments of CO2 in the atmosphere — and what is more, only in a relatively short period of time — is a proof of a causal relationship between these phenomena. To the best of my knowledge there is no such relationship between them. It is, nevertheless, this claim that forms the basis for the doctrine of environmentalism.
It is not a new doctrine. It has existed under various headings and in various forms and manifestations for centuries, always based on the idea that the starting point of our thinking should be the Earth, the planet or nature, not man or mankind. It has always been accompanied by the plan that we have to come back to the original state of the Earth, unspoiled by us, humans. The adherents of this doctrine have always considered us, the people, a foreign element. They forget that it doesn’t make sense to speak about the world without people because there would be no one to speak. If we take the reasoning of the environmentalists seriously, we find that theirs is an anti-human ideology. (Read the Rest …)
John P. Holdren
John P. Holdren has been named President Barack Obama’s ‘Science Czar.”
Holdren’s official titles are: 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. (Kathy Shaidle)
In 1969 Holdren wrote that it was imperative “to convince society and its leaders that there is no alternative but the cessation of our irresponsible, all-demanding, and all-consuming population growth.” That same year, he and professor of population studies Paul Ehrlich jointly predicted: “If … population control measures are not initiated immediately and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.”
In 1971 Holdren and Ehrlich warned that “some form of ecocatastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century.”
Viewing capitalism as an economic system that is inherently harmful to the natural environment, Holdren and Ehrlich (in their 1973 book Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions) called for “a massive campaign … to de-develop the United States” and other Western nations in order to conserve energy and facilitate growth in underdeveloped countries. “De-development,” they said, “means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” “By de-development,” they elaborated, “we mean lower per-capita energy consumption, fewer gadgets, and the abolition of planned obsolescence.” The authors added:
“The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.”
On another occasion, Holdren, when asked whether Americans would “need to reduce their living standards,” said:
“I think ultimately that the rate of growth of material consumption is going to have to come down, and there’s going to have to be a degree of redistribution of how much we consume, in terms of energy and material resources, in order to leave room for people who are poor to become more prosperous.”
… (Discover The Networks excerpt)
Ehrlich started his academic career as an entomologist, an expert on Lepidoptera – butterflies. But in 1968 he wrote one of the biggest best-sellers in the history of pseudo-scientific literature, The Population Bomb. In it, Ehrlich reprised the work of Thomas Malthus, arguing that population growth would eventually, inevitably lead mankind to three choices: Stop making new humans, stop consuming resources, or starve to death. The book started “The battle to feed all of humanity is over … hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” He spent much of the next decade writing other books and articles in support of his thesis in Population Bomb, adding in a later article “By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people.” The book and his body of “work” through the seventies proposed a number of radical solutions to the overpopulation crisis; dumping sterilizing agents into water supplies, allowing only selected people the privilege of reproduction, and performing mass “triage” of nations, the same way an emergency room triages patients – …
By the mid-seventies, though Ehrlich broadened his sights a bit, beyond overpopulation and into geopolitics. In 1975′s The End of Affluence, Ehrlich predicted cataclysmic food riots in America, leading the President to declare martial law. But it did no good – in Ehrlich’s narrative – because the world was driven to destroy the US in a combined nuclear assault, spurred by our use of…
He broadened it further with 1978′s The Race Bomb, which was a paranoid melange on the dangers of racial diversity, followed by The Golden Door: International Migration, Mexico, and the United States, in which he called for sealing off the border long before it became Tom Tancredo’s issue.
By the eighties, he’d joined with much of the left’s elite (who were, by the by, not busy participating in food riots or race wars, and were well-fed enough to go to protests) in warning about the danger of nuclear war, joining with Carl Sagan to write The Cold And The Dark, demanding the US disarm just in time for our generations of deterrence to render the point moot with the fall of the Soviet Union.
He was, of course, early on the Climate Change bandwagon, with Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-Environment Rhetoric Threatens Our Future, a 1998 book co-authored with his wife Anne, which basically served as a model for the left’s response to questions about Global Warming this past decade – he didn’t call for Nuremberg trials per se, but he wasn’t that far off, either.
He’s (sic) blamed Western Civilization – especially our economic freedom – for successive waves of self-caused, predicted catastrophes.
He’s (sic) prescription to deal with these catastrophes has been, in every case, for the individual to surrender his/her autonomy, and even future, to an all-wise, all-knowing, all-powerful central entity that’ll make all the hard, life and death choices for them.
… (Ehrlich’s lifetime of hot air; Mitch Berg; Hot Air, 3/7/2010)
White House science czar John Holdren has called for the United States to 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.
As previously reported, WND has obtained and reviewed a copy of the 1970s college textbook “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment” that Holdren co-authored with Malthusian population alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich and Ehrlich’s wife, Anne. The authors argued that 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.”
On page 943, the authors recommended the creation of a “Planetary Regime” created to act as an “international superagency for population, resources, and environment.”
The authors argued, “Such a Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist.” (Holdren sought ‘planetary regime’; Jerome Corsi; WND, 10/10/2009)
2007-03-21 — WDC Media News — WASH—Mar 20—DJNS– The President of the Czech Republic , Vaclav Klaus responded in a letter to questions from U.S. Congressmen about global warming. Klaus is a free market economist and has seen first hand the debate in Europe over global warming. He told Congressmen, “As someone who lived under communism for most of my life I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants. Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism.” Klaus said that this ideology preaches earth and nature and wants a “central (now global) planning of the whole world.”
Klaus said, “The environmentalists consider their ideas and arguments to be an undisputable truth and use sophisticated methods of media manipulation and PR campaigns to exert pressure on policymakers to achieve their goals. Their argumentation is based on the spreading of fear and panic by declaring the future of the world to be under serious threat. In such an atmosphere they continue pushing policymakers to adopt illiberal measures, impose arbitrary limits, regulations, prohibitions, and restrictions on everyday human activities and make people subject to omnipotent bureaucratic decision-making.” Klaus has revealed the spirit behind global warming, it is the spirit of communism by another name. (The Communist Influence Of Global Warming; Bill Wilson; PR with a Higher Purpose; 3-21-07)
The Elite’s Plan for Global Extermination
Exposed by Dr. Webster Tarpley 1/4
Posted by Tomas Carter
Post on June 19, 2011
InChristNetwork (Registration and Approval Needed)
In this interview, Dr. Tarpley reviews the writings of John P. Holdren, the current White House science advisor. This interview conclusively exposes scientific elite’s true agenda: world-wide genocide and the formation of a global government to rule.
Historian and author Webster Tarpley exposes how White House science czar John P. Holdren, who infamously co-wrote a 1977 textbook 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, is a Malthusian fanatic in the tradition of the arcane anti-human ideology that originated amongst British aristocracy in the 19th century.
Holdren calls himself a “neo-Malthusian” in his own book, and as Tarpley explains, is a historical pessimist who has rejected the idea that America and humanity as a whole can progress through ingenuity, industry and economic growth. Instead, Holdren sees humankind as a cancer upon the earth.
Holdren wants to set up a “Science Court,” where potential developments could be blocked by government decree if they don’t conform to the planned society necessary under Holdren’s “planetary regime”. He also seeks to institute “de-development” worldwide to prevent the third world from ever lifting itself out of poverty and roll things back to “pre-industrial civilization” where average life spans would not be much more than 30 years.
Holdren’s co-author, Paul Ehrlich, is a discredited crank who wrote books in the 70’s claiming that England would not exist as a land mass by the year 2000 because of climate change. As Tarpley explains, Ehrlich’s warning of a “population bomb” has proven incorrect, with population in Europe, Japan and the United States falling when immigration is removed from the equation.
Not a member? CLICK HERE https://prisonplanet.tv/amember/signup.php to subscribe now!
[SlantRight Editor: you can read the entire Prison Planet article HERE.]