Gerald Warner - 15 July 2012

DAVE did not spend all of last week brawling with back-benchers in Westminster corridors; he also found time to look in at the Family Planning Summit in London, co-hosted by his government and billionairess Melinda Gates, and say some encouraging words.

This jamboree attracted an array of African presidents and Asian and European politicians, along with major pharmaceutical companies.

The conference aimed to raise $4 billion to promote birth control in developing countries; in the event it netted $4.6bn. The Gates Foundation agreed to raise its contribution to $1bn over the next eight years and big-hearted Dave trumped that by pledging £1.4bn of British taxpayers’ money over the same period (Recession? What recession?). The conference was part of Melinda Gates’ “No Controversy” campaign to sanitise the image of family planning of its association with population control, compulsory sterilisation and abortion. In keeping with this anodyne approach, the UK government’s Department for International Development published a feel-good video featuring Mwanasha, a 21-year-old mother of two from Malawi, who expressed optimism about her future now that she will have access to contraception (remember those Soviet films of ­smiling Ukrainian peasants with more state-of-the-art tractors than they knew what to do with). The Department for International Development, however, did not show a video of Rekha Wasnik, the wife of a poor labourer in Madhya Pradesh, India, pregnant with twins, who bled to death ­after a crude sterilisation operation that was part of a programme funded to the tune of £166m by the UK government.

Full story

Timothy Herrmann - July 6, 2012

The UNFPA left the Rio +20 conference on sustainable development without anything to show for its efforts. Not a single one of their hard fought suggestions ever made it into the text. Their presence at the conference could hardly even be felt, except through a few countries like New Zealand, Norway and Iceland, which were given the important task of both proposing and fighting for the inclusion of the population control language the UNFPA wanted in the document.

It has not announced that it was defeated, and all of its press releases related to the conference pretend as if the conference was a success for the agency.

But they lost. And it was embarrassing. Though hard to believe, the UNFPA, one of the most well funded and active UN agencies that exists, did not have any success at Rio +20 in affecting the final outcome document. But how could that be? The simple answer is the fear of population control.

Full story

———-

4 Problems With The London Family Planning Summit Goals

Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D. - Jul 05, 2012

NEW YORK, July 6 (C-FAM) Feminist Activist Joan Dunlop died last week at 78, just a week after her legacy of recasting international population control efforts as “reproductive rights” began to unravel.

Dunlop was a protégé of John D. Rockefeller, III, who led the charge for international population control. His vision and large fortune established and set the agenda for institutions still at the tip of the spear of global abortion wars, such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation, Population Council, Rockefeller Foundation, and UN Population Fund.

Dunlop’s initiative revived the flailing population control movement after its coercive tactics became widely known in the 1970s and 80s. She thus helped shape international abortion debates for almost three decades.

Full story

• The Original Population Bomb (parts 1 and 2)
• Eugenic Propaganda, Old And New (parts 1 and 2)
• Imperial Eugenics In Kenya

The latest pseudoscience from the former vice president

David Harsanyi - June 29, 2011

For years, the Sierra Club and other environmentalist groups have warned us that too many babies will destroy the Earth.

“We are experiencing an accelerated obliteration of the planet’s life-forms—an estimated 8,760 species die off per year—because, simply put,” explained environmentalist Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, “there are too many people.” (Well, not exactly that simple when one considers that millions of species had disappeared long before humans selfishly began drinking from plastic bottles.)

In one of his recent works of speculative fiction, The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman asked: “How did we not panic when the evidence was so obvious that we’d crossed some growth/climate/natural resource/population redlines all at once?” Dunno. Maybe we value reality? Perhaps we believe in the ability of humans to adapt and to innovate. Perhaps we’ve learned that Malthusian Chicken Littles slinging stories about the impending end of water or oil or natural resources are proved wrong so often that we ignore them.

Full story

Here

S. Michael Craven - June 6th, 2011

Perhaps one of the most persistent and pervasive myths that have shaped the thinking of many people and, subsequently, public policy is the myth that the world’s population is spiraling out of control and that it will ultimately lead to catastrophic shortages of the essential resources necessary to sustain life.

This whole concept of “overpopulation” can be traced to Thomas Malthus, the British scholar and Anglican clergyman (albeit a very misguided one) who, without any specific knowledge other than his own speculations, predicted in 1789 that the planet’s rapid increase in population would soon outstrip the planet’s ability to produce food, resulting in massive worldwide starvation. Malthus’s predicted famine never materialized, of course; he could not have predicted the industrial revolution or the enormous impact subsequent technological innovations would have on our ability to produce food. Recall that today our federal government actually pays farmers not to grow crops due to the abundance of food produced on considerably less farmland than existed just a century ago.

Full story

Terry Melanson (Feb. 5, 2011)

I’ve only watched three episodes of Meltzer’s show, online, and each of them was dissatisfying. The latest one on the Georgia Guidestones was especially so.

The Meltzer gang of ostensible noobies, drive up to the monument in a brand new Porsche Cayenne. (Way to go guys, my kind of sponsor!) After giving the stones a quick look, they are approached by Raymond Wiley who proceeds with an accurate but cursory account. Wiley mentions that people have suspected a Malthusian, new world order agenda behind it. I would also have included the words “population control” and eugenics. But guess what? Not a single mention of it again in the whole episode. Instead they focus on the Rosicrucian angle and neglect to actually get to the bottom of the message. Hey, History channel “researchers” – you do know that Mr. “Christian,” in a booklet, actually expounded further on the matter, don’t you? More on that later.

Back on the road, Bud starts talking about trying to find out the identity of R. C. Christian, and whether he was really involved with the Rosicrucians. Scott, however, interrupts with a better line of thought: “Don’t you wonder what’s running through the mind of a person who conceived of that [whole] idea?”

(more…)

Dominic Lawson on the “increasingly noisy claque of Malthusians.”

Robert Bradley Jr. - November 1, 2010

In the name of science, Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, and James Hansen (et al.) have made doom-and-gloom predictions about business-as-usual in an attempt to shock humanity into immediate legislative action and lifestyle changes.

It did not work. The elapsed predictions have failed to come to pass. Little wonder that new installments of climate alarmism, such as Juliet Eilperin’s ”25% of Wild Mammal Species Face Extinction: Global Assessment Paints ‘Bleak Picture,’ Scientists Say, and Figure of Those at Risk Could Be Higher” in the Washington Post (October 7), don’t register with voters.

Worsening their predicament, the perpetrators will not renounce their specious predictions. They remain the smartest guys in the room–versus all of us commoners, we the hundreds of millions of market-failure-ites.

Here are the Big Three: 1) the dean of modern alarmism, Paul Ehrlich; 2) Al Gore’s influential climate scientist James Hansen; and 3) Obama’s “dream ‘green’ team” member John Holdren.

Full story

When modern Malthusians insist that resources are finite, they only expose their historical illiteracy, misanthropy and social pessimism.

Brendan O’Neill - 8 November 2010

On 30 October, spiked editor Brendan O’Neill debated Roger Martin, chairman of the Optimum Population Trust, at the Battle of Ideas in London. O’Neill’s speech is published below.

The main Malthusian idea I think we should challenge is the idea that resources are finite. The idea that the Earth itself is finite. The idea that we live on a finite planet and therefore we can only have a certain number of people, living in a certain number of homes, eating a certain amount of food.

Because it seems to me that the population-control lobby’s obsession with finiteness really exposes what it is all about. It reveals the historical illiteracy and the social pessimism that underpin the pseudo-scientific movement of Malthusianism. The Malthusians’ focus on finiteness explains firstly why they are always wrong about everything; secondly why they are so misanthropic; and thirdly why they put forward such illiberal proposals, dressed up, of course, in the language of ‘female empowerment’.

Full story

Robin Phillips - Salvo 14 (Autumn 2010)

On December 10, 2009, seventy-three members of the US House of Representatives sent a letter to the White House urging President Obama to add one billion dollars in funding for international family planning to his 2011 budget.

Advocates of family planning are hardly a new phenomenon. What was noteworthy about this letter, however, was that it cited “climate change” as a reason to advocate lower birth rates. “Family planning,” it said, “should be part of larger strategies for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Slower population growth will make reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions easier to achieve.”

The 73 Congressmen who signed that letter were not alone in linking birthrates with global temperatures. An impressive array of Western organizations has recently jumped on this bandwagon, including the Sierra Club, the United Nations Population Fund, the Population Connection, and the National Wildlife Federation. The latter organization has claimed on its website that:

Rapid and unchecked human population growth and the resulting increases in resource consumption lie at the heart of most, if not all, environmental problems. Global warming is no exception. The unprecedented increase in human numbers is paralleled by the highest levels of fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas production in history.

Full story

Finnish philosopher says oppressive and brutal government should exert “tireless control of citizens” in shocking insight into threat of eco-fascism movement – Linkola openly calls for Nazi-style mass extermination policies to “kill defectives”

Paul Joseph Watson - September 20, 2010

A Finnish environmentalist guru has gone further than any other global warming alarmist in openly calling for fascism as a necessary step to save the planet from ecological destruction, demanding that climate change deniers be “re-educated” in eco-gulags and that the vast majority of humans be killed with the rest enslaved and controlled by a green police state, with people forcibly sterilized, cars confiscated and travel restricted to members of the elite.

Philosopher Pentti Linkola has built an enthusiastic following of self-described “eco-fascists” receptive to his message that the state should enact draconian measures of “discipline, prohibition, enforcement and oppression” in order to make people comply with environmental dictates.

Linkola’s barbaric and dictatorial philosophy has remained relatively obscure but is now gaining traction as the mask of environmentalism is lifted to unveil its true nature – a justification for 21st century tyranny on a grand scale, characterized by eugenics, sterilization, gulags, police states, and total government control over every aspect of our existence.

Linkola’s doctrine is more extreme, repulsive, and threatening to liberty than anything carried out by history’s worst dictators, Hitler, Stalin and Mao – combined. Indeed, Linkola laments that such monsters didn’t go far enough in wiping out many more millions of people.

Full story

———-

See also: THIS is the Alternative to “Eco-Fascism”? and pentti linkola at Disinfo