Steven Mosher - September 3, 2010

On Wednesday at the Discovery Channel offices in Maryland, environmental activist James Jay Lee took company employees hostage, threatening to kill them unless the media outlet agreed to turn itself into a propaganda channel for population control. The standoff ended when the gun-toting and bomb-laden eco-terrorist was shot dead by a SWAT team.

Lee had earlier outlined his demands on his website, savetheplanetprotest.com, where he posted a 1,100 word manifesto aimed at the Discovery Channel. In it, he demanded that Discovery change its programming and focus on getting rid of people who are “polluting” the planet.

“All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants…” Lee wrote, “…programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. … That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies!”

It is because there are too many people, he exclaims elsewhere on the site, that “Global Warming is a reality. The massive extinction of animals is happening all over the world.”

Where did he get such wacko ideas?

From the mainstream environmental movement, that’s where, which early embraced the idea that the best kind of environmental protection was population control.

Full story

Population reduction enthusiast says “a few people with authority” should run the planet

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Tuesday, March 30th, 2010

A renowned environmentalist, known for his advocacy of population reduction as a means of offsetting climate change, has called for “a more authoritative world” where freedom comes second to tackling what he sees as the devastating effects of global warming.

Futurist James Lovelock, tells the London Guardian that he believes “It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while,” in order to save humanity.

“We need a more authoritative world.” Lovelock states.

“We’ve become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It’s all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – where you can’t do that.” the 90 year old proponent of the Gaia hypothesis adds.

“You’ve got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it. And they should be very accountable too, of course.”

Full story

F. William Engdahl, 4 March 2010

Microsoft founder and one of the world’s wealthiest men, Bill Gates, projects an image of a benign philanthropist using his billions via his (tax exempt) Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, to tackle diseases, solve food shortages in Africa and alleviate poverty. In a recent conference in California, Gates reveals a less public agenda of his philanthropy―population reduction, otherwise known as eugenics.

Gates made his remarks to the invitation-only Long Beach, California TED2010 Conference, in a speech titled, “Innovating to Zero!.” Along with the scientifically absurd proposition of reducing manmade CO2 emissions worldwide to zero by 2050, approximately four and a half minutes into the talk, Gates declares, “First we got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”1 (author’s emphasis).

In plain English, one of the most powerful men in the world states clearly that he expects vaccines to be used to reduce population growth. When Bill Gates speaks about vaccines, he speaks with authority. In January 2010 at the elite Davos World Economic Forum, Gates announced his foundation would give $10 billion (circa €7.5 billion) over the next decade to develop and deliver new vaccines to children in the developing world.

The primary focus of his multi-billion dollar Gates Foundation is vaccinations, especially in Africa and other underdeveloped countries. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a founding member of the GAVI Alliance (Global Alliance for Vaccinations and Immunization) in partnership with the World Bank, WHO and the vaccine industry. The goal of GAVI is to vaccinate every newborn child in the developing world.2

Full story

We examine the ominous implications this reality holds for the global economy and humanity’s overall quality of life. We also discuss the power elite’s preoccupation with fertility differential and population as a means of managing this disparity. [Listen here]

Saynsumthin’s Blog - February 15, 2010

Planned Parenthood is opening this 40,000 square foot Surgicenter as the new headquarters of Planned Parenthood Columbia Willamette in Portland, Oregon , and guess where? Yes- smack in the middle of a minority neighborhood. SURPRISED?

The site of the new headquarters, at Northeast Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard

The grand opening was planned to be in the middle of Black History Month on February 14.

PPCW’s new abortion mill is centrally located in Portland’s predominantly Black neighborhood on a busy street named after Martin Luther King, Jr.

News of Planned Parenthood is disturbing to African-American religious leaders including Rev. Isham Harris, pastor of the Upper Room Home Church located in Northeast Portland. Rev. Harris led a pro-life march through the Black neighborhood one year ago.

Full story

David Warren - Feb 13 2010

Why is abortion so popular with women who would never dream of having an abortion?

This is among the questions I’ve been asking myself for years, while trying to understand what motivates people to vote the way they do. Again and again I see examples of people voting to the left of their actual convictions. At the bottom of it, I often suspect they vote not for the effect of government programs on themselves, but what they will do for other people. Yet this does not mean they are altruistic.

The classic case is “tax the rich.” Very few people are in favour of having their own taxes raised, or their own spending regulated. But if a politician will assure them that he is going to put taxes up on everyone above a certain income, he is sure to generate some enthusiasm among those below it.

Full story

Doctor Zero - Feb 16 2010

Who is the worst killer in the long, ugly history of war and extermination? Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot? Not even close. A single book called Silent Spring killed far more people than all those fiends put together.

Published in 1962, Silent Spring used manipulated data and wildly exaggerated claims (sound familiar?) to push for a worldwide ban on the pesticide known as DDT – which is, to this day, the most effective weapon against malarial mosquitoes. The Environmental Protection Agency held extensive hearings after the uproar produced by this book… and these hearings concluded that DDT should not be banned. A few months after the hearings ended, EPA administrator William Ruckleshaus over-ruled his own agency and banned DDT anyway, in what he later admitted was a “political” decision. Threats to withhold American foreign aid swiftly spread the ban across the world.

The resulting explosion of mosquito-borne malaria in Africa has claimed over sixty million lives. This was not a gradual process – a surge of infection and death happened almost immediately. The use of DDT reduces the spread of mosquito-borne malaria by fifty to eighty percent, so its discontinuation quickly produced an explosion of crippling and fatal illness. The same environmental movement which has been falsifying data, suppressing dissent, and reading tea leaves to support the global-warming fraud has studiously ignored this blood-drenched “hockey stick” for decades.

Full story

Saynsumthn’s Blog - February 11, 2010

The Associated Press has reported that Planned Parenthood of Birmingham has been placed on probation. The AP story reads:

MONTGOMERY, Ala.—A Birmingham abortion clinic that was targeted in an undercover sting by anti-abortion activists has been put on probation by state health officials.

State inspectors, who went to the Planned Parenthood clinic after the sting by the anti-abortion group “Live Action,” cited problems with the reporting of suspected sexual abuse and how parental consent was obtained for minors. ( Sting Video Below)

Full story

The subheadline in Diane Francis’ now-infamous article reads: “The whole world needs to adopt China’s one-child policy.” However, the verb “adopt” really just sugarcoats what she’s actually advocating.

She writes that a “one-child policy,” “planetary law … is the only way,” and admits that China’s one-child-only measure is in fact an edict: e.g. an authoritarian/totalitarian decree. Nothing will work to cure “environmental degradation,” unless “a China one-child policy is imposed.” “Governments should control family sizes,” or we’ll regret it, she writes.

Watch Francis try and dissemble in this interview (failing miserably):

Here’s a quote from another Francis interview, which illustrates her elite mentality: “The fact is we have a global economy and we have no global governance and so what we’re seeing is the beginning of a global government….I think it’s a welcomed development.” Diane Francis, National Post (3:53-4:19)

Francis has received a lot of flak after writing the article; it was a colleague, Colby Cosh, who made one of the best points:

I don’t understand why people who claim to be “passionate” about the environment of the future haven’t adopted zero-child policies for themselves.

Well, actually, I do understand it, because they all used to be big on Zero Population Growth as both a policy goal and a social ideal back in the ’70s. Diane Francis is singing an old song that environmentalists unlearned for strategic reasons. It made them look like she looks right now: authoritarian and nihilist and out of touch with the hopes and ambitions of ordinary people. And many of those environmentalists wanted to have kids themselves — i.e., they hypocritically put their personal desires above the interests of the planet when confronted with the biggest choice of all.

—-

Further reading:

• Forced Birth Control Kills Mother and Child
• Climategate Did Not Begin With Climate (Remembering Julian Simon and the storied intolerance of neo-Malthusians)
• Jack Cafferty All But Endorses Global One-Child Policy to Fight Climate Change
• Fear depopulation, not overpopulation
• Population Control Today
• Copenhagen Anti-Population Push Coming from UN

James Corbett, 9 December, 2009

The Optimum Population Trust (OPT), a UK-based "think tank" and registered charity, has launched a new initiative urging wealthy members of the developed world to participate in carbon offsets that fund programs for curbing the population of developing nations. The scheme is being promoted as a more cost-effective way to reduce CO2 emissions than investing in alternative energy sources and offers a way for elitist racists to feel ethical in their quest to exterminate the third world masses.

A BBC News article on the proposal dutifully reports the OPT's proposal and their justifications for proposing it. They note that the program is designed to fund "contraception" programs in poor nations, a term that helpfully obscures the fact that such programs—including those run by FPA, one of the agencies listed as a supporting organization of this new program—have used bribes to get poor men and women to volunteer for sterilization. The article does, however, allow space for a detractor of the proposal to point out that even if one does accept that limiting carbon emissions is necessary (which it is not), the focus on limiting emissions of people in Least Developed Countries (LDCs) is in itself nonsensical: "Carbon emissions from people in much of sub-Saharan Africa are so low that they can barely be counted."

Full story

—-

As the Copenhagen summit starts, the rise of eco-Malthusianism shows the anti-human, future-fearing essence of climate-change alarmism.

Frank Furedi, 7 December 2009

Below a picture of 12 black babies, the caption warns: ‘Babies in Dakar, Senegal.’ Then, with a literary sigh of relief, the subtitle to the caption points out that a ‘cost analysis commissioned by [the Optimum Population Trust] claims that family planning is the cheapest way to reduce carbon emissions’ (1). In other words, the destructiveness of such babies, these carbon emitters, can be counteracted if we prevent them from being born in the first place.

The odious Optimum Population Trust (OPT) is a zombie-like Malthusian organisation devoted to the cause of human depletion. Looking at the article by John Vidal in the Guardian, which contained that photo of 12 black babies and reported on the OPT’s new initiative inviting people in the West to offset their CO2 emissions by sponsoring ‘family planning’ in the developing world, I am not sure what I found most shocking: the message conveyed through the photograph, or the absence of any anger over the OPT and its supporters’ casual devaluation of human life.

Full story

Phillip D. Collins examines Malthusianism, population control, and eugenics. An understanding of these topics will help listeners to contextualize the climate discourse at the upcoming UN Coopenhagen meeting. [Listen here]

Population growth is not a problem - it’s among those who consume the least. So why isn’t anyone targeting the very rich?

George Monbiot - 28 September 2009

t’s no coincidence that most of those who are obsessed with population growth are post-reproductive wealthy white men: it’s about the only environmental issue for which they can’t be blamed. The brilliant Earth systems scientist James Lovelock, for instance, claimed last month that “those who fail to see that population growth and climate change are two sides of the same coin are either ignorant or hiding from the truth. These two huge environmental problems are inseparable and to discuss one while ignoring the other is irrational.” But it’s Lovelock who is being ignorant and irrational.

A paper published yesterday in the journal Environment and Urbanization shows that the places where population has been growing fastest are those in which carbon dioxide has been growing most slowly, and vice versa. Between 1980 and 2005, for instance, sub-Saharan Africa produced 18.5% of the world’s population growth and just 2.4% of the growth in CO2. North America turned out only 4% of the extra people, but 14% of the extra emissions. Sixty-three percent of the world’s population growth happened in places with very low emissions.

Full story

VoltaireNet - 28 Sep 2009

As historical leader of the U.K. Green Party, director of Friends of the Earth and of Forum for the Future, Jonathan Porritt has become the inescapable expert when it comes to media debates on the environment.

In addition to his functions as administrator of a powerful water supply and sewerage utility consortium, Wessex Water, he is a patron of the Optimum Population Trust, concerned by the impact of population growth.

As to the ills being experienced by the world population due to the state of the environment, his solution is not to call into question our consumer society, but rather to prescribe a reduction of the population by half.

During his recent interventions, Jonathon Porritt recommended the reduction of the British population from 61 to 30 million people. Not surprisingly, he is intent on promoting birth control, contraception and abortion. He assures us that his grand plan constitutes the least expensive solution to curb global warming.

Jonathon Porritt is chief adviser on environmental matters to Prince Charles and to Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown. His theories are equally well received across the political spectrum, including by conservative opposition leader David Cameron. However, there are a number of discordant voices - even within the Green Party itself - in particular that of George Monbiot, environmentalist journalist at the Guardian. While he has no problem with the authoritarian aspect of a population reduction policy (all the more since his personal solution for combating global warming would be to introduce CO2 ration cards), Monbiot strongly opposes a policy that would deal a fatal blow to economic growth and to capitalism.

In the final analysis, global warming is of secondary importance in this debate. The central issue is the revival of malthusianism. Accordingly, and evidently with a view to reducing the British population, Jonathon Porritt recommends a ban on immigration, which has won him the praise of the Labour minister of immigration, Phil Woolas.

Don Feder - September 16, 2009

Occasionally, even the mainstream media are forced to acknowledge reality.

Toward the end of a story on Japan’s recent election, which may have resulted in the demise of the party that’s dominated the nation’s politics for most of the post-war era, the New York Times noted that the incoming government “has promised to strengthen the social safety net and raise the low birthrate by giving families cash handouts of $270 per-month per-child.” (Emphasis added)

Full story