Bilderberger Jonathon Porritt: “having more than two children is irresponsible”
- Terry Melanson (2009/2/4)
Elite Malthusian Hubris, and the “Global Population Speak Out” agenda
In a Feb. 1st article in the Sunday Times by Sarah-Kate Templeton, Jonathon Porritt is quoted as saying:
I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate….
I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don’t really hear anyone say the “p” word.
…We still have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe and we still have relatively high levels of pregnancies going to birth, often among women who are not convinced they want to become mothers.
Not only should we do our part for mother earth and have less babies, in the last paragraph, Porritt is of the opinion that more pregnancies should be “aborted.” After all, what better way to curb population (the “p” word) - in the name of fighting global warming, of course - than to cull the useless eaters when they are the most vulnerable, right? Genius, those eco-totalitarians. Genius!
Porritt is the “government’s green adviser,” and the chairmen of the Sustainable Development Commission. He’s also a patron to Optimum Population Trust, whose press release just a month ago was titled, “Think-Tank Urges Population Inquiry By Government.”
This population think-tank “wants to turn population control into the key objective of environmental campaigning,” Frank Furedi wrote. “So the totalitarian impulse towards controlling people’s reproductive lives has now received the blessing of sections of the British political elite.”
Wesley Smith is in agreement:
China’s notorious one child policy has led to eugenics, sex selection abortion, female infanticide, and other horrors. Now, we are being pushed in that same direction in the West by radical environmentalists in the name of going Green.
Editor of CitizenLink, Jennifer Mesko, weighed in as well. The proposed report by the Sustainable Development Commission due out next month, says Steven Mosher, amounts to an “economic death warrant.”
“People in the right economic circumstances generate wealth; you need wealth to protect the environment,” he said. “Poverty, not people, is the great enemy of the environment. Poverty is what leads people to cut down the last tree for fuel, to plant the last square foot of land for food.”
Regarding the fertility rate in general, Stephen M. Barr has a math lesson for green guru Porritt.
On the other front, the BBC chimed in, with support, the very next day Porritt’s comments had made the headlines:
Uncontrolled population growth threatens to undermine efforts to save the planet, warns John Feeney. In this week’s Green Room, he calls on the environmental movement to stop running scared of this controversial topic.
This is no coincidence. In late November 2008, environmentalists made a pact to go public with their Malthusian agenda.
As the press release of “The Global Population Speak Out” campaign had said:
Scientists from around the world have pledged to speak out publicly in February, 2009 on the problem of the size and growth of the human population. Speaking out as well will be environmental and science writers, social activists, and representatives of environmental groups. The event, called the Global Population Speak Out (GPSO), aims to weaken a decades-long taboo against open discussion of population issues.
So far, GPSO has received pledges from scientists and others in 16 countries, all agreeing to speak out during February. Many will do so through the print media. Others are planning interviews, talks, and conferences.
Endorsers of the project include, Stanford University’s Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Cornell University ecologist David Pimentel, and co-author of The Limits to Growth Dennis Meadows.
Those pledging to speak out include botanist and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Peter Raven, Duke University ecologist Stuart Pimm, University of Delhi professor of community medicine Jugal Kishore, University of Tehran environmental scientist M. F. Makhdoum, and social activists Jerry Mander and Harvey Wasserman.
It looks like Porritt kicked off the GPSO festivities, with the Feb. 1st interview in the Times. And Feeney, the GPSO organizer, was welcomed to the BBC to have his say the next day.
The entire month of February has been relegated for GPSO activity. Of those who’ve pledged to “educate” the public on the perils of overpopulation, the list is large: 162 Malthusians … and counting. Look for a veritable smorgasbord of “population control” propaganda in the coming days and weeks. We are only in the 4th-day of the month, and there’s already been considerable activity.
Bilderberg, GM Crops, and Hegemony
Jonathon Porritt was a participant of the 1999 Bilderberg conference, from 3-6th June, in Sintra, Portugal. Thanks to a leaked booklet, only given to official participants, we know that Porritt attended (Great Britain - Jonathon Porritt: Programme Director, Forum for the Future) and that he was one of the panelists.
Porritt was there to inform the elite upon “Current Controversies: Genetics and the Life Sciences.” Specifically, Porritt argued for GM food - lauding its “power to improve agricultural productivity radically.” There were some difficult questions ahead, Porritt had stressed. And “[i]t will not be easy to separate GM and non-GM foods, because they can easily get mixed up on the way to the table. There are also genuine environmental fears about how the new seeds will effect local ecosystems.”
Not surprisingly, the moderator for this Bilderberg Frankenfood discussion was Jan Leschly, who, at the time, was CEO of SmithKline Beecham. In a 1999 press release, “Scientists gagged on GM foods by public funding body with big links to industry,” it was revealed that SmithKline Beecham representatives were on the committee for Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council (BBSRC). The BBSRC basically steers the reseach funding and policy toward the acceptance of GM food in the UK - and it is probably rife with more than a few connections to Bilderberg as well.
Bilderberg (the Rockefellers and Kissinger et al), GM crop funding and research, Population Control, Malthusian ideology; are intimately connected by a longterm, elite agenda.
As William Engdahl has written,
…the strategists of GM food hegemony are on the verge of a control over the global human and animal food chain never held by any single nation or power.
The present debate over the nature of biotechnology and genetic modification of basic food such as maize or soybeans, misses the most essential point. The conversion of world agriculture by a small elite of biotech companies, most US-based, has little to do with corporate greed. It has very much to do with geopolitics and plans of some people to control world population growth over the coming decades.
Tags: Bilderberg, Frankenfood, GM Crops, Jonathon Porritt, Malthusians, Population Control, Terry Melanson
PERFECTIBILISTS: The 18th Century Bavarian Order of the Illuminati
The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship
Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism
Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith
America's Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones
February 25th, 2009 at 10:21 am
this is just an excuse for the goverment… it will be easier to overturn the u.s. with less people
March 6th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
I agree, more than two children is definitely not on!
June 28th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
The problem is that we are coming close to the fullest extent of population the world can handle. I am a student of sustainability and have read significant amounts of info on sustainability issues. We must look at these issues as converging trends that pose sigificant challenges, and that could undermine our civilisation. They DO have that POTENTIAL.
I’m not sure Porrtitt is condoning the one-child-policy. It is very obvious that there are better and more equitable ways to control population growth. The UN Milleniuum Development Goals if met would have done a significant amount to reduce the rate of growth. If we spent 10% of the amounts we’ve spent on banks in the last year ensuring ALL females get an eductaion and school lunches, this will ensure the next generation will reduce their desire for large families, indeed their NEED.
Liberal individualist society that we live in is constantly defining what our rights are. We do have the right to have as many kids as we want. But do we have the right to push human civilisation towards collapse? DO we want to bring children into a world that will change so dramatically that we can’t imagine our futures? We need to think beyond our own noses and think for the broader community and future generations. I have 2 kids. No more. Partly on sustainability grounds, partly the future is so uncertain, I feel guilty having the kids I do, and know that they could eaily have a life of hardship. But the desire to continue our DNA is strong. And they bring us so much joy that I wouldn’t change it for anything.
January 7th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
“…the strategists of GM food hegemony are on the verge of a control over the global human and animal food chain never held by any single nation or power.
The present debate over the nature of biotechnology and genetic modification of basic food such as maize or soybeans, misses the most essential point. The conversion of world agriculture by a small elite of biotech companies, most US-based, has little to do with corporate greed. It has very much to do with geopolitics and plans of some people to control world population growth over the coming decades”.
–this just makes beautiful sense to me. I am not aware of John Porritt, however, he is 1. interested in controlling the population and 2. interested in promoting GM crops.
The absolute truth of the matter is that by controlling the GM crops you are controlling population, hence, number 1. pop. control and 2. gm crop promotion are one in the same. Porritt wants to control the population using GM crops. I began getting deathly ill at age 18. I am now 26 and have done my best to get AWAY from gm crops which i know to be the reason why at least one of my good friends is suffering from similar symptoms as me (there are more that i know of, however, i am giving a very conservative estimate).
By controlling the food supply and the medical industries, “cartel’s” are able to effectively tax consumers on the front and back end. Profit from sale of seeds to farmers, onto profit from selling to consumers, and finally profit when consumers become sick. I know this because I live it, and if you are too then do yourself a favor and boycott the bad shit. That means 1. go organic (b/c organic means NOT gm), 2. dont drink soft drinks or go to fast food ( it will take awhile to lose your addictions to these things but you will not want them eventually–could take about a year).