P.I.D. Radio 5/20/07: Paul & Phillip Collins — The Coming Race War
Originally Published at Conspiracy Archive on 2009/12/14
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.
Originally Published at Conspiracy Archive on 2009/12/04
According to Mr. Henderson, the great psycho-wave of the past 35 years is “global salvationism.” This quasi-religious belief has two ill-fitting articles of faith: environmental alarmism, and the assertion that Third World poverty is in some way due to the West taking more than its fair share of global resources. Both problems are alleged to require top-down global political solutions, including giant corporations accepting more “social responsibility.”
The focus of this global master-plan is the bland but subversive notion of “sustainable development,” that without extensive UN-administered government controls the world is going to Hades in a handbasket …– Peter Foster, “The Prince of Power [Maurice Strong],” Financial Post (May 19, 2005)
I can’t think of a better way to put Climategate into proper perspective than to revisit a 1998 Financial Post editorial titled “Global Warming: The Real Agenda.” Its author, Terence Corcoran, quoted from statements given to the Calgary Herald by the former Environment Minister, Christine Stewart.
As “minister of the environment, I am very worried about global warming,” Stewart said, “no matter if the science is phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.”
The [Trilateral] Commission's modus operandi constitutes an obvious democratic dilemma; it is an exclusive, elitist organisation that attempts to exert influence on the political sphere – but secretly.
Broadcast March 6, 1989 with C-SPAN’s Brian Lamb
Originally Published at Conspiracy Archive on 2009/08/18
Buzz Aldrin was interviewed by Alex Jones the other day. At the YouTube video Astronaut “Buzz Aldrin” on Alex Jones Tv 3/4:Magnificent Desolation, from 1:57 to 2:36, the following exchange occurs:
AJ: We know there’s Masonic influence in the founding of the country …what is the Masonic influence on NASA?
Aldrin: As far as I can tell, zero. There were some Masonic brothers of mine in Texas that wanted me to take some kind of a Masonic emblem to the moon, and some gesture of – I don’t know what it would be a gesture of – but I told them that it was not within my …my authority to do such a thing.
Originally Published at Conspiracy Archive on 2009/08/09
…they had to pursue a strategy … called “crypto-eugenics.” In essence, “You seek to fulfill the aims of eugenics without disclosing what you are really aiming at and without mentioning the word.” This is how the Eugenics Society conceived of its funding for the IPPF.
– Matthew Connelly, Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population (Harvard University Press, 2008), p. 163
Zombietime, the site that documented the totalitarian proclivities of Obama’s Science Czar John P. Holdren, has a new article. It turns out that the policies advocated in Holdren’s now-legendary Ecoscience (1973) were directly influenced by The Challenge of Man’s Future (1954) by eugenicist Harrison Brown.
Harrison Brown’s book, Holdren admitted in 1986, “transformed my thinking about the world and about the sort of career I wanted to pursue.” As documented by Zombietime, the type of “thinking about the world” espoused in The Challenge of Man’s Future, includes such wisdom as:
The feeble-minded, the morons, the dull and backward, and the lower-than-average persons in our society are outbreeding the superior ones at the present time. … Is there anything that can be done to prevent the long-range degeneration of human stock? Unfortunately, at the present time there is little, other than to prevent breeding in persons who present glaring deficiencies clearly dangerous to society and which are known to be of a hereditary nature. Thus we could sterilize or in other ways discourage the mating of the feeble-minded. We could go further and systematically attempt to prune from society, by prohibiting them from breeding, persons suffering from serious inheritable forms of physical defects, such as congenital deafness, dumbness, blindness, or absence of limbs. … A broad eugenics program would have to be formulated which would aid in the establishment of policies that would encourage able and healthy persons to have several offspring and discourage the unfit from breeding at excessive rates.