John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar, Says: Forced Abortions and Mass Sterilization Needed to Save the Planet
July 11th, 2009Via: Zombietime:
Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A “Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death over American citizens.
The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?
These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed 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 — informally known as the United States’ Science Czar. In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:
* Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
* The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
* Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
* People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
* A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.
Impossible, you say? That must be an exaggeration or a hoax. No one in their right mind would say such things.
Well, I hate to break the news to you, but it is no hoax, no exaggeration. John Holdren really did say those things, and this report contains the proof. Below you will find photographs, scans, and transcriptions of pages in the book Ecoscience, co-authored in 1977 by John Holdren and his close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich. The scans and photos are provided to supply conclusive evidence that the words attributed to Holdren are unaltered and accurately transcribed.
This report was originally inspired by this article in FrontPage magazine, which covers some of the same information given here. But that article, although it contained many shocking quotes from John Holdren, failed to make much of an impact on public opinion. Why not? Because, as I discovered when discussing the article with various friends, there was no proof that the quotes were accurate — so most folks (even those opposed to Obama’s policies) doubted their veracity, because the statements seemed too inflammatory to be true. In the modern era, it seems, journalists have lost all credibility, and so are presumed to be lying or exaggerating unless solid evidence is offered to back up the claims. Well, this report contains that evidence.
Of course, Holdren wrote these things in the framework of a book he co-authored about what he imagined at the time (late 1970s) was an apocalyptic crisis facing mankind: overpopulation. He felt extreme measures would be required to combat an extreme problem. Whether or not you think this provides him a valid “excuse” for having descended into a totalitarian fantasy is up to you: personally, I don’t think it’s a valid excuse at all, since the crisis he was in a panic over was mostly in his imagination. Totalitarian regimes and unhinged people almost always have what seems internally like a reasonable justification for actions which to the outside world seem incomprehensible.
The folk over at zombietime must not be able to handle a true statement. How do you keep your cat from having kittens? Fix her.
My question would be is “Brave New World” preferable to humans denuding the planet like an unchecked goat population? I think both those options suck, but I hold no hope for people controlling themselves – sustainability is fine until it’s time to limit your own impact consumption, or propagation. War is easier.
There are options that span the gap between unchecked growth forever and kill off. The elite don’t do “middle ground” very well. They aren’t willing to give up any of their power in order to pull it off.
“Tighten it until it strips and then back it off a quarter turn,” isn’t a smart way of going as a matter of routine, but that’s how the show has been run.
Let’s not forget the social engineering that went into creating this mess. Who’s behind the maximum consumption all-the-time world view? Ahh, the same people who shred the confetti and want everyone to show up for their “flu shots”.
So “true statement” in this case is a lie by omission. It’s easy and comforting to blame the fat slob zombie consumers, but who’s really responsible for “this”?
Anytime an issue is presented as one way or the other (unchecked growth vs. kill off, for example), I hold on to my wallet, lock and load and think about how advocates of both fucked perspectives deserve each other.
I’m just wondering how many children he has, and whether he’s volunteering them to be neutered first. I not, I’m not interested in anything he has to say.
It’s the same scenario as when they want to declare war. For some reason, it’s never their own children who have to go fight it.
It’s easy to ask someone else to pay the price. Your true strength of conviction is shown when it’s your own balls on the chopping board.
@LykeX
“[Holdren] now resides with his wife of 42 years, biologist Dr. Cheryl E. Holdren, in Falmouth, Massachusetts. They have two grown children and five grandchildren ages 3 to 17.”
http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/culture-society/articles/john-p-holdren-named-president-elect-obama-s-science-advisor
I recall that book being on my shelf. I see a parallel with Global Warming issues. People can use self restraint, or be coerced. They were just discussion topics, and except for those wholly offended, not policy. Courage to speak to the problem of overpopulation is important. While in my neighborhood things are getting tougher, it is not as bad as places I read about. But I believe what I do is unsustainable in a recession.
If people would just refrain from reproducing for a decade or a generation, the planet just might have recovery as an option. Just my opinion. I have no axe to grind about it, just seems self evident.
Thanks pookie
@pedro
While I agree that our current way of life is not sustainable and we will have to do something about population growth, there’s a big step from that and to forced sterilization.
I mean, “People who contribute to social deterioration.” Who gets to decide who falls in that category? How many of those who give donations to the right politicians do you think will be forced to abstain from procreation?
This is eugenics, plain and simple.
I also noted this one:
“The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food”
Intentionally and… secretly? Considering that this comes from the scientific adviser of the president, this ought to be very worrying. It could be happening right now. Feeling thirsty?
Again, for me this comes down to one point. If they’re really serious about it, surely they’ll start with themselves, right? And if they don’t, then there must be an ulterior motive.