Archive for the ‘Eugenics’ Category

Adam Murdock, MD
October 17, 2009

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.” (1)

The quote above is from the book Ecoscience published in 1977. In this book is detailed a plan for a “planetary regime” that would regulate the global population. According to the authors, this regime would be empowered to create specific “compulsory population-control laws” in order to accomplish this aim.

What specific population-control laws did they have in mind? For starters, the authors propose that this regime should have the power to:

1. Compel inferior mothers to either give up their children or have abortions.
2. Sterilize the population through putting “sterilants” into their water and food supply.
According the authors of Ecoscience this would be okay as long as “pets” or “livestock” are not harmed.
3. Forcibly implant a long-term sterilizing capsule which would only be removed with “official permission.”

It is clear that the above methods will be successful at curtailing the population if implemented. There is just one problem: How will they convince the people to go along with the program? Their solution is to demonize people that have too many children as having irresponsible “resource-consumption patterns.” They, therefore, need to be compelled to behave more responsibly in order to save the planet and to spread the earth’s finite resources more equitably. An additional rationale is that since government already regulates marriage, why not family size?

Despite these rationales for population control, it is clear that many people are not likely to be convinced. Therefore, how will such unpopular measures be enforced? In the end, the only way the authors foresee fulfilling their dream will be through the creation of a “planetary regime” and international “police force.”

I don’t know about you, but these proposals are beginning to sound to me like the sick vision of some early twentieth century eugenicist. Who could come up with such a heinous plan? In fact, one has to look no further than one of the co-authors of Ecoscience, namely, President Obama’s top science and technology advisor, John Holdren. John Holdren and his two co-author’s totalitarian vision for our future is frightening enough, but now he holds the keys to our future through his advisory position with President Obama. If President Obama or the international community wanted to implement some sort of population control measure they have a blueprint in hand. And, unfortunately, I believe the implementation is already underway.

How, you ask? Let us just take a second and examine the ideas and methods that have been used since the book’s publication and by the Obama administration.

It was not long ago that the idea of man-made climate change was not taken seriously. We Americans made a mockery of the “kooky” Europeans who had deluded themselves into a global warming hysteria. But, not long after, here we sit on the verge of subjecting ourselves to the very same global cap and trade system that we had previously derided. And guess what? The very same method for tackling the current global warming crisis is the one that had been outlined by Holdren 30 years ago to tackle the “population crisis.” The only way a proposed cap and trade system will be successful is by, you guessed it, restricting the American people’s “resource-consumption patterns.” Not surprisingly, Holdren maintains that his ancient blueprint was inconsequential and has had nothing to do with the Obama Administration’s current resource restriction model for dealing with climate change.

In addition, despite the fact that the government has yet to make the leap from regulating marriage to directly regulating the number of resource-consuming children, the climate change legislation will accomplish this goal indirectly. Indeed, as climate taxes reverberate through the economy and so-called gas guzzling SUVs are made impossibly expensive, housing heating bills rise, inflation propagates, and the general cost of living skyrockets, so will come the demise of population-sustaining families. This trend will be further exacerbated by President Obama’s support for the Federal Reserve’s monetary expansionist policies, which will lead to massive inflation and devaluation of the dollar. More and more people will find it more difficult to pay for ever-expanding bills with ever-shrinking valueless dollars. This will lead to more couples having reservations about the cost of starting and providing for large families. Indeed, generous family sizes will become ever-increasingly a thing of the past and with it, the so-called infestation of the earth with children.

Finally, as part of the health care debate, President Obama has made repeated claims that his plan will not include rationing. As usual, the truth is quite the opposite. Once again “resource-consumption patterns” will have to be restricted in order for the government to stay within its health care budgetary restraints. Those with the highest consumption patterns will become the targeted group, namely, the elderly. In a recent article in the UK Times Online is described the familiar story of Hazel Fenton, from East Sussex, who fortunately is still alive despite being placed on the “Liverpool care pathway plan.” (2) According to the Times, the plan once reserved for “patients who do have only days to live” is now being used “more widely in the NHS, denying treatment to elderly patients who are not dying.” Indeed, this death program denies medical care, nutrition, and even water to patients that are not dying and in the case of Hazel still alive nine months later. This example is by no means unique. I have personally witnessed in the U.S. an increased pressure being injected into the medical establishment to push elderly patients into DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) status and even hospice. The rationale for such a trend has been that we physicians should be aware that medical resources are finite and therefore should be distributed to those that will see the most benefit. This doesn’t always include the elderly. Sound like a “resource-consumption” model to you? Once physicians have fully embraced this rationale we will not be far off from the very same UK death plan here in the U.S.

In a final sick twist, as Holdren and Obama are able to indirectly restrict the number of children through climate taxation and dispose of the elderly through health care rationing so will they have, unbeknownst to the majority of the rest of us, accomplished their original eugenics inspired population-control dream.


1. Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, John P. Holdren; W. H. Freeman, 1977. 1052 pgs. Pertinent Pages: 837, 786-8, 838, 917, 942-3.

2. “Daughter saves mother, 80, left by doctors to starve.” Times Online. October 11, 2009.


Terence P. Jeffrey
CNS News
July 28, 2009

President Obama’s top science adviser said in a book he co-authored in 1973 that a newborn child “will ultimately develop into a human being” if he or she is properly fed and socialized.

“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,” John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, wrote in “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.”

Holdren co-authored the book with Stanford professors Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich. The book was published by W.H. Freeman and Company.

At the time “Human Ecology” was published, Holdren was a senior research fellow at the California Institute of Technology. Paul Ehrlich, currently president of The Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford, is also author of the 1968 bestseller, “The Population Bomb,” a book The Washington Post said “launched the popular movement for zero population growth.”

“Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions” argued that the human race faced dire consequences unless human population growth was stopped.

“Human values and institutions have set mankind on a collision course with the laws of nature,” wrote the Ehrlichs and Holdren.  “Human beings cling jealously to their prerogative to reproduce as they please—and they please to make each new generation larger than the last—yet endless multiplication on a finite planet is impossible.  Most humans aspire to greater material prosperity, but the number of people that can be supported on Earth if everyone is rich is even smaller than if everyone is poor.”

The specific passage expressing the authors’ view that a baby “will ultimately develop into a human being” is on page 235 in chapter 8 of the book, which is titled “Population Limitation.”

At the time the book was written, the Supreme Court had not yet issued its Roe v. Wade decision, and the passage in question was part of a subsection of the “Population Limitation” chapter that argued for legalized abortion.

“To a biologist the question of when life begins for a human child is almost meaningless, since life is continuous and has been since it first began on Earth several billion years ago,” wrote the Ehrlichs and Holdren. “The precursors of the egg and sperm cells that create the next generation have been present in the parents from the time they were embryos themselves.  To most biologists, an embryo (unborn child during the first two or three months of development) or a fetus is no more a complete human being than a blueprint is a building. The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being. Where any of these essential elements is lacking, the resultant individual will be deficient in some respect.”

In the same paragraph, the authors continue on to note that legal scholars hold the view that a “fetus” is not considered a “person” under the U.S. Constitution until “it is born.” But they do not revisit the issue of when exactly the “fetus” would properly be considered a “human being.”

“From this point of view, a fetus is only a potential human being [italics in original],” wrote the authors. “Historically, the law has dated most rights and privileges from the moment of birth, and legal scholars generally agree that a fetus is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of the United States Constitution until it is born and living independent of its mother’s body.”

The same section of the book goes on to argue that abortion spares “unwanted children” from “undesirable consequences.”

“From the standpoint of the terminated fetus, it makes no difference whether the mother had an induced abortion or a spontaneous abortion,” write the Ehrlichs and Holdren. “On the other hand, it subsequently makes a great deal of difference to the child if an abortion is denied, and the mother, contrary to her wishes, is forced to devote her body and life to the production and care of the child. In Sweden, studies were made to determine what eventually happened to children born to mothers whose requests for abortions had been turned down. When compared to a matched group of children from similar backgrounds who had been wanted, more than twice as many as these unwanted youngsters grew up in undesirable circumstances (illegitimate, in broken homes, or in institutions), more than twice as many had records of delinquency, or were deemed unfit for military service, almost twice as many had needed psychiatric care, and nearly five times as many had been on public assistance during their teens.”

“There seems little doubt that the forced bearing of unwanted children has undesirable consequences not only for the children themselves and their families but for society as well, apart from the problems of overpopulation,” wrote the authors.

The Ehrlichs and Holdren then chide opponents of abortion for condemning future generations to an “overcrowded planet.”

“Those who oppose abortion often raise the argument that a decision is being made for an unborn person who ‘has no say,’” write the authors. “But unthinking actions of the very same people help to commit future unheard generations to misery and early death on an overcrowded planet.”

Holdren has impeccable academic credentials. He earned his bachelor’s degree at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his doctorate at Stanford.  He worked as a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory before becoming a senior research fellow at California Institute of Technology. He then became a professor at the University of California at Berkeley before joining the faculty at Harvard in 1996, where he was the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy and director of the Program in Science, Technology and Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government.

In addition to his duties at Harvard, Holdren was director of the Woods Hole Research Center in Falmouth, Mass.

His curriculum vitae posted at the Woods Hole Web site lists “Human Ecology” as one of the books he has co-authored or co-edited.

“Dr. Holdren,” says the Web posting, “is the author of some 300 articles and papers, and he has co-authored and co-edited some 20 books and book-length reports, such as Energy (1971), Human Ecology (1973), Ecoscience (1977), Energy in Transition (1980), Earth and the Human Future (1986), Strategic Defences and the Future of the Arms Race (1987), Building Global Security Through Cooperation (1990), Conversion of Military R&D (1998), and Ending the Energy Stalemate (2004).”

The next to last subsection of the chapter on “Population Limitation” in “Human Ecology” is entitled, “Involuntary Fertility Control,” which the authors stress is an “unpalatable idea.”

“The third approach to population control is that of involuntary fertility control,” write the Ehrlichs and Holdren. “Several coercive proposals deserve discussion mainly because societies may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means.”

“Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying” the authors state at the end of the subsection. “As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1970s, we may well find them demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, is to begin now with milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while ensuring that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time.  If effective action is taken promptly, perhaps the need for involuntary or repressive measures can be averted.”

In February, when Holdren appeared before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee for a confirmation hearing, he was not asked about his comment in “Human Ecology” that a baby “will ultimately develop into a human being.”

Sen. David Vitter (R.-La.) did ask him, however, about the population-control ideas he expressed in 1973.

“In 1973, you encouraged a, quote, ‘decline in fertility to well below replacement,’ close quote, in the United States, because, quote, ‘280 million in 2040 is likely to be too many,’ close quote,” said Vitter. “What would your number for the right population in the U.S. be today?”

“I no longer think it’s productive, senator, to focus on the optimum population for the United States,” Holdren responded. “I don’t think any of us know what the right answer is.  When I wrote those lines in 1973, I was preoccupied with the fact that many problems in the United States appeared to be being made more difficult by the rate of population growth that then prevailed.

“I think everyone who studies these matters understands that population growth brings some benefits and some liabilities,” Holdren continued. “It’s a tough question to determine which will prevail in a given time period. But I think the key thing today is that we need to work to improve the conditions that all of our citizens face economically, environmentally and in other respects.  And we need to aim for something that I have been calling ‘sustainable prosperity.’”

In a subsequent question, Vitter asked, “Do you think determining optimal population is a proper role of government?”

“No, senator, I do not,” said Holdren.

The White House Press Office did not respond to emailed and telephoned inquiries from about Holdren’s statement in “Human Ecology” that a baby will “ultimately develop into a human being.”

Daniel Taylor
Old-thinker News
June 1, 2009

Charles Arntzen, who served as President of
the Boyce Thompson Institute, suggested using
bananas as edible vaccines in developing countries.

When genetically modified foods were first introduced, the biotech industry hailed tomatoes that were frost resistant and round-up ready crops. Now, there is a further development in biotech that has received little attention in the mainstream media. Serious environmental and health concerns still surround GM food safety, but new technologies are being developed to turn foods into vaccine delivery systems. While there may be positive angles to this technology, we must take into account the long term goals of the establishment, which is already invested in the research and development of edible vaccine technology.

Edible vaccines

In 1996 the Rockefeller Foundation supplied grant money for early research on edible vaccines. The $58,000 grant, given to the Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research at Cornell University, was aimed at developing and transferring edible vaccine technology to developing countries. Cornell University reports,

“Researchers at the Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research Inc. at Cornell now will begin exchanging new vaccine information with scientists in developing countries, starting with Mexico, thanks to a new Rockefeller Foundation grant.

Gomez-Lim and his American colleagues will try to verify the value of “edible” vaccines and to begin educational efforts in Mexico to facilitate the rapid adoption of these vaccines for safe and effective use.”

Charles Arntzen, who served as President of the Boyce Thompson Institute, can be heard here explaining the use of bananas as edible vaccines in developing countries.

In 1998 the Boyce Thompson Institute became the first to develop genetically modified potatoes which were successfully tested on human subjects. “The potatoes were developed through a process known as transgenic implantation, in which a gene is transferred from one species to another. In this case the gene for a bacterial antigen — the protein that stimulates the production of protective antibodies — was inserted into the potato plant cells,” reports BTI.

The article continues,

“Children of developing countries may not be the only beneficiaries of this new technology. Says Arntzen: ‘American kids will also probably prefer being vaccinated by an edible vaccine rather than by a needle.”

Edible vaccines – which have been given scant coverage in the mainstream media – received attention in the wake of the recent swine flu outbreak. Iowa State University research “…may someday allow pigs and humans to get a flu vaccination simply by eating corn or corn products,” reports ISU. “The corn vaccine would also work in humans when they eat corn or even corn flakes, corn chips, tortillas or anything that contains corn, said Harris.”

The prospect of delivering vaccines through food inevitably raises the issue of mass medication. Calls for statins and lithium to be placed in tap water have recently been made in the name of promoting “good mental and physical health.” A recent AP report stated that lithium, along with hundreds of other active pharmaceutical ingredients have already been found in drinking water. Mosquitoes are also being turned into mass medication systems. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation recently gave a $100,000 grant to a Japanese research program aimed at genetically engineering mosquitoes to act as “flying syringes” to deliver vaccines.

People planners

The Rockefeller family – and in turn the entire Anglo-American establishment – has a history of consistently supporting population control and reduction. David Rockefeller, Bill Gates, and other billionaire philanthropists met in secret in New York City recently to discuss this very issue. The meeting was secret, according to an attendee, because “…anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government.” Research in the realm of biotech and edible vaccines, as openly stated in prominent medical journals, will aid this long term agenda. This same group, primarily the Rockefeller family and their various foundations, was instrumental in shaping twentieth-century science, from the molecular sciences to social engineering. Dr. Lily E. Kay’s seminal work, The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, The Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of the New Biology, documents this fact.

Past incidents

In 1989 research was conducted by the National Institute of Immunology in New Delhi India into the use of hCG conjugated Tetanus and Diphtheria vaccines as a method of birth control. The research discussed the use of Tetanus and Diphtheria ‘carriers’ to bypass the immune system and deliver the female hormone called human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG). While hCG is required to maintain pregnancy, the injection of hCG bound to Tetanus Toxoid triggers an auto-immune response againsthCG. The Rockefeller Foundation is listed in the document as giving grants for the research.

On November 4, 1996 the publication Vaccine Weekly carried an article titled “Study Suggests Women Were Injected with Contaminated Tetanus Vaccine.” The article details an investigation that was carried out by the Philippine Medical Association into the discovery of hCG in tetanus vaccines. Similar incidents have also occurred  in Thailand.

Further evidence is found in a 1995 BBC documentary titled “The Human Laboratory”. The film covered the Philippines Tetanus hCG controversy in depth. The transcript for the program states,

NARRATOR: There are several research programmes around the world testing the contraceptive vaccine linked to tetanus which creates an immune response. The vaccine contains Beta HCG, part of a hormone necessary for pregnancy. This Beta HCG stimulates antibodies so that if a woman’s egg becomes fertilised her own natural HCG will be destroyed and pregnancy will not occur.

MARY PILAR VERZOSA: I began to suspect that here in the Philippines that’s exactly what’s happening. They have laced the tetanus toxoid vials with the Beta HCG. The only way I could make sure that they hadn’t done that was to examine the vials, and how to get a hold of those vials was going to be a problem. Who was I to collect them from the health centres?

NARRATOR: Sister Mary was helped through the Catholic network. A friend who worked in a health clinic removed the vials unnoticed. The nuns packed them with ice and sent them to an independent laboratory.

MARY PILAR VERZOSA: Oh boy that was really something when this came out of my fax machine. Report on HCG concentration in vaccine vials. Three out of those four vials registered positive for HCG, so my suspicions are affirmed that here in our country they are not only giving plain tetanus toxoid vaccination to our women, they are also giving anti-fertility.

“A socioculturally acceptable alternative”

Word has spread in the developing world of these documented cases, but these stories are dismissed as rumor by the United Nations and World Health Organization. Vaccination has been met with increased resistance across many developing countries. UNICEF reports from Ethiopia that, “All sorts of misguided rumours go round that the injections will sterilize them or harm them in some way. But here, the village elders are on board. They are here, encouraging the women to come along.”

Edible vaccines, according to the Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology, will be a more socioculturally acceptable alternative to needles. In other words, people will be less resistant to eating a mundane banana than taking a shot in the arm. The Journal states that new edible vaccine technology may serve a dual purpose of birth control. As stated,

“Edible vaccines hold great promise as a cost-effective, easy-to-administer, easy-to-store, fail-safe and socioculturally readily acceptable vaccine delivery system, especially for the poor developing countries… A variety of delivery systems have been developed. Initially thought to be useful only for preventing infectious diseases, it has also found application in prevention of autoimmune diseases, birth control, cancer therapy, etc.”

The journal points out that, “There is growing acceptance of transgenic crops in both industrial and developing countries,” and that, “Resistance to genetically modified foods may affect the future of edible vaccines.” Indeed, GM foods are increasingly being presented as a solution to world hunger and food crises.

Will edible vaccines be used as a tool for birth control in the developing countries? The ability to do so has been demonstrated, and the agenda for population reduction and control has been admitted by the billionaire philanthropists who’s foundations are involved with developing the technology.

By: Paul Joseph Watson
July 11, 2009

President Obama’s top science and technology advisor John P. Holdren co-authored a 1977 book in which he advocated the formation of a “planetary regime” that would use a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children.

The concepts outlined in Holdren’s 1977 book Ecoscience, which he co-authored with close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, were so shocking that a February 2009 Front Page Magazine story on the subject was largely dismissed as being outlandish because people couldn’t bring themselves to believe that it could be true.

It was only when another Internet blog obtained the book and posted screenshots that the awful truth about what Holdren had actually committed to paper actually began to sink in.

This issue is more prescient than ever because Holdren and his colleagues are now at the forefront of efforts to combat “climate change” through similarly insane programs focused around geoengineering the planet. As we reported in April, Holdren recently advocated “Large-scale geoengineering projects designed to cool the Earth,” such as “shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays,” which many have pointed out is already occurring via chemtrails.

Ecoscience discusses a number of ways in which the global population could be reduced to combat what the authors see as mankind’s greatest threat – overpopulation. In each case, the proposals are couched in sober academic rhetoric, but the horrifying foundation of what Holdren and his co-authors are advocating is clear. These proposals include;

– Forcibly and unknowingly sterilizing the entire population by adding infertility drugs to the nation’s water and food supply.

– Legalizing “compulsory abortions,” ie forced abortions carried out against the will of the pregnant women, as is common place in Communist China where women who have already had one child and refuse to abort the second are kidnapped off the street by the authorities before a procedure is carried out to forcibly abort the baby.

– Babies who are born out of wedlock or to teenage mothers to be forcibly taken away from their mother by the government and put up for adoption. Another proposed measure would force single mothers to demonstrate to the government that they can care for the child, effectively introducing licensing to have children.

– Implementing a system of “involuntary birth control,” where both men and women would be mandated to have an infertility device implanted into their body at puberty and only have it removed temporarily if they received permission from the government to have a baby.

– Permanently sterilizing people who the authorities deem have already had too many children or who have contributed to “general social deterioration”.

– Formally passing a law that criminalizes having more than two children, similar to the one child policy in Communist China.

– This would all be overseen by a transnational and centralized “planetary regime” that would utilize a “global police force” to enforce the measures outlined above. The “planetary regime” would also have the power to determine population levels for every country in the world.

The quotes from the book are included below. We also include comments by the author of the blog who provided the screenshots of the relevant passages. Screenshots of the relevant pages and the quotes in their full context are provided at the end of the excerpts. The quotes from the book appear as text indents and in bold. The quotes from the author of the blog are italicized.

Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

As noted in the FrontPage article cited above, Holdren “hides behind the passive voice” in this passage, by saying “it has been concluded.” Really? By whom? By the authors of the book, that’s whom. What Holdren’s really saying here is, “I have determined that there’s nothing unconstitutional about laws which would force women to abort their babies.” And as we will see later, although Holdren bemoans the fact that most people think there’s no need for such laws, he and his co-authors believe that the population crisis is so severe that the time has indeed come for “compulsory population-control laws.” In fact, they spend the entire book arguing that “the population crisis” has already become “sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions

“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”

Holdren and his co-authors once again speculate about unbelievably draconian solutions to what they feel is an overpopulation crisis. But what’s especially disturbing is not that Holdren has merely made these proposals — wrenching babies from their mothers’ arms and giving them away; compelling single mothers to prove in court that they would be good parents; and forcing women to have abortions, whether they wanted to or not — but that he does so in such a dispassionate, bureaucratic way. Don’t be fooled by the innocuous and “level-headed” tone he takes: the proposals are nightmarish, however euphemistically they are expressed.

Holdren seems to have no grasp of the emotional bond between mother and child, and the soul-crushing trauma many women have felt throughout history when their babies were taken away from them involuntarily.

This kind of clinical, almost robotic discussion of laws that would affect millions of people at the most personal possible level is deeply unsettling, and the kind of attitude that gives scientists a bad name. I’m reminded of the phrase “banality of evil.”

Not that it matters, but I myself am “pro-choice” — i.e. I think that abortion should not be illegal. But that doesn’t mean I’m pro-abortion — I don’t particularly like abortions, but I do believe women should be allowed the choice to have them. But John Holdren here proposes to take away that choice — to force women to have abortions. One doesn’t need to be a “pro-life” activist to see the horror of this proposal — people on all sides of the political spectrum should be outraged. My objection to forced abortion is not so much to protect the embryo, but rather to protect the mother from undergoing a medical procedure against her will. And not just any medical procedure, but one which she herself (regardless of my views) may find particularly immoral or traumatic.

There’s a bumper sticker that’s popular in liberal areas which says: “Against abortion? Then don’t have one.” Well, John Holdren wants to MAKE you have one, whether you’re against it or not.

Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn’t harm livestock

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”

OK, John, now you’re really starting to scare me. Putting sterilants in the water supply? While you correctly surmise that this suggestion “seems to horrify people more than most proposals,” you apparently are not among those people it horrifies. Because in your extensive list of problems with this possible scheme, there is no mention whatsoever of any ethical concerns or moral issues. In your view, the only impediment to involuntary mass sterilization of the population is that it ought to affect everyone equally and not have any unintended side effects or hurt animals. But hey, if we could sterilize all the humans safely without hurting the livestock, that’d be peachy! The fact that Holdren has no moral qualms about such a deeply invasive and unethical scheme (aside from the fact that it would be difficult to implement) is extremely unsettling and in a sane world all by itself would disqualify him from holding a position of power in the government.

Page 786-7: The government could control women’s reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control

Involuntary fertility control

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

Note well the phrase “with official permission” in the above quote. John Holdren envisions a society in which the government implants a long-term sterilization capsule in all girls as soon as they reach puberty, who then must apply for official permission to temporarily remove the capsule and be allowed to get pregnant at some later date. Alternately, he wants a society that sterilizes all women once they have two children. Do you want to live in such a society? Because I sure as hell don’t.

Page 838: The kind of people who cause “social deterioration” can be compelled to not have children

“If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.

To me, this is in some ways the most horrifying sentence in the entire book — and it had a lot of competition. Because here Holdren reveals that moral judgments would be involved in determining who gets sterilized or is forced to abort their babies. Proper, decent people will be left alone — but those who “contribute to social deterioration” could be “forced to exercise reproductive responsibility” which could only mean one thing — compulsory abortion or involuntary sterilization. What other alternative would there be to “force” people to not have children? Will government monitors be stationed in irresponsible people’s bedrooms to ensure they use condoms? Will we bring back the chastity belt? No — the only way to “force” people to not become or remain pregnant is to sterilize them or make them have abortions.

But what manner of insanity is this? “Social deterioration”? Is Holdren seriously suggesting that “some” people contribute to social deterioration more than others, and thus should be sterilized or forced to have abortions, to prevent them from propagating their kind? Isn’t that eugenics, plain and simple? And isn’t eugenics universally condemned as a grotesquely evil practice?

We’ve already been down this road before. In one of the most shameful episodes in the history of U.S. jurisprudence, the Supreme Court ruled in the infamous 1927 Buck v. Bell case that the State of Virginia had had the right to sterilize a woman named Carrie Buck against her will, based solely on the (spurious) criteria that she was “feeble-minded” and promiscuous, with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes concluding, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Nowadays, of course, we look back on that ruling in horror, as eugenics as a concept has been forever discredited. In fact, the United Nations now regards forced sterilization as a crime against humanity.

The italicized phrase at the end (”providing they are not denied equal protection”), which Holdren seems to think gets him off the eugenics hook, refers to the 14th Amendment (as you will see in the more complete version of this passage quoted below), meaning that the eugenics program wouldn’t be racially based or discriminatory — merely based on the whim and assessments of government bureaucrats deciding who and who is not an undesirable. If some civil servant in Holdren’s America determines that you are “contributing to social deterioration” by being promiscuous or pregnant or both, will government agents break down your door and and haul you off kicking and screaming to the abortion clinic? In fact, the Supreme Court case Skinner v. Oklahoma already determined that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment distinctly prohibits state-sanctioned sterilization being applied unequally to only certain types of people.

No no, you say, Holdren isn’t claiming that some kind of people contribute to social deterioration more than others; rather, he’s stating that anyone who overproduces children thereby contributes to social deterioration and needs to be stopped from having more. If so — how is that more palatable? It seems Holdren and his co-authors have not really thought this through, because what they are suggesting is a nightmarish totalitarian society. What does he envision: All women who commit the crime of having more than two children be dragged away by police to the government-run sterilization centers? Or — most disturbingly of all — perhaps Holdren has thought it through, and is perfectly OK with the kind of dystopian society he envisions in this book.

Sure, I could imagine a bunch of drunken guys sitting around shooting the breeze, expressing these kinds of forbidden thoughts; who among us hasn’t looked in exasperation at a harried mother buying candy bars and soda for her immense brood of unruly children and thought: Lady, why don’t you just get your tubes tied already? But it’s a different matter when the Science Czar of the United States suggests the very same thing officially in print. It ceases being a harmless fantasy, and suddenly the possibility looms that it could become government policy. And then it’s not so funny anymore.

Page 838: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size

“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”

Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?


I’ll tell you why, John. Because the the principle of habeas corpus upon which our nation rests automatically renders any compulsory abortion scheme to be unconstitutional, since it guarantees the freedom of each individual’s body from detention or interference, until that person has been convicted of a crime. Or are you seriously suggesting that, should bureaucrats decide that the country is overpopulated, the mere act of pregnancy be made a crime?

I am no legal scholar, but it seems that John Holdren is even less of a legal scholar than I am. Many of the bizarre schemes suggested in Ecoscience rely on seriously flawed legal reasoning. The book is not so much about science, but instead is about reinterpreting the Constitution to allow totalitarian population-control measures.

Page 942-3: A “Planetary Regime” should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born

Toward a Planetary Regime

“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.”

“The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”

In case you were wondering exactly who would enforce these forced abortion and mass sterilization laws: Why, it’ll be the “Planetary Regime”! Of course! I should have seen that one coming.

The rest of this passage speaks for itself. Once you add up all the things the Planetary Regime (which has a nice science-fiction ring to it, doesn’t it?) will control, it becomes quite clear that it will have total power over the global economy, since according to Holdren this Planetary Regime will control “all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable” (which basically means all goods) as well as all food, and commerce on the oceans and any rivers “that discharge into the oceans” (i.e. 99% of all navigable rivers). What’s left? Not much.

Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force

“If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”

The other shoe drops. So: We are expected to voluntarily surrender national sovereignty to an international organization (the “Planetary Regime,” presumably), which will be armed and have the ability to act as a police force. And we saw in the previous quote exactly which rules this armed international police force will be enforcing: compulsory birth control, and all economic activity.

It would be laughable if Holdren weren’t so deadly serious. Do you want this man to be in charge of science and technology in the United States? Because he already is in charge.

Page 749: Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism

“Another related issue that seems to encourage a pronatalist attitude in many people is the question of the differential reproduction of social or ethnic groups. Many people seem to be possessed by fear that their group may be outbred by other groups. White Americans and South Africans are worried there will be too many blacks, and vice versa. The Jews in Israel are disturbed by the high birth rates of Israeli Arabs, Protestants are worried about Catholics, and lbos about Hausas. Obviously, if everyone tries to outbreed everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all. This is another case of the “tragedy of the commons,” wherein the “commons” is the planet Earth. Fortunately, it appears that, at least in the DCs, virtually all groups are exercising reproductive restraint.”

This passage is not particularly noteworthy except for the inclusion of the odd phrase “pronatalist attitude,” which Holdren spends much of the book trying to undermine. And what exactly is a “pronatalist attitude”? Basically it means the urge to have children, and to like babies. If only we could suppress people’s natural urge to want children and start families, we could solve all our problems!

What’s disturbing to me is the incredibly patronizing and culturally imperialist attitude he displays here, basically acting like he has the right to tell every ethnic group in the world that they should allow themselves to go extinct or at least not increase their populations any more. How would we feel if Andaman Islanders showed up on the steps of the Capitol in Washington D.C. and announced that there were simply too many Americans, and we therefore are commanded to stop breeding immediately? One imagines that the attitude of every ethnic group in the world to John Holdren’s proposal would be: Cram it, John. Stop telling us what to do.

Page 944: As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000

“Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants’ destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world.”

This is the final paragraph of the book, which I include here only to show how embarrassingly inaccurate his “scientific” projections were. In 1977, Holdren thought we were teetering on the brink of global catastrophe, and he proposed implementing fascistic rules and laws to stave off the impending disaster. Luckily, we ignored his warnings, yet the world managed to survive anyway without the need to punish ourselves with the oppressive society which Holdren proposed. Yes, there still is overpopulation, but the problems it causes are not as morally repugnant as the “solutions” which John Holdren wanted us to adopt.


Front cover Back cover Title page
Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures front cover small Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures back cover small Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures title small
Page 749 Page 786 Page 787
Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 749 small Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 786 small Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 787 small
Page 788 Page 789 Page 837
Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 788 small Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 789 small Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 837 small
Page 838 Page 839 Page 917
Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 838 small Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 839 small Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 917 small
Page 942 Page 943 Page 944
Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 942 small Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 943 small Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 944 small
Page 1001 Page 1002 Page 1003
Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 1001 small Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 1002 small Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 1003 small

It is important to point out that John Holdren has never publicly distanced himself from any of these positions in the 32 years since the book was first published. Indeed, as you can see from the first picture that accompanies this article, Holdren prominently displays a copy of the book in his own personal library and is happy to be photographed with it.

It is also important to stress that these are not just the opinions of one man. The positions adopted in this book echo those advocated by numerous other prominent public figures in politics, academia and the environmental movement for decades.

Consider the fact that people like David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, and Bill Gates, three men who have integral ties to the eugenicist movement, recently met with other billionaire “philanthropists” in New York to discuss “how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population,”according to a London Times report.

Ted Turner has publicly advocated shocking population reduction programs that would cull the human population by a staggering 95%. He has also called for a Communist-style one child policy to be mandated by governments in the west.

Of course, Turner completely fails to follow his own rules on how everyone else should live their lives, having five children and owning no less than 2 million acres of land.

In the third world, Turner has contributed literally billions to population reduction, namely through United Nations programs, leading the way for the likes of Bill & Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet (Gates’ father has long been a  leading board member of Planned Parenthood and a top eugenicist).

The notion that these elitists merely want to slow population growth in order to improve health is a complete misnomer. Slowing the growth of the world’s population while also improving its health are two irreconcilable concepts to the elite. Stabilizing world population is a natural byproduct of higher living standards, as has been proven by the stabilization of the white population in the west. Elitists like David Rockefeller have no interest in “slowing the growth of world population” by natural methods, their agenda is firmly rooted in the pseudo-science of eugenics, which is all about “culling” the surplus population via draconian methods.

David Rockefeller’s legacy is not derived from a well-meaning “philanthropic” urge to improve health in third world countries, it is born out of a Malthusian drive to eliminate the poor and those deemed racially inferior, using the justification of social Darwinism.

As is documented in Alex Jones’ seminal film Endgame, Rockefeller’s father, John D. Rockefeller, exported eugenics to Germany from its origins in Britain by bankrolling the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute which later would form a central pillar in the Third Reich’s ideology of the Nazi super race. After the fall of the Nazis, top German eugenicists were protected by the allies as the victorious parties fought over who would enjoy their “expertise” in the post-war world.

The justification for the implementation of draconian measures of population control has changed to suit contemporary fads and trends. What once masqueraded as concerns surrounding overpopulation has now returned in the guise of the climate change and global warming movement. What has not changed is the fact that at its core, this represents nothing other than the arcane pseudo-science of eugenics first crafted by the U.S. and British elite at the end of the 19th century and later embraced by Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.

In the 21st century, the eugenics movement has changed its stripes once again, manifesting itself through the global carbon tax agenda and the notion that having too many children or enjoying a reasonably high standard of living is destroying the planet through global warming, creating the pretext for further regulation and control over every facet of our lives.

The fact that the chief scientific advisor to the President of the United States, a man with his finger on the pulse of environmental policy, once openly advocated the mass sterilization of the U.S. public through the food and water supply, along with the plethora of other disgusting proposals highlighted inEcoscience, is a frightening prospect that wouldn’t be out of place in some kind of futuristic sci-fi horror movie, and a startling indictment of the true source of what manifests itself today as the elitist controlled top-down environmental movement.

Only through bringing to light Holdren’s shocking and draconian population control plans can we truly alert people to the horrors that the elite have planned for us through population control, sterilization and genocidal culling programs that are already underway.