The United Nations has officially designated October 31st as 7 Billion Day. On that day, the United Nations estimates that the population of the earth will hit 7 billion for the very first time. But instead of celebrating what a milestone 7 billion people represents, the UNPF is focusing instead on using October 31st to raise awareness about "sustainability" and "sustainable development". In other words, the United Nations is once again declaring that there are way too many people on the planet and that we need to take more direct measures to reduce fertility. In recent years, the UN and other international organizations have become bolder about trying to push the sick population control agenda of the global elite. Most of the time organizations such as the UN will simply talk about "stabilizing" the global population, but as you will see in this article, there are many among the global elite that are not afraid to openly talk about a goal of reducing the population of the world to 500 million (or less). To you and I it may seem like insanity to want to get rid of more than 90 percent of the global population, but there is a growing consensus among the global elite that this is absolutely necessary for the good of the planet.
As we approach October 31st, dozens of articles are appearing in newspapers all over the globe that are declaring what a horrible thing it is that we are up to 7 billion people.
In fact, it surely is no accident that the United Nations put 7 Billion Day on the exact same day as Halloween. Perhaps they want to highlight how "scary" it is that we have 7 billion people on the planet, or perhaps they are trying to send us a message by having 7 Billion Day occur on the same day as "the festival of death".
In any event, it seems like way too much of a coincidence that 7 Billion Day just happens to fall on the same day as Halloween.
Today, "sustainable development" has become one of the key buzzwords that those in the radical environmental movement love to use, but most Americans have no idea that one of the key elements of "sustainable development" is population control.
So what precisely is considered to be an ideal population for the earth by those pushing "sustainable development"?
Well, of course there is much disagreement on this issue, but many are very open about the fact that they believe that the earth should only have 500 million people (or less) on it.
For example, the first of the "new 10 commandments" on the infamous Georgia Guidestones states the following....
"Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature."
CNN Founder Ted Turner would go even farther....
"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
Dave Foreman, the co-founder of Earth First, says that reducing our population down to 100 million is one of his three main goals....
"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world."
Sadly, this kind of garbage is even being taught at major U.S. universities. For example, Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka once wrote the following....
I do not bear any ill will toward people. However, I am convinced that the world, including all humanity, WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us.
Mikhail Gorbachev thinks that reducing the global population by 90 percent would be just about right....
"We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren't enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage."
But most of the time, the way that the global elite speak of population control is much more "politically correct". They tend to use terms such as "sustainable development" and "reduction of fertility rates" and "quality of life" when discussing the need to reduce our population.
As 7 Billion Day has approached, there have been articles popping up in major publications all over the globe that are advocating increased population control measures. Of course in the western world such measures are always framed as being "voluntary", but that is the way that they always introduce things like this. Once enough people get on board with the "voluntary" population control measures they will become "mandatory".
So now that you are aware of some of the buzzwords that are used, check out what has been written on some of the biggest news websites in the world recently....
Jeffrey D. Sachs, the director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, recently said the following in an article for CNN....
"The arrival of the 7 billionth person is cause for profound global concern. It carries a challenge: What will it take to maintain a planet in which each person has a chance for a full, productive and prosperous life, and in which the planet's resources are sustained for future generations?
"How, in short, can we enjoy 'sustainable development' on a very crowded planet?"
For Sachs, one of the "keys" to sustainable development is the "stabilization" of the global population....
"The second key to sustainable development is the stabilization of the global population. This is already occurring in high-income and even some middle-income countries, as families choose to have one or two children on average. The reduction of fertility rates should be encouraged in the poorer countries as well."
In a recent article for the Guardian, Roger Martin stated that all of the problems that humanity is facing would be easier to solve if less people were running around the planet....
"...all environmental (and many economic and social) problems are easier to solve with fewer people, and ultimately impossible with ever more."
He also says that if we reduce the population, it will mean better lives for all the rest of us....
"On a finite planet, the optimum population providing the best quality of life for all, is clearly much smaller than the maximum, permitting bare survival. The more we are, the less for each; fewer people mean better lives."
But is that really the case?
Of course not.
There has been tremendous human suffering all throughout history. If we eliminated 90 percent of the global population it would not suddenly usher in some kind of "golden age".
But many among the global elite are truly convinced that we are spoiling "their planet" and they don't want so many of us around anymore. Thanks to technology, they only need a few hundred million people to run their system, and they view the rest of us as "useless eaters".
This all may sound quite bizarre to many of you, but this is the kind of stuff that is being taught in colleges and universities across the western world.
In fact, you are starting to see an increasing number of people in the western world actually suggest that we adopt a "one-child policy" such as China has. For example, the following is from an opinion piece that appeared in the National Post....
A planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.
The author of the opinion piece believes that such a "one-child policy" would reduce the global population to 3.43 billion by 2075....
The intelligence behind this is the following:
-If only one child per female was born as of now, the world's population would drop from its current 6.5 billion to 5.5 billion by 2050, according to a study done for scientific academy Vienna Institute of Demography.
-By 2075, there would be 3.43 billion humans on the planet. This would have immediate positive effects on the world's forests, other species, the oceans, atmospheric quality and living standards.
This is the kind of stuff that a lot of these people sit around and think about all day long.
They are obsessed with death and with reducing the population as rapidly as possible. They see us as a "plague" that is ravaging the planet, and they believe that by getting rid of us they would actually be saving the earth.
Due to public opinion, population control advocates have to tread lightly in the western world. But where they can get away with it, they are not afraid to be very forceful.
I have already discussed the horrific one-child policy in China. As the Epoch Times recently noted, enforcement of this policy can be absolutely brutal....
"Pregnant women lacking birth permits are hunted down like criminals by population planning police in China and forcibly aborted."
If you don't believe something like this can ever happen in the western world, you might want to think again.
Limitations on child births are already showing up in popular television shows. For example, a new show on Fox called Terra Nova portrays the future of the earth as a living hell due to overpopulation. People in the future can hardly breathe the air due to overwhelming pollution and a strict "two-child policy" is rigidly enforced.
The family featured in Terra Nova is able to go through a portal to a prehistoric world that is 85 million years in the past. In this "new world", humans have set up a wonderful new socialist society where everyone is provided for and where "green technology" is helping them to avoid making the "mistakes" of the past.
Unfortunately, socialist utopias such as the one portrayed on Terra Nova only exist in works of fiction.
Instead, what happens most of the time in real life is that the "good intentions" of social planners devolve into absolute tyranny when put into practice.
For example, just check out what a recent National Geographic article said happened when social planners in India tried to aggressively reduce birth rates in India in the 1970s....
The Indian government tried once before to push vasectomies, in the 1970s, when anxiety about the population bomb was at its height. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and her son Sanjay used state-of-emergency powers to force a dramatic increase in sterilizations. From 1976 to 1977 the number of operations tripled, to more than eight million. Over six million of those were vasectomies. Family planning workers were pressured to meet quotas; in a few states, sterilization became a condition for receiving new housing or other government benefits. In some cases the police simply rounded up poor people and hauled them to sterilization camps.
How would you feel if you were rounded up and hauled off to a sterilization camp?
Sterilization programs (most of the time they are "voluntary") are in full force all over the globe. Much of the time they are sponsored and funded by the United Nations. The global elite are absolutely obsessed with getting women to have less babies.
That is one reason why abortion is so very important to them.
Recently, Al Gore made the following statement regarding population control....
"One of the things we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principle ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women. You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children have, the spacing of the children.
The elite love to use terms such as "fertility management" and "family planning", but what they really intend is for there to be less pregnancies and more abortions so that the population will not grow as quickly.
They certainly do not intend to empower women to have more children.
This agenda was also very much reflected when the March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief asked this shocking question....
"What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?"
Now who in the world gave the UN the right to be trying to "accelerate fertility decline" for women in poor countries?
But to many in the global elite, trying to get women to have less babies makes all the sense in the world. In a recent editorial for the New York Times entitled "The Earth Is Full", Thomas L. Friedman made the following statement....
You really do have to wonder whether a few years from now we’ll look back at the first decade of the 21st century — when food prices spiked, energy prices soared, world population surged, tornados plowed through cities, floods and droughts set records, populations were displaced and governments were threatened by the confluence of it all — and ask ourselves: What were we thinking? How did we not panic when the evidence was so obvious that we’d crossed some growth/climate/natural resource/population redlines all at once?
These people honestly and truly believe this stuff.
Unfortunately, this agenda is even represented in the highest levels of our own government.
Barack Obama's top science advisor, John P. Holdren, once wrote the following....
"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."
Holdren also believes that compulsory abortion would be perfectly legal under the U.S. Constitution....
“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.”
The following are 8 more quotes that show the mindset that a lot of these population control advocates have....
#1 Microsoft's Bill Gates....
"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."
#2 U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg....
"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."
#3 David Rockefeller....
"The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident."
#4 Jacques Cousteau....
"In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day."
#5 Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh....
"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."
#6 David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club....
"Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license ... All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."
#7 Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger....
"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
#8 Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12....
"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
When you believe that the earth has way too many people, human life becomes cheap, and abortion becomes a way to get rid of undesirables.
According to a recent article in the Daily Mail, thousands of "abnormal" babies are now being selectively aborted in the UK each year....
Thousands of pregnancies were aborted last year for ‘abnormalities’ including 500 for Down’s syndrome, new figures reveal.
In total, there were 2,290 abortions for medical problems with the foetus, with 147 performed after 24 weeks.
In a world that is "overpopulated", babies that are not "perfect" become more "disposable" than ever.
In fact, the truth is that the population control agenda and the "abortion rights movement" have been inseparably linked for decades. Those that are obsessed with "overpopulation" view abortion as a very necessary method of birth control, and one of their main goals is to expand access to "reproductive health care" to as many women around the globe as possible.
But in the end, our "voluntary" actions are not going to be nearly enough to reduce the population and most population control advocates realize that. Many of them are openly calling for a "benevolent" global authority to take charge to lead us through the "necessary" transition that is ahead.
In a previous article, I described the type of world that the radical population control advocates see for our future....
Imagine going to sleep one night and waking up many years later in a totally different world. In this futuristic world, literally everything you do is tightly monitored and controlled by control freak bureaucrats in the name of "sustainable development" and with the goal of promoting "the green agenda". An international ruling body has centralized global control over all human activity. What you eat, what you drink, where you live, how warm or cold your home can be and how much fuel you can use is determined by them. Anyone that dissents or that tries to rebel against the system is sent off for "re-education". The human population is 90 percent lower than it is today in this futuristic society, and all remaining humans have been herded into tightly constricted cities which are run much like prisons.
This is the endgame for the radical green agenda. In order to save the earth, they feel as though they must dramatically reduce our numbers and very tightly control our activities.
But is that the kind of a future that anyone would actually want to live in? Would anyone actually choose to live in a future where bureaucrats micromanage our lives for the good of the environment?
Personally, I think that the 7 billion people on earth would do just fine if they were given a lot more liberty and freedom to live their own lives as they see fit.
But letting people decide how to run their own lives is anathema to those that have bought into the population control agenda of the global elite.
They actually believe that they are smarter than all of the rest of us and that they need to tell us what to do for the good of humanity and for the good of the planet.
This patronizing approach should truly sicken all freedom-loving Americans.
So what do you think of the population control agenda of the global elite?
Please feel free to leave a comment with your opinion below....
To all the people advocating population control:
You first!
Fine….I’ve decided not to breed and population control/management is a good idea.
It is either some form of control for humanity to live within its means (finite energy, resources, water, etc) or an uncontrolled population collapse.
The planet is finite and as a concept you don’t seem to get that. Also are you willing to share your resources, or is the whole of the US sharing its resources with the extra hundreds of millions? Most certainly not as those that have will not share.
I’ll leave decisions about sharing resources, and extent of, humanity to God. Rather do that than some government bureaucrat or some wacked out environmentalist.
You beat me to it, hognutz!
This makes me think about a bumper sticker that had a Mother Theresa quote “Saying there are too many people is like saying there are too many flowers.” I admire her, but what a stupid quote. Any gardener, like myself, will tell you that packing tons and tons of seedlings into a limited space will result in sickly, diseased, over-crowded plants.
The author says it’s insane to talk about eliminating 90% of the population. I think it’s insane to deny the adverse effects that our mushrooming population has had on the planet. The thing is, WE ALREADY HAVE POPULATION CONTROL. War, disease, famine, basically the competition for resources limits any population,whether rabbits or humans. Humans figured out how to dig up oil and convert that energy into industrial agriculture, thus allowing our population to bloom like a red tide in the past 100 yrs. You can either have population control thru disease, competition, stress and overcrowding, or you can have it some voluntary more humane way like birth control. It’s more humane than famine, even if it is involuntary. NOTE: I’m not supporting mandatory sterilization. There has to be a compromise between “kill everyone” and “more people are good for the planet”. Maybe giving people cash to get fixed? But then only rich people would reproduce. Lottery system? I don’t know. We will never be able to agree on a rational system of population reduction, so we will end up letting the forces of war, famine and disease keep our population in check.
How can you not see that we are hurting the Earth? We could never sustain these numbers without oil. When it runs out, people will die off and maybe those left will grow up in a culture that teaches them to respect both Our Father in Heaven, and Mother Earth who gives us everything we have. As a nature-loving hippie/conspiracy theorist, I get so frustrated with conservative preppers, libertarians and conspiracy theorists who seem to have no regard for caring for the poor, or for Nature. I’m sorry, I love this blog, but the author is very wrong on this count. This anti-NWO movement needs more nature-loving, anti-racism bleeding hearts to balance it out.
in fact, I have never written a comment on an online article until today, that’s how pissed off I am by people showing no regard for the other species on our planet, and no regard for common sense or logic. sorry, getting too angry i guess.
Sarah:
I thought I was advocating for the poor. It is the global elite that want to sterilize them all (or worse).
Michael
So if this is humane, who should make these decisions? How would they make these decisions?
No matter what the problem is more people make it worse. I never drive to work and say to my self “self-there is not enough traffic, I think we need more people”
I would love there to be WAY less people, however, I do not know an ethical way to accomplish this. Therefore I have to agree with Michael’s premise that the elites, in addition to not paying their fair share want the poor dead.
Maybe the rich elites need to be *****************. They should watch the video of his demise. This is what happens to those who keep people down. I am sure they would come around to sharing their wealth fairly quickly.
I think I agree with the first poster that they who want it should lead by example.
I don’t see anything wrong with education on birth control, or even standards for having children. I see many parents in the world whom should not be allowed to even have children, and make horrible parents. Now I don’t believe mass sterilization is the answer, but education is never a bad thing. What is the authors answer then to our proven scientifically over populated planet? If it continues like this, good bye civilization and resources as we know it. Are you really ok with that?
Hey I actually liked brave new world.
Population of 1 billion.
Check out this podcast from the financial sense news hour about Agenda 21. It explains very clearly what “sustainable development” and Agenda 21 are all about. Dr Michael Coffman leads the discussion:
http://www.financialsense.com/financial-sense-newshour/guest-expert/2011/09/03/m-coffman-t-deweese-m-shaw-h-lamb/global-governance-and-agenda-21
And also check out: http://overpopulationisamyth.com/
Population control, or carry on as normal, what a choice. Put simply, 7 billion is not a problem, 7 billion individuals to feed and sustain is not a problem for this planet. The problem is that those 7 billion are humans. Greedy, self obsessed humans. Driven by the need to own and control, we are not a species that looks to make 7 billion work, we run a system that looks to make 1 work, the single self unit, as opposed to the collective.
This is a major factor in famine, starvation, disease spread and infant mortality rates. We, in reality, dont care about major parts of the world. We point, and say ‘how sad’, but ultimately we do not give a damn. Enforced sterilisation of course sounds horrific, but would that not be preferable to sustaining a system that means the majority of those born into certain countries are doomed to an existence of ‘want’, of struggling for the basics of food and water, before being wiped out by what ever disease decides to camp down in the local region? We might be horrified by the ideas of controlling numbers, but equally we should be horrified with ourselves, for the system we have created and the suffering we encourage with it.
As I read the article, I kept thinking that there’s a problem with both alternatives.
Thanks for offering a perspective that balances out the issue.
In 2050 there will be 9 billion people on earth. Bye bye “500 million” doomprophets.
2050? Really? I predict by 2020 we will have 10 billion!
Personally I think there is way too much government on the planet. Let’s dump the UN.
@hognutz – very good point. No one will ever take the lead on this concept. Any sane person would rather not be the genocidal example for this day and age. If they are serious about reducing the population, they will have to do it by force.
The talk is one thing, the actions are another. The chatter from some people who would like this to happen (such as Gary who frequents this board) is absolutely sickening, but realistically speaking, this is as likely to happen as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad converting to Judaism. We’ll all be baked from World War 54 before they dwindle the population down by 95%.
They have already taken massive action to reduce the population and they control many ways to reduce it quickly.
Bill Gates is pushing for a 90% vaccination rate worldwide, but vaccines are loaded with toxic chemicals and metals, many of which are known to cause serious health problems, sterility, and death.
They have poisoned our food supply (corn, soy, etc.) with GMO’s, which leads to sterility.
They can modify weather with HAARP and generate Earthquakes, such as Japan’s 9.1 quake, which created a deadly tsunami that damaged the nuclear reactors and released massive radiation.
They could introduce a pandemic to wipe out the population quickly.
They control the IMF and Central Banks in almost every country, meaning they control the economy. With the E.U. and U.S. poised to collapse, our infrastructure will also collapse and MANY people will die from lack of food and water.
And their puppet Barry keeps pushing wars with Islamic countries, with Syria most likely being the next victim. Pretty soon these Islamic countries will attack Israel, or Israel will attack Iran, both of which would draw the U.S. into the battle… which would draw Russia into the battle… which would… you get the picture.
Henry Kissinger once used the phrase “Useless Eaters” to describe some human beings. What is interesting is the lifestyle lived by the advocates of population reduction and their individual use of global resources. Looking at the bigger picture one can see the push towards communism for the masses (of course not them). Here is a pie, this is our LARGE piece, now children you share the rest equally.
To understand this, one must know Adam Weishaupt was, as well as what the Illuminati are, or what the Bilderbergers are, or the role of the freemasons in the world in the past 200 years. If you do not know what a jacobin or a sabbatini is, you are just part of the lost text messaging crowd.
The immoral and unnecessary war of choice in Iraq did not happen by accident. Just ask William Kristol, or Kagan, or Krauthammer.
On May 12, 1996, Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes asked Secretary of State Madeleine Albright about the result of U.S. sanctions against Iraq:
“We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright replied “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.”
It’s worth noting that on 60 Minutes, Albright made no attempt to deny the figure given by Stahl–a rough rendering of the preliminary estimate in a 1995 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report that 567,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died as a result of the sanctions.
Of course many more Iraqis died from the Bush Illuminati puppets Gulf War and the Iraq war.
It’s amazing how casually we treat deaths in another country. Where was the outcry for these innocent people?
Unfortunately these plans by the global elite have been brewing for generations. This is old news to some people (a minority).
Great article. I hope that anyone who advocates green energy understands the motives behind the actions of these elites. Forcing Americans to use particular light bulbs and to keep their home temperatures at a certain level is just the tip of the iceberg. These people won’t stop until government controls how many children you have. I say, less government, more freedom! Give me liberty or give me death!
The joke’s on us Thomas. The elite have many ways of ‘reducing the population’.
They pressure people to use Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs to save energy, but CFL’s have been shown to increase headaches/migraines and cause cancer.
If they are broken in your house, mercury is released, which is toxic to your body.
And if they’re not disposed of properly and just thrown in the trash, mercury will be released at the landfills, which makes it way into our drinking water.
But how many people have actually died from these lightbulbs?
A long way to go to get to 6.5 billion people.
Thanks for this informative article. My stance on the matter is that the vaccination programs, the introduction of GMOs and water fluoridation are part and parcel of a fascist agenda that has been ongoing since Nazi scientists were “recruited” via Operation Paperclip. Eugenics and elitism seem to go together like two eggs in a pan. I also agree that the recent widespread availability of abortion came out of this mindset. In my humble opinion, the number of children one brings into this world should be up to parents, not governments or agencies. That said, I believe people should be just as free to practice birth control and to terminate unwanted pregnancies as to have large families. That is not to say that abortion should in any way be encouraged, but it should be safely available for those instances in which the alternative would be more cruel. If you research the long history of birth control, you will find that it has roots not in the agenda of fascists like Sanger, but in the work of midwives and herbalists. Governments should not dictate these choices any more than they should dictate family size. As someone who understands the nefarious agenda of the power elite, my position on this matter may differ from that of other informed people. Nevertheless, it is based on love of liberty and profound respect for life. Thanks for listening.
You are probably too young to remember polio, but I thank God for vaccinations. Watch a video of someone in an iron-lung sometime.
The problem isn’t just population but consumption per capita. For example, the U.S. has less than 5 pct of the world’s population but consumes up to 25 pct of world oil production, part of it needed to power up more than one-third of the world’s passenger cars.
Problem? That is directly related to a high standard of living. I don’t know about you but I like a high standard of living.
It’s a problem because even if you decrease global population considerably you will still have overshoot.
“Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature…”
Huh?! There’s about 6,500,000,000 people who have something to say about that.
Not after they are killed by the 500,000,000 who have all the weapons and control all the food.
These people beleive in this as they have no other faith/beliefs. Oddly, though, they want others to die or not be born. I say to them, if you wnat us to die off, then, you first!!. Most of them are elitists with great resources that can live long lives. A sort of Calvinism to its logical end. A good program to lsiten to (Met Ahlquist, nice chap) http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/dload1.asp?audiofile=chesterton13.mp3&source=file_index.asp&seriesID=6140&T1=
Calvinism to it’s logical end? I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. Please elaborate.
http://ewtn.edgeboss.net/download/ewtn/audiolibrary/chesterton13.mp3
Over population of the Earth is a myth.
Give everyone on the Earth 1 & 1/2 acres of land to sustain themselves and the current world population would all fit within the land area of Russia (not including its former satellite states)
Do the math.
The ruling class is forever creating crises so that it can justify its own existance and grab more money and power.
Hitler was a great student of Margaret Sanger and her colleagues. We know how that ended.
So we can farm Siberia? LOL. Just kidding.
Jeremy,
I’ve actually been to Siberia and seen the dark rich soil. And, yes, if Canada and Alaska are productive farmlands we could apply the same agriculture techniques in Siberia.
до свидания
Michael here is additional supporting evidence of the Global Depopulation plan:
“The US has a shocking conspiracy.” from September 27 to October 1, 1995, the Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachëv Foundation, funded by the United States, gathered 500 of the world’s most important statesmen, economic leaders and scientists, including George W. Bush (he was not the US president at the time), the Baroness Thatcher, Tony Blair, Zbigniew Brzezinski, as well as George Soros, Bill Gates, futurist John Naisbitt, etc., all of the world’s most popular characters, in the San Francisco Fairmont hotel for a high-level round table conference, discussing problems about globalization and how to guide humanity to move forward into the 21st century. the outstanding people of the world in attendance thought that in the 21st century a mere 20% of the world’s population will be sufficient to maintain the world’s economy and prosperity, the other 80% or 4/5 of the world’s population will be human garbage unable to produce new values. The people in attendance thought that this excess 80% population would be a trash population and “high-tech” means should be used to eliminate them gradually.”
http://projectcamelot.org/lang/en/anglo_saxon_mission_presentation_transcript_en.html
“One of the key parts of this manifesto for this new world is that there should be a population of 500 million people. Now, 500 million people is an enormous reduction from the nearly 7 billion that we’ve got at the moment. That’s pretty much 95% of people who would no longer be on this planet. And 50% is a step towards that, and there’s a reason why they’re doing all of this. There’s a reason why they’re in a hurry. There’s a reason for this insanity.”
Finally reference the Georgia guide stones which advocate Global depopulation to a population of less than 500 million.
hognutz,
To you I say, me first? Heck yeah. I have no children, do not want any children, and unless forced or tricked into it somehow, will not have any children.
Michael,
Another anti-abortion rant, more or less. While the global elite has schemes undreamed of for control of this, control of that, the truth is, more or less, the world is overpopulated. People complain about rising poverty, rising unemployment which is one road to poverty, scarcity of food with food banks running out of fresh stocks, and somehow, through all of these maladies we get to the conclusion that somehow bringing more babies into the world is the answer? Now I will be the first to say that I have no common cause with the heinous schemes that globalists have in mind, but people should be encouraged to have fewer children. Somehow the amerikan virtue of extremely large families is an anachronism of a past that has little relation to the 21st century and should be forgotten. The world is much more different than those days, not to mention much more dangerous than times past.
IN A NUTSHELL:
With a neverending string of corrupt governments and societies, endless war, poverty, famine, disease, and rising income inequality around the world, I do not see the logic with bringing more people into it. The evidence, at this point in time, clearly points to people voluntarily having fewer and fewer children. Should world conditions improve where people, by and large, see the value in a peace dividend and those many maladies previously mentioned are largely eliminated, then a case can be made to increase the world population.
Reed, the world is not overpopulated. According to the U.S.Department of Agriculture the earth can support 19.8 Billion people using “low input agriculture.” That means that number could be possibly doubled or tripled if we used medium or high input agriculture.(60 Billion could be sustained on this planet.)
The problem is not number of people on the earth.
The problem is that the people do not want to live on the earth the way the Creator told them to.
justadad,
I have to seriously question what your thought processes are in your thinking. With the amerikan empire blowing up half the planet through war, the amerikan led United Nations causing misery and mayhem around the world which is leading to mass starvation, and you want to conclude that over 19.8 billion people can be supported with a planet run by the murderous governments currently in place?
There is no doubt that technology could be employed that would eliminate the maladies that I listed. My analysis is based on how the world is currently run, not on some theory of what could be. As I said in my response that if current trends are reversed and the ills of the world eliminated, (war, famine, disease, etc.) then a case could be made for increasing world population. Until then, my analysis stands.
The U.S.D.A. determined those numbers, not I.
They also came to the same conclusion you came to: it all boils down to the political will of the people.
No technology or medicine can cure the worst malady on the face of the planet: the darkness of the human heart.
My last statement still stands, and whether there are only 2 people on the planet or 20 billion, if we don’t acknowledge that we are but stewards to a Higher Being, we are doomed.
and you think traffic is bad now and you seriously want more people? Are you sane?
I think those shows that highlight large families are sickening.
Ok Mr. Reed, you know, I think I can agree with you that the world is corrupt, but I also think that if you actually had a child, someone who you a responsible for, I think you might have a different opinion about them. I think you might actually start trying to make the world a better place to live in…not just condemning those who have kids, saying that the world is overpopulated. Yes the World is at war with itself but don’t you think that if everyone Stopped looking out for their on selfish ‘wants’ and started to take action for those who they are responsible for, then our priorities might change quite a bit, and there would be so much less corruption?
Population, weather and agriculture – are they related?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d93_1207319140
Don’t forget Mr. Turner’s comments.
Hope ya’ll are paying rapt attention to whats going on in the atmosphere. It seems to me these destructionists behind the environment’s decline are betting that the people are too drugged (by illegal and legal drug pushers) and too dependant on electronic devices for their news and education to observe and pay attention to the real environment.
Would not be suprized to read in mainstream media in near future
“GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE MAY CAUSE WIDESPEAD FAMINE” with little to no acknowledgement of the deliberate manipulation of the atmosphere and disruption of natural weather systems. And if there is some obligatory admittance to geo-engineering it will be portayed as a benevolent means to mediate the so called “climate change”. Anyone that has lived long enough and is paying attention can’t deny the obvious havoc the ramped up atmospheric manipulation is having on our good earth. It wasn’t too long ago that starry nights and sunny skies were quite the norm and you’de know that unless you were born yesterday, so to speak. I suppose what we’ll be told is that earth’s decline is due to too many people using up limited resources, resources that are limited not by unsustainable populations but by the few who hold the keys to the seed vault.
Look at the history behind some of these people, like Sanger and you will see where they get their narrow minded worldview perception.
Far from humanitarians or lovers of this beautiful and bountiful world their worldviews speak volumes as followers of the most unGodly-like people that ever roamed this planet.
The lot of them best described in a word as misanthropists, or in modern parlance, “haters” of their own kind, These dealers-of-death permit the collateral damage of flora and fauna in order to obtain their personal ideology in a world of fewer people. Ought to have their heads examined.
Thankfully, some mainstream media heads are gently, so as not to step too hard on their masters toes, beginning to discuss that climate change may not be what we’ve been led to believe.
For those that thought Oh beautiful for spacious skies and amber waves of grain, for purple mountains majesty above the fruited plain exists only on the electronic screen suggest you get to know the writings of Hal Borland, for one.
It’s the typical obsession with controlling the “lower orders” — never mind that as standards of living and levels of women’s education and economic empowerment go up, birth rates go down, that doesn’t involve power and authority, so it’s not good enough. The elites are elite only as long as the groundlings are kept in their subordinate places, because to them status is a zero-sum game.
When millions of people are killed by wars, civil unrest, the elite get richer. Someone has to die or get laid off for the average worker to get his bonus and pay raise. Someone has to die for the economy to get better and for more “good jobs” to be made available. People have to die for the centralized food distribution systems to make food available to everyone at a low price. That’s the way this sick, twisted economic pyramid scheme is rigged. The bottom tiers always hold up the top layers. The bottom has to die off… game over, repeat. The middle class won’t care that masses of people die off in order for them to enjoy the finer things in life. I hate to be so generalistic. I’m middle class as well. But not for long. The game is rigged to drag me into poverty. There just ain’t enough money in the system and there NEVER will be! Money (FRNs, a created thing) always, always filters its way back to the top to the very ones who created it out of thin air. What people need is freedom. If Chinese citizens had freedom of movement they wouldn’t have population problems. This article is the most disturbing yet.
That’s why these vaccines they want to push on our children are so dangerous. We don’t know what they do or what’s in them
How about getting of the old and infirm. The drains on society.
If any groups can be considered “useless eaters” it’s the political class and the “elite” in this country. Let’s start the ball rolling by sterilizing all politicians and elitists and then impose strict limits on how long they’re allowed to live before being euthanized for obsolescence. See if they sing the same eugenics tune then.
It is clear that there are too many people, and simply speaking there are not enough jobs for them.
Having much fewer people will at least reduce the strain borne by the Earth.
The world did fine when it had 100 million people or so ; and , the people back then were more intelligent than today.
I wouldn’t really miss 90% of the world’s population. I have no descendants so at least I can say that I didn’t contribute to it.
Do you read what you write?
The world did fine when there were no people too. Personally I care about “The People”.
You might want to apply for a job with the NWO. You a fan of Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin?
Yeah. And the world was the most pristine when there was only Adam and Eve inhabiting it.
Who exactly are the elite you are talking about? Anyway, eugenics is already taking place in Africa; big pharma’s not giving away any medication to help Africans with AIDS. Also Margaret Sander had always been in favour of eugenics. Historically, blankets laced with a smallpox virus was given to native Americans by the British in the 19th century.
There is no ends to the lengths these power hungry capitalists will go to have it all their own way. Power to the people
Come on now, this is insane and paranoid. It’s conspiracy theoriests like you which make our political environment so toxic.
I mean, you probably couldn’t show me even ONE time in history where some “elite” in government killed a lot of people because “they” wanted to control people.
This kind of thing is just terrible hate-mongering from tinfoil hate wearing morons and I…
Ah screw it, I can’t play the libtard anymore. Yeah, I’m thinking a big plague (or two) could probably accomplish that goal for them. Strange, I could have sworn that kind of thing was mentioned in the last part of some really old book I have sitting on my nightstand at home.
You almost had me going there for a second
Michael
God will have the final say….after all it is HIS planet!!
To me, this is right wing fringe craziness.
For the elite to consider reducing our population, first I think they would need to acknowledge that we exist. I think many of them barely acknowledge the existence of anyone who exists outside their circle. Second, for this proposal to work, the elite must be capable of thinking long-term. History has proven again and again that the elite are very lousy at this.
So, no, I am not buying this.
Back in 1999 the US Census Bureau projected a US population of 1 Billion by end of this century, I think it will reach a billion more quickly than that. Third World demographics are making the US a 3rd world country and 3rd world countries overpopulate.
England already is way overpopulated yet through immigration it will add another 25% in a few short years.
Ask yourself if you look forward, or your children or grandchildren, living in a majority 3rd World nation, with crowding beyond your present understanding and all fighting for food and potable water.
You don’t have to die to go to hell, hell will be where you are…
Take a look at The Venus Project. The whole thing is about ‘sustainable population’ and controlled environment. Horrible!
M:
Yes, my oh my…. By any means, make sure that we don’t do anything sustainable! That would be outright… sensible?
Are the PC’ers (Popluation Controllers) supportive or non-supportive of celibacy for Catholic clergy, nuns, and unmarried laity ?
The population is as big as it is because of the Green Revolution and fertilizers. But we’ve just about maxed out the results of the Green Revolution and Peak Oil is staring us in the face.
So stop condeming people who see the problem (and who are NOT advocating reducing the population by 90%).
You wrote: “…Sadly, this kind of garbage is even being taught at major U.S. universities. For example, Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka once wrote the following….I do not bear any ill will toward people. However, I am convinced that the world, including all humanity, WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us.”
I didn’t see where Pianka advocated reducing the population by 90%.
This is the most idiotic post yet. 2 Billion people on this earth go to bed hungry every day. We can’t even take care of the people we have on this planet now never mind adding more.
Food prices are rising rapidly around the world as there are barely enough stocks to keep up. Fisheries are disappearing at an alarming rate. Water shortages are rampant even in the first world USA. We are sitting on the peak oil plateau. The idea that resource depletion and devastation of the environment is not related to how many people are on the planet is straight from Fox News talking points. It lacks common sense.
And birth control doesn’t “get rid of us”. The “elite” are not unique in recognizing that there is a sustainable level of fertility. It is well documented that the more educated a society is the lower the birth rate even among right wing whackos who think it is their right to consume everything in sight. You advocate that we all should be like “Octomom” while millions starve.
I suspect that you just write posts like this to get people riled up. Otherwise, I am more worried than ever about the state of our society.
acam:
I couldn’t agree more.
A couple of thoughts: Nature has proven time and time again that when you winnow your genetic diversity options down to only a select few, it is much easier for complete species extinction.
Second thought is that there are not too many people currently alive…just currently too many of them are selfish idiots who are sucking the life out of the planet all at the same time. A little common sense on how to use resources would go a long way … like stop using the ocean as a garbage can.
And when they are weaning the population down to 100,000,000, I hope they use India’s and China’s population genetic selective process as a guide…there will be 14 females and 99,999,986 males on the planet. Let’s see how long they last then.
If we just outlawed technology, we would have enough jobs for everyone. Nothing like hoeing a field or walking 20 miles to church to slim that gut right down, and then we’d be back to natural selection….but oh, no, they want the world to be only 100,000,000 and be totally comfy on top of it.
KB:
How many not insane persons on the planet would vote for outlawing technology (which covers pretty much)? 1 or 2?
Why not try to act a bit serious?
I’ll bet a ten man **************** team could inflict just the right amount of population control needed on this planet.
If anyone wants to know what the elite have in store for the useless eaters you can hear Lindsey Williams latest interviews on theenergynoncrisis.com where he details their plans for 2012. Enjoy!
Nature, or some natural disaster will cull the herd. Modern humans have been extremely lucky, we haven’t seen a VEI 8 volcanic eruption in hundreds of thousands of years. Also, we have not seen an asteroid of 4 mi. in diameter or greater strike the earth for tens of millions of years. If either of these happen, there will likely be fewer than 1 million people left worldwide.
The scariest quote in the bunch for me was:
“The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”
WHO would give the official “okay” for someone to have a child? The egotism that is involved with this thought process is beyond me.
If there really is a plan to reduce the population by 90%, I’m not sure I would want to be a survivor. Can you imagine the stench and decay that would curse the Earth for years after something like that? Yuck.
this scribbling is too stupid to deserve detailed discussion.
—
STOP ” Polluting the Earth with these creatures, who have no future. They have no future! Have you pictured what this planet is going to be like in 40-50 years? It’s going to be a big smoking ball of **********! ” (George Carlin)
Think I’m gonna move to Mars.
There’s communists there too? ****************. So that’s why they call it the Red Planet.
If you do a little math calculation you will find that you can stick each person in the state of Texas and give them 1200 square feet of land. That is about the average size of a small house in America. That leaves the rest of the planet open. So there really is not a population problem. Most of the citizens have been indocrinated with this propaganda in the public school and it is just crap. All the countries in the world produce more than enough food to supply the entire planet. Quit listening to the lies. God would not put his creation on a planet and then no provide for them. That would be contrary to His nature. The people we see starving in third world countries are not starving because there is not enough food, it is because of their corrupt governments.
Amen, brother!
I went to college in 1992-1996 and even then we were brainwashed with these lies. I even bought into them because what does a college kid know besides what his ultra-liberal brain-dead professors teach him? But who am I to make a war against the powerful elite?
We should pray that they change their ways. And if not, then pray for protection against their evil ways. G-d willing we will be able to see (and experience) 100 billion people in our time living in peace and prosperity! (G-d says that when the World to Come comes on Earth (not in heaven) each woman will give birth to 10 babies at a time). How’s that a “kick in the head” to all the global elites?
“All the countries in the world produce more than enough food to supply the entire planet.”
Take away all the non-renewable energy and other resources used for producing, storing and transporting food (including gasoline, plastics, fertilizers, insecticides, garbage treatment aso.), and see how much food will be left!
Take every human on earth and lay them side-by-side and end to and they’ll cover the entire state of Rhode Island. That’s right…do the math. If the “Ultra-Liberals” think we’re too crowded…then move. Lots of open area in Africa.
The aids virus was introduced into Africa and administered by the World Health organization. The aids virus, like the anthrax virus was made in a US DOD lab. Vaccines have been forced on some African citizens in some parts of Africa at gun point.In my town in S.C. we habve sustainable development in many of the apartment complexes.
The best way to achieve population control is for all the people who think there are too many people on our world, is for them to take a trip to San Francisco and jump off the Golden Gate Bridge. That way the Sun will truly shine upon their dead ass…. then add the ones left on the list above to your favorite gift list and pray for God to give us an opportunity to **************** them…..preferably from far enough away to avoid splatter……
Live long and prosper….
Definitely too many Leftist/Libetards on the plant. A 95% reduction of their number would indeed make the world a better place. You first Libtards.
I think the same of people on the right. We would be so much more evolved as a nation with out conservatives holding us back and wanting to have us live like it is the 1800″s.
I guess we are stuck with each other as I am 100% sure I am correct and you are probably 100% that you are correct. (your wrong BTW
************* yourself moron,,,,that would be a great start
God made the earth for man not man for the earth. If we lived as He intended we would never lack for resources no matter how populated the planet would become. When will these Godless people who think they are soooo smart figure this out.
i like your outlook,too bad there aren’t more who see it
Okay; some of you folks may have been waiting to hear what “Bible believers” have to say: “The wisdom of this world is foolishness to God.” (1st. Corinthians 3:19.) A lot of the world’s people go to bed hungry every night; but the elitist, godless “solutions” proposed by the deep thinkers of this world are detestable madness. Utter, evil, foolishness. And don’t fret…the way things are going; you won’t need to worry about population control.
Is it possible that a population control mechanism has already been enacted and is well under way? Rumor has it that GMO crops contain proteins that produce antibodies to sperm. Could this be the cause of the inexplicable drop in teen pregnancy rates? Here’s a story of hamsters going extinct after 3 generations of GMO soy:
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/233726-Genetically-Modified-Soy-Linked-to-Sterility-Infant-Mortality-in-Hamsters
If they do it right, North America could be reduced to New York, California and Mexico City.
The rest of the country could just go back to nature. Ted Turner would have no need for his 750,000 acres. Europe could decide which countries to eliminate Russia might survive, Kill off everyone outside of Beiging and Shanghai in China. The Rockefeller brothers can shut down their oil empire.
The elite, who won’t want to die, will need to discover ways to feed themselves. Money isn’t very nutritious. Our perfessors can draw straws to see who gets to migrate to the remaining population centers if any are allowed.
Use the neutron bomb to eliminate the rest. What a world it would be. Eliminate the middle east where the population explosion continues. Let them eat sand. I wonder how things would be with New York and California already on the rocks. What a bunch of idiots.
Is Hitler still alive? Sure sounds like it.
My goodness! Hitler? Did he work against overpopulation? From what I know, he (or his party) banned both contraception and abortion!
It seems like some (the stupidest?) among us just have a strange urge to mention “Hitler”, “racism”, “bigot(ry)” etc. every time they stumple upon something they disagree on or do not understand. No matter what those words actually mean. That irritates me a great deal.
hitler hitler Hitler hitler there i said hitler happy now? he killed millions! hitler was evil! if he banned abortion he made up for it by killing millions! obama is the new hitler and the elites are still killing millions! look in 3rd world countries where there is plenty of food yet the people still starve, thats beyond me!
hitler supported the birth of youth. he started Hitler Youth which meant that he could brain wash the youth with his crazy ideas.
Excellent synopsis.
‘Thanks to technology, they only need a few hundred million people to run their system, and they view the rest of us as “useless eaters”.’ That’s it in a nutshell.
It is documented fact that it was United States policy to pursue population control in 2nd and 3rd-world countries that contained natural resources valuable to the U.S. – precisely because less people put up less of a fight when they’re taken.
The whole of population control propaganda is based on Malthusianism, a thoroughly discredited theory.
http://www.catholicthinker.net/blog/2011/2/27/malthusian-nonsense.html
‘Thanks to technology, they only need a few hundred million people to run their system, and they view the rest of us as “useless eaters”.’
Yes, that is absolutely correct. The “useless eaters” are at the bottom of the economic pyramid food chain. They are unfundable liabilities and must be eliminated. There is no other way to fund the desired lifestyle of those at or near the top of the pyramid. The beast devours.
For those who believe that the earth needs a reduction in its population, God created all of us and there is plenty of room for as many people asn He WILLS.
To Quote:
Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger….
“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
#8 Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12….
“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”
—
Translation: Kill all Black people in America. If you are of the Black/African race, you will demand the U.S. government to close down and make illegal all activities of Planned Parenthood.
Maggott Sanger definatly hated black people, but that won’t be enough for these devouring elitists. For one thing, Blacks are a minority in America. If you’re going to kill 80% or more, you need to kill more than a minority.
Of course, these fools won’t stop until there are no useless eaters and all they have left is to kill each other, until the last one is standing and falls on his sword. This won’t occur before the methods they use poison and radiate the entire environment so that only their GMO bacteria will survive.
I guess we can see now why Jesus said that if those days were not shortened, no flesh would survive.
~~ Come Lord Jesus ~~
Dear Editor,
May I please have permission to copy and post this article on my website, which contains much related material? See the article below for example.
The Millennium Development Goals and the Critical Next Step for the Catholic Church
Thank you