They Love Death

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

Have you ever known someone that loves death?  When someone truly is in love with death, it can take that person to a very dark place.  Unfortunately, there are a growing number of scientists, politicians and global opinion makers that believe that we must reduce the size of the human population for the good of the planet.  They are convinced that humanity is causing global warming, killing off other species and making this planet unlivable.  In their quest to save the future of the planet, they are becoming bolder and bolder with their calls for population control.  They love death because they believe that it will help save the earth.  They figure that with less humans around, there will be less carbon emissions, less pollution and more room for other species.  So how will this be achieved?  Well, as you will read about in the rest of this article, “after-birth abortions”, “mobile euthanasia teams”, “sperm-destroying ultrasound technology” and putting contraceptives in the tap water are just some of the ways that are being proposed to reduce current human numbers.  This hatred of life and love of death is being taught in colleges and universities all over the western world, and this population control philosophy is becoming increasingly dominant with each passing year.


I realize that the idea of “mobile euthanasia teams” may sound like something out of a science fiction movie, but the truth is that this is not just a “pie in the sky” concept.

In fact, in the Netherlands six mobile euthanasia teams are now going door-to-door to help elderly patients end their lives in the comfort of their own homes.

The following description of this program comes from a recent article in The Independent….

The project, which has provoked sharp criticism from doctors, is the brainchild of the Dutch largely donor-funded Right to Die NL. It follows the government’s 2002 decision to legalise euthanasia, making the Netherlands the first country in the world to do so. Walburg de Jong, a spokeswoman for the organisation said that since the ruling some 3,100 assisted suicides had been carried out annually. The mobile euthanasia teams, she said, operated free of charge and were designed to make it easier for patients enduring interminable suffering to end their lives.

Can you imagine your grandparents getting a visit someday from a mobile euthanasia team?

But it is not just the elderly that are being targeted for death.

Two scientists recently made headlines all over the world when they released a paper calling for the legalization of ”after-birth abortion”.

Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia and Francesca Minerva of the University of Melbourne co-authored an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics entitled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

In their paper, they argue that a baby is just a “potential person” and that “killing a newborn should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

Giubilini and Minerva argue that just because a baby is human does not mean that it has any rights.  The follow quote is from their paper….

“Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal”

Giubilini and Minerva also believe that the “burden” placed on the family and on society by a new baby must be given precedence when it comes to matters of live and death.  The following is another quote from their paper….

“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole…On these grounds, the fact that a foetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion.”

Giubilini and Minerva insist that “after-birth abortions” would have a lot of advantages.

For example, approximately a third of all babies with Down syndrome are not diagnosed in the womb.  After-birth abortions would take care of that “problem” by allowing mothers to “terminate” those children after they have been born.

Other scientists aren’t just concerned about giving the elderly and new mothers more “choices”.  Many are now advocating the implementation of strict global measures to reduce the human population for the sake of the environment.

For example, Colorado State University Professor Philip Cafaro recently released a paper entitled “Climate Ethics and Population Policy”.  In that paper, Cafaro declared that humans are committing “interspecies genocide” and that therefore it is imperative to reduce our numbers….

“Scientists now speak of humanity’s increased demands and impacts on the globe as ushering in a new geological epoch: the Anthropocene. Such selfish and destructive appropriation of the resources of the Earth can only be described as interspecies genocide.”

For Cafaro, simply stopping the growth of the human population on earth is not enough.  He says that in order to prevent “catastrophic global climate change” we are going to have to “significantly” reduce the size of the global population….

“Ending human population growth is almost certainly a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for preventing catastrophic global climate change. Indeed, significantly reducing current human numbers may be necessary in order to do so.”

Unfortunately, a love of death is now widespread at U.S. colleges and 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.

Population control is something that Bill Gates has been putting a lot of funding into as well.  The following example comes from a recent Natural News article….

Mass vaccination is apparently not the only depopulation strategy being employed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, as new research funded by the organization has developed a way to deliberately destroy sperm using ultrasound technology. BBC News reports that the Gates Foundation awarded a grant to researchers from the University of North Carolina (UNC) to develop this new method of contraception.

For their study, the UNC team tested ultrasound on lab rats and found that two 15-minute doses “significantly reduced” both sperm counts and sperm integrity. When administered two days apart through warm salt water, ultrasound caused the rats’ sperm counts to drop below ten million sperm per milliliter, which is five million less than the “sub-fertile” range, and stay that way for up to six months.

Sadly, it is not just a few scientists and opinion makers that are obsessed with death and population control.

As I have written about previously, the United Nations continues to push Agenda 21 on the entire globe.  The following is how the United Nations defines Agenda 21….

Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.

The United Nations publishes report after report calling for more “global governance” over the environment.  The following comes from a recent Fox News article….

The report, “21 Issues for the 21st Century,” from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) Foresight Process, is the culmination of a two-year deliberative process involving 22 core scientists. It is expected to receive considerable attention in the run-up to the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, which will be held in Rio, Brazil, in June.

The scientists who wrote the report say it focuses on identifying emerging issues in the global environment, and that it is not about mandating solutions.

But its critics see an agenda lurking in its 60 pages, which call for a complete overhaul of how the world’s food and water are created and distributed — something the report says is “urgently needed” for the human race to keep feeding and hydrating itself safely.

But it isn’t just food and water that the United Nations wants control over.

The truth is that the United Nations is absolutely obsessed with the number of people living on the planet.

In a recent report entitled, “Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing” the UN warned about our “unsustainable lifestyles” and of the disastrous impact of population growth….

But what, then, is to be done if we are to make a real difference for the world’s people and the planet? We must grasp the dimensions of the challenge. We must recognize that the drivers of that challenge include unsustainable lifestyles, production and consumption patterns and the impact of population growth. As the global population grows from 7 billion to almost 9 billion by 2040, and the number of middle-class consumers increases by 3 billion over the next 20 years, the demand for resources will rise exponentially. By 2030, the world will need at least 50 percent more food, 45 percent more energy and 30 percent more water — all at a time when environmental boundaries are throwing up new limits to supply. This is true not least for climate change, which affects all aspects of human and planetary health.

We are constantly being told these days that the problem is that there are “too many people” and that if there are less people things will be better.

Members of the U.S. government are even preaching this philosophy.

Just the other day, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was publicly proclaiming that the new requirement that all health insurance plans cover sterilizations and contraceptives will be good for employers and health insurance companies because it will mean less births.  She argued that the savings from less people being born will more than make up for the expense of the sterilizations and the contraceptives.

Sebelius told Congress the following on Thursday….

“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception”

Other members of the Obama administration are preaching the population control gospel as well.  U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has even stated that population control will be a “centerpiece” of U.S. foreign policy from now on.

We even find a love of death in the White House.  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.”

That quote should send a chill up your bones.

In America today, life is considered to be cheap, and that is especially true if you are “disabled” or “defective” in any way.

At one U.S. hospital, a 3-year-old girl named Amelia was recently denied a kidney transplant because she is considered to be “mentally retarded”.

How would you feel if that was your child?

Unfortunately, society continues to move away from the idea that life is inherently valuable and deserves to be preserved.

In fact, many top global opinion makers are openly calling for a dramatic reduction in human numbers.

CNN Founder Ted Turner once said the following….

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

For many more shocking quotes about population control from scientists, politicians and top global opinion makers, just check out this article which I published previously.

The world is becoming a very heartless place.

Those at the top look down on the rest of us as if we were vermin that need to be exterminated.

Increasingly, this sick population control agenda is being preached at us in the mainstream media.  For example, just check out what the editorial page editor of The Detroit News says should be done in Michigan….

Since the national attention is on birth control, here’s my idea: If we want to fight poverty, reduce violent crime and bring down our embarrassing drop-out rate, we should swap contraceptives for fluoride in Michigan’s drinking water.

We’ve got a baby problem in Michigan. Too many babies are born to immature parents who don’t have the skills to raise them, too many are delivered by poor women who can’t afford them, and too many are fathered by sorry layabouts who spread their seed like dandelions and then wander away from the consequences.

Michigan’s social problems and the huge costs attached to them won’t recede until we embrace reproductive responsibility.

He is seriously proposing to put contraceptives into our drinking water?

How can people be so twisted?

Sadly, as I mentioned earlier, this philosophy is being endlessly preached at thousands of colleges and universities all over the world.

The sick adherents of this philosophy love death and are obsessed with controlling the population of the earth.

They are just going to keep pushing their agenda further and further and further.

They truly believe that they must reduce our numbers in order to save the planet.

But in their zeal to “save the earth” they may take all of us to a very, very dark place.

So what is your opinion about all of this?  Please feel free to post a comment below….

  • A Dodgy Bloke

    I don’t think these people love death as much as they are so in love with thier own, class, intelligence, worldview, and believe themselves to be so compassionate. It amazes me that they never look at the unintended consequences of thier prior polices (The Welfare State, globalization, etc.) I don’t think these people are dangerous because they love death. I think these people are dangerous because of thier own arrogance, and delusion.

  • God values every life. Christ would have died for one. “Before you were born, I knew you in your mother’s womb” God

    • Gil

      But babies have to lifted up from the soil to the womb, right?

  • TK

    Folks who try to dismiss the information in this article are insane! These are the cold hard facts, The elite want less of us around, and they are not even trying to hide it any longer!

  • Deeprn

    I think that adoption of ************* would help to population explosion considerably. Rumor has it that Hillary actually followed it thereby only having that one child. It may not be endorsed by Good Housekeeping Magazine, but it certainly is effective

  • r.bitting

    ” But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the frirtfruits of those who have died. For since by man ( Adam ) came death, By man ( Christ ) also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at his coming, Then comes the end, when he delivers the Kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and authority and power. For he must reign until He has put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death… 1 Corinthians 15:20-26…

  • Howdy

    Based on what I have seen in the world (as a healthcare provider) as well as what is shown in the news (i.e. riots over shoes, game consoles, sports events, etc.) the world would be better off with a large number of humans missing.

  • godsofold

    For anyone every wondering in part, why the U.S. is going so crazy, what you’ve read in the article is the end result of most of what is happening. Simply put, they want a vast majority of us gone. Some of the craziness the means to this end.

    Semper Fi

    • laura m.

      godsofold, etc.: I’ve read about population reduction agenda for years; bio weapons would be the ideal method, like this new engineered h5n1 produced in a Denmark lab similar to the one in 1918 recently. Other bio weapons (with an antidote for those in power) are in the works. By now, after reading a book about this in the early 90’s, seems by now they would have done all this.

  • mark

    They have no right to control the amount of children a family can support. If you can feed and take care of your children that is up to you. If you can’t feed your children and you want the taxpayer to feed them then a contraceptive might be in order until you can support more children. Health care is not a right. Transplants are not a right. Someone has to pay for these expensive treatments and I do not read that it is the governments job in the constitution.If we are stuck with Medicare, then it should cover basic hospital care for a sickness. It should not cover things like knee replacements or viagra. If you want these things pay for them yourself. If you can’t afford the new knee, then a wheel chair might be what you might get from the taxpayers. Sorry if this is harsh, but we are broke.

    • Gil

      By the same token if you have too many children and only three make it adulthood while the rest died from malnutrition that’s better than had you only had three children in the first place? Better to live, suffer and die young than to have never lived at all?

  • Nexus789

    The reality is that that earth is finite and its resources are finite. Therefore, given this constraint you would have to be completely stupid to believe that you can infinitely increase population.

    Some soft minded people say that population growth doomsters are wrong and if we ‘shared’ we could support a bigger population and technology will save us. However, there is minor problem with this as humans don’t do sharing – we cannot grow forever but we could alleviate poverty if we were more sharing and caring. Given that 80% of the earths resources are controlled by 5% of the population and the rich countries control 90% of the planets resources. I see a problem with the sharing idea.

    Also no amount of technology will prevent a collapse of civilization as M.K.Hubbert pointed out in his paper if we carry on the way we are going (he alluded to this a couple decades ago in a paper that can be downloaded – Exponential Growth as a Transient Phenomenon in Human History – Nothing has changed so I guess we have a big looming problem.

    The reality is that if we do not control population then circumstances that are outside our control will do the controlling for us in a number of nasty ways. More effectively than any genocidal maniac. An observation is that we do not live long enough – our perspective is always short term and based on personal gratification.

    • “you would have to be completely stupid to believe that you can infinitely increase population”

      Nobody’s saying that. What many people are saying is that its none of your goddam business how many children a couple have, if they can support them.

      And if they can’t support them, then what’s wrong with starvation, hypothermia, lack of medical treatment? That was the controlling factor until the Commies and liberal-lefties created a totalitarian system, which required that the state dictate who should live and who should die.

      I believe that letting nature take its course is better than making humanity into a domesticated species under the control of a tyrannical elite.

      • Chris

        This 100%

      • Gil

        In other words, better have humans acts like rodents – breed up to whatever the infrastructure can withstand, let the excess starve, but have the maximum carrying of humans in every given area.

        • Yes. It’s not pretty, but it’s how humanity lived for the first 200,000 years of its existence. And some societies, at least, engaged in charity to alleviate poverty.

          Today, with knowledge and means of birth control available to all, why should society be burdened with the progeny of the least fit? If people cannot support their own children they should remain childless.

          The alternative is a society of rulers and those in their care: domesticated humans, cattle, slaves.

  • Charles E. Winchester

    “Have you ever known someone that loves death? When someone truly is in love with death, it can take that person to a very dark place. Unfortunately, there are a growing number of scientists, politicians and global opinion makers that believe that we must reduce the size of the human population for the good of the planet.”

    I’d like to cut “Un” out of the last sentence.

    I wonder how it’s possible to misunderstand so compeletely. Well, there may be some of us (those who are advocating for population reduction) that “loves death”. I can’t really speak for others than myself. But I think it’s a reasonable guess that many (if not all) of us are afraid of and wants to avoid untimely death, as well as poverty and misery.

    Both hating and loving death sounds disingenious. But maybe hating it is less sensible than loving it. Death is a natural part of life. A fortiori: Maybe death is a prerequisite for life. Unneccesary suffering is what we (and others should) aim to reduce. Overpopulation is obviously threathening and damaging the earth as well as other regions (countries, cities a.o.). My country is expected to hit the five millions inhabitants mark this month (due to mass immigration), and that worries me enormously. For each day the future seems bleaker, harsher, stranger; less promising and liveable.

    We already see the results of overpopulation. If more have to share the same, there’s surely a risk of conflict. If more have to share less, the risk of conflict will be even greater. We are running out of non-renewable resources at a rate never before seen. The “fantastic” scientific break-troughs which are going to save us, we are constantly being told, seems to be delayed at best.

    This makes me think of a Chinese curse: “May you live in interesting times.”

  • Morgan

    I’m a Georgia Guidestone fan, and I’m fine with this. I remember a less crowded planet, and I liked it better. The human race is crowding out everything else, so hey. HOw many jaguars, cheetah and Florida panthers are left? THE QUAGGA IS EXTINCT (Though they are trying to bring it back via the quagga project), ALONG WITH THE DODO BIRD. THERE ARE NO PURE TARPANS LEFT. HOW MANY OTHER SPECIES ARE WE GOING TO WIPE OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH??????!!!!!!!! Plants, as well as animals. And look at how we messed things up with GMOs. Look at the bee deaths, and all else. Look at our declining sea life. And we kill seals for fur, and use as an excuse, but they eat so many fish? WITHOUT MAN, THE PLANET IS IN BALANCE. WE DESTROY EVERYTHING WE TOUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!

    We’re also stupid. People who can’t feed themselves have how many crotch droppings? I have NONE! I got sterilised at 19 (Thank you, Planned Parenthood) BEFORE having sex. I had/have a very nice standard of living for that, too. I got to spend my resources and time on myself instead of some parasitic environmental liability.

    • Logan

      The problem is not the population but the fact that we are not able to simply co-exist with the creatures and environment around us… Sure, man has destroyed many things but this is because most of us are oblivious to the destroying of our Earth but the answer is not to de-populate the world. The answer is to become environmentally-aware and to co-exist with our planet.

      What do you mean you remember a “less-crowded” planet anyway? You’re only 19, so you obviously don’t remember a much less-crowded earth… We are just seeing the cancer of man.

      • Charles E. Winchester.

        “The answer is to become environmentally-aware and to co-exist with our planet.”

        So, how do you think that will be done? Do you have a plan, and is that plan realistic?

      • Charles E. Winchester III

        “You’re only 19, so you obviously don’t remember a much less-crowded earth…”

        What makes you think that “Morgan” is only 19?

        “We are just seeing the cancer of man.”

        What’s that supposed to mean?

    • r.bitting

      ” I got to spend my resources and time on myself instead of some parasitic environmental liability “…. My hunch is that you were probably O.K with the whole ” parasitic liability ” thing while your parents were raising you.

    • “I remember a less crowded planet, and I liked it better.”

      Good oh. When you gonna off yerself?

  • Endangered species, caged in fright
    Shot in cold blood, no chance to fight
    The stage is set, now pay the price
    An ego boost, don’t think twice
    Technology, the battle’s unfair
    You pull the hammer without a care MEGADEATH !HELL YEAH IM BACK IN THE 80S!!!

  • WillieG51

    There is one thread that does intertwine with all these “death cult” promoters. . They want to eliminate someone else. . I personally feel if it’s such a great idea. . would you please demonstrate it. . Too bad they could only do it once. .

  • justadad

    Once again the ungodly can’t be honest and must disguise their evil schemes by changing the definitions.
    Don’t call it a baby, call it a fetus (a scientific sounding word but actually is Latin for ‘baby’)
    Don’t even call it a fetus, call it the ‘products of conception’ or tissue or cells.
    Don’t call it the murder of a baby, let’s use the term abortion.
    Don’t call it murder, call it euthanasia (this one sounds like a dessert or some flavor of ice cream or even a perfume).
    Don’t call it death, call it economic or social or ecological responsibility.

    Besides, the population growth of the Western world and China is already falling and the rate of live births is below that necessary to replace the current population. We don’t need the UN programs to control our reproduction. We don’t even need the UN.

  • Rick Kimmel

    The problem is not too many humans, it’s too many giant international corporations that get away with murder. One such corporation, BP has murdered the Gulf Of Mexico and Tepco has murdered the Pacific Ocean. Come to think of it,If we leave these corporations alone, they will probably achieve the goals of the ghouls mentioned in the article!

  • C#

    You are quite correct that this “philosophy” is taught at university.

    I spent 5 years in grad school in philosophy. “Personhood” is the new religion there, and it teaches that one is a person (i.e. fully human) if and only if one possesses certain rational abilities. On the common interpretation of this view, babies and fetuses are not persons but potential persons. The elderly with Alzheimer’s and some of the mentally ill are not persons either.

    Some philosophers go through mental gymnastics. They argue that murder only involves the killing of a person. Since they believe that a fetus is not a person, they aver that abortion is permissible. Yet, although they accept that a baby is not a person, they somehow believe that infanticide is not permissible. This is a glaring act of inconsistency.

    Other philosophers outright believe that both abortion and infanticide are permissible. I have heard this view described as “interesting” – never have I heard it described by a philosopher as morally repugnant.

    I think virtually all professors think euthanasia is OK. It never crosses their minds that suffering might be a good – as penance for sins, for example.

    In fact, most professional philosophers would consider you a total joke if you held Christian beliefs: that human life begins at conception, the defining mark of a human is his soul, and suffering can be good.

    • Michael

      Good comment.

      And I apologize if some comments were lost over the weekend. The site was transferred to a new, more powerful server, but in the process some comments may have been lost.


  • Brad

    All we need now is a factory to make Soylent Green.

  • Robert

    Why are these people in favor of population control?

    You can find the answer in the following film.

    Go to Youtube and type in the search box, “The Most Important Video You Will Ever See”.

    It’s a lecture given at Boulder Colorado and explains why there is a population problem.

  • tonybinca

    I move that all those in favor of euthanasia volunteer to be euthanized to show their commitment to the earth. Will anyone second the movement?

    • Charles E. Winchester.

      “I move that all those in favor of euthanasia volunteer to be euthanized to show their commitment to the earth.”

      Yes, maybe. I think I’d like to have euthanasia myself, if I was incurably ill and suffering great pains. That ought to be a right for everyone, no less. But no… What happened to personal freedom and responsibility? Gone in the tidewave of Socialism.

      Strange though, that passive euthanasia is legal (and widely practised); but active euthansia – not so.

  • Ben

    Great article. As are all of your posts.

    And here is my opinion.

    While I believe that the TPTB want to control population, I grow weary of hearing or reading about these plans. If this is true, and I believe it is, why do they waste there time with the “soft kill” methods. Why not just fire up the Buffs (B-52’s)and start taking us out. Start fouling the water supplies. Start gassing us, just press the button already! Why don’t the elites do this? I have been hearing about these policies or plans for the better part of 30 years now. Why don’t they just do it?Get it over with already!

    Could it be that they don’t have as much power as we think?

    Besides, can you imagine the logistics of taking out 6.5 billion people. I mean, isn’t that their intent? Take out 90% of the population? What are they waiting for? Why don’t they just do it already? Could it be that there is a problem with logistics? How do you dispose of 6.5 billion people? Incinerate them? Bury them? Put them out to sea?

    And if these people “run the whole world” and want this scientific dictatorship then why did they let humanity reach the size that it is today? Why didn’t they nip this in the bud years ago? Was it that they didn’t have the technology? The expertise?

    I am not trying to dispell or disprove this notion, I am merely asking how they will carry it out. How will they? How do they “cull the heard” so to speak? Has anyone ever thought about the planning of such a dastardly idea?

    Again, I am not dispelling the idea. I think these psyhopaths want to have the planet to themselves. I think there are groups of individuals in this world who would like nothing more than to rule the whole of humanity. I get that….what I don’t get is….HOW ARE THEY GOING TO DO IT?

    How are they going to reduce population? They can’t do it by soft kill, it has not worked quickly enough. What does that leave? Hard kill! The type of global genocide that everyone fears….and as well they should. I think it is a real threat.

    You can cite articles and links to me all day. I get it. I want to know HOW they are going to do it.

    Has anyone ever done the math? Done the logistics models for it?

    Someone tell me how you dispose of 6.5 billion people.

    I am all ears….or on here…eyes.

  • Kitiem

    There are is already so much crap in our drinking water that our average sperm count is a mere 20% of what it was just 30 years ago.
    It’s the idiots that scream they want to do it on purpose that get all the attention. But the accidental affects of what is already happening is ignored.

    • Terry

      “Accidental effects”????? There is nothing accidental about all the methods being used, and there are many. They talk about saving the planet and at the same time they are polluting our waters and poisoning our foods. And let’s not even get into what they are allowing, in fact directing the pharmaceuticals to do!

      To Mr Ben above, the mayor massacre will happen in WWIII. In addition they will use HAARP to create massive “mother nature” destruction. Not a pretty picture.
      May GOD bless you all.

  • Ameen

    I think you are mixing too many opposing ideas here. Also, while I realize it is a “personal” blog, your impartiality is seriously compromised in this article by your religious and ideological bents: neither attractive nor intellectually honest.

  • DaytoDay

    “I just… I can’t live anymore where stupidity is embraced and nurtured as if it were a virtue.” Morgan Freeman-Seven

    “I sympathize completely. Because if you can’t win… then, if you don’t ignore everything and everyone around you, you go insane. It’s easier to smoke crack, and not worry that your wife and kids are starving to death. And, it’s so much easier to bear a child till that child finally shuts up, because it takes so much work to love. And, if you bothered to think about the abuse, and the damage, you’d be sad.” Morgan Freeman-Seven

    “I’m talking about common, everyday life here. Where Ignorance isn’t bliss, it’s a matter of survival.” Morgan Freeman-Seven

  • Kalif

    Ask him who advocates that some should die
    so that others can live to set an example

  • Cleo

    About a year or so ago, the light bulb turned on in my head, when I realized the progressive left was worshiping the environment, the earth,and the planet and there was no open debate allowed as the science was settled. In the 70’s it was global cooling and over population. Now it’s global warming and over population. Still no room for debate. I had no idea that it was really a religion of it’s own until Rabbi Daniel Lapin called it the state religion of secular fundamentalism. And now no room for any other religion, except for Islam. Why Islam? If you want to control the people what better religion to get in bed with.

    Eugenics, Sanger, Planned Parenthood, pro choice, sterilization, abortion, and Obamacare are all means to an end of population control. Do you really think that progressive bureaucrats will really allow you that life saving operation if you are old, disabled, mentally deficient, or a newborn baby? No…because you are not contributing anything to the betterment of the collective society. And is the black community proud of the fact that 75% (I think a correct percentage but it might be less) of all black pregnancies end in abortion? If you read Sanger,you come to the determination that Progressives are inheritently racists as they believe blacks don’t contribute to the betterment of the collective. But they are bribed with lies and handouts so they don’t realize what is being done to them.

    Personally, I believe the Earth and mankind are both dynamic in nature. The Earth is always trying to achieve a natural equilibrium. Too much of any one thing will eventually work itself out. If the Earth becomes over populated and can’t feed everyone the population numbers will change on their own. Eliminating people before the fact is not a viable answer as far as I’m concerned. In particular, Obamacare scares the daylights out of me as it is eugenics plain and simple….legal genocide.

    Time to wake yourself up and everyone else.

    • jaxon64

      You nailed it Cleo–thumbs up.
      I also believe that should the population reach unsustainable levels for available resources that the population would get culled quite quickly and naturally.

      –oil shortages mean less food and millions starve
      — food shortages mean millions more die in violence and desperation to eat
      — mounds of undisposed of dead bodies leads to disease and plaque, hundreds of millions gone
      — lack of medical services, rescue services and police lead to survival of the fittest mentality, millions more die sooner of natural causes and accidents
      — lack of clean or purified water leads to dysentary and cholera, millions more
      — cures and vaccines for superbugs are not developed: Spanish Flu, swine, avian..and probably some new super bugs wipe out HUNDREDS of millions as people are more susceptible to transmission since they will be lumped together near food distribution camps
      — what food exists will often be deadly with ecoli, salmonella, trychinosis and other viral and bacterial agents, tens of thousands die
      — natural disasters and relief efforts are no longer performed, thousands and thousands more
      — lack of heating in winter and AC in summer will kill thousands and cause hundreds of millions to relocate ( Arizona, New Mexico, Southern Cal, large parts of Texas- all virtually uninhabited before AC was available.)
      — and of course the big ones, WARS. India, Indonesia, China, Japan ( to name a few) cannot sustain their enormous masses without assist from foreign nations. When these imports of food and oil stop, they will mobilize. Not to mention the millions who will die in 1-2 years in Africa without continued aid. Throw in a billion or so living in arid areas like the Middle East ( just read where the Euphrates river is almost bone dry and open to foot traffic) who won’t be able to buy anything without oil money- and WAR will be rampant.

      Frankly, I’d be surprised if mankind makes it through the century at all- let alone with 500 million survivors…….

    • xander cross

      Slavery was an eugenics plan as well and was performerd by white people. I noticed that white people is behind the abortion movement, but somehow, you blame Obama. Where were you when Bush was president and he funded abortion and killing people in wars in the middle east? Your racism is showing.

      • Gary2

        95% of conservatives are racist homophobes. I do not know why you are surprised by their comments. What else would you expect?

  • Well, everything really IS going to hell. But, when everything fails, we humans still have Jesus Christ! The elite and their “new age” of demonic creatures like greys, pleiadans and reptilians will forever burn away into a fading memory. Halleluja!

  • Lauren Moret has facts for these evil globalist elite maniacs. She highlights the fact that we are no longer increasing our numbers as they like us to believe. Our numbers ARE falling:

  • Anglo Saxon

    We face an awkward dichotomy. And our attempts to deal with it are disturbed by (often false) emotions, deliberately false dogma, poor data, and rancour.

    Some earlier commenters have correctly pointed out that we do indeed live on a finite planet and that ipso facto, there must be an upper limit to the number of humans this planet could ever sustain. This is not a matter for the Elite to determine … it is simply common-sense that we all have access to.

    Indeed, this was a basic view I formed as long ago as the 1970s when still a young man. And I was not alone. As I recall, this was the majority view long before anyone had ever heard of Bill Gates or Agenda 21. Back then, the primary concern was pollution. Too many humans producing to much waste. There was no discussion about so-called “Greenhouse Gases” or “global warming” as such.

    I believe we have already destroyed a significant part of our total eco-systems due to pollution run-offs, etc. With my own eyes I have seen more than enough damaged beaches, and once pristine but now polluted waters.

    So, there is an overwhelming case for population reduction of some kind. The debate therefore, should be over … what kind, by what methods, and where?

    It is truly sinister to see heavy handed population controls being administered to populations of ethno-Europeans when we have already declined from about 30% of the world’s population in 1900, to around about 11% today.

    Contrast this with India. Since its independence in 1947, several western nations have been subsidizing India to the tune of first $-millions, and then $-billions, in the form of aid, special deals, soft-loans, gifts, and what not. The most recent ‘aid’ has been the mass transfer of jobs to India (or Indian nationals) from the West. Few know this, but since 1950, India has received far more in Aid than the entire continent of Africa. A media blackout on this topic dissuades wider debate.

    Over the same period, India’s population exploded from about 350-million in 1947, to over 1,200-million (1.2 billion) today. By the mid-1960s India’s population at Independence had already doubled, and emergency family planning programmes were implemented by Indira Ghandi. These measures included enforced sterilization. But they were soon cancelled on ‘humanitarian’ grounds due to protests by western agencies and western opinion formers.

    India’s population has managed to increase exponentially despite a large amount of female foeticide being practised throughout the dominant Hindu regions of India, and despite the prevalence of deadly diseases. It would appear India is being expanded by a significant sub-population of women fulfilling the role of out of control “breeders”. To conceptualize this, just think of the role of a “Queen Bee” in a beehive.

    Yet, the world does nothing. It does not even say anything … or if it does, it is only whispered.

    We should not blame China. China’s population has been under ‘reasonable’ control for several decades. Not perfectly, but China’s population growth is certainly not out of control. But, India … despite its nuclear power, its space agency, its expanding navy, its taking of jobs from the west, its overrated cultural values … continues to disproportionately add people to this planet. Other insanely profligate countries are: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Mexico, and the Philippines.

    Until I see a loud and determined effort to quarantine India, with the intention of forcing a long absent discipline upon its arrogant and selfish reproductive habits, then I shall urge everyone to fight all efforts to control their own birthrates.

    If ‘white’ (ethnically European) people are not very careful, and do not “wake up” soon, then they will suddenly find themselves consigned to the role of an irrelevant minority on this planet. That status will come about by default once ‘whites’ have fallen to below 7% of this planet’s total populace. And, we are on target to reach that solemn figure according to already established trends.

    What happens next is up to YOU.

    • “So, there is an overwhelming case for population reduction of some kind. ”

      If the population exceeds the carrying capacity of the planet, nature will take care of a reduction. No need for a tyrannical elite to dictate who can reproduce and who must die.

      Overpopulation is part of the normal process of evolution. All animal species at some times exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat. Then the population crashes and the cycle repeats.

      One evolutionary biologist, Prof Wynne Edwards, at Aberdeen University, had the ideas that animals regulate their numbers to prevent overpopulation, but this proved to be a fallacy.

      The reason that no mechanism preventing overpopulation has evolved is that it is detrimental to the species. The strategy all organisms follow is to multiply to the max because when the crash comes, those with the most progeny have the best chance of being represented in succeeding generations.

      In the past, the wealthy had the best chance of raising a large family. Because wealth was roughly correlated with desirable physical traits and high mental capacity, the reproductive success of the wealthy was good for the species.

      In a competitive world, not all the offspring of the wealthy were able to maintain the wealth and status as their parents. This meant that members of the upper classes were constantly being pushed down into the lower strata of society, which ensured that desirable physical, mental and cultural traits were propagated throughout the population.

      Now, under the welfare state, the system has gone into reverse. The most educated women have the fewest children and posterity is disproportionately derived from the lowest social classes. This will have catastrophic consequences for Western society.

      • Charles E. Winchester.

        “If the population exceeds the carrying capacity of the planet, nature will take care of a reduction. No need for a tyrannical elite to dictate who can reproduce and who must die.

        Overpopulation is part of the normal process of evolution. All animal species at some times exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat. Then the population crashes and the cycle repeats.”

        Maybe that’s true for other animals than humans. They does not use non-renewable resources. Furthermore, they don’t get use to them and rely on them for their surviving or well-being.

        Overpopulation of any species may cause damage (perhaps even extinction) for their own and other species. But the overpopulation of humans seems to cause way more damage, like deforestation, spreading of diseases, depletion of aquifers, explosives left after wars, nuclear and other toxic waste… Other animals do not use landmines, travel by aeroplanes or blow up mountains to build houses and cabins. And all those dreadful shopping malls…

        Perhaps the thing we (humans and other animals) that lives today, as well as those who come after we’re gone, need the least, is even more consumers, predators, polluters and destroyers.

        I agree with you on your last three paragraphs. Now we have dysgenics – we ought to replace that with eugenics. The sooner the better! I guess you’ve seen the movie “Idiocracy”?

  • Viet Vet-70

    How about those Dutch euthanasia teams come over and take care of our current congress and senate, maybe the replacements might have some better ideas, what a messed up world we live in.

  • Joe Johnson

    Let us not forget that there are many more of “us” then there are of “them.” Everyone should remember the names mentioned in this article of those that promote these obscene methods of population control. Let us make sure that when the time comes to implement these dire programs, they are the first to contribute to depopulation.

    • Charles E. Winchester.

      “Let us not forget that there are many more of “us” then there are of “them.””

      Who are “us” and who are “them”?

      • Joe Johnson

        “We” are “us” and “they” are “them”.

  • Robert

    The movie “Logan’s Run” should be mandatory watching. It describes such a death-obsessed society perfectly.

  • invictus

    i understand the concern over the fate of our planet, let alone our people, given the population issue. HOWEVER, i cannot help but think this is yet another ‘excuse’ given by the elite to institute policies to control the masses. ‘for our own good’ right? also, i am very interested in WHO they plan on eradicating, eliminating, all in the name of the common good of course. would dissenters, people that oppose the elite be among those marked for death? or would it be ‘fair’ and across the boards, INLCUDING the elite. dont worry i know the answer, i wasnt born yesterday….

  • Phillis

    I think they’re soulless psychopaths who push over population despite that there is no such thing. Wiping out the food supply, then screaming in a fake panic “overpopulation”, does not define overpopulation. Duh. The issue is actually what they’re REALLY after.

    They want total control of the planet sans 95% of the population, with the handful left solely in a slavery capacity so that they can live thier lives in the same luxuries they’ve always had. It doesn’t really matter if THEY aren’t living “in balance with nature”. Or that THEY bring their own form of “cancer upon the Earth”.

    THEY are superior, you see. Therefore, the Georgia Guidestones’ “age of reason” dogmas naturally do not apply to them. They aren’t merely lacking a soul. The psychopathic mind has a dismal incapacity for reason. Look around at the society they’ve controlled since forever. The ills of society directly reflects their mentally, right down to the fractal level. All hail, the “superior” race. lol

    • mondobeyondo

      They are not “superior”. They just think they are. And that will eventually be their downfall.

  • Prepping for the Future

    Every single Eco nut in America is following Hitler to a tee. The Nazi were the first country to protect wolves, the Nazi love gun control, The Nazi love getting rid of the undesibles, on and on Every single one of these Eco freaks is nothing but a good little Nazi keeping Hitler dream alive. It is sickening the amount of children of the Vets who saved the world from the Nazi are now lock step with Nazi human control. A sucker born every single minute and anyone that is part of green movement proves that every single day.

  • Imaplaneiac

    The ENTIRE population of the World could be housed within the State of Texas! NO WAY, you say?! Then do a web search of this topic! I needn’t now indicate how SMALL Texas is, when compared to the scope of Earth’s habitable land masses!

    I already sent Michael two web references … which substantiate this.

    • Charles E. Winchester

      “The ENTIRE population of the World could be housed within the State of Texas!”

      Assuming that that’s true – how is it relevant?

    • Charles E. Winchester.

      “The ENTIRE population of the World could be housed within the State of Texas!”

      Assuming that that’s true – how is that relevant?

  • Virginia

    Most of these practices that you speak of have already been implemented. Most women have a very hard time conceiving and need fertility drugs and that is why there are so many multiple births. This fact alone would argue that contraceptives are already in the drinking water and have been for at least 10 years.

  • Cinderella Man

    On Superbowl Sunday, starting at around 10 am the skies started to be filled with white streaks. I started a count. By 2 pm there were over 30 cris crossing patterns in the sky. It was a beautiful day not a cloud in sight, then when the streaks began to disapate, the sky turned into a haze. That was the first time I witnessed chemtrails at work. It was no longer an urban legend, no tin foil hat type of thing. It was real. The evil people that are in control are doing soft kill on us. It started with the fluoridation of water, then vaccines, then Monsanto’s GMO food products, and recently in the past decade chemtrails. I watched that eye opening documentry “What in the World are They Spraying?” recently and they release over 10 megatons of aluminum into the stratosphere at a time! The NWO is stepping up the game. Pretty soon the 400th trimester will be considered the new late term abortion!!

  • Zang

    Well let them lead by example and kill themselves for the benefit of the world.

  • mondobeyondo

    People who advocate euthanasia must be mentally ill psychopaths. There is no other explanation, right? Well, there is – that they are rational, clear thinking, and deliberately doing these deeds (a la Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc, etc.)

    That’s actually even scarier than being mentally ill.

    • Charles E. Winchester.

      “People who advocate euthanasia must be mentally ill psychopaths.”

      No, they (we) must NOT! I am in favour of euthanasia, and I am presently neither mentally nor physically ill.

      I think I’d like to have euthanasia myself, if I was incurably ill and suffering great pains. That ought to be a right for everyone, no less. But no… What happened to personal freedom and responsibility? Gone in the tidewave of Socialism.

      Strange though, that passive euthanasia is legal (and widely practised); but active euthansia – not so.

  • One More

    Don’t forget nuclear energy.

    Seriously, the radiation released from nuclear power plants is linked to the high cancer rates, childhood leukemias, autism, breast cancer, diabetes, heart attacks, bone cancers and on and on.

  • Annabeth Salt

    Holy jumping tadpole…are you seriously advocating humans breed like rabbits until we just start falling off the planet when there’s no room left? Human life has never been and will never be precious– we don’t give a teaspoon of spit for anyone outside our own little sewing circles. Come on, get real.

    Please read a history book or seven, we’re pretty much still fighting to protect our territory from the ‘ others ‘. The people killed in the name of Christianity alone…wow, just wow. The comments on here suggest that various people leaving their thoughts, which differ from the ‘ correct ‘ thoughts of the officiating scribblers, off themselves. And then in the next sentence, these pro-suicide promoting thuggies whine about the babies, oh the babies, and about the death ecstasies of the other side. Wanting clean water and clean air is not an act of fascism. Don’t you get tired of inventing enemies to fight?

  • t man

    As a species we are at a crossroads right now. We do not live according to the rules of nature. For example, a wild bear may require a habitat of 25 square miles, an eagle perhaps 55. Humans harness the energy from fossil fuels to have it all now (if we did not have access to oil I have read that our planet could only sustain 2 billion people.) We live on top of each other in buildings with sewers and electricity that comes from power plants, food trucked in from far off farms, cheap merchandise boated in from foreign lands.

    If we were living like Native American Indians we would not need oil, trucks, boats and cheap goods, but we would need more space and a larger habitat. We would have a much more symbitoic relationship with nature, we wouldn’t pollute, nature would dictate population controls instead of cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels.

    We are at a crossroads because our system is failing, even with the readily available cheap energy, which is a catalyst for our population growth. Our system can not employ 7 billion people and have any sort of ideal standard of living for all.

    When times get really hard, and the standard of living declines so much that we are homeless, unable to feed our starving children etc., many people will commit suicide. Children will grow up like my grandparents did having smaller families, learning how to conserve, pulling money out of banks etc.

    Education is not the key, technology is definitely not the key to sustainable population growth. If we continue down our current path at our current rate, we will have irreversibly destroyed millions of intertwining ecosystems, and eventually contribute to our own demise. For example, if the honey bee dies off, we will all be dead in five years time. If an asteroid hits Earth and blocks the sun we will be dead in one year.

    We have to change our thinking. We have to stop wasting. As many as possible need to get off the grid and live sustainable lifestyles. These people will be the pioneers for tomorrows civilizations. It sure would be nice if the government would start programs whereby people who agree with my thinking could be granted land and some money to build sustainable communities. Hopefully we would have a brewery on site.

    But elitists calling for population reduction is silliness. They won’t change the way they do business, they will enslave all that are not uber-wealthy like themselves. They will then have 10 or so generations until they need to purge the planet again. Elitists do not have the ability to change their thinking because they see it as a game that they have already won. They think they are superior and that there present situation justifies their world views and egos.

    Like I said, make sure we can build a brewery and I’ll use my educational background to start a sustainable community. One asteroid or huge volcanic explosion and it won’t matter anyway. Happy day to you!

  • Benjik

    Another spot-on article, but I truly feel it’s not so much of a love for death, but a misguided and twisted love for themselves, as with most people who “have all the answers”. Tragically, I personally know many people who have this skewed sense of self-righteousness that leads them to believe that if you don’t worship the ground they walk on and fully support their idea’s and beliefs that you are deemed “ignorant”, “useless” or a total A-hole.

    I for one am happy that I don’t have all the answers or always need to be right, I couldn’t imagine the immense responsibility of such superiority! :)

  • Jason Is Available

    I suspect mothernature will likely “self correct” if we keep breeding like there’s no tomorrow, a super virus will knock us out. Either that or war and/or starvation will keep the population in check.

  • Gil

    How are the advocates for overpopulation not mass murderers in their own way when humanity gets to a point where there nothing food for the teeming masses. Even Norman Borlaug forewarned people not to breed up waste the gains he gain and assume someone else will figure out to support a world population of, say 10 billion. Should something wrong and the new carry capacity of Earth is 3 billion? Who gets to decide which 4 billion have to go? As long it’s the people of faraway place who are starving while your children get enough food then it’s all good?



      Conversavtive republican war party advocates have no love for fetuses, but claim they do only for reasons to punish the non wealthy masses; they also hate people when they are born whereas their brothers in arms, the liberal democrat war party advocates hate people as well. This is why both wings of the war party love war, they twist the very limits of logic, humanity, and decency to wage it, (republican/conservative warmongering to “spread democracy” and democrat/liberal warmongering for the purposes of “humanitarian intervention”). In the end, the result is always the same no matter where these ideologies are employed, and that is, DEATH AND DESTRUCTION.



    A rather simple equation. One need not be a mathematics major to figure this one out.

    democrat + republican = THE WAR PARTY

    or the above equation’s wicked synonym:

    liberal + conservative = DEATH AND DESTRUCTION

    They love death. Ya think?

  • Gary2

    conservatives better hope that Down Syndrome babies do not get aborted. There will not be any conservatives left in a few decades.

    • r.bitting

      If one of your kids was born with down syndrome would you have the same view?

      • Gary2

        My kids are not conservatives sop the point is moot.

        As for “crossing the line” I do not know what was not true that I said.

        The study from Canada clearly showed that conservatives are cognatvly impaired as compared to the average person. Down Syndrom folks are cotgnativly impaired. I fail to see the difference???

        Speaking of cognativly impaired-I love seeing Rush crash! all the Christians who worshio himn as he calls women foul names. Again Michael it is an embarassment to have rush oxycontin quote your posts. It clearly showes how right wing biased you are becoming.

        • Gary2

          when it comes to spelling I am cognativly impaired :)

    • justadad

      You crossed a serious line here, Gary2
      Your comment does not come from a sense of humor but indicates that you have an evil soul.

  • Gary2

    Michael-that picture at the begining of the post looks like a sleestack from Land of the Lost (AKA the GOP)

  • Dave

    YOU ARE WRONG! Humans are the only species that just destroy everything. You said that humans “are convinced that humanity is causing global warming, killing off other species and making this planet unlivable.” THIS IS COMMON SENSE! the only other species that might have any remote effect on global warming are cows. The only reason for this is because we have drastically increased there population to keep up with the growing demand of meat. Also, there is no other species on the planet that has caused anothers extinction other than humans. The only reason a species would go extinct in nature is some natrual disaster! I’m also pretty sure that lions and tigers and bears (oh my!) can’t cause nuclear meltdowns. You need to wake up and smell the polar ice caps melting bro, global warming is real, and it is our fault. the sooner we realize this the sooner we can fix it. So stop spreading lies and start trying to find a way to help humanity.

  • DL

    Not surprised that no one mentioned death-cult crazy evangelicals, who hate abortion but love the deaths of Muslims, Jews, US soldiers, etc. More war, and that way, God will be set up to bring about “the rapture.” Not all evangelicals are like this, but one is one too many! They claim it is for the sake of Israel, but I doubt it!

  • Dave

    If you want to provoke an avalanche of angry screeds, simply challenge the current “wisdom” that there are too many people on the planet. All you need to do is run a simple math problem. It will show that the entire population of the earth will fit into an area the size of Texas with the population density of New York City. This leaves the entire rest of the planet to support us. God made more than enough for our needs, but not nearly enough for our greeds.

    You will never see a bigger eruption of bile and venom than when evil is challenged. All you have to do to challenge evil is identify it.

  • Red 5

    It’s just like the “Left” has always done, have an evil agenda promote by good intentions. Then when they obtain power, force it down our throats when their power can’t be taken from them. It’s the method of all those that seek to centralize power. Global warming is a fraud used to control the masses and tax them.

  • Eric

    You drink jet fuel, agricultural effluent, raw sewage, and nuclear waste, yet you’re pissy about contraceptives? You obviously have little respect for “humanity” yourself, referring as you do to individuals by amounts (i.e., “less humans”). Those whose knickers are knotted by population control are terrified only because they know they’d be marked for cull.

  • Mia Nony

    This article also explains the entire post normal “Left” apologist stance for and embrace of death obssessed Islamic extremism, since what is shared with the eugenics gang is a mutual morbid love of death more than life. How did so much of the human species become so vile, so denatured & ghoulish? How did the human mind so quickly come to defend the acts of tyrants, dictators, & genocidal maniacs. Why do the useful idiot so love those who deal out death, the bigger the scale of the killing fields the better? Zero empathy, That is how. Any wild animal is more capable of nurturing life than is the perverse self loathing twisted death lovers and pathological psychopaths in search of absolute power who now emerge from the shadows once again, just as they did during the Nazi era, under Polpott, or Stalin or Mao, or Arrafat, take you pick, perverts, at once suicidal and genocidal.
    Takes Shadenfreude to a whole new level.

  • Bob Marshall

    Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned parenthood said the best the most humane thing a parent can do for a child if there are two many is kill one.She never specified how many was too many. she would have been glad to know since her major goal was population control with the main target being African-Americans they lead in abortions in America by a huge margin. does 53 million abortions in the last twenty years count as population control? Did the starving to death of 500, 000 Iraqi children count as population control. Does the killing of 1.4 million Iraqi civilians count as population control. this is nothing we shouln’t expect. we have been using population control for years and years. so has China, Russia, Germany and our own CIA is responsible for over 7 million civilian deaths both directly and indirectly since 1947.We know we have no control of what happens anymore.

  • bigtoe1111

    if population control truly does become a necessity, why use questionable or violent methods? volunteer to replace only yourself and your partner. the death rate would remain the same and the growth rate would soon ebb. enough hearts are broken and lives lost from old age, disease, and accidents that there is no need for euthanasia. we have been taught to be fruitful and multiply. why not teach something else more balanced?

  • Griever

    Okay… This is foolish. People who are burdens upon society need to be removed. As cruel as that may sound it is damn foolish to support people who can’t support themselves. There is no point keeping mentally/physically crippled babies alive and if you ask me it is cruel to do so.

    • el

      I hope you understand this is what crazy dictators and royalty have been saying about the peasants since the dawn of man…..

      you imitate their rhetoric, perfectly.

  • el

    Here is a concept people reading this need to understand:


    Humanity has been mind controlled for hundreds of years to parrot the sadistic desires of others who control them to harm OTHER human beings, but by and large, humans dont have the sand to kill someone themselves.

    They ask Govt do it for them, to keep the blood off their sad, self-hating , pathetic hands……

    Everything we experience today is done psychologically. They know our behaviors better than us. Until we fully grasp who we are and what makes us tick,


    Those are the words of a member of the CFR. And its a common belief among the members of secret Govt.

  • Kender

    Well, if they love death so much, why are they still with us? They should be the first to jump, so the rest of us useless eaters can see how its done. I mean, stupid us, they can’t really expect us to figure it out for ourselves, can they? How unfair! No, if they think death is so grand, they can go first….

  • Yossarian

    Mankind is a cancer on planet earth. Everything man touches,he destroys. There are numerous examples to choose from. For example, the Internet..what has the internet basically turned into? A advertisement plagued device filled with ads to buy this and that. It is inherent in mankind to destroy. Look at the Apollo moon landings. We went to a place where man has never been before, a virgin planet completely void of mankind’s embrace. And what did we do when we left the moon? We left a bunch of our trash.

    One of the problems lies with education and becoming an informed individual. Men seem to be unable to control their libido and women seem to have no problem accepting their seed. If one has difficulty feeding themselves then why would you want to bring another mouth to feed onto this earth?. ..

  • Joe

    So, let’s start with them…. everyone who thinks “after-birth abortion” is necessary to save the planet, get in a soylent green tub and self terminate. IF we’re lucky, the number who do will end up depopulating the planet enough that the rest of us can finish our commutes in a third of the time.

  • Mordred Gravehaven

    one of their plans:
    A decade long transfer process of masses of humanity to the vast excavation in Antartica. Lots of room, quick humane freezing to death, and cold storage for further food/genetic eperimention needs. Out of sight, no sea of blood or mountain of rotting human meat in the lands above, or carcass smoke in the air; plenty of room for billions at the bottom of the world.

  • Tatiana Covington

    Wait till we have euthanasia drones… maybe we already do, in prototype, as with engineered mosquitoes *supposedly* delivering vaccines against malaria.


  • riiiiiiiight

    I pray to God in Heaven that you seek help for your mental illness.

  • Kimberly Hartfield

    God said, Be fruitful and multiply and never changed His mind. Mom of 8

  • Viana

    I agree with the idea that we are too many in this planet today, we became a deadly virus, something has to be done while it’s time, as scary as these ideas may look like, they are the first steps to address the problem,a huge one, sooner or later we will really have to face it we want it or not, think! in less than 15 years we got to 1 billion more humans being in this planet, we are in trouble, that’s it!

  • ccalvus

    there must be more behind this story… time for an update???