Woyano Home - My Friends - My Topics - Inbox - Join - Login
arooka's Woyano
common sense is genius

Subscribe to
My Woyano network and Friends list!

Enter your email:

Enviro Mentalists Call For Culling Of Human Population

Rate this:
By arooka (Contact - View My Woyano)
Published Sat 14 Jul 2007, 1280 Views, 9 Comments

Enviro Mentalists Call For Culling Of Human Population
Push for Malthusian social control policies in name of curbing carbon emissions

Prison Planet | May 7, 2007
Steve Watson

A disturbing move is afoot by several "green" groups to associate climate change with over population and suggest that the solution is to implement depopulation policies and punishments for those who flout them.

The London Times reports today that a report to be published by green think tank the Optimum Population Trust says that children are 'bad for planet and 'having large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags.

The paper will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family's carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.

John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: "The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights.

In related news Paul Watson (no relation), founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and famous for militant intervention to stop whalers, now warns mankind is “acting like a virus” and is harming Mother Earth, reports Business & Media Institute .

Watson's May 4 editorial asked the question “The Beginning of the End for Life as We Know it on Planet Earth?” Then he left no doubt about the answer. “We are killing our host the planet Earth,” he claimed and called for a population drop to less than 1 billion.

Watson's eco-extremist stance mirrors that of other Malthusian scientists such as Dr. Eric R. Pianka who gave a speech to the Texas Academy of Science who last year gave a speech in which he advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the population through the airborne ebola virus.

Standing in front of a slide of human skulls, Pianka gleefully advocated airborne ebola as his preferred method of exterminating the necessary 90% of humans, choosing it over AIDS because of its faster kill period. Ebola victims suffer the most tortuous deaths imaginable as the virus kills by liquefying the internal organs. The body literally dissolves as the victim writhes in pain bleeding from every orifice.

Pianka also stated that China's one child policy and its accompanying police state was the perfect model for the rest of the world to follow.

Such chilling comments, and their enthusiastic reception underscore a long term agenda to enact horrifying measures of population control.

We have previously documented the elite's hideous interest in depopulation techniques , an interest that mirrors the nightmare eugenics visions of Nazi scientists in the 1940s.

Pianka even went as far as suggesting that we should begin to sterilize the human population now, a call that has previously been put forward by Henry Kissinger in a declassified document of the National Security Council (1974) entitled "The Implications of World-wide Population Growth on the Security and External Interests of the United States".

This document lists as a priority birth-rate control in 13 key countries in the Third World, especially in South America. Extraordinary resources were allotted to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to implement the policy of birth-rate control.

It also contains sections entitled:

Creating Conditions Conducive to Fertility Decline, which calls for, amongst other things, "reducing infant and child mortality"

Concentration on Education and Indoctrination of The Rising Generation of Children Regarding the Desirability of Smaller Family Size

Utilization of Mass Media and Satellite Communications Systems for Family Planning

The memorandum also includes a section that lauds abortion and states that " -- It would be unwise to restrict abortion research for the following reasons: 1) The persistent and ubiquitous nature of abortion. 2) Widespread lack of safe abortion techniques..."

The memorandum basically stresses the need to offer increased aid for third world countries that agree to implement programs of sterilization and depopulation.

The document contains too many hideous quotes to mention here, read it for yourself by clicking here .

Kissinger also prepared a depopulation manifesto for President Jimmy Carter called 'Global 2000' which detailed using food as a weapon to depopulate the third world.

The United Nations Population Fund directly supports policies such as that of the "one child policy" in Communist China which encapsulates coercive and enforced abortion.

 

In 2002 Secretary of State Colin Powell stated in a letter to Congress:

"Regrettably, the PRC has in place a regime of severe penalties on women who have unapproved births. This regime plainly operates to coerce pregnant women to have abortions in order to avoid the penalties and therefore amounts to a ‘program of coercive abortion.' Regardless of the modest size of UNFPA's budget in China or any benefits its programs provide, UNFPA's support of, and involvement in, China's population-planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion.”

Yet The UNPFA seem to think this is a great thing

"China has had the most successful family planning policy in the history of mankind in terms of quantity and with that, China has done mankind a favour," United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) representative Sven Burmester said last week. —10/11/99 Agence France-Presse

Under the Regan Administration legislation sponsored by then- Rep. Jack Kemp (NY) and then-Sen. Bob Kasten (WI) ensured funding to the UNPFA was cut off for these very reasons. Yet is was no surprise when In 1993, the Clinton Administration dramatically revised the official interpretation of the “Kemp-Kasten amendment” in order to facilitate U.S. funding of UNFPA, thus making available $14.5 million.

In May 2003, the House Committee on International Relations narrowly adopted an an amendment by Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) revoking the ban on such participation with the UNPFA. The amendment earmarked $100 million for UNFPA over the next two years.

The BBC today reports that China's top family planning body has warned of a "population rebound" as couples flout the one child policy rules:

In fact, last month, a survey by the National Population and Family Planning Commission found that the number of rich people and celebrities having more than one child was on a rapid increase, and nearly 10% of people in this category had three children.

More affluent people in China are refusing to go along with their masters' orders and would rather pay fines and have more than one child it seems.

There are countless other instances of depopulation programs, too numerous to go into in this brief article. We urge our readers to research them and expose them further.

Another pseudo-scientific fraud for social control

The doomsday warnings of the population bomb are complete pseudo-science. Populations in developed countries are declining and only in third world countries are they expanding dramatically.

Industrialization itself levels out population trends and even despite this world population models routinely show that the earth's population will level out at 9 billion in 2050 and slowly decline after that.

"The population of the most developed countries will remain virtually unchanged at 1.2 billion until 2050," states a United Nations report. The UN population policies seem to be in direct contradiction to THEIR OWN FINDINGS.

Conservation International's own study revealed that 46% of the earth's surface was an untouched wilderness, that is land areas not including sea. It is commonly accepted that the entire world population could all fit into the state of Texas and each have an acre of their own land.

Once a country industrializes there is an average of a 1.6 child rate per household, so the western world population is actually in decline. That trend has also been witnessed in areas of Asia like Japan and South Korea. The UN has stated that the population will peak at 9 billion and then begin declining.

The eco-extremists' comments along with Dr Pianka's ravings are merely echoes of the elite lust for a Malthusian social Darwinist control mechanism. Our global overlords wish to use the excuse of having to "save the earth" in order to take away freedom and implement a massive authoritarian control grid.

Now these people are using the out of control global warming hype to push their insane desire to cull the human population by 5.5 billion and silence anyone who speaks out against them.

We have already seen an overwhelming shift towards the implementation of a global carbon emissions tax , served up as a solution to combat global warming.

In reality the solution does not tackle the problem, it merely enforces control and restriction upon the lives of everyone on the planet.

If western governments were really concerned about climate change then they would be offering us incentives not punishments for reducing CO2 emissions in the form of tax breaks. But tax breaks aren't a giant cash bonanza for our exalted guardians of Mother Earth, the loving government, who are going to tax the living hell out of us for our own good and for the very survival of mankind, while lining their own pockets.

The masses are being indoctrinated in acceptance as they witness elite figures such as the Queen of England on a tour of the US which has been dubbed the "carbon-offset state visit", where a donation is made to an environmental charity to offset the plane journeys made by the royal party.

Here the royals are volunteering to pay a tax which does not even exist yet, in order to travel. People are being shown that this is the way forward and are being told that they are going to have to get used to huge financial burdens in order to curb carbon emissions while in reality the emissions stay uncurbed and other much more pressing environmental issues including industrial emissions of toxic pollutants such as mercury in the air, the dumping of chemical waste into the oceans and the manufacturing of GM crops containing live pesticides take a back seat.

In San Antonio this weekend Al Gore referred continually to a "new way of thinking" that is emerging in the country in the battle to control the effects global warming will have on the planet.

"It's in part a spiritual crisis," Gore told the crowd in the Convention Center at the American Institute of Architects national convention.

Indeed it is, the people are being coerced into a new form of religious worship. They are being told how they must think and what they must accept in order that their future be secure.

The 'enviro mental' movement has hijacked eco groups and activists alike and is pushing a green fraud to mask their agenda to mold a global neo feudalist society where a global body regulates and micro manages every aspect of our lives down to when we can and cannot move around and when we can and cannot reproduce.


This Item
Feature
Flag as Adult
Flag as Inappropriate
Category: Bigups, People
Tags: culling, humans, globalwarming, neo, enviromentalists
Share it
Link to this item:
Bookmark this item: RSS Feed

People who liked this item

    9 Comments

  1.  
    Gruntfutuck ~ 38 months ago
    0 votes thumbs up thumbs down
    Congratulations, rank tabloid journalism of the highest order.
    [ reply ]
    1.  
      Loves Bloc Party ~ 38 months ago
      0 votes thumbs up thumbs down
      LOL
      [ reply ]
      1.  
        arooka ~ 38 months ago
        0 votes thumbs up thumbs down
        Did you actually read any of this?
        [ reply ]
        1.  
          Gruntfutuck ~ 38 months ago
          0 votes thumbs up thumbs down
          All of it. Even some of the references. I didn't see any environmentalists calling for any culls of the human population.
          [ reply ]
          1.  
            smartttman ~ 38 months ago
            0 votes thumbs up thumbs down
            Why don't you read the atricle before you criticize
            [ reply ]
        2.  
          penumbra2000 ~ 38 months ago
          0 votes thumbs up thumbs down
          I partially agree with aspects of the contested article. It's patently obvious that there is a population after which we will be damaging the ecological balance of the planet to such a point that it won't be very pleasant to live here any more. As for where that point is, I can't attest, and it seems unlikely that anyone can; but for the purposes of not seeing the human race vanish, or worse, survive at a rather unpleasant level, I do think that population control is inevitable, and I'd rather see it happen sooner than later. While there is an unknown high-end to the population we can sustain, the low-end is considerably more determinable using evidence already accrued, and is far below the population we already have.

          Basically, if there were only half as many people on the planet, our quality of life wouldn't likely be any lower than it is now; more likely, it would be considerably higher.

          Having said that, I strongly do *not* advocate killing people, nor mandatory sterilisation. Aside from the more obvious problems, either requires the institution of an authority who decides who dies, or who breeds. Which inevitably means that the rich decide who dies or breeds. Which inevitably means that the poor die, and the rich breed.

          Regulatory population controls on the other hand, I think are a somewhat viable and valuable thing. I actually think there should be a form of 'parenthood' test, although it begs the question of which authority sets the test, a question I don't think I can answer to any satisfaction. As for the 'punishment' associated with breaking the rule, I think it should be taken out in lost privileges. Some things (such as freedom of speech and movement) are rights; some things are privileges (such as increasing the load on the ecosystem on which we all depend). If you have children outside of the legal statutes, you don't get a driving licence; it's a privilege that you are denied as a result of your failure to act responsibly with respect to your environment.

          Having said all that, I also see the "live free or die" angle. I believe strongly in individual rights, at the same time as I believe that we can't survive together as a species without losing some of those rights. So on the one hand, I want to see the human race survive and flourish and be happy, and therefore I see the value in some things that may seem barbaric when they aren't an established part of our existing environment (the idea that murder is a crime is a non-universal moral that we all accept, but members of many cultures would consider barbaric and unnaturally restrictive). Despite this, on the other hand, maybe it's actually better for us to all have our individual freedoms, and go out with a bang, so to speak. The idea of a well-meaning but misguided authority setting a parenthood test that only let selfish people breed, or white people, or wealthy people, or angry people, really makes my skin crawl, and the evidence suggests to me that we can't trust the majority to make the right decision about this kind of thing. So maybe it is actually better to let the whole thing play out in chaos?

          I don't know. I wish I did. It kind of keeps me up at night.
          [ reply ]
          1.  
            jbravo ~ 38 months ago
            0 votes thumbs up thumbs down
            This discussion does not include the possibility that technology to support increased population will outpace population growth.
            [ reply ]
            1.  
              prettyfly ~ 38 months ago
              0 votes thumbs up thumbs down
              Good point JB!!
              [ reply ]
              1.  
                smartttman ~ 38 months ago
                0 votes thumbs up thumbs down
                why don't you jonnhy comes lately go home and do your homework the world will do just fine all by iotself that is indeed true the poit is not what arokka is making the point that arokka is making is that because of the intrusions of big govermnemt enviro-mentalist (LOL, good one arokka) will have the poewr to kill with impugnity

                don't you see this this is important?
                [ reply ]
                1.  
                  22 votes thumbs up thumbs down
                  This is my two cents...

                     
                  Hey you know AdGuy always gets the last word! ;)

                Please Login to Add Your Comment   ..or..  

                Replying to comment by