DEATH TO THE WORLD - NWO KILLS US PLUS

LINKS TO THIS STORY OF EUGENICS KILLING US
http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-science-czars-plan-to-sterilize-population-through-water-supply-already-happening.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-science-advisor-called-for-planetary-regime-to-enforce-totalitarian-population-control-measures.html
Italian Male Fertility Plummets, Population to Drop
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/health/March-April-08/Italian-Study-Indicates-Falling-Sperm-Counts-.html
River sewage pollution found to be disrupting fish hormones
http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=297
Antiandrogenic pesticides disrupt sexual characteristics in the adult male guppy (Poecilia reticulata). (Articles).
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-81760733.html
Evolution under threat as gender bending chemicals are turning males into females
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1092638/Evolution-threat-gender-bending-chemicals-turning-males-females.html
Water Supply Will Stay Poisoned With Gender-Bending Chemicals Due To Carbon Footprint Of Filtering Systems
http://www.prisonplanet.com/water-supply-will-stay-poisoned-with-gender-bending-chemicals-due-to-carbon-footprint-of-filtering-systems.html
The Population Reduction Agenda For Dummies
http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-population-reduction-agenda-for-dummies.html

TRUTH ABOUT THE FLU SHOT
http://www.infowars.com/the-truth-about-the-flu-shot/
OBAMA EUGENICS PROGRAM FOR AMERICA AND THE WORLD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGOmlZGqfbg&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puLCxuDrBeo&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N3pmMolu6Q&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWLfGJB0Jb0&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBCMLmrK6C0&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaDG1kcUCX0&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BLsgALB15o&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZQ6k44mL14&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Tp5ZGS1-AU&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vavWXqQO0I&feature=player_embedded

Obama Science Czar’s Plan To Sterilize Population Through Water Supply Already Happening ,Antiandrogens discovered in lakes and rivers are feminizing men as global sperm counts plummet Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet.com Monday, July 13, 2009

Shocking proposals to mass sterilize the population by artificially medicating municipal water supplies, which were outlined by President Obama’s top science czar in his 1977 book Ecoscience, are already in effect as global sperm counts drop and gender-bending chemicals pollute our rivers and lakes.As we highlighted on Saturday, alongside John P. Holdren’s advocacy for a global planetary regime to enforce forced abortion, government seizure of children born out of wedlock, and mandatory bodily implants designed to prevent pregnancy, Obama’s top advisor also called for,Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods.Holdren added that the sterilant must meet stiff requirements in that it must only affect humans and not livestock.It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock,wrote Holdren with co-authors Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich.Holdren notes that the proposal to forcibly mass sterilize the public against their will seems to horrify people and yet it doesn’t seem to bother him too much, amidst the myriad of other totalitarian Dr. Strangelove style ideas that are put forward in the book as a way to carry out an aggressive agenda of population reduction.Global sperm counts have dropped by a third since 1989 and by half in the past 50 years. The rate of decline is only accelerating as more and more couples find it harder to have children. In studies of white European men, the rate of decline is as much as 50 per cent in the last 30 years. In Italy, this equates to a native population reduction of 22 per cent by 2050. Population reduction is already occurring amongst native residents in many areas of Europe and America.

Everything from cellphone signals, to eating soy products, to female hormones entering the water supply from HRT products has been blamed. There’s no doubt that environmental pollution from industry and pharmaceutical products has contributed, but new research has uncovered that additional chemicals known as Antiandrogens are now finding their way into the water supply.The University of Exeter is now working with chemists at the University of Sussex to establish exactly what the chemicals in question are, and hence to understand how they are being released into waste water, states the study.Antiandrogens are capable of preventing or inhibiting the biologic effects of androgens, male sex hormones, on normally responsive tissues in the body. Antiandrogens are given to transsexual men who want to become women and they are also given to sex offenders released from prison to reduce their sexual libido. These substances have the effect of counteracting masculinisation and effectively diminishing normal male biological characteristics associated with the release of testosterone.Antiandrogens used in pesticides sprayed on our food have also been identified as endocrine disruptors that have been demonstrated to induce demasculinization in rats.These newly discovered poisons, combined with contraceptive pills and HRT have literally had the effect of gender-bending no less than a third of male fish in all British rivers, which causes them to produce eggs and make them infertile. Dozens of species besides fish, such as polar bears, bald eagles, otters and whales have also been affected and the problem is global.In waterways that are located close to sewage treatment facilities, a staggering 80 per cent of male fish were found to have female characteristics as a result of such chemicals.It is also feared that bird populations could be devastated in the long run from chemicals being passed from infected fish when birds eat the fish. Veteran fishermen are already noticing a severe decline in fish populations across the country.This is what comes out of our taps, not to even mention the scores of other dangerous compounds and chemicals that are in our water supply, we are drinking a poison that makes animals and fish infertile. Human sperm counts are also dropping on a consistent basis and the connection is clear – chemicals that make us infertile are already in the water supply, just as Holdren and other top eugenicists called for more than 30 years ago.

There is certainly the potential for it to have an effect in humans – and possibly a marked effect,said Professor Charles Tyler of Exeter University, one of the country’s leading authorities on the effects of oestrogen.It is therefore tragically ironic that the filters needed to combat this very real and very dangerous threat to our environment and to both animals and humans are being prevented from being installed at sewage treatment facilities because of the carbon footprint they would create and fears that they would add to global warming (which is coincidentally the latest veil behind which Holdren camouflages his totalitarian eugenicist agenda). This is another example of how the manufactured farce that is man-made climate change is actually harming the environment by blocking real environmental solutions.Since industrial-sized filters are needed at the source to remove these poisons, it is certainly not safe to assume that standard water filters would be able to remove them at home.The population of the world is under sustained biological assault and the vast majority of people have no idea that it is happening. This goes above and beyond any debate about whether there are too many people on the planet. This shatters any acceptable notion of human rights as outlined in the Nuremberg code, which clearly states that, The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential,in any form of human experimentation, and yet the population is being mass medicated and mass sterilized not only against its will but completely in the dark.We are being biologically attacked by hardcore totalitarian eugenicists hell-bent on forcibly reducing the global population who have publicly announced their plans for an 80 per cent plus population reduction program. The legacy of these megalomaniacs is born out of class racism, fascist thinking and a bloodlust to dominate and enslave the planet –they couldn’t give a shit about the environment, this is all about eliminating the useless eaters,as they see us.They have openly outlined their plans to commit mass genocide and we are now seeing the first wave of that attack via the poisons in our water that are making us infertile.

Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures.In 1977 book, John Holdren advocated forced abortions, mass sterilization through food and water supply and mandatory bodily implants to prevent pregnancies Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet.com Saturday, July 11, 2009

President Obama’s top science and technology advisor John P. Holdren co-authored a 1977 book in which he advocated the formation of a planetary regime that would use a global police force to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children.The concepts outlined in Holdren’s 1977 book Ecoscience, which he co-authored with close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, were so shocking that a February 2009 Front Page Magazine story on the subject was largely dismissed as being outlandish because people couldn’t bring themselves to believe that it could be true.

It was only when another Internet blog obtained the book and posted screenshots that the awful truth about what Holdren had actually committed to paper actually began to sink in.This issue is more prescient than ever because Holdren and his colleagues are now at the forefront of efforts to combat climate change through similarly insane programs focused around geoengineering the planet. As we reported in April, Holdren recently advocated Large-scale geoengineering projects designed to cool the Earth, such as shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays,which many have pointed out is already occurring via chemtrails.Ecoscience discusses a number of ways in which the global population could be reduced to combat what the authors see as mankind’s greatest threat – overpopulation. In each case, the proposals are couched in sober academic rhetoric, but the horrifying foundation of what Holdren and his co-authors are advocating is clear. These proposals include;- Forcibly and unknowingly sterilizing the entire population by adding infertility drugs to the nation’s water and food supply.- Legalizing compulsory abortions, ie forced abortions carried out against the will of the pregnant women, as is common place in Communist China where women who have already had one child and refuse to abort the second are kidnapped off the street by the authorities before a procedure is carried out to forcibly abort the baby.- Babies who are born out of wedlock or to teenage mothers to be forcibly taken away from their mother by the government and put up for adoption. Another proposed measure would force single mothers to demonstrate to the government that they can care for the child, effectively introducing licensing to have children.- Implementing a system of involuntary birth control, where both men and women would be mandated to have an infertility device implanted into their body at puberty and only have it removed temporarily if they received permission from the government to have a baby.- Permanently sterilizing people who the authorities deem have already had too many children or who have contributed to general social deterioration.- Formally passing a law that criminalizes having more than two children, similar to the one child policy in Communist China.- This would all be overseen by a transnational and centralized planetary regime that would utilize a global police force to enforce the measures outlined above. The planetary regime would also have the power to determine population levels for every country in the world.The quotes from the book are included below. We also include comments by the author of the blog who provided the screenshots of the relevant passages. Screenshots of the relevant pages and the quotes in their full context are provided at the end of the excerpts. The quotes from the book appear as text indents and in bold. The quotes from the author of the blog are italicized.

Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal

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

Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions.One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.Holdren and his co-authors once again speculate about unbelievably draconian solutions to what they feel is an overpopulation crisis. But what’s especially disturbing is not that Holdren has merely made these proposals — wrenching babies from their mothers’ arms and giving them away; compelling single mothers to prove in court that they would be good parents; and forcing women to have abortions, whether they wanted to or not — but that he does so in such a dispassionate, bureaucratic way. Don’t be fooled by the innocuous and level-headed tone he takes: the proposals are nightmarish, however euphemistically they are expressed. Holdren seems to have no grasp of the emotional bond between mother and child, and the soul-crushing trauma many women have felt throughout history when their babies were taken away from them involuntarily.

This kind of clinical, almost robotic discussion of laws that would affect millions of people at the most personal possible level is deeply unsettling, and the kind of attitude that gives scientists a bad name. I’m reminded of the phrase banality of evil.Not that it matters, but I myself am pro-choice — i.e. I think that abortion should not be illegal. But that doesn’t mean I’m pro-abortion — I don’t particularly like abortions, but I do believe women should be allowed the choice to have them. But John Holdren here proposes to take away that choice — to force women to have abortions. One doesn’t need to be a pro-life activist to see the horror of this proposal — people on all sides of the political spectrum should be outraged. My objection to forced abortion is not so much to protect the embryo, but rather to protect the mother from undergoing a medical procedure against her will. And not just any medical procedure, but one which she herself (regardless of my views) may find particularly immoral or traumatic.There’s a bumper sticker that’s popular in liberal areas which says: Against abortion? Then don’t have one.Well, John Holdren wants to MAKE you have one, whether you’re against it or not.

Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn’t harm livestock.Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.OK, John, now you’re really starting to scare me. Putting sterilants in the water supply? While you correctly surmise that this suggestion seems to horrify people more than most proposals,you apparently are not among those people it horrifies. Because in your extensive list of problems with this possible scheme, there is no mention whatsoever of any ethical concerns or moral issues. In your view, the only impediment to involuntary mass sterilization of the population is that it ought to affect everyone equally and not have any unintended side effects or hurt animals. But hey, if we could sterilize all the humans safely without hurting the livestock, that’d be peachy! The fact that Holdren has no moral qualms about such a deeply invasive and unethical scheme (aside from the fact that it would be difficult to implement) is extremely unsettling and in a sane world all by itself would disqualify him from holding a position of power in the government.

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

Involuntary fertility control

A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.Note well the phrase with official permission in the above quote. John Holdren envisions a society in which the government implants a long-term sterilization capsule in all girls as soon as they reach puberty, who then must apply for official permission to temporarily remove the capsule and be allowed to get pregnant at some later date. Alternately, he wants a society that sterilizes all women once they have two children. Do you want to live in such a society? Because I sure as hell don’t.

Page 838: The kind of people who cause social deterioration can be compelled to not have children.If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.To me, this is in some ways the most horrifying sentence in the entire book — and it had a lot of competition. Because here Holdren reveals that moral judgments would be involved in determining who gets sterilized or is forced to abort their babies. Proper, decent people will be left alone — but those who contribute to social deterioration could be forced to exercise reproductive responsibility which could only mean one thing — compulsory abortion or involuntary sterilization. What other alternative would there be to force people to not have children? Will government monitors be stationed in irresponsible people’s bedrooms to ensure they use condoms? Will we bring back the chastity belt? No — the only way to force people to not become or remain pregnant is to sterilize them or make them have abortions.But what manner of insanity is this? Social deterioration? Is Holdren seriously suggesting that some people contribute to social deterioration more than others, and thus should be sterilized or forced to have abortions, to prevent them from propagating their kind? Isn’t that eugenics, plain and simple? And isn’t eugenics universally condemned as a grotesquely evil practice? We’ve already been down this road before. In one of the most shameful episodes in the history of U.S. jurisprudence, the Supreme Court ruled in the infamous 1927 Buck v. Bell case that the State of Virginia had had the right to sterilize a woman named Carrie Buck against her will, based solely on the (spurious) criteria that she was feeble-minded and promiscuous, with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes concluding,Three generations of imbeciles are enough.Nowadays, of course, we look back on that ruling in horror, as eugenics as a concept has been forever discredited. In fact, the United Nations now regards forced sterilization as a crime against humanity. The italicized phrase at the end (providing they are not denied equal protection), which Holdren seems to think gets him off the eugenics hook, refers to the 14th Amendment (as you will see in the more complete version of this passage quoted below), meaning that the eugenics program wouldn’t be racially based or discriminatory — merely based on the whim and assessments of government bureaucrats deciding who and who is not an undesirable. If some civil servant in Holdren’s America determines that you are contributing to social deterioration by being promiscuous or pregnant or both, will government agents break down your door and and haul you off kicking and screaming to the abortion clinic? In fact, the Supreme Court case Skinner v. Oklahoma already determined that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment distinctly prohibits state-sanctioned sterilization being applied unequally to only certain types of people. No no, you say, Holdren isn’t claiming that some kind of people contribute to social deterioration more than others; rather, he’s stating that anyone who overproduces children thereby contributes to social deterioration and needs to be stopped from having more. If so — how is that more palatable? It seems Holdren and his co-authors have not really thought this through, because what they are suggesting is a nightmarish totalitarian society. What does he envision: All women who commit the crime of having more than two children be dragged away by police to the government-run sterilization centers? Or — most disturbingly of all — perhaps Holdren has thought it through, and is perfectly OK with the kind of dystopian society he envisions in this book.Sure, I could imagine a bunch of drunken guys sitting around shooting the breeze, expressing these kinds of forbidden thoughts; who among us hasn’t looked in exasperation at a harried mother buying candy bars and soda for her immense brood of unruly children and thought: Lady, why don’t you just get your tubes tied already? But it’s a different matter when the Science Czar of the United States suggests the very same thing officially in print. It ceases being a harmless fantasy, and suddenly the possibility looms that it could become government policy. And then it’s not so funny anymore.

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

In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children? Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children? Why? I’ll tell you why, John. Because the the principle of habeas corpus upon which our nation rests automatically renders any compulsory abortion scheme to be unconstitutional, since it guarantees the freedom of each individual’s body from detention or interference, until that person has been convicted of a crime. Or are you seriously suggesting that, should bureaucrats decide that the country is overpopulated, the mere act of pregnancy be made a crime? I am no legal scholar, but it seems that John Holdren is even less of a legal scholar than I am. Many of the bizarre schemes suggested in Ecoscience rely on seriously flawed legal reasoning. The book is not so much about science, but instead is about reinterpreting the Constitution to allow totalitarian population-control measures.

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

Toward a Planetary Regime

Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.In case you were wondering exactly who would enforce these forced abortion and mass sterilization laws: Why, it’ll be the Planetary Regime! Of course! I should have seen that one coming.The rest of this passage speaks for itself. Once you add up all the things the Planetary Regime (which has a nice science-fiction ring to it, doesn’t it?) will control, it becomes quite clear that it will have total power over the global economy, since according to Holdren this Planetary Regime will control all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable (which basically means all goods) as well as all food, and commerce on the oceans and any rivers that discharge into the oceans(i.e. 99% of all navigable rivers). What’s left? Not much.

Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force.If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.The other shoe drops. So: We are expected to voluntarily surrender national sovereignty to an international organization (the Planetary Regime,presumably), which will be armed and have the ability to act as a police force. And we saw in the previous quote exactly which rules this armed international police force will be enforcing: compulsory birth control, and all economic activity. It would be laughable if Holdren weren’t so deadly serious. Do you want this man to be in charge of science and technology in the United States? Because he already is in charge.

Page 749: Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism.Another related issue that seems to encourage a pronatalist attitude in many people is the question of the differential reproduction of social or ethnic groups. Many people seem to be possessed by fear that their group may be outbred by other groups. White Americans and South Africans are worried there will be too many blacks, and vice versa. The Jews in Israel are disturbed by the high birth rates of Israeli Arabs, Protestants are worried about Catholics, and lbos about Hausas. Obviously, if everyone tries to outbreed everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all. This is another case of the tragedy of the commons,wherein the commons is the planet Earth. Fortunately, it appears that, at least in the DCs, virtually all groups are exercising reproductive restraint.This passage is not particularly noteworthy except for the inclusion of the odd phrase pronatalist attitude,which Holdren spends much of the book trying to undermine. And what exactly is a pronatalist attitude? Basically it means the urge to have children, and to like babies. If only we could suppress people’s natural urge to want children and start families, we could solve all our problems! What’s disturbing to me is the incredibly patronizing and culturally imperialist attitude he displays here, basically acting like he has the right to tell every ethnic group in the world that they should allow themselves to go extinct or at least not increase their populations any more. How would we feel if Andaman Islanders showed up on the steps of the Capitol in Washington D.C. and announced that there were simply too many Americans, and we therefore are commanded to stop breeding immediately? One imagines that the attitude of every ethnic group in the world to John Holdren’s proposal would be: Cram it, John. Stop telling us what to do.

Page 944: As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000.Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants’ destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world.This is the final paragraph of the book, which I include here only to show how embarrassingly inaccurate his scientific projections were. In 1977, Holdren thought we were teetering on the brink of global catastrophe, and he proposed implementing fascistic rules and laws to stave off the impending disaster. Luckily, we ignored his warnings, yet the world managed to survive anyway without the need to punish ourselves with the oppressive society which Holdren proposed. Yes, there still is overpopulation, but the problems it causes are not as morally repugnant as the solutions which John Holdren wanted us to adopt.

SCREENSHOTS OF PAGES FROM ECOSCIENCE (CLICK FOR ENLARGEMENTS)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-science-advisor-called-for-planetary-regime-to-enforce-totalitarian-population-control-measures.html
Front cover Back cover Title page Page 749 Page 786 Page 787 Page 788 Page 789 Page 837 Page 838 Page 839 Page 917 Page 942 Page 943 Page 944 Page 1001 Page 1002 Page 1003.

It is important to point out that John Holdren has never publicly distanced himself from any of these positions in the 32 years since the book was first published. Indeed, as you can see from the first picture that accompanies this article, Holdren prominently displays a copy of the book in his own personal library and is happy to be photographed with it.It is also important to stress that these are not just the opinions of one man. As we have exhaustively documented, most recently in our essay, The Population Reduction Agenda For Dummies, the positions adopted in this book echo those advocated by numerous other prominent public figures in politics, academia and the environmental movement for decades.Consider the fact that people like David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, and Bill Gates, three men who have integral ties to the eugenicist movement, recently met with other billionaire philanthropists in New York to discuss how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population,according to a London Times report.Ted Turner has publicly advocated shocking population reduction programs that would cull the human population by a staggering 95%. He has also called for a Communist-style one child policy to be mandated by governments in the west.Of course, Turner completely fails to follow his own rules on how everyone else should live their lives, having five children and owning no less than 2 million acres of land.In the third world, Turner has contributed literally billions to population reduction, namely through United Nations programs, leading the way for the likes of Bill & Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet (Gates’ father has long been a leading board member of Planned Parenthood and a top eugenicist).The notion that these elitists merely want to slow population growth in order to improve health is a complete misnomer. Slowing the growth of the world’s population while also improving its health are two irreconcilable concepts to the elite. Stabilizing world population is a natural byproduct of higher living standards, as has been proven by the stabilization of the white population in the west. Elitists like David Rockefeller have no interest in slowing the growth of world population by natural methods, their agenda is firmly rooted in the pseudo-science of eugenics, which is all about culling the surplus population via draconian methods.

David Rockefeller’s legacy is not derived from a well-meaning philanthropic urge to improve health in third world countries, it is born out of a Malthusian drive to eliminate the poor and those deemed racially inferior, using the justification of social Darwinism.As is documented in Alex Jones’ seminal film Endgame, Rockefeller’s father, John D. Rockefeller, exported eugenics to Germany from its origins in Britain by bankrolling the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute which later would form a central pillar in the Third Reich’s ideology of the Nazi super race. After the fall of the Nazis, top German eugenicists were protected by the allies as the victorious parties fought over who would enjoy their expertise in the post-war world.The justification for the implementation of draconian measures of population control has changed to suit contemporary fads and trends. What once masqueraded as concerns surrounding overpopulation has now returned in the guise of the climate change and global warming movement. What has not changed is the fact that at its core, this represents nothing other than the arcane pseudo-science of eugenics first crafted by the U.S. and British elite at the end of the 19th century and later embraced by Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.In the 21st century, the eugenics movement has changed its stripes once again, manifesting itself through the global carbon tax agenda and the notion that having too many children or enjoying a reasonably high standard of living is destroying the planet through global warming, creating the pretext for further regulation and control over every facet of our lives.The fact that the chief scientific advisor to the President of the United States, a man with his finger on the pulse of environmental policy, once openly advocated the mass sterilization of the U.S. public through the food and water supply, along with the plethora of other disgusting proposals highlighted in Ecoscience, is a frightening prospect that wouldn’t be out of place in some kind of futuristic sci-fi horror movie, and a startling indictment of the true source of what manifests itself today as the elitist controlled top-down environmental movement.Only through bringing to light Holdren’s shocking and draconian population control plans can we truly alert people to the horrors that the elite have planned for us through population control, sterilization and genocidal culling programs that are already underway.