John P Holdren (Obama's science czar) Eugenicist! [Archive]

View Full Version : John P Holdren (Obama's science czar) Eugenicist!

someguy

04-20-2010, 02:10 PM

Here are some quotes from John P Holdren's eff'd up 1977 text book for policy-makers Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment:

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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?"

"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.

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."

"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."

- Hmmm..... And this guy is a big Man Made Global Warming advocate in the white house..... Think about it...

John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet (https://zombietime.com/john_holdren/)

John Holdren - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren)

Sylph

04-20-2010, 03:08 PM

WeAreLove

04-20-2010, 03:49 PM

Using someguy's laughable line of reasoning, this is more proof that global warming is man made.

Old textbook quoted out of context...see Politifact:
PolitiFact | Glenn Beck claims science czar John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/)

Hotspring 44

04-20-2010, 04:10 PM

John Holdren - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren)

<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style>  </style> Interesting article.<o:p></o:p>

There is a maximum amount of any species that a particular environment can handle. Exactly what that is as far as human population on the planet Earth is concerned, probably varies (fluctuates) depending upon technology, the usage of the resources and the environmental conditions.

In the past there have been wars, pestilence, famine, and extreme environmental shifts that existed that controlled many humans were able to survive in any one particular time in the past on the planet.

I think that too many people assume that any government is actually able to make those ultimate decisions because things can and do happen that ends up being out of any government’s control.
Historically Governments usually lose control when there are extreme fluctuations in world human population.

I did not read the book, but I think that statements like:<o:p></o:p>
<table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: medium none;" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="border: 1pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top"> “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—[I]providing they are not denied equal protection.”<o:p></o:p>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> Can easily be read into meaning [I]eugenics but from what I could tell from the article from the link you provided; I do not see the actual eugenics in the equation. <o:p></o:p>
<table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: medium none;" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="border: 1pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top"> Noun.
eugenics (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/eugenics)- the study of methods of improving genetic qualities [I]by selective breeding (https://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/selective+breeding)(especially as applied to human mating)<o:p></o:p>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> I don't see anywhere in the article, that the intent was/is to improve genetic qualities. Instead I see a hypothetical list of theoretical possibilities for the implementation of how to limit the human population (in actual numbers) to be sustainable because of limited resources.

In fact, because it says:<o:p></o:p><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style>  </style> <table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: medium none;" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="border: 1pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top"> “If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children”…
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <o:p> Then it goes on to say:
</o:p>
<table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: medium none;" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="border: 1pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top"> “just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—[I]providing they are not denied equal protection (https://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/equal+protection).” (https://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/equal+protection)[I]<o:p></o:p> (https://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/equal+protection)
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> It appears to me that it implies the opposite of eugenics.
However it does imply government intervention.
But that's different than using genetics as the basics for the intervention, and making hybrid people a preferable outcome and/or a requirement in the actual law.

<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>

someguy

04-20-2010, 04:13 PM

Old textbook quoted out of context...see Politifact:
PolitiFact | Glenn Beck claims science czar John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/)

One of the links I provided shows full page scans of the textbook pages. I fully read the context and still find this book extremely disturbing. I would encourage everyone to check it out for themselves.

For instance, one of the arguments made frequently throughout the book is that these unsettling methods of population control (including forced abortions) are completely legal under the Constitution. How anyone could come to that conclusion is beyond me. And the fact that someone with such logic could be appointed as Science Czar is truly concerning.

Its true that Holdren uses the passive voice when speaking of such disturbing matters. That way it can be argued that he is not technically advocating the things he is talking about. However, when talking about forced abortion or sterilization (or seizing people's children), he says that while these things might be unpalatable to some (to say the least), they may be necessary if things get really out of hand. Then he spends the rest of the book trying to convince you that things ARE really out of hand already.

Its important to realize that by the time that this book was written, eugenics was no longer something you could talk openly about as something you supported. John Holdren is surely smart enough to realize that. So he didn't come out and say "I support forced abortions and taking children away from single mothers." Instead, he cleverly wrote it into a textbook in the passive voice so he could maintain the appearance that he was simply discussing these horrifying things rather than advocating them.

There is one thing that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that John Holdren supports eugenics, and that is his often-expressed admiration for Harrison Brown. Harrison Brown, unlike Holdren, openly expressed his views on eugenics in his book, The Challenge of Man's Future, written in 1954. In fact, the entire premise of the book is that in order to prevent massive overpopulation in the future, we need eugenics. Holdren praised Harrison Brown as recently as 2007, so you can't say that he's changed his mind about this. Holdren edited and co-wrote a book in honor of Harrison Brown in 1986. Here is a quote from that book:

"Harrison Brown's most remarkable book, The Challenge of Man's Future, was published more than three decades ago. By the time I read it as a high school student a few years later, the book had been widely acclaimed.... The Challenge of Man's Future pulled these interests together for me in a way that transformed my thinking about the world and about the sort of career I wanted to pursue. I have always suspected that I am not the only member of my generation whose aspirations and subsequent career were changed by this book of Harrison Brown's.... As a demonstration of the power of (and necessity for) an interdisciplinary approach to global problems, the book was a tour de force.... Thirty years after Harrison Brown elaborated these positions, it remains difficult to improve on them as a coherent depiction of the perils and challenges we face. Brown's accomplishment in writing The Challenge of Man's Future, of course, was not simply the construction of this sweeping schema for understanding the human predicament; more remarkable was (and is) the combination of logic, thoroughness, clarity, and force with which he marshalled data and argumentation on every element of the problem and on their interconnections. It is a book, in short, that should have reshaped permanently the perceptions of all serious analysts...."
— John Holdren, in Earth and the Human Future: Essays in Honor of Harrison Brown

And here is a quote from The Challenge of Man's Future:

"The feeble-minded, the morons, the dull and backward, and the lower-than-average persons in our society are outbreeding the superior ones at the present time. ... Is there anything that can be done to prevent the long-range degeneration of human stock? Unfortunately, at the present time there is little, other than to prevent breeding in persons who present glaring deficiencies clearly dangerous to society and which are known to be of a hereditary nature. Thus we could sterilize or in other ways discourage the mating of the feeble-minded. We could go further and systematically attempt to prune from society, by prohibiting them from breeding, persons suffering from serious inheritable forms of physical defects, such as congenital deafness, dumbness, blindness, or absence of limbs. ... A broad eugenics program would have to be formulated which would aid in the establishment of policies that would encourage able and healthy persons to have several offspring and discourage the unfit from breeding at excessive rates."
— Harrison Brown, in The Challenge of Man's Future

Last but not least, here is a quote from an article that breaks all of this down point by point. This guy said it better than I ever could:

"Does all of this amount to nothing more than "guilt by association"? Perhaps. That's up to you the reader to decide. But consider this: If someone had expressed his deep admiration for Mein Kampf, and in fact edited and co-wrote a volume which spelled out in elaborate detail just how wonderful Mein Kampf was as a book, would you want that person to control science and technology policy in the United States? Probably not. But that too would be just "guilt by association," since this putative person wouldn't have actually written Mein Kampf; he would merely have praised the book and its author. And if you think that's an unfair analogy, I dare you to read the passages from The Challenge of Man's Future below and you'll see that in certain respects Mein Kampf seems mild by comparison."
John Holdren and Harrison Brown (https://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/)

Hotspring 44

04-20-2010, 04:53 PM

One of the links I provided shows full page scans of the textbook pages. I fully read the context and still find this book extremely disturbing. I would encourage everyone to check it out for themselves.
John Holdren and Harrison Brown (https://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/)

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style>  </style> Okay, so there is a lot of reading involved. So it would take a long time to extrapolate the issues as they are presented on those web pages.
Because I don't have that much time in the near future to analyze all that stuff like I did the global warming issue. I will simply say this, the following: (for now).<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I for one will say right now, I do not believe that eugenics is desirable, in fact quite the opposite!

However, I do believe that overpopulation is a major issue.

I'm sure that there are those who agree with me and those whom do not agree with me but for those who do agree with the concept of overpopulation of the human species beyond the capability of the planet to sustain.

So the question to those whom do believe that human overpopulation is a major concern for the planet within the next 50 to 150 years, what do you think should be done to prevent a catastrophic circumstance of human overpopulation on a planetary scale?

<o:p></o:p>
How or would you even consider proposing human population controls of some sort?

Does anybody have any solutions that do not involve some kind of human involvement or ignorance of war, eugenics, famine, sterilization, or genocide?

I hope it's something better than the rhythmic method.

Was China adequately successful with its birth control requirements of no more than two children per couple?
Was that a good example for the rest of the planet to consider someday, or a failure?

Were there eugenics principles involved in China with their birth control legislation?

Why does it seem that it is taboo to talk about population limitations?

I know that some cultures believe in populating the earth with their genes as much as possible.
Is that a form of eugenics by way of out-populating and overwhelming other populations by way of crowding them out of the resources? Or could it be done in a friendly way where they share their genes, cultures, and the resources?

I think people need to think about these things and discuss them freely without being a taboo as soon as possible, because the population on the planet Earth is enough that it's become a serious issue for the not too far off future.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>

WeAreLove

04-20-2010, 05:00 PM

- Hmmm..... And this guy is a big Man Made Global Warming advocate in the white house..... Think about it...

OMG... He probably believes in the theory of gravity too! Think about it...

someguy

04-20-2010, 05:03 PM

So the question to those whom do believe that human overpopulation is a major concern for the planet within the next 50 to 150 years, what do you think should be done to prevent a catastrophic circumstance of human overpopulation on a planetary scale?

Does anybody have any solutions that do not involve some kind of human involvement or ignorance of war, eugenics, famine, sterilization, or genocide?

Its very simple. All you have to do is raise the standard of living. Countries with a high standard of living have much lower birth rates than countries with low standards of living.

Zeno Swijtink

04-20-2010, 05:28 PM

someguy

04-20-2010, 07:23 PM

Many countries with a high birthrate have a low standard of living in part because they have a high birth rate.

I disagree. When there is a high rate of infant mortality (due to low standards of living), people have more children because they know that some of them will die.

Here are a couple of discussions of this subject (including the true causes of poverty in developing nations) for anyone who is interested:

Barry Commoner's views on population (https://www.marathon.uwc.edu/geography/malthus/ramparts.htm)

Overpopulation: Myths, Facts, and Politics (https://www.albalagh.net/population/overpopulation.shtml)

Zeno Swijtink

04-20-2010, 09:47 PM

I disagree. When there is a high rate of infant mortality (due to low standards of living), people have more children because they know that some of them will die.

Here are a couple of discussions of this subject (including the true causes of poverty in developing nations) for anyone who is interested:

Barry Commoner's views on population (https://www.marathon.uwc.edu/geography/malthus/ramparts.htm)

Overpopulation: Myths, Facts, and Politics (https://www.albalagh.net/population/overpopulation.shtml)

I expect you to disagree, and I wouldn't expect you not to be able to link to many other people who equally disagree with me. You must have done some reading.

But even if in the past peoples have been able to dug themselves out of poverty while at the same time maintaining high levels of fecundity, this often was because they used the economic model of colonialism.

Just do this calculation:

How many people are living in conditions of poverty at the moment, what is their fecundity, and at what level of prosperity (resource use) would their fecundity go down, and level out total world population (according to your sources)?

Now, what total resources would that take, in energy, metals, hydrocarbons, etc. ?

Now all these resources are capital, not perpetual income flows.

Applying the mental framework of growth, growing ourselves out of the exponential process of population growth, will lead to a brink, when the capital is depleted.

Now you sources will at this point in the conversation whisper in your ear: "say 'technology revolution.' "

"We will discover how to bake bread out of air."

To which my reply will be: "Thin air."

someguy

04-20-2010, 10:56 PM

I expect you to disagree, and I wouldn't expect you not to be able to link to many other people who equally disagree with me. You must have done some reading.

But even if in the past peoples have been able to dug themselves out of poverty while at the same time maintaining high levels of fecundity, this often was because they used the economic model of colonialism.

Just do this calculation:

How many people are living in conditions of poverty at the moment, what is their fecundity, and at what level of prosperity (resource use) would their fecundity go down, and level out total world population (according to your sources)?

Now, what total resources would that take, in energy, metals, hydrocarbons, etc. ?

Now all these resources are capital, not perpetual income flows.

Applying the mental framework of growth, growing ourselves out of the exponential process of population growth, will lead to a brink, when the capital is depleted.

Now you sources will at this point in the conversation whisper in your ear: "say 'technology revolution.' "

"We will discover how to bake bread out of air."

To which my reply will be: "Thin air."

Well, the problem doesn't lie in lack of resources, but rather a monetary system led by huge international banks who basically serve corporate interests so that these corporations may rape the poorest nations on this planet of their vast resources.

Don't be fooled, scarcity is manufactured. There are plenty of resources to go around. Even the UN says we have ample food supply to sustain our current population and beyond. And if we change our farming techniques we could have even more food with less input that is more nutritious. If we educated people as to what a proper diet really consists of (it's not what the USDA says it is by the way) then the problem of malnourishment in many places would be that of the past.

We also have plenty of energy and the technology available to produce it. Just read an MIT research paper titled The Future of Geothermal Energy https://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf. This report found that found that "13,000 zettajoules of power are currently available in the earth, with the possibility of 2000 zettajoules being easily tap-able with improved technology. The total energy consumption of all the countries on the planet is about half of a zettajoule a year, this means about 4000 years of planetary power could be harnessed in this medium alone. And when we understand that the earth’s heat generation is constantly renewed, this energy is really limitless and could be used forever." - https://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/The%20Zeitgeist%20Movement.pdf

And if we just spent our money more wisely, instead of blowing it on war and welfare, we could easily spend it on free energy well beyond our minds can fathom. Our government seems to believe that they can spend trillions of dollars on wasteful unconstitutional bullshit that is impoverishing us all, so why can't we just get rid of all of that crap and spend a fraction of that money on implementing sensible policies that secure free renewable clean energy for all.

So we have food, energy, what else do we need, shelter perhaps? Well we don't need metals or wood to build homes in most places in this world. We have cob, adobe, straw bale, and even earth bag homes. These homes are arguably more sustainable and much cheaper than the newest and greenest home in California that money can buy.

When these sustainable homes are built properly, they have more insulative power, structural integrity, fire resistance, etc..... than our modern homes ever will. The raw materials are everywhere and can be taken directly from the building site where you dig out the foundation. You could even make a foundation on recycled tires, or urbanite. You can build these homes yourself with your family so you don;t need to hire anyone, but we have all these government regulations (draconian building codes that don;t take into account new or old technology because they are in the pocket of the corporations) that prevent us from utilizing these amazing and affordable technologies.

Water is obviously abundant. We have developed the technology to filter out all of the crap put into it from our reckless stupidity. Unfortunately the problem lies with the huge multi-national corporations, such as nestle, who have bought up the water rights to many of our worlds natural water sources and are depriving communities of their own abundant water. Not to mention the fact that we already have a sterilizing agent, sodium fluoride, in our water systems. Why do you suppose, Zeno, that a sterilizing agent that is also a hazardous waste product contaminated with heavy metals is added to our water supply?

Anyway, these resources vital for human life are obviously abundant and the only thing holding a prosperous affluent humanity back is a monetary system perpetuated by governments, international banks, and corporations. The heads of these organizations are the eugenicists that I'm talking about. They see that over-population poses a threat to global security, and yet they don't want to give up their vast resource stranglehold, and would rather destroy mass amounts of people and profit from it at the same time.

Hotspring 44

04-21-2010, 12:42 AM

Its very simple. All you have to do is raise the standard of living. Countries with a high standard of living have much lower birth rates than countries with low standards of living.

what do you think we need to do to actually accomplish that?:hmmm:
Do you actually think it would be so very simple to do that even if it is the right thing to do?
I think it would be extremely difficult to convince people like the ones on Wall Street, for example, of such.

Garden Goddess

04-21-2010, 07:50 AM

Ethics and logic would preclude most of the actions that have been suggested by the government and political groups in regard to controlling personal reproductive choices.

Eugenics operates under the false premise that selective breeding promotes better societies. Their premise also includes the erroneous idea that one "race" is better than another.

Race does not exist. Ethnicity exists. I am for preserving the traditions and unique cultural heritage of all people. I am not for extreme homogenization and sameness. That said, I will say the idea of race is patently false.

Scientists have studied the mitochondrial DNA of people all over the world. Their conclusion? All people that now exist on the Earth are the descendants of one woman and her several companions.

I am a veteran of the advertising industry. One can learn the main thrust of an organization by looking at their advertising. For example: Why does Planned Parenthood spend large amounts of money to putting billboards in largely Latino and Black poverty-stricken areas of cities? "Pregnant and Scared" reads the headline with a large picture of an attractive "non-white" female.

I have not seen any of these billboards in areas that have largely so-called, "White" populations.

In addition, "standard of living" is something that was invented by the advertising industry to figure out ways to cause humans to part with their "disposable income" (another term invented by the advertising industry) and buy things they don't really need.

Standard of living includes such things as TVs and how often one can afford to buy a new car, it has nothing to do with better health or other more pressing concerns. Health is actually worse, the more "developed a country becomes.

someguy

04-21-2010, 10:24 AM

what do you think we need to do to actually accomplish that?:hmmm:
Do you actually think it would be so very simple to do that even if it is the right thing to do?
I think it would be extremely difficult to convince people like the ones on Wall Street, for example, of such.

Well the most practical way of raising the standard of living nowadays would be free market capitalism. Although this is not the end all answer to the greater problem of resource management, it has proven over time to be the most successful form of creating an environment in which all people have an opportunity to thrive.

As I stated in my last response to Zeno, government regulations, international banking schemers, and corporate monopolies are the biggest hindrance to accomplishing a more sustainable and prosperous world population. That is something our forefathers understood, and that is why our constitution in its original form, made the US the most affluent country ever. Simply because it took the power from the corporations, governments and banks, and gave it to the people. If we gave all people in all nations the opportunity our forefathers gave us, we would likely see a more steady and prosperous world population.

But to me, free market economies don't solve the problem of inherent moral decline. Because money is involved, and because all people need money to survive, it's almost impossible to be a moral person. For example, let's say you are selling a car, and the person across the way is also selling a car but his is better and is selling for the same price. Morally you should inform the customer not to buy your car but to opt for the better valued car. But you won't, because you need the money to survive. This creates an unfair system for those who have no quarrels about being a liar or a miser.This is the big problem with any monetary based economy. The answer is then to eliminate money altogether. This is not practical in today;s society, simply because we are not mature enough for such a world, that is why I gave you the example of free market capitalism. To date, free market capitalism is the most effective form of creating a high standard of living for all.

Now is this an easy thing to accomplish? Well it could be, but it does have lots of difficulties. Most of our world doesn't understand this concept and thinks that government is supposed to take care of them. A shift in consciousness is what is needed (and that is being revived in our country again via the tea party movement). And as you said, it is hard to convince wall street of this, because it strips them of their power. Same goes for government. These entities are just middlemen standing in the way of our freedom, and we can see that the establishment hates it when people demand liberty. Case in point, the tea party being labeled as a racist white supremacist movement. The government, banks, and media are attempting to pit minorities against this movement because if we are divided, we cannot be effective in overcoming their power. So far they are doing an okay job, but many Americans are waking up. The internet is proving to be a very effective tool at countering disinformation spread by the mainstream media. But unfortunately George W Bush now is making it his responsibility to champion internet freedom. I bet you know what that really means (no internet freedom).

All we have to do is come together for liberty. Demand that the middlemen and their buddies give up their power and restore it to the people. Its not extremely easy to do this, but it can be done, and the internet is a great way of exposing the fraud perpetrated by these entities. Its either that or eugenics, and I do not advocate killing people.

Sylph

04-21-2010, 11:30 AM

All we have to do is come together for liberty. Demand that the middlemen and their buddies give up their power and restore it to the people. Its not extremely easy to do this, but it can be done, and the internet is a great way of exposing the fraud perpetrated by these entities. Its either that or eugenics, and I do not advocate killing people.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
This is a false dichotomy, “either we (magically) eliminate the power brokers and demand liberty, or we have to employ eugenics and kill people.” (?)
The internet is a great way to connect unrelated dots to paint a scary picture..."Holdren as third author of 30 yr old textbook that describes eugenics, means that Holdren is a dangerous guy who would advocate putting birth control in our water supply and killing people."

someguy

04-21-2010, 01:55 PM

Holdren as third author of 30 yr old textbook that describes eugenics, means that Holdren is a dangerous guy who would advocate putting birth control in our water supply and killing people."[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

Well now your just ignoring the facts. How about the fact that John P Holdren has shown his reverence for Harrison Brown (a well known eugenicist) on several occasions.

Don't allow your dogmatic belief in Obama cloud your judgement. It's obvious to anyone who has any amount a discernment that Holdren is a eugenicist! But just so you know, Holdren is only tiny droplet in a large pond of eugenicists. Bush had his cronies, Clinton before him, and Bush Sr. before that. They are all in this together, and I'll tell you they are against you and I. So I'd recommend that you stop defending people like Holdren (especially when you have the information to understand that he is what I claim he is), or your gonna end up looking like you don;t have any judgement whatsoever.

All you have to do is use your critical thinking skills and realize that we already have sterilants in our water supply, and that GMO food (that is basically in all processed foods) sterilizes mammals. Oh and what about those vaccines you pump into your children, you think those are supportive of life? Fact is, we are under attack right now as I speak to you. Don't tell me that Sodium Fluoride is good for you, and that injecting heavy metals is a grand idea. Don;t tell me that women aren't getting breast cancer earlier and earlier, and that the average American males sperm count is heavily on the decline. Don;t even think to tell me that Gardasil should be taken by boys and young girls like the government suggests. Or that the USDA food recommendations promote vitality and vigor. Don't even think to tell me that our government is pushing these forms of slow killers on us for our own good, or that they are just mistaken about the effects of these agents. This is planned, and one of their planners is in the white house right now! Wake up!

How about Global warming? I didn't just throw that in there for no reason.... Don't you think that if we are to combat this false threat that some international governing body will have to regulate all our planets natural resources? Doesn't that fit perfectly with what Holdren wrote in his book? Isn't that a perfect way to kill massive amounts of people? Just starve them to death by withholding their energy and food supply! Holdren is just another government puppet pushing for a much larger secretive agenda. And that agendas catalyst happens to be the Man Made Global Warming hoax.

Sylph

04-21-2010, 02:44 PM

I don't have a dogmatic belief in Obama, in fact, I am profoundly disappointed in him.

Eugenics was very popular in the early 20th century and many bright lights were "eugenicists", including Winston Churchill, Luther Burbank, John Harvey Kellog, Linus Pauling and H.G. Wells. www.eugenics.wikipedia.com (https://www.eugenics.wikipedia.com) After WW II everyone was naturally appalled by the acts of Hitler, et al, and the very idea of eugenics was anathema, as it should be. Harrison Brown said some stupid and awful things, but that doesn't make him another Hitler. Admiring him, as Holdren apparently does, doesn't mean Holdren supports every idea Brown ever had.

The sterilants in our water don't seem to be working very well...you'd think small animals would be almost extinct by now, if the sterilants were working.

Why do the high mucky mucks want massive numbers of people to die? How does that help their bottom line?

someguy

04-21-2010, 03:07 PM

The sterilants in our water don't seem to be working very well...you'd think small animals would be almost extinct by now, if the sterilants were working.

Why do the high mucky mucks want massive numbers of people to die? How does that help their bottom line?

First of all, small animals are not drinking our municipal water supply. But we are, and our sterility is in jeopardy. This is fact. Our life spans are shortening mainly because of we are ingesting toxins on a daily basis that promote cancer and whole mess of systemic problems. This too is fact.

Why do these people want to kill millions? Well the whole idea behind eugenics is to purify the global race and to consolidate power to a few chosen families. Simply put these people are psychopaths just like Hitler. They feel like they are god and they know what races are best and what types of people are best suited for this planet. Plus, its much easier to control smaller amounts of people. I think its pretty simple. If they kill tons of people, its so much easier to control the planet, which has been the goal of many humans throughout world history. This is no different.