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)
| 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.
Powered by ScribeFire.
