Wetenschappelijk adviseur Obama en duurzame ontwikkeling.

Kwam het volgende artikel tegen:


Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures

John P. Holdren is Assistant to President Barack Obama for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)[1][2]

Holdren was previously the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at the School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

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.

Hele artikel met scans op http://www.prisonplanet.c(...)ontrol-measures.html

Wat vinden we er hier van? Effectief, acceptabel, heeft men alternatieven in gedachten? Kan een wetenschapper met dergelijke positie tegenwoordig nog zulke uitspraken doen, is dit ethisch verantwoord? Kunnen we het uberhaupt geloven?

Speciaal voor Machiavelli het artikel van frontpagemag en scans uit het boek zelf met de belangrijkste passages.

quote:

Obama's Biggest Radical By: Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, February 27, 2009


When Barack Obama nominated John P. Holdren as his Science Adviser last December 20, the president-elect stated "promoting science isn’t just about providing resources" but "ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology." In nominating John Holdren, his words could scarcely have taken a more Orwellian ring.

Some critics have noted Holdren's penchant for making apocalyptic predictions that never come to pass, and categorizing all criticism of his alarmist views as not only wrong but dangerous. What none has yet noted is that Holdren is a globalist who has endorsed "surrender of sovereignty" to "a comprehensive Planetary Regime" that would control all the world's resources, direct global redistribution of wealth, oversee the "de-development" of the West, control a World Army and taxation regime, and enforce world population limits. He has castigated the United States as "the meanest of wealthy countries," written a justification of compulsory abortion for American women, advocated drastically lowering the U.S. standard of living, and left the door open to trying global warming "deniers" for crimes against humanity. Such is Barack Obama's idea of a clear-headed adviser on matters of scientific policy.

Hele artikel: http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34198

Scans uit het boek:

quote:

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.”

quote:

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.”

quote:

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.”

quote:

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.”

quote:

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.”

quote:

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.“

quote:

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?”

quote:

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.”

quote:

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.”

quote:

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.”

quote:

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.

Aldus de schrijver.







Ik denk niet dat er een betere bron voor een boek te vinden is dan het boek zelf, dus hier zal je het mee moeten doen.

[ Bericht 66% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 12-07-2009 12:19:45 ]

Men vindt het niet zorgelijk dat een wetenschapper met nazi-ideeën een top adviseur is geselecteerd door de president van het machtigste land van de wereld?

quote:

Op zondag 12 juli 2009 12:38 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:
Verstandige mensen maken zich altijd zorgen over het verkapte fascisme van de Amerikaanse regering. Maar jij pikt dit er uit omdat het aan je levensbeschouwing raakt. Ik denk dat er veel urgentere zaken zijn om je zorgen over te maken.

Nee het gaat mij in dit geval om de ethiek van wetenschap en de toepassing daarvan voor maatschappelijk beleid. Ik heb helemaal niets over mijn levensbeschouwing erin verwerkt want daar gaat het me niet om. Dat is gewoon een drogreden van jou om te flamen.

Het feit dat iemand met een dergelijk aanzien in de wetenschappelijke wereld (gezien zijn carriere) en een dergelijke hoge positie in de overheid zulke ideeën heeft, is stuitend.

Is dit acceptabel?

Zou 'de wetenschappelijke wereld' zich niet massaal tegen zo iemand op zo'n positie uit moeten spreken? Waarom horen we hier helemaal niets over in de grote bladen behalve via alternatieve media?

quote:

Op zondag 12 juli 2009 16:45 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:

[..]

Nee, je bent naïef. Er gaan regelmatig wilde verhalen waar mensen zich over opwinden. En terwijl ze dat doen worden stiekem "redelijker" wetten ingevoerd waar niemand zich druk over maakt (omdat ze zich hierover opwinden) maar die net zulke fascistische effecten hebben.

Dit verhaal is expres gebouwd rond religieus/ethische lijnen om zo veel mogelijk aandacht te trekken van de gemiddelde Amerikaan. Je bent er in getrapt. Wat jij als waarheid ziet is je zwakke punt. Je bent niet kritisch genoeg.

Wat bedoel je met 'wat jij als waarheid ziet'.

Wat in dat boek staat, staat toch gewoon in dat boek?

Holdren heeft toch de positie die hij heeft?

quote:

Op zondag 12 juli 2009 17:16 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:

[..]

Mogelijkheid 1: Het boek is echt, het is echt de mening van de betrokkene, de betrokkene wil zijn ideeen echt uitvoeren.
[..]

Mogelijkheid 2: Iemand anders heeft het boek bedacht om aandacht af te leiden of betrokkene zwart te maken.

Mogelijkheid 3: Alles ertussenin.

Hier is de betreffende man met het boek linksboven in de kast:



We hebben dus het boek met zijn naam erop.
Het ligt bij hem in de kast.

Hier kun je het boek online bestellen:
http://www.ilab.org/db/book47_80430.html

Google books:
http://books.google.nl/books?id=TsyYGwAACAAJ&dq=ecoscience+holdren

Hier staat het volledig online voor leden van de site:
http://www.questia.com/li(...)h-john-p-holdren.jsp

Dat het boek bestaat is dus een feit. Dat Holdren een co-auteur is is zeer waarschijnlijk aangezien zijn naam er constant bij staat.

Nu zou je dus kunnen geloven dat die naam er onterecht is bijgezet, de foto is gefotoshopt, en dat er een gigantisch complot tegen deze man is opgezet in 1977 om deze man voor de toekomst, wanneer hij door Obama aangesteld zou worden als adviseur, zwart te kunnen maken.

Een andere mogelijkheid is dat de man bepaalde radicale ideeen heeft, deze met enkele medewetenschappers in een boek uitgezet heeft, en deze dermate aantrekkelijk zijn geweest voor Obama dat hij de man als top adviseur heeft aangesteld, en dat enkelen die dit door hebben gekregen nu aan de bel trekken om hun medemens te waarschuwen.

Ik kies voor de 2e mogelijkheid aangezien ik die het meest waarschijnlijk acht op basis van de gegevens die ik tot nu toe heb. Wat kies jij op basis van welk bewijs?

[ Bericht 4% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 12-07-2009 19:38:56 ]

quote:

Op zondag 12 juli 2009 19:45 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:

[..]

Gezien de geschiedenis (Irak, Al Gore) kies ik er voor om dit niet serieus te nemen. Er zijn veel gevaarlijker krachten en mensen aan de gang. Terwijl jij je verliest in dit verhaal probeer ik er achter te komen wat er speelt waar we niets over horen.

Wat bedoel je met op basis van Irak en Al Gore dit niet serieus nemen.

Wat heb jij gevonden wat er speelt maar waar we niets over horen.

Welke krachten en mensen zijn gevaarlijker.

quote:

Op zondag 12 juli 2009 19:56 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:

[..]

De massavernietigingswapens die niet bestonden maar waar wel oorlog over gevoerd is.

Dat is mooi dat je dat nu onderzoekt, blij te horen, maar dat is al een tijdje bekend.

quote:

De lopende klimaatsdiscussie, die net begonnen is, we weten nog heel weinig, maar de meeste politici en bedrijven (die geld ruiken) hanteren het CO2 verhaal nu al als absolute waarheid om hun agenda door te kunnen drukken.

Moet ik dat echt uitleggen? Ben jij zo wereldvreemd? Geloof jij alles zo maar dat in je kraam te pas komt?

Daar heb ik al verschillende topics over geopend/posts over geplaatst de afgelopen 2 jaar. Tip, op deze site staat veel informatie over dit onderwerp http://www.freedomadvocates.org
Zie ook Global warming or global governance


[..]

quote:

Op dit moment? Dat weet ik niet, maar het verleden leert dat je van de ernstigste zaken het minste en het laatste iets hoort.

Mee eens.

quote:

De mensen die je niet op TV ziet.

Zoals deze Holdren?
Noem eens wat namen? Geef eens iets bloot van waar je werkelijk mee bezig bent?

Volgens mij doe je exact hetzelfde als ik alleen ben je wat later begonnen.

Uiteindelijk kom je ook vast bij de bijbel uit

[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 12-07-2009 20:14:29 ]

quote:

Op zondag 12 juli 2009 22:21 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:

[..]

Nee. Jij laat je afleiden door bullshit. Ik laat de bullshit links liggen en zoek naar wat er werkelijk speelt. Ik ben dan ook rechts langs de bijbel gegaan, omdat dat niet de waarheid is.

Geef nu toch wat meer bloot van waar je mee bezig bent. Ik ben wel benieuwd.

quote:

Op zondag 12 juli 2009 22:37 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:

[..]

Ik let gewoon goed op. Over het algemeen gaat het niet om wat er waar is, maar om (persoonlijke) belangen. Wilders gelooft vast niets van zijn eigen verhaal, maar hij heeft er belang bij.

Zo kan je alles wat er in de wereld gebeurd kritisch bekijken.

Maar je kan niet vervallen in absolute achterdocht, toch? Er bestaan nog best wel eerlijke mensen die uit zorg voor hun medemens bepaalde acties ondernemen/dingen verkondigen, etc. De meeste mensen proberen in ieder geval goed te doen voor hun medemens, al werkt onze menselijke natuur meestal niet echt mee om het ook echt zuiver te doen zonder eigenbelang.

quote:

Ik ben bezig met de legalisatie van drugs.

Ik hoop dat dat niet gaat gebeuren, voor mijn toekomstige kinderen's sake. Maar offtopic.

[ Bericht 4% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 13-07-2009 01:46:08 ]