‘Science Czar’ John P. Holdren’s disturbing beliefs

2012-11-23

Richard Moore

Bcc: FYI
rkm websitehttp://cyberjournal.org
___________________________________

This particular article comes from a ‘Republican newsletter’, which means it would typically be ignored / dismissed by those on the left. Also, the article is implicitly condemning any criticism of capitalism or growth, which folks on the left would consider somewhat ignorant. 

What I find worthwhile in the article is learning about Holdren’s beliefs on mandatory population control: forced abortions, sterilizing agents in the food or water supply, etc. This is a eugenic agenda, something the Rockefellers have been pushing for many decades, and which was incorporated into the ideology of the Third Reich.

I also find it interesting that this kind of information is being packaged here in a way that those on the left would ignore / dismiss. 

rkm
_______



 

 John P. Holdren has been named President Barack Obama’s ‘Science Czar.”

Holdren’s official titles are: Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; Assistant to the President for Science and Technology; and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

The longtime Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, Holdren is no stranger to controversy. 

Holdren’s radicalism dates back to the late 1960s. In 1969 Holdren wrote that it was imperative “to convince society and its leaders that there is no alternative but the cessation of our irresponsible, all-demanding, and all-consuming population growth.”

That same year, he and (the now largely discredited) professor of population studies Paul Ehrlichjointly predicted: “If … population control measures are not initiated immediately and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.” In 1971 Holdren and Ehrlich warned that “some form of ecocatastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century.”

Viewing capitalism as an economic system that is inherently harmful to the natural environment, Holdren and Ehrlich in 1973 called for “a massive campaign … to de-develop the United States” and other Western nations in order to conserve energy and facilitate growth in underdeveloped countries.

“De-development,” they said, “means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” “By de-development,” they elaborated, “we mean lower per-capita energy consumption, fewer gadgets, and the abolition of planned obsolescence.” “

In a new report “inspired by this article in FrontPage,” undercover videoblogger “Zombietime” (known for his “candid camera”-style exposes of leftist activists and protesters) got hold of a copy of Holdren & Ehrlich’s 1977 book, entitled Ecoscience, and verified the quotations and page citations provided in the FrontPage Magazine article, by scanning and posting them on the Internet.

To this day, Holdren lists the book on his CV.

Among other things, Holdren and Ehrlich wrote in Ecosystems:

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.

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.

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 difficultpolitical, 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.


Share this: