Human hater John P. Holdren Wants to Swindle you, again

The United States’ Science Czar and fervent Eugenicist, John P. Holdren expressed his desire to swindle people into believing humans are the cause of all disasters.  He co-authored a book stating that forced abortions and mass sterilization are needed to save the planet.

Fox News

From the administration that brought you “man-caused disaster” and “overseas contingency operation,” another terminology change is in the pipeline.

The White House wants the public to start using the term “global climate disruption” in place of “global warming” — fearing the latter term oversimplifies the problem and makes it sound less dangerous than it really is.

White House science adviser John Holdren urged people to start using the phrase during a speech last week in Oslo, echoing a plea he made three years earlier. Holdren said global warming is a “dangerous misnomer” for a problem far more complicated than a rise in temperature.

The call comes as Congress prepares to adjourn for the season without completing work on a stalled climate bill. The term global warming has long been criticized as inaccurate, and the new push could be an attempt to re-shape climate messaging for next year’s legislative session.

“They’re trying to come up with more politically palatable ways to sell some of this stuff,” said Republican pollster Adam Geller, noting that Democrats also rolled out a new logo and now refer to the Bush tax cuts as “middle-class tax cuts.”

He said the climate change change-up likely derives from flagging public support for their bill to regulate emissions. He said the term “global warming” makes the cause easy to ridicule whenever there’s a snowstorm.

“Every time we’re digging our cars out — what global warming?” he said. “(Global climate disruption is) more of a sort of generic blanket term, I guess, that can apply in all weather conditions.”

It’s unclear why Holdren prefers “global climate disruption” over “climate change,” the most commonly used alternative to “global warming.”

Asked about the speech, Holdren spokesman Rick Weiss said only that the Office of Science and Technology Policy has been transparent about Holdren’s remarks.

“The PowerPoint for Dr. Holdren’s Oslo presentation has been public on our website since the day after he returned,” he said.

Click here to see the presentation.

In a 2007 presentation, Holdren suggested a similar phrase change — “global climatic disruption.”

The explanation he gave last week was that the impact from greenhouse gas emissions covers a broad “disruption” of climate patterns ranging from precipitation to storms to hot and cold temperatures. Those changes, he said, affect the availability of water, productivity of farms, spread of disease and other factors.

He’s not the first scientist to publicly veer away from “global warming.” NASA published an analysis on its website in 2008 explaining that it avoids the term because temperature change “isn’t the most severe effect of changing climate.”

“Changes to precipitation patterns and sea levels are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone,” the report said.

But Republicans predicted that re-branding the issue would have limited effect on the legislative effort. GOP strategist Pete Snyder said he doubts the term is going to change hearts and minds.

“Are they going to change the name of weathermen to disruption analysts?” he quipped. GOP lawmakers already exploited a terminology change of their own by re-branding the “cap-and-trade” bill as “cap-and-tax.”

Holdren’s “global climate disruption” isn’t the most convoluted term to grace the climate debate, however.

According to the NASA article, early studies on the impact humans had on global climate referred to the relationship as “inadvertent climate modification.”

Advertisement

Death is “Reasonable” to Save Society

Jurriaan Maessen

In a 1995 article written by Gretchen Daily and Ecoscience co-author Paul R. Ehrlich, the authors put forward the proposition that physicians should no longer concentrate on improving the health of their individual patients, or treat occurring infections in order to save the patients life, but rather look to the well-being of society as a whole. In doing so, say Daily and Ehrlich, “a small net increase in deaths” is “a reasonable price to pay”. Here’s the quote in its entirety (page 25):

“Physicians by instinct and training focus on the health of individuals; they must learn to pay more attention to the health of whole societies and to deal with the difficult conflicts of interest that often arise between the two. One physician, Jeffrey Fisher (1994), recommends that physicians be required to take periodic recertification exams in which they are tested on antibiotic knowledge. If antibiotics had been used more judiciously over the past few decades, there doubtless would have been more deaths from bacterial infections misdiagnosed as viral, and fewer deaths from allergic reactions to antibiotics. But a small net increase in deaths would probably have been a reasonable price to pay to avoid the present situation, which portends a return to the pre-antibiotic era and much higher death rates.”

The fact that humans reproduce, Daily and Ehrlich argue, means diseases

The Main Stream Media has helped push the idea that it is fine to kill oneself to save the planet, or to let the elderly die for the sake of Society.

have an opportunity to thrive and wreak havoc amongst them. This is the snake biting its own tail. Less humans means less diseases. The logic is infallible. The same argument can of course be applied to car accidents, plane crashes and other calamities, sure to occur with those darned humans roaming about. In order to reduce the possibility of diseases occurring, the authors list some proposals, including:

“1. Redoubling efforts to halt the growth of the human population and eventually reduce it (Daily et al., 1994). This is a very basic step, because overpopulation makes substantial, diverse contributions to the degradation of the epidemiological environment, in addition to degrading other aspects of Earth’s carrying capacity (Daily and Ehrlich, 1992).”

Another proposal reads as follows:

“7. Instituting worldwide campaigns to emphasize limiting the number of sexual partners, and to increase the use of condoms and spermicides. Such changes would both lower the incidence of STDs and encourage the evolution of reduced virulence in them (Ewald, 1994). Special attention should be paid to methods that can be adopted by women (e.g., Rosenberg and Gollub, 1992; Rosenberg et al., 1992, 1993), which would tie in neatly to related methods of improving the epidemiological environment by limiting human population growth (Ehrlich et al., 1995).

From Ehrlich we switch gears to John P. Holdren, who authored (also with Paul Ehrlich) an article called “The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects” in the World Bank document Defining and Measuring Sustainability. In the article, the diabolical duo propose a stark reduction in the percentage of humans on earth:

“No form of material growth (including population growth) other than asymptotic growth, is sustainable; Many of the practices inadequately supporting today’s population of 5.5 billion people are sustainable; and at the sustainability limit, there will be a trade-off between population and energy-matter throughput per person, hence, ultimately, between economic activity per person and well-being per person.”

“This”, Holdren and Ehrlich continue, “is enough to say quite a lot about what needs to be faced up to eventually (a world of zero net physical growth), what should be done now (change unsustainable practices, reduce excessive material consumption, slow down population growth),and what the penalty will be for postponing attention to population limitation (lower well-being per person.”

The most gruesome and interesting part of their elucidation is buried in the notes (page 15). In speaking about all kinds of intolerable “harms” that counteract sustainability, Holdren and Ehrlich are willing to make an exception for pollution, if it will cut some time of the average life expectancy:

“Harm that would qualify as tolerable, in this context, could not be cumulative, else continuing additions to it would necessarily add up to unsustainable damage eventually. Thus, for example, a form and level of pollution that subtract a month from the life expectancy of the average member of the human population, or that reduce the net primary productivity of forests on the planet by 1 percent, might be deemed tolerable in exchange for very large benefits and would certainly be sustainable as long as the loss of life expectancy or reduction in productivity did not grow with time. Two of us have coined the term “maximum sustainable abuse” in the course of grappling with such ideas (Daily and Ehrlich 1992).”

In the horrible euphemistic way these proposals disguised as “possibilities” are usually being presented lies hidden a horrible truth. These head-hunters of the scientific dictatorship are not simply powerless psychopaths exchanging abstract ideas. They are powerful sociopaths rather, occupying key positions within the marble halls of academia and government. In the final equation, they are after you and your children.

Oxford Professor: Poison water to medicate population

Oxford professor Julian Savulescu says fluoridation demonstrates how populations of the future could be mass-medicated through pharmacological ‘cognitive enhancements’ added to the water supply.

Aaron Dykes

In a 2008 paper titled, “Fluoride and the Future: Population Level Cognitive Enhancement,” Oxford bioethics professor Julian Savulescu claims that water fluoridation may be key to the “future of humanity.” He argues that “fluoridation may not merely be about tooth decay… [but] the drive to be better.”

Drugging the population’s water supply, Savulescu claims, is a form of “enhancement” that can pave the way to a future where mental abilities and other functions could be improved with drugs. Savulescu writes:

“Fluoridation is the tip of the enhancement iceberg. Science is progressing fast to develop safe and effective cognitive enhancers, drugs which will improve our mental abilities. For years, people have used crude enhancers, usually to promote wakefulness, like nicotine, caffeine and amphetamines. A new generation of more effective enhancers is emerging modafenil, ritalin, Adderral and ampakines and the piracetam family of memory improvers.”

But once highly safe and effective cognitive enhancers are developed – as they almost surely will be – the question will arise whether they should be added to the water, like fluoride, or our cereals, like folate. It seems likely that widespread population level cognitive enhancement will be irresistible.

The dream Savulescu argues for is based upon the lie that fluoridation of the public water supply has been a tremendous human advancement. Supporting that lie is the boasted claim by the Center for Disease Control that water fluoridation ranks among the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th Century. Instead, fluoride has been linked with neurological effects, thyroid problems, bone cancer and even crippling-blindness. What’s more, much of it is not even the common-but-toxic sodium fluoride, but an industrial waste derivative known as hydrofluosilicic acid– in an estimated 2/3 of the fluoridated public water in the U.S. and known to be very deadly.

Savulescu is flawed to hope fluoride can pave the way to an alchemically-”improved” society, especially where forced-medication is involved. The vision is distinctly like that of Brave New World, wherein author Aldous Huxley predicts a future dictatorship where people “learn to love their servitude.” What Huxley terms in the novel “Soma” would most likely come in reality in the form of numerous drugs that would tackle individual happiness, and the larger complacency of the masses at large. Solidified by a Scientific Dictatorship, a pharmacologically-treated population would be rendered very unlikely to ever revolt against the regime in power.

“There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.”

A ‘scientific’ form of control doesn’t necessarily imply the rise of enlightenment or technological innovation, but rather the guaranteed control of its population through a tested understanding of human behavior– including breaking point, resistance, anger– and the the ability to systematically stay one-step or many more ahead of what anyone might do.

DRUGS AND CHEMICALS ALREADY IN OUR FOOD & WATER

So could “cognitive enhancers” like Ritalin, Prozac and other chemically-engineered drugs be added to the water supply in the future to make humans better, smarter or faster? Or could they make humans docile, complacent and dangerously subservient?

Such proposals are already underway, and what’s more, whether intentional or not, spiked water supplies are already affecting populations in the U.S. and across the globe.

Huxley stated:

Kurt Nimmo reported in December 2009 on a newspiece advocating adding lithium to the water supply as a mood stabilizer:

Japanese researchers, according to Georgiou, are “investigating whether trace amounts of lithium can just change the mood in a community enough — in a really positive way without having the bad effects of lithium — to really affect the mood and decrease the suicide rate.”

Moreover, the AP exposed in 2008 that pharmaceutical drugs were found in the majority of the United States’ water supply. According to the AP, at least 46 million people are affected by the issue.

The New York Times sums in ‘There are drugs in the drinking water. Now what?‘ that: “There are traces of sedatives in New York City’s water. Ibuprofen and naproxen in Washington, D.C. Anti-epileptic and anti-anxiety drugs in southern California… But how bad is it, exactly?”

The U.S. Geological Survey lists the “emerging contaminants in the environment” and specifically notes what is affecting the water supply. Contaminating compounds range from herbicides to pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors and household chemicals.

New research has also uncovered the presence of chemicals known as Antiandrogens that are finding their way into the water supply. Paul Joseph Watson writes:

Antiandrogens used in pesticides sprayed on our food have also been identified as “endocrine disruptors” that have been “demonstrated to induce demasculinization in rats.”

More shockingly, population control advocates like White House Science Advisor John P. Holdren have advocated adding sterilants to the water supply. He wrote about it alongside Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich in their 1977 book Ecoscience.

“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.”

“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.”

Spreading disease, like “enhancements” or sterilization, could be the intention of food or water additives. In 2002, The Melbourne Age reported on Nobel Peace Prize winning microbiologist Sir Macfarlane Burnet’s plan to help the Australian government develop biological weapons for use against Indonesia and other “overpopulated” countries of South-East Asia. From the article:

Sir Macfarlane recommended in a secret report in 1947 that biological and chemical weapons should be developed to target food crops and spread infectious diseases. His key advisory role on biological warfare was uncovered by Canberra historian Philip Dorling in the National Archives in 1998.

“Specifically to the Australian situation, the most effective counter-offensive to threatened invasion by overpopulated Asiatic countries would be directed towards the destruction by biological or chemical means of tropical food crops and the dissemination of infectious disease capable of spreading in tropical but not under Australian conditions,” Sir Macfarlane said.

Alex Jones recently exposed the fact that all the adulterated and dangerous chemical additives in our food and water are put there intentionally as put of a larger eugenics program.

The potential to use food and water as a weapon of mass-medication has long been used in times of war, under the principle of attrition and destabilization. Lord Bertrand Russell has underscored this concept rather bluntly in how it applies to societies living under the scientific age:

“Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. . . It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.” – The Impact of Science on Society, 1953

“Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play.“ – Education in a Scientific Society p.251

CHEMICAL LOBOTOMY: ENLIGHTENMENT IN A BRAVE NEW WORLD

It’s a brave new world indeed where Oxford professor Julian Savulescu argues for the “Ethics of Enhancement.” In his 2002 paper, “Genetic interventions and the ethics of enhancement of human beings,” Savulesco argues for using gene therapy and drug therapy to make “happier, healthier people.” It could mean adding both mental-boosting and mood-enhancing chemicals to the things everyone eats or drinks.

It is interesting that Savulescu mentions fluoride alongside “cognitive enhancements,” as many critics have pointed towards the use of fluoride in Nazi concentration camps to keep the inmates passive, and questioned whether a docile population is a hidden purpose of the water fluoridation campaigns in the United States and post-war Western world. Further, fluoride is a basic ingredient in both Prozac, which is the leading brand-name for Fluoxetine (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) as well as Sarin nerve gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUoride), which are fundamentally mind-altering substances.

Fluoride isn’t the only controversial substance Savulescu terms as an advance in human civilization. He touts the widespread use of Prozac and points to the use of Modafenil, an amphetamine, to keep Air Force pilots alert during missions in Iraq. Savulescu is also a proponent of most types of genetic-enhancement that have been proposed. He sees experiments like the genetically-engineered “supermouse” as a model for the potential supermen of the future.

However, all of these “enhancements” come with risks. Genetically-engineered foods have proved deadly and dangerous; gene-splicing has proved to have unforeseeable consequences; fluorides and pharmaceutical chemicals pose dangers of addiction, brain damage, cancer or other problems.

Savulescu poses the potential to “enhance” a.k.a. “control” behavior: “If the results of recent animal studies into hard work and monogamy apply to humans, it may be possible in the future to genetically change how we are predisposed to behave. This raises a new question: should we try to engineer better, happier people?” p. 7-8

NOT UTILIZING ENHANCEMENTS COULD BE ‘WRONG’

He goes on to argue that while many have raised questions about the moral and ethical dilemmas of biological enhancement, NOT enhancing could be most wrong. In this scenario, not feeding offspring “enhanced” food additives could be considered as an offense:

“First Argument for Enhancement: Choosing Not to Enhance Is Wrong – Consider the case of the Neglectful Parents. The Neglectful parents give birth to a child with a special condition. The child has a stunning intellect but requires a simple, readily available, cheap dietary supplement to sustain his intellect. But they neglect the diet of this child and this results in a child with a stunning intellect becoming normal. This is clearly wrong.”

“But now consider the case of the Lazy Parents. They have a child who has a normal intellect but if they introduced the same dietary supplement, the child’s intellect would rise to the same level as the child of the Neglectful Parent. They can’t be bothered with improving the child’s diet so the child remains with a normal intellect. Failure to institute dietary supplementation means a normal child fails to achieve a stunning intellect. The inaction of the Lazy Parents is as wrong as the inaction of the Neglectful parents. It has exactly the same consequence: a child exists who could have had a stunning intellect but is instead normal. Some argue that it is not wrong to fail to bring about” p. 10

Savulescu’s vision is distinctly “transhumanist” a branch of the eugenics movement which seeks to improve the human species to the point that highly-gifted individuals would transcend into a new & improved proto-human species– becoming godlike creatures with unique creative potential and abilities. Transhumanism was first termed by UNESCO founder Julian Huxley in 1952, the grandson of Charles Darwin’s partner at the Royal Society of Science, T.H. Huxley.

“I believe in transhumanism”: once there are enough people who can truly say that, the human species will be on the threshold of a new kind of existence, as different from ours as ours is from that of Pekin man. It will at last be consciously fulfilling its real destiny.
-Julian Huxley, 1957

LIBERAL EUGENICS: “VOLUNTARY” ENHANCEMENTS THROUGH MASS-MEDICATED WATER

That philosophy of Transhumanism, moreover, is necessarily rooted in the Eugenics movement of the early 20th Century that was led by the scientific elite of the Royal Society, which included Charles Darwin, his cousin Francis Galton and Thomas H. Huxley. This circle and their allies floated Utopian visions for a scientifically- and eugenically- engineered society that would be progressive and even transformative, theoretically producing a ‘better’, albeit tightly-authoritarian society (science demands control, in that sense).

Savulescu identifies with much of this “liberal Eugenics,” defensibly separate from Nazi eugenics because there is ‘no belief in only one gene-type’ and because its measures remain “voluntary.”

“What was objectionable about the eugenics movement, besides its shoddy scientific basis, was that it involved the imposition of a State vision for a healthy population and aimed to achieve this through coercion.” p. 21

However, proposals to add medication to the population’s water supply are involuntary, and would violate individual rights. It would be mass-medication, and avoiding the substances treated with it would be costly, burdensome and difficult to do with any finality. Savulescu apparently views compulsory water treatment in the same vein as compulsory vaccinations, and anything else that can be justified on a public health care basis, even when such treatments prove not to be healthy at all.

“Some interventions, however, may still be clearly enhancements for our children and so just like vaccinations or other preventative health care.” p. 27

Additionally, while the figures of “liberal eugenics” which Savulescu looked up to often espoused semi-tolerant “voluntary” proposals, it was always clear that the long-term vision encompassed measures of control ‘for the betterment of all’ that could not function under voluntary or ‘democratic’ conditions. What’s more, eugenical laws passed in the 1920s and 1930s in the United States and Britain– some of which weren’t repealed until the late 1970s– gave the State authority over forcible sterilization and beyond. Thus, these “voluntary” enhancement-visionaries have already crossed the line of trust and betrayed the fact that they mean to control with force.

Advancements and innovations in science, technology and health have obvious potential benefits, but with kind of dangerous ideology driving the science policy, public health is at a serious risk. Worse still, driving the population into that system has been an intentional scheme by certain ideologues. We cannot flirt with ushering a Brave New World knowing its sweet poison is certain despotism.

Law of the Sea Treaty and the National Ocean Council

by Cassandra Anderson

Thirty states will be encroached upon by Obama’s Executive Order establishing the National Ocean Council for control over America’s oceans, coastlines and the Great Lakes. Under this new council, states’ coastal jurisdictions will be subject to the United Nations’ Law Of Sea Treaty (LOST) in this UN Agenda 21 program. America’a oceans and coastlines will be broken into 9 regions that include the North East, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, the Gulf Coast, West Coast, the Great Lakes, Alaska, the Pacific Islands (including Hawaii) and the Caribbean.

Because of the decades of difficulty that the collectivists have had trying to ratify the Law Of Sea Treaty (LOST), Obama is sneaking it in through the back door, by way of this Executive Order establishing the Council. Because LOST is a treaty, Obama’s Executive Order is not Constitutional as treaty ratification requires 2/3 approval from the Senate. Michael Shaw said that the Agenda 21 Convention on Biodiversity treaty of 1992 failed to pass Congress so it was executed through soft law and administratively on local levels, and Obama’s Executive Order is a similar soft law tactic to enact the LOST treaty.

In fact, our Constitutional form of government is being completely destroyed because buried in the CLEAR Act (HR 3534) there is a provision for a new council to oversee the outer continental shelf- it appears that this Regional Outer Shelf Council will be part of the National Ocean Council. This means that if Congress makes the CLEAR Act into law, then the implementation of the UN Law Of Sea Treaty, as part of the National Ocean Council’s agenda, will be “ratified” in a convoluted and stealth manner, in full opposition to the Constitution and its intent.(1)

The excuse for this extreme action is because of the emergency in the Gulf of Mexico. Obama and Congress have always had the legal and military power to force BP Oil to take all necessary action to stop the gusher and clean the oil spew. While there is evidence that the problems in the Gulf have been a result of collusion and planned incompetence, it begs the question, why in world should America’s oceans and resources be controlled by Obama appointees?

NATIONAL OCEAN COUNCIL MEMBERS:

John Holdren, Obama’s science and technology advisor, is the co-chairman of this new council. He is also a depopulation enthusiast and advocates sterilization by way of using infertility drugs in water and food as well as forced abortions which he describes in his book “Ecoscience”.(2)

Ken Salazar, Secretary of theDepartment of Interior, and its subagency, MMS (Minerals Management Service) has authority over offshore drilling and responsibility for enforcing spill prevention measures.(3) The Department of Interior’s BLM (Bureau of Land Management) is the entity that controls federally managed land extending across 30% of America in 11 western states. Last week, Congressman Louie Gohmert said that Ken Salazar personally prevented drilling on land in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado, thereby also preventing energy independence. In addition, the federal lands have been grossly mismanaged and present fire dangers. The federal government is $3.7 billion in arrears for maintenance of the federally managed lands.

US Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, by way of the US Forestry Service and US Fish & Wildlife Service, has been complicit in the decline of our country’s food independence. For example, US Fish & Wildlife (along with the Department of Commerce) shut the water off in California using Endangered Species Act; it was later proven that partially treated sewage was the primary culprit in killing the salmon and delta smelt that was previously blamed on farmers. This is phony environmentalism. The US Forestry Service has also misused the Endangered Species Act to limit farmers and ranchers. Remember that the USDA co-owns the Terminator Gene patent with Monsanto that makes seeds sterile.

Lisa Jackson is the EPA administrator who has threatened to impose 18,000 pages of new regulations to curb global warming which is based on lies,claiming that carbon dioxide is a danger to human health.(4)

Department of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano: it is unclear how these two federal appointees will enhance environmental ’sustainability’ over oceans and coasts. Traditionally, national security threats (like the War on Terror) have been used by the federal government to take control of resources. For example, many years ago when the interstate highway systems were first being built, the Feds got in on the action by claiming that they were building a defense highway system, and they encroached into an area that belonged to the states. Interestingly, there were no overhead structures on highways originally because of the Feds’ claim that large missiles would be transported on these “defense” highway systems.

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, a leading globalist, is likely to plunge our country into international entanglements and subjugation, based on her past performance; an example is her support of the UN Small Arms Treaty, which is contrary to the Constitution.

Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Department of Commerce Secretary Gary Locke are logical choices for this destructive council as some of the planned funding for this program will come from permits and leases (oil drilling leases, for example). These agencies will limit America’s energy independence.

The full list is footnoted at the end of this article.(5)

THE SMOKING GUN:

Agenda 21 Sustainable Development is the overarching blueprint for depopulation and total control, and the National Ocean Council is clearly an Agenda 21 program:

The National Ocean Council is headed by John Holdren, an avowed eugenicist which is selective breeding through brutal means like forced abortion.

The National Ocean Council’s own report (Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning, pg. incorporates a section of the 1992 Rio Declaration which is an original Agenda 21 document!

In fact, the report says that it will be guided by the Rio Declaration in cases “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” (pg. This means that regulations will be imposed even if the science is not understood or if the science is based on global warming manipulated data.(6)

The 3 primary tools of Agenda 21’s phony environmentalism are global warming, water shortages and the Endangered Species Act; the National Ocean Council intends to exploit all of these tools to their full extent.

The National Ocean Council’s main objective is to sink American sovereignty through the United Nations Law Of Sea Treaty (LOST) with the intended result of domination by the UN over our coasts and the Great Lakes. LOST originated in the 1970s as a wealth redistribution plan to benefit Third World countries. LOST sets rules for commercial activity beneath the high seas and establishes new international bureaucracies and a tribunal to interpret and apply rules to sea activity. And LOST can proceed with those rules, even against US objections! LOST threatens to complicate deep sea mining. LOST sets a precedent that US rights are dependent upon the approval of international entities. LOST also extends to ocean flowing rivers. (7)

REGIONALISM:

Michael Shaw pointed out that non-elected councils are increasingly expanding their jurisdiction through air quality boards, water quality boards, sewer systems, transportation districts, metropolitan planning, etc. to gain control over resources. Often, large corporations and financial interests form Public- Private Partnerships with the government within these councils.

Breaking areas into regions and placing authority with non-elected councils is a Communist trick used to hijack resources, thereby usurping local and state power by re-zoning the areas that do have Constitutional authority. Appointed bureaucrats are untouchable because their jobs are not dependent upon serving the voting population. And they are usually inaccessible to the public and do not have to face those who are affected by their “insider” decisions. When state and local governments become corrupt, the public is able to confront them eye to eye, but distant bureaucrats can avoid accountability. Regionalism is used as a psychological tactic to intimidate state legislatures into creating the system for a new political and economic order. (8)

Obama’s Executive Order that has created the 9 new regions amounts to re-zoning, and his appointed bureaucrats are answerable only to him. In David Horton’s testimony in 1978 on regionalism, he said that the State of Indiana made this declaration, “Neither the states nor Congress have ever granted authority to any branch or agency of the federal government to exercise regional control over the states.” Horton further stated that Congress holds alllegislative power that is granted in the Constitution, as opposed to Executive Orders that are not legislative. Therefore, Obama’s Executive Order for re-zoning and appointing a governing body to usurp state and local power is Constitutionally invalid. (9)

The public must become aware of state sovereignty and the Tenth Amendment to demand that state and local governments assert these Constitutional laws and principles.

COASTAL AND MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING REPORT:

This is a general overview of the new National Ocean Council’s goals based on its 32-page report that uses indirect language and acronyms in order to confuse the public and local lawmakers. Depopulation advocates, globalists and collectivists, like John Holdren, faced opposition a few decades ago when they clearly expressed their objectives, so now documents are written in complicated and clouded language to fool those they wish to control. (10)

This report states that the Council’s jurisdiction will extend from the continental shelf to the coast AND additional inland areas will be involved. The National Ocean Council identifies “partners” as members of each regional planning body that will include federal, state, local and tribal authorities, with a top-down hierarchy of control.

The intentions of the Council are stated on page 8 of the report that include implementing LOST and other international treaties. The report also states that the Council’s plans shall be implemented by Executive Orders, in addition to federal and state laws. This section mentions ‘global climate change’ which is a new term substituted for ‘man made global warming’ after manipulated data and lies were exposed in numerous global warming scandals. ‘Climate change’ is blamed for sea level rise and acidification of oceans; evidence exists that these are global warming deceptions. (11)  Read more details…

Forced abortions and sterilization to ‘save planet’

Sovereign Independent

John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar, in a Book he authored in 1977 advocates for extreme totalitarian measures to control the population.  The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?

These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed 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 — informally known as the United States’ Science Czar. In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.

Impossible, you say? That must be an exaggeration or a hoax. No one in their right mind would say such things.

Well, I hate to break the news to you, but it is no hoax, no exaggeration. John Holdren really did say those things, and this report contains the proof. Below you will find photographs, scans, and transcriptions of pages in the book Ecoscience, co-authored in 1977 by John Holdren and his close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich. The scans and photos are provided to supply conclusive evidence that the words attributed to Holdren are unaltered and accurately transcribed.

[UPDATE: Make sure to read the new statements issued by the White House and by John Holdren’s office in response to the controversy raised by this essay — you can see them below following the Ecoscience excerpts, or you can jump directly to the statements by clicking here.]

This report was originally inspired by this article in FrontPage magazine, which covers some of the same information given here. But that article, although it contained many shocking quotes from John Holdren, failed to make much of an impact on public opinion. Why not? Because, as I discovered when discussing the article with various friends, there was no proof that the quotes were accurate — so most folks (even those opposed to Obama’s policies) doubted their veracity, because the statements seemed too inflammatory to be true. In the modern era, it seems, journalists have lost all credibility, and so are presumed to be lying or exaggerating unless solid evidence is offered to back up the claims. Well, this report contains that evidence.

Of course, Holdren wrote these things in the framework of a book he co-authored about what he imagined at the time (late 1970s) was an apocalyptic crisis facing mankind: overpopulation. He felt extreme measures would be required to combat an extreme problem. Whether or not you think this provides him a valid “excuse” for having descended into a totalitarian fantasy is up to you: personally, I don’t think it’s a valid excuse at all, since the crisis he was in a panic over was mostly in his imagination. Totalitarian regimes and unhinged people almost always have what seems internally like a reasonable justification for actions which to the outside world seem incomprehensible.

Direct quotes from John Holdren’s Ecoscience

Below you will find a series of ten short passages from Ecoscience. On the left in each case is a scanned image taken directly from the pages of the book itself; on the right is an exact transcription of each passage, with noteworthy sections highlighted. Below each quote is a short analysis by me.

Following these short quotes, I take a “step back” and provide the full extended passages from which each of the shorter quotes were excerpted, to provide the full context.

And at the bottom of this report, I provide untouched scans (and photos) of the full pages from which all of these passages were taken, to quash any doubts anyone might have that these are absolutely real, and to forestall any claims that the quotes were taken “out of context.”

Ready? Brace yourself. And prepare to be shocked.