United Nations Environmental Program Embraces Calls for Eugenics


The Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro has begun. The global leviathan that is the United Nations bares its teeth. In the months preceeding the summit, a continuing stream of publications has poured down from every corner of the transnational community, in essence calling for global governance of the environment as well as a stark reduction in the global human population. These two items are very much intertwined, according to the growing pile of UN papers flying from the supranational tree, all basically stating that the first is necessary in order to facilitate the latter.

One of these leaves circles down to us from the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) displays a collection of “key messages” written by the usual suspects, such as dedicated man-hater Paul Ehrlich, eco-terrorist James Lovelock and NASA’s own mad-as-hell environmentalist James Hansen.  Their joint statement titled “Environment and Development Challenges: The Imperative to Act” was clearly designed to inspire the UN and its upcoming confab to make haste with global government. In their manifesto the impatient fiends call for a global implementation of population policies and rights being trampled upon in order to address what they call “the population issue”:

“The population issue should be urgently addressed by education and empowerment of women, including in the work-force and in rights, ownership and inheritance; health care of children and the elderly; and making modern contraception accessible to all.”, they write.

“Globally, we must find better means to agree and implement measures to achieve collective goals.”

The authors go on to assert that “in the face of an absolutely unprecedented emergency, society has no choice but to take dramatic action to avert a collapse of civilization. Either we will change our ways and build an entirely new kind of global society, or they will be changed for us.”

Decrying that “funding (for worldwide fertility control) decreased by 30% between 1995 and 2008, not least as a result of legislative pressure from the religious right in the USA and elsewhere”, the authors call for “education and planning needed to foster and achieve a sustainable human population and lifestyles.”

Now what do you think this means exactly, a sustainable human population? James Lovelock in 2009 gave us the answer, called for the culling of the population with a desired outcome of 1 billion people worldwide.

Lovelock also arrogantly stated in 2010 that humans are too stupid to prevent climate change- therefore governments worldwide, preferably a one world government, must prevent it for them.

Of all the eco-fascists penning down proposals, Paul Ehrlich may be considered the most bloodthirsty of the bunch- with his continuing insistence on massive population reduction. Few people need to be reminded of the words he wrote in Ecoscience which he co-authored with John P. Holdren, the current White House science czar. To highlight a few of these:

“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.”

Read Full Article →

Government Is Not Civilization, It Is Slavery

by JGVibes
March 5, 2012

One of the most pervasive misconceptions in our culture is the idea that “government” has anything to do with the structure or organization that we see in our society. This is one of the primary reasons why people have such a difficult time considering the very real possibility of a world without the organization known as “government.” When someone suggests that we simply do away with this unjust and unnecessary organization, they are typically met with some very negative knee-jerk reactions from whoever they may be talking to. This kind of conversation typically ends very quickly because both sides have completely different ideas of what the word “government” actually means, making it very difficult to find common ground.
If we attempt to examine government from an outsider’s perspective, we would see a world where people are grouped into two different categories, those in government and those not. At face value, we can see that these two groups of people have completely different standards and expectations, even though they are the same species and have the same basic needs. Looking closer, we can see that these different standards and laws are not neutral, they are very much benefiting those in government at the expense of those who are not. The most important discrepancy to mention here is the fact that those in government have a license to kill anyone who happens to disobey them.
Pointing out this fact is vital in understanding the true relationship between those inside of government and those outside of government, and that is the relationship between slave and master. If someone has the right to initiate the use of force on you if you disobey them, you are essentially their property. If you don’t believe me, go on over to Google and type in “slave definition,” and the first definition you will find is the following: “A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.” Now, doesn’t that sound a whole lot like the relationship between people inside government and people outside government? If you can force people to do things against their will, then you are treating them as if they were your property.
However, if you ask any random person on the street to define “government” for you, they would probably give you the story that they were taught in government school. You know, the one about how government is the backbone of civilization, and the means by which people in the community come together for mutually beneficial projects. Well this may sound good, but it isn’t at all true, because the government is comprised by a miniscule fraction of the population, and they would not be able to provide anything at all if it wasn’t for the resources that they forcibly extracted from the rest of society. Therefore, it is safe to say that all functions that are currently being carried out by the organization known as “government” could actually be better served by individuals in the community working together for common goals. Voluntary trade, charity and other peaceful methods of interacting would create a far better society than the one that we see today, which is filled with violence and forced associations.
It is not a new thing for people to confuse government with culture and have the misconception that without a central planning structure, everything that makes a society great would vanish. This fact was recognized by some of the more radical “founding fathers” of America, including Thomas Paine. In his most famous literary effort “Common Sense,” there is a section called “Of the Origin and Design of Government in General, with Concise Remarks on the English Constitution.” In this piece, Paine discusses the difference between government and society.

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.

Rockefeller Study: Future Dictatorship Controlled by Elite

Paul Joseph Watson

Global pandemics that kill millions, mandatory quarantines, checkpoints, biometric ID cards, and a world of top-down government control. These things are not lifted from the latest sci-fi blockbuster movie, they’re part of the Rockefeller Foundation’s vision for what the globe might be like in 15-20 years’ time under a new world order tightly controlled by the elite.

This is one of four scenarios for the future of the planet outlined in the Rockefeller Foundation’s “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development,” a study produced in association with the Global Business Network.

Entitled “Lock Step,” the scenario depicts,”A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback.”

After global H1N1 pandemic originating from geese infects 20 per cent of the global population and kills 8 million people, the economy grinds to a halt and governments impose authoritarian measures to respond to the crisis.

“During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and

restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets,” states the study.

Tellingly, even after the pandemic fades, these draconian measures remain in place and even intensify, as leaders take a “firmer grip on power” and citizens willingly sacrifice their sovereignty and privacy, leading to “a more controlled world” bossed by “paternalistic states” who impose biometric ID cards for all citizens. “Enforced cooperation” with global regulatory agreements forges the path towards global governance even as a backlash ensues following public displays of “virulent nationalism”.

Eco-fascism is also brought to the fore in the “lock step” scenario, which discusses how “high-emission” cars will be banned and every home will be forced to install solar panels by law.

The implementation of top-down authoritarianism causes entrepreneurial activity to wither and the economy stutters, but by 2025 people start to grow weary of “so much top-down control and letting leaders and authorities make choices for them” and an organized “pushback” against this tyranny begins to gather momentum.

“Even those who liked the greater stability and predictability of this world began to grow uncomfortable and constrained by so many tight rules and by the strictness of national boundaries. The feeling lingered that sooner or later, something would inevitably upset the neat order that the world’s governments had worked so hard to establish,” the study concludes.

The important thing to understand from the scenario outlined by the Rockefeller study is that China is praised as the model for how governments globally should respond to crises. The most draconian and dictatorial policies, including mandatory quarantines, are praised in the scenario as having “saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post pandemic recovery,” while allowing people freedom of mobility is scorned as having worsened the crisis.

Ironic therefore it is that just this week, the Associated Press reported on how the Chinese government has already virtually imposed checkpoint quarantines on its poorer citizens, by “gating and locking some of its lower-income neighborhoods overnight, with police or security checking identification papers around the clock, in a throwback to an older style of control.”

The Rockefeller study is not a warning against preventing the kind of tyranny contained in this scenario from unfolding, it’s a blueprint for how globalists want to exploit global crises like bio-terror attacks and pandemics in order to completely destroy society and rebuild it under a new world order in their image.

The Rockefeller scenario bears more than a passing resemblance to a 2007 UK Ministry of Defence study which forecast that by 2035, people would have brain chips implanted, that the middle class would become revolutionary, and that society would be gripped by chaos and civil unrest as a result of increased globalization, immigration and a more authoritarian state.

It is crystal clear from reading the “Lock Step” scenario that the oppressive society portrayed in the study is not presented as an admonishment of how governments would cynically seize upon a pandemic to set up a police state and empower themselves as dictators, it’s a ringing endorsement that this approach would be the correct thing to do.

This is the post-industrial society demanded by Bilderberg luminaries like European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso.

This is what the globalists want – pandemics, warfare, chaos and crises that they can engineer and then exploit to lock in place a dictatorial society ruled by the elite from their ivory towers, while the citizens are reduced to impoverished, squabbling, dependent peasants tightly controlled with sophisticated big brother technology, far too concerned about where their next meal is coming from to have time to overthrow their new rulers.

EU Dictators to Control National Budgets

Sovereign Independent

As reported in today’s Irish Independent, the EU will be given first option on whether to approve of Irish fiscal policy thus opening

If the theory of Super States is adopted globally, the countries will effectively loose independence, sovereignty, identity and liberty.

the way for another €3 billion of cuts in spending, no doubt in public services we all pay our taxes into. This is of course dictatorship in its most basic form.

When a nation state is no longer in control of its own finances, which have been handed over to an unelected cabal of appointed lackeys, then the nation state no longer exists. This is exactly the position which Ireland and every nation in the EU face today. Let’s be clear, there are no longer nation states. Taking over a nation’s finances is only the start. When we no longer have individual countries, with individual cultures, as they are rapidly being mixed into a standardised ‘brand’, the result will be that in a generation or two from now, we will no longer have any distinction between individual sovereign states which could be classed as cultural identity whatsoever.

This is not only undesirable to the native peoples of the nations of Europe but it is also detrimental to world culture as a whole. I would envisage a day when travelling abroad, if still permitted, will be no more of a cultural experience than travelling through ‘one size fits all’ airports and staying in brand name hotels. Every ‘experience’ will be standardised.

Sticking with financial control, why is it that our ‘elected’ representatives have sold us off to these pirates of finance whereby they have allowed an unelected, private organisation to dictate terms and conditions over and above our national governments as to what they will and will not plan for in their own fiscal policy to benefit the people of their nations? When did outside forces have any right to interfere with the internal finances of a nation state? Haven’t we witnessed many times in history the ‘economic sanctions’ imposed on nations? How about the recent example of Iraq which was spuriously, and ultimately dishonestly, accused of having weapons of mass destruction? The result of these economic sanctions was mass starvation and death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

I’m not saying it’ll come to that in Europe but at the same time when these criminals, and let’s not mince our words here, they are criminals, when they are allowed to impose what amount to economic sanctions on our country then we are in for extremely hard times ahead with the eventual result being mass poverty across Europe.

What then for the EU?

It clearly will not have worked as it was supposed to so why would we still want to be part of it?

Why would any nation want to be part of a criminal organisation which has gone out of its way to impoverish the ordinary peoples of what were once independent nation states whilst at the same time destroying cultural identity?

The powers that be insisted and repeated their lies that the single European currency would solve all of our financial troubles forever. That has obviously not worked either and indeed has brought us closer to the brink of utter catastrophe in terms of our financial security.

But of course, that was always the intention of the European Union. Its job was always to amalgamate all the nations of Europe under their control so that when the time was right, like now, they could collapse every nation in the Union to achieve their ultimate goal of bringing into being the single European Soviet Union Superstate. This was finally achieved after the illegal and blatantly fraudulent 2nd Lisbon Referendum in which the Irish people were robbed of the last elements of national sovereignty thus plunging the other members of the EU into the new European Soviet Bloc with all rights and rules being dictated from Brussels.

The European Parliament was overnight given the status of a National Superstate, with all the powers of a government over the 500 million people of Europe, with only 27 unelected Commissars deciding our fate.

Whilst those politicians pushing for a ‘YES’ vote in the bogus referendum celebrated a victory before the first vote was counted, they never told the people that they had effectively sold them into slavery to a foreign power, namely the European Union; a European Union that have steadfastly refused to submit its own accounts for scrutiny, to any one of the nation states funding it, for over 15 YEARS!

Why have we allowed, what is obviously a corrupt organisation, to take over our lives to the extent that they decide how our tax money is to be spent? No doubt a lot of it will be going into the grubby paws of these very same commissars who are dictating that we the people need to cut back on everything from energy consumption to foreign holidays and even what foods we will eventually have to eat as GMO crops are rolled out across the continent.

I was never asked about any of this in my entire life and certainly never voted for any of it.

If you voted ‘YES’ for the Lisbon Referendum are you happy with the results so far?

Do you have one of those mystical jobs that were promised by every major political party at the time?

Do you still have the job you had then or are you one of the close half a million officially unemployed people in a country of approximately 4 million people with a workforce of less than 2 million?

That’s a 25% unemployment rate folks!

Do you have the security we were promised even though what security they were talking about was never discussed?

Financial security is the bedrock of any civilised society. This doesn’t necessarily mean monetary security. That is simply a red herring and a fraud in itself being perpetrated on humanity since the first banker lent to the first borrower thousands of years ago.

No, ‘financial’ security comes in many shapes and forms. The main concerns for human beings since the beginning of time have been firstly, shelter whereby we need some form of a home to protect us from the elements and to raise our families. The second basic element is of course good healthy food combined with clean water. Some kind of health security is also essential although good healthy food and clean water go a long way to preventing any health problems in themselves.

Every person in this country could now be living in a home, perhaps not the ideal home, but a home nevertheless, if the wads of cash given to private corrupt banks had simply been given to the people via payment of mortgages and personal debt to the extent that the country could have started with clean slate so to speak whereby we could then have started creating our own independent monetary system in whichever form that took.

Why then have we borrowed billions from private banks simply to hand it over to other private banks which the taxpayers of Ireland have to pay for and who will now have to live in poverty for generations?

Why are our politicians not on trial for ECONOMIC TERRORISM and TREASON?

At this stage in the game it is probably too late for any intelligent debate from any intelligent political figure because let’s face it, they are extremely hard to find despite the claims of the establishment that we pay politicians so much money to attract the best minds in the country to the political process.

Does anyone seriously think that we have the best minds in politics? If that were indeed the case we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in would we?

It’s about time the public woke up to the fact that they have been duped all their lives and in generations prior to that. It’s a bitter pill to swallow and it does take an element of personal courage to admit, not only to yourself that you have been conned, but also to tell other people that they’ve been conned too.

Firstly they will ridicule you, secondly they’ll shun you until eventually something will happen to them personally which will dispel any doubts in their minds that something is seriously wrong in society, not only in Ireland, but across the globe. When innocent human beings are being blown to bits in an illegal war which has been proven to have been started using lies and deception, one would like to think that that time cannot be far off. I won’t hold my breath though. The current ‘crop’ of ‘human beings’ seem incapable of empathy for their fellow man whatever the dreadful circumstances the victims find themselves in. We have in effect been utterly desensitized to the suffering of others with the ‘self’ being the most important being it seems in most people’s lives.

In terms of people finally accepting that we are all in serious trouble, let’s hope that it’s not the day they turn up at Tesco’s to find the shelves empty and starvation becomes a real possibility. This is not wild ‘conspiracy theory’. This is exactly how things were in the Soviet Union when millions, just over half a century ago, were allowed to starve to death by Stalin and his cronies whilst they lived in absolute luxury in a land of plenty for them.

The new European Soviet Superstate is riddled with so called ‘ex’ Soviet Communist Party members who were active in Eastern Europe right up to the day they became part of the European Union.

I don’t want to live in the Soviet Union or in, as the UN has pointed, the state we should all try to emulate, the People’s Republic of China.

Every human being in the EU and around the world has a basic right to live their lives free of restriction so far as they do no harm to any fellow human being or their property. This is the basis of common law which the vast majority of people adhere to. We don’t need ‘Big Brother’ diktats from anyone telling us what we can and can’t do, what licenses we need for this or that and how many children we’re ‘allowed’ to have.

I’m sick of it all and it’s about time that the entire human race extricated its head from the sand and got off its knees. We do not owe our lives to any state whether real or created. We are not slaves to be bought and sold at the whim of unelected bureaucrats in a puppet government far removed from any nation state.

Responsibility comes at a price but ultimately it must be a price worth paying if the alternative is so bleak.