Under Agenda 21/ Green Global Warmist (killing of large numbers of poor people)
Obama’s science czar does support coercive population control
The political blog, “alethonews.wordpress.com” has further interesting information on this topic. In the following article, we learn that Al Gore is a strong advocate of the nuclear power industry: http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/theres-more-to-climate-fraud-than-just-tax-hikes/, just like his father, who was a U.S. Senator. No doubt the Gore family have considerable investments in this industry.
The New Crime of Eating While Homeless
By outlawing dumpster diving, Houston is making life impossible for the most vulnerable.
By Jim Hightower
May 26, 2013 “Information Clearing House” -“Other Words” — Whenever one of our cities gets a star turn as host of some super-sparkly event, such as a national political gathering or the Super Bowl, its first move is to tidy up — by having the police sweep homeless people into jail, out of town, or under some rug.
But Houston’s tidy-uppers aren’t waiting for a world-class event to rationalize going after homeless down-and-outers. They’ve preemptively outlawed the “crime” of dumpster diving in the Texan city.
In March, James Kelly, a 44-year-old Navy veteran, was passing through Houston on his way to connect with family in California. Homeless, destitute, and hungry, he chose to check out the dining delicacies in a trash bin near City Hall. Spotted by police, Kelly was promptly charged with “disturbing the contents of a garbage can in the [central] business district.” Seriously.
“I was just basically looking for something to eat,” he told the Houston Chronicle. But, unbeknownst to both this indigent tourist and the great majority of Houston’s generally generous citizens, an ordinance dating way back to 1942 says that “molesting garbage containers” is illegal.
Also, in 2012, city officials made it a crime for any group to hand out food to the needy in the downtown area without first getting a permit. It’s a cold use of legal authority to chase the homeless away to. . .well, anywhere else.
Such laws are part of an effort throughout the country to criminalize what some call “homeless behavior.” And, sure enough, when hungry, the behavioral tendency of a homeless human is to seek a bite of nourishment, often in such dining spots as dumpsters. The homeless behavior that Houston has outlawed, then, is eating.
The good news is that when Houstonians learned of Kelly’s situation, many reached out to help him get through his hard times. Now they need to reach out to local politicos and get the city to stop cracking down on this abuse of homeless people.
OtherWords columnist Jim Hightower is a radio commentator, writer, and public speaker. He’s also editor of the populist newsletter, The Hightower Lowdown. OtherWords.org
Population Control Is Not a Sideshow — It’s the Whole Point
The eugenics proposals outlined in The Challenge of Man’s Future are not some peripheral component of an otherwise admirable thesis. They are, in fact, the heart of the book. Brown writes extensively about the overwhelming problems we face, but spends only a few brief pages discussing how to solve those problems. Much of the book surveys in great detail the “challenges” in our future, all of which serves as a set-up for the solution — which is to stop growth and limit the population. And since we need to cut back on the population, we also at the same time need to “improve” our “genetic stock” by preventing “biologically unsound” people from “breeding.” Otherwise, the “feeble-minded” will cause a “long-range degeneration of human stock.” Without these proposals, the book would be pointless — what would be the purpose of highlighting our problems without recommending solutions?
The real problem — at least from Holdren’s point of view — is that Harrison Brown was too honest, too frank. He had not yet learned to use the weasel words and politicized euphemisms now de rigeuer for Holdren and his contemporaries. By the 1970s, it was no longer acceptable to speak openly of eugenics in a direct manner, so thenceforth such things were only hinted at — never discussed overtly, as Harrison Brown did so naively back in the 1950s.
Harrison Brown, it should be noted, was also a member of the International Eugenics Society alongside his friend and colleague Charles Galton Darwin, another famed eugenicist whose work Brown praises and quotes (as we shall see later in this essay).
Does all of this amount to nothing more than “guilt by association”? Perhaps. That’s up to you the reader to decide. But consider this: If someone had expressed his deep admiration for Mein Kampf, and in fact edited and co-wrote a volume which spelled out in elaborate detail just how wonderful Mein Kampf was as a book, would you want that person to control science and technology policy in the United States? Probably not. But that too would be just “guilt by association,” since this putative person wouldn’t have actually written Mein Kampf; he would merely have praised the book and its author. And if you think that’s an unfair analogy, I dare you to read the passages from The Challenge of Man’s Future below and you’ll see that in certain respects Mein Kampf seems mild by comparison.
So there you have it: The Science Czar of the United States based his entire worldview on and continues to highly praise someone who was an unreconstructed eugenicist, and whose totalitarianistic philosophy is unacceptable in the modern world.
Are you OK with that?
Direct quotes from Harrison Brown’s The Challenge of Man’s Future and John Holdren’s Earth and the Human Future
Below you will find a series of sixteen short passages: twelve from The Challenge of Man’s Future and four from Earth and the Human Future. 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. To help readers distinguish between the two books, passages by Harrison Brown are in red; passages by John Holdren are in blue. Below each quote is a brief commentary by me.
Following these short quotes, I provide the full extended passages from which most of the shorter quotes were excerpted, to provide the full textual context.
And at the bottom of this report, I provide untouched scans 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.”
Now: Let’s read.
Page 104 of The Challenge of Man’s Future by Harrison Brown
Is there anything that can be done to prevent the long-range degeneration of human stock? Unfortunately, at the present time there is little, other than to prevent breeding in persons who present glaring deficiencies clearly dangerous to society and which are known to be of a hereditary nature. Thus we could sterilize or in other ways discourage the mating of the feeble-minded. We could go further and systematically attempt to prune from society, by prohibiting them from breeding, persons suffering from serious inheritable forms of physical defects, such as congenital deafness, dumbness, blindness, or absence of limbs.
The public promotion of the “man-made global warming” theory has obviously been extremely political and ideological, not based on genuine rational science. Scare tactics, fraudulent scientific studies, along with exaggerated, biased and blatantly false news reports are all used as substitutes for real scientific evidence, and all indicate political agendas behind the AGW movement that are about issues other than “saving the world from catastrophic global warming”. However, it is not easy to clearly identify what these political agendas are.
The man-made global warming movement has always been mostly a British-American movement. Although some scientists had been investigating the phenomenon of greenhouse gases from as far back as 100 years ago or even earlier, the theory of man-made global warming did not achieve any real political traction until the late 1970’s.
It seems that there are several inter-linked political agendas behind the AGW movement, all leading back to the financial elites (the private investment bankers) of “The City of London” as well as Wall Street in the U.S. and related financial centres in Europe. The social ideology, which is really the political ideology of these people is expressed in the statements that come out of The Club of Rome, a conservative “think tank” or discussion group. Related to all this, but usually mentioned in understated tones, has been a push to privatize the nuclear power stations in Britain and to greatly expand the nuclear power industry.
The notes here are just an introduction to what I and many other people feel are the various interconnected strands of the political agenda that is really behind the fraudulent science of “man-made global warming”. In order to fully understand the political agenda, you will need to do your own further research on the topics mentioned below.
The Late 1960’s & Mid-1970’s
Environmental Pressure Groups Emerge in the Late 1960’s
The late 1960’s and early 1970’s saw the rise of environmental activist groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. These groups were concerned about such issues as conservation of natural resources, the protection of wildlife, and pollution and were usually very much anti-nuclear power. Many (but not all) of the activists in these movements were also quite leftist and anti-establishment with the result that they were also active in other social movements of the time such as the anti-Vietnam War movement, anti-militarism and anti-imperialism in general, the struggle to gain equal rights for blacks in the U.S., and feminism.
These movements gained quite a lot of popular support and sympathy in society. As a result of these successes, it is well know that certain people or groups were worried about a possible mass ideological shift of the populations of the West towards the left, i.e., towards various degrees of socialism.
The Formation of the Club of Rome, 1968
The formation of the Club of Rome in 1968 seems to have been, at least in part, an attempt to co-opt the environmental movement of the 1960’s so that environmental activism would become “business friendly”, including friendly to the nuclear industry, and not in opposition to the established political power structures, as leftists are. And this attempt has largely been successful! Today, the traditional issues of environmental activism have more or less been pushed to the background in favour of just one issue – reducing mankind’s production of CO2 and imposing worldwide “carbon taxes”. However, even though the anti-nuclear power stance of the environmental activists has been softened by their antipathy towards the use of coal, a strong anti-nuclear sentiment still exists among most of these activists.
The Club of Rome is a conservative “think tank”, an organization that is composed of some of the world’s financial and political elites, including some European royalty and several former national leaders. The majority of members are wealthy business people, academics, activists, scientists, economists, former or current United Nations office-holders, and former of current government officials from various nations, all of whom hold leadership or influential positions in society. Many of these people are “careerists” who seek to improve their own position in life simply by aligning themselves with whoever holds power.
The Club of Rome is strongly in favor of global governance and the manipulation of society in order to achieve what they perceive as needed global social changes. Although many of their plans for change seem to be socially desirable and “humanitarian” on the surface, it is notable that these changes, if they come about, will further entrench in power those groups who currently hold power. [If you do an internet search for “global governance”, you might be surprised to see how much this term is being used nowadays, especially in relation to the United Nations.]
The ideology that is behind most of the quotes above at Mixing Climate Change with the Problem of Sustainable Development has its origin in the Club of Rome. In fact, many of the people quoted in that list are members of the Club of Rome (or were, before they died). It seems very likely that it was the Club of Rome’s early interest in the environment in general, as a tool for gaining global political control, that eventually grew into the theory of “man-made global warming” in the mid to late 1970’s.
One aim of the Club of Rome is to give the political/financial elites of the Western world a rationale for instituting depopulation measures, especially in the poor countries of the world but not limited to those countries. This is based on the fraudulent and simplistic claim that the world is warming because, “too many people are using too much stuff”. The depopulation ideology (see here), which is a sub-section of the global governance plan, is closely related to (but is not exactly the same as) the ideology called, “eugenics”. There is a lot of good sense in controlling the world’s population but some of the proposed methods for achieving this are disturbing. For example, forms of genocide are being proposed, where “genocide” means the killing of large numbers of certain populations by the spread of viruses, (not necessarily all of these populations). Ironically, it has been proven that the two best ways to reduce population growth are to, a) teach girls to read and, b) develop economically. All of the most economically advanced parts of the world, such as Europe, Japan and North America are experiencing almost zero population growth among their non-immigrant populations.
Another aim of the Club of Rome, in line with a “low carbon lifestyle”, is to limit economic development in the developing world, such as in Africa. These poor parts of the world will find it virtually impossible to develop economically if they are not allowed to build coal-burning power stations. The main reason they want to limit the development of these under-developed countries is that, as nations become more developed, they will use more of the world’s oil and other scarce natural resources, thereby reducing what will be available for the rich developed world. As well as that, it is much easier to politically and financially control (by way of debt) poor nations than wealthy nations. Control of Africa’s rich natural resources, primarily mineral resources, has always been important for the wealth of the financial elites of the ‘developed’ world.
Overall, we see that the ideology of the Club of Rome is the ideology of the political and especially the financial elites of Western society. This ideology is really just a continuation of the ideology of the elites of the 19th and early 20th century, especially in Britain, which was strongly based on eugenics theory. They look down on the bulk of humanity as if we were nothing more than cattle (or, “useless eaters”) and they believe that their political, and especially their financial power gives them the right to decide, in fact to dictate, humanity’s future. In fact, they believe (and have stated that) their position in society, especially their wealth, gives them not just superior wisdom but is even an indication of “superior intelligence”. As such, they believe they are the “natural leaders” of humanity. Human society really hasn’t made as much progress since the days of feudalism as we’d like to believe.
Although this outline of the political background to the man-made global warming movement is being written in chronological order, it is instructive to look at the The 1992 Club of Rome report called, “The First Global Revolution”, which includes the following:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global
warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” (Page 75)
Previous to that statement, the authors had been lamenting the difficulty of finding an ideology that they could use to unify the people of the world in order to bring about the great social and political changes to the whole world that they want to achieve. The words, “fit the bill” obviously implies that the authors felt that the threat of global warming was more an excuse, or a tool to be used to unify people by the use of fear, rather than a genuine threat itself.
A copy of this report can be downloaded from http://archive.org/details/TheFirstGlobalRevolution or http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/documents/TheFirstGlobalRevolution_text.pdf. [Suspiciously, that copy has many “missing pages” and it seems that all copies that are available on the internet are the same. But the quotation above still exists on Page 75.]
The website for the Club of Rome is http://www.clubofrome.org/.
[It seems that many known former members who are still alive are not currently listed on the website as members. This is probably because some members relinquish their membership in order to allow others to join, since membership is restricted to 100 individuals at any one time.]
Club of Rome proponents in action – http://www.reversethefuture.org/discussions/