Log In | Register
The recent Live Earth concert focused world attention on the issue of global warming. While on the surface this may seem like an admirable cause, the fact is, behind the global warming agenda is an insidious plan by the UN.
Scientific Elite and the Malthusian Agenda
The United Nations and members of the scientific elite are using the global warming threat to fuel a depopulation agenda based on China's policy of forced sterilizations and abortions. A recent interview with, Chris Rapley, the head of the Science Museum in London highlighted the Malthusian ideology behind the global warming agenda. From the article:
"It is Rapley's view that the "jury is still out" on the prediction by Thomas Malthus, the 19th-century demographer, that the human race would exceed its food supply by having too many children.
Last year, Rapley wrote an article on the BBC website saying that "if we believe that the size of the human 'footprint' is a serious problem (and there is much evidence for this) then a rational view would be that, along with a raft of measures to reduce the footprint per person, the issue of population management must be addressed".
Though he stressed at the time that this was a personal view, his unanimous selection as director of the Science Museum by a board of trustees that included Lord Waldegrave, the chairman, and Lord Rees, the head of the Royal Society, indicates that many in the scientific establishment would agree with him."
Thomas Malthus' "An Essay on the Principle of Population" has been widely discredited. However, it appears from the Daily Telegraph article that this news hasn't reached some members of the scientific community.
Environmental Movement hijacked by Depopulation Agenda
In the essay, Malthus claimed that unless population was curbed, the food resources of the world would run out leading to a decrease in food per person. Malthus stated the only way to keep population levels down was through "vice and misery". This essay by Zvikomborero Chadambuka (PDF file) has many links that debunk Malthus' argument. In the essay, Chadambuka also points out how Malthusian ideology is now being used to further the cause of environmentalism.
"The given rationale has been that overpopulation will result in the breaching of the carrying capacity of the earth; the Malthusian dilemma.8 Malthus' elitist theory which focused on reducing populations among the poor has now been rephrased in the language of environmentalism…"
It's clear to see the United Nations attempts at "rephrasing" the Malthusian ideology to climate change and population levels in their report, "United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change". From the report:
"Future greenhouse gas emissions will depend on global population, economic, technological, and social trends. The link to population is clearest: the more people there are, the higher emissions are likely to be."
The UN and Forced Sterilizations and Abortions
The UN assumption here is that climate change will only be stopped once population levels are reduced. But just how does the UN intend to decrease population levels? Well, it seems that the United Nations will fund forced sterilizations and abortions to make sure the world is "safe" from "climate change".
UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund provided China with funding to carry out the forced "one child policy" and even gave them awards for their inhumane treatment of women.
"In 1991, Navis Sadik, the executive director of the UNFPA, stated that "China has every reason to feel proud and pleased with its remarkable achievements" and held up the family planning program as a model for others: "Now the country could offer its experiences and special experts to help other countries."8
The UNFPA has continued to be firmly supportive of the China program, declining to criticize its coercive character and even making claims that the program is voluntary. Rafael Salas, a UNFPA Executive Director, once stated: "I am very sure that the Chinese themselves will say that, within their cultural norms, they are not at all coercive. Maybe from certain Western standards, these might not be totally acceptable. But then, e ach country must determine that for themselves."9 In 1998, the UNFPA agreed to a new 4-year funding commitment."
UNFPA has also been accused of contaminating polio vaccines in Nigeria with sterilizing agents.
What does the head of the Science Museum, Chris Rapley, suggest is the answer to climate change? Well, judging by his article in the Independent it would appear that he supports the UN standard of forced sterilizations and abortions as it would cost "as little as one-thousandth of the technological fixes". From the article:
"Confronted with this state of affairs, there is much discussion about how to respond to human impacts on the planet and especially on how to reduce human carbon emissions. Various technical fixes and changes in behaviour are proposed, the former generally having price tags of order trillions of dollars. Spread over several decades, these are arguably affordable, and to be preferred to the environmental damage and economic collapse which may otherwise occur.
But by avoiding a fraction of the projected population increase, the emissions savings could be significant and would be at a cost, based on UN experience of reproductive health programmes, that would be as little as one-thousandth of the technological fixes. The reality is that while the footprint of each individual cannot be reduced to zero, the absence of an individual does do so."
The UN notion that population reduction will reduce the effect of climate change is now being parroted by other groups in the name of environmentalism. The Guardian reported on how another population "thinktank" is now arguing that population control is needed because it is "environmentally friendly". From the article:
A report this week by the Optimum Population Trust - a thinktank dedicated to reducing population growth and its effects on the world - argues that families should restrict themselves to two children, because it is no longer responsible, or environmentally friendly, to bring three, four or more into the world.
Another population group, Population Connection, also suggests that population reduction is necessary because of the threat of global warming. From the article:
"Population Connection seeks to "stabilize" world population growth through tools such as, "family planning, education for women, and the right to make personal reproductive choices." This could be read as: abortion, eugenics because of global warming propaganda, and abortion. According to John Seager, head of the organization, this is necessary because of global warming. Seager writes in a paper given out at the event that, "Scientists warn that temperatures will continue to rise unless we stabilize greenhouse gas levels" and that "the most likely culprits are people - all of us.""
It's important to look carefully at the terms being used by UNFPA. The UNFPA actually recommend using the term "stabilize" instead of "population control". From UNFPA's "Journalist's Notebook" page:
"Population control" is a prime case in point. The term is now out of favor with experts in the field, because it implies force - a negative thing to most. Control can mean governments controlling what should be the decisions and are the rights - of individuals, men trying to control women, industrialized nations trying to weaken the power of developing nations' increasing numbers, or whites trying to reduce the future numbers of people of color.
To stress the voluntary nature of the actions sought, experts use terms like "stemming," "stabilizing" or "slowing" population growth. Similarly, "family planning" is preferred to "birth control" a term that dates back to the time of Margaret Sanger's crusade for women's rights to use contraceptives."
This use of language is what George Orwell warned about in his essay, "Politics and the English Language". The language used by the UNFPA is intended to deceive. From the essay:
"The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable." The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different."
Global Warming Threat Manufactured by Global Elite
While there are undoubtedly many environmental groups who do not endorse population control, the environmental agenda is being hijacked by those who continue to subscribe to the Malthusian viewpoint. United Nation initiatives and the scientific elite are duping the honourable members of the environmental movement. The threat of Global warming is now being used to fuel the idea that the world needs a reduction in population in order to survive.
Just why has attention now turned to depopulation as being the solution to climate change? An article by Daniel Taylor points out why the Club of Rome, another "thinktank" advocated the idea of a global warming threat. From the article:
"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... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
Why is humanity the ideal enemy? Well, this would mean that governments across the world could then use global warming as a means of implementing even more taxes in the name of "environmental safety". There are already countless plans to introduce a "carbon taxes" for everything from flying to household garbage.
The threat of global warming is being used to implement these taxes and also bring back the Malthusian argument that population control is needed in order for the planet to be able to sustain itself. It is notable that population control and carbon taxes don't seem to extend to elite.
David de Rothschild wrote the companion guide to the Live Earth concert called "The Global Warming Survival Handbook: 77 Essential Skills to Stop Climate Change- or Live Through It". Rothschild is part of the Rothchild banking empire. He recommended that a global carbon tax be introduced on the Alex Jones show. On the show Rothschild failed to mention any of his own family's ties to the oil industry
If Rothschild really wants to save the environment, perhaps it would be better for him to give the book to members of his own family. Better yet, he could take some time to learn the order of the planets. On the Alex Jones show he stated that Mars, Saturn and Jupiter were closer to the Sun than Earth. From the show (alternatively click here for the audio clip, or here for the full interview with Rothschild)
"ALEX JONES: "The polar icecaps of Mars are receding at several miles a year, much faster than ours and that the moons of Saturn and Jupiter are melting, in fact several of their moons were ice and are now liquid seas - how are SUV's causing that David Rothschild?
ROTHSCHILD: "Because those planets are closer to the sun, my friend."
ALEX JONES: "No, Jupiter and Saturn are not closer to the sun and neither is Mars."
Worryingly global warming sceptics are now being likened to Holocaust deniers. Tactics such as those by the Boston Globe writer, Ellen Goodman, only serves to trivialize Holocaust denial. From the article:
"I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future."
Once again, it must be stated that many environmental activists do care about the planet, however, those who wish to implement a Malthusian population reduction agenda are now hijacking the environmental movement.
So why are man made global warming sceptics being likened to Holocaust deniers and why is the son of one of the wealthiest banking families in the world pushing the threat of global warming? Well, not only would members of a rich elite be able to place a world tax on the population of the globe but they would also be able to further their Malthusian agenda.
The UN has already shown it is more than willing to use forced sterilizations and abortions to further their plan of world depopulation. If the UN is willing to commit these atrocious acts, you can be sure they won't hesitate to use the environmental movement to further their monstrous agenda.
What are your views on this article? Leave your opinions in the comment boxes below.
