Population Control - The Sick Obsession Of The Global Elite

Sunday, February 01, 2009 Posted by Shattered Paradigm

Almost every week there are comments by government officials in the western world that promote abortion, contraception, family size limits and other population control measures as ways to fight global warming.

The most recent shocking comments on population control have come from the U.K. government's "green guru".

The chair of the U.K. government's Sustainable Development Commission, Jonathon Porritt, says that parents who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an "unbearable" burden on the environment.

Porritt also says that curbing population growth through abortion and contraception are absolutely necessary in order to fight global warming.

When government officials begin talking of limits on family sizes it is time for alarm bells to go off.

The truth is that the freedom to marry and reproduce and to raise a family is one of the most cherished of all human freedoms.

But the global elite have become absolutely obsessed with population control, and their sick obsession is starting to reveal itself in society in a thousand different ways.

For most of human history, the thought of the government or anyone else restricting how many children one could have was absolutely unthinkable.

However, today there are many, particularly in the Western world, who are been convinced by government propaganda to willingly restrict their own reproductive capabilities.

One 27 year old woman named Toni Vernelli told the Daily Mail why she decided to get permanently sterilized: "Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."

Some activists have even gone to the extreme by forming "The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement" which seeks to reduce the presence of humanity on earth as much as possible.

Their motto is: “May we live long and die out”.

So is the ballooning population of planet earth a huge threat to the environment? Do we need to implement strict population controls for the good of mankind?

The reality is that the world has more people than it ever has had in all of recorded history. Some countries have implemented population laws that are quite strict (such as China's one child policy), while other nations do not have any population regulations yet. Lately, however, we have started to see some population control measures begin to pop up in the Western world.....

*Women in the Netherlands who are deemed by the state to be unfit mothers will be sentenced to take contraception for a period of two years, according to a new bill before the Dutch parliament.

*In the U.K., one influential think tank says that it is an "eco-crime" to have too many children and that we really need to examine the impact our large population is having on the earth.

*In South America, the government of Peru goes door to door pressuring women to be sterilized and they are funded by American tax dollars to do this.

The desire by the global elite to limit the population of the earth has been around for a long, long time. Between 1798-1826, English economist Thomas Malthus published six editions of his work entitled "Essay on the Principle of Population", which argued that population growth inevitably outstrips food production.

The primary argument advanced by Malthus was that the English working class was poor not because they were exploited, but rather because there were too many of them. Malthus opposed welfare and higher wages because he believed they would allow the poor to survive and breed, thus compounding the overpopulation problem and leading to more poverty. Of course Malthus was terribly wrong about all of this, but nonetheless his theories gained wide acceptance among the English elite of his day.

Many years later, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, vigorously promoted this type of thinking in the United States. The following is one of Margaret Sanger's most famous quotes:

"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Unfortunately, the theories of Malthus, Sanger and other population control advocates did not die out. Rather, they seemed to gain steam as the population of the world absolutely exploded in the 20th century.

U.S. environmentalist Paul Erlich, in his 1968 book entitled "The Population Bomb", argued for very strict population control measures, especially in the poorer areas of the world. He warned that if we did not implement such measures we would be facing catastrophic problems very quickly.

Dr. Arne Schiotz, World Wildlife Fund Director of Conservation, said this in 1984:

"Malthus has been vindicated, reality is finally catching up with Malthus. The Third World is overpopulated, it’s an economic mess, and there’s no way they could get out of it with this fast-growing population. Our philosophy is: back to the village."

Unfortunately, the philosophies of Erlich, Schiotz and others have garnered a following even among powerful members of the United States government. Just check out the following shocking quotes.....

“There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it…."

“Our program in El Salvador didn’t work. The infrastructure was not there to support it. There were just too goddamned many people…. To really reduce population, quickly, you have to pull all the males into the fighting and you have to kill significant numbers of fertile age females…."

“The quickest way to reduce population is through famine, like in Africa, or through disease like the Black Death….”

–Thomas Ferguson, State Department Office of Population Affairs

The quotes above are typical of the mindset of the global elite. The call for radical population control has grown louder than ever before. College professors are given standing ovations by their students when they call for a 90 percent reduction in the human population of the planet. Ted Turner said, "A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal," and the global elite applauded him for it. The Georgia Guidestones which call for us to "maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature" are increasingly cited by our leaders as an important, and perhaps even necessary, goal.

What is happening to our world?

It seems as though for the global elite, every major crisis these days is an opportunity to further one of the key pillars of their agenda:

Population reduction.

Problem #1: Gas costs too much and we are faced with "global warming".

Answer: Get rid of a whole bunch of people and we will use less gas and we will produce less "greenhouse gases".

Problem #2: Medical costs are soaring out of control.

Answer: Get rid of a whole bunch of people and kill off the elderly and we will have fewer medical costs.

Now Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, has the perfect solution for the "food crisis":

Get rid of a whole bunch of people......


The following is one of Prince Philip's most famous quotes about world population:

"You cannot keep a bigger flock of sheep than you are capable of feeding. In other words conservation may involve culling in order to keep a balance between the relative numbers in each species within any particular habitat. I realize this is a very touchy subject, but the fact remains that mankind is part of the living world…. Every new acre brought into cultivation means another acre denied to wild species."

Do you see how the global elite sees us?

As a "flock of sheep" that must be culled from time to time.

How sick is that?

Prince Philip, the "Eco-Warrior", also once said that he would like to come back to earth as a disease after he died to help reduce the human population.

But he is far from alone on this issue. The call for human depopulation is coming from a myriad of other sources:

John Guillebaud, professor of family planning at University College London has said: “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet."

He also made this shocking statement: “The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.”

Now there are influential think tanks in the United Kingdom that are even advocating that the U.K. adopt a "2 child" policy to help fight "global warming".

The Club of Rome certainly is clear about who they think the enemy is.....

"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…. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. 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."

–Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, 1991

Mikhail Gorbachev made the following stunning statement about the population of the earth: "We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren't enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage."

The reality is that we are getting increasingly closer to the kind of world where the "useless eaters" that Henry Kissinger talked about will be "eliminated". Is this the kind of future that we want for us and our children?

The truth is that the world is not experiencing runaway population growth. While the earth's population is growing, the rate of growth is definitely slowing. The population of the world grew by 140% between 1950 and 2000. However, authorities predict a rise of only 50% between 2000 and 2050, and a rise of just 11% in the 50 years after that.

The truly frightening thing is that many of you who are reading this article actually agree with this radical depopulation agenda.

For those of you who do believe in such insanity, we would love to hear your rationale. Feel free to post a comment to this article below.


  1. Trying2 said...

    while you may not like hearing it, it is still true. Its all about balance. maybe taking the same principles, but putting it into smaller terms will help people understand. Lets say 1 square mile/km/acre whatever represents the entire earth. Now, on that 1 sq "unit" (mile/km/whatever), ALL LIVING AND NON LIVING intities HAVE TO LIVE! All things take up space. (fact) Now, the more of one thing you have, the more resources it uses. For example, more livestock means more grass eaten. But with people/humans, we pave the areas we live in. Pull out trees, lay down cement and concreat and asphalt for roads, buildings, etc. We also use natural resources such as trees and steel and oil. Plus we take up room for housing, shopping, and manufacturing.
    The point is, space is needed for water (sea/ocean/rivers/lakes, etc) and for plants (bushes and trees from where we get oxygen, and absorb carbon dioxide.) without plants, the air saturates with CO2, and ALL BREATHING ANIMALS AND PEOPLE would die. (try breathing inside an airtight bag.)
    The thing is, animals need plants to live on. There is a FINITE amount of land on the planet. The more space and resources people take up, the less there is. The "circle of life" and balance gets disturbed, and something suffers. (For example, too many coyotees, and the deer die off. Too many Deer, and the trees die off. Balance is needed.)

    Talk to a rancher. Land can only support a certain number of cattle. its a fact. And this planet isn't getting any bigger, and natural resources aren't reproducing any faster. There needs to be balance. There are now OVER 5 Billion people on the planet. Everything has a limit. Everything.
    The only real debate is HOW to meat the limit, and what measures to take to have people stay in balance.

  2. chris said...

    There is no shortage of space on planet earth. That premise is laughable. It seems like it because we are all crammed into cities together, but if you look at an image from space of the places that are inhabited by humans, we take up far less than one percent. I live in texas, and here alone are hundreds upon hundreds of square miles of untouched land. I can literally go to places right around here that no human has set foot on yet! There are plenty of resources and environments for all of us. Overpopulation is only a problem to the tiny group of mobsters who know that the more people are around, the harder it becomes to get away with their atrocities! Things like global warming and overpopulation are NO threat at all to the people! They are simply used as red herrings to further the agenda of the elite. Please don't waste any more time worrying about issuses like that, and try to call attention to the real dangers, like allowing a tiny group of interlocking families and fraternities to guide the reigns of our world!

  3. Corey said...

    Great article. All of the people alive on the planet today could fit into two acre plots in Austrailia. The rest of the earth would be uninhabited. I find the over population argument hard to swallow.

  4. Joyful_Momma said...

    Actually Corey the area of Australia is 7692024 Square Kilometers = 1900740524.774591 Acres That would be six people per acre. Still not bad. Over population, and man-made global warming, is a myth invented by governments to control it's people and steal from them.

  5. yo mama said...

    hey trying2,

    man hook line and sinker. i have a bridge for sale in NY if you are looking. remember alot of germans thought hitler was doing the right thing. don't buy the bull crap. research the eugenics program history in the US. global warming is a political tool and not based on science, unfortunately it portrayed as the truth, such bull! do you know cows flatulence and manure produce more co2 than cars? soon they will try to tax us for farting because we contribute to global warming! what crap! no pun intended.

  6. robbrown64 said...

    Come on people, there is enough technology and resources that not one human would be hungry or cold. There is a lot of everything but we are taught scarecity. If you gave every single human a 1x1 square to stand in you could fit the entire population withing the city limits of fort lauderdale. There is room, and abundance. The problem is we are so occupied with the life we were taught to live we are missing the big picture. We are paid slaves and are missing out on our true life. Do you believe that with the technology we have and the resources we could eliminate 93% of the jobs on the planet.

  7. robbrown64 said...

    Come on people, the problem is we were taught scarcity. There is enough technology and resources that not one human needs to be hungry or cold. We are paid slaves living someone elses ideas. It is sick, we are so far away from our true calling. We are distracted from the truth, why do you think almost everyone has a tv or computer. We, as of 2009, have the technology to eliminate 93% of jobs. There is technology to harness geo thermal energy that would supply the entire planet for 100's and 100's of years. The solution to crime, poverty, greed and many more is GET RID OF THE MONETARY SYSTEM. Sounds crazy I know but just remember on thing we are not born with greed, racism, or bigotry it is taught to us. Think how the world would be if we were all kind to each other and the planet.

  8. Roargathor said...

    Wrong. In order to maintain the current population growth rates, we would eventually need to cut down all the forests and flatten mountians to make room and provide for humanity. This would innivitably destroy everything around us. Effectivly taking the world and its biodiversity with us to hell. Ugenics,abortion,war,desease,famine. It will come one way or another. The earth will not tolorate the rash that we have become on it's face. Pimples will be popped.

  9. Daniel said...

    It's not about physical space to store the people like boxes, it's about arable land, which is reducing, fossil fuel availability, which is finite in total and output shrinks each month, and fresh water, of which we have less in total per year, under the current trend; especially in Asia. If you doubt me on rainfall, remember that over the planet, the total ice in glaciers is less each year, and this represents a loss of stored fresh water. As these melt they offset reduced rainfall. When the glacier flow stops helping in time of reduced precipitation, the situation will worsen quickly.

    So considering these three alone; oil, arable land, and fresh water; if we can command/exploit/find/use whatever LESS each year in absolute terms, and the population grows each year, then there will be a problem at some point.

    Of course you're right about fitting people in fort lauderdale, and about the population density of australia being low, but this isn't the point; if you spread australians out accross the nation millions would die in the desert, and if you crammed the world into ft lauderdale billions would die in the crush and following disease and starvation.

    The massive areas that are unpoulated, are usually unpopulated for a good reason; almost always becuase there's not a secure source of food or fresh water close enough; that's why we congregate around rivers. Learn your history! The Rhine, Tigris, the Nile, The Seine, the Thames, the Missisippi, the Amazon. The Jordan. Fresh water is a limit to growth, it's needed for farming, drinking, and as a pollution sink (waste disposal; ie washing).

    It's not about standing room or living space, it's about space for arable land, for pollution sinks and for enough trees to maintain nutrient and water cycles.

    It's absolutely true that there is enough technology and resources that not one human needs to be hungry or cold, with the caveats that firstly millions would need to abandon meat in their diet, and that the resources are finite, and are reducing, so this won't always be true if population increases.

    Essentially the argument is that if we don't reduce our total consumption, either by population reduction or other means, then resource constraints (read up on future expectations of oil, phosphorous, fresh water, arable land, ocean fisheries) and the physical and chemical realities of the Earth will reduce our population through malnutrition and disease.

    More realistically, as resources become more scarce, and the USA, Indonesia, Australia, Mexico and Venezuala export less oil each year than the year before, nations that need oil will go to war to secure it, which will also contribute greatly to the tolls from malnutrition and disease.

    There are struggles in the middle east over a limited and shrinking supply of arable land and fresh water.

    In India water availablility is very low, and people in the slums are very thirsty, and kill each other over access to water.

    In fact, because rainfall in India has been so crippled lately, the hydro dams are running well below proper capacity and there is an electricity shortage as well.

    I won't provide links, it's all very easy to google for, and it's no secret.

    It's not enough to cover your eyes and ears and yell "I have a right to breed!" because while that may be true and I don't agree with the govt policies you discuss, it's better to choose our own destiny than to overshoot and collapse, just because we can. If you don't agree with population reduction, then you need to choose between either a massive drop in living standards/resource consumption in the west (down to 1930's UK levels at least) or inevitable deaths from overshoot, which, to be honest, we are seeing in many places now.

  10. Anonymous said...

    You can start with all the criminals in the world who are in prison for life. Anyone serving life for murder,rape,terroisim,etc., should be forced to be a gladiator in a modern coluseum. This would create revenue through ticket sales, clean out the prisons,and greatly reduce crime. They would be a champion until they were killed. The games would be played on a stainless steel diamond plate surface using ATV's instead of charriots. Fans with front row seats would be protected with 2" thick Lexan. The gladiators would be supplied with swords,axes,bows,etc., except for firearms.This would become a thriving business for each country and make the world a safer place.

Post a Comment