All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 19, 2012 - InfoWars Nightly News
01:03:53
20121119_Mon_NightlyNews
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
*music*
It is Monday the 19th of November 2012.
Welcome to another edition of InfoWars Nightly News.
During this entire week of Thanksgiving, we're going to be airing some of the incredible in-depth interview documentaries that we've produced in the last two years.
For viewers out there, a lot of you I know haven't seen these, they're in the archives at InfoWarsNews.com and PrisonPlanet.tv.
Tomorrow night will be G. Edward Griffin and the Collectivist Conspiracy.
Wednesday night, Charlotte Iserby and the deliberate dumbing down of America by this incredible insider.
Russell Means, welcome to the reservation on Thursday.
And Rosalind Peterson, the Chemtrail cover-up, is on Friday.
And then obviously I'll be live on the radio until Wednesday and then back Sunday, 4 to 6 p.m.
And then next week we'll have new transmissions.
For you original nightly news programs.
We're also using the first few days of this week to get some of the new studios completed, some of the new sets completed, and do some basic training around here with some of the new crew that we've got.
But tonight is Dr. Webster Griffin Tarpley, the elite's plan for global extermination, eugenics.
And, you know, I really respect Tarpley and like him a lot, even though he thinks that big government can be used to actually do some good.
Now, you know, the problem is, is that even if you have a good government, when it gets that big, it's like a 10 trillion pound elephant.
When it moves around, it crushes things.
But when it comes to eugenics, he is so dead on.
This is why I don't trust the government to take their deadly vaccines or drink their diet cokes, is because, well, time and time again we've seen what their agenda is to slow kill us, soft kill us, through this secret war agenda of eugenics that we are exposing here.
So here we are on this 19th day of November 2012 with this extensive hour-plus Uh, presentation with Webster Griffin Tarpley, the elite's plan for global extermination.
Please give this information out to everyone you know.
And thank you for watching and being supportive of InfoWars Nightly News.
Today, I'm pleased to announce members of my science and technology team.
Dr. John Holdren has agreed to serve as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
John P. Holdren is the resident science czar of the Obama White House.
He's the head of the White House Council on Science and Technology, key advisor operating out of the new executive office building in Washington, D.C.
This man is a Malthusian fanatic.
He's a follower of Bentham, and Malthus and Darwin.
In other words, the main philosophers of the British Empire in the 19th century and the fountainhead of reactionary and anti-human ideology in that time frame.
He's a radical environmentalist, an ecological fanatic, a green kook, a wacko, except that it's also very sinister because the implications of his belief structure and his world outlook are genocide.
He is, in particular, an enemy of the traditional American point of view on the world.
Holdren polemicizes in his books against people he calls the cornucopians, people who think that the bounty of nature and of production is unlimited.
He says that's not true.
There are limits to growth, and we have to live within those limits.
He polemicizes against growthsmanship, that you can grow your way out of a crisis, According to Holdren, that door has been permanently closed on all of us.
And in particular, he says he hates the moonshot mentality of the average American.
And that is to say, with the right kind of national mobilization, technology, and political will, you can do just about anything, including putting a man on the moon, or putting Other people out into space.
So, Holdren is anti-American in this deep way.
He is a pessimist, culturally and historically.
He calls himself a neo-Malthusianism.
Now, the heart of his outlook is what he calls, well, he says that population is the root of all human problems.
In other words, people pollute.
Humanity is a cancer on the face of the Earth.
The one big problem in the ecosystem is the role of humankind.
And of course, in reality, the existing ecosystem could not survive without the constant contributions of human production.
It's very easy to show that.
Holdren started off in the 1970s with Paul Ehrlich, Who was a charlatan and an obscurantist and a crackpot who wrote the book The Population Bomb.
Ehrlich was convinced that world population was growing out of control and that this is going to lead to a breakdown of human civilization sometime in the late 20th century.
And it goes together with the campaign of the Limits of Growth, the Club of Rome, Aurelio Pichet and the rest of these people.
This is kind of the intellectual milieu that Holdren comes out of.
Now, there was no population bomb.
It's just not true.
It never happened.
Population in Europe is falling.
If you just look at the self-renewal of these populations, same thing in Japan, same thing in Russia.
They've all got a demographic problem, which has nothing to do with overpopulation.
It has to do with shrinking population.
China has demographic problems that were caused by going along with this two-child-per-family policy.
The U.S. would be experiencing demographic decline if it weren't for the flow of immigrants into the country.
So there never was a population bomb, but Holdren does not revise or change his pseudoscientific outlook because of this.
Thank you.
Population is the problem.
Now, he looks around the world, writing in the early 1970s in one of his textbooks, and he says, some countries have so much population that they ought to be triaged.
We should cut them off, give them no more food aid, no more credit, no more help of any kind.
Well, what are the countries?
He says, India is probably on the list.
India.
Hundreds and hundreds of millions of people, and Holdren says, cast them into the outer darkness.
Then, Bangladesh, with a couple of hundred million people, Holdren says, for sure, Bangladesh has got to be triaged.
Give them nothing.
Now again, the note of genocide.
The idea that whole country should be consigned to doom puts Holdren in a league which is far beyond Hitler in terms of the number of victims that these policies would result in.
He hates science and technology.
He wants to limit science and technology.
He regards them as a threat to what he thinks of as the social order and also to the crackpot views of charlatans and uh... and uh... and fakers like himself.
He says he wants to create a science court that would decide which inventions could be put into practice and which would have to be banned.
This is unbelievable.
This would essentially strangle the source of human progress and consign us all into a stagnation and uh... and ruin which would Would never end.
Holdren believes that there's a world optimum population, or carrying capacity.
Now, the idea of carrying capacity comes from the writings of a Venetian cook by the name of Gian Maria Ortes, O-R-T-E-S, writing in 1790 or thereabouts, Ortez said that the limit of the world population was three billion people, and that if you went beyond that, you'd have famine and starvation and death, and it would always tend back to three billion people.
Now, Holdren is even worse.
He's more genocidal than Gian Maria Ortez.
He's more genocidal than Malthus, who followed in the footsteps of Ortez.
Holdren says, That the optimum world population is one billion.
Now let's pause.
At the time Holdren wrote that, the world population was already 4 billion.
Today, if you say the optimum population is 1 billion, it would mean that more than 5 billion would have to go.
And again, these are orders of magnitude that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao never dreamed of.
Only in the mind of fanatics like Holdren do we get genocide of these proportions.
Holdren says that the big task of policy, and here the third world and developing countries should take note, he says the main political problem facing the world is not world economic development, but stopping world economic development.
He's very worried that countries like China and India and others, Latin America, South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, That they're going to try to imitate the development of the US, Europe, and Japan.
And Holdren says that would be catastrophic.
What we need is to stop third world development.
We've got to convince the third world not to do that.
And we've got to institute de-development worldwide.
In other words, turn back the clock of history, roll back progress, and go back to what amounts to pre-industrial civilization.
Well, pre-industrial civilization is a lifespan of 30 to 35 years.
Nasty, brutish, and short, as Hobbes put it.
So that's what Holdren wants for you and your family.
In order to enforce this, he talks about a supranational monstrosity that he calls a planetary regime.
This means a world empire, a supranational, one-world government, that would attempt to control all details of human life, would start with what he calls the global commons.
That is to say, anything that impacts the air, the soil, and the oceans, would become the subject of international, supranational intervention.
It would be like the IMF on steroids.
Instead of just economic life, it would extend to everything.
Again, the temperature in your living room, the kind of car you have, the amount you get to eat, whether you have a pet.
Minimal details about your everyday life.
For individual countries such as the U.S., Holdren recommends a population law which would fix the outer limits of the acceptable population.
And again, what happens if you are surplus?
What happens if you are declared a useful leader?
He doesn't say that so explicitly, but it's clear that you wouldn't fare very well.
So, one of the features of a population law, in Holdren's point of view, is to regulate the size of the family.
And this is what, of course, China did in the post-Mao period, the two-child-per-family policy.
So, the hand of the totalitarian state intervenes in the most intimate decisions of the family, and the realm of individual responsibility pretty much ceases to exist.
Holdren is willing to do just about anything to, first of all, slow the rate of population increase.
That's his first goal.
Secondly, to bring population into stasis or equilibrium, zero growth, but then to turn it back and have a decreasing, diminishing world population.
In Chinese experiences, if you do that, you're flirting with economic collapse.
But Holdren doesn't care about that.
He's, of course, a fanatic.
So what is he willing to do?
He talks about all kinds of forced sterilization.
That you can have surgical interventions on males.
In India, he says, there was a policy of obligatory vasectomy once you had two children in the family if you were a government employee.
He says that's something we could think about imitating.
Compulsory abortion.
Think about that.
That would be something that was flirted with in post-Maoist China.
He wants to have licenses for birth.
In other words, a woman is not allowed to give birth unless she's purchased a marketable birth license.
And of course, what happens if Goldman Sachs comes in and because women are going to want those, drives up the price a hundred times so that nobody can afford a birth permit?
And what happens to people that are born illegitimately, meaning without a birth permit?
He wants to have things that have been done in the meantime, Norplant I think is an example, subcutaneous chemical devices that are put into the flesh of women to prevent them from Conceiving.
So, forced sterilization, compulsory abortion, forced vasectomy, birth licenses, subcutaneous implants, all kinds of compulsory, obligatory methods.
In terms of forced sterilizations, he says you could do this by putting chemicals in food and water, but he thinks that these other methods would be more effective.
He also has other methods of persuasion, which are really coercion.
That if you have more than two kids in the family, there's no more free public education for you.
The third kid has to pay to go to the public school.
If you're living in public housing, which is the case in some countries, the third kid gets you kicked out of the public housing and you become homeless.
He's also in favor of violating the family by seizing babies.
He says that if it's a teenager or a minor who has had an illegitimate child and there's no husband in the picture, then the government should come in and seize that child and have a policy of forced adoption to take care of that illegitimate child.
You can see that Holdren is a collectivist.
He is not a collectivist of the Marxist type, however.
I would call him a collectivist in the tradition of Rousseau for two reasons.
Remember, there are two Rousseaus.
One is the Rousseau who says, That the noble savage is the goal of human life.
In other words, the more primitive you are, the less civilization you have, the better you are.
Just if you think about that, Rousseau on that basis is one of the most influential philosophers of the current time, because it basically says primitive societies are better than corrupt modern societies, so we should go back to nature and go back to the ways of these underdeveloped peoples.
But then there's the other side of Rousseau, which is the collective will.
The late Rousseau writes about the collective will, in that the individual counts nothing compared to the collective will.
This is essentially the philosophy of the reign of terror in the French Revolution, and that's pretty much where Holdren is.
So I would call him a Rousseauvian fanatic, in addition to being a Malthusian and a Darwinist and a Benthamite, and he wants to have the noble savage, roll back civilization, go back to pre-industrial Civilization, or call it civilization if you want to, and at the same time he wants to impose the collective will.
He even writes about infanticide.
He says that infanticide is found in many primitive peoples, and he says, well, what that means is that these societies thought that the survival of the group and the collectivity was more important than the individual, so they didn't hesitate to kill babies, which That implies Holdren's idea of civilization.
It's a form of barbarity.
Again, in Holdren's world, there are two main evils.
One is overpopulation.
The other is industrial pollution.
In the world we live in, the main problem is poverty, ignorance, disease, backwardness, illiteracy.
And the rest.
The main problem of today's world is a massive underproduction of most of the worldly goods that humans need.
Food, clothing, shelter, transportation, jobs, housing, health care, all the rest.
All of that is lacking.
One billion people in the world we live in are on the verge of starvation because of the world food market situation and the fact that we have almost no food stocks left anywhere in the world.
You've also got about two to three billion people right now who are living under one euro per day, under about a dollar and a half or two dollars.
So Holdren looks at that world and says, the reason for poverty is overpopulation.
I would say no.
The reason for poverty is underproduction of all the main things.
Question for Holdren, if you have a bunch of people and you want to give them all a hat, and there are not enough hats to go around, what do you do?
I say, manufacture more hats.
Holdren says, start cutting off heads.
That's Holdren.
In being a follower of Bentham and Malthus and Darwin, in this administration of fanatics, Holdren is joined by others.
Let's look at Cass Sunstein.
Who is the regulations czar.
Sunstein is the pioneer of what is called behaviorist economics.
He wants to nudge you, or convince you to do certain things.
The problem is, the nudge is not a friendly nudge.
The nudge is going to become a cattle prod, and then it's going to become a bayonet, and then it's going to become a machine gun, and God knows what else.
That's Cass Sunstein.
He's a former law professor from the University of Chicago.
Now, he quotes Bentham all the time.
Sunstein is a guy who says that animals should have legal rights, including the right to be represented by lawyers in a court.
Now, Sunstein, by most people's standards, would be quite extreme.
But in the Obama administration, Sunstein is a moderate.
Sunstein wants to give legal rights to animals.
Holdren wants to give legal rights to trees, so that they could be represented by lawyers and they could block development projects because you need more trees.
Well, again, I'm all for trees.
You want more trees?
Plant them.
During the New Deal, we had something called the Shelter Belt.
...that planted a couple of hundred million trees across the mid-section of the United States as an attempt to make the climate better.
It was an attempt to deal with the Oklahoma Dust Bowl of the 1930s.
The way you do that is to plant trees.
Trees are fine, but again, with Holdren, we're going to have trees represented by lawyers stopping human needs from being realized.
Generally speaking, the Malthusian, zero-growth, radical environmentalist, ecological extremist movement of the late 60s and early 70s is the precursor that prepares the ground for the radical de-industrialization of the United States in the late 70s and then into the 80s, the so-called Great U-Turn, where the U.S.
goes from being an industrial power to being a post-industrial rubble heap.
A key moment is 1968 with the foundation of the Club of Rome, Aurelio Pace and Alexander King.
Alexander King once admitted that the whole purpose of the ecological movement was to stop the economic development of the third world and make sure that there would be fewer brown and black people in the world because this was a problem for the Anglo-Saxon master race, the way he looked at it.
1972, you've got this tremendous work of charlatans and crackpots, Meadows and Forrester, the limits to growth, which was that the world really should have ended already, because the raw materials are being exhausted at such a rapid rate.
So out of that you get the Green Movement, the greening of America, and the coming of something that you didn't have before, was a mass constituency for radical environmentalists.
In particular, Malthus used to be a dirty word among leftists, because he was considered a British imperialist.
Marx and Engels had to attack Malthus, because otherwise they couldn't function in progressive circles.
But by the 1970s, thanks to this, Malthus and Darwin become good guys, when of course they're really very bad.
And both charlatans and crackpots.
So that's sort of the preparation.
You've also got people saying that a service economy is better, the so-called triple revolution committee.
You've got the government of Edward Heath in Britain and Harold Wilson of the Labour Party saying quality of life is more important than production.
All of these are ways to begin arguing the idea of de-industrialization.
The way you get it, though, big time in the U.S.
is Paul Adolph Volcker of the Trilateral Commission, appointed by Jimmy Carter of the Trilateral Commission.
And what Volcker then does is he gets the Federal Reserve and he raises interest rates to unprecedented levels, a 22% prime rate, meaning that for most people the interest rates were 30% or even more.
And that's for mortgages, for various kinds of business financing and so forth.
What Volcker was able to do was to essentially destroy the industrial base of the United States.
It became impossible to produce with credit costing that much.
Some people compared this to Keynes, right?
Keynes said, well, let's have inflation as a cure for depression.
And Volcker came back with, no, let's have depression as a cure for inflation.
And that's pretty much what he did.
He pitched the United States into an industrial depression, which has never ended, wiped out large parts of basic industry, steel mills, chemical, rubber.
And all the rest.
This is where the jobs went.
If you remember Obama's bitter clinger quote, he says, 30 years ago the jobs went away and now we have these bitter people clinging to God and guns and anti-trade.
Well, how did those jobs go away?
That was Volcker.
The industrial base of the U.S.
was gutted and destroyed by Volcker, and with the environmentalists there, this could be greeted as something good.
The resistance to this in the Democratic Party was paralyzed because, well, it's a good thing, after all.
We won't have any more smokestacks.
Well, instead of smokestacks, you're going to have a declining standard of living, and this is what goes together with it.
Since about 1967, the U.S.
standard of living has declined by two-thirds.
And that includes average hourly earnings.
It includes the fact that the usual measures of inflation don't tell you how much inflation has been.
It's much more because you have to include medical care, insurance, and other things that are not really reflected in the market basket.
You're working about six weeks more per year, so you've got a longer work day, a longer work week, and a longer work year.
Vacations shrink, and the work year is extended by about six weeks altogether.
The other thing that you've got is your commute is much further.
And you're sitting in traffic for a total of about two to three weeks just sitting there, in addition to whatever the length of your commute would be.
If you add all of that together, in terms of the burden of economic life on the average standard of living and quality of life, you will find that the U.S.
standard of living has indeed declined by two-thirds.
You can look on shadow government statistics.
Their index confirms my finding.
It goes from about 300 in the late 60s, early 70s to about 100 today, meaning you've lost two-thirds of your standard of living.
So, deindustrialization leads to immiseration.
It means that the middle-class standard of living is destroyed.
You've also got more people working.
It's not enough for the husband to work.
The wife has to work.
The kids have to work, the husband has to work two jobs, the wife two jobs, and all this that everybody knows about.
So that is what de-industrialization has done, and that would have been difficult to do without the ideological preparation of green fanatics like Holdren, Ehrlich, Paddock, Meadows and Forrester, the Club of Rome, and collected charlatans and extremists of the 1960s into the 1970s.
The disease that we're talking about is not limited to the U.S.
Actually, it really originates in Great Britain with these people like Bentham and Malthus and Darwin.
One of Gordon Brown's aides was recently so indiscreet as to say that they were talking about cutting the population of the British Isles by 30 million people.
Now that's way more than Hitler could have accomplished.
And what it shows again is the anti-human fanaticism, Genocidal fury of the Anglo-American ruling elite.
That they hate people and they're determined to exterminate people and that's what they're into.
And if you want to live with a ruling class like that, it's going to be nasty, brutish and short.
The origins of eugenics, racist thinking, race science in the U.S.
go back in particular to the Harriman family.
Averill Harriman was the son of Harriman, the railroad builder, who had been attacked publicly by Theodore Roosevelt as a robber baron, as a public menace.
So Harriman, as a parvenu, knew money, who had to go to Oxford and talk to old money.
He had a tremendous identity crisis and sense of personal insecurity.
So what he wanted to do was to create himself a wonderful race pedigree that he too was part of the Anglo-Saxon master race.
So his wife contributed to this famous gathering at the American Museum of Natural History, which was attended by Nazis as well as British and other race scientists, meaning charlatans and proto-genocidalists, who came together with the idea of improving the race.
U.S.
states got into the business of sterilizing people, denying marriage licenses.
You have these stories, the Kalakaks and the Jukes in New York State and similar things.
The Nazis actually said, the U.S.
has beaten us to the punch in terms of eugenics measures.
So, in some ways, they were actually following in the footsteps of what Harriman and this faction had done in the United States.
Now, Bush, the elder, In his first congressional term, when he was representing River Oaks, Houston, Texas, elected in 1966, it was a district that had to be tailor-made, designed for him, as part of a redistricting, so he could finally get elected after he failed to get into the Senate from Texas against Yarborough in 1964.
Bush became the champion of eugenics.
He brought in Shockley, Herrenstein, And these other fanatics, right, the sort of bell curve school, the precursors of that.
In other words, people who talk about racial inferiority of the non-white races and things of this sort.
These people were outside the boundaries of respectability because of the backlash against the Nazis, but Bush, the elder, Did everything he could to make them respectable.
He brought them to Congress.
He let them lecture groups of members of the House and so forth.
So much so, that Wilbur Mills, the head of one of the key House committees at the time, coined the term, Rubbers Bush.
That George Bush the Elder was so interested in contraception for the lower orders that he was rubber's Bush.
Now, the idea of that, I think, with Bush the Elder was he believes in the Anglo-Saxon master race.
The problem is if you believe in that, you've got a problem of numbers because there are so many other people who are not part of this.
So, what are you going to do?
You've got to do something to limit the population growth And probably turn it around among the non-white populations in particular.
So I think that is the one thing that Bush the Elder actually believes in as a fixed point of ideology.
John P. Holdren, the current Obama populations are, John P. Holdren, the White House science are, is very much in the tradition of this Harriman eugenics movement, which was rubbing elbows with the Nazis in the 20s and 30s.
Things like compulsory abortion, compulsory sterilization, Taking children away from parents, preventing marriages, marriage licenses that you have to pay for, implants and other things to prevent birth.
This is all in the Nazi or quasi-Nazi tradition of the 20s and 30s.
The mentality of oligarchy does not change.
We have to remember that as long as there are human individuals, you're going to have the one, the few, and the many.
There's going to be one person, small groups of people, and large masses.
So this is always going to be with you.
These are ontological categories of human existence.
The problem you have is if you have the dictatorship of the one, that's a fairly clear-cut problem.
If you have the spontaneous mob of the many, that's a problem that people can also recognize.
But what you tend to have in human civilization is the rule of the few, the oligarchy, the iron law of oligarchy, studied by German sociologists in the late 1900s.
Now the purpose of an oligarchy is really only one thing.
A tyrant can have a project, a mob can have a goal, but an oligarchy is there to do one thing, to perpetuate oligarchy, to give it more and more power and allow it to exist.
The mentality of oligarchy always depends on the idea that there's an elite and a mass.
And there can't be anything in between.
There's really no room for a middle class in oligarchy.
So the elite has to justify itself based on what?
Why should they rule?
Are they smarter?
Are they more efficient?
Are they better?
They're probably none of those things.
They're probably inferior in many ways.
So they've got to find other ways to justify what is an irrational principle of domination.
So, oligarchs generally find ways to argue that the mass of people are inferior, that their lives are not worth living, and indeed, that they're closer to animals than they are to the elite.
So, whenever you have an oligarchical elite, they're always going to try to portray the masses as ignorant beasts, inferior, or whatever else it is, and that's what we see.
This is very strong in the Anglo-American world.
The US-British tradition is not that of a dictator.
Stalin, Hitler, this you generally don't find.
It's also not so much in the notion of mob rule and demagogy of that sort, although occasionally it is.
Generally what you have in terms of real power is an oligarchy.
So this oligarchy is inherited from Venice, from the Venetian Republic of the Middle Ages, and it's transferred into Britain between 1500 and 1600 or so in the form of the Whig Party, the top aristocratic party which rules Britain from the early 1600s really until about 1832 and the Reform Bill.
So it's an oligarchical system.
The US and the British are a polycentric oligarchy Where you can't say the Bilderberger runs it, or the Trilateral, or the CFR, or Bohemian Grove, or whatever it is.
All of those are power centers that jostle each other and coexist, but what they amount to is an oligarchy.
If you have a tyrant, you can convince the tyrant to change policy.
It can be done.
But to change an oligarchy, as Plato points out, is harder, because you've got to convince so many different ones, and as soon as you convince some of them, you've de-convinced others, because those are the enemies, and they hate the ones that you've convinced.
So, that's the problem that we face in the Anglo-American world.
The Club of Rome is a group of old fascists, for want of a better word.
Aurelio Pace was the most prominent guy.
He had been a fascist for Mussolini in the Balkans during World War II, done all manner of crimes there.
And then we have his associate, Alexander King, who admitted, that embarrassing thing, that the purpose of this was to express the genocide of the Third World.
In other words, that it was designed to make sure that there would be no Third World development, that therefore the black and brown people of the world would not become numerous.
So the Club of Rome is already the beginning of a genocidal mentality in which Holdren and Cass Sunstein and other people in the Obama regime participate.
Naturally, as this becomes more extreme, as the breakdown crisis gets worse, and it is getting worse, as the depression deepens,
You get into the definitions of useless eaters, lives not worthy of being lived, non-productive culls, they're called sometimes, surplus population, as Scrooge said, following Bentham and Malthus, and how many Are there of such people?
As the depression gets worse, it gets to be more and more of the population that are useless eaters and non-productive culls.
So, the problem that we face is the ideology has deteriorated.
The global warming ideology is, at least up to now, the most extreme form because it says that carbon dioxide is a pollutant And that carbon is bad when we ourselves are a carbon-based form of life.
So it seems to say that the inevitable results of humanity is pollution.
That people pollute or indeed that people are pollution.
It gets back to Ehrlich and Holdren and their idea that humanity is a cancer on the face of the earth.
So the ultimate logic of all this is Extermination, genocide, the concentration camp, depopulation, and a horror that goes beyond anything seen in the 20th century.
That's where Obama is essentially leading.
When Holdren is confronted with his published works, the body of work on which his scientific credentials rest, he wants to run away from them and say that he's no longer the environmental extremist That he once was.
That his genocidal fury has mellowed with age.
But I wouldn't believe that for a minute.
It's just that he's become a little bit more sophisticated politically and he's seen how damaging it is when people throw that stuff at you.
It's of course a monstrosity that he was allowed to get through that confirmation process in the first place.
In terms of genocide, genocide He entered the U.S.
policy realm in an overt way with this National Security Memorandum 200 by Kissinger in the 1974-75 period, which said that if you have population growth in third world countries, they will compete for the limited natural resources that the U.S.
intends to monopolize.
I attended the food conference, the World Food Conference of the Food and Agricultural Organization in Rome in December of 1974, which was attended by Kissinger.
And I put out some leaflets at this FAO conference in Rome in late 1974, and in response to that, the UN bureaucracy kicked me out of the conference, not for disrupting anything, but simply by pointing out the obvious implications of what was going on.
At that same conference, the Soviet delegate made a useful contribution.
He said that if you just took the existing off-the-shelf technology And made that available to everybody.
You would have no problem with 35 billion people on the Earth.
The demographic potential is still very, very large.
Lots and lots of wide open spaces.
But they kicked me out.
So, the Kissinger line was, stop population growth in third world countries, because otherwise they'll compete for natural resources.
I guess he's looking into what happens today with Chinese oil consumption and the Chinese in Africa offering their own bids For mining and other other products.
The other thing to stress is under Carter.
And in particular, under Secretary of State Edmund Muskie, you had Global 2000 and Global Futures.
And that is the real watershed of making genocide, population reduction, euthanasia, population control into the dominant ideology of the U.S.
government, the foreign policy establishment, and the State Department.
Global 2000 and Global Futures enacted under Muskie are really the turning point, after which U.S.
policy in the developing sector is no longer development, but it's rather population control, population reduction, with strong genocidal overtones.
Holdren writes books about nuclear target selection, nuclear war.
He's a strange love.
He's a strange love under green left cover.
However, he recognizes what Strangeloves often forget.
You can kill more people with economic means than you can with military means.
Robert McNamara did his best to escalate Vietnam.
Robert McNamara killed more people at the World Bank than he ever did at the Pentagon.
The general estimate is, well, 40,000 people a day.
Meaning 15, 20 million a year minimum die as a result of the IMF conditionalities.
They die of starvation, malnutrition and diseases like diarrhea that can be cured for a few pennies.
So that's the cost of the IMF based system is already in the neighborhood of 20 million dead per year and again 40,000 per day And that's an old figure.
Now that we have the depression, it's probably more like 50,000 a day or more, because the effect of the depression is obviously to increase that figure.
This is a book called Ecoscience, Population, Resources, Environment.
The authors, Paul R. Ehrlich of Stanford University.
This is the charlatan with the population bomb.
Anne H. Ehrlich, who is an environmental fanatic in her own right.
And John P. Holdren of the University of California, Berkeley.
Today, White House science czar for Obama.
Published by the W. H. Freeman and Company Publishing House in San Francisco.
And the edition I have here is 1977, so we're in the Jimmy Carter era.
First edition, 1970.
Second edition, 1972.
And as you can see, this is a hefty tome.
This is the best part of a thousand pages, more than a thousand pages.
If you count the index, we get up to 1,500 pages of raving, insane Malthusian drivel.
And he tells you he's a Malthusian, a Neo-Malthusian.
He loves Darwin.
He loves the struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest.
And in some ways he wants to bring that into human society.
Now, the heart of the book, I think, for political purposes, has to do with the measures that Holdren proposes to implement as a means of slowing, stopping, and reversing population growth.
The heart of the book, I think, starts on page 783.
Population control direct measures.
You've got to convince people of the necessity of reducing population.
For example, one thing he quotes approvingly, a case in point was the sudden imposition in 1976 of compulsory sterilization in some states in India and for government employees in Delhi following two decades of a case in point was the sudden imposition in 1976 of compulsory sterilization in some states And for government employees in Delhi, following two decades of discouraging results from voluntary family planning.
So let's make it involuntary, compulsory, obligatory, and we're going to come in with compulsory sterilization.
Let's jump ahead to the involuntary controls.
In the 1960s, it was proposed to vasectomize all fathers of three or more children in India.
India entertained the policy of compulsory sterilization, and if they had really done it, then they would have been better off, as Holdren says.
A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the fact that this is harder to do than a vasectomy, might be easier to implement than sterilizing men.
Other than that, Holdren is interested, and again on page 787, the development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired.
Well, this is Norplant, and that's been implanted in victim populations in U.S.
inner cities now for a couple of decades.
One of the problems is, how do you get it out?
The government puts it in, but who's going to help you to take it out?
That's a little bit harder.
Another proposal that Holdren is interested in.
He quotes the economist Kevin Boulding.
British, I'm pretty sure.
Boulding proposed to issue to each woman at maturity a marketable license that would entitle her to have a fixed number of children.
And of course, again, if Goldman Sachs gets into the market, then that could be priced out of reach.
A very interesting chart on page 788.
He quotes social scientists who have looked into the effects of a marketable license for birth.
A very interesting chart on page 788, baby licenses.
We're told that you can have a monthly subsidy if you have no more than two children.
You can have a monthly tax on people with more than two children to discourage that.
A one-time lump sum tax on excess babies over two.
So if you're over two children, that's excess.
And quotas for families so again uh... the basic idea is some measures designed to persuade and then the hardcore hardline measures compulsory sterilization compulsory abortion and it's also a good idea to take children away from mothers if they're uh... teenagers unmarried and otherwise not suitable now he wants to impose this not just domestically in the u.s.
but even more He wants to have family planning measures.
Here on page 789, he wants to have family planning measures in the less developed countries.
High priority should be given to stimulating attitude changes and counteracting the effects of pro-natalist traditions.
You may remember President de Gaulle of France talked about a hundred million Frenchmen as a national goal.
Obviously for Fulgren, this is impossible.
What are the problems with this?
Well, one problem is human rights.
Page 793.
Some people have this idea that there's a fundamental human right for each person responsibly to determine the size of his or her own family.
Holdren doesn't like that one.
Could this be done in the US?
Well, we have the Constitution.
Holdren laments, and now we're on page 837, to date there has been no serious attempt in Western countries, Europe, US, Japan, to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated.
For example, under the U.S.
Constitution, effective population control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, though the commerce clause becomes abortion and sterilization.
Or, For the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
So the idea is strip everybody of the right to exist under the 14th Amendment.
Such laws constitutionally could be very broad.
Indeed, it has even been concluded that compulsory population control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, Could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.
Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however.
Laments Holdren.
The most compelling arguments that might be used to justify government regulation of reproduction are based on the rapid population growth relative to the capacity of environmental and social systems to absorb the associated impact.
The appeal to greed.
To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people, says Holdren.
But there are other sound reasons that support the use of law to regulate reproduction.
In today's world...
Holdren writes on page 838, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern.
There is no individual sphere anymore for a Malthusian fanatic.
On page 850, Holdren wants to convert to a spaceman economy.
It's not the moonshot anymore.
This is the idea that you're on spaceship Earth and everything you have with you is a limited resource.
So, what you've got to do is reduce throughput of raw materials in industrial processes.
He quotes a fellow crackpot, Herman Daly, who has suggested a specific mechanism for accomplishing population reduction.
Put strict depletion quotas on the natural resources of the United States, meaning that you couldn't use more than two or three percent of the existing oil or minerals or whatever it is.
The problem with that is, what we've found since the publication of Limits of Growth, is that the available stocks of most raw materials have grown.
They haven't gone down, they've gone up, because you find more than you use.
And that, I think, that would be even more clear if this process were not sabotaged.
We would want to impose restrictions on the import of manufactured goods.
Well, up to a point, but not for Holdren's goals.
And there's a big attack on the cornucopians, again on page 851.
The American mentality that you can solve things through science and production is something that Holdren wants to polemicize against.
And that gets us then to his favorite theme, page 926, the de-development of overdeveloped countries.
We've got to stop the less developed countries from imitating the growth path of the developed world.
One key to saving world society lies in a measured and orderly retreat, retreat, from overdevelopment in today's overdeveloped countries, that would be the U.S.
A process we will label, for want of a better word, de-development.
So, if you thought your living standard was too low, Holdren is here to tell you, your living standard is too high.
You should be de-developed.
World government, international controls, the global commons.
The quote here is, mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon.
The New World Order.
It has been apparent for some time that the nations of this planet cannot long survive, we read on page 939, cannot long survive without a system of worldwide controls for dealing with the ecosphere, the world economic system, and world economic growth.
Such a system must be above all capable of resolving national differences.
This is the basic conclusion of the distinguished professor of international law, Richard A. Falk, as he analyzed the situation, exemplified by the projections of alternative future scenarios.
We might enter a plea here for surrendering some national sovereignty to a world government.
But it's unfortunately clear that there will not be a supranational government in the foreseeable future, but now 30 years have gone by, and maybe this is within reach at the Copenhagen Conference in December of 2009.
So we get the U.S.
environmental program, And again, in the conclusion, the summary of this is there are two factions on Earth.
We have the cornucopians, we can call them the growthsmanship group, the moonshot mentality.
Those are people who say science, technology and industry can solve any problem with political will, And the proper effort.
And that's pretty much how humanity has survived up to now.
But that's the wrong path, according to Holdren.
We've got to become Neo-Malthusians.
On these points, says Holdren, we find ourselves firmly in the Neo-Malthusian camp.
And again, that's based on Bentham, Ortez, and it's the basis, it's in turn, of Darwin.
This is a cookbook for the extermination of humanity beyond what he thinks, because the essential predicament of humanity is realize progress or collapse.
If you look in historians of world history, like Toynbee, he's got a catalog of, what, 20 different world civilizations?
And they've all collapsed, except one.
And generally they've collapsed from within.
And they've collapsed to a very significant degree because of thinking like this, that there's a limit to growth and that the privileges of an oligarchy are more important than the standard of living and the success of the individual human family.
So this is a cookbook For the extermination of humankind, right?
Those series that you see on the History Channel.
What if there were no people?
Well, Holdren has been blazing that trail for quite a while.
This is an ultra-Hitlerian genocidalist who's today operating out of the White House in Washington, D.C., and it's time to kick him out.
Morris Strong of Canada is a British imperialist functionary, close to Holdren in his outlook.
In the build-up to the 1992 United Nations conference in Rio, Morris Strong wrote that the choice is between collapsing the entire industrial system of the world and the survival of humanity and the planet.
And he's in favor of collapsing the industrial system.
So he put out a demagogic call to people that the task of the rest of us is to collapse the industrial system of the world.
I suppose George Soros and the people at AIG and Goldman Sachs and the derivatives department were reading all that because they've certainly taken us pretty far down the road to that.
If you collapse the industrial system of the world, the problem you find is that the relative potential population density of the world goes below the existing 7 billion plus people that we've got, and that overhang gets into the danger of extinction.
So that's a call to genocide, again, on an ultra-Hitlerian scale, issued by Maurice Strong.
Back in 1992.
Holdren is very much in that tradition.
Ehrlich and Holdren and their ilk are crackpots, charlatans and quackademics, in the sense that their method is fundamentally wrong.
The predicament of humanity is that at any given moment in time, with the existing technology that you have, you face a finite world of natural resources, except That what you can use as a natural resource is already defined by the technology you have.
So if you expand your technological repertoire and armory through scientific discovery and technological development, you can define increasing areas of the natural world as usable natural resources.
And that's what we've done up to now.
If wood is not enough, get coal.
If coal is not convenient, get oil.
If oil is not enough, get nuclear.
If nuclear has problems, get thermonuclear.
Look at antimatter.
Look beyond.
And still beyond.
Beyond a horizon that we can't even see at this point.
The essential human condition is realize progress or collapse.
Advance in science, technology and industry or you will soon cease to exist.
And that's the fundamental human premise that this lunatic, Malthusian, Darwinian The President, I think, has surrounded himself with some of the most brilliant choices.
Dr. Holden, I don't want to embarrass you, but I sometimes refer you as walking on water.
Ask yourselves, what are you doing in this time of great challenge? what are you doing in this time of great challenge?
What are you doing to unlock mine?
Go to Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.tv for the latest headlines and cutting-edge information. www.infowars.com
and PrisonPlanet.tv for the latest headlines and updates. in this country.
Going back about a year and a half ago, I began to learn about the incredible health effects of longevity products.
Erin Dykes lost 92 pounds.
We're going to show you some before and afters.
Aaron, break down what happened.
Your story.
I've worked really hard with diet and exercise to try to lose weight, but I just didn't get the results.
It just didn't happen.
Then I saw what you were doing with Infowarsteam.com.
I wasn't even trying to lose weight, but I got it because I wanted to feel better energy.
I wanted that nutrition.
Didn't even understand how that could kickstart my own weight loss goals.
But the products did that for me.
I found myself suddenly losing weight, more energetic, wanting to exercise, wanting to eat the right foods.
And they don't even advertise it as weight loss!
I want to challenge our radio listeners to go to Infowarsteam.com.
Sign up as a distributor and get wholesale pricing discounts at InfoWarsTeam.com.
Alex Jones here with a message to fellow freedom lovers.
The prognosis for the entire planetary economic system runs from bad to worse.
The globalist model is to shut down societies and starve patriots out until they acquiesce to the global takeover.
That's why we've assembled the most vital and important preparedness items at InfoWarsShop.com.
These are items that I did research on, that I personally use.
You've got the LifeStraw, so you can turn fetid water into safe water anywhere you go.
The KTOR Hand Crank Generator, to charge up key equipment during power outages or out in the field.
Strategic Relocation 3rd Edition by Joel Scalzo.
When Disaster Strikes by Matthew Stein.
They're a safe used by Homeland Security to protect yourself during any radiological event.
Hand-cranked shortwave AM FM radios.
Everything that we've researched and found to be the best is available at Infowarshop.com and your purchase makes our Infowar possible.
We're getting prepared.
Are you?
InfoWarsShop.com. InfoWarsShop.com.
InfoWarsShop.com.
InfoWarsShop.com.
Welcome to another edition of InfoWars Nightly News.
During this entire week of Thanksgiving, we're going to be airing some of the incredible in-depth interview documentaries that we produced in the last two years for viewers out there.
A lot of you, I know, haven't seen these.
They're in the archives at InfoWarsNews.com and PrisonPlanet.tv.
Tomorrow night will be G. Edward Griffin and the Collectivist Conspiracy.
Wednesday night, Charlotte Iserby and the Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by this incredible insider.
Russell Means, welcome to the reservation on Thursday.
And Rosalind Peterson, the Chemtrail cover-up, is on Friday.
And then, obviously, I'll be live on the radio until Wednesday and then back Sunday, 4 to 6 p.m.
And then next week we'll have new transmissions.
For you original nightly news programs.
We're also using the first few days of this week to get some of the new studios completed, some of the new sets completed, and do some basic training around here with some of the new crew that we've got.
But tonight is Dr. Webster Griffin Tarpley, the elite's plan for global extermination.
Eugenics.
And, you know, I really respect Tarpley and like him a lot, even though he thinks that big government can be used to actually do some good.
You know, the problem is, is that even if you have a good government, when it gets that big, it's like a 10 trillion pound elephant.
When it moves around, it crushes things.
But when it comes to eugenics, he is so dead on.
And this is why I don't trust the government to take their deadly vaccines or drink their diet cokes.
Is because, well, time and time again, we've seen what their agenda is to slow kill us, soft kill us, through this secret war agenda of eugenics that we are exposing here.
So, here we are on this 19th day of November 2012, with this extensive hour plus presentation with Webster Griffin Tarpley, the elite's plan for global extermination.
Please give this information out to everyone you know.
▲
Export Selection