Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Ehrlich, Hansen, Lovelock: We Must Build “An Entirely New Kind Of Global Society”

Posted 2 years ago on April 11, 2012, 1:07 a.m. EST by cerebral (10)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Ehrlich, Hansen, Lovelock: We Must Build “An Entirely New Kind Of Global Society”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dBUvZDSY2D0

Jurriaan Maessen , April 10, 2012

The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) has recently published a collection of “key messages” written by the usual suspects, including eugenicist Paul Ehrlich, climate dictator James Lovelock and NASA’s own terror-endorsing James Hansen.

James Hansen.

In the statement titled “Environment and Development Challenges: The Imperative to Act”meant to inspire the UN and its upcoming 2012 Earth Summit, the fiends call for a global implementation of population policies. To effectively implement these policies the authors propose rights being infringed upon in order to address what they call “the population issue”:

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

We of course know perfectly well what they mean by “health care of children and the elderly”. We have recently seen the terrible results of health care for children in the eugenicists’ model-state of China. Decrying that “funding (for worldwide fertility control) decreased by 30% between 1995 and 2008, not least as a result of legislative pressure from the religious right in the USA and elsewhere”, the authors call for “education and planning needed to foster and achieve a sustainable human population and lifestyles.”

How does one do that exactly, “achieve a sustainable human population”, you may wonder:

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

Finally, in a dramatic turn the band of eugenic brothers turn to the old Malthusian trick of scaring the children into action:

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

These eco-fascists clearly stop at nothing as they attempt to terrorize the world into accepting their envisioned “global society.” Never forget that this society is not some peaceful vision by a couple of goodhearted environmentalists. All three have revealed themselves to be eugenicists who only seize upon a (in this case imagined) calamity in order to establish world government. God forbid it will ever come to pass.

James Lovelock, who in 2009 called for culling the population with a desired outcome of 1 billion people worldwide.

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

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

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”

This is just one out of many dehumanizing proposals from the mind of Paul Ehrlich. Also remember this when you read his proposals for a global society necessary to “address population issues” (also out of Ecoscience):

“… Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist.”

Here is your global society in a nutshell.

5 Comments

5 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 2 years ago

The notion of a "sterilant" should hardly seem far-fetched. See Wikipedia about endocrine disruptors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptor Endocrine disruptors might decrease sperm count even in future generations - see http://www.reproduction-online.org/content/139/2/373.long . The top six baby bottle makers in the U.S. agreed to stop using the endocrine disruptor bisphenol A - in 2009 - http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20090306/baby-bottle-makers-ditch-bpa . Meanwhile, think of how many babies have potentially been affected. Of course, no one knows why sperm counts have dropped 50% since the 1940s, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/out-for-the-count-why-levels-of-sperm-in-men-are-falling-1954149.html but I can't help but notice that bisphenol A, initially studied as a synthetic estrogen, entered use in plastics in the 1950s. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A ) Now, I don't want to allege some crazy conspiracy theory, but if I were going to implement Ehrlich's plan above, I can't think of a better way to do it than to take a synthetic estrogen replacement used in the 1930s (see http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=just-how-harmful-are-bisphenol-a-plastics ), make it a component of almost every baby bottle, with almost every baby bottle-fed at the time, ensuring a nice consistent dose, and lowering male fertility by a measured but perhaps quite significant amount. Without this purely accidental chain of events, I wonder whether the American population would continue to increase at such a slow, steady rate.

[-] 0 points by cerebral (10) 2 years ago

Lots of research here....thank you!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5956) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

A baby born in American is like four times more likely to die before their first birthday than one born in a modern country, is it so bad to want to be a first class country?

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

A bunch of sick fucks this so-called "elite" are.

[-] 1 points by cerebral (10) 2 years ago

Lol !! Couldn't have said it better myself !!