June 17, 2012
The Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro has begun. The global leviathan that is the United Nations bares its teeth. In the months preceeding the summit, a continuing stream of publications has poured down from every corner of the transnational community, in essence calling for global governance of the environment as well as a stark reduction in the global human population. These two items are very much intertwined, according to the growing pile of UN papers flying from the supranational tree, all basically stating that the first is necessary in order to facilitate the latter.
One of these leaves circles down to us from the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) displays a collection of “key messages” written by the usual suspects, such as dedicated man-hater Paul Ehrlich, eco-terrorist James Lovelock and NASA’s own mad-as-hell environmentalist James Hansen. Their joint statement titled “Environment and Development Challenges: The Imperative to Act” was clearly designed to inspire the UN and its upcoming confab to make haste with global government. In their manifesto the impatient fiends call for a global implementation of population policies and rights being trampled 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.
“Globally, we must find better means to agree and implement measures to achieve collective goals.”
The authors go on to assert that “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.”
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.”
Now what do you think this means exactly, a sustainable human population? James Lovelock in 2009 gave us the answer, called for the culling of 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.
Of all the eco-fascists penning down proposals, Paul Ehrlich may be considered the most bloodthirsty of the bunch- with his continuing insistence on massive population reduction. Few people need to be reminded of the words he wrote 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.”
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.”
This suggestion might well come to pass, considering the statements issued by an organization calling itself the “Regeneration Project”, when recently it suggested in their manifest Bringing Rio Closer that the UN Security Council expand its mandate “to include environmental issues and security issues related to the environment” as well as “an International Court for the Environment (ICE) to settle disputes related to the environment and international environmental law.”
“(…) global institutions”, they say, “will be responsible for developing, implementing, and monitoring sustainable development policies going forward. Currently left largely to UNEP and the UN’s Commission on Sustainable Development, there is a desire by many to strengthen the authority of these institutions and/or create a new World Environment Organization (WEO).”
The group also called upon governments and NGO’s to create “personal carbon quotas, essentially making carbon a new form of currency for Individuals.”
A global carbon policy, in other words, enforced by a global carbon court. Furthermore, the group advocates implementation of population stabilization policies at the upcoming summit:
“Securing commitments from governments to try to stabilize global population”, the document reads.
Stabilize the global population no less, and using UN member-states (governments) as the enforcers of policies designed to achieve that goal. Here we have yet another example of key globalist players proposing far-reaching measures to exercise control over the masses, not for the sake of control itself (that’s something for the minor psychopaths that play along), but with the objective of culling the human population globally.
Another measure proposed by the Regeneration Project:
-Establishing a World Environment Organization (WEO)
The envisioned “Planetary Regime” is nearing when we take into consideration this set of proposals issued by the group. We might be surprised were the group not co-sponsored by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Bank. We have come to expect such things from these organizations. It was the World Bank which back in 1984 suggested (page 8) that “drastic steps” may be necessary if developing nations do not comply with their population control directives.
It was not the first time that the Regeneration Project sought to cull the human population. In their paper Unfinished Business the group, consistent with the Georgia Guidestones, advises governments to keep the population under a certain number:
“(…) stabilizing population to not more than eight billion people”, the Unfinished Business report explains.
Another concept that has been thrown out there, is that humanity has now entered a new geological era, dominated not by natural processes, but by man. This new age, ominously dubbed “the Anthropocene” can only be reversed, the UN says, when transnational rule wipes out sovereign rule- a suggestion that has a distinct tyrannical ring to it.
This particular promo, designed to prelude the Earth Summit, has been put out by a team of UN-sponsored scientists. The website associated with the “short film” states it has been set up by “researchers and communicators from some of the leading scientific research institutions on global sustainability.”
The “leading scientific institutions” the website mentions are visible at the credits-page, namely: the Stockholm Environment Institute, the Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, Stockholm University and other organizations aimed at promoting global governance.
The film itself follows the same old tiresome script we’ve heard so often from the mouths of neo-eugenic propagandists: too many people, shrinking icecaps, rising sea levels and all the rest.
In an very recent paper by Colorado state university professor Philip Cafaro titled “Climate ethics and population policy“, the term “Anthropocene” pops up once more- and once again the finger is explicitly pointed towards humanity as the prime evildoer. Citing the UN’s debunked Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the professor paints a picture of gloom and doom (page 57):
“Scientists now speak of humanity’s increased demands and impacts on the globe as ushering in a new geological epoch: the Anthropocene. Such selfish and destructive appropriation of the resources of the Earth can only be described as interspecies genocide.”
He of course forgets to mention that if there’s one thing constant about climate, is that it changes constantly. Furthermore, the idea that CO2 emissions have any significant impact on the earth’s atmosphere has really been put back on the fiction-shelf where it belongs :
“It is past time to acknowledge the immense injustice toward other species represented by climate change and other human assaults on the biosphere”, the professor goes on to say: “and to reform our environmental ethics and behavior accordingly.”
What the professor means when he writes “behavior”, is not just some friendly “family planning”- campaign. He actually writes that in order to prevent global Armageddon, only the most draconian policies will do:
“Ending human population growth is almost certainly a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for preventing catastrophic global climate change. Indeed, significantly reducing current human numbers (emphasis added) may be necessary in order to do so.”
An important distinction. It is one thing to end growth. It’s quite another thing to reduce current human numbers.
“(…) we are more likely to achieve a decent future for the world’s poor if we end global population growth as quickly as possible. In fact, reducing the human population may be necessary in order to achieve such a future.”, the professor repeats himself on page 54.
Cafaro regards the issue as an ethical one- and stresses once again that nothing less than a significant reduction in the current human population is necessary.
“My ﬁrst substantive assertion in the second half of this paper is as follows”, he writes. “The consensus regarding acceptable limits to global climate change demands, at a minimum, that we take steps to end human population growth. Indeed, taking such limits seriously probably supports significantly reducing the size of the current global human population. Given the role population growth has played and will play in accelerating climate change under business as usual, no less cautious policy would appear to pass ethical muster.”
Decrying that “the IPCC’s position seems to be that population control is too controversial to discuss.”, the professor goes on to say that “(…) the failure to address population issues distorts our judgments regarding just what we should do to mitigate and adapt to climate change, and what constitutes a fair international division of labor regarding these efforts.”
As Cafaro continues his case for stringent population policies worldwide, he touches upon the inevitable question whether to implement such policies by force or on a voluntary basis:
“(…) the question of coercion may not be avoidable forever. It is an article of faith among many progressive writers in this area that voluntary methods are sufficient to limit populations to acceptable levels, but that probably does not hold true for all times and places, and it may not hold true for the world as a whole in the 21st or 22nd centuries.”
The professor then argues that for any population policy to be effective, it has to be done by coercion:
“China’s policies have largely stabilized its population, while some nations that rely solely on non-coercive measures, like India, continue to balloon.”
The professor can of course not wholly avoid the issue of free will perhaps revolting against a UN enforced global population-reducing assault:
“True, for many people, telling them what kind of car to drive or how many children to have will seem an intolerable infringement of their rights. But then we should move expeditiously to put non-coercive or less coercive incentives in place that achieve the desired ends. If these prove insufficient, then we may have to accept stricter limits on our freedom to consume or to have children.”
Another a bunch of scientists involved with the “Planet under Pressure” confab- one of whom stated earlier that questioning “climate change” equals serious mental illness– is featuring the Anthropocene-film prominently on its website, in addition to calling for global government to stem the tide of “human-induced climate change”.
As part of the State of the Planet Declaration issued by the UN-backed organization, a collection of high-level scientists now pushes the idea of global governance, calling it “Earth System Governance”. The declaration reads:
“Governments must take action to support institutions and mechanisms that will improve coherence, as well as bring about integrated policy and action across the social, economic and environmental pillars. Current understanding supports the creation of a Sustainable Development Council within the UN system to integrate social, economic and environmental policy at the global level. There is also strong support for strengthening global governance by including civil society, business and industry in decision-making at all levels.”
Again: a Planetary Regime by any other name…
In a separate policy brief put out by the same confab titled Transforming Governance and Institutions for a Planet under Pressure the initiators again openly promote the emergence of global government when they write under the header “Prepare Global Governance for a Warmer World”:
“At the global level, the institutional framework seems ill prepared to cope with the consequences of massive global change that will affect such major systems as food, water, energy, health and migration, and their interactions. While massive changes, for example in sea level, may not be imminent, future dangers can be minimized if institutional reform is planned and negotiated today. Global adaptation programmes thus need to become a core concern of the UN system and governments.”
It has of course been exhaustively documented that if there’s one thing constant about the climate, is that it changes constantly. Furthermore, the idea of world government is much older than any global warming-craze the elite have come up with. As lord Christopher Monckton points out, the UNEP and other agencies within the UN system are just extra bureaucracies that are out to ruin individual freedom, replacing real liberty with the artificial sort under an planetary rule. Furthermore, all this emphasis on culling the population must give even the most gullible reader pause.