�

�

�

�

�



by Michael Snyder
October 27, 2011

from EndOfTheamericanDream Website


�

�

�

�

�

The United Nations has officially designated October 31st as 7 Billion Day.

�

On that day, the United Nations estimates that the population of the earth will hit 7 billion for the very first time. But instead of celebrating what a milestone 7 billion people represents, the UNPF is focusing instead on using October 31st to raise awareness about "sustainability" and "sustainable development".

�

In other words, the United Nations is once again declaring that there are way too many people on the planet and that we need to take more direct measures to reduce fertility.

�

In recent years, the UN and other international organizations have become bolder about trying to push the sick population control agenda of the global elite.

�

Most of the time organizations such as the UN will simply talk about "stabilizing" the global population, but as you will see in this article, there are many among the global elite that are not afraid to openly talk about a goal of reducing the population of the world to 500 million (or less).

�

To you and I it may seem like insanity to want to get rid of more than 90 percent of the global population, but there is a growing consensus among the global elite that this is absolutely necessary for the good of the planet.

�

As we approach October 31st, dozens of articles are appearing in newspapers all over the globe that are declaring what a horrible thing it is that we are up to 7 billion people.

�

In fact, it surely is no accident that the United Nations put 7 Billion Day on the exact same day as Halloween. Perhaps they want to highlight how "scary" it is that we have 7 billion people on the planet, or perhaps they are trying to send us a message by having 7 Billion Day occur on the same day as "the festival of death".

�

In any event, it seems like way too much of a coincidence that 7 Billion Day just happens to fall on the same day as Halloween.

�

Today, "sustainable development" has become one of the key buzzwords that those in the radical environmental movement love to use, but most Americans have no idea that one of the key elements of "sustainable development" is population control.

�

So what precisely is considered to be an ideal population for the earth by those pushing "sustainable development"?

�

Well, of course there is much disagreement on this issue, but many are very open about the fact that they believe that the earth should only have 500 million people (or less) on it.

�

For example, the first of the "new 10 commandments" on the infamous Georgia Guidestones states the following�.

"Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature."

CNN Founder Ted Turner would go even farther�.

"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."

Dave Foreman, the co-founder of Earth First, says that reducing our population down to 100 million is one of his three main goals�.

"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it�s full complement of species, returning throughout the world."

Sadly, this kind of garbage is even being taught at major U.S. universities.

�

For example, Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin�Eric R. Pianka once wrote the following�.

I do not bear any ill will toward people. However, I am convinced that the world, including all humanity, WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us.

Mikhail Gorbachev thinks that reducing the global population by 90 percent would be just about right�.

"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."

But most of the time, the way that the global elite speak of population control is much more "politically correct".

�

They tend to use terms such as "sustainable development" and "reduction of fertility rates" and "quality of life" when discussing the need to reduce our population.

�

As 7 Billion Day has approached, there have been articles popping up in major publications all over the globe that are advocating increased population control measures. Of course in the western world such measures are always framed as being "voluntary", but that is the way that they always introduce things like this.

�

Once enough people get on board with the "voluntary" population control measures they will become "mandatory".

�

So now that you are aware of some of the buzzwords that are used, check out what has been written on some of the biggest news websites in the world recently�.

�

Jeffrey D. Sachs, the director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, recently said the following in an article for CNN�.

"The arrival of the 7 billionth person is cause for profound global concern.

�

It carries a challenge:

What will it take to maintain a planet in which each person has a chance for a full, productive and prosperous life, and in which the planet�s resources are sustained for future generations? How, in short, can we enjoy �sustainable development� on a very crowded planet?"

For Sachs, one of the "keys" to sustainable development is the "stabilization" of the global population�.

"The second key to sustainable development is the stabilization of the global population. This is already occurring in high-income and even some middle-income countries, as families choose to have one or two children on average.

�

The reduction of fertility rates should be encouraged in the poorer countries as well."

In a recent article for the Guardian, Roger Martin stated that all of the problems that humanity is facing would be easier to solve if less people were running around the planet�

"�all environmental (and many economic and social) problems are easier to solve with fewer people, and ultimately impossible with ever more."

He also says that if we reduce the population, it will mean better lives for all the rest of us�.

"On a finite planet, the optimum population providing the best quality of life for all, is clearly much smaller than the maximum, permitting bare survival. The more we are, the less for each; fewer people mean better lives."

But is that really the case? Of course not.

�

There has been tremendous human suffering all throughout history. If we eliminated 90 percent of the global population it would not suddenly usher in some kind of "golden age".

�

But many among the global elite are truly convinced that we are spoiling "their planet" and they don�t want so many of us around anymore. Thanks to technology, they only need a few hundred million people to run their system, and they view the rest of us as "useless eaters".

�

This all may sound quite bizarre to many of you, but this is the kind of stuff that is being taught in colleges and universities across the western world.

In fact, you are starting to see an increasing number of people in the western world actually suggest that we adopt a "one-child policy" such as China has.

�

For example, the following is from an opinion piece that appeared in the National Post�.

A planetary law, such as China�s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

The author of the opinion piece believes that such a "one-child policy" would reduce the global population to 3.43 billion by 2075�

The intelligence behind this is the following:

  • If only one child per female was born as of now, the world�s population would drop from its current 6.5 billion to 5.5 billion by 2050, according to a study done for scientific academy Vienna Institute of Demography.

    �

  • By 2075, there would be 3.43 billion humans on the planet. This would have immediate positive effects on the world�s forests, other species, the oceans, atmospheric quality and living standards.

This is the kind of stuff that a lot of these people sit around and think about all day long.

�

They are obsessed with death and with reducing the population as rapidly as possible. They see us as a "plague" that is ravaging the planet, and they believe that by getting rid of us they would actually be saving the earth.

�

Due to public opinion, population control advocates have to tread lightly in the western world. But where they can get away with it, they are not afraid to be very forceful.

�

I have already discussed the horrific one-child policy in China.

�

As the Epoch Times recently noted, enforcement of this policy can be absolutely brutal�.

"Pregnant women lacking birth permits are hunted down like criminals by population planning police in China and forcibly aborted."

If you don�t believe something like this can ever happen in the western world, you might want to think again.

�

Limitations on child births are already showing up in popular television shows.

�

For example, a new show on Fox called Terra Nova portrays the future of the earth as a living hell due to overpopulation. People in the future can hardly breathe the air due to overwhelming pollution and a strict "two-child policy" is rigidly enforced.

�

The family featured in Terra Nova is able to go through a portal to a prehistoric world that is 85 million years in the past. In this "new world", humans have set up a wonderful new socialist society where everyone is provided for and where "green technology" is helping them to avoid making the "mistakes" of the past.

�

Unfortunately, socialist utopias such as the one portrayed on Terra Nova only exist in works of fiction. Instead, what happens most of the time in real life is that the "good intentions" of social planners devolve into absolute tyranny when put into practice.

�

For example, just check out what a recent National Geographic article said happened when social planners in India tried to aggressively reduce birth rates in India in the 1970s�

The Indian government tried once before to push vasectomies, in the 1970s, when anxiety about the population bomb was at its height.

�

Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and her son Sanjay used state-of-emergency powers to force a dramatic increase in sterilizations. From 1976 to 1977 the number of operations tripled, to more than eight million.

�

Over six million of those were vasectomies. Family planning workers were pressured to meet quotas; in a few states, sterilization became a condition for receiving new housing or other government benefits.

�

In some cases the police simply rounded up poor people and hauled them to sterilization camps.

How would you feel if you were rounded up and hauled off to a sterilization camp?

�

Sterilization programs (most of the time they are "voluntary") are in full force all over the globe. Much of the time they are sponsored and funded by the United Nations. The global elite are absolutely obsessed with getting women to have less babies.

�

That is one reason why abortion is so very important to them.

�

Recently, Al Gore made the following statement regarding population control�

"One of the things we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principle ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women.

�

You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children have, the spacing of the children.

The elite love to use terms such as "fertility management" and "family planning", but what they really intend is for there to be less pregnancies and more abortions so that the population will not grow as quickly.

�

They certainly do not intend to empower women to have more children.

�

This agenda was also very much reflected when the�March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief asked this shocking question�.

"What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?"

Now who in the world gave the UN the right to be trying to "accelerate fertility decline" for women in poor countries?

�

But to many in the global elite, trying to get women to have less babies makes all the sense in the world. In a recent editorial for the New York Times entitled "The Earth Is Full", Thomas L. Friedman made the following statement�.

You really do have to wonder whether a few years from now we�ll look back at the first decade of the 21st century - when food prices spiked, energy prices soared, world population surged, tornados plowed through cities, floods and droughts set records, populations were displaced and governments were threatened by the confluence of it all - and ask ourselves:

What were we thinking? How did we not panic when the evidence was so obvious that we�d crossed some growth/climate/natural resource/population redlines all at once?

These people honestly and truly believe this stuff.

�

Unfortunately, this agenda is even represented in the highest levels of our own government.

�

Barack Obama�s top science advisor, John P. Holdren, once wrote the following�

"A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

�

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control.

�

The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births."

Holdren also believes that compulsory abortion would be perfectly legal under the U.S. Constitution�.

"Indeed, it has 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."

The following are 8 more quotes that show the mindset that a lot of these population control advocates have�.

"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That�s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."

"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don�t want to have too many of."

"The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident."

  • #4 - Jacques Cousteau�

"In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day."

"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."

  • #6 - David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club�

"Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license� All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."

  • #7 - Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger�

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

  • #8 - Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12 (or read 'The Morality of Birth Control')�

"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."

When you believe that the earth has way too many people, human life becomes cheap, and abortion becomes a way to get rid of undesirables.

�

According to a recent article in the Daily Mail, thousands of "abnormal" babies are now being selectively aborted in the UK each year�.

Thousands of pregnancies were aborted last year for �abnormalities� including 500 for Down�s syndrome, new figures reveal. In total, there were 2,290 abortions for medical problems with the fetus, with 147 performed after 24 weeks.

In a world that is "overpopulated", babies that are not "perfect" become more "disposable" than ever.

�

In fact, the truth is that the population control agenda and the "abortion rights movement" have been inseparably linked for decades. Those that are obsessed with "overpopulation" view abortion as a very necessary method of birth control, and one of their main goals is to expand access to "reproductive health care" to as many women around the globe as possible.

�

But in the end, our "voluntary" actions are not going to be nearly enough to reduce the population and most population control advocates realize that. Many of them are openly calling for a "benevolent" global authority to take charge to lead us through the "necessary" transition that is ahead.

�

In 'Al Gore, Agenda 21 And Population Control', I described the type of world that the radical population control advocates see for our future�

Imagine going to sleep one night and waking up many years later in a totally different world.

�

In this futuristic world, literally everything you do is tightly monitored and controlled by control freak bureaucrats in the name of "sustainable development" and with the goal of promoting 'the green agenda'.

�

An international ruling body has centralized global control over all human activity. What you eat, what you drink, where you live, how warm or cold your home can be and how much fuel you can use is determined by them.

�

Anyone that dissents or that tries to rebel against the system is sent off for 're-education'.

�

The human population is 90 percent lower than it is today in this futuristic society, and all remaining humans have been herded into tightly constricted cities which are run much like prisons.

This is the endgame for the radical green agenda. In order to save the earth, they feel as though they must dramatically reduce our numbers and very tightly control our activities.

  • But is that the kind of a future that anyone would actually want to live in?�

  • Would anyone actually choose to live in a future where bureaucrats micromanage our lives for the good of the environment?

Personally, I think that the 7 billion people on earth would do just fine if they were given a lot more liberty and freedom to live their own lives as they see fit. But letting people decide how to run their own lives is anathema to those that have bought into the population control agenda of the global elite.

�

They actually believe that they are smarter than all of the rest of us and that they need to tell us what to do for the good of humanity and for the good of the planet.

�

�

�