August 7, 2009
The infamous Holdren quotes from the 1977 ‘Ecoscience’ textbook, proposing forced sterilizations and other draconian measures to bring about mass death, are no incidental exercises in academic frivolity. In the 1973 publication ‘Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions’, co-authored by his old buddies, the Ehrlichs, Holdren wrote quite candidly about his basic view on human life, providing us with a peek at the undergrowth out of which the Ecoscience document has emerged, proposing among other things a ‘planetary regime’ to assume command of matters of life and death.
In chapter 8 of the ‘Human Ecology’-document, page 235, Holdren gives us his definition of human life:
“The fetus”, Holdren writes, “given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.”
In other words, Holdren argues that people during the early years after birth, cannot yet be defined as human beings. Given this presumption by Obama’s science advisor, it may not be surprising to learn that he does not shy away from coercive abortion policies or other such measures to scale back the population. After all, if an infant cannot be construed as being a human being, as Holdren argues, God-given rights do not apply to them nor does constitutional protection- and therefore they can be considered as completely at the government’s mercy.
Just like in Ecoscience, Holdren and the Ehrlichs present the case for involuntary fertility control in the Human Ecology monstrosity:
“Several coercive proposals deserve discussion mainly because societies may ultimately have to resort to them unless trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means.”
Although the authors deem “compulsory control of family size” as being “unpalatable”, they nevertheless prefer it to other methods:
“(…) the alternatives may be much more horrifying. As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1970s, we may well find them demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, is to begin now with milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while ensuring that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly perhaps the need for involuntary or repressive measures can be averted.”
One has to wear ear pads the size of Texas Choice grapefruits to miss the threatening implications of these words. Just as Holdren’s comments have not been penned down in a vacuum, Holdren himself does not stand alone in his chilling stance. There is an entire subgroup within the scientific community consisting of a neo-Malthusian cast of characters, filling all kinds of official functions in public and private life. But when one of these demons (with a rap sheet listing numerous examples of an abject disregard for human life) occupies a key position within the government there should be some consequence- preferably a dethronement followed by an unequivocal denouncement on the part of the President.
Out of which sublevel place do these rats come crawling up onto the surface of respectability? The answer: a very unwholesome place indeed, with a lineage that can be traced straight back to the Rockefeller-funded eugenics and- family planning apparatus, set in motion many decades before. The fact that the writings of John P. Holdren and company haven’t generated the massive outrage they deserve is an outrage in its own right. Taking into account that the author is Obama’s chief science advisor, serious thought should be given to legal steps against Mr. Holdren- effectively resulting in the removal of this individual from his current position and exposing the neo-Malthusian tendency to worm their way into both the scientific and political establishments.