November 16, 2009
“Political unification in some sort of world government will be required (…). Even though (…) any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” Sir Julian Huxley, UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy
|Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment by Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and John P. Holdren.|
As Lord Christopher Monckton pointed out, the Copenhagen conference at the beginning of next month is designed to eliminate national sovereignty in favor of a world government to replace it. With a stroke of the pen all UN-member-states will, by doing so, throw away years of prosperity in order to satisfy the transnational needs of a global elite, hellbent on destroying the last vestiges of freedom around the world in the name of “redistributing wealth”.
Make no mistake, if the ‘world leaders’ now announce they will not swallow this pill just yet, be sure that they will in the months after December. After all, they’ve been ordered to by their masters- who have proven themselves to be both cunning and patient.
After the Club of Rome in the early 1970s outlined its basic premise, that world population must decrease if the earth is to survive, all globalist subdivision started groaning like rusty old engines. In the seventies and part of the eighties, the propaganda was still far from subtle. When one scientist proclaimed that the entire world’s population must shrink to the size of a middle-sized country, another shouted that this won’t do at all, proposing instead to put a halt to new life completely.
Documents such as Ecoscience must be viewed in this bizarre context. Although dripping with eugenic devilry, these publications at least were quite upfront about it, proclaiming their mind-boggling monstrosities for all to see. At this stage, deciphering cryptic environmental texts was hardly necessary. However undesirable the situation, at least we knew exactly what they were up to because they said so to our face.
Today we find ourselves in quite another situation. As public resistance about these dehumanizing proposals grew steadily thanks to an informed Western middle-class, the eugenicists went underground, replacing their foul garments with seemingly fairer outfits.
With the help of UNESCO’s social engineers pouring oil into the machine, the propaganda became more streamlined and smooth throughout the 1990s and the beginning of this century. In the most brilliant move anyone could ever make, an ocean of euphemisms began to engulf the true ambitions of the Malthusians, to the point of classical Orwellian doublespeak and beyond. We are required nowadays to decode the complex linguistic trickery before we can even formulate a move to counter it. A crash course in the unraveling of these euphemisms may help us pierce through this language grid more easily. Bizarrely, the United Nations Population Fund will help us on our way.
In a off-worldly 1999 UNFPA directive- published to make sure journalists will not accidentally slip up and reveal the real deal- the author explains it’s better to rephrase the old grammar when it comes to population control issues:
“The term (“Population control”) is now out of favor with experts in the field, because it implies force- a negative thing to most. (…). To stress the voluntary nature of the actions sought, experts use terms like “stemming”, “stabilizing” or “slowing” population growth. Similarly, “family planning” is preferred to “birth control” a term that dates back to the time of Margaret Sanger’s crusade for women’s rights to use contraceptives.”
To namedrop Margaret Sanger in this context is very much hitting the nail on the head- although to claim she was a real-deal liberator of minds is absurd. Sanger was a eugenicist first and foremost. How did she define birth control in the Birth Control Review, May 1919, page 12?
“More children from the fit, less from the unfit – that is the chief aim of birth control.”
The UNFPA directive goes on to say that it’s better to use terms in public communiques such as:
“Birth spacing”, “reproductive health” and “women’s rights”; boosting “sustainable development”; and improving the earth’s “carrying capacity” and the human “quality of life”. These terms stress not sheer population numbers but the broader vision of global well-being.”
As a paper prepared for the UN’s ‘Expert Group Meeting on Population Dynamics and Climate Change’ states:
“everything possible should be done now to ensure that people the world over have access to good reproductive health and that this will be crucial for future generations, in terms of global climate as well as human welfare.”
Remember now, that the phrase “reproductive health” is not only being used to facilitate family planning centers around the globe, but also makes possible such things as portable abortion units- as it does in China for example, where women in the name of “reproductive health” are being offered the finest in abortion services the almighty State has to offer, right to their very doorstep.
“Women’s rights” is another one. It sounds good, no? Who, after all, would argue the right of women to do whatever they so please? The next line in UNESCO technical papers which usually follows goes something like this: “Climate change is a women’s rights issue”. Or, as one publication describes it: “The threats of climate change are not gender-neutral.”
[efoods]“Women are key health, education, economic and resource managers”, states also the UN’s report of the international workshop on population-poverty-environment linkages. “They, and their children, are also those most likely to experience disproportionate effects of poverty and environmental stresses. Integrated programming should ensure that women are empowered to play the requisite managerial and decision-making roles. One entry point for linking population and the environment interventions is via coordinated and gender-sensitive environmental activities (e.g., water supply/sanitation or natural resource management) and reproductive health initiatives.”
Here we have it again: “reproductive health”. The juggling of words is an art mastered to perfection by the global elite and their willing underlings, that much is clear. Another important item on the agenda of the social engineers is that of integrating population reduction messages into a range of other, seemingly decoupled subject matters. We have for example a report from the UNESCO Regional Office for Education in Asia, encountering a problem while subjecting a group of students to the propaganda:
“Since the launching of a massive population education programme for the schools, the amount of reading materials alone, not to mention visuals and films, has increased enormously. It is therefore necessary to determine what materials to make available to children at different grade levels.”
That’s where the educators come in. Children, UNESCO figures, must be brought within its sphere of influence as soon as possible. Otherwise the parents will guide their futures and that would be detrimental to the plan to transform all humans into good ‘global citizens’.
“We cannot imagine how the people of all nations could move toward a more sustainable world without the contribution of educators from around the globe”, states a 2005 UNESCO technical paper.
“Sustainable world” means a world with just as much people the earth can carry. In 1972, another UNESCO document circulated within transnational circles with the creepy title ‘Learning to be: the world of education today and tomorrow‘. In this publication, promoting the emergence of a “new man for a new world”, the authors state their purpose:
“The new man must be capable of understanding the global consequences of individual behaviour, of conceiving of priorities and shouldering his share of the joint responsibility involved in the destiny of the human race.”
At the EuroNGO’s annual conference in 2008, the director of information and external relations division of the UN Population Fund was mighty glad that the Malthusians are on the rise again:
“(…) the media spotlight on global population has snapped back on in a way we haven’t seen in some decades. It dimmed when concerns about “overpopulation” last went out of fashion, but those concerns may now be getting a new lease of life.”
They may indeed.