Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet

page: 3
63
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
Fascism, Marxism, Communism, ect ect...the common thread that binds them is top down centralized authortarianism thats true antithesis is liberty and freedom, which should be the real paradigm we look at this through.


Read about Marxism and Communism, please. You're thinking of Leninism, Stalinism, Maosim, etc.




posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh
Relax.

This is why we maintain high levels of gun ownership.

It isn't quite so convenient to forcibly terminate the pregnancy of a woman armed with a 7.62mm battle rifle.


It is, a bullet in the head. Dont forget, everybody is a potential terrorist, i dont think they will hesitate a second.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
ok...so lets say your writing a doomsday book..you come up to the part where you have to deal with critical issues and how it would be solved for the population to continue

hypothetical issue posed: 50 billion people on the planet (disasterous level overpopulation). For some reason our technology is stuck in todays level of tech. The effects are worldwide starvation, resource destruction, no more fuel. widescale extinction to even the most thriving lifeforms some years earlier...entire ecosystem upheavel. within 20 years, if the population does not decrease, absolute disaster and potential human extinction.
Now, answer how to solve the problem..

Of course the answer is going to be hardcore evil sounding...its a hypothetical senario.


Next hypothetical senario...disaster strikes the earth, eliminating all forms of life except for humans (lets call this the planet-X disaster theory)...bunkers made below earth with water filtration systems and tons of people, but thats it (someone forgot to stop at the local KFC).

What do you eat?

think on it...think on it...yep, thats it..you got it...hey, just pretend its from McDonalds.

but, if you write it down, some wackjob in a few years will take your quote out of context and make a thread somewhere saying your in favor of cannibalism (quick marge, get me the gun..no zombie science guy is gonna be eatin my family!)


Enjoy your thread, clean up after your done.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
Fascism, Marxism, Communism, ect ect...the common thread that binds them is top down centralized authortarianism thats true antithesis is liberty and freedom, which should be the real paradigm we look at this through. The true controllers dont care if its Hitler or Mao, Stalin or Musollini - they infact funded the rise or each of these leaders/ideologies and pitted them against eachother as another mode of control. As long as power is collectivised into the hands of a few, they care not about left or right.

Control is the game, everything else is just details. An eugenics, the power to decide who lives and dies, is the ultimate form of control.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Neo_Serf]

You should read more. Perhaps the Communist Manifesto, it's a really short and easy read. Or if that's too much for you some of the posters here clearly show the difference between Fascism and Communism. The point of Marxism if you know anything about it is to get the power out of the hands of the few and into the hands of the people.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
ok...so lets say your writing a doomsday book..you come up to the part where you have to deal with critical issues and how it would be solved for the population to continue

hypothetical issue posed: 50 billion people on the planet (disasterous level overpopulation). For some reason our technology is stuck in todays level of tech. The effects are worldwide starvation, resource destruction, no more fuel. widescale extinction to even the most thriving lifeforms some years earlier...entire ecosystem upheavel. within 20 years, if the population does not decrease, absolute disaster and potential human extinction.


Are you saying these measures written of were in response to a hypothetical situation? Do you have any proof of that? Have you read the book?

It seems we are getting a lot of opinions but no facts. Why was this book written? In what context were these quotes made?





[edit on 13-7-2009 by antonia]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


Now there is some real change that some people hope for...sad and as pathetic as they are. Of course the targets on that list are mostly the ones that elected Obama in the first place, talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

Ideas and attitudes like these actually make me want to support late term abortions...150th trimester abortions...you do the math.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
its eugenics 101 people...


1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.
10.Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature.


Limiting the population of the earth to 500 million will require the extermination of nine-tenths of the world's people. The American Stonehenge's reference to establishing a world court foreshadows the current move to create an International Criminal Court and a world government. The Guidestones' emphasis on preserving nature anticipates the environmental movement of the 1990s, and the reference to "seeking harmony with the infinite" reflects the current effort to replace Judeo-Christian beliefs with a new spirituality.


eugenicsanddepopulation.blogspot.com...


Negative eugenics is aimed at lowering fertility among the genetically disadvantaged. This includes abortions, sterilization, and other methods of family planning.[11]

Both positive and negative eugenics can be coercive. Abortion by "fit" women was illegal in Nazi Germany and in the Soviet Union during Stalin's reign.

During the 20th century, many countries enacted various eugenics policies and programs, including:

Genetic screening
Birth control
Promoting differential birth rates
Marriage restrictions
Segregation (both racial segregation as well as segregation of the mentally ill from the normal)
Compulsory sterilization
Forced abortions, or, conversely, forced pregnancies
Genocide


this line of thinking is old. . . but still alive

i think the real question is what is going to be done about it. . . . and the answer would seem to be a resounding not a damn thing

i havent seen much about this guy in the media. . . have they not made the connection or do they just not care. . .



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


How did we make the jump from describing a worst-case scenario for overpopulation in a hypothetical future to being a supporter of eugenics?

Has anyone bothered to do any research, or are we still running off of one bolded caps lock talking point here?

Still waiting for one person who has actually read this book to post here.

EDIT: Awesome, you have 'Deny Ignorance' as your avatar. Have you dispelled any ignorance today, or encouraged it? What facts are you armed with in you battle against ignorance today?

[edit on 13-7-2009 by suicydking]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Im not one to spout about stuff I'm totally unlearned on. Sure Ive read the Manifesto. The stated intentions of these ideologies vs their real world implimentations are light years apart.

In *practice* its all Statism, which is of course the *true* goal of those who funded the birth and growth of all these types of governments. Communism was created by the globalists as a counterforce to capitalism in a grand game of divide and conquer, this is all recorded fact by historians like Carrol Quigley and should be apparent to you folk who tell me I should go do some more reading.

Totally off topic. (but related as these globalists who created Communism are the same bunch who put together this wonderful little text were discussing) Ecoscience should be the main topic and should shock and stun anyone with an ounce of humanity left in them.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Here is the perfect piece of merchandise to coincide with this thread topic.



moonbattery.com



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Hi Folks... Without casting any specific judgment on this specific book, or Czar character; I am afraid population control is something that will just happen due to classic math.
The Earth that sustain us is a finite resource, and we tend to grow exponentially against this finite resource...

Check this vid out: www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by loOranks
 


This is assuming all technologies remain the same. If something drastic happens such as free energy etc. then the model is pointless yes?



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
While many of you probably dont agree with some of these issues there is a couple that i agree with very much.

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.


Seriously folks how many teenage girls are having babies these days that only end up being supported by the taxpayer. Most of these kids dont get proper upbringings and usually repeat the cycle their parents started. Some single mothers who are on the social system end up having multiple kids with multiple fathers not only creating a breakdown of the family system but a serious social crises as well. And many of them continue having kids for the increase in the amount they receive from social assistance.

Aside from the teens there are numerous drug addicts and other social rejects that seriously dont deserve to have children. They pop them out one after another, mistreat them, abuse and neglect them only for the kids to grow up being the same degenerate individuals that their parents were.

I have always said to people that girls under 18 and people who cant realistically support their children because of their financial status or their contribution to society (ie. drug addicts and do nothings) should be forced to have their prenancies aborted. Not only would it save billions of taxpayers monies but it would begin to repair the social problems in society and help to repair the family structure.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by loOranks
 


Step up then. Eat the GMOs and take the vaccines.

Population *control* isnt about saving humanity. Its about control. If they really wanted a humane way of saving us from overpopulation, the threat of which may be largly propaganda, they would allow the standard of living to rise across the entire world, which historically gets people to have less kids, *voluntarily*, without the need for genocide, which is what youre proposing.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


This is indeed possible, provided as you say that we're seeing a drastic shift such as free energy; however I'm not sure that would hold true for our other basic needs such as eating and drinking... or is it my french side that wouldn't even consider eating solely pills??



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


oh, it certainly is about saving humanity. allowing the human population to reach a critical mass of overpopulation would result in the collapse of societies and infrastructure once rampant disease and starvation takes hold, which would in all likeliness result in the end of the human race (or setting it back to the stone age).

that, and the earth can only take so much, regardless of technology. Not to mention the population of the earth grows exponentially, and outpaces technology in relevant fields.

china's approach is probably the most moral one i have seen applied, and it *IS* a very significant necessity.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
theres no need to read this mans book to figure out that hes a eugenics supporter and imo a monster


Holdren notes that the proposal to forcibly mass sterilize the public against their will “seems to horrify people” and yet it doesn’t seem to bother him too much, amidst the myriad of other totalitarian Dr. Strangelove style ideas that are put forward in the book as a way to carry out an aggressive agenda of population reduction.


www.prisonplanet.com...

now from the book


One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.



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.



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.


official permission. . . . .



If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.



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. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.


now tell me i need to read the book to make the assumption that this man supports eugenics. . . .

and it gets better . . . . he also thinks we need to relenquish some of our sovereignty


If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.


zombietime.com...

those quotes are from his book. . .



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


Chill out... I'm not proposing anything, just bringing an important aspect of the discussion on this thread... Have you read me advocating for population control somewhere on my first two posts on this site??



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


It´s an idea fooks just an idea. I do not see it to be fulfilled – used on Western society soon.
Although it´s good stuff for a horror movie.

Indeed it´s kinda scary and what worries me most is that an adult come sup with ideas like this. I might have had ideas like this when I was 14 years old but grew over it.

Somehow it reminds me of a weird mix of Hitler´s regime to destroy those people that have ´less´ capabilities and the Eastern regime in China where a married couple can have only 1 child.

A society where the Rulers come up with laws like these, for the benefit of their country are doomed.

In the 21st Century there is no more room for this kind of ideas. One should leave it to Natural selection. For humanity will probably find a more humane way themselves.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by loOranks
 


North Americans waste enough food in two days to feed some third-world populations for a month. Food and Water is plentiful, it's is mismanagement of these resources that is the problem.





new topics

top topics



 
63
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join