Joined: 05 Oct 2005 Posts: 480 Location: the beano
Posted: Tue May 07, 2013 9:53 pm Post subject: Eugenics UK, Govt Creating Poverty & Death On Purpose
With the benefit cuts in full swing, and more to come, claimants face tough times not helped by mainstream media's constant GOvt fuelled propoganda to demonise the poor.
Example: Mrs A, 57 years old, lives on just £54.05p a week benefits. She has multiple health problems, is on morphine and constant pain. She has wrongly, been put into the ESA work related group, and has received a letter threatening her with benefit sanctions if she doesnt attend a job focussed interview which could take an hour. She cant even get there as she is in so much pain. She will have to pay for a taxi there and back from her meagre £54.05p a week income.
This Govt is sick to harrass people like this woman. Shame on them. Sometimes she feels driven to thinking of suicide. "Thats what the govt wants. They want us all to die either by us taking our own lives or dying slowly from the cold or lack of food." She says.
Example: a deaf man, Mr Y, aged 37, with health problems that affect his mobility, was on income support and incapacity benefit, now put in ESA work related group, asked repeatedly why he hasnt found work, but every employer he approaches turns him down because they say they cannot support a deaf person at work. It isnt his fault he is deaf, but he is made to feel he is at fault by the constant harrassment from the DWP.
Please supoort disabled and long term sick people - campaign on thier behalf, write to MP's of all parties, join disabled people against the cuts, attend the benefits justice summit in london. _________________ "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" Martin Luther king
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 11:05 am Post subject:
Prof Pullicino said that the report, which was released yesterday, neglected to mention, “the risk of death in patients who were not at risk of dying but could be killed by the pathway.”
LCP whistleblower criticises Government report
By Madeleine Teahan on Tuesday, 16 July 2013
The most prominent whistleblower to expose failings in the implementation of the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) has said that a Government inquiry into reports of poor care has not gone far enough.
Following the release of a report into the inquiry by Baroness Neuberger, which recommends the end of life protocol used across the NHS be phased out, Professor Patrick Pullicino, a Catholic consultant neurologist, said that fundamental points had still not been addressed.
Prof Pullicino made headlines prior to the inquiry when he said the care pathway was an “assisted death pathway” and it was “very likely many elderly patients who could live substantially longer are being killed by the LCP.”
Prof Pullicino said that the report, which was released yesterday, neglected to mention, “the risk of death in patients who were not at risk of dying but could be killed by the pathway.”
“The fact that there are well documented cases of patients being taken off the pathway and surviving over a year show that this is a real issue,” he said.
But the Bishops’ Conference Department of Christian Responsibility and Citizenship praised the report.
Archbishop Peter Smith of Southwark, who chairs the department and wrote to the Government last September calling for a “thorough and urgent investigation,” welcomed Baroness Neuberger’s recommendations.
He said: “It was in response to concerns raised by Catholics and by others about end of life care in England and Wales that I called for an enquiry into the use of the LCP. I welcome the report of Baroness Neuberger into the implementation of the LCP and the initial response to that report from the Government.”
Professor David Albert Jones, who authored evidence to the Neuberger inquiry on behalf of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, said that in his personal opinion, he hoped the “radical” recommendations in the Neuberger report succeeded.
He said: “The report acknowledges that the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient works well when ‘operated by well trained, well-resourced and sensitive clinical teams’. However, it finds evidence that the LCP is sometimes implemented badly and the report notes ‘the considerable body of evidence from relatives and carers which strongly suggests that care of dying older people is not always what it should be’.”
Professor Jones added that it was important that future end-of-life-care plans incorporated the positive aspects of the LCP and that dying patients should not be treated as if they are always curable.
Professor Pullicino also praised some aspects of the report including its emphasis on individualised care. He added: “The highlighting of the need for continued hydration and use of sedation and narcotics only where indicated and avoidance of overuse in end of life care is another important conclusion.”
Neuberger stops LCP
By Anna Sheinman, July 18, 2013
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/109595/neuberger-stops-lcp
An end-of-life care process used by the NHS is to be scrapped after a review led by Baroness Julia Neuberger.
The peer, who is senior rabbi at West London Synagogue, recommended that the Liverpool Care Pathway be phased out over the next 12 months and replaced by a personalised end of life care plan.
Baroness Neuberger said: “Evidence given to the review has revealed too many serious cases of unacceptable care where the LCP has been incorrectly implemented. Examples include leaving patients without adequate nutrition, hydration and inappropriately sedated.”
The medical ethics expert at the Board of Deputies, Professor David Katz, praised Baroness Neuberger for the balance achieved in the report and emphasised the need for healthcare professionals to be trained in dealing with the needs of different groups, including Jews.
He also said that denying fluids to dying patients was of particular concern: “The only acceptable reason for discontinuing fluids is where there is evidence that it is causing harm and suffering.
“This needs to be made very explicit, and may be an example where our traditions are helpful not only to Jews, but also to others.”
Whitehall_Bin_Men wrote:
60,000 people condemned to death without the knowledge of their loved ones
How Nazi is that?
The barely believable 'Liverpool Care Pathway' to an early grave!
60,000 patients put on death pathway without being told but minister still says controversial end-of-life plan is 'fantastic'
Pathway involves the sick being sedated and usually denied nutrition and fluids
Families kept in the dark when doctors withdraw lifesaving treatment
Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said pathway was a 'fantastic step forward'
Anti-euthanasia group said: ‘The Pathway is designed to finish people off double quick'
By Jason Groves, Daniel Martin and Steve Doughty
PUBLISHED: 22:36, 30 December 2012 | UPDATED: 01:44, 31 December 2012
Up to 60,000 patients die on the Liverpool Care Pathway each year without giving their consent, shocking figures revealed yesterday.
A third of families are also kept in the dark when doctors withdraw lifesaving treatment from loved ones.
Despite the revelations, Jeremy Hunt last night claimed the pathway was a ‘fantastic step forward’.
Outcry: Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt provoked outrage by saying the death pathway was a 'fantastic step forward'
In comments that appeared to prejudge an official inquiry into the LCP, the Health Secretary said ‘one or two’ mistakes should not be allowed to discredit the entire end-of-life system.
But Elspeth Chowdharay-Best of Alert, an anti-euthanasia group, said: ‘The Pathway is designed to finish people off double quick. It is a lethal pathway.
‘Mr Hunt has made a nonsense of the claim of his ministers that there is going to be an independent inquiry.’
The review follows a public outcry over a string of disturbing cases, highlighted by this paper, in which patients or their families were ignored.
The pathway involves withdrawal of lifesaving treatment, with the sick sedated and usually denied nutrition and fluids. Death typically takes place within 29 hours.
The 60,000 figure comes from a joint study by the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute in Liverpool and the Royal College of Physicians.
Finished off: Those placed on the death pathway typically die within 29 hours of vital treatment being withdrawn. (Posed by model)
It found many patients were not consulted despite being conscious when doctors decided on their care.
Records from 178 hospitals also show that thousands of people on the pathway are left to die in pain because nurses do not do enough to keep them comfortable while drugs are administered.
An estimated 130,000 patients are put on the pathway each year.
Concerns have been raised that clinical judgments are being skewed by incentives for hospitals to use the pathway.
Health trusts are thought to have been rewarded with an extra £30million for putting more patients on the LCP.
Critics say it is a self-fulfilling prophecy because there is no scientific method of predicting when death will come.
Norman Lamb, the care services minister, launched a review in November, saying there had been too many cases of families not being consulted.
But Mr Hunt yesterday suggested that concerns about the system were relatively minor compared with its benefits.
Fatal: The pathway involves withdrawal of lifesaving treatment, with the sick sedated and usually denied nutrition and fluids. (Posed by model)
Disturbing: A study found many patients were not consulted despite being conscious when doctors decided on their care. (Posed by model)
‘It’s a fantastic step forward, the Liverpool Care Pathway, and we need to be unabashed about that because it’s basically designed to bring hospice-style care to terminally-ill people in hospitals,’ he told LBC Radio:
‘I would be very sad if as a result of something that is a big step forward going wrong in one or two cases we discredited the concept that we need to do a lot better to give people dignity in their final hours because it’s something we haven’t done well.
‘Lots of people don’t want to die with lots of tubes going in and out of their body – they actually want to die in a dignified way.’
He added: ‘What should never happen is that people should be put on to that care pathway without patients being fully in the loop and their families and relatives being fully in the loop as well.’
Controversial: Jeremy Hunt said the death pathway gave the ill 'dignity' in their final hours
The national audit by Marie Curie and the RCP examined a representative sample of 7,058 deaths between April and June last year. The figures were scaled up to give a national picture.
It found that in 44 per cent of cases when conscious patients were placed on the pathway, there was no record that the decision had been discussed with them.
For 22 per cent, there was no evidence that comfort and safety had been maintained while medication was administered.
And it also revealed that one in three families did not receive a leaflet to explain the process.
The LCP system was developed in a Liverpool hospital and has spread across the NHS over the past four years. The review is due to report in the new year.[/b]
#1) The March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief....
"What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?"
#2) Microsoft's Bill Gates....
"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."
#3) Barack Obama's top science advisor, John P. Holdren....
"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."
#4) George W. Bush's science advisor Paul Ehrlich....
"Each person we add now disproportionately impacts on the environment and life-support systems of the planet."
#5) U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg....
"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."
#6) A United Nations Population Fund report entitled "Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate"....
"No human is genuinely 'carbon neutral,' especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation."
#7) David Rockefeller....
"The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident."
#8) Jacques Cousteau....
"In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day."
#9) CNN Founder Ted Turner....
"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
#10) Dave Foreman, Earth First Co-Founder....
"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."
#11) Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh....
"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."
#12) 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."
#13) Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger....
"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
#14) Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12....
"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
#15) Princeton philosopher Peter Singer....
"So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required — we could party our way into extinction!"
#16) Thomas Ferguson, former official in the U.S. State Department Office of Population Affairs....
"There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it…."
#17) Mikhail Gorbachev....
"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."
#18) John Guillebaud, professor of family planning at University College London....
"The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet."
#19) Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka....
"This planet might be able to support perhaps as many as half a billion people who could live a sustainable life in relative comfort. Human populations must be greatly diminished, and as quickly as possible to limit further environmental damage."
#20) U.S. Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton....
"This year, the United States renewed funding of reproductive healthcare through the United Nations Population Fund, and more funding is on the way. The U.S. Congress recently appropriated more than $648 million in foreign assistance to family planning and reproductive health programs worldwide. That’s the largest allocation in more than a decade – since we last had a Democratic president, I might add."
#21) Clinton adviser Nina Fedoroff....
"We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can't support many more people."
#22) The first of the "new 10 commandments" on the Georgia Guidestones....
"Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature." _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
'During remarks that she made for the 15th Anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the launch of a new program that according to Clinton will now become the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy. This new program is known as the Global Health Initiative, and it is being incredibly well-funded at a time when the U.S. government is drowning in debt. According to Clinton, 63 billion dollars will be spent by the U.S. to prevent pregnancies and to improve "family planning" services around the globe over the next six years. In other words, the new centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy is all about eugenics and population control.
The following is an excerpt from Clinton's remarks....
In addition to new funding, we’ve launched a new program that will be the centerpiece of our foreign policy, the Global Health Initiative, which commits us to spending $63 billion over six years to improve global health by investing in efforts to reduce maternal and child mortality, prevent millions of unintended pregnancies, and avert millions of new HIV infections, among other goals. This initiative will employ a new approach to fighting disease and promoting health.
You see, whenever the global elite want to launch another new eugenics operation, they announce it as a great "humanitarian program" that will save millions of lives. But their real goal is to control the population and prevent millions of lives from being born.
This was also reflected in Clinton's remarks about the United Nations Population Fund. The United Nations Population Fund has been promoting abortion, forced sterilization and radical population control measures around the globe for decades, and Hillary Clinton was super excited to talk about how the U.S. government recently renewed funding for that organization....
This year, the United States renewed funding of reproductive healthcare through the United Nations Population Fund, and more funding is on the way. (Applause.) The U.S. Congress recently appropriated more than $648 million in foreign assistance to family planning and reproductive health programs worldwide. That’s the largest allocation in more than a decade – since we last had a Democratic president, I might add. (Applause.)
So what exactly is so bad about the United Nations Population Fund?
Not only does the United Nations Population Fund support and fund the forced abortion and infanticide of China's "one child" program, they also promote abortion, forced sterilization and brutal eugenics programs throughout the developing world.
To learn much more about the United Nations Population Fund, please watch the four short videos below. They will leave you absolutely stunned....
The truth is that the United Nations Population Fund always has been and always will be about eugenics.
And thanks to Barack Obama, it is being funded with millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.
But that wasn't enough for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, so they have launched this new Global Health Initiative which will now be the "centerpiece" of U.S. foreign policy.
63 billion U.S. taxpayer dollars will be spent over the next six years to promote abortion, sterilization and "family planning" around the globe.
Sadly enough, there are people who are actually convinced that they will save the environment by reducing the population. They think that while promoting abortion and sterilization may not be the most pleasant thing to do, it must be done for the good of the planet.
Of course they are dead wrong, but the "true believers" do not understand this. All they know is that they have to keep all of the brown and black women in other countries from having babies so that we can save the planet.
We live in a world that is becoming more evil all the time. Every person on this planet has a fundamental right to have as many children as they want, but the truth is that this right is being stripped away from an increasing number of people.
We live at a time when even our most fundamental liberties as human beings are under attack. Let us hope that America wakes up and starts saying "no" to these kinds of policies.' _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
TV series (2001)
documentary.
4 episodes
Director: Saskia Baron
narrator : Sebastian Faulks
------------------------
Series examining science and morality during the Third Reich; the practice of eugenics and euthanasia in Nazi occupied Europe.
source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808104/
Exclusive: Scientists accuse government of dishonesty over GM babies in its regulation of new IVF technique
Lord Winston and other scientists accuse the Government of acting by stealth as the Department of Health buries redefinition of ‘genetically modified babies’ in treatment of mitochondrial donation
The Government has been accused of misleading the public over the introduction of a new in vitro fertilisation (IVF) technique that some experts believe will result in the birth of “genetically modified babies”.
Leading scientists, including Lord Winston, an early pioneer of fertility treatment, have criticised the Department of Health for trying to play down a process that will for the first time allow the alteration of the DNA of future generations.
They argue that the Government has redefined the term “genetic modification” (GM) to exclude specifically a controversial technique that will result in babies inheriting genetic material from three individuals.
The move, buried within a Department of Health document published last week, is designed to take the sting out of hostility towards mitochondrial donation – a process that aims to avoid the certain inherited diseases being passed on by using healthy mitochondria (microscopic structures in the cell) taken from a donor egg or embryo. Opponents believe that using the healthy donor mitochondria will result in “three-parent embryos” and could usher in an era of “designer babies” and “genetically modified children”.
The Government admits it has decided to adopt “a working definition [of ‘GM’] for the purpose of taking forward these regulations” but scientists believe that the redefinition of GM is dishonest. They also warn it could undermine public trust in medical experts arguing for its introduction in the UK, the only country where it will be permitted in law if legislation is passed.
Lord Winston told The Independent: “The Government seems to have come to the right decision but used bizarre justification. Of course mitochondrial transfer is genetic modification and this modification is handed down the generations. It is totally wrong to compare it with a blood transfusion or a transplant and an honest statement might be more sensible and encourage public trust.”
Ted Morrow, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Sussex, was equally scathing about the new definition of GM, which specifically excludes alterations to human mitochondrial genes or any other genetic material that exists outside the chromosomes in the nucleus of the cell.
“My impression is the Government is doing all it can to contain and define these kinds of terms in ways that favour mitochondrial replacement being introduced as an uncontroversial therapy,” Dr Morrow said.
“They push the idea that mitochondrial DNA does nothing more than regenerate more mitochondria, which are nothing more than cellular batteries, and that mitochondrial genes don’t encode traits relevant to personal identity and so on,” he added.
David King, from the pressure group Human Genetics Alert, said the Government is “playing PR games based on very dubious science” because any changes to the mitochondrial genes will amount to genetic modification. “Their restriction of the term to nuclear inheritable changes is clearly political. They don’t want people like me saying that they are legalising GM babies,” Dr King said.
Mitochondria are the tiny “power-packs” of the cells that generate metabolic energy from glucose. They are under the control of 37 mitochondrial genes which exist as a separate DNA molecule outside the nucleus of the cell.
About one in every 6,500 babies born each year is affected by inherited defects in the genes of the mitochondria. Serious mitochondrial diseases are painfully debilitating and cause long-term ill health, low quality of life and premature death. The Government is under pressure to allow mitochondrial donation as part of IVF treatment to give affected women the opportunity of having biological children who will be free of the condition.
The technique involves taking the healthy mitochondria of a donor egg or embryo and using them to replace the defective mitochondria. The resulting embryo will have genetic material from the two women in addition to the nuclear DNA from a man. Although mitochondrial DNA accounts for less than 0.2 per cent of the genome, the technique is controversial because it will alter the genetic make-up of future generations.
The Health Department accepts the germ-line of future generations will be altered, but it insists, in its official response to the public consultation published last week, that this does not amount to genetic modification. “There is no universally agreed definition of ‘genetic modification’ in humans – people who have organ transplants, blood donations or even gene therapy are not generally regarded as being ‘genetically modified’,” the response says.
Iain Duncan Smith responsible for the death of yet another extremely vulnerable person. Is anyone keeping count? Will he be prosecuted?
When his body was found, his electricity card was out of credit, which meant the fridge where he kept the insulin on which his life depended had not been working
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/23/benefit-sanctions-inves tigated-mps _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Britain is on the brink of becoming a
nation permanently divided between
rich and poor, according to the Social
Mobility and Child Poverty Commission
in its second annual state of the nation
report.
The 335-page document is likely to be a
reference point against which the
government’s anti-poverty record will
be judged, and to feature strongly in
opposition party manifestos for the
2015 general election.
The report says all three main
Westminster political parties are
lamentably failing to be frank with the
electorate about the fact there is no
chance of meeting the government’s
statutory child poverty target by 2020.
It also predicts that 2010-2020 will be
the first decade since records began that
saw a rise in absolute poverty – defined
as a household in which income is
below 60% of median earnings. A rise
from 2.6 million households in absolute
poverty to 3.5 million is now expected.
The chair of the commission, the former
Labour cabinet minister Alan Milburn,
said: “Muddling through will not do
when the mismatch between needs and
anti-poverty government policies are
widening.”
Asked whether the government had
responded to his first report, he said: “It
is like water from the stone. Our plea is
not just to the current parties of
government … They are great at talking
the talk, the issue is whether they can
walk the walk. The policies lack the
scale to move the dial.”
Joined: 05 Oct 2005 Posts: 480 Location: the beano
Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 12:39 am Post subject: The New Poor, Homelessness and Repossessions
Theres a meeting at the houses of Parliamnet on Tues oct 29th 6.30pm
hosted by John McDonell on the increasing inequality in Britain.
A report back will be on this forum shortly. _________________ "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" Martin Luther king
'President Obama’s top science and technology advisor John P. Holdren co-authored a 1977 book in which he advocated the formation of a “planetary regime” that would use a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children.
The concepts outlined in Holdren’s 1977 book Ecoscience, which he co-authored with close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, were so shocking that a February 2009 Front Page Magazine story on the subject was largely dismissed as being outlandish because people couldn’t bring themselves to believe that it could be true.
It was only when another Internet blog obtained the book and posted screenshots that the awful truth about what Holdren had actually committed to paper actually began to sink in.
This issue is more prescient than ever because Holdren and his colleagues are now at the forefront of efforts to combat “climate change” through similarly insane programs focused around geoengineering the planet. As we reported in April, Holdren recently advocated “Large-scale geoengineering projects designed to cool the Earth,” such as “shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays,” which many have pointed out is already occurring via chemtrails.
Ecoscience discusses a number of ways in which the global population could be reduced to combat what the authors see as mankind’s greatest threat – overpopulation. In each case, the proposals are couched in sober academic rhetoric, but the horrifying foundation of what Holdren and his co-authors are advocating is clear. These proposals include;
- Forcibly and unknowingly sterilizing the entire population by adding infertility drugs to the nation’s water and food supply.
- Legalizing “compulsory abortions,” ie forced abortions carried out against the will of the pregnant women, as is common place in Communist China where women who have already had one child and refuse to abort the second are kidnapped off the street by the authorities before a procedure is carried out to forcibly abort the baby.
- Babies who are born out of wedlock or to teenage mothers to be forcibly taken away from their mother by the government and put up for adoption. Another proposed measure would force single mothers to demonstrate to the government that they can care for the child, effectively introducing licensing to have children.
- Implementing a system of “involuntary birth control,” where both men and women would be mandated to have an infertility device implanted into their body at puberty and only have it removed temporarily if they received permission from the government to have a baby.
- Permanently sterilizing people who the authorities deem have already had too many children or who have contributed to “general social deterioration”.
- Formally passing a law that criminalizes having more than two children, similar to the one child policy in Communist China.
- This would all be overseen by a transnational and centralized “planetary regime” that would utilize a “global police force” to enforce the measures outlined above. The “planetary regime” would also have the power to determine population levels for every country in the world....' _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
The Adam Smith Institute is now willing to argue that those on benefits are genetically different to the rest of us
POSTED ON FEBRUARY 28 2016
The Guardian has noted that:
More than 85% of fraud allegations made by the public over the last five years were false, according to figures obtained by the Observer.
A freedom of information request to the Department for Work and Pensions discloses that between 2010 and 2015 the government closed 1,041,219 alleged cases of benefit fraud put forward by the public. Insufficient or no evidence of fraud was discovered in 887,468 of these. In 2015 alone, of the 153,038 cases closed by the DWP’s Fraud and Error Service, 132,772 led to no action.
In this context comment from Owen Smith, the shadow work and pensions secretary who I hold in high regard, seems appropriate. He said:
Where there are abuses of the system they should be dealt with swiftly. However, the government’s constant attempts to paint honest people – like low-paid workers relying on tax credits and universal credit – as ‘skivers’ is creating a hostile and accusatory environment. The Tories should view these results with shame and pledge to turn the page on their divisive rhetoric.
I doubt that they will. Take this from a book review by Andrew Sabisky for the Adam Smith Institute this January:
The Welfare Trait has thus far attracted little media attention. This is perhaps a mercy. Were it to do so, its author, Dr Adam Perkins, would no doubt be forced to confront a howling hate mob outside his office twenty-four hours a day. Perhaps he would even have to move to an East Asian university, which these days is the usual route taken by European eccentrics (such as Nick Land and Neven Sesardic) who are determined to make fools of themselves in public by uttering unpalatable truths.
Painstakingly, Perkins constructs his core argument: that the welfare state, the foundational institution of modern Britain (the Church of England having sadly declined), contains the seeds of its own eventual destruction. A large body of evidence, which Perkins reviews, supports the intuitive idea that habitual welfare claimants tend to be less conscientious and agreeable than the average person. Such habitual claimants also tend to reproduce at higher rates than the general population, a pattern found across nations and time periods. They also seem to adjust their fertility in response to changes in the generosity of welfare provision, having fewer children in times of austerity and more when governments turn on the spigot marked “spending”.
Over time, therefore, the work motivation of the general population is lowered. This occurs through both genetic and environmental channels. Personality traits are substantially heritable (meaning that a decent percentage of the variation in these traits is due to naturally occurring genetic variation). Given this fact, habitual welfare claimants with employment-resistant personalities are likely to have offspring with similar personalities.
What you see in this is the deliberate construction of an argument that those on benefits are genetically different from other people. The consequences that follow are inevitable and were all too apparent in the 1930s. And this comes from a UK think tank much beloved for Tory politicians.
Worry, a great deal.
*
68 Responses to “The Adam Smith Institute is now willing to argue that those on benefits are genetically different to the rest of us”
Tim says:
February 28 2016 at 11:42 am
Chilling. I did this piece about disability hate propaganda four years ago:
How things are unfolding are indeed comparable to the 1930s. Unfortunately, some people demand to see tanks, swastikas and goose-stepping armies before they will recognise that.
As a country, we should be very concerned about where we are heading.
Daniel Sutton says:
February 28 2016 at 10:58 pm
This has long been the Tory attitude. Churchill attended Eugenics conferences and believed absolutely in a cast society driven by apparent genetically superior social betters.
B S Ashworth says:
February 28 2016 at 11:07 pm
It has made me almost physically sick to read, but I will get to the end of this article. One thing that is particularly nauseating is the slowness of the EU process which is supposed to be coming to our rescue — it gives Cameron plenty of time to get the human rights laws changed for the UK, and to inflict as much damage to the vulnerable as he pleases.
Andrew Dickie says:
February 28 2016 at 11:55 am
Sounds as though the Adam Smith Institute has been infected by Lysenkoism! Some irony, considering Lysenko “canonised” by Stalin, whose favourite scientist he was.
I’m sorry to say that this sounds like nonsense on stilts, worthy of the scientists in Gulliver’s Travels who sought to extract sunshine from cucumbers.
More directly , it is *, and extremely dangerous * at that. We really DO seem to be replaying the 1929 to 1933 and beyond scenario, so WHERE is our FDR?
Eine Frau, ihre Entdeckung und wie sie die Welt verändert
Emmanuelle Charpentier hat Biologen ein neues Werkzeug beschert: Mit "Crispr" lassen sich Gene verblüffend präzise und sicher ändern. Ärzte wollen damit Aids, Krebs und Erbkrankheiten heilen. Nimmt der Mensch die Evolution bald selbst in die Hand?
Von Max Rauner und Martin Spiewak
27. Juni 2016 DIE ZEIT Nr. 27/2016, 23. Juni 2016 168 Kommentare
Emmanuelle Charpentier: Die Illustration zeigt Emmanuelle Charpentier (links), Entdeckerin der Genchirurgie Crispr. Dank ihr könnten Menschen, die wie Gavriel (rechts) eine Erbkrankheit haben, künftig vielleicht geheilt werden.
Die Illustration zeigt Emmanuelle Charpentier (links), Entdeckerin der Genchirurgie Crispr. Dank ihr könnten Menschen, die wie Gavriel (rechts) eine Erbkrankheit haben, künftig vielleicht geheilt werden. _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
https://www.twitter.com/NoirMJ/status/791012835748872192 _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Thu May 18, 2017 8:20 pm Post subject:
None other than William Beveridge, the architect of the post-1945 welfare state, was highly active in the eugenics movement and said that "those men who through general defects are unable to fill such a whole place in industry are to be recognized as unemployable. They must become the acknowledged dependents of the State... but with complete and permanent loss of all citizen rights - including not only the franchise but civil freedom and fatherhood". A belief in eugenics was certainly not confined to the jackbooted far right.
The eugenics movement Britain wants to forget
In the first of a three-part series to mark disability history month, Victoria Brignell looks back at the way the UK and USA have treated disabled people and uncovers a history that both countries would prefer to forget.
BY VICTORIA BRIGNELL
http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/12/british-eugenics-disabled
Britain and America are two countries that, in recent years, have led the world in attempting to give disabled people rights and equality. During his presidency, George Bush Senior was proud to sign the Americans with Disabilities Act while the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act has gradually transformed the lives of disabled people in the UK. It may appear on the surface that the UK and USA have nothing in common with Nazi Germany, a regime that is estimated to have killed 200,000 disabled people and forcibly sterilised twice that number.
However, there is a dark side to the history of the two partners in the "special relationship" that has quietly been forgotten and swept under the carpet. It is a history that is deeply uncomfortable, disturbing and shameful and which seems to contradict the values America and Britain claim to uphold. This makes it even more vital that light is shone upon this history. Even if it is painful to do so, the past must be confronted and acknowledged.
This story begins 150 years ago. In 1859 Charles Darwin published his groundbreaking book Origin of Species which expounded his theory of evolution by natural selection. It wasn't long before scientists and political theorists began to apply Darwin's theory to human beings. With the spread of ideas about "the survival of the fittest", social Darwinists started to question the wisdom of providing care to the "weak" on the grounds this would enable people to live and reproduce who were not meant to survive. They feared that offering medical treatment and social services to disabled people would undermine the natural struggle for existence and lead to the degeneration of the human race.
Such views took hold not only in Germany but also particularly strongly in America and Britain. The existence of disabled people was increasingly seen in the UK and USA as a threat to social progress. Darwin himself wrote in his 1871 treatise, The Descent of Man, "We civilised men.... do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick.. .Thus the weak members of society propagate their kind."
It was a British man, not a German, who first came up with the term eugenics in 1883. Francis Galton was a cousin of Charles Darwin and he became obsessed with Origin of Species, especially its chapter on the breeding of domestic animals. This inspired him to spend much of his life studying the variations in human ability. He wrote: "The question was then forced upon me. Could not the race of men be similarly improved? Could not the undesirables be got rid of and the desirables multiplied?".
Galton was convinced a person's mental and physical abilities, like the plant and animal traits described by Darwin, were essentially inherited from one's parents. He grew concerned that eminent British people were marrying late and having too few children. Galton wrote in his 1869 book Hereditary Genius: "Let us do what we can to encourage the multiplication of the races best fitted to invent, and conform to, a high and generous civilisation, and not, out of mistaken instinct of giving support to the weak, prevent the incoming of strong and hearty individuals."
Galton argued that early marriage between healthy, mentally strong families should be encouraged by financial incentives, and reproduction by the "feeble-minded" should be curtailed. In his mind, superior mental and physical capabilities were advantageous not only to an individual but essential for the well-being of society as a whole. To try to spread his ideas, he even wrote a novel Kantsaywhere, about a society ruled by a Eugenic College that followed a eugenic religion designed to breed fitter, more intelligent humans. Galton's views were not regarded as eccentric or offensive at the time. Far from it. In fact, he received many awards during his career. He was made a fellow of the Royal Society in 1860 and was knighted shortly before he died.
Galton's writings played a key role in launching the eugenics movement in the UK and America. Supporters of eugenics called for government policies to improve the biological quality of the human race through selective parenthood. They linked physical and learning disabilities to a range of social problems including crime, vagrancy, alcoholism, prostitution and unemployment. Eugenics quickly gained many backers on both sides of the Atlantic, including leading politicians and opinion formers.
It wasn't just figures on the extreme right of politics who backed the eugenics philosophy. Some of British socialism's most celebrated names were among the champions of eugenics - Sidney and Beatrice Webb (the founders of the Fabian Society), Harold Laski, John Maynard Keynes, even the New Statesman and the Manchester Guardian. They hoped that a eugenic approach could build up the strong section of the population and gradually remove the weak. In July 1931, the New Statesman asserted: "The legitimate claims of eugenics are not inherently incompatible with the outlook of the collectivist movement. On the contrary, they would be expected to find their most intransigent opponents amongst those who cling to the individualistic views of parenthood and family economics."
Many early left-wing thinkers wanted government to direct social policy towards "improving" the human race by discouraging reproduction among those sections of society deemed to have undesirable genes. Supporters of state planning often found the idea of a planned genetic future attractive. As Adrian Wooldridge, author of Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England 1860-1990, comments: "The Webbs supported eugenic planning just as fervently as town planning." Beatrice Webb declared eugenics to be "the most important question of all" while her husband remarked that "no eugenicist can be a laissez-faire individualist".
Similarly, George Bernard Shaw wrote: "The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialisation of the selective breeding of man." Bertrand Russell proposed that the state should issue colour-coded "procreation tickets" to prevent the gene pool of the elite being diluted by inferior human beings. Those who decided to have children with holders of a different-coloured ticket would be punished with a heavy fine. HG Wells praised eugenics as the first step towards the elimination of "detrimental types and characteristics" and the "fostering of desirable types" instead.
None other than William Beveridge, the architect of the post-1945 welfare state, was highly active in the eugenics movement and said that "those men who through general defects are unable to fill such a whole place in industry are to be recognized as unemployable. They must become the acknowledged dependents of the State... but with complete and permanent loss of all citizen rights - including not only the franchise but civil freedom and fatherhood". A belief in eugenics was certainly not confined to the jackbooted far right.
As the end of the 19th century approached, eugenicists were becoming increasingly influential in British politics. A Royal Commission on the Blind, Deaf and Dumb concluded in 1889 that intermarriage between these groups was to be strongly discouraged. Its report was based upon advice from Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, who had warned in his 1883 work Memoir upon the Formation of a Deaf Variety of the Human Race that the "passions of the deaf and dumb are undoubtedly strong". In 1896 a pressure group entitled the National Association for the Care and Control of the Feeble Minded was set up in Britain to bring about the lifetime segregation of disabled people. Its campaigning reached its peak in the run-up to the 1910 general election.
Advocates of eugenics made significant advances during the Edwardian period. In 1907, the Eugenics Education Society was founded in Britain to campaign for sterilisation and marriage restrictions for the weak to prevent the degeneration of Britain's population. A year later, Sir James Crichton-Brown, giving evidence before the 1908 Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Feeble-Minded, recommended the compulsory sterilisation of those with learning disabilities and mental illness, describing them as "our social rubbish" which should be "swept up and garnered and utilised as far as possible". He went on to complain, "We pay much attention to the breeding of our horses, our cattle, our dogs and poultry, even our flowers and vegetables; surely it's not too much to ask that a little care be bestowed upon the breeding and rearing of our race". Crichton-Brown was in distinguished company. In a memo to the prime minister in 1910, Winston Churchill cautioned, "The multiplication of the feeble-minded is a very terrible danger to the race".
In 2012, athletes from around the world will assemble in London for the Paralympic Games, a global event which celebrates the talents and achievements of disabled people. However, a century earlier, in 1912, London was the setting for an international gathering with a very different and more sinister agenda - the first International Eugenics Conference. Organised by the British Eugenics Education Society and dedicated to Galton who had died the year before, 400 delegates attended including illustrious figures such as Winston Churchill (who was then First Lord of the Admiralty), Lord Balfour and a number of European ambassadors.
Charles Darwin's son, Major Leonard Darwin, presided at the conference. In the run up to the First World War, he lobbied the British government to establish flying squads of scientists, with the power of arrest, who would travel around the country identifying the "unfit". Those classified as such would be segregated in special colonies or sterilised.
The eugenics campaign continued to gain momentum in the interwar years. Membership of the British Eugenics Society reached its peak during the 1930s. The 1934 report of the Departmental Committee on Sterilisation chaired by Lord Brock recommended legislation to ensure the 'voluntary' sterilisation of 'mentally defective women'.
Supporters of eugenics in Parliament included the Labour MP Will Crooks who described disabled people as "like human vermin" who "crawl about doing absolutely nothing, except polluting and corrupting everything they touch". A bill for the compulsory sterilisation of certain categories of "mental patient" was proposed in Parliament in 1931 by Labour MP Archibald Church. He claimed it was necessary to stop the reproduction of those "who are in every way a burden to their parents, a misery to themselves and in my opinion a menace to the social life of the community". Although such legislation was never actually passed in Britain, this did not prevent many sterilisations being carried out under various forms of coercion.
Eugenics still received backing in eminent circles in Britain until well into the 1940s. Leading economist John Maynard Keynes served on the governing council of the Eugenics Society and was its director from 1937 to 1944. Even in 1946, Keynes was calling eugenics "the most important and significant branch of sociology". On the evening that the House of Commons debated the Beveridge Report, Beveridge himself spoke at a meeting of eugenicists at the Mansion House.
While a belief in eugenics is now largely a thing of the past, the values underpinning it have not gone away. Only 25 years ago, a British MP was prepared to publicly voice the view that a disabled child was an unnecessary drain on society's resources. During a House of Commons debate on abortion in 1985, an MP asserted that to abort a "handicapped" foetus could save the country £1 million over the course of a lifetime.
Ben Van Der Merwe 10th January 2018 7 min read
A eugenics conference held annually at University College London by an honorary professor, the London Conference on Intelligence, is dominated by a secretive group of white supremacists with neo-Nazi links, London Student can exclusively reveal.
Content note: This article contains references to racism, anti-Semitism and child abuse.
The conference has taken place at UCL four times since its inception in 2014, and now even boasts its own YouTube channel bearing the UCL logo.
UCL have told London Student that they are investigating the conference. A spokesperson said: “We are an institution that is committed to free speech but also to combatting racism and sexism in all forms.”
UCL professor David Colquhoun expressed disbelief that the university would host such “pseudoscience” and stated that the organiser, Professor James Thompson, “clearly doesn’t understand genetics.”
“The actual genetic difference between humans, with respect to race or sex, is absolutely miniscule compared to what they have in common,” he told London Student.
Among the speakers and attendees over the last four years are a self-taught geneticist who argues in favour of child rape, multiple white supremacists, and ex-board member of the Office for Students Toby Young.
A central figure in the London Conference on Intelligence (LCI) is the white nationalist, extremist Richard Lynn, who has called for the “phasing out” of the “populations of incompetent cultures.” Lynn, who is President of the Ulster Institute for Social Research (UISR), spoke at the conference 2015 and 2016, along with four of the six members of the UISR’s Academic Advisory Council.
Lynn’s UISR runs the journal Mankind Quarterly, whose founders include a leading member of Mussolini’s eugenics taskforce, and whose board once boasted Nazi Joseph Mengele’s personal mentor.
Six members of the current board, including editor-in-chief Gerhard Meisenberg, spoke at both the 2015 and 2016 conferences, while a further 16 LCI speakers have written for the journal in recent years. In total, 82% of those who spoke at both 2015 and 2016 conferences are directly associated with either UISR or Mankind Quarterly.
The UISR is bankrolled by Lynn and Meisenberg’s Pioneer Fund, a Southern Poverty Law Centre-listed hate group founded by Nazi sympathisers with the purpose of promoting “racial betterment”.
Beneficiaries of the fund include a magazine devoted to a “penetrating inquiry into every aspect of the Jewish Question,” and Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance, whose conferences have hosted prominent far-right figures Richard Spencer (an white supremancist who gained prominence after Trump’s election), Nick Griffin (ex-leader of the British National Party), and David Duke (another white supremacist, and former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan).
Helmuth Nyborg, a member of the UISR Academic Advisory Council, gave a lecture at last year’s American Renaissance conference which argued that Denmark’s gene pool would suffer from immigration from the Middle East. Nyborg spoke at the LCI in both 2015 and 2016. He has written numerous articles for Mankind Quarterly as well as a book for the UISR memorializing the former head of the Pioneer Fund, white nationalist J. P. Rushton.
James Thompson, the honorary UCL academic who acts as the host of the conference, is a member of the UISR Academic Advisory Council. His political leanings are betrayed by his public Twitter account, where he follows prominent white supremacists including Richard Spencer (who follows him back), Virginia Dare, American Renaissance, Brett Stevens, the Traditional Britain Group, Charles Murray and Jared Taylor.
Thompson is a frequent contributor to the Unz Review, which has been described as “a mix of far-right and far-left anti-Semitic crackpottery,” and features articles such as ‘America’s Jews are Driving America’s Wars’ and ‘What to do with Latinos?’. His own articles include frequent defences of the idea that women are innately less intelligent than men (1, 2, 3, and 4), and an analysis of the racial wage gap which concludes that “some ethnicities contribute relatively little,” namely “blacks.”
Writer and geneticist Adam Rutherford told London Student that, based on the titles and abstracts, some of the views presented were a “pseudoscientific front for bog-standard, old-school racism”.
“As soon as you begin to speak about black people and IQ you have a problem, because genetically-speaking ‘black people’ aren’t one homogenous group,” Rutherford said. “Any two people of recent African descent are likely to be more genetically distinct from each other than either of them is to anyone else in the world.”
Another major organiser of the LCI is Emil Kirkegaard, who has attended all four conferences and even designed the website. Although he refers to himself as a “polymath” and Thompson describes him as a “very bright young guy”, Kirkegaard is not an academic. His highest qualification is a Bachelor’s in linguistics.
Having dropped out of his Masters degree, instead preferring to be “self-taught in various subjects”, Kirkegaard now runs OpenPsych, a platform for non-peer reviewed psychology papers, along with Davide Piffer of Mankind Quarterly. Piffer is a fellow LCI-speaker, and was praised by Richard Lynn as having done “brilliant work identifying the genes responsible for race differences in intelligence.”
Authors on OpenPsych include Kevin MacDonald, described by the Southern Poverty Law Centre as “the neo-Nazi movement’s favourite academic”, who praised Anders Breivik as a “serious political thinker with a great many insights and some good practical ideas on strategy.”
John Fuerst, a fellow of the UISR, spoke at LCI 2015 and 2016, and frequently collaborates with Kirkegaard on OpenPsych. As well as writing various blogs, which he describes as “race realist”, , he also frequently posts anti-Semitic conspiracy theories on Facebook. When questioned about his popularity on the neo-Nazi forum Stormfront, he stated that he had “no beef against…“Neo-Nazis”.”
Kirkegaard’s own personal blog is home to topics such as ‘Is miscegenation bad for your kids?’ and how one could empirically verify a Jewish conspiracy. His Facebook features alt-right ‘promotional videos’ and once featured a friend’s Nazi salute with the caption ‘There will be an heir to the Führer.’
A post on Facebook featuring a Nazi salute behind Kirkegaard alongside his ‘Führer’ comment
By far the most disturbing of part of Kirkegaard’s internet presence, however, is a blog-post in which he justifies child rape. He states that a ‘compromise’ with paedophiles could be:
“having sex with a sleeping child without them knowing it (so, using sleeping medicine. If they dont notice it is difficult to see how they cud be harmed, even if it is rape. One must distinguish between rape becus the other was disconsenting (wanting to not have sex), and rape becus the other is not consenting, but not disconsenting either.”
He qualifies this with a note that “bodily harm” would undermine this justification, and especially “with small children since their bodily openings are not large enuf [sic] for a regular sized male penis. To avoid this one shud [sic] not penetrate.”
Kirkegaard’s reputation as a scientific advocate for neo-Nazism was increased last April when he appeared on Tara McCarthy’s ‘Reality Calls’ to discuss “the future of eugenics.” McCarthy was banned from YouTube for alleging a Jewish conspiracy to commit “white genocide”, supports deporting naturalized citizens and “killing them if they resist”, and said that she hopes “zero” migrants crossing the Mediterranean “make it alive”.
Kirkegaard is not the only LCI speaker to feature on McCarthy’s show. Adam Perkins of King’s College London appeared on the show to discuss his controversial book, ‘The Welfare Trait’. He provoked uproar last year when he shared images of data from one of Kirkegaard’s papers on immigrant crime rates, with the caption “Trump’s Muslim ban makes sense in human capital terms”.
“This is so old-school as to be laughable,” Dr Rutherford said of the views discussed at the LCI. While the views may simply be “bad science”, according to Rutherford, they play into UCL’s “deep and rich history of scientific racism”.
He explained: “Francis Galton, the brilliant but overtly racist UCL academic, may have given the world many valuable ideas, but also created eugenics as a pseudoscientific idea. UCL’s Galton chair, named in his honour, was first occupied by Karl Pearson, another overt racist.”
The first person who linked “overpopulation” to U.S. national security interests was Henry Kissinger, who, as National Security Advisor, oversaw the drafting of National Security Study Memorandum 200, entitled “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests,” which was a highly classified document when it was completed on Dec. 10, 1974.
On Nov. 26, 1975, with Kissinger now Secretary of State, his successor as National Security Advisor, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, issued National Security Decision Memorandum 314, which adopted NSSM 200 as official (covert) U.S. policy on population matters.
Here are excerpts:
One Smart Way to Make Money on the Side in 2018!
Brx Finance
Ads by Revcontent
The World Population Plan of Action is not self-en-forcing and will require vigorous efforts by interested countries, UN agencies and other international bodies to make it effective. U.S. leadership is essential.
Assistance for population moderation should give primary emphasis to the largest and fastest-growing developing countries where there is special U.S. po-litical and strategic interest.
Those countries are: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia, and Colombia.
Together, they account for 47% of the world’s current population growth.
The Myth of Overpopulation Used to Force Mass Sterilizations in Developing Nations
Moreover, short of draconian measures there is no possibility that any LDC [Less Developed Country] can stabilize its population at less than double its present size. For many, stabilization will not be short of three times their present size.
Population growth per se is not likely to impose serious constraints on the global physical availability of fuel and non-fuel minerals to the end of the century and beyond.
The important potential linkage between rapid population growth and mineral availability is indirect rather than direct.
It flows from the negative effects of excessive population growth on economic development and social progress, and therefore on internal stability, in overcrowded underdeveloped countries.
The real problems of mineral supplies lie, not in basic physical sufficiency, but in the politico-economic issues of access, terms for exploration and exploitation, and division of the benefits among producers, consumers, and host country governments.
In the extreme cases where population pressures lead to endemic famine, food riots, and breakdown of social order, those conditions are scarcely conducive to systematic exploration for mineral deposits or the long-term investments required for their exploitation.
Source: Humans Are Free _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Demographics, Dysgenics & Population Control.
Intro: The Fields of Elysium.
"Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague." — Thomas Malthus (1766-1834)
"If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s." — Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)
The ruling caste has sought to control population since ancient times, through both physical extermination and cultural/ psychological warfare (forcing intellectuals to submit to celibacy for 'religious reasons', etc.), traditionally the ruling families in Europe have arranged for a large conflict every 50-100 years or so, to thin-out the peasantry and in-so-doing sustain their economic (land) and thus cultural monopolies. These blood-lettings are essential, they are the very life-blood of centralisation and the only means of sustaining the socially intolerable and economically inefficient concentrations of wealth and power that certain dynastic families have become accustomed to.
Orchestrated wars and famines are the life-blood that fertilises the fields of their imperial Elysium.
For example the Hapsburg dynasty, instrumental in fomenting the 30 years war (1618 – 1648), which killed one third of the population of Germany, were also protagonists of both world wars and are still a somewhat influential force in the E.U. today. Custodianship over the occulted technologies of statecraft passes from father to son, along with the distinct ‘cultural values’ which have cynically justified these practises since ancient times. The Greeks talked of the need to suppress human imagination (psychological warfare), discussed ‘over-population’ and arranged wars to cull their populations 2500 years ago, and a continuous thread of these genocidal thoughts can be followed from the times of Plato, all the way through the history of civilisation. As foreign kleptocrats conspire with neighbouring dynasties to instigate wars amongst their conquered populations for mutual interest.
Nuclear war, with its 'mutually assured’ and indiscriminate destruction, changed everything. Ever since the Rhine Meadow death camps and the expulsion/ mass-rape of ethnic Germans in 1945-50, which marks the last large-scale genocide in the history of Western Europe - the United Nations, along with various deep state ‘philanthropists’ and their sock-puppet organisations, have focused on ‘passive’ methods of depopulation. Due in no small part to innovations within psychological warfare, mind-control and weaponised anthropology, these methods, which could be described as epigenetic depopulation programs, have proven devastatingly effective. So much so, that nearly every country in the so-called ‘developed’ world is now in a state of sharp demographic collapse. Mass-migration, of more virile stock from the ‘developing world’ simultaneously plugs the gap in the labour market and muddies the statistical waters, helping to cover-up the on-going genocide, which (however passive) remains the largest and most far-reaching genocide in the history of our species.
via Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/thom.forester _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
(Reuters) - Pope Francis on Saturday called the practice of having an abortion after pre-natal tests have discovered possible birth defects a version of Nazi attempts to create a pure race by eliminating the weakest.
Francis made the comparison in a long, off-the-cuff address to a members of a confederation of Italian family associations.
"Children should be accepted as they come, as God sends them, as God allows, even if at times they are sick," he said.
Francis then spoke of pre-natal tests to determine if a fetus has any illnesses or malformations.
"The first proposal, in that case, is 'Should we get rid of it'? The killing of children. And to have a more tranquil life, an innocent is done away with," he said.
"I say it with pain. In the last century the whole world was scandalized by what the Nazis did to pursue the pureness of the race. Today, we are doing the same thing, with white gloves."
Under Nazi eugenics programs, hundreds of thousands of people were forcibly sterilized and tens of thousands killed in an attempt to "clean" the chain of heredity of those with physical or cognitive disabilities.
(Reporting by Philip Pullella; Editing by Catherine Evans) _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
By Amanda Cameron Local Democracy Reporter
14:17, 22 FEB 2019UPDATED11:32, 25 FEB 2019
An independent councillor has made a controversial call for “population control” to tackle the global climate crisis.
David Shopland, who represents Clevedon East, made his surprising comments amid debate over the need for the council to declare a climate emergency.
North Somerset Council unanimously voted to recognise “a serious global climate challenge emergency” and to take steps to address it on Tuesday, February 19.
It resolved to determine how North Somerset could become carbon neutral by 2030 and to seek government funding for the actions identified.
Debate on the motion, put forward by Green and Liberal Democrat councillors, was dominated by discussions about carbon emissions, global warming and its potentially catastrophic consequences, and the moral obligation of the council to take action.
Various practical suggestions included tackling waste and pollution and stopping the expansion of Bristol Airport.
But councillor Shopland said the real problem was population growth and it needed to be tackled, no matter how unpopular.
“I feel we’re only tinkering with the problem,” Cllr Shopland said. “We are not getting to the root cause of the problem.
READ MORE
Bristol misses second deadline for clean air plan - but it is unclear whether government will pursue legal action
“And the root cause of the problem is that this world’s resources cannot last forever and cope with increasing demand.
“So maybe we should be looking at population control as well as this measure, because it is people who are using these resources, the number of people who want resources, and that is a problem that can never be solved unless we limit the number of people requiring resources.
“I know that won’t be popular, but it’s a fact.”
Cllr Shopland’s comments drew gradual then steady applause from the chamber.
Protest against air pollution on top of Park Street, Bristol.
Protest against air pollution on top of Park Street, Bristol. (Image: Artur Lesniak)
Summing up at the end of the debate, Green councillor for Congresbury and Puxton Tom Leimdorfer said population size needed to be considered alongside average carbon emissions.
Cllr Leimdorfer said the UK produces an average of 5.8 tonnes of carbon per person per year, compared with a figure of 0.24 for Ghana.
READ MORE
Why North Somerset Council could say no to Bristol Airport expansion
“So yes, population is an issue,” he said. “But it isn’t just population, it is really what each of us are doing.”
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:28 am Post subject:
Beliefs of the 21st century fascist/eugenics philosophy: 1. the elite can enhance their DNA by the use of technology and AI; 2. digital computers can make a direct link with the nervous system and human brain; 3. AI will at some point be more powerful than, and take over from humans; 4. the elite can engineer their DNA so their children will be immortal
Mr. Epstein’s vision reflected his longstanding fascination with what has become known as transhumanism: the science of improving the human population through technologies like genetic engineering and artificial intelligence. Critics have likened transhumanism to a modern-day version of eugenics, the discredited field of improving the human race through controlled breeding.
Mr. Epstein, who was charged in July with the sexual trafficking of girls as young as 14, was a serial illusionist: He lied about the identities of his clients, his wealth, his financial prowess, his personal achievements. But he managed to use connections and charisma to cultivate valuable relationships with business and political leaders.
LAST YEAR, A GOVERNMENT COMMISSION CALLED FOR THE US TO ADOPT AN AI-DRIVEN MASS SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM FAR BEYOND THAT USED IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN ORDER TO ENSURE AMERICAN HEGEMONY IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. NOW, MANY OF THE “OBSTACLES” THEY HAD CITED AS PREVENTING ITS IMPLEMENTATION ARE RAPIDLY BEING REMOVED UNDER THE GUISE OF COMBATING THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS.
Last year, a U.S. government body dedicated to examining how artificial intelligence can “address the national security and defense needs of the United States” discussed in detail the “structural” changes that the American economy and society must undergo in order to ensure a technological advantage over China, according to a recent document acquired through a FOIA request. This document suggests that the U.S. follow China’s lead and even surpass them in many aspects related to AI-driven technologies, particularly their use of mass surveillance. This perspective clearly clashes with the public rhetoric of prominent U.S. government officials and politicians on China, who have labeled the Chinese government’s technology investments and export of its surveillance systems and other technologies as a major “threat” to Americans’ “way of life.”
In addition, many of the steps for the implementation of such a program in the U.S., as laid out in this newly available document, are currently being promoted and implemented as part of the government’s response to the current coronavirus (Covid-19) crisis. This likely due to the fact that many members of this same body have considerable overlap with the taskforces and advisors currently guiding the government’s plans to “re-open the economy” and efforts to use technology to respond to the current crisis.
The FOIA document, obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), was produced by a little-known U.S. government organization called the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI). It was created by the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and its official purpose is “to consider the methods and means necessary to advance the development of artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and associated technologies to comprehensively address the national security and defense needs of the United States.”
The NSCAI is a key part of the government’s response to what is often referred to as the coming “fourth industrial revolution,” which has been described as “a revolution characterized by discontinuous technological development in areas like artificial intelligence (AI), big data, fifth-generation telecommunications networking (5G), nanotechnology and biotechnology, robotics, the Internet of Things (IoT), and quantum computing.”
However, their main focus is ensuring that “the United States … maintain a technological advantage in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and other associated technologies related to national security and defense.” The vice-chair of NSCAI, Robert Work – former Deputy Secretary of Defense and senior fellow at the hawkish Center for a New American Security (CNAS), described the commission’s purpose as determining “how the U.S. national security apparatus should approach artificial intelligence, including a focus on how the government can work with industry to compete with China’s ‘civil-military fusion’ concept.”
The recently released NSCAI document is a May 2019 presentation entitled “Chinese Tech Landscape Overview.” Throughout the presentation, the NSCAI promotes the overhaul of the U.S. economy and way of life as necessary for allowing the U.S. to ensure it holds a considerable technological advantage over China, as losing this advantage is currently deemed a major “national security” issue by the U.S. national security apparatus. This concern about maintaining a technological advantage can be seen in several other U.S. military documents and think tank reports, several of which have warned that the U.S.’ technological advantage is quickly eroding.
The U.S. government and establishment media outlets often blame alleged Chinese espionage or the Chinese government’s more explicit partnerships with private technology companies in support of their claim that the U.S. is losing this advantage over China. For instance, Chris Darby, the current CEO of the CIA’s In-Q-Tel, who is also on the NSCAI, told CBS News last year that China is the U.S.’ main competitor in terms of technology and that U.S. privacy laws were hampering the U.S.’ capacity to counter China in this regard, stating that:
“[D]ata is the new oil. And China is just awash with data. And they don’t have the same restraints that we do around collecting it and using it, because of the privacy difference between our countries. This notion that they have the largest labeled data set in the world is going to be a huge strength for them.”
In another example, Michael Dempsey – former acting Director of National Intelligence and currently a government-funded fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations – argued in The Hill that:
“It’s quite clear, though, that China is determined to erase our technological advantage, and is committing hundreds of billions of dollars to this effort. In particular, China is determined to be a world leader in such areas as artificial intelligence, high performance computing, and synthetic biology. These are the industries that will shape life on the planet and the military balance of power for the next several decades.”
In fact, the national security apparatus of the United States is so concerned about losing a technological edge over China that the Pentagon recently decided to join forces directly with the U.S. intelligence community in order “to get in front of Chinese advances in artificial intelligence.” This union resulted in the creation of the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC), which ties together “the military’s efforts with those of the Intelligence Community, allowing them to combine efforts in a breakneck push to move government’s AI initiatives forward.” It also coordinates with other government agencies, industry, academics, and U.S. allies. Robert Work, who subsequently became the NSCAI vice-chair, said at the time that JAIC’s creation was a “welcome first step in response to Chinese, and to a lesser extent, Russian, plans to dominate these technologies.”
Similar concerns about “losing” technological advantage to China have also been voiced by the NSCAI chairman, Eric Schmidt, the former head of Alphabet – Google’s parent company, who argued in February in the New York Times that Silicon Valley could soon lose “the technology wars” to China if the U.S. government doesn’t take action. Thus, the three main groups represented within the NSCAI – the intelligence community, the Pentagon and Silicon Valley – all view China’s advancements in AI as a major national security threat (and in Silicon Valley’s case, threat to their bottom lines and market shares) that must be tackled quickly.
TARGETING CHINA’S “ADOPTION ADVANTAGE”
In the May 2019 “Chinese Tech Landscape Overview” presentation, the NSCAI discusses that, while the U.S. still leads in the “creation” stage of AI and related technologies, it lags behind China in the “adoption” stage due to “structural factors.” It says that “creation”, followed by “adoption” and “iteration” are the three phases of the “life cycle of new tech” and asserts that failing to dominate in the “adoption” stage will allow China to “leapfrog” the U.S. and dominate AI for the foreseeable future.
The presentation also argues that, in order to “leapfrog” competitors in emerging markets, what is needed is not “individual brilliance” but instead specific “structural conditions that exist within certain markets.” It cites several case studies where China is considered to be “leapfrogging” the U.S. due to major differences in these “structural factors.” Thus, the insinuation of the document (though not directly stated) is that the U.S. must alter the “structural factors” that are currently responsible for its lagging behind China in the “adoption” phase of AI-driven technologies.
Chief among the troublesome “structural factors” highlighted in this presentation are so-called “legacy systems” that are common in the U.S. but much less so in China. The NSCAI document states that examples of “legacy systems” include a financial system that still utilizes cash and card payments, individual car ownership and even receiving medical attention from a human doctor. It states that, while these “legacy systems” in the US are “good enough,” too many “good enough” systems “hinder the adoption of new things,” specifically AI-driven systems.
Another structural factor deemed by the NSCAI to be an obstacle to the U.S.’ ability to maintain a technological advantage over China is the “scale of the consumer market,” arguing that “extreme urban density = on-demand service adoption.” In other words, extreme urbanization results in more people using online or mobile-based “on-demand” services, ranging from ride-sharing to online shopping. It also cites the use of mass surveillance on China’s “huge population base” is an example of how China’s “scale of consumer market” advantage allowing “China to leap ahead” in the fields of related technologies, like facial recognition.
In addition to the alleged shortcomings of the U.S.’ “legacy systems” and lack of “extreme urban density,” the NSCAI also calls for more “explicit government support and involvement” as a means to speed up the adoption of these systems in the U.S. This includes the government lending its stores of data on civilians to train AI, specifically citing facial recognition databases, and mandating that cities be “re-architected around AVs [autonomous vehicles],” among others. Other examples given include the government investing large amounts of money in AI start-ups and adding tech behemoths to a national, public-private AI taskforce focused on smart city-implementation (among other things).
With regards to the latter, the document says “this level of public-private cooperation” in China is “outwardly embraced” by the parties involved, with this “serving as a stark contrast to the controversy around Silicon Valley selling to the U.S. government.” Examples of such controversy, from the NSCAI’s perspective, likely include Google employees petitioning to end the Google-Pentagon “Project Maven,” which uses Google’s AI software to analyze footage captured by drones. Google eventually chose not to renew its Maven contract as a result of the controversy, even though top Google executives viewed the project as a “golden opportunity” to collaborate more closely with the military and intelligence communities.
The document also defines another aspect of government support as the “clearing of regulatory barriers.” This term is used in the document specifically with respect to U.S. privacy laws, despite the fact that the U.S. national security state has long violated these laws with near complete impunity. However, the document seems to suggest that privacy laws in the U.S. should be altered so that what the U.S. government has done “in secret” with private citizen data can be done more openly and more extensively. The NSCAI document also discusses the removal of “regulatory barriers” in order to speed up the adoption of self-driving cars, even though autonomous driving technology has resulted in several deadly and horrific car accidents and presents other safety concerns.
Also discussed is how China’s “adoption advantage” will “allow it to leapfrog the U.S.” in several new fields, including “AI medical diagnosis” and “smart cities.” It then asserts that “the future will be decided at the intersection of private enterprise and policy leaders between China and the U.S.” If this coordination over the global AI market does not occur, the document warns that “we [the U.S.] risk being left out of the discussions where norms around AI are set for the rest of our lifetimes.”
The presentation also dwells considerably on how “the main battleground [in technology] are not the domestic Chinese and US markets,” but what it refers to as the NBU (next billion users) markets, where it states that “Chinese players will aggressively challenge Silicon Valley.” In order to challenge them more successfully, the presentation argues that, “just like we [view] the market of teenagers as a harbinger for new trends, we should look at China.”
The document also expresses concerns about China exporting AI more extensively and intensively than the U.S., saying that China is “already crossing borders” by helping to build facial databases in Zimbabwe and selling image recognition and smart city systems to Malaysia. If allowed to become “the unambiguous leader in AI,” it says that “China could end up writing much of the rulebook of international norms around the deployment of AI” and that it would “broaden China’s sphere of influence amongst an international community that increasingly looks to the pragmatic authoritarianism of China and Singapore as an alternative to Western liberal democracy.”
WHAT WILL REPLACE THE US’ “LEGACY SYSTEMS”?
Given that the document makes it quite clear that “legacy systems” in the U.S. are impeding its ability to prevent China from “leapfrogging” ahead in AI and then dominating it for the foreseeable future, it is also important to examine what the document suggests should replace these “legacy systems” in the U.S.
As previously mentioned, one “legacy system” cited early on in the presentation is the main means of payment for most Americans, cash and credit/debit cards. The presentation asserts, in contrast to these “legacy systems” that the best and most advanced system is moving entirely to smartphone-based digital wallets.
It notes specifically the main mobile wallet provider in India, PayTM, is majority owned by Chinese companies. It quotes an article, which states that “a big break came [in 2016] when India canceled 86% of currency in circulation in an effort to cut corruption and bring more people into the tax net by forcing them to use less cash.” At the time, claims that India’s 2016 “currency reform” would be used as a stepping stone towards a cashless society were dismissed by some as “conspiracy theory.” However, last year, a committee convened by India’s central bank (and led by an Indian tech oligarch who also created India’s massive civilian biometric database) resulted in the Indian government’s “Cashless India” program.
Regarding India’s 2016 “currency reform,” the NSCAI document then asserts that “this would be unfathomable in the West. And unsurprisingly, when 86% of the cash got cancelled and nobody had a credit card, mobile wallets in India exploded, laying the groundwork for a far more advanced payments ecosystem in India than the US.” However, it has become increasingly less unfathomable in light of the current coronavirus crisis, which has seen efforts to reduce the amount of cash used because paper bills may carry the virus as well as efforts to introduce a Federal Reserve-backed “digital dollar.”
In addition, the NSCAI document from last May calls for the end of in-person shopping and promotes moving towards all shopping being performed online. It argues that “American companies have a lot to gain by adopting ideas from Chinese companies” by shifting towards exclusive e-commerce purchasing options. It states that only shopping online provides a “great experience” and also adds that “when buying online is literally the only way to get what you want, consumers go online.”
Another “legacy system” that the NSCAI seeks to overhaul is car ownership, as it promotes autonomous, or self-driving vehicles and further asserts that “fleet ownership > individual ownership.” It specifically points to a need for “a centralized ride-sharing network,” which it says “is needed to coordinate cars to achieve near 100% utilization rates.” However, it warns against ride-sharing networks that “need a human operator paired with each vehicle” and also asserts that “fleet ownership makes more sense” than individual car ownership. It also specifically calls for these fleets to not only be composed of self-driving cars, but electric cars and cites reports that China “has the world’s most aggressive electric vehicle goals….and seek[s] the lead in an emerging industry.”
The document states that China leads in ride-sharing today even though ride-sharing was pioneered first in the U.S. It asserts once again that the U.S. “legacy system” of individual car ownership and lack of “extreme urban density” are responsible for China’s dominance in this area. It also predicts that China will “achieve mass autonomous [vehicle] adoption before the U.S.,” largely because “the lack of mass car ownership [in China] leads to far more consumer receptiveness to AVs [autonomous vehicles].” It then notes that “earlier mass adoption leads to a virtuous cycle that allows Chinese core self-driving tech to accelerate beyond [its] Western counterparts.”
In addition to their vision for a future financial system and future self-driving transport system, the NSCAI has a similarly dystopian vision for surveillance. The document calls mass surveillance “one of the ‘first-and-best customers’ for AI” and “a killer application for deep learning.” It also states that “having streets carpeted with cameras is good infrastructure.”
It then discusses how “an entire generation of AI unicorn” companies are “collecting the bulk of their early revenue from government security contracts” and praises the use of AI in facilitating policing activities. For instance, it lauds reports that “police are making convictions based on phone calls monitored with iFlyTek’s voice-recognition technology” and that “police departments are using [AI] facial recognition tech to assist in everything from catching traffic law violators to resolving murder cases.”
On the point of facial recognition technology specifically, the NSCAI document asserts that China has “leapt ahead” of the US on facial recognition, even though “breakthroughs in using machine learning for image recognition initially occurred in the US.” It claims that China’s advantage in this instance is because they have government-implemented mass surveillance (“clearing of regulatory barriers”), enormous government-provided stores of data (“explicit government support”) combined with private sector databases on a huge population base (“scale of consumer market”). As a consequence of this, the NSCAI argues, China is also set to leap ahead of the U.S. in both image/facial recognition and biometrics.
The document also points to another glaring difference between the U.S. and its rival, stating that: “In the press and politics of America and Europe, Al is painted as something to be feared that is eroding privacy and stealing jobs. Conversely, China views it as both a tool for solving major macroeconomic challenges in order to sustain their economic miracle, and an opportunity to take technological leadership on the global stage.”
The NSCAI document also touches on the area of healthcare, calling for the implementation of a system that seems to be becoming reality thanks to the current coronavirus crisis. In discussing the use of AI in healthcare (almost a year before the current crisis began), it states that “China could lead the world in this sector” and “this could lead to them exporting their tech and setting international norms.” One reason for this is also that China has “far too few doctors for the population” and calls having enough doctors for in-person visits a “legacy system.” It also cited U.S. regulatory measures such as “HIPPA compliance and FDA approval” as obstacles that don’t constrain Chinese authorities.
More troubling, it argues that “the potential impact of government supplied data is even more significant in biology and healthcare,” and says it is likely that “the Chinese government [will] require every single citizen to have their DNA sequenced and stored in government databases, something nearly impossible to imagine in places as privacy conscious as the U.S. and Europe.” It continues by saying that “the Chinese apparatus is well-equipped to take advantage” and calls these civilian DNA databases a “logical next step.”
WHO ARE THE NSCAI?
Given the sweeping changes to the U.S. that the NSCAI promoted in this presentation last May, it becomes important to examine who makes up the commission and to consider their influence over U.S. policy on these matters, particularly during the current crisis. As previously mentioned, the chairman of the NSCAI is Eric Schmidt, the former head of Alphabet (Google’s parent company) who has also invested heavily in Israeli intelligence-linked tech companies including the controversial start-up “incubator” Team8. In addition, the committee’s vice-chair is Robert Work, is not only a former top Pentagon official, but is currently working with the think tank CNAS, which is run by John McCain’s long-time foreign policy adviser and Joe Biden’s former national security adviser.
Other members of the NSCAI are as follows:
Safra Catz, CEO of Oracle, with close ties to Trump’s top donor Sheldon Adelson
Steve Chien, supervisor of the Artificial Intelligence Group at Caltech’s Jet Propulsion Lab
Mignon Clyburn, Open Society Foundation fellow and former FCC commissioner
Chris Darby, CEO of In-Q-Tel (CIA’s venture capital arm)
Ken Ford, CEO of the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition
Jose-Marie Griffiths, president of Dakota State University and former National Science Board member
Eric Horvitz, director of Microsoft Research Labs
Andy Jassy, CEO of Amazon Web Services (CIA contractor)
Gilman Louie, partner at Alsop Louie Partners and former CEO of In-Q-Tel
William Mark, director of SRI International and former Lockheed Martin director
Jason Matheny, director of the Center for Security and Emerging Technology, former Assistant director of National Intelligence and former director of IARPA (Intelligence Advanced Research Project Agency)
Katharina McFarland, consultant at Cypress International and former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition
Andrew Moore, head of Google Cloud AI
As can be seen in the list above, there is a considerable amount of overlap between the NSCAI and the companies currently advising the White House on “re-opening” the economy (Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Lockheed Martin, Oracle) and one NSCAI member, Oracle’s Safra Katz, is on the White House’s “economic revival” taskforce. Also, there is also overlap between the NSCAI and the companies that are intimately involved in the implementation of the “contact tracing” “coronavirus surveillance system,” a mass surveillance system promoted by the Jared Kushner-led, private-sector coronavirus task force. That surveillance system is set to be constructed by companies with deep ties to Google and the U.S. national security state, and both Google and Apple, who create the operating systems for the vast majority of smartphones used in the U.S., have said they will now build that surveillance system directly into their smartphone operating systems.
Also notable is the fact that In-Q-Tel and the U.S. intelligence community has considerable representation on the NSCAI and that they also boast close ties with Google, Palantir and other Silicon Valley giants, having been early investors in those companies. Both Google and Palantir, as well as Amazon (also on the NSCAI) are also major contractors for U.S. intelligence agencies. In-Q-Tel’s involvement on the NSCAI is also significant because they have been heavily promoting mass surveillance of consumer electronic devices for use in pandemics for the past several years. Much of that push has come from In-Q-Tel’s current Executive Vice President Tara O’Toole, who was previously the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and also co-authored several controversial biowarfare/pandemic simulations, such as Dark Winter.
In addition, since at least January, the U.S. intelligence community and the Pentagon have been at the forefront of developing the U.S. government’s still-classified “9/11-style” response plans for the coronavirus crisis, alongside the National Security Council. Few news organizations have noted that these classified response plans, which are set to be triggered if and when the U.S. reaches a certain number of coronavirus cases, has been created largely by elements of the national security state (i.e. the NSC, Pentagon, and intelligence), as opposed to civilian agencies or those focused on public health issues.
Furthermore, it has been reported that the U.S. intelligence community as well as U.S. military intelligence knew by at least January (though recent reports have said as early as last November) that the coronavirus crisis would reach “pandemic proportions” by March. The American public were not warned, but elite members of the business and political classes were apparently informed, given the record numbers of CEO resignations in January and several high-profile insider trading allegations that preceded the current crisis by a matter of weeks.
Perhaps even more disconcerting is the added fact that the U.S. government not only participated in the eerily prescient pandemic simulation last October known as Event 201, it also led a series of pandemic response simulations last year. Crimson Contagion was a series of four simulations that involved 19 U.S. federal agencies, including intelligence and the military, as well as 12 different states and a host of private sector companies that simulated a devastating pandemic influenza outbreak that had originated in China. It was led by the current HHS Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Robert Kadlec, who is a former lobbyist for military and intelligence contractors and a Bush-era homeland security “bioterrorism” advisor.
In addition, both Kadlec and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, which was intimately involved in Event 201, have direct ties to the controversial June 2001 biowarfare exercise “Dark Winter,” which predicted the 2001 anthrax attacks that transpired just months later in disturbing ways. Though efforts by media and government were made to blame the anthrax attacks on a foreign source, the anthrax was later found to have originated at a U.S. bioweapons lab and the FBI investigation into the case has been widely regarded as a cover-up, including by the FBI’s once-lead investigator on that case.
Given the above, it is worth asking if those who share the NSCAI’s vision saw the coronavirus pandemic early on as an opportunity to make the “structural changes” it had deemed essential to countering China’s lead in the mass adoption of AI-driven technologies, especially considering that many of the changes in the May 2019 document are now quickly taking place under the guise of combatting the coronavirus crisis.
THE NSCAI’S VISION TAKES SHAPE
Though the May 2019 NSCAI document was authored nearly a year ago, the coronavirus crisis has resulted in the implementation of many of the changes and the removal of many of the “structural” obstacles that the commission argued needed to be drastically altered in order to ensure a technological advantage over China in the field of AI. The aforementioned move away from cash, which is taking place not just in the U.S. but internationally, is just one example of many.
For instance, earlier this week CNN reported that grocery stores are now considering banning in-person shopping and that the U.S. Department of Labor has recommended that retailers nationwide start “‘using a drive-through window or offering curbside pick-up’ to protect workers for exposure to coronavirus.” In addition, last week, the state of Florida approved an online-purchase plan for low income families using the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Other reports have argued that social distancing inside grocery stores is ineffective and endangering people’s lives. As previously mentioned, the May 2019 NSCAI document argues that moving away from in-person shopping is necessary to mitigate China’s “adoption advantage” and also argued that “when buying online is literally the only way to get what you want, consumers go online.”
Reports have also argued that these changes in shopping will last far beyond coronavirus, such as an article by Business Insider entitled “The coronavirus pandemic is pushing more people online and will forever change how Americans shop for groceries, experts say.” Those cited in the piece argue that this shift away from in-person shopping will be “permanent” and also states that “More people are trying these services than otherwise would have without this catalyst and gives online players a greater chance to acquire and keep a new customer base.” A similar article in Yahoo! News argues that, thanks to the current crisis, “our dependence on online shopping will only rise because no one wants to catch a virus at a shop.”
In addition, the push towards the mass use of self-driving cars has also gotten a boost thanks to coronavirus, with driverless cars now making on-demand deliveries in California. Two companies, one Chinese-owned and the other backed by Japan’s SoftBank, have since been approved to have their self-driving cars used on California roads and that approval was expedited due to the coronavirus crisis. The CPO of Nuro Inc., the SoftBank-backed company, was quoted in Bloomberg as saying that “The Covid-19 pandemic has expedited the public need for contactless delivery services. Our R2 fleet is custom-designed to change the very nature of driving and the movement of goods by allowing people to remain safely at home while their groceries, medicines, and packages are brought to them.” Notably, the May 2019 NSCAI document references the inter-connected web of SoftBank-backed companies, particularly those backed by its largely Saudi-funded “Vision Fund,” as forming “the connective tissue for a global federation of tech companies” set to dominate AI.
California isn’t the only state to start using self-driving cars, as the Mayo Clinic of Florida is now also using them. “Using artificial intelligence enables us to protect staff from exposure to this contagious virus by using cutting-edge autonomous vehicle technology and frees up staff time that can be dedicated to direct treatment and care for patients,” Kent Thielen, M.D., CEO of Mayo Clinic in Florida stated in a recent press release cited by Mic.
Like the changes to in-person shopping in the age of coronavirus, other reports assert that self-driving vehicles are here to stay. One report published by Mashable is entitled “It took a coronavirus outbreak for self-driving cars to become more appealing,” and opens by stating “Suddenly, a future full of self-driving cars isn’t just a sci-fi pipe dream. What used to be considered a scary, uncertain technology for many Americans looks more like an effective tool to protect ourselves from a fast-spreading, infectious disease.” It further argues that this is hardly a “fleeting shift” in driving habits and one tech CEO cited in the piece, Anuja Sonalker of Steer Tech, claims that “There has been a distinct warming up to human-less, contactless technology. Humans are biohazards, machines are not.”
Another focus of the NSCAI presentation, AI medicine, has also seen its star rise in recent weeks. For instance, several reports have touted how AI-driven drug discovery platforms have been able to identify potential treatments for coronavirus. Microsoft, whose research lab director is on the NSCAI, recently put $20 million into its “AI for health” program to speed up the use of AI in analyzing coronavirus data. In addition, “telemedicine”– a form of remote medical care – has also become widely adopted due to the coronavirus crisis.
Several other AI-driven technologies have similarly become more widely adopted thanks to coronavirus, including the use of mass surveillance for “contact tracing” as well as facial recognition technology and biometrics. A recent Wall Street Journal report stated that the government is seriously considering both contact tracing via phone geolocation data and facial recognition technology in order to track those who might have coronavirus. In addition, private businesses – like grocery stores and restaurants – are using sensors and facial recognition to see how many people and which people are entering their stores.
As far as biometrics go, university researchers are now working to determine if “smartphones and biometric wearables already contain the data we need to know if we have become infected with the novel coronavirus.” Those efforts seek to detect coronavirus infections early by analyzing “sleep schedules, oxygen levels, activity levels and heart rate” based on smartphone apps like FitBit and smartwatches. In countries outside the U.S., biometric IDs are being touted as a way to track those who have and lack immunity to coronavirus.
In addition, one report in The Edge argued that the current crisis is changing what types of biometrics should be used, asserting that a shift towards thermal scanning and facial recognition is necessary:
“At this critical juncture of the crisis, any integrated facial recognition and thermal scanning solution must be implemented easily, rapidly and in a cost-effective manner. Workers returning to offices or factories must not have to scramble to learn a new process or fumble with declaration forms. They must feel safe and healthy for them to work productively. They just have to look at the camera and smile. Cameras and thermal scanners, supported by a cloud-based solution and the appropriate software protocols, will do the rest.”
Also benefiting from the coronavirus crisis is the concept of “smart cities,” with Forbes recently writing that “Smart cities can help us combat the coronavirus pandemic.” That article states that “Governments and local authorities are using smart city technology, sensors and data to trace the contacts of people infected with the coronavirus. At the same time, smart cities are also helping in efforts to determine whether social distancing rules are being followed.”
That article in Forbes also contains the following passage:
“…[T]he use of masses of connected sensors makes it clear that the coronavirus pandemic is–intentionally or not–being used as a testbed for new surveillance technologies that may threaten privacy and civil liberties. So aside from being a global health crisis, the coronavirus has effectively become an experiment in how to monitor and control people at scale.”
Another report in The Guardian states that “If one of the government takeaways from coronavirus is that ‘smart cities’ including Songdo or Shenzhen are safer cities from a public health perspective, then we can expect greater efforts to digitally capture and record our behaviour in urban areas – and fiercer debates over the power such surveillance hands to corporations and states.” There have also been reports that assert that typical cities are “woefully unprepared” to face pandemics compared to “smart cities.”
Yet, beyond many of the NSCAI’s specific concerns regarding mass AI adoption being conveniently resolved by the current crisis, there has also been a concerted effort to change the public’s perception of AI in general. As previously mentioned, the NSCAI had pointed out last year that:
“In the press and politics of America and Europe, Al is painted as something to be feared that is eroding privacy and stealing jobs. Conversely, China views it as both a tool for solving major macroeconomic challenges in order to sustain their economic miracle, and an opportunity to take technological leadership on the global stage.”
Now, less than a year later, the coronavirus crisis has helped spawn a slew of headlines in just the last few weeks that paint AI very differently, including “How Artificial Intelligence Can Help Fight Coronavirus,” “How AI May Prevent the Next Coronavirus Outbreak,” “AI Becomes an Ally in the Fight Against COVID-19,” “Coronavirus: AI steps up in battle against COVID-19,” and “Here’s How AI Can Help Africa Fight the Coronavirus,” among numerous others.
It is indeed striking how the coronavirus crisis has seemingly fulfilled the NSCAI’s entire wishlist and removed many of the obstacles to the mass adoption of AI technologies in the United States. Like major crises of the past, the national security state appears to be using the chaos and fear to promote and implement initiatives that would be normally rejected by Americans and, if history is any indicator, these new changes will remain long after the coronavirus crisis fades from the news cycle. It is essential that these so-called “solutions” be recognized for what they are and that we consider what type of world they will end up creating – an authoritarian technocracy. We ignore the rapid advance of these NSCAI-promoted initiatives and the phasing out of so-called “legacy systems” (and with them, many long-cherished freedoms) at our own peril.
Question Everything, Come To Your Own Conclusions.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Fri May 15, 2020 11:24 pm Post subject:
A woman, her discovery and how she changed the world
Emmanuelle Charpentier has given biologists a new tool: "Crispr" allows genes to be changed amazingly precisely and safely. Doctors want to use it to cure AIDS, cancer and hereditary diseases. Will man soon take evolution into his own hands?
By Max Rauner and Martin Spiewak
June 27, 2016 DIE ZEIT No. 27/2016, June 23, 2016 168 comments
Emmanuelle Charpentier: The illustration shows Emmanuelle Charpentier (left), discoverer of gene surgery Crispr. Thanks to her, people who, like Gavriel (right), have an inherited disease may be cured in the future.
The illustration shows Emmanuelle Charpentier (left), discoverer of gene surgery Crispr. Thanks to her, people who, like Gavriel (right), have an inherited disease may be cured in the future.
Eine Frau, ihre Entdeckung und wie sie die Welt verändert
Emmanuelle Charpentier hat Biologen ein neues Werkzeug beschert: Mit "Crispr" lassen sich Gene verblüffend präzise und sicher ändern. Ärzte wollen damit Aids, Krebs und Erbkrankheiten heilen. Nimmt der Mensch die Evolution bald selbst in die Hand?
Von Max Rauner und Martin Spiewak
27. Juni 2016 DIE ZEIT Nr. 27/2016, 23. Juni 2016 168 Kommentare
Emmanuelle Charpentier: Die Illustration zeigt Emmanuelle Charpentier (links), Entdeckerin der Genchirurgie Crispr. Dank ihr könnten Menschen, die wie Gavriel (rechts) eine Erbkrankheit haben, künftig vielleicht geheilt werden.
Die Illustration zeigt Emmanuelle Charpentier (links), Entdeckerin der Genchirurgie Crispr. Dank ihr könnten Menschen, die wie Gavriel (rechts) eine Erbkrankheit haben, künftig vielleicht geheilt werden.
Noted Darwinist Sir David Attenborough Calls Humans “a Plague” | Evolution News
On the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a high-profile Darwinist's comments about humans being "a plague" raises the specter of Social Darwinism, past and present.
Evolution News EVOLUTION NEWS
Of course, David Attenborough is referring to the over populous “poor people ” in third and fourth world countries .
“What are all these famines in Ethiopia? What are they about?…They’re about too many people for too little land. That’s what it’s about. And we are blinding ourselves. We say, get the United Nations to send them bags of flour. That’s barmy.”
“And the last sensitivity – and the most tricky of all – is the fact, when you talk about world population, the areas we’re talking about are Africa and Asia, you know.”
Thomas Malthus | Biography, Theory, Overpopulation, Poverty, & Facts
Thomas Malthus | Biography, Theory, Overpopulation, Poverty, & Facts
Thomas Malthus, English economist and demographer who is best known for his theory that population growth will always tend to outrun the food supply and that betterment of humankind is impossible without stern limits on reproduction. This thinking is commonly referred to as Malthusianism.
Encyclopedia Britannica ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA
Darwinist /Malthusian Attenborough referred to humans as a “plague,” and this includes you and me , not the global elite, which of course includes friend Charles Windsor, Prince of Wales, and his burgeoning, extended family.
Environmental Justice or Eugenics? Prince Charles Says We Must Reduce World Population By Three Quarters
Environmental Justice or Eugenics? Prince Charles Says We Must Reduce World Population By Three Quarters
Prince Charles warns that we will need ‘four planets like earth to survive’ as we just ‘take and take’ and urges companies to focus on the ‘green recovery’ follo…
THE LAND IS OURS
Kitty, who is going to off themselves first? Here we have a delightful vaccine for you; step right up! Come on, people, wake up! People of color should be up in arms. We, leftover white people, are just debt slaves.
The Great Reset - a blueprint for a better world after COVID
The Great Reset - a blueprint for a better world after COVID
The World Economic Forum's Klaus Schwab joins HRH The Prince of Wales to launch the Great Reset, to seek a greener, smarter, fairer world after COVID-19.
World Economic Forum WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM
Charles and his globalist friends are very much aware of their part in the Great Reset.
Light out of darkness, order out of chaos.
This podcast is absolute bs! A virus has nothing to do with climate change! This pandemic was planned to take over the world. They should all be locked up for crimes against humanity. Klaus Schwab (Nazi) is a cracked pot.
Kitty, you and I have dove down the rabbit hole to warn civilization this coming. My faith holding out that Donald J Trump was going to save us all, but the Great Reset was stronger and flipped the vote.
Now we are seeing aggressive ideology being put into place so fast we don’t even know if they are constitutional or not.
We don’t even know why people follow thee royals anymore with this kind of lunacy being thrown at us. They don’t love you. Stop thinking they need admiration when they are behind the plan to off you.
FROM THE EARLIEST RECORDS THAT HUMANITY HAS LEFT IN WRITING WE SEE A CONCERN ABOUT OVERPOPULATION AND THE FEAR OF RESOURCES, SO COSTLY TO PRODUCE OR OBTAIN, NOT REACHING EVERYONE. BUT IS IT REALLY THE INCREASING OF THE NUMBER OF INHABITANTS WHAT THREATENS US? PERHAPS THERE IS MORE THREAT IN NOT KNOWING HOW TO PREPARE FOR THE FUTURE THAN IN THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WITH WHOM WE MUST COEXIST.
Hieronymus Bosch’s The Garden Of Earthly Delights shows a devine punishment awaiting for the population, as seen in many myths in many cultures.
The Sumerian civilization is the oldest of which we have records, thanks to its famous clay tables full of detailed cuneiform script. Not only did they transmit information about their organization, their beliefs and daily life, but they also captured an exquisite narrative work in a set of poems. One of these narratives is the Epic of Ziusudra (the Akkadian Atrahasis and the Babylonian Utnapishtim) that narrates from the origin of the cosmos to the creation of humanity.
These texts tell how humans would have been designed and created after the Igigi, minor gods, got tired of working for the 7 sanctioning gods and started a revolt. 7 men and 7 women were created and began to work for the Igigi. One of these early humans was known as Ziusudra.
The men and women multiplied and after 1200 years the noises of humans began to annoy Enlil, one of the sanctioning gods, who ordered that plagues spread over humanity, decimating the population. After another 1200 years, Enlil sends droughts to reduce the amount of humans. After another 1200 years, Enlil already tired, sends a universal deluge to end humanity. Enki, another of the sanctioning gods, manages to suggest Ziusudra, who enjoyed the longevity of the gods, to build a boat and save as much life as possible.
As a product of the Judeo-Christian tradition, we know this story as that of Noah and the ark, but the Sumerian tradition, which precedes it, gives us a context related to the control of the population.
The text in the Sumerian tablets ends with an agreement between Enki and Nintu, the goddess of the matrix, to avoid the cycles of destruction of Enlil, causing one in three women not to give birth satisfactorily, thus generating a method to control the birth rate.
Regardless of the reasons that inspired the Sumerians to write the Epic of Ziusudra, we can see the concern that humanity has always had on the growth of its population.
Aristotle himself advocated the use of abortion and infanticide to avoid “poverty among the citizens” of Greece.
Towards the end of the eighteenth century, Thomas Robert Malthus postulated something that hitherto resounds in those who see a latent threat in population growth, when he wrote that “when population is not controlled, it grows in geometric reason. Food supplies will always grow arithmetically.”
A few decades ago a monument was erected in the United States that became known as the Georgia Guidestones. The huge monument was financed by an anonymous group and has an inscription in 8 languages with a decalogue “guide” to enter the “age of reason.” The first commandment says “Keep humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”
At the time of the Sumerians there were about 30 million humans in the world and there was already concern about overpopulation. More than 3,600 years later and with a world inhabited by 4 billion people, the United States would come to define, in 1974, a strategy to include control of the world population in its internal and external policies, through an ultra-secret document that would come to be known as the “Kissinger Report,” in reference to Henry Kissinger, author of the book “World Order” and the main promoter of world population control.
In this document declassified in 1990 (called NSSM-200 after National Security Study Memorandum 200), the United States details the “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests” and was jointly prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Departments of State, Defense and Agriculture. There is a strong correlation of facts leading to the belief that its main precepts remain in force as the basis of US population control efforts until the present day. In fact, the official USAID website maintains the original text available for consultation.
But are there real reasons to control the birth rate and the human population? How is it possible that the promoters to control the population come announcing the chaos since humanity counted only tens of millions?
The motifs are easy to express. Since the natural and mineral resources we use for our subsistence are limited, it is reasonable to show concern about the shortage that can occur if demand exceeds capacity. It is what T. R. Malthus tried to illustrate with his phrase about population increasing at a faster rate than resources.
Except that Malthus has been proven wrong.
Malthus published his famous book “An Essay on the Principle of Population” in the year 1798 when the number of people in the world was about to reach 1 billion. Only 123 years later humans would double that figure and in just 47 years more they would double it again to reach 4 billion. With this enormous growth in less than two centuries, supplies not only grew at par, but even faster than the population. Food consumption, at around 2,200 kilo-calories per capita in the England of Malthus, rose to almost 3,200 kilo-calories per capita in 1950. While world energy consumption went from 20 Gigajoules per capita in 1820 to twice as much in 1950.
Malthus also argued that any abundance of resources led to an increase in population that prevented the use of excesses to improve the quality of life. But this is also questionable if we consider quality attributes ranging from life expectancy to literacy, and also urbanization and access to consumer goods and technologies.
Malthus left two variables out of his analysis: first, the technological advance. For example, when a limited resource such as arable land is transformed into a much more efficient good, as it is today, generating undoubtedly greater benefits per hectare than in any previous period. Second, the incidence of leaders capable of moving forward the scientific and social knowledge. For example, considering the Intellectual Coefficient (IC), the Mensa group proposes that 2% of the population fit with its description of “brilliant mind” or genius. Of course, within this group only a percentage has other elements such as constancy, training, dedication and vocation to carry out transformations of global reach. Plus, outside of this 2% there are also leaders who help humanity to achieve important advances. But even so, to more human beings, more leaders capable of radical changes in scientific and technological progress.
Someone may rightly ask why if we have 4 times the human population of 1905, the year that Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity, we do not have 4 “Einsteins” doing the same thing. But the truth is that it is not that there are no more geniuses leading the scientific advance, but a lack of personalism like the ones of Galileo, Newton, Edison, Tesla, Einstein, Schrödinger and Bohr. A science whiz has no longer the figuration of yesteryear and the advance is more impersonal, being attributed, for example, to CERN or to different corporations that recruit the talents. But that is the subject of another analysis.
Henry Kissinger, author of ‘World Order,’ main promoter of US policy of world population control.
WHAT’S YOURS IS MINE
So, if humanity has proved that it has a mechanism of sustainability that matches the population increase with an advance in knowledge which makes progress and survival possible, what do those who advocate for birth control really support?
At this point we can return to the Kissinger Report from the United States.
The main purpose of population control efforts set forth in the NSSM-200 document is to maintain US access to the natural resources of less developed countries. A controlled number of inhabitants in these countries would be in line with maintaining the supply and economic and social stability within such nations, 13 of them named directly in the document:
“Assistance for population moderation should give primary emphasis to the largest and fastest growing developing countries where there is special U.S. political and strategic interest. Those countries are: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Columbia [sic]. At the same time, the U.S. will look to the multilateral agencies, especially the U.N. Fund for Population Activities which already has projects in over 80 countries to increase population assistance on a broader basis with increased U.S. contributions. This is desirable in terms of U.S. interests and necessary in political terms in the United Nations.”
While the definitions of the Kissinger Report date back to the 1970s, all we need to do is look for information on pro-control campaigns and we can find an ominous chronology.
Between 1995 and 1997, nearly 500,000 women were forcibly sterilized in Peru under the then president Alberto Fujimori. Many of these women were extorted with the losing of social benefits if they did not agree to enter the government’s “program.” In recent years, there have been reports of similar events in Bolivia.
The United Nations Population Fund, which the United States continues to fund, has allocated many of the resources it collects to the Government of the People’s Republic of China’s birth control campaign, protecting and concealing major human rights violations, mainly on women and girls.
Likewise, in 2014 the forced sterilization program promoted by the Indian government was exposed when dozens of women died in the “sterilization camps” to which they were lured in exchange for social benefits in a program funded by, among others, The United Nations Population Fund, the governments of Germany, Norway, United Kingdom and various US organizations, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
These practices, which we can find to date, are proposed in detail in the Kissinger Report and can be summarized in three main points:
Promote the legalization of abortion and financial incentives for countries that increase their rates of abortion, sterilization and use of contraceptive methods.
Facilitate the indoctrination of children and increase the labor participation of women.
Exercise coercion in developing countries to implement birth control programs (for example, conditioning humanitarian aid in cases of natural disasters).
Of course, these points may not be questionable in themselves, such as the greater participation of women in working scenario, but the context of these points might be. NSSM-200 makes clear that the United States actively promotes birth control and population control to secure the supply chain of natural resources from developing countries. It states that countries that control their population have less risk of agitation and less ‘need’ of such resources to meet domestic demand, conditions that favor US and other Western powers.
This is perhaps the real reason behind birth control policies and demographic engineering promoted by certain sectors.
It does not mean that if a country, such as China or India, should control its population to ensure sustainable growth can not resort to regulations, but it can not be accepted that in addition to regulations in line with human rights, governments undertake a parallel agenda of exploitation, forced sterilization and blackmail with the people themselves.
Every practice in line with the control of population – though commonly accepted – should be a matter of a debate about how we want humanity to progress.
BY REASON OR BY FORCE
The anti-population growth campaign has created an unexpected problem.
A number of developed countries are dangerously raising the average age of their population by a declining birth rate per woman. What is more eloquent is that population control policies can make the average birth rate per woman drop incredibly fast.
Iran, China, Korea, Bangladesh, Tunisia, Morocco, Botswana, Colombia, Brazil, Costa Rica and Turkey, all reduced the average of more than 6 children per woman to less than 3 children per woman in just one generation.
It should be noted that population control policies include direct actions, which we might call ‘by force’, in which governments establish policies and programs to control birth rates. But, in addition, there are indirect actions, which we could say are ‘by reason’, where the population itself performs birth control for economic, cultural and social issues, in order to access a better quality of life. Both actions lead to a decrease in birth rates and, as a consequence, an increase in the average age in general.
The aging of the population entails not a few problems of public policies. To begin with, life expectancy is now approaching to 90 years-old in Asian developed countries and the rest of the world is closing the gap in leaps and bounds. This increases the proportion of inactive and retired people, increasing, in turn, the burden of pension systems, which depends on a smaller group of active workers. On the other hand, the elderly population is the one with the highest incidence of chronic and expensive diseases, which increases the costs of medical benefits and insurance, but there is also a shortage of caregivers, both paid and unpaid, available to assist an older population.
A 2015 study, co-authored by the Harvard School of Public Health, WHO, Rand Corporation and various UK institutions, explores the additional burden of aging populations by establishing that the pension, health and labor systems are not prepared for the unprecedented change towards an older population. Over the past 60 years, the proportion of older adults has only risen from 8% to 10%, but this age bracket is expected to reach a staggering 22% over the next four decades.
China, the world’s most populous country, found itself forced to relax its policy of one child per couple in 2015 by changing it to two children per couple to reverse the loss of 5 million working people each year. The introduction of the policy of one child per couple in 1979 to ensure economic growth turned out to have the opposite effect 30 years later and the relaxation of the law will not prevent China from continuing to lose its labor force for decades.
But beyond the explicit prohibitions of governments, the development of nations is accompanied by a drop in birth rates. The modern rhythm of life implies that to maintain a house and a family, both parents must work and the cost per child increases almost at the same speed in which the leisure time is lost. In addition, women postpone maternity to consolidate their professional career and stable relationships start later and come less frequently.
Result? In the United States, adults are having less sex than ever before, going from 62 times a year to less than 53 times per year. In addition to this, several studies indicate that the Millennial generation (born since 1980) is the one that shows less interest in sex, when compared to previous generations.
The matter takes an absurd and delicate shape in Japan. Disinterest in sex is dramatically manifested in the fact that half of young people between the ages of 18 and 34 declare themselves to be virgins and 64% of the population is not in a relationship. This led the country to lose 300,000 inhabitants in 2016 and is expected to lose 900,000 inhabitants per year by 2045. Authorities are devising policies to avoid a catastrophe, one of which is to relax the complex immigration requirements that the land of the setting sun has in place.
Such trends have slowed the growth of the world’s population.
Thanks to the birth rate close to 2% in the late 60s and 70s, the pinnacle of growth was reached in our times, adding one billion people every 12 years. However, it is expected that the 9 billion mark will be reached 14 years after the 8 billion mark, whereas the 10 billion mark will be reached 18 years after the 9 billion mark.
Granted, what happens in Japan is an extreme case, but the trend is clear worldwide. Nations must prepare for a scenario where overpopulation is not the big problem, but the age distribution of our population.
DO NOT SAY OVERPOPULATION, SAY OVERCONSUMPTION
Although this report shows that overpopulation has yet to be materialized globally (another thing is in specific regions, such as some cities in India), it is true that in the last century humanity has been on the verge of its own collapse, but not so much by the population growth as by the misuse of natural resources.
Overexploitation, the poor distribution of resources, the hoarding of the wealthiest countries, and pollution, are all matters that prevent resources to grow in line with the number of inhabitants of the world and in the last 50 years all these variables have appear in the formula.
As reported by the Global Footprint Network in 2017, the world’s current population consumes 1.6 times the amount of renewable resources available. To illustrate, in the year 2000 humans had consumed the resources of a full year in early October, while by 2017 we had exhausted the resources of a whole year as early as August 2.
Another way of looking at the magnitude of the scarcity and maldistribution of resources is to realize that if the 7.5 billion people of the world could have access to a European standard of living, resources would only reach 2 billion people.
If the level of consumption were that of the US, the resources would only reach one billion people.
We will never know what kind of world we would have in these moments if it were not for the policies of the great powers, the UN and the third world governments that complied with them, but history has shown that humanity has a mechanism of self-sustainability inherent in its growth.
Unfortunately, what is not sustainable is the excessive hunger for an inequitably consumption of resources.
It is necessary to appeal to the former. The way in which technologies and renewable energies are being used in an increasingly efficient and less costly manner for the population can result in greater democratization of access to energy. In the same way that various innovations in the food industry aim to draw an auspicious picture for the world.
An example of this can be seen in Chile, a developing country known for being a good barometer for the commercial success of new products and technologies. The Latin American country is a leader in renewable energy investments in 2017 according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), with an astonishing 15% of the national energy consumption obtained from solar and wind energy, thanks to well-defined public policies. The goal of the country is to reach 70% of energy consumption coming from renewable sources by 2050.
That is what will make humanity sustainable, making use of people’s creative and social capacities to, in turn, make a fair and efficient use of resources.
Targeting darts at reducing the number of inhabitants is a suicidal practice for the ability to produce and create, the same ability that is humanity’ secret to self-sustainability and growth.
We are seeing billions of people injecting unknown substances into their bodies while celebrating that “they got it”! What does this really mean? Have these people suddenly escaped mortal danger (CCP virus) by virtue of the Big Med industry or is there a hidden purpose behind the injections and behind it all – including the vaccines – is the CCP standing?
There is a book by Bilderberger member Jacques Attali from 1981 foretelling the whole current epidemic, “the cure” and the depopulation by “the cure”:
“The future will be about finding a way to reduce the population…Of course, we will not be able to execute people or build camps. We get rid of them by making them believe it is for their own good…We will find or cause something, a pandemic targeting certain people, a real economic crisis or not, a virus affecting the old or the elderly, it doesn’t matter, the weak and the fearful will succumb to it. The stupid will believe in it and ask to be treated. We will have taken care of having panned the treatment, a treatment that will be the solution. The selection of idiots will therefore be done by itself: they will go to the slaughterhouse alone.”
Is what he said true ot not? Let´s take a look at the current global vaccination program going on with some of the unique aspects of this program:
It´s the first EVER global vaccination campaign taking place after an epidemic that killed millions but still wasn´t very deadly compared to many other pandemics such as the Spanish flu. There never was a concerted effort from all the world´s governments all over the world to vaccinate all their populations asap simultaneously. This is a unique event.
There were no good longterm tests for these vaccines. Even the short term tests had lots of adverse effects but they pushed forward with their global media (MSM) supporting the vaccine producers all the way. Since the CCP spread the virus, don´t we think they would like to spread “the cure” too?
The timeframe is extremely short for pushing through billions of vaccines and many people haven´t been able to digest all these events yet. They are in panic mode caused by the MSM and they will do anything their government will tell them to do. Basically the government is their God and the MSM is the messengers of the governments.
This is a mass psychosis of epic proportions and a complete rejection of all orthodox religions which state that you should keep your body healthy by hard work and by being a good person. Good food and exercise and meditation won´t harm you either. Not a single media has suggested that people try to improve their own immune system by working on themselves.
Conclusion
The global vaccine campaign looks like a depopulation program for sure. Whether people will die off and/or become sterile we don´t know exactly. And who will be the scapegoat? Probably the unvaccinated people. The Big Med companies will be protected by the MSM for sure.
What if in the end the story will be something like: “well we did our best but we couldn´t beat this virus”
All prophecies will be fulfilled in this way. Plague after plague will be set off according to the Bible but the plagues will be set off by the people themselves not wanting to do the right things and not being able to discern right from wrong and good from evil. We can only hope that as many as possible can get out of their predicament. The end of times is here but people still don´t believe it. Wait and see.
Materialist.jpg
Description:
Filesize:
239.48 KB
Viewed:
225 Time(s)
_________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
