Global Warming Extremism Will Inevitably Lead To Population Control

0
Share

The global warming argument is intricately tied to population growth. When people stoke fear over climate change, what they are really saying is there are too many people emitting too many pollutants. At the same time, the government, which has fully bought into global warming, is gaining seemingly limitless power over peoples’ lives.

The government through the NSA has collected data on every one of us and there are no restrictions on what they collect or how they use the information.

The U.S. government has funded programs that actually manipulate peoples’ emotions on the Internet as we saw with the recent Facebook controversy. They have illegally spied on reporters and their innocent family members.

People, not just in the government, are using the Internet to change hearts and minds, collect everyone’s personal data, and alter history and reality.

The lines are blurred between individual rights and government intrusion on the Internet.

That untempered power will one day come back to haunt us if not arrested. At least one NSA whistleblower believes it will be used to control the population.

There is an ongoing worldwide campaign being waged to control population growth to guarantee a “sustainable future”. More-and-more, we hear buzzwords like water security and food security,  phrases used to promote U.N. goals and convince us the need is immediate, urgent and real.

One such goal is the demand by the UN that the world address the consumption of fossil fuels and natural resources through dramatic changes to laws and technology, even if the technology is not ready for market and if the only ones who will do it are the West.  Another goal is to control the population.

Both are well underway in the United States.

Environmentalists and proponents of population control refrain from using the word “control” in relation to population because they know how it will be perceived. They are thinking of it nonetheless and they see the greatest threat as the growing size of families.

family

The greatest threat to sustainability is the growth of population – the family.

Scientific American’s 2009 article titled, Population and Sustainability: Can We Avoid Limiting the Number of People?, concluded that population control can be effective and the long-term effects of “population growth to every environmental problem are not to be dismissed.”

The authors of the article, which represents much of the thinking among the elite both then and today, want us to grapple with topics of sex, contraception, abortion, immigration and family sizes as a way of controlling the population.

The elite often like to say it is their concern about women’s health that drives them, though it’s never been about women’s health, it’s about controlling the population by keeping women from having babies – as long as they agree, at least for now.

Sen. Blumenthal recently put a bill forward for “women’s health” called the Women’s Health Protection Act. It allows unlimited and unfettered abortions and forbids states to pass any abortion-limiting laws. We would have to let Kermit Gosnell out of prison if this bill were to become law.

The demand for free birth control and the parading around of Sandra Fluke are more about population control than women’s health, as is abortion.

Mr. Obama is a believer and, as a state senator, he would not sign a bill to protect born-alive infants.

Mr. Obama sees himself as a social engineer over every aspect of our society. This can be clearly seen in his policies such as neighborhood mapping and the redistribution of resources he will enforce as a result. His extreme sustainability policies are nothing more than arrogant displays of his belief that he can control nature.

The U.S. is well on its way to controlling the population or at least attempting to do so. What they can’t control, they want to herd into the new urban hubs popping up everywhere throughout the country.

The U.N. wants half the earth preserved for the plants and animals, a notion shared by many environmentalists in this country. As one example, open land is being routinely stolen from its owners in the U.S., taken off the tax rolls, and used as open spaces.

What the screechers sending out the alarms have forgotten is that man is inherently ingenious at reshaping their lives and their futures, not by being controlled, but by being free to exercise their rights and fully utilize their talents.

Instead of recognizing the power of the individual, human engineers attempt to treat people like data in a computer program. We see that taking place in education today with the robotic common core curricula.

The alarmists follow the science of human sustenance, a social science, which is a science only of conjecture, not based on facts. If we trust in them, then China’s cruel policies become necessary to survival. It’s a dark road to follow.

The totalitarians are attempting to control the population peacefully – for now – because they believe we are on a destructive path thanks to an ever-growing world population.

The U.S., while not sporting as large a population as some, is a major target because we, as a well-developed and rich nation, proportionally use more of the resources in the world than most.

There is also no small amount of envy and jealousy by those who have not developed as well as the U.S., missing the point that it is our freedom that has allowed us to develop resources, many that have helped the world.

In the U.K., an all-party parliamentary panel issued a report called Return of the Population Growth Factor and called for stronger efforts to slow that growth. The concern in the U.K. is about people in their own country as well as in developing countries.

In early 2009 Jonathon Porritt, chair of the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, called parents of more than two children “irresponsible” and blasted mainstream environmental groups for “betraying” their members by fearing to call for small families. “It is the ghost at the table,” Porritt said of population in an interview with the Daily Telegraph. Blog comments on his remarks, most of them – frighteningly – supportive, soared into the thousands.

Global warming is blamed on population growth of course.

In Australia some have called for the elimination of “baby bonuses” in the tax code.

Isn’t that how China started, just before they initiated their one-child policy? Once the soft tyranny doesn’t work, they always go to unfettered tyranny.

Scientific American asked this in their article: “Should we restructure tax rates to favor small families? Propagandize the benefits of small families for the planet? Reward family-planning workers for clients they have sterilized? Each of those steps alone or in combination might help bend birthrates downward for a time, but none has proved to affect demographic trends over the long term or, critically, to gain and keep public support.”

The article lauds the strategy that 179 nations signed onto at a U.N. conference in Cairo in 1994, which was: “forget population control and instead help every woman bear a child in good health when she wants one”.

If that doesn’t work, what then? We know from history that it leads to more intrusive control by government.

Planned Parenthood is promoting control through manipulation and a complete disregard for ethics. If that doesn’t work, what means will be used next?

William Binney might have the answer.

William Binney is the renowned NSA whistleblower who left the NSA after 9/11, having served as a code breaker against the Soviet Union.

Speaking at a Conference in London organized by the Center for Investigative Journalism on July 5, he warned that at least 80 percent of all audio calls are gathered and stored by the NSA. Even with that, none of it has captured one terrorist.

What’s more interesting is that he says the spy agency’s ultimate aim is total population control.

The NSA will soon be able to collect 966 exabytes a year, the total of internet traffic annually. Former Google head Eric Schmidt once argued that the entire amount of knowledge from the beginning of humankind until 2003 amount to only five exabytes.

Binney describes a world in our near-future that closely matches Ingsoc of 1984. Orwell just had the date wrong. Binney sees a future of ongoing surveillance and the consequent government intrusion.

Binney recently told the German NSA inquiry committee that his former employer had a “totalitarian mentality” that was the “greatest threat” to US society since that country’s U.S. Civil War in the 19th century, according to a report in the guardian.

We do have to be careful when complaining about the NSA because many who want them limited are our enemies. We need balance.

For example, Investors pointedly stated in an article yesterday that “Ed Snowden and his journalist sidekick Glenn Greenwald have an agenda beyond exposing spying abuses. They’re really aiding and abetting the Islamist enemy.”

“By releasing the names of several Muslim terrorist targets under surveillance by the NSA and FBI in a new expose — “Under Surveillance: Meet the Muslim-American Leaders the FBI and NSA Have Been Spying On” — Snowden and his mouthpiece Greenwald have tipped off the enemy and jeopardized major counter terror investigations,” the article continues.

Greenwald portrays the targets of the NSA spying as innocent when the facts couldn’t be much further from the truth.

The terrorist-sympathizing Greenwalds of the world would have us keep no secrets.

Yet, there is a danger if an organization operates in total secrecy with no real restrictions and a possible premise that the population is too large.

Could Binney be right? If he is, the potential for abusive control over citizens is without end in the hands of the unprincipled. It will take us into unchartered territories and it does put our very lives in the hands of the few.

 

Share