Recently, a long-time population control advocate was invited to speak at a Vatican event, angering many Catholics who are pro-life. Meet Paul Ehrlich: he spoke with the Population Council at a Vatican event titled the “Workshop on Biological Extinction.”
According to LSN:
“The Vatican has invited the infamous Population Council to a conference in February.
Along with “overpopulation catastrophe prophet” Paul R. Ehrlich, the Population Council will be represented at the “Biological Extinction” workshop from February 27 through March 1. The event is organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences.
Professor John Bongaarts, vice president of the Population Council, is listed in the conference pamphlet as giving a speech titled “Population: Current State and Future Prospects.”
The Population Council unabashedly promotes a global reduction in births and for a wide distribution of artificial contraceptives.”
Paul Ehrlich is a prime example of a population control advocate in academia: a modern day eugenicist.
Today he is a professor at Stanford, after spending decades making predictions about uncontrolled population growth that never came true. His extreme predictions and advocacy for forced abortion and sterilization was said to have influenced law from the US to China.
Ehrlich is Professor of Population Studies of the Department of Biology at Stanford University, and president of Stanford’s Center for Conservation Biology.
Like Professor Malcolm Potts at Berkeley, he has been involved with Malthusian fear mongering about overpopulation while advocating for coercive population control for over half a century.
According to Wikipedia: “Ehrlich became well known for his controversial 1968 book The Population Bomb, which asserted that the world’s human population would soon increase to the point where mass starvation ensued. Among the solutions he suggested in that book was population control, to be used in his opinion if voluntary methods were to fail.”
Today he continues pushing the same fear, now calling it the “Population Bomb.”
Despite his predictions failing, he is constantly being awarded. Speaking at an event like this isn’t abnormal for him.
He was awarded Fellow of the Royal Society, membership to a several century old “science” society created by the British Monarchy. It’s an award that has historically been endowed upon other advocates of population control, such as Charles Darwin, whose cousin Francis Galton of course created the term “eugenics.”
This is just one expression of support for population control put forth by the British power structure out of many. The Royal Society is a window into the world of hegemony-supporting-science. According to Wikipedia, the Fellow of the Royal Society award is:
“Fellowship of the Royal Society is an award and fellowship granted by the Royal Society of London to individuals the society judges to have made a “substantial contribution to the improvement of natural knowledge, including mathematics, engineering science and medical science”.
Isaac Newton was one of the earliest Fellows of the Royal Society, elected in 1672 Fellowship of the Society, the oldest scientific academy in continuous existence, is a significant honour which has been awarded to many eminent scientists from history including Isaac Newton (1672), Charles Darwin (1839), Michael Faraday (1824), Ernest Rutherford (1903), Srinivasa Ramanujan (1919), Albert Einstein (1921), Winston Churchill (1941).”
This goes to show how American Ivy League institutions, the British Monarchy, and the Vatican are all kind of on the same page about population control.
They have all historically been tied to controlling populations, to power: and subduing, stealing the freedom of, and even killing the poor are historically a compulsion of power. A compulsion toward attempting “population control” is almost an eventuality under any power structure or regime. It’s the way power behaves.
Despite the Catholic Church’s past disapproval of abortion, the only thing holding them back from supporting population control of whatever kind is the stance their followers have been used to for years. Catholics are used to being pro-life.
In the 1920’s, another eugenics espousing professor could be found at Berkeley (and that’s just one particularly obscene example out of many population control advocates to come from Berkeley). His name was Samuel Jackson Holmes.
A far more influential California eugenicist was involved with the creation of Paul Ehrlich’s school itself: David Starr Jordan, first president of Stanford University.
David Starr Jordan was one of the most influential advocates for forced sterilization and eugenics in the 20th Century, and he was the very person who created the template of a “major” or a “minor” to study in college. He strongly influenced the coercive sterilization of over 60,000 people in California, mostly poor women.
William Lowe Brian was the co-founder of the “major/minor” studying template with Jordan, and Brian was one of the original organizers of the American Psychological Association, who is now known to be involved with CIA torture and big pharma.
While Paul follows in David Starr Jordan’s population control advocating footsteps at Stanford, Palo Alto, CA residents are trying to change the name of schools named after Jordan because of his involvement with coercive sterilization. Schools are named after David Starr Jordan from Northern California to Los Angeles.
According to Stanford themselves:
“Lars Johnsson, who has three children attending schools in the district, has been a particularly outspoken advocate of renaming and has started an online petition on Change.org that has garnered over 400 supporters.
“David Starr Jordan and Lewis Madison Terman do not represent the values of 21st-century Palo Alto and the mission of its Unified School District,” Johnsson wrote in the petition.”
Unfortunately, Stanford seems to indeed represent the same values they did when David Starr Jordan was their first president.
This is a hidden, critical to understand piece of what we call “the system”: the Ivy League institutions, those prestigious colleges we were taught to love that birth the individuals who become part of the power structure.
These are the social engineers who decide how the herd of humanity will be influenced, and they want to control how we procreate and how much freedom we are allowed to have.
Ten years after writing The Population Bomb, Paul co-authored a book with John Holdren, the man who would become President Obama’s Science Czar: the 1977 book Ecoscience.
Videos like this were made in response to John Holdren’s appointment.
Quotes from the book were well chosen by the website Zombie Time. As they summarized, the book suggests that in the future:
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise
• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized
• A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force
This is exactly what the book says.
Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal “if a population crisis became severe”
“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions
“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”
Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn’t harm livestock
“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”
Page 786-7: The government could control women’s reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control
“Involuntary fertility control … 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.”
Page 838: The kind of people who cause “social deterioration” can be compelled to not have children
“If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.”
Page 838: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size
“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”
So what does all of this mean?
If you’ve ever had the intuition that our class of people is being farmed, that we are enslaved, or that we are being manipulated and molded into a certain form on a daily basis through education, media, chemicals in our food and water, psychiatric drugs, and more, this is the type of info that confirms it.
This is a layer of exactly who created the fabric of our society, who constructed the iron bars in our collective cage, and this article is work to identify exactly who is influencing the erosion of our freedom.
Maybe no high level person is concerned with Paul’s incorrect predictions because they all understood “uncontrollable population growth” isn’t a real danger with the factor of human ingenuity: that it was just a lie to justify reducing the population.
Maybe they understand their class of people ruling over us is the scourge on the Earth, and that specific corporations and people damage the environment, not the bottom class forced to dwell in the world created by the wealthy.
Average poor people do not form corporations for fracking. They do not pollute Ecuador with oil, or spill oil in the Gulf of Mexico: specific entities and people are responsible for this, and they are not even in our class of people.
Perhaps being outnumbered by a giant class of people with the potential to usurp them of their power has always been the driving force behind eugenicists.
This dynamic of slavery between the wealthy class and our “bottom class” is nothing new. However, we can identify the exact individuals and institutions responsible for eroding our freedom and creating a paradigm where the state controls every aspect of our lives. We can identify who influenced human slavery in the past, from the academic institutions to government to the police enforcing laws, and we can identify exactly who is steering us in this direction now.
Paul Ehrlich, Malcolm Potts, John Holdren and other renowned people want our right to bear children stripped from us. They aren’t hiding: they just think we are too docile and stupid to find out who they are.
While you’re here…
…We have a tiny favor to ask of you. Government think tanks have teamed up with social media companies and Google to censor independent media websites and government criticism. Despite this big tech crackdown on the free press, we have been very fortunate, and tens of thousands of people continue to read The Mind Unleashed every single day. But we need your ongoing support to keep working as we do.. And because we value open and accessible information for all, we would never hide our content behind a paywall. Unlike Fox News or CNN, our editorial independence means we set our own agenda and voice our own opinions. We are not subject to the whims of billionaire shareholders. We are editorially independent, and that makes websites like this an important part in the war for truth and justice. Hopefully we’re wrong, but without your help, we're afraid big tech companies may soon make The Mind Unleashed algorithmically disappear from the Internet. We need your support to keep delivering quality independent news. Every contribution, big or small, will go directly into funding independent journalism. Thank you. Click here to support us