In February of 2009, Forbes magazine published the article, “John Holdren, Ideological Environmentalist: a most dogmatic member of Obama’s Dream Team.” The article goes on to outline what, in recent days, has lit ablaze the online press: John Holdren, Obama’s “Science Czar”, is a major proponent of hard-line eugenics policies. Forbes’ labels Holdren a “fierce environmentalist.”1
According to Forbes, Holdren’s environmentalism has been celebrated over the years. He has been the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard’s Research Center and a past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Holdren partook as a member of The Limits to Growth club. In his 1971 Sierra Club book, Energy: A Crisis in Power, Holdren writes “it is fair to conclude that under almost any assumptions, the supplies of crude petroleum and natural gas are severely limited. The bulk of energy likely to flow from these sources may have been tapped within the lifetime of many of the present population.” The science supporting notions of peak oil, regardless of Holdren’s confidence, has been seriously scrutinized, giving credence to Forbes claim that Holdren holds serious dogmas.
In keeping with his dogmatic (my italicization) limits-to-growth convictions, Holdren joined his frequent co-author, eco-doomster Paul Ehrlich, in a famous bet against cornucopian economist Julian Simon.
In 1980, Holdren, Ehrlich and Stanford colleague John Harte picked a basket of five commodities–chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten–that they were sure were going to rise in price as they became increasingly scarce. They drew up a futures contract obligating Simon to sell Holdren, Ehrlich and Harte the same quantities of five metals that could be purchased for $1,000 10 years later at 1980 prices.
If the combined prices rose above $1,000, Simon would pay the difference. If they fell below $1,000, Ehrlich would pay Simon. Ehrlich mailed Simon a check for $576.07 in October 1990. Simply put, the combined real prices of the metals selected by Holdren and his colleagues fell by more than 50% during the 1980s, confirming cornucopian claims that the supply of resources over time becomes more abundant, not scarcer.
Holdren also held the view that, by 2040, the US population would reach 270 million, and that that would pose a “severe” problem. Today, in 2009, the population of the U.S. is about 304 million. In a 1975 The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists article, Holdren slightly tinkered with his previous conceptions of limits to energy, writing that “civilization is not running out of energy; but it is running out of cheap energy.”
In his 1977 book Ecoscience, Holdren, Paul Ehrlich (head of science under Bush), and Anne Ehrlich write on page 837 that “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. Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however.”
Holdren also proposes “a comprehensive Planetary Regime (that) could control the development, administration and distribution of all natural resources…not only in the atmosphere and the oceans, but in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes.”
He states further, the “Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits…The Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”
Some syndicated columnists argue the claims made by concerned citizens are moot points, for the tome Ecoscience was written more than thirty years ago. Maybe so, until one learns that some of the suggestions are already utilized by the U.S. government, as over 250 different pharmaceutical chemicals have been found in the drinking supply of the unsuspecting U.S. population. Many of these chemicals are attributed to hyper feminization in women and demasculinization in men. In one example, Holdren states his belief that under the current U.S. Constitution, adding sterilants to the nation’s water supply was probably a good thing:
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.
Eugenics, an outcome of the study of human heredity, aims to “improve” the genetic makeup of the human stock. While the idea of eugenics appears in Plato’s Republic, the modern concept became prominent during the second half of the 19th century. Two widespread philosophical beliefs formed the bedrock of eugenics: a belief in the perfectibility of the human species and a spreading faith in science as the most accurate tool of knowledge.
Social Darwinism was one 19th century predecessor to the 20th century eugenics movement. Two predominant themes of social Darwinism—“struggle for existence” and “survival of the fittest”—as applied to human sociality, were premised upon the notion that the rich were more biologically fit than were the poor and, for that reason, more successful in life. More nuanced theories of evolution, naturally, render the assumption that competition is the bedrock mechanism of evolution obsolete, thereby making room for the notion that cooperation is in the driver’s seat. Could some form of competitive cooperation oil the gears of evolution? A healthy competition?
By separating the “better” and “worse” elements, according to social Darwinism, the species could continually be improved. Modern eugenics breaks from that pool of thought in noteworthy ways. The latter featured a laissez-faire approach to the philosophy, maintaining that nature would take such a course; that the worst elements of society would over time be eliminated. Such concepts, many argue, form the foundation of the Nazi program.
Modern eugenics, however, has as its basis the notion that careful planning by way of proper breeding is the best means to improving society; this is the ideology adopted by the Nazi Regime.
In the 1930’s in Germany, the rush to sequester and alleviate mental deficiencies was quickly interpreted to encompass malcontents and dissidents opposed to the Nazi regime. This vague theory gave way to the Nazi Sterilization Act, effective July 1933.2
Dr. Ernst Rudin, a leading and articulate authority in favor of the Sterilization Act, traveled in 1930 to Washington D.C. in order to present a paper called, “The Importance of Eugenics and Genetics in Mental Hygiene.” The paper was well-received in the United States, where many—especially among the moneyed elite—were cordial to German pseudo-science and pseudo-philosophy.
In late June 1933, German Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick convened a blue-ribbon committee on demographic and racial policy, during which he unraveled an ambitious program to evaluate “our ethnic body politic according to its genetic value.” Frick propagandized that the decay of das Volk was not attributable to an outside enemy, but, rather, to something within the people themselves. The materialism and lamentable moral decline of the Weimar Era had to be eradicated, and Weimar programs stopped. In reality, despite the crushing of the German economy by western business, the Weimar Republic constituted a vibrant culture and enjoyed relatively successful social programs. Among the programs to be stopped were birth control that reduced the Volk by encouraging a “two-child family system,” superfluous social welfare programs that wasted money on “hopeless clients,” and “sexual freedom [that promoted] the ‘mannish woman.’”3
Frick outlined the overbearing program to eradicate the bad and “select” the beneficial. Such issues were referred to scantily in the Nazi Party program but mostly ignored by the party press. During a party rally in 1929, Hitler commented on the topic, commenting that if, of one million newborns 10,000 of the least desirable died, it would result in a net gain for the Volk.
The engineers of the Nazi sterilization program looked to the U.S. as a model. A 1927 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, drafted by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, justified sterilization: In the wake of world war, when “the best of a generation of young men risked their lives for the nation,” Holmes reasoned, “it would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the state for these lesser sacrifices…in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence…Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” The Nazi sterilization program was initiated during a time when 28 American states as well as a number of European nations employed sterilization programs.
The magnitude of, not the ideas behind, the Nazi “ethnic improvement” schemes was what made them stand out. In the United States between 1907 and 1947, about 45, 127 people were sterilized (conservatively). In Germany, internationally respected eugenicist Friedrich Lenz calculated that 1 million feeble-minded Germans (in a population of 65 million) should be sterilized, whilst Agricultural minister Walter Darre called for ten times that many. Frick adapted his radio audience to the concepts by preparing them for a rate of one in five.
Beginning their eugenics programs on children, the Nazis, on July 14, 1933, passed the Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Children. Leaders of the movement to eliminate “mental defectives” from the German Volk were lawyer Karl Binding and the psychiatrist Alfred Hoche, whose phrase “lebensunwertes Leben”—or “life unworthy of life”—became a popular, albeit chilling phrase.2
Sterilization was the preferred means of prevention, and was administered by special “hereditary health courts.” The Nazi euthanasia program was carried out by secret decries, for Hitler refused to seek a legal ruling, well-aware of such a programs illegal nature under the Weimar Constitution.
Between 1934 and 1945, so it is estimated, more than 400,000 people were sterilized as “life unworthy of life.”
The Nazi regime employed these measures in such a convoluted way—what Robert Jay Lifton terms “bureaucratic mystification”—as to make it nearly impossible for victims, their families and even those working within the system to know the vast nature of the euthanasia program.
In the United States, the Rockefellers—who had, among other endeavors, amassed a bustling oil empire—were also interested in the eugenics movement. In 1910, the Eugenics records Office was established, with grants bestowed unto it on behalf of—but certainly not only—John D. Rockefeller.
In 2009, a number of global crises give rise to a social climate in which talks of “global governance” receive little attention or analysis. The war on terror, global warming, swine flu and peak oil—no matter how contrived these phenomenon may be—create an opportunity for the most radical and disreputed of values to appear in the mainstream.
Right Side News points out that, while Holdren can be criticized for publicizing the aforementioned views and other likes it, because he preceded it by evoking other authorities, it cannot be entirely attributed to him. Holdren, according to Right Side News, escapes guilt by stating, “The impact of laws and policies on population size and growth has, until very recently, largely been ignored by the legal profession. The first comprehensive treatment of population law was that of the late Johnson C. Montgomery, an attorney who was president of Zero Population Growth, and whose ideas are the basis of much of the following discussion.”4
Right Side News best investigate precedents set in this nation’s legal history. On October 15, 1970, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Act) became law. The RICO Act enabled law enforcement to charge persons or a group with racketeering; that is, committing multiple violations of certain varieties within a 10 year period. The purpose of the act was stated to be “the elimination of the infiltration of organized crime and racketeering into legitimate organizations operating in interstate commerce.” Holdren and his associates, an international ueberclass of about 6,000 individuals, are eligible for such proceedings. Each one of us, naturally, is aware of Nuremburg Trial precedents. The United States government is an organization operating in interstate commerce, as articulated by President Woodrow Wilson in the 1920’s when he said, “the business of America is business.”
During his Senate confirmation hearing, Holdren was asked about past scientific overstatements, and riposted, “The motivation for looking at the downside possibilities, the possibilities that can go wrong if things continue in a bad direction, is to motivate people to change direction. That was my intention at the time.”
Holdren, by the way, has pontificated that global warming could cause the deaths of 1 billion people by 2020. Also, that sea levels could rise by 13 feet by the end of this century, far exceeding even the most concerned, who place the level at 13 inches.
While introducing Holdren, Barack Obama promised that his administration was “ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology.”5
State directed sterilization breach two deeply rooted principles. One being the secular precept, enshrined in John Locke’s Second Treatise, that “every man has a property in his own person,” and the other the prohibition against any interference in reproduction, which Pope Pius XI forcefully restated in his 1930 Casti Cannubi.3
The Business of Genocide
The H1N1 virus has killed fewer than 500 people. The World Health Organization, nevertheless, declared a global pandemic: “The world is moving into the early days of its first influenza pandemic in the 21st century,” according to Dr. Margaret Chan, WHO director.6
It has been reported by the Washington Times, “children will be a key target population for a pandemic flu vaccine in the fall.” The students would be vaccinated in a three step program in a mass campaign paralleling that of efforts in the 1950’s against polio. Pregnant women, adults with chronic illnesses and health-workers would join children as the first in line. The federal government expects to receive approximately 100 million doses of vaccine by mid-October, assuming the current production, by only five companies, continues as planned. However vaccine for wide use, by about 120 million “especially vulnerable” people, will not be available until later in the fall.7
The Department of Homeland Security, moreover, issued in April a swine flu memo to some health care providers. “The Department of Justice has established legal federal authorities pertaining to the implementation of a quarantine and enforcement. Under approval from HHS, the Surgeon General has the authority to issue quarantines,” the memo states. Such authority is limited to diseases listed in presidential executive orders; President Bush, however, added new forms of influenza with the potential to cause pandemics in Executive Order 13375. Anyone violating a quarantine order can be punished by a $250,000 fine and a one-year prison term, according to CBS News.8
The Department of Homeland Security’s National Response Plan extinguishes the distinction between a civilian and national security emergency situation, what is effectively the end of Posse Comitatus.
Not only the United States, but rather many other countries have announced mandated vaccination programs. The French government, for example, has purchased 28 million vaccines for the country of 60 million +. The Former chairman of the British Medical Association has, also, called for mandatory vaccinations.
The US Secretary of Health and Human Sercices, Kathleen Sebelius, recently signed a decree granting vaccine makers total legal immunity from all lawsuits resulting from any new “Swine Flu” vaccine. The $7 billion US Government program to rush vaccines onto the market in time for the Fall flu season is being done devoid of normal safety testing. Swine Flur, H1N1, furthermore, has yet to be rigorously scientifically isolated, characterized and photographed with an electron microscope—the scientifically acknowledged procedure.9
Is the United States social climate such, that forced inoculations would not inspire internal dissent?
Created in 2002 by President Bush, NorthCom, the Pentagons Northern Command—with jurisdiction over the United States—has been running preparedness drills in the event of a flu pandemic for at least the past three years. Northcom, furthermore, was recently assigned its own fighting unit six months ago. The Army’s 3rd Infantry Divison 1st Brigade Combat Team spent much of the last five years battling in Iraq.10
Head of NorthCom General Victor Renuart, testifying in March, claimed the command center would provide “assistance in support of civil authorities” during an epidemic. Adding, “when requested and approved by the Secretary of Defense or directed by the President, federal military forces will contribute federal support.”
According to the General, NorthCom had prepared for a flu outbreak from Mexico. “Because Mexico is our neighbor and disasters do not respect national boundaries, we are focused on developing and improving procedures to respond to potentially catastrophic events such as pandemic influenza outbreak, mass exposure to dangerous chemicals and materials, and natural disasters.”
NorthCom also has a “private sector cell.”
“We have great participation from industry and from other organizations around the country,” the General testified.
One private sector group that has worked with the FBI and Homeland Security on pandemics is InfraGard, a group of more than 30,000 businesspeople who enjoy special access to confidential FBI Information and may be assigned special—even lethal—duties in times of an emergency.”
InfraGard wishes to be a player in pandemic response. “Utilization of their expertise will help local communities prepare for a possible pandemic event to ensure minimal disruption and quick recover,” one InfraGard press release stated.11
- Bailey, Ronald. John Holdren, Ideological Environmentalist. Forbes Magazine, 2.03.09. [↩]
- Marrs, Jim. The Rise of the Fourth Reich. Harpers. [↩] [↩]
- Koonz, The Nazi Conscience. [↩] [↩]
- Kincaid, Cliff. Is Obama’s Science Czar a Crackpot? Right Side News, 7.15.09. [↩]
- Harsanyi, David. Science Fiction Czar. Denver Post, 7.15.09 [↩]
- WHO declares global swine flu pandemic and says virus is ‘unstoppable.’ Times online UK. [↩]
- Brown, David and Hsu, Spencer. Students first in Line for Flu Vaccine. Washington Post, July 10, 2009. [↩]
- Department of Homeland Security Guidelines For Possible Swine Flu Quarantines. GlobalResearch [↩]
- Eberhart, Dave. Health Bill Would Allow Forced Vaccinations in Private Homes. Newsmax, 7.16.09. [↩]
- Rothschild, Mathew. Will NorthCom Takeover in Swine Flu Outbreak? The Progressive, 4.29.09 [↩]
- Engdahl, William F. Now Legal Immunity for Swine Flu Vaccine Makers. Global Research, 7.22.09. [↩]