If You Like Putting Sterilants in Our Water and Forcing “Undesirables” to Have Abortions, Have We Got a Science Czar for You

posted at 3:07 pm on July 11, 2009 by Jim Treacher

...in addition to the factors of youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross-section of necessary skills, it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included, to impart the required principles of leadership and tradition.Zombietime, dependable chronicler of leftwing folly, has a real doozy for us this time. It turns out that John Holdren, Obama’s new “science czar,” has expressed some unusually radical ideas about stemming population growth. Or to put it more simply, he’s a totalitarian eugenicist:

Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A “Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death over American citizens.

The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?

These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology — informally known as the United States’ Science Czar. In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:

• 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.

Please read the whole thing for the details, along with photographic proof that Holdren’s book, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, exists. Holdren really did say all that stuff, and he even lists the book in his curriculum vitae. If he’s changed his mind about these things in the last 30 years, now might be a good time to say so.

These days, Holdren’s focus is on global warming (or climate change, or whichever euphemism they’ve come up with this week). Which seems odd: If you’re worried about overpopulation, wouldn’t you want to encourage global warming? A nice flood would sure clear out all those undesirables.

Maybe Holdren should start building an ark. Sounds like he’s already got his passenger list.

P.S. Interesting discussion in the comments at Zomblog.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

There’s a new pediatrician in town, a Dr Josef Mengele. He specializes in blue eyed twins

Bevan on July 12, 2009 at 8:24 AM

I remember this hype about over population and I started to buy into it until I took a plane ride and saw that there is plenty of space outside of the city for increase in population. I agree that as a personal choice too many kids are difficult to support, but that is up to each of our own value and religious beliefs. I believe in a womans right. The right to say no to sex; the right to say no entry; the right to say use a condom; the right to use birth control, but once she has given rights the take part in acts that most likely will result in pregnancy and a child has developed then the child has rights. I don’t buy argument for abortion about baby could not survive on it’s own. So if thats the rule then would it be okay for a mother not feed her child since it cannot feed itself? Abortion is poor choice for birth control, which is case grater than 90% of time.
This guy is typical of nut jobs Obama has around him. It is very scary indeed. When global warming hysteria has been killed, then maybe this guy will bring back hysteria of population control again. He should head up the new national health care system. Another great choice by the Obamanator.
They need to get John Holdren out front and talking to media . Holdren needs to explain his grand ideas to the nation so all can see what wonderful choices Obama makes.
God Help US!!!

Ed Laskie on July 12, 2009 at 8:54 AM

Awesome, and scary, work by zombie again.

forest on July 12, 2009 at 9:28 AM

I remember this hype about over population and I started to buy into it until I took a plane ride and saw that there is plenty of space outside of the city for increase in population.

It is not a problem, if we are overpopulated, people will die, equilibrium will be met….

The free market works here too.

Libertarian Joseph on July 12, 2009 at 9:31 AM

Anyone read Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism”? It’s right in line with this crackpot.

ieplaya on July 11, 2009 at 4:18 PM

Another book to read is Steven Milloy’s Green Hell. He talks about John Holdren and many others in the green movement. He also lays out how the movement is all about population & economic control.

mizflame98 on July 12, 2009 at 9:40 AM

I think the next presidential hopeful to run on a “No Czars” platform would do quite well. Repub’s better get this through their heads.

Grafted on July 12, 2009 at 9:55 AM

These days, Holdren’s focus is on global warming (or climate change, or whichever euphemism they’ve come up with this week). Which seems odd: If you’re worried about overpopulation, wouldn’t you want to encourage global warming? A nice flood would sure clear out all those undesirables.

It’s in their solutions for fixing the invented crisis where the culling happens. As you might suspect, Holdren leads the pack with psychotic solutions for saving the world from the global warming hoax crisis. We are going to pump pollutants – real pollutants, not co2 – into the upper atmosphere.

It is likely Holdren’s hope that he can bring about global cooling by creating volcanic aftermath conditions. When the crops fail, he will have his holocaust.

Buddahpundit on July 12, 2009 at 10:07 AM

Before I ask this, remember there are no stupid questions and you are dealing with an older person. Could someone explain the significance of “Zombie” in the blog world?

Cindy Munford on July 12, 2009 at 10:45 AM

OK, I’m going to throw in a possibility that may get some reaction here. Please try to keep up here, and understand that this is not about racism, although racism may be involved in several insipid ways not always easy to classify.

Is it possible that we are already involved in eugenics at a rapidly advancing rate?

From a purely scientific perspective, is it not possible, even likely, that our past several generations of trying to ensure the survival of the lest fit specimens of humans by our various social programs designed to support low performers is actually changing the genetics of the population through a process that interferes with natural selection? What might be the result of going into any population of any species and intervening in the natural processes that cause the most able and most fit individuals to live longer, healthier lives to also tend to be the ones that prevail in reproduction and passing on genetic traits? Consider what might be the outcome if something reversed that process and caused the least able individuals to be prevented from the natural losses of reproductive potential that would result if nature were allowed to control the process. Note that I do not speak here of race, and the same implication would exist in not only all species, but all races as well.

Is it possible that our welfare systems are already having the effect of having altered the genetics of our entire population to one that now includes traits that would not have the same opportunities to be passed on? Is it possible that America’s liberal political ideas have doomed us to fail because we have created a breeding program that cause dramatic shifts in the abilities of the people to thrive on some genetic level?

These are questions, not answers, but I’d like to see someone research them.

MikeA on July 12, 2009 at 11:13 AM

What I do not get is why if eugenics is the science behind the Democrat ideal, Why then is the ideal also to open our borders to the burgeoning populations of the third world. How do these seemingly conflicting ideals coexist….
Ohhh… look out middle class America a solution to your problems your’e the problem is on the table

notalemon on July 12, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Frankly, I have long past given up any even a semblance of centrist policy or decision making from this admin. Its as if he purposely reaches out ala Harold Koh for the most extreme czar, cab. member, mouthpiece or operative he can find. Bush may have had ‘neo con’ far righties, but then again he paid the price in the media as they reminded us daily as to the efficacy of such running the country.
The msm is willingly asleep now, as they are much more closely aligned with these folks and have once again shown their true colors, not as lefties, that’s not the point, the point being, that they have jettisoned any sense of fair play etc.

imperator on July 12, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Send him on a one-way slow boat to China. Holdren would fit right in there.

But keep his dirty mitts off our children!!!

Steve Z on July 12, 2009 at 12:56 PM

I recommend the documentary ‘The World According To Monsantos’ about gmo’s

Ozprey on July 12, 2009 at 1:23 PM

These are questions, not answers, but I’d like to see someone research them.

MikeA on July 12, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Where have I heard that phrase from? Oh yeah, 9/11 troofers who don’t want to be thought of as kooks. They’re just “asking questions” and want more investigations. Of course, unless the answers say that President Bush staged it, they’ll keep asking.

The “just asking questions” gambit is a great way to bring up reprehensible topics. Here’s an answer: Eugenecists are incredibly dangerous, morally bankrupt scum and should be the first to be culled if the herd is thinned.

theCork on July 12, 2009 at 1:54 PM

MikeA: Nonethless, here’s an answer: Welfare reform under Clinton & a Republican Congress broke up multi-generational welfare. It is very unlikely to have had a lasting effect.

theCork on July 12, 2009 at 1:58 PM

The America pictured in Dr. Strangelove looks a lot better to be in and less of a nightmare than today’s REAL America.

Jeff from WI on July 12, 2009 at 2:02 PM

theCork on July 12, 2009 at 1:58 PM

I agree on the trufer idea, but my reason for posing this idea as a question is that I honestly would like to see some form of research on the scientific level. I am not a geneticist or other scientist that could do the research, but I would not want such research to be politicized.

I am not calling for a legal investigation of this, but a scientific one. Barring that, maybe just some serious reflection on the part of the public.

You mention culling the herd. I am not suggesting at all that such a thing be done. I just think we may already be interfering with the process in an unhealthy way. If we should not interfere in the process of genetic predisposition in favor of, say blue eyed, blonds, why would it be ok to do so in favor of people of any other group?

Again, I am not talking about this from a political perspective. Politics can screw up anything, and almost always does.

MikeA on July 12, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Welfare reform under Clinton & a Republican Congress broke up multi-generational welfare. It is very unlikely to have had a lasting effect.

theCork on July 12, 2009 at 1:58 PM

So, multi-generational welefare does not now exist? I see evidence to the contrary.

MikeA on July 12, 2009 at 2:41 PM

So, multi-generational welefare does not now exist? I see evidence to the contrary.

MikeA on July 12, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Recent studies would be a great way to settle that.

theCork on July 12, 2009 at 2:47 PM

MikeA on July 12, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Mike, there is no question that rewarding failure (as in welfare and such) increases failure. The problem that people can’t come to grips with is that, while many argue that government should provide a floor below which people can’t fall, they don’t understand that such a floor must be unpleasant enough that no one enjoys it or wants to live there for anything longer than a very short period of time. But they argue that their floor must be livable and even enjoyable (so that their tender sensibilities are not injured by seeing the state of those at the floor that is unpleasant) which just attracts many to that level.

Traditionally, that floor has always been provided by private interests and family obligations. As the government took over those roles, the families have deteriorated and private funds have moved elsewhere (as there is no reason to fund something that the government wastes 10 times the required funds on). So, in the end, government meddling in society has hurt us on all sides, encouraging many to drift to the pleasant floor provided and discouraging the normal, Western social rules that had long been in operation (before the government takeover) and had served as the foundation for the rest of society.

progressoverpeace on July 12, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Before I ask this, remember there are no stupid questions and you are dealing with an older person. Could someone explain the significance of “Zombie” in the blog world?

Cindy Munford on July 12, 2009 at 10:45 AM

‘Zombie’ is just the name of a blogger. Like ‘Allahpundit’.

trigon on July 12, 2009 at 3:31 PM

progressoverpeace on July 12, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Excellent points. Thomas Sowell pointed out in an article once that of all the people who lived at or below the poverty level in 1975 95% had moved up by 1990. I know, I was one of those 95%. If we make it to easy people have no incentive to change.

chemman on July 12, 2009 at 5:01 PM

My video response to this insanity.

Black Adam on July 12, 2009 at 4:58 PM

Ok, I found interesting Holdren pointing out lack of technology then for his population control…so…enter Monsanto. I recommend ‘Monsanto Patent For A Pig”. This should get ya a little farther down that rabbit hole…and it’s a deep one. My above mentioned is good too but this is the one to see.

Ozprey on July 12, 2009 at 6:48 PM

progressoverpeace on July 12, 2009 at 2:48 PM

I have no doubt that you are correct in your evaluation of the system, but my questioning is pointed in another direction. All of your criteria would tend to explain why people who could do better don’t, since with the government assured floor you speak of, some people just decide that is good enough for them and is much easier than achieving more. I see that and I know examples I know. I’m sure this explains the large number of underachievers that do not do better today.

But I am wondering, maybe am convinced, that there are many people who really do not have the ability to do better, and that the number of those people is growing as a direct result of the system as it has existed for the past 50 years or so has caused ability challenged people to reproduce at a higher rate than they might have if they had less resources available for their use. If so this may be actually altering gene pools in some areas in a similar way that breeding dogs or other animals for characteristics creates distinct breeds. Again, I’m not talking about race, as this could occur in any race, or any mixture of races. If we have taken steps to genetically favor reproduction of the least fit, we might be creating a breed of refined genetic inability.

MikeA on July 12, 2009 at 8:19 PM

Thomas Sowell pointed out in an article once that of all the people who lived at or below the poverty level in 1975 95% had moved up by 1990

So it looks like the welfare state was working great even before Clinton’s reforms.

crr6 on July 12, 2009 at 8:25 PM

MikeA on July 12, 2009 at 8:19 PM

I think (and this is just my thinking on the topic) that the most important aspects relating to your question are cultural mating habits rather than social programs. Each person deciding what characteristics they find attractive, and decide worthy of mating with, adds up to a much more powerful force than anything else – at least by my reckoning – since those considerations serve to shape personalities and determine how people spend the bulk of their time and energy, in addition to the strong genetic facet. Almost all people still work very hard to compete for the “best mates”, and whatever constitutes the “best mates” in most people’s minds will do more to determine the shape of future generations than anything, so far as I see. I’m really not sure what the effect of social programs are on this, since mating considerations apply to society at large. Popular culture is much more impactful, in the respect, I would think. Though, the effect of government progams on eroding the family and other cultural foundations certainly does much harm in this area.

chemman on July 12, 2009 at 5:01 PM

Social and economic mobility (both upwards and downwards) is true freedom, and no nation has ever offered the sort of mobility that America has. But liberals think that, instead of mobility, absolute guarantees backed by the government are preferable, and even the job of government.

progressoverpeace on July 12, 2009 at 9:12 PM

I wonder if Obama finds it ironic that the people his science advisor wants to eliminate are people just like him?

Aren’t the women Holdren are describing his mother, and aren’t the “undesirables” who contribute to social deterioration his father?

panzerkardinal on July 12, 2009 at 10:19 PM

“Obamafuhrer, Field Marshall Holdren reporting for duty to begin the ethnic cleansing of undesirables-the young, the old, Republicans, libertarians, talk radio hosts…”

MaiDee on July 13, 2009 at 7:30 AM

Question:Did this one pay his taxes?

Jeff from WI on July 13, 2009 at 9:19 AM

The one thing that is a big bump in the road for these folks is the 2nd Amendment.

When they come after that full force, beware, then all their sick plans will follow.

The parallel to Europe 1930-1939 and the world today (esp. America) from 1997-2009 is quite interesting.

jarhead0311 on July 13, 2009 at 9:58 AM

These days, Holdren’s focus is on global warming (or climate change, or whichever euphemism they’ve come up with this week). Which seems odd: If you’re worried about overpopulation, wouldn’t you want to encourage global warming? A nice flood would sure clear out all those undesirables.

That’s not odd at all; indeed, it’s incredibly consistent. “Global warming” is in part about population control. If humans are destroying the planet, then they need to be controlled through forced abortions, eugenics and sterilization — the very same things John Holdren advocates.

The liberals, at least the ones in charge, know that global warming is a lie, or at the very least overhyped. They’re using it to achieve their own political and social engineering ends.

2Brave2Bscared on July 13, 2009 at 12:42 PM

2Brave2Bscared on July 13, 2009 at 12:42 PM

I’m pointing out the flaw in his logic, not questioning whether he’s power-hungry.

Jim Treacher on July 13, 2009 at 2:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3