Population Growth "Alarmism" as a Deep Political Control Device

[Gary Severson]

Ed, here is the ref. to JFK's 1945 view of the UN in Douglas' "The Unspeakable", p 5&6. JFK actually says, I'm paraphrasing, he looks forward to the day of the conscientious objector being the predominant view at which point we can do away with national sovereignty and have one world government to save humanity from nuclear war. Accd. to Douglas JFK said this in reaction to witnessing the founding of the UN where he was journalist for Hearst News. Might this explain his picking of Ted Sorensen, the conscientious objector, as his advisor, when he entered the US senate.

What assumptions Ed? Read about the UN and JFK in James Douglas' "JFK & the UNSPEAKABLE". I asked Ted Sorensen what he thought JFK would think about man made global warming. He said without a doubt he would think man was the source of warming. I guess the UN's attempts to stop global warming would get JFK's applause.

You are going to have to be more specific, Gary. I own both versions of the book and the UN doesn't show up as an indexed item in either one of them. I do see references to two speeches JFK gave at the UN on nuclear test-ban treaties and nuclear disarmament. Was he lobbying for nuclear proliferation? Did he authorize the development of mutagenic warfare?

I don't see how this demonstrates that JFK should be considered a eugenicist. I don't see eugenics noted in the JFKU index either. If you are suggesting that JFK is a eugenicist because he was aware of the explosion in world population, that is fine; but that awareness doesn't make him a eugenicist. If you have something more, put it on the table; it'll be news to me. And I'd like to hear the logic spelled out, if you don't mind.

There's lots of information suggesting that a lot of people who would make the list of mechanics, facilitators or sponsors of JFK's assassination were oriented that way, but why would they kill one of their own ensconced in the White House and who was working on preventing nuclear holocaust?

And I'd like to hear the logic you used to derive the supposition that JFK was a eugenicist from the article I posted. Spell it out and parse it for those of us who are less adept at seeing these things.

[Greg Burnham]

Gary,

Where there is a clear correlation between "over population" claims and the effect that man has on the planet due to same, those subjects might converge with Malthusianism and therefore might be on topic. But, claiming that JFK's speech writer knows what JFK would think about MMGW today (nearly 50 years postmortem) is clearly OFF TOPIC.

I didn't start the thread to talk about JFK's views on global warming or his love of the UN. If you want to discuss those things start a thread on it.

Greg, in post 18 the writer talks about climate change and you didn't suggest he was off topic. Then in post 35 you talk about climate change & no one accuses you of being off topic. But here we are almost 4 mths. into the thread and when there are finally posts made that use analogies about JFK, the UN & MMGW you cry foul. You doth protest too loudly.

[Gary Severson]

Greg, I would argue that since you are citing Malthusianism as a "deep political control device" and JFK was assassinated by those sources of the same deep political control systems, his mention in relation to them is appropriate. His views on the UN are an indicator that the UN is not the boogeyman it is made out to be concerning it being a part of deep political structures spreading ideas about Maltusianism for the sake of a one world oligarchy. IOW I agree there are deep political structures bent on creating an elite one world govt. but there is a version that is meant to be JFK's version which is about a one world democratic system in order to avoid destruction of the planet by nuclear war.

[Charles Drago]

First things first: I'm enjoying the hell out of this thread. In spite of the occasional emotion-driven response -- predictable, necessary, and humanizing -- I'm learning a great deal about multiple subjects. Thank you, one and all, for your contributions. And a special tip of the hat to Greg, who got us started.

If I may:

I asked Ted Sorensen what he thought JFK would think about man made global warming. He said without a doubt he would think man was the source of warming. I guess the UN's attempts to stop global warming would get JFK's applause.

This paragraph cannot be understood unless we acknowledge and address its bipartite construction.

There is great value in Sorensen's best guess as to JFK's thoughts regarding climate change/warming. He did indeed know the president's mind at least as well as anyone else could know it. I read Sorensen's subtext as: JFK would have seen through political/corporate pseudo-science, accepted the reality of warming, and done everything in his power to save the planet.

(On the other hand -- and with a nod to Greg -- JFK just might have ended up sharing the Burnham point of view. Although I doubt it -- but I'm no JFK.)

Alas, for me it does not follow that JFK would have approved UN efforts to reverse warming and its effects. His keen insight, as well as the insight of those great minds he no doubt would have assembled to address this problem, very well might have discerned "problems" with the UN's policies and actions.

Charles

[Greg Burnham]

I'm glad you're enjoying this thread, Charles. Thanks for the nods...

Now, back to paradigms.

1) If we operate from the foregone conclusion that THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TO GO AROUND (Malthusianism), whether or not that is true, our behavior will reflect that core belief.

2) If we operate from the foregone conclusion that only the fittest among us will survive (Darwinism), then survival instinct dictates on a very primitive level that those who will survive must do so to the exclusion of the "less fit".

3) When combined, these two paradigms contribute to the insidiousness of the current global political agenda, thusly:

"Because there is insufficient sustenance for human life only the strongest, fastest, most cunning, most fertile, best fed, best clothed, best educated, most willing to do anything (even commit crime) to survive, living in countries with the strongest military, etc. will ultimately survive."

In such a paradigm (not enough to go around coupled with survival of the fittest) human beings are viscerally in mortal combat with each other. On an intellectual level it can even be justified, but only IF those paradigms hold true. IF there truly is no potential for the food supply to be adequate, then I see no way out of the trap. It is simple math. There is enough food for 3 of us. There is not enough food for all 47 of us. Some of us (perhaps all) are DEFINITELY going hungry. Who shall it be?

If we accept, as a given, that the resources are insufficient, then the only solution is for everyone to "fight it out" to see who is FIT ENOUGH to deserve to live. We can exploit the resources of weaker nations and justify our behavior, after all, we didn't invent the rules of engagement, we're merely forced to live by them. I suppose, alternately, we could simply kill all of those who are not FIT ENOUGH to resist us. We could impose population control on undesirables by sterilizing them.

In fact, we already do many of those things to weaker peoples and justify having done those things because there simply is not enough to go around...

But, when does it end? Will it end when we have, in fact, gone extinct through the selfish disregard for the rights of others? Or will it end when we dedicate ourselves to finding solutions instead of scapegoats?

[Ed Jewett]

Just thinking out loud...

about this meme of global warming due to the collective man and whether there is enough of everything (air, food, soil, water, sunshine at the right intensity, what else should be included?),

and wondering how the trends toward severe weather aren't at least also related to the efforts of a few men (leaving exhaust plumes in the troposphere, ripping holes in the thermosphere, heating the ionosphere). Blaming this on too many people, cow farts, automobile exhaust, and the production of methane by various means seems interesting, especially if no one looks at what's going on inside and outside the envelope.

[Gary Severson]

2/3 of the planet is water. That leaves 34% for humans to live on. But when we eliminate about 20% of the 1/3 of the land for deserts and ice caps we have, lets say, 10% left of the planet's surface for humans. It seems we could run out of land doesn't it? When sea level rises we'll lose much of what we gain from land we gain from under melted ice caps. I think the point here is that we have so little land to both produce food and live on that we need to pay attention to Malthus. Think of our situation as the condition of the Easter Islanders. They were in effect on an isolated island with only so many resources. They cut down all their trees because they needed them to roll the carved stone heads to the shoreline to honor their gods. They didn't understand the island would become uninhabitable when the trees were gone. No more wood for boats for fishing. They went extinct as a culture. Obviously our planet is like an island in space and we are cutting the trees that help keep the atmosphere's gases balanced. Maybe the overpopulated islands of Japan,Italy & Britain are like the Easter Islanders and when they saw they were short on space they expanded as empires and raised holy hell with the world. Include America as a phase in that dynamic as Britain expanded to N.Amer. When we realize we have only about 10% of the planet to live on we should see how precarious our existence is.

[Ed Jewett]

We have too many carved stone heads in our culture; this is true. At lot of them are in the media, many of them are in government, a few of them hang out at web sites.

While it is true that two-thirds of our planet is water, there are innovations that suggest all that water surface could be employed for solar energy purposes (albeit in smaller batches).

The Japanese islanders may soon succumb to radiation, planting seeds seems headed for Monsanto-ization, things are being genetically modified at an increasing rate, robots are being readied to do most of the heavy work and a lot of the war-fighting, we have troops in over 100 countries, we are war-gaming nuclear war to insure it and setting up offensive shields against nuclear attack, white supremacists lurk in the corners, and the aliens are coming.

We must invest in new weaponry systems that will require vast new quantities of our fiscal capital, social capital, creativity and innovation or they are going to come down here and take our planet away from us because it is getting increasingly warmer (which probably suits them just fine).

[Magda Hassan]

I'm waiting for the rapture to come and remove all the death cultists so the rest of the relatively sane can get on with fixing things. Two birds with one stone. Reduce population and increase in IQ.

[Charles Drago]

http://www.progressivepress.com/books?page=1

Forgive me if I've missed previous references to the following book. I have not read it and I know virtually nothing about the author or the website to which I've provided a link above. From that site:

The Triumph of Consciousness: Overcoming False Environmentalism, Lapdog Media, and Global Government

by: Chris Clark

Behind the Global Warming agenda lies globalization -- another path to hegemony by the NWO and their controlled corporate media.

Chris Clark presents a counter-intuitive thesis -- that apparently liberal tendencies like global warming or globalization are being promoted by the worst sort of reactionaries, the same types who used to push eugenics. But he has done his research, with over...

Publication date: 2010-04-16
Pages: 347 Price: $19.95 SALE PRICE: $14.95