PDA

View Full Version : John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed.



Magda Hassan
07-11-2009, 08:23 AM
John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet
Book he authored in 1977 advocates for extreme totalitarian measures to control the population

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/obamalooking.jpg http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/front_cover_small.jpg 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_czars_of_the_Obama_administration). 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.

Impossible, you say? That must be an exaggeration or a hoax. No one in their right mind would say such things.

Well, I hate to break the news to you, but it is no hoax, no exaggeration. John Holdren really did say those things, and this report contains the proof. Below you will find photographs, scans, and transcriptions of pages in the book Ecoscience (http://www.ilab.org/db/book47_80430.html), co-authored in 1977 by John Holdren and his close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich. The scans and photos are provided to supply conclusive evidence that the words attributed to Holdren are unaltered and accurately transcribed.

This report was originally inspired by this article (http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34198) in FrontPage magazine, which covers some of the same information given here. But that article, although it contained many shocking quotes from John Holdren, failed to make much of an impact on public opinion. Why not? Because, as I discovered when discussing the article with various friends, there was no proof that the quotes were accurate -- so most folks (even those opposed to Obama's policies) doubted their veracity, because the statements seemed too inflammatory to be true. In the modern era, it seems, journalists have lost all credibility, and so are presumed to be lying or exaggerating unless solid evidence is offered to back up the claims. Well, this report contains that evidence.

Of course, Holdren wrote these things in the framework of a book he co-authored about what he imagined at the time (late 1970s) was an apocalyptic crisis facing mankind: overpopulation. He felt extreme measures would be required to combat an extreme problem. Whether or not you think this provides him a valid "excuse" for having descended into a totalitarian fantasy is up to you: personally, I don't think it's a valid excuse at all, since the crisis he was in a panic over was mostly in his imagination. Totalitarian regimes and unhinged people almost always have what seems internally like a reasonable justification for actions which to the outside world seem incomprehensible.

Direct quotes from John Holdren's Ecoscience

Below you will find a series of ten short passages from Ecoscience. On the left in each case is a scanned image taken directly from the pages of the book itself; on the right is an exact transcription of each passage, with noteworthy sections highlighted. Below each quote is a short analysis by me.

Following these short quotes, I take a "step back" and provide the full extended passages from which each of the shorter quotes were excerpted, to provide the full context.

And at the bottom of this report, I provide untouched scans (and photos) of the full pages from which all of these passages were taken, to quash any doubts anyone might have that these are absolutely real, and to forestall any claims that the quotes were taken "out of context."

Ready? Brace yourself. And prepare to be shocked.

Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/837_detail.jpg 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. As noted in the FrontPage article cited above, Holdren "hides behind the passive voice" in this passage, by saying "it has been concluded." Really? By whom? By the authors of the book, that's whom. What Holdren's really saying here is, "I have determined that there's nothing unconstitutional about laws which would force women to abort their babies." And as we will see later, although Holdren bemoans the fact that most people think there's no need for such laws, he and his co-authors believe that the population crisis is so severe that the time has indeed come for "compulsory population-control laws." In fact, they spend the entire book arguing that "the population crisis" has already become "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
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/786_detail.jpg 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. Holdren and his co-authors once again speculate about unbelievably draconian solutions to what they feel is an overpopulation crisis. But what's especially disturbing is not that Holdren has merely made these proposals -- wrenching babies from their mothers' arms and giving them away; compelling single mothers to prove in court that they would be good parents; and forcing women to have abortions, whether they wanted to or not -- but that he does so in such a dispassionate, bureaucratic way. Don't be fooled by the innocuous and "level-headed" tone he takes: the proposals are nightmarish, however euphemistically they are expressed.

Holdren seems to have no grasp of the emotional bond between mother and child, and the soul-crushing trauma many women have felt throughout history when their babies were taken away from them involuntarily.

This kind of clinical, almost robotic discussion of laws that would affect millions of people at the most personal possible level is deeply unsettling, and the kind of attitude that gives scientists a bad name. I'm reminded of the phrase "banality of evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banality_of_evil)."

Not that it matters, but I myself am "pro-choice" -- i.e. I think that abortion should not be illegal. But that doesn't mean I'm pro-abortion -- I don't particularly like abortions, but I do believe women should be allowed the choice to have them. But John Holdren here proposes to take away that choice -- to force women to have abortions. One doesn't need to be a "pro-life" activist to see the horror of this proposal -- people on all sides of the political spectrum should be outraged. My objection to forced abortion is not so much to protect the embryo, but rather to protect the mother from undergoing a medical procedure against her will. And not just any medical procedure, but one which she herself (regardless of my views) may find particularly immoral or traumatic.

There's a bumper sticker that's popular in liberal areas (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/48/114813929_01245725e5.jpg?v=0) which says: "Against abortion? Then don't have one." Well, John Holdren wants to MAKE you have one, whether you're against it or not.

Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn't harm livestock
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/787-9_detail.jpg 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. OK, John, now you're really starting to scare me. Putting sterilants in the water supply? While you correctly surmise that this suggestion "seems to horrify people more than most proposals," you apparently are not among those people it horrifies. Because in your extensive list of problems with this possible scheme, there is no mention whatsoever of any ethical concerns or moral issues. In your view, the only impediment to involuntary mass sterlization of the population is that it ought to affect everyone equally and not have any unintended side effects or hurt animals. But hey, if we could sterilize all the humans safely without hurting the livestock, that'd be peachy! The fact that Holdren has no moral qualms about such a deeply invasive and unethical scheme (aside from the fact that it would be difficult to implement) is extremely unsettling and in a sane world all by itself would disqualify him from holding a position of power in the government.

Page 786-7: The government could control women's reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/786-7_detail.jpg 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. Note well the phrase "with official permission" in the above quote. Johh Holdren envisions a society in which the government implants a long-term sterilization capsule in all girls as soon as they reach puberty, who then must apply for official permission to temporarily remove the capsule and be allowed to get pregnant at some later date. Alternately, he wants a society that sterilizes all women once they have two children. Do you want to live in such a society? Because I sure as hell don't.

Page 838: The kind of people who cause "social deterioration" can be compelled to not have children
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/837-8_detail.jpg 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. To me, this is in some ways the most horrifying sentence in the entire book -- and it had a lot of competition. Because here Holdren reveals that moral judgments would be involved in determining who gets sterilized or is forced to abort their babies. Proper, decent people will be left alone -- but those who "contribute to social deterioration" could be "forced to exercise reproductive responsibility" which could only mean one thing -- compulsory abortion or involuntary sterilization. What other alternative would there be to "force" people to not have children? Will government monitors be stationed in irresponsible people's bedrooms to ensure they use condoms? Will we bring back the chastity belt? No -- the only way to "force" people to not become or remain pregnant is to sterilize them or make them have abortions.

But what manner of insanity is this? "Social deterioration"? Is Holdren seriously suggesting that "some" people contribute to social deterioriation more than others, and thus should be sterilized or forced to have abortions, to prevent them from propagating their kind? Isn't that eugenics, plain and simple? And isn't eugenics universally condemned as a grotesquely evil practice?

We've already been down this road before. In one of the most shameful episodes in the history of U.S. jurisprudence, the Supreme Court ruled in the infamous 1927 Buck v. Bell case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell) that the State of Virginia had had the right to sterilize a woman named Carrie Buck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Buck) against her will, based solely on the (spurious) criteria that she was "feeble-minded" and promiscuous, with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes concluding, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Nowadays, of course, we look back on that ruling in horror, as eugenics as a concept has been forever discredited. In fact, the United Nations now regards forced sterilization (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8128121.stm) as a crime against humanity (http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm).

The italicized phrase at the end ("providing they are not denied equal protection"), which Holdren seems to think gets him off the eugenics hook, refers to the 14th Amendment (as you will see in the more complete version of this passage quoted below), meaning that the eugenics program wouldn't be racially based or discriminatory -- merely based on the whim and assessments of government bureaucrats deciding who and who is not an undesirable. If some civil servant in Holdren's America determines that you are "contributing to social deterioration" by being promiscuous or pregnant or both, will government agents break down your door and and haul you off kicking and screaming to the abortion clinic? In fact, the Supreme Court case Skinner v. Oklahoma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Oklahoma) already determined that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment distinctly prohibits state-sanctioned sterilization being applied unequally to only certain types of people.

No no, you say, Holdren isn't claiming that some kind of people contribute to social deterioration more than others; rather, he's stating that anyone who overproduces children thereby contributes to social deterioration and needs to be stopped from having more. If so -- how is that more palatable? It seems Holdren and his co-authors have not really thought this through, because what they are suggesting is a nightmarish totalitarian society. What does he envision: All women who commit the crime of having more than two children be dragged away by police to the government-run sterilization centers? Or -- most disturbingly of all -- perhaps Holdren has thought it through, and is perfectly OK with the kind of dystopian society he envisions in this book.

Sure, I could imagine a bunch of drunken guys sitting around shooting the breeze, expressing these kinds of forbidden thoughts; who among us hasn't looked in exasperation at a harried mother buying candy bars and soda for her immense brood of unruly children and thought: Lady, why don't you just get your tubes tied already? But it's a different matter when the Science Czar of the United States suggests the very same thing officially in print. It ceases being a harmless fantasy, and suddenly the possibility looms that it could become government policy. And then it's not so funny anymore.

Page 838: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/838_detail.jpg 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? Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?

Why?

I'll tell you why, John. Because the the principle of habeas corpus upon which our nation rests automatically renders any compulsory abortion scheme to be unconstitutional, since it guarantees the freedom of each individual's body from detention or interference, until that person has been convicted of a crime. Or are you seriously suggesting that, should bureaucrats decide that the country is overpopulated, the mere act of pregnancy be made a crime?

I am no legal scholar, but it seems that John Holgren is even less of a legal scholar than I am. Many of the bizarre schemes suggested in Ecoscience rely on seriously flawed legal reasoning. The book is not so much about science, but instead is about reinterpreting the Constitution to allow totalitarian population-control measures.

Page 942-3: A "Planetary Regime" should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/943_detail.jpg Toward a Planetary Regime
...
Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits. In case you were wondering exactly who would enforce these forced abortion and mass sterilization laws: Why, it'll be the "Planetary Regime"! Of course! I should have seen that one coming.

The rest of this passage speaks for itself. Once you add up all the things the Planetary Regime (which has a nice science-fiction ring to it, doesn't it?) will control, it becomes quite clear that it will have total power over the global economy, since according to Holdren this Planetary Regime will control "all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable" (which basically means all goods) as well as all food, and commerce on the oceans and any rivers "that discharge into the oceans" (i.e. 99% of all navigable rivers). What's left? Not much.

Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/917_detail.jpg If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization. The other shoe drops. So: We are expected to voluntarily surrender national sovereignty to an international organization (the "Planetary Regime," presumably), which will be armed and have the ability to act as a police force. And we saw in the previous quote exactly which rules this armed international police force will be enforcing: compulsory birth control, and all economic activity.

It would be laughable if Holdren weren't so deadly serious. Do you want this man to be in charge of science and technology in the United States? Because he already is in charge.

Page 749: Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/749_quote.jpg Another related issue that seems to encourage a pronatalist attitude in many people is the question of the differential reproduction of social or ethnic groups. Many people seem to be possessed by fear that their group may be outbred by other groups. White Americans and South Africans are worried there will be too many blacks, and vice versa. The Jews in Israel are disturbed by the high birth rates of Israeli Arabs, Protestants are worried about Catholics, and lbos about Hausas. Obviously, if everyone tries to outbreed everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all. This is another case of the "tragedy of the commons," wherein the "commons" is the planet Earth. Fortunately, it appears that, at least in the DCs, virtually all groups are exercising reproductive restraint. This passage is not particularly noteworthy except for the inclusion of the odd phrase "pronatalist attitude," which Holdren spends much of the book trying to undermine. And what exactly is a "pronatalist attitude"? Basically it means the urge to have children, and to like babies. If only we could suppress people's natural urge to want children and start families, we could solve all our problems!

What's disturbing to me is the incredibly patronizing and culturally imperialist attitude he displays here, basically acting like he has the right to tell every ethnic group in the world that they should allow themselves to go extinct or at least not increase their populations any more. How would we feel if Andaman Islanders showed up on the steps of the Capitol in Washington D.C. and announced that there were simply too many Americans, and we therefore are commanded to stop breeding immediately? One imagines that the attitude of every ethnic group in the world to John Holdren's proposal would be: Cram it, John. Stop telling us what to do.

Page 944: As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/944_quote.jpg Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants' destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world. This is the final paragraph of the book, which I include here only to show how embarrassingly inaccurate his "scientific" projections were. In 1977, Holdren thought we were teetering on the brink of global catastrophe, and he proposed implementing fascistic rules and laws to stave off the impending disaster. Luckily, we ignored his warnings, yet the world managed to survive anyway without the need to punish ourselves with the oppressive society which Holdren proposed. Yes, there still is overpopulation, but the problems it causes are not as morally repugnant as the "solutions" which John Holdren wanted us to adopt.


I actually don't disagree with everything Holdren says. I agree with him that overpopulation is a problem, and that much of the environmental degradation that has happened is due in large part to overpopulation (mostly in the developing world). Where we disagree is in the solution. While Holdren does occasionally advocate for milder solutions elsewhere in the book, his basic premise is that the population explosion has gotten so out of control that only the most oppressive and totalitarian measures can possibly stop humanity from stripping the planet bare and causing a catastrophe beyond our imagining. Holdren has (apparently) no problem saying we should force people to not have children, by any means necessary. And that is where we part ways. I draw the line at even the hint of compulsory compliance to draconian laws about pregnancy and abortion; Holdren does not hesitate to cross that line without a second thought.

My solution would be to adopt social policies that are known to lead to voluntary and non-coercive trends toward a lower birth rate: increased education for girls in poor countries, better access to (voluntarily adopted) birth control, higher standards of living. In fact, population trends (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_%28UN%29.svg) since 1977 have started to level off in the crisis areas of Asia and Latin America, primarily due to better standards of living and better education, which are known to decrease population growth. These non-oppressive policies appear to be sufficient to control the population -- and Holdren's decades-long panic attack seems to be unfounded.

Now, consider all the recommendations by Holdren given above, and then note that at his Senate confirmation hearing (http://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/ny-ustran136033686feb13,0,6533796.story) he said he would "keep policy free from politics" if confirmed. In fact Holdren has repeatedly said that science should not be be tainted by politics. But have you ever seen more politicized science-policy recommendations than those given in Ecoscience?


For the doubters and the naysayers...

There are five possible counter-claims which you might make against this report:

1. I'm lying, Holdren wrote no such thing, and this whole page is one big hoax.
2. He may have said those things, but I'm taking them out of context.
3. He was just the co-author -- he probably didn't write these particular passages, nor did he agree with them.
4. What he said really isn't that egregious: in fact, it seems pretty reasonable.
5. He wrote all this a long time ago -- he's probably changed his views by now.

I'll address each in turn:

1. I'm lying, Holdren wrote no such thing, and this whole page is one big hoax.
Scroll to the bottom of this page, and look at the photos of the book -- especially the last two photos, showing the book opened to pages quoted in this report. Then look at the full-page scans directly above those photos, showing each page mentioned here in full, unaltered. What more proof do you need? If you're still not convinced, go to any large library and check out the book yourself, and you'll see: everything I claim here is true.

2. He may have said those things, but I'm taking them out of context.
Some have argued that the FrontPage article "takes quotes out of context," which is the very reason why I went and investigated the original book itself. Turns out that not only are the quotes not out of context, but the additional paragraphs on either side of each passage only serve to make Holdren's ideas appear even more sinister. You want context? Be careful what you ask for, because the context makes things worse.

But yes, to satisfy the curious and the doubters, the "extended passages" and full-page scans given below provide more than sufficient context for the quotes.

In truth, I weary of the "context game" in which every controversial statement is always claimed to be "out of context," and no matter how much context is then given, it's never enough, until one must present every single word someone has ever written -- at which point the reader becomes overwhelmed and loses interest. Which is the whole point of the context game to begin with.

3. He was just the co-author -- he probably didn't write these particular passages, nor did he agree with them.
First of all: If you are a co-author of a book, you are signing your name to it, and you must take responsibility for everything that is in that book. This is true for John Holdren and every other author.

But there's plenty more evidence than that. Most significantly, Holdren has held similar views for years and frequently wrote about them (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2368) under his own name. It's not like these quotes are unexpected and came out of the blue -- they fit into a pattern of other Holdren writings and viewpoints.

Lastly, below I present full-page scans of the (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/1001_full.jpg) "Acknowledgments" (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/1002_full.jpg) pages (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/1003_full.jpg) in Ecoscience, and in those Acknowledgments pages are dozens of thank-yous to people at U.C. Berkeley -- where Holdren was a professor at the time. In fact, there are more acknowledgments involving Berkeley than anywhere else, and since Holdren was the only one of the three authors with a connection to Berkeley, they must be his thank-yous -- indicating that he wrote a substantial portion of the book. Even his wife is thanked.

I have no way of knowing if Holdren himself typed the exact words quoted on this page, but he certainly at a minimum edited them and gave them his stamp of approval.

4. What he said really isn't that egregious: in fact, it seems pretty reasonable.
Well, if you believe that, then I guess this page holds no interest for you, and you are thereby free to ignore it. But I have a suspicion that the vast majority of Americans find the views expressed by Holdren to be alarming and abhorrent.

5. He wrote all this a long time ago -- he's probably changed his views by now.
You might argue that this book was written in a different era, during which time a certain clique of radical scientists (including Holdren) were in a frenzy over what they thought at the time was a crisis so severe it threatend the whole planet: overpopulation. But all that is in the past, an embarrassing episode which Holdren might wish everyone would now forget. I mean, people change their opinions all the time. Senator Robert Byrd was once in the KKK, after all, but by now he has renounced those views. Perhaps in a similar vein John Holdren no longer believes any of the things he wrote in Ecoscience, so we can't hold them against him any more.

Unfortunately, as fas as I've been able to discover, Holdren has never disavowed or distanced himself from the views he held in the 1970s and spelled out in Ecoscience and other books. In fact, he kept writing on similar topics up until quite recently.

But yes, it is possible that Holdren has changed. Yet we'll never know until he announces his change of heart publicly. And so I say:
I challenge John Holdren to publicly renounce and disavow the opinions and recommendations he made in the book Ecoscience; and until he does so, I will hold him responsible for those statements.It's all very well and good to say, "Oh, none of that could ever really happen in the United States," or "It's just a fantasy," and so on. But consider this: The man who advocated the policies quoted above is now in the inner circle of power in the White House, and currently advises the President on all matters involving science, medicine and technology. If you really think forced abortions could never happen here, aren't you at least a little nervous that someone who sees them as acceptable has so much power?

Before you read any further...

If you accept the self-evident veracity of these quotations, and are outraged enough already, then you can stop reading here. Very little new information is presented below.

(And if you'd like to comment on this report, you can do so HERE at zomblog (http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=576).)

But if you still harbor doubts that the United States Science Czar could possibly harbor such views, and want more proof, then read on for longer and fuller citations, and full-page scans of the pages in the book, as well as photographs of the book itself. And if by chance you are a Holdren or Obama supporter, and want to falsely claim that I have taken Holdren's statements out of context, then you'd better stop reading here too, because if you go any further then you'll see that I have given full context for the quotes and conclusive evidence that they're Holdren's -- removing any basis by which you could have questioned this report.

More Context: Complete extended passages from which the quotes above were taken

For most of these, I will present the following extended passages without further commentary -- judge for yourself if you think the context mitigates Holdren's intent, or only worsens the impression that he's completely serious about all this.

Page 837 full-length extended quote:
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/837_quote.jpg To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. 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. Let it be noted that John Holdren himself is among the few who "consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion" -- in fact, that's the entire thrust of Ecoscience, to convince everyone that overpopulation is a catastrophic crisis which requires immediate and extreme solutions. So although the final sentence of the extended passage seems at first to mollify the extreme nature of his speculation, in reality Holdren is only speaking of all the unaware masses who don't see things his way.

Page 786 full-length extended quote:
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/786_quote.jpg Social pressures on both men and women to marry and have children must be removed. As former Secretary of Interior Stewart Udall observed, "All lives are not enhanced by marital union; parenthood is not necessarily a fulfillment for every married couple." If society were convinced of the need for low birth rates, no doubt the stigma that has customarily been assigned to bachelors, spinsters, and childless couples would soon disappear. But alternative lifestyles should be open to single people, and perhaps the institution of an informal, easily dissolved "marriage" for the childless is one possibility. Indeed, many DC societies now seem to be evolving in this direction as women's liberation gains momentum. It is possible that fully developed societies may produce such arrangements naturally, and their association with lower fertility is becoming increasingly clear. In LDCs a childless or single lifestyle might be encouraged deliberately as the status of women approaches parity with that of men.

Although free and easy association of the sexes might be tolerated in such a society, responsible parenthood ought to be encouraged and illegitimate childbearing could be strongly discouraged. 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 he possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

Somewhat more repressive measures for discouraging large families have also been proposed, such as assigning public housing without regard for family size and removing dependency allowances from student grants or military pay. Some of these have been implemented in crowded Singapore, whose population program has been counted as one of the most successful. In the final sentence of this passage, Holdren speaks approvingly of Singapore's infamous totalitarian micromanaging of people's daily lives.

But to me, the most bizarre and disturbing aspect of the quote given here is that Holgren seems to think that economic disincentives to have large families are more repressive and extreme than taking away basic bodily rights. To Holdren, "removing dependency allowances from student grants" is more repressive than compelling women to have abortions against their will. A very peculiar and twisted view of the world, I must say.

Page 787-8 full-length extended quote:
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/787-9_quote.jpg 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.

Physiologist Melvin Ketchel, of the Tufts University School of Medicine, suggested that a sterilant could be developed that had a very specific action—for example, preventing implantation of the fertilized ovum. He proposed that it be used to reduce fertility levels by adjustable amounts, anywhere from five to 75 percent, rather than to sterilize the whole population completely. In this way, fertility could be adjusted from time to time to meet a society's changing needs, and there would be no need to provide an antidote. Contraceptives would still be needed for couples who were highly motivated to have small families. Subfertile and functionally sterile couples who strongly desired children would be medically assisted, as they are now, or encouraged to adopt. Again, there is no sign of such an agent on the horizon. And the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects would, in our opinion, militate against the use of any such agent, even though this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalize children.

Most of the population control measures beyond family planning discussed above have never been tried. Some are as yet technically impossible and others are and probably will remain unacceptable to most societies (although, of course, the potential effectiveness of those least acceptable measures may be great).

Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying. As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1980s, they may begin demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences while redoubling efforts to ensure that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly against population growth, perhaps the need for the more extreme involuntary or repressive measures can be averted in most countries.

Page 786-7 full-length extended quote:
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/786-7_quote.jpg Involuntary fertility control

The third approach to population limitation is that of involuntary fertility control. Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birthrates are rapidly reversed by other means. Some involuntary measures could be less repressive or discriminatory, in fact, than some of the socioeconomic measure suggested.

...

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. This of course would be feasible only in countries where the majority of births are medically assisted. Unfortunately, such a program therefore is not practical for most less developed countries (although in China, mothers of three children are commonly "expected" to undergo sterilization).

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. No capsule that would last that long (30 years or more) has yet been developed, but it is technically within the realm of possibility.

Page 838 full-length extended quote:
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/837-8_quote.jpg It is accepted that the law has as its proper function the protection of each person and each group of people. A legal restriction on the right to have more than a given number of children could easily be based on the needs of the first children. Studies have indicated that the larger the family, the less healthy the children are likely to be and the less likely they are to realize their potential levels of achievement. Certainly there is no question that children of a small family can be cared for better and can be educated better than children of a large family, income and other things being equal. The law could properly say to a mother that, in order to protect the children she already has, she could have no more. (Presumably, regulations on the sizes of adopted families would have to be the same.)

A legal restriction on the right to have children could also be based on the right not to be disadvantaged by excessive numbers of children produced by others. Differing rates of reproduction among groups can give rise to serious social problems. For example, differential rates of reproduction between ethnic, racial, religious, or economic groups might result in increased competition for resources and political power and thereby undermine social order. 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. Study this whole extended passage carefully for an extremely unsettling view into the legal brain of John Holdren. Some of the sentiments he expresses here are beyond the pale, and his legal reasoning boggles the mind.

Page 838 full-length extended quote:
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/838_quote.jpg Individual rights. Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction. Some people—respected legislators, judges, and lawyers included—have viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right. Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce. Nor does the UN Charter describe such a right, although a resolution of the United Nations affirms the "right responsibly to choose" the number and spacing of children (our emphasis). In the United States, individuals have a constitutional right to privacy and it has been held that the right to privacy includes the right to choose whether or not to have children, at least to the extent that a woman has a right to choose not to have children. But the right is not unlimited. Where the society has a "compelling, subordinating interest" in regulating population size, the right of the individual may be curtailed. If society's survival depended on having more children, women could he required to bear children, just as men can constitutionally be required to serve in the armed forces. Similarly, given a crisis caused by overpopulation, reasonably necessary laws to control excessive reproduction could be enacted.

It is often argued that the right to have children is so personal that the government should not regulate it. In an ideal society, no doubt the state should leave family size and composition solely to the desires of the parents. 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? This extended passage is a perfect example of how the "full context" of a short quote only makes it worse; once you see Holdren's complete elaboration on the idea, you realize it's not some flippant notion he tossed off, but something he feels deeply about.

Page 942-3 full-length extended quote:
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/943_quote.jpg Toward a Planetary Regime
...
Should a Law of the Sea be successfully established, it could serve as a model for a future Law of the Atmosphere to regulate the use of airspace, to monitor climate change, and to control atmospheric pollution. Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus, the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and the oceans but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime should have some power to enforce the agreed limits. As with the Law of the Sea an other international agreements, all agreements for regulating population sizes, resource development, and pollution should be subject to revision and modification in accordance with changing conditions.

The Planetary Regime might have the advantage over earlier proposed world government schemes in not being primarily political in its emphasis—even though politics would inevitably be a part of all discussions, implicitly or explicitly. Since most of the areas the Regime would control are not now being regulated or controlled by nations or anyone else, establishment of the Regime would involve far less surrendering of national power. Nevertheless it might function powerfully to suppress international conflict simply because the interrelated global resource-environment structure would not permit such an outdated luxury.

Page 917 full-length extended quote:
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/917_quote.jpg If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization. But it seems probable that, as long as most people fail to comprehend the magnitude of the danger, that step will be impossible.


Full Context: High-res scans of all pages cited in this report

Click on each of the images below to see the full-size scans of the pages mentioned in this report:

Front cover http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/front_cover_small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/front_cover_full.jpg) Back cover http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/back_cover_small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/back_cover_full.jpg) Title page http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/title_small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/title_full.jpg)

Page 749 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/749_small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/749_full.jpg) Page 786 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/786_small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/786_full.jpg) Page 787 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/787_small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/787_full.jpg)

Page 788 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/788_small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/788_full.jpg) Page 789 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/789_small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/789_full.jpg) Page 837 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/837_small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/837_full.jpg)

Page 838 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/838_small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/838_full.jpg) Page 839 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/839_small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/839_full.jpg) Page 917 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/917_small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/917_full.jpg)

Page 942 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/942_small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/942_full.jpg) Page 943 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/943_small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/943_full.jpg) Page 944 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/944_small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/944_full.jpg)



Page 1001 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/1001_small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/1001_full.jpg) Page 1002 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/1002_small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/1002_full.jpg) Page 1003 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/1003_small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/1003_full.jpg)










Photographs of Ecoscience, inside and out

Any finally, for the final proof that this is a real book co-authored by John Holdren -- and that these are real quotes from that book -- and not some elaborate hoax, here are some photographs (as opposed to scans) of the book itself:

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/IMG_0899.JPG

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/IMG_0901.JPG

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/IMG_0902.JPG
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

Peter Lemkin
07-11-2009, 08:42 AM
We need to re-defind pessimism and cynical these days...As an environmental scientist I deal all the time with the issue of overpopulation. At some point the human population increase must soon be halted and reversed, BUT [and a very BIG but!] it must be done by choice - not coersion; equally - not by class or ethnic predjudice; taking into account human ecological sustainability and 'footprint' - not some uberklass' idea of eugenics; and under the principles of the Declaration of Human Rights, not the Nazis Nuremburg declaration. If the rest of the Administration turns-up like this color me more than cynical and more than pessimistic!

Jan Klimkowski
07-11-2009, 05:33 PM
So Holdgren is the long-time "intellectual" buddy of Population Bomb authors & godfathers of compulsory population control, the Ehrlichs, eh?

Ehrlich & Ehrlich were members of the advisory board of right-wing anti-immigration organisation FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) until recently.

I wonder if Obama knows and lobbied for Holdgren for precisely these population control reasons?

Or whether the Rockefellers, and this bunch of luverlies,


SOME of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health and education.
The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.
Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America’s wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey.
http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1518

are simply playing him?

NSSM 200 - still a key part of their blueprint.

Mark Stapleton
07-12-2009, 01:08 AM
I think Holdgren might have some interesting ideas. The planet is infested with human beings and it's unsustainable.

Magda Hassan
07-12-2009, 01:59 AM
I think Holdgren might have some interesting ideas. The planet is infested with human beings and it's unsustainable.

All the white European's who have caused this planet to be unsustainable I vote off the planet.

Peter Lemkin
07-12-2009, 05:10 AM
I think Holdgren might have some interesting ideas. The planet is infested with human beings and it's unsustainable.

The average American has an ecological footprint 150 times that of the the average person in Bangledesh - [i.e. uses that much more resources, energy; creates that much more waste, toxics, CO2, global warming et al.]. Bangledesh has a pop. of 150 million and the USA a population of about 300 million. Mulitply the 300 million by the footprint size and you get an environmental use/pollution virtual population in the USA of 45,000,000,000* - making the USA the overpopulated country, by far...etc. So, eliminating or not producing one more American saves the environment the same degradation as the non-existance of 150 Bangledeshis...but most 'Western' eugencists would want to start forced birth control on the developing nations. A similar calculation could be done within developed nations - rich v. middle-class or poor and the same disproportionate footprint will be found. [i.e. getting rid of one very rich person saves the Planet the same effects as there not being some hundreds or thousands of poorer persons in the same country...[on the financial and financially-driven destruction of the Planet one ultra-rich person can 'equal' millions to tens of millions!] so the richer one is; the more 'advanced' (sic) their lifestyle; the more each one of them crowds the planet in terms of resource use and waste production by manifold those who are poor or choose to live a more sustainable life. I don't think anyone has yet proposed starting by eliminating the ultra rich - nor even in the wealthier countries. Such programs are always targeted at non-white and poor externally and internally - at those who do the least harm person for person. It is well known that in developed nations with high education and equality - especially for women, population numbers soon stabilize and then decrease. Italy, France, Czech Republic and many other European nations now have negative population growth. Sadly, the world cannot afford the current population at Western European standards [would take 5 Planets of resources - or more], but the above shows that the developed nations and wealthier people have disproportionately caused the environmental problems caused by population - not the more numerous poor. A fair, equitable, democratic and ecocentric solution has to be found - not a 'top-down' one. There are such fair proposals already advanced by some progressive environmental scientists**. Holdren is not on-board on these - quite the opposite, I fear.

* Double this when comparing to sub-Sahara Africa
**These are complex and I've not elaborated here, but could.

Mark Stapleton
07-12-2009, 11:53 AM
Discard rampant capitalism and make 70 the cutoff age for voting in western countries.

Then there's the massive problem of religion.

Magda Hassan
07-14-2009, 10:46 AM
Discard rampant capitalism and make 70 the cutoff age for voting in western countries.

Then there's the massive problem of religion.

This I agree with.

Holdren and Ehrich are not advocating this though. These institutions remain untouched just the bodies and minds of human beings will bear the brunt. Poor brown and black one's in particular.

I totally agree that religion has a lot to answer for in this matter. A secular society is the only way to go with laws to protect all equally. People can have their superstitions by all means but in private. It should not be entertained in public or in social policy. All religions seek to control women and their sexuality. When women are able to access education, have a high degree of literacy, and are able to make independent choices about their life and fertility it is shown that women will have smaller families.

Rampant capitalism is not a sustainable practice and needs to go the way of the dodo.

Peter Lemkin
07-14-2009, 12:20 PM
Rampant capitalism is not a sustainable practice and needs to go the way of the dodo.

Rabid may be a better term than 'rampant'. Yes, Environmental Scientists are realizing, along with all the other environmental per se problems, that Capitalism is NOT sustainable and is antithetical to a sustainable environment for humans and all living things. Jensen addresses this [see threads here on Jensen], as do others. Capitalism - especially the American Corporate varient specifies one must always grow to even break-even. We live in a finite world, with finite resources and space and we are toying with a dominant economic system that only lives on endless growth ,and even an endless increase in the rate of growth (and resourse use/waste production). Something has to 'give'....it will either be capitalism or life on the Planet - choose one. :damnmate:

Mark Stapleton
07-15-2009, 01:58 AM
I totally agree that religion has a lot to answer for in this matter. A secular society is the only way to go with laws to protect all equally. People can have their superstitions by all means but in private. It should not be entertained in public or in social policy. All religions seek to control women and their sexuality. When women are able to access education, have a high degree of literacy, and are able to make independent choices about their life and fertility it is shown that women will have smaller families.




I agree a secular society is the only way for a peaceful and equitable future but its a hell of a job trying to convince people to discard religion. The fear of death is strong in people, and they think they need an insurance policy, namely faith in their God.

It all stems from the way it is drummed into children from an early age, imo. The fear of God, hell and purgatory is emplanted in Christian children from an early age and many carry it to the grave. Forcing children to adhere to a strict religious doctrine when they have no choice in the matter has a whiff of child abuse about it, imo.

Believing in holy spirits, miracles and reincarnation is pure superstition. Millions have died and will continue to die in the name of superstition because all religion is just superstition.

Magda Hassan
08-10-2009, 09:43 AM
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/holdren_pres-seal.jpg "Harrison Brown's most remarkable book, The Challenge of Man's Future, was published more than three decades ago. By the time I read it as a high school student a few years later, the book had been widely acclaimed.... The Challenge of Man's Future pulled these interests together for me in a way that transformed my thinking about the world and about the sort of career I wanted to pursue. I have always suspected that I am not the only member of my generation whose aspirations and subsequent career were changed by this book of Harrison Brown's.... As a demonstration of the power of (and necessity for) an interdisciplinary approach to global problems, the book was a tour de force.... Thirty years after Harrison Brown elaborated these positions, it remains difficult to improve on them as a coherent depiction of the perils and challenges we face. Brown's accomplishment in writing The Challenge of Man's Future, of course, was not simply the construction of this sweeping schema for understanding the human predicament; more remarkable was (and is) the combination of logic, thoroughness, clarity, and force with which he marshalled data and argumentation on every element of the problem and on their interconnections. It is a book, in short, that should have reshaped permanently the perceptions of all serious analysts...."
— John Holdren, in Earth and the Human Future: Essays in Honor of Harrison Brown http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/harrison_brown.jpg (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4548&page=40) "The feeble-minded, the morons, the dull and backward, and the lower-than-average persons in our society are outbreeding the superior ones at the present time. ... Is there anything that can be done to prevent the long-range degeneration of human stock? Unfortunately, at the present time there is little, other than to prevent breeding in persons who present glaring deficiencies clearly dangerous to society and which are known to be of a hereditary nature. Thus we could sterilize or in other ways discourage the mating of the feeble-minded. We could go further and systematically attempt to prune from society, by prohibiting them from breeding, persons suffering from serious inheritable forms of physical defects, such as congenital deafness, dumbness, blindness, or absence of limbs. ... A broad eugenics program would have to be formulated which would aid in the establishment of policies that would encourage able and healthy persons to have several offspring and discourage the unfit from breeding at excessive rates."
— Harrison Brown, in The Challenge of Man's Future
John Holdren and Harrison Brown
Lifelong intellectual infatuation with eugenics-minded futurist casts shadow over Science Czar Holdren's worldview


John Holdren, the Science Czar of the United States, has long expressed an intense admiration — one that bordered on hero-worship — of a man named Harrison Brown, a respected scientist from an earlier generation who spent his later years writing about overpopulation and ecological destruction. In fact, as Holdren has pointed out several times (including very recently), it was Harrison Brown's most famous book, The Challenge of Man's Future, which transformed the young Holdren's personal philosophy and which inspired him to later embark on a career in science and population policy which in many ways mirrored that of his idol Brown.

Holdren's regard for Brown was so high that in 1986 he edited and co-wrote an homage to Brown entitled Earth and the Human Future: Essays in Honor of Harrison Brown (http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=no:012370755), in which Holdren showers Brown with accolades and unrestrained applause.

At first glance, there's nothing remarkable or amiss with this picture: one respected scientist giving credit to and paying tribute to another. Happens all the time. Except in this case, something is amiss. Grievously amiss. Because Harrison Brown, whatever good qualities Holdren might have seen in him, was also an unapologetic eugenicist who made horrifying recommendations for "sterilizing the feeble-minded" and other "unfit" substandard humans whom he thought should be "pruned from society." (See the quotes from Holdren on the left and Brown on the right for a small sampling of the evidence presented below.)

You might think that these opinions would disqualify Brown as someone deserving praise in the modern world; but not to John Holdren, it seems -- perhaps because Brown's views (as Holdren himself has stated many times) were the basis of Holdren's own worldview.

The Evidence

Like my previous essay about Holdren's book Ecoscience (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/), this report exists for one purpose only: To provide the reader with irrefutable evidence of the claims being made and to supply the raw material for forming your own opinions and making your own posts on this topic. But in this instance we will focus not on one book but on two books:

The Challenge of Man's Future, by Harrison Brown

Earth and the Human Future: Essays in Honor of Harrison Brown, edited and co-written by John Holdren.

Below this introduction you will find direct, unaltered scans taken from each book. Next to each scan you will find an accurate transcription of the words being quoted. The passages from The Challenge of Man's Future focus on those sections in which Brown unabashedly expresses what to our modern sensibilities are the most heinous imaginable opinions about eugenics, elitism, and totalitarian population control. The quotes from Earth and the Human Future are all sections written by John Holdren himself in which he heaps enthusiastic and unreserved praise on Brown's writings, recommendations and philosophy.

But Isn't This All From a Long Time Ago?

Holdren's alarming views about overpopulation, and his connection with Harrison Brown, cannot be easily dismissed as something "in the past" which can be set aside and forgotten as no longer relevant. That's because Holdren has never publicly changed his views on this topic nor ever explicitly disavowed his earlier statements; rather, he simply stopped writing about the topic of population. Since the late 1980s, Holdren has turned his attention to other concerns (primarily arms control and global warming), while for the most part falling silent about overpopulation. So the opinions he expressed in the '70s and mid-'80s still stand as his only opinions on the subject. In fact, the 1986 book discussed in this report (Earth and the Human Future) is Holdren's most recent book touching on the topic of overpopulation. After that date, he simply let the topic drop except for occasional passing references -- all of which confirmed rather than denied his earlier views. (And the brief one-sentence retraction Holdren made during his confirmation hearing was about one specific claim in a different book of his, as we will see in my next report; it was most definitely not a blanket disavowal of all his previous writings.)

But as for his admiration of Harrison Brown -- well, that's still going strong. As recently as 2007 Holdren was still praising Brown as his original inspiration and mentor: As pointed out by Jonathan Adler (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTc4MGNiYmIxMGIyZWYwZjE3MTFmMGVlNDY0Nzc0NDU=&w=MA==) and Michelle Malkin (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/15/study-in-contrasts-christian-scientist-vs-eco-mad-scientist/), in 2007 John Holdren gave a speech to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/319/5862/424), in the notes for which he cites Harrison Brown as his mentor:
"I owe thanks for insight and inspiration to several late mentors (among them Harrison Brown, Roger Revelle, Gilbert White, Jerome Wiesner, Harvey Brooks, and Joseph Rotblat)..." Holdren then calls The Challenge of Man's Future "prescient":
"This was the key insight in Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb (Ballantine, New York, 1968), as well as one of those in Harrison Brown's prescient earlier book, The Challenge of Man's Future (Viking, New York, 1954). The elementary but discomfiting truth of it may account for the vast amount of ink, paper, and angry energy that has been expended trying in vain to refute it." At the AAAP site news story about Holdren's speech (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2007/0216am_holdren_address.shtml), you can download his PowerPoint presentation, the very first slide of which glowingly quotes Harrison Brown, and on which Holdren says,
"My pre-occupation with the great problems at the intersection of science and technology with the human condition—and with the interconnectedness of these problems with each other—began when I read The Challenge of Man's Future in high school. I later worked with Harrison Brown at Caltech." Remember -- all these statements are very recent, from 2007. So the connection between the two scientists remains deep and is still current.

Incredibly, when Michelle Malkin asked Holdren's spokesman Rick Weiss about Harrison Brown (http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2009/07/24/ghoulish_science_plus_obamacare_equals_health_haza rd?page=full&comments=true), Weiss claimed he had never heard of him -- as if one dismissive denial would somehow erase a lifetime of publicly expressed idolization.

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/EHF_titlesmall.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/EHF_titlefull.jpg) http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_titlesmall.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_titlefull.jpg) Population Control Is Not a Sideshow — It's the Whole Point

The eugenics proposals outlined in The Challenge of Man's Future are not some peripheral component of an otherwise admirable thesis. They are, in fact, the heart of the book. Brown writes extensively about the overwhelming problems we face, but spends only a few brief pages discussing how to solve those problems. Much of the book surveys in great detail the "challenges" in our future, all of which serves as a set-up for the solution -- which is to stop growth and limit the population. And since we need to cut back on the population, we also at the same time need to "improve" our "genetic stock" by preventing "biologically unsound" people from "breeding." Otherwise, the "feeble-minded" will cause a "long-range degeneration of human stock." Without these proposals, the book would be pointless -- what would be the purpose of highlighting our problems without recommending solutions?

The real problem -- at least from Holdren's point of view -- is that Harrison Brown was too honest, too frank. He had not yet learned to use the weasel words and politicized euphemisms now de rigeuer for Holdren and his contemporaries. By the 1970s, it was no longer acceptable to speak openly of eugenics in a direct manner, so thenceforth such things were only hinted at -- never discussed overtly, as Harrison Brown did so naively back in the 1950s.

Harrison Brown, it should be noted, was also a member of the International Eugenics Society (http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC105.HTM) alongside his friend and colleague Charles Galton Darwin, another famed eugenicist whose work Brown praises and quotes (as we shall see later in this essay).

Does all of this amount to nothing more than "guilt by association"? Perhaps. That's up to you the reader to decide. But consider this: If someone had expressed his deep admiration for Mein Kampf, and in fact edited and co-wrote a volume which spelled out in elaborate detail just how wonderful Mein Kampf was as a book, would you want that person to control science and technology policy in the United States? Probably not. But that too would be just "guilt by association," since this putative person wouldn't have actually written Mein Kampf; he would merely have praised the book and its author. And if you think that's an unfair analogy, I dare you to read the passages from The Challenge of Man's Future below and you'll see that in certain respects Mein Kampf seems mild by comparison.

So there you have it: The Science Czar of the United States based his entire worldview on and continues to highly praise someone who was an unreconstructed eugenicist, and whose totalitarianistic philosophy is unacceptable in the modern world.

Are you OK with that?

Direct quotes from Harrison Brown's The Challenge of Man's Future and John Holdren's Earth and the Human Future

Below you will find a series of sixteen short passages: twelve from The Challenge of Man's Future and four from Earth and the Human Future. On the left in each case is a scanned image taken directly from the pages of the book itself; on the right is an exact transcription of each passage, with noteworthy sections highlighted. To help readers distinguish between the two books, passages by Harrison Brown are in red; passages by John Holdren are in blue. Below each quote is a brief commentary by me.

Following these short quotes, I provide the full extended passages from which most of the shorter quotes were excerpted, to provide the full textual context.

And at the bottom of this report, I provide untouched scans of the full pages from which all of these passages were taken, to quash any doubts anyone might have that these are absolutely real, and to forestall any claims that the quotes were taken "out of context."

Now: Let's read.

Page 104 of The Challenge of Man's Future by Harrison Brown
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_104quote.jpg Is there anything that can be done to prevent the long-range degeneration of human stock? Unfortunately, at the present time there is little, other than to prevent breeding in persons who present glaring deficiencies clearly dangerous to society and which are known to be of a hereditary nature. Thus we could sterilize or in other ways discourage the mating of the feeble-minded. We could go further and systematically attempt to prune from society, by prohibiting them from breeding, persons suffering from serious inheritable forms of physical defects, such as congenital deafness, dumbness, blindness, or absence of limbs. As shocking as these words might be to our 21st-century sensibilities, we need to remember that they should have been equally shocking back when they were first written in 1954. Although eugenics may have had a certain vogue among the intelligentsia in the late 19th century up through the 1920s, everything changed in the wake of World War II when the world learned of what went on under the Nazi regime. Starting in the 1930s, the Germans used eugenics as a justification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Germany) for mass sterilization and incarceration programs, and later for mass exterminations of anyone deemed to have a genetic flaw. Hence, after 1945 eugenics was completely discredited as a philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Overview) once the world realized where such policies inevitably led.

And yet, even after all that, here comes Harrison Brown in 1954 reviving this most loathsome of ideologies, going so far as to use the same kind of language and terminology ("degeneration of human stock") employed by the Nazis and earlier eugenics extremists. Which is all the more bizarre considering that Brown helped America win the war by working on the Manhattan Project and was known to be a loyal patriot who did not have any sympathies for the Axis powers in WWII.

Considering what the world had just witnessed in occupied Europe, it's a mystery how Brown managed to justify to himself the grotesque eugenics advocacy he expressed in The Challenge of Man's Future. Even more disturbing is how popular the book was with the American public -- including a young John Holdren who said (as we will see below) that this book "transformed my thinking about the world."

Page 105 of The Challenge of Man's Future by Harrison Brown
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_105quote.jpg First, man can discourage unfit persons from breeding. Second, he can encourage breeding by those persons who are judged fit on the basis of physical and mental testing and examinations of the records of their ancestors. Brown takes his eugenics proposals even further on the following page; now, not only will you yourself be judged on your own qualities as to whether or not you will be allowed to "breed," but your ancestry will also be examined to see if it is acceptable to the authorities. If you are not descended from good breeding stock, then presumably you will not be judged "fit" and not be allowed to breed.

Page 263 of The Challenge of Man's Future by Harrison Brown
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_263quote.jpg Priorities for artificial insemination could be given to healthy women of high intelligence whose ancestors possessed no dangerous genetic defects. Conversely, priorities for abortions could be given to less intelligent persons of biologically unsound stock.

Such steps would undoubtedly contribute substantially to a slowing down of species deterioration. But it is clear that they would by no means be sufficient. A broad eugenics program would have to be formulated which would aid in the establishment of policies that would encourage able and healthy persons to have several offspring and discourage the unfit from breeding at excessive rates. Yes, that's correct -- Harrison Brown comes right out and says it, unashamedly calling his proposals "a broad eugenics program." And he freely admits that it's not just based on obvious genetic defects, but also on "intelligence." So that smart, attractive people will be given "priorities" for allowed inseminations, whereas stupid people with the wrong ancestry ("biologically unsound stock") will be given "priorities" for abortions.

Have you ever, in your entire life, read something more horrifying and morally repulsive? It's difficult to even imagine ideas more repugnant than these proposals put forward by Harrison Brown in his book The Challenge of Man's Future as the solution to mankind's problems.

Who in their right mind could praise such a book? Who would cite it as the source of their own philosophy? Who would model themselves after its author?

Here's who:

John Holdren -- Science Czar of the United States. Read the following passage written by John Holdren in 1986:

Page 73 of Earth and the Human Future; Introduction by John Holdren
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/EHF_73quote.jpg INTRODUCTION

JOHN P. HOLDREN

Harrison Brown's most remarkable book, The Challenge of Man's Future (Viking, 1954; reprinted by Westview, 1984), was published more than three decades ago. By the time I read it as a high school student a few years later, the book had been widely acclaimed as a monumental survey of the human prospect, illuminated through analysis of the interaction of population, technology, and the resources of the physical world. I knew even before high school that science and technology held special interest for me, and I suppose I also had some prior interest in the larger human condition. But The Challenge of Man's Future pulled these interests together for me in a way that transformed my thinking about the world and about the sort of career I wanted to pursue. I have always suspected that I am not the only member of my generation whose aspirations and subsequent career were changed by this book of Harrison Brown's.

What was so special about the book? Perhaps most impressive at the time was the combination of audacity and erudition with which Brown wove together insights from anthropology, history, economics, geochemistry, biology, and the study of technology to provide a coherent, multidimensional picture of his subject—how humans have provided themselves with the physical ingredients of existence in the past, their prospects for doing so in the future, and the connections between these matters and the sociopolitical dimensions of the human condition. As a demonstration of the power of (and necessity for) an interdisciplinary approach to global problems, the book was a tour de force. So, the man in control of science and technology policy in this country freely admits that a book which strongly advocates eugenics "transformed my thinking about the world." Moreover, he describes the book as "remarkable," "special" and a "tour de force" which possessed "audacity and erudition." And remember that he didn't just say this once in 1986: Holdren has been praising the book and its ideas continuously throughout his career, citing it as his inspiration as far back as the 1970s and as recently as 2007.

We'll hear more praise from John Holdren later; now, let's get back to the book he's praising, with more quotes from the pages of Brown's The Challenge of Man's Future:

Page 263-4 of The Challenge of Man's Future by Harrison Brown
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_263-4quote.jpg Precise control of population can never be made completely compatible with the concept of a free society; on the other hand, neither can the automobile, the machine gun, or the atomic bomb. Whenever several persons live together in a small area, rules of behavior are necessary. Just as we have rules designed to keep us from killing one another with our automobiles, so there must be rules that keep us from killing one another with our fluctuating breeding habits and with our lack of attention to the soundness of our individual genetic stock. In this passage, Brown states quite openly that his eugenics policies "can never be made completely compatible with the concept of a free society" -- i.e. that they would lead to totalitarianism. So you can't defend him by claiming that he was simply naive and didn't grasp the implications of what he was proposing. He knew full well that his "broad eugenics program" would mean the end of "a free society." What's disturbing is that he was OK with that.

Later in the paragraph he writes an equally disturbing passage about how "fluctuating breeding habits" are killing us, so there need to be rules to prevent the wrong kinds of people from multiplying. He seems to be admonishing the unfit inferior people that if they only paid proper "attention to the soundness of [their] individual genetic stock" they'd realize that they should stop breeding for the good of the human race.

Page 103 of The Challenge of Man's Future by Harrison Brown
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_103quote1.jpg Although there are admittedly numerous individual fluctuations, it does appear that the feeble-minded, the morons, the dull and backward, and the lower-than-average persons in our society are outbreeding the superior ones at the present time. Indeed, it has been estimated that the average Intelligence Quotient of Western population as a whole is probably decreasing significantly with each succeeding generation. This crucial passage shows how eugenics programs are the slipperiest of slopes. We saw in the first quote above that Brown is in favor of "sterilizing the feeble-minded." But here in this passage the concept of "feeble-minded" suddenly becomes very loosely defined, and Brown broadens the definition to potentially include "the morons, the dull and backward, and the lower-than-average persons." So — where will this lead us? How long before Brown's proposed forced sterilization programs will expand to include the "backward" kids, or even the "lower-than-average persons"? Which bureaucrats get to determine the dividing line between the "feeble-minded" and the merely "dull," or between the "morons" and the simply "backward"? Will your performance on an intelligence test determine whether you get permission to reproduce?

Page 103 of The Challenge of Man's Future by Harrison Brown
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_103quote2.jpg Traffic accidents tend to remove the reckless, the inattentive, and persons unable to judge time and distance at high speeds. Among children as well as adults, accidents of all types tend to remove from society persons who cannot obey instructions or heed warnings. General pressures of living tend to select in favor of persons who can adjust themselves to city and to factory life. Among the laboring groups, selection effects favor those who can work with groups and who can follow instructions meticulously. With every paragraph, the dawning horror grows. Now we see it's not just about intelligence and genetics -- it's also about class. Brown seriously believes that "laboring groups" (i.e. the working class) have evolved to "follow instructions meticulously" so they can "adjust to factory life." Up until now, he implies, natural selection has weeded out those poor working-class slobs who were not genetically predisposed to "follow instructions" in the factory, and so were presumbly ground up by the machinery before they could breed and pass on their inferior genes.

So — what does John Holdren have to say about all this? Here's another quote from U.S. Science Czar Holdren's introduction to Earth and the Human Future:

Page 75 of Earth and the Human Future; Introduction by John Holdren
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/EHF_75quote.jpg Thirty years after Harrison Brown elaborated these positions, it remains difficult to improve on them as a coherent depiction of the perils and challenges we face.

Brown's accomplishment in writing The Challenge of Man's Future, of course, was not simply the construction of this sweeping schema for understanding the human predicament; more remarkable was (and is) the combination of logic, thoroughness, clarity, and force with which he marshalled data and argumentation on every element of the problem and on their interconnections. It is a book, in short, that should have reshaped permanently the perceptions of all serious analysts about the interactions of the demographic, biological, geophysical, technological, economic, and soclopolitical dimensions of contemporary problems. That it failed to do so—that the world is still full of analysts who are generally regarded as serious despite their insistence that problems of population, resources, the rich-poor gap, and the prospects for war or peace are all separate issues—must be an even greater disappointment to Harrison Brown than to those of us who have been restating his points (usually less eloquently) in the three decades since he first made them. Wait -- is John Holdren really talking about the same book? Indeed he is. He says it "remains difficult to improve on" the positions Brown elaborated in The Challenge of Man's Future, and that Holdren himself has been "restating points (usually less eloquently)" for three decades. (I think "more euphemistically" rather than "less eloquently" is a better way to characterize how Holdren has been restating Brown's points.)

I can already hear Holdren's defenders crying out that Holdren was referring to the other parts of The Challenge of Man's Future, not the stuff about eugenics. But read once again what Holdren says: "this sweeping schema for understanding the human predicament; more remarkable was (and is) the combination of logic, thoroughness, clarity, and force with which he marshalled data and argumentation on every element of the problem and on their interconnections." Holdren is talking about the whole book, every aspect of it. He obviously has read the entire book very carefully, many times. It's not as if Holdren can claim he didn't notice all that stuff about eugenics in there. He noticed it alright. He's just hoping that we don't notice it.

More importantly, as I pointed out in the introduction to this essay, the eugenics proposals are not some minor aspect of Brown's overall argument: They are the core of the book. The Challenge of Man's Future is like a giant equation taking into account many variables: and the solution to this equation is population control -- including eugenics. Saying that one can simply ignore the eugenics part of The Challenge of Man's Future is like saying one can simply ignore the "4" part of 2+2=4.

[B]Page 106 of The Challenge of Man's Future by Harrison Brown
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_106.jpg We cannot hope to carry out a planned evolution of our species for the simple reason that we haven't the slightest idea of what we want, and no mechanism is available that will permit us to determine what we want. A "super-race" of men or a panel of gods could examine us objectively and plan a wise pattern. But in the absence of either, we will probably remain pretty much as we are for hundreds of thousands of years. How in good conscience could Harrison Brown nonchalantly use the phrase "super-race" in reference to eugenics, just nine years after the fall of the Nazi regime which obsessed over creating a "super-race" of superior men as the end goal of their eugenics program? Perhaps one could forgive another author in another setting for accidentally using this "unfortunate turn of phrase," but in this case — considering all the quotes above — I'm having a hard time letting this one go and giving Brown the benefit of the doubt.

Page 260 of The Challenge of Man's Future by Harrison Brown
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_260quote.jpg In the first place, it is amply clear that population stabilization and a world composed of completely independent sovereign states are incompatible. Populations cannot be stabilized by agreement any more than levels of armament can be stabilized by agreement. And, as in the latter case, a world authority is needed which has the power of making, interpreting, and enforcing, within specified spheres, laws which are directly applicable to the individual. Indeed, population stabilization is one of the two major problems with which a world government must necessarily concern itself.

Given a world authority with jurisdiction over population problems, the task of assessing maximum permissible population levels on a regional basis need not be prohibitively difficult. Moving away from eugenics for the moment, we turn to a different topic which John Holdren discussed in Ecoscience and which we now see possibly had its origins in ideas Holdren first encountered in The Challenge of Man's Future: world government. Or, as Holdren less-eloquently phrased it, "the Planetary Regime (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/943_detail.jpg)." In this quote, Brown once again is brutally frank about the consequences of his proposals, saying that it would be impossible to have "a world composed of completely independent sovereign states" if we are to institute the necessary population control. In other words -- no national independence, no local self-governance. The end of nationhood, to be replaced by a "world authority" which would have the power to enforce certain population control laws which take away individual human rights.

No national sovereignty. No United States. A world government controlling the most intimate details of your life. Are you OK with that? Harrison Brown was -- and by extension so is John Holdren, if his unmitigated praise for this book and its ideas is to be believed.

Page 258 of The Challenge of Man's Future by Harrison Brown
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_258.jpg In the world of my imagination there is organization, but it is as decentralized as possible, compatible with the requirements for survival. There is a world government, but it exists solely for the purpose of preventing war and stabilizing population, and its powers are irrevocably restricted. The government exists for man rather than man for the government. Here, Brown takes it to the next level, saying that he doesn't simply resign himself to the necessity of a world government which enforces population control laws, but rather that he would prefer it to the way things currently are (i.e. independent nation-states). Though he seems to be overly optimistic that such a scenario would be utopian rather than dystopian.

One wonders: Did the young John Holdren absorb this idea into his personal philosophy when he read The Challenge of Man's Future (as he has stated frequently), and if so, which other ideas from the book did he also take to heart? Holdren over and over has cited this book as the touchstone of his own worldview, and evidence of that claim is to be found everywhere in Holdren's later writings. Just how far did this influence go? And to what extent did Holdren find it necessary to re-phrase and euphemise these ideas with flowery words for modern consumption?

Page 262 of The Challenge of Man's Future by Harrison Brown
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_262.jpg Briefly, such a control system would operate in the following manner. Let us suppose that in a given year the birth rate exceeds the death rate by a certain amount, thus resulting in a population increase. During the following year the number of permitted inseminations is decreased, and the number of permitted abortions is increased, in such a way that the birth rate is lowered by the requisite amount. If the death rate exceeds the birth rate, the number of permitted inseminations would be increased while the number of abortions would be decreased. The number of abortions and artificial inseminations permitted in a given year would be determined completely by the difference between the number of deaths and the number of births in the year previous.

It can be argued that such a procedure would be ruthless and would deprive many people of their individual liberties. Yet would it be any more ruthless than the policy which is now followed in the United States? In this passage Brown fantasizes about an authoritarian government dictating the number of "inseminations" and abortions to be performed every year, as the only workable way to enforce population control. And once again he freely admits that his proposal would "deprive many people of their individual liberties" -- but then makes the stupefying claim that this would be no more "ruthless" than the current American legal system (as of 1954). Now, 1954 America was certainly not perfect in every regard, but the freedoms enjoyed by Americans at that time were broad-ranging and almost unparalleled in history compared to just about every other society. And we didn't have a micro-managing fascistic central government dictating whether or not you were going to have an insemination or an abortion. The fact that Brown tried to justify such a repressive system by comparing it favorably to the then-existing social structure reveals once again that he was indeed advocating for compulsory population control.

Let's turn once more to John Holdren's take on the book. Surely he rejected this type of attitude and reserved his praise solely for some of the technical details of Brown's work. Right? Think again.

Pages 78, 79, 156 and 159 of Earth and the Human Future; passages by John Holdren
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/EHF_78-9_156-9quote.jpg I should emphasize, therefore, that my contribution is written in what I take to be the spirit in which Harrison wrote The Challenge of Man's Future—that is, the conviction that it is necessary to dwell on the perils in order to stimulate timely action to avoid or minimize them.

...

To put too much emphasis on the correctness or incorrectness of particular predictions, however, is to miss the main point of writing usefully about the future. The idea is not to be "right," but to illuminate the possibilities in a way that both stimulates sensible debate about the sort of future we want and facilitates sound decisions about getting from here to there. This philosophy has informed Harrison Brown's writing about the human future throughout the four decades in which he has been doing it. Our understanding of the dimensions of the human predicament—and of what might be done to alleviate it—is much the better for his effort.

...

The mid-twentieth-century revival of Malthus's insight that no combination of good technology and good management can cope with unlimited population growth on a finite planet (a revival to which Harrison Brown's 1954 book, The Challenge of Man's Future, was the most eloquent and comprehensive contribution) is more relevant in the 1980s than ever.

...

In the spirit in which Harrison Brown wrote The Challenge of Man's Future some thirty years ago, this chapter has been written as a contribution to the continuing effort to help create that consensus. The first paragraph of this long quote confirms what some of Holdren's defenders claimed about his statements in Ecoscience -- namely that Holdren proposes extreme measures simply as scare tactics. When he says "it is necessary to dwell on the perils in order to stimulate timely action," it's his way of saying that we should terrify the populace into going along with his proposals by painting a dire picture of what the alternatives might be. (Global warming, anyone?)

I found the next paragraph particularly amusing, especially his claim that it's not important to make accurate predictions about the future, but simply to make any predictions at all -- the wilder, the better, apparently -- to "stimulate debate." (Global warming, anyone?)

And the rest of the quote is the by-now-familiar groveling by Holdren at the altar of Brown.

Page 221 of The Challenge of Man's Future by Harrison Brown
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_221quote.jpg But a substantial fraction of humanity today is behaving as if it would like to create such a world. It is behaving as if it were engaged in a contest to test nature's willingness to support humanity and, if it had its way, it would not rest content until the earth is covered completely and to a considerable depth with a writhing mass of human beings, much as a dead cow is covered with a pulsating mass of maggots. This is the already well-known "maggots" quote that was pointed out earlier in a column by Michelle Malkin (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/15/study-in-contrasts-christian-scientist-vs-eco-mad-scientist/). While this might be dismissed by Brown's defenders as a mere unfortunate turn of phrase, it actually is not the first or only time he has made this exact comparison -- likening humans to maggots. When he was a young man, Brown took an adventurous journey to Japanese-occupied China, where he was horrified by the overcrowding he witnessed. In 1937, Brown wrote in his journal (http://edocs.lib.sfu.ca/cgi-bin/HarrisonBrown?DisplayHTMLPage=169&ImageID=999-016-001-001) about the conditions he saw in Canton:
And Canton! I long ago found that one cannot understand the word 'population' without having seen the East. I doubt if any single city in the Orient is a better example of this. The very ground seems to ooze people and the river water to breed them like flies. There are said to be half a million of this boat population alone, who live and die on the water and spend but little of their time ashore. At any hour of the day or night the streets are teeming with people, every foetid narrow alley crawls with them, every corner and wall cranny harbours them. ... If one stands for an instant on the pavement 3 or 4 ricksha's are clamouring for hire, shouting and pushing and beating each other down. Rushkin's description of mankind as a heap of maggots battening on each other for the means of substinance was never better illustrated than here. Brown was apparently referring to this obscure passage (http://books.google.com/books?id=in0EAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA820&lpg=PA820&dq=%22john+ruskin%22+maggots&source=bl&ots=X1xjjYbNME&sig=4eocceHSv1l4jvd3nDbbD5NcfbA&hl=en&ei=e2J4SqHQHoXWsgPMncXUBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=%22john%20ruskin%22%20maggots&f=false) by the writer John Ruskin (http://www.archive.org/stream/forsclavigeralet08ruskrich/forsclavigeralet08ruskrich_djvu.txt) who described the population of 19th-century England as "a mere heap of agonizing human maggots, scrambling and sprawling over each other for any manner of rotten eatable thing they can get a bite of." It seems this image made such an impression on Harrison Brown that he returned to it repeatedly in his later writings.

Page 236-7 of The Challenge of Man's Future by Harrison Brown
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_236-7.jpg And if population growth is to stop without our having excessively high death rates, we must reconcile ourselves to the fact that artificial means must be applied to limit birth rates. This conclusion is inescapable. We can avoid talking about it, moralists may try to convince us to the contrary, laws may be passed forbidding us to talk about it, fear of pressure groups may prevent political leaders from discussing the subject, but the conclusion cannot be denied on any rational basis. Either population-control measures must be both widely and wisely used, or we must reconcile ourselves to a world where starvation is everywhere, where life expectancy at birth is less than 30 years, where infants stand a better chance of dying than of living during the first year following birth, where women are little more than machines for breeding, pumping child after child into an inhospitable world, spending the greater part of their adult lives in a state of pregnancy. This passage is a worthy companion to the "maggots" quote, with Brown saying that unless we institute his draconian compulsory population-control measures, then women will be "little more than machines for breeding, pumping child after child into an inhospitable world." And as usual (in the manner of his follower Holdren) he paints a picture of extreme horror (mass starvation, few people living past 30 years old) unless we wise up first and adopt his recommendations.

I'm starting to sense a pattern here. Scientist A wants to impose totalitarian measures on Population B. Scientist A paints doomsday scenario as the only possible alternative to his measures, using shaky projections and worst-case scenarios to bolster his claim. Population B, faced with this dire dilemma, panics and chooses totalitarianism as the only way to avoid doomsday. (Global warming, anyone?)

Bibliographies, footnotes and references from various books by John Holdren
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/EHF159_CC15_TEWB.jpg [These are examples of various references to and citations of The Challenge of Man's Future made by John Holdren in different books and papers he's published over the years. The top one mentions Challenge in Holdren's biography for his chapter in Earth and the Human Future; the second is a footnote referring to Challenge in a paper Holdren wrote in 1975 called Technology, Environment and Well-Being; and the last is a reference to Challenge in the 1985 book The Cassandra Conference, which Holdren edited.] I'm including these otherwise uninteresting scans to show that John Holdren refers to The Challenge of Man's Future in nearly every work he publishes. It's not just in Earth and the Human Future that Holdren cites Harrison Brown; rather, Brown is the touchstone of Holdren's writing career, and one would be hard-pressed to find any examples of books or population-themed essays in which Holdren doesn't mention Harrison Brown or The Challenge of Man's Future somewhere in the text or footnotes.

Further citations can be found, for example, in this essay that Holdren wrote in 1995 (http://dieoff.org/page113.htm), which lists Challenge first in the reference section at the end; and even as recently as 2007 in a speech Holdren gave to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in which named Brown and Challenge as his primary influences (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/15/study-in-contrasts-christian-scientist-vs-eco-mad-scientist/).



Before you read any further...

If you accept the self-evident veracity of these quotations, and are outraged enough already, then you can stop reading here. Very little new information is presented below.

(And if you'd like to comment on this report, you can do so HERE at zomblog (http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=606).)

But if you want more proof, then read on. The following section gives the complete extended passages from which the previous short quotes were taken -- not only proving they're real, but also providing the full syntactical context. And at the bottom of this report you will find full-page unaltered scans of each of the pages from the various books cited here, proving beyond any doubt that they exist, and also providing maximum context.

For the most part, I will make no further analysis, except for the final extended passage below, in which I comment on the connection between Holdren, Brown, and earlier famed eugenicist Charles Galton Darwin (not the Charles Darwin, but rather his grandson who had a different set of ideas altogether).

More Context: Complete extended passages from which the quotes above were taken



Pages 104-5 full-length extended passage from The Challenge of Man's Future by Harrison Brown
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_104-5.jpg Is there anything that can be done to prevent the long-range degeneration of human stock? Unfortunately, at the present time there is little, other than to prevent breeding in persons who present glaring deficiencies clearly dangerous to society and which are known to be of a hereditary nature. Thus we could sterilize or in other ways discourage the mating of the feeble-minded. We could go further and systematically attempt to prune from society, by prohibiting them from breeding, persons suffering from serious inheritable forms of physical defects, such as congenital deafness, dumbness, blindness, or absence of limbs. But all these steps would be negligible when compared with the ruthless pruning of man that was done by nature prior to the rise of civilization.

Unfortunately man's knowledge of human genetics is too meager at the present time to permit him to be a really successful pruner. The science of human genetics is not very old, and reliable facts and figures which enable one to differentiate satisfactorily between genetic effects and environmental effects are few and far between. Nevertheless, there is at present sufficient information to permit man to make a start toward pruning, however small it may be. And it is quite possible that by the time another ten or fifteen generations have passed, understanding of human genetics will be sufficient to permit man to do a respectable job of slowing down the deterioration of the species.

This can be accomplished in two ways. First, man can discourage unfit persons from breeding. Second, he can encourage breeding by those persons who are judged fit on the basis of physical and mental testing and examinations of the records of their ancestors. A small start has been made in this direction in the cases of childless couples where the male is sterile and artificial insemination is utilized to impregnate the female. It is quite likely that artificial insemination will be used with increasing frequency during the coming decades, and increasing care will be taken to insure the genetic soundness of the sperm.

If civilization survives, it is likely that in the long run we will be able to slow down and perhaps even to halt deterioration of the species. The methods that will be employed would probably not be palatable to many of us who are alive today. Nevertheless, the human animal is a flexible creature and has thus far been able to adjust his outlook to his needs with remarkable agility.

Pages 263-4 full-length extended passage from The Challenge of Man's Future by Harrison Brown
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_263-4.jpg Control of aids to conception and of abortions could also provide a mechanism for slowing down the deterioration processes associated with the elimination of biological competition. Priorities for artificial insemination could be given to healthy women of high intelligence whose ancestors possessed no dangerous genetic defects. Conversely, priorities for abortions could be given to less intelligent persons of biologically unsound stock.

Such steps would undoubtedly contribute substantially to a slowing down of species deterioration. But it is clear that they would by no means be sufficient. A broad eugenics program would have to be formulated which would aid in the establishment of policies that would encourage able and healthy persons to have several offspring and discourage the unfit from breeding at excessive rates. Here, of course, we encounter numerous difficulties—what would constitute "fit" and what would constitute "unfit'? Where is the boundary between the mentally deficient person and the genius?

These are indeed grave problems, and the probability is high that they will never be solved. Yet the possibility cannot be excluded that solutions may be found. Our knowledge of human genetics, of human behavior, and of human biochemistry is fragmentary. Two or three generations of intensive research aimed at understanding the functioning of the human machine might well enable us to define terms such as "fit" and "unfit," as applied to human beings, with considerable precision. Although we realize that there is little likelihood that human beings will ever be able consciously to improve the species by carrying out a process of planned selection, there appears to be a finite possibility that, given adequate research and broad planning, deterioration of the species might eventually be halted.

Precise control of population can never be made completely compatible with the concept of a free society; on the other hand, neither can the automobile, the machine gun, or the atomic bomb. Whenever several persons live together in a small area, rules of behavior are necessary. Just as we have rules designed to keep us from killing one another with our automobiles, so there must be rules that keep us from killing one another with our fluctuating breeding habits and with our lack of attention to the soundness of our individual genetic stock. On the other hand, although rules of behavior which operate in such areas are clearly necessary if our civilization is to survive, it remains to be seen whether or not such rules can be reconciled satisfactorily with the ideal of maximum individual freedom.

Pages 102-3 full-length extended passage from The Challenge of Man's Future by Harrison Brown
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_102-3.jpg In the past there has been considerable selection in favor of intelligence characteristics involving abilities to learn, to solve problems, and to transmit experience to offspring. In recent decades this pattern of selection has been completely reversed. Whereas in former times high intelligence increased the probability that many of an individual's characteristics would be reproduced and would spread throughout the population, today a high intelligence actually decreases this probability. The present situation has arisen as a result of the uneven adoption of birth-control techniques by differing social and economic groups in the Western World.

As modern contraceptive techniques have come into existence, they have first been used extensively by the wealthier and better- educated members of society. The techniques have been adopted only very gradually by the poorer and less-educated groups, with the result that these groups have been breeding much more rapidly than have the wealthier and better-educated ones. Although all of us have known intelligent people who are neither rich nor well educated, and we have known rather stupid people who are both rich and well educated, it is likely that on the average the more well-to-do and better-educated persons in our society have higher intelligence than the others. Although there are admittedly numerous individual fluctuations, it does appear that the feeble-minded, the morons, the dull and backward, and the lower-than-average persons in our society are outbreeding the superior ones at the present time. Indeed, it has been estimated that the average Intelligence Quotient of Western population as a whole is probably decreasing significantly with each succeeding generation.

Fortunately there are indications that this trend may well be of a temporary nature. It is likely to be but a symptom of the transition period in which we are now living, where fertility control has been only partially accepted. Recent trends in the Western World, and particularly the recent developments in Sweden, indicate that within a few decades we may actually achieve a birth pattern according to which parents least able to provide for children will have small families; and as the ability to provide—both economically and intellectually—increases, family size will increase proportionately.

Practically all of the recent changes in selection forces which we can imagine are of a negative nature. We can easily conceive of changes that may lead eventually to a lessened effectiveness of the human machine, but it is difficult to visualize forces that are leading to human betterment from the point of view of survival values. Nevertheless, a few slow changes which might or might not, in the long run, play important roles can be imagined. Traffic accidents tend to remove the reckless, the inattentive, and persons unable to judge time and distance at high speeds. Among children as well as adults, accidents of all types tend to remove from society persons who cannot obey instructions or heed warnings. General pressures of living tend to select in favor of persons who can adjust themselves to city and to factory life. Among the laboring groups, selection effects favor those who can work with groups and who can follow instructions meticulously.

Pages 220-1 full-length extended passage from The Challenge of Man's Future by Harrison Brown
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_220-1.jpg There are, of course, physical limitations of some sort which will determine the maximum number of human beings who can live on the earth's surface. But at the present time we are far from the ultimate limit of the number of persons who could be provided for. If we were willing to be crowded together closely enough, to eat foods which would bear little resemblance to the foods we eat today, and to be deprived of simple but satisfying luxuries such as fireplaces, gardens, and lawns, a world population of 50 billion persons would not be out of the question. And if we really put our minds to the problem we could construct floating islands where people might live and where algae farms could function, and perhaps 100 billion persons could be provided for. If we set strict limits to physical activities so that caloric requirements could be kept at very low levels, perhaps we could provide for 200 billion persons.

At this point the reader is probably saying to himself that he would have little desire to live in such a world, and he can rest assured that the author is thinking exactly the same thing. But a substantial fraction of humanity today is behaving as if it would like to create such a world. It is behaving as if it were engaged in a contest to test nature's willingness to support humanity and, if it had its way, it would not rest content until the earth is covered completely and to a considerable depth with a writhing mass of human beings, much as a dead cow is covered with a pulsating mass of maggots.

Pages 259-60 full-length extended passage from The Challenge of Man's Future by Harrison Brown
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_259-60.jpg These arguments have recently been expressed forcefully by Sir Charles Galton Darwin in his stimulating and highly provocative book entitled The Next Million Years.

Sir Charles's argument takes the following form:

1. Any nation which limits its population becomes less numerous than nations which do not limit their populations. The former will then sooner or later be crowded out of existence by the latter.
2. A nation which limits its population forfeits the selection effects of natural biological competition and as a result must gradually degenerate.
3. The tendency of civilization to sterilize its ablest citizens accelerates this process of degeneration.
4. The possibility that statesmen, perceiving these dangers, might agree upon a world-wide policy of limitation appears remote. How can they be expected to agree among themselves in this area when they have failed to solve the far easier problem of military disarmament?
5. Even if agreements among nations could be obtained, there would be great difficulty in establishing limits to the numbers admissible for the various populations.
6. The problem of enforcement of population-limitation agreements would be extremely difficult.
7. The probabilities of fanatical opposition to population limitation would be enormous. Although existing opposition is not, in the main, strongly emotional, it is likely that once population growth is forbidden by law, new creeds will emerge which will regard the practice as sinful.
8. The creedists, by multiplying more rapidly than the others, will make up an increasingly large fraction of the population, thus making enforcement increasingly difficult.
9. Natural selection will operate in favor of parental, as distinct from sexual, instincts. Those persons who want large families will in general have more children than others, and to the extent that this characteristic can be inherited, it would spread throughout the population.

These are indeed powerful arguments and, when considered together, they make the possibility of ultimate population stabilization within a framework of low birth rates and low death rates appear so remote as to border on the impossible. Nevertheless, we must ask ourselves: Can we visualize ways and means whereby these difficulties might be minimized?

In the first place, it is amply clear that population stabilization and a world composed of completely independent sovereign states are incompatible. Populations cannot be stabilized by agreement any more than levels of armament can be stabilized by agreement. And, as in the latter case, a world authority is needed which has the power of making, interpreting, and enforcing, within specified spheres, laws which are directly applicable to the individual. Indeed, population stabilization is one of the two major problems with which a world government must necessarily concern itself.

Given a world authority with jurisdiction over population problems, the task of assessing maximum permissible population levels on a regional basis need not be prohibitively difficult. A rancher in Nevada usually puts no more cattle on a range than he believes can be adequately supported. Similarly, working on the basis that individual regions of the world should be self-sufficient both agriculturally and industrially, indices of potential productivity can be computed for all regions of the world, and maximum permissible population levels can be calculated on this basis. John Holdren lavished (and continues to lavish) praise on Harrison Brown's The Challenge of Man's Future, and on pages 259-60 in that book Brown (as seen here) lavishes praise on the book The Next Million Years, by Charles Galton Darwin. This all by itself is truly astonishing and should raise serious questions about Holdren, because Charles Galton Darwin was one of the leading eugenicists of the early 20th century (http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsletters/GINL0412/chief_sea_lion.htm) and his The Next Million Years is essentially a eugenicists' handbook. You can read the entire book online here (http://www.scribd.com/doc/405285/The-Next-Million-Years-by-Charles-Galton-Darwin-1953-) if you're curious, including many extremely disturbing passages such as (on page 122),
...These feeble-minded can be regarded objectively by their superiors, and so might be amenable to the same sort of control as is applicable to domestic animals. This restraint of the breeding of the feeble-minded is important, and must never be neglected.... ...and on page 124,
...With the knowledge of the various sexual hormones it might also become possible to free the majority of mankind from the urgency of sexual impulse, so that they could live contented celibate lives... ...etc. (This second quote is eerily reminiscent of the "put sterilants in the drinking water" proposal discussed by Holdren in Ecoscience, as pointed out in my earlier essay on the subject.)

It's interesting to note the close parallels between the careers of Charles Galton Darwin, Harrison Brown, and John Holdren. All started their careers as successful and highly regarded physicists; then, after establishing their credentials as scientists early in life, they all retired as physicists and then turned their attentions to the topic of overpopulation and the global environment. They all then wrote popular books outlining their (generally pessimistic) views about the fate of mankind and what we might do to fend off the looming disaster: First Darwin in 1952 wrote The Next Million Years; then Brown in 1954 wrote The Challenge of Man's Future, and then in 1973 Holdren wrote Human Ecology (which I'll examine in my next report) and finally Ecoscience in 1977 (which we looked at previously). All four books are very similar in structure and tone, each seemingly an update of the preceeding one, with more details, more facts -- and more euphemisms.

In light of this, Holdren emerges as part of a long line of physicists who want to grapple with the "big picture" of how population control can save humanity from itself.


Full Context: High-res scans of all pages cited in this report

Click on each of the images below to see the full-size scans of the pages mentioned in this report:

Title page http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_titlesmall.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_titlefull.jpg) Page 102 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_102small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_102full.jpg) Page 103 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_103small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_103full.jpg)

Page 104 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_104small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_104full.jpg) Page 105 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_105small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_105full.jpg) Page 106 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_106small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_106full.jpg)

Page 220 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_220small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_220full.jpg) Page 221 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_221small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_221full.jpg) Page 236 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_236small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_236full.jpg)

Page 237 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_237small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_237full.jpg) Page 258 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_258small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_258full.jpg) Page 259 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_259small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_259full.jpg)

Page 260 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_260small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_260full.jpg) Page 262 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_262small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_262full.jpg) Page 263 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_263small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_263full.jpg)

Page 264 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_264small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/ChallManFut_264full.jpg) E&HF Title page http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/EHF_titlesmall.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/EHF_titlefull.jpg) E&HF Page 73 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/EHF_73small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/EHF_73full.jpg)

E&HF Page 75 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/EHF_75small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/EHF_75full.jpg) E&HF Page 78 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/EHF_78small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/EHF_78full.jpg) E&HF Page 79 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/EHF_79small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/EHF_79full.jpg)



E&HF Page 156 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/EHF_156small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/EHF_156full.jpg) E&HF Page 159 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/EHF_159small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/EHF_159full.jpg) TEWB http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/TEWB_pageXsmall.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/TEWB_pageXfull.jpg)

CC Page 15 http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/Cassandra_15small.jpg (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/Cassandra_15full.jpg)





























http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/

Jan Klimkowski
08-10-2009, 07:24 PM
Lebensborn - the word that must not be uttered.

The elite's secret wet dream.

Alive and kicking at the heart of power.