Home > Holdren, John - Science Czar > Holdren, John – Science and Technology Czar

Holdren, John – Science and Technology Czar

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

After the resignation of a radical communist turned White House advisor, Van Jones, Americans began to wonder about Obama’s list of czars. As everyone remembers, Obama made the claim that a person is judged by who he surrounds himself with. So what should we think of him as we examine this next czar, John Holdren, our Science and Technology czar?

US Obama ScienceIn the 1970’s, Holdren has co-authored several books, specifically of discovering ways to “de-develop” growing nations while redistributing that wealth (heard that before) to underdeveloped ones. Holdren wanted to level the playing field for the whole world. He also wrote snippets on the topic of a “one-world government” and birth control.

A lot of Holdren’s works are completely disturbing. He believed that our lives are leading to a state of dystopia and only a authoritarian government body can put a halt to all of it. Some Americans may find him to have Orwellian complex while others may find Holdren having similar thoughts of Hitler or Mussolini.

In his early years, Holdren was guided by Paul and Anne Ehrlich. If anyone is familiar with the Ehrlich’s, they were known as the two “doomsayers” who erroneously prophesized overpopulation would come to pass and would cause the world to implode in 2000. According to their book Global Ecology, of which Holdren co-authored, one would read the following paragraph:

“We are not, of course, optimistic about our chances of success. Some form of ecocatastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century. (The inability to forecast exactly which one – whether plague, famine, the poisoning of the oceans, drastic climatic change, or some disaster entirely unforeseen – is hardly grounds for complacency.)” (p.279)

Holdren concentrated on three areas that would save the world before it becomes a catastrophic planet: de-development, one-world government and birth control.

DE-DEVELOPMENT

In his book, Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions, Holdren writes openly about his theory of economic distribution:

“The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided to every human being.” (p. 279)

While stripping commodities from overdeveloped nations, Holdren wants to take what was stripped and give it to underdeveloped countries so they can appreciate the same market environment we once had. Only then, according to Holdren, will there be a balance of power. However, mandates will need to be created and enforced to lower everything we consume or use – water, food and utilities to name a few. Is this Obama’s intention when he said during one of his campaign speeches that “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody?” Who is everybody? Us? The people of this world? The government? You decide.

“Only one rational path is open to us—simultaneous de-development of the [overdeveloped countries] and semi-development of the underdeveloped countries (UDC’s), in order to approach a decent and ecologically sustainable standard of living for all in between. By de-development we mean lower per-capita energy consumption, fewer gadgets, and the abolition of planned obsolescence.” (John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich, Global Ecology, 1971, p. 3.)

With the unemployment rate rising conveniently, is it possible that Holdren is requesting not to generate new jobs so his de-development ideas can come true? I don’t know. It is an impressive idea to prevent employment growth in order to de-develop a country. This type of theoretical philosophy is clearly anti-capitalist, anti-wealth, and anti-prosperity. Everything that is against what our Constitution stands for.

“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. . . . Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries. This effort must be largely political.” (John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich, Human Ecology, 1973, p. 279.)

Clearly Holdren’s attentiveness is on the American people and stripping resources they worked so hard for. For all of this to work, politics will be the main contributor to the cause. And today we see Holdren where? He is at the White House and playing the role of czar within Obama’s regime.

ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT

But de-developing our country doesn’t stop there. Not only does Holdren want to make available more of our goods and services to underdeveloped countries while stripping us, he also believes by doing so will take us to the next stage – a one-world government.

Holdren’s theory of having a one-world government begins with giving the United Nations domain over the world resources:

“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

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. 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. ” (John Holdren, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Ecoscience, 1977, p. 492.)

So with this governing power, the UN will oversee population control over each country. Of course there will be individual governments within their respective countries, only to enforce regulation implemented by this one-world government body. This body will also direct nations on what they can and cannot do depending on how it effects the environment. Bottom line is the needs of the environment are far more important than human life.

“If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. . . . The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.” (John Holdren, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Ecoscience, 1977, p. 917.)

Holdren wants governments around the world (including the United States) to hand over their sovereignty to a “one-world government” initiated by the United Nations. Only then can a “world police” be formed.

This government will be the central point for ALL commodities, commerce, laws, etc. From there, everyone will receive their equal share. No one is rich. No one is poor. We are all living in a methodical state. All of this goes against OUR principles of independence, of having a free market, to have the opportunity to excel in our lives. And now, more than ever,  our independence is threatened by an individual who is in the White House and who is against the American dream.

If the first two of Holdren’s ideology doesn’t convince you that he needs to go, the last section certainly will – population control.

POPULATION CONTROL

Holdren is convinced that if governments did not find solutions to control the birth rates throughout the world, the environment and the world as we know it would burn out. Civilizations will cease to exist. Animal and plant life will die off at an accelerated rate. In a nutshell, the world will end. All of this destruction was to take place in 2000. It never did.

“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.” (John Holdren, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Ecoscience, 1977, p. 944.)

Holdren assumed that societies would compete for dominance through reproduction. A “force in numbers” one may say. This, in turn, would cause the world to overpopulate far more quickly than expected. This irresponsible act, according to Holdren, had to stop:

“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 out bred 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.” (John Holdren, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Ecoscience, 1977, p. 749.)

He also wrote:

“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.” (John Holdren, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Ecoscience, 1977, p. 837.)

Holdren relied on the opinion that enforcing population-control standards would not be a violation of our Constitution. Such as mandatory abortions and forced adoptions would become the norm for our country to support saving the environment. Once again, Holdren believes the needs of the environment is far more important than human life.

“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.” (John Holdren, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Ecoscience, 1977, p. 786.)

Here, Holdren wanted all illegitimate children to be the ward of the government. The single mother is eligible to have her child back only if she can prove that she is capable of taking care of her child. Regardless of this scenario however, Holdren emphasized the child should be cared for by married couples. On top of that, Holdren wanted laws enacted where a pregnant single woman should wed, have the fetus aborted, or give the baby up for adoption.

Now, you may want to prepare yourself for this next notation:

“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.” (John Holdren, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Ecoscience, 1977, p. 787-8.)

Wow! An environmentalist praising the idea of adding chemicals into our water system? Unbelievable. Since we now live in an era of not confiding in our government, if and when they do spike our water resources, we will never know.

And what should this one-world government do with preventive pregnancies in a potentially overpopulating world? Well, Holdren has an answer for that:

“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.”
(John Holdren, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Ecoscience, 1977, p. 786-7.)

Holdren believed that a one-world government can make laws to insert birth control devices without anyone’s permission.

And finally, Holdren tries to convince the reader why enacting compulsory reproduction is not a hard law to pass:

“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?” (John Holdren, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Ecoscience, 1977, p. 838.)

This is just s small fraction of Holdren’s studies. Holdren’s misconceived notion of an overpopulated world mirrors the astonishing admission of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.

Now many of you will say that Holdren’s arguments happened so long ago, and since then, have changed his viewpoint. And you may be correct to say that. However, Holdren has not made public any concessions to the contrary.  He has been hiding behind close doors in secret.

Holdren included his writings on his resume until just recently when he was introduced into the White House. Huh, I wonder why?

What is scarier is not the fact of what Holdren believed in. We will always have loons like him. It is the lack of the FBI’s vetting process and media attention that should have put on the brakes of Holdren entering into the White House. We are definitely living in dangerous times.

If you find this all shocking and hard to believe, I give you a video clip that should sway your doubt:

The question you must ask yourself is do you want someone like Holdren working as a top advisor to Obama’s administration? As the saying goes, “if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.” This also holds true for Holdren.

Because of your calls to the White House, we rid one extremist, Van Jones, for his radical views on our country. We now need your help in getting rid of this czar. If you wish to protect your liberty, your freedom, please call the White House switchboard (202-456-1414) or contact them by email and demand them to fire John Holdren.

Advertisements
  1. September 12, 2009 at 3:47 pm

    Do you have a copy of Ecoscience? I’ve been unable to find one, and I’m interested in the chapter in which the first comment appears. Is it attributed to Holdren? Is it a chapter with all three authors claiming credit?

    Is it a chapter in which Holdren details what he wants to happen, or is it a chapter in which he talks about what might happen under different scenarios?

    The book is quite clear, I thought, that “de-development” means reducing per capita use of energy. Of course, that is what everyone strives for when we buy high-mileage cars, or high-efficiency heat pumps. But you then seem to give a different definition of “de-development.” Are you really opposed to energy conservation? And if so, why?

  2. Robert Day
    September 13, 2009 at 1:04 am

    You asked, “Are you really opposed to energy conservation? And if so, why?”

    That is a very good question. It depends on what your definition is to energy conservation. If you are talking about turning down my house temperature a few degrees, then yes. If you are talking about converting everything in my home into a “green environment,” then no.

    For the last 10 years or so, companies who manufactured “green products” have tried to rake in the dollars from consumers based on guilt. These companies know they have captured a niche in the market and want to take advantage of it. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for capitalism. I am just not willing to become an environmentalist until the prices of their goods and services come down.

    If these manufacturers really care about the environment, then people like yourself should convince these “green makers” to cut their prices so the hard working American can have the opportunity to buy it. In the meantime, I will stick with my ordinary furnace and hot water heater.

    I think the icebreaker for me wondering if there is even such a thing as global warming is your very own leader, Al Gore. After some research (which you too can find on the Internet), I discovered that old Al has been raping your dollars for quite some time. He currently lives in a 20-room mansion (not including the 8 bathrooms in the home), all heated by NATURAL GAS. He has a pool, pool house, and a guest home also heated by gas. His average gas and electrical bill combine runs $2,400 per MONTH. He uses 20 times more gas than the average home. I can’t even imagine how much “clean coal” electricity he uses.

    Therefore, don’t you and your environmentalist buddies think that maybe a sit-down chat with Al is recommended before you preach to the rest of the nation? Come back and let me know when he moves to a more “green efficient” lifestyle.

    Thank you for your remarks.

  3. September 13, 2009 at 1:44 am

    I think the icebreaker for me wondering if there is even such a thing as global warming is your very own leader, Al Gore. After some research (which you too can find on the Internet), I discovered that old Al has been raping your dollars for quite some time. He currently lives in a 20-room mansion (not including the 8 bathrooms in the home), all heated by NATURAL GAS. He has a pool, pool house, and a guest home also heated by gas. His average gas and electrical bill combine runs $2,400 per MONTH. He uses 20 times more gas than the average home. I can’t even imagine how much “clean coal” electricity he uses

    So, you slept from 1999 to now?

    Yes, Al Gore is living in his ancestral home, a large home that was not built with much regard for energy conservation. However, at some large expense Gore has retrofitted the place to be much more efficient than those decade-old figures and half-truths suggest. Plus, since he operates a substantial business there, with staff and offices, you might do better to compare its energy use to an office building.

    Any way you cut it, Gore’s refusing to bulldoze his family house to start over is a poor excuse to avoid facing facts on energy consumption for the rest of us.

    I think a sit down chat with an encyclopedia, a physicist, an architect, and a preacher, might set the non-greens on the right path. But that’s putting a lot of hope on the preacher’s being able to persuade those chronically-obsessed against Al Gore to tell the straight dope for a change.

    To get back to Holdren, I gather your answer is that you don’t have a copy of the book, and you don’t know the context of the remarks you cited. You’re just repeating some great gossip you think makes Holdren look bad. So if you say something snarky about Al Gore, regardless the veracity of the statement, maybe you won’t have to support your previous claims, you hope.

    Is that so?

    • Robert Day
      September 13, 2009 at 2:20 am

      Wow, you impress me with your illogical thinking of who should think green and who shouldn’t. For one, Mr. Gore is financially set to rebuild a more efficient home. However, you prefer for ALL OF US to retrofit ours. Like I said, global warming is nothing more than a money maker, of which I do not go against. It is a capitalistic republic, isn’t it?

      As for Holdren’s writing, you can find much information on line. I even found an entire book (the one you mentioned) on line. Use your fingers on the keyboard and you will find it.

      As for the sit down chat. I am afraid you are at the bottom of the environmental ladder to waste my time. If I think Al Gore is a joke, why would I listen to you? We’ll leave it at that.

      Please read “Al Gore Snubs Earth Day.” I think the author pretty much wrapped it up in a nutshell.

  4. Ed Darrell
    September 13, 2009 at 10:54 am

    Fantastic how you make a claim about John Holdren, but when challenged on it, you back up to make more wingnut claims against Al Gore — which you also can’t backup.

    Anthony Watts’s publishing a wingnut claim that Gore is wasting energy based on a purported drive-by viewing is just about the acme of unsubstantiated playground “so’s your old man,” isn’t it?

    So, you base your rant against energy conservation on hearsay you can’t back up, and then you accuse me of being illogical. Fantastic.

    If you ever get any information on Holdren that stands up to analysis, let us know.

    • Robert Day
      September 13, 2009 at 8:56 pm

      I believe that I have provided you with many facts. It is your job to dispute otherwise.

      This issue is now closed. I have given you ample opportunity to stand on your soapbox and dispute these claims. I will now let the people decide.

      If you have something you wish to say regarding this article, post it on your blog. Since this is my blog, I have closed the discussion. Please do not attempt to add more comments regarding this article as they will be deleted.

      Thank you for your remarks.

  5. Ed Darrell
    September 13, 2009 at 10:57 am

    Maybe we could get specific. You said:

    “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.” (John Holdren, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Ecoscience, 1977, p. 787-8.)

    Wow! An environmentalist praising the idea of adding chemicals into our water system? Unbelievable. Since we now live in an era of not confiding in our government, if and when they do spike our water resources, we will never know.

    I don’t see any words of praise or advocacy in the section you quote. I see a description of a proposal, and I see explanations for why such an action could not be done.

    Einstein explained the science behind when we can’t travel at the speed of light. You probably regard that as advocacy for standing still.

    • Robert Day
      September 13, 2009 at 8:52 pm

      I believe Holdren stated simply well. He would allow this to happen if there was conditions in having “no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.” Who do you think he is referring to . . . Martians? It is pretty much common sense that he was referring to a gender of people. This statement doesn’t require a rocket scientist to figure it out.

      Of course no action has been taken of the what he says, “No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development.” And if there was one in the plans, then what?

      So I can presume that his solution (if available) to control the population is an acceptable one to you? And again I reiterate the fact that an environmentalist praising the idea of adding chemicals to our water supply. The bigger question is how many other environmentalists feel the same way as you and Holdren.

      You have a real problem looking at the text as it is written. But again, many environmental whackos do.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: