Obama’s Science Czar: Forced abortions. Mass sterilization.

Zombie Time has this great report on a book co-authored by Obama’s new science ‘czar’ John Holdren (with Paul and Anne Erlich) back in 1977 called "Ecoscience" which predicted that the world is going to become overpopulated which will in turn  lead to massive famines.

A snippet from the post:

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.

This reminds me of a talk I heard on the ABC a couple of years ago by Melbourne neuroscientist Dr John Reid where he talked about overpopulation and what we are going to have to do about it. ABC host Robyn Williams actually quoted Paul Erlich’s most famous book, The Population Bomb, in the introduction to the show.

Reid quoted Elliot Morley, Britain’s Special Representative on climate change, by saying the human race is on a ‘sleepwalk to oblivion.’ I like that phrase.

He goes on to say:

If we do not delude ourselves, and if we accept the calculations made by the Global Footprint Network and WWF (and I know of no scientific analysis that refutes the basic validity of the model) there is only one ineluctable conclusion. The population of the world must be very quickly reduced to 5 billion (that is, if 6 billions equals 120% of capacity, then 5 billions equals 100%). And then, as the average level of affluence rises, fairly quickly reduced further to, say, 2 to 3 billion.

The urgent discussion then becomes, how do we achieve these targets? Leaving aside uncontrollable natural events, such as a collision with a large asteroid or comet, or the eruption of a super-volcano, there is only a limited number of ways population decrease can be achieved. These ways are all painful, and most are brutally painful in their effect.

He has some pretty scary recommendations. I remember bring horrified when I listened to the talk but then again, he’s right – unless we significantly change the size of our global footprint, it’s hard to see how the human race is going to survive the 21st century. Perhaps Kurzweil is right and nanotech will save us. I hope so.

The key lesson is…

A great summation by David Swanson on AfterDowningStreet on his post about all of Obama’s broken promises so far:

The lesson is not that you voted for the wrong guy, given the choices. The lesson is not that rightwingers who hate Obama are right about anything. The lesson is not even that Obama has betrayed you. The key lesson should be that change does not come from electing someone. Change comes from forcing our culture to change, creating better communications systems, and disrupting the pleasant existence of our representatives in Congress. But we’ll never stop cheering for nonviolent activists in other countries and become them ourselves as long as we believe our role consists of loving or hating an elected official, and one whose job was supposed to consist of merely executing the will of the legislative branch.

Jakarta Bombings and Mining Companies

Most of the media coverage of the recent bombings in Jakarta seem to be skirting around the edges of… something.

It seems that the target of the Marriott bombing was a regular business meeting held there – but a regular business meeting involving which companies and organisations?

From combing the various reports, it appears that it was a meeting run by a US-based  consulting company called CastleAsia "a Jakarta-based consultancy helping multinationals access local markets." Several mining-related companies were involved, including:

Considering the recent attacks on employees at the Freeport mine in Papua, which have been linked to the country’s own security forces, and Freeport’s history of paying huge amounts of money to members of the corrupt  Indonesian military for "protection" and it’s shocking human rights record, perhaps the media and our governments might somehow start to connect these acts of violence with the actions of foreign-owned mining companies in Indonesia?

There are lots of suggestions that Jemaah Islamiyah (or a JI splinter group) is behind the bombings but, as far as I’m aware, they are yet to claim responsibility. On top of that, some analysts are suggesting that JI has been wiped out.

Who stands to benefit from the bombings?

Perhaps it *was* JI and perhaps it *is* a senseless bombing of innocent civilians by a group of crazed religious fundamentalists. However it might also be an easy escape goat, a diversion tactic, a neatly-packaged up scenario to stop most of us thinking further about the issue.

Who stands to benefit from the bombings?

The Marriott share price went down.

The Freeport share price went UP.

Who might want to cause trouble in Indonesia?

The guy who lost their recent Presidential election, Prabowo Subianto, a former General and son-in-law of former President Suharto? Let’s remember that Suharto, friend of Australia and the USA, was an incredibly corrupt and evil man. He was also a great friend of Freeportas was his son-in-law, Prabowo.

Is there some connection between the election result and the recent violence? Have Freeport changed who they are paying protection money to and this is the payback?

GDay World 386 – Banksters (part 2)


My guests today help me explore some of the alternatives to the “Big Four” banks in Australia. Let’s say that you, like me, want to completely disassociate yourself from the Big Four – where do you turn? Are there alternatives in Australia?

Yes, say my guests:

Andrew Hadley, COO, Credit Union Australia
Tony Beck, Group Manager, Corporate Affairs, ME Bank (Members Equity)

They both belong to organisations that can provide all of the same services that you get from your bank – and they will do it with less fees and with much more customer service. Why? Both organisations are owned by their members instead of shareholders. In CUA’s case, they are owned by their customers. In ME’s case, they are owned by a group of superannuation firms which, in turn, are owned by their members.

So both organisations exist to provide good service – not solely for the sake of returning profits to shareholders. And, judging by their NPS scores, it makes a difference.

Do you want an independent media?
TPN 500

Today’s music is by:

TwistedRick Estrin & The Nightcats
“U B U” (mp3)
from “Twisted”
(Alligator Records)

Buy at Amazon