What would happen if everyone on earth treated everyone else the way they would want to be treated? More importantly, what can we do to bring about a world in which people faithfully follow the Golden Rule?
This seems to be the most elemental and fundamental aspect of the social conscience and behavior necessary to enable universal wellbeing, which is why it has been usurped more brutally than any other moral edict by the depopulation lobby.
OM Principle fourteen endeavors to place the Golden Rule back to the center of human civilization, where it belongs and where civilization needs it to be if we are to survive.
PRINCIPLE 14: THE GOLDEN RULE
The wisdom of the ages, to treat others the way we want to be treated ourselves, must be inculcated in our psyche through education and once again allowed to flourish by a socio-economic organization and by political and legal structures that do not force the individual to act contrary to the Golden Rule. The current capitalist economy and class-structured societies are antithetical to the Golden Rule and allow individuals only to pay lip service to it. Without the ethical guidance of the Golden Rule mankind will not advance to the higher level of consciousness we need to think of one another as family, to work for each other as brothers, to treat nature as our mother, and to share and to love one another without expectations of advantage or ulterior motives.
There is a void in our hearts. We all feel it. But few want to do what it takes to fill it, because few will sacrifice their own security for others. To have a full heart you must live for others as much as you live for yourself.
In the movie “2012” there is a scene in which the White House Chief of Staff, a dispassionate character, asks a kindhearted young geologist and an idealistic young woman and the President’s daughter, who complain that the workers who built the arks are not given seats on board, if they would be willing to give up their own seats to save the lives of two Chinese workers. They answer with silence and walk aboard the ark with their heads low and without a further thought to the workers left behind; the very workers who built the arks in which the privileged save only their own lives from a cosmic and apocalyptic event in which the rest of mankind perishes.
I do not know whether it was intended as such, though I suspect it was, but the movie “2012” is a near-perfect allegory for the manner in which the elites of the world have chosen to rescue themselves while condemning the rest of mankind to death. The decisive element is that those in the know keep the truth to themselves to rescue only their and their children’s lives and that they murder anyone who attempts to tell others that the end is near. The rationale for the secrecy is that only a minority can be saved and there is no point telling the rest of the world that they will die when nothing can be done to save them and when such knowledge would only cause chaos and jeopardize the delicate rescue operation that the elites of the world are coordinating at great cost and effort at the eleventh hour in order to ensure the continuation of human civilization and the perpetuation of life on earth.
The rich and powerful with billion-Euro-tickets for seats on the Chinese-built arks in the movie “2012” violate the one code that is at the core of all religions, and indeed at the very heart of moral philosophy, the ethic of reciprocity or more commonly known as the Golden Rule, which states that one should treat others the way one would like others to treat oneself.
Equally, the rich and powerful who govern our nations, control the international community and sit at the top of our religions, corporations and institutions violate the Golden Rule by withholding the truth from us, the people, who are entitled to know what threatens our existence, and therefore denying us the chance to rescue ourselves. They withhold the truth and thus treat us as they themselves would not want to be treated because they do not want to make the sacrifices necessary to rescue everyone indiscriminately. More than this, they actively conspire to slowly poison the rest of humankind into sterility and premature death to terminate our genetic lines and cull the population. They commit genocide because the world is too crowded and they refuse to give up their positions of privilege for the sake of universal wellbeing. They do not want to share the world. It is much more to their advantage to withhold from their fellow men the information they need for self-rescue, for in this way they reserve the earth only to themselves and their own offspring.
For unlike the movie “2012” where the cataclysm that seals the fate of humanity is a natural disaster and therefore outside human control, the cataclysm that spells the end of mankind in our bitter reality is manmade and entails the world’s poisoning with chemical and biological agents to depopulate the earth before we kill all life on it, ourselves included. It all started as a substitute to war, but the substitute has become more terrible in scope, if not in cruelty, than war itself.
The end does not justify the means when there is an alternative to covert depopulation, namely depopulation by consensus. Depopulation by consensus allows the continuation of every genetic line, whereas covert depopulation allows the continuation of only a few and self-chosen lineages. If the selection had been made by nature then it would be acceptable because outside human control, but when it is made by self-serving individuals who deprive others of the right to life and of the same opportunities to thrive and survive, then the selection is unacceptable; more than this, it is criminal, immoral and diabolical. Such a diabolical selection offends the mind and the heart at the same time and reeks of two social diseases: religious fanaticism and scientific nihilism; the former a remnant from the previous epoch and the latter the progeny of modern times. The first disease, justifies the wholesale murder of all others not like themselves because they are purportedly spiritually inferior and therefore not chosen, thus as the will of God, while the latter justifies genocide as the survival of the smartest in an absurd world of such overabundance of human life that life no longer has objective meaning and intrinsic value, thus the will of Nature. But behind their false and self-serving justifications hides one and the same crime, their own, not Nature’s or God’s will. And that crime is disdain for the Golden Rule.
Both religious fanaticism and scientific nihilism are social pandemics that affect the psyche of weaklings who either suffer from a deficit of intelligence and a surplus of meanness, thus of passion without reason, or, respectively, are afflicted by a deficit of compassion and a surplus of intelligence, thus of reason without humanity. Both religious fanatics, the zealots, and the scientific nihilists, the geeks, are social degenerates because they exhibit an unnatural and unhealthy imbalance that makes them incapable of relating to and of coexisting with the remainder of mankind.
The current genocide is therefore not only the result of difficult realities – namely the intractability of religious authorities with respect to contraceptives and abortion and the un-electability of politicians advocating population control – but also of sick personalities – namely the zealots and the geeks who are fighting an ideological turf war over our dying bodies. What makes their actions perverse, and truly representative of social degenerates, is their willingness to deceive and lie to the entire world so the resulting outcome supports their sick approaches to life, which for zealots result in self-fulfilling prophesy while for geeks become replicated experiments. Zealots kill without compunction in the name of God while waving their dogmatic scriptures and see our death as a necessary price to restore God’s paradise. And the geeks kill without compunction in the name of Science while waving their myopic textbooks and see our death as an inevitable price to restore Nature’s harmony. Though they call the outcome by a different name, God’s paradise or Nature’s harmony, they both want the same thing and they are both willing to kill the rest of us for it. To get away with it they have made a pact, to maintain the code of silence and not tell on each other even though they hate each other with a passion and represent diametrically opposed approaches to life, lest their diabolical intents are discovered and punished for what they are and as they should be.
Added to this toxic mixture of socially degenerated geeks and zealots is the greed of capitalism and the system of economic exclusion that has been forged by exciting human greed to create a society where being selfish and uncaring is a prerequisite to survival.
Starting from the top of the hierarchy of power, let us ask who follows the Golden Rule.
Does Pope Francis or his cardinals follow the Golden Rule? No, they do not. Between April 18 and June 3, thus for 46 days, I did a public hunger strike on St. Peter’s square to compel Pope Francis to tell people the truth that they are being poisoned by the elites into extinction. Neither Pope Francis nor his cardinals have uttered a single word but instead went into hiding. By this hunger strike I confirmed that the highest ranked members of the Catholic Church are willing accessories to mass murder and that their role is no longer to cater to our souls but to send us to our graves. Here is the evidence:
Do the other religious leaders at the head of every major and not so major religion on earth follow the Golden Rule? No, they do not. On 2 October 2012, I wrote a public letter to the world’s religious leaders – from the Dalai Lama to Ayatollah Khamenei – and sent them the indisputable evidence of genocide and asked them to intervene. Not one of them did. In fact not one of them responded. They too went into hiding and chose to preserve the code of silence and to sacrifice mankind so they can hold on to their positions of authority and privilege. Here is the evidence:
Do our political leaders live by the Golden Rule? No, they do not. I have personally written to almost each and every one of the world’s nearly 200 heads of state or government and not one of them has chosen to go public with the truth and protect his or her people from genocide. Here is just some of the evidence:
Does UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon or UN Human Rights Commissioner Navanethem Pillay live by the Golden Rule? No, they do not. I have appealed to them personally in and outside of jail but neither of them have used their authority to stop the genocide or inform the public so people can take their own measures to protect themselves and their offspring. Here is the evidence:
Do the jurists and judges of national supreme courts and international courts live by the Golden Rule? No, they do not. I have filed lawsuits with and sought protection from all three international courts – the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights, and the UN Human Rights Council – to denounce the Global Depopulation Policy and to shut down its covert methods peacefully and legally, but not one of them has acknowledged my lawsuits. For the reality is that those whom we have entrusted with the administration of justice both nationally and internationally are also co-conspirators in crimes against humanity and they are not about to condemn themselves. Here is just some of the evidence:
Do the media people who make up the fourth estate and are supposed to be the guardians of truth uphold the Golden Rule? No, they do not. I have addressed thousands of them individually and the profession as a whole by publishing and sending them, among other things, a Global Media Directory for the sole purpose of empowering them to speak the truth and inform the people of the world that they are being slowly exterminated. With very few exceptions, the world’s editors and journalists have also chosen to sacrifice us so they can keep their jobs. Here is the evidence:
I have also appealed to doctors and scientists and to their organizations to stop violating the Hippocratic Oath and come to the people’s defense. But did they act in a manner consistent with the Golden Rule? No, they did not. Here is just some of the evidence:
You see, I have given everyone in a position of high office the opportunity to live according to the Golden Rule, but the vast majority have refused to. Considering the universal decay in moral standards one must ask if those at the very top of the depopulation lobby, our leaders’ leaders, the architects of the Global Depopulation Policy, are actually not justified in murdering mankind so long as people behave like cockroaches and rats rather than like human beings. If the cards were on the table and we had been presented with the brutal facts and given the choice between exercising self-control or being poisoned by the state, then the answer would be affirmative. But we were never told the facts and given a choice. The choice was made by a select few behind our backs, against our trust, and above our ignorance, who have decided to extinguish our genetic lines on the sly and save their own because that allows them not only to hang on to power and gain competitive advantage vis-à-vis a populace dumbed down and tranquilized into obedience by chemical and biological toxins, but also to inherit the earth and all its riches once we are rendered sterile and die out. In the poisoned environment they have created by adulterating the basic elements of life only those in possession of the necessary classified knowledge and with adequate wealth will know how to and will have the financial means to protect themselves and their offspring while the rest of us will be slowly poisoned into oblivion and long before we are rendered sterile we will have been rendered dumb and weak and helpless.
The silence lives on the fouled air of their universal guilt. They all know that they are guilty and none dares to admit guilt. And these are our best men and women, our crème de la crème. What can be expected of the rest?
The geeks and the zealots have proven to be equally unworthy of the Golden Rule and therefore equally unworthy of the ethic of reciprocity. For so long as they refuse to treat others as they want to be treated and are actively conspiring to harm us, we who are harmed by their actions have a right to treat them according to the ethic of reciprocity, to which we as humans must faithfully adhere, and are therefore legally and morally entitled to kill them in self-defense before they kill us. Natural law, the law of survival, and every legal covenant in every nation and in any culture on earth give us the right to take life in self-defense, especially when our children’s lives are in peril and it is our duty as parents to protect our children by any means possible.
Non-violence works only with those who are non-violent and well-intentioned. When someone or some entity poisons your children, a non-violent response is a response that is irrational and that enables evil. ‘Treat others as you want to be treated’ is as true only as its obverse, namely ‘do onto others as they do onto you’. You cannot respond to murder with love no more than you can respond to love with murder. Both responses are inappropriate and irrational. You can only respond to murder with murder, for that is the only way to protect your life and eliminate evil; just as you can only respond to love with love, for that is the only way to perpetuate good. You may be able to respond to hatred with love so long as the hatred is not acted upon to harm life. If the hatred is passive rather than active it can be ignored or worked on. But once hatred becomes active it can no longer be ignored. It has to be addressed. The most you can do is reciprocate with temperance and not with an asymmetrical response. The crimes perpetrated in the name of the Global Depopulation Policy are consistent with hate acted upon, not passive hate, thus with active hate or at the very least active disdain that can only be responded to in kind.
How was the world infected with the notion that the majority must be sacrificed to make room for a privileged few? How, in other words, was the notion born among the elites that it is OK to treat all others the way you would never want to be treated? Paradoxically, it is a perversion of the best intentions for peace and of the noblest sentiments for brotherhood.
The virus that has destroyed the Golden Rule was born in its current form in the military-industrial complex as soon as the Unite States developed the first atomic bomb and the destructive power of thermonuclear explosions was experienced at Hiroshima (6 August 1945) and Nagasaki (9 August 1945). It was born from the fear that others will develop atomic bombs and the world will be destroyed in a nuclear war unless war is renounced once and for all. A substitute to war had to be found until such time as mankind learns to solve its problems peacefully so the pressures that lead to war will never arise. That substitute is population control by covert chemical and biological means. To avoid nuclear war, conventional war between nations was renounced and replaced with low-intensity chemical and biological warfare within nations, but directed at human fertility not human life. Japan was the first country to be subjected wholesale and under the cover of secrecy to population control by fluoride and became the guinea pig of the Global Depopulation Policy.
When on 29 August 1949 the Soviet Union tested its first fission bomb and the US lost its monopoly on nuclear weapons the nuclear arms race ensued and with it the cold war and the concept of nuclear deterrence. At this point, it was scientists who saw the need for a substitute to war and who did what the military could not do, namely reach out beyond their national borders, and the communist-capitalist ideological divide, to their fellow scientists abroad to forge a lasting peace.
The defining moment for this effort is marked by the Russell-Einstein Manifesto[i] of 1955, which was drafted and signed by the most eminent scientists of the time: Max Born (German-Jewish physicist and mathematician), Perry W. Bridgman (American physicist), Albert Einstein (German-Jewish theoretical physicist), Leopold Infeld (Polish-Jewish physicist), Frederic Joliot-Curie (French physicist), Herman J. Muller (American geneticist best known for his work on the physiological and genetic effects of radiation), Linus Pauling (American chemist and biochemist) , Cecil F. Powell (British physicist), Joseph Rotblat (Polish-Jewish physicist) , Bertrand Russell (British philosopher and mathematician), and Hideki Yukawa (Japanese theoretical physicist). They wrote:
“Almost everybody who is politically conscious has strong feelings about one or more of these issues; but we want you, if you can, to set aside such feelings and consider yourselves only as members of a biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire.
We shall try to say no single word which should appeal to one group rather than to another. All, equally, are in peril, and, if the peril is understood, there is hope that they may collectively avert it.
We have to learn to think in a new way. We have to learn to ask ourselves, not what steps can be taken to give military victory to whatever group we prefer, for there no longer are such steps; the question we have to ask ourselves is: what steps can be taken to prevent a military contest of which the issue must be disastrous to all parties?
The general public, and even many men in positions of authority, have not realised what would be involved in a war with nuclear bombs…universal death, sudden only for a minority, but for the majority a slow torture of disease and disintegration.
Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war. The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national Sovereignty.
Without revealing the full extent of their knowledge or motivations, the world’s most eminent scientists, moved by the noblest intentions to preserve the world from nuclear annihilation, accepted and resigned themselves that abolishing war “will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty”, but stopped short of saying what these distasteful limitations are and that they are already being felt by innocent civilians who lacked access to the classified information that those in power or in the know both in the capitalist and communist camps were already employing chemical means to subvert their people’s reproductive systems. The world’s most eminent scientists, like the military leaders whose bombs they built, kept the knowledge necessary to protect the innocent to themselves and condemned the rest of their fellow human beings to a slow process of annihilation by sterilization and morbidity. Their call for humanity and their resolution urging governments to find peaceful means for the settlement of disputes ring rather hollow and, given their continued silence for the past six decades, expose them as mere practitioners of another form of hypocrisy, scientific hypocrisy:
There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.
We invite this Congress, and through it the scientists of the world and the general public, to subscribe to the following resolution: ‘In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the governments of the world to realise, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them.’”(The Russell-Einstein Manifesto, 1955)
The world’s eminent scientists and in the meantime their lesser colleagues have maintained the code of silence to this day, all the while performing evermore brutal and demented mass experiments on the world’s populace that poison our children, downgrade our genetic lines and shorten the lives of our elderly, while carefully protecting themselves and their own offspring.
To enlarge the circle of cooperation but also to keep the secret among themselves they have formed a network of chapters under the umbrella of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs that spans the globe and brings together “scholars and public figures to work toward reducing the danger of armed conflict and to seek solutions to global security threats”. Their solutions, unfortunately, are dangerous scientific fixes that have written average people out of the equation of life and that cause as many problems as they solve, bypass all democratic checks and balances, violate the rule of law and make a mockery of the ethics of reciprocity, the Golden Rule that over the millennia has helped humanity advance from mere animals to higher beings. Their solutions have failed so miserably and have done such irreparable damage to the genetic and intellectual endowment of humanity that the need to cover up past crimes with even greater crimes and past abuses with even greater abuses is the only way they can prevent total social collapse in the environment of secrecy, lies and deception they have helped trap the world in. The Noah’s Ark in the world they have created through the unethical use of science is not great ships of steel as in the movie 2012 but great banks of knowledge and money from which the masses have been locked out.
They have monopolized knowledge to profit not only by securing their own competitive advantage, because the chemical methods they covertly employ dumb down the masses, but also to enhance their own prosperity, because the more people they sicken and the more the world becomes dependent on their scientific fixes the more indispensable they become and consequently their livelihoods and incomes are secured. This explains why they have built such ironclad walls around their professional privileges, why they protect their monopolies through the imposition of unnecessary credentials which they themselves reserve the right to confer or deny, why they have politicized the dissemination of knowledge, why scientific knowledge is subjected to censorship, why scientists have given their allegiance to power not truth and certainly not justice, why they absorb ever greater proportions of the gross domestic product, and why their incomes are safely ahead of inflation.
The Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs was made possible by Cyrus Eaton[ii], a Canadian industrialist with common sense, deep pockets, a healthy disdain for the incipient American police state, and a desire for peace. The involvement of people like Cyrus Eaton shows that the coalition of forces working to find a substitute to war encompassed, already in 1955, elite members of the business community in addition to scientists and military personnel.
By defying the Golden Rule the world’s scientists have helped create a society of exclusion and a culture of death and are increasingly desperate to justify their creations by misusing science and perverting data, all the while suppressing the lethal truths they have shackled to their immoral agenda of covert depopulation as a substitute to war. And guess who is helping them sleep soundly at night and not be afflicted by their consciences? None other than our theologians of both inclinations, right and left, because elitism is an affliction that knows no ideological divide.
“We take, and must continue to take, morally hazardous actions to preserve our civilization”, wrote American theologian and socialist Reinhold Niebuhr[iii], who sought to give policy makers moral support and direction for “proximate solutions to insoluble problems” such as the nuclear dilemma which imposed a common predicament on the world both east and west.
In his book The Irony of American History, published in 1952, Niebuhr wrote:
“The tragic element in a human situation is constituted of conscious choices of evil for the sake of good. If men or nations do evil in a good cause; if they cover themselves with guilt in order to fulfill some high responsibility; or if they sacrifice some high value for the sake of a higher or equal one they make a tragic choice. Thus the necessity of using the threat of atomic destruction as an instrument for the preservation of peace is a tragic element in our contemporary situation. Tragedy elicits admiration as well as pity because it combines nobility with guilt.”
But Niebuhr is dishonest, for what makes the situation tragic, and he undoubtedly knew this, is not that good men use the threat of atomic destruction as an instrument for the preservation of peace but that they use it as an excuse for the justification of mass poisoning as an acceptable substitute to war. When he wrote this in 1958 it could be argued that it was not yet known that the covert and deliberate use of endocrine disruptors shuts down the reproductive systems of both men and women in three to four generations and therefore constitutes genocide. But it was known that adding a highly toxic substance to food and water to impair a normal physiological function, human fertility, will do no good to human health and that violating the body in this manner without people’s knowledge and consent is not only illegal but also immoral and most certainly an affront to God and Nature, who have needed millions of years of evolution to bring the human organism to its present state of perfection.
He hides or at the very least minimizes the self-serving immorality of such reasoning by a feigned and contrived resignation to the “recalcitrant forces” of history that draw America “into an historic situation in which the paradise of our domestic security is suspended in a hell of global insecurity”:
“Our dreams of bringing the whole of human history under the control of the human will are ironically refuted by the fact that no group of idealists can easily move the pattern of history toward the desired goal of peace and justice. The recalcitrant forces in the historical drama have a power and persistence beyond our reckoning.” (p. 8)
He is however honest about the uncertainties of the chosen course of action and its ambiguities and incongruities:
“The statesmen have not been particularly brilliant in finding solutions for our problems, all of which have reached global dimensions. But they have, at least, steered a course which still offers us minimal hope of avoiding a global conflict. But whether or not we avoid another war, we are covered with prospective guilt. We have dreamed of a purely rational adjustment of interests in human society; and we are involved in “total” wars. We have dreamed of a “scientific” approach to all human problems; and we find that the tensions of a world-wide conflict release individual and collective emotions not easily brought under rational control. We had hoped to make neat and sharp distinctions between justice and injustice; and we discover that even the best human actions involve some guilt.” (pp. 16-17)
Niebuhr speaks from the pampered perspective of the elites and would not be so nonchalant with the distinctions between justice and injustice were he at the receiving end of the injustices perpetrated on the average person by the elites in the name of peace and a rational substitute to war, thus in the name of covert population control measures, which he rightfully yet vaguely designates as “total” wars.
The cardinals of the Catholic Church, who have always been politically conservative and rooted in the establishment, have also secretly endorsed the covert sterilization of the populace but took ten years longer than Niebuhr to give the depopulation lobby their tacit consent and found a hypocritical rather than a philosophical way to get away with it. In the encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (“Of Human Life”) from 1968, subtitled “On the Regulation of Birth”, Pope Paul VI does not allow individuals to use contraceptives but allows medical authorities to subvert human fertility and prevent the moment of conception so long as they do it to heal an illness and not with the intent to impair fertility. Under the heading “Lawful Therapeutic Means”, he wrote:
On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.
Only the Vatican is capable of such questionable moral reasoning and blatant hypocrisy! For all the talk of doing God’s will on earth, the clerics, like the scientists and the military men, sacrificed the wellbeing of the average man for the preservation of their earthly privileges, in this case their moral authority and the Church’s tax free status, because it is easier to give up that which does not affect you personally and which it is not yours to give up in the first place, then it is to sacrifice what you have fought hard to gain.
The political leadership in Washington DC joined the depopulation agenda at the same time as the Vatican, in 1969, and as soon as the depopulation lobby brought the Nixon, Kissinger, Rockefeller triumvirate to power. By 1969 the alliance of the technocratic and financial forces behind population control as a substitute to war had built sufficient momentum to penetrate the highest political echelon and to turn the people’s representatives against the people by shutting them out of the future.
Instead of using the power of their offices to legislate population control, or at the very least to make a first attempt, the triumvirate brought the subject of population growth to the forefront of America’s foreign policy. In July 1969, within months of taking office, Nixon held a historic address before Congress and spoke openly about the issue of population rightfully calling it “one of the most serious challenges to human destiny” and framing it as a central issue that demands answers to the serious problems it poses:
“How, for example, will we house the next hundred million Americans? Already economical and attractive housing is in very short supply. New architectural forms, construction techniques, and financing strategies must be aggressively pioneered if we are to provide the needed dwellings.
What of our natural resources and the quality of our environment? Pure air and water are fundamental to life itself. Parks, recreational facilities, and an attractive countryside are essential to our emotional well-being. Plant and animal and mineral resources are also vital. A growing population will increase the demand for such resources. But in many cases their supply will not be increased and may even be endangered. The ecological system upon which we now depend may seriously deteriorate if our efforts to conserve and enhance the environment do not match the growth of the population.
How will we educate and employ such a large number of people? Will our transportation systems move them about as quickly and economically as necessary? How will we provide adequate health care when our population reaches 300 million? Will our political structures have to be reordered, too, when our society grows to such proportions? Many of our institutions are already under tremendous strain as they try to respond to the demands of 1969. Will they be swamped by a growing flood of people in the next thirty years? How easily can they be replaced or altered?
Finally we must ask: how can we better assist American families so that they will have no more children than they wish to have? In my first message to Congress on domestic affairs, I called for a national commitment to provide a healthful and stimulating environment for all children during their first five years of life. One of the ways in which we can promote that goal is to provide assistance for more parents in effectively planning their families. We know that involuntary childbearing often results in poor physical and emotional health for all members of the family. It is one of the factors which contribute to our distressingly high infant mortality rate, the unacceptable level of malnutrition, and the disappointing performance of some children in our schools. Unwanted or untimely childbearing is one of several forces which are driving many families into poverty or keeping them in that condition. Its threat helps to produce the dangerous incidence of illegal abortion. And finally, of course, it needlessly adds to the burdens placed on all our resources by increasing population.
None of the questions I have raised here is new. But all of these questions must now be asked and answered with a new sense of urgency. The answers cannot be given by government alone, nor can government alone turn the answers into programs and policies. I believe, however, that the Federal Government does have a special responsibility for defining these problems and for stimulating thoughtful responses.
Perhaps the most dangerous element in the present situation is the fact that so few people are examining these questions from the viewpoint of the whole society. Perceptive businessmen project the demand for their products many years into the future by studying population trends. Other private institutions develop sophisticated planning mechanisms which allow them to account for rapidly changing conditions. In the governmental sphere, however, there is virtually no machinery through which we can develop a detailed understanding of demographic changes and bring that understanding to bear on public policy. The federal government makes only a minimal effort in this area. The efforts of state and local governments are also inadequate. Most importantly, the planning which does take place at some levels is poorly understood at others and is often based on unexamined assumptions.
In short, the questions I have posed in this message too often go unasked, and when they are asked, they seldom are adequately answered.
In 1972, the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, which Nixon created in 1969 and was chaired by John D. Rockefeller III, made sixty recommendations to Congress on how to address the issue of population growth nationally, but mentioned none of the covert methods of chemical depopulation in effect since 1945.
The report recommended that the nation’s birth rate be reduced to zero and stated in the first chapter:
Unlike other great public issues in the United States, population lacks the dramatic event—the war, the riot, the calamity—that galvanizes attention and action. It is easily overlooked and neglected. Yet the number of children born now will seriously affect our lives in future decades. This produces a powerful effect in a double sense: Its fluctuations can be strong and not easily changed; and its consequences are important for the welfare of future generations.
There is scarcely a facet of American life that is not involved with the rise and fall of our birth and death rates: the economy, environment, education, health, family life and sexual practices, urban and rural life, governmental effectiveness and political freedoms, religious norms, and secular life styles. If this country is in a crisis of spirit—environmental deterioration, racial antagonisms, the plight of the cities, the international situation—then population is part of that crisis.
Although population change touches all of these areas of our national life and intensifies our problems, such problems will not be solved by demographic means alone. Population policy is no substitute for social, economic, and environmental policy. Successfully addressing population requires that we also address our problems of poverty, of minority and sex discrimination, of careless exploitation of resources, of environmental deterioration, and of spreading suburbs, decaying cities, and wasted countrysides. By the same token, because population is so tightly interwoven with all of these concerns, whatever success we have in resolving these problems will contribute to easing the complex system of pressures that impel population growth.
Consideration of the population issue raises profound questions of what people want, what they need—indeed, what they are for. What does this nation stand for and where is it going? At some point in the future, the finite earth will not satisfactorily accommodate more human beings—nor will the United States. How is a judgment to be made about when that point will be reached? Our answer is that now is the time to confront the question: “Why more people?” The answer must be given, we believe, in qualitative not quantitative terms.
The Report, which dealt only with the US population, was followed in 1974 by National Security Study Memorandum 2000, subtitled “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests”, a document produced by the National Security Council under the aegis of Henry Kissinger. It was classified until 1989 because it reveals America’s intent to interfere with and reduce the populations of key developing countries by such Machiavellian means as engineered food scarcity, sterilization and war. The Memorandum enshrined population control at the heart of America’s foreign policy, which has since pursued the objective of sterilizing a quarter of the developing world’s population and has used USADID and other governmental and non-governmental organizations to achieve it.
While America’s political class is unique in its intent to interfere with the demographic destiny of other nations – and in this respect is equaled only by the United Kingdom, which has imposed covert depopulation measures on the Commonwealth starting with Singapore in 1956 and Hong Kong in 1961 – every other western nation, both east and west of the Iron Curtain, has covertly subverted their people’s reproductive systems through the will of their own political establishments and without even showing their people the courtesy that America did by informing the populace through public policy documents that it is national policy to achieve desired demographic objectives.
The political class, throughout the western world joined the depopulation lobby in the 1960s, a lobby that already comprised military men since the late 1940s and industrialists and scientists since the early 1950s. Every national administration of every western country since the early 1960s has been complicit in crimes against humanity and genocide, crimes committed in the name of population control, the technocracy’s substitute to war, and in blatant violation of the Golden Rule.
By the early 1970s the political class of Latin America was infected by the political class of North America and joined the depopulation lobby spreading the carnage throughout the Americas.
By the early 1970s the technocracy of the United Nations and its agencies had also been fully infected by the socially degenerated idea that, presumably in the name of peace, the majority must be exterminated by the minority by covert chemical or biological poisoning of the human reproductive system. The disease of mass murder by design is so firmly entrenched by 1972 in the international architecture that the Declaration issued at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment could assert it as an article of principle, with the usual subterfuge and dishonesty that marks every aspect of the depopulation lobby:
Demographic policies which are without prejudice to basic human rights and which are deemed appropriate by Governments concerned should be applied in those regions where the rate of population growth or excessive population concentrations are likely to have adverse effects on the environment of the human environment and impede development. (Principle 16)
By the late 1970s the political and military wings of government had reached such perfect agreement that NATO Supreme Commander, General Alexander Haig, and the US State Department Chief, Henry Kissinger, could boldly assert that the depopulation policy is central to America’s foreign policy and the implied geopolitical strategy of the western alliance.
This period also marks the perversion of the judiciary throughout the western world, which by the early 1980s had given rise to laws enacted solely to advance the depopulation genocide by giving the authorities the ability to target specific populations, namely the poor, the colored and the foreign in order to satisfy the eugenic requirements of the Global Depopulation Policy, whose architects are all white men of Anglo-Saxon and Germanic origin.
By the 1990s national governments the world over and all international organizations have been fully and irrevocably infected by the depopulation virus, whether for reasons of resource scarcity, environmental necessity, international bullying, economic coercion, or old-fashioned fascism.
What the world must understand before it is too late is not that depopulation is not an absolute necessity, because it is, but that it must be accomplished without excluding the majority, which can only be done by legislating family size and by setting clear demographic targets, for that is the only way all existing genetic lines can continue into the future. This being the obvious case, China is the model the world must follow with respect to population control, for China is the only country sufficiently honest and undemocratic to pass the One-Child-Policy.
With respect to population control only the Chinese and, to a lesser extent, the Indians live according to the Golden Rule, for only they give all their citizens the chance to procreate while at the same time restricting the reproductive rights of the entire population. The hypocritical methods of covert depopulation chosen by the West have shut down a quarter of their people’s genetic lines, most of them belonging to the poor, while pretending to respect people’s reproductive rights.
If the structural violence of the silent genocide presently committed is for well-intentioned reasons, namely to help humanity escape the vicious cycle of poverty and want that leads to war, then let us escape it together, not at the cost of the majority. We of the majority also have a right to live. Our children have a right to live. This planet is ours as much as it is yours.
I therefore issue a stern and last warning to our elites, be they geeks, zealots or billionaires: Do onto others as you want done onto yourselves or else we will do onto you what you do onto us and the world will go up in flames and you will be the first to burn. You have been uncovered as perpetrators of crimes against humanity and must back off now and come clean. Give the world’s people the facts, the choice and the tools to be able to take responsibility for population control and resource sharing. Stop the structural violence. Stop the global genocide. Stop the secrecy. Stop the conniving. Stop the lies. Stop the poisons.
… OR WE WILL STOP YOU
What can we do to bring about a world in which people faithfully follow the Golden Rule?
What we need to do is to allow transformative change. Institutional inertia and individual egoism stand in the way of transformative change, which requires that everyone gives up their monopolies: doctors their monopoly to heal; priests their monopoly on God, scientists their monopoly on research, lawyers their monopoly on justice, politicians their monopoly on power, industrialists their monopoly on production, and bankers their monopoly on money.
Institutional inertia is rooted in special privileges that various groups perpetuate to serve their own interests. If the world is to survive humankind must live according to the Golden Rule and in order to do so it must eradicate all monopolies and subsume all personal interests to the common good.
Everyone must sacrifice or no one will make it. Everyone must sacrifice or else we are all condemned to death by proximate solutions to problems that are insoluble by our outdated system of inert institutions, entrenched monopolies, and petty men when the circumstances on the ground are so dire that they require transformative change and brave men.
The common people have been forced and coerced by the elites to sacrifice everything they have, including their reproductive rights, now the common people must force the elites to sacrifice equally. The common people have already given up everything they had to give. Now the elites must give up everything they have to give. For that is the only way the transformative change can occur that will enable knowledge, wealth and labor, as well as responsibilities and rights, to be fairly distributed and a global civilization to ensue that is not based on monopolies and special privileges, which is rigid and cruel and dishonest, but on harmony and universal wellbeing, which is dynamic and kind and frank.
If we are to engineer our future and to exclude no one from the equation of life, then the average man is just as entitled and justified to impose sacrifices on the elites as the elites are to impose sacrifices on the common man. For that is what the law of reciprocity applied in good faith and across the board dictates.
The unholy alliance of geeks, zealots and billionaires must enlarge the circle of inclusion to embrace every human being on the planet through peaceful system-initiated reform and to exclude every ulterior motive and personal interest before we, the people, are forced to resort to violence to protect our children, our lives, our rights, and our place in creation.
Disclaimer: The views expressed by the author on this article series are not necessarily shared by The Real Agenda News.[i] Einstein never signed the manifesto. His name, however, was needed to add weight to the document and to compensate for the bad repute of Bertrand Russell, who wrote it, and other signatories with known eugenic tendencies. The myth is that Einstein left a signed note just before his death. [ii] The Mike Wallace Interview of Cyrus Eaton, 17 May 1957, suggest genuine unease with America’s incipient police state and a desire and need to circumvent it in order to reach out across the ideological divide and build an international foundation for peace outside military and security considerations and the mentality of suspicion: