America truly is at the precipice of disaster. We have reached a point in our nation where all we held dear has been destroyed and liberty itself has been redefined as slavery and servitude as freedom. People no longer have regard for the wellbeing of their fellow man, as we seem to only accept viewpoints that validate our own or support our particular agenda. It’s funny because, for so long, those on the right criticized the left for their groupthink mentality and their unwavering support for Obama. Now, they are doing the same thing with Donald Trump, despite the fact that he is ever so slowly retreating his positions to the center. This article isn’t about Donald Trump or Obama; it’s about the fact that people in this nation are so distracted by the presidential elections, reality television, paying the bills, the false “left right” paradigm, and the constant stream of propaganda being fed to them that they have no idea what is going on or how to do anything about it. Former KGB agent and Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov once described a process known as Ideological Subversion, which was a Soviet propaganda technique designed to undermine American values, as a process that would slowly change the perception of reality of the American people, to the point that they would have no idea how to defend their values, families, and nation. It seems this has been successful beyond anyone’s dreams, as many millions of Americans are ready to surrender their basic liberties in order to regulate a naturally occurring gas that we exhale and trees absorb in order to produce oxygen, in order to save the planet. The underlying belief is that overpopulation and the over consumption of resources is destroying the environment.
Portland Public Schools just unanimously voted to eliminate all text books that do not support the notion of manmade climate change. They admitted this move was aimed at eliminating any doubt that man is causing environmental havoc and reinforcing the idea that drastic action is needed in order to save the Earth. Not only does the resolution call for the elimination of such textbooks, it also calls for the implementation of a curriculum that addresses the idea of climate justice. What is Climate Justice? It is the idea that the United States and its capitalist economic system are responsible for an impoverished world because we hoard resources and exploit poorer countries for our own benefit. Climate Justice is the mother of all social justice issues because it combines racial, economic and sociopolitical issues with the environment. In other words, climate change is racist.
The banning of curriculums that dispute manmade global warming is alarming for many reasons. The silencing of dissent and burning of books that contradicted anything “official” has always been one of the first moves of any dictatorial regime. The idea that we have to accept the ludicrous notion that mans activities are causing climate change is just as alarming because the solutions being presented do little to empower man while giving government absolute control over humanity. For instance, U.N. Climate Chief, Christina Figueres has gone on the record and called for a reduction of the world’s population in order to combat global warming. She also stated that a global communist government would be needed to assist in these efforts because a communist model would be unimpeded by a political process that allows for dissenting opinions. She notes that the deep partisan divide in the U.S. congress prevents any meaningful legislation and that China’s communist government is much more effective.
Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren, expresses many of the same concerns about population growth and its relation to global warming in his book Ecoscience; Population, Resources, Environment. In this book Holdren discusses many ways in which the idea of overpopulation can be addressed. Forced abortion and sterilizations are acceptable ideas, as is the notion that a global communist regime be put in place to enforce them. On page 738, Holdren discusses the idea of family planning and how societies should be involved in determining how many children a family may have. More alarmingly, on page 749, Holdren admits that the efforts to reduce population size has focused primarily on poor and minority communities, as, traditionally, these communities tend to have higher birth rates than those above the poverty rate. Consider the following passages-
The entrance of the United States government into the field of birth control through the extension of family planning services to the poor aroused a controversy quite out of proportion to its potential effect on the national birth rate, particularly in the black community, some members of which perceived it as a policy of “genocide” against racial minorities.
In the United States, birth rates have long been higher among the poor and among nonwhites (blacks, orientals, and native Americans) than among the nonpoor and among whites. High birth rates are generally associated with low economic and educational levels in most countries, including the United States. At the same time, the poor and nonwhites also have had consistently higher death rates, especially among infants and children. Above the poverty level, the birth rate difference between races diminishes, and college-educated nonwhites have fewer children than their white peers. In recent years (especially since the national family planning program was established) the birth rates of the poor and nonwhites have been declining even more rapidly than those of the population as a whole. (Holdren, pp. 749)
This is a telling admission, as most abortion clinics tend be located in minority neighborhoods. It should also be noted that more black babies are aborted in New York City than born alive. Family planning services and abortion are techniques aimed at limiting the number of births in order to control population growth. Those seeking to reduce the world’s population believe that human beings do not have a right to choose how many children they have if there is an environmental impact due to the child’s birth. On page 837, Holdren writes that individual rights must be balanced against government power in order to control population growth. In other words, people do not have rights that government does not control. He goes further to say to say that neither the U.S. Constitution nor the U.N. Charters on Human Rights guarantee any right of an individual to determine how many children they should have.
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 be 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. (Holdren, pp. 837)
Holdren even admits that the idea of drugging our water and the food we eat to limit our reproductive abilities is on the table.
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. (Holdren, pp.787)
Not only is the Portland School District enabling this agenda by silencing any dissent, our entire education system is indoctrinating our children with abortion rights, homosexuality, and transgenderism. They are seeking to create a world where human reproduction is completely controlled by the government in the name of saving the planet from overpopulation and climate change. Planned Parenthood clinics are being placed in public schools and laws are being passed protecting children’s rights to privacy concerning abortions. We are being educated into supporting our own demise through propaganda designed to look humane but in the end will leave humanity enslaved to a global communist regime seeking to limit the human population to what they consider to be a manageable or sustainable size. The idea of communists managing population and school districts silencing dissent should send warning bells down the spine of all Americans because, throughout the twentieth century, communist regimes murdered 160,000,000 people that had a differing opinion than the one they wished to impose upon society. It is unlikely that we will be able to reverse this because people are simply too distracted by meaningless entertainment and nonsensical issues that prevent us from seeing exactly what is going on.
Article reposted with permission from Propaganda News
