The Dehumanisation of the Masses: Population Control & Reduction Based on a interview with Qadosh Erectus Visit: http://www.instituteofsocialsurvivalism.org The Dehumanisation of the Masses: Population Control & Reduction [The following interview, undertaken in late December 2009, was extracted from Thus Speaks Qadosh Erectus: Political Thoughts For a Sane Society and distributed as a separate publication.] Interviewer: The Copenhagen summit has recently finished and turned into a bit of a fizzer in regards to reaching a legally binding climate change deal. Did this surprise you? QE: YestotellthetruthIwasmoderatelysurprisedbutmosthappythatitwasafizzerto use your words. But no doubt officials are already working behind the scenes to iron out the problems that arose so I would suspect that in the not too distant future another summit will be held. If people want this to fail they had better become better organised because United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has publicly admitted 1 that the agenda behind the Copenhagen summit and the climate change fraud is the imposition of a global government and the end of national sovereignty. Sadly many people fail to understand that global governance will develop out of any future agreement on emissions and they also fail to understand that policies shall certainly be introduced to reduce world population numbers. Interviewer: From news reports we are given the impression that it was China’s fault that a binding agreement wasn’t reached at the Copenhagen summit. Do you believe what we are told is factual? QE: Negotiationisaboutgiveandtake-compromise.Ifpartiessitdowntonegotiatea deal you can not in all fairness lay the blame at the feet of one party if an agreement is not reached. The so-called sticking point is that China wants consumer countries to take responsibility for the carbon emissions generated in the manufacture of goods, not the producer countries that export them. According to Mr Li,2 an official with China's National Development and Reform Commission and climate change negotiator; "As one of the developing countries, we are at the low end of the production line for the global economy. We produce products and these products are consumed by other countries … This share of emissions should be taken by the consumers, not the producers." Now according to Oslo's Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research in Norway, a third of all Chinese emissions are linked to exports, with nine per cent caused by exports to the US, and six per cent from producing goods for Europe. Interviewer: Do you think that a compromise will be reached between the West and China that consumers should carry the burden of emissions? QE: I would be very surprised if a future agreement is not reached because of China’s stance. In fact I would go as far to say that there is a segment in the West that may have helped to orchestrate the failure of an agreement at the Copenhagen summit because the Chinese way is what they desire. Interviewer: If such an agreement is reached wouldn’t this imply that everything produced would be given a carbon foot-print? QE: Yes,thatishowIwouldinterpretit. Interviewer: You mentioned population reduction…I haven’t heard about such plans? QE: I was reading 3 about the front-page commentary in the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano that took the Copenhagen summit to task over its "nihilism," and consequent emphasis on population control and de-industrialisation. The article quoted Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, who is the President of the Vatican Bank as stating that; "Nihilistic thought, with its rejection of any objective truth and values causes serious damage when applied to economics." Tedeschi recalled as an example the "disastrous consequences" of Malthus' argument that population growth causes poverty, as well as the theory that the economy is morally autonomous, which he said has led to an "overly consumerist and materialistic" mentality. He went on to say that, when applied to environmental issues, nihilism produces "even more serious damage." In this case it leads to the attempt "to solve climate problems - where much confusion reigns - through lowering the birth rate and de-industrialization, rather 2 than through the promotion of values that lead the individual to his original dignity." [Emphasis added] Interviewer: In regards to Tedeschi’s statement opposing the lowering of the birth-rate…do you believe that there is a problem of over-population in the world? QE: Firstly,whatdoyoumeanbyover-population?Whatstandarddoyouapplyin reaching a conclusion there are too many people? Do you apply the criteria of (a) the world’s ability to produce enough food to feed everyone or (b) the ability of each individual country to feed its people? If we apply criterion (a) then we apparently do not have over-population in the world as the world has the capability to produce enough food to feed a far larger population of people. If on the other hand we apply criterion (b) then there are a number of countries in the world that lack this ability for various reasons. Then of course if we apply a different criterion, that of a “standard of living”, then we can come to a different conclusion depending on what is meant by “standard of living”. What standard do we apply? Do we apply standard in the US or perhaps Europe, or maybe the standard in China or India? What is wrong with the standard of living of some herdsman in Africa living a nomadic lifestyle? They have no need of electricity and all the mod-cons that rely on electricity. What is wrong with the standard of living of an Amazon Indian living a simple lifestyle on what the jungle provides? Whose standard do we apply? So what standard do we apply? Do we allow the controllers of Capital like the Rothschilds and Rockefellers to set the standard? What God given right have they been given to set the standard especially taking into consideration it has been these types of people that have contributed greatly to many of the world’s problems. The whole world over-population myth is a propaganda exercise created by people with a Master Plan Interviewer: Do you believe that there is an optimum world population and if so what would it be? QE: Itissomethingforeachindividualcountrytofigureout,notsomeover-paidandwell- fed controller of Capital or Global Bureaucrat. Now every country should have the ability to feed its own; this includes the ability to put aside surplus to see them through periods of unsettled seasons that would affect their food production. If a country has this ability it would be logical to conclude it does not have a population problem. Interviewer: I would have to assume that you do not believe the world has an over-population problem. Would I be correct? QE: The problem is thatover-populationcatastrophists have beenpredicting doomand gloom for centuries. Now before I go further I would I to quote the following: "What most frequently meets our view (and occasions complaint), is our teeming population: our numbers are burdensome to the world, which can hardly supply us from its natural elements; our wants grow more and more keen, and our complaints more bitter in all mouths, whilst Nature fails in affording us her usual sustenance. In very deed, pestilence, and famine, and wars, and earthquakes have to be regarded as a remedy for nations, as the means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race." 4 Now this quote did not come from Thomas Malthus, whose Essay on Population in the late eighteenth century is the seminal work to which much of the modern concern about overpopulation can be traced. It did not come from Botero, a sixteenth-century Italian whose work anticipated many of the arguments advanced by Malthus two 3 centuries later. Neither is it is not found in the more modern catastrophist works such as The Limits to Growth 5 and Beyond the Limits.6 No this quotation was penned by Tertullian, a resident of the city of Carthage in the second century AD, when the population of the world was about 190 million, or only three to four percent of what it is today. And the fear of overpopulation did not begin with Tertullian as I understand that similar concerns were expressed in the writings of Plato and Aristotle in the fourth century B.C., as well as in the teachings of Confucius in the sixth century B.C. While the facts show that the world has experienced population expansion that began in the eighteenth century resulting in a six fold increase in population over the next 200 years most people fail to realise that the six fold increase in world population was dwarfed by the eighty-fold increase in world output. As real incomes rose, people were able to live healthier lives. Infant mortality rates plummeted and life expectancies soared. If we look back to 1900 the average world life expectancy was about 30 years, but in 1993 it was just over 65 years so over a period of ninety years life expectancy has doubled. Now the most startling revolution in the 20th century was one of health. Where a century ago, almost any disease could kill someone in a matter of days, these diseases are now routinely cured. Where once someone could hope to live into their 60s, people now routinely live well into the 70s, 80s, and even 90s. I believe that the political economist Nicholas Eberstadt sums it up nicely when he stated that it is not that people "reproduce like bunnies" rather that they "no longer die like flies." It is not that people "reproduce like bunnies" rather that they "no longer die like flies." While we are still bombarded with propaganda from the over-population catastrophists they fail to inform people that presently more than 80 countries have achieved what is known as below replacement fertility, the point at which women are having so few children, generally thought to be below 2.1 children per woman, that countries are no longer replacing themselves.