parrotpatriot is back!!

Elitism is "The Bomb"

Posted by parrotpatriot on July 22, 2009

I wasn’t surprised to discover the person one might describe as the “father of eugenics in America” was a professor out of the University of Chicago by the name of Charles Davenport. From my viewpoint in a small town in Georgia, Chicago appears to be a hot bed for bad liberal ideas and crooked politicians. But who am I but a feebleminded, uneducated redneck on which Davenport and a guy named Laughlin might have at the time collected a pedigree? They played a role in making eugenic sterilization a legally sanctioned way to fight poverty and crime in America and believed themselves capable of identifying the undesirables. Hitler’s ‘Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring’ was modeled after a sterilization law written by Laughlin.

Recently Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg explained,

“…that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me the REAL problem with eugenics was not so much that it was promoted to prevent some threat to racial purity, but that the folks espousing it sought to correct what they saw was wrong with the world by attempting to affect birthrates. They sought to control reproduction through government policies. Or, to put it simply, they wanted to make sure that certain people were not allowed to reproduce through GOVERNMENT CONTROL. That has been called lots of different things, but I can assure you, one of them is not “freedom”. So if today the scientist has decided that the threat is not to racial purity, but rather to the entire population because we have overpopulated the Earth, all of our resources are dwindling and we are using too much energy, then the devil is in the details, no?

It seems that today’s elite scientist’s thinking goes like this:


1) Nature created itself (there is no God)

2) Nature has adapted and evolved itself (anti-creationism)

3) The scientists and politicians need to do something to solve some perceived crisis because Nature can’t take care of it on its own


So Nature is powerful…or not?


The elite scientist of today says that the only two ways to control population are by:

1) decreasing the birthrate (through sex education, abortion, access to abortion, compulsory abortion, sterilization, “involuntary fertility control” methods such as birth control implants which can be removed with official permission, etc.) or

2) increasing the deathrate (wars, famine, pestilence),

and that controlling birthrates is much more humane. To which I would say, the idea that you want to CONTROL either is frightening! Who made you God? What gives you the right to say how many people should be on the Earth at a time? You’ve no more right to decide that than your 1920’s counterparts had to decide what was the “right” pedigree.

These elitists think they know better than you do. They go to Harvard and teach at Stanford and quote each other in their books. Faith in God and belief in a creator is viewed with contempt, those opposed to birth control are referred to as the sexually repressed, and on and on.

Let me demonstrate elitism by providing some excerpts from an article I found at written by Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich. This is the married couple with which John Holdren, BO’s Science Czar co-wrote a book in 1977 called Ecoscience (see earlier posts).

In this article in the Washington Times, the Ehrlichs suggest I find out what they and Holdren think:

“The White House also passed along a statement from the Ehrlichs that said, in part, “anybody who actually wants to know what we and/or Professor Holdren believe and recommend about these matters would presumably read some of the dozens of publications that we and he separately have produced in more recent times, rather than going back a third of a century to find some formulations in an encyclopedic textbook where description can be misrepresented as endorsement.”

So I went looking for something written by the Ehrlichs in “more recent times” and found this article written by them in 2009 called “The Population Bomb Revisited”.

“The Population Bomb” was a book written by the Ehrlichs in 1968 – 10 years before they co-authored the book with John Holdren. The 2009 article attempts to defend the 1968 book, which is listed here as #10 in a list of the top 50 worst books of the 20th century.

What is “The Population Bomb” about, you ask?  According to the article, there is its “main message”:


Then, there is its “fundamental point”:

3fundamental point2

And then there is its “central goal”:

2central goal2

So, there’s too many people, the Earth’s resources are finite, and we should adopt policies to control birthrates. Which brings me to the “essential point”:

4essential point

I would submit that another “death rate solution” would be to introduce government-run healthcare in America, but I’d hate to give these folks any ideas. (Or is that already the idea?)

Ehrlich2 leave out a third option, which they mention later in the article as one that is unlikely to happen. That option you might recognize as one Karl Marx espoused:

carl marx2

Yeah, bummer we haven’t adopted that Marxism/Communism thing.

I noticed that John Holdren is oft quoted and used as a reference in Ehrlich’s books. What is funny is the way he is described, “physicist John Holdren”, as though he is an entirely disinterested and thoroughly serious and scientific party to the discussion. No mention is made of having co-authored a book with him. It’s a handy way to attempt to lend credence to your claims. Take for example this reference to James Hansen:

james hansen top


Sound serious, doesn’t it? Wow! A top NASA scientist said so!! Hansen’s assertion that “we’re toast” is then used as justification for controlling birthrates:

we;re toase

Just who is this top NASA scientist James Hansen? Well, none other than the “father of global warming” himself! He’s the first one to use the term “global warming” in his first testimony before Congress in 1988. Disinterested party? I think not.

Editorial: James Hansen for Congress

Here is James Hansen’s “Statement of Political Inclinations” – a good read for a good laugh:

I have great respect for Vice President Gore and his dedication to communicating the importance of global warming. He has a better understanding of the science of global warming than any politician that I have met, and I urge citizens to pay attention to his presentation, which I understand will come out in the form of a movie. Even if you don’t agree with Vice President Gore’s politics, you should pay attention to his climate message. He knows what he is talking about.

To the best of my recollection, I have twice contributed financially to election campaigns (probably $1000 in each case). The first was to the 1992 Clinton/Gore presidential campaign. The second was also to the Democratic ticket in one of the last two elections, either to Gore/Lieberman or Kerry/Edwards, I don’t remember which. I could probably find out by digging through cancelled checks, but I don’t think that it matters.

More recently Hansen has been making enemies in the environmentalist circles because he thinks Cap & Trade doesn’t go far enough – HA!

But he’s a scientist and scientists know more than the common man, right? The Ehrlichs think so:

elitist not just the man on the street2

Oh my! Even the educated don’t get what we scientists get! It’s just simple math! Ehrlich2 continue by attempting to rebut the arguments of three of those who otherwise might be considered highly educated, one of whom is Wilfred Beckerman. Speaking of simple math:

her math problem

Um…ok, let’s go through this

…assume slow growth = 1% per year…

…assume I invested a millionth of a penny in 450 BC…

…assume the interest rate is 1% annually…

…is that compounded interest?…

…how much is a British family’s income in 1977 exactly?…


Is there any chance the Ehrlichs had a hand in writing the Internal Revenue Code?

I haven’t looked into it, but I suspect James Lovelock is another impartial scientist friend of Ehrlich2 :

james lovelock

Something about their crediting him with saving humanity makes me think so. He must be on the team of elite called “our group”, which has taken on the arduous task of determining the optimal number of people in the world:


Hey, we’ve got to have exciting cities, right? Is there a scientific formula to calculate “exciting”? Just wondering. Ah, thank God – oops I mean – thank the elite for thinking of us hermits too.

This is all very scientific stuff, you know. “Our group” has also determined that we are “over-reproducing” and it’s Bush’s fault:

over reproduction2


(I’d forgotten that he’d run on the over-reproduction platform, had you?)

Again this is all scientific and it is not fear mongering:


There’s an immediate need for grants and research funding – really:


fear monger

 OK, so “our group” was wrong back in 1968…

first line of prologue2


 …but now we really mean it:

the real thing


  (Oh look – there’s Lovelock again – this time foretelling Armageddon.)

The modern scientists who seek to control human reproduction seem to be using the same tactics used by their eugenicist counterparts used in the 1920’s. Those elitist groups 

found a receptive ear in state legislatures, as it did in Washington, and it exerted a profound influence on American public policy”

When they warned:

“the “feeble-minded,” criminals, the sexually wanton, epileptics, the insane, and non-white races — were rapidly out-reproducing the “normal” members of society at an alarming rate, passing on their “deleterious” genes at the expense of the “normal.” The social cost of such a situation, they feared, would be devastating.”



As evidence of just how powerful and intelligent these scientific prophets are, the Ehlrichs point out that their bomb of a book was actually the reason why their divinations were inaccurate!

the bomb itself 

Clearly they had “underestimated the impact of the green revolution” they started:


Oh, of course!

After all, they are the people they’ve been waiting for.

Reminds me of another elitist you may have heard of:


Read “Population Bomb Revisited” by Paul Ehrlich, 2009 here:


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: