Arrogant Holdren Calls Outrage Over His Writings “Just a Blip”

Jurriaan Maessen
October 2, 2009

According to Newsweek editor Daniel Lyons, Obama science czar John P. Holdren described the outrage triggered by his writings on depopulation policies with the statement that it’s all “just a blip.”

In the article “An SOS for Science” for Newsweek, Lyons describes he attended a conference in Washington D.C. “that drew CEOs of Fortune 100 companies” in the company of “the top scientists in the field of alternative energy, including John Holdren, the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, a.k.a. our national “science czar.”

After stating that “alternative energy is the next tidal wave in tech innovation”, the author expresses fears that “we’re doomed” if Holdren and company do not get their way. He states:

“It’s not because our scientists aren’t brilliant. They are. But look at what they’re up against: a noisy babble of morons and Luddites, the “Drill, baby, Drill” crowd, the birthers, and tea-party kooks who have done their best to derail health-care reform and will do the same to any kind of energy policy.”

Then he shifts gears to the “controversy” surrounding Holdren’s statements on coercive sterilization policies, falsely claiming that:

“In Holdren’s case the attacks began after TV madman Glenn Beck claimed Holdren advocates controlling population growth by putting sterilants in drinking water and forcing women to have abortions. No matter that the claims are not true (…)”

Aside from his statement that Glenn Beck is a madman, Lyons proves he is not only poorly informed and extremely gullible; he is also outright lying in the face of a well-documented fact. Beck only picked up on a news story put out by Zombie Time Blog, Prison Planet and Infowars.Com, quoting Holdren’s own words in the 1977 textbook “Ecoscience”. And the fact the author describes Holdren’s proposals for sterilizing the water supply and introduce coercive abortion policies as being “claims (that) are not true” is off course an outright lie. Lyons:

“The dopes howled for Holdren to resign. Holdren told me the controversy was no big deal, “just a blip.””

The online dictionary describes the meaning of “blip” in this context as “a temporary or insignificant phenomenon”. The extreme arrogance displayed by Holdren, it seems, knows no bounds. Instead of remaining silent on the matter, he chooses to dismiss it openly. It is not for nothing that Holdren confided to Daniel Lyons, who is no friend to liberty. In 2005, Lyons wrote for his former employer Forbes Magazine that online blogs are a serious threat and should be constrained lest liberty run free: “Web logs are the prized platform of an online lynch mob spouting liberty but spewing lies, libel and invective.” In the same article he stated that blogs: “(…) are the ultimate vehicles for brand-bashing, personal attacks, political extremism and smear campaigns.”

To lay any doubts to rest, here are the actual excerpts from “Ecoscience” once again (page 787/8):

“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.”

In regards to, among other things, involuntary abortion policies (page 786):

“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s