Hillary Clinton’s E-Journal Retracts Neo-Malthusian Essay By Crocodile Hunter’s Daughter


Jurriaan Maessen
January 24, 2013

According to the daughter of the late Steve Irwin, her essay on the “population problem” was first edited, then retracted altogether by the editors of the State Department’s e-journal.

Bindi Irwin, the now 14-year old daughter of the late Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin was apparently invited by the editors of the State Department’s e-journal as part of Clinton’s “endangered species initiative” to write an essay on how the young Irwin views wildlife conservationism. Irwin, in response to the assignment, spoke her mind, regurgitating the same old neo-Malthusian death-talk we have become accustomed with from the mouths of conservationists such as David Attenborough, Paul Ehrlich and other people devoted to reducing the world’s population “for the earth”.

When the editors of Hillary Clinton’s State Department’s online journal received Irwin’s essay, they returned the thing with all references to “overpopulation” edited out.

Bindi’s mother, Terri Irwin, spoke to, stating that “she (Bindi) was asked to write an essay about the environment and included the consideration of population (growth) and they returned her essay edited and completely edited that out.”

“So Bindi wrote to Hillary Clinton’s organisation and said ‘what happened to freedom of speech?”, Terri Irwin continued.

After the editors of Hillary Clinton’s journal told Irwin there wasn’t enough time for a rewrite, Bindi decided to withdraw the article altogether.

As I said, Irwin’s original, unedited essay contains classical Malthusian and Ehrlichian thinking based on the faulty opinion that more people means less resources.

“I believe that most problems in the world today, such as climate change, stem from one immense problem which seems to be the ‘elephant in the room’ that no-one wants to talk about.”, Bindi writes.

Further on she writes: “How is it possible that our fragile planet can sustain these masses of people.”

I assume Irwin wrote her essay in ignorance. She might be persuaded to think otherwise after seeing the following video:

In any case it seems the State Department is extremely cautious on the subject, perhaps afraid to be subjected to all kinds of criticism for openly providing a platform to advocates of population control (although there are still some first class neo-Malthusian snakes slithering around the White House). In the final equation, I think the government’s caution in regards to everything relating to this subject is a good thing. After all, it shows they are on the defense, knowing that a growing number of people have become aware of the elite’s depopulation plans.


5 responses to “Hillary Clinton’s E-Journal Retracts Neo-Malthusian Essay By Crocodile Hunter’s Daughter

  1. Population is not a such a simple equation. If land and resource deprived people must depend on multiple-children’s earnings to surive, they will have many of them – see the Philippines, India, etc. In other conditions, they behave differently. Yes, starvation will eventually ‘thin them out’, but only at a point where the land is stripped bare.

    There are other ways, besides having waves of starvation with each drought, to stabilize a population; we are not rats and will make choices based on our circumstances. What has caused the population in Russia and other 1st-world nations to shrink? It is not due to a shortage of food (post-Yeltsin, anyway). Poverty doesn’t decrease populations nearly has well as a higher living standards do – this is a fact, see a map and statistics.

  2. Overpopulation relative to available resources and technologies is the cause of poverty (Paul Colinvaux, “Fates of Nations”, also “Why Big Fierce Animals are Rare”). It is poverty (more precisely resource limitation) that determines the trajectory whereby you hypothesise that population will stabilize.

    Your animation makes many more false assertions than I have the patience to document. Indeed, you remind me of Edward William Cole (famous Australian businessman). Around the time of World Ward II, Cole famously said: “Rain follows agriculture”.

  3. @ Les Kaufmann:
    You are right about Perpetual Growth / Population – imagine someone starting “a tree farm for wood production” in 1700 – we certainly have less land and every other naturally-occuring resource per-person for each increase in population. The solution is not regulation by corrupt governments, however, but to individualize (not nationalize) these resources per-person so eveyone will own and protect their share of them. Naturally, they will then reproduce in a manner which ensures their children’s shares will be equal to their own.

    But, so-called “Man Made Climate Change” is not based on facts. Read the Rockefeller Bros article on this site and ask yourself why Exxon (Rockefeller’s Standard Oil) supports that angle. To raise the price of their product, perhaps? Why WAS the Oil Cartel ‘capping’ Deep Horizon, a massive find right next to the existing refineries, while trying to build the Keystone Pipeline all the way to Canada to ship *much more expensive to produce* oil to feed the same refineries?

    Next, read what the Rockefeller Foundation wrote about mal-educating the populace to be ‘workers not thinkers’ as they created the modern US-school systems. You will quickly discover that “free market mechanisms” are the last things at play in much of what happens under today’s crony-capitalism, run by the Robber-Barron Plutocrat-families which came to power in the 1800s partnered with European Oligarchs.

  4. disrespectful dissenter

    I totally agree Les but that’s not the point. The point is State chooses to propagandize its own totalitarian agenda, which has no place for humble creatures including the two-legged, bourgeois kind!

  5. The idea that overpopulation is a root problem, that Bindi was referring to, is an empirical truth founded on overwhelming evidence, not a faulty opinion. The notion that unlimited growth is sustainable is not supported by any evidence (rather, there is abundant evidence to the contrary) and yet is a strongly held opinion by many for whom it is convenient. On a very short time scale, economic growth is very good for many people. Extend the time scale just a bit and local resource limitation, inequities, and war quickly mushroom. Extend it a bit more by sourcing natural goods from places in the world that have still not been fully exploited, and the problems go global. Where they are now, big-time.

    To deny the fallacy of unlimited growth is equivalent to denying scientific evidence for evolution, or climate change, or the environmental basis for war, drought, and famine. This is easy to do if you are not living where people are actually experiencing these things every day. Try it sometime. Or just wait until it comes to you.

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