Demonic Duo: “Back-Up Abortion” Prevents Global Catastrophe


Jurriaan Maessen
March 6, 2013

Paul Ehrlich & Anne Ehrlich at it again: “The best way, in our view, to achieve (…) population shrinkage is to give full rights and opportunities to women, and to make modern contraception and back-up abortion accessible to all sexually active people”.

In a piece published March 2 titled Food insecurity will eat away at our civilization, neo-eugenicist Paul Ehrlich gives us a condensed version of his recent research endeavors, calling for “back-up abortions” to prevent what his colleague Philip Cafaro calls “interspecies genocide”. In addition, he repeats the conclusions of his recent study for the American Institute of Biological Sciences, proposing mass mind-control and increased environmental regulations.

In their recent summary, the Ehrlichs write:

“The best way, in our view, to achieve (…) population shrinkage is to give full rights and opportunities to women, and to make modern contraception and back-up abortion accessible to all sexually active people. While the degree to which these steps would reduce total fertility rates is a matter of controversy, they would deliver significant social and economic benefits by making huge reservoirs of fresh brain power available to solve our problems, while saving hundreds of thousands of lives by reducing the number of unsafe abortions.”

Paul Ehrlich and his wife are busy little bees these days, publishing their death-talk in practically every scientific institution with a printing press. In their latest study for the Royal Society, endorsed by none other than Prince Charles, titled Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?, the demonic duo asserts that civilization is certain to collapse – and only a concerted global effort to reduce fertility may avert catastrophe. The Ehrlichs describe this “concerted global effort” as a monumental task:

“Monumental, but not impossible if the political will could be generated globally to give full rights, education and opportunities to women, and provide all sexually active human beings with modern contraception and backup abortion. The degree to which those steps would reduce fertility rates is controversial, but they are a likely win-win for societies.”

These words contain some drastic and draconian implications. In order to provide “back-up abortions” to women on a global scale, a worldwide population reduction strategy must be outlined and then enforced by all nations of the planet. The Ehrlichs concede that such a worldwide effort would not go down well with nations opposing abortions:

“Obviously (…) there are huge cultural and institutional barriers to establishing such policies in some parts of the world. After all, there is not a single nation where women are truly treated as equal to men. Despite that, the population driver should not be ignored simply because limiting overconsumption can, at least in theory, be achieved more rapidly. The difficulties of changing demographic trajectories mean that the problem should have been addressed sooner, rather than later.”, the Ehrlichs write.

Responding to countless recent studies showing that not overpopulation, but underpopulation seems to be an increasing problem, especially in Europe, the Ehrlichs state:

“That halting population growth inevitably leads to changes in age structure is no excuse for bemoaning drops in fertility rates, as is common in European government circles. Reduction of population size in those over-consuming nations is a very positive trend, and sensible planning can deal with the problems of population aging.”

They also write that besides change in the politics of demography, the educational system should join the effort in a “symmetrical” manner, “moving towards sustainability and enhancing equity (including global wealth redistribution).” The scientific community must throw its weight behind the effort, the Ehrlichs say, with the aim of countering religious argumentation underlining the value of life:

“To our minds, the fundamental cure, reducing the scale of the human enterprise (including the size of the population) to keep its aggregate consumption within the carrying capacity of Earth, is obvious but too much neglected or denied. There are great social and psychological barriers in growthmanic cultures to even considering it. This is especially true because of the ‘endarkenment’—a rapidly growing movement towards religious orthodoxies that reject enlightenment values such as freedom of thought, democracy, separation of church and state, and basing beliefs and actions on empirical evidence. They are manifest in dangerous trends such as climate denial, failure to act on the loss of biodiversity and opposition to condoms (for AIDS control) as well as other forms of contraception. If ever there was a time for evidence-based (as opposed to faith-based) risk reduction strategies, it is now.”

Global population reduction and global redistribution of wealth. These things can of course only be accomplished globally, through the concerted effort of governments everywhere, or- as the authors declare, “an unprecedented level of international cooperation.”:

“At the global level, the loose network of agreements that now tie countries together”, they write, “developed in a relatively recent stage of cultural evolution since modern nation states appeared, is utterly inadequate to grapple with the human predicament. Strengthening global environmental governance and addressing the related problem of avoiding failed statehood are tasks humanity has so far refused to tackle comprehensively even as cultural evolution in technology has rendered the present international system (as it has educational systems) obsolete. Serious global environmental problems can only be solved and a collapse avoided with an unprecedented level of international cooperation.”

The two end this line of reasoning by regurgitating the neo-Malthusian mantra- which simultaneously harbors a veiled threat, namely:

“If people do not do that, nature will restructure civilization for us.”

In other words: it’s either global environmental government or mass death. These “prominent” scientists keep stressing that as long as the people quietly follow the directives of the scientific dictatorship, destruction may yet be averted. This is a form of blackmail seldom seen as such. It is the way of the serial killer, drawing his victim into his lair, all smiles and civility. Once captured, the victim will never again see the light of day.


6 responses to “Demonic Duo: “Back-Up Abortion” Prevents Global Catastrophe

  1. If the sky falls we shall catch larks.

  2. I forgot something (sorry for taking up so much space!). It refers to this poorly drawn conclusion: ”Maessen is excluding all of the many possibilities between the extremes. It is as though he is saying that there are only two possible forms of government: totalitarianism and anarchy.” If we disregard the fact that the article does not mention or hint to anarchy in the first place, let’s consider the possibility (or lack thereof) that the Erlichs’ suggestions, if embraced by policy makers, don’t result in totalitarianism.

    This view omits the fact that those who push for complete control will have nothing less, if people lower their defences one tiny bit and start considering their radical arguments. They’re not after information and persuasion campaigns, but laws and policies to be enforced on a global scale (hence the megalomania which should put everyone off instantly).

    What the advocates of global population control disseminate is that ”the masses” are not capable of making their own decisions and that their biological functions should be regulated by others. Intelectually, they are placing themselves above everyone else, and are asking their supporters to (delusionally) place themselves in that upper echelon as well. Which is how totalitarianism starts – the sheer conviction of having to compell others to conform to radical ideas ”for the greater good”. There is no ”in between”. You don’t seek a middle ground with people you don’t respect – you manipulate them into going all the way. You take control of them.

    Incrementalism is being used on us. First we become apathetic (we stop fighting the coming wave), then we consider extremist arguments ”in a rational, emotionally detached manner” (meaning utilitarian) for the love of the debate, then we become neutral and in the end we are left with no choice. There is no ”in between” when it comes to radical ideas.

  3. @Frans Bouman

    I suppose ”inhumane” is a subjective notion, depending on someone’s level of empathy. Kermit Gosnell definitely doesn’t see inserting scissors into newborn babies’ necks to snip their spines as inhumane. In fact, if he does get sentenced to death, those who oppose executions may feel more concern for Mr Gosnell than he ever did for the children and women he butchered. And as we all know, psychopats cannot experience empathy, just as apathetic people cannot experience concern for something which doesn’t affect them directly.

    Economic reasons are seldom enough to determine a woman to destroy her own offspring and undergo a highly invasive procedure, which can lead to infertility, future miscarriages and what not, unless she’s led to believe the ”clump of cells”/ ”safer-than-giving-birth” utter lie. Which generally translates as ignorance, or better yet, indoctrination.Those women are being lied to by abortion practitioners for profit, compelled by family members, made to feel powerless but above all ignorant of the reality of this procedure, which is logically excruciating for the developing baby (limbs torn off while alive, the whole body burned inside and out with a saline solution for hours etc). A treatment one would be imprisoned for if they subjected an animal to it. If you’ve done your research as you claim, the logical conclusion is that you do not consider being ripped apart while alive or chemically burned alive as inhumane.

    You’re right about one thing though. Jurriaan Maessen is no simpleton. Presumably, neither are you, although the definite connection between being articulate and an actually high IQ has yet to be established. Let’s call you misled, for the benefit of the doubt.

    You’ve yet to learn about human psychology, if you think most women take abortion lightly. Even if we put morality and conscience aside, nature has put the maternal instinct in place for the perpetuation of our species, which manifests itself hormonally, making the feeling of loss biologically unavoidable and often causing the Post-Abortion Syndrome. The voluntary abortion of a viable human being is unnatural, an enforced disruption of a complex and vital natural cycle, which is bound to have long term consequences. Why do you think people in the ”third world” generally reject abortion?

    Because they still respect the laws of nature and gender roles, as opposed to being brainwashed by a pseudo-feminist culture. Only a lifetime of indoctrination and outside pressure can push most women into going against their natural instinct. Our minds are plasticine for others to mould, but our bodies aren’t.

  4. Quality post. If only all bloggers put as much effort into their content!

  5. Women undergo abortion primarily for economic reasons, not out of ignorance, fear or low self-confidence. Neither were they tricked or compelled by organizations such as Planned Parenthood. Maria knows little about the subject, apparently. The right to choose should be universal as, of course, should the dissemination about “the inhumanity of the procedure and the consequences they could suffer” although the procedure is not generally inhumane at all.

    In putting words into the Erlich’s mouths, “In other words: it’s either global environmental government or mass death. ” Maessen is excluding all of the many possibilities between the extremes. It is as though he is saying that there are only two possible forms of government: totalitarianism and anarchy. That’s simply sensationalistic tomfoolery that only simpletons would believe, and Maessen is no simpleton. One can only conclude he says such things with a view to carving out his piece of territory in the whacky Right.

  6. As Dr Bernard Nathanson admitted, abortion was legalised in the US largely based on lies. Besides the lies involved in Roe vs Wade itself, people were led to believe ”unsafe abortions” (as if abortions were ever safe) were much more frequent than they actually were. Numbers were made up and the ”unsafe abortion tragedy” motif was used by Hollywood for mass indoctrination.The logical truth is a psychologically stable woman wouldn’t risk dying just to make sure she destroys her child. That would be one hell of a determination to end the child’s life, one that would not deserve compassion.

    Women who go through abortios today do so out of ignorance, fear and low self-confidence (they are told they’re incapable of being mothers in a difficut situation), many times being compelled or tricked by others (such as Planned Parenthood). Abortion is not an ”opportunity”. Women are lied to about foetal development and kept in the dark about the inhumanity of the procedure and the consequences they could suffer. It is my firm belief that if these women understood what they were doing, most of them wouldn’t go through with it.The misinformed pro-choice lobby needs to wake up.

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