The Genocidal Mind of the Empire

By a CRC-EIR Investigative Team

Could there possibly be human beings who have such a perverted view of the nature of mankind, as to want to radically reduce the number of people alive? Who see people as a “cancer” on the Earth which should be excised, rather than the source of creative growth for the universe as a whole? Not only is the answer yes, but it is the people who think like that—the imperial financial oligarchy—who are the controlling power on our Earth today.

As a supplement to the previous articles, we document some of the more blunt and vicious ravings of the British oligarchy, and its lackeys, up through today, especially in the largely British-spawned Green movement. This is the enemy we must defeat.

Thomas Malthus

Parson Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) was a hired pen for the College of the East India Company, a core institution of the British Empire, which had been consolidated in 1763, and his views on the need to suppress population—of the lower classes, of course—were tailored to that Empire’s needs. We quote from his “Essay on the Principle of Population”:

“We are bound in justice and honour formally to disdain the right of the poor to support.

“To this end, I should propose a regulation to be made, declaring that no child born from any marriage taking place after the expiration of a year from the date of the law, and no illegitimate child born two years from the same date, should ever be entitled to parish assistance.

“The infant is, comparatively speaking, of little value to society, as others will immediately supply its place.

“All children who are born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the death of grown persons. Therefore we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavouring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use.

“Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlement in all marshy and unwholesome situations. But above all we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and restrain those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they are doing a service to mankind by protecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders.”

Lord Bertrand Russell

Lord Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) was a member of a prominent British aristocratic family, who became a leading source of intellectual evil during a large part of the 20th Century, shaping the diseases of Fabianism, mathematics, and greenie-ism. While known as a pacifist, Russell actually called for pre-emptive nuclear war against the Soviet Union in 1946. His viciously anti-human views are most sharply expressed in his 1923 Prospects for Industrial Civilization, and 1951 book Impact of Science on Society.

From the former:

“The white population of the world will soon cease to increase. The Asiatic races will be longer, and the negroes still longer, before their birth rate falls sufficiently to make their numbers stable without help of war and pestilence….”

From the latter:

“At present the population of the world is increasing at about 58,000 per diem. War, so far, has had no very great effect on this increase, which continued throughout each of the world wars….

“What, then, can we do? Apart from certain deep-seated prejudices, the answer would be obvious. The nations which at present increase rapidly should be encouraged to adopt the methods by which, in the West, the increase of population has been checked. Educational propaganda, with government help, could achieve this result in a generation. There are, however, two powerful forces opposed to such a policy: one is religion, the other is nationalism. I think it is the duty of all who are capable of facing facts to realize, and to proclaim, that opposition to the spread of birth control, if successful, must inflict upon mankind the most appalling depth of misery and degradation, and that within another fifty years or so.

“I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s….

“There are three ways of securing a society that shall be stable as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that of general misery except for a powerful minority…. Of these three, only birth control avoids extreme cruelty and unhappiness for the majority of human beings. Meanwhile, so long as there is not a single world government there will be competition for power among the different nations. And as increase of population brings the threat of famine, national power will become more and more obviously the only way of avoiding starvation. There will therefore be blocs in which the hungry nations band together against those that are well fed. That is the explanation of the victory of communism in China.

“These considerations prove that a scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is a world government.”

Prince Philip

Since World War II, the leading spokesman for the anti-human policies of the British financial establishment has been Queen Elizabeth’s Royal Consort, Prince Philip (b. 1921), who co-founded the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) in 1961, and has spurred the expansion and penetration of private and government institutions globally with the pernicious Malthusian ideology. Just a few examples will suffice.

“Vanishing Breeds Worry Prince Philip, But Not as Much as Overpopulation,” interview in People magazine, Dec. 21, 1981.

Q: What do you consider the leading threat to the environment?

A: Human population growth is probably the single most serious long-term threat to survival. We’re in for a major disaster if it isn’t curbed—not just for the natural world, but for the human world. The more people there are, the more resources they’ll consume, the more pollution they’ll create, the more fighting they will do. We have no option. If it isn’t controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation and war.

Address on receiving honorary degree from the University of Western Ontario, Canada, July 1, 1983.

“The industrial revolution sparked the scientific revolution and brought in its wake better public hygiene, better medical care and yet more efficient agriculture. The consequence was a population explosion which still continues today.

The sad fact is that, instead of the same number of people being very much better off, more than twice as many people are just as badly off as they were before. Unfortunately all this well-intentioned development has resulted in an ecological disaster of immense proportions.”

Address to Joint Meeting of the All-Party Group on Population and Development and the All-Party Conservation Committee, London, March 11, 1987.

“…The simple fact is that the human population of the world is consuming natural renewable resources faster than it can regenerate, and the process of exploitation is causing even further damage. If this is already happening with a population of 4 billion, I ask you to imagine what things will be like when the population reaches 6 and then 10 billion…. All this has been made possible by the industrial revolution and the scientific explosion and it is spread around the world by the new economic religion of development.”

Prince Philip was quoted by the Deutsche Presse Agentur, August 1988:

“In the event I am reborn, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”

Britain’s Green Movement

Paul R. Ehrlich

One book which spurred the 1960s paradigm shift to anti-human green ideology was The Population Bomb, written by lepidopterologist Ehrlich and his wife, and published in 1968. Ehrlich, who is still active in depopulation groups such as the British royalty-sponsored Population Matters (formerly the Optimum Population Trust), showed his view of mankind in that book as follows:

“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells, the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”

In the wake of the publication of the British Royal Society’s April 2012 “People and the Planet” report, which called in general terms for limiting population, Ehrlich said the following to the London Guardian:

“How many [people] you support depends on lifestyles. We came up with 1.5 to 2 billion because you can have big active cities and wilderness. If you want a battery chicken world where everyone has minimum space and food and everyone is kept just about alive you might be able to support in the long term about 4 or 5 billion people. But you already have 7 billion. So we have to humanely and as rapidly as possible move to population shrinkage” (emphasis added).

Dennis Meadows

Known for his co-authorship of the notorious Limits to Growth book of the British depopulation movement’s Club of Rome, Meadows continues to be active in demanding a reduction in population. Exemplary is his interview with Spiegel Online on Dec. 9, 2009, where he was commenting on the failure of the Copenhagen Climate Summit. Asked for his proposal, he said:

“We have to learn to live a fulfilled life with the CO2 emissions of Afghanistan.” (Note that Afghanistan’s per-capita energy consumption is approximately 35 kWh, compared to 12,000 plus for the U.S.A. Thirty-six percent of the Afghan population has access to electricity. Its death rate is almost double that of the United States.)

“Is this possible with 9 billion people on this planet?” asks the interviewer.

Meadows replied,

“No, even 7 billion people is too much for this planet…. If everybody is allowed to have the full potential of mobility, nourishment and self-development, it’s 1 or 2 billion” (emphasis added).

Population Matters:

This British-based group, heavily staffed with knighted Britons, won notoriety under its original name, Optimum Population Trust (OPT), which recommended drastic worldwide cuts in population, including in Great Britain, based on the fraudulent “carbon footprint” measurement. OPT was founded in 1991, and specializes in putting out “sustainability” figures based on suppressing advanced technologies and promoting population control, including through abortion.

One prominent member is the Baronet Jonathon Porritt, who functioned as a senior green advisor to former British Prime Ministers Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. In early 2009, Porritt called for cutting the population of Great Britain from the current 61 million subjects to no more than 30 million. That was the level of Britain’s population during Victorian England.

This outfit, which features sponsors such as naturalists Sir David Attenborough and Dame Jane Goodall, embraces a global population goal of no more than 4 billion people—3 billion fewer than today, and 5-6 billion fewer than current trends portend.

OPT issued a press release March 16, 2009, titled “Earth Heading for 5 Billion Overpopulation?” which said: “Based on ecological footprint and biological capacity data which have become available over the last decade, OPT estimates the world’s sustainable population currently at 5 billion and the U.K.’s at 18 million (the U.K.’s actual current population is 61 million).

“However,” the release continued, “these figures are predicated on present levels and patterns of consumption. Greener lifestyles in the U.K. could push up its sustainable population; by contrast, if the world as a whole grows richer and consumes more, this will reduce the planet’s carrying capacity. If present trends continue, by 2050, when the UN projects world population will be 9.1 billion, there will be an estimated 5 billion more people than the Earth can support.” I.e., only 4 billion need apply.

The OPT is so integrated into the British-dominated UN structure that the the United Nations Population Fund gave its de facto blessing to OPT’s mass murder scheme on Nov. 18, 2009, when it featured its director, Roger Martin, as a presenter of the UN’s own “State of World Population 2009” report.

Attenborough, one of OPT’s leading promoters, received the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts prize on March 10, 2011, from Prince Philip, the RSA president.

With Philip at his side, Attenborough stated:

“We now realize that the disasters that continue increasingly to afflict the natural world have one element that connects them all—the unprecedented increase in the number of human beings on this planet,” as Malthus warned. But no one proposes the necessary measures to curb human population, which makes every problem worse. “Why this strange silence? … There seems to be some bizarre taboo around the subject…. There are over 100 countries whose combinations of numbers and affluence have already pushed them past the sustainable level…. It is tragic that the only current population policies in developed countries are, perversely, attempting to increase their birth rate, in order to look after the growing number of old people. The notion of ever more old people needing ever more young people, who will in turn grow old and need even more young people, and so on, ad infinitum, is an obvious ecological Ponzi scheme.”

Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research

This Berlin, Germany-based organization is headed by a Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who has pushed through a denuclearization, deindustrialization program in Germany over the past two years. (He was knighted in 2004.) Schellnhuber, at the March 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference, asserted that his computer models had thoroughly shown that, if his plan for denying nuclear and carbon based energy supplies for humanity were not implemented, the carrying capacity of Earth would be only 1 billion people.

Schellnhuber’s “solution,” a global green dictatorship, echos the brutal logic that his much admired mentor Bertrand Russell expressed in his infamous October 1946 Bulletin of Atomic Scientists article, in which Russell called for nuclear war against the Soviet Union, if it did not accept his plan for world government. Only weeks after his warning, Schellnhuber met with HRH Prince Charles at his Potsdam Institute in April 2009, and, in late May, opened the Nobel Laureate Symposium on Global Sustainability, hosted by Prince Charles, at his St. James Palace.