Recently, I mentioned the evil policies advocated by Obama's science czar, John Holdren, in the 1970s in response to his imaginary fears of a population explosion and collapse in our current time. Holdren advocated totalitarian responses, including a worldwide government that would regulate reproduction for each individual. In his ultimate goal, each person would need permission from the government to go off a mandatory, universal contraceptive. Mass, mandatory abortions would be used to curb the growth of entire sectors of the human population. Zombietime has the details.
In the comments, both Bruce Alderman and Dan Trabue stress the importance of finding out whether or not Holdren still advocates these policies. Well, yes, but I don't think that this goes quite far enough to address the seriousness of this political situation.
I believe that once a person holds certain extremist political views, that person should be permanently outcast from polite society and his/her opinion should no longer be sought after in any public policy debate. Such a person should be regarded as having so completely broken faith with human decency that s/he have no place in civic life.
After World War II, this is how Germany treated its most passionate Nazis who did not end up in prison or at the end of an executioner's rope. These people were perhaps not killed, but they were shunned from government, if not outright banned. In a similar way, many post-Communist Eastern European governments, such as Romania, have banished senior Communist leaders from holding office. They are treated as the ideological equivalent of registered sexual predators.
As they should be.
Likewise, so should our society regard those who have adhered to the most evil of ideologies. And Holdren's policy proposals represent crimes on par with the worst actions of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
It is not enough for an ex-Nazi to say at his confirmation hearing "Well, I no longer support the extermination of the Jews, as I did when I created a plan to do so and published it in a book in 1937. Now make me ambassador to Israel."
If he were a true penitent, I'd say that perhaps he should be given a chance. David Horowitz, for example, was a Communist while growing up. But he reformed and has now made a life and a career out of being an ex-Communist and pointing out the evils of Communism at every opportunity that presents itself to him.
It would not be enough for Holden, if pressed by reporters and commentators, to admit that he no longer held these views (which, Zombietime notes, he is not doing). It is not enough that he may have changed his mind in the intervening years. He must truly and passionately repent. For the policies that he proposed were not simply wrong or ill-founded. They were not, to use Bruce's term "mistakes". They were evil.
Evil.
In a civilization that still believed in itself, men like John Holdren would be outcasts on the fringes of society, unable to hold a job or keep friends, let alone become senior government officials. May it be so for ours.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
To borrow a word from my 13 year old son-CREEPY!
We shouldn't be surprised Obama has shown lack of judgement through out his life. In fact this is the sort of thing the left poo- pooed during the election. People tried to point out through the people Obamma chose to associate with , Jeremiah Wright,Bill Ayres, Tony Rezco how lacking in judgement Obama is and what this would mean for advice he would be getting when he became president.
First, let me say that if the Zombietime story is accurate, Holdren should either explain in unambiguous terms why he no longer advocates the draconian population control measures he advocated in the 1970s, or resign.
I believe that once a person holds certain extremist political views, that person should be permanently outcast from polite society…
But who decides what is extreme?
For the policies that he proposed were not simply wrong or ill-founded. They were not, to use Bruce's term "mistakes". They were evil.
Yes, those policies are evil. I won't disagree. But there is a difference between a private citizen advocating extremist views, knowing that those in power will not act on them; and a person who has attained a position of power proposing extremist policies, with the possibility that they might be implemented.
It was a mistake for John Holdren to think 30 years ago that abortions might be useful for population control; it is unpardonable if he does not repudiate those ideas today.
"Creepy!" Talk about wisdom out of the mouth of children! The real curiosity is that the msm hasn't yet seen fit to give any attention to the positions of this relic off the "Creep Show.' Maybe it's because even such inventive wordsmiths have not figured out a way to massage his statements into some sort of acceptability. And since the current nominee cannot now be consigned to the political wilderness, they have decided to simply not talk about what they can not poo-poo.
Bruce wrote:
But who decides what is extreme?
In a society which accepts liberty as its most fundamental principle (cf: The Declaration of Independence), any ideology which rejects it conceptually for the entire population is extremist.
This is why Communism and Nazism are extremist.
But there is a difference between a private citizen advocating extremist views, knowing that those in power will not act on them; and a person who has attained a position of power proposing extremist policies, with the possibility that they might be implemented.
1. What? It's okay to advocate evil policies so as long as you think that they won't be implemented?
2. What makes you think that he thought that they would not be implemented?
It was a mistake for John Holdren to think 30 years ago that abortions might be useful for population control
No, it probably would have worked. Mandatory abortion has worked in China's population control efforts. Societies that intentionally reduce their own population (e.g. Pol Pot's Cambodia) generally succeed.
it is unpardonable if he does not repudiate those ideas today.
No, it wouldn't be a 'mistake'. It would be evil.
I just realized, I've been using the wrong frame of reference. When I look back to some of the things I wrote when I was in college, I can honestly say I was young and stupid, and didn't understand the consequences of what I was saying.
But from what I can find, it looks like John Holdren was at least 30 years old when his first book was published.
Earl -
The real curiosity is that the msm hasn't yet seen fit to give any attention…
They will. It takes a few days for these things to bubble up.
And here's another piece of the puzzle:
Chris Mooney claims to have read the book, and says the Erlichs and Holdren were describing population control policies, not advocating them.
I work for a library; I'm going to get a copy of the book and see whether this is true.
It is popping up: Science Czar Considered Forced Abortions and Sterilization
PAX
JD
John said in the original post:
"It is not enough that he may have changed his mind in the intervening years. He must truly and passionately repent."
This is also true with the Sotomayor nomination. Her hearings were a joke. What kind of integrity do you have as a person that, when you are given an opportunity, you promise to act completely opposite of everything that you have done for the last 30 years just to be confirmed? The fact that the idiots on the committee believed she had "changed" is a sham as well.
If acting in accordance with the law and not making a statement, on numerous occasion, which racist is good enough when you are on the Supreme Court, it should have been a driving factor in your life from the beginning.
For repentance to take place an apology must be followed with change.
Holdren has not done that. Sotomayor has not even started.
PAX
JD
JD -
What has Sonya Sotomayor "done for the last 30 years" that you object to?
Bruce noted...
Chris Mooney claims to have read the book, and says the Erlichs and Holdren were describing population control policies, not advocating them.
This is my suspicion. Generally, when some blog reports something that sounds too extreme to be true, it generally is. In my experience.
That would be another reason why it hasn't popped up in the MSM. They are obliged to actually research a topic at least somewhat before casting such outrageous charges. That it has not come up in the MSM suggests to me that it's not a true story.
I'd love to hear what you learn, Bruce.
If it is the case that there is no story here, will you publish a post to clear up the false impression, John? You strike me as the sort of fella with the integrity to do that kind of clean up.
If it is the case that there is no story here, will you publish a post to clear up the false impression, John? You strike me as the sort of fella with the integrity to do that kind of clean up.
Yes, I will.
I tried to get it at my own library yesterday, but it looks like someone placed it on hold about an hour before I went to the shelf.
Some of Chris Mooney's commentors have also read the book, and say that these sections are not taken out of context.
I hope to get a copy and find out for myself.
I couldn't get a copy of the book from my library, but I've requested a copy through inter-library loan. I'm hoping I'll have it in my hands next week.
Wow. All the copies are disappearing.
Obama's doing?
Dan -
That must be it. I can't think of another possible explanation.
[Dan] If it is the case that there is no story here, will you publish a post to clear up the false impression, John? You strike me as the sort of fella with the integrity to do that kind of clean up.
[John} Yes, I will.
Maybe so, but I don't think you would do enough. I hate to sound like a chronic contrarian, but these are pretty serious allegations you're flinging around, John.
If it turns out there's no story here, then you're a liar and a slanderer. It would take more than a blog post to show that you're a person of integrity.
Maybe so, but I don't think you would do enough. I hate to sound like a chronic contrarian, but these are pretty serious allegations you're flinging around, John.
If it turns out there's no story here, then you're a liar and a slanderer. It would take more than a blog post to show that you're a person of integrity.
And if the allegations are true, then you've been manufacturing excuses for serious evil.
Why is it so hard to simply come out and condemn such horrible, extremist, wicked policies when they're supported by a person on the Left?
When the get the book, take the passages that Zombietime quotes, scan the whole page, and put it on the Internet. We'll see who's right, and which of has reason to be ashamed.
There is no reason to be ashamed for prudence. It is a conservative value after all. I don't think anyone has said that forced abortions are good.
What we've done is questioned whether or not this fella (who I have no ties to nor reason to support) actually held the positions it is claimed he held.
We're merely being prudent in not casting unsupported accusations.
If a pal of mine was suggesting that Bush was probably boiling babies in his kitchen at night, I would also suggest he has his facts wrong and that it is wrong to gossip/slander/make such outrageous unsupported allegations.
I will say this, after reading more of his apparent text: He certainly does come across as a cold-bloodedly uber-objective observer in his discussions of the various theoretical approaches to dealing with the dangers of over-population. If these quotes are to be believed, I would much rather see someone talk about such ideas as forced sterilizations/abortions with a bit of horror/dismay in their voice.
Of course, sociologists, anthropologists strive to remain impartial in their observations of human cultures and I understand that. Still...
He's not just a social scientist making observations about a society; he's making policy suggestions. And now he's in a position to make public policy.
If a pal of mine was suggesting that Bush was probably boiling babies in his kitchen at night, I would also suggest he has his facts wrong and that it is wrong to gossip/slander/make such outrageous unsupported allegations.
If you read snippets of a book by Bush in which he recommended that we boil babies in our kitchens, then it wouldn't be slander to say that he supports boiling babies.
This is a different scenario than the one that you lay out. This isn't a rumor about what this man said; these are his own words.
I concede that I may have jumped the gun in so firmly attributing these views to Holdren in my initial post. Perhaps I should have waited until Zombietime (or someone else) placed them in a larger context. As he has now done.
And if the allegations are true, then you've been manufacturing excuses for serious evil.
No, in fact I said in my first comment on this thread that if the allegations are true, "Holdren should either explain in unambiguous terms why he no longer advocates the draconian population control measures he advocated in the 1970s, or resign."
I'll even grant, now that I've looked into this a little more, that my word "mistakes" was a mistake. These statements were far worse than mistakes.
But I'm not willing to go so far as to liken Holdren to the Nazis. Not even his strongest critics are suggesting that he actually performed any forced abortions or involuntary sterilizations.
Still, even in the most charitable charitable reading of Ecoscience, I think it would be fair to say Holdren and Ehrlich were fearmongering; that's not a crime, but it's still wrong.
The difference between Holdren and the Nazis is that Holdren didn't get to carry out his ghastly plans. So think of this as the small difference between murder and conspiracy to commit murder.
He did more than fearmonging. If all he did was say that the ecological end was nigh, that would be fearmongering. He proposed a detailed program of totalitarian tyranny.
Did you even read my comment before responding to it?
Yes, I did.
Written ideas have consequences even if he was not advocating abortions and sterilizations he is moving peoples minds to a point where they might accept such things.
This is much like Gore and his inconvenient truth this book is moving people to accept the destruction of our economy for the sake of unproven truth.
I have questions for you. Assuming for the sake of argument that race is not simply a political and social construct and that the races are genetically unique in various ways, is it evil for a person to cherish the uniqueness of one's race and desire it's preservation?
It's quite obvious and well known that racial genetic mixing would, over many years, lead to the demise of the 'white' race as we know it, whites being a relatively small minority in the world.
If someone publicly protested racial mixing, would they be subject to the banning and loss of employment, etc. that you advocate for 'extremists'? Now, I'm not speaking of supremacists or haters or those advocating violence, only those who cherish the uniqueness and beauty of their own, whichever, race.
Post a Comment