In a Foreign Policy article titled “Mali’s 2.5 Percent Problem“, political writer and former Chatham House fellow Roger Howard calls for “new and highly drastic” population control measures in Mali to reduce the “terrorist threat”. Howard writes:
“(…) in the aftermath of the Algerian attacks and the insurgency in Mali, expect to hear an overwhelming silence about the population issue . . .The taboo that continues to surround the issue of population control needs to be cast aside. New, and highly drastic, means of curbing the rate of growth have to be devised and put into practice if this dire threat to regional and international stability is ever to be averted.”
To make his argument, Howard suggests that geopolitical “unstable” situations are in effect caused by population growth. Therefore, he argues, “highly drastic” population control policies in war-torn Mali should be put in place to avert a “threat to regional and international stability.” In other words: avert terrorism by fundamentalists by implementing mega-terrorism (population control).
Howard, who has made a name for himself writing articles on geopolitics for many international newspapers and is a Chatham House member, is also an editor connected with the UK based population control advocacy group Population Matters: a cesspool of conservationists and environmentalists describing humanity as locusts and calling for worldwide population reduction in the name of the earth.
Follow this line of reasoning through, and every possible problem will be solved if only population control is implemented: want to reduce victims of drunk driving? Reduce human numbers. Looking to cure cancer? Reduce the birthrate so less people will die as a result of it. As the case of Roger Howard clearly illustrates, modern crypto-eugenic consensus will provide the solution of population control for any and every calamity that may arise.
For example, several studies have been published which call for mass population reduction in the name of poverty-reduction. In 2009 Ban Ki-moon’s top advisor, Dr. Jeffrey Sachs’ protégé, Matthew Bonds wrote a dissertation entitled Sociality, Sterility, and Poverty; Host-Pathogen Coevolution, with Implications for Human Ecology. In which the case is made that the best way to eradicate poverty and disease is to, well… eradicate humans.
“We find that, after accounting for an income effect, reducing fertility may result in significantly lower disease prevalence over the long (economic) term than would a standard S-I-R epidemiological model predict, and might even be an effective strategy for eradicating some infectious diseases. Such a solution would make Malthus proud”, Bonds wrote.
“(…) the new model, which accounts for an economic effect, predicts that a reduction in fertility may be significantly more effective than a vaccine. It also illustrates that a sustained vaccination policy would be more likely to eradicate a disease if done in conjunction with decreased reproduction.”
“This model”, Bond continues, “is likely to understate the true benefits of reduced fertility because the effect of reducing the birth rate is to reduce the flow of susceptible for all diseases, which is the equivalent of a vaccine for all infectious diseases at the same time.”
If you eradicate the human, you eradicate the disease- problem solved:
“Infectious diseases, however, continue to be most significant in developing countries, which experience relatively rapid population growth. The effect of this influx of children on the persistence and dynamics of childhood diseases, as well as on the critical vaccination coverage, is reasonably well-established (McLean and Anderson, 1988a; Broutin et al., 2005). But it is now warranted to turn this framework on its head: can fertility reduction be an integral element of a disease eradication campaign?”
Or, to frame this question as Howard does, can fertility reduction be an integral element of a terrorism eradication campaign?
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple