Hmmm, you are using a email address...

Google has declared war on the independent media and has begun blocking emails from NaturalNews from getting to our readers. We recommend as a free, uncensored email receiving service, or as a free, encrypted email send and receive service.

That's okay. Continue with my Gmail address...

“Population Engineering” is the new term for population control, just like “climate change” replaced global warming

Leftists cannot be honest and open about their political, social, and cultural ideas because they know that the vast majority of people would reject them.

As such, they learned long ago to change the language and the meaning of words in order to mask and camouflage what they’re really trying to do.

The “Affordable Care Act” was never meant to be “affordable.”

Pushing tax increases is called “improving government revenue streams.” 

And so on. 

The Left has also done it with “climate change.” Before that term was popularized the Left called it “global warming,” but had to readjust the language after fact-based research through the years proved beyond a doubt that the globe wasn’t ‘warming’ and was, in fact, cooling in some regions.

Now the Marxists who seek to control the world are changing the language again: “Population control” has now been replaced with “population engineering,” though the latter embodies the exact same objective of fewer people around to consume resources.

A new paper published online by the uber-liberal (and taxpayer-supported) National Public Radio uses the term as it applies to the “fight against climate change.” 

In the abstract the authors argue:

Contrary to political and philosophical consensus, we argue that the threats posed by climate change justify population engineering, the intentional manipulation of the size and structure of human populations. Specifically, we defend three types of policies aimed at reducing fertility rates: (1) choice enhancement, (2) preference adjustment, and (3) incentivization. While few object to the first type of policy, the latter two are generally rejected because of their potential for coercion or morally objectionable manipulation. We argue that forms of each policy type are pragmatically and morally justified (perhaps even required) tools for preventing the harms of global climate change.

The authors go on to claim that climate change is real (it isn’t) while directly insinuating that humans are responsible for it (we aren’t). Our planet’s climate has “changed” throughout its billion-year history, long before any humans were around to build productive societies. (Related: Global warming / Climate change is dead, so when can conservatives say: “We told you so”?)

Includes plot to destroy capitalism

This malarky was accidentally exposed by the former head of the UN’s primary climate change office, the Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figures. As reported by Investors Business Daily, Figueres frankly admitted that the overarching goal of the “global warming/climate change” hoax is to reorient the world’s economic model away from capitalism and all the creature comforts and modernity it brings (though not for the Left-wing elites).

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said at a news conference in Brussels, Belgium, in 2015. 

She was commenting in advance of the Paris Climate Accords summit which was held later that year and in which President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of during his first months in office.

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history (emphasis added).”

The fact is, capitalism is the only economic model that has been successful in the past 150-plus years. The evidence is plain to see; our societies transformed from feudal existence that lasted 1,000 years and produced no economic growth or opportunity to build the world’s biggest economy (ours). At the same time, lifespans increased three-and-four fold (which is a problem, of course, for the Marxist climate change hoaxers). 

Interestingly, the people who argue for population control not only change the language but they also never come out and say whose grandchildren they’re trying to prevent from being born — theirs or someone else’s. 


J.D. Heyes is also editor-in-chief of The National Sentinel.

Sources include:[PDF]

Receive Our Free Email Newsletter

Get independent news alerts on natural cures, food lab tests, cannabis medicine, science, robotics, drones, privacy and more.

comments powered by Disqus