Get Your Free 150 MB Website Now!

The Malthusian Premise

http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/trufax/learchives/malprem.html

In 1798, Thomas R. Malthus (1766-1834), a 19th century pessimist, after reading about goats on Galapagos Island, published his essay Principles of Population. The essay extended his observations of goats to humans, and maintained that populations are unprincipled and have no internal constraints toward growth. Now, in the first half of the 19th century in Europe, members of the ruling classes met subsequent to the publication of Principles of Population to discuss "the population problem." Before Malthus, populations were considered to be an asset. After Malthus, the concept of land acquisition to support "future large populations" became a motivating factor for war.

Another aspect of Malthus' theory is that is maintained that "all animated life was governed exclusively by the sexual-reproductive drive. Like Freud, Malthus reduced a complex interplay of factors to just one factor-sexual drive. Reducing any issue to just one factor is reductive determinism, which on its face has little or no scientific merit. Although the Malthusian doctrine was one of the most influential of modern times, it never had any scientific basis. The Malthusian doctrine later came to the attention of Charles Darwin, who read Malthus' essay in 1838. For Darwin, who was familiar with the viewpoint of Thomas Hobbes, "life consisted of a struggle, one against all." The Malthusian idea of existence also incorporated this Hobbesian viewpoint, and it appealed to Darwin. When applied to populations and society, it resulted in Social Darwinism.

Social Darwinism appealed to the European elite, who saw it as prima facie justification their "evolutionary superiority." The elite adapted the Malthusian principle of "management of unprincipled populations"- population control. Moreover, Darwinism achieved orthodox status among his friends in the British Royal Society, two of whom were Thomas Huxley, president of the Royal Society, and Francis Galton, Darwin's cousin. Galton founded the eugenics movement, which later expanded in the United States and subsequently in Germany.

Darwin's vision of existence as a "purposeless struggle", after 1859, quickly replaced the Judeo-Christian vision of human life as a purposeful, divinely guided moral struggle. This idea of "life as a meaningless struggle" played a decisive role in the brutalization of the Western world for the rest of the 19th and 20th centuries. Social Darwinism prompted the enlargement of colonial empires, and also conditioned a struggle for power on an unprecedented scale. The principle targets of war switched from enemy armies to populations themselves.

National Socialism, as seen in the Nazi Third Reich, was in fact applied Social Darwinism, built on a biomedical vision of race purification that progressed from sterilization to extensive killing-all of which was later transferred to the United States after World War II, manifested in the German allopathic medical paradigm involving drugs, surgery and radiation, combined with population experimentation (especially on the military, prisoners and those who could not defend themselves).

The combination of Malthusian population control, which included the deliberate neglect of populations and indirect methods of killing off population, with Darwinism, produced National Socialism (Germany), International Socialism (Marxist Russia) and International Corporate Capitalism (Global Socialism, headquartered in the United States), and these forms of social conduct have constituted the main reason for the unequal distribution of planetary resources, famines, planned biological warefare, environmental poisoning, suppression of knowledge, suppression of inventions, dependence on backward technology for the population, planned wars to kill off populations and general planetary disorder. The problem is in the Social Darwin-Malthus paradigm, which has now been combined with the pseudo-sciences of behaviorism and genetics in the attempt to assert even tighter control over the planetary population, yielding forms of Neo-Darwinism being perpetrated by a host of post-Atlantean re-treads, per a 1947 Princeton consensus.

Yes, the problem is in the paradigm, and it is deftly explained in the book Avoiding Extinction, as well as the solution to the problem which is already upon us (changing the paradigm through recognition of the nature of the current paradigm and its unscientific, perverted basis, and substitution of the quantum paradigm of scientific holism, and dumping the paradigm of materialistic scientism, science as a religion devoid of philosophy).

The Population "Non-Problem"

The thought pattern that "there are too many people on the planet" is without sound scientific basis. Yet, this is a theory that is being voiced to the population in order to justify global control and influence. There is enough room, and there are enough resources. Socialism and politics are in the way. If these were discarded, there would be equitable distribution of planetary resources and new technological development for peaceful purposes that would allow the population to peacefully expand into space. For a total understanding of all of this, read Avoiding Extinction.

Malthus opposed the optmism of the Marquis de Condorcet (1743-1794), who saw the human mind as capable of removing all obstacles to human progress. Malthus wrongly predicted that the population growth rate would exceed the growth of the food supply. Today, analysts have resorted to constructing models in which population growth drives technological change, which permits further population growth. This is opposed, of course, by elitists and global socialist policy.

Even as early as the 18th century, projections for the carrying capacity of the planet far exceed the "gloom and doom - we have over 6 billion!" projections of social propagandists. Antoni van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) estimated that the maximum number of people the planet could support was 13.4 billion. General estimates over time have varied greatly from "less than 1 billion" to "greater than 1 trillion." Estimated published by Harvard, ironically, estimate a maximum of 44 billion people (see the exhibit page).

With all of this in mind, it is quite clear that the actual objective of the recent population meetings in Cairo, Planned Parenthood and international institutions that preach population problems actually have another objective in mind - population reduction in order to preserve elitism and global socialist objectives, despite the fact that in reality, the planet Earth is currenty occupied by 13% of its maximum carrying capacity, and will only reach 25% of its maximum capacity by the year 2350.

So, having reviewed the material presented in Matrix IV, which details future life projections and various paradigms probing what life will actually be like for the next 500 years, we see that there are less people here - which means that the actual mechanism that will reduce population will be external to political processes, probably geological or dimensional in nature, or both. All political policies and projections then become invalid, unsupportable and irrelevant.

 

Home