Have you seen our Protect Our Children Campaign?

Elite Depopulation Plan - An Old Obsession

Of course, the global elite's depopulation obsession goes all the way back to Malthus, but this piece from the archive puts the attitudes of the presnt day Net Zero fanatics and enthusiasts for everything from abortion to the Iran war's fertiliser disruption into perspective.

In 1995, now Editor-in-Chief of LifeSite, John-Henry Westen, wrote this report on the 1995 State of the World Forum in San Francisco that was hosted by former Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev and attended by many of the world's elite. The theme of the conference was “sustainable development“.

World’s elite gather to talk depopulation

By John-Henry Westen, September, 1995

San Francisco gathering draws all the big names from the world of politics, media, business and entertainment

A few months ago in late September 1995 a group of stellar performers from the world stage got together in San Francisco to discuss the future of the planet.

The “State of the World Forum” was convened by Mikhail Gorbachev, along with co-chairs President Askar Akaev of Kyrgystan, former President of Costa Rica Oscar Arias, former U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker III, Prime Minister Tansu Ciller of Turkey, former Dutch Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers and Nobel Laureate Rigoberta Menchu.

Over 400 of the rich and famous attended the gala affair which lasted 5 days and cost a whopping $5,000.00 per person. Political notaries included former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz, former U.S. President George Bush, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Czech Republic President Vaclav Havel, South African Vice President Thabo Mbeki, and even our own former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.

The media representatives included such big names as newspaper mogul Rupert Murdoch, anchorman Ted Koppel and cable-TV billionaire Ted Turner.

Big names in big business also attended the affair including Men’s Wearhouse CEO George Zimmer, Archer Daniels Midland CEO Dwayne Andreas, Microsoft wizard Bill Gates, and computer tycoon David Packard.

The main theme of the forum was “sustainable development,” understood by many to be a long-standing euphemism for population control.

The obtrusive promotion of the culture of death began the conference as former “Humanist of the Year” Ted Turner addressed the audience. Given only five minutes for his opening address, Turner couldn’t refrain from blurting out population control slogans in his outspoken style: “But by ending the cold war, and reducing dramatically the threat of nuclear annihilation, we now have the chance to starve to death in a desert. We have given ourselves that opportunity, and it seems that is more difficult to deal with because it requires more forethought, and the benefits of ending the cold war were perfectly clear to everybody. The population problem and the environmental destruction that is going in the world, and will eventually lead to our demise, if it is not reversed, is much harder to see because it happens over a longer period of time.”

When Gorbachev spoke, after being lauded by former Secretary of state George Shultz, he candidly revealed the purpose of the conference: “We have, I believe, to gear consumption to people’s cultural and spiritual needs also through culture and education and within the framework of laws, we shall have to address the problem of controlling the world’s population.

Amid other topics such as global governance, global security, and the information highway, the theme of population control continued. However, no where was the theme more evident than in the discussions around religion. Not surprisingly a conglomeration of Buddhists, Wiccans, dissident “Catholic” theologians, and New Age Spiritualist permeated the conference.

These included Fritjof Capra, Jeremy Rifkin, Willis Harman, Deepak Chopra, Robert Muller, Matthew Fox, Carl Sagan, and Shirley MacLaine. These types had mainly Christianity to blame for the so-called world population dilemma.

In the closing plenary session of the forum, philosopher/author Sam Keen provided a summary and conclusive remarks on the conference. Among the conference participants, said Keen, “there was very strong agreement that religious institutions have to take primary responsibility for the population explosion. We must speak far more clearly about sexuality, about contraception, about abortion, about the values that control the population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis.

“Cut the population by 90 percent and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage”, said Keen.

Devout Prince Stands Against Abortion

One brave and good man stands between the babies of one of the smallest countries of the world and the gruesome tools of the abortionists.

Abortion activists are pushing once more to legalise abortion in Liechtenstein, the tiny German-speaking country landlocked between Switzerland and Austria. It is the world’s sixth smallest country and one of the wealthiest; a constitutional monarchy with one of the highest standards of living in Europe. It also boasts one of Europe’s strongest pro-life regimes.

Abortion is illegal in almost all cases, with limited exceptions when a woman’s life is at serious risk, or in the case of sexual assault. Advertising for abortion is also restricted, and a handful of women — about 40 — travel to Switzerland or Austria each year to procure abortions. Previous attempts to legalize abortion have failed due to the resolute pro-life convictions of Liechtenstein’s royal family, the 900-year-old dynasty that has ruled the country since the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806.

In 2012, a referendum on legalizing abortion until 12 weeks as well as in the case of fetal deformity was proposed. Several weeks before it was scheduled to be held, Hereditary Prince Alois, a devout Roman Catholic, stated that he would exercise his royal prerogative and veto any change in law that permitted abortion. The referendum resulted in a vote of 51.5% to 48.5% against legalising abortion.

Abortion activists claimed that the results had been a consequence of the prince’s intervention. Within the constitutional monarchy framework, the ruling princes hold veto powers over laws and hold a range of other powers, including the right to convene or adjourn Parliament. Tensions between the ruling prince and parliament resulted in a referendum in 2003 that confirmed and enhanced royal veto power.

In response, abortion activists launched a citizen’s initiative to curtail the power of the ruling princes in 2013, proposing that their power to veto future referendums be limited or removed. Prince Alois stated through his spokeswoman that his previous intervention had been “a clear signal that abortion isn’t an acceptable solution for an unwanted pregnancy,” and that if the people voted to limit his royal veto, he would step back from his royal responsibilities by leaving the country entirely.

In a devastating defeat for the abortion movement, 76% of Liechtensteiners voted to uphold the royal veto.

Over a decade later, they are trying again. The “Fristenlösung für Liechtenstein” (“Time-limit solution for Liechtenstein”) is an initiative backed by pro-abortion groups such as Women in Good Health, the Free List, and the Women’s Network that proposes once again to decriminalize abortion up to 12 weeks of pregnancy, remove the ban on providing information about abortion, and cover feticide under health insurance. On July 31, organizers submitted 4,970 signatures (well above the 1,000-signature threshold) for a new initiative.

Campaigners claim that a majority of citizens are with them. But as abortion activist Gabriella Alvarez-Hummel put it grimly in the Guardian, there is still one insurmountable problem: “A prince is standing in the way.”

In a column published on August 3, Alvarez-Hummel writes, “It should be a done deal. But no matter what the people say: the hereditary prince has already announced that he would veto any change in the law, long before a single vote has been cast.”

As she noted, Prince Alois had previously only threatened to use his royal veto a single time: In 2011, when a proposal to legalize abortion was last put to referendum. In June, he threatened to use it for a second time for precisely the same purpose: protecting pre-born children.