Blogs
Featured Image
WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 5: (L-R) Former President Barack Obama and U.S. President Joe BidenChip Somodevilla/Getty Images

LifeSiteNews is on the cutting edge of life and family news reporting. Support our Summer Campaign by giving a gift of support today: give.lifesitenews.com

This article is the third in a series examining the views of Dr. John Holdren, the Obama-Biden administration’s Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and his controversial book ‘Ecoscience: population, resources, environment.’ Read the first and second articles in the series.

(LifeSiteNews) – A top policy advisor for the Obama-Biden administration supported purposefully hiking gas prices to further a left-wing climate agenda and proposed “surrendering some national sovereignty to a world government.”

In a book he co-authored titled Ecoscience: population, resources, environment, Dr. John Holdren, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy from March 2009 to January 2017, and his colleagues repeatedly discussed coercive government interventions to force people to use less energy, while contemplating the possibility of what they called a  “Planetary Regime.”

As chief science advisor to the Obama-Biden administration, Holdren was responsible for advising and/or helping to make national security, homeland security, health, foreign relations, environmental, and other laws and policies for the U.S. government, as explained in a previous article in this series.

This article presents Ecoscience’s proposals for a global government to control natural resources – proposals that could have bearing on crises currently gripping the U.S. and the world.

Purposeful inflation for ‘climate change’ agenda

As was mentioned previously, not everything in Dr. Holdren’s book can be completely discussed in this article. However, because he might have been a major contributor to making U.S. federal laws and policies during the Obama-Biden administration, and because Mr. Biden is now President and Democrats control the federal government, it is worth mentioning Dr. Holdren’s statements on supporting the increase in price of gas and other energy. He and his colleagues wrote:

higher prices for energy … are needed to help promote conservation (Page 862)

And:

Some efforts at more efficient use of energy will come about automatically through the impact of higher energy prices (Page 864)

And:

No policy or combination of policies can deal successfully with these problems unless it incorporates as a central element a sharply reduced rate of growth of global energy use. (Page 928)

That is significant: government policies, according to Dr. Holdren and his colleagues, should have as a “central element” sharply reduced rate of growth of global energy use. That is definitely relevant to the current situation in the world after the draconian COVID-19 restrictions by governments increased the cost of energy. And summarizing another article which the authors recommend, they wrote:

If cars remain unrestricted and gasoline cheap, mass transit won’t help much with congestion or energy conservation. (Page 881)

Again the authors imply their support for increased gasoline costs as well as “restrictions” on cars. One might get the impression that the true intent of liberals’ support for electric automobiles is to eventually do away with the personal automobile altogether (page 866). Liberals’ support for abortion and other evils should be enough to result in nobody voting for them, but the quotations on support for higher gas prices and restrictions on cars are more examples of beliefs of liberal politicians which, if people knew how they planned to use their power if they were elected or appointed positions in the government, they would never get elected or appointed.

RELATED: Top Obama-Biden advisor proposed coercive population control measures

Again, such things were written, or apparently implied, by a person who had significant power over authoring or advising what to put into U.S. government laws and other policies during the Obama-Biden administration and whose ideas appear to be mainstream liberal ideas (although the quotations described in this article were written before public use of the internet; at the present time liberals are not as explicit in describing their true intent if they had power in government positions, like the intent to increase the cost of gasoline and heating and cooling one’s home, and potentially the intent to do away with the personal automobile altogether).

One world government

In their book, Dr. Holdren and his colleagues make some statements in support of an armed international “security” entity which is used to enforce global politics and preferably forces the United States to give up sovereignty to a world government. On the subject of support for a world government which would cause the United States to give up freedom, they wrote:

INTERNATIONAL CONTROLS: THE GLOBAL COMMONS

Mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon.

— Garret Hardin, 1968

It has been apparent for some time that the nations of this planet cannot long survive without a system of worldwide controls for dealing with the ecosphere, the world economic system, and world population growth. Such a system must above all be capable of resolving national differences… In our opinion, one of the areas where international controls could be established most easily is over what may be called the global commons.Idealistically, we might enter a plea here for surrendering some national sovereignty to a world government, but it is apparent that any movement in that direction will be extremely slow at best. Valuable as the United Nations has been in many respects, it is clear that it will not become a supernational government in the foreseeable future. There does seem to be, however, some chance that humanity might be able to move much more rapidly than it has in the past toward international agreements on the control of the world commons. (Page 939)

This is extremely significant: one of the Obama-Biden administration’s influential policymakers and/or advisors clearly supported “surrendering some national sovereignty to a world government” and establishing “international controls” “over what may be called the global commons.”

Interestingly, the Obama-Biden administration’s Executive Order “Advancing the Global Health Security Agenda to Achieve a World Safe and Secure from Infectious Disease Threats” appears to be precisely what Dr. Holdren suggested in the book – it attempts to establish “worldwide” or “international controls” over a “global commons,” which the government labels “global health security.”

Dr. Holdren and his colleagues support an international government which controls all countries in the world in another location in Ecoscience: population, resources, environment. Dr. Holdren and his colleagues call it a “Planetary Regime.” The suggestion was written at a time when plans for a world government with control of climate policies were apparently not as common as they are now:

Regulation of one vital global commons has not yet been seriously discussed – that commons is the atmosphere. Even more than the resources of the oceans, the atmosphere is shared by all human beings – and other organisms as well. It is crucial to preserve the atmosphere’s quality and the stability of global climate. But that these are now threatened and should be protected by international agreement is only beginning to be recognized in a few quarters.

Should a Law of the Sea be successfully established, it could serve as a model for a future Law of the Atmosphere to regulate the use of airspace, to monitor climate change, and to control atmospheric pollution. Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime – sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. […] The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs [developed countries] to LDCs [less-developed countries], and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime should have some power to enforce the agreed limits. As with the Law of the Sea and other international agreements, all agreements for regulating population sizes, resource development, and pollution should be subject to revision and modification in accordance with changing conditions. […]

Nevertheless, [the Planetary Regime] might function powerfully to suppress international conflict simply because the interrelated global resource environment structure would not permit such an outdated luxury. (Page 943)

The “administration,” and therefore the use of, oil and gas are obviously “natural resources” that would be controlled by the international government supported by Dr. Holdren and his colleagues. Don’t forget about water, either.

In other words, if, for instance, the Planetary Regime did not like the American freedom to worship the Most Holy Eucharist or the freedom of speech to oppose homosexuality, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, etc., the “Planetary Regime” could simply withhold water, oil, gas, or other resources, up to and including food on the international market, and force Americans to submit to whatever political sect controls the Planetary Regime.

RELATED: This Obama-Biden advisor suggested surrendering US sovereignty to a world government

It is worth mentioning again that these are plans or suggestions for government which were written, supported, and/or apparently never rejected by a person who was able to influence U.S. federal government laws and other policies for several years. And the current situation in the world in many ways does indeed resemble the suggestions and/or plans for government which Dr. Holdren and his colleagues wrote about.

Establishing an ‘international police force’

There is more. To “powerfully suppress international conflict” by manipulating billions of people with the threat of withholding natural resources, obviously some sort of powerfully suppressive, or oppressive, police entity would be needed. Dr. Holdren and his colleagues indeed mention support for a “the global analogue of a police force” and suggest that “many people have recognized this as a goal”:

The third element of difficulty in changing the rules of international relations is uncertainty about the best way to achieve disarmament and security in a world wherein the past security has usually been provided by brute force, either threatened or overtly exercised. … The basic requirement is evident: once again it is a change in human attitudes so that the in-group against which aggression is forbidden expands to include all human beings. If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization. … But, if disarmament were successfully carried out, and if an international police force were established, the reward would be a very much safer world in which resources would be freed for raising the standard of living for all people. No problem deserves more intensive study and international discussion. (Pages 917-918)

Dr. Holdren supported an armed international police organization and the “partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.” A commentary on this subject was provided in a previous article.

What was not mentioned above is, don’t such U.S. federal government officials, including the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, have to pass some sort of security check by the FBI or other “intelligence agencies?” In other words, a person who at one time apparently publicly supported surrendering American sovereignty to an international police force was given clearance by the FBI and/or other federal government entities to serve in a U.S. government position which allows them to determine or advise the U.S. federal government on “national security” and health?

Dr. Holdren and his colleagues wrote more on their belief of how legislators, police officers, and judges function in a society:

In a sense, legislators, police officers, and judges are merely social instruments for enforcing customary behavior. (Page 830)

Not much commentary is necessary. Pay attention to the words. The authors who believe abortion and other evils are “customary behavior” apparently also view legislators, police officers, and judges as “merely” “social instruments for enforcing” those behaviors. While it is not a surprise to discover that liberals believe such things, it might be a surprise to discover that they actually published their belief in such things. One might wonder what they believe but have not published.

One of the purposes of this article was to discuss some of the publications of one of the Obama-Biden administration’s policy advisors and determine whether there are any statements which suggest that liberals might use the U.S. federal government with foreign governments and secret police entities in America to enact a covertly falsified pandemic. Does any of the aforementioned information suggest that U.S. federal government policymakers and/or advisors might have supported a covertly falsified pandemic hoax with the goal of achieving more control by governments and the chaos and loss of American freedoms that resulted?

Comments

Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.

3 Comments

    Loading...