This article the first part of 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.’
(LifeSiteNews) – A senior advisor to the Obama-Biden administration responsible for crafting major federal policies suggested ceding U.S. sovereignty to globalist institutions, including a “planetary regime” and an international police force – proposals that may be relevant to the crises facing America today.
In his book Ecoscience: population, resources, environment, former Harvard University professor Dr. John Holdren, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy from March 2009 to January 2017, also discussed forming “a system of worldwide controls” and using coercive, state-backed population control to curb the U.S. birth rate.
And as America suffers from record-high inflation and the worst economic outlook in decades, it’s notable that Holdren supported the “de-development” of the United States and identified inflation as a way to manipulate people into using less energy – a position apparently embraced by the Biden administration.
Holdren’s suggestions of surrendering American sovereignty are particularly significant in light of the COVID crisis, in which the CDC and other public health authorities have followed China’s lead in forcing draconian lockdowns and other policies pioneered by the Communist Chinese government.
As this article explains, it may be possible that the U.S. government and public health officials have, or had, already given away some sovereignty to the leadership of foreign entities.
Previous articles provided significant information which suggests that, at minimum, what is reported to be the COVID-19 pandemic may be falsified by the U.S. federal government and foreign governments. Those articles discussed U.S. federal laws and other policies enacted leading up to what is reported to be the COVID-19 pandemic to support the claim that the pandemic may be falsified. There may be enough information for the reasonable person to determine that not only is it possible, but it may be likely that COVID-19 may be a falsified pandemic.
Because several federal health, national security, science, and technology policies leading up to the reported COVID-19 pandemic may imply the possibility of the COVID-19 pandemic being falsified, one might ask: Who decides what specific words get written into federal government policies? Do U.S. representatives, senators, and/or the president of the United States determine every word that is in a federal law or other policy?
If one studies certain U.S. laws and other policies on “health security,” national security, “pandemic preparedness,” “biosurveillance,” and similar subjects, one might get the impression that it is unlikely that congressmen or the president author every word in such laws and policies. It is likely that people who specialize in, or are at least more educated on certain subjects than senators, representatives, the president, etc., are ones who author or contribute many of the words to federal laws and other policies on subjects like pandemic preparedness, biosurveillance, health security, etc.
Who, then, advises the president and U.S. federal government on what words to put in national security, health security, science, technology, biosurveillance, and similar policies?
Federal law says that the U.S. federal government’s Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy serves “as a source of scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the President with respect to major policies, plans, and programs of the Federal Government” and advises “the President of scientific and technological considerations involved in areas of national concern including, but not limited to, the economy, national security, homeland security, health, foreign relations, the environment,” and other subjects.
In other words, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology policy is one person who likely contributes a significant amount to U.S. federal laws and policies on pandemic preparedness, national security, health security, biosurveillance, etc.
An example of one of the major policies, plans, and programs of the federal government involving national security, homeland security, health, and foreign relations is an Obama-Biden administration policy titled, “Advancing the Global Health Security Agenda to Achieve a World Safe and Secure from Infectious Disease Threats.” That policy ordered the FBI to link “public health and law enforcement” and coordinate with the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) on the Global Health Security Agenda and its successful implementation. This point will be elaborated on in a moment.
Because a policy advisor’s previous publications might suggest their future plans if they were to be given the opportunity to author laws or other policies for the U.S. federal government, it might be helpful to study the publications of the Obama-Biden administration’s Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Dr. John Holdren. It is preferable to not mention names, but it is necessary to do so when discussing government officials who contribute to laws and other policies of the federal government.
Holdren urged handing over US sovereignty to global police entity
This article is the first in a series that will discuss Ecoscience: population, resources, environment, a book co-authored by Dr. John Holdren. Again, he was the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy for the U.S. federal government during the Obama-Biden administration and was responsible for advising and/or helping to make national security, homeland security, health, foreign relations, environmental and other laws and policies for the federal government. This article is going to first provide a summary and then more in-depth discussion of Dr. Holdren’s apparent plans and/or suggestions for the U.S. government.
In the book, Dr. Holdren and his colleagues suggested that they supported and claim that “many people have recognized this as a goal” that the United States and other countries give away sovereignty to form an international police organization that would enforce global political agendas like population control. (Pages 917-918 and Page 939)
This is very significant – a former U.S. federal government official responsible for helping author “major policies, plans, and programs of the Federal Government” involving “national security, homeland security, health, foreign relations, the environment,” and other subjects at one time suggested that the United States surrender sovereignty to an international police organization. (The suggestion to give away American sovereignty is made more than once in the same book, which will be mentioned later.)
This cannot be emphasized enough. A former federal government advisor who was in the position to author laws and other policies suggested the possibility of giving up Americans’ freedoms to an international police entity. It is possible that the suggestion involved secretly giving up America’s sovereignty to an international police entity, since police often operate in secrecy, and since government officials who give away sovereignty would not likely want to tip-off Americans to the plan and prevent them from giving away sovereignty. Would a group of U.S. government officials who support a world government covertly give China, Russia, or Middle Eastern countries direct or indirect control of the American government?
Obama-Biden admin ordered FBI to link up with INTERPOL on ‘health security agenda’
The suggestion by Dr. Holdren and his colleagues is significant in part because, in the policy “Advancing the Global Health Security Agenda,” the Obama-Biden administration ordered the FBI to coordinate with the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) to successfully implement the Global Health Security Agenda. INTERPOL includes terrorist governments that use policing methods like torturing their own citizens; some of those countries are vehemently anti-Catholic, anti-American, and anti-freedom. And that particular policy appeared to imply the use of the FBI as a type of international political enforcement entity rather than a federal bureau of investigation in the United States, much like secret police entities did in national socialist countries before, during, and after World War II.
The statement on an international police force in Dr. Holdren’s book combined with the Obama-Biden Administration’s Advancing Global Health Security Agenda executive order lead to a question that one is not suppose to ask: is there a large secret police entity in America with covert government employees in every American community and with other covert employees in the news media, other public entities, law firms, and even the judicial system with the potential to cause significant harm as national socialist governments used their secret police entities to do in the past?
Those who do not think there is a large, national secret police entity in America should thoroughly study the history of the FBI, local law enforcement methods learned from the FBI (34 U.S. Code § 10211), and a specific policy supported by then-Senator Joe Biden. (108 STAT. 1807; “substantially increase the number of law enforcement officers interacting directly with members of the community” likely includes covert persons, possibly like national socialist governments used secret police or covert “law enforcement”)
One might also be interested in the FBI’s development of “new or improved approaches, techniques, systems, equipment, and devices to improve and strengthen criminal justice.” And it is again worth mentioning that the FBI apparently allows itself to use “otherwise illegal activity,” bribes, and false information and/or lies; “criminal justice” apparently does not apply to a large number of government employees, then.
The implications of Dr. Holdren’s apparent suggestion or plan to give up sovereignty – that is, American citizens giving up American freedoms to a foreign police entity – could be severe. One implication is the potential use of advanced surveillance technologies and potentially harmful remote technologies which act on the human body and brain which would normally be illegal (and harmful to Americans) in the United States. Remote and covert technologies which act on the brain and body would be the obvious goal of national-socialist-like secret police or simply evil and vengeful persons who do not like to be criticized for their false religions or disordered lifestyles.
Some of those technologies may be in use at the present time and will be explained in a future article. It is a bit of a tangent, but it seems that the harmful methods, approaches, techniques, systems, equipment, devices, advanced surveillance and remote technologies should at least be made illegal if future government justice, intelligence, and “national security” officials are less corrupt than current officials. Obviously, if at the present time the FBI and other intelligence and law enforcement entities are allowed to commit crimes, then it seems that laws prohibiting advanced technologies and harmful methods would not stop them.
Another potentially severe implication is the use of a specific secret policing method used in other countries similar to covert stalking, in which targeted persons’ lives are intentionally destroyed while the targeted person has no way of self-defense against the covert government stalking activities. (Some of the previously cited source is not endorsed.) The FBI has used this, or a similar method, in the past. (Pages 2, 3, 5, 10-12, etc.) Then-Senator Biden’s policy with the purpose to “substantially increase the number of law enforcement officers interacting directly with members of the community” could be used for such stalking, harassment, intimidation, and potentially worse.
The wording of the Obama-Biden policy ordering the FBI to coordinate with INTERPOL to implement successfully the Global Health Security Agenda may be an example of such surrendering of American freedoms to a global political police entity which Dr. Holdren and his colleagues suggest in Ecoscience: population, resources, environment which “many people have recognized” “as a goal.” There are other severe implications of giving up sovereignty to an international police organization that cannot be mentioned here.
A ‘planetary regime’ and ‘global commons’
In Ecoscience: population, resources, environment, Dr. Holdren and his colleagues also suggested forming “a system of worldwide controls” and “international controls … over what may be called the global commons.” (Page 939) They suggested forming a “Planetary Regime,” which “idealistically,” would require “surrendering some national sovereignty to a world government.” (Page 939) Thus, more than once Dr. Holdren and his colleagues suggested “surrendering national sovereignty to a world government” and/or international police organization. This should be a big deal especially since, again, surrendering sovereignty would probably occur without the knowledge of the American people.
It is not mentioned in the book, but obviously “Advancing the Global Health Security Agenda” would be such a possible example of an attempt at internationally controllable “global commons” which could require United States citizens to give away sovereignty to a world government. The significance is probably obvious, since during what is reported to be the COVID-19 pandemic the U.S. federal government, CDC, HHS, and other public health officials have appeared to be following the lead of China by forcing draconian lockdowns, forced government injections, forced masks, etc.
It appears to be possible that the U.S. government and public health officials have, or had, given away some sovereignty to the draconian leadership of foreign entities.
Holdren suggests forced population control, inflation, new USA
Dr. Holdren and his colleagues also suggested using government coercion for population control if the U.S. did not reduce its birth rate. (Page 839) They praise China’s agricultural system as an “extraordinary success story” (page 341), suggest that China’s population control was an “apparent success story,” (page 770) and appear to support China’s population control policies (page 939).
Dr. Holdren and his colleagues also supported the “de-development” of the United States and other countries (pages 926-928), the formation of a different United States, which they describe as “USA II” (page 858) founded on population control. Unsurprisingly, they appear to support the production of a new and “modern U.S. Constitution.” (page 857) Dr. Holdren and his colleagues supported increasing the price of gas, heat, and cooling to manipulate people into not using energy. (Pages 862-864)
Does it appear as though U.S. federal government and public health officials have been attempting to form a “USA II” and “de-development” of the U.S. with the false excuse of “Global Health Security” and the COVID-19 pandemic? How about the increase in prices of food, gas, and energy? Does it appear as though many of the plans and/or suggestions for government – including the surrendering of American sovereignty and American freedoms to controls of a “global commons” of a world government and international police entity – mentioned by Dr. Holdren and his colleagues are currently being attempted and/or achieved?
Catholic Church an ‘obstacle’ to ‘freely available’ abortion
There is more, though. Dr. Holdren and his colleagues also suggested that the Roman Catholic Church and other religious groups were the greatest obstacle to “freely available” abortion in Latin America and throughout the world. (Page 759) They suggest that abortion is necessary to discourage population growth in America and appear to imply that reduction in population of America to “zero population growth” is necessary for national and international security. (Pages 839-840)
They claim that forced abortion by the U.S. government is supported by the U.S. Constitution and that “to provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people.” (Page 837-838) This statement should also obviously be considered to be extremely significant, especially since there are many more people now than there was when Dr. Holdren co-authored the book.
It is probably obvious what the implications are if such a person was ever able to put his plans into action as a policymaker in the U.S. federal government. If he believed that freely available abortion is necessary, and if he believed that the Catholic Church was an obstacle, then did the former powerful Obama-Biden administration policy advisor on national security, health, science, and technology imply that the Roman Catholic Church is an “obstacle” – a threat? – to national and international security? Remember, Dr. Holdren was in power when the “contraceptive mandate” was enforced against conscientiously objecting Catholics and others.
This is another reason why other articles discussed the Obama-Biden administration’s policy which ordered the FBI to coordinate with the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) to successfully implement the “Global Health Security Agenda”; because some countries included in INTERPOL use their government-paid police as political intimidators and potentially terrorists (often secretly/covertly due to cowardice), some of those articles questioned whether the FBI and potentially other law enforcement in America are being used for political purposes rather than enforcing legitimate laws.
Would persons who potentially see the Roman Catholic Church as an “obstacle” to security use the FBI and other law enforcement against the Roman Catholic Church? While such possibility cannot be discussed here, it is suggested that one study U.S. federal national security laws and other policies. It seems that anyone could be arbitrarily determined to be a “potential threat” and thus could be the target of covert stalking and/or hoax FBI or other “law enforcement” operations based on the wording used in federal laws and other policies.
(When discussing “law enforcement” and police methods and advanced surveillance and potentially remote torture technologies it is necessary to make distinctions. First, one has to distinguish between covert government police employees and those police who wear police uniforms or otherwise clearly identify themselves as government law enforcement employees. It takes a certain amount of courage to wear the uniform, whereas covert persons do not necessarily exhibit such courage. If there is a large “secret police” entity throughout America which consists of persons being paid by the government – and are therefore easily manipulated due to their being fully dependent on the government – to covertly harass and intimidate targets, then those persons are not courageous.
Then, one must distinguish between those non-government employees who might be coerced/forced into participating in covert law enforcement schemes or hoaxes and those who get paid to participate in the schemes. There may be some who do not want to participate but cannot legally challenge the government employees through the justice system because the government employees have unlimited money and government lawyer power, which even wealthy Americans cannot match. Some may be aware of this possibility while it may seem strange to others. The point cannot be elaborated on here, but it is one reason why there likely should not be “law enforcement exemptions” in American laws and policies.
Finally, mainstream news entities and politicians have created a false set of choices; a person can apparently only have the opinion that either “all police are bad” or “all police are good.” If one suggests that law enforcement is corrupt, then one is put into the wrong category of supporting liberal political ideologies. The reality is that when a large number of people in society reject the authentic Catholic teaching on the Most Holy Eucharist, the Ten Commandments, death, Judgment, heaven, punishment in purgatory for repented sins, and eternal punishment in hell for false repentance, presumption, or non-repentance, then departments of justice, “law enforcement,” the intelligence community, and police, especially those that operate covertly/secretly, will likely contain a large amount of corruption. Covert and secret law enforcement operations also make it easier for a few corrupt people to control and/or commit crimes against a large amount of people without any way for the large number of targeted people to prove the wrongdoing.)