Subscribe to EIR Online
This article appears in the May 4, 2012 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

The British Queen's Science?
Fascist Austerity & Genocide

by Nancy Spannaus

[PDF version of this article]

May 1—With their financial system crumbling around them, the British Monarchy and its hangers-on have launched a new drive for global depopulation, in the tradition of the Club of Rome, the International Panel on Climate Change, and the World Wildlife Fund. Joining the genocide campaign this time is the British Royal Society, a leading arm of the Empire's anti-human policies since its founding in 1660. In April, the Society, whose patron is the raving environmentalist Prince Charles, issued its first report on population, entitled "People and the Planet."

"People and the Planet" is a high-level call for the Monarchy's program of fascist austerity and genocide. In its more than 100 turgid, pseudo-scientific pages, the report's authors argue that population growth must stop, and that consumption by the populations in the developed and emerging economies must be slashed, all in order to reach what they call a "sustainable future." In fact, these measures are already been imposed on the trans-Atlantic world by the Empire's financial system—and they are leading to a breakdown crisis auguring human extinction. In other words, no future.

The last time the Monarchy came out in its own name for its Malthusian depopulation agenda was at the Copenhagen Climate Change summit in December 2009, where it was dealt a sharp setback from leading nations such as China and India, determined to preserve their national sovereignty and right to scientific progress. Now, on the eve of the UN's June Rio+20 conference, allegedly devoted to population and development, the Monarchy has deployed its "science" arm to try to insinuate its killer views in a different form. But the basic assumptions, and program, are the same.

Dropping the Mask

The man described by the London Guardian as "the world's most renowned population analyst," Dr. Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, revealed the Royal Society report's actual intent right away. Called for comment, Ehrlich praised the report and renewed his call for genocide, called "population shrinkage." Speaking to the Guardian April 26, he said:

"How many [people] you support depends on lifestyles. We came up with 1.5 to 2 billion because you can have big active cities and wilderness. If you want a battery chicken world where everyone has minimum space and food and everyone is kept just about alive you might be able to support in the long term about 4 or 5 billion people. But you already have 7 billion. So we have to humanely and as rapidly as possible move to population shrinkage.

"The question is: can you go over the top without a disaster, like a worldwide plague or a nuclear war between India and Pakistan? If we go on at the pace we are there's going to be various forms of disaster. Some maybe slow motion disasters like people getting more and more hungry, or catastrophic disasters because the more people you have the greater the chance of some weird virus transferring from animal to human populations, there could be a vast die-off."

Ehrlich insists that his predictions in the 1968 diatribe The Population Bomb have proved correct. He expressed his pessimism about avoiding disaster and called, as does the Royal Society report, for a massive redistribution of resources from the rich to the poor—a grand Second Law of Thermodynamics leveling that will lead to even more rapid genocide.

Ehrlich's comments are of special importance because of his relationship to the man President Barack Obama appointed as his Science Advisor, John Holdren. They can also be considered a more forthright statement of the intent of the report, which included on its working group Jonathan Porritt, an advisor to Prince Charles, and a top spokesman for groups such as the Optimum Population Trust (now called Population Matters), which is on record (EIR, Dec. 25, 2009) stating that the maximum carrying capacity of the Earth is 4 to 5 billion people, and therefore, population must be slashed.

While Holdren claimed, during his confirmation testimony, that he no longer held the views expressed in a 1977 book he co-authored with Ehrlich, which promoted injecting sterilization drugs into the world's drinking water supply, his record and statements indicate that he still maintains that anti-science, Malthusian view. In an essay he co-authored with Ehrlich in 1995, Holdren called for a "world of zero net growth" and "population limitation."

Genocidal Lies

The assertions of the Royal Society report can be summarized as follows:

  1. Human population and consumption are having a "worrying" impact on the Earth;

  2. The planet's resources are finite—although every model they cite for proof is, by their own admission, flawed.

  3. The richest parts of the world are consuming much too much, "above the level that it can be sustained for everyone in a population of 7 billion or more."

  4. The first step to a solution is to reduce this "unsustainable consumption" in both developed and developing economies (that includes India, Brazil, etc.).

  5. Global population growth needs to be slowed and stabilized, allegedly "without coercion."

  6. Economic activity and "happiness" have to be decoupled from "material and environmental throughputs."

Requirements for Survival

As the above assertions show, the Royal Society's presentation lacks the most basic understanding of the history, necessity, and cause of physical and economic progress, especially as reflected in the metric of an increase in energy-flux density, and in the creative capacity of the human mind. Resources are not fixed, but are created by man, through a process of discovery of universal principles, and their application. Only if you believe man is a beast, would you reject that truth, as the Royal Society report does.

Amid an endless series of statistics about demographic trends, and supplies and depletion of resources, such as minerals, food, and energy, the authors repeatedly claim that the relationships among population, consumption, and resources are "complex," and then proceed to outline the Green fascist agenda of cutting everything in sight.

While prominently displaying a figleaf of concern for the poorest 1.3 billion people on the planet who are barely able to feed themselves, the report's recommendations of "leveling" consumption would impose the Second Law of Thermodynamics vision of "heat death," eliminating the advanced capital and scientific capacities on which the survival of the human race depends. Redistribution of current resources is nothing but a chimera for the mickeys.

This is Bertrand Russell's vision of "humane" international socialism, where everyone gets an "equal" chance to pursue a miserable death—except for those oligarchs who are setting the rules, and steering the world to extinction. Russell knew exactly what he was proposing, and on occasion, would say so; the Royal Society in this report is more coy.

The Weasel Approach

In the time-honored tradition of its previous luminaries, such as Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin, the Royal Society report reeks of dishonesty, as well as stupidity. The blatant lies of the genocide lobby, such as the canard that the human population has surpassed the carrying capacity of the Earth, or that man's "ecological footprint" must be reduced, are mentioned, and characterized as "simplistic." Yet no substitute for these assertions, whose implications lead to mass murder of the human population, is provided. It is clear that the authors have embraced these genocidal lies—but just don't want to be caught making such as a "controversial" argument, or laying out the consequences of the outlook they are presenting.

A look at the report's nine recommendations gives a flavor of the sophistry, and the evil embedded therein.

The first recommendation is to bring the 1.3 billion people living on less than $1.25 a day out of poverty. This is the soft sell; who could argue with that? But the solutions presented, including reducing inequality, and promoting economic development, education, family planning, and health, are based, first and foremost, on reducing the population. This, despite the fact that the world reproduction rate, as the report documents, is already below the replacement level globally. And, as some critics of the report from Britain have already argued, places like Africa, which the Royal Society targets for reducing the birth rate, is massively under-populated for modern economic development.

The only way poverty can be reduced is to dump the current bankrupt financial and monetary system, which is based on financial imperialism, and launch huge projects to upgrade the infrastructure of the world economy, especially in those areas where populations are the poorest, such as Africa.

The second recommendation, which receives the greatest emphasis, is that "the most developed and the emerging economies must stabilise and then reduce material consumption levels through: dramatic improvements in resource-use efficiency, including: reducing waste, investment in sustainable resources, technologies and infrastructures; and systematically decoupling economic activity from environmental impact."

Translated from bureaucratic gobbledygook, this means slashing wages, health care, pensions, protein consumption, electricity usage, and innumerable other high-energy inputs, which have been vital to mankind's qualitative increase in power over nature, and ability to sustain a growing, flourishing population. But the Royal Society wants it to sound non-threatening, so it's as unspecific as possible.


Recommendation number 3 is "voluntary" family planning—not surprising—and number 4 is the designed-to-look-innocuous assertion that "population and the environment should not be considered as two separate issues." The genesis of the latter, according to the report itself, is that, apparently, some of the royal patrons have been quite upset about the resistance to their depopulation plans in the past, particularly at the 1992 UN Cairo Conference on Population and Development, and the fact that that political confrontation led to population issues being downplayed in most subsequent UN conferences on "development."

Of the remaining five recommendations, three zero in on one of the report's key sophistical arguments, the assertion that human well-being should be "decoupled" from expanded material consumption. But don't think this is an attack on crass materialism. What is being argued here is an onslaught against the massive investments in power, water, education, and science that are required to take mankind to the next higher stage of development—from the space program, to hydroelectric dams and nuclear plants, to NAWAPA.

Recommendation 5 calls on governments to "realise the potential of urbanisation to reduce material consumption and environmental impact."

Recommendation 8 says that "national governments should accelerate the development of comprehensive wealth measures," in an attempt to brainwash people into thinking that increased throughput—read electricity and the like—are unnecessary, or even antithetical, to their "happiness."

The most honestly evil recommendation of this trio is Recommendation 9, which reads "collaboration between National Governments is needed to develop socio-economic systems and institutions that are not dependent on continued material consumption growth. This will inform the development and implementation of policies that allow both people and the planet to flourish" (emphasis added).

This is a prescription for death, as any sane individual should know, both for the economy and for human beings. As Lyndon LaRouche's economics has uniquely shown, scientific and technological progress requires an increasing level of consumption, of a higher and higher quality, in order to increase the productivity of labor and of output. It's not a question of money, but, to the contrary, of physical, social, and cultural resources being made available to uplift a population out of the drudgery of physical labor just to stay alive, and into the ability to exercise more and more power over his or her environment.

This is the process reflected in the progression of mankind's primary sources of power, going from wood to coal, to oil, to nuclear—each of which is cleaner and better for the environment than the previous, and lawfully, provides mankind with more ability to do productive work with less input. This progression demonstrates the principle of the required increase in energy-flux density, which has been exemplified in the universe at large, in power supply, and is critical to man's very survival, since at each level of production, the danger of running out of resources always emerges, and must be overcome.

Unlike other rabid genocidal environmentalist tracts, such as that of the knighted John Schellnhuber of Germany last year, in demanding that Germany decouple from nuclear energy, the Royal Society report remains studiedly neutral on the nuclear power issue, and eschews any concrete recommendations. One can only chalk that up to dishonesty, because the very framework of the recommendations to stabilize population and reduce consumption relies on the same genocidal assumptions of fixed resources, a finite planet, and man as an animal consumer—not a creature made in the image of the Creator.

The final two recommendations, numbers 6 and 7, are general calls for removing barriers for primary and secondary education for all the world's children, and funding research on the relationship between consumption, demographic change, and environmental impact. Not really innocuous—because, in the hands of co-thinkers of this group, such "education" and "research" will lead to mass-brainwashing, not knowledge at all.

Defeat the Green Ideology

Back in the 1970s and '80s, the LaRouche movement went head-on against the Monarchy's genocidal hired pens, both those who wrote the fraudulent "Limits to Growth," and Jimmy Carter's Global 2000 report, and exposed them as the charlatans they were. Rather than fight openly, however, these ideologues, with enormous financial backing, have insinuated themselves into institutions of government and learning globally, seeking to establish an unchallengeable "consensus" that will lead to acceptance of their agenda.

Today, we have reached the point that this Green ideology can no longer be tolerated. Mankind's very existence is at stake. And the British Monarchy and its stinking ideas must be removed from power.

Back to top