Global Enviro-Eugenic Consensus Fixes 500 Million As “Optimum Population Size”


Jurriaan Maessen

The Georgia Guidestones- a collection of standing stones mimicking ancient Celtic stone circles in Britain and France, remind us that this particular monument, crafted and donated by “a small group of Americans who seek the Age of Reason” is a commemoration of ancient sacrifices performed by the Druid priest-class satisfying their deity’s unquenchable blood thirst. One of the inscriptions carved into the Guidestones proposes an elite class will “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature”, after which is proposed: “Guide reproduction wisely improving fitness and diversity.”

500 million people. This exact number is mentioned by demographers and environmentalists all across the globe as the ideal figure below which or at which the human population should be kept. In comparison to the current global population, 8 billion, the envisioned total of 500 million would constitute a reduction of no less than 94 percent from today’s total. The Club of Rome in their “Goals for mankind” proposes “the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.”

CNN founder Ted Turner went even further in his ide al of optimum population: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First, may be the ultimate death loving sociopath when he states: “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”

An article published in the January 19 1949 Evening Independent titled Posterity Begins At Home, the author Hal Boyle writes about a man and woman (George and Grace) who attended a college class in “world population- its cause and cure”, and writes down what the man and woman are discussing on the way home:

“Grace had thought it possible for the world to support adequately a population of 750,000,000. Gently George showed her she was wrong. The right figure, he said, was 500,000,000. “At that population level”, he said, : “everybody in the world could have plenty of bread and milk and steak- all the good things of the earth. And there would be no reason for wars, for everyone would have enough. “We must find some way- gradually, of course- to cut the world population down to a sensible 500,000,000.”

This humorous piece written in a time less dumbed-down, the author clearly criticizes the upcoming Rockefeller-inspired eugenics-movement in the U.S., ending his tale with George and Grace happily having six children.

The obsession with specific boundaries of human expansion in relation to population numbers continues to this day. In a June 2012 discussion paper titled One Planet, How Many People? A Review of Earth’s Carrying Capacity put out by the United Nations Environmental Programme this mystical numerology is reaffirmed as one of the elite’s envisioned upper ceilings above which no human being will be allowed:
“looking at 94 different estimates of the upper bounds of Earth’s population found estimates ranging from a low of 500 000 000 to a high of 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000.”

Although the study hastens to explain that “the outcome of attempts to define a static ceiling for sustainable human population seems destined to uncertainty”, the writers say: “models that capture the key dynamics of the Earth system can serve as a map for choices that will impact our collective future (however many of us there ultimately are).”

In other words: by modeling this or that possible outcome of the so-called “human footprint”, the desired number will follow as a result. We will have to hope their modeling computer are better attuned than those used by the IPCC, calculating likely deluge engulfing the planet as a result of global warming- or sudden freeze as a result of global cooling, depending on which enviro-eugenicist you ask. A 2010 document titled Will Limited Land, Water, and Energy Control Human Population Numbers in the Future by scientists from Cornell University a culling to 2 billion from current numbers is being proposed unhesitatingly. The document first paints doom and gloom for mankind if not for a quick and globally enforced culling policy:

“a population policy ensuring that each couple produces an average of only one child would be necessary to achieve the goal of reducing world population from the current 6.8 billion to an optimal population of approximately 2 billion in slightly more than 100 years.”


“Although a rapid reduction in population numbers to 2 billion humans could cause social, economic, and political problems, continued rapid growth will result in a dire situation with major starvation and disease outbreaks.”

Notice the “could” and “will” placed cautiously within this one sentence. Reducing human numbers could cause some problems, further growth will be catastrophic – through which the authors echo the classic Neo-Malthusian threat: reduce human numbers or else…”. At the end the authors state: “We must avoid allowing human population to continue to increase beyond the limit of the Earth’s natural resources, which will inevitably lead to increased disease, malnutrition, and violent conflicts over limited resources.” Similar warnings issued by Malthus in the 19th century and Paul Ehrlich in the 20th century of course turned out to be hogwash, although the last mentioned author maintains his stance to this day. This breed of enviro-eugenicists (to use a term coined by Aaron Dykes in 2007) drags behind it a lot of scrub-wood. An organization calling itself “the global community” is also transfixed on the number of 500,000,000:

“The Global Community proposes a tight global policy, benignly implemented, or it will be very nasty indeed. In practice, a human population of 10 to 12 billion would be too uncomfortably high and wold add a high strain on world resources. What kind of world population would be reasonable? What goal should we aim at? A population should be small enough to be sustainable indefinitely and still allow plenty of leeway for ourselves and other lifeforms. It should also be large enough to allow the formation of healthy civilizations. We propose a world population of 500 million.”

Again 500,000,000. What is it with this particular number (5) which has makes these enviro-eugenicists froth at the mouth. According to the mystical tabel of numbers, 5 represents equilibrium, balance etc, which corresponds exactly to the writing on the Guidestone, reading: “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”

Balance. Order. These are words used by tyrants who believe that they are destined to rule mankind. According to “late scholar” Alan Roper in his 1913 essay Ancient Eugenics the chosen number (5) seems to have some mystical significance:

“(…) there is”, Roper writes, “the question of the numbers of the population. It is no definitely Eugenic conception that leads to the limitation of 5,040: there is a certain Malthusian element, and something of a prepossession with a mystical doctrine of numbers.”

Writing about the eugenicists’ obsession with fixed boundaries in regards to population numbers, Roper invokes Plato as one of the first to subscribe to “a mystic doctrine of numbers”:

“(…) he (Plato) would fix the number of the state at an unalterable 8,000. To attain this static equilibrium the guardians are to regulate the number of marriages.”

Roper also quotes William Bateson’s Biological Fact and Structure of Society that fixing an optimum population can only be done by measuring the “energy-income” of the earth, not spreading “a layer of human protoplasm of the greatest thickness over the earth”:

“It is recognized today that it should be the endeavour of social organization to secure the optimum number, and not the maximum number. To spread a layer of human protoplasm of the greatest thickness over the earth—the implied ambition of many publicists—in the light of natural knowledge is seen to be reckless folly.”

“But”, Roper continues in his pre-WWI essay, “there is a natural tendency which limits the numbers of the population to the energy-income of the earth. Among the intelligent classes of a civilized community it is effected by control of reproduction.”

We return for a moment to the second inscription in the Georgia Guidestones: “Guide reproduction wisely improving fitness and diversity.”

The entire eugenic concept of “optimum population” has been formulated way back in the 19th century- which in its turn was a follow-up of more ancient principles of infanticide. The global elite’s obsession with occult numerology continues to this day as they move the population chess pieces to and fro in the name of the environment.

Jurriaan Maessen’s blog is

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses

  1. Ardire says:

    I agree with this article, the population should and must be reduced by a large percentage. Perhaps with future technological advances our current population of 8 billion may be sustainable, but that is simply speculation of something that has not yet come to pass. It might be possible for much higher populations if one was to force the world into a common asian lifestyle, that of living in a 12 foot by 12 foot apartment within highrise buildings, although I doubt much of the world would agree to this type of surrounding.

  2. This will play out lucifer will capture many souls he already has many who work for him they have already got a free pass to hell

Leave a Reply

© 2012 Pakalert Press. All rights reserved.