Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive
The Seventh Extinction Event: Not Just Another Conspiracy Theory

I am not, by nature, a conspiracy theorist. As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. But when people of my ilk consistently see our interviews, op-eds, and lecture invitations abruptly cancelled with feeble excuses given---if given at all---then random events suddenly take on a pattern. If we examine it, I think only one conclusion emerges as most plausible. We have been witnessing a slow strangulation of debate about overpopuation. It represents a mass die-off of open discussion of arguably the most important topic of our time by those upon whom our society most depends. Our scientists.

 An Excuse That Just Doesn't Add Up

7th extinction 01CAPS (Californians for Population Stabilization) was to have a booth set up at the Vancouver Convention Centre for the science fair held by the American Association for the Advancement of Science this winter. But guess what. After making the arrangements and paying a fee of $2500, CAPS was told that the deal was off. They could not have a booth at the fair after all. Why? It seems that somebody got to them. Of course, alternative explanations can be entertained. AAAS explained that it is “a non-profit, non-partisan, scientific association, and unfortunately, CAPS does not align with AAAS”. Funny how they took the rent and then made the discovery that CAPS didn’t have as legitimate a right to have a booth as did other organizations less focused on education. In response to further inquiry, they added that “We do not provide booth space to organizations with as direct a political and lobbying intent as CAPS on issues that go beyond the interests of our multidisciplinary membership and meeting audience.” Keep in mind, this is the same AAAS whose journal “Science” published Dr. Garrett Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons”, an article that attracted more reprint requests than any other paper Science had ever published. Ironically, Dr. Hardin was a founder of CAPS, which AAAS now wants to exclude from its upcoming Vancouver conference.

Once upon a time overpopulation was considered a legitimate subject for scientific research

How times have changed. In 1976, Canada’s then most prestigious and august scientific body, the Science Council of Canada, issued a report (Number 25) that concluded that the country faced a future of severe resource constraints, and that it would be prudent for us to slow the population rate down so as not to exceed 30 million people by century’s end. “Only by keeping population growth low, while at the same time implementing conservation measures on all fronts....”, would it be possible to meet future energy demands. And if we did that, they predicted, our population would “stabilize within a generation”. (p. 10, SC Report #25) They added that “annual net immigration of about 50,000 per annum would achieve that growth.” (p. 61) Net immigration is now more than six times that number and according to the 2007 census Canada had the fastest growing population in the G8 group, with all major parties wanting to increase the pace! By the beginning of this year, Canada stood at more than 34 million people---and still growing, as resource shortages loom. No one can say that, as far back as 1976, our top scientists did not try to warn us about the consequences. And the warnings continued.

In May of 1991 scientists in the “Intelligence Advisory Committee” submitted a report to the Privy Council of Canada that emphasized that “Controlling population growth is crucial to addressing most environmental problems, including global warming.” Six years later, a team of 63 scientists, academics and graduate students led by Dr. Michael Healey of UBC completed a $2.4 million federally-commissioned study of the Fraser Eco-Basin that argued for the development of a Population Plan for the country, as it was apparent that many other farming regions outside Canada’s major urban centres would suffer the same ecological damage that Greater Vancouver’s burgeoning population had inflicted upon the region. Their verdict was that “...population is central to the problem of sustainability. The government cannot pursue sustainability and at the same time ignore population...The federal government should adopt a population policy for Canada that is consistent with the principles of sustainability (of which) immigration is one facet.” (Executive Summary, Prospects for Sustainability, p.6)

In all three cases then, scientists had identified rampant human population growth as very much a legitimate subject of scientific research and felt compelled to recommend curbs to that growth. Their reports obviously evidenced “lobbying intent”. But now, in 2011, the zeitgeist has shifted to the point that apparently “science” must stand by in silent witness to a mugging of nature, and pretend that this “non-involvement” is something other than what is it---collusion by default. Scientists have become “silent partners in crime”. Surely Dr. Stuart Hurlbert of SDSU was correct. “Suppression of fact and opinion highly relevant to a topic under discussion (eg. Sustainability, population growth , effects of immigration controls) is one of the strongest, most devious , and most irresponsible forms of advocacy possible.” It seems that the editorial gatekeepers of scientific debate are even more reluctant to debate population issues than are politicians. As Professor Fred Meyerson of URI once remarked, “If we were discussing the population and growth and migration of any other species, no one would shy away from it.”

I smell a rat

Here is my suspicion. I smell the odour of two smear organizations in this incident. The Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC) and the Center for New Community (CNC), who have made a habit of vetting upcoming events and notifying the hosts that some of the invited guests are "un-American". No doubt, the AAAS have been told that CAPs is "anti-immigrant" and "racist". This is what has been happening all over the continent the past few years, and with increasing frequency. Here goes the pattern. Someone in our movement is invited to a convention, or to an interview or to submit an op-ed piece, and suddenly, it is cancelled---with no reason given. It seems that nearly everyone in my circle has had an experience like that---including me. It is like really hitting it off with someone and then, inexplicably, finding her cold upon meeting her the second time. Or being engaged and being inexplicably left at the altar. If it happens once, or even twice, you can find reasons to dismiss it. But when it becomes the norm, you know the fix is in.

Environmentalist Frosty Wooldridge had an interview slated for the Thom Hartmann show on NPR. Then suddenly it was cancelled. Environmentalist Leah Durant had an interview scheduled on the Lou Dobbs Show, and suddenly it was cancelled. She had a regular column on Huffington Post, and then it too was suddenly cancelled. No explanation given. But guess who took her place? Carl Pope, the former Executive Director of the Sierra Club, the man who called in the SPLC to a launch a smear campaign against Sierrans who attempted to restore its policy of immigration reduction to the policy books. It seems that all media is been sanitized and cleansed of those elements who would challenge the orthodoxy of "progressive growthism", a perverse hybrid of left-wing social policy and right-wing economics.

Now I have learned that Madeline Weld, president of the Population Institute of Canada, was invited in late September, 2011, to speak at an event that the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) was organizing for October 31, to mark the occasion of the world population reaching 7 billion. The event was to last 3 hours and include a roundtable discussion. But, on October 13, Ms. Weld was advised by CIDA that the entire event had been cancelled due to "unforeseeable circumstances." I have an idea what those unforeseeable circumstances might have been. I suspect that the person who invited Ms. Weld had no idea who she was. But others at CIDA did--and when they saw (too late) who had been invited to speak at the 7 billion event, they were no doubt horrified. Ms. Weld has challenged the neglect of family planning by CIDA and their flawed development model which ignores population. The powers that be figured it was best to cancel the event.

The Tentacles of the Smear Network Have A Continental Reach

There are Canadian groups plugged into the SPLC "Hatewatch" network too. The SPLC sends out frequent bulletins advising supporters where 'racists' are about to speak. No sooner was the first press conference for the fledging "Canadians for Immigration Policy Reform" convened when it was under attack in a Eco-Marxist online magazine for its 'racist' agenda. If you think this is paranoia then perform a test. Set up a phoney lecture date by someone on the SPLC hate-list and schedule it at a local college or auditorium. Advertise it widely and then wait for the rent-a-crowd rag-bag protesters to show up with placards and blow horns to shout the phantom lecturer down. Make it a cold winter night so we can greet them with fire hoses.

The New McCarthyism

We talk about the Sixth Extinction, the fact that we are in the midst of human-caused species loss on a massive scale. But what we don't seem to fathom is that we are also witnessing the Seventh Extinction event---- a wave of Neo-McCarthyism that is sweeping over the land and causing a mass die-off of discussion about the consequences of runaway immigration-driven population growth in North America. People are being silenced, excluded and dropped. They are losing their columns, their radio shows and their foundation money. And the people who are doing it to them are the same kind of people who wrung their hands when told about how badly treated "the Hollywood Ten" were, or how 'un-American' the House on Un-American Activities was in the 50s. And the Civil Liberties Union has nothing to say about it. Hypocrites.

It's time to call off our unrequited love affair with the soft green-left

What can we do about it? For starters we can refuse support or cooperation with any who work with the smear network. Stop working with or Stop supporting green NGOs and left wing think tanks that repeat their lies and exclude our voice. Stop pretending that environmentalists, feminists and ‘progressives’ are friends who have lost their way, friends who share our goals but don’t yet understand our perspectives. These people are our enemies. They aim to destroy us. All of them. The McKibbens, the Monbiots, the Brunes, the Hartmans. THEY are the sectarians, not us. They are the ones who deserted the IPAT equation, not us. We have tried to work with them but they will not work with us. In fact, they work very hard behind the scenes against us---using their friends at Hampshire College, the SPLC, the CNC and the other smear merchants as their hit men. Their objective is not ours. They are not authentic environmentalists. They want to manage the environment to accommodate endless population growth, but we want to end population growth to accommodate the environment. There can be no fellowship between us. We must end our unrequited love for this so-called environmental 'justice' coalition.

Wake up. This is war.


Comments powered by CComment

Love Conspiracies?

Sign up for our newsletter so you don’t miss out on the latest.