On the eve of the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change, in November of 2009, Queen Elizabeth II convened a special meeting of the 53 member states of the British Commonwealth to reaffirm its identity as a global empire in fact. Opening the event, marking the "diamond anniversary" of the Commonwealth — founded with the London Declaration of 1949 in which the member states swore their "common allegiance to the Crown" — Queen Elizabeth personally addressed her subjects, to "map out the route for another sixty years of success," and reaffirm the agenda of her Empire, emphasizing its global reach:
"It is not enough to look within the boundaries of the Commonwealth... The Commonwealth will also need to prove its relevance beyond its own borders and develop a truly global perspective."
The primary agenda that Queen Elizabeth declared, was to use the upcoming Copenhagen Summit to consolidate a global policy of de-industrialization and population control — a policy of genocide in the name of "Climate Change."
"On this, the eve of the UN Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change, the Commonwealth has an opportunity to lead once more. The threat to our environment is not a new concern. But it is now a global challenge which will continue to affect the security and stability of millions for years to come. Many of those affected are among the most vulnerable, and many of the people least well able to withstand the adverse effects of Climate Change live in the Commonwealth."
With this speech, Queen Elizabeth reaffirmed the historic, openly declared agenda of the British Empire: to drastically reduce the human population of the world. The stated policy going into Copenhagen Summit was to reduce world carbon emissions by 2 billion tons per year by 2050 (which was ultimately rejected by . This plan, spelled out in the UN Fund for Population Activities report, released immediately before the Copenhagen Summit, explicitly rejects the use of higher energy-dense technologies — i.e. nuclear fission and fusion — as the means for reducing these emissions. At current technology levels, this reduction would restrict the capability of the planet to support only 8 billion people by 2050, contrary to the projected 10 billion people expected according to current population trends. In other words: preemptively eliminate close to 2 billion people through denial of modern technology.
However, the Royal Family's agenda is far more radical even than this relatively benign "population control" agenda. The Queen's royal consort, Prince Philip, has been the leading spokesman for brutally reducing the human population for the past half-century. Philip was famously quoted in 1988 saying:
"In the event I am reborn, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."
The previous year, 1987, in a speech in London, Philip denounced what he called "the new economic religion of development":
"...The simple fact is that the human population of the world is consuming natural renewable resources faster than it can regenerate, and the process f exploitation is causing even further damage. If this is already happening with a population of 4 billions, I ask you to imagine what things will be like when the population reached 6 and then 10 billion... All this has been made possible by the industrial revolution an the scientific explosion and it is spread around the world by the new economic religion of development."
And in 1981, Philip declared in an interview with People magazine:
Human population growth is probably the single most serious long-term threat to survival. We're in for a major disaster if it isn't curbed — not just for the natural world, but for the human world. The more people there are, the more resources they'll consume, the more population they'll create, the more fighting they will do. We have no option. If it isn't controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation, and war."
This same theme was echoed in 2011 at a meeting of the Royal Society presided over by Prince Philip, at which the British naturalist, Sir David Attenborough, delivered a lecture titled "People and Planet", in which he celebrated the 50th anniversary of the founding of the World Wildlife Fund by Prince Philip in 1961, in collaboration with his dear friend Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, an affirmed Nazi. In his lecture, Attenborough elaborates the full neo-Malthusian ideology still preached by the British Empire today:
"Fifty years ago, when the WWF was founded, there were about three billion people on earth. Now there are almost seven billion. Over twice as many - and every one of them needing space. Space for their homes, space to grow their food (or to get others to grow it for them), space to build schools and roads and airfields. Where could that come from? A little might be taken from land occupied by other people but most of it could only come from the land which, for millions of years, animals and plants had had to themselves — the natural world.
"But the impact of these extra millions of people has spread even beyond the space they physically claimed. The spread of industrialisation has changed the chemical constituency of the atmosphere. The oceans that cover most of the surface of the planet have been polluted and increasingly acidified. And the earth is warming. We now realise that the disasters that continue increasingly to afflict the natural world have one element that connects them all — the unprecedented increase in the number of human beings on the planet.
"There have been prophets who have warned us of this impending disaster, of course. One of the first was Thomas Malthus... He was an Englishman, born in Guildford in Surrey in the middle of the eighteenth century. His most important book, An Essay of the Principle of Population was published over two hundred years ago in 1798. In it, he argued that the human population would increase inexorably until it was halted by what he termed ‘misery and vice’. Today, for some reason, that prophecy seems to be largely ignored — or at any rate, disregarded. It is true that he did not foresee the so-called Green Revolution which greatly increased the amount of food that can be produced in any given area of arable land. And there may be other advances in our food producing skills that we ourselves still cannot foresee. But such advances only delay things. The fundamental truth that Malthus proclaimed remains the truth. There cannot be more people on this earth than can be fed."
Attenborough continues, beseeching those who support population reduction to "break the taboo, in private and in public" and attacking directly the Catholic Church "because its doctrine on contraception is a major factor in this problem." Disregarding the all-too-recent memory of Hitler's genocide program, Attenborough denounces what he called the "ecological Ponzi scheme" and asks:
"Why this strange silence? ... There seems to be some bizarre taboo around this subject. 'It's not quite nice, not politically correct, possibly even racist to mention it.'... I simply don’t understand it. It is all getting too serious for such fastidious niceties. It remains an obvious and brutal fact that on a finite planet human population will quite definitely stop at some point. And that can only happen in one of two ways. It can happen sooner, by fewer human births — in a word by contraception. That is the humane way, the powerful option which allows all of us to deal with the problem, if we collectively choose to do so. The alternative is
an increased death rate — the way which all other creatures must suffer, through famine or disease or predation. That translated into human terms means famine or disease or war over oil or water or food or minerals or grazing rights or just living space. There is, alas, no third alternative of indefinite growth. The sooner we stabilise our numbers, the sooner we stop running up the ‘down’ escalator. Stop population increase — stop the escalator... We have removed the limiters that keep animal populations in check. So now our destiny is in our hands."
The belief in a finite "carrying capacity" is to deny the fundamental difference between human beings and the beasts, the Promethean power of fire which elevates man above his environment and frees him from the slavery to "limited resources" or fixed technological levels. In typical Zeusian terms, Prince Philip and the royal family view the human species as just another beast to be herded and culled. For example. Prince Philip insists:
"You cannot keep a bigger flock of sheep than you are capable of feeding. In other words, conservation may involve culling in order to keep a balance between the relative numbers in each species within any particular habitat. I realize this is a very touchy subject, but the fact remains that mankind is part of the living world.... Every new acre brought into cultivation means another acre denied to wild species."
The World Wildlife Foundation has spun off several organizations to implement its genocide agenda, most prominently the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) and the Global Footprint Network (GFN). The Optimum Population Trust, which advertises "population reduction" as its main objective, is supported by Paul Ehrlich, author ofThe Population Bomb in 1968, in which he declared:
"A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions."
Ehrlich remains a leading spokesman for the genocide movement, stating in an interview with London's Guardian in 2012 that the population of the world has already surpassed its maximum, and that the ideal number is less than 2 billion:
"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."
Dennis Meadows, who co-authored the 1972 book Limits to Growth, echoed Ehrlich's estimates in an interview with Der Spiegel:
"Even 7 billion is too much for this planet... If everyone is allowed to have the full potential of mobility, nourishment, and self-development, it's 1 or 2 billion."
The Optimum Population Trust has called for Great Britain to cut its population in half, and for the world population to be cut by two-thirds. In a report published in 2007, titled "Youthquake", the OPT suggests the need for compulsory birth control, stating:
"Might humanity have to suffer the kind of death-dictated control to achieve stabilisation, or reduction by a population crash—a mass cull through violence, diseases, starvation or natural disasters—which biology dictates for all other species when their numbers exceed the limits of their environment's carrying capacity?"
Lord Bertrand Russell, whom Lyndon LaRouche has called "the most evil man of the twentieth century," attempted to kill scientific creativity with the publication of his bookPrincipia Mathematica in 1910, in which he attempts to reduce all human knowledge to "symbolic logic," thus denying the possibility of discovery. Perfectly consistent with this bestial view of man, Russell embraced the doctrines of Thomas Malthus as the core of his social philosophy. In his 1951 book Impact of Science on Society, Russell states:
"At present, the population of the world is increasing at about 58,000 per diem. War, so far, has had no very great effect on this increase, which continued throughout each of the world wars... What, then, can we do? Apart from certain deep-seated prejudices, the answer should be obvious. The nations which at present increase rapidly should be encouraged to adopt the methods by which, in the West, the increase of population has been checked. Educational propaganda, with government help, could achieve this result in a generation. There are, however, two powerful forces opposed to such a policy: one is religion, the other is nationalism. I think it is the duty of all who are capable of facing facts to realize, and to proclaim, that opposition to the spread of birth control, if successful, must inflict upon mankind the most appalling depth of misery and degradation, and that within another fifty years or so.
"I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's...
"There are three ways of securing a society that shall be stable as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that of general misery except for a powerful minority... Of these three, only birth control avoids extreme cruelty and unhappiness for the majority of human beings. Meanwhile, so long as there is not a single world government, there will be competition for power among the different nations. And as increase of population brings the threat of famine, national power will become more and more obviously the only way of avoiding starvation. There will therefore be blocs in which hungry nations band together against those that are well fed... These considerations prove that a scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is a world government."
One cannot but help to wonder: is this "world government" which Bertrand Russell desired, what Queen Elizabeth had in mind when she declared that the Commonwealth needed a "truly global perspective?"