Celente Says:

When CNN wants to know about the Top Trends, we ask Gerald Celente. — CNN Headline News

A network of 25 experts whose range of specialties would rival many university faculties. —The Economist

Celente says that by 2012 America will become an undeveloped nation, that there will be a revolution marked by food riots, squatter rebellions, tax revolts and job marches, and that holidays will be more about obtaining food, not gifts.

"There will be a revolution in this country," he said. "It’s not going to come yet, but it’s going to come down the line and we’re going to see a third party and this was the catalyst for it: the takeover of Washington, D. C., in broad daylight by Wall Street in this bloodless coup. And it will happen as conditions continue to worsen."

Gerald Celente has earned is reputation as "The most trusted name in trends" by accurately forecasting hundreds of social, business, consumer, environmental, economic, political, entertainment, technology trends, etc

The greater depression...

Related Material...

Money as Debt
The American Dream

Food Shortages: 'Problem-Reaction-Solution' ?

Times

Expensive food will make economic slowdowns a lot harder to manage.

Over the past half-century, Western consumers have come to expect plentiful food supplies, at costs that have declined both in real terms and as a proportion of their earnings. Had it not been for the price-distorting peculiarities of the Common Agricultural Policy, the benefits for Europe of these years of plenty would have been still more marked, but the cost of food has in general been one thing that governments in industrialised countries have not needed to worry about.

The “Great Grain Robbery” in the 1970s, when massive Soviet purchases of US grain sent world prices through the roof, was an exception that proved the rule; Moscow was denounced so bitterly at the time precisely because stable supplies and prices were thought of in rich nations almost as a birthright. Similarly, what Europeans most resented about the adoption of the euro was the way that their grocery bills jumped overnight.

The grocery bills are jumping again today, not just in Europe but all over the world. The age of cheap food has abruptly come to an end, and food prices are likely to remain high for some considerable time. The reasons are soaring demand in the developing world, high oil prices contributing to the costs of planting, fertiliser, harvesting and transport, poor harvests in major grain and rice-producing regions because of drought in Australia and cold summers in Europe and parts of North America, and, finally, disastrously timed official policies on ethanol and other biofuels. Take all these together, and the result is a jump of 40 per cent in the UN's 2007 global food price index.

For British households, more expensive food means less spare cash at the end of the month. For Afghans faced by flour costing up to 80 per cent more, it means going hungry - and, probably, even greater political instability.

For many governments, from Mexico to Malaysia, it means food riots. For everyone, persistently higher food costs will translate into hefty wage demands, and make it much harder for governments to finesse the nasty combination of weakening economies and gathering inflationary pressures. No one is talking stagflation yet, nor should they - but double-digit inflation of any kind is bad news and commodities such as soya beans, maize and wheat are up by as much as 100 per cent.

Governments are worried not only by costs, but by supply, as traditional sources of imports dry up. US wheat stocks are at their lowest since just after the Second World War, and in Europe proverbial seas and mountains of surplus produce have vanished. Argentina has set ceilings on its beef exports, and China, where inflation is at a ten-year high in large part because the prices of pork and other staple foods have gone through the roof, has, Heinz-like, slapped export taxes on 57 varieties of farm produce.

Export tariffs are the worst possible response to shortages. Farmers need every encouragement to expand production. Trade barriers send the opposite signal. There is scope for increasing productivity per hectare right across Asia and, even more so, in Africa. Genetics has the potential to usher in a second green revolution, if science is not fettered by superstition. But these are long-term solutions. There is one thing that politicians can do in the here and now: free up farm trade while the going (for farmers) is good, and when even the EU is busy cutting tariffs unilaterally and has eliminated, albeit “temporarily”, all barriers to cereal imports. A Doha deal will be done this year, or not at all. The time is now.

Source: Times Online

***

Pasha Law: Points to Note

- Companies such as Monsanto have successfully copyrighted seeds that farmers around the world have used for centuries.

- One of the most active funders of GM research has been the Rockefeller Foundation.

- Henry Kissinger’s words in the 1970s capture the motivation: ’Control the oil and you can control entire continents. Control food and you control people ...’


Further Reading:

Scientists Warn of Wheat Disease

Who is Responsible?

When It's Cool to be Evil

By Henry Makow Ph.D.

"My friends and I did three whores yesterday," my son, 16, remarked casually. "Then we killed them and took our money back."

He was referring to the video game craze, "Grand Theft Auto --Vice City" which allows impressionable teens to pretend they are psychotic gangsters. They become ex-con "Tommy Vercetti," a Darwinian survivor in a pitiless hedonistic Vice City.

They have a choice of 120 vehicles and 30 weapons (meat cleaver, machete) to use to gun down policemen, rob liquor stores and jack cars. Made by Sony, the game teaches the young it's cool to be evil. The predecessor game "Grand Theft Auto-3", (only 50 vehicles, 20 weapons) sold seven million copies.

My son added: "If I had a high-powered rifle and wasn't afraid of the law, it's what I'd do."

He was just goading me; but I was taken aback. I didn't say anything.

Boomers like me who got zero moral education are not prepared to instruct our children. This is exacerbated by the fact that our children often don't live with us, as in my case.

I see this with other male friends. One told me his wife caught his 12-year-old daughter in a chat room where assorted sexual positions were being compared. Another discovered his 17-year-old daughter had lost her virginity and acted as if it were a glove. Both fathers do not live with their daughters and wouldn't know how to react if they did.

Our reflex is to be laid back and tolerant. To say:" This is natural experimentation."

I might have done this a few years ago but I am beginning to see the world differently. I no longer believe trends like family breakdown, promiscuity and violence are random.

GOD'S THREE-MILLION-YEAR EXPERIMENT IS IN TROUBLE

As you know from my previous articles, I believe a satanic, criminal cabal rules the world controlling illegal drugs, prostitution as well as banking, oil, defence and the media. In order to consolidate its power and weaken society, it actively promotes these destructive trends.

Following a centuries-old plan, it has subverted all social institutions: business, politics, education, and religion. (Most people don't realize that success today depends on serving this cabal.) It started all wars. It fabricated the war on terror to advance the creation of an Orwellian world-police-state.

We are on the cusp of a New Dark Age from which we may never emerge. How did this happen?

It happened because they took God out of the universe. "They" are members of secret Satanist societies. They are too smart to say, "Here's the devil. You'll like him better." But when they removed God, which is essentially a belief in the reality of morality, they opened the door for evil.

They used a sleight of hand. They preyed on mankind's innate desire for justice by promising "fraternity, liberty and equality." They gave us liberalism, socialism and communism, not to help but to control us. They gave us feminism, pornography and sexual liberation, not to free but to enslave us. They used them all to undermine family, nation, and religion.

Without vision, a people will perish. God is vision. God is Goodness: this is how we perceive the difference between good and evil. Man is blind without God,

There IS Moral Order in the universe. Morality, (obedience to God) far from being old fashioned and boring, is extremely useful and necessary.

Just look at our satanic masters! They are notoriously dysfunctional: drug addicts, pedophiles, and murderers. Their families are a mess. If only we could convince them they could find true love and happiness by serving rather than defying God.

Jesus said, "God is a spirit. We worship Him in spirit and in truth." God is Goodness, Truth, Justice and Beauty. We all have an innate sense of these spiritual absolutes. We all have a direction connection with our Creator. We can serve Him by doing whatever we think He wants us to do. This is the key to happiness.

A lot of Christians are fatalistic. They think the end times are near and necessary for the fulfillment of prophesy. I can't comment on this but I don't believe God intended us to sit back and let His creation go to hell.

We were created to serve God. We must sacrifice ourselves to His purpose. We must not cowardly cling to life, if increasingly life is not worth living.

Men need to begin by taking control of their own families.

THE FATHER IS THE CORNERSTONE OF THE FAMILY

A man cannot be strong without a connection to God. He must align himself with God's purpose, and provide a strong moral vision for his family.

Heterosexual union involves the exchange of power and love. Men love women who obey them. Men love women who empower them. I love my wife more and more each day because she is helpful and adaptable. This makes me want to make her happy.

My wife's career is not her first priority. She is happy because I am devoted to her. A man's love is a woman's power, and vice versa.

Dutiful daughters (women who love their parents and are devoted to them) make the best wives. This devotion is naturally transferred to their husbands. And when wives obey their husbands, children obey their parents.

Heterosexual marriage involves a profound fusion necessary for emotional and psychological development. It takes place when a woman loves a man enough to trust him completely. She self effaces, assuming an aspect of his identity. He assumes a part of her essence as well. This mystical exchange produces the sense of "completion" that people are seeking.

Many men confuse their relationship to God with their love of women. They are seeking themselves, which women can't give them. Women want to be enlisted for a higher purpose, and loved for their contribution.

GOD IS REALITY

In conclusion, men must represent God in their family and society.

The next time I see my son, I'll remind him that criminals are sick, tormented, losers. There is nothing glamorous about their lives; playing "Vice City" pollutes the soul. (My son isn't really into this game and I'm not sure I'd forbid it if he were. I'd rather he came to my way of thinking himself.)

As for my friends' daughters, I'll suggest that sex is a profound psychological and emotional experience, not only a physical one.

Psychologically and emotionally, sex is always self-surrender for a woman. She MUST love and be loved; otherwise, she will be damaged. Sex is an expression of love, and a mystery. Teenage girls need to mature in order to explore this mystery.

Truth, Justice, Goodness and Beauty are absolutes. Our satanist leaders can distort them but can't change this Reality. A true civilization would be devoted to discussing how to enact these absolutes. Ours is devoted to suppressing or mutilating them.

God is Reality. The more we evade Reality, the more unreal we become. We inch toward the edge of extinction.

We must be fearless in confronting the cabal. Its power is built on lies. Evil is unreal. It is the absence of Good, a kind of obsessive envy. Sick and unwholesome, it resembles a dilapidated shed. Kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will collapse!

The Bikini vs. Burka

By Henry Makow Ph.D.

On my wall, I have a picture of a Muslim woman shrouded in a burka. Beside it is a picture of an American beauty contestant, wearing nothing but a bikini.

One woman is totally hidden from the public; the other is totally exposed. These two extremes say a great deal about the clash of so-called "civilizations."

The role of woman is at the heart of any culture. Apart from stealing Arab oil, the impending war in the Middle East is about stripping Arabs of their religion and culture, exchanging the burka for a bikini.

I am not an expert on the condition of Muslim women and I love feminine beauty too much to advocate the burka here. But I am defending some of the values that the burka represents for me.

For me, the burka represents a woman's consecration to her husband and family. Only they see her.

It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic sphere.

The Muslim woman's focus is her home, the "nest" where her children are born and reared. She is the "home" maker, the taproot that sustains the spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training her children, providing refuge and support to her husband.

In contrast, the bikinied American beauty queen struts practically naked in front of millions on TV. A feminist, she belongs to herself. In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is auctioning herself all of the time.

In America, the cultural measure of a woman's value is her sex appeal. (As this asset depreciates quickly, she is neurotically obsessed with appearance and plagued by weight problems.)

As an adolescent, her role model is Britney Spears, a singer whose act approximates a strip tease. From Britney, she learns that she will be loved only if she gives sex. Thus, she learns to "hook up" rather than to demand patient courtship and true love. As a result, dozens of males know her before her husband does. She loses her innocence, which is a part of her charm. She becomes hardened and calculating. Unable to love, she is unfit to receive her husband's seed.

The feminine personality is founded on the emotional relationship between mother and baby. It is based on nurturing and self-sacrifice. Masculine nature is founded on the relationship between hunter and prey. It is based on aggression and reason.

Feminism teaches woman that feminine nature has resulted in "oppression" and that she should convert to male behavior instead. The result: a confused and aggressive woman with a large chip on her shoulder, unfit to become a wife or mother.

This, of course, is the goal of the social engineers at the NWO: undermine sexual identity and destroy the family, create social and personal dysfunction, and reduce population. In the "brave new world," women are not supposed to be "nest" makers, or progenitors of the race. They are meant to be neutered autonomous creatures that indulge in sex for physical pleasure, not for love or procreation.

At his press conference on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld said that Iranian women and youth were restive under the rule of the Mullahs. He implied that the US would soon liberate them. To Britney Spears? To low-rise "see-my-thong" pants? To the mutual masturbation that passes for sexuality in America?

Parenthood is the pinnacle of human development. It is the stage when we finally graduate from self-indulgence and become God's surrogates: creating and nurturing new life. The New World Order does not want us to reach this level of maturity. Pornography is the substitute for marriage. We are to remain stunted: single, sex-starved and self-obsessed.

We are not meant to have a permanent "private" life. We are to remain lonely and isolated, dependent on consumer products for our identity, in a state of perpetual courtship.

This is especially destructive for woman. Her sexual attraction is a function of her fertility. As fertility declines, so does her sex appeal. If a woman devotes her prime years to becoming "independent," she is not likely to find a permanent mate.

Her long-term personal fulfillment and happiness lies in making marriage and family her first priority.

Feminism is another cruel New World Order hoax that has debauched American women and despoiled Western civilization. It has ruined millions of lives and represents a lethal threat to Islam.

I am not advocating the burka but rather some of the values that it represents, specifically a woman's consecration to her future husband and family, and the modesty and dignity this entails.

The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies somewhere in the middle.

Guilty - Leading By Example

New York Times

By Jared Diamond

TO mathematicians, 32 is an interesting number: it’s 2 raised to the fifth power, 2 times 2 times 2 times 2 times 2. To economists, 32 is even more special, because it measures the difference in lifestyles between the first world and the developing world. The average rates at which people consume resources like oil and metals, and produce wastes like plastics and greenhouse gases, are about 32 times higher in North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia than they are in the developing world. That factor of 32 has big consequences.


To understand them, consider our concern with world population. Today, there are more than 6.5 billion people, and that number may grow to around 9 billion within this half-century. Several decades ago, many people considered rising population to be the main challenge facing humanity. Now we realize that it matters only insofar as people consume and produce.

If most of the world’s 6.5 billion people were in cold storage and not metabolizing or consuming, they would create no resource problem. What really matters is total world consumption, the sum of all local consumptions, which is the product of local population times the local per capita consumption rate.

The estimated one billion people who live in developed countries have a relative per capita consumption rate of 32. Most of the world’s other 5.5 billion people constitute the developing world, with relative per capita consumption rates below 32, mostly down toward 1.

The population especially of the developing world is growing, and some people remain fixated on this. They note that populations of countries like Kenya are growing rapidly, and they say that’s a big problem. Yes, it is a problem for Kenya’s more than 30 million people, but it’s not a burden on the whole world, because Kenyans consume so little. (Their relative per capita rate is 1.) A real problem for the world is that each of us 300 million Americans consumes as much as 32 Kenyans. With 10 times the population, the United States consumes 320 times more resources than Kenya does.

People in the third world are aware of this difference in per capita consumption, although most of them couldn’t specify that it’s by a factor of 32. When they believe their chances of catching up to be hopeless, they sometimes get frustrated and angry, and some become terrorists, or tolerate or support terrorists. Since Sept. 11, 2001, it has become clear that the oceans that once protected the United States no longer do so. There will be more terrorist attacks against us and Europe, and perhaps against Japan and Australia, as long as that factorial difference of 32 in consumption rates persists.

People who consume little want to enjoy the high-consumption lifestyle. Governments of developing countries make an increase in living standards a primary goal of national policy. And tens of millions of people in the developing world seek the first-world lifestyle on their own, by emigrating, especially to the United States and Western Europe, Japan and Australia. Each such transfer of a person to a high-consumption country raises world consumption rates, even though most immigrants don’t succeed immediately in multiplying their consumption by 32.

Among the developing countries that are seeking to increase per capita consumption rates at home, China stands out. It has the world’s fastest growing economy, and there are 1.3 billion Chinese, four times the United States population. The world is already running out of resources, and it will do so even sooner if China achieves American-level consumption rates. Already, China is competing with us for oil and metals on world markets.

Per capita consumption rates in China are still about 11 times below ours, but let’s suppose they rise to our level. Let’s also make things easy by imagining that nothing else happens to increase world consumption — that is, no other country increases its consumption, all national populations (including China’s) remain unchanged and immigration ceases. China’s catching up alone would roughly double world consumption rates. Oil consumption would increase by 106 percent, for instance, and world metal consumption by 94 percent.

If India as well as China were to catch up, world consumption rates would triple. If the whole developing world were suddenly to catch up, world rates would increase elevenfold. It would be as if the world population ballooned to 72 billion people (retaining present consumption rates).

Some optimists claim that we could support a world with nine billion people. But I haven’t met anyone crazy enough to claim that we could support 72 billion. Yet we often promise developing countries that if they will only adopt good policies — for example, institute honest government and a free-market economy — they, too, will be able to enjoy a first-world lifestyle. This promise is impossible, a cruel hoax: we are having difficulty supporting a first-world lifestyle even now for only one billion people.

We Americans may think of China’s growing consumption as a problem. But the Chinese are only reaching for the consumption rate we already have. To tell them not to try would be futile.

The only approach that China and other developing countries will accept is to aim to make consumption rates and living standards more equal around the world. But the world doesn’t have enough resources to allow for raising China’s consumption rates, let alone those of the rest of the world, to our levels. Does this mean we’re headed for disaster?

No, we could have a stable outcome in which all countries converge on consumption rates considerably below the current highest levels. Americans might object: there is no way we would sacrifice our living standards for the benefit of people in the rest of the world. Nevertheless, whether we get there willingly or not, we shall soon have lower consumption rates, because our present rates are unsustainable.

Real sacrifice wouldn’t be required, however, because living standards are not tightly coupled to consumption rates. Much American consumption is wasteful and contributes little or nothing to quality of life. For example, per capita oil consumption in Western Europe is about half of ours, yet Western Europe’s standard of living is higher by any reasonable criterion, including life expectancy, health, infant mortality, access to medical care, financial security after retirement, vacation time, quality of public schools and support for the arts. Ask yourself whether Americans’ wasteful use of gasoline contributes positively to any of those measures.

Other aspects of our consumption are wasteful, too. Most of the world’s fisheries are still operated non-sustainably, and many have already collapsed or fallen to low yields — even though we know how to manage them in such a way as to preserve the environment and the fish supply. If we were to operate all fisheries sustainably, we could extract fish from the oceans at maximum historical rates and carry on indefinitely.

The same is true of forests: we already know how to log them sustainably, and if we did so worldwide, we could extract enough timber to meet the world’s wood and paper needs. Yet most forests are managed non-sustainably, with decreasing yields.

Just as it is certain that within most of our lifetimes we’ll be consuming less than we do now, it is also certain that per capita consumption rates in many developing countries will one day be more nearly equal to ours. These are desirable trends, not horrible prospects. In fact, we already know how to encourage the trends; the main thing lacking has been political will.

Fortunately, in the last year there have been encouraging signs. Australia held a recent election in which a large majority of voters reversed the head-in-the-sand political course their government had followed for a decade; the new government immediately supported the Kyoto Protocol on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Also in the last year, concern about climate change has increased greatly in the United States. Even in China, vigorous arguments about environmental policy are taking place, and public protests recently halted construction of a huge chemical plant near the center of Xiamen. Hence I am cautiously optimistic. The world has serious consumption problems, but we can solve them if we choose to do so.

Jared Diamond, a professor of geography at the University of California, Los Angeles, is the author of “Collapse” and “Guns, Germs and Steel.”

The Haig Kissinger Depopulation Policy

by L Wolfe ('82)

Investigations by Executive Intelligence Review have uncovered a planning apparatus operating outside the control of the White House whose sole purpose is to reduce the world's population by 2 billion people through war, famine, disease and any other means necessary.

This apparatus, which includes various levels of the government is determining U.S. foreign policy. In every political hotspot -- El Salvador, the so-called arc of crisis in the Persian Gulf, Latin America, Southeast Asia and in Africa- the goal of U.S. foreign policy is population reduction. The targeting agency for the operation is the National Security Council's Ad Hoc Group on Population Policy. Its policy-planning group is in the U.S. State Department's Office of Population Affairs, established in 1975 by Henry Kissinger. This group drafted the Carter administration's Global 2000 document, which calls for global population reduction, and the same apparatus is conducting the civil war in El Salvador as a conscious depopulation project.

"There is a single theme behind all our work-we must reduce population levels," said Thomas Ferguson, the Latin American case officer for the State Department's Office of Population Affairs (OPA). "Either they [governments] do it our way, through nice clean methods or they will get the kind of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran, or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it "The professionals," said Ferguson, "aren't interested in lowering population for humanitarian reasons. That sounds nice. We look at resources and environmental constraints. We look at our strategic needs, and we say that this country must lower its population-or else we will have trouble.

So steps are taken. El Salvador is an example where our failure to lower population by simple means has created the basis for a national security crisis. The government of El Salvador failed to use our programs to lower their population. Now they get a civil war because of it.... There will be dislocation and food shortages. They still have too many people there."

Civil wars are somewhat drawn-out ways to reduce population, the OPA official added. "The quickest way to reduce population is through famine, like in Africa or through disease like the Black Death," all of which might occur in El Salvador. Ferguson's OPA monitors populations in the Third World and maps strategies to reduce them. Its budget for FY 1980 was $190 million; for FY 198l, it will be $220 million. The Global 2000 report calls for doubling that figure. The sphere of Kissinger In 1975, OPA was brought under a reorganized State Department Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental, and Scientific Affairs - a body created by Henry Kissinger.

The agency was assigned to carry out the directives of the NSC Ad Hoc Group. According to an NSC spokesman, Kissinger initiated both groups after discussion with leaders of the Club of Rome during the 1974 population conferences in Bucharest and Rome. The Club of Rome, controlled by Europe's black nobility, is the primary promotion agency for the genocidal reduction of world population levels. The Ad Hoc Group was given "high priority" by the Carter administration, through the intervention of National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and Secretaries of State Cyrus Vance and Edmund Muskie.

According to OPA expert Ferguson, Kissinger initiated a full about-face on U.S. development policy toward the Third World. "For a long time," Ferguson stated, "people here were timid" They listened to arguments from Third World leaders that said that the best contraceptive was economic reform and development. So we pushed development programs, and we helped create a population time bomb. "We are letting people breed like flies without allowing for natural causes to keep population down. We raised the birth survival rates, extended life-spans by lowering death rates, and did nothing about lowering birth rates.

That policy is finished. We are saying with Global 2000 and in real policy that you must lower population rates. Population reduction and control is now our primary policy objective- then you can have some development."Accordingly, the Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental, and Scientific Affairs has consistently blocked industrialization policies in the Third World, denying developing nations access to nuclear energy technology--the policies that would enable countries to sustain a growing population. According to State Department sources, and Ferguson himself, Alexander Haig is a "firm believer" in population control.

"We will go into a country," said Ferguson, "and say, here is your goddamn development plan. Throw it out the window. Start looking at the size of your population and figure out what must be done to reduce it."If you don't like that, if you don't want to choose to do it through planning, then you'll have an El Salvador or an Iran, or worse, a Cambodia."According to an NSC spokesman, the United States now shares the view of former World Bank President Robert McNamara that the "population crisis" is a greater threat to U.S. national security interests than "nuclear annihilation." "Every hot spot in the world corresponds to a population crisis point," said Ferguson who would rename Brzezinski's arc of crisis doctrine the "arc of population crisis."

This is corroborated by statements in the NSC Ad Hoc Group's April 1980 report. There is "an increased potential for social unrest, economic and political instability, mass migration and possible international conflicts over control of land and resources," says the NSC report. It then cites "demographic pressures" as key to understanding "examples of recent warfare in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, El Salvador. Honduras, and Ethiopia, and the growing potential forinstability in such places as Turkey, the Philippines, Central America, Iran, and Pakistan." Through extraordinary efforts, the Ad Hoc Group and OPA estimate that they may be able to keep a billion people from being born through contraceptive programs.

But as the Ad Hoc Group's report states, the best efforts of the Shah of Iran to institute "clean programs" of birth control failed to make a significant dent in the country's birth rate. The promise of jobs, through an ambitious industrialization program, encouraged migration toward "overcrowded cities" like Teheran. Now under Ayatollah Khomeini, the "clean programs" have been dismantled. The government may make progress because it has a program "to induce up to half of Teheran's 6 million residents to relocate, as well as possible measures to keep rural migrants from moving to the cities." Behind the back of the President Ferguson and others involved with the OPA and NSC group maintain that the United States will continue a foreign policy based on a genocidal reduction of the world's population.

"We have a network in place of cothinkers in the government," said the OPA case officer. "We keep going, no matter who is in the White House." But Ferguson reports that the "White House" does not really understand what they are saying and that the President "thinks that population policy means how do we speed up population increase. "As long as no one says differently," said Ferguson, "we will continue to do our jobs."