• Welcome to Global Gulag Media Forum. Please login or sign up.
 

Eugenics & Depopulation Are The Means; Scientific Dictatorship Is The Goal!

Started by Geolibertarian, Apr 16, 2014, 04:53:27 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Geolibertarian

Below is an excerpt from an interview that Gore Vidal -- a "limousine liberal" if ever there was one -- did with Playboy Magazine.

Notice how shockingly candid he is about his anti-family/pro-eugenics views:

--------------------------------

VIDAL: ...how are we to survive on an overpopulated planet? Even if we fully exploit our food resources--including sea farming--and develop effective and equitable international systems of distribution, it still won't be possible to feed the coming generations. So there will be famine and disorder. Meanwhile, we are destroying our environment. Water, earth and air are being poisoned. Climate is being altered. Yet we go on breeding, creating an economy that demands more and more consumers to buy its products--and endless, self-destructive cycle. But though most thoughtful people are aware of what we are doing to ourselves, nothing is being done to restore the planet's ecological balance, to limit human population, to create social and political and economic institutions capable of coping with--let alone solving--such relatively manageable problems as poverty and racial injustice. Who will tell Detroit that they must abandon the fossil fuel-burning combustion engine? No one. And so the air goes bad, cancers proliferate, climate changes.

PLAYBOY:  Do you think drastic reform is likely to be effected by our present system of government?

VIDAL:  No. And I find that hard to admit, because for all of my adult life I've generally accepted what we call the democratic process. But it no longer works. Look at Congress. Last year, 81 percent of the people wanted strong gun-control legislation. But 70 percent of the Congress did not, on instructions from the National Rifle Association. Congress, President, courts are not able to keep industry from poisoning Lake Erie, or Detroit from making cars that, aside from the carbon monoxide they create, are murderous weapons. To this degree, at least, the New Left is right: The System cannot be reformed. I part company with them on how it's to be replaced. They are vague. I would like to be specific--"programmatic," to use a word they like even less than "liberal."

PLAYBOY:  And what is your program?

VIDAL:  I would like to replace our present system with an Authority--with a capital A--that would have total control over environment. And environment means not only air, earth and water but the distribution of services and products, and the limitations of births. Where the Authority would have no jurisdiction would be over the private lives of the citizens. Whatever people said, wrote, ate, drank, made love to--as long as it did no harm to others--would be allowed. This, of course, is the direct reverse of our present system. Traditionally, we have always interfered in the private lives of our citizens while allowing any entrepreneur the right to poison a river in order to make money.

PLAYBOY:  Isn't what you're proposing--a dictatorship demanding absolute control over the most vital areas of our lives and yet granting absolute social and political freedom--a contradiction in terms? Isn't it inevitable that the power of your Authority would sooner or later circumscribe the private life of every citizen?

VIDAL:  Though the Authority would, in its own sphere, be absolute, it would never be the instrument of any one man. There would be no dictator. The thing should be run like a Swiss hotel, with anonymous specialists going about their business under constant review by a council of scientists, poets, butchers, politicians, teachers--the best group one could assemble. No doubt my Venetian ancestry makes me prone to this sort of government, because the Most Serene Republic was run rather like that and no cult of personality ever disturbed those committees that managed the state with great success. It can be done.

PLAYBOY:  Would you explain what you mean when you say the Authority would be able to limit births?

VIDAL:  I mean just that. Only certain people would be allowed to have children. Nor is this the hardship that it might at first appear. Most people have no talent for bringing up children and they usually admit it--once the damage is done. Unfortunately, our tribal propaganda makes every woman think her life incomplete unless she has made a replica of herself and her loved one. But tribal propaganda can be changed. One can just as easily convince people that to bring an unwanted child into the world is a social crime as grave as murder. Through propaganda, the Japanese made it unfashionable to have big families after the War and so--alone of the Asian countries--kept their population viable.

PLAYBOY:  Your ends may be commendable, but let's discuss the means. What would happen to the citizen who didn't wish to live in your brave new world--to the devout Roman Catholic, for example, who refused to accept your population-control measures?

VIDAL:  If he didn't want to emigrate, he'd simply have to accept the Authority's restrictions. The right to unlimited breeding is not a constitutional guarantee. If education and propaganda failed, those who violated the birth-control restrictions would have to pay for their act as for any other criminal offense.

PLAYBOY:  With imprisonment?

VIDAL:  I don't believe in prisons, but there would have to be some sort of punishment. Incontinent breeding endangers the human race. That is a fact with which we now live. If we don't limit our numbers through planned breeding, they will be limited for us in the natural way: famine and war. I think it more civilized to be unnatural and voluntarily limit population.

PLAYBOY:  What would become of the family if only a few people were allowed to have children?

VIDAL:  The family is an economic unit, not a biological unit; and once the economic need for it is gone--when women are able to get jobs and support themselves--the unit ceases to have any meaning. In today's cities, it is not possible to maintain the old American idea of the family--which was, essentially, peasant; a tribal group working together to create food. For better or worse, we are now on our own, and attempts to revive the ancient family ideal...will fail. As for the children that we do want, I'd like to see them brought up communally, the way they are in certain of the Israeli kibbutzim. I suspect that eventually, the whole idea of parenthood will vanish, when children are made impersonally by laboratory insemination of ova. To forestall the usual outraged letters declaring that I am against the "normal" sexual act, consider what I'm talking about: the creation of citizens, not sexual pleasure, which will continue, as always. Further, I would favor an intelligent program of eugenics that would decide which genetic types should be continued and which allowed to die off. It's within the range of our science to create, very simply, new people physically healthier and intellectually more competent than ourselves. After all, we do it regularly in agriculture and in the breeding of livestock, so why not with the human race? According to the somber Dr. William Shockley--the Nobel Prize-winning physicist who once contravened liberal doctrine by suggesting that we should look for genetic differences among the races--our preservation, through advanced medicine, of physically and mentally weak strains is now making the race less fit with each generation.

PLAYBOY:  Your critics would charge that the utopia you propose is actually a nightmarish world reminiscent of Nazi Germany and of George Orwell's 1984. How would you answer them?

VIDAL:  Most things human go wrong. The Authority would probably be no exception. But consider the alternatives. Nuclear war to reduce population. World famine. The coming to power of military dictatorships. The crushing of individual freedom. At least the Authority would guarantee more private freedom to its citizens than they now enjoy.

PLAYBOY:  Realistically, do you see any chance of such an "enlightened" dictatorship coming to power?

VIDAL:  Dictatorship, no; enlightened, yes. Could it happen? Probably not. It takes too long to change tribal thinking. The majority will always prefer a fiery death, howling tribal slogans. A pity--but then, it is not written in the stars that this peculiar race endure forever. Now may be a good time for us to stop. However, since I believe that one must always act as though our affairs were manageable, I should like to see a Party for Human Survival started on an international scale, to try to persuade people to vote willingly for a life-enhancing as well as life-preserving system.

PLAYBOY:  Your detractors, on both right and left, would argue that the proposals you've just made reflect a characteristic Vidal trait: intellectual arrogance and a basic elitist contempt for the people and their ability to govern themselves. Do you think they have a point?

VIDAL:  I do not admire "the people," as such. No one really does. Their folk wisdom is usually false, their instincts predatory. Even their sense of survival--so highly developed in the individual--goes berserk in the mass. A crowd is a fool. But then, crowds don't govern. In fact, only in America do we pretend to worship the majority, reverently listening to the herd as it Gallups this way and that. A socialist friend of mine in England, a Labor M.P., once said: "You Americans are mad on the subject of democracy. But we aren't, because we know if the people were given their head, they would bring back hanging, the birch and, of course, they'd kick the niggers out of the country. Fortunately, the Labor Party has no traffic with democracy."  I want the people to be happy, but more than that, I want them to be humane--something they are not, as everyone from Jesus to Karl Marx has had occasion to notice.

--------------------------------

Now, at this point some of you are probably wondering: when was the above interview conducted? Five years ago? Ten years ago? Fifteen, perhaps?

Try forty-five years ago!

It's from the June 1969 issue.

The above excerpt is from pages 80-82 of that issue.

The only difference between then and now is that today's limousine liberals have learned to conceal their true eugenicist colors through the use of euphemism-laced public relations rhetoric.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org

Geolibertarian

Since the views expressed by Gore Vidal in his 1969 interview are virtually identical to the eugenicist views of both today's global elite and the minions, shills and media whores who lovingly serve them, I thought I'd respond to Vidal's key claims.

Quote...how are we to survive on an overpopulated planet? Even if we fully exploit our food resources--including sea farming--and develop effective and equitable international systems of distribution, it still won't be possible to feed the coming generations. So there will be famine and disorder.

That is exactly what Malthusian propagandists were waxing alarmist about over two centuries ago. It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now.

    "Here is a difference between the animal and the man. Both the jayhawk and the man eat chickens, but the more jayhawks the fewer chickens, while the more men the more chickens. Both the seal and the man eat salmon, but when a seal takes a salmon there is a salmon the less, and were seals to increase past a certain point salmon must diminish; while by placing the spawn of the salmon under favorable conditions man can so increase the number of salmon as more than to make up for all he may take, and thus, no matter how much men may increase, their increase need never outrun the supply of salmon.

    "In short, while all through the vegetable and animal kingdoms the limit of subsistence is independent of the thing subsisted, with man the limit of subsistence is, within the final limits of earth, air, water, and sunshine, dependent upon man himself."

-- Henry George, Progress and Poverty, pp. 131-2


Even worse is the fact that modern-day Malthusians tend to be either members or lapdog servants of the very parasitic ruling class that -- by engineering acute poverty in Third World nations -- actually caused the population explosions they incessantly whine about.

-------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition

Demographic transition

The Demographic transition model (DTM) is a model used to represent the process of explaining the transformation of countries from high birth rates and high death rates to low birth rates and low death rates as part of the economic development of a country from a pre-industrial to an industrialized economy. It is based on an interpretation begun in 1929 by the American demographer Warren Thompson of prior observed changes, or transitions, in birth and death rates in industrialized societies over the past two hundred years.

Most developed countries are beyond stage three of the model; the majority of developing countries are in stage 2 or stage 3. The model was based on the changes seen in Europe so these countries follow the DTM relatively well. Many developing countries have moved into stage 3. The major (relative) exceptions are some poor countries, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa and some Middle Eastern countries, which are poor or affected by government policy or civil strife, notably Pakistan, Palestinian Territories, Yemen and Afghanistan.

Summary of the theory

The transition involves four stages, or possibly five.

* In stage one, pre-industrial society, death rates and birth rates are high and roughly in balance.

* In stage two, that of a developing country, the death rates drop rapidly due to improvements in food supply and sanitation, which increase life spans and reduce disease. These changes usually come about due to improvements in farming techniques, access to technology, basic healthcare, and education. Without a corresponding fall in birth rates this produces an imbalance, and the countries in this stage experience a large increase in population.

* In stage three, birth rates fall due to access to contraception, increases in wages, urbanization, a reduction in subsistence agriculture, an increase in the status and education of women, a reduction in the value of children's work, an increase in parental investment in the education of children and other social changes. Population growth begins to level off.

* During stage four there are both low birth rates and low death rates. Birth rates may drop to well below replacement level as has happened in countries like Germany, Italy, and Japan, leading to a shrinking population, a threat to many industries that rely on population growth. As the large group born during stage two ages, it creates an economic burden on the shrinking working population. Death rates may remain consistently low or increase slightly due to increases in lifestyle diseases due to low exercise levels and high obesity and an aging population in developed countries.

[Continued...]


http://www.globalissues.org/article/206/poverty-and-population-growth-lessons-from-our-own-past

Poverty and population growth: lessons from our own past

Let's try to understand why, by looking at our own demographic history. As recently as two or three generations ago, mortality rates in the United States were as high as they are now in most third world countries. Opportunities for our grandmothers to work outside the home were limited. And ours was largely an agrarian society in which every family member was needed to work on the farm. Coauthor Frances Lappé's own grandmother, for example, gave birth to nine children, raised them alone on a small farm, and saw only six survive to adulthood. Her story would not be unusual in a still fast-growing third world country today.

Faced with scarcity, poor families needed many children to help with work on the farm, and because of high infant-mortality rates, they needed many more pregnancies and births to achieve the necessary family size.

In the United States, the move to two-children families took place only after a society-wide transition that lowered infant death rates, opened opportunities to women outside the home, and transformed ours into an industrial rather than agrarian economy, so that families no longer relied on their children's labor. If we contrast Lappé's grandmother's story to a latter-day urban middle-class family, we can see that children who were once a source of needed labor are now a source of major costs, including tuition, an extra room in the house, the latest model basketball shoes, and forgone earnings for every year that a professional mom stays home with the kids.

The United States advanced through the falling-birth-rate phase of the demographic transition in response to these societal changes, well before the advent of sophisticated contraceptive technologies, even while the government remained actively hostile to birth control. (As late as 1965, selling contraceptives was still illegal in some states.)

Using our own country's experience to understand rapid population growth in the third world, where poverty is more extreme and widespread, we can now extend our hypothesis concerning the link between hunger and high fertility rates: both persist where societies deny security and opportunity to the majority of their citizens-where infant-mortality rates are high and adequate land, jobs, education, health care, and old-age security are beyond the reach of most people, and where there are few opportunities for women to work outside the home.

Without resources to secure their future, people can rely only on their own families. Thus, when poor parents have lots of children, they are making a rational calculus for survival. High birth rates reflect people's defensive reaction against enforced poverty. For those living at the margin of survival, children provide labor to augment meager family income. In Bangladesh, one study showed that even by the age of six a boy provides labor and/or income for the family. By the age of twelve, at the latest, he contributes more than he consumes.

Population investigators tell us that the benefit children provide to their parents in most third world countries cannot be measured just by hours of labor or extra income. The intangibles are just as important. Bigger families carry more weight in community affairs. With no reliable channels for advancement in sight, parents may hope that the next child will be the one clever or lucky enough to get an education and land a city job despite the odds. In many countries, income from one such job in the city can support a whole family in the countryside.

And impoverished parents know that without children to care for them in old age, they will have nothing. They also realize that none of these possible benefits will be theirs unless they have many children, since hunger and lack of health care will kill many of their offspring before they reach adulthood.

[Continued...]

-------------------------------------

So, if "overpopulation" is not the real cause of world poverty and environmental degradation, then what is?

One of the primary causes is the horribly corrupt and parasitic process whereby international bankers extract countless billions in usurious interest from developing economies each year in exchange for the nothing out of which they create the so-called "money" they loan:

-------------------------------------

"The Third World War has already started -- a silent war, not for that reason any less sinister. This war is tearing down Brazil, Latin America and practically all the Third World. Instead of soldiers dying there are children, instead of millions of wounded there are millions of unemployed; instead of destruction of bridges there is the tearing down of factories, schools, hospitals, and entire economies....It is a war over the foreign debt, one which has as its main weapon interest, a weapon more deadly than the atom bomb, more shattering than a laser beam."

-- Luis Ignacio Silva, as quoted on page 238 of A Fate Worse Than Debt by Susan George

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bxb-Qo5JVM (The Money Masters - part 18 of 22)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIPHd4Gjcck (The Money Masters - part 19 of 22)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm2qEjny2aM (Economic Hit Men: Paid Professionals who Cheat Countries Out of Trillions)
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=98465.msg1081763#msg1081763 (When Money Eats The World)

-------------------------------------

But outlawing fractional reserve banking and allowing countries to issue their own paper money debt-free and interest-free to fund the production and repair of public goods everyone can see and benefit from (roads & bridges, maglev rail, etc.) would be to put the criminals who head the IMF and World Bank out of business, and we all know NWO minions aren't about to call for that.

Another primary cause is the anti-labor/pro-land speculation tax system that nearly all governments impose on their respective populations:

-------------------------------------

"This imperfect policy of non-intervention, or laissez-faire, led straight to a most hideous and dreadful economic exploitation; starvation wages, slum dwelling, killing hours, pauperism, coffin-ships, child-labour -- nothing like it had ever been seen in modern times....People began to say, perhaps naturally, if this is what State absentation comes to, let us have some State intervention.

"But the State had intervened; that was the whole trouble. The State had established one monopoly, -- the landlord's monopoly of economic rent, -- thereby shutting off great hordes of people from free access to the only source of human subsistence, and driving them into the factories to work for whatever Mr. Gradgrind and Mr. Bottles chose to give them. The land of England, while by no means nearly all actually occupied, was all legally occupied; and this State-created monopoly enabled landlords to satisfy their needs and desires with little exertion or none, but it also removed the land from competition with industry in the labour market, thus creating a huge, constant and exigent labour-surplus." [Emphasis original]

-- Albert Jay Nock, Free Speech and Plain Language, pp. 320-1

"It is incontrovertible, I think, that the rapidly-increasing destruction of the Amazon rain forest...is directly attributable to the fact that the Amazon basin is the only part of Brazil where free or cheap land is available, and this, in turn, is attributable to the fact that nearly four-fifths of Brazil's arable acreage is covered by sprawling latifundios, half of which are held by speculators who produce nothing. Were the artificial scarcity of available land in the rest of Brazil corrected, as the Georgist remedy would unquestionably do, pressure on the Amazon basin would obviously cease."

-- Robert V. Andelson, Commons Without Tragedy, p. 32


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZkfmY1PMng (The Great Tax Clawback Scam)
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=160421.0 (Answers to common objections)

-------------------------------------

But you'll never hear NWO minions call for a reversal of that trend, either, because that would mean eliminating economic free-riding by overprivileged, politically-connected absentee landlords and slumlords.

All we'll get are the usual top-down, Nazi-style control measures that merely concentrate that much more political and economic power into the parasitic hands of the very criminal, psychopathic plutocrats who caused this mess in the first place.

On issue after issue after issue, these plutocrats create a problem -- e.g., "terrorism" (via false flag ops), a financial collapse (via derivatives), widespread disease (via bioterrorism and contaminated food supplies), mass stupidity (via compulsory schooling, chemical lobotomization and TV-based mind control) etc., etc., -- then add insult to injury by posing as our saviors from the very problem they themselves created!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WoV2dHzH1E (Problem-Reaction-Solution)

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org

Geolibertarian

Bottom line: you can tell if someone has been brainwashed (however unknowingly) by Malthusian propaganda if he or she incessantly blames the mere existence of the many for the crimes of the few.

To take just one of many examples, consider the issue of deforestation.

There are two primary reasons why so many forests are being clearcut at such an alarming rate.

The first reason is the anti-labor/pro-land speculation tax system that virtually all governments impose on their respective populations, and the artificial scarcity of land to which this invariably and inevitably gives rise:

------------------------------------

"This imperfect policy of non-intervention, or laissez-faire, led straight to a most hideous and dreadful economic exploitation; starvation wages, slum dwelling, killing hours, pauperism, coffin-ships, child-labour -- nothing like it had ever been seen in modern times....People began to say, perhaps naturally, if this is what State absentation comes to, let us have some State intervention.

"But the State had intervened; that was the whole trouble. The State had established one monopoly, -- the landlord's monopoly of economic rent, -- thereby shutting off great hordes of people from free access to the only source of human subsistence, and driving them into the factories to work for whatever Mr. Gradgrind and Mr. Bottles chose to give them. The land of England, while by no means nearly all actually occupied, was all legally occupied; and this State-created monopoly enabled landlords to satisfy their needs and desires with little exertion or none, but it also removed the land from competition with industry in the labour market, thus creating a huge, constant and exigent labour-surplus." [Emphasis original]

-- Albert Jay Nock, Free Speech and Plain Language, pp. 320-1

"It is incontrovertible, I think, that the rapidly-increasing destruction of the Amazon rain forest...is directly attributable to the fact that the Amazon basin is the only part of Brazil where free or cheap land is available, and this, in turn, is attributable to the fact that nearly four-fifths of Brazil's arable acreage is covered by sprawling latifundios, half of which are held by speculators who produce nothing. Were the artificial scarcity of available land in the rest of Brazil corrected, as the Georgist remedy would unquestionably do, pressure on the Amazon basin would obviously cease." [Emphasis added]

-- Robert V. Andelson, Commons Without Tragedy, p. 32

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDMenqKCXdw (A pertinent clip from The Corporation)

------------------------------------


The second reason is the debt-based, privately-controlled money systems that plague virtually every nation on the globe:

------------------------------------

http://web.archive.org/web/20061116031731/landru.i-link-2.net/monques/moneyeats.html

WHEN MONEY EATS THE WORLD

by John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy
University of Guelph.

As the wheels come off the global market juggernaut, we need to understand that the unfolding collapse has been programmed into the machine. Stay the course of capital deregulation long enough and a truly momentous wreck is guaranteed. The fact is that our political and market leaderships have ensured no intelligent thought relating to the actual life needs of societies has been listened to for 15 years. "No alternative," they incanted without a break since the Reagan revolution of mindless govenment first began stripping social infrastructures by ever lower tax rates for the rich and 20% compound interest rates on public debt. Even now as the government of France pulls out of the MAI declaration of rights for unaccountable borderless capital, Ottawa is still prating about "sticking to its commitments" to the meltdown program.

The problem is a generalized mind-seizure. As money-to-more-money circuits have become increasingly autonomous, public consciousness has fetishized money demand as the sovereign authority of the world. The lifeblood of societies has been circulated away as fast as possible to "pay off deficits as a national emergency," "reduce social costs to attract investors," "cool down the employment rate to ward off currency devaluation," "deregulate the labour and resource markets economy for greater efficiencies," and so on. The litany for expropriation of societies' common heritage and infrastructure has been recited every hour for almost twenty years, and it has always and everywhere been the disguise for highly leveraged money sequences to feed on the social life substance across the planet.

But even as the meltdown progresses across continents, the unseen seat of the disease is not yet whispered—that money sequences are overloaded far beyond the capacity of social and environmental capacities to feed them, and that they increasingly attack life-serving functions to continue their decoupled cycles.

Because these money sequences are increasingly without productive outcome of any kind, redistribute more and more wealth to the economically parasitic while stripping the civil commons and the poor, and progressively demand ever more revenue extraction from social and environmental hosts, their reproduction has become increasingly incompatible with civil and planetary life.

The overloading of the life-system by ever more ravenous money sequences is, in truth, behind every crisis people face today in the global market—behind the stressing and breaking of the planetary environment's carrying capacities
, behind government debt and deficit loads and crises across the world, behind the ceaseless mergers, acquisitions and job-sheddings by corporate finance departments, behind the speed-ups of every process of work and resource extraction, behind the privatization and enclosure of evolved civil commons in every culture, and behind now the Asian meltdown and the great slump of Japan.

We need not summarize all the symptoms. But consider some figures of money-demand aggregates increasing exponentially on life systems at every level, every new unit of the escalating load requiring "more competitive performance" or "more competitive cost cutting" from individual, social and environmental life-hosts, with no limit set to what will be demanded next.

[Continued...]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2rXCEEh8SE (A pertinent clip from Money As Debt)

------------------------------------

Yet despite this obvious reality, Malthusians will arrogantly ignore it and -- much to the delight of the eugenics-obsessed global elite that some of them profess to oppose -- mindlessly exclaim to anyone foolish enough to listen:

"Pay no attention to those ruling class parasites behind the curtain! It's the mere existence of everyone else that is to blame for this crisis!" ::)

Those who parrot Malthusian talking points like this are -- whether they realize it or not, and whether they have the intellectually honesty to admit it or not -- helping to morally justify the psychopathic ruling elite's population reduction agenda.

Does that not border on aiding and abetting crimes against humanity?
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org

Geolibertarian

Contrary to Malthusian propaganda, the problem is not that the world itself is "overpopulated," but that the people of the world are overparasitized by ruling-class oligarchs.

There's little if anything that frightens these oligarchs more than a mass awakening to this fact.

Upon reading the following, it should thus be obvious why the ruling class felt so threatened by Henry George's enormous popularity in the late 19th century, and why they consequently went to so much trouble to counteract it.

------------------------------------

http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/George/grgPP7.html#Book II, Chapter 1

Progress and Poverty

Book II: Population and Subsistence

Chapter 1: The Malthusian Theory, Its Genesis and Support

Behind the theory we have been considering lies a theory we have yet to consider. The current doctrine as to the derivation and law of wages finds its strongest support in a doctrine as generally accepted -- the doctrine to which Malthus has given his name -- that population naturally tends to increase faster than subsistence. These two doctrines, fitting in with each other, frame the answer which the current political economy gives to the great problem we are endeavoring to solve.

In what has preceded, the current doctrine that wages are determined by the ratio between capital and laborers has, I think, been shown to be so utterly baseless as to excite surprise as to how it could so generally and so long obtain. It is not to be wondered at that such a theory should have arisen in a state of society where the great body of laborers seem to depend for employment and wages upon a separate class of capitalists, nor yet that under these conditions it should have maintained itself among the masses of men, who rarely take the trouble to separate the real from the apparent. But it is surprising that a theory which on examination appears to be so groundless could have been successively accepted by so many acute thinkers as have during the present century devoted their powers to the elucidation and development of the science of political economy.

The explanation of this otherwise unaccountable fact is to be found in the general acceptance of the Malthusian theory. The current theory of wages has never been fairly put upon its trial, because, backed by the Malthusian theory, it has seemed in the minds of political economists a self-evident truth. These two theories mutually blend with, strengthen, and defend each other, while they both derive additional support from a principle brought prominently forward in the discussions of the theory of rent -- viz., that past a certain point the application of capital and labor to land yields a diminishing return. Together they give such an explanation of the phenomena presented in a highly organized and advancing society as seems to fit all the facts, and which has thus prevented closer investigation.

Which of these two theories is entitled to historical precedence it is hard to say. The theory of population was not formulated in such a way as to give it the standing of a scientific dogma until after that had been done for the theory of wages. But they naturally spring up and grow with each other, and were both held in a form more or less crude long prior to any attempt to construct a system of political economy. It is evident, from several passages, that though he never fully developed it, the Malthusian theory was in rudimentary form prescrit in the mind of Adam Smith, and to this, it seems to me, must be largely due the misdirection which on the subject of wages his speculations took. But, however this may be, so closely are the two theories connected, so completely do they complement each other, that Buckle, reviewing the history of the development of political economy in his "Examination of the Scotch Intellect during the Eighteenth Century," attributes mainly to Malthus the honor of "decisively proving" the current theory of wages by advancing the current theory of the pressure of population upon subsistence. He says in his "History of Civilization in England," Vol. 3, Chap. 5:

    "Scarcely had the Eighteenth Century passed away when it was decisively proved that the reward of labor depends solely on two things; namely, the magnitude of that national fund out of which all labor is paid, and the number of laborers among whom the fund is to be divided. This vast step in our knowledge is due, mainly, though not entirely, to Malthus, whose work on population, besides marking an epoch in the history of speculative thought, has already produced considerable practical results, and will probably give rise to others more considerable still. It was published in 1798; so that Adam Smith, who died in 1790, missed what to him would have been the intense pleasure of seeing how, in it, his own views were expanded rather than corrected. Indeed, it is certain that without Smith there would have been no Malthus; that is, unless Smith had laid the foundation, Malthus could not have raised the superstructure."

The famous doctrine which ever since its enunciation has so powerfully influenced thought, not alone in the province of political economy, but in regions of even higher speculation, was formulated by Malthus in the proposition that, as shown by the growth of the North American colonies, the natural tendency of population is to double itself at least every twenty-five years, thus increasing in a geometrical ratio, while the subsistence that can be obtained from land "under circumstances the most favorable to human industry could not possibly be made to increase faster than in an arithmetical ratio, or by an addition every twenty-five years of a quantity equal to what it at present produces." "The necessary effects of these two different rates of increase, when brought together," Mr. Malthus naïvely goes on to say, "will be very striking." And thus (Chap. I) he brings them together:

    "Let us call the population of this island eleven millions; and suppose the present produce equal to the easy support of such a number. In the first twenty-five years the population would be twenty-two millions, and the food being also doubled, the means of subsistence would be equal to this increase. In the next twenty-five years the population would be forty-four millions, and the means of subsistence only equal to the support of thirty-three millions. In the next period the population would be equal to eighty-eight millions, and the means of subsistence just equal to the support of half that number. And at the conclusion of the first century, the population would be a hundred and seventy-six millions, and the means of subsistence only equal to the support of fifty-five millions; leaving a population of a hundred and twenty-one millions totally unprovided for.

    "Taking the whole earth instead of this island, emigration would of course be excluded; and supposing the present population equal to a thousand millions, the human species would increase as the numbers 11 21 41 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, and subsistence as 11 21 3, 4, 5, 6, 71 8, 9. In two centuries the population would be to the means of subsistence as 256 to 9; in three centuries, 4096 to 13, and in two thousand years the difference would be almost incalculable."

Such a result is of course prevented by the physical fact that no more people can exist than can find subsistence, and hence Malthus' conclusion is, that this tendency of population to indefinite increase must be held back either by moral restraint upon the reproductive faculty, or by the various causes which increase mortality, which he resolves into vice and misery. Such causes as prevent propagation he styles the preventive check; such causes as increase mortality he styles the positive check. This is the famous Malthusian doctrine, as promulgated by Malthus himself in the "Essay on Population."

It is not worth while to dwell upon the fallacy involved in the assumption of geometrical and arithmetical rates of increase, a play upon proportions which hardly rises to the dignity of that in the familiar puzzle of the hare and the tortoise, in which the hare is made to chase the tortoise through all eternity without coming up with him. For this assumption is not necessary to the Malthusian doctrine, or at least is expressly repudiated by some of those who fully accept that doctrine; as, for instance, John Stuart Mill, who speaks of it as "an unlucky attempt to give precision to things which do not admit of it, which every person capable of reasoning must see is wholly superfluous to the argument." The essence of the Malthusian doctrine is, that population tends to increase faster than the power of providing food, and whether this difference be stated as a geometrical ratio for population and an arithmetical ratio for subsistence, as by Malthus; or as a constant ratio for population and a diminishing ratio for subsistence, as by Mill, is only a matter of statement. The vital point, on which both agree, is, to use the words of Malthus, "that there is a natural tendency and constant effort in population to increase beyond the means of subsistence."

The Malthusian doctrine, as at present held, may be thus stated in its strongest and least objectionable form:

That population, constantly tending to increase, must, when unrestrained, ultimately press against the limits of subsistence, not as against a fixed, but as against an elastic barrier, which makes the procurement of subsistence progressively more and more difficult. And thus, wherever reproduction has had time to assert its power, and is unchecked by prudence, there must exist that degree of want which will keep population within the bounds of subsistence.

Although in reality not more repugnant to the sense of harmonious adaptation by creative beneficence and wisdom than the complacent no-theory which throws the responsibility for poverty and its concomitants upon the inscrutable decrees of Providence, without attempting to trace them, this theory, in avowedly making vice and suffering the necessary results of a natural instinct with which are linked the purest and sweetest affections, comes rudely in collision with ideas deeply rooted in the human mind, and it was, as soon as formally promulgated, fought with a bitterness in which zeal was often more manifest than logic. But it has triumphantly withstood the ordeal, and in spite of the refutations of the Godwins, the denunciations of the Cobbetts, and all the shafts that argument, sarcasm, ridicule, and sentiment could direct against it, today it stands in the world of thought as an accepted truth, which compels the recognition even of those who would fain disbelieve it.

The causes of its triumph, the sources of its strength, are not obscure. Seemingly backed by an indisputable arithmetical truth -- that a continuously increasing population must eventually exceed the capacity of the earth to furnish food or even standing room, the Malthusian theory is supported by analogies in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, where life everywhere beats wastefully against the barriers that hold its different species in check -- analogies to which the course of modern thought, in leveling distinctions between different forms of life, has given a greater and greater weight; and it is apparently corroborated by many obvious facts, such as the prevalence of poverty, vice, and misery amid dense populations; the general effect of material progress in increasing population without relieving pauperism; the rapid growth of numbers in newly settled countries and the evident retardation of increase in more densely settled countries by the mortality among the class condemned to want.

The Malthusian theory furnishes a general principle which accounts for these and similar facts, and accounts for them in a way which harmonizes with the doctrine that wages are drawn from capital, and with all the principles that are deduced from it. According to the current doctrine of wages, wages fall as increase in the number of laborers necessitates a more minute division of capital; according to the Malthusian theory, poverty appears as increase in population necessitates the more minute division of subsistence. It requires but the identification of capital with subsistence, and number of laborers with population, an identification made in the current treatises on political economy, where the terms are often converted, to make the two propositions as identical formally as they are substantially. And thus it is, as stated by Buckle in the passage previously quoted, that the theory of population advanced by Malthus has appeared to prove decisively the theory of wages advanced by Smith.

Ricardo, who a few years subsequent to the publication of the "Essay on Population" corrected the mistake into which Smith had fallen as to the nature and cause of rent, furnished the Malthusian theory an additional support by calling attention to the fact that rent would increase as the necessities of increasing population forced cultivation to less and less productive lands, or to less and less productive points on the same lands, thus explaining the rise of rent. In this way was formed a triple combination, by which the Malthusian theory has been buttressed on both sides -- the previously received doctrine of wages and the subsequently received doctrine of rent exhibiting in this view but special examples of the operation of the general principle to which the name of Malthus has been attached -- the fall in wages and the rise in rents which come with increasing population being but modes in which the pressure of population upon subsistence shows itself.

Thus taking its place in the very framework of political economy (for the science as currently accepted has undergone no material change or improvement since the time of Ricardo, though in some minor points it has been cleared and illustrated), the Malthusian theory, though repugnant to sentiments before alluded to, is not repugnant to other ideas which, in older countries at least, generally prevail among the working classes; but, on the contrary, like the theory of wages by which it is supported and in turn supports, it harmonizes with them. To the mechanic or operative the cause of low wages and of the inability to get employment is obviously the competition caused by the pressure of numbers, and in the squalid abodes of poverty what seems clearer than that there are too many people?

But the great cause of the triumph of this theory is, that, instead of menacing any vested right or antagonizing any powerful interest, it is eminently soothing and reassuring to the classes who, wielding the power of wealth, largely dominate thought. At a time when old supports were falling away, it came to the rescue of the special privileges by which a few monopolize so much of the good things of this world, proclaiming a natural cause for the want and misery which, if attributed to political institutions, must condemn every government under which they exist. The "Essay on Population" was avowedly a reply to William Godwin's "Inquiry concerning Political justice," a work asserting the principle of human equality; and its purpose was to justify existing inequality by shifting the responsibility for it from human institutions to the laws of the Creator. There was nothing new in this, for Wallace, nearly forty years before, had brought forward the danger of excessive multiplication as the answer to the demands of justice for an equal distribution of wealth; but the circumstances of the times were such as to make the same idea, when brought forward by Malthus, peculiarly grateful to a powerful class, in whom an intense fear of any questioning of the existing state of things had been generated by the outburst of the French Revolution.

Now, as then, the Malthusian doctrine parries the demand for reform, and shelters selfishness from question and from conscience by the interposition of an inevitable necessity. It furnishes a philosophy by which Dives as he feasts can shut out the image of Lazarus who faints with hunger at his door; by which wealth may complacently button up its pocket when poverty asks an alms, and the rich Christian bend on Sundays in a nicely upholstered pew to implore the good gifts of the All Father without any feeling of responsibility for the squalid misery that is festering but a square away. For poverty, want, and starvation are by this theory not chargeable either to individual greed or to social maladjustments; they are the inevitable results of universal laws, with which, if it were not impious, it were as hopeless to quarrel as with the law of gravitation. In this view, he who in the midst of want has accumulated wealth, has but fenced in a little oasis from the driving sand which else would have overwhelmed it. He has gained for himself, but has hurt nobody. And even if the rich were literally to obey the injunctions of Christ and divide their wealth among the poor, nothing would be gained. Population would be increased, only to press again upon the limits of subsistence or capital, and the equality that would be produced would be but the equality of common misery. And thus reforms which would interfere with the interests of any powerful class are discouraged as hopeless. As the moral law forbids any forestalling of the methods by which the natural law gets rid of surplus population and thus holds in check a tendency to increase potent enough to pack the surface of the globe with human beings as sardines are packed in a box, nothing can really be done, either by individual or by combined effort, to extirpate poverty, save to trust to the efficacy of education and preach the necessity of prudence.

A theory that, falling in with the habits of thought of the poorer classes, thus justifies the greed of the rich and the selfishness of the powerful, will spread quickly and strike its roots deep. This has been the case with the theory advanced by Malthus.

And of late years the Malthusian theory has received new support in the rapid change of ideas as to the origin of man and the genesis of species. That Buckle was right in saying that the promulgation of the Malthusian theory marked an epoch in the history of speculative thought could, it seems to me, be easily shown; yet to trace its influence in the higher domains of philosophy, of which Buckle's own work is an example, would, though extremely interesting, carry us beyond the scope of this investigation. But how much be reflex and how much original, the support which is given to the Malthusian theory by the new philosophy of development, now rapidly spreading in every direction, must be noted in any estimate of the sources from which this theory derives its present strength. As in political economy, the support received from the doctrine of wages and the doctrine of rent combined to raise the Malthusian theory to the rank of a central truth, so the extension of similar ideas to the development of life in all its forms has the effect of giving it a still higher and more impregnable position. Agassiz, who, to the day of his death, was a strenuous opponent of the new philosophy, spoke of Darwinism as "Malthus all over," and Darwin himself says the struggle for existence "is the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms."

It does not, however, seem to me exactly correct to say that the theory of development by natural selection or survival of the fittest is extended Malthusianism, for the doctrine of Malthus did not originally and does not necessarily involve the idea of progression. But this was soon added to it. McCulloch attributes to the "principle of increase" social improvement and the progress of the arts, and declares that the poverty that it engenders acts as a powerful stimulus to the development of industry, the extension of science and the accumulation of wealth by the upper and middle classes, without which stimulus society would quickly sink into apathy and decay. What is this but the recognition in regard to human society of the developing effects of the "struggle for existence" and "survival of the fittest," which we are now told on the authority of natural science have been the means which Nature has employed to bring forth all the infinitely diversified and wonderfully adapted forms which the teeming life of the globe assumes? What is it but the recognition of the force, which, seemingly cruel and remorseless, has yet in the course of unnumbered ages developed the higher from the lower type, differentiated the man and the monkey, and made the Nineteenth Century succeed the age of stone?

Thus commended and seemingly proved, thus linked and buttressed, the Malthusian theory—the doctrine that poverty is due to the pressure of population against subsistence, or, to put it in its other form, the doctrine that the tendency to increase in the number of laborers must always tend to reduce wages to the minimum on which laborers can reproduce—is now generally accepted as an unquestionable truth, in the light of which social phenomena are to be explained, just as for ages the phenomena of the sidereal heavens were explained upon the supposition of the fixity of the earth, or the facts of geology upon that of the literal inspiration of the Mosaic record. If authority were alone to be considered, formally to deny this doctrine would require almost as much audacity as that of the colored preacher who recently started out on a crusade against the opinion that the earth moves around the sun, for in one form or another, the Malthusian doctrine has received in the intellectual world an almost universal indorsement, and in the best as in the most common literature of the day may be seen cropping out in every direction. It is indorsed by economists and by statesmen, by historians and by natural investigators; by social science congresses and by trade unions; by churchmen and by materialists; by conservatives of the strictest sect and by the most radical of radicals. It is held and habitually reasoned from by many who never heard of Malthus and who have not the slightest idea of what his theory is.

Nevertheless, as the grounds of the current theory of wages have vanished when subjected to a candid examination, so, do I believe, will vanish the grounds of this, its twin. In proving that wages are not drawn from capital we have raised this Antæus from the earth.

------------------------------------
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org

Geolibertarian

http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/George/grgPP8.html#Book II, Chapter 2

Progress and Poverty

Book II: Population and Subsistence

Chapter 2:  Inferences from Facts

The general acceptance of the Malthusian theory and the high authority by which it is indorsed have seemed to me to make it expedient to review its grounds and the causes which have conspired to give it such a dominating influence in the discussion of social questions.

But when we subject the theory itself to the test of straightforward analysis, it will, I think, be found as utterly untenable as the current theory of wages.

In the first place, the facts which are marshaled in support of this theory do not prove it, and the analogies do not countenance it.

And in the second place, there are facts which conclusively disprove it.

I go to the heart of the matter in saying that there is no warrant, either in experience or analogy, for the assumption that there is any tendency in population to increase faster than subsistence. The facts cited to show this simply show that where, owing to the sparseness of population, as in new countries, or where, owing to the unequal distribution of wealth, as among the poorer classes in old countries, human life is occupied with the physical necessities of existence, the tendency to reproduce is at a rate which would, were it to go on unchecked, some time exceed subsistence. But it is not a legitimate inference from this that the tendency to reproduce would show itself in the same force where population was sufficiently dense and wealth distributed with sufficient evenness to lift a whole community above the necessity of devoting their energies to a struggle for mere existence. Nor can it be assumed that the tendency to reproduce, by causing poverty, must prevent the existence of such a community; for this, manifestly, would be assuming the very point at issue, and reasoning in a circle. And even if it be admitted that the tendency to multiply must ultimately produce poverty, it cannot from this alone be predicated of existing poverty that it is due to this cause, until it be shown that there are no other causes which can account for it—a thing in the present state of government, laws, and customs, manifestly impossible.

This is abundantly shown in the "Essay on Population" itself. This famous book, which is much oftener spoken of than read, is still well worth perusal, if only as a literary curiosity. The contrast between the merits of the book itself and the effect it has produced, or is at least credited with (for though Sir James Stewart, Mr. Townsend, and others, share with Malthus the glory of discovering "the principle of population," it was the publication of the "Essay on Population" that brought it prominently forward), is, it seems to me, one of the most remarkable things in the history of literature; and it is easy to understand how Godwin, whose "Political justice" provoked the "Essay on Population," should until his old age have disdained a reply. It begins with the assumption that population tends to increase in a geometrical ratio, while subsistence can at best be made to increase only in an arithmetical ratio—an assumption just as valid, and no more so, than it would be, from the fact that a puppy doubled the length of his tail while he added so many pounds to his weight, to assert a geometric progression of tail and an arithmetical progression of weight. And, the inference from the assumption is just such as Swift in satire might have credited to the savants of a previously dogless island, who, by bringing these two ratios together, might deduce the very "striking consequence" that by the time the dog grew to a weight of fifty pounds his tail would be over a mile long, and extremely difficult to wag, and hence recommend the prudential check of a bandage as the only alternative to the positive check of constant amputations. Commencing with such an absurdity, the essay includes a long argument for the imposition of a duty on the importation, and the payment of a bounty for the exportation of corn, an idea that has long since been sent to the limbo of exploded fallacies. And it is marked throughout the argumentative portions by passages which show on the part of the reverend gentleman the most ridiculous incapacity for logical thought—as, for instance, that if wages were to be increased from eighteen pence or two shillings per day to five shillings, meat would necessarily increase in price from eight or nine pence to two or three shillings per pound, and the condition of the laboring classes would therefore not be improved, a statement to which I can think of no parallel so close as a proposition I once heard a certain printer gravely advance—that because an author, whom he had known, was forty years old when he was twenty, the author must now be eighty years old because he (the printer) was forty. This confusion of thought does not merely crop out here and there; it characterizes the whole work. The main body of the book is taken up with what is in reality a refutation of the theory which the book advances, for Malthus' review of what he calls the positive checks to population is simply the showing that the results which he attributes to overpopulation actually arise from other causes. Of all the cases cited, and pretty much the whole globe is passed over in the survey, in which vice and misery check increase by limiting marriages or shortening the term of human life, there is not a single case in which the vice and misery can be traced to an actual increase in the number of mouths over the power of the accompanying hands to feed them; but in every case the vice and misery are shown to spring either from unsocial ignorance and rapacity, or from bad government, unjust laws or destructive warfare.

Nor what Malthus failed to show has any one since him shown. The globe may be surveyed and history may be reviewed in vain for any instance of a considerable country in which poverty and want can be fairly attributed to the pressure of an increasing population. Whatever be the possible dangers involved in the power of human increase, they have never yet appeared. Whatever may some time be, this never yet has been the evil that has afflicted mankind. Population always tending to overpass the limit of subsistence! How is it, then, that this globe of ours, after all the thousands, and it is now thought millions, of years that man has been upon the earth, is yet so thinly populated? How is it, then, that so many of the hives of human life are now deserted—that once cultivated fields are rank with jungle, and the wild beast licks her cubs where once were busy haunts of men?

It is a fact, that, as we count our increasing millions, we are apt to lose sight of—nevertheless it is a fact that in what we know of the world's history decadence of population is as common as increase. Whether the aggregate population of the earth is now greater than at any previous epoch is a speculation which can deal only with guesses. Since Montesquieu, in the early part of the last century, asserted, what was then probably the prevailing impression, that the population of the earth had, since the Christian era, greatly declined, opinion has run the other way. But the tendency of recent investigation and exploration has been to give greater credit to what have been deemed the exaggerated accounts of ancient historians and travelers, and to reveal indications of denser populations and more advanced civilizations than had before been suspected, as well as of a higher antiquity in the human race. And in basing our estimates of population upon the development of trade, the advance of the arts, and the size of cities, we are apt to underrate the density of population which the intensive cultivations, characteristic of the earlier civilizations, are capable of maintaining—especially where irrigation is resorted to. As we may see from the closely cultivated districts of China and Europe a very great population of simple habits can readily exist with very little commerce and a much lower stage of those arts in which modern progress has been most marked, and without that tendency to concentrate in cities which modern populations show.

Be this as it may, the only continent which we can be sure now contains a larger population than ever before is Europe. But this is not true of all parts of Europe. Certainly Greece, the Mediterranean Islands, and Turkey in Europe, probably Italy, and possibly Spain, have contained larger populations than now, and this may be likewise true of Northwestern and parts of Central and Eastern Europe.

America also has increased in population during the time we know of it; but this increase is not so great as is popularly supposed, some estimates giving to Peru alone at the time of the discovery a greater population than now exists on the whole continent of South America. And all the indications are that previous to the discovery the population of America had been declining. What great nations have run their course, what empires have arisen and fallen in "that new world which is the old," we can only imagine. But fragments of massive ruins yet attest a grander pre-Incan civilization; amid the tropical forests of Yucatan and Central America are the remains of great cities forgotten ere the Spanish conquest; Mexico, as Cortez found it, showed the superimposition of barbarism upon a higher social development, while through a great part of what is now the United States are scattered mounds which prove a once relatively dense population, and here and there, as in the Lake Superior copper mines, are traces of higher arts than were known to the Indians with whom the whites came in contact.

As to Africa there can be no question. Northern Africa can contain but a fraction of the population that it had in ancient times; the Nile Valley once held an enormously greater population than now, while south of the Sahara there is nothing to show increase within historic times, and widespread depopulation was certainly caused by the slave trade.

As for Asia, which even now contains more than half the human race, though it is not much more than half as densely populated as Europe, there are indications that both India and China once contained larger populations than now, while that great breeding ground of men from which issued swarms that overran both countries and sent great waves of people rolling upon Europe, must have been once far more populous. But the most marked change is in Asia Minor, Syria, Babylonia, Persia, and in short that vast district which yielded to the conquering arms of Alexander. Where were once great cities and teeming populations are now squalid villages and barren wastes.

It is somewhat strange that among all the theories that have been raised, that of a fixed quantity to human life on this earth has not been broached. It would at least better accord with historical facts than that of the constant tendency of population to outrun subsistence. It is clear that population has here ebbed and there flowed; its centers have changed; new nations have arisen and old nations declined; sparsely settled districts have become populous and populous districts have lost their population; but as far back as we can go without abandoning ourselves wholly to inference, there is nothing to show continuous increase, or even clearly to show an aggregate increase from time to time. The advance of the pioneers of peoples has, so far as we can discern, never been into uninhabited lands—their march has always been a battle with some other people previously in possession; behind dim empires vaguer ghosts of empire loom. That the population of the world must have had its small beginnings we confidently infer for we know that there was a geologic era when human life could not have existed, and we cannot believe that men sprang up all at once, as from the dragon teeth sowed by Cadmus; yet through long vistas, where history, tradition and antiquities shed a light that is lost in faint glimmers, we may discern large populations. And during these long periods the principle of population has not been strong enough fully to settle the world, or even so far as we can clearly see materially to increase its aggregate population. Compared with its capacities to support human life the earth as a whole is yet most sparsely populated.

There is another broad, general fact which cannot fail to strike any one who, thinking of this subject, extends his view beyond modern society. Malthusianism predicates a universal law—that the natural tendency of population is to outrun subsistence. If there be such a law, it must, wherever population has attained a certain density, become as obvious as any of the great natural laws which have been everywhere recognized. How is it, then, that neither in classical creeds and codes, nor in those of the Jews, the Egyptians, the Hindoos, the Chinese, nor any of the peoples who have lived in close association and have built up creeds and codes, do we find any injunctions to the practice of the prudential restraints of Malthus; but that, on the contrary, the wisdom of the centuries, the religions of the world, have always inculcated ideas of civic and religious duty the very reverse of those which the current political economy enjoins, and which Annie Besant is now trying to popularize in England?

And it must be remembered that there have been societies in which the community guaranteed to every member employment and subsistence. John Stuart Mill says (Book II, Chap XII, Sec. 2), that to do this without state regulation of marriages and births, would be to produce a state of general misery and degradation. "These consequences," he says, "have been so often and so clearly pointed out by authors of reputation that ignorance of them on the part of educated persons is no longer pardonable." Yet in Sparta, in Peru, in Paraguay, as in the industrial communities which appear almost everywhere to have constituted the primitive agricultural organization, there seems to have been an utter ignorance of these dire consequences of a natural tendency.

Besides the broad, general facts I have cited, there are facts of common knowledge which seem utterly inconsistent with such an overpowering tendency to multiplication. If the tendency to reproduce be so strong as Malthusianism supposes, how is it that families so often become extinct—families in which want is unknown? How is it, then, that when every premium is offered by hereditary titles and hereditary possessions, not alone to the principle of increase, but to the preservation of genealogical knowledge and the proving up of descent, that in such an aristocracy as that of England, so many peerages should lapse, and the House of Lords be kept up from century to century only by fresh creations?

For the solitary example of a family that has survived any great lapse of time, even though assured of subsistence and honor we must go to unchangeable China. The descendants of Confucius still exist there, and enjoy peculiar privileges and consideration, forming, in fact, the only hereditary aristocracy. On the presumption that population tends to double every twenty-five years, they should, in 2,150 years after the death of Confucius, have amounted to 859,559,193,106,709,670,198,710,528 souls. Instead of any such unimaginable number, the descendants of Confucius, 2,150 years after his death, in the reign of Kanghi numbered 11,000 males, or say 22,000 souls. This is quite a discrepancy, and is the more striking when it is remembered that the esteem in which this family is held on account of their ancestor, "the Most Holy Ancient Teacher," has prevented the operation of the positive check, while the maxims of Confucius inculcate anything but the prudential check.

Yet, it may be said, that even this increase is a great one. Twenty-two thousand persons descended from a single pair in 2,150 years is far short of the Malthusian rate. Nevertheless, it is suggestive of possible overcrowding.

But consider. Increase of descendants does not show increase of population. It could only do this when the breeding was in and in. Smith and his wife have a son and daughter, who marry respectively some one else's daughter and son, and each have two children. Smith and his wife would thus have four grandchildren; but there would be in the one generation no greater number than in the other—each child would have four grandparents. And supposing this process were to go on, the line of descent might constantly spread out into hundreds, thousands and millions; but in each generation of descendants there would be no more individuals than in any previous generation of ancestors. The web of generations is like lattice-work or the diagonal threads in cloth. Commencing at any point at the top, the eye follows lines which at the bottom widely diverge; but beginning at any point at the bottom, the lines diverge in the same way to the top. How many children a man may have is problematical. But that he had two parents is certain, and that these again had two parents each is also certain. Follow this geometrical progression through a few generations and see if it does not lead to quite as "striking consequences" as Mr. Malthus' peopling of the solar systems.

But from such considerations as these let us advance to a more definite inquiry. I assert that the cases commonly cited as instances of overpopulation will not bear investigation. India, China, and Ireland furnish the strongest of these cases. In each of these countries, large numbers have perished by starvation and large classes are reduced to abject misery or compelled to emigrate. But is this really due to overpopulation?

Comparing total population with total area, India and China are far from being the most densely populated countries of the world. According to the estimates of MM. Behm and Wagner, the population of India is but 132 to the square mile and that of China 119 whereas Saxony has a population Of 442 to the square mile; Belgium 441; England 442; the Netherlands 291; Italy 234 and Japan 233. There are thus in both countries large areas unused or not fully used, but even in their more densely populated districts there can be no doubt that either could maintain a much greater population in a much higher degree of comfort, for in both countries is labor applied to production in the rudest and most inefficient ways, and in both countries great natural resources are wholly neglected. This arises from no innate deficiency in the people, for the Hindoo, as comparative philology has shown, is of our own blood, and China possessed a high degree of civilization and the rudiments of the most important modern inventions when our ancestors were wandering savages. It arises from the form which the social organization has in both countries taken, which has shackled productive power and robbed industry of its reward.

In India from time immemorial, the working classes have been ground down by exactions and oppressions into a condition of helpless and hopeless degradation. For ages and ages the cultivator of the soil has esteemed himself happy if, of his produce, the extortion of the strong hand left him enough to support life and furnish seed; capital could nowhere be safely accumulated or to any considerable extent be used to assist production; all wealth that could be wrung from the people was in the possession of princes who were little better than robber chiefs quartered on the country, or in that of their farmers or favorites, and was wasted in useless or worse than useless luxury, while religion, sunken into an elaborate and terrible superstition, tyrannized over the mind as physical force did over the bodies of men. Under these conditions, the only arts that could advance were those that ministered to the ostentation and luxury of the great. The elephants of the rajah blazed with gold of exquisite workmanship, and the umbrellas that symbolized his regal power glittered with gems; but the plow of the ryot was only a sharpened stick. The ladies of the rajah's harem wrapped themselves in muslins so fine as to take the name of woven wind, but the tools of the artisan were of the poorest and rudest description and commerce could only be carried on, as it were, by stealth.

Is it not clear that this tyranny and insecurity have produced the want and starvation of India; and not, as according to Buckle, the pressure of population upon subsistence that has produced the want, and the want the tyranny. Says the Rev. William Tennant, a chaplain in the service of the East India Company, writing in 1796, two years before the publication of the "Essay on Population":

    "When we reflect upon the great fertility of Hindostan, it is amazing to consider the frequency of famine. It is evidently not owing to any sterility of soil or climate; the evil must be traced to some political cause, and it requires but little penetration to discover it in the avarice and extortion of the various governments. The great spur to industry, that of security, is taken away. Hence no man raises more grain than is barely sufficient for himself, and the first unfavorable season produces a famine.

    "The Mogul government at no period offered full security to the prince, still less to his vassals; and to peasants the most scanty protection of all. It was a continued tissue of violence and insurrection, treachery and punishment, under which neither commerce nor the arts could prosper, nor agriculture assume the appearance of a system. Its downfall gave rise to a state still more afflictive, since anarchy is worse than misrule. The Mohammedan government, wretched as it was, the European nations have not the merit of overturning. It fell beneath the weight of its own corruption, and had already been succeeded by the multifarious tyranny of petty chiefs, whose right to govern consisted in their treason to the state, and whose exactions on the peasants were as boundless as their avarice. The rents to government were, and, where natives rule, still are, levied twice a year by a merciless banditti, under the semblance of an army, who wantonly destroy or carry off whatever part of the produce may satisfy their caprice or satiate their avidity, after having hunted the ill-fated peasants from the villages to the woods. Any attempt of the peasants to defend their persons or property within the mud walls of their villages only calls for the more signal vengeance on those useful, but ill-fated mortals. They are then surrounded and attacked with musketry and field pieces till resistance ceases, when the survivors are sold, and their habitations burned and leveled with the ground. Hence you will frequently meet with the ryots gathering up the scattered remnants of what had yesterday been their habitation, if fear has permitted them to return; but oftener the ruins are seen smoking, after a second visitation of this kind, without the appearance of a human being to interrupt the awful silence of destruction. This description does not apply to the Mohammedan chieftains alone; it is equally applicable to the Rajahs in the districts governed by Hindoos."

To this merciless rapacity, which would have produced want and famine were the population but one to a square mile and the land a Garden of Eden, succeeded, in the first era of British rule in India, as merciless a rapacity, backed by a far more irresistible power. Says Macaulay, in his essay on Lord Clive:

    "Enormous fortunes were rapidly accumulated at Calcutta, while millions of human beings were reduced to the extremity of wretchedness. They had been accustomed to live under tyranny, but never under tyranny like this. They found the little finger of the Company thicker than the loins of Surajah Dowlah.... It resembled the government of evil genii, rather than the government of human tyrants. Sometimes they submitted in patient misery. Sometimes they fled from the white man as their fathers had been used to fly from the Maharatta, and the palanquin of the English traveler was often carried through silent villages and towns that the report of his approach had made desolate."
Upon horrors that Macaulay thus but touches, the vivid eloquence of Burke throws a stronger light—whole districts surrendered to the unrestrained cupidity of the worst of human kind, poverty-stricken peasants fiendishly tortured to compel them to give up their little hoards, and once populous tracts turned into deserts.

But the lawless license of early English rule has been long restrained. To all that vast population the strong band of England has given a more than Roman peace; the just principles of English law have been extended by an elaborate system of codes and law officers designed to secure to the humblest of these abject peoples the rights of Anglo-Saxon freemen; the whole peninsula has been intersected by railways, and great irrigation works have been constructed. Yet, with increasing frequency, famine has succeeded famine, raging with greater intensity over wider areas.

Is not this a demonstration of the Malthusian theory? Does it not show that no matter how much the possibilities of subsistence are increased, population still continues to press upon it? Does it not show, as Malthus contended, that, to shut up the sluices by which superabundant population is carried off, is but to compel nature to open new ones, and that unless the sources of human increase are checked by prudential regulation, the alternative of war is famine? This has been the orthodox explanation. But the truth, as may be seen in the facts brought forth in recent discussions of Indian affairs in the English periodicals, is that these famines, which have been, and are now, sweeping away their millions, are no more due to the pressure of population upon the natural limits of subsistence than was the desolation of the Carnatic when Hyder Ali's horsemen burst upon it in a whirlwind of destruction.

The millions of India have bowed their necks beneath the yokes of many conquerors, but worst of all is the steady, grinding weight of English domination—a weight which is literally crushing millions out of existence, and, as shown by English writers, is inevitably tending to a most frightful and widespread catastrophe. Other conquerors have lived in the land, and, though bad and tyrannous in their rule, have understood and been understood by the people; but India now is like a great estate owned by an absentee and alien landlord. A most expensive military and civil establishment is kept up, managed and officered by Englishmen who regard India as but a place of temporary exile; and an enormous sum, estimated as at least £20,000,000 annually, raised from a population where laborers are in many places glad in good times to work for 1½d. to 4d. a day, is drained away to England in the shape of remittances, pensions, home charges of the government, etc.—a tribute for which there is no return. The immense sums lavished on railroads have, as shown by the returns, been economically unproductive; the great irrigation works are for the most part costly failures. In large parts of India the English, in their desire to create a class of landed proprietors, turned over the soil in absolute possession to hereditary tax-gatherers, who rack-rent the cultivators most mercilessly. In other parts, where the rent is still taken by the State in the shape of a land tax, assessments are so high, and taxes are collected so relentlessly, as to drive the ryots, who get but the most scanty living in good seasons, into the claws of money lenders, who are, if possible, even more rapacious than the zemindars. Upon salt, an article of prime necessity everywhere, and of especial necessity where food is almost exclusively vegetable, a tax of nearly twelve hundred per cent. is imposed, so that its various industrial uses are prohibited, and large bodies of the people cannot get enough to keep either themselves or their cattle in health. Below the English officials are a horde of native employees who oppress and extort. The effect of English law, with its rigid rules, and, to the native, mysterious proceedings, has been but to put a potent instrument of plunder into the hands of the native money lenders, from whom the peasants are compelled to borrow on the most extravagant terms to meet their taxes, and to whom they are easily induced to give obligations of which they know not the meaning. "We do not care for the people of India," writes Florence Nightingale, with what seems like a sob. "The saddest sight to be seen in the East—nay, probably in the world—is the peasant of our Eastern Empire." And she goes on to show the causes of the terrible famines, in taxation which takes from the cultivators the very means of cultivation, and the actual slavery to which the ryots are reduced as "the consequences of our own laws"; producing in "the most fertile country in the world, a grinding, chronic semi-starvation in many places where what is called famine does not exist." "The famines which have been devastating India," says H. M. Hyndman, "are in the main financial famines. Men and women cannot get food, because they cannot save the money to buy it. Yet we are driven, so we say, to tax these people more." And he shows how, even from famine stricken districts, food is exported in payment of taxes, and how the whole of India is subjected to a steady and exhausting drain, which, combined with the enormous expenses of government, is making the population year by year poorer. The exports of India consist almost exclusively of agricultural products. For at least one-third of these, as Mr. Hyndman shows, no return whatever is received; they represent tribute—remittances made by Englishmen in India, or expenses of the English branch of the Indian government. And for the rest, the return is for the most part government stores, or articles of comfort and luxury used by the English masters of India. He shows that the expenses of government have been enormously increased under Imperial rule; that the relentless taxation of a population so miserably poor that the masses are not more than half fed, is robbing them of their scanty means for cultivating the soil; that the number of bullocks (the Indian draft animal) is decreasing, and the scanty implements of culture being given up to money lenders, from whom "we, a business people, are forcing the cultivators to borrow at 12, 24, 60 per cent to build and pay the interest on the cost of vast public works, which have never paid nearly five per cent." Says Mr. Hyndman: "The truth is that Indian society as a whole has been frightfully impoverished under our rule, and that the process is now going on at an exceedingly rapid rate"—a statement which cannot be doubted, in view of the facts presented not only by such writers as I have referred to, but by Indian officials themselves. The very efforts made by the government to alleviate famines do, by the increased taxation imposed, but intensify and extend their real cause. Although in the recent famine in Southern India six millions of people, it is estimated, perished of actual starvation, and the great mass of those who survived were actually stripped, yet the taxes were not remitted and the salt tax, already prohibitory to the great bulk of these poverty-stricken people, was increased forty per cent., just as after the terrible Bengal famine in 1770 the revenue was actually driven UP, by raising assessments upon the survivors and rigorously enforcing collection.

In India now, as in India in past times, it is only the most superficial view that can attribute want and starvation to pressure of population upon the ability of the land to produce subsistence. Could the cultivators retain their little capital—could they be released from the drain which, even in non-famine years, reduces great masses of them to a scale of living not merely below what is deemed necessary for the sepoys, but what English humanity gives to the prisoners in the jails—reviving industry, assuming more productive forms, would undoubtedly suffice to keep a much greater population. There are still in India great areas uncultivated, vast mineral resources untouched, and it is certain that the population of India does not reach, as within historical times it never has reached, the real limit of the soil to furnish subsistence, or even the point where this power begins to decline with the increasing drafts made upon it. The real cause of want in India has been, and yet is, the rapacity of man, not the niggardliness of nature.

What is true of India is true of China. Densely populated as China is in many parts, that the extreme poverty of the lower classes is to be attributed to causes similar to those which have operated in India, and not to too great population, is shown by many facts. Insecurity prevails, production goes on under the greatest disadvantages, and exchange is closely fettered. Where the government is a succession of squeezings, and security for capital of any sort must be purchased of a mandarin; where men's shoulders are the great reliance for inland transportation; where the junk is obliged to be constructed so as to unfit it for a sea boat; where piracy is a regular trade, and robbers often march in regiments, poverty would prevail and the failure of a crop result in famine, no matter how sparse the population. That China is capable of supporting a much greater population is shown not only by the great extent of uncultivated land to which all travelers testify, but by the immense unworked mineral deposits which are there known to exist. China, for instance, is said to contain the largest and finest deposit of coal yet anywhere discovered. How much the working of these coal beds would add to the ability to support a greater population, may readily be imagined. Coal is not food, it is true; but its production is equivalent to the production of food. For, not only may coal be exchanged for food, as is done in all mining districts, but the force evolved by its consumption may be used in the production of food, or may set labor free for the production of food.

Neither in India nor China, therefore, can poverty and starvation be charged to the pressure of population against subsistence. It is not dense population, but the causes which prevent social organization from taking its natural development and labor from securing its full return, that keep millions just on the verge of starvation, and every now and again force millions beyond it. That the Hindoo laborer thinks himself fortunate to get a handful of rice, that the Chinese eat rats and puppies, is no more due to the pressure of population than it is due to the pressure of population that the Digger Indians live on grasshoppers, or the aboriginal inhabitants of Australia eat the worms found in rotten wood.

Let me be understood. I do not mean merely to say that India or China could, with a more highly developed civilization, maintain a greater population, for to this any Malthusian would agree. The Malthusian doctrine does not deny that an advance in the productive arts would permit a greater population to find subsistence. But the Malthusian theory affirms—and this is its essence—that, whatever be the capacity for production, the natural tendency of population is to come up with it, and, in the endeavor to press beyond it, to produce, to use the phrase of Malthus, that degree of vice and misery which is necessary to prevent further increase; so that as productive power is increased, population will correspondingly increase, and in a little time produce the same results as before. What I say is this: that nowhere is there any instance which will support this theory; that nowhere can want be properly attributed to the pressure of population against the power to procure subsistence in the then existing degree of human knowledge; that everywhere the vice and misery attributed to overpopulation can be traced to the warfare, tyranny, and oppression which prevent knowledge from being utilized and deny the security essential to production. The reason why the natural increase of population does not produce want, we shall come to hereafter. The fact that it has not yet anywhere done so, is what we are now concerned with. This fact is obvious with regard to India and China. It will be obvious, too, wherever we trace to their causes the results which on superficial view are often taken to proceed from overpopulation.

Ireland, of all European countries, furnishes the great stock example of overpopulation. The extreme poverty of the peasantry and the low rate of wages there prevailing, the Irish famine, and Irish emigration, are constantly referred to as a demonstration of the Malthusian theory worked out under the eyes of the civilized world. I doubt if a more striking instance can be cited of the power of a preaccepted theory to blind men as to the true relations of facts. The truth is, and it lies on the surface, that Ireland has never yet had a population which the natural powers of the country, in the existing state of the productive arts, could not have maintained in ample comfort. At the period of her greatest population (1840-45) Ireland contained something over eight millions of people. But a very large proportion of them managed merely to exist—lodging in miserable cabins, clothed with miserable rags, and with but potatoes for their staple food. When the potato blight came, they died by thousands. But was it the inability of the soil to support so large a population that compelled so many to live in this miserable way, and exposed them to starvation on the failure of a single root crop? On the contrary, it was the same remorseless rapacity that robbed the Indian ryot of the fruits of his toil and left him to starve where nature offered plenty. A merciless banditti of tax-gatherers did not march through the land plundering and torturing, but the laborer was just as effectually stripped by as merciless a horde of landlords, among whom the soil had been divided as their absolute possession, regardless of any rights of those who lived upon it.

Consider the conditions of production under which this eight million managed to live until the potato blight came. It was a condition to which the words used by Mr. Tennant in reference to India may as appropriately be applied—"the great spur to industry, that of security, was taken away." Cultivation was for the most part carried on by tenants at will, who, even if the rack-rents which they were forced to pay had permitted them, did not dare to make improvements which would have been but the signal for an increase of rent. Labor was thus applied in the most inefficient and wasteful manner, and labor was dissipated in aimless idleness that, with any security for its fruits, would have been applied unremittingly. But even under these conditions, it is a matter of fact that Ireland did more than support eight millions. For when her population was at its highest, Ireland was a food exporting country. Even during the famine, grain and meat and butter and cheese were carted for exportation along roads lined with the starving and past trenches into which the dead were piled. For these exports of food, or at least for a great part of them, there was no return. So far as the people of Ireland were concerned, the food thus exported might as well have been burned up or thrown into the sea, or never produced. It went not as an exchange, but as a tribute—to pay the rent of absentee landlords; a levy wrung from producers by those who in no wise contributed to production.

Had this food been left to those who raised it; had the cultivators of the soil been permitted to retain and use the capital their labor produced; had security stimulated industry and permitted the adoption of economical methods, there would have been enough to support in bounteous comfort the largest population Ireland ever had, and the potato blight might have come and gone without stinting a single human being of a full meal. For it was not the imprudence "of Irish peasants," as English economists coldly say, which induced them to make the potato the staple of their food. Irish emigrants, when they can get other things, do not live upon the potato, and certainly in the United States the prudence of the Irish character, in endeavoring to lay by something for a rainy day, is remarkable. They lived on the potato, because rack-rents stripped everything else from them. The truth is, that the poverty and misery of Ireland have never been fairly attributable to overpopulation.

McCulloch, writing in 1838, says, in Note IV to "Wealth of Nations":

    "The wonderful density of population in Ireland is the immediate cause of the abject poverty and depressed condition of the great bulk of the people. It is not too much to say that there are at present more than double the persons in Ireland it is, with its existing means of production, able either fully to employ or to maintain in a moderate state of comfort."

As in 1841 the population of Ireland was given as 8,175,124, we may set it down in 1838 as about eight millions. Thus, to change McCulloch's negative into an affirmative, Ireland would, according to the overpopulation theory, have been able to employ fully and maintain in a moderate state of comfort something less than four million persons. Now, in the early part of the preceding century, when Dean Swift wrote his "Modest Proposal," the population of Ireland was about two millions. As neither the means nor the arts of production had perceptibly advanced in Ireland during the interval, then—if the abject poverty and depressed condition of the Irish people in 1838 were attributable to overpopulation—there should, upon McCulloch's own admission, have been in Ireland in 1727 more than full employment, and much more than a moderate state of comfort, for the whole two millions. Yet, instead of this being the case, the abject poverty and depressed condition of the Irish people in 1727 were such, that, with burning, blistering irony, Dean Swift proposed to relieve surplus population by cultivating a taste for roasted babies, and bringing yearly to the shambles, as dainty food for the rich, 100,000 Irish infants!

It is difficult for one who has been looking over the literature of Irish misery, as while writing this chapter I have been doing, to speak in decorous terms of the complacent attribution of Irish want and suffering to overpopulation which is to be found even in the works of such high-minded men as Mill and Buckle. I know of nothing better calculated to make the blood boll than the cold accounts of the grasping, grinding tyranny to which the Irish people have been subjected, and to which, and not to any inability of the land to support its population, Irish pauperism and Irish famine are to be attributed; and were it not for the enervating effect which the history of the world proves to be everywhere the result of abject poverty, it would be difficult to resist something like a feeling of contempt for a race who, stung by such wrongs, have only occasionally murdered a landlord!

Whether overpopulation ever did cause pauperism and starvation, may be an open question; but the pauperism and starvation of Ireland can no more be attributed to this cause than can the slave trade be attributed to the overpopulation of Africa, or the destruction of Jerusalem to the inability of subsistence to keep pace with reproduction. Had Ireland been by nature a grove of bananas and bread-fruit, had her coasts been lined by the guano-deposits of the Chinchas, and the sun of lower latitudes warmed into more abundant life her moist soil, the social conditions that have prevailed there would still have brought forth poverty and starvation. How could there fail to be pauperism and famine in a country where rack-rents wrested from the cultivator of the soil all the produce of his labor except just enough to maintain life in good seasons; where tenure at will forbade improvements and removed incentive to any but the most wasteful and poverty-stricken culture; where the tenant dared not accumulate capital, even if he could get it, for fear the landlord would demand it in the rent; where in fact he was an abject slave, who, at the nod of a human being like himself, might at any time be driven from his miserable mud cabin, a houseless, homeless, starving wanderer, forbidden even to pluck the spontaneous fruits of the earth, or to trap a wild hare to satisfy his hunger? No matter how sparse the population, no matter what the natural resources, are not pauperism and starvation necessary consequences in a land where the producers of wealth are compelled to work under conditions which deprive them of hope, of self-respect, of energy, of thrift; where absentee landlords drain away without return at least a fourth of the net produce of the soil, and when, besides them, a starving industry must support resident landlords, with their horses and hounds, agents, jobbers, middlemen and bailiffs, an alien state church to insult religious prejudices, and an army of policemen and soldiers to overawe and hunt down any opposition to the iniquitous system? Is it not impiety far worse than atheism to charge upon natural laws misery so caused?

What is true in these three cases will be found upon examination true of all cases. So far as our knowledge of facts goes, we may safely deny that the increase of population has ever yet pressed upon subsistence in such a way as to produce vice and misery; that increase of numbers has ever yet decreased the relative production of food. The famines of India, China, and Ireland can no more be credited to overpopulation than the famines of sparsely populated Brazil. The vice and misery that come of want can no more be attributed to the niggardliness of Nature than can the six millions slain by the sword of Genghis Khan, Tamerlane's pyramid of skulls, or the extermination of the ancient Britons or of the aboriginal inhabitants of the West Indies.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org

Geolibertarian

http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/George/grgPP9.html#Book II, Chapter 3

Progress and Poverty

Book II: Population and Subsistence

Chapter 3: Inferences from Analogy

If we turn from an examination of the facts brought forward in illustration of the Malthusian theory to consider the analogies by which it is supported, we shall find the same inconclusiveness.

The strength of the reproductive force in the animal and vegetable kingdoms—such facts as that a single pair of salmon might, if preserved from their natural enemies for a few years, fill the ocean; that a pair of rabbits would, under the same circumstances, soon overrun a continent; that many plants scatter their seeds by the hundred fold, and some insects deposit thousands of eggs; and that everywhere through these kingdoms each species constantly tends to press, and when not limited by the number of its enemies, evidently does press, against the limits of subsistence—is constantly cited, from Malthus down to the textbooks of the present day, as showing that population likewise tends to press against subsistence, and, when unrestrained by other means, its natural increase must necessarily result in such low wages and want, or, if that will not suffice, and the increase still goes on, in such actual starvation, as will keep it within the limits of subsistence.

But is this analogy valid? It is from the vegetable and animal kingdoms that man's food is drawn, and hence the greater strength of the reproductive force in the vegetable and animal kingdoms than in man simply proves the power of subsistence to increase faster than population. Does not the fact that all of the things which furnish man's subsistence have the power to multiply many fold—some of them many thousand fold, and some of them many million or even billion fold while he is only doubling his numbers, show that, let human beings increase to the full extent of their reproductive power, the increase of population can never exceed subsistence? This is clear when it is remembered that though in the vegetable and animal kingdoms each species, by virtue of its reproductive power, naturally and necessarily presses against the conditions which limit its further increase, yet these conditions are nowhere fixed and final. No species reaches the ultimate limit of soil, water, air, and sunshine; but the actual limit of each is in the existence of other species, its rivals, its enemies, or its food. Thus the conditions which limit the existence of such of these species as afford him subsistence man can extend (in some cases his mere appearance will extend them), and thus the reproductive forces of the species which supply his wants, instead of wasting themselves against their former limit, start forward in his service at a pace which his powers of increase cannot rival. If he but shoot hawks, food-birds will increase; if he but trap foxes the wild rabbits will multiply; the honey bee moves with the pioneer, and on the organic matter with which man's presence fills the rivers, fishes feed.

Even if any consideration of final causes be excluded; even if it be not permitted to suggest that the high and constant reproductive force in vegetables and animals has been ordered to enable them to subserve the uses of man, and that therefore the pressure of the lower forms of life against subsistence does not tend to show that it must likewise be so with man, "the roof and crown of things"; yet there still remains a distinction between man and all other forms of life that destroys the analogy. Of all living things, man is the only one who can give play to the reproductive forces, more powerful than his own, which supply him with food. Beast, insect, bird, and fish take only what they find. Their increase is at the expense of their food, and when they have reached the existing limits of food, their food must increase before they can increase. But unlike that of any other living thing, the increase of man involves the increase of his food. If bears instead of men had been shipped from Europe to the North American continent, there would now be no more bears than in the time of Columbus, and possibly fewer, for bear food would not have been increased nor the conditions of bear life extended, by the bear immigration, but probably the reverse. But within the limits of the United States alone, there are now forty-five millions of men where then there were only a few hundred thousand, and yet there is now within that territory much more food per capita for the forty-five millions than there was then for the few hundred thousand. It is not the increase of food that has caused this increase of men; but the increase of men that has brought about the increase of food. There is more food, simply because there are more men.

Here is a difference between the animal and the man. Both the jayhawk and the man eat chickens, but the more jayhawks the fewer chickens, while the more men the more chickens. Both the seal and the man eat salmon, but when a seal takes a salmon there is a salmon the less, and were seals to increase past a certain point salmon must diminish; while by placing the spawn of the salmon under favorable conditions man can so increase the number of salmon as more than to make up for all he may take, and thus, no matter how much men may increase, their increase need never outrun the supply of salmon.

In short, while all through the vegetable and animal kingdoms the limit of subsistence is independent of the thing subsisted, with man the limit of subsistence is, within the final limits of earth, air, water, and sunshine, dependent upon man himself. And this being the case, the analogy which it is sought to draw between the lower forms of life and man manifestly fails. While vegetables and animals do press against the limits of subsistence, man cannot press against the limits of his subsistence until the limits of the globe are reached. Observe, this is not merely true of the whole, but of all the parts. As we cannot reduce the level of the smallest bay or harbor without reducing the level not merely of the ocean with which it communicates, but of all the seas and oceans of the world, so the limit of subsistence in any particular place is not the physical limit of that place, but the physical limit of the globe. Fifty square miles of soil will in the present state of the productive arts yield subsistence for only some thousands of people, but on the fifty square miles which comprise the city of London some three and a half millions of people are maintained, and subsistence increases as population increases. So far as the limit of subsistence is concerned, London may grow to a population of a hundred millions, or five hundred millions, or a thousand millions, for she draws for subsistence upon the whole globe, and the limit which subsistence sets to her growth in population is the limit of the globe to furnish food for its inhabitants.

But here will arise another idea from which the Malthusian theory derives great support—that of the diminishing productiveness of land. As conclusively proving the law of diminishing productiveness it is said in the current treatises that were it not true that beyond a certain point land yields less and less to additional applications of labor and capital, increasing population would not cause any extension of cultivation, but that all the increased supplies needed could and would be raised without taking into cultivation any fresh ground. Assent to this seems to involve assent to the doctrine that the difficulty of obtaining subsistence must increase with increasing population.

But I think the necessity is only in seeming. If the proposition be analyzed it will be seen to belong to a class that depend for validity upon an implied or suggested qualification—a truth relatively, which taken absolutely becomes a non-truth. For that man cannot exhaust or lessen the powers of nature follows from the indestructibility of matter and the persistence of force. Production and consumption are only relative terms. Speaking absolutely, man neither produces nor consumes. The whole human race, were they to labor to infinity, could not make this rolling sphere one atom heavier or one atom lighter, could not add to or diminish by one iota the sum of the forces whose everlasting circling produces all motion and sustains all life. As the water that we take from the ocean must again return to the ocean, so the food we take from the reservoirs of nature is, from the moment we take it, on its way back to those reservoirs. What we draw from a limited extent of land may temporarily reduce the productiveness of that land, because the return may be to other land, or may be divided between that land and other land, or, perhaps, all land; but this possibility lessens with increasing area, and ceases when the whole globe is considered. That the earth could maintain a thousand billions of people as easily as a thousand millions is a necessary deduction from the manifest truths that, at least so far as our agency is concerned, matter is eternal and force must forever continue to act. Life does not use up the forces that maintain life. We come into the material universe bringing nothing; we take nothing away when we depart. The human being, physically considered, is but a transient form of matter, a changing mode of motion. The matter remains and the force persists. Nothing is lessened, nothing is weakened. And from this it follows that the limit to the population of the globe can be only the limit of space.

Now this limitation of space—this danger that the human race may increase beyond the possibility of finding elbow room—is so far off as to have for us no more practical interest than the recurrence of the glacial period or the final extinguishment of the sun. Yet remote and shadowy as it is, it is this possibility which gives to the Malthusian theory its apparently self-evident character. But if we follow it, even this shadow will disappear. It, also, springs from a false analogy. That vegetable and animal life tend to press against the limits of space does not prove the same tendency in human life.

Granted that man is only a more highly developed animal; that the ring-tailed monkey is a distant relative who has gradually developed acrobatic tendencies, and the hump-backed whale a far-off connection who in early life took to the sea—granted that back of these he is kin to the vegetable, and is still subject to the same laws as plants, fishes, birds, and beasts. Yet there is still this difference between man and all other animals—he is the only animal whose desires increase as they are fed; the only animal that is never satisfied. The wants of every other living thing are uniform and fixed. The ox of today aspires to no more than did the ox when man first yoked him. The sea gull of the English Channel, who poises himself above the swift steamer, wants no better food or lodging than the gulls who circled round as the keels of Cæsar's galleys first grated on a British beach. Of all that nature offers them, be it ever so abundant, all living things save man can take, and care for, only enough to supply wants which are definite and fixed. The only use they can make of additional supplies or additional opportunities is to multiply.

But not so with man. No sooner are his animal wants satisfied than new wants arise. Food he wants first, as does the beast; shelter next, as does the beast; and these given, his reproductive instincts assert their sway, as do those of the beast. But here man and beast part company. The beast never goes further; the man has but set his feet on the first step of an infinite progression—a progression upon which the beast never enters; a progression away from and above the beast.

The demand for quantity once satisfied, he seeks quality. The very desires that he has in common with the beast become extended, refined, exalted. It is not merely hunger, but taste, that seeks gratification in food; in clothes, he seeks not merely comfort, but adornment; the rude shelter becomes a house; the undiscriminating sexual attraction begins to transmute itself into subtile influences, and the hard and common stock of animal life to blossom and to bloom into shapes of delicate beauty. As power to gratify his wants increases, so does aspiration grow. Held down to lower levels of desire, Lucullus will sup with Lucullus; twelve boars turn on spits that Antony's mouthful of meat may be done to a turn; every kingdom of Nature be ransacked to add to Cleopatra's charms, and marble colonnades and hanging gardens and pyramids that rival the hills arise. Passing into higher forms of desire, that which slumbered in the plant and fitfully stirred in the beast, awakes in the man. The eyes of the mind are opened, and he longs to know. He braves the scorching heat of the desert and the icy blasts of the polar sea, but not for food; he watches all night, but it is to trace the circling of the eternal stars. He adds toil to toil, to gratify a hunger no animal has felt; to assuage a thirst no beast can know.

Out upon nature, in upon himself, back through the mists that shroud the past, forward into the darkness that overhangs the future, turns the restless desire that arises when the animal wants slumber in satisfaction. Beneath things, he seeks the law; he would know how the globe was forged and the stars were hung, and trace to their origins the springs of life. And, then, as the man develops his nobler nature, there arises the desire higher yet—the passion of passions, the hope of hopes—the desire that he, even he, may somehow aid in making life better and brighter, in destroying want and sin, sorrow and shame. He masters and curbs the animal; he turns his back upon the feast and renounces the place of power; he leaves it to others to accumulate wealth, to gratify pleasant tastes, to bask themselves in the warm sunshine of the brief day. He works for those he never saw and never can see; for a fame, or maybe but for a scant justice, that can only come long after the clods have rattled upon his coffin lid. He toils in the advance, where it is cold, and there is little cheer from men, and the stones are sharp and the brambles thick. Amid the scoffs of the present and the sneers that stab like knives, he builds for the future; he cuts the trail that progressive humanity may hereafter broaden into a highroad. Into higher, grander spheres desire mounts and beckons, and a star that rises in the east leads him on. Lo! the pulses of the man throb with the yearnings of the god—he would aid in the process of the suns!

Is not the gulf too wide for the analogy to span? Give more food, open fuller conditions of life, and the vegetable or animal can but multiply; the man will develop. In the one the expansive force can but extend existence in new numbers; in the other, it will inevitably tend to extend existence in higher forms and wider powers. Man is an animal; but he is an animal plus something else. He is the mythic earth-tree, whose roots are in the ground, but whose topmost branches may blossom in the heavens!

Whichever way it be turned, the reasoning by which this theory of the constant tendency of population to press against the limits of subsistence is supported shows an unwarranted assumption, an undistributed middle, as the logicians would say. Facts do not warrant it, analogy does not countenance it. It is a pure chimera of the imagination, such as those that for a long time prevented men from recognizing the rotundity and motion of the earth. It is just such a theory as that underneath us everything not fastened to the earth must fall off; as that a ball dropped from the mast of a ship in motion must fall behind the mast; as that a live fish placed in a vessel full of water will displace no water. It is as unfounded, if not as grotesque, as an assumption we can imagine Adam might have made had he been of an arithmetical turn of mind and figured on the growth of his first baby from the rate of its early months. From the fact that at birth it weighed ten pounds and in eight months thereafter twenty pounds, he might, with the arithmetical knowledge which some sages have supposed him to possess, have ciphered out a result quite as striking as that of Mr. Malthus; namely, that by the time it got to be ten years old it would be as heavy as an ox, at twelve as heavy as an elephant, and at thirty would weigh no less than 175,716,339,548 tons.

The fact is, there is no more reason for us to trouble ourselves about the pressure of population upon subsistence than there was for Adam to worry himself about the rapid growth of his baby. So far as an inference is really warranted by facts and suggested by analogy, it is that the law of population includes such beautiful adaptations as investigation has already shown in other natural laws, and that we are no more warranted in assuming that the instinct of reproduction, in the natural development of society, tends to produce misery and vice, than we should be in assuming that the force of gravitation must hurl the moon to the earth and the earth to the sun, or than in assuming from the contraction of water with reductions of temperature down to thirty-two degrees that rivers and lakes must freeze to the bottom with every frost, and the temperate regions of earth be thus rendered uninhabitable by even moderate winters. That, besides the positive and prudential checks of Malthus, there is a third check which comes into play with the elevation of the standard of comfort and the development of the intellect, is pointed to by many well-known facts. The proportion of births is notoriously greater in new settlements, where the struggle with nature leaves little opportunity for intellectual life, and among the poverty-bound classes of older countries, who in the midst of wealth are deprived of all its advantages and reduced to all but an animal existence, than it is among the classes to whom the increase of wealth has brought independence, leisure, comfort, and a fuller and more varied life. This fact, long ago recognized in the homely adage, "a rich man for luck, and a poor man for children," was noted by Adam Smith, who says it is not uncommon to find a poor half-starved Highland woman has been the mother of twenty-three or twenty-four children, and is everywhere so clearly perceptible that it is only necessary to allude to it.

If the real law of population is thus indicated, as I think it must be, then the tendency to increase, instead of being always uniform, is strong where a greater population would give increased comfort, and where the perpetuity of the race is threatened by the mortality induced by adverse conditions; but weakens just as the higher development of the individual becomes possible and the perpetuity of the race is assured. In other words, the law of population accords with and is subordinate to the law of intellectual development, and any danger that human beings may be brought into a world where they cannot be provided for arises not from the ordinances of nature, but from social maladjustments that in the midst of wealth condemn men to want. The truth of this will, I think, be conclusively demonstrated when, after having cleared the ground, we trace out the true laws of social growth. But it would disturb the natural order of the argument to anticipate them now. If I have succeeded in maintaining a negative—in showing that the Malthusian theory is not proved by the reasoning by which it is supported—it is enough for the present. In the next chapter I propose to take the affirmative and show that it is disproved by facts.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org

Geolibertarian

http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/George/grgPP10.html#Book II, Chapter 4

Progress and Poverty

Book II: Population and Subsistence

Chapter 4: Disproof of the Malthusian Theory

So deeply rooted and thoroughly entwined with the reasonings of the current political economy is this doctrine that increase of population tends to reduce wages and produce poverty, so completely does it harmonize with many popular notions, and so liable is it to recur in different shapes, that I have thought it necessary to meet and show in some detail the insufficiency of the arguments by which it is supported, before bringing it to the test of facts; for the general acceptance of this theory adds a most striking instance to the many which the history of thought affords of how easily men ignore facts when blindfolded by a preaccepted theory.

To the supreme and final test of facts we can easily bring this theory. Manifestly the question whether increase of population necessarily tends to reduce wages and cause want, is simply the question whether it tends to reduce the amount of wealth that can be produced by a given amount of labor.

This is what the current doctrine holds. The accepted theory is, that the more that is required from nature the less generously does she respond, so that doubling the application of labor will not double the product; and hence, increase of population must tend to reduce wages and deepen poverty, or, in the phrase of Malthus, must result in vice and misery. To quote the language of John Stuart Mill:

    Nature, not the injustice of society, is the cause of the penalty attached to overpopulation. An unjust distribution of wealth does not aggravate the evil, but, at most, causes it to be somewhat earlier felt. It is in vain to say that all mouths which the increase of mankind calls into existence bring with them hands. The new mouths require as much food as the old ones, and the hands do not produce as much. If all instruments of production were held in joint property by the whole people, and the produce divided with perfect equality among them, and if in a society thus constituted, industry were as energetic and the produce as ample as at the present time, there would be enough to make all the existing population extremely comfortable; but when that population had doubled itself, as, with existing habits of the people, under such an encouragement, it undoubtedly would in little more than twenty years, what would then be their condition? Unless the arts of production were in the same time improved in an almost unexampled degree, the inferior soils which must be resorted to, and the more laborious and scantily remunerative cultivation which must be employed on the superior soils, to procure food for so much larger a population, would, by an insuperable necessity, render every individual in the community poorer than before. If the population continued to increase at the same rate, a time would soon arrive when no one would have more than mere necessaries, and, soon after, a time when no one would have a sufficiency of those, and the further increase of population would be arrested by death."
All this I deny. I assert that the very reverse of these propositions is true. I assert that in any given state of civilization a greater number of people can collectively be better provided for than a smaller. I assert that the injustice of society, not the niggardliness of nature, is the cause of the want and misery which the current theory attributes to overpopulation. I assert that the new mouths which an increasing population calls into existence require no more food than the old ones, while the hands they bring with them can in the natural order of things produce more. I assert that, other things being equal, the greater the population, the greater the comfort which an equitable distribution of wealth would give to each individual. I assert that in a state of equality the natural increase of population would constantly tend to make every individual richer instead of poorer.

I thus distinctly join issue, and submit the question to the test of facts.

But observe (for even at the risk of repetition I wish to warn the reader against a confusion of thought that is observable even in writers of great reputation), that the question of fact into which this issue resolves itself is not in what stage of population is most subsistence produced? but in what stage of population is there exhibited the greatest power of producing wealth? For the power of producing wealth in any form is the power of producing subsistence—and the consumption of wealth in any form, or of wealth-producing power, is equivalent to the consumption of subsistence. I have, for instance, some money in my pocket. With it I may buy either food or cigars or jewelry or theater tickets, and just as I expend my money do I determine labor to the production of food, of cigars, of jewelry, or of theatrical representations. A set of diamonds has a value equal to so many barrels of flour—that is to say, it takes on the average as much labor to produce the diamonds as it would to produce so much flour. If I load my wife with diamonds, it is as much an exertion of subsistence-producing power as though I had devoted so much food to purposes of ostentation. If I keep a footman; I take a possible plowman from the plow. The breeding and maintenance of a race-horse require care and labor which would suffice for the breeding and maintenance of many work-horses. The destruction of wealth involved in a general illumination or the firing of a salute is equivalent to the burning up of so much food; the keeping of a regiment of soldiers, or of a warship and her crew, is the diversion to unproductive uses of labor that could produce subsistence for many thousands of people. Thus the power of any population to produce the necessaries of life is not to be measured by the necessaries of life actually produced, but by the expenditure of power in all modes.

There is no necessity for abstract reasoning. The question is one of simple fact. Does the relative power of producing wealth decrease with the increase of population?

The facts are so patent that it is only necessary to call attention to them. We have, in modern times, seen many communities advance in population. Have they not at the same time advanced even more rapidly in wealth? We see many communities still increasing in population. Are they not also increasing their wealth still faster? Is there any doubt that while England has been increasing her population at the rate of two per cent. per annum, her wealth has been growing in still greater proportion? Is it not true that while the population of the United States has been doubling every twenty-nine years her wealth has been doubling at much shorter intervals? Is it not true that under similar conditions—that is to say, among communities of similar people in a similar stage of civilization—the most densely populated community is also the richest? Are not the more densely populated eastern states richer in proportion to population than the more sparsely populated western or southern states? Is not England, where population is even denser than in the eastern states of the Union, also richer in proportion? Where will you find wealth devoted with the most lavishness to nonproductive use—costly buildings, fine furniture, luxurious equipages, statues, pictures, pleasure gardens and yachts? Is it not where population is densest rather than where it is sparsest? Where will you find in largest proportion those whom the general production suffices to keep without productive labor on their part—men of income and of elegant leisure, thieves, policemen, menial servants, lawyers, men of letters, and the like? Is it not where population is dense rather than where it is sparse? Whence is it that capital overflows for remunerative investment? Is it not from densely populated countries to sparsely populated countries? These things conclusively show that wealth is greatest where population is densest; that the production of wealth to a given amount of labor increases as population increases. These things are apparent wherever we turn our eyes. On the same level of civilization, the same stage of the productive arts, government, etc., the most populous countries are always the most wealthy.

Let us take a particular case, and that a case which of all that can be cited seems at first blush best to support the theory we are considering—the case of a community where, while population has largely increased, wages have greatly decreased, and it is not a matter of dubious inference but of obvious fact that the generosity of nature has lessened. That community is California. When upon the discovery of gold the first wave of immigration poured into California it found a country in which nature was in the most generous mood. From the river banks and bars the glittering deposits of thousands of years could be taken by the most primitive appliances, in amounts which made an ounce ($16) per day only ordinary wages. The plains, covered with nutritious grasses, were alive with countless herds of horses and cattle, so plenty that any traveler was at liberty to shift his saddle to a fresh steed, or to kill a bullock if he needed a steak, leaving the hide, its only valuable part, for the owner. From the rich soil which came first under cultivation, the mere plowing and sowing brought crops that in older countries, if procured at all, can only be procured by the most thorough manuring and cultivation. In early California, amid this profusion of nature, wages and interest were higher than anywhere else in the world.

This virgin profusion of nature has been steadily giving way before the greater and greater demands which an increasing population has made upon it. Poorer and poorer diggings have been worked, until now no diggings worth speaking of can be found, and gold mining requires much capital, large skill, and elaborate machinery, and involves great risks. "Horses cost money," and cattle bred on the sage-brush plains of Nevada are brought by railroad across the mountains and killed in San Francisco shambles, while farmers are beginning to save their straw and look for manure, and land is in cultivation which will hardly yield a crop three years out of four without irrigation. At the same time wages and interest have steadily gone down. Many men are now glad to work for a week for less than they once demanded for the day, and money is loaned by the year for a rate which once would hardly have been thought extortionate by the month. Is the connection between the reduced productiveness of nature and the reduced rate of wages that of cause and effect? Is it true that wages are lower because labor yields less wealth? On the contrary! Instead of the wealth-producing power of labor being less in California in 1879 than in 1849, I am convinced that it is greater. And, it seems to me, that no one who considers how enormously during these years the efficiency of labor in California has been increased by roads, wharves, flumes, railroads, steamboats, telegraphs, and machinery of all kinds; by a closer connection with the rest of the world; and by the numberless economies resulting from a larger population, can doubt that the return which labor receives from nature in California is on the whole much greater now than it was in the days of unexhausted placers and virgin soil—the increase in the power of the human factor having more than compensated for the decline in the power of the natural factor. That this conclusion is the correct one is proved by many facts which show that the consumption of wealth is now much greater, as compared with the number of laborers, than it was then. Instead of a population composed almost exclusively of men in the prime of life, a large proportion of women and children are now supported, and other non-producers have increased in much greater ratio than the population; luxury has grown far more than wages have fallen; where the best houses were cloth and paper shanties, are now mansions whose magnificence rivals European palaces; there are liveried carriages on the streets of San Francisco and pleasure yachts on her bay; the class who can live sumptuously on their incomes has steadily grown; there are rich men beside whom the richest of the earlier years would seem little better than paupers—in short, there are on every hand the most striking and conclusive evidences that the production and consumption of wealth have increased with even greater rapidity than the increase of population, and that if any class obtains less it is solely because of the greater inequality of distribution.

What is obvious in this particular instance is obvious where the survey is extended. The richest countries are not those where nature is most prolific; but those where labor is most efficient—not Mexico, but Massachusetts; not Brazil, but England. The countries where population is densest and presses hardest upon the capabilities of nature, are, other things being equal, the countries where the largest proportion of the produce can be devoted to luxury and the support of non-producers, the countries where capital overflows, the countries that upon exigency, such as war, can stand the greatest drain. That the production of wealth must, in proportion to the labor employed, be greater in a densely populated country like England than in new countries where wages and interest are higher, is evident from the fact that, though a much smaller proportion of the population is engaged in productive labor, a much larger surplus is available for other purposes than that of supplying physical needs. In a new country the whole available force of the community is devoted to production—there is no well man who does not do productive work of some kind, no well woman exempt from household tasks. There are no paupers or beggars, no idle rich, no class whose labor is devoted to ministering to the convenience or caprice of the rich, no purely literary or scientific class, no criminal class who live by preying upon society, no large class maintained to guard society against them. Yet with the whole force of the community thus devoted to production, no such consumption of wealth in proportion to the whole population takes place, or can be afforded, as goes on in the old country; for, though the condition of the lowest class is better, and there is no one who cannot get a living, there is no one who gets much more—few or none who can live in anything like what would be called luxury, or even comfort, in the older country. That is to say, that in the older country the consumption of wealth in proportion to population is greater, although the proportion of labor devoted to the production of wealth is less—or that fewer laborers produce more wealth; for wealth must be produced before it can be consumed.

It may, however, be said, that the superior wealth of older countries is due not to superior productive power, but to the accumulations of wealth which the new country has not yet had time to make.

It will be well for a moment to consider this idea of accumulated wealth. The truth is, that wealth can be accumulated but to a slight degree, and that communities really live, as the vast majority of individuals live, from hand to mouth. Wealth will not bear much accumulation; except in a few unimportant forms it will not keep. The matter of the universe, which, when worked up by labor into desirable forms, constitutes wealth, is constantly tending back to its original state. Some forms of wealth will last for a few hours, some for a few days, some for a few months, some for a few years; and there are very few forms of wealth that can be passed from one generation to another. Take wealth in some of its most useful and permanent forms—ships, houses, railways, machinery. Unless labor is constantly exerted in preserving and renewing them, they will almost immediately become useless. Stop labor in any community, and wealth would vanish almost as the jet of a fountain vanishes when the flow of water is shut off. Let labor again exert itself, and wealth will almost as immediately reappear. This has been long noticed where war or other calamity has swept away wealth, leaving population unimpaired. There is not less wealth in London today because of the great fire of 1666; nor yet is there less wealth in Chicago because of the great fire in 1870, On those fire-swept acres have arisen, under the hand of labor, more magnificent buildings, filled with greater stocks of goods; and the stranger who, ignorant of the history of the city, passes along those stately avenues would not dream that a few years ago all lay so black and bare. The same principle that wealth is constantly re-created—is obvious in every new city. Given the same population and the same efficiency of labor, and the town of yesterday will possess and enjoy as much as the town founded by the Romans. No one who has seen Melbourne or San Francisco can doubt that if the population of England were transported to New Zealand, leaving all accumulated wealth behind, New Zealand would soon be as rich as England is now; or, conversely, that if the population of England were reduced to the sparseness of the present population of New Zealand, in spite of accumulated wealth, they would soon be as poor. Accumulated wealth seems to play just about such a part in relation to the social organism as accumulated nutriment does to the physical organism. Some accumulated wealth is necessary, and to a certain extent it may be drawn upon in exigencies; but the wealth produced by past generations can no more account for the consumption of the present than the dinners he ate last year can supply a man with present strength.

But without these considerations, which I allude to more for their general than for their special bearing, it is evident that superior accumulations of wealth can account for greater consumption of wealth only in cases where accumulated wealth is decreasing, and that wherever the volume of accumulated wealth is maintained, and even more obviously where it is increasing, a greater consumption of wealth must imply a greater production of wealth. Now, whether we compare different communities with each other, or the same community at different times, it is obvious that the progressive state, which is marked by increase of population, is also marked by an increased consumption and an increased accumulation of wealth, not merely in the aggregate, but per capita. And hence, increase of population, so far as it has yet anywhere gone, does not mean a reduction, but an increase in the average production of wealth.

And the reason of this is obvious. For, even if the increase of population does reduce the power of the natural factor of wealth, by compelling a resort to poorer soils, etc., it yet so vastly increases the power of the human factor as more than to compensate. Twenty men working together will, where nature is niggardly, produce more than twenty times the wealth that one man can produce where nature is most bountiful. The denser the population the more minute becomes the subdivision of labor, the greater the economies of production and distribution, and, hence, the very reverse of the Malthusian doctrine is true; and, within the limits in which we have reason to suppose increase would still go on, in any given state of civilization a greater number of people can produce a larger proportionate amount of wealth, and more fully supply their wants, than can a smaller number.

Look simply at the facts. Can anything be clearer than that the cause of the poverty which festers in the centers of civilization is not in the weakness of the productive forces? In countries where poverty is deepest, the forces of production are evidently strong enough, if fully employed, to provide for the lowest not merely comfort but luxury. The industrial paralysis, the commercial depression which curses the civilized world today, evidently springs from no lack of productive power. Whatever be the trouble, it is clearly not in the want of ability to produce wealth.

It is this very fact—that want appears where productive power is greatest and the production of wealth is largest—that constitutes the enigma which perplexes the civilized world, and which we are trying to unravel. Evidently the Malthusian theory, which attributes want to the decrease of productive power, will not explain it. That theory is utterly inconsistent with all the facts. It is really a gratuitous attribution to the laws of God of results which, even from this examination, we may infer really spring from the maladjustments of men—an inference which, as we proceed, will become a demonstration.

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org

Geolibertarian

I'm sure Christians and non-Christians alike would agree that a true and sincere follower of Jesus Christ's teachings would -- upon seeing the dismal living conditions of poverty-stricken people -- say:

      "There but for the grace of God go I."

Malthusians and social Darwinists, on the other hand, self-righteously proclaim:

      "There but for the grace of my innate superiority go I."

That's all the eugenics or "neo-Malthusian" movement is really about: a bunch of modern-day aristocrats who have been so rich for so long, and who consequently have become so drunk on their own self-righteous arrogance, they actually believe that the only reason they're that much wealthier than the average person is that their genes are that much "superior" to those of the average person. Nothing to do with the sheer luck of having been born to rich parents, nor with the privileges that allow them to extract ridiculously large amounts wealth and income from the economy while rendering little or no service in return; only with the "superior" genes they were blessed with at birth.

    "Privilege begets in its possessors a feeling and an assertion of superiority." -- Henry George Jr.

Corollary to this is the self-serving belief that the reason why the lower and middle classes exhibit so much stupid behavior is "inferior" genes. Nothing to do with a compulsory school system designed to dumb people down, nor with any of the mass mind control conducted via television, nor with the chemical lobotomizations to which the masses have been criminally and increasingly subjected; only with the "inferior" genes they were cursed with at birth.

    "They who have put out the people's eyes, reproach them of their blindness." -- John Milton

And because the genes of modern-day aristocrats and robber barons are (according to them) so "superior" to everyone else's, they believe they're literally entitled to all of the earth's resources and to the lion's share of whatever wealth is produced by the "inferiors" whom they generously allow to inhabit "their" planet. In that sense, they're like ticks who've come to believe they literally "own" the dog on whose life blood they parasitically feed.

This is why I don't automatically do the "Sieg Heil!" whenever someone utters the term "private property rights," because this term always begs a question that is rarely if ever addressed by the right-wing ideologues and aristocrat wannabes who incessantly invoke it: "private property" in what, and on the basis of what?

As Henry George admirer, Albert Jay Nock, explains here, there's a world of difference between "labor-made property" and "law-made property." Good luck explaining that to a royal libertarian, though.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org

Geolibertarian

http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html

The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics

By Edwin Black
History News Network
11-24-03

Mr. Black is the author of IBM and the Holocaust and the just released War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, from which the following article is drawn.

Hitler and his henchmen victimized an entire continent and exterminated millions in his quest for a co-called "Master Race."

But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn't originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little known, role in the American eugenics movement's campaign for ethnic cleansing.

Eugenics was the racist pseudoscience determined to wipe away all human beings deemed "unfit," preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in twenty-seven states. In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in "colonies," and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilizations were done in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such surgeries.

California was considered an epicenter of the American eugenics movement. During the Twentieth Century's first decades, California's eugenicists included potent but little known race scientists, such as Army venereal disease specialist Dr. Paul Popenoe, citrus magnate and Polytechnic benefactor Paul Gosney, Sacramento banker Charles M. Goethe, as well as members of the California State Board of Charities and Corrections and the University of California Board of Regents.

Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America's most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Stamford, Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics' racist aims.

Stanford president David Starr Jordan originated the notion of "race and blood" in his 1902 racial epistle "Blood of a Nation," in which the university scholar declared that human qualities and conditions such as talent and poverty were passed through the blood.

In 1904, the Carnegie Institution established a laboratory complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island that stockpiled millions of index cards on ordinary Americans, as researchers carefully plotted the removal of families, bloodlines and whole peoples. From Cold Spring Harbor, eugenics advocates agitated in the legislatures of America, as well as the nation's social service agencies and associations.

The Harriman railroad fortune paid local charities, such as the New York Bureau of Industries and Immigration, to seek out Jewish, Italian and other immigrants in New York and other crowded cities and subject them to deportation, trumped up confinement or forced sterilization.

The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.

Much of the spiritual guidance and political agitation for the American eugenics movement came from California's quasi-autonomous eugenic societies, such as the Pasadena-based Human Betterment Foundation and the California branch of the American Eugenics Society, which coordinated much of their activity with the Eugenics Research Society in Long Island. These organizations–which functioned as part of a closely-knit network–published racist eugenic newsletters and pseudoscientific journals, such as Eugenical News and Eugenics, and propagandized for the Nazis.

Eugenics was born as a scientific curiosity in the Victorian age. In 1863, Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, theorized that if talented people only married other talented people, the result would be measurably better offspring. At the turn of the last century, Galton's ideas were imported into the United States just as Gregor Mendel's principles of heredity were rediscovered. American eugenic advocates believed with religious fervor that the same Mendelian concepts determining the color and size of peas, corn and cattle also governed the social and intellectual character of man.

In an America demographically reeling from immigration upheaval and torn by post-Reconstruction chaos, race conflict was everywhere in the early twentieth century. Elitists, utopians and so-called "progressives" fused their smoldering race fears and class bias with their desire to make a better world. They reinvented Galton's eugenics into a repressive and racist ideology. The intent: populate the earth with vastly more of their own socio-economic and biological kind–and less or none of everyone else.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org

Geolibertarian

http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-population-reduction-agenda-for-dummies.html

The Population Reduction Agenda For Dummies

The elite agenda for global population control is not a "conspiracy theory," it is on the record and documented

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, June 26, 2009

There are still large numbers of people amongst the general public, in academia, and especially those who work for the corporate media, who are still in denial about the on-the-record stated agenda for global population reduction, as well as the consequences of this program that we already see unfolding.

We have compiled a compendium of evidence to prove that the elite have been obsessed with eugenics and its modern day incarnation, population control, for well over 100 years and that goal of global population reduction is still in full force to this day.

The World's Elite Are Discussing Population Reduction

As was reported only last month by the London Times, a "secret billionaire club" meeting in early May which took place in New York and was attended by David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Bill Gates and others was focused around "how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world's population".

We questioned establishment media spin which portrayed the attendees as kind-hearted and concerned philanthropists by pointing out that Ted Turner has publicly advocated shocking population reduction programs that would cull the human population by a staggering 95%. He has also called for a Communist-style one child policy to be mandated by governments in the west. In China, the one child policy is enforced by means of taxes on each subsequent child, allied to an intimidation program which includes secret police and "family planning" authorities kidnapping pregnant women from their homes and performing forced abortions.

Of course, Turner completely fails to follow his own rules on how everyone else should live their lives, having five children and owning no less than 2 million acres of land.

In the third world, Turner has contributed literally billions to population reduction, namely through United Nations programs, leading the way for the likes of Bill & Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet (Gates' father has long been a leading board member of Planned Parenthood and a top eugenicist).

The notion that these elitists merely want to slow population growth in order to improve health is a complete misnomer. Slowing the growth of the world's population while also improving its health are two irreconcilable concepts to the elite. Stabilizing world population is a natural byproduct of higher living standards, as has been proven by the stabilization of the white population in the west. Elitists like David Rockefeller have no interest in "slowing the growth of world population" by natural methods, their agenda is firmly rooted in the pseudo-science of eugenics, which is all about "culling" the surplus population via draconian methods.

David Rockefeller's legacy is not derived from a well-meaning "philanthropic" urge to improve health in third world countries, it is born out of a Malthusian drive to eliminate the poor and those deemed racially inferior, using the justification of social Darwinism.

As is documented in Alex Jones' seminal film Endgame, Rockefeller's father, John D. Rockefeller, exported eugenics to Germany from its origins in Britain by bankrolling the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute which later would form a central pillar in the Third Reich's ideology of the Nazi super race. After the fall of the Nazis, top German eugenicists were protected by the allies as the victorious parties fought over who would enjoy their "expertise" in the post-war world.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org

Geolibertarian

If you scratch a limousine liberal, you'll find a sociopathic, Malthusian Nazi underneath. If that sounds like hyperbole, then read the following...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-science-advisor-called-for-planetary-regime-to-enforce-totalitarian-population-control-measures.html

Obama Science Advisor Called For "Planetary Regime" To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures

In 1977 book, John Holdren advocated forced abortions, mass sterilization through food and water supply and mandatory bodily implants to prevent pregnancies

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Saturday, July 11, 2009

President Obama's top science and technology advisor John P. Holdren co-authored a 1977 book in which he advocated the formation of a "planetary regime" that would use a "global police force" to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children.

The concepts outlined in Holdren's 1977 book Ecoscience, which he co-authored with close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, were so shocking that a February 2009 Front Page Magazine story on the subject was largely dismissed as being outlandish because people couldn't bring themselves to believe that it could be true.

It was only when another Internet blog obtained the book and posted screenshots that the awful truth about what Holdren had actually committed to paper actually began to sink in.

This issue is more prescient than ever because Holdren and his colleagues are now at the forefront of efforts to combat "climate change" through similarly insane programs focused around geoengineering the planet. As we reported in April, Holdren recently advocated "Large-scale geoengineering projects designed to cool the Earth," such as "shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays," which many have pointed out is already occurring via chemtrails.

Ecoscience discusses a number of ways in which the global population could be reduced to combat what the authors see as mankind's greatest threat – overpopulation. In each case, the proposals are couched in sober academic rhetoric, but the horrifying foundation of what Holdren and his co-authors are advocating is clear. These proposals include;

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org

Geolibertarian

http://www.infowars.com/billions-of-people-expected-to-die-under-current-codex-alimentarius-guidelines/

Billions of People Expected to Die Under Current Codex Alimentarius Guidelines
 
Barbara Minton
Natural News
July 21, 2009

Your right to eat healthy food and use supplements of your choice is rapidly vanishing, but every effort has been made to keep you in the dark about the coming nutricide. Codex Alimentarius is scheduled for full global implementation on December 31, 2009, and not a word has been spoken in main stream media about this threat to humanity. Yet, according to the projections of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), a minimum of 3 billion people will die from the Codex mandated vitamin and mineral guideline alone. As the clock ticks toward this irrevocable deadline, the Natural Solutions Foundation (NSF) and its medical director, Dr. Rima Laibow, are feverishly working to change Codex guidelines. They need your help.

Former Nazi is father of contemporary Codex

Codex is the enemy of everyone except those who will profit from it, according to Dr. Laibow. She points to its association with those who committed crimes during the Nazi regime. At the end of World War II, the Nuremberg tribunal judged Nazis who had committed horrendous crimes against humanity and sentenced them to prison terms. One of those found guilty was the president of the megalithic corporation I.G. Farben, Hermann Schmitz. His company was the largest chemical manufacturing enterprise in the world, and had extraordinary political and economic power and influence with the Hitlerian Nazi state. Farben produced the gas used in the Nazi gas chambers, and the steal for the railroads built to transport people to their deaths.

While serving his prison term, Schmitz looked for an alternative to brute force for controlling people and realized that people could be controlled through their food supply. When he got out of prison, he went to his friends at the United Nations (UN) and laid out a plan to take over the control of food worldwide. A trade commission called Codex Alimentarius (Latin for food code) was re-created under the guise of it being a consumer protection commission. But Codex was never in the business of protecting people. It has always been about money and profits at the expense of people.

In 1962, the timetable was set for Codex to be fully implemented on a global level by December 31, 2009. Under Codex, committees were established to create guidelines on such topics as fish and fisheries, fats and oils, fruits and vegetables, ground nuts, nutrition, food for specialized uses, and vitamins and minerals. There were 27 committees in all, creating a huge bureaucracy. Under Codex there are over 4,000 guidelines and regulations on everything that can be put into your mouth with the exception of pharmaceuticals which are not regulated by Codex.

Codex is a weapon being used to reduce the level of nutrition worldwide

Codex is an industry dominated regulation setting organization, and as such has no legal standing. Participation in Codex is said to be voluntary. But Codex has risen to the level of de facto legal standing because Codex is administered by the WHO and FAO. They fund it and run it at the request of the UN. Since the WHO and FAO are supposed to be about health, there is conflict of interest. The committees of Codex work up guidelines, rules and regulations, and present them to a Codex commission for ratification. Once they are ratified and approved by consensus, they become mandatory for any country that is a member of the WHO.

Codex was accepted when the WTO was formed in 1994 as a means of harmonizing food standards globally for easy trade between countries. As a result, countries must harmonize with Codex if they want to have any standing in a trade dispute. When disputes arise and countries are pulled in to WTO, the one that is Codex compliant automatically wins, regardless of the merits of its case.

Dr. Laiblow sees codex as a weapon to make every nation scurry to become compliant to the decline in nutritional standards. She points out that compliance in the U.S. will mark the end of its consumer protection laws. Codex will not serve consumers. Codex will serve the interests of the medical, pharmaceutical, biotechnology, chemical, and big agricultural industries.

Under Codex, nutrients are classified as poisons

The Dietary Substances Health and Education Act (DSHEA), was signed into law in 1994 for the purpose of ensuring that safe and appropriately labeled products would remain available to those who wanted to use them. In the findings associated with this law, Congress stated that there may be a positive relationship between sound dietary practice and good health, and a connection between dietary supplement use, reduced health-care expenses, and disease prevention. Under DSHEA, nutrients and herbs are classified as food. There is no upper limit set, and access is freely given. Americans are allowed to have any nutrients they want, because under English common law, anything that is not expressly forbidden is permitted.

Codex, on the other hand, is based on Napoleonic law under which anything not expressly permitted is forbidden. Therefore, only what is expressly allowed under Codex will be permitted, and everything else is forbidden. In 1994, the same year DSHEA was signed, Codex had nutrients declared to be toxic and poisonous. And as poisons, they claimed people must be protected from them through the use of toxicology and risk assessment, under which scientists test small doses on animals until they are able to discern an impact. They then take the first sign of the most minimal impact and divide this amount by 100 to establish a safety margin required from these poisons. This means that the largest dose of any nutrient allowed under Codex is 1/100th of the amount shown to produce the first discernable impact.

Nutrients allowed under codex are limited to those on the positive list, expected to contain only 18 nutrients, one of them being fluoride. Dr. Laibow points out that although fluoride has no biological benefit whatsoever, it does make people complacent.

[Continued...]

---------------------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z6lZ8q3Z_o (Nutricide - Criminalizing Natural Health, Vitamins, and Herbs)
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org

Geolibertarian

From Satyagraha at Prison Planet Forum...

Please note: this is the JANUARY/FEBRUARY Issue of the CFR's propaganda rag "Foreign Affairs".
If you still think Eugenics is 'history' - read this; it basically outlines their view of the future of the 'aging' population in the US; including a suggestion that people over retirement age might want to move to 3rd world countries, to make room (and lessen the 'burden' of healthcare) for the 3rd world younger 'working' population to take up residence.

And no wonder the feds won't enforce immigration laws...

It's because they want we the people to GTFOut of the US.



























"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org

Geolibertarian

http://www.prisonplanet.com/msnbc-in-cover-up-of-manifestly-provable-population-control-plan.html

MSNBC In Cover-Up Of Manifestly Provable Population Control Plan

Agenda to reduce global population by at least 80 per cent is not a "conspiracy theory," it's a publicly admitted goal of the elite

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, June 16, 2010

As part of his obsessive drive to smear anti-big government activists as insanely paranoid and dangerous radicals, Chris Matthews and his guest, establishment neo-lib David Corn, previewed tonight's "Rise of the New Right" hit piece by claiming that the elite's agenda to enact dictatorial population control measures was a "conspiracy theory".

As we have documented on numerous occasions, while Matthews points fingers at his political adversaries for preparing to engage in violence, the only real violence we're witnessing out on the streets is being committed by Obama supporters, MSNBC thugs and other leftists who refuse to tolerate free speech that counters their propaganda.

However, MSNBC's goal is not just to demonize the Tea Party and anti-big government activists as dangerous radicals as an avenue through which to sick the police state on them and crush their free speech, they're also desperate to prevent Americans from lending any credence to what people like Alex Jones have to say by acting as gatekeepers to prevent such information from becoming mainstream.

A perfect example of an issue that Matthews and his ilk want to sideline is the manifestly provable fact that elitists have for decades publicly stated their desire to reduce global population by around 80 per cent and as much as 99 per cent.

During MSNBC's Hardball show on Tuesday, Corn characterized the notion that "there is a planetary elite that literally has a secret plan to kill 80 to 99 percent of the population," as a conspiracy theory.

Watch the clip.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaelnOU7OkU

Corn's role in covering-up the depopulation agenda is unsurprising given his habitual tactic of trying to discredit anyone who exposes government criminality and corruption. One critic labeled Corn as someone who serves, "As a Neo-Con-lite version of someone who dismisses those who have investigated the crimes of the U.S. government," in reference to how he tried to undermine the work of the late Gary Webb, an award-winning investigative journalist who exposed the CIA's involvement in the drug trade.

Despite Corn's claims to the contrary, the global elite have been forthright, public, and unashamedly enthusiastic about their open intention to cull at least 80 per cent of humanity in the name of saving the planet.

There are still large numbers of people amongst the general public, in academia, and especially those who work for the corporate media, who are still in denial about the on-the-record stated agenda for global population reduction, as well as the consequences of this program that we already see unfolding.

We have compiled a compendium of evidence to prove that the elite have been obsessed with eugenics and its modern day incarnation, population control, for well over 100 years and that goal of global population reduction is still in full force to this day.

The World's Elite Are Discussing Population Reduction

During a recent TED conference, an organization which is sponsored by one of the largest toxic waste polluters on the planet, Gates told the audience that vaccines need to be used to reduce world population figures in order to solve global warming and lower CO2 emissions to almost zero.

Stating that the global population was heading towards 9 billion, Gates said, "If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services (abortion), we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 per cent."

Quite how an improvement in health care and vaccines that supposedly save lives would lead to a lowering in global population is an oxymoron, unless Gates is referring to vaccines that sterilize people, which is precisely the same method advocated in White House science advisor John P. Holdren's 1977 textbook Ecoscience, which calls for a dictatorial "planetary regime" to enforce draconian measures of population reduction via all manner of oppressive techniques, including sterilization.

Gates' eugenicist zeal is shared by his fellow Bilderberg elitists, many of whom have advocated draconian policies of population control in their own public speeches and writings. Indeed, the Rockefeller family funded eugenics research in Germany through the Kaiser-Wilhelm Institutes in Berlin and Munich. The Rockefeller Foundation praised Hitler's sterilization program in Nazi Germany. David Rockefeller attended the first Bilderberg meeting in 1954 and is now the head of Bilderberg's "steering committee".

A joint World Health Organization-Rockefeller inoculation program against tetanus in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines in the early 1990's was in fact a covert trial on using vaccines to medically abort women's babies.

"Comite Pro Vida de Mexico, a Roman Catholic lay organization, became suspicious of the motives behind the WHO program and decided to test numerous vials of the vaccine and found them to contain human Chorionic Gonadotrophin, or hCG," writes historian F. William Engdahl in his article, Bill Gates And Neo-Eugenics: Vaccines To Reduce Population. "That was a curious component for a vaccine designed to protect people against lock-jaw arising from infection with rusty nail wounds or other contact with certain bacteria found in soil. The tetanus disease was indeed, also rather rare. It was also curious because hCG was a natural hormone needed to maintain a pregnancy. However, when combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier, it stimulated formation of antibodies against hCG, rendering a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy, a form of concealed abortion. Similar reports of vaccines laced with hCG hormones came from the Philippines and Nicaragua."

Gates recently announced that he would be funding a sterilization program that would use sharp blasts of ultrasound directed against a man's scrotum to render him infertile for six months. "The foundation has funded a new "sweat-triggered vaccine delivery" program based on nanoparticles penetrating human skin. The technology is described as a way to "...develop nanoparticles that penetrate the skin through hair follicles and burst upon contact with human sweat to release vaccines," writes health researcher Mike Adams.

As was reported last year by the London Times, a "secret billionaire club" meeting in early May 2009 which took place in New York and was attended by David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Bill Gates and others was focused around "how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world's population".

We questioned establishment media spin which portrayed the attendees as kind-hearted and concerned philanthropists by pointing out that Ted Turner has publicly advocated shocking population reduction programs that would cull the human population by a staggering 95%. He has also called for a Communist-style one child policy to be mandated by governments in the west. In China, the one child policy is enforced by means of taxes on each subsequent child, allied to an intimidation program which includes secret police and "family planning" authorities kidnapping pregnant women from their homes and performing forced abortions.

Of course, Turner completely fails to follow his own rules on how everyone else should live their lives, having five children and owning no less than 2 million acres of land.

In the third world, Turner has contributed literally billions to population reduction, namely through United Nations programs, leading the way for the likes of Bill & Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet (Gates' father has long been a leading board member of Planned Parenthood and a top eugenicist).

The notion that these elitists merely want to slow population growth in order to improve health is a complete misnomer. Slowing the growth of the world's population while also improving its health are two irreconcilable concepts to the elite. Stabilizing world population is a natural byproduct of higher living standards, as has been proven by the stabilization of the white population in the west. Elitists like David Rockefeller have no interest in "slowing the growth of world population" by natural methods, their agenda is firmly rooted in the pseudo-science of eugenics, which is all about "culling" the surplus population via draconian methods.

David Rockefeller's legacy is not derived from a well-meaning "philanthropic" urge to improve health in third world countries, it is born out of a Malthusian drive to eliminate the poor and those deemed racially inferior, using the justification of social Darwinism.

As is documented in Alex Jones' seminal film Endgame, Rockefeller's father, John D. Rockefeller, exported eugenics to Germany from its origins in Britain by bankrolling the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute which later would form a central pillar in the Third Reich's ideology of the Nazi super race. After the fall of the Nazis, top German eugenicists were protected by the allies as the victorious parties fought over who would enjoy their "expertise" in the post-war world.

As Dr. Len Horowitz writes,

    "In the 1950s, the Rockefellers reorganized the U.S. eugenics movement in their own family offices, with spinoff population-control and abortion groups. The Eugenics Society changed its name to the Society for the Study of Social Biology, its current name."

    "The Rockefeller Foundation had long financed the eugenics movement in England, apparently repaying Britain for the fact that British capital and an Englishman-partner had started old John D. Rockefeller out in his Oil Trust. In the 1960s, the Eugenics Society of England adopted what they called Crypto-eugenics, stating in their official reports that they would do eugenics through means and instruments not labeled as eugenics."

    "With support from the Rockefellers, the Eugenics Society (England) set up a sub-committee called the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which for 12 years had no other address than the Eugenics Society. This, then, is the private, international apparatus which has set the world up for a global holocaust, under the UN flag."

In the latter half of the 20th century, eugenics merely changed its face to become known as "population control". This was crystallized in National Security Study Memorandum 200, a 1974 geopolitical strategy document prepared by Rockefeller's intimate friend and fellow Bilderberg member Henry Kissinger, which targeted thirteen countries for massive population reduction by means of creating food scarcity, sterilization and war.


Henry Kissinger: In the now declassified 1974 document, National
Security Memorandum 200, Kissinger outlines the plan to use food
scarcity as a weapon in order to achieve population reduction in
lesser-developed countries.


The document, declassified in 1989, identified 13 countries that were of special interest to U.S. geopolitical objectives and outlined why population growth, and particularly that of young people who were seen as a revolutionary threat to U.S. corporations, was a potential roadblock to achieving these objectives. The countries named were India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Colombia.

The study outlined how civil disturbances affecting the "smooth flow of needed materials" would be less likely to occur "under conditions of slow or zero population growth."

"Development of a worldwide political and popular commitment to population stabilization is fundamental to any effective strategy. This requires the support and commitment of key LDC leaders. This will only take place if they clearly see the negative impact of unrestricted population growth and believe it is possible to deal with this question through governmental action," states the document.

The document called for integrating "family planning" (otherwise known as abortion) with routine health services for the purposes of "curbing the numbers of LDC people," (lesser-developed countries).

The report shockingly outlines how withholding food could be used as a means of punishment for lesser-developed countries who do not act to reduce their population, essentially using food as a weapon for a political agenda by creating mass starvation in under-developed countries.

"The allocation of scarce PL480 (food) resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production," states the document.

Later in the document, the idea of enforcing "mandatory programs" by using food as "an instrument of national power" is presented.

The document states that the program will be administered through the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), thereby "avoiding the danger that some LDC leaders will see developed-country pressures for family planning as a form of economic or racial imperialism; this could well create a serious backlash."

As Jean Guilfoyle writes,

    "NSSM 200 was a statement composed after the fact. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the U.S. had worked diligently behind the scenes to advance the population-control agenda at the United Nations, contributing the initial funding of $1 million.

    "A Department of State telegram, dated July 1969, reported the support of John D. Rockefeller III, among others, for the appointment of Rafael Salas of the Philippines as senior officer to co-ordinate and administer the UN population program. The administrator of the UN Development Program reported confidentially that he preferred someone such as Salas who had the 'advantage of color, religion (Catholic) and conviction.'"

A comprehensive outline of what is contained in the National Security Memorandum document can be read at: http://www.theinterim.com/july98/20nssm.html

Evidence of the actual consequences of this program can be found with the link between vaccines and sterilization, as well as other diseases such as cancer, in both the west and the third world.

In the following video clips, women of the Akha tribe who live predominately in Thailand, describe how they miscarried shortly after taking vaccines when they were eight months pregnant. The videos below highlight the efforts of supporters of the Akha tribe to get answers from the University of Oregon and the United Nations, who provided funding for the vaccination and sterilization programs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB0FOjzvjiA (Akha Vaccinations and Miscarriages)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dutK67AwSg (Akha Forced Vaccinations)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGHdR7OL_Fg (University of Oregon gave sterilization PhD)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIyDAVgOW5A (UNESCO works with missionaries who destroy Akha culture and language)

Further evidence of the link between vaccinations, birth control, cancer and other diseases can be researched here.

In the 21st century, the eugenics movement has changed its stripes once again, manifesting itself through the global carbon tax agenda and the notion that having too many children or enjoying a reasonably high standard of living is destroying the planet through global warming, creating the pretext for further regulation and control over every facet of our lives.

As we have tirelessly documented, the elite's drive for population control is not based around a benign philanthropic urge to improve living standards, it is firmly routed in eugenics, racial hygiene and fascist thinking.

According to the The London Times report, the secret billionaire cabal, with its interest in population reduction, has been dubbed 'The Good Club' by insiders. This couldn't be further from the truth. Anyone who takes the time to properly research the origins of the "population control" movement will come to understand that the Rockefeller-Turner-Gates agenda for drastic population reduction, which is now clearly manifesting itself through real environmental crises like chemtrails, genetically modified food, tainted vaccines and other skyrocketing diseases such as cancer, has its origins in the age-old malevolent elitist agenda to cull the human "chattel" as one would do to rodents or any other species deemed a nuisance by the central planning authorities.

Sterilization And Eugenics Returns In Popular Culture

We are now seeing the return of last century's eugenicist movement through the popular promotion of sterilization as a method of birth control.

A popular women's magazine in the UK recently featured an article entitled, Young, Single and Sterilized, in which women in their 20's discussed why they had undergone an operation to prevent them from ever having children. The article is little more than PR for a "women's charity" called Marie Stopes International, an organization that carries out abortions and sterilizations and was founded by a Nazi eugenicist who advocated compulsory sterilization of non-whites and "those of bad character".

In the article, sterilization is lauded as an "excellent method of birth control" by Dr. Patricia Lohr of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service.

The article includes an advertisement that encourages women to seek "more information about sterilization" by contacting Marie Stopes International. We read that, "Over the past year, a quarter of the women who booked a sterilization consultation with women's charity Marie Stopes were aged 30 or under."

Marie Stopes was a feminist who opened the first birth control clinic in Britain in 1921 as well as being Nazi sympathizer and a eugenicist who advocated that non-whites and the poor be sterilized.

Stopes, a racist and an anti-Semite, campaigned for selective breeding to achieve racial purity, a passion she shared with Adolf Hitler in adoring letters and poems that she sent the leader of the Third Reich.

Stopes also attended the Nazi congress on population science in Berlin in 1935, while calling for the "compulsory sterilization of the diseased, drunkards, or simply those of bad character." Stopes acted on her appalling theories by concentrating her abortion clinics in poor areas so as to reduce the birth rate of the lower classes.

Stopes left most of her estate to the Eugenics Society, an organization that shared her passion for racial purity and still exists today under the new name The Galton Institute. The society has included members such as Charles Galton Darwin (grandson of the evolutionist), Julian Huxley and Margaret Sanger.


Marie Stopes, the Nazi and pioneering eugenicist
who sent love letters to Hitler, honored recently by
the Royal Mail.


Ominously, The Galton Institute website promotes its support and funding initiative for "the practical delivery of family planning facilities, especially in developing countries." In other words, the same organization that once advocated sterilizing black people to achieve racial purity in the same vein as the Nazis is now bankrolling abortions of black babies in the third world.

While the issue of abortion is an entirely different argument, most would agree that no matter how extreme it sounds, a woman has the right to sterilize herself if she so chooses, just as a man has the right to a vasectomy.

But when a magazine aimed primarily at young women all but encourages girls as young as 20 to have their fallopian tubes tied in order to prevent the "irritation" of children entering their lives and then advertises an organization founded by a Nazi eugenicist that can perform the operation, something has to be amiss.

Even more shocking than this is the fact that the majority of people in the UK routinely express their support for society's "undesirables" to be forcibly sterilized by the state, harking back to a time when such a thing was commonplace right up to the 1970's in some areas of America and Europe.

As we highlighted at the time, respondents to a Daily Mail article about Royal Mail honoring Marie Stopes by using her image on a commemorative stamp were not disgusted at Royal Mail for paying homage to a racist Nazi eugenicist, but were merely keen to express their full agreement that those deemed not to be of pure genetic stock or of the approved character should be forcibly sterilized and prevented from having children.

"A lot of people should be sterilized, IMO. It's still true today," wrote one.

"Just imagine what a stable, well-ordered society we'd have if compulsory sterilisation had been adopted years ago for the socially undesirable," states another respondent, calling for a "satellite-carried sterilisation ray" to be installed in space to zap the undesirables.

Shockingly, another compares sterilization and genocide of those deemed inferior to the breeding and culling of farmyard animals, and says that such a move is necessary to fight overpopulation and global warming. Here is the comment in full from "Karen" in Wales;

    We breed farm animals to produce the best possible stock and kill them when they have fulfilled their purpose. We inter-breed pedigree animals to produce extremes that leave them open to ill-health and early death. It is only religion that says humans are not animals. The reality is that we are simply intelligent, mammalian primates.

    The world population of humans has increased from 2 billion to 6.5 billion in the last 50 years. This planet can support 2 billion humans comfortably. 6.5 billion humans use too many resources and leads to global warming, climate change and a very uncertain future for all of us – humans and all other life sharing this planet with us.

    Marie Stopes believed in population control and in breeding the best possible humans. So did Hitler. Neither of the aims are bad in themselves. It is how they are achieved that is the problem. The fact that we still remember Marie Stopes is an achievement in itself.

The nature of these comments is so fundamentally sick and twisted that one is tempted to dismiss them as a joke – but these people are deadly serious. Presumably they would also agree with China's one child policy, which is routinely enforced by intimidation as young pregnant women are grabbed off the streets by state goons and taken to hospitals where forced abortions are carried out.

Now with popular women's magazines advising women in their 20's where they can go to be sterilized and ensure a lifetime of partying and carefree sex, it's no surprise that experts predict that by 2010 one in four western women will be child free for life.

The yearning to have children is the most beautiful, natural and innate emotion either a man or a woman can possibly experience. That is not to say that it's always wrong for some people not to have children – extreme circumstances can justify such a decision. But to have yourself sterilized because you find children to be an "irritant" and want to live a life free of responsibility or consequences is an awful message to send to young women, especially in the sex-saturated entertainment culture that we are now forced to endure.

Furthermore, the outright promotion of Marie Stopes International as 'the place to go' to get sterilized if you're under 30 is stomach-churning considering the fact that the origins of this organization can be found in Nazi ideology, racist and backward early 20th century eugenics and a long-standing agenda to cull the population of undesirables, an abhorrent belief still held by elites across the planet today.

Genocidal Population Reduction Programs Embraced By Academia

One such individual who embraces the notion that humans are a virus that should be wiped out en masse for the good of mother earth is Dr. Eric R. Pianka, an American biologist based at the University of Texas in Austin.


Dr Erik Pianka, the American biologist who
advocated the mass genocide of 90% of the
human race and was applauded by his peers.


During a speech to the Texas Academy of Science in March 2006, Pianka advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the world's population through the airborne ebola virus. The reaction from scores of top scientists and professors in attendance was not one of shock or revulsion – they stood and applauded Pianka's call for mass genocide.

Pianka's speech was ordered to be kept off the record before it began as cameras were turned away and hundreds of students, scientists and professors sat in attendance.

Saying the public was not ready to hear the information presented, Pianka began by exclaiming, "We're no better than bacteria!", as he jumped into a doomsday malthusian rant about overpopulation destroying the earth.

Standing in front of a slide of human skulls, Pianka gleefully advocated airborne ebola as his preferred method of exterminating the necessary 90% of humans, choosing it over AIDS because of its faster kill period. Ebola victims suffer the most tortuous deaths imaginable as the virus kills by liquefying the internal organs. The body literally dissolves as the victim writhes in pain bleeding from every orifice.



Pianka then cited the Peak Oil fraud as another reason to initiate global genocide. "And the fossil fuels are running out," he said, "so I think we may have to cut back to two billion, which would be about one-third as many people."

Later, the scientist welcomed the potential devastation of the avian flu virus and spoke glowingly of China's enforced one child policy, before zestfully commenting, "We need to sterilize everybody on the Earth."

At the end of Pianka's speech the audience erupted not to a chorus of boos and hisses but to a raucous reception of applause and cheers as audience members clambered to get close to the scientist to ask him follow up questions. Pianka was later presented with a distinguished scientist award by the Academy. Pianka is no crackpot. He has given lectures to prestigious universities worldwide.

Indeed, the notion that the earth's population needs to be drastically reduced is a belief shared almost unanimously by academics across the western hemisphere.

In 2002, The Melbourne Age reported on newly uncovered documents detailing Nobel Peace Prize winning microbiologist Sir Macfarlane Burnet's plan to help the Australian government develop biological weapons for use against Indonesia and other "overpopulated" countries of South-East Asia.

From the article;

    Sir Macfarlane recommended in a secret report in 1947 that biological and chemical weapons should be developed to target food crops and spread infectious diseases. His key advisory role on biological warfare was uncovered by Canberra historian Philip Dorling in the National Archives in 1998.

    "Specifically to the Australian situation, the most effective counter-offensive to threatened invasion by overpopulated Asiatic countries would be directed towards the destruction by biological or chemical means of tropical food crops and the dissemination of infectious disease capable of spreading in tropical but not under Australian conditions," Sir Macfarlane said.

    The Victorian-born immunologist, who headed the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, won the Nobel prize for medicine in 1960. He died in 1985 but his theories on immunity and "clonal selection" provided the basis for modern biotechnology and genetic engineering.

Controversy surrounding the comments of another darling of scientific academia, geneticist James Watson, who told a Sunday Times newspaper interviewer that black people are inherently less intelligent than whites, should come as no surprise to those who are aware of Watson's role in pushing the dark pseudo-science of eugenics.

Watson told the interviewer that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really".

Watson was the Head of the Human Genome Project until 1992 and is best known for his contribution to the discovery of DNA, an achievement that won him the Nobel Peace prize in 1962.

But what most people are unaware of is the fact that Watson has played an integral role in advancing the legitimacy of the eugenics/population reduction movement for decades.

Watson is a strong proponent of genetic screening, a test to determine whether a couple is at increased risk of having a baby with a hereditary genetic disorder.

Since such screening obviously increases the rate of abortions of babies considered "imperfect," many have slammed its introduction as nothing more than a camouflage for eugenics or "voluntary eugenics" as British philosophy professor Philip Kitcher labeled it.

Watson's advocacy of genetic engineering stretched to his call for the "really stupid" bottom 10% of people to be "cured".

Watson even urged woman to be given carte blanche to abort babies should tests determine that they are likely to be homosexual, despite the vast body of evidence indicating homosexuality is a result of environment rather than genetic code.

The geneticist has gone so far as to promote the idea of creating a kind of Nazi super-race, where the attractive and physically strong are genetically manufactured under laboratory conditions.

"People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great," said Watson.

Dr. Erik Pianka's doomsday warning of the population bomb, for which he presented no evidence whatsoever, is complete pseudo-science. Populations in developed countries are declining and only in third world countries are they expanding dramatically. Industrialization itself levels out population trends and aside from this, world population models routinely show that the earth's population will level out at 9 billion in 2050 and slowly decline after that. "The population of the most developed countries will remain virtually unchanged at 1.2 billion until 2050," states a United Nations report. Conservation International's own study revealed that 46% of the earth's surface was an untouched wilderness, that is land areas not including sea.

Think about the magnitude of Pianka's statements. He wants to kill nine out of every ten members of your family and he wants to kill them in one of the most painful and agonizing ways imaginable.

If Pianka, or 'The Lizard Man' as he likes to be called, is so vehement in embracing the necessity of culling the human population will he step forward to be the first one in line? Will he sacrifice his children for the so-called greater good of the planet? We somehow doubt it.

Will the students and other top academics who so enthusiastically greeted his ideas go home and kill themselves for the cause if it is so righteous?

It was noted how Pianka presented his argument with the kind of glee that you would see in a demented serial killer before dispatching his victim. This is an attitude we have encountered again and again. To discuss killing 90% of the world's population via a horrific plague is sick enough within itself but you would at least expect its advocates to be serious and sober in their approach to the subject. The opposite seems to be the case, where the subject is aired in a context of lighthearted lip-smacking and hand-rubbing as if the individual was about to sink his teeth into a juicy T-bone steak.

This window gives us a clear view of exactly why these deranged bastards encompass this ideology. They love death and their lives are motivated by dark influences very different to you or I.

Throughout history, elites have invented justifications for barbaric practices as a cover for their true agenda of absolute power and control over populations.

More Examples Of Population Reduction & Eugenics

From 1932 until 1972, the Tuskegee Study Group (pictured below) deliberately infected poor black communities in Alabama with syphilis without their consent and withheld treatment as the diseased rampaged through the town killing families.

In 1951 the Israeli government used US government provided technology to irradiate 100,000 Jewish children in a mass atomic experiment with an entire generation of Sephardi youths used as guinea pigs. 6,000 died immediately after the experiments and the rest suffered for the rest of their lives with debilitating illnesses and cancer.



As we have documented, members of the elite are quite open in their feverish lust to commit mass murder and ethnic cleansing. In the foreword to his biography If I Were An Animal, Prince Philip, another closet Nazi, wrote, "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."

This is just one of many on the record statements where Prince Philip has advocated his desire to "cull" the surplus human population. In another speech, he even lambasted the fact that lives were saved in Sri Lanka through Malaria treatments because it meant there were three times as many mouths to feed.

One of the most chilling admissions of the elitists' deadly intent to forcibly commit genocide to reduce global population came from the lips of the late Jacques Cousteau, the sainted environmental icon. In an interview with the UNESCO Courier for November 1991 the famed oceanographer said:

"The damage people cause to the planet is a function of demographics — it is equal to the degree of development. One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangaladeshes. The damage is directly linked to consumption. Our society is turning toward more and needless consumption. It is a vicious circle that I compare to cancer...."

"This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it."

It is important to stress that this essay merely scratches the surface of both the stated goals of global population reduction from elitists and insiders, along with concrete examples of these programs being carried out. We could not possibly list them all in one article because this would take a book the length of an encyclopedia.

Further information is covered in Alex Jones's Endgame, a pertinent segment from which can be viewed below.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veHhcxQjZ2w

Listed below is a compendium of quotes from elitists who have time and again expressed their intent to see humanity culled by 80 per cent or more. Some come from the progenitors of the eugenicist movement and others from elitists and organizations who are still very much active and in positions of influence.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org

Geolibertarian

http://www.infowars.com/food-and-depopulation-rockefeller-family/

Food and Depopulation: Rockefeller Family

Cassandra Anderson
Infowars.com
June 8, 2010

(Part 1 of 4)

The purpose of this article is to give a brief outline of how the elites, and the Rockefellers in particular, are using food as a weapon.

Since the Rockefeller family came to power (especially after gaining a monopoly with Standard Oil) they have manipulated our government into ruining our financial system by way of the Federal Reserve, energy through oil dependency and food with GMOs (Genetically Engineered Organisms).  The intention is to rob us blind and kill us.  It's time to wake up.


Bill Gates has teamed with the Rockefellers, Monsanto and the
government of Norway in the Doomsday Seed Vault, in which organic
seed is stored for some vague anticipated world catastrophe.


The official name of this program is Agenda 21 Sustainable Development.

It the overarching blueprint for depopulation and total control over America and the rest of the world. There is no question that Americans are targeted for depopulation: GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) food has saturated American farmlands. GMOs are dangerous and the proliferation of corn crops (used as sweetener, animal feed, processed food, etc) in America is shortening our life spans. Our water is polluted, containing over 60,000 chemicals, most of which have never been tested for safety. Our air is toxic, and the US is one of the most targeted areas for chemtrails. This is just the tip of the iceberg, the things we know about. The focus of this article is revealing the link between the Rockefellers and their intended use of food as a weapon, which is more powerful than military domination and energy control.

While Agenda 21 was introduced in 1992, the elite collectivists, lead by the Rockefellers, have been pushing population control on America and the world for generations. In 1992, this depopulation and control policy was modernized and given a name: Agenda 21, or the Agenda for the 21st century. The premise for depopulation and control is to preserve the environment. One would have to be an idiot to disregard environmental concerns, however, the solutions that Agenda 21 offers fail to address the real issues. The primary tools that Agenda 21 Sustainable Development uses are global warming lies, water shortages (like the man made drought in California, which also causes food shortages) and the Endangered Species Act (designed to take away private property, which is the base of wealth creation and freedom).

Food control goes hand in hand with population control. The eugenics (improvement of humans through selective breeding, often using brutal methods like genocide and forced sterilization) program of the Third Reich in Nazi Germany was revealed after WWII. Obviously, people did not have a high opinion of eugenics, so, according to William Engdahl, author of "Seeds of Destruction", the Rockefeller strategists shifted their profile to champion the causes of the environment, resource scarcity and overpopulation. The policy of population control remained, despite the illusion of caring concern- which is simply marketing; the word eugenics has been renamed as "human genetics". This scheme for improving their image worked for them before, using "philanthropy" and tax-free foundations, when the Rockefellers became very unpopular following the Ludlow Massacre.

The Ludlow Massacre took place at a Rockefeller owned coal mine in Colorado. The mines were notoriously unsafe, which caused many deaths and the workers were paid in scrip (currency substitute that is often credit), to be spent at the Rockefeller company stores. When the workers went on strike, they were evicted from their homes and lived with their families in tent cities. Then they were provoked through murder, machine gun spray, harassment, etc, in order to goad the workers into violence. This was used as a pretext to get the National Guard involved; the state militia opened fire on the tent cities, resulting in up to 53 deaths, 13 of whom were women and children. So, the Rockefellers created a propaganda campaign to polish their tarnished image through tax exempt foundations. These foundations are hardly philanthropic; they are used to fund the destruction of America (please read this excellent interview transcript by G. Edward Griffin to discover the true nature of tax exempt foundations).

Why do you think Senator Jay Rockefeller is pushing so hard to censor the Internet?

Today, the Rockefellers use coercive population control tactics and food as a weapon through a front organization, CGIAR (Consultative Group on Agricultural Resources) as the Rockefellers are trying to distance themselves from public- just like the Rothschild clan has done. Engdahl reports that CGIAR operates under the umbrella of the UN World Bank, and its primary focus is the spread of GMO crops. CGIAR was created by the Rockefellers and the Ford Foundation, along with the UN World Bank in 1971 with $350 million dollars a year in funding.

The Rockefeller's "Green Revolution", which was the implementation of new farming methods in developing countries, like Mexico, India and Asia, increased crop yields, but ended in disaster; the program lasted from the 1940's- 1970's. The "Green Revolution", funded by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations and the US government, was a farming experiment with these results:

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org

Geolibertarian

http://www.infowars.com/food-and-depopulation-monsantos-monopoly/

Food and Depopulation: Monsanto's Monopoly

Cassandra Anderson
Infowars.com
June 10, 2010

(Part 2 of 4)

A monopoly is exclusive control of a commodity or service that makes it possible to manipulate prices.  This is accomplished through governmental regulations used to enforce the monopoly.  The way to break a monopoly is to remove those laws.  This is simple, but not easy in the case of Monsanto, because the roots extend to international, federal, state, and local government regulations.  Monopoly owners corner a market by taking control of the resource AND preventing others from using the resource.


Monsanto's monopoly is firmly entrenched within the
US government.


The famous robber baron JD Rockefeller refined this method of monopolization with Standard Oil; he created a cartel (an agreement between companies to avoid competition) with the companies he could not buy or force out of business through extraordinarily corrupt business practices. Competition creates a free market; JD Rockefeller is famous for saying, "Competition is a sin." Of course, the Rockefellers have an enormous stake in biotechnology and the Rockefeller Foundation funded the biology centers and research that led to the creation of GMOs; F. William Engdahl's book, "Seeds of Destruction", is highly recommended for the complete details.

This article is intended as a brief sketch to explore the expanse of the roots of Monsanto & understand the machinery of a monopoly, therefore, the science and health issues behind GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) will not be covered in detail. GMOs are created by injecting virus and/ or bacteria into a plant or animal cell, along with the DNA of life forms that would never mate in nature (like spiders and goats).

There is extensive proof that GMOs are detrimental to health. Monsanto's business practices are corrupt- for example, there have been cases where seed sold as non- GMO were actually contaminated. GMOs are not limited to food; industrial chemicals, plastic and drugs can be grown in plants like corn, and there is an overwhelming chance that you have ingested these chemicals and drugs, if you live in America. Cross pollination is rampant and is an enormous problem, thereby polluting non-GMO farms and endangering America's food supply. Most Americans are unaware that up to 75% of their daily diet is comprised of GMO food.

This is all part of the United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development depopulation program (remember that the Rockefellers have overwhelming influence with the UN). Monsanto promises their seeds are more prolific and can feed more people, but the opposite has often proven to be the truth. The most shocking part of this is that the USDA co-owns a patent, along with Monsanto, on a gene (the Terminator) that can destroy food and be used as a bioweapon.

Monsanto's monopoly is firmly entrenched within the US government:

1. US Patent Office: this where the problem began, in allowing a patent on life. Monsanto's seeds are protected under an 'Intellectual Property' patent; the seeds are good for one season. When a farmer buys Monsanto seed, he also signs the Technology Agreement that stipulates he may not collect seed and replant it. While the farmer is free to plant any type of seed he wishes, the courts have maintained that farmers are not tied to Monsanto seeds in future seasons. However, it is difficult and costly to stop using Monsanto seed once a farmer has planted it because he may not collect and replant the Monsanto seeds collected after harvest, and must buy all new seeds for the new season. Even if a farmer, having once planted GMO seed, then wishing to switch back, faces the issue of "volunteers" (seeds in the ground from the previous planting) which appear and Monsanto has aggressively sued farmers for patent infringement.

Monsanto is the GMO leader because it has a proprietary patent on the method for creating GMOs, so other companies pay an exorbitant fee to make GMOs.

Monsanto is now patenting non GMO seed as well; this is essentially a patent on nature. Monsanto owns over 20,000 patents.

2. FDA (US Food & Drug Administration)*: Many people rely on the FDA to determine the safety of food or a product. The FDA is corrupt, particularly within the realm of GMOs. The only "testing" for safety that is required is for the GMO producer to submit a self authored report on the new GMO's safety. This fraud was accomplished by Michael Taylor, a lawyer who went to work for the FDA and established the "no testing" policy by reasoning that GMOs are "SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT" to food, and food has already been determined to be safe. However, this is an oxymoron because in order to receive a patent, the new product must be different. Michael Taylor (second cousin to Tipper Gore) is notorious for his "revolving door" employment within the US government and Monsanto- he was recently chosen by Obama as the Deputy Commissioner for foods in the FDA.

GMO seed companies prohibit any testing of their products, by contract, to their buyers.

The FDA has made it illegal to label GMO foods as containing GMOs, as they are GRAS (generally recognized as safe). Some companies, like Whole Foods, are starting to label their products as NO GMOs.

3. *President George HW Bush*, under executive power, mandated the Doctrine of Substantial Equivalence of 1992, the same year that Agenda 21 was introduced. This policy requires NO health or safety testing before a GMO product is released into the public.

4. *USDA (United States Department of Agriculture)*: This government body determines whether a plant is safe to grow. GMOs are unsafe to grow; wind, seeds blown from trucks and insect pollination bring GMO pollen and seeds into non-GMO farmland and contaminate the nearby non-GMO farms.

Outrageously, the USDA co-owns the patent on the "Terminator Gene", which means that the seeds have been modified to "commit suicide" after one season, and will not germinate if they are planted in a subsequent season. This technology could potentially wipe out food on the planet in one season. The US government has been funding GMO research since 1983; William Engdahl has said that this will give the owners control of the food seeds over entire regions and nations, when commercialized.

The USDA and the co-owner of the "terminator" patent promised not to commercialize it in 1999, however, in 2001, they signed a commercialization agreement. Seven years later, Monsanto bought out the co-owner and is now partnered with the USDA for the "Terminator" patent. Food can be used as a weapon.

The USDA has also engaged in illegal dispersal of subsidies to Monsanto as well as giving farmers a break on crop insurance premiums if they used Monsanto seeds, which is tantamount to product endorsement.

Remember the USDA is business partners with Monsanto. This is where your tax dollars are going. We are paying for our government to poison us.

5. EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency)*: The EPA is responsible for determining the safety of GMOs in the environment. GMOs can withstand more pesticides and herbicides than normal crops, so more of these toxins are used and a resistance to the toxins has occurred. GMO pollen has been proven to be detrimental to certain insects; many believe that the great bee die- off in the US is a result of large quantities of pesticides sprayed on GMO crops plus, some crops have pesticides contained in their the DNA. The EPA often relies on the chemical producer for its research and safety testing.

The EPA is a corrupt agency that continually fails to protect public health: there are over 80,000 chemicals used today, but only a few hundred have been tested for safety.

6. The US Supreme Court* is an agency of the US government, which has usurped untold power. Currently, there is a case in the Supreme Court, to uphold a ban on GMO alfalfa, as GMOs often contaminate nearby farms via cross pollination; a decision is expected this month. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was an attorney for Monsanto from 1976 to 1979, but he has failed to disqualify himself due to a direct conflict of interest.

A ban was placed on the GMO alfalfa due to danger of cross contamination (not safety of the food, but whether the plant is safe to grow- the USDA failed to carry out a proper Environmental Impact Study); the prior rulings have been against Monsanto, and this is their 3rd appeal.

Justice Scalia has made remarks that contamination isn't "the end of the world". However, it does affect farmers regarding international trade because there are many GMO bans in Europe, and they don't want GMO crops from the US. A judgement against contamination and in favor of safety would put the USDA's lack of ethics in preventing contamination in the news and could negate prior lower court decisions that failed to protect non- GMO farmers from contamination. And a ruling in favor of food safety could put the USDA in the news again, connecting the dots of collusion because of their refusal to ban GMOs, in order to protect their own patent on the Terminator Gene. So, given the evidence of governmental complicity in GMO monopolies, incompetence and ignorance, don't expect the miracle of common sense to prevail in this case.

Incidentally, Elena Kagan, Obama's candidate for the Supreme Court, sided with Monsanto in the alfalfa case, during the petition period, although it was outside of he jurisdiction as solicitor general.

7. State governments* have also contributed to the monopoly by blocking local bans on GMOs. Mendocino and Marin Counties, in Northern California, banned GMOs in 2004. California's Central Valley, the nation's largest produce provider, did not follow the GMO ban. Lobbying from GMO seed producers was intense, as the monopoly became threatened.

The response was that a number of States enacted pre-emptive laws preventing local governments from declaring bans on GMOs within their jurisdictions.

8. Monsanto has a long history of lying, lobbying, bribing and pressuring government scientists and government officers in order to keep their monopoly in place. Monsanto has used very dirty business practices to corner the market on seeds. Within Monsanto contracts there are provisions that mandate the destruction of all Monsanto seeds when a seed company changes ownership: the result is that this makes it very easy for Monsanto buy seed companies cheaply in the bidding process. Another way that Monsanto has eliminated competition is through withholding non GMO seeds from the market. They have also undercut their prices, making their cheaper product appear to be a good deal to farmers. News stories about the detrimental effects of GMOs have also been suppressed, as in the case of some news investigators who got fired from a Fox news investigation over rBHG.

9. US DOJ (Department of Justice)* is currently conducting an investigation regarding anti-trust violations (like the concentration of the seed supply being in the possession of 2 companies), but the investigation seems skewed in the favor of Monsanto as farmers are under-represented and the US interest in the GMO monopoly is deeply rooted. In other words this will be a lightweight investigation.

Maybe the 7 States that are investigating Monsanto's monopoly on seeds will be more authentic, but I doubt it as DuPont's complaint against Monsanto accuses them of offering rebates to seed distributors for excluding rival seeds; DuPont offers GMO seeds and is acting in its own interest- this investigation will likely avoid looking into how Monsanto edged out healthy non GMO seeds.

In conclusion, it is undeniable that the our government is deeply complicit in depopulation through food control, especially the USDA's patent on the Terminator Gene. Frighteningly, amateur garage laboratory scientists and other hobbyists are pursuing new GMO creations on their own, which could have catastrophic results. While this option could break Monsanto's monopoly, it is certainly not the preferred way to go.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org

Geolibertarian

http://www.infowars.com/food-and-depopulation-international-takeover-by-the-un/

Food and Depopulation: International Takeover by the UN

Cassandra Anderson
Infowars.com
June 16, 2010

(Part 3 of 4)

Most people think that the United Nations is a noble enterprise and they don't understand the history and malignant character of the UN.

Christina Aguilera, Drew Barrymore and Sean Penn are probably unaware, even though they are UN Ambassadors to the World Food Program (WFP), that the intent of the UN is to implement one world government (see videos below). The UN WFP, which spreads GMOs in poor countries, is just one tool used for advancing the goals of Agenda 21, the overarching blueprint for depopulation and total control.


The WFP is corrupt to its core, as evidenced by a
leaked UN document about Somalia which exposed
that most of the aid goes to UN workers, Islamic
militants and contractors.


The UN grew out of the League of Nations, which withered after Woodrow Wilson ( Edward House's puppet), failed to convince Congress that international treaties and entangling alliances were good for America. Later, Rockefeller was able to advance the globalists' cause and even donated 18 acres of land for the UN headquarters, located in New York. The Rockefellers have conceived and funded most of the destructive UN programs.

The origin of the food monopoly began with the Rockefeller Dynasty, even before they funded biotech research and industry.(1) The major GMO seed companies like Monsanto, DuPont, Dow, etc. are based in America and the patent laws that protect their monopoly are American.(2) Therefore, it should come as little surprise that the forces behind toxic GMOs promote GMOs internationally by way of the United Nations, using American tax dollars.

USAID

USAID (US Agency for International Development) is a an independent federal agency that is concerned with economic growth and advancing US foreign policy and interests, under the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. The agency is funded by taxpayer money. These interests are often private companies, like Monsanto, that champion so-called humanitarian aid in the name of the American people, using our tax dollars. USAID's humanitarian efforts include imposing GMO seeds on poor nations by way of complex methods that circumvent the laws of poor countries.(3) Poor countries rarely stand up to the US government directly and are under constant pressure, plus they risk losing financial benefits from the US. So, these poor and transitional countries sell out their own farmers and the population suffers because GMO crops are unhealthy, GMO crops yields are lower and they foster monopolies, resulting in ongoing dependence.

USAID funds many NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations) that carry out USAID's objectives- here is a list nearly 200 pages long- of the NGOs that are supported by US taxpayers.(4) It is interesting to note how many of these NGOs are concerned with 'reproductive rights', which is a fancy term for eugenics (selective breeding programs, often brutally enforced via forced sterilization and genocide). Further, USAID entered into a Public- Private Partnership with the Rockefeller Foundation, with the help of Bill Clinton, in order to use investments to "address" social and environmental problems, under the shelter of a tax free organization.(5) This means that the tax free organization will be able direct 'impact' investing which is designed to have an effect on social and environmental problems. In other words, be on the lookout for large investors using their overwhelming influence upon infrastructures, utilities, sewage systems, water sources, etc, which will likely lead to corporate privatization, and total control in pursuit of the final goals of Agenda 21.

UN WORLD FOOD PROGRAM

The UN WFP (World Food Program) receives most of its funding from USAID.

The WFP is corrupt to its core, as evidenced by a leaked UN document about Somalia which exposed that most of the aid goes to UN workers, Islamic militants and contractors.(6) Another example is in Ethiopia where only 12% of the food aid was delivered to the intended poverty stricken area. Additionally, there are more examples of corruption with shipping and trucking fees inflated up to 300% over cost. Of course, NGOs are deeply complicit in this international scheme of theft and incompetence with zero accountability.

Further, USAID director, Rajiv Shah worked for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the USDA, is also the director of A Green Revolution in Africa (Gates and Rockefeller funded). In fact, just last week, Shah said that the UN WFP is creating food systems that will eliminate "humanitarian" food aid over time; a cynic could interpret this as a depopulation plan, consolidation of monopolies and/ or privatization of all resources. Shah also wants to engage the private sector, which means establishing more PPPs (Public- Private Partnerships) which is the modern mechanism of fascism.(7)(5)

UN collectivists, trying to coerce governments to adopt GMOs, use urgent threats of starvation in poor countries to convince the masses that GMOs are beneficial, when the truth is that they have lower crop yields. The WFP, pushing GMOs, have exploited Africa's famine problem by offering GMO seeds as the only aid/ help offered, in a 'GM or Death' ultimatum.[8]

UN WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

The UN WTO (World Trade Organization) influences tariffs and can impose fines (of hundreds of millions of dollars) on countries when they trade internationally. While they promote the phrase "free trade", it is anything but a free market, due to the favorable or unfavorable tariff taxes that the WTO sets. It fosters monopolies on a grand scale. It prohibits competition and true free market Capitalism.

F. William Engdahl, author of "Seeds of Destruction", explains in detail how the Biosafety Protocol, a policy that requiring GMO testing and proof of safety, was undermined. This was done by forcing a clause into the Biosafety Protocol making its rules subordinate to the UN WTO, using the argument that banning GMOs was a barrier to trade under the WTO rules, because the concern over safety was "unproven". Therefore, the burden of proof for the safety of GMOs was removed from Monsanto and the other manufacturers, which leaves consumers, independent farmers and anyone else harmed by GMOs the costly task of proving, scientifically and in court, that GMOs are unsafe.

In a related UN WTO decision, member countries were forbidden from using their own domestic standards for testing, their own food safety laws and their own product standards, claiming that it would set an "unfair barrier to trade". Thus, the US government can threaten any government that bans GMOs with violating UN WTO so-called "free trade" rules which have resulted in costly monetary sanctions. The UN WTO settles international trade disputes in secret. Please read Engdahl's excellent article about the WTO for more information on their manipulative policies.(9)

Incidentally, the Director of the WTO is Rufus Yerxa, former employee of the the US government and Monsanto. Vandana Shiva explains how the WTO imposed trade restrictions on India that limited exports and increased imports, crippling the market and increasing food dependency. The GMO crops also had lower yields because the seed was imported and not adaptable to India's farming conditions, which resulted in the suicides of over 200,000 Indian farmers- often from drinking Round Up Ready herbicide. (Note that we do not agree with Shiva's assessment of global warming):

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByQRHTd3CFk

UN NAFTA LAW

The UN NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and other WTO agreements were signed introduced into law as "agreements", instead of treaties. Under special legislation, NAFTA was passed into law after Congress authorized George W Bush to enter into tariff agreements and bypassed the usual process to make a treaty a law (requiring 2/3 Senate approval). After Bush entered into the agreements, both houses of Congress passed them into law (a mere 51% majority was needed) on a fast- track. The Supreme Court, acting as agents of the federal government, denied review of this misdeed.(10)

NAFTA has adversely affected both the US and Mexico because it promoted GMO farming in Mexico, contaminating their corn crops, which is a staple food. US grain and food subsidies were used to lower the prices of US food, which flooded the markets of Mexico, wreaking havoc on them. The subsidies were bankrolled by the unsuspecting US taxpayers. Mexico was once food self sufficient, but now it spends 78% of its oil exports to purchase food from the US. US food exports have decreased as a result of NAFTA because some educated countries reject GMOs.(11)

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND

The UN IMF (International Monetary Fund) and UN World Bank are sister agencies that impose harsh conditions and penalties on loans made to governments, resulting in austerity and privatization. In fact, Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize winner in 2001, former chief economist of the World Bank and formerly one of President Clinton's economists, exposed the corruption of the UN IMF and World Bank's practice of keeping developing countries on the loan repayment treadmill, which can lead to harsh measures when the countries fail to repay the loan, instead of allowing a country to go bankrupt and then start over. In 2003, The IMF actually admitted that its policies have often failed for over 60 years.(12)

The IMF and World Bank, working closely with the WTO, offer financial aid and guarantees to multinational companies to privatize in poor countries. Even worse, the IMF and World Bank pressure countries, crippled by debt, to privatize utilities and other resources, especially water. Remember, water is a resource that affects food production. The US Treasury funds 51% of the World bank. The UN derives much power from indebted countries and then is able to make outrageous demands upon the debtor nations, that then benefit corporations and individuals like Bill Gates.(13)

CODEX ALIMENTARIUS

Codex Alimentarius, the UN program to control food and health products internationally with the goal of HARMonization of food, means that plants, seeds, livestock, farming and how all food is processed is to become uniform. Of course, GMO food is a major component of this scheme. Codex Alimentarius is a program to codify food worldwide; it won't work because there is a lack of consideration for local conditions (local weather, soil conditions, water availability, etc). This appears to be just plain stupid until one realizes its true intent: depopulation. Codex Alimentarius operates under two UN agencies: the WHO (World Health Organization), notorious for pushing unsafe vaccines for the H1N1 flu and insider deals with Big Pharma, and the corrupt FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). Kevin Miller's excellent film "We Become Silent" is recommended for more details.(14)

There are several unpopular US "food safety" bills currently under consideration. By simply reading the short summary of Senate bill S 510, it is clear that the bill is not designed for food safety, but for government (Department of Health and Human Services, the EPA and the CDC) expansion, control and monetary gain. There are only a few representatives in Washington that are even remotely interested in true food safety and a real solution, which would include the abolition of GMOs, or at least the labeling of GMO food, so that consumers can make an informed choice. Barack Obama issued an Executive Order on June 10, 2010 that opens the door to Codex Alimentarius.(15)

In conclusion, it is obvious that the time is over-ripe for the US to get out of the UN. This action would result in the withering of the UN as it is funded primarily by US tax dollars. The American people will hopefully come to understand that our hard earned money is being used to poison and bankrupt us, and the rest of the world. Education of the masses is the key, and Americans must exert our power and sovereignty, especially now, with the November elections right around the corner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZkvzNjLo5o (Christina Aguilera)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42vEg5MCxis (Drew Barrymore)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnwxvDnjyDc (Sean Penn)

Please share this article and information

Please visit Cassandra Anderson's website at www.MorphCity.com for more information about the construction of Agenda 21 and how to stop it.

1. http://www.infowars.com/food-and-depopulation-rockefeller-family/
2. http://www.infowars.com/food-and-depopulation-monsantos-monopoly/
3. http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=331
4. http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/cross-cutting_programs/private_voluntary_cooperation/volag2009.pdf
http://www.usaid.gov/press/releases/2009/pr090930.html
5. http://www.morphcity.com/agenda-21/ppp
6. http://www.american.com/archive/2010/april/how-corrupt-is-the-world-food-program
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/03/23/food-for-naught.html
7. http://www.wfp.org/stories/usaid-says-wfp-positioned-build-sustainable-food-systems
8. http://www.saynotogmos.org/global_south2.htm
9. http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/GMO/World_Trade_Order/world_trade_order.html
10. http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/97-896.pdf
11. http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/ra03/geff16.html
12. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2766706/Stiglitz-rebel-with-a-cause.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2846604/IMF-admits-its-policies-seldom-work.html
13. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/IMF_WB/Plunder_Profit_IMF_WB.html
http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2905
14. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6530770946071047491#
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/36064/
15. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-510&tab=summary
http://survivingthemiddleclasscrash.wordpress.com/
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org

Geolibertarian

http://www.infowars.com/food-depopulation-scams-and-solutions/

Food & Depopulation: Scams and Solutions

Cassandra Anderson
Infowars.com
June 24, 2010

(Part 4 of 4)

The Food & Depopulation series of articles has been written for people who think that conspiracies are mere theories, that the American government is working in our best interest and that the United Nations is benevolent. Nothing could be further from the truth; irrefutable proof of this is explained in the previous three articles. Sharing the truth about food is an exceptionally effective way to wake people up because all people have a personal relationship with food every day. Here are the important points to remember:

    1. The US Department of Agriculture holds a patent on the 'Terminator' gene (the seed goes sterile after the first harvest) which has the potential to destroy all plant life on the planet. This patent is co-owned by Monsanto.

    2. The US Supreme Court has studiously avoided trying any anti-GMO cases, despite the obvious health dangers to people and contamination of farms by cross pollination. On June 21, 2010 the Supreme Court lifted the nationwide ban growing GMO alfalfa due to its potential to contaminate other farms, pending a Environmental Impact Study (EIS) performed by the US Department of Agriculture. We predicted 2 weeks ago that the Supreme Court justices would rule in favor of Monsanto as they collect their paychecks from the federal government. If sanity had prevailed and the ban on polluting GMOs was upheld, the result would have put the USDA's Terminator gene patent in peril, countless prior court cases would have to be overturned and an avalanche of new lawsuits against Monsanto may have bankrupted the company. The federal government and Monsanto are so deeply intertwined that we expect the USDA's EIS, which they expect to finish by next Spring, to allow planting of the contaminating GMO alfalfa.

    The Supreme Court refused to hear any of the facts regarding the dangers and past record of contamination; lone dissenter Justice Stevens said, "the district court did not abuse its discretion when, after considering the voluminous record and making the aforementioned findings, it issued the order now before us." In other words, Stevens reports that the lower district court's GMO alfalfa ban was put into place due to voluminous records of contamination to other farms, but this was not taken into consideration by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only considered the national GMO alfalfa ban was "too broad", without examining the damaging effects of contamination. This was a slippery move because if they had considered the devastating effects of GMOs, it would have been impossible to argue that they are safe. And the corrupt USDA will issue its EIS to determine the safety. The remote potential upside to this is that the jurisdiction is now in the lower courts, which may be more reasonable, but that means more lawsuits and more money.(1)

    3. The United Nations is corrupt to its core and its programs are designed for depopulation, total control and profit. UN Agenda 21 is the overarching blueprint for depopulation and total control, using the environment and sustainability as the excuse for its policies.

    4. The Rockefeller family has been pursuing control over food for decades, using monopolies and government structures that are funded by taxpayers through complex schemes that they have created to accomplish this goal.

NGO SCAM:

NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations), in the modern definition, spring from the United Nations and act as 'consultants' to the UN; no government representatives are allowed as members. However, NGOs are hardly independent as most of them are funded by governments. In other words, our tax dollars are paying for our own demise. This is how the scam works: • NGOs create policy statements to be adopted by the UN that become international policy. NGOs then receive money from the UN. • The UN policies are then are pushed the on national governments who then fund the globalist programs with money from taxes.

    * The NGOs then lobby governments and the public to implement the programs, using misguided public pressure that they create by fooling people into believing that UN policies benefit the population (like local government acceptance of global warming regulations. These are based on lies and sold to the public by way of alarmism over environmental catastrophe). They are dispatched in your community with specific targeted agendas. Local government contracts with organizations like the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) insure local implementation of these globalist objectives.

    * US government Advisory Committees are comprised of UN affiliated NGOs, businesses and organizations, while no Advisory Committees represent the American citizens' interests.

    * UN accredited NGOs are well funded and try to discredit populist organizations that oppose them. UN affiliated NGOs began when eugenicist Julian Huxley created the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature), which created a more public spin-off, the WWF (World Wildlife Federation) and a third one called the WRI (World Resources Institute which is a think tank and communication network). These three NGOs are the driving force and behind the rise in NGO influence around the world. For full details, you can read the excellent analysis by Maryetta Ables.(2)

NGOs are treacherous and they lie. While an NGO may take the right action with one hand, the other hand is reaching out and grabbing your liberty by allocating its vast resources to advance the UN agenda. For example, the IUCN, the center of all UN NGOs, claims on their website that they have a moratorium on further release of GMOs, which makes them seem like they are against GMOs. GMOs have already contaminated much of the world, so a moratorium on further release of GMOs is a feeble attempt to rid the world of GMOs and NGOs pretend they have no power when more regulations are created to advance the UN agenda.(3)

Instead of taking serious action to combat GMOs, the IUCN allocates their resources toward promoting 'biodiversity', (the theft of private property by way of the Endangered Species Act) and global warming, which has been thoroughly discredited.(4)

The WWF keeps a low profile on their website about GMOs, but the WWF does fully endorse GMOs.(5)

Greenpeace is a UN accredited NGO, and like all UN affiliated NGO's Greenpeace is dedicated to the policies of the UN's Agenda 21 Sustainable Development. In order to appear that they are working in the public's interest, they oppose GMOs and have taken some small actions, like publicizing the dangers of GMOs and pressuring the Trader Joe's food chain stores into refusing GMO food for their private label. However, their opposition to GMOs, according to Michael Shaw of www.FreedomAdvocates.org, is an example of painting themselves as a public interest group to cover up their true intent, the implementation of Agenda 21. On their website they endorse global warming lies and energy restrictions that support consolidation of globalist power. While their website claims that they do not "solicit" contributions from governments or corporations, there is proof that they have received grants from the Tides Foundation (Rockefeller Foundation is major a contributor), BP Oil and Exxon, but these 'donors' are not listed on their website. In other words, Greenpeace, along with many other environmental NGOs, receive "donations" from globalists and funnel money into other like-minded NGOs and "non-profit" organizations to accomplish Agenda 21.(6)

THE "NON-PROFIT" SCAM:

"Non-Profit" organizations and foundations are anything but not-for-profit! A more accurate definition is that they are tax exempt. What is it they don't want you to know? Many, if not most are funded by governments, NGOs and "philanthropic" foundations. Tax exempt non-profit 501(c)3 organizations and foundations owe it to the American taxpayer to clearly and publicly disclose who their donors are because they benefit from a tax free status, but it is rare to find this information on their websites or on the Internet.

Michael Shaw pointed out that tax exempt organizations are increasing exponentially in order to capitalize on government funding, however, this makes tax exempt organizations beholden to the government. Public- Private Partnerships, or the coupling between government and private enterprise is the foundation of fascism. Non profits often fit the political–economic definition of Public-Private Partnership.

"Philanthropic" tax exempt foundations have been working toward the destruction of America for many decades. In the 1950's a Congressional investigation into the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie Foundations was conducted with scandalous results, so the information was suppressed. However, G. Edward Griffin was able to obtain an interview with Senator Norman Dodd, one of the lead investigators, on video and in a written transcript available in the footnote below.(7)

Some "non-profit" tax exempt 501(c)3 organizations have been known to engage in controlled opposition. For example, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) represented farmers in opposition to Monsanto in the Supreme Court GMO alfalfa case and in many other anti-GMO cases. While we have no way of knowing whether Andrew Kimbrell, the Executive Director of CFS and his brother George (of counsel) performed solid work in opposing Monsanto or whether they sandbagged the endeavor, there are reports that CFS and its parent company have taken in $1.75 million dollars from the John Merck Fund, which has ties to the Rockefeller Family Fund. Andrew Kimbrell of CFS filed a petition with the EPA to ban colloidal silver which is a natural antibiotic agent with many benefits that competes directly with Merck's dubious pharmaceutical drugs. This organization has the appearance of working in the public's interest, but in a separate action, it has operated in opposition to public benefit.[8]

Further, Andrew Kimbrell reported reported a "success" in the Supreme Court GMO alfalfa ruling. He said that GMO alfalfa is still illegal to plant. While this is true today, the USDA has only to complete its Environmental Impact Study in order to approve the seeds.(9)

How to check websites of NGOs, Non-Profits and Foundations for corruption:

* Check out which actions they support. If they champion the global warming hoax, then they are likely to be compromised.

* Check the organization and the Board of Directors for UN and Rockefeller connections.

* Look for certain buzz words related to Agenda 21.(10)

Beware as almost all major environmental groups are pursuing the objectives of Agenda 21, even when they oppose GMOs. It is important to do a little bit of research to determine their motives to avoid being fooled.

FOOD SOLUTIONS:

Here are some suggestions to eat healthy food, starve the corporate giants and create self-sufficiency:

Watch this amazing video of a family that turned their yard into a farm and earn money selling produce to restaurants:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEvHVXoNZCE (Homegrown Revolution Trailer)

Eat organically grown or non-GMO food.

Buy and store seeds- organic and heirloom seeds are best.

Natural seeds are scarce and could be a good item for investment or barter. The number of seed companies has dwindled from approximately 300 down to 100 due to corporate buy-outs (primarily by Monsanto).

Support farmers' markets and local farms. Avoid imports to discourage food dependency. America is resource rich and there is no excuse for becoming dependent. Also, this limits the power of the WTO.

Plant your own organic garden. You can use diatomaceous earth instead of pesticides and nets to keep larger pests out of the garden.

If you don't have a yard, find a neighbor who wants a garden and then share the food.

Join a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) group that delivers fresh produce to a pick up location in your town; there are many listings for these on the Internet. This is a good idea because if there is a food shortage, the farmer will be more willing to help someone who supported him.

Remote farming- there is farm in Oregon that leases land, does the farming for you and then ships the food to you.(11)

Watch this video of Shelly Roche of ByteStyle.tv as she reports that the anti-GMO food market is booming:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATFZjS8P2h0 (A Small Victory Against Monsanto & GMOs!)

A letter to the Editor of Off the Grid News from someone who lives in Tasmania describes how he copes with Codex Alimentarius, and reports that Australia was the guinea pig for this UN program starting 6 years ago. Supplements are not allowed ($60,000 penalty) and food is restricted, so he grows his own in old rainwater tanks to keep animals out and uses composted cow manure. He says that he gets an unbelievable bounty. This letter is worth reading because he claims that the food grown in Australia is exported and replaced by cheap imports from China, in addition to food being destroyed to keep prices high.(12)

We recommend obtaining information from people like Scott Tips and Jeffrey Smith for GMO truth.(13)

It is of the utmost importance that farmers become aware of the Monsanto licensing agreement trap, it is crucial that they fully understand that once they plant GMO seed, they will be stuck paying patent royalties even if they don't use GMO products after the initial planting. America's farmers must comprehend how Monsanto operates in order to avoid paying infinite royalties; if they buy cheap Monsanto seeds now, they will pay for it dearly later. Please share these articles with them.

POLITICAL SOLUTIONS:

Bad science must be exposed. 'Climategate' was very successful in revealing global warming lies and motives. All science attached to political policies should be scrutinized. The USDA's upcoming EIS (Environmental Impact Study) is due soon, and must be investigated as there is no way GMOs will be approved unless the EIS is based on fraudulent science or some other loophole is used.

Remember monopolies are dependent on governmental regulations [factual correction: they're dependent on privileges -- see this, this and this], so the way to break a monopoly is to remove the regulations privileges.

Beware of all NGOs and so-called "non-profit" organizations. If they want your support, they should provide financial information readily and you can research them online. The secret scams and motives must be exposed.

With the November elections coming up, it is of vital importance to choose government officials wisely and to avoid being fooled by the Right/ Left paradigm. State and local governments are very powerful and you have more influence with them. Look for freedom candidates with Constitutional values and who oppose GMOs, Agenda 21, the United Nations and the globalist consolidation of power.

Share this information with everyone you know and create a voting coalition that includes citizens and businesses, especially at state and local levels. Word-of-mouth marketing is the more effective than anything else (even TV), so please share this information, especially candidates who may be unaware of Agenda 21.

Start locally and expand upward in securing freedom. The federal government is remote, but state and local officials are more accessible. Consider running for office. Support the Tenth Amendment and State sovereignty. Support local bans on planting GMO crops in your area.

You can visit Michael Shaw's website at www.FreedomAdvocates.org for more information on securing liberty at a local level and for understanding the tentacles of Agenda 21 Sustainable Development. His site is a great place to find out how to take action.

Please visit Cassandra Anderson's website at www.MorphCity.com to find the prior three articles on 'Food & Depopulation' and future articles about solutions.

Sources:

1. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/06/21/...
2. http://www.freedomadvocates.org/articles/...
3. http://www.iucn.org/about/work/initiatives/biotechnology/gmos/
4. http://www.morphcity.com/agenda-21/environment/esa http://www.morphcity.com/...
5. http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php...
6. http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports... http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/... http://www.policestateplanning.com/id52.htm
7. http://www.realityzone.com/hiddenagenda2.html
8. http://www.naturalnews.com/027186_silver_Merck_colloidal_silver.html http://www.zimbio.com/Administrator+Stephen+Johnson... http://www.undueinfluence.com/rockefeller_family_fund.htm http://activistcash.com/foundation.cfm/did/138
9. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kimbrell...
10. http://www.morphcity.com/agenda-21/definitions
11. https://myorganicacres.com/
12. http://offthegridnews.com/letter-to-the-editor-june-7/
13. http://www.thenhf.com/health_freedom_news_12.htm http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Home/index.cfm
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org

Geolibertarian

http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-eugenics-and-the-rise-of-the-global-scientific-dictatorship/20028

New Eugenics and the Rise of the Global Scientific Dictatorship
The Technological Revolution and the Future of Freedom, Part 3

by Andrew Gavin Marshall



Global Research
July 5, 2010

This is the third and final part of the series, "The Technological Revolution and the Future of Freedom."

Part 1: The Global Political Awakening and the New World Order
Part 2: Revolution and Repression in America

Introduction

We are in the midst of the most explosive development in all of human history. Humanity is experiencing a simultaneously opposing and conflicting geopolitical transition, the likes of which has never before been anticipated or experienced. Historically, the story of humanity has been the struggle between the free-thinking individual and structures of power controlled by elites that seek to dominate land, resources and people. The greatest threat to elites at any time – historically and presently – is an awakened, critically thinking and politically stimulated populace. This threat has manifested itself throughout history, in different places and at different times. Ideas of freedom, democracy, civil and human rights, liberty and equality have emerged in reaction and opposition to power structures and elite systems of control.

The greatest triumphs of the human mind – whether in art, science or thought – have arisen out of and challenged great systems of power and control. The greatest of human misery and tragedy has arisen out of the power structures and systems that elites always seek to construct and manage. War, genocide, persecution and human degradation are directly the result of decisions made by those who control the apparatus of power, whether the power manifests itself as intellectual, ecclesiastical, spiritual, militaristic, or scientific. The most malevolent and ruthless power is that over the free human mind: if one controls how one thinks, they control the individual itself. The greatest human achievements are where individuals have broken free the shackles that bind the mind and let loose the inherent and undeniable power that lies in each and every individual on this small little planet.

Currently, our world is at the greatest crossroads our species has ever experienced. We are in the midst of the first truly global political awakening, in which for the first time in all of human history, all of mankind is politically awakened and stirring; in which whether inadvertently or intentionally, people are thinking and acting in political terms. This awakening is most evident in the developing world, having been made through personal experience to be acutely aware of the great disparities, disrespect, and domination inherent in global power structures. The awakening is spreading increasingly to the west itself, as the majority of the people living in the western developed nations are thrown into poverty and degradation. The awakening will be forced upon all people all over the world. Nothing, no development, ever in human history, has posed such a monumental threat to elite power structures.

This awakening is largely driven by the Technological Revolution, which through technology and electronics, in particular mass media and the internet, have made it so that people across the world are able to become aware of global issues and gain access to information from around the world. The Technological Revolution, thus, has fostered an Information Revolution which has, in turn, fed the global political awakening.

Simultaneously, the Technological Revolution has led to another unique and unprecedented development in human history, and one that is diametrically opposed, yet directly related to the global political awakening. For the first time in human history, free humanity is faced with the dominating threat of a truly global elite, who have at their hands the technology to impose a truly global system of control: a global scientific dictatorship. The great danger is that through the exponential growth in scientific techniques, elites will use these great new powers to control and dominate all of humanity in such a way that has never before been experienced.

Through all of human history, tyrants have used coercive force and terror to control populations. With the Technological Revolution, elites increasingly have the ability to control the very biology and psychology of the individual to a point where it may not be necessary to impose a system of terror, but rather where the control is implemented on a much deeper, psychological, subliminal and individual biological manner. While terror can prevent people from opposing power for a while, the scientific dictatorship can create a personal psycho-social condition in which the individual comes to love his or her own slavery; in which, like a mentally inferior pet, they are made to love their leaders and accept their servitude.

So we are presented with a situation in which humanity is faced with both the greatest threat and the greatest hope that we have ever collectively experienced in our short human history. This essay, the third part in the series, "The Technological Revolution and the Future of Freedom," examines the ideas behind the global scientific dictatorship, and how it may manifest itself presently and in the future, with a particular focus on the emergence of 'new eugenics' as a system of mass control.

Free humanity faces the most monumental decision we have ever been presented with: do we feed and fuel the global political awakening into a true human psycho-social revolution of the mind, creating a new global political economy which empowers and liberates all of humanity; or... do we fall silently into a 'brave new world' of a global scientific oppression, the likes of which have never before been experienced, and whose dominance would never be more difficult to challenge and overcome?

We can either find a true freedom, or descend into a deep despotism. We are not powerless before this great ideational beast. We have, at our very fingertips the ability to use technology to our benefit and to re-shape the world so that it benefits the people of the world and not simply the powerful. It must be freedom for all or freedom for none.

What is the 'Scientific Dictatorship'?

In 1932, Aldous Huxley wrote his dystopian novel, "Brave New World," in which he looked at the emergence of the scientific dictatorships of the future. In his 1958 essay, "Brave New World Revisited," Huxley examined how far the world had come in that short period since his book was published, and where the world was heading. Huxley wrote that:

    In politics the equivalent of a fully developed scientific theory or philosophical system is a totalitarian dictatorship. In economics, the equivalent of a beautifully composed work of art is the smoothly running factory in which the workers are perfectly adjusted to the machines. The Will to Order can make tyrants out of those who merely aspire to clear up a mess. The beauty of tidiness is used as a justification for despotism.

Huxley explained that, "The future dictator's subjects will be painlessly regimented by a corps of highly trained social engineers," and he quotes one "advocate of this new science" as saying that, "The challenge of social engineering in our time is like the challenge of technical engineering fifty years ago. If the first half of the twentieth century was the era of technical engineers, the second half may well be the era of social engineers." Thus, proclaims Huxley, "The twenty-first century, I suppose, will be the era of World Controllers, the scientific caste system and Brave New World."

In 1952, Bertrand Russell, a British philosopher, historian, mathematician, and social critic wrote the book, "The Impact of Science on Society," in which he warned and examined how science, and the technological revolution, was changing and would come to change society. In his book, Russell explained that:

    I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology. Mass psychology is, scientifically speaking, not a very advanced study... This study is immensely useful to practical men, whether they wish to become rich or to acquire the government. It is, of course, as a science, founded upon individual psychology, but hitherto it has employed rule-of-thumb methods which were based upon a kind of intuitive common sense. Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called 'education'. Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the Press, the cinema and the radio play an increasing part.

    What is essential in mass psychology is the art of persuasion. If you compare a speech of Hitler's with a speech of (say) Edmund Burke, you will see what strides have been made in the art since the eighteenth century. What went wrong formerly was that people had read in books that man is a rational animal, and framed their arguments on this hypothesis. We now know that limelight and a brass band do more to persuade than can be done by the most elegant train of syllogisms. It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment.

    This subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship.

Russell went on to analyze the question of whether a 'scientific dictatorship' is more stable than a democracy, on which he postulated:

    Apart from the danger of war, I see no reason why such a regime should be unstable. After all, most civilised and semi-civilised countries known to history have had a large class of slaves or serfs completely subordinate to their owners. There is nothing in human nature that makes the persistence of such a system impossible. And the whole development of scientific technique has made it easier than it used to be to maintain a despotic rule of a minority. When the government controls the distribution of food, its power is absolute so long as it can count on the police and the armed forces. And their loyalty can be secured by giving them some of the privileges of the governing class. I do not see how any internal movement of revolt can ever bring freedom to the oppressed in a modern scientific dictatorship.

Drawing on the concept popularized by Aldous Huxley – of people loving their servitude – Bertrand Russell explained that under a scientific dictatorship:

    It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fichte laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished... Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.

Russell explained that, "The completeness of the resulting control over opinion depends in various ways upon scientific technique. Where all children go to school, and all schools are controlled by the government, the authorities can close the minds of the young to everything contrary to official orthodoxy." Russell later proclaimed in his book that, "a scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is a world government." He elaborated:

    Unless there is a world government which secures universal birth control, there must be from time to time great wars, in which the penalty of defeat is widespread death by starvation. That is exactly the present state of the world, and some may hold that there is no reason why it should not continue for centuries. I do not myself believe that this is possible. The two great wars that we have experienced have lowered the level of civilization in many parts of the world, and the next is pretty sure to achieve much more in this direction. Unless, at some stage, one power or group of powers emerges victorious and proceeds to establish a single government of the world with a monopoly of armed force, it is clear that the level of civilization must continually decline until scientific warfare becomes impossible – that is until science is extinct.

Russell explains that eugenics plays a central feature in the construction of any world government scientific dictatorship, stating that, "Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton."

In a 1962 speech at UC Berkeley, Aldous Huxley spoke about the real world becoming the 'Brave New World' nightmare he envisaged. Huxley spoke primarily of the 'Ultimate Revolution' that focuses on 'behavioural controls' of people. Huxley said of the 'Ultimate Revolution':

    In the past, we can say, that all revolutions have essentially aimed at changing the environment in order to change the individual. There's been the political revolution, the economic revolution . . . the religious revolution. All these aimed as I say not directly at the human being but at his surroundings, so by modifying his surroundings you did achieve – at one remove – an effect upon the human being.

    Today, we are faced, I think, with the approach of what may be called the 'Ultimate Revolution' – the 'Final Revolution' – where man can act directly on the mind-body of his fellows. Well needless to say some kind of direct action on human mind-bodies has been going on since the beginning of time, but this has generally been of a violent nature. The techniques of terrorism have been known from time immemorial, and people have employed them with more-or-less ingenuity, sometimes with utmost crudity, sometimes with a good deal of skill acquired with a process of trial and error – finding out what the best ways of using torture, imprisonments, constraints of various kinds . . .

    If you are going to control any population for any length of time, you must have some measure of consent. It's exceedingly difficult to see how pure terrorism can function indefinitely, it can function for a fairly long time; but sooner or later you have to bring in an element of persuasion, an element of getting people to consent to what is happening to them.

    Well it seems to me the nature of the Ultimate Revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: that we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques, which will enable the controlling oligarchy – who have always existed and will presumably always exist – to get people to love their servitude. This is the ultimate in malevolent revolution...

    There seems to be a general movement in the direction of this kind of Ultimate Control, this method of control, by which people can be made to enjoy a state of affairs by which any decent standard they ought not to enjoy; the enjoyment of servitude . . .

    I am inclined to think that the scientific dictatorships of the future – and I think there are going to be scientific dictatorships in many parts of the world – will be probably a good deal nearer to the Brave New World pattern than to the 1984 pattern. They will be a good deal nearer, not because of any humanitarian qualms in the scientific dictators, but simply because the 'brave new world' pattern is probably a good deal more efficient than the other. That if you can get people to consent to the state of affairs in which they are living – the state of servitude – if you can do this, then you are likely to have a much more stable, a much more lasting society; much more easily controllable society than you would if you were relying wholly on clubs, and firing squads and concentration camps.

In 1961, President Eisenhower delivered his farewell address to the nation in which he warned of the dangers to democracy posed by the military-industrial complex: the interconnected web of industry, the military, and politics creating the conditions for constant war. In that same speech, Eisenhower warned America and the world of another important change in society:

    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

    The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

In 1970, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote about "the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society," in the "technetronic revolution"; explaining:

    Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know-how. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control. Under such circumstances, the scientific and technological momentum of the country would not be reversed but would actually feed on the situation it exploits.

New Eugenics

Many sciences and large social movements are directed by the same foundations and money that financed the eugenics movement in the early 20th century. The Rockefeller foundations, Ford, Carnegie, Mellon, Harriman, and Morgan money that flowed into eugenics led directly to 'scientific racism,' and ultimately the Holocaust in World War II. Following the Holocaust, Hitler had discredited the eugenics movement he admired so much in America. So the movement branched off into forming several other social engineering projects: population control, genetics, and environmentalism. The same foundations that laid the foundations for eugenic ideology – the belief in a biological superiority and right to rule (justifying their power) – then laid the foundations for these and other new social and scientific movements.

Major environmental and conservation organizations were founded with Rockefeller and Ford Foundation money, which then continued to be central sources of funding to this day; while the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) was founded in 1961 by Sir Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley's brother, who was also the President of the British Eugenics Society. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands became the organization's first president. Prince Bernhard also happened to be one of the founders of the elite global think tank, the Bilderberg Group, which he co-founded in 1954; and he was previous to that, a member of the Nazi Party and an SS officer. Sir Julian Huxley also happened to be the first Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). In 1946, Huxley wrote a paper titled, "UNESCO: It's Purpose and its Philosophy." In it, he wrote that the general focus of UNESCO:

    is to help the emergence of a single world culture, with its own philosophy and background of ideas, and with its own broad purpose. This is opportune, since this is the first time in history that the scaffolding and the mechanisms for world unification have become available, and also the first time that man has had the means (in the shape of scientific discovery and its applications) of laying a world-wide foundation for the minimum physical welfare of the entire human species...

    At the moment, it is probable that the indirect effect of civilisation is dysgenic instead of eugenic; and in any case it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability, and disease-proneness, which already exist in the human species, will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved. Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for Unesco to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable...

    Still another and quite different type of borderline subject is that of eugenics. It has been on the borderline between the scientific and the unscientific, constantly in danger of becoming a pseudo- science based on preconceived political ideas or on assumptions of racial or class superiority and inferiority. It is, however, essential that eugenics should be brought entirely within the borders of science, for, as already indicated, in the not very remote future the problem of improving the average quality of human beings is likely to become urgent; and this can only be accomplished by applying the findings of a truly scientific eugenics...

    It is worth pointing out that the applications of science at once bring us up against social problems of various sorts. Some of these are direct and obvious. Thus the application of genetics in eugenics immediately raises the question of values- what qualities should we desire to encourage in the human beings of the future?

On page 6 of the UNESCO document, Sir Julian Huxley wrote that, "in order to carry out its work, an organisation such as Unesco needs not only a set of general aims and objects for itself, but also a working philosophy, a working hypothesis concerning human existence and its aims and objects, which will dictate, or at least indicate, a definite line of approach to its problems." While much of the language of equality and education sounds good and benevolent, it is based upon a particular view of humanity as an irrational, emotionally driven organism which needs to be controlled. Thus, the 'principle of equality' becomes "The Fact of Inequality":

    Finally we come to a difficult problem-that of discovering how we can reconcile our principle of human equality with the biological fact of human inequality... The democratic principle of equality, which is also Unesco's, is a principle of equality of opportunity-that human beings should be equal before the law, should have equal opportunities for education, for making a living, for freedom of expression and movement and thought. The biological absence of equality, on the other hand, concerns the natural endowments of man and the fact of genetic difference in regard to them.

    There are instances of biological inequality which are so gross that they cannot be reconciled at all with the principle of equal opportunity. Thus low-grade mental defectives cannot be offered equality of educational opportunity, nor are the insane equal with the sane before the law or in respect of most freedoms. However, the full implications of the fact of human inequality have not often been drawn and certainly need to be brought out here, as they are very relevant to Unesco's task.

Many of these "genetic inequalities" revolve around the idea of intellectual superiority: the idea that there is no equality among the intellectually inferior and superior. That inequality is derived from human biology – from genetics; it is a "human fact." It just so happens that elites who propagate this ideology, also happen to view the masses as intellectually inferior; thus, there can be no social equality in a world with a technological intellectual elite. So eugenics must be employed, as the UENSCO paper explains, to address the issues of raising human welfare to a manageable level; that the time will come where elites will need to address the whole of humanity as a single force, and with a single voice. Eugenics is about the social organization and control of humanity. Ultimately, eugenics is about the engineering of inequality. In genetics, elites found a way to take discrimination down to the DNA.

Genetics as Eugenics

Award-winning author and researcher, Edwin Black, wrote an authoritative history of eugenics in his book, "War Against the Weak," in which he explained that, "the incremental effort to transform eugenics into human genetics forged an entire worldwide infrastructure," with the founding of the Institute for Human Genetics in Copenhagen in 1938, led by Tage Kemp, a Rockefeller Foundation eugenicist, and was financed with money from the Rockefeller Foundation. While not abandoning the eugenics goals, the new re-branded eugenics movement "claimed to be eradicating poverty and saving the environment."

In a 2001 issue of Science Magazine, Garland Allen, a scientific historian, wrote about genetics as a modern form of eugenics. He began by citing a 1998 article in Time Magazine which proclaimed that, "Personality, temperament, even life choices. New studies show it's mostly in your genes." Garland explains the implications:

    Coat-tailing on major advances in genetic biotechnology, these articles portray genetics as the new "magic bullet" of biomedical science that will solve many of our recurrent social problems. The implication is that these problems are largely a result of the defective biology of individuals or even racial or ethnic groups. If aggressive or violent behavior is in the genes, so the argument goes, then the solution lies in biomedical intervention--gene therapy in the distant future and pharmacotherapy (replacing the products of defective genes with drug substitutes) in the immediate future.

    By promoting such claims, are we heading toward a new version of eugenics? Are we getting carried away with the false promise of a technological fix for problems that really lie in the structure of our society? My answer to these questions is "yes," but with some important qualifications that derive from the different historical and social contexts of the early 1900s and the present...

    The term eugenics was coined in 1883 by the Victorian polymath Francis Galton, geographer, statistician, and first cousin of Charles Darwin. It meant to him "truly- or well-born," and referred to a plan to encourage the "best people" in society to have more children (positive eugenics) and to discourage or prevent the "worst elements" of society from having many, if any, children (negative eugenics). Eugenics became solidified into a movement in various countries throughout the world in the first three decades of the 20th century, but nowhere more solidly than in the United States and, after World War I, in Germany.

While genetic traits such as eye colour and the like were proven to be hereditary, "eugenicists were more interested in the inheritance of social behaviors, intelligence, and personality." Further:

    American eugenicists also strove to disseminate the results of eugenic research to the public and to lawmakers. They supported the idea of positive eugenics (encouraging the 'best' to become better), but focused most of their energies on negative eugenics (to encourage the 'worst' to become fewer). Eugenicists wrote hundreds of articles for popular magazines, published dozens of books for the general (and some for the scientific) reader, prepared exhibits for schools and state fairs, made films, and wrote sermons and novels.

American eugenicists, fully backed by the financial support of the major American philanthropic fortunes, passed eugenics legislation in over 27 states across the United States, often in the form of forced sterilizations for the mentally 'inferior', so that, "By the 1960s, when most of these laws were beginning to be repealed, more than 60,000 people had been sterilized for eugenic purposes." As Garland Allen wrote:

    For the wealthy benefactors that supported eugenics, such as the Carnegie, Rockefeller, Harriman, and Kellogg philanthropies, eugenics provided a means of social control in a period of unprecedented upheaval and violence. It was these same economic elites and their business interests who introduced scientific management and organizational control into the industrial sector...

    (In 1994) we saw the resurrection of claims that there are genetic differences in intelligence between races, leading to different socio-economic status. Claims about the genetic basis for criminality, manic depression, risk-taking, alcoholism, homosexuality, and a host of other behaviors have also been rampant in scientific and especially popular literature. Much of the evidence for such claims is as controversial today as in the past.

    We seem to be increasingly unwilling to accept what we view as imperfection in ourselves and others. As health care costs skyrocket, we are coming to accept a bottom-line, cost-benefit analysis of human life. This mind-set has serious implications for reproductive decisions. If a health maintenance organization (HMO) requires in utero screening, and refuses to cover the birth or care of a purportedly "defective" child, how close is this to eugenics? If gene or drug therapy is substituted for improving our workplace or school environments, our diets and our exercise practices, how close is this to eugenics? Significant social changes are expensive, however. If eugenics means making reproductive decisions primarily on the basis of social cost, then we are well on that road.

Genetics unleash an unprecedented power into human hands: the power of unnatural creation and the manipulation of biology. We do not yet fully understand nor comprehend the implications of genetic manipulation in our food, plants, animals, and in humans, themselves. What is clear is that we are changing the very biology of our environment and ourselves in it. While there are many clear and obvious benefits to genetic technology, such as the ability to enhance ailing senses (sight, hearing, etc.) and cure diseases, the positive must be examined and discussed with the negative repercussions of genetic manipulation so as to better direct the uses of this powerful technology.

Debates on issues such as stem-cell research and genetic manipulation often focus on a science versus religion aspect, where science seeks to benevolently cure mankind of its ailments and religion seeks to preserve the sanctity of 'creation'. This is an irrational and narrow manner to conduct a real debate on this monumental issue, painting the issue as black and white, which it most certainly is not. Science can be used for good as well as bad, and human history, most especially that of the 20th century, is nothing if not evidence for that fact. Incredible scientific ingenuity went into the creation of great weapons; the manipulation of the atom to kill millions in an instant, or the manufacturing of biological and chemical weapons. The problem with the interaction of science and power is that with such great power comes the temptation to use and abuse it. If the ability to create a weapon like an atom bomb seems possible, most certainly there are those who seek to make it probable. Where there is temptation, there is human weakness.

So while genetics can be used for benevolent purposes and for the betterment of humankind, so too can it be used to effectively create a biological caste system, where in time it would be feasible to see a break in the human race, where as human advancement technologies become increasingly available, their use is reserved to the elite so that there comes a time where there is a biological separation in the human species. Oliver Curry, an evolutionary theorist from the London School of Economics, predicted that "the human race will have reached its physical peak by the year 3000" and that, "The human race will one day split into two separate species, an attractive, intelligent ruling elite and an underclass of dim-witted, ugly goblin-like creatures." Such was the plot of H.G. Wells' classic book, "The Time Machine," who was himself, a prominent eugenicist at the turn of the 20th century. While this would be a long time from now, its potential results from the decisions we make today.

Population Control as Eugenics

Not only was the field of genetics born of eugenics, and heavily financed by the same monied-interests that seek social control; but so too was the field of population control. In environmental literature and rhetoric, one concept that has emerged over the years as playing a significant part is that of population control. Population is seen as an environmental issue because the larger the population, the more resources it consumes and land it occupies. In this concept, the more people there are the worse the environment becomes. Thus, programs aimed at controlling population growth are often framed in an environmentalist lens. There is also a distinctly radical element in this field, which views population growth not simply as an environmental concern, but which frames people, in general, as a virus that must be eradicated if the earth is to survive.

However, in the view of elites, population control is more about controlling the people than saving the environment. Elites have always been drawn to population studies that have, in many areas, helped construct their worldview. Concerns about population growth really took hold with Thomas Malthus at the end of the 18th century. In 1798, Malthus wrote a "theory on the nature of poverty," and he "called for population control by moral restraint," citing charity as a promotion of "generation-to-generation poverty and simply made no sense in the natural scheme of human progress." Thus, the idea of 'charity' became immoral. The eugenics movement attached itself to Malthus' theory regarding the "rejection of the value of helping the poor."

The ideas of Malthus, and later Herbert Spencer and Charles Darwin were remolded into branding an elite ideology of "Social Darwinism", which was "the notion that in the struggle to survive in a harsh world, many humans were not only less worthy, many were actually destined to wither away as a rite of progress. To preserve the weak and the needy was, in essence, an unnatural act." This theory simply justified the immense wealth, power and domination of a small elite over the rest of humanity, as that elite saw themselves as the only truly intelligent beings worthy of holding such power and privilege.

Francis Galton later coined the term "eugenics" to describe this emerging field. His followers believed that the 'genetically unfit' "would have to be wiped away," using tactics such as, "segregation, deportation, castration, marriage prohibition, compulsory sterilization, passive euthanasia – and ultimately extermination." The actual science of eugenics was lacking extensive evidence, and ultimately Galton "hoped to recast eugenics as a religious doctrine," which was "to be taken on faith without proof."

As the quest to re-brand "eugenics" was under way, a 1943 edition of Eugenical News published an article titled "Eugenics After the War," which cited Charles Davenport, a major founder and progenitor of eugenics, in his vision of "a new mankind of biological castes with master races in control and slave races serving them." A 1946 article in Eugenical News stated that, "Population, genetics, [and] psychology, are the three sciences to which the eugenicist must look for the factual material on which to build an acceptable philosophy of eugenics and to develop and defend practical eugenics proposals."

In the post-war period, emerging in the 1950s and going into the 1960s, the European colonies were retracting as nations of the 'Third World' were gaining political independence. This reinforced support for population control in many circles, as "For those who benefited most from the global status quo, population control measures were a far more palatable alternative to ending Third World poverty or promoting genuine economic development."

In 1952, "John D. Rockefeller 3rd convened a group of scientists to discuss the implications of the dramatic demographic change. They met in Williamsburg, Virginia, under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences, and after two and a half days agreed on the need for a new institution that could provide solid science to guide governments and individuals in addressing population questions." That new institution was to become the Population Council. Six of the Council's ten founding members were eugenicists.

According to the Population Council's website, it "did not itself espouse any form of population policy. Instead, through grants to individuals and institutions, it invested in strengthening the indigenous capacity of countries and regions to conduct population research and to develop their own policies. The Council also funded seminal work in U.S. universities and further developed its own in-house research expertise in biomedicine, public health, and social science."

In 2008, Matthew Connelly, a professor at Columbia University, wrote a book called, "Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population," in which he critically analyzes the history of the population control movement. He documents the rise of the field through the eugenics movement:

    In 1927 a Rockefeller-funded study of contraception sought "some simple measure which will be available for the wife of the slum-dweller, the peasant, or the coolie, though dull of mind." In 1935 one representative told India's Council of State that population control was a necessity for the masses, adding that "it is not what they want, but what is good for them." The problem with the natives was that "they are born too much and they don't die enough," a public-health official in French Indochina stated in 1936.

Connelly's general thesis was "how some people have long tried to redesign world population by reducing the fertility of other's." Further:

    Connelly examines population control as a global transnational movement because its main advocates and practitioners aimed to reduce world population through global governance and often viewed national governments as a means to this end. Fatal Misconceptions is therefore an intricate account of networks of influential individuals, international organizations, NGOs, and national governments.

As one review in the Economist pointed out, "Much of the evil done in the name of slowing population growth had its roots in an uneasy coalition between feminists, humanitarians and environmentalists, who wished to help the unwillingly fecund, and the racists, eugenicists and militarists who wished to see particular patterns of reproduction, regardless of the desires of those involved." The Economist further wrote:

    As the world population soared, the population controllers came to believe they were fighting a war, and there would be collateral damage. Millions of intra-uterine contraceptive devices were exported to poor countries although they were known to cause infections and sterility. "Perhaps the individual patient is expendable in the general scheme of things," said a participant at a conference on the devices organised in 1962 by the Population Council, a research institute founded by John D. Rockefeller, "particularly if the infection she acquires is sterilising but not lethal." In 1969 Robert McNamara, then president of the World Bank, said he was reluctant to finance health care "unless it was very strictly related to population control, because usually health facilities contributed to the decline of the death rate, and thereby to the population explosion."

A review in the New York Review of Books pointed out that this movement coincided a great deal with the feminist movement in advancing women's reproductive rights. However, "these benefits were seen by many US family planning officials as secondary to the goal of reducing the absolute numbers of people in developing countries. The urgency of what came to be known as the 'population control movement' contributed to a climate of coercion and led to a number of serious human rights abuses, especially in Asian countries." Dominic Lawson, writing a review of Connelly's book for The Sunday Times, explained that:

    the population-control movement was bankrolled by America's biggest private fortunes - the Ford family foundation, John D Rockefeller III, and Clarence Gamble (of Procter & Gamble). These gentlemen shared not just extreme wealth but a common anxiety: the well-to-do and clever (people like them, obviously) were now having much smaller families than their ancestors, but the great unwashed - Chinamen! Indians! Negroes! - were reproducing themselves in an irresponsible manner. What they feared was a kind of Darwinism in reverse - the survival of the unfittest.

As the New Scientist reported, while contraceptives and women's fertility rights were being expanded, "For much of the past half-century, population control came first and human rights had to be sacrificed." Further, the New Scientist wrote that Connelly "lays bare the dark secrets of an authoritarian neo-Malthusian ethos that created an international population agenda built around control." One such horrific notion was "the official policies that made it acceptable to hand out food aid to famine victims only if the women agreed to be sterilized." In a sad irony, this seemingly progressive movement for women's rights actually had the effect of resulting in a humanitarian disaster, disproportionately affecting women of the developing world.

In 1968, biologist Paul Ehrlich wrote his widely influential book, 'The Population Bomb,' "in which he predicted that global overpopulation would cause massive famines as early as the 1970s." In his book, he refers to mankind as a "cancer" upon the world:

    A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. Treating only the symptoms of cancer may make the victim more comfortable at first, but eventually he dies - often horribly. A similar fate awaits a world with a population explosion if only the symptoms are treated. We must shift our efforts from treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparent brutal and heartless decisions. The pain may be intense. But the disease is so far advanced that only with radical surgery does the patient have a chance to survive.

The American political elite fully embraced this population paradigm of viewing the world and relations with the rest of the world. President Lyndon Johnson was quoted as saying, "I'm not going to piss away foreign aid in nations where they refuse to deal with their own population problems," while his successor, Richard Nixon, was quoted as saying, "population control is a must ... population control must go hand in hand with aid." Robert McNamara, President of the World Bank and former Secretary of Defense in the Johnson administration, said that he opposed World Bank programs financing health care "unless it was very strictly related to population control, because usually health facilities contributed to the decline of the death rate, and thereby to the population explosion."

Ehrlich was also influential in tracking India's rapid population growth into the 1970s. The rapid population growth in India was attributed at the time to the result of the public health system the British had set up under the colonial government, as well as the fact that, as a means to maintaining a relationship of dependence with Britain, the British had discouraged industrialization in India. As famine was around the corner in India, President "Johnson used food aid to pressure the Indian government to meet its family planning targets," and "By the early 1970s, Bangladesh was spending one third of its entire health budget on family planning and India was spending 60 percent." Further:

    Between the 1960s and 1980s, millions of people in India and other Asian countries were sterilized or had IUDs (intrauterine devices), as well as other contraceptives, inserted in unhygienic conditions. Numerous cases of uterine perforation, excessive bleeding, infections, and even death were reported.

The Population Council knowingly sent un-sterile IUDs to India, and in the 1970s, nearly half a million women in forty-two developing countries were treated with defective IUDs that "heightened the risk of infection and uterine perforation," after the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) had "quietly bought up thousands of the devices at a discount for distribution overseas." Then sterilization was introduced as a means for "keeping the quotas" on population control in India, as "sterilization was made a condition for receiving land allocations and water for irrigation, as well as electricity, rickshaw licenses, and medical care." A Swedish diplomat touring a Swedish/World Bank population program at the time was quoted as saying, "Obviously the stories... on how young and unmarried men are more or less dragged to the sterilization premises are true in far too many cases."

In 1967, the UN Fund for Population Activities was created, and in 1971, "The General Assembly acknowledged that UNFPA [United Nations Population Fund] should play a leading role within the UN system in promoting population programmes." In 1970, Nixon created the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, known as the Rockefeller Commission, for its chairman, John D. Rockefeller 3rd. In 1972, the final report was delivered to Nixon.

Among the members of the Commission (besides Rockefeller) were David E. Bell, Vice President of the Ford Foundation, and Bernard Berelson, President of the Population Council. Among the conclusions were that, "Population growth is one of the major factors affecting the demand for resources and the deterioration of the environment in the United States. The further we look into the future, the more important population becomes," and that, "From an environmental and resource point of view, there are no advantages from further growth." Further, the report warned:

    The American future cannot be isolated from what is happening in the rest of the world. There are serious problems right now in the distribution of resources, income, and wealth, among countries. World population growth is going to make these problems worse before they get better. The United States needs to undertake much greater efforts to understand these problems and develop international policies to deal with them.

In 1974, National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM) 200 was issued under the direction of US National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, otherwise known as "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests." Among the issues laid out in the memorandum was that, "Growing populations will have a serious impact on the need for food especially in the poorest, fastest growing LDCs [Lesser Developed Countries]," and "The most serious consequence for the short and middle term is the possibility of massive famines in certain parts of the world, especially the poorest regions." Further, "rapid population growth presses on a fragile environment in ways that threaten longer-term food production." The report plainly stated that, "there is a major risk of severe damage to world economic, political, and ecological systems and, as these systems begin to fail, to our humanitarian values."

The memorandum lays out key policy recommendations for dealing with the "crisis" of overpopulation. They stated that "our aim should be for the world to achieve a replacement level of fertility, (a two-child family on the average), by about the year 2000," and that this strategy "will require vigorous efforts by interested countries, U.N. agencies and other international bodies to make it effective [and] U.S. leadership is essential." They suggested a concentration on specific countries: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Colombia.

They recommended the "Integration of population factors and population programs into country development planning," as well as "Increased assistance for family planning services, information and technology," and "Creating conditions conducive to fertility decline." The memorandum even specifically mentioned that, "We must take care that our activities should not give the appearance to the LDCs [Lesser Developed Countries] of an industrialized country policy directed against the LDCs." Essentially, NSSM 200 made population control a key strategy in US foreign policy, specifically related to aid and development. In other words, it was eugenics as foreign policy.

In 1975, Indira Gandhi, the Prime Minister of India, declared martial law. Her son Sanjay was appointed as the nation's chief population controller. Sanjay "proceeded to flatten slums and then tell the residents that they could get a new house if they would agree to be sterilized. Government officials were given sterilization quotas. Within a year, six million Indian men and two million women were sterilized. At least 2,000 Indians died as a result of botched sterilization operations." However, the following year there was an election, and Indira Gandhi's government was thrown out of power, with that issue playing a major factor.

Next, however, China became the major focus of the population control movement, which "offered technical assistance to China's "one child" policy of 1978-83, even helping to pay for computers that allowed Chinese officials to track "birth permits," the official means by which the government banned families from having more than one child and required the aborting of additional children." Further:

    Even China's draconian population programs received some support in the 1980s from the US-funded International Planned Parenthood Federation and the UN Population Fund. Before China launched its infamous "One Child Policy," concerns were being raised about its "voluntary" family planning program. In 1981, Chinese and American newspapers reported that "vehicles transporting Cantonese women to hospitals for abortions were 'filled with wailing noises.' Some pregnant women were reportedly 'handcuffed, tied with ropes or placed in pig's baskets.'"

    After 1983, coercion became official Chinese policy. "All women with one child were to be inserted with a stainless-steel, tamper-resistant IUD, all parents with two or more children were to be sterilized, and all unauthorized pregnancies aborted," according to the One Child Policy. During this time, the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the UN Population Fund continued to support China's nongovernmental Family Planning Association, even though some of its top officials also worked for the government.

The UN was not a passive participant in population control measures, as it actively supported these harsh programs, and in many cases, rewarded governments for their vicious tactics in reducing population growth:

    In 1983, Xinzhong Qian and Indira Gandhi were awarded the first United Nations Population Award to recognize and reward their accomplishments in limiting the population growth in China and India in the previous decade. During the 1970s, officials in these countries had launched extremely ambitious population programs that were supposed to improve the quality of the population and halt its growth. The measures used were harsh. For example, slum clearance resulting in the eradication of whole urban neighbourhoods and the widespread sterilization of their inhabitants was an important part of India's 'Emergency' campaign. In Delhi, hundreds of thousands of people were driven from their homes in events that resulted in numerous clashes, arrests, and deaths, while a total of eight million sterilizations were recorded in India in 1976.
Horrifically, "between the 1960s and 1980s, millions of people in India and other Asian countries were sterilized or had IUDs, as well as other contraceptives, inserted in unhygienic conditions. Numerous cases of uterine perforation, excessive bleeding, infections, and even death were reported, but these programs made little effort to treat these conditions, or even determine their frequency, so we don't know precisely how common they were."

In the late 1980s, revelations in Brazil uncovered the NSSM 200 in Brazil since its implementation in 1975 under the Ford Presidency. An official government investigation was launched, and it was discovered that, "an estimated 44% of all Brazilian women aged between 14 and 55 had been permanently sterilized." Further, the programs of sterilization, undertaken by a number of international organizations, were coordinated under the guidance of USAID.

At the UN's 1994 World Population Conference in Cairo, Third World delegates to the conference emphasized the need for development policies as opposed to demographic policies; that the focus must be on development, not population. This was essentially a setback for the radical population control movement; however, it wasn't one they couldn't work around. There was still a great deal of support among Western elites and co-opted developing world elites for the aims of population control. As Connelly articulated:

    It appealed to the rich and powerful because, with the spread of emancipatory movements and the integration of markets, it began to appear easier and more profitable to control populations than to control territory. That's why opponents were correct in viewing it as another chapter in the unfinished history of imperialism.

It was around this point that the population control movement, while continuing on its overall aims of curbing population growth of Third World nations, began to further merge itself with the environmental movement. While always working alongside the environmental movement, this period saw the emergence of a more integrated approach to policy agendas.

Environmentalism as Eugenics

Michael Barker extensively covered the connection between the Rockefeller and Ford foundations in funding the environmental movement in the academic journal, Capitalism Nature Socialism. As Barker noted, following World War II, the public became increasingly concerned with the environment as the "chemical-industrial complex" grew at an astounding rate. Since Rockefeller interests were heavily involved in the chemical industry, the rising trend in environmental thought and concern had to quickly be controlled and steered in a direction favourable to elite interests.

Two important organizations in shaping the environmental movement were the Conservation Foundation and Resources for the Future, which largely relied upon Rockefeller and Ford Foundation funding, and both conservation organizations had interestingly helped to "launch an explicitly pro-corporate approach to resource conservation." Laurance Rockefeller served as a trustee of the Conservation Foundation, and donated $50,000 yearly throughout the 50s and 60s. Further, the Conservation Foundation was founded by Fairfield Osborn, whose cousin, Frederick Osborn, became another prominent voice in conservation. Frederick Osborn was also working with the Rockefeller's Population Council and was President of the American Eugenics Society.

In 1952, the Ford Foundation created the organization Resources for the Future (RFF), (the same year that the Rockefellers created the Population Council), and the original founders were also "John D. Rockefeller Jr.'s chief advisors on conservation matters." Laurance Rockefeller joined the board of the RFF in 1958, and the RFF got $500,000 from the Rockefeller Foundation in 1970. The Ford Foundation would also go on to create the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. McGeorge Bundy, who was President of the Ford Foundation from 1966 until 1979, once stated that, "everything the foundation did could be regarded as 'making the world safe for capitalism'."

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org

Geolibertarian

http://www.infowars.com/1973-un-publication-proposes-creation-of-global-family-planning-communication-resource-units/

1973 UN Publication Proposes Creation of Global "Family Planning Communication Resource Units"

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com
July 30, 2010

As we have seen, the elite are going all the way with their eugenics-based programs. From genetically modified crops, finding their way into our daily meals, to the introduction of eco-taxes and bogus "carbon cops." Mainstream media, as usual, have aligned themselves in injecting preprogrammed messages of impending doom. This, as we shall learn, is no coincidence.


                 "Family planning is for YOU."

A 1973 UNESCO-publication called Mass Media, Family Planning and Development: Country Case Studies on Media Strategy [.pdf] proposes the creation of a 'family planning communication resource unit' for every nation concerned within the UN-system, especially third-world nations. The reason being, so the report states, that "culturally, there is an emphasis on fertility, and the birth of children to the family is celebrated, as a symbol of prosperity and for status for women."

Because the boys from the UN can't have that, significant reduction of the population-size should be accomplished through an elaborate media campaign from every possible viewpoint. But for this media onslaught to be effective, the engineers must first go after ancient tribal instincts, revolving around procreation and creativity. They must be branded suspect- and so must religion and tribal mythology.

The writers however, mean not to destroy these human tendencies, they mean to utilize them to their own advantage and that of their masters instead. "The religion", they say, "supports the idea that children are 'God's Greatest Blessing' but can also be used to encourage the idea that every child should be given the best opportunities parents can offer. There is also a favourable attitude to economic development, a desire to raise living standards, and a desire for education. These factors are helpful in the development of a Preliminary Media Strategy."

"A Communication Resource Unit", the document continues, "is responsible for the implementation of media policy for one, or more than one field." The document proceeds with outlining the functions of such a unit in regards to family planning messages: "The integration of messages is a matter which concerns the Communication Resource Unit, in that an integrated approach to family planning needs to be worked out. (...) These (messages) may be 'family planning for maternal health', 'family planning for family prosperity', 'family planning for your figure', 'family planning for national prosperity', family planning for child development.' These messages will be pretested to find those which seem to appeal most to the eligible age groups."

One of the many case studies (country case study nr.1) involves an unnamed "small island", total population 3,000,000. Describing the current situation, the report states: "Mass media approaches to family planning are wholly financed by the Government and, since 1968, radio, television and the press have been used to give information about family planning and to create an awareness of the need for population control." One of the chief objectives for the 'resource unit', will be to "extend(ing) the family planning coverage to 90% of the eligible population. The aim at this point is to bring the number of children per family nearer to three rather than four, and to gradually reduce this to two children per family at a later stage."

As one of the first proposed 'phases' of the programme, the document describes several messages to be embedded within television commercials. "A couple are shown over one of the new Government flats. They are unable to take it, because the accommodation provided is for families with two or three children. Preference is given to smaller families. They (the large family) will have to wait longer." Another example: "The picture shows a married woman with one child. She is stopped by a voice saying "Do you know about family planning?" "Your local clinic has all the information."" Or: "(Picture changes to a smiling woman with clinic appearing) "Family planning is free in all clinics (...)"". How about this one: "Don't put off family planning. Tomorrow may be too late. See your clinic today." You gotta also love this one: "A picture on the screen could show a woman talking to a consultant about family planning. She turns to the viewers and says: "I'm glad I made up my mind about family planning.""

Cartoons, say the authors, could also help implant a family planning message, for example "a cartoon in the most widely read newspaper could take the opportunity to ridicule those who cling to the old ways to the detriment of their families."

Both television and radio advertisements are subject to the strategies of the Communication Resource Unit: "Advertising on television will be in the evenings, between popular programmes, when a broader audience (both male and female) is expected." With regards to radio advertising, the report says: "The commercials can be played into record request programmes, women's programmes, at programme junctions, before and after news breaks, popular serials and plays. The message should be simple, sympathetic, catchy."

"For example", the report continues, "messages like these can appeal specifically to the over thirty age group: "Family planning is for YOU. Have you had two children or more? The now's the time to visit your local clinic." And: "Most people plan their families. They know that education, clothing, housing, all cost money. How many children can you afford?" In another instance, people are being scared with all kinds of gruesome images: "For example, the commercial might begin with the hungry cries of four or five children, followed by the tired voice of the mother." The examples in the document go on and on, crudely distributing messages into the mass media: "A sequence might be set up, (...) showing John and Mary with two children. The caption reads: "John and Mary.... nice house ......lovely children", and another (showing another couple with four children), "Doris and Jack..... no house ..... too many children."

"Personality shows", the report mentions, "can be useful in the reinforcement phase. (...) A well known personality who demonstrates an interest in family planning, or remarks on the success of the campaign, can often add credibility to the family planning message." The report would like to see these personalities follow the script word for word, for example in response to a woman, who recently gave birth to her first child: "Well, that's marvellous", the radio personality should respond, "Congratulations Mrs......... I suppose you won't be having any more children for a bit. You want that boy of yours to grow healthy and strong and I know you need time to recover- Children take up a lot of your time, don't they?" The document states that personality alone cannot fully carry the message through to the listening audience: "Jingles and spot announcements, jokes and quick comments, can be included in the programmes, which will then have the effect of keeping the subject of family planning firmly in mind."

How would the Unesco-people arrange all this, just by voluntary compliance of the media-people involved? "There may be some scheme whereby those people will be paid for their work (...)"- says the document. In other words: bribery is being proposed as an acceptable means of bringing the media into the overall strategy.

Also community plays should be used to convey the message: "The afternoon play can carry the theme, skillfully woven into the story. It is possible that some plays could be specially written for the purpose, but it is probable that the message can be incorporated into plays by those writers who have been briefed well enough in advance." Music and pamphlets are another way of doing it, the report says: "Songs can be useful in this phase, (...). They must be professionally composed and recorded, and the messages must be reasonably subtle if it is to be acceptable to programmers."

But the Resource Unit won't restrict itself to just radio, TV and plays. Feature films are considered perhaps to be the most effective tools in conveying the message to unsuspecting audiences: "(...) There are two ways in which the family planning message can be included in feature films. The first is for the family organisation to commission a film specifically for the campaign. (...) if it is to be successful, well known and popular actors must be chosen, and the scripting and direction has to be professionally executed. Another method is for the family planning theme to be introduced into feature films which are already planned and prepared by local commercial production companies. In this case, the family planning organisers must be aware of the possible ways in which the theme can be subtly incorporated, as producers are not likely to respond to a suggestion which involves the total re-thinking of the plot. (...) Suitable opportunities can be found in love stories, in stories based on conflicts between men and women (...)."

And the document continues on, listing example after example- illustrating quite vividly the willingness on the part of the Malthusian-minded elite to lie, cheat and deceive in order to convince people that 'less is more'. As this document shows, nation after nation is methodically bombarded with predictive programming-propaganda, requiring of the receiver an almost superhuman set of defence mechanisms to fence off the pitchforks of the eugenicists, poking at them from all sides.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org

Geolibertarian

http://www.prisonplanet.com/brain-eating-vaccines-the-reality-behind-the-conspiracy-theory.html

Brain Eating Vaccines: The Reality Behind The "Conspiracy Theory"

Wired Magazine hit piece attempts to debunk legitimate concerns about agenda to chemically lobotomize general public through vaccines, water supply

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Wired Magazine writer Jonah Lehrer has labeled concerns that vaccines which alter brain chemistry and induce states of "focused calm" could be abused by governments to create lobotomized, servile populations as delusional, paranoid, and idiotic conspiracy theories, despite the fact that major mental health professionals are already pushing for lithium to be introduced into water supplies as a means of mass medicating against "mood disorders".

Lehrer, an Oxford University graduate and a Rhodes Scholar, brazenly calls Alex Jones a liar in his article today after Jones put out a You Tube video in which he warned that new vaccines designed to reduce stress and neutralize people's anger could lead to a nightmare THX 1138 scenario, in which the population is controlled and subjugated through the use of special drugs to suppress emotion.

Jones also encouraged listeners to Google search the words "brain eating vaccines," causing the term to rise to the number 1 position on Google Trends for August 3rd.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm3PYZ0N7Dg (Media Pushes BRAIN Eating Vaccine... Nano Tech Injection Lobotomy)

In the video, Jones makes the point that vaccines being proposed by people like Robert Sapolsky to impose a state of "focused calm" by altering brain chemistry, as well as shots aimed at curbing drug and cigarette addictions, fit the very definition of being "brain eating" because they fundamentally rewire the brain and shut down innate processes that naturally produce stress, anxiety and aggression – which are all necessary human traits vital to survival and healthy mental functioning.

Many vaccines contain the preservative thimerosol, a compound derived from mercury. As the video below from the University of Calgary demonstrates, mercury is a potent neurotoxin and causes neurodegeneration, altering the very structure of the brain. The U.S. government has been forced to admit that childhood vaccines preserved with thimerosol have contributed to the explosion in autism cases in the United States.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKuznYVn40s (Watch Mercury Kill The Brain: Vaccines And Neurodegeneration)

Lehrer unwittingly exposes his bias tactic to label legitimate concerns surrounding these vaccines as mythical fantasies when he claims that plans by governments to artificially add lithium to the water supply are in fact "idiotic conspiracy theories".

Perhaps Lehrer can explain why Professor Allan Young of Vancouver's Institute for Mental Health told the BBC that "Large-scale trials involving the addition of lithium to drinking water supplies may...be feasible," following claims that lithium led to a reduction in the number of suicides in Japan and helped to alleviate "mood disorders". It's hardly an "idiotic conspiracy theory" when one of Canada's foremost mental health professionals is calling for its potential implementation, is it Mr. Lehrer?

Lehrer also includes a lengthy passage from a separate blog which scoffs at people who are worried about authorities attempting to "sterilize and/or pacify their populations through drugs in their water supplies".

Apparently, if you are concerned about brain eating vaccines then you're also stupid enough to think that powerful men in positions of influence have publicly called for the population to be mass medicated against their will by means of sterilants in the water supply.

Presumably then we should take a shot of Robert Sapolsky's anti-stress vaccine and not concern ourselves with the trivial fact that Barack Obama's top science czar John P. Holdren advocated in his own textbook Ecoscience that a "planetary regime" should employ a "global police force" to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children.

Neither should the fact that Holdren reiterated these talking points as recently as 2006 be a topic of consternation, and anyone who makes reference to it is obviously just engaging in another "delusional rant," to use Lehrer's term.

Indeed, Lehrer's own fellow Oxford luminary Julian Savulescu, in a 2008 white paper, called for populations to be mass-medicated through pharmacological 'cognitive enhancements' added to the water supply.

Of course, this is not the first time that we've warned against the dangers of vaccines and been proven right, despite being attacked as delusional conspiracy theorists for doing so at the time. The same claims were made about the H1N1 vaccine when Alex Jones and other leading alternative researches identified the 'pandemic' hype as a hoax to sell vaccine stocks and impose an untested formula created with cancer cells– now Wolfgang Wodarg at the Council of Europe has exposed that it was a false panic deliberately-fueled by WHO officials and vaccine industry representatives.

Lehrer's paltry rebuttal, which consists mainly of playground insults and strawman invocations, is perhaps best answered by the readers of his article, the vast majority of whom express their vehement disagreement.

"After reading this article and then watching the Alex Jones well documented video there is no question who is telling the truth and it is most certainly not the author of this article. Major failure Jonah," writes one, pointing out that Lehrer refuses to even link directly to Jones' You Tube video, probably because he is unable to debunk Jones' exhaustively documented analysis about the threat posed by brain-altering vaccines.

"All you did was prove Alex Jones right," writes another. "That's what is sad here...you're not an intellectual. Your a hypocrite with a weak ass puff piece that does nothing to prove Alex Jones wrong but just attacks his character".

"A vaccine to alleviate stress. Only a domesticated drugged mind could not see the danger in that and then to attack someone who does see danger in it!" points out another.

"I'm an RN, and one of the reasons I am leaving this profession is the vaccine/autism issue. Look into the history of eugenics, and govt testing on unwitting human subjects, and tell me that Alex Jones and the questioning public he serves are "paranoid." Look at the history of the twentieth century and tell me that governments would never treat their own citizens in this way. Lithium additives to the water supply ARE being proposed, ostensibly as a way to lower the suicide rate. Sodium Floride WAS used by the Nazis to make jewish populations more docile. The CDC and the corporate mainstream media urged pregnant mothers and children to use the flu shot last season, assuring them it was safe, and deriding the "paranoid conspiracy theorists" who warned against it – and I myself, in administering it, read the package insert which clearly stated "The safety of this vaccine for use with pregnant women and children has not been evaluated." This is about money and power. Give yourself an education in both before you join the simian hooting against "liars" and "paranoids" that follows fact-challenged ad hominem attacks such as the above article," concludes another commenter.

Jonah Lehrer has been publicly invited to appear on The Alex Jones Show to defend his claim that "Alex Jones is a liar" on the subject of brain eating vaccines. Watch this space to see if he accepts the challenge, or if he continues to hide behind sophomoric jibes and strawman arguments.

The following statement by Alex Jones was submitted to the Wired website but never appeared in the comments section in response to Lehrer's hit piece.

Lehrer,

This is Alex Jones publicly challenging you to appear on my radio show and face the music. You know full-well that my video quotes the New York Times, top bioethicists and major medical associations calling for Lithium to be added to the drinking water in order to "calm the public." In the "Brain Eating Vaccines" video, I talk about multiple classes of live viruses (so-called "vaccines") that travel to the brain and destroy receptor sites. Many of them deal with "curing drug addictions." There are also many "stress vaccines" currently being developed. But of course you already know of this; this is your field, after all. It's clear you were counting on what you perceived as the ignorance of your readers.

The good news, however, is that more than 90% of your readers' comments see through the dumbed-down pap you shoveled at them for what it really is: condescending, arrogant control-freakism. British newspapers are now reporting that the government has suspended the H1N1 vaccine to under fives because of its ten-fold increase in violent seizures. So many people have died or have been irrevocably damaged by vaccines that now their surviving family and friends are joining together to investigate the crimes of Big Pharma and take action against the new-eugenicist servants of death. The Rhodes Scholarship was founded by Cecil Rhodes to develop a covert plan for world government. But you already know that, being a Rhodes Scholar.

The truth is, Jonah, you're going to lose. More and more people see you and your cohorts for what you are, and you and your brethren will all be brought to justice. Stop trying to "improve" us with your GMO garbage, and get the hell out of our lives, you parasite. Check your email for our contact information. You threw down the gauntlet; let's see if you're man enough to meet head-to-head."
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org

Geolibertarian

http://www.infowars.com/rockefeller-foundation-developed-vaccines-for-%e2%80%9cmass-scale%e2%80%9d-fertility-reduction/

Rockefeller Foundation Developed Vaccines For "Mass-Scale" Fertility Reduction

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com
Thursday, August 5, 2010

In its 1968 yearly report [.pdf], the Rockefeller Foundation acknowledged funding the development of so-called "anti-fertility vaccines" and their implementation on a mass-scale. From page 51 onward we read:

"(...) several types of drugs are known to diminish male fertility, but those that have been tested have serious problems of toxicity. Very little work is in progress on immunological methods, such as vaccines, to reduce fertility, and much more research is required if a solution is to be found here."

The possibility of using vaccines to reduce male fertility was something that needed to be investigated further, according to the Rockefeller Foundation, because both the oral pill and the IUD were not suitable for mass-scale distribution:

"We are faced with the danger that within a few years these two "modern" methods, for which such high hopes have been held, will in fact turn out to be impracticable on a mass scale."

The possibility of administrating hormone preparations to reduce fertility was also mentioned, although- states the report- they have been known to "cause bleeding problems, which may limit their usefulness."

"A semipermanent or renewable subcutaneous implant of these hormones has been suggested, but whether or not the same difficulties would result has not been determined."

Saying that research thus-far had been too low-grade to produce any substantial results, the report was adamant:

"The Foundation will endeavour to assist in filling this important gap in several ways:

1- "Seeking out or encouraging the development of, and providing partial support to, a few centres of excellence in universities and research institutions in the United States and abroad in which the methods and points of view of molecular biology are teamed with the more traditional approaches of histology, embryology,and endocrinology in research pertinent to development of fertility control methods;"

2- "Supporting research of individual investigators, oriented toward development of contraceptive methods or of basic information on human reproduction relevant to such developments;"

3- "Encouraging, by making research funds available, as well as by other means, established and beginning investigators to turn their attention to aspects of research in reproductive biology that have implications for human fertility and its control;"

4- "Encouraging more biology and biochemistry students to elect careers in reproductive biology and human fertility control, through support of research and teaching programs in departments of zoology, biology, and biochemistry."

The list goes on and on. Motivation for these activities, according to the RF?

"There are an estimated five million women among America's poverty and near-poverty groups who need birth control service (...). The unchecked fertility of the indigent does much to perpetuate poverty, undereducation, and underemployment, not only in urban slums, but also in depressed rural areas."

It wasn't long before all the Foundation's efforts began to have effect. In its annual report of 1988 [.pdf], The RF was happy to report the progress made by the Foundation's Population Division in the field of anti-fertility vaccines:

"India's National Institute of Immunology successfully completed in 1988 the first phase of trials with three versions of an anti-fertility vaccine for women. Sponsored by the government of India and supported by the Foundation, the trials established that with each of the tested vaccines, at least one year of protection against pregnancy could be expected, based on the levels of antibodies formed in response to the immunization schedule."

In its 1997 review of anti-fertility vaccines [.pdf], Indian based International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology didn't forget to acknowledge its main benefactor:

"The work on LHRH and HCG vaccines was supported by research grants of The Rockefeller Foundation, (...)."

In the 1990s the work on anti-fertility vaccines went in overdrive, especially in third-world nations, as did the funding provided by the deep pockets of the Rockefeller Foundation. At the same time, the target-population of the globalists- women- began to stir uncomfortably with all this out-in-the-open talk of population reduction and vaccines as a means to achieve it.

Betsy Hartman, Director of the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College, Massachusetts and "someone who believes strongly in women's right to safe, voluntary birth control and abortion", is no supporter of the anti-fertility vaccine, as brought into being by the Rockefeller Foundation. She explains in her essay Population control in the new world order [.pdf]:

"Although one vaccine has been tested on only 180 women in India, it is being billed there as 'safe, devoid of any side effects and completely reversible'. The scientific community knows very well that such assertions are false – for instance, many questions still remain about the vaccine's long-term impact on the immune system and menstrual cycle. There is also evidence on film of women being denied information about the vaccine in clinical trials. Nevertheless, the vaccine is being prepared for large-scale use."

The Women's Global Network for Reproductive Rights based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, quoted "a leading contraceptive researcher as saying:

"Immunological birth control methods will be an 'antigenic weapon' against the reproductive process, which left unchecked, threatens to swamp the world."

Animal rights activist ms. Sonya Ghosh also expressed concerns [.pdf] about the Rockefeller-funded anti-fertility vaccine and its implementation:

"Instead of giving individual women more options to prevent pregnancy and protect against AIDs and sexually transmitted diseases, the anti fertility vaccine is designed to be easily administered to large numbers of women using the least resources. If administered to illiterate populations the issues of user control and informed consent are further cause for concern."

To avoid such debates, the Foundation has in the last couple of decades consorted to its long-practised and highly successful methods of either outright lying through its teeth or using deceptive language to hide the fact that it continues to work tirelessly toward its long-stated mission. If you think the RF and others have abandoned their anti-fertility efforts with the help of vaccines, think again or read this article.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org

Geolibertarian

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ban-ki-moons-top-advisor-scientific-elite-should-spearhead-global-population-control.html

Ban Ki-moon's Top Advisor: Scientific Elite Should Spearhead Global Population Control



Jurriaan Maessen
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Randomly pick a globalist scholar, one that is celebrated by academia and government alike, and you'll find a can of worms under the crust, to be sure.

While reading a panel discussion on "achieving the MDGs by 2015: Preparing for the 2010 UN MDG Summit" [.pdf], I stumbled upon recent remarks made by professor of health policy and management and director of the Columbia University based Earth Institute, Mr. Jeffrey Sachs. He stressed urgent need for population reduction. The person in charge of transcribing the discussion, made the following note:

"(...) the fertility reduction and stabilization of population is crucial. He (Sachs) concluded by urging for the adoption of a globally agreed action plan at next year's Summit to achieve the MDGs by 2015, and proposed to form Working Groups with members of the delegations around particular themes. He characterized this effort as not negotiation, but as global problem solving and suggested that the Working Groups would brainstorm on the globally agreed plan."

Now, Mr. Sachs, like many of his colleagues, can be considered a prime example of a death-promoting globalist, and one who is not afraid to admit it. Sachs is something of a character, to be sure. Besides being named among the 100 most influential people in the world by Time Magazine, Sachs is also special advisor to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

It wasn't the first time that Mr. Sachs called for global coordination in regards to population control. In a September 2009 UN press release, Sachs not only lamented human activity on the planet, but argued for scientists and engineers to take the steering-wheel in this process:

"We're in the age of this planet where human activity dominates the earth's processes. Humanity has become so large in absolute number and in economic activity that we have overtaken earth processes in vital ways to the point of changing the climate, the hydrologic cycle," he told the UN Conference on Trade and Development."

"We don't necessarily need diplomats around the table", Sachs continued. "We need engineers around the table, scientists around the table. We need to put the cards down and have a new kind of process."

What kind of model does Sachs envision for his usurping utopia? He said it in an Economist publication [.pdf] in 2000:

"The model to emulate is the Rockefeller Foundation, the pre-eminent development institution of the 20th century, which showed what grant aid targeted on knowledge could accomplish."

In his commentary The Specter of Malthus Returns [.pdf], Sachs gives an adequate description of Agenda 21 without actually mentioning the UN plan for wealth redistribution and global population reduction:

"We will need to rethink modern diets and urban design to achieve healthier lifestyles that also reduce consumption. And to stabilize the global population at around eight billion, we will have to help Africa and other regions in speeding their demographic transition. We are definitely not yet on such a trajectory. We will need new policies to push markets down that path and to promote technological advances in resource saving. We will need a new politics to recognize the importance of a sustainable growth strategy and global cooperation to achieve it."

Global government, in other words, to facilitate a global scientific dictatorship. The plan is ready. The cards, as Sachs said, are on the table.

"The shortfalls in health, education, and population control are of course mutually interactive", Sachs wrote in February of 2001 in the working paper: The Decade of Development: Goal Setting and Policy Challenges in India [.pdf].

In order for this "global plan" to be adequately facilitated, Sachs figures, the need for global government is pressing. In the preparatory MDG Gap Task Force Report 2010 [.pdf], the Assistant Secretary-General for Economic Development (UN-DESA) sums up the needed action:

-"New global economic coordination mechanism"

-"Global governance must provide sufficient national policy spacing"

-"Global Green New Deal"

-"Coordinate international financial regulation through new multilateral authority"

In an opinion-letter for The Economist [.pdf], Sachs clarifies his opinion in regards to global fertility reduction:

"With sensible policies and international support, these very poor countries could do themselves a huge favour by reducing fertility rates sharply through voluntary means. The rich countries, on their part, could do themselves and the world a huge favour by putting their efforts into reducing their greenhouse-gas emissions and following through on promised aid, including for universal access to family-planning services, rather than on raising their own fertility rates."

Now remember, this is the guy advising Ban Ki-moon on issues concerning population and other matters.

In a 2007 publication named Revamping U.S. Foreign Assistance [.pdf], Sachs called for the "Reinvigoration of Global Population Policies"(page 22) in regards to the developing world:

"Total Fertility Rates often average 6 to 8 children per mother in impoverished rural areas, and notably in the impoverished dry lands. These regions are without reliable access to modern contraception and family planning services, despite the pledges of the world community to ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health services by the year 2015. Much research has demonstrated that the failure of population control in the poorest countries poses enormous risks for those societies and for the rest of the world."

In 2009, Sachs (yes, he is mighty productive) co-authored a paper with a certain Matthew H. Bonds on the subject of poverty in relation to infectious diseases (here is a slide show of their presentation). As it turns out, this Bond-character is a loyal protégé of Sachs. In his dissertation Sociality, Sterility, and Poverty; Host-Pathogen Coevolution, with Implications for Human Ecology [.pdf], Bonds concludes that the best way to eradicate poverty is to, well... eradicate humans.

"We find that, after accounting for an income effect, reducing fertility may result in significantly lower disease prevalence over the long (economic) term than would a standard S-I-R epidemiological model predict, and might even be an effective strategy for eradicating some infectious diseases. Such a solution would make Malthus proud."

"(...) the new model, which accounts for an economic effect, predicts that a reduction in fertility may be significantly more effective than a vaccine. It also illustrates that a sustained vaccination policy would be more likely to eradicate a disease if done in conjunction with decreased reproduction."

O yes, don't think for a second that their plans are not out in the open and in your face.

"This model is likely to understate the true benefits of reduced fertility because the effect of reducing the birth rate is to reduce the flow of susceptibles for all diseases, which is the equivalent of a vaccine for all infectious diseases at the same time."

So speaks the scientific dictatorship, no holds barred. If you eradicate the human, you eradicate the disease, problem solved:

"Infectious diseases, however, continue to be most significant in developing countries, which experience relatively rapid population growth. The effect of this influx of children on the persistence and dynamics of childhood diseases, as well as on the critical vaccination coverage, is reasonably well-established (McLean and Anderson, 1988a; Broutin et al., 2005). But it is now warranted to turn this framework on its head: can fertility reduction be an integral element of a disease eradication campaign?"

In the interest of consistency, here's Jeffrey Sachs again, attempting to sweet-talk and recruit future scientists for the upcoming UN Millennium Development Goals Summit. Always remember, when these globalist control freaks speak of "sustainable development" and such, there's always a eugenic overlay.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mll3tZOyHa4 (Dr. Jeffrey Sachs to college students: A call to action in 2010)
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org

Geolibertarian

http://www.infowars.com/conclusive-global-distribution-of-rockefeller-funded-anti-fertility-vaccine-coordinated-by-who/

Conclusive: Global Distribution of Rockefeller-Funded Anti-Fertility Vaccine Coordinated by WHO

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com
August 27, 2010

In addition to the recent PrisonPlanet-exclusive Rockefeller Foundation Developed Vaccines For "Mass-Scale" Fertility Reduction — which outlines the Rockefeller Foundation's efforts [.pdf] in the 1960s funding research into so-called "anti-fertility vaccines"– another series of documents has surfaced, proving beyond any doubt that the UN Population Fund, World Bank and World Health Organization picked up on it, further developing it under responsibility of a "Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation".


WHO and the Rockefeller Foundation have worked together on "anti-
fertility" vaccine since the 1960s.


Just four years after the Rockefeller Foundation launched massive funding-operations into anti-fertility vaccines, the Task Force was created under auspices of the World Health Organization, World Bank and UN Population Fund. Its mission, according to one of its members, to support:

"basic and clinical research on the development of birth control vaccines directed against the gametes or the preimplantation embryo. These studies have involved the use of advanced procedures in peptide chemistry, hybridoma technology and molecular genetics as well as the evaluation of a number of novel approaches in general vaccinology. As a result of this international, collaborative effort, a prototype anti-HCG vaccine is now undergoing clinical testing, raising the prospect that a totally new family planning method may be available before the end of the current decade."

In regards to the scope of the Task Force's jurisdiction, the Biotechnology and Development Monitor reported:

"The Task Force acts as a global coordinating body for anti-fertility vaccine R&D in the various working groups and supports research on different approaches, such as anti-sperm and anti-ovum vaccines and vaccines designed to neutralize the biological functions of hCG. The Task Force has succeeded in developing a prototype of an anti-hCG-vaccine."

One of the Task Force members, P.D. Griffin, outlined [.pdf] the purpose and trajectory of these Fertility Regulating Vaccines. Griffin:

"The Task Force has continued to coordinate its research activities with other vaccine development programmes within WHO and with other international and national programmes engaged in the development of fertility regulating vaccines."

Griffin also admitted to the fact that one of the purposes of the vaccines is the implementation in developing countries. Griffin:

"If vaccines could be developed which could safely and effectively inhibit fertility, without producing unacceptable side effects, they would be an attractive addition to the present armamentarium of fertility regulating methods and would be likely to have a significant impact on family planning programmes."

Also, one of the advantages of the FRVs over "currently available methods of fertility regulation" the Task Force states, is the following (179):

"low manufacturing cost and ease of delivery within existing health services."

Already in 1978, the WHO's Task Force (then called Task Force on Immunological Methods for Fertility Regulation) underlined [.pdf] the usefulness of these vaccines in regards to the possibility of "large scale synthesis and manufacture" of the vaccine:

"The potential advantages of an immunological approach to fertility regulation can be summarized as follows: (a) the possibility of infrequent administration, possibly by paramedical personnel; (b) the use of antigens or antigen fragments, which are not pharmacologically active; and (c) in the case of antigens of known chemical structure, there is the possibility of large-scale synthesis and manufacture of vaccine at relatively low cost."

In 1976, the WHO Expanded Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction published a report, stating:

"In 1972 the Organization (...) expanded its programme of research in human reproduction to provide an international focus for an intensified effort to improve existing methods of fertility regulation, to develop new methods and to assist national authorities in devising the best ways of providing them on a continuing basis. The programme is closely integrated with other WHO research on the delivery of family planning care by health services, which in turn feeds into WHO's technical assistance programme to governments at the service level."

Although the term "Anti-Fertility Vaccine", coined by the Rockefeller Foundation, was replaced by the more bureaucratic sounding "Fertility Regulating Vaccine (FRV), the programme was obviously the same. Besides, The time line shows conclusively that the WHO, UN Population Fund and World Bank continued on a path outlined by the Rockefellers in the late 1960s. By extensions, it proves that all these organization are perfectly interlocked, best captured under the header "Scientific Dictatorship". The relationshipbetween the WHO and the Rockefeller Foundation is intense. In the 1986 bulletin of the World Health Organization [.pdf], this relationship is being described in some detail. While researching the effectiveness of "gossypol" as an "antifertility agent", the bulletin states:

"The Rockefeller Foundation has supported limited clinical trials in China and smallscale clinical studies in Brazil and Austria. The dose administered in the current Chinese trial has been reduced from 20 mg to 10-15 mg/day during the loading phase in order to see if severe oligospermia rather than consistent azoospermia would be adequate for an acceptable, non-toxic and reversible effect. Meanwhile, both the WHO human reproduction programme and the Rockefeller Foundation are supporting animal studies to better define the mechanism of action of gossypol."

In August of 1992, a series of meetings was held in Geneva, Switzerland, regarding "fertility regulating vaccines". According to the document Fertility Regulating Vaccines [.pdf] (classified by the WHO with a limited distribution) present at those meetings were scientists and clinicians from all over the globe, including then biomedical researcher of the American Agency for International development, and current research-chief of USAID, Mr. Jeff Spieler.

In 1986 Mr. Spieler declared [.pdf]:

"A new approach to fertility regulation is the development of vaccines directed against human substances required for reproduction. Potential candidates for immunological interference include reproductive hormones, ovum and sperm antigens, and antigens derived from embryonic or fetal tissue.(...). An antifertility vaccine must be capable of safely and effectively inhibiting a human substance, which would need somehow to be rendered antigenic. A fertility-regulating vaccine, moreover, would have to produce and sustain effective immunity in at least 95% of the vaccinated population, a level of protection rarely achieved even with the most successful viral and bacterial vaccines. But while these challenges looked insuperable just a few years ago, recent advances in biotechnology- particularly in the fields of molecular biology, genetic engineering and monoclonal antibody production- are bringing antifertility vaccines into the realm of the feasible."

"Vaccines interfering with sperm function and fertilization could be available for human testing by the early 1990s", Spieler wrote.

In order for widespread use of these vaccines, Spieler writes, the vaccine must conquer "variations in individual responses to immunization with fertility-regulating vaccines".

"Research", he goes on to say,"is also needed in the field of "basic vaccinology", to find the best carrier proteins, adjuvants, vehicles and delivery systems."

In the 1992 document, the problem of "variations in individual responses" is also discussed:

"Because of the genetic diversity of human populations", states the document, "immune responses to vaccines often show marked differences from one individual to another in terms of magnitude and duration. These differences may be partly or even completely overcome with appropriately engineered FRVs (Fertility Regulating Vaccines) and by improvements in our understanding of what is required to develop and control the immune response elicited by different vaccines."

The picture emerging from these facts is clear. The WHO, as a global coordinating body, has since the early 70s continued the development of the Rockefeller-funded "anti-fertility vaccine". What also is becoming clear, is that extensive research has been done to the delivery systems in which these anti-fertility components can be buried, such as regular anti-viral vaccines. It's a mass-scale anti-fertilization programme with the aim of reducing the world's population: a dream long cherished by the global elite.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org

Geolibertarian

http://www.prisonplanet.com/vaccine-deaths-and-injuries-skyrocket-as-cover-up-implodes.html

Vaccine Deaths And Injuries Skyrocket As Cover-Up Implodes

Global revolt against deadly vaccines spreads as cases of debilitating illnesses, soft-kill side-effects and even instant deaths become widespread

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, August 30, 2010

Cases of debilitating illnesses, soft-kill side-effects and even instant deaths as a result of vaccinations across the world are skyrocketing as the cover-up of deadly inoculations implodes and more people than ever become suspicious about what they are being injected with by health authorities who have proven they cannot be trusted.

The implosion of the vaccine cover-up is sure to discourage more parents from vaccinating their children in the coming months, with the swine flu shot now being combined with the regular seasonal flu jab. A recent Rasmussen poll found that 52 per cent of Americans were concerned about the safety of vaccines as we approach the start of school and college terms, where many children and teenagers will be "required" to take shots before they can attend.

A global revolt against dangerous vaccines is brewing following a series of cases where children have been killed as a direct result of inoculations.

A measles vaccination program in India was halted after four children died almost immediately after receiving the shot. "Four children died within minutes of receiving a vaccine for measles followed by drops of Vitamin A solution on Saturday," reports MedGuru.

Indian newspaper reports carried eyewitness accounts of what happened. "The four children were reported to have fainted soon after they were vaccinated and witnesses reported seeing the children's eyes roll back as they began to have seizures," reports Blitz.

Furious villagers reacted to the tragedy by going on a rampage, attacking health workers and holding government doctors hostage.

Health professionals and doctors with government ties were also blamed in Finland and Sweden after a H1N1 vaccination program was halted following a 300 per cent increase in cases of the neurological disorder narcolepsy amongst children and young people who had received the shot over the last six months.

According to Kari Lankinen, head physician of the Finnish Medicines Agency, doctors were complicit in hiding the link between the swine flu shot and narcolepsy and did so to advance their careers.

Meanwhile, concerned mothers whose daughters have been injured or killed by the Gardasil vaccine have put together a website that documents the truth about how the vaccine has killed and injured thousands of young girls since it was introduced in 2006. Thousands of teenagers have suffered adverse reactions and at least 71 have died from the vaccine since the HPV program was launched four years ago.

The global vaccine cover-up took a massive blow after it was confirmed that the 2009 swine flu outbreak was, as we predicted from the start, a contrived scam centered around making vast profits for pharmaceutical companies while endangering the health of the public.

As we reported earlier this year, Chair of the Council of Europe's Sub-committee on Health Wolfgang Wodarg's investigation into the 2009 swine flu outbreak found that the pandemic was a fake hoax manufactured by pharmaceutical companies in league with the WHO.

Wodarg said that governments were "threatened" by special interest groups within the pharmaceutical industry as well as the WHO to buy the vaccines and inject their populations without any reasonable scientific reason for doing so, and yet in countries like Germany and France only around 6 per cent took the vaccine despite enough being available to cover 90 per cent of the population.

Wodarg said there was "no other explanation" for what happened than the fact that the WHO worked in cahoots with the pharmaceutical industry to manufacture the panic in order to generate vast profits, agreeing with host Alex Jones that the entire farce was a hoax.

He also explained how health authorities were "already waiting for something to happen" before the pandemic started and then exploited the virus for their own purposes.

Professor Ulrich Keil, director of the World Health Organization's Collaborating Centre for Epidemiology, also slammed the swine flu epidemic as an overblown "angst campaign", devised in conjunction with major drug companies to boost profits for vaccine manufacturers.

As Natural News' Mike Adams reported, several members of the Emergency Committee expert panel that advised the World Health Organization (WHO) during the swine flu scare were receiving financial support from pharmaceutical manufacturers either during or prior to the epidemic.

Both H1N1 and seasonal flu shots have been linked with a number of different side-effects across the globe, including Guillain-Barré Syndrome as well as dystonia, a paralyzing neurological disorder.

The seasonal flu vaccine has also been linked with convulsions and fits in under-5's.

Many batches of the swine flu vaccine included squalene and mercury amongst their ingredients, two substances that have been directly connected with the explosion of autism amongst children as well as other diseases. Individuals within government and the military were privileged to receive additive free shots that did not include these substances. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and government ministers, as well as German soldiers, were amongst those who received access to the so-called "friendly" version of the vaccine.

In order to head off legal claims for side-effects caused by the swine flu vaccination program, the U.S. government provided vaccine makers with blanket legal immunity before the shots began to be dispersed.

Citing concerns over safety, Prime Minister Donald Tusk and Health Minister Ewa Kopacz, with the broad support of the public, ensured that Poland was the only country in the world to completely reject the H1N1 vaccine.

"We are making this decision only in the interest of the Polish patient and the taxpayer," Tusk said. "We will not take part because it's not honest and it's not safe for the patient."

In a 2008 trial for a bird flu vaccine, three Polish doctors and six nurses faced criminal charges after the vaccine killed 21 homeless people who were participating in the test.

The Czech Republic rejected a swine flu vaccine produced by pharmaceutical manufacturer Baxter after the company was caught shipping vaccines contaminated with deadly live H5N1 avian flu virus to 18 countries by a lab at an Austrian branch of Baxter.

Given the routinely stated goal on behalf of mega-rich foundations that fund vaccination programs around the world, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, to use vaccines as a way of sterilizing the planet's population as part of the global eugenics soft-kill assault on humanity, it's unsurprising that as more people become aware of this agenda, take-up rates of new as well as seasonal vaccines continue to decline.

As Jurriaan Maessen recently documented in his Infowars exclusive, in its 1968 yearly report, the Rockefeller Foundation acknowledged funding the development of so-called "anti-fertility vaccines" and their implementation on a mass-scale.

This program was then launched by a group that was created under auspices of the World Health Organization, World Bank and UN Population Fund entitled "Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation". In the 1990's, the WHO was mired in controversy after it distributed a "tetanus vaccine" to poor girls and women in the third world that was contaminated with human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG), a hormone that induces involuntary abortion.

During a TED conference earlier this year, Bill Gates openly stated that vaccines would be used to lower the earth's population in the name of combating climate change. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is one of the major funders of vaccine research and production in the third world.

Warning that the global population was heading towards 9 billion, Gates said, "If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services (abortion), we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 per cent."

Quite how an improvement in health care and vaccines that supposedly save lives would lead to a lowering in global population is an oxymoron, unless Gates was referring to vaccines that sterilize people, which is precisely the same method advocated in White House science advisor John P. Holdren's 1977 textbook Ecoscience, which calls for a dictatorial "planetary regime" to enforce draconian measures of population reduction via all manner of oppressive techniques, including sterilization.

With people globally becoming increasingly aware of the role of vaccines in the agenda to reduce world population, the cover-up of debilitating diseases, soft kill side-effects, and instant fatalities as a result of vaccinations will continue to implode, until authorities are forced by law to implement vastly more stringent screening procedures and remove the toxic additives from vaccines that are causing these deaths and diseases.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org