A survey of eugenics in action begins with isolated incidents such as the sterilization of the mentally ill by American health officials in the late 1800's and the castration of children at the Pennsylvania Training School for Feebleminded Children in 1889. The movement quickly picked up momentum.
Formerly established as a study at University College in London in 1904, the first laboratory for the study of the subject was constructed by Charles B. Davenport at Cold Springs Harbor on Long Island (which, perhaps significantly, was also the location of the estates of both Dulles brothers, as well as the current headquarters of the Human Genome Organization for DNA mapping). The institute was funded in excess of $11 million by the Harriman and Rockefellers.
Supported in America by the Eastern Establishment, eugenics was nurtured in the hotbeds of Round Table-influenced philosophy, at Harvard, Columbia, and Cornell. The subject was popularized in Germany by Ernst Haeckel, who linked romantic German nature mysticism and the unity of the Volk with clinical bio-policies later instituted by Hitler.
Haeckel believed that there was no unity among the species of mankind, since "the morphological differences between two generally recognized species - for example sheep and goats - are much less important than those... between a Hottentot and a man of the Teutonic race." In the Aryan race Haeckel saw a "symmetry of all parts, and that equal development, which we call the perfect human beauty." He also believed the "wooly-haired" peoples "incapable of true inner culture or of a higher mental development... no wooly-haired nation has ever had an important history."
Haeckel felt the purpose of the nation state was to enforce selective breeding, praising the practices of the Spartans who killed all but "perfectly healthy and strong children" and thus were "continually in excellent strength and vigor."
In 1906 a group of Haeckel's academic followers formed the influential Monist League, agitating for a German government patterned along social Darwinian lines.
By 1907 in America, Indiana passed compulsory sterilization for the mentally ill and other "undesirables," while 475 males received vasectomies at the Indiana State Reformatory.
In 1912 the First International Congress of Eugenics was held in London, including among its directors Winston Churchill, Alexander Graham Bell, Charles Elliot (President emeritus of Harvard University), and David Starr Jordan (President of Stanford University).
The National Conference on Race Betterment was convened in United States in 1914, while by 1917 fifteen American states had eugenics laws on the books, almost all of them legalizing the sterilization of habitual criminals, epileptics, the insane, and the retarded.
H.H. Laughlin, the Expert Eugenics Agent of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Immigration and Naturalization presented a Model Sterilization Law in 1922. This was to provide the basis for many state eugenics laws, as well as for eugenics law in Nazi Germany.
In 1928 the American Eugenics Society sponsored a contest for essays on the caused of decline in Nordic fertility, while Dr. Robie, at the Third International Congress of Eugenics, called for the sterilization of 14,000,000 Americans with low intelligence scores.
The Nazi Party in Germany passed in 1933 the "Law for the Prevention of Hereditary Diseases in Posterity," also known as the "Sterilization Law," written by professor Ernst Rudin, one of the country's leading psychiatrists. "Heredity Health Courts" were formed, and within three years two hundred and twenty-five thousand German "undesirables" had been sterilized.
Hitler's policies have been characterized as "a rather straightforward form of German social Darwinism." Far from being original with him, his policies were expansions upon already-extant political and scientific culture.
By 1939 German policies had evolved to include euthanasia upon asylum inmates while eugenics concepts were implemented to the fullest in Nazi concentration camps during World War II.
In 1942, U.S. psychiatrist Foster Kennedy recommended the killing of retarded children. During the three year period between 1941-1943 over 42,000 people were sterilized in America.
After World War II the idea of "eugenics" was tainted in the public by its association with Nazism. The term was discarded and a facelift was performed on its parent study psychiatry, which resulted in the establishment of the World Federation of Mental Health (WFMH). Since then, this group has continued to support electroshock, lobotomization, mind control and other activities already detailed, as well as employing within its ranks many German practitioners who had been happy to further Hitlerian goals during the Second World War.
What this brief survey shows is something the popular press has chosen to ignore: eugenics programs were not the inventions of mad Nazi scientists, but that the political climate of Germany allowed a full implementation of programs part and parcel of international psychiatry and medicine. Eugenics, from its beginning, was encouraged and financed by the rich self-styled "aristocrats" of the day.
Recent programs aimed at abortion and other methods of depopulation can be traced to essentially the same Freemasonic/Round Table/Rothschild-spawned crowd; to the studies of the Club of Rome, the Trilateral Commission, and to the CFR. These groups influenced a change in U.S. policies specifically during 1966-67, when population control was adopted by the State Department as a stated goal.
The recent world depopulation push retains the flavor of eugenics bio-policy of the first half of this century in the statements of advocates such as the Eastern Establishment's Sergeant Shriver, speaking before the Congressional Select Committee on Population in 1978: "...this Committee's interest [is] in improving the quality of life and enhancing the biological product of this society; rather than just controlling or limiting birds."
Jaffe and Dryfoos of the federally-funded Guttmacher Institute have stated that, "With the overall decline in fertility in the United States, concern has shifted from numbers of births to insuring that those children being born have fewer physical, social and economic handicaps."
It is odd that little mention of "the overall decline in fertility" finds its way into Rockefeller-subsidized literature of depopulation activists. Nor was the fact that teenage pregnancy was at its lowest ebb in forty years brought up when federally mandated family planning and sex education in schools was enacted in 1978.
Studies have shown that sex education classes increase early sexual experimentation while doing nothing to reduce adolescent pregnancy. It has also been demonstrated that when such classes are discontinued, as in Utah in 1980, the incidence of teenage pregnancy decreases. Still, officials insist sex classes should extend from "kindergarten throughout a person's educational career." Why? Originators and administrators of the programs candidly admit that their agenda includes depopulation and eugenics.
Lester Kirkendall, a founder of the Sex Information and Education Council, wrote in 1965 that, "sex education is... clearly tied in a socially significant way to family planning and population limitation and policy..." Dr. Jane Hodgson, at the National Abortion Federation conference in 1980, was even more forthright, calling for compulsory abortion for pregnant teenagers.
The methods of sex education programs in public schools vary, but uniformly emphasize the huge expense and drawbacks of having kids, providing summaries of methods of contraception, serialization, and abortion. Students are often taken on tours of birth control clinics, where they meet the staff, fill out patients' forms, and are assured of the confidentiality of services. Children are also recruited as depopulation activists with pitches informing them, as in widely-used text Meeting Yourself Halfway:
“The population problem is very serious and involves every country on this planet. What steps would you encourage to help resolve the problem?
...volunteer to organize birth-control information centers throughout the country;
...join a pro-abortion lobbying group;
...encourage the limitation of two children per family and have the parents sterilized to prevent further births.”
Much of the sex education literature portrays the nuclear family – long a cohesive political and social glue among the populace – as obsolete and statistically insignificant, while the normalcy of homosexuality and bachelorism ("Playboyism") is stressed. Children are encouraged to report in detail on conditions at home, to report parental shortcomings, and to divulge disagreements they have with their parents, opening the door to intervention by "social services."
Davis in Economic Development and Cultural Change says that an effective strategy in lowering the birth rate is to "lessen ... the identity of children with parents, or lessen... the likelihood that this identity will be satisfying," adding that certain trends that might bring population levels down are "very high divorce rates, homosexuality, pornography and free sexual unions..." Davis sees a positive note in "the child welfare services, which have increasingly tended to displace the father as a necessary member of the family, and the health services which have increasingly flouted parental authority with respect to contraception and abortion." This "flouting of parental authority" is a familiar theme in sex education classes, which repeatedly emphasize the child's independence from their parents and their ability to make decisions for themselves.
The message to children, provided by proponents of sex education without the courtesy of having the parents agree upon it, is obvious; the world is awash in excess poor population, and something has to be done about it in a hurry, starting at the nearest abortion clinic.
Educator John Taylor Gatto, voted New York's Top Teacher of 1991, further comments on the mechanisms:
“Social machinery to suppress proliferation of systematic families... has two components: one, a campaign aimed at family-formation before it commences, employing such tactics as encouragement of personal greed (best enjoyed in bachelor style, of course), public pornographic celebrations of the body parts of nubile young woman, effortless divorce, mass adoption, tolerance of sexual ambiguity, and many similar tactics. The second component aims at producing pseudo-families: small households (whether biological or synthetic) without any overriding loyalty to the common family cause. Instead, these are associations of expedience wearing the costume of affection and concern, but always on the lookout for a better deal... During the childhood phase, parents in pseudo-families are made use of by the state to transmit certain values, to maintain and discipline a new serf class composed of their own children, and to report radical cases of deviance to medical, police and re-training authorities... It is a system infused in many places with such black genius in understanding crowd control it is hard not to stand in awe of its unseen architects.”
Target populations for sterilization in the United States bear noting. According to Michael Garrity in Trilateralism, edited by Holly Sklar, American Indian women are being sterilized unbeknownst to them or against their wishes in public health clinics nationwide. Garrity also maintains, "Full blooded Indian woman are the special target of the doctors."
Ruthann Evannoff, in "Reproductive Rights and Occupational Health" in WIN, has said that, "Overall, at least 25 percent of the Native American women of childbearing age have been sterilized, although the total population numbers less than one million. Recent reports estimate that the percentage sterilized in one tribe alone, the Northern Cheyenne, is close to 80 percent."
The secret (now declassified) paper NSSM 200, "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests," also known as the Scowcroft Document (authored by the CFR's Brent Scowcroft), gives insight into U.S. government plans for population reduction internationally, linking these plans to goals that have very little to do with alleviating human suffering, and everything to do with the maximization of profit.
Prepared in 1974 for the National Security Council (and remember, this is a government document, although one not likely to be offered for free in late night Public Service Announcements) NSSm 200 proposes means for the reduction of worldwide population by "concentration on key [i.e. Third World] countries," with the stated goal of reduction of population growth rate from an annual 2 percent growth to 1.7 percent.
While this might sound like an altruistic goal proposed by clear-sighted social stewards, intended to reduce suffering in countries with marginal standards of living, the study makes it clear that government interest in depopulation has nothing to do with concern for living standards in developing countries. It is because "The United States has become increasingly dependent on mineral imports from developing countries" and " endemic famine, food riots, and breakdown of social order... are scarcely inducive to systematic exploration for mineral deposits or the long-term investments necessary for their exploration." Note that the breakdown of "social order" referred to consists of the populace revolting against their living conditions.
One of the conclusions of the study is that "mandatory [emphasis added] population control measures" may be "appropriate."
Speaking of depopulation programs currently being implemented in the Third World, former Brazilian health minister Carlos Santana said, "The World Bank, through their reports of its Presidents, has always made its proselytizing for a rigid birth control policy explicit," Santana reported that included in World Bank credit packages and investment in Third World countries is an implicit agenda of depopulation, and questioned why Brazil was targeted for birth reduction, with approximately forty per cent of Brazilian woman having been already sterilized.
What the depopulators omit saying is that in Brazil mast of the depopulation programs are being directed toward the native population, and that they are implementing an alternative program to the pistoleiros hired to attack small landowning families, appropriating the land for the use of large cash-croppers and the international conglomerates that are stripping the country bare.
Depopulation programs run worldwide are directed and funded by major international money interests, including McGeorge Bundy of the CFR, the architect of nuclear Mutual Assured Destruction policy; Warren E. Buffet, the second wealthiest man in the United States; and, ubiquitous when it comes to eugenics funding, the Rockefellers.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America and International Planned Parenthood Federation are Buffett-funded and run a huge abortion and sterilization network worldwide, with one subsidiary, the Brazilian Society for Family Welfare, having over 2,500 outlets in that country.
While, at first glance depopulation programs may seem like a good idea to promote the reduction of mouths-to-feed worldwide, what they ignore are the root causes of overpopulation. High birth rates are the direct result of poor living standards of he areas, and in countries where malnutrition has been reduced and the incidence of child-death lowered, birth rates have also lessened.
The Third World (in particular) is being forcefully relieved of natural resources and exploited for cheap labor, and is in fact no doubt seen by elite landowners and major corporations as only maintaining maximum profitability as long as it is kept in abject poverty.
"The strategy of underdevelopment" is the term used by agriculture economist Harry Cleaver. Rather than offering the people in rich countries such as Brazil, in actuality one of the richest countries in the world, an equitable portion of profits made through the use of their resources, they are manipulated (when not killed outright) and kept at the razor edge between starvation and profitability.
Depopulation organizations propagandize that we are experiencing a crisis of epic proportions; that the world is reaching the point where it can no longer support the number of people living on it. In many instances population may in fact be economically beneficial, and tending to a long-term increase of arable land and per capita (rather than per corporation) income. Also noted is a current usage of approximately three-tenths of one percent of the planet's surface for human habitation, an amount sustainable with no limit to growth on sight.
United Nations and U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics show that world food production has increased more rapidly than population growth in recent years, while Colin Clark, former director of the Agriculture Economic Institute of Oxford University has stated that farmers could currently support seven times the current population of the Earth, or twenty-one times the current population at Japanese standards of food consumption.
Roger Revelle, former director of the Harvard Center for Population Studies estimates that current agricultural resources could provide an adequate diet for eight times the current populace, i.e. forty billion individuals, and has estimated that Africa is capable of feeding ten times its current population. Revelle quotes Dr. David Hopper, another agricultural expert:
"The world's food problem does not arise from any physical limitation on potential output or any danger of unduly stressing the environment. The limitations on abundance are to be found in social and political structures of nations and in the economic relations among them. The unexploited global food resources are there, between Cancer and Capricorn. The successful husbandry of that resource depends on the will and actions of men." Hopper pronounces "world fascism" very politely.
Francis Moore Lappe of the Institute for Food and Development Policy maintains:
"If the cause of hunger is neither scarcity of food, nor scarcity of land, we've come to see that it's a scarcity of democracy. That may sound rather contrived, because in the West we tend to think of democracy as a political concept. But democracy is really a principle of accountability; in other words, those making the decisions must be accountable to those who are affected by them. Once we understand hunger as a scarcity of democracy, what we are saying is that from the village level to the level of international commerce, fewer and fewer people are making decisions, and more and more anti-democratic structures are being entrenched. This is the cause of hunger." And, it should be repeated, the cause of overpopulation.
“[Sterilization could] be applied to an ever widening circle of social discards, beginning always with the criminal, the diseased and the insane, and extending gradually to types which may be called weaklings rather than defectives, and perhaps ultimately to worthless race types.”
- The Passing of the Great Race by Madison Grant, co-founder American Eugenics Society
“The very word eugenics is in disrepute in some quarters ... We must ask ourselves, what have we done wrong?
I think we have failed to take into account a trait which is almost universal and is very deep in human nature. People simply are not willing to accept the idea that the genetic base on which their character was formed is inferior and should not be repeated in the next generation. We have asked whole groups of people to accept this idea and we have asked individuals to accept it. They have constantly refused and we have all but killed the eugenic movement ... they won't accept the idea that they are in general second rate. We must rely on other motivation. ... it is surely possible to build a system of voluntary unconscious selection. But the reasons advanced must be generally acceptable reasons. Let's stop telling anyone that they have a generally inferior genetic quality, for they will never agree. Let's base our proposals on the desirability of having children born in homes where they will get affectionate and responsible care, and perhaps our proposals will be accepted.”
- From Galton and Mid Century Eugenics by Frederick Osborn, Galton Lecture 1956, in Eugenics Review, vol. 48, 1, 1956
“Those least fit to carry on the race are increasing most rapidly ... Funds that should be used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to maintenance of those who should never have been born.”
- From The Pivot of Civilization quoted in Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood), by Elsah Droghin.
No comments:
Post a Comment