posted September 08, 2006 02:46 PM              

Kissinger prepared a depopulation manifesto for President Jimmy Carter called 'Global 2000' which detailed using food as a weapon to depopulate the third world.

The Haig-Kissinger Depopulation Policy

Investigations by EIR have uncovered a planning apparatus operating outside the control of the White House whose sole purpose is to reduce the world's population by 2 billion people through war, famine, disease and any other means necessary. This apparatus, which includes various levels of the government is determining US foreign policy. In every political hotspot - El Salvador, the so-called arc of crisis in the Persian Gulf, Latin America, Southeast Asia and in Africa - the goal of US foreign policy is population reduction. The targeting agency for the operation is the National Security Council's Ad Hoc Group on Population Policy. Its policy-planning group is in the US State Department's Office of Population Affairs, established in 1975 by Henry Kissinger. This group drafted the Carter administration's Global 2000 document, which calls for global population reduction, and the same apparatus is conducting the civil war in El Salvador as a conscious depopulation project.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lonnie Wolfe
http://www.planetquo.com/The-Haig-Kissinger-Depopulation-Policy

Populations in developed countries are declining and only in third world countries is it expanding dramatically. Industrialization itself levels out population trends and even despite 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. It is commonly accepted that the entire world population could all fit into the state of Texas and each have an acre of their own land.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/030406massculling.htm

------------------
i wish that my eyes could see through god's window

posted September 08, 2006 03:07 PM              

The problem is that the masses will not dedicate themselves unselfishly to the production and protection of an elite while exterminating their own posterity. Over and over the eugenicists roll this rock up the hill and over and over it rolls down - often on them. Outstanding classics of scientific racism, such as The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy or The Passing of the Great Race, The Bell Curve or The g Factor are rejected in favor of "sentimental slogans" such as " All men are created equal" or "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its Constitution". Governments with eugenic policies come to power in Germany, South Africa, Rumania, or Alabama and the world rises against them. Then it's all to do again.

But like the ants, which these social biologists believe we resemble (or should resemble), the eugenicists toil away in their dark underground passages. For they always have a new plan. Put your head down and listen, and you can hear their latest and the greatest plan:

"The ideas of eugenics are based on the assumption that men are unequal, while democracy is based on the assumption that they are equal. It is therefore, politically very difficult to carry out eugenic ideas in a democratic community when those ideas take the form, not of suggesting that there is a minority of inferior people, such as imbeciles, but of admitting that there is a minority of superior people. The former is pleasing to the majority, the latter unpleasing. Measures embodying the former fact can therefore win the support of the majority, while measures embodying the latter cannot." ( from The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law)

These are the words of Bertrand Russell, who is being quoted by Professor Glanville Williams. Williams is the Rous Ball Professor of English law at Cambridge University, a fellow of the English Eugenics Society, and, for the last twenty three years, head of the English Abortion Law Reform Association. What Williams is saying is that the elitist ideas of eugenics can come to power in democracies by encouraging attacks on minorities, much as Hitler came to power by scapegoating the Jews.

The quotation expresses an attitude typical to the book, The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law, in which it is found. It is therefore distressing to find that this book is cited twice in the Roe v. Wade decision and used as the unacknowledged basis for most Justice Blackmun's account of the history of abortion and of the personhood of the unborn child in that decision.

For if eugenic ideas lie behind the Roe v. Wade discussion of personhood, then antidemocratic and unconstitutional ideas lie behind it. Furthermore, Bertrand Russell, speaking of eugenics in the Thirties, said: "Democracy stands in the way". This underlines the point that attempts to advance eugenics include, as a component detail, attempts to undermine democracy.

And what are we to make of the fact that Planned Parenthood which runs 49 abortion clinics, was founded by eugenicists - Margaret Sanger, Abraham Stone, Mrs. Louis de B. Moore, Dorothy Brush and many others? What does it mean that the Association for the Study of Abortion was founded by Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood, a former vice-president of the American Eugenic Society? Or that the Population Council was founded by Frederick Osborn a former president of both the Pioneer Fund and the American Eugenic Society? Or that NARAL was founded by Lawrence Lader of the Population Council? Or that the Catholics cited in Roe v. Wade, John Noonan and Daniel Callahan, were members of the Population Council, a eugenic front group? Above all, what does it mean that 25% of all abortions in America are performed on black women when blacks are twelve percent of the population? Why are fertile black women decreasing to post Civil War-Ku Klux Klan era levels? Why are the pictures of those who "need" abortion so frequently pictures of blacks?

Shakespeare pictured the hypocrite as " the smiler with the knife". It seems to me that all the talk about "abortion rights" is just a piece of hypocrisy by means of which eugenics is simultaneously marketed as a right (the smiler) and as racism (with the knife).

posted September 08, 2006 03:17 PM              

The eugenicists, as I see them, are the men behind Hitler, the men behind Josef Mengele, the men behind apartheid, the men behind segregation, the men behind the Rumanian orphanages. Nazism, apartheid, segregation and Ceaucescu's "orphanages" were all eugenically based schemes for social salvation. The failure of these schemes has discredited eugenics but not the eugenicists. This is because no one really knew who they are. But since they are professors, journalists, economists, gynecologists, psychiatrists and sociologists and since they have been left in place, they have continued to mold society. The difference is that in the Thirties they worked openly whereas now they work in obscurity.

However, the need to hide actually works to their advantage. Recall that their goal is the destruction of democracy and the creation of an elite. Obviously this goal will be more easily achieved in a democratic society by deception than by open statement. Thus, in all democracies, the post war eugenic strategy differs from the pre war strategy in that it relies on deception rather than force.

A description of the eugenic societies and a description of their present strategy is the goal of the work of Eugenics Watch. The description is in the form of lists of members of the societies together with the groups they control and the books they have written so far as the Eugenics Watch has been able to determine this. The lists include selected quotations. The membership lists come from the journals published by the groups themselves; information on the members comes from many sources, all publicly available. The chief source is Who's Who; next in importance are obituaries and eugenic journals. Information on books written by eugenic society members comes chiefly from Who's Who, from the Science Citation Index and from computerized library catalogs.

By means of these lists, the Eugenics Watch tries to expose the eugenic strategy, particularly the secretive post war strategy. Just as the Krupp company rearmed the Germans in the Thirties by building warplanes piecemeal at scattered sites (see The Arms of Krupp by William Manchester), so these "Nazis of the soul" are rebuilding eugenics piecemeal as a series of apparently scattered projects. One group, the Pioneer Fund, maintains the Aryan/ white supremacist ideology; another works to legalize abortion world wide (Planned Parenthood), another to develop contraceptives (Population Council), another to rename control of Third World resources "conservation" as prelude to regaining control of these resources under the guise of "green protectorates" , another to control the teaching of biology (BCSC), and so on. Then, in a book, such as The Bell Curve, these scattered pieces are proposed as social policy.

This organization corresponds to that of the largest modern corporations in which all activities are the outgrowth of staff work which is meshed together by committees at ever higher levels. (see The New Industrial State by John Kenneth Galbraith for description of this process). Using this model we see the American Eugenics Society as the corporation; its directors are the highest level committee within the US. These directors of course, consult frequently with their "bankers", the large foundations, such as the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations; and the Society has international interests. The difference is that the Society does not seek name recognition even though a distinctive, eye catching, slogan generating logo, namely the swastika, is available to it. ("For a cleaner, whiter, brighter population, use RU-486 - from the makers of Zyklon-B", "Isn't it time for white supremacy?", etc.)

This post war strategy must be understood as an attempt to reach the pre war goals of eugenics without being hung at Nuremberg or elsewhere for crimes against humanity or genocide.

posted September 08, 2006 03:20 PM              

The strategy has several parts; each part must be understood in order to understand the whole.

First. The eugenicists still appeal to racism but the appeal is well disguised - going by such code names as "gene frequency", which is a legitimate term in genetics. This intellectual camouflage is adaptive behavior in the service of survival, a technique which the eugenicists have apparently learned from the animals they strive to emulate.

Second. The eugenicists adopted a policy of "crypto-eugenics" following World War II. "Crypto-eugenics" means working through other organizations, such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

Third. The eugenicists adopted the tactic of finding and using ambiguities and loopholes in the law. Ambiguities or loopholes found by eugenic lawyers such as Glanville Williams (ES) and Harriet Pilpel are exploited to allow eugenical doctors such as Dugald Baird (ES), Leonard Arthur (ES) and Alan Guttmacher (AES) to introduce the desired eugenic activity as a normal medical procedure, done at the patient's request. Introducing the eugenic activity as a normal medical procedure allows it to be shrouded in medical privacy - an extra layer of haze in addition to that gained by working through other organizations.

Four. The eugenicists use the techniques of modern advertising to rally support. Since the goal is antidemocratic and the means involves secrecy and legal quibbles, only advertising is really suitable as a means of, well, of advertising. After all, people have to find out somehow that steroids are available for their girlfriends, abortions and infanticide for their children, starvation for their injured realtives and a suicide machine for their elderly parents. Only advertising knows how to motivate people's wallets while bypassing their heart and brain.

And how successful eugenic advertising has been! People who would scorn to be caught believing in the Marlboro Man or to repeating "It's the real thing" without ironic overtones, will absorb complete little fantasies from condom and abortion ads. They mouth empty slogans such as "it's a woman's choice" or "safe sex" with a devotion that must bring tears of ecstasy to the poll takers and ad men involved. Slogans and demons are preferred to reasons. Campaigns based on fostering hatred of the Roman Catholic hierarchy have proved very successful in persuading women to take cancer causing steroids. In another triumph, the word "selection" used by Josef Mengele at Auschwitz has been metamorphosed into "choice" and gained the support of the American Hebrew Union.

Five. The great enemy of eugenics is and always has been the Roman Catholic Church. The eugenics societies therefore expend great energy on destroying or neutralizing this Church's opposition. For example, in the early sixties, while eugenic journals were filled with discussions of how best to change society in the eugenic direction, eugenicists engaged certain deluded Catholics, such as Fr. John O'Brien of Notre Dame, in solemn discussions about "not imposing morality". These unhappy souls were then persuaded to work to prevent the Church from taking a stand on eugenic issues because "it was not right for the Church to impose its moral values on others". Thus, as the eugenicists worked to change society and impose their disastrous morality on everyone, (see for example, "Population Policy", Kingsley Davis, Science, v. 158, 1967, p. 730 with its sequels "Beyond Family Planning", John D. Rockefeller III, Bucharest, 1974 and the proposed Cairo Protocols 1994) they had the satisfaction of seeing the Catholic Church divided and weakened in its opposition to them by some Catholic bishops, priests, papers and magazines. And even today some "Catholics", such as Daniel Callahan of the American eugenics society, do every thing they can to keep the Church from effectively opposing the imposition of eugenic morality on everyone.

That's the basic eugenic strategy.

posted September 08, 2006 03:30 PM              

In 1798, an English clergyman and economist named Thomas Robert Malthus published the Essay on the Principle of Population. The central idea of his book is that population increases exponentially and will therefore eventually outstrip food supply. If parents failed to limit the size of their families, then war or famine would kill off the excess. The idea has been remarkably resilient, although the specific predictions that Malthus made were wrong. Malthus argued that the island of Britain could not sustain a population of 20 million, but 150 years later the population was more than triple Malthus' ceiling.

Charles Darwin, the biologist, was immensely impressed by Malthus' ideas, and the Malthusian theories are embedded in Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection (The Origin of the Species, 1859, and The Descent of Man, 1871) But after Darwin borrowed ideas from economics and inserted them into biology, his cousin reversed the process and discovered ideas in biology that could be applied to humans. This is one of the first tricks that amateur magicians learn, like "finding" a coin in a child's ear. The amazing thing about Galton's stunt is that it has fooled so many people for so long.

At least one contemporary understood what Galton was doing. Friedrich Engels, a collaborator with Karl Marx, was contemptuous of the way Malthus' ideas about economics were inserted into biology and then retrieved as gospel: "The whole Darwinist teaching of the struggle for existence is simply a transference from society to living nature of Hobbes' doctrine of bellum omnium contra omnes and of the bourgeois doctrine of competition together with Malthus' theory of population. When this conjurer's trick has been performed ” the same theories are transferred back again from organic nature into history and it is now claimed that their validity as eternal laws of human society has been proved. The puerility of this proceeding is so obvious that not a word need be said about it." *9

When it began, eugenics was embraced by conservatives and denounced by Engels. It is noteworthy that over time this ideology of arrogance proved to be appealing on the right (Galton), then the left (British Socialists), then the right (German National Socialists), then the left (American environmentalists and the abortion movement), then the right (see The Bell Curve debate).

Galton's work is still used today. He used statistical methods, including the now-famous "bell curve," to describe the distribution of intelligence within a population. He devised various methods for measuring intelligence, and concluded that Europeans are smarter than Africans, on average. And he suggested systematic studies of twins to distinguish the effects of heredity from the effects of environment.

Galton's work was carried on, especially at the University of London, where he endowed a Chair of Eugenics. According to eugenics scholar J. Philippe Rushton, Galton's work was carried on especially by Karl Pearson and Charles Spearman, then by Cyril Burt, and in our time by Raymond Cattell, Hans Eysenck and Arthur Jensen. *10 The work of these academics is built explicitly on Galton's theories, but the eugenics ideology spread far beyond this core of true believers.

EUGENIC SOCIETIES

In 1904, Galton endowed a research chair in eugenics at University College, London University. In Germany in 1905, Dr. Alfred Ploetz and Dr. Ernst Rudin founded the Gesellschaft f½r Rassenhygiene or Society of Race-Hygiene. In 1907 in England, the Eugenic Education Society (later the Eugenics Society) was founded. In 1910, the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) was founded in the United States. The ERO had a different emphasis from the Birth Control League which sought "fewer children for labouring classes"; the ERO felt that "ultimate economic betterment should be sought by breeding better people, not fewer of the existing sort." *11

The First International Eugenics Congress was held was held at London University in 1912. Representatives came from a number of nations, and the congress demonstrated the growing strength of the movement especially in England, Germany and the United States.

In October 1916, Margaret Sanger opened the first birth control clinic in the United States. Several months later, she founded the Birth Control Review. She and her co-workers incorporated the American Birth Control League in 1922. (The organisation was renamed the Birth Control Federation of America in 1939, and in 1942 was renamed the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. *12) She wrote: "Birth control is thus the entering wedge for the Eugenic educator ... the unbalance between the birth rate of the 'unfit' and the 'fit' is admittedly the greatest present menace to civilisation ... The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective." *13

In 1922, the American Eugenics Society was founded. Founders included: Madison Grant, Henry H. Laughlin, Irving Fisher, Fairfield Osborn, and Henry Crampton. Grant was the author of The Passing of the Great Race (1916) and wrote the preface to The Rising Tide of Colour Against White World Supremacy. Laughlin was the Superintendent of the Eugenics Record Office from l910 to 1921; he later became President of the Pioneer Fund, a white supremacist organisation that is still functioning today. Fisher, who taught economics and political economy at Yale University for 40 years, said that the purpose of the society was to "stem the tide of threatened race degeneracy" and to protect the United States against "indiscriminate immigration, criminal degenerates, and race suicide." *14 Fairfield Osborn was the president of the American Museum of Natural History from 1908 to 1933; he wrote about evolution in From the Greeks to Darwin. In 1923, during a national debate on restricting immigration, Osborn spoke enthusiastically about the results of intelligence testing carried out by the Army: "I believe those tests were worth what the war [World War I] cost, even in human life, if they served to show clearly to our people the lack of intelligence in our country, and the degrees of intelligence in different races who are coming to us, in a way which no one can say is the result of prejudice. ” We have learned once and for all that the Negro is not like us." *15

This list of organisations is far from exhaustive. The point here is simply that eugenics in the first part of the 20th century was not an academic exercise. Eugenicists were organising particularly in Germany, England and the United States, to implement policies consistent with their theories.

The work of the eugenicists included: racism and white supremacy, promoting birth control among the dysgenic, restricting immigration, sterilising the handicapped, promoting euthanasia, and seeking ways to increase the number of genetically well-endowed individuals.

posted September 08, 2006 03:40 PM              

A key program of the eugenicists was cleansing the human race by sterilising the ''unfit.'' By 1931, sterilisation laws had been enacted in 27 states in the United States, and by 1935 sterilisation laws had been enacted in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland and Germany. *16 But the efficiency of the German eugenicists caused trouble.

Galton's ideas had been taken up in Germany by Friedrich Nietzsche in the 19th century. Then Ploetz and Rudin laid the foundations of an effective eugenics program in Germany. In 1922, two men--a lawyer and a psychiatrist, Karl Binding, J. D., and Alfred Hoche, M.D.--co-operated on a short book entitled Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens (permission to Destroy Life Devoid of Value). The book encouraged Austrian physicians who were beginning to practice euthanasia illegally. And then Adolf Hitler, who had described his own eugenic ideas in Mein Kampf, came to power.

Hitler's determination to establish his "Master Race" was embraced by German eugenicists. *17 And eugenicists elsewhere failed to criticise the Germans. In the United States, the Birth Control Review praised the effectiveness of the Germans, and published articles by Rudin and others. *18

In the United States today, there is a great deal of confusion about Hitler's view of abortion. Pro-lifers denounce abortionists furiously for imitating Hitler, who legalised abortion, and proponents of abortion denounce pro-lifers furiously for imitating Hitler, who outlawed abortion. In fact, both sides are half right. Hitler was a eugenicist, and for eugenic reasons he outlawed aborting Aryan babies, but encouraged aborting Slavs and Jews -- also for eugenic reasons.

After Hitler had killed millions of people, including one third of the Jews in the world, he lost the war. The name of his political party became and remains one of the most offensive words in the language, and ideas that are tightly associated with him are universally condemned. So the idea of building a master race became extremely unpopular. However, the eugenics movement did not die.

EUGENICS AFTER WORLD WAR II

Most people have never heard of eugenics, and most of those who have heard of it think it died with Hitler. Among the handful who are aware that eugenics was still a force after World War II, many believe that its remnants were reformed. In fact, the eugenics movement continued to thrive, without reform:

The development and promotion of birth control was a major eugenic success.
The discovery of the population explosion and the hysteria about the need to control it was a major eugenic success.
The field of genetics grew faster than fruit flies in the 1950s, and although the accumulating knowledge was valuable, the field was dominated by eugenicists, who could use their knowledge for eugenic purposes.

UNESCO, founded in 1948, was directed by Julian Huxley, a determined eugenicist who used his global platform very effectively.
The welfare state in Britain was based largely on the work of Richard Titmuss, John Maynard Keynes and William Henry Beveridge, members of the Eugenics Society.
Historians who rely too heavily on the eugenicists themselves will overlook a great deal. Daniel Kevles, for example, makes the post-war eugenics movement sound like a group of dusty academics. But one of their activities in Britain beginning in the 1960's was running a flourishing abortion business. Beginning in the 1960's a few members of the Eugenics Society built and controlled almost the entire private abortion industry. Whether you think abortion is killing a child or exercising a fundamental liberty, this bloody and emotional activity is not the work of dusty academics: at least some of the eugenicists were activists.

The influence of the eugenicists on abortion in America is perhaps best seen by comparing Roe v. Wade and a book by Professor Glanville Williams, The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law. The book is cited in the 1973 abortion decision, but the citations alone do not reveal the full extent of the influence. The central ideas in Roe v. Wade are about personhood, and that section is virtually plagiarised from Williams. Justice Blackmun lifted his whole argument from Williams, including the history of abortion, ancient attitudes, the influence of Christianity, common law, Augustine's and Aquinas' teaching, canon law and English statutory law. Williams was a member of the Eugenics Society. *19 Roe v Wade was based on eugenics.

Even in Germany, the eugenics movement did not die out The most offensive example of its resurgence after Hitler was the rehabilitation of Professor Dr. Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer. In 1935, von Verschuer said that he was "responsible for ensuring that the care of genes and race, which Germany is leading world-wide, has such a strong base that it will withstand any attacks from outside." In 1937, he was Director of the Third Reich Institute for Heredity, Biology and Racial Purity. Von Verschuer was Josef Mengele's mentor before the Nazi holocaust, and his collaborator during the holocaust. *20

Mengele's horrific experiments at Auschwitz have put his name alongside those of Hitler and Eichmann. And yet, a few years after the war, von Verschuer founded the Institute of Human Genetics in Munster, where he worked educating another generation until his death in 1969. He had not turned away from his old ideas: he was a foreign member of the American Eugenics Society.

There can be no pretence that the rehabilitation of Mengele's mentor and collaborator was an accidental oversight due to unfamiliarity with his views. Eugenicists in America were aware of von Verschuer; several stories about him appeared in English in the Eugenical News in the 1930's. The first, a review of his book Erbpathologie, said "Race culture, the selection of proposed cases for sterilisation or marriage advice [i.e., genetic counselling] are impossible without the earnest collaboration of the entire medical profession. ” In this book the author clearly outlines the duties of the physician to the nation. The word 'nation' no longer means a number of citizens living within certain boundaries, but a biological entity. This point of view also changes the obligation of the physician ” Dr von Verschuer has successfully bridged the gap between medical practice and theoretic scientific research" *21

Another article about von Verschuer appeared in the Eugenical News, May/June 1936, which specifically mentioned that Von Verschuer intended to use twin studies to test a racist idea (Mengele's horrors at Auschwitz were twin studies), and there was a follow-up article in October 1937.

posted September 08, 2006 04:07 PM              

Before the war, the American Eugenics Society laid out its research aims, including many investigations in sociology, psychology, anthropology and biology. But they noted especially two important new fields: population study and genetics. *28

After the war, research in genetics was led by one of the German eugenicists besides von Verschuer who had continued his work, Dr. Franz J. Kallmann. He had been "associated with Dr. Ernst Rudin, investigating in genetic psychiatry." *29 He was half Jewish, so he was driven out of (Germany in 1936 by Hitler. Nonetheless, he testified on behalf of von Verschuer after the war. Kallmann taught psychiatry at Columbia, and in 1948 he founded the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG). He became a member of the American Eugenics Society. The ASHG developed hundreds of prenatal tests but did not look for cures, although every test was hyped as a potential lead towards a cure. *30

Over the next years, at least 124 people were members of both Kallmann's ASHG and the American Eugenics Society. The overwhelming evidence of a commitment to eugenics at the ASHG is especially troubling when you note that members of this society promoted, developed and now lead the billion-dollar Human Genome Project.

Negative eugenics, or ending the over-production of the "unfit," is obviously well underway with widespread contraception, sterilisation and abortion. But positive eugenics, or the increased production or the "fit," can be advanced through artificial insemination, in vitro fertilisation and genetic engineering. The Human Genome Project would certainly help in a scheme of positive eugenics.

SECOND NEW FIELD: POPULATION CONTROL

After World War II, the eugenics movement discovered (or invented) the population explosion, and whipped up global hysteria about it. From 1952 on, a major part of the eugenics movement was the population control movement. The population explosion made it possible for eugenics movement to continue its work -- more from the fit, less from the unfit -- with the same people doing the same things, but with a new public rationale.

The transformation from open eugenics to population planning is described well by Germaine Greer: "It now seems strange that men who had been conspicuous in the eugenics movement were able to move quite painlessly into the population establishment at the highest level, but if we reflect that the paymasters were the same -- Ford, Mellon, Du Pont, Standard Oil, Rockefeller and Shell -- are still the same, we can only assume that people like Kingsley Davis, Frank W. Notestein, C. C. Little, E. A. Ross, the Osborns Frederick and Fairfield, Philip M. Hauser, Alan Guttmacher and Sheldon Segal were being rewarded for past services." *31 That is, the population control movement was the same money, the same leaders, the same activities -- with a new excuse.

One of the organisations that promoted eugenics under the new population rubric was the Population Council. It was founded in 1952 by John D. Rockefeller 3rd, and spent $173,621,654 in its first 25 years. *32 That is not a bad budget for one of the organisations in a dead movement! Clearly, the people who think the eugenics movement died in the rubble in Berlin do not understand crypto-eugenics, genetics or population control.

The extent of the population control movement is hard to imagine, and harder to exaggerate. For example, during the past 25 years, there have been over 1.5 billion surgical abortions globally; the figure is simply unimaginable. The United Nations Population Fund has sponsored three meetings bringing together the heads of state from most of the world to develop a global population strategy, in Bucharest in 1974, Mexico City in 1984, and in Cairo in 1994. No other global problem has been the occasion for meetings comparable to these three. The World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and governmental agencies from nearly all the industrialised nations have contributed billions of dollars to campaigns designed to decrease population growth.

The population control movement has not been noted for respect for human rights. In 1972, for example, essays by members of the American Eugenics Society appeared in Readings in Population. Kingsley Davis explained the need for genetic control, and examined the obstacles, including a widespread attachment to the ideal of family life. But he saw some hope of developing a more effective program of improving the human race, although improvement would be slow:

"Under the circumstances, we shall probably struggle along with small measures at a time, with the remote possibility that these may eventually evolve into a genetic control system. ” The morality of specific techniques of applied genetics -- artificial insemination, selective sterilisation, ovular transplantation, eugenic abortion, genetic record keeping, genetic testing -- will be thunderously debated in theological and Marxian terms dating from ages past. Possibly, within half a century or so, this may add up to a comprehensive program. *33

What he wanted, though, was "the deliberate alteration of the species for sociological purposes," which would be "a more fateful step than any previously taken by mankind. ” When man has conquered his own biological evolution he will have laid the basis for conquering everything else. The universe will be his, at last."

In the same book, Philip M. Hauser, also a member of the American Eugenics Society, explained the difference between family planning, which relies on the voluntary decisions of individuals or couples, and population control, which would include abortion, a commitment to zero population growth, coercion, euthanasia and restrictions on international migration. *34

Perhaps the clearest example of the power of the eugenics movement today is in China, with its one-child-only family policy. This policy is an assault on prenatal life and on women's privacy, both. The program was described and praised in 16 articles in a remarkable issue of IPPF's quarterly journal, People, in 1989, on the eve of the massacre in Tiananmen Square.35 But this anti-life, anti-choice policy is not unique to China; most of the nations of Asia have some coercive elements in their population policies. *36

The coercive Chinese policy has a great deal of acceptance and support in the United States, including a defence offered by "pro-choice" feminist leaders like Eleanor Smeal and Molly Yard. When the Reagan administration cut off funds for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) because of its support for the Chinese population program, two American organisations sued to restore funds: Rockefeller's Population Council and the Population Institute in Washington. A 1978 survey of members of the Population Association of America found that 34 percent of members agreed that "coercive birth control programs should be initiated in at least some countries immediately." *37

In fact, the United States government is responsible for much of the global population control. In 1976, a formal definition of national security interests, NSSM 200, described the major threats to the United States. Some of these threats were obvious. The first, of course, was Communism in Europe, with the military charged with principal responsibility for defending American national security from this threat. In the Pacific, the threat was the possibility of losing bases; the military was charged with the principal responsibility for defending this national interest. In Latin America, there was the threat of incipient Communism; the CIA had principal responsibility for our defence. In Africa, according to the American government in 1976 and ever since, there is a threat to American national security interests: population growth. The Agency for International Development was given the responsibility of defending America from this grave threat. NSSM 200 was classified until 1992, when it was de-classified, the Information Project for Africa distributed it, and the covert depopulation policy tucked into the American foreign aid program caused a great deal of resentment. *38

posted September 08, 2006 04:10 PM              

In late 1994, the publication of The Bell Curve *39 revived the word "eugenics." The research quoted in the book is drawn overwhelmingly from members of the American Eugenics Society and other eugenic groups. Curiously, most commentators focused on one chapter in the lengthy book, and debated whether it was racist. The book concludes that men are not equal, and that the Declaration of Independence is badly worded. This lengthy restatement of eugenics was on the best-seller list for weeks.

The book was generally praised by conservatives (see The National Review December 5, 1994, an issue devoted to The Bell Curve) and attacked by liberals (see The New Republic October 31, 1994, which included a lengthy defence of the book by its authors and 21 critical or hostile responses).

posted September 08, 2006 04:34 PM              

Population control is a specific goal of the World Bank which was organised by John Maynard Keynes. The World Bank has always been heavily influenced by members of the Population Council which is a eugenics front group.(5) Policy at the Population Council and at the World Bank continues to be affected by eugenicists such as James Meade, W.P. Mauldin, Sheldon Segal, John Bongaarts and others.

The apparently benign loan program of the World Bank gives it the power to demand "co-operation" on family planning from leaders of poor nations around the world.(6) For example, in Kenya:

"support [by the World Bank] for the establishment of the NCPD [the Kenya National Council on Population and Development] ... came in the form of a condition for release of the second tranche of the Second Structural Adjustment Loan. This loan became effective August 27, 1982, the same day the second population project was signed. ... Its creation [the creation of the NCPD]. was opposed by the MOH [Kenya Ministry of Health]"(7)
Coercive

population control demands are inflicted on poor women in the most populous nations of the world, China and India. For example, in 1994, Chinese officials admitted that the marked change in their birth rate was not the result of a change in attitude.

"At present low birth rates are not steady in China", a spokesman for the State Family Planning Commission told the official Legal Daily. "This is because the birth concept of the broad masses has not changed fundamentally" (8)

But if the "birth concept" has not changed, then why has the birth rate dropped? Coercion. Coercive programs are defended in the West by the champions of 'choice', but this stunning hypocrisy generally escapes public scrutiny.

In short, population control is eugenics. It is a radical policy promoted by an elite who use the power of money to force nations to "request" extermination of a part of their own people. But why does this elite support eugenics? It cannot be that they all have read The Origin of Species or The Descent of Man. Wherever so many of the rich are involved, we must look for a financial incentive. And, as Lothrop Stoddard noted in The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy, the presence of resources in Third World countries constitutes such an incentive.

posted September 08, 2006 04:40 PM              

As government policy, population control is the servant of economic policy masquerading as science or benevolence. We know this because American policy documents on population were declassified and entered the public domain. Originally, US presidents like Eisenhower said the US had no business interfering with the population of other nations. This was officially changed in 1974. At that time, the US National Security Council did a study, National Security Study Memorandum 200, which suggested that population growth might cause unrest in the Third World and might lead to demands for a greater share in resource use. Therefore, population control should be a matter of "paramount importance". The study was became policy through National Security Decision Memorandum 314 (NSDM 314) in 1975. NSSM 200 and NSDM 314 were declassified in the late Eighties and discovered by pro lifers. From these documents we know that the true reason for the US policy of support of population control is that the United States elite wants the resources of the Third World for itself.(9) Population control as government policy is colonialism by other means.

In 1974 overt colonialism was unacceptable. So the National Security memo candidly explained that the US must sell population control to other countries as a means for them to become rich, not as what it is - a means for some one else to become even richer.

"The US can help to minimise charges of an imperialist motivation behind its support of population activities by repeatedly asserting that such support derives from a concern with: (a) the right of the individual to determine freely and responsibly the number and spacing of children ... and (b) the fundamental social and economic development of poor countries." (10)
The overt reasons for government involvement population control are provided with supporting arguments by economists and others who say that population control will assist the poor. Their argument, the classic Malthusian argument, is that overpopulation causes poverty. It's hard to study economics and escape ensnarement by this reasoning because key economists in England and America for the last two hundred years have linked poverty and overpopulation; since 1907 key economists have been members of eugenic societies.(11)

Many of these early economists were deeply involved with colonialism. T.R. Malthus taught at the College of the East India Company. James Mill and John Stuart Mill both worked for the East India Company as Examiners of Correspondence. This means that they had day-to-day responsibility for making policy in India. When James Mill instituted his famous program of education for John Stuart Mill, he was training him to take over did position as Chief Examiner. And John Stuart Mill did become Chief Examiner.(12) John Stuart Mill's chief disciple was Alfred Marshall, who founded the Cambridge Department of Political Science. His chief associate was John Neville Keynes, the father of John Maynard Keynes. Keynes first job was in the India Office. Keynes trained James Meade of the World Bank and George Cadbury of the UN Technical Assistance Commission and the IPPF. So "classic economics" was involved with colonialism, as well as population control, almost from the start and the involvement continues to this day.

But, in the very beginning, economics was not involved with either population control or colonialism. Adam Smith, the author of Wealth of Nations, thought that invention was the key to wealth and that population was a secondary factor. Currently, Julian Simon makes this same argument. Supporting the analysis of Adam Smith and Julian Simon is the fact that one of the most densely populated areas in the world is Europe and Europe is rich. Within Europe is England, also rich, which is far more densely populated than Africa or China. England has 600 people per square mile while Africa, which is poor, averages 22 people per square mile and China has 300. If poverty and overpopulation were linked as cause and effect, Europe, especially England, would be poor, China would be well off and Africa would be rich.(13)

It may come as a surprise that England is so much more densely populated than Africa. This is because population controllers chose to emphasise the alleged population increase in Africa rather than the actual population density in England and the rest of Europe. This enables them to focus attention on controlling Africa rather than England or Europe.

posted September 08, 2006 04:59 PM              

An elitist, mean spirited, racist policy called eugenics is being advanced in secret by organised societies (1) whose current membership consists mainly of intellectuals, scientists and doctors. The work of these societies is financed by great fortunes, such as that of the Rockefellers, working through front groups, such as the Population Council and the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

This is dangerous because eugenics is antidemocratic. Bertrand Russell, a supporter of eugenics, said of it:

"The ideas of eugenics are based on the assumption that men are unequal, while democracy is based on the assumption that they are equal"(2)

***The framers of the American Constitution were aware of eugenics, which existed under other names throughout the Eighteenth century, and they rejected it for the honour of the human race. In the Federalist Papers we find Hamilton saying:

"Unhappily ... Europe, by her arms and by her negotiations, by force and by fraud, has in different degrees extended her dominion over ... all. Africa, Asia and America have successively felt her domination. The superiority she has long maintained has tempted her to plume herself as the mistress of the world, and to consider the rest of mankind as created for her benefit. Men admired as profound philosophers have in direct terms attributed to her inhabitants a physical superiority and have gravely asserted that all animals, and with them the human species, degenerate in America - that even dogs cease to bark after having breathed awhile in our atmosphere. Facts have too long supported these arrogant pretensions of the European. It belongs to us to vindicate the honour of the human race and to teach that assuming brother moderation."
This is how the United States of America began.***

But, beginning in the twentieth century, certain wealthy citizens, such as John D. Rockefeller and John D. Rockefeller. Jr., rejecting democracy, began to support eugenics.(3) Throughout the Twentieth century, great fortunes have consistently helped fund eugenics, thus rendering it impervious to defeat or exposure. "Pecunia non olet" which means, approximately, "as long as Rockefeller types support eugenic projects, there will be eugenics". That is why, in the late Twentieth century, we see the return of eugenics, despite its dismal history, which includes support for Hitler and his policies.(4)

In addition to support for Hitler, eugenicists were involved in the framing of the Johnson Act 1924. One of the results of the Johnson Act was the exclusion from sanctuary in the USA of the Jews attempting to flee Hitler.(5)

Support from the Wealthy

In 1930 John D. Rockefeller and John D. Rockefeller Jr. were members of the American Eugenics Society. Furthermore, in the Twenties Raymond Fosdick, an important official of the Rockefeller Foundation, was a member of the American Eugenics Society Advisory council. In this period the Rockefeller Foundation gave money to build quarters for Ernst Rudin, the man who later wrote Hitler's 1933 Sterilisation Law.(6) As co-founder with Alfred Ploetz of the German Eugenics Society, Rudin claimed credit as the inspiration for all Hitler's racial laws, including the Nuremberg laws which made Jews second class citizens in Germany.(7)

In the early part of the century Mrs. E.H. Harriman, who inherited the fortune based on the Union Pacific railroad, created the Eugenics Record Office. Her endowment helped fund the work of Harry Laughlin, the director of the Eugenics Record Office. Laughlin wrote the Model Sterilisation Law which Nazi eugenicists used as a model for their 1933 Sterilisation Law. He accepted an award from Heidelberg University honouring him for his part in developing this law.(8) He was also an important witness at the Congressional hearings on the Johnson Act, the immigration Act which began the policy of national immigration quotas.

Such initiatives became a terrible trap for the Jews in the late Thirties. The Johnson< Act ultimately resulted in the exclusion from America of the Jews attempting to flee Nazi Germany and its racial laws - laws inspired by Laughlin, Rudin and other eugenicists. The exclusion of the Jews was no accident. The Johnson Act, the American law, was, like the Nazi laws, intended to keep a nation Nordic:

"The unique Immigration Quota Acts of 1921-24 .. By their enactment a first class power wrote into law the concept of the desirability of racial homogeneity ... The Nordic stream ... had become a trickle ... Followed these Quota Acts which said to the world: America, still overwhelmingly Nordic, proposes so to remain! These acts began a gigantic eugenic experiment in population control."(9)

After this came the genocide.
That which we now call genocide was then called eugenics.(10)

Auschwitz showed the world the true face of eugenics. Yet some among the wealthy continued to support it.(11)

For example, we find the names Rockefeller and Harriman, supporting the introduction of abortion and contraception, the means of eugenics. John D. Rockefeller III gave Margaret Sanger money with which to develop a contraceptive. Mrs. E.H Harriman's son was Averill Harriman, Governor of New York in the Fifties. Harriman allowed Robert Moses to follow a policy of letting Harlem deteriorate. (See Robert Moses and the Fall of New York., Robert Caro) It was then possible for the next governor, Nelson Rockefeller, to speak of the dreadful conditions in Harlem and the need for contraception and abortion as a solution for the problems of the people trapped there. Hence, in the Sixties, abortion, a eugenic goal, came to be seen as "progressive" in New York State. In the early Seventies, Nelson Rockefeller signed one of the first state law allowing widespread abortion, and the Rockefeller family gave money for the first legal abortion facility in New York State. In the Eighties, Pamela Harriman, Governor Harriman's English widow, used his money to fund the Democratic Leadership PAC, which helped make support for abortion a requirement for advancement in the Democratic Party.(12) (Ironically, the Harriman money, which was obtained as a consequence of the extinguishing of Indian land titles, was dissipated in Pamela Harman's project to extinguish American rights. This left the surviving Harriman blood relatives, in 1994, at the age of eighty, owners of a trust fund as empty as a treaty promise. Litigation is beginning on a legal situation more tangled than that in Bleak House.(13))

Summary

Eugenics is antidemocratic and funded by some of the richest families in America.

What is Eugenics?

In The Descent of Man, Darwin had predicted that "lesser" races would die out as a result of evolution through natural selection.
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace, the savage races throughout the world.

At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now, between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla" (Descent of Man, Charles Darwin)

Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, thought that this evolutionary process among human beings would become more merciful and more rational if man took control of it and speeded it up by "artificial" selection of the next generation. In 1880 he coined the word eugenics to describe the process of replacing natural selection by artificial selection. According to Galton, the aim of eugenic policies was to give:

"the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable."

He also said that, as a subject of study, eugenics is:

"the study of those agencies under social control which may improve or impair the inborn qualities of future generations of man either physically or mentally"(14)
It is my contention that there has been no real change in eugenics or its goals since Galton wrote. Currently eugenicists define eugenics as:

"all efforts whose goal is the modification of natural selection (the guiding force of evolution) to bring about change in a particular direction within human populations or the human species as a whole."(15)

This means that they still believe that they can and should control "evolution" by altering the ratios of human population groups to each other, or in other words, by increasing the population of the good groups and decreasing the bad. This guided increase and decrease is what is meant by " a particular direction". Furthermore, eugenicists still believe that they know which groups should be increasing and which should be decreasing. That is why they study IQ and the relation of crime or violence to inherited characteristics. All these studies, curiously enough, still show that the world needs white supremacy, though new findings show that, within the context of white supremacy, genetic diversity must be maintained.

To summarize, there are social policies aimed at creating population decline among certain groups and these policies are eugenics. In addition, the study of what social policies are needed to reduce a given population group to impotent fragments without actually eliminating that group's (potentially) valuable genes is also eugenics.(15)

In the past, eugenics worked publically and created segregation, apartheid and Nazism out of the unholy mixture of racism amd Darwinism. In the present it works in various disguises. The most important of these disguises is the policy called cryptoeugenics, which consists of working through other groups. In the present, in its crypto-eugenic disguise, eugenics has sponsored abortion, euthanasia, sterilisation, contraception, and sex education of the raw kind which leads to teenage pregnancy, abortion and contraception.(16) These are the means of eugenics. In the not too distant future, I predict, we can expect the return of eugenics as a conservation-based racism. Then these means will fit into a program. As in the past, these means will be used to "purify" - probably within within "green protectorates".

The book, The Bell Curve. by Charles Murray, is an example of this racist return though without any mention of conservation. The Bell Curve is based on the work of eugenicists, many of them current eugenic society members.(17) Here is how William Safire describes the book and its policy implications:

"The Bell Curve dares to examine a thesis unhelpful to race relations: the likelihood that much of intelligence is inherited, and the possibility that the average black is not as smart as the average white ... What bothers Mr. Murray's critics is his scholarly contention that public policy should not encourage procreation among the least intelligent lest we perpetuate a permanent underclass".(18)

Nor am I reading into the book something a eugenicist would not see there. Sandra Scarr(19) has said:

"[Murray and Herrnstein's] eugenic concerns are reflected in the call to eliminate public policies that provide incentives for poor unwed mothers to reproduce."(20)

Murray's exact words were:

"The United States already has policies that inadvertently social engineer who has babies, and it is encouraging the wrong women ... it subsidises births among poor women, who are also disproportionately at the low end of the intelligence distribution ... We ... urge that these policies ... be ended [and we urge society to make] available birth control mechanisms."(21)

Compare this proposed policy with Hitler's remarks - as reported by Herman Rauschning, an intimate of Hitler during the first two years of the Nazi regime. According to Rauschning, [b]Hitler said:

"We have far too much Slav blood in our veins already ... an asocial, inferior section of the nation is gradually moving up ... We shall have to develop a technique of depopulation. If you ask me what I mean by depopulation, I mean the removal of entire racial units... And by 'remove' I don't necessarily mean destroy; I shall simply take systematic measures to dam their great natural fertility.... We favour the planned control of population movements ... In former days it was the victors prerogative to destroy entire tribes, entire peoples. By doing this gradually and without bloodshed, we demonstrate our humanity."(22)

posted September 08, 2006 05:17 PM              

What is the objective of the world authorities in destroying people's health, both in industrialised countries and in the Third World? It is always difficult to presume the intentions of others, particularly when one is not close to them. And this is true in this instance. But there are certainly advantages for someone, somewhere, to so doggedly keep-up the campaign for vaccinations, by any and all means possible. They must profit someone, somewhere. One thing is certain. It is not to our advantage. In order to determine what these advantages are, and for whom, let us stop and look at the consequences of these massive vaccination programs and draw our own conclusions.

Vaccination is expensive and represents a cost of one billion dollars annually. It therefore benefits the industry; most notably, the multinational manufacturers. One sells the vaccines. The other then provides the arsenal of medications to respond to the numerous complications that follow. Their profits increase while our expenses go through the roof. To the point where we have simply had it up to here and are ready to accept the unacceptable, such as socialised medicine in the United States, for example.

Vaccination stimulates the immune system, the body's defense mechanism. Repeated, vaccination exhausts the immune system. It gives a false sense of security and, in doing so, it opens the door wide to all kinds of illnesses. Notably, to those related to AIDS, which can only develop on ripe ground, where the immune system has been disturbed. It causes AIDS to explode. It ensures that the illness flourishes perpetually.

Vaccination leads to social violence and crime. What better way to destabilise a country than to disarm its inhabitants, and reinforce police and military control? The authorities subtly create situations of panic and fear among the population which, in turn, necessitate the reinforcement of 'protection measures', including forbidding citizens from owning weapons. The authorities then come across as saviours and strengthen their control. It is certain that, in order to impose a single world army, one must first disarm the citizens of every country. One must therefore create violence, if they are to achieve this disarmament, particularly in the United States where the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution.

Vaccination encourages medical dependence and reinforces belief in the inefficiency of the body. It creates people who need permanent assistance. It replaces the confidence one has in oneself with a blind confidence in others, outside ourselves. It leads to loss of personal dignity, in addition to making us financially dependent. It draws us into the vicious circle of sickness - fear - poverty - submission - and, in this way, ensures the submission of the herd so as to better dominate and exploit it. And then lead them to the abattoir. To slaughter.

Vaccination also encourages the moral and financial dependence of Third World countries. It perpetuates the social and economic control of Western countries over them.

Vaccination camouflages the real socio-political problems of poverty of some due to exploitation by others, and results in techno-scientific pseudo-solutions that are so complicated and sophisticated that patients cannot understand them. In addition, vaccination diverts funds which should be used to help improve living conditions, and channels them into the banks of the multinationals. It widens the gap between the dominant rich and the exploited poor.

Vaccination decimates populations. Drastically in Third World countries. Chronically in industrialised countries. In this regard, the former President of the World Bank, former Secretary of State in the United States, who ordered massive bombing of Vietnam, and member of the Expanded Program on Immunization, Robert McNamara, made some very interesting remarks. As reported by a French publication, 'J'ai Tout Compris', he was quoted as stating:

"One must take draconian measures of demographic reduction against the will of the populations. Reducing the birth rate has proved to be impossible or insufficient. One must therefore increase the mortality rate. How? By natural means. Famine and sickness."

Vaccination enables the selection of populations to be decimated. It facilitates targeted genocide. It permits one to kill people of a certain race, a certain group, a certain country. And to leave others untouched. In the name of health and well-being, of course.

Take Africa, for example. We have witnessed the almost total disappearance of certain groups. Some 50% dead, estimate the most optimistic. Some 70% dead, according to the less optimistic. As if by chance, many were in the same region, such as Zaire, Uganda, the extreme south of the Sudan. In 1967, at Marburg in Germany, seven researchers, working with green African monkeys, died of an unknown hemorrhagic fever. In 1969, also by chance, the same sickness killed one thousand people in Uganda. In 1976, a new unknown hemorrhagic fever killed in the south of Sudan. Then in Zaire.

It is noteworthy that sincel968, virologists have installed their sophisticated equipment in certain hospitals in Zaire.

*****At a CIA hearing, Dr. Gotlieb, a cancerologist, admitted having dispersed, in 1960, a large quantity of viruses in the Congo River in Zaire to pollute it and contaminate all the people who used the river as their source of water. Dr. Gotlieb was later named to head up the National Cancer Institute!*****

A couple of years ago, Reuters reported: "An illness similar to AIDS has killed 60,000 in the south of Sudan. They call the illness, the killer. Families, whole villages, have disappeared This illness, the Kala-azar, takes the form of a fever and toss of weight. The symptoms are the same as those of AIDS The immune system is deficient and one dies of other infections."

It is obvious that Africa, particularly those countries in the centre and to the south, contain fabulous resources that have always incited westerners to crush their inhabitants to take over their riches. And beware anyone who stands in their way. The colonies have disappeared. But not colonialism.

Vaccination serves as a form of experimentation, to test new products on a great sampling of a population. Under the guise of health and the well being of the population, people are vaccinated against a pseudo-epidemic with products that one wants to study. The vaccine of hepatitis B seems to be the choice of authorities to accomplish this goal. Yet, this vaccine is manufactured by a process of genetic manipulation. And it is much more dangerous than the traditional vaccine because it inoculates into the body cells that are foreign to its genetic code. Moreover; this vaccine is produced from virus cultivated on the ovaries of Chinese hamsters. One can only imagine what future generations will look like! But there is more. It is also reported to cause cancer of the liver. Despite all that, it enjoys great popularity among the authorities, who impose it first on all those who work in the health field, and then on the rest of the population.

In 1986, the medical authorities administered the vaccine against hepatitis B to Native Indian children in Alaska, without any explanation or the consent of their parents. Many children fell ill. And several died. It seems there was a virus called RSV - Rous Sarcoma Virus - in the vaccine.

American Indian tribes have been subjected to many vaccinations. Let us be aware that they are difficult to beat into submission, and they own vast tracts of land which the authorities would like to have for their own benefit.

Recently when I met a group of Native women to chat about health with them, the subject of vaccinations cropped up. I was giving them some information on the topic when, suddenly, the group's nurse confided in me that the federal government had given her complete freedom in the management of their health, but on one strict condition. That every vaccination had to be scrupulously applied to all. The silence was deafening. We all understood.

In 1988, the Ambassador of Senegal gave a radio interview reporting on the ravages of AIDS in his country where entire villages were being decimated. A few years earlier, scientific and medical teams had come to vaccinate their inhabitants against hepatitis B.

In 1978, a new vaccine was tested on homosexuals in New York. And in 1980, on those in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver, Chicago, and St-Louis. Officially, this 'new vaccine' was against hepatitis B and, as we now know, it caused many of them to die from AIDS. It sounded the 'official' beginning of the AIDS epidemic in 1981.

The vaccination program of homosexuals against hepatitis B was led by Saint WHO and the National Institute of Health. There are reports of collaboration between these two organisations in 1970 to study the consequences of certain viruses and bacteria introduced to children during vaccination campaigns. In 1972, they transformed this study to focus on the viruses which provoked a drop in the immune mechanism.

Wolf Szmuness directed the anti-hepatitis B experiments undertaken in New York. He had very close links with the Blood Centre where he had his laboratory, the National Institute of Health, the National Cancer Institute, the FDA., the WHO, and the Schools of Public Health of Cornell, Yale, and Harvard.

In 1994 a vast vaccination campaign against hepatitis B was undertaken in Canada. It is both useless, dangerous and costly. And what for? Is there a hidden agenda? I note that the Province of Quebec is a particular target, over the course of three years.

- 1992: Vaccination against meningitis

- 1993: Re-vaccination against meningitis

- 1994: Vaccination against hepatitis B.

I was there in 1993. It troubled me to see that it was aimed at a whole generation - one to twenty 20 years - in only one province. Since when do viruses respect borders, and specially provincial ones at that? The facts are:

- There was no epidemic, nor risk of one. Epidemiologists confirmed it.

- Not one but three different vaccines were administered, each in a designated area.

- Certain nurses were selected and trained to administer a special vaccine.

- All children were entered into a computerised data bank.

- The pressure to vaccinate the children was enormous. Schools were turned into clinics. Those who did not want to be vaccinated were pointed out and treated as social outcasts.

- Nurses chased down parents at home who did not want their pre-school children vaccinated.

I had a direct account of one of these kids. The mother did not want her child vaccinated. The nurse who came to the house made her believe that it was compulsory. The mother gave in... The child is now handicapped: physically and mentally - a paralyzed spastic.

- The vaccination cost $30 million.

Why was there such a murderous will. Like Native peoples, the people of Quebec are also a 'bother'. They believe in their cultural identity and in sovereignty. What is more, Quebec with its Native territories, encompasses huge reservoirs of water which many a multinational have their eyes on. As an acquaintance of mine who sits on the California water management board said, "water today is gold." Could one think of a more appropriate biological weapon to possibly remove any impediments to accessing that resource?

Vaccinations permit epidemiological studies of populations to collect data on the resistance of different ethnic groups to different illnesses. It permits one to study the reactions of the immune systems of large numbers of the population to an antigen - virus or microbe - injected by vaccination. Should it be within the framework of the fight against an existing illness, or one that has been provoked.

In 1987, certain American laboratories and the Department of Biotechnology of India signed an agreement authorizing the testing of genetically manufactured vaccines on the people of India. This agreement was met with fierce opposition because it gave access to epidemiological and immunity profiles of a population. This data is extremely important from a military standpoint. It is even more valuable because India has never experienced yellow fever. And, at time of writing this book, it had known only a handful case of AIDS. Over and above all that, the private American laboratories proposed to test products on the Indian population for which they had no right to test in the United States! And the Indian authorities acquiesced!

Vaccination is a biological weapon at the service of biological warfare. It permits the targeting of people of a certain race, and leaves the others who are close by more or less untouched. It makes it possible to intervene in the hereditary lineage of anyone selected. A new speciality is born. Genetic engineering. It is flourishing, enjoys much prestige, and is receiving substantial research hinds. The challenge is staggering. To find a vaccine which gives an illness against which we already have the vaccine! In this way, we would be able to send in troops who have already been vaccinated against the killer vaccine, which they would then spread among the enemy. It is absolutely crazy and insane!

Meanwhile, industrial theft is in full swing. Captain and biologist of the US Navy at Fort Detrick, Neil Levitt, reported the disappearance of 2.35 liters of an experimental vaccine. A dose sufficient to contaminate the entire world. Fort Detrick is a research laboratory which manufactures vaccines. It is located quite close to Washington, in Maryland, and it is attached to the National Cancer Institute at Bethesda, a suburb of the capital.

It is hardly astonishing that, in every major vaccination campaign, one finds the same tangled web. Government, the military, The WHO, financiers, researchers, laboratories, universities, the CIA, and the World Bank.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that:

In the name of the defense of our countries, we manufacture the most murderous of weapons. War; whether it be biological or not, is war. And weapons kill. Biological warfare is a giant business, largely financed by OUR funds, through the medium of the military, research, and our donations. It is also financed, and without our knowledge, by our lives. Those of our children and of millions of innocents who have been sacrificed. It is we, those who live in the Western world, who are responsible for all the illnesses and acts of genocide in the world. By our acceptance of vaccinations, both at home and abroad.

posted September 08, 2006 05:33 PM              

http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002657.html

------------------
i wish that my eyes could see through god's window

posted October 13, 2006 02:08 PM              

posting to myself yes....lol....not arguing with myself though.

usually the important topics that i post get few or no replies, and get buried right off.

posted October 30, 2006 06:16 PM              

wondering if these two threads are the 'spam' that pidaua accuses me of inflicting on this forum. 2 threads?

here's the funny thing...i first made reference to this topic in the following thread, and in the midst of a flurry of personal insults, here was the suggestion made ~

quote:

---

If you want to have a HUGE discussion on emotional responses in idealogies and Eugenics I would highly encourage you to start a whole new thread of your own and type to your hearts content.

---

http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/001960-2.html

one post about eugenics in the above thread, the remainder of which consists of a desperate and continuous attack on me personally, including ridiculing my education credentials.

posted October 30, 2006 07:21 PM              

lots of people read my posts pidaua.

posted October 31, 2006 12:46 PM              

but perhaps you failed to read that post as well.

too busy being spiteful and mean, i see.

you do yourself a great disservice pidaua, by behaving in such a bitter and vicious manner simply because my opinions are not the same as yours.

posted October 31, 2006 02:45 PM            

I see you have learned to play the "victim / martyr" role to a T. How nice for you, I am sure it will get you far in life. You have a way about you that is similar to a few posters here in that you make a comment that is, at best, a put down, then try to back-tract and play like it is really a compliment. For example, stating that the taxpayers of Arizona must be proud of me was not a compliment. It is called a veiled threat. You did not like what I was saying to you at the time, so you implied that the tax-payers must be proud of me as I was posting during perceived "work time". When I asked you point blank to explain yourself you ignored the request.

Since you do not know my work situation or how the taxpayers in this state / county are actually making out big time by all the hours that I put in, which I am NOT compensated for due to my position. I spend at least 4-6 days a month on the road and countless hours at home writing grants or doing research. So, your point was well taken and your little jab was not lost on me. Just as your hollow-"thank you" was also not lost on me.

I will also tell you this salome / naiad - I don't have a good feeling about your character and I never have- especially with the implied threats that you make. There has only been one other person here that has made a reference to reaching out to the real world or implied that the RL would "not be or would be proud / happy" if they knew what the person was doing...

I would fully expect you to be malicious enough to do something just like that, especially if you don't like the person or what they are saying.

This website has always been "safe" in that knowflakes did not try to harm or threaten other knowflakes, but increasingly the threats are becoming more overt than covert and I have seen this happen in a few threads. People align themselves with people they "like" regardless of the slanderous, underhanded crap that they pull- or out right threats as we have witnessed here before.