The Population Control HolocaustRobert ZubrinThe New AtlantisTuesday, April 17, 2012

There is a single ideological current runningthrough a seemingly disparate collection ofnoxious modern political and scientificmovements, ranging from militarism,imperialism, racism, xenophobia, and radicalenvironmentalism, to socialism, Nazism, andtotalitarian communism. This is the ideologyof antihumanism: the belief that the humanrace is a horde of vermin whoseunconstrained aspirations and appetitesendanger the natural order, and that tyrannical measures are necessary to constrain humanity. Thefounding prophet of modern antihumanism is Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), who offered apseudoscientific basis for the idea that human reproduction always outruns available resources.Following this pessimistic and inaccurate assessment of the capacity of human ingenuity todevelop new resources, Malthus advocated oppressive policies that led to the starvation of

millions in India and Ireland.

While Malthus’s argument that humanpopulation growth invariably leads to famineand poverty is plainly at odds with the historicalevidence, which shows global living standardsrising with population growth, it nonethelesspersisted and even gained strength amongintellectuals and political leaders in thetwentieth and twenty-first centuries. Its mostpernicious manifestation in recent decades hasbeen the doctrine of population control,famously advocated by ecologist Paul Ehrlich,whose bestselling 1968 antihumanist tract ThePopulation Bomb has served as the bible ofneo-Malthusianism. In this book, Ehrlichwarned of overpopulation and advocated thatthe American government adopt stringentpopulation control measures, both domesticallyand for the Third World countries that receivedAmerican foreign aid. (Ehrlich, it should benoted, is the mentor of and frequentcollaborator with John Holdren, President

Obama’s science advisor.)

This full-page newspaper ad from a prominent population control group warns that Third Worldpeople are a threat to peace. (Click to enlarge)

Until the mid-1960s, American population control programs, both at home and abroad, werelargely funded and implemented by private organizations such as the Population Council andPlanned Parenthood — groups with deep roots in the eugenics movement. While disposing ofmillions of dollars provided to them by the Rockefeller, Ford, and Milbank Foundations, amongothers, the resources available to support their work were meager in comparison with their vastambitions. This situation changed radically in the mid-1960s, when the U.S. Congress, respondingto the agitation of overpopulation ideologues, finally appropriated federal funds to underwrite firstdomestic and then foreign population control programs. Suddenly, instead of mere millions, therewere hundreds of millions and eventually billions of dollars available to fund global campaigns ofmass abortion and forced sterilization. The result would be human catastrophe on a worldwidescale.

\Among the first to be targeted were America’s own Third World population at home — thenative American Indians. Starting in 1966, Secretary of the Interior Stuart Udall began to makeuse of newly available Medicaid money to set up sterilization programs at federally funded IndianHealth Services (IHS) hospitals. As reported by Angela Franks in her 2005 book MargaretSanger’s Eugenic Legacy:

These sterilizations were frequently performed without adequate informed consent....Native American physician Constance Redbird Uri estimated that up to one-quarter ofIndian women of childbearing age had been sterilized by 1977; in one hospital inOklahoma, one-fourth of the women admitted (for any reason) left sterilized.... She alsogathered evidence that all the pureblood women of the Kaw tribe in Oklahoma weresterilized in the 1970s....

Unfortunately, and amazingly, problems with the Indian Health Service seem to persist ...recently [in the early 1990s], in South Dakota, IHS was again accused of not followinginformed-consent procedures, this time for Norplant, and apparently promoted the long-acting contraceptive to Native American women who should not use it due tocontraindicating, preexisting medical conditions. The Native American Women’s HealthEducation Resource Center reports that one woman was recently told by her doctors thatthey would remove the implant only if she would agree to a tubal ligation. The genocidaldreams of bureaucrats still cast their shadow on American soil.

Programs of a comparable character were also set up in clinics funded by the U.S. Office ofEconomic Opportunity in low-income (predominantly black) neighborhoods in the United States.Meanwhile, on the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico, a mass sterilization program was instigated bythe Draper Fund/Population Crisis Committee and implemented with federal funds from theDepartment of Health, Education, and Welfare through the island’s major hospitals as well as ahost of smaller clinics. According to the report of a medical fact-finding mission conducted in1975, the effort was successful in sterilizing close to one-third of Puerto Rican women of child-bearing age.

Better Dead Than Red

However, it was not at home but abroad that the heaviest artillery of the population controlonslaught was directed. During the Cold War, anything from the Apollo program to public-education funding could be sold to the federal government if it could be justified as part of theglobal struggle against communism. Accordingly, ideologues at some of the highest levels ofpower and influence formulated a party line that the population of the world’s poor nationsneeded to be drastically cut in order to reduce the potential recruitment pool available to thecommunist cause. President Lyndon Johnson was provided a fraudulent study by a RANDCorporation economist that used cooked calculations to “prove” that Third World childrenactually had negative economic value. Thus, by allowing excessive numbers of children to beborn, Asian, African, and Latin American governments were deepening the poverty of theirpopulations, while multiplying the masses of angry proletarians ready to be led against America bythe organizers of the coming World Revolution.

President Johnson bought the claptrap, including the phony math. Two months later, he declaredto the United Nations that “five dollars invested in population control is worth a hundred dollarsinvested in economic growth.” With the Johnson administration now backing population control,Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act in 1966, including a provision earmarking funds fromthe U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) for population control programs to beimplemented abroad. The legislation further directed that all U.S. economic aid to foreign nationsbe made contingent upon their governments’ willingness to cooperate with State Departmentdesires for the establishment of such initiatives within their own borders. In other words, for thoseThird World rulers willing to help sterilize their poorer subjects, there would be carrots. For theuncooperative types, there would be the stick. Given the nature of most Third Worldgovernments, such elegant simplicity of approach practically guaranteed success. The populationcontrol establishment was delighted.

An Office of Population was set up within USAID, and Dr. Reimert Thorolf Ravenholt wasappointed its first director in 1966. He would hold the post until 1979, using it to create a globalempire of interlocking population control organizations operating with billion-dollar budgets tosuppress the existence of people considered undesirable by the U.S. Department of State.

In his devastating 2008 book Population Control: Real Costs, Illusory Benefits, author StevenMosher provides a colorful description of Ravenholt:

Who was Dr. Ravenholt? An epidemiologist by training, he apparently looked onpregnancy as a disease, to be eradicated in the same way one eliminates smallpox oryellow fever. He was also, as it happened, a bellicose misanthrope.

He took to his work of contracepting, sterilizing, and aborting the women of the worldwith an aggressiveness that caused his younger colleagues to shrink back in disgust. Hisbusiness cards were printed on condoms, and he delighted in handing them out to allcomers. He talked incessantly about how to distribute greater quantities of birth controlpills, and ensure that they were used. He advocated mass sterilization campaigns, oncetelling the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that one-quarter of all the fertile women in the worldmust be sterilized in order to meet the U.S. goals of population control and to maintain

“the normal operation of U.S. commercial interests around the world.” Such rigorousmeasures were required, Ravenholt explained, to contain the “population explosion”which would, if left unchecked, so reduce living standards abroad that revolutions wouldbreak out “against the strong U.S. commercial presence.”...

Charming he was not. To commemorate the bicentennial of the United States in 1976, hecame up with the idea of producing “stars and stripes” condoms in red, white, and bluecolors for distribution around the world.... Another time, at a dinner for populationresearchers, Ravenholt strolled around the room making pumping motions with his fist asif he were operating a manual vacuum aspirator — a hand-held vacuum pump forperforming abortions — to the horror of the other guests.

Ravenholt’s view of nonwhite people is expressed well enough in a comment he made in 2000about slavery: “American blacks should thank their lucky stars that the institution of slavery didexist in earlier centuries; if not, these American blacks would not exist: their ancestors would havebeen killed by their black enemies, instead of being sold as slaves.”

As his method of operation, Ravenholt adopted the practice of distributing his funds aggressivelyto the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the Population Council, and numerous otherprivately run organizations of the population control movement, enabling them to implement masssterilization and abortion campaigns worldwide without U.S. government regulatory interference,and allowing their budgets to balloon — first tenfold, then a hundredfold, then even more. Thisdelighted the leaders and staff of the population control establishment, who were able to embracea luxurious lifestyle, staying in the best hotels, eating the best food, and flying first class as theyjetted around the world to set up programs to eliminate the poor.

Ravenholt also had no compunction about buying up huge quantities of unproven, unapproved,defective, or banned contraceptive drugs and intrauterine devices (IUDs) and distributing them foruse by his population control movement subcontractors on millions of unsuspecting Third Worldwomen, many of whom suffered or died in consequence. These included drugs and devices whichhad been declared unsafe by the FDA for use in America, and had faced successful lawsuits in theU.S. for their damaging results. These practices delighted the manufacturers of such equipment.

Having thus secured the unqualified support of both the population control establishment andseveral major pharmaceutical companies, Ravenholt was able to lobby Congress to secure ever-increasing appropriations to further expand his growing empire.

His success was remarkable. Before Ravenholt took over, USAID expenditures on populationcontrol amounted to less than 3 percent of what the agency spent on health programs in ThirdWorld nations. By 1968, Ravenholt had a budget of $36 million, compared to the USAID healthprograms budget of $130 million. By 1972, Ravenholt’s population control funding had grown to$120 million per year, with funds taken directly at the expense of USAID’s disease prevention andother health care initiatives, which shrank to $38 million in consequence. In just five short years,the U.S. non-military foreign aid program was transformed from a mission of mercy to an agencyfor human elimination.

In 1968, Robert McNamara, a staunch believer in population control, resigned his post as

Secretary of Defense to assume the presidency of the World Bank. From this position he was ableto dictate a new policy, making World Bank loans to Third World countries contingent upon theirgovernments’ submission to population control, with yearly sterilization quotas set by WorldBank experts. Cash-short and heavily in debt, many poor nations found this pressure very difficultto withstand. This strengthened Ravenholt’s hand immeasurably.

Destroying the Village

Upon coming into office in January 1969, the new Nixon administration sought to further advancethe population control agenda. Responding to lobbying by General William H. Draper, Jr., theformer under secretary of the Army and a leading overpopulation fear monger, Nixon approvedU.S. government support for the establishment of the U.N. Fund for Population Activities(UNFPA). With this organization as a vehicle, vast additional American funds would be pouredinto the global population control effort, with their source disguised so as to ease acceptance bygovernments whose leaders needed to maintain a populist pose in opposition to “YankeeImperialism.” While the United States was its primary backer, the UNFPA also served as achannel for significant additional population control funds from European nations, Canada, andJapan, collectively equal to about half the American effort.

Going still further, President Nixon in 1970 set up a special blue-ribbon Commission onPopulation Growth and the American Future, with longtime population control booster John D.Rockefeller III as its chairman. Reporting back in 1972, Rockefeller predictably cited the menaceof U.S. population growth with alarm, and called for a large variety of population controlmeasures to avert the putative threat of welfare-dependent, criminalistic, or other financiallyburdensome populations multiplying out of control. Just as predictably, the report generatedscores of newspaper headlines and feature magazine articles serving to cement the populationcontrol consensus. Nixon’s politically-driven rejection of one of the commission’srecommendations — government-funded abortion on demand — only served to makeRockefeller’s Malthusian committee seem all the more “progressive.”

But Nixon’s chief interest in population control was its supposed value as a Cold War weapon.The president charged Henry Kissinger, his National Security Advisor and Secretary of State,with conducting a secret study on the role of population control measures in the fight againstglobal communism. Kissinger pulled together a group of experts drawn from the NationalSecurity Council (NSC), the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, theDepartment of State, USAID, and other agencies to study the question. The result was issued onDecember 10, 1974 in the form of the classified NSC document titled “Implications of WorldwidePopulation Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.” The document — known asNational Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200), or simply as the Kissinger Report —represented the encoding of Malthusian dogma as the strategic doctrine of the United States.

NSSM 200 was declassified in 1989 and so is now available for scrutiny. Examining thedocument, what is apparent is the Nietzschean mindset on the part of its authors, who (implicitlyembracing the communist line) clearly regarded the newborn masses of the world as America’slikely enemies, rather than her friends, and as potential obstacles to the exploitation of the world’swealth, rather than as customers, workers, and business partners participating together withAmerica in a grand team effort to grow and advance the world economy. The memo made the

case for a population control effort that is global in scope but not traceable back to its wealthysupporters.

On November 26, 1975, NSSM 200 was formally adopted by the Ford administration. A follow-up memo issued in 1976 by the NSC called for the United States to use control of food suppliesto impose population control on a global scale. It further noted the value of using dictatorialpower and military force as means to coerce Third World peoples into submission to populationcontrol measures, adding: “In some cases, strong direction has involved incentives such aspayment to acceptors for sterilization, or disincentives such as giving low priorities in theallocation of housing or schooling to those with larger families. Such direction is the sine qua nonof an effective program.”

Without a shred of justification, but with impeccable organization, generous funding, aggressiveleadership, and backing by a phalanx of established respectable opinion, the population controlmovement was now doctrinally enshrined as representing the core strategic interest of the world’sleading superpower. It was now positioned to wreak havoc on a global scale.

The Characteristics of Population Control Programs

Of the billions of taxpayer dollars that the U.S. government has expended on population controlabroad, a portion has been directly spent by USAID on its own field activities, but the majorityhas been laundered through a variety of international agencies. As a result of this indirect fundingscheme, all attempts to compel the population control empire to conform its activities to acceptedmedical, ethical, safety, or human rights norms have proven futile. Rather, in direct defiance oflaws enacted by Congress to try to correct the situation, what has and continues to be perpetratedat public expense is an atrocity on a scale so vast and varied as to almost defy description.Nevertheless, it is worth attempting to convey to readers some sense of the evil that is being donewith their money. Before describing some case studies, let us consider the primary characteristicsmanifested by nearly all the campaigns.

First, they are top-down dictatorial. In selling the effort to Americans, USAID and itsbeneficiaries claim that they are providing Third World women with “choice” regarding childbirth.There is no truth to this claim. As Betsy Hartmann, a liberal feminist critic of these programs,trenchantly pointed out in her 1995 book Reproductive Rights and Wrongs, “a woman’s right tochoose” must necessarily include the option of having children — precisely what the populationcontrol campaigns deny her. Rather than providing “choice” to individuals, the purpose of thecampaigns is to strip entire populations of their ability to reproduce. This is done by nationalgovernments, themselves under USAID or World Bank pressure, setting quotas for sterilizations,IUD insertions, or similar procedures to be imposed by their own civil service upon the subjectpopulation. Those government employees who meet or exceed their quotas of “acceptors” arerewarded; those who fail to do so are disciplined.

Second, the programs are dishonest. It is a regular practice for government civil servantsemployed in population control programs to lie to their prospective targets for quota-meetingabout the consequences of the operations that will be performed upon them. For example, ThirdWorld peasants are frequently told by government population control personnel that sterilizationoperations are reversible, when in fact they are not.

Third, the programs are coercive. As a regular practice, population control programs provide“incentives” and/or “disincentives” to compel “acceptors” into accepting their “assistance.”Among the “incentives” frequently employed is the provision or denial of cash or food aid tostarving people or their children. Among the “disincentives” employed are personal harassment,dismissal from employment, destruction of homes, and denial of schooling, public housing, ormedical assistance to the recalcitrant.

Fourth, the programs are medically irresponsible and negligent. As a regular practice, theprograms use defective, unproven, unsafe, experimental, or unapproved gear, includingequipment whose use has been banned outright in the United States. They also employ largenumbers of inadequately trained personnel to perform potentially life-endangering operations,or to maintain medical equipment in a supposedly sterile or otherwise safe condition. Inconsequence, millions of people subjected to the ministrations of such irresponsibly runpopulation control operations have been killed. This is particularly true in Africa, whereimproper reuse of hypodermic needles without sterilization in population control clinics hascontributed to the rapid spread of deadly infectious diseases, including AIDS.

Fifth, the programs are cruel, callous, and abusive of human dignity and human rights. Afrequent practice is the sterilization of women without their knowledge or consent, typically whilethey are weakened in the aftermath of childbirth. This is tantamount to government-organizedrape. Forced abortions are also typical. These and other human rights abuses of the populationcontrol campaign have been widely documented, with subject populations victimized inAustralia, Bangladesh, China, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Kosovo,South Africa, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tibet, the United States, Venezuela, and Vietnam.

Sixth, the programs are racist. Just as the global population control program itself represents anattempt by the (white-led) governments of the United States and the former imperial powers ofEurope to cut nonwhite populations in the Third World, so, within each targeted nation, the localruling group has typically made use of the population control program to attempt to eliminatethe people they despise. In India, for example, the ruling upper-caste Hindus have focused thepopulation control effort on getting rid of lower-caste untouchables and Muslims. In Sri Lanka,the ruling Singhalese have targeted the Hindu Tamils for extermination. In Peru, the Spanish-speaking descendants of the conquistadors have directed the country’s population controlprogram toward the goal of stemming the reproduction of the darker non-Hispanic natives. InKosovo, the Serbs used population control against the Albanians, while in Vietnam theCommunist government has targeted the population control effort against the Hmong ethnicminority, America’s former wartime allies. In China, the Tibetan and Uyghur minorities havebecome special targets of the government’s population control effort, with multitudes of thelatter rounded up for forced abortions and sterilizations. In South Africa under apartheid, thepurpose of the government-run population control program went without saying. In variousblack African states, whichever tribe holds the reins of power regularly directs the populationcampaign towards the elimination of their traditional tribal rivals. There should be nothingsurprising in any of this. Malthusianism has always been closely linked to racism, because thedesire for population control has as its foundation the hatred of others.

The population control agenda has now been implemented in well over a hundred countries.

Although we cannot provide detailed accounts of the efforts in each of them here, let us turn nowto examine three of the most important and egregious cases.

India

Since the time of Malthus, India has always been a prime target in the eyes of would-bepopulation controllers. Both the British colonial administrators and the high-caste Brahminswho succeeded them in power following independence in 1947 looked upon the “teemingmasses” of that nation’s lower classes with fear and disdain. Jawaharlal Nehru’s CongressParty (which controlled India’s national government for its first three decades withoutinterruption) had been significantly influenced by pre-independence contacts with the pro-Malthusian British Fabian Society. Notable members of the native elite, such as the influentialand formidable Lady Rama Rau, had been attracted to the ideas of eugenicist and PlannedParenthood founder Margaret Sanger. Thus during the 1950s and early 1960s, the Indiangovernment allowed organizations like the Population Council, the Ford Foundation, and theInternational Planned Parenthood Federation to set up shop within the country’s borders, wherethey could set about curbingthe reproduction of thenation’s Dalits, or“untouchables.” Thegovernment did not, however,allocate public funds to theseorganizations, so theirprograms remained relativelysmall.

Things changed radically in1965, when war with Pakistanthrew the country’s economyinto disarray, causing harvestfailure and loss of revenue.When Prime Minister IndiraGandhi — Nehru’s daughter —assumed office in January 1966, India was short twenty million tons of grain and lacked money tobuy replacement stock on the world market. She was left with no choice but to go to the UnitedStates, hat in hand, to beg for food aid.

1. There was a lot that the United States could have asked for in return from India, such assupport for the Western side in the Cold War (India was non-aligned), and particularly for the wareffort in nearby Vietnam, which was heating up rapidly. One of President Lyndon Johnson’s aides,Joseph Califano, suggested in a memo to the president that the United States move rapidly tocommit food aid in order to secure such a pro-American tilt. In reply he got a call from Johnsonthat very afternoon. “Are you out of your f***ing mind?” the president exploded. He declared inno uncertain terms that he was not going to “piss away foreign aid in nations where they refuse todeal with their own population problems.”

Indira Gandhi arrived in Washington in late March and met first with Secretary of State Dean

Rusk, who handed her a memo requiring “a massive effort to control population growth” as acondition for food aid. Then, on March 28, 1966, she met privately with the president. There is norecord of their conversation, but it is evident that she capitulated completely. Two days later,President Johnson sent a message to Congress requesting food aid for India, noting with approval:“The Indian government believes that there can be no effective solution of the Indian foodproblem that does not include population control.”

In accordance with the agreement, sterilization and IUD-insertion quotas were set for each Indianstate, and then within each state for each local administrative district. Every hospital in thecountry had a large portion of its facilities commandeered for sterilization and IUD-insertionactivities. (The IUDs, which were provided to the Indian government by the Population Council,were non-sterile. In Maharashtra province, 58 percent of women surveyed who received themexperienced pain, 24 percent severe pain, and 43 percent severe and excessive bleeding.) Buthospitals alone did not have the capacity to meet the quotas, so hundreds of sterilization campswere set up in rural areas, manned and operated by paramedical personnel who had as little as twodays of training. Minimum quotas were set for the state-salaried camp medics — they had toperform 150 vasectomies or 300 IUD insertions per month each, or their pay would be docked.Private practitioners were also recruited to assist, with pay via piecework: 10 rupees pervasectomy and 5 rupees per IUD insertion.

To acquire subjects for these ministrations, the Indian government provided each province with11 rupees for every IUD insertion, 30 per vasectomy, and 40 per tubectomy. These funds couldbe divided according to the particular population control plan of each provincial government, withsome going to program personnel, some spent as commission money to freelance “motivators,”some paid as incentives to the “acceptors,” and some grafted for other governmental or privateuse by the administrators. Typical incentives for subjects ranged from 3 to 7 rupees for an IUDinsertion and 12 to 25 rupees for a sterilization. These sums may seem trivial — a 1966 rupee isequivalent to 65 cents today — but at that time, 2 to 3 rupees was a day’s pay for an Indianlaborer.

When these pittances did not induce enough subjects to meet the quotas, some states adoptedadditional “incentives”: Madhya Pradesh, for example, denied irrigation water to villages thatfailed to meet their quotas. Faced with starvation, millions of impoverished people had noalternative but to submit to sterilization. As the forms of coercion employed worked mosteffectively on the poorest, the system also provided the eugenic bonus of doing awaypreferentially with untouchables.

The results were impressive. In 1961, the total number of sterilizations (vasectomies andtubectomies combined) performed in India was 105,000. In 1966-67, the yearly total shot up to887,000, growing further to more than 1.8 million in 1967-68. No doubt LBJ was proud.

But while ruining the lives of millions of people, the steep rise in sterilization figures had littleimpact on the overall trajectory of India’s population growth. In 1968, Paul Ehrlich wrote in ThePopulation Bomb, “I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks India will beself sufficient in food by 1971, if ever,” thus justifying his explicitly antihuman call that “we mustallow [India] to slip down the drain.” As in so many other things, Ehrlich was wrong; India didachieve self-sufficiency in food in 1971 — not through population control, but through the

improved agricultural techniques of the Green Revolution. It did not matter. The holders of thepurse-strings at USAID demanded even higher quotas. They got them. By 1972-73, the numberof sterilizations in India reached three million per year.

Then, in the fall of 1973, OPEC launched its oil embargo, quintupling petroleum prices virtuallyovernight. For rich nations like the United States, the resulting financial blow was severe. Forpoor countries like India, it was devastating. In 1975, conditions in India became so bad thatPrime Minister Gandhi declared a state of national emergency and assumed dictatorial power.Driven once again to desperation, she found herself at the mercy of the World Bank, led by arch-Malthusian Robert S. McNamara. McNamara made it clear: if India wanted more loans, Gandhineeded to use her powers to deal more definitively with India’s supposed population problem. Sheagreed. Instead of incentives, force would now be used to obtain compliance. “Some personalrights have to be kept in abeyance,” she said, “for the human rights of the nation, the right to live,the right to progress.”

Gandhi put her son Sanjay personally in charge of the new population offensive. He took to hisjob with gusto. Overt coercion became the rule: sterilization was a condition for land allotments,water, electricity, ration cards, medical care, pay raises, and rickshaw licenses. Policemen weregiven quotas to nab individuals for sterilization. Demolition squads were sent into slums tobulldoze houses — sometimes whole neighborhoods — so that armed police platoons could dragoff their flushed-out occupants to forced-sterilization camps. In Delhi alone, 700,000 people weredriven from their homes. Many of those who escaped the immediate roundup were denied newhousing until they accepted sterilization.

These attacks provoked resistance, with thousands being killed in battles with the police, whoused live ammunition to deal with protesters. When it became clear that Muslim villages were alsobeing selectively targeted, the level of violence increased still further. The village of Pipli was onlybrought into submission when government officials threatened locals with aerial bombardment. Asthe director of family planning in Maharashtra explained, “You must consider it something like awar.... Whether you like it or not, there will be a few dead people.”

The measures served their purpose. During 1976, eight million Indians were sterilized. Far frombeing dismayed by the massive violation of human rights committed by the campaign, its foreignsponsors expressed full support. Sweden increased its funding for Indian population control by$17 million. Reimert Ravenholt ordered 64 advanced laparoscope machines — altogethersufficient to sterilize 12,800 people per day — rushed to India to help the effort. World Bankpresident McNamara was absolutely delighted. In November 1976, he traveled to India tocongratulate Indira Gandhi’s government for its excellent work. “At long last,” he said, “India ismoving effectively to address its population problem.”

Prime Minister Gandhi got her loans. She also got the boot in 1977, when, in the largestdemocratic election in history, the people of India defied three decades of precedent and voted herCongress Party out of power in a landslide.

Unfortunately, in most Third World countries, people lack such an option to protect themselvesagainst population control. Equally unfortunately, despite the fall of the Gandhi government, thefinancial pressure on India from the World Bank and USAID to implement population control

continued. By the early 1980s, four million sterilizations were being performed every year onIndia’s underclasses as part of a coercive two-child-per-family policy.

Since in rural India sons are considered essential to continue the family line and provide supportfor parents in their old age, this limit caused many families to seek means of disposing of infantdaughters, frequently through drowning, asphyxiation, abandonment in sewers or garbage dumps,or incineration on funeral pyres. More recently the primary means of eliminating the less-desirablesex has become sex-selective abortion, skewing the ratio of the sexes so that 112 boys are bornfor every hundred girls in India (far beyond the natural ratio of 103 to 106), with the ratio evenmore skewed in some locations. A sense of the scale on which these murders were and arepracticed, even just in the aspect of gendercide, can be gleaned from the fact that in India todaythere are 37 million more men than women.

Peru

Because of their proximity to the United States, Central and South America have long been in thesights of population controllers from the American national security establishment. Since the1960s, on the urging of USAID, brutal population control programs have been implemented innearly every country from Mexico to Chile. In this article we shall focus on just one of them, thatof Peru, because the criminal investigation of its leading perpetrators has provided some of thebest documentation of the systematic abuses that have been and continue to be carried out underthe cloak of population control across Central and South America.

Mountainous Peru features some of the most thinly populated regions on the planet. This fact,however, in no way deterred USAID planners from deeming these rural areas to beoverpopulated, nor from funding programs designed to eliminate their people. Begun in 1966,these efforts proceeded on a comparatively low level until the 1990s, when strongman AlbertoFujimori assumed nearly dictatorial powers in the country.

In 1995, President Fujimori launched a nationwide sterilization campaign. Mobile sterilizationteams were assembled in Lima and then deployed to move through the countryside to conductweek-long “ligation festivals” in one village after another. Prior to the arrival of the sterilizationteams, Ministry of Health employees were sent in to harass local women into submission. Womenwho resisted were subjected to repeated home visits and severe verbal abuse by the governmentworkers, who chided the native women and girls that they were no better than “cats” or “dogs”for wanting to have children. If this did not suffice, mothers were told that unless they submittedto ligation, their children would be made ineligible for government food aid.

Both the government harassment squads and the members of the sterilization units themselvesoperated under a quota system, striving to meet the nationwide target of 100,000 tubal ligationsper year. They were paid if they met their quotas but punished if they failed to capture thedesignated number of women for sterilization. As a result, many women entering clinics forchildbirth were sterilized without any pretext of gaining their permission. Given the limitedtraining of the sterilization personnel (provided in many cases by imported Chinese populationcontrol experts), the unsanitary conditions prevailing during the village “ligation festivals,” and thecomplete lack of post-operation care, it is not surprising that many suffered severe complicationsand more than a few died subsequent to their mutilations.

While the government personnel performing the mass sterilizations were urbanites of Spanishderivation, the overwhelming majority of the victims were rural Quechua-speaking natives of Incadescent. This, of course, was no coincidence. When Fujimori was booted out in 2000, the newpresident, Alejandro Toledo, asked the Peruvian Congress to authorize an investigation into thepopulation control campaign. Accordingly, an investigative commission known as the AQV wasformed under the direction of Dr. Hector Chavez Chuchon. The AQV submitted its report to theHuman Rights Commission of the Peruvian Congress on June 10, 2003.

According to the report, in the course of a five-year effort the Fujimori government had sterilized314,605 women. Furthermore, Fujimori’s population control campaign had “carried out massivesterilizations on designated ethnic groups, benefiting other ethnic or social groups which did notsuffer the scourge with the same intensity ... the action fits the definition of the crime ofGenocide.” The report went on to make a “Constitutional Indictment” Fujimori and variousofficials of his government “for the alleged commission of crimes against Individual Liberty,against Life, Body, and Health, of Criminal Conspiracy, and Genocide.”

The primary funders of Fujimori’s genocide campaign were USAID (which ignored U.S. law anda 1998 congressional investigation to continue its financial support for the effort), the UNFPA,and the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

China

In June 1978, Song Jian, a top-level manager in charge of developing control systems for theChinese guided-missile program, traveled to Helsinki for an international conference on controlsystem theory and design. While in Finland, he picked up copies of The Limits to Growth andBlueprint for Survival — publications of the Club of Rome, a major source of Malthusianpropaganda — and made the acquaintance of several Europeans who were promoting thereports’ method of using computerized “systems analysis” to predict and design the humanfuture.

Fascinated by the possibilities, Song returned to China and republished the Club’s analysisunder his own name (without attribution), establishing his reputation for brilliant and originalthinking. Indeed, while Club of Rome computer projections of impending resource shortages,graphs showing the shortening of population-increase times, and discussions of “carryingcapacities,” “natural limits,” mass extinctions, and the isolated “spaceship Earth” were allclichés in the West by 1978, in China they were fresh and striking ideas. In no time at all, Songbecame a scientific superstar. Seizing the moment to grasp for greater power and importance, hepulled together an elite group of mathematicians from within his department, and with the helpof a powerful computer to provide the necessary special effects, issued the profoundly calculatedjudgment that China’s “correct” population size was 650 to 700 million people — which is tosay some 280 to 330 million less than its actual 1978 population. Song’s analysis quickly foundfavor at top levels of the Chinese Communist Party because it purported to prove that the reasonfor China’s continued poverty was not thirty years of disastrous misrule, but the very existence ofthe Chinese people. (To make the utter falsity of Song’s argument clear, it is sufficient to notethat in 1980, neighboring South Korea, with four times China’s population density, had a percapita gross national product seven times greater.) Paramount Leader Deng Xiaoping and his

fellows in the Central Committee were also very impressed by the pseudo-scientific computerbabble Song used to dress up his theory — which, unlike its Club of Rome source documents inthe West, ran unopposed in the state-controlled Chinese technical and popular media.

Song proposed that China’s rulers a limit of one child per family, effective immediately. DengXiaoping liked what Song had to say, so those who might have had the power to resist the one-child policy were quick to protect themselves by lining up in support. At the critical Chengdupopulation conference in December 1979, only one brave man, Liang Zhongtang, a teacher ofMarxism at the Shaanxi Provincial Party School, called upon his party comrades to consider thebrutality they were about to inflict: “We have made the peasants’ suffering bitter enough in theeconomic realm. We cannot make them suffer further.” Liang also tried to argue from apractical standpoint. If we implement this policy, he said, every working Chinese married couplewill need to support four elderly grandparents, one child, and themselves — a clearimpossibility. None of the children will have any brothers or sisters, or uncles or aunts. None ofthe parents will have any relatives of their own generation to help out in time of need. The socialfabric of village life will break down completely. There will be no one to serve in the Army.

But such commonsense objections were of no avail. The word soon came down from the top: onechild per family was now the policy of the infallible Party leadership, and no furtherdisagreements would be tolerated.

Thus began the most forceful population control program since Nazi Germany. No more wouldthe population controllers need to depend on tricks, bribes, denial of benefits, traveling ligationfestivals, or slum demolition platoons to obtain their victims. They now had the organized andunrelenting power of a totalitarian state to enforce their will, holding sway over not only amassive bureaucracy, but gigantic police and military forces, secret police, vast prison facilities,total media control, and tens of millions of informers. In The Population Bomb, Paul Ehrlich hadcalled for state control of human reproduction, with “compulsory birth regulation.” Now, justtwelve years later, Ehrlich’s utopian dream had become a nightmare reality for one-fifth of thehuman race.

Qian Xinzhong, a Soviet-trained former major general in the People’s Liberation Army, wasplaced in charge of the campaign. He ordered that all women with one child were to have astainless-steel IUD inserted, and to be inspected regularly to make sure that they had nottampered with it. To remove the device was deemed a criminal act. All parents with two or morechildren were to be sterilized. No pregnancies were legal for anyone under 23, whether married ornot, and all unauthorized pregnancies were to be aborted. “Under no circumstances is the birth ofa third child allowed,” Qian said.

Women who defied these injunctions were taken and sterilized by force. Babies would be abortedright through the ninth month of pregnancy, with many crying as they were being stabbed to deathat the moment of birth. Those women who fled to try to save their children were hunted, and ifthey could not be caught, their houses were torn down and their parents thrown in prison, there tolinger until a ransom of 20,000 yuan — about three years’ income for a peasant — was paid fortheir release. Babies born to such fugitives were declared to be “black children,” illegal non-persons in the eyes of the state, without any right to employment, public schooling, health care, orreproduction.

The leaders of the UNFPA and the International Planned Parenthood Federation were delighted,and rushed to send money (provided to them primarily by the U.S. State Department) andpersonnel to help support the campaign. China was so openly brutal in its methods that IPPF’sown information officer, Penny Kane, expressed alarm — not at what was being done to millionsof Chinese women, girls, and infants, but at the possible public-relations disaster that could marthe IPPF’s image if Americans found out what it was doing. “Very strong measures are beingtaken to reduce population,” Kane wrote from China, “I think that in the not-too-distant futurethis will blow up into a major press story as it contains all the ingredients for sensationalism —Communism, forced family planning, murder of viable fetuses, parallels with India, etc. When itdoes blow up, it is going to be very difficult to defend.... We might find it extremely difficult tohandle the press and the public if there were a major fuss about the Chinese methods.”

Disregarding Kane’s concerns, the IPPF stepped up its support for the campaign. True to herworries, however, the story did begin to break in the West. On November 30, 1981, the WallStreet Journal ran an eyewitness story by Michele Vink reporting women being “handcuffed, tiedwith ropes, or placed in pig’s baskets” as they were being hauled off for forced abortions.According to Vink, vehicles transporting women to hospitals in Canton were “filled with wailingnoises,” while unauthorized infants were being killed en masse. “Every day hundreds of fetusesarrive at the morgue,” one of Vink’s sources said.

On May 15, 1982, New York Times foreign correspondent Christopher Wren offered an evenmore devastating exposé. He reported on stories of thousands of Chinese women being “roundedup and forced to have abortions,” and tales of women “locked in detention cells or hauled beforemass rallies and harangued into consenting to abortion,” as well as “vigilantes [who] abductedpregnant women on the streets and hauled them off, sometimes handcuffed or trussed, to abortionclinics.” He quoted one Chinese reporter who described “aborted babies which were actuallycrying when they were born.” The horror became so open that it could not be denied. By 1983,even Chinese newspapers themselves were running stories about the “butchering, drowning, andleaving to die of female infants and the maltreating of women who had given birth to girls.”

Unfazed by the press coverage, Qian redoubled the effort. Local Communist Party officials weregiven quotas for sterilizations, abortions, and IUD insertions. If they exceeded them, they couldbe promoted. If they failed to meet them, they would be expelled from the Party in disgrace.These measures guaranteed results. In 1983, 16 million women and 4 million men were sterilized,18 million women had IUDs inserted, and over 14 million infants were aborted. Going forward,these figures were sustained, with combined total coerced abortions, IUD implantations, andsterilizations exceeding 30 million per year through 1985.

In celebration of Qian’s achievements, the UNFPA in 1983 gave him (together with IndiraGandhi) the first United Nations Population Award, complete with diploma, gold medal, and$25,000 cash. In a congratulatory speech at the award ceremony in New York, U.N. SecretaryGeneral Javier Pérez de Cuéllar said: “Considering the fact that China and India contain over 40per cent of humanity, we must all record our deep appreciation of the way in which theirgovernments have marshaled the resources necessary to implement population policies on amassive scale.” Qian stood up and promised to continue “controlling population quantity andraising population quality.” The U.N. was not alone in expressing its appreciation. The World

Bank signaled its thanks in the sincerest way possible — that is to say, with cash, providing Chinawith $22 billion in loans by 1996.

Given the supreme importance to rural Chinese families of having a son, both to take care ofaging parents and to continue the line and honor family ancestors, many peasants simply could notaccept a daughter as their only child. The resultant spike in female infanticide was perhaps notespecially troubling to the authorities in itself, given their attitude toward related matters, but thetotal social breakdown it betokened was. Facing this reality, in 1988 the government in someprovinces compromised just a little and agreed that couples who had a daughter as their first childwould be allowed one more try to have a son — provided that there were no unauthorized birthsor other violations of the population policy by anyone in the couple’s village during that year.While giving a bit on the population front, this “reform” had the salutary effect — from thetotalitarian point of view — of destroying peasant solidarity, which previously had acted to shieldlocal women giving birth in hiding. Instead, hysterical group pressure was mobilized against suchrebels, with everyone in the village transformed into government snoops to police their neighborsagainst possible infractions.

The killing of daughters, however, continued apace. During the period from 2000 to 2004, almost1.25 boys were born for every girl born — indicating that one-fifth of all baby girls in China wereeither being aborted or murdered. In some provinces the fraction eliminated was as high as one-half.

The Terrible Toll

In 1991, UNFPA head Nafis Sadik went to China to congratulate the oligarchs of the People’sRepublic for their excellent program, which by that time had already sterilized, implanted IUDs in,or performed abortions on some 300 million people. “China has every reason to feel proud of andpleased with its remarkable achievements made in its family planning policy and control of itspopulation growth over the past ten years,” she said. “Now the country could offer its experiencesand special experts to help other countries.... UNFPA is going to employ some of [China’s familyplanning experts] to work in other countries and popularize China’s experience in populationgrowth control and family planning.”

Sadik made good on her promise. With the help of the UNFPA, the Chinese model of populationcontrol was implemented virtually in its entirety in Vietnam, and used to enhance the brutaleffectiveness of the antihuman efforts in many other countries, from Bangladesh and Sri Lanka toMexico and Peru.

Meanwhile, many other countries have similarly grim stories. The Indonesian population controlprogram was extensive and coercive; Betsy Hartmann as recounted a case in 1990 in which“family planning workers accompanied by the police and army went from house to house andtook men and women to a site where IUDs were being inserted. Women who refused had IUDsinserted at gunpoint.” The Indonesian government’s longstanding commitment to populationcontrol meant that other areas of health care were not prioritized, which is why the country’sinfant mortality rate is double that of neighboring Malaysia and Thailand.

The misallocation of scarce health resources is even more apparent in sub-Saharan Africa. Health

care professionals and programs that should be dedicated to fighting malaria and other deadlydiseases are instead dedicated to population control. As Dr. Stephen Karanja, former secretary ofthe Kenyan Medical Association, wrote in 1997:

Our health sector is collapsed. Thousands of the Kenyan people will die of malaria, thetreatment of which costs a few cents, in health facilities whose shelves are stocked to theceiling with millions of dollars’ worth of pills, IUDs, Norplant, Depo-Provera, and so on,most of which are supplied with American money.... Special operating theaters fullyserviced and not lacking in instruments are opened in hospitals for the sterilization ofwomen. While in the same hospitals, emergency surgery cannot be done for lack of basicoperating instruments and supplies.

In a 2000 interview, Karanja continued, “You can’t perform operations because there is noequipment, no materials. The operation theater isn’t working. But if it is for a sterilization, thetheater is equipped.” Worse still, as Steven Mosher has argued in his book Population Control,there is good reason to believe that the 100 million hypodermic needles that were shipped toAfrica since the 1990s for injecting contraceptive drugs have been a major cause of thecontinent’s horrific AIDS epidemic — which has resulted in tens of millions of deaths, with nearlytwo million more deaths expected this year, and next, and for years more to come.

Around the world, the population control movement has resulted in billions of lost or ruined lives.We cannot stop at merely rebutting the pseudoscience and recounting the crimes of the populationcontrollers. We must also expose and confront the underlying antihumanist ideology. If the idea isaccepted that the world’s resources are fixed with only so much to go around, then each new lifeis unwelcome, each unregulated act or thought is a menace, every person is fundamentally theenemy of every other person, and each race or nation is the enemy of every other race or nation.The ultimate outcome of such a worldview can only be enforced stagnation, tyranny, war, andgenocide. The horrific crimes advocated or perpetrated by antihumanism’s devotees over the past

two centuries prove thisconclusively. Only in a world ofunlimited resources can all men bebrothers.

That is why we must rejectantihumanism and embrace insteadan ethic based on faith in the humancapacity for creativity andinvention. For in doing so, we makea statement that we are living not atthe end of history, but at thebeginning of history; that webelieve in freedom and notregimentation; in progress and notstasis; in love rather than hate; inlife rather than death; in hope ratherthan despair.

Agenda 21 Brainwashing: “IntegratingPopulation Issues Into Environmental MassMedia Coverage”

Jurriaan MaessenInfowars.comApril 17, 2012

During a discussion at the 1980 Bilderbergconference in Aachen, West-Germany, oneparticipant stood up to make his case fordepopulation and the third world. In theBilderberg notes we read:

“The speaker (a German participant) went onto say that the leaders of the LDC’sunderstood that the oil price explosion hadhurt the Third World much more than theindustrialized countries. And they werebeginning to see that they did not have at allthe same interests as the oil-producingcountries. What they did not perhaps fullyunderstand was what a menace the populationexplosion was to their countries. It seemedthat no one wanted to tell them that- neitherthe Catholic Church nor others. It would benearly impossible to feed and employ thefuture world population at the rate it was growing. This had to be faced seriously; it could notbe solved by talking about “gadgets and gimmicks.”, the German participant concluded.The gadgets and gimmicks the Bilderberger referred to during the 1980 get-together were alreadyin place during the 1970s and beginning of the 1980s en were to be expanded with painstakingaccuracy by the global elite in the years and decades to come. To tackle the population problemand convincingly manufacture an ongoing crisis in order to justify their plans, they would have tofind some pretext, any pretext, on the condition that it superseded nation-states for their owntransnational designs.

CFR-head Richard N. Haass offers an insight into the true objective of the environmentalargument in a 1991 Club of Rome document, ‘The First Global Revolution’:

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a common enemy to unite us, we cameup with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and thelike would fit the bill.”

As we know, the globalists have decided long ago that the environmental debate is no longer adebate- it has been decreed that the “discussion is over” and everyone should better realize that

man is the prime cause for globalwarming on the planet earth, orof any other natural calamity. Aslong as it serves the doublepurpose of the elite: to abolishnation-states in favor of a greatglobal government, and reducethe world population in the samebreath. The imagined threat of“international terrorism” beinghardly sufficient to justify thedrastic measures beingimplemented, another common enemy has presented itself, and that enemy is staring back at youin the mirror.

As numerous meteorologists and climatologists have testified to in recent years, their participationin the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been used to back a theory that theythemselves did not support. And then there are the thousands of meteorologists of good name andstandard, who out of scientific righteousness have stepped forward and presented their factsbefore the public and scientific community. But it is of no concern to the global elite. They havefor a good long time, spanning the last couple of centuries at least, presided over the politics ofeugenics and enforced its diabolical mechanisms with energy, cunning and precision. It is not anidle use of words, when we identify eugenicists as such, for however just and noble its cloakingmakes them out to be, this supposed righteousness is merely a grotesque carnival-costumeintended to shade its true countenance.For an October 1975 ‘International Workshop on Environmental Education’, UN-representative Lars Emmelin writes: “The adult education effort seems to me most critical. First,because this element- now outside the formal channels of education- will continue to be the

decision makers for thenext 15 to 20 years, and itis within this period thatthe most critical anddisruptive decisions willhave to be made. Wecannot afford to focus onyouth and let the eldersdie off before changingour course, which, if timepermitted, would be themost efficient way ofinstitutions change.”

In choosing its course formass-indoctrination, the1975 workshop exploresvarious ways in which the

mass media can be used to “sensitize” the general public in accepting the UN’s long-termambitions. Under the headline ‘The Media as Environmental Educators’ (page 4) several optionsare being presented by one of the participants in how the media can best be used:

“Discussing the role of media as motivators Sandman concludes that: “Four relatively effectivekinds of environmental information are: basic ecological principles; prescriptions forenvironmental action; early warnings of anticipated problems; and assessments of blame forenvironmental degradation.”’, the report states.

During an ENESCO-conference in October 1977 held (bizarrely) in Soviet Russia, the Director-General of UNESCO, Amadou-Mahtar M’Bow, “paid tribute to the Soviet Union and to thespectacular results achieved since the October Revolution in all areas of economic, social andcultural life, particularly in education and science, and, more especially, in environmentaleducation.”

You’re reading it right. Here the good Director-General is paying tribute to a then 60-year oldregime responsible for murdering many millions of its own people in death camps and deliberatemass-scale starvation-operations. Yes, “environmental issues” were very high on the agenda ofthe USSR, very high indeed.

After having taken his hat off to his fellow-psychopath, the Director-General plunged into a longand melodious speech on the importance of the “environment-issue” in the decades to come:

“The objectives and strategies relating to the environment and to development had to be linkedand coordinated. (…) It would be the task of education to make people aware of theirresponsibilities in this connection, but in order to do so it must first be reoriented and based onan ethos of the environment” And a little further on he states: “Environmental education shouldalso promote attitudes which would encourage individuals to discipline themselves in order notto impair the quality of the environment and to play a positive role in improving it.”

It is true, under the intentionally vague ‘environment’-umbrella one can assemble all kinds ofcalamities and as many solutions to combat them.

“Work in this programme area”, the report continues, “will be intensified “in the line of theconference’s recommendations and move into a more operational fase. This means, among otheractivities, “making aid from UNESCO available to member states (of the UN) which would liketo launch pilot projects”; considering a “bank” of experts on environmental education;augmenting “work in the exchange of experience, in training and in encouraging the productionof teaching materials”; and strengthening the Secretariat and UNESCO’s infrastructure ingeneral for the increased promotion of environmental education..”’

In the meeting, the chairman of the conference stressed that no means must or will be shunned inthe coming propaganda war against the people:

“Some countries have also taken an interest, as part of in-service training activities, in theenvironmental education of various social and occupational categories of the population, suchas factory workers, farmers, civil servants, etc. Marked progress has been made in thepreparation of audio-visual and printed teaching materials concerning the environment, and the

mass media are being increasingly used for sensitizing and informing broad sectors of the publicabout the environment.”

In a follow-up conference more than ten years later (this time in Moscow) the Secretary-Generalof UNESCO, Federico Mayor, discusses “three levels of global education” in regards to theenvironment. The first, he states, is the “moral imperative” to reach as many people as humanlypossible. The second level is “to harness school systems, non-formal learning and informaleducation to teach and learn about the global issues that shape and threaten the quality of ourlives.” Arriving at the third and last level of global indoctrination, Mayor states: “The third levelconcerns the means at our disposal to project a global reach for education through both simpleand highly advanced existing technologies. (…) the daily newspaper and radio have a crucialrole to play in building bridges to the wider world. We must promote these media, defend andexpand their freedom and appeal to their professionals at all levels to work with us for globaleducation.”

We can hardly accuse the globalists of keeping their plans secret. At every possible UN event orbrainstorm conference, they openly brag about their plans for the world in quite explicit ways. TheSecretary-General continues about the steps that have to be taken in order to build a “new globalperception”:

“Our first initiative would be to create a worldwide expert panel of scientists and educators toplan a global education curriculum of practical value and planetary scope.”

The Secretary-General forgets to mention here that just such a panel was created two years earlierby the very organization he presided over.

“Second, putting environmental education at the center of all curricula from kindergarten tohigher studies and training the teachers and the administrators who can carry the massage intoall schools.(..) Third, promoting a global civic education by devising teaching methods andmaterials that emphasize the ethics of worldwide community living.(…) Fourth, teaching thechildren of the wealthier countries about the conditions of their brothers and sisters in thedeveloping world (…) Fifth, working with the mass media and telecommunication enterprises toproduce and broadcast audio-visual packages that introduce audiences, particularly childrenand young people, to the great teachers of this world at al levels and in all cultures (…).”

“And finally”, the Secretary-General concludes, “let me make a very immediate and concreteproposal: building on the broadcast of this forum scheduled for tomorrow (…), to create globaltelevision learning networks on the issues of the human agenda for the next century. This wouldbe an experiment in informal global education at its best.”

Under the term ‘Information Repackaging’, the UN has published several manuals on this subject,teaching their cronies how to most effectively influence public opinion. In a 1986 Manual forRepackaging of Information on Population Education, the UNESCO proposes “strategies forintegrating population education into different subject areas”- one of these being playing into fearson the part of the population in regards to the subject of their home environment family:

“For instance, the effectiveness of fear appeals in changing attitudes and behaviour, such as theadverse effects of non- or limited access to education and housing facilities with more than two

children, depends on the credibility of the source of information and the extent of general/publicsupport to the message conveyed by a particular piece of information. Fear appeals directed tothe welfare of people valued by the receiver of information (e.g. family members, close friends)are also effective.”

On page 37 of the manual, under the header “Selective Dissemination of Information (SDI)”, thestrategy is further elaborated upon:

“One SDI package, for instance, focuses on the integration of population education intoenvironmental education. The package contains materials which will help users understand therelationship between man and the environment, as well as provide insights and actual data onhow to plan, teach and implement practical environment/population activities for everyday life.”

As we know, the above mentioned gadgets and gimmicks are being incrementally used in the massmedia as the climate change propaganda machine is working overtime. Using the mass media toprepare the population for globalist supreme rule is not only an ambitious plan- it reveals thedeceitful spirit behind the provided information, rivaling the work of Joseph Goebbels and hisDepartment of Propaganda.

A March 2009 policy brief by the United Nations Population Division reveals that the long-termplan for worldwide population reduction is not going fast enough according to the socialengineers, not by a long shot. Under the desperate headline “What would it take to acceleratefertility decline in the least developed countries?” this particular policy brief gives an overview ofthe progress made by developing countries in regards to the globalists set goal of reducingpopulation and proposes several ways of speeding up the death. Richly draped with graphicillustrations on the state of global population and the progress made by the UN to bring backfertility to “acceptable” levels, the policy brief advises an increased effort on the part ofgovernments to commit to a strict family planning- policy and other measures designed to bring ahalt to life.

“The reduction of fertility could be accelerated if effective measures were taken to satisfy theexisting unmet need for family planning.”

After these recommendations, the authors plunge into a long, wailing lament about the slowprogress of the desired culling of the population. They also blame a lack of commitment of thegovernments concerned and, as expected, they stress the need for a global intervention in order toavoid certain destruction.

This recent policy brief was just one out of many in regards to the long-term plan by the elite tosignificantly bring down the numbers of the existing earth population. From the moment theRockefeller funded family planning-machine was widely kicked off in the 1960s and 70s,numerous meetings have been held in the last couple of decades where various strategies werediscussed to implement population-reduction on as large a scale as possible. The strategies inquestion were especially directed towards the third world as the globalists had virtual carteblanche in the impoverished developing countries. The famous 1994 population conference inCairo outlined some of the proposed strategies to be implemented. Then Secretary-General of theUN, Boutros Boutros-Ghali in his opening statement on the International Conference on

Population and Development, stated that:

“I am not exaggerating when I say that not only does the future of the human society depend onthis Conference but also the efficacy of the economic order of the planet on which we live.”

During a follow-up-meeting held in New York on December 1994, the United Nations’participants came up with some practical solutions to the “population problem”– one of which isthe integration of population issues with matters of “environment” and “human development”:

“Several priority areas were identified that needed immediate action by the participants. Theseincluded creation of awareness of the interrelationships between environment, population anddevelopment; advocacy; education; training; population management; gender concerns;monitoring and evaluation; and information dissemination and networking.”

Under the headline “Youth NGOs Agree to Integrate Environment and Population Issues in theirActivities” were mentioned the following activities to “guide” the young into the right mindset by,again, mixing in environmental issues with population issues:

“Among the current issues identified by the Working Group as requiring priority attention werethe problems dealing with population, environment and sustainable development. Hence, aWorking Group Meeting of the Regional Consultation of Youth NGOs in Asia and the Pacificwas held from 19-21 April 1995 at the UNESCO PROAP to discuss and shape a plan of actionintegrating issues on environment, population and development for consideration by the youthNGOs. (…) To help them develop a relevant plan of action, the participants were exposed andsensitized to the current policies and programmes adopted by FAO, UNEP, UNFPA, andUNESCO in the areas of population, environment and development.”

Further on the use of mass-media is being proposed as effective “carriers of population-information” to hammer dehumanization into the collective consciousness:

“With more than 2 billion radios in the world, roughly one for every three people, and growingnumber of televisions, the electronic media plays an increasingly important and influential rolein building awareness of population and other development issues.”

The report continues with a prime example of predictive programming:

“Radio and television soap operas featuring family planning themes, popular songs onpopulation-related issues, and phone-in question-and-answer sessions have all had an impact indifferent countries. The use of such media can be very important where literacy is low or wherewritten information is not widely circulated. A TV soap opera series is credited with bringingthousands to family planning clinics in Mexico, and night-time drama series integrating familyplanning themes have proved successful in Egypt, Nigeria and Turkey.”

In a January 1994 preparation meeting for the Cairo conference called “Family PlanningCommunications Strategies Examined” it was discussed how best to use the media in order tocreate tolerance among the general public and “how attitudes and beliefs could be changedthrough the innovative use of traditional and mass media.”

“The meeting featured case studies and presentations by communication practitioners andcovered a wide range of subjects, such as: the use of folk tradition and drama to organizecommunity action in Egypt; the use of micro-communications to encourage acceptance of familyplanning in the Philippines; the use of traditional and modern media in Ghana; and the use ofsongs to propagate family planning messages in Latin America. The success in India and Mexicoof radio and television soap operas and films on family planning subjects was also discussed.”

During the meeting the Executive Coordinator of the ICPD, Jyoti Shankar Singh, stressed theimportance of using mass media to “convey family planning and reproductive health messages”:

“Electronic media, print media (and) interpersonal interventions were all part of the kind ofcomprehensive information, education and communication (IEC) strategies we need in pursuit ofpopulation goals.”

In another technical report Guidelines on Basic Education with special attention to GenderDisparities for the UN Resident Coordinator System the message is repeatedly conveyed that:

“It is important that information be disseminated through various channels including traditionalmeans and packaged in various forms to allow both literate and illiterate persons to understandthe key messages.”

In 1997 the UNFPA organized a Regional Media Seminar on Population and Developmentfor the role of the mass media in (euphemistically called) ‘Information Repackaging’ for thePacific islands. The UN officials boasted on the success of the seminar:

“The seminar brought together journalists in the print and radio media from 9 countries of theSouth Pacific to explore both the role and potential of mass media as a vehicle for populationadvocacy, information, education and communication. (…) The seminar explored the role ofthe media in developing and packaging population materials for identified target groups. Themeeting also provided development partners with an opportunity to forge networks with mediapersonnel and develop effective strategies to better address population and development goalsand accelerate the implementation of the ICPD (International Conference on Population andDevelopment) Programme of Action.”

In other words: every possible resource should be utilized for propagandizing different targetaudiences. But the people burdened with designing and implementing population education on alarge scale emphasized the need for a common tongue and sequence of arguments with which thedifferent UN-divisions sell the people on the idea of dehumanization.

“Mr. Michael Vlassoff, Senior Technical Officer, Technical and Evaluation Division, UNFPA,introduced the work of the Working Group on Policy-Related Issues. He explained that theWorking Group had decided to address the “common advocacy” concern by drawing up aStatement of Commitment that would then be issued by all agencies and organizations involvedin the IATF. The aim of such a statement would be to ensure that all UN agencies andorganizations use the same language regarding population and development issues.”

The report goes on to list these arguments with which populations worldwide should be lured into

embracing modern-day eugenics as a sensible policy:

“The “Statement of Commitment on Population and Development by the United NationsSystem”, drafted by the Working Group, is divided into three sections: a general introductionstressing the commitment by the UN agencies and organizations to implement ICPD(International Conference on Population and Development); a section on the linkages betweenpopulation issues and other development issues; and a concluding section calling for globalpartnership in addressing these interrelated issues.”

In short- a great part of the 1990s was occupied with a coordinated mobilization of mass mediafor propaganda purposes by the global elite, a test case so to speak, before implementing the samestrategies worldwide in the first decades of the 21st century. The great global warming swindlethen was put into action, arriving just in time as the environmental issue to attach the basicmessage to: there are too many of us- and our numbers should be reduced before the planet isdestroyed. Because the warming is global, the response should be so as well. However eloquentlythe message may be presented by hopelessly compliant media outlets, it is the tyrant’s voice wediscern amidst the chatter- and all with ears to hear should educate their neighbor in this all-outinformation war. Let’s not forget what the elite who have funded the UN from the moment of itsvery conception have always aspired. In the words of the aristocratic fiend Prince Philip:

“If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower humanpopulation levels.”

Population Control: The Eugenics Connection - Part 1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVhE3Muh3co

Population Control: The Eugenics Connection - Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feJza0S7AeA

Population Control: The Eugenics Connection - Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1p-Xxcwx0U

David Rockefeller speaks about population controlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClqUcScwnn8

Nicholas Rockefeller admitted the elite's goal is a 100% microchipped and enslaved Worldpopulation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oygBg6ETYIM

Jordan Maxwell - Matrix of Power - Secrets of World Controlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7eP6pYu4vE

http://www.infowars.com/