depopulation.newworldorderuniversity.com
Review of Matthew Connelly, Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population, Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2008.
Fatal Misconception provides details of population programs that we have found nowhere else. Our brief summary below does not do justice to the wealth of detail in Connelly’s study. We give Fatal Misconception our highest recommendation.
Despite the massive casualties in World War II, many nations increased in population, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Scandinavia, and Canada. This population increase mainly came about because of improved public health that reduced infant mortality. The development of antibiotics, vaccines, and pesticides further lengthened life-spans. In fact much of the population increase that occurred in the early 1950s resulted from the invention of DDT and programs to wipe out malaria-causing mosquitoes in countries such as Ceylon, Mauritius, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Barbados. These successes led many to predict a coming population explosion, but there was one main problem underlying such predictions: an absence of reliable population statistics.
Despite anti-Nazi feelings today, immediately after World War II there was no horrific reaction to eugenics or sterilization or programs promoting racial purity. Margaret Sanger continued to advocate sterilization, and sterilization continued to be legal in several U.S. states. Contemporaries did not regard the Holocaust as the chief feature of the Nazi regime or a watershed event in history. Nazi eugenics policies were only slightly more extreme than policies in other nations, and their policies were only carrying out what the population controllers had been advocating for decades.
Population polices under the Rockefeller Foundation dating from 1913 were formulated under the idea of a one-world order in which it was necessary to transform the backward peasant into a modern agricultural worker and open all foreign nations to Western corporate penetration.
In 1948 a Conference in Cheltenham, England brought global population controllers together. Out of this conference came the concept of a “global family.” This concept represented a shift away from racial superiority to a concept of global equality of peoples and races. Julian Huxley (head of UNESCO) then advocated a world population policy, and one of the implications of a global population policy was the relinquishment of individual rights in favor of controls that were to the benefit of the entire global family. Joseph Needham, head of the UNESCO science department, then combined the idea of controlling population with respect to natural resources and stimulating economic development as the next stage of biological evolution. This conference wanted a global authority on population that would sponsor research and education. From this conference formed the International Committee on Planned Parenthood. The leadership was spit between the Americans (Sanger and her demographic experts), who wanted to raise funds to influence governments, and the Swedes under Gunnar Myrdal, who favored sex education, feminism, and private clinics. “Family planning” became the phrase that united their efforts.
John D. Rockefeller 3rd now entered the picture with initiatives in Japan, China, Taiwan, and Korea. Improved public health and disease control led to a Japanese population boom immediately after the war. Japan’s government passed a Eugenic Protection Law, which established boards empowered to force sterilizations and approve abortions. Rockefeller’s demographic experts studied Japan’s fertility rates and came to believe that reducing population was a precondition for industrial development. The Rockefeller Foundation targeted Japan as the first test of a birth control campaign, and Prime Minister Yoshida agreed. Contraceptives were then provided at government clinics. Doctors were authorized to perform abortions, and the abortion rate exceeded the birth rate by 50 percent in Japan by 1955.
By 1952, India’s independent government was extremely concerned about overpopulation and began a series of reform policies that would reduce India’s population. At first these programs targeted the “untouchables” and the insane and mentally defective. India also began to sterilize epileptics, and it soon provided free contraception and sterilization services nationwide.The UN then began to train population control workers in Mexico City, Cairo, Paris, and New Delhi. The UN also encouraged every nation to conduct a census, and in the early 1950s the first population statistics became available. From these statistics the demographers then began to make future projections and to classify individual nations as overpopulated.
In 1951 Alva Myrdal became director of social sciences at UNESCO. Myrdal believed that nations were now planning comprehensive social change, and part of this planning must involve fertility reduction. Myrdal advocated high-pressure propaganda for the liberation of women, education, and human rights. Pressure was then exerted on the World Health Organization to formulate a model birth-control program that could be replicated in the various countries. However, national opposition and organized Catholic opposition to birth control prevented the UN from taking a leading role.
In 1955 the Soviet Union legalized abortion, but the Communists resisted UN efforts to initiate population control programs in Communist countries. The issue of fertility control polarized world leaders in the 1950s and prevented funding of any large-scale program. But the population establishment had allies in the developing world, and this is where they concentrated their efforts. John D. Rockefeller organized this activist front, which included the International Planned Parenthood Federation, United Nations agencies, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, and the major American and European drug companies. Rockefeller began by funding local population studies, and these studies discovered that population growth rates were increasing in many Third World countries.
Rockefeller funded a local study of birth control in Punjab, India that tracked the frequency of sexual intercourse, women’s menstrual cycles, miscarriages, births, and contraceptive use. However, demographers soon realized that local conditions varied from place to place, making one study insufficient and one model of population control insufficient for all of India. Paradoxically, the birth rate of those who used contraceptives was higher than the birth rate of those who did not use contraceptives. Many villagers did not understand the program, then opposed it when they did understand it. Rockefeller had to back away from supporting his study due to the unexpected results and the amount of opposition it engendered. The big foundations then decided to adopt a low profile and avoid publicly sponsoring studies and programs lest their reputations be tarnished.
In China the census in 1953 reported a population of 583 million, which was about 100 million more than had been estimated. China then legalized sterilization and abortion. The State Council complained that the “blind influx” of peasants into the cities was creating “chaotic conditions.” The State Council did not attribute this “blind influx” to Chinese collectivization programs, which were impoverishing peasants and sending millions to urban areas in hopes of survival. But Mao did not undertake a large population control effort. Instead he attempted the Great Leap Forward to accelerate collectivization. The result was a famine with over 20 million deaths.
In 1960 over 100 scientists and 39 Nobel Prize winners signed a public statement of conviction urging the UN to take actions to achieve a balance of population and resources. This statement predicted famine and unrest, leading to panic and explosive wars over vanishing natural resources. These alarmists predicted a “human tidal wave” which would bring about the decline of civilization. African children then began to appear on posters pleading for funds, even though Africa had a very low birthrate and was a net food exporter. In fact commodity prices had been falling for years, and the poor were consuming a shrinking portion of the world’s resources. There was no reason to believe that poor people were going to form armies to invade the wealthiest nations and take their resources, but this was the propaganda line the eugenicists settled on. The alarmists claimed that the poor would “turn to revolution,” “explode out of national boundaries,” and “fight to live.” Population control promised to neutralize these threats by getting rid of more poor colored people.
By 1963 India, with the support of Ford Foundation funds, had programs in place to distribute IUDs and conduct sterilization programs. Despite a high incidence of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease in IUD users, the leading population controllers wanted to continue such programs as “the individual patient is expendable in the general scheme of things.”
Studies of these IUD programs showed that about 15 percent of women
expelled the IUD and another 11 percent had them removed because of
pain, bleeding, or infection. These problems did not stop the Ford
Foundation from promoting IUD programs in Pakistan, Korea, and
Taiwan. At this point Ford began to massively increase funding.
The economic planners of this time believed that no country could achieve economic development if it were overpopulated, even though many densely populated areas, such as Hong Kong, were quite wealthy. Lyndon Johnson was worried that U.S. foreign aid was going down a rathole. By tying foreign aid to population control, Johnson believed the U.S. could get something concrete for its money. Again India became the leading target that pooled the resources of the United Nations agencies, the Ford Foundation, and the U.S. government. The UN wanted to increase sterilizations in India by ten times. The Population Council sent a million IUDs to India. Johnson put together a $1.5 billion aid package, and continued U.S. food assistance to India was tied to expansion of the sterilization and IUD programs. The justification for this great leap forward was that every birth prevented was a boon to society. From this calculus emerged the doctrine that having children was anti-social and not having children promoted social good. Threats to withhold U.S. grain supplies threatened India with starvation. India was now under Johnson’s thumb, with future aid tied to population control performance. Indira Gandhi agreed to these terms, appearing desperate for U.S. grain. In the end India got both a famine and a brutally accelerated population control program.
The IUD program in India began to turn into a fiasco when it was reported that half the women reported pain and bleeding. Moreover, drought hit Indian agriculture hard in 1966. As poor Indians began to starve, they readily signed up for a cash payment to be sterilized. Quotas were set for particular regions, and local entrepreneurs competed to find candidates for sterilization. However, the approach was hit-or-miss, with many elderly and unmarried getting sterilized. Records were falsified for profit. India passed laws prohibiting maternity leave for employees with three or more children, and free medical care was denied for anyone with three or more children. Scholarships, grants, loans, and housing benefits were denied on the same basis.
As feedback reached the Johnson administration officials and the Ford Foundation officials that the Indian programs were failing to reach their target quotas, panic set in, and a crisis mentality developed that led to a search for more funds. Congress then became involved and set aside $35 million of USAID funds for family planning programs. The Population Council and the Ford Foundation now had millions to spend, and of course much of it was spent by the leaders on themselves. These top officials began to jet around the world in search of countries in need of a family planning model. Activists, scholars, consultants, government officials, commissions, educational publishers, doctors, and public health bureaucracies were now drawn into a circle of opportunity created by massive government funding, mainly by the United States.
In Europe, Asia, and America, fertility peaked by 1965 and began to decline, just at the moment the population control movement began to reach critical mass. India was a special case, but population programs in other countries could not be shown to have reduced fertility significantly. As economic growth gradually accelerated around the world, people naturally began to have fewer children. The population control programs simply piggybacked on this trend. In 1968 Paul Erhlich published the Population Bomb, and Ehrlich’s false claims further muddied the picture by predicting crisis then catastrophe, even as fertility rates were declining.
As the U.S. shipped tons of contraceptives overseas and basically gave them away, governments lost control over their public health bureaucracies and stopped acting as guardians of their people. Most countries of the world legalized abortion in the decade of the 1970s. Family planning experts knew they were winning the day, and many wanted to go beyond family planning to large-scale programs like adding sterilization agents to water supplies, dropping contraceptive mists from airplanes, and propaganda broadcasts on television. Advocates began to leave behind any discussion of human rights and let their true agendas be known.
The population elite then clamored for bigger programs. Garrett Hardin, for example, drew an analogy between having children and the abuse of public lands in Tragedy of the Commons. Hardin characterized overbreeding as self-aggrandizement and anti-social. Hardin advocated reexamining individual rights to see which ones still applied in the age of global environmental crisis. Zero Population Growth then formed a model penal code that called for compulsory sterilization of parents with five or more children. Scientists began to dream of a contagious virus that would sterilize everyone, with an antidote offered to those qualified to reproduce.
Actually U.S. fertility had peaked in 1957 with 123 births per thousand women. By 1976, there were 76 births per thousand women.
In 1967 the Dalkon shield IUD was developed. It was recalled in 1975 after having been shipped to 42 countries. The shield was painful to insert and remove and caused infections.
The Population Crisis Committee decided that the next population threat lay in U.S. cities, full of juvenile delinquents, drug addicts, and idle welfare recipients. Population control could reduce crime and save spending on welfare programs.
The IPPF then tried to get photographs in foreign nations illustrating the unhappiness of large families and the happiness of small families. These efforts failed, and the IPPF commissioned paintings to illustrate their point.
Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb then enlisted David Brower, the head of the Sierra Club, in an environmental-population control alliance. Ehrlich painted a drastic picture of unhappy poor people invading the United States and advocated drastic, compulsory solutions. Ehrlich wanted the United States to stop providing foreign aid (food) for areas of the world that were “beyond help.” Ehrlich’s book went through 22 printings and sold 2 million copies. Ehrlich called for the development of mass sterilization agents.
Meanwhile, the demographers and social scientists really had no idea what strategies worked to reduce fertility. Birth control was linked with health services. A movement arose that demanded “integration” of multiple policies using multiple agencies, linked with legislation to provide appropriate rewards and penalties. The foundations were also at work on propaganda materials to show that unplanned families were unhealthy, violent, and unclean. The Disney film Family Planning, commissioned by the Population Council, featured Donald Duck crossing off unwanted children. Smaller families were surrounded by consumer goods. The Disney film claimed that “deep down, everyone wants the same thing for themselves and their families.” This message met resistance in cultures where more children meant more wealth and greater security in old age. The population propaganda linked the decision to have another child with the idea of an unaffordable luxury that worked against society’s long-term interest. Moreover this Disney propaganda claimed that a father who uses family planning is a “master in his house.” Donald Duck claimed that we all have a responsibility toward the “family of man.”
The feminist Betty Friedan then came forward to propagandize young girls that delaying marriage, reversing sex roles, embracing homosexuality, and contraception and abortion were good things. Feminism was eventually portrayed as principled, moral, tolerant, and liberated. Meanwhile, the population controllers were promoting the abortion of female fetuses over male fetuses in India.
In 1969, the Eugenics Quarterly changed its name to Social Biology, and in 1972 the American Eugenics Society became the Society for the Study of Social Biology.
It was widely recognized that eugenics was a pseudoscience and the prop for population control, which was a politics, not a science. Moreover, population control had become a privileged vested interest group that sought public funds and changes in law. Population control was recognized as racism and classism. Demographic research began to show that high fertility was not closely correlated with poverty. Ehrlich was rebutted and discredited by Julian Simon. Mahmood Mamdani’s The Myth of Population Control offered an authoritative rebuttal to the controllers’ claims. Resistance groups began to arise who were more than poor people resisting control, without intellectual understanding. It was pointed out that population controllers were mainly interested in controlling other people’s populations.
The UN Fund for Population Activities provided funding for countries that would not support U.S. aid. Funding increased so fast that programs were “scaled up” regardless of consequences. Foreign leaders came on board because their governments did not have to pay for population control services, and some of the cash ended up in their bank accounts. Research universities and pharmaceutical companies were brought in on the cash flow network.
Of course the increased sums of money led to corruption, not just the lavish lifestyles of the elite but corruption that filtered down from foreign bureaucrats to lower level bureaucrats in foreign counties, as is true of any aid program. The bureaucrats also faced the standard problem of increased budgets, how to spend the money fast enough to justify an increased allocation for next year.
One problem was that the clinic model seemed not to be working. Supply of contraceptives was unlimited and free, but how to stimulate demand? Mobile clinics had problems traveling on rural roads. Elites from the population agencies rarely ventured outside their foreign enclaves in capital cities. Drop-out rates were high. The population controllers decided they needed to overcome local conditions by staking everything on a centralized UN program. However, competition arose among various UN agencies over control. The UN Population Division actually had little experience running programs as their experts were mainly demographers devoted to gathering statistics. Rather than focusing on ways to develop more effective programs, the UN bureaucrats specialized in inventing methods to shield their organizations from criticism.
Part 2:
The UNFPA became the central population control agency, but
immediately it was criticized for bypassing national governments and
being unaccountable to UN member states. UNFPA was criticized as a
“U.S. front organization.” UNFPA had no assessment personnel. Awash
with funds from Rockefeller, Sweden, and the U.S., UNFPA decided it
needed to launder its sources of funds by enlisting the World Bank as
stand-in financier. Moreover, many countries were actually
underpopulated and were experiencing declining fertility rates
without population control programs. Some of these countries united
to oppose fertility control in their countries.
By 1971 much of this new money was pouring into India. India was
paying one hundred rupees per sterilization and was achieving 60,000
sterilizations per month in some provinces. Large clinics were
performing as many as fifty vasectomies at a time. In Gujarat
230,000 sterilizations were performed in two months. Officials in
Gujarat were paid 1000 rupees as a reward, which exceed the average
annual income in India. The Ministry of Health established a goal of
5.6 million sterilizations per year.
As the U.S. fought its war against poverty, the language was also
applied to the war against population. Contraception was
“ammunition”, the officials were “troops,” and the people were “the
enemy.” However, the main weapon, the IUD, had a 40% failure rate,
and indiscriminate sterilization of older people made the programs
less effective than they may have appeared.
The new global population strategy also suffered from lack of
statistics as many nations would not reveal their statistics to
prevent criticism. Follow-up studies were rare and did not influence
the shaping of programs because so many now had a vested interest in
continuing the money flow. By 1974 the UN was disbursing $3 billion
annually for population control, roughly one-third of all
international aid.
By 1974 Africans had begun organized attacks on UN population control
programs, accusing the UN of Neomalthusiainsm and targeting the poor.
In 1974 the World Population Conference issued a World Population
Plan of Action. Part of this plan called for building 1500 buildings
and hiring 30,000 population workers in Indonesia. Villagers were
required to attend regular public meetings and report on their
contraception use. In Bangladesh several tens of thousands of
population workers were hired to institute a massive fertility
control program. These programs were really financed by USAID through
grants to the UN.
By 1980, international sterilization programs were being funded with
$35 million worldwide. Thousands of foreign doctors were trained in
sterilization procedures at Johns Hopkins University and then sent
home. A trained doctor could now perform 90 sterilizations per day.
The controllers also stepped up their promotion of abortion by
issuing “menstrual regulation” kits. The idea was to flood nations
with cheap technology that would bypass any legal restrictions on
abortion.
But by 1973 the brain trust, Rockefeller, Robert McNamara, Ford
Foundation Vice President David Bell, and David Hopper of the
International Development Research Center, had no definitive research
showing cause and effect on fertility programs and thus no basis for
advising governments on how to control population. Meanwhile, over
900 international projects were in operation.
In 1973 the Indian sterilization rate fell by 70 percent. UNFPA
granted India $40 million, and India increased the fee paid for
sterilization from 45 rupees to 70 rupees. The sterilization rate
then climbed back up to 1.4 million in 1974.
In 1974 the World Population Conference in Bucharest brought over
1000 delegates from 133 countries and over 900 journalists together
to brainstorm on population planning. The leaders wanted to link
population control with economic development under free trade.
However, opposition arose to the placement of so many former colonial
officials in the UN population movement. This “Third World” revolt
against population control as a continuation of imperialism was to
short-circuit the controllers’ plans. The U.S. delegates believed
that world fertility must be forced down to replacement level by 2000
or there would be food riots and revolutions that would close foreign
markets to U.S. investment under the planned global free trade regime.
The headline speaker, Lester R. Brown of the Overseas Development
council, then alarmed the assembly by stating that the world had less
than one month’s supply of food reserves, and the U.S. might soon
decide which nations would starve. Feminists Germaine Greer, Betty
Friedan, and Margaret Mead then led a women’s revolt against male
leadership over the population control movement. An anti-Malthusian
ad hoc organization then publicized abuses in the sterilization
camps. Rockefeller then delivered his speech in which he claimed
previous errors and announced a feminist slant on further projects,
with population control to be tied to economic development worldwide.
National sovereignty made a comeback at this conference. The IPPF was
accused of being a front for U.S. global interventionism.
The main outcome of this failed agenda was to promote feminists as
leaders of the world population control movement.
Meanwhile back in India the Congress Party fell into squabbling
factions and Indira Gandhi was found guilty of violations of election
laws. Gandhi invoked emergency powers and began to arrest over
100,000 members of the political opposition. With the suspension of
the Constitution, more severe methods were open to the population
control bureaucrats. Parents who had three children and did not
accept sterilization were now jailed. Indian bureaucrats elevated a
“right to progress” as superceding individual rights. The new program
raised the age of marriage, increased women’s literacy, and raised
incentive payments for sterilization to 150 rupees for those with two
children and 100 for those with three.
Indira Gandhi’s son Sanjay led the movement to demolish entire
neighborhoods. When local residents appeared to beg for mercy,
they were told to produce a few hundred candidates for sterilization
or have their neighborhood demolished. Locals then organized
resistance in several neighborhoods, and security forces were called
in. Many people were shot in these riots. As slums were demolished
and people were driven from their homes, only those with
sterilization certificates were eligible for relocation to new
housing. In some cities, every male slum inhabitant was forcibly
sterilized.
The World Bank was so excited by these successes in India that they
proposed another $26 million in aid for India. Sterilization then
became a precondition for receiving irrigation water, electricity,
food rations, medical care, pay raises, promotions, and business
licenses. A sterilization credit market then arose, with people able
to buy and sell the right to reproduce. However, throughout India
young, single men were targeted for mandatory sterilization. Sweden
then came forward with another $17 million to fund these projects,
and Robert McNamara visited India and reported favorably on the
campaign. The Plan was to take this program worldwide. In one year,
India recorded over 8 million sterilizations and 6.2 million
vasectomies. The Swedish economist Goran Ohlin complained to the
World Bank that there were too many empty beds in Indian
sterilization camps. All of the top population insiders approved of
these mandatory measures.
When Indira Gandhi called an election, the opposition parties became
free to complain about abuses in family planning. Gandhi closed the
sterilization camps, but her campaign rallies drew small crowds as
women began to abandon support for her. The Congress Party faced its
first defeat in history, losing 141 out of 142 seats in the states
that had experienced the most repressive sterilization laws.
With Indira Gandhi’s defeat, the population controllers began to face
more serious and better organized opposition. The failed predictions
of global famine and the already falling fertility rates across the
globe made population control seem less urgent and less justified.
Funding did not immediately dry up, but staffers began to walk away
from jobs that involved planning other people’s families. The
Population Council was in disarray. Both the Rockefeller and Ford
foundations switched focus toward economic development. A Ford paper
in 1977 even asked if it was appropriate for Ford to challenge
traditional morals and values and impose its views on others.
Congress investigated the IPPF, but IPPF officials testified to
Congress that IPPF did not support incentive payments and that USAID
prohibited involuntary sterilization. It never made it to the offical
record that USAID had used intermediaries in India or that IPPF was
responsible for 80,000 sterilizations in India in 1976. These lies prevented the U.S. people from understanding what their government was doing.
Swedish journalists then reported that population control in India had
provoked riots, massacres, and unsafe medical procedures. A revolt
against free condoms developed in the Philippines. In Indonesia the
press argued that free condoms from the U.S. supported underage
prostitution and warned that continuing such aid programs would make
sex as important in Indonesia as in the U.S. In 1977 Pakistan family
planning was attacked as against the spirit of Islam. In Iran the
Ayatollah Khomeini attacked the shah’s family planning program, then
ended it when he took power.
In 1977 Reimert Ravenholt, head of USAID Office of Population, let
the cat out of the bag in an interview with the St. Louis Post-
Dispatch. Ravenholt said the United States had a plan to sterilize
one-quarter of the women in the world. The reason USAID promoted
draconian population control measures abroad was to stimulate foreign
economic development so that the nations of the world would not rebel
against the foreign investments of U.S. corporations. In other words,
population control was a prerequisite for free trade agreements.
After the steep declines in fertility in India, follow-up studies
showed that the sterilization programs affected less than 5 percent
of a country’s fertility rate. Across the world fertility was
declining, whether there were family planning programs or not.
Brazil’s population was declining significantly without any sort of
program.
In 1973 Mao adopted population control and provided free
contraceptives. In 1997 China invited the IPPF to visit. China had
mobil IUD and sterilization teams, incentives, and quotas set by
government offices. China at first had relied on Japanese advice,
then followed up on the Club of Rome’s The Limits of Growth, which
predicted famines and the exhaustion of worldwide oil reserves by
1992. A Chinese missile scientist named Jian Song learned about the
Club of Rome at a conference in Helsinki. He then returned to China
and ran future population projections at the missile ministry
computers. Song reported a projection of 4 billion by 2080 if
families continued to have 3 children (the fertility rate was 2.7 in
the 1970s). China’s leaders then formed a campaign to halt all
population growth by 2000 by adopting a one-child policy.
The Chinese invited the IPPF into China because it wanted more
computers to process census data and track local birth quotas.
Chinese were given individual birth permits, good for one year only.
Local street committees monitored women’s menstrual cycles and forced
women to have monthly gynecological exams. Women who had an abortion
received 14 days of paid vacation, and 40 days if the abortion were
performed during the second trimester of pregnancy, followed by
sterilization. Parents who had more than two children were taxed an
extra ten percent of their wages.
However, there was rural resistance to these policies, and cash was
not always available to pay incentives. China increased its coercive
measures with “shock campaigns” of forced abortions, sterilizations,
and IUD insertions. With these tactics China achieved 8 million
abortions and 7 million sterilizations in 1979.
The UNFPA supported China with a $50 million grant in 1980.
In 1983 Xinzhong Qian, a former major general of the People’s
Liberation Army, was given authority to conduct coercive crash
programs inserting IUDs. All parents with two or more children were
to be sterilized, and all unauthorized pregnancies were to be
aborted. In 1983 over 16 million women and 4 million men were
sterilized, and 14 million abortions were performed. At the same
time, South Korea announced a one-child policy. In Singapore, the
government offered poor women $5000 if they would be sterilized, and
university graduates were given tax breaks if the would have three or
more children. The United Nations Population Award was given to Qian,
along with a monetary prize.
Assembled UN representatives also applauded the announcement by Cambodian and Laotian Communists that they had “solved their population problem” by mass murder.
Meanwhile USAID hinged its aid to Africa on performance of population
control objectives. World Food Program aid was denied to anyone who
was not sterilized.
USAID cut off support for China in 1985. Both the IPPF and UNFPA
denied that they funded abortions or coercive family planning. In
fact UNFPA had trained 70,000 population control agents in China.
Since there was no public investigation of UNFPA or disclosure of its
policies and activities, a generation of coercive eugenicists at the
UN never had to acknowledge their roles in the Indian and Chinese
coercive policies. In the 1980s young feminists began to enter
population studies and took jobs in these bureaucracies without ever knowing their history.
The Clinton administration restored funding cuts to IPPF and UNFPA.
Vice-President Al Gore then linked population growth with environmental
concerns. Population control efforts continue to be well funded by the U.S. and the UN. They are now linked with the agenda of global socialist control over the world economy.
Connelly concludes that the Malthusians such as Bertrand Russell, Harry Laughlin, and Julian Huxley were one-world government advocates who hoped that a world government would control world
population. They got their programs, but the future of world population is now under the control of Hillary Clinton Communist feminism, without a single voice advocating men’s rights or men’s control over their families. It is no longer the geneticists or the Malthusians who control world population but the matriarchalists, the Communists who control international feminism.
Connelly rejects naming this elite effort a conspiracy, but he does
suggest that conspiratorial evidence may lie in unexplored archives
of the Population Council, the International Planned Parenthood
Federation, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, the World Bank, and
UN population control agencies. But there is no doubt that this
program involved deceptive practices, propaganda campaigns, forced
sterilization, bribery, murder, and corruption on a large scale, without actually having any research into correlations between population size and poverty or how sterilization campaigns influence population growth.
We don’t shrink from calling it the world population control
conspiracy. Welcome to the New World Order. None of these controllers
has been charged with a crime. Instead, they are elevated as heroes
and held up as philanthropists who are acting in the best interests
of the people they are victimizing. This is the level of deceit we
are dealing with.
The people who are most ignorant of the world population control
program reside in the United States, mainly because population controllers lied to Congress. If you wonder why the rest of the world resents U.S. intrusion, rest assured it is not because they envy our democracy or our wealth. It is because they know that the United States funded the evil population control programs and targeted their families.
Now refer back to the arguments for population control in Garrett Hardin’s book, The Ostrich Factor. You can now understand Hardin’s arguments as phony cover for the population control reality. Top-level population controllers don’t dirty their hands with program administration. They instead indoctrinate the dumbest people, the feminists, with phony statistics and propaganda to enlist them into becoming program administrators. You are controlled by their lies. Your destiny is to be controlled by the dumbest and most evil people on the planet, the feminists, in the name of Enviro-socialism.
The United States government, the United Nations, and the feminists are the enemies of the people of the world.
Propaganda terms to reject: global population control, economic development under free trade, food riots, right to progress, global famine, planning other people’s families, free condoms, The Limits of Growth, one-child policy, the UN Population Award, the World Food Program. family of man, overpopulated nations, family planning, the liberation of women, the blind influx of peasants into the cities, balance of population and resources, human tidal wave, having children is anti-social, the war on poverty, the circle of opportunity provided by government funding, overbreeding, environmental crisis, the environmental-population alliance, role-reversal.
