Pseudopandemic

by Iain Davis

Eugenics lent itself to, and was eagerly adopted by those who considered themselves the rightful leaders of society. Those born to rule, with their attributes of genius, temperance and foresight had a duty to dominate society for the public good. It was vital that the good stock prevail.

  Therefore steps must be taken ensure that the good stock proliferate while the bad stock, those who serve no useful purpose, should be eliminated. The promise of some "scientific" justification for imperialism, colonialism, racism and the tyrannical control of the masses was warmly welcomed by those who profited from these practices.

  Despite it being unmitigated nonsense, as we shall see, those who consider themselves our rightful rulers still cling to this drivel today. Over the next 150 years the eugenic faithful had to adapt their ideas, repeatedly renaming their cult beliefs. They invented new causes to sell their xenophobia to the public.

  If we accept that the parasite class consider most of humanity to be "defective stock" and wish to depopulate the planet, their actions can clearly be seen to consistently work towards such ends. However, in order to be able to see this unpalatable truth we first need to understand how it has evolved.

  By the 1920's the enthusiasm for eugenics had given rise to mass forced sterilisation programs in the US and elsewhere [8]. The poor were seen as feckless, imbecilic or degenerate. A drain on the national economy to be limited wherever possible.

  In the 1927 case of Buck vs Bell the US Supreme Court found that the mandating of forced sterilisation in Virginia was not contrary to the US constitution. In the ruling Justice Wendell Holmes jnr. stated [9]:

  "It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes."

  The case itself, like Malthusian beliefs, Social Darwinism and eugenics, was spurious [10]. It was concocted to gain State franchise legitimacy for the eugenic agenda promoted by the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundation, who funded the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) and other "elite" eugenic societies and foundations.

  In 1922 The American Eugenics Society (AES) formed with the generous support from members of the prestigious Galton Society of America. AES members included Margaret Sanger who was instrumental in the creation of the Citizen's Committee for Planned Parenthood [11]. Sanger would go on to become the founder of Planned Parenthood [12].

  Speaking in a 1957 TV Interview with Mike Wallace, Sanger said:

  "I think the greatest sin in the world is to bring children into the world that have disease and have parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being, practically; delinquents, prisoners, just marked when they are born. That to me is the greatest sin people can commit."

  We have every reason to believe Sanger meant every word. In her 1922 publication Women and the New Race [13] she wrote:

  "The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

  Sanger and Planned Parenthood, along with the Population Council and other eugenic organisations and foundations, presented their eugenicist ambitions as altruistic. In Sanger’s case she promoted birth control primarily as an issue of female emancipation and latterly women's rights. Like most members of the parasite class she was careful to shroud her ideology in the pretence of playing the concerned citizen.

  While there are many social benefits to birth control, the individuals behind most of the world’s leading family planning charities and NGO's were and are eugenicists. This doesn't mean that the people who staff these organisations have an evil agenda but it is an obvious fact that birth control leads to population reduction. Sanger's had little interest in improving the lives of millions. She was focused upon ending them.

  It is not unreasonable to question why multinational corporate members of the GPPP are supporters of Planned Parenthood [14] and other similar organisations. Do they fund them because they care about a woman's right to choose or could it be that they are committed to negative eugenics intended to rid society of "defective stock?"

  By framing their charitable works in seemingly benign terms, and offering what appear to be humanitarian programs, we are deceived and unable to recognise the insidious agenda lurking beneath. Although we have Sanger's own words [15] through which to view it:

  "All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class."

  But it wasn't just the working class that Sanger and her fellow eugenicists wished to eliminate. She was an ardent racist:

  "Birth control is not contraception indiscriminately and thoughtlessly practiced. It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks— those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization."

  Sanger of course saw herself as one of the "finest flowers." While she was definitely a racist we cannot really call her a white supremacist. The white poor were also to be eradicated. Sanger found virtue only in her own narrow class of wealthy eugenicists. Clearly she was incapable of empathy or compassion: sociopath seems a fitting description.

  A co-signatory to the Citizens Committee On Planned Parenthood was the co-founder of the American Eugenics Society Frederick Osborne. In 1952 John D. Rockefeller III [16] set up the Population Council where he remained its president until he was succeeded in 1957 by Osborne. The Population Council says of itself:

  "From its beginning, the Council has given voice and visibility to the world’s most vulnerable people......We work in developed countries, where we use state-of-the-art biomedical science to develop new contraceptives and products to prevent the transmission of HIV."

  "From its beginning" the Population Council was an avowedly eugenicist and racist organisation. The people behind it considered "the world’s most vulnerable people" to be "human weeds."

  These population control organisations present a complex reality. Providing access to contraception or attempting to limit our collective impact upon the environment aren't acts of evil. A woman does have the right to take control of her own fertility, but it must be her informed choice; we have misused natural resources and we have caused environmental damage, which we need to reduce and rectify where possible.

  The problem is that these compartmentalised, authoritarian organisations are controlled by people, with an undeclared ambition, who don't care about these issues. They possess the means to limit and control the scientific and academic research upon which those with misguided but humanitarian intentions base their decisions and policies.

  The parasite class appoint informed influencers who manipulate organisations from within. In this way even those who mean no harm can contribute to the sum of parts which collectively work towards malevolent objectives, simply by following policy and instructions.

  The parasite class commitment to eugenics lies at the heart of many powerful global institutions. For example the evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley was instrumental in the formation of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO.) He wrote its preparatory commission document [17] and stated:

  "It is, however, essential that eugenics should be brought entirely within the borders of science, for, as already indicated, in the not very remote future the problem of improving the average quality of human beings is likely to become urgent; and this can only be accomplished by applying the findings of a truly scientific eugenics."

  This does not mean that everyone who has ever worked on a UNESCO project is a eugenicist or even understands what eugenics is. However, eugenics is a founding principle of UNESCO and there are those who wield influence over it who both appreciate eugenics and remain committed to it.

  1952 also saw the creation of the International Planned Parenthood Federation [18] (IPPF), based in London a
nd focusing on population control in developing nations. It was formed by a resolution of the Third International Conference on Planned Parenthood [19]. The conference was convened at the invitation of the Indian branch of the UK Family Planning Association (FPA).

  Sanger was the inaugural president of the IPPF. Today, the IPFF works on projects in partnership with intergovernmental organisations like the WHO, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

  The FPA was founded in 1939 by the National Birth Control Council in the UK. Then chairman of the Malthusian League, Dr Charles Vickery Drysdale was instrumental in its formation. As was the famous women's rights campaigner Marie Stopes. Both Stopes and Drysdale cited Sanger as a strong influence on their views.

  Like Sanger, Stopes exploited legitimate concerns about female emancipation and women's health rights to advance her racist and eugenicist ideas. Stopes joined the Eugenic Society (now renamed the Galton Institute) in 1912. Other prominent members have included the economist John Maynard Keynes and the aforementioned scientist Julian Huxley.

  In her 1924 book Radiant Motherhood, in a chapter titled A New And Irradiated Race [20], Stopes wrote:

  "When Bills are passed to ensure the sterility of the hopelessly rotten and racially diseased...our race will rapidly quell the stream of depraved, hopeless and wretched lives which are at present increasing. Such action as will be possible when these bills are passed will not only increase the relative proportion of the sound and healthy among us who may consciously contribute to the higher and more beautiful forms of the human race, but by the elimination of wasteful lives....will check an increasing drain on our national resources."

  This is the essence of the eugenicist ideals. They see themselves as the only possible leaders of society and believe vast swaths of humanity are nothing more than a drain on resources which naturally, and rightfully, belong to them. Their faith in their own physical and intellectual superiority, though entirely misplaced, demands of them that they act. Thus saving humanity (and now the planet) is predicated upon the assumption that most people must be wiped out.

  In 1935 Stopes attended the Third Reich's International Congress for Population Science in Berlin. An admirer of Hitler and a firm believer in the creation of a master race, she sent the Fuhrer some of her love poetry and, at the height of the Holocaust, penned this little ditty [21]:

  "Catholics and Prussians, The Jews and the Russians, all are a curse, or something worse..."

  The Rockefeller's were also keen supporters of the German eugenicists. They funded Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes (KWI's). Leading beneficiaries of their largess included the KWI's head of research Ernst Rüdin. He helped to draft the 1933 German Law for the Prevention of Defective Progeny [22]:

  Eventually, under Nazi rule, eugenics led to its natural conclusion with the Rassenhygiene (racial hygiene) movement used by the Nazi's as their insane justification for the Holocaust. It also informed the Nazi's Aktion T4 [23] program which murdered 70,000 German children, senior citizens, and psychiatric patients between 1940 and 1944.

  Following WWII, unsurprisingly, eugenics fell out of public favour. However, the ideological adopters of eugenics didn't change their beliefs, they merely re-branded them.

  During the 1950's the American Eugenics Society (AES) moved into offices provided to them by the Population Council. The Population Council also continued to fund their eugenicist and Malthusian research, absorbing the AES into the organisation in 1972.

  Recognising that the public were no longer willing to entertain eugenics, in 1968, by then a Population Council serving board member and no longer president, Frederick Osborne said [24]:

  "Measures for improving the hereditary base of intelligence and character can be made effective on a voluntary basis without arousing in the individual any conscious concern for eugenic results. It is well that this is so. Eugenic goals are most likely to be attained under a name other than eugenics."

  Always intent upon deception, with the emergence of genetic science, in 1972 the American Eugenics Society (AES) became the Society for the Study of Social Biology and changed its quarterly magazine from Eugenics Quarterly to Social Biology and now Biodemography and Social Biology [25]. The AES stated [26]:

  "The name change of the Society does not coincide with any change of its interests or policies."

  This practice of hiding eugenicists beliefs by changing names and inventing new justifications was also popular across the Atlantic. In 1989 the British Eugenics Society changed its name, but not its purpose, to the Galton Institute [27]. They also changed their quarterly publication from the Eugenics Review to the Galton review.

  In 1972 the GPPP policy think tank the Club of Rome, published their inaugural treatise The Limits To Growth [28]. It is perhaps the first time that a highly questionable computer model, producing a poorly evidenced, ill conceived interpretive conclusion, had truly global significance. A technique which Imperial College London would later go on to perfect.

  Based on their "projections" the Club of Rome, who first convened in 1968 at the Rockefeller's private estate in Bellagio, decided that continual economic growth could not be sustained in conjunction with population growth. The problem, as ever, was that there were just too many people. Something needed to be done.

  Just as the pseudopandemic suppression model is supposedly a scientific certainty today, so The Limits To Growth claimed legitimacy from the scientific consensus of the 1970's. In 1968 the biologist and ecologist Paul Ehrlich [29] and his wife Anne (Club of Rome member) published The Population Bomb. This had a significant global impact. Primarily because it was touted by the mainstream media wherever possible.

  The Ehrlichs predicted famine, economic collapse, war, disease and climate change as a consequence of uncontrolled population growth. The solution they suggested was a global government administered program of population control [30]. The introduction to the Population Bomb began with the words:

  "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death"

  Like all advocates of eugenics and Malthusian inspired population control, the Ehrlich's were unreservedly wrong. While Anne Ehrlich continued her policy think tank work behind the scenes, Paul Ehrlich was elevated to the status of global academic superstar. Interviewed the world over, proselytising his eugenic inspired nonsense to the world and universally feted in the mainstream media (MSM). In an Interview with the New York Times in 1969, he said:

  “Government might have to put sterility drugs in reservoirs and in food shipped to foreign countries to limit human multiplication.”

  In 1974 the scientific consensus on population control emboldened then US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to commission and contribute to a report by the US National Security Council called the National Security Study Memorandum 200 [31] (NSSM-200), often referred to as the Kissinger Report. He argued that maintaining access to the mineral wealth in least developed countries (LDC’s) was essential for continued US economic expansion. The population growth in these poorer nations was therefore a problem which needed to be controlled.

  Kissinger recommended that the U.N should instigate population control policies with support from the broader GPPP:

  "Assistance for population moderation should give primary emphasis to the largest and fastest growing developing countries......the U.S. will look to the multilateral agencies, especially the U.N. Fund for Population Activities.....In population reduction programs, external technical and financial assistance....would have to come from other donors and/or from private and international organizations......Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for..stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States."

  Using the
same trick as the American Eugenics Society, population reduction (negative eugenics) was relabelled "family planning."

  "Most experts agree that, with fairly constant costs per acceptor, expenditures on effective family planning services are generally one of the most cost effective investments for an LDC....We cannot wait for overall modernization and development to produce lower fertility rates naturally."

  In 1977 Paul and Anne Ehlrich published "Ecoscience" with John Holden [32], who President Barack Obama later appointed as Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Maintaining the eugenic tradition, they recommended forced abortion, government custody of children born to single parents, mass sterilisation of the population, State mandated birth control and the denial of the right to a family for those deemed to cause "social deterioration."

  For this fascist, technocratic policy to succeed the Ehrlichs and Holden stated that a regime of global governance would be required:

  "Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable......The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade.....including all food on the international market."

  In 1987 the Brundtland Report (Our Common Future [33]) was released by the U.N. Gro Harlem Brundlandt [34] was by then the Prime Minister of Norway, but had previously been appointed chair of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Javier Pérez de Cuéllar. Both Javier Pérez de Cuéllar and Gro Harland Brundlandt were members of the Rockefellers Club of Rome.

  The Report Stated:

  “Excessive population growth diffuses the fruits of development over increasing numbers instead of improving living standards in many developing countries; a reduction of current growth rates is an imperative for sustainable development….. a nation proceeds towards the goals of sustainable development and lower fertility levels, the two are intimately linked and mutually reinforcing.”