Why are population controllers so hell bent on eliminating the future generation of the developing world. Could it be that they really are kind compassionate advocates of family planning who only want to ensure that people do not exhaust their precious resources and die out anyway? NO!!! They do it for the following reasons and more :
In her book The Pivot of Civilisation, Margaret Sanger said "Charity is cruelty." We can see that this philosophy is all pervasive in today's population control ideology. In 1969 Garett Hardin in an article entitled The Inhumanity of being Soft-hearted asserted that sending food to starving people was "the worst thing we can do. Atom bombs would be kinder."
In Singapore Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong designed a programme "to encourage poor families to help themselves" by limiting their births to two children. The rich, of course, can have more children just because they have money. This is a classic case of Sangarian philosophy of "more from the fit; less from the unfit."
For example, US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg caused a stir in July 2009 when she made comments about the Roe v. Wade abortion case that appeared racist. In an interview with the New York Times, Ginsburg said made it appear she supported Roe for population control reasons targeting minorities.
Ginsburg first advocated taxpayer funding of abortions and followed it up by saying she backed Roe to eliminate “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
“Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious,” she said then.
She has since tried to retract her comments saying she meant concern about population growth among all races and classes.
Eugenics may now be a dirty word but its philosophy is alive and well. Conversations with so called "pro-choice" activists often refer to "miserable lives", "burden on families" etc. The whole freakonomics argument, though they say it is not elitist or racist, is deliberate in its conclusion - that legal abortion has reduced the criminal underclass. It may not be called eugenics anymore, but it still sounds, feels, smells and is the same.
A popular 1926 exhibit from the American Eugenics movement reads, "Some people are born to be a burden on the rest. Learn about heredity. You can help to correct these conditions." Five panels are displayed, with flashing lights on them.
The top one is captioned, "This light flashes every 15 seconds. Ever 15 seconds $100 of your money goes for the care of persons with bad heredity such as the insane, feeble-minded, criminals, and other defectives."
Under "America needs less of these," there is a light that flashes every 48 seconds -- "Every 48 seconds a person is born in the United states who will never grow up mentally beyond that stage of a normal 8 year old boy or girl" -- and one that flashes every 50 seconds -- "Every 50 seconds a person is committed to jail in the United States. Very few normal persons ever go to jail."
Under "America needs more of these," there is a light that flashes every 16 seconds -- "Every 16 seconds a person is born in the United States", and another that flashes every 7 and a half minutes -- "Every 7 1/2 minutes a high grade person is born in the United States who will have ability to do creative work and be fit for leadership. About 4% of all Americans come within this class."
These flashing-light exhibits were very popular at American eugenics exhibitions, and smaller, more portable versions were made to show everyone how rapidly all these costly and defective people were being born. These days, the eugenics movement is looked upon as a dismal part of American history that some would like to forget and others openly condemn. Few claim to want to repeat it.
(Source: Autism Information Library)
In California of all places, prison doctors have sterilized over 150 women. Why? They don’t want to have to provide welfare funding for any children they may have in the future.
The sterilization procedures cost California taxpayers $147,460 between 1997 and 2010. The doctors at the prison argue it is money well-spent. Dr. James Heinrich, an OB-GYN at Valley State Prison for Women, said, “Over a 10-year period, that isn’t a huge amount of money compared to what you save in welfare paying for these unwanted children – as they procreated more.”
Samuel Preston, a demographer, said "that the doomsday scenario used by family planning advocates to promote their cause gets public attention and brings in money. Alarm of a population explosion brings in money, those who raise funds by sounding alarms have a vested interest in keeping the public scared. Abortion and contraception are massive money makers."
Example - In third world countries women used to breastfeed their babies up to 3 years of age. Breastfeeding is 70% effective against conception. Undeliberatly women were spacing their children. However, large multinational companies such as Nestle introduced powdered milk into the Third World and vigorously promoted it.
As a result, mothers's gave up breastfeeding and used the powered milk. Often in small villages their children would die from gastro-enteritis (food poisoning) because bottles and water were not sterilised. Women's fertility was increased and now their came the opportunity for the population controllers to promote and sell contraceptives. Therefore, American multinationals profit from the poor in the name of advancement.
In 1974 the National Security Council of the US issued a study entitled National Security Council Memorandum 2000. This memo expressed fears that "rapid population growth in less developed countries would cause political or national security problems" for the U.S. They agreed that a growing Third World population would exhaust resources which would normally go to the US. It also expressed concern that a growing young population would form an effective protest movement against the domination of their countries by foreign (US) interests.
For Richard Ottaway, chair of the Parliamentary All-Party Group on Population and Development, population growth is 'the main cause of poverty, environmental decline, and we anticipate in future, migration.'
John Guillebaud, Britain's first Professor of Family Planning, spelt out the message of doom in blunt terms: 'No wall will be high enough as people see the enticements of the consumer society and vote with their feet. No wall will be high enough to keep the hordes out.' The implication is clear; if Westerners want to preserve 'the enticements of the consumer society' for themselves, the Third World 'hordes' will have to be contained, partly through population-control policies.
40% of all population control programmes are from the USA which amounts to billions of dollars.
Although the population controllers are concentrating all their efforts on the Third World, It is only because they have already succeeded in the Western World. This is very evident in Europe where several countries are below replacement level and governments are now paying mothers to have children. Population controllers are against all population growth whether it be white, black, yellow or red.
They fear dissenting attitudes and views and the possibility that the "others" will increase their numbers. Many influential authors of our age touch upon racial concern with population. In his pessimistic tract Preparing for the Twenty-First Century, Paul Kennedy questions whether, given the growth of Third World population, 'western values' can survive against the irrational, illiberal influence of other cultures.
Once the issue of population growth is understood in racially loaded terms, it is only a short step to seeing the Western 'way of life' threatened by an invasion of the teeming masses. One UN diplomat has compared the threat posed to the West by migration from the 'overcrowded' Third World to the Japanese invasion of British held Singapore in 1941.
Like the Japanese, he notes, the modern 'invading armies' of the Third World poor will 'also arrive on bicycles and on foot', but they will be 'moving without commanders or orders, and seeping slowly through porous borders.' (K Mahbubani, 'The West and the rest', National Interest, Summer 1992)
Scratch the surface of the debate about population, and it begins to look more like a war between the Western nations and the rest.