Population Control

Lien of OZ
August 2006

1.0 Introduction:

8.1 Population Action International [PAI]

8.2 The FIRM’s Global Links

9.0 Weasel Words

9.1 Menstrual regulation

9.1.1 Chemical Menstrual Regulation

10.0 Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT)

11.0 Population Control and the Earth Charter

11.1 Sustainability and Environmentalism

12.0 Global Population Predictions

12.1 Abandoning Christianity

12.2 What of the Future?

13.0 Population Growth and Food Supply

13.1Famine and Overpopulation–Is there a link?

13.2 Famines

13.3 Population density

14.0 Muslim Birth-rate

14.1 Islamization

15.0 United Religions Initiative (URI) & Population Control.

15.1 Evangelical Environmental Network

---

 

“The world has enough for everyone’s need but not for everyone’s greed!”  Mahatma Gandhi

“Any society which does not have enough children to reproduce itself will be replaced by another.” Archbishop George Pell 2006

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”  Joseph Goebbels

"The power of the white world is threatened whenever a black man refuses to accept the white world's definitions" -- James Baldwin

“The majority of men are not capable of thinking but only believing – not accessible to reason but only authority.” Otto Diederich Lutken …..1858

---

1.0 Introduction:

During the recent furore over the ‘chemical abortion pill’ or rather the RU 486 procedure, the national [Australian] emphasis was the principal focus. Aspects of this and other abortifacient chemicals, used in ‘population control’ projects in other parts of the world, were not addressed.

Tracing the history of RU 486 we are soon led to the ‘Population Council’ and their capture of the RU 486 patent rights, and the funding for its manufacture, predominately in China and distribution as mifepristone (RU 486) and misoprostol throughout the third world.

The real background and broader issue behind this debate however, concerns global overpopulation and the competence of world expertise to feed its growing mass of people.

Two excessive but opposing views address the global population theme. These we could title as the optimistic and pessimistic extremes.

1. A minority optimistic ideal that insists that world population should be able to grow without restraint, even to as many as 50 billion people provided humanity is able to agree to lifting barriers to food production and its distribution.

2. The dominant, and controlling view, is that limits must be imposed on population growth. This is the view held by the powerful and wealthy elite of this world convinced that the world population must be restricted at all or any cost.

This review attempts to examine the evidences for global overpopulation and to critically appraise the aggressive methods used to implement population control.

Concerns relating to overpopulation are not new. The ancient Greeks, for instance, [believed to be at the behest of Aristotle] authorised homosexual practices, in particular pederasty, as a means of providing sexual release without the consequences of population growth.

Modern history however, attributes the issue of overpopulation to the work of, and the 1798 essay by, Rev. Thomas Malthus –1766-1864. Malthus’ proposed the thesis that human population growth would outpace the earth’s capacity to feed the ‘flood’ of the earth’s masses. He further identified that the poor of the world were unproductive and that increasing their number would lead to disaster. Consequently, the elite ‘masters’ should not waste resources to help them; such was the groundwork for an eugenic ideal.

Appreciation that living standards decrease when there are too many mouths to feed and that this results in even more poor people, began as the prevailing view; still seized upon to this day.

A growing number of present-day critics of the neo-malthusian elite note however, that population growth, of itself, is not a cause of poverty but rather it is poverty that leads to population growth.

In contemporary human societies there now appears an inverse relationship between per capita income and fertility rate; namely, as poverty decreases so too the population. Moreover, over the last 200+ years evidence of Malthus’ predicted world wide famines has not materialised.

Thomas Malthus’ essay on the ‘Principle of Population’ did however, have a profound impact upon Charles Darwin; colouring his concept of an evolutionary theory and his thesis of natural selection. Hence, the extended title for his– ‘Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection and the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.’

Malthus, together with Darwin, prompted a belief for favouring the fit at the expense of the unfit. This of course is the basis for what Francis Galton; cousin of Darwin called ‘eugenics’ or good births.

Francis Galton taught that people have either good genes (eugenic) or bad (dysgenic) and good racial stock will degenerate unless breeding is restricted to the eugenic kind.

The eugenic ideal was further advanced by Margaret Sanger, founder of the American Birth Control League and later in 1934, Planned Parenthood; who initially opposed helping the poor. Planned Parenthood might try to disguise Margaret Sangers eugenic heritage (by amongst other things ignoring the ‘negro project’) yet, as acknowledged by Alan Guttmacher when he succeeded her as President of the PP Federation of America–“ we are merely walking down the path that Mrs Sanger carved out for us.”1

In the early 1970s, Dr. Malcolm Potts [First Medical Director of International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) -1968-80.] recognized that, without widespread abortion, it would not be possible to implement any family planning whose purpose it was to limit population growth. Thus, IPPF has, for almost 40 years boasted an absolute commitment to abortion on demand.2

Moving on we come to Julian Huxley (founder of the UNESCO in 1947). Huxley had direct links with the British Population Investigation Commission and the Eugenics Society. His directorship of UNESCO laid a foundation for a global population control agenda that still pervades UN agencies and numerous NGO’s. In particular the UN Population Fund formerly the UN Fund for Population Activities- the acronym remains UNFPA.

Eugenic ideals also attracted the attention of the ‘Rockefellers’ who in the late 1930’s , funded the Kaiser Willem Institute in Germany. The Rockefeller foundation, following the embarrassing consequences of post war American occupation in Japan approved of the Eugenic protection act- legalising abortion in that country. The in 1952 in company with Frederick Osborn [ex-president of the American Eugenics Society] John D. Rockefeller founded the Population Council.

Two principal goals of the Population Council have, over many years, remained unchanged

1. to convince government leaders in poor nations that they have a serious population problem.

2. Solving this problem can be achieved through (Council aided and approved) population control.

Rockefeller funds have amongst other causes provided for the Kinsey Report 3 which launched the sexual revolution. Their funds have aided in the development of the contraceptive pill, the IUD and more recently rights to the RU 486 patent and its (Chinese) manufacture. Rockefeller funds have also supported the growth of Feminist activism, promoting in particular Betty Friedan and her 1963– “Feminine Mystique”.

Alan Guttmacher in 1963, then President of Planned Parenthood, confided that laws protecting the unborn could only be changed inch by inch.4 He has thus promoted this social revolution in stages; initially introduced by fraudulent and deceptive propaganda, culminating in the infamous Roe V Wade judgement in favour of abortion in America in 1973.

The cause of abortion on demand has infected not only the US but many other countries throughout the world. Radical feminist Germaine Greer in her book ‘Sex and Destiny’ describes how the eugenics movement went underground only to re-emerge in the guise of the global over-population threat. The Am. Eugenics Society’s activities, for instance, surrendered to support the Family Planning Association, Planned Parenthood and International Planned Parenthood Federation [IPPF]. Yet a strong eugenic emphasis remains for discouraging certain groups from reproducing.

Paul Ehrlich’s convictions published in his “Population Bomb” in 1968 stirred the imagination of a new ‘elite’ family of over-population scare mongers. Fortunately, his fear filled forecast that – “in the 70’s the world would undergo famine and hundreds and millions of people would be starved to death.” has yet to be fulfilled.

Further comments on the identity of over-population advocates, their various foundations and organisations follow under other headings.

1. Elasah Drogin, Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society (New Hope, Kentucky: Cul Publications, 1979), p. 102

2. http://www.vidahumana.org/english/family/promo-abortion.html.

3. http://www.savethemales.ca/091101.html

4. Mary Meehan; Human Life Review, Fall 1998 .

Global over-population fears appear to be sustained by the so called BIG LIE Theory; namely –‘if you repeat a lie often enough people will soon believe it and the media will be quick to promote it.’………… ref.. Joseph Goebbels

With this in mind John Cobin –Times Examiner 15 Sept. 2004 –defined the ‘fear mongering’ population controllers as Liberal Ideological Environmentalists – the LIE’s.

This band of ‘over-population believers’ maintain that the present global crisis results from 

1. rapid unsustainable population growth, and

2. resource dilapidation

both contributing to global warming or climate change leading to environmental degradation as a major threat to human existence.

Many of the elite and powerful in our modern world with direct association to wealthy leaders and their philanthropic foundations remain captivated with Malthusian ideas and whether, consciously or unconsciously , trend to hold to eugenic ideals. Otherwise, why the continual focus upon the black, yellow and brown skin third world communities?

Regardless of any or all evidences to the contrary, such people and their foundations, show little willingness to slow their population control agenda and the persistent focus on reproductive health and [coercive] family planning, as a guise for encouraging large scale abortion and sterilisation on 3rd world womanhood.

Moreover, the ‘Population Control – FIRM’ maintains an effective stranglehold on the world’s political and financial institutions. Many would be quick to rebut with the comment that for three decades that the FIRM has reaped the rewards for effort in that more than 30 of the world’s most populous countries have now demonstrated drastic reductions in fertility statistics; but at what human cost?

Admittedly the world population has over the last (20th) century multiplied ~4 times from 1.6 billion to 6 billion however, the real gross domestic product over the same 100 years expanded 20 to 40 times. It is the uneven distribution of this wealth and its benefits, that has been so selfishly inequitable.

4.0 Over-population –A rationale.

The wealthiest fifth of this world’s population consumes more than 66 times of this earth’s resources relative to the poorest one fifth. Acknowledged or not, this leads to common fears held by the wealthy consumers that there are insufficient resources available for the over-populated nations to ever attain to the patterns of and living standards of, the western industrialised world. Some have dared to suggest that if every person on the Indian sub-continent were to use the same level of western packaging, they would bury themselves in waste. Other calculations suggest that each single person in the industrial world consumes 6-8 times as much any one in the third or under-developed world.

It is hard to perceive how or why, the richest moguls of the western world would ever genuinely, let alone altruistically, seek to sacrifice their possessions to see people in the third world attain to their standard of living; hence, their support for ‘population control’.

If the west is unwilling to make the sacrifices needed to share the world’s resources with the masses of the developing world then ways must be found to decrease the population in these developing nations. Hence, the goal of family planning and reproductive health programmes is an evidence of a desire to preserve the present political geography of world power.

Meanwhile, the special needs of these people for clean water, good seed, self sufficient agriculture schemes and a safe homeland appear to be insignificantly or insufficiently, addressed.

5.0 Overpopulation Quotes

The following provides a brief overview of quotes made by leading authorities concerning their fears and remedies, relating to global population growth. An attempt has been made to place them in rough chronological order.

Undoubtedly the first significant quotations are those recorded by Rev. Thomas Malthus in 1798 in his Essay on the Principle of Population, . This thesis however, that overpopulation would destroy the world unless war, famine and disease rose to check human growth -- has proven to be dead wrong. Nevertheless, Malthus became the father of population control; he frightened leaders of British society with the claim that the arithmetic growth forces of food production could never be capable of keeping pace with the much greater exponential growth force of population increase.

Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911), Hereditary Improvement.
If the unfit continue to propagate— “it will be easy to believe that the time may come when such persons would be considered as enemies to the State.”

Bertrand Russell- 1929
“It cannot be expected that the most powerful military nation will sit still while other nations reverse the balance of power by the mere process of breeding.”

Bertrand Russell at the Forum – ‘The Impact of Science on Society’…
“…if a ‘black death’ could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without ever making the world too full.”

Margaret Sanger in 1939; (Ref. Linda Green–‘Woman’s Body–Woman’s Right.’
“Birth control appeals to the advanced radical….calculated to undermine the authority of the Christian Churches. I look forward to seeing humanity free someday from the tyranny of Christianity; no less than capitalism”.

Julian Huxley–1st Director Gen. UNESCO in 1947 & again in 1950 [UNESCO Its Purposes and Philosophy]
“Any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible….this problem must be examined with care…so that the now unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

John D. Rockefeller & Frederick Osborn [Am. Eugenics Society]– In 1952 at the founding of the Population Council.
“We must convince government leaders in poor nations that they have a serious population problem—we must show them how to solve it through (our) population control.”

Paul Ehrlich in The Population Bomb 1968 p. 17, 180/181
“…there are only two kinds of solutions to the population problem. One is the ‘birth rate solution’ ……..and the other a ‘death rate solution’ in which we raise the death rate through war-famine-pestilence etc.”
“We must cut the cancer of population growth, perhaps by coercion in a good cause…. We must be relentless in pushing for population control.”

Garrett Hardin –1968 ‘Tragedy of the Commons’
“Society must relinquish the freedom to breed through mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon.”

Robert McNamara: Former Pres. World Bank 1968-81
“The ‘population crisis’ is a greater threat to US national security interests than ‘nuclear annihilation.”

Richard Nixon former President of USA in 1969 again at the 1972 US Commission on Population.
“One of the most serious challenges in human destiny --- will be the growth of population.”

Lawence Lader, described by Betty Freidan as the “father of abortion rights,” formerly a journalist and in 1955, wrote the first biography of Margaret Sanger and in 1971 “Breeding Ourselves to Death.”

Garrett Hardin –1972 in the Preface to– “Exploring New Ethics for Survival.”
“We are breeding ourselves into oblivion.”
“As a scientist I want to find a scientific solution but reason inexorably led me to conclude that the population problem could not possibly be solved without first repudiating certain ethical beliefs and altering some of the political and economic arrangements of contemporary society.”

Phyllis T. Piotrow in the 1978 Publication of the Council on Foreign Relations—USAID funded Population Projects.
“….when groups experience different fertility rates, the groups with the highest per capita income and greatest economic power is always the group with the lowest fertility. In the circumstances population growth represents a threat to the status quo: to political dominance economic and social stability.”

Dr. Charles Ravenholt, Director of the Population Office, 1979 candidly explained that "Population control is needed to maintain the normal operation of United States commercial interests around the world…..”

The Gaia Peace Atlas..1988 Survival into the Third Millenium [Doubleday] p. 171
“Halting population growth is an urgent task. But what means are justifiable?”

David Graber- [Research Biologist] in 22 Oct.1989 Times Book review.
“ Human happiness and certainly human fecundity are not as important as a wild and healthy planet….some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along .”

Isaac Asimov – 1989–In an interview with Bill Moyers
“…democracy cannot survive overpopulation…as you put more and more people into the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn’t matter if someone dies. The more people there are, the less one individual matters.”

Club of Rome…1991 Ref. Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider-“The First Global Revolution.–Pantheon Books p.115
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution; the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…the real enemy is humanity itself.”

Jacques Cousteau [Oceanographer] in 1991
“ In order to stabilize world population, it is necessary to eliminate 350,000 people each day..” continuing… “ Over-consumption and overpopulation underlie every environmental problem we face today.”

Al Gore [former US Vice Pres.] 1992 in “Earth in Balance.”
“Clearly it is time for a global effort to create everywhere on earth the conditions conducive to stabilizing the population.” Continuing … “ for healing our dysfunctional civilisation our feeling of connectedness to the rest of nature must prevail.”
‘Earth in Balance’ presents a case for the synthesis of Native American spirituality and other earth based religions.

World Bank–1992– Operations Evaluation rept.
“If the (World) Bank wants to work in countries that do not accept population control it must base its population programmes on broader more flexible set of principles… the overall objective is the promotion of sustainable development in living standards.”
[Founder of the World Bank John Maynard Keynes was an active member of the Bloomsbury group with whom Margaret Sanger closely associated]

Prof. Roger Short & Sir Peter Scott—World Wild Life Fund
“…human over-population is ultimately the greatest threat to wildlife.”

Maurice Strong [Sec. General UN-Earth Summit Brazil] 1992
“…isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilisations collapse?
& “Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about.”

Hanna Strong’s Wisdom Keepers at the same Earth Summit in the ‘Declaration of the Sacred Earth.’
“….the global crisis transcends all national, religious, cultural, social, political and economic boundaries.” “It then follows that if the crisis transcends religious boundaries, the religions must bow to the solution and sacrifice their own principles.”

Prof. David Pimentel –5 April 1994– to the Am. Assoc. for the Advancement of Science
“The total world population should be no more than 2 billion rather than the current 5.6 billion…”

UN International Conf. on Population and Development –Cairo- 1994
“Reproductive health care in the context of primary health care must include abortion…”

1995 –State of the World Forum-San Francisco

Mikhail Gorbachev
“We have, I believe, to gear consumption to peoples cultural and spiritual needs also through culture and education and within the framework of laws, we shall address the problem of controlling the world’s population.”
[Mikhail Gorbachev in company with Maurice Strong are architects of the Earth Charter]

Dr. Sam Keen [New Age writer] at the State of the World forum
“There is now strong agreement that religious institutions have to take the primary responsibility for the (world’s) population explosion… if we cut the population by 90% then there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”

Ted Turner [Humanist of the Year 1996] Philanthropic Funder of the UN Foundation and outspoken Media mogul.
“The population problem and the environmental destruction that is going on in the world will eventually lead to our demise if it is not reversed…”
Then later at the National [US] Family Planning and Reproductive Association’s meeting in 1999 commented… “ The dangerous proliferation of people could be stopped…. If couples would promise to have no more than two children.”
“over-population is the single most important issue facing mankind today.”
“People who abhor the China one child policy are dumb dumbs..”

Ted Turner is moreover highly critical of Christianity calling it an eco-unfriendly religion.
He, as father of five, from multiple marriages, has been bold enough to suggest that the 10 commandments need to be reviewed and replaced, particularly Numbers 7..(he should know!)
Then speaking at a Pro-abortion meeting in Washington….
“If you are going to have 10 rules, I don’t know if banning adultery should be one of them.”

Timothy Wirth [former Senator & US State Dept. Undersec.] 1998–Plenary Address- Pres. United Nations Foundation and Better World Fund.
“A government should not hide behind the defence of sovereignty… our position is to support ‘reproductive choice’ which includes access to abortion.”
Moving on to the end of the 20th century----

Hilary Clinton Feb 1999 at The Hague UNFPA meeting…
“..by the year 2015 access to reproductive health, family planning services and information, will be available to all”

Prof. Peter Singer [Animal Liberationist and Academic Ethicist]
“Christianity is our foe! If animal-rights is to succeed, we must destroy the Judeo-Christian religious tradition.”
And close to home in Australia in this 21st Century;

Sir David Attenborough-in “The Life of Animals” 2003
“Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, maybe we should control the population to ensure the survival of our environment.”
Then in Sunday Times 3 Aug. 03.. …. “We need to cut population by half…..Human population can no longer be allowed to grow at the same old uncontrolled way…”

Clive Hamilton [Exec. Director-The Australia Institute] April 2003
“Will a higher economic growth actually make us happy? Population boosters never ask that question. BUT we know that our expanding levels of consumption are putting ever greater pressures on the natural environment.”
Then connected with World Population Day 2006

Rt. Hon Hilary Benn [UK Sect. of State for International Development] 10 July 2006
“The increase in the world’s population in the next two generations by 50%- a problem in itself, is but one which will worsen the impact of climate change and urbanisation.”

Ian Macindoe [Pres.- Sustainable Population Australia] 11 July 2006-ABC News
“On average, we think that you all know we need to aim for something like a one child reproduction rate, in order to affect a very rapid decrease in global population. …It is time to take the ‘over-population’ problem seriously.”

Donald Critchlow [author –Intended Consequences] presents this overview.
“The early millionaires brought with them an eugenics concern. Meanwhile today’s [mega rich] philanthropists genuinely believe they can solve the world’s problems---war, poverty, disease, through population control AND controlling the world’s population is ambitious enough for them.”

6.0 Billionaire Foundations and Personnel Sponsoring Population Control.

Some of the richest men in this world through their Philanthropic Foundations 1 provide funds in support of projects aimed at reducing global population growth. These include [or have included] those named after their billionaire sponsors…. Rockefeller, Ford, Ted Turner, George Soros, Bill Gates, William Buffett & Hewlett Packard. Many or all of them are linked through the Funders Network.

Exposing the enormous influence of Billionaire funding for world wide population control is Stephen Mosher and his Population Research Institute. Mosher contends that too many wealthy white men are spending hundreds and millions of dollars to contraceptualize, sterilize and abort, poor brown, yellow and black women in the developing world. It’s a scary thought.

Bill Gates, Ted Turner, George Soros, Warren Buffett and David Packard have all given away much of their money to international family planning programs aimed at curbing population growth. Together they have access to personal assets exceeding the combined gross domestic product of over 48 of the least-developed nations in the world. Their funds however, are directed essentially for population control and environmental issues.

The following table from the Population Research Institute [Stephen Mosher] lists the top foundations giving to pro-abortion –‘population control’-causes, both foreign and domestic use, in 2000. All figures are in millions of US. dollars.

Table 1.

Grants from these multi-millionaire foundations are linked through the Funders Network2 which acts as kind of coalition. The Network receives requests and directs aid moneys in support of population issues. “A high proportion of these funds are directed to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights.”

A brief account of a small selection of these funding agencies follows–

Since 1981, the Buffett name has been linked to ‘family health’ programs, disbursing some $197 million in charitable donations. However, in 2003 the Berkshire Hathaway Board 3 made a decision to cease donating (undoubtedly embarrassed by the projects sponsored) Notwithstanding, in May 2006 William Buffett pledged the bulk of his $44 billion fortune (~$31b) in support of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Which foundation seems to exhibit priorities essentially consistent with furthering the ideals of world population control.

William Buffett's name has been associated with some of the most radical aspects of the population control. In 1994, $2 million was given to the Population Council, to fund US. clinical trials of Mifepristone (RU-486) initiated by Joseph Pike’s Danco Co. Other grants in this US. RU 486 project were provided by George Soros’ Open Society and David and Lucille Packard Foundation.4

Buffett provided a further $2 million to Family Health International [FHI] for the distribution of quinacrine hydrochloride, the chemical used to sterilizes a woman by burning her fallopian tubes. Although Quinacrine is illegal in the U.S., it has been used, often coercively, in Vietnam, India, and other nations. During the late 1990’s another grant of $20 million was made to International Projects Assistance Services (IPAS) which manufactures and distributes manual vacuum aspirators [MVA’s], used for performing abortions in the Third World.

MVA’s were first invented by Dr. Malcolm Potts; First Medical Director of IPPF (1968-80 )

& Harvey Karman.5

Other Buffett linked funds have provided support to Family Health International (FHI) for evaluation of quinacrine sterilisation and for the manufacture of ‘manual vacuum aspirators’ for third world distribution by International Projects Assistance Services(IPAS)

Other population control agencies enjoying Buffett largesse have been Planned Parenthood both National (US) and International, The Centre for Reproductive Law and Policy and Catholics for a Free Choice.

In effect, the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation continues as the quiet force in the controversial area of population control.

George Soros (himself a father of 5) through his Open Society Inst.6 has funded the US Nationwide Mifepristone Affiliate Readiness Project backing media advertising and training programmes for medical (chemical) abortion training; with a pledge of $600,000

The Soros foundation provided the funds needed to pioneer the Abortion Rights Mobilisation RU 486 clinical trials in the US. With additional funds from John Merck Foundation 15 medical centres were provided with RU 486 for ‘evaluation’ by 3000 women.

Ellen Chesler author of ‘Women of Valour– Margaret Sanger and the IPP’ has directed Soros’ backed Program for Reproductive Health & Rights; assisting in the allotment of National (US) Network of Abortion Funds.

Soros’ Open Society Inst. is quite openly political in its aim– “to protect laws governing reproductive health care, especially abortions… to support public opinion research….to combat anti choice activities in support of a campaign to gain widespread awareness and acceptance of emergency contraception. ”

Soros’ foundation has provided the not for profit vehicle for the Council on Foreign

Relations7,8. to filter tax money in support of population control programs.

The Gates Foundation is a patron for a wide range of world wide ‘reproductive-health’ programmes, funding research to improve birth control. Planned Parenthood, for instance has received $34 million from the Gates Foundation out of a total of $10.5 billion worldwide.

Notwithstanding, on 5 Nov. 1999 Trevor Neilson, spokesman for the Gates foundation, assured his audience that while the ‘Foundation’ maintains concern for overpopulation and ‘family health problems’ it holds to – “ as a policy the Gates Foundation doesn’t fund abortion services of any kind.” Jaquelline Fuller (another foundation spokesperson) has also commented that while the foundation has provided in excess of $10.5 billion the funds were earmarked for Planned parenthood programs other than the provision of abortion.

Former President-Gloria Feldt- of Planned Parenthood has affirmed that the giving from the ‘Foundation’ is not used for abortion services. Yet Planned Parenthood itself is clearly one of the world’s largest providers of abortion services.

The recent augmentation of the Gate’s Foundation with a legacy of over $30 billion from William Buffett elevates the Gates Foundation to a pinnacle position as the world’s largest private funding agency.

Historically the Foundation has committed significant funds in 1998 to AVSC (Association for Voluntary Surgical Contraception– sterilization);.internationally a major player in global and domestic population control,

August 22, 1999 the Gates Foundation donated $6 Billion to research effort targeting malaria, HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. This Foundation also wanted to lower the costs of any newly developed vaccines. The Foundation supports programs in global health and learning, with the hope that as we move into the 21st century, advances in these critical areas will be available for all people. To date, Gates has set aside $17 billion for his charitable foundation

November 20, 1999, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation joined UNICEF in its Efforts to Prevent Newborn Deaths in the Developing World. $26 million was used to fight and eliminate maternal and neonatal tetanus (MNT), a disease responsible, in 1998, for nearly 250,000 deaths in developing nations. Funds were available for the distribution of clean delivery kits and provided health education in 57 developing countries.

Gates Foundation 9 has helped UCSF Researchers evaluate birth-control devices in Africa; in the battle against HIV/AIDs.

It is difficult to envisage just how the Gates Foundation can continue to provide funding aid to organisations, dedicated to providing access to abortion and sterilization yet still maintain oversight over the funds so that they are not used, either directly or indirectly, to promote abortion techniques.

For instance the Gates Foundation recently [20 Feb. 2002] funded IPPF to coordinate a world wide gathering of ‘reproductive health experts’ and representatives from USAID, UNFPA, PATH, the Gates Foundation, Columbia University, and the CONCEPT Foundation in Afghanistan. Initiatives included; reproductive health services*; non-prescription, social marketing distribution of oral contraceptives, injectables and condoms; and training of selected midwives and paramedical workers to undertake emergency obstetric care.

* Though abortion did not rank explicit mention the expression– ‘reproductive health services’, in United Nations parlance, always includes abortion.

Particular concern, at this gathering, related to the resistance to contraception, voluntary sterilization and obstetric care, prevalent in Islamic countries.

A commentary from Population Action International states….. "Although human growth rates are slowing, human numbers are still increasing" yet this organization still claims on its Website, www.populationaction.org. "More family planning is needed" to slow population growth rates.

Then Rose Berg, a Gates' spokeswoman, comments on the population question in quite a different context. "It's an access and equity issue" says Berg. "Grants from the William H. Gates Foundation are made to ‘women's reproductive health’ whether we can agree on the exact trends or not."

It would be refreshing indeed to learn that even a small proportion of the Funding Foundation’s and the Population Control agencies grants were also promoting alternative ‘pregnancy crisis’ help other than termination.

The David and Lucile Packard Foundation was set up by Hewlett-Packard co-founder David Packard in 1964. A large portion of the Foundation's funds continue to be devoted to population control. While the Gates Foundation gives public assurances that they do not provide financial aid for abortion the Packard Foundation does not express any such embarrassment. For instance, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation 10 aided Danco's efforts to market mifepristone [RU 486] to the tune of $10 million.

Up until 2000 some $9 billion had been pledged in support of various educational programs for sexual heath including, safe-sex, and aid to organisations providing access to ‘safe’abortion.

Sarah C. Clark, when director of the population program at the David and Lucile Packard Foundation expressed the view that– “lack of ‘choice’ and opportunity traps people in poverty”– adding –“- "we must never forget that it is poverty, not choice, that drives people to live in risk-prone areas."

This Foundation recently pledged $21 million for 40 grants to fund ‘population control’ programs, both in the US and worldwide.11 Ethiopia was a primary target of several programs, including $3 million for family planning and ‘reproductive health services’, and one to the German Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevolkerung to continue its adolescent reproductive health activities in Ethiopia. Other grants include over $7.5 million to the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League Foundation, $1 million to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, and $750,000 to Population Action International, which is committed to universal access to family planning and related health services including abortion.

The Foundation has given P26 Million Grant to the Reach Out Foundation in the Philippines for Family Planning Initiative, to assist the this government’s family planning program.

Other substantial sums have been provided for Ethiopia, Uganda and Vietnam for the distribution of contraceptives.

In 2001 $600,000 was given to IPPF to further their sex and reproductive health services to adolescents in Brazil, Ecuador and Peru.

$2 million to the Centre for Reproductive Rights was provided to fight legal issues.

In 2004 close companions with the Packards, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation

Population Programs under made grants totalling $32,871,945.12

Donald Critchlow author of –“Intended Consequences”, writes– “Today’s philanthropists have a genuine belief that they can solve this world’s problems---- whether these be war, pollution, poverty or disease simply through population control—something like controlling the world population is a common ambition for them all.”

These population control advocates seem to hold the view that 3rd world parents are so irresponsible that they will breed themselves to destruction unless the ‘cultured elite’ do something about it. Strangely, radical feminist Germaine Greer, notes in her book- ‘Sex and Destiny’, that parents from all cultures have historically used all manner of indigenous means to capably plan their families; often they have large families because they want to. One modern day observation is that when people precipitate to urban growth centres they maintain smaller family units. The choice in rural, self-reliant areas, is for larger families.

Refs.

1. Denny Hartford-‘Big Money Behind Population Control’- www.vitalsignsministries.org

2. http://www.fundersnet.org

3. Berkshire Hathaway Inc. News Release, 3 July 2003.
   R.Zimmerman-Choice Allies; Wall Street Jrl; 5 Sept. 2000. Steven Mosher,

4. "The Billionaire Boys Club, " PRI Review, April-May-June 2001.

5. Judith A. Johnson- ‘Abortion Termination with RU 486’-CRS Rept. To Congress 23 Feb. 2001

6. Washington Post 23 March 99; 16 Nov. 2000 and see www.capitalresearch.org

7. http://www.bilderberg.org/roundtable/emabort.html

8. www.nrk.org/news/2001/NRL/randy.html and www.capitalresearch.org 19 Nov. 03

9. San Francisco Chronicle 28August, 2002 –

10. NY Times 30 Sept. 2000 ; http://www.ru486.org/ru10.html.

11. August 3, 1999 Africa News Online Packard Foundation's Population Program in Ethiopia.
    Packard Foundation Pledges $3 Million for Advancement of Population Leaders Abroad,* Business Wire, 19 October 2001.

12.  Carrie Mc Donald; William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; Annual Rept. 2004 AR3

Eugenics and racist ideals may well have found their origins with Malthus and his immediate and succeeding contemporaries. Nevertheless, it advanced into the early 20th century by Margaret Sanger and her supporting associates. Its acceptable global dominance however, received a major set back when embarrassed by projects advocated by the infamous Third Reich (Adolf Hitler). Yet it remained strong in the US with the creation of The Human Betterment Foundation by philanthropist E.S. Gosney.1 Its first President Paul Popenoe was also a member of the established American Eugenics Society, funded by John D. Rockefeller and Max Eastman. From these foundations the World Wide Population Control movement has expanded. In the US some 20 States once supported laws which allowed for obligatory sterilization. The CRACK program formed by Barbara Harris, Stanton; Cal. is one example of present day forced sterilization of women addicted to drugs. [CRACK–Children Requiring a Caring Kommunity] Similar activities were challenged in the high court in Australia in 1992.2

One tributary flowing from the leaders of Human Betterment was the formation of the Association for Voluntary Surgical Contraception (AVSC). Another incarnation, used the name Birthright International. AVSC has been at the forefront of pro-coercive or other encouragement, for sterilization and contraception as population control measures; embracing abortion and other ‘reproductive health’ projects.

Recently AVSC [8 March 2001] changed its name to Engender Health.3 Its sponsored ‘reproductive health and family planning’ projects however, remain unchanged. Both male and female sterilisation are encouraged.

Sterilization, the ‘ideal contraceptive’ and injectable contraception, remain the preferred programs supported by ‘affluent’ Western donors in the third world.

Tracing another tributary, the involvement of the UN is encountered. In 1966 population control was officially authorised by the General Assembly by commending nations willing to decrease their populations. The following year the UN Fund for Population Activities [UNFPA ] was launched; followed by other UN groups UNESCO, UNDF and UNICEF, backing up the population control incentives of UNFPA.

UNFPA proudly acclaims itself 4–“the world’s largest international source of funding for population and reproductive health programs”. In 2003 it zealously stated–“ We advocate close attention to population problems and help mobilise resources to solve them.”

More than 25% all population control assistance from donor nations and private foundations to developing countries is channelled through UNFPA

In 1971 IPPF was recognised by the UN as a major NGO and associate of UN Economic and Social Control, UNICEF and the World Health Organisation [WHO]; attracting financial backing.5 The World Bank in 1968 had already determined that its foreign aid funding would be tied to population control advances.

By 1976 the National Security Council commended the World Bank

The World Bank has for over 30 years provided in excess of $2.5 billion in grants to 130 reproductive health projects in some 70 countries.

In company with private funding from the foundations established by billionaire moguls [Rockefeller, Bergstrom, Buffett, Gates, Soros, Hewlett, Packard, Turner etc] the World Bank and UNFPA provides incredibly large financial contributions to ‘population control’ projects. Many of them co-ordinated through IPPF and associated like organisations [The Population Council, Concept Foundation, Engender Health, IPAS, Pathfinder Intl etc]

IPPF boasts an annual budget of $86 million covering offices in over 18 countries from Africa, though Asia and into Latin America.

7.1 Draper Family Connections.

The Draper family line provides strong links to eugenic ideology.

In 1932 General William H. Draper Jr. provided the finance for the International Eugenics Congress and appointed Dr. Ernst Ruaudin as Chief of the World Eugenics Movement-[Intl. Fed. of Eugenic Societies]

Ruaudin was a Swiss born psychiatrist with obvious Fascist sympathies He received grants from the Rockefeller Foundation to establish the Kaiser Wilhelm Inst. [previously Kraepelin Inst.] first in Munich then in Berlin . He founded the German Society for Race Hygiene. Ruaudin and his staff were chosen by Heinrich Himmler to form a task force of Heredity Experts to draft sterilization laws for the Third Reich– Law for the Prevention of Hereditary Diseases. These were adopted in July 1933 and authorised under Adolf Hitler’s signature. These laws were patterned after race laws already drawn up by the Rockefeller group and established after legislated statutes in the US State of Virginia.

General Draper went on to form the Population Crisis Committee/Council (recruiting ZPG –Generals Maxwell Taylor and William Westmoreland) and the Draper Fund which together with grants from the Rockefeller and Du Pont Foundations promoted the eugenic ideals for ‘population control’. He was instrumental in steering US public discussion relevant to the “population bomb” in non-white areas of the world; then, as advisor to Pres. Lyndon Johnson [1963-69] recommended the creation of USAID. This provided funds for ‘birth control’ in tropical ‘over-populated’ countries. This was said to safeguard America from the security threat of overpopulation in under-developed countries.7 [cf. Lyndon B. Johnson, Great Society Speech, 1964.] General Draper took a leading role in Planned Parenthood becoming an active Vice Chairman. In 1966 he was one of the first recipients of the Margaret Sanger award–“for his singular contributions……..to resolve the world population crisis.” And

In the early 70’s he was appointed by Pres. Nixon [1969-74] to the UN Population Commission.

This General’s son William H. Draper lll, in his turn, became a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and Deputy Advisor on National Security in the Bush snr. Presidency [1989-93] He serves, amongst other Boards, on the Population Action International formed out Population Crisis Committee founded by his father.

In 1986 he was Head of the UN Development Program and Director of the USAID which according to a 1991 report he prepared was to be used– “to assist 254 million couples to be surgically sterilized over the 90’s”

The UNFPA now claims that 37% of Ibero-American and Caribbean women have been sterilized.

In 1992 USAID expended $300 million to achieve sterilization goals.

Kissinger, as a member of the Club of Rome, in 1974 supervised the production of National Security Study Memo 200 [declassified in 1989] This memo discussed the implications of population growth.8,9,10 This stated that population growth in the developing world would lead to a desire for self determination of their economies. Proposals were made that their populations must therefore be controlled. Even so this fact was to be withheld from the country's leaders. Amongst the countries specifically targeted were India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia, Colombia. and Indonesia.

Two respected US commanders in this new conflict were Maxwell Taylor and William Westmoreland, both members of the Population Crisis Council and Draper Fund. ...

Population control is an elitist, coercive ideology having roots in eugenics and Malthusian economics. It is now linked with radical environmentalism and has significantly influenced both medicine and sadly, even Christian thinking. Eugenics theory persists in shaping social science, politics and medicine - particularly bioethics and ‘population control’ continues to be promoted as a panacea for the world's ills, particularly those related to the environment.

The infamous sterilization program sanctioned by Adolf Hitler under Third Reich –Law for the Prevention of Hereditary Diseased Offspring (drafted by Dr.Ruaudin) was instituted in 1933 yet this pales when compared with the mass sterilizations that have occurred throughout the Latin American countries in recent times. More than 200,000 women in rural Peru [supported by USAID] under former President Alberto Fujimori is but one example.

The national sterilization campaign launched in Bangladesh in Feb. 1997 sterilized over a two month period something like 60,000. This was undertaken merely to demonstrate the efficiency of Population Control and Family Planning Clinics. It has been reported that over 75,000 women were recruited.

In Brazil sterilization was regarded as an illegal procedure; at least up until 1997 yet it is estimated that 20-25 million sterilizations had been undertaken in Planned Parenthood clinics over preceding years.

The culture of sterilization in Brazil has become so pervasive that female employees must Proverbs 11 that they are sterile.

One population expert 12 commented that–“this means Brazil’s population bomb has been de-activated.”

The campaigns that continue to be conducted throughout India and runs to many multiple millions of women. Furthermore, it is now estimated that something like 40% of Chinese women of child bearing age have now been sterilized.

In 1979 a one child policy was instituted in mainland China.. Today, in spite of law reforms introduced to substantially reduce forceful or coercive methods, as from 2002, strong monetary and economic coercive incentives remain. In many regions reports of brutal tactics of inducement continue. Many examples of aggressive ‘incentives’ have been documented by the Population Research Institute. These reports are in striking contrast to the official UNFPA assertions that coercive sterilization programs can no longer be corroborated. One cannot help but concede that this latter view greatly assists in the restoration of USAID funding.

The one child policy in China attracted significant support from the UNFPA, the World Bank and IPPF. Private funding contributions were also made by both the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations.

In 1983 UNFPA awarded Qian Xin Xinzhong (Communist Leader & Minister in Charge of State Family Planning) with a special award for “implementing population policies on a massive scale.”

It was in 1998 that the Chinese government first notionally agreed to halt its one child policy while when UNFPA was invited to set up model family planning programs with help from IPPF in liaison with the Chinese Family Planning Association.

The formal UNFPA program now boasts that–

1. reproductive health is to be fully voluntary

2. Chinese women are now free to space their pregnancies

3. target quotas are now lifted

4. abortion is no longer vigorously promoted, and

5. coercive methods have been lifted.

The Population Reference Bureau lists in 2002 the following as relative proportion of child-bearing age (15-49) women who have been sterilized………

Brazil 40%

China 38-40%

India 34%

USA ~24%

Australia 12.8%

UK 11%

Pakistan 6.9%

The most zealous of Population Controllers have long wanted to find an easy inexpensive method for female sterilization. Initially quinacrine hydrochloride seemed to provide the answer.

Werner Fornos [Pres. Population Institute] on 29 March 1999 wrote– “With our planet’s human numbers expecting to reach 6 billion late this year and since 97% of that growth is occurring in the developing world---it is obvious that there is a need for economical, safe and effective contraceptives.” Foros added in his communication to WHO and the FDA [respectively –Gro Harlem Brundtland Director Gen. and Jane Henney- FDA Commissioner]

“If quinacrine hydrochloride is given a clean bill of health we will have a low cost, non-surgical sterilization method–no operating rooms; no anaesthesia; no lengthy training etc …. This could go a long way toward ensuring that population stabilization will be achieved in time to save the planet…”

Quinacrine was originally used to combat malaria during WW ll . As a chemical means for inducing sterilization it is inserted as pellets or slurry into a women’s uterus causing burn scar tissue and effectively blocking the fallopian tubes.

The first large scale experiments using quinacrine was on 4000 Chilean women in the early 1970’s. Although banned by the FDA in the US in 1993 two Nth Carolina based population agencies, FHI and the Centre for Research on Population and Security, still pursued continued use. The latter centre [under direction of Dr’s Elton Kessel and Stephen Mumford]13 provided quinacrine pellets free for distribution in Asian and Latin American countries.

It was not until 1998 that the Supreme court of India banned quinacrine sterilization (QS) . Not withstanding, its clandestine use has continued in regions of India at least well into 2003.

Funding 14 for QS programs can be traced to the Ted Turner and Warren Buffett Foundations and other supporters of the Population Council.

Again in spite of the fact that the US FDA has taken steps to prevent both the manufacture distribution of QS there still remains an estimate, in over 20 countries some 120,000 women subjected to QS.; chiefly Viet Nam, India; Bangladesh and even Pakistan.

Even the AVSC have expressed their doubts over the safety and efficacy of QS ; largely due to the fact that women undergoing QS remain uninformed. The absence of significant animal testing programs before extending it to women is contemptible. It has therefore remained essentially unauthorised human experimentation.

One other significant reason for the lack of any further evaluation of quinacrine is because it is no longer under patent control; does not offer any profit potential and Western Pharmaceutical companies are hesitant to handle it due to potential liability risks.

1. archive.rockefeller.edu/ publications/conferences/valone.pdf

   i. ES Gosney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia

2. Australia's public health system had illegally sterilized more than 1,000 retarded women and girls - The Illegal Sterilizations Reported in Australia; NY Times December 16, 1997; Washington Post 16 Dec. A 22

3. www.engenderhealth.org/news/newsreleases/010308.html

4. http://www.unfpa.org/about/index.htm; accessed on January 16, 2006

5. Steven Mosher, “McNamara’s Folly: Bankrolling Family Planning,” Population Research Review 13, no. 2. (March/April 2003), 2.

6. www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/draper.htm & www.tarpley.net/bush3.htm

7. The Unauthorised Biography of George Bush Snr.–Webster Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin; Chap. 3 Race Hygiene.

8. See http://poisonevercure.150m.com/population_control.htm

9. The Brotherhood Part 6: Population Control.

10. www.educate-yourself.org/nwo/brotherhoodpart6.shtml

11. newsMax 15 June 2004

12. Paul Jalsevac; Inherent Racism of Population Control; Lifesitenews.com p. 49

13. "Two Americans Export Chemical Sterilization to the Third World," Wall Street Journal, June 18, 1998; Express News Service (New Delhi),

14. Steven W. Mosher;; For the Love of Money; Pop. Res. Institute; 30 march 2001 V.3/No. 10

The close associations between many of the leading personnel in responsible positions involved with aspects of ‘Population Control’ could well lead to the conclusion that they all belong to the same FIRM.

Starting at the top we have James D. Wolfensohn, the most recent past president of the World Bank; he also served as a Director on both the Rockefeller Foundation and the Population Council–participating on their respective finance committees.

The present Head of the ‘Population Council’ Dr. Peter J. Donaldson was formerly director of the Councils International programs and CEO of the Population Reference Bureau (1994-2003) Washington DC.

With George Soros we have his ‘Open Society Institute’ which includes a ‘reproductive rights group’ once headed by Ellen Cheslar who, in 1998, was also Chairman of the International Women’s Health Coalition (IWHC) who authorised the publication –Expanding [3rd world] Access to Safe Abortion – Strategies for Action.

Next we mention Ingar Brueggemann representative for the World Health Organisation [WHO] at the UN. She has held senior office within WHO yet over the period 1995-2002 served as Director General of IPPF. ( The new D.G. for IPPF is the former Executive Director of NZ Family Planning; Dr. Gill Greer)

Another who has served in various roles in Planned Parenthood is Daniel Pellegrom. He became President of and CEO of, Pathfinder International.

The current Director for Reproductive Health for the Gates Foundation; Dr. Gordon W. Parkin previously served with WHO and represented the UNPFA in China and worked 14 years for the Ford Foundation and served as Board Member on both PPFA and the Alan Guttmacher Inst.

Another strong advocate for the Chinese [one child] population programme Dr. Nafis Sadik has received notable awards for Family Planning, including Hugh More and Margaret Sanger awards and has served as Exec. Director of the UNFPA and was Special Advisor to the Sec. Gen. of the Cairo Population Conference in1994.

8.1 Population Action International [PAI]

PAI grew from the ‘Population Crisis Committee’ established by General William Draper Jr. who was instrumental, in 1932, for financing the International Eugenics congress and later appointing the Third Reich Eugenicist Dr. Ernst Ruaudin to lead the World Federation of Eugenic Societies.

Taking his father’s lead William H Draper lll officially launched PAI in 1965 . This ‘population control’ agency is presently headed by Amy Coen, who for 12 years was CEO of Planned Parenthood Chicago after working as Associate Director of the Southern regional Office of PP. Amy Coen leads a Board which includes William H. Draper lll and Dr. Nafis Sadik who has served as Exec. Director of the UNFPA.

This is but a small selection of the personnel concerned with the ongoing ‘population control’ strategies and their connections. The common thrust has been to focus predominantly on what are euphemistically called ‘sexual & reproductive health’ issues; issues of family planning involving contraception, abortion and sterilization.

The devious intrigue occurring between ‘people in high places’ has clearly been exposed in the precipitate manner in which RU 486 was approved by the FDA in the US.

For instance, contrary to the Code of Federal Regulations -Immoral Articles Importation Prohibited under 19 Subsection 1305, which made it illegal to import the abortifacient RU 486; this code was deemed inapplicable in a memorandum between then Pres. Bill Clinton and the Director of Health & Human Services Donna Shalala and Mario Cuomo; both members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)– 19July 1996. Moreover, the Population Council, an associate corporation with CFR/CIA in 1994 was the recipient of the rights to RU486 apparently donated by the Hoechst Co. of which the French Roussel Uclav was a subsidiary.

Recourse to the following actions seem to have followed the failure to find any Western Pharmaceutical Co. to manufacture RU 486.

In 1989 the Concept Foundation initiated the creation of the Hua Lia Pharmaceutical Co. in China with assistance from the UNFPA, WHO and the World Bank, with further practical and financial aid from the Rockefeller Foundation. The goal being to bring inexpensive quality contraceptives and ‘reproductive health’ medication, to help population control in China and other South East Asian countries. [Concept Foundation Headquartered in Bangkok is now represented in over 30 countries including Latin America]

Joachin Oehler CEO for Concept Foundation has declared [Washington Post 11 Oct. 2000] that the primary goal for Hua Lian Co. was to produce RU 486 for large scale pregnancy control in China; including ‘emergency contraception’. There are now 3 such processing plants 2 in China and at least 2 in India.

Oehler recently undertook to manage 3, 4 (under the direction of the Rockefeller Foundation) an International Consortium for Emergency Contraception [ICEC] and injectables. These include Cyclofema; Postinor-2 and Norplant.

Gao Ersheng -Director of the Shanghai’s Inst. of Planned Parenthood Research has stated5 that more than half of China’s 10 million abortions each year are achieve by way of the mifepristone-misoprostol [RU 486] chemical procedure.

These practices are supported by a wide coalition of groups and privately funded agencies largely co-ordinated through the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health. (PATH) in Seattle.

1. Mary Meeker– Closing windows on the poor- 28 Nov. 1999

2. www.usembassy-china.org.cn/sandt/jh.html

3. www.cecinfo.org/about/history.htm

4. www.cecinfo.org/publications/ newsletters/Newsletter_Spring_Summer_2003.rtf –

5. www.texlife.org/docs/chinese.html

In George Orwell’s novel 1-1984- he coined an expression “New Speak”. This can best be defined as a devious use of language to confuse and propagandise a gullible community.

Orwell himself defined this kind of communication as –‘Political language….. designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.’

In today’s media ‘spin’ idiom, New Speak would now be known as ‘Weasel Words’ and best defined as deliberate misleading , or ambiguous language. According to Watson's Dictionary of Weasel Words, ‘these are the words of the powerful, the treacherous and the unfaithful, of spies, assassins and thieves. Bureaucrats and ideologues love them. Totalitarian states use weasel words to hide truth and conceal or complicate meaning’.

‘Population control’ communications have become characterised by misleading obfuscational and confusing concepts. 2, 3

The modern ‘pro-choice’ community have adapted the weasel word device for avoiding the use of ‘abortion’- and cower behind society’s inability to define ‘a person’ therefore everyone has their own ‘choice’. Pro-lifers are of course anti-abortion. ‘Pro-choicers’ are those who demand ‘reproductive rights’ but are never inclined to reproduce, since they have their choice, not to.

For example, take the classic expression–"I'm against abortion, but I support someone's ‘choice’ to have one." While noble-sounding on it's face value, it is really just a ‘copout’.

Why can’t each person be up front, either, be against abortion or for it?

Even the ‘neutral’ media create clever headlines –“Anti-abortion demonstrators anger the pro-choice activists.”

Never has language for propaganda been more effectively applied. For instance, what does this headline mean?– ‘Pro-choice is not pro-abortion!’ or ‘This issue is not about abortion but choice.’

‘Reproductive freedom’ is another slogan safeguard used to avoid employing the word abortion.

Various UN agencies and funding groups, in their turn, apply the expression ‘family planning programs’. The WHO uses ‘fertility regulation’ and to avoid the use of abortion identifies– ‘interrupting unwanted pregnancies’. ‘Reproductive services’ describe a wide field of ‘family planning’, ‘reproductive health’ and the ‘regulation of fertility’; all avoiding specific application of abortion.

The following verbal side step was recorded at the WHO Geneva– World Health Day-Safe Motherhood; 6 April 1998

At the 50th Commission on the Status of Women at the UN New York; 27 Feb.-10 March 2006, women’s health issues addressed only ‘reproductive health’. This Commission did little, by way of recording any concern, for disease that kills, nor maternal health or child health just reproduction. ‘Fertility regulation’ was again defined, according the WHO as a ‘right’ which included the ‘interruption of pregnancy’. Oops! doesn’t this mean abortion?

See “Technical Definitions and Commentary” prepared for the UN’s International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo in 1994.

“Fertility regulation is the process by which individuals and couples regulate their fertility. Methods that can be used for this purpose include, among others: delaying childbearing, using contraception, seeking treatment for infertility, interrupting unwanted pregnancies, and breast-feeding.” Also see– World Health Organisation–Definition and Indicators in Family Planning, Maternal and Child Health and Reproductive Health, used in the WHO Regional Office for Europe, revised March 1999.

1. “In no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning…..”

2. “Governments should take appropriate steps to help women avoid abortion, which in no case should be promoted as a method of family planning……..”

3. “In circumstances where abortion is not against the law, such abortion should be safe…..”

4. “Prevention of unwanted pregnancies must always be given the highest priority and every attempt should be made to eliminate the need for abortion…..”.

The Hewlett Packard Foundation [which contributed substantially to the CRR- Centre for Reproductive Rights] presents another classic avoidance language expression. Concerning their contributions to international ‘reproductive health services’ they comment. “This Foundation is devoted to programs concerning the world’s population and is dedicated to making grants addressing serious environmental problems and placing a high value on sustaining and improving institutions that make a positive contribution to society.”

In regard to ‘population control’ Communications Director/s for the H&P Foundations Chris De Cardy and Eric Brown, have replied–“ We don’t see it as population control. We see it as helping to reduce the rate of population growth in the world.” Duhr?

On the issue of sterilization, what critics of population control call coercive, the controllers themselves prefer to identify as economic encouragement, persuasive and thus, voluntary and consensual.

Perhaps one of the most devious of all expressions devised by ‘population controllers’, UN agencies and funding groups is – menstrual regulation– defined as the induction of menses when a women has noted a missed period. This terminology has been encouraged by the Concept Foundation (Bangkok) particularly in the South East Asian nations. While it is clearly an abortion procedure, it is not recorded as an abortion simply because there has not been any recorded confirmation of a pregnancy; fear of an unwanted pregnancy is however not excluded.

MR has become a favoured form of ‘fertility control’ in nations where abortion remains illegal- largely those with predominantly Muslin populations.

Menstrual regulation (MR) may involve either chemical [eg. RU 486] or more commonly, manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) to evacuate the uterus. In Vietnam MR is given up to 10 weeks from the date of the last menses, which corresponds to a foetal age of 8 weeks. In India however, only 14 days is approved. Vietnam is reported to record the highest abortion rate in Asia exceeding 1 in 10 women of reproductive age and estimated at about 2 million a year.

MVA kits designed under the direction of the Concept Foundation are manufactured by International Provision and Advocacy Services [IPAS] and distributed by Family health International [FHI] and approved by the WHO

In chemical MR the RU486 –mifepristone/prostaglandin (misoprostol) procedure– is generally involved. In some countries this procedure has been adapted as a once a month contraceptive technique.

Earlier this year 29 March 2006 the Australian newspaper carried an article describing the potential of mifepristone as an alternative to ‘the pill’. As it is oestrogen free the associated discomfort with menstruation might then be avoided. It has also been recommended as an emergency post-coital [morning after] contraceptive.4 The misoprostol (prostaglandin) on its own, is also being evaluated as a simplified, early termination of pregnancy by the Population Council. [reported on at the Eighth Reproductive Health Conference.]

1. George Orwell, Politics and the English Language

2. David Thibault; "Pro-Abortion Lobby 'Loves to Deceive,' Congressman Charges

3. CNSNews.com Managing Editor December 22, 2003; www.prolife.org.ph/article/articleview/266/1/23

4. Irving M. Spitz-Steroids V. 68 (2003) 981-93.

One of the more bizarre population control groups is one directed toward human extinction.

Web

The aim is to phase out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed. Thereby allowing the Earth's biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense. Their motto–'May we live long and die out.' Les Knight of VHEMT avows 2, 3– “ No matter what you're doing to improve life on planet Earth, I think you'll find that phasing out the human race will increase your chance of success."

This earth [Gaia] centred ‘world view’ sees human kind [Homo sapiens ] as just one of tens of millions of species in Earth's biosphere. To preserve what's left of Gaia, we must change our human-centred activities to Earth-centred activities.

VHEMT attributes earth’s problems as having resulted from human religious ambitions; no doubt excluding the earth-based pagans.

Refs.

1. http://www.vhemt.org/ accessed Aug. 2006

2. Les U. Knight of VHEMT, quoted in Joel Dippold. "Live Well and Die." The Portland [Oregon] Alliance , March 1991, page 5.

3. See also "That's Outrageous!, A Compilation: The Dodo Solution." Reader's Digest , April 1992, page 147.

Maurice Strong, on 8 April 1997, when introducing the Draft of the Earth Charter to the UN. commented–

“There is a need to address the fundamental ethical imperatives of ‘sustainable development’ and to foster a healthy balance between the quality of life and quantity of environment…to be in balance with ‘Mother Earth.’

According to the Earth Charter–sustainable development–population control and global governance and, dare I say it, a new global religion, are all part of a ‘One World’ package.

It is intriguing to note that 20 years prior to the launch of the Earth Charter , which fortunately, has not yet received formal UN approval, a man identified as R.C. Christian contacted the Elberton Granite Finishing Co. to erect the Georgia Guide Stones. These stones represent a new [humanistic] ten commandments for ‘Mother Earth’. They embrace 4 principles:–

1. Reducing the world population

2. Promoting environmentalism

3. Establishing a world government

4. Promoting a new [world] spirituality

The 1st Command demands that a stable world population of just 500,000,000, in perpetual balance with nature, should be an initial goal.

Today’s global over-population concepts are now presented as a major [or at least potential] cause of environmental degradation. Why then do we think it strange that the same people who have long been advocates for population control are presently the same activists concerned with climate control (or human origins for global warming). Hence, the demand for environmental sustainability, efficient utilisation of renewable resources and condemnation for, the mishandling of non-renewable resources; in particular, fossil fuel.

The elite zealots of western cultural mentality fear that when the ‘uncultured’ millions in the third world start exploiting the world’s resources, after the same manner enjoyed in the [over] developed industrialised world, then we have every reason to be apprehensive and thus need to discourage their expanding populations.

In the Earth Charter document (housed in the parody ‘Ark of Hope’) "Sustainable Development" is defined 1 , wherein the following “values and objectives” are included

1. Belief that Earth is God (or Gaia hence Pantheism) and embracing at no.4. The adoption of an "emerging world community" (or one-world government); at no. 5. The creation of a common world culture; at no. 11. Worldwide contraception and "reproductive health" (a term often synonymous with abortion rights) and at no.12. Worldwide education for sustainability; including spiritual education (Pantheism)

‘Sustainable development’, in effect, becomes just another ‘euphemism’ for ‘population control’ under the direction of a “Global Government” and a New (age) world religion.

1. see http://edwatch.org/DESD/defined.htm

At the beginning of the 21st century this earth’s population was determined to be somewhat more than 6,000,000,000 (or 6 billion)-12 Oct 1999. Up until this time recognised population forecasters were giving estimates of between 9 and up to 12 billion people occupying the earth by the middle of this present century. These calculations had been predicated on the long established view that for each succeeding generation there had been a doubling of people on the earth. Clearly the growth rate over the 20th century from 1.6 to 6 billion seemed to provide a sound basis for the predictions.

The UN, over a period of time, have been in the habit of biennially reviewing the worl