One of the most difficult concepts for Americans to accept is that there are human beings dedicated to coercive population control and genocide. For more than a century the globalists have been promoting their NWO eugenics plan for a sustainable earth population of about a half billion people based on an overpopulation myth. The UN Agenda 21 spells it all out in graphic detail. This means within the next several years they plan to kill 13 out of 14 of us 7.2 billion people currently living and breathing on this planet. For decades they’ve been busily deploying both slower, “soft kill” methods as well as their faster, “hard kill” methods to drastically reduce the world population. The Illuminati plan to reduce the supposedly overpopulated world, which they see as uncontrollable, – to 500 million as engraved on the Georgia Guidestones. Their reason: 7.2 billion people are difficult to govern for their one-world government / Agenda 21 – even for their global army of ‘Yes Men’ and corrupted mercenaries who cannot think for themselves what is really going on.
‘At least 4 billion useless eaters shall be eliminated by the year 2050 by means of limited wars and organized epidemics of fatal rapid acting diseases…’
There is a single ideological current running through a seemingly disparate collection of noxious modern political and scientific movements, ranging from militarism, imperialism, racism, xenophobia, and radical environmentalism, to socialism, Nazism, and totalitarian communism. This is the ideology of antihumanism: the belief that the human race is a horde of vermin whose unconstrained aspirations and appetites endanger the natural order, and that tyrannical measures are necessary to constrain humanity. The founding prophet of modern antihumanism is Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), who offered a pseudoscientific basis for the idea that human reproduction always outruns available resources. Following this pessimistic and inaccurate assessment of the capacity of human ingenuity to develop new resources, Malthus advocated oppressive policies that led to the starvation of millions in India and Ireland.
While Malthus’s argument that human population growth invariably leads to famine and poverty is plainly at odds with the historical evidence, which shows global living standards rising with population growth, it nonetheless persisted and even gained strength among intellectuals and political leaders in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Its most pernicious manifestation in recent decades has been the doctrine of population control, famously advocated by ecologist Paul Ehrlich, whose bestselling 1968 antihumanist tract The Population Bomb has served as the bible of neo-Malthusianism. In this book, Ehrlich warned of overpopulation and advocated that the American government adopt stringent population control measures, both domestically and for the Third World countries that received American foreign aid. (Ehrlich, it should be noted, is the mentor of and frequent collaborator with John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor.)
In June 1952 John D. Rockefeller III convened a secret conference at Williamsburg, Virginia, where some thirty of the nation’s most eminent conservationists, public health experts, Planned Parenthood leaders, agriculturalists, demographers and social scientists met. They formed a new group which could act as “a coordinating and catalytic agent in the broad field of population.” John D. Rockefeller III publicly christened The Population Council and announced that he himself would serve as its first president. They organized their vast financial and media resources to spread the myth of over-population that today is blindly accepted by most as scientific truth. They spread the myth that “people pollute,” or as the Rockefeller Foundation’s Alan Gregg preferred to describe growing human populations in the developing world, “cancerous growths that demand food.” Population reduction became the strategic priority, step-wise, of the US Government and then the US-controlled World Bank.
The Rockefeller-financed research into cheap, effective birth control, and other eugenics projects resulted in the US Government, officially and secretly, making reduction of population growth in key raw material rich developing countries like Brazil, India, Nigeria and Indonesia the explicit USA Government policy. “No population control, no USAID money.” Henry Kissinger drafted the document for it, NSSM-200, titled, ‘Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests,’ and President Gerald Ford signed it as Government policy in 1975.
Until the mid-1960s, American population control programs, both at home and abroad, were largely funded and implemented by private organizations such as the Population Council and Planned Parenthood — groups with deep roots in the eugenics movement. While disposing of millions of dollars provided to them by the Rockefeller, Ford, and Milbank Foundations, among others, the resources available to support their work were meager in comparison with their vast ambitions. This situation changed radically in the mid-1960s, when the U.S. Congress, responding to the agitation of overpopulation ideologues, finally appropriated federal funds to underwrite first domestic and then foreign population control programs. Suddenly, instead of mere millions, there were hundreds of millions and eventually billions of dollars available to fund global campaigns of mass abortion and forced sterilization. The result would be human catastrophe on a worldwide scale.
Among the first to be targeted were America’s own Third World population at home — the native American Indians. Starting in 1966, Secretary of the Interior Stuart Udall began to make use of newly available Medicaid money to set up sterilization programs at federally funded Indian Health Services (IHS) hospitals. As reported by Angela Franks in her 2005 book Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy:
These sterilizations were frequently performed without adequate informed consent…. Native American physician Constance Redbird Uri estimated that up to one-quarter of Indian women of childbearing age had been sterilized by 1977; in one hospital in Oklahoma, one-fourth of the women admitted (for any reason) left sterilized…. She also gathered evidence that all the pureblood women of the Kaw tribe in Oklahoma were sterilized in the 1970s….
Unfortunately, and amazingly, problems with the Indian Health Service seem to persist … recently [in the early 1990s], in South Dakota, IHS was again accused of not following informed-consent procedures, this time for Norplant, and apparently promoted the long-acting contraceptive to Native American women who should not use it due to contraindicating, preexisting medical conditions. The Native American Women’s Health Education Resource Center reports that one woman was recently told by her doctors that they would remove the implant only if she would agree to a tubal ligation. The genocidal dreams of bureaucrats still cast their shadow on American soil.
Programs of a comparable character were also set up in clinics funded by the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity in low-income (predominantly black) neighborhoods in the United States. Meanwhile, on the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico, a mass sterilization program was instigated by the Draper Fund/Population Crisis Committee and implemented with federal funds from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare through the island’s major hospitals as well as a host of smaller clinics. According to the report of a medical fact-finding mission conducted in 1975, the effort was successful in sterilizing close to one-third of Puerto Rican women of child-bearing age.
Better Dead Than Red
However, it was not at home but abroad that the heaviest artillery of the population control onslaught was directed. During the Cold War, anything from the Apollo program to public-education funding could be sold to the federal government if it could be justified as part of the global struggle against communism. Accordingly, ideologues at some of the highest levels of power and influence formulated a party line that the population of the world’s poor nations needed to be drastically cut in order to reduce the potential recruitment pool available to the communist cause. President Lyndon Johnson was provided a fraudulent study by a RAND Corporation economist that used cooked calculations to “prove” that Third World children actually had negative economic value. Thus, by allowing excessive numbers of children to be born, Asian, African, and Latin American governments were deepening the poverty of their populations, while multiplying the masses of angry proletarians ready to be led against America by the organizers of the coming World Revolution.
President Johnson bought the claptrap, including the phony math. Two months later, he declared to the United Nations that “five dollars invested in population control is worth a hundred dollars invested in economic growth.” With the Johnson administration now backing population control, Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act in 1966, including a provision earmarking funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) for population control programs to be implemented abroad. The legislation further directed that all U.S. economic aid to foreign nations be made contingent upon their governments’ willingness to cooperate with State Department desires for the establishment of such initiatives within their own borders. In other words, for those Third World rulers willing to help sterilize their poorer subjects, there would be carrots. For the uncooperative types, there would be the stick. Given the nature of most Third World governments, such elegant simplicity of approach practically guaranteed success. The population control establishment was delighted.
An Office of Population was set up within USAID, and Dr. Reimert Thorolf Ravenholt was appointed its first director in 1966. He would hold the post until 1979, using it to create a global empire of interlocking population control organizations operating with billion-dollar budgets to suppress the existence of people considered undesirable by the U.S. Department of State.
In his devastating 2008 book Population Control: Real Costs, Illusory Benefits, author Steven Mosher provides a colorful description of Ravenholt:
Who was Dr. Ravenholt? An epidemiologist by training, he apparently looked on pregnancy as a disease, to be eradicated in the same way one eliminates smallpox or yellow fever. He was also, as it happened, a bellicose misanthrope.
He took to his work of contracepting, sterilizing, and aborting the women of the world with an aggressiveness that caused his younger colleagues to shrink back in disgust. His business cards were printed on condoms, and he delighted in handing them out to all comers. He talked incessantly about how to distribute greater quantities of birth control pills, and ensure that they were used. He advocated mass sterilization campaigns, once telling the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that one-quarter of all the fertile women in the world must be sterilized in order to meet the U.S. goals of population control and to maintain “the normal operation of U.S. commercial interests around the world.” Such rigorous measures were required, Ravenholt explained, to contain the “population explosion” which would, if left unchecked, so reduce living standards abroad that revolutions would break out “against the strong U.S. commercial presence.”…
Charming he was not. To commemorate the bicentennial of the United States in 1976, he came up with the idea of producing “stars and stripes” condoms in red, white, and blue colors for distribution around the world…. Another time, at a dinner for population researchers, Ravenholt strolled around the room making pumping motions with his fist as if he were operating a manual vacuum aspirator — a hand-held vacuum pump for performing abortions — to the horror of the other guests.
Ravenholt’s view of nonwhite people is expressed well enough in a comment he made in 2000 about slavery: “American blacks should thank their lucky stars that the institution of slavery did exist in earlier centuries; if not, these American blacks would not exist: their ancestors would have been killed by their black enemies, instead of being sold as slaves.”
As his method of operation, Ravenholt adopted the practice of distributing his funds aggressively to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the Population Council, and numerous other privately run organizations of the population control movement, enabling them to implement mass sterilization and abortion campaigns worldwide without U.S. government regulatory interference, and allowing their budgets to balloon — first tenfold, then a hundredfold, then even more. This delighted the leaders and staff of the population control establishment, who were able to embrace a luxurious lifestyle, staying in the best hotels, eating the best food, and flying first class as they jetted around the world to set up programs to eliminate the poor.
Ravenholt also had no compunction about buying up huge quantities of unproven, unapproved, defective, or banned contraceptive drugs and intrauterine devices (IUDs) and distributing them for use by his population control movement subcontractors on millions of unsuspecting Third World women, many of whom suffered or died in consequence. These included drugs and devices which had been declared unsafe by the FDA for use in America, and had faced successful lawsuits in the U.S. for their damaging results. These practices delighted the manufacturers of such equipment.
Having thus secured the unqualified support of both the population control establishment and several major pharmaceutical companies, Ravenholt was able to lobby Congress to secure ever-increasing appropriations to further expand his growing empire.
His success was remarkable. Before Ravenholt took over, USAID expenditures on population control amounted to less than 3 percent of what the agency spent on health programs in Third World nations. By 1968, Ravenholt had a budget of $36 million, compared to the USAID health programs budget of $130 million. By 1972, Ravenholt’s population control funding had grown to $120 million per year, with funds taken directly at the expense of USAID’s disease prevention and other health care initiatives, which shrank to $38 million in consequence. In just five short years, the U.S. non-military foreign aid program was transformed from a mission of mercy to an agency for human elimination.
In 1968, Robert McNamara, a staunch believer in population control, resigned his post as Secretary of Defense to assume the presidency of the World Bank. From this position he was able to dictate a new policy, making World Bank loans to Third World countries contingent upon their governments’ submission to population control, with yearly sterilization quotas set by World Bank experts. Cash-short and heavily in debt, many poor nations found this pressure very difficult to withstand. This strengthened Ravenholt’s hand immeasurably.
Destroying the Village
Upon coming into office in January 1969, the new Nixon administration sought to further advance the population control agenda. Responding to lobbying by General William H. Draper, Jr., the former under secretary of the Army and a leading overpopulation fear monger, Nixon approved U.S. government support for the establishment of the U.N. Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA). With this organization as a vehicle, vast additional American funds would be poured into the global population control effort, with their source disguised so as to ease acceptance by governments whose leaders needed to maintain a populist pose in opposition to “Yankee Imperialism.” While the United States was its primary backer, the UNFPA also served as a channel for significant additional population control funds from European nations, Canada, and Japan, collectively equal to about half the American effort.
Going still further, President Nixon in 1970 set up a special blue-ribbon Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, with longtime population control booster John D. Rockefeller III as its chairman. Reporting back in 1972, Rockefeller predictably cited the menace of U.S. population growth with alarm, and called for a large variety of population control measures to avert the putative threat of welfare-dependent, criminalistic, or other financially burdensome populations multiplying out of control. Just as predictably, the report generated scores of newspaper headlines and feature magazine articles serving to cement the population control consensus. Nixon’s politically-driven rejection of one of the commission’s recommendations — government-funded abortion on demand — only served to make Rockefeller’s Malthusian committee seem all the more “progressive.”
But Nixon’s chief interest in population control was its supposed value as a Cold War weapon. The president charged Henry Kissinger, his National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, with conducting a secret study on the role of population control measures in the fight against global communism. Kissinger pulled together a group of experts drawn from the National Security Council (NSC), the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, USAID, and other agencies to study the question. The result was issued on December 10, 1974 in the form of the classified NSC document titled “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.” The document — known as National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200), or simply as the Kissinger Report — represented the encoding of Malthusian dogma as the strategic doctrine of the United States.
NSSM 200 was declassified in 1989 and so is now available for scrutiny. Examining the document, what is apparent is the Nietzschean mindset on the part of its authors, who (implicitly embracing the communist line) clearly regarded the newborn masses of the world as America’s likely enemies, rather than her friends, and as potential obstacles to the exploitation of the world’s wealth, rather than as customers, workers, and business partners participating together with America in a grand team effort to grow and advance the world economy. The memo made the case for a population control effort that is global in scope but not traceable back to its wealthy supporters.
On November 26, 1975, NSSM 200 was formally adopted by the Ford administration. A follow-up memo issued in 1976 by the NSC called for the United States to use control of food supplies to impose population control on a global scale. It further noted the value of using dictatorial power and military force as means to coerce Third World peoples into submission to population control measures, adding: “In some cases, strong direction has involved incentives such as payment to acceptors for sterilization, or disincentives such as giving low priorities in the allocation of housing or schooling to those with larger families. Such direction is the sine qua non of an effective program.”
Without a shred of justification, but with impeccable organization, generous funding, aggressive leadership, and backing by a phalanx of established respectable opinion, the population control movement was now doctrinally enshrined as representing the core strategic interest of the world’s leading superpower. It was now positioned to wreak havoc on a global scale.
Beliefs Of Population Control
There appears to be three overlapping schools of thought that have created the zealous belief in a need for population control.
Many governments, especially those in the East, have adopted the viewpoint that periodic wars are necessary for the stability of the society. This viewpoint primarily arises from social instability caused by too many young adult males in the state coupled with the issues that occur when there is insufficient food available to the population. In turn, many wars have been fought specifically for this reason. (I am most familiar with this being a common theme in China, as they have observed over the centuries the one thing that will create rebellions are famines.)
Following World War 2, the Western ruling elite came to a consensus that the war approach was no longer tenable due to the extreme collateral infrastructure and environmental damage modern weaponry (ie. nukes) created. There are only two exceptions to this rule:
Wars in third-world countries lacking modern weaponry, where collateral damage was inconsequential to first-world countries
Talks that occurred within the Chinese military leadership, but have so far not materialized, over starting a war with India so both countries could mutually alleviate their challenging population burden. For context, China has attempted population control with their “one-child” policy, but it has been met with mixed success and widespread social resistance.
The alternative to war is a multipronged attack that seeks every possible avenue to reduce fertility and accelerate aging, which many argue is the more humane option of the two. One of the curious facts I have observed over the decades is how frequently an odd policy or environmental agent always seems to converge on the common pathway of reducing population. Once or twice, you can write it up as a coincidence, but at a certain point, you have to wonder if it is all intentional.
When I studied the early history of infectious diseases (discussed in my previous articles on smallpox), one of the most striking things to me was the absolute squalor the serfs were forced into as the feudal lords kicked them off the land to live in the early cities. It was much worse than most people of this modern era can even conceive of.
When I first learned of this, I guessed this must have been viewed as a necessary trade off by the European rulership to support the Industrial Revolution, which was vital for national development. After I learned about the Malthusian philosophy, I realized the abhorrent living situations was likely the goal in of itself.
In 1798, Rev. Thomas R Malthus published the influential work An Essay on the Principle of Population, which argued that human populations tend to increase at a geometrical (exponential) rate, but the means of subsistence (food) grows at only an arithmetic (linear) rate.
“The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man,” according to Malthus, who therefore believed the standard of living of the masses could not be improved without the checks of war, famine, or disease. In their absence, population would increase by a geometric rate and lead to a catastrophic “Malthusian” food supply collapse.
While there are numerous errors in his theory, Malthus was appointed to multiple important positions, and his ideas appear to have gradually become a prevailing conviction among members of the ruling classes in the 19th century. These ideas also influenced other key figures, such as Charles Darwin as he created his theory of evolution and natural selection.
Numerous groups were founded over the decades, which emphasized birth control and increasing mortality of the poor. These groups included Dr. George Drysdale’s Elements of Social Science in 1854, the Malthusian League in 1877, and Margret Sanger’s National Birth Control League in 1915, which became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942. Initially these groups were domestic, but gradually they became global where they tied international aid and development to population control measures.
The Malthusian and Darwinian ideals gradually gave birth to Social Darwinism and Eugenics, which were widely adopted by the ruling elite. Social Darwinism argued that class divisions were the will of nature and that this form of natural selection, rather than being evil, was necessary. The most extreme version of this ideology, eugenics, appears to have arisen from two key factors:
- The tribal nature of human beings and the tendency to view all other tribes as inferior (the ruling class felt this way towards the poor).
- The advances of society were making it possible for many of the weaker members of society, who previously would have died off, to survive long enough to reproduce and, over time, significantly weaken the gene pool.
Eugenics in turn advocated preventing those who were less “fit” from breeding. This has been responsible for horror upon horror since its inception, and it provided the theoretical foundation for why, among other things, the Nazis forcibly sterilized the mentally ill. In many cases, programs with more immediate results were also implemented. While most are aware of the millions executed by Hitler, other dictators such as Pol-Pot, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong arguably did even worse.
A lead researcher in this field coined the term “democide” and estimates these governments executed approximately 150 million people in the previous century. When the Nazis eventually were tried at Nuremberg for their crimes against humanity, few know that that many cited the fact similar actions were first conducted by the “Great United States” in their defense.
For example, consider one of the more problematic Supreme Court rulings, Jacobson vs. Massachusetts. It held that Jacobson, who having previously suffered a severe adverse reaction from a smallpox vaccine which led him to contest Massachusetts’ smallpox booster mandate, did not have the right to refuse forced vaccination.
Following this ruling, Virginia passed a law authorizing the involuntary sterilization of people the deemed to be “feeble-minded,” or mentally ill. Citing Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, a Supreme Court Justice wrote: “The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.” By 1930, dozens of states were forcing women to undergo involuntary sterilization, and more than 60,000 American women were sterilized by the government against their will.
While books could be written on the horrors of eugenics, the key point to remember is that the discipline never disappeared and has enjoyed sustained support from the upper class. Did you know that the creators of the dangerous AstraZeneca COVID vaccine—which has been promoted as the vaccine of choice for the third world—have extensive ties to major eugenics organizations?
One of the major shifts that has appeared within these movements has been who they target. Until recently, they seemed to be racist against specific sets of people, primarily those of color. Planned Parenthood’s founder, for example, wanted to reduce the black birth rate, but many were far worse. Eugenics was also conducted by whites against other whites, however it typically was due to class differences or perceived genetic quality rather than race (the only exception I can think of was the British Empire towards the Irish).
This all seems to have shifted recently to where the healthy and affluent white members of society are now being targeted too. As this is a new change, much of the western population has been caught off guard, and there has been a much higher COVID vaccination uptake in whites than other races who remember being targeted by their government.
Governmental Planning For Population Control
Numerous documents and conferences (a few of which will be discussed) suggest population control has also been a priority for both national governments and international governments. The infamous 1966 Iron Mountain Report is the most well-known example, and while it echoes many of the themes laid out in this article, there are serious questions regarding its authenticity.
As such, I do not feel it is appropriate to discuss in detail, but I will note that it contained the argument that the need for war could be replaced by having the population gradually only become able to reproduce through artificial fertilization. This is a theme echoed in many other places, such as Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World.
While it is difficult to estimate precisely, the use of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) has steadily increased and is expected to continue to do so: the CDC estimates its use has “more than doubled” in the last decade. I have also heard numerous reports that since the vaccines have launched, COVID has significantly increased the need for and difficulty of IVF (that being said, at this time I could not locate data directly supporting this contention).
For those interested in medicine’s monopolization of the pregnancy process and the tragic harm it creates, The Business of Being Born (which can be viewed online) and Robert S. Mendelsohn’s writings on the subject are two of the best resources I’ve found on the subject.
National Security Study Memorandum 200 is the most well-known authentic government document advancing a systematic population control agenda. Written in 1974 by Kissinger during Nixon’s presidency (and unclassified decades later), it identified third world population growth as a critical national security issue for the United States and outlined a variety of steps to combat it.
Population control has also been discussed within the public media. The 9/4/94 Associated Press article “Compromise near on Population Control Plan” stated:
During three preparatory conferences, delegates from 170 countries agreed on more than 90 percent of the plan for controlling population.”
The confidential Cobden Club Memo Mandate for Reduction of Existing World Population is a now accessible document allegedly presented to a group of international representatives shortly before the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, which focused on managing the consequences of overpopulation.
This memo referenced many other projects for population reduction, stressed the urgency of globally implementing population reduction, and advocated having each member of the UN security council (the primary military powers) force the rest of the world into submission to this agenda.
While the actual summit occurred (this is where Agenda 21 was formulated), like the Report from Iron Mountain and many other documents in this genre, I am ultimately unsure if this document is authentic, which is part of what makes researching these subjects so challenging.
Mechanisms Of Population Control
Population control measures typically follow one of three approaches:
- Create social changes that discourage having children.
- Introduce an environmental factor that decreases male testosterone and sperm viability.
- Directly sterilize (or give birth control to) women of childbearing age.
The first approach is a politically touchy subject. I will cite a few quick examples:
- Second Wave Feminism transitioned a significant portion of the population from raising families at home to a sterile existence working outside the home. Second Wave Feminism was essential for our country and corrected many serious injustices towards women, but there is also some evidence to suggest the movement was hijacked to help the upper class by removing women from a motherly role and doubling the workforce. For example a pioneer of this movement, Gloria Steinem who strongly discouraged being a housewife, was also a CIA operative.
- The societal messages around dating have been shifted from romantic bonding (which produces children) to a hookup culture without intimacy.
- Women are strongly encouraged to pursue a career before having children or a family, which frequently results in them missing the opportunity to do so.
- Previously rare sexual pairings that either cannot or are unlikely to produce children are actively encouraged by the media and corporatocracy.
- Alternatives to relationships, such as computer or video addictions, are strongly encouraged in society.
- Economically, it has become more and more difficult for individuals to afford to have children.
- Having children is labeled as environmentally destructive and hence strongly discouraged.
- Having children is now characterized as a major obstacle to spiritual growth and self-development.
- The widespread support and social validation for having children has gradually diminished.
I have personally observed as the years have gone by, fewer and fewer people are interested in having children, and some combination of the above reasons are typically cited. I also find people who have children have a much deeper sense of happiness than those who do not, despite media messages suggesting the opposite.
The idea of population control or mass extinction for the greater good has also been increasingly observed within the media. Avengers Endgame was the top grossing film of 2019, and it was so heavily promoted throughout the media that it accomplished the unique feat of almost doubling the revenue of the runner-up. I have often wondered whether this was deliberate on account of the message the movie spread in the months immediately preceding COVID-19 of the need to be evil and eliminate half the population for the “greater good”.
There are also many factors that directly affect fertility. Each of these appears to have followed a gradual progression like the myth of a “boiling frog” where the onset has been too slow for most of the victims to recognize.
At this time, male health is significantly less studied than female health (for example, many recent graduates I have spoken to felt “transexual medicine” may have had a greater focus in their curriculum than “male health” in their medical school curriculum). As a result, much of this section, such as the importance of testosterone, is still relatively unknown.
Despite this knowledge gap, it is almost universally agreed within the scientific literature that there has been a massive, sustained decline in male testosterone levels over the decades (a male’s testosterone levels goes hand in hand with his health and fertility). This decline directly affects male (and to a lesser extent female) health, and numerous integrative physicians have found rectifying it creates profound benefits in a large percentage of their patients. The decline of sperm quality and viability has also been observed, but as it is more difficult to objectively quantify, not as much as data exists to clearly support this trend.
A common means of controlling animal populations is to universally introduce an agent which decreases male fertility (as these tend to be easier to distribute on a large-scale basis than agents which target female reproduction). In addition, a common method of controlling animal behavior is to neuter males, as this reduces their aggression and “disobedience to authority.” (For example, a recent lawsuit was filed by a 16-year-old boy who developed breasts after he was forced to take estrogen in jail to “control his behavior.”) It is hence understandable why those in the ruling class would be open to using similar approaches on the “useless eaters” of the population (many terms for this concept exist, including those originating from the Nazis’ eugenics program).
Many of the factors causing this decline appear to have been deliberately placed in the environment. The most influential are xenoestrogens, artificial chemicals that mimic the characteristics of estrogen and feminize organisms. Alex Jones’s infamous commentary on chemicals that “turn the friggin’ frogs gay,” for example, was a reference to atrazine, a still widely used herbicide, that for over 20 years has been known to create hermaphroditic frogs. For those interested, the eight-hour audiobook, Estrogeneration: How Estrogenics Are Making You Fat, Sick, and Infertile provides an excellent summary of the topic.
Some of the most common xenoestrogens in addition to atrazine (and some other herbicides) include:
- Birth control pills, which are designed to not break down and thus cycle back into the water supply (this is a common problem in areas that reuse waste water, particularly China, where oral contraceptives are widely used).
- Soy (excluding the rare exception where it is fermented like in Miso or Natto), is a food that comprises a significant portion of the food supply. While much less common (but sometimes still) an issue, a similar effect results from lavender products.
- Bisphenol A and S found in many plastics, which constantly contact our bodies and food.
- Phalates (also found in many plastics, I particularly care about this when sourcing IV supplies)
- Parabens (these are uses for fragrances in many cosmetic products).
- DDT and PCBs are highly dangerous mutagenic chemicals. Despite their known toxicity (Monsanto, the initial PCB producer, saw within three years 23 of their 24 researchers develop disfigured faces) it took decades, and in some cases almost a century of activism, to remove them from the market. Massive amounts of these chemicals were produced, and they persist in the environment, accumulate up the food chain (especially via fish), and still affect people today. In addition to being destructive to both humans and wildlife, a good case can be made these chemicals created many of the changes we are still seeing today (such as the decline of male sperm counts).
While it is appreciated that increasing estrogen levels will directly feminize males, it is less appreciated that there are estrogen receptors in the brain that reduce testosterone levels when stimulated. Clomifene, a drug designed for inducing ovulation (either for patients who cannot ovulate, or to collect eggs for IVF) blocks this anti-testosterone receptor. Direct testosterone administration can be used for male health, however, many physicians also find significant benefit from using clomifene, as it alone can raise testosterone, and in many cases treat male infertility. This (and many pieces of evidence) suggest xenoestrogens play a key role in the male decline of testosterone.
One of the largest influences on testicular function is microwave radiation (emitted by cell phones and Wi-Fi enabled devices). Brain matter, the heart, and the testicles are the most susceptible tissues in the body to this microwave radiation (for those curious, there is actually a lot of research proving this).
Microwave field strength (per the inverse square law) exponentially decreases from its source, and a frequently successful approach for treating male infertility is to avoid carrying a phone in the pocket or using a laptop near the lap. While I am not familiar with the effects of this radiation on the ovaries, it has been shown that microwave field strength increases within the uterus rather than decreases as would be expected (the uterus is a fascinating organ) and that some degree of correlation between birth defects and prenatal EMF exposure exists.
Many other factors also influence testosterone levels and fertility. Two of the more interesting examples are metformin, a very commonly used medication for diabetes that has the curious side effect of reducing testosterone (which can be debilitating for older men who are already deficient in testosterone), and the widely used sugar replacement stevia, which has been repeatedly studied for its testosterone reducing and contraceptive properties. This all goes in a full circle as these many of these substances also interfere with metabolism thereby creating obesity, and fat cells via aromatase further perpetuate the cycle by turning testosterone to estrogen.
To tie this all together, Niels E. Skakkebæk, MD PhD, an expert in testicular cancer, has shown through Denmark’s national cancer registry (maintained since 1943) that the rate of testicular cancer more than tripled from 1943 to 1993 and continues to grow since that time. At the same time, he also found sperm density fell from 113 million per milliliter in 1940 to 66 million per milliliter in 1990 and that the volume of sperm has dropped an average of 19%.
I suspect part of this correlation results from the increasing rates of undescended testicles in males, a condition that causes both male infertility and testicular cancer. In the 1950s per English research, an undescended testicle occurred in 1.6% of births, but now occurs in 3-5% of full terms births and 30% of premature births. This chronology (continual mismanagement of an eventually cancerous undescended testicle) amongst other things was responsible for the death of an anonymous blog writer I followed for years and learned a great deal from.
While male sterilization methods tend to be uniformly administered throughout the environment, due to mammalian biology, female sterilization typically requires more targeted approaches. The only exception I know of to this rule occurred in India in the 1970s, where their prime minister in return for international loans declared martial law and with military force mandated vasectomies, gruesomely sterilizing six million men before being forced to abandon this initiative due to violent male counterprotest (hence why only women are directly targeted for sterilization).
Sterilization through vaccination has long been viewed as the holy grail of population control, as global faith in vaccination allows the covert mass administration of sterilizing substances, and unlike many other methods, in theory it only needs to be done once. As such, a lot of research has been done in this area, but at least until recently, the technology for it was lacking. To fully understand the context of that approach, we will first review what has been done with the forced administration of traditional contraceptive and sterilizing technologies.
While the Nazis, who forcefully sterilized or executed millions they deemed unfit to breed, are history’s most notorious offenders, many sterilization campaigns have been forcibly conducted by governments around the world against poor women of color. One of the best-known examples occurred in the United States from the 1960s to the 1970s. There, the Indian Health Services, through force and deceit, sterilized between 25% to 40% of the female native American population via tubal ligations and hysterectomies, resulting in a halving of their birth rate.
Other examples include:
- 40,000 women that were sterilized in Colombia between 1963-65 by Rockefeller-funded programs.
- A million women were sterilized in Brazil between 1965-1971.
- A U.S.-imposed population control program administered by the Peace Corps in Bolivia sterilized Quechua Indian women without their knowledge or consent.
Population control is less straightforward once direct sterilization is no longer utilized, so it is important to understand the parameters of the existing technologies. On that note, one of the aspects of modern life I have always found to be particularly unfair is the lack of good birth control options. Every single option has serious associated health issues or creates barriers to intimacy. The only ones that don’t (I know many people who use behavioral or spiritual practices such as the rhythm method and semen retention) inevitably fail.
As far as I can tell, the best birth control option is a well-designed diaphragm. Unfortunately, research on this approach was shelved once it was realized birth control pills represented a much more profitable market. While not ideal, my present belief is IUDs that can be tolerated are the best available option. Unfortunately, many women do not tolerate these either (for example, one of my classmates nearly failed out of her first year of medical school due to a bad reaction to a copper IUD).
Sadly, while there are serious health issues associated with the present forms of birth control, the current approaches (with the exception of the recently discontinued Essure) are much safer than many of the earlier experimental forms of birth control (the horror of the Dalkon Shields being an excellent example). Much of this is unknown, because as discussed in the previous article about the military’s horrific forced experimentation with the Anthrax vaccine (which laid the groundwork for Operation Warp Speed), medical research is often conducted on vulnerable populations that typically remain out of sight and out of mind.
From a population management perspective, a long-lasting injectable birth control option is the only feasible option. After all, there’s no guarantee people will take expensive pills indefinitely, it’s unlikely you can regularly re-inject a population, and anything besides an injection is too time consuming to apply to large numbers of people.
One of the best candidates for that approach is the injectable Depo-Provera, one of the more harmful birth control options that has seriously affected the health of many women I know. Depo-Provera, as you would guess, is regularly used by international organizations in third-world countries. Going as far back as almost 50 years ago, in 1979, USAID through the International Planned Parenthood Federation supplied Depo-Provera to 378, 000 women in Mexico, Sri Lanka. and Bangladesh in experimental research projects. Widespread administration of Depo-Provera by these organizations continues to this day (with the additional involvement of more modern organizations such as the Gates Foundation who continue the tradition relentlessly distributing it to vulnerable women).
A push was made to distribute Depo-Provera far and wide, as you might expect, this was often done in an unethical manner where the recipients often had little knowledge of what was being done to them. We will briefly review a few of those examples.
In societies where whites controlled a non-white population, Depo-Provera was often questionably administered to the undesirable demographic. In South Africa, during apartheid, as the whites became increasingly concerned about the accelerating black birth rate, Depo-Provera was forcibly administered to black women at government-funded family planning agencies. To quote Dr. Nthato Motlana, who was at the time one of the country’s leading Black physicians: “there is no such thing as ‘informed consent’ here. The agencies are administering Depo-Provera shots to young black girls without even asking their consent.”
This practice also existed in Zimbabwe, where under white rule Depo-Provera was the most widely used contraceptive among black women until Robert Mugabe, a black man, became prime minister and cancelled the program. Canada, another country that sterilized their indigenous population, also made frequent use of Depo-Provera on this demographic. Lastly, in Western Australia, Depo-Provera was also widely administered by government health services to Aboriginal women. This is a critical context to the cries for help this community has made against the Australian government’s forced COVID vaccination programs.
When desperate situations arise, these too are frequently taken advantage of by international organizations to implement population control campaigns. Receiving Depo-Provera or a sterilization procedure is often made a requirement for receiving international aid. In Bangladesh, an area where individuals frequently starved to death, this was the condition for receiving food. In Thai refugee camps for Cambodians fleeing the collapse of the Khmer Rouge, refugees were often required to receive Depo-Provera to access necessities for survival, and in some cases simply forced to receive it, while male refugees were paid to recruit as many refugees as possible for injection.
When you look back at the above events, there are a variety of different “narratives” that could be used to describe them. Because of how many Depo-Provera shots had been stockpiled for and the money behind the project, for many of those involved in the process, the focus was simply on how to distribute as many as possible. So, whenever an opportunity to increase Depo-Provera uptake arose, it was taken advantage of it, and the ethical questions of using individuals’ desperate circumstances or taking away their right to consent was not even considered.
In other cases, such as that in Bangladesh, it could have easily been reasoned that “if there are too many people here and everyone is starving to death, it is not appropriate to feed someone unless they are also kept from having kids.” Finally, there are the cases, where selected races were deliberately sterilized to protect the interests of the ruling class and it is hard to argue their intentions were anything besides selfish and evil.
Each of these narratives is important to consider as we look at the immoral way the COVID-19 vaccines have been distributed and mandated. These ideas are recurring themes throughout history, and they have all repeatedly shown themselves during the current vaccination campaign.
This is taken from a long document. Read the rest here: substack.com
The Characteristics of Population Control Programs
Of the billions of taxpayer dollars that the U.S. government has expended on population control abroad, a portion has been directly spent by USAID on its own field activities, but the majority has been laundered through a variety of international agencies. As a result of this indirect funding scheme, all attempts to compel the population control empire to conform its activities to accepted medical, ethical, safety, or human rights norms have proven futile. Rather, in direct defiance of laws enacted by Congress to try to correct the situation, what has been and continues to be perpetrated at public expense is an atrocity on a scale so vast and varied as to almost defy description. Nevertheless, it is worth attempting to convey to readers some sense of the evil that is being done with their money. Before describing some case studies, let us consider the primary characteristics manifested by nearly all the campaigns.
First, they are top-down dictatorial. In selling the effort to Americans, USAID and its beneficiaries claim that they are providing Third World women with “choice” regarding childbirth. There is no truth to this claim. As Betsy Hartmann, a liberal feminist critic of these programs, trenchantly pointed out in her 1995 book Reproductive Rights and Wrongs, “a woman’s right to choose” must necessarily include the option of having children — precisely what the population control campaigns deny her. Rather than providing “choice” to individuals, the purpose of the campaigns is to strip entire populations of their ability to reproduce. This is done by national governments, themselves under USAID or World Bank pressure, setting quotas for sterilizations, IUD insertions, or similar procedures to be imposed by their own civil service upon the subject population. Those government employees who meet or exceed their quotas of “acceptors” are rewarded; those who fail to do so are disciplined.
Second, the programs are dishonest. It is a regular practice for government civil servants employed in population control programs to lie to their prospective targets for quota-meeting about the consequences of the operations that will be performed upon them. For example, Third World peasants are frequently told by government population control personnel that sterilization operations are reversible, when in fact they are not.
Third, the programs are coercive. As a regular practice, population control programs provide “incentives” and/or “disincentives” to compel “acceptors” into accepting their “assistance.” Among the “incentives” frequently employed is the provision or denial of cash or food aid to starving people or their children. Among the “disincentives” employed are personal harassment, dismissal from employment, destruction of homes, and denial of schooling, public housing, or medical assistance to the recalcitrant.
Fourth, the programs are medically irresponsible and negligent. As a regular practice, the programs use defective, unproven, unsafe, experimental, or unapproved gear, including equipment whose use has been banned outright in the United States. They also employ large numbers of inadequately trained personnel to perform potentially life-endangering operations, or to maintain medical equipment in a supposedly sterile or otherwise safe condition. In consequence, millions of people subjected to the ministrations of such irresponsibly run population control operations have been killed. This is particularly true in Africa, where improper reuse of hypodermic needles without sterilization in population control clinics has contributed to the rapid spread of deadly infectious diseases, including AIDS.
Fifth, the programs are cruel, callous, and abusive of human dignity and human rights. A frequent practice is the sterilization of women without their knowledge or consent, typically while they are weakened in the aftermath of childbirth. This is tantamount to government-organized rape. Forced abortions are also typical. These and other human rights abuses of the population control campaign have been widely documented, with subject populations victimized in Australia, Bangladesh, China, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Kosovo, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tibet, the United States, Venezuela, and Vietnam.
Sixth, the programs are racist. Just as the global population control program itself represents an attempt by the (white-led) governments of the United States and the former imperial powers of Europe to cut nonwhite populations in the Third World, so, within each targeted nation, the local ruling group has typically made use of the population control program to attempt to eliminate the people they despise. In India, for example, the ruling upper-caste Hindus have focused the population control effort on getting rid of lower-caste untouchables and Muslims. In Sri Lanka, the ruling Singhalese have targeted the Hindu Tamils for extermination. In Peru, the Spanish-speaking descendants of the conquistadors have directed the country’s population control program toward the goal of stemming the reproduction of the darker non-Hispanic natives. In Kosovo, the Serbs used population control against the Albanians, while in Vietnam the Communist government has targeted the population control effort against the Hmong ethnic minority, America’s former wartime allies. In China, the Tibetan and Uyghur minorities have become special targets of the government’s population control effort, with multitudes of the latter rounded up for forced abortions and sterilizations. In South Africa under apartheid, the purpose of the government-run population control program went without saying. In various black African states, whichever tribe holds the reins of power regularly directs the population campaign towards the elimination of their traditional tribal rivals. There should be nothing surprising in any of this. Malthusianism has always been closely linked to racism, because the desire for population control has as its foundation the hatred of others.
The population control agenda has now been implemented in well over a hundred countries. Although we cannot provide detailed accounts of the efforts in each of them here, let us turn now to examine three of the most important and egregious cases.
Since the time of Malthus, India has always been a prime target in the eyes of would-be population controllers. Both the British colonial administrators and the high-caste Brahmins who succeeded them in power following independence in 1947 looked upon the “teeming masses” of that nation’s lower classes with fear and disdain. Jawaharlal Nehru’s Congress Party (which controlled India’s national government for its first three decades without interruption) had been significantly influenced by pre-independence contacts with the pro-Malthusian British Fabian Society. Notable members of the native elite, such as the influential and formidable Lady Rama Rau, had been attracted to the ideas of eugenicist and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. Thus during the 1950s and early 1960s, the Indian government allowed organizations like the Population Council, the Ford Foundation, and the International Planned Parenthood Federation to set up shop within the country’s borders, where they could set about curbing the reproduction of the nation’s Dalits, or “untouchables.” The government did not, however, allocate public funds to these organizations, so their programs remained relatively small.
Things changed radically in 1965, when war with Pakistan threw the country’s economy into disarray, causing harvest failure and loss of revenue. When Prime Minister Indira Gandhi — Nehru’s daughter — assumed office in January 1966, India was short twenty million tons of grain and lacked money to buy replacement stock on the world market. She was left with no choice but to go to the United States, hat in hand, to beg for food aid.
There was a lot that the United States could have asked for in return from India, such as support for the Western side in the Cold War (India was non-aligned), and particularly for the war effort in nearby Vietnam, which was heating up rapidly. One of President Lyndon Johnson’s aides, Joseph Califano, suggested in a memo to the president that the United States move rapidly to commit food aid in order to secure such a pro-American tilt. In reply he got a call from Johnson that very afternoon. “Are you out of your f***ing mind?” the president exploded. He declared in no uncertain terms that he was not going to “piss away foreign aid in nations where they refuse to deal with their own population problems.”
Indira Gandhi arrived in Washington in late March and met first with Secretary of State Dean Rusk, who handed her a memo requiring “a massive effort to control population growth” as a condition for food aid. Then, on March 28, 1966, she met privately with the president. There is no record of their conversation, but it is evident that she capitulated completely. Two days later, President Johnson sent a message to Congress requesting food aid for India, noting with approval: “The Indian government believes that there can be no effective solution of the Indian food problem that does not include population control.”
In accordance with the agreement, sterilization and IUD-insertion quotas were set for each Indian state, and then within each state for each local administrative district. Every hospital in the country had a large portion of its facilities commandeered for sterilization and IUD-insertion activities. (The IUDs, which were provided to the Indian government by the Population Council, were non-sterile. In Maharashtra province, 58 percent of women surveyed who received them experienced pain, 24 percent severe pain, and 43 percent severe and excessive bleeding.) But hospitals alone did not have the capacity to meet the quotas, so hundreds of sterilization camps were set up in rural areas, manned and operated by paramedical personnel who had as little as two days of training. Minimum quotas were set for the state-salaried camp medics — they had to perform 150 vasectomies or 300 IUD insertions per month each, or their pay would be docked. Private practitioners were also recruited to assist, with pay via piecework: 10 rupees per vasectomy and 5 rupees per IUD insertion.
To acquire subjects for these ministrations, the Indian government provided each province with 11 rupees for every IUD insertion, 30 per vasectomy, and 40 per tubectomy. These funds could be divided according to the particular population control plan of each provincial government, with some going to program personnel, some spent as commission money to freelance “motivators,” some paid as incentives to the “acceptors,” and some grafted for other governmental or private use by the administrators. Typical incentives for subjects ranged from 3 to 7 rupees for an IUD insertion and 12 to 25 rupees for a sterilization. These sums may seem trivial — a 1966 rupee is equivalent to 65 cents today — but at that time, 2 to 3 rupees was a day’s pay for an Indian laborer.
When these pittances did not induce enough subjects to meet the quotas, some states adopted additional “incentives”: Madhya Pradesh, for example, denied irrigation water to villages that failed to meet their quotas. Faced with starvation, millions of impoverished people had no alternative but to submit to sterilization. As the forms of coercion employed worked most effectively on the poorest, the system also provided the eugenic bonus of doing away preferentially with untouchables.
The results were impressive. In 1961, the total number of sterilizations (vasectomies and tubectomies combined) performed in India was 105,000. In 1966-67, the yearly total shot up to 887,000, growing further to more than 1.8 million in 1967-68. No doubt LBJ was proud.
But while ruining the lives of millions of people, the steep rise in sterilization figures had little impact on the overall trajectory of India’s population growth. In 1968, Paul Ehrlich wrote in The Population Bomb, “I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks India will be self sufficient in food by 1971, if ever,” thus justifying his explicitly antihuman call that “we must allow [India] to slip down the drain.” As in so many other things, Ehrlich was wrong; India did achieve self-sufficiency in food in 1971 — not through population control, but through the improved agricultural techniques of the Green Revolution. It did not matter. The holders of the purse-strings at USAID demanded even higher quotas. They got them. By 1972-73, the number of sterilizations in India reached three million per year.
Continued on next page…