William Walter Kay
This posting advertises for a recently published e-book available at www.amazon.com titled:
From Malthus to Mifepristone: A Primer on the Population Control Movement
You should be able to find it here:
This posting presents only the book’s Table of Contents, Introductory Synopsis, and four-part Conclusion. The complete book has 200 pages of text and 30 pages of footnotes and bibliography. The book contains 233 standard footnotes plus links to the official webpages of 137 the most prominent organizations within the modern population control movement. The bibliography also contains links and references to scores of books, academic papers, government reports and news articles dealing with population control. There is also a list of 43 lists of population control organizations (which number in the thousands) gleaned from around the Internet.
Table of Contents
The History of the Population Control Movement from 1798 to 1998
Eugenics, Social Darwinism, and Conservationism from 1853 to 1918
Anglo-American Population Control during the Fascist Era (1919-1942)
Anglo-American Population Control Movement Thought Leaders 1947-1952
Population Control from 1948 to the Mid-1960s Breakthrough
The Mid-1960s Breakthrough
Mobilizing the Intelligentsia 1968-1972
Global Population Control and US Foreign Policy 1969-1977
Domestic Population Control in the USA 1965-1977
From Mexico City 1984 to Cairo 1994
1960s to 1990s Growth of the Global Contraception-Abortion-Sterilization Complex
Population Control in Imperial Japan and Occupied Japan 1925-1955
Population Control in India from the Famine of 1876 to the Population Emergency of 1975
Population Control in China 1971-1989
Population Control in Nigeria 1985-1993
The Population Control Movement Banned DDT
Dr. Reimert Thorolf Ravenholt: the Very Model of Modern Major Malthusian
Origins of Neo-Malthusianism’s LGBT Vanguard
With Feminists Like These, Who Needs Misogynists
Parting Shots at the Hired Gun Connelly
The Modern Population Control Movement
Traditional Population Control Advocacy
Global Population Control and Foreign Aid
Foreign Aid Contractors within the Global Population Control Complex
Neo-Malthusian Philanthropic Foundations
Contraceptive Manufacturers in the Population Control Complex
The Anglo-American Abortion Industry and its Activist Auxiliary
Second Wave Feminism’s Global Reach
Note on this posting’s Main Source Material
Some Notable Secondary Source Materials
The population control movement, perhaps better identified as the contraception-abortion-sterilization medical-industrial complex, is one of the world’s most powerful social movements. This book provides a brief history, and contemporary description, of this movement.
Our narrative begins in the 1790s with Malthus’s Essay on Population. Malthus wrote for two audiences. To the general public he pontificated highfalutin pseudo-science. To fellow gentry he anxiously introduced Political Economics.
Malthus did not really think the world was overpopulated. He wrote about the “scanty population of the earth.” He worried not about Earth’s ecological carrying capacity but about: “the natural tendency of the labouring classes of society to increase beyond the demand for their labour.”
The Berkshire Bread Act (1795) spurred Malthus to activism. The Act used parish levies to supplement incomes of the poor. Certain rural elites, represented by Malthus, feared such payments would undermine labour discipline.
In 1803 Malthus said of the unemployed man:
“…if the society do not want his labour, he has no claim of right to the smallest portion of food, and, in fact, has no business to be where he is.”
Malthus did not want English labourers to emigrate. He did not want them to stop having kids. He simply did not want them breeding beyond the market demand for their labour.
Population control historians excavate evolving forms of racism. Not all racisms are equal. The old gut racism – the unreasoning xenophobic bigoted variety based mainly on skin colour, prominent during the epoch of slavery and conquest – has slid into the gutter. Scientific Racism emerged late-19th century as a self-perpetuating creed espoused by aristocrats and salon keepers determined to keep the ancient regime afloat upon a stream of pseudo-genetic simplisms, pseudo-historical narratives, and pseudo-Darwinian jabberwocky. Scientific Racism morphed, mid-20th century, into Crypto-Eugenics.
Scientific Racism frequently involved white versus white racism. It conflated economic class with biological race. Scientific Racism’s social base, Europe’s landed interest, fancied themselves not as a class but as an ancestral lineage. They defined other classes likewise, often in elaborate physiological detail.
This economic racism peaked at the Second International Congress of Eugenics in New York City (1921) where “pedigrees of pauper stocks” showcased as the marquis topic. One paper stressed the existence of a definite “race” of paupers while denouncing the “charity madness” allowing this race to proliferate. In his keynote address, Count Vacher de Lapouge declared:
“The war of the classes is in fact a war of the races.”
Eugenics, the “science” of improving human genes, arrived decades earlier off the pen of Darwin’s cousin, Sir Francis Galton. After Galton inherited a fortune at age 22, he quit medical school for the life of the Victorian dilettante, attaining prominence with his 1869 book, Hereditary Genius. Galton’s revelation, illuminated with statistical rigour, was that the children of bankers and cabinet ministers are more likely to find fame and fortune than are the children of sharecroppers and ditch diggers.
The Malthusian League received impetus from the sensational 1877 trial of Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant. Charged with obscenity for publishing a pro-contraceptive pamphlet, the duo claimed to be helping couples have non-procreative sex to alleviate overpopulation. Besant intoned: “the time will come when the earth cannot support its inhabitants.” Defence witness, and later Malthusian League President, Charles Drysdale pointed approvingly to the French who limited fertility through every imaginable alternative to conventional sex.
Malthusians morphed into Neo-Malthusians when they began proactively facilitating mass birth control. Neo-Malthusians, sometimes self-defining as Eugenicists or Social Darwinists, obsessed over the Social Problem Group (chronic paupers, working poor). This “race” begged confinement in a rightful, lowly place.
Economic racists wanted inheritance tax laws to preserve families of noble rank. They wanted to spare themselves from dropping a dime on programs for the Social Problem Group. They blamed the poor’s hereditary endowments for hunger-related diseases, illiteracy, and for poverty itself. Their well-cultivated sadistic insensitivity pervaded academia circa 1921.
The American Birth Control League was launched in 1921 to represent birth control clinics in the US Northeast. League founders were considered notorious racists even by contemporaries. Their journal’s first editorial sloganeered:
“More children from the fit, less from the unfit – that is the chief issue of birth control.”
The heroines of birth control – Marie Stopes, Elise Ottesen-Jensen, Margaret Sanger et al. – were merely the public faces of male-dominated eugenicist cabals. Biographies of Margaret Sanger in particular suffer from severe agency inversion. Oligarchic dynasties like the Rockefellers, Dukes, Scaifes, Sulzbergers, and Duponts, being inheritors of wealth, justified themselves as being products of superior breeding. They despised mongrels. They invented Sanger. She didn’t recruit them; au contraire. At the same time these heroines fully embraced their masters’ politics. Sanger repeatedly made notoriously fascistic pronouncements. Stopes was a Nazi-sympathizer.
Galton proposed mass sterilization in the late 1880s to stem the rise of inferior breeds of Englishmen. In the USA, state legislatures began passing compulsory sterilization bills in the 1890s. These were vetoed by Governors or blocked by courts until 1907 when Indiana enacted the world’s first compulsory sterilization law. Thirty states followed Indiana’s lead.
The nucleus of American sterilization activism, the Eugenics Record Office (ERO), began in 1910 with a gift of $500,000 from Mrs. E.H. Harriman – the railway tycoon’s widow, who sustained ERO for several years until the Carnegie Institute assumed its costs. ERO’s Model Eugenical Sterilization Law stipulated forced sterilization for the feeble-minded, criminalistic, inebriate, and chronically unemployed. ERO distributed copies of their Model Law to eager legislators, clergy, professors, and editors.
The Third Reich’s sterilization law repeated verbatim ERO’s Model Law. This should not surprise. Hitler’s chosen Reich Commissioner for Eugenics had earlier been chosen to lead the International Federation of Eugenics Organizations at a conference in New York. That is but one of a long list of biographical overlaps between Anglo-American eugenicists and Axis eugenicists.
Deep splits did emerge among eugenicists during the fascist era. Italian Fascists domestically favoured “positive eugenics” (helping preferred couples have many children) and “eliminatory eugenics” overseas, as witnessed by their killing a million North Africans with chemical munitions and aerial bombardments to make way for Italian colonists. Similarly, Imperial Japan domestically suppressed birth control and made the five-child family the national norm before embarking on its genocidal onslaught in China. The Nazis exhibited positive, negative, and eliminatory eugenics in spades while the Anglo-Americans focused on “negative eugenics,” i.e. foisting contraception, abortion, and sterilization onto their labouring masses.
Anglo-Americans prevailed in World War II; hence, Anglo-American eugenics prevailed in population control … with modifications. Outspoken racists and classists became movement liabilities. British Eugenics Society President, C.P. Blacker, described the movement’s new orientation as “Crypto-Eugenics,” meaning:
“…an effort to fulfil the aims of eugenics without disclosing what you’re really aiming at and without ever mentioning the word.”
Blacker co-founded International Planned Parenthood Federation as a Crypto-Eugenics initiative. While the refurbished movement remained thoroughly racist and classist, it deployed: “overpopulation,” “family planning,” “maternal health,” and “women’s liberation” as its rallying cries.
Crypto-Eugenics’ debut in post-war Japan began with demographic scrutiny – five censuses in five years. In 1950 articles about overpopulation saturated Japanese media. US Occupiers pressured the Japanese Diet into declaring Japan “extremely overpopulated” and into legalizing abortion and 27 types of contraception. To locals, this campaign appeared to be Japanese-driven. Abortions, almost unheard of in 1945, exceeded live births by 40% in 1955. Japan’s birth rate plummeted 50%.
This modernized movement mustered along the margins until 1965. Key American players included the Rockefeller family, Ford Foundation, and a third clique revolving around fanatical Neo-Malthusian Hugh Moore (owner of Dixie Cup) and wealthy Nazi-sympathizer General William Draper. The Moore-Draper clique’s Population Crisis Committee swarmed President Johnson’s Administration, thereby commandeering billions of taxpayer dollars for the Cause.
In 1960 three countries had comprehensive fertility suppression policies. By 1970 twenty-five countries (two-thirds of humanity) had such policies. Between 1969 and 1978 seventeen countries broadened the sweep of their sterilization programs. Between 1967 and 1979 forty-two countries legalized abortion.
Much of modern population control boils down to: abortion, IUD installation, and female sterilization. Such procedures are the turf of obstetricians and gynecologists. Ob-Gyns are incentivized to promote the destigmatization and subsidization of these medical procedures. Many gynecologists (Dr. Alan Guttmacher, Dr. Derek Llewellyn-Jones, Dr. Theodore King et al.) were Neo-Malthusian masterminds. Ob-Gyn professional associations such as the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics and American College for Obstetrics and Gynecology are integrated into the population control complex on multiple levels. Their agenda becomes most sinister when the doctor-patient power imbalance is exploited to expedite sterilizations.
63,678 Americans suffered forced sterilization between 1907 and 1964. This pales compared to other forced sterilization programs. During the 12-year Third Reich, two million German citizens (5% of adults) were sterilized, often for alleged moral failings. During India’s Population Emergency, eight million Indians underwent coerced sterilization in a single year (1976), often at the shaky hands of paramedics with two days’ training who used non-sterilized surgical equipment.
For the most part, modern sterilization campaigns deploy subtler forms of coercion. In 1974 a Federal Court Judge estimated up to 100,000 low-income Americans were annually coerced into sterilization under the unlawful threat of welfare benefits being discontinued. Also in the 1970s, after abortions became routinized, sterilization became a condition for abortion approval in America’s teaching hospitals.
Population controllers in Puerto Rico pioneered the tactic of pressuring women, immediately post childbirth, into accepting sterilization. The postpartum technique, developed with Rockefeller funds, recognized that it was easy to “capture” women while they lay bedridden in maternity wards. One campaign instigated privately in the 1960s, then transferred to the US Department of Health, sterilized one-third of Puerto Rican women by 1975.
In 1995 President Clinton’s population lieutenant, Timothy Wirth, paid a special visit to Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori to announce an additional $15 million in aid. (USAID had already commandeered Peru’s public health system.) In the wake of Wirth’s visit, Fujimori launched a USAID-funded sterilization campaign targeting Inca women. Teams conducted “ligation festivals” in village after village. Women were subjected to repeated home visits, verbal abuse, and threats of withdrawal of food aid. Ninety percent of the 315,000 women sterilized were pressured and/or told tubal ligations were reversible procedures.
Surgical sterilization is now the world’s most common form of birth control. Globally, one in five married women aged 15 to 49 have been sterilized.
In the USA, 27% of those women who use some form of contraception have been “permanently contracepted” (i.e. surgically sterilized). 700,000 more are sterilized every year. Over half of these operations are performed postpartum. Sterilizations follow 10% of births. Another large percentage of sterilizations occur post-abortion. Abortion doctors systematically foist sterilization, or IUD insertion, onto every patient.
Nineteenth century abortions were as likely to kill the mother as the fetus. Advances in antibiotics and surgical technique created an early 20th century situation wherein wealthy men could safely terminate the unwanted pregnancies of their mistresses or daughters. For a hefty fee, society doctors would perform abortions elegantly mislabelled curettages to skirt existing laws. Thus, the pro-abortion crusade was never about safe abortions for the upper crust. Such people led the crusade, but they already had access to abortions. The crusade was driven by fears of lower castes swelling the welfare rolls.
Britain’s movement to legalize abortion began in earnest in 1936 with the founding of the Neo-Malthusian and eugenicist Abortion Law Reform Association. They triumphed with the Abortion Act of 1967. Victory in the USA took six more years and required much race-baiting and overpopulation hysteria. At the height of this drive (1968), two prominent pro-abortion activists each released legendary manifestos.
Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb and Garrett Hardin’s The Tragedy of the Commons are among the most widely read documents in history. Both rail against overpopulation and explicitly reject the “freedom to breed.” Hardin, a life-long eugenicist and racist, later admitted to deploying feminist rhetoric to conceal personal motives which he rightly believed would have been interpreted as Nazism.
New York State legalized abortion in 1970. After a 1973 Supreme Court ruling struck down restrictions on abortion, most states followed New York’s lead. Therewith abortion legalization and destigmatization had swept the Anglosphere. Seventy-five million abortions have been performed in the US, UK, Canada, and Australia since legalization. A multi-billion dollar abortion industry has arisen. Abortion clinics became the principal venues for long-lasting contraceptive installation.
As went the Anglosphere, so went the world. By 1979 four-fifths of humanity lived where abortion was legal. USA, Sweden, and Norway promoted abortions in poor countries before providing, or even allowing, them at home. Abortion was contraception’s “silent partner” in the subsequent sharp fertility declines. Presently 50 to 60 million abortions are performed annually across the globe.
In 2014 there were 926,200 surgical and pharmaceutical abortions performed in the USA. One in five US pregnancies ends in abortion. One in four American women have had an abortion. The average cost of a non-hospital surgical abortion is $508. The average cost of a pharmaceutical abortion is $535.
Of the 190,406 abortions performed in England and Wales in 2016, two-thirds were pharmaceutically induced. This abortifacient revolution has been wrought primarily by two pharmaceuticals: mifepristone and misoprostol – frequently taken in combination. Controversy surrounds other compounds marketed as “morning after” pills, which might be abortifacients.
In 1994 the Population Council obtained US patent rights for mifepristone. (This would be the sixth groundbreaking contraceptive technology introduced by the Population Council.) The Council leased the tableting and distribution rights for mifepristone to a secretive New York firm, Danco Laboratories, owned by “individuals and foundations supportive of abortion rights.” The only known investor is the Packard Foundation. (Misoprostol’s main supplier, Pfizer, markets the drug under the name Cytotec.)
Six-hundred and fifty of America’s 1,671 abortion clinics are Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) Health Centers. These centres currently perform 325,000 surgical and pharmaceutical abortions annually. They prescribe 700,000 emergency contraception kits (morning after pills) and perform 1.8 million contraception procedures, including 600,000 IUDs, implants, and injections every year.
Planned Parenthood spends $350 million a year on activism, advocacy, and lobbying. They hold 2,000 events a year, including mass demonstrations. To recruit young women, they sponsor 300 “Generation Active” campus clubs. Their recent “I Defy” blitz recruited 150,000 young female activists. The field marshal of these campaigns doubles as the top executive of the Lesbian Political Action Committee.
The global market for condoms (male and female), IUDs (regular and hormone releasing), contraceptive pills (regular and “morning after”), injectable contraceptives, and subcutaneous implants is altogether worth around $25 billion a year. The condom industry alone has annual sales of $10 billion.
Modern contraceptive products (pharmaceuticals, IUDs, implants, etc) originated not from normal capitalist market processes but from research and development financed by non-profit philanthropic and academic organizations motivated by desires to suppress fertility. These organizations forged joint ventures with pharmaceutical giants like Bayer, Merck, and Pfizer, which have their own research, development, and marketing departments, and their own philanthropic and academic extensions.
Much of the advanced modern contraceptive market consists of consumers who would not buy these products if the products were not subsidized, or otherwise facilitated or compelled, by government policy. Due to lobbying by the population control complex, most Western governments at least partially cover the costs of modern contraceptive products, especially for low-income women.
Demand for contraception in the Global South is so low contraceptive products are typically given away. In 2016 USAID’s Family Planning and Reproductive Health division gave away 637 million condoms, 26 million birth control pills, 18 million contraceptive injections, 2 million implants, and 1 million IUDs. Several other donor countries demonstrate similar generosity.
Moving so much merchandise requires sophisticated campaigns undertaken by specialized firms. Barrages of radio and TV commercials and scripted soap operas gin up contraception acceptors. Marketing is guided by colossal foreign-government-funded demographic research.
In the 1980s, while Nigeria groaned under General Babangida’s dictatorship, a World Bank-UNFPA-USAID population control operation inundated Nigerians with 3,000 media “interventions.” These included pop songs with anti-family lyrics, crafted television and radio dramas, and surreptitiously inserted anti-natalist news articles. Nigerians believed they were experiencing a spontaneous cultural sea-change.
Countries with authoritarian cultures have higher degrees of contraceptive compliance. Seventy percent of South Korean women of childbearing age have had IUDs inserted. Fewer than 10% of comparable Western women are so equipped. Big Pharma is bullish on IUDs.
Several million Western European and Anglo-American citizens currently belong to organizations espousing the belief that the world and/or their homelands are overpopulated. Organizations such as: Population Reference Bureau, Population Action International (formerly Population Crisis Committee), Population Connection (formerly Zero Population Growth), Ecopop (Switzerland), Reintrodolce (Italy), Population Matters (UK), Population Institute Canada, Sustainable Population Australia, and Ten Million (Netherlands) have a cumulative annual budget in the hundreds of millions of dollars and collectively employ a thousand professionals.
Persons openly bemoaning overpopulation are, however, doubly marginalized within their own social movement network. Powerful institutional allies ensconced on the front lines of promoting abortion, contraception, and sterilization forsook old-school Malthusian rhetoric in favour of the “sexual and reproductive health and rights” revolution.
As well, while mainstream environmentalists accept Malthusian precepts, most tone down overpopulation rhetoric and in particular eschew any dicey talk of restricting immigration. On the other hand, the explicit population controllers, including their large anti-immigrant faction, continue to deploy environmentalist and reproductive rights rationales.
The main line deployed by anti-immigration campaigners, however, does not seriously argue that there is not enough environmental space to house immigrants; rather, it contends that the economy cannot absorb immigrants fast enough. This echoes the real Malthus. Ecology is but a neo-religious ruse. Population controllers, in general, do not really believe the planet cannot handle additional people. They believe the global labour market cannot profitably employ rapid additions of people.
Despite these shallow fissures, environmentalists, population controllers, and reproductive rights campaigners remain a single social movement family, albeit one wherein the mainstream majority for now expediently downplays the overpopulation line.
A reconciling vanguard can be seen in groups like Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). An upstart in 1989, CBD now has 150 employees, $17 million in annual revenues, and a board stocked with well-positioned professional environmentalists. CBD mobilizes and litigates around land conservation issues across western USA, especially in California where they resist urban sprawl. CBD literature is loaded with references to “rampant population growth.” Decrying overpopulation as the root of all environmental evils, CBD demands “universal access to reproductive healthcare” while handing out condoms emblazoned with images of endangered species.
An array of other hybrid vanguard organizations fuses environmentalism with Neo-Malthusianism and for-profit traits with non-profit structures and governance functions. Blue Ventures merges traditional wilderness preservation activism with a chain of eco-tourism hotels and birth control clinics. The Swedish Association for Sexual Education is a foreign aid government services population control contractor and a supplier of Swedish public school sex education materials. (It also runs an urban STD clinic and a large for-profit condom and sex toy business.) Multifaceted global population control powerhouses like RTI, Jhpiego et al. began as, and remain structurally attached to, major university campuses.
Many academic disciplines aid and abet population control: Women’s Studies, Queer Studies, and the wide array of Ecology, Enviro-Science, and Conservation Biology faculties. To these must be added Gynecology-related departments within medical colleges and the archipelago of on-campus facilities researching pharmaceutical contraceptives and abortifacients.
The faculty most akin to population control is Demography. Pioneering institutions like Princeton’s Office of Population Research were population control movement inventions, wholly absorbed in the Cause. Movement saints like Judith Blake (founder of Berkeley’s Demography Department) engaged in population control activism for their entire careers and presumed Demography to be a movement instrumentality.
Mobilizing elite and public opinion around “overpopulation” requires authoritative research. Demographers provide this. Fertility suppression requires statistical analysis of the number of babies born in a given area and of the social cohorts making those babies. Demographers provide this as well. Demographers monitor: abortion rates, contraceptive use, high fertility remnants, and those ethnic and socioeconomic cohorts resisting the population control agenda. Much modern marketing, consumer research, election analysis, opinion polling, and census data mining originated as Neo-Malthusian Demography.
Foreign aid agencies and foundations hire Demography grads who then spend their careers moving amidst various movement institutions. These same organizations give research grants to Demography faculties. Demography remains a movement toolbox.
Population control consists of two geographically distinct phenomena: (a) the domestic abortion, contraception, and sterilization policies and markets within Western Europe and the English-speaking world; and (b) efforts by governments and elites from Western Europe and the Anglosphere to impose similar policies and markets onto the Global South.
The main thrust of global population control consists of national governments from a dozen wealthy, industrialized Anglo-American and Northwest European countries collectively, and in a coordinated fashion, spending over $10 billion a year on suppressing birth rates in several dozen South Asian, Sub-Saharan Africa, Caribbean, and Latin American countries. Some of this money goes directly from donor country to recipient country. Some money is mediated through multilateral agencies. Most money is spent where wages and services cost a small fraction of what they do in donor countries. Population programs are merely one component of a much larger effort to control the recipient countries.
The main funding agencies are: US State Department, USAID, German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development, French Foreign Ministry, Agence Francaise de Development, Global Affairs Canada, Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Swedish International Development Agency, Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, and Britain’s Department for International Development.
The main multilateral agencies are: United Nations Population Fund, World Bank Group, World Health Organization, UN Population Division, UN Commission on Population and Development and UN Women.
These agencies cooperate with a network of philanthropic foundations headquartered in the USA and Europe that have been at the forefront of population control for decades. These philanthropies currently spend around $2 billion a year on domestic and global population control. The entirety of their diverse and enormous grantmaking portfolios (to the arts, academia, etc.) facilitates, in one way or another, the population control agenda. The directors and executives of these foundations do not answer to politicians or shareholders. They reside near the centre of the population control galaxy.
The population control efforts of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (assets $38 billion) are buried within its variegated, multi-billion dollar “health” portfolio. Over the last 20 years the Gates Foundation donated $2.4 billion to the World Health Organization (WHO) – making Gates the second largest contributor to WHO, behind only the US Government. Bill Gates decries human population growth as an existential environmental threat. Similarly, Ted Turner, the billionaire founder and current Chairman of the pivotal UN Foundation, repeatedly calls for draconian reductions in global population.
The Rockefeller Foundation and Ford Foundation have been substantive bankrollers of population control for several decades. They and other foundations (Hewlett, MacArthur, Packard, Britain’s Wellcome Trust, India’s Tata Trusts, etc.) each pour scores of millions of dollars a year into the Cause.
Most of the global population control budget (philanthropic and governmental) is farmed out to third-party contractors. While hardly household names, contractors such as Development Alternatives Inc., PSI, FHI 360 and Chemonics employ thousands of professionals and manage annual budgets of hundreds of millions of dollars.
These contractors constitute a distinct, dynamic layer within the population control complex providing autonomy and intrigue that would not exist if governments implemented their own programs. These contractors are organizationally welded to Big Pharma and to zealously Neo-Malthusian philanthropies. They provide a social location whereat corporations and foundations can effectively appropriate government funds and imprimatur. The contracting firms are managed by a wealthy self-interested milieu well-positioned and well-equipped to lobby politicians and shape public opinion, with taxpayer dollars.
In 2016, one contractor, Marie Stopes International (MSI) performed 3.6 million abortions at its 600 clinics. MSI’s 13,000 employees annually provide some 20 million women with long-lasting or “permanent” contraception. International Planned Parenthood Federation posts similar numbers.
High profile “charities” like Save the Children, Plan International, and Care International are contracted to perform a broad array of functions; thus, fertility suppression constitutes a small portion of their budgets. The enormous size of these charities, however, renders their contribution to population control significant.
Assessing the scale of global population control is problematic for various reasons, not the least of which is the deliberate hiding of fertility suppression programs inside other public health, usually maternal health, budget categories. The colossal sum devoted to combatting HIV/AIDS goes in part to distributing condoms and to promoting non-procreative sexuality – traditional population control endeavours. As well, HIV-positive women are subjected to forced sterilization and abortion – again, traditional population control programs.
Second Wave Feminism is a subsidiary social movement. Its leaders are chosen and guided by its male-dominated parent – the population control movement. Adrienne Germain, Nafis Sadik, Joan Dunlop, Bella Abzug, Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan, Helen Gurley Brown, Gloria Steinem, and Germaine Greer were but the Ladies’ Auxiliary of an unabashedly male-chauvinist movement. Their celebrated writings would have been ignored had those writings not dovetailed exquisitely with the population control agenda.
The modern contraceptive industry emerged dripping blood and tears from massive, frequently horrific, experiments on impoverished women. The graphic misogyny manifested therein was entirely consistent with a social movement that:
(a) programmatically doubts women’s capacity to control their sexuality;
(b) cavalierly devalues women’s consent regarding invasive life-warping medical procedures;
(c) rejects as a fundamental human right, a woman’s right to bear children, certainly her right to choose a large family;
(d) imposes public health regimes wherein abortion, sterilization, and contraception devour the meager medical resources set aside for women’s health; and
(e) donates ultrasound machines to the developing world in order to facilitate the wholesale targeting of girl fetuses for abortion.
In the early 1970s the then obviously male-dominated population control movement, prompted by John D. Rockefeller III, decided that “overpopulation” rationales should yield to neo-feminist critiques stressing reproductive rights. Thereafter population controllers cultivated a new women’s auxiliary. By the late 1980s, women accounted for one-third of international population organization staff and UNFPA had a female executive director.
During the UN’s watershed 1994 International Conference of Population and Development (Cairo), the mainstream media focused almost exclusively on representatives from a fresh foundation-funded feminist NGO network. These reps uniformly opined that the only solution to unsafe abortions was safe abortions and that abortions overall could be only reduced through increasing contraceptive use.
The quintessence of American Second Wave Feminism remains Washington, DC-based National Organization for Women (NOW). Erupting from the 1966 volcano of overpopulation hysteria, NOW solidified into a 500-chapter institution with over 100,000 members, its own political action committee, and its own foundation.
On the global front, the quintessence of Second Wave Feminism, UN Women, coalesced following the 1975 UN Conference on Women. Its precursor, Women’s International Network, was a Population Crisis Committee front group. Today, UN Women draws annual revenues of $400 million, mainly from the American, British, and Swedish governments. UN Women strives to:
“Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes.”
UN Women embeds into governments cadres of women committed to increasing the incidence of contraception and abortion.
In March 2018 UN Women’s sister organization, the Commission on the Status of Women, held a convention in New York City. Over 2,000 officials from 170 states and 4,300 representatives from 600 civil society organizations attended this two-week confab, at Western taxpayers’ expense.
Today, a thousand or so structured, incorporated, Western-based, elite-funded Second Wave Feminist NGOs and UN agencies engage in fertility suppression activism around the world. Their collective budget exceeds $1 billion, and they employ probably 40,000 full-time staff. From transgendered rights to global warming, these groups issue identical rhetoric and advance identical policy recommendations.
Not all feminism, let alone all women’s struggles, are derivative instrumentalities of reactionary elites. Nevertheless, there indisputably exists within the women’s movement a tributary of agencies whose sole purpose is aggrandizing the contraception-abortion-sterilization medical-industrial complex.
Just like Second Wave Feminism, homosexualism (the “gay agenda”) is a population control movement subsidiary.
While Malthus acknowledged that increasing the prevalence of sodomy would slow population growth, his religious convictions prevented him from condoning this as a strategy.
As vice-president of the flagrantly racist and classist Eugenics Education Society, Havelock Ellis enthusiastically participated in the central committee of the First International Congress of Eugenics (1912). To Ellis the main purpose of eugenics was contracepting the poor. He supported compulsory sterilization and indoctrination. Ellis’s seven-volume Studies in the Psychology of Sex (1897-1928) was the first English treatise to give sympathetic treatment to homosexuality and transvestism.
In the 1920s and 1930s the World League for Sex Reform and like groupings pulled together homosexualist pioneers, eugenicists, Neo-Malthusians, and pro-abortion activists.
The population-obsessed Rockefeller clan picked up this project in the 1940s with their bankrolling of Alfred Kinsey’s culturally transformative research and writing.
By the mid-1960s the population control movement found itself sufficiently embedded atop government and business to begin piloting media and academic communications on a grand scale. Movement leaders believed high-intensity propaganda campaigns should be deployed to change reproductive behaviour. In several smoking-gun statements from this era, movement mandarins explicitly recommended promoting homosexuality as a fertility suppression strategy. Thus began “gay liberation.”
World Association for Sexual Health and Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States continue the effort to steer sexual norms. Their championing of non-procreative sex obviously facilitates fertility suppression. The latter is a Planned Parenthood spin-off.
Funders for LGBTQ Issues and Funders for Reproductive Equity march in lockstep. Both groups serve as hubs for an overlapping set of foundations that fund both fertility suppression and homosexual activism. The LGBT cause is supplemented by the US Government’s Global Equality Fund, and even more so by the Swedish treasury. Philanthropic and governmental sponsorship is the sprocket driving the big media-academia wheel.
Increasing the incidence of sodomy may seem a pharaonic act of social engineering, but it is not magnitudes more challenging than increasing contraceptive use. Most married women now use contraceptive technologies only recently concocted by Neo-Malthusian philanthropists. The contraception crusade begat a global sexual revolution. Comparatively, the social engineering of substantial increases in homosexuality and transgenderism is not an insurmountable endeavour, albeit it is potentially a much more consequential one.
Imagine being a prominent member of a well-funded alliance missioned to suppress population growth within a designated area. How best to proceed?
Be mindful: humourless bean-counters from Princeton’s Office of Population Research, or some such demography institute, are monitoring your alliance’s performance. Every bouncing baby born under your watch blemishes your record.
Birth rates are not your sole job performance metric. Accounts are kept on the number of contraceptive pills prescribed, the number of condoms distributed, and on the number abortions induced. Demographers will keep a keen eye on how many babies are born unto “problem” socioeconomic and ethnic cohorts. They will tally participation in non-procreative sex associations.
Of course, you conform to the laws of the land. You can’t drag prolific fathers before Eugenics Courts and order them vasectomized. You can’t frogmarch handcuffed expectant moms up abortion clinic steps. You can’t assassinate opponents.
On the other hand, your alliance does not march alone. You are part of a vast political movement with allies in high places pulling strings to ensure the mainstream media maintains a high-pressure anti-natalist cultural atmosphere.
Much of your challenge consists of struggling for resources within your movement. The foundations, corporations, and government agencies sustaining you are also being courted by like alliances from other regions. Similarly, anticipate much annoying jockeying for resources and control among groups from within your regional alliance.
Basic to your mission is supporting an array of well-provisioned, professionally managed, conveniently located “family planning” clinics. These clinics may be privately run or annexed to local hospitals. These clinics perform abortions and disburse contraceptives – especially emergency contraceptives. Clinic staff are trained to destigmatize abortion and to persuade every walk-in to consider accepting long-acting contraceptive implants. Your sexually transmitted disease clinics play ancillary roles: disbursing condoms, discouraging unprotected sex, and referring at-risk women to your family planning clinics.
Communicative outreach can be done through high schools, universities, women’s groups, community associations, hospitals, pharmacies, and doctors’ offices. Try to inform every woman of childbearing age within your region about the full complement of contraceptive and abortion options available to her. You must morally cleanse and normalize these products and services. Communication can be attempted through billboards, posters, brochures, info tables, radio ads, telephone hotlines, guest lectures, workshops, and one-on-one counselling.
Your clinics have staff gynecologists ready to perform abortions and surgical contraception. Further efforts should be made to encourage obstetricians in your region to recommend postpartum sterilizations or IUD insertions. Seeking allies among doctors is important both from a service provision and a lobbying standpoint.
Lobbying local and regional governments will be your main battlefield. Issues include: public health coverage for abortion and contraception, abortion clinic defence, support for LGBT youth, school sex education curricula and so on. These governments may become funding sources for alliance members.
Lobbying will be facilitated by mobilizing voters and by involving your agents and supporters directly in candidate selection processes, and policy discussion fora, of the major parties. Shows of force such as pro-choice rallies, women’s marches, and gay pride parades impress politicians. Welcome support from “liberal” (Neo-Malthusian) churches, social clubs, and green groups.
Regional private sector insurers and employers should be prevailed upon to include contraceptive coverage in their benefit packages. As well, employers should be urged to offer only minimalist, career-stunting forms of parental leave.
See to it that day care is over-regulated and expensive. Subsidies to day care that might lighten a parent’s load should be quietly opposed. Having kids must remain financially draining and time consuming.
Youth recruitment will be a major focus, not just to combat the immitigable horror of teenage pregnancy, but also to program the next generation’s reproductive behaviour. Pitching abstinence at this cohort is an errand best left to your Christian social conservative opponents. Directives from on high compel you to push: contraception, homosexuality, and gender strife.
Campus gender wars are the stock-in-trade of your key allies: Women’s Studies faculties and their disciples in student feminist clubs. Fortunately for you, all campuses now come furnished with Queer Studies faculties with their acolytes arranged in obstreperous LGBT students’ societies.
Enrolling teenagers is obstructed by parental involvement in school boards. Gay-Straight Alliances are the thin edge of your wedge. Remember: one teenage girl inducted into lesbianism equals two and a half virtual fetuses vanishing into the ether.
Your frontier, in both high schools and universities, is transgenderism (coitophobic gender obfuscation).
Resisting regional immigration may or may not be sanctioned by the high command. Fomenting ethnic strife has utility, but it is dangerous to ally with high-fertility remnants of dominant ethnicities. A related pitfall is alienating ethnic minorities who may then configure your fertility suppression campaign to be unfairly targeting them. You might privately win over some regional elites by confessing to targeting troublesome ethnic minorities, but this can never be publically admitted.
Your attendance is anticipated at national and global confabs where the latest techniques and products will be showcased.
Astronomers fall out over whether particular collections of smudges on their telescopes constitute a unified “thing.” Are these various points of light at great distances in the foreground or background of one another, or are they clustered in such close proximity as to be bound by mutual gravity and/or enveloped by a shared medium?
Is there a population control movement? Or, are we projecting a false unity upon a dissolute array of organizations only coincidentally and ephemerally sharing phraseology and behaviour? Are these organizations organized?
The organizations profiled in the preceding book are legally constituted entities; i.e. statute-empowered government bureaucracies, treaty-based multilateral agencies, chartered philanthropies, and duly incorporated non-profit societies or for-profit businesses. Each possesses a defined hierarchical structure with directors, executives, etc.
There exists a pervasive overlap in the personages occupying top positions of these organizations. Scores of individuals simultaneously inhabit pinnacle positions atop multiple firms, agencies, and foundations. These hierarchical triangles connect at a centre.
In addition to interlocking directorships, a further unification is observable in the career paths of senior personnel. Reading the bios of key personalities, one uncovers a pattern wherein the individual will spend several years at, say, a philanthropy before moving on to a foreign aid agency and then, perhaps, over to a demographic institute. The commonality of such career trajectories evidences an integrated community.
Moreover, and as ever, follow the dollar. The Big 20 government services contractors (global population control’s workhorses) are overwhelmingly animated by cheques cut for them by ten national foreign aid agencies. These agencies and contractors mesh seamlessly. As well, the major population-involved multilateral agencies draw most of their funds from these same ten foreign aid bureaucracies and farm out much of their groundwork to the same 20 contractors.
The aforementioned contractors draw additional funds from the profiled foundations. These foundations each regularly give grants to dozens of NGOs, agencies, and contractors engaged in some aspect of fertility suppression. These foundations manifest obvious, conscious inter-organizational orchestration.
Continuing to follow the dollar, one finds a substantial chunk of the money flowing into national and international fertility suppression is spent on contraceptives, abortifacients, and related medical equipment. Such products are the wares of multinational pharmaceutical corporations, which out of commercial necessity forge extensive relationships with aid agencies, contractors, and philanthropies. These pharmaceutical giants have philanthropic and academic subsidiaries.
As with products, so with services. Abortions and contraceptive surgeries are monopolized by gynecologists and obstetricians (Ob-Gyns). Dispensing contraceptive and abortifacient pills is the purview of physicians and pharmacists. A bevy of specialized nurses, midwives, and paramedics cartelize fertility suppression in the underdeveloped world. These service providers, notably the Ob-Gyns, have professional associations that cooperate with foundations, contractors, and pharmaceutical firms – and engage in their own population control activism. In terms of structured integration, tens of thousands of these specialized medical professionals are direct employees of abortion/contraception clinics funded by a small set of health ministries, aid agencies, and foundations.
Another type of aggregation occurs through joint ventures. Almost every large project undertaken by the above-mentioned agencies, foundations, and corporations operate pursuant to contractual agreements, often announced with celebration, between like-minded agencies, foundations, and corporations. Closely akin to the joint ventures are mega-partnerships like Reproductive Health Supplies Coalition, Every Woman Every Child, Family Planning 2020, SheDecides, etc., which tie together scores to hundreds of fertility-suppressing enterprises.
Then there are the conferences: regional, national, global… and regular. Global conferences of population scientists, or family planning wonks, or second wave feminist NGOs, etc. collectively result in senior reps from the same few hundred leading population control organizations confabbing every few months! These grand affairs provide optimal venues for information sharing, rapid adaptation, and inter-organizational harmonization.
The profiled organizations are united through common jargon. Rhetorical differences are largely a matter of emphasis. These groups deploy multiple rationales. Mainstream government-funded groups belabour “sexual and reproductive health and rights,” but even the politically precise aid agencies at times revert to traditional Malthusian “overpopulation” justifications. All groups, including anti-immigration ones, claim to resist environmental degradation, climate change, women’s oppression, and poverty.
Most importantly, these organizations share a common purpose. They are each dedicated to reducing population growth regionally and/or globally. They each contend abortion, contraception, and sterilization should play leading roles in achieving optimal population levels.
It may be argued that this activism is merely the unfolding of market forces only marginally amped by governments and philanthropists. True, most condom purchases are now standard over-the-counter consumer transactions. Most abortions in the US are paid out-of-pocket by the patient.
First of all, across the West most abortions and advanced contraceptive procedures are fully, or largely, subsidized by governments or by government-mandated medical insurance plans. Secondly, these same countries annually pour over $10 billion towards making these procedures and products available in the underdeveloped world. Thirdly, advanced contraceptive products and modern abortion technologies were developed not by market forces but by philanthropic, academic, and government initiatives. Finally, merely handing out a pamphlet recommending contraception was a prison-worthy offence in late 19th century England. Legalizing contraception, abortion, and sodomy took generations of struggle led by a determined movement.
The population control movement is a “thing.” It is a consolidated self-conscious collectivity. Yet 99% of even educated cynics remain oblivious to, or in outright denial of, this demonstrably existing, cohesive institutional federation. The sheer overbearing scale of this movement, coupled with its ubiquitous, perspicacious, and self-camouflaging propaganda, obstructs its topicality.
During the 1920s astronomers went from denying the existence of galaxies to conceding that they lived inside one. The sceptical public may soon go from denying the existence of a population control movement to conceding that they are enveloped by one.
For 220 years the English-speaking realm has hosted an oligarchic-led social movement dedicated to suppressing population growth through:
(a) punitive and parsimonious welfare and public works policies,
(b) socially engineered normalization of non-procreative sexual behaviour, and
(c) increasing the incidence of induced abortion and surgical sterilization.
The movement marched under many mantras: Malthusianism, Neo-Malthusianism, Social-Darwinism, Spencerism, Eugenics, Crypto-Eugenics, Birth Control, Population Control, Family Planning, Sex Reform, Maternal Health, Second Wave Feminism, Gay Liberation, and recently: Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights. The movement never abruptly abandoned one justification for another. Separate, but mutually reinforcing, rationales were simultaneously emphasized by different, but overlapping, fractions of the same movement. Labels were tweaked, meanings morphed, while the core program of suppressing birth rates endured.
Anglo-American Crypto-Eugenics prevailed over much of the globe after World War II, with the United Nations serving as a principal mechanism of implementation. The movement’s imprint can be seen on the UN’s conceptualization of genocide. The 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment for the Crime of Genocide defines “genocide” as:
“…any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group..:”
The Convention lists five methods including:
“…imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.”
While birth prevention can be a genocidal tool, the domestic activities of our Neo-Malthusians do NOT fit this definition. The movement does not explicitly target races or religions. Outwardly, its efforts are directed at the whole of humanity and the whole of the Anglosphere’s domestic population. In reality, the movement targets the labouring masses; specifically, a subset of that class which the World Bank dubs the “B40” (Bottom 40%). This categorization builds upon what Eugenicists used to call the “Social Problem Group” (persons chronically, or intermittently, dependent on welfare) – that dreaded feedstock of criminality and subversion.
For historic and cultural reasons, Afro-Americans and Hispanics are over-represented in America’s B40 and thus are overly subjected to fertility suppression. Historical evidence of anti-Black and anti-Hispanic racism within the movement further explains the intensified focus on these groups.
American, Canadian, and Australian Aboriginals have not been targeted. Since census taking began in the late 19th century, Aboriginals experienced explosive population growth while exhibiting minimal uptake of modern birth control methods, despite stark over-representation within the Social Problem Group. Neo-Malthusians, being above all else land conservationists, ally with revanchist Aboriginals to restrict hinterland development.
Along with its lack of clear racist objectives, Anglo-American fertility suppression, at least domestically, lacks the displays of overt coercion associated with genocide. This is not to suggest that the movement exhibits zero coercion, or that it is anything other than tyrannical.
Coercion should be conceptualized along a spectrum. Extremely coercive relationships occur when one party uses physical violence to force compliance from another party. At the spectrum’s other end are relationships where parties cooperate absent any duress or deception. A broad range layeth between.
Much population control activity is done with taxpayer dollars. Taxation is coercive. This line of argument could impugn all government-funded activity, but population control displays an inordinate degree of separation from the popular will. Only a microscopic portion of taxpayers know how much money goes to suppressing fertility, or how this money is spent. Kept in the dark, taxpayers never truly consent. When the public does express concern about these programs, they evince considerable opposition. Mass support for population control, specifically for subsidized abortion on request, is mobilized with government and oligarchic funding. Official fertility suppression neither arose from, nor is it sustained by, any groundswell of informed consent from the taxpayers who actually foot the bill.
Philanthropies play central roles within population control. The tax preferences forming the raison d’etre of philanthropies were designed to promote charitable activities for the benefit of the poor and disadvantaged. Neo-Malthusianism, Crypto-Eugenics, etc, are antithetical to charity. Forerunners of today’s movement trashed the idea of “charity.” The systemic misuse of charitable status to fund attacks on the poor constitutes another grand inveiglement, another violation of a basic political consensus.
Through processes which further question how democratic our society is, the population control movement surreptitiously hijacked educational curricula. Each extension of their agenda is greeted by bewildered outrage. Promoting non-procreative sex and destigmatizing abortion in public schools is not popular. Teacher-student relationships are hardly free of pressure and domination. Students get indoctrinated with Neo-Malthusianism whether they, or their parents, want it or not.
Where along the coercive-voluntary spectrum shall we situate the mainstream media’s relationship with the general public? No one is forced to consume media products, but they are hard to avoid. Movies, TV shows, daily papers, advertisements, etc. are profoundly persuasive. The public remains oblivious to the centralization of media ownership and the consequential orchestration of media messaging.
The public is even more oblivious to the population control complex’s covert influence on the media conglomerates. The complex works tirelessly, spending huge sums, to insinuate sophisticated anti-natalist propaganda into media content. While Big Pharma is one the world’s largest advertisers, their advertising expenditures comprise only a small portion of the complex’s overall media budget.
Establishment pundits find no difficulty in accusing the media elites of hostile foreign powers, past or present, of “brainwashing” the masses. These same spokespeople, however, eschew such terminology when describing our media elites. In reality, our “masses” are browbeaten into accepting population control precepts. A psychological jihad is transforming mass sexual behaviour.
Then there be the inexorable grindstone of poverty. The population control movement is an integral part of a much larger socio-political meta-movement encompassing: environmentalism, land conservationism, ultra-regulatory corporatism, and welfare statism. This meta-movement seeks not to grow the economy to accommodate people’s needs but rather to restrict population growth to accommodate their cartels. The cumulative result of their policies is: massive underemployment, exorbitant housing costs, higher energy and food prices, and heavy taxation. From within these imposed confines of perpetual financial insecurity, B40 women “choose” not to have kids, “choose” to have abortions. The contraception-abortion-sterilization complex obliges these choices.
Targeting prostitutes for sterilization persisted throughout the movement’s “Eugenics” phase (1880s-1930s). The only job category identified as sterilization-worthy was: prostitute. (Bastardly prosecutions afflicting wealthy johns animated this singular treatment.) The modern movement continues to obsess over prostitutes.
Female sex workers are often subjected to violence and narcotization. The pimps controlling the sex trade do not want their prostitutes getting pregnant, let alone having kids. They force prostitutes to undergo abortions and sterilizations. Movement medics facilitate the sex industry’s infertility protocols.
Probably 90% of female sterilizations in the Anglosphere occur immediately post-childbirth, post-abortion, or post some other medical procedure. These women did not go to their doctors for sterilizations. They were persuaded into accepting sterilization through well-honed high-pressure sales pitches. The power imbalance between doctor and patient is a legally acknowledged fact. The Obstetrics-Gynecological profession’s ties to population control demand scepticism about how voluntary these sterilizations truly are.
Finally, none of the above broaches the issue of whether a fetus might be defined as a human being. If one accepts the humanity of the fetus, then the activities of the population control movement become almost unimaginably, brutally coercive.
Further Research Needed
Here are several speculations on population control’s future.
Social movements are by definition oppositional. They are comprised of people who feel marginalized and aggrieved. This sounds strange when referencing behemoths like environmentalism or its sibling, population control, because these movements are so successfully embedded in governmental and cultural institutions. Movement leaders, however, are satisfied neither with their quantum of influence nor with the demographic shape of the world. They press on to new frontiers.
Any treatment of homosexualism as a social movement risks provoking censorial outrage from those who presume the analyst is advocating persecution of homosexuals – but homosexualism is indubitably a social movement. Homosexualism and transgenderism pre-date sponsorship from the Neo-Malthusians, but it was precisely this sponsorship which increased homosexualism and transgenderism by magnitudes after the mid-1960s. These sub-movements leapt from strength to strength, capturing commanding heights in media and academia. There are now signs of the LGBT movement developing a life of its own as it approaches a qualitatively larger size. There are also signs of growing strife between LGB and T.
Is the population control movement attempting genocide in sub-Saharan Africa? Mosher et al. have chronicled examples of the movement’s exceptional treatment of sub-Saharan Africa; namely, its twin decisions to rely heavily on injectable contraceptives, and to merge its HIV/AIDS and “family planning” programs, across this region. The upshot was an HIV epidemic among women of childbearing age, unique to sub-Saharan Africa. Everything about the HIV epidemic is suspicious. Every mass distribution of hypodermic needles should be suspect.
Are the bad old days of forced abortion and sterilization over? In about 20 countries (many in sub-Saharan Africa) HIV-positive women are currently subjected to forced abortions and sterilizations. These procedures, which are rarely medically necessary, are locally justified with hysterical stigmatization of HIV-positive people rooted in population control movement propaganda. The procedures themselves are performed in movement-funded clinics.
Leading population control organizations are pushing programs that will allow young women, in both the underdeveloped and developed worlds, to self-administer injectable contraceptives. This means giving hypodermic needles to young women along with workshops on how to inject. This will cause an explosion of illicit narcotic use among young women. Death rates among “junkies” have been studied to death. Their mortality rates are up to 50 times higher than those of non-injection drug users.
Most abortions in Western Europe and the English-speaking world are now performed with pharmaceutical abortifacients. These products are not readily available in staunchly Catholic or Islamic countries where abortion remains banned or tightly restricted. These countries now have thriving black markets in abortifacients. This billion dollar market is supplied and managed by firms and NGOs headquartered in New York City. Enough open source data exists to generate a list of abortifacient mob boss names. This will wait another time. As the bikers say: you can be right, and you can be dead right.
Currently, there is much hype about cervical cancer. Substantial resources for screening and combatting this disease are coming from the usual suspects: EngenderHealth, Gates Foundation et al. A frequently recommended cure/prevention for cervical cancer is hysterectomy. Many of these procedures may be medically unnecessary, and the hype may be another Crypto-Eugenics ruse.
The movement has been aware for 60 years that IUDs can accidentally sterilize a woman. Movement mandarins deem this side effect to be no great tragedy because they prefer women to opt for permanent, as opposed to temporary, contraception. Untold numbers of women have been, and are continuing to be, “accidentally” sterilized by IUDs or other modern contraceptive technologies. No serious investigation is being done on this potentially monstrous scandal.
|Designed by W3Media. Hosted by W3Media|