Population Control

Dr. Paul Ehrlich wrote a book entitled The Population Bomb in which he prophesied: "It is already too late to avoid famines that will kill millions, possibly by 1975."

Ehrlich also predicted: "the total pollution and death of the world's oceans by 1979."

Harper's magazine for January, 1970, carried a full-page advertisement titled: "Whatever your cause, it's a lost cause unless we control population." The article urged the American government to: "Control the flood of humanity that threatens to engulf the earth."

Kenneth Boulding, a University of Colorado economist, warned the world in February, 1973, that the human population must stop growing: "or in several hundred years there will be standing room only."

The belief that the world was suffering from a "population explosion" and was in danger of having only enough room on the earth for people to stand on each other's heads in a few centuries can be quickly illustrated as a giant fraud by the use of simple mathematics.

Oregon, a rather small state by comparison to others in the United States, has a total of 95,607 square miles inside its borders. The world has approximately 4,000,000,000 (four billion) inhabitants. If the entire population of the world moved to Oregon, all four billion, and left the remainder of the world completely devoid of human life, a family of four would have a piece of Oregon approximately 50' by 53'. This is about half the size of a typical residential lot in a subdivision.

The people of the world have been told that the reason there is starvation in India is because their population is too large for their food production. But a thoughtful review of that nation's history will reveal that India has been starving for many centuries, even though their population was much smaller in the past and the size of their country has remained constant

Could there be another explanation for India's starving population other than that there are just too many people?

Could the reason be that India has a Socialist government that believes that whatever an individual produces belongs to the state? Could it be that this Socialist government has destroyed the incentive to produce? And has done so for centuries?

India has approximately 500 people per square mile living within its borders, Japan has approximately 700, and Holland approximately 800. But notice that Japan and Holland have far more prosperous economies than does India, because Holland and Japan basically allow their producers to keep what they produce.

The "population explosion" was, then, a giant fraud. But it is interesting to see what solutions were being offered to this imaginary problem.

One came from a Washington psychologist and sex therapist who suggested:

"that the world's nations remove 'the right to reproduce' from their people as the only solution to the global population explosion . . . by such means as placing temporary sterilizing chemicals in food and water supplies. . .whether or not it was with the individual's approval and consent"*

Another individual said that the United States had too many people. He saw the problem and offered a solution:

"It is necessary that the United States cut its population by two-thirds within the next 50 years, according to Howard Odum, a marine biologist at the University of Florida. Odum said that the nation will be unable to support the present population of 225 million. Once the population is cut to 75 million. . . it could be stably employed in subsistence agriculture."

How Odum intended to cut the population was not mentioned by the article. Perhaps he planned on "executing them in a kindly manner."

John Maynard Keynes, the Fabian Socialist-Communist, also had some comments to make about the population explosion:

"The time has already come when each country needs a considered national policy about what size of population, whether larger or smaller than at present or the same, is most expedient And having settled this policy, we must take steps to carry it into operation. The time may arrive a little later when the community as a whole must pay attention to the innate quality as well as the mere number of its future members."

As far as the article reported, Mr. Keynes did not explain just how he planned on limiting the size of the population. It must be frustrating for people like Keynes to see a problem and not be able to explain to the people that their solution is the mass killing of those they consider to be excess population. It must be difficult for Keynes and the others to explain to those they wish to see murdered that it is important that they die so that others might live.

India has taken steps to control its population growth by the use of forced sterilization of its citizens. In the Indian states of Maharashtra, for instance, where Bombay is located, all men up to age 55 and women to age 45 must be sterilized within six months after the birth of their third child. Couples with 3 children who have no child under the age of 5 are exempt— but they must have an abortion if pregnancy occurs. 6 In fact, during one period of a "special emergency," the Indian government performed some 10 million forced sterilizations.

China is still the leading nation in population control, however. They are currently limiting each family to one child. "Those who have more will not get rations for them."

The decision about birth, as well as death, has become a "collective decision," according to a Chinese physician, wherein: "the residents in each street get together and decide how many babies will be born during the year Those who are obliged by collective decision to forego pregnancy are not permitted the excuse that they forgot to take the pill. A volunteer. . . distributes pills each morning when the women arrive at their place of work."

One of the lingering Chinese customs, even with all of the Communist attacks on the family structure, is the tradition that male children must provide for their parents in their old age. Now that China is limiting the family to only one child, many Chinese couples are concerned that, if their first child is a female, they will not be provided for in their older years, and they are murdering their female offspring. In fact, many of the parents are leaving their dead female child at the doorstep of the local Communist Party headquarters.

But not only is China controlling the birth of its citizens as a means of controlling its population size, but it is also controlling the death of its elderly. In a government report entitled Communist Persecution of the Church in Red China and North Korea, dated March 26, 1959, it is reported that:

"All the elderly people 60 years of age and above who cannot work are put in the old people's 'Happy Home.' After they are placed in the home they are given shots. They are told these shots are for their health. But after the shots are taken, they die within two weeks."

In addition, the solutions to the imaginary population explosion are affecting those of the middle age as well. In an essay entitled An International Mortality Lottery, students in America read about a lottery: ". . . that would solve the world over-population crisis. Each year, 5 percent of the earth's inhabitants between the ages of 30 and 40 would be exterminated."

But, in summary, there is another purpose for the myth of over-population. It was summed up in a Reader's Digest article, written by Laurence Rockefeller, the brother of David Rockefeller, entitled, "The Case for a Simple Life-Style." The article read, in part:

"In total, this all adds up to a new pattern of living If we do not follow it voluntarily and democratically, it may be forced upon us. Some economists and analysts argue that, if we continue consuming resources as we are now, the only way to bring about a balance between demand and supply will be through authoritarian controls. Robert Heilbroner, the distinguished economist, is particularly pessimistic about the capacity of a democratic and capitalist state to impose the discipline necessary to survive in a world of scarcity."

So the reason for the "population explosion" is total government control of not only the citizen but his environment as well. This transfer of authority from the individual to the state is further supported by another individual, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who wrote:

"I think we accept the idea of a vast expansion in social regulation. It may take such forms as legislation for the number of children, perhaps even legislation determining the sex of children once we have choice, the regulation of the weather, the regulation of leisure, and so forth."

Once again, as in the case of the organizations discussed in the previous chapter, it becomes important to ask just who has been paying for the "population explosion" campaign. Once again, the inquisitive find the money of the tax-free foundation: "the first large foundations to make grants in the population field were the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation. These foundations were joined by the Ford Foundation."

And the "Rockefellers put money into the population-control movement by financing the Population Council, Planned Parenthood and The Population Reference Bureau."

But those in China who murder female babies because they are the wrong sex, are not alone. Others emulate their behavior in America: "Doctors around the country (the United States) have begun helping some pregnant women kill their unborn babies because the parents wanted a child of the opposite sex, according to an article in the Washington Post."

But are such extreme measures necessary? Must we control the population of the world, no matter how many people there are, because they are starving in a world soon to be so crowded that there will be no room for food production? Are the people of the world starving?

One who believed that food supplies are increasing was Bob Berglund, Secretary of Agriculture in President Jimmy Carter's administration, who is quoted as saying: "In fact, the four billion people who inhabited the earth in 1978 had available about one-fifth more food per person to eat than the world's 2.7 billion had twenty five years ago."

And American farmers are taking fertile land out of production. Agriculture Secretary John Block in 1983 reported that these farmers had agreed to idle about one-third of their land, a total of eighty-two million acres, in exchange for certain subsidy programs.

And in the United States, there is concern that our population growth rate is declining too rapidly:

"By the year 2000, the federal government may have to subsidize child-bearing if the birthrate continues to plummet, according to a Temple University sociologist."

Someone who believes that there are sinister forces at work behind the "population explosion" is researcher Gary Allen, who has written that

" . . . by playing upon forces of impending social and environmental chaos, the Left is hoping to convert sincere and legitimate concern over our environment (and the number of people in it) into acceptance of government control of that environment. The object is federal control of the environment in which we all must live."

The federal control Mr. Allen is discussing must manifest itself in every aspect of the lives of every citizen. The new phrases to describe the all-encompassing changes are: "The New Economic Order," or "The New International Economic Order," or "The New World Order."

These phrases all mean the same thing and are used interchangeably. The United Nations' World Populadon Conference at Bucharest called for a "new economic order by eradicating the cause of world poverty, by ensuring the equitable distribution of the world resources "

This is simple Marxism carried only one step further: "From each (nation) according to its ability, to each (nation) according to its needs."

If governments are going to create a New Economic Order, and they are going to divide the wealth between the wealthy nations and the poor nations, they will need a method by which to accomplish this. One method proposed by the United Nations in 1969 and 1970. "The General Assembly adopted without dissension Thursday a declaration calling for: (the use of) the world fiscal system and government spending for a more equitable distribution of income."

The United Nations later considered a proposal where: "everybody in the world would pay a sales tax on certain home appliances and some luxury items to help poor nations."

(Note: It is readily apparent just which nations have "home appliances and some luxury items:" the wealthier nations, those which protect the right to private property.)

Further discussions about this problem of providing for the poor, overpopulated nations of the world continued in 1979 when the representatives of 156 nations met " . . . to debate the best way to divide the world's dwindling resources. A bloc of 80 poor nations will call for $25 billion in new aid from (the) rich nations."

The caption over the article read: "Haves, have-nots meet," and pictured then UN Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim and Phillippine President Ferdinand E. Marcos.

A similar caption was on top of another article discussing the Cancun, Mexico, meetings held in October, 1981. It read: "Haves, Have-nots gathering to debate new economic order."

If there is going to be a world-wide tax collected to provide for the poor nations, there will have to be a world-wide tax collector, and this is coming in the near future. For instance, James Warburg told a Senate Subcommittee on February 17, 1950: "We shall have world government (a world tax collector) whether or not you like it, by conquest or by consent." 24

Even one of the Popes of the Catholic Church, in this case Pope Paul VI, in his Encyclical entitled, This is Progress, also went on record of supporting a world government He wrote "The need is clear to have in course of time world government by a world authority."

The world tax collector is very nearly in place.