Finally, it is also worth noting that more extreme or controversial proposals tend to legitimate more moderate advances, by shifting the boundaries of discourse.
— Bernard Berelson, Population Council
The types and growth of the world’s population have long been of primary concern to social engineers. The Left and anti-globalist ‘conspiracy theorists’ of the libertarian ‘American patriot’ variety see a ‘Fascist conspiracy’ in the grants that had been given to eugenics research by Rockefeller and others.
With the question of ‘social hygiene’ in vogue a century ago, an offshoot of this was the wide popularity of eugenics, the aim of upbreeding humans, or weeding out anti-social traits, such as alcoholism, and inherited diseases. The British Eugenics Society was founded in 1907 by Sir Francis Galton, author of the influential Hereditary Genius (1869).
It is assumed that eugenics was the preoccupation of upper class Englishmen, seeking to stem the breeding of the genetically inferior proletariat, and hence an intrinsically ‘right-wing’ — Tory — manifestation that was to be most infamously practised by Nazi Germany. This is incorrect. We have already referred to eugenics being a cause promoted by William Beveridge, regarded as the ‘father of the post-1945 welfare state’ in Britain. At the beginning of the 20th century, Beveridge, a liberal politician and director of the London School of Economics, worked with Fabian Society leaders Sidney and Beatrice Webb, and influenced their ideas on social reform.942
Beveridge was a member of the Eugenics Society, as were famous Fabian Society authors H. G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw. Prominent geneticist J. B. S. Haldane, a leading member of the British Communist Party,943 was an avid advocate of eugenics. Charles Merriam, dean of American social science, referred to eugenics when writing that ‘control is likely in future to reach a point where it may be possible to breed whatever type of human being it is desired to have. We might even breed strange creatures as beasts of burden and toil…’ What type of being might result is the ‘chance that the governing group would have to take in such a world’.944
While Nazi Germany is assumed to have been uniquely obsessive about eugenics, it was Social Democratic Sweden that operated a eugenics policy longer than any other modern state. Sweden’s Sterilisation Act was operative from 1934 to 1976, during which time 62,000 (90% women) were forcibly sterilised.
Teenagers as young as 15 were sterilised, some without their parents’ consent, for inadequacies as trivial as shortsightedness or because they allegedly lacked judgment or had ‘no obvious concept of ethics’. Pressure was put on orphans and children in special schools and reformatories to have the operation as a condition of release. Pregnant women seeking abortions because their foetus was damaged were told they also had to consent to sterilisation. People could even apply to have problem neighbourhood families sterilised.
As in Britain, where some of eugenics’ most enthusiastic supporters were on the political left, liberals and Social Democrats backed the Swedish programme and sustained it for decades.945
The principal architect of Sweden’s eugenics laws was the sociologist and economist Gunnar Myrdal, who was soon after invited by the Carnegie Corporation to undertake a study on U.S. race relations, which became the seminal American Dilemma. Myrdal advocated ‘consumption socialism’. His proposals for the reform of abortion laws allowed for abortion on ‘eugenics’ and ‘social-medical’ grounds, usually to be accompanied by sterilisation.946
The Institute for Human Genetics was established by the Rockefeller Foundation in Denmark, another social democracy, in 1938, and became a department of Copenhagen University.947 A sterilisation law was passed in Denmark in 1929 under an Agrarian Party government, but with backing from the Social Democrats. Thit Jensen and other feminists supported the law because they assumed it would help birth control, and they regarded it as somehow taking control away from men. Jonathan Leunach, who had co-founded the Magnus Hirschfeld League for Sexual Reform, and the Sexual Reform Party, which was aligned with the Communist Party, supported eugenics because he too saw it as connected with birth control and feminism.948
Again, the Left and oligarchy converge. Both want a productive class of drones, in what Alberto Spektorowski and Liza Ireni-Saban call ‘welfare-productionism’949 to explain the early Left’s advocacy. They point out that from 1900 to the 1930s, eugenics was not necessarily related to the Right. Eugenics diverged when elements of the Left began to focus on this ‘welfare-productionism’ while elements of the Right (by no means universal) focused on racial biology.
In Russia, Vasili Florinskii, a gynaecologist, had discussed eugenics since 1866 with the publication of his Human Perfection and Degeneration. However, it was not until after the triumph of Bolshevism that the Russian Eugenics Society was founded in Moscow in 1920. Under the direction of Mikhail Volotskoi, an anthropologist, this was intended to promote, in contrast, indeed in opposition to the ‘bourgeois eugenics’ of Sir Francis Galton, ‘proletarian eugenics’, also called ‘bio-social’ eugenics. The concept was implemented by the Soviet authorities at an early stage in marriage laws on the health of prospective spouses. ‘Social hygiene’ and eugenics became intertwined. Volotskoi was appointed to the ‘scientific-consultative group on the biological question’ for the State Museum of Social Hygiene (which became the State Institute of Social Hygiene in 1923), established in 1919 by the People’s Commissariat of Health Protection.950
The agency’s head Nikolai Semashko, a Bolshevik physician, was an active proponent of social hygiene. Indeed, with its focus on the role of social factors in health and disease and its prioritizing of prophylactic over curative approaches to disease, social hygiene became the foundational doctrine of the entire system of health protection created by the Bolsheviks. Furthermore, its proponents defined social hygiene as ‘a science of the future, which studies and shapes the facts that promote the biological well-being of humanity,’ and saw eugenics as ‘the ultimate goal of all sanitary-medical activities’.951
Under Stalin this came to a halt in 1930,952 and not only eugenics but the science of Mendelian genetics was officially repudiated,953 much to the dismay of pro-Communist geneticists in the West. Professor H. J. Muller, who advocated ‘socialist eugenics’, wrote to Stalin that ‘[t]rue eugenics can only be a product of socialism, and will, like advances in physical technique, be one of the means used by the latter in the betterment of life’, while reiterating the opposition to Nazi racial eugenics.954 While the USSR suppressed genetics as intrinsically ‘Fascist’, Muller continued to promote ‘socialist eugenics’ in the West, writing in 1939 of heredity and environment ‘under the potential control of man [which admits to] unlimited but interdependent progress’. Muller’s memorandum was published in The Journal of Heredity, and became known as the ‘geneticists’ manifesto’, signed by 21 geneticists.955 The eagerness to repudiate Stalinism enabled the Institute of Medical Genetics to be established in Moscow in 1969.956 ‘Socialist eugenics’ began to be widely discussed again in the USSR from the late 1960s.957
Social hygiene was indeed a laudable movement, and was not intrinsically the ideological property of any party. Often accompanied by calls for eugenic marriage and birth control programmes — not usually with a racial foundation — the social hygiene doctrine accomplished a great deal for mother and child in states of various ideological and party governance. In New Zealand, for example, the Plunket Society was founded by Dr. Truby King, an advocate of eugenics, and did an excellent job of monitoring the health of generations of babies via the Plunket clinics, hospitals and home visits from Plunket nurses, in every community. Originally called the Society for the Promotion of the Health of Women and Children, this was formed in 1907, long prior to the Bolsheviks, Nazis and John D. Rockefeller’s Population Council. Plunket’s ‘domestic hygiene’ and ‘mothercraft’, anathema to today’s feminists, educators and liberals, was credited with giving New Zealand the lowest infant mortality rate in the world.
However, social hygiene also became a method of population control and social engineering according to utopian visions on the ‘perfectibility of man’. National Socialists thought they would perfect man via racial eugenics, Bolsheviks and Social Democrats through ‘proletarian eugenics’, and oligarchs through programmes of population control that are in spirit, theory and practice analogous to the Left.
The ideal of the ‘perfectibility of man’ comes from Enlightenment doctrines, and later from the application of Darwinism to society in Britain. It is here that there was a convergence between socialists, such as the Webbs and Shaw, free traders, and Darwinian scientists, such as Julian Huxley, later to become first director general of UNESCO. The doctrines that began to fester in 18th century Europe erupted in the Jacobin Revolution, the precursor to both British Whig liberalism and Marxism. These doctrines proclaimed the ‘perfectibility of man’ by the destruction of the traditional institutions. The doctrine of perfectibility entered the social sciences through Boasian cultural anthropology and Critical Theory. The 18th century Order of the Illuminati, the crypto-Masonic precursor of revolutionary movements up to the present, were known as the Perfectibilists. The socialism of Marx and the free frade doctrine of Adam Smith both arose within a British society that was dominated by industrialisation and the notion that this was the age of unprecedented ‘progress’. Marx was beholden to Adam Smith for the primary element of his doctrine: the ‘labour theory of value’. The Zeitgeist arising first in Britain was that of economics.
Dr. Carolyn Burdett958 writes of the manner by which ‘social Darwinism’ became the scientific rationalisation for free trade economics:
Many Victorians recognised in evolutionary thinking a vision of the world that seemed to fit their own social experience. The scale of change during the 19th century, and the impact on people’s lives of industrialisation, urbanisation and technological innovation, was unprecedented. The idea of a ‘struggle for existence’ that was central to Darwin’s theory of biological evolution was a powerful way to describe Britain’s competitive capitalist economy in which some people became enormously wealthy and others struggled amidst the direst poverty.
Traditional liberal ideas valued the independence and autonomy of individuals and argued that, wherever possible, the state should adopt a ‘laissez-faire’ (or ‘leave alone’) position. Economically, too, markets should be allowed to operate freely, allowing wealth creation to flourish through competition. Evolution seemed to confirm this view: species compete and struggle and only some — the fittest and best — survive. In fact, Darwin was convinced that cooperation was also important, especially for those creatures, including humans, who live in groups. Others, though, were convinced that competition was the key to development.959
‘Conservatives, liberals and socialists all embraced eugenic ideas. …’ As noted above, there were feminists who saw eugenics as a means of ‘emancipation’ from customary expectations of motherhood. During the 1890s, the ‘New Women’, precursors of feminism, saw eugenics as a means of undermining marriage and child-birth traditions. Hence we see another important common factor between the Left and modern capitalism: that economic struggle is the basis of ‘progress’. Marx, like the free traders, saw in Darwin’s On the Origin of Species justification for his doctrine, writing to the German socialist Lasalle: ‘Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle…’960
Nikolai Krementsov put the question as to why there was a convergence of interest in eugenics as a ‘social hygiene’ mechanism by Bolsheviks, when it seems — superficially — antithetical to the ideology?:
Bolshevik Russia appeared the least likely locale for concerns with ‘national degeneration’, the increasing fertility of ‘lower classes’, or ‘interracial meticization’, which held the attention of the Second International Eugenics Congress. Yet the rapid institutionalization, internationalization, as well as active propaganda, of eugenics in the immediate post-revolutionary years was fully funded and enthusiastically endorsed by various agents and agencies of the country’s new government. Why would a ‘proletarian state’, which claimed to be building a classless society and vocally denounced racism and nationalism, become a hotbed of eugenic debates, support eugenic research and institutions, and adopt eugenics-inspired policies?
At least in part, the answer to this question lies in the confluence between the eugenic vision of ‘the self-direction of human evolution’, as it was expressed in the motto of the Second International Eugenics Congress, and the Bolsheviks’ ‘revolutionary dreams’ (in U.S. historian Richard Stites’s apt characterization) of creating a ‘new world’, a ‘new society’, and a ‘new man’.961
As Kol’tsov962 clearly articulated in his 1921 anniversary address, the major goal of eugenics was ‘to create […] a higher type of human, the powerful king of nature and the creator of life’. The Bolsheviks, in the words of one of their leaders Leon Trotsky, believed that with the victory of the Revolution ‘humankind, frozen Homo sapiens, will enter into radical reconstruction and will become — under its own fingers — an object of most complicated methods of artificial selection and psycho-physical training. […] Man will put forward a goal […] to raise himself to a new level — to create a higher socio-biological type, an Ubermensch, if you will’.963 Resonance between the eugenic vision of ‘a higher type of human’ and the Bolshevik dreams of ‘a higher socio-biological type’ played an important role in the appeal of eugenics to its state patrons, as well as to the numerous followers the fledgling ‘biological science of eugenics’ attracted in 1920s Soviet Russia.964
Here we might discern the ‘confluence’ between the early Bolsheviks and others of the Left, Fabians, Social Democrats et al., and the oligarchs who also aim to achieve the ‘self-direction of human evolution’, who see themselves as ‘the powerful kings of nature and the creators of life’, who aim to ‘reconstruct’ humanity. It is the age-old hubris of man aiming to become God that precedes a fall. For over a century, Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, when they established their Foundations, and more latterly George Soros, Bill Gates, et al. have sought to recreate the world in their images: as gods remoulding man and Earth at their will, through their money.
Moreover, the attitude of Marx and Engels towards the proletariat was elitist. They distinguished between the industrial workers as the aristocracy of the revolution, and an underclass of ‘scum’, for whom Marx coined the word lumpenproletariat. To Marx and Engels these were the West’s equivalent to the chandala caste of India. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels refer to the lumpenproletariat as ‘the “dangerous class”, the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of old society’. Further, that although it ‘may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution, its conditions of life prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue’.965 In The Class Struggles in France 1848–1850, Marx wrote that the lumpenproletariat, ‘in all big towns forms a mass sharply differentiated from the industrial proletariat’; ‘a recruiting ground for thieves and criminals of all kinds, living on the crumbs of society, people without a definite trade, vagabonds, gens sans feu et sans aveu,966 varying according to the degree of civilisation of the nation to which they belong, but never renouncing their lazzaroni967 character’.968 Engels wrote in The Peasant War in Germany:
The lumpenproletariat, this scum of the depraved elements of all classes, which established headquarters in the big cities, is the worst of all possible allies. This rabble is absolutely venal and absolutely brazen. If the French workers, in every revolution, inscribed on the houses: Mort aux voleurs! (Death to thieves!) and even shot some, they did it, not out of enthusiasm for property, but because they rightly considered it necessary above all to keep that gang at a distance. Every leader of the workers who uses these scoundrels as guards or relies on them for support proves himself by this action alone a traitor to the movement.969
John D. Rockefeller established the Rockefeller Foundation in 1913. Already in 1914 its Annual Report referred to a grant for Dr. Charles Davenport’s eugenics work: ‘May 5, 1914—To Dr. Charles B. Davenport, Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, New York, for the purpose of providing field workers in eugenics, the institutions or the State paying the maintenance and expenses of the workers in the field. $1350’.970 Prior to Rockefeller, the Carnegie Institution funded Davenport in 1902 with $45,000 to set up his ‘Biological Experiment Station for the study of evolution’ at Cold Spring Harbor.971 In 1915, the Eugenic Record Office received $4,050 from Rockefeller,972 which seems to be the last Rockefeller payment to Davenport. It is on the basis of such funding and that provided to institutions in Germany that a case is made for a collaboration between the U.S. oligarchy and Nazism. American-Jewish academic Edwin Black writes:
More than just providing the scientific roadmap, America funded Germany’s eugenic institutions. By 1926, Rockefeller had donated some $410,000 — almost $4 million in 21st-century money — to hundreds of German researchers. In May 1926, Rockefeller awarded $250,000 to the German Psychiatric Institute of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, later to become the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry.973
Such claims are associated with the persistent red herring that Nazism and Fascism are the ‘last resort of capitalism’. As we have seen, eugenics was embraced originally more by the Left than by the Right, which does not have any deep ideological antecedents for it. The concept appealed to the Left because it had a faith in the perfectibility of man. The Right had no such illusions. The Right traditionally does not see man on an upward march of Darwinian evolutionary ‘progress’. It was Marxism and liberalism that happily embraced Darwin. Where Hitlerism embarked on that path delineates where the imports of Darwin, Galton and Malthus overtook the German idealism of Fichte, Hegel and Goethe, in a great historical irony.
As for Germany, prior to the Nazis Magnus Hirschfeld’s institute included a ‘eugenic department for mother and child’, and purveyed eugenic marriage guidance advice.974 In 1913, six years prior to the formation of what became the Nazi Party, Hirschfeld co-founded the Medical Society for Sexual Science and Eugenics.975
In 1952, John D. Rockefeller III took up the challenge of his grandfather in promoting the importance of population control. He convened a conference of scientists at Williamsburg, Virginia, under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences, to consider problems of population.
Dr. Phyllis Piotrow, an adviser to USAID, among the primary agencies promoting American globalism, wrote a broad history of population control. It should be kept in mind that what she regards as the ‘slowness’ of the U.S. response was, as she documents, primarily due to a rear-guard fight by the Catholic Church. Piotrow shows the Rockefeller Foundation and other interests behind population control:
The most eagerly sought and acknowledged funding for professional and scientific activities in the field of population came from the foundations. … The first large foundations to make grants in the population field were the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation.976
‘In November 1952 the Population Council was organized with Rockefeller as chairman of the board’, and the USA’s leading eugenicist, ‘Frederick Osborn as executive vice-president’.977 Piotrow, having alluded to Margaret Sanger, the founder of the ‘family planning’ movement,978 whose approach was still too radical for many, states that ‘[t]he Population Council provided a heretofore-lacking respectable base from which to influence professional and academic norms and to finance a more specifically problem-oriented approach to population’.979 Aiming to ‘avoid and not to provoke controversy’, the Council ‘was more acceptable for foundation support than were [Sanger’s] active birth controllers’. ‘The first two Ford Foundation grants of over $500,000 were to the Population Council, which received nearly 80 percent of all Ford population grants in the 1950s’.980
During 1955, 1956, and 1957, ‘the Population Council sponsored a series of meetings that included Planned Parenthood officials as well as physical and social scientists to develop and define general principles for promoting birth control overseas’.981 Guidelines were established that would be used to advise the U.S. and other governments, how these would be funded and how ‘the masses’ would be approached,982 given that this aspect of universalist and liberal doctrine is an affront to traditions and faiths the world over.
‘An important recruit to the activist ranks’ was Hugh Moore. Piotrow refers to Moore as the ‘enterprising and successful founder of the Dixie Cup Company’. In 1944, he established the Hugh Moore Fund to promote what Piotrow calls ‘world peace’, overpopulation being considered ‘the greatest threat…’983 What Piotrow does not mention is that he was much more than a paper cups entrepreneur with a philanthropic nature. Moore was an active advocate for internationalism and the expansion of U.S. global hegemony. The Dixie Cup biography states that Moore was:
Chairman of the executive committee of the League of Nations Association (U.S.), 1940–1943; consultant to the State Department at the United Nations Conference, 1945; founding member of the Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies, 1940; treasurer of the Committee for the Marshall Plan, 1948; president of Americans United for World Organization, 1944; chairman of the finance committee of the Woodrow Wilson Foundation, 1951–1952; chairman of the fund-raising arm of the UN education program, 1955; and member of the Atlantic Union Committee, 1949–1960; American Association for the United Nations, 1945–1954; U.S. Committee on NATO, 1961–1972.984
Despite the qualms of some oligarchs to become publicly involved with Margaret Sanger, Moore became director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1951, and vice-president of the International Planned Parenthood Federation in 1964.985 Moore was at the top of the globalist elite. He had been involved with the Rockefellers since 1909 when Percy Rockefeller and several others invested $200,000 in Moore’s Individual Drinking Cup Co.986 His Fund for World Peace was headquartered at the J. P. Morgan Chase National Bank office in New York, with Stewart Ogilvy, an official of the World Federalists, as executive director. In 1981 Ogilvy was advocating compulsion to restrict the birth of the ‘stupid’:
The growth rate suggests that mere unofficial advocacy and purely voluntary compliance are far from enough… voluntarism guarantees big families for the ignorant, the stupid, and the consciousless, while it gradually reduces the proportion of people who, in conscience, limit the size of their families.987
Piotrow and other eulogists also neglect to mention that Moore was an advocate of eugenic sterilisation, and from the late 1940s started funding the Human Betterment Foundation, founded in 1928, which was primarily involved with compiling data on compulsory sterilisation. The motivation of the Foundation was explained:
The Human Betterment Foundation had been highlighting this economic solution since its conception. Reviews of Sterilization for Human Betterment, the foundation’s first book length publication released in 1929, commended the inoffensive and intelligent record linking the “economic and eugenic problem.”988 In assessing the global economic crisis posed by the feebleminded population, the foundation’s book claimed that established public institutions around the world were spending a collective sum totaling over $5,000,000,000 annually to care for society’s unfit population.989
Sterilisation laws continued to be enforced in the USA long after 1945, on the basis of economic considerations, unwed mothers being a particular target, whereas in Germany unwed mothers had benefited from advanced social welfare services. One criterion was being of the correct race, the other the correct economic situation:
The laws passed between 1950 and 1967 to address the illegitimacy problem help explain what was considered objectionable about Nazi reproductive policy. For various reasons, eugenic laws had long targeted unwed mothers on public assistance. Some legislators and theorists emphasized the “unnecessary” costs of paying relief to unwed mothers and their children.990
Given the infamy that eugenics had undergone due to the Nazi epoch, Hugh Moore recommended that the Human Betterment Foundation change tactics, and promote ‘voluntary sterilisation’.
Human Betterment’s emphasis on choice grew out of a long correspondence between its leaders and Hugh Moore, the founder of the Dixie Cup Company. A longtime donor to the organization, Moore believed that Human Betterment could not improve the quality of the population solely by funding private sterilization of the socially inadequate.991 In 1961, Moore wrote to Ruth Proskauer Smith, the executive director of Human Betterment, and suggested a related change of course.992 Moore recommended that less money be used for actual sterilizations, so that more could be spent to rehabilitate the image of sterilization.993 If this were done, Moore asserted, it would be easier to convince people to be sterilized and to persuade state and federal agencies to support voluntary sterilization.994 It was hoped that sterilization might be associated not with Nazism but with human rights and personal choice.995
Here we have the basis of how abortion and population control are sold as ‘reproductive rights’ in the name of ‘feminism’. Under Moore’s prompting, the association expanded the name to Human Betterment Foundation for Voluntary Sterilization. However, the same message remained: ‘Over-crowded cities, polluted air and water, countless unwanted and suffering children, skyrocketing taxes for welfare! Half of the babies now born from some cities are from indigent families on relief. Need we say more?’996 Piotrow mentions that Moore and others in the business world coming into the population control issue were ‘more concerned with economics than biology’.997 ‘[A]s economic development lagged and as increasingly persuasive statistics suggested that population growth was a reason for the lag, a few of these internationally minded businessmen and bankers began to speak out’.998 Here we have the hard reality behind the humanitarian façade.
Piotrow states that Moore ‘“spun-off” half a dozen important organizations or activities that eventually played a role in the establishment of government policy. In each case he would seize an issue or opportunity before it was respectable, then fund, encourage, and promote it to a legitimate status. Then just as his flamboyant methods began to embarrass his own organizational protégés he would move on to something else’. It was Moore’s influence during the 1950s that prompted business funding for the International Planned Parenthood Federation. He later directed his attention to environmental issues.999
William H. Draper III, ‘one of the West Coast’s first venture capitalists’,1000 has played a central role in population control policies. Additional to his many directorships he has been on the boards of the Atlantic Council,1001 Draper Richards Foundation,1002 Hoover Institution, Institute of International Studies at Stanford University, World Affairs Council of Northern California, and the United Nations Association-USA. He is a member of one of the original globalist think tanks, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the President’s Council on International Activities, Yale University. Draper is then high in the echelon of the globalist elite.
Draper had been Under-Secretary of the Army, and served as economic adviser to General Lucius Clay during the Occupation Administration in Germany, and as U.S. special representative in Europe directing the European Recovery Program. He was urged by Hugh Moore and President Eisenhower to investigate population problems, and formed the Draper Committee in 1959. The committee was criticised as having too many people from the military. However, this obscures the oligarchic links. The committee included John J. McCloy, who has been called ‘chairman of the American Establishment’.1003
Having visited Japan, Taiwan and Korea, Draper considered that it was sudden population increase that caused economic problems. In 1959, visiting Japan again, he was impressed by the drop in Japan’s population (which had suddenly expanded by the return of 6,000,000 from overseas, after the war) for which he credited legalised abortion. ‘The example of Japan influenced Draper as it did Rockefeller and others’.1004 This population control was inaugurated in 1948 with the Eugenic Protection Law, which enabled ‘induced abortion’ on grounds of ‘economic hardship’, among others. Heavily promoted by the state, legal abortions rose to 1,170,000 in 1955 and continued above 1,000,000 until 1962. Additionally, Health and Welfare Ministries estimate unreported abortions reach between 500,000 and 1,000,000 annually.1005 Now, as we know, Japan and the rest of the First World have a major crisis regarding aging populations.
In testimony to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on 18 May 1959, Draper stated that ‘[t]he population problem, I’m afraid, is the greatest bar to our whole economic aid program and to the progress of the world’.1006 Be that as it may — or may not — the point is that the whole trend towards population control has been promoted through feminism, ‘woman’s reproductive rights’, and the normalisation of the modern Moloch devouring aborted foetuses, when behind it all is a cynical concern for economic growth, regardless of the customs, faiths and morals it all affronts. The Draper Committee recommended population control pegged to economic aid and development programmes, as a matter of U.N. ‘mutual security’.1007
In May 1960 at a National Conference on the Population Crisis, co-sponsored by the Dallas branch of the globalist Council on World Affairs and Newsweek magazine, John D. Rockefeller III reiterated that population issues ‘are so great, so important, so ramified and so immediate that only government, supported and inspired by private initiative, can attack them on the scale required. It is for the citizens to convince their political leaders of the need for imaginative and courageous action — action which may sometimes mean political and economic opposition’.1008 Certainly the sentiments of Catholics were not regarded as a legitimate part of this citizenry, as indicated by Piotrow throughout her book. What was the ‘political and economic opposition’ referred to by John D. Rockefeller? This could only have been the rear-guard activism of Catholics, with dwindling support in government.
Hugh Moore began organising the World Population Emergency Campaign, forerunner of Population Action International, to raise funds for the International Planned Parenthood Federation to make it into ‘a powerful force’. The campaign was headed by Lammot du Pont Copeland, vice-president of DuPont Company,1009 and by Draper.1010
Piotrow states that behind the scenes (‘with equal lack of publicity’) the U.S. State Department, Draper, the Population Reference Bureau, Ford Foundation, Fred Jaffe of Planned Parenthood, and John D. Rockefeller III, liaison between them ‘grew apace’.1011 Robert A. Barnett had been assigned to the State Department as head of ‘a small undercover group’1012 on population control. He had been instructed ‘not to put anything in writing’. In May 1962, Barnett spoke at ‘an off-the-record’ meeting at the Council on Foreign Relations, stating that ‘policy advances would be slow, quiet, and undramatic’.1013 In November, Secretary of State Dean Rusk, at the suggestion of Draper, spoke to the executive of ‘some thirty large foundations, organised by John D. Rockefeller III, on how government and foundations might co-operate on population control’.1014
Planned Parenthood was started by a nurse, Margaret Sanger, as part of an extreme leftist faction that for decades remained on the fringes. By the 1950s, largely thanks to Hugh Moore, Planned Parenthood had become an international federation with large funding from the Foundations, whose officials were involved in high level meetings. It is now part of the mainstream.
Sanger was not a ‘Communist’; she was an anarchist. Her population control views were influenced by Emma Goldman, a leading anarchist in the USA, who had preceded Sanger as an advocate of birth control in conjunction with feminism. Sanger was a contributor to anarchist periodicals, including Goldman’s Mother Earth, and The Blast, published by Alexander Berkman, the other leading anarchist in the USA. In 1914, Sanger published her own periodical, The Woman Rebel, by-lined ‘No Gods; no Masters’.
In the first issue of The Woman Rebel, she explained:
Why the Woman Rebel?
Because I believe that deep down in woman’s nature lies slumbering the spirit of revolt. Because I believe that woman is enslaved by the world machine, by sex conventions, by motherhood and its present necessary child-rearing, by wage-slavery, by middle-class morality, by customs, laws and superstitions. Because I believe that these things which enslave woman must be fought openly, fearlessly, consciously.1015
Like the latter-day feminists and Critical Theorists, she claimed that motherhood and child-bearing were a part of capitalist exploitation, which she called ‘slavery through motherhood’ and ‘the home’.1016 Emma Goldman wrote against marriage and the aim of ‘few and better children’,1017 indicating a eugenic preoccupation which was also advocated by Sanger, to the embarrassment of present-day leftists. Benita Locke wrote a feature opposing proposals for a ‘state maternity pension’ or a weekly family allowance, as a ‘capitalist trap’.1018 Locke objected that a family allowance would restrict the employment of women outside the home. Apparently it is preferable that women become factory fodder than be ‘imprisoned’ to their children; a paradox that remains the basis of feminism, and explains why it has been so lavishly funded and promoted by its supposed capitalist enemies. Emile Chaplier appealed to ‘working girls’ that ‘you will want to be a mother only if you are certain that you are not going to be the mother of stupid, half-witted children…’1019
One might wonder how Sanger rationalised her views about capitalism and motherhood when she was from the start funded and feted by the world’s biggest oligarchs. When she was arrested after the police suppression of a public meeting at the Town Hall Theatre, Manhattan, on 13 November 1921, and was questioned about her connections with anarchists such as Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman, she responded that she also knew Mrs. Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller Jr.1020 In 1924, Sanger sent a request for funds for her Birth Control League to the Rockefeller Foundation, and John D. Rockefeller Jr. authorised an ‘anonymous donation’.1021 Given her comment to police of her knowing Rockefeller since at least 1921, the relationship with oligarchy had been established early.
In the July 1914 issue of The Woman Rebel, Sanger announced the American Birth Control League,1022 which became Planned Parenthood in 1942. Only through ‘complete control of the reproductive functions’ could women ever achieve equality with men. It is the tune still played about ‘women’s reproductive rights’ by George Soros, Bill Gates, and the same Foundations that started backing Sanger seventy years ago. In a question and answer column in The Woman Rebel it was asked ‘why should people only have small families?’, answered with, ‘to avoid overcrowding the labor market and keeping down wages by competition’.1023 Yet why do the globalist elite promote integration of women into the workforce — in the name of an ‘inclusive economy’ — if not to expand the production process? The eugenic focus on raising ‘healthy and strong children’ also contradicts the Sangerite opposition to ‘breeding’ for capitalist production. Even in 1914, Sanger was warning about overpopulation and not enough food.1024 When twenty years later the USA and others went through the Great Depression, mass starvation was not the result of ‘overpopulation’ from ‘large families’. It was a failure of the financial system; where one had the recurring phenomenon of ‘poverty amidst plenty’, a factor about which the Left generally remains ignorant.
As an anarchist, Sanger was vehemently opposed to orthodox Marxism, which she lambasted for rejecting the overpopulation theories of Malthus. In The Pivot of Civilization she wrote:
Marxian Socialism, which seeks to solve the complex problem of human misery by economic and proletarian revolution, has manifested a new vitality. Every shade of Socialistic thought and philosophy acknowledges its indebtedness to the vision of Karl Marx and his conception of the class struggle. Yet the relation of Marxian Socialism to the philosophy of Birth Control, especially in the minds of most Socialists, remains hazy and confused. No thorough understanding of Birth Control, its aims and purposes, is possible until this confusion has been cleared away, and we come to a realization that Birth Control is not merely independent of, but even antagonistic to the Marxian dogma. In recent years many Socialists have embraced the doctrine of Birth Control, and have generously promised us that ‘under Socialism’ voluntary motherhood will be adopted and popularized as part of a general educational system. We might more logically reply that no Socialism will ever be possible until the problem of responsible parenthood has been solved.1025
Sanger shows herself to be a reductionist, making birth control into a one-dimensional ideology. The title of her book dogmatically states that birth control is the ‘pivot of civilization’, albeit a declaration at odds with millennia of historical experience suggesting that birth control is a symptom of a civilisation in its final states of decay. Oswald Spengler, in his comparative study of civilisations, asserted:
The last man of the world city no longer wants to live, he may cling to life as an individual, but as a type, as an aggregate, no… That which strikes the true peasant with a deep and inexorable fear, the notion that the family and the name may be extinguished, has now lost its meaning … and the destiny of being the last of the line is no longer felt as a doom…1026
Sanger was a representative of the ‘last man [and woman] of the world city’, when life becomes a question rather than an imperative.
Sanger announced herself as a protagonist for Malthusianism:
Many Socialists to-day remain ignorant of the inherent conflict between the idea of Birth Control and the philosophy of Marx. The earlier Marxians, including Karl Marx himself, expressed the bitterest antagonism to Malthusian and neo-Malthusian theories. A remarkable feature of early Marxian propaganda has been the almost complete unanimity with which the implications of the Malthusian doctrine have been derided, denounced and repudiated. Any defense of the so-called ‘law of population’ was enough to stamp one, in the eyes of the orthodox Marxians, as a ‘tool of the capitalistic class’ …1027
Sanger condemns Marx for relegating Malthus to nothing more than a footnote in Volume I of Das Kapital, where he states that Malthus’ ‘Principles of Population was quoted with jubilance by the English oligarchy as the great destroyer of all hankerings after human development’.
For novelist and historian H. G. Wells, a Fabian socialist and eugenicist, writing in the ‘introduction’ to The Pivot of Civilization, ‘Mrs. Margaret Sanger sets out the case of the new order against the old…’ What was of concern to Sanger was that the lumpenproletariat (to use Marx’s term) were having too many children, which were a drain on society: ‘A distinguished American opponent of Birth Control some years ago spoke of the “racial” value of this high infant mortality rate among the “unfit.” He forgot, however, that the survival-rate of the children born of these overworked and fatigued mothers may nevertheless be large enough, aided and abetted by philanthropies and charities, to form the greater part of the population of tomorrow. …1028 Social Darwinism, the religion of the 19th century English Whig merchants and pastors (as Marx observed), was not sufficiently operative to cull the population of social misfits, and what was not wanted were charitable endeavours to alleviate conditions, nor family allowances. Birth control is the panacea. Sanger writes of the proliferation of the ‘feeble-minded’, and cites the eugenicist Charles Davenport:
There is but one practical and feasible program in handling the great problem of the feeble-minded. That is, as the best authorities are agreed, to prevent the birth of those who would transmit imbecility to their descendants. Feeble-mindedness as investigations and statistics from every country indicate, is invariably associated with an abnormally high rate of fertility. Modern conditions of civilization, as we are continually being reminded, furnish the most favorable breeding-ground for the mental defective, the moron, the imbecile. ‘We protect the members of a weak strain,’ says Davenport, ‘up to the period of reproduction, and then let them free upon the community, and encourage them to leave a large progeny of ‘feeble-minded: which in turn, protected from mortality and carefully nurtured up to the reproductive period, are again set free to reproduce, and so the stupid work goes on of preserving and increasing our socially unfit strains’.1029
However, Sanger saw a danger in eugenics insofar as it also encouraged the mentally and physically most intelligent to sire more children. This also is burdensome and is against the universality of birth control. The aim of birth control is not a sounder population but a smaller population, because the ultimate goal remains the freeing of all women from child, home, and marriage.
Eugenics seems to me to be valuable in its critical and diagnostic aspects, in emphasizing the danger of irresponsible and uncontrolled fertility of the ‘unfit’ and the feeble-minded establishing a progressive unbalance in human society and lowering the birth-rate among the ‘fit.’ But in its so-called ‘constructive’ aspect, in seeking to reestablish the dominance of healthy strain over the unhealthy, by urging an increased birth-rate among the fit, the Eugenists [sic] really offer nothing more farsighted than a ‘cradle competition’ between the fit and the unfit. They suggest in very truth, that all intelligent and respectable parents should take as their example in this grave matter of child-bearing the most irresponsible elements in the community.1030
Sanger’s utopia is one wherein humanity has wrested control over Nature. Birth control is the ‘pivotal’ means by which the primordial sex impulse is able to be harnessed. Science is the method for reshaping humanity and society: ‘Mankind has gone forward by the capture and control of the forces of Nature’. Again we come back to the common theme we have seen among Critical Theorists and other social deconstructionists: the path to utopia needs clearing of tradition, morality, faith, custom. The sublimation counselled by both Jung and Freud and by Nietzsche, as well as by the great religious faiths, is to be discarded as an impediment towards the individual’s self-realisation through unbound freedom:
Restraint and constraint of individual expression, suppression of individual freedom ‘for the good of society’ has been practised from time immemorial; and its failure is all too evident. There is no antagonism between the good of the individual and the good of society. The moment civilization is wise enough to remove the constraints and prohibitions which now hinder the release of inner energies, most of the larger evils of society will perish of inanition and malnutrition. Remove the moral taboos that now bind the human body and spirit, free the individual from the slavery of tradition, remove the chains of fear from men and women, above all answer their unceasing cries for knowledge that would make possible their self-direction and salvation, and in so doing, you best serve the interests of society at large. Free, rational and self-ruling personality would then take the place of self-made slaves, who are the victims both of external constraints and the playthings of the uncontrolled forces of their own instincts.1031
During the late 1960s, issues began to coalesce into intersectionality. Feminism was also part of the mix. Piotrow states of the time that while the U.S. Government was supporting population control for economic reasons, the matter was taken up by various converging causes, including ‘‘[e]cologists, biologists, feminists, and students demanding zero population growth, more contraceptives, and abortion… At first these ideologies had little impact on government population programs but gradually they provided strong reinforcement for existing programs and increased urgency for new ones’.1032
Moore persuaded ‘one of his protégé organizations, the Association for Voluntary Sterilization,1033 to cooperate with the National Conference on Conservation in October 1969 for what was billed as the first joint meeting of conservation and birth control groups. At that session the AVS became the first of the population groups to adopt a resolution favoring the two-child family’.1034 Population control, like many other issues, had to be presented in a palatable manner, which avoided any stigma of coercion or manipulation. Feminism again served an Establishment role, regurgitating what Sanger had advocated over fifty years previously:
Easier access to better birth control methods, including repeal of outmoded restrictions, offered a logical and seemingly acceptable alternative to coercion. That tactic coincided with the developing strategies of another movement. Women’s liberationists also demanded greater freedom and an end to all measures that forced women into second-class status. In the field of reproduction, a woman’s right to choose included not only pills and IUDs but also abortion — legal, safe, and inexpensive. The ‘right of marital privacy’ proclaimed in the 1965 Supreme Court decision on birth control was translated by a militant feminist movement and sympathetic physicians into the right of women to control their own bodies, the right to avoid ‘compulsory pregnancy’ by legal, medically protected abortion.1035
Catchphrases like ‘compulsory pregnancy’ had been used since Sanger’s Woman Rebel. The programme was the same, and was adopted across the broad front. ‘On the issue of abortion, the environmentalists, the younger generation, the militant women, the family planners, and most of the doctors and demographers could agree. To fulfill Margaret Sanger’s demand that women control their own bodies, to reduce the pressures of rapid population growth, to rebut arguments for coercion by ensuring that no unwanted babies be brought into the world, to increase the safety margin of other contraceptives by providing a backstop when they failed’1036 …, abortion became the panacea.
Piotrow enthuses about the steady retreat of the Catholic Church, as states began to liberalise their abortion laws.1037 When Catholic laymen organised to successfully have the New York Assembly and Senate repeal New York’s ‘liberal abortion law’, Governor Nelson Rockefeller used his veto.1038
Although President Nixon had supported the Catholic efforts in New York, he named John D. Rockefeller III to head the Population Commission in 1969, with representation from the Population Council, Planned Parenthood, Ford Foundation, several bankers, social scientists, et al. Among the recommendations were that the New York abortion law be the model for the rest of the USA, with abortions funded from the public purse. ‘The commission also urged that contraceptive services and sex education be fully available to minors and that legal impediments to such services be eliminated by the states’.1039 Nixon was critical of the Commission report, but one might wonder what he expected by appointing John D. Rockefeller III as the chairman:
… I consider abortion an unacceptable form of population control. In my judgment, unrestricted abortion policies would demean human life. I also want to make it clear that I do not support the unrestricted distribution of family planning services to minors. Such measures would do nothing to preserve and strengthen close family relationships. … I believe in the right of married couples to make these judgments for themselves.1040
Jaffe was the first president (1968–1978) of the Center for Family Planning Program Development (renamed the Guttmacher1041 Institute), which began as an affiliate of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. In 1969, he addressed a memo to Bernard Berelson, president of the Population Council, outlining various measures for population control. The Guttmacher Institute objected that ‘[s]ome anti-choice activists have attempted to falsely link Mr. Jaffe to coercive population control measures by taking out of context parts of a memo he wrote in 1969. However, Mr. Jaffe’s memo merely summarized various population control measures others had proposed at the time; he did not endorse or otherwise condone coercive measures…’
However, the memo was headed ‘activities relevant to the study of population policy for the United States’. Jaffe begins his covering letter by stating that the memo is in response to Berelson’s letter of 24 January, ‘seeking ideas on necessary and useful activities relevant to [the] formation of population policy’.1042
Jaffe opens the memo by alluding to debate on population control having not seriously so far ‘grappled with public policies’ in various areas that influence ‘fertility preferences’, ‘nor with the predictable political consequences of a major effort to adopt and enforce an anti-natalist U.S. population policy’. Jaffe states that population control has not been adequately discussed as ‘only one’ element of ‘a larger field of social planning’.1043
Coercive policies are a public relations problem. Obviously voluntary measures are preferable. Jaffe refers to ‘a truly contraceptive society’ in which ‘contraception is efficiently distributed to all’, which would go a long way to achieving a ‘tolerable rate of growth’. ‘If this hypothesis is basically confirmed, it would negate the need for an explicit U.S. population policy which goes beyond voluntary norms’.1044
Jaffe recommended studies to determine whether welfare support and family allowances do in fact impact on birth rates.1045 Jaffe presented no preconceptions on these matters, but the assumption is that if evidence was adduced that state support encouraged birth-rates, this support would have to be re-designed or eliminated. Jaffe noted that women in the labour market increased during full employment, ‘which is achieved by higher inflation’. ‘The relationship between employment of women and lower fertility seems well established’. Jaffe recommended a study on ‘how much inflation could or should be risked to achieve lower fertility’.1046 Here we might begin to realise the far-reaching implications of population control.
The effect of education on women in regard to fertility required studying questions of childbirth, marriage or labour employment.1047 It is crucial that such ‘education’ should not be perceived as ‘indoctrination’.1048 Whether assistance to working mothers with child care encouraged or discouraged fertility required examining. Whether encouraging small home ownership encouraged birth rates needed considering in regard to alternative policies. Of particular importance was to confront the assumption that population growth was needed for economic growth. Economic models needed formulating to assure birth reduction.1049
Jaffe’s concluding chart has been the most controversial, population control proponents contending that ‘anti-choice activists’ have misrepresented Jaffe as advocating coercion. What the document in its entirety does show is that Jaffe advocated:
1) Population control as part of social planning
2) This social planning would have far-reaching consequences on all facets of society, including economics, education, welfare, employment, home ownership, and implicitly, on religion and family ethics.
3) Population control would be the ‘pivot’ (Sanger) in shaping these policies, as to whether one gets child allowances, options of home ownership, types of education, etc.
To pretend that none of this amounts to ‘coercion’ is semantics and obfuscation. Having outlined recommendations for studies aimed at the revolutionising of society, Jaffe provided a chart entitled ‘Proposed Measures to Reduce Fertility, by Universality or Selectivity of Impact in the U.S.’ The columns included ‘universal’ and ‘selective’; impact of measures necessary; ‘social control’ mechanisms, and predicted results on fertility. Jaffe headed the chart ‘proposed measures’. However, the reader is required by the social planners to read something other into the title, being assured that, no, these were not measures being proposed by Jaffe et al. According to Abby Johnson, former director of a Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Bryan, Texas, ‘When I worked at Planned Parenthood, there was something that we were not allowed to talk about. If we didn’t talk about it, then maybe no one else would either. It was called the Jaffe Memo. In 1969, Planned Parenthood was asked by the government to produce some ideas to help with overpopulation. They did just that’.1050
Bernard Berelson of the Population Council wrote a paper around the time of the Jaffe memo that reflected Jaffe’s proposals. Berelson likewise referred to the problems of implementing numerous draconian policies, but stated they are ‘perhaps not insurmountable’, and need to be ‘developed into a workable plan’.1051 These include ‘mass use of “fertility control agent” by government to regulate births at acceptable levels, put into water supplies or staple foods’; licenses for child birth; ‘temporary sterilization of all girls via time-capsule contraceptives’; ‘compulsory sterilisation of all men’ with three or more children; financial incentives for ‘contracepting couples’; withdrawal of family benefits, and tax on births; ‘promotion or requirement of female participation in labor force’ to provide roles and interests for women alternative or supplementary to marriage; ‘selective restructuring of the family’; ‘encouragement of long-range social trends’ including industrialisation, ‘[which] may “break the cake of custom” and lead to social foment [sic]’; ‘population control’ pegged to U.S. food aid; reorganisation of national and international agencies empowered to take whatever steps necessary to ‘establish a reasonable population size’.1052
Berelson was outlining measures that were intended as more than theoretic examples. He referred to the need for research on developing ‘temporary sterilants’ and a ‘fertility control agent’ that could be ‘administered voluntarily and individually as well as involuntarily and collectively’ through the water supply.1053 While the imposition of such measures is difficult, it is ‘a matter of timing’; of ‘several small steps with an occasional large one’.1054 Issues that would need resolving include the means by which peasant men with more than three children can be forcibly sterilised, and what to do with children who are born beyond a quota. Such issues are ’difficult but perhaps not insurmountable’. ‘Compulsion could have its effect’ where there are those who find ways to ‘beat the system’.1055
Of added interest is that Berelson plainly states that a dialectical method is in operation: ‘Finally, it is also worth noting that more extreme or controversial proposals tend to legitimate more moderate advances, by shifting the boundaries of discourse’.1056 This is why the supposed ‘enemies of capitalism’ are so generously funded by the biggest capitalists: rampaging students, histrionic feminists, rioting Blacks, et al. enable the Establishment to push through its agendas on the pretext of implementing a ‘moderate’ course.
Whether the population controllers would really resort to such measures might be gauged by the attitude of Guttmacher, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation, when in regard to the safety of IUD use stated to a Population Council conference in 1962 that checking medical backgrounds would be too time-consuming in regard to the goal: ‘to apply this method to large populations’. J. Robert Wilson, chair of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Temple University, agreed, stating at the conference that ‘[w]e have to stop functioning like doctors, thinking about the one patient with pelvic inflammatory disease, or the one patient who might develop this, that or the other complication from an intra-uterine device’, although the incidence of infection ‘might be pretty high’. He added that the patient might be expendable, particularly if the result of IUD use is ‘sterilizing but not lethal’. Mary Calderone, medical director of Planned Parenthood, was ‘thrilled’ that clinicians such as Wilson were thinking in terms of contraceptive ‘mass distribution’.1057
Population control remains one of the top points on the globalist agenda, under euphemistic terms such as ‘women reproductive rights’ and ‘women’s health issues’. It is hopefully by now clear that the aim is to ‘liberate’ women from child and home for integration into the global ‘inclusive economy’, while allowing globalists to determine the extent and nature of population.
Yet another network was formed by the globalist oligarchy on 5 May 2009, informally called the Good Club. Again the focus is on world population. The meeting was called jointly by Warren Buffett, David Rockefeller, and Bill Gates.1058 It was held at the president’s house of Rockefeller University. Attendees included: Eli Broad, George Soros, Ted Turner, Michael Bloomberg et al. This was said to be a secret meeting, and while no organisation was formally created, the aim was to reach a consensus through discussion. The London Times reported,
Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority, [and that] this could result in a challenge to some Third World politicians who believe contraception and female education weaken traditional values.1059
Clearly, Rockefeller did not have to ‘take his cue’ from Bill Gates on the issue of population control. The Wall Street Journal continued:
Such a stand wouldn’t be surprising. Mssrs. Gates, Buffett and Turner have been quietly worrying about Malthusian population problems for years. Mr. Gates in February outlined a plan to try to cap the world’s population at 8.3 billion people, rather than the projected 9.3 billion at which the population is expected to peak.1060
Robert Frank commented,
But some right-leaning blogs have started attacking the billionaires as forming a kind of secret sterilization society or giant ATM to fund abortions. It fed into time-honored fears of the rich using their wealth to reshape mankind in its preferred image. Some are raising the specter of eugenics.1061
Something of the character of The Wall Street Journal could not ‘feed into’ such ‘time honoured right-wing fears’, even when reporting an example. Frank also emphasises that the ‘Good Club’ is not really a ‘club’ but supposedly a one-off get-together. This is contradicted by the statements made by the event’s organiser, Patricia Q. Stonesifer, former chief executive of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, who nonetheless also sought to downplay the meeting: ‘It was a really great discussion, and we agreed to continue the dialogue in the future, but there were no specific action items out of the meeting’.1062 Something as high-powered as the annual Bilderberg meetings is also a ‘continuing dialogue’. The meeting was ‘not secret’, just ‘private’.
As this chapter has documented, mainly with the unimpeachable testimony of Ms. Piotrow, the ‘rich’ have indeed sought to ‘reshape mankind’ using sterilisation, abortion, and eugenics. The primary worry is that, as alluded to above, ‘Third World politicians’ believe that ‘traditional values will be weakened’. While the globalists and their leftist allies object that this is a matter of women’s health and rights, the issue intrinsically strikes at the heart of religion, custom and traditional social foundations, by seeking to impose a universal doctrine emanating from the Age of de Sade (a.k.a. ‘Enlightenment’) of late Western civilisation. Again, it is an attempt to impose a universal doctrine that demands global conformity. As we have seen, it is not just the Third World that is subverted. The issue strikes at the heart of Catholicism in Europe and Orthodoxy in Russia. As Piotrow wrote, Catholics in the USA fought a rear-guard action against the population controllers, and lost. When the unborn child can be universally treated as akin to excrement, as de Sade stated, and as abortionists insist more euphemistically, then humanity can be remoulded at will.