Monday, November 26, 2012

"The Characteristics of Population Control Programs"

Several of our erstwhile commentors have recently argued that population control programs in the Third World have been voluntary to a substantial extent.

This installment of Robert Zubrin's extraordinary essay on the population control holocaust should help clear up that misunderstanding:


The Characteristics of Population Control Programs
Of the billions of taxpayer dollars that the U.S. government has expended on population control abroad, a portion has been directly spent by USAID on its own field activities, but the majority has been laundered through a variety of international agencies. As a result of this indirect funding scheme, all attempts to compel the population control empire to conform its activities to accepted medical, ethical, safety, or human rights norms have proven futile. Rather, in direct defiance of laws enacted by Congress to try to correct the situation, what has been and continues to be perpetrated at public expense is an atrocity on a scale so vast and varied as to almost defy description. Nevertheless, it is worth attempting to convey to readers some sense of the evil that is being done with their money. Before describing some case studies, let us consider the primary characteristics manifested by nearly all the campaigns.
First, they are top-down dictatorial. In selling the effort to Americans, USAID and its beneficiaries claim that they are providing Third World women with “choice” regarding childbirth. There is no truth to this claim. As Betsy Hartmann, a liberal feminist critic of these programs, trenchantly pointed out in her 1995 book Reproductive Rights and Wrongs, “a woman’s right to choose” must necessarily include the option of having children — precisely what the population control campaigns deny her. Rather than providing “choice” to individuals, the purpose of the campaigns is to strip entire populations of their ability to reproduce. This is done by national governments, themselves under USAID or World Bank pressure, setting quotas for sterilizations, IUD insertions, or similar procedures to be imposed by their own civil service upon the subject population. Those government employees who meet or exceed their quotas of “acceptors” are rewarded; those who fail to do so are disciplined.
Second, the programs are dishonest. It is a regular practice for government civil servants employed in population control programs to lie to their prospective targets for quota-meeting about the consequences of the operations that will be performed upon them. For example, Third World peasants are frequently told by government population control personnel that sterilization operations are reversible, when in fact they are not.
Third, the programs are coercive. As a regular practice, population control programs provide “incentives” and/or “disincentives” to compel “acceptors” into accepting their “assistance.” Among the “incentives” frequently employed is the provision or denial of cash or food aid to starving people or their children. Among the “disincentives” employed are personal harassment, dismissal from employment, destruction of homes, and denial of schooling, public housing, or medical assistance to the recalcitrant.
Fourth, the programs are medically irresponsible and negligent. As a regular practice, the programs use defective, unproven, unsafe, experimental, or unapproved gear, including equipment whose use has been banned outright in the United States. They also employ large numbers of inadequately trained personnel to perform potentially life-endangering operations, or to maintain medical equipment in a supposedly sterile or otherwise safe condition. In consequence, millions of people subjected to the ministrations of such irresponsibly run population control operations have been killed. This is particularly true in Africa, where improper reuse of hypodermic needles without sterilization in population control clinics has contributed to the rapid spread of deadly infectious diseases, including AIDS.
Fifth, the programs are cruel, callous, and abusive of human dignity and human rights. A frequent practice is the sterilization of women without their knowledge or consent, typically while they are weakened in the aftermath of childbirth. This is tantamount to government-organized rape. Forced abortions are also typical. These and other human rights abuses of the population control campaign have been widely documented, with subject populations victimized in Australia, Bangladesh, China, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Kosovo, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tibet, the United States, Venezuela, and Vietnam.
Sixth, the programs are racist. Just as the global population control program itself represents an attempt by the (white-led) governments of the United States and the former imperial powers of Europe to cut nonwhite populations in the Third World, so, within each targeted nation, the local ruling group has typically made use of the population control program to attempt to eliminate the people they despise. In India, for example, the ruling upper-caste Hindus have focused the population control effort on getting rid of lower-caste untouchables and Muslims. In Sri Lanka, the ruling Singhalese have targeted the Hindu Tamils for extermination. In Peru, the Spanish-speaking descendants of the conquistadors have directed the country’s population control program toward the goal of stemming the reproduction of the darker non-Hispanic natives. In Kosovo, the Serbs used population control against the Albanians, while in Vietnam the Communist government has targeted the population control effort against the Hmong ethnic minority, America’s former wartime allies. In China, the Tibetan and Uyghur minorities have become special targets of the government’s population control effort, with multitudes of the latter rounded up for forced abortions and sterilizations. In South Africa under apartheid, the purpose of the government-run population control program went without saying. In various black African states, whichever tribe holds the reins of power regularly directs the population campaign towards the elimination of their traditional tribal rivals. There should be nothing surprising in any of this. Malthusianism has always been closely linked to racism, because the desire for population control has as its foundation the hatred of others.
[emphasis in original] 

Zubin nails it. Population control is dictatorial, dishonest, coercive, medically irresponsible and negligent, cruel, callous, abusive of human dignity and human rights, and racist.

Population control is the succession of anti-human pseudoscience that began with Darwinian eugenics, the Nazi programs of racial cleansing and elimination of the weak, the radical environmentalist war on DDT and on measures to prevent disease among the poor, and with the present day crusade to yoke the world's economy and governance to a Luddite movement posing as climate science that is working feverishly to deprive mankind of carbon-based energy sources.

The pagan de-Christianization of the West continues apace. Population control is merely the latest working out of the reduction of man to animal-- the  governance of humanity as if we were pestilence.

46 comments:

  1. Population control is the succession of anti-human pseudoscience that began with Darwinian eugenics, the Nazi programs of racial cleansing and elimination of the weak, the radical environmentalist war on DDT and on measures to prevent disease among the poor, and with the present day crusade to yoke the world's economy and governance to a Luddite movement posing as climate science that is working feverishly to deprive mankind of carbon-based energy sources.

    You forgot to mention the crucial role of denying that HIV causes AIDS, Bigfoot, conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination, the Shroud of Turin, 9/11 was an inside job, and Obama was born in Kenya.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't forget that vaccines cause autism.

      Delete
  2. Michael,

    Yes, it's certainly cleared up my misunderstanding. I thought you were vaguely intelligent and honest.

    No, you're not. You're an idiot and incredibly dishonest.

    This is the third time you've linked to the same essay in New Atlantis, which is based on the author's book.

    One reference three times, isn't three references. The author doesn't include any references in the essay. I attempted to read the sample Amazon provides of the Kindle eBook, and found it nonsense.

    Why don't you read the book, if you haven't read it already, and provide a list of the author's references, so we can check them out.

    I don't feel like giving the author some of my money for what is probably going to be unsupported lies and exagerations.

    The only good thing I can say is that the author doesn't seem as crazy as you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I think he's just a dork.

      Hey, Mikey, is distribution of condoms a form of population control? What about advice to keep one's pants zipped and legs crossed (given so often by conservatives)? Is that, too, a form of population control?

      Delete
  3. the present day crusade to yoke the world's economy and governance to a Luddite movement posing as climate science that is working feverishly to deprive mankind of carbon-based energy sources.

    Yeah, those awful people like Zubrin, advocating getting rid of fossil fuels like he did in his book Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil in which he advocates getting rid of all fossil fuels.

    Oh, did you think he was in agreement with you on anything at all?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Specifically, he advocates breaking free of oil by first adopting nuclear power.

      Delete
    2. That's just a mid-term step to wean off of fossil fuels and get the power for the next step of using hydrogen, methanol, and ethanol. And a whole collection of "green" energy sources.

      Such a pinko.

      Delete
  4. Oh dear, those references. Johann needs some references he can check. Perhaps he needs to see what the current poll results are for the speed of light, or the melting point of sodium, or other objective facts that are objective because everybody agrees.

    Anyway, I just happened to be browsing around on the BBC news site (a notorious right wing news organization famous for its staff pedophiles and objective reporting), and happened to come across this little gem:

    "In Delhi, some 700,000 slum dwellers were forcibly evicted, and given replacement housing plots far from the city centre, frequently on condition that they were either sterilised or produced someone else for the operation. In poorer agricultural areas, whole villages were rounded up for sterilisation. When residents of one village protested, an official is said to have threatened air strikes in retaliation." (10/27/2011)

    But hey, it was purely voluntary: either you submit, or bring a victim. Your choice.

    By the way, the government that did that?... Guess the party! Here's a hint: it starts with an L and ends with a G and has "eft-win" in the middle. Colloquially known as the party of Death.

    But if we could all just get along, and agree that forcing poor people to defy the Prime Directive of Darwinism (both neo- and paleo-), then all this would be objectively moral... Right, Johann?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's always funny to see tinfoil hat guys like Boggs here selectively quote an article that is at its heart a pro-population control piece. It is like they don't even actually read what they are quoting from.

      Delete
    2. It's always funny when left-wing mindreaders claim to know what other folks are thinking.

      Tell me, genius... is the quote accurate or not, irrespective of the author's point of view?

      Wiggle the antennas on your tinfoil turban, Carnac. You need more bars.

      Delete
    3. It is a sliced quote, which you left some material out of. Perhaps you'd like to include the whole quote?

      Or maybe that would be too honest of you.

      Delete
    4. Give us the full quote, George. It mentions some US politician heading World Bank at the time. Remind us what party he belonged to.

      Delete
    5. "Indira Gandhi and her son Sanjay presided over a mass sterilisation campaign."

      Sorry I left that out, Carnac. Indira was a socialist.

      Not that it makes a difference, since the Gandhis were responsible for this left-wing atrocity, but since you're interested, Carnac, McNamara was head of the bank... former SecDef for Kennedy/Johnson and architect of the Vietnam War.

      "The head of the World Bank, Robert McNamara, congratulated the Indian government on 'moving effectively' to deal with high birth rates. Funding was increased, and the sterilising went on."

      You're right. That additional material does make my point more effectively.

      Delete
    6. Robert McNamara was a (gasp...) Republican.

      Delete
    7. He was a left-wing RINO, to be exact. Note that George said left-wing, not Democrat, even though Democrats are generally the most left-wing.

      Delete
    8. No true Scotsman... LOL

      Delete
    9. This may come as a surprise to some of you on the left, but the problem we have with your ideology isn't the tendency of the letter D to appear next to your favored politicians' names.

      Delete
    10. No, your problem is that you are so far to the right that nearly everybody else is a lefty relative to you.

      So how does it feel being shut out in an election, Deuce? Wanna bet the Republicans will swing further to the right? Snowball's chance in hell.

      Delete
    11. I find it interesting that, when faced with human atrocities being perpetrated against the weak, you see only electoral politics and tu quoque opportunities, rather than condemning the atrocities and the ideology behind them. The change of subject, and the particular subject you changed it to, suggests that you understand that stopping the atrocities would mean defeating *your* ideology.

      Delete
    12. He was a left-wing RINO, to be exact.

      First, that's just hilariously wrong and indicates that you have no clue about McNamara.

      Second, you're still slicing the quote. Nice to see you are still having trouble with honesty.

      Delete
    13. Robert McNamara was a lefty? Who knew?

      Delete
    14. I dunno. Who knew extreme couponing could turn violent?

      Delete
    15. George Boggs,

      The Indian population control program in India sounds like the Indian population control program in America. Voluntary means...do it or we kill you.

      JQ

      Delete
  5. ReptilianFreeMasonJewNovember 26, 2012 at 8:59 AM

    Hi Michael! I really enjoy reading your blog, I like your ideas a lot. I hope I'll have the opportunity to meet you at the next tin foil hat convention!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I recommend seeing the BBC documentary "Auschwitz: Inside the Nazi State" available on Netflix.

    Why?

    Because those who see themselves as animals act like animals.

    Lest we forget!


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pepe,

      You're actually insulting the other animals by comparing human crimes committed under the influence of utopian ideologies (such as National Socialism, Communism, Christianity and Islam) to actions of other animals.

      And we are animals. Or does your shit smell more perfumed than that of other animals?

      Delete
    2. Darwinist who sees himself as a chinchillaNovember 27, 2012 at 4:46 AM

      Because those who see themselves as animals act like animals.
      What does it mean? There are millions of species of animals. Do "those who see themselves as animals" act like wolves, iguanas or ladybugs?

      Delete
    3. bachfiend,

      Those who see themselves as animals act like animals.

      Your comment proves my point. It's vulgar, infantile and just talks about "caca"! This is what happens when you see yourself no more than an animal.

      But Man Is a Spiritual and Corporeal Being.

      Delete
    4. Vulgar, infantile Darwinist animalNovember 27, 2012 at 1:08 PM

      What is your point? Animals are vulgar, infantile and talk about poop?

      Delete
    5. Vulgar, infantile Darwinist animal: "What is your point?"

      I (again) rest my case!

      Evidently you animal, together with bachfiend, being animals right out of the Island of the Doctor Moreau, won't understand my comment. This would be like asking a dog to prove why 2+2=woof!

      Delete
    6. Tes propos n'ont pas le moindre sens, mon lapinou.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous, mange cet os mon Trou-Du-Cul!

      Delete
    8. Pepe,

      So I can now add 'hypocrite' to 'idiot' and 'moron' as a description of you.

      I can't remember the number of times you've posted a link to an image of someone doing something extremely impossible anatomically to himself involving 'head', 'insertion' and 'lower alimentary tract' as a description of atheists, liberals or someone else whom you don't like.

      Delete
  7. Let's see: many of the killings in the Holocaust were carried out by the Einsatzgruppen and their henchmen in what is now Poland and Ukraine. Many, perhaps most of the members of these mobile killing squads, were good (Orthodox) Christians and churchgoers. They did not see themselves as animals. Rather, they saw the Jews as animals.

    Pépé, as usual, is an utter moron who knows nothing about the Holocaust or how its perpetrators viewed themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Einsatzgruppen were socialists, of the National Socialist stripe.

      Nazism was a pagan ideology-- worship of blood and soil-- that grabbed power in a Christian culture.

      Its policies were socialist and pagan.

      Delete
    2. The Einsatzgruppen were socialists, of the National Socialist stripe.


      No, they weren't. They were fascists and ultranationalists and Bolshevik-haters, just like you and your friends. And many, perhaps most of them, were good Christians. Learn some history.

      Delete
    3. Nazis are Socialists.

      Fascists are ultranationalist socialists (National Socialists).

      Nazis hated fellow socialists (Bolsheviks), like Mafia hate Costa Nostra.

      Socialists squabble, as twins, not opposites.

      Delete
    4. And now you only need to say that four more times for it to magically become true!

      Boo

      Delete
    5. Are National Socialists socialists?

      Ask Hitler:

      http://egnorance.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2012-11-20T06:00:00-05:00&max-results=7&start=7&by-date=false

      I repeat it because you need it repeated.

      Delete
    6. Which industries did Hitler nationalize? Please be specific. I will repeat what I said in that thread because you need it repeated: if you get in power and don't pursue socialist policies, then you aren't a socialist.

      Boo

      Delete
  8. When you're a pathological liar like Egnor, you feel the need to quote other pathological liars like Hitler to bolster your case.

    ReplyDelete
  9. There used to be some intelligent conversation on this blog. It's getting dumber by the minute.

    JQ

    ReplyDelete
  10. It seems that the conversation has moved away from the original post. Let me add my two cents.

    Several years ago I read a book by Russell Means called Where White Men Fear to Tread. Means is a former member of AIM, the American Indian Movement. If you've ever heard of the Black Panthers, these are like the Red Panthers. They were militant young men from the reservations who had some justifiable bones to pick with the government. Means considers himself a civil rights leader for native peoples. I have mixed feelings about him.

    I remember reading something in his book that I thought was relevant to this discussion. I checked my bookshelf and the book isn't there so I must have donated it somewhere along the line.

    The relevant portion had to do with some US government population control program that targeted native women. If I remember correctly, Means' version of what happened was something like this. The Nixon Administration was racist and didn't like the fact that women on the reservations were having so many kids. They figured they had to do something about it so they came up with a sterilization program that was quote-unquote voluntary. Except it wasn't really voluntary. The government used snookery and coercion to get women to hand over their reproductive capabilities. So the Indians got screwed...again. Big surprise.

    I went looking for something about it on the internet and found very little. This is some master's degree thesis on the topic.

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/sterilize.html

    >>The last vestiges of legally sanctioned eugenics played out during the 1960s, when concern about overpopulation expressed by industrial leaders in the United States (most notably by members of the Rockefeller family) became official federal policy -- with massive spending to back it up -- under the Nixon administration. Sterilization for the poor and minorities was officially sanctioned in 1970, just about the time students were killed at Kent and Jackson State universities as they protested expansion of the Vietnam War. Reservation populations became targets of a policy that also was being advocated nationally, especially for poor and minority women. In 1969, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also had relaxed its own restrictions on sterilizations.
    In 1970, when the IHS initiated its sterilization campaign (paid 100 per cent by federal funds), the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare vastly accelerated programs that paid 90 per cent of the costs to sterilize non-Indian poor women, following enactment of the Family Planning Act of 1970. The rate of sterilization for women as a whole in the United States then jumped by 350 per cent in five years, according to Torpy's research.<<

    The program was everything that the Egnor's article warns about. It was dictatorial, racist, coercive, etc. Programs like this always are.

    Now I agree that a truly voluntary birth control program cannot be called genocide (under the Un definition of the word) because it is not imposed. (Whether the Un definition is worth a darn is another question.) I think we can safely say that voluntary precludes imposition. But here's the thing--it must be truly voluntary. When women are being snookered and/or strong-armed, that is not voluntary. When a poor mother with numerous children is told that she'll be stripped of her welfare benefits if she doesn't submit, she then feels that she has no choice.

    Unfortunately, I don't think it's possible to create such a program without coming dangerously close to the nightmarish dystopian future scenarios. Voluntary programs start becoming less voluntary when the architects of the program don't see the results they want.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The native eugenics program described above reminds me of the scariest words in the English language...

      I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.

      Ben

      Delete
  11. And let's face it--the intent is always racist. Third World populations don't initiate these propgrams on their own. It's always an outsider from a first world nation or the UN--which is funded by first world nations almost exclusively--who shows up in a rural village with the intent of reducing the, excuse the Dickensian phrase, surplus population. The idea is always that black, red, and brown people are having too many children and rich white people are going to solve it for them.

    Let's not forget the Dutch abortion ship that traveled to Morocco. We're here to kill your babies! Three cheers for the Moroccan people that they sent the abortion ship packing. Take your infanticide ship and go home, knickerbocker!

    http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/04/14228225-morocco-blocks-dutch-abortion-ship?lite

    ReplyDelete