Eugenics, Part 2: Details, from Plato to Oxford-AstraZeneca
Draft
All of the posts on this substack are intended to be primers to help make necessary information and comprehension accessible to everyone, and help everyone spread the word to all people. Some are written to be easy to print and distribute, others are collections of documentation to help provide evidence and proof to convince those who doubt the truth.
This is a draft. My messy notes can languish on my hard drive, or here where they may be of some use. I will try and straighten them up as I have time.
Don’t forget to read Part 1 first. Lots of people think they know enough about Eugenics, and almost no one actually does.
Most People Don't Know What Eugenics is.
In summary: though very popular and revered, Plato was what we would now call an extremely aggressive Eugenicist. And Aristotle.
And they weren’t the first.
Details highlighting some history of importance, from early written records, to Thomas Malthus' strange theories on population size management and the influence of Malthusianism on modern economic, government, and social policies, to Indiana passed the world’s first involuntary sterilization law in 1907, to State Eugenics Boards, to the Founding Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), to Kissinger, to the present:
“Moreover, Adrian Hill himself spoke at the Eugenics Society–Galton Institute at the celebration of their 100th anniversary in 2008.”
Developers of Oxford-AstraZeneca Vaccine Tied to UK Eugenics Movement
The developers of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine have previously undisclosed ties to the re-named British Eugenics Society as well as other Eugenics-linked institutions like the Wellcome Trust.
“Both Aristotle and Plato supported state-ordered population control
The philosophy espoused by Aristotle was one of strict government control of population growth. He argued that the state had a responsibility to ensure a balance of resources with the population. Too large a population stressed available resources and led to shortages. Such a situation led to public unrest and the loss of control of the state by the government. Conversely, too small a population led to inadequate production, which had an adverse effect on the economy and trade. It also left the state too weak to defend itself. For Aristotle, government control of birth rates and mortality rates was an essential function.
Plato agreed with the need to ensure population growth was controlled to the extent that it did not become a threat to the state. Plato did not agree with Aristotle’s arguments which demanded family size controlled by the state and mandatory abortions. Both the Greek philosophers agreed that immigration rates and birth rates should be controlled by the state in order to maintain the balance necessary for its security and the overall well-being of the citizenry. The Greek city-states were isolated, restricted in the size of their agricultural lands, and capable of supporting a finite number of people. They adopted laws and social behaviors which allowed them to do so.
...In his Republic, Plato expressed his belief that population growth was a leading cause of war, since increased population demanded increased territory for its support. He proposed the idea of a ruling class, which he called the Guardians. The Guardians were to hold both property and mates in common, sharing both among themselves. The Guardians were to impose legal restrictions on reproduction within the state, thus achieving and maintaining the balance necessary to ensure harmony. It was Plato’s belief that strife between the classes of society and wars of conquest would be eliminated, and all states would achieve their natural state of balance.
Plato called the state of balance the “realm of temperance”, which could only be achieved through the action of the ruling class. He supported the idea of easing pressure caused by overpopulation by creating colonies, with forced emigration of people to them. Plato also advocated the state limiting the number of households allowed within its boundaries. He called overpopulation a circumstance of desperation”, due to a “superabundance of citizens, owing to the mutual affection of those married” and recommended colonization – essentially exile – to new states modeled along the lines he suggested in the Republic and subsequent works.”
.... “To Aristotle, the equitable sharing of land should be accompanied by regulation “of the number of children in the family”. Aristotle also warned overpopulation led to increased poverty and crime, and thus the state must regulate reproduction rates for its own protection.
“If no restriction is imposed on the rate of reproduction, and this is the case in most of our existing states, poverty is the inevitable result; and poverty produces in its turn, civic dissension and wrongdoing”, warned Aristotle. He cited Crete’s government’s “segregation of women to prevent them from having too many children” as an example of population control. “A great state is not the same as a populous state”, he warned. Aristotle also believed that excess population was a threat to democratic government, and thus population control was necessary protection in a democratic state.
The process of abandoning simply unwanted children were both sanctioned by the state and accepted by the ancient Greeks as moral. It was called exposure. Aristotle opposed exposure as a means of controlling the growth of families. He suggested the law should be changed “to prevent the exposure of children to death merely in order to keep the population down”. How widespread the practice of exposure actually was, in terms of the numbers of children involved, has never been determined, though some estimates are that 10% of girls were removed from the population through the practice.
Aristotle was the first to denounce the practice, and in its stead suggested a law restricting the number of children allowed in a family. He recommended in the event of a pregnancy which would result in a child exceeding the limit, mandatory abortion as early as possible. “If children are then conceived in excess of the limit so fixed, to have miscarriage induced before sense and life have begun in the embryo”. He also opined “there should certainly be a law to prevent the rearing of deformed children”, indicating the philosopher was little concerned with the value of a human being. One of his students was Alexander, whose empire sounded the death knell for the Greek city-states.
Population Control Was No Joke in Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire
Larry Holzwarth - January 6, 2020
https://historycollection.com/population-control-was-no-joke-in-ancient-greece-and-the-roman-empire/
"Plato's Republic
This work was probably written before 368 BC when the author was in his fourth to fifth decade. It is a blueprint for the organisation of an ideal society and with regard to eugenics adopts the policy of ensuring "judicious matings". Plato thought it vital to society that the correct arrangements should be made for such matings. He proposed that marriage for the guardian classes (guardians were the premier class of Athenian citizens, selected by their natural capacities and attainments to govern the state) be abolished and that provision be made for men and women of the same natural capacities to mate. He drew an analogy with the selective breeding of sporting dogs and horses in order to obtain the desired stock. The members of the guardian classes should only be allowed to breed in their prime, for men, after reaching the age of 25 years, for women 20 years.
Inferior members of the guardian classes should be discouraged from reproducing. Only the best of the offspring should be kept in the guardian class and the inferior children should be relegated to the civilian classes (farmers or craftsmen). These they could be implemented by the institution of a marriage festival, bringing together suitable young people in the correct age band. Sacrifices, poetry, songs and dance would set the atmosphere for young couples to "marry" and cohabit during the period of the festival for about one month, after which the marriage would be dissolved and the partners remain celibate until the next festival. The number of marriages at each festival would be at the ruler's discretion, to keep the population numbers constant, taking into account losses caused by war or epidemics. Plato was more afraid of a decline than a rise in the birth rate and considered that the civilian classes could breed without restriction so as to keep an average city state with 5,000 citizens (as stated in The Laws). To prevent marriage of the inferior members of the guardian classes a lottery system would be set up but so rigged that young men acquitting themselves well in war and other duties would be given the first opportunities of having a marriage partner for the term of the festival to produce children whilst the inferior youth would draw lots which "by chance" would not procure a partner for them. At the end of the festival the marriages would be dissolved but the superior youths would be able to draw by lot another (and different) partner at the next festival.
The newborn children were to be taken from their mothers and reared in special nurseries in a separate quarter of the city. Family life was to be discouraged as it provided a distraction from the business of governing, of defending or extending the city state by conquest. Any children born defective would be "hidden away" in some appropriate manner. This may actually be a euphemism for infanticide.8 However neither infanticide nor exposure as practised in Sparta and other Greek cities was recommended by Plato for his republic.
Women should be allowed to bear children from the ages of 20 - 40 years, and men reproduce from 25 - 55 years, when the bodily and mental powers are at their best. Unofficial unions which produced children would be considered as a civil (and divine) offence and appropriate punishments instituted. Men should only have relations with women of a marriagable age if the rulers had paired them together. Incestuous unions between parents and children were to be forbidden; but there were no sanctions against brother-sister unions. Brother-sister marriages were not uncommon in Egypt and the Greeks had probably not noticed the increased frequency of defective children resulting from consanguineous marriages.
The main aim of brother-sister incest as practised by the royal families of Egypt was to keep the throne within the family. It appears clear from portraits of the Ptolemies of Egypt, the most notorious case of such incest, that some members suffered from inherited endocrine disorders,9 but there is no evidence that this was connected by the ancients themselves with the practice of brother- sister incest. However, if all the newborn Greek children were brought up communally in a creche, real brothers and sisters would not perhaps know they were so related; especially as there would be so many different marriage pairs from each suceeding festival. Finally, men and women of the guardian classes past the child-bearing age could form relationships that would fall outside the jurisdiction of the rulers."
Galton DJ. Greek theories on eugenics. J Med Ethics. 1998 Aug;24(4):263-7. doi: 10.1136/jme.24.4.263. PMID: 9752630; PMCID: PMC1377679.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1377679/pdf/jmedeth00315-0049.pdf
“Debates on the relative merits of a small or large population were also being held in ancient China as far back as the 6th century B.C.E. (Xueyuan, 2019).”
https://eeca.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/depopulation20as20a20policy20challenge.pdf
One of the things that is very interesting in the study of Plato and Aristotle's eugenic like theories is how closely they match certain Nazi practices, like the requirement that all SS officers prove the "purity" of their familial lineage, and could only marry equally "pure" women, were encouraged to have more children, and were planned to be a "reservoir" of "the best human genes" from now on, and put in power over Germany and Germans.
While the Nazis have gained large amounts of negative attention for their eugenics policies, somehow Plato and Aristotle haven’t. Nor has the precedent been widely acknowledged. Which is extremely concerning, when evaluating current potential for eugenics activity.
Malthusianism
“Thomas Malthus. Malthus was a British economist, a very influential one. And in 1798, Malthus published a book called, quote, “An Essay on the Principle of Population.” And in this book Malthus put forward an influential idea, and a rather counterintuitive one. Malthus said that when food production increased, people were better off for a little. But that improvement led to an increase in population, which eventually caused societal problems: there were too many people, and not enough food to go around. Poverty and famine were the natural results. Like animals, Malthus said, humans had a certain “carrying capacity.” When it exceeded that carrying capacity, enough people would die to return the population to a natural equilibrium. So in the nineteenth century, that so-called “Malthusian” model became the conventional wisdom in European intellectuals. It led them to focus on what they called “overpopulation,” and made them basically think of famine as nature reducing population to a sustainable level. Not that the Malthusian idea was really correct. No serious economist today will tell you that having “too many people” is the reason people are poor or hungry. In 1981, the economist Amartya Sen explained the real cause of most historical famines. If you look at the historical record, Sen said, a collective lack of food is never the real problem. The cause of famines – while it often has something to do with a decline in agricultural production – is more related to the unequal DISTRIBUTION of food: there’s enough food for everyone, but some people can’t exchange what they have for that food. Sen found that famine is usually not the result of “too little food,” but of exploitation and unequal economic relations.”
How Britain Starved Ireland
An Essay on the Principle of Population, by T. R. Malthus
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4239
State Eugenics Boards
Many states in the USA passed Eugenics based laws, including forced sterilization laws.
"..to stamp out those deemed to have "undesirable traits" such as disabilities, mental illness, criminal records, or specific ethnic or racial backgrounds."
“Indiana passed the world’s first sterilization law in 1907. Thirty-one states followed suit. State-sanctioned sterilizations reached their peak in the 1930s and 1940s but continued and, in some states, rose during the 1950s and 1960s.
The United States was an international leader in eugenics. Its sterilization laws actually informed Nazi Germany. The Third Reich’s 1933 “Law for the Prevention of Offspring with Hereditary Diseases” was modeled on laws in Indiana and California. Under this law, the Nazis sterilized approximately 400,000 children and adults...”
"...Even after the details of the Nazi sterilization program (as well as its role as a precursor to the "Euthanasia" murders) became more widely known after World War II (and which the New York Times had reported on extensively and in great detail even before its implementation in 1934), sterilizations in some American states did not stop. Some states continued to sterilize residents into the 1970s."
https://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/
Many states also formed official State Eugenics Boards.
Records show 60,000 Americans were forcibly sterilized under these laws, but it is also well documented that there was very poor record keeping on these practices, indicating certainty that the actual number of victims was much larger.
One of the last State Eugenics Boards closed in 1983 (Oregon)
“Gregory W. Rutecki, MD writes about the forced sterilization of Native Americans, which persisted into the 1970s and 1980s, with examples of young women receiving tubal ligations when they were getting appendectomies. It’s estimated that as many as 25-50 percent of Native American women were sterilized between 1970 and 1976. Forced sterilization programs are also a part of history in Puerto Rico, where sterilization rates are said to be the highest in the world.
...Relf v. Weinberger: Mary Alice and Minnie Relf, poor African American sisters from Alabama, were sterilized at the ages of 14 and 12. Their mother, who was illiterate, had signed an “X” on a piece of paper she believed gave permission for her daughters, who were both mentally disabled, to receive birth control shots. In 1974, the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Relf sisters, revealing that 100,000 to 150,000 poor people were being sterilized each year under federally-funded programs.”
While Eugenics became less popular amongst the majority of people in USA, and forced sterilization started to wane after the 1980s, it never went away. Many laws, including Buck v. Bell, were never overturned, and forced / coerced sterilization and other eugenic practices continued throughout the USA, mostly unofficially. Internationally it continued as well, more quietly, "...especially in China and India. In many parts of the world, involuntary sterilization is still intermittently used against minority groups."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26322647/
"Only seven of the 33 states who ran such programs have even publicly acknowledged or apologized to victims of sterilization."
There are currently laws in many states allowing for disabled people to be forcibly sterilized against their will. The laws are currently being utilized.
"These are the states that say that only people under guardianship can be forced to be sterilized: Arkansas, Colorado, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming, as well as Washington, D.C.
These states say people can be sterilized even if they are not under guardianship: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, and Vermont.
...some examples of states that allow many different people to ask a judge to sterilize someone: California, Idaho, and Utah.
...some examples of states where there are no laws on forced sterilization, but judges decided they had the power to order sterilizations: New Jersey (page 257), Pennsylvania (page 561), and Washington (page 232–233).
...the 3 states that ban forced sterilization for children: Connecticut, California, and Vermont.
...the 17 states that say that it is allowed for children: Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.
...some examples of states that say that the hearing usually has to be private: Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia (section (c)(4)), Hawai‘i, Idaho, Maine, and Vermont.
...The judges made it easier to order a forced sterilization than what the law allows.
...For example, in some states the person might find out only 10 days before the hearing, like in Colorado (section (4)), Georgia, (section (c)(4)), and Delaware.
...For example, this law in Delaware says that no one needs to tell... if.. says it would be “meaningless” to tell her.
...Here is an example of a case talking about hysterectomies: Matter of Susan S., No. 7764, 1996 WL 75343, at *1 (Del. Ch. Feb. 8, 1996).
...For example, here is a law from Arkansas (section (e)(2)), and a case from Illinois (page 425) that say that the guardian might be allowed to use the disabled person’s money for costs related to the court process.
...an example from Connecticut of how the judge decides if the person can give informed consent. In some states it is harder to show you can give informed consent. For example, in Oregon and California, you need to show that you understand a lot of details about the operation, like the type and effects of the anesthesia (the drug that makes you sleep during the operation). In Oregon and California, it might be easier for the judge to take away the decision from you. But in Massachusetts, a judge said that you do not have to know all the details of the operation to make your own decision (page 568, footnote 8). So in Massachusetts, it might be harder for the judge to say you cannot consent."
Forced Sterilization of Disabled People in the United States
The National Women's Law Center
https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/%C6%92.NWLC_SterilizationReport_2021.pdf
"Forced sterilizations continue
In the years between 1997 and 2010, unwanted sterilizations were performed on approximately 1,400 women in California prisons. These operations were based on the same rationale of bad parenting and undesirable genes evident in North Carolina in 1964. The doctor performing the sterilizations told a reporter the operations were cost-saving measures.
Unfortunately, forced sterilization continues on. Romani women have been sterilized unwillingly in the Czech Republic as recently as 2007. In northern China, Uighurs, a religious and racial minority group, have been subjected to mass sterilization and other measures of extreme population control.
All forced sterilization campaigns, regardless of their time or place, have one thing in common. They involve dehumanizing a particular subset of the population deemed less worthy of reproduction and family formation. They merge perceptions of disability with racism, xenophobia and sexism – resulting in the disproportionate sterilization of minority groups.
...The powerful documentary “No Más Bebés” tells the story of hundreds of Mexican American women coerced into tubal ligations at a county hospital in Los Angeles in the 1970s.”
"In April 2018, a bipartisan bill to ensure Tennessee prisoners are no longer urged to undergo sterilization if they want to spend less time behind bars passed in the state legislature. The move came less than a year after a White County judge signed an order "allowing inmates to get out of jail 30 days early if they agreed to free vasectomies or long-acting birth-control implants.
Dozens of inmates took the deal, according to at least one of several federal civil rights lawsuits filed as a result of the order," the Associated Press reported at the time.
Unconsented sterilization started in the United States more than 110 years ago.... steadily eliminated in the late 1970s. However, "Belly of the Beast" claims the practice did not precisely end when its legal justification did.
Six years ago, a California state auditor condemned officials on both federal and state levels after an investigation corroborated reporting that around one-third of the illegal surgeries and violations of the state's informed consent law had been breached."
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/new-documentary-illuminates-the-forced-sterilization-of-women-in-california-prison
"...State regulations impose informed consent requirements that must be met before a woman can be sterilized; however, Corrections and the Receiver's Office sometimes failed to ensure that inmates' consent for sterilization was lawfully obtained."
https://information.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2013-120.pdf
Canada: Forced and Coerced Sterilization of Indigenous Women
"Despite this horrific practice becoming illegal around 50 years ago, over 100 women from Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia, have come forward and said that they have gone through forced sterilizations, the most recent statement being from 2019."
Why Are Indigenous Women Still Being Forcibly Sterilized in Canada?
New testimony in Greenland's birth control scandal - BBC News
Ice detainees faced medical neglect and hysterectomies, whistleblower alleges
“Immigrants in a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) detention center in Georgia are being subjected to horrific conditions and treatment, including “jarring medical neglect” and a high rate of hysterectomies among women, according to a whistleblower complaint filed by several legal advocacy groups on behalf of a nurse who works there.
...Immigrants who spoke out against these conditions were regularly pushed into solitary confinement, the complaint said. Wooten says she was demoted and reprimanded when she spoke out about these practices, according to an interview with the Intercept.
The Intercept also reported that Wooten’s account was “bolstered by interviews with another current member of Irwin’s medical staff – who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation – and four people currently or recently detained there”.
According to the new complaint, Wooten reported an alarmingly high rate of hysterectomies – a surgery in which part or all of the uterus is removed – being performed on Spanish-speaking immigrants, many of whom did not appear to understand why they had undergone the procedure.
She said an off-site doctor supposedly performed the surgeries on women who complained of heavy menstrual cycles, but that many women seemed to not understand what had happened. In many cases nurses obtained consent from patients by “simply Googling Spanish”, the complaint alleges.
“Everybody he sees has a hysterectomy – just about everybody,” Wooten said. “That’s his specialty, he’s the uterus collector. Everybody’s uterus cannot be that bad.”
Planned Parenthood
“According to author George Grant in his book Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood:
[Sanger] began to build the work of the American Birth Control League, and ultimately, of Planned Parenthood. Margaret relied heavily on the men, women, ideas, and resources of the Eugenics movement. Virtually all of the organization’s board members were Eugenicists. Financing for the early projects from the opening of the birth control clinics to the publishing of the revolutionary literature – came from Eugenicists. The speakers at the conferences, the authors of the literature and the providers of the services were almost without exception avid Eugenicists. And the international work of Planned Parenthood were originally housed in the offices of the Eugenics Society while the organizations themselves were institutionally intertwined for years.”
https://www.liveaction.org/news/planned-parenthoods-connections-to-eugenics/
Planned Parenthood’s ties to eugenics go far beyond Margaret Sanger...
“The fact is that despite the claims of their supporters, not only does Planned Parenthood have a connection to eugenics separate from their founder, but many of Planned Parenthood’s officials were members or leaders of the American Eugenics Society. The following is a very abbreviated list of examples:
Henry P. Fairchild was vice president of Planned Parenthood and (surprise!) he was also a past president of the American Eugenics Society. According to the American Sociological Association, “One of Fairchild’s most famous contributions was the development of the Planned Parenthood of America Federation, called the Birth Control Federation of America until 1942. There he served on the Board of Directors in 1932 and later the Vice President from 1939-1948.”
The Rockefellers, Margaret Sanger and the Eugenic Dimension of Birth Control in Colonial India and Republican China
William Gates Sr. and Planned Parenthood
"Bill Gates: "My dad was head of Planned Parenthood. And it was very controversial to be involved with that."
"Notable Advocates:
Many influential figures believed eugenics could improve society. As it was then, the Industrial Elites actively advocated for eugenics and depopulation.
Andrew Carnegie: His foundation funded the Station for Experimental Evolution and the Eugenics Record Office (ERO), in Cold Spring Harbor in 1913, with active operations until 1939.
Thomas Edison: Supported eugenics as a tool for improving the human race.
Rockefeller initially funded Dr. Rene Sand to organize the WHO after Word War II, who in turn hired Dr. Brock Chisholm as the WHO’s first Director General. Dr. Chisholm was a passionate eugenicist, and depopulation advocate."
Founding Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO)
“Chisholm, long before he assumed office at the WHO, was an active proponent of population control and eugenics, and Farley asserts that it was inevitable that he would eventually place family planning on the WHO agenda.”
Dooley on Farley, 'Brock Chisholm, the World Health Organization, and the Cold War'
ISBN 978-0-7748-1476-8.
“George Brock Chisholm, CC, CBE, ED, psychiatrist, medical administrator, soldier (born 1896 in Oakville, ON; died 1971 in Victoria, BC). Brock Chisholm earned honours for courageous service in the First World War, including a Military Cross (MC) and Bar. He obtained his MD from the University of Toronto in 1924 and became an influential psychiatrist following training at Yale University. He introduced mental health as a component of the recruitment and management of the Canadian Army during the Second World War. He directed the army’s medical services, served in the federal government as deputy minister of health, and became the founding director-general of the World Health Organization (WHO).”
The Canadian Encyclopedia
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/brock-chisholm
“In the 1980s, WHO had to reckon with the growing influence of the World Bank. The bank had initially been formed in 1946 to assist in the reconstruction of Europe and later expanded its mandate to provide loans, grants, and technical assistance to developing countries. At first, it funded large investments in physical capital and infrastructure; in the 1970s, however, it began to invest in population control, health, and education, with an emphasis on population control.32 The World Bank approved its first loan for family planning in 1970. In 1979, the World Bank created a Population, Health, and Nutrition Department and adopted a policy of funding both stand-alone health programs and health components of other projects.
In its 1980 World Development Report, the Bank argued that both malnutrition and ill health could be countered by direct government action—with World Bank assistance.33 It also suggested that improving health and nutrition could accelerate economic growth, thus providing a good argument for social sector spending. As the Bank began to make direct loans for health services, it called for more efficient use of available resources and discussed the roles of the private and public sectors in financing health care. The Bank favored free markets and a diminished role for national governments.34 In the context of widespread indebtedness by developing countries and increasingly scarce resources for health expenditures, the World Bank’s promotion of “structural adjustment” measures at the very time that the HIV/AIDS epidemic erupted drew angry criticism but also underscored the Bank’s new influence.
In contrast to the World Bank’s increasing authority, in the 1980s the prestige of WHO was beginning to diminish. One sign of trouble was the 1982 vote by the World Health Assembly to freeze WHO’s budget.35 This was followed by the 1985 decision by the United States to pay only 20% of its assessed contribution to all UN agencies and to withhold its contribution to WHO’s regular budget, in part as a protest against WHO’s “Essential Drug Program,” which was opposed by leading US-based pharmaceutical companies.36 These events occurred amidst growing tensions between WHO and UNICEF and other agencies and the controversy over Selective versus Comprehensive Primary Health Care. As part of a rancorous public debate conducted in the pages of Social Science and Medicine in 1988, Kenneth Newell, a highly placed WHO official and an architect of Comprehensive Primary Health Care, called Selective Primary Health Care a “threat... [that] can be thought of as a counter-revolution.”
Theodore M. Brown, Marcos Cueto, Elizabeth Fee, “The World Health Organization and the Transition From “International” to “Global” Public Health”, American Journal of Public Health 96, no. 1 (January 1, 2006): pp. 62-72.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.050831
PMID: 16322464
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2004.050831
PMCID: PMC1470434 PMID: 16322464
UK Unlawfully in the WHO
W“e are constantly hearing about how the United Kingdom and the other alleged Member States of the World Health Organization (WHO) will soon be subject to medical and political tyranny under the International Health Regulations 2005 (IHR) amendments and the so called ‘Pandemic Treaty’. However, there is really good news as our new research has shown that the UK is unlawfully in the WHO and we have the evidence to prove it. It is likely that all the other countries are also unlawfully in the WHO especially as the alleged circumstances of the establishment of the WHO is exposed as being a fraud. It was claimed that China and Brazil wanted the WHO and put forward a joint ‘resolution’ and ‘declaration’ for it at the 1945 San Francisco UN Charter conference when really this came from US government/ Rockefeller Foundation ‘plant’ Dr Szeming Sze a Chinese/ American who then went on to help force the WHO into place by manipulation and scheming and was well rewarded for his efforts. This is in addition to many other unlawful actions that were carried out to the detriment of the UK and the other alleged member states as detailed below.
We are now launching a new legal action for an Injunction to reject the current IHR 2005 and proposed amendments, any future ‘Pandemic Treaty’ and any and all dictates from the WHO now and in the future being imposed upon us. We will also be seeking to prevent any further funds (the UK is currently one of the largest contributors to the WHO) now or in the future being sent by the UK government to the WHO or any other related organisation such as GAVI or CEPI. Also we will be seeking to leave the WHO on the basis that we are unlawfully in it and have been since the start in 1946.
The Facts Behind Alleged UK Membership of the WHO
1. It is claimed that the WHO was formed in 1948, however this is an outright lie as the Constitution of the WHO was signed by the UK and other nations in 1946 when people, including Parliament, were distracted with the aftermath of the War. The WHO had already been agreed and planned in 1945 when finalising the UN Charter so even this was just working out the finer details.
There was then an ‘Interim Commission’ of the WHO from 1946 that just went seamlessly into the permanent WHO in 1948 after the alleged ‘ratification’ of this ‘Constitution’ by the alleged Member States.
2. The myth of the WHO is that it was suddenly proposed at the San Francisco at the UN Charter conference in April – June 1945 as it was alleged that health had not even been thought about. But two top public health doctors from Brazil and China (and another from Norway) just happened to be there as hangers-on (this lie is exposed from just this as why would these top public health doctors even be there if health had been forgotten!) and proposed a global health organisation. Further research into these 2 doctors exposes them both of having extensive Rockefeller Foundation links and loyalties. Dr Geraldo H de Paula Souza of Brazil is also exposed as being an ardent eugenicist who wrote a major paper on eugenics (‘Eugenics and Immigration’) in 1928. Dr Szeming Sze is exposed as working in a top job for the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) in 1945 based in Washington DC, who went on to be rewarded with a Rockefeller Fellowship and a top job at the UN. In fact BOTH Sze and Souza were great friends working together in 1945 for the UNRRA in Washington and were clearly happy to collude with both each other and the US government/ Rockefeller Foundation and make everyone believe their respective countries wanted the WHO not just them as they were bought and paid for by Rockefeller money.
3. Another driving force behind the ‘WHO proposals’ at San Francisco was Dr Karl Evang, the Director General of Public Health of Norway another US/ Rockefeller ‘plant’ and a controversial figure who was urgently dispatched back to Norway on 8th May (in case he ruined the plans) after it was claimed he got Sze and the Chinese Delegation onside with the covert Rockefeller/ US plans for the WHO.
4. Evang was at the Hot Springs, USA conference in 1943, the formation of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (F.A.O). when plans for a new international health organisation were first openly discussed and decided upon. He was then a member of the WHO Technical Preparatory Committee (along with Sze and Souza) finalising the WHO Constitution prior to the June – July 1946 Conference which of course he, Sze and Souza participated in. Evang then went on to have a top well paid job with the WHO in addition to securing Rockefeller Foundation funding for Norway.
5. At Hot Springs the fraud of the ‘Interim Commission’ was first used in 1943 which is how all the organisations including the UN and the WHO came into existence after the ploy worked so well with the FAO. Once these organisations were set up exactly as they wanted and christened “Interim Commissions” it was then impossible for others with no involvement in the ‘expert’ proceedings to later reject them. This was even more the case with the distractions of war and the aftermath of war. It is also an example of using powerful psychological manipulation techniques which the US government spent the 1930s and 1940s perfecting.
6. The WHO proudly has an article of a 1989 interview with Sze labelled “The Birth of WHO” on its website where it claims the WHO was dreamed up over a “medical lunch” at San Francisco on 2/5/45 completely out of the blue https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/45224/WH-1989-May-p28-29-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y The contradictions between this version of events and the reality are obvious when compared with Sze’s own diary.
7. In the article Sze claimed that he was at San Francisco as a “private secretary” of the head of the Chinese Delegation mainly to translate his speeches into English. His diary reveals that he wrote not translated just one speech not even for the conference. He also jetted off to Washington and New York during the conference and left very early back to the UNRRA in Washington once he had done what he was really there to do. A complete fabrication and hardly the behaviour of a “private secretary” there for translation purposes, because he was not! Also, why would a top US government/ UNRRA public health doctor agree to be a mere secretary for the Chinese Delegation if there was not an ulterior motive? How would he even get the opportunity if it was not all deliberately set up for him? He was then a Delegate for many future conferences and a signatory for China (also Souza on behalf of Brazil) of the WHO ‘constitution’, further proof that he was a ‘plant’. Of course the fact that he was instrumental in forcing the formation of the WHO did not appear in the article just that he ‘accidentally’ came up with the concept! where all the future UN plans were made) proposals and Hot Springs resolutions on a new international health organisation immediately to plan a “Health Interim Commission” and demonstrates this was merely obtaining the WHO by stealth without prior notice or notification to the nation states and putting it in over the existing organisations in an underhanded way that would have otherwise been opposed by many countries especially if they knew the US government and Rockefeller Foundation were behind everything. His diary also details extensive US plans, planned location, potential Director-Generals and even reveals that a US written first draft of the WHO Constitution was already in wide circulation by 4th October 1945. It also reveals that he actually was “on leave” from the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) so he clearly worked for the WHO predecessor under the health division. Sze names his UNRRA bosses as Sawyer and Crabtree and UNRRA records reveal them to be Dr Wilbur Sawyer, Director, International Health Division, Rockefeller Foundation and Dr James Crabtree, Executive Assistant to the US Surgeon-General.
9. The UNRRA was a temporary organisation originally planned to be disbanded in 1946 so it is likely that Sze had concerns about his lucrative job (the UNRRA paid extremely well). So this was probably a good motivation for his fraudulent deeds as well as the Rockefeller Foundation fellowship he was chasing. He was also probably planning and scheming the top WHO/ UN job he ended up with. The diary exposes that he was clearly working full time in his UNRRA job to force the WHO into existence the entire time. He was also responsible for writing everything that was claimed to be coming from the Chinese and Brazilian governments regarding ‘their’ desires for the WHO.
10. Sze left the conference for Washington on 6th May 1945 and in Washington “his” draft resolution forming the “Interim Commission” was then approved
by Sawyer, Crabtree, Dr Ludwik Rajchman (the Rockefeller sponsored former
Director of the League of Nations Health Organisation then also working for
the US government based in Washington and whom Sze credited as helping him write the Chinese/ Brazilian ‘Resolution’), the Rockefeller influenced US Surgeon-General, the Rockefeller influenced US Public Health Service and the Rockefeller influenced UK Health Service. In his diary Sze stated “there was general agreement that it represented substantially what all wanted.”
11. Sze’s diary also details how the Chinese and Brazilian delegates had to be primed and cajoled to pull off the WHO narrative and to introduce it as coming from their governments. He also detailed how he wrote many letters and telegrams to many people to this end.
12. Sze’s diaries further reveal that the Rockefeller Foundation controlled US Surgeon-General, Thomas Parran, had promised help to the Chinese government via the US Public Health Service, which came under his control, in return for their co-operation in establishing the WHO.
13. Sze’s diary states that Souza’s university in Brazil received a very large grant after the San Francisco conference and he had a big promotion waiting for him after his UNRRA (and covertly setting up the WHO) work with Sze in Washington finished.
14. Sze’s diary also reveals that the UK government under the Rockefeller controlled Chief Medical Officer, Sir Wilson Jameson, played a large part in this obvious fraud.
15. It was claimed that the Economic and Social Council (ESC) in February 1946 ‘convened’ the conference but this was just rubber stamping what was already happening. After the March – April 1946 ‘Technical Preparatory Committee of Experts’ (stuffed full of Rockefeller/ US government controlled people including Sze, Souza, Evang, Parran, Mackenzie and Jameson) the ESC then issued a Resolution on 11/6/46 endorsing the Committee’s Report. From a mere ‘declaration’ at the 1945 conference the whole WHO was then put in place by the US government and Rockefeller Foundation and the 1946 conference with its little ‘committees’ and ‘constitution’ signing was nothing more than a formality of what had already been agreed and set in stone, a public show and an excuse for many lavish lunches, dinners, cocktail parties and socialising.
16. It was clear that the whole Evang/ Souza/ Sze/ China/ Brazil manipulation to impose the WHO on the countries of the world was a fraud set up using these three allegedly representing their countries as stooges of the Rockefeller Foundation and US government. See Sze’s handwritten/ typed 46 page diary from 2/5/45 - 28/12/45 here
https://digital.library.pitt.edu/islandora/object/pitt%3A31735066261466/viewe
17. The WHO Constitution was signed in 1946 on behalf of the UK by two mere government advisors not even delegates let alone the elected representatives that should have signed such an important document binding the UK indefinitely to this organisation that right from the start was seeking to control sovereign nations.
18. A delegation went off to New York City, United States on 23rd May 1946 (see page 12 of below UN archive document) headed up by a Minister the two signatories of the WHO Constitution Dr M Mackenzie and Mr G E Yates are clearly listed as ‘advisors’ see page 14
19. The delegation that went in May 1946 was to attend the UN Economic and Social Council and there was no mention of any health matters let alone signing the UK up to a so-called World Health Organization directly afterwards. Hansard from May 1946 has no mention of any of it.
20. According to the list sent to the UN the Minister in charge of the delegation from 7th June 1946, Hector McNeil, was supposed to be in New York and yet Hansard evidences him as speaking in Parliament on this day in a debate that started at 2.20pm. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1946/jun/07/unrra
21. This is completely at odds with a Western Union telegram (see page 13 of the delegation document above) which claims that McNeil left RAF Northolt on 6th June 1946 at 14.00 arriving in Newark, USA on 7th June 1946 at 07.00. So, the same man was in two different places at the same time according to official records. We believe Hansard and do not think that McNeil ever went to the UN Economic and Social Council so that he could not be involved in the establishing of the WHO less than 2 weeks later. After the 7th June there were no more Commons sittings until July so it is not possible to check after the 7th but it seems clear that he did not attend the meeting in New York or was not planning to from his speeches on this day.
22. Meetings of the International Health Conference took place in New York between 19th June 1946 and 22nd July 1946. Ending with the WHO Constitution being signed by these two ‘advisors’ on behalf of the UK. See page 117 of official WHO record below for signatures noting the fact that Sir Wilson Jameson the Chief Medical Officer who appeared from the start of the ‘Conference’ on 19th June 1946 despite not being in the original delegation did not sign the WHO Constitution. Also note how at page 10 Mackenzie and Yates are suddenly promoted to ‘delegates’ despite being previously notified to the UN as ‘advisors’. Further note there are no Ministers present despite one or perhaps two being in New York only a short time before.
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/85573/Official_record2_eng.p
df?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
23. Mackenzie apparently had for some unknown reason the privilege of being a plenipotentiary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenipotentiary) which is permission for a ‘diplomat’ to sign a treaty on behalf of a government. This is supposed to be for emergencies only on a temporary basis until correct procedure could be followed but instead was used to permanently bypass the People and Parliament’s consent as the Nazis had previously done with this method. As the world was now at peace there was no excuse for Mackenzie to sign this Constitution in the place of an elected Minister especially regarding the massive financial and regulatory implications and the fact that it was ad infinitum, further it cannot be claimed that Mackenzie was a ‘diplomat’.
Mackenzie had also been key in the drafting of the WHO Constitution, had been central to the League of Nations Health Organisation (LNHO) for 15 years and went on to enjoy top posts in the WHO including on the Executive Board see his Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melville_Mackenzie
24. Mackenzie during his time in the LNHO personally imposed tyranny upon the people of Greece in 1928 including imposing massive fines upon them for not following his ‘regulations’ (Coming to Terms with World Health – Iris Borowy and Peter Lang p301). So there can be no doubt that Mackenzie knew that the intention of the WHO was to control the world population under the pretence of ‘health’ in ways that were never possible for the LNHO.
25. Also, why did Yates, a mere administrator, sign the Constitution instead of the Chief Medical Officer Jameson? There is no record that Yates was also a plenipotentiary but it is on record that Jameson was also a lawyer, having trained for the Bar in addition to being a doctor, so no doubt was covering his own back by not being a signatory in case the big deception was discovered. Jameson had massive Rockefeller connections and was also relentless in his “germs are worse than Germans” propaganda and peddling ‘vaccines’.
26. There were only 2 nations that signed the WHO Constitution without any form of ratification or referendum required for membership. One nation was China and the other was the UK. From an extensive search of Hansard between May 1946 and July 1946 it is obvious that only a very few MPs even knew about the UN Security Council meetings in New York and no-one at all knew about the International Health Conference Meetings and the signing of the WHO Constitution that followed.
27. This even extended to the Health Minister himself, Aneurin Bevan, who stated in a Cabinet meeting on 7th November 1946 that IF a World Health Organisation was set up he would not want it based in the US instead favouring London. This was over three months AFTER the UK had already been signed up to the WHO by the lowly government advisors Mackenzie and Yates http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pdfs/large/cab-128-6.pdf
28. All UN/ International organisations, agreements and treaties were supposed to be discussed and agreed to by at least the Cabinet if not Parliament according to Ministerial statements at the time.
29. It is evidenced that around August 1946 Gilbert Yates, just after he signed the
UK up to the WHO, was given a very top job in the UN Secretariat. In 1947 Sze’s diaries show that Yates also gave him a top job at the UN. Yates went on to enjoy a long lucrative UN career and soon became a Director there.
30. Yates was well rewarded for his efforts and Sze’s diaries reveal that when Mackenzie signed the UK up to the WHO he was hoping to become Director-General of the WHO himself and was annoyed when he did not.
31. The WHO was not formed by a Treaty and is merely a ‘constitution’ and therefore can be seen as not legally binding on any Member State least of all the UK. This is the originally signed ‘constitution’ for the WHO from the UN Treaty resource https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1948/04/19480407%2010-51%20PM/Ch_IX_01p.pdf as can be observed from the signatures many are just squiggles. This document is not easily found and is clearly hidden away to prevent questions on its legality, legitimacy and validity. It is a legal requirement for names to appear on a legally binding document preferably in capital letters. Further, the positions and authority of the signatories should have been included. The UK signatories were not authorised delegates on behalf of the UK and from scrutiny of photographs of the meetings taken between 19/6/46 and 22/7/46 it is likely that many others also were not.
32. The WHO was originally The League of Nations Health Organisation (LNHO) which had extensive links and received massive funding from the Rockefeller Foundation from the very start. The Rockefeller Foundation and another funder the Milbank Memorial Fund had extensive eugenics policies and connections. At least 2 employees of the LNHO went on to work for one of these foundations. This included Dr Frank G Boudreau who as Director of the Milbank Memorial Fund signed the WHO ‘constitution’ on behalf of the US. The LNHO itself claimed to not be involved with eugenics at all and yet they came up with blatant eugenics policies in reports such as the mandatory sterilisation of leper adults. The ardent eugenicist Dr Geraldo H de Paul Souza of Brazil (and plotter of the WHO formation!) was also a member of the LNHO.
33. The LNHO worked with and visited fascist Italy on numerous occasions.
34. The LNHO worked with Spain’s Franco regime even during the war knowing that they were also working with the Nazis. The Rockefeller Foundation also founded and funded Spain’s public health institutions directly including during the war, again with full knowledge of the Nazi collaboration.
35. The LNHO worked with Nazi Germany during the war and freely supplied them with epidemiological information and further allowed a German former employee Dr Otto Osler, a Nazi party member, all throughout the war to sell current data to the Nazis and by January 1942 alone he had sold a massive 38 packages of information to the Nazis. This was done with the blessing of the acting director, Yves Biraud, who passed on his regards to the Nazis and noted that the letters from Osler that went with the packages were ended with ‘Heil Hitler’. A blind eye to this was also given by the British and US governments and no action was ever taken against Osler or anyone at the LNHO. Osler went on after the war to work for the WHO and the Rockefeller Foundation. Also, another German doctor, Dr Fritz Rott, did a lot of work for the LNHO in the 1920s and 1930s including on social hygiene and birth control and he became a member of the Nazi Party in 1933 developing health policies for them including on racial hygiene. This got him elevated to the post of Deputy Director of the new Nazi Imperial Centre for Health Matters. He was also interested in eugenics and actively participated in the process of bringing all strands of public activity under Nazi control (known as Gleichschaltung) including the “cleansing” of institutions of Jewish members. After the war he was not punished for his Nazi activities and became a medical practitioner in exclusive Baden Baden.
36. Although responsible for the creation of the LNHO, the British government was opposed to LNHO overreach and encroachment upon national sovereignty from the start and throughout. It was also opposed to LNHO dominance of personal agendas/ politics and Rockefeller influence. This situation changed after LNHO and Rockefeller actors Mackenzie and Jameson ended up in the top UK government health jobs during the war.
37. In 1946 the LNHO was incorporated into the WHO. Yves Biraud (former wartime head of LNHO) was put in a top position and all LNHO staff were hired by the WHO and almost everything the LNHO ever did was simply continued by the WHO with the benefit of much more power and money behind it.
38. The United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) was set up by US President Roosevelt (and notionally other nations) in 1943 with massive US funding. The claim was it was to help refugees and displaced persons but based upon only six words in its constitution (“aid in the prevention of pestilence”) it was able to become a WHO predecessor with an epidemiology and surveillance service (taken over from the LNHO), massive public health powers and were able to mandatory vaccinate anyone they wanted to. They also imposed the International Sanitary Conventions of 1944 on the entire world.
39. Once the US government/ Rockefeller Foundation had seized control of ‘health’ and ‘public health’ they did not want to surrender it and it was important to force the creation of the WHO as soon as possible. The reasons being the UNRRA had a limited life and the International Sanitary Conventions of 1944, a source of great power and control urgently needed a new vehicle to be transferred to. They were also keen to eliminate all other rival long established world-wide ‘health’ organisations and continue the process they had already started with the UNRRA of bringing it under the United Nations’ control.
40. Evidence shows that the WHO ‘Interim Commission’ was funded in 1946 with $1.5 million from the UNRRA (and indirectly the US people of course), the very organisation it was replacing.
41. The UNRRA seamlessly morphed into the WHO in 1946-48 with a cool $100 million surplus funds which was handed over to the previous head of the LNHO, Dr Ludwik Rajchman, in his new role as head of UNICEF.
42. It is inconceivable that the UK could have unlawfully been signed up to membership of the WHO and subject to major regulatory and financial burdens without Parliament even knowing about it let alone being able to potentially reject it. It is also inconceivable that the Prime Minister, Foreign or Health Secretaries were not involved or did not even appear to know about it in 1946 or if they did they were deceiving Parliament by not disclosing anything about it for the Parliamentary record between May and July 1946.
43. It cannot be claimed that the seemingly idealistic, positive, health improving WHO of 1946 is the same as the WHO of 2023 which has gone down the dark path of fraud, corruption and medical tyranny since it started. This US Social Security bulletin from 1946 states “For the first time, emphasis was laid not on quarantine and checking epidemics and other defensive measures, but on positive, aggressive action toward health in its broadest sense.” This is exactly opposite to what the WHO is trying to do with its IHR amendments and ‘Pandemic Treaty’. This bulletin also states that the UK signatures were “without reservation” whilst other countries at least in theory had to pay some lip service to ratification.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v9n10/v9n10p18.pdf
44. The signatories of the WHO constitution would be horrified at how the WHO has ended up and would retract the signatures, particularly US signatory Dr Martha M Eliot who devoted her entire career to the care of children, mothers and babies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_May_Eliot
45. This is further horrific when you consider the evil and sinister origins of the LNHO that the WHO evolved from of eugenics, Nazi and fascist collaboration, Rockefeller and Big Pharma control and the need to control the world’s population based upon the excuse of ‘health’ and ‘public health’.
46. There is no doubt that powerful psychological techniques were used on the participants of the International Health Conference between June and July 1946. This included the relentlessly promoted fear of ‘disease’ and ‘contagion’. The Constitution was already pre-written mainly by the US government and just small details were decided by groups using peer pressure and consensus. The ‘Constitution’ was forced upon the delegates who were under the illusion that it would be properly considered, ratified and could be rejected by their own governments. In reality of course this did not happen and in the UK no form of review or ratification at all was sought.
47. Participants of these 1945 and 1946 conferences told of the abundance of top quality food and drink and the numerous cocktail parties and socialising involved. To people used to war time shortages this was a form of bribery to just go along with what their US hosts wanted. Many of the participants also went on to enjoy top very well paid UN or WHO jobs or to receive Rockefeller Foundation or US government grants, funds or benefits.
48. The People and Parliament of the UK have been totally bypassed and deceived regarding the unlawful origins of membership of the WHO from 1946 to the present day which as of the 22nd July 2023 has been for 77 years.
49. Regarding the facts above we consider that the UK was unlawfully signed up to the WHO Constitution and is therefore not legitimately a Member State of the WHO and should not be subject to the International Health Regulations 2005, the recent amendments thereof and any ‘Pandemic Treaty’. Further the UK should not be subject to any dictates from the WHO or should have to make any further financial contributions to the WHO or any associated organisations. It could also be said that the ‘contributions’ paid in the past should now be refunded as the WHO knowingly allowed Mackenzie and Yates to unlawfully sign the Constitution and without ratification.
50. Other alleged WHO ‘member states’ should now examine this fraud and how they ended up in the WHO despite alleged ratification or a referendum being necessary as it is very suspicious that no member state subsequently rejected WHO membership when it is clear that the adverse implications of membership were massively against the freedoms of the People.
https://static.crowdjustice.com/crowdjustice_document/UK_Unlawfully_in_the_WHO.pdf
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/uk-reject-and-exit-the-who/
"The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), formerly the United Nations Fund for Population Activities is the United Nations sexual and reproductive health agency. Our mission is to deliver a world where every pregnancy is wanted, every childbirth is safe and every young person's potential is fulfilled."
https://www.unfpa.org/about-us
Depopulation, a Policy Challenge in the Context of Global Demographic Trends
United Nations Development Programme
"A constant struggle for survival led to virtually all traditional cultural value systems and religions placing a strong emphasis on reproduction to enhance population growth and avoid had over mortality levels remained beyond reach. In Abrahamic tradition, “be fruitful and multiply” was the essential command that God gave to Adam and Eve, according to the book Genesis, sentiments echoed by many other cultures.1 The value of greater population growth even included the realm of political power and governance, as written in the Bible’s Proverbs 14:28: “In the multitude of people is the king’s glory.” Roman philosophers were of largely the same mindset, with many arguing in favor of early marriage, taxes for celibacy, and rewards for marriage and parenthood (Goswami, 1985).
However, already in ancient Greece the philosopher Plato had speculated about an optimal population size, which implied that already there was a conception that there could be too many people as well as too few, depending on the circumstances. He suggested the ideal population size for a Greek city state would be at a constant level of 5,040 households, mostly because the number is conveniently divisible by many numbers (including 12, which had a sacred dimension in ancient Greece), as well as this numerical limit helping people to capably perform their roles as citizens by knowing the community and avoiding anonymity. 2 Debates on the relative merits of a small or large population were also being held in ancient China as far back as the 6th century B.C.E. (Xueyuan, 2019).
During most of the Middle Ages, when social phenomena were viewed in fatalistic terms and population growth was valued as a byproduct of nature, Henry IV of England made a famous statement connecting the viability 1 For example, also in Hinduism, see Gudorf’s “Comparative Religious Ethics: Everyday Decisions for Our Everyday Lives” as well as various cultures of Sub-Saharan Africa, see Manuh and Sutherland-Addy’s “Africa in Contemporary Perspective”.
2 For more information, see Plato’s Laws.
of the state to the well-being of those who live in the kingdom and the sheer size of the population: “The strength and riches of kings consist in the number and opulence of their subjects,” he supposedly said around the year 1400 (Stangeland, 1904). Around the same time the Arab philosopher and historian Ibn Khaldun in Tunis wrote about the economic benefits of a growing population as it created the conditions for increasing specialization and division of labor, which in turn would lead to higher incomes.3
The connection between population growth and economy was also stressed by the Mercantilists in England, in particular John Graunt, William Petty, and Edmund Halley as well as Johann Peter Süssmilch in Prussia.
These 17th century thinkers held the view that the nations strongest in people and
material goods would survive and prevail over others. Quite specific policy recommendations flowed from this outlook, such as penalties for non-marriage, or limiting out-migration (except to their colonies). In 1662 John Graunt, who is sometimes called the father of demography, published the “Bills of Mortality” which are the first known statistical tables in demography. He famously showed that for every 100 children born in London only 16 were still alive at age 36, and only 3 at age 66
(Graunt, 1662). This extremely high level of mortality, seen from today’s perspective, also showed that the biggest potential for enhancing population growth was in the reduction of child mortality. This is what actually happened in the beginning of the demographic transition in the 19th century, but it was not considered as a viable option before modern medicine and hygiene, and therefore the discussion
at the time of Graunt and the Mercantilists focused mostly on fertility.
Reproduction was also the main focus of Robert Malthus, who believed that human beings like plants or animals are “impelled” to grow by a powerful “instinct” until they are held back by certain limits. He saw the decisive limit to human population growth in the availability
3 For more information, see Ibn Kaldun’s Al-Muqaddimah (“The Prologue”).
of food and what he called the means of subsistence. Malthus famously argued that while the population grows geometrically (exponentially) the food supply could only grow linearly due to limited availability of land and the diminishing returns to labor input. He thus predicted repeated famines that would stop population growth (positive checks) when growth would hit such limits. He did not overlook the possibility of voluntary reductions in fertility (preventive checks) through celibacy
or abstinence within marriage, though he considered this unrealistic because “the passion between the sexes will never diminish” (Malthus, 1798).
This perspective on human nature and the inclinations for populations to grow has survived as a powerful narrative up to this day and has since found different expressions. It notably inspired the 1972 report “The Limits to Growth,” published by the Club of Rome (Meadows et al., 1972). This scientific report has had the highest number of published copies in history, and used computer simulation methods to put numbers on the Malthusian claims noted above, with the addition of oil supplies as a decisive limiting factor as well as the limited factor of food supply. In the same tradition, the two influential books “The Population Bomb” and “The Population Explosion,” both by the biologist Paul Ehrlich (Ehrlich, 1968; Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1990) have greatly contributed to raising global political attention with respect to the potential dangers associated with rapid world population growth. In recent years this fear of population growth has been linked to directly contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, and making it more difficult to adapt to already unavoidable climate change (IPCC, 2014).
Notwithstanding these concerns about the dangers associated with rapid population growth, in the field of national politics a growing population continued to be mostly seen as something desirable. Changing population size at this level has always been closely linked to the perceived viability of states and their strength relative to neighboring popula-tions, exemplified by the traditional Franco-German struggle for influence and survival
Introduction: Population Decline from a Historical Perspective
9
After French defeat in the 1870-1871 war, divergent demographic trends received much more attention, where the markedly lower French fertility in the preceding decades was linked to weakness on the battlefield.
Even people of sharply different philosophical views at the time agreed on population matters. As expressed by demographer Arsène Dumont, “a nation must have a population dense enough to keep stable an equilibrium with her neighbors” (Dumont, as cited in Teitelbaum and Winter, 1985). Dumont sought balance to what he described as the growing unintended consequences of modern life on reproduction, known as “social capillarity,” or the limiting of fertility when it was advantageous to climb the social ladders. “From the moment when the imagination and the attraction of the ideal enter the scene, we find ourselves in the presence of a new principle of population,” he argued as the trends marched on. Upon surveying the French census results in 1907, an unnamed German professor is reported to have said, “more coffins than cradles: this is the beginning of the end... Finis Galliae” (Savant, as cited in Teitelbaum and Winter, 1985). In the years that followed, these realizations gave birth to France’s demographic fears and cycles of pro-natalism, a tradition that carries on in some form to this day and inspired the thinking in many countries beyond France.
The causes of contemporary population declines, low fertility rates, and high out-migration are linked to a high degree of individual agency and is relatively new in the scope of human history. Rather than being determined more directly by nature or unavoidable events, these population declines flow from modern life and the broader passage of demographic behaviors – fertility, mortality, and migration – deeper into the sphere of personal control.
Demographic behaviors are still not simply “elective” or independent of outside influence, however. A number of competing responsibilities and barriers exist that discourage people from having the family sizes they reportedly desire, 2.2 children on average in Europe (OECD, 2016) and migration often involves an element of being pushed, out of economic necessity.
Contemporary population change, to the extent it is driven by persistent transfers of people from one region to another, is perhaps the most consequential, long-term aspect of international relations. As the dynamic between countries is less rivalrous today in Europe than in the past, the conversation around migration is turning to one of examining imbalances and finding solidarity with the sending regions affected by population decline due to migration. Both the economic system and popular sentiment generally expect population growth to continue to occur, as it is a fixture in the psyche of modern society. This fixture has been influenced by the human experience especially over the last four decades of the 20th century during which, indeed, the vast majority of countries in the world experienced rapid population growth. While a reckoning with the end of this larger 300-year-long trend is coming this century, Western Europe has at least temporarily avoided confronting this change through in-migration from its neighbors as well as from other continents. This leaves other regions, such as the Balkans, as covered in this report, to be among the first group of countries (together with others in East Asia) to deal with modern “voluntary” depopulation.
Simply taking a country’s current population size as the norm is rather arbitrary, and unending population growth is, by definition, unsustainable. So, at some point, the slowing or ending of population growth is natural and to be expected (Lutz, Sanderson, and Scherbov, 2001). Still, there are multiple challenges associated with population decline, within certain bounds, given the causes behind it.
In this report we will address this issue from a multi-dimensional demographic perspective, which means that we will not only look at population size and age structure, but also differentiate by level of education and labor force participation. We expect smaller but higher-skilled societies across Europe, and as human resources grow more specialized and valuable there will be even more consequential competition for workers. If Western European countries that target the Balkans for migration do not pay greater attention to the impacts on the countries of origin, instead of being primarily driven by their own domestic labor market shortages, they risk undermining the long-term economic and social development of the Balkan region. In the following sections, the importance of human capital in the context of population decline and associated greater rates of aging will be discussed.”
https://eeca.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/depopulation20as20a20policy20challenge.pdf
The Kissinger Report, December 10, 1974
National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200)
https://zeromandatoryvaxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Kissinger-Report-Dec-10.-1974.pdf
(SNN) National Security Study Memorandum
200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200) was completed on December 10, 1974, by the United States National Security Council under the direction of Henry Kissinger. It was adopted as official U.S. policy by President Gerald Ford in November 1975. It was originally classified but was later declassified and obtained by researchers in the early 1990s
“Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can't/won't control their population growth?”
https://www.reteccp.org/NWO/kissinger-report.pdf
“On Dec. 10, 1974, the U.S. National Security Council under Henry Kissinger completed a classified 200-page study, “National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.”
The study falsely claimed that population growth in the so-called Lesser Developed Countries (LDCs) was a grave threat to U.S. national security. Adopted as official policy in November 1975 by President Gerald Ford, NSSM 200 outlined a covert plan to reduce population growth in those countries through birth control, and also, implicitly, war and famine. Brent Scowcroft, who had by then replaced Kissinger as national security adviser (the same post Scowcroft was to hold in the Bush administration), was put in charge of implementing the plan. CIA Director George Bush was ordered to assist Scowcroft, as were the secretaries of state, treasury, defense, and agriculture.
The bogus arguments that Kissinger advanced were not original. One of his major sources was the Royal Commission on Population, which King George VI had created in 1944 “to consider what measures should be taken in the national interest to influence the future trend of population.” The commission found that Britain was gravely threatened by population growth in its colonies, since “a populous country has decided advantages over a sparsely-populated one for industrial production.” The combined effects of increasing population and industrialization in its colonies, it warned, “might be decisive in its effects on the prestige and influence of the West,” especially effecting “military strength and security.”
.
https://anomalien.com/henry-kissingers-1974-plan-for-food-genocide/
The subject of NSSM-200 is “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.” This document, published shortly after the first major international population conference in Bucharest, was the result of collaboration among the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Departments of State, Defense and Agriculture.
NSSM-200 was made public when it was declassified and was transferred to the U.S. National Archives in 1990.
Although the United States government has issued hundreds of policy papers dealing with various aspects of American national security since 1974, NSSM-200 continues to be the foundational document on U.S. government population control. It therefore continues to represent official United States policy on government population control and, in fact, is still posted on the USAID website.
the mineral resources of less-developed countries, or LDCs.
The Kissinger Report states:
The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States.
According to the report, elements of the implementation of government population control programs could include the legalization of abortion, financial incentives for countries to increase their abortion, sterilization and contraception-use rates, indoctrination of children, and mandatory population control and coercion of other forms, such as withholding disaster and food aid unless an LDC implements population control programs.
This particular form of coercion is evident in this story of Peruvian women who did not wish to be sterilized. The workers visited one woman “day and night, day and night” to wear her down to agree to sterilization. Some food programs leveraged their power, demanding that women be sterilized or stop receiving food. Women weren’t told about Natural Family Planning. And many weren’t informed about the dangers of sterilization. Some women were even sterilized without knowledge or consent.
https://www.hli.org/resources/the-kissinger-report-nssm-200/
A U.N. commission is delaying food-shortage aid over its commitment to elective abortion.
Click here for Full Issue of EIR Volume 8, Number 10, March 10, 1981
© 1981 EIR News Service Inc. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission strictly prohibited.
EIR SpecialReport
The Haig-Kissinger depopulation policy
by Lonnie Wolfe
Investigations by EIR have uncovered a planning apparatus operating outside the control of the White House whose sole purpose is to reduce the world's population by 2 billion people through war, famine, disease, and any other means necessary.
This apparatus, which includes various levels of the government, is determining U.S.foreign policy.In every political hotspot-EI Salvador, the so-called arc of crisis in the Persian Gulf, Latin America, Southeast Asia, and in Africa-the goal of U.S.foreign policy is popUlation reduction.
The targeting agency for the operation is the National Security Council's Ad Hoc Group on Population Policy.Its policy-planning group is in the U.S. State Department's Office of Population Affairs, established in 1975 by Henry Kissinger.
This group drafted the Carter administration's Global 2000 document, which calls for global population reduction, and the same apparatus is conducting the civil war in EI Salvador as a conscious depopulation project. "There is a single theme behind all our work-we must reduce population
levels," said Thomas Ferguson, the Latin American case officer for the State
Department's Office of Population Affairs (OPA). "Either they [governments] do it our way, through nice clean methods or they will get the kind of mess that we have in EI Salvador, or in Iran, or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it.
"The professionals," said Ferguson, "aren't interested in lowering population for humanitarian reasons. That sounds nice. We look at resources and environmental constraints. We look at our strategic needs, and we say that this country must lower its popUlation-or else we will have trouble. So steps are taken. EI Salvador is an example where our failure to lower population by simple means has created the basis for a national security crisis. The government of EI Salvador failed to use our programs to lower their population. Now they get a civil war because of it.... There will be dislocation and food shortages. They still have too many people there."
Civil wars are somewhat drawn-out ways to reduce population, the OPA official added. "The quickest way to reduce population is through famine, like in Africa or through disease, like the Black Death," all of which might occur in El Salvador.
Ferguson's OPA monitors populations in the Third World and maps strategies to reduce them. Its budget for FY 1980 was $190 million; for FY 1981, it will be $220 million. The Global 2000 report calls for doubling that figure.
The sphere of Kissinger
In 1975, OPA was brought under a reorganized State Department Bureau of Oceans, International En
vironmental, and Scientific Affairs-a body created by Henry Kissinger. The agency was assigned to carry out the directives of the NSC Ad Hoc Group. According to an NSC spokesman, Kissinger initiated both groups after discussion with leaders of the Club of Rome during the 1974 population conferences in Bucharest and Rome. The Club of Rome, controlled by Europe's black nobility, is the primary promotion agency for the genocidal reduction of world population levels.
The Ad Hoc Group was given "high priority" by the Carter administration, through the intervention of National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and Secretaries of State Cyrus Vance and Edmund Muskie.
According to OPA expert Ferguson, Kissinger initiated a full about-face on U.S. development policy toward the Third World. "For a long time," Ferguson stated, "people here were timid." They listened to arguments from Third World leaders that said that the best contraceptive was economic reform and development. So we pushed development programs, and we helped create a population time bomb.
"We are letting people breed like flies without allowing for natural causes to keep population down.
We raised the birth survival rates, extended life-spans by lowering death rates, and did nothing about lowering birth rates. That policy is finished. We are saying with Global 2000 and in real policy that you must lower population rates. Population reduction and control is now our primary policy objective-then you can have some development."
Accordingly, the Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental, and Scientific Affairs has consistently
blocked industrialization policies in the Third World, denying developing nations access to nuclear energy technology.-the policies that would enable countries to sustain a growing population.
According to State Department sources, and Ferguson himself, Alexander Haig is a "firm believer" in population control.
"We will go into a country," said Ferguson, "and say, 'here is your goddamn development plan. Throw it out the window. Start looking at the size of your population and figure out what must be done to reduce it.
"If you don't like that, if you don't want to choose to do it through planning, then you'll have an El Salvador or an Iran, or worse, a Cambodia.' "
According to an NSC spokesman, the United States now shares the view of former World Bank President Robert McNamara that the "population crisis" is ar greater threat to U.S. national security interests than "nuclear annihilation."
"Every hot spot in the world corresponds to a population crisis point," said Ferguson, who would rename Brzezinski's arc of crisis doctrine the "arc of population crisis." This is corroborated by statements in the NSC Ad Hoc Group's April 1980 report.
There is "an increased potential for social unrest, economic and political instability, mass migration and possible international conflicts over control of land and resources, " says the N SC report. It then cites "demographic pressures" as key to understanding "examples of recent warfare in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, El Salvador, Honduras, and Ethiopia, and the growing potential for instability in such places as Turkey, the Philippines, Central America, Iran, and Pakistan." Through extraordinary efforts, the Ad Hoc Group and OPA estimate that they may be able to keep I billion people from being born through contraceptive programs.
But as the Ad Hoc Group's report states, the best efforts of the Shah of Iran to institute "clean programs" of birth control failed to make a significant dent in the country's birth rate. The promise of jobs, through an ambitious industrialization program, encouraged migration toward "overcrowded cities" like Teheran. Now under Ayatollah Khomeini, the "clean programs" have been dismantled. The government may make progress because it has a program "to induce up to half of Teheran's 6 million residents to relocate, as well as possible measures to keep rural migrants from moving to the cities."
Behind the back of the President Ferguson and others involved with the OPA and
NSC group maintain that the United States will continue a foreign policy based on a genocidal reduction of the world's population. "We have a network in place of cothinkers in the government," said the OPA case officer. "We keep going, no matter who is in the White House." But Ferguson reports that the "White House" does not really understand what they are saying and that the President "thinks that population policy means how do we speed up population increase. As long as no one says differently, " said Ferguson, "we will continue to do our jobs." then you might accomplish something. Unfortunately. we don't have too many instances like that to study,"
'Need famine, disease'
However, said Ferguson, "The population might weaken itself, especially if the war drags on, [and] you could have disease and starvation, like what happened in Bangladesh and Biafra. Then you can create a tendency for population to fall very rapidly.
This could happen in El Salvador. When that starts happening, you have total political chaos for a while, so you must have a political program to deal with it.
"I can't estimate how many people might die that way. It could be a great deal, depending on what happens."
The preconditions for the holocaust Ferguson hopes for now exist in EI Salvador.
The New York Times rep orts that the country's small and medium-size villages are already depopulated by 50 percent.
EI Salvador survives on exports of sugar, cotton, and coffee. This year's coffee crop has been cut more than half, sugar is down by over 20 percent, and coffee by 7 percent. These facts spell mass starvation in the near term for the war-weakened peasantry.
As the war intensifies, the population is being herded into "strategic hamlets" like those run in Vietnam by U.S. military advisers. The Jesuit-run guerrilla movement is also destroying all internal infrastructure in the countryside, burning bridges and power stations. Fully one-third of the country suffers week-long electricity blackouts. As the war intensifies, the mass murder of the EI Salvadorean people is becoming a reality.
The NSC report
In April 1980, the National Security Council's Ad Hoc Group on Population Policy issued an overview analysis on u.s. population policy. The document lays out the basis for all u.s. foreign policy from the "Global 2000" perspective. The State Department Office of Population Affairs helped draft the report. Excerpts follow.
On a planet which is already subject to growing scarcities, political uncertainty, and strains on biological and environmental systems, numbers of these dimensions have portentous implications....
Already during the 1970s, much of the economic gains of the Third World were canceled out by the steady rise of population....
Food production is not keeping pace with the population growth in most parts of the world....Moreover, rising food demand must now compete with increasingly higher priced energy imports.Norman Borlaug, pioneer of the "Green Revolution, " has cautioned that innovations in agricultural technology can only buy limited time with which to control population growth....
The International Labor Organization [ILO] estimates that in the next two decades, approximately 700
million people more will enter the labor pool of developing countries-this is more than the total current labor force of the industrially advanced countries.The amount of investment required to put these people to work is astronomical....
A recent Worldwatch Institute study estimated that the number of rural people who are effectively landless would approach 1 billion over the next two decades and predicted that "conflict rooted in inequality of' land ownership is apt to become more acute in country after country." Already the estimated proportion of rural families who are landless or nearly so is over 80 percent in such countries as El Salvador, and between 70 and 80 percent in Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Bangladesh, and the Philippines.
As rural population growth increases the fractionalization of the landholdings, as croplands are depleted due to over-intensive farming, and as job opportunities in the countryside diminish, the Third World is experiencing a virtual urban explosion.The U.N. estimates that, in only 20 years, some 40 Less Developed Countries [LDCs] cities may contain over 5 million inhabitants....Provision of jobs, housing, social services to numbers of this magnitude, over such a short period of time, will present difficulties hitherto unimagined by town planners and governments. The potential susceptibility of urban unemployed youth to extremism and violence will grow. Some recent studies suggest that the contemporary phenomena of worldwide inflation are being influenced by rising demand associated with vast increases in population. Commodities become more costly as supplies dwindle or fail to keep pace with rising demand or as they become more expensive to obtain. Population growth has also been linked to pressure on energy and raw materials supplies.A recent Worldwatch study concludes that "everywhere one turns limits are being encountered and the effects are being compounded.... It seems clear that the world is entering a new period of scarcity." Problems of water pollution, soil erosion, and deforestation are becoming major international issues as a consequence of over-intensive farming, grazing, encroachment of cities and uncontrolled industrialization.
All of these factors add up to an increased potential for social unrest, economic and political instability, mass migration, and possible international conflict over scarce resources. It is admittedly difficult to be analytically precise in pinpointing exact causes for the breakdown in domestic or international order. Nevertheless it is hard to avoid inferring some connection between the instabil
ities and frustrations caused by absolute and relative poverty, reinforced by the demographic pressures discussed above.The examples of warfare in recent memory involving India. Pakistan, Bangladesh, El Salvador, Honduras, and Ethiopia, and the growing potential for instability in such places as Turkey, the Philippines, Central America. Iran, and Pakistan. surely justify the question being raise
The Global 2000 approach
by Lydia Schulman
The Global 2000 report, issued in spring 1980, was the culmination of a three-year study directed by the U.S. State Department and the White House Council on Environmental Quality. As the first study of global ecological trends by the U.S. government, the report does not make policy recommendations per se but claims to objectively project the impact of current (1977) trends in popUlation growth and GNP on the global resource base and environment.
The authors of the report state that it was intended to provide the basis for long-term planning by the U.S. government and to create a permanent institutional capability-"skilled personnel, data, and analytical models "-for spinning off future studies and analyses.
They state further that the report was intended as a guide in U.S. foreign policy: "We are... working with other nations bilaterally, building concern for popUlation growth, natural resources, and environment into our foreign aid programs and cooperating with our immediate neighbors on common problems ranging from the cleanup of air and water pollution to preservation of soils and development of new crops"-a statement strongly suggesting that foreign aid henceforth be tied to population control and related measures.
The premises
As in all global models of this type, what counts are its underlying assumptions. The gross incompetence of this report and its doomsday predictions stem from the total denial of the transforming effects of science and technology: "[The projections] depict conditions that are likely to develop if there are not changes in public policies, institutions, or rates of technological advance.
and if there are no wars or other major disruptions [emphasis added]." One of the most telling points of the report's flawed methodology is the assumption on nuclear fusion: "The projections assume no revolutionary advances-such as immediate wide-scale availability of nuclear fusion for energy production."
Given the premise of no change in the rate of technological advance, the report predicts that the projected growth of the world's population from 4 billion in 1975 to 6.35 billion in A.D. 2000 will lead to severe regional water shortages, extensive deforestation, irreparable deterioration of agricultural soils, and other horrors. The conclusion a policy-maker is supposed to draw is that these consequences must be forestalled by stopping population growth short, by whatever means.
As authority on demographics, Global 2000 cites a 1969 U.S. Academy of Sciences report, Resources and Man, which concluded that a world population of 10 billion "is close to (if not above) the maximum that an intensively managed world might hope to support with some degree of comfort and individual choice."
The Global 2000 report warns that if currently projected fertility and mortality rates were to continue unchanged into the 21st century, the world's population would reach 10 billion by 20 30 and nearly 30 billion-the number the NAS cites as the Earth's "maximum carrying capacity"-before the end of the century.
Among the report's other doomsday projections are:
• On population: "New data" on the decline in fertility rates in areas such as Indonesia and Brazil, due to unanticipated poverty and malnutrition, suggests that world fertility rates will drop by more than 20 percent over 1975-2000, from an average of 4.3 children per fertile woman to 3.3. In addition, "shifts in public policy... will provide significantly increased access to family planning services " in less developed countries.
"The majority of people in large LDC cities are likely to live in 'uncontrolled settlements'-slums and shanty towns where sanitation and other public services are minimal at best."
• On food: "Assuming no deterioration in climate or weather, food production is projected to be 90 percent higher in 2000 than in 1970.... In the LDCs, however, rising food output will barely keep ahead of population growth." Per capita consumption in the sub-Saharan African LDCs is slated to decline.
• On forests: Both forest cover and stocks of woods in the LDCs will decline by 40 percent by 2000 due to the reliance on wood for energy.
• On water:' Due to rapidly increasing demands for water, in particular to its "highly consumptive use" in irrigation, regional water shortages and the deterioration of quality are likely to become worse by 2000. Many LDCs will also suffer the destabilization of water supplies as a result of deforestation.
• On energy: "No early relief from the world's energy problems." In the LDCs, the demand for wood fuel will far outstrip supply, expanding deforestation.
• On agriculture: Greater soil erosion, loss of nutrients, and compaction of soil, increasing salination of irrigated land, crop damage due to increasing air and water pollution is projected.
An epilogue, "Entering the Twenty-First Century, " warns that without a halt in population growth trends, "The world will be more vulnerable both to natural disaster and to disruptions from human causes, " including wars over increasingly scarce fresh-water supplies
https://archive.org/details/eirv08n10-19810310_028-the_haig_kissinger_depopulation
https://silview.media/2022/07/17/1979-the-year-global-depopulation-became-official-policy-of-the-us-government-under-kissinger-and-rockefeller-helms/
https://nssm200.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Kissinger-Report-A-Retrospective-on-NSSM-200.pdf
“The systematic sterilization and killing of individuals with schizophrenia in Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945 was influenced by several factors. Perhaps, of greatest importance was a belief that schizophrenia was a simple Mendelian inherited disease, passed down from generation to generation. In Germany, this theory was promoted by Drs Ernst Rüdin and Franz Kallmann, among others. Rüdin, whose research was supported by the Rockefeller Foundation, was the director of the Genealogical-Demographic Department of the German Institute for Psychiatric Research in Munich. He had a special interest in schizophrenia, which he believed was caused by a Mendelian recessive gene, and advocated that “people who are themselves mentally ill …should not have children.”2 Kallmann, a Berlin psychiatrist who had been a student of Rüdin, studied schizophrenia in twins and also believed that the disease was transmitted by a recessive gene. In a 1935 speech, Kallmann advocated the examination of all relatives of individuals with schizophrenia to identify nonaffected carriers, which he believed could be done by noting “minor anomalies,” and then the compulsory sterilization of such individuals.3 A year later, Kallmann emigrated to New York, where he continued his twin research and later became one of the founders of the American Society of Human Genetics.
The theories of Ernst Rüdin and Franz Kallmann coincided with a growing interest in Germany in eugenics and “race hygiene” (Rassenhygiene) in the early 1930s. At the time, the eugenics movement was strongest in the United States and Britain. Indiana had passed the first state compulsory sterilization law in 1907, and by 1928, 20 more states had followed, most including “lunatics” among the target population; California was the most active state in this regard. In 1916, New York patrician Madison Grant had published The Passing of the Great Race, a jeremiad about the dangers of interracial marriage that Science magazine called “a work of solid merit”4; it was subsequently translated into German and cited by Hitler in Mein Kampf. The International Congress of Eugenics was also based in the United States, and in 1932, its presidency passed from Dr C. B. Davenport of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory to Dr Rüdin.
In 1933, Rüdin was one of the guiding forces behind the passage of Germany's first compulsory sterilization law, called “the law for the prevention of progeny with hereditary defects.” Its initial target was individuals with mental retardation, schizophrenia, manic-depressive disorder, epilepsy, Huntington chorea, hereditary blindness and deafness, hereditary alcoholism, and “grave bodily malformation.”5 Hitler had become chancellor 6 months earlier. The majority of the targeted individuals were in psychiatric hospitals, which had become massively overcrowded, thereby forcing the discharge of some patients to make room for more admissions. Patients with schizophrenia who were scheduled for discharge were deemed to be of high priority for sterilization in order to prevent them from producing offspring.
An attempt to relieve the overcrowding of psychiatric hospitals, in fact, played a significant role in Germany's decision to institute compulsory sterilization and, later, the killing of psychiatric patients.6 In 1880, Germany had had 47 228 patients in public asylums, but by 1913, this number had increased to 239 583, a 5-fold increase during a period when the total population had not quite doubled. Despite the fact that 140 234 asylum patients died during World War I, mostly from infectious disease and hunger, they were rapidly replaced by others. Between 1924 and 1929, the number of psychiatric hospital patients increased from 185 397 to over 300 000, despite the fact that the average length of stay had decreased from 215 to 103 days. In the Erlangen asylum, the percentage of patients diagnosed with schizophrenia increased from 42% to 56%, and two-thirds of all new admissions were given that diagnosis.2 A massive increase of psychiatric patients, especially those diagnosed with schizophrenia, was also being observed in England, the United States, and other countries during these same years.7
This massive increase in patients in psychiatric hospitals came at a bad time for Germany economically. Following World War I, Germany had been stripped of valuable industrial and coal-producing areas and saddled with onerous reparations. The decade following was marked by strikes, clashes between Communists and nationalists, inflation, bankruptcies, and a severe economic depression. Funding for psychiatric care was sharply reduced even as the number of patients requiring care was rising. In 1931, the German Psychiatric Association organized a prize for the best essay on the topic “How can provision for mental health care be more cheaply reorganized?”2
The idea of killing the patients in psychiatric hospitals first surfaced prominently in 1920 in a publication by Karl Binding, a lawyer, and Alfred Hoche, a psychiatrist. Entitled Permission for the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life, the tract posed the question: “Is there human life which has so far forfeited the character of something entitled to enjoy the protection of the law, that its prolongation represents a perpetual loss of value, both for its bearer and for society as a whole?” The authors’ answer was clearly affirmative and described such individuals as being “mentally dead” and “on an intellectual level which we only encounter way down in the animal kingdom.”2 The authors emphasized the economic burden of such individuals to Germany. The economic argument was repeated in subsequent discussions of this issue, such as in a 1932 article entitled “The Eradication of the Less Valuable from Society,” in which the author, psychiatrist Berthold Kihn, estimated that mentally ill individuals were costing Germany 150 million Reichsmarks per year.2
Hitler was interested in these ideas and is said to have discussed a program to kill chronic mental patients in 1933, shortly after assuming the chancellorship. He said that “it is right that the worthless lives of such creatures should be ended, and that this would result in certain savings in terms of hospitals, doctors and nursing staff.” Prophetically, he suggested that such a program would be easier to implement during wartime, when public opposition would be less.2
The idea of killing psychiatric patients continued to be discussed privately by Nazi officials throughout the 1930s. Finally, in July 1939, as he was planning to invade Poland, Hitler asked his private physician and other officials to draft a law that permitted the killing of mental patients. From the beginning, the euphemism “euthanasia” was used to refer to the killings; as Fredric Wertham noted in A Sign for Cain, “these were not mercy deaths but merciless murders.”8
The result was a memorandum on “the destruction of life unworthy of life” and a draft law that included the following provision:
The life of a person, who because of incurable mental illness requires permanent institutionalization and is not able to sustain an independent existence, may be prematurely terminated by medical measures in a painless and covert manner.
Selected professors of psychiatry and asylum directors who were known to be sympathetic to the plan were asked to comment on the draft. All agreed that such a program was necessary, but some suggested granting exceptions to patients who were doing “economically important work in the institution.” Friedrich Mauz, professor of psychiatry at Königsberg University, argued against granting any exceptions for those individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia “as a matter of principle.”2,3
Hitler's letter authorizing the program to kill mental patients was dated September 1, 1939, the day German forces invaded Poland. Although the program never officially became law, Hitler guaranteed legal immunity for everyone who took part in it. In October 1939, the directors of all German psychiatric hospitals were asked to fill out forms indicating the diagnosis and capacity for useful work of each patient, although they were not told what the forms were for. These forms were then assessed by a committee of selected psychiatrists who targeted approximately 70 000 patients for death, 1 for every 1000 people in Germany, which was the initial goal of the program.9 The program was known as Aktion (action) T–4, after the address of its headquarters in Berlin on Tiergartenstrasse 4.
E. Fuller Torrey, Robert H. Yolken, Psychiatric Genocide: Nazi Attempts to Eradicate Schizophrenia, Schizophrenia Bulletin, Volume 36, Issue 1, January 2010, Pages 26–32, https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbp097
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2800142/
“Mark A. Largent offered a slight reappraisal of the overall eugenics movement in his work Breeding Contempt (2008).38 He attempted to broaden the focus of eugenic history beyond a few key reformers. According to Largent, Davenport and Laughlin “provided the scientific authority to support the prejudices that had motivated earlier advocates of the coerced sterilization of state wards.”39 But why, then, had sterilizations occurred far past the deaths of Davenport and Laughlin? The answer lies in the fact that they did not work alone: their followers conducted sterilizations into the 1960s. Post-World War II sterilizations “[rode] a wave of enthusiasm for science and technology…benefiting from the goodwill most Americans felt toward the medical community as a result of wartime advances in research and public
36 Ibid., 5.
37 Wendy Kline, “A New Deal for the Child: Ann Cooper Hewitt and Sterilization in the 1930s,” in Susan Currell and Christina Cogdell, eds., Popular Eugenics: National Efficiency and American Mass Culture in the 1930s (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 2006).
38 Mark A. Largent, Breeding Contempt: The History of Coerced Sterilization in America (Rutgers, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2008).
39 Ibid., 2.
24
health.”40 These ideas were not legally defeated until the rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s.41
One of Largent’s core claims is that we cannot truly know the number of people sterilized in state institutions. Largent assumes,
The widely quoted number of 63,000 is probably not even close to the actual number of coerced sterilizations because so many went unreported, occurred in states that had no legal oversight of coerced sterilization, or were wrongly reported as voluntary, when in fact the patient or inmate was coerced by prison authorities or health officials.42
Largent’s evidence from state records supports this claim, as does evidence presented in this thesis. Most people who were sterilized were poor with no legal representation.
Also in 2008, historian and lawyer Paul A. Lombardo of Georgia State University provided insight into Buck v. Bell, the legal catalyst that precipitated high numbers of sterilizations in the 1930s. In Three Generations, No Imbeciles Lombardo exposed Carrie Buck’s sham trial both in the courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia and before the United States Supreme Court. The evidence at Buck’s trial was weak because Carrie’s lawyer, Irving Whitehead, had no intention of defending her from the sterilization order. The superintendant of the institution where Buck was housed, Albert Priddy, colluded with Whitehead to put a test case before the Supreme Court that would solidify the constitutionality of sterilization. According to Lombardo, “Buck was the victim of an elaborate campaign to win eugenic sterilization laws.”43
He successfully demonstrated that Laughlin’s model sterilization law influenced Priddy’s efforts in Virginia. As a result, Virginia’s sterilization law closely followed Laughlin’s model. Laughlin even gave a deposition in Buck’s trial. National as well as local forces came together to insure
40 Ibid., 8.
41 Ibid., 140.
42 Ibid., 8.
43 Paul A. Lombardo, Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell (Baltimore, Maryland: The John’s Hopkins University Press, 2008), XI.
25 the efficacy of eugenic sterilization after 1927. The Progressives do not escape Lombardo’s judgment.
Sterilization satisfied political yearnings during the progressive era because the eradication of moral defects appealed not only to those who embraced conventional religious standards but also to those for whom modern science had taken over the role of religion.44
Laughlin’s work is yet another exposé of the motivations of eugenicists and their tactics to pass suitable legislation for their cause. Lombardo’s revelations are an appropriate counter to the Buck decision, which to this day has not been overruled.
Conclusion
Larson’s work, Sex, Race, and Science, can be seen as the summation of the works of Haller, Pickens, Robitscher, and Reilly. Larson used nearly the same framework to present his history of the national eugenics movement, with one key exception taken from Pickens’ work. Larson believes, as did Pickens, that sterilization was a key part of the eugenics movement
Eugenics in Japan
After rejection of the originally submitted Race Eugenic Protection Law in 1938, National Eugenic Law (ja:国民優生法, Kokumin Yūsei Hō) was promulgated in 1940 by the Konoe government.[16]
This law limited compulsory sterilization to "inherited mental disease", promoted genetic screening and restricted birth control access.[17] According to Matsubara Yoko, from 1940 to 1945, 454 people were sterilized in Japan under this law.[18]
There were also campaigns to ensure reproduction amongst the "intelligent or superior elements" in the population.
The Adelphi Genetics Forum is a non-profit learned society based in the United Kingdom. Its aims are "to promote the public understanding of human heredity and to facilitate informed debate about the ethical issues raised by advances in reproductive technology."[1]
It was founded by Sybil Gotto in 1907 as the Eugenics Education Society, with the aim of promoting the research and understanding of eugenics.[2] Members came predominately from the professional class[3] and included eminent scientists such as Francis Galton.[2] The Society engaged in advocacy and research to further their eugenic goals, and members participated in activities such as lobbying Parliament, organizing lectures, and producing propaganda.[2] It became the Eugenics Society in 1924 (often referred to as the British Eugenics Society to distinguish it from others).[2] From 1909 to 1968 it published The Eugenics Review, a scientific journal dedicated to eugenics.[2] Membership reached its peak during the 1930s.[4]
The Society was renamed the Galton Institute in 1989.[5] In 2021, it was renamed the Adelphi Genetics Forum.[6] The organisation is currently based in Wandsworth, London.
The Galton Institute was renamed as the Adelphi Genetics Forum in 2021
https://adelphigenetics.org/history/
1907. The Eugenics Education Society was founded in Great Britain by some of the leading intellectuals and social reformers of the time(H.G. Wells, Aldous Huxley, Marie Stopes, etc.), who were concerned about overpopulation and its threat on society. Sir Francis Galton served as the society's first president. The goal of the Eugenics Education Society in Britain was to further “eugenic teaching and understanding in the home, in the school and elsewhere” (Chitty, 2007, p. 2).
The Society campaigned for sterilisation and marriage restrictions in Britain (Brignell, 2010). It also organized the first International Eugenics Conference in 1912 (Brignell, 2010). In 1926, it was renamed the Eugenics Society, and it received much support from politicians, and the medical profession (Chitty, 2007). The Society also published the Eugenics Review from 1909 until 1968.
-Erna Kurbegovic and Colette Leung
Chitty, C. (2007). Eugenics, Race, and Intelligence in Education. London: Continuum Publishing.
Brignell, V. (2010, December 9). The eugenics movement Britain wants to forget. New Statesman. Retrieved from http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/12/british-eugenics-disabled
Eugenics Society of England
“In 1913 the Rockefeller Foundation set up the International Health Commission (later Board), the first appropriation of funds for work outside the US, which launched the Rockefeller Foundation into international public health activities. This expanded the work of the Sanitary Commission worldwide, working against various diseases in fifty-two countries on six continents and twenty-nine islands, bringing international recognition of the need for public health and environmental sanitation. Its early field research on hookworm, malaria, and yellow fever provided the basic techniques to control these diseases and established the pattern of modern public health services.
The Commission established and endowed the world's first school of Hygiene and Public Health, at Johns Hopkins University, and later at Harvard, and then spent more than $25 million in developing other public health schools in the US and in 21 foreign countries -- helping to establish America as the world leader in medicine and scientific research. In 1913 it also began a 20-year support program of the Bureau of Social Hygiene, whose mission was research and education on birth control, maternal health and sex education.
https://persagen.org/docs/Rockefeller_Foundation.html
China Medical Board
“In 1914, the Rockefeller Foundation set up the China Medical Board, which established the first public health university in China, the Peking Union Medical College, in 1921; this was subsequently nationalised when the Communists took over the country in 1949. In the same year it began a program of international fellowships to train scholars at the world's leading universities at the post-doctoral level; a fundamental commitment to the education of future leaders.
Psychiatry
During the late-1920s, the Rockefeller Foundation created the Medical Sciences Division, which emerged from the former Division of Medical Education. The division was led by Dr. Richard M. Pearce until his death in 1930, to which Alan Gregg to succeeded him until 1945. During this period, the Division of Medical Sciences was known for making large contributions to research across several fields of psychiatry. The 1930s was one of the most prominent decades in Rockefeller Foundation philanthropy to psychiatric research, as the Rockefeller Foundation set a goal to find, train, and encourage scholars for research and practice. One of the first large contributions from the Rockefeller Foundation to psychiatric research was in 1935, with the appropriation of $100,000 to the Institute for Psychoanalysis in Chicago. This grant was renewed in 1938, with payments extending into the early-1940s.
Rutherford describes additional Rockefeller Foundation support of various other eugenics projects, as well. In 1929, Rockefeller began funding the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics (KWIA) in Berlin. Between its founding in 1927 and its disbanding after World War II, “much of the key scientific justification for the Nazis’ ideology on racism, eugenics and racial hygiene was done here, with Eugen Fischer as its first director,” according to Rutherford.
...Rockefeller grants “were also given to Fischer and the German eugenicist Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer to work on twin studies,” on the basis of a belief “that identical twins provided a natural experiment to extract nature from nurture,” according to Rutherford.
It is not clear what the motivation was for the Rockefeller Foundation to continue to fund German research into ideas of racial hygiene before and after Hitler’s rise to power, and the charity had all but withdrawn support before the onset of war in 1939. Nevertheless, it had provided an essential financial base for research that was wedded to the ideology that defined the Third Reich’s eugenics policies. Verschuer’s assistant, Josef Mengele, would take this idea to heart, with unimaginably cruel experimentation on twins in the concentration camp at Auschwitz throughout the war.
https://thegivingreview.com/philanthropy-in-control/
Beginning in 1930 the Rockefeller Foundation provided financial support to the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics, which later inspired and conducted eugenics experiments in the Third Reich.
The Rockefeller Foundation funded Nazi racial studies even after it was clear that this research was being used to rationalize the demonizing of Jews and other groups. Up until 1939 the Rockefeller Foundation was funding research used to support Nazi racial science studies at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics (KWIA.) Reports submitted to Rockefeller did not hide what these studies were being used to justify, but Rockefeller continued the funding and refrained from criticizing this research so closely derived from Nazi ideology. The Rockefeller Foundation did not alert "the world to the nature of German science and the racist folly" that German anthropology promulgated, and Rockefeller funded, for years after the passage of the 1935 Nuremberg racial laws.
The Rockefeller Foundation, along with the Carnegie Institution, was the primary financier for the Eugenics Record Office, until 1939.
The Rockefeller Foundation poured money into the occupied German republic for a medical specialty known as psychiatric genetics. This field applied to psychiatry the concepts of eugenics (otherwise known as race purification, race hygiene, or race betterment) developed in London's Galton Laboratory and its offshoot Eugenics Societies in England and America
The Rockefeller Foundation created, and foundation executives thenceforth continuously directed, the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry in Munich (before Rockefeller sponsorship, it was known as the Kraepelin Institute), and the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Eugenics, and Human Heredity. The Rockefellers' chief in both these institutions was the fascist Swiss psychiatrist Ernst Rüdin, assisted by his proteges, Rockefeller functionaries Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer and Franz J. Kallmann.
A British medical historian friendly to the Rockefellers recently explained how the family was introduced into this field in Germany: 1 The foundation's "German centers combined the search for organic signs of mental illness with eugenic projects....
The [Kraepelin] institute had initially been endowed with I I million marks, contributed by Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach [head of the Krupp steel and arms family] and J a!Des Loeb [Paul Warburg's brother-in-law], an expatriate American of the Kuhn-Loeb banking family. Loeb mobilized his American-Jewish friends to support the institute," and they invited the foundation to reorganize and expand the Munich
For your reference files
enterprise. Loeb also continued financing the institute.
Loeb's relatives, the Warburgs, owners of Kuhn Loeb bank, were the intimate bank ing partners of William Rockefeller. Together with him they had set up the Harriman family in big business, using capital supplied by the British royal family's personal banker, Sir Ernst Cassell. The three families, Rockefeller, Warburg, and Harriman, together with British Crown agencies, jointly sponsored much of the social engineering enterprise we shall describe here.
The Rockefeller Foundation made an initial grant of $2.5 million in 1925 to the Psychiatric Institute in Munich, gave it $325,000 for a new building in 1928, and continuously sponsored the institute and its Nazi chief Rüdin through the Hitler era. The foundation paid for a 1930-35 anthropological survey of the "eugenically worthwhile population" by Nazi eugenicists Rüdin, Verschuer, Eugen Fischer, and others.
1930: a New Age in psychiatry
Rockefeller family psychologists and race purification experts created a medical research financing conduit, the Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation, directed by former Black Chamber and military intelligence chief Gen. Marlborough Churchill. The Macy group would manage London's most
I. "The Rockefeller Foundation and Gennan Biomedical Sciences, 1920- 1940: Educational Philanthropy to International Science Policy," by Paul Weindling in the book Science, Politics and the Public Good : Essays in Honour of Margaret Gowing. London, Macmillan Press, 1988.
advanced experiments in mind-control and social engineering.
1932: Rüdin heads Eugenics Federation
The British-led eugenics movement met at the American Museum of Natural History itt New York City, and designated the Rockefellers' Dr. Ernst Rüdin as the president of the worldwide Eugenics Federation. The eugenics movement at the time called for the killing or sterilization of people
whose heredity made them � public burden or a national scapegoat.
Mid-1930s: Nazi eugenics in practice
Adolf Hitler was given Germany's chancellorship in 1933, and was soon absolute idictator. Montagu Norman, the occultist governor of the Bank of England, propped up Hitler's credit, arranged the anJnament of Nazi Germany, and guided the strategies of Hitler's powerful supporters-the Rockefellers, Warburgs, and IjIarrimans.
Only a few months after Ithe meeting at the American Museum of Natural History, the Rockefeller-Rüdin apparatus became a section of the Nazi state. The regime appointed Rüdin head of the Racial Hygiene Society. Rüdin and his staff, as part of the Task Force of Heredity Experts chaired by SS chief Heinrich Himmler drew up the sterilization law.
Described as an American model law, it was adopted in July 1933 and proudly printed in tine September 1933 Eugenical News (U. S. A.), with Hitler's signature. The Rockefeller group drew up other race laws based, as was the sterilization law, on existing statutes from the Commonwealth of Virginia. Otmar Verschuer and hisl assistant Dr. Josef Mengele together wrote reports for spec.al courts which enforced Rüdin's racial purity law again!1t the illegal cohabitation of Aryans and non-Aryans.
The "T4" unit of the Hitler Chancery, based on psychiatrists led by Rüdin and his staff cooperated in creating propaganda films to sell mercy-killing (euthanasia) to German citizens. The public reacted aqtagonistically: Hitler had to withdraw a tear-jerker right-to-die film from the movie theaters. The proper groundwork had not yet been laid
1934: The Freemasons Study madness
The Scottish Rite of Freemasonry joined the Rockefellers in sponsoring psychiatric genetics beginning in 1934, under the rubric of research into dementia praecox (schizophrenia).
The highest level of U. S. masonry, the Scottish Rite was the instrument through which the British Crown had reestablished the loyalty of American masons after the American Revolution. The northern section of the Rite had rallied the Copperheads against Abraham Lincoln's Civil War efforts, aiding the Rite's southern chief Albert Pike in secession and in other British white supremacy projects, such as the Ku Klux Klan.
For eugenics, the British royal family itself was the Rite's point o f reference. The Duke o f Connaught, son o f Queen Victoria and brother of King Edward VII, had been grand master of the United Grand Lodge of England since 1901.
American masonic leaders referred to the duke as "grand master of the Mother Grand Lodge of Masons of the World."
The son o f a German father (Victoria's husband, the Coburg Prince Albert), the Duke of Connaught was deeply involved in German affairs and was a patron of Britain's "New Dark Ages" ultra-racialist elite group based in South Africa. Late in 1932, negotiations for Hitler's takeover of Germany took place at the home of Joachim von Ribbentrop, who, as a traveling teenager, had been adopted into the household of the Duke of Connaught. Ribbentrop then became the head of Hitler's foreign intelligence service. As Hitler's ambassador to England, Ribbentrop worked in tandem with the leadership of the clique which employed Hitler as a British surrogate to smash up Europe: the masonic grandmaster duke and his nephew, the openly Nazi Edward VIII; Bank of England Governor Montagu Norman; and Lord Halifax, Neville Chamberlain's foreign minister.
1936-38 : Columbia University 's chamber of horrors
In 1936, the Scottish Rite's Field Representative of Research on Dementia Praecox, Dr. Nolan D. C. Lewis, director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, reported to the Scottish Rite Northern Supreme Council "on the progress of the 14 research projects being financed by the Supreme Council." Scottish Rite strategist Winfred Overholser, the superintendent of St. Elizabeth's Hospital, a federal mental hospital in Washington D. C., provided overall leadership for the Rite's psychiatric research.
Though these projects are shrouded in mystery, one of them with particularly gruesome results has come to light. The study of hereditary degeneracy w as proceeding in the Rockefeller Foundation's German enclaves when it hit a snag. Psychiatrist Franz J. Kallmann, protege of Nazi race science chief Ernst Rüdin, was forced to leave his job-Kallmann was "half-Jewish. " This was a big blow for Kallmann, who had proved his Nazi credentials at the International Congress for Population Science in Berlin in 1935. At that British-led meeting hosted by Hitler's Interior Ministry, allmann had argued for the sterilization of even the apparently healthy relatives of schizophrenics, along with the schizophrenics themselves, to securely eliminate all the defective germ plasm.Without missing a step, Kallmann emigrated to America and became director of research in the New York State Psychiatric Institute, attached to Columbia University in Manhattan. The Scottish Rite's Dr. Lewis was the director of the institute. Kallmann simply continued in New York the Nazi propaganda work he had been doing for Rockefeller in Germany
The Scottish Rite of Freemasonry paid Kallmann to conduct a study of over 1,000 cases of schizophrenia, in order to assert the claim that the mental disorder was inherited. Kallmann's study was published simultaneously i n the United States and Nazi Germany in 1938.
In the preface, Kallmann thanked the Scottish Rite and his mentor Riidin. He called schizophrenics a "source of maladjusted crooks... and the lowest types of criminal offenders. Even the faithful believer in liberty... would be happier without those." He declared sarcastically, "I am reluctant to admit the necessity of different eugenic programs for democratic and fascistic communities....There are neither biological nor sociological differences between a democratic and a totalitarian schizophrenic."
Kallmann's scholarly American study was used b y the Nazi government's T4 unit as a part of its pretext to begin in 1939 the murder of mental patients and various other "defective" people, many or most of them children. Lethal gas and lethal injections were used to kill 200-250,000 under this program, in which the staffs for a broader program of mass murder were desensitized and trained.
1939-40: the deal for Auschwitz
The German chemical company IG Farben and Rockefeller's Standard Oil of New Jersey were effectively a single firm, merged in hundreds of cartel arrangements. IG Farben was led, up until 1937 by the Warburg family, Rockefeller's partners in banking and in the design of Nazi German eugenics.
Following the Nazi invasion of Poland in September 1939, Britain and Germany declared war on each other and World War II began. But later that month, Standard Oil executives flew to the Netherlands on a British Royal Air Force bomber and met with IG Farben executives. Standard Oil pledged to keep the merger with IG Farben going even if the United States entered the war. This was exposed in 1942 by Sen. Harry Truman's investigating committee, and President Franklin Roosevelt took hundreds of legal measures during the war to counter the Standard Oil-IG Farben cartel's supply operation for the enemy war machine.
In 1940-4 1, IG Farben built a gigantic factory at Auschwitz in Poland, to utilize the Standard Oil-IG Farben patents with concentration camp slave labor to make gasoline from coal. The SS guarded the Jewish and other inmates and selected for killing those who were unfit for IG Farben slave labor.
Standard-Germany President Emil Helfferich testified after the war that Standard Oil funds helped pay for the SS guards at Auschwitz.
On March 26, 1940, six months after the Standard Oil-IG Farben meeting, European Rockefeller Foundation official Daniel O'Brian wrote to the foundation's chief medical offi
cer Alan Gregg that "it would be unfortunate if it was chosen to stop research which has no relation to war issues. " The "non-war-related" researcht' continued. The Rockefeller Foundation defends its recor by claiming that itsfunding of Nazi German programs duri g World War II was limited to psychiatric research. I
1943: research in NaZi- hcuPied Poland
In 1943, Otmar Verschue's assistant Josef Mengele was made medical commandant 0 Auschwitz. "
As wartime director of Rockefeller's Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, EUenics, and Human Heredity in Berlin, Verschuer secured funds for Mengele's experiments
at Auschwitz from the Germ Research council. Verschuer wrote a progress report to th council: "My co-researcher in this research is my assistant, t e anthropologist and physician Mengele. He is serving as Ha ptstiirmfiihrer and camp doctor in the concentration camp Auschwitz....With the permission of the Reichsfiihrer SS Himmler, anthropological research is being undertaken onithe various racial groups in the concentration camps and blood samples will be sent to my laboratory for investigation."
Mengele prowled the railroad cars coming into Auschwitz, looking for twin children-a favorite research subject of Frankenstein-type psychiatric geneticists. On arrival at Mengele's experimental station, twins filled out "a detailed questionnaire from the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute. "There were daily drawings of blood for Verschuer's "specific protein" research. Needles were injected into eyes for work on eye color. There were experimental blood transfusions and experimental infections. Organs and limbs were removed, sometimes without anesthetics. Sex changes were attempted. Females were sterilized, males were castrated. Thousands were murdered, and their organs, eyeballs, heads, and limbs were sent to Verschuer and I the Rockefeller group at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute.
After the war, Mengele !Was a famous target of Nazi hunters pursuing him to South America. But his boss, Verschuer, was regarded in ai different light: He was a high level Rockefeller operative. i
In 1946, Verschuer wrote to the Bureau of Human Heredity in London, asking for help in continuing his "scientific research. " In 1947, the BureF\u of Human Heredity moved from London to Copenhagen. and Verschuer moved to Denmark to join the British group there. The new Danish building for this group was erected with Rockefeller money. The first International Congress in Hum-an Genetics following World War II was held at this Danish institute in 1956.
Dr. Kallmann helped save Verschuer by testifying at his denazification proceedings. Kallmann, a director of the American Eugenics Society, became an icon at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, which remains to this day a nest of the Eugenics Society. With Verschuer and other Nazi notables, Dr. Kallmann also : created the American Society of Human Genetics, which organized the "Human Genome Project"-a current $3 billion physical multiculturalism effort.
1943: research in North America
With the war on, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Canadian military joined their psychiatric forces. Canadian Army medical director Dr. George Brock Chisholm had been trained as a psychiatrist at the Tavistock Psychiatric Clinic in London, and Tavistock-the British Crown's central mind-bending agency-was a major Rockefeller Foundation beneficiary.
In 1943, the Rockefeller Foundation created the Allen Memorial Institute at McGill University in Montreal. Eugenics-oriented psychiatrist Donald Ewen Cameron, a Scottish immigrant to the United States, was placed in charge of the institute's psychiatry. Experiments in coercive interrogation
and brainwashing would be conducted at Allen Institute under the auspices of the Canadian military, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the U. S. Central Intelligence Agency. Dr. Cameron's "terminal" use of electric shock as a brain-burning torture, psychosurgery, and brainwashing with drugs and hypnosis would make the Canadian program the most famous apsect of the CIA's MK-Ultra.
Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., a new odor, that of marijuana, could be detected insidf St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Washington, D. C. (St. Elizabe h's is the mental hospital where presidential assailants or other federal cases are kept.)
The superintendent, Scottish Rite chief psychiatrist Winfred Overholser, was in 1943 the chairman of the misnamed "truth drug" committee for the Office of Strategic Services (OSS).
The criminal underworld was systematically being brought into official but secret joint activities with the government, under the pretext of fighting fascis.
Overholser's crew administeretl the hallucinogen mescaline to various test subjects. Then in the spring of 1943, they perfected the right mix of marij uana and tobacco to produce a "state of irresponsibility" in the subject.
The official OSS story is that New York mafia hitman August Del Gracio began smoking Overholser's "joints" on
May 27, 1943, in order to loosen his tongue. Federal agents were thus supposedly to learn the inside secrets of drug trafficking-but not to stop it. This was part of an ongoing federal program, which organized crime czar Meyer Lansky boasts (in his authorized biography) that he personally arranged. Mafia thugs were brought in to work in Naval Intelligence offices, and jointly with l[.S. agents in U. S. ports and shipping, to more effectively intimidate our national enemies.
Former CIA staff member John Marks writes in The Search for the Manchurian Candidate that Overholser's working group included counterintelligence agents inside the Manhattan Project atomic bomb project, and the FBI, which was under the direction of Dr. verholser's Scottish Rite comrade, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover. The Overholser group gave marijuana to U. S. soldiers at Army bases
throughout the country, suppose y to aid in the search for subversives.
Later, during the 1950s and 1 60s, the strategists of the MK-Ultra project would utilize the same channels of influence with U.S. security agencie to let them transform a generation of youth into dope use
1944-48 : after Nazism, the International Congress on Mental Health
In 1944, with the concentratid camps in full swing and Europe burning, Montagu Normf resigned from the Bank of England. He immediately began a new project, ironically related to his own repeated menta breakdowns and hospitalizations. Norman organized the British National Association for Mental Health. In its fbrmative stages the group was based at Thorpe Lodge, Norrdan's London home, where he had met with Nazi Economics JMinister Hjalmar Schacht to plan the Hitler regime's 1930s Dudgets.
Montagu Norman's B ank of England assistant Otto Niemeyer was made treasurer of th National Association of Mental Health. Niemeyer's niece, Mary Appleby, became general secretary of the association. She previously worked in the German Section of the British Foreign Office.
The president of Norman's association was to be Richard Austen ("RAB") Butler. He had been deputy foreign minister to Lord Halifax and the spokesman in the British Parliament for the pro-Nazi policy. The chairman of the association was to be be Lord Halifax's son-in-law, the Earl of Feversham.
The vice chairman was Lord Montagu Norman's wife, eugenics activist Priscilla Reyntiens Worsthorne Norman.
Norman's British group would soon expand and to take over management of the world psychiatric profession.
When the war ended, the exposure and punishment of those responsible for the Nazi barbarities was a rather delicate matter. Dr. Donald Ewen Cameron interrupted his Canadian brain butchery to go help the British Crown's Tavistock psychological warfare unit evaluate the sanity of Nazi official Rudolph Hess. Cameron's unique inatric committee in Washington to assess the trends in the Nazi leadership's thinking. Cameron now testified as an expert at the Nuremberg war crimes trials. His old OSS colleague Allen Dulles, later the CIA director, was reportedly pleased by Cameron's suggestion that each surviving German over the age of 12 should be given electroshock treatment to burnout remaining vestiges of Nazism.
That part of the Nuremberg Code dealing with scientific research was drafted by Boston psychiatrist Leo Alexander; he soon afterward joined with Auschwitz experimental mastermind Otmar Verschuer in Franz Kallmann's American Society of Human Genetics.
In 1948, Montagu Norman's National Association for Mental Health gathered the world psychiatric and psychological leaders together at an International Congress on Mental Health at the United Kingdom's Ministry of Health in London. At this congress a World Federation for Mental Health was formed, to run the planet's psychological services. Lady Norman, the hostess of the congress, was named to the executive board. Norman picked as president of the World Federation the chief of the British military's psychological warfare department, Tavistock Institute chief Brig. Gen. Dr. John Rawlings Rees.
In connection with the founding of the World Federation for Mental Health, a New York agent of Montagu Norman named Clarence G. Michalis was made chairman of the board of the Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation. That foundation, in tum, would pay for much of what the World Federation and Tavistock were to do to the United States-supplying dope and otherwise subverting western ideals. The Macy Foundation's chief medical officer, Dr. Frank Fremont-Smith, would be the permanent co-director of the World Federation with J.R.,Rees.
The technical coordinator of the U. S. delegation to the 1948 congress, Nina Ridenour, later wrote in Mental Health in the United States: A Fifty Year History, that "the World Federation for Mental Health... had been created upon the recommendation of the United Nations ' World Health
Organization and Unesco, beca se they needed a non-governmental [i.e., not accountable t any check oflaw or constitution-ed. ] mental health org ization with which they could cooperate. "
Ridenour alluded to the fact t the British psychological warfare executive had itself cre ted the heart of the U.N. apparatus:
"Having official consultive st4tus with the United Nations and several of its specialized agencies, the World Federation for Mental Health is in a positi<lt to influence some of the U. N.'s decisions and some aspects of its program. The two U. N. agencies with which the World Federation works most closely are the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Educational, Scicmtific and Cultural Organzation (Unesco).
"The first director of WHO, and indeed quite literally its 'creator, ' was a prominent C adian psychiatrist, Brock Chisholm, M.D., formerly direc or general of the Canadian Army Medical Services. Since it inception, WHO has made significant contributions to worl mental health through the reports of its various Expert Comittees; through some of its other special reports, such as the otable monograph Mental Health and Maternal Care by [ avistock's] John Bowlby, M. D.; and through the widesp ad activities of its Mental Health Division, of which the B1tish psychiatrist Ronald C. Hargreaves was the first director. '
Unesco's partnership with Rf1es was guided by Unesco's founding secretary general, eug¢nics strategist Sir Julian Huxley, and by Unesco social sciences chief Dr. Otto Klineberg, a Tavistock-affiliated psychologist specializing in the supposedly racial characteristics of the American Negro.
The congress, which in effect:founded the modem "mental health" profession, brought together one of the most exotic collection of enemies of humanity in recent centuries. Its vice presidents included:
Prof. Cyril Burt: Tavistock psychiatrist, eugenics activist, a leader of the "psychical research" movement (seances, ESP, ghosts), who was notorious for fraudulent "twins" research; Dr. Hugh Chrichton-Millet: founder of the Tavistock Clinic; vice president of the C. q. Jung Institute in Zurich; vice president, National Association for Mental Health; Dame Evelyn Fox: a longtithe leader of the British eugenics movement (Lady Normah was a disciple of DameiEvelyn);
Sir David Henderson: psycbiatrist in London, Munich, and New York; author of Psychiatry and Race Betterment; Lord Thomas Jeeves Horder: president of the EugenicsiSociety of Great Britain; president¢nt of the Family Planning Association; president of the Anglo-Soviet Public Relations Association; former physician to King Edward VIII; Carl G. Jung: occultist; psychiatrist to Montagu Norman, Paul Mellon, and the Dullts family; representative of German psychiatry under the Nazis, co-editor of the Nazis' Journal/or Psychotherapy; Dr. Winfred Overholser: representative of the Scottish Rite Masons; chairman of the American delegation to the International Congress on Mental Health; Alan Ker Stout: University of Sydney, Australia, philosophy professor, president of the New South Wales Film Society, officer of Unesco for films;
Dr. Alfred Frank Tredgold: member of Britain's Ministry of Health Committee on Sterilization and a leading expert on mental defectives.
The congress was run by the host British "National Association," whose patron was the Duchess of Kent, widow of the Grand Master of Masons (1939-42) and mother of the Grand Master of Masons (1967 to the present), and whose vice presidents were eugenics and masonic officials.
The general conference at the congress was on the subject of guilt, including the crucial plenary session on alleged German collective guilt for the crimes of Nazism.
The first speaker was Margaret Mead, anthropologist, occultist, who would be president of the World Federation for Mental Health in 1956 and 1957, during the MK -Ultra crimes.
The "Chairman for Discussion" of this plenary was Scottish Rite strategist Winfred Overholser. In his opening remarks, Overholser said: "I understand that a vocal minority in the press does not agree with the wisdom of having such a meeting, but we feel there is great hope for the future if the principles of mental hygiene can be translated into terms of international action."
1950s: MK-Ultra
The outrages perpetrated by Ewen Cameron became the most notorious aspect of the postwar Anglo-American mind control program. Cameron had trained at the Royal Mental Hospital in Glasgow, under eugenicist Sir David Henderson, and founded the Canadian branch of his friend John R. Rees's
World Federation for Mental Health. In the various member countries and subdivisions, these channels of British intelligence operations are known as the national, provincial, or state Mental Health Associations. Cameron was also elected president of the Canadian, American, and world psychiatric associations. He became famous after the CIA was sued by some survivors of his work-because the CIA had financed the tortures.
Cameron would drug his victims to sleep for weeks on end, waking them daily only to administer violent electric shocks to the brain. He used the British Page-Russell electroconvulsive method, an initial one-second shock, then five to nine additional shocks, administered while the patient was in seizure. But he increased the normal voltage and the number of sequences from one to two or three times per day. Patients lost all or part of their memories, and some lost the ability to control their bodily functions and to speak. At least one patient was reduced almost to a vegetable; then Cameron had the coginitve centers of her brain surgically cut apart, while keeping her alive. Some subjects were deposited permanently in institutions for the hopelessly insane.
For the CIA, Cameron tested the South American poison called curare, which kills a victim while simulating natural heart failure. But Cameron claims to have used it only in non-lethal doses to further immobilize his subjects while they were kept in sensory deprivation tortures for as long as 65 days. Then they would be given lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) for "programmable" hallucinations.
When the subject was sufficiently devastated, Cameron and his assistant, a veteran of the British Royal Signals Corps, would begin "Psychic Driving": Through a loud speaker hidden under the pillow, or through unremovable earphones, they would play a tape over and over again to burn certain phrases into what was left of the victim's memory.
The CIA was found to have financed these horrors, as well as ghastly experiments in other locations, using a front called the Society for the Study of Human Ecology. (The society gave a grant for a study of the effects of circumcision on young Turkish boys, the grantees to be in Istanbul, study
ing five to seven year olds and their problems with their genitals. It is claimed that this was intended to give a cover to the CIA front as a real academic organization.)
The question of sponsorship
But the authorship of this enterprise cannot reasonably be assigned to the CIA, per se. Even before we review other agencies ' direct involvement, we must understand that the CIA chief during MK-Ultra, Allen Dulles, was thoroughly attached to British Empire geopolitical aims.
Introduced to British spies by his uncle Robert Lansing, Woodrow Wilson's secretary of state, Dulles had had a strong personal identification since childhood with the British Secret Intelligence Service. The Dulles family's upper class status in America began when ancestor William Dulles ar
rived in South Carolina from India. With a fortune made in India by providing financial and security services for the British East India Company army, he bought a slave plantation which the family held through the American Civil War.
The family's mental life was always that of the British Empire and its American colonial subordinates.
Allen Dulles's main corporate activity was a s a director of the J. Henry Schroder banking company in London, a prime instrument in Montagu Norman's nazification of Germany. As partners in the Sullivan and Cromwell firm, Allen Dulles and his brother John Foster Dulles represented the Rockefeller-Harriman-Warburg combination, IG Farben, and virtully every other Nazi corporate organization that danced on London's marionette strings.
It was disclosed that for MK-Ultra, particularly for the experimental use and distribution of LSD, the CIA operated through another front, the Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation. But the geometry of the "front" really worked the other way around. The Macy Foundation represented the British psychological warfare executive, as extended into U. S. and related institutions. In the midst of launching MK-Ultra, during 1954-55, the Macy Foundation's medical director Frank Fremont-Smith was president of British General Rees's World Federation of Mental Health. Under Rees as the director, the two together "made a journey to a number of countries in Asia and Africa to establish contacts and seek ways in which the organziation may extend its activities in those regions. "
Through official military and intelligence conferences over which it presided, and through various informal and secret operations, the Macy Foundation directed the spread of LSD by U. S. agencies during the 1950s.
The Macy Foundation's chief LSD executive, Harold Abramson, was a psychiatric researcher at Columbia University and at the eugenics center in Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, New York. It was Abramson who first "turned on" Frank Fremont-Smith. Abramson also gave LSD for the first time to British anthropologist Gregory Bateson, some time husband of Margaret Mead. Then in 1959, Bateson gave LSD to Beat poet Alan Ginsburg at Stanford University,
under controlled experimental conditions. Following this, Dr. Leo Hollister at Stanford gave LSD to mental patient turned author Ken Kesey and others, and thus it was said to have spread "out of the CIA's realm."
Masonic 'charity'
Other parts of the U. S. government participated in the project exposed as MK-Ultra.
The Army Chemical Center paid for LSD and related drug brainwashing experiments by Dr. Paul Hoch. Along with Nazi eugenics leader Franz Kallmann, Hoch co-directed the research at Columbia University's New York State Psychiatric Institute.
Dr. Hoch was a member of the American Eugenics Society, in Kallmann's eugenics cell at the institute. Hoch was simultane ously appointed State Mental Hygiene Commissioner by New York Gov. Averell Harriman, and was reappointed by the next governor, Nelson Rockefeller.
Dr. Hoch's forced injections of a mescaline derivative brought about the 1953 death of New York tennis player Harold Blauer. Hoch's colleague Dr. James Cattell later told investigators, "We didn't know whether it was dog piss oriwhat it was we were giving him." When Hoch died, British brain butcher Ewen Cameron directed his funeral.
Dr. Hoch, a Scottish Rite masonic strategist, worked with Dr. Kallman under the direction of Scottish Rite Free masonry's Field Representative of Research on Dementia Praecox, Dr. Nolan D. C. Lewis, the superintendent of the New York State Psychiatric Institute.
As the Ku Klux Klan has been the defining project for the Scottish Rite's Southern Jurisdiction, the Rite's Northern Jurisdiction left its official mark on the world through MK Ultra-its most important "charity. " Much of the psychiatric dirty work, though, has been deJme inside the Rite's KKK spawning Southern Jurisdiction, 'which includes all southern states and everything west of the! Mississippi River.
Robert Hanna Felix, 33rd ctbgree mason, was a director of the Scottish Rite's psychiatric tesearch. He ran a spectacularly lawless brainwashing estalshment. The exposure of the MK-Ultra scandal revealed that the CIA had funded one Dr. Harris Isbell to carry out barbarous experiments using slave subjects, nearly all of them black drug addicts, at the Addiction Research Center in Lexington, Kentucky. Isbell was the director of the center from the 1940s until 1963. His boss was masonic master psychiatrist Felix, who founded the National Institute of Mental Health and was NIMH director from 1949 to 1964. The iLexington facility had been Dr. Felix's personal project since he had been its clinical director in the 1930s, and he put it under the jurisdiction of the NIMH.
The Felix-Isbell slave experiments involved LSD and a wide variety of other hallucinolens and exotic poisons. In one case, seven prisoners were kept hallucinating on LSD for 77 consecutive days.
The torture at Lexington fol wed the pattern developed by Cameron in Montreal: Drug-induced sleep was interrupted by electroconvulsive shock. Cobperative subjects were re
warded with shots of heroin or arty other drug of their choice.aged the prisoners to participate in synthetic religious and political cults.
Felix's program was not sHnply to make humans into controllable beasts, but to decentralize the zombie-manufacturing. A 1993 report to the Scottish Rite Supreme Council by its current psychiatric research director, Steven Matthysse, explains:
"Thirty years ago, a massive program began, which has continued unabated to this day: the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill...My predecessor as research director of
the Schizophrenia Research PrOgram, Dr. Robert H. Felix, 33 Degree, Gourgas medalist and the founding director of the National Institute of Mental Health, was one of the chief architects of this program. 'we are entering a new era,' he wrote, 'of community-centered; comprehensive psychiatric care. '...Dr. Felix predicted that, in 25 years,'state mental hospitals as we know them would no longer exist.' He was right....During the years from 1955 to 1992, the state mental hospital census went down by 82%."
The strategists of MK-Ultrh succeeded i n moving the mentally ill out of costly mental hospitals, onto the streets, where they now consitute a large proportion of America's
homeless. We shall now see what kind of "community-centered psychiatric care" these strategists did in fact implement, as Britain's MK-Ultra poured drugs into the country and worked to fabricate the drug-se,c youth culture.
Seymour Solomon Kety was both an executive of the Scottish Rite's psychiatry experiments, and a Scottish Rite
funded clinical experimenter. He was chief of NIMH clinical sciences from 1957 through 1967, and continued as the NIMH "senior scientist" into the 1990s. A close associate of the Kallmann Nazi-eugenics cell at Columbia, Kety was a national director of the American Eugenics Society, under its 1980s name, the Society for the Study of Social Biology. Kety helped lead the masons ' U. S. agency, the NIMH, beyond the Kentucky experiments, to the brink of Hell.
Manchuria in California?
As Carol Greene has demonstrated in her 1992 book Marder aus der Retorte: Der Fall Charles Manson, (Test Tube Murder: The Case of Charles Manson) Charles Manson, before he committed mass murder, was himself an NIMH "research subject."
Manson was released from a California prison i n March 1967. He was required by law to report regularly to a parole officer named Roger Smith, who was based at the Haight Ashbury Medical Clinic in San Francisco. This was an NIMH project designed to observe and in effect supervise the first large-scale drug addiction of white teenagers, thousands of whom were the clinic's clients.
Clinic director David E. Smith was also the publisher ofthe Journal of Psychedelic Drugs, and a leading national advocate for the legalized use of narcotics. Within the clinic arrangement, Charles Manson's parole officer was officially commissioned to scientifically investigate the effects thatvarious kinds drugs had on addicts served by the NIMH clinic.
David Smith also collaborated with another NIMH project: a behavioral study of children in communes. He was an expert on the breeding of violent anti-social characters in the mind-crushing environment of the hippie or cult commune.
Parole officer Roger Smith remained on Manson's case after he was no longer his parole officer, as an adviser and observer of the increasingly insane man.
Charles Manson took up with a British-origin satanic killer cult called The Process-Church of the Final Judgment, a spin-off from Scientology. When he started with The Process is not clear, but there are some reports that it was in that summer of 1967. Its British founders had put
the U. S. headquarters of the cult into the Haight-Ashbury section, two blocks from where Manson was living, and they recruited from among the "flower children" for the jobs of drug-running, assassination, and race riots. David Berkowitz, convicted in the New York "Son of Sam" serial murders, was an initiate of The Process.
Manson is most widely known for his communal Family, which carried out the satanic Tate-LaBianca murders. But here we note that Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme, who became the head of the Family after Manson was arrested in October 1969, was herself imprisoned for the 1975 attempted assassination of U. S. President Gerald Ford. Another associate of the Manson Family, Sarah Jane Moore, was also imprisoned EIR October 7, 1994 for a failed assassination attempt on President Ford. Had either been successful, Nelson Rockefeller would have become President.
There is a certain psychiatric agency, the American Family Foundation, which exists officially to guard the public from injurious cults. AFF is the mother organization for the so-called Cult Awareness Network (CAN).
Dr. Louis Jolyon West is a director of AFF. An expert in brainwashing for the Air Force and the CIA, West first achieved fame from his MK-Ultra feat-he injected LSD-25 into an elephant and killed it. West researched "the psychology of dissociated states" for the CIA, using LSD and hypnosis. His friend Aldous Huxley suggested to Dr. West during an MK-Ultra experiment that West hypnotize his subjects prior to administering LSD, in order to give them "post hypnotic suggestions aimed at orienting the drug-induced experience in some desired direction. "
Dr. West was called upon by the government to examine Jack Ruby, who had killed Lee Harvey Oswald before Oswald could stand trial for his alleged role in the assassination of President John Kennedy. West declared Ruby to be in a "paranoid state manifested by delusions, visual and auditory hallucinations, and suicidal impulses. " Ruby was convicted in 1964, but conveniently died in 1967 while awaiting what could have been a revealing re-trial.
Dr. West lived in Haight-Ashbury during the summer of 1967, to study the hippies.
In the 1970s, West became famous again for his plans to create a Center for the Study and Reduction of Violence. Its staff was to investigate the genetics and biochemistry of their prisoners, including "hyperkinetic children," whose every motion would be electronically monitored by Orwellian guards. Though backed by Gov. Ronald Reagan, the plan was defeated.
Rabbi Maurice Davis is another "expert" guarding America from cults as a director of the American Family Foundation. Davis worked at the NIMH Lexington AddictionResearch Center as a chaplain, serving the slave victims of the MK-Ultra drug experiments as they were brought into cult participation. Rabbi Davis then moved to Indianapolis and sponsored the career of Rev. Jim Jones, whose followers were murdered with poisoned Kool-Aid in Guyana.
The bulk of the start -up financing for the American Family Foundation was channelled through a New York law firm running two funding satellites of the Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation. The same law firm was the legal representative of The Process-Church of the Final Judgment.
The Process Church employs neo-Nazi themes, as do other British-origin movements such as the Satanists associated with California's Anton Lavey and Col. Michael Aquino. Charles Manson's swastika tatoo attests to this. Many of the psychotic potential presidential assassins have been "neo Nazis. " These include Ronald Reagan's deeply brainwashed assailant John Hinckley, and some of those who have threatened President Clinton.
To help turn up the possible source for this curious zombie pattern, we review the case of NIMH leader Seymour Kety-as of recent report the chairman of the Professiona Advisory Section of the Scottish Rite Masons'schizophrenia Research program. This is the Dr. Kety who, with his NIMH predecessor Dr. Felix, helped shape the programs that made Charles Manson a satanic beast.
A Scottish Rite brochure reports on the meetings of the Rite's Grand Commander and Supreme Council with their psychiatrists to plan for the future. The brochure explains that Dr. Kety "can trace his interest in the genetics of schizophrenia to a report by Dr. Franz Kallmann at one of these
meetings years ago. Dr. Kety's own genetic studies have become landmarks in the field, as the first convincing demonstration of an inherited factor. " Not the first, perhaps, be cause Kallmann provided Adolf Hitler with "convincing" pretexts to exterminate mental patients.
The official assassination program
The ambiguous rationale for the MK-Ultra program was the search for the Manchurian Candidate: to study, emulate, and counterbalance communist programs which brainwash people who could be dangerous to our national security.
These programs were secret, and masses of MK-Ultra records were destroyed. But'some aspects of the program's direct testing have been divulged.
CIA executive Morse Allen worked at creating killers under hypnosis on and around Feb. 19, 1954. The CIA planned early in 1954 to hypnotize a man they considered disposable, to get him to make an assassination attempt, be arrested for attempted murder, and be "thereby disposed of. "
A CIA hypnosis study was done by Alden Sears at the University of Minnesota and was moved by Sears to the University of Denver, Colorado. Sears worked to answer the question, "Could a hypnotist induce a totally separate personality?
CIA counterintelligence chief James Jesus Angleton, a leader of the British intelligence faction in the American intelligence community, established three goals for the hypnosis program: 1 ) to induce hypnosis very rapidly in unwitting subjects; 2) to create durable amnesia; and 3) to implant durable and operationally useful post-hypnotic suggestion.
A test of rapid hypnosis took place in July 1963. The counter intelligence staff in Washington, D. C. asked the CIA station in Mexico City to find a suitable candidate for a rapid induction experiment. The station proposed a low-level agent, whom the Soviets had apparently doubled. A counterintelligence man flew in from Washington and a hypnotic consultant arrived from California. The experiment was said to have misfired.
According to CIA hypnosis expert Milton Klein, creating a hypnotized "patsy" is easier than making a totally controlled Manchurian Candidate. The patsy can be induced by hypnosis to do things which later show up as circumstantial evidence that will get him falsely blamed for a crime. Klein has claimed he can create a patsy in three months; a full-scale Manchurian Candidate takes six months.
I
The strange deaths of Frank Olson and Philip Graham
An important part of the MN-Ultra story was the violent death of Dr. Frank Olson.
In November 195 3, the project's CIA personnel gave LSD to Olson, an executive of lhe Army Chemical Corps'
Special Operations Division, without warning him. Olson became psychotic and paranoid, l so the agency took Olson to New York to see Harold Abraknson, the British Crown's lLSD pusher, who had "top se¢ret" CIA clearance. When Abramson was no help, Olsoq agreed to enter Chestnut Lodge, a Rockville, Maryland i sanitarium whose psychiatrists were in Abramson's category for the security of the MK-Ultra project-"top secret" Fleared. But the night before he was to enter Chestnut Lodge Olson allegedly jumped to his death from a hotel window. Olson's death eventually became a scandal which helped break open of the entire MK-Ultra scandal. i
A decade later, President John F. Kennedy was pressing ahead with the Apollo space program, which he promised would put a man on the Moon Within a decade. Philip Graham, the owner/publisher of the IWashington Post and Newsweek, met as an adviser and ifriend every week with the President and his brother, Attorney General Bobby Kennedy.
Graham was an ardent champion and strategist of the space program, and of the President's policy of achieving peace by developing overwhelming technological superiority. Graham wrote a Newsweek column! defending French President Charles de Gaulle and attacking Britain and elements in the U. S. government who took the iBritish line. Graham's wife Katharine and her Anglophile tpmily despised and mocked Kennedy's emphasis on progress, and demanded U. S. disarmament. Graham separated from his wife and sued for divorce.
In January 1963, Graham delivered a speech to a national publishers ' meeting in Arizona,l attacking the news media as 9toadies and sycophants. Leslie Farber, a New Age psychiatrist from MK-Ultra's Chestnut Lodge, flew out on a military jet. Graham was wrestled to the ground, drugged into a stupor, and flown back to Maryland, where his wife had obtained a court order for his commitment to Chestnut Lodge.
He was apparently released aftet 1 0 days or so. In June 1963, 9Graham was somehow put baqk into Chestnut Lodge. On Aug. 3, he was released into tjhe custody of his estranged wife. That afternoon, he was found shot to death. His will was declared void on the grounds of insanity, and his widow, Katharine Graham, gained control of the Washington Post and Newsweek.
Three months later, President Kennedy was assassinated.
The Washington Post, the main newspaper in the national capital, did not pursue the question of who had murdered the U. S. President, but left it to the Warren Commission to decide.
The assassins' goals
Back in 1961, at the height of MK-Ultra, the NIMH, led by masonic high priest Robert Felix, had created an elite group of biologists, behavioral psychologists, chemists, pharmacologists, neuropsychologists, and psychiatrists.
This ISO-member American College of Neuropsychopharmacology comprised many of most important MK-Ultra participants.
An inner group of the college, the Study Group for the Effects of Psychotropic Drugs on Normal Humans, held a conference in 1967 to outline the desired course for the United States to the year 2000.
This conference was reported on by two MK-Ultra leaders: Dr. Wayne O. Evans, director of the U. S. Army Military Stress Laboratory in Natick, Massachusetts; and Nathan Kline, a eugenics fanatic and research psychiatrist for Columbia University, who had set up voodoo-oriented psychological clinics in Haiti in conjunction with "Papa Doc" Duvalier.
The preface to the Evans-Kline report said the group "concluded that the present breadth of drug use may be almost trivial when we compare it to the possible numbers of chemical substances that will be available for the control of selective aspects of man's life in the year 2000....
For further reading Samuel Harrison Baynard, Jr., History of the Supreme Council, 33 Degree, Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, Northern Jurisdiction of the United States of America, Vol. II, Boston, 1938, published by the Supreme Council.
The Campaigner, April 1974: L. Marcus, "The Real CIA-The Rockefellers' Fascist Establishment," and M. Minnicino, "Low Intensity Operations: The Reesian The ory of War. " May 1974: Peter Cuskie, "The Shaping of the Anglo-American SS by War," and Richard Freeman, "Rockefeller's Fascist Labor Policies. " Photocopies available from Ben Franklin Booksellers, Inc., 1- 800-453-4 1 08.
Anton Chaitkin, "Franklin Witnesses Implicate FBI and U. S. Elites in Torture and Murder of Children," The New Federalist, Dec. 1, 1993.
Anton Chaitkin, "Cairo Population Conference Repeats 1932 Nazi Planning Meeting," EIR, April 29, 1994.
EIR October 7, 1994
"The American culture... [is] moving toward a'sensate society. '... A greater emphasis is being placed on sensory experience and less upon rational or work-oriented philosophies. Such a philosophical view, coupled with the means to separate sexual behavior from reproduction or disease, will undoubtedly enhance sexual freedom....
"It seems... obvious that the youth of today are no longer afraid of either drugs or sex. Again, the philosophers. and spokesmen for the avant-garde advocate the personal sensory experience as the raison d' etre of the coming generation. Finally, we are moving into an age in which meaningful work will be possible only for a minority: In such an age, chemical aphrodisiacs may be accepted as a commonplace means to occupy one's time. It will be interesting to see if the public morality of the next 30 years will change as much as it has in the last 30.
"If we accept the position that human mood, motivation, and emotion are reflections of a neurochemical state of the brain, then drugs can provide a simple, rapid, expedient means
to produce any desired neurochemical state that we wish.
"The sooner that we cease to confuse scientific and moral statements about drug use, the sooner we can rationally consider the types of neurochemical states that we wish to be able to provide for people. "
This i s the historical thinking of the British strategists who want to destroy the U. S. presidency and the American republic. And this is the criminal apparatus with which they have equipped themselves to do it.
Franz J. Kallmann, The Genetics of Schizophrenia: A Study of Heredity and Reproduction in the Families of
/087 Schizophrenics, New York: 1938.
Stefan Kuhl, The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism and German National Socialism, New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. and Anton Chaitkin, Bring Down the Pike Statue Now: Why the KKK National Monument Must Fall, 1993, published by The New Federalist, P. O. Box 889, Leesburg, Va. 22075.
Bernhard Schreiber, The Men Behind Hitler: A German Warning to the World, France: La Hay-Mureaux, ca.
1975), English edition supplied by H. and P. Tadeusz, 369 Edgewere Road, London W2. A copy of this book is held by Union College Library, Syracuse, N. Y.
Jeffrey Steinberg, "30 Years o f Menticide," EIR, Oct. 6, Oct. 20, and Nov. 3, 1989.
Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin, George Bush:
The Unauthorized Biography, Washington, D. C. : EIR, 1992, consult expecially chapters 1-4.
Carol White and Brian Lantz, "Satan's Helpers: Nazi Doctors in America," EIR, Oct. 6, 198
British Psychiatry: From Eugenics to Assassination
by Anton Chaitkin
Executive Intelligence Review
Volume 21, Number 40, October 7, 1994
https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1994/eirv21n40-19941007/index.html
The systematic sterilization and killing of individuals with schizophrenia in Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945 was influenced by several factors. Perhaps, of greatest importance was a belief that schizophrenia was a simple Mendelian inherited disease, passed down from generation to generation. In Germany, this theory was promoted by Drs Ernst Rüdin and Franz Kallmann, among others. Rüdin, whose research was supported by the Rockefeller Foundation, was the director of the Genealogical-Demographic Department of the German Institute for Psychiatric Research in Munich. He had a special interest in schizophrenia, which he believed was caused by a Mendelian recessive gene, and advocated that “people who are themselves mentally ill …should not have children.”2 Kallmann, a Berlin psychiatrist who had been a student of Rüdin, studied schizophrenia in twins and also believed that the disease was transmitted by a recessive gene. In a 1935 speech, Kallmann advocated the examination of all relatives of individuals with schizophrenia to identify nonaffected carriers, which he believed could be done by noting “minor anomalies,” and then the compulsory sterilization of such individuals.3 A year later, Kallmann emigrated to New York, where he continued his twin research and later became one of the founders of the American Society of Human Genetics.
The theories of Ernst Rüdin and Franz Kallmann coincided with a growing interest in Germany in eugenics and “race hygiene” (Rassenhygiene) in the early 1930s. At the time, the eugenics movement was strongest in the United States and Britain. Indiana had passed the first state compulsory sterilization law in 1907, and by 1928, 20 more states had followed, most including “lunatics” among the target population; California was the most active state in this regard. In 1916, New York patrician Madison Grant had published The Passing of the Great Race, a jeremiad about the dangers of interracial marriage that Science magazine called “a work of solid merit”4; it was subsequently translated into German and cited by Hitler in Mein Kampf. The International Congress of Eugenics was also based in the United States, and in 1932, its presidency passed from Dr C. B. Davenport of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory to Dr Rüdin.
In 1933, Rüdin was one of the guiding forces behind the passage of Germany's first compulsory sterilization law, called “the law for the prevention of progeny with hereditary defects.” Its initial target was individuals with mental retardation, schizophrenia, manic-depressive disorder, epilepsy, Huntington chorea, hereditary blindness and deafness, hereditary alcoholism, and “grave bodily malformation.”5 Hitler had become chancellor 6 months earlier. The majority of the targeted individuals were in psychiatric hospitals, which had become massively overcrowded, thereby forcing the discharge of some patients to make room for more admissions. Patients with schizophrenia who were scheduled for discharge were deemed to be of high priority for sterilization in order to prevent them from producing offspring.
An attempt to relieve the overcrowding of psychiatric hospitals, in fact, played a significant role in Germany's decision to institute compulsory sterilization and, later, the killing of psychiatric patients.6 In 1880, Germany had had 47 228 patients in public asylums, but by 1913, this number had increased to 239 583, a 5-fold increase during a period when the total population had not quite doubled. Despite the fact that 140 234 asylum patients died during World War I, mostly from infectious disease and hunger, they were rapidly replaced by others. Between 1924 and 1929, the number of psychiatric hospital patients increased from 185 397 to over 300 000, despite the fact that the average length of stay had decreased from 215 to 103 days. In the Erlangen asylum, the percentage of patients diagnosed with schizophrenia increased from 42% to 56%, and two-thirds of all new admissions were given that diagnosis.2 A massive increase of psychiatric patients, especially those diagnosed with schizophrenia, was also being observed in England, the United States, and other countries during these same years.7
This massive increase in patients in psychiatric hospitals came at a bad time for Germany economically. Following World War I, Germany had been stripped of valuable industrial and coal-producing areas and saddled with onerous reparations. The decade following was marked by strikes, clashes between Communists and nationalists, inflation, bankruptcies, and a severe economic depression. Funding for psychiatric care was sharply reduced even as the number of patients requiring care was rising. In 1931, the German Psychiatric Association organized a prize for the best essay on the topic “How can provision for mental health care be more cheaply reorganized?”2
The idea of killing the patients in psychiatric hospitals first surfaced prominently in 1920 in a publication by Karl Binding, a lawyer, and Alfred Hoche, a psychiatrist. Entitled Permission for the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life, the tract posed the question: “Is there human life which has so far forfeited the character of something entitled to enjoy the protection of the law, that its prolongation represents a perpetual loss of value, both for its bearer and for society as a whole?” The authors’ answer was clearly affirmative and described such individuals as being “mentally dead” and “on an intellectual level which we only encounter way down in the animal kingdom.”2 The authors emphasized the economic burden of such individuals to Germany. The economic argument was repeated in subsequent discussions of this issue, such as in a 1932 article entitled “The Eradication of the Less Valuable from Society,” in which the author, psychiatrist Berthold Kihn, estimated that mentally ill individuals were costing Germany 150 million Reichsmarks per year.2
Hitler was interested in these ideas and is said to have discussed a program to kill chronic mental patients in 1933, shortly after assuming the chancellorship. He said that “it is right that the worthless lives of such creatures should be ended, and that this would result in certain savings in terms of hospitals, doctors and nursing staff.” Prophetically, he suggested that such a program would be easier to implement during wartime, when public opposition would be less.2
The idea of killing psychiatric patients continued to be discussed privately by Nazi officials throughout the 1930s. Finally, in July 1939, as he was planning to invade Poland, Hitler asked his private physician and other officials to draft a law that permitted the killing of mental patients. From the beginning, the euphemism “euthanasia” was used to refer to the killings; as Fredric Wertham noted in A Sign for Cain, “these were not mercy deaths but merciless murders.”8
The result was a memorandum on “the destruction of life unworthy of life” and a draft law that included the following provision:
The life of a person, who because of incurable mental illness requires permanent institutionalization and is not able to sustain an independent existence, may be prematurely terminated by medical measures in a painless and covert manner.
Selected professors of psychiatry and asylum directors who were known to be sympathetic to the plan were asked to comment on the draft. All agreed that such a program was necessary, but some suggested granting exceptions to patients who were doing “economically important work in the institution.” Friedrich Mauz, professor of psychiatry at Königsberg University, argued against granting any exceptions for those individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia “as a matter of principle.”2,3
Hitler's letter authorizing the program to kill mental patients was dated September 1, 1939, the day German forces invaded Poland. Although the program never officially became law, Hitler guaranteed legal immunity for everyone who took part in it. In October 1939, the directors of all German psychiatric hospitals were asked to fill out forms indicating the diagnosis and capacity for useful work of each patient, although they were not told what the forms were for. These forms were then assessed by a committee of selected psychiatrists who targeted approximately 70 000 patients for death, 1 for every 1000 people in Germany, which was the initial goal of the program.9 The program was known as Aktion (action) T–4, after the address of its headquarters in Berlin on Tiergartenstrasse 4.
E. Fuller Torrey, Robert H. Yolken, Psychiatric Genocide: Nazi Attempts to Eradicate Schizophrenia, Schizophrenia Bulletin, Volume 36, Issue 1, January 2010, Pages 26–32, https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbp097
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2800142/
Despite Galton’s failed “4 family experiment,” the eugenics movement continued to grow, especially in the USA, thanks to the funding provided by John D. Rockefeller, who, after creating the Rockefeller Foundation in 1913, quickly took charge of the Bureau of Social Hygiene and gave it the task of conducting “research and education on birth control, maternal health, and sex education.” Via the National Research Council, which was the Rockefeller Foundation’s “medical division,” Rockefeller funded the horrible sex research of Alfred Kinsey, who, along with his fellow pedophiles sexually abused 2,000 infants and children. A year or two before he died, Kinsey circumcised himself with a pocketknife. Among his intimates was Dr. Ewen Cameron, the infamous CIA-funded mind control doctor who ran the MKULTRA program. Another of Kinsey’s apparent influences was the occultist Aleister Crowley (“the Great Beast”) known in the press as “the wickedest man alive.”
Adrian Hill
Prof. Sir Adrian Hill
Director of the Jenner Institute, Oxford University
Adrian V. S. Hill is the Director and Founder of the Jenner Institute and Mittal Professor of Vaccinology at Oxford University.
https://dohaforum.org/speakers/prof.-adrian--hill
Adrian is the Director and Founder of the Jenner Institute and Mittal Professor of Vaccinology at Oxford University. His group has been one of the leaders in the development of adenoviral and other vaccines against infectious diseases and he has tested these in extensively in clinical trials in Africa and Europe.
In partnership with the Serum Institute of India and AstraZeneca the Jenner Institute developed rapidly a ChAdOx1 vector-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccine which saved an estimated 6.2 million lives in 2021 alone. His lab has also designed a new malaria vaccine, R21/Matrix-MTM, which has recently reached licensure, again in partnership with the Serum Institute of India and also Novavax Inc.
In 2021 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society and appointed an Honorary Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire (KBE) in Queen Elizabeth’s Birthday Honours. The nomination acknowledges the major contributions Adrian has made to vaccinations globally.
https://www.jenner.ac.uk/about
key terms:
population policy
population control
Human population planning
"Human population planning is the practice of managing the growth rate of a human population. The practice, traditionally referred to as population control, had historically been implemented mainly with the goal of increasing population growth, though from the 1950s to the 1980s, concerns about overpopulation and its effects on poverty, the environment and political stability led to efforts to reduce population growth rates in many countries. More recently, however, several countries such as China, Japan, South Korea, Russia, Iran, Italy, Spain, Finland, Hungary and Estonia have begun efforts to boost birth rates once again, generally as a response to looming demographic crises."
A History of Human Population Control: "Controlling the Growth Rate of the Human Population", Paul F. Kisak
surplus population
depopulation
Human resources
resource management
Human engineering
human reproduction control
controlled evolution
directed evolution
controllable
domestication
select for traits
strong / smart / fast / productive / appearances /
manageability
controllability
docility
remove defensiveness / defensive capabililties
declaw / defang
remove independent instincts
induce dependency
“The canon of texts linked to an emphasis on law as the basis of social control included the Book of Lord Shang (Shang jun shu, ascribed to Shang Yang, ?–338 BCE)... The mid-fourth-century BCE reforms, including registration of the population, the formation of five-household mutual responsibility units, the mobilization of the state for agriculture and warfare, and the use of rewards (especially for battlefield achievements) and punishments (for any infraction of the laws), played a crucial role in the rise of Qin to a position of overwhelming political and military power. Lord Shang’s chilly totalitarian vision marks him as one of the most original thinkers of the Warring States Period.
...Shenzi (attributed to Shen Dao, c. 350–c. 275 BCE) is another of the many Warring States texts that survives only in quoted fragments. Shen Dao, like Shen Buhai, is often, but unconvincingly, described as a Legalist. Rather than emphasizing punitive law, he begins with the premise that people have diferent talents and capacities but all act to benefit their private interests. Social order, therefore, requires a clear and consistent set of rules that everyone can understand and that can be followed without hardship or resentment.
...Administering the empire
The first order of business, once the conquered Zhou states were pacified, was to initiate a series of reforms. Local aristocrats were disenfranchised (when they survived at all) and relocated to Xianyang, the Qin capital in the Wei River Valley, and their extensive domains were absorbed into a bureaucratically organized central state. All of the land in the empire was newly laid out in commanderies (jun) and counties (xian). Ultimately there were about forty commanderies, each with a military governor, and nearly a thousand counties, each administered by a magistrate (so there were, on average, about twenty-five counties in a commandery). The counties reported to commanderies, and the commanderies to the capital, thus bypassing any previously existing elite sociopolitical structures within the conquered states and their local systems of administration. This was true even though no systematic way of training and selecting entry-level bureaucrats, such as the exam system of later dynasties, had yet been put in place. Because of the need for literate magistrates and their subordinates, they were often recruited from among the local elites, efectively giving a selection of the disenfranchised aristocracy new but limited access to power. Magistrates maintained their own stafs of secretaries, legal experts, tax assessors, and other trained assistants. The main tasks of government at the county level were to assess and collect taxes, hear criminal and civil legal cases, carry out punishments, maintain roads and other public works, keep registers relating to the performance of corvée labor and military service, and keep the peace. Ofcials were assessed according to state regulations and could be dismissed or punished for infractions.
The uniformity of this national system was reinforced by elaborate laws concerning what kind of information was to be gathered at the county and commandery levels: records were kept of crops, crop yields, any unusual circumstances such as droughts or floods, household population broken down by gender, age, and occupation, and much more besides. This reporting structure meant that ofcials in the capital could form reasonable estimates of expected tax revenues or, conversely, the need for relief supplies in stricken areas. The population figures made it possible for the national government to identify areas of surplus population and move people (who had no choice in the matter) to under-populated regions or to unpacified parts of the empire as colonists. For example, in 219 BCE around 30,000 households from various parts of the empire were relocated to an area of Shandong Peninsula previously occupied by less Sinified peoples.”
https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/60fc5c7c-2525-4559-b6e0-f9780038aa46/9781317503668.pdf
Plato and Aristotle
Plato and Aristotle on living well and optimal population
“Population policy
The ancient Greeks have exerted tremendous influence on western thought and culture, including in the realm of ethics. Yet few today realize that the founders of western political philosophy advocated a steady-state economy and limits to human numbers.
by Theodore P. Lianos
In the fifth century B.C., the Athenian philosopher Socrates (470-399) changed the course of philosophical endeavor from Mathematics and Physics towards a new field: Ethics. For Socrates the basic question of philosophy was a simple one: how should we live?
Socrates’s student, Plato (427-347) wrote two treatises to provide answers to this basic question. He eventually considered his famous Republic (Politeia) written around 380 B.C. as too advanced for the time, and thus later in life he wrote Laws (Nomoi) which he considered second best but immediately applicable.
Plato’s student Aristotle (384-323) in his Politics (Politica) written sometime after 336 B.C. gives, in book VII, his model of a city-nation that would have the “most desirable mode of life”.
Plato’s vision
Plato expounds his model by imagining the creation of a new colony. The first thing to do, he argues, is to “let the citizens at once distribute their land and houses and not till the land in common, since a community of goods goes beyond their proposed origin and nurture, and education” (Laws, 740, A). The distribution of property should be such that there would “be no disputes among citizen about property” (Laws, 737,B).
The next task is to determine the number of people and the amount of land. These must be determined simultaneously so that two requirements are satisfied: first, citizens must have a decent standard of living, and second, the size of the population must be large enough to be able to defend the city and also help neighbouring cities. In Plato’s words,
“The number of citizens can only be estimated satisfactorily in relation to the territory and the neighbouring states. The territory must be sufficient to maintain a certain number of inhabitants in a moderate way of life—more than this is not required; and the number of citizens should be sufficient to defend themselves against the injustice of their neighbours, and also to give them the power of rendering efficient aid to their neighbours when they are wronged” (Laws,737,C,D).
What is important in the relation between population and land is that they form a common factor, or they become a pair. Plato’s text says “so that every man may correspond to a lot.”
Plato’s central idea here is that land and population should be determined simultaneously in such a way that citizens might enjoy a good but moderate standard of living and the city should be safe from enemies.
What makes this model a steady-state economy is the following requirement, strongly stated by Plato:
“And in order that the distribution may always remain, they ought to consider further that the present number of families should be always retained, and neither increased nor diminished” (Laws, 740, B).
...Thus, Plato’s answer to Socrates’s question is that we should live in a safe environment enjoying a moderate lifestyle. Given that land is limited, the moderate way of life can be achieved by determining and keeping constant the right size population.
Aristotle’s refinements
In his own analysis of the relationship between population and land, Aristotle introduces several new elements. First, instead of a moderate way of life he suggests the notion of the “best life,” which presupposes both virtue and a degree of material wealth:
...“For the present let us take it as established that the best life, whether separately for an individual or collectively for a state, is the life conjoined with virtue furnished with sufficient means for taking part in virtuous action” (Politics 1323b40-1324a2).
...According to Aristotle the size of the population of the city should be within limits. The lower limit is that below which the autarky of the city is lost and thus the reason for its creation and development is negated. The upper limit of population size is determined by considerations related to the effective administration of the city. If the population is too large, it will be difficult to run the city effectively and to enforce the law. For example, it would be difficult to find a town crier with a stentorian voice. Also, in an overcrowded city it would be difficult to make the correct decisions regarding the distribution of public offices according to merit, since this requires adequate knowledge of the abilities of individual citizens. Contrary to Plato who specifies the exact number of farmers, Aristotle provides no exact limit except in one case by way of an example:
“You cannot make a city of ten men, and if there are a hundred thousand it is a city no longer. But the proper number is presumably not a single number, but anything that falls between certain fixed points” (Nicomachean Ethics 1170b 30—33).
For the regulation of population, Aristotle thinks that “there must be a limit fixed to the procreation of offspring” (Politics 1335b23-24). Also, he suggests that “it is fitting for women to be married at about the age of eighteen and the men at thirty-seven or a little before” (Politics 1335a28-30). The last suggestion is made for population health purposes, but is clear that it can help limit population growth. He also suggests for the same purpose that “persons exceeding this age [of fifty for men] by four or five years must be discharged from the duty of producing children for the community” (Politics 1335b22-24). It is characteristic of the significance Aristotle attributes to population control that he suggests that “if any people have a child as a result of intercourse in contravention of these regulations, abortion must be practiced on it before it has developed sensation and life” (Politics 1335b24-25).”
https://overpopulation-project.com/plato-and-aristotle-on-living-well-and-optimal-population/
“These measures are to apply to the guardian class only. It is only the purity of the guardians with which Plato is concerned. The security of the state is to be entrusted to the excellence of its ruling caste. The strict rules for breeding do not apply to the whole population.
With his words at 459 D 7 - E 1 Plato makes it clear that any offspring born to the worst of the guardians must not be reared. To all Greeks of his day ph Tpetpeiv carried the implication of exposure. That was what was normally done with newborn Infants who were not reared, in the context of newborn Infants Tp&peiv and Tpoqm indicate rearing in the sense of acknowledging, keeping and maintaining the baby, as opposed to rejecting it.”
THE TREATMENT OF INFANTS IN CLASSICAL AND HELLENISTIC GREECE
SUSAN J. MILLIGAN
https://theses.gla.ac.uk/77952/1/10999270.pdf
Population Policy in Plato and Aristotle : SOME VALUE ISSUES
Martin P. Golding and Naomi H. Golding
Arethusa
Vol. 8, No. 2, Population Policy in Plato & Aristotle (Fall 1975), pp. 345-358 (14 pages)
Published By: The Johns Hopkins University Press
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26307513
The Malthusian component
This section is an excerpt from Malthusianism § Malthus' theoretical argument.[edit]
In 1798, Thomas Malthus proposed his hypothesis in An Essay on the Principle of Population.
He argued that although human populations tend to increase, the happiness of a nation requires a like increase in food production. "The happiness of a country does not depend, absolutely, upon its poverty, or its riches, upon its youth, or its age, upon its being thinly, or fully inhabited, but upon the rapidity with which it is increasing, upon the degree in which the yearly increase of food approaches to the yearly increase of an unrestricted population."[19]
However, the propensity for population increase also leads to a natural cycle of abundance and shortages:
We will suppose the means of subsistence in any country just equal to the easy support of its inhabitants. The constant effort towards population...increases the number of people before the means of subsistence are increased. The food therefore which before supported seven millions, must now be divided among seven millions and a half or eight millions. The poor consequently must live much worse, and many of them be reduced to severe distress. The number of labourers also being above the proportion of the work in the market, the price of labour must tend toward a decrease; while the price of provisions would at the same time tend to rise. The labourer therefore must work harder to earn the same as he did before. During this season of distress, the discouragements to marriage, and the difficulty of rearing a family are so great, that population is at a stand. In the mean time the cheapness of labour, the plenty of labourers, and the necessity of an increased industry amongst them, encourage cultivators to employ more labour upon their land; to turn up fresh soil, and to manure and improve more completely what is already in tillage; till ultimately the means of subsistence become in the same proportion to the population as at the period from which we set out. The situation of the labourer being then again tolerably comfortable, the restraints to population are in some degree loosened; and the same retrograde and progressive movements with respect to happiness are repeated.
— Thomas Malthus, 1798. An Essay on the Principle of Population, Chapter II.
Famine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of nature. The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world.
— Thomas Malthus, 1798. An Essay on the Principle of Population. Chapter VII, p. 61[20]
Malthus faced opposition from economists both during his life and since. A vocal critic several decades later was Friedrich Engels.[21][22]
eugenics(n.)
"doctrine of progress in evolution of the human race, race-culture," 1883, coined (along with adjective eugenic) by English scientist Francis Galton (1822-1911) on analogy of ethics, physics, etc. from Greek eugenes "well-born, of good stock, of noble race," from eu- "good" (see eu-) + genos "birth" (from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget").
All of the posts on this substack are intended to be primers to help make necessary information and comprehension accessible to everyone, and help everyone spread the word to all people. Some are written to be easy to print and distribute, others are collections of documentation to help provide evidence and proof to convince those who doubt the truth.
Please print things out and distribute them. Some posts here are fairly print ready, others can be edited. Please make your own print outs, and distribute them, everywhere, until every human is aware. Bulletin boards, bus stop benches, telephone poles, door steps, windshields, fliers, handouts, etc.
The local newspapers are shut down. We, The People, have to be the reporters, editors, and distributors. 4th estate = Journalism = By the People, For the People. Participatory government = participatory journalism. We need to mobilize. Tell everyone else to help spread the word. This matter is urgent - we are far behind.
Feel free to ask any questions, and to leave comments and suggestions. Democracy is collaborative, and if we don't effectively collaborate, we will not have it.
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people, enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve it, and it requires no very high degree of education to convince them of this. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. "
- Thomas Jefferson
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-12-02-0490