3. Eugenics: A World Wide Web

I began my eugenics research in England and looked first at English abortion history. For this reason many of my examples come from England. But, although the eugenic infestation is worst in England, in that infects obstetrics, biology and all the social sciences as these are taught in that country(1), eugenics is not just an English problem. It is a world wide problem. There are tens of millions of abortions globally each year. Abortion takes more lives than starvation, malnutrition and warfare combined. Abortion is not new, but abortion on such a scale is new, and it is the work of the eugenicists in our time.

Japan legalised abortion immediately after World War II during the US Occupation and that law was called the "Eugenic Protection Act." The first director of UNESCO was Julian Huxley, and one of his first actions was to call for global abortion. The founder of the World Bank was John Maynard Keynes. The first director of the UN Technical Assistance Program was George Cadbury who later became chairman of The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). The first US representative to the UN Population Commission was Frank Notestein, the second was Kingsley Davis. The training of the UN demographers who shape population control projects was a project of Frederick Osborn, the ex-President of the American Eugenics Society and the Pioneer Fund. Not only did Osborn arrange for the training of the UN demographers(2) but he also founded the Population Council together with John D. Rockefeller III.

The eugenic influence of early workers such as George Cadbury and Kingsley Davis, continues. Eugenics shows up in the program of population control which is developed by the eugenic societies, 55 funded by taxpayers world wide, and, as at the Cairo Conference in 1994, pushed by American and Western European political might. The chief of the Fertility division of the UN Population section was Gwendolyn Acsadi-Johnson. Population control figures in the policies of all United Nations bodies, including UNICEF. It is the specific mission of the UNFPA. The UN works through the. IPPF. In 1994 China, with the support of the IPPF, passed a coercive population control law. The law was originally called a "Eugenic" law but is now called the Maternal and Child Health Law. (It will be recalled that Vera Houghton said that those carrying out controversial family planning actions "... may ... choose a more general term like happy families ...".)

This influence continues because the eugenicists trained others, not necessarily in the eugenic societies, to think their way. They laid down the parameters of the field of population control, including that most important sub division, demography. The result is that population policies are eugenics in action. John Sharpless has studied the history of population control using the Rockefeller Foundation archives. He has written a most interesting account of the development of population policy. This account was published in the Rockefeller Centre Archive Newsletter in the Fall 1993. According to Sharpless, in the 1950's:

"the non-profit sector was where the debate over the population problem actually played itself out, ultimately defining how the policy issue would be viewed in the period which followed. [emphasis added]...[the Population Council made sure that] ... research would take place in both the social as well as the biological sciences ... this effort was not simply an exercise in pure science but one which aimed specifically at policy ... not only the legitimating of the 'science' of demography but also the acceptance of demography as a policy science ... they were slowly encouraging an evolution in thinking among 'population specialists' to view intervention in demographic processes (particularly fertility) as not only appropriate but necessary". (3)

So it was in internal debates among the cognitive elite during the Fifties that population policies, which are still being carried out, were formulated. And, if we look at the leading figures in these debates, we find eugenicists. Sharpless does not say that the debate was dominated by eugenicists but the people whom he identifies as having dominated the debate, were in fact eugenicists.

"The internal reports which circulated among the RF [Rockefeller Foundation] staff became the basis for Population Council programming. Marshall Balfour and Frank Notestein, who were at the centre of RF discussions, moved on to assist the Population Council in its early years 57 ... Bates's report on population problems ... was passed on to the Ford Foundation, which used it as part of their evaluation of the population problem. The Ford response was to move forward and offer the Population Council its first major outside support! ... By the end of the 1950s ... [JDR 3rd] and the leadership within the Population Council had expanded the base of support for intervention in population problems.(4)

As a consequence of these discussions among eugenicists in the Fifties, population control is integral to the 'development' programs of the rich nations, including the United States and Japan, who spend half a billion dollars annually to prevent development of Asian, African and Latin American babies.

Population control is a specific goal of the World Bank which was organised by John Maynard Keynes. The World Bank has always been heavily influenced by members of the Population Council which is a eugenics front group.(5) Policy at the Population Council and at the World Bank continues to be affected by eugenicists such as James Meade, W.P. Mauldin, Sheldon Segal, John Bongaarts and others.

The apparently benign loan program of the World Bank gives it the power to demand "co-operation" on family planning from leaders of poor nations around the world.(6) For example, in Kenya:

"support [by the World Bank] for the establishment of the NCPD [the Kenya National Council on Population and Development] ... came in the form of a condition for release of the second tranche of the Second Structural Adjustment Loan. This loan became effective August 27, 1982, the same day the second population project was signed. ... Its creation [the creation of the NCPD]. was opposed by the MOH [Kenya Ministry of Health]"(7)

Coercive

"At present low birth rates are not steady in China", a spokesman for the State Family Planning Commission told the official Legal Daily. "This is because the birth concept of the broad masses has not changed fundamentally" (8)

In short, population control is eugenics. It is a radical policy promoted by an elite who use the power of money to force nations to "request" extermination of a part of their own people. But why does this elite support eugenics? It cannot be that they all have read The Origin of Species or The Descent of Man. Wherever so many of the rich are involved, we must look for a financial incentive. And, as Lothrop Stoddard noted in The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy, the presence of resources in Third World countries constitutes such an incentive.

Eugenics and Economics

As government policy, population control is the servant of economic policy masquerading as science or benevolence. We know this because American policy documents on population were declassified and entered the public domain. Originally, US presidents like Eisenhower said the US had no business interfering with the population of other nations. This was officially changed in 1974. At that time, the US National Security Council did a study, National Security Study Memorandum 200, which suggested that population growth might cause unrest in the Third World and might lead to demands for a greater share in resource use. Therefore, population control should be a matter of "paramount importance". The study was became policy through National Security Decision Memorandum 314 (NSDM 314) in 1975. NSSM 200 and NSDM 314 were declassified in the late Eighties and discovered by pro lifers. From these documents we know that the true reason for the US policy of support of population control is that the United States elite wants the resources of the Third World for itself.(9) Population control as government policy is colonialism by other means.

In 1974 overt colonialism was unacceptable. So the National Security memo candidly explained that the US must sell population control to other countries as a means for them to become rich, not as what it is - a means for some one else to become even richer.

"The US can help to minimise charges of an imperialist motivation behind its support of population activities by repeatedly asserting that such support derives from a concern with: (a) the right of the individual to determine freely and responsibly the number and spacing of children ... and (b) the fundamental social and economic development of poor countries." (10)

The overt reasons for government involvement population control are provided with supporting arguments by economists and others who say that population control will assist the poor. Their argument, the classic Malthusian argument, is that overpopulation causes poverty. It's hard to study economics and escape ensnarement by this reasoning because key economists in England and America for the last two hundred years have linked poverty and overpopulation; since 1907 key economists have been members of eugenic societies.(11)

Many of these early economists were deeply involved with colonialism. T.R. Malthus taught at the College of the East India Company. James Mill and John Stuart Mill both worked for the East India Company as Examiners of Correspondence. This means that they had day-to-day responsibility for making policy in India. When James Mill instituted his famous program of education for John Stuart Mill, he was training him to take over did position as Chief Examiner. And John Stuart Mill did become Chief Examiner.(12) John Stuart Mill's chief disciple was Alfred Marshall, who founded the Cambridge Department of Political Science. His chief associate was John Neville Keynes, the father of John Maynard Keynes. Keynes first job was in the India Office. Keynes trained James Meade of the World Bank and George Cadbury of the UN Technical Assistance Commission and the IPPF. So "classic economics" was involved with colonialism, as well as population control, almost from the start and the involvement continues to this day.

But, in the very beginning, economics was not involved with either population control or colonialism. Adam Smith, the author of Wealth of Nations, thought that invention was the key to wealth and that population was a secondary factor. Currently, Julian Simon makes this same argument. Supporting the analysis of Adam Smith and Julian Simon is the fact that one of the most densely populated areas in the world is Europe and Europe is rich. Within Europe is England, also rich, which is far more densely populated than Africa or China. England has 600 people per square mile while Africa, which is poor, averages 22 people per square mile and China has 300. If poverty and overpopulation were linked as cause and effect, Europe, especially England, would be poor, China would be well off and Africa would be rich.(13)

It may come as a surprise that England is so much more densely populated than Africa. This is because population controllers chose to emphasise the alleged population increase in Africa rather than the actual population density in England and the rest of Europe. This enables them to focus attention on controlling Africa rather than England or Europe.