Table of Contents
When writing of the evils of globalisation, many authors focus on the commercial aspects such as privatisation, with other primarily political components such as the loss of national sovereignty, the destruction of cultures and civilisations and of the family, morality and societies, being perhaps not ignored but not seen or included as integral parts of the same picture. It doesn’t appear widely recognised that one fundamental pillar of globalisation, of our imminent New World Order in fact, is an astonishingly vigorous and vicious attempt to eliminate not only the world’s surplus poor but to depopulate the entire non-white world. This essay is an introduction to the origins of depopulation.
Emma Goldman was a Jewish Communist Bolshevik, anarchist, escapee from an insane asylum, conspirator to violence and murder, trouble-maker and nymphomaniac, and not necessarily in that order. From her teen-age days, Goldman studied the Bolshevik anarchists, leading her imagination to images of a social order with freedom of action unrestricted by man-made law. Goldman quickly came to support politically motivated murder and violent revolution, and the assassinations of politically significant individuals, as a tool for social change. She became a firm proponent of violence whenever words failed to do the job, an attitude some historians describe as ‘propaganda of the deed’, i.e. if they won’t listen to us, we will kill them. According to the Jewish Womens’ Website, “Desiring a state of absolute freedom and believing it would never come about through gradual reform, Goldman and her comrades advocated complete destruction of the State.”
Goldman emigrated from Russia as a teen-ager and soon began promulgating various models of society based primarily on the two pillars of political anarchy and promiscuous sex. Her widespread and excessively vocal promotion of these ideals earned Goldman the label of being one of the two most dangerous anarchists in America. However, the same Jewish womens’ website tells us her insistence on “the right to express herself” – primarily through sexual promiscuity, abortion and murder – led her to become a prominent figure in “establishing freedom of speech in America.” A definition of free speech rather at odds with mine. This same Jewish Womens’ website contained its article on Emma Goldman under the banner of “Women of Valor”. No idea why, but that’s how history is spun.
Various apologists have reported that Goldman and her lover Berkman (a kind of political Bonnie and Clyde) were “horrified by violence”, as in the suppression of striking workers. Our dynamic duo responded as would any rational horrified-by-violence beings – they decided to kill the person responsible for the anti-labor violence, then-US President William McKinley. The police were never able to link Goldman directly to McKinley’s murder, though the assassin had frequently met with her and claimed to have acted under her instructions. It wasn’t only a US President who was targeted by Goldman and her group. They attempted to kill several other public figures, their plan to bomb John D. Rockefeller’s mansion in New York City failing only because the bomb exploded prematurely, killing a dozen or so anarchists while destroying much of Goldman’s home in the process. One of Goldman’s anarchists named Carlo Valdinoci blew up the front of Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer’s home in Washington, D.C., also blowing himself up in the process when the bomb exploded too early. And some other good tries.
Goldman eventually had her citizenship revoked and was deported back to Russia, spending the rest of her life in exile and dying in Canada, alone, poor and friendless, claiming there was “no one who cares whether one is dead or alive”. Nevertheless, one Goldman supporter claimed (though without evidence) that “Thousands of mourners flocked to see her casket, and tributes poured in from every corner of the world.” However, my research suggests that the few mourners actually in attendance were there only to be sure she was really dead, and the only tribute I’m aware of was by the New York Times. As a kind of obituary, the Jewish Womens’ Organisation claims Goldman’s “advocacy of … sexual freedom helped to shape modern American society”, while failing to note that America’s resulting new shape was not necessarily a blessing. The same Goldman-lovers stated her work contributed not only to the development of free speech in America, but showed “the true meaning of patriotism”. No idea how.
Before Goldman died, supporter Peggy Guggenheim and a few friends raised $4,000 for her to get a small cottage in Saint-Tropez on the Cote d’Azur in France, where she spent two years writing her autobiography, imaginatively titled “Living My Life”, which was published in 1931. On this book, A PBS writer made the following observation: “On its publication, The New York Times advised readers “to pay less attention to Goldman’s politics and to read the book as a human document of the most absorbing interest.” Not everyone agreed. One prominent critic attacked the memoir as a “thousand dull pages of fornication and fanaticism”.”
It isn’t only the Jewish Womens’ Website and the New York Times who are busy sanitising and Photoshopping. Wikipedia doesn’t want to be left out of this whitewashing parade, informing us solemnly that Emma Goldman “was an important contributor to several fields of modern political philosophy”, leaving our imaginations to identify those fields and deduce her contribution. Referring to one occasion when a group of her political anarchist colleagues attacked Goldman for her rampant sexual promiscuity, Wikipedia’s deliciously sanitising understatement was that “she was chided by an associate for her carefree demeanor”.
From her relations with her Jewish Bolshevik friends, Goldman’s actual purpose was to foment a Communist revolution in the US, following the pattern these people had laid with their revolutions in Russia, Hungary, Germany, and other countries. But, in the end, Goldman didn’t accomplish as much anarchy as she might have done, mostly because she discovered she was more interested in sex than politics. “I demand the independence of woman, to love whomever she pleases, or as many as she pleases.” And as many at the same time as she pleases; Goldman had a reputation for especially enjoying sex in groups of her anarchist colleagues. Our Jewish womens’ website tells us Goldman was a tireless advocate for the “emancipation” of women, but that’s not exactly how it was. “Viewing marriage through a lens of repressive prostitution”, her emancipation of women focused on their “freedom”, i.e., sexual and reproductive freedom, i.e., rampant and promiscuous sex, individually, serially, and simultaneously, followed by free abortions as a post-hoc birth control method. Emma didn’t hesitate to raise funds for her anarchist activities by working the streets as a prostitute, her husband’s parents considering her so morally destitute, they refused to permit her into their home.
Interestingly, Goldman did not want true emancipation for women, not for voting or political rights, nor even for employment or professional careers, or the ownership of property. To Goldman, the entire concept of freedom, independence, emancipation, womens’ rights, was just a red ribbon wrapping the core issue of sexual promiscuity. Her interest in the emancipation of women was mostly personal, stemming from her own experience of reckless sex, repeated pregnancies, and the repeated need for abortions – which were dangerous and illegal in those days. And thus is woman emancipated. Goldman believed women should enter and leave sexual relationships without restraint, promiscuous sexuality being “crucial to personal and professional fulfillment”, and thus she engaged in “numerous passionate affairs throughout her life”.
As testimony, she wrote to one lover who apparently left her “overwhelmed with sexuality”. “You have opened up the prison gates of my womanhood. All the passion that was unsatisfied in me for so many years, leaped into a wild reckless storm boundless as the sea.” And who said communists don’t know how to have fun. The reason I have dwelt on this latter point is that while Goldman left no heritage of value to anarchists, failed miserably as a revolutionary, and surely made no contribution to modern political philosophy, her “carefree demeanor” left an indelible mark on the world since, as fate would have it, who should walk into this veritable Garden of Earthly Delights but a young woman named Margaret Sanger.
Unlike Emma Goldman, Margaret Sanger was not a Bolshevik, nor a conspirator to violence or political murder. However, like Goldman, she was Jewish, an anarchist, an escapee from an insane asylum, a trouble-maker and a nymphomaniac and, like Goldman, not necessarily in that order. The history books seem a bit thin on the original relationship between these two women, but indications are that Goldman’s “carefree demeanor” stoked Sanger’s fires of passion and “opened the gates” of her womanhood, both deeply sharing the common need for contraception in whatever form, and quite possibly sharing considerably more. Goldman’s only apparent contribution to Sanger’s career was in awakening her nymphomania though, as we shall see, that was more than nothing. Having thus established what we might call mutual bonds of fertility, Goldman provided “aggressive support” for Sanger’s sexual and contraceptive crusades, both women being arrested for dissemination of lewd material but both escaping conviction for the behavior underlying that material. Goldman even conducted nationwide speaking tours on Sanger’s behalf, raising awareness of contraception and only heaven knows what else.
Like Goldman, Sanger’s zeal for birth control was in no small part due to her sexually promiscuous lifestyle. By the time of her meeting with Goldman she had been having numerous affairs, calling the marriage bed “the most degenerating influence in the social order”, fervently devoting her rampant sexual conduct to regenerating that order. Given her surprised husband’s objections, the two soon separated, her ‘socially regenerating’ conduct then accelerating markedly and drawing considerable public attention. At the same time, and perhaps resulting from the same stoked passions, Sanger began publishing newsletters and distributing sexual materials that were clearly illegal, resulting in her arrest on charges that would most likely have led to a prison sentence of about 45 years.
Discretion being the better part of valor, the day prior to her trial Sanger dumped her children onto her estranged husband and fled to England where fate would intervene yet one more time. Upon arrival in England, Sanger met some men who would inadvertently provide her with the tools that would (unfortunately) change history forever. The record isn’t completely clear on where her relationships began, but the sexologist Havelock Ellis, H. G. Wells, and George Bernard Shaw were there, as were perhaps most members of their new Fabian Debating Society.
Wells certainly had a passionate affair with her, and Sanger definitely took the initiative with Ellis, these two quite likely passing her around the debating society after that. One writer noted that Wells and Ellis were only part of “a huge stable of men” with which Sanger had affairs. Ellis’ theories on female sexuality helped Sanger to “broaden her perspective” on women fully enjoying sexual relations, though she already appeared to have few or no inhibitions in that regard. However, Ellis in particular expanded her justifications for birth control in more ways than one.
Perhaps the most significant factor of Sanger’s European exile was that the society of these men consisted of radicals, feminists and, most importantly, a veritable flock of Neo-Malthusians who educated Sanger to the dire threat of excess world population and thus greatly refining her sexual rationale. Sanger traded copious free love and information on contraception needs, receiving in return an education of incomparable value. Prior to this time, neither Goldman nor Sanger achieved much traction with their contraception promotions, at least not in a broad public sense, because their efforts were seen realistically as a cover for their own personal proclivities, and which promised benefit only to the poor – who were of little or no interest to anyone. But now Sanger’s mission had suddenly gained an intellectual substructure, a kind of respectable philosophical scaffolding on which she could promote her views. She was now primed to return to the US to promote the entire genocidal gamut of eugenics, contraception, abortion and euthanasia, not for her narrow personal interests but for the purpose of saving humanity from itself.
At the time, abortion was not at all favorably viewed, much less as a casual method of birth control, and was illegal. But here we are, back in the USA, our two little nymphomaniacs lacking the “family planning” services of the not-yet-invented WHO and USAID, yet badly needing regular abortions. What do we do, if we want to carry out an enterprise that is both illegal and highly immoral by the standards of the day, where normal execution would put us into prison and earn widespread moral condemnation? Well, we wrap our intent in a cloak of freedom and human rights, then imprint a biblical bar-code onto it and present it as an enterprise of immense humanitarian value, our actions performed in humility and self-sacrifice for the benefit of the world.
And thus was born Planned Parenthood, presented not as birth control for reckless nymphomaniacs, and only secondarily as the “freedom of women to choose”, without exactly specifying what it was they were choosing; the primary thrust was now overpopulation and the desperate need to limit, cull, and otherwise exterminate the world’s surplus poor. Now, Sanger would get everyone’s attention, at least those of the elite who were all Malthusians at heart. Of course, the general population would also get the message but that didn’t really matter because the elite provided the funding and the general population were the target.
And it was then, on her return to the US after her brief European exile, that Margaret Sanger hoisted her true colors and proved that she really was an escapee from an insane asylum. The first thing Sanger did was to get herself remarried, this time to a man named J. Noah H. Slee, a Jewish millionaire owner of a petroleum products company. The historical record tells us Margaret kept the name of her first husband – Sanger – and that after marrying Mr. Slee, she “maintained her sexual independence”. Use your imagination. This was curious because, as you will see, Margaret’s promotional and fund-raising activities cut a wide swath through the bedrooms and office couches of industrialists, bankers, financiers, sponsors of every description, virtually all men, and with whom, by all accounts, Margaret laid the table with more than information. And for 20 years, until he died, Mr. Slee financed her activities, apparently without complaint.
Sanger’s unique combination of atheism, Marxism, Malthusianism, uninhibited sexuality, a contempt for religion, especially Christianity, and an inherent racism that must have always been present, conspired to make her not only offensive but positively evil. Her motives no longer related to liberating women but to eugenics, having somehow reached the philosophical position that through rampant and unrestrained sexuality, followed closely by contraception, abortion, sterilisation and euthanasia, her mission was to assist the human race in the progressive elimination of itself, or at least of that portion her idolising adherent Bill Gates would later determine unfit to live.
At the same time as her sexual promiscuity increased by an order of magnitude, she abandoned morals and ethics, developed a love of vulgarity and a general bad taste, a needless and often counterproductive aggression, and an altogether unwarranted enthusiasm for exterminating people. Upon her return to the US and flying her new colors, Sanger praised Nazi Germany’s sterilisation policies, became violently anti-family and deeply racist to the extent of claiming blacks should not be permitted to contaminate the white gene pool. She also became virulently anti-Christian, claiming in a news article that she enjoyed promoting birth control because it was “calculated to undermine the authority of the Christian Church”.
At first, Sanger avoided promoting euthanasia, writing that the community should not send defective progeny to the gas chambers, but soon thereafter (in the same book) rather harshly stating that all charity should cease because it served only to prolong the lives of the unfit and that society required “the elimination of human weeds”. Her views on abortion similarly changed, to the point where she and her organisation were actively sponsoring abortion rights.
At this point, it appears Sanger was insane, though Planned Parenthood try very hard to bury the insanities by claiming “We can’t know what Margaret really meant to say, because she’s dead.” Well, yes we can know what she meant. Her words have the same meaning today they did then. For one, the least nasty part of the new Margaret was that she endorsed selective breeding to produce perfect humans, as she claimed in an article titled, “Birth Control to Create a Race of Thoroughbreds”, longing for a motherhood that would refuse “to bring forth weaklings”, pushing for “more children from the fit, less from the unfit”, those unfit representing “the greatest present menace to civilization”. In one book, Sanger wrote that parents of a defective child should be permitted no more children, and that “Birth control … is nothing more or less than the … weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.” In the same book, she deplored multi-child families and wrote, “The immorality of large families lies not only in their injury to the members of those families but in their injury to society … The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” When reviewing the historical record, it is exceedingly difficult to see why Planned Parenthood, the Jewish Womens’ Society, Bill Gates, or indeed anyone else, would venerate this woman.
Sanger was promoting the use of what she called “birth control” to exterminate the genetically inferior races, which to her meant most of the non-white world. She stated that Jews!, Hispanics, and blacks were “human weeds” who, if they reproduced, “would bring a dead weight of human waste into the world”. She had a stated goal of the extermination of all blacks in the US, and dehumanised the poor as “parasites”, “defectives” and “mistakes”. Sanger wrote, “The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets.” In a perfect expression of irony, we might well express those identical sentiments about Margaret herself, though history tells us even the police were sometimes insufficient to suppress Margaret’s carefree demeanor.
In another book, Sanger wrote, “[Eugenics] shows that we are paying for and even submitting to the dictates of an increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.” She continued that “Every single case of inherited defect, every malformed child, every congenitally tainted human being brought into this world is of infinite importance to that poor individual; but it is of scarcely less importance to the rest of us and to all of our children who must pay in one way or another for these biological and racial mistakes.” In a widely-promoted public address, Sanger promoted the elimination of entire classes of people, stating that society must “Keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class”.
Sanger also proposed that the poor, the “morons and immoral”, and other “inferior types” be placed in concentration camps where they could be re-educated to what she called “better moral conduct”, i.e., have plenty of abortions. She went on to write, “I consider that the world and almost our civilization for the next twenty-five years, is going to depend upon a simple, cheap, safe contraceptive to be used in poverty-stricken slums, jungles, and among the most ignorant people. Even this will not be sufficient, because I believe that now, immediately, there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them.” She wrote, “While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit … Eugenics without Birth Control [is] a house builded upon the sands.” She was especially harsh on blacks: “The mass of Negroes … particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among Whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit”, stating elsewhere that her intent was to exterminate all the blacks in America but hoped that intent would not be discovered by them until it was too late.
The New York Times didn’t like this version of the truth, so the Editors created their own history of Margaret Sanger. In an obituary for Sanger, “Special to the New York Times”, they wrote that Sanger merely “sought to create equality between the sexes by freeing women”. Perhaps I’m slow, but if I understand correctly, the NYT Editors are telling us that (a) killing off all the blacks will make women free, and (b) that aborting all the fetuses in America will make women and men equal. The NYT also informed us that Margaret merely strove to present “her view that family planning is a basic human right”. However, the Editors neglected to contemplate the ‘basic human right’ of all us defectives to live our lives without Margaret’s help. This is an appropriate place to note that the NYT has published glowing obituaries of nearly every human monster in the past 100 years, almost without exception so far as I can tell, perhaps related to the fact that almost all those individuals were Jewish.
They noted Sanger’s “unfailing charm and persuasive wit”, specifying that “Many a policeman escorting her to the station had his ears wilted by Irish invective”, failing to mention this is representative not of charm and wit, but of a foul mouth. And her good friend and Planned Parenthood colleague, Dr. Alan Guttmacher, apparently oblivious to the above, claimed Sanger “convinced America and the world that … conception is a basic human right”. Here again, if conception is a basic human right, why is Guttmacher so determined to make me abort all my unborn children. Perhaps conception and birth are different rights. Guttmacher neglected to mention that avoiding sterilisation and euthanasia, i.e., the right to live, is perhaps even a more basic human right. And if all this weren’t enough, the elite declared Sanger “humanist of the year”, and gave her an award for making “the most conspicuous contribution to the enrichment of life”, without specifying exactly whose lives had been enriched. Or how.
Nevertheless, there was a recent news item that Planned Parenthood, at least in New York, is deleting Sanger’s name from the masthead, due to her finally-coming-to-light views on euthanasia for all us defectives.
Before we proceed to discover where this sexually-inspired eugenicide leads, let’s look back into the past for a moment and find its origin. The process began in England with primarily four men: Thomas Malthus, Charles Darwin, Herbert Spencer and Francis Galton.
In about 1800, UK economist Thomas Malthus published his First Essay on Population, frightening British society with the prospect that food production could never be sufficient to supply a population that would always increase at a faster rate, leaving some portion of society perpetually unfed. He theorised that nature itself managed and executed restrictions on excess population growth, equalising food with population by means of war, pestilence and famine. In his construct, it was the poor (and generally all non-whites) who had been “ordained by nature” to bear the weight of these necessary occasional but recurring genocidal ravages, their inescapable lot in life by virtue of their misfortune to be born in poverty, and further that these impecunious unfortunates had neither the ability to rise above their position nor the resources to do so even were they to have the ability. Malthus essentially separated his world into two new and hitherto undefined races of people: the superior rich and the inferior poor. Then, deriving from the inviolability and ruthlessness of nature’s laws, he claimed it was a counterproductive and even dangerous challenge to nature’s power to feed or otherwise assist the poor, since an improvement in their physical circumstances would result in increased breeding which would then be countered with an increasing harshness when nature found it necessary to rein in that excess population growth. Defiance of nature will inevitably lead to retaliation.
Malthus actually became quite sinister in his recommendations, stating that nature should not be thwarted but rather aided in its task of culling the world’s surplus poor. In his words, “We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use.” Malthus recommended encouraging overcrowding and uncleanliness to promote infectious diseases and cause the return of the plague. And above all, he stated we should prohibit medical remedies for their diseases, letting smallpox for instance totally ravage the poor districts and villages without raising a hand to help. This was their just dessert, based on their natural inferiority from a lack of cash.
It may not be widely known, but it was the adoption of Malthus’ theories and policies that led directly to the deliberate starvation of countless millions in Ireland and in India. Moreover, it was the scare from Malthus’ theories that prompted China to implement its former one-child policy, but I would note that the (Jewish) Westerners who pushed China so hard in this direction are precisely the same people today condemning China for having listened to them.
The rich, the elite, the landed gentry, were naturally thrilled to learn of this revelation, to receive scientific validation of their secretly-held belief in their own superiority, in fact to have their always-suspected but now proven natural excellence engraved on stone tablets in the shrine of humanity. They were equally thrilled to be provided with a powerful motive, courtesy of nature and the laws of the universe, to feel no further obligation to assist the poor. Philanthropy was dead. Charity was not only a foolish waste of money but an unwarranted act of defiance against nature itself, one which would bring a harsh retribution against the same objects of that charity. So much good news from one man. Malthus naturally gained a grateful following among the nation’s elite, and in the process created an entirely new and altogether unpleasant economic racism, one much better than the ethnic kind in that in one fell swoop it disposed of perhaps 80% of the population as candidates for culling by the dictates of Mother Nature herself.
At about the same time, Charles Darwin pronounced his new theory of evolution, or what he termed “natural selection” – simply stated, that organisms and beings change, mutate and adapt through time, and those mutations which assist organisms in adapting to their environment, will persist while others die out. Equally, the organisms containing those favorable mutations will tend to survive because they will be better adapted, not so stressed by their environment. Darwin’s scientific and essentially sound theory was then used by Herbert Spencer to concoct a “scientific” basis for Malthus’ anti-human racism, producing in the process what we now call “Social Darwinism”.
Spencer combined Malthus’ theory that the poor existed as a lesser race of human and Darwin’s theory that those who best adapt will best survive, into the proposition that over the millennia some elements of humanity had proven not only more mutable but had intelligently selected the most propitious mutations, and therefore emerged as the elite and rich upper class of society. By virtue of Darwin’s natural selection and their survival of the fittest, the monied elite were revealed to be not only economically and scientifically but now also genetically superior to the poor classes.
Following on Spencer’s heels, Francis Galton provided a further boost to this enticing view of humanity by proclaiming newly-discovered scientific evidence that Darwin’s process of natural selection had indeed resulted in an evolution of the poor, in this case the evolution being retrogressive and downward, and that Mother Nature herself had indeed rendered the poor as inferior and worthless, an evolutionary process perhaps still incomplete. Galton further distinguished himself as a scientist by realising that, just as with plants or animals, the cross-breeding and inbreeding of desirable human traits could serve to assist nature in producing an even more superior product. Galton thus created what today we call eugenics, which he loosely defined as “the science of improving stock by judicious mating”.
Spencer was similarly inclined as Malthus in terms of helping the poor because charity defied “the natural truths of biology” and served only as an “artificial preservation of those least able to take care of themselves”, as we might think of the continuous financing of a bankrupt company, this artificial assistance serving only to prolong suffering and preventing rebirth. In his view, just as nature weeds out the unfit, society must also permit them to die off so as to maintain the health of the remaining elite. In his view, humanity was in the process of evolving, with nature herself protecting those who had money and killing off those who didn’t. Galton, for his part, was distressed by the possibility of the lower classes hampering the natural evolution toward riches of the elite and, since he viewed these things in genetic terms, he viewed the poor as enemies of the state and was one of the first advocates of forcible sterilisation of all but the elite. Both men saw eugenics as an assist to nature, preventing births that were doomed to expire prematurely in any case, and secondarily to improve the human livestock with wholesome breeding practices – in other words, mating money with money.
In his book, Allan Chase wrote so appropriately: “Where Spencer offered ‘revolutionary’ rationales for low wages and subhuman working and living conditions, Galton offered the ‘hereditary’ reasons in the Natural Laws of biology for not wasting sympathy, money, education, and, above all else, health care on biologically low-class types who were destined by the Will of God and/or Nature to be nothing but drains on society and a rapidly proliferating population of hereditary paupers, thieves and parasites.”
Steven Mosher wrote in a delightful, informative, and well-researched article that the British upper class “helped to ensure that their founder’s Essay on Population was a commercial success, appearing in no fewer than six editions from 1798 to 1826. Population horror stories have sold well ever since. Lifespan lengthened and general health improved throughout the nineteenth century, but Charles Darwin gave the Malthusians something new to brood over. Not only were the poor too prolific, but by having all those children – most of whom, to make matters worse, now survived childhood – they were rapidly dumbing down the population. For the prosperous and privileged, who found themselves increasingly outnumbered by the great unwashed, this was the “survival of the fittest” in reverse.”
It is fair to say that the economic racism of Malthus intertwined with Darwin’s theories of evolution and natural selection left the poor in an unenviable position, but then Spencer and Galton took these building blocks and further merged the nation’s traditional ethnic racism with their version of scientific racism, leaving the world’s white elite with a comfortable certitude that not only the poor but virtually all non-white populations were inherently, scientifically, genetically and morally inferior to them. Such happy epiphanies are rare indeed, so it can’t be a surprise that Spencer’s Social Darwinism and Galton’s eugenics combined forces and swept through the elite of the Anglo-Saxon world with approximately the same unsatisfied boundless passion as Emma Goldman’s sexuality.
Still, we can be surprised at the virulence with which this deplorable philosophy infected the Western white man, and more especially the unconscionable extent to which the Americans mis-applied it and the despicable political and military applications they found for it, applications in full force today. I suppose one other surprise was the contribution of this philosophy to further plumbing the hitherto still-unimagined depths of American racism and contempt for humanity, the original ideas of Malthus, Spencer and Galton still pervading America today. For a better appreciation of the depth of American Darwinist ideology, here is South Carolina’s Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, explaining why it is wrong for the US government to provide food assistance to the poor, and why he would fight against any such legislation:
“My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person an ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that. And so what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to curtail that type of behavior. They don’t know any better.”
Another bright star in the democratic nebula, this one US Congressman Don Young from Alaska, said the solution to the homeless poor was wolves, because they were predators, and that if he could introduce wolves to America’s communities, “you wouldn’t have a homeless problem anymore”. I want to write something here, but I can’t think of anything to say.
Dr. John Holdren, President Obama’s science czar, proposed forced abortions and compulsory sterilisation, as well as the creation of a “Planetary Regime” that would forcibly control severely-reduced human population levels worldwide. Holdren denies this when he can, but in a textbook he co-wrote in 1977 with Paul and Anne Ehrlich, this was precisely what he said. If I recall the details correctly, he also mentioned plans to implant sterilising capsules in people when they reach puberty, and the spiking of water reserves with sterilising chemicals. Being a true Malthusian, Holdren based his theories entirely on the claims that the world’s food supply would always be insufficient, claims repeatedly proven over two centuries to be complete rubbish.
Certainly it was true that the elite in the early part of the last century, as is still true today, had no love whatever for humans or humanity, people like J. P. Morgan, Harriman, Hill, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Mellon, Baruch, Vanderbilt, Warburg, Bush, Astor, Monsanto, Duke, Scaife, Lasker, Sulzberger, DuPont, and our usual collection of European Jewish banking families, believing and acting as if 95% of humans were infesting vermin who were tolerable only to the extent they could add to one’s wealth, those frustrating this ambition generally receiving contempt and bullets in more or less equal amount. And it was these same individuals, most especially Rockefeller and Carnegie, who were smitten heart and soul with the new ‘science’ of eugenics, and in fact with euthanasia as well. It was Carnegie (or his institute) that recommended locally-operated gas chambers to exterminate the lower classes. It was truly a monstrous philosophy that became exceedingly dangerous when put into action by men of enormous wealth and influence, because almost no one had the power to contradict or obstruct them. The result was that within a few years, in the first decade of the last century, legalised and legislated forcible sterilisations were already occurring, and culminating in at least countless hundreds of thousands and not the few thousand listed in the history books. At first, those who might have been considered criminals, idiots, imbeciles, rapists, the infirm, the institutionalised, were being sterilised against their will. Then, everybody else.
The above essay describes only the beginning of an enormous worldwide program of depopulating the earth, a real and frightening genocide on a global scale that is in silent execution today, an apparently unrecognised but integral part of globalisation. It led not only to the vast program of eugenics taught in American universities, the forcible sterilisations the Carnegie Institute’s gas chambers. It led directly to Henry Kissinger’s US National Security Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200), a viciously aggressive plan to prevent, at apparently almost any cost, the populations of non-Western countries from having children.
It led to USAID and Reimert Ravenholt sterilising at least 100 million unwitting women, killing tens of millions in the process. It led to hundreds of thousands of American women being rendered permanently sterile and millions of sterilities and deaths in undeveloped countries, from the Dalkon Shield. It led to Robert McNamara’s Project 100,000, where about 500,000 low-IQ individuals were conscripted into the US army and sent to Vietnam, few returning. It led to the WHO using tetanus and polio vaccinations produced by Rothschild’s Sanofi-Connaught laboratories seeded with the female hormone hCg supplied by the US CDC, to surreptitiously sterilise perhaps 150 million women in developing nations without their knowledge and certainly against their will. It became part of the US Biological Weapons program, much evidence suggesting SARS, MERS, and perhaps AIDS were created for this purpose, part of the World Bank’s “private department” with persistent house of horrors rumors. It led to the Zika Virus with Oxitec’s GM “Terminator” Mosquitoes , and so much more. If you don’t know the story of ZIKA or of the WHO hCg anti-fertility vaccinations, I urge you in the strongest terms to read these articles.
In 2001 scientists at the Epicyte bio-lab in San Diego created a GM contraceptive corn, having discovered a rare class of human antibodies that attack sperm. Their researchers isolated the genes that regulate the manufacture of these antibodies and inserted them into corn plants, creating horticultural factories that make contraceptives. Shortly after the 2001 Epicyte press release, all discussion of the breakthrough vanished. The company was taken over by Biolex and nothing more was heard in any media about the development of spermicidal corn. Epicyte, DuPont and Syngenta (sponsors of the Svalbard Seed Vault) had a joint venture to share and use this technology. Silvia Ribeiro, of the NGO ETC Group, warned in a column in the Mexican daily La Jornada, that “The potential of spermicidal corn as a biological weapon is very high”, and reminisced about the use of forced sterilizations against indigenous peoples.
This is the reason seed companies are suddenly promoting the use of cotton seeds as a primary foodstuff for underdeveloped countries. Cotton seeds are toxic, containing a chemical called gossypol which is an effective male sterilant. The seed companies claim to have removed this toxin to a safe level, but there is no safe level for gossypol. Even very minute doses taken repeatedly (as when used for a basic food) will render an entire male population sterile. What the Rothschilds and Sanofi, Bill Gates, the WHO, the World Bank, USAID and UNICEF do for the female populations, the seed companies will do for the male portion. If they have their way, much of the world may one day be uninhabited.
 An Essay on the Principle of Population; https://www.econlib.org/library/Malthus/malPop.html