Archive for Garrett Hardin

Too Many (Other) People

Posted in Abortion, birth control, Black Genocide, Constitution, Darwin, Eugenics, Evolution, Health Care, Hitler, Holdren, Margaret Sanger, Nazi, Planned Parenthood, Racism, Religion, Sterilization, Violence against women with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 20, 2009 by saynsumthn

Too Many (Other) People

by William Norman Grigg
July 20,2009

As a left-leaning Rutgers law professor in the early 1970s, Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought that the Roe v. Wade abortion decision was the product of “concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations we don’t want too many of,” she recalled in a recent New York Times Magazine interview.

Her expectation was that the purported right to abortion created in Roe “was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them.”

Ginsburg doesn’t specify which parts of the human population “we” should cull, or how the creation of an abortion “right” would necessarily be a prelude to creation of a system in which abortion would be required in some circumstances. She told the Times that the question was effectively rendered moot by the Supreme Court’s Harris v. McRae decision, which upheld a ban on Medicaid funding of abortion. That decision, handed down in 1980, indicated that her “perception” of the issue “had been altogether wrong,” Ginsburg concludes.

But this means that there was an interval of roughly seven years during which Ginsburg, a well-informed and influential academic, believed that America was creating a eugenicist system in which abortion would help reduce “undesirable” populations – however those populations would be defined. This was what Roe had wrought, Ginsburg believed for several years, and if she ever experienced misgivings about it, she managed to keep them private.

Another question worth examining is this: Where did Ginsburg – a rising star in academe long before being tapped to fill the Rosa Klebb seat on the Supreme Court – get the impression that American policy-making elites were discussing the use of welfare subsidies to bring about the attrition of “undesirable” populations?

If I may be permitted a modest venture in speculation, I’d suggest that Ginsburg, sometime in the 1960s or 1970s, became at least superficially acquainted with the writings of John Holdren or of like-minded people in the most militant branch of the population control movement.

In 1977, Mr. Holdren was a young academic who helped anti-natalist guru Paul Ehrlich and his wife Anne write an arrestingly horrible book entitled Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. Today, Holdren is Barack Obama’s “Science Czar,” in which capacity he counsels the president regarding the role of science in public policy. This relationship has a certain Strangelovian undercurrent, given Holdren’s enthusiasm for eugenicist and totalitarian methods of population “management.”

In a passage that reads eerily like the direct counterpoint to Ginsburg’s musings about the reduction of undesirable populations, Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote:

If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility – just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns….

The book offers similarly casual endorsements of “involuntary” and “coercive” fertility control,” including the mandatory implantation of a Norplant-style capsule that “might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

The authors endorse the creation of “a Planetary regime” in charge of regulating all human economic activity and interactions with the environment and the “power to enforce the agreed limits” on human population growth through whatever means might be necessary – including compelled abortion, involuntary individual sterilization, or even mass involuntary sterilization through the infiltration of sterilizing agents into public water supplies.

That last deranged suggestion appears in several of Paul Ehrlich’s other books, including his (if you will excuse the expression) seminal 1967 alarmist tract The Population Bomb.

As someone who shared a full authorial credit on the book, Holdren bears full responsibility for the content of Ecoscience. His militantly anti-natalist views are easily as repulsive as anything promoted by white supremacist groups, albeit all the more dangerous for being more inclusive in their misanthropy. His writings would have been uncovered in the routine vetting process following his nomination, but they never came up during his confirmation hearing.

What is genuinely unsettling, however, is this: The totalitarian prescriptions offered in Ecoscience were squarely in the mainstream of the Stygian sewer called the population control movement.

In 1967, sociologist, demographer, and population control heavyweight Kingsley Davis published an essay in Science magazine observing that “the social structure and economy must be changed before a deliberate reduction in the birthrate can be achieved” in the West. He urged governments to subsidize voluntary abortion and sterilization and restructure their tax systems to discourage both marriage and childbirth.

Davis’s recommendations apparently inspired Frederick Jaffe, Vice President of Planned Parenthood, when he composed a 1969 memorandum intended for use as a template for anti-natalist efforts.

Jaffe’s memorandum, a version of which was published in the October 1970 issue of Family Planning Perspectives, organized recommended social policies under four headings: “Social Constraints,” “Economic Deterrents/Incentives,” “Social Controls,” and “Housing Policies.”

Like Paul Ehrlich, Jaffe suggested the placement of “fertility control agents in [the] water supply“; this recommendation was filed, oddly enough, under “Social Constraints.” “Social Controls,” on the other hand, included such measures as “compulsory abortion of all out-of-wedlock pregnancies,” “compulsory sterilization of all who have two children except for a few who would be allowed three,” and the issuance of “stock certificate-type permits for children.” (Nearly every radical population control system is built around the idea of a government-issued “permit” or “license” to have children.)

These totalitarian measures were widely and unabashedly promoted in the literature of the population control movement at precisely the time that the Roe decision was (if, once again, you’ll excuse the expression) gestating in the court system.

How can we reduce reproduction?” wrote Garrett Hardin in a 1970 Science magazine article entitled “Parenthood: Right or Privilege?” “Persuasion must be tried first…. Mild coercion may soon be accepted – for example, tax rewards for reproductive non-proliferation. But in the long run, a purely voluntary system selects for its own failure: noncooperators out-breed cooperators. So what restraints shall we employ? A policeman under every bed? Jail sentences? Compulsory abortion? Infanticide?… Memories of Nazi Germany rise and obscure our vision.”

Oh, those dreadful Nazis: If only they hadn’t given totalitarian eugenics such a bad name….

Hardin was one of many anti-natalist luminaries – the list included Kingsley Davis, Margaret Mead, Paul Ehrlich, and sundry Planned Parenthood leaders – who endorsed the 1971 manifesto The Case for Compulsory Birth Control by Edgar R. Chasteen. That book offered one-stop shopping for policy-makers seeking draconian population management methods.

Chasteen was emphatic on two points: First, ruling elites had to indoctrinate the public into accepting the idea that “parenthood [is] a privilege extended by society, rather than a right“; and second, that in the interests of public relations, supporters of that totalitarian perspective needed to settle on “a name other than compulsory birth control.”

Essentially the same program was endorsed by Dr. Norman Myers, an adviser to the World Bank and various UN agencies, in his peculiar 1990 volume The Gaia Atlas of Future Worlds.

Government population-control policies using strong economic and social incentives have been effective in China and Singapore,” wrote Myers, who commended China in particular for using “strong social pressure” to control its population. Myers didn’t to dwell on the fact that the Chinese government employs severe punishments – prison time, destruction of homes, retaliation against family members and co-workers – for women who have “unauthorized” children.

Myers suggested a variation on the same concept behind the “cap-and-trade” carbon credit system employing government-issued birth permits. Under his plan, couples would “be issued with a warrant entitling them to have a single child…. This warrant might even carry commercial value, allowing individuals to decide not to have children at all and to sell their entitlements to others wanting larger families.

Arguably the most astonishing variant on this approach was proposed in 1994, just prior to the UN’s International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, Egypt.

In a book entitled Too Many People, Sir Roy Calne, a noted British physician, proposed a universal minimum childbearing age of 25, and a strict two-child quota. Those seeking the government-dispensed “privilege” of having children would have to pass a state-mandated parenting class and receive the appropriate “reproduction license.” Those who violate those restrictions would lose their children and face Chinese-style economic sanctions and criminal punishments.

Calne also suggested the development of an engineered sterility pathogen – he called it the “O virus” – that could be administered to women world-wide as a vaccine.

These malignant proposals are not just flatulent thought-bubbles blown in languid speculation by fringe eccentrics in the academic realm: With the exception – as far as we know – of mass involuntary sterilization through covert chemical or biological warfare, every method of coercive population control described above has been implemented somewhere with the material aid of the United Nations and its affiliates, and the practical support of organizations such as Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes International.

Every argument on behalf of state-imposed population control rejects the concept of individual self-ownership and assumes that human lives – individually and in the aggregate – are a resource to be managed by society’s supervisors on behalf of the “common good.” And, as Ruth Bader Ginsburg correctly intuited in 1973, the Roe vs. Wade decision was a triumph, albeit an incomplete one, for the cause of eugenicist population control.

Although it was swaddled in the language of individual empowerment, the Roe decision was a dramatic victory for collectivism: It enshrined, in what our rulers are pleased to call the “law,” the assumption that a human individual is a “person” only when that status is conferred by the government.

While Harry Blackmun’s opinion in Roe pointedly avoided the question of when “personhood” begins, it emphatically made it clear that, for purposes of “law,” that the term doesn’t apply to any human individual in his or her pre-natal stage of development. This, not the liberty to procure an abortion, is the real gravamen, or central legal finding, in the Roe decision: It put the government in charge of defining who is, and isn’t a person.

As judges like to say, the matter of reducing “undesirable” populations is reaching “ripeness” now. Barack Obama’s administration is eagerly expanding the government-dependent population and preparing to impose centralized “universal” health care on our society. And while all of this is going on, John Holdren, unabashed advocate of totalitarian population control, is in a position to whisper unthinkable thoughts into Obama’s ear.

Author: William Norman Grigg publishes the Pro Libertate blog and hosts the Pro Libertate radio program.

To learn more on this issue watch this film: Maafa21 . Here are some clips, trust me that the entire 2hour film will motivate you and educate you on how racist these people are and who they are targeting:


Conspiracy? Forced Sterilization, Abortion and Eugenics

Posted in Abortion, Black Genocide, Eugenics, Sterilization, Sterilizing agents in Drinking Water, Sterilizing agents in water with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 8, 2009 by saynsumthn

Most people think eugenics is something that happened in the past with Hitler. But the US is loaded with Eugenic elitists who want to dictate to the rest of us who should be allowed to procreate. After viewing a dynamic film on this topic: Maafa21, I recently came across some interesting posts online that prove this point:

From The Examiner in an article entitled: What IF abortion were outlawed in Alabama tomorrow?

Author Whitney Bell, quotes known eugenic supporter and Planned Parenthood award winner: Garrett Hardin as stating, “Society does not need more children; but it does need more loved children. Quite literally, we cannot afford unloved children – but we pay heavily for them every day. There should not be the slightest communal concern when a woman elects to destroy the life of her thousandth-of-an-ounce embryo. But all society should rise up in alarm when it hears that a baby that is not wanted is about to be born.

Emphasizing the fact that the majority of abortions are performed on BLACK WOMEN Bell makes this alarming prediction, “My prediction is that a high percentage of the children who would’ve been aborted would be unwanted and wind up in the already overcrowded foster care system, where a lot of them would grow up to be criminals. Come on, tell me I’m wrong.”

CRIMINALS:??? Come On ! In fact, that was a ‘code word” used by Margaret Sanger and her Eugenics Buddies. “Idiots, Criminals, Inferior, Weeds“. An elitist point of view states that they are the only ones who should have ANY rights to procreate and they (elitists) should dictate to the rest of how how many kids we can have.

In the documentary: Maafa21 they show proof that the eugenics leadership in this nation as late as the 60’s were developing a plot to lace our food and water supplies with sterilization drugs so they could control population. Their target: URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS…surprised?

In another outrageous post, “Should everyone be able to have a child?” , responders said this:

Lord no. People should be required to be licensed before they breed. There simply are so many stupid, mentally ill people that have absolutely no business passing on their genes simply because they have the selfish desire to reproduce.

Steve:
You echoed my thoughts on this item totally, that certain segments of society should not be able to have children…

~Dennis Junior~

…you imply the concept of eugenics is all bad. Yes Hitler was a very intelligent nut case with a twisted goal using enforced eugenics. But the real world purpose of eugenics is all good.

Sorry Tom – should have made myself clear – I was meaning eugenics in the the that Hitler used it to wipe out those he thought not worthy of life.

I would want people to be forced to take the birth control shot in the US before people are allowed to pick up their welfare check. Also, if you’re on probation, I feel you should need to show up for the shot. Basically, people already in trouble in the US shouldn’t be allowed to have kids until they “fix” themslves.

-Anthony, LA, CA

Anthony, I agree with you. The injection is good idea–wish it could be put into legislation!

Procreation may be a “basic human function” but it shouldn’t be a right…Parental licensing, good idea! …

As far as SHOULD we limit our breeding, I say by all means YES. Here are some possible rules:

1) 3 max per lifetime, any over that are either taxed or are at least non-deductible.
2) Pay folks to be sterilized (bonuses for sterilizations performed before the 3 child threshold and any congenital diseases avoided).
3) Sales of your “Child Permit Credits” would be non-taxible. (Double score by selling credits AND getting sterilized!)

Women, and even men, should be given a standardized test, or as my fellow blogger said, a license to have children.

If you look at the global population problem, no one should be having any children, at least for a decade. Additionally, affluent countries where litters of children are encouraged, should limit the number of children per person and those who carry a high risk of complicated pregnancy should be discouraged. However, I will not go as far to say that rights to have children should be controlled by the gov’t, any more than the right to a safe abortion should be.

My I suggest two reasonably fair options.
The first could be a nanny society where only those suitable can have kids but everyone including the less productive members are looked after…The real problem is that taxpayers are currently forced to pay the child benefit for those unsuitable parents.

I have to say I am NOT surprised by these comments. The Eugenics Societies and the Margaret Sanger/ Planned Parenthood types have educated their dupes well on this issue. Maafa21 documents how the American Eugenic Society paid ministers to preach EUGENIC SERMONS in churches and many of them did this. SHOCKING!

Maafa21 also documents how so-called “Pro-Choice” Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, called for parents to have a QUOTE: LICENSE TO BREED. She wanted all would be parents to go before her eugenic boards to request a “PERMIT TO BREED“. So much for Choice , huh?

Sanger also called for those who were poor and what she considered to be “morons‘ , etc to be shipped to colonies where they would live in “Farms and Open Spaces” dedicated to brainwashing these so-called “inferior types” into having what Sanger called, “Better moral conduct”. MORE SHOCKING!

Sanger Farms and Open Spaces

These eugenic attitudes come from those who promote “CHOICE” . They bury their racism under words like “planning” and “Choice” and they get away with that kind of deceptive language because the elitists know that Planned Parenthood is accomplishing what EUGENICS alone could not. They have eliminated over 35% of the African American community. Sanger’s “NEGRO PROJECT” laid out the plan that we still see in effect through Planned Parenthood today!

Get the documentary MAAFA21, watch it and re-read the ignorant quotes I posted above, and you will see that what Maafa 21 says about Eugenics is still happening in America.

If you think that EUGENICS and RACISM are history – THINK AGAIN: Watch this: Maafa21.