Archive for Population Control

Jonathan Gruber: abortion reduces welfare, crime, and black births

Posted in Abortion and Crime, Black Birth Rates, Eugenics, Gruber with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 26, 2015 by saynsumthn

ObamaCare architect, Jonathan Gruber has been removed from the Massachusetts Health Connector Board after calling the American people stupid.

The MIT economist professor was involved in the construction of ObamaCare visiting the White House on several occasions and has also made several controversial statements linking abortion to eugenics, the reduction of welfare, crime, and black births.

A look at the White House visitor logs reveals that Gruber was a regular at the Obama White House.

Jonathan Gruber WH Logs Large

Jonathan Gruber WH Logs

( Details on Subject Titles here)

Jonathan Gruber CSPAN Hearings Dec 9 2014

While apologizing for his insulting statements to the American people Gruber was also grilled on controversial eugenics like statements he made on abortion, referring to the poor as “marginal children” and calling for “positive selection.”

Grubers abortion paper creepy eugenics

In Gruber’s 1998 paper, “Abortion legalization and child living circumstances who was the marginal child,” he concludes that the legalization of abortion saved the government fourteen billion dollars in welfare payments.

Gruber ab saves billions

In 2006, Gruber authored another paper with Phillip B. Levine, Elizabeth Oltmans Ananat, and Douglas Staiger called, Abortion and Selection, where they again use terms like “marginal child” and “positive selection through abortion.”

Abortion and Selection Jonathan Gruber

Two earlier papers investigated the implications of such positive selection through abortion for the quality of cohorts born after abortion legalization. Gruber, Levine and Staiger (GLS, 1999) found that the legalization of abortion led to significant improvements in the circumstances of children born into cohorts where abortion was legal. Such cohorts of children lived in households with lower rates of single motherhood, welfare receipt and poverty, and experienced lower infant mortality than nearby cohorts of children. Donohue and Levitt (DL, 2001) focused on a relevant outcome for children at older ages and young adults, crime.1 They found that increased use of abortion in the 1970s resulted in lower crime rates among the cohorts born in that era when those cohorts were in their late teens and early 20s,” the paper reads.

Abortions decrease birth rates in Non-White women:

In a 1999 paper published by the American Journal of Public Health Phillip B. Levine, Douglas Staigei; (both co-authors with Gruber on his paper) along with Thomas J. Kane and David J. Zimnmerman, entitled, Roe v Wade and American Fertility, the group points out that when abortions are made legal, fertility rates drop with a reduction in births of teens and non-White women to be the largest.

Phillip B Levine Roe v Wade and American Fertility

Estimates show that births to non-White women in repeal states (vs states with no law change) fell by 12% just following repeal, more than 3 times the effect on White women’s fertility,” that paper states.

Effect of abortion on Black births

The group also concluded that there was an important connection between the fall of birth rates in states where abortion was accessible vs. states where it was not, “The results indicate that travel between states to obtain abortions was important. Births in repeal states fell by almost 11% relative to births in nonrepeal states more than 750 miles away but only by 4.5% relative to births in states less than 250 miles away and those in states between 250 and 750 miles away,” the authors write.

Effect of abortion birth rates distance

Interestingly, the paper thanks Jonathan Gruber for providing research assistance, “We thank Jonathan Gruber for comments and Eileen Aguila, David Autor, and Tara Gustafson for outstanding research assistance.”

Abortion decreases welfare

Back to his paper, Abortion and Selection, Gruber repeats the oft heard eugenics reason for abortion, that it reduces welfare.

Gruber and his fellow authors sandwiched their analysis this way, “We found consistent evidence that changes in cohort composition that occurred in the 1970s that can be attributed to greater abortion access led to improved cohort outcomes, particularly in the form of higher rates of college graduation, lower rates of single motherhood, and lower rates of welfare receipt.”

Abortion reduces crime

Gruber and the other authors also conclude among other things that the there is a link between increased abortion access and a reduction of crime.

That theory was perpetuated by John J. Donahue and and Steven D. Levitt in a paper they wrote entitled, “The impact of legalized abortion on crime.

According to Life News, in Harvard University’s Quarterly Journal of Economics, Donahue and Levitt concluded that “Legalized abortion contributed significantly to recent crime reductions. … Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime.” The authors noted, “Crime began to fall roughly 18 years after abortion legalization,” and that the social benefit of this decrease in crime is about $30 billion annually.

Donohue and Levitt wrote that, since 1991 ― 18 years after Roe v. Wade legalized abortion ― murder rates have fallen faster than at any time since the end of Prohibition in 1933. They added that the five states that legalized abortion earlier than 1973 [New York, California, Washington, Hawaii and Alaska] also experienced earlier declines in crime. Finally, they found that states with especially high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s had equally dramatic crime reductions in the 1990s, Life News reported.

Levitt went on to co-author the 2005 bestseller Freakonomics, in which he reiterated his thesis that the legalization of abortion is responsible for half of the recent drop in violent crime.

freakonomics

Gruber and the others acknowledged Levitt and Donahue’s findings, “Finally, we reconsidered the analysis of abortion and crime originally conducted by Donohue and Levitt to incorporate our updated methodological framework. The results of this analysis support the association between abortion and crime, but suggest that it is difficult to associate their finding with selection as opposed to the direct effect of cohort size.”

Unwanted children are disadvantaged

Gruber’s group finally concludes that “unwanted children” will grow up “disadvantaged” writing, “Most importantly, taken together with earlier results (Gruber, et al., 1999), our findings suggest that the improved living circumstances experienced by the average child born after the legalization of abortion had a lasting impact on the lifelong prospects of these children. Children who were “born unwanted” prior to the legalization of abortion not only grew up in more disadvantaged households, but they also grew up to be more disadvantaged as adults…Overall, our results provide further evidence that abortion is associated with differential selection and its impact is persistent.”

So, if Gruber and his friends can conclude that the fertility rates among “Non-White” women drop substantially when abortion is legal and then claim that a reduction in crime also follows legalized abortion- what subtle messages are they implying?

Since it’s inception, we know that abortion has been a tool for the eugenics movement and we also know clearly – just who- that movement seeks to target.

I may not be an MIT economist, but, I can do the math here – and so can you.

Abortionist: Something besides life is owed to children

Posted in Abortion Quotes, Abortion Worker Investigated, Abortionist, Abortionist arrested, Abortionist Sexual, Theodor Lehrer with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 18, 2015 by saynsumthn

A Google Maps street view of a South Florida abortion clinic shows a pro-life protester holding a sign in front of an abortion clinic owned by a doctor once was arrested for forcing an abortion on his wife and saying that something besides life is owed to the children he kills.

Googel view All womens Lehere abortion clinic

The abortion clinic is the All Women’s Medical Center, located at 2100 Commercial Blvd in Ft Lauderdale, Florida.

Theodor Lehrer img188

It is operated by long time abortionist Theodor Lehrer and is an abortion facility that I have personally protested.

LEHRER AWC Screen Grab

In 1988, this so-called “doctor” was arrested after his pregnant wife accused him of raping her and forcing an abortion on her in their home.

lehrer-wwn

According to the Miami Herald, which reported the arrest at the time, Lehrer was angry when his wife refused to have sex with her because she was sick from her 11 to 14 week pregnancy.

Lehrer’s wife said that when he came home, he handcuffed her, dragged her into the bathroom and strapped her to a portable table.

She pleaded with him not to rape her so he placed a gauze pad over her mouth but removed it for fear she would suffocate, Lehrer’s wife told police.

Theoror Lehrer then had sex with her and when she thought the attack was over- she says he forced an abortion on her. A doctor at the hospital where she was taken after police were called verified that she had been pregnant and recently received an incomplete abortion.

According to the article, the sensitive abortion doc admitted that he tied his wife but said he denied the abortion.

THeodor Lehrer forced abortion on wife _30838079510055049_n

But- this news did not stop pro-abortion groups like the National Organization for Women from supporting this abortionist.

img064

In 1989, the Florida Board of Medicine decided not to discipline Lehrer’s medical license because they discovered that his wife had Hodgkins disease and her physician said it was unlikely that she would be able to testify against him making the probabilty of a successful prosecution of the abortionist unlikely.

abortionist Theodor Lehrer DPR 45_3647452431806630935_n

Currently, Lehrer not only runs an abortion clinic he is an officer for NORTHRIDGE PROFESSIONAL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. which has property at 5333 N Dixie Hwy, Oakland Park, FL 33334.

He now operates his abortion clinic under the corporate name, LEHRER FAMILY INVESTMENT CO., LLLP

In 1986, abortionist Theodor Lehrer wrote an op-ed on abortion which was published in the South Florida Medical Review, “A critical question is whether there is any point before birth,” he wrote, “at which fetal life attains a level of significance warranting legal protection because of the quality of humanness that out-balances a woman’s right to privacy over her own body,” the abortionist penned.

abortionist Theodor Lehrer OP ed

As a pro-choice physician I acknowledge that the fetus is alive, but do not view it as a separate individual. Biologically the fetus is completely dependent on the woman’s body and as such is only a potential human being. The woman’s rights and life outweigh any alleged rights of the fetus because the birth and rearing of a child should be a happy and fulfilling experience. It should be something that the woman feels positive about and part of her choice for her life.”

Theodor Lehrer then promotes the eugenics ideology that it is “immoral” to bring a so-called “unwanted” child into the world because they allegedly add to suffering and should be eliminated under population control abortion policies.

“Unwanted children add to suffering for the woman, child, family and society. Something besides life is owed to children. Couldn’t it be considered immoral for parents-and even for countries-to produce more children than they can provide adequate food and education for?

The abortionist, who wrote at the time that a majority of Americans viewed abortion as acceptable, ended the op-ed with “the voice of the people is God’s voice.”

Ginsburg: Abortion restrictions target poor, the populations we don’t want too many of

Posted in Ginsburg with tags , , , , , , on February 13, 2015 by saynsumthn

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said , “I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

RuthBaderGinsberg

When she made that statement in 2009 people were stunned.

It eventually made it into the powerful documentary on eugenics and the racism of abortion, Maafa21, because her statement proved that abortion was created to get rid of “certain” populations.

And now the good Justice has told us which populations those are – the poor !

Ruth Ginsburg and Bloomberg 2015 abortion

In an interview with Bloomberg’s Greg Stohr and Matthew Winkler, the radically pro-abortion Justice says that restricting abortion targets the poor – uh – the exact same people she once said abortion was created for.

Is that not ironic?

Ginsburg was asked if American women should be concerned about all the abortion restrictions across the county.

Ginsburg replied, “Women should be concerned because abortion restrictions in practical effect target poor women and poor women only.”

Poor women only – why- we don’t want poor women to not be able to get abortions, now do we?

Ginsburg pulled out the illegal abortion days when so-called “rich” women could jump from state to state to continue to obtain abortions.

She also wrongly presumed that abortions are “safe” today yet- women are dying in abortion clinics still. In fact, they are also being raped and maimed- but- then again, from a eugenics point of view, it’s only the poor ones dying from abortion now – so who cares, right?

Margaret Sanger and Ruth Bader Ginsburg : population control a national policy

Posted in Ginsburg with tags , , , , , , , on September 24, 2014 by saynsumthn

In 2009, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg outraged the public by admitting that abortion should be legal to “Get rid of populations we do not want to have too many of…”

NYT Ginsburg Place of Women Court

The quote comes from an interview Ginsburg did for the New York Times with Emily Bazelon and she stated, “…I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

RuthBaderGinsberg

That statement was so outrageous that it made it into a powerful documentary on eugenics called Maafa21.

Ginsburg, as with so many of her ilk, never stop at limiting the births of the poor or the feeble minded as described by many in the early days of eugenics. They also believe that everyone, except their small circle of elites, should be subject to population control limitations.

As displayed in a more recent interview with the Justice.

Ginsburg Elle

Ginsburg was again asked about abortion by Jessica Weisberg for Elle’s September 23,2014 edition, “Fifty years from now, which decisions in your tenure do you think will be the most significant?”

Ginsburg replied, “Well, I think 50 years from now, people will not be able to understand Hobby Lobby. Oh, and I think on the issue of choice, one of the reasons, to be frank, that there’s not so much pro-choice activity is that young women, including my daughter and my granddaughter, have grown up in a world where they know if they need an abortion, they can get it. Not that either one of them has had one, but it’s comforting to know if they need it, they can get it.

“The impact of all these restrictions is on poor women, because women who have means, if their state doesn’t provide access, another state does. I think that the country will wake up and see that it can never go back to [abortions just] for women who can afford to travel to a neighboring state…”

Weisberg then asked Ginsburg, “When people realize that poor women are being disproportionately affected, that’s when everyone will wake up? That seems very optimistic to me.”

Ginsburg replied, “Yes, I think so…. It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people.

Promote is the key word here. If this is all about choice why does the government need to “promote” birth control at all?

Ginsburg hit on something that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger once admitted, that birth control must become a national policy to control populations.

Sanger 1965 Population Control

In 1964, Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger said she believed that it would take the US Government to accept “Population Control” to convince other nations to do the same.

I just don’t see how we can control the birth rate until we get the government to agree that this is something which should be taken seriously. Other countries feel that if our government is against it, it must be bad. Americans would be much more acceptable when they go abroad to work on the problem if we get our government to approve it- perhaps under some such term as population control,” Sanger stated.

And so they have….to be continued…..

Planned Parenthood leader called abortion a form of birth control

Posted in compulsory birth control, forced abortion, Forced Population Control, Forced Sterilization, Guttmacher, Planned Parenthood Commpulsory Birth Control, Rockefeller with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on July 3, 2014 by saynsumthn

Guy Gervais, a past president of Planned Parenthood of Orange County, admitted that abortion is a form of birth control almost a year before the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion on demand in the United States.

Guy Gervais Planned Parenthood
_______________________________________________________________
In a March 11, 1972 letter to the editor, Gervais called abortion an “absolute necessity” as a “medical backup to birth control deficiencies.”

AB BackUp BC
_________________________________________________________________________

In a letter to the editor published April 4, 1972, Gervais wrote, “I do accept reality and know that abortion is the most widespread form of birth control employed world wide.”

Gervais goes on to imply that voluntary use of contraception is needed now but that involuntary methods may be used at some point, “When one thinks of the worldwide problems due to overpopulation, I can think of no solution other than to advocate any and all forms of birth control on a voluntary basis – lest it become compulsory later on.”

PP Prez Abortion is Birth Control

_________________________________________________

This idea of compulsory population control is nothing new and Planned Parenthood leaders have thrown this idea around for years:

In fact, at a 1968 convention of Planned Parenthood, John D Rockefeller 111, recipient of the 1967 Sanger award bantered around the suggestion of compulsory family planning when he said, “The growth of world population is so rapid and its consequences so serious that this may be the last generation which has the opportunity to cope with the problem on the basis of free choice. Hence it does not seem unreasonable, that, if we do not make voluntary family planning possible in this generation, we may make compulsory family planning inevitable for future generations.”

Rockefeller Compulsory BC

_____________________________________

guttmachr As late as 1970, former Planned Parenthood president Alan Guttmacher called the idea of a limitation of families to only 2 children in America “desirable.”

Guttmacher endorses Force Full Article

The statement was made to a Sarasota paper while he was speaking under the sponsorship of Planned Parenthood of Sarasota County, Inc.

Alan Guttmacher, who was the residing president of Planned Parenthood World-Population at the time, sat down with Sarasota Herald Tribune reporter, Lee McCall for an interview.

Guttmacher told McCall that Planned Parenthood was an “excellent organization.”

McCall reports that Guttmacher pointed out that even though there have been discussions of limiting families to 2.2 children for what we would consider a forced population control system, Guttmacher said it was inadvisable for Planned Parenthood because it would essentially cause a public relations backlash among Americans and especially minorities who see this language as genocide and eugenics. Planned Parenthood was knee deep in Eugenics and Guttmacher knew the sensitivity of how the minority black community felt about population control which we have documented before (here).

Planned Parenthood president, Alan Guttmacher told the paper, “It would be difficult. In the first place it would probably split the organization. Also we would have trouble with minority groups accepting this. So even though the plan may be desirable and would make us a stronger nation, a less polluted nation, I feel it would be strategically unwise at this time.”

Guttmacher endorses force

Guttmacher goes on to endorse a plan that he says would work, ABORTION, “If we could get the abortion law liberalized, most of the 750,000 unwanted pregnancies would not lead to babies…”he stated.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Guttmacher VP AES article
The same year, Planned Parenthood president Alan Guttmacher, who was a former vice-president of the American Eugenics Society, told Boston Magazine that the United Nations should be the organization the United States used to carry out population control programs worldwide.

GuttmacherColorfulUNForce
Guttmacher explained his reasoning, “ If you’re going to curb population, it’s extremely important not to have it done by the dammed Yankees, but by the UN. Because the thing is, then it’s not considered genocide. If the United States goes to the black man or the yellow man and says slow down your reproduction rate, we’re immediately suspected of having ulterior motives to keep the white man dominant in the world. If you can send in a colorful UN force, you’ve got much better leverage.

Earlier in 1966, Guttmacher compared the world population with the threat of nuclear war and told the Washington Post that governments may have to act officially to limit families “It may be taken out of the voluntary category“, Guttmacher said.

That created a huge backlash which set off accusations again by minority communities that Planned Parenthood was wanting to limit families especially black ones.

In an attempt to squelch that – Guttmacher denied that he wanted family limitation- and the media published the lies hook, line and sinker.

Guttmacher denies wanting to limit families

In 1971, Guttmacher again railed on about the importance of government limiting the size of families and said the government had been “niggardly” in their attempts to combat over-population. By then the backlash against force had begun so, Guttmacher began to advocate for “Volunteerism” as a PR way to get his population control measures received.

In a 1969 article in Medical World News Reports, Guttmacher sees the possibility that coercion will be used to control population, “Each country will have to decide its own form of coercion,” writes Guttmacher, “and determine when and how it should be employed. At present the available means are compulsory sterilization and compulsory abortion. Perhaps some day a way of enforcing compulsory birth control will be feasible.

Sanger Farms and Open Spaces

Guttmacher was following in the steps of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger who in 1932, called for the U.S. government to set aside farms and what she called “open spaces” where certain groups of people would be segregated from the rest of society. She proposed that, among others, the illiterate, the unemployed and the poor should be forcibly kept in these areas until they developed “better moral conduct.” ~ The documentary film Maafa21.

Sanger called for parents to have a QUOTE: LICENSE TO BREED controlled by people who believed in her eugenic philosophy. 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 and immoral‘ , 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”.

Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger once wrote that no one should have the right to bear a child and no permit for children shall give a couple the right the have more than one birth, requiring parents to obtain a “license to breed.”

In her “A License for Mothers to Have Babies” with the subtitle, “A code to stop the overproduction of children.” Sanger writes:

A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.

Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.

Article 5. Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or State authorities to married couples , providing the parents are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and on the woman’s part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health.

Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

This strange idea was opposed opposed by many.

License to Breed Sanger Bizarre Ideas

Maafa21 details the use of force for population control.

The idea of Forced Population Control not a new concept as I detail here.

Hardin AES

In another example from 1969, a professor at the University of California, Dr. Garrett Hardin, called it insanity to rely on voluntarism to control population. Hardin was a member of the American Eugenics Society and an outspoken advocate of government enforced birth control saying that citizens should be willing to give up their right to breed for the betterment of society. In 1980, he was given Planned Parenthood’s highest national award.

shockley In 1967 when eugenicist and Nobel Prize winner, Dr. William Shockley, caused a national uproar when he stated that it was a waste of taxpayer money to create better schools and welfare programs for what he called “Ghetto Negroes.” He claimed to have research showing that people of African descent are genetically inferior to whites in intelligence and simply not smart enough to take advantage of programs designed to help them.

To save tax money, he proposed that the U.S. government implement forced birth control to lower the reproduction of the inferior classes and then issue certificates to become pregnant that would be sold on the New York stock exchange. Shockley was a national committee member of Planned Parenthood and a featured speaker at at least one Planned Parenthood conference.
William Shockley Certificates to be pregnant
___________________________________________

Donald Minkler was the president of the American Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians and a member of the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Like many of those in the eugenics movement, he understood that their plans would not always be voluntarily adopted and that the use of governmental coercion, or even force, might one day be necessary.

Minkler Compulsory BC
Minkler Quote Article

In 1972, Minkler made this astonishing statement, “We hope that the restraint of population growth can come about through voluntary means: but, if it does not, involuntary methods will be used.”

Brave New World author on overpopulation , death control, brainwashing

Posted in Aldous Huxley, Communist with tags , , , , , , , , , , on June 25, 2014 by saynsumthn

The Mike Wallace Interview: Aldous Huxley

Aldous Huxley, social critic and author of Brave New World, talks to Wallace about threats to freedom in the United States, overpopulation, bureaucracy, propaganda, drugs, advertising, and television.

HUXLEY: I should say that there are two main impersonal forces, er…the first of them is not exceedingly important in the United States at the present time, though very important in other countries. This is the force which in general terms can be called overpopulation, the mounting pressure of population pressing upon existing resources.

WALLACE: Uh-huh.

HUXLEY: Uh…this, of course, is an extraordinary thing; something is happening which has never happened in the world’s history before, I mean, let’s just take a simple fact that between the time of birth of Christ and the landing of the May Flower, the population of the earth doubled. It rose from two hundred and fifty million to probably five hundred million. Today, the population of the earth is rising at such a rate that it will double in half a century.

WALLACE: Well, why should overpopulation work to diminish our freedoms?

HUXLEY: Well, in a number of ways. I mean, the…the experts in the field like Harrison Brown, for example, pointed out that in the underdeveloped countries actually the standard of living is at present falling. The people have less to eat and less goods per capita than they had fifty years ago;
and as the position of these countries, the economic position, becomes more and more precarious, obviously the central government has to take over more and more responsibility for keeping the ship-of-state on an even keel, and then of course you are likely to get social unrest under such conditions, with again an intervention of the central government.

So that, I think that one sees here a pattern which seems to be pushing very strongly towards a totalitarian regime. And unfortunately, as in all these underdeveloped countries the only highly organized political party is the Communist Party, it looks rather as though they will be the heirs to this unfortunate process, that they will step into the power…the position of power.

WALLACE: Well then, ironically enough one of the greatest forces against communism in the world, the Catholic Church, according to your thesis would seem to be pushing us directly into the hands of the communists because they are against birth control.

HUXLEY: Well, I think this strange paradox probably is true. There is, er…, it’s an extraordinary situation actually. I mean, one has to look at it, of course, from a biological point of view: the whole essence of biological life on earth is a question of balance and what we’ve done is to practice death control in the most intensive manner without balancing this with birth control at the other end. Consequently, the birth rates remain as high as they were and death rates have fallen substantially. (COUGHS)

Rest of Transcript

WALLACE: All right then, so much, for the time being anyway, for overpopulation. Another force that is diminishing our freedoms?

HUXLEY: Well another force which I think is very strongly operative in this country is the force of what may be called of overorganization. Er…As technology becomes more and more complicated, it becomes necessary to have more and more elaborate organizations, more hierarchical organizations, and incidentally the advance of technology is being accompanied by an advance in the science of organization.

It’s now possible to make organizations on a larger scale than it was ever possible before, and so that you have more and more people living their lives out as subordinates in these hierarchical systems controlled by bureaucracy, either the bureaucracies of big businesses or the bureaucracies of big government.

WALLACE: Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Now the devices that you were talking about, are there specific devices or er…methods of communication which diminish our freedoms in addition to overpopulation and overorganization?

HUXLEY: Well, there are certainly devices which can be used in this way. I mean, let us er…take after all, a piece of very recent and very painful history is the propaganda used by Hitler, which was incredibly effective.

I mean, what were Hitler’s methods? Hitler used terror on the one kind, brute force on the one hand, but he also used a very efficient form of propaganda, which er…he was using every modern device at that time. He didn’t have TV., but he had the radio which he used to the fullest extent, and was able to impose his will on an immense mass of people. I mean, the Germans were a highly educated people.

WALLACE: Well, we’re aware of all this, but how do we equate Hitler’s use of propaganda with the way that propaganda, if you will, is used let us say here in the United States. Are you suggesting that there is a parallel?

HUXLEY: Needless to say it is not being used this way now, but, er…the point is, it seems to me, that there are methods at present available, methods superior in some respects to Hitler’s method, which could be used in a bad situation. I mean, what I feel very strongly is that we mustn’t be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology.

This has happened again and again in history with technology’s advance and this changes social condition, and suddenly people have found themselves in a situation which they didn’t foresee and doing all sorts of things they really didn’t want to do.

WALLACE: And well, what…what do you mean? Do you mean that we develop our television but we don’t know how to use it correctly, is that the point that you’re making?

HUXLEY: Well, at the present the television, I think, is being used quite harmlessly; it’s being used, I think, I would feel, it’s being used too much to distract everybody all the time. But, I mean, imagine which must be the situation in all communist countries where the television, where it exists, is always saying the same things the whole time; it’s always driving along.

It’s not creating a wide front of distraction it’s creating a one-pointed, er…drumming in of a single idea, all the time. It’s obviously an immensely powerful instrument.

WALLACE: Uh-huh. So you’re talking about the potential misuse of the instrument.

HUXLEY: Exactly. We have, of course…all technology is in itself moral and neutral. These are just powers which can either be used well or ill; it is the same thing with atomic energy, we can either use it to blow ourselves up or we can use it as a substitute for the coal and the oil which are running out.

WALLACE: You’ve even written about the use of drugs in this light.

HUXLEY: Well now, this is a very interesting subject. I mean, in this book that you mentioned, this book of mine, “Brave New World,” er…I postulated it a substance called ‘soma,’ which was a very versatile drug. It would make people feel happy in small doses, it would make them see visions in medium doses, and it would send them to sleep in large doses.

Well, I don’t think such a drug exists now, nor do I think it will ever exist. But we do have drugs which will do some of these things, and I think it’s quite on the cards that we may have drugs which will profoundly change our mental states without doing us any harm.

I mean, this is the…the pharmacological revolution which is taking place, that we have now powerful mind-changing drugs which physiologically speaking are almost costless. I mean they are not like opium or like coca…cocaine, which do change the state of mind but leave terrible results physiologically and morally.

WALLACE: Mr. Huxley, in your new essays you state that these various “Enemies of Freedom” are pushing us to a real-life “Brave New World,” and you say that it’s awaiting us just around the corner. First of all, can you detail for us, what life in this Brave New World would you fear so much, or what life might be like?

HUXLEY: Well, to start with, I think this kind of dictatorship of the future, I think will be very unlike the dictatorships which we’ve been familiar with in the immediate past. I mean, take another book prophesying the future, which was a very remarkable book, George Orwell’s “1984.”

Well, this book was written at the height of the Stalinist regime, and just after the Hitler regime, and there he foresaw a dictatorship using entirely the methods of terror, the methods of physical violence. Now, I think what is going to happen in the future is that dictators will find, as the old saying goes, that you can do everything with bayonets except sit on them!

WALLACE: (LAUGHS)

HUXLEY: But, if you want to preserve your power indefinitely, you have to get the consent of the ruled, and this they will do partly by drugs as I foresaw in “Brave New World,” partly by these new techniques of propaganda.

They will do it by bypassing the sort of rational side of man and appealing to his subconscious and his deeper emotions, and his physiology even, and so, making him actually love his slavery.

I mean, I think, this is the danger that actually people may be, in some ways, happy under the new regime, but that they will be happy in situations where they oughtn’t to be happy.

WALLACE: Well, let me ask you this. You’re talking about a world that could take place within the confines of a totalitarian state. Let’s become more immediate, more urgent about it. We believe, anyway, that we live in democracy here in the United States. Do you believe that this Brave New World that you talk about, er…could, let’s say in the next quarter century, the next century, could come here to our shores?

HUXLEY: I think it could. I mean, er…that’s why I feel it so extremely important here and now, to start thinking about these problems. Not to let ourselves be taken by surprise by the…the new advances in technology. I mean the…for example, in the regard to the use of the…of the drugs.

We know, there is enough evidence now for us to be able, on the basis of this evidence and using certain amount of creative imagination, to foresee the kind of uses which could be made by people of bad will with these things and to attempt to forestall this, and in the same way,

I think with these other methods of propaganda we can foresee and we can do a good deal to forestall. I mean, after all, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

WALLACE: You write in Enemies of Freedom, you write specifically about the United States. You say this, writing about American political campaigns you say, “All that is needed is money and a candidate who can be coached to look sincere; political principles and plans for specific action have come to lose most of their importance. The personality of the candidate, the way he is projected by the advertising experts, are the things that really matter.”

HUXLEY: Well, this is the…during the last campaign, there was a great deal of this kind of statement by the advertising managers of the campaign parties. This idea that the candidates had to be merchandised as though they were soap and toothpaste and that you had to depend entirely on the personality.

I mean, personality is important, but there are certainly people with an extremely amiable personality, particularly on TV, who might not necessarily be very good in political…positions of political trust.

WALLACE: Well, do you feel that men like Eisenhower, Stevenson, Nixon, with knowledge aforethought were trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American public?

HUXLEY: No, but they were being advised by powerful advertising agencies who were making campaigns of a quite different kind from what had been made before. and I think we shall see probably, er…all kinds of new devices coming into the picture. I mean, for example, this thing which got a good deal of publicity last autumn, subliminal projection.

I mean, as it stands, this thing, I think is of no menace to us at the moment, but I was talking the other day to one of the people who has done most experimental work in the…psychological laboratory with this, was saying precisely this, that it is not at the moment a danger, but once you’ve established the principle that something works, you can be absolutely sure that the technology of it is going to improve steadily.

And I mean his view of the subject was that, well, maybe they will use it up to some extent in the 1960 campaign, but they will probably use it a good deal and much more effectively in the 1964 campaign because this is the kind of rate at which technology advances.

WALLACE: And we’ll be persuaded to vote for a candidate that we do not know that we are being persuaded to vote for.

HUXLEY: Exactly, I mean this is the rather alarming picture that you’re being persuaded below the level of choice and reason.

WALLACE: In regard to advertising, which you mentioned just a little ago, in your writing, particularly in “Enemies of Freedom,” you attack Madison Avenue, which controls most of our television and radio advertising, newspaper advertising and so forth. Why do you consistently attack the advertising agencies…

HUXLEY: Well, no I…I think that, er…advertisement plays a very necessary role, but the danger it seems to me in a democracy is this…I mean what does a democracy depend on? A democracy depends on the individual voter making an intelligent and rational choice for what he regards as his enlightened self-interest, in any given circumstance.

But what these people are doing, I mean what both, for their particular purposes, for selling goods and the dictatorial propagandists are for doing, is to try to bypass the rational side of man and to appeal directly to these unconscious forces below the surfaces so that you are, in a way, making nonsense of the whole democratic procedure, which is based on conscious choice on rational ground.

WALLACE: Of course, well, maybe…I…you have just answered this next question because in your essay you write about television commercials, not just political commercials, but television commercials as such and how, as you put it, “Today’s children walk around singing beer commercials and toothpaste commercials.” And then you link this phenomenon in some way with the dangers of a dictatorship. Now, could you spell out the connection or, have…or do you feel you’ve done so sufficiently?

HUXLEY: Well, I mean, here, this whole question of children, I think, is a terribly important one because children are quite clearly much more suggestible than the average grownup; and again, suppose that, er…that for one reason or another all the propaganda was in the hands of one or very few agencies, you would have an extraordinarily powerful force playing on these children, who after all are going to grow up and be adults quite soon. I do think that this is not an immediate threat, but it remains a possible threat, and…

WALLACE: You said something to the effect in your essay that the children of Europe used to be called ‘cannon fodder’ and here in the United States they are ‘television and radio fodder.’

HUXLEY: Well, after all, you can read in the trade journals the most lyrical accounts of how necessary it is, to get hold of the children because then they will be loyal brand buyers later on. But I mean, again you just translate this into political terms, the dictator says they all will be ideology buyers when they are grownup.

WALLACE: We hear so much about brainwashing as used by the communists. Do you see any brainwashing other than that which we’ve just been talking about, that is used here in the United States, other forms of brainwashing?

HUXLEY: Not in the form that has been used in China and in Russia because this is, essentially, the application of propaganda methods, the most violent kind to individuals; it is not a shotgun method, like the…the advertising method. It’s a way of getting hold of the person and playing both on his physiology and his psychology until he really breaks down and then you can implant a new idea in his head.

I mean the descriptions of the methods are really blood curdling when you read them, and not only methods applied to political prisoners but the methods applied, for example, to the training of the young communist administrators and missionaries. They receive an incredibly tough kind of training which may cause maybe twenty-five percent of them to break down or commit suicide, but produces seventy-five percent of completely one-pointed fanatics.

WALLACE: The question, of course, that keeps coming back to my mind is this: obviously politics in themselves are not evil, television is not in itself evil, atomic energy is not evil, and yet you seem to fear that it will be used in an evil way. Why is it that the right people will not, in your estimation, use them? Why is it that the wrong people will use these various devices and for the wrong motives?

HUXLEY: Well, I think one of the reasons is that these are all instruments for obtaining power, and obviously the passion for power is one of the most moving passions that exists in man; and after all, all democracies are based on the proposition that power is very dangerous and that it is extremely important not to let any one man or any one small group have too much power for too long a time.

After all what are the British and American Constitution except devices for limiting power, and all these new devices are extremely efficient instruments for the imposition of power by small groups over larger masses.

WALLACE: Well, you ask this question yourself in “Enemies of Freedom.” I’ll put your own question back to you. You ask this, “In an age of accelerating overpopulation, of accelerating overorganization, and ever more efficient means of mass communication, how can we preserve the integrity and reassert the value of the human individual?” You put the question, now here’s your chance to answer it Mr. Huxley.

HUXLEY: Well, this is obviously…first of all, it is a question of education. Er…I think it’s terribly important to insist on individual values, I mean, what is a…there is a tendency as a…you probably read a book by Whyte, “The Organization Man”, a very interesting, valuable book I think, where he speaks about the new type of group morality, group ethic, which speaks about the group as though the group were somehow more important than the individual.

But this seems, as far as I’m concerned, to be in contradiction with what we know about the genetical makeup of human beings, that every human being is unique. And it is, of course, on this genetical basis that the whole idea of the value of freedom is based.

And I think it’s extremely important for us to stress this in all our educational life, and I would say it’s also very important to teach people to be on their guard against the sort of verbal booby traps into which they are always being led, to analyze the kind of things that are said to them.

Well, I think there is this whole educational side of…and I think there are many more things that one could do to strengthen people, and to make them more aware of what’s being done.

WALLACE: You’re a prophet of decentralization?

HUXLEY: Well, the…yes…if it…it’s feasible. It’s one of the tragedies, it seems to me. I mean, many people have been talking about the importance of decentralization in order to give back to the voter a sense of direct power. I mean…the voter in an enormous electorate field is quite impotent, and his vote seems to count for nothing.

This is not true where the electorate is small, and where he is dealing with a…with a group which he can manage and understand…and if one can, as Jefferson after all suggested, break up the units, er…into smaller and smaller units and so, get a real, self-governing democracy.

WALLACE: Well, that was all very well in Jefferson’s day, but how can we revamp our economic system and decentralize, and at the same time meet militarily and economically the tough challenge of a country like Soviet Russia?

HUXLEY: Well, I think the answer to that is that there are…it seems to me that you…that production, industrial production is of two kinds. I mean, there are some kinds of industrial production which obviously need the most tremendously high centralization, like the making of automobiles for example.

But there are many other kinds where you could decentralize quite easily and probably quite economically, and that you would then have this kind of decentralized, like after all you begin to see it now, if you travel through the south, this decentralized textile industry which is springing up there.

WALLACE: Mr. Huxley, let me ask you this, quite seriously, is freedom necessary?

HUXLEY: As far as I am concerned it is.

WALLACE: Why? Is it necessary for a productive society?

HUXLEY: Yes, I should say it is. I mean, a genuinely productive society. I mean you could produce plenty of goods without much freedom, but I think the whole sort of creative life of man is ultimately impossible without a considerable measure of individual freedom, of initiative, creation, all these things which we value, and I think value properly, are impossible without a large measure of freedom.

WALLACE: Well, Mr. Huxley, take a look again at the country which is in the stance of our opponent anyway, it would seem, anyway it would seem to be there, Soviet Russia. It is strong, and getting stronger, economically, militarily, at the same time it’s developing its art forms pretty well, er…it seems not unnecessarily to squelch the creative urge among its people. And yet it is not a free society.

HUXLEY: It’s not a free society, but here is something very interesting that those members of the society, like the scientists, who are doing the creative work, are given far more freedom than anybody else. I mean, it is a privileged aristocratic society in which, provided they don’t poke their noses into political affairs, these people are given a great deal of prestige, a considerable amount of freedom, and a lot money.

I mean, this is a very interesting fact about the new Soviet regime, and I think what we are going to see is er…a people on the whole with very little freedom but with an oligarchy on top enjoying a considerable measure of freedom and a very high standard of living.

WALLACE: And the people down below, the ‘epsilons’ down below…

HUXLEY: Enjoying very little.

WALLACE: And you think that that kind of situation can long endure?

HUXLEY: I think it can certainly endure much longer than the situation in which everybody is kept out; I mean, they can certainly get their technological and scientific results on such a basis.

WALLACE: Well, the next time that I talk to you then, perhaps we should investigate further the possibility of the establishment of that kind of a society, where the drones work for the queen bees up above.

HUXLEY: Well, but yes, but I must say, I still believe in democracy, if we can make the best of the creative activities of the people on top plus those of the people on the bottom, so much the better.

WALLACE: Mr. Huxley, I surely thank you for spending this half hour with us, and I wish you God speed sir.

HUXLEY: Thank you.

WALLACE: Aldous Huxley finds himself these days in a peculiar and disturbing position: a quarter of a century after prophesying an authoritarian state in which people were reduced to cyphers, he can point at Soviet Russia and say, “I told you so!” The crucial question, as he sees it now, is whether the so-called Free World is shortly going to give Mr. Huxley the further dubious satisfaction of saying the same thing about us.

Alarmist Population Bomb author suggests cannibalism as possibility to “overpopulation”

Posted in Ehrlich, Zombie with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 23, 2014 by saynsumthn

Paul Ehrlich a radically pro-abortion population control professor of “Ethics” from Stanford has claimed overpopulation could lead to humanity having to eat the bodies of the dead.

We will soon be asking is it perfectly okay to eat the bodies of your dead because we’re all so hungry?,‘ he told HuffPost live host Josh Zepps.

Paul Ehrlich Huffpo

Ehrlich tells Zepps that “Ethics is hardly discussed in our media…How much do we really care about future generations…

Zepps asked Ehrlich what he would do if he were “Emperor of the World.”

Ehrlich replies, “The first thing I would do is make every possible move to give women full equal rights and opportunities. And give every sexually active person complete access to modern contraception and where necessary, backed up abortion…”

Ehrlich says that current population trends are on a course that could leave cannibalism as one of the only options.

Ehrlich claimed that scarcity of resources will get so bad that humans will need to drastically change our eating habits and agriculture.

He added that humanity is ‘moving in that direction with a ridiculous speed.

‘In other words between now and 45 years from now, 2.5 billion people will be added to the planet.

‘We are moving towards resource wars.

population-bomb

Ehrlich is widely known for his 1968 publication of ‘The Population Bomb’ which called for ‘population control’ to prevent global crises from overpopulation.

But Ehrlich has been predicting this gloom and doom for years:

Ehrlich PP

‘In the 1970’s the world will undergo famines – hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death,’ he predicted.

‘our children will inherit a totally different world, a world in which the standards, politics, and economics of the 1960’s are dead.’

His solution- Population Control….abortion…sterilization….and yes….infanticide..

The author of the 1972 book the Population bomb has told Raw Story that giving people the right to have as many children as they want is “a bad idea.”

Giving people the right to have as many people as many children that they want is, I think, a bad idea,” Ehrlich told Raw Story. “It’s not giving people the right to have as many children as they want, it’s giving people the right to control their reproduction so that they don’t have so many children that their children’s and grandchildren’s lives are in danger.”

“Nobody, in my view, has the right to have 12 children or even three unless the second pregnancy is twins,” Ehrlich continued. “That may be a hard-nosed view, but if you look at the entire situation, it’s crystal clear if we keep the populations of the rich growing, then the poor aren’t going to have a chance, and eventually, the descendants of the rich aren’t going to have a chance either.

Paul Ehrlich May 2014

In a recent speech at Macquarie University he said, “For example, having a kid is one thing. If you add a second kid or you have the choice of adding a second kid or buying four hummers, you’re doing much more environmental damage by having the second kid than buying four hummers. Because, of course, besides all the consumption that that child is going to have – the hummers don’t reproduce.”

Hope on Eath Paul Ehrlich

Paul R. Ehrlich has authored another book with Michael Charles Tobias. In Hope on Earth both Ehrlich and Tobias argue that we are on the verge of environmental catastrophe, as the human population continues to grow without restraint and without significant attempts to deal with overconsumption and the vast depletion of resources and climate problems it creates. They both believe that the impact of a human society on its environment is the direct result of its population size, and through their dialogue they break down the complex social problems that are wrapped up in this idea and attempts to overcome it, hitting firmly upon many controversial topics such as circumcision, religion, reproduction, abortion, animal rights, diet, and gun control.

Chemicals water tweet

A Tweet placed on Huffpo’s feed reads, “Just put chemicals in the water so that us men can’t reproduce. BAM problem solved.”

To that tweeter I say your suggestion is an old idea that has been proposed many times- read here.