Archive for Rockefeller

Company that provided Zyklon B for Nazi holocaust provided RU-486 for Abortion Holocaust

Posted in Nazi, Rockefeller, RU-486, Zyklon B with tags , , , , , , , on February 21, 2014 by saynsumthn

Did u know? The company that provided Zyklon B for the Nazi holocaust later provided RU-486 for the American Holocaust.

Zyklon B Maafa21

At the end of World War II, the German chemical manufacturer, I.G. Farben, was identified as the company that supplied the gas used in the Nazi concentration camps. The gas was called Zyklon-B and evidence later showed that Farben’s executives knew how it was being used.

In fact, evidence was uncovered to indicate that Farben engineers had actually designed the gas chambers. This led to some of them being tried at Nuremburg for crimes against humanity including genocide and slavery. Interestingly, I.G. Farben was a financial partner with John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil of New Jersey in a company called Standard I.G. Farben.

In addition, within three months after Hitler came to power, the publicity director of the Rockefeller Foundation – and personal advisor to John D. Rockefeller – a man named Ivy Ledbetter Lee – was assigned the responsibility of directing public relations for I. G. Farben. After the war, I.G. Farben would change its name and become known as Hoechst AG. Today, Hoechst is a gigantic multi-national corporation with subsidiaries all over the world including the United States.

Ironically, one of Hoechst’s subsidiaries, Roussel Uclaf, is the French company that developed RU486. In other words, the same company that produced the gas used in the Nazi death camps also produced the abortion pill that is now being used in American abortion clinics. And in both cases, there was a known connection to the Rockefeller Foundation.

From Maafa21:

Rockfeller Nazi

IG Farben Zyklon B

Biography of Margaret Sanger fails to confront the Planned Parenthood founder’s ideological commitment to eugenics and population control.

Posted in Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood and Black Women, Planned Parenthood media mouthpieces with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on January 6, 2012 by saynsumthn

A Life of Passion: Progressive Eugenics and Planned Parenthood
by Angela Franks
January 4, 2012

A new biography of Margaret Sanger fails to confront the Planned Parenthood founder’s ideological commitment to eugenics and population control.

Herman Cain’s remarks concerning Planned Parenthood’s promotion of abortion to blacks thrust the organization and its founder once more into the spotlight. Congressional attempts to defund Planned Parenthood had already generated publicity. When Hillary Clinton received Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award in 2009, she was prompted to make an apologia for accepting the award because of questions raised at a House committee hearing. In each of these cases, the controversy centered on the eugenic beliefs of Margaret Sanger (1879–1966), Planned Parenthood’s founder.

To a Sanger supporter, the accusation of eugenics touches a nerve. To understand this, one must grasp the subconscious syllogism underlying the emotional reaction: Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood are progressive feminist institutions. Progressive feminism cannot coexist with eugenics, which is a malady of the right-wing. Therefore, Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood are free of eugenic contamination. QED.

Something new has happened over the last ten years, however, that challenges such easy assumptions, and both Cain’s and Clinton’s language reflected it. No one with any command of the facts can deny any more that Sanger was in some way a eugenicist.

First, scholars of women’s history have begun examining the feminist movement with more objectivity, producing a new literature that is less afraid to detail the unsavory aspects of feminist history. Historical work on eugenics has also begun to shift: Historians of the subject have long recognized Sanger’s involvement in eugenics, but had not sufficiently acknowledged her importance for the movement.

Second, as positive as these improvements in scholarship are, probably the most crucial factor in bringing about a more realistic and balanced assessment of Sanger and eugenics has been the internet. Sanger’s own words are more accessible than ever (a process aided by the multivolume edition ofThe Selected Papers of Margaret Sanger). Planned Parenthood is simply unable to deny convincingly the truth about its founder.

And what is that truth? Margaret Sanger was many things admirable: a vibrant personality, a brilliant organizer, a canny reader of the temperature of the times, a woman who built powerful institutions in a man’s world. But she was also many things ugly and even despicable: an egotist who frequently clashed with others; a free-love advocate who had a dizzying number of affairs and who hurt many men as a result; and a eugenicist who argued that “birth control is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defective.”

In light of this reality, Jean H. Baker’s book, Margaret Sanger: A Life of Passion, is a bit of a scholarly throwback. While it is readable, lively, and in many ways realistic about its subject, it is deeply unsatisfying as an ideological analysis.

Even Planned Parenthood has had to drop the denials of Sanger’s commitment to eugenics and now urges us all instead to avoid judging those of another historical era. After all, as Hillary Clinton basically said in 2009, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and he still did some pretty nifty things. Take what you like and leave the rest, that’s the new approach to Sanger.

So Baker cannot simply ignore the fact of Sanger’s eugenic preoccupation, but she doesn’t seem to feel obliged to try to make much sense of it. Instead, she seeks that convenient refuge of the relativist: “nuance.” Critics of Sanger (this reviewer included) are chastised for not having “a more nuanced view of her perspectives and the reasons she accepted aspects of a mainstream movement dedicated to improving human beings.”

Well, fine. While it’s hard to find “nuance” in a worldview that calls organized charity “a malignant social disease,” it would at least be entertaining to read someone trying to do so. Instead, regarding eugenics, what we get with Baker is an exhortation to nuance (in the Introduction) and then an avoidance of the issue for most of the remaining 300 pages. When she does address eugenics, she does so superficially. She acknowledges that Sanger was a “promoter” of eugenics, yet, in describing her motivation, the most she can muster is a variation of the mere-pragmatics defense: “In an effort to gain support, [Sanger] signed on to negative eugenics.”

Baker further tries her hand at nuance by claiming that Sanger rejected the “standard eugenic proposition that heredity was absolute.” Unfortunately for Baker, there was no such standard eugenic line. Only the most unsophisticated eugenicist would have claimed such a thing, while most scholarly eugenicists (such as Frederick Osborn) knew very well by the 1920s that nature and nurture interacted in the production of human traits. Ironically, in her Introduction, Baker accuses Sanger’s critics of an inadequate knowledge of the eugenics of Sanger’s day, a defect that she herself exhibits in spades.

The book’s treatment of the population-control movement reveals a similar failure to understand the history of eugenics. Baker writes that by the late 1920s, Sanger “had determined that population experts, like eugenicists, were emerging as an expanding pool of potential supporters.” In fact, population experts were eugenicists, plain and simple. Beginning with the first to use the term “eugenics,” Francis Galton (1822–1911), down through the eugenicists with whom Sanger worked in the 1920s through the 1960s, all early population “experts” were eugenicists. The discipline of demography was shot through with eugenic assumptions. As feminist and Marxist historian Linda Gordon observed, “The eugenics people slid into the population control movement gracefully, naturally, imperceptibly … There was nothing to separate the two movements because there was no tension between their two sorts of goals.”

Why were the two movements so closely aligned? The key can be found in a popular slogan of the eugenics/population-control crowd: “Quality, not quantity.” Eugenicists believed that, in order to improve the race, fewer people (only the so-called “fit”) should reproduce. In its 1927 Buck v. Belldecision, written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., the Supreme Court ruled that compulsory sterilization of the “unfit” was allowable under the Constitution, enabling American states to sterilize, on a far greater scale, those citizens deemed unfit, without their consent and sometimes even without their knowledge. (In the end, a majority of states allowed for involuntary sterilization, leading to over 60,000 sterilizations by 1967.) Between birth control and involuntary sterilization, the eugenics movement had a plan for dealing with the “unfit” in America.

But what to do about the great mass of people outside her borders? As Sanger confided in a letter to Clarence Gamble in 1940, India was “a bottomless sink … They need birth control on a large scale and it should be continually prodded into the national consciousness daily, hourly, for at least five years.” The Rockefeller family, deeply immersed in eugenics, financially supported the earliest eugenic population-control organizations, such as the Population Council. This was done quietly, however; as Frances Hand Ferguson, a former president of Planned Parenthood in America, observed, “Certainly the Rockefellers didn’t want to be known as a family who was telling little brown Indians not to have babies.” Population control was a gussied-up eugenics—with a passport.

Baker’s neglect of this history makes her treatment of eugenics and population control relentlessly shallow and unreflectively ideological. For example, she states confidently that “too large a population blocked opportunities for growth and stalled industrialization in what was now dubbed ‘the Third World.’” This is the language of someone who takes the formulations of eugenic demographers at face value instead of questioning how their ideological agenda might have compromised their scientific endeavors. In fact, as recent articles in Public Discourse have observed, the world is well able to absorb its roughly seven billion people. Economists such as Julian Simon have argued that the healthy population growth of India is one reason why its economic growth has been so robust. Of course, the point of Margaret Sanger: A Life of Passion is not to give a course on contemporary theories of population economics, but a nod of acknowledgment toward these larger issues would have greatly deepened the book’s analysis.

Disappointing as these defects are to the informed reader, the most unsatisfying aspect of the book is its naïveté about Sanger’s model of sexual liberation. Baker, who earned her B.A. in 1960, has ideas about sexuality that seem not to have budged from a sunny, 1960s-era cluelessness about the glories of uncommitted sex. This, despite the divorce revolution, HIV/AIDS, pornification, the sexualization and abuse of children: in short, the sum total of physical and emotional devastation wrought by the sexual revolution. Instead, the reader gets platitudes about Sanger’s affairs as a “life-affirming inspiration” or as “spontaneous, self-affirming alliances with men.” Baker is too good a historian to overlook the heartache that such behavior caused Sanger’s two husbands, but she seems unable to grasp how promiscuity harmed Margaret Sanger herself. The lonely woman at the end of her life, addicted to Demerol and resentful of the loss of celebrity, is the result of a life spent using people and, in turn, being used.

In sum, Baker cannot think outside the liberal academic box. She makes the utterly conventional assumption that eugenics was not what it in fact was: a progressive movement through and through. She does not understand that eugenics is all about one thing: control, the control of benighted masses by an enlightened elite. As Baker correctly emphasizes (but does not understand), Sanger insisted that contraception be called not family planning but birth control. Margaret Sanger’s was an ideology of control: birth control (baited with promiscuity), enabling a eugenic control of population—the progressive application of biopower. It is an ideology that tempts totalitarian elites—wherever they might be found on the political spectrum.

Angela Franks, Ph.D., is the author of Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy(McFarland, 2005) and the Director of Theology Programs for the Theological Institute for the New Evangelization (TINE) at Saint John’s Seminary in Boston.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, was a member in good standing with the racist American Eugenics Society. Sanger had board members who were known for their racist writing and Sanger published many of those in her publications. 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“.

Margaret Sanger once said, “More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

In Margaret Sanger’s, “Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” Feb 1919. Birth Control Review , Library of Congress Microfilm 131:0099B .
Sanger states, “Before eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed, they must first clear the way for Birth Control. Like the advocates of Birth Control, the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit. Both are seeking a single end but they lay emphasis upon different methods.

Eugenists emphasize the mating of healthy couples for the conscious purpose of producing healthy children, the sterilization of the unfit to prevent their populating the world with their kind and they may, perhaps, agree with us that contraception is a necessary measure among the masses of the workers, where wages do not keep pace with the growth of the family and its necessities in the way of food, clothing, housing, medical attention, education and the like.

We who advocate Birth Control, on the other hand, lay all our emphasis upon stopping not only the reproduction of the unfit but upon stopping all reproduction when there is not economic means of providing proper care for those who are born in health.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 unfitEugenics without Birth Control seems to us a house builded upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit…

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”.

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.
Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger, 1950

In addition, Planned Parenthood’s top award is called the Margaret Sanger Award, despite the fact that Sanger was an admitted Klan speaker. This is what Sanger wrote in her autobiography, “I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan…I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses…I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak…In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.” (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366 Read it here http://library.lifedynamics.com//Autobiography/Chapter%2029.pdf)

Who are the UNFIT which Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger was talking about? Find out in the powerful documentary Maafa21 in exposing the 21st Century Black Genocide (Clip below)


The Eugenics links to Sanger and Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood invites the Director of the American Eugenics Society to speak at it’s luncheon. Robert C. Cook was invited to speak at the meeting. The meeting was held to discuss the objectives of Planned Parenthood…but…don’t take my word for it: Read the article yourself here:

(Source:Schenectady Gazette – Oct 20, 1958)

Professor Henry P. Fairchild: Former Past President of the American Eugenics Society was also a Vice President of Planned Parenthood….but…don’t take my word for it: Read the article yourself – here
( SOURCE: Schenectady Gazette – Dec 5, 1951)

Vice Chairman of the American Birth Control League brags that birth control was accepted by the “most distinguished” of the Eugenics Society- here
(SOURCE: The Miami News – Nov 21, 1921)

(LBJ) Lyndon B. Johnson accepts the Margaret Sanger Award and it is mentioned that Dwight D. Eisenhower and Harry S. Truman are co-chairs of a Planned Parenthood honorary council- here
( SOURCE: Lodi News-Sentinel – Oct 10, 1966)

1947- Margaret Sanger says that women should stop having babies because there won’t be enough food to feed them otherwise. ( Have we heard that recently?) well -that was in 1947 and women continued to pro-create…did we all starve? Just checking?
Read article here

(SOURCE: The Evening Independent – Jul 2, 1947)

NAACP – accused Planned Parenthood clinics of “genocide’ – here
( SOURCE: The Pittsburgh Press – Dec 14, 1967)

And here

There is some suspicion in a New England black community surveyed that family planning programs are forms of black genocide, a team of researchers from the University of Massachusetts found. (SOURCE: Genocide Fears of Blacks Found in Birth Plan Study 4/11/1971)

Margaret Sanger helped Bermuda set up birth control clinics when they discovered there was a huge increase in the Negro Population – ( Times Daily – Jun 16, 1937) here

Margaret Sanger concerned that the Well-to-do is using Birth Control while the “feeble minded” are not. She urges that birth control gets legalized so that these “unskilled” , “sub-normal” and “feeble minded” will not out-number the “intellectuals” (The Pittsburgh Press – Dec 30, 1928) Here

In 1962, Vice President of the American Eugenics Society at the time, Dr. Alan Guttmacher wants abortion laws patterned after Sweden and other nations. One reason they list to allow abortions is :EUGENIC ! Also- Guttmacher at this point says he does NOT BELIEVE that abortion should be left up to the patient or their doctor, rather it should be up to “Special Board” to approve the abortion. (Eugenic Board, perhaps?) ( The Miami News – Aug 12, 1962) Read Here ( Alan Guttmacher is a former Vice President of The American Eugenics Society and a Former President of Planned Parenthood)

For more on Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood’s attitude toward eugenics and race- watch Maafa21


Planned Parenthood and Pathfinder – two eugenics organizations pushing for global abortions

Posted in Pathfinder International, Planned Parenthood and Eugenics, Population Council with tags , , , , , , on December 5, 2011 by saynsumthn

Planed Parenthood has joined arms with another eugenics founded organization – Pathfinder International in calling for abortions on a global scale:

The statement reads in part, “We call for the inclusion of high-quality, accessible and affordable abortion care in all global SRHR programmes and guaranteed access to the full range of safe abortion care for all women. This declaration was prepared by networks and agencies participating in the 2011 International Conference on Family Planning that are working to advance a global campaign for safe abortion access, including:”

African Network for Medical Abortion (ANMA)

Asia Safe Abortion Partnership (ASAP)

Bixby Center for Population, Health and Sustainability at the University of California, Berkeley

Family Care International (FCI)

Ghana Health Service, Ministry of Health

Gynuity

Ibis Reproductive Health

International Consortium for Medical Abortion (ICMA)

International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)

Ipas

Latin American Consortium against Unsafe Abortion (CLACAI in Spanish)

Pathfinder International

Planned Parenthood Federation of America

Population Council

Venture Strategies for Health and Development (VSHD)

Venture Strategies Innovations

Women Deliver


Pathfinder International and the Population Council, were founded by Frederic Osborn who was a founding member of the American Eugenics Society In 1969, the Population Council’s President, Bernard Berelson, published an article suggesting that if voluntary methods of birth control were not successful, it may become necessary for the government to put a “fertility control agent” in the water supplies of “urban” neighborhoods.

Pathfinder International works with Planned Parenthood in promoting abortions in South Africa. Pathfinder brags, “Pathfinder International has worked in South Africa since 1996, and has a long-running partnership with the Planned Parenthood Association of South Africa (PPASA), the largest and oldest South African NGO working in the field of reproductive health. Recently, Pathfinder and PPASA worked to support safe abortion services in the country.”.

Pathfinder was founded by eugenics financeer, Clarence Gamble, who funded the largest abortion clinic chain Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger as well.

Pathfinder’s board is staffed by current and past Planned Parenthood supporters and advocates: But- if you want to know what Pathfinder is – look no further than how they staff the board of the anti-immigration organization: Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR):

If you take a simple look at their history and their website you will note that many on FAIR’s board are former Planned Parenthood members and leaders, abortion clinic workers, and Zero Population Control Activists ! Just Google John Tanton– FAIR’S founder and see his links to Planned Parenthood in Michigan- In Fact, FAIR’s board member, Sarah G. Epstein, now serves on Planned Parenthood’s board in Washington. Epstein also serves on the Pathfinder International board founded by eugenics financeer, Clarence Gamble. In fact, Epstein is the daughter of Gamble, and as she serves on Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR’s) Board : According to the North Carolina Winston-Salem Journal, “Gamble helped found the Human Betterment League of North Carolina in 1947 to promote eugenic sterilization, and Journal research shows a long history of abuses in the N.C. sterilization program – abuses that Gamble consistently glossed over..” One major eugenics promoter which Gamble linked up with was Margaret Sanger.

In 1939, Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger , and member of the American Eugenics Society, began The Negro Project. The Negro Project was but a precursor to what eugenicists wanted to implement on a much larger scale, by convincing leaders in the African American Community to support Planned Parenthood under the guise of “helping the black man.”

“The main objectives of the [proposed] Population Congress is to…apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”

– Margaret Sanger, “Plan for Peace”, 1932 Senate hearings


Read to what Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger, wrote in a letter to Pathfinder Founder, Clarence Gamble ,

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. The minister’s work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation [of Eugenicists] as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Pathfinder Founder, Clarence Gamble, mentioned above funded the North Carolina Eugenics Society. Click Here : Clarence Gamble. Gamble also supported Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control Movement. Sanger and many of her board members and presidents were members of the American Eugenics Society.

Listen to what the State of North Carolina’s Eugenic Board (Funded by Sanger supporter- Clarence Gamble) did to this “African American woman” : Elaine Riddick
( Interview From the film: Maafa21)

Pathfinder International is currently run by board members who are supporters of Planned Parenthood, doctors for Planned Parenthood, or are Board members of Planned Parenthood, and other population control organizations. In May of 2010, Pathfinder International , which Epstein served with and also issued a The Memorandum of Understanding with International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). According to a press release, the MOU establishes a jointly agreed framework for continued collaboration between the two organizations. The documents reads in part, “IPPF and Pathfinder share a common commitment to improve the lives and promote the reproductive health and rights of individuals and couples. Together, Pathfinder and IPPF have entered into this agreement to facilitate deeper collaboration to promote sexual and reproductive health and rights globally…” Reproductive Rights is code for abortion on demand !

Alex Jones on Eugenics with Maafa21 producer Mark Crutcher

Posted in Abortion, Alex Jones, Birth Control Dangers, Black Abortion Stats, Black Panthers, Elite, Eugenics, Maafa21, Madison Grant, Margaret Sanger, Mark Crutcher with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 20, 2011 by saynsumthn


Maafa21 available here

Catholic Investigative Agency (CIA-TV) explores Rockefeller

Posted in Rockefeller with tags , , , on July 6, 2011 by saynsumthn

New report by the United Nations shows EUGENIC population control efforts may not be working worldwide

Posted in Africa, African Countries, African Nations, Agenda 21, Bernard Berelson, Black Genocide, Eugenics, Guttmacher, John C. Cutler, Lyndon B Johnson, Maafa21, Margaret Sanger, Medical Experiments, NSSM200, Planned Parenthood in African Nations, Population Control, Population Council, Ravenholt, Rockefeller, Sterilization, Sterilizing agents in Drinking Water, United Nations with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 4, 2011 by saynsumthn

In 1967 president, Lyndon B. Johnson made this statement LBJ Faces up a Crisis: Johnson also stated, “Nations with food deficits must put more of their resources into voluntary family planning programs.” ( SOURCE: Lewiston Evening Journal – Feb 2, 1967 , from Johnson’s 1967 State of the Union Address )

On December 10, 1974, the United States National Security Council promulgated National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200), also called The Kissinger Report. This document explicitly laid out a detailed strategy by which the United States would aggressively promote population control in developing nations in order to regulate (or have better access to) the natural resources of these countries.

In order to protect U.S. commercial interests, NSSM-200 cited a number of factors that could interrupt the smooth flow of materials from lesser-developed countries, LDCs as it called them, to the United States, including a large population of anti-imperialist youth, who must, according to NSSM-200, be limited by population control. The document identified 13 nations by name that would be primary targets of U.S.-funded population control efforts.

According to NSSM-200, elements of the implementation of population control programs could include: a) the legalization of abortion; b) financial incentives for countries to increase their abortion, sterilization and contraception-use rates; c) indoctrination of children; and d) mandatory population control, and coercion of other forms, such as withholding disaster and food aid unless an LDC implements population control programs.

While the CIA and Departments of State and Defense have issued hundreds of papers on population control and national security, the U.S. government has never renounced NSSM-200, but has only amended certain portions of its policy. NSSM-200, therefore, remains the foundational document on population control issued by the United States government.

Then….In 1969, Alan Guttmacher as then President of Planned Parenthood-World Population and former Vice President of the American Eugenics Society, said this: “ I would like to give our voluntary means of population control full opportunity in the next 10 to 12 years. Then , if these don’t succeed, we may have to go into some kind of coercion, not worldwide, but possibly in such places as India, Pakistan, and Indonesia, where pressures are the greatest…There is no question that birth rates can be reduced all over the world if legal abortion is introduced…” ( SOURCE: Family Planning: The needa and the Methods, by: Alan F. Guttmacher; The American Journal of Nursing, Vol. 69, No. 6. (June, 1969) PP. 1229-1234)

Followed by this statement, made by Planned Parenthood and the Eugenics Society’s Alan Guttmacher in a 1970 interview with the Baltimore Magazine ,
Our birth rate has come down since we last talked.. I think we’ve hit a plateau- the figure’s not likely to drop much more unless there is more legal abortion. , or abortion on request as we call it…My own feeling is that we’ve got to pull out all the stops and involve the United Nations…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.”

After years of “Sending in a colorful UN Force” and “Implementing NSSM200, the Eugenic master plan seems to be failing. In the spotlight are African Nations. According to a recent report by the United Nations: the New York Times is showcasing the “grisly numbers.”

In the NY Times article: U.N. Forecasts 10.1 Billion People by Century’s End, they report that “the population of the world, long expected to stabilize just above 9 billion in the middle of the century, will instead keep growing and may hit 10.1 billion by the year 2100.”

And who is the main culprit? The NY Times and the UN Report continue:
Growth in Africa remains so high that the population there could more than triple in this century, rising from today’s one billion to 3.6 billion, the report said — a sobering forecast for a continent already struggling to provide food and water for its people.

And just whom does the New York Times go to for a response, none other than the Eugenics based Population Council: Frederic Osborn was a founding member of the American Eugenics Society and co-founder of the Population Council along with John D. Rockefeller. In 1969, the Population Council’s President, Bernard Berelson, published an article suggesting that if voluntary methods of birth control were not successful, it may become necessary for the government to put a “fertility control agent” in the water supplies of “urban” neighborhoods.

Ever heard of John C. Cutler? He was the author of the controversial Guatemala syphilis study he served as both assistant surgeon general of the U.S. Public Health Service and deputy director of the Pan American Health Organization. The US recently apologized for Cutler’s actions after it was exposed that U.S. government medical researchers intentionally infected hundreds of people in Guatemala, including institutionalized mental patients, with gonorrhea and syphilis without their knowledge or permission more than 60 years ago.Cutler’s wife , Eliese S. Cutler, told the University of Pittsburgh that John understood the importance of population control – which she called, one of her husband’s passions. John C. Cutler’s wife admitted that she has served on several boards, including Planned Parenthood, an organization whose founders (Margaret Sanger) , past presidents, and many board members were seeped in eugenics ideals which are very racist.. Eliese and her husband John both contributed to the Population Council .

So- that VERY same Population Council , now the “expert” on Population Control Issues had this to say to the NY Times:
“Every billion more people makes life more difficult for everybody — it’s as simple as that,” said John Bongaarts, a demographer at the Population Council, a research group in New York. “Is it the end of the world? No. Can we feed 10 billion people? Probably. But we obviously would be better off with a smaller population.”

The article continues:
The director of the United Nations population division, Hania Zlotnik, said the world’s fastest-growing countries, and the wealthy Western nations that help finance their development, face a choice about whether to renew their emphasis on programs that encourage family planning.
Though they were a major focus of development policy in the 1970s and 1980s, such programs have stagnated in many countries, caught up in ideological battles over abortion, sex education and the role of women in society. Conservatives have attacked such programs as government meddling in private decisions, and in some countries, Catholic groups fought widespread availability of birth control. And some feminists called for less focus on population control and more on empowering women.
Over the past decade, foreign aid to pay for contraceptives — $238 million in 2009 — has barely budged, according to United Nations estimates. The United States has long been the biggest donor, but the budget compromise in Congress last month cut international family planning programs by 5 percent.
“The need has grown, but the availability of family planning services has not,” said Rachel Nugent, an economist at the Center for Global Development in Washington, a research group.
Dr. Zlotnik said in an interview that the revised numbers were based on new forecasting methods and the latest demographic trends. But she cautioned that any forecast looking 90 years into the future comes with many caveats.
That is particularly so for some fast-growing countries whose populations are projected to skyrocket over the next century. For instance, Yemen, a country whose population has quintupled since 1950, to 25 million, would see its numbers quadruple again, to 100 million, by century’s end, if the projections prove accurate. Yemen already depends on food imports and faces critical water shortages.
In Nigeria, the most populous country in Africa, the report projects that population will rise from today’s 162 million to 730 million by 2100. Malawi, a country of 15 million today, could grow to 129 million, the report projected.

The implicit, and possibly questionable, assumption behind these numbers is that food and water will be available for the billions yet unborn, and that potential catastrophes including climate change, wars or epidemics will not serve as a brake on population growth. “It is quite possible for several of these countries that are smallish and have fewer resources, these numbers are just not sustainable,” Dr. Zlotnik said.
Well-designed programs can bring down growth rates even in the poorest countries. Provided with information and voluntary access to birth-control methods, women have chosen to have fewer children in societies as diverse as Bangladesh, Iran, Mexico, Sri Lanka and Thailand.

AND
“West and Central Africa are the two big regions of the world where the fertility transition is happening, but at a snail’s pace,” said John F. May, a World Bank demographer.

According to the United Nation’s report, High-fertility countries are mostly concentrated in Africa (39 out of the 55 countries in the continent have high fertility), but there are also nine in Asia, six in Oceania and four in Latin America.

It is always interesting to me how African nations are the culprits of the upcoming disaster of population explosions. Maybe this is why in America the Eugenics Founded Planned Parenthood Group targets Black Neighborhoods with their centers…as explains in the film: Maafa21.

The recently released documentary about Eugenics in America called- Maafa21 also focused on the way it targets third world countries. In the Maafa21 DVD evidence that the former Office of Population head for the United States, RT Ravenholt, says he wants to sterilize one-forth of the World’s population, and was “honored by Planned Parenthood” is just more proof of this eugenics agenda !

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Maafa 21 PT 11, posted with vodpod

The New Eugenicists

Posted in Bill Gates, Eugenics, forced abortion, Life Dynamics, Maafa21, Ted Turner, Warren Buffet with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 5, 2011 by saynsumthn

Vodpod videos no longer available.

The New Eugenecists, posted with vodpod

More on Eugenics in Maafa21