For Kenyan parents who want three or more children, the United Nations has a message: Your desires cross ours.
Life Dynamics, a national pro-life organization located in Denton, Texas, calls this approach pure eugenics at work.
This information is from a recently published report by the Kenyan government and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) entitled “Kenya Population Situation Analysis” which says that the demand for children in Kenya is too high and needs to be reduced. The Kenyan Government through the National Council for Population and Development (NCPD) and Population Studies Research Institute (PSRI) with the support of UNFPA undertook the population situation analysis.
According to an article published by Religion Today, the 300 page report basically says that women in Kenya want more children than the UN and the Kenyan government deem desirable for the country’s development.
World News Service reporter, Jamie Dean writes in the article that the report flatly states Kenyan parents’ “demand” for children is too high: “The demand for children is still high and is unlikely to change unless substantial changes in desired family sizes are achieved among the poor in general … thus the challenge is how to reduce the continued high demand for children.”
Life Dynamics says that it is not surprised that the United States funded UNFPA would conclude that a reduction in African children is a solution for Kenya.
According to the UNFPA website, the goals of the United Nations Population Fund is: achieving universal access to sexual and reproductive health (including family planning) and promoting reproductive rights.
As we documented in our film Maafa21 Black Genocide in 21st Century America, although eugenics and population control efforts are largely financed by the United States, they are carried out by the United Nations in cooperation with their partners at Planned Parenthood and other population control organizations.
According to Mark Crutcher, president of Life Dynamics and producer of Maafa21, “ In 1974, the National Security Council issued a document that was intended to outline official U.S. policies on world population. It was called the National Security Study Memorandum 200, or NSSM 200, and was formulated in cooperation with the United States Agency for International Development, the U.S. State Department, the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency. One of its goals was to establish a strategy for reducing the populations of third-world countries so that the United States could have increased access to their natural resources, particularly minerals and metals. Among the conclusions of NSSM 200 was that, “no country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion”. The authors of NSSM 200 then identified three non-governmental agencies that would be funded to carry-out the government’s population-control agenda in the targeted countries. One of those agencies was Planned Parenthood.”
According to research we uncovered for Maafa21, three years after NSSM200 was issued, the Director of the United States Office of Population, Dr. Reimert T. Ravenholt publically stated that it was the US government’s intention to sterilize one-fourth of the world’s female population.
According to Revanholt, one of the driving forces behind this campaign, was the need to protect American financial and commercial interests.
Crutcher explains, “Ravenholt said that some foreign governments were refusing to give the United States permission to come into their country and control their population. He said that, in those cases, the plan was to be carried out by two private organizations, with an enormous amount of financial support from the American government. When asked by a St Louis newspaper to name the two organizations, he said that they were the United Nations Fund for Population Activities and Planned Parenthood.”
Then, in 1970, 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.
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.”
As Maafa21 further documents, black civil rights leaders warned America and the world that there was a deliberate effort to control the black population.
This agenda was clearly spelled out by Jesse Jackson in 1977, when he stated, “It is strange that they chose to start talking about population control at the same time that Black people in America and people of color around the world are demanding their rightful place as human citizens and their rightful share of the material wealth in the world.”
Crutcher says that Life Dynamics documented in Maafa21 how the United Nations and the U.S.A would refuse to assist African nations unless they accept birth control. Even after disasters, Maafa21 documented that there was no anesthesia or bandages – but there were crates and crates of birth control pills and condoms.
Brian Clowes, Director of Education and Research For Human Life International, and an expert in Maafa21 responded, “I doubt if the same disasters hit a middle class white area that the first response would be condoms and birth control. Why it is that our commitment to birth control in African nations is going up every year, while our commitment to authentic economic development is dropping? We see less clean drinking water funding, less school funding, see less medical clinic funding. ”
As Dean writes in his article, “UN efforts to discourage population growth in many regions aren’t new, but the findings of the Kenya report are striking. It doesn’t just call for broader access to birth control, it faults Kenyans—particularly poor ones—for desiring more children than the UN or Kenyan government deem best. “The achievement of [lowering fertility] is complicated by differences between individual fertility preferences and desirable fertility levels,” the report states.
“While the report doesn’t call for the kind of government-enforced quotas the Chinese government has imposed on its citizens for over 30 years, it does recommend “education” efforts to persuade Kenyans to have fewer children. Meanwhile, the UN, USAID, and dozens of non-profit groups spend millions to offer family planning services in Kenya each year. Planned Parenthood distributed 1.3 million condoms in Kenya in 2011 alone. (Surgical abortion remains illegal in Kenya, except in cases where the mother’s health is endangered.) And while the UN and other groups might persuade some women to have fewer children, a more important challenge remains: Working toward decent living conditions for the children who do arrive. Though USAID has spent millions on worthy efforts in Kenya, the group’s spending on health programs in 2011 was revealing. The organization reported spending $60,000 for nutrition. The budget for family planning and reproductive services: $10.9 million.”
Crutcher concludes, “This kind of eugenics by the United Nations and their population control conspirators is not helping the black family but simply turning large poor families into small poor families.”
For an interview call the office at (940) 380-8800