"There is a single theme behind all our work-we must reduce population levels," said Thomas Ferguson, the Latin American case officer for the State Department's Office of Population Affairs (OPA). "Either they do it our way, through nice clean methods or they will get the kind of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran, or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it "The professionals," said Ferguson, "aren't interested in lowering population for humanitarian reasons. That sounds nice. We look at resources and environmental constraints. We look at our strategic needs, and we say that this country must lower its population-or else we will have trouble.

So steps are taken. El Salvador is an example where our failure to lower population by simple means has created the basis for a national security crisis. The government of El Salvador failed to use our programs to lower their population. Now they get a civil war because of it.... There will be dislocation and food shortages. They still have too many people there."

Civil wars are somewhat drawn-out ways to reduce population, the OPA official added. "The quickest way to reduce population is through famine, like in Africa or through disease like the Black Death," all of which might occur in El Salvador. Ferguson's OPA monitors populations in the Third World and maps strategies to reduce them. Its budget for FY 1980 was $190 million; for FY 198l, it will be $220 million. The Global 2000 report calls for doubling that figure. The sphere of Kissinger In 1975, OPA was brought under a reorganized State Department Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental, and Scientific Affairs-- a body created by Henry Kissinger.

"We will go into a country," said Ferguson, "and say, here is your goddamn development plan. Throw it out the window. Start looking at the size of your population and figure out what must be done to reduce it."If you don't like that, if you don't want to choose to do it through planning, then you'll have an El Salvador or an Iran, or worse, a Cambodia."According to an NSC spokesman, the United States now shares the view of former World Bank President Robert McNamara that the "population crisis" is a greater threat to U.S. national security interests than "nuclear annihilation." "Every hot spot in the world corresponds to a population crisis point," said Ferguson who would rename Brzezinski's arc of crisis doctrine the "arc of population crisis."


This is corroborated by statements in the NSC Ad Hoc Group's April 1980 report. There is "an increased potential for social unrest, economic and political instability, mass migration and possible international conflicts over control of land and resources," says the NSC report. It then cites "demographic pressures" as key to understanding "examples of recent warfare in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, El Salvador. Honduras, and Ethiopia, and the growing potential forinstability in such places as Turkey, the Philippines, Central America, Iran, and Pakistan." Through extraordinary efforts, the Ad Hoc Group and OPA estimate that they may be able to keep a billion people from being born through contraceptive programs.

But as the Ad Hoc Group's report states, the best efforts of the Shah of Iran to institute "clean programs" of birth control failed to make a significant dent in the country's birth rate. The promise of jobs, through an ambitious industrialization program, encouraged migration toward "overcrowded cities" like Teheran. Now under Ayatollah Khomeini, the "clean programs" have been dismantled. The government may make progress because it has a program "to induce up to half of Teheran's 6 million residents to relocate, as well as possible measures to keep rural migrants from moving to the cities." Behind the back of the President Ferguson and others involved with the OPA and NSC group maintain that the United States will continue a foreign policy based on a genocidal reduction of the world's population.

Edited by mustang (June 16, 2013 13:48:31)

mustang posted:

Thanks. Nobody is really resisting me. I'm just trying to help leftists realize their own values better, and wake up to COINTELPRO's population control schemes.

"The masses of Negroes ...particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit..." - Margaret Sanger

Now you're just stringing words together in the hope it will get a reaction. COINTELPRO aborts black babbies

The source of that quote is Birth Control and the Negro by Sanger, Reinhardt and Rose, but it was borrowed from an article by WEB Dubois on birth control. The Margaret Sanger Papers Project has an article on the history of the Negro Project, birth control, and Sanger, and discusses whether paternalist racism lay behind it, but rejects the absurd claim made by the likes of Dinesh Dsouza(sp?) and Angela Davis (academic fraud) that Sanger wanted to exterminate black people. http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/newsletter/articles/bc_or_race_control.html

In particular, the ban on DDT had little scientific basis and was meant to prevent its use for malaria eradication. Hundreds of millions have died Third World as a result, just as liberal environmentalists/depopulationists desired. Famine, war, disease and instability are tools to reduce population.

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/rehabilitatingcarson/

A google search could have provided you dozens more refutations of this myth.

Edited by swirlsofhistory (June 16, 2013 15:50:57)

A google search could have provided you dozens more refutations of this myth.

It's no myth.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/DDT.html

The campaign to ban DDT got its start with the publication of Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring in 1962. Carson’s popular book was a fraud. She played on people’s emotions, and to do so, she selected and falsified data from scientific studies, as entomologist Dr. J. Gordon Edwards has documented in his analysis of the original scientific studies that Carson cited.2

As a result of the propaganda and lies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency convened scientific hearings and appointed a Hearing Examiner, Edmund Sweeney, to run them. Every major scientific organization in the world supported DDT use, submitted testimony, as did the environmentalist opposition. The hearings went on for seven months, and generated 9,000 pages of testimony. Hearing Examiner Sweeney then ruled that DDT should not be banned, based on the scientific evidence: “DDT is not carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic to man these uses of DDT do not have a deleterious effect on fish, birds, wildlife, or estuarine organisms,” Sweeney concluded.

Two months later, without even reading the testimony or attending the hearings, EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus overruled the EPA hearing officer and banned DDT. He later admitted that he made the decision for “political” reasons. “Science, along with economics, has a role to play . .. .. the ultimate decision remains political,” Ruckelshaus said.

The U.S. decision had a rapid effect in the developing sector, where the State Department made U.S. aid contingent on countries not using any pesticide that was banned in the United States. The U.S. Agency for International Development discontinued its support for DDT spraying programs, and instead increased funding for birth control programs.

mustang posted:

Yeah thanks for the link to the LaRouche mag, but the evidence of DDT being phased out (not banned) leading to the return of malaria in Sri Lanka is contradicted in the Prospect article I posted:

Meanwhile, the DDT-based eradication campaign against malaria ran into the trouble Carson had warned about. The high-water mark of the campaign came in 1964. Sri Lanka had reduced its number of malaria cases from millions after the end of the war to just 29. The country declared victory over malaria and suspended spraying. WHO called the eradication programme “an international achievement without parallel in the provision of public health service.”

But then malaria returned to Sri Lanka. In 1968-69, there were half a million cases. The country went back to spraying DDT, but because it had been extensively used in agriculture, mosquitoes had evolved resistance. The insecticide became less and less effective, eventually forcing Sri Lanka to switch to an alternative, malathion, in the mid-1970s. Other countries in the eradication program suffered similar setbacks, and by 1969, the 22nd World Health Assembly concluded that the goal of global eradication of malaria was not feasible.

mustang posted:

entomologist Dr. J. Gordon Edwards has documented in his analysis of the original scientific studies that Carson cited

This was a guy whose crackpot accusations only the LaRouchites would publish. Of course, in mustang's mind this confirms how deep the conspiracy against DDT runs.