Wednesday, May 22, 2024
HomeCulture WarThe depopulation agenda, Part 1

The depopulation agenda, Part 1


This is the first in a series tracing the history of population control through to present day depopulation ambitions and intent.

POPULATION growth and the consequent need for population control and even ‘depopulation’ has long been a concern of the elites. Thomas Malthus, an 18th century economist, was one of the first people to voice concerns that there was insufficient farmland and therefore insufficient means to grow enough food to feed the burgeoning population.

Ironically, as we shall see in part 2, today’s government policies could be making this scenario more likely with some academics even suggesting deliberately creating the scarcity that Malthus feared in order to alleviate the ‘climate crisis’.

The idea of population reduction was embraced by the eugenics movement who sought to improve the human race by eradicating undesirable characteristics. One of the main proponents of this was Sir Francis Galton. He was a Victorian polymath who believed intelligence was inheritable and resorted to meticulously taking body measurements, including skull size, in a failed attempt to find a defining characteristic which would be an indicator of intelligence. This pseudo-science of craniology was later adopted by the Nazis in their quest to prove they were the superior race.

Whereas these early proponents of population control targeted races and other minority groups to promote their racist ideas, today’s advocates for depopulation target the whole of humanity to promote their environmental ideology. One of the favoured options of the eugenicists was forced birth control or sterilisation of the undesirables. It may just be that today’s environmental zealots, who appear to have their hands on all the levers of power, and who view us all as undesirables, will have their dreams fulfilled as birth rates are falling dramatically in many countries. This is hardly surprising as vaccines, food, water and the air around us are laden with anti-fertility substances, as will be explored in parts 3 and 4.

Just as the anti-human, pseudo-scientific ideas of the net-zero zealots are accepted by our so-called ‘educated’ class today, the unscientific and racist theories of yesterday’s eugenicists were once common among the intellectual classes, particularly after Charles Darwin, the cousin of Galton, gave them a gloss of scientific responsibility when he developed the idea of the ‘survival of the fittest’.

In his 1871 book The Descent of Man Darwin wrote: ‘Thus, the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man.’

Julian Huxley, whose great-grandfather was a friend of Darwin, was president of the British Eugenics society and was embraced by academia and the elites, being a Fellow of the Royal Society and president of UNESCO. In 1944 he wrote: ‘The lowest strata are reproducing too fast. Therefore . . . they must not have too easy access to relief or hospital treatment lest the removal of the last check on natural selection should make it too easy for children to be produced or to survive; long unemployment should be a ground for sterilisation.’

George Bernard Shaw, another favourite of the intelligentsia, was an admirer of Stalin and a rabid eugenicist. He frequently advocated the extermination of those who did not benefit society proclaiming that the only justification needed was their ‘incorrigible social incompatibility’-

He re-iterated this philosophy when he said: ‘If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent, human way.’

H G Wells, beloved by the intellectuals of his day, promoted the killing of alcoholics, people with physical and mental illness and sterilisation of ‘inferior’ people. 

Wells was a friend of Margaret Sanger,  founder of Planned Parenthood, an organisation founded on eugenics. Her contempt of people she deemed inferior is well known. She said: ‘The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.’ Another one of her many sickening quotes is: ‘Feeble-minded persons, habitual congenital criminals, those afflicted with inheritable disease, and others found biologically unfit by authorities qualified judge should be sterilised or, in cases of doubt, should be so isolated as to prevent the perpetuation of their afflictions by breeding.’

Planned Parenthood is a ‘pro-choice’ advocate that performs over 350,000 abortions every year. It was recently found to be selling aborted baby parts for profit, which tells you all you need to know. To emphasise how important this group is, one has only to see the companies that donate to it –  Microsoft, General Electric, Bank of America, Shell, Pfizer, Starbucks, American Express, PayPal, Boeing and the Temple of Satan. The last of these organisations openly supports abortion because it is part of their satanic rituals. Planned Parenthood is also a big hit with celebrities, receives vast amounts of money from the US government and one of its previous board members was Bill Gates’s father.

After the Second World War, eugenics could not be openly embraced so another reason to justify depopulation had to be created – the environment. 

The clarion call for the elites to promote their depopulation agenda came in 1972. That year, the Club of Rome, founded by David Rockefeller and consisting of world leaders and businessmen, had a meeting with the purpose of uniting the world behind a common crisis that could be solved only by the globalist elite and, at the same time, would advance their depopulation plans. After the meeting they said: ‘In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.’

Thus was born the global warming myth, promulgated with the assistance of the mainstream media and used to justify depopulation, with the whole of humanity now the target. 

Prince Philip was a big supporter of culling the population. He said: ‘In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.’

Paul Ehrlich, an environmentalist renowned for making apocalyptic predictions about the end of the world due to overpopulation, wrote in his 1968 book The Population Bomb: ‘We must have population control at home, hopefully through a system of incentives and penalties, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail.’

Ted Turner, founder of CNN, is another great fan of depopulation and once said: ‘A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95 per cent decline from present levels, would be ideal.’

Jacques Cousteau, the oceanographer and film-maker was another supporter of wiping out vast swathes of humanity. In a 1991 interview he proclaimed: ‘World population must be stabilised and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.’ The following year he was invited to the Rio Earth Summit and became a consultant for the United Nations.

John Holdren, President Obama’s Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, is a staunch supporter of forced sterilisation, even advocating putting sterilising chemicals in our drinking water. This is interesting as fluoride and chlorine, already introduced to the water supply in various parts of the world, do cause fertility issues as will be discussed in part 4.

 He has also said: ‘The development of a long-term sterilising capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.’

David Brower, founder of various environmental movements and three times nominated for the Nobel peace prize, suggested that only the select few should be allowed to have children: ‘Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government licence . . . All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.’

The following is one of the most horrific and disturbing quotes of all, from a 2012 paper by Italian professors published in the British Medical Journal. The authors propose that murdering new-born infants is totally acceptable as they are not really human: ‘By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled. ‘

It would appear that California is now wanting to make this scenario a reality. A recently created Bill would allow the mother of an unwanted baby to kill it up to a number of weeks after birth without fear of prosecution. In Maryland, a similar Bill would prohibit any investigation into a baby’s death is if it born healthy but is allowed to die by starvation or by freezing to death for example within the first few weeks after birth.

And it’s not just infants they want to kill. The authors of a Lancet report claim that ‘death is healthy’ and want to let people with life-threatening illness die to reduce their carbon footprint. Naturally, the elderly are also targets. Recently a Yale professor has suggested that elderly Japanese should commit suicide to stop them being a burden on society.

As previously stated, Thomas Malthus feared food scarcity due to overpopulation. Part 2 will examine how government policies may lead to this very eventuality.

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.

Stephen McMurray
Stephen McMurray
Stephen McMurray is a member of the Free Speech Union and an ardent truth-seeker.

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.