UPDATE: It has come to my attention that, almost a year and a half after its publication, this essay sill remains the most popular entry on Romulo’s Advocate, and, as such,its link is still being widely circulated. If any readers are interested in a printer-friendly, PDF version, it is available upon request. Please email me at email@example.com
–September 1, 2012
The Philippines: Underdeveloped, but Not Overpopulated
March 18, 20111
Part I, The Philippines’ Reproductive Health Bill: Rooted in Pseudo-Economics and Neo-Colonialism
Part II, Environmentalism as Neo-Eugenics
A great deal of controversy has been made of the proposed “reproductive health” legislation that is currently being debated in the Philippine Congress. The general argument is usually portrayed as such: those representing the Catholic Church are fighting against the bill because of their opposition to artificial contraception; they are concerned that a government initiative to promote the usage of such devices will lead to an acceptance of a sexually immoral culture. Conversely, those individuals and groups supporting such legislation claim that it will alleviate problems such as the increase in illegal abortions, and the rapid growth in the numbers of poor Filipinos. This unbridled population boom, they allege, mainly stems from the fact that these unfortunate and uneducated people are simply having too much unprotected sex. The “pro-RH” camp sees the Church’s stance as not only archaic, but also overreaching into the state affairs of the only major nation in an “overpopulated” East Asia where she has considerable social and political influence.
I have no intention at this time to entertain a theological debate about the immorality of artificial contraception, to investigate the charges that some types can be used as abortifacients, or to discourse on whether or not the Church is justified in her attempts to influence government policy regarding this issue. Those legitimate concerns about the providing of adequate health care for women or aiding them in dealing with unintended pregnancies, about fighting infant mortality and caring for abandoned babies and homeless children, about the eradication of sexually transmitted diseases, and about all other societal ills related to sex and pregnancy—all of these should be seriously addressed and dealt with by state, church, and citizenry. But the firm stance I do wish to take in regards to the RH Bill and related matters is that the Filipino people should not tolerate, under any circumstances, any sort of government policy for population reduction.
Take note of the two following excerpts:
“The State shall promote programs that…enable couples, [et.al.] to have the number…of children they desire with due consideration to the health of women and resources available…[and] analyze demographic trends towards sustainable human development…
“[T]he mitigation of the population growth rate is incidental to the promotion of reproductive health and sustainable human development…
“The limited resources of the country cannot be suffered to be spread so thinly to service a burgeoning multitude that makes the allocations grossly inadequate and effectively meaningless…
“[E]ducation shall be integrated in all relevant subjects and shall include…population and development [and] family planning methods…
“The State shall…encourage [parents, et.al.] to have two children as the ideal family size…
“[State agencies] shall initiate and sustain a heightened nationwide multimedia campaign to raise the level of public awareness of the protection and promotion of reproductive health and rights including family planning and population and development,…[and f]acilitate… reproductive health care service delivery and…the production, distribution and delivery of quality reproductive health and family planning supplies and commodities to make them accessible and affordable to ordinary citizens.
“The Population Commission…shall…[c]onduct sustained and effective information drives on sustainable human development and on all methods of family planning to prevent unintended, unplanned and mistimed pregnancies.”
“[B]y means of the press,…[electronic media], cinema, handbills, short brochures, educational statements, and the like, the population must be convinced over and over again how harmful it is to have a lot of children. The costs ought to be cited, and then what could have been bought instead. The great dangers to women’s health that can arise in childbearing could be spelled out, and so forth… [A]dvocacy and dissemination of contraceptives…[should not] be illegal… It is obvious that by systematic application of the above measures, considerable success can be achieved…
“When we have converted the mass of…people to belief in the one- or two-child system, we shall have arrived at the goal we stipulated.”
The authors of those excerpts take a somewhat similar approach in addressing what they obviously recognize as a population problem. Both recognize that mass media and educational forums are indispensable tools for making the public realize that population growth is a problem. Both look at the solutions to that population problem in utilitarian economic terms. Both agree that two children per couple is the most preferable family size. And both advocate that contraceptives should be made as widely available as possible. The first quote is a composite of various passages from the consolidated version of the “The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011″.2 I will reveal the source of the second quote later, by which the reasons for its inclusion will be made more clear.
Some voices of opposition to the bill have indeed already cited the fact that population control seems to be its driving intention. And conversely, supporters have cited that the bill does clearly state that “[a]ttaining the ideal family size [of two children] is neither mandatory nor compulsory.” Furthermore, a Senate version, SB 2378, states in its explanatory note that the bill “does not dictate any form of population control.”
However, such reassurances seem to be classic cases where the legislators and those working with them “doth protest too much”, since the inclusion of such language only rules out overt methods of population control. At this point in time, the legalization of abortion or compulsory sterilization would be politically impossible in a principled republic like the Philippines.3 Thus, a subtler and more appealing approach to the issue is of course needed. And, lo and behold, here we have a bill being promoted as “pro-poor” and “pro-women’s rights”.
Although the issue of population control has already been raised by others, what I find necessary in making a case against the bill, but lacking amongst those who oppose it, however, is a more thorough analysis of the proper relationship between population and economics. To launch an effective attack on the forces pushing for population control, we must strike at the underlying assumptions that are upheld in the legislation.
Whenever the rapid population growth of not only the Philippines, but the rest of the underdeveloped world in general, becomes a leading topic in the public forum, there tend to be not only many misconceptions, but even views rooted in outright, malicious fabrications about the interrelated subjects of population growth, economics, and human civilization’s impact on the so-called natural environment. Worse still, there is an appearance of a consensus among those who exert the greatest influence on public opinion–politicians, academics, and a purportedly truth-seeking press—that human population growth is the dominant threat to our economic and ecological stability. It is also apparent that the advocates for a population control policy, along with those who campaign for “environmental” issues like curbing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting “sustainable development”, are fond of insisting that such policy changes are looking out for the best interests of the world’s poor—since they will be the ones to suffer the most from these alleged social and environmental crises. These axioms are indeed embedded in the RH legislation, which implies that “sustainable human development” is contingent on reducing population growth and essential to “protect[ing] the life opportunities of future generations and the natural ecosystem on which all life depends” because resources are “limited” and cannot support a “burgeoning multitude”.
Perhaps to most readers, such assertions do not sound as if they are rooted in an explicitly sinister and fascist intent. Thus, we will have to examine the origins of these concepts, and the motive for pushing them on the people of the Philippines.
Let us begin with investigating an argument for “aggressive population control” by citing the evidence from the World Bank’s recent report, “The Philippines: Fostering More Inclusive Growth”, that was summarized in a series of newspaper editorials.4 Citations from this report claim that population growth contributes to a vicious cycle of impoverishment by creating a surplus in the younger strata of working-age Filipinos. Thus, since there are not enough employment opportunities for that age group in the Philippines, that younger generation becomes a burden on the older strata of the working-age population. The youth, in turn, tend to produce offspring of their own and thus create a new generation of “useless eaters” that the Philippine economy cannot support. Therefore, the report apparently concludes, solutions to the Philippines’ economic woes include instituting measures for checking population growth.
But the report also implicitly contradicts itself, since it cites that the highest concentration of poor Filipinos live in rural areas. Other economists and demographers—who are perhaps more competent than those at the World Bank—have already pointed out that if overpopulation leads to impoverishment, then why do the people of the more sparsely-populated, rural areas tend to suffer from worse living conditions than those in the more developed, densely-populated, urbanized areas? Is it not true that urban areas tend to have lower poverty rates because cities are designed to support larger and denser populations? Should not the solutions, therefore, focus on incorporating the urban and rural areas as an “agro-industrial” model of modern economy?5
Thus, those purportedly professional economists at the World Bank and elsewhere, who would conclude such incompetent and detrimental non-solutions in the form of policy suggestions for more effective “family planning”6 seem to have little intention for seriously solving the Philippines’ economic problems. Do they instead prefer to cling to the conventional academic dogmas of Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus that have taught them to believe that the relationship between an economic system and human population remains cyclical and void of any intelligent and rational foresight?7 “If the economy cannot support the population,” their logic supposes, “then the population needs to be reduced.” In their approach to economic science, do they ever bother to ask that since economic systems are created by human activity, they should be driven by a political intention to better serve the needs of a growing population? The rapid increase in the numbers of the poor in underdeveloped nations like the Philippines is clearly a result of the absence of combined, international economic policy initiatives designed to facilitate those nations in pursuing their sovereign right to economic development. And, as we will see, the global initiative for population reduction is directed by the same forces who seek to undermine the sovereignty of the world’s nation-states.8
To get the most competent view of this issue as possible, we must investigate the true relationship between population growth and economics. And doing so will require us to examine both past and present economic and political developments in the Philippines, and the world…
The global economic system is in a state of collapse. Despite the fanciful reports that we can now expect the benefits of a recovery, the central banks of the United States, United Kingdom, European Union, and elsewhere have desperately flooded the currency markets with money in a doomed attempt to revive a dead global banking system that has been kept in a state of rigor mortis since the late summer of 2007. This collapse is caused by an insanely overleveraged and speculation-driven financial system that produces no real physical wealth for the benefit of the peoples of the world. To quite the contrary, it has gorged itself by looting that physical wealth, and bailing the system out has only worsened things by creating an even wider chasm between physical economic conditions, and the financial schemes created to generate fictitious wealth.9
The recent report by the U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), chaired by one Philip Angelides, not only documents how this parasitic system gestated and grew over the last thirty years, but also concludes that little to nothing has been done by the U.S. government to correct the problem—in particular, an Obama presidency that claimed it would “change” things.10 The conclusions of that report should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the U.S. statesman and economist, Lyndon LaRouche; as it concurs with what he had specifically forecast would take place in the world economy during a public address in July of 2007.11
In fact, LaRouche has been warning of such a collapse process for decades. In the 1960s, he announced that a series of currency crises would lead to the dismantling of the post-war Bretton Woods agreements, which would then open the door to currency speculation and the unbridled looting of national economies by international finance. Later, in his 1983 book, There are No Limits to Growth, LaRouche provided a specific refutation of the allegations of a “population problem”. Although great feats of economic and social progress are possible in this modern age, he wrote, most of the world’s inhabitants “continue to tolerate [miserable living] conditions…which even existing technologies are capable of solving…[because] some people with a great deal of power over the periodicals, universities, financial institutions, and political parties of much of the world, simply do not wish society to solve these problems.”
It is the deliberate policies of “globalization” and “neocolonialism” that have led to the slide toward lower orders of that economic and technological potential vital for nations to support their growing populations at ever-improving living conditions. Today’s result is a degenerated economic state where population growth continues at a deceleration, and with the masses supported at only near-minimal living standards. The population growth among the poor that has been the subject of so much debate is thus another hallmark of the economic collapse we are facing—the complete inverse of the claim that it is a leading cause of hindering the Philippine economy from progressing.12
As distinct from the dominant approach to economics as a speculative science that over-relies on econometric statistical forecasting, LaRouche speaks of a science of “physical economy”.13 This approach had led him to the discovery that progress in economics can be most accurately measured by “potential relative population-density”. To effectively expound on this curious dynamic created by the interaction of scientific discoveries, technological advances, and social and political progress is beyond the scope of this essay; but perhaps a general idea can best be briefly illustrated to the reader by the historical example of man’s discovery and utilization of electricity.14
The twentieth century saw unprecedented, exponential growth in worldwide population (see figure).15 This was made possible, in large part, by the economic transformation that occurred in the same era due to electrification. Electricity has revolutionized everything—from agriculture, to medical science, to industry, to infrastructure and transportation. It has enabled economies a greater potential to support growing populations at better living standards in more concentrated areas. It has even contributed to allowing large cities to exist in parts of the world where the potential for dense human habitation was previously impossible. (Therefore, an increase in the potential relative population-density.) It has truly changed man’s relationship to nature and proves that the Earth’s (or even the Solar System’s) “carrying capacity” for human habitation is not something of a fixed order.
If we view the Philippine economy from this standpoint, we see how adequately servicing the population’s need for electricity is not possible with the current levels of infrastructure. This, and many other areas of what LaRouche defines as the physical economy need rapid modernization and expansion to support dignified living standards for a population that is over 95 million—and beyond.16
But, yet, the Philippines does not lack the potential workforce needed for such a task. She has long since proven herself capable of producing very competent professionals and skilled workers in many fields—observe how many OFWs are health care workers, technical operators, or engineers, for example. The dilapidated condition of this country should tell us that the solution lies in the creation and utilization of a large portion of skilled, productive labor to solve many of the logistical problems hindering her from becoming a great nation.
These are the kind of employment opportunities that the government should cultivate for the youth—instead of pretending the solution lies in attracting foreign investors to set up things like call centers, simply because Filipinos speak English and are willing to work much cheaper than the average Westerner. The problems presented by the World Bank representatives and others are not simply that there are too many young Filipinos without decent job opportunities, it is that their right to have access to meaningful employment in their own country has been denied to them. It is evident that the Philippine government needs a policy outlook that is every bit as bold the “New Deal” programs of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt if it is to solve the nation’s economic problems.17
However, the Philippines faces a very different world than that of America in the 1930s. She is a poor nation in an integrated global system that did not exist before World War II, and economic policy changes will therefore require Filipino leaders to fight for major initiatives like those being prescribed by LaRouche’s affiliates of the Save the Nation movement.18
Included among the movement’s urgent proposals is a call for the Philippine government to declare a moratorium on the debt incurred through the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and those related institutions who have successfully enslaved the Filipino people to service a ballooning national debt inflated by the arbitrary manipulation of interest rates and currency values. If we take the amount of debt that, in actuality, the Philippines originally incurred, it is found that she has grossly overpaid the amount owed to her creditors.19 Yet, still the costs of continuing to service this illegitimate debt is reported to consume a vast percentage of government revenue, rather than being used to invest in the desperately needed improvements for the Filipino people.20
In order for one to understand how such injustices are permitted to be perpetrated in our civilized age, we must look at the history of the global financial system. We begin during the twilight of World War II, when Roosevelt began to work toward establishing a more organized system of international finance with the intention to serve the sovereign nations making up the world community. Such a system could not only facilitate the rebuilding of those countries viciously ravaged by the war, but also those that had been bled dry by colonial exploitation. This was the intention for holding the Bretton Woods conference in 1944, which was successful in establishing an approximation of just such a system.
Although the Bretton Woods agreements would indeed prove indispensable to the task of rebuilding Europe after the war, and allowed the opportunity for some steps of progress to be made in parts of the former colonial sector, Roosevelt’s unfortunate death in the April of 1945, the succession of Harry S Truman, the U.S. support for the “recolonization” of liberated peoples, and the “declaration” of the Cold War by Winston Churchill would all mean the termination of FDR’s vision for economic and technological progress under a “global New Deal”. The United States would instead form a “Special Relationship” with her historical adversary: the British Empire.21
The Bretton Woods system finally came to an end in August 1971, and its fixed-exchange rates would be replaced with the currency speculation that LaRouche had warned of.22 As a result, we now have an international financial system that has been allowed to operate largely outside of the control of the world’s sovereign states; a parasitic imperialism that sucks the life out of nations and governments.
Opponents to this new imperialism in the Philippines and elsewhere have been quick to denounce today’s United States as an “American Empire”. Although some of these observations are not lacking in insight, such denunciations actually misidentify the true nature of the beast that many “anti-imperialists” believe themselves to be fighting. While the pre-war United States flirted considerably with colonialism (the Philippines are, of course, a testament to this fact) and today’s U.S. commonly acts as the primary enforcer for today’s global imperialism, these practices must be recognized as a deviation from the founding intentions of modern U.S republicanism—the very same intentions that the Philippine Republic based herself upon.23
Those decriers would do well to study that fact, while also observing how even the once-powerful U.S. economy has also suffered at the hands of this present financial system. Major cities like Detroit, Cleveland, and Baltimore that were once centers for productive industry and commerce are now post-industrial hell-holes with ever-higher rates of poverty, crime, and disease that are comparable to those in the underdeveloped countries. The majority of the States’ public infrastructure is, at best, undermaintained, and, at worst, literally falling apart. Many state and municipal governments are faced with fiscal emergencies that have forced them to cut essential social programs, and lay off large numbers of police, firefighters, teachers, and other public employees. This has led to mass protests by the American citizenry—a citizenry that has fallen victim to the eagerness of both the Bush and Obama presidencies to ignore their Constitutional obligations to “promote the General Welfare”, and instead subject their people to fascist austerity measures in order to finance massive bail-outs of the investment banking system.24 LaRouche has warned that the policy of flooding that banking system with monetary capital will lead to a hyper-inflationary breakdown like that of Germany in 1923—which is now becoming evident in the spikes in commodity and food prices. These are the empirical manifestations of economic collapse, done at the bidding of a global financial apparatus largely operating from the City of London—what LaRouche has rightfully identified as the modern, post-war form of the British Empire.25
To counter these post-war developments, LaRouche has been campaigning for decades to have the U.S. government reclaim the historical tradition of FDR’s anti-imperial strategy to promote nation-building in the former colonial sector. Using Roosevelt’s legacy as a precedent, LaRouche has called for a domestic policy spear-headed by a restoration of the “Glass-Steagall” standard which would separate and protect commercial banking for productive purposes from the speculative schemes of investment banking.
For foreign policy, he was the first to publicly call for a “New Bretton Woods” conference to reestablish a global financial system based on fixed-exchange rates, and has also organized for the establishment of an economic alliance between the United States and the great Eurasian giants of Russia, China, and India. These “Four Powers” represent well over a third of the world’s population, are abundant in natural resources, and also possess the powerful, high-technology manufacturing capabilities necessary for the development of the major infrastructure projects needed to aid the poorer and smaller nations of the world. Such an alliance would act as the catalyst for the establishment of what LaRouche refers to as a “Hamiltonian credit system” of world finance, and provide the necessary counterbloc to the destruction wrought by the exploitive, “feudal-monetarist system” that is typified by the City of London and Wall Street. This would be the equivalent of applying the “Glass-Steagall” standard on an international scale, where a group of respectively sovereign nations declare that all of the illegitimate “toxic gambling debt” of the neo-feudalist financiers will be frozen, and then audited and investigated later (e.g. after crisis conditions have been effectively dealt with); thus freeing up the capital being injected into the investment banking system in the form of bail-outs to instead finance much-needed major infrastructure projects.26 The nations of the world can either adopt this model in the immediate term, or, LaRouche has warned, face an economic collapse comparable to the dark age of the 14th century.
For the Philippines, the alternative to fighting for such changes in global policies, as well as implementing an emergency domestic program like that now being advocated by the Save the Nation campaign, is to willingly dive into the mudslide toward dark age. The drive to legislate a program for controlling population growth is simply a reflection of a deeper problem; namely that many Filipino policy makers would seem to prefer to give up on establishing economic self-reliance, and further capitulate to those ill-intentioned, imperialist interests who are destroying this country’s economy.
Now that we have begun to recognize how population growth and economic development are actually interrelated, we can turn our attention toward examining the background for those “ill-intentioned, imperialist interests” that are subverting the Philippine government to adopting a population reduction program.
I will first refer the reader to the infamous U.S. National Security Study Memorandum 200. Written by National Security Adviser and British Foreign Office agent Henry A. Kissinger in 1974, and adopted as policy by the Ford Administration in 1975, this document explicitly names 13 underdeveloped countries—one being the Philippines—to be pressured into adopting policies that would severely limit their population growth through initiating contraception and sterilization programs. It also discussed the possibility of having the U.S. Agency for International Development withhold food aid as a way to get these poorer nations to comply with population reduction measures. Although not stated explicitly, the usage of the USAID option would result in curbing “overpopulation” by contributing to famine. Kissinger also made note of the fact that the United States already contributed more than half of the total funds for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which could be used, along with other U.N. agencies, to carry out the mission he was advocating.
Kissinger’s justification for such genocide? He believed that economic control over the world’s “finite resources” was better off in the hands of America and her European allies, ostensibly claiming that they would be needed in the fight against the Soviets. Population growth (and, consequently, economic development) in these resource-rich countries was a threat to that hegemony, as such expansion would require them to draw upon that resource base in their drive to establish themselves as strong, sovereign nation-states, rather than poor, post-colonial “banana republics”.27
Although the ecological effects of population growth were not the main focus of Kissinger’s report, his assumption in the scarcity of the world’s resources was also expressed throughout policy-making circles and was very much popularized in the late ’60s and early ’70s by academics such as Paul Ehrlich and Dennis Meadows.28Such theories, which assert that human population growth is exceeding the Earth’s “carrying capacity” by depleting natural resources and destroying the equilibrium of nature, provide much of the basis for the ideology popularly referred to as “environmentalism”.
There are, of course, issues and concerns raised by a scientific approach to the management of Earth’s biosphere and resources that are not illegitimate. Environmentalism as it is commonly preached, however is founded not upon science and reason, but upon dogmas about man and his place in the universe that are not unlike those of a pagan cult. It is a dogma that rejects the Judeo-Christian concept of man being made in the image of his Creator and therefore in possession of qualities which set him apart from the rest of the natural world. In environmentalist ideology, man has no ability to participate in Creation and wilfully change and improve his relationship to the universe; he is instead confined to live like all other creatures—as Earth-Goddess Gaia’s passive victim within a limited and cyclical “natural” balance.29
If we accept the misanthropic viewpoint of individuals who think like Kissinger, Ehrlich, and Meadows, we have no choice but to ignore the facts about the history of human progress. For example, when it comes to defining a “natural resource”, we must ask how a natural substance comes to be made useful for human activity in the first place. Coal, oil, uranium—all of these have existed on Earth long before humanity—and when our species finally does arrive on the scene, these materials continue to stay in the ground for millennia, untouched. But civilization has eventually proven itself capable of producing great minds that possess a rigorous drive for knowledge; men and women who have discovered more efficient sources of power from substances that previous generations would have found little use for.
Still, such revolutionary discoveries do little good for the cause of mankind unless they are coupled with the political will and foresight needed to apply them to benefit the economic condition of the general populace. Even nuclear fission—the most powerful and efficient energy source that man has mastered thus far—has yet to be applied and utilized on the mass scale necessary to solve many of humanity’s current problems.
However, the reporting from much of the world’s predominantly English-speaking media outlets—which tend to be very proud to claim they represent a balanced and impartial viewpoint—leads us to conclude that there is a regimented scientific consensus stating that the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil produces industrial gas emissions that are causing a catastrophic change in the Earth’s climate. And, in a similar vein, nuclear power is once again being presented as too dangerous a technology for man to control.30
Since climate change being caused by carbon dioxide is as plain a textbook fact as the Earth being round, and the potential danger of nuclear energy proves that there is such a thing as “too much” technological progress, the recommended solution is to instead move to more “sustainable” (e.g., inefficient) sources of power generation like wind and solar.31
But, in reality, much of the alleged “proof” about both the anthropogenic causes of climate change—like the charges against nuclear energy—have been thoroughly refuted by not a few qualified scientists and other experts in numerous fields. While such rebuttals are worth reading for oneself, they are not to be the main subject of our focus at this time,32 since it is the underlying political intentions of the environmentalist campaign against industrialization (particularly in the developing world) that are to be exposed here in this essay.
Once industrial gas emissions are identified as the driving cause of altering the planet’s climate, human expansion becomes seen as an enemy in the battle to save the Earth. However, most of the world’s developing nations desperately need to industrialize in order to attain adequate living conditions for their peoples. But, instead of receiving the level of assistance from the more advanced sector that will aid them in becoming industrialized and self-sufficient, they are told that highly inefficient and costly technologies like solar panels and wind mills are the only “environmentally sustainable” solution. They are told that they cannot strive to attain the levels of “energy consumption” (e.g. adequate and dignified living standards) that has been achieved in the developed countries, and that their non-industrialized, “sustainable” economies will help to enable the industrialized world to “offset” their greenhouse gas emissions.33
It is not difficult to hear the echoes of the 19th century imperialism that condemned colonial countries to remain as poor, backward agrarian economies, and where any industrialization or infrastructure built was limited and designed only for the benefit of the colonial power. Like the god Zeus who sought to enslave mankind by denying him the ability to control fire, any effective modern imperial policy—whether it be the British Empire of the 18th and 19th centuries, or her modern-day bastard, Globalization—thrives on forbidding technological and economic progress for the masses. The not unintended results are the most effective methods that empires have relied upon to check population growth: famine, epidemic disease, and civil discord. Policies influenced by the sinister ideology of “sustainable growth” thus become a death sentence for the billions of the world’s poor.
Of the many international environmental NGOs that are at the forefront of such pro-genocidal, anti-human propaganda campaigns, there is one that is deserving of particular attention—both because of brevity, and because of its wide influence in the Philippines and other post-colonial countries—and that is the World Wildlife Fund/Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF).34 The WWF insists that it is man’s overpopulation—in and of itself—that has disturbed the ecological balance; whether it be by encroachment and deforestation (which is usually the result of poor farmers forced to use backwards and outdated methods of agriculture), or by “overconsumption” and industrialization.35
Those readers who have not yet begun to ponder upon the economic implications of what the environmentalist movement actually advocates—and still think that usage of terms like “genocidal” and “anti-human” are sensationalist—should familiarize themselves with the indisputable influence that eugenics still has on today’s environmentalism.36
For example, let us look at the sordid cast of characters responsible for the WWF. The WWF’s co-founder, Sir Julian Huxley, and founding presidents, Prince Philip of the United Kingdom, and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands are all representative of a racist, elitist world outlook that is not uncommon to a European aristocracy that views the majority of the “peasant” population of the world (particularly those peoples with darker skin) as an over-breeding nuisance. Philip has stated that their excess numbers should be “culled”—as if they were livestock. Huxley believed that promoting environmentalism was a good method to achieving the noble eugenic ideals that had simply received bad publicity because of Hitler. And Bernhard himself was a one-time member of the Nazi Party!37
Furthermore, the WWF, along with other environmental groups, has been at the fore of the global campaign against the pesticide, dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT). DDT is unequalled in its ability to repel disease-carrying insects, and, despite much hype about its alleged toxicity, it has been exoneratedly demonstrated to be harmless to people and wildlife. Yet those responsible for the environmentalist movement succeeded in achieving various bans and suppressions on DDT in the U.S. and elsewhere, which have produced the malaria-claimed deaths of hundreds of millions of men, women, and children—a deliberate genocide that began with the claims that the planet cannot sustain an “overpopulation” of mankind!38
Lastly, on one final anecdote, the WWF in its “Living Planet Report” of 2008, calls for “human demands for food, water, energy, and materials” to be reduced by one-third. An insane and immoral thing to propose, if one considers that almost one third of the world’s population cannot even have access to those necessities to consume them at adequate levels in the first place!39 This is the kind of fascist ideology that is behind the more-or-less well intentioned, but misguided, members of the general public who campaign for the environmentalist cause.
Once myths of “carrying capacity” and “overpopulation” are widely propagandized and accepted as self- evident for policy-makers, the media, academia, and the general public, a cultural pessimism about mankind begins to foment. Not only does each new baby born into a life of poverty become seen as another “useless eater”, but natural catastrophes, famine, plague, and even warfare may become viewed as “unfortunate but necessary” ways for nature to check human population growth. Applying of scientific and technological advancements toward the betterment of the human condition becomes undesirable to those dedicated to “zero-population growth” and the “conservation of nature”, as it purportedly leads to the “over-consumption” of “finite resources”.
This push for genocide is perpetrated on multiple fronts. First, the economic potential for a nation to support its population at decent living standards is eroded through the forms of “economic warfare” detailed earlier. Then, that nation is told by international and foreign agencies that all technological and economic development must be “sustainable”. Finally, pressure is applied by those agencies onto the nation’s government to undergo measures of population reduction—which, in most cases, includes widespread abortion. This is the same cold, utilitarian policy outlined by Erhard Wetzel, an official for the Nazi’s Eastern Territories Ministry, in the earlier quote that I left unattributed.40
And so, we now return to the subject of the Reproductive Health bill. Indeed, there is nothing “totalitarian” in its approach—no compulsory sterilization, abortion, or enforced two-child policy.41 But that is precisely how the bill appears appealing. There may be supporters of it who still insist that there are provisions included that address problems associated with infant mortality, maternal mortality, and STDs; that act to help provide obstetric, gynecological, urological, maternal and other health care; that work to fight abuse against women; and so forth. There may even be specific circumstances where the State should help make certain contraceptives available to those who cannot afford them, and assist couples who might end up having more children than they can support. But, as Dr. Angel C. de Dios and others have pointed out, these matters can already be dealt with by the government without the need of legislation.42
Furthermore, virtually all of the referenced concerns could be solved through a more comprehensive program on public health under an ambitious initiative for real economic development, and thus there is no reason to couple these “legitimate provisions” with policies promoting “sustainable development”.
Since these subsuming issues have gone mainly ignored by the most well-informed of the bill’s advocates, we thus have confirmation that “reproductive health” is unquestionably about population control. Perhaps these individuals instead prefer to see the Philippines go the way of that modern eugenic experiment in Brazil, where about 44% of all adult women living in some of the poorest areas of the country were found to have been sterilized—the majority of whom being racial minorities.43
But, the Philippines, like Brazil and the rest of the post-colonial world, is not overpopulated, but underdeveloped. What she requires at this grave point in history is political leadership that is willing to take up the Promethean economic policy outlook defined by LaRouche and his Filipino collaborators. Government officials would do well to heed such advice, lest they soon find themselves sharing fates similar to those of Louis XVI or Hosni Mubarak, confronted by a populace that will raise hell and force them out if they continue to neglect their duties as political leaders.
It is also worth emphasizing that Kissinger, Prince Philip, Ehrlich, Meadows, and other related interests are not acting wholly independently, but are simply representative of an organized force which has its roots in an oligarchical tradition as ancient as imperialism itself. And right now, these forces seek to undermine and eventually subjugate the world’s nation-states in order to maintain control as the world’s financial system dissolves into chaos. We must not let them.
Any premature dismissal of the issues raised here as stemming from “far-fetched conspiracy theory” is produced by either an ignorance of history, or a determination to keep oneself deluded about the true causes of the unjust state of world affairs.44 Any campaign that insists that the Philippines’ economic woes are caused by those Filipino citizens (particularly the poor) who ignorantly neglect to practice more “reproductive responsibility”, while dismissing the fact that a major political battle must be waged to establish more economic justice for this country, possesses a severe lack of sincere empathy for the conditions of the poor. Thus, “Let them eat cake,” becomes “Let them have contraceptives.” Let us retire such antisocial, Malthusian pessimism to the 18th century where it belongs.
The Philippines represents a unique historical mission for the rest of the world. Her founders—which included men influenced by the same Classical humanist tradition that spurred the great political changes in Europe and the Americas—were the first in the Far East to declare their nation an independent republic. And thus, government-legislated population reduction that masquerades as “reproductive health” would be degeneration into elitist fascism. It should be rejected by any form of republican government as such; and promptly substituted with a policy that reflects the true spirit of that republican principle—while the brief opportunity to do so still exists.
I would like to make known that I have no official association with Lyndon LaRouche’s International Caucus of Labor Committees, the Philippine LaRouche Society, or the Save the Nation movement. I do, however, firmly believe that the policies of LaRouche and his associates are urgently needed, and desire to educate policy-makers and common citizens alike on such matters.
1. An earlier draft of this report originally had a limited distribution in November of 2010 under the title “Combatting the Agenda for Population Control in the Philippines”, and was conceived as a passionate and thorough rebuttal to the dangerously immoral views being espoused by the commentators of leading newspapers regarding the interrelated topics of the RH Bill, population growth, economics, and modern industrial civilization’s impact on the natural environment.
2. The different drafts and versions of the RH bills can be easily found and accessed through many various websites on the internet. For example, see www.likhaan.org
3. I do not mean to imply that all legislators who support the RH bill are hiding more sinister, ulterior motives. It is more likely the case that they have simply bought into—perhaps foolishly and all-too-readily—a false notion that RH legislation and contraception will help alleviate the conditions of the poor. However, the ideas behind the bill do indeed originate from those with sinister and ulterior motives. For example, the bill seems to borrow heavily from the International Conference on Population and Development Plan of Action (ICPD POA), which is implicitly based on eugenic principles. More of this will be addressed later.
4. As previously mentioned, this report was inspired by several editorials. Here, I refer to the Sep. 22, Sep. 29, and Oct. 13, 2010 pieces by a regular commentator for the Philippine Daily Inquirer. He implies that he supports a policy of “aggressive population control”. He did, however, neglect to follow-up this admission by appropriately exclaiming, “Sieg heil!”
5. Also, the editorial’s author fails to entertain the possible causes of why the Philippine economy is unable to support a labor-ready age group. Nor does he consider what kind of bold economic initiatives are needed for the utilization of that potential labor source. Nor does he even mention the largely ruinous economic policies of the past decades that have worsened the plight of poor Filipinos. Meanwhile, historical reality tells us that this country has suffered from a major deficiency in political leaders willing to protect the Philippines from severe economic looting.
7. Adam Smith (1723-1790) is, of course, recognized as the great thinker who developed the theory of what is called “free trade”. In actuality, however, the only thing that Smith’s concept of economy is really free of is a creative and progressive-thinking republican citizenry. In his famous Wealth of Nations, for example, Smith presents the best economic model as one being made up of commoners that he depicts as small-minded and unconcerned with the affairs of state. They are creatures who seek only their own self-interest and never the interest of the public good. For Smith, there is no room for a political economy devoted to the idea of the “General Welfare” expressed in the U.S. and Philippine Constitutions.
Thomas Malthus (1766-1834)—who is often mistaken as being a parson of God, instead of Satan—is famous for his thoroughly disproven forecast that human population growth will always occur faster than food production. Therefore, according to the obviously psychopathic Malthus, society can never hope to produce enough for everyone, and it is best to impose the most miserable and abhorrent economic conditions on the poor so that they will die more quickly than they can breed:
“All children who are born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the death of grown persons…Therefore…we should facilitate…the operations of nature in producing this mortality… Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits… [W]e should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlement in all marshy and unwholesome situations. But above all we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases…”
—From Malthus’ Essay on the Principle of Population (emphasis added).
What Malthus outlines was and is the basic policy of oligarchical elitism. (I.e., “Why waste time and resources making broad improvements for the condition of the masses if it will only lead to their proliferation? A smaller population is much easier to control.”)
For thorough refutations of both Smith and Malthus’ writings, see The Past, the Present, and the Future (Collins. Philadelphia, 1859) and Commerce, Christianity and Civilization versus British Free Trade: Letters in Reply to the London Times (Collins. Philadelphia, 1876), both by Henry Charles Carey and available for free online through Google Books. The astute reader will realize that Carey’s praises for Smith in the latter work are intended to be sarcastic and used to point out the contradictions in Smith’s writings.
For more on Malthus, see also: The Legacy of Malthus: The Social Costs of the New Scientific Racism by Allan Chase (Knopf. New York, 1977).
10. The full report can be accessed at http://www.fcic.gov/report See also: “The Angelides Report: the Moral Test”, Executive Intelligence Review, Feb. 18, 2011. (Most issues of E.I.R. can be accessed at www.larouchepub.com)
12. A fact that is ignored both in the previously cited Inquirer editorials and the RH bill, is that a dominant reason why the poor tend to have larger families than the affluent is because higher infant mortality rates create a greater need to make sure that enough children survive into adulthood to be able to financially support their aging parents.
13. Most university text books provide a laughably shallow definition of economics as “a social science that deals with choices made by people and government in allocating scarce resources to serve society’s wants and needs”. In contrast, the science of physical economy incorporates scientific and technological breakthroughs into economic and logistical policy-making. LaRouche ascribes this philosophical tradition with intellectuals such as Gottfried Leibniz, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Henry Charles Carey, and Friedrich List. This idea of economic science was dubbed by Carey and other followers of Hamilton as the “American System”, to distinguish it from the “British System” of U.S.-haters such as Smith, Malthus, David Ricardo, J.S. Mill, Jeremy Bentham, et.al.—all of whom are described as more or less lackeys of the British East India Company’s system of imperialism, rather than serious scientific and philosophical thinkers.
Karl Marx, on the other hand, was largely a dupe, writes LaRouche, because although he attempted to present an alternative to what he perceived as an unjust capitalism, he never actually broke with the flawed axiomatics of the British school. It was this realization that caused LaRouche, a onetime associate of the Socialist Workers’ Party, to abandon the Marxian approaches to economy for the tradition associated with Hamilton, et.al.
See LaRouche, “The Karl Marx that Karl Marx Did Not Know”, Campaigner, Fall, 1977. And LaRouche, “Die Euro Luge: Capitalism and Its Law”, Executive Intelligence Review, Jan. 4, 2008.
14. Other than the aforementioned There are No Limits to Growth (New Benjamin Franklin House. New York, 1983), LaRouche further elaborates the concept of potential relative population-density in his 1984 text book, So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics? (Second edition. E.I.R. Washington, 1995)
15. For the year 1800, the population of the world is estimated to be at approximately 920 million. By 1900, it had increased by about 74% to achieve approximately 1.6 billion. By the year 2000 we had achieved a population of nearly 6 billion—an increase of about 275%!
16. This is why letting the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) project go to waste was one of the all-time worst decisions in the history of Philippine politics—even in light of the recent disaster in Japan.
While I am admittedly in no authority position to defend President Marcos and all of his policies, I am confident in concluding that Marcos, at the very least, possessed a very progressive vision for building the Philippines into a strong national-economy; whereas the subsequent presidencies have proven themselves as little more than puppets for the financial dictatorship of the IMF and World Bank. While Marcos and his presidency may have had many serious problems, the man was likely not the villain that much of conventional opinion depicts him as being.
For more on BNPP and Marcos’ progressive energy policy, see Trailblazing: The Quest for Energy Self-Reliance by Geronimo Z. Velasco (Anvil. Manila, 2006). For a more general depiction of Marcos’ economic policy, as well as an expose of the U.S.-directed forces manipulating the 1986 coup, see Mike Billington, “How Shultz and the ‘Hit Men’ Destroyed the Philippines”, Executive Intelligence Review, Dec. 24, 2004.
See note 30 for more on nuclear power.
18. www.savethenation.com.ph Their emergency program calls for: A.) A crash program to establish a new, agro-industrial Green Revolution, B.) The activation of the BNPP, and C.) A declaration of moratorium on all usurious and illegitimate external debts.
19. In 2005, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago addressed the usurious nature the IMF: “It appears that from what the Philippines has paid in debt service, we have already repaid twice our external debt…[and] paid our foreign creditors five times more in debt service than we have received as official development aid… [The Philippine government should] avoid the IMF teams, and reach agreements directly with our creditors.” Santiago also referred to a “bankers’ arithmetic” where the devaluation of the peso (especially since the Asian financial crisis of 1998) made it considerably more expensive to purchase the U.S. dollars with which to make the payments to foreign creditors—and thus impossible for the Philippines to repay its external debts.
Also, judging from the reports available on the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas’ website (www.bsp.gov.ph/publications), the official estimates for the debt-to-GDP ratio are around one-third. However, it has been reported that this figure is only achievable after performing gold-medal-caliber accounting gymnastics to produce numbers which exclude the borrowings from government corporations and agencies.
See Billington, “Looted by the Bankrupt IMF System, the Philippines Opens to LaRouche”, Executive Intelligence Review, Jun. 3, 2005, and Billington, “Wall Street Wants to Buy the Philippines—Cheap”, Executive Intelligence Review, Oct. 7, 2005.
I am, of course, aware that Sen. Santiago is, perhaps ironically, the sponsor of SB 2378. While I would emphatically support the boldness she has shown in opposition to the IMF, it’s probable that her efforts to push for RH legislation originate from a lack of competent understanding in economics and other related subjects.
20. For a first-hand account of how poor countries are deliberately manipulated into taking on mammoth sums of foreign debt that is written by a man who actually participated in such destruction, see Confessions of an Economic Hit-Man by John Perkins (Second ed. Plume. New York, 2006) and its follow-up, A Game as Old as Empire: The Secret World of Economic Hit-Men and the Web of Global Corruption, by Perkins, Steven Hiatt, et.al. (Berrett Koehler. San Francisco, 2007.)
While I would consider much of the basic facts of these works to be both revealing and useful, there are some particulars that makes their analysis of the nature of modern imperialism wanting. See the article cited in note 23 for more on this.
21. Roosevelt’s hatred of, and opposition to, the imperialism of the European powers was so intense, that, according to his son and aide, Elliot, he even compared the tyranny of the British Empire to that of the Axis powers—all said directly to Winston Churchill’s face! Furthermore, according to author L.Wolfe, Roosevelt was even entertaining the possibility of war with Mussolini-admirer Churchill, if the British were to attempt to reclaim any of their newly-liberated former colonies, once an Allied victory was secured.
See L.Wolfe, “The Other War: FDR’s Battle Against Churchill and the British Empire”, The American Almanac, Aug. 28, 1995 (american_almanac.tripod.com), Lawrence K. Freeman, “Roosevelt’s ‘Grand Strategy’ to Rid the World of British Colonialism: 1941-1945″, The American Almanac, Jun. 14, 1995, and As He Saw It by Elliot Roosevelt (Duell, Sloan, and Pearce. New York, 1946).
It is also worth noting that FDR’s outlook on colonialism was loudly echoed by the great Filipino patriot Carlos Romulo in his book, Mother America: A Living Story of Democracy (Second ed. Greenwood. Westport, 1974).
For more on how the Truman Administration flushed Roosevelt’s post-colonial strategies in Asia down the toilet, see Billington, “Britain’s Cold War against FDR’s Grand Design: The East Asian Theater, 1943-63″, Executive Intelligence Review, Oct. 15, 1999.
Lastly, for insight into actual nature of the Anglo-American “Special Relationship” scrutinize Churchill’s famous “Iron Curtain” speech on Mar. 5, 1946 to Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri where he publicly announces that the U.S. must align with the British Empire (it is of special note that he emphasizes the Empire, over the nation of United Kingdom) against the Soviet Union and work toward establishing the United Nations as a kind-of supranational government. View Churchill’s words in the context of Henry Kissinger’s May 10, 1982 speech to the Royal Institute for International Affairs. Kissinger shamelessly confesses that he “kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than…the American State Department,” and that his allegiances lie with the historical outlook of imperialists like Churchill, rather than those of patriotic and “moralistic idealists” like Roosevelt and John Quincy Adams.
22. LaRouche has emphasized the fact that without the fixed-exchange rates and the long term, low-interest credit made available through the Bretton Woods system of finance, the reconstruction of post-war Europe would have been impossible.
23. On this matter, see LaRouche’s commentary on Perkins’ Confessions: “The Follies of the Economic Hit Men: Re-Animating the World’s Economy”, Executive Intelligence Review, Dec. 3 2004. Here, LaRouche corrects the common assumptions of Perkins and his ilk that modern imperialism is of a U.S., rather than a British, design.
24. “The Case of Baltimore: Deindustrialization Creates ‘Death Zones’”, Executive Intelligence Review, Jan. 6, 2006. Harley Schlanger and Nancy Spannaus, “California in the Lead: the Killings Have Already Begun”, Executive Intelligence Review, Jun. 27, 2009. Carl Osgood and Nancy Spannaus, “Glass-Steagall or Die: Budget Cuts are Dismantling America’s Cities and States”, Executive Intelligence Review, Feb. 18, 2011. And Jeffrey Steinberg, “From Maghreb to Madison: Global Mass Strike Wisconsin”, Executive Intelligence Review, Feb. 25, 2011.
Michael Moore’s documentary film, Roger and Me (Warner Brothers, 1989) is also a somewhat insightful (and humorous) chronicle on the effects of deindustrialization.
25. John Hoefle, “The End of the Line for the Anglo-Dutch System”, Executive Intelligence Review, Mar. 28, 2008. LaRouche, “First Deflation, Then: Soon, Hyperinflation” Executive Intelligence Review, May 1, 2009. “LaRouche: Obama Out to Kill Glass-Steagall, While Pushing Weimar Hyperinflation”, press release, LaRouchePAC.com, May 11, 2010.
26. “LaRouche Tells Russian Weekly: Four-Power Initiative Our ‘Last Chance’”, Russian news interview with LaRouche reprinted in Executive Intelligence Review, Nov. 6, 2009. See also: An address by LaRouche to a diplomatic luncheon meeting, “World Recovery Only Possible With Four-Power Agreement”, Executive Intelligence Review, Nov. 13, 2009, and LaRouche, “When Statisticians have Wished to Lie: The Lesson of the FCIC Report”, Executive Intelligence Review, Feb. 25, 2011.
“The World Population Plan of Action…will require vigorous efforts by interested countries, UN agencies and other international bodies to make it effective. U.S. leadership is essential… Assistance for population moderation should give primary emphasis to the largest and fastest-growing developing countries where there is special U.S. political and strategic interest. Those countries are: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia, and Colombia. Together, they account for 47% of the world’s current population growth…
“Moreover, short of draconian measures, there is no possibility that any LDC [Less Developed Country] can stabilize its population at less than double its present size. For many, stabilization will not be short of three times their present size…
“The important potential linkage between rapid population growth and mineral availability is indirect rather than direct… The real problems of mineral supplies lie, not in basic physical sufficiency, but in the politico-economic issues of access, terms for exploration and exploitation, and division of the benefits among producers, consumers, and host country governments.[P]opulation pressures [that] lead to endemic famine, food riots, and breakdown of social order…are scarcely conducive to systematic exploration for mineral deposits or the long-term investments required for their exploitation…
“Mandatory [population control] programs may be needed and we should be considering these possibilities now… Since population growth is a major determinant of increases in food demand [and the] allocation of scarce PL 480 resources…[USAID] should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production. In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion.” (All emphasis added.)
The full document is available at wlym.com/text/NSSM200.htm
28. Ehrlich and Meadows were among the most prominent of a group of purported economists and scientists to popularize the prediction that both man and nature were faced with a great catastrophe if human population were allowed to grow unchecked. Similar to the implicit racism in Kissinger’s policy, most of the areas of the world singled out for preventing increase in population were the underdeveloped countries of Asia, Ibero-America, and Africa.
Meadows co-authored (along with wife Donella Meadows, Jorgen Randers and William Behrens) the bible for the zero-growth, anti-technology movement—1972′s The Limits to Growth (Universe. New York.), which was the product of a study directed by the elitist Club of Rome.
More recently, Meadows gave a 2009 interview to the German magazine, Der Spiegel, where he said that the planet could only support its current human population if everyone accepted the living conditions of an Afghan tribesman (which he admitted would be economically impossible). He further added that 7 billion people were simply too many “at least if they are all to have an appropriate standard of living… If you want everyone to have the full potential of mobility, adequate food and self-development, then it is 1 or 2 billion.”
The Club of Rome, an NGO that has persistently pushed Malthusian economic policies, also produced something of a manifesto in 1992 called The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of Rome (Simon and Schuster. New York), in which authors Sir Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider wrote that “in designating [global warming, pollution, water shortages, and famine] as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” (Emphasis added.)
King, also the club’s co-founder, has also been quoted making racist and elitist remarks, such as saying that there is “not room enough for our little yellow, black and brown brothers,” and that his “chief quarrel with DDT [a pesticide that saved millions of lives by repelling disease-carrying mosquitoes---ed.]…is that it has greatly added to the population problem.”
As for Ehrlich—a man whose writings have been praised by former U.S Vice President Al Gore—one really would not be exaggerating in saying that the man desires for humanity to experience a mass genocide beyond Hitlerian proportions. In his 1968 book, The Population Bomb, Ehrlich wrote that a “cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people…. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.” (Emphasis added.)
Elsewhere in the book, Ehrlich predicted that India was poised for a major famine in the coming decades. He was proven wrong through the miracle of the Green Revolution. In fact, one of the leading geniuses that helped make the Green Revolution possible—the late agronomist Norman Borlaug—had harshly criticized elements of the environmental movement, since it was their well-funded campaigns, he said, that had a major influence in the reduction of private and state funds available for subsequent Green Revolution-type projects. Much of this was due to the fact that high-yield, scientifically-sophisticated agriculture was dubbed “unnatural” and not “indigenous” for poor people in Third World countries. These efforts by environmentalists have thus resulted in creating the preconditions for unnecessary and preventable famines. Famines, which, in turn, environmentalist groups can conveniently blame on “overpopulation”, rather than the true cause—technological apartheid.
One last point on Ehrlich: In his 1978 book, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, he (and his co-authors, Anne Ehrlich and John Holdren) recommends the creation of a supranational Planetary Regime to enforce the apparently “brutal and heartless measures” to maintain an optimum world population:
“If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.
“…[T]he United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into…a comprehensive Planetary Regime [that] could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources… The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from [Developed Countries] to [Less Developed Countries], and including all food on the international market. …
“The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world… Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.
“If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force… The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.” (All emphasis added.)
Wow. One of worst parts of all this is that Ehrlich and his ilk are considered as “experts” on population and demographics, rather than quacks in the extreme. LaRouche, No Limits to Growth. “Who Wants to Take Your Food Away? The Worldwide Fund for Nature”, Executive Intelligence Review, May 2, 2008. Marcia Merry Baker, “A Chronology of the Global Warming Swindle”, Executive Intelligence Review, Mar. 30, 2007. Salil Singh, “Norman Borlaug: A Billion Lives Saved”, AgBioWorld.org, 2005. For more on the Ehrlichs, see Scott Thompson, “Gore and the Ehrlichs: A Policy of Genocide”, Executive Intelligence Review, Apr. 18, 2008.
30. Most of this essay was already completed when the recent crisis began to hit Japan, which has been followed by a kind-of mass hysteria regarding the alleged dangers of radiation and nuclear fission power. Dealing with such a technology is indeed a very serious, and potentially dangerous business—and the Japanese seem to be doing as effective, and as valiant a job as possible in the face of their recent disaster—but these are not reason enough for other nations (including the Philippines) to abandon plans for nuclear power.
The Daiichi reactors at Fukushima are over three decades old, and the technology used in their design has long been superseded by newer, safer kinds of nuclear reactors. (There were no serious problems involving the comparatively newer types of reactors at Daini.) Furthermore, although the Japanese government took actions to evacuate residents living in the vicinity of the plants, this was purely done as a safety precaution. Theodore Rockwell of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering, Zbigniew Jaworowski of the U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, Philippine Science Secretary Mario Montejo, and others have all been clear that there is almost no danger of toxic levels of radiation being leaked from the struck nuclear plants.
But these facts have been largely ignored by environmentalist groups, such as Greenpeace and the WWF, who have implied that the Japanese government has been incompetent and untruthful in dealing with the crisis, and that being exposed to any level of radiation is unsafe. (Perhaps they would like to put an end to CT-scans and X-rays, as well.)
Although there are a few saner voices among environmental advocates, such as Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore and scientist James Lovelock, that recognize nuclear as safe, much of the public is still misinformed on this matter. For example, why are so many people seemingly unaware that spent nuclear fuel (e.g. “waste”) can be reprocessed and recycled, or even used for medical technologies?
The truth of the matter is that more deaths have occurred resulting from car or airplane accidents than the handful of accidents related to nuclear power plants. Would it not be insane to therefore advocate a ban on such machines because they are “too dangerous”? The only relevant issue, of course, is to make such technologies as safe as possible.
Those of us who live in more privileged conditions must face the reality that billions of people on this Earth lack access to a 2000 calorie/day diet, potable water, and electricity. Solving these problems, as well as creating a potential for civilization to bring an unprecedented age of scientific progress into existence, is not possible without nuclear fission (and, eventually fusion) power. All that is lacking are the political will and logistical planning to utilize such a potential.
Sec. Montejo and others are right to raise the issue of BNPP. It was a necessary action in order to quell some of the irrational fears about nuclear power and radiation forming among public opinion. The plant’s design, according to Montejo, makes it much more resilient to natural disasters than those at Fukushima. If policy makers have reservations about its activation because of doubts about the emergency response capabilities in the Philippines, then they should seek possible solutions for that problem—and there are workable solutions—but not compromise on the immediate urgency of the plant’s activation.
“This Robust Japanese Nuclear Power” by Zbigniew Jaworowski, LaRouchePAC.com, Mar. 15, 2011. “It’s Not About Radiation, It’s About Seawater” by Ted Rockwell, LaRouchePAC.com, Mar. 14, 2011. “Despite nuke crisis in Japan, science chief backs opening of BNPP”, by Helen Flores and Aurea Calica, Philippine Star, Mar. 17, 2011. “Risk of nuke fallout in Phl low” by Helen Flores, Philippine Star, Mar. 18, 2011. Marjorie Mazel Hecht, “The Myth of Nuclear ‘Waste’”, Executive Intelligence Review, February 13th, 2009. “There is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste” by Thomas Tucker, The Wall Street Journal, Mar. 13, 2009. Velasco, Trailblazing, Chapter 3: “The Tragedy of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant”.
31. For example, the energy potential contained in one tiny uranium fuel pellet (if it is fully reprocessed) is equivalent to that of 30 barrels of oil (1,260 gallons). The so-called “green” sources of electricity generation of solar and wind produce quantitatively less power in comparison to both nuclear and fossil fuels, and are physically and financially expensive to construct and maintain. Furthermore, since producing electricity from both the sun and the wind is contingent upon unpredictable natural conditions, fossil fuel-powered backup generators have to be available to pick up the extra slack. Lawrence Hecht, “The Astounding High Cost of ‘Free’ Energy”, and Gregory Murphy, “The Non-Science of Wind Energy”, both from Executive Intelligence Review, Feb. 13, 2009.
32. Yuri Izrael, a vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences wrote in a 2007 op-ed that “the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate…[and] no need to dramatize the anthropogenic impact, because the climate has always been subject to change under Nature’s influence.” (“Vice Chair of IPCC Breaks Global Warming Consensus” LaRouchePAC.com, Apr. 19, 2007)
See also: Documentary film: The Great Global Warming Swindle, dir. by Martin Durkin (Wag TV, 2007), “EPA’s Carlin on Global Warming: ‘This Whole Hoax, from A to Z, Makes No Sense’”, an interview with Dr. Alan Carlin of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducted by Michelle Lerner, Executive Intelligence Review, Jan. 8, 2010, Dr. Robert E. Stevenson, “An Oceanographer Looks at the Non-Science of Global Warming”, 21st Century Science and Technology, Winter 1996-’97, and M.M. Hecht, “Where the Global Warming Hoax was Born”, 21st Century Science and Technology, Fall 2007. (Most 21st Century articles can be accessed at 21stcenturysciencetech.com)
33. During the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change in late 2009, the issue of a nation’s sovereign right to develop became a central focus for representatives of the developing countries—especially India and China—and was a major factor for the failure of the conference. It is no coincidence that these two most populous nations in the world have both also been making recent progress in the modernization of their economies. However, both nations also still have large numbers of their people—numbers in the hundreds of millions—who are desperately poor. Large-scale industrialization thus becomes necessary to provide the economic means to support that population. Inefficient sources of generating power such as wind and solar energy will never accomplish this. As the most efficient source, nuclear becomes the most obvious and best solution and can begin to gradually replace the usage of fossil fuels—and both China and India are making plans to expand their usage of nuclear power. Meanwhile Western nations are Quixotically opting for wind and solar, rather than nuclear. “India and China Reiterate: Development Is the Core of Climate Talks”, LaRouchePAC.com, Dec. 22, 2009. Marsha Freeman, “Nuclear Power in Asia is a Matter of Survival”, Executive Intelligence Review, Dec. 24, 2010.
34. The WWF is quite probably the most established and well-funded of the environmental NGOs. Financed by the ultra-elite 1001 Club—a group mostly made up of members of the European nobility—the international WWF plays a key role in maintaining today’s British Empire.
For example, in the 1990s, the WWF and its president, Prince Bernhard, were implicated in deploying mercenaries associated with the British Crown’s private military unit, the Special Air Services (SAS) in what was called “Operation Lock” to southern Africa. South African and Zimbawean intelligence reports fingered Operation Lock as the “Third Force” responsible for clandestinely orchestrating tribal massacres in a plot to destabilize the entire region.
Further, in several nations of post-colonial sub-Saharan Africa, the WWF has continued the role of the imperialist Society for the Preservation of Fauna in the Empire in its administration of vast areas of territory designated as national parks. These areas are largely outside the control of the governments of their respective nations. Additionally, they have served as safe havens and training grounds for insurgency groups that act to destabilize these former colonies—preventing any effort for the formation of sovereign nation-states. In some cases, WWF-paid park rangers carry out massacres on those they may arbitrarily designate as “poachers”, and are immune from any criminal prosecution.
Roger Moore, “New Dowling Expose Hits Prince Philip’s WWF”, Executive Intelligence Review Mar. 6, 1998. Linda de Hoyos, “World Wildlife Fund’s Genocide in Africa”, and Joe Brewda, “Why London Created Africa’s Game Parks”, both reprinted in Executive Intelligence Review Nov. 7, 2008.
36. Eugenics, which was an extremely popular movement in the mid-to-late 19th and early 20th centuries, applies the Malthusian-Darwinian ideas of limited resources and “survival of the fittest” to human society and breeding, and was first used to further justify British Imperial domination and Anglo-Saxon racial supremacy. Eugenicists often claim that keeping the populations of the poor, and the racially and physically “unfit” from becoming prolific is necessary for the benefit of the long-term survival of their perverted version of the human race. The name “eugenics” was coined by Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, and prominent eugenic enthusiasts have included: Major Leonard Darwin (son of Charles), Sir Cecil Rhodes (the disgusting racist who founded of the Rhodes Scholarship), intellectual Lord Bertrand Russell, author H.G. Wells, playwright George Bernard Shaw, U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, philanthropist John D. Rockefeller III, British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill, economist Lord John Maynard Keynes, and many, many other persons of influence. (There is also an hilarious irony in the fact that eugenics claims racial superiority for, and was created and propagandized by, a nest of European oligarchs who are exemplary of some of the most inbred people on the planet!)
Eugenic ideas were later exported to other parts of Europe (especially Germany), the United States, and even Imperial Japan. The methods employed to achieve this master race have included the widespread dissemination of birth control and sterilization methods, euthanasia, and the coercion of women deemed to be pregnant with children “pollutive to the human gene pool” to undergo abortion. In the case of Nazi Germany, eugenics was used as a justification in the extermination of those considered “inferior”.
To avoid having the eugenic movement’s goals associated with those of Nazism, many of the prominent kooks who espoused eugenics before the war turned their attention toward advocating population control and “conservation”, so they could operate under a more “politically correct” context. Besides many of the groups of the environmentalist movement, organizations that are rooted in eugenics or founded by eugenicists include the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the Hastings Center for Bioethics, the Population Council (which publishes The Population and Development Review, which is accepted in the academic community as authoritative on topics related to demographics and economics), and others. Eugenicist Henry Fairfield Osborn, vice president of the Population Council, wrote in 1968 that “eugenic goals are most likely to be achieved under another name than eugenics.”
The eugenics movement is also responsible for directly organizing, heavily funding, or otherwise influencing a number of U.N. and other international agencies that propagandize “sustainable development” and “reproductive health”. These bodies include the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), and the related International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP), and others. In fact, it was UNEP, the WWF, and the International Union for Conserving Nature (IUCN) which coined the term “sustainable development” in a joint document called “The World Conservation Strategy”. This poisonous and discredited concept of sustainability is present even in the Philippine Population Commission’s Management Program (PPMP), which states that one of its goals is to “achieve a favorable balance between population distribution, economic activities, and the environment/integration of population and development planning.”
Chase, The Legacy of Malthus. “An Introduction to Eugenics,” American Bioethics Advisory Commission (1999, www.all.org/abac). Documentary film: Maafa 21: Black Genocide in 21st Century America, dir. by Mark Crutcher (Life Dynamics, 2009). Helga Zepp-LaRouche, “The Historical Roots of Green Fascism”, Executive Intelligence Review, Apr. 20, 2007. Rob Ainsworth, “The New Environmentalist Eugenics: Al Gore’s Green Genocide” and Baker, “A Chronology of the Global Warming Swindle”, both in Executive Intelligence Review, Mar. 30, 2007.
37. Huxley was a former vice president of the British Eugenics Society, and, in 1946, declared that “even though it is quite true that radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, for which Huxley was director-general---ed.] to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”
At the outbreak of World War II, Bernhard was required, due to royal exigencies, to relinquish his membership to the Nazi SS. However, this did not stop him from enthusiastically signing his letter of resignation, “Heil Hitler!”
As for Philip, he has publicly stated his wish to be reincarnated as a deadly virus to check “overpopulation” and that “conservation may involve culling in order to keep a balance between the relative numbers in each species within any particular habitat. I realize this is a very touchy subject, but the fact remains that mankind is part of the living world…”
Ainsworth, “The New Environmentalist Eugenics”. Baker, “A Chronology”.
38. For more on DDT, see The Excellent Powder: DDT’s Political and Scientific History by Donald Roberts, Richard Tren, et.al. (Dog Ear. Indianapolis, 2010.) Excerpts can be found in 21st Century Science and Technology, Spring, 2010. And J. Gordon Edwards and Steven Milloy, “100 Things You Should Know About DDT”, JunkScience.com, 1999.
Further, the website JunkScience.com also keeps a “malaria clock” (http://junksciencearchive.com/malaria_clock.html) which keeps track of all those who died since the DDT ban in the U.S. (which later influenced the World Health Organization’s decision to initially ban it, as well). Their data is based on Joel G. Breman, Andréa Egan, and Gerald T. Keusch, “The Intolerable Burden of Malaria: A New Look at the Numbers”, The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, Jan., 2001.
“[These] damn national sectors of these developing countries…think that they have the right to develop their resources as they see fit. They want to become powers, sovereign states… We thought that we could control things better by reasoning with these leaders, these nationalist fools. We have overestimated our ability to control the people and are going to have to adjust… [T]he real problem is this stupid nationalism and the plans for development it leads to… [W]e must have some control over the planning ministries in these countries, especially the big countries. The debt crisis is very convenient. It is dangerous, but it is also an opportunity. It is going to force retrenchment, and some difficult decisions. It may be possible to break some national-sector combines…” —Thomas Lovejoy. former president, WWF-USA (All emphasis added.)
“The Third World is overpopulated, it’s an economic mess, and there is no way they could get out of it with this fast-growing population. Our philosophy is: Back to the village… WWF/IUCN is part of a worldwide intervention: The idea is that of a supranational intervention into the policies of nation-states… The World Bank works with us, it listens to us… Until 10 years ago, perhaps, the World Bank was a brutal developer in the Third World. But they came to realize better… Take the question of hydro-electrical power in Zambia; the question now is not where it will be, but whether it will be… I support a new world economic order where there will be a sacrifice in the advanced sector, austerity, tighter belts, and a changed degree of awareness.” —Dr. Arne Schiotz. Director of Conservation, WWF (All emphasis added.)
“All development aid should be made dependent on the existence of strong family planning programs in the countries concerned… The problem with [the UN Food and Agricultural Organization] is that it is only concerned with food production. This is counter-productive concerning the population, since it increases the ultimate size of the human population.” —Sir Peter Scott. Chairman, WWF-UK (All emphasis added.)
I would like to propose that those who share their views of Lovejoy, Schiotz, and Scott lead by example and give up their current lifestyles in favor of abandoning all the conveniences made possible by modern technology, and move to a mud hut in a malaria-carrying mosquito-infested region of sub-Saharan Africa for the rest of their lives.
Quotes lifted from “Who Wants to Take Your Food Away? The Worldwide Fund for Nature”, Executive Intelligence Review, May 2, 2008.
“Regarding these [occupied] zones, we must conduct a deliberate policy of negative population growth. Through propaganda measures, especially by means of the press, radio, cinema, handbills, short brochures, educational statements, and the like, the population must be convinced over and over again how harmful it is to have a lot of children. The costs ought to be cited, and then what could have been bought instead. The great dangers to women’s health that can arise in childbearing could be spelled out, and so forth. Along with this propaganda, large-scale propaganda must be issued for contraceptives. Neither advocacy and dissemination of contraceptives, nor abortion, should be illegal. The establishment of abortion facilities should be positively promoted. Midwives and assistant medical officers, for instance, can be trained as abortionists…. It is obvious that by systematic application of the above measures, considerable success can be achieved in weakening the racial substance of the Russian people…
“Our goal in implementing these measures is only to weaken the Russian race to the extent that it can no longer overrun us with its huge numbers of men. When we have converted the mass of the Russian people to belief in the one- or two-child system, we shall have arrived at the goal we stipulated.” (English translation done by Gabriele Liebig, and selected from the “Generalplan Ost” for the German-occupied Eastern Territories.)
Readers will hopefully forgive me for presenting the quote in such a selective way, but my intention was to keep both the author and the explicit intention as ambiguous as possible.
It is also of note that Nazi policies also featured a heavy emphasis on “conservationism” and restoring Germany’s “native beauty”.
41. The idea that population growth will be significantly reduced simply through abstinence, the dissemination of contraceptives, or non-compulsory sterilization is not only immoral and demographically suicidal, but also unrealistic and fanciful. It is, of course, much more efficient to reduce population by increasing the death rate (e.g. genocide—whether through direct means of violence, or the deliberate withholding of life-improving technologies) rather than decreasing the birth rate.
In the case of Nazi Germany, austerity measures were imposed through a dictatorship following the collapse of the Weimar Republic. Let us put the overt racist elements of Hitler’s regime to one side for now and focus on fascism as an economic system. As economic conditions for the common populace worsen, practices such as abortion and the rationing of medical care may become “necessary evils”. This may even dovetail into acceptance for post-natal infanticide or euthanasia as society will no longer be able to support a surplus population of infants, elderly, or chronically ill. And lastly come the horrors of systemized enslavement and/or extermination of those designated as “undesirable” or “burdensome”.
See Zepp-LaRouche, “Green Fascism”.
43. “Sterilization of Women in Brazil”, an English-language summary of an article appearing in the Portuguese-language Servico Brasileiro de Justica e Paz, Nov. 17, 1994. Andre Caetano and Joseph Potter, “Politics and Female Sterilization in Northeast Brazil”, Population and Development Review, Mar. 2004.
44. Deliberate policies that are designed to keep the masses of people as backward serfs have been perpetrated for the benefit of ruling oligarchies for millennia. It is naive and incompetent to believe that such an ancient and entrenched institution would automatically cease to exist, since ideas about the inalienable rights of man have led to the proliferation of modern republican nation-states. Political and other ideologies long outlive those who first conceive them. Thus, the opposition to the development of a true sense of human dignity has not yet been eradicated in our modern day—its adherents have only become more sophisticated in their methods. The issue, then, is not whether global conspiracies exist or not, but a matter of how such conspiracies operate. For example, eugenics and fascism were not local and spontaneous phenomena; they were deliberately organized, international movements. International political conspiracies have even existed for noble purposes among those who were the architects of modern republicanism—like Benjamin Franklin’s followers, for example. What we must be cautious of, however, is the typical idea of such conspiracies being described like that of a comic book storyline where some ultra-secret society out there in the shadows is actually running the world—and will therefore always run it. Besides its childish simplicity, this view also creates a sense of hopelessness in individuals who would otherwise be inclined to act to change current history.