Far Too Many Of Us

Some people seem to really hate human life. They think there are far too many of us, and the world would be a much better place without us. They see us as a pestilence upon the face of the earth, gouging it and stealing from it and polluting it. And usually they’re the same people that see epidemics of everything – tobacco, obesity, etc. – everywhere. I came across this today:

In 1993 the Club [of Rome]’s co-founder, Alexander King with Bertrand Schneider wrote The First Global Revolution stating,

“The common enemy of humanity is man. 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. 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.”

Every few million years there seems to be a mass extinction event, and maybe it’s because sooner or later living things get filled with self-loathing and remorse – and that’s how the dinosaurs died out:

One day the chief dinosaur gathered his fellow dinosaurs around him, and began to speak. “I’ve been thinking a lot about this recently, and I feel I must speak up. There are simply far too many of us. I counted over 30 just yesterday. And all I seem to do the whole time is just kill and eat other animals, and leave droppings everywhere. It’s an utterly vile, murderous way to behave. It’s just plain selfish and inconsiderate. And I don’t want to do it any more. And I recommend that we all stop doing it. Because, quite frankly, the world would be a much better place without us all. Before we came along, it was a peaceful paradise, with lots of green grass and animals quietly grazing there.”

And the other hunting dinosaurs all hung their heads, and sighed in sad agreement.

And then one of the big grazing dinosaurs with very long necks spoke up. “I’m sure sick of you guys killing and eating us, and I’m glad you can now see the error of your ways. But I have to say that I’m really not much better myself. Because I spend all day everyday pulling leaves off trees, and leaving even bigger piles of droppings than you do. This place used to be a majestic forest before we came along and chewed our way through it. But now, as you can see, it’s all just rolling grasslands with rivers meandering through it, and the only trees you’ll ever find are on the kind of steep mountain sides that I can’t climb up. So I think we should just leave all the green plants and trees grow, and stop stealing their leaves.”

And all the dinosaurs nodded their heads and wept.

And then one the oldest trees said, “Well, I’ll sure be glad to see the back of you lot. It’ll be good to grow a few leaves without them being torn off. But really, you know, before all of us plants came along, this place was gently rolling sand and clay, with little rivulets of water running down between the dunes. It was red and purple and blue and gold, pretty as a picture. And then we came along and more or less completely covered it with what’s really just green slime. We totally spoiled that beautiful barren wilderness. And I think we should stop doing it, and leave the natural world unspoiled.”

And all the trees hung their leaves in shame.

And then the river said, “Well, I’ll be glad to see the back of you plants, sucking all my water away. I used to be a big strong river with powerful rapids, and now I’m just a meandering creek. But to tell the truth, before us rivers came along, this place was covered in spectacular mountains, that shone like gold and silver in the sun. They had summits with glittering diamond spires. And we just eroded it all away, ground it all down into sand and dust. It was sheer vandalism on our part. You can hardly find a decent mountain anywhere these days.”

And the river gurgled its regret.

And finally the mountains spoke up and said, “Long before the rivers and plants and animals appeared, this place was a beautiful sea of molten lava, traced with swirling rivulets of gold and green and red. Then we started landing on it, and now it’s all buried miles below us, completely crushed, stomped out of existence. And that’s our fault. We totally spoiled everything. Totally. “

And the mountains trembled with sorrow.

And so the dinosaurs agreed to stop eating each other, and stop eating plants. And the plants stopped sucking water out of the rivers. And all the plants and animals died out. And the rivers stopped flowing, and gradually evaporated away. And the mountains slumped slowly down into the earth. And it again became a flat sea of lava, with rivulets of red and green and gold trickling all over it.

But a lone eagle out hunting had not heard any of this discussion. It had been blown far out to sea by strong winds. And it had captured a mouse by its tail. And the mouse was holding a sprig of parsley between its teeth, and the leaves of parsley were filled with tiny droplets of water, and in the droplets of water there were tiny grains of sand.

And when the eagle finally managed to struggle back to the land, it found that it had all vanished under a sea of lava, apart from one lone outcrop of solid rock. And when it landed on the rock, exhausted, it let go of the mouse. And the exhausted mouse let go of the sprig of parsley. And the parsley let fall its cargo of water. And the water let drop the sand inside it.

And then the sand and the water and the parsley and the mice and eagles began to slowly multiply. And gradually they spread out around until, after about 100 million years, they’d covered the whole earth with a green mantle of parsley with traceries of rivers flowing gently down rolling valleys, with mice nibbling at the parsley, and eagles hunting the mice.

And then one of the turkeys (because some eagles had become turkeys by this time), said, “Y’know, I’ve been thinking a lot about this recently, and I feel I must speak up. There are simply far too many of us. I counted over 30 just yesterday….”

About these ads

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Far Too Many Of Us

  1. wobbler2012 says:

    Ironically, one of the royal parasites, Prince Phillip, a man with wealth beyond almost everyone’s dreams with massive properties taking up far too much space is also a eugenicist, saying back in August 1988 to Deutsche Press Agentur “in the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”

    These bastards are absolutely everywhere.

    • Even more worrying is something Prince Charles said in 2010. Via ‘Cranmer’ from 2010:

      Prince Charles has disclosed not only that he wishes to be known as King George VII when he accedes to the Throne, but also that he wants to be Defender of Nature.

      I also covered Philip’s desire in this post at the time: Is Prince Charles a eugenicist? Are you without realising? along with the Georgia Guidestones and the eugenics behind “family planning” and fears for the future.

      When UN Agenda 21 gets into full flow and every country (not just Wales) embraces it (although a few US states have officially banned it; until they are ordered to comply from DC, presumably), it will become even more spectacular than fooling people into having 1.4 children (remember it used to be 2.4 children?). Just the other day a Tory minister called for family allowance (or whatever it’s called these days) to be restricted to the first two children. And she has a Muslim-sounding name. Strange considering that the immigrants are the only ones preventing us from going the same way as Japan (predicted to lose a quarter of their population in a few decades, as so few children are being born).

      For many centuries, an insular country, they’ll need so many immigrants to do the work (seeing as they’ve never managed to make a domestic robot that doesn’t bump into everything and break things) for the aging population that Japan will totally lose its culture, just as is happening in the West and I guess that’s part of the “beauty” of family planning and modern sex “education” to reduce the young population to manufacture the need for immigrants to dilute the culture and make global governance, Agenda 21 and eventual mass culling more “acceptable” like the culling of the unborn or the sacrificing of our armed forces in wars which have nothing to do with us or increasingly, the way our old folk are “treated” in hospitals.

      And now, thanks to the eugenicists, Bill and Melinda Gates (worth tens of $billions, but still in receipt of British taxpayers’ money to help finance the “project”) they are bringing the same eugenics to Africa. Saves the transnational corporations from giving them a fair price for their vast natural resources so they can feed themselves and decide how to live.

    • Night-Gaunt says:

      You do know that it is the rich that are taking too many of the resources, not the poor. However the poor will bear the brunt unfairly of that taking. However if starvation is your game them keep on dropping them out and waste everything you used. Only the poorest will suffer first. But you or your children will later.

      Too many people mean fewer resources to go around. Low pay for work since the squeaky wheel easily gets replaced. Not a smart idea in fact it is animal dumb.

      We need to spread the resources equally to all 7 billiion then you will sing a different tune, but not before. Too many is as dangerous as too few and too many can lead to too few.

  2. Tom says:

    Nicely written story. Maybe they should make it required reading for kids in school, something for them to think about and discuss, although it does go against the-one-party line these days, so probably, reading it would be verbotten.

    In today’s DM, they put a story, saying radiation in SF on the beachfront is 5x above normal. It is also showing up south of SF in San Mateo County as 5x normal too. Furthermore, “an investigation is being launched”.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2535074/Radiation-readings-Missouri-snow-DOUBLE-normal-levels-San-Francisco-beach-FIVE-TIMES-safe-levels.html

    Soooo, I bet when the investigation is done and over with, since outdoor smoking, including on the beaches, is verbotten, in SF, carries enormous fines for the crime of it, then they’ll ignore the radiation, any possibility of Fukushima causing it and instead, “blame the smokers” – as they usually do.

    Probably. They will. Maybe Glantz can lead the investigation this time and blame it all on SHS, suggest more bans.

  3. harleyrider1978 says:

    They wont be happy until the culminate everything into another world war! I believe that’s what the UN and its treaties is all about CREATING WARS………………Each country and its people should be free to decide there own destiny not forced to by the will of a world dictator at the helm of the UN!

    • Night-Gaunt says:

      Don’t fret, the UN is at best a paper tiger and at worse just a shield for the countries and corporations that really run things. War profiteering is going well with the USA and its megacorps in the lead in that making money. from war and killing.

  4. Walt says:

    On occasion, I’m jealous of your mind, Frank. That was just brilliant. And I see it, As Is (but illustrated– ah! weeping dinosaurs, rueful rivers) as an actual children’s story. Even bet you could get it published by a counter-culture press. Not kidding, either

    On other fronts, report on the news tonight that the gov’t has discovered that Americans drink too much and since, when surveyed, the lushes (more than 4 drinks a night) said their doctors had never admonished them about it, the government now puts the blame on…the doctors.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Thanks. Not a standard piece of work of mine. I was nearly fast asleep when I wrote it. I was lying dozing, and slowly moving the bits of the story around in my mind. Finally, I got up and sat straight down at the computer and wrote the whole thing in about 30 minutes, because I knew that if I didn’t I’d forget it the way I usually forget dreams.

  5. margo says:

    Well – human population = 7 billion and rising fast (more than doubled in my lifetime)
    wild tigers left = around 3,000 and falling fast (over 90% loss this century). Does that seem OK to you?
    Never mind. If we humans go on the way we are (and we will), we’ll solve it all in another few generations. Pity we’ll take everything else down with us.

  6. beobrigitte says:

    Some people seem to really hate human life. They think there are far too many of us, and the world would be a much better place without us.

    Haven’t we all been vaccinated to believe that our ever increasing number is a “threat” to the well-being of this planet? We need to do this, that and the other to prevent our demise! Most of all, we MUST save lives by conjuring up health threats that scare the population into some sort of action!!!

    Watching the news this morning I learned that although the chiiiiiildren nowadays live really happy lives, thousands of them self-harm and suicide is on the increase.

    Is it that the youngsters nowadays respond to this message ‘the planet is overpopulated’ with some kind of self-hatred? Or are they just too protected and primed to be herded sheep, unable to deal with ‘cr*p days’? And, aren’t they only allowed to think politically correct thoughts?

    How on earth is this self-harming, suicidal, anti-depressants swallowing generation to become to next productive work force when their parents are too preoccupied with “living-many-years-longer”, “saving-the-planet”, “mobbing-your-way-up-the-ladder” and so on?
    Perhaps this “overpopulation-problem” will solve itself by the production of a couple of life-incapable generations.

  7. Rose says:

    Ha Ha Ha
    Serve them right for being polite to the healthists.

    Minimum Alcohol Pricing – Anti-Alcohol Strikes Back.

    Were ministers under the influence of drinks industry?
    “In a letter in Wednesday’s Telegraph, 22 health experts accuse the Government of “deplorable practices” in allowing policy to be swayed by the interests of big business at the expense of the nation’s well-being.”

    “Medical experts, led by Sir Ian Gilmore, special advisor on alcohol at the Royal College of Physicians write: “Today the public learns of the deplorable practices that were instrumental in the government’s decision to reverse its commitment to save thousands of lives through implementing a minimum unit price for alcohol”

    “This new information serves to furl fears that big business is trumping public health concerns in Westminster, with private profits put before policies designed to protect the nation’s most vulnerable groups.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10557347/Were-ministers-under-the-influence-of-drinks-industry.html

    Government ‘buried’ release of key evidence on minimum alcohol price before policy U-turn

    “The Government “buried” key evidence in the run-up to a major U-turn on minimum pricing for alcohol, it has emerged, amid accusations from doctors that pressure from the alcohol industry was “instrumental” in blocking the policy.”

    “The revelation came as some of the country’s most senior doctors condemned the “high-level access to government ministers” afforded to the alcohol industry.”
    http: //www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/government-buried-release-of-key-evidence-on-minimum-alcohol-price-before-policy-uturn-9045158.html

    Brainwashing in the Anti-Smoking Movement: #1 – Smearing the Opposition

    “If you take part in secondhand smoke policy training in the tobacco control movement, chances are that you will be taught that all opposition to smoking bans is orchestrated by the tobacco industry, that anyone who challenges the science connecting secondhand smoke exposure and severe health effects is a paid lackey of Big Tobacco, and that any group which disseminates information challenging these health effects is a tobacco industry front group. Consequently, the a chief strategy of tobacco control is to smear the opposition by accusing them of being tobacco industry moles. And in no situation should one say anything positive about an opponent, even if true.”

    http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2007/04/in-my-view-brainwashing-in-anti-smoking.html

    You would have thought that the government would have learnt by now, that where the healthists are concerned, NO ONE is allowed to weigh the evidence and come to their own conclusions.

    • Rose says:

      “A Department of Health spokesman said: “Minimum unit pricing is still under consideration. As you would expect from a government department seeking to effect public health change through a voluntary deal with industry, a wide group of officials have many different meetings with a vast range of stakeholders, and we utterly reject the allegation of anything untoward in the small proportion of those that took place with the alcohol industry.

      “This Government is determined to tackle alcohol abuse in any way we can and minimum unit pricing is still under consideration. But to insinuate routine meetings between departmental officials and industry representatives amounted to an improper relationship with the drinks industry is ludicrous and completely unfounded.”

      Weak, very weak, mildly protesting their innocence will cut no ice with the healthist juggernaut.

      • beobrigitte says:

        Weak, very weak, mildly protesting their innocence will cut no ice with the healthist juggernaut.
        Indeed, it will not. Only the imprint of a governmental boot on their back sides will.

        This Government is determined to tackle alcohol abuse in any way we can
        No government ever has succeeded in ‘eliminating’ alcohol abuse. There always have and always will be drunkards. The majority of people does not belong in this ‘category’.

        Sure, the youngsters (and some not-quite-youngsters) somehow no longer are satisfied with drinking to the point of holding on to the door frame, waiting for the bed to come round again to let themselves fall into it – only to vow next morning “NEVER to do this again!!!”
        The hardened ‘coma drinkers’ stop when they are no longer conscious and fall asleep where they happen to fall over.
        I often wonder if these ‘coma drinkers’ ever get out of competition mode. Somehow it seems they have something to prove to themselves and others.

        and minimum unit pricing is still under consideration.
        Hmmmmmm, since it is very easy to homebrew, the government will miss out on income.
        Also, the alcohol content of home made concoctions may vary greatly and there will be a black market. You buy at your own risk, of course. Furthermore, blind people do not find it easy to get work that promises a career ladder.

        Healthism is an ideology that takes the glue away that keeps a society together and balanced. A fragmented society cannot function properly, let alone be productive.

  8. harleyrider1978 says:

    Leave smokers alone

    The real tragedy here is smokers that have been beaten down for the sole reason of being smokers, thanks to a top-down campaign to cast them aside for the crime of enjoying something some people object to

    by Richard White on 8 January 2014 06:54

    When George Godber spoke at the 3rd World Conference on Smoking and Health in 1975, he gave his vision of the future: “our target must be, in the long-term, the elimination of cigarette smoking…”, he said.

    “We may not have eliminated cigarette smoking completely by the end of this century, but we ought to have reached a position where a relatively few addicts still use cigarettes, but only in private at most in the company of consenting adults… The practice ought to be an enclosed one, not to be endured by the non-smoker in ordinary social intercourse; and no one should be allowed to use advertisement or any indirect means to suggest otherwise.”

    In 1975, the general public would have scoffed at such a notion, but it was the apparent threat of secondhand smoke to non-smokers that gave anti-smokers the golden key to legislation restricting smoking from any indoor area.

    It didn’t matter that the 1992 EPA report first demonstrating harm only managed to do so by cherry-picking studies and lowering the confidence interval – and even then, finding that for every 40,000 worker-years of exposure to omnipresent smoke as in the 1960s, there would be approximately one extra instance of lung cancer – nor that only 15 percent of the studies done on secondhand smoke and lung cancer managed to find any scientifically significant result at all – and even then the results were less “deadly” than wearing a bra.

    With the 2007 blanket smoking ban in the UK, anti-smokers have become ever bolder – pushing for smoking bans in cars, hospital grounds, care homes, even talking about private homes.

    All of this is based on the harm posed from passive smoking, despite the statistically insignificant relative risk only existing for those living or working with smokers for hours on end, day after day, for decades.

    The mantra that secondhand smoke kills thousands a year has continued even though the large prospective studies show otherwise – Enstrom and Kabat found no risk, the WHO found no risk, and now, a new study examined in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute has found no risk, despite the researchers expecting to find one.

    Within the study article, though, comes the admission of its roots in Godber’s 1975 comments – Jyoti Patel, MD, explained that there is only a borderline risk of lung cancer from secondhand smoke, but that “[t]he strongest reason to avoid passive cigarette smoke is to change societal behavior: to not live in a society where smoking is a norm”.

    And therein lies a chilling message: puritans, with the full backing of the medical establishment, will fabricate health risks to make sure we aren’t doing what they don’t think we should be doing – regardless of the consequences for families and businesses.

    It was a given that smoking bans would not pass on that basis, though – health needed to be put at risk to get people to listen. The fabrication is based on distorting science and using weak study models that produce biased results.

    http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4578/leave_smokers_alone

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

    More of the story at the link

  10. Warning. Part of this posting may ‘creep you out a bit':

    You know I don’t believe in evolution theory, but it’s a fine fairytale, nicely written. Yours, I mean. The “Theory” is just daft. I have a bit of a mouse problem at home (just caught number nine this morning in one of my homemade traps) and one of the dogs has caught three, none of which survived, obviously. One mouse was so terrified at the instant of death that all its fur was stood on end – even two hours later before binning it – creeped me out a bit.

    So, my eight other mice have been living together in a “Paper Only” recycling box measuring 15 x 8 1/2 inches at the bottom, some for a few weeks. I counted them all in and I counted them all again the other day and none has been killed and eaten. Maybe #9 will be the tipping point. But on this basis, the population of the Earth could support around 70,000 billion people, i.e. 10,000 times its current population. Make the buildings four stories high and there’s plenty of space for agriculture and industry.

    @beobrigitte – The young have been raised on the overpopulation myth so that they accept Agenda 21

    • (Somehow that posted without being finished)

      …so that they accept Agenda 21 and all the culling which will occur to ‘save the planet’.

      I was going to add that we don’t all want to live whisker-to-whisker like my mice here, but it hopefully demonstrates that overpopulation is a myth. 70 million people on earth would still not conceivably be a problem. Even in the UK, less than 2% is built on, including roads (according to the BBC) and we are one of the more densely populated countries.

      • beobrigitte says:

        @beobrigitte – The young have been raised on the overpopulation myth so that they accept Agenda 21…

        Something else that the young have to fear.

        I personally do not believe in overpopulation simply for the fact that it is just too easy to produce conditions in which the death rate in any given society will exceed the birth rate. We must not forget that humans reproduce at a very low rate.

        Our society does face a few newly found problems, though.
        We have an ever increasing number of OLD people, an ever increasing number of ‘early-old’ people affected by Alzheimers disease, a baby-boomer generation getting ready to claim their (deserved!) pension, a generation in their 40s that believes they need to spend a lot of time at their GPs to be told that they “NEEED” to take e.g. statins, a generation in their 30s which is hooked on health fears with e.g.sleep monitors apps installed on their smart phones, youngsters in their 20s that either challenge all of the above by doing crazy things or prematurely join the age groups in their 30s and 40s being obsessed with health, and finally the below 20s that either hate themselves for existing or have never been taught to think their own thoughts.

        Once my mobility is gone, every year added to my life will be PUNISHMENT. And if I am miserable I ensure everyone around me is.

  11. jaxthefirst says:

    It may be an unpopular view on here, but I do tend to think that there are probably rather too many of us humans on here, or at least we’re getting to the point where there will be too many in the next few decades. True, it might in theory be possible for the world to support a few more billion people, but given that the world and its resources are run, by and large, by a bunch or morons who couldn’t organise a p*ss up in a brewery (and that that situation doesn’t look likely to change in the very near future), I don’t think that in practice that would be a very nice world for anyone to live in.

    Where I differ from the eugenicists and the Agenda 21 folks is that I don’t think that radical human culls or artificial “selective breeding/living” programmes are necessary to avert the possibility of an over-crowded world. Neither do I think that heavy-handed, Chinese-style one-child-per-family legislation is necessary, either. All that’s needed is a bit more common-sense rather than idealistic, emotionally-driven twaddle from politicians and leaders, and a bit more social consideration from parents (or would-be parents) themselves.

    Is it really such an awful prospect for parents in general to have slightly smaller families than they might otherwise have? Is it honestly so dreadful to have a family of two children instead of three, four or more? Is it really necessary for all those archaic religions (and, indeed, some of the more intellectually-challenged sectors of society) to look with wry admiration on men who father dozens of children and with dewy-eyed sentimentalism on women who give birth to similar numbers? Is it really that difficult to look with the same admiration on parents who voluntarily limit the number of children that they decide to have, in order to play their part in making sure that the world those children are born into is as pleasant a place as possible for them to live in?

    The constant parading of parenting in Western society as the ultimate pedestal of accomplishment for everyone on the planet – pedalled enthusiastically by organisations like MumsNet and other vested-interest groups – which for many people (even for many parents, if they are honest) it quite clearly is not, and the constant exhortation in non-Western societies that parenthood in extremis is nothing short of an absolute obligation, have much to answer for in ensuring that, even if we haven’t yet reached saturation point in terms of numbers, then we are certainly well on the way towards it. Of course we need families, and of course we need children. We just need to be sensible about how many of them we produce.

    • beobrigitte says:

      It may be an unpopular view on here, but I do tend to think that there are probably rather too many of us humans on here

      Jax, there will never be more of us than the planet can support. And, it’s much easier for us to kill off more than we can reproduce. We are dong it already by fragmenting stable societies with health fears and ideology driven interventions.

  12. woohoo02 says:

    Quite a good read here by Dave McGowan,with a chapter on Eugenics, here is a preview – http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/fwordpreview.htm
    Chapter 29 is the one on Eugenics, but it is all quite interesting!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Genomes and Eugenics

      Anyone who interprets National Socialism merely as a political movement knows almost nothing about it. It is more than religion; it is the determination to create a new man.
      Adolf Hitler

      On June 26th of 2000, the successful completion of the mapping of the human genome was triumphantly announced. The media were nearly universal in heaping praise on this alleged scientific milestone. This was just as true for the ‘progressive’ press as it was for the more mainstream media outlets. For instance, the World Socialist Web Site – allegedly one of the most uncompromisingly leftist of news sources – gushed that:
      “The publication of the rough draft of the completed sequence of the human genome on June 26 was an outstanding scientific achievement, the outcome of an international collaboration spanning a decade and involving hundreds of scientists. The researchers used the most advanced sequencing machines and analysed the resulting data with the aid of powerful computers …
      “The elaboration of the human genome sequence is a major step in demystifying the evolution of the human species and the workings of the human body. Aided by technology, such scientific discoveries puncture the clouds of superstition that surround human existence and weaken the grip of religion over the minds of men and women.”
      Seemingly the only critical voice among the mindless back-slappers of the U.S. media belonged to Robert Lederman, columnist for the Greenwich Village Gazette. In an insightful column featured on the Konformist web site, Lederman noted that:
      “Probably the single greatest irony in the human genome issue is the idea being marketed to the public that this scientific advance will lead to the average person enjoying a much longer and healthier life. In light of governmental resistance to preventing corporate pollution of the environment, developing renewable sources of energy, banning the use of toxic chemicals and insecticides or protecting the food supply from contamination, can we really expect that this technology will be used to extend human life generally?
      “Politicians claim there is an imminent crisis facing the social security system right now. How much worse will that crisis be if tens of millions of Americans who might otherwise have died in their sixties and seventies from chronic disease live into their nineties and beyond? Be assured that those in control have no intention of allowing this to happen.
      “The far likelier scenario is that for the very wealthy there will indeed be new and miraculous medical treatments to prolong and enhance life. For the vast majority however, this new technology will only be used to further limit their freedom and privacy while creating a caste system based on genetics that fundamentally changes the way society is structured.”
      Lederman’s concerns are well founded. What the rest of the media seem to have overlooked, deliberately or out of ignorance, is that the Human Genome Project did not arise in a vacuum. Rather, it is but the latest step in a ‘scientific’ progression spanning at least the last 150 years. The aforementioned World Socialist Web Site appeared to acknowledge this in their coverage of the much-heralded event:
      “In 1838 Matthias Jakob Schleiden and Theodor Schwann discovered the cell as the fundamental unit of life. In 1859 Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, which elaborated a mechanism of evolution and set a coherent framework for all the biological sciences. In 1865 the Austrian monk Gregor Mendel developed the foundations of modern genetics. T.H. Morgan in 1910 determined that genes are organised along chromosomes. In 1942 researchers established that genes are made of DNA, a chemical found in the cell nucleus. In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick elaborated the structure of DNA. In 1973 Stanley Cohen and Herbert Brown invented genetic engineering by transplanting a gene between bacteria, and in 1990 the Human Genome Project began.”
      The only problem with this capsule history of the events leading up to the cracking of the genetic code is that it is woefully incomplete. So incomplete, in fact, that it thoroughly obscures the goals being pursued by those who would claim to be working for the betterment of human civilization. This is to be expected of course when the coverage is coming from the corporate mass-media, though one expects a little better from the ‘alternative’ press. To see just how far off the mark this historical narrative actually is, it is instructive to review a few key events that do not appear in the timeline above.
      In 1869, British psychologist Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, published the first major document of the modern eugenics movement – Hereditary Genius – in which he made the observation that: “The average intellectual standard of the negro is some two grades below our own.” Galton proposed that a system of arranged marriages between men of distinction and women of wealth would ultimately yield a ‘gifted’ race.
      He based this theory on the observation that the most prominent members of British society tended to also have prominent parents (no shit, Frank? Did you figure that out all by yourself?). Two years later, the exalted Charles Darwin published Descent of Man – his follow-up to Origin of Species – in which he frequently quoted from his cousin’s racist screed.
      Charles Darwin had not, by the way, coined the term ‘survival of the fittest’ in his earlier work. That concept was first proposed by Thomas Malthus as a purely economic principal, and one that was designed – not coincidentally – to justify the rise of the capitalist state. Darwin had taken that principal and transformed it into an irrefutable natural law, justifying decades later the victory of a flabby, naked minion of Satan on the TV ‘game’ show Survivor.
      As Engels put it: “The whole Darwinist teaching of the struggle for existence is simply a transference from society to living nature of … the bourgeois doctrine of competition together with Malthus’ theory of population … the same theories are transferred back again from organic nature into history and it is now claimed that their validity as eternal laws of human society has been proved.”
      In 1875, “coolies, convicts, and prostitutes” were declared “undesirable” aliens and excluded by newly drafted laws from immigrating to the shores of America. The next year, John Harvey Kellogg became the superintendent of the Western Health Reform Institute, changing its name to the Battle Creek Sanitarium. Nearly fifty years later, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. would spend time at the sanitarium after suffering a ‘nervous breakdown.’
      Under Kellogg’s directorship, the sanitarium began experimenting with ‘health foods,’ closely paralleling the Lebensreform movement in Germany. Lebensreform sanitariums promoted a back-to-nature ideology that espoused health foods, vegetarianism, abstention from alcohol and tobacco, and homeopathy. Kellogg would remain at Battle Creek as director until 1943, a span of sixty-seven years.
      In 1882, “lunatics and idiots” joined “coolies, convicts, and prostitutes” on the list of unwanted immigrants, though numerous lunatics and idiots already living here were allowed to stay and retain their positions within the U.S. government. The following year, Galton published his next manifesto – Human Faculty – in which he introduced to the world the term “eugenics.” In 1895, Dr. Alfred Ploetz – an esteemed German eugenics researcher – published The Excellence of Our Race and the Protection of the Weak, which not surprisingly was far more concerned with the extermination of the weak than with their protection.
      Six years later, in 1901, John D. Rockefeller founded the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, which quickly became a funding conduit for eugenics research. Two years later, the list of undesirable immigrants became a little longer as “epileptics and insane persons” were added. The next year, The Carnegie Institution of Washington established a research center under the directorship of Harvard-educated eugenicist Charles Benedict Davenport, with additional funding from Mary Harriman – the widow of railroad magnate Edward H. Harriman.
      Meanwhile, Davenport’s counterpart in Germany – Dr. Ploetz – founded the German Society for Racial Hygiene and a ‘scientific’ journal – the Archive for Racial and Social Biology. Davenport would serve as the director of genetics for the Station for Experimental Evolution at Cold Springs Harbor on Long Island, New York until 1934. Edward Harriman was, by the way, a monopolist closely tied to the Rockefellers and was the father of Averell and Roland Harriman. In 1898, he had gained control of the Union Pacific Railroad with credit arranged by William Rockefeller, who was, like Standard Oil founder John D. Rockefeller, a son of William Avery “Devil Bill” Rockefeller.
      In 1906, the city of San Francisco ordered the segregation of all Japanese, Chinese, and Korean children in a separate school, where they could be kept a safe distance from the genetically superior white children. Elsewhere in the world, Cyril Burt – a future leading light of the eugenics movement – graduated from Oxford University and traveled to Germany to complete his studies. The next year, the state of Indiana passed the world’s first compulsory sterilization laws, applicable to all “confirmed criminals, idiots, rapists and imbeciles” in state institutions. Meanwhile, “imbeciles and feeble-minded persons” were added to the still-growing list of persons excluded under U.S. immigration laws. It obviously wasn’t a good year for imbeciles.
      1910 proved to be a busy year for the eugenics crowd. The Harriman family financed the building of the Eugenics Record Office as a branch of London’s Galton National Laboratory, with additional financial assistance coming from John D. Rockefeller; Davenport was appointed director. That same year, reputed anti-fascist Winston Churchill was appointed Home Secretary of the UK and secretly proposed the sterilization of 100,000 “mental degenerates.” Cyril Burt busied himself with revising U.S. IQ tests for use in the UK, while John Kellogg began delivering speeches on “race degeneracy.”
      The next year, Davenport published Heredity in Relation to Eugenics. In the UK, Galton died and a Eugenics Chair was established at the University of London as per his will. In 1912, the University of London hosted the First International Congress of Eugenics, presided over by Major Leonard Darwin, the son of Charles; vice-presidents prominently in attendance included Winston Churchill, Dr. Alfred Ploetz, Harvard president Charles W. Eliot, and Alexander Graham Bell.
      Meanwhile, eminent psychologist Henry Goddard was having a busy year: he published The Kallikak Family: A Study in the Heredity of Feeble Mindedness, and also administered IQ tests to immigrants at Ellis Island and found that 83% of Jews, 80% of Hungarians, 79% of Italians, and 87% of the Russians wanting to enter the country were feeble minded. There’s no telling how many of them were coolies or imbeciles.
      Professor Goddard also believed that criminals could be identified by certain physical characteristics, and that the solution was “to sterilize them, allow them to perform only lowly jobs, confine them to ghettos, discourage them from marrying outside their race, and create a pure, American, superior intelligence to control them.” His ideas would later have a profound influence on Dr. David Ewen Cameron.
      In 1913, Rockefeller established the Rockefeller Foundation, which would serve as yet another source of funding for the eugenics movement. By this time, twelve U.S. states had compulsory sterilization laws on the books. The next year, Battle Creek, Michigan hosted the First National Congress on Race Betterment – sponsored by John Harvey Kellogg – which proposed that 5.76 million Americans be sterilized.
      Eugenics was by then being taught at Universities around the country, including Harvard, Columbia, Cornell, Brown, Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Clark. In 1915, Michigan hosted the Second National Conference on Race Betterment, again sponsored by John Harvey Kellogg. The next year, Stanford University professor of psychology Lewis M. Terman published the Stanford-Binet IQ tests, while declaring that: “If we would preserve our state for a class of people worthy to possess it, we would prevent, as far as possible, the propagation of mental degenerates.”
      In 1920, Alfred Hoche and Karl Binding published The Release of the Destruction of Life Devoid of Value, advocating “euthanasia” for mentally defective and mentally ill persons. By this time, twenty-four other states had joined Indiana in passing compulsory sterilization laws. In 1921, New York hosted the Second International Congress of Eugenics, sponsored by a committee that included Herbert Hoover and the presidents of Clark University, Smith College and the Carnegie Institution.
      Also that year, president Warren G. Harding approved the Immigration Restriction Act, establishing a quota system, and Margaret Sanger published an article entitled “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda” in the journal Birth Control Review. Sanger was concerned that “the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over fertility of the mentally and physically defective.”
      The next year, H.H. Laughlin published the “Model Eugenical Sterilization Law,” declaring all of the following categories of persons as being subject to mandatory sterilization: feeble-minded, insane, criminalistic, epileptic, inebriate, diseased, blind and seriously vision impaired, deformed and crippled, and dependent (orphans, homeless persons, tramps, and paupers). This law would serve as the blueprint for several U.S. state sterilization laws as well as for Nazi Germany’s infamous 1933 eugenics law. That same year, the American Eugenics Society was founded on the proposition that the wealth and social position of the upper classes was justified by their superior genetic endowment.
      In 1923, Carl Brigham – a key figure in the development of IQ tests and the driving force behind the SAT – published The Study of American Intelligence, declaring that: “our figures, then, would rather tend to disprove the popular belief that the Jew is intelligent,” and “The decline of American intelligence will be more rapid than the decline of the intelligence of European national groups owing to the presence here of the Negro.” In Germany, Adolf Hitler allegedly dictated – from a jail cell – the first draft of the virulently racist and anti-Semitic Mein Kampf, which singled out Henry Ford for praise.
      The following year, the Johnson-Reed act (aka the Immigration Act of 1924) eliminated Asian immigration and set stringent quotas on Southern and Eastern European immigration. In 1925, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes – writing the majority opinion in Buck v. Bell – stated: “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind,” language that closely mirrored that of Hitler’s Mein Kampf. In the UK that same year, Cyril Burt – who specialized in twin studies (first suggested by Galton) and who would later become one of the founding fathers of Mensa – published The Young Delinquent.
      In 1928, Battle Creek, Michigan hosted the Third National Conference on Race Betterment, once again sponsored by John Harvey Kellogg. In 1930, the director of the Department of Heredity at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Genealogy and Demography – Dr. Ernst Rudin – visited the United States, where he was warmly received. Rudin walked away with a large grant from the Rockefeller Foundation to finance his research, which would occupy an entire floor at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute. Elsewhere, W.K. Kellogg established the W.K. Kellogg Foundation to provide funding for efforts at “social improvement.”
      By 1931, twenty-seven U.S. states had sterilization laws, and John Kellogg had opened the Miami-Battle Creek Sanitarium in Miami Springs, Florida with himself appointed as medical director. That year also saw an indeterminate number of Puerto Ricans deliberately infected with cancer by the Rockefeller Institute, killing thirteen. Pathologist Cornelius Rhoades, who ran the study, was later placed in charge of two chemical warfare projects and granted a seat on the Atomic Energy Commission.
      1932 saw New York’s American Museum of Natural History host the Third International Congress of Eugenics, at which the sterilization of fourteen million Americans was called for. The gathering was dedicated to Mary Harriman. The Hamburg-Amerika Shipping Line – one of the subsidiaries of Brown Brothers/Harriman seized in 1942 by the U.S. Alien Property Custodian – provided transportation to America for a sizable number of Nazis to attend the conference. Included among them was Dr. Rudin, who was unanimously elected president of the International Federation of Eugenics Societies.
      The following year, Hitler enacted the Law for the Prevention of Hereditary Diseases in Posterity, drafted by Dr. Rudin and patterned directly after H.H. Laughlin’s 1922 model. In 1935, Nazi Germany instituted the Law for the Protection of the Genetic Health of the German People, which mandated medical examinations prior to marriage. Also begun that year was a selective human breeding program known as Lebensborn – under the direction of Hitler’s rabidly fascist SS Chief, Heinrich Himmler – which all SS men were obligated to join. By 1946, some 11,000 of ‘Hitler’s Children’ were created on breeding farms. In nearby England, Cyril Burt published The Subnormal Mind.
      On the distant shores of America, Dr. Alexis Carrel – a Nobel laureate and a close associate of Charles Lindbergh (the two had worked together on a ‘research project’ at the Rockefeller Institute laboratory in 1934) – published Man, the Unknown, declaring: “There remains the unsolved problem of the immense number of defectives and criminals. They are an enormous burden for the part of the population that has remained normal … In Germany, the government has taken energetic measures against the multiplication of inferior types, the insane and criminals … Perhaps prisons should be abolished. They could be replaced by smaller and less expensive institutions. The conditioning of petty criminals with the whip, or some more scientific procedure, followed by a short stay in hospital, would probably suffice to insure order. Those who have [committed more serious crimes] should be humanely and economically disposed of in small euthanasia institutions supplied with proper gasses. A similar treatment could be advantageously applied to the insane, guilty of criminal acts. Modern society should not hesitate to organize itself with reference to the normal individual.”
      In 1937, Cyril Burt published yet another eugenically minded tome, which he titled The Backward Child. This year was also notable for the establishment of the Pioneer Fund, yet another thinly veiled cover for the funding of eugenics research. As late as 1989, the organization would still state in its (revised) charter that its express purpose was to finance “study into the problems of human race betterment.”
      With the outbreak of World War II, the genocidal agenda behind the rapidly proliferating eugenics foundations was revealed to the world, and the movement had to temporarily retreat to the fetid swamps and sewers from which it had emerged. It wasn’t dead, however, but was merely “forced to reinvent itself under various fronts,” as columnist Robert Lederman has noted.
      After the war, psychiatrist Edwin Katzen-ellenbogen – a former member of the faculty at Harvard – was convicted of war crimes that he had committed as a ‘doctor’ at Buchenwald concentration camp; during his trial in Dachau, he proudly testified that he had drafted the sterilization law for the governor of New Jersey.
      Around 1948, Mensa was formed – the first international organization for the intellectually ‘gifted.’ Its first president was preeminent eugenicist Cyril Burt, who had been named the president of the British Psychological Society in 1942 and had become the first psychologist to be knighted in 1946. Another founding father was Victor Serebriakoff, a White Russian émigré recruited by British and American intelligence services who was credited with greatly expanding membership in the organization, instituting the IQ test as a prerequisite of membership, and establishing American Mensa. Yet another founder, and the man who claimed to have come up with the idea for Mensa, was Dr. Lance Ware, a biochemist who had worked during World War II at Porton Down, Britain’s ultra-secret biological and chemical warfare facility.
      1948 was also the year that Franz Kallman, who had been an associate of Ernst Rudin, founded a new eugenics institute, dubbed the American Society of Human Genetics. Around that same time, Dr. Otmar von Verschuer, who had served as the mentor of the notorious Josef Mengele, founded the Institute of Human Genetics in Munster. The next year, the Atomic Energy Commission and the Quaker Oats company fed a group of ‘retarded’ boys in Massachusetts radioactive cereal; John Kellogg would have been proud.
      In 1950, Cyril Burt published the results of some of his twin studies, purportedly showing data that supported his eugenics views. His studies claimed to prove that poverty was due to the intellectual inferiority of the working class. In 1952, John Foster Dulles established the Population Council in conjunction with John D. Rockefeller III. Tens of millions of dollars of Rockefeller grant money were pumped in as the American Eugenics Society moved its headquarters into the offices of – and assumed the name of – the newly created Population Council.
      In 1960, Reginald Gates, a member of the American Eugenics Society, began publishing Mankind Quarterly, a fountain of thinly veiled racist propaganda. On the Advisory Council of the periodical sat none other than Charles Galton Darwin — a grandson of Charles who had written the eugenically minded tome The Next Million Years in 1952.. Another advisor, as well as a member of the Eugenics Society, was Dr. von Verschuer.
      By 1967, Nobel prize winner William Shockley was rewriting history with his conclusion that: “The lesson to be drawn from Nazi history is the value of free speech, not that eugenics is intolerable.” Also that year, three psychosurgeons – Vernon H. Marks, Frank R. Ervin, and William H. Sweet – published a letter in the Journal of the American Medical Association in which they theorized that brain disease was responsible for rising levels of urban violence and the black uprisings that were rocking America’s cities.
      The National Institute of Mental Health promptly awarded the trio $500,000 to investigate the use of psychosurgery on violence prone individuals. The next year, James Dewey Watson – co-discoverer of the molecular structure of DNA – began serving as the director of the Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory of Quantitative Biology. Twenty years later, he would lend his expertise to the Human Genome Project.
      1972 found Shockley delivering an address before the American Psychological Association in which he called for a program in which welfare recipients would be paid $1,000 for each IQ point below 100 if they would submit to voluntary sterilization. In 1976, Cyril Burt’s research was denounced and declared to be fraudulent. London’s Sunday Times reported that his two ‘field investigators’ and ‘co-authors’ were complete fabrications; Burt himself had authored articles for fifteen years under assumed names praising his own work and attacking his critics. He was posthumously declared guilty of fraud by the British Psychological Society.
      In 1978, another eugenically minded foundation – the Manhattan Institute – was founded by future CIA Director William Casey, who sixteen years prior had co-founded another New York City ‘think tank’ with Prescott Bush. The primary corporate sponsor was the Rockefeller-controlled Chase Manhattan Bank; others included Citicorp, Time Warner, Proctor & Gamble, Bristol-Meyers, Squibb, CIGNA and Lilly.
      The next year, the Repository for Germinal Choice was set up in Escondido, California to make available the sperm of Nobel prize winners and other ‘intelligent’ people for selective breeding. Ads were run in Mensa publications and Shockley became one of the first donors. 1982 saw the first of the new breed of Hitler’s Children spawned from sperm obtained from the Repository for Germinal Choice.
      In 1989, George Bush became the 41st president of the United States. The very next year, the Human Genome Project was launched by James Watson at Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, New York. In 1993, a new manifesto for the modern-day eugenics crowd was published: The Bell Curve. The book was sponsored by the Pioneer Fund, a major supporter and source of funding for the Manhattan Institute; the Institute itself held a luncheon to honor the book and its authors.
      In November of 2000, Watson delivered a speech at the University of California at Berkeley that outraged many of those in attendance. Among other undocumented claims, Watson suggested that there exist biochemical links between skin color and sexual activity. And so it goes as the eugenics movement continues to flourish under cover of scientific jargon.
      That the Human Genome Project (HGP) is in fact yet another front for the eugenics movement can be easily discerned from a visit to the program’s web site. There you will find that the hauntingly familiar goals of the project include “earlier detection of genetic predisposition to disease” and “reduc(ing) the likelihood of heritable mutations.” In other words, one goal is the systematic elimination of all the ‘bad’ genes that have slipped into the national pool.
      Another goal of the project is the creation of “pharmacogenomics ‘custom drugs’.” Translated into English, this means drugs that are specifically tailored to differentially affect various genetic (racial) types; drugs, that is, that could easily be wielded as ethnically specific biowarfare agents. The development of such weapons has been an explicit goal of the U.S. military for at least a quarter-century. In 1975, an American military manual candidly noted that:
      “It is theoretically possible to develop so-called ‘ethnic chemical weapons,’ which would be designed to exploit naturally occurring differences in vulnerability among specific population groups. Thus, such a weapon would be capable of incapacitating or killing a selected enemy population to a significantly greater extent than the population of friendly forces.”
      Strangely enough, in the years since those words were written “at least 30 previously unknown disease agents have been identified,” according to our very own Central Intelligence Agency. Many of these – including AIDS, Ebola, and the Four Corners Virus – without question show a distinct preference for certain ethnic groups that have long been targets of depopulation campaigns.
      Interestingly, the HGP touts as another of its benefits the potential for “protection from biological and chemical warfare.” Of course, as the U.S. government itself has acknowledged on numerous occasions, research into protection from biowarfare requires concomitant research into the conductance of biowarfare; the two are, in practice, inseparable.
      Meanwhile, Mensa – which claims disingenuously to hold no opinions and promote no agenda – continues by all appearances to function as an intelligence front, including serving at times as a mouthpiece for the eugenics movement. One of the organization’s ‘Special Interest Groups’ is titled, simply enough, Eugenics, and the pages of various Mensa publications are known to this day to host ‘intellectual’ discussions of the benefits of eugenics policies.

      • Night-Gaunt says:

        Mensa promote the pseudo science of Eugenics? Under a different name of course. That is so stupid if true.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      That’s just to good not to post the whole damn thing for anyone walking thru to see!

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s