This Is It
This is a government that treats its citizens like faceless statistics and economic units to be bought, sold, bartered, traded, tracked, tortured, and eventually eliminated once they’ve outgrown their usefulness.
This is a government that treats human beings like lab rats to be caged, branded, experimented on, and then discarded and left to suffer the after-effects.
This is a government that repeatedly lies, cheats, steals, spies, kills, enslaves, breaks the laws, overreaches its authority, and abuses its power at almost every turn.
This is a government that wages wars for profit, jails its own people for profit, and turns a blind eye while its henchmen rape, kill, and pillage.
A System Without Trust
No, this is not a government that can be trusted to do what is right or moral or humane or honorable. Instead, it gravitates toward corruption, greed, cruelty, brutality, and injustice.
This is not a government you should trust with your life, your loved ones, your livelihood, or your freedoms.
This is the face of evil, disguised as democracy, sold to the people as an institution that claims to have their best interests at heart.
Don’t fall for the lie.
History of Abuse
The government did not have our best interests at heart when it propelled us into endless wars, stretched our military resources thin, and subjected us to blowback.
It did not act in our interest when it passed laws enabling invasive surveillance, censorship, and the suppression of dissent.
It did not act in our interest when it militarized law enforcement, turned communities into monitored zones, and normalized a police state culture.
Nor did it act in our interest when it transformed schools into controlled environments, teaching compliance over critical thinking.
Human Experimentation
The government has a documented history of experimenting on its own people and others: exposing populations to toxins, infecting individuals with disease, and conducting secret biological tests.
Programs like MKULTRA involved drugging unsuspecting citizens with LSD in attempts to explore mind control and behavioral manipulation.
Other experiments exposed entire cities to airborne bacteria, often without consent or follow-up care.
These actions raise a serious question:
What kind of government treats human beings this way?
Has Anything Changed?
Has the government become more humane? More transparent? More respectful of rights?
Or has it simply become more sophisticated in hiding its actions behind secrecy, legal complexity, and distraction?
Voices of Warning
“We’re being run by maniacs for maniacal ends.” – John Lennon
“If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle.” – Carl Sagan
“Bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson
A Call to Action
Stop being apathetic. Stop being neutral. Stop being accomplices.
Recognize injustice for what it is. Demand transparency. Refuse to compromise your principles.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
It’s time for good men to do something.
“Government is the most dangerous institution known to man. Throughout history it has violated the rights of men more than any individual or group of individuals could do: it has killed people, enslaved them, sent them to forced labor and concentration camps, and regularly robbed and pillaged them of the fruits of their expended labor. Unlike individual criminals, government has the power to arrest and try; unlike individual criminals, it can surround and encompass a person totally, dominating every aspect of one’s life, so that one has no recourse from it but to leave the country (and in totalitarian nations even that is prohibited).” ~John Hospers
Unethical Human Experimentation and the Sustainable Development Agenda
Important Definitions
- Sustainable
-
1. capable of being sustained.
2. of, relating to, or being a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged. - Conservation
-
1. a careful preservation and protection of something especially: planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect.
2. the preservation of a physical quantity during transformations or reactions.
Reason for this Report
The coronavirus was a planned attack as part of the UN Sustainable Development Plan. Agenda 2030. In order for something to be sustainable, you have to conserve more. In other words, you have to stop using it. The only way that is possible is with less people who need what you are running out of.
Why would I think coronavirus is part of this? They have done things like this before. Multiple times. Except now, the whole world is involved.
Unethical Human Experimentation In The United States
Unethical human experimentation in the United States describes numerous experiments performed on human test subjects in the United States that have been considered unethical, and were often performed illegally, without the knowledge, consent, or informed consent of the test subjects. The experiments include: the exposure of humans to many chemical and biological weapons (including infection with deadly or debilitating diseases), human radiation experiments, interrogation and torture experiments, tests involving mind-altering substances, and a wide variety of others. Many of these tests were performed on children, the sick, and mentally disabled individuals, often under the guise of “medical treatment”. In many of the studies, a large portion of the subjects were poor, racial minorities, or prisoners (doesn’t make it ok).
Funding for many of the experiments was provided by the United States government, especially the United States military, the Central Intelligence Agency, or private corporations involved with military activities. The human research programs were usually highly secretive, and in many cases information about them was not released until many years after the studies had been performed.
For this report, I wont mention all the experiments, but just enough to give you an idea of what we are up against.
- In the 1880s, in Hawaii, a Californian physician working at a hospital for lepers injected six girls under the age of 12 with syphilis.
- In 1895, New York City pediatrician Henry Heiman intentionally infected two mentally disabled boys — one 4 year old and one 16 year old — with gonorrhea as part of a medical experiment. A review of the medical literature of the late 19th and early 20th centuries found more than 40 reports of experimental infections with gonorrheal culture, including some where gonorrheal organisms were applied to the eyes of sick children.
- U.S. Army doctors in the Philippines infected five prisoners with bubonic plague and induced beriberi in 29 prisoners, four of the test subjects died as a result.
- In 1906, Professor Richard Strong of Harvard University intentionally infected 24 Filipino prisoners with cholera, which had somehow become contaminated with plague. He did this without the consent of the patients, and without informing them of what he was doing. All of the subjects became sick and 13 died.
- In 1908, three Philadelphia researchers infected dozens of children with tuberculin at the St. Vincent’s House orphanage in Philadelphia, causing permanent blindness in some of the children and painful lesions and inflammation of the eyes in many of the others. In the study, they refer to the children as “material used”.
- In 1909, F.C. Knowles released a study describing how he had deliberately infected two children in an orphanage with Molluscum contagiosum — a virus that causes wart-like growths — after an outbreak in the orphanage, in order to study the disease.
- In 1911, Dr. Hideyo Noguchi of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research injected 146 hospital patients (some of whom were children) with syphilis. He was later sued by the parents of some of the child subjects, who allegedly contracted syphilis as a result of his experiments.
- The Tuskegee syphilis experiment was a clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 in Tuskegee, Alabama, by the U.S. Public Health Service. In the experiment, 399 impoverished black males who had syphilis were offered “treatment” by the researchers, who did not tell the test subjects that they had syphilis and did not give them treatment for the disease, but rather just studied them to chart the progress of the disease. By 1947, penicillin became available as treatment, but those running the study prevented study participants from receiving treatment elsewhere, lying to them about their true condition, so that they could observe the effects of syphilis on the human body. By the end of the study in 1972, only 74 of the test subjects were alive, 28 of the original 399 men had died of syphilis, 100 were dead of related complications, 40 of their wives had been infected, and 19 of their children were born with congenital syphilis. The study was not shut down until 1972, when its existence was leaked to the press, forcing the researchers to stop in the face of a public outcry. The U.S. led Guatemala syphilis experiment is a lesser-known version of the same.
- In 1941, at the University of Michigan, virologists Thomas Francis, Jonas Salk and other researchers deliberately infected patients at several Michigan mental institutions with the influenza virus by spraying the virus into their nasal passages.
- In 1941, Dr. William C. Black inoculated a twelve month old baby with herpes who was offered as a volunteer.
- The Stateville Penitentiary Malaria Study was a controlled study of the effects of malaria on the prisoners beginning in the 1940s. The study was conducted by the Department of Medicine at the University of Chicago in conjunction with the United States Army and the State Department. At the Nuremberg trials, Nazi doctors cited the precedent of the malaria experiments as part of their defense. The study continued at Stateville pen for 29 years. In related studies from 1944 to 1946, Dr. Alf Alving, a professor at the University of Chicago Medical School, purposely infected psychiatric patients at the Illinois State Hospital with malaria so that he could test experimental treatments on them.
- In 1950, in order to conduct a simulation of a biological warfare attack, the U.S. Navy sprayed large quantities of the bacteria Serratia marcescens over the city of San Francisco during a project called Operation Sea-Spray. Numerous citizens contracted pneumonia like illnesses, and at least one person died as a result.
- Also in 1950, Dr. Joseph Stokes of the University of Pennsylvania deliberately infected 200 female prisoners with viral hepatitis.
- From the 1950s to 1972, mentally disabled children at the Willowbrook State School in Staten Island, NY were intentionally infected with viral hepatitis, for research whose purpose was to help discover a vaccine.
- From 1963 to 1966, Saul Krugman of NYU promised the parents of mentally disabled children that their children would be enrolled into Willowbrook in exchange for signing a consent form for procedures that he claimed were “vaccinations”. In reality, the procedures involved deliberately infecting children with viral hepatitis by feeding them an extract made from the feces of patients infected with the disease.
- In 1952, Chester M. Southam, a Sloan-Kettering Institute researcher, injected live cancer cells, known as HeLa cells, into prisoners at the Ohio State Penitentiary and cancer patients. Also at Sloan-Kettering, 300 healthy women were injected with live cancer cells without being told. The doctors stated that they knew at the time that it might cause cancer.
Optimal World Population
The optimal world population has been estimated by a team co-authored by Paul R. Ehrlich. End-targets in this estimation included:
- Decent wealth and resources to everyone
- Basic human rights to everyone
- Preservation of cultural diversity
- Allowance of intellectual, artistic, and technological creativity
- Preservation of biodiversity
Based on this, the estimation of optimum population was to be roughly around 1.5 billion to 2 billion people.
Human Population Control
History, Methods, Policy & Debate
Human population control is the practice of artificially altering the rate of growth of a human population. Historically implemented by limiting birth rates — usually by government mandate — it has been undertaken as a response to factors including high or increasing levels of poverty, environmental concerns, religious reasons, and overpopulation. While population control can involve measures that improve people’s lives by giving them greater control of their reproduction, some programs have exposed them to exploitation.
Worldwide, the population control movement was active throughout the 1960s and 1970s, driving many reproductive health and family planning programs. In the 1980s, tension grew between population control advocates and feminist women’s health activists who advanced women’s reproductive rights as part of a human rights-based approach. Growing opposition to the narrow population control focus led to a significant change in population control policies in the early 1990s.
Methods
Population control may use one or more of the following practices, though others exist as well. The method or methods chosen can be strongly influenced by the religious and cultural beliefs of community members.
- Contraception
- Abstinence
- Abortion
- Emigration
- Decreasing immigration
- Starvation / famine
- Pestilence / plague
- War
The failure of other methods of population control can lead to the use of abortion or infanticide as necessary final options. While a specific practice may be legal or mandated in one country, it may be illegal or restricted in another, indicative of the controversy surrounding this topic.
History
Ancient Times through the Middle Ages
A number of ancient writers reflected on population. Around 300 BC in India, Kautilya (c. 350–283 BC) considered population a source of political, economic, and military strength. Though a region could hold too many or too few people, he considered the latter the greater evil. Kautilya favored the remarriage of widows, opposed taxes that encourage emigration, and believed asceticism should be restricted to the aged.
In ancient Greece, Plato (427–347 BC) and Aristotle (384–322 BC) discussed the best population size for Greek city-states such as Sparta, concluding that cities should be small enough for efficient administration and direct citizen participation, yet large enough to defend themselves against hostile neighbors. Aristotle concluded that a large increase in population would bring “certain poverty on the citizenry, and poverty is the cause of sedition and evil.” To halt rapid population increase, he advocated the use of abortion and the exposition of newborns.
“Excessive growth may reduce output per worker, repress levels of living for the masses and engender strife.” — Confucius (551–478 BC)
Ancient Rome under Augustus (63 BC–AD 14) needed manpower to administer its vast empire. A series of laws were instituted to encourage early marriage and frequent childbirth. The Lex Julia (18 BC) and Lex Papia Poppaea (AD 9) provided tax breaks and preferential treatment in public office for those who complied; those who did not faced severe limitations. These laws ultimately encountered resistance and were eventually abolished.
“The scourges of pestilence, famine, wars and earthquakes have come to be regarded as a blessing to overcrowded nations, since they serve to prune away the luxuriant growth of the human race.” — Tertullian, early Christian author (c. AD 160–220)
Ibn Khaldoun (1332–1406), the North African Arab polymath, considered population changes to be connected to economic development, linking high birth rates and low death rates to times of economic upswing, and the inverse to economic downswing. During the Middle Ages in Christian Europe, population issues were rarely discussed in isolation; attitudes were generally pro-natalist, in line with the Biblical command, “Be ye fruitful and multiply.”
16th and 17th Centuries
European cities grew more rapidly than before, and throughout the 16th century discussions on the advantages and disadvantages of population growth were frequent. Niccolò Machiavelli wrote that when every province teems with inhabitants, “the world will purge itself in one or another of these three ways,” listing floods, plague, and famine. Jean Bodin argued that a larger population would mean more production and export, increasing national wealth. Giovanni Botero emphasized that a city’s greatness rests on the multitude of its inhabitants, but pointed out that a population cannot increase beyond its food supply.
Richard Hakluyt observed that England had grown “more populous than ever heretofore,” and in A Discourse on Western Planting (1584) advocated emigration of the surplus population. With the onset of the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648), characterized by widespread devastation and deaths brought on by hunger and disease, concerns about depopulation returned.
The Population Control Movement
In the 20th century, population control proponents drew heavily from the insights of Thomas Malthus, a British clergyman and economist who published An Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798. Malthus argued that population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio, while subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. He outlined “positive checks” — disease, war, disaster, and famine — which increase the death rate, and “preventative checks” — moral restraint, abstinence, and birth control — which affect the birth rate.
“The food, therefore which before supplied seven millions must now be divided among seven millions and half or eight millions. The poor consequently must live much worse, and many of them be reduced to severe distress.” — Thomas Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798)
Paul R. Ehrlich, a US biologist and environmentalist, published The Population Bomb in 1968, advocating stringent population control policies.
“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people… We must shift our efforts from treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer.” — Paul R. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb (1968)
Ehrlich’s views came to be accepted by many population control advocates in the United States and Europe in the 1960s and 1970s. Since then, overpopulation has been blamed for increasing poverty, high unemployment rates, environmental degradation, famine, and genocide. In a 2004 interview, Ehrlich reviewed his predictions and found that while specific dates may have been wrong, his predictions about climate change and disease remained valid.
Scholar Paige Whaley Eager argues that the shift in perception that occurred in the 1960s must be understood in the context of the demographic changes of the time. The world’s population reached one billion only in the first decade of the 19th century. The second billion was added in the 1930s, and the next billion in the 1960s — 90 percent of this net increase occurring in developing countries.
Large increases occurred in China, Mexico and Nigeria; demographers warned of a “population explosion” in developing countries from the mid-1950s onwards.
Population Control and Economics
Opinions vary among economists about the effects of population change on a nation’s economic health. Recent US scientific research estimated the cost of raising a child at approximately $16,000 yearly — roughly $291,570 through age 18.
While some believe reduction of population is a key to economic growth, others argue that any reduction should focus on what they judge to be undesirable sections of the population — a view associated with eugenics. Other economists doubt that any correlation between population reduction and economic growth exists at all.
Economists Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams have argued that poverty and famine are caused by bad government and bad economic policies, not by overpopulation. In The Ultimate Resource, economist Julian Simon argued that higher population density leads to more specialization and technological innovation, which in turn leads to a higher standard of living. Simon also argued that when countries are ranked by population density, there is no correlation between density and poverty; but when ranked by governmental corruption, there is a significant correlation between corruption and poverty.
Contemporary Research
It is generally accepted that overpopulation is aggravated by poverty and gender inequality, with the consequent unavailability and lack of knowledge of contraception. However, fertility rates in the depression-era United States, modern Russia, Japan, Italy, Sweden, Estonia, and France suggest that these populations are responding inversely to poverty and economic pressures, especially on women.
A 1974 study directed by Henry Kissinger for the US National Security Council — National Security Study Memorandum 200 — stressed that only 13 countries are projected to account for 47 percent of global population increase by 2050, adversely affecting development, food requirements, resources, and the environment, and potentially undermining US national security.
David Pimentel of Cornell University and Mario Giampietro of Italy’s National Research Institute place the maximum US population for a sustainable economy at 200 million, arguing that achieving a sustainable economy requires reducing US population by at least one-third and world population by two-thirds.
Support for Population Control
Population control has increasingly been featured in environmental documentaries and public discourse. Among its notable advocates:
- David Attenborough
- Michael E. Arth
- Jonathon Porritt, UK Sustainable Development Commissioner
- Sara Parkin
- Crispin Tickell
- Jeffrey Sachs, Head of the UN Millennium Project
Jeffrey Sachs, in his 2007 Reith Lectures titled “Bursting at the Seams,” featured an integrated approach dealing with problems associated with overpopulation and poverty reduction. He argued that child survival was “by far one of the most powerful ways” to achieve fertility reduction, as it assures poor families that the smaller number of children they have will survive.
Opposition to Population Control
The Roman Catholic Church has opposed abortion, sterilization, and contraception as a general practice, specifically in regard to population control policies. Pope Benedict XVI stated that “The extermination of millions of unborn children, in the name of the fight against poverty, actually constitutes the destruction of the poorest of all human beings.”
Present-Day Practice by Country
China
The most significant modern population control system is China’s one-child policy, in which, with various exceptions, having more than one child is discouraged. Unauthorized births are punished by fines, though there have also been allegations of illegal forced abortions and forced sterilization. The Chinese government introduced the policy in 1978 to alleviate social and environmental problems. According to government officials, the policy helped prevent 400 million births, though its success has been questioned, and fertility reduction has also been attributed to China’s modernization.
India
In India, only people with two or fewer children are eligible for election to a Gram panchayat, or local government. The slogan “Hum do, hamare do” — “We two, ours two” — is intended to reinforce the message of population control.
Iran
Iran has succeeded in sharply reducing its birth rate in recent years. It is the only country where mandatory contraceptive courses are required for both males and females before a marriage license can be obtained. The government emphasizes the benefits of smaller families and the use of contraception.
United States
Enacted in 1970, Title X of the Public Health Service Act provides access to contraceptive services, supplies, and information to those in need, with priority given to low-income persons. In 2007, Congress appropriated roughly $283 million for family planning under Title X, at least 90 percent of which was used for services in family planning clinics. Title X as a percentage of total public funding to family planning client services declined from 44% of total expenditures in 1980 to 12% in 2006, as Medicaid increased from 20% to 71% over the same period.
See Also & Further Reading
See Also
Further Reading
- Thomlinson, R. (1975). Demographic Problems: Controversy over Population Control. 2nd ed. Dickenson.
- Knudsen, L. (2006). Reproductive Rights in a Global Context. Vanderbilt University Press.
- Whaley Eager, P. (2004). Global Population Policy. Ashgate Publishing.
- Simon, J. The Ultimate Resource.
Notes
- Populationconcern.org.uk
- Knudsen (2006), pp. 2.
- Knudsen (2006), pp. 4–5.
- Neurath (1994), pp. 7.
- Neurath (1994), pp. 6.
- Neurath (1994), pp. 6–7.
- Neurath (1994), pp. 8.
- Neurath (1994), pp. 10.
- Neurath (1994), pp. 9.
- Neurath (1994), pp. 10–11.
- Rosenberg, M. (2007). Thomas Malthus on Population. About.com Geography.
- Knudsen (2006), pp. 2–3.
- Bleier, R. The Home Page of the International Society of Malthus.
- Thomas Robert Malthus, 1766–1834. The History of Economic Thought Website.
- Knudsen (2006), pp. 3.
- Knudsen (2006), pp. 3.
- Knudsen (2006), pp. 3–4.
- Whaley Eager (2004), pp. 36.
- Whaley Eager (2004), pp. 37.
- Reuters, Price of raising a child/year (2009).
- Sowell, T. (1998). Julian Simon, combatant in a 200-year war. Jewish World Review.
- Williams, W. (1999). Population control nonsense. Jewish World Review.
- Moore, S. (1998). Julian Simon Remembered. CATO Institute.
- Regis, E. (1997). The Doomslayer. Wired.
- Simon, J. The Ultimate Resource 2.
- IPPF.org.
- Population-security.org, NSSM 200.
- Pimentel & Giampietro. Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy. EnergyBulletin.net.
- Pfeiffer, D. Peak Oil: the threat to our food security. Soil Association.
- Agriculture Meets Peak Oil. The Oil Drum.
- National Audubon Society. “Population and Habitat: Making the Connection.”
- Attenborough: cut population by half. Times Online.
- Interview with Michael E. Arth. Corrupt.org.
- Porritt, J. Crowd control. The Guardian (2004).
- Parkin, S. Local to Global: Kingston University.
- Tickell, C. The green diplomat. New Scientist.
- Sachs, J. (2007). Bursting at the Seams. BBC Radio 4 Reith Lectures.
- Pope Benedict XVI. Message for the World Day of Peace (2009). Vatican.va.
- Dewey, A.E. Testimony before the House International Relations Committee (2004).
- Rocha da Silva, P. (2006). La politique de l’enfant unique. Université de Genève.
- Has China’s one-child policy worked? BBC News.
- Iran’s Birth Rate Plummeting at Record Pace. Earth Policy Institute.
- Office of Population Affairs, HHS.
- Planned Parenthood. Title X.
- Sonfield A, Alrich C and Gold RB (2008). Public funding for family planning. Guttmacher Institute.