Posted on 07/20/2002 1:27:51 PM PDT by Askel5
Report and Recommendations of the Republican Task Force on Earth Resources and Population. House Republican Research Committee
House Republican Research Committee
Robert Taft, Jr., Ohio, Chairman
July 8, 1970 Congressional Record, pp. 23188 and contining.
(Current excerpts taken from Section II on Population)
|
It is almost self-evident that the greater the human population, the greater the demands for natural resources and the greater the danger to ecological balance. The paramount questions deals with an optimum human population.
How many is too many people in relation to available resources?
No one seems to honestly know but many believe that our current environmental problems indicate that the optimum level has been surpassed.
A fair analysis would seem to be that our population and consumption rates have grown more rapidly than our ability to develop and supply the resources being consumed while protecting our environment. […]
Many of our nation's social problems can be attributed to population density and the congestion of our urban areas.
Projections of the Urban Land Institute place 60% of our population in the year 2000 in just four huge megalopolis areas— (1) from Boston to Washingon, D.C., another from Utica, New York, to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a third from San Francisco to the Mexican border, and the fourth from Jacksonville to Miami, across to Tampa and St. Petersburg. Most of the remaining 40% of the population is expected to live in urban areas as well. Metropolitan areas of over 150,000 grew faster than the national average of 9.8%.
This trend toward density creates immense stress on the public services necessary to accommodate the population. Police, fire, sanitation, transportation—all of these and many others, including education, health and housing, have been unable to keep pace with the demands created by this congestion.
Sociologists believe that this density of population has been a prime cause for increased automobile traffic deaths, drug addiction, broken marriage, alcoholism, crime, homosexuality, suicides, venereal disease and heart attacks as a result of the social stresses that man encounters in his struggle to exist in such a congested environment.
In both his Population Message of July, 1968 and his State of the Union message of January, 1970, President Nixon stressed the need for America to begin developing a national growth policy.
In his State of the Union address, the President said:
The role of family planning services as part of an overall medical health care system was covered in the Task Force report on Federal Family Planning Programs—Domestic and International which was released on December 22, 1969. In that report, we stressed that an estimated 5.3 million American women do not have access to information or techniques available to the rest of society about how to limit their fertility.
It was further noted that this inaccessibility of knowledge undermines the morals of our society and was not in keeping with the basic principles of a democratic system.
Family planning is more than simply birth control.
It includes many aspect of maternal and child healthcare which must be made available to all our citizens. Birth control must be kept within the total context of Family Planning and should be considered always as an available option for any individual.
The belief that Family Planning constitutes population control must be rejected. Over 97% of American married couples utilize maternal and child healthcare services and an estimated 90% [2] practice birth control in some form and still the United States experience a population growth of 1%, a doubling every 70 years.
Family Planning constitutes the knowledge base for regulating births and reducing infant mortality. Population control is to limit birth, not to regulate births. It is necessary to understand the difference.
The practice of birth control is an accepted norm for American married couples. There is, however, concern among many demographers over the widespread desire on the part of Americans to produce three and four children in the belief that such family sizes constitute the practice of birth control. Without failsafe contraceptive devices, available to both men and women, that are medically safe and easily administered, it is not realistic to believe that an honest, free choice decision is available to those who prefer to limit their families to two children.
Population control is not a function for federal, state or local governments. However, Family Planning services, within the context of maternal and child healthcare services, must be made more accessible to the poor in providing these services as a proper function of all governments at a sensible level of costs.
As part of Family Planning Services, birth control information as well as devices and techniques to regulate fertility should be available to all those who want them and cannot afford them through private sources. The major problem in providing these specific birth control services has been the availability of trained personnel. Medical doctors and nurses are hard-pressed for services in more specialized areas of medicine. Also, providing family services to the poor has not been considered an appealing avocation of the medical profession.
Ideally, our entire healthcare system should be overhauled to create less reliance on specialized medicine and overburdened hospitals and more dependence on para-medical professionals in providing healthcare services and more reliance on providing proper nutrition for all Americans.
The legality of abortion and of sterilization does not come under the jurisdiction of the federal government, but they are properly within the purview of state governments where medical laws are widely divergent. The most disturbing aspect of the abortion issue that was brought before the Task Force, is the disparity between the availability of professional abortion services to those women who can afford the $500-$700 to obtain a therapeutic abortion and the estimated one million illegitimate abortions performed by the unlicensed practitioners for those women who cannot afford professional service. It is apparent that many women who desire abortions take extreme measures, and subject themselves to dangerous methods in order to obtain an abortion.
It therefore seems that the main objective of abortion law revision should be to eradicate the increasing number of unlicensed and unqualified practitioners who jeopardize the health and safety of these women and to establish a system that eliminates discrimination resulting from present pricing structures.
The Task Force is committed to the development of a national population policy. We believe education, family planning services, contraceptive research and development as well as transportation, and community planning and development should be important components of such policy.
Before we can begin to remedy a problem, we must first realize that we have one.
Despite the increased interest regarding this problem, there is still a vast number of Americans who are unfamiliar with even the most essential understanding of this potentially dangerous population growth rate.
The Task Force feels that one of the most important functions of the federal government is to supply the public with the latest and most accurate data. This should be done in a non-judgmental fashion that will enable the citizens to be well-informed and to influence their own remedial action.
It is expected that the Council on Environmental Quality and the recently established President's Commission on Population Growth and the American Future will provide the public with this necessary information and ensure continuing data regarding the latest developments.
Death tolls have been reduced in every country to negligible rates from epidemics and diseases such as malaria, measles, smallpox, cholera, polio and tuberculosis; major advances have been made against heart disease and cancer, artificial organs can now prolong life.
Since we accept these intrusions into nature's control of population as morally justified, are we not unwise to consider birth control with equal moral justificiation?
If we continue to support government activities to reduce disease and improve health in order to prolong life under the auspices of what is good for society, then should we not consider birth control as a government activity for similar reasons?
In the Task Force report on "Federal Government Family Planning Program" it was recommended that Congress increase appropriations for contraceptive research in the amount of $380,000,000.00 over the next five years.
In conjunction with this research, the Task Force now feels research in the methodologies of pre-determining sex before insemination must be considered and pursued.
For birth limitation and regulation to be an honest free choice goal of Americans to undertake, pre-determination of the sex of children and failsafe contraception must be available to everyone.
The Task Force believes that much more knowledge is needed by the public in general about fertility control, contraception techniques and sex determination, as well as the social and material consequences resulting from increase population, in order that the broadest number of options are available to everyone in making personal decisions that affect the use of natural resources, family size and ultimately our environment. There must exist a greater sensitivity to these problems which cannot be provided by the federal government. The government can provide leadership and direction but should never be put into a position of having to enact controls on population as a result of public ignorance and indifference.
[2] Charles F. Westoff and Norman B. Ryder, Recent Trends and Attitudes Toward Fertility Control and in the Practice of Contraception in the U.S. University of Michigan, November, 1967, p. 10,2 Ibid |
In society today, a vision of life prevails permeated with secularism, in which the sense of God, and hence a sense of sin, is lacking. Therefore the meaning of life itself is no longer grasped. In such an environment, the so-called "anti-life" mentality has been able to develop, that is a mentality set against human life. The ultimate reason for this mentality is "the absence in people's hearts of God, whose love alone is stronger than all the world's fears and can conquer them". (Familiaris Consortio, n. 30).The serious loss of hope which characterizes today's widespread "culture of death", should arouse deep disquiet in consciences, which, however, seem dulled to the point of suffocating in each soul that inborn instinct to love and serve human life. It is evident that forces, structures and programs exist -- supported by centers of ideological, political and economic power -- which feed a culture of death. But no one wants to be considered a member of this culture.
The commitment required to oppose this dramatic human condition must be expressed in a broad and organic strategy of education.To further this end, it is useful to promote a courageous effort to discern what elements still survive in consciences in favor of the human person, expressed in the form of deep concerns. This educative strategy could lead to an authentic civilization of love, where the human person will be respected in his psycho-physical and spiritual unity, in truth, through a renewed commitment to the New Evangelization and through working for a culture of life, to which we are called by the Holy Father (cf. Christifideles Laici, n. 38; Centesimus Annus, n. 39).
Guided by the word of God and listening to the authentic aspirations of the heart, the Church, as defender of the human person and "expert in humanity", will know how to find ways to speak to reason and conscience. Each person is aware that the life of every human being is certainly a biological reality, but it is not reduced to that. It is of much greater value.
A deep yearning for a better "quality of life" is present in our society. Often this desire does not only concern peripheral aspects of health or well-being, but genuine states of physical or psychological difficulty. Now, if the parameters of the value of human life remain at the level of physical efficiency or consumerist criteria, one could easily draw conclusions concerning the uselessness of some human lives, or at least of those who have reached a completely irreversible situation. But the central criterion for the value of life is of the spiritual, moral and religious order, that is of the very dignity of the person.
In spite of the fact that the value of human life and its inviolability may be evident through right reason and conscience, unfortunately in our day it is the object of many attacks, above all at the beginning and at the end of life itself or in situations of weakness and suffering. We understand the difficulty in which people who suffer in these situations find themselves and the temptation which perhaps they undergo. But one cannot forget that life belongs to God alone and that the mystery of suffering confronts us with the mystery of the person, which in turn reflects the very mystery of God.
On the other hand, while the desire for motherhood or fatherhood in itself arouses a spontaneous solidarity, it should not open the door to research for the "child at any cost". With the practices of artificial procreation and genetic manipulation or alteration, with the "waste" and the destruction of embryos or experiments on them, the unborn child is reduced to a "product" of technology, and his or her life and personal dignity are harmed. Thus ever wider openings are made for man's domination over man and for his desire to become his own "creator" (cf. Donum Vitae, Part 1, n. 5, Part 11, premise).
One outstanding aspect of the "quality of life" concerns the instrumentalized and depersonalized way of understanding sexuality and corporality. Some of the effects of an illusory sexual "freedom" are the break up of the family, adultery and divorce, the spread of abortion, contraception and sterilization. Pornography, in is various forms, is another powerful factor spreading morally irresponsible behavior and also various forms of sexual perversion.
The contraceptive mentality causes the will to become detached from its tendency towards the good and therefore towards true love. Thus sexuality and corporality become trivialized; their links with transcendence and the mystery at the origin of human life are overlooked or rejected. In consequence, human values such as chastity, fidelity, fertility, the gift of self, come to be despised and are not rightly understood. The unborn child itself comes to be thought of in an instrumental way as only the "inconvenient and unwanted fruit of sexual activity". The unborn is not welcomed in his truth, dignity and value as a human person destined to love and be loved. All this opens the way to the tragedy of abortion.
It is certainly no accident that the forces which promote abortion are the same as those spreading contraception. In fact, the connection between the two phenomena, at first above all psychological and sociological, is always effected and made concrete through so-called contraceptives that also have an abortifacient effect.
This mentality also strikes at a woman's dignity, often entailing her being used as an instrument, conditioning her to live in situations which are not fully in accord with her will and which contradict her deep yearning for motherhood (cf. Mulieris Dignitatem, n. 18).
To overcome the culture of death a change of mentality is necessary and urgent. We need to rediscover the deep meaning and value of each human being and to teach respect for his or her right to life, from conception until natural death -- that is, to find once more the significance of each human person.
Furthermore, there is an urgent need to put forward a healthy conception of sexuality, of self-respect as a person (so as also to teach respect for others), of chastity before marriage and conjugal fidelity, as well as educating the conscience in the deeper value of fertility. Teaching the methods for the natural regulation of fertility should be included in this context.
Some of the fields in which such educative work is most urgently needed are: first of all the family, because of its primary task of education; the school in collaboration with the family; Christian communities, above all the parish and youth associations; areas of social work and health care; the mass media.
The irreplaceable contribution of women should be recognized and emphasized much more in education for life and in the formation of a culture of acceptance and love, whether in civil society or in the Church herself (cf. Familiaris Consortio, n. 23
The declaration doesn't say one way or the other. It says that our Creator endowed us with certain rights.
The 14th says that you can't be afforded protection until you are a citizen. Actually it was Justice Taney who said that, in contradiction to every sensible common law edict prior to his racist nonsense, and it was the Congress that passed along his "wisdom."
That's why you find alot of folks under the delusion that one's human rights are dependent upon geography.
At any rate, nobody has a right to be born. It's a crapshoot. Life isn't fair and any attempt to make it fair results in widespread suffering.
Have you read the entry with Arthur Jensen and William Shockley yet? Pioneer Fund connected race scientists. Kinda makes one wonder why, of all people to choose from, G. Bush II's HHS pick was someone to whom Charles Murray was a consultant.
Over 50% of the replies are from malcontnents ignorant of the times(1970) and the circumstances of the times and the politcal thought after the time, 1970.
Do you(Askel) see a pattern here?
My guess is no. You are so wound up with your agenda that you bring up a 32 year old report that nobody read and was forgotten 32 years ago.
But you go ahead with your vendetta, it was what you and the other malcontents are known for.
The fact that it is 32 years old gives me pause..
It would appear to outline an "agenda" and it would appear that this "agenda" was successfully implemented.
Get out your ancient history of Sparta. Aristotle notes it at some length in the Politics; I think Thucydides gives it a whirl too, but I don't know him. Xenophon has something to say on it (calling them the Persians) in the Cyropaedia, and I think in the Anabasis, but I don't know that one either.
My two cents:
Merely diminishes the value of the child and thwarts the notion of a child as a child.
You are supposed to view procreation in a manner very much like buying a car, or some other object that you posess and have the right to do with as you please.
Don't like the color? that dent in the hood?
Then let that one go and try some more. After all, this is potentially your car we are talking about here and you have every right to be pleased with it.
It says they're created.
Mr. BUSH. Mr. Speaker, the weeks before recess our Republican Task Force on Earth Resources and Population held three hearings.
The subjects discussed at these hearings were: the hereditary aspects of human quality, that activities of the Earth Resources Survey Program Review Committee, and the environmental problems created by our rapid rate of population growth.
So that all Members of the House can share the information we heard, I offer our hearing highlights for the RECORD:
Dr. Williams Shockley, Professor, Stanford University.
Dr. Arthur Jensen, Professor, University of California at Berkeley.
Dr. Shockley stated that he feels the National Academy of Sciences has an intellectual obligation to make a clear and relevant presentation of the facts about hereditary aspects of human quality. Furthermore, he claimed our well-intentioned social welfare programs may be unwittingly producing a down breeding of the quality of the U.S. population.
Specifically, Dr. Shockley feels the National Academy of Sciences should answer the following question: "Is or is not your 1967 statement on Human Genetics and Urban Slums now clearly out of date and unsound as a result of the analysis published in the Winter, 1969 issue of the Harvard Educational Review by Dr. Jensen and its subsequent review by Dr. Crow?"
Dr. Shockley believes that such a question is partially justified on the basis that one of 3 authors of that 1967 statement, Dr. James Crow, now seems to feel that the statements fails to adequately consider new theories of genetic quality.
On the basis of studies completed by Dr. Arthur Jensen, Dr. Shockley claimed: "I believe that the voting citizens of the United States can and should endeavor to make their government seek objectivity to formulate programs so that every baby born has high probability of leading a dignified, rewarding and satisfying life. Letters from government organizations show that hereditary factors are essentially excluded from present studies of our social problems.
Disarm and Spend, Baby, Spend It's a family tradition.
It Can't Happen Here Or Can It?
Focus On The Family
By Tom Neven - editor
August 1998
The living room and study of his Colorado Springs home groan beneath the weight of books and testify to a keen intelligence and wide-ranging curiosity. Plutarch’s Lives of the Caesars, Winston Churchhill’s five-part history of World War II, an entire shelf of Tolstoy and the complete works of Martin Luther in both English and German mingle with The Basic Writings of Thomas Jefferson and biographies of Stonewall Jackson and Sir Thomas More.
The Rev. Charles Carroll, who at 82 has the intellectual vigor of a man 50 years his junior, has just about seen it all in his lifetime. But his years studying in Berlin in the shadow of Hitler have perhaps had the greatest effect in shaping him. Today, he has many things to say as our culture continues to wallow in abortion on demand and careens headlong toward physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia and even eugenics, the belief that we can "improve" the human race through science.
The Warning Signs
Carroll lived in Berlin during 1937 and 1938, renting a room from a Jewish family recommended to him by the American embassy. He describes a surreal scene as the husband showed him around the apartment.
"He took me over to the medicine cabinet, showed me the medications and said, ‘You can use any of these if needed, but never touch this,’ " Carroll says. "It was cyanide. When we went back in the hall, I looked at the entrance doors. They were typical of the period, framed with glass, and behind each pane was a plate of steel. He said, '‘t will give mother Lido [the daughter] and me enough time.’
"I thought him paranoid at the time," Carroll continues, "but he was right, and I was dreaming." (Because the wife was not Jewish, the family managed to survive the Holocaust.)
By that point Nazi Germany was already well down the path to the Holocaust. It was a journey that began with small steps
First came The Law for the Prevention of Congenitally Ill Progeny on July 14, 1933. This eugenics program had two aspects: The positive side that encourages the increase of "racially healthy" Aryans, the Nazis’ supposed master race of non-Jewish Caucasians, and the negative side that justified vernichtung lebensunwerten lebens, literally "destruction of life unworthy to be lived."
Although abortion was technically illegal in Germany at the time, a case arose where a woman in the late stages of pregnancy was brought to be forcibly sterilized because she was among the "undesirables," the result of which would kill the unborn child. As a result of this "problem," the law was amended in 1934 to say that eugenic considerations carried equal weight to medical considerations when it comes to abortion.
It Can’t Happen Here…
Lest we become complacent, Carroll warns that what happened to Nazi Germany was not unique to that society.
"Although you cannot identify a situation in the United States exactly like that of Nazi Germany," Carroll says, "you can point to some parallels."
He stresses the he does not believe we are headed inexorably toward Nazism, but he does believe that the seeds for its horrible crimes are present in all societies. Sweden sterilized about 60,000 people against their will between 1935 and 1976, and Norway, Denmark and Finland at one time had similar laws allowing compulsory sterilization under certain circumstances. Germany in the 1930s just happened to provide fertile soil for those seeds to sprout.
Carroll cites, for example, the International Congress for Questions of Population in August 1935, hosted in Berlin by the German government. Participants came from around the world, including several from the United States led by Harry Laughlin of the Eugenics Research Association. Laughlin was of the opinion that the entire world was in debt to Hitler for his views on eugenics.
Indeed, in 1927 the Supreme Court had ruled in Buck v. Bell that involuntary sterilization was not unconstitutional.
"They were sterilizing people in Virginia who they felt were incompetent-a large number of blacks, some poor whites," Carroll says, and the Nazis often cited this legal case as they went forward with their eugenics agenda.
The German conference was also full of Darwinian "survival of the fittest" thinking and references to evolution. Indeed, Carroll remembers a post-war conversation he had with a Jewish physician, Leo Alexander, during which Alexander explained the ease with which some doctors could carry out abortion, forced sterilization and even murder.
"There is a difference," Alexander said, "between those who look upon their fellow human beings as common creatures of a common creator and those who look upon them as a conglomerate of biologicals and chemicals."
Forced Sterilization and abortion led inexorably to active euthanasia. As early as 1935, Hitler considered enacting some form of euthanasia, but his fear of what the church would say, as well as protests by Adolf Cardinal Bertram, chairman of the German Catholic conference, forced Hitler to put this program on hold, at least until the eve of World War II. As Germany moved against Poland in September 1939, Hitler enacted the euthanasia program, believing the distraction of war would give him cover.
The program, under the supervision of SS doctor Lt. Gen. Karl Brandt, led first to the killing of deformed or retarded children, carried out on an individual basis, and then the mass killing of adult "undesirables," which provided the first "practice" for the slaughter of the Holocaust. One lesson learned: Killing in carbon monoxide-filled buses (only of the means the Nazis used at the time) was inefficient, which led to the development of the quicker-killing Zyclon B of the gas chambers.
It is important to note that in no case was this killing done to sick or dying people or at the request of a patient. And with the exception of the first case, this killing was done without the knowledge of the families.
"If you can get a group of physicians to sterilize and abort and, as we say, euthanize, it isn’t very difficult to get them to do anything," Carroll warns. "There’s no doubt in my mind that sterilization, abortion and euthanasia were the first steps toward the Holocaust."
A Loss of Natural Law
Even though most people are not trained in the law, Carroll believes Christians today must understand basic issues of law if they are to stand against the growing culture of death.
In particular he refers to society’s loss of natural law, "one of the bulwarks of what we once called Western civilization," he says. Natural law is the belief that, just as the physical world functions under a series of laws that we ignore at our peril, so too does the moral world.
The opposite of natural law is positive law: The law is what the judge, legislature—or the Fuehrer—says it is. Carroll cites, for example, Hitler’s speech of July 13, 1934, during which he stated that he was the law in Germany.
While not as audacious as Hitler’s diktat, the modern judiciary’s tendency to rule by apparent fiat is a close approximation of the state overruling natural law-- Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme court decision that legalized abortion, being the chief illustration.
Backbone of Resistance
Carroll believes that many Christians were fearless in their opposition to Hitler. And this, he stresses, required great moral and physical courage. "People minimize that today," he says.
Carroll cites a letter from Helmut von Moltke, great-grand nephew of the famous 19th-century field marshal of the same name, to his wife just before he was executed by the Nazis.
"I was not being tried because of an attempt on Hitler’s life, which I did not make, nor because I was a great land owner, nor because I was of the nobility, but because I was first and foremost a Christian," von Moltke wrote.
"I feel it can unequivocally stated that the church was the backbone of what resistance there was," Carroll says. Catholic bishop Clemens von Galen of Munster stood in his pulpit Aug 3, 1941, and denounced the euthanasia program at considerable risk to himself." After his speech, countless Catholic bishops and evangelical leaders joined forces and protested.
"Not that it stopped all the programs," Carroll admits, but it had some success. "The euthanasia program, by admission of Lt. Gen. Brandt, came to a slow end during the war, and he gave the churches credit for it."
"What Would I Do?"
What if you had been alive then? "that’s a question all of us have to ask," Carroll says.
"The thing that bothers me the most in the United States today is that the moral foundations of the republic are shattered," he says. "Our growing apathy disturbs me. One of the interesting things about the Nazi revolution is that Germany was in a moral vacuum [when Hitler came to power], and moral vacuums, like natural vacuums, seek to be filled."
A courageous church, unafraid to speak out, is the only hope to fill that void, he believes, citing the following statement from Albert Einstein:
"Being a lover of freedom, when the [Nazi] revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend [freedom], knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced.
"Only the church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing the truth."
INTRODUCTION TO EUGENICS
"The transformation from open eugenics to population planning is described well by Germaine Greer: "It now seems strange that men who had been conspicuous in the eugenics movement were able to move quite painlessly into the population establishment at the highest level, but if we reflect that the paymasters—Ford, Mellon, Du Pont, Standard Oil, Rockefeller and Shell—are still the same, we can only assume that people like Kingsley Davis, Frank W. Notestein, C. C. Little, E. A. Ross, the Osborns (Frederick and Fairfield), Philip M. Hauser, Alan Guttmacher and Sheldon Segal were being rewarded for past services."30 That is, the population control movement was the same money, the same leaders, the same activities—with a new excuse.
One of the organizations that promoted eugenics under the new population rubric was The Population Council. It was founded in 1952 by John D. Rockefeller III, and spent $173,621,654 in its first 25 years.31 That is not a bad budget for one of the organizations in a dead movement! Clearly, the people who think the eugenics movement died in the rubble in Berlin do not understand crypto-eugenics, genetics or population control."
Race Hygiene: Three Bush Family Alliances - (Eugenics)
Intended Consequences: Birth Control, Abortion, and the Federal Government in Modern America
"Critchlow properly focuses, though, on the two “giants” of the population control movement: oil heir John D. Rockefeller III and Hugh Moore, founder of the Dixie Cup Corporation. The former man’s role began when “a fortuitous meeting in the men’s room” at the Rockefeller Center with investment banker Lewis Strauss led to creation of the Population Council in 1952. Ostensibly a scientific agency doing objective research, the Council became the center of population control propaganda and activism. Frederick Osburn, President of the Eugenics Society, ran day-to-day operations. Rockefeller gave the Council a start‑up grant of $1.2 million, followed by large gifts from the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and the Scaife family. Over the next 25 years Rockefeller served as the “pivotal” figure in creating a population movement that would fundamentally alter both public policy and the very social structure of the United States.
Moore was more “alarmist” and “obsessed” than Rockefeller, and more radical in his call for coercive measures. His widely circulated 1954 pamphlet, “The Population Explosion,” cast population control as absolutely necessary to prevent the spread of communism. When he formed the Population Crisis Committee in 1963, Moore pulled into the cause still other well-born establishment figures, including Pierre S. DuPont, Ellsworth Bunker, and John McCloy.
Statement on the Death of John J. McCloy - George H.W. Bush
America: 2003
"Author Kai Bird, in his biography of John J. McCloy wrote: "Certain men had it, that 'weight of judgement',' that ability of honest, objective appraissal. They need not be brilliant, and they must not be creatures of any ideological doctrine. Both brilliance and ideology got in the way of objectivity....These few men of gravitas were ENTITLED to the public trust for ONLY THEY were capable of dealing with the 'imponderables' of public policy." They believe that they have superior intellect, and therefore have the right, nay the responsibility, [their hubris knows no bounds] to decide the life decisions for the more "intellectually challenged."
But there may be even more to this crowd of CS movers and shakers. The most influential CS gentleman of this century, John J. McCloy, head of the Chase Manhattan Bank, Armand Hammer's lawyer, lawyer for the 7-Sisters oil companies, head of the World Bank, chairman of the Ford Foundation and Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, undersecretary of War under Stimson [FDR], Member of the Warren Commission and one of LBJ's 'Wise Men', was accused by J. Edgar Hoover as being a Communist spy. Further, in a mole hunt of the same period, the FBI's information pointed strongly to yet another CS top dog: Averill Harriman. Eventually they realized it was Armand Hammer, but the FBI never trusted Harriman. To them the question was is he a card carrying communist, or just a communist sympathizer? When you look at this elite circle of CS from this time period, [and yes, even today], there was clearly, and consistently evidence that many were involved with communists, and sympathized with them, particularly in regards to keeping the rabble at bay. These CS all belonged to the same clubs, the same organizations. They exerted extraordinary influence of government policy, even though they were, mere citizens. Their careers moved fluently between multi-national corporations, government positions, and back again. They were wealthy and powerful.
The circle of clubs they belonged to were secretive and select. In the early 1970's some of these organizations made a move to expand their membership, and become less secretive as the spotlight started to glare on the extraordinary influence these ostensible "citizens" had on government. The ranks were filled with opinion makers. But it was a ruse. The truth is the secretive, and formative "few", while opening up the 'ranks" and appearring to be less secretive, in fact merely created "inner circles" within these organizations where the top dogs still reigned supremem, and called the shots. In the 1980's the CS who subscribe to Flagship, expanded even more. They decentralized. While most of the influential CS organizations had heretofore been located solely in NY and DC, like-minded organizations were spun off to California, Texas, and a few other cities. I must add, again, the bulk of the CS are not privy to the agenda of Flagship, but serve only as unwitting tools, blinded by their own ideological myopia: money and power.
...Henry Kissinger and George Bush [who both were, coincidentally, mentored by John J. McCloy] were the key persons responsible for creating this trade deficit with China. And now China takes the money and buys weapons, while planning war games where we, The United States, are defined as the enemy."
COMMUNIST EXPLOITATION OF RELIGION - Richard Wurmbrand - From Hell To Heaven
"Eugenics exemplifies the modern project -- to control the future" - George Will
I'm off to a meeting, see ya later. Have fun. 8-)
Not exactly. The opposite of natural law is nihilism, that there is no law. The consequence of wholly accepting that shadow is a choice with no rational basis for either pole: either one wills or one wills not. Affirm life or deny it--but there's nothing left to base an affirmation of life upon but the simply biological will that seeks to escape death, avoid pain and feel pleasure. Thus we come to Hobbes and Mills. Logic (teleologically meaningless but useful as a tool of the will) will tell you that men, being relatively similar in strength, require numbers to protect themselves and to gain any significant power. To do so, we create the Leviathan and invest it with an illusory authority--for if there's no Law, there's no reason to keep one's word when it is not in one's interest, though it may be in one's interest to fool others into thinking illusion real. Thus we have positivism--not the opposite of Law per se, but the consequence of the opposite.
Of course, once the Leviathan exists, what guides it? Certainly not moral laws, save as it needs them to continue to manipulate it's subjects.
Thanks for post, Uncle Bill. It was Stingray who introduced me to eugenics. I'd no idea such a thing existed. I also appreciate the reprint of It Can't Happen Here. Was trying to pull that very article up via another thread the other night and it was dead ... couldn't come up with another copy.
______________________________
More links within "Zygotes & Embryos are People" including what Randy Engel I've posted and Pardek's fix of the Julian Simon links.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.