ping

I've heard about this before. Could you link me to Friday FAX number 51? I couldn't find it.

i realize the evils inherent in the lack of consent, but i would imagine that the poster also objects to the idea of "UN-Backed Population Control" whether it be "coercive" or not..... is this correct?

They did not have it posted yet. I receive it via email weekly. You can sign up for their Friday Fax via email on the site.

Yes.

--Dr. Kopp (proud2bRC)

Overpopulation

Oh that's ok. I bookmarked it. Thank you though. Thanks for the "Overpopulation" link too. Cool! Mind if I hang out with you? You've got all the good links. LOL

thanks for the link... that's an interesting article. In the Netherlands Fallacy for example, the author argues that "A and B" should be combined when distinguishing overpopulation. that trade and commerce will offset these negative effects.. ie, energy resources for country B, food for country A. that is all well and good, but what happens when country A has no commerce exchange with country B? what happens when country B decides country A consists of largely subhuman people not worthy of their resources? this is a dramatic way of putting it, yes, but you can't ignore that although the means might sometimes be in place, the will is sorely lacking. especially in third world nations, it is obvious that more fortunate countries are either unable or unwilling (god forbid) to help those countries with their population control.

From Third World Poverty: Contraceptive Imperialism versus Gospel of Life

The concept of poverty versus overpopulation needs close scrutiny. Poverty can be defined as too many people for the resources available in a geographic region. When we see humans living in poverty, we feel a certain solidarity with them. Our consciences tell us of our duty to help them out of their misery with food, shelter, infrastructure, and the means to develop their economy.

Remember that verbal engineering always precedes social engineering. By calling poverty by a new name, "overpopulation," we remove the burden for their suffering from our conscience. No longer do we feel the need to feed them. We now can say, "It's your fault. If you'd just stop making babies, you wouldn't be living in poverty. Your suffering is your own creation." So instead of corn meal, we ship them condoms. Instead of antibiotics, we send them IUDs. Instead of the blessing infrastructure would bring, we send the curse of infertility.

what happens when country B decides country A consists of largely subhuman people not worthy of their resources?

I am intrigued. Can you give an example of what you mean by this? What is an instance where a Country B has decided that they will not trade with Country A (even though Country A has stuff Country B wants/needs) because "country A consists of largely subhuman people" etc.?

this is a dramatic way of putting it, yes, but you can't ignore that although the means might sometimes be in place, the will is sorely lacking. especially in third world nations, it is obvious that more fortunate countries are either unable or unwilling (god forbid) to help those countries with their population control.

You seem to have mixed up the notions of "Country B helping Country A with its population control" (something which is hard for me to see why it's necessary), with "Country B exchanging its surplus goods with Country A for things it needs" (which is healthy). The two are not the same thing. The latter is important and healthy. The former is not, not necessarily. Am I wrong?

ok. to put in the simplest terms...

country "A" does not have enough food to feed its citizens. this may be attributed to any number of problems of course.... lack of resources, lack of ingenuity, lack of commerce, etc.

this being said, country "A" does not practice any form of birth control. again, you come up with the reasons.

after it is deemed that country "A" is completely incapable of helping itself, country "B" believes that if it helps country "A" implement "Population Control" measures, that their population will shrink. ie, less people will experience malnutrition.

it would stand to reason that any country whose citizenship continues to possess a large population who literally starves to death, that their must be less food then there are citizens who need food. if there were less citizens, their would be less of a need for food.

i'm sure you're going to rebute this, but sure appears simple on its face.

"Country B helping Country A with its population control" (something which is hard for me to see why it's necessary),

Population control, of Third World countries by the USA, is considered a strategic imperative, i.e., demographic warfare. It has nothing to do with humanitarianism (that is a convenient smokescreen.)

EVOLUTION OF [demograpgic] WARFARE AND ABUSE OF THE DOCTRINE OF NATIONAL SECURITY. National Security is a morally valid undertaking, but only when taken in the context of self-defense.1 But in a world of greed that has come to justify cut-throat competitiveness (following the tenets of economic liberalism) and has upheld the principle of "survival of the fittest" (according to social Darwinism), mankind has gone through many sad experiences of selfish aggression, which are amply recounted in the history of warfare and tyranny. The dictum that aggressors love to abuse is: "The best defense is offense". Thus, modern governments have tended to abuse "national security" and "national defense" as the lame justifications for inflicting violence on other peoples and even among their own citizens.2

A quick review of recent history can lead us to understand how the concepts of national security, national defense, and other related ideas in traditional politics have evolved. It is in our century that military science has moved swiftly from conventional to unconventional models; unconventional warfare has itself taken on various forms, then advancing to a phase of psychological warfare, until today when the old patterns of "UW" are hardly discernible: the military model has become "civilianized", thanks to the social psychologies developed by Kurt Lewin,3 Edward Tolman,4 and above all, Brigadier General John Rawlings Rees the British mastermind who developed the Tavistock school of psychological warfare.5 What we are witnessing is a reversion from the hard-boiled, rigid Prussian doctrines of Karl von Clausewitz, back to the more supple but equally effective oriental wisdom of Sun Tzu. Von Clausewitz wrote: "War is an act of force to compel our adversary to do our will. Force, to meet force, arms itself with the inventions of art and science." 6 Sun Tzu, on the other hand, wrote: "To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good."7 Clearly, Sun Tzu's approach is more adaptive to the Third Wave era.8 It is certainly the doctrine of choice among population warriors. Professor Jacqueline Kasun in her book "The War Against Population" 9 uses war as a figure of speech or a metaphor, perhaps not knowing how absolutely correct she really was: global population control does in fact fit the parameters of military doctrine.

Today's "Demographic War" is being waged in a manner never before conceived in the annals of warfare and human domination. Little have we noticed it, but over the last three decades, military science has been rapidly overshadowed and reshaped by social psychology -- a pure science which, when applied, would constitute the theoretical base for social engineering.10 Who could have thought that the basic weapon could -- over a span of 25 post-World War II years -- evolve from the M1-Garand to Group Dynamics?11 That bullets and artillery shells would be replaced by pills and syringes? That field maneuvers would be superseded by lobbying and "PR"? That combat intelligence units would be replaced by market research and environmental scanning groups? That field marshals and their staffs would be superseded by "spin doctors" and their PR companies?

By calling poverty by a new name, "overpopulation," we remove the burden for their suffering from our conscience. No longer do we feel the need to feed them. We now can say, "It's your fault. If you'd just stop making babies, you wouldn't be living in poverty. Your suffering is your own creation." So instead of corn meal, we ship them condoms. Instead of antibiotics, we send them IUDs. Instead of the blessing infrastructure would bring, we send the curse of infertility.

This, IMHO, is demonic.

"Too many children? How can there be too many children? That is like saying there are too many flowers."

--Mother Teresa

country "A" does not have enough food to feed its citizens.

This part, I understand. The point of the linked article ("Netherlands Fallacy"), then, is that this doesn't necessarily mean that Country A is "overpopulated". Maybe Country A has other resources (like energy..) which it can trade for food. Then, all is well. Right?

this being said, country "A" does not practice any form of birth control. again, you come up with the reasons.

Ok, whatever. You've already established that Country A (by itself) does not produce enough food to feed its people relative to its population and birth rate. The reasons don't really matter, when it comes to evaluating whether it is "overpopulated". I don't care if they practice birth control or not. If they make other stuff or have other resources which they can trade for food, then birth rate is not a problem. Right?

after it is deemed that country "A" is completely incapable of helping itself

Wait, when was this "deemed", and by whom? In the example in the "Netherlands Fallacy" article, I thought it was explained that although Country A didn't produce food, it had other resources. So, it can help itself: by producing/developing those resources and trading them for the food it needs.

country "B" believes that if it helps country "A" implement "Population Control" measures, that their population will shrink. ie, less people will experience malnutrition.

Okay, here is the point at which you start to mix apples and oranges. The Netherlands Fallacy article was discussing how/when one can make the proclamation that a country is "overpopulated". The author explains very nicely that there is something wrong with the usual way of analyzing this. His example (with Country A and B) is meant to illustrate that if countries share resources (resources, not birth control) amongst each other then taken together one cannot consider them "overpopulated", even though separately each would seem overpopulated.

it would stand to reason that any country whose citizenship continues to possess a large population who literally starves to death, that their must be less food then there are citizens who need food. if there were less citizens, their would be less of a need for food. i'm sure you're going to rebute this, but sure appears simple on its face.

Actually, I cannot rebut that at all. It is perfectly correct. Any country which has more citizens than it can feed (on its own) would cease to have that problem immediately "if there were less citizens", as you say. This is 100% logically correct. (One way to make "less citizens", of course, is to just kill a bunch of them until the numbers are back in line.)

That's not the point of the "Netherlands Fallacy" article in the first place, though. The point was to illustrate that the way most people label a country as "overpopulated" is stupid. And it has nothing to do with whether countries are sharing birth control methods amongst each other, and everything to do with whether countries are sharing resources with each other. If countries share resources, then it doesn't matter if Country A produces enough food on its own to feed its number of people. It can trade for the food it needs, if it has the resources.

Because of this, a country can have far less food than people but still not be "overpopulated".

if there were less citizens, their would be less of a need for food.

Contrast this with the following:

Matthew 25 34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, `Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

as well as

Luke 6:24-26 Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.

Don't Let the Kids Immanentize the Eschaton...

demographic warfare

This does help explain the "population control" movement a little more, of course. I have my doubts as to whether the rank and file ever think of it in these terms, though. I think most "population control" advocates are probably like Human G-Nome: they think they're "helping" starving third world people by handing them condoms, that it's "for their own good".

Addendum: in #14 I said,

Any country which has more citizens than it can feed (on its own) would cease to have that problem immediately "if there were less citizens", as you say. This is 100% logically correct. (One way to make "less citizens", of course, is to just kill a bunch of them until the numbers are back in line.)

This, of course, assumes that the people you kill/eliminate in order to make "less citizens" are not themselves farmers or food producers.....

i now understand that it would have been MUCH easier if i would have created my allusion using C and D rather then A and B as i was not referring specifically to the fictious countries mentioned in the article.

"If countries share resources, then it doesn't matter if Country A produces enough food on its own to feed its number of people."

the problem is, some countries either do not have the necessary resources or do not possess the means to implement their extraction and exportation. the argument seems to be that rather then supply birth control in the vain of condoms (or anything else), we should simple supply enough food. terrific!!! now when will that happen? haven't we known about these problems forever? are people not still starving? what do we have to do to get your solution implemented?

Bill Gates Gives To UN Population Control Fund

And see this quote from... Is Bill Gates a Closet Liberal?

"The Gates Foundation has given $750,000 over three years to the Seattle-based PATH (Program for Appropriate Technology in Health) -- funding that has in part been used for such work as "a quality assurance survey of contraceptives in 22 countries." The Alan Guttmacher Institute received $1 million over three years for "an international examination of issues facing young women around the world." And finally, most recently, the Department of Population Dynamics at Johns Hopkins University received $2.3 million for an array of programs aimed at training international specialists in "reproductive health and family planning."