Population control is merely part of resource management where people are just another inconsequential and unremarkable group competing for existence on the big blue marble. Thus, eliminating people saves other resources and makes more available to the remaining elitists who push for population control in the first place. Understanding this history is critical.This writer was adopted at birth because my mother had been forcibly sterilized by a eugenics doctor in Berkeley, California during the 1940s. There was no remorse from the performing surgeon or her mother when it was later discovered that no genetic irregularity existed in the family gene pool. Not surprisingly, my mother was bitter until her death many years later. ⁃ TN Editor
Reducing global population has been a consistent goal of the ruling class for centuries. While many support the abstract idea of population control, no one wants to volunteer to be the ones who are culled. The business of population control has hence been a very messy subject.
When the COVID vaccine program began, I—and likely many others—suspected the COVID vaccines would have an “unexpected” side effect of reducing fertility. Early in their development, Mike Yeadon (and others) at great personal risk publicly warned regulators of a clear fertility danger inherent to the vaccine (found in section IX of their petition).
Subsequent regulatory document leaks from the European FDA revealed Pfizer exempted themselves from testing the key areas of concern (infertility, autoimmunity and cancer) in animals. This highly unusual moved further suggested serious problems existed in these three areas (as you can’t find something if you don’t test for it).
Despite repeated denials, signs of each of these key complications from the vaccine have now emerged. While I do not have every piece of the puzzle—there are likely many “population control initiatives” I’ve never heard of—I know enough to paint a clear picture of this dirty business.
The first half of this two-part article will lay out the historical precedent of using any means necessary to reduce the population, while the second part will examine how this has been attempted with vaccinations. This article is broken into the following sections:
Beliefs of Population Control
Governmental Planning for Population Control
Mechanisms of Population Control:
Social Approaches
Male Approaches
Female Approaches
Conclusion
As best as I can tell, there are three overlapping schools of thought that have created the zealous belief in a need for population control.
Many governments, especially those in the East, have adopted the viewpoint that periodic wars are necessary for the stability of the society. This viewpoint primarily arises from social instability caused by too many young adult males in the state coupled with the issues that occur when there is insufficient food available to the population. In turn, many wars have been fought specifically for this reason. (I am most familiar with this being a common theme in China, as they have observed over the centuries the one thing that will create rebellions are famines.)
Following World War 2, the Western ruling elite came to a consensus that the war approach was no longer tenable due to the extreme collateral infrastructure and environmental damage modern weaponry (ie. nukes) created. There are only two exceptions to this rule:
Wars in third-world countries lacking modern weaponry, where collateral damage was inconsequential to first-world countries
Talks that occurred within the Chinese military leadership, but have so far not materialized, over starting a war with India so both countries could mutually alleviate their challenging population burden. For context, China has attempted population control with their “one-child” policy, but it has been met with mixed success and widespread social resistance.
The alternative to war is a multipronged attack that seeks every possible avenue to reduce fertility and accelerate aging, which many argue is the more humane option of the two. One of the curious facts I have observed over the decades is how frequently an odd policy or environmental agent always seems to converge on the common pathway of reducing population. Once or twice, you can write it up as a coincidence, but at a certain point, you have to wonder if it is all intentional.
When I studied the early history of infectious diseases (discussed in my previous articles on smallpox), one of the most striking things to me was the absolute squalor the serfs were forced into as the feudal lords kicked them off the land to live in the early cities. It was much worse than most people of this modern era can even conceive of.
When I first learned of this, I guessed this must have been viewed as a necessary trade off by the European rulership to support the Industrial Revolution, which was vital for national development. After I learned about the Malthusian philosophy, I realized the abhorrent living situations was likely the goal in of itself.
In 1798, Rev. Thomas R Malthus published the influential work An Essay on the Principle of Population, which argued that human populations tend to increase at a geometrical (exponential) rate, but the means of subsistence (food) grows at only an arithmetic (linear) rate. “The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man,” according to Malthus, who therefore believed the standard of living of the masses could not be improved without the checks of war, famine, or disease. In their absence, population would increase by a geometric rate and lead to a catastrophic “Malthusian” food supply collapse.
While there are numerous errors in his theory, Malthus was appointed to multiple important positions, and his ideas appear to have gradually become a prevailing conviction among members of the ruling classes in the 19th century. These ideas also influenced other key figures, such as Charles Darwin as he created his theory of evolution and natural selection.
Numerous groups were founded over the decades, which emphasized birth control and increasing mortality of the poor. These groups included Dr. George Drysdale’s Elements of Social Science in 1854, the Malthusian League in 1877, and Margret Sanger’s National Birth Control League in 1915, which became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942. Initially these groups were domestic, but gradually they became global where they tied international aid and development to population control measures.
The Malthusian and Darwinian ideals gradually gave birth to Social Darwinism and Eugenics, which were widely adopted by the ruling elite. Social Darwinism argued that class divisions were the will of nature and that this form of natural selection, rather than being evil, was necessary. The most extreme version of this ideology, eugenics, appears to have arisen from two key factors:
- The tribal nature of human beings and the tendency to view all other tribes as inferior (the ruling class felt this way towards the poor).
- The advances of society were making it possible for many of the weaker members of society, who previously would have died off, to survive long enough to reproduce and, over time, significantly weaken the gene pool.
Eugenics in turn advocated preventing those who were less “fit” from breeding. This has been responsible for horror upon horror since its inception, and it provided the theoretical foundation for why, among other things, the Nazis forcibly sterilized the mentally ill. In many cases, programs with more immediate results were also implemented. While most are aware of the millions executed by Hitler, other dictators such as Pol-Pot, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong arguably did even worse. A lead researcher in this field coined the term “democide” and estimates these governments executed approximately 150 million people in the previous century. When the Nazis eventually were tried at Nuremberg for their crimes against humanity, few know that that many cited the fact similar actions were first conducted by the “Great United States” in their defense.
For example, consider one of the more problematic Supreme Court rulings, Jacobson vs. Massachusetts. It held that Jacobson, who having previously suffered a severe adverse reaction from a smallpox vaccine which led him to contest Massachusetts’ smallpox booster mandate, did not have the right to refuse forced vaccination.
Following this ruling, Virginia passed a law authorizing the involuntary sterilization of people the deemed to be “feeble-minded,” or mentally ill. Citing Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, a Supreme Court Justice wrote: “The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.” By 1930, dozens of states were forcing women to undergo involuntary sterilization, and more than 60,000 American women were sterilized by the government against their will.
While books could be written on the horrors of eugenics, the key point to remember is that the discipline never disappeared and has enjoyed sustained support from the upper class. Did you know that the creators of the dangerous AstraZeneca COVID vaccine—which has been promoted as the vaccine of choice for the third world—have extensive ties to major eugenics organizations? I wish I was making this up.
One of the major shifts that has appeared within these movements has been who they target. Until recently, they seemed to be racist against specific sets of people, primarily those of color. Planned Parenthood’s founder, for example, wanted to reduce the black birth rate, but many were far worse. Eugenics was also conducted by whites against other whites, however it typically was due to class differences or perceived genetic quality rather than race (the only exception I can think of was the British Empire towards the Irish). This all seems to have shifted recently to where the healthy and affluent white members of society are now being targeted too. As this is a new change, much of the western population has been caught off guard, and there has been a much higher COVID vaccination uptake in whites than other races who remember being targeted by their government.
Numerous documents and conferences (a few of which will be discussed) suggest population control has also been a priority for both national governments and international governments. The infamous 1966 Iron Mountain Report is the most well-known example, and while it echoes many of the themes laid out in this article, there are serious questions regarding its authenticity.
As such, I do not feel it is appropriate to discuss in detail, but I will note that it contained the argument that the need for war could be replaced by having the population gradually only become able to reproduce through artificial fertilization. This is a theme echoed in many other places, such as Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World.
While it is difficult to estimate precisely, the use of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) has steadily increased and is expected to continue to do so: the CDC estimates its use has “more than doubled” in the last decade. I have also heard numerous reports that since the vaccines have launched, COVID has significantly increased the need for and difficulty of IVF (that being said, at this time I could not locate data directly supporting this contention). For those interested in medicine’s monopolization of the pregnancy process and the tragic harm it creates, The Business of Being Born (which can be viewed online) and Robert S. Mendelsohn’s writings on the subject are two of the best resources I’ve found on the subject.
National Security Study Memorandum 200 is the most well-known authentic government document advancing a systematic population control agenda. Written in 1974 by Kissinger during Nixon’s presidency (and unclassified decades later), it identified thirdworld population growth as a critical national security issue for the United States and outlined a variety of steps to combat it.
Population control has also been discussed within the public media. The 9/4/94 Associated Press article “Compromise near on Population Control Plan” stated:
“On the eve of the opening of the United Nations Population Conference in Cairo, a U. S. official said that a compromise on the sensitive issues of abortion and birth control was “very close.”…During three preparatory conferences, delegates from 170 countries agreed on more than 90% of the plan for controlling population.”
The confidential Cobden Club Memo Mandate for Reduction of Existing World Population is a now accessible document allegedly presented to a group of international representatives shortly before the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, which focused on managing the consequences of overpopulation. This memo referenced many other projects for population reduction, stressed the urgency of globally implementing population reduction, and advocated having each member of the UN security council (the primary military powers) force the rest of the world into submission to this agenda. While the actual summit occurred (this is where Agenda 21 was formulated), like the Report from Iron Mountain and many other documents in this genre, I am ultimately unsure if this document is authentic, which is part of what makes researching these subjects so challenging.
As best as I can tell, population control measures typically follow one of three approaches:
- Create social changes that discourage having children.
- Introduce an environmental factor that decreases male testosterone and sperm viability.
- Directly sterilize (or give birth control to) women of childbearing age.
The first approach is a politically touchy subject. I will cite a few quick examples:
- Second Wave Feminism transitioned a significant portion of the population from raising families at home to a sterile existence working outside the home. Second Wave Feminism was essential for our country and corrected many serious injustices towards women, but there is also some evidence to suggest the movement was hijacked to help the upper class by removing women from a motherly role and doubling the workforce. For example a pioneer of this movement, Gloria Steinem who strongly discouraged being a housewife, was also a CIA operative.
- The societal messages around dating have been shifted from romantic bonding (which produces children) to a hookup culture without intimacy.
- Women are strongly encouraged to pursue a career before having children or a family, which frequently results in them missing the opportunity to do so.
- Previously rare sexual pairings that either cannot or are unlikely to produce children are actively encouraged by the media and corporatocracy.
- Alternatives to relationships, such as computer or video addictions, are strongly encouraged in society.
- Economically, it has become more and more difficult for individuals to afford to have children.
- Having children is labeled as environmentally destructive and hence strongly discouraged.
- Having children is now characterized as a major obstacle to spiritual growth and self-development.
- The widespread support and social validation for having children has gradually diminished.
I have personally observed as the years have gone by, fewer and fewer people are interested in having children, and some combination of the above reasons are typically cited. I also find people who have children have a much deeper sense of happiness than those who do not, despite media messages suggesting the opposite.
The idea of population control or mass extinction for the greater good has also been increasingly observed within the media. Avengers Endgame was the top grossing film of 2019, and it was so heavily promoted throughout the media that it accomplished the unique feat of almost doubling the revenue of the runner-up. I have often wondered whether this was deliberate on account of the message the movie spread in the months immediately preceding COVID-19 of the need to be evil and eliminate half the population for the “greater good”.
There are also many factors that directly affect fertility. Each of these appears to have followed a gradual progression like the myth of a “boiling frog” where the onset has been too slow for most of the victims to recognize.
At this time, male health is significantly less studied than female health (for example, many recent graduates I have spoken to felt “transexual medicine” may have had a greater focus in their curriculum than “male health” in their medical school curriculum). As a result, much of this section, such as the importance of testosterone, is still relatively unknown.
Despite this knowledge gap, it is almost universally agreed within the scientific literature that there has been a massive, sustained decline in male testosterone levels over the decades (a male’s testosterone levels goes hand in hand with his health and fertility). This decline directly affects male (and to a lesser extent female) health, and numerous integrative physicians have found rectifying it creates profound benefits in a large percentage of their patients. The decline of sperm quality and viability has also been observed, but as it is more difficult to objectively quantify, not as much as data exists to clearly support this trend.
A common means of controlling animal populations is to universally introduce an agent which decreases male fertility (as these tend to be easier to distribute on a large-scale basis than agents which target female reproduction). In addition, a common method of controlling animal behavior is to neuter males, as this reduces their aggression and “disobedience to authority.” (For example, a recent lawsuit was filed by a 16-year-old boy who developed breasts after he was forced to take estrogen in jail to “control his behavior.”) It is hence understandable why those in the ruling class would be open to using similar approaches on the “useless eaters” of the population (many terms for this concept exist, including those originating from the Nazis’ eugenics program).
Many of the factors causing this decline appear to have been deliberately placed in the environment. The most influential are xenoestrogens, artificial chemicals that mimic the characteristics of estrogen and feminize organisms. Alex Jones’s infamous commentary on chemicals that “turn the friggin’ frogs gay,” for example, was a reference to atrazine, a still widely used herbicide, that for over 20 years has been known to create hermaphroditic frogs. For those interested, the eight-hour audiobook, Estrogeneration: How Estrogenics Are Making You Fat, Sick, and Infertile provides an excellent summary of the topic.
Some of the most common xenoestrogens in addition to atrazine (and some other herbicides) include:
- Birth control pills, which are designed to not break down and thus cycle back into the water supply (this is a common problem in areas that reuse waste water, particularly China, where oral contraceptives are widely used).
- Soy (excluding the rare exception where it is fermented like in Miso or Natto), is a food that comprises a significant portion of the food supply. While much less common (but sometimes still) an issue, a similar effect results from lavender products.
- Bisphenol A and S found in many plastics, which constantly contact our bodies and food.
- Phalates (also found in many plastics, I particularly care about this when sourcing IV supplies)
- Parabens (these are uses for fragrances in many cosmetic products).
- DDT and PCBs are highly dangerous mutagenic chemicals. Despite their known toxicity (Monsanto, the initial PCB producer, saw within three years 23 of their 24 researchers develop disfigured faces) it took decades, and in some cases almost a century of activism, to remove them from the market. Massive amounts of these chemicals were produced, and they persist in the environment, accumulate up the food chain (especially via fish), and still affect people today. In addition to being destructive to both humans and wildlife, a good case can be made these chemicals created many of the changes we are still seeing today (such as the decline of male sperm counts).
While it is appreciated that increasing estrogen levels will directly feminize males, it is less appreciated that there are estrogen receptors in the brain that reduce testosterone levels when stimulated. Clomifene, a drug designed for inducing ovulation (either for patients who cannot ovulate, or to collect eggs for IVF) blocks this anti-testosterone receptor. Direct testosterone administration can be used for male health, however, many physicians also find significant benefit from using clomifene, as it alone can raise testosterone, and in many cases treat male infertility. This (and many pieces of evidence) suggest xenoestrogens play a key role in the male decline of testosterone.
One of the largest influences on testicular function is microwave radiation (emitted by cell phones and Wi-Fi enabled devices). Brain matter, the heart, and the testicles are the most susceptible tissues in the body to this microwave radiation (for those curious, there is actually a lot of research proving this).
Microwave field strength (per the inverse square law) exponentially decreases from its source, and a frequently successful approach for treating male infertility is to avoid carrying a phone in the pocket or using a laptop near the lap. While I am not familiar with the effects of this radiation on the ovaries, it has been shown that microwave field strength increases within the uterus rather than decreases as would be expected (the uterus is a fascinating organ) and that some degree of correlation between birth defects and prenatal EMF exposure exists.
Many other factors also influence testosterone levels and fertility. Two of the more interesting examples are metformin, a very commonly used medication for diabetes that has the curious side effect of reducing testosterone (which can be debilitating for older men who are already deficient in testosterone), and the widely used sugar replacement stevia, which has been repeatedly studied for its testosterone reducing and contraceptive properties. This all goes in a full circle as these many of these substances also interfere with metabolism thereby creating obesity, and fat cells via aromatase further perpetuate the cycle by turning testosterone to estrogen.
To tie this all together, Niels E. Skakkebæk, MD PhD, an expert in testicular cancer, has shown through Denmark’s national cancer registry (maintained since 1943) that the rate of testicular cancer more than tripled from 1943 to 1993 and continues to grow since that time. At the same time, he also found sperm density fell from 113 million per milliliter in 1940 to 66 million per milliliter in 1990 and that the volume of sperm has dropped an average of 19%.
I suspect part of this correlation results from the increasing rates of undescended testicles in males, a condition that causes both male infertility and testicular cancer. In the 1950s per English research, an undescended testicle occurred in 1.6% of births, but now occurs in 3-5% of full terms births and 30% of premature births. This chronology (continual mismanagement of an eventually cancerous undescended testicle) amongst other things was responsible for the death of an anonymous blog writer I followed for years and learned a great deal from.
While male sterilization methods tend to be uniformly administered throughout the environment, due to mammalian biology, female sterilization typically requires more targeted approaches. The only exception I know of to this rule occurred in India in the 1970s, where their prime minister in return for international loans declared martial law and with military force mandated vasectomies, gruesomely sterilizing six million men before being forced to abandon this initiative due to violent male counterprotest (hence why only women are directly targeted for sterilization).
Sterilization through vaccination has long been viewed as the holy grail of population control, as global faith in vaccination allows the covert mass administration of sterilizing substances, and unlike many other methods, in theory it only needs to be done once. As such, a lot of research has been done in this area, but at least until recently, the technology for it was lacking. To fully understand the context of that approach, we will first review what has been done with the forced administration of traditional contraceptive and sterilizing technologies.
While the Nazis, who forcefully sterilized or executed millions they deemed unfit to breed, are history’s most notorious offenders, many sterilization campaigns have been forcibly conducted by governments around the world against poor women of color. One of the best-known examples occurred in the United States from the 1960s to the 1970s. There, the Indian Health Services, through force and deceit, sterilized between 25% to 40% of the female native American population via tubal ligations and hysterectomies, resulting in a halving of their birth rate.
Other examples include:
- 40,000 women that were sterilized in Colombia between 1963-65 by Rockefeller-funded programs.
- A million women were sterilized in Brazil between 1965-1971.
- A U.S.-imposed population control program administered by the Peace Corps in Bolivia sterilized Quechua Indian women without their knowledge or consent.
Population control is less straightforward once direct sterilization is no longer utilized, so it is important to understand the parameters of the existing technologies. On that note, one of the aspects of modern life I have always found to be particularly unfair is the lack of good birth control options. Every single option has serious associated health issues or creates barriers to intimacy. The only ones that don’t (I know many people who use behavioral or spiritual practices such as the rhythm method and semen retention) inevitably fail.
As far as I can tell, the best birth control option is a well-designed diaphragm. Unfortunately, research on this approach was shelved once it was realized birth control pills represented a much more profitable market. While not ideal, my present belief is IUDs that can be tolerated are the best available option. Unfortunately, many women do not tolerate these either (for example, one of my classmates nearly failed out of her first year of medical school due to a bad reaction to a copper IUD).
Sadly, while there are serious health issues associated with the present forms of birth control, the current approaches (with the exception of the recently discontinued Essure) are much safer than many of the earlier experimental forms of birth control (the horror of the Dalkon Shields being an excellent example). Much of this is unknown, because as discussed in the previous article about the military’s horrific forced experimentation with the Anthrax vaccine (which laid the groundwork for Operation Warp Speed), medical research is often conducted on vulnerable populations that typically remain out of sight and out of mind.
From a population management perspective, a long-lasting injectable birth control option is the only feasible option. After all, there’s no guarantee people will take expensive pills indefinitely, it’s unlikely you can regularly re-inject a population, and anything besides an injection is too time consuming to apply to large numbers of people.
One of the best candidates for that approach is the injectable Depo-Provera, one of the more harmful birth control options that has seriously affected the health of many women I know. Depo-Provera, as you would guess, is regularly used by international organizations in third-world countries. Going as far back as almost 50 years ago, in 1979, USAID through the International Planned Parenthood Federation supplied Depo-Provera to 378, 000 women in Mexico, Sri Lanka. and Bangladesh in experimental research projects. Widespread administration of Depo-Provera by these organizations continues to this day (with the additional involvement of more modern organizations such as the Gates Foundation who continue the tradition relentlessly distributing it to vulnerable women).
A push was made to distribute Depo-Provera far and wide, as you might expect, this was often done in an unethical manner where the recipients often had little knowledge of what was being done to them. We will briefly review a few of those examples.
In societies where whites controlled a non-white population, Depo-Provera was often questionably administered to the undesirable demographic. In South Africa, during apartheid, as the whites became increasingly concerned about the accelerating black birth rate, Depo-Provera was forcibly administered to black women at government-funded family planning agencies. To quote Dr. Nthato Motlana, who was at the time one of the country’s leading Black physicians: “there is no such thing as ‘informed consent’ here. The agencies are administering Depo-Provera shots to young black girls without even asking their consent.”
This practice also existed in Zimbabwe, where under white rule Depo-Provera was the most widely used contraceptive among black women until Robert Mugabe, a black man, became prime minister and cancelled the program. Canada, another country that sterilized their indigenous population, also made frequent use of Depo-Provera on this demographic. Lastly, in Western Australia, Depo-Provera was also widely administered by government health services to Aboriginal women. This is a critical context to the cries for help this community has made against the Australian government’s forced COVID vaccination programs.
When desperate situations arise, these too are frequently taken advantage of by international organizations to implement population control campaigns. Receiving Depo-Provera or a sterilization procedure is often made a requirement for receiving international aid. In Bangladesh, an area where individuals frequently starved to death, this was the condition for receiving food. In Thai refugee camps for Cambodians fleeing the collapse of the Khmer Rouge, refugees were often required to receive Depo-Provera to access necessities for survival, and in some cases simply forced to receive it, while male refugees were paid to recruit as many refugees as possible for injection.
When you look back at the above events, there are a variety of different “narratives” that could be used to describe them. Because of how many Depo-Provera shots had been stockpiled for and the money behind the project, for many of those involved in the process, the focus was simply on how to distribute as many as possible. So, whenever an opportunity to increase Depo-Provera uptake arose, it was taken advantage of it, and the ethical questions of using individuals’ desperate circumstances or taking away their right to consent was not even considered.
In other cases, such as that in Bangladesh, it could have easily been reasoned that “if there are too many people here and everyone is starving to death, it is not appropriate to feed someone unless they are also kept from having kids.” Finally, there are the cases, where selected races were deliberately sterilized to protect the interests of the ruling class and it is hard to argue their intentions were anything besides selfish and evil.
Each of these narratives is important to consider as we look at the immoral way the COVID-19 vaccines have been distributed and mandated. These ideas are recurring themes throughout history, and they have all repeatedly shown themselves during the current vaccination campaign.
Contrary to popular believe, most of the existing food shortages are a product of people wanting to profit from the unequal allocation of resources rather than a lack of available food. Many, I included, believe if we can live in harmony with our environment, the Earth has the ability to support at least 40 billion people. Similarly, if we have a more cooperative existence where we evolve the community around us, the motivation to have large numbers of children (the principal driver of population growth) will likely disappear.
This is all very doable and does not require extreme sacrifices in the quality of life for each human being. However, the nature of that model would create a cooperative self-sufficient social model where the oligarchy no longer has control over everything. This way of living is unacceptable to those in power, so the focus has always been on maintaining their power and keeping the population at a level that supports the existing hierarchy, something progressively more difficult to accomplish as our standards of living increase.
In our current era, the labor value of individual human beings has been significantly decreased by modern technology (particularly in the recent times with AI and Robotics). From many publications I’ve read, it appears that the Oligarchy now holds the perspective that the productive value our current population level offers has become outweighed by the costs of having that many people. The second part of this article will be released soon and discusses the various ways vaccinations have been used to affect fertility. In the meantime, I request you consider how the oligarchy might approach their current population dilemma.
Additionally, if you wish to know more on the subject for forced sterilization campaigns by the WHO, I would highly recommend reading Chapter 10 of The Real Anthony Fauci. It also researched this topic, but goes into much greater detail in many areas and provides supporting references.
Source: The Persistent History Of Population Control