Weeding Out Humans Seems to Be an Impending Plan

15:24 18.08.2011 • Armen Oganesyan , Editor-in-Chief, International Affairs

Population reports project that there are going to be 7 billion of us on this planet by October 31, 2011. No doubt, international institutions – from the UN to lightweights – will be dishing out nicely worded statements on the occasion, but it takes no effort to sense the undercurrent of displeasure constantly rising among a large fraction of world's political elite. Clearly, many of the players in this league are convinced that the proportions of the global community with which they have no tendency to identify have exceeded a kind of limits, and some would not even credit the majority of its members with being, in the full sense, humans.

Dutch author Mara Hvistendahl’s Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls and the Consequences of a World Full of Men shed light on the tragedy of around 160 million girls who fell victims to prenatal female infanticide, a calculated and shockingly massive campaign based on gender preferences. The real hardliners might discover a beneficial side in the above, considering that, in the words of David Rockefeller whose foundation archives Hvistendahl dug into, “The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident”. Taming population growth in least-developed countries is the stated mission of a myriad of foundations and groups with budgets adding up to billions of dollars. Recently, the US Congress appropriated over $648m in foreign assistance to family planning and reproductive healthcare programs worldwide. US Secretary of State H. Clinton stressed in a comment on the big news that this would be “the largest allocation in more than a decade – since we last had a Democratic president”. Science and technology advisor to the US Secretary of State Dr. Nina Fedoroff helped the audiences to glimpse the motivation behind the policy when she said: "We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can't support many more people".

While the book by Mara Hvistendahl focuses on the massive campaign which took the lives of millions of girls in Asia through sex-selective abortion, it would be a huge mistake to believe that the planners of weeding out humans on the global scale somehow overlooked Russia.

Margaret Thatcher said once during her term in office that "Russians should be reduced to 15 million, the persons serving chinks and mines". It is open to guesswork why the Kremlin stayed unperturbed after the view surfaced, but when it was expressed the confused interpreter translated the phrase as 50 million and was corrected right away. By all means, this could not have been a slip of the tongue - it attested to the seriousness of the intent voiced by the Iron Lady with a talent for befriending imprudent Russians that Madeleine Albright held almost exactly the same in the mid-1990ies.

The alliance of political elites, major foundations, and international bodies has a full arsenal of technical and financial instruments for imposing “unnatural selection” wherever the “international community” deems it necessary to slash the natural birthrates. Hvistendahl frequently mentions The International Planned Parenthood Federation, a vigorous post-war offshoot of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Its founder Margaret Sanger notoriously maintained that “The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it”. It is no surprise that Sanger candidly approved of the measures Hitler's regime took to suppress the fertility of the nations it treated as “inferior”.

Hitler said to Hermann Rauschning in a 1934 conversation about the Slavic peoples: "We are obliged to depopulate, as part of our mission of preserving the German population. We shall have to develop a technique of depopulation. If you ask me what I mean by depopulation, I mean the removal of entire racial units. And that is what I intend to carry out - that, roughly, is my task". A Nazi decree stamped in 1939 in the wake of the occupation of Poland read: "All measures which have the tendency to limit the births are to be tolerated or to be supported. Abortion in the remaining area [of Poland] must be declared free from punishment. The means for abortion and contraceptive means may be offered publicly without police restriction. Homosexuality is always to be declared legal". Later the approach was similarly applied elsewhere in East Europe, including the parts of the USSR which fell under German control.  Fearing that more draconian steps would spark outrage across the population, the Nazi usually advanced and encouraged “voluntary” abortions and sterilization. An instruction issued by Himmler required that “The Russian physicians or the Russian Medical Association, which must not be informed of this order, are to be told in individual cases that the pregnancy is being interrupted for reasons of social distress. It must be explained in such a way that no conclusions to the existence of a definite order may be drawn”. The Nazi propaganda pressed the notion of various inconveniences and potential health hazards associated with childbirth.

The occupation administrations were decisively advised against linking the birthrate suppression programs to any limitations on sexual conduct. "Leaving a valve open" for sexual promiscuity as long as the fertility among the occupied populations continued to decline was considered perfectly appropriate in Berlin. The Nazi propped up a whole network of burlesque shows and brothels in Poland and put the efforts aimed at eroding morality among the younger generation of Poles on track so broadly that in some cases the Polish Resistance specifically targeted the joints. Germans obviously frowned on the tendency of the enemy populations, particularly in Ukraine, to sustain strong, tight- knit families. Hitler used to say he would readily have anyone talking of a ban on abortions in Ukraine gunned down.

The defense at the Nuremberg Trials raised objections that abortions were not enforced under the Nazi occupation, but the prosecution presented the following official German document in response: “It is known that racially inferior offspring of Eastern workers and Poles is to be avoided if at all possible. Although pregnancy interruptions ought to be carried out on a voluntary basis only, pressure is to be applied in each of these cases”. The Nazi officers who faced the corresponding charges were justly given stiff sentences, including life imprisonment, regardless of the claims about strictly “voluntary” abortions. In 1948, the UN largely underscored the historical experience when it adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, with “Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group” defined with utmost clarity as one of the forms of the heinous crime.

<!--[if gte mso 9]> <!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false RU JA X-NONE <!--[if gte mso 9]> <!--[if gte mso 10]> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Обычная таблица"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} <!--StartFragment--> At this point, simple questions inevitably cross one's mind: how likely is it that the killings of 160 million girls could have been committed by their mothers voluntarily and aren't the selectivity and regional focus of the activity indicative of its planned and premeditated character?<!--EndFragment-->


read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs