POLITICS Rockefeller Foundation, molecular biology, eugenics, social control, and human engineering

[Guest guest]

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Rockefeller-Foundation-Social-Control-Euge\

nics.html

You can leave discussion on the list, or on my blog:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/cholesterol-blog.html

Chris

[Guest guest]

Very illuminating article! Thanks for writing this.

I found this quote from Linus ing particularly disturbing:

" There should be tattooed on the forehead of every young person a symbol

showing possession of the sickle-cell gene or whatever other similar gene .

.. . It is my opinion that legislation along this line, compulsory testing

for defective genes before marriage, and some form of semi-public display of

this possession, should be adopted. "

Sounds like a combination of a Scarlet Letter and Star of that Jews

were forced to wear during the Holocaust. Funny how you are often aware of a

famous scientist's scientific work, but rarely aware of his/her

values/morals./philosophy.

Just a few typos I noticed:

" Roert Sinsheimer " - should be " " ?

Then, under " Molecular Biology As a Means of Social Control and Human

Engineering "

Last sentence:

" ... system of human engineering through communication, avertising, and mass

psychology. "

" Advertising is misspelled.

Great job!

Suze Fisher

" Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight. "

~Albert Schweitzer

> POLITICS Rockefeller Foundation, molecular biology,

eugenics,

> social control, and human engineering

>

>

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Rockefeller-Foundation-Social-Control-

> Eugenics.html

>

> You can leave discussion on the list, or on my blog:

>

> http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/cholesterol-blog.html

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On 1/17/09, Suze Fisher <suzefisher@...> wrote:

> Very illuminating article! Thanks for writing this.

Thanks, Suze.

> I found this quote from Linus ing particularly disturbing:

>

> " There should be tattooed on the forehead of every young person a symbol

> showing possession of the sickle-cell gene or whatever other similar gene .

> . . It is my opinion that legislation along this line, compulsory testing

> for defective genes before marriage, and some form of semi-public display of

> this possession, should be adopted. "

>

> Sounds like a combination of a Scarlet Letter and Star of that Jews

> were forced to wear during the Holocaust. Funny how you are often aware of a

> famous scientist's scientific work, but rarely aware of his/her

> values/morals./philosophy.

Yeah. In addition, I have often heard the word " orthomolecular

medicine " that ing coined thrown around by people who seem to

think it means taking lots of vitamins, but she cited his views that

most mental problems were genetic in nature and introducing the

correct molecular environment would include introducing nucleic acids

into the cells to correct them, i.e., genetic engineering

(orthomolecular pyschiatry), which I'd never heard of.

ing may have retracted a lot of that afterwards. She stated that

most of the more speculative " brave new molecular world "

pronouncements from the late 1960s were later retracted, but she

didn't give specifics.

The MIT obituary I linked to cited ing and Lederberg, both quoted

for their eugenic statements, as giving praise to the book.

> Just a few typos I noticed:

Thanks! I noticed a couple others this morning and will probably fix

them tonight.

Chris

[Guest guest]

There are a few points I personally disagree with - but in this age

of the media being so biased it's hard to know what is what.

Worldwatch recently (several years ago) had a report in their State

of the World publication about how many people living on $1 to $2 a

day couldn't afford contraception, but would gladly use it if it were

available as they had more kids than they felt they could afford.

In some polls conducted, they asked people how many children they

wanted vs. how many they had and found that depending on the country,

the families wanted an average of 1-4 fewer children than they had.

When the family is too large, terrible things wind up happening like

daughters sold into prostitution or children being sold into slavery,

not to mention that in large families there isn't enough money for

school uniforms, tuition, books, etc. so there is less literacy and

education.

I had a friend from Honduras whose parents moved away and left him

and his brother behind. I was horrified but he assured me there are

many homeless children in Hondouras because the families must make

the difficult decision on the whole family starving or leaving a few

behind to try to do their best for the ones left (he actually forgave

his mother for leaving him - found her years later and came here as

an illegal immigrant to work like crazy and send most of the money

back to feed his mother and siblings.

My film group showed a film about children working in sweatshops and

as slaves and it said in India families give children as surety

against money borrowed in desperate times. So for small amounts, as

little as $5, a child goes into slavery until the parents can gather

enough to pay back the loan with the interest they owe.

>

>

>

> Very illuminating article! Thanks for writing this.

>

> I found this quote from Linus ing particularly disturbing:

>

> " There should be tattooed on the forehead of every young person a

symbol

> showing possession of the sickle-cell gene or whatever other

similar gene .

> . . It is my opinion that legislation along this line, compulsory

testing

> for defective genes before marriage, and some form of semi-public

display of

> this possession, should be adopted. "

>

> Sounds like a combination of a Scarlet Letter and Star of

that Jews

> were forced to wear during the Holocaust. Funny how you are often

aware of a

> famous scientist's scientific work, but rarely aware of his/her

> values/morals./philosophy.

>

> Just a few typos I noticed:

>

> " Roert Sinsheimer " - should be " " ?

>

> Then, under " Molecular Biology As a Means of Social Control and

Human

> Engineering "

>

> Last sentence:

>

> " ... system of human engineering through communication, avertising,

and mass

> psychology. "

>

> " Advertising is misspelled.

>

> Great job!

>

>

> Suze Fisher

>

> " Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself

the sight. "

> ~Albert Schweitzer

>

>

>

>

> > POLITICS Rockefeller Foundation, molecular biology,

> eugenics,

> > social control, and human engineering

> >

> >

> http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Rockefeller-Foundation-Social-

Control-

> > Eugenics.html

> >

> > You can leave discussion on the list, or on my blog:

> >

> > http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/cholesterol-blog.html

> >

> > Chris

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

On 1/17/09, haecklers <haecklers@...> wrote:

> There are a few points I personally disagree with - but in this age

> of the media being so biased it's hard to know what is what.

> Worldwatch recently (several years ago) had a report in their State

> of the World publication about how many people living on $1 to $2 a

> day couldn't afford contraception, but would gladly use it if it were

> available as they had more kids than they felt they could afford.

Well, I think that, on the whole, the idea of planning your family is

a good thing. I also think that reducing prostitution, alcoholism,

racism, and the other social ills listed as targets for " social

control " are good too. So the substance is not always the problem,

but the means. And the reasons are two-fold: first that the means of

top-down cultural and thought manipulation in and of themselves have

ethical issues and adverse consequences, and second that, as Lumley

said in 1925, social control is vulnerable to being wielded by a few

who usurp power for their own ends.

And I think there is a large difference between wanting families to

have the ability to plan how many children they have and the idea that

the world is vastly overpopulated. I don't think the latter is true,

but regardless it has spawned some absolutely wacko people like

Pianka, who teaches his students that 90% of the earth's population

should die, and gets awards and standing ovations from the Texas

scientific establishment for saying so.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Good point and I just wrote a really good response to it but then my

computer ate it - I really hate VISTA!

What I fear is that the fear-mongering about eugenics, along with the

ultra-Right push that all funding to family planning be cut as some

of it may go to abortions (yeah, the US cut all its foreign aid to

family planning because of this), is playing into the hands of the

rich who benefit from a huge population of desperately poor. 2/3 of

the world population makes under $2 a day. Unless they have land and

are growing their own food, it's not enough to live on.

Human beings in this situation are like chattel - they bring wealth

to whoever has the most of them (I'm talking governments, now).

Because factories like to go to the places where unemployment is the

highest and people are the most desperately poor. There they can use

the people in an arrangement the Yes Men say is better than slavery -

they get the work for almost nothing without having to worry about

feeding or housing them, and have no responsibility to the

unproductive members - pregnant, young, old, sick, etc. The

factories bring fortunes to the 5% living in their gated communities

with their armed guards. And rich foreign investors. And the ones

who own the stores that get to sell the cheap imported goods. And

all the middle men. A lot of people profit from this arrangement -

enough that they would resist anyone tampering with it.

As Parenti says, we are taught to credit our capitalism with

the gains labor has made - getting weekends off, sick leave, medical

insurance, workplace safety, and so on. But those were all gains

that were fought tooth and nail by industry and were really gains

AGAINST capitalism. Parenti also points out that in our history

lessons industry leaders were painted as heroes when in reality they

were often robber-barons and tyrants, while labor groups are often

portrayed as violent, unreasonable, and dangerous when what most of

them really wanted was to be able to earn a living without being

poisoned or killed on the job.

But labor loses its power to bargain for anything when every person

is easily replacable and all are too close to starvation to resist.

That is the reward for having a high population of the poor - for

keeping them from controlling the number of babies they have in the

ways our families enjoy. You can count on human nature that people

will for the most part take care of all babies they give birth to and

will seek the comfort of marriage. They will continue to spawn new

generations of " better than slaves " for industry, manufacturing, and

retail stores unless others step in on their behalf out of

conscience. These eugenics claims hinder that and I wonder sometimes

at the motives of those spreading them (not you but some PR firms,

you know, swaying public opinion?)

> > There are a few points I personally disagree with - but in this

age

> > of the media being so biased it's hard to know what is what.

> > Worldwatch recently (several years ago) had a report in their

State

> > of the World publication about how many people living on $1 to $2

a

> > day couldn't afford contraception, but would gladly use it if it

were

> > available as they had more kids than they felt they could afford.

>

> Well, I think that, on the whole, the idea of planning your family

is

> a good thing. I also think that reducing prostitution, alcoholism,

> racism, and the other social ills listed as targets for " social

> control " are good too. So the substance is not always the problem,

> but the means. And the reasons are two-fold: first that the means

of

> top-down cultural and thought manipulation in and of themselves have

> ethical issues and adverse consequences, and second that, as Lumley

> said in 1925, social control is vulnerable to being wielded by a few

> who usurp power for their own ends.

>

> And I think there is a large difference between wanting families to

> have the ability to plan how many children they have and the idea

that

> the world is vastly overpopulated. I don't think the latter is

true,

> but regardless it has spawned some absolutely wacko people like

> Pianka, who teaches his students that 90% of the earth's population

> should die, and gets awards and standing ovations from the Texas

> scientific establishment for saying so.

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

Renate,

> What I fear is that the fear-mongering about eugenics, along with the

> ultra-Right push that all funding to family planning be cut as some

> of it may go to abortions (yeah, the US cut all its foreign aid to

> family planning because of this), is playing into the hands of the

> rich who benefit from a huge population of desperately poor. 2/3 of

> the world population makes under $2 a day. Unless they have land and

> are growing their own food, it's not enough to live on.

Am I fear-mongering? I don't think my review even took a stance on

eugenics, but simply described the influence of eugenics on the

development of molecular biology. The extent of my stance was to

point out that neither eugenics nor any of the other methods of social

control have improved the social ills they were promised to eliminate.

The rich do not want an overpopulated world. That leads to political

instability in the regions that they want to use as resource mines and

threatens their interests. That's why elites from the Rockefellers to

Kissinger to Nixon and others were the main pushers behind population

reduction plans.

At the moment, cheap labor is one of these resources, so the elites

will favor modest population reduction or population containment over

dramatic population reduction. However, technology could increasingly

make labor obsolete from the perspective of power elites.

> Human beings in this situation are like chattel - they bring wealth

> to whoever has the most of them (I'm talking governments, now).

They don't bring any wealth unless they attract investment.

Instability does not attract investment, and overpopulation threatens

stability.

> Because factories like to go to the places where unemployment is the

> highest and people are the most desperately poor. There they can use

> the people in an arrangement the Yes Men say is better than slavery -

> they get the work for almost nothing without having to worry about

> feeding or housing them, and have no responsibility to the

> unproductive members - pregnant, young, old, sick, etc. The

> factories bring fortunes to the 5% living in their gated communities

> with their armed guards. And rich foreign investors. And the ones

> who own the stores that get to sell the cheap imported goods. And

> all the middle men. A lot of people profit from this arrangement -

> enough that they would resist anyone tampering with it.

They like to go where the labor market is loose enough that wages are

low, but where conditions do not foster violence, revolution, etc. A

large population can easily overthrow a government if they fail to

believe in its legitimacy. A firm that invests in an area because the

government is able to keep the population under strict control, void

them of any indigenous property rights, and force them into the labor

market, does not want unlimited population growth.

> As Parenti says, we are taught to credit our capitalism with

> the gains labor has made - getting weekends off, sick leave, medical

> insurance, workplace safety, and so on. But those were all gains

> that were fought tooth and nail by industry and were really gains

> AGAINST capitalism.

They were not against " capitalism. " They were against the

pseudo-capitalist state-managed economies that thrust people into

labor markets through taxation and property acquisition. Under free

market capitalism, people would only have left subsistence living to

work in a factory if they saw it as advantageous to their own

interests.

Note the Zapatista struggle in Mexico. They fight to keep their

constitutional rights to keep their land, which were voided under

NAFTA. If the government succeeds in confiscating their land and

selling it to the highest bidder, they will wind up stuck in the labor

market and have to fight against the system for good conditions, but

that system will not be " capitalism. " It will be government-sponsored

forced industrialization.

> Parenti also points out that in our history

> lessons industry leaders were painted as heroes when in reality they

> were often robber-barons and tyrants, while labor groups are often

> portrayed as violent, unreasonable, and dangerous when what most of

> them really wanted was to be able to earn a living without being

> poisoned or killed on the job.

They have gone back and forth between being portrayed as industrial

statesmen and as robber barons. The literature of the turn of the

twentieth century, interestingly, portrayed Jesus and the Apostles as

successful businessmen, according to Lily Kay in the book I reviewed.

But that's a tangent -- what does this have to do with overpopulation

and eugenics?

> But labor loses its power to bargain for anything when every person

> is easily replacable and all are too close to starvation to resist.

Only if the government prevents them from engaging in traditional

subsistence farming.

> That is the reward for having a high population of the poor - for

> keeping them from controlling the number of babies they have in the

> ways our families enjoy.

So was the international movement to reduce population started by the

labor movement? No. It was started by the Rockefeller Foundation and

its associated " philanthropies, " whose trustees and administrators

viewed the labor movement as unAmerican and immoral and contrary to

the Protestant work ethic that built American so-called capitalism.

It is the elites that have pushed this doctrine, not the masses.

> You can count on human nature that people

> will for the most part take care of all babies they give birth to and

> will seek the comfort of marriage. They will continue to spawn new

> generations of " better than slaves " for industry, manufacturing, and

> retail stores unless others step in on their behalf out of

> conscience.

So most people are too stupid to engage in family planning and others

must plan their families for them?

> These eugenics claims hinder that and I wonder sometimes

> at the motives of those spreading them (not you but some PR firms,

> you know, swaying public opinion?)

So D. Rockefeller Jr, D Rockefeller III, Rockefeller,

Henry Kissinger, Nixon, and so on, all these rich elite people

in control of all the international trade treaties that have

formulated the very system you speak of, designed plans to limit

population growth and to use mass media as propaganda to undermine

traditional beliefs about family size and indoctrinate populations

with a culture that favored family planning, and you think the

anti-eugenics, anti-population control movements are pushed by PR

firms in favor of the international elites?

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- Renate wrote:

> > But labor loses its power to bargain for anything when every

> > person is easily replacable and all are too close to starvation

> > to resist.

>

--- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> Only if the government prevents them from engaging in traditional

> subsistence farming.

overpopulation can make it impossible for many people to make a

living from subsistence farming. If a subsistence family owns 10

acres and has 8 children, only one of these children can have 10 acres

to support their future family of 8 children. The other siblings must

either find more land or find another way to make a living. The earth

is rapidly getting to the point where there is no more arable land

available for expanding subsistence populations. And we are

irreversibly destroying many natural habitats and species in the

process. Also, if sustainable farming practices are not used, that 10

acres may no longer support a family of 10 people as it did in the past.

Unless we colonize outer space, we will inevitably run out of living

space on earth. It becomes a question of quality of life versus

quantity of life. If we have fewer people everyone can have a better

quality of life. But when the population gets too large, quality of

life begins to suffer. I believe many areas have already reached this

point.

[Guest guest]

,

> overpopulation can make it impossible for many people to make a

> living from subsistence farming. If a subsistence family owns 10

> acres and has 8 children, only one of these children can have 10 acres

> to support their future family of 8 children. The other siblings must

> either find more land or find another way to make a living. The earth

> is rapidly getting to the point where there is no more arable land

> available for expanding subsistence populations. And we are

> irreversibly destroying many natural habitats and species in the

> process. Also, if sustainable farming practices are not used, that 10

> acres may no longer support a family of 10 people as it did in the past.

Sure, I agree that scenario is sensible and logical, and I'd be open

to the argument that that is actually what has happened in many of

these areas, but I'd like to see some evidence of it. My impression

is that these (industrialization with poor conditions and cheap wages)

situations have been created by political and economic means rather

than simply having run out of room. Maybe I'm wrong.

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> My impression is that these (industrialization with poor conditions

> and cheap wages) situations have been created by political and

> economic means rather than simply having run out of room. Maybe I'm

> wrong.

I think you're right on this point. Vast expanses of

monoculture crops, often GMO, grown with pesticides, herbicides, and

fertilizer, seem to be the norm in many areas now. I've read that

many US aid programs in fact push this approach, which is sad.

But one of the problems is that once people have left subsistence

farming, they quickly lose the knowledge needed to go back to it, even

if there is an opportunity. Also, the lure of modern technology pulls

many people away from their ancestral ways. We need to somehow find a

happy medium between technology and sustainable practices to achieve

optimal quality of life for the greatest number of people.

Easier said than done

[Guest guest]

,

> I think you're right on this point. Vast expanses of

> monoculture crops, often GMO, grown with pesticides, herbicides, and

> fertilizer, seem to be the norm in many areas now. I've read that

> many US aid programs in fact push this approach, which is sad.

>

> But one of the problems is that once people have left subsistence

> farming, they quickly lose the knowledge needed to go back to it, even

> if there is an opportunity. Also, the lure of modern technology pulls

> many people away from their ancestral ways. We need to somehow find a

> happy medium between technology and sustainable practices to achieve

> optimal quality of life for the greatest number of people.

>

> Easier said than done

I think that freedom is the best way to provide this. I don't know

how these people lost the knowledge of family planning, if in fact

they did, as herbal contraceptives are ancient and widely known of,

but with the supply of knowledge about different contraceptive

techniques, including the healthiest and least ethically questionable,

which is knowledge of the ovulatory cycle and abstinence during the

fertile periods (see gardenoffertility.com), and with the freedom to

engage in economic activity of various types without government

management in the interest of elites, including the right to homestead

land and use it for productive purposes without purchasing at

prohibitive prices from the government or the elites the government

has sold it to, would produce optimal population. People would plan

their families according to what they could afford, and would plan

their economic activity in a way that would support the number of

children they wanted to have.

Of course, that is unlikely to happen and what we can do now is

probably fight for compromises in the midst of a sitaution that looks

nothing like this, so as you said, easier said than done.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Well times have changed because the free trade has taken a turn for the

better as far as industry is concerned. Things aren't the same as back

when eugenics was openly discussed as a way of improving the human race

(before Hitler, even - my grandmother had some brochures from the

1930's I believe and she said before the Nazis abused it, all the

countries were talking about eugenics and using science to improve the

human race). Even 20 years ago much more of what was sold in America

was made in America - it's been the last few decades where the tide

really turned toward exploiting foreign labor markets like never before.

> So D. Rockefeller Jr, D Rockefeller III, Rockefeller,

> Henry Kissinger, Nixon, and so on, all these rich elite people

> in control of all the international trade treaties that have

> formulated the very system you speak of, designed plans to limit

> population growth and to use mass media as propaganda to undermine

> traditional beliefs about family size and indoctrinate populations

> with a culture that favored family planning, and you think the

> anti-eugenics, anti-population control movements are pushed by PR

> firms in favor of the international elites?

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

Renate,

> Well times have changed because the free trade has taken a turn for the

> better as far as industry is concerned. Things aren't the same as back

> when eugenics was openly discussed as a way of improving the human race

> (before Hitler, even - my grandmother had some brochures from the

> 1930's I believe and she said before the Nazis abused it, all the

> countries were talking about eugenics and using science to improve the

> human race). Even 20 years ago much more of what was sold in America

> was made in America - it's been the last few decades where the tide

> really turned toward exploiting foreign labor markets like never before.

Eugenics was openly discussed by the molecular biology establishment

in the 1960s, as the quote from Linus ing in my review clearly

demonstrates, in which he talked about tatooing people with defective

genes on the forehead.

Rockefeller has been one of the critical architech of the

current international trade structure:

Rockefeller is a proponent population reduction:

So, I do not think that the beneficiaries of the current international

trade structure think that overpopulation is a good thing.

Chris

[Guest guest]

and , I thought you might find this interesting:

This is Young Peltons map of the most dangerous places in

terms of unrest and violence:

http://www.comebackalive.com/site3.php?page_id=9

And the following map of where there is the worst overcrowding,

malnutrition and poverty:

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/global-poverty-biodiversity-map

Notice that there are very few areas that overlap between the maximum

danger zones and the areas with the most desperate and starving

people!

> The rich do not want an overpopulated

world. That leads to political

> instability in the regions that they want to use as resource mines

and

> threatens their interests. That's why elites from the Rockefellers

to

> Kissinger to Nixon and others were the main pushers behind

population

> reduction plans.

>

> At the moment, cheap labor is one of these resources, so the elites

> will favor modest population reduction or population containment

over

> dramatic population reduction. However, technology could

increasingly

> make labor obsolete from the perspective of power elites.

>