Continued from Part 3 | Part 2 | Part 1
Memo and the main document:

Continuing from: page 7:

17. . . . On the supply side, intense efforts are required to assure full availability by 1980 of birth control information and means to all . . . On the demand side, further experimentation and implementation action projects and programs are needed. In particular, more research is needed on the motivation of the poorest who often have the highest fertility rates. Assistance programs must be more precisely targeted to this group than in the past.

Page 8:

18. . . .For urban people, a rapidly growing element in the LDCs, the liabilities of having too many children are already becoming apparent. Aid recipients and donors must also emphasize development and improvements in the quality of life of the poor,

There is a fundamental problem right here. If the “poor” are worse off than the “urban people,” why do are the urban residents already aware of the “liabilities of having too many children”? Is that really being better off? We’re talking about night and day. They want to sell people that urban residents have a superior “quality of life.” I really doubt that. They’re going to give up rural life for a life that may be a little more comfortable? If people were aware of what they were losing, possibly many more would refuse to do this.

Page 8:

20. The pace of internal migration from countryside to over swollen cities is greatly intensified by rapid population growth. Enormous burdens are placed on LDC governments for
public administration, sanitation, education, police, and other services, and urban slum dwellers
(though apparently not recent migrants) may serve as a volatile, violent force which threatens political stability.

So they were concerned about political stability certainly. Why? Because people might not like the system. The more young people who are alert to reality, the more dissatisfaction they have with the status quo. The more people know, the less likely they are to consider the U.S. and other nations to be purveyors of “humanitarian values” as it says in point 19?

But this interpretation encourages the focus on population.

So there is an observation on the internal migration from countryside to swollen cities but I think the answer would be to make rural living more attractive. I suspect that strategy was not being made more attractive. it’s likely this is just hypocrisy–and the intent is to drive rural people into the cities instead of encouraging them to remain in rural areas and develop them. All this territory was desired by private corporations. Later we can see examples of this kind of land transfer to foreign private interests in countries such as Ethiopia. We should be alert to this sort of thing having happened in North America also over the last 40+ years.

Point 22 is that conflicts in “developing areas” have demographic roots. First of all, the “international community” has called these nations “developing” for endless decades. When are they going to finish “developing”? We are used to this nonsense. These nations are being kept under the gun all this time to keep them in line–destabilized and interfered with in terms of population. Also, a second point is that if you think about it, it implies that the reason we don’t have violent conflicts (according to this premise that human beings follow the law of the jungle) in developed countries is because we have a non-growing population. In other words, since our population is actually declining, there is no need for violent conflict over resources. We’re losing resources anyway in the long or short term–families lose land–lose wealth–and resource monopolists take over everywhere. Here or there, they want to make sure people aren’t having “too many” children because it leads to “political instability” for those who have power and want more power and property. The more people, the more people to dislike and question the regime.

Point 24 speculates:

There exists at least the possibility that present developments point toward Malthusian conditions for many regions of the world.

That’s the standard scare tactic.

Point 25 continues with that.

29. While specific goals in this area are difficult to state, our aim should be for the world to achieve a replacement level of fertility, (a two- child family on the average), by about the year 2000. This will require the present 2 percent growth rate to decline to 1.7 percent within a decade and to 1.1 percent by 2000 compared to the U.N medium projection, this goal would result in 500 million fewer people in 2000 and about 3 billion fewer in 2050. Attainment of this goal will require greatly intensified population programs. A basis for developing national population growth control targets to achieve this world target is contained in the World Population Plan of Action.

Point 30:

The World Population Plan of Action is not self-enforcing and will require vigorous efforts by interested countries, U.N. agencies and other international bodies to make it effective. U.S. leadership is essential. . . .

Then it goes into detail.

Page 10:

(c) Increased assistance for family planning services, information and technology.
This is a vital aspect of any world population program.
1) Family planning information and materials based on present technology should be made fully available as rapidly as possible to the 85 % of the populations in key LDCs not now reached, essentially rural poor who have the highest fertility.

Think about it a different way. The “rural poor” — what defines “poor”? “Poor” just means they “need” to be “helped” or interfered with in a paternalistic way from someone who sees themselves in a superior position–why? Or, helped off their land more likely. If they have less children, they can’t work their land. They are sitting on resources that others want to get a hold off.

2) Fundamental and developmental research should be expanded, aimed at simple, low-cost, effective, safe, long-lasting and acceptable methods of fertility control. Support by all federal agencies for biomedical research in this field should be increased by $60 million annually.

How is this acceptable? I’m going to quote from the United Nations Convention against genocide::

. . .

c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
. . .

The following phrase is on Page 11 and also in section E on page 78:

Creating conditions conducive to fertility decline. . . .

Compare that to the Genocide convention.

. . . In many cases pilot programs and experimental research will be needed as guidance for later efforts on a larger scale.

Sounds like a lot of effort.

So this is what they have always meant by women’s equality. It has to do with reducing the population:

— Providing minimal levels of education, especially for women; — Reducing infant mortality, including through simple low cost health care networks;

— Expanding wage employment, especially for women;

Women as wage slaves means they’re not helping to maintain the family’s homestead and they have less time and energy to have children. Social changes were made in Canada decades ago and were presented with economic justifications at the time. And all of these policies have been intensified today.

— Developing alternatives to children as a source of old age security;

So this is about training people to be dependent on the state welfare so they can eventually control everything about our health, which is what we’re seeing now. Someday someone wakes up and they have no children to look after them and they have an apartment in the city with some wealthy person or corporation owning the old family plot.

How do they sell “urban renewal” or beautification? A glossy corporate building is seen as “legit” but a dusty old farmhouse is seen as backwards. That’s how our society is run nowadays–with the surface image of things. Whatever the media doesn’t want you to see or whatever invisible suffering is really going on, we don’t see–especially if we’re indoors, locked down in our homes as with COVID-19. We should judge justly and not judge by the superficial or by emotional manipulation.

— Increasing income of the poorest, especially in rural areas, including providing privately owned farms;

Oh, that’s one good thing in this–some people seem to be given a better quality of life in some sense. Buy people off to not have children. Charles Galton Darwin described the same strategy for the West.

— Education of new generations on the desirability of smaller families.

Propaganda and indoctrination. Having small families is better? Why? Because then you are taking up less space that others could be using!? But aren’t you supposed–expected by your parents or nature–to have children and grandchildren? No? Many parents haven’t insisted on it, encouraged it or mentioned it. If I have children, what if one or both of my children doesn’t have two children? Isn’t your family line going to die out? Oh, well that doesn’t matter? It’s not mentioned in my education, so it doesn’t matter. And, personally, I never had these thoughts at all until much later in my life. Why did it never occur to me? Because the media publishes and broadcasts material that is consistent with this POLICY.

To be updated

---