Presenting NSSM 200: "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests"

Tyler Durden's picture

One of the topics touched upon by Eric deCarbonnel in the earlier article discussing the potential, if not necessarily probable absent further validation, implications of the Exchange Stabilization Fund, is that of the nature of AIDS. Which got us thinking. While we won't necessarily go into the implications proposed by none other than Chuck Palahniuk in his book Rant (word search Kissinger, especially what Neddy Nelson has to say on the topic), it made us recall that particular National Security Study Memorandum, aka NSSM 200, better known as "The Kissinger Report" authored on December 10, 1974 and immediately classified under Executive Order 11652 until 1989, titled simply, "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests." What did the report say and why is it relevant, especially in our day and age when so many believe that all important substance - black gold - may have peaked? Well, since it has 123 pages full of very, very curious information as pertains to how US foreign policy is truly styled, we will leave it up to our readers to make their own conclusions, but here are some preliminary observations to help them on their way...

The basic thesis of the memorandum was that population growth in the least developed countries (LDCs) is a concern to U.S. national security, because it would tend to risk civil unrest and political instability in countries that had a high potential for economic development. The policy gives "paramount importance" to population control measures and the promotion of contraception among 13 populous countries, to control rapid population growth which the US deems inimical to the socio-political and economic growth of these countries and to the national interests of the United States, since the "U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad", and these countries can produce destabilizing opposition forces against the United States. It recommends the US leadership to "influence national leaders" and that "improved world-wide support for population-related efforts should be sought through increased emphasis on mass media and other population education and motivation programs by the U.N., USIA, and USAID."

 

Thirteen countries are named in the report as particularly problematic with respect to U.S. security interests: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil. These countries are projected to create 47 percent of all world population growth.

 

The report advocates the promotion of education and contraception and other population control measures. It also raises the question of whether the U.S. should consider preferential allocation of surplus food supplies to states that are deemed constructive in use of population control measures.

Some of the key insights of report are controversial:

"The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries [see National Commission on Materials Policy, Towards a National Materials Policy: Basic Data and Issues, April 1972]. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States. . . . The location of known reserves of higher grade ores of most minerals favors increasing dependence of all industrialized regions on imports from less developed countries. The real problems of mineral supplies lie, not in basic physical sufficiency, but in the politico-economic issues of access, terms for exploration and exploitation, and division of the benefits among producers, consumers, and host country governments" [Chapter III-Minerals and Fuel]. 

 

Whether through government action, labor conflicts, sabotage, or civil disturbance, the smooth flow of needed materials will be jeopardized. Although population pressure is obviously not the only factor involved, these types of frustrations are much less likely under conditions of slow or zero population growth" [Chapter III-Minerals and Fuel].

 

"Populations with a high proportion of growth. The young people, who are in much higher proportions in many LDCs, are likely to be more volatile, unstable, prone to extremes, alienation and violence than an older population. These young people can more readily be persuaded to attack the legal institutions of the government or real property of the ‘establishment,' ‘imperialists,' multinational corporations, or other-often foreign-influences blamed for their troubles" [Chapter V, "Implications of Population Pressures for National Security].

"We must take care that our activities should not give the appearance to the LDCs of an industrialized country policy directed against the LDCs. Caution must be taken that in any approaches in this field we support in the LDCs are ones we can support within this country. "Third World" leaders should be in the forefront and obtain the credit for successful programs. In this context it is important to demonstrate to LDC leaders that such family planning programs have worked and can work within a reasonable period of time." [Chapter I, World Demographic Trends].

The kicker:

The report advises, "In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion."

And much more...

So just what do you call when Dr. Mengele applies the principles of eugenics, only not to his own population, but to everybody else's? We have no idea although it certainly sounds like yet another crack pot, tinfoil conspiracy theory.

For those who enjoy factual historical documents, here are some other of the good Doctor's (Kissinger, not Mengele) observations:

Because of the momentum of population dynamics, reductions in birth rates affect total numbers only slowly. High birth rates in the recent past have resulted in a high proportion the youngest age groups, so that there will continue to be substantial population increases over many years even if a two-child family should become the norm in the future. Policies to reduce fertility will have their main effects on total numbers only after several decades. However, if future numbers are to be kept within reasonable bounds, it is urgent that measures to reduce fertility be started and made effective in the 1970's and 1980's. Moreover, programs started now to reduce birth rates will have short run advantages for developing countries in lowered demands on food, health and educational and other services and in enlarged capacity to contribute to productive investments, thus accelerating development.

 

U.N. estimates use the 3.6 billion population of 1970 as a base (there are nearly 4 billion now) and project from about 6 billion to 8 billion people for the year 2000 with the U.S. medium estimate at 6.4 billion. The U.S. medium projections show a world population of 12 billion by 2075 which implies a five-fold increase in south and southeast Asia and in Latin American and a seven-fold increase in Africa, compared with a doubling in east Asia and a 40% increase in the presently developed countries (see Table I). Most demographers, including the U.N. and the U.S. Population Council, regard the range of 10 to 13 billion as the most likely level for world population stability, even with intensive efforts at fertility control. (These figures assume, that sufficient food could be produced and distributed to avoid limitation through famines.)

 

Growing populations will have a serious impact on the need for food especially in the poorest, fastest growing LDCs. While under normal weather conditions and assuming food production growth in line with recent trends, total world agricultural production could expand faster than population, there will nevertheless be serious problems in food distribution and financing, making shortages, even at today's poor nutrition levels, probable in many of the larger more populous LDC regions. Even today 10 to 20 million people die each year due, directly or indirectly, to malnutrition. Even more serious is the consequence of major crop failures which are likely to occur from time to time.

 

Countries with large population growth cannot afford constantly growing imports, but for them to raise food output steadily by 2 to 4 percent over the next generation or two is a formidable challenge. Capital and foreign exchange requirements for intensive agriculture are heavy, and are aggravated by energy cost increases and fertilizer scarcities and price rises. The institutional, technical, and economic problems of transforming traditional agriculture are also very difficult to overcome.

 

In addition, in some overpopulated regions, rapid population growth presses on a fragile environment in ways that threaten longer-term food production: through cultivation of marginal lands, overgrazing, desertification, deforestation, and soil erosion, with consequent destruction of land and pollution of water, rapid siltation of reservoirs, and impairment of inland and coastal fisheries.

 

Rapid population growth is not in itself a major factor in pressure on depletable resources (fossil fuels and other minerals), since demand for them depends more on levels of industrial output than on numbers of people. On the other hand, the world is increasingly dependent on mineral supplies from developing countries, and if rapid population frustrates their prospects for economic development and social progress, the resulting instability may undermine the conditions for expanded output and sustained flows of such resources.

 

Rapid population growth creates a severe drag on rates of economic development otherwise attainable, sometimes to the point of preventing any increase in per capita incomes. In addition to the overall impact on per capita incomes, rapid population growth seriously affects a vast range of other aspects of the quality of life important to social and economic progress in the LDCs.

 

The universal objective of increasing the world's standard of living dictates that  economic growth outpace population growth. In many high population growth areas of the world, the largest proportion of GNP is consumed, with only a small amount saved. Thus, a small proportion of GNP is available for investment - the "engine" of economic growth. Most experts agree that, with fairly constant costs per acceptor, expenditures on effective family planning services are generally one of the most cost effective investments for an LDC country seeking to improve overall welfare and per capita economic growth. We cannot wait for overall modernization and development to produce lower fertility rates naturally since this will undoubtedly take many decades in most developing countries, during which time rapid population growth will tend to slow development and widen even more the gap between rich and poor.

And why all this is relevant for good ole' humanitarian Uncle Sam:

The political consequences of current population factors in the LDCs - rapid growth, internal migration, high percentages of young people, slow improvement in living standards, urban concentrations, and pressures for foreign migration ?? are damaging to the internal stability and international relations of countries in whose advancement the U.S. is interested, thus creating political or even national security problems for the U.S. In a broader sense, there is a major risk of severe damage to world economic, political, and ecological systems and, as these systems begin to fail, to our humanitarian values.

 

What are the stakes? We do not know whether technological developments will make it possible to feed over 8 much less 12 billion people in the 21st century. We cannot be entirely certain that climatic changes in the coming decade will not create great difficulties in feeding a growing population, especially people in the LDCs who live under increasingly marginal and more vulnerable conditions. There exists at least the possibility that present developments point toward Malthusian conditions for many regions of the world. 

 

But even if survival for these much larger numbers is possible, it will in all likelihood be bare survival, with all efforts going in the good years to provide minimum nutrition and utter dependence in the bad years on emergency rescue efforts from the less populated and richer countries of the world. In the shorter run -- between now and the year 2000 -- the difference between the two courses can be some perceptible material gain in the crowded poor regions, and some improvement in the relative distribution of intra- country per capita income between rich and poor, as against permanent poverty and the widening of income gaps. A much more vigorous effort to slow population growth can also mean a very great difference between enormous tragedies of malnutrition and starvation as against only serious chronic conditions.

And it gets even better:

There is an alternative view which holds that a growing number of experts believe that the population situation is already more serious and less amenable to solution through voluntary measures than is generally accepted. It holds that, to prevent even more widespread food shortage and other demographic catastrophes than are generally anticipated, even stronger measures are required and some fundamental, very difficult moral issues need to be addressed.

Dot dot dot...

Full memorandum (link):

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
ultimate warrior's picture

The day Kissinger dies it will be a great day for America. 

Population Bubble's picture

This is not the population problem you are looking for...

trav7777's picture

what the fuck is the MATTER with you, Tyler???

Population CANNOT GROW FOREVER.  It is NECESSARY to reduce it or else NATURE WILL and in ways we do not like.

How the fuck can EVERYONE be so goddamned stupid?  Bartlett was right, jfc.

And now I will read the comments where everyone piles on like lemmings....

narapoiddyslexia's picture

See the Grantham talk at the link. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_bRyiVaD5M

If the Gyppos had grown at 4% for the 3000 years of their history, starting off with just a cubic meter of goods, they would have filled a googleplex of solar systems. Or something like that. Big.

Amount=Principle (1 + i)

Where i = interest and t = time.

Its inescapable. We're fucked one way or the other. 

narapoiddyslexia's picture

Apologies to any Egyptians. Its just a colloqialism my Uncle always used. He fought in N. Africa and really loved all the Egyptians he met. They nursed him back to health.

narapoiddyslexia's picture

If my math is correct, a population of humans = 100,000, growing at 1/2% per year, will after 3000 years number 315 billion.

Drip, drip, drip....

All growth must stop, unless we rapidly colonize the whole solar system.

JW n FL's picture

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smRo7UFUuwM&feature=related

Uploaded by on Nov 29, 2010

Canadian Economist Jeff Rubin is known for his prescient calls in the oil markets over the past few decades. His most recent book, Why Your World is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller, explains why continuously rising oil prices will mean the end of globalization. We caught up with Rubin at the Global Wealth Management seminar in Copenhagen to talk about how rising oil prices will affect everything from home loans to the price of Salmon.

JW n FL's picture

 

 

Uploaded by on Jan 1, 2012

William K. Black, Paolo Manasse, and John Weeks discuss the Euro and the danger of global recession

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWUGeYKFIKo&feature=g-all-u&context=G29f0d4cFAAAAAAAAEAA

merizobeach's picture

There may already be a plan in place to handle overpopulation...  For example, your grandchildren will be born sterile, with low birth weight, high infant mortality, and hairy teeth.

 

Horrowshow:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_5...

http://responsibletechnology.org/article-gmo-soy-linked-to-sterility

Oh regional Indian's picture

Want to know the real tragedy of over-population?

Farm subsidies. Globalization. IMF. Vaccination. Allopathetic Health Care. Pharmacopia. Eugenics.

Save a Chile/Feed a Child money stealing missionaries with tax-free status.

Such a curious dilemma for the sell-side west.

Population = Connedsumer

Population = useless Eater

Agenda 21 people. Love it or get together and let's kill it.

ori

/2012-the-year-of-anomaly/

GMadScientist's picture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jJGKOmZsTc

 

...but who wants to live on just 70 cents a day?

padding your pockets doesn't make this a better place,

"cereal and water" is a feast for some you say,

but your price-tag on existence can't cover your double face

 

CaptFufflePants's picture

What's wrong with colonizing the whole solar system?

 

Sounds like a challenge worth tackling.

 

 

eureka's picture

IF Microsoft Windows worked well, airlines flew on time and all other human srvices, inventions and designs had mad human life better, more equitable and joyful in the past 40 years - then, we might have reasonable confidence in mankinds abilitty to intelligently design, implement and balance allocation of the systems required to colonize the solar system. 

Now, back to reality, as it stands, humankind has stood absolutely still in most regards and actually gone severely backwards in the past 40 years. Nothing works well in 2012 - nothing advances exponentially - except the continued destruction of all social and ecological systems through financialization and globalisation driven by and for the entitled, wealth-re-distribution recepients - i.e. the hyper fiat-rich monopolists.

Self-restraint, i.m.o. is an excellent tool for self-liberation. Logically, if extended throughout a culture, it would equally be so for that culture - but i'm afraid that is too much to expect from mankind. I would be happy to be wrong, but I see suffering and pain increasing all around me. We, humans cannot agree about anything, and so we will suffer, to divided and self absorbed to unite about anything, except of course external "enemy" imagery, which always "magically" unites people who normally hate each other.

The solar system is safe from humans. Earth - and humans - are not.

GMadScientist's picture

We have always been at war with the Andromedans.

akak's picture

We attack the Andromedans in their galaxy so we don't have to fight them in our own.

trav7777's picture

and how many more minutes do the bacteria get if they find 3 more bottles?  aka, quadrupling their living space...

CrazyCooter's picture

Years ago, struggling under management that really just had their head up their ass, I found the perfect weapon (to ruin my career at anything other than being a hyper productive plow mule).

http://www.ralentz.com/old/space/feynman-report.html

The last sentence is epic ...

For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.

Really, what this means (for those that really don't care to invest the time to read) is that you can't fuck with nature no mature how bad ass/rich/hung/powerful you think you are. Or, in the most simple terms, your sales staff can sell a lot of units of accounting software that they assure clients can divide by zero, but you can not in fact deliver this product because of the laws of nature.

On this note, for those of you who are bored tonight and want some info-tainment ... let me present to you ... Mr. Richard Feynman.

  1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAmH3nkBtgQ
  2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr0rdHXQe44
  3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRCZSFOPZjs
  4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0KST3Xj38o
  5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSiZgjry8Gw

Regards,

Cooter

centerline's picture

Cooter - sounds like you might be an engineer. I have spent the majority of my professional career in this paradigm of business folks driving engineering (usually via schedule and cost) at greater and greater risk to reliability/safety. It is yet another extreme of our current society.

I use the Challenger example all the time to poke business folks in the eye when then attempt to push schedules into unacceptable territory. I suppose you could say that I have made a career out of "holding the line," which has come with both rewards and punishment.

I can't blame anyone who steers away from a technical career these days.

GMadScientist's picture

Good sauce, Cooter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0LCVp0C-Ck

Enjoy the quip about the national debt at around 3:09 or so...

uniman's picture

If you start with 7e9 human beans, some reasonable average mass and size, and a 1% per annum population growth rate, then some amazing numbers can be had.

For example, the entire bean collection could presently fit into a sphere of approximately 1 km radius and mass a mere 1.4e8 kg. 1% more of these creatures would require an expansion of the cage by about 3 m in radius. Surely Homeland Security can build a bigger cage?

However, the year after would require that the cage's radius be expanded a slightly greater amount, in order to accommodate greater population growth. And the same thing continues to happen year after.

By the year 10575 AD the radius of the cage would need to be expanding at the rate of about 300,000 m/sec which is pretty darn close to c last I looked. Things get more difficult thereafter. The mass of humanity, minus the cage, would be approx 9.2e48 kg. I can imagine that parking would be bad and real estate prices would be very high. And where would you hide your guns and gold? Imagine all the radios and music those people would have and how difficult it would be to sleep! How many elves would Santa need to properly manage Christmas?

Somehow I think that if this really were to happen, some other constraint would rear its head first.

But I have the greatest faith and optimism that somehow people will muddle through and find a way. Maybe if abiotic oil is real that would solve everything.

Happy New Year Folks

CrazyCooter's picture

narapoiddyslexia, have you see the charts that go with that youtube? I would love to see what he narrates against about mid way through the video.

Anyone?

Regards,

Cooter

Dane Bramage's picture

And now I will read the comments where everyone piles on like lemmings...."

Oooh, pre-emptive logical fallacy FTW!

Population CANNOT GROW FOREVER.

If either time or the universe are finite, you are correct trav7777.   Otherwise, you just lack imagination.

trav7777's picture

nah, I was right...the lemmings are everywhere.

It was a prediction which proved correct.

the universe isn't infinite.

dumpster's picture

trav you be the first to reduce your bulk on human population.

just crook off .. and show the lemmnings  how to follow you .

one less mouth to feed ..

centerline's picture

Hmmm.... we can't really prove or disprove either.  BUT, we can reasonable estimate that based on exponential growth that if we don't manage go all "Star Trek" like... yesterday... we are going to hit the wall very soon.

Sucks, but the math is the math once you consider what is practical in terms of the technological and social advancements necessary to avoid a crash.  Quite simply, we are at tail end of massive industrial-age population bubble fueled by cheap fossil fuels.  It has been one hell of a run no doubt.  Welcome to the topping process.

 

GMadScientist's picture

The space in the universe in which we are able to live (not inside stars, not in the vaccum-filled void, not where there isn't water, etc) are quite finite at the moment.

 

I guess people could become increasingly smaller to achieve higher density of flesh per square meter, but I think you might want to stop to ponder the quality of life beyond a certain population threshhold, as long as we're discussing lack of imagination.

Try reading "The Sheep Look Up" for a sneak preview of what crossing that threshhold would bring (hint: it'll cure the population problem for you!).

Gully Foyle's picture

trav7777

I have always said that those who advocate population control are racist as those controls will be applied to people of color.

Population is supposed to peak around 2050 at about 9 billion. It then starts shrinking.

The REAL issue is the growth of aging populations worldwide.

http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0313-population.html

World population to peak at 9.2 billion in 2050
mongabay.com
March 13, 2007


World population is expected to reach 9.2 billion by 2050 according to a new study by the United Nations. Virtually all growth will occur in developing countries, with their population growing from 5.4 billion today to 7.9 billion mid-century. The population of developed regions is expected to remain unchanged at 1.2 billion, and would have declined, were it not for the anticipated net migration from developing to developed countries.

The report also said that global population will age faster than ever before, with half the expected increase in world population between 2005 and 2050 to be accounted for by a rise in the population aged 60 years or over. The number of children under the age of 9 will decrease slightly over the same period.

Global life expectancy will increase from 66.0 years today to 75.4 in 2045-2050, according to the report. Japan is expected to have the highest life expectancy (87.1 years versus 81.9 years today), followed by Hong Kong, Switzerland, Iceland, and Australia. The United States is expected to see life expectancy increase by six years, from 78.5 years today to 84.5 years in 2050.

At the opposite end of the scale, life expectancy in Zambia, currently the country with the shortest life expectancy at 39.2 years, is expected to increase by 46 percent by 2050 to 57.4 years. The largest gains are expected in Zimbabwe, where life expectancy is expected to increase by more than 60 percent from 40 years today to 64.2 years in 2050.

The U.N. notes that fertility in less developed countries is expected to fall from 2.75 children per woman in 2005-2010 to 2.05 in 2045-2050, a figure that puts births below replacement levels of 2.1 children per woman. Least developed countries will likely see their fertility rate decline from 4.63 children per woman to 2.50 children per woman.

The new population figures are about 100 million than those released last year due to success in treating the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The U.N. expects most countries to have antiretroviral treatment programs by 2015. Antiretroviral extend life by an extra seven-and-a-half years on average for those infected with HIV/AIDS. Overall, the U.N. forecasts 32 million fewer deaths between 2005-2050 in the 62 most affected countries than it did in its prior population revision.

The 9.191 billion figure is "medium" estimate by the U.N., which gives a range of 7.792 to 10.756 billion for 2050.

While it appears likely that human population will level off mid-century, the human footprint on the planet is expected to grow as larger numbers of people achieve higher levels of affluence, especially in China and India. In general as quality of life improves, a population uses more resources. For example the United States appropriates more than 20 percent of the world's resources despite having less than 5 percent of global population.

This article uses quotes from an Iowa State news release.

centerline's picture

Ha, ha, ha.  2050.   Don't want to spook people that it will likely hit much earlier than that.  The kicker is that the entire "system" operate within is based on exponential growth.  Hell, all it takes is growth at the lesser rate than required to create problems and eventually crash the system.  Of course that will kick start the decline.

Yardfarmer's picture

@ gully foyle The transoceanic collaboration between the elitist Nazi ideologues of both Germany and the United States dedicated to the eugenic cleansing of hereditary and racial stock had reached a fever pitch in the 1930’s culminating in the Third International Congress On Eugenics in 1932. The Congress was dedicated to Averell Harriman’s mother for her tireless work in funding eugenics organizations in the U.S., England, and Germany. The Nazi psychiatrist Ernst Rudin was elected president of the International Federation of Eugenics Societies. Averell Harriman himself had arranged the trans-Atlantic voyage of the Nazi eugenics hierarchy on the Walker/ Bush Hamburg-Amerika line. The shipping line was but one of many financial, business and industrial concerns, which linked the Bush, Harriman and Walker families with the German Thyssen-Krupp-I.G. Farben combine which financed Hitler and created the Nazi war machine. The congress was funded by one William Draper Jr., a lifelong friend and associate of the future U.S. president, George Herbert Walker Bush. Draper was a very busy man, spending 15 years financing and managing Nazi enterprises through the offices of the German Credit and Investment Corporation all the way through 1942, as well as retaining the rank of general in the U.S. Army and founding numerous eugenics and population control agencies well into the 1980’s. Draper also served as vice-chairman of the future International Planned Parenthood Federation. In fact it is not hard to find General Draper’s footprints all across the wide terrain co-inhabited by the ardent ideologues devoted to Nazi race theory, eugenics cleansing, and neo-fascist imperatives on both sides of the Atlantic. The delegates at the congress were entertained by a host of contributors and

speakers who stressed the need for comprehensive programs devoted to the sterilization of the mentally ill, the execution of criminals, the insane and the terminally ill, and the “eugenical racial purification by prevention of births to parents from inferior blood stocks” These initiatives were to become the consuming and life long passion of Margaret Sanger, a close associate and friend of both Rudin and Draper, who was to become the most visible face of the eugenics movement after her Birth Control League was transformed into its present incarnation, The Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

The figures alone give eloquent testimony to the success of Margaret Sanger’s so called “Negro Project”, initiated in 1939 as a response to the requests from public health officials in the southern states: 13,000,000 aborted black babies since 1973. Some statistics go so far as to say that one out of every two pregnancies among black women end in abortion. The lower end speculation is three out of five, which makes black women at least five times more likely to terminate a pregnancy than their white counterparts. One out of every three abortions is performed on a black woman. Out of 1,200,000 abortions in the United States annually, 500,000 are black with some 250,000 Hispanic (All statistics courtesy of Blackgenocide.org). Given her obsessive compulsive and driven personality, these numbers might be somewhat of a disappointment to the uncompromising eugenics crusader. The following is from George Grant in his critical biography “Killer Angel”

“The mass of Negroes,” her project proposal asserted, “particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit”…In order to remedy this “dysgenic horror story” her project aimed to hire three or four “Colored Ministers, preferably with social service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities” to travel to various Black enclaves and propagandize for birth control…”The most successful educational approach to the Negro,” Margaret wrote sometime later, “is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the Minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

To this day PPFA notoriously positions the majority of its burgeoning clinics in or adjacent to neighborhoods with predominantly minority populations. Sanger’s first clinic was opened in 1916 in the Brownsville neighborhood of Brooklyn with over 90% of its population Afro-American, and of course accompanied by all the ravages which perennially afflict ghettoized black enclaves throughout the United States: unremitting and grinding poverty, pitifully inadequate and substandard housing, chronic unemployment, government engineered saturation with hard drugs, pervasive alcoholism and addiction, non existent or over-taxed medical facilities, dysfunctional and understaffed schools, blighted urban landscapes with block after block of abandoned derelict buildings which Jimmy Breslin depicted as looking like Berlin after World War ll, altogether deserving of its familiar modern moniker, The Wasteland. Although this urban nightmare was still far away from the apocalyptic open prison yard of modern times, the picture that presented itself to the young white eugenic crusader must have confirmed her already deeply imbedded prejudices regarding the innate hopelessness of what she referred to later as the “Negro problem”. Thousands of miles and an ocean away, in the bloody and feral quagmire of the trenches of World War l, a unknown German corporal was formulating inchoate visions informed by the same eugenic race-science theories that motivated Margaret Sanger, which would later result in his own attempts to solve another pressing issue, the Jewish problem. Sanger’s own attempts at opening a birth control clinic in the squalor of a New York City ghetto might be interpreted as partaking of disingenuous armchair socialist grandstanding for which she and her coterie of upper crust salon socialists later became known. As was undoubtedly expected, after only nine days of operation, the clinic was raided by the police and shut down. Duly sentenced, Sanger cooled her heels in a jail cell for 30 days, in the process acquiring the required credentials for a piece of agitation calculated only to attract the publicity needed to further her agenda and aggrandize her decided personal
ambitions. In fact the “abortive” operation had all the fingerprints of the many and various foundations, which were beginning to supply their considerable financial and political capital to the push for eugenic programs in the U.S., Britain and Germany. Many years later with the PPFA firmly established, Sanger and her cohorts still felt the need to divert any public attention away from considerable involvement of the Rockefeller foundation in particular in the funding of the organization.
As the eugenics movement gradually distanced itself from any association with its Nazi connections and gradually shape shifted into the sanitized semblance of a public health initiative, the ambitious and well-funded public relations campaign began to pay some dividends. The “Negro project” was making much headway in the South, widely disseminating contraceptives at ever increasing rates and forming in the process a solid base of operations from which the organization would in the future expand to the entire country, all the while replicating the model, concentrating clinics around and within minority communities. Despite the successful recruiting of the support of black leadership across a wide spectrum of religious, social, professional and academic organizations, there was one slight drawback that was noticed over the intervening years. In 1940 the pregnancy rate among non-white women was 61/1000. Only 28 years later in 1968 that figure had doubled to 112/1000! The only reasonable explanation was that, as was generally feared as far back as 1939, the “Darkies”, with their rapacious instincts for indiscriminate breeding and attendant intellectual inferiority, could not be entrusted with the admittedly delicate scientific process of limiting their numbers. That the population engineers had provided the dark masses with means and opportunity for their own salutary delimitation had merely provided them with a false reassurance that what little restraint they might have previously exerted against their wild and uncontrollable venereal urges could be completely abandoned. This unmistakable result was to prove the consistent bugbear of PPFA and necessitated the deployment, in exponentially increasing numbers, of their own “final solution”-abortion on demand. Dr. Alan Guttmacher was instrumental in effecting the new policy agenda which through illimitable Rockefeller Foundation funding was able to effect the final hoped for goal of “liberalization” of abortion laws, resulting in the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973, which opened up the floodgates for the unprecedented assault on the unborn. Guttmacher, who had inherited the leadership of the organization with the passing of the sainted foundress on September 6, 1966, had signaled the increasing emphasis of abortion on demand as the concomitant and essential component of PPFA depopulation programs even to the point of publicly praising the surgical abortion teams which fanned out across the Chinese countryside in search of violators of the communist mandated 1 child per family restrictions. That these coercive and state mandated abortions would find favor with PPFA leadership is no surprise given some of Guttmacher’s statements:

“ Each country,” he says, “ will have to decide its own form of coercion, and determine when and how it should be employed. At the present, the means are compulsory sterilization and compulsory abortion. Perhaps some day a way of enforcing compulsory birth control will be feasible.”

Of course for a woman and the organization that bears her indelible impress and at the same time cynically manipulates the “useful idiots” of the clerical profession to such devious ends, common cause with an ideology that espouses the suppression of religious freedom can also come as no surprise.

“Birth control appeals to the advanced radical because it is calculated to undermine the authority of the Christian churches. I look forward to seeing humanity free someday of the tyranny of Christianity no less than Capitalism”.

Escapeclaws's picture

Terrific post Yardfarmer! I suspected there had to be some Nazi-inspired eugenics behind the abortion movement. Not only is abortion itself morally repugnant, especially in its later barbaric form of "partial birth abortion", but it also has a morally repugnant pedigree culminating in the infamous Roe v Wade which arrogantly draws a line to determine which human beings are allowed to live. This historical background is invaluable and should be more widely disseminated. The term "feminazis" makes even more sense for women who favor this genocide, given this background.

GMadScientist's picture

Encouraging irresponsible pregnancies with no though to supporting the child after it is born is just as abhorrent.

It's no coincidence that catholic girls get more abortions than any other demographic.


InconvenientCounterParty's picture

Preserving an unborn subordinate human only to de-legitimize their autonomous life once their values don't align to yours is an interesting behavior.

Is it barbaric or God's work? Is there a difference?

Ability for self delusion is a biological flaw. Too bad for humans it can't be eliminated with genetic screening. That's the real joke.

 

EINSILVERGUY's picture

You have it backwards

The Progressive movement in the US initiated the Eugenics movement. In addition to Sangers work to reduce black populations, the progressives also made it a point to introduce sterilizatiion into orphanages and a famous court case of Oliver Wendell Holmes "In an opinion by Justice OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, the Court upheld a state statute authorizing compulsory STERILIZATION of "mental defectives." In dismissing the claim that this imposition wrongly discriminated against retarded people and thereby denied them EQUAL PROTECTION under the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, Holmes appeared to invoke "minimal scrutiny" (as it was later termed), holding that the legislature might reasonably find retardation both inheritable and socially harmful. "

1907

Indiana becomes the first state in the country to successfully pass a mandatory forced sterilization law, in this case impacting the "feebleminded" (mentally handicapped). 1909

California and Washington pass mandatory sterilization laws. 1922

Harry Hamilton Laughlin, director of the Eugenics Research Office, proposes a federal mandatory sterilization law. Like Lincecum's proposal, it never really goes anywhere. 1927

In Buck v. Bell, the U.S. Supreme Court rules (8-1) that laws mandating the sterilization of the mentally handicapped do not violate the Constitution. Writing for the majority, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes makes an explicitly eugenic argument:

It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.

1936 Nazi propaganda defends Germany's forced sterilization program by citing the United States as an ally in the eugenic movement, and its laws as proof of its status as same. World War II, and the atrocities committed by the Nazi government, would rapidly change U.S. attitudes towards eugenics.

The Nazi's didn't inspire the natural evolution of eugenics. They took what they learned from America and unfortunately to the worlds' horror,  perfected it

 

 

jmc8888's picture

Actually it's British Eugenics, and America has long been the playground of the British ideologues.  There has always been traitors or the very least useful idiots in trying out various British schemes. 

There is no overpopulation.  There is only monetarism and its dogma saying we can't pay for people to live or any of the structures it entails because we're stealing it all.

The Universe is a big place, akin to an infinite jars for bacteria.  The fact is, we shouldn't concern or compare ourselves to bacteria in a bottle. The time scales are generational not days.  The universe is a lot bigger than a bottle.  We are only on Earth.  We don't multiply at a constant rate. 

Comparing bacteria in a bottle with human beings within the universe is like comparing a rock to a piece of shit.  There are ways to do it, but really there is little to no correlation. 

There is no lack of resources, just our ability to get at or create them.  Which is strange because there are plenty of viable ideas to get around these 'problems'.  There is just no money in monetarism to get it done. Thus it doesn't get done.  If you're thirsty and don't go to your fucking faucet, you will die.  Monetarism doesn't allow us to go to the faucet. It teaches us to not even build the faucet.  When the tool of money is only used to make more money through accounting gimmicks and fraudulent paper, isn't it funny that the real needs servicing economy aka physical economy of the world is strained?  Of course.  Because doctors aren't farmers.  People working within the construct of monetarism, especially those only finding ways to push paper, don't solve a damn thing.  They are the true useless eaters.  They pretend to be achieving something, and took the benefits society was giving, didn't achieve squat and took anything that wasn't nailed down.  What a waste. 

The oligarchy pushes us into the adoption of monetarism, which creates the conditions for shortages (through itself playing out and it's determinable will to make it so), and creates dogmatic sophistry to fool the idiots into believing their propaganda.  Aristotle's basic idea is that shit can be caviar as long as people believe it is TRUE. Until people actually use their brains, and know it ISN'T.  Which means it always ISN'T, even if some idiots don't know it beforehand.  Trees are falling in the forest right now, you don't need to hear it to know it's true.

Monetarism, the tool of the oligarchy, will never allow the needs of the people to be served without their interference.  That's why America grew so well.  You had a land ripe with opportunity, and monetarism wasn't holding it back.  Whereas in the 'old world' you had monetarism, and because of this, America grew to a power. 

There has always been interference from the British.  They've done everything under the sun to hold us back and subvert our American ways with their Imperial monetarist ways.  Ideologically speaking we are and have been a colony of Britain for a very long time.  It took a long time to subvert us into the situation we are in, but here we are.

Our problems start very simply with what 'is' is.  The sophistry of Aristotle allows for the ideology of monetarism to appear real, and the oligarchy uses that apparent realness to enslave us. 

It is all bullshit. 

Impeach Obama

Glass-Steagall

American Credit System (not monetary system of whatever dogmatic sophistry persuasion)...what is this credit money used for? Fusion, space program, science driver programs of all sort, machine tools, mag lev, desalinization, NAWAPA, so on and so forth.  The ideas are all there.  We have a Kings treasure room full of slips of paper with actual ideas on them. 

Instead we use the monarchy's other paper with no ideas on them and try to pretend all is well (or all is not well and thus need to scare people into depopulation or other idiot's ideas). 

The real ideas increase mankind's power over the universe, one in which we create a universe where more can live better than the current smaller amount live now.   Because we have more power over it.

We went from wandering tribes to here based on our ability to adapt and gain more power over the universe.  That power is real, we're living like we do because of it. Monetarism has only slowed this process of discovery down.  We need to cast off the bonds of monetarism and finally gain the knowledge to meet our needs long term, while having a structure capable of meeting new or unknown needs in place.   Monetarism does not do this.  Only a credit system as an extension of man's will given to the state to pool our resource of legitimate consent can get it done.  We the People empower our leaders to go with the big ideas that have a legitimate platform like benefit as a means of increasing mankind's power of the universe because inherent in the American Spirit was the essential knowledge that with greater power over the universe come a greater level of actual life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  Not to mention ACTUAL security.

The monetarists have to make shit up and fool the people, because THEIR system isn't about increasing the power of mankind for the benefit of mankind including the individual, their only goal of increasing to the detriment of all other things is the increase of their own power, for themselves.  Thus we get derivatives explosion, federal reserve, patriot act, imperial wars, so on and so forth.

The oligarchical, monetarist world has a working limit.

The non-oligarchical, non-monetarist mankind has none.

Which is in control? Which needs to be? 

Which needs to make shit up? Which needs only to stand on it's merits of what reality is (without the confusion of Aristotle)?

Once again we see that America today (or in this case about 38 years ago)...that we as the policy arm of that President (and pretty much every one after Kennedy) has joined in with the monetarist induced folly to bullshit and make stuff up to maintain power rather than the policy of empowerment.  Our policy is to make bullshit up, and around the same time frame we dropped the gold standard and ended Bretton Woods. Is this a coincidence? 

As one can easily see, even by Nixon it was all about maintaining power, rather than empowerment of man over the universe....which is basically the difference between a monetarist based society that America broke away from (Britain), and an American ideal based society that we were founded as.  We now aren't about increasing our power over the universe thereby creating more opportunity.  We are instead merely positioning our rights to call resources from a dwindling supply.  It's about jockeying for position, where even the position lines aren't clear (see rehypothecation, and paper whatever).  Not looking for, discovering, nor developing alternatives.  

We thus might as well call ourselves the British States of America, because ideolgically, and in practice in almost every way, we already are.  At least then we're not pretending to be something we no longer are. 

But as always, we can return to our American ideas at any time.  But first I suspect, we have to realize 'our ideas' are not 'ours', they're photocopied British monetarist bullshit. (which of course mainly are copied from Venetian, Roman, and Greek monetarists of the past)

Our ideas are collecting dust, being subverted with new laws. in an attempt to mask the blowback from suboptimal strategies. 

One might also want to ask, what is our policy regarding terrorism? Is it a strategy of monetarists? Or a strategy of empowerment?

Do we take away our own rights to provide supposed security? Do we fund terrorists as a country to use against other countries? Do we fight imperial wars in these countries?

Or do we empower the people of these nations to build themselves up? (this last one might be tough since we do pay it SOME lip service)

We practice broken ideology, and are in the process of destroying everything we built up to save our imported broken ideology that has always been destined to fail.

 

We need to focus on actually doing stuff, not monetary maintenance.  We need to be AMERICANS again.  Not Keynesians.  Not Austrians.  Those are MONETARISTS. 

There is a choice between the lesser of two evils. But if we allow the debate to only be between that, then we already lost, because we legitimized at least one of the options by fact of omission of a real alternative.  The world isn't a vacuum.  But people treat a choice like it is.  They forget that either choice might suck big balls.  They don't realize the debate (or main course) never occured because only bullshit was on the menu.

Mankind can create credit to fund wealth creation.  Materials.  Water. Fusion energy.   So many others. All of this is a legitimate use for the tool known as money.  That extra power is wealth.  Mankind's power over the universe is what mankind's persent capacity for wealth is.  His creativity with that construct is his limit.

Neither Keynesian nor Austrian monetarism can even come close to this sort of raw power creation, because both are inherently set up as a dogmatic sophistry filled construct to merely MAINTAIN a certain groups power.  Keynesian is killing us.  Austrian can just as easily.  The key is to figure out both are bullshit.  That all forms of monetarism is nothing but a lie, because monetarism IS a lie. Rather than switch one lie for another, whose concern is maintenance, I'd rather switch fully back to the American system which is focused on wealth creation by expanding mankind's power over the universe.  Somehow I know the American way actually pulls us forward rather than spinning our wheels.  Our ancestors saw bullshit holding them back and moved here.  We've merely incorporated that bullshit here.  It's all about shedding this bullshit.  Not just switching between different forms of bullshit. 

Some people see Keynesian as the core of the problem.  I know it's one step further back, it's monetarism, that lead us down the path from reality, into pseudo reality.  Austrian ideals are not based on reality.  Neither are Keynesians.  Both ideologies are viewing the criss from too small and limited a perspective.  Mankind is not being optimal just through Keynesian flaws, but monetarist flaws (which include Austrian).  Our problems are BIGGER than just THIS existential crisis that faces us.  You need to understand what does mankind need for the future.  The answer is...a system that allows them to allocate resources to stop, mitigate, prevent, or find an alternative to a problem that faces us.  Monetarism will not do this.  Mankind not only needs to get out from under this fraud perpetrated against us in this current crisis, but be actively combating the root of future ones at the same time. 

The ideas are there.  The allocation of resources is not.  Switching from Keyneisan to Austrian does not change this dynamic for the better. We also don't need Austrian ideology to solve a problem of fraud and sophistry. Austrian ideology like Keynesian is nothing but dogma.  If we don't switch fully now, then this greatest depression and possible extinction event will STILL have to be repeated, because what we are about to go through, won't solve shit.  Talk about everything ahead being in vein.  Sure will be if we fuck up and don't isolate monetarism as being the key economic ideology to shun.   Everything we are about to go through, we will go through and emerge with another wrong answer.  If we don't solve the solvable now, we will be destined to repeat these events again because the problem was never solved.  Mankind must move beyond the cyclical destructions inherent in monetarism, and realize that it is monetarism that makes sure nothing is ever solved and makes sure history repeats itself.  It's the monetarism stupid.

Everything ahead of us is unecessary...and because of monetarism, if we survive this time around, it will need to happen again (at least).  It will continue happening until monetarism is gone.  America has the blueprint, but we've hid it in the basement with the mongoloid brother to make a better illusion of our majestic monetarism.

I say fuck it.  Let's get it right this time.  We have the tools to make it right this time.  We have the ability to dessiminate this information into the collective conscious of the world's inhabitants to finally move beyond the trappings of the monetarist controlled homo-sapiens once and for ALL.  Time to change the patterns monetarists hold most dear.

No monetarist ideology alternative.  We're going to get this fucker right.

Impeach Obama

Glass-Steagall

American Credit System

 

akak's picture

Lyndon, Lyndon, Lyndon ....

So much crazy, so little time.

jmc8888's picture

Nice bit of sophistry :)

 

But you may want to think way back to who told you this about Lyndon, the MSM.

When this idea you formed with this info in hand, were you more or less cognizant of the fallacies of MSM? Have you bothered to update your former idea, or have you held out that the same propaganda artists were correct in this case, they've just screwed up since? In other words have you added 2 + 2 and figured out that answer you sport is 5 or have you realized finally as an escapee of the MSM that the answer is indeed 4? 

Then think again what site you are on.  How ZH is treated by the MSM like how Lyndon has been treated in previous decades. 

What does the MSM say about ZH? ZH itself lampoons this crazy held MSM position about little known websites being crazy and thus wrong.  You seem to know better and discount the MSM about ZH, but they still hold sway and influence on your perceptions from yesteryear.

Do we see something of a pattern here?  Where the MSM goes out and tries to discredit those that discredit the generally accepted fallacies of our 'civilization'.   But I guess that makes Lyndon as crazy as ZH.  If that's the case, I fully agree with you.

The crazy thing is people think monetarism is normal, and non-monetarism is crazy.  Talk about a proof that sensory perception is worthless.  You know the people that taught you such fallacies have proven to be a lie...the MSM.  Yet you still hold that perception is real.  That is insane.  Fixable, but insane. 

Nothing of substance, just it's crazy as told to you by the MSM, and too long.  Biased on the info given by the same people you probably hate now. 

Thanks for making my point.

akak's picture

The true sophistry lies in your lengthy, nonsensical blather equating Keynesianism, Monetarism and Austrian Economic theory.  In doing that, you prove yourself fundamentally ignorant on each of those topics, just as your frequent rants prove you ignorant on .... well, just about everything.  That is why few posters here even bother to reply to your meaningless yet overblown comments.

jmc8888's picture

ROFL.  You still don't understand it do you. 

Monetarism is a bullshit ideology.  All monetarism is rooted from the same set of idiocy.  Monetarism is the bedrock from which all the subsets of monetarist theories spring from.  Yet I'm the ignorant one who doesn't forget that FACT? Hmmm.  I'm the one ignorant of each of these topics, because I draw a nice little connecting line linking the two together....rightfully?  That it proves I don't know anything? Hmmm 

 

The fact that you can't grasp that is pretty strange.  It's a bit like saying you don't understand that SPORTS has subsets of Football, basketball, so on and so forth.  They can be very different, but are all under the same category.  That somehow I'm showing I'm fundamentally ignorant for merely saying Hockey is a sport like Baseball.  Well think really hard about Austrianism and Keynesianism.  They are all subsets of what idiot sophistry ideology?  Monetarism.  Is Austrian different than Keynesianism? Yes.  But is it derived from the same belief in certain FUNDAMENTAL rules of monetarism? Yes it is. 

Monetarism believes money is worth something.  Money is a tool, it's not wealth.  Monetarism at its most basic level is wrong.  Now, how can I hold this position, yet like Gold.  Because absent of a tool, known as money, that isn't being screwed, then gold is the best substitute around.  But does that mean that money is worth something? No.

 

When monetarism, the root, is the problem, anything that springs forth from it, is merely derived from the problem.  You can't grasp it, and yet you say I don't understand.  It's YOU who don't understand.  You can't link the two together.   

When I took economics in college, very early 2000's.  Got the top grade with the hardest teacher, who didn't give A's for multiple semesters, yet I finished with a perfect grade.  But that's a grade in parroting bullshit back to the teacher...and at the time, I knew the teacher and his course, the ideologies within, was complete bullshit.  I wasn't fooled then, I'm not fooled now.

I've said it time and time again.  Keynesian idiocy is killing us.  But Austrian can just as easily. 

 

Yes anything written is a rant.  That is a good one.  You must subscribe to the twitterization length count as being appropriate.  The funny thing is, you say I'm ignorant, yet it's you who say length is a problem with things.  It is you who says drawing the proper linkages of things to bring insight, is ignorance, but blindiing oneself to the real linkages is not?

 

Oh I rant about everything, rofl.  No, I label idiocy, idiocy.  It's idiocy to think you can keep monetarism afloat, and really change the dynamic of our economy from bullshit, to anything other than bullshit.  Monetarism itself is bullshit.  Thus ANY monetary ideology is bullshit. It is derived from bullshit.  Physical economy is what matters.  Not the dogmat of monetarism.

 It's funny when you label the one pointing shit out, ignorant.  I'm not the one saying Keyneisan is good.  I'm not the one who believes another idiot monetary school of thought is good to replace another idiot ideology with.  Check what I write, I'm not the one being ignorant.  YOU ARE.  Look in a mirror.  But you can't. 

Hey maybe I'm ignorant, but not about this. All subsets of monetarism are invalid.  So don't hitch your horse to that wagon just yet, lest you be disappointed, like an Obama supporter.

Oh I have overblown comments.   Yet where am I wrong?  Is it about Glass-Steagall? Is it about Keynesian-ism? Is it about Obama?

Was it about all the mortgages being bogus? The root derivitive of our BORROWED economic system alien to our founding fathers?  That money is a tool not as an agregation of wealth? That mankind's ability to have power over nature, like fire, and what it can thus produce, is actual wealth? Like ability to procure water, energy, so on and so forth?

That such things are inherently wealth? That the physical economy not the paper economy are wealth?

Or was it that YOU just can't fanthom that YOUR ideology might not actually be much better than Keynesian-ism?  That it TOO has flaws...here's a hint...it's a subset of monetarism.

 

I'm such the ignorant one, who saw the Nasdaq crash coming, who was talking in bars about the coming housing crash (in 2004-2005) with mortgage people, and they didn't see it coming.  I'm the one who said Obama's presidency failed before he even took the oath of office by the decisions he already made.  So on and so forth.

 

Yes, I'm the ignorant one. By denying allegiance to ANOTHER failed ideology.  That makes ME the ignorant one? ROFL

 

You might want to look in the mirror.  I'm one of the few that hasn't had the wool over my eyes the entire time.  When Keynesian-ism is toppled.  IF Austrian monetarism replaces it.  It WILL fail.  Because it TOO is an ideology derived from a root of bullshit. You can ignore that, but it doesn't make it any less true.

I never said there aren't aspects within Austrianism that are close.  I never said some of it (but usually for different reasons) doesn't align with a better ideology when compared to Keynesianism.  No I say the weakest part of Austrianism, is that it fails to discount the flaws inherent in monetarism.

Personally I'd rather skip it, and move onto something real. A REAL AMERICAN economic ideology.  Because it has existed.  I'm not ignorant of that.  Because we have used it. I'm not ignorant of that.  Because I want THAT sort of physical economy based economy.  That's why I'm ignorant.

Monetarism is sophistry.  It's a belief in bullshit.  But you can't grasp that Austrian monetarism TOO is a bunch of dogma, yet you attack Keynesian idiots for believing that sophistry.  I say ALL monetarism is bullshit, and you can't handle that. So I must be ignorant because I won't drink that Kool-Aid.  Yet you so easily do, so soon after rejecting Keynesianism.

Because I don't toe your line in Austrian economics, I'm ignorant.  I think I've shown above (as a small list) anything but.  You are the one who is putting faith into another oligarchical theory.  I'm the one pointing out that not only is it an oligarchical theory, which was created to maintain an oligarchical monarchy, but it's derived from a root of bullshit thinking aka monetarism, and not buying it.  Like I'm not buying Keynesian.  Yet I'm the ignorant one for not wanting to suck the cock of another wrong ideology.  You see I don't switch from one wrong theory to another.  The only economy that matters is the physical economy. The only way of running our economy, is to be in a system that focuses on that.

Meaningless is in the eye of the beholder.  To a cat, a gold nugget the size of a car is worthless.  If you find my comments meaningless that a YP, YOUR PROBLEM, that resides between your ears.  You can lead a horse to water, but can't make the dumb fucker drink.

Your the ignorant one, the fact you can't grasp the root of Austrianism and Keynesianism is the same fucking thing.  Monetarism. All monetary ideologies are derived from monetarism.  That's why they call it...wait for it...Austrian Monetarism.

Maybe if I put it another way.  The mother of monetarism gave birth to many 'models'.  The two strongest ones alive today are Keynesianism, since they are in power, we'll call it the first born.  Now he's about to be overthrown, and waiting in the wings is his Austrian sister.  Different, but from the same family. I'm saying throw the entire monarchy out and get an entire different system in place.  Which was, afterall, the raison d'etre of the United States was not to form another monetarist nation, but to be anti-monetarist. The Austrian school didn't understand the raison d'etre of the United States, and thus what it took from us, was labelled incorrectly, and once inside a new monetarist school, while bringing what appeared to be 'American thinking' into the equation, it never really did.  

It's you that can't grasp that things so different, can't have the same root ideological foundation, and what is wrong is wrong from the most basic level.  Thus when the foundation is cracked, it doesn't matter if you have a Keynesian house on top or an Austrian house on top.  The foundation of monetarism HAS ALWAYS been cracked.  There is no such thing as a valid MONETARY ideology.  NONE.  Realizing that is not ignorance.  One might and would probably be correct to say that ignoring that, is ignorance. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  As wrong as Ron Paul is, and he is, he's also right on some things, and is the best choice.  Even if he's still a bad one, because while doing much good, he's also very much a fucking idiot.  Thus I wish we had something better than idiot Austrianism, which unlike what Ron says, is not the economic ideology of our founding fathers.  They were anti-monetarist.  So I'm the ignorant one who points out the plusses and minuses of Ron Paul? 

I thought the ignorant one thought he could do no wrong and was always right, about everything, or that he was ALL WRONG, about everything so on and so forth?   I have said and continue to say he is right on some things, and woefully wrong on many things.  Yet would an ignorant person say he's the best out there, because would an ignorant person say they realize that all the other candidates from any side is wrong even more?   I'm the one saying lets focus on what's real, not switching one dogmatic theory for another.  That Keynesianism must be destroyed, but be careful into deluding ourselves what we replace it with, lest we waste a whole lot of time jerking off over nothing.  It's just the human race and our lives at risk on many different levels.  Nothing major.

I hope you get a clue soon enough.  I know your heart is in the right place.  So have a good day. 

Max Fischer's picture

 

 

Kushmonster!  I thoroughly enjoyed your article (link below) about astrology, horoscopes, eugenics and the birth of Obama.  Fascinating!  Personally, I don't think the position of Saturn during Obama's birth has anything to do with anything, but I'm really unversed in horoscopes.  Great writing, nonetheless.  In fact, really incredible writing.  

http://kushmonster.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html

Max Fischer, Civis Mundi

trav7777's picture

Yes, what the world needs is WAY MORE black people.  Like Detroit.

All black failure is a result of white oppression, even prior to white "invasion" of Africa.  Whitey used remote control mind beams to steal the wheel and written word from blacks long before the first ships hit the coast of west africa.

I find it marvelous that the truth at some point became RAYCISS.  It's as if an entire mass of people decided to stand up and repudiate reality and insist that a fantasy was true.

Nature arbitrates who wins and who loses over long periods of time and did so long before any of us were born.

Lord knows why those racist mammals didn't save the dinosaurs.

GMadScientist's picture

Yes, we understand you have a difficult time reconciling the real world with the image projected by the View-Master strapped tight to your pointy little head.

Would it be nice if people discussed pre-colonial African cultural limitations in a more realistic light? Sure! But your dipshit tirades have zero chance of convincing anyone that you have in any way advanced beyond the "mud people" you so desperately and transparently attempt to denigrate (get it?).

You are the dinosaur. Buh-bye!

trav7777's picture

why shouldn't population controls be applied to people of color? 

Population control should apply to all people.  However, people of color have historically been of near zero value in advancing the human condition.  A strong case can be made that we should have less of them.

I just don't get the fetish you people have for people of color.

 

As far as affluence of Chindia...ROTFL.  Oil supply is going DOWN, not up.  For them to have affluence like we have would require TRIPLE the present oil production rate.  Nevermind stuff like AGW, the oil production necessary is ludicrous and impossible.

bob_dabolina's picture

If a female of any color has a child and there is no father to assist in bearing the burden of raising that child AND is on welfare she should be required to be sterilized to continue receiving welfare. 

Not only is it a burden on the financial system but those children will have no future and will waste the earths resources. Down the road it also contributes to overall social degradation in a major way.

Look at this shit --

http://nation.foxnews.com/homelessness/2011/12/01/homeless-lady-15-kids-somebody-needs-pay-all-my-children

Cathartes Aura's picture

you dudes would be hilarious if you weren't so ubiquitous. . .

Trav argues AGAINST abortion on a parallel thread:

The issue is not about the womb, but the life contained inside of it.  The pro-abortionists cannot have an honest debate on THAT topic, so they should be ignored.

Women can do whatever they want with their wombs but not the lives contained therein.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/gop-primary-race-goes-production-here-are-...

and bob here wants to sterilise any woman who can't afford her children.

Ron Paul wants to make the zygote a protected human from the moment the sperm is introduced, forcing women to carry a foetus to birth, irrespective of whether she can afford to - yet how are these children to be taken care of, and by whom? 

that's a lot of men making a lot of conflicting decisions and laws, all around a body none of them have.

*shakes head*

flattrader's picture

Caught that too...

Yes.  Libertarianism for less than 50% of the population...draconian facism for the majority...that have wombs.

Since it takes two to tango, I wonder how they would feel if some of us demanded that any man who fathered a child he couldn't or refused to support must be sterilized?

DNA paternity testing is dead on now.  Works good in court too.

Snip, snip sounds like a plan to me.

Now, listen to them howl like the sociopaths they are...

trav7777's picture

HELL YES, sterilize the buck too!

The RULES are valid or invalid not dependent upon whether they apply to me.  I am not emotional like that.

My proposal was to sterilize those below a certain IQ threshold.  That could mean me, my kids, my brother, my beloved neighbor, anyone.  The rule is the rule...it exists on its own merits.

Spay AND neuter.