, , , , , , , ,

Seriously, who can resist this? 

The War on Children and the Population Control Agenda

In 1973, John Holdren wrote a book with Paul and Anne Ehrich entitled “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions”[1] in which all three argued, among other things, that the United States government has a responsibility to “halt the growth of the American population”.  Yikes!

In their book Holdren and the Ehrichs also made the wild claim that children from large families have lower IQs than those in small families. [2](Shot in the dark here but I’m guessing that all three came from small families? And were, perhaps, I’m wondering, privileged and coddled- just a guess from where this supreme arrogance might come[3]) I’m presuming that getting the general public to believe such nonsense that children in large families are stupider than children in small ones would aid in a population control agenda, so that was probably the motive, but I’m getting ahead of myself here.  Let me go on with some facts.

Holdren next wrote, in 1977[4] Eco-science: Population, Resources, Environment.This large volume promoted many population control ideas including the idea of mass, forced sterilization of people in order to reduce births:

In today’s world… the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?

Involuntary fertility control … A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men. … The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.

Contamination of the public drinking water with birth control agents was even suggested. If you want to read this audacious book, you may be able to find it in your library. I’m not recommending going to Amazon for two reasons- the price is  $109.91 and purchase would presumably support the tenets within. As an alternative, though, you can also read some actual photographed pages of the book here. 

But back to more facts:

As time passed, Holdren held fast to his belief that children were the source of many ecological problems and he continued to support population control measures. In 2000, he continued to rail against large families, question the morality of parents of such families, and he began calling for national and international policies aimed at reducing family size to avoid “global climate disruption.”  (Holdren’s view is continually that “Children will ruin the world”. It is interesting that Holdren’s own existence is assumed valuable, even while he holds that future generations are not. )

Further, Holdren suggested that child quantity should be sacrificed for “child quality” (that low IQ thing again) as though one is exclusive of the other.

 “Dumb Kids in Large Families” Theory Debunked with Facts and Common Sense

As expected, the Holdren/Ehrich Population Theory was easily debunked in 2000 by a group of well-known and highly respected professionals in a study published in the American Psychological Association[5]. There simply were no such facts to substantiate that children from large families had any less intelligence than children from small families.

Further, common sense also proves what members of the American Psychological Association know- that children from large families are indeed achievers. Even a quick and simple look at history reassures us that intellect and accomplishment cuts across all family birth order placements.

Just for fun, let’s look at a few of the people the world would have missed if Mr. Holdren had his ‘small family mandate’ way-

– Composer Robert Schumann (1810-1856) who was the last of five children

-Opera composer Richard Wagner (1813-1883) who was the last of nine children

-Enrico Caruso (1873-1921) considered one of the greatest tenors of all time, who was 18th of 21 children

-William Steinway (yes, that piano Steinway) was seventh of seven children

-Franz Schubert (1797- 1828) one of 14 children

-Franz Joseph Haydn (1732-1809) was one of 17.

-President George Washington (1732-1799) was fifth of ten

– President William Henry Harrison (1773-1841) was the last of seven

-President John Tyler (1790-1862), sixth of eight

-President Franklin Pierce (1804-1869) seventh of eight

-President Rutherford Hayes (1822-1893), fifth of five

-President James Garfield (1831-1881) fifth of five

-President Chester Allen Arthur (1329-1886) fifth of nine

-President Grover Cleveland 1837-1903) fifth of nine

-President Benjamin Harrison (1833-1901) fifth of thirteen

-President William McKinley (1843-1901) seventh of nine

-President William Howard Taft (1857-1930) seventh of ten[6]

-Marie “Madam” Curie was the youngest of five.[7]

Okay, my post can only be so long. I’m going to have to stop.

But gee, those are underachievers?

What’s more, under Mr. Holdren’s limited child mandate the world would have been without many great saints – St. Therese Martin, who was the ninth child, St. Augustine (fourth of four), St. Thomas Aquinas (sixth son),[8] St. Gianna Beretta Molla (the tenth of 13) [9] and St. Catherine of Siena, the 23rd of 24. [10] While I could keep going, I’ll just stop here.

Problematic Utilitarian View

Not recognizing the abilities and gifts of children from large families is a huge problem with Holdren’s assertion and assessment.  Another problem with his outlook is that it invokes a utilitarian worldview- that people are only worth what they can accomplish. This arrogant assumption that people’s worth is directly related to what they can achieve devalues human life as the human is reduced to simply being a productive “worker” (actually a Communist thought- yikes!)

In reality, every person is a unique individual made in the image and likeness of God, a never-before-created and never again created miracle.  A person’s value exists outside of his or her ability to ‘produce’ or work toward the intellectual elites’ wills and plans.

But let’s get back to the American Psychological Association discrediting of the Holden/ Ehrich theory. Once that was accomplished, and common sense kicked in,

that was that. The case was closed. Right?

Well, you would think.

It would be easy enough to dismiss Holdren, as just another arrogant intellectual with silly ideas who has gone off the deep end, except that he is now extremely influential as President Obama’s top science advisor.  Holdren currently runs the White House Office of Science and Technology, advising the President on important matters, and presumably continuing to promote his decades old agenda based on myth.

Interesting, isn’t it?

Especially when you consider the recent Health and Human Resources  (HHR) Mandate to pay for coverage of sterilization and contraception for all Americans, whether one’s conscience is violated in doing so or not. Add this as well: despite their classification as carcinogens[11][12], common birth control pills are still being recommended by doctors, and pushed by the government..  And we all are going to have to pay for them in the new healthcare mandate. Gee, why might that be?

The Planned Parenthood Puzzle Piece

 But there’s even another piece to this puzzle.

Running parallel to cries from scientific population theory extremists like Holden and the Ehrichs was and is a cry for limiting people from another population controller this one monetarily profits from an anti-person agenda– Planned Parenthood. In 2008, Planned Parenthood, the abortion giant, had a total income of $1.02 billion- with reported profits of nearly $115 million[13].

Abby Johnson, former director of Planned Parenthood recently shared The Jaffe Report[14], first released in 1969, which outlined the goals of Planned Parenthood and other population controllers. You can read that here.

Scary, no? You can almost checkmark those items which have been accomplished since 1969.

America’s War on Children

Now we easily see how this all fits together as a war on children. The birth control is a proven abortifacent. It destroys new life conceived in the womb. The president and his administration in pressing for the recent HHR mandate demonstrate their dedication to reducing births in the country. Why else would they dictate coverage of sterilization and birth control if not to reduce the number of children born? The current administration so values the devaluing of people that one of its biggest advocates is smack in the middle of the president’s most trusted advisors.

Further, abortion is rampant and casual in our country.  And it has been this way for many years. The callousness toward the plight of those who don’t want abortion but are being forced to have one is even evident and has been for years. As long ago as the Clinton administration, thirteen, pleading Chinese women facing forced abortions sought asylum in the United States. Clinton refused them relief.  Why?

[By offering asylum to women fleeing China’s one-child policy] we could potentially open ourselves up to just about everybody in the world saying ‘I don’t want to plan my family, therefore I deserve political asylum.'” – Timothy Wirth, explaining the Clinton Administration’s decision to deport 13 Chinese women, quoted in The Washington Times, April 27, 1995 [15]

I’m sorry to have to say this but we have to look at China. If forced abortion is a heinous reality there[16] and steps are not taken now,  with the flagrant abortion rate in the US what it is, and with the cavalier, apathetic attitude about life expressed above, the same is possible here.

At the risk of ending this post abruptly, I’m going to stop here anyway. There is a lot to digest above. Yet, the facts are clear and we have some tremendous work to do. We have an attitude to take, families to preserve, and a country to heal.  But how, and what?  This post was scary and depressing. The next will not be.  I promise. My next post will offer some concrete ways we can combat the attitude and the reality. None of us can afford to exempt ourselves.

Are you in?

[3] Small families note- I am not indicting you at all- I’m sure this is an individual case of family failure.

[6] A Full Quiver, Rick and Jan Hess (Wolgemuth &Hyatt, Publishers)