Returning to Eden by Daniel PouzznerAMPP front page - The Architecture of Modern Political Power


<<<>>>

 

Herding People, Culling the Herd

Returning to Eden
Table of Contents
1. Preface and Overview
2. Ancient Roots
3. Biblical Chapter and Verse
4. The Eden Motif
5. Cargo Cultism
6. Herding People, Culling the Herd
7. Egalitarianism
8. Keeping Eden Green
9. Progenitors of Edenism
10. Occult Edenism
For all the doctrinal emphasis on love and sharing, the utopian socialists are decidedly hostile in practice to human populations, and are generally a study in envy, the “green sickness” (as Shakespeare put it). In the United States, socialism is most popular in the crowded cities where many, indeed perhaps most, people live by exploiting others (albeit often to mutual benefit, exploiters exploiting exploiters), and where many people, confronted by the enormous intensity of civilization, readily abandon hope of economic distinction through honest effort. It is least popular in the countryside, much of which is in fact ecologically Edenic, where people mostly live by the fruits of their own industry, and own the land they live on (unlike most city dwellers). But the city dwellers do not choose to simply move to the aesthetically Edenic countryside, because their lifestyle, social connections, and immediate means of sustenance, are intimately tied up in the city. For them, the edge of the world is where taxicab service ends, and their home is the collective city, not the individual apartment where they sleep. And, bluntly, they prefer their exploitative lifestyles to the self-sufficient honest work of the countryside. Forcible relocation of city dwellers to the countryside has been a fixture in revolutionary socialist dictatorships, but that stratagem is politically impossible in the US and Europe.

Predictably, in the socialist sphere we find a litany of programs and movements that seek to, or at the very least tend to, purge the world of its human population, or at least of those who don't measure up to the Edenic ideal. These programs are invariably administered by urban bureaucrats, and pseudoscience is their lingua franca. Among the programs and movements are environmentalism (featuring anti-industrial propaganda of every imaginable variety), population explosion alarmism (e.g. Paul Ehrlich and his Population Bomb), mainstreaming and popularization of homosexuality, birth control, celibacy, abortion (available, subsidized, clear through the third trimester, and in China, often compulsory), sterilization (until recently, commonly compulsory for those officially declared undesirable, and to this day, widely compulsory in China), divorce, euthanasia and assisted suicide, lax penalties for murder and other heinous and ruinous crimes, and harsh penalties for acting in self-defense.

Utopian socialists are hardly interested only in the numerical reduction of populations. With at least as much zeal, they seek to purge society selectively of those who don't fit the Edenic mold. In its most thoroughgoing institutionalizations, this includes the expulsion, extermination, or sterilization, of anyone who varies from the particular ideal of the nation at issue, by ancestry, allegiance, usefulness to that nation (in the judgement, inevitably, of government agents), economic station, mental conformity, physical defect or disability, disease, senescence, or fecundity. This was obviously the sort of regimen practiced in Germany by the National Socialists, and components of it have been historically, and are currently, policy in many other nations. Socialists promulgate redefinition as illness, of conditions and attributes they disfavor, whose exemplars they desire to abolish from the nation. This tactic is used to target those who are overweight, those who are dissatisfied with society and its direction (when it is trending toward fuller socialism), and those who are disobedient to or disrespectful of socialistic authority (as in the classrooms of government-run schools). More casually, socialists loudly yearn to snuff out or sterilize those they consider stupid, ugly, aggressive, or otherwise offensive to their vision of society. Whenever socialism is instituted by totalitarian government, these casual yearnings are translated by government into systematic machines of extermination or radical disfranchisement.

In modern Western socialism in the American pattern, racism is (without conscious intention) pursued through diabolically clever subterfuge. Traditional government-administered economic assistance programs (poverty and disability stipends, financially qualified public housing, food stamps, medicaid, “affirmative action”) are in fact attacks on the populations to which the assistance is offered. Perhaps the starkest example in the US is the federally subsidized reservation program for pre-Columbian indigenous people. These programs formalize divisions in the population and give them economic significance. They breed festering resentment among those who don't qualify for the programs, which in the future may well ripen into assent to or participation in extermination or radical disfranchisement of those who do qualify. Such a ripening is particularly plausible among those who in the meantime most ardently support the programs, because they will feel that their patronage entitles them to call in the loan. But it is at least as grave in its eventual consequences that those who enroll in these programs are the economically delinquent, who thereby improve their economic station, thereby increasing their capacity to procreate (and frequently reaping immediate and direct rewards for procreation). Because many characteristics that lead to economic delinquency are heritable, this robustly increases the proportion of the population prone to economic delinquency, and hence the proportion that are economically delinquent (and moreover, increasing the proportion dependent on the perpetuation and enlargement of socialism, but the point is that the population is made more delinquent, to its detriment). These programs also constitute examples of reward for economic delinquency, directly encouraging delinquency in the population (also causing proliferation of socialism). (Debt cancellation, whether individual or corporate, carry similar moral hazards and so are similarly problematic.) In any case, these assistance programs are unsustainable economic distortions (failing, as a last resort, when the government itself fails). Absent the programs, a person's economic delinquency makes that person less fertile, so that the heritable characteristics conducive to delinquency become steadily less prevalent in the population, so that its total delinquency steadily declines, to the plain benefit of all involved. Thus, the only way to mitigate the harm inflicted by these programs is to associate mandatory public residence and contraception with their administration, so that the programs are unattractive to all but those who are truly unable to independently rectify their delinquency, and so that the procreation of those who are indeed truly unable to rectify their delinquency is not only not subsidized, but actually prevented unless and until the delinquency is remedied without public assistance.

Exterminatory programs orchestrated by urban potentates are of course not purely, and not fundamentally, ideological. Elias Canetti, in Crowds and Power, shows us their true nature, when he describes the mentality and methods of the survivor. In Canetti's conception, the survivors are simply those who are alive after others have died. The identity and orientation of the dead — foes, hapless victims of pestilence or disaster, indeed friends and allies — are ultimately immaterial. Likewise, the survivor's motives, means, and circumstances, are ultimately immaterial. The simple fact of the survivor's life among the corpses of the dead is paramount, and in itself makes the survivor a paragon. This, after all, is the expectation one forms from the mechanisms of Darwinian evolution, to which human psychology is no stranger. Ideological nonsense is simply the clothing worn to conceal naked greed for life. Consciously or (mostly) unconsciously, radical environmentalists, coercive eugenicalists, totalitarian collectivizers, and utopian cultists, fancy themselves prospective survivors of a holocaust of their own design. Indeed the lebensraum program popularized and implemented by Adolf Hitler fits this mold.

Thomas Malthus
Socialist population management finds its roots in the declarations of Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834), who was not himself a socialist, but was peripherally connected to its founding fathers. Malthus's father was a friend of Enlightenment giant David Hume, and through Hume, an acquaintance of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. (Hume had put up Jean-Jacques as a guest for a spell when Rousseau fled France, in the tradition of Rousseau's father, who had fled Switzerland and abandoned Jean-Jacques at the tender age of ten.) The Wikipedia entry summarizes: “Malthus's views were largely developed in reaction to the optimistic views of his father and his associates, notably Rousseau and William Godwin. In An Essay on the Principle of Population, published in 1798, Malthus predicted population would outrun food supply, leading to a decrease in food per person. This prediction was based on the idea that population if unchecked increases at a geometric rate whereas the food supply grows at an arithmetic rate. Only misery, moral restraint and vice (which for Malthus included contraception) could check excessive population growth. Malthus favoured ‘moral restraint’ (including late marriage and sexual abstinence) as a check on population growth.”

That Malthus was not a socialist, or an idealist of any sort, is clear enough from the first chapter of his Essay: “The speculative philosopher equally offends against the cause of truth. With eyes fixed on a happier state of society, the blessings of which he paints in the most captivating colours, he allows himself to indulge in the most bitter invectives against every present establishment, without applying his talents to consider the best and safest means of removing abuses and without seeming to be aware of the tremendous obstacles that threaten, even in theory, to oppose the progress of man towards perfection.” His words, obviously, went spectacularly unheeded by those who made the history of socialism to follow. And Malthus, in fact, held out hope (at least rhetorically) that the idealists would find a way to prevail: “These difficulties it is my present purpose to state, declaring, at the same time, that so far from exulting in them, as a cause of triumph over the friends of innovation, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see them completely removed.” What Malthus achieved with his Essay was, simply, to argue convincingly that uncontrolled population growth was the foremost obstacle to the realization of socialism. Naturally, then, the control of population growth has been a persistent focus of socialists.

In The Impact of Science On Society (1951), Bertrand Russell became one of many socialists to revisit, revise, and adapt Malthus's proposition: “At present the population of the world is increasing at about 58,000 per diem. War, so far, has had no very great effect on this increase, which continued throughout each of the world wars. War has hitherto been disappointing in this respect. But perhaps bacteriological war may prove effective. If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. The state of affairs might be unpleasant, but what of it?”

The currently prevailing paradigm on populations probably derives from Garrett Hardin's “Tragedy of the Commons”, introduced in a 1968 Science article. Hardin was a socialist in that he accepted the calculus of Bentham and the preeminence of the welfare state. He concluded rather loudly that humanity must be managed, particularly in its numbers. He likened uncontrolled populations to pollution, and concluded: “The only way we can preserve and nurture other and more precious freedoms is by relinquishing the freedom to breed, and that very soon. ‘Freedom is the recognition of necessity’—and it is the role of education to reveal to all the necessity of abandoning the freedom to breed. Only so, can we put an end to this aspect of the tragedy of the commons.” (He quoted Engels summarizing Hegel.) Hardin's objective is to restore and maintain the viability of the commons (the abstract Eden) by systematically and forcibly maintaining “conditions of low-population density”.

For unvarnished devotees of the imminent apocalypse, purity trumps the prerequisites of worldly survival, notable among which is procreation. Apocalyptic thinking lurks submerged within various movements associated with socialism. This includes radical feminism, movement homosexuality (in which procreation — “breeding” — is viewed as the fundamental sin of sexuality), and the nascent movement of explicit celibacy known as asexualism. Famously, celibacy featured prominently in the millenarian, communistic Shaker sect. In the early Christian era, the millenarian ascetics (of which the Acts of Peter is thought to be a product) were celibate, as were the Apotactici. These ideologies, new and old, amount to infectious birth prevention, though of course over time the genes that lead to susceptibility to these ideologies will disappear from the species (as suggested by the extinction of the Shakers).

*

In the institutionalization of population growth control measures, two of the names that stand out are Sanger and Rockefeller. Margaret Sanger (1879-1966) substantially founded the American feminist “reproductive rights” movement. In 1916 she opened a pregnancy prevention education office in Brooklyn, as a publicity stunt to protest New York's Comstock obscenity laws (which criminalized dissemination of pregnancy prevention instructions). After nine days of business she was jailed and the office was closed, presumably as she had expected. By 1923 the legal and cultural atmosphere had changed, due in no small part to her activism, and she founded the American Birth Control League in Manhattan. In 1942 the League changed its name to Planned Parenthood, probably in reaction to the public perception that the League was associated with the eugenics program of the German National Socialist regime (as indeed, it was).

Sanger was an ardent socialist, and a zealous member of the American Eugenics Society, and of the English one, for good measure. Her program can best be understood as an attempt to create the biological conditions of Eden — healthiness, and sexual disinhibition without consequential children or veneral disease. Her program of sexual disinhibition consisted of comprehensive sexuality education, lurid deprecation of masturbation, and ready availability of pregnancy prevention and termination methods. (A continuing hostility to masturbation is evident in the brief tenure of Jocelyn Elders as US surgeon general at the start of the Clinton administration — Clinton, a prodigious lecher, “asked” for her resignation after she said at a 1994 UN conference on AIDS, “In regard to masturbation, I think that is part of human sexuality, and perhaps it should be taught.” In a 1997 interview in the Los Angeles Times, she reiterated her stance, saying “What we need to do is stop telling them you're going to go blind, you're going to go crazy.”) For Sanger, sex education meant teaching children how to perform sex acts with other people, without consequent pregnancy or disease, and this approach is continued by Planned Parenthood today. They are also among the groups vehemently opposed to the institution of guardian notification or consent requirements for pregnancy termination by children. The independence and freedom of women — the social conditions of Eden — were foremost in Sanger's mind. But consistent with the Eden thesis, to Sanger women's liberation meant chiefly the freedom to have social sex capriciously and without consequence, and a transition to economic dependence on collective entities (employers or the government) rather than on individuals (family, and husbands in particular).

Funding for Planned Parenthood comes largely from an armada of foundations, featuring Ford, Hewlett, Packard, Rockefeller, and Pew (curiously, these same foundations, minus Packard and plus Carnegie, are the major underwriters of the BBC evening newscast on PBS via WLIW New York). A remarkably comprehensive set of sponsoring corporations will match gifts their employees make to Planned Parenthood.

Margaret Sanger
In January 1932, in an address to the “New History Society”, Sanger promoted her program in candid detail. She summarized this address in an article that appeared in the April issue of Birth Control Review (a magazine she had founded):

A Plan for Peace

First, put into action President Wilson's fourteen points, upon which terms Germany and Austria surrendered to the Allies in 1918. [As explained below in the Progenitors chapter, Wilson's Points were seminally globalist, and the last of the points sought to establish the League of Nations.]

Second, have Congress set up a special department for the study of population problems and appoint a Parliament of Population, the directors representing the various branches of science: this body to direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and to direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of individuals. The main objects of the Population Congress would be:

a. to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.

b. to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen per thousand, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11 per thousand.

c. to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.

d. to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

e. to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feebleminded parents, by pensioning all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

f. to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.

g. to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.

The first step would thus be to control the intake and output of morons, mental defectives, epileptics.

The second step would be to take an inventory of the secondary group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection, and segregate them on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct.

Having corralled this enormous part of our population and placed it on a basis of health instead of punishment, it is safe to say that fifteen or twenty millions of our population would then be organized into soldiers of defense---defending the unborn against their own disabilities.

The third step would be to give special attention to the mothers' health, to see that women who are suffering from tuberculosis, heart or kidney disease, toxic goitre, gonorrhea, or any disease where the condition of pregnancy disturbs their health are placed under public health nurses to instruct them in practical, scientific methods of contraception in order to safeguard their lives---thus reducing maternal mortality.

The above steps may seem to place emphasis on a health program instead of on tariffs, moratoriums and debts, but I believe that national health is the first essential factor in any program for universal peace.

With the future citizen safeguarded from hereditary taints, with five million mental and moral degenerates segregated, with ten million women and ten million children receiving adequate care, we could then turn our attention to the basic needs for international peace.

There would then be a definite effort to make population increase slowly and at a specified rate, in order to accommodate and adjust increasing numbers to the best social and economic system.

In the meantime we should organize and join an International League of Low Birth Rate Nations to secure and maintain World Peace.

This was in fact typical rhetoric for Sanger, and it may seem that she expressed herself clearly enough that no comment is needed. Such is not the case. Only a year after publishing this article, she is appalled at the atrocities of the National Socialists in Germany: “All the news from Germany is sad & horrible, and to me more dangerous than any other war going on any where because it has so many good people who applaud the atrocities & claim its right. The sudden antagonism in Germany against the Jews & the vitriolic hatred of them is spreading underground here & is far more dangerous than the aggressive policy of the Japanese in Manchuria.” (letter to Edith How-Martyn, 1933-May-21, quoted in The Margaret Sanger Papers Newsletter, Winter 2002/3). Sanger envisioned “a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation”, giving “certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization”, so that they would be “corralled”. She must have been revolted that the corralled populations in Germany were not placed “on a basis of health”, but this just reveals her naïveté — no apparatus that is willing and able to enforce her “stern and rigid policy” is willing or able to place the subjects of its attentions “on a basis of health”.

Curiously, the sectarian vitriol was mutual. Planned Parenthood reports that “Sanger's books were among the very first burned by the Nazis in their campaign against family planning (‘Sanger on Exhibit,’ 1999/2000).” Hitler prattles on rather repetitiously in Mein Kampf (1925-1928) that birth control is an abomination to his cherished “Aryan” race, simply because it reduces their numbers.

*

John D. Rockefeller 3rd
John D. Rockefeller 3rd (1906-1978) was brother of David and Laurance and son of John Rockefeller Jr. He was a fundamentalistic proponent of birth control and abortion access, and in 1952 founded the Population Council, which bills itself as “the premier international organization conducting biomedical, public health, and social science research on population issues.”. In 1976 he said there must be “no retreat” on birth control and abortion, to secure the liberation of women (Norma McCorvey's repentance must have him turning over in his grave). His Population Council lists among its historical highlights, “1962   Population Council holds first international conference on intrauterine devices (IUDs) and facilitates granting of royalty-free licenses for manufacture of the Lippes Loop IUD for use in public programs worldwide”, “1970   John D. Rockefeller 3rd appointed to chair the US Commission on Population Growth and the American Future”, and “1973   Publication of Induced Abortion: A World Review, by Christopher Tietze”.

Barry Mehler, a professor at Ferris State University in Michigan, has extensively researched the association of the Rockefellers with twentieth century eugenics. In “Sources in the Study of Eugenics #2: The Bureau of Social Hygiene Papers”, appearing in The Mendel Newsletter of 1978-Sep, he concludes “What comes out most clearly from an examination of the BSH files is that there are many interconnections between the Social Hygiene, Mental Hygiene, Birth Control, Population Control and Eugenics Movements between 1920 and 1940, and that to understand these movements they must be seen in the context of the broad movement to rationalize and control social development - a plan to which the Rockefeller interest had been won by the first decade of the twentieth century.” In the same article, he reports that there was correspondence directly between Ernst Rudin and the Bureau of Social Hygiene. This is significant because Rudin, a Swiss professor of psychiatry, was vice president of the Gesellschaft für Rassenhygiene (Society for Racial Hygiene) in Munich, and went on to personally architect the eugenics program of the German National Socialists. In August 1932, at the Third International Conference of Eugenics, held at the Museum of Natural History in Manhattan, Rudin was unanimously elected president of the International Federation of Eugenics Organizations. In its April 1933 issue, Birth Control Review (Margaret Sanger's journal) published an article by Rudin titled “Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need”, which described the establishment of the Gesellschaft für Rassenhygiene and advocated a similar establishment in the United States. In 1939, Adolf Hitler issued an award to Rudin hailing him as the “meritorious pioneer of the racial-hygiene measures of the Third Reich”. Clearly, the German eugenics model was not the exception but the rule.

Socialists are prone to rigid intolerance of non-socialists, and the realm of birth prevention suggests it's not just because of a cargo cultish concern with society's appearance. If socialists use technology to keep their number of children small or zero, while non-socialists have natural, larger families, then it stands to demographic reason that socialists will be increasingly outnumbered until their political clout, and eventually, the very genetic attributes that correlate with them, vanish. Garrett Hardin (see above) cites Charles Galton Darwin, grandson of the famous scientist, who wrote “It may well be that it would take hundreds of generations for the progenitive instinct to develop in this way, but if it should do so, nature would have taken her revenge, and the variety Homo contracipiens would become extinct and would be replaced by the variety Homo progenitivus.” Thus socialists must impose their program on everyone, and brook no resistance or evasion.

In the 2004 election cycle, the presidential candidate favoring abortion availability was John Kerry, and the candidate favoring abortion abolition was George W. Bush. Bush-voting counties have significantly higher growth rates than Kerry-voting counties (many of which actually have shrinking populations). 97 of the 100 fastest growing counties in the US voted for Bush in 2004. This is part of a phenomenon that David Brooks of the New York Times calls “natalism”. In The American Conservative, Steve Sailer finds that Bush carried 25 of the 26 states with the highest white fertility rates, while Kerry carried the 16 states with the lowest rates. In The New Republic Online, Joel Kotkin and William Frey observe that “Democrats swept the largely childless cities — true blue locales like San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Boston and Manhattan have the lowest percentages of children in the nation — but generally had poor showings in those places where families are settling down, notably the Sun Belt cities, exurbs and outer suburbs of older metropolitan areas.” In March 2005, the New York Times published an article by Timothy Egan titled “Vibrant Cities Find One Thing Missing: Children”: “San Francisco, where the median house price is now about $700,000, had the lowest percentage of people under 18 of any large city in the nation, 14.5 percent, compared with 25.7 percent nationwide, the 2000 census reported. Seattle, where there are more dogs than children, was a close second. Boston, Honolulu, Portland, Miami, Denver, Minneapolis, Austin and Atlanta, all considered, healthy, vibrant urban areas, were not far behind.”

*

University of Hawaii professor emeritus R. J. Rummel observes, “It is not by chance that the greatest famines have occurred within the Soviet Union (about 5,000,000 dead during 1921-23 and 7,000,000 from 1932-3) and communist China (about 27,000,000 dead from 1959-61). In total almost 55,000,000 people died in various communist famines and associated diseases, a little over 10,000,000 of them from democidal famine. [...] Communism has been the greatest social engineering experiment we have ever seen. It failed utterly and in doing so it killed over 100,000,000 men, women, and children, not to mention the near 30,000,000 of its subjects that died in its often aggressive wars and the rebellions it provoked.” Rummel reckons that the German National Socialists caused another 20,946,000 deaths by exterminatory policy and 28,736,000 war dead in Europe alone. The grand total therefore is about 200 million deaths. Stalin said “One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic.” — and apparently was a real fan of statistics.

Another depopulation tactic of the socialists is open institutionalization of nihilism (by combining moral relativism with atheism), to undermine the morale and outlook of the population, drastically reducing their fecundity. This is remarkable since utopian socialism is, of course, a faith that fundamentally contradicts nihilism, though it is among the faiths that might easily be confused with nihilism. This hints at the primary purpose socialists have in promulgating nihilism: it fosters the spiritual starvation (despair) that leads people to embrace the substitute the theology of socialism, just as this starvation led the first socialists (Rousseau et al.) to formulate and embrace it.

It is somewhat natural to mistake the motivation of the utopian socialists for simple Thanatos, since their program so obviously and certainly leads to privation, ruin, and death. Socialism, in a single motif, contains within it, the mythical Eden, purity, regression, contraction, sterility, bliss, painlessness, narcotics, and death, suggesting the pragmatic equivalence of socialism and Thanatos. Socialist Europe and Canada now have birth rates so low that they will be demographically and economically disastrous if they are not changed. Europe's cradle-to-grave welfare system is plainly infantalizing, and stigmatizes procreation because children are perceived primarily as burdens on society, if not now then later. In places like the Netherlands and Vancouver, recreational drug decriminalization is well along. (Note that environmentalist anti-military organ Greenpeace was founded by Canadians in Vancouver in 1971, and follow-on Greenpeace International was founded in Amsterdam in 1979.) In the Netherlands and Germany, prostitution is legal, demarginalized, and hygienic. In the Netherlands, the right-to-die movement has culminated in the recapitulation of Nazi authority-to-euthanize programs.


<<<>>>

Returning to Eden
Table of Contents
1. Preface and Overview
2. Ancient Roots
3. Biblical Chapter and Verse
4. The Eden Motif
5. Cargo Cultism
6. Herding People, Culling the Herd
7. Egalitarianism
8. Keeping Eden Green
9. Progenitors of Edenism
10. Occult Edenism