Big Money and the Culture of Death
posted at 8:49 am on July 16, 2009 by The Other McCain
This morning, I watched Michelle Malkin on Fox News talking about Obama’s “science czar” John Holdren, advocate of “compulsory abortion” and “involuntary fertility control” to deal with a non-existent overpopulation crisis.
Where did Holdren get his wacky ideas? His Ecoscience co-author Paul Ehrlich was the author of a notorious 1967 book, The Population Bomb, which promoted the overpopulation hysteria.
But where did Ehrlich get his wacky ideas? That story — and a lot more besides — is told in an excellent 2001 book by historian Donald L. Critchlow, Intended Consequences: Birth Control, Abortion, and the Federal Goverment in Modern America.
The population control movement, which generated the anti-baby hysteria that Ehrlich and Holdren promoted in their books, was largely the brainchild of John D. Rockefeller III. Rockefeller funded much of the movement himself and through a number of family trusts and foundations, and he encouraged other foundations (Ford, Scaife, Carnegie) to do the same.
Rockefeller promoted the population control movement through many means, but just to give you an example, between 1959 and 1964 one organization alone, the Population Council, got more than $5 million from the Rockefellers, $8.4 million from the Ford Foundation and $2.1 million from Scaife. So that’s $15 million in five years, back when a million dollars was a lot of money.
‘Babies: Threat Or Menace?’
One of the things that the population control movement did was to promote their agenda through the press, and by subsidizing writers with grant money. From page 54 of Critchlow’s book:
[T]o raise the public’s consciousness about the threat of overpopulation . . . the population movement undertook a concerted public relations campaign through a steady stream of books, pamphlets, and magazine and newspaper articles. This campaign was aided by the involvement of key publishers and editors who were actively involved in the movement, including George Hecht, editor of Parents Magazine. The drumbeat around the population crisis reached crescendo by the early 1960s. Readers of popular magazines were faced with a barrage of articles warning of an impending population crisis . . . Women readers were inundated with articles like “Are We Overworking the Stork?” (Parents Magazine, 1961), “Why Americans Must Limit Their Families” (Redbook, 1963), “Intelligent Woman’s Guide to the Population Explosion” (McCall’s, February 1965), “Overpopulation: Threat to Survival” (Parents Magazine, 1967) and “Population Increase: A Grave Threat to Every American Family” (Parents Magazine, 1969).
The point, you see, is that there was an organized propaganda campaign, funded and directed by big money. One of the most active promoters of this agenda was Hugh Moore, a millionaire who was a contributor to Planned Parenthood and who later founded his own organization, the Population Crisis Committee. In fact, the title of Ehrlich’s book, The Population Explosion, was borrowed from a pamphlet of the same name published by Moore in 1954. And Ehrlich’s book was then promoted by the Sierra Club, which had its own wealthy donors.
‘We’re the Smart Ones’
Big money continues to fund the Culture of Death. In 1999, I was the only reporter in the room when Ted Turner gave a speech at a conference of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association:
Mr. Turner, founder of CNN and now the vice chairman of Time-Warner Inc., also suggested that world population could be reduced by the adoption of an international “one-child policy.”…
The Atlanta-based billionaire and his wife, actress Jane Fonda, are active supporters of the United Nations Population Fund. In 1997, Mr. Turner pledged $1 billion to a new foundation to support U.N. efforts on population and the environment.
Though he fathered “five kids — boom, boom, boom — by the time I was 30,” Mr. Turner said, he now believes overpopulation is a major problem and suggested people should “promise to have no more than two children.”
Mr. Turner recalled a discussion many years ago with Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich, whose 1968 book “The Population Bomb” predicted that hundreds of millions of people would starve to death in the 1970s and ’80s as a result of global overpopulation. Mr. Turner said he asked Mr. Ehrlich and his wife, Anne, what the ideal world population would be.
“They told me about 2 billion,” Mr. Turner said. World population is now 5.9 billion, but the world could reduce its population to that ideal, Mr. Turner suggested. “We could do it in a very humane way,” he said, “if everybody adopted a one-child policy for 100 years.”….
“If you’re only going to have 10 rules, I don’t know if [prohibiting] adultery should be one of them.” Speaking of himself as a member of “the progressive movement,” Mr. Turner urged the NFPRHA audience to “give ‘em hell” when seeking more government funds for population control.”People who think like us may be in the minority, but we’re the smart ones,” he said, and as a result should be able to defeat opponents he called “a whole bunch of dummies.”
Mr. Turner, whose net worth is more than $3.2 billion, got laughs with his responses during a question-and-answer session after his speech. . . .
Asked what he would say to Pope John Paul II, who opposes abortion and artificial contraception, Mr. Turner responded with an ethnic joke — “Ever seen a Polish mine detector?” — and then suggested the Pope should “get with it. Welcome to the 20th century.”
People like Turner think they’re “the smart ones,” and love to recite environmental nonsense, global warming idiocies and pro-choice talking points as if these were indisputable facts. The neo-Malthusian agenda (which I discussed in “Forbidding To Marry” in April) is advanced by people who don’t even realize they’re advancing an agenda at all.
“It’s science!” these people declare, dismissuing skeptics as “ignorant,” when in fact the real ignorance is on their part — environmentalists and pro-choicers often don’t know the real history of their own movement. A half-century ago, in Up From Liberalism, William F. Buckley Jr. wrote:
In the hands of a skillful indoctrinator, the average student not only thinks what the indoctrinator wants him to think . . . but is altogether positive that he has arrived at his position by independent intellectual exertion. This man is outraged by the suggestion that he is the flesh-and-blood tribute to the success of his indoctrinators . . .
It’s even more true than ever.
(Cross-posted from The Other McCain.)
Recently in the Green Room: