The Dark Designs Behind Population Control - Part 3

Racism meets population control in Eugenics

Closely following the publication of Charles Darwin's Descent of Man in 1871, a new racist movement (called a "science" by its proponents) was born. It was popularly called Eugenics, and its prophet was Francis Galton, an English Victorian polymath and a cousin of Darwin's.

The objective of Eugenics was racial purity and racial improvement, purity and improvement as defined by a handful men and women. The word "Eugenics" was coined by Galton. After Thomas Malthus, it is appropriate to position Francis Galton as the second towering figure in the dark history of population control.

The objective of Galton's Eugenics, which later came to be known as Positive Eugenics, was stated by him in his Essays in Eugenics (Galton, 1909), thus:
The aim of Eugenics is to bring as many influences as can be reasonably employed, to cause the useful classes in the community to contribute more than their proportion to the next generation.
Thus, Galton's idea was to make the "useful classes", by which term he meant those classes who were racially superior according to him, to reproduce more and faster than the "useless classes". Galton had no hesitation in concluding that inferior races must be "elbowed out" by the superior races. In his Enquiries into Human Faculty and its Development (Galton, 1907), Galton stated quite unequivocally that it is reasonable to remove "inferior races" from the planet:
There exists a sentiment, for the most part quite unreasonable, against the gradual extinction of an inferior race. It rests on some confusion between the race and the individual, as if the destruction of a race was equivalent to the destruction of a large number of men. It is nothing of the kind when the process of extinction works silently and slowly through the earlier marriage of members of the superior race, through their greater vitality under equal stress, through their better chances of getting a livelihood, or through their prepotency in mixed marriages. That the members of an inferior class should dislike being elbowed out of the way is another matter; but it may be somewhat brutally argued that whenever two individuals struggle for a single place, one must yield, and that there will be no more unhappiness on the whole, if the inferior yield to the superior than conversely, whereas the world will be permanently enriched by the success of the superior.
It can be said that Galton laid the foundation of the science of silently extinguishing "inferior races" by simply increasing the fertility of the "superior race". According to Galton, therefore, everything is in order if Europeans, whom Galton considered as a superior race, came in to America and silently out-bred and elbowed-out native Indians. As per Galton, that would be the best thing to happen to America, since it will finally have a superior race inhabiting it.

Galton also openly expressed a desire for European colonization of the world, Europeans being a superior race in his mind. He argued that the subject of over-population must be taken up with serious consideration owing to the filling up of spare places of the earth with non-Europeans (Galton, 1907):
Over-population and its attendant miseries may not improbably become a more serious subject of consideration than it ever yet has been, owing to improved sanatation and consequent diminution of the mortality of children, and to the filling up of the spare places of the earth which are still void and able to receive the overflow of Europe.
Thus, we see in Francis Galton's deliberations, the seed of global population control, which is aimed at "reducing misery" all over the world by slowly extinguishing "unwanted people" and replacing them with "superior races". Galton even went to the extent of saying that if the inferior race spoke the same language, it's even more easier to extinguish it (Galton, 1907):
I think it could be easily shown that when the differences between the races is not so great as to divide them into obviously different classes, and where their language, education, and general interests are the same, the substitution may take place gradually without any unhappiness. 
Now, I welcome the reader to ask himself/herself how easy it could be for a unitary state, such as India, to replace what it considers as an inferior race with a superior race, even if the word race is never mentioned. How easy could it be if both the inferior and the superior races were made to feel so united that their elite representatives looked at racial, linguistic, cultural and historical differences with shame?

While there is no proof that India's population control programme was racist in intent, it has certainly turned racist in consequence: the Dravidians are being slowly depopulated while the Aryans are being kept relatively intact and even funded and assisted by the state to migrate southwards. What other picture can the paintbrush of greed and hatred paint?

  1. Galton, 1907: Enquiries into Human Faculty and its Development, Project Gutenberg eBook.
  2. Galton, 1909: Essays in Eugenics, London, The Eugenics Education Society
To be continued.

The Dark Designs Behind Population Control - Part 2

Thomas Malthus, his flawed science and his flawed economics

It was Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), an influential British scholar, who first expressed the concern that food production could never cope up with human population. He assumed rather arbitrarily that population, when unchecked, grows in a geometric ratio, while food can increase only in an arithmetic ratio.

To him, it was therefore a "natural law" that it is impossible to have a society, all the members of which live a life of "ease, happiness, and comparative leisure; and feel no anxiety about providing the means of subsistence" (Malthus, 1798). Some sections of the society, called the poor, were bound by this "natural law" to suffer without food. The important point to note here is the reason Malthus quoted for the sorry state of the poor: it was not their inability to produce food, it was not the inability of others to provide food or the education to produce food to them, but their existence and fertility.

The two basic assumptions of Malthus, that population grows in a geometric ratio, and that food increases only in an arithmetic ratio, have both been proven false. If Malthus were right, the world would never have had sufficient food to feed everyone. Yet, the fact is that there is sufficient food in the world to feed everyone even today when the population of the world is nearly seven times what it was during Malthus's time, as has been attested by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The problem is not one of production but of access and distribution, and has mainly social and political causes.

Philosophically, Malthus's first major mistake was to assume that population depends only on the sexual attraction between man and woman, with no place for societal norms, chance, kinship patterns, culture, or economics (artificial contraception was not invented in his time, yet). His second major mistake was to assume no rule for technology in accelerating food production or increasing food yield per hectare. His third major mistake was to assume that every added human being is a mere consumer, not a producer; a liability, not an asset. His fourth major mistake was to assume that the haves would or should never give food, or the ability to produce food, to the have-nots and thereby provide for the means of their subsistence.

Because of these major mistakes, Malthus could deduce that population must always be kept in check. The problem which Malthus created in the world was to trigger the feeling that government officials and others at the helm of power must take upon themselves the task of ensuring, by whatever means which work, that the population is kept under check. Malthus himself opposed the so-called Poor Laws of England, arguing that depopulating the poor is a better tactic of reducing overall poverty and disease in England, than funding them.

Unfortunately, this quickly took a racial turn amongst those who hooked on to his message: it became very easy for politicians to target entire groups of people, entire races indeed, which they considered as "unwanted", for depopulation. Thus, Adolf Hitler could target Jews for depopulation in Germany, and American governments could target native Red Indians and Blacks for depopulation. It became easy for politicians to target communities which they hated or considered unfit to exist or reproduce, for depopulation by hook or crook. And sure enough, methods of both hook (intra-uterine contraceptive devices) and crook (mass abortion and sterilization) developed in the aftermath of Thomas Malthus.

Malthus's followers have come to adopt an even more ridiculous argument: that wherever there is poverty, the root cause is population. They now argue, and are adept at spreading the propaganda message that reducing population is a necessary (and sometimes sufficient) step for economic growth. Of course, ignorant and corrupt politicians simply repeat the words of others like parrots, but there is no dearth of civilian believers in this unscientific thesis. Because of these Neo-Malthusians, the disease of population control has spread to Africa and Asia, and it has become the pet project of Western developed countries to fund and orchestrate depopulation in  these areas, in a veiled attempt to appropriate their natural resources.

Fact is, the root cause of poverty is not the existence or fertility of the poor, but their lack of education, coupled with other social and political problems. Those who take upon themselves the task of improving society, of reducing poverty, of removing social ills and reforming politics, cannot adopt the escapist technique of encouraging or coercing the poor to cut down their fertility in one way or the other. Their existence or fertility is not the problem; their poverty is the problem.

My humble request, to those who do not wish to take such responsibilities upon themselves, is to either support those who do wish to take such responsibilities, or simply not do any harm by encouraging governments and policies which are trying to recklessly depopulate our own brethren.


Malthus, 1798: An Essay on the Principle of Population, London, Printed for J. Johnson in St. Paul's Church-Yard, 1798.


I will leave you with the following video:

To be continued.

In this series

The Dark Designs Behind Population Control - Part 1

The Dark Designs Behind Population Control - Part 1

After I learnt about the skewed nature of fertility rates in India, with South India undergoing a rapid fertility decline and North India not undergoing such a rapid decline, I set out to investigate the reasons for this skew, and to understand what really is behind the very concept of Population Control as applied to the world, India, South India, and in particular, Karnataka.

The issue of population is very serious: there is no future for Kannadigas if there are no Kannadigas in future. Or Tamils, or Malayalis, or Telugus or Marathis.

Since the whole of South India is being prepared for large numbers of migrants from North India by Population Policy (or as a byproduct of it), since India is a far cry from being a true Federal country, since diversity is paid only lip service, and since Hindi speakers have been openly granted a constitutional upper-hand in India, the fertility map of India provides reason for much worry. And the worry is, simply, that if we don't take the correct steps, South Indians may become both outnumbered and sidelined in their own land, and gradually vanish due to very low fertility and increased migration. Steep fertility declines are accompanied by deep-routed social, familial and behavioral changes in a population, and there is no guarantee that these changes can be reversed.

Actually, migration from the North is okay as long as it does not disturb the social cohesion in the linguistic peoples of the South. The problem is, there is nothing which can provide the consolation that social cohesion is going to be maintained in South India. Everything we know points towards the loss of social cohesion due to migration.

Why are we being made to suppress our fertility and implicitly asked to welcome migrants from North India? What factors led to such a situation? Is it by design or accident? If by design, how ethical is a political system which designs South India to undergo fertility decline below replacement level and North India to remain considerably above it in the endgame where India as a whole would have achieved a replacement level fertility? Were all Indians considered like wild grass devoid of any diversity in crafting the population policy, so that one could cut out more grass where it's easy to cut and leave uncut where it's difficult to cut, and finally pick grass from the high-density area and plant it in the low-density area? Were the aspirations of the different linguistic peoples taken into account in forming this policy, or was it just handed down from the top?

I have not come anywhere close to answering all these questions, but in seeking those answers I have come to question whether Population Control itself is a valid project to undertake anywhere in the world. Is population really a problem in say India (and we know it's North India), China and Africa? Is population the reason for underdevelopment in these places? Should people be considered as weeds and cut down by hook or crook?

The answer I have found is an emphatic NO.

In this series of articles, I wish to elaborate on what led to the very concept of Population Control, touching only on the main points. It is impossible to explain the entire story in a blog, or even to hyperlink all the relevant material. I encourage readers to follow up with their own investigation. There is a plethora of material on the internet, as well as a myriad books, about the topic.

At this point of time, what I do understand very clearly, and have solid proof for, is this: that Population Control (by artificial means, i.e.,) is a Western concept rooted in false science, false economics, greed, and racial hatred.

I caution readers to not jump to the conclusion that policy makers in India have been greedy and have exhibited racial hatred towards South Indians and tried to "design us out" by policy. I have not found any proof of that, and I sincerely hope that there is no such proof.

The position I have formed about the Indian programme, after the little research I have been able to do, is that Indians might have blindly hooked on to the false science and false economics, thinking it to be absolute truth, especially since it came to them from their colonial masters, the British. I believe the pioneers of the Population Control programme in India did not realize that they were pawns of the West steeped in racial hatred and greed for natural resources. I believe Indians welcomed the deadly virus of Population Control without understanding its implications, and that South India simply executed the plan better, and was somehow in a position to execute the plan better, than North India. Of course, this position begs proof, which I continue to seek.

In what follows, I will try to document the dark history of Population Control in the West and how it spawned the Indian programme. If these articles even do so much as to trigger readers to re-think whether population control is necessary, I would consider my efforts not wasted.

I am convinced that Population Control is not necessary, and that it is actually a subtle weapon of destruction wielded against those who are considered "unwanted" by the weapon-wielders. Focusing attention on population takes attention away from the real problems facing any population. Indeed, such a defocus is one of the items on the agenda of those who wish to depopulate the entire world and subsequently secure its natural resources for their own use and plunder.

Note: I believe that it is the right of couples to decide the number of children they wish to have, and adopt whatever methods of contraception they deem fit (although I do have a preference: the time-tested method of abstinence). When I say "Population Control is not necessary", what I mean is that the government has no justifiable reason to poke its nose inside bedrooms and human reproductive organs. Governments worldwide must stop creating a mass hysteria about a ticking "population bomb", stop spreading the nonsense that a high population is the cause for poverty and disease, decline foreign aid aimed at population control, and withdraw all their population control or family planning programmes. It's all total nonsense, and creates huge social problems which could have been avoided (such as the North-South fertility skew in India which will end up increasing internal tensions). Governments should do real work instead: improve education, provide real healthcare, etc.

To be continued.