Starve This Beast

JP Morgan: Robber Baron 2B2F

From the SpearheadFiles
Originally Published on January 26, 2011

Many people simply write off  “conspiracy theory” as nothing more than fantastic SyFy channel fantasy, defined solely by stories of reptile aliens and satanic Boehmian Grove carnival freakshows.

They couldn’t be more wrong.

A conspiracy is nothing more than a group of people conspiring to carry out some action or actions to achieve certain goals, using their resources to effect deception, dishonesty, and misdirection so as to gain from the people's ignorance as they focus on all of the mass media misinformation and disinformation promulgated as weapons of mass distraction.

For instance, when one encounters left-wing liberals who are staunch anti-capitalist and anti-free market ideologues, they will sometimes make reference to the need for more Government regulation of business and the marketplace…otherwise you get the conditions for those dreadful “Robber Barons” who exploited the masses back in the early 20th century to amass fantastic wealth.

For example, note how this self-identified lefty blogger discusses “robber barons” and “unbridled capitalism.” He effectively describes the system of corporatism…which is really nothing more than a new name for fascism.

Real capitalism, by definition is “unbridled.” Pure capitalism is a free market.

The Robber Barons were not capitalists. They were Corporatists…aka Fascists. They used their wealth to finance elections to gain influence on the politicians to pass laws that would benefit their bottom lines by eliminating their competition through regulations and enforcement, thereby granting these Robber Baron’s corporations industry-wide cartels.

They CONSPIRED.

Conspired to take over the country and institute their vision of Government by the Corporations, for the Corporations…unbridled corporatism, not capitalism.

Yet those same robber barons that the leftist will decry as the primary example for why we need the Government to “regulate” the economy…

…are the same who financed, supported and lobbied to create the Federal Reserve in the first place…and who also now own significant shares of the stocks of the Fed’s member banks.

From the FDIC Learning Bank:

The term robber baron was revived in the 19th century in the U.S. as a pejorative term describing businessman who allegedly used unscrupulous tactics in their business operations and on the stock market to amass huge personal fortunes.Many of their massive businesses controlled a large majority of all activity in the respective industry, often arrived at through predatory pricing schemes that are now illegal.

Some of the most notable robber barons were J.P. Morgan (banking), John D. Rockefeller (oil), and Andrew Carnegie (steel).

Take special note of those three names.

Check out the Congressional Committee on Banking, Currency and Housing Report of 1976.

Note that all three names figure prominently in the formation and ownership of the Federal Reserve member banks.

All three amassed vast fortunes and enormous political control. All three had their wealth turned into multi-generational dynasties. All three estates eventually formed Foundations to protect the family wealth from the normal taxes We the Sheeple have to pay, as well as effecting the means of influencing society for their long term benefit.

For instance, The Rockefeller Foundation funded Feminism…they CONSPIRED to change the very fabric of society by attacking the Patriarchal structure of the nuclear family.

Here’s an excerpt from Aaron Russo’s last interview before his death in 2007 in which he recounts a conversation he had with Nick Rockefeller:

Well one of the things he told me was that.. he was at the house one night and we started talking and he was laughing and he said, “Aaron what do you think Women’s Liberation was all about?”

And I had pretty conventional thinking about it at that point and I said, “I think it’s about women having the right to work to get equal pay with men just like they won the right to vote.”

He started to laugh and he said, “Your an idiot.”

And I said, “Why am I an idiot?”

And he said, “Let me tell you what that was about. We the Rockefellers funded that.”

“We funded Women’s Lib and we’re the ones who got it all over the newspapers and television (through) the Rockefeller Foundation…”

And he says, “You wanna know why?

There were two primary reasons.

And one reason was we couldn’t tax half the population before Women’s Lib and the second reason was now we get the kids in school at an early age.. we can indoctrinate kids on how to think and with it break up their family. The kids start looking at the state as the family.. As the schools as the officials as their family.. not the parents teaching them. And so those were the two primary reasons for Women’s Lib.”

Some people will ignore this quote and say that conspiracy theories are nothing more than reptilian alien sex fiend delusions promoting female supremacy.

These same folks will laugh and criticize the likes of one of the internet’s most famous conspiracy theorist, Henry Makow, as a complete moonbat who hurts the cause of Men’s Rights.

Yet Henry Makow repeatedly issues the most basic and simplest of challenges for people who think he’s a loon to see how right or wrong he is: Google “Rockefeller Foundation” and “Women’s Studies.”

The Rockefeller Foundation literally has bankrolled the primary transmitter of Cultural Feminism for the last several decades in the US – the Women’s Studies programs in colleges and Universities across the country.

All the aspiring journalists, film makers, screenwriters, and other news media and entertainment industry focused students took these women’s studies classes during their educational careers, and hit the mass media production industry after graduation, fully indoctrinated in the attitudes and ideas of the feminist zeitgeist. And it literally embedded itself into the mass media propaganda we now call “info-tainment” to make it a cultural influence that has perfectly socially engineered our modern feminist society.

But remember…this is crazy conspiracy theory. It couldn’t possibly be true…feminism was an organic, grass roots movement born of women who were truly oppressed by Western Patriarchy!

The Carnegie Foundation has also been a big supporter of feminist scholarship.

But for this article, I’d like focus primarily on the third Robber Baron’s Estate listed: JP Morgan.

While Carnegie and Rockefeller’s wealth were used to create Foundations to exert influence over society, JP Morgan became one of our present day banks “too big to fail.”

But don’t be mistaken if you think that JP Morgan doesn’t have anything to do with feminism either.

In fact, JP Morgan has ingeniously positioned itself to reap massive profits from one of the lynch pins of effecting Feminist policy in the U.S. – the Food Stamp programs now using debit cards instead of the Federally printed paper “stamps.”

As the Economic Collapse Blog points out:

JP Morgan is the largest processor of food stamp benefits in the United States. JP Morgan has contracted to provide food stamp debit cards in 26 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. JP Morgan is paid for each case that it handles, so that means that the more Americans that go on food stamps, the more profits JP Morgan makes. Yes, you read that correctly. When the number of Americans on food stamps goes up, JP Morgan makes more money.

Food stamps (aka WIC and/or EBT and/or SNAP) is one of the key programs of the "social(ist) safety net" that enable women to create more single-mother households. Women don’t need Men to be providers now…they have JP Morgan to assist the Federal Government in taking money from working taxpayers and feeding single mother households and their illegitimate broods!

JP Morgan also administers child support debit cards in 15 States, making it more efficient for child support agencies to take money from Dads and deposit them via electronic funds transfers into these debit card accounts so women will have a much easier time spending the support payments with their JP Morgan child support debit cards.

Isn’t JP Morgan just great?!

I say it’s time to starve this beast.

If you have a JP Morgan bank account, close it. Take your business elsewhere.

If you have a JP Morgan credit card, pay it off or transfer your balance to a smaller bank that isn’t a part owner of the Federal Reserve banking system nor a profiteer off of the feminazi welfare state.

Reduce your tax obligations to the least amount possible. It’s our tax dollars being used to pay the likes of JP Morgan to administer these debit card programs.

Better yet, expatriate to some country where Rockefeller and Carnegie sponsored social engineering – aka “feminism” – has yet to take a demographically destructive hold on the populace (if such places even exist anymore).

All things considered, I realize that realistically, such actions taken by the amount of readers who would take this seriously still wouldn’t even come close to being able to starve this beast. It’s grown to large, too menacing and too rapacious.

But at least you won’t be supporting it’s continued devouring of Western Civilization. After all, even if you can’t effectively starve the beast, that doesn’t mean you should help to feed it either.



Notable Commentary from the Original Post
 

Joe Zamboni January 26, 2011 at 10:29

Much more could be said about the intentions behind Feminism, for example its intention to impose a new level of fascist governmental control. But the notion of “starving the beast” is a worthy topic for this comment thread. Yes, great, don’t earn any more taxable money than you absolutely need, so you won’t contribute to the draconian Feminist system under which we live. But there are many other ways to starve the beast. Engage in barter and mutual-support arrangements with neighbors. Don’t get married. Don’t buy Valentine Day’s gifts. Don’t engage in the wine-and-dine dating process. Home school your kids if you have them. Better yet, don’t have kids and make sure you don’t by getting a vasectomy. In what other ways are people starving the beast?


Elusive Wapiti January 26, 2011 at 10:35

One doesn’t need to have a buncha guys and gals in smoke-filled rooms to be a conspiracy.

One need only to look at the etymology of the word to see that “conspiracy” can have a very wide application:

“con”, meaning “with” or “together”, and

“spire” meaning “breathe”.

Thus a “conspiracy” is merely a collection of people who think alike and act in a congruent way…they “breathe together” in unison.

We are truly surrounded by conspiracies.



AntZ January 26, 2011 at 10:53

The author thinks that big business funded the birth of feminism in order to weaken collective bargaining and increase profits.

Maybe, maybe not. Who cares? That was long ago. Today, the feminist crusade for privilege, pampering, and entitlement is killing the economy, and corporate profits along with it. I guess you could say “what goes around, comes around.”


Keoni Galt January 26, 2011 at 11:01

"The author thinks that big business funded the birth of feminism in order to weaken collective bargaining and increase profits."

No, the author thinks that Big Business became BIG because they were able to buy influence and power to gain control of the government to pass laws and promote ideas to shape society via educational institutions and mass media.

Feminism is one of those things they deliberately promulgated, for a variety of reasons.

Today, the feminist crusade for privilege, pampering, and entitlement is killing the economy, and corporate profits along with it.

Except for the Corporations of the likes of JP Morgan. As the economy continues to tank, more people become dependent on foodstamps. The more people on the foodstamp debit card program, the more JP Morgan profits.

You think JP Morgan and all the other corporations “too big to fail” are hurting with the rest of us? Hardly…they’re profiting mightily off of our misery!


Keyster January 26, 2011 at 11:11

One could argue George Soros is the modern day version of those guys, with his manipulation of currency markets and financial influence in the liberal media. He’s at the top of the NWO hierarchy.

The beast IS starving right now. The “American Dream” is over and people sense it. We’re getting make to basics. Gone are the days of McMansions, SUV’s and massive consumerism. The well has run dry. States will default to get out of public worker pension debt. The federal government will need to slow printing money. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid will HAVE to be cut, along with defense. The big three are 80% of the budget. We lack the political will to make the hard choices now, so the pain will only be greater later.

Without the current level of government entitlements women as a group will be facing some harsh realities about life. They may even take to liking men again.


Lovekraft January 26, 2011 at 11:24

@ Keoni:

take opposition to your message as proof you are on the right track. And IMO, internet debate has evolved beyond troll-sniping where any flaming gets quickly ignored/down-voted. Call it the awakening of materialistic delusion as Western status erodes and resources dwindle. The more the opposition, the closer to the awakening.

As for this article, I think there may be some deeper, darker forces involved than just a few greedy families – witchcraft, ancient Arabic bloodfeuds etc. Anyone who tries to ‘connect these dots’ requires incredible focus and stamina. Thankfully, you have maintained focus in exposing the Rock/Carn/Morg trifecta.


Alan B January 26, 2011 at 11:28

@antz Maybe, maybe not. Who cares? That was long ago. Today, the feminist crusade for privilege, pampering, and entitlement is killing the economy, and corporate profits along with it.
—
its killing the economy for the Regular Joe/Jane, but dont get it twisted.. corporate profits are only going HIGHER. 16% real unemployment but magically the market is back up to 12,000 and revving up.. its the people that cant afford a ticket to the “big show” that are getting shafted. both Men AND Women.

this is about 3 things, money power control. The people at the top have it, they want to keep it (forever), and they will destroy those below them to do that. As long as they maintain that buffer that separates them from the rioting masses beneath them, they are safe. How do they maintain that safety net? DIVISION. repubs vs dems vs conserve vs neocon men vs women vs homos vs retards vs kids jew vs muslim vs christian vs terrorist jets vs steelers vs packers vs michael vick color vs color vs label label label you get it. slap a label on someone and someone ELSE will attack.. if they don’t, make that “labeled” person PRIVILEGED with laws and PROTECTION from the non-labeled and guess what… CONFLICT.

As long as everyone’s attention is focused on the fight in the ring, no one sees the vault getting robbed.

the ones robbing the vault …. conspirators the ones robbing the vault control the media… therefore we can only theorize what happened since they control the flow of (dis)information Conspiracy Theory


Robert January 26, 2011 at 11:39

Feminism = the mother of many criminal conspiracies.

The Conspiritard Review

When I was a youth, I was a voracious reader of fiction. I devoured thousands of books over many hours of reading.When I got older and started logging on to teh Interwebz to find new reading material, I turned from my passion for fiction and began to spend a similar amount of time reading non-fiction on a wide variety of topics. History, food and nutrition, biographies, sociology, economics and current events.

Then I discovered the "blogosphere" and began my own blog after immersing myself in the forerunner of what we now know of today as the MAndrosphere. In the past six or seven years, I've probably read several hundred books regarding various aspects of what is commonly considered the "conspiracy theory" genre.

I guess you could say, I re-discovered my passion for reading "fiction" again.

In any event, long time readers of this blog are certainly familiar with all of the tinfoil hat-themed posts i've made here, inspired by all of this reading of both fiction and non-fiction (although it's become rather difficult in deciding which is which...). Thanks to my dedication for reading and writing on this topic, I even garnered an awesome and unique designation from a long time reader: I am a conspiritard! (Love ya, dana!)

As I've pointed out before, I do believe that  within the "conspiracy theory" genre of books and in the fever swamps found on teh Interwebz, there exists a lot of misinformed disinformation. Partial truths, half-truths, false flag blogs and cognitive infiltrators and paid shills who flood the comment sections and forums with outright lies and deceptions....all designed to sow confusion, and bury actual facts beneath an avalanche of mis- and dis- information, all designed to hide the truth in plain site and promote the narrative that bolsters the status quo of the ESTABLISHMENT of our Brave New World Order.

After many hours of reading a multitude of sources regarding many of the more popular conspiracy theories, I've decided to offer a guidepost of sorts for the newbies who first encounter the more strange fringes of teh Interwebz.

The following are my own quick takes and perspectives on the most popular "conspiracy theories" found online. I will rate each "theory" with a simplified, three-tiered ranking system to indicate my own perspective and beliefs as to the veracity of any said theory. The rankings will consist of a numeral rating based on one of the oldest conspiracy theories of all time...

"Woe to you, oh Earth and Sea, for the devil sends the beast with wrath, for he knows the time is short...." - Revelations 13:18

Reckon this...

The Conspiritard Veracity Ratings are as follows:

6 - I remain almost completely unconvinced on the veracity of this theory, there is always a possibility that it may turn out to be true, but I doubt it. Very high probability the theory is mis/dis-info psy-ops. Still an interesting topic to contemplate, if for nothing more than the lulz.

66 - I'm fairly sure most aspects of this theory are pretty accurate and fairly close to the truth of the matter, but there still exists some doubt because many aspects of the theory are unverifiable....or may be mostly true with just enough dis/mis-info inserted to discredit the entire theory. Never forget that the most effective lies are mostly based on truth.

666 - Anything I give the three - 6s rating too, is what I consider to be conspiracy FACT, not conspiracy theory.

All ratings notwithstanding, the contents of this review are simply for entertainment purposes. Anything you decide to do in reaction to any of this info is at your sole discretion, and all consequences forthcoming are your own personal responsibility. The only recommendation I have in reaction to any or all of these theories under review, is that you ensure that your tinfoil headgear fits snugly and comfortably without restricting any unnecessary blood flow, before you commence whatever it is you think you need to do.

And now, on with the review.




Theory: "There is a "New World Order" agenda being implemented by a shadow, elite government - aka 'The Powers That Be,' 'The 1%' to bring the entire planet under one World Government."

TPTB

This is the grand conspiracy of them all. All other conspiracy theories fall under the umbrella of the NWO conspiracy theory. Those of us who have studied the topic in depth have no doubts whatsoever about the veracity of this one. The real question is how do all of the other conspiracy theory's tie into how the elite, TPTB, the 1%, use either the truth or the mis/dis-info psy-ops to achieve their over-arching goals of establishing the NWO. Rather then attempt to provide corroborating links, I'll just suggest you check with Googliath with the search terms "The Georgia Guidestones." THEY, etched their agenda for our Brave New World Order in stone and erected it in the middle of an open field in USA Inc., for all of humanity to see. Let's just keep this one simple and take them at their word.


Conspiritard Veracity Rating: 666

 

Theory: "Feminism was deliberately pushed via Non-Profit Foundations and Corporations to get women into the workforce and institute population control."

Got RFID Chips?

The first place I encountered "conspiracy theory" on teh Interewebz was some long ago MRA/MGTOW linkage that concerned the idea that feminism was not something that "just happened" in the 1960's, but rather promoted by an "elite" shadow government with a "New World Order" agenda. The first place I ever put on the tinfoil hat, was Henry Makow's site SavetheMales.com, now henrymakow.ca.  It has now been eight years since he first issued it, but his challenge to anyone who doubted the "conspiracy theory" of feminism he issued in his 2007 article, How the Rockefellers Re-Engineered Women still reveals the veracity of his assesment today:

"Google "Rockefeller Foundation" and "Women's Studies" and you'll get a half million citations."

Also see the infamous Aaron Russo documentary on YouTube, America: Freedom to Fascism.

Google "Rockefeller Foundation" and "Women's Studies" and you'll get a half million citations. - See more at: http://www.savethemales.ca/001904.html#sthash.FulOcZTk.dpuf

Google "Rockefeller Foundation" and "Women's Studies" and you'll get a half million citations. - See more at: http://www.savethemales.ca/001904.html#sthash.FulOcZTk.dpuf

Google "Rockefeller Foundation" and "Women's Studies" and you'll get a half million citations. - See more at: http://www.savethemales.ca/001904.html#sthash.FulOcZTk.dpuf

Google "Rockefeller Foundation" and "Women's Studies" and you'll get a half million citations. - See more at: http://www.savethemales.ca/001904.html#sthash.FulOcZTk.dpuf

Google "Rockefeller Foundation" and "Women's Studies" and you'll get a half million citations. - See more at: http://www.savethemales.ca/001904.html#sthash.FulOcZTk.dpuf

Google "Rockefeller Foundation" and "Women's Studies" and you'll get a half million citations. - See more at: http://www.savethemales.ca/001904.html#sthash.FulOcZTk.dpuf

Conspiritard Veracity Rating: 666




Theory: "'Project Blue Beam' is a conspiracy theory that claims that NASA is attempting to implement a New Age religion with the Antichrist at its head and start a New World Order, via a technologically-simulated Second Coming."

HE IS RISEN

I don't buy this one at all. Every aspect of our Brave New World Order's mass media controlled culture is focused on fostering atheism, agnosticism, paganism, "new age" spirituality and anti-Christianity in any and every form. If THEY are counting on projecting an image of Jesus into the sky to get we the sheeple to submit to their dictatorial rule, shouldn't they have been promoting Christianity and the second coming in every possible channel that they have influence and control?

Conspiritard Veracity Rating: 6




Theory: "High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), is an actual USA Inc., Military project that has been blamed for triggering "natural" catastrophes such as floods, droughts, hurricanes, thunderstorms, earthquakes in China, Malaysia, Iran, Pakistan, Haiti, Turkey, Greece and the Philippines, major power outages, the downing of TWA Flight 800, Gulf War syndrome, and chronic fatigue syndrome."

I don't really know if I buy the idea that HAARP can actually control the weather or cause environmental catastrophes....but due to the track record of secrecy, dishonesty and duplicity of other top secret USA Inc. military programs, I'll give this one two sixes instead of the single one I initially planned to tender here. It's not that far out of an idea compared to many other theories found in the fever swamps of teh Interwebz...

Conspiritard Veracity Rating: 66




Theory: "Much of the "Global Warming" issue is nothing more than a cover story for the world's governments who have been steadily preparing for an impeding natural catastrophe when the magnetic poles of the Earth flip, resulting in world wide cataclysms of earthquakes, volcanoes and super-storms that precede an impending ice age that will wipe out the majority of the world's population."

When the SHTF, it's TEOTWAWKI

Everything you need to know about this one has been covered extensively by my all time favorite doomsday prepper, Tex Arcane. That being said, I give this one three sixes simply for the fact of the matter that global cataclysms are historical fact, and the cycle of ice ages is verifiable. It's not a matter of if, but when. It may not happen in our lifetimes, but as I always say, it's better to be prepared for the worst while hoping for the best.

Conspiritard Veracity Rating: 666




Theory: "TPTB, aka  the 1%, aka the elite, aka the Shadow Government, aka The Illuminati, is made up of shape-shifting reptile aliens from Nibiru - Planet X, that disguise themselves as humans to rule over the planet."

The other Lizard Queen

This theory was made famous by the infamous David Icke. At first glance, this makes him appear batshit insane. Trouble is, before I ever encountered Icke's "Reptilian" conspiracy, I did watch a few YouTube videos of his and read a few articles in which he addressed a number of conspiracy theory topics like the modern banking system,  that seemed perfectly rationale and made sense. Then I read his theories on "Reptilie Aliens" and "Illuminati bloodlines." I am of the opinion that David Icke is most likely a psy-op agent or "controlled opposition," who's modus operandi is to basically speak the truth with just enough  dis-info so that the truth he does accurately discuss is ALL branded, marginalized and dismissed as fantastic lunacy.

But then again, I can't say I wouldn't be totally shocked if we were to one day see one of our so-called leaders like our Fake President or as Vox Day nicknamed her years ago "The Lizard Queen," should one day shed their human mask on the Tell-A-Vision and announce that the Annunaki-Nephilim have taken over the Earth and all us humans are to report to the nearest FEMA camps for the Reptilians to commence an all they can eat sheeple buffet...

Conspiritard Veracity Rating: 6





Theory: "The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has set up concentration camps in all 50 States of the USA to prepare for the breakdown of civil society and the declaration of Martial Law."

Is it camping season yet?

In researching this topic, I've found many conflicting theories as to why FEMA has set up these camps throughout the country....but I have encountered a number of sources that have verified it for me personally, that in fact these facilities have been constructed all throughout the US...but for what ultimate purpose they are designed for truly remains to be seen.

Conspiritard Veracity Rating: 66




Theory: "The entire beauty, health and skin care industry is nothing more than an adjunct of the cancer industrial complex, in which THEY seek to poison as many women with as many chemical substances as possible."

It takes a lot to look like this!

I've blogged extensively these past 7+ years here about Big Ag's industrialized FEED industry and their connection to Big Pharma, as well as other Big Chemical industry markets like, vaccines, GMO's and fluoride, so I won't be including them in the conspiritard review...but one thing I never did get around to addressing was all of the toxic substances found in all of the health and beauty products used by nearly all women, metrosexuals and other fashion-conscious sheeple in today's Brave New World Order. Needless to say, the above graphic says it all.


Conspiritard Veracity Rating: 666





Theory: "The terrorist attacks on 9-11-01 were carried out under the orders of Al Qaeda's head honcho, Osama Bin Laden, who was living in a cave in Afghanistan. His loyal jihadi operatives, trained at US flight training schools, and armed with nothing more than box cutters, hijacked four US Jetliners and crashed them into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, because they hate us for our freedoms. And, oh yeah, Islam is a religion of peace."

Osama Bean Laden

Oops, this is not a conspiracy theory, it's the official narrative of what happened on that day. Sorry, I guess I forgot....

Conspiritard Veracity Rating: 6





Theory: "Chemtrails are long-lasting trails left in the sky by high-flying aircraft are chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed for sinister purposes undisclosed to the general public."

"Oh beautiful, for gracious skies..."

Although familiar with the topic, I never thought too much about this particular conspiracy theory, until I visited the West Coast USA Inc., last summer, where I watched planes flying at a high altitude create a grid work of patterns across the sky, from horizon to horizon over the city I was visiting. These trails took many hours to dissipate into a gray, overcast sky. As I watched it, I thought to myself, "Damn, Infowars and all those other sites were right! Those are NOT contrails." Living in Hawaii  where I see commercial and military jets take off, land and fly over my islands every single day, I have never seen "contrails" that take hours to dissipate into a gray, hazy, overcast sky like I saw that day.

I only give this theory two sixes, simply because while I believe my own lying eyes - they are spraying SOMETHING up there, and it 'aint regular contrails...for what purposes, it still is hard to ascertain. Conflicting theories cite anything from deliberate poisoning of the masses to trying to geo-engineer the climate and fight "global warming." In any case, THEY are spraying something way up there...

Conspiritard Veracity Rating: 66





Theory:  "Everything broadcast on the Tell-A-Vision is nothing but a weapon of mass distraction, designed to keep we the sheeple distracted and influenced to be mindless, passive, unhealthy and dumbed-down consumers."

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...

 If you're a regular reader of this blog, you already know what rating this one's gonna get.

Conspiritard Veracity Rating: 666

 


Theory: "It's not Reptile Aliens, it's THE JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSS!"

Last known picture of Joel Stein...

There are many, many volumes of books and articles that discuss this most verboten of all topics of on teh Interwebz. In multiple countries throughout the world, there is no free speech regarding various aspects of this topic, with a number of people having been thrown in jail for doing so. For the full details on this particular theory, have a looksee at Encylopedia Dramatica's take that is a somewhat over-the-top (dramatic!) treatment on the topic of "The Juice."

Conspiritard Veracity Rating: ✡

  


Theory: "That Hawaiian Libertarian blogger is a misogynistic, whack-job conspiracy theorist who obsesses over food magic. Nothing he blogs about should be taken seriously, only visit his blog if you want to get a good drive-by laugh at the ravings of a conspiritard lunatic!"

Who is Keoni Galt?

Aaah...at long last, we come to the end of the review. We tackle the ultimate conspiracy without the theory. The final expose of the man who would be the standard-bearer for resisting the Brave New World Order's zeitgeist of loose change and illuminated shrieking.  Pay no mind to the man behind the curtain...he's going his own way. You should too.


Conspiritard Veracity Rating: 777

Rockefeller Economics

Lew Rockwell columnist, Gary North, published a piece today that explains exactly how colleges, Universities and the mainstream media eventually anointed Keynesian economics theory as the only "legitimate" economics theory to be studied, discussed and implemented as official government policy. Everything else is considered fringe, or irrational supporters of an "already proven to have failed" Gold standard money system.

In short, the so called "conspiracy theory" is true.

In the exact same way the Rockefeller Foundation funded the feminist movement through Womynz Study Programs, and the funding of Albert Kinsey's research and report that mainstreamed and normalized sexual deviancy, as well as funding Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood, so too did this entity buy out the study of economics.

Gary North points out how:

Higher education in the United States was transformed by Rockefeller money, beginning in 1902: the General Education Board. The GEB made grants to colleges only if they hired Ph.D-holding graduates of a handful of universities, which alone granted the Ph.D. This way, the universities could indirectly take over the rest of the colleges, which were mostly church-related. The strategy worked.

Rockefeller's academic empire included the University of Chicago, which he founded. From the turn of the 20th century, the University of Chicago's department of economics repudiated the use of gold in monetary affairs.

From 1902, the Rockefeller foundation used it's immense wealth to essentially buy higher education in this country. From that point on, it only took 11 years for the Rockefeller-bought PhD economists to promote a paradigm that eventually led to the creation of the Central Banking Cartel, the Federal Reserve.

This is why, as North points out:

There has never been a college textbook in economics that called the FED a government-created cartel that exists for the sake of the largest banks. This outlook shapes the thinking of the students who get certified to teach. They are literally unable intellectually to apply the economic theory in the chapter on cartels to the Federal Reserve System, despite the fact that the theory in the cartel chapter fits seamlessly onto the facts of the FED. Support of central banking is basic to the entire curriculum in modern economics.

The Rockefeller Foundation did more than use grant funding in the early 20th century to influence the entire study of economics. The Federal Reserve Cartel itself has continued the practice as well. North explains:

For decades, the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors (government) and its 12 regional banks (privately owned) have spent tens of millions of dollars (created out of nothing) handing research jobs to academic economists. The FED has literally bought off the profession. This story was concealed for years by the FED and its bought-off defenders, but it has recently surfaced.

North then links to the following Huffington Post article, Priceless: How The Federal Reserve Bought The Economics

The Federal Reserve, through its extensive network of consultants, visiting scholars, alumni and staff economists, so thoroughly dominates the field of economics that real criticism of the central bank has become a career liability for members of the profession, an investigation by the Huffington Post has found.

This dominance helps explain how, even after the Fed failed to foresee the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression, the central bank has largely escaped criticism from academic economists. In the Fed's thrall, the economists missed it, too.

"The Fed has a lock on the economics world," says Joshua Rosner, a Wall Street analyst who correctly called the meltdown. "There is no room for other views, which I guess is why economists got it so wrong."

Of course, it must be pointed out here that the Rockefeller's were instrumental in the creation of the Federal Reserve...not just by buying out the economics academic establishment, but also through "supporting" politicians who pushed through the Federal Reserve Act in the first place. This connection is noted at Wikipedia (for which I will not link to, but only point out here that Wiki does represent the so-called mainstream, politically correct source of info, and they too note the Rockefeller/Fed connection). This connection is not just in the minds of what useful idiots and misinformation disseminater's would claim is nothing more than the fevered imagination of "conspiracy theorists." The key politician behind the Federal Reserve Act was Senator Nelson Aldrich, John D. Rockefeller's son-in-law. From the Wiki article on the Federal Reserve:

In early November 1910, Aldrich met with five well known members of the New York banking community to devise a central banking bill. Paul Warburg, an attendee of the meeting and long time advocate of central banking in the U.S., later wrote that Aldrich was "bewildered at all that he had absorbed abroad and he was faced with the difficult task of writing a highly technical bill while being harassed by the daily grind of his parliamentary duties".[25] After ten days of deliberation, the bill, which would later be referred to as the "Aldrich Plan", was agreed upon. It had several key components, including a central bank with a Washington-based headquarters and fifteen branches located throughout the U.S. in geographically strategic locations, and a uniform elastic currency based on gold and commercial paper. Aldrich believed a central banking system with no political involvement was best, but was convinced by Warburg that a plan with no public control was not politically feasible.[25] The compromise involved representation of the public sector on the Board of Directors.[26]

Aldrich's bill met much opposition from politicians. Critics were suspicious of a central bank, and charged Aldrich of being biased due to his close ties to wealthy bankers such as J. P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Aldrich's son-in-law.

The Federal Reserve is not just a banking cartel with the exclusive rights to create money out of nothing - fiat currency - it has also established a cartel in economics research and study in both higher education and in the media. This is how they control the narrative to maintain their hold on the ability to enslave We the Sheeple with the modern day system of Bankster-run Serfdom.

As Ron Paul continues to gain momentum with his End the Fed campaign, he's not just taking on the Federal Reserve system, he's taking on the entire establishment of academic and mainstream media economists and think tanks...an establishment that should rightly be identified as Rockefeller Economics.

The Hidden Picture Within the Picture

We believe the picture painters of the mass media are artfully creating landscapes for us which deliberately hide the real picture. - Gary Allen & Larry Abraham

In a moment of circumspection while commuting amongst the rat race of a typical morning Hawaiian-style traffic jam, I attempted to assess the length and breadth of the intellectual journey I've undertaken in these last few years. What began as a curious search on the internet in trying to find an explanation for the seemingly illegal and unjust way in which my Uncle's ex-wife utterly screwed him over in divorce court, has turned into a complete re-orientation of my point of view of this world and my way of life in it.

This great unraveling of the lies, misinformation, propaganda and indoctrination that had been constructed in my mind by the various influences of institutional and cultural shaping is almost overwhelming when I try to grasp the sheer magnitude of what has been done to we, the peoples of the 21st Century.

The most difficult thing to do when it comes to "unplugging" from the matrix of our BraveNewWorldOrder has been avoiding becoming the 'crazy' guy trying to warn everyone else. It's one thing to discuss these things in the relative comfort of internet anonymity...quite another discussing such things with people in real life.

I've learned to simply avoid direct confrontation with people. Rather, I try to take a subtle, Devil's advocate approach to undermining deceptions and lies whenever I encounter them in real life. This usually means contradicting the conventional wisdom that encompasses dietary guidelines, the grand charade of dialectical political theater, mass media indoctrination, and of course, gender roles.

Often times, it feels rather discouraging when you can actually get someone to agree with you on one of these topics, or another...but the minute you try to share your insight the grand, overarching movement to tie it all together, well THAT'S when you become the crazy guy donning the tinfoil hat and hiding from the black helicopters. The proliferation of dis- and mis- information is so ubiquitous, that I think it's easy for people to simply shut down their critical thinking capacity as soon as their "fantastic theory" meter hits overload.

So I've come to the point where I wanted to find more corroboration to the views I've already formulated in my mind. What sources exist out there for which I could point people towards so they can ascertain themselves whether or not "conspiracy theory" is based on reality or insanity? In seeking such sources, I've come across three books that have recently become available as free pdf downloads...three books that were all written decades ago, yet who's content is as timely as ever.

In terms of the Masculine-focused blogosphere, many people have gone to great lengths to reveal the ties between the feminist movement and it's ties to communism. The evidence making this connection is rather overwhelming and quite easy to establish. Most MRA bloggers and commentariat are familiar with these arguments.

But it doesn't end there. Who was really behind the Communist movement? How where they able to effect this long march through Western culture? This is what initially led me to the New World Order conspiracy theory sphere of the internet.

If you dig deep enough into the roots of feminism in the West, you will find that the connections between the Rockefeller Foundation is THE money behind all of the grants, studies, legislative movements, political campaigns with regards to feminism, population control and abortion, as well as the entire Women's Studies college curriculum that is now established on 98% of the Western World's Academic institutions.

As Henry Makow pointed out: If you search "Rockefeller Foundation" and "Women's Studies" in Google, you will get over 19000 entries.

Just who or what exactly is the Rockefeller Foundation? Wonder no more...I've just discovered a free, online version of The Rockefeller Files. Keep in mind that this book was published back in 1975, when you consider this quote from Chapter Ten, The People Planners. Consider how many aspects of this "vision" have already come to pass:

In our dreams we have limitless resources and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands."Now, thanks to the taxpayers, the Rockefellers have almost limitless funds. As a result, faceless bureaucrats in Washington whom you did not hire and whom you cannot fire - now tell you how to run your business, whom you may hire, where your children will be bussed to school, what products you can purchase, and even what foods you can and cannot eat. It is only a matter of time until the dictocrats tell you how many children you are permitted to have. - Fred Gates, aide to John D. Rockefeller

Now, when you research the Rockefellers and their vision of a New World Order, you will invariably come up with another institution that the Rockefeller's founded: The Council of Foreign Relations.

From Obama & The CFR:

Established in the 1920's and headquartered in New York, its membership includes prominent politicians and business elite, including heads of academia and media. The organization seeks to centralize both political power and market power to craft legislation outside the checks and balances of democracy. The CFR is rarely mentioned by the mainstream media, making it difficult to fully gauge its influence. When it is mentioned in the press, it is likely whitewashed as trivial or irrelevant. Notable members of the CFR include: John Rockefeller, David Rockefeller, Nelson Rockefeller, Dick Cheney, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Condolezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Alan Greenspan, Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger & Angelina Jolie (Yes, the actress has a five year term membership as an ambassador).

Its membership list is a who's who of Washington and Wall St. elite going back nearly a
century. It should not be surprising that most presidential candidates in the 2008 election are CFR members. Candidates do not advertise their CFR membership to the public. They pose as
“liberals” and “conservatives” to control all aspects of the debate. The CFR has stacked the deck for the 2008 election with several members in the race from both sides of the isle:

Democrat CFR Candidates: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Chris Dodd & Bill Richardson

Republican CFR Candidates: Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Fred Thompson, & Newt Gingrich.

The mainstream media's self-proclaimed “top tier” candidates are united in their CFR membership, while an unwitting public perceives political diversity. The unwitting public has been conditioned to instinctively deny such a mass deception could ever be hidden in plain view. Presidential Candidate & Congressman Ron Paul is the only “top tier” candidate who is not a member of the CFR.

When people are informed of the CFR and how most Republican and Democrat politicians on the National Stage are members of it, they often ignore it...like the CFR is some meaningless politician's club or debating society. But consider the words of a CFR insider, Carroll Quigley:

The goals of the CFR is best described by its very own members. Bill Clinton's Georgetown mentor and CFR member Carroll Quigley states: “The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England... (and) ...believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one world rule established.”. Quigley differs from many of his CFR colleagues in that he believes their plan for a new world order should be more publicly disclosed. In his book Tragedy and Hope, Quigley concedes he is unique among his peers in that he believes the new world order plan of global government's “role in history is significant enough to be known”. Quigley also admits that the two-party system allows for both groups to be controlled at the highest level but operate like bitter rivals. As Quigley says, this gives the voters the chance to “throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound of extreme shifts in policy.”. Controlling Washington elite allowed private central banks to “dominate the political system... ...and economy of world as a whole” and implement a new system of “feudalist fashion” through “secret agreements”. Although he believes the CFR's intentions should be more public, Quigley understands the average person doesn't understand feudalism or serfdom and will never read his book.

Quigley himself also authored a book entitled Tragedy and Hope, an extensive history interspersed with startling information about the secret organizations behind the impact on almost every major event of modern history. (Note: the link goes to a 1090 paged pdf document. It may take awhile to download it in it's entirety.)

Quigley's tome has often been cited for it's candid admissions of the elite power structure intent on implementing their New World Order, but today is the first time I was able to find a complete, free pdf file of the book online.

The final book, another that I have just discovered a free pdf file of online, is one I have yet to read...but have heard a lot about: None Dare Call It a Conspiracy

The first paragraph of the book (which also contains the opening quote for this post) has already got me intrigued...

Most of us have had the experience, either as parents or youngsters, of trying to discover the "hidden picture' within another picture in a children's magazine. Usually you are shown a landscape with trees, bushes, flowers and other bits of nature. The caption reads something like this: "Concealed somewhere in this picture is a donkey pulling a cart with a boy in it. Can you find them?" Try as you might, usually you could not find the hidden picture until you turned to a page farther back in the magazine which would reveal how cleverly the artist had hidden it from us. If we study the landscape we realize that the whole picture was painted in such a way as to conceal the real picture within, and once we see the "real picture," it stands out like the proverbial painful digit.

We believe the picture painters of the mass media are artfully creating landscapes for us which deliberately hide the real picture. In this book we will show you how to discover the "hidden picture" in the landscapes presented to us daily through newspapers, radio and. television. Once you can see through the camouflage, you will see the donkey, the cart and the boy who have been there all along.

Though I've just begun reading, I believe I can already see this picture that has been there all along.

Perhaps you too will read these books and see the hidden pictures for yourself.

Barry Goldwater on the Fed and the NWO

Fellow Spearhead author and blogger Pro-Male-Anti-Feminist Tech has taken issue with "conspiracy theory" in the past, as well as disputing my contentions in my last post regarding the Federal Reserve's role as a privately owned corporation who owns a large portion of the US public Debt.

While I have nothing but respect for him, despite the fact that we disagree on this topic for certain...I can't help but notice that he wrote his latest piece for the Spearhead based on a quote from Barry Goldwater with regards to combating feminism and misandry.


I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
-Barry Goldwater at the 1964 Republican Convention

Given PMAFT's serious skepticism regarding "conspiracy" I'd simply like to present to him two other Barry Goldwater quotes...

Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside of the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States.

Ah yes...Goldwater was certainly a wise man - and he basically affirms the main point of my last post.

Here's another one of his quotes:

The Trilateralist Commission is international...(and)...is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateralist Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power - political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical.

UPDATE - Heh...so after doing a little more googling, I come to find the original piece that this last quote was taken from.

Goldwater was most certainly a "conspiracy theorist!" Fascinating to see what he writes about here corroborates many, many other sources of NWO conspiracy theory.

Goldwater Sees Elitist Sentiments Threatening Liberties

By U.S. Senator Barry M. Goldwater (1979)

In September 1939, two members of the Council on Foreign Relations visited the State Department to offer the council’s services.

They proposed to do research and make recommendations for the department without formal assignment or responsibility, particularly in four areas - security armaments, economic and financial problems, political problems, and territorial problems. The Rockefeller Foundation agreed to finance the operation of this plan.

From that day forward, the Council on Foreign Relations has placed its members in policy-making positions with the State Department and other federal agencies. Every Secretary of State since 1944, with the exception of James F. Byrnes, has been a member of the Council.

Almost without exception, its members are united by a congeniality of birth, economic status and educational background. The organization itself began in 1919 in Paris when scholars turned their attention to foreign affairs after the end of World War I. It remains a non-governmental private grouping of specialists in foreign affairs. [emphasis added]

A number of writers, disturbed by the influential role that this organization has played in determining foreign policy, have concluded that the council and its members are an active part of the communist conspiracy for world domination.

Their syllogistic argument goes like this: The council has dominated American Foreign Policy since 1945. All American policy decisions have resulted in losses to the communists. Therefore, all members of the council are communist sympathizers.

I believe that the Council on Foreign Relations and its ancillary elitist groups are indifferent to communism. They have no ideological anchors. In their pursuit of a New World Order, they are prepared to deal without prejudice with a communist state, a socialist state, a democratic state, a monarchy, an oligarchy - its all the same to them.

Their goal is to impose a benign stability on the quarreling family of nations through merger and consolidation. They see the elimination of national boundaries, the suppression of racial and ethnic loyalties, as the most expeditious avenue to world peace. They believe economic competition is the root cause of international tension.

Perhaps if the council’s vision of the future were realized, it would reduce wars, lessen poverty and bring about a more efficient utilization of the world’s resources. To my mind, this would inevitably be accompanied by a loss in personal freedom of choice and re-establishment of the restraints that provoked the American Revolution.

When we change presidents, it is understood to mean that the voters are ordering a change in national policy. Since 1945, three different Republicans have occupied the White House for 16 years, and four Democrats have held this most powerful post for 17 years. With the exception of the first seven years of the Eisenhower administration, there has been no appreciable change in foreign or domestic policy direction.

There has been a great turnover in personnel. But no change in policy. Example: During the Nixon years, Henry Kissinger, a Council member and Nelson Rockefeller protégé, was in charge of foreign policy. When Jimmy Carter was elected, Kissinger was replaced by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Council member and David Rockefeller protégé.

Starting in the ‘30s and continuing through World War II, our official attitude toward the Far East reflected the thinking of the Institute of Pacific Relations. Members of the institute were placed in important teaching positions. They dominated the Asian affairs section of the State Department. Their publications were standard reading material for the armed forces, in most American colleges, and were used in 1,300 public school systems.

The Institute of Pacific Relations was behind the decision to cut off aid to Chiang Kai-Shek unless he embraced the communists, and the Council on Foreign Relations is the parent organization of the Institute of Pacific Relations.

In 1962, Nelson Rockefeller, in a lecture at Harvard University on the interdependence of nations in the modern world, said: “And so the nation-state, standing alone, threatens in many ways to seem as anachronistic as the Greek city-state eventually became in ancient times.”

Everything he said was true. We are dependent on other nations for raw materials and for markets. It is necessary to have defense alliances with other nations in order to balance the military power of those who would destroy us.

Where I differ from Rockefeller is in the suggestion that to achieve this new federalism, The United States must submerge its national identity and surrender substantial matters of Sovereignty to a new political order.

The implications in Nelson Rockefeller’s presentation have become concrete proposals advanced by David Rockefeller’s newest international cabal, the Trilateral Commission.

Whereas the Council on Foreign Relations is distinctly national, representation is allocated equally to Western Europe, Japan and the United States. It is intended to act as the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States.

Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller screened and selected every individual who was invited to participate in shaping and administering the proposed New World Order.

In the late 1950s, Brzezinski, an accepted member of the inner circle of academics, asserting the need for global strategies, was openly anti-communist. By 1964, he had modified his criticism of communism. In his prospectus describing the Trilateral commission, David Rockefeller said that he intended to bring the best brains of the world together to bear on the problems of the future.

I find nothing inherently sinister in this original proposal, although the name he gave his new creation strikes me as both grandiose and presumptuous. The accepted definition of a commission is a group nominated by some higher authority to perform a specific function.

The Trilateral Organization created by David Rockefeller was a surrogate -- its members selected by Rockefeller, its purposes defined by Rockefeller, its funding supplied by Rockefeller. Whether or not the approximately 200 individuals selected for membership on the commission represent the “best brains” in the world is an arguable proposition.

Examination of the membership roster establishes beyond question that all those invited to join were members of the power elite, enlisted with great skill and singleness of purpose from the banking, commercial, political and communications sectors.

Nor was the governmental community over-looked. Invitations to join were extended to Sen. Walter Mondale, Gov. Jimmy Carter of Georgia, George Ball, Cyrus Vance, Paul Warnke and Reps. Donald Fraser and John Brademas, among others.

In my view, the Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power -- political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical. All this is to be done in the interest of creating a more peaceful, more productive world community. I have no hesitancy about judging its wisdom and the results of its actions.

A report presented at the plenary meeting of the Trilateral Commission in May 1975, at Kyoto, Japan, called for an enlargement of central authority and expressed a lack of confidence in democratically arrived at public decisions.

It also suggested that it would be helpful to impose prior restrictions on the press and to restructure the laws of libel to check the power of the press. I”ve suffered as greatly from an abusive press as any man in public life, but I get an itchy, uncomfortable feeling at the base of my spine when someone suggest that government should control the news.

The entire Trilateral Commission approach is strictly economic. No recognition is given to the political condition. Total reliance is placed on materialism. The commission emphasizes the necessity of eliminating artificial barriers to world commerce, tariff, export duties, quota - an objective that I strongly support. What it proposes to substitute is an international economy managed and controlled by international monetary groups.

No attempt has been made to explain why the people of the Western world enjoy economic abundance. Freedom -- spiritual, political, economic -- is denied any importance in the Trilateral Construction of the Next Century.

The Trilateral Commission even selects and elevates its candidates to positions of political power. David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski found Jimmy Carter to be an ideal candidate, for example. They helped him win the Democratic nomination and the Presidency. To accomplish their purpose, they mobilized the money power of the Wall Street bankers, the intellectual influence of the academic community -- which is subservient to the wealthy of the great tax-free foundations -- and the Media controllers represented in the membership of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. It was no accident that Brzezinski and Rockefeller invited Carter to join the Commission in 1973. But they weren’t ready to bet all their chips on Carter.

They made him a founding member of the commission but to keep their options open, they also brought in Walter Mondale and Elliot Richardson, a highly visible Republican member of the Nixon administration, and they looked at other potential nominees.

After his nomination, Carter chose Mondale as his vice president. He chose Brzezinski as his foreign affairs adviser and Cyrus Vance as his secretary of state.

"ACCEPTING THE DEMOCRATIC presidential nomination in New York, CARTER DENOUNCED THOSE "UNHOLY, SELF-PERPETUATING ALLIANCES THAT HAVE FORMED BETWEEN MONEY AND POLITICS."

Conspiracy Theory for Dummies

The appearance of greatbooksformen at Roissy's has had a polarizing effect (to say the least!)...either you love him or hate him. Even though he writes like a spastic teen texting while overdosing on ritalin and aderall, some of us "get" him, because he makes references to various aspects of our current dystopian reality that only a person well versed in the ideas and theories of "conspiracy theory" would recognize readily.

Some people think he's merely parodying the Roissysphere. In Mala Fide commenter, Cauthon, ventured this explanation:

GBFM’s comments are a loose amalgamation of all the politics in the Roissysphere. I don’t think he even agrees with most of the stuff he says. He’s merely regurgitating the opinions of others, shrouded in the language of a 16-year-old, text crazy girl. It’s so ambiguous and nonsensical that you can read into it whatever meaning you want. And apparently a bunch of you are reading SERIOUS meaning into it. Shocking, really.

It's only ambiguous and nonsensical, if you don't understand the references he's making...which for the most part requires a bit of extensive reading and rumination to even begin to see the big picture.

I've been ridiculed, slandered and reviled for my blogging both here and on the Spearhead for my discussions of "conspiracy theory." I've been called a crackpot, a moron, and whenever I post a new article on the Spearhead that doesn't relate strictly to 'game' or 'feminism' some anonymous person(s) invariably logs on and complains that I should not be a contributor to the Spearhead.

Even some of my favorite bloggers like Talley and Alki over at Seasons of Tumult and Discord make humor at my expense. (Very funny guys...I really did Laugh Out Loud!)

PMAFT has dedicated several posts and extensive commentary both here and elsewhere to the topic...and while he has been for the most part civil and respectful (and I towards him), I can't help but detect the tone of condescension that imparts his attitude that I'm a blooming idiot for believing in some aspects of "Conspiracy Theory."

Part of this, is the conflating of the aspects of "Conspiracy Theory" that I take seriously with other aspects for which I consider to be misinformation, deliberately designed and promulgated to instill this knee jerk rejection of ALL conspiracy theory, without a second thought.

As if pointing out the role such people Rockefellers and their mega $$$ Foundation has had in socially engineering society through control of the Central Banking System, and their influence on the Government, media and educational system through their philanthropic Foundation's grant funding; I guess pointing these things out is just as outlandish and crazy as Reptilian alien UFO's landing at the Bohemian Grove to sacrifice the babies of brainwashed MK-ultra FEMA Camp internees.

Well folks...it's all good. For those of you that read my stuff and think I'm a total tinfoil-hat wearing loony toon...I doubt there is anything more I can say to make you think otherwise.

However...to people who might be curious as to what the hell this is really all about, I thought I'd try to simplify the concepts that GBFM continually refers to in his schtick.

First of all...what is GBFM talking about when he refers to "fiat masters?" And why does he always tie women embracing sexual promiscuity (butthexing) to transfer the wealth from men to the fiat masters?

They have ties to the creation of the Federal Reserve banking system. From The Origins of the Federal Reserve

The financial elites of this country, notably the Morgan, Rockefeller, and Kuhn, Loeb interests, were responsible for putting through the Federal Reserve System as a governmentally created and sanctioned cartel device to enable the nation's banks to inflate the money supply in a coordinated fashion, without suffering quick retribution from depositors or noteholders demanding cash.

You want the bloody details, you can read that extensive article by Rothbard yourself...or you can also read The Creature From Jekyll Island.

So...the same folks responsible for the creation of the Fed, the "fiat masters," how exactly did they "desoul woman by butthex" and "transferring the wealth from menz to the Fed?"

The connection is blatantly obvious when you look at what kind of things the Rockefeller Foundation has funded that was directly responsible for the proliferation of feminism and shaped society into the problems associated with it that we all deal with today.

They funded Albert Kinsey, the researcher oft credited as the beginning of the change of sexual mores in America.

They funded Margeret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, the foremost proponent of abortion.

They fund women's studies programs in most major colleges throughout the country.

They funded the various institutes that researched, and developed birth control.

In short, the founders of the Federal Reserve Central Banking System..i.e. the "fiat masters" funded every major element of the feminist movement and sexual revolution that has spawned all of the issues we all discuss, argue, debate and rail against in the MRA blogsphere.

Now, this, as the title of the post entails, is a super-simplified version of the "Conspiracy Theory," but there are many more contributors to these sorts of things - philanthropist foundations and the super-wealthy like the Carnegie, Ford, J.P. Morgan etc. have all extensive ties to the funding of the Eugenics movement...the forerunner to modern feminism.


In Mala Fide commenter, White & Nerdy, took me to task for not focusing on what they believe is the problem: WOMEN!

Women have more power than the Federal Reserve by several orders of magnitude. The divorce laws, sexual harassment laws, the DV system, false rape system, etc. have no economic constraint so the Federal Reserve doesn’t matter. Women are the primary problem.

Who do you think financed the lobbyists, the mass media campaigns to normalize feminist propaganda to pass those laws, create the DV system?

GBFM was right...(with gratuitous typos corrected by myself.)

"it’s not a fucking conspiracy theory you fucks...it’s happening right out in front of your fucking faces!"

You just have to open your eyes.

The Jaffe Memo

Table of Population Control Proposals from the Jaffe Memo

In 1969, Frederick Jaffe, the Vice-President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, sent a 9-page memo to Bernard Berelson, President of the Population Council, which outlined the various proposals under consideration by the eugenicists of the day. Aside from serving as the VP of Planned Parenthood, Jaffe also worked in a consulting role with other prominent Population Control organizations like the National Center for Health Statistics, the National Institutes of Health, the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, and the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations.

Consider the opening paragraph of the memo: "This memorandum is responsive to your letter of January 24, seeking ideas on necessary and useful activities relevant to formation of population policy, defined as "legislative measures, administrative programs, and other governmental actions (a) that are designed to alter population trends... or (b) that actually do alter them."
 
In other words, Jaffe was one of the primary consultants and brain stormer for the elite 1% establishment conglomerate of Corporate/Non-Profits/Tax-Exempt Foundations who had the ways and means to effect  increased  Population Control measures on American society.

Forty-five years later, we can see just how effective the Population Control Industrial Complex has been in shaping our present society, when you see just how much of this original brain storming exercise by this award winning eugenicist has come to pass and now accepted as normalized aspects of our Brave New World Order.

The image of the table that made up the last page of this memo gained some notoriety amongst the Pro-Life/Anti-Abortion blogosphere a few years back. In the time before social media, the Jaffe Memo Table went somewhat viral and generated grist for the mill in the ideological Pro-Life/Pro-Abortion dialectic.

According to Winston Smith over at the Ministry of Truth Wikipedia, under the entry for Frederick S. Jaffe:

In recent years a 1969 memo written by Jaffe has been a source of controversy on the Internet. The memo, written to Bernard Berelson, head of the Population Council, included a table that summarized many proposals from various sources regarding population control. This memo has been erroneously cited to accuse Jaffe and Planned Parenthood of supporting such measures as compulsory abortions and sterilizations, which were among the proposals referenced. In fact the table was merely a listing of current proposals, with sources documented, not the policies of Planned Parenthood. The original memo and an article based on it are available online.

This, of course, is a red herring "re-frame" of the real issue. It's another classic example of the collective Borg of PC thought-policing by the commissars at Wiki, telling us what we are supposed to think when confronted with the table of Population Control measures that were "merely a listing of current proposals."

Having seen a passing mention by an anonymous commenter on another blog citing the Jaffe Memo as a reference to the Population Control agenda, I consulted Googliath, but could not find the Jaffe Memo in its entirety posted anywhere as an easily copy-and-pasted text. Only the .jpg or .pdf picture of the table was widely disseminated throughout teh Interwebz...and the only copy of the entire memo that I could find available -- that was not sequestered behind a pay wall site -- was scanned images of the memo stored on Google Drive.

So I downloaded the image files of the original memo in its entirety and began reading to get to the source of this memo and put the "mere listing of current proposals" into their proper context. As I read, I found myself getting into blogger-fisking mode and wanting to do the classic copy-and-paste of excerpts interspersed with my own thoughts. But the Google drive image files had no text that could be copied and pasted, and I don't have any OCR capable software installed on my current desktop, so instead of a typical fisk-job I decided to transcribe it myself.

The memo in it's entirety represents one of the primary eugenicists of his time weighing the pros and cons of various Population Control measures, and compares and contrasts voluntary versus mandatory measures under consideration by the social engineers of that era. These ideas are considered in the context of American society in the 60's, and how such measures would play out amongst different stratus of socio-economic classes of that era. Jaffe essentially points out that the welfare dependent underclass and the middle/upper-middle classes would require different methods to achieve the Population Control goals of the elitists.


Given the clarity of hindsight by those of us opposed to the agenda of the Population Control Industrial Complex, it is easily discerned that the multivariate approach has succeeded beyond these social engineers wildest dreams. In fact, some of it's "mere listings of current proposals" are currently being promulgated today, most notably the promotion of homosexuality, and the infliction of chronic depression via a genetically modified and artificially engineered dietary zeitgeist in conjunction with the proliferation of unnatural lifestyles endemic to our modern rat race.


It confirms one of my primary contentions I've been making on this blog for years now - our highly engineered society was deliberately designed that way.

In this, the year of our lord 2014 AD, with American citizens of the vanishing middle class not reproducing at population replacement levels, while the welfare dependent classes are producing future revenue streams for the industrial incarceration complex and providing further justification for the expansion of the Surveillance-Militarized Police State, it's not a stretch of the imagination to say we now live in the dystopian world imagined by the likes of Frederick Jaffe, Bernard Berelson, Margaret Sanger and the likes of the elitist eugenicists at the Rockefeller Foundation et al.


The following is a complete transcription of the Jaffe Memo.






The Technical Assistance Division of Planned Parenthood-World Population

Center for
Family Planning
Program
Development

545 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022
(212) 752-2100

March 11, 1969

TO: Bernard Berelson

FROM: Frederick S. Jaffe

RE: Activities Relevant to the Study of Population Policy for the United States

This memorandum is responsive to your letter of January 24, seeking ideas on necessary and useful activities relevant to formation of population policy, defined as "legislative measures, administrative programs, and other governmental actions (a) that are designed to alter population trends... or (b) that actually do alter them." My observations will be limited to the United States and to activities which might shed light on the necessity for, desirability of and in some cases, the potential hazards, of development of an explicit governmental population policy or policies in the United States.

Apart from the abstraction that in the long run, a zero rate of population growth is inevitable, the arguments advanced to justify an explicit U.S. policy now of encouraging a specific universal limit on family size (as distinguished from proposals aimed selectively at welfare recipients and racial groups) center mainly on two propositions:

1) That continued U.S. population growth will inevitably cause a deterioration in the quality of life of this and future generations; this can be described as the ecological position.*

2) That an explicit U.S. policy to encourage or compel smaller family size in the U.S. is necessary to enable our government effectively to encourage or compel developing nations to move in similar directions; this may be termed the international public relations position.

* A variant of this position is that the U.S., with some 6 percent of the world's population already uses more than half of the world's non-renewable natural resources, and that population growth here thus effects not only the quality of American life but the opportunity of the developing countries even to attempt to improve their living standards.

The debate thus far (in government, among conservation organizations, in the demographic field, within Planned Parenthood, etc.) has with only a few notable exceptions (e.g. Coale) virtually ignored current actual U.S. fertility behavior and its implications for public policies in other areas which may influence the realization of fertility preferences, nor with the predictable political consequences of a major effort to adopt and enforce an anti-natalist U.S. population policy. Nor has it viewed population policy as an element -- but only one -- of a larger field of social planning in which the direct and indirect costs and benefits of each element must be weighed against the direct and indirect costs and benefits of all elements in order to produce a coherent social policy.

Realistic public policies intended to influence actual behavior are rarely adopted in the U.S. only for public relations reasons. Proposition 2 above, therefore, is not likely to become the primary basis for a U.S. population policy will ultimately be made on the validity or invalidity of Proposition 1.

Accordingly, at least as regards the United States, I believe that a number of activities must be undertaken as prior and necessary conditions to consideration of whether or not the U.S. should adopt any explicit population policy.

These suggestions are set forth below, more or less in the order required, logically, for prior questions to be answered authoritatively before derivative issues are tackled. The first activities are designed to provide a definitive assessment of the levels of population growth that can be expected from expanding to the maximum current voluntary control mechanisms; these studies would offer an answer to the basic question, "Does the U.S. need an explicit population policy?" If there then will still remain some definable problem of population growth in the U.S. on a best-judgement basis, the second group of studies would attempt to clarify the terms of the discourse over alternative policies by removing the value-laden assumptions which have thus far distorted professional and public thinking. Then, it is proposed that a wide range of public policies in the other areas -- and their underlying theoretical bases -- be examined disinterestedly to determine what impact, if any, they have had on population trends. Finally, the list of potentially effective alternative policies which emerges would be critically assessed in terms of their likely political and social consequences in a stratified society.


I. The Uses and Limits of a Contraceptive Society

The U.S. has achieved near-universal practice of some form of fertility control (including ineffective methods). The argument for a U.S. population policy rests on the expressed preference of U.S. couples for an average ideal family of 3+ children which will result in a rate of growth which is said to be impermissible. (It is important to note that the number wanted is usually less than the number regarded as ideal.) Yet, current fertility experience appears to go in the opposite direction: the annual fertility rate is now about 85 which, if continued, would result in an average completed family size of about 2.6 children; this is being accomplished in spite of present state of technology, ranging from relatively efficient-to-inefficient contraceptive techniques and, for all practical purposes, with no legal abortion backup; current fertility therefore includes a sizeable number of unwanted births and conceptions. (Data from the 1965 National Fertility Study yields a minimum estimate of 850,000 unwanted births annually from 1960-65, or 21 percent of all births.* While overall fertility has declined since 1960-65, it seems highly likely that current fertility includes at least a 15 percent incidence of unwanted births. If this is valid, the "wanted" fertility rate currently is between 70-75, which is replacement level, if it continued.)

There are, of course, excellent reasons for caution in projecting future trends based on current fertility experience: the fertility preferences of American couples are not static and vary in response to conditions which are only dimly known. But the same caveat applies even more strongly to extrapolations from the post-World War II pre-pill period (upon which much of the demand for a U.S. population policy is based): these projections appear to have been rather considerably modified by the availability of improved contraceptive techniques since 1960 and the degree to which these methods contributed to delaying first births and introducing longer intervals between subsequent births. Moreover, the interaction between improved fertility control and fertility preferences are only beginning to be clarified by scholars like Freedman, Westoff and Ryder who have shown that "later equals fewer".**

I imagine that it was data such as these which led Coale last November to state that there seems to be as much reason to believe that the U.S. will shortly worrying about too few births as about too many. ***

Since the U.S. has the resources to make truly efficient contraception truly available to everyone and to complement this with abortion on demand, it could thus provide a test of the uses and limits of voluntary action in solving the population problem.

*Jaffe, Frederick S. and Alan F. Guttmacher, "Family Planning Programs in the U.S.' Demography (forthcoming).

** Freedman, R.C. Coombs and L. Bumpass, "Stability and Change in Expectations About Family Size - A Longitudinal Study" ,Demography 1965 V.2: N.B. Ryder & C.F. Westoff, "The Trend of Expected Parity in the U.S. - 1955, 1960, 1965" , Population Index, April-June, 1967.

*** At PPWP's Annual Meeting Symposium.

The following work appear indicated:

1) a definitive study of the current number of unwanted births in the United States.

2) A definitive study of the current number of illegal abortions in the United States.

3) From 1 and 2, an assessment of the likely rate of growth following the virtual elimination of unwanted pregnancy in a society in which effective contraception is efficiently distributed to all who want it and abortion is available on demand as a backup measure.

4) Delineation of the necessary and sufficient conditions for achieving such a society:

     a) public and private resources: funds, professional cadres, priority.

     b) efficient contraceptive technologies.

     c) distribution systems.

     d) legal, political and institutional changes (and the requirements for inducing them).

     e) open questions requiring additional research.


5) Assessment of the political, social economic and cultural consequences of the likely rate of growth indicated in 3, or the benefits against which the costs of achieving a truly contraceptive society (as in 4) could be weighed.

The hypothesis underlying these proposals is that the achievement of a society in which effective contraception is efficiently distributed to all, based on present voluntary norms, would either result in a tolerable rate of growth, or go very far toward achieving it. If this hypothesis is basically confirmed, it would negate the need for an explicit U.S> population policy which goes beyond voluntary norms.


II Clarifying the Terms of the Discourse

The present discourse on population policy is loaded with assumptions, biases and judgements about the causes and determinants of fertility behavior, and these assumptions are imbedded (sic) in the very terminology employed. Some of these assumptions go back in the literature for decades and centuries (e.g., Malthus' "population bounty") but have never been subjected to empirical verification. Instead, they have been accepted as conventional wisdom and in turn, tend to impede and distort clarification of the issues involved in assessing alternative policy proposals.

It is proposed, therefore, that certain key terms and assumptions be clarified and subjected to empirical test, to the extent data and research would permit:

1) Are free social services "pro-natalist"?

The idea that provision of free social services has a pre-natalist effect is accepted almost uncritically in the literature and in turn, becomes a major postulate on which alternative proposals are based. Empirical analysis is needed to determine the extent to which this characterization is valid as to outcome (as distinguished from the rhetoric advanced to justify adoption of the particular policy in the first place).

For example, is there any evidence that fertility among comparable classes is higher in countries, states or communities which make the following services available, free, to large numbers of couples than in countries,
states or communities which do not?

      Maternal and Child Medical Care
      Maternity Leave and Benefits
      Child Care Facilities
      Compulsory Public Education Through High School
      College Education (or scholarships liberally available)

These services of course, have positive benefits to society which go beyond fertility (although some may have a subsequent effect on fertility also - and not in the pro-natalist direction). They appear to be characterized as "pronatalist" only because they do not directly penalize child-bearing but there appears to be no evidence that they do indeed encourage fertility, in the United States or elsewhere. In fact, areas and nations providing more free social services appear, on superficial analysis, to have lower fertility, but this may be explained on other grounds (e.e. higher living standards). Nevertheless, the influence or lack of influence of these services on fertility should be established.

2) Economic "incentives" to fertility

A special case of (1) relates to the presumed "incentive" to fertility in such programs as family and children's allowances. These allowances were (and are) legitimated politically as a means of increasing the birth rate, but the only analyses thus far of the actual results yield no support for their presumed pro-natalist effect. Yet, based  on the initial justification and the ensuing terminological/ideological set, many proposals are advanced to reduce, eliminate or block family allowances on fertility grounds.

A definitive empirical study is needed of the fertility outcome of family allowance programs, both to inform the forthcoming U.S. debate on restructuring the welfare system and to shed light on the potential usefulness of economic incentives (and thus disincentives) in shaping fertility trends.

A definitive empirical study is also needed of the specific American variant in this area - namely, the frequent allegation that AFDC mothers have more children in order to increase their monthly allotment. This notion is widely held among influential citizens and policy makers and is one of the powerful stimulants behind the demand for a U.S. population policy.


III Assessment of the Impact on Population Trends of Other Public Policies

Considering the theoretical importance which is attached to social and economic factors in shaping population trends, it is remarkable how little attention has been paid to the effects on fertility of public policies in areas affecting basic social and economic structure. Only recently, for example, it has been suggested that differential welfare standards are a factor stimulating migration (with little or no empirical evidence).

It would seem useful, therefore, to seek some assessment of the actual or anticipated effect on population of current policies, such as:

1) Fiscal and Monetary Policy which appears to regard inflation as a concomitant of full employment and thus, to accept relatively high (or at least preventable) unemployment levels as necessary. Yet, more women enter the labor market under conditions of full employment and the relationship between employment of women and lower fertility seems to be well established. An examination is needed of, in effect, the question: How much inflation could or should we risk to achieve lower fertility? (X% risk of inflation - Y% increase in women's employment = Z% reduction in fertility.)

2) Education Policy; At least two aspects seem worth study:

a) The effect on fertility of policies to encourage higher educational levels for everyone (assuming that the alleged "pro-natalist" effect of free education discussed in II can be reconciled with demographic research showing the inverse relationship of education and fertility); and

b) The effect on fertility of current policies and programs regarding the education of women (for example, to prepare them either for motherhood or labor force participation, earlier or later marriage, etc.), and the likely effects of alternative policies.

3) Manpower Policy -- this is closely related to 1 and 2: the extent to which current policies, ranging from training and apprenticeship requirements to transferability of pension plans, encourage or discourage women to work should be examined. A specific aspect of this analysis would be the extent to which public policy facilitates or discourages the employment of young mothers through provision or denial of child care facilities (assuming again a reconciliation program with the alleged "pro-natalist" effects discussed in II).

4) Farm Policy -- The extent to which the governing U.S. farm policy of encouraging the amalgamation of family farms into "agrobusinesses" has contributed to rural-urban migration during the last 20 years should be examined.

5) Welfare Policy -- The extent to which unlivable assistance levels and inadequate medical and social services, coupled with stimatization (sic) of recipients, have contributed to higher fertility should be explored.

6) Housing Policy -- To which extent has the policy of encouraging small home ownership and suburban development encouraged higher fertility levels? What would be the likely effects of alternative special policies?

7) Economic Theory and Policy -- a special case is the area of economic policy because it is widely believed that population growth is indispensable to economic growth. Whether we like it or not, this is probably the controlling idea in the business community and among the economist, and it is highly unlikely that a population policy aimed at lower rates of growth will be adopted until this concept is replaced. Two approaches are suggested:

a) A study tracing the function -- explicit or implicit -- of population growth in the models propounded by economic theorists historically. The aim of the study would be to answer, in theoretical terms, the question: Among the theories of economic growth in advanced countries which control policy and business decison-making (sic) today, is continued population growth an indispensable or dispensable element?

b)  Encouragement of work by appropriate economic theorists to develop a substitute for population growth in advanced countries.

The studies outlined above would shed light on the effect on population trends of some existing public policies; identify the interests benefiting from these policies; and hopefully identify some points for intervention to encourage lower fetility (sic) without the adoption of an explicit population policy.


IV Assessment of the Effectiveness of Population Education In Influencing Fertility Preferences

Expansion of educational activities designed to increase awareness of the population problem has been advocated, both in terms of its intrinsic merits and as a part of an overall population policy. Projects should be undertaken to delineate the content, scope and limits of such activities as a guide to programs in the schools and by private groups, and studies should be conducted to test the effectiveness of these programs in actually influencing fertility preferences.

In this area, it seems particularly important to distinguish between education and indoctrination. Whatever may be the merits and effectiveness of truly educational effort, an indoctrination campaign may well have only negligible effects on fertility values, but may provide unintended support in building a public opinion which seeks legalized compulsory fertility control for selected groups (particularly welfare recipients). The adverse political consequences of such a development on the population and family planning fields, nationally and internationally, could be quite serious.


V Assessment of the Political and Social Consequences of Alternative Population Policies in a Stratified Society

The debate in the United States thus far has proceeded with almost no explicit acknowledgement of the fact that the U.S. is an economically and racially stratified society. Yet it is clear that most of the policies proposed as alternatives to family planning cannot be expected to affect all segments of the population equally. The attached table attempts a rough sorting of the principal measures discussed, according to whether their impact would be universal or selective. Clearly policies which are primarily economic in effect -- tax policies, incentives and disincentives -- cannot be expected to have equal influence on the behavior of rich middle-class and low-income families. Other proposals - e.g., compulsory abortion of out-of-wedlock pregnancies -- can be expected to be applied selectively against those out-of-wedlock pregnancies which are visible, and this has racial overtones. Social stratification thus raises sharply the issue, "Who shall decide whose fertility -- and for whose purposes?"

It seems urgent therefore, that the policies which emerge as apparently useful from the work proposed in I-IV above be subjected to critical scrutiny in terms of the realities of a class-and race-stratified society. Such an analysis should establish which policies can be administered universally and which can be expected to have a differential impact on various segments of the population. The political consequences of such differentiation should be examined, in an effort to provide working answers to questions such as these:

1) Is it feasible to expect that society will accept policies which curb fertility universally -- or is it more likely that those who are powerful will favor and adopt policies which affect primarily those who have less power or are powerless? Is such differential treatment politically viable?

2) Is it possible to propose and justify universal fertility control policies without reinforcing and legitimating -- politically, philosophically and ideologically -- the existing body of opinion which, for reasons having little to do with the population problem, already seeks selective compulsory fertility control of welfare recipients and minority groups?

These studies, in my view, would be necessary for a clear answer to the key questions surrounding an explicit population policy in the United States namely:

Do we need one -- and if so, how soon?

Is the anticipated gain worth the likely cost?




Text of the notorious table on page 9 of the memo:


PROPOSED MEASURES TO REDUCE FERTILITY BY UNIVERSALITY OR SELECTIVITY OF IMPACT IN THE U.S.

UNIVERSAL IMPACT

Social Constraints

Restructure family:
a) Postpone or avoid marriage
b) Alter image of ideal family size

Compulsory education of children

Encourage increased homosexuality

Educate for family limitation

Fertility control agents in the water supply

Encourage women to work


SELECTIVE IMPACT DEPENDING ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS

Economic Deterrents/Incentives -

Modify tax policies:
     a) Substantial marriage tax
     b) Child tax
     c) Tax married more than single
     d) Remove parents' tax exemption
     e) Additional taxes on parents with more than 1 or 2 children in school

Reduce/eliminate paid maternity leave or benefits

Bonuses for delayed marriage and greater child-spacing

Pensions for women of 45 with less than N children

Eliminate Welfare payments after first 2 children

Chronic Depression

Require women to work and provide few child care facilities

Limit/eliminate publicly financed medical care, scholarships, housing, loans and subsidies to families with more than N children


Social Controls -

Compulsory abortion of out-of-wedlock pregnancies

Compulsory sterilization of all who have two children except for a few who would be allowed three

Confine childbearing to only a limited number of adults

Stock certification permits for children

Housing Policies:

     a) Discouragement of private home ownership
     b) Stop awarding public housing based on family size


Measures Predicated on Existing Motivation to Prevent Unwanted Pregnancy

Payments to encourage sterilization

Payments to encourage contraception

Abortion and sterilization on demand

Allow harmless contraceptives to be distributed nonmedically

Improve contraceptive technology

Make contraception truly available and accessible

Improve maternal health care with family planning as a core element