Throughout the last half of the 20th century, the Unesco eugenicists have left no means unused to control the growth of populations worldwide. The mass media, they reckoned, was by far the most effective instrument through which population control policies could be distributed and implemented. But where to test the effectiveness of such a campaign? Surely not in the western world, where outright propaganda and trickery would backfire on the propagandists in a hurry. They would have to find another testing ground, one more poverty-stricken and needy; and therefore easily overwhelmed by Unesco and UNFPA-personnel with their textbooks of tyranny.
|Unesco represents the transnational eugenicists’ goal of reducing population worldwide.|
By the mid-seventies, the program was well underway, with money to spare and lots of ‘human resources’ to scale back. The justification that could be given to the Western middleclass was wonderfully simple and cunningly devised: under the guise of developing the undeveloped, they could impose the concept of population as a plague on the environment and thereby convince our former colonies to surrender their birthright to procreate and multiply- two things our species is prone to do.
Crucial in delivering this message, was to constantly emphasize the concepts of ‘development’ and ‘human rights’ and ‘fighting discrimination’. Only with the help of some philanthropic pretexts, could the population control-programs be sold, both to the target audience in the nations of interest and to the folks back home. This process could only prove effective with the help of a widespread mass media campaign that would combine Bernays-style propaganda with a touch of crude Rupert Murdoch tactics.
In the year 1974, the World Population Conference was organized by Unesco and the UNFPA, starting off several ‘seminars’ organized by the transnationalists, directed specifically at representatives of mass media in the countries involved. One such seminar for press and media outlets was organized by Unesco’s regional office for education in Thailand to “discuss and exchange ideas on the best methods of propagating the small family norm to the general public” and “brief Thai press and media practitioners about population matters so that hopefully media coverage of population news may become more accurate and sophisticated.”
“The reason for such a seminar”, the report explains, “is the fact that the population growth rates in Thailand are among the highest of the world.”
In those countries, Unesco is usually the first to step in, representing the transnational eugenicists’ goal of reducing population worldwide. Kicking off the seminar, the thoroughly bought off deputy prime-minister of Thailand turned to the gathering of media people, stating that:
“You, representing the mass media, have a very important role to play in presenting population information to large numbers of people. (…) The mass media can act as a very important bridge between the population/family planning programme and the general public.”
In the same year, 1974, a mirror seminar was held for Sri Lankan media representatives, organized by the ministry of Information and Broadcasting and sponsored by Unesco and the UNFPA. In the segment ‘Sociological factors in Family Planning publicity programmes’, mr. Sarath Amunugama of the Sri Lankan ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs complains about the ineffectiveness of the population control programmes so far:
“There has been a consistent underplaying of the potential of induced abortions as a significant means of population control.”
With regards to the role of the mass media, Amunugama says:
“The press, radio and film are perhaps the only mechanisms through which a highly fragmented population can be drawn speedily, efficiently and at relatively little cost into the national development effort.”
“Perhaps more than any other media”, Amunugama continued, “the cinema can recreate the immediacy of person-to-person communication. It can therefore used in cinema vertité style, for instance, to record the reactions of people to the programmes of the national centre. The best publicity for a programme is obtained when target audiences themselves feel a change for the better and are able to express this change verbally. In the field of family planning (…), the image of real people involved in and satisfied with change is likely to be highly effective.”
Among the recommendations of the media participants for effectively disseminate population control-matters, they list:
“The seminar recommends that the ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Film Corporation of Sri Lanka be co-sponsors for a seminar-workshop in 1974 to plan for the use of film and theatre media for the active dissemination of population information.”
In a 1979 report of a ‘regional workshop’, ‘population education: innovative structures and approaches’, the authors underline the effectiveness of mass-media to distribute ‘population-issues’:
“In some countries’, the report states, ‘radio and television have been used as educational media ranging from the use of radio- spot announcement, musical programmes, playlets to full-length feature films.”
The seminars were held in Third World countries worldwide and continue to this very day. Now that the program had proven remarkably easy to sell, it was prolonged into the 80s and 90s, incrementally phasing in environmental issues in general, and the global warming swindle in particular.
In 1993, the United Nations Population Fund proudly boasted:
“Mass media are prime carriers of population information. Both the medium and the message should be adapted to social and cultural realities. Population education is now available in 80 countries in the developing world. Aims vary from country to country but are generally designed to introduce a sense of responsibility regarding population issues.”
Every argument given by people opposing Unesco’s top-down system of control, was branded as hostile to the human right to limit one’s household to one child. Everyone defending the God-given right to own land and have children, was characterized as a scourge on the environment. Because the eugenicists have an enemy that is not easily defeated, namely human instinct and dignity, it was crucial to discredit human nature, undermine it, while replacing it with a ‘shadow nature’ which rejects the notion of life and liberty, embracing eugenics and tyranny instead.
This article was posted: Thursday, July 16, 2009 at 6:29 am