“A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95 percent decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
– Ted Turner, in an interview with Audubon magazine.
The Georgia Guide Stones
In Elbert County, Georgia, United States in a secluded field lies a 19 foot, granite monument called “The Georgia Stones” or sometimes known as the “American Stonehenge” erected by “philanthropists” with a strangely familiar ideology. A message comprising ten inscribed propositions in eight modern languages, and a shorter message at the top of the structure in four ancient language scripts: Babylonian, Classical Greek, Sanskrit, and Egyptian hieroglyphs. Ostensibly, it is nothing more than a plea for humanity to live in harmony with Mother Earth. However, the inscription also reads: “Maintain humanity under 500,000, in perpetual balance with nature.” Delightful. Except that is, if you are not listed as one of those granted access to the penthouse suites of the lucky 1/2 a million. Needless to say that the benefactor behind these stones, one R.C. Christian doesn’t say how he would like to eliminate the pesky populations of the world.
The rest of the messages are as follows:
- Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
- Unite humanity with a living new language.
- Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
- Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
- Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
- Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
- Balance personal rights with social duties.
- Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
- Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature.
At the centre of each slab is a small circle, containing a letter representing the respective compass direction (N, S, E and W). And at the top centre of the tablet is written: “The Georgia Guidestones, Center cluster erected March 22, 1980.” Underneath this inscription is a square inside of which is written: “Let these be guide stones to an Age of Reason.” This looks suspiciously like a message from a collection of the usual suspects from the Eugenics or Fabian Society; a gaggle of population control advocates, a dash of Illuminism and a sop to balance, harmony and ecological respect, to round it all off.  (A further small square inscribed with “2014” was also in place in the same year, presumably placed their by the same patrons. Clearly, 2014 is a pivotal year for someone…)
The average number of children per woman has been declining rapidly for decades. According to official UN data, the average number of children per woman worldwide for the period 1965 to 1970 was 4.85. Yet 40 years later, for the period of 2005 to 2010, that number dropped nearly 50 percent to 2.52. This trend has nothing to do with the interference of families like the Rockefellers, but everything to do with a natural self-regulating decrease. These facts however, have little impression on depopulationist beliefs. That is not to say that there are unsustainable levels of population in various countries around the globe but this has everything to do with socio-economic and ecological factors which, if addressed would significantly alleviate the problem.
English scholar Thomas R. Malthus’ theories on population growth have been greatly influential on the minds of world controllers. His Essay on the Principles of Population published between 1798 and 1826 maintained that populations were chaotic and unprincipled without any constraints on their growth so that eventually famine and poverty would naturally arrive and cull the populations down to size. Like Nature, they had to be tamed and regulated. He predicted that the population growth rate would exceed the growth of the food supply. These flawed ideas concerning population dynamics inevitably fed into the desire for conquest and land acquisition. The leaders of any invasion are always looking for pretexts. Land grabs to support an expanding population that would inevitably spill over its borders became justification enough.
Naturalists and biologists Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin both acknowledged their debt to Malthus whom they saw as an inspiration in the development of their own ideas, Darwin wrote: “In October 1838 … I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population … it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species.”
Followers of Malthus, like acolytes of Freud, reduced everything down to the sexual drive and its spiritual vacuum that would place the 19th and 20th century in a stranglehold of determinism. It was to be a convenient belief for building, colonialism and state domination. The ordinary man became the experiment and the target of Elite subjugation and their self-protection. There would be no room for complex, non-linear set of variables we now know to exist in the formation and maintenance of living systems of ecology.
As we saw with psychoanalysis, the narrow definitions that force beliefs into the category of science are woefully premature. However, it proved very appealing indeed to those stuck in the paradigm of superiority and the potential of a Master Race. Like so many collectivists like John Ruskin and Bertrand Russell, Malthus was an idealist stuck on the idea of a socialist Utopia. Science had little to do with his theories, however logical they seemed. The Darwinist belief-train was already hurtling at full speed towards shaping a future society by synthesizing Malthusian and Darwinist schools producing Social Darwinism. This fed straight into the fertile ground of Elitism already looking around for a scientific validation for their lofty place on the ladder of evolution.
As we have seen, Thomas Huxley, president of the Royal Society, and Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton were instrumental in the development and academic progression of eugenic and population control and their legacy remains strong in the fields of ecology and politics. Yet, in reality, most population experts agree that global population will level out by about 2100 at 10 billion with further decreases following. Global population growth has been steadily declining for decades and it has nothing to do with dramatic attempts to halt it based on hysterical and ideological drives. According to official UN data, the average number of children per woman worldwide for the period 1965 to 1970 was 4.85. From 2005 to 2010, that number dropped nearly 50% to 2.52. That is eminently supportable, especially if we are able to change direction away from the reins of elite psychopaths who created so many of these iniquitous conditions in the first place. 
Professor of global health at Sweden’s Karolinska Institute, Dr. Hans Rosling’s work focuses on dispelling common myths about the so-called developing world and presents convincing evidence that global populations are decreasing as a natural cycle stating: “The number of children is not growing any longer in the world. We are still debating peak oil, but we have definitely reached peak child.” The professor is one of many academics discarding the accepted belief in extreme population reduction policies. 
This brings us to Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population by Matthew Connelly, an associate professor of history at Columbia University. The author does an extraordinary job in tracking the truth of the movement and its current incarnations in some of the most influential institutions of the 21st century. He explores the vast scope of the population control movement and the pressure it brought to bear on any institution, organization and government which could be used to expand the population control agenda and its directives. Foreign aid, feminism, environmentalism, corporatism and non-governmental organisations were merged into a cohesive global propaganda exercise so pernicious and pervasive that it is seen as quite normal today, even though the science is more than suspect. (The applied formula can be likened to the tactics of human-influenced global warming hysteria that we see being employed to great affect). 
After World War II and throughout the 1950s there was a population explosion across the world, most notably in the United States and Europe. Causes for this stemmed from an improvement in public health, reduced infant mortality, the development of antibiotics, certain vaccines, pesticides and the invention of DDT and programs to wipe out malaria-causing mosquitoes. It was at the International Congress on Population and World Resources in Relation to the Family held in Cheltenham, UK, in 1948, where the population control planners produced some of the groups and organisations we have explored so far. Julian Huxley and his colleague Joseph Needham head of UNESCO science had their chance to hob-knob with Rockefeller representatives who had already chosen Japan as their first target for experimentation and were at the conference to finalise directives.
Margaret Sanger would immediately form Planned Parenthood after consultations with others in the movement, while the sociologist, economist and eventual noble laureate Gunnar Myrdal also attended on behalf of Sweden. It would be his wife politician and diplomat Alva Myrdal who would become director of social sciences at UNESCO in 1952. Feminism and a high degree of propaganda as proposed by Huxley was thought by Myrdal to be crucial in developing a comprehensive “family Planning” and “family reduction” offensive while also providing for women’s rights.
By 1955, though Russia was among only a very few countries who resisted UN-based population control programs the vast majority of nations in the developing world proved to be easy prey. International Planned Parenthood Federation, United Nations agencies, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, and the major American and European drug companies flocked to vulnerable continents of Asia and India. They began by funding local population studies discovering that population growth rates were increasing in many Third World countries. Connelly’s research shows similar comprehensive Rockefeller-funded studies were carried out on birth control, frequency of sexual intercourse, women’s menstrual cycles, miscarriages, births, and contraceptive use. In the end, India proved extremely resistant to this interference due in part, to the complexities of data gathering that were founded on assumptions and simplistic cultural evaluations which were eventually highlighted by subsequent anomalies and paradoxes. For instance, one village and one region differed so dramatically that it proved difficult to formulate a working blueprint for the programs. Understandably, Indian people did not like interlopers placing them in a sexual laboratory. The sponsored programs were a failure. So much so, that the foundations decided to go about their business in a far more “discreet” way. Population control was about to enter new ground as the revolutionary 1960s moved into view.
Fear-mongering on behalf of the eugenicists’ pet project of controlling the population had a huge boost from over 100 scientists and 39 Nobel Prize winners who signed a petition to the UN urging the organization to take action to protect the world’s resources and achieve a balanced population. The petition predicted dire, even apocalyptic consequences for all if the plea fell on deaf ears: “… there is in prospect a Dark Age of human misery, famine, under-education and unrest which would generate panic, exploding into wars fought to appropriate the dwindling means of survival.”  This seems to be a fair assessment of what has happened since, the only difference being it has been perpetrated by legions of corporations, and private armies sanctioned by an Anglo-American, geo-strategic alliance. Population control has proven useful as a justification for all kinds of corruption and misguided thinking, nowhere more so than on the African continent.
It was during the 1960s push that the appeals for funds began to pluck the heartstrings of the well-intentioned. This was especially curious because Africa at that time had both a low birth rate and healthy rate of exports with Africans consuming a very small portion of the world’s resources.
“[Africa] featured some of the lowest rates of growth in the world. It is also odd that even sophisticated analysts continued to assume that starvation would represent the first constraint on continued population increases. A broader view of the earth’s “carrying capacity” might have noted declines in commodity prices as well as the fact that poor countries consumed relatively little and their share had actually been shrinking.” 
Catch phrases such as “human tidal wave” that would “explode out of national boundaries” and “the decline of civilization” that would follow as a consequence of all these inconveniently coloured poor people who would be labelled both a threat and a victim – “family planning” was the only solution. Where the initial Rockefeller mission failed in India, by 1963, Ford Foundation funding had achieved success in creating programs to distribute IUDs and conduct sterilization programs with further IUD programs promoted by the Foundation in Pakistan, Korea and Taiwan. The success of the Intrauterine Device (IUD) was another matter.
Planned Parenthood President Alan Guttmacher whom we met previously, came up with the idea to use the long discredited product en masse, despite being fraught with a multitude of risks including a high percentage of expulsions, infections, bleeding and pain. At the outset, it seemed that no one but the (male) inventor believed it could work – and of course, Alan Guttmacher. This may have been in part because of the 1962 Population Council convened to assess how the World (de)population programs were fairing country by country.
Bending the ear of Guttmacher at the conference was Mr. J. Robert Willson, Chair of Obstretrics and Gynaecology at Temple University who agreed with the Doctor stating a common perception in medical and academic circles: “We have to stop thinking like doctors … Now obviously we are going to use these devices, they are occasionally going to be put in the wrong patient. Again, if we look at this from an overall, long-range view – these are the things I have never said out loud before and I don’t know how it is going to sound – perhaps the individual patient is expendable in the scheme of things, particularly if the infection the patient acquires is sterilizing but not lethal.” 
Eminently logical – unless that is, you happen to be the expendable statistic which rapidly grew from the “individual” to the many.
Foreign aid and the economic framework were tied closely to population control and the multi-million profits that could be made from bogus science and racist ideology. If India did didn’t wish to play ball then all US President Lyndon Johnson had to do was to threaten to withhold U.S. grain supplies and encourage the spectre of starvation. India was boxed in to aid that was inseparable from controlled performance. USAID (with some members often acting as part of a CIA front) would soon have millions more to play with as the lobbyists began to do their work in Congress. New countries were sought so that the family planning model could be introduced. Massive public funding meant massive propaganda and the subsequent ill-informed but greedy exodus of consultants, educationalists, public health officials, activists and scholars eager to cash in, while believing their conscience clean.
The justification for this great leap forward was that every birth prevented was a boon to society. From this calculus emerged the doctrine that having children was anti-social and not having children promoted social good. People naturally began to have fewer children as economic growth accelerated. This had nothing to do with population control programs. Fertility rates had been declining since the end of the 1950s with a peak at in 1957 with 123 births per thousand women. By 1976, there were 76 births per thousand women.
Despite this, the darling of the social biologist Establishment Professor Paul Ehrlich and his 1968 book The Population Bomb was highly influential. Ehrlich presented a hypothesis that had eugenicists and depopulationists clapping in the audience: unless population growth was reduced to zero in America – by compulsory methods if necessary – it would the end of the world as we knew it. Here, we see the China template once again. For Ehrlich: “Population control is the conscious regulation of the number of human beings to meet the needs not just of individual families, but of society as a whole.” Society, always society. And it is people like this esteemed biologist who think that it is up to them to decide: “… how to give societies the number of children they need,” otherwise: “…people would still be multiplying like rabbits.” It seems we must all toe the line and: “… hopefully through changes in our value system, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail.” 
The control of the American populace is the first step in a wider set of measures, the message of which, for Ehrlich is: “… based on ‘do as we do’ – not ‘do as we say.’” Obviously, the concept of values and ethics take on epic proportions of flexibility in Ehrlich’s mind. Sure enough, indoctrination of population control and the related methods of sex education should begin before junior school. The UN should administer a global program, along with financial coercion and incentives. But Dr. Ehrlich goes further:
“If we could, somehow, get a program underway in which the ODCs made a genuine attempt to aid the UDCs [underdeveloped countries], what form might that program take? The specific requirements of the program would vary from area to area. Possibly the first step in all areas would be to set up relay stations and distribute small transistorized TV sets to villages for communal viewing of satellite-transmitted programs… TV programs would explain the rehabilitation plan for each area. These programs would have to be produced with the combined skills of people with great expertise in the subject to be presented and intimate knowledge of the target population. The programs could be presented both “straight” and as “entertainment.”… The programs would use the prospect of increased affluence as a major incentive for gaining cooperation. It seems unlikely that the threat of future starvation would have much impact. If necessary, however, the TV channel could be used to make it clear that the continuance of food supplies depends on the cooperation of the people in the area…” 
Ehrlich has either read Orwell’s 1984 and Huxley’s Brave New World for inspiration or he was just born that way. He pushes his grand authoritarian vision into the info-tainment arena with Big Brother healthcare making a 24hr appearance: “Obviously, such measures should be coordinated by a powerful governmental agency,” he says, “A federal Bureau of Population and Environment [BPE] should be set up to determine the optimum population size for the US and devise measures to establish it.”
Julian Huxley, Bertrand Russell, a host of Fabian socialists and Rockefeller agents of change all agree that the best pathway for their propaganda to take seed is through the education system. Ehrlich is no different when he states: “It is now imperative that we restrict the reproductive function of sex while producing a minimum of disruption in the others.” The professor then conforms to the plan of conjoining the New World of emasculation and gender confusion along seemingly benign lines of female emancipation. In one fell swoop he manages to disparage and denigrate traditional gender roles, the institution of family and thereby community. What he is referring to has nothing to do with true freedom for men and women but a socialised conformity. Motherhood is marginalized and trivialized in favour of a ill-defined “gender equality”:
With a rational atmosphere mankind should be able to work out the problems of deemphasizing the reproductive role of sex. These problems include finding substitutes for the satisfaction and rewards that women derive from childbearing and for the ego satisfaction that often accompanies excessive fatherhood. Implicit attitudes and social pressures within our society toward parenthood, especially motherhood, add up to an even more powerful prenatal policy than our legal system represents. Equal opportunities and salaries for women in business and the professions, which are now being sought by the women’s liberation movement, would strongly encourage them to seek other outlets for their energy and talents besides motherhood. Society would greatly benefit both from the resulting lowered fertility and the productive contributions of women. [Emphasis mine]
Who would argue against the right for women to seek other ways of fulfillment besides motherhood? Yet, in this context that is not the desired objective. After trashing marriage as a licence for sex and accidental births, he offers the solution to society’s population problem (which is really the wish to get rid of “undesirables”) by offering a greater availability of contraceptives and abortion. Dr. Ehrlich suggests halting foreign aid for countries that are “beyond help,” while suggesting the development of mass sterilization agents.
When The Population Crisis Committee decided that juvenile delinquents, drug addicts, and idle welfare recipients were a potential population threat you can see clearly that underlying eugenics meme of “desirables contaminating the gene pool” was resurfacing once again. Listen folks, if you leave it up to us to decide who gets to live and die (with concurrent penalties should people resist) then we could reduce crime and save lots of cash for federal government and welfare programs… What could be more ethical?
Thankfully, some scientists were not taken in by the politics of population control. Much like the issues of global warming, as science began to dig deeper, factual inconsistencies flew in the face of population control advocates. One example from demographic research showing that high fertility was not closely correlated with poverty. Several scientists offered thorough rebuttals of Ehrlich’s “science” to the extent he was roundly discredited. Yet the population control myth persists.
In the 1970s The UN Fund for Population Activities increased funding and so too the propensity for corruption and competition from both UN agencies and foreign governments and their bureaucrats. As increased funding hit record levels and a problem that characterizes so many governmental agencies was how to spend the money fast enough to justify an increased allocation for next year. When research universities and pharmaceutical companies started to get involved in the easy money network, then UN bureaucrats began to invent methods to deflect criticism and keep the media and public away from any snooping. After all, the UN agencies were working to reduce population levels to protect the planet and future generations, what could there be to criticize?
In 1973, some were beginning to question these intentions behind PC, not least the science upon which their ideas were based. The Rockefeller foundation, The Brain Trust and other philanthropic, UN agency minions, could not prove the causal links to justify further fertility programs and therefore the basis for advising governments how to control population growth was somewhat shaky. Yet it was onwards and upwards for the over 900 world-wide projects in operation.
By the end of the 1970s there were accusations of neo-Malthusian agendas from Africa and from some quarters in Europe yet massive propaganda initiatives and programs continued in India. The 1980s saw international sterilization programs being funded to the tune of $35 million worldwide.  In the end, a widespread revolt against the population controllers’ directives erupted from the developing world. Matthew Connelly highlights the economic segment of the PC pie-chart where leaders wanted to marry PC and economic development under free trade. The US delegates tried to sell the idea that to push down world fertility made plain economic sense. If not, food riots and revolutions would ensue placing the stability of foreign markets and US investment in a New Economic Order at risk. However, the nepotistic, cosy relationships that existed at the UN for many officials were also beginning to cause opposition.
In 1974, at the World Population Conference in Bucharest, feminists were ironically allowed to assume a population control mandate as representative of women’s collective desire when prominent feminists attacked advocates for conspiring to have an all-male cast. They were so roundly accused of imperialism and colonialism by various delegate groups that International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and speaker David Rockefeller had to hastily backtrack with substantial amounts of egg on their faces. A rethink was in order.
As Indira Gandhi was fighting a rear-guard action of corruption charges and arresting her many accusers causing all kinds of chaos, the population controllers saw their chance to act: Parents who had three children and did not accept sterilization were now jailed. Indian bureaucrats elevated a ‘right to progress’ as superseding individual rights. The new program raised incentive payments for sterilization as well as the age of marriage and women’s literacy. Then things became nasty. In scenes reminiscent of Nazi Germany Indira Gandhi’s State of emergency saw neighbourhoods demolished, human rights trampled on and many people killed in the riots that followed, all for resisting sterilization programs. The World Bank’s response was to provide another $26 million in aid for India based on a precondition that they commit to a sterilization programs. That plan was to take the India and China model world-wide.
The problem of global fertility rates falling and the dire prediction of global famine absent did not help the legitimacy of the world-wide expansion of these programs. Economic development was touted as justification of their continuance but as the Population Council floundered and the IPPF was investigated by Congress after denying that any sterilizations were forced, profits and progress began to wane. 80, ooo sterilizations that took place in 1976 were certainly forced and Congress in a rare state of clarity had evidence to prove it. 
Source: ‘Population alarmists disregard human feelings’ Canberra Times,
A huge backlash against the depopulationists was beginning and by 1977 the hidden agenda was truly out in the open courtesy of Rimert Ravenholt, head of USAID Office of Population, during an interview with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Ravenholt said that 25 percent of all the fertile women in the world must be sterilised in order to meet the U.S. goals of population control and to maintain “the normal operation of U.S. commercial interests around the world.” According to Ravenholt, these measures were required to contain the “population explosion” which, if left unchecked, would so reduce living standards abroad that revolutions would break out “against the strong U.S. commercial presence.” 
The Rockefeller Foundation and The United Nation’s World Health Organization have worked together since 1972 working their birth control “magic” on developing nations parallel to GM crop research. In the 1990s Mexico, Nicaragua and the Philippines were under the cross- hairs of population reduction from vaccination campaigns, ostensibly against tetanus. On the rare occasions that independent bodies have tested certain vaccines they have tended to harbour less than innocent ingredients, the tetanus vaccine was no exception. Strangely enough, none of these vaccines were offered to men and boys – only women and girls of child-bearing age from 15-45. The Roman Catholic organisation Comité Pro Vida de Mexico, had the vaccine tested and found it contained Chorionic Gonadotrophin, or hCG, a hormone necessary for the maintenance of pregnancy. What was it doing in a vaccine destined to combat tetanus?
When hCG is combined with a tetanus toxid carrier, antibodies are produced against hCG actually reversing the role of the hormone and making pregnancy impossible. None of the women were told that this was effectively an abortion vaccine. Studies in Nicaragua and the Philippines also found the vaccine to contain hCG hormones. In 1995 the discovery of hidden sterilization programs under cover of vaccine initiatives did not go down well with the public and lay clergy in the Philippines. Catholic Women`s League of the Philippines took on UNICEF’s anti-tetanus program and won a court order halting it’s tracks due to the inclusion of undisclosed B-hCG in the vials. “The Supreme Court of the Philippines found the surreptitious sterilization program had already vaccinated three million women, aged 12 to 45. B-hCG-laced vaccine was also found in at least four other developing countries.” This Recombinant birth control vaccine still has a functioning patent. The debate rages on as to whether this was mere Catholic propaganda or a genuine “well-intentioned” subterfuge by our global managers.  
Screen-shot from: Paradise Stolen – The Myth of Overpopulation by Stephen Verstappen
The science behind the scare-mongering of a “population bomb” has been comprehensively rebutted and debunked for many years. It is another important example of social engineering designed to provide excuses for systematic depopulation and macro-managment of societies. That’s the goal when you strip it all down to the bare essentials. The simple facts are that the rate of population growth was already long since declining when Ehrlich penned his doomsday scenario. It was also a deeply unoriginal idea having been culled from the warnings of an earlier eugenicist William Vogt and his highly influential book Road to Survival (1948), the biggest environmental best-seller of all time until the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. Vogt, like so many other Malthusian-ecologists placed all the world’s problems on the population explosion, the weak and the poor being the culprits who had to be stopped from breeding uncontrollably otherwise everyone’s future would be in jeopardy. But the data simply didn’t add up. Evidence actually showed that people who had a comfortable standard of living had fewer children despite access to a healthier and more abundant food supply, the latter being a most important point to remember.
According to Vogt and Ehrlich and other Neo-Malthusians and eugenicists, industrialisation equalled an increasing birth rate. In fact, this could be observed only in the early stages of the process, followed by a clear and steady decrease. Around the world there is also a large decrease in the number of children women are having as well as a decline in the size of families generally. As one commentator recently penned: “The big story is that rich or poor, socialist or capitalist, Muslim or Catholic, secular or devout, with tough government birth-control policies or none, most countries tell the same story: Small families are the new norm.” 
The many other invasive methods to poison and sterilise the world’s population is a mix of faulty science, the well-intentioned and covert psychopathy. The macabre irony is that resource scarcity, economic disparity and crippling debt all contribute to the unnatural rise in populations directly attributed to cartel capitalism. Thus the methods of population control implemented by neo-liberalist visions or the “globalist Elite” are a direct consequence of their own misunderstandings of the human and natural world; a result of their imposition of materialist agenda of the 4C’s and the inevitable effects it produced. Ultimately, for the psychopath, this is about reducing the numbers of normal people in the global population by using direct and indirect methods of depopulation policies on a global scale.
Author and philosopher Stephan Verstappen makes the entirely valid point that if we had not had psychopaths holding the reins of power the trillions upon trillions spent on the weapons industry (and wasteful economic debt slavery) each and every American could each have had a small house and plot of land through which to be self-sufficient. Verstappen highlights a common argument that there isn’t enough room to provide decent homes in similarly decent communities. As he makes clear, this is simply more lies and propaganda where we have been made to believe that everyone must live shoulder to shoulder in high-density dwellings. And of course, the SMART technocrats and eco-Intelpro agents would love to continue this argument under the guise of protecting the planet and social welfare. Let’s quote Mr. Verstappen from his recent video: The Myth of Overpopulation:
“If we assume and average of 3 people per family – or one home for every three people – that would mean about 750 people live there [in an average communiity] Including parks and playgrounds, the whole community sits on 12 acres of land. Now let’s take the U.S. population of 320 million and divide them into communities of 750 people each, which gives us: 426, 666 villages. Each village sits on 12 acres so multiply that by 12 which equals 5, 119, 992 acres. Convert acres to square miles and we have just under 8,000 square miles. That means we could fit everyone in America, in a one-storey home, with a front yard and a back yard, with plenty of parks and playgrounds and waterways for every 750 people and it would all fit easily on the available land mass of the state of New Hampshire, and still have a thousand square miles to spare. That could leave the entire rest of the country, including Alaska, without a single person living there. See now how ridiculous it is to think the entire land mass of the U.S. cannot provide the needs and resources for a low density population taking up less room than New Hampshire.”
Logically, Verstappen takes this further:
Screen-shot from: Paradise Stolen – The Myth of Overpopulation by Stephen Verstappen
“…That means we could fit everyone in the world … in a one storey home, with a front yard and a back yard with plenty of parks and playgrounds and waterways for every 750 people; and the entire world population would all fit easily on less than 75% of the available land mass …. of the State of Texas and still have 80,000 sq. miles of Texas to spare.”
Overpopulation? Maybe, but let’s be honest about the root causes and the clear solutions available. Moreover, we must see exactly how this is being used to corral populations into accepting policies which will make life considerably worse with no prospect of escape.
Note: For more data on depopulation please read Kevin Magur Galalae’s Killing us Softly: Causes and Consequences of the Global Depopulation Policy (2013). Prior to reading a warning must be attached to the book in that after a detailed analysis of the historical methods of GPC the author advocates much the same methods though with the caveat of transparency which does not automatically mean a correct path. As such, he acts as a supporter of population control methods and buys into the myth. These problems will not be solved by adopting the same methods, however “transparent.” Transparency laid over a gullible populace does not equate to accountability. A whole new perception across all societal domains is necessary. The data in the book is often erroneously interpreted and filtered through his own beliefs in order to support what he perceives as a benevolent set of policies to save humanity from itself. He even manages to tie in global warming and cognitive dissonance of the public in misunderstanding the issue of population growth. This is gross naiveté or intentional deception on the part of the author. But this does not discount the research if viewed with a discerning eye. The e-book can be found available online through any search engine.
 Some have suggested that the messages listed and the themes therein refer to the secret society of Rosicrucians, a parallel branch of Illuminism, long thought to have been spearheaded by Sir Francis Bacon who then became the medium for a new Baconian philosophy of reason or scientific materialism. Whether this is true or not is impossible to say, though Bacon’s book The New Atlantis portrays a land ruled by Rosicrucians. pp.61–68; The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age, By Frances Yates, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 2001 | ISBN-10: 0415254094
 United Nations Population Division Depart of Economic and Social Affairs: World Population Prospect 2010 revision / April 2011. http://www.esa.un.org/
 p.120; The autobiography of Charles Darwin. By Nora Barlow, 1958. New edition 1993 | ISBN-10: 0393310698
 For further news on the Population expansion myth see UN data studies here: esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Excel-Data/DB01_Period_Indicators/WPP2010_DB1_F01_TOTAL_FERTILITY.XLS | Global Population projections from: ‘Seven billion and counting’ By Jeff Tollefson, 19 October 2011, Nature 478, 300 (2011) doi:10.1038/478300a.
 See also Has Rosling’s TED Talks at http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_religions_and_babies.html
 Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population by Matthew Connelly, Published by Harvard University Press, 2008 | ISBN-10: 0674024230.
 op. cit. Connelly (p.190)
 op. cit. Connelly (pp.202-203)
 p.79; The Population Bomb By Paul Erhlich. Buccaneer Books Inc; 1968. Reprint edition Dec 1995 | ISBN-10: 1568495870.
 op. cit. Erhlich (p.150)
 Ibid. (p.139)
 op. cit. Connelly (p.129)
 ‘Relying on Hard and Soft Sells India Pushes Sterilization,’ New York Times, June 22, 2011.
 The New Atlantis: Society and Technology ‘The Population Control Holocaust’ by Robert Zubrin. Number 35, Spring 2012.
 Recombinant birth control vaccine United States Patent 5733553: Talwar, Gursaran Prasad (c/o National Institute of Immunology, Shadid Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi, IN) Srinivasan, Jay (Dept. of Biology, Washington University Campus, Box No:1137, One Brookings, St. Louis, MO, 63130-4899) Chakrabarti, Sekhar (c/o The National Institutes of Health, (Room 237, Building 4), Bethesda, MD, 20892) Application Number: 08/263483 Publication Date: 03/31/1998 Filing Date: 06/21/1994 freepatentsonline.com
 ‘On World Population Day, take note: population isn’t the problem’ By Fred Pearce, grist.com, Jully 11 2010.
For a more esoteric overview of depopulation and eugenics see: Mark Passio – The Unholy Feminine – Neo-Feminism & The Satanic Epi-Eugenics Agenda
Western Civillisations Will Go Extinct
Meet Paul Ehrlich, Pseudoscience charlatan
Don’t Panic – The Truth About Population