Creepy news item from 1964

  • Thread starter Thread starter surritter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

surritter

Guest
At a flea market I bought a couple issues of Popular Science from 1964. There was a blurb in the “Science Newsfront” column in the September issue:

“Combating the population explosion by dribbling a birth-control drug into community water supplies has been advocated by a psychiatrist, Dr. Charles E. Goshen of the University of West Virginia School of Medicine. Aimed a lowering the overall fertility of the female population in a poor country, the method would have a good chance of success, according to Dr. Goshen, because it wouldn’t require the ‘cooperation’ of the people. It won’t happen tomorrow, however. There are as yet no suitable drugs for that purpose.”

The scariest part is that it wouldn’t require the cooperation of the women. Smacks of a Nazi regime or something, doesn’t it?
 
This was advocated a lot in the 1960’s and 1970’s including those who wanted to implement it here in the good 'ole U.S.
Just read the War against Population by Jacqueline Kasun
and “Blessed are the Barren” by Donovan/Marshall if you want your eyes opened about the roots of Planned Parenthood and the Population Control movement.
It’s all about eugenics and keeping certain groups from reproducing.
In fact-“women’s reproductive rights” was a cover they used to advance their agenda.
Also read the “Hand of God” by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, as to how the agenda to tack abortion rights onto the women’s rights movement started from the founder of NARAL who died a Pro-life Catholic.
And of course there have already been coercive sterilization movements right here in the U.S. in the 20’s and 30’s which a young Adolph Hitler admired when he rose to power.
 
I read someplace that the chemical substrates of “the pill” were in fact tested, without subject consent, in Latin America in the mid 1960s. Ie, not very long after the article was written.

ICXC NIKA
 
surritter said:
At a flea market I bought a couple issues of Popular Science from 1964. There was a blurb in the “Science Newsfront” column in the September issue:

“Combating the population explosion by dribbling a birth-control drug into community water supplies has been advocated by a psychiatrist, Dr. Charles E. Goshen of the University of West Virginia School of Medicine. Aimed a lowering the overall fertility of the female population in a poor country, the method would have a good chance of success, according to Dr. Goshen, because it wouldn’t require the ‘cooperation’ of the people. It won’t happen tomorrow, however. There are as yet no suitable drugs for that purpose.”

The scariest part is that it wouldn’t require the cooperation of the women. Smacks of a Nazi regime or something, doesn’t it?
Click to expand...
That is scary!
 
surritter said:
…
The scariest part is that it wouldn’t require the cooperation of the women. Smacks of a Nazi regime or something, doesn’t it?
Click to expand...
This is the same idea that Margaret Sanger had. She noted that rich families had fewer children and poor ones more, so she leaped to the conclusion that fewer children meant more wealth. However, it also means fewer geniuses are born. Mensa is a society of the top 2% in IQ. Obviously, if you limit the population, you will have fewer smart people who can solve problems, like curing diseases. There have been 60 million babies aborted since Roe v. Wade. That means 1.2 million geniuses were not allowed a chance to benefit mankind.
 
Kurt Vonnegut wrote a story, Welcome to the Monkey House, with a similar idea. In his story, the drug that was distributed in the water supply made sex unenjoyable. It was published in '68, so I wonder if he got the idea from that news item.
 
unstoppable_II said:
Mensa is a society of the top 2% in IQ. Obviously, if you limit the population, you will have fewer smart people who can solve problems, like curing diseases. There have been 60 million babies aborted since Roe v. Wade. That means 1.2 million geniuses were not allowed a chance to benefit mankind.
Click to expand...
But children in poor families are more likely to suffer from malnutrition and a lack of education opportunities. Both of those can prevent a potential genius from reaching the goal.
 
Bonnie said:
But children in poor families are more likely to suffer from malnutrition and a lack of education opportunities. Both of those can prevent a potential genius from reaching the goal.
Click to expand...
So prevent them from even having a chance.
 
surritter said:
At a flea market I bought a couple issues of Popular Science from 1964. There was a blurb in the “Science Newsfront” column in the September issue:

“Combating the population explosion by dribbling a birth-control drug into community water supplies has been advocated by a psychiatrist, Dr. Charles E. Goshen of the University of West Virginia School of Medicine. Aimed a lowering the overall fertility of the female population in a poor country, the method would have a good chance of success, according to Dr. Goshen, because it wouldn’t require the ‘cooperation’ of the people. It won’t happen tomorrow, however. There are as yet no suitable drugs for that purpose.”

The scariest part is that it wouldn’t require the cooperation of the women. Smacks of a Nazi regime or something, doesn’t it?
Click to expand...
American Eugenics inspired the Nazis.

Also don’t worry, that stuff ended in the distant past i.e. the 1980s and the US made sure to only sterilize women who were at least 9.
 
Fyi with all the woman takng these drugs it is in our water supply.
 
hadulzo said:
Fyi with all the woman takng these drugs it is in our water supply.
Click to expand...
And supposedly they have no way of getting it out!! Maybe that’s why our young girls are maturing much younger than they used to. Who knows what the consequences will be in years to come. At least they had sense enough to get rid of DDT when they realized the harm of it. Dear GOD have Mercy on us!!! God Bless. Memaw
 
I agree that this sounds entirely absurd, that women who take the contraceptive pill should pay £1,000 ($1,500) a year more in tax, but it is the inevitable outcome of the standard logic that the polluter should pay. We do have to make a couple of assumptions of course, the first being that the European Union has got its science right, the second that they have got their costs right. But if they have then yes, the end result really is that women should be charged a higher tax for using the contraceptive pill.
Click to expand...
The basic problem is that the hormones in the pill itself, the hormones which produce the desired contraceptive effect, then end up in the sewage system as part of the normal function of kidneys and bladders in human beings. Those hormones are then not captured by the standard sewage treatments and end up being released into the fresh water of the area. Where they are believed to cause sex changes in fish:
Click to expand...
Ethinyl estradiol (EE2), the main active ingredient of contraceptive pills, can trigger a condition known as intersex in freshwater fish, which has caused significant drops in populations in many species – although no links have yet been made with human health.
Click to expand...
So the proposal is that sewage treatment systems should be upgraded to deal with this. Perhaps fair enough, but what is the cost?
Click to expand...
Achieving that target will not be easy, as Owen and Jobling point out in a recent issue of Nature. They calculate that, for a town of about 250,000 people, it would cost about £6m to install a system that uses granular activated carbon to cut EE2 levels, with a further £600,000 being needed to operate the system each year. To upgrade the 1,400 sewage waterworks in England and Wales would cost a total of more than £30bn, they add.
Click to expand...
ForbesBrandVoice
?
SungardASVoice
[Infographic] Help Your Business Overcome Lost Revenue With Best-In-Class Disaster Recovery
Let us leave aside that capital cost. Look purely at the running costs of such a system, some 10% of the capital cost. That’s £3 billion a year for England and Wales, and in that country there are some 2.5 million women using the pill. That looks a little low to me so just to make the math easier we’ll say 3 million. Or the running costs alone of such a system will be £1,000 ($1,500) a year for each and every women who uses the pill to regulate her fertility.
Click to expand...
Where are we to find that money from? It is suggested that the manufacturers of the pill should pay:
Click to expand...
Nor is it necessary that the public should pick up the tab, added Owen. “The pharmaceutical industry makes billions out of the drugs and treatments it sells. If these pollute the environment, what is wrong with making them pay to have it cleaned up?”
Click to expand...
There is more:
forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/06/03/women-on-contraceptive-pill-should-pay-1500-a-year-more-tax/
 
They also proposed testing nuclear weapons on the moon to ‘scare the pants off’ them commies…it is a miracle we survived the 60’s.

The dangerously high populations of the world are a clear indication the contraceptive plan was never implemented.
 
US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg: *Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. *

From NYT interview
 
Crusaderbear said:
They also proposed testing nuclear weapons on the moon to ‘scare the pants off’ them commies…it is a miracle we survived the 60’s.

The dangerously high populations of the world are a clear indication the contraceptive plan was never implemented.
Click to expand...
Overpopulation is a stupid myth perpetuated by ignorant people in an effort to shore up their arguments for contraception, abortion, homosexuality, and opposition to immigration.

Planet Un-Parenthood: The Myths of Overpopulation
In 1798, Rev. Thomas Malthus, one theoretician of overpopulation, predicted that by 1890 the world would have standing room only. Nearly two centuries later, in the 1970s, media reports cautioned that by 1990 we would need to build huge artificial islands in the middle of the ocean to handle the earth’s population.
Click to expand...
Apparently, we’re doing better than that.
Click to expand...
Yet some don’t seem to learn from the facts, and we still hear today about the “problem” of “overpopulation.” This supposed problem, which as we will see below is contrary to fact, is used as a justification for killing people by abortion and for state interference with the authentic, God-given reproductive freedom that belongs to families and couples.
Click to expand...
The ongoing myth of overpopulation is actually a cluster of myths, some statistical, some philosophical, and some spiritual.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top