The Immense Cruelty of Population Control Campaigns

Reviewing the tragic but largely forgotten lessons of the past.

Story at a Glance:

•There has been a longstanding fixation within the ruling elite that it is absolutely imperative for them to control the world’s population.

•In many cases, this has resulted in cruel and inhumane campaigns being enacted around the world in areas where the people did not have the civil rights protections afforded to them within the Western Democracies.

•Some of the most disturbing campaigns occurred within China, where due to the One Child Policy, parents were forced to only have one child, even if this meant forced abortions, sterilizations or infanticide.

•It is critical to learn what happened there, both so that we do not allow the global elite to enact similar measures here and so that we can recognize why it is imperative to have a culture which sincerely values morality as that ethical framework is often the only thing which can stop these disasters from happening.

Note: this article will also discuss many parallels between those campaigns and the disastrous COVID-19 response.

One of the major dilemmas I run into when writing here is deciding how awful of a topic I want to cover, as everyone has a threshold of what they can process and once that threshold is exceeded it’s counterproductive to discuss it further. For example, what’s happened with the COVID vaccines has been very traumatic for many to come to terms with, and one of my primary goals here has been to find a way to help them process this incredible tragedy.

Since our society depends on a media which works night and day to sanitize reality, we have a distorted perception of how bad things can get, and it hence is often very difficult for people to come to terms with how harsh reality can actually be. For example, what typically goes on in war is incredibly horrific, but since the mainstream media has done, such a good job of effectively turning its violence into a "video game" people have no emotional connection to and it is often a lost cause to persuade people into adopting an anti-war position—which lies in stark contrast to those who have seen the horrors of war firsthand (e.g., veterans frequently become antiwar protestors).

One of the topics I've previously discussed here is "population control," as like war it can either be an abstract idea (e.g., we have too many people so it’s necessary to reduce the population to save the world) or a visceral reality (population control means you have to sterilize or kill a lot of people and there is no “nice” way to do that).

Sadly, the majority of people relate to the concept of population control abstractly. For this reason, I've tried to introduce the evidence which demonstrates there is a long-standing belief within the ruling class that they have a duty to advance population control measures (discussed further here), and that they have gone to great lengths to enact those campaigns. Furthermore, I also tried to show just how brutal and cruel many of these campaigns were, and how many times they have happened around the world.

In that series, I proposed that the primary factor which is limited depopulation efforts has been their feasibility, not the ethics involved. This for example, is why once Depo-Provera became available (which can create prolonged infertility through a single injection) we immediately saw numerous efforts by globalist organizations to forcefully give it to large numbers of women in the third world and to cover up its myriad of side effects.

Likewise, I have always thought that the most feasible to deploy method of "population control" would be a vaccination which sterilized its recipients. In turn, there is a long documented history of attempts to develop a sterilizing vaccine and clear evidence that the most promising candidate (a modified tetanus vaccine) was repeatedly covertly deployed in the third world and also clear evidence that it worked (to the point “immunocontraception is now a topic that is discussed within the medical literature).
Note: I initially broached this topic to provide the a context as to why many of us suspected there would be serious fertility issues with the COVID-19 vaccines—something which has since been observed.

To put a human face to this, after I posted an article about the WHO’s campaigns in Kenya, I received this comment from a reader:

In this article, I am going to attempt to illustrate the human suffering which resulted from those efforts. For that reason, before we go further, I need to give the disclaimer this article may be very challenging for some of you to read.

The One Child Policy

In the area where I practiced in Midwest, it was hard to not notice a generation of Chinese women with non-Chinese parents had emerged in the late 1990s. This was a result of many childless American couples adopting girls who had been abandoned in China, and throughout the years, I made friends with numerous people who had been in China and observed this first hand. For example, they had seen flight after flight packed with Westerners who came to adopt their Chinese daughter completely oblivious to what was really going on, and while in the country, had worked with numerous people who confided the infanticide of girls was a very real thing.

In 1995, a brave team of British journalists, decided to try to expose exactly what was happening in China (e.g., neglected children in state run orphanages being left to die). I would humbly request that at some point you find the time to watch it.
Note: if you are on a cellphone, Substack videos can take around a minute to load.

As the ending of this documentary (“The Dying Rooms”) shows, after this video came out, the Chinese government vehemently denied what this was happening (whereas I can state with confidence that it indeed did).

One Child in Context

I believe there are a few facts that provide important context to this hard to stomach documentary.

First and foremost, at the time this video was shot, China was very much a police state, and locals knew that if they spoke with foreigners, they would likely be sent to prison once the Westerner left (similarly every Western who visited was typically only allowed to stay in specific places and knew that their hotel room was likely bugged). Likewise, it was incredibly brave of the journalists to do this, and in the modern era, we almost never see mainstream journalists who are willing to put their necks out to do these types of critical investigations (which I believe is a large part of why the mainstream media is losing so much of its viewership and why it is such a disgrace the mainstream journalism profession is now supporting the criminal prosecution of anti-establishment journalists like Julian Assange).

Second, the policies which happened in China were largely a result of the Western leadership (which zealously believed in population control) insisting these measures be enacted in return for their economic support of China’s developing economy. That suggests that they also wanted to do this in the Western world, but (due to things like the constitution) could not. This is somewhat analogous to how many of our leaders applauded the draconian strict lockdown methods that were used in China during the pandemic (e.g. welding people into their homes, or forcefully putting them into quarantine camps).

Third, this is not the only time force sterilizations have been enacted on large numbers of people. For example, as I detailed in a previous article:

•There were numerous campaigns in Americas against indigenous women to sterilize them (e.g., from the 1960s to 1970s, the the Indian Health Services, through force and deceit, sterilized between 25% to 40% of the female native American population via tubal ligations and hysterectomies, resulting in a halving of their birth rate). Collectively, these campaigns sterilized millions of women.
Note: In the USA, mandatory sterilization was uphold by the Supreme Court (oddly enough under the same rationale used to justify mandatory vaccination).

•The doctors in Germany routinely sterilized millions of individuals with defects (e.g., mental illness) the Nazis felt should not breed. One thing many don’t know was that at Nuremberg, they cited the fact the USA had done the same thing in their defense.

•In 1975, India’s Prime Minister agreed to implement a sterilization campaign for international loans. She declared martial law and with military force mandated vasectomies, gruesomely sterilizing six million men before being forced to abandon this initiative due to violent male counterprotest.
Note: I believe is why only women are typically targeted for surgical sterilization despite it being much easier to sterilize a man.

Finally, while what is discussed in “The Dying Rooms” is abhorrent, it actually occurred at a time when China had transitioned to a significantly less oppressive government. Many of the things which happened during Mao Zedong’s reign were beyond horrific but have largely been erased from history and helps to explain why so many complied with a policy they knew was evil.

Recently, Tucker Carlson did a segment about the parallels between Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution and what the fanatical push for DEI in America. The parallels he discusses with a survivor of the Cultural Revolution are striking, and help to paint a clear picture of the carnage which results when members of a sociopathic leadership pit the population against themselves:

Note: as bad this sounds (e.g., consider what it was like if you knew you could be publicly executed at any moment for saying the wrong thing), the first hand accounts I’ve heard of what happened during this time were far, far worse than what was depicted in Tucker’s interview.

Ideas vs. Reality

The debate over where evil comes has existed since the dawn of humanity, and as you might expect a variety of views exist on it (e.g., recently I discussed the perspective it arises from something demonic and earlier still I discussed how many of the evil things people do are simply them reenacting the trauma that was inflicted on them much earlier in life).

While truly malevolent individuals exist, I believe the most common cause of the immense carnage and cruelty we see in the apathy and indifference.

A variety of studies have suggested that (most) human beings have a limited ability to be present to the lives of those around them and that limit seems to cap out at approximately 150 people. For this reason, a variety of human institutions operate very differently depending on how many people existin within them. For example, in smaller societies like a village (where everyone knows everyone else) democracies work quite well, while in larger ones (where its no longer possible for everyone to be present to everyone else) abstract frameworks inevitably come into being that take the place of human connection and integration.

Because of this, over and over again, you will see instances where something horrific happens to others, yet most of the people who should care about it become apathetic and indifferent or resigned toward it (e.g., consider what has happened with America’s decades of overseas wars).

Likewise, over and over again you will see leaders rise to power and as they become responsible for the fates of more and more people, they lose the ability to be present to each of their subjects and those subjects in turn transform from human beings to abstract data points. This in turn is why we constantly see policies be enacted by governments which are known to significantly harm large numbers of people (e.g., the COVID-19 vaccine mandates or China’s One Child Campaign) but even in the face of immense public resistance, they continued to push those policies.

I hold the belief that while a general limit (i.e. 150 people) exists for how many other individuals a human can be present to, some people greatly exceed that limit (e.g., the remarkable leaders who show up once every few generations). Likewise, I believe that the limit someone has can increase or decrease depending on the circumstances one finds are in. For example, a lot of the time honored spiritual practices seek to cultivate this capacity (e.g., it’s necessary for fully embodying compassion) and conversely, when people are under pressure or their nervous system is fatigued, they lose the ability to be present to the experiences of others (e.g., think of how many times someone you knew snapped at you because they were stressed).

In the above documentary, it’s clear what the workers in the orphanages did to the children there was incredibly cruel—yet at the same time I don’t think the workers there were evil. Rather they were under a lot of pressure (e.g., they had no support to raise far too many children and had received no training over what to do). In turn, you’ll notice that some of the workers felt really bad about what was happening but most of them had become resigned to this reality. That in short is a light taste of the climate of apathy which can give rise to immense evil.

Similar conditions also exist within the practice of medicine. For example:

•Due to widespread staffing shortages, healthcare workers often have too many patients to look after (e.g., it’s common an entire hospital is overseen during the night shift by a single doctor who does almost everything from their computer and likewise many doctors in clinical practice only get 15 minutes with each patient) so it’s simply not possible for them to connect with the human being they are responsible for.

•A lot of the things you run into in medicine are incredibly heart-wrenching or traumatic to bear witness to (e.g., a patient you care dearly about who is a single parent suddenly developing a rapidly fatal cancer, learning a patient you cared about had been burned alive by their abusive partner you’d tried to get them away from, or struggling to save a young man who came into the ER after being nearly beaten to death and then having to pass on his dying words to his parents). Yet, rather than being given time to process any of that, doctors are expected to quickly put on a smile and be completely composed with the next 5-10 patients they see. Because of this, doctors, like those orphanage employees in China often find the only thing they can do is mentally disassociate from the situation and what they are feeling.

•Doctors are often given the wrong tools to confront the situation at hand (e.g., use remdesivir and ventilators to treat COVID-19 or end the pandemic by pushing vaccines on their patients as aggressively as possible). In turn, these tools typically necessitate abstractly thinking about the patient from a distance (as “caring” for the patient becomes a mechanical process of relentlessly carrying out treatment algorithms rather than being connected to the patient).

•Like those orphanage workers in China, most doctors in practice are under a lot of pressure to conform with the dictates of the system and know they face stiff sanctions if they step out of line.

As a result, a relatively small number of doctors initially spoke out against what happened throughout COVID-19—but nonetheless some did and I would argue it is critical for each of us to understand what drove them to do that, as individuals like that are typically the balancing point who determining if society shifts to the light or the dark.

For instance, early in this publication, I hosted a guest post from a remarkable trauma surgeon I’d corresponded with about how much he suffered for opening a free clinic for the unvaccinated (as his blue state’s medical system was actively discriminating against them). That story went viral, in this nationally televised interview and he synopsized what happened (e.g., why he thought so many of his colleagues violated the oaths they swore when they all became doctors).

Ethics and Morality

Throughout human history, our species has always depended upon some type of social contract which enforces a widespread ethical construct the society follows. In turn, I would argue that those moral codes largely determine the success of the society, as once they are lost, the society rapidly devours itself (e.g., consider how much damage was done to the population and economies of the Western World due to pandemic profiteers hijacking the COVID-19 response for their own benefit).

One of the central problems in ethics is if the people who utilize it are doing so because they want guidance on what’s the right thing to do, or because they are trying to figure out how they can manipulate the existing rules to get what they want. To illustrate the latter, medical ethics has largely become a way to rationalize why things which make money are the “ethical” choice—which frequently leads to the medical profession holding ethical positions which are in complete opposition to each other (e.g., mothers have an absolute right to abortion but they simultaneously cannot refuse vaccinations because doing so allegedly endangers the child’s life).
Note: many other examples are given in this article on modern medical “ethics.”

The most effective ethical frameworks account for the fact unscrupulous individuals will always exist in society and are typically created by wise individuals who interweave the framework with a spiritual faith which holds a profound truth members of the society will feel a strong draw to follow. Unfortunately, due to the advent of modern technology, the world we exist in now is very different from the primitive agricultural societies where those faiths were first created, which has resulted in people often not recognizing the value of the faith as the situations we encounter are now differ from the ones the faith’s founders encountered and described in its holy texts.

Note: communism is well known for targeting religion (e.g., communists argue religion is a tool the upper class uses to repress the proletariat). Many, myself included, believe this is done because it is only possible for people to commit the soulless mass atrocities (which were repeatedly seen in the worst communist regimes) once they lose the spiritual grounding a faith provides to them.

Since each genuine faith taps into the innate human drive to avoid evil and help others, I often use this as a metric to evaluate the merits of a faith (e.g., does the faith make people kinder and compassionate or crueler and more apathetic). Likewise, I believe that one of the most important things when engaging with questions of morality is to listen to your heart and your body rather than mentally rationalizing things which seem like a good idea but cause the rest of your being to cry out in protest too (this was discussed in further detail here).

Consequences of Inhumane Policies

In 2016, after 36 years, China rescinded the One Child Policy and allowed couples to instead have two children (but no more). One of the most remarkable things about this was that in the blink of an eye, China’s government reversed its propaganda, encouraged families to have two children and attempted to erase that dark chapter from China’s past.

This was most likely due to that policy having a variety of unforeseen consequences and those consequences outweighing the benefits China received from continuing the policy (especially since the nation had become much wealthier and was no longer facing a very real risk of much of their population succumbing to starvation).

I believe those consequences are important to explore because they help to illustrate how harmful top-down policies can be which are created by individuals who have a mental idea of what should happen but simultaneously completely disregard all the clear signs what they are doing is wrong—a capacity which, as mentioned above, I believe is one of the critical foundations of morality.

Human history is marked by human beings trying to impose their will upon the world and force things that violate the basic laws of nature to happen. However, in the last hundred years, modern technology has made it possible for the immoral members of society to cause an unimaginable degree of harm which was never before possible (e.g., nuclear annihilation, carelessly unleashing a dangerous bioweapon upon the world, or forcing the entire world to take an incredibly dangerous vaccine).

Unfortunately, since technology has advanced so rapidly, society’s ethical constructs have not been able to catch up with this new paradigm we exist within. As a result, over the last century, we’ve born witness to numerous tragedies which are unlike anything humanity has ever witnessed. In most cases, when those tragedies happened, many people knew what we were doing was wrong (both from an ethical standpoint and a pragmatic standpoint), but those voices were ignored, a crime against humanity was allowed to occur, and the entire policy ended up being for naught as it made the situation worse rather than solving it.

For example, I recently synopsized Ron Johnson’s panel which concisely broke down everything which went wrong during the COVID-19 response such as:

•Effective but (not profitable) COVID treatments were kept from the public while ineffective ones were relentlessly promoted to everyone.

•A poorly designed vaccine which (by its design) was known to be unsafe and ineffective was pushed upon the world, often in a manner which grossly violated people’s fundamental human rights.

•That vaccine killed millions of people and actually made vaccinated individuals more likely to catch COVID or create new variants (hence prolonging rather than ending the pandemic).

•Everyone who tried to point out why any of this was a bad idea was censored by every media platform and frequently were overtly punished for speaking out.

Note: when I began this publication, I tried to focus on the forgotten history of the smallpox vaccines, as like the COVID-19 vaccines, they were experimental, extremely dangerous, and caused smallpox rather than prevent them. However, rather than recognize this, most of the medical professional doubled-down on the vaccines and increasingly draconian smallpox vaccine mandates were enacted as smallpox worsened (due to the vaccines). This cycle was eventually broken by mass public protest against the vaccines which ended the mandates and what very few people know is that the policies those early protestors proposed (e.g., quarantining the sick or improved public sanitation), not the vaccine, was what ended smallpox. I mention all of this because one quote from that time again highlights what happens when incredibly cruel policies are enacted which completely ignore the critical feedback from the populace against them:

Decorous and admissible language fails me, in alluding to that which might have seemed incredible thirty years ago—the commanding of vaccination on a second child of a family, when [smallpox] vaccination has killed the first; and then sending the father to prison for refusal.

Consequences of The One Child Policy

As stated above, I believe the ruling class has spent decades doing everything it can to reduce the population. In turn, I suspect countries like India and China were used as test sites to see how much human beings would comply with inhumane policies being inflicted upon them so the ruling elite could determine which measures made the most sense to enact in the Western World.

Since I have seen numerous cases where something horrific was first tested out in the third world before being deployed on America (or Europe), I hence believe its important to examine what went wrong with the One Child Policy. For example, some of the most well known issues with the policy were:

1. The One Child policy creating a shortage of young people being available to care for the elderly (e.g., two generations down the road, one child was responsible for taking care of both of their parents and all four of their grandparents). Since the safety net in China (as they don’t have welfare) had typically been children taking care of their parents, this was incredibly socially disruptive.

For example, it led many younger Chinese people to be terrified of being in their parents’ situation when they got older and hence believed they had to do whatever was necessary to become wealthy so they could take care of themselves in their old age. Because of this, an immense greed overtook China (hence why so many unscrupulous business practices originate from China) and the economy expanded in an unnatural and unsustainable fashion (which has now become a huge issue for China).

Note: one of the major problems all of the Western Democracies are now facing is that because they have successfully reduced their populations, there are now not enough young workers to provide for the older generation. Currently, to “solve” this issue, large numbers of immigrants are being brought in from the third world, and more and cuts are being made to the safety net for the elderly (e.g., the retirement age is being raised). All of these approaches are likely to create even more issues, and I believe again highlight why it is often so problematic to interfere with a naturally occurring process without fully understanding the consequences of what that interference entails.

2. The existing cultural values in China led people there to believe the survival of their family hinged upon having male heirs (particularly if they lived in economically destitute conditions). Because of this, the natural response to the One Child Policy was for families to conclude their child must be a boy. The Chinese government in turn recognized this would become a huge problem, so they tried to preempt it by outlawing prenatal ultrasounds (as these would let mothers know if they had a daughter and hence abort her) and plastered the country with propaganda posters of each family having a single daughter. However, all this resulted in was millions of parents deciding they needed to abandon their daughters once they were born and their gender was known.
Note: I have often wondered if some of this could have been prevented by China having passed a law that required children’s last names to transfer through the mother rather than father.

The large number of abandoned babies who were left to die (and often died) in turn created a large market for human trafficking, especially once China decided to sell those girls to oversees families who were looking to adopt a child (as adoptive parents paid over 10,000.00 for each child). This was particularly tragic because once the local authorities realized how profitable oversees adoption was, they would often steal the children away from their parents (which in turn led to Western parents who thought they were rescuing babies actually subsidizing them being torn from families who wanted to keep them).

Now decades later, a significant gender imbalance exists within China (there are approximately 30-40 million more men than women) and as a result, a “bride” shortage exists. This has led to a variety of problems including foreign women being trafficked into China to serve (often non-consensually) to serve as brides.
Note: this has been documented to be occurring in eight different countries by Human Rights Watch (a highly regarded international human rights group), and even the Chinese government had admitted this is happening (e.g., they disclosed having rescued over 1000 trafficked women) . Many other groups have broached this topic (e.g., this London Telegraph article and this report by another humanitarian group discusses how Uyghur women en masse are being forced to marry Chinese men). Lastly, I must give the disclaimer before you click any of those links that many of these reports are extremely disturbing.

3. The policy itself was extremely cruel and decades later many Chinese are still traumatized by the forced sterilizations and abortions they went through or the experience of having to abandon their child to die. Many people I know believe the extreme cruelty they experienced from the government both fractured the traditional culture which had held China together for centuries and (much like the events of the Cultural Revolution) created a loss of respect for the value of life which made the Chinese people much more willing to accept their government conducing incredibly cruel policies in the future.
Note: as mentioned before, one of the things I found the most disturbing about the COVID lockdowns was how many of our leaders praised the Chinese government for enacting the strict and necessary (and ultimately useless) measures no Western ruler had the political power to enact on their own people.

4. Children raised under the One Child Policy received much more attention from their parents (since the parents were incredibly invested in the success of their one child). Many in turn observed these children tended to be less emotionally developed than children raised within the normally family structure (e.g., they were more narcissistic, self-centered, and in the eyes of many Chinese more lazy), and numerous Chinese parents have found themselves in the position of perpetually having to take care of their child rather than the child taking care of them.
Note: this may also be due to the fact China’s economy is now in much more dire straits so many of the young workers entering the workforce cannot find the jobs that had been promised to them when they first enrolled in university.

The Cruelty of the One Child Policy

I believe the single most important thing to understand about the One Child Policy was just how cruel it was, because once cruelty on that scale becomes forgotten, it can easily happen again.
Note: one of the reason why I named this publication The Forgotten Side of Medicine was because I wanted to help bring the public’s attention to forgotten medical atrocities which keep on repeating because our authorities have successfully erased them from history.

In 2019, One Child Nation, a PBS documentary about this period exposed the world to that forgotten history. This documentary in turn sheds a critical light on both how incredibly cruel things were and also countless “good” Chinese citizens complied with it because they felt they had no other choice but to follow orders.

In the final part of this article I will present exactly what they went through and try to shed some light on the horrific (and misguided) policies which proceeded The One Child Policy and helped create the climate of cruelty which made that atrocity possible. Since a lot of that human suffering is a quite disturbing, I placed it in the final part of this article.