World Bank Threatens “Drastic Steps Necessary”

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

6 posts / 0 new

World Bank Threatens “Drastic Steps Necessary”
if Nations Refuse Population Reduction Implementation

The IMF & World Bank take hostage entire nations.

Jurriaan Maessen
September 2, 2010

It’s the eugenicist in the Discover Channel building multiplied by a million. Not simply a lone eco-terrorist saying “parasitic human infants” must die, but one of the largest international financial institutions demanding it. To make the contrast even more remarkable, James J. Lee scared the living daylights out of some Discovery Channel employees, the IMF & World Bank take hostage entire nations.

In its 1984 World Development Report, the World Bank threatens nations who are slow in implementing the Bank’s “population policies” with “drastic steps, less compatible with individual choice and freedom.”

The report, literally saturated with dehumanizing proposals, is devoted entirely to the World Bank’s long-term strategies in regards to population control:

“(…) economic policy and performance in the next decade will matter for population growth in the developing countries for several decades beyond; population policy and change in the rest of this century will set the terms for the whole of development strategy in the next.”

To illustrate how serious the World Bank is in achieving the overall strategy objectives on population control, the report does not shy away from outright threats:

“Population policy has a long lead time; other development policies must adapt in the meantime. Inaction today forecloses options tomorrow, in overall development strategy and in future population policy. Worst of all, inaction today could mean that more drastic steps, less compatible with individual choice and freedom, will seem necessary tomorrow to slow population growth.”

In the Foreword, then President of the World Bank and 1985 Bilderberg attendee, A.W. Clausen stated:

“(…) although the direct costs of The World Bank programs to reduce population growth are not large, a greater commitment by the international community is sorely needed to assist developing countries in the great challenge of slowing population growth.”

“(…) governments can use incentives and disincentives to signal their policy on family size”, the report continues. “Through incentives, society as a whole compensates those couples willing to forgo the private benefits of an additional child, helping to close the gap between private and social gains to high fertility.”

To give an adequate illustration of the World Bank’s preference for all-out government control over the people, and their intent on meddling in people’s personal decisions, the following quote will suffice (page 107):

“By taxing and spending in ways that provide couples with specific incentives and disincentives to limit their fertility, government policy can also affect fertility in the short run. Government can offer “rewards” for women who defer pregnancy; it can compensate people who undergo sterilization for loss of work and travel costs; and it can provide insurance and old-age security schemes for parents who restrict the size of their families. Each of these public policies works through signals which influence individual and family decisions- when to marry, whether to use contraception, how long to send children to school, and life expectancy, and whether and how much family members work.”

Under the header “Incentives and disincentives” (page 121), the World Bank proposes several more examples of government interference in the affairs of free humanity:

“To complement family planning services and social programs that help to reduce fertility, governments may want to consider financial and other incentives and disincentives as additional ways of encouraging parents to have fewer children. Incentives may be defined as payments given to an individual, couple, or group to delay or limit child-bearing or to use contraceptives. (…). Disincentives are the withholding of social benefits from those whose family size exceeds a desired norm.”

The report uses the example of China to make clear such measures can be highly successful if governments would only be willing to implement them:

“With the possible exception of China, efforts to raise the age at marriage by persuasion and edict have not been particularly successful.”

“In China the birth rate at the end of 1982 was estimated to be nineteen per 1,000 people, down from forty in the 1960s. The current figure, based on birth registrations rather than on a census, may slightly understate the actual birth rate; but it would still be well below current rates in South Asia, Africa, and most of Latin America.”

On page 124, the World Bank report further marvels at the Chinese government’s accomplishments:

“China has the most comprehensive set of incentives and disincentives, designed (most recently) to promote the one-child family. Since the early 1970s women undergoing various types of fertility-related operations have been entitled to paid leave: in urban areas fourteen days for induced abortion; ten days for tubal ligation; two to three days for insertion or removal of an IUD; and in the case of postnatal sterilization, seven extra days over the normal fifty-six of paid maternity leave.”

Bizarrely, the report even goes so far as to suggest introducing “sterilization vans” and “camps”:

“Male and female sterilization and IUDs can be made more readily available through mobile facilities (such as sterilization vans in Thailand) or periodic “camps” (such as vasectomy and tubectomy-camps in India and IUD “safaris” in Indonesia).”

Making clear that the overall World Bank population reduction strategy must be implemented in a country-specific manner, the report states:

“The specific policy agenda for each country depends on its political culture, on the nature of the problem it faces, and on what it has already accomplished.”

What does have to be global, according to the World Bank, is continuing urbanization: people nicely locked up in massive townships. The report explains:

“Living in small towns does less to reduce fertility than does living in larger cities. That many of these changes take time to have an effect only underlines the need to begin them now. At the same time, other measures that complement and speed socioeconomic change can hasten a decline in fertility.”

This report is completely in step with the strategies outlined by the UN, the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, World Health Organization and IMF as they move to depopulate the earth in a consorted global effort. The pretexts for fertility reduction given throughout the report are “sustainable development” and “poverty reduction”. The truth is, so states the World Bank itself, to introduce and further develop “policy measures to increase people’s welfare as well as (and as a means) to reduce fertility.”;topicseen

antikakistocrat's picture
Apr. 18, 2012 2:41 pm


So let me get this straight... for 24 years there has been a worldwide not-that-secret conspiracy to... save the world from the Malthusian Solution? But I thought they were the Bad Guys.

doh1304's picture
Dec. 6, 2010 9:49 am

The Globalists are the bad guys. They want population reduction.

antikakistocrat's picture
Apr. 18, 2012 2:41 pm

Corporate “Need” for Compound Annual Rate of Growth keeps US from sensible Population Control policy.

The article is from the “finance” or business section of yahoo. Consequently don’t generalize the author’s observations on resources to concepts outside the firm.

The Article’s use of the word “resources” is in reference to unlimited factors of production TO THE CORPORATION (opposed to Society). Despite how much destruction of the Commons takes place societies and governments on planet earth do not have unlimited resources. For instance the world’s is rapidly becoming much MUCH more hostile to life (and consequently many forms of resources) as we know it. That is why solar energy, which incorporates a resource that is abundantly available and unaffected by our consumption is so critical to productivity.

Obama needs to envision a world without the ubiquitous annual compound rate of growth that so often goes unstated in policy pursuits of all kinds. Our planet and governments do not have the unlimited resources needed to maintain a healthy, clean, well fed and housed population of humans. And that is a sad fact the will continue to become more and more clear as time goes on.

Again, the only way to make unlimited resources available to corporations who have this insatiable lust for a compound annual rate of growth is to claim it at the expense of the People’s prospects for continued survival in a decent, healthy, and non-feral way.

telliottmbamsc's picture
May. 20, 2010 3:06 am

Note our economic/social structures require continual expansion of production or they collapse. We all know increasing consumer demand is essential for economic recovery. More production from increased demand. More growth. Growth is the model aimed for. No one talks of economic recovery without talking about growth. Increasing populations are a part of that. It promotes growth in production.

Probably population reduction will take care ot itself. Global warming will give population reduction a shot in the arm.

When any species puts greater demands on its environment than the environment can support, the population collapses. Usually from famine coupled with disease/pandemics associated with malnutrition.

Nature will accomplish what the World Bank can't, and what freewill refuses to do, and what our current economic/social structures can't allow..

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Concern about Third World overpopulation from the engineers of the Growth Economy fails on several levels. If the issue is the finitude of the earth and the need to conserve our resources for the long haul, nothing about the disposable consumer economy or the Petrasaur military/industrial "production" makes any sense at all.

We all know that First World people take up a lot more of the resources than do the rest, so if you took out the bankster class and the private jet execs, you could save a lot of other people. If all lives are equal in our moral equations, the calculation for saving the most means cutting at the top instead of at the bottom.

Where this thinking fails most critically, however, is in its managerial moralitiy. We do not get to eliminate the wealthy or the poor because we are part of them, part of the problem and solution, part of humanity. There is no "economic" answer to the problem at hand although there are moral economic responses when we take stock. There is no reason to reduce human life to the struggle to get more stuff and to work until we drop.

The finitude of the earth does require us to find sustainable answers and to share things of lasting value rather than to hoard or to "dispose" of what must be reclaimed. The technology to address a new paradigm of economic value and human moral perspectives exists. We do not need to despair of the future without our "work ethic" and "totemic materialism" where stuff is about "winning" some contest instead of having and using things. Austerity is not how it works here either. Enjoying life can include enjoying things, but it cannot be about the status and glory brought by having them.

"Enough" does not have to be minimal, although some who practice minimalism have reported great liberation from "stuff." "Enjoy" may be the more important factor, and "enough" may be more about "whatever" than about some level of economic consumption and possession. What makes "too much" a burden, including that totemic badge of success, is what to shed. "Enjoy" tends to go straight to sharing, and the pleasure is always better shared.

Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

Trump Is Using Racist White People To Make The Rich Richer

There is this whole mythology that Donald Trump came to power because 53% of white women voted for him, because 66% of white working men who didn't have a college degree voted for him.

That may be, but those are not his constituents. Those are his suckers. Those are his rubes.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system