Richard Hondo and Tobaiwa Mudede
In our understanding, the word “innovation” carries a sense of comparison where an event has a precedent that has been surpassed.

In the article under review, use of this word seems grossly misplaced, as it gives the impression that different programmes have been in use and found to be unsuccessful over the years, when the process has in fact, been continuous.

How can a programme be an innovation in 2017 when it was introduced in 1929, directed as it still is, at controlling the number of people of colour in the world?

The only thing which passes for innovation in the current episode is the “ingenuity” that has crept into the marketing of this weapon of black genocide.

Efforts by the Western world to control black births started around 1929, but took a direct trajectory in 1939, when an American woman called Margret Sanger founded the Negro project, purportedly to improve the standard of living for black people.

She set up a birth control clinic in Harlem, New York to “serve” the black population there.

Please note that blacks in New York at that time formed only 12 percent of the population of New York, but Sanger deemed it necessary to control its growth!

To put matters into proper perspective, Sanger was a eugenicist.

In the early part of the 20th century, eugenicists were a large body of whites in America, who strongly espoused racial supremacy and purity, particularly of the so-called Aryan race.

They hoped to purify the bloodlines and improve the race by containing the “inferior” races through segregation, sterilisation, birth control and induced abortions, to stop them from “breeding like weeds”, to use the eugenicists’ term.

But in order to sell the idea to leaders of the black communities, whose support would be crucial if the programme was to yield the desired result, she thought of an angle. Here is what she said when the Harlem birth control clinic was set up in 1929;

“The birth control clinics are intended to be centres where men and women will be taught the science of parenthood and the science of breeding.

“For this was the only way to combat the scourges of transmissible disease, mental defects and poverty. Women would receive birth control advice in various situations, including where:

the woman has transmissible disease the children already born were subnormal or feeble minded the father’s wages were inadequate to provide for more children.

A small family equated to more disposable income as there would be less children to provide for.” This sermon found support among black community leaders, such as church leaders, medical doctors and social workers, as it made economic sense, at least on the face of it.

These leaders sold Sanger’s sermon to their communities resulting in mass mobilisation for the programme, only for these leaders to realise later that they had been sold a dummy, but to no avail. Vested interests had taken root.

Now 88 years later, on July 12, 2017, The Herald reported the sermon of another American woman, Melinda Gates, the wife of the wealthiest man on earth, Bill Gates. She said, and we quote;

“Contraceptives are one of the greatest anti-poverty innovations the world has ever known. Access to birth control boosts economic productivity by allowing women to earn an income and leads to smaller families with more resources to spend on children’s health and education.”

She called for family planning to be global priority.

These are Mrs Gates’ words, 88 years after Sanger’s sermon in 1929. Is there any difference between the two sermons, in all honesty? If there is, we are unable to see it.

As it was with Sanger in 1929, who can find fault with Gates’ scientific reason for her case for smaller families, proffered by a woman whose husband’s empire sits on top of the world?

Very few people would. Yet, the same subtlety is there.

You see, in both cases, the women are silent on the price the black woman has to pay for the mirage economic prosperity.

We say mirage because blacks are as poor now as they were in 1929 when Sanger first sold the idea.

Surely after 88 years the so-called prosperity would be conspicuous by now? Why the common silence on the effect of the contraceptives on health of users, such as side effects and cancers?

The Herald, in their issue of July 15, 2017, reported that cancer had overtaken HIV in deaths.

When we first started our cancer concerns for users of these contraceptives, our critics labelled us “mad men”.

Then a little later, the World Health Organisation (WHO) listed hormonal contraceptives as carcinogenic (under items 60 and 61 of the 116 on their current list).

Our critics went mum! They were not even prepared to retract their words. That is how powerful money can be.

This explains, at least partly, why we have not heard dissenting voices when Mrs Gates made her stand known to the world regarding this issue of population in the guise of prosperity.

As we said when this debate started, our quarrel has been with the need to plan families.

No, it has been about why these proven carcinogenic agents, hormonal contraceptives, despite being listed as such by WHO, are still being pushed to black women, for 88 years now without any let.

There is a palpable effort by the systems involved to portray hormonal contraceptives as the only birth control agents available on the market, when alternatives exist, alternatives such as the fertility cycle, popularly known as the menstrual cycle, which offer a side-effect free method, among other natural methods, those who feed on the contraceptive bandwagon are quick to say natural methods do not work, which is very careless use of words, especially as women on the pill have fallen pregnant.

Their argument lacks merit as it is not supported by research findings.

If these pundits are serious about what they say regarding natural methods being ineffective, why the huge effort to suppress the publicity?

This in fact, strengthens our point that vested interests will never fail to find reasons to justify the consumption of lethal products in the guise of “service” to vulnerable groups.

The statements attributed to Melinda Gates are, therefore, not surprising because they are not new.

You Might Also Like

Comments

Take our Survey

We value your opinion! Take a moment to complete our survey