By Victor Perlo

4 A two-page advertisement appeared in the editorial
H., Section of the Sunday New York Times of Septem-
iy! 26. I.suppose it cost $20,000 or more. That could not

vave mattered less to the 17 signers, who represent a
Wealth of $200 billion.
_ _ The first page of the ad consisted mainly of a picture
, ft new-born babe, a “disarming little thing’’; the rest.
: the ad attempts to convince readers that he is a men-
ce who should not.be permitted to come onto this earth.
_ Theadcallson readers to take three actions:

1: To urge President Nixon to spend $200 million per

ee and use all his authority, to hold down the popula-

P 2. To urge Congress to pass a resolution favoring
Policies to bring about zero population growth in the Uni-
States,
3. To urge the Commission on Population Growth
ind the American Future (John D. Rockefeller III, Chair-
n) in its next report to President Nixon to recommend
f2 Policy of population stabilization (zero growth).
4, © Main argument is that. ‘‘People pollute!’’ In-
qieeed, that people are the main cause of pollution. But it
~ Capitalism and monopoly profiteering and war that
destroy the environment and pollute the air and water.
;. example, U.S. Navy vessels pollute the oceans more
Nall U.S. merchant vessels.
__ They say that the cost of cleaning up our environ-
ent over the next five years will be $105 billion. But
Hat could be financed with little more than a year’s mil-
ary spending.
The argument is hypocritical. The main sponsors of
; Be ad were urging population control 20 years ago, when
1 ie was talking or thinking about pollution. They con-
ind € biggest oil and chemical companies, which lead
ae ustrial pollution because they have refused to use
s of their excess profits to take the necessary protec-
pee ng They are picking up the pollution issue
I rie because it is popular today, as a means of trans-
re ¥e that popularity to their cause. Incidentally they
° Tying to deflect their concern from an effective
Uggle against pollution.
AB ot Say in the ad: ‘‘Our cities are packed with
eee TS — many of them idle and victims of drug ad-
a But they oppose full employment programs,
ave daeovemmment, in which they and those like them
€cisive influence, actually encourages the use of
sres,and collaborates with drug growers and distribu-
‘from their puppet tribesmen in Laos to the racke-

3

et * T4hG93e4 a

teer pushers in the United States.

They say ‘‘twin clouds (are). threatening mankind’s
survival on earth — the population bomb and the atom
bomb.”’ But they oppose banning the bomb and propose
banning people! They have been the main developers and
promoters of the atom bomb; they approved its use
against the Japanese people. They oppose prohibition of
the atom bomb and destruction of stockpiles. Some of

them right now are profiting directly from production of °

atom bombs.

They try to inspire fear by listing the huge quanti-
ties of goods the baby will consume in a lifetime but
ignore the much larger quantity he will produce. The
earth, and the United States, can comfortably support
many more people than now live here. The problem of
pollution and conservatien of the environment will be
solved when we have socialism — as the Soviet Union,
also a great industrial power, is now doing. And we will
have a lot more than 200 million people living here.
Moreover, rational population management, combined
with a maximum of individual freedom of choice, is pos-
sible under socialism.

To equate the atom bomb with people as a menace,
and in particular with the newborn babies and the youth
of the cities, demonstrates a particularly vile depth of
misanthropy, of anti-humanism, and — as will be seen —
of racism. : :

@

Who are the signers of the ad?

There is George Champion, retired chairman of the
Chase Manhattan Bank, and Frank W. Abrams, retired
number one man of Standard Oil (New Jersey). These
are leading executives of the Rockefeller corporate em-
pire and the Rockefellers have been leading the global
campaign for the reduction of population ever since
World War II.

John D. Rockefeller III, chairman of Nixon’s advis-
ory commission on population, has been the family mem-
ber most involved in this campaign and it is his commis-
sion which made the outrageous statement that popula-
tion growth ‘‘is an intensifier or multiplier of many of the
problems impairing the quality of life in the United
States.” : ;

Also among the signers are William F. May, chief
executive of the American Can Co., and Hugh Moore, re-
tired head of its Dixie Cup subsidiary. They are execu-
tives of the Morgan big business empire.

‘ Then there is Lammot du Pont Copeland, retired
big wheel of the du Pont chemical monopoly; General

William H. Draper Jr., former Ambassador to NATO

ildren, ‘YES’:
ombs, 'NO’

and a Dillon Reed man, and Robert S. McNamara, the
ex-Ford ‘‘whiz kid,’ now President of the World Bank
and, as former Secretary of Defense, bearer of major re-
sponsibility for destroying the Vietnamese environment
through genocidal warfare against the people and the
land.
Besides other tycoons, the 17 include a window-
_ dressing of academic, medical, religious and political

figures of the Establishment, as well as one well-known’

conservationist.
What is the real purpose of the ad and the stop-the-
baby campaign? .
It is essentially diversionary and genocidal.
“It aims to divert the attention of people of good will

from the struggle against imperialism, against war, —

against colonialism, against capitalist exploitation,
against racism — to the false issue of overpopulation.

But its genocidal character is even more sinister.
Because of the stepped-up racist drive of the Nixon Ad-
ministration and big business the Rockefellers, Morgans
and Du Ponts are stepping up the anti-people campaign.

Population control is directed especially against the
Black people, the Chicanos, the Puerto Ricans and the
Indians, as well as against poor whites in Appalachia and
other depressed areas. It is accompanied by propaganda
for ‘‘voluntary’’ sterilization and attempts to set the
stage for compulsory sterilization of welfare clients.

The population of these oppressed peoples is increas-
ing faster than the rest of the population. Between 1960
and 1970 the natural growth of the Black population was
20.6% compared with 9.8% for the white population, and
the latter figure is exaggerated by inclusion of most
Chicanos and Puerto Ricans.

The billionaire rulers regard the oppressed peoples
as a threat to their power in the United States, as they do
in Asia, Africa and Latin America. That is why they have
campaigned for decades to hold down or reduce the pop-
ulation of these countries around the globe, and have now
spread the campaign to the United States. Inevitably a
propaganda campaign of this sort, conducted by reaction-
ary capitalists, is translated into action. Globally, it is
joined by genocidal war, against the people of Indochina
for example, and domestically, it is joined with mass
murder, at Attica, for example.

Birth control information and free supplies of con-
traceptives are desirable objectives. But the policy of
zero population growth, the policy of striving actually to
cut the population of Black and other oppressed peoples,
is a vicious policy that should be vigorously opposed and
exposed.

iso. “PACIFIC TRIBUNEFRIDAY, JANUARY,21,.1972—PAGE 9

a me A mm Nia