“Враг коварен; будь начеку.” / “The enemy is clever; be vigilant.”

Propaganda banner of the Great Patriotic War, Winter of 1941.

Genocide is terribly ugly, but language is terribly beautiful, so let us begin our study of genocide with a study of language.

The first half of the word “genocide” is derived from the Greek “γένος” (“genos”). The Greek term “genos”, like many words in many languages, has multiple meanings: It can refer to birth (giving us the term “genesis”); it can refer to the characteristics, especially hereditary, of an organism (giving us “genetics”);  it can refer to membership in a certain group (giving us “genealogy”).

The second half employs the English “—cide”, derived from the French “—cide”, which is in turn derived from the Latin “caedō”, meaning “to kill”. We see many instances of this Latin-derived suffix in English words: “homicide”, “suicide”, “insecticide”, and “regicide” are examples.

Hence we can determine that “genocide” means something like “birth-killing”, “group-killing”, “family-killing”, “type-killing”, etc.

Just as it is constructed from two root words, genocide is defined by two elements: the actions involved, and the intentions behind those actions. For an action to be genocidal, it must involve the techniques of genocide and bring about (or attempt to bring about) the results of genocide. The most widely-used legal definition—and the definition we will use—is the United Nations General Assembly’s “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”, as adopted 1948-12-09. It defines the intentions and actions of genocide as:

Intentions Of Genocide:  
“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group […]”

Actions Of Genocide:
(a) “Killing members of the group”;
(b) “Causing serious bodily harm, or harm to mental health, to members of the group”;
(c) “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”;
(d) “Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”;
(e) “Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”.

Genocides tend to be rather unpalatable, and anyone wanting to conduct one needs to be careful – he or she could easily cause a fuss. The architects, proponents, and executors of the current genocide also face new challenges posed by technology (particularly, communications technology). They know that they can’t hide their atrocities nearly as easily as the Nazis or Khmer Rouge, what with all the smartphones floating around. Yet just as technology presents challenges to the leaders and foot soldiers of the current international genocide, it offers them opportunities. The tools of modern genocide are incredibly refined. They are the product of billions of dollars in research and development—not to mention billions more spent on manufacturing, distribution, and marketing. They have taken more lives in half a century than firearms have taken in ten centuries. Every day, these weapons of genocide take at least as many lives as the atom bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki took—combined.

What can we say of these weapons? They are silent. And they are small. And they are cheap. And they are everywhere.

In 1937, shortly before the Great Patriotic War, German scientists stumbled upon a class of chemicals unique in their toxicity. The Germans weren’t up to anything sinister, at least not initially. Yes, mass killing was their goal—but their intended victims were aphids; their intended battlefield—a tomato patch ravaged by the tiny insects. However, when chemists inadvertently inhaled the invisible vapor from a single drop of spilled insecticide, they became violently ill, some close to death—and all this from the inhalation of less than one-thousandth of a gram. Put another way, a single pound of the substance they created—which would roughly fill a wineglass—would be enough to kill roughly 500,000 people.

The poison they invented was ingenious, because it turned the body against itself. In normal human physiological functioning, the brain and body use acetylcholine (“ACh”) as a neurotransmitter; particularly, ACh acts as a chemical signal for muscles to contract. From the beating of your heart to your fingers upon a keyboard to the gentle rising and falling of your chest as you sleep, every movement you make relies upon ACh as an initiator for muscle contraction. Muscles must not stay continually contracted; for example, the movements of the lungs are controlled by a carefully-orchestrated cycle of contraction and relaxation, alternating between the two in order to move air and supply the body with oxygen. To enable muscle relaxation, the human body naturally breaks down ACh with an enzyme called, appropriately enough, acetylcholinesterase (“AChE”). AChE is an ancient and well-optimized enzyme; a single molecule of it can break down twenty-five thousand molecules of ACh per second. Due to its efficiency, the body needs–and therefore produces–only a tiny amount of AChE. The AChE enzyme is both vital in function and small in amount.

This makes it a perfect target.

German chemists had stumbled upon a class of chemicals known as organophosphate acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. That’s a bit of a mouthful. We know them as nerve agents. These nerve agents are tricky: to the body, and to AChE, they “look” like ACh (acetylcholine) itself. AChE enzymes that encounter molecules of nerve agent attempt to break these molecules down, just as they normally break down ACh. However, when a molecule of nerve agent reaches the core of an AChE enzyme, it shows its true colors by performing “suicide inhibition”–that is, by permanently reacting with AChE, destroying both the AChE enzyme and itself in the process. Within seconds of exposure, AChE is depleted throughout the body. Without any way to eliminate it, ACh accumulates to dangerous levels, forcing every muscle in the body to contract at once, making relaxation impossible. Within ninety seconds of first exposure, the patient is wracked by ceaseless seizures, so powerful that they shatter bones and rip muscles. In another thirty seconds, with his heart and lungs paralyzed by constant contraction, the patient expires. His body has been turned against itself; a foreign compound, masquerading as an essential neurotransmitter, has obtained entry into the core of a vital enzyme, destroying it–and leaving the body to destroy itself, the muscles of the lungs contracting so tightly that the victim suffocates.

It was in 1937 that the first nerve agents were synthesized. 1937 – ancient history to some; barely within living memory. Do not think that chemists have been sitting idle since then. In fact, they’ve been quite busy.

In the late 1940s, biologists and physicians realized that certain naturally-occurring steroidal compounds had powerful affects on the human body–for example, they discovered that androgens (such as testosterone) could promote muscle growth, allowing users to achieve muscular mass completely outside the normal boundaries of human biology. More importantly, they discovered that ovulation in women–the release of an egg from the ovaries into the uterus–was controlled by natural fluctuations in estrogenic hormones (such as estradiol) and progestins (such as progesterone). Just as control over muscular contraction–a requirement for sustaining human life–depended on acetylcholine (ACh) and acetylcholinesterase (AChE), so did ovulation–a requirement for creating human life–depend on estrogens and progestins. As occurred in the development of nerve agents, scientists now knew enough about the natural function of the body that they could devise chemicals to interfere with it. They had their targets in their sights. They had chosen their enemies–and they studied their chosen enemies intently, as any good general does. Like the acetylcholine/acetylcholinesterase (ACh/AChE) system, the estrogen/progestin system was delicate: both could be disrupted by minute amounts of suitably-devised chemicals.

Delicate. Essential. The two characteristics of a perfect target.

Those German scientists who sought a way to kill en masse had it easy: Acetylcholine (ACh) is itself a small and simple molecule, and organophosphate nerve agents were themselves also small and simple molecules, easy to synthesize. Those American activists and scientists who sought a way to prevent human live en masse faced a greater challenge: Estrogenic and progestin molecules are relatively large and complex, and hence difficult to synthesize. They were originally available only by chemical extraction from the urine of pregnant horses, with thousands of gallons of urine needed to produce an amount of product weighing less than a single raindrop. This wouldn’t do; eliminating the lives of billions of humans wasn’t practical if doing so relied on collecting swimming pools full of mare’s urine. In 1951, an eminent chemist discovered how to produce the needed chemicals in bulk from Mexican yams. Yams are far more numerous than pregnant horses, not to mention much more cooperative.

It is a great irony to realize that, in the flow of history, more human lives have been erased by the Mexican yam than by every bullet fired, every grenade hurled, every sword swung, and every arrow loosed. From the rock to the atom bomb, no weapon has extinguished more person-years of life. From the massacres of the Mongol hordes to the atrocities of the British Empire, we find no real competition. Hitler and Stalin ended millions of lives each, but these dictators bow and shudder in the sight of dioscorea mexicana, the humble Mexican yam.

That said, they’re not all bad – quite tasty with rosemary, salt, and a dab of butter. Just be sure to hide them from chemists.

The individuals involved in the creation, testing, and promotion of hormonal contraceptives include the following. They are listed in no particular order; there is plenty of blame to go around, plenty of blood to stain the hands of everyone involved:

  1. Margaret Sanger: Major proponent of contraception, from low-tech methods (“mechanical” methods, ex. diaphragms and cervical caps) to cutting-edge methods. Sanger’s involvement in the contraceptive movement is difficult to summarize; she was heavily engaged in legal activism, funding, publishing, and lobbying, but also involved in financial and scientific aspects of contraception development.
  2. Katharine Dexter McCormick: The most important single donor to the chemical (hormonal) contraception research project. The vast majority of the money she donated was actually earned by her husband, an entrepreneur in the tractor industry. Though not earning much of the money she donated, McCormick was far from a layabout, and was highly educated in biological sciences and a formidable force in the political arena.
  3. John Rock: A so-called “Catholic” physician who organized medical testing of hormonal contraceptives and was instrumental in demonstrating their effectiveness and “safety” (that is, safety for the users, not their lost children). Roughly 99% of self-described “Catholics” in the United States are now no longer Catholic at all, as they use hormonal or other artificial contraceptives in massive violation of the principles of their faith. In this sense, a “Catholic” doctor has liquidated the number of actual Catholics in the United States by 99%, a feat far more impressive even than the Ottoman Empire’s conquest of Constantinople.
  4. Carl Djerassi: Chemist extraordinaire, Djerassi discovered and manufactured hormones for use in contraceptives. He was particularly successful in synthesizing progestins which were far more potent than naturally-occurring human hormones, and in developing hormonal drugs which could be taken by mouth rather than by injection.

The Holocaust was not the handiwork of those tried at Nuremberg alone. Similarly, the lives lost to contraception were not stolen by the four aforementioned ladies and gentleman alone. Every physician who has prescribed contraceptives; every pharmacist who has filled such a prescription; every chemist or technician who has synthesized the drugs; every artist who has drawn up an advertisement for them; every politician or activist who has promoted contraception; every man or woman who has used contraceptives of any sort; every man who has encouraged the use of contraceptives directly through his speech; every man who has encouraged the use of contraceptives indirectly through his behavior (for example, by having sex with a woman without committing to raise a family with her and to support her however necessary for all her days)–all are guilty. If not for such actions, billions of additional lives would be being lived out this very day–lives of joy and sorrow, pleasure and suffering, but lives that are (for the most part) thoroughly worth living.

Let us now revisit the definition of genocide and build a case for how the use of contraception constitutes genocide. We will start with the “Intent” clause:

Intentions Of Genocide:  
“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group […]”

Certain advocates of contraception promote the outright, total, and prompt destruction of the human species; prominent among them is the “Voluntary Human Extinction Movement” (VHEM). In a world of deceptively-named entities and initiatives, the VHEM deserves our applause for its transparent naming: nearly everything one needs to know about it is contained within its name. This Movement recommends that all humans use contraception at all times, and clearly acts with genocidal intent, in that it has “intent to destroy, in whole […] a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group” — in fact, it has the “intent to destroy” every national, ethnic, racial, and religious group.

However, the common definition of genocide does not require destruction “in whole”; destruction “in part” is sufficient. Indeed, if the architects of the Holocaust desired to exterminate every Jew from the face of the Earth except for one single Jew designated to be kept alive, we wouldn’t say to ourselves “Well, that’s not genocide, then…they only intend to destroy part of the Jewish population”. That said, common definitions of genocide require that the “part” of the targeted population be a substantial part. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 were clearly targeted at the United States because of the perpetrator’s hatred for Americans (as a national group) and non-Muslims (as a religious group), but the number of Americans killed–though in the thousands–is generally not considered sufficient for this action to be described as a genocide. Similarly, Tarrant’s massacre of Muslims in Christchurch, New Zealand was clearly motivated by a desire to murder members of a religious group, but the number of victims was similarly insufficient for the label of “genocide”. These two actions–and many others–can be rightfully termed as mass murder, terrorism, and hate crimes. Neither crime, however, killed a sufficient “part” of the targeted group to be considered genocide. This does not mean that such actions were not evil–indeed, they were profoundly evil. It only means that they were not genocide.

How large, then, must the share of a group destroyed be, for that destruction to quality as genocide? There is no universal consensus on the answer. Some scholars also argue that the traits of the targeted “part” of a group matter. For example, killing 5% of a targeted group might not be genocide if a random 5% are killed, but might indeed be genocide if the “part” of the group targeted is especially vital–for example, if that 5% represents substantially all of the group’s doctors, or farmers, or soldiers, etc. We will examine past events that are unequivocally considered genocide in order to set a boundary on how large this “part” must be.

The Holocaust of World War II resulted in the deaths of roughly 1/3 of all living Jews, and roughly 2/3 of all European Jews. It is near-universally accepted that the Holocaust constituted not only attempted genocide, but also completed genocide; i.e. a genocide was both planned and successfully carried out. The genocide was not as complete as the Nazis wished, but genocide nonetheless occurred. When a thief dynamites a bank vault and makes off with one-third of the gold inside, this is not attempted theft, but indeed actual theft – likely the thief wanted to steal all of the gold, but the incomplete nature of his crime (the fact that the crime wasn’t as severe as it could have been) doesn’t lower the charge from “robbery” to “attempted robbery”. Similarly, the Holocaust should be considered “genocide”, not merely “attempted genocide”, despite the fact that “only” a third of the intended victims were killed.

This suggests that the destruction of 1/3 of the population of a targeted group satisfies the definition of genocide; that one-third is a large enough “part” to satisfy the “in whole or in part” clause. Perhaps a smaller proportion (one-quarter? one-tenth?) can also satisfy the definition of genocide, but we will apply the standard of 1/3; we will apply high and strict standards.

We can then ask ourselves: Are the proponents and users of contraception acting with intent to destroy at least one-third of an identifiable “national, ethnic, racial, or religious” group? The definition of genocide is clear in that “measures intended to prevent births” can constitute genocide. If the use of contraception prevents at least one-third of live births, then within a single generation, it will eliminate at least one-third of a targeted group. By “eliminate”, we mean that a massive number of unique, living, breathing human beings would have naturally been added to the targeted group within a generation, but these lives have been erased by the prevention of conception. Genocidal contraception makes lives go missing in the exact same sense as genocidal murder.

The reality is terrifying – the majority of national, ethnic, racial, and religious groups have lost far more than a third of their potential members due to contraception. The majority of living humans belong to one or more groups that is undergoing genocide. Even worse, many identifiable groups are undergoing such severe genocide that their fertility has fallen below replacement level (slightly more than two births per woman in her lifetime). If unchecked, the use of contraception will eventually result in the complete extinction of these groups; there will come a day when not a single member of the group is alive.

Having revisited the “intent” clause of genocide, let us now revisit the “methods” clause:

Actions Of Genocide:
(a) “Killing members of the group”;
(b) “Causing serious bodily harm, or harm to mental health, to members of the group”;
(c) “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”;
(d) “Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”;
(e) “Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”.

Which of these actions do we see in the modern Western World?

  • (a) “Killing members of the group”: While contraception is morally equivalent to killing because its consequences are equivalent (that is, it erases human lives from the Earth), contraception is not identical to killing: two actions can be equally evil but still non-identical, and that is the case here. However, we do see mass killing of the members of certain groups. To examine a national group, consider the United States, where at least fifty million abortions have occurred since Roe V. Wade legalized the practice in 1973. Less than 1% of these abortions were medically necessary to save the mother’s life or to terminate a pregnancy caused by rape. Given the stillbirth rate of approximately 1 in 160, these fifty million abortions prevented a projected 49,680,000 births by killing fetuses. This means that the number of people who would have been born alive in the United States–but were not born because of abortion–is 8.3 times the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust, or roughly 5.8 times the entire population of New York City. This is an incredible 16,688 times the number of Americans killed in the September 11th attacks. To equal the number of lives eliminated due to abortion, the September 11th attacks would need to occur every single day for 45 years and 8 months. Abortion represents the intentional killing of a human fetus, and United States law explicitly recognizes fetuses as potential victims of violence, per the federal “Unborn Victims of Violence” act (ratified in 2002) and various state laws. United States law takes the obviously illogical standpoint that killing a fetus is a crime–except if done through abortion. Strike a pregnant woman and cause her to miscarry? You are guilty of murder. Be a pregnant woman and undergo an elective abortion with the same consequence? You are innocent in the eyes of the American justice system. Do not be tricked by the self-contradictory principles of American law: Abortion is the killing of a fetus, and to the extent that a fetus is a member of some national, racial, ethnic, or religious group, it constitutes “killing members of the group”.

  • (b) “Causing serious bodily harm, or harm to mental health, to members of the group”: Among the most important functions of the human body–arguably, the most important function–is reproduction. This is as true for men as for women. We could survive as a species if everyone lost their right hand, or if everyone suddenly caught smallpox. We could not survive if everyone was exposed to contraceptives for a generation. The use of contraceptive methods produces sterility, either temporarily or permanently–this is, after all, the goal. Sterility is recognized as a medical disorder. In a sense, sterility of an organism is the generic equivalent to death. Living entities–from humans to bacteria–are differentiated from non-living entities (such as rocks) by the abilities to grow, reproduce, obtain energy from the environment, and respond to their surroundings. The use of chemical or physical artifacts to cause sterility is therefore unequivocally the causing of “serious bodily harm”.

  • (c) “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”: As we will see, the legalization and promotion of contraception by governments–and its widespread use by men and women–is responsible for pushing fertility rates to below-replacement levels in many parts of the world, for many racial and ethnic and religious groups. Sub-replacement fertility is all that is needed to satisfy the above definition; it is a mathematical certainty that sustained sub-replacement fertility is a “condition of life” guaranteed to bring about “physical destruction in whole”. We will reveal which groups are on the path to extinction shortly.

  • (d) “Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”: Any man or woman who uses contraception–be it chemical, physical, or behavioral–is “imposing measures intended to prevent births” within a group–namely, within his or her own group. Any woman undergoing an abortion is doing the same. A single man or woman’s use of contraception does not eliminate enough future people to constitute an act of genocide on its own; rather, the collective actions of millions of men and women contribute to the genocide we now see. No one Auschwitz guard shot or gassed every victim of the Holocaust; it was the sum of actions that added up to genocide. Governments have used varying levels of pressure in their attempts to prevent births; in some cases, these measures are clearly coercive, and can be considered “imposed” (for example, the one-child policy–now two-child policy–of China). In other cases, the coercion is less visible, but nonetheless present: nearly all “progressive” nations force their citizens to fund contraception for strangers through taxation, and many such nations also force citizens to pay taxes to support abortion. Frequently, some of the fruits of citizens’ labors–confiscated through taxation–are also used to fund contraception and/or abortion in other nations, through grants and so-called “foreign aid” (aid so helpful that it erases millions of people from existence in the recipient nations). In this sense, any nation that uses tax dollars to support contraception, or that requires employers and health insurers to cover contraceptives, has imposed legal measures “intended to prevent births” within a group–specifically, the group of people living within its borders. Anyone who doubts that these measures are forcibly “imposed” ought to contemplate the consequences of failing to pay his or her taxes.

Now that we have established the genocidal potential of contraceptives, and of the people and entities who use and promote them, let us move away from theory and examine hard data. We’ll use available statistics and mathematical models to examine what contraceptives have done to birthrates, how many human lives are missing, and exactly when a given population will go extinct if current trends continue. Every person is a member (voluntary or not) of multiple different groups, which can be defined by citizenship, location, ethnic/racial background, religion, and more. Therefore, we’ll be looking at all of these categories. Mathematics, statistics, and genocide – what could be more fun? We’ll even cite our sources.