How The Anti-Immigration Network Is Working To Get Conservatives To Accept Population Control

By Theodore Shoebat

In an abandoned monastery on a mountain in Italy, Steve Bannon and Benjamin Harnwell are conspiring to accelerate a dramatic shift in the political climate of Europe. In the Trisulti Monastery, two hours away from Rome, Harnwell — a ‘traditionalist Catholic’ — is contriving a plan, alongside Bannon, to make the site that was once a place of contemplation into (and to use his words) a “gladiator school for cultural warriors”. An unusual place to conspire for a political revolution.

What are they doing in a monastery to plan a major political enterprise?

“It sounds silly,” says Harnewell, “but I say God has entrusted me with something to do, and I have to do it.” In 2018, Harnwell’s think-tank, the Institute for Human Dignity (DHI) won, with Bannon’s support, a public offering for the use of the monastery for 19 years for an annual rent of 100,000 euros. It is a place for brainstorming and planning for the grand enterprise of really radicalizing Europe towards an ideology of nationalism and a total reform of the EU government in favor of this worldview.

Bannon with Benjamin Harnwell

Bannon at one point in time set his priority on helping Trump get elected (his former website, Breitbart, did quite an efficient job in disseminating information to help with the Republican campaign). But now he has been fixated on Europe and shifting the political disposition to the advantage of the nationalists. After the November Congressional elections in the United States, Bannon told Reuters that he would spend “80-90 percent” of his efforts on the political situation in Europe. Which means that Bannon and his ilk are currently trying very hard — with the same energy that they exerted for Trump — to dramatically alter the ideological condition of the Europeans towards a philosophically more tribalist mentality.

Bannon has been raising funds for his and Harnwell’s organization Dignitatis Humanae Institute (the Institute for Human Dignity) in both Europe and the United States, but one can assume, without being far-fetched — that the majority (if not, a greatly substantial amount) of the funds are coming from Americans. One American organization, the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, which has spent over £1.3m in Europe since 2008, financed a conference in Italy with the Dignitatis Humanae Institute.

The Action Institute was founded by Robert A. Sirico and Kris Alan Mauren. Mauren is tied with the Calvinist theistic evolutionist organization, the John Templeton Foundation, of which shoebat.com has shown to be Darwinist and a funder for eugenist projects, such as the Epigenetics Literacy Project (ELP) which is ran by Jon Entine, a Jewish American eugenist.  Mauren is a director for or or an advisory board for the John Templeton Foundation, Templeton World Charity Foundation, and Templeton Religion Trust. What is the founder of a Catholic organization doing working for a major supposedly Protestant and yet eugenist organization? 

Robert A. Sirico

 

Kris Alan Mauren

The Acton Institute is tied to the eugenist Sarah Scaife Foundation. From 2012 to 2015, the Acton Foundation received $240,000 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation (you can see details of the funding for Acton here). The Sarah Scaife Foundation was founded by the oil billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, a eugenist who was close to Planned Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger and a pusher for supporting abortion within conservative circles. In the study of the roots of many of these types of nationalistic and right-wing think tank organizations, one will find the name of Scaife lingering about. Scaife was the financial founder of major Right-wing think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute (one of the biggest lobbyist entities for the Iraq War) and the Center for Security Policy which organized the 2007 Counterjihad Summit in Brussels, the meeting that would commence the Counterjihad as a significant international movement.

Scaife also served as the vice-chairman for the Heritage Foundation, which he had financially established. Scaife, while supporting the Heritage Foundation, donated millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion advocates. What this proves is that a pro-abortionist was the financier behind these think-tanks, and by this, behind the institutions that would direct the formation of the Counterjihad. So here we have a link between the eugenists and the Right-wing entities that are pushing for nationalist ideas. To shed further light on this coven of roaches who hide under the shade of patriotism, the Sarah Scaife Foundation has given millions of dollars to organizations like the Center for Immigration Studies and the David Horowitz Freedom Center. The Center for Immigration Studies was founded by the major eugenist, John Tanton, whose think-tank is the main influencer for all groups, activists and politicians who are critical of lenient immigration policy. 

The heir to the Scaife fortune is Cordelia Scaife May whose almost $1 billion operation — the Colcom Foundationbankrolls Tanton’s immigration centric network. This financing is not insignificant or petty. Between 2010 and 2015, the Colcom Foundation put $72.5 million into the Tanton network. In 2015 alone, according to financial filings, the Colcom Foundation donated at least $19.2 million to the Tanton network, including $7.4 million to its flagship organization, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, amongst the largest of the organizations negative to current day immigration policy.

The Acton Institute and its financial backings, and its ties with Bannon and his activity in Europe, demonstrate the link between the organizations that are very negatively focused on immigration, eugenics and the current day nationalist craze that is ever increasing in intensity. It would be unwise to pretend that such activists are confined within the realm of just working against certain immigration policies, and do not ever overlap with pro-abortion (infanticide) activity for the cause of eugenics.

We can see here a plan, done with years of work, for a mechanism being used — through very influential voices — to attract conservatives to accept progressivist ideology and to reshape the conservative movement to be on par with what conservatives have fought against. So if the two are the same, then the eugenist agenda of progressives can indeed influence Western policies. This is being done through a fixation on immigration as a way to get people to see immigrants as a problem to be solved by despotic measures of population control.

Years ago, before Tanton set up his organizations, he was lobbying for Planned Parenthood and even set up a Planned Parenthood clinic in northern Michigan. He would also approach new mothers in maternity wards to tell them about how they should not have any more children.

In the early 1970s, Tanton began to push for eugenics which he, quite ominously, advocated with the deceptive term of “passive eugenics” (the word “passive” is put there to make it seem benign). Tanton started out subscribing to environmentalism, and this led him to be fixated on population control. By this, he exhibited the common intellectual path of rejecting the Creator, fixating on the creation, and then devising ways to kill your fellow man. To adhere to the wisdom of the Apostle, these sinister adepts serve the creature rather than the Creator and become haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, and inventors of evil things (Romans 1:25, 30). And if population control becomes the agenda, consider Wisdom 2:

Let us oppress the righteous poor man;
let us not spare the widow
or regard the gray hairs of the aged.
But let our might be our law of right,
for what is weak proves itself to be useless. (Wisdom 2:10-11)

“I began to wonder why all of these conservation problems were cropping up,” Tanton recalled, speaking of his environmentalism. “I became convinced, and I don’t recall exactly how, that increasing numbers of people were part of the problem.” He made a connection between ‘overpopulation’ and immigration and began to seek after the funds of wealthy financiers.

With a focus on rescuing mother earth from humanity, it is not surprising that the Colcom Foundation would finance Tanton’s cause. Perusing the official website of the organization, one reads: “Colcom Foundation gives priority to national organizations that acknowledge the impact of human population growth on U. S. environmental sustainability”.

It is both demonstrable and obvious that what we are looking at here is a major financial network of people advocating for nothing more than Malthusian policies, all under the guise of ‘patriotism.’ And if you think that a lauding of one’s patriotism denotes some sort of a sincere love of country and people, remember that one of the leading newspapers that exhorted for the French Revolution — which led to the murder of hundreds of thousands — was called Patriote Francois (French Patriot). The advocation for political action in the name of patriotism should not be our focus when determining if something is good or evil. To have an understanding of the reality of the war between good and evil is one thing that we must strive to attain so as to preclude ourselves from being entrenched in the labyrinth of sophistry that cloaks itself with love of country and  patriotism, but is really the same mouth of the old serpent who has been pushing man to kill himself for millennia.

One of the receivers of the funds of the Colcom Foundation is Negative Population Growth. The president of this den of wolves is Donald Mann, a Malthusian whose writings are fixated on tremendously reducing the population of the US by lowering the fertility rate and impeding immigration. In an article from 2015 entitled: Why We Need A Smaller U.S. Population And How We Can Achieve It, Mann advocates for policies to lower the population, such as paying parents not to have over two children and cutting parents off from tax benefits if they have more than two children. In the beginning of the article, Mann writes:

“We need a smaller U.S. population in order to halt the destruction of our environment, and to make possible the creation of an economy that will be sustainable indefinitely. All efforts to save our environment will ultimately prove futile unless we not only halt, but eventually reverse, our population growth so that our population — after an interim period of decrease — can be stabilized at a sustainable level, far below that it is today”

Mann then goes on to call for anti-immigration policy and measures to decrease the birth rate:

“If present rates of immigration and fertility continue, our population, now in excess of 256 million, will pass 400 million by the year 2055, with no end to growth in sight! By any measure, the United States is already vastly overpopulated. We have long since exceeded the long range carrying capacity of our resources and environment, yet we continue to grow rapidly, by about 25 million each decade.”

He exhorts for the reduction of the American population by a very high number:

“We at NPG believe that the optimum size for U.S. population lies in the range of 125 to 150 million, or about the size it was in the 1940s. With a slow and gradual decrease in our numbers, that size could be reached in about a century.”

Mann then goes on to propose how the population should be reduced by decreasing immigration and births:

We could start now on the path toward a smaller U.S. population by substantially reducing the present rates of immigration and fertility, the two factors chiefly responsible for our population growth.

In addition to reducing immigration, we must also lower our total fertility rate (the average number of children per woman) to about 1.5 and stabilize it there for roughly 50 years. Our fertility rate hovered around 1.8 from 1973 to 1987, but has risen steeply since then to 2.1 in 1991. If almost all women had no more than two children, the U.S. fertility rate would drop to 1.5, since many women remain childless by choice, and many others choose to have only one child. We promote the ideal of the two-child maximum family as the social norm, because that is the key to lowering our fertility. At the heart of the problem is how to help the poor and less educated of all races lower their fertility rate to the level that now prevails among the educated and more prosperous sectors of all races.

Eliminate the present Federal income tax exemption for dependent children born after a specified date.

Give a Federal income tax credit only to those parents who have no more than two children. Those with three or more would lose the credit entirely.

Give an annual cash grant to low income parents who pay little or no income tax, and who have no more than two children. Those with three or more would lose the cash grant entirely. … NPG calls for the U.S. total fertility rate to be reduced to 1.5 and maintained at that level for fifty years, before rising gradually to the long term replacement rate of 2.1. Together with zero net migration, this reduction in fertility would result in a slow and gradual decrease in our numbers over a period of about 100 to 125 years, at which time we would reach a stationary population size of 140 million, with a stable age structure.” 

While Mann provides a plan to incentivize parents not to have lots of children, he does so in a way to get people to think that he is not promoting a system of coercion. And while he does not here explicitly call for policies of force, one can easily see how his ideology could become a system of compulsion and violence for the cause of Malthus. It is not shocking to see his organization, Negative Population Growth, praising China for its malthusian policy of abortion and sterilization. Negative Population Growth published a 1989 article, entitled THE SECOND GREAT WALL OF CHINA: EVOLUTION OF A SUCCESSFUL POLICY OF POPULATION CONTROL. The article was authored J. Mayone Stycos, who was Director of the Cornell University Population and Development Program and an advocate for Malthusian population control. In this article, Stycos admires China’s use of abortion, sterilization, and the confiscation of funds from paychecks for years if parents have an unplanned second child, to make sure that parents do not get passed two children:

“After marriage first births are generally uncontrolled, but a number of attractive incentives are put into effect if the couple signs a one-child contract. In any event the woman is expected to have an IUD inserted following the first birth. Second births are permitted only under specified conditions, which vary with geographic area and individual circumstances. The fine for an unplanned second birth is 10 percent of family income charged for a period of seven years. An unplanned third birth can increase the fine to 20 percent. Abortion is available and encouraged as a remedy for unplanned pregnancies, as is sterilization after two births.”

Stycos then asks for Western nations to be more tolerant towards this policy:

“What the developed nations might learn would be more tolerance toward systems unlike their own, especially systems that work. There are thin lines between information, education, persuasion, arm twisting, and coercion; and the placement of the lines varies from culture to culture. The Reagan administration’s decision to stop all contributions to the UNFPA because of Chinese “coercive abortion” punishes all developing countries because of China’s alleged sin. The price for such lofty ethics is high. The economic and environmental interdependence of the peoples of the world has never been so critical. We are all in the same fragile boat, and one out of every five passengers is Chinese. The other passengers should be grateful to their traveling companions for their unusual and successful efforts to curb population growth. China should be rewarded, not punished.”

If China, with its forced abortions and imposed fines for the cause of population control is to be praised, then the praisers — who stress that they are only for voluntary eugenics — would not hesitate to imposed enforced eugenics if it were ever acceptable. Another thing to keep in mind, is the fact that no act of infanticide involves a purely voluntary situation. Yes, the mother chooses to have an abortion, but the one who is aborted has no choice in the matter, and is not even allowed the right to be born. Those who show themselves as being for “voluntary abortion” are neither for liberty nor for ‘volunteering,’ but for the imposing of tyranny and control.

This insidious organization gives us an idea as to the evils that the Scaife financial powerhouse is funding. And yet, this same Sarah Scaife Foundation — with its financing of Darwinist groups — is backing the Acton Institute, a Catholic organization. Why would an entity that is bent on eugenics and population control be funding a Catholic organization? And what is a Catholic organization like the Acton Institute doing taking money from a major funder for population control? Perhaps they don’t know. But, it is quite interesting that Acton’s co-founder, Kris Alan Mauren, is in deep with the eugenist funding Protestant John Templeton Foundation. What is a Catholic organization doing something like this? The whole network, from Bannon’s and Harnwell’s Institute for Human Dignity, to the Acton Institute — with Scaife’s name being found in our inquiry — looks very questionable. 

Are the people of Acton just Catholics who are being duped to believe that the Malthusians at the Scaife Foundation are really donating their money because they believe in their Catholic cause? Why would the Scaife Foundation, which is ran by Malthusians bent on population control, back a Catholic organization?

The answer to this is simple: the one who gives the money, calls the shots. Its all about influence and control. 

Perhaps, they are playing both sides, gradually getting the Catholic organization to do something to the benefit of their Malthusian agenda. It is a fact that Richard Mellon Scaife, the financier behind many of the nationalist and Right-wing groups, wanted to get conservatives to accept abortion. The Acton Institute, indeed, backs Bannon, a nationalist conspirator who we have shown extensively works with major nationalist leaders and activists in Europe, such as the neo-Nazi Flemish secessionist, Filip DeWinter.

It is interesting, nonetheless, that Bannon and Harnwell are contriving a plan to recruit people for a “gladiator school for cultural warriors”. The word gladiator comes from the Latin word for sword, “gladio”, the very word that was used for Operation Gladio in which NATO backed Right-wing terrorists in Italy who committed acts of terrorism and murder

We shall wait and see as this movement metastasizes into something else, something perhaps much darker.

Click Here To Donate To Keep This Website Going

CLICK HERE TO FOLLOW OUR NEW SHOEBAT FACEBOOK PAGE

print

CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO KEEP THIS WEBSITE GOING