BY AARON AND MELISSA DYKES
In Carroll Quigley’s 1966 book “Tragedy & Hope,” he discusses bluntly how our freedom will continuously dwindle throughout the remainder of the 20th century and beyond under a type of neofeudalism imposed by the burgeoning scientific dictatorship:
“Hopefully, the elements of choice and freedom may survive for the ordinary individual in that he may be free to make a choice between two opposing political groups (even if these groups have little policy choice within the parameters of policy established by the experts) and he may have the choice to switch his economic support from one large unit to another. But, in general, his freedom and choice will be controlled within very narrow alternatives by the fact that he will be numbered from birth and followed, as a number, through his educational training, his required military or other public service, his tax contributions, his health and medical requirements, and his final retirement and death benefits.”
When we first read this statement, besides the oily revulsion we felt at how true his future predictions turned out to be, we couldn’t believe how accurate he was right down to our social security numbers.
But wait… was what Quigley meant by “numbered from birth” and followed “as a number” specifically referring to our SSN?
If you were not otherwise aware, there is another number assigned to each baby born in the U.S. under a separate program that came about sometime in 1948 (not too long after the National Security Act was passed). It was known at the time as the “Uniform Birth Numbering System”. It’s not a number you are openly informed about as a parent filling out a birth certificate for your baby, a certificate you are told is just “for the record”.
In fact, the most in-depth information we could find on the Uniform Birth Numbering System came from an interesting source… the March 1951 edition of Eugenical News (Vol. 36, No. 1), published by the American Eugenics Society.
Here’s the editor’s note:
“Some advocates of family eugenics who have had experience in tracing pedigrees of registered animals and also know the difficulties in trying to trace many relationships in human genealogy see in the uniform birth numbering system described below some ideas which may be interesting in the future to those who want to know more about their family lines… The suggestion of eugenic use of uniform birth registration is supplementary to the uses indicated in the third paragraph of the letter printed below.”
The third paragraph:
“The principal innovation introduced by the uniform numbering system is the fact that each certificate will have a unique number which cannot be duplicated until one hundred years have passed [note: the year 2051]. This makes the birth certificate number a potential identity number, a positive name, which may some day make it usable not only in birth record files but in all other file and record systems which keep track of persons, their rights or their documents.”
Note, the social security number had already been around at this point since 1936.
The article goes on to say, “the possibility of its use to simplify all sorts of identification problems is very interesting to all sorts of people…”
Very interesting, indeed.
The Uniform Birth Number is made up of 11 digits in three groups, a lot like the social security number: 000 – 00 – 000000. Each state has its own three digit “birth number area code” which comprises the first number; the middle section is the last two digits of the year the person is born; and the last portion is “a simple serial number” we all receive when our birth certificate is issued in relation to the year and place we are born.
The article discusses linking this number to our birth, death, marriage and/or divorce and for its invaluable use in the future in tabulating statistics for those in the fields of health, welfare, and population. The author, Herbert P. Dunning, writing from the National Office of Vital Statistics, Public Health Service, Federal Security Agency, laments that it will be awhile before the numbers will become really useful in these fields, since it will be awhile before a large enough portion of the population is assigned their birth number. He also notes, “It may be longer still before the individual citizen finds reason to inform himself of his birth number and use it in other records.”
Hm. Have you ever found a reason to inform yourself of your “birth number”?
We didn’t, until today.
Dunning ends the article by saying he hopes it answers the questions of the person with whom he corresponded at the American Eugenics Society, and he mentions that, “So few citizens have taken the trouble to inquire about the plan that we have not yet had reason to prepare any informational leaflets on the subject.”
How would anyone back in the late ’40s even have heard about “the plan” enough to inquire about it in the first place? It doesn’t seem like something the government was very forthcoming about. Turns out, they still aren’t.
That was 64 years ago and there still aren’t any informational leaflets on the subject that we can find. An Internet search for “Uniform Birth Numbering System” yields very little on the topic. A 1952 issue of “The Rotarian” mentions briefly that the whole system actually went into full swing January 1, 1949.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) has a page for its Program Operations Manual System (POMS) that includes the birth area codes chart and explains that state registrars use this number when issuing birth certificates. The birth number is double checked when issuing social security cards. The site doesn’t expand any further on other possible government uses for the birth number.
Again, according to the agency’s official webpage on the history of social security numbers, “The best we can say with certainty is that the first SSN was issued sometime in mid-November 1936.” (The best they can say with certainty? Sounds pretty sloppy…)
That means the Uniform Birth Numbering System, while obviously used in conjunction with SSNs later as an afterthought, was not required for someone to receive one because SSNs were around for well over a decade before the birth number ever existed.
So why exactly are we assigned two different identification numbers by the federal government?
Note that most hospitals these days absolutely will not allow new parents to leave the hospital with their babies without filling out a birth certificate form first.
SSNs, however, can be put off a bit until it’s required on one form or another sometime down the line.
It has been suggested this birth number is actually traded on the stock exchange…. that our birth certificates are a contract that creates a fictitious legal entity otherwise known as our strawmen (and women) for the government… that we really are slaves to the central bankers. (You can find out more about your strawman at the aptly named site yourstrawman.com.)
But others have reported that a federal DNA database is quietly being kept on all Americans born (and has been for decades now) without their express permission, a system we get added to when our blood is taken at birth during the “routine” newborn screening examination hospitals give all newborn babies.
During this exam, the baby’s heel is pricked and the blood droplets are placed on a special card that is sent to a state government lab for testing. Parents are told this is being done to detect rare, life-threatening genetic disorders (if they are even explicitly told it is being done at all). The government authorizes millions of dollars to states for these screening programs (current legislation has authorized $20 million through 2019).
This screening is mandatory in 48 states (meaning parental permission is not required). As U.S. News reported, “While some states allow parents to opt out of government storage and use, this is not parental consent. It’s dissent. It gives government first dibs to the baby’s DNA. Consent requires a form with a signature before the sample can be stored or used for research. Surrounded by the ‘fog’ of a birth, most parents won’t opt out because they don’t even know their child’s DNA has been stored.” [emphasis added]
As a parent, you aren’t asked for your consent before this sample is drawn. You can dissent, meaning after it is drawn you can opt out of the storage and use of your baby’s blood that has already been drawn by government mandate. You apparently aren’t allowed to opt out from the collecting and screening process itself.
One’s birth (serial) number would certainly help with identification for a DNA database system like that, now wouldn’t it?
(Cue that episode of The X-Files where Mulder and Scully come across a mine shaft lined with hundreds of filing cabinets filled with a secret file on every American which apparently started early in the Cold War and which held a DNA sample taken from everyone without their knowledge during routine vaccinations…)
So in case you weren’t sure, you absolutely are numbered directly from birth just as Quigley said we all are (and it isn’t just by your social security number).
We have been forced onto a collectivist system under the banner of a scientific dictatorship that numbers, tracks, and traces us from the moment we are born in what we are still somehow told (sold?) is the land of the “free”.
And quite clearly the eugenicists of the day were pretty darn excited about all of the “potentials” of the new Uniform Birth Numbering System.
By the way, did you know that when the Eugenics Record Office was officially shut down, it wasn’t entirely closed?
No, they just changed the name… to the Genetics Record Office.