Alex welcomes an internationally recognized authority on China and population issues, as well as
an acclaimed author and speaker, Steven W. Mosher. Mosher is the president of the Population Research Institute and
the author of the best-selling A Mother’s Ordeal: One Woman’s Fight Against China’s One-Child Policy.
(If you are not convinced, look at who he's appointed as his Science Czar: John
Holdren, Author of the insidious population control book: Ecoscience, which covers this very
thing!)
You can find out more about Obama's Science Czar in this video
In this interview, Dr. Tarpley reviews the writings of John P.
Holdren, the current White House science advisor. This interview conclusively exposes scientific elite's true
agenda, world-wide genocide and the formation of a global government to rule.
A Chinese official from Wenzhou, China, crushed a 13-month old baby-boy to death by driving over him after the
parents refused to pay a fine for violating China’s one-child policy.
According to AFP, a state official working to enforce China’s one-child policy drove over a 13-month old
baby-boy, resulting in the infant’s death.
A news item issued by PhuketNews relates
that the official had an argument with the parents as, presumably, they “violated” the one-child policy by refusing
to pay a fine. The reports goes on to say that the parents acted “agitated” in response to the official’s
request.
The spokesman stated that the parents of the murdered baby were “agitated” as a result of the disagreement with
the one-child policy enforcer, after which the official in question drove his car over the baby. PhuketNews however
reports that Wenzhou authorities were quick to label the murder as an unfortunate accident:
“After starting the car to bring the family to the office to discuss the matter, the official discovered the
child had been crushed underneath the car.”
Tragically the baby died soon as a result of his wounds shortly after he was rushed to the hospital: yet another
victim of China’s draconian one-child policy. The Global Post goes into more
detail in regards to the fine mentioned in the AFP report:
“Under China’s population controls, instituted more than 30 years ago, couples who have more than one child must
pay a “social upbringing” fine, while in some cases mothers have been forced to undergo abortions.”
The Global Post article also brings into memory that China’s population control policies have been increasingly
subject to criticism, both from outside China and within.
“There was widespread outrage last year after a woman who had been forced to abort seven months into her
pregnancy was pictured with the bloody foetus.”
On March 29, 2012, Paul Joseph Watson brought attention to the
brutal face of China’s one-child policy, describing how a 9-month old baby was forcibly aborted, after which it was
thrown in a bucket. Watson writes:
“Because the parents of the baby already had a child, they were hunted down and forced to comply with China’s
draconian one child policy.
The mother was injected with a poison that induced an abortion, but after the baby was “pulled out inhumanly
like a piece of meat,” it was still alive and began to cry before doctors slung the defenseless child into a bucket
and left it to die.”
Although some may try to comfort themselves by imagining these one-child ideas are limited to China, the fact is
these ideas and policies are widely held and promulgated by politicians and scientists all over the world. In 2010,
Business Insider featured a post by geography professor Gary L. Peters under the headerPopulation Growth Is Still The Biggest Problem
Facing Humanity.
After channeling armchair-eugenicist Alan Weisman, who stated: “The intelligent solution (to the problem of
population growth) would require the courage and the wisdom to put our knowledge to the test. It would henceforth
limit every human female on Earth capable of bearing children to one”, the professor added:
“Started now, such a policy would reduce Earth’s population down to around 1.6 billion by 2100, about the same
as the world population in 1900. Had we kept Earth’s population at that level we would not be having this
conversation.”
Who is the “we” Peters mentions that would be assigned to keep the earth’s population at any level? As John P.
Holdren, Obama’s science czar, wrote in his monstrosity
Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment:
“(…) a Planetary Regime- sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. (…).
The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for
each region for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size
might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed
limits.”
Such an agency exists. It is called the United Nations. After all, only a global government with a system-wide,
coordinated eugenics-agenda would have the power necessary to impose such laws upon all the peoples of the world.
There’s no other way to make it so.
“We can no longer wait for increasing wealth to bring down fertility in remaining high fertility nations; we
need policies and incentives to stop growth now”, Peters stated in his article.
“Population growth on earth must cease”, Peters argues again. Citing eugenics-front-man Paul Ehrlich and his
equation of death (I = PAT), he attempts to disarm critics of the overpopulation mantra with this spell:
“(…) I represents our impact on the Earth, P equals population,
A equals affluence (hence consumption), and T stands for
technology.”
Let’s not forget it’s not just professors that advocate global one child policies. CNN founder Ted Turner, who
has openly stated the earth would be better off when 95% of the human population would vanish, has also professed
his admiration for the Chinese (read: UN) policies. In 2010
the Globe and Mail quoted Turner as saying:
“the environmental stress on the Earth requires radical solutions, suggesting countries should follow China’s
lead in instituting a one-child policy to reduce global population over time. He added that fertility rights could
be sold so that poor people could profit from their decision not to reproduce.”
This echoes the views of Jeffrey Sachs, Ban Ki-moon’s “sustainability” advisor. In June of 2011, US congressman
Chris Smith rightly
announced that the UN and China are working hand-in-hand to export China’s one-child policy to Africa.
Sachs
told AFP newswire in May of that year he “worries” about Africa’s “ballooning population”. Sachs:
“I am really scared about population explosion in Nigeria. It is not healthy. Nigeria should work towards
attaining a maximum of three children per family.”
As I
reported some time ago, UN strongman Maurice Strong told an audience of environmentalists at a side-event to
the 2012 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro that China is the model-state for the rest of the world to emulate in
regards to environmental matters.
“What China does matters to the world”, Strong said, “and what China is doing is actually a tremendous source of
encouragement.”
Strong went on to say that “sustainable development” has become a “people’s movement guided by the people’s
government.”
Strong is a long-time advocate of the sort of draconian population policis that China has forced upon its
people. As far back as the early 1970s, Strong hesitatingly admitted to the BBC that such a thing as a license to
have a child is the kind of system he would see implemented globally:
Besides these UN hotshots calling for a global one-child policy, low-grade actors from Holluywood have joined
the dehumanizing choir. For example, Baywatch “star” Alexandra Paul recently spoke at a TEDX conference, calling not only for a total
rewiring of human biology “to recognize the benefits of a one-child family”, but also for the global human
population to be brought down to two billion- a 75% reduction compared to current levels.
Paul, who starred in over 70 films and television shows, explicitely states that the entire modern-day culture
should serve to convince people to “rewire biology” so that the natural urge to procreate will be changed into a
rational, “eco-friendly” one, aspiring to just one child per family.
“Will it (world population) stop growing because of famine, disease, or war over resources- or will it stop
growing because people choose to have smaller families- and by smaller families I mean one-child families.”
Although Paul stresses that “forcing people to have fewer children does not work”, she does emphasize that
modern culture should be moulded in such a way as to convince people that we have to “change and rewire our biology
and our culture to recognize the benefits of a one-child family.”
“As a culture we need to emphasize the benefits of having a one-child family so people will choose to have fewer
kids.”, she stated.
The Baywatch-”star” explains why she has chosen to not have kids:
“(kids) might be wonderful, but they’re also wasteful.”
Quoting UN population projections, she advocates a fairly massive reduction in human numbers compared to current
levels:
“The number of humans on earth needs to go down. And I believe it needs to go down to two billion.”, she
said.
She closed her anti-human speech by calling on her listening audience to take her words to heart and quit
reproducing after the first child:
“Let’s be part of the solution, and choose from now on to bring forth no more than one child ourselves.”
It’s this kind of dangerous thinking that ultimately leads to brutal policies that are designed to target the
most vulnerable.
Chinese doctors have performed more than 330m abortions since the government implemented a controversial
family planning policy 40 years ago, according to official data from the health ministry.
China’s one-child policy has been the subject of a heated debate about its economic consequences
as the population ages. Forced abortions and sterilisations have also been criticised by human rights
campaigners such as Chen Guangcheng, the blind
legal activist who sought refuge at the US embassy in Beijing last year.
China first introduced measures to limit the size
of the population in 1971, encouraging couples to have fewer children. The one-child rule, with
exceptions for ethnic minorities and some rural families, was implemented at the end of the decade.
Since 1971, doctors have performed 336m abortions and 196m sterilisations, the data reveal. They have
also inserted 403m intrauterine devices, a normal birth control procedure in the west but one that local
officials often force on women in China.
The numbers do not directly equate to “missing” births because some couples who violate the one-child
rule have also had abortions or been sterilised, while intrauterine devices can be removed.
The Chinese government has previously estimated that without restrictions, the country’s 1.3bn
population would be 30 per cent larger.
In the US, where the population is 315m or about one-quarter the size of China’s, an estimated 50m
abortions have been performed since the landmark Roe vs Wade Supreme Court decision legalised abortion in
1973.
The Chinese data also show that the number of medical procedures to prevent births has been steady since
the late 1990s, despite repeated calls for a softening of the one-child rule. Every year Chinese doctors
abort roughly 7m pregnancies, sterilise almost 2m men and women, and insert 7m intrauterine devices.
As China’s working-age population begins to decline, economists have warned that the family planning
rules will pose an increasing drag on economic growth. China’s dependency ratio – which compares the
potential workforce with
the number of children and retirees – rose last year for the first time in 40 years.
“This makes China’s population look
more like a developed country than a developing one, which is a key disadvantage in labour-intensive
industries,” said Ken Peng, an economist with BNP Paribas who analysed the health ministry data.
The birth restrictions have also led to a severe gender imbalance because of a traditional preference
for male children and the selective abortion of female foetuses. There are now 34m more men than women in
China.
During the annual session of the Chinese parliament, which concludes on Sunday, the government merged
the commission that enforces the one-child policy with the health ministry. Some analysts believe the move
could presage a more rapid shift away from strictly enforced birth controls.
“After the ministerial restructuring, the power of the family planning unit will be reduced,” said He
Yafu, a Chinese demographer. “It won’t have the ability to design policies and it will have less say in the
country’s population strategy.”
According to Mr He, one likely change to family planning rules would be to permit two children for
parents who were both single children themselves. The policy, in place on a trial basis in some cities,
could be implemented nationwide, he added.
Mr Peng, however, said that even a total abolition of the family planning rules at this point would not
be enough to alter China’s demographic structure, and would simply delay the country’s ageing process by a
few years.
The calls for relaxation are also meeting resistance.
After supervision of the one-child policy was given to the health ministry, the deputy head of the
family planning unit rounded on critics of his department’s work. “The idea of easing the ageing problem by
increasing the fertility rate is like drinking poison to quench thirst,” Yang Yuxue said.
Shocking reminder that eugenicist beliefs underpin medical
establishment
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
A paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics argues that
abortion should be extended to make the killing of newborn babies permissible, even if the baby is perfectly
healthy, in a shocking example of how the medical establishment is still dominated by a eugenicist
mindset.
The paperis authored by Alberto Giubilini
of Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public
Ethics at the University of Melbourne.
The authors argue that “both fetuses and newborns do not have the same
moral status as actual persons,” and that because abortion is allowed even when there is no problem with the fetus’
health, “killing a newborn should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the
newborn is not disabled.”
“The fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant,” the
authors claim, arguing that adoption is not a reasonable counter-argument because the parents of the baby might be
economically or psychologically burdened the process and the mother may “suffer psychological distress”. How the
mother could not also “suffer psychological distress” by having her newborn baby killed is not
explained.
“Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a
right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on
embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal,”
the authors write.
The practice of infanticide has its origins in barbaric eras of ancient history,
but it is still common is many areas of the world today, including China where the one child policy allied with the
social pressure to have boys has resulted in a massive imbalance in the population. Studies have found that 40
million girls are ‘missing’ in China as a result of gender-selective abortion and infanticide. In India, there are
50 million less females for the same reasons.
In Pakistan, over 1000 babies a year are the victims of infanticide, which is
rarely punished.
Matthew
Archbold of the National Catholic Register explains how the
legalization of infanticide, killing newborn babies, is the logical conclusion of the starting point of the
argument, which is that the fetus is not human and has no right to live.
“The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human
and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is
just drawing random lines in the sand,” he writes.
Respected bioethicist Wesley J. Smith notes that the debate surrounding “the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious,”
which eventually led to events like the Terri Schiavo case, started with articles in bioethics and medical
journals.
“Or to put it another way, too often
bioethics,isn’t. On the
other hand, to be fair, the ancient Romans exposed inconvenient infants on hills. These authors may want to take us
back to those crass values, but I assume they would urge a quicker death,” he writes.
Gattaca becomes reality as scientists start to
screen, abort human babies based on 3,500 'genetic faults'
Monday, June 11, 2012 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
(NaturalNews) The popular 1997 science fiction
filmGattaca portrays a
futuristic world in which human beings genetically engineered (GE) with certain desirable and superior genetic
traits are given preference to natural-born human beings who are considered inferior. And in just 15 years since
the release of the film, this scenario has become a reality, as modern science has come up with a new way to test
unborn babies for roughly 3,500 so-called genetic "defects."
The U.K.'sTelegraph reports that a team of researchers
from theUniversity of Washington (UW) in Seattle has contrived a method of examining the genetic code of unborn babies
via blood samples taken from their mothers, and saliva samples taken from their fathers. The tiny amounts of
free-floating DNA present in both samples allow researchers to essentially map the entire genetic code of
unborn babies and determine which genetic traits they will have upon birth.
Some babies are born naturally with "de novo" mutations, which are said to be linked
to genetic defects such as Down syndrome and cystic fibrosis. These mutations are typically not passed down from
parents to their children, and are instead acquired in some other way, including potentially through vaccinations
and toxic environmental exposures.
In 39 out of 44 tested cases, the UW researchers were able to accurately pinpoint
prior to birth de novo mutations that would occur in babies after birth. And as the technology becomes widely
available to parents in the near future, the ghastly scenario depicted in the
movieGattaca will
evolve into an ever-present reality where the only unborn babies permitted to live and thrive will be those
with "superior" genetic makeups.
"This work opens up the possibility that we will be able to scan the whole genome of
the fetus for more than 3,000 single-gene disorders through a single, non-invasive test," said Dr. Jay Shendure,
lead scientist for the research published in the journal . His entire team, however, corporately added that
"incorporating this level of information into prenatal decision-making raises many ethical questions that must be
considered carefully within the scientific community and on a societal level."
Genetic screening will lead to more abortions, more eugenics, and a culture of
genetic class suppression
When science starts openly tampering with human life based on
subjective perceptions of which genetic traits are desirable and which are not desirable, there is no stopping the
pandora's box of population control techniques that will surely ensue. Parents seeking the "perfect" child, for
instance, will be more likely to simply abort a child with genetic "errors" and keep trying until they get the one
they want.
As government-run healthcare emerges into full reality, state-controlled doctors may
begin telling parents that they are notallowed to have an imperfect child because
treating that child's inevitable genetic conditions will cost the state too much money. Forced abortions, in
other words, could become the norm if genetic testing techniques like the ones developed at UW become
widespread.
And ultimately, the breeding of genetically "superior" children will more than likely
lead to a genetically superior class of humans that looks down on those with inferior genetic traits. This is
exactly what occurred in the movieGattaca, as "inferior" humans with natural imperfections were denied jobs and treated like second-class
citizens.
These human interventions have been shown to be directly responsible for causing
genetic defects in humans, and are just a few of the many causes of de novo mutations. If unborn babies were not
exposed to chemicals like bisphenol A, herbicides like glyphosate (Roundup), genetically-modified (GM) organisms,
and chemical vaccine adjuvants like Thimerosal (mercury) and aluminum, many of them would not even develop genetic
defects in the first place.
Recent research has proven that genetic damage caused by chemical exposure can pass
from generation to generation through a process known as epigenetics, even when subsequent generations are not
directly exposed to those chemicals (http://www.naturalnews.com). This means that man-made toxins such as those sprayed on conventional food crops, added to
processed foods, laced in the water supply, and applied to furniture and other consumer products are a blatant
scourge on the human genome.
But science would rather ignore the obvious, and instead design technologies that will
allow the system to filter out genetic "undesirables" after they have been conceived. What Hitler and other
deranged tyrants of the past tried to accomplish violently is now becoming possible genetically with "scientific
advancement" as its cover.
The paper is authored by Alberto Giubilini
of Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public
Ethics at the University of Melbourne.
Gattaca becomes reality as scientists start to
screen, abort human babies based on 3,500 'genetic faults'
