November 4, 2012
As actors and activists in the West speak out against China’s one-child policy, politicians move to introduce the same policies in the North.
On oktober 27 actor Christian Bale presented a human rights award to Chinese pro-life activist Chen Guangcheng for his decade-long fight against China’s one-child policy. Praising Chen as an example of courage for his fight against “a program of forced abortion and sterilization in Shandong”, Bale went on to decry the centralist Chinese government, naming some of the policies that flow from its one-child policy:
“A program of forced abortion means that women are being dragged from their homes against their will,” Bale said. “They are being forced to have abortions, sometimes late-term – imagine that – with some women reportedly dying in the process.”
In a report from MovieGuide Bale, who has portrayed Batman in the serie’s last three consecutive movies, also received praise from President of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers Reggie Littlejohn, who admired his courage because of his condemnation of forced abortions in China.
On November 2 Littlejohn told Lifesitenews that the “terror of forced abortion is the purpose of the policy.”
“I believe that (the Chinese Communist Party is) keeping the population down politically through terror, and that this is instrumental in keeping them in power.”
“I don’t think that they will be abandoning the one-child policy anytime soon.”, Littlejohn said. She also stated that Western governments have become “complicit with forced abortion in China” in their funding of the United Nations Family Planning Fund and International Planned Parenthood. Littlejohn stressed that both organizations have been “working hand-in-hand with the Chinese Communist Party for decades.”
Littlejohn’s comments fly in the face of recent reports that seem to indicate that the Chinese government is planning to reverse course on the decade-old policy. A Chinese think tank affiliated with the central government recently put out a report advocating a relaxation of China’s one-child policy. According to the report, the one-child policy sould be replaced by a two-child system to be be adopted throughout the nation.
Not only is such a two child system being proposed for China, politicians now envision such as two child policy for the West. Secretary of state for work and pensions in the UK, Iain Duncan Smith recently proposed setting limits to the amount of children low-income families are allowed to produce.
“You have to cut your cloth in accordance with what capabilities and finances you have.”, he told BBC Radio 4 some days ago.
“My view, if you did this, you would start it for people who begin to have more than, say, two children.”
Not only this UK secretary of state proposes limits on families exceeding their allowance of children, the EU envisions just such measures for the Eurozone. A 2011 report, funded by the European Commission and World Wildlife Fund, models draconian population control measures, personal carbon taxes, government-controlled media, and the legalization of voluntary and assisted suicide in all EU countries. One of their scenario’s states the following:
“Beginning in 2012, one of the measures taken to control population growth was to phase-out child benefits for multi-children families. By 2020, benefits were only provided for up to a maximum of 2 children.”
In 2010, Business Insider featured a post by geography professor Gary L. Peters under the header Population 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 little declaration of death.
“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.”
The professor may argue that the biggest problem is people, I would argue it’s people like Peters that are the problem, advocating for dehumanizing policies, global in scope, imposing restrictions upon people regarding how many children to put on the world. But it is not just the professor that advocates for a global one child policy.
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.”
Again: these are not genuine worries by genuine scientists. They are calculated statements by compromised charlatans.
As I reported on 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:
Not only have Western governments and the UN considered a one-child policy of their own, they have cradled the one implemented by the Chinese supreme leadership. According to anthropologist Susan Greenhalgh in her study Just One Child: Science and Policy in Deng’s China the inspiration for the tyrannical move by the Chinese Communist Party was inspired first and foremost by the Club of Rome and its UN affiliates in the early 1970s.
Greenhalgh points out that the infamous policy “had roots in missile scientists’ exposure to and import of Club of Rome population concepts through international conferences in the 1970s.”
In 1978, a group of Chinese scientists visited several scientific conferences in Europe, and readily picked up on the ideas distributed by the Club of Rome. At the head of this Chinese delegation was a man credited for introducing China’s notorious one-child policies, source of so much hardship suffered by the Chinese people in the last decades. Robert Zubrin, senior fellow with the center for security policy, published an op-ed in the Washington Times, reaffirming that Greenhalgh’s study is correct. Zubrin wrote:
“In June 1978, Song Jian, a top-level manager in charge of developing control systems for the Chinese guided-missile program, traveled to Helsinki for an international conference on control-system theory and design. While in Finland, he picked up copies of “The Limits to Growthand: Blueprint for Survival”- publications of the Club of Rome, a major source of Malthusian propaganda – and made the acquaintance of several Europeans who were promoting the report’s method of using computerized “systems analysis” to predict and design the human future.”
In fact, the “missile scientists” dr. Song Jian and company, visited several conferences in Europe in the 1970s designed to further the glory and prestige of the People’s Republic of China around the world. They picked up and further developed several methods to calculate population rates on blueprint models used by the Club of Rome to calculate their scams into creation.
The Club of Rome, a think-tank emerging in the late 1960s out of the back alleys of the post-WW2 eugenics movement, was meant from its very conception to be a beacon of light to which all environmentalist ships were supposed to navigate. Its creators knew that the green movement they had set out to create, was specifically designed to blame man for the supposed predicament the earth was in. As a consequence the number of people should be reduced lest the earth crumble under his crushing weight. The only thing to be done, the Club argued, was for a global body of power to enforce depopulation goals as decided upon by the global elite.
In 1972, the self described “group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity” published their (in)famous “The Limits to Growth”. In this document the authors point-blank argue for the population to shrink if mother earth is to survive much longer: “The overwhelming growth in world population”, claim the authors, “caused by the positive birth-rate loop is a recent phenomenon, a result of mankind’s very successful reduction of worldwide mortality.”
This development is highly worrisome, says the Club of Rome. As possible solutions for this “problem” it proposes either the birthrate to be brought down “to equal the new, lower death rate”, or “the death rate must rise again.”
The fact that the Club of Rome and other UN entities stand at the cradle of one-child policies may not come as a complete surprise to those who have read all the policy-papers issued from the seventies onward. The same Malthusian idea that triggered our current green movement and its obsession with man-made global warming, once inspired hardcore involuntary sterilization policies in the decades preceding World War II.
In the 1991 publication The First Global Revolution: A Report to the Club of Rome by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, the common denominator that the world would need to rally around was identified in all clarity:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution,the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”