It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Furious Reaction to Sick Editorial Calling for Global One Child Dictatorship

page: 1
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Furious Reaction to Sick Editorial Calling for Global One Child Dictatorship


www.prisonplanet.com

An article featured in Canada’s Financial Post... calling for China’s draconian one child policy, where woman are kidnapped off the streets, drugged, and forced to undergo compulsory abortions, to be imposed worldwide has been met with widespread hostile reaction, yet such measures are being debated at the United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen.

...Diane Francis wrote that, “A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate".
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Obama's Science Czar John Holdren (and Ecoscience)
John Holdren, Obama's Sci Czar: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet




posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Problem, Reaction, Solution

Create fear of disastrous overpopulation and wait for the masses to beg for a radical solution. "Well, after the WHO's successful experiment in China we are in a position to offer a proven, effective policy..."

We may not quite be there yet, but you can well see where this could lead, what with a top advisor in the US government being a known advocate of eugenics:

Evidence pertaining to John Holdren

Could such tyranny be a real prospect? Read the source article and the linked threads and it will leave you wondering.


www.prisonplanet.com
(visit the link for the full news article)




[edit on 12/12/09 by pause4thought]



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
I swear on the soil beneath my feet, that I will never allow this to come to pass while I am there to stop it. I swear by the blood in my veins, that all who would facilitate this policy will encounter fatal resistance when and wherever I see this in action. I swear by my ancestors, and by my celtic tribal history, that there will be no mercy, and no remorse for those who invite my ire in this way,only blood fire and death await the tools of the powers that be. May god have mercy on them, for I will not.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


Its easy to say, but i do not think americans will really do anything.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Overpopulation is a local problem, not a global problem!

I have always been a big fan of birth control and I think it is a necessary evil if we are to prevent problems from escalating into the uncontrollable domain.

Leaders of poor countries, with the exception of china, have not adequately addressed the issue and I would hate to have the UN force them to take action. I don't trust the UN for anything so best to not give them any excuses in the first place.

As for the developed world its not much of an issue yet but that doesn't mean action isn't necessary. Sooner or later it might become a problem so best to take preventive measures now. Perhaps a 2-3 child max is a good idea and if people want more, burden them with extra taxes or jail time.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Does anyone here know that the US has pretty much leveled off its birthrate since appx 1985. With legal and illegal immigration at about 3 million per year, the US has gained through immigration approximately 90 million immigrants over the last 30 years.

Think about that when you dismiss the problems of immigration.

The government always underestimates the numbers of immigrants to the US, be they legal or illegal.

If overpopulation is so damn bad, why has our government been encouraging this practice?

Can it be they want to cause chaos? Can it be they want social disorder?

Another thing to think about while we are on the subject of overpopulation. What is their end game? Has it always been the destruction of the US? Because you cannot have a world superpower if you want to institute a One World Government.

Control through chaos. Control through fear. Control through manipulation. Control through taxation and debt.

A 40 year plan and we are right where they want us, divided and fearful. When was the last time pay went up for anyone, in real dollars, not inflation dollars?


CONTROL



And I am with Trubrit. To hell with our elite overlords. It may well be past time. Search through NIC government papers people, you will see their end game. It is obvious.

Here are two to start with.

Google them-
2025_Global_Trends_Final_Report.pdf and strat_trends_23jan07.pdf



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


End game indeed! This nightmare is even being seriously touted as a response to global warming! -


A senior official of the Chinese ministry responsible for the country’s coercive population-control program is citing the controversial “one-child” policy as a successful way to reduce emissions of the gases blamed for global warming.

As developing countries seek to develop in a sustainable way, they should consider China’s experience, said Zhao Baige, vice minister of China’s National Population and Family Planning Commission.

“The [Chinese] policy on family planning proves to be a great success,” Zhao was quoted by the official Xinhua news agency as saying in Copenhagen, where she is one of Beijing’s delegates at the U.N. climate conference.

“It not only contributes to reduction of global emission, but also provides experiences for other countries – developing countries in particular – in their pursuit for a coordinated and sustainable development.”


cnsnews.com...

If anyone has the stomach for it, here is yet another article singing the praises of this magnificent, bright future for the globe:

www.financialpost.com...

This is no joke - worldwide population control à la Beijing is being advocated in no uncertain terms. This needs to go viral.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I saw a documentary last year on hbo, i think it was a roger moore film, not sure, but it was about the earth's human population. 6 billion people on this planet, is not as bad as it sounds. IN fact, if you took every person on this planet and mvoed themt o australia alone, wede all have half an acre of land and a house! the rest of the world, would be all land...i dont know how true that is, jsut what was mentioned.
The problem is, government in perticular, business and big buisness buy up land and property. lots fo corporae places have so much land they dont need, its all scenery as future lays off go into work. An old george carlin saying..golf courses!!! its a racist, elitist sport where the politicians get together to play to carve this country up amongst themselves....arrogent. it is time, to reclaim the golf courses and turn them over to the homeless* tht was from a 1990 peformance i have remembered

IF yuo took every golf course in america, it would be the size of 2 marylands and a delware, i belive he mentioned...thats just on a racist and arrogent sport!!!



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ziggy1706
 


You can fit the entire worlds population in 580 square miles, all 6.7 billion of them. Granted that is standing room only but you get the point. Overpopulation is a myth, and a poor one at that.

Edit: Oh and iirc the total land area on earth is about 60 million square miles of which roughly half is habitable.




[edit on 12-12-2009 by fumanchu]



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
1 child per family is not reversing "disastrous global birthrate" - whatever it means. 1 child per family is actually reducing population, and drastically. In few generations. I do not like when real meaning is hidden behind some obscure slogan.
I feel that there is a real issue with growing population considering medical technologies that soon will allow much longer life expectancies. Even if one succeeds to put all those people in 600 square miles standing they will still need to eat/drink/breath and would like to consume goods/luxuries/resources. Planet capabilities are limited however and we are very close to the limit Earth can give us with our current life styles, unless there really is a free energy and i would be glad if those who know it exists would prove it to me.
So lets talk about it in the open. People who will truly understand that we will might turn Earth into Mars if current trends continue will make needed adjustments by them self. But no, it is much better to twist words, work behind the back of the general population via all kinds of schemes. Because otherwise first step would be to stop consume needless crap and not start licensing kids. But it will hurt the pocket of those who run the show... Tsk tsk tsk. So cut on kids. Keep on spending money on crap.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


Its easy to say, but i do not think americans will really do anything.



Those words are easy to say, because we are kept very comfortable in order to get us to put up with allot of nonsense...

This however would override comfort.

One Child policy in USA = Civil War

Don't doubt it for a second



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
It gets worse:


Holdren follows mentor's lead

Holdren's call for a planetary regime dates to the 1970s college textbook "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment" that he co-authored with Malthusian population alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich and Ehrlich's wife, Anne. The authors argued involuntary birth-control measures, including forced sterilization, may be necessary and morally acceptable under extreme conditions, such as widespread famine brought about by "climate change."

Just as Brown had called for world government to control overpopulation to prevent eco-disasters, Holdren's call for a planetary regime was similarly motivated by ecological concerns.

On page 943, the authors recommended the creation of a "Planetary Regime" created to act as an "international superagency for population, resources, and environment."

Holdren clearly specified the Planetary Regime would be charged with global population control.

On page 943, Holdren continued: "The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime should have some power to enforce the agreed limits."

Holdren credits Brown with inspiring him in high school

Holdren openly acknowledges his intellectual debt to Brown's 1954 book "The Challenge of Man's Future."

In 1986, Holdren co-edited a scientific reader, "Earth and the Human Future: Essays in Honor of Harrison Brown."

In one of his introductory essays in the book, Holdren acknowledged he read Brown's "The Challenge of Man's Future" when he was in high school and that the book had a profound effect on his intellectual development.

Holdren acknowledged Brown's book transformed his thinking about the world and "about the sort of career I wanted to pursue."

As recently as 2007, Holdren gave a speech to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in which his last footnote included Brown as one of the "several late mentors" to whom Holdren was thankful for "insight and inspiration."


Source article

So where exactly are we going with this?-


Holdren has echoed Brown's call for global government by advocating the United States should surrender sovereignty to a "Planetary Regime" armed with sufficient military power to enforce population limits on nations as a means of preventing a wide range of perceived dangers from global eco-disasters involving Earth's natural resources, climate, atmosphere and oceans.

On page 260 of his 1954 book "The Challenge of Man's Future," Brown concluded "population stabilization and a world composed of completely independent sovereign states are incompatible."


(source as above)

And here's the crunch:


Brown even contemplates

infanticide

as a permissible solution to overpopulation in extreme situations, writing that "if we cared little for human emotions and were willing to introduce a procedure which most of us would consider to be reprehensible in the extreme, all excess children could be disposed of much as excess puppies and kittens are disposed of at the present time."


(same article)



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
A couple snippets of info from the-Global Trends 2025:A Transformed World

Created by the National Intelligence Council from the Office of the Director of Intelligence of the US of A




“…we do not believe that we are headed toward a complete breakdown [of the international system]…However, the next 20 years of transition toward a new international system are fraught with risks…”





However, there is a dark side to the global middle class coin: continued divergence at the extremes. Many countries— especially the landlocked and resourcepoor ones in Sub Saharan Africa—lack the fundamentals for entering the globalization game. By 2025-2030, the portion of the world considered poor will shrink by about 23 percent, but the world’s poor—still 63 percent of the globe’s population—stand to become relatively poorer, according to the World Bank.





Slowing Democratization. China, particularly, offers an alternative model for political development in addition to demonstrating a different economic pathway. This model may prove attractive to under-performing authoritarian regimes, in addition to weak democracies frustrated by years of economic underperformance.


Anyway, many of these docs are available all over the web.

If people still think that TPTB do not exist or do not want a One World Government, just tell them to google these docs.

The ENDISNIGHE



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   


Slowing Democratization. China, particularly, offers an alternative model for political development in addition to demonstrating a different economic pathway. This model may prove attractive to under-performing authoritarian regimes, in addition to weak democracies frustrated by years of economic underperformance.


Why does that paragraph really sit wrong with, me. Its like their saying hey, democracy aint quite working so lets sell them 'Tyranny light' as an option, sure there is no real democracy in this world... but i guess knowing that just makes that statement even worse.

As to the overpopulation problem, ive said it before... its nothing, the real problem is huge economical inequalities across countries and incredible inefficient land usage, to produce products like meat and bio fuel. When youve got most of the resources being used by a very small percentage of the planet and those resources are being created through means that lock up land and create wealth for only a few then sure you gonna get the illusion of overpopulation. But hey given that such opposites of those ideals have been deemed 'communist' or 'socialist' you'll never get a ground swell in opinion where it matters to make any real change.

The overpopulation card is used simply to distract most people from that simple fact... to few have just way way to much, and they really want to keep it that way. But lets blame it on Poor nations... which oddly enough tend to have high infant mortality rates... over population my ass.

But hey the one child law has helped China in one way... given its sickening male to female ratio caused by the want for male children as that 'one' child they are allowed, they have an ample supply of more than willing male soldiers who have little or no life prospect apart from work, at their future disposal.

There definitely pushing this alot more as of late...



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
I know this will generate much hate, though little intelligence....

There are countries in the world that would greatly benefit from limited number of children.

Think of many African countries where they breed like flies...

Then they all die likes flies from disease, malnutrition...

Perhaps if they had two children, not a dozen, they might do better.

I have a very simple, logical method to prevent this kind of problems....

People are only allowed to have as many children as they personally can afford to feed, clothe and house.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mrmonsoon
 


Quite apart from anything else - it's a global policy that's being touted. We are talking about a Big-Brother-type total removal of the personal right to privacy and self-determination - and the power to end the life of your children.

This is no run-of-the mill Malthusian debate.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


I understand that.

The problem is we have between 6 and 7 billon people on the planet.

We are running out of resources, farmland and such.

Like I said before, people should not be allowed to g=have more kids than they can feed/house/cloth on their own.

I am sick of paying taxes for people who breed with no thought of how to care for them.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mrmonsoon
 



The problem is we have between 6 and 7 billon people on the planet.

Who says it's a problem? Homicidal eugenists, that's who. These people are evil - period.


We are running out of resources, farmland and such.

Why, was the mid-West just wiped off the face of the earth?

Are you aware that (over the last 20 years) in Europe farmers have been paid vast sums to set aside their land so as to plant trees - because they otherwise produce vast food surpluses?

Even in Africa it is often war and/or maladministration (e.g. in Zimbabwe) that leads to food shortages, not drought.


Like I said before, people should not be allowed to g=have more kids than they can feed/house/cloth on their own.

Even if "not allowed" = forced abortions & perhaps infanticide (which is the current context)?


I am sick of paying taxes for people who breed with no thought of how to care for them.

That's a reasonable position. But there are far less draconian solutions, such as campaigning to reduce the subsidies that may be encouraging such behaviour, are there not?



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


No matter what method is chosen, some people will not be happy.

Some people-Catholics and such, don't believe in birth control-so they will complain about that.

I stand by my saying:
People should be allowed to only have as many children as they personally can afford to feed/house/cloth.

Yes, I mean if you can not afford to feed/cloth/house any children, you should not have any.

It "IS NOT" my responsibility to pay for other peoples children's needs.

Edited to Add:

Mind you, they need not have the most expensive clothes/food/house/toys, just enougt to be healthy and safe.

[edit on 12/12/2009 by mrmonsoon]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 

It's always a good idea to give the original source of an article where possible, rather than a site quoting it. That way the reader can make their own decision on the integrity/importance of the source publication.

The OP's article: The Real Inconvenient Truth

You are right that TPTB are edging their way toward a planetary government.
Have you read up about the NSSM 200? Population control has been going on for a long time, but the motive was never concern about Earth's ability to sustain increased numbers. Many countries have been attacked with policies designed to keep them subservient to the great America. Illness has been spread, sterilizing vaccines surreptitiously given, countries forced to keep their populations mostly ignorant so America could steal resources unchallenged.

This isn't a "hate America" thing. My own country, Australia, worked until quite recently at eliminating Aborigines, and worked on ways to reduce populations in neighbouring Asian countries through diseases affecting both the people and their food sources. SARS may have been a test of a targeted disease. England, of course, was no better, working in the past at keeping a great empire by ruining the economies of target countries.

It's quite likely swine flu and vaccinations are tied into this, though not in straightforward ways such as trying to kill everyone.

As sterilizing vaccines have been disguised as tetanus and diphtheria in the past, it's likely this could be done again, with swine flu vaccines made specially for each area, to cause a predetermined percentage of recipients to become infertile.

The biggest warning sign to look for here is when females in the 10 - 30 age-group are targeted with repeated vaccinations.


I postulate that the more people an authority controls, the more evil it becomes. The larger the area governed, the less influence any citizen will have on government, and the less ability the government will have to care for the needs of minority groups.

There are many in ATS who have no concern for minority groups, and would be quite happy with this.
- Until they realise they are now a minority group and it is their children being left uneducated and starving.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join