Posts Tagged ‘Population Control’
[...] The Peak Oil debate boils down, essentially, to natural versus social limits, or naturally-determined versus socially-determined limits. A similar debate erupted more than 200 hundred years ago over the limits of population growth, on the one hand, and the growth of food supplies, on the other. The debate was prompted largely by a 1978 essay written by the British economist Thomas R. Malthus, titled “An Essay on the Principle of Population.”
Malthus projected an alarming specter of food shortages, hardship, and even starvation “because of faster population growth than food supply.” According to his theory, poverty and distress are unavoidable because, if unchecked, population increases at a geometrical rate (i.e. 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, etc.), whereas the means of subsistence grow at an arithmetical rate (i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.), thereby leading to inevitable shortages of foodstuff.
As Malthus thus blamed misery and poverty on the poor and the miserable (for giving birth to too many mouths to be fed), he also concluded (logically) that poverty alleviation depended on selective restriction of population growth, that is, curbing the number of the poor and working people.
As checks on population growth, Malthus accepted war, famine, and disease. He also recommended “moral restraint” (marrying late or not at all, coupled with sexual abstinence prior to, and outside of, marriage) as additional checks on the growth of population. His hostility toward the poor was expressed most vividly when he openly argued in favor of dismantling social safety net programs, called “poverty laws”: “We cannot, in the nature of things, assist the poor, in any way, without enabling them to rear up to manhood a greater number of their children.”
By blaming social ills and economic calamities on the poor and working people, Malthus’s views tended, willy-nilly, to exonerate the underlying socio-economic structure, and to prove the inevitability of privation and misery under any social system. [...]
New Orleans, Sep 30, 2008 (CNA)
Archbishop of New Orleans Alfred C. Hughes has criticized a Louisiana lawmaker’s proposal to pay poor women to sterilize themselves, calling it “seriously wrong,” “blatantly anti-life,” and a “form of eugenics.”
Louisiana’s Rep. John LaBruzzo, a Republican from Metairie, last week said he is studying a plan to pay poor women $1,000 to have their Fallopian tubes tied.
His proposal would also cover other forms of birth control, such as vasectomies for men, and could also encourage tax incentives for college-educated, higher-income people to have more children, the Times-Picayune reports.
Tying poor women’s tubes could help taxpayers, legislator says
Worried that welfare costs are rising as the number of taxpayers declines, state Rep. John LaBruzzo, R-Metairie, said Tuesday he is studying a plan to pay poor women $1,000 to have their Fallopian tubes tied.
“We’re on a train headed to the future and there’s a bridge out,” LaBruzzo said of what he suspects are dangerous demographic trends. “And nobody wants to talk about it.”
“We encourage free speech and defend everyone’s right to express unpopular points of view…” This statement can be found on YouTube’s Community Guidlines page, and in general this statement holds true. Take, for example: the animalistic view of women that rappers promote amongst the youth of this nation, or the violent street fighting clips that develop fanbases. These videos are popular because they raise some level of controversy, and aren’t considered “socially” acceptable in America.
There are no educational benefits to such crude videos, and they are in no way bettering American society. If anything, they are encouraging the corrupted to continue with their tactics. Only when major controversial institutions, themselves, are challenged does YouTube seem to have an allowance problem. The truth and prospect of justice seems a bit much for the YouTube kingdom to handle, and that is why YouTube is habitually banning videos posted by UCLA Law Student James O’Keefe.
A young lawyer in training, full of prospects and dreams, O’Keefe takes no prisoners and calls things as they are. Currently, he has his sights set on unveiling the deep-rooted prejudices of Planned Parenthood. O’Keefe, and other dedicated students, are tackling the American abortion industry, by revealing the basis of its existence. Although Planned Parenthood may advertise itself as a place to abort/destroy the lives of innocent babies, it happens to be far more than that. Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger was a massive advocate of negative-eugenics, and made the spread of “race-hygiene” a personal goal of hers. In her book, The Pivot of Civilization, she says that, “each feeble-minded person is a potential source of endless progeny of defect; we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, so that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.”
Paul Joseph Watson - September 23, 2008
A popular women’s magazine in the UK recently featured an article entitled, Young, Single and Sterilized, in which women in their 20’s discussed why they had undergone an operation to prevent them from ever having children. The article is little more than PR for a “women’s charity” called Marie Stopes International, an organization that carries out abortions and sterilizations and was founded by a Nazi eugenicist who advocated compulsory sterilization of non-whites and “those of bad character”.
The story appears in a weekly magazine called Love It (click for PDF enlargement). One of the women featured in the article, Chloe, explains why she decided to have herself sterilized at the age of just 20.
“By the time I was 18, I knew I was never going to change. I couldn’t imagine letting something take over my body and then my whole life.”
“I couldn’t even look at a baby without feeling uncomfortable.”
Following the sterilization procedure, Chloe celebrates the fact that “I’ve got a lifetime of going out ahead of me now,” presumably meaning going out, getting mindlessly drunk and having sex with random strangers, as is British culture, while not having to worry about the risk of pregnancy or the responsibility of looking after a child.
Eamon an Chnoic - September 20, 2008
Ever heard this mystery? Some random rich dude walks into a itty-bitty Georgia town, smacks down a ton of cash and hires a company to erect a big creepy, dictatorial Stonehenge-looking thing on some farmer’s land?
“In June 1979, an unknown group hired Elberton Granite Finishing Company to build the structure.”
The Georgia Guidestones are filled with all sorts of touchy-feely pseudo-libertarian and enlightenment phrases, which is almost (but not quite) enough to make you forget that it’s a list of dictates, and that the very first one presents a very interesting problem…
On September 16, the FDA did something completely expected: it declared the chemical Bisphenol-A (BPA) safe for human consumption. This announcement flies in the face of the overwhelming majority of the scientific literature on this chemical, including the recent and highly-publicized studies out of the National Institutes of Health and a report released this week from the American Medical Association linking BPA and heart disease.
Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D. - September 18, 2008
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) At United Nations headquarters last week, UN Population Fund (UNFPA) executive director Thoraya Obaid called for more funding for population programs, including reducing fertility, promoting “reproductive health services,” and “de-stigmatizing” sodomy.
Obaid began her remarks by commemorating the 40th anniversary of Paul Erlich’s book, The Population Bomb, which alarmed readers about the threat of “overpopulation” and justified the establishment of UNFPA. While she admitted the book’s prediction of “massive starvation on a large scale has not come to pass,” she nonetheless called for renewed commitment to boilerplate population control policies such as promoting smaller families, warning nations that world population had grown from 3.5 billion to 6.7 billion since 1968.
Planned Parenthood, an organization that claims to promote women’s health and well-being, has a deeply stained history of racism, hatred and lies.
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, summed up the purpose of her organization with this statement: “More children from the fit, less from the unfit.”
By Elena Conis
Special to The Times
THIRTEEN-MONTH-OLD Solange Dorsainvil plays with toys made from wood and cloth, drinks from a Swiss-made aluminum sippy cup and teethes on kale stems and celery.
Her life is as plastic-free as her mother, Celina Lyons, can make it.
Celina, a Berkeley-based acupuncturist, has become increasingly worried about the possible toxic effects of plastics. “I remember hearing — I don’t remember when — that my Nalgene [water] bottle was no longer safe,” Lyons said. Once pregnant, she stopped storing food in plastic and cut back on plastic wrap. She sought plastic baby bottles free of a chemical called bisphenol A and teething rings free of chemicals called phthalates. (She failed to find the latter.)
“It’s hard to just be a relaxed parent,” Celina says. “You want to do what you can to make things as safe as possible.”
More and more consumers — new mothers are leading the pack — are expressing concern about potentially toxic chemicals in plastic products. Baby blogs are abuzz with warnings about chemicals in baby bottles and toys. Retailers say that demand for glass baby bottles is higher than it’s been in decades and that shoppers are snatching up bottles and training cups made from plastics without bisphenol A. California lawmakers have taken notice: Last week, the state Legislature passed a bill to ban certain phthalates in plastic items meant for children younger than 3.
Recent widely publicized studies have shown that plastics are not only ubiquitous in the environment (marine researchers have shown that plastic debris outweighs zooplankton in remote parts of the Pacific), but are found in the bodies of nearly all Americans too. Scientists have hypothesized that chemicals in certain plastics may be linked to such conditions as asthma and even obesity. But most of the research, and the strongest evidence, points to effects that certain plastics chemicals appear to exert on the reproductive system. Findings are still considered preliminary (existing studies are small and few), but reports are enough to make consumers ask: Are plastics safe?
(NaturalNews) Codeath (sorry, I meant Codex) Alimentarius, latin for Food Code, is a very misunderstood organization that most people (including nearly all U.S. congressmen) have never heard of, never mind understand the true reality of this extremely powerful trade organization. From the official Codex website (www.codexalimentarius.net) the altruistic purpose of this commission is in “protecting health of the consumers and ensuring fair trade practices in the food trade, and promoting coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations”. Codex is a joint venture regulated by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO).
Brief History of Codex
The history of Codex began in 1893 when the Austria-Hungarian empire decided it needed a specific set of guidelines by which the courts could rule on cases dealing with food . This regulatory set of mandates became known as Codex Alimentarius and was effectively implemented until the fall of the empire in 1918. The United Nations (UN) met in 1962 and decided that Codex should be re-implemented worldwide in order to protect health of the consumers. Two-thirds of funding for Codex emanates from the FAO while the other third comes from the WHO.
In 2002, the FAO and WHO had serious concerns about the direction of Codex and hired an external consultant to determine its performance since 1962 and to designate which direction to take the trade organization . The consultant concluded that Codex should be immediately scrapped and eliminated. It was at this time that big industry realized the full monetary potential of this organization and exerted its powerful influence. The updated outcome was a toned down report asking Codex to address 20 various concerns within the organization.
Since 2002, the Codex Alimentarius Commission has covertly surrendered its role as an international public health and consumer protection organization. Under the helm of big industry, the sole surreptitious purpose of the new codex is to increase profits for the global corporate juggernauts while controlling the world through food. The implicit understanding of their philosophy is that if you control food, you control the world.