Fourth Child Furor

The news of David and Victoria Beckham's fourth child was met with anger from campaigners who felt that the Beckham's family size is now environmentally irresponsible.

 

At least that is what the Guardian recently reported in their article "Beckhams a 'bad example' for families." The article quotes the UK-based Optimum Population Trust, whose chief executive, Simon Ross, linked family size to carbon emissions:

"The Beckhams, and others like London mayor Boris Johnson, are very bad role models with their large families. There's no point in people trying to reduce their carbon emissions and then increasing them 100% by having another child."

Mr. Ross’s comments were echoed by Sir David Attenborough, who called for an end to the "absurd taboo" in discussing family size in the UK.

In reality, no such taboo exists. As I showed last year in my Salvo feature, "Baby Freeze: Is Population Control the New Solution to Global Warming?", environmentalists in both the UK and America have a long history of paranoia about population and have been using climate change as a reason to scare people into having less babies.

 

Also in "Baby Freeze" I drew attention to the fact that seventy-three members of the US House of Representatives sent a letter to the White House urging President Obama to add one billion dollars in funding for international family planning to his 2011 budget. While advocates of family planning are hardly a new phenomenon, what was significant about this letter is that it cited “climate change” as a reason to advocate lower birth rates. “Family planning,” the Representatives said, “should be part of larger strategies for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Slower population growth will make reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions easier to achieve.”

 

The ruthless utilitarian logic is actually very simple: less people = less polluters.

Keep reading...

Rage Against the Breeders

At Touchstone Magazine's Mere Comments, James M. Kushiner drew our attention to the fact that

Jonathan V. Last at The Weekly Standard has written an article about the rising tide of anti-childbearing sentiment, in which he writes:

It is a quirk of the movement that while the most committed childfree people tend to be women, being childfree is not primarily a feminist pose. In The Childless Revolution, Madelyn Cain describes three types of childfree women: “those who are positively childfree, those who are religiously childfree, and those who are environmentally childfree.” It is this last aspect that undergirds much of the movement, particularly at the policy level.

On the connection between being childfree and the environment, or more precisely, population control and "climate change," see also our new Salvo article, Baby Freeze.

Back to Jonathan Last:

Yet for all the Malthusian worry-warting, at the street-level, being childfree is mostly about disdain for conservative traditionalists. Thus, the childfree refer to parents as “breeders” and mothers who breastfeed as “moomies” (as in cow). Those are the nicer terms. (The site happilychildfree.com cheerfully catalogues childfree slang.)

Now if someone posted a list of offensive names for an ethnic group..

Sterilize the Unfit

Professor David Marsland (pictured right) made news last month when he suggested that the mentally and morally “unfit” should be sterilized. The sociologist and health expert made the remarks on the BBC radio program Iconoclasts and urged that “permanent sterilization" was the answer to many of society's problems.

 

Though Professor Marsland's remarks produced outrage, his basic ideas are nothing new. I have had occasion to mention before on this blog  that during the 1920’s and 30’s, permanent sterilization and social engineering were commonly accepted practices among the liberal intelligencia.

Climate Change Chicanery

The following is taken from Regis Nicoll's article 'Climate Change Chicanery'.

Take Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace. At a time when birth rates around the globe are falling below replacement levels, Mr. Watson writes that humans are “a virus . . . killing our host the planet Earth” which is in desperate need of an “invasive” cure. How invasive? “We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion.”

After doing the math, that means 5.5 billion folks gotta go, and fast. I dunno, but I’m willing to bet that Mr. Watson doesn’t have his loved ones (or himself) signing onto that plan.

Guilty for existing?

Do you feel guilty for existing? If you do, click HERE.

Spooky video on over population

The 1990’s Tetanus Scandal

It is the early 1990’s. The World Health Organization, working under the control of the UN, has just launched a campaign to vaccinate millions of people in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines against tetanus.
.
Tetanus is a potentially lethal infection caused by external wounds or cuts from things like rusty nails. There is nothing unusual in tetanus inoculations, which are routine in the Western World. But there is something that doesn’t quite add up about these particular vaccinations.

.
For one thing, the WHO is choosing to only vaccinate females. For another thing, the girls they are choosing to vaccinate are primarily those between the ages of 15 and 45 (in Nicaragua the age range was 12-49.)
.

It wasn’t just disease experts who noticed that something was a miss. After all, it doesn’t take a great deal of intelligence to know that men and boys are more prone to wounds from cuts and rusty nails than ladies. So why is the WHO only choosing to vaccinate girls of child-bearing age?
.

To make matters more suspicious, the vaccination protocols are calling for multiple injections -- three within three months and a total of five altogether. However, tetanus vaccinations provide protection for ten years or more, so why this call for multiple inoculations?

.

These were the questions that Comite Pro Vida de Mexico, a Roman Catholic lay organization, began asking and why they decided to have some vaccine samples tested.

.

The tests revealed that the tetanus vaccine contained human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG). hCG is a natural hormone that is secreted during the initial stages of pregnancy. When this hormone is combined with the tetanus toxoid carrier, it tricks the body into thinking that hCG is an invading enemy, with the result that a woman’s body begins producing anti-hCG antibodies, making it impossible for her to ever maintain a pregnancy.

.

After a number of labs exposed what the vaccine really was (a life-time birth control shot), WHO officials tried to keep things quiet and continue administering the anti-fertility injections. It was only after the courts intervened that the WHO was forced to stop administering the vaccine. Unfortunately, by then the damage had already been done and thousands of girls in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines had been rendered permanently infertile.

.

Was the 1990s tetanus scandal simply a medical blunder? Hardly. For 20 years prior to the incident, WHO researchers had been actively involved in creating anti-fertility vaccines utilizing hCG tied to tetanus toxoid as a carrier. This was publically documented in medical journals from the 70s through to the 90s.

.

What could possibly have motivated the World Health Organization to knowingly, but covertly, sterilize thousands of women in third world countries?

Further Reading

Baby Freeze  Is Population Control the New Solution to Global Warming?

Social Engineering and the Dark Side of American Liberalism

____________

Read my columns at the Charles Colson Center

Read my writings at Alfred the Great Society

To join my mailing list, send a blank email to robin (at sign) atgsociety.com with “Blog Me” in the subject heading.

Click Here to friend-request me on Facebook and get news feeds every time new articles are added to this blog.

From Rousseau to the swine flu vaccine

.
Click HERE to read my warnings about the swine flu vaccine. The article, titled 'From Rousseau to the swine flu vaccine', considers the danger that the vaccine poses and how it might actually lead to the sterilization of a large percentage of the next generation.
.
To join my mailing list, send a blank email to phillips7440 (at sign) roadrunner.com with “Blog Me” in the subject heading.