noworldsystem.com


World Told to Adopt China’s One Child Policy

World told to adopt China’s one child policy
Francis advocates brutal regime that kidnaps, drugs women, and carries out forced abortions in China

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
December 11, 2009

An article featured in Canada’s Financial Post newspaper 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.

An article featured in Canada’s Financial Post newspaper 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.

In her editorial published on Tuesday, columnist Diane Francis wrote that, “A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate.”

Just days later, the Chinese government delegation at the Copenhagen climate change conference argued that the Communist dictatorship’s one child policy should “serve as a model for integrating population programs into the framework of climate change adaptation.”

As we have exhaustively documented, the overpopulation myth is often cited by control freak phony environmentalists as a justification for the implementation of drastic policies, yet it has no basis in reality whatsoever.

Due to falling fertility rates globally, humans will soon stop replacing themselves and population numbers will naturally fall.

Populations in developed countries are declining, only in third world countries are they expanding dramatically. Industrialization itself levels out population trends and even despite this world population models routinely show that the earth’s population will level out at 9 billion in 2050 and slowly decline after that. “The population of the most developed countries will remain virtually unchanged at 1.2 billion until 2050,” states a United Nations report. The UN’s support for depopulation policies is in direct contradiction to their own findings.

Once a country industrializes, there is an average of a 1.6 child rate per household, so the western world population is actually in decline. That trend has also been witnessed in areas of Asia like Japan and South Korea. The UN has stated that global population will peak at 9 billion and then begin declining.

Since radical environmentalists are pushing to de-industrialize the world in the face of the so called CO2 threat, this will reverse the trend that naturally lowers the amount of children people have. If climate change fanatics are allowed to implement their policies, global population will continue to increase and overpopulation may become a real problem – another example of how the global warming hysterics are actually harming the long term environment of the earth by preventing overpopulated countries from developing and naturally lowering their birth levels.

As is the norm with these so-called “liberals” who espouse modern-day eugenics, what they are advocating are the most illiberal, inhumane and barbarous policies imaginable – a Hitlerian final solution in the name of saving Mother Earth.

We need to call out these people for what they are – would-be mass murderers who are advocating arcane and brutal programs of global eugenics that have no place in the 21st century.

Francis’ poorly written diatribe is not only absent of facts, it is shockingly devoid of any notion of compassion or humanity for what a global implementation of China’s one child policy will entail.

China’s one child policy is enforced by way of forced abortions, infanticide and compulsory sterilization.

Somewhere in the region of twenty-five million men in China are unable to find brides because so many girls are murdered shortly after birth. The explosion in the illegal sex trade in Asia is also a direct result of the shortage of women.

In many cases, women are literally kidnapped off the street by state goons from the “Birth Control Office,” driven to government hospitals, drugged, and their child is forcibly aborted.

In one case earlier this year, both a young woman and her baby were killed after such an abduction in Liaocheng City.

“According to a Doctor at the hospital where the two died, the young woman was kidnapped by the “Birth Control Office” and taken to the hospital where she was forced to undergo an abortion procedure,” reported the Epoch Times.

“The young woman fought with staff to protect her unborn child however a half a dozen men, pushed her down on a bed and injected her with a drug to induce labor. After the young woman had a still birth, she developed a massive hemorrhage and soon thereafter died.”

This is the kind of tyrannical regime Francis is calling to be introduced worldwide.

Policies introduced in the name of cutting CO2 emissions are already killing millions of people in the third world. The implementation of policies arising out of fraudulent fearmongering and biased studies on global warming is already devastating the third world, with a doubling in food prices as a result of the introduction of biofuels causing mass starvation and death.

If Diane Francis is so keen on getting rid of stupid people that breed too much, then maybe she should step forward as the first candidate. As with all these control freaks, people like Ted Turner who calls for a 95% population reduction yet has five children and is the largest land owner in North America with some 2 million acres, they are utter hypocrites – do as I say not as I do. Francis herself has two children, according to her Wikipedia biography – one more than what she says the rest of the world should be allowed to have by decree of the dictatorial system of government she is proposing.

On the positive side, the reaction to Francis’ editorial has been vehement, furious and hostile to the kind of authoritarian hell she is pushing. Comments in response to her article were almost universally in opposition, as were callers to radio shows that she subsequently appeared on.

A selection of responses to Francis’ disgusting diatribe are reprinted below.

    “Diane Francis was on a talk radio show the same morning this article was published. NOBODY agreed with her. I mean nobody at all. People can see through this Eugenics bullshit. The walls are closing in on the elite scum of the earth.”

    “You make me ashamed of living in Canada. If you’re a first-born, it’s too bad your mother had you and if you’re not, she should have started with you. You are a heartless, dirty woman and shame on you. Ask the Chinese people who fled their country and came to Canada and the U.S. exactly why they’re here. Hang your head in shame.”

    “That this Malthusian junk science is still proposed from time to time speaks of the fact that some in academia just refuse to learn from empirical evidence. And now it’s slipped into journalism. The management of the Financial Post should be quite embarrassed. I’ll just stick to the WSJ and not bother coming back here again. An editorial board that thinks that this is worthy of publication couldn’t possibly know how to edit a newspaper / website.”

    “I am currently reading “War and Genocide” by Bergen and it strikes me that these horrible Nazi ideas keep coming back.With Nazism it was a “scientific” eugenics that led to forced abortions, sterilizations, heavy fines, etc. for some who dared procreate. For Francis, it is a “scientific” environmentalism that will lead to the exact same evils for all (except, of course, herself).”

    “It’s hard to believe that this opinionated rant is called journalism. I saw no evidence of journalistic balance, fairness, and objectivity. She made NO mention of the grave problems caused by the One-Child Policy in China, including: forced sterilizations and abortions, heavy fines, disparate sex ratio, infanticide of females, increase in mental health problems (including Chinese women’s suicide rates)…”

    “This reporter is a complete nut job. I can’t believe anyone in a North American country would actually believe this is a legitimate idea. And by the way, China’s policy has had major consequences. many girl babies were aborted and killed, and due to the scarcity of Chinese women, Chinese men are paying through the nose to obtain brides. Therefore, lives are unfulfilled, and the Chinese population decreases much further than they even desired.”

    “And so one must wonder, what kind of journalism does this article or “column” represent? Which of her children would Diane Francis give up in order to live up to her death rhetoric? One might also ask, what kind of a self-professed do-gooder wants to have power over others in order to “help” them? Who, after all, are these elites who keep telling us that we need to be better controlled, “for our own good, you see”?”

Copenhagen: Global Population Control Program Suggested To Stop Climate Change

 



Obama Science Advisor Advocates Forced Abortions

Obama Science Advisor Advocates Forced Abortions
In 1977 book, John Holdren advocated forced abortions, mass sterilization through food and water supply and mandatory bodily implants to prevent pregnancies

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
July 11, 2009

President Obama’s top science and technology advisor John P. Holdren co-authored a 1977 book in which he advocated the formation of a “planetary regime” that would use a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children.

The concepts outlined in Holdren’s 1977 book Ecoscience, which he co-authored with close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, were so shocking that a February 2009 Front Page Magazine story on the subject was largely dismissed as being outlandish because people couldn’t bring themselves to believe that it could be true.

It was only when another Internet blog obtained the book and posted screenshots that the awful truth about what Holdren had actually committed to paper actually began to sink in.

This issue is more prescient than ever because Holdren and his colleagues are now at the forefront of efforts to combat “climate change” through similarly insane programs focused around geoengineering the planet. As we reported in April, Holdren recently advocated “Large-scale geoengineering projects designed to cool the Earth,” such as “shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays,” which many have pointed out is already occurring via chemtrails.

Ecoscience discusses a number of ways in which the global population could be reduced to combat what the authors see as mankind’s greatest threat – overpopulation. In each case, the proposals are couched in sober academic rhetoric, but the horrifying foundation of what Holdren and his co-authors are advocating is clear. These proposals include;

– Forcibly and unknowingly sterilizing the entire population by adding infertility drugs to the nation’s water and food supply.

– Legalizing “compulsory abortions,” ie forced abortions carried out against the will of the pregnant women, as is common place in Communist China where women who have already had one child and refuse to abort the second are kidnapped off the street by the authorities before a procedure is carried out to forcibly abort the baby.

– Babies who are born out of wedlock or to teenage mothers to be forcibly taken away from their mother by the government and put up for adoption. Another proposed measure would force single mothers to demonstrate to the government that they can care for the child, effectively introducing licensing to have children.

– Implementing a system of “involuntary birth control,” where both men and women would be mandated to have an infertility device implanted into their body at puberty and only have it removed temporarily if they received permission from the government to have a baby.

– Permanently sterilizing people who the authorities deem have already had too many children or who have contributed to “general social deterioration”.

– Formally passing a law that criminalizes having more than two children, similar to the one child policy in Communist China.

– This would all be overseen by a transnational and centralized “planetary regime” that would utilize a “global police force” to enforce the measures outlined above. The “planetary regime” would also have the power to determine population levels for every country in the world.

The quotes from the book are included below. We also include comments by the author of the blog who provided the screenshots of the relevant passages. Screenshots of the relevant pages and the quotes in their full context are provided at the end of the excerpts. The quotes from the book appear as text indents and in bold. The quotes from the author of the blog are italicized.

Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions

“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”

Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn’t harm livestock

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”

Page 786-7: The government could control women’s reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control

Involuntary fertility control

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

Page 838: The kind of people who cause “social deterioration” can be compelled to not have children

“If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.“

Page 838: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size

“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”

Page 942-3: A “Planetary Regime” should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born

Toward a Planetary Regime

“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.”

“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 would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”

Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force

“If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”

Page 749: Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism

“Another related issue that seems to encourage a pronatalist attitude in many people is the question of the differential reproduction of social or ethnic groups. Many people seem to be possessed by fear that their group may be outbred by other groups. White Americans and South Africans are worried there will be too many blacks, and vice versa. The Jews in Israel are disturbed by the high birth rates of Israeli Arabs, Protestants are worried about Catholics, and lbos about Hausas. Obviously, if everyone tries to outbreed everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all. This is another case of the “tragedy of the commons,” wherein the “commons” is the planet Earth. Fortunately, it appears that, at least in the DCs, virtually all groups are exercising reproductive restraint.”

Page 944: As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000

“Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants’ destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world.”

Page 944: As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000

“Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants’ destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world.”

See Screenshots of the Actual Pages in Holdren’s Book “Ecoscience”.



Chinese Military Thugs Police Torch Relays


Chinese Paramilitary Thugs Policed London Torch Relay

Outrage after British government allowed members of China’s internal security force to manhandle protesters

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
April 9, 2008

Fresh outrage has erupted over the Olympic torch procession after it emerged that the blue-clad thugs witnessed manhandling protesters and barking orders during the torch relay in London were Chinese paramilitary police hired by Beijing and the British government to quell demonstrations.

Officially know as the 29th Olympic Games Torch Relay Flame Protection Unit, this gaggle of bullies were in actual fact, “Picked from special police units of the People’s Armed Police, China’s internal security force.”

The requirements for the job: to be “tall, handsome, mighty, in exceptional physical condition similar to that of professional athletes,” the state-run China News Service said.

The government-hired heavies were also taught to bark a few words of English for the purposes of ordering around torch bearers.

This cadre of gang members honed their expertise in martial arts, marksmanship and hand-to-hand combat, and are trained to brutally suppress demonstrations and farmer’s uprisings in China which routinely result in the slaughter of scores of protesters who dare stand up to the Communist police state.

Hiring foreign paramilitary thug cops to police the streets of our cities is not only flagrantly illegal, it is a telltale sign that we too are living in an oppressive police state.

This is a damning indictment of the attitude the British Labour Party, self-proclaimed “liberals,” holds toward the notion of freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble in the UK.

Since the British government effectively outlawed the right to protest with the passage of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act of 2005, demonstrators have taken it upon themselves to flout an unjust law that is anathema to any basic notion of freedom or human rights.

Knowing that any rough treatment towards the Tibetan protesters by the British police would reflect badly on the government’s tattered reputation, Labour gratefully acquiesced to Beijing’s demand to ship in some of China’s most brutal thug cops in order to do their dirty work for them.

Shadow home secretary David Davis wrote a letter to Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, yesterday and demanded to know who’s decision it was to unleash these animals onto British streets.

“They were seen manhandling protesters. They even accompanied the torch into Downing Street,” said Davis.

These blue-clad goons did not only physically assault demonstrators, but even metered out their bullying tactics to Olympic officials and the torch bearers themselves.

A CBC News report compiled eyewitness reports of the thugs’ behavior.

Yolaine De La Bigne, a French environmental journalist who was a torchbearer in Paris, told The Associated Press she tried to wear a headband with a Tibetan flag, but the Chinese agents ripped it away from her.

“It was seen and then, after four seconds, all the Chinese security pounced on me. There were at least five or six (of them). They started to get angry” and shouted “No! No! No!” in English, she said.

De La Bigne tried to push several agents away as they grabbed her arm. She said two French athletes who are martial arts experts tried to help her and clashed briefly with the security detail.

The chairman of the London 2012 Games, Sebastian Coe, was even more blunt.

“They tried to push me out of the way three times. They are horrible. They did not speak English. They were thugs,” Coe, a two-time Olympic gold medalist, was quoted as saying in British media. A spokeswoman for the London 2012 Olympics committee confirmed that Coe was quoted accurately, but added that he thought he was making private comments.

“They were barking orders at me, like ’Run! Stop! This! That!’ and I was like, ’Oh my gosh, who are these people?”’ former television host Konnie Huq told British Broadcasting Corp. radio about her encounter with the men in blue during London’s leg of the relay Sunday.

This is just the latest example of how one element of globalization, the exchange of policing and troop deployment between countries, is conditioning people to accept foreign troops.

Before the 2006 soccer World Cup, the British government allowed uniformed German police to be on UK soil to identify “potential troublemakers” who were planning on traveling to the tournament.

Before the event, Germany’s interior minister changed the country’s constitution to allow internal troop deployments for “security” reasons.

As part of NATO exercises in September 2003, armed Ukrainian and French soldiers were running checkpoints and harassing members of the public in Scotland.

Alex Jones has attended numerous military urban warfare training drills across the U.S. where role players were used to simulate arresting American citizens and taking them to internment camps. Foreign troops were routinely invited to join the training exercises.

Accepting the deployment of Chinese paramilitary thug cops to police a public event in Britain is completely illegal and indicates that Britons are living under a state of martial law and de-facto military occupation.

Despite empty rhetoric in the media on behalf of western governments supposedly slapping China on the hand for its human rights abuses, the real picture has now emerged.

The UK, the U.S. and China are one of a kind when it comes to using paramilitary police thugs and martial law tactics to silence dissent – and the governments of the three countries are joined at the hip in their efforts to stamp down the jackboot on the right to demonstrate against abuses of the state.

 

Police State Torch Run

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
April 9, 2008

In San Francisco, the authorities were so worried about the prospect of thousands of people expressing their outrage over Tibet and China’s flagrant human rights violations they changed the Olympic torch relay route. It was a sneaky, last minute change that denied the people of San Francisco a chance to participate in the torch relay event, an event introduced by the Nazis at the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin.

It would seem our rulers, not unlike the Nazis, put a lot of credence in what is essentially a pagan event. The Olympic Flame commemorates the theft of fire from the Greek god Zeus by Prometheus. A fire permanently burned on the altar of Hestia in Olympia, Greece, in ancient times. During the Olympic Games, which honored Zeus, additional fires were lit at his temple and that of his wife, Hera. The modern Olympic flame is ignited at the site where the temple of Hera once stood.

But so much for the history lesson. In San Francisco this afternoon, pagan symbolism was difficult to make out, as it was buried under a phalanx of SWAT cops, regular cops mounted on bikes, motorcycles, and marching on foot, not to mention tightly surrounded by Chinese secret police in snazzy tracksuits. In fact, after watching a helicopter video feed on CNN, it appears the preponderance of SFPD cops were on hand to provide “security” — from the vagaries of the First Amendment — not only for the torch runners but the detachment of Chinese PAP, short for People’s Armed Police, as well.

Time reports:

The tracksuit-clad Sacred Torch Guard Team was drawn from China’s paramilitary People’s Armed Police, which is used for internal security. The group formed last August and trained by running six miles daily. While their chief mission is to protect the flame, they’ve also cracked down on protesters. Sebastian Coe, a two-time medalist and chairman of the London Games in 2012, called them “thugs” and said they tried to push him. A torchbearer in Paris, environmental journalist Yolaine De La Bigne, told the Associated Press that the team snatched away the Tibetan flag headband she was wearing.

It might be expected that PAP and China’s ruling clique might get away with this in China, even Europe, but here in the United States?

Of course they can get away with it. Because the United States is but a mere shadow of what it was even fifty years ago and today few know what national sovereignty is. Now the corporate media feels obliged to make comments in passing about the “heavy security” at such events but does not bother to follow this aside through — an observer not brainwashed by years of unrelenting police state propaganda supposedly inspired by the horrific events of cave dwelling terrorists, the heavy presence of black-clad cops, including a close quarter SWAT contingent, would be reminded of a police state.

It was breathtaking how easily China’s PAP goons interacted with San Francisco’s finest, the latter who spent at least a little time pushing and shoving a pathetic handful of demonstrators who managed to discover the last minute route change. But then, with every passing day, the U.S. and China become more and more alike, including the same overriding contempt for free speech and dissent.

But then they both have the same bastard father — the New World Order. David Rockefeller was deadly serious when he declared in 2001 that the relationship between China and the United States “is one of the most important bilateral relations in the world. Although US-China relations have experienced misunderstanding in recent years, he said, he is glad to see the recent encouraging improvement in this respect.”

In other words, much of the world misunderstands China’s torture of prisoners, its organ harvest program, its policy of forced abortion, its restrictions on free speech and political organizing, its absence of due process, its suppression of religion, its arbitrary detention of dissidents, and its obsessive use of the death penalty, even for nonviolent property crimes such as theft, embezzlement and forgery.

David Rockefeller, the international bankers, and transnational corporations are not concerned with any of this, of course, as their focus is upon the China Model — that is to say, China’s successful effort to turn the most populated country in the world into a sprawling industrialized slave labor gulag churning out a nearly unimaginable number of “consumer goods, ” never mind the lead paint, heavy metals and other toxins.

And that’s one reason the Olympic torch relay was hemmed in by cops and secret police — because the U.S. does not want to upset the Chinese, who often react violently at the least provocation, or opposition to their totalitarianism, at any rate.

Finally, it should be added that China practically owns the United States. It holds over $1 trillion in dollar denominated assets, of which $330 billion are U.S. Treasury notes.

It’s not really a good idea to anger somebody who holds a large number of chits — and people filling the streets complaining about China’s notorious and multifaceted abuses certainly anger the Chicom leadership.

The Guardians Of The Flame Are From The Same Force Quelling The Riots In Tibet
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,546078,00.html

SF Welcomes China’s Secret Police
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/04/08/18491371.php

Chinese Paramilitary Cops Police Americans
http://infowars.net/articles/april2008/090408Chinese.htm

Chinese Paramilitary Force Protecting Torch
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/080408/w040863A.html

Olympic torch fiasco: Lord Coe blasts ’horrible Chinese thugs’ who barged their way through London
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv..id=557941&in_page_id=1770

Unmasked: Chinese guardians of Olympic torch
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3671368.ece