February 5, 2013
A Chinese official from Wenzhou, China, crushed a 13-month old baby-boy to death by driving over him after the parents refused to pay a fine for violating China’s one-child policy.
According to AFP, a state official working to enforce China’s one-child policy drove over a 13-month old baby-boy, resulting in the infant’s death.
A news item issued by PhuketNews relates that the official had an argument with the parents as, presumably, they “violated” the one-child policy by refusing to pay a fine. The reports goes on to say that the parents acted “agitated” in response to the official’s request.
The spokesman stated that the parents of the murdered baby were “agitated” as a result of the disagreement with the one-child policy enforcer, after which the official in question drove his car over the baby. PhuketNews however reports that Wenzhou authorities were quick to label the murder as an unfortunate accident:
“After starting the car to bring the family to the office to discuss the matter, the official discovered the child had been crushed underneath the car.”
Tragically the baby died soon as a result of his wounds shortly after he was rushed to the hospital: yet another victim of China’s draconian one-child policy. The Global Post goes into more detail in regards to the fine mentioned in the AFP report:
“Under China’s population controls, instituted more than 30 years ago, couples who have more than one child must pay a “social upbringing” fine, while in some cases mothers have been forced to undergo abortions.”
The Global Post article also brings into memory that China’s population control policies have been increasingly subject to criticism, both from outside China and within.
“There was widespread outrage last year after a woman who had been forced to abort seven months into her pregnancy was pictured with the bloody foetus.”
On March 29, 2012, Paul Joseph Watson brought attention to the brutal face of China’s one-child policy, describing how a 9-month old baby was forcibly aborted, after which it was thrown in a bucket. Watson writes:
“Because the parents of the baby already had a child, they were hunted down and forced to comply with China’s draconian one child policy.
The mother was injected with a poison that induced an abortion, but after the baby was “pulled out inhumanly like a piece of meat,” it was still alive and began to cry before doctors slung the defenseless child into a bucket and left it to die.”
Although some may try to comfort themselves by imagining these one-child ideas are limited to China, the fact is these ideas and policies are widely held and promulgated by politicians and scientists all over the world. 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 article.
“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.”
Let’s not forget it’s not just professors that advocate global one child policies. 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.”
As I reported 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:
Besides these UN hotshots calling for a global one-child policy, low-grade actors from Holluywood have joined the dehumanizing choir. For example, Baywatch “star” Alexandra Paul recently spoke at a TEDX conference, calling not only for a total rewiring of human biology “to recognize the benefits of a one-child family”, but also for the global human population to be brought down to two billion- a 75% reduction compared to current levels.
Paul, who starred in over 70 films and television shows, explicitely states that the entire modern-day culture should serve to convince people to “rewire biology” so that the natural urge to procreate will be changed into a rational, “eco-friendly” one, aspiring to just one child per family.
“Will it (world population) stop growing because of famine, disease, or war over resources- or will it stop growing because people choose to have smaller families- and by smaller families I mean one-child families.”
Although Paul stresses that “forcing people to have fewer children does not work”, she does emphasize that modern culture should be moulded in such a way as to convince people that we have to “change and rewire our biology and our culture to recognize the benefits of a one-child family.”
“As a culture we need to emphasize the benefits of having a one-child family so people will choose to have fewer kids.”, she stated.
The Baywatch-“star” explains why she has chosen to not have kids:
“(kids) might be wonderful, but they’re also wasteful.”
Quoting UN population projections, she advocates a fairly massive reduction in human numbers compared to current levels:
“The number of humans on earth needs to go down. And I believe it needs to go down to two billion.”, she said.
She closed her anti-human speech by calling on her listening audience to take her words to heart and quit reproducing after the first child:
“Let’s be part of the solution, and choose from now on to bring forth no more than one child ourselves.”
It’s this kind of dangerous thinking that ultimately leads to brutal policies that are designed to target the most vulnerable.