Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Mainstream media blame the financial crisis of 2008 as being the causation due to “economic stress”.
Social conditioning provides in parenting magazines that the over-all cost of raising a child has risen to the point of “just being too expensive to consider.” The immediate needs of children are not the concern of would-be parents. It is the pressure of saving for future events such as college tuition, extra-curricular activities, insurance, etc . . . The social constraints that have nothing to do with the actual child are intimidating people out of having children.
Distorting genetic genome research, father’s are being blamed for passing down genetic mutations in their DNA to their children and a number of eugenicists are calling for a pre – screen test to be administered to determine whether or not a child would be born who would be a medical or financial burden to their parents and/or society.
Professors of molecular biology , molecular and human genetics, and pharmacology at Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) have deciphered a birth-control pill for men by manipulating sperm with the use of a drug called JQ1. This drug blocks the proteins essential for sperm production and drastically lowering sperm counts, JQ1 is now being slated for human trials.
Prior to this breakthrough, researchers at the MRC Centre for Reproductive Health, discovered the gene Katnal 1 which is a protein necessary for producing sperm in males. Katnal1 contains blueprints for proteins, which are integral for cell production and facilitate sperm production. Essentially, without protein, sperm are dysfunctional and most likely disposed of naturally. These scientists set out to alter the genetic code of mice to render them infertile and were successful.
At the most recent UN Earth Summit (Rio+20) the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) published a paper that called for a global implementation of depopulation policies. According to the paper: “The population issue should be urgently addressed by education and empowerment of women, including in the work-force and in rights, ownership and inheritance; health care of children and the elderly; and making modern contraception accessible to all.”
They want “funding (for worldwide fertility control) decreased by 30% between 1995 and 2008, not least as a result of legislative pressure from the religious right in the USA and elsewhere”, the authors call for “education and planning needed to foster and achieve a sustainable human population and lifestyles.”
At the London Family Planning Summit (LFPS) in July of this year, Melinda Gates said she has made family planning her “top priority”. Not only does Gates want to force contraceptives onto developing nations, she wants to prevent an estimated 40% of pregnancies to stop women around the world from giving birth.
Gates has an arsenal of Depo-Preovera, implantable fertility controls provided from Shanghai Dahua Pharmaceuticals, and donations from Merck to further their advancement of the UN’s Millenium Development Goals which states that there be a 75% reduction in births under the guise of maintaining maternal mortality.
In order to control the growing population, doctors Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva published a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics: “[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child.
Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.”
Stasi networks have cropped up where neighbors call in bogus accusations to the police and Child Protective Services of other mothers on the block and cause parents to be punished for allowing their children to play outside; sometimes in their own backyards.
Population stabilization, the true meaning behind family planning is evident in the World Bank and UN Population Fund’s push against sovereign nations to reduce their populations by rule of the “global consensus” which dictates human rights policy by deeming some fit to live and others not.
Based on the Rockefeller Commission report, population stabilization is an endeavor worth pursuing, although its success would take decades because of the high incidents of reproduction by marriage. However, with the destruction of the family, this problem could be solved. Furthermore, the stabilization of the global population would reallocate resources to be better spent in terms of quality versus quantity.
Concluding that the best way to achieve population stabilization is to coerce the nation’s citizens that they freely choose abortion and not having a child at all as part of an acceptable societal norm. By way of implementation of social barrier and cultural pressures, the average citizen would rather go with the flow and chose not to procreate for the sake of being part of the herd.
Simultaneously, by reforming the acceptable amount of children born into a married household, the impact of population growth would seem to be natural. And trends would take care of social conformity. Those who had more children would be shunned.
Increasing access to abortion clinics with the inception and popularity of Planned Parenthood would give unacceptable pregnancies a viable solution. This would distract and control another Baby Boom from occurring.
Using images on television, film and print media control the ideals of the modern family to fit the model of a population stabilized by no longer being plagued with “run-a-way” births; but focusing on the example of small-families as the best way to go.
Source Occupy Corporatism
To help us go ahead with the same spirit, a small contribution from your side will highly be appreciated.