Start subtracting at 7 billion

Trouble is brewing in one of the strangest partnerships in political thinking:

On Monday, the world’s 7 billionth person is expected to be born.

And this:

In the meantime, global fertility rates have fallen so fast that we can now foresee the peak of global population a few decades out, after which we will likely start to see the world’s population start to shrink fairly dramatically. A few people in the media have started to notice: Reuters notes that falling population may present more serious social problems than rising population. (How will we pay for our welfare states, for example?) And Christopher White over on the Witherspoon Institute’s Public Discourse Blog offers some observations on how some nations are starting to regret their population-suppression policies.

If the head-counters are correct, the ideology uniting population control champions and the open-borders crowd has to come under attack.

Aside from the obvious connection to totalitarian control over life itself, I never fully understood why population control butchers wanted open-borders. They seemed determined to reduce populations every except the US. The goal in this country was to throw the borders open until America burst outward much like overfilling a balloon with water until it exploded.

Philosophically, population controls shows the ruling class’ cruelty more clearly than does anything else. It’s as though they think they will live forever if only they could control birth rates. Unless they are complete idiots they must know that on average their life span is no different than anybody else’s.

Their has to be a mean streak in any individual who is comfortable instituting population controls knowing those controls will be in place long after they are dead. In short: Who gives a rat’s ass about the size of the population a hundred years from now? Killing for the sake of killing is the only logical explanation anybody can have for giving the government the authority to control which group is culled or eliminated. If you are alive do your best to live well and to hell with the population a century from now. It’s not your business anyway.

Abortion has always been about population controls.

It was the U.S. Supreme Court that made baby-killing okay by reading it into the Constitution under the guise of a female’s Right to choose. If there is any truth in the Right to choose —— slaughtering children in the womb is the only individual Right that totalitarians ever stood for.

And if there is such a thing as having a nervous breakdown in the hereafter, King Solomon must of had one when he saw a free people sanction infanticide while refusing to execute convicted murderers. The death penalty was later reinstated, but is once again under attack by a mainstream media that winks at infanticide. It is sad to note, but murderers have numerous champions in all branches of government —— a child in the womb has almost none. The legislative branch, (elected Socialists excluded.) fearing a Socialist media at reelection time stand by and let it all happen.

Finally, media crap-artists never tire of saying the American people want the government to get something done. That something encompasses abortion and population controls but not securing America’s borders.

“Getting something done” is a load of steaming horse manure on the face of it. Everything the government did since the FDR years screwed private sector Americans in larger and larger incremental steps. Only parasites could possibly want more of the same. Bipartisanship is a buzz word, and a rallying cry, for the parasite class. Put in practice bipartisanship means “We have to do a better job of defending each other when one us gets caught lying, betraying the country, stealing, or engaging in sexual perversion.” Bipartisanship does not mean “We have to do a better job of serving individual liberties and the Constitution.”

The following article is in two parts.

Posted on October 29, 2011 by Steven Hayward in History, Liberals, United Nations
Population Bomb Epic Fail

On Monday, the world’s 7 billionth person is expected to be born. Somewhere. Look for the media and the usual worn-out handwringers to strike up the usual dirge. I’m sure Paul Ehrlich has a full dance card for the day. The “Tom Friedman Random Column Generator” app can retire early for the day, after disgorging “Hot, Flat, and Even More Crowded, Oh, And By The Way, Did I Mention That China. Is. Awesome.?”

In other words, the whole “population bomb” shtick, the summa of Malthusianism, is going to have another short-lived revival on Monday, though it is likely to be staged so far off-Broadway that Frank Rich’s intern won’t even give it much coverage after the opening night footlights are switched off. In other words, this milestone is going to be a one-day story, at best.

Which is quite a contrast from the old days when Ehrlich’s book, The Population Bomb, was a worldwide best-seller, national and international population control organizations and lobbies were set up, and so forth. In the meantime, global fertility rates have fallen so fast that we can now foresee the peak of global population a few decades out, after which we will likely start to see the world’s population start to shrink fairly dramatically. A few people in the media have started to notice: Reuters notes that falling population may present more serious social problems than rising population. (How will we pay for our welfare states, for example?) And Christopher White over on the Witherspoon Institute’s Public Discourse Blog offers some observations on how some nations are starting to regret their population-suppression policies.

Which brings me to the book that ought to be better known, Matthew Connelly’s 2009 book Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population. Connelly, a historian at Columbia University, delivers a takedown of the essentially corrupt and tyrannically-minded global population control lobby that got going very early in the 20th century.

Connelly recounts one of the first major international conferences on world population, held in Geneva in 1927, where Albert Thomas, a French trade unionist, asked, “Has the moment yet arrived for considering the possibility of establishing some sort of supreme supranational authority which would regulate the distribution of population on rational and impartial lines, by controlling and directing migration movements and deciding on the opening-up or closing of countries to particular streams of immigration?” Connelly also describes the 1974 World Population Conference, which “witnessed an epic battle between starkly different versions of history and the future: one premised on the preservation of order, if necessary by radical new forms of global governance …” (Emphasis added.)

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.N.-sponsored body that is the juggernaut of today’s climate campaign, finds its precedent in the International Union for the Scientific Investigation of Population Problems (IUSIPP), spawned at the 1927 World Population Conference. A bevy of NGOs, most prominently the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and Zero Population Growth (ZPG), later sprang into being, working hand-in-glove with the same private foundations (especially Ford and Rockefeller) and global financial institutions, such as the World Bank, that today are in the forefront of the climate campaign.

As Connelly lays out in painstaking detail, population control programs, aimed chiefly at developing nations, proliferated despite clear human rights abuses and, more importantly, new data and information that called into question many of the fundamental assumptions of the crisis mongers. Connelly recalls computer projections and economic models that offered precise and “scientifically grounded” projections of future global ruin from population growth, all of which were quickly falsified. The mass famines and food riots that were predicted never occurred; fertility rates began to fall everywhere, even in nations that lacked “family planning” programs. ??The coercive nature of the population control programs in the field was appalling. India, in particular, became “a vast laboratory for the ultimate population control campaign,” the chilling practices of which Connelly recounts:

Sterilizations were performed on 80-year-old men, uncomprehending subjects with mental problems, and others who died from untreated complications. There was no incentive to follow up patients. The Planning Commission found that the quality of postoperative care was “the weakest link.” In Maharashtra, 52 percent of men complained of pain, and 16 percent had sepsis or unhealed wounds. Over 40 percent were unable to see a doctor. Almost 58 percent of women surveyed experienced pain after IUD insertion, 24 percent severe pain, and 43 percent had severe and excessive bleeding. Considering that iron deficiency was endemic in India, one can only imagine the toll the IUD program took on the health of Indian women.

 

PART TWO:

These events Connelly describes took place in 1967, but instead of backing off, the Indian government—under constant pressure and lavish financial backing from the international population control organizations—intensified these coercive programs in the 1970s. Among other measures India required that families with three or more children had to be sterilized to be eligible for new housing (which the government, not the private market, controlled). “This war against the poor also swept across the countryside,” Connelly notes:

In one case, the village of Uttawar in Haryana was surrounded by police, hundreds were taken into custody, and every eligible male was sterilized. Hearing what had happened, thousands gathered to defend another village named Pipli. Four were killed when police fired upon the crowd. Protesters gave up only when, according to one report, a senior government official threatened aerial bombardment. The director of family planning in Maharashtra, D.N. Pai, considered it a problem of “people pollution” and defended the government: “If some excesses appear, don’t blame me…. You must consider it something like a war. There could be a certain amount of misfiring out of enthusiasm. There has been pressure to show results. Whether you like it or not, there will be a few dead people.”

In all, over 8 million sterilizations, many of them forced, were conducted in India in 1976—”draconian population control,” Connelly writes, “practiced on an unprecedented scale…. There is no way to count the number who were being hauled away to sterilization camps against their will.” Nearly 2,000 died from botched surgical procedures. The people of India finally put the brakes on this coercive utopianism, at the ballot box: the Congress Party, which had championed the family planning program as one of its main policies, was swept from office in a landslide, losing 141 of 142 contested seats in the areas with the highest rate of sterilizations.

Stay tuned, I’ll have more from Connelly’s book tomorrow or Monday.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/10/population-bomb-epic-fail.php

 

Like climate change, the dogooders think that somehow if WE stop having kids, it will somehow offset the kids being born in Zimbabwe.

Ridiculous.

and yes, the people that pushed abortion 'rights' on us were racist idealogues that intended a holocaust on African American babies.

thank you for the article, Flanders, I am glad to see people are waking up to this.

 

Somebody's gotta stop having kids, and it might as well start here. It is noteworthy that in places where no birth control is available and women breed one child after another, sometimes risking primitive abortions, a large number of those children don't survive. Most people do want two kids, though, and overpopulation throughout the world isn't gonna stop them.

Precisely.

How can a "right" be pushed on you, you have the CHOICE of whether to exercise that right? Those who fought for abortion rights weren't thinking of eliminating any single race or group, they were simply thinking of getting rights for women. And no woman of ANY race or ethnic group is forced to get an abortion, it is a CHOICE.

 

To injest: And thank you for taking the time to read and respond.

I did not touch on abortion or population controls in the thread at this link, but your swipe at do-gooders implies you might enjoy it:

http://www.politicalforum.com/media-commentators/212758-do-gooders-propaganda.html

To OKgrannie: Nobody has the Right to decide who should stop having kids. In effect, seven lawyers decided infanticide was legal. Result: Well over 40 millions infant deaths since Roe v. Wade. Do you want to argue that it was about choice not population control?

And where did you get the idea that what happens in foreign countries is your business? A clearly defined military threat is the only time Americans can justify intervening in the domestic affairs of a foreign nation.

 

Haven't I said over and over, ad infinitum, that it's the woman's choice to "stop having kids" or not? Infanticide is not legal. Abortion IS about choice, abortion is notoriously poor at population control since most women who have abortions go on to have children later. Where did I ever ever say that what happens in foreign countries is my business, I don't even want to interfere in individual women's choices, much less countries.

 

To OKgrannie: Right here:

“Somebody's gotta stop having kids, and it might as well start here.”

I’ll admit I misinterpreted you if you can explain where it goes after starting here.

 

Anti-choicers are doing their level best to eliminate birth control choices as well. Check out the Mississippi bill coming up for vote. I am in favor of RvW remaining in full force to protect the full range of women's choices.

Learn the difference.

An explanation of Kerry's position by William Buckley? It's possible MANDATORY abortion could affect the population rate, but pro-choicers don't support either mandatory birth or mandatory abortion. The pro-life is more about "mandatory." Pro-choicers believe pregnancy/childbirth is not any of the government's business, and a government big enough to mandate childbirth is also big enough to mandate abortion.

What don't you get about PRO-CHOICE? Is it the CHOICE part?

Hopefully, after starting here, others would see the advantages and choose to follow the example. Please note the word "choose."

 

If lifers want people to have more kids, then they can pay for them.

 

To Makedde: The welfare state is another topic altogether.

As a general rule the infanticide crowd advocates the nanny state concept; especially supporting the kids you refer to. That support now covers birth through higher education. Pretty soon America’s productive citizens will be paying for everything from the cradle to the grave; and that includes paying for everyone who steps across our open-borders.

Conversely, the people who come down on the side of life object to tax dollars paying for every application of the welfare state. It seems to me that those women who squat and drop every year would choose to produce fewer kids if they knew they would not get assistance from the government. In fact, since Roe v. Wade, and approximately 45 million abortions, payments to welfare mothers have increased dramatically. Conclusion: Licenced infanticide does not appear to be working; so why continue to fund female baby-machines?

NOTE: Before Roe v. Wade abortion was a criminal act committed by individuals. Abortion morphed into infanticide after Roe v. Wade because of the on-going galactic slaughter.

To address your response: My position is to make abortion/infanticide illegal along with dismantling the welfare state.

 

The problem of "too many kids" is not a western phenomenon.

Folks living in well off countries do not even replace themselves resulting in a net decrease in population over time.

It is the poor countries that are responsible for population growth.

The solution is simple ... Feed the Poor.

Somehow we can not manage to get a bowl of rice a day to every citizen on the planet ?

 

When I was born the world population was around 2 billion..

Do you think that overcrowding makes no difference in the human condition?

 

Where was this done, or is this true because you are using bold type?

 

It is? Again is this because you are using bold type?

You forgot to make the type red. It would have been fitting for such idiocy.

Does it hurt?

 

I feel an Abe Simpson moment coming on.

We can't bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell 'em stories that don't go anywhere - like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. Give me five bees for a quarter, you'd say.


Now where were we? Oh yeah: the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...
​

 

To prometeus: In Washington D.C. on January 22, 1973.

The 7 lawyers were: Harry Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Chief Justice Warren Burger, William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, Lewis Powell and Potter Stewart.

 

Bolding type does not mask ignorance.

 

To prometeus: The only thing ignorant in my chosen format is that I am foolish enough to believe that stupid people would stop reading my messages because bold typeface annoyed them.

 

Naw, you are attempting to mask ignorance through self attributed importance.

 

Do you think it justifies premeditated homicide?

 

One day, there will twice as many people on earth as there are now. Problems will start - what do you suggest then?

 

Do you suggest premeditated homicide to control the population?

 

Nothing she said refers to homicide. Your delusions do not alter reality.

 

Run along little suzy, the grown ups are talking.