The Death Cult, & Dr. Death Peter Evans and the population control program
Pro-Abortion Advocate Calls for Smothering Sick Babies
Kathleen Gilbert | A pro-abortion UK columnist provoked outrage from advocates of the disabled and horrified her fellow panelists on a BBC television show after she enthusiastically supported the smothering of suffering infants.
October 6, 2010
A pro-abortion UK columnist provoked outrage from advocates of the disabled and horrified her fellow panelists on a BBC television show after she enthusiastically supported the smothering of suffering infants.
Read entire article
Author Virginia Ironside, who has a regular advice column in The Independent newspaper, appeared on the BBC's Sunday Morning Live show to argue that killing unborn disabled children is a possible act of mercy. But the other women on the show quickly reacted in horror after Ironside indicated that she was willing to go much further than simply advocating abortion.
"If I were a mother of a suffering child, I would be the first to want - I mean a deeply suffering child - I would be the first to want to put a pillow over its face," said the columnist. "And I would with any suffering thing."
Ironside added that she held that view because "my feeling of horror at suffering is much greater than my feeling of getting rid of a couple of cells, because suffering can go on for years."
"I'm sorry, I was just about to introduce another guest there, but that was a pretty horrifying thing to say," said a shocked BBC host Susanna Reid.
"What?" asked Ironside.
"That you would put a pillow over the face of a suffering child," said Reid.
"Of course I would! If it was a child I really loved who was in agony?" Ironside shot back. "I think any good mother would. I don't know any mother who wouldn’t say that if this was - there was nothing else that could be done."
A clearly agitated Joanna Jepson, an Anglican reverend who was also appearing on the show, gasped, "That's just not true!" Asked if she thought all mothers would agree with her, Ironside concluded, "I think a lot would. Maybe not any, but a lot."
On the same program, Ironside argued that an abortion could be "moral" if the child is disabled or "totally unwanted," saying it could even be "selfish" not to kill one's child in a eugenic abortion.
"Abortion can often be seen as something wicked or irresponsible but in fact it can be a moral and unselfish act," she said. "If a baby is to be born severely disabled or totally unwanted, surely abortion is the act of a loving mother."
Stunned BBC viewers complained to the network following Ironside's infanticide remarks. Clair Lewis, an advocate for disabled individuals, excoriated the columnist for advocating the eugenic elimination of disabled people.
"The problems that disabled people face will not be fixed by killing off unborn children," said Lewis.
GP Peter Evans, a member of the Christian Medical Fellowship, told UK media that it is "very dangerous" for individuals to decide who ought to live and who should die.
"For us to make judgments that people are not worth life, not worth the opportunity to live, is a very dangerous thing," Evans said.
Despite the widespread disgust with Ironside’s remarks, The Guardian, a prominent left-leaning UK newspaper, quickly ran a piece by columnist Zoe Williams defending them as "valid" and "brave."
Williams conceded that arguments favoring eugenic abortion, such as the idea that aborting a disabled child is "just helping [a natural miscarriage] along," can "sound pretty flippant." However, she added, "This is where Ironside has done something crucial: somebody has to assert the moral dimension of being pro-choice, that it's not all convenience and heartlessness.”
Most people tend to think of environmentalists as warm, cuddly hippies that just want all of us to love one another and to do what is right for the environment. Read article...
Paul Joseph Watson | Eugenicists push discredited overpopulation myth in pursuit of elite agenda to reduce global living standards.
Following the leak of a United Nations blueprint which outlined the plan to replace fearmongering about global warming with the contrived threat of overpopulation, a Scientific American report mimics precisely that talking point, pushing the notion that programs of mass abortion and birth control need to be encouraged in order to reduce the amount of humans on the planet exhaling carbon dioxide.
“Ultimately, family planning alone – such as the use of condoms and other reproductive health services – in parts of the world with growing populations, including the U.S., could restrain population growth significantly, this analysis finds,” writes David Biello.
To back up his argument, Biello links to an article by the completely discredited eugenicist Paul Ehrlich, who once stated that “everyone will disappear in a cloud of blue steam.”
Ehrlich, who co-authored Ecoscience with White House Science Czar John P. Holdren, the textbook that advocates putting drugs in the water supply to sterilize people, mandatory forced abortions, and a tyrannical eco-fascist dictatorship run by a “planetary regime,” is infamous for his spectacularly inaccurate predictions about how overpopulation would destroy the environment.
The article cited by Biello advocates a mass public relations campaign targeted at women to encourage them to have abortions in order to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In other words, more babies need to be killed to prevent them from exhaling CO2. Coincidentally, the cover of the Scientific American issue in which the article appears features a set of human skulls.
As we revealed in a report last month, the true agenda behind fanning the flames of fears about overpopulation is to reduce living standards globally, by preventing the third world from ever becoming economically prosperous, while also eviscerating the middle classes of western nations.
A leaked UN blueprint concerning the need to re-energize the move towards global government outlined a plan to re-brand global warming as “overpopulation” as a means of dismantling the middle classes while using “global redistribution of wealth” and increased immigration to reinvigorate the pursuit of a one world government.
The aim of globalist institutions is to “limit and redirect the aspirations for a better life of rising middle classes around the world,” in other words to reduce the standard of living for the middle classes in Western Europe and America.
Similarly, in his report, Biello decries the potential that “richer people” would lead to more consumption, once again revealing the eugenicist fervor that environmentalists embrace in deliberately preventing the third world from lifting itself out of poverty and mass starvation.
In reality, whenever a country is allowed to develop and become more prosperous, population figures drop naturally, underscoring the fact that environmentalists do not really care about the threat posed by overpopulation, their primary concern is the threat posed to the elite by a stronger middle class globally.
Environmental controls which prevent third world nations from developing infrastructure are fueling overpopulation, starvation and misery, which is precisely how the elitists want it to remain.
Warnings about the threat posed by overpopulation are fundamentally flawed. In reality, underpopulation will be seen as the biggest danger to human prosperity in the latter half of the 21st century.
The UN’s own figures clearly indicate that population is set to stabilize in 2020 and then drop dramatically after 2050. As the Economist reported, “Fertility is falling and families are shrinking in places— such as Brazil, Indonesia, and even parts of India—that people think of as teeming with children. As our briefing shows, the fertility rate of half the world is now 2.1 or less—the magic number that is consistent with a stable population and is usually called “the replacement rate of fertility”. Sometime between 2020 and 2050 the world’s fertility rate will fall below the global replacement rate.”
Of course, the globalist agenda to reduce world population by as much as 80% in the name of saving the environment, a figure achievable only via draconian and genocidal measures, has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with whittling down the number of slaves so that they can be more easily controlled on the plantation.
Holdren and Ehrlich’s eco-fascist plan to sterilize people through the water supply is already taking effect, as global sperm counts drop and gender-bending chemicals pollute our rivers and lakes, while feminizing antiandrogens are sprayed on our food in the form of pesticides.
Global sperm counts have dropped by a third since 1989 and by half in the past 50 years. The rate of decline is only accelerating as more and more couples find it harder to have children. In studies of white European men, the rate of decline is as much as 50 per cent in the last 30 years. In Italy, this equates to a native population reduction of 22 per cent by 2050. Population reduction is already occurring amongst native residents in many areas of Europe and America.
The agenda to reduce global population, a process that could naturally be achieved by alleviating third world poverty and lifting the living standards of people worldwide, is instead being enacted through the deliberate mass poisoning of our food and water supplies.
In addition, governments are already developing neutron bombs that destroy humans but not buildings, “for extreme ethnic cleansing in an increasingly populated world,” according to a 2007 British Ministry of Defence report, which predicted that their use could lead to the “application of lethal force without human intervention, raising consequential legal and ethical issues.”
As the video below demonstrates, overpopulation is a myth. Globalists and their eugenicist minions have misrepresented population statistics for decades in order to justify their agenda to wipe out large portions of the population. If this genocidal agenda continues, humanity will go the way of the Brontosaurus.