China, slave state where the family is outlawed, and the rich breed in secret

Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
December 26, 2011

A controversial case in China where a couple with eight children was found out exposes that reality that the “strict” one child policy is really a double standard where the rich pay to populate the future, while the eugenics slave state cracks down on the family and restricts the reproductive rights of the masses.

An ‘unnamed couple’ from the southern metropolis of Guangzhou were reported to authorities after taking studio photos with their eight children– all born with within a two-month window last year. The infertile couple paid for in-vitro fertilization treatment that led to triplets, while two surrogate mothers gave birth “illegally” to an additional five children.

Multiple-births are common and can even be encouraged under many artificial conception techniques, though it is considered risky. Liao Xinbo, Guangdong’s deputy health chief, promised an investigation, blasting the couple for abusing the system, reportedly stating: ‘Why did they have to hire so many people to have babies for them? Did they think they had the right to bear children just because they were rich? Secondly, what respect to life did they show? Multiple pregnancies are super risky.’

Zhang Feng, director of the Guangdong Family Planning Commission, has also called for fines in violation of the nation’s policies.

Current Chinese law bars surrogacy. Xinhua reports that the state’s investigation will probe the role of several licensed assisted-reproductive facilities in “buying and selling gametes or embryos, providing surrogacy services, using non-certificated sperm, or checking the gender of fetuses without permission.” The report also states:

Some surrogacy agencies charge one million yuan and have five to seven surrogate mothers become pregnant all at once, simply to ensure one of the babies is a boy. The other fetuses are aborted, the report said.

The case, while perhaps extreme, no doubt sheds light on the hypocrisy that exists under the heavy handed controls in China, and has prompted anger in press coverage of the case. But can a couple really be blamed for trying to conceive? These officials voiced the arrogance of the state, who believes that it, and not the individuals, hold the rights over bearing children, and that its draconian policies are justified, despite have prompting forced abortions, infanticide and the selling of children on the black market- particularly among female children, as males hold a premium in Chinese culture.

Under the one child policy, China has a built in bias where the state assumes the power to regulate births, and through controlling the right to breed, creates a divergent society where some sectors can afford a larger family (traditional to society) but most are coerced into sacrificing for a population control program that has become a Type A model for the kind of family rights conceived under the United Nations and related NGOs like the Rockefeller-founded Population Council.

But even those who can afford the monetary price for additional children sacrifice a great deal under China’s policies. The Irish Times writes:

The penalty for breaking the rules on planned birth is the imposition of a fine and a loss of some benefits such as free education and healthcare, but for many wealthy couples in China this is a price worth paying. Their children are known as “black children” and technically have no legal rights.

Routine bribes for extra children is an underplayed reality, if not a dirty secret in China. While harsher treatment exists at the deference of the state, financial penalties are imposed for many second children; often this extends to under the table payoffs for officials to look the other way. Thus, corruption implicitly follows the de facto two-tier family planning policy under a nation that has shifted into a hybrid of overt communist control measures and burgeoning crony capitalism.

While preventing a population bomb might seem desirable, the power of enforcement demanded under state-run eugenics measures are indicative of tyranny. Further, the attempts to improve society with an iron fist have led to an aging population in a society where children traditionally work to support their elders. With fewer heirs, this puts greater financial pressure on a family’s ability to survive.

Of course, the classic Eugenics movement popularized in the early 20th Century had always placed value on the “positive” eugenics of higher birth rates for preferred members of society, while emphasizing downsizing numbers under “negative” eugenics in ‘targeted’ populations of unfavored minorities, and those in the lower economic strata long reviled for their ‘burden to society.’

Frank Notestein, who has served as president of the Population Council, and been a member of numerous key groups including the American Eugenics Society, the Council on Foreign Relations, the International Statistical Institute, the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population, and the Population Association of America, wrote in a 1969 paper:

“Given existing preferences in family size, governments must go beyond voluntary family planning. To achieve zero rate of population growth governments will have to do more than cajole; they will have to coerce.”

“…to impose more drastic changes on a large scale implies many risks, not least to the regime that undertakes them. The price for this type of population control may well be the institution of a totalitarian regime.”

China’s own coercive population measures began ten years later in 1979.

It evolved out of family planning policies (implemented in countless countries across the globe) that first encouraged, then required smaller families, later marriages, literal community patrolling of women’s menstrual cycles and other strategies aimed at reducing population. See the video below, which includes segments from a pre-1979 documentary focusing on a two-child policy in China, as well as propaganda and enforcement efforts to sell the population on the mandate:

CNN tells masses ‘Communism has been good for women’

Researchers, including this author, have long warned of trends for the available technology of the State and that of reproductive health to place a premium on life, where an authoritarian regime grants license for birth, the rich can afford to have more children and the default is towards restricting reproduction.

The 1977 book Ecoscience, written by population bomb scare-monger Paul Ehrlich and now-White House science advisor John P. Holdren, goes a long way in highlighting the global population control system that many globalists and eugenicists hope to bring into reality. There is no question that China serves as forebearer of this “Planetary Regime”:

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. [p. 942-3]

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? [p. 838]

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. [p. 786-7]

Ecoscience and endless other publications and official statements make clear that the elite are assessing the feasibility of coercive/involuntary population control, with an eye towards implementation, starting with cooperative authoritarian regimes like China. Norplant technology has made implantable, but removable, fertility control a reality. The Rockefeller Foundation has also funded the development of anti-fertility vaccines for both males and females.

This article was posted: Monday, December 26, 2011 at 3:57 pm

---

---

---

---