Aug 28, 2013

It’s almost as if the concept of a “Demographic Winter” never entered their minds until now. Social scientists are just now coming to the realization of, “Hey, maybe we should have enough children to take care of us when it’s time!”, and it’s a few decades too late.

In Medical News Today, the shocker of the century is finally seeping into the minds of the same people who applauded “family planning” programs of previous years: There aren’t enough young people to take care of the aging population.

The pool of family and friends to care for Baby Boomers as they age into their 80s will be less than half as deep as it is today, according to a new report from AARP. The report predicts the ratio of potential family caregivers to elders needing care will plummet from today’s seven caregivers for each person over age 80 to fewer than three caregivers per elderly person in 2050. “The Aging of the Baby Boom and the Growing Care Gap” from the AARP Public Policy Institute also anticipates that the dearth of family caregivers projected for 2030 to 2050 will intensify the emotional, physical and financial costs borne by future caregiving family members and friends.

It’s incredibly sad to know that this was in the elite’s agenda the entire time:

  CNN Founder Ted Turner: “A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

Julia Whitty, a columnist for Mother Jones: “… On one front, we’ve already made unprecedented strides, reducing global fertility from an average 4.92 children per woman in 1950 to 2.56 today—an accomplishment of trial and sometimes brutally coercive error, but also a result of one woman at a time making her individual choices. The speed of this childbearing revolution, swimming hard against biological programming, rates as perhaps our greatest collective feat to date.”

Colorado State University Professor Philip Cafaro in a paper entitled “Climate Ethics and Population Policy”: “Ending human population growth is almost certainly a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for preventing catastrophic global climate change. Indeed, significantly reducing current human numbers may be necessary in order to do so.

John Guillebaud, professor of family planning at University College London: “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet.”

Muhammad Yunus, in his book Banker to the Poor: Micro-Lending and the Battle Against World Poverty, had it right:

“I believe that the emphasis on curbing population growth diverts attention from the more vital issue of pursuing policies that allow the population to take care of itself.”

BINGO! It’s not about population growth, even to the most controlling of elites. They don’t care about the planet or the effect of a large population on it – most of the world’s richest people have several children, themselves, and they show that through the way they operate their corporations. What they do care about is getting the people in the U.S. (and other first-world nations) to become so narcissistic and selfish as to willingly reduce their own numbers so that they will accept government intervention later on, when their children that were supposed to be caring for them don’t even exist. This gives a great amount of control over many, many people that they wouldn’t be able to touch if those people were surrounded by family that protects them.

The biggest excuse for the “feminist” obsession with “family planning” is that women have been caged up by a patriarchal, religious society and need to be freed from the bondage of having children so they can pursue happiness in their careers and “be someone”. This is a lame excuse for denial of nature: If you don’t have any children, there will have to be an offset for that – whether it’s through advanced nursing homes equipped with mostly robotics, or a drastic increase in the population of immigrants, and most people are either morally or politically opposed to one or  both of these options.

Of course, the most “logical” step, according to leading eugenicists, is to “encourage” the elderly population to, as a Japanese politician so eloquently worded it, “hurry up and die”.

Democrat strategist Steven Rattner: “WE need death panels. Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.”

Matthew Yglesias, a business and economics correspondent for Slate, in an article entitled “The Case for Death Panels, in One Chart”: “But not only is this health care spending on the elderly the key issue in the federal budget, our disproportionate allocation of health care dollars to old people surely accounts for the remarkable lack of apparent cost effectiveness of the American health care system. When the patient is already over 80, the simple fact of the matter is that no amount of treatment is going to work miracles in terms of life expectancy or quality of life.”

Japan’s Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso about medical patients with serious illnesses: “You cannot sleep well when you think it’s all paid by the government. This won’t be solved unless you let them hurry up and die.”

Environmental activist Roger Martin: “On a finite planet, the optimum population providing the best quality of life for all, is clearly much smaller than the maximum, permitting bare survival. The more we are, the less for each; fewer people mean better lives.”

HBO personality Bill Maher: “I’m pro-choice, I’m for assisted suicide, I’m for regular suicide, I’m for whatever gets the freeway moving – that’s what I’m for. It’s too crowded, the planet is too crowded and we need to promote death.”

However, most of the elbow-work in the population reduction department has been done by sociologists and scientists, not politicians, talking heads, and so-called “activists”, and have involved sterilization and birth control methods- with their consent or not – in minorities and in impoverished individuals :

 Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger: “All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class”

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Detroit News Columnist Nolan Finley: “Since the national attention is on birth control, here’s my idea: If we want to fight poverty, reduce violent crime and bring down our embarrassing drop-out rate, we should swap contraceptives for fluoride in Michigan’s drinking water.

We’ve got a baby problem in Michigan. Too many babies are born to immature parents who don’t have the skills to raise them, too many are delivered by poor women who can’t afford them, and too many are fathered by sorry layabouts who spread their seed like dandelions and then wander away from the consequences.”

Salon columnist Mary Elizabeth Williams in an article entitled “So What If Abortion Ends Life?”: “All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides.”

It is now a widespread belief that killing babies – that have already been born, that is – is an acceptable form of birth control:

Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia and Francesca Minerva of the University of Melbourne in a paper published 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.”

Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger: “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

So, why do the same people who carry the banner of this twisted belief system complain when there isn’t anybody around to take care of them when they get old?