The UN Dislikes People: Here’s Their Plan For Fewer Of Them
Eliminating people is not sustainable
In an entry for Most Obnoxious Euphemism, United Nations category, we have reproductive health. The words sound serious and caring, with a slight evocation of adults concerned about the “rights” of women.
Yet the term means the exact opposite of its plain English sense. Reproductive health is literally non-reproduction, non-health. The euphemism is always put in service of contraception, to the prevention of human life, to discouraging reproduction, to killing human life via abortion.
It’s no wonder, then, that reproductive health is a key feature of the United Nations so-called sustainable development goals, as admitted by Guy J. Abel and three others in the peer-reviewed paper “Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals leads to lower world population growth” in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
Sustainable development itself is a kind of euphemism, or code phrase that is calculated to simultaneously frighten and hold forth what appears to be a solution to the fright.
Sustainable development itself is a kind of euphemism, or code phrase that is calculated to simultaneously frighten and hold forth what appears to be a solution to the fright. That which is unsustainable is, of course, alarming. And development sounds cheering, even though it must be government-guided.
But a trick is being played. There is no accepted definition of sustainable: it means whatever the political forces in power want it to mean. Because there is no rigorous definition, it is always be possible for our leaders to claim that whatever programs in place for taxation, regulation, and control to make development “sustainable”, they have been newly discovered to be “unsustainable”, and thus need to be strengthened.
We can glean one clear thing from the use of the term. People are not sustainable. People are not wanted. People are up to no good. As Abel says:
In the context of sustainable development, world population growth is sometimes called ‘the elephant in the room.’ Many view it as one of the most important factors in causing environmental degradation and in making adaptation to already unavoidable environmental change more difficult.
It is worth asking what the “environment” is. Is it something in itself, a thing apart from people, perhaps even something worthy of veneration? Something to keep “unspoiled” by the presence of people? Or is it just the world in which people live? It clearly must be the latter. There is nothing separate which is the environment, and this which is human. Humans-in-the-world is the environment.
It must be that the world is for people to use for their benefit. Not to despoil, but to use for human thriving, as a means to “be fruitful and multiply.” Yet it is obvious that this is not the view of the “environmentalists” at the UN, who suppose the environment would be better if there were fewer people.
The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) point the way towards fewer people. Abel says “implementing the SDGs will help speed up the process of demographic transition that otherwise would occur more slowly.” Demographic transition is another euphemism to define a world with many fewer people.
One way to accomplish the goal of “demographic transition,” as acknowledged by Abel, is education.
Consistently, more-educated women experience lower fertility. … There is increasing evidence that education, particularly in countries in demographic transition, has a direct causal effect on lowering desired family size and empowering women to realize these lower fertility goals.
This is clear evidence that “education” is not a value-free word. It does not mean just knowing more, but knowing and acting on secular principles as specified by the UN. People have to be taught to act in ways that are unnatural. Reproduction and the desire for children are natural; the pursuit of sexual activities so that children are prevented is unnatural. Just think: No culture ever needed “sex education” to learn how to propagate. “Education” was only necessary to encourage or force non-propagation.
Education would only go so far in eliminating people. This is why Abel insists on “meeting the unmet need for contraception.” They say “if the unmet contraceptive need were eliminated, the total fertility rate (TFR) would be 20% lower.” To these must be added “access to sexual and reproductive health-care services,” which is to say abortion.
The UN is not shy in its motives. Target 3.7 of the SDGs boldly states, “By 2030, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes.”
Governments, especially in central and south Africa where birth rates are still healthy, will be encouraged to make it official policy to decrease their citizenry. This is why it unnerving to read Abel’s concluding words that “the entire UN system have committed themselves to do whatever is required, possibly including unconventional measures, to reach the specified targets” of fewer people.
The more people realize they are being asked to act against their own interest, the greater will be the need of “unconventional measures.”