Like many people i am disgusted by the proposed establishment of the XL Keystone Pipeline, but not exactly for the same reasons that are being discussed in the mainstream media.
The violation of property rights and eminent domain seizures that has made this project possible is the very root of the problem, but it is not being discussed.
As Jason Lee Byas ofÂ C4SSÂ commented over the weekend:
âSince beginning to plan Keystone XL, TransCanada Corporation has used eminent domain to stealÂ more than a hundred tracts of land in Texas alone. If it gets the green light, the pipeline will run up through the plains like a burglar on a spree.
Of course, the company does initially offer those who have what they want a chance to make the transaction voluntarily. When that doesnât work, though, unsuspecting landowners receive letters likeÂ the one Julia Trigg Crawford got, saying âIf Keystone is unable to successfully negotiate the voluntary acquisition of the necessary easements, it will have to resort to the exercise of its statutory right of eminent domain.â
If youâre like the Crawfords, any deviation from that final offer and youâll hear nothing from TransCanada until your landâs condemned. As word spreads,Â landowners feel threatened. They scramble to agree with whatever crumbs theyâre offered, before their land just gets taken instead.
Even when eminent domain isnât directly used, the transaction can hardly be called âvoluntary.â Such means become darker still when we consider that theyâre being used to override tribal sovereignty and build over Native American burial grounds, likeÂ those of the Sac and Fox Nation. Apparently not even death can save the Sac and Fox from colonists intent on destroying their homes.â
Unfortunately, the property rights issue isnât being discussed by either side in the debate.
Protesters marched by the thousands in DC last week in regards to the pipeline, many of them âdemandingâ various different government actions that would render even more power of peoples property, which is the very cause for this whole problem to begin with.
The worst and most extreme of these protest groups was âThe Sierra Clubâ, a government connected environmental group that was openly calling for a global one child policy, backed up by forced government abortions for those who disobey.
Forced sterilizations were also suggested as an option that they would support.
âDuring a Sierra Club sponsored protest against the Keystone XL pipeline on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., last Sunday, several of the protestors expressed support for population control measures including the implementation of a global one-child policy similar to Chinaâs brutal and draconian policy.
âI do believe that our Earth is overpopulated,â one of the protestors said in a video released this week byÂ Americans for Limited Government. When asked if itâs time for a one-child policy, the man replied, âIâm all for that. One child, maybe two child max.â
ChinaâsÂ one-child policyÂ was introduced in 1979 as a population control measure. The Chinese government utilizes coercive measures including forced abortions and forced sterilizations to enforce the policy.
The one-child policy is the impetus behind numerous human rights violations and violent attacks by government officials on their own people each year.Â Another protestor chimed in that people who have âexcessive childrenâ are not showing the proper amount of âEarth patriotism.â
The video which can be seen below seems to be recorded by a group that is in favor of the pipeline, but regardless, they did get some interesting footage of people begging government to violate the rights of individuals on behalf of the environment.
Speculation has surfacedÂ againÂ that China might scrap itsÂ one-child policy, amidÂ concernsÂ that it is negatively affecting the countryâs economic growth and population equality.
The policy restricts every couple to only one child unless both the parents are only children themselves, of an ethnic minority, foreigners, farmers whose first child was a girl or handicapped, or in the case of twins.
The policy was introduced in the late 1970s and is strictly enforced, even when nature isÂ taking the piss. It is hugely controversial both inside of China and out because of the associatedÂ forced abortionsÂ and female infanticide.
Last year the Nobel Prize for Literature was awarded to Chinaâs very ownÂ Mo Yan, whose latest book tells the tale of a doctor who performs abortions to enforce the one-child policy, and it would seem that the government is allowing debate on the topic.
The concerns over gender inequality, an insufficient young workforce and only children basicallybeing bratsÂ have caused many to question what was already an unpopular policy.
But despiteÂ calls for its abolitionÂ the government still enforces the policy through forced abortions, compensations and fines throughout China.
Although most Chinese people do actually support the one child policy, they do not support forced abortions, as seen by the reaction to the viral photo ofÂ Feng JianmeiÂ and her aborted child (distressing images). The photograph and local media reporting made this a big story but is far from being an isolated case.
Most demographers think that it would be too late to avert a demographic crisis in China even if the policy were to be changed tomorrow.
The slowdown in births has already led to a dramatic rise in the ratio of pensioners to young workers needed to support them.
According to the 2010 census, the number of people over the age of 60 has risen to 13.3 per cent of the population compared with just over a tenth a decade ago; children under 14 comprise less than one-sixth of the population, down from almost a quarter 10 years ago.
As we reported earlier this month, these kinds of forced population control measures happened in America well within this generation, and continues to this day in more covert forms.
From Alchemy of the Modern Renaissance by JG Vibes:
The typical mainstream assumption about eugenics is that it was some misguided but well-meaning social experiment of the past.
However, overpopulation fear mongering and government depopulation programs are very much alive today and are being implemented before our very eyes.
Current President Barack Obama picked a man named John Holdren as his âScience Czarâ who helped write a book called âEcoscienceâ in the 1970âs that took the social goals of eugenics and gave it the language of the environmental movement, which was starting to grow in popularity.
He and other eugenicists at the time sought to hijack the momentum of the environmental movement so they could use it to justify depopulation policies.Â They knew that if they could convince the public that their policies were for the good of the environment they would be able to advance their eugenics agenda with minimal public resistance.
The book âEcoscienceâ discusses forced abortions and mass sterilization as possible âsolutionsâ to the apparent âoverpopulation problemâ.
Holdren has backpedaled on some of these statements now that he is in public office, but only because those ideas are becoming more unpopular as the public begins to do their own research.
Talk of âmaster racesâ and âsocial engineeringâ has become taboo in the mainstream culture, so people who advocate these kinds of ideas needed a new way of presenting their social policies.
Typically eugenics policies are now sold as environmental protection efforts or charity to the poor, things that everyone would be in support of.
According to Professor Steven W Mosher of the international Population Research Institute the populations in Europe and North America would actually be in decline if it were not for people migrating into the country.
The number of births taking place worldwide has been in sharp decline over the past 20 years.Â If this trend continues then the worldâs population will quickly peak and then begin a mysterious and dangerous decline.
Furthermore, to suggest that reducing the global population will actually improve the quality of life for the people here is resting upon the misconception that poverty is a result of overpopulation.
To improve life for people on earth we need to find ways to get people what they need, reducing the amount of people will not help the ones left get what they need.
There is more than enough room and resources for all of the people on earth and then some, but unfortunately the people in control of those resources arenât using them responsibly.
It is true that there are serious environmental issues that need to be addressed in our world, but this isnât something that will be solved with more government control.Â Check out the following video for some examples of free market solutions to environmental problems:
We believe that the world has reached a turning point as the corporate funded and controlled mainline media has become obsolete as humans are now seeking the truth. Intellihub.comâ˘ strives and will continue to uphold itâs duties to inform humanity of what is really taking place in the world around them. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.