An American Blogger’s “Final Solution” to China’s Overpopulation

One of the last humans left alive after intense bombing during the Japanese attack on Shanghai's South Station. August 1937

 

SAVE ALL BABIES IN CHINA!

One of the last humans left alive after intense bombing during the Japanese attack on Shanghai’s South Station.  August 1937.  Copyright © 2000 The History Place™ 

 

 

 

In the autobiography of Rudolf Hoess, “Commandant at Auschwitz”, which he wrote while a prisoner of the allies awaiting trial and execution for crimes against humanity, he wrote:

When in the summer of 1941 the Reichsfuehrer SS (Himmler) himself gave me orders to prepare installations at Auschwitz where mass exterminations could take place….It was certainly an extraordinary and monstrous order.  Nevertheless, the reasons behind the extermination program seemed right to me.   Whether this mass extermination of the Jews was necessary or not was something on which I could not allow myself to form an opinion, for I lacked the necessary breadth of view.

How “fair and balanced”, how “objective” he was!

Now fast forward to Beijing in 2008, where the prominent American blogger on things Chinese, Richard of Peking Duck, has written with approbation of how the CCP recently has expelled 500 members for violating China’s “one child” policy, which has been enforced by, among other things, forced abortions and infanticide:

I’m not necessarily in favour of China’s one-child policy (I hate it, but I also wonder if there’s much choice in the matter – something drastic had to be done, thanks to Mao’s stupidity in advocating higher birth rates).  I am, however, in favour of governments applying their laws to all citizens, including those in the government. So I’d say the CCP did the right thing in expelling these 500 party members who defied the law.

But what this Richard TPD says about the CCP “applying their laws to all citizens?”  Nonsense and rot, because only a minority of Chinese citizens are CCP members, and the sanctions applied to them are not the same as are applied to poor peasants and workers who do not belong to the CCP.  What kind of illogical rubbish is Richard TPD talking, equating expulsion from the CCP with other, far more violent sanctions applied to China’s poor who are not in the CCP?

The 7 January 2007 Daily Telegraph has reported a recent case of what happens to NON-CCP members who violate China’s one-child law:

A Chinese woman who was forced to have an abortion despite being nine months pregnant is suing the authorities for their actions.  Jin Yani’s waters had already broken when China’s abortion police came for her.  They took her to a nearby abortion centre, injected her unborn baby girl and removed the body two days later.

That was not “abortion.”  That was murder.  The traditional English legal definition of murder – a definition still followed in all of the Common Law countries, England, 49 American states, Canada, Australia and New Zealand – is “the unlawful killing, with malice, of a person who has been born.”

The operative words are, “who has been born.”  Abortion is legal in almost all Western countries, but murder is not, and the key words are, “has been born.”

And that criterion, “has been born” has traditionally meant that the baby is no longer depending upon its mother’s body for survival.  And when a woman’s water breaks, then birth has begun, because when the water breaks, the baby is no longer being sustained by its mother’s blood.  Whether the baby is still positioned inside it’s mother’s body, is immaterial.  As soon as the amniotic sac breaks, the baby has passed from one kind of life in the womb, to another kind of life outside the womb.

What happened to the child of Jin Yani was murder.  Call it “infanticide” if you will, but unless you regard infants as non-humans, this was murder.

So, we see the Chinese Communist Party is continuing to commit murder in the cause of population control.  Richard of TPD has said, about China’s population problem, that “something drastic had to be done.”  But how is that any different from the Nazi policy of the “Final Solution” to Germany’s perceived “Jewish problem”, which required “drastic” measures?  Even Himmler and Hoess admitted that the Holocaust was a very unpleasant solution, but they rationalized it on the grounds of necessity.

Well, if Richard TPD really has the courage of his conviction that “something drastic has to be done” about China’s overpopulation, and if he would like to see China’s government “applying its laws to all citizens”, then Richard must advocate killing ALL Chinese people other than firstborns.  That’s only fair, if this policy is to be enforced in a consistent and fair way.

Because, it’s a matter of necessity, isn’t it.  And Richard has praised the Chinese government for “applying its laws to all citizens”, so he should have no objection to China enforcing its population-control laws in a truly consistent way:  murder all Chinese people except for the firstborn.

And if Richard and other Americans who say (however reluctantly) that they approve of China’s one-child policy, REALLY want to be consistent, then they ought to lobby for the US Congress to enact a similar law.  Because, well, WHY should ANY Chinese woman be forced to have only one child on this Earth, if women in all other nations aren’t held to the same requirement?  Why?  WHY?

“Overpopulation” means, “There are too many of you and your children, and just the right number of me and my children.”

Ned Kelly says:

Anyone who believes killing people is necessary to reduce overpopulation, has a moral duty – for the sake of integrity – to commit suicide.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Ned Kelly's Pub, Wall of Shame and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to An American Blogger’s “Final Solution” to China’s Overpopulation

  1. Pamanush says:

    Totally agree with you Ned. If we have an overpopulation problem, then let’s make ti clear it is a problem of mankind and not of the Chinese along. Education makes people having less children. People would go to schools ans universities till much later age in life and won’t have children early. This is exactly why in the West birth rate has been declining. Pessimistic views about the future is harmless if they are kept private, or lest their application to life is so kept. Nobody should be allowed to advocate the culling of people, or to tacitly approve such by others. Useful idiots, I believe is a term coined by Lenin for British Soviet sympathizers, and I do not know this for sure, but I think those people were involved in the civil unrest of 1925-26 and are mainly unionist or left-leaning radical liberals. Today, when the term is applied, it is mostly to people of money who go to China (and Russia, and UAE etc.) in cahoots with their respective rulers to rob their respective people of either some natural resources we are taught we need or basic cheap labour. Every penny those internaional companies are making out of China is tainted with poor people’s sweat if not blood.

    I maintain my hope alive by not getting involved but life is hard for anyone from China wanting to still have a conscious in this part of world these days. Sigh. Only if China was free and its people’s really potential can be allowed to realise.

  2. Ned Kelly says:

    Dear Pamanush,

    WELCOME to Ned Kelly’s Pub! 🙂

    I think a good way to begin to reduce “overpopulation” in the World, would be for every Westerner who says he “agrees with China’s one-child policy”, to kill himself to make room for a Chinese baby.

  3. Pamanush says:

    Ned,

    I cannot say things like that. Just don’t like the word “kill” except in relation to stoic suicide and even then I’d only talk about suicide with philosophers. Death is such a topic most people cannot and should not talk about.

    But that’s another story, thx for doing something out there for my country, and though it hopefully for humanity.

    Pamanush

  4. Pingback: TRAFFIC: A tempestuous hissy-fit in the Chinese blogosphere teacup « Under the Jacaranda Tree

  5. Richard and Otherlisa often like to grandstand for the purpose of being heard and will flip flop for both sides, but usually end up on the pro-China side.

  6. C.A. Yeung says:

    The euphemism for this kind of “flip flopping” is called being “fair and balanced”. It is what you do when you want others to respect you even though you have done something disgraceful, such as justifying the CCP’s one child policy.

  7. C.A. Yeung says:

    Richard accused me of splashing Ned’s essay on China’s one child policy all over the Internet. I had no intention to do so in the first place. But since he insisted, I might as well oblige.

    Here is Ned’s essay in the Telegraph. This is his essay in USA Today.

  8. Pingback: Lord of the Rings game for the China Blogosphere! « Under the Jacaranda Tree

  9. Pingback: Overpopulation is a myth « Under the Jacaranda Tree

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s