Humans: An Endangered Species:
“Reality has a way of effecting abrupt ethical changes. … Each individual will have a very clear choice: birth control or sterilization or abortion or abstinence [and consumption rationing] or [crimes of aggression humane and orderly] execution.” – [EoP Amended] Jason Brent; Humans: An Endangered Species.
The action I am initially proposing is value neutral and does not favor or harm any individual or group. The action I am proposing will be applied to every person or group without favoring anyone. The action is very simple—limit the right of any male to father only one live child and limit the right of every woman to one live birth. In simple terms a couple is limited to one and only one child—not one child for the male and one child for the female.
These limitations would be applied to every single human being without regard to race, religion, national origin or anything else and it would be absolute, no exceptions. It would be applied without regard for wealth, or the lack of wealth, and it would be applied without regard for the country of birth or residence of either the male or female. It would be applied without regard to intelligence, or the lack thereof, and without regard of the ability of the male or female to function in society. (At a later date when a method was agreed upon relating to dividing human beings into two groups, the ability to function in society would be considered in relation to who could or could not reproduce.) The right to either father a child or for a female to give birth could not be sold or transferred; it would be personal to the individual. If a live child were born with a birth defect or with some other disability it would not permit either the father or mother to produce another child. Each couple would have the right to have all appropriate pre-natal tests to determine if the child in the womb would be born with a birth or genetic defect and if the chance existed that the child would be born with such a defect to have an abortion.
Since survival of our species depends on the one child rule, under my proposal any attempt to evade the rule would result in death of the evader and of any second child. The rule to be fair must be absolute, without a single exception. If the female cannot or refuses to provide the name of the father she and the child shall be immediately executed. All of the ideas set forth in this paragraph may be considered horrible and inhumane. However, since they will be applied equally, no individual or group is harmed except to the extent that an individual cannot either father or give birth to a second child. The harm caused to the individual and the harm caused to all of humanity by enforcing the one child rule set forth above is miniscule compared to the harm which all of humanity would suffer if population were not reduced.
Since the birth of a child is very hard to hide, there must be communal responsibility and accountability for any attempt to do so. Those who knowingly failed to report the birth of a second or any higher number of children would themselves be subject to the very same severe punishment that would be meted out to the parents of the second or higher numbered child—no religious, cultural or ethnic exemptions would obtain. Humanity cannot consider the evasion of the single child rule a game to be played with a minor penalty, if caught. No group or individual could be permitted any evasion of the one child rule a that would lead to a disparity among groups and among individuals causing irreparable harm to the entire system established to reduce population. Should this sanction seem barbaric or draconian, it is surely less draconian in its effects than the merciless verdict of nature upon a species that refuses to contain its expansion.
In order for this proposal to be fair, equitable and workable, society and governments would be required to take action today to provide the means for every human being to control his or her fertility, to give everyone on the face of the earth the ability to limit birth to a single child. Governments would be required to devote a whatever portion of their Gross Domestic Product is necessary to the provision of artificial birth control devices of any and all types including sterilization, at low or no cost as appropriate, to their citizens, no matter the age of the citizens once a citizen reaches the age he/she can physically reproduce. This would also include instruction as how to use the devices. This would also include education of both males and females that the birth of a second child would result in the execution of the father and mother as well as the child. Governments would be required to provide safe, as much as any medical procedure can be safe, and low cost or free access to abortion. If any person, either male or female, had more than two failures of birth control devices, it would be conclusively presumed that the person was unable to use birth control devices and the person would be physically and permanently sterilized.
If poor nations were unable to devote the necessary funds to accomplish the one child rule in five years, the rich nations of the world would be required to assist the poor nations, after an evaluation that the poor nations were doing the best they could under some reasonable standard. Since survival of our species depends on reducing population below the current 6.7 billion humans now alive, the necessary funds to establish the system to control population must be made available. It should be emphasized that a “One-Child-Per-Family” (OCPF) law that is almost completely effective will not suffice. It must be totally and universally effective. After a five year preparation period, the rule must be enforced. The reduction in population would continue under the one child rule until all of humanity agreed upon the method and criteria necessary to implement the two group solution described herein. Population would continue to be reduced pursuant to the method and criteria of the two group solution until it reached 300 million or some other lower number agreed upon by humanity. The number finally agreed upon would be based on the ability of the earth to provide resources for humanity to maintain an acceptable standard of living for a minimum of 25,000 years. And 25,000 years is infinitely small when compared to the 160 million years the dinosaurs ruled the earth.
No doubt any proposal that would recommend capital punishment for transgressors of the One-Child-Per-Family law presently evokes immediate revulsion and rejection. Outside the context of an imminent die-off, given our heritage of moral, religious and cultural programming, I would be surprised if it didn’t. An example which shows that morality changes when circumstances change follows. Any Londoner who proposed in August 1938 that the Royal Air Force should one day bomb German cites with women and children in them would be summarily dismissed as a callous barbarian. But just two years later Londoners were clamoring for that action. Reality has a way of effecting abrupt ethical changes. What is not presently comprehended by almost all of humanity is that we are now in an emergency. Our species is on the brink of an unparalleled catastrophe—our destruction and the destruction of our civilization. It is a matter of complete indifference to me that many, if not all, readers will find the execution of anyone having a second child to be horrible and against every moral precept they learned or understood was applicable to humanity. The problem is not that my prescriptions are immoral or horrible. Rather the problem is that the situation humanity finds itself in is horrible. I will now remind the readers that under the law I propose every individual would be well aware of the consequences of flouting the law. Which of the two evils is worse— a) executing anyone who knowingly violates the one child rule; or b) not reducing population such that the vast majority or probably all of humanity is destroyed? Under this system fertility drugs would not be permitted or if they were permitted and used, only one child would be permitted to be born alive or the rest would be destroyed at birth, if more than one were born alive. If a women gave birth to more than one child and fertility drugs or any other actions to increase fertility or the number of children born were not the cause, those children would be permitted to live. Each individual will have a very clear choice—execution or birth control or sterilization or abortion or abstinence.
» SS Defcon: SQSwans: Jason G Brent.
» IG: 17-05-20_joyreid-eoptrc-vs-wipimpeachment; 17-05-20_anavalny-couragemother; 17-05-23_eop-v-wip-media-02; 17-05-29_eopscientificculturallaw; 17-05-30_eopftbragg-milethicsqa; 17-05-31_dtrump-kanyewest-katthygriffin-jdgeorge; 17-06-02_eoptrc-citizenv-mcbride; 17-06-05_eop-v-wef-bilderberg-bizforneweu; 17-06-11_mcveightapes-rydertrafficlightfuse; 17-06-21_eop-v-wip-charity; 17-06-21_eop-v-wip-media-03; 17-07-22_eop-v-wip-media-04; 17-07-26_eop-v-wip-media-05; 17-08-03_maotsetung-abolishstateresponsiblefreedom; 17-08-21_jbrent-humansendspecies-1child.
Martin Luther: Church’s sale of Indulgences
Works of piety and charity are infinitely better than indulgences, and yet they do not preach these with such display or so much zeal; nay, they keep silence about them for the sake of preaching pardons. .. Those who believe that, through letters of pardon [breeding/consumption indulgences], they are made sure of their own salvation, will be eternally damned along with their teachers. – [EoP Amended] Martin Luther; 95 Theses.
Lastly, works of piety and charity are infinitely better than indulgences, and yet they do not preach these with such display or so much zeal; nay, they keep silence about them for the sake of preaching pardons. And yet it is the first and sole duty of all bishops, that the people should learn the Gospel and Christian charity: for Christ nowhere commands that indulgences should be preached. What a dreadful thing it is then, what peril to a bishop, if, while the Gospel is passed over in silence, he permits nothing but the noisy outcry of indulgences to be spread among his people, and bestows more care on these than on the Gospel! (Introductory Letter To The 95 Theses)
32. Those who believe that, through letters of pardon [indulgences], they are made sure of their own salvation, will be eternally damned along with their teachers. (95 Theses).
Priceless Eternity: Select Quotes From Martin Luther’s 95 Theses – 1517 AD – Church History.
“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.” – Luther: Luther at the Imperial Diet of Worms (1521); Martin Luther: Here I Stand.
Since your majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply, I will answer without horns and without teeth. Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason–I do not accept the authority of popes and councils for they have contradicted each other–my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise, God help me. Amen.” – Christianity Today: Martin Luther’s Most Noble Words.
Sayyid Qutb: Character & belief based on Reason & Freedom from Servitude
“Should I travel to America, and become flimsy, and ordinary, like those who are satisfied with idle talk and sleep. Or should I distinguish myself with values and spirit. Is there other than Islam that I should be steadfast to in its character and hold on to its instructions, in this life amidst deviant chaos, and the endless means of satisfying animalistic desires, pleasures, and awful sins? I wanted to be the latter man.” – Sayyid Qutb
“The whole world in the eyes of Islam is divided into two, the first is Dar al-Islam, and the second is Dar al-Kufr. Dar al-Islam is where the Shari’ah of Islam alone is implemented, regardless of whether the inhabitants are all Muslims…. Dar al-Kufr is any land where the Kufr law is dominant even if everybody in the land is Muslim”. – Sayyid Qutb, In the Shade of the Qur’an, Vol. 2 pg. 874.
It is not the intention of Islam to force its beliefs on people, but Islam is not merely “belief.” As we have pointed out, Islam is a declaration of the freedom of man from servitude to other men. Thus it strives from the beginning to abolish all those systems and governments which are based on the rule of man over men and the servitude of one human being to another. When Islam releases people from this political pressure and presents to them its spiritual message, appealing to their reason, it gives them complete freedom to accept or not to accept its beliefs. However, this freedom does not mean that they can make their [WiP consumption/breeding] desires their gods .. Only when the [WiP] idolatrous tyranny is overthrown, will people be free to reconnect with God’s universal order – [EoP Amended] Sayyid Qutb; Milestones, In the Shade of the Quran.
It is not the intention of Islam to force its beliefs on people, but Islam is not merely “belief.” As we have pointed out, Islam is a declaration of the freedom of man from servitude to other men. Thus it strives from the beginning to abolish all those systems and governments which are based on the rule of man over men and the servitude of one human being to another. When Islam releases people from this political pressure and presents to them its spiritual message, appealing to their reason, it gives them complete freedom to accept or not to accept its beliefs. However, this freedom does not mean that they can make their desires their gods, or that they can choose to remain in the servitude of other human beings, making some men lords over others. – Sayyid Qutb; Milestones, 1964
– Middle East Policy Council: The Roots of Modern Islamism.
Sayyid Qutb: Dar al-Kufr & Dar al-Islam
In his work, ‘In the Shade of the Qur’an’, the martyr (died 1966 CE) Sayyid Qutb said, “The whole world in the eyes of Islam is divided into two, the first is Dar al-Islam, and the second is Dar al-Harb. Dar al-Islam is where the Shari’ah of Islam alone is implemented, regardless of whether the inhabitants are all Muslims or Muslims mixed with Dhimmi (Jews and Christians) or if all of the citizens are Dhimmi with only some Muslims in power. Dar al-Harb is any land where the Kufr law is dominant even if everybody in the land is Muslim”. [Sayyid Qutb, In the Shade of the Qur’an, Vol. 2 pg. 874]
The “dar” (pl. diyaar) in the Arabic language has numerous meaning such as the halting place (mahallu), the house, abode, residence and the land (balad).
According to Shariah terminology, Dar al-Islam is defined as the land which is governed by the laws of Islam and whose security (Aman) is maintained by the security of Islam, i.e. by the authority and protection of Muslims inside and outside the land, even if the majority of its inhabitants are non-Muslims.
Dar al-Kufr is the land which is governed by the laws of Kufr, and whose security is not maintained by the security (Aman) of Islam, i.e. by other than the authority and security of Muslims, even if the majority of its inhabitants are Muslims.
So what matters in determining whether the land is Dar al-Islam or Dar al-Kufr is neither the land itself nor its inhabitants, rather it is the laws and the security. So if its laws are Islamic and its security is maintained by Muslims then it is Dar al-Islam. When its laws are the laws of Kufr (disbelief) and its security is not maintained by Muslims then it is Dar al-Kufr. The term Dar al-Harb (land of war) is synonymous with Dar al-Kufr as in origin the aim of Islam is to spread to all lands until the Islamic state encompasses the whole globe. However there is a difference between those nations which are considered as Dar al-Harb Fi’lan (actual land of war) like the state of Israel which occupies Islamic land and Dar al-Harb Hukman (potential land of war) which include other states which are not occupying Islamic land or engaged with a direct war against our lands. These definitions have been derived from the Islamic evidences and discussed by the Ulema (scholars) in history.
– The Khalifah: Clarifying the meaning of Dar al-Kufr & Dar al-Islam.
Sayyid Qutb and the Origins of Radical Islamism
Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966) was an influential Egyptian ideologue who established the theoretical basis for radical Islamism in the postcolonial Sunni Muslim world. Lacking a pure understanding of the leader’s life and work, the popular media has conflated Qutb’s moral purpose with the aims of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. He is often portrayed as a terrorist, Islamo-Fascist, and advocate of murder. An expert on social protest and political resistance, John Calvert rescues Qutb from misrepresentation and follows the evolution of his thought within the context of his time.
Calvert recounts Qutb’s life from the small village in which he was raised to his execution at the behest of Abd al-Nasser’s regime. His study remains sensitive to the cultural, political, social, and economic circumstances that shaped Qutb’s thought, including major developments that composed one of the most eventful periods in Egyptian history. These years witnessed the full flush of Britain’s tutelary regime, the advent of Egyptian nationalism, and the political hegemony of the Free Officers. Qutb rubbed shoulders with Taha Husayn, Naguib Mahfouz, and Abd al-Nasser himself, though his Islamism originally had little to do with religion. Only in response to his harrowing experience in prison did Qutb come to regard Islam and kufr (infidelity) as oppositional, antithetical, and therefore mutually exclusive. Calvert shows how Qutb repackaged and reformulated the Islamic heritage to challenge authority, including those who claimed (falsely, Qutb believed) to be Muslim.
– Amazon: Sayyid Qutb and the Origins of Radical Islamism.
Bram Fischer: Immoral Laws
“There is another and more compelling reason for my plea and why I persist in it. I accept the general rule that for the protection of a society laws should by obeyed. But when the laws themselves become [WiP] immoral and require the citizen to take part in an organised system of [WiP resource conflict] oppression – if only by his [breeding/consumption addiction] silence or apathy – then I believe that a higher duty arises. This compels one to refuse to recognise such [WiP] laws.” – [EoP Amended] Bram Fisher; I Did What was Right’ Statement from the Dock by Bram Fischer after the conclusion of the Rivonia Trial, 1966
“There is another and more compelling reason for my plea and why I persist in it. I accept the general rule that for the protection of a society laws should by obeyed. But when the [WiP] laws themselves become immoral and require the citizen to take part in an organised system of oppression – if only by his [breeding/consumption addiction] silence or apathy – then I believe that a higher duty arises. This compels one to refuse to recognise such [WiP] laws.” – [EoP Amended] Bram Fisher; I Did What was Right’ Statement from the Dock by Bram Fischer after the conclusion of the Rivonia Trial, 1966
» SQSwans: Reports: Bram Fischer: I Did What Was Right Dock Statement.
» IG: 17-08-15_bramfischer.