Large: 17-08-28_DanaPittard-FPlanning-2


Thomas Sankara: EoP Revolution Gender Liberation

“The revolution and women’s liberation go together. We do not talk of women’s emancipation as an act of charity or because of a surge of human compassion,” Sankara said. “It is a basic necessity for the triumph of the revolution. Women hold up the other half of the sky.”
– Daily Maverick: Remembering Thomas Sankara, the EFF’s muse.

Burkina Faso, 30 percent Moslem, also is probably the showpiece of women’s rights in Africa, with women allowed to own land, borrow money and choose their method of birth control. Throughout his regime, Sankara has preached absolute public incorruptibility, an end to factional politics and hard work. For example, Sankara sold off the government Mercedes fleet after he came to power and all officials, including the president, open their bank statements and a list of possessions to a public tribunal for examination.
– UPI: Burkina Faso leader Thomas Sankara was ousted Thursday in coup.
» IG: 18-08-22_danapittard-mlk-fplanning.


Thomas Sankara: Imperialism In Your Food

“Our country produces enough to feed us all. We can even produce more than we need. Unfortunately, for lack of [responsible freedom] organization, we still need to be for food aid. This type of assistance is counterproductive and has kept us thinking that we can only be beggers who need aid. I am asked ‘where is imperialism’? I say: Just look in your plates: you see imported corn, rice or millet, this is imperialism. Lets not look any further.” – Thomas Sankara; Thomas Sankara – The Upright Man.
IG: 17-08-03_tsankara-responsiblefreedomfoodsecurity.


Thomas Sankara: Ego/Eco Illiterate Soldier is a War Criminal

A soldier without any ego/eco literacy [ego-eco-literacy.tygae.org.za] training is a potential criminal – Thomas Sankara.
» IG: 14-08-27_leasankarasmarties17-08-03_thomassankara-egoecoliteracyfoxhole;


Dana Pittard: Military Endorsing Ecological Overshoot is Criminal

Ecological Overshoot [resulting from ‘right to breed/consume above ecological carrying capacity clauses of int’l law] is criminal – [EoP Amended] Maj. Gen. Dana J.H. Pittard, as Commander at Ft. Bliss, cut ‘criminal’ energy use, increased recycling, conserved water as a matter of security. – LA Times: At one Army base, a vision for a new shade of green.
» EoP New World Order Social Contract Options: eop-nwo-sco.
» EoP NTE GMA Cabinet: eop-nte-gma-cabinet.
» IG: 17-02-20_latimes-danapittard-greenvision; 17-03-07_chukotkakeystone-shadesofgreen17-04-15_ecologicalovershootiscriminal17-04-18_eopecoegocultrev-pittardmcchrystal; 17-05-25_jcsdempsey-usfundingisis17-08-06_stanmcchrystal-gwotcauses-eopsolutions17-08-07_stanmcchrystal-derrickjensen17-08-08_derrickjensen-lwilkersonpjay17-08-21_stanmcchrystal-militarystrategy18-08-22_danapittard-mlk-fplanning.


 China One Child Policy

The one child policy was introduced in China between 1978-79, by then leader Deng Xiaoping, to halt population growth – at the time an average of 6 children per family. On 25 Sep 1980 an official public letter letter called on all citizens to adhere to the one child policy. The One Child policy was forcefully enacted and managed by the National Population and Family Planning Commission. Unofficial figures claim approximately 300-400 million births have been prevented between 1978-2015. A 2008 survey reported that 76% of the Chinese public support the law. Less than 10% of Chinese families have taken advantage of the Chinese governments relaxation of the law to a two child policy.
– Mojo: 10 China’s One-Child Policy Facts; Suzanne Transki: One Child Policy Documentary; ASPO: Al Bartlett on China’s One Child Population Policy.

Al Bartlett: China’s One Child Policy: China has reduced its population by preventing an estimated 300 million births, which is a far greater contribution to climate change reductions; than any other country. – ASPO: Al Bartlett on China’s One Child Population Policy.

The one-child policy, a part of the family planning policy, was a population planning policy of China. It was introduced in 1979 and began to be formally phased out in 2015. The policy allowed exceptions for many groups, including ethnic minorities. In 2007, 36% of China’s population was subject to a strict one-child restriction, with an additional 53% being allowed to have a second child if the first child was a girl. Provincial governments imposed fines for violations, and the local and national governments created commissions to raise awareness and carry out registration and inspection work.
According to the Chinese government, 400 million births were prevented. This claim has been called “false” by scholars, because “three-quarters of the decline in fertility since 1970 occurred before the launching of the one-child policy; and most of the further decline in fertility since 1980 can be attributed to economic development.” Thailand and Iran, along with the Indian states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, have had similar declines of fertility without a one-child policy. Although 76% of Chinese people supported the policy in a 2008 survey, it was controversial outside of China.
On October 29, 2015, it was reported that the existing law would be changed to a two-child policy, citing a statement from the Communist Party of China. The new law became effective on January 1, 2016, following its passage in the standing committee of the National People’s Congress on December 27, 2015.
» IG: 17-08-21_jbrent-humansendspecies-1child.


Responsible Freedom endorsed by Africans during Apartheid

IFP and Chief M. Buthelezi: population and carrying capacity:

In Black Viewpoint: KwaZulu Development: Chief M. Buthelezi makes the following statement clearly indicating that he is well aware of the concept of ‘carrying capacity’ and the famine, starvation, unemployment and poverty consequences of overpopulation although he – perhaps politely to his then Apartheid masters – ignores overconsumption: “My people were at first self-sufficient because there was enough to eat and no problems of population explosion.”

ANC’s Commission for Religious Affairs: “Overpopulation is Irresponsible”:

In Something New Out of Africa: The Challenge to Transform Country and Continent, the ANC Commission for Religious Affairs says: “Overpopulation is irresponsible”

IFP and FRD call for Ethics of 2 children per family as urgent population control priority:

In a 1992/93 Race Relations Survey by the South African Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR), we are told that the high population growth is the cause of growth in poverty, unemployment and squatter camps, and most of the serious problems in South Africa; Population pressures are destroying the environment; the IFP and FRD call for ethics of 2 children per family as urgent population control priority; Population Growth outstrips Economic Growth for many years, and blacks avoid participation in family planning programs.
» EoP NTE GMA: 28 Apr: Updated EoP Help 4 Trump: Int of Military Gods Polite People Options / Suggestions.
» IG: 17-04-28_gsoros-butheleziresponsiblefreedom18-08-22_danapittard-mlk-fplanning.


Asghar Ali Engineer: Qur’an: Islam and Family Planning

“Smallness of a family (qillat al’ayal) is a facility (yusur) and its largeness (Kathrat) results in faqr (indigence, poverty). … the best of people (Khayar al-nas) is one who has less burden of children on his back (Khafif al-zahr min al-ayal) – Imam Ghazzali, a Muslim theologian, philosopher and sufi of great eminence.

Birth control is permissible – Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik, Imam Ibn Hanbal, Imam Shafi’i, Imam Ghazzali,  Small family is a bliss … excess children creates great worries – Imam Abu Hanifa & Imam Ja’afar al-Sadiq  Under certain conditions, family planning is not only morally permissible, but should be made compulsory – [paraphrased] Maulana Saeed Ahmad Akbarabadi & Imam Taymiyyah
– Asghar Ali Engineer; The Qur’an, Women and Modern Society: Islam and Family Planning-Google Books.
» IG: 17-08-22_ashgaralieng-islam-famplanning18-08-22_danapittard-mlk-fplanning.


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-wipimpeachment17-05-20_anavalny-couragemother17-05-23_eop-v-wip-media-0217-05-29_eopscientificculturallaw17-05-30_eopftbragg-milethicsqa17-05-31_dtrump-kanyewest-katthygriffin-jdgeorge17-06-02_eoptrc-citizenv-mcbride17-06-05_eop-v-wef-bilderberg-bizforneweu; 17-06-11_mcveightapes-rydertrafficlightfuse17-06-21_eop-v-wip-charity17-06-21_eop-v-wip-media-0317-07-22_eop-v-wip-media-0417-07-26_eop-v-wip-media-0517-08-03_maotsetung-abolishstateresponsiblefreedom17-08-21_jbrent-humansendspecies-1child.