Marquette Warrior: George Orwell and the United Nations

Thursday, April 02, 2009

George Orwell and the United Nations

From Heart, Mind & Strength blog, a bit of bureaucratic prose from the International Conference on Population Program of Action and Development (ICPD), and a translation into honest language.

(U.N. documents are never actually written in honest language.) First, from the bureaucrats:
We must, as well, foster equal partnerships and sharing of responsibilities in all areas of family life, including in sexual and reproductive life, and promote frank discourse on sexuality, including in relation to sexual health and reproduction. We must also acknowledge the direct link between population rates, fertility, and the ability to reach development outcomes.
Now, the translation:
We must be sure to further marginalize and stigmatize women who choose to become mothers, or who once becoming them, embrace this role, and desire to devote themselves to it full-time, and not necessarily earn an income while doing so. We must ensure that all women are forced from their homes, and their small children as early as possible - including breastfeeding mothers - so that they will earn at least 50% of the family income for political reasons and not for any reason based on the good of the woman, the good of the child, or the good of society. We must ensure that no one sees any good coming out of motherhood, and stamp out anyone who in the free exercise of their personal liberty might choose to believe that babies need their mothers and mothers need their babies (much less that both mothers and fathers have a unique and important role to play in the development of a young child - only fatherhood is more to be despised than motherhood). Believing in the goodness of motherhood - especially the desire to mother more than 1.2 children - is politically subversive and adversely affects those women in power who prefer to work outside the home and need all women to make that same choice in order to feel vindicated in it. We are “pro-choice” as long as all women make the choices that we ourselves prefer.

We must assume that women in developing countries desire the same things and have the same values as Western women and prefer to find their value in being economic producers and we must make sure that no woman feels fulfilled or valuable as “just” a mother.

We must remember that children - especially children of color or children in developing countries, who often come to the world in disconcertingly large numbers in our own view - are first and foremost a drain on the environment, and secondarily, a commodity that should be only created in the model ordered by wealthy Westerners, only if “wanted” and only if they can be produced economically, raised in what we regard, without any scientific evidence to support our requirements, in an ecologically-sustainable way, and if their numbers are strictly limited. Otherwise, because all children represent a threat to the adult material lifestyle of Western countries, which is the pinnacle of all good things (we believe), their lives should be seen as generally unimportant and mothers should be further stigmatized because they collaborate in the creation of this threat to our collective lifestyle.

We must ensure the universal adoption of the aforementioned goals and values by promoting at first voluntary, but then increasingly coercive methods of fertility control, combined with high-quality propaganda ensuring that all women see prospective motherhood as an unworthy pursuit and the threat to everyone’s well-being, especially their own, that we, the powers that be, believe it to be.

Labels: , ,


Anonymous Margaret Sanger said...

Between the central planners of global population control and members of the church of environmentalism, there is no denying the currents of "social Darwinism" and eugenics that motivate those concerned with "human rights."

"Human rights" is a contradiction in terms when it is accompanied by the pervasive sentiment that one, in fact, has no "right" to be "human."

10:09 AM  
Anonymous Clutch said...

Does the fact that the "translation" is almost ten times as long as the quoted statement cause you even a moment's thought about whether it's mostly just made up out of whole cloth?

7:45 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...


4:51 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home