Does the World Health Organization want to outlaw men?

A post caught my eye this week at the Telegraph – Single men will get the right to start a family under new definition of fertility. To whit the World Health Organization intends to amend the definition of infertility from someone who is unable to conceive after twelve months of sustained trying to someone who is unable to conceive because nobody wants to fuck them.

Tim Newman posted about this and his take was that we are seeing drastic social changes being pushed through by unelected and unaccountable international bodies such as WHO, UNESCO, the UN and others. As Tim states, wars have started over less than this.

His point is very relevant because this is not about single men being allowed to conceive. That headline is a gigantic smokescreen. This isn’t about men at all. It’s about women. If fertile women are now allowed to access IVF programs with the same amount of rights as infertile couples then this will put an entirely new spin on the dynamics of human relationships. Think of this as the final nail in the coffin for the traditional family, an institution which has been under sustained attack for fifty years now.

The big stumbling block for feminists, progressives, and cultural Marxists has always been that it takes two to tango. Even with IVF treatments and fertility clinics, these procedures were always restricted to those who were actually infertile. But if the WHO succeeds in changing the definition of fertility then what do you need men for?

All around us we are bombarded with propaganda that masculinity is inherently bad. That young boys must be cured of their masculine urges, all under the guise that women and girls need to be protected from the horrible men. Young boys are now being encouraged to become transsexuals. Homosexuality is not just being encouraged in young boys, it is being actively celebrated.

The proponents of all of this have an end-game. It is not just random idiocy and mindless hatred. It is about a world without men, where future pregnancies will be screened so as to allow only female children. Envisage a world where natural conception is outlawed and that the only legal way to bring a child into the world is through a clinic. For “health reasons”. All male fetuses will be unhealthy and will have to be aborted. How much time would it take for there to be a world without men?

“It puts a stake in the ground and says an individual’s got a right to  reproduce whether or not they have a partner. It’s a big change.

“It fundamentally alters who should be included in this group and who should  have access to healthcare. It sets an international legal standard.  Countries are bound by it.”

The last thirty years has seen an increase of social engineering on a massive scale. We are now approaching the end-game. If you think this is just lunacy from a science fiction novel then think again.

7 thoughts on “Does the World Health Organization want to outlaw men?

  1. I think they’ll keep men around because women won’t want to mine tin or build tractors themselves. These things might be more automated in the future but will still require human maintenance for quite a while. Once the robots can design, build and fix each other then men will no longer be required – but neither will women.
    More likely, sex and love will continue to be separated from reproduction and family life. My prediction is that this will cause further decline in total fertility. Most women don’t want to plan things that out so clinically. They are emotion-driven and want things to ‘just happen’.

    Like

  2. I have this recurring dream that on September 11th they missed the World Trade Center buildings and hit the UN building instead. Just think of all the trouble that would have saved. The average American’s response would have been “shit happens.”

    Oh no! They blew up the UN! Bwahahaha!

    I would have liked to have seen the UN Diversity Regiment go up against the Taliban. I hear the Taliban doesn’t use preferred pronouns so that should have got them fighting mad.

    Like

  3. GFR

    I must be missing something here – what’s the point?
    .
    Even unattractive women can get knocked up if they use enough alcohol (and push-up bras). In-vitro is USUALLY necessary if the woman is too OLD – ugly but YOUNG women don’t have that much difficulty conceiving.
    .
    Which brings me to not-understood-point number two. Ugly women DON’T get themselves knocked up because they want to have a (male usually) partner to help them raise the nipper. If they do away with men it won’t be long before there aren’t any women either..
    .
    Oh wait..

    Like

  4. Pingback: Does WHO want to outlaw men? | Orphans of Liberty

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