Eugenics & Depopulation Are The Means; Scientific Dictatorship Is The Goal!

Author Topic: Eugenics & Depopulation Are The Means; Scientific Dictatorship Is The Goal!  (Read 84916 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,058
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
New Eugenics and the Rise of the Global Scientific Dictatorship
« Reply #40 on: July 07, 2010, 04:23:07 PM »
http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-eugenics-and-the-rise-of-the-global-scientific-dictatorship/20028

New Eugenics and the Rise of the Global Scientific Dictatorship
The Technological Revolution and the Future of Freedom, Part 3

by Andrew Gavin Marshall



Global Research
July 5, 2010

This is the third and final part of the series, "The Technological Revolution and the Future of Freedom."

Part 1: The Global Political Awakening and the New World Order
Part 2: Revolution and Repression in America

Introduction

We are in the midst of the most explosive development in all of human history. Humanity is experiencing a simultaneously opposing and conflicting geopolitical transition, the likes of which has never before been anticipated or experienced. Historically, the story of humanity has been the struggle between the free-thinking individual and structures of power controlled by elites that seek to dominate land, resources and people. The greatest threat to elites at any time – historically and presently – is an awakened, critically thinking and politically stimulated populace. This threat has manifested itself throughout history, in different places and at different times. Ideas of freedom, democracy, civil and human rights, liberty and equality have emerged in reaction and opposition to power structures and elite systems of control.

The greatest triumphs of the human mind – whether in art, science or thought – have arisen out of and challenged great systems of power and control. The greatest of human misery and tragedy has arisen out of the power structures and systems that elites always seek to construct and manage. War, genocide, persecution and human degradation are directly the result of decisions made by those who control the apparatus of power, whether the power manifests itself as intellectual, ecclesiastical, spiritual, militaristic, or scientific. The most malevolent and ruthless power is that over the free human mind: if one controls how one thinks, they control the individual itself. The greatest human achievements are where individuals have broken free the shackles that bind the mind and let loose the inherent and undeniable power that lies in each and every individual on this small little planet.

Currently, our world is at the greatest crossroads our species has ever experienced. We are in the midst of the first truly global political awakening, in which for the first time in all of human history, all of mankind is politically awakened and stirring; in which whether inadvertently or intentionally, people are thinking and acting in political terms. This awakening is most evident in the developing world, having been made through personal experience to be acutely aware of the great disparities, disrespect, and domination inherent in global power structures. The awakening is spreading increasingly to the west itself, as the majority of the people living in the western developed nations are thrown into poverty and degradation. The awakening will be forced upon all people all over the world. Nothing, no development, ever in human history, has posed such a monumental threat to elite power structures.

This awakening is largely driven by the Technological Revolution, which through technology and electronics, in particular mass media and the internet, have made it so that people across the world are able to become aware of global issues and gain access to information from around the world. The Technological Revolution, thus, has fostered an Information Revolution which has, in turn, fed the global political awakening.

Simultaneously, the Technological Revolution has led to another unique and unprecedented development in human history, and one that is diametrically opposed, yet directly related to the global political awakening. For the first time in human history, free humanity is faced with the dominating threat of a truly global elite, who have at their hands the technology to impose a truly global system of control: a global scientific dictatorship. The great danger is that through the exponential growth in scientific techniques, elites will use these great new powers to control and dominate all of humanity in such a way that has never before been experienced.

Through all of human history, tyrants have used coercive force and terror to control populations. With the Technological Revolution, elites increasingly have the ability to control the very biology and psychology of the individual to a point where it may not be necessary to impose a system of terror, but rather where the control is implemented on a much deeper, psychological, subliminal and individual biological manner. While terror can prevent people from opposing power for a while, the scientific dictatorship can create a personal psycho-social condition in which the individual comes to love his or her own slavery; in which, like a mentally inferior pet, they are made to love their leaders and accept their servitude.

So we are presented with a situation in which humanity is faced with both the greatest threat and the greatest hope that we have ever collectively experienced in our short human history. This essay, the third part in the series, “The Technological Revolution and the Future of Freedom,” examines the ideas behind the global scientific dictatorship, and how it may manifest itself presently and in the future, with a particular focus on the emergence of ‘new eugenics’ as a system of mass control.

Free humanity faces the most monumental decision we have ever been presented with: do we feed and fuel the global political awakening into a true human psycho-social revolution of the mind, creating a new global political economy which empowers and liberates all of humanity; or... do we fall silently into a ‘brave new world’ of a global scientific oppression, the likes of which have never before been experienced, and whose dominance would never be more difficult to challenge and overcome?

We can either find a true freedom, or descend into a deep despotism. We are not powerless before this great ideational beast. We have, at our very fingertips the ability to use technology to our benefit and to re-shape the world so that it benefits the people of the world and not simply the powerful. It must be freedom for all or freedom for none.

What is the ‘Scientific Dictatorship’?

In 1932, Aldous Huxley wrote his dystopian novel, “Brave New World,” in which he looked at the emergence of the scientific dictatorships of the future. In his 1958 essay, “Brave New World Revisited,” Huxley examined how far the world had come in that short period since his book was published, and where the world was heading. Huxley wrote that:

    In politics the equivalent of a fully developed scientific theory or philosophical system is a totalitarian dictatorship. In economics, the equivalent of a beautifully composed work of art is the smoothly running factory in which the workers are perfectly adjusted to the machines. The Will to Order can make tyrants out of those who merely aspire to clear up a mess. The beauty of tidiness is used as a justification for despotism.

Huxley explained that, “The future dictator’s subjects will be painlessly regimented by a corps of highly trained social engineers,” and he quotes one “advocate of this new science” as saying that, “The challenge of social engineering in our time is like the challenge of technical engineering fifty years ago. If the first half of the twentieth century was the era of technical engineers, the second half may well be the era of social engineers.” Thus, proclaims Huxley, “The twenty-first century, I suppose, will be the era of World Controllers, the scientific caste system and Brave New World.”

In 1952, Bertrand Russell, a British philosopher, historian, mathematician, and social critic wrote the book, “The Impact of Science on Society,” in which he warned and examined how science, and the technological revolution, was changing and would come to change society. In his book, Russell explained that:

    I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology. Mass psychology is, scientifically speaking, not a very advanced study... This study is immensely useful to practical men, whether they wish to become rich or to acquire the government. It is, of course, as a science, founded upon individual psychology, but hitherto it has employed rule-of-thumb methods which were based upon a kind of intuitive common sense. Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called ‘education’. Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the Press, the cinema and the radio play an increasing part.

    What is essential in mass psychology is the art of persuasion. If you compare a speech of Hitler’s with a speech of (say) Edmund Burke, you will see what strides have been made in the art since the eighteenth century. What went wrong formerly was that people had read in books that man is a rational animal, and framed their arguments on this hypothesis. We now know that limelight and a brass band do more to persuade than can be done by the most elegant train of syllogisms. It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment.

    This subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship.

Russell went on to analyze the question of whether a ‘scientific dictatorship’ is more stable than a democracy, on which he postulated:

    Apart from the danger of war, I see no reason why such a regime should be unstable. After all, most civilised and semi-civilised countries known to history have had a large class of slaves or serfs completely subordinate to their owners. There is nothing in human nature that makes the persistence of such a system impossible. And the whole development of scientific technique has made it easier than it used to be to maintain a despotic rule of a minority. When the government controls the distribution of food, its power is absolute so long as it can count on the police and the armed forces. And their loyalty can be secured by giving them some of the privileges of the governing class. I do not see how any internal movement of revolt can ever bring freedom to the oppressed in a modern scientific dictatorship.

Drawing on the concept popularized by Aldous Huxley – of people loving their servitude – Bertrand Russell explained that under a scientific dictatorship:

    It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fichte laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished... Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.

Russell explained that, “The completeness of the resulting control over opinion depends in various ways upon scientific technique. Where all children go to school, and all schools are controlled by the government, the authorities can close the minds of the young to everything contrary to official orthodoxy.” Russell later proclaimed in his book that, “a scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is a world government.” He elaborated:

    Unless there is a world government which secures universal birth control, there must be from time to time great wars, in which the penalty of defeat is widespread death by starvation. That is exactly the present state of the world, and some may hold that there is no reason why it should not continue for centuries. I do not myself believe that this is possible. The two great wars that we have experienced have lowered the level of civilization in many parts of the world, and the next is pretty sure to achieve much more in this direction. Unless, at some stage, one power or group of powers emerges victorious and proceeds to establish a single government of the world with a monopoly of armed force, it is clear that the level of civilization must continually decline until scientific warfare becomes impossible – that is until science is extinct.

Russell explains that eugenics plays a central feature in the construction of any world government scientific dictatorship, stating that, “Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton.”

In a 1962 speech at UC Berkeley, Aldous Huxley spoke about the real world becoming the ‘Brave New World’ nightmare he envisaged. Huxley spoke primarily of the ‘Ultimate Revolution’ that focuses on ‘behavioural controls’ of people. Huxley said of the ‘Ultimate Revolution’:

    In the past, we can say, that all revolutions have essentially aimed at changing the environment in order to change the individual. There’s been the political revolution, the economic revolution . . . the religious revolution. All these aimed as I say not directly at the human being but at his surroundings, so by modifying his surroundings you did achieve – at one remove – an effect upon the human being.

    Today, we are faced, I think, with the approach of what may be called the ‘Ultimate Revolution’ – the ‘Final Revolution’ – where man can act directly on the mind-body of his fellows. Well needless to say some kind of direct action on human mind-bodies has been going on since the beginning of time, but this has generally been of a violent nature. The techniques of terrorism have been known from time immemorial, and people have employed them with more-or-less ingenuity, sometimes with utmost crudity, sometimes with a good deal of skill acquired with a process of trial and error – finding out what the best ways of using torture, imprisonments, constraints of various kinds . . .

    If you are going to control any population for any length of time, you must have some measure of consent. It’s exceedingly difficult to see how pure terrorism can function indefinitely, it can function for a fairly long time; but sooner or later you have to bring in an element of persuasion, an element of getting people to consent to what is happening to them.

    Well it seems to me the nature of the Ultimate Revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: that we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques, which will enable the controlling oligarchy – who have always existed and will presumably always exist – to get people to love their servitude. This is the ultimate in malevolent revolution...

    There seems to be a general movement in the direction of this kind of Ultimate Control, this method of control, by which people can be made to enjoy a state of affairs by which any decent standard they ought not to enjoy; the enjoyment of servitude . . .

    I am inclined to think that the scientific dictatorships of the future – and I think there are going to be scientific dictatorships in many parts of the world – will be probably a good deal nearer to the Brave New World pattern than to the 1984 pattern. They will be a good deal nearer, not because of any humanitarian qualms in the scientific dictators, but simply because the ‘brave new world’ pattern is probably a good deal more efficient than the other. That if you can get people to consent to the state of affairs in which they are living – the state of servitude – if you can do this, then you are likely to have a much more stable, a much more lasting society; much more easily controllable society than you would if you were relying wholly on clubs, and firing squads and concentration camps.

In 1961, President Eisenhower delivered his farewell address to the nation in which he warned of the dangers to democracy posed by the military-industrial complex: the interconnected web of industry, the military, and politics creating the conditions for constant war. In that same speech, Eisenhower warned America and the world of another important change in society:

    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

    The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

In 1970, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote about “the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society,” in the “technetronic revolution”; explaining:

    Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know-how. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control. Under such circumstances, the scientific and technological momentum of the country would not be reversed but would actually feed on the situation it exploits.

New Eugenics

Many sciences and large social movements are directed by the same foundations and money that financed the eugenics movement in the early 20th century. The Rockefeller foundations, Ford, Carnegie, Mellon, Harriman, and Morgan money that flowed into eugenics led directly to ‘scientific racism,’ and ultimately the Holocaust in World War II. Following the Holocaust, Hitler had discredited the eugenics movement he admired so much in America. So the movement branched off into forming several other social engineering projects: population control, genetics, and environmentalism. The same foundations that laid the foundations for eugenic ideology – the belief in a biological superiority and right to rule (justifying their power) – then laid the foundations for these and other new social and scientific movements.

Major environmental and conservation organizations were founded with Rockefeller and Ford Foundation money, which then continued to be central sources of funding to this day; while the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) was founded in 1961 by Sir Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley’s brother, who was also the President of the British Eugenics Society. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands became the organization’s first president. Prince Bernhard also happened to be one of the founders of the elite global think tank, the Bilderberg Group, which he co-founded in 1954; and he was previous to that, a member of the Nazi Party and an SS officer. Sir Julian Huxley also happened to be the first Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). In 1946, Huxley wrote a paper titled, “UNESCO: It’s Purpose and its Philosophy.” In it, he wrote that the general focus of UNESCO:

    is to help the emergence of a single world culture, with its own philosophy and background of ideas, and with its own broad purpose. This is opportune, since this is the first time in history that the scaffolding and the mechanisms for world unification have become available, and also the first time that man has had the means (in the shape of scientific discovery and its applications) of laying a world-wide foundation for the minimum physical welfare of the entire human species...

    At the moment, it is probable that the indirect effect of civilisation is dysgenic instead of eugenic; and in any case it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability, and disease-proneness, which already exist in the human species, will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved. Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for Unesco to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable...

    Still another and quite different type of borderline subject is that of eugenics. It has been on the borderline between the scientific and the unscientific, constantly in danger of becoming a pseudo- science based on preconceived political ideas or on assumptions of racial or class superiority and inferiority. It is, however, essential that eugenics should be brought entirely within the borders of science, for, as already indicated, in the not very remote future the problem of improving the average quality of human beings is likely to become urgent; and this can only be accomplished by applying the findings of a truly scientific eugenics...

    It is worth pointing out that the applications of science at once bring us up against social problems of various sorts. Some of these are direct and obvious. Thus the application of genetics in eugenics immediately raises the question of values- what qualities should we desire to encourage in the human beings of the future?

On page 6 of the UNESCO document, Sir Julian Huxley wrote that, “in order to carry out its work, an organisation such as Unesco needs not only a set of general aims and objects for itself, but also a working philosophy, a working hypothesis concerning human existence and its aims and objects, which will dictate, or at least indicate, a definite line of approach to its problems.” While much of the language of equality and education sounds good and benevolent, it is based upon a particular view of humanity as an irrational, emotionally driven organism which needs to be controlled. Thus, the ‘principle of equality’ becomes “The Fact of Inequality”:

    Finally we come to a difficult problem-that of discovering how we can reconcile our principle of human equality with the biological fact of human inequality... The democratic principle of equality, which is also Unesco’s, is a principle of equality of opportunity-that human beings should be equal before the law, should have equal opportunities for education, for making a living, for freedom of expression and movement and thought. The biological absence of equality, on the other hand, concerns the natural endowments of man and the fact of genetic difference in regard to them.

    There are instances of biological inequality which are so gross that they cannot be reconciled at all with the principle of equal opportunity. Thus low-grade mental defectives cannot be offered equality of educational opportunity, nor are the insane equal with the sane before the law or in respect of most freedoms. However, the full implications of the fact of human inequality have not often been drawn and certainly need to be brought out here, as they are very relevant to Unesco’s task.

Many of these “genetic inequalities” revolve around the idea of intellectual superiority: the idea that there is no equality among the intellectually inferior and superior. That inequality is derived from human biology – from genetics; it is a “human fact.” It just so happens that elites who propagate this ideology, also happen to view the masses as intellectually inferior; thus, there can be no social equality in a world with a technological intellectual elite. So eugenics must be employed, as the UENSCO paper explains, to address the issues of raising human welfare to a manageable level; that the time will come where elites will need to address the whole of humanity as a single force, and with a single voice. Eugenics is about the social organization and control of humanity. Ultimately, eugenics is about the engineering of inequality. In genetics, elites found a way to take discrimination down to the DNA.

Genetics as Eugenics

Award-winning author and researcher, Edwin Black, wrote an authoritative history of eugenics in his book, “War Against the Weak,” in which he explained that, “the incremental effort to transform eugenics into human genetics forged an entire worldwide infrastructure,” with the founding of the Institute for Human Genetics in Copenhagen in 1938, led by Tage Kemp, a Rockefeller Foundation eugenicist, and was financed with money from the Rockefeller Foundation. While not abandoning the eugenics goals, the new re-branded eugenics movement “claimed to be eradicating poverty and saving the environment.”

In a 2001 issue of Science Magazine, Garland Allen, a scientific historian, wrote about genetics as a modern form of eugenics. He began by citing a 1998 article in Time Magazine which proclaimed that, “Personality, temperament, even life choices. New studies show it's mostly in your genes.” Garland explains the implications:

    Coat-tailing on major advances in genetic biotechnology, these articles portray genetics as the new "magic bullet" of biomedical science that will solve many of our recurrent social problems. The implication is that these problems are largely a result of the defective biology of individuals or even racial or ethnic groups. If aggressive or violent behavior is in the genes, so the argument goes, then the solution lies in biomedical intervention--gene therapy in the distant future and pharmacotherapy (replacing the products of defective genes with drug substitutes) in the immediate future.

    By promoting such claims, are we heading toward a new version of eugenics? Are we getting carried away with the false promise of a technological fix for problems that really lie in the structure of our society? My answer to these questions is "yes," but with some important qualifications that derive from the different historical and social contexts of the early 1900s and the present...

    The term eugenics was coined in 1883 by the Victorian polymath Francis Galton, geographer, statistician, and first cousin of Charles Darwin. It meant to him "truly- or well-born," and referred to a plan to encourage the "best people" in society to have more children (positive eugenics) and to discourage or prevent the "worst elements" of society from having many, if any, children (negative eugenics). Eugenics became solidified into a movement in various countries throughout the world in the first three decades of the 20th century, but nowhere more solidly than in the United States and, after World War I, in Germany.

While genetic traits such as eye colour and the like were proven to be hereditary, “eugenicists were more interested in the inheritance of social behaviors, intelligence, and personality.” Further:

    American eugenicists also strove to disseminate the results of eugenic research to the public and to lawmakers. They supported the idea of positive eugenics (encouraging the ‘best’ to become better), but focused most of their energies on negative eugenics (to encourage the ‘worst’ to become fewer). Eugenicists wrote hundreds of articles for popular magazines, published dozens of books for the general (and some for the scientific) reader, prepared exhibits for schools and state fairs, made films, and wrote sermons and novels.

American eugenicists, fully backed by the financial support of the major American philanthropic fortunes, passed eugenics legislation in over 27 states across the United States, often in the form of forced sterilizations for the mentally ‘inferior’, so that, “By the 1960s, when most of these laws were beginning to be repealed, more than 60,000 people had been sterilized for eugenic purposes.” As Garland Allen wrote:

    For the wealthy benefactors that supported eugenics, such as the Carnegie, Rockefeller, Harriman, and Kellogg philanthropies, eugenics provided a means of social control in a period of unprecedented upheaval and violence. It was these same economic elites and their business interests who introduced scientific management and organizational control into the industrial sector...

    (In 1994) we saw the resurrection of claims that there are genetic differences in intelligence between races, leading to different socio-economic status. Claims about the genetic basis for criminality, manic depression, risk-taking, alcoholism, homosexuality, and a host of other behaviors have also been rampant in scientific and especially popular literature. Much of the evidence for such claims is as controversial today as in the past.

    We seem to be increasingly unwilling to accept what we view as imperfection in ourselves and others. As health care costs skyrocket, we are coming to accept a bottom-line, cost-benefit analysis of human life. This mind-set has serious implications for reproductive decisions. If a health maintenance organization (HMO) requires in utero screening, and refuses to cover the birth or care of a purportedly "defective" child, how close is this to eugenics? If gene or drug therapy is substituted for improving our workplace or school environments, our diets and our exercise practices, how close is this to eugenics? Significant social changes are expensive, however. If eugenics means making reproductive decisions primarily on the basis of social cost, then we are well on that road.

Genetics unleash an unprecedented power into human hands: the power of unnatural creation and the manipulation of biology. We do not yet fully understand nor comprehend the implications of genetic manipulation in our food, plants, animals, and in humans, themselves. What is clear is that we are changing the very biology of our environment and ourselves in it. While there are many clear and obvious benefits to genetic technology, such as the ability to enhance ailing senses (sight, hearing, etc.) and cure diseases, the positive must be examined and discussed with the negative repercussions of genetic manipulation so as to better direct the uses of this powerful technology.

Debates on issues such as stem-cell research and genetic manipulation often focus on a science versus religion aspect, where science seeks to benevolently cure mankind of its ailments and religion seeks to preserve the sanctity of ‘creation’. This is an irrational and narrow manner to conduct a real debate on this monumental issue, painting the issue as black and white, which it most certainly is not. Science can be used for good as well as bad, and human history, most especially that of the 20th century, is nothing if not evidence for that fact. Incredible scientific ingenuity went into the creation of great weapons; the manipulation of the atom to kill millions in an instant, or the manufacturing of biological and chemical weapons. The problem with the interaction of science and power is that with such great power comes the temptation to use and abuse it. If the ability to create a weapon like an atom bomb seems possible, most certainly there are those who seek to make it probable. Where there is temptation, there is human weakness.

So while genetics can be used for benevolent purposes and for the betterment of humankind, so too can it be used to effectively create a biological caste system, where in time it would be feasible to see a break in the human race, where as human advancement technologies become increasingly available, their use is reserved to the elite so that there comes a time where there is a biological separation in the human species. Oliver Curry, an evolutionary theorist from the London School of Economics, predicted that “the human race will have reached its physical peak by the year 3000” and that, “The human race will one day split into two separate species, an attractive, intelligent ruling elite and an underclass of dim-witted, ugly goblin-like creatures.” Such was the plot of H.G. Wells’ classic book, “The Time Machine,” who was himself, a prominent eugenicist at the turn of the 20th century. While this would be a long time from now, its potential results from the decisions we make today.

Population Control as Eugenics

Not only was the field of genetics born of eugenics, and heavily financed by the same monied-interests that seek social control; but so too was the field of population control. In environmental literature and rhetoric, one concept that has emerged over the years as playing a significant part is that of population control. Population is seen as an environmental issue because the larger the population, the more resources it consumes and land it occupies. In this concept, the more people there are the worse the environment becomes. Thus, programs aimed at controlling population growth are often framed in an environmentalist lens. There is also a distinctly radical element in this field, which views population growth not simply as an environmental concern, but which frames people, in general, as a virus that must be eradicated if the earth is to survive.

However, in the view of elites, population control is more about controlling the people than saving the environment. Elites have always been drawn to population studies that have, in many areas, helped construct their worldview. Concerns about population growth really took hold with Thomas Malthus at the end of the 18th century. In 1798, Malthus wrote a “theory on the nature of poverty,” and he “called for population control by moral restraint,” citing charity as a promotion of “generation-to-generation poverty and simply made no sense in the natural scheme of human progress.” Thus, the idea of ‘charity’ became immoral. The eugenics movement attached itself to Malthus’ theory regarding the “rejection of the value of helping the poor.”

The ideas of Malthus, and later Herbert Spencer and Charles Darwin were remolded into branding an elite ideology of “Social Darwinism”, which was “the notion that in the struggle to survive in a harsh world, many humans were not only less worthy, many were actually destined to wither away as a rite of progress. To preserve the weak and the needy was, in essence, an unnatural act.” This theory simply justified the immense wealth, power and domination of a small elite over the rest of humanity, as that elite saw themselves as the only truly intelligent beings worthy of holding such power and privilege.

Francis Galton later coined the term “eugenics” to describe this emerging field. His followers believed that the ‘genetically unfit’ “would have to be wiped away,” using tactics such as, “segregation, deportation, castration, marriage prohibition, compulsory sterilization, passive euthanasia – and ultimately extermination.” The actual science of eugenics was lacking extensive evidence, and ultimately Galton “hoped to recast eugenics as a religious doctrine,” which was “to be taken on faith without proof.”

As the quest to re-brand “eugenics” was under way, a 1943 edition of Eugenical News published an article titled “Eugenics After the War,” which cited Charles Davenport, a major founder and progenitor of eugenics, in his vision of “a new mankind of biological castes with master races in control and slave races serving them.” A 1946 article in Eugenical News stated that, “Population, genetics, [and] psychology, are the three sciences to which the eugenicist must look for the factual material on which to build an acceptable philosophy of eugenics and to develop and defend practical eugenics proposals.”

In the post-war period, emerging in the 1950s and going into the 1960s, the European colonies were retracting as nations of the ‘Third World’ were gaining political independence. This reinforced support for population control in many circles, as “For those who benefited most from the global status quo, population control measures were a far more palatable alternative to ending Third World poverty or promoting genuine economic development.”

In 1952, “John D. Rockefeller 3rd convened a group of scientists to discuss the implications of the dramatic demographic change. They met in Williamsburg, Virginia, under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences, and after two and a half days agreed on the need for a new institution that could provide solid science to guide governments and individuals in addressing population questions.” That new institution was to become the Population Council. Six of the Council’s ten founding members were eugenicists.

According to the Population Council’s website, it “did not itself espouse any form of population policy. Instead, through grants to individuals and institutions, it invested in strengthening the indigenous capacity of countries and regions to conduct population research and to develop their own policies. The Council also funded seminal work in U.S. universities and further developed its own in-house research expertise in biomedicine, public health, and social science.”

In 2008, Matthew Connelly, a professor at Columbia University, wrote a book called, “Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population,” in which he critically analyzes the history of the population control movement. He documents the rise of the field through the eugenics movement:

    In 1927 a Rockefeller-funded study of contraception sought "some simple measure which will be available for the wife of the slum-dweller, the peasant, or the coolie, though dull of mind." In 1935 one representative told India's Council of State that population control was a necessity for the masses, adding that "it is not what they want, but what is good for them." The problem with the natives was that "they are born too much and they don't die enough," a public-health official in French Indochina stated in 1936.

Connelly’s general thesis was “how some people have long tried to redesign world population by reducing the fertility of other’s.” Further:

    Connelly examines population control as a global transnational movement because its main advocates and practitioners aimed to reduce world population through global governance and often viewed national governments as a means to this end. Fatal Misconceptions is therefore an intricate account of networks of influential individuals, international organizations, NGOs, and national governments.

As one review in the Economist pointed out, “Much of the evil done in the name of slowing population growth had its roots in an uneasy coalition between feminists, humanitarians and environmentalists, who wished to help the unwillingly fecund, and the racists, eugenicists and militarists who wished to see particular patterns of reproduction, regardless of the desires of those involved.” The Economist further wrote:

    As the world population soared, the population controllers came to believe they were fighting a war, and there would be collateral damage. Millions of intra-uterine contraceptive devices were exported to poor countries although they were known to cause infections and sterility. "Perhaps the individual patient is expendable in the general scheme of things," said a participant at a conference on the devices organised in 1962 by the Population Council, a research institute founded by John D. Rockefeller, "particularly if the infection she acquires is sterilising but not lethal." In 1969 Robert McNamara, then president of the World Bank, said he was reluctant to finance health care "unless it was very strictly related to population control, because usually health facilities contributed to the decline of the death rate, and thereby to the population explosion."

A review in the New York Review of Books pointed out that this movement coincided a great deal with the feminist movement in advancing women’s reproductive rights. However, “these benefits were seen by many US family planning officials as secondary to the goal of reducing the absolute numbers of people in developing countries. The urgency of what came to be known as the ‘population control movement’ contributed to a climate of coercion and led to a number of serious human rights abuses, especially in Asian countries.” Dominic Lawson, writing a review of Connelly’s book for The Sunday Times, explained that:

    the population-control movement was bankrolled by America's biggest private fortunes - the Ford family foundation, John D Rockefeller III, and Clarence Gamble (of Procter & Gamble). These gentlemen shared not just extreme wealth but a common anxiety: the well-to-do and clever (people like them, obviously) were now having much smaller families than their ancestors, but the great unwashed - Chinamen! Indians! Negroes! - were reproducing themselves in an irresponsible manner. What they feared was a kind of Darwinism in reverse - the survival of the unfittest.

As the New Scientist reported, while contraceptives and women’s fertility rights were being expanded, “For much of the past half-century, population control came first and human rights had to be sacrificed.” Further, the New Scientist wrote that Connelly “lays bare the dark secrets of an authoritarian neo-Malthusian ethos that created an international population agenda built around control.” One such horrific notion was “the official policies that made it acceptable to hand out food aid to famine victims only if the women agreed to be sterilized.” In a sad irony, this seemingly progressive movement for women’s rights actually had the effect of resulting in a humanitarian disaster, disproportionately affecting women of the developing world.

In 1968, biologist Paul Ehrlich wrote his widely influential book, ‘The Population Bomb,’ “in which he predicted that global overpopulation would cause massive famines as early as the 1970s.” In his book, he refers to mankind as a “cancer” upon the world:

    A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. Treating only the symptoms of cancer may make the victim more comfortable at first, but eventually he dies - often horribly. A similar fate awaits a world with a population explosion if only the symptoms are treated. We must shift our efforts from treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparent brutal and heartless decisions. The pain may be intense. But the disease is so far advanced that only with radical surgery does the patient have a chance to survive.

The American political elite fully embraced this population paradigm of viewing the world and relations with the rest of the world. President Lyndon Johnson was quoted as saying, “I’m not going to piss away foreign aid in nations where they refuse to deal with their own population problems,” while his successor, Richard Nixon, was quoted as saying, “population control is a must ... population control must go hand in hand with aid.” Robert McNamara, President of the World Bank and former Secretary of Defense in the Johnson administration, said that he opposed World Bank programs financing health care “unless it was very strictly related to population control, because usually health facilities contributed to the decline of the death rate, and thereby to the population explosion.”

Ehrlich was also influential in tracking India’s rapid population growth into the 1970s. The rapid population growth in India was attributed at the time to the result of the public health system the British had set up under the colonial government, as well as the fact that, as a means to maintaining a relationship of dependence with Britain, the British had discouraged industrialization in India. As famine was around the corner in India, President “Johnson used food aid to pressure the Indian government to meet its family planning targets,” and “By the early 1970s, Bangladesh was spending one third of its entire health budget on family planning and India was spending 60 percent.” Further:

    Between the 1960s and 1980s, millions of people in India and other Asian countries were sterilized or had IUDs (intrauterine devices), as well as other contraceptives, inserted in unhygienic conditions. Numerous cases of uterine perforation, excessive bleeding, infections, and even death were reported.

The Population Council knowingly sent un-sterile IUDs to India, and in the 1970s, nearly half a million women in forty-two developing countries were treated with defective IUDs that “heightened the risk of infection and uterine perforation,” after the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) had “quietly bought up thousands of the devices at a discount for distribution overseas.” Then sterilization was introduced as a means for “keeping the quotas” on population control in India, as “sterilization was made a condition for receiving land allocations and water for irrigation, as well as electricity, rickshaw licenses, and medical care.” A Swedish diplomat touring a Swedish/World Bank population program at the time was quoted as saying, “Obviously the stories... on how young and unmarried men are more or less dragged to the sterilization premises are true in far too many cases.”

In 1967, the UN Fund for Population Activities was created, and in 1971, “The General Assembly acknowledged that UNFPA [United Nations Population Fund] should play a leading role within the UN system in promoting population programmes.” In 1970, Nixon created the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, known as the Rockefeller Commission, for its chairman, John D. Rockefeller 3rd. In 1972, the final report was delivered to Nixon.

Among the members of the Commission (besides Rockefeller) were David E. Bell, Vice President of the Ford Foundation, and Bernard Berelson, President of the Population Council. Among the conclusions were that, “Population growth is one of the major factors affecting the demand for resources and the deterioration of the environment in the United States. The further we look into the future, the more important population becomes,” and that, “From an environmental and resource point of view, there are no advantages from further growth.” Further, the report warned:

    The American future cannot be isolated from what is happening in the rest of the world. There are serious problems right now in the distribution of resources, income, and wealth, among countries. World population growth is going to make these problems worse before they get better. The United States needs to undertake much greater efforts to understand these problems and develop international policies to deal with them.

In 1974, National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM) 200 was issued under the direction of US National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, otherwise known as “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.” Among the issues laid out in the memorandum was that, “Growing populations will have a serious impact on the need for food especially in the poorest, fastest growing LDCs [Lesser Developed Countries],” and “The most serious consequence for the short and middle term is the possibility of massive famines in certain parts of the world, especially the poorest regions.” Further, “rapid population growth presses on a fragile environment in ways that threaten longer-term food production.” The report plainly stated that, “there is a major risk of severe damage to world economic, political, and ecological systems and, as these systems begin to fail, to our humanitarian values.”

The memorandum lays out key policy recommendations for dealing with the “crisis” of overpopulation. They stated that “our aim should be for the world to achieve a replacement level of fertility, (a two-child family on the average), by about the year 2000,” and that this strategy “will require vigorous efforts by interested countries, U.N. agencies and other international bodies to make it effective [and] U.S. leadership is essential.” They suggested a concentration on specific countries: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Colombia.

They recommended the “Integration of population factors and population programs into country development planning,” as well as “Increased assistance for family planning services, information and technology,” and “Creating conditions conducive to fertility decline.” The memorandum even specifically mentioned that, “We must take care that our activities should not give the appearance to the LDCs [Lesser Developed Countries] of an industrialized country policy directed against the LDCs.” Essentially, NSSM 200 made population control a key strategy in US foreign policy, specifically related to aid and development. In other words, it was eugenics as foreign policy.

In 1975, Indira Gandhi, the Prime Minister of India, declared martial law. Her son Sanjay was appointed as the nation’s chief population controller. Sanjay “proceeded to flatten slums and then tell the residents that they could get a new house if they would agree to be sterilized. Government officials were given sterilization quotas. Within a year, six million Indian men and two million women were sterilized. At least 2,000 Indians died as a result of botched sterilization operations.” However, the following year there was an election, and Indira Gandhi’s government was thrown out of power, with that issue playing a major factor.

Next, however, China became the major focus of the population control movement, which “offered technical assistance to China's "one child" policy of 1978-83, even helping to pay for computers that allowed Chinese officials to track "birth permits," the official means by which the government banned families from having more than one child and required the aborting of additional children.” Further:

    Even China's draconian population programs received some support in the 1980s from the US-funded International Planned Parenthood Federation and the UN Population Fund. Before China launched its infamous "One Child Policy," concerns were being raised about its "voluntary" family planning program. In 1981, Chinese and American newspapers reported that "vehicles transporting Cantonese women to hospitals for abortions were 'filled with wailing noises.' Some pregnant women were reportedly 'handcuffed, tied with ropes or placed in pig's baskets.'"

    After 1983, coercion became official Chinese policy. "All women with one child were to be inserted with a stainless-steel, tamper-resistant IUD, all parents with two or more children were to be sterilized, and all unauthorized pregnancies aborted," according to the One Child Policy. During this time, the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the UN Population Fund continued to support China's nongovernmental Family Planning Association, even though some of its top officials also worked for the government.

The UN was not a passive participant in population control measures, as it actively supported these harsh programs, and in many cases, rewarded governments for their vicious tactics in reducing population growth:

    In 1983, Xinzhong Qian and Indira Gandhi were awarded the first United Nations Population Award to recognize and reward their accomplishments in limiting the population growth in China and India in the previous decade. During the 1970s, officials in these countries had launched extremely ambitious population programs that were supposed to improve the quality of the population and halt its growth. The measures used were harsh. For example, slum clearance resulting in the eradication of whole urban neighbourhoods and the widespread sterilization of their inhabitants was an important part of India’s ‘Emergency’ campaign. In Delhi, hundreds of thousands of people were driven from their homes in events that resulted in numerous clashes, arrests, and deaths, while a total of eight million sterilizations were recorded in India in 1976.

Horrifically, “between the 1960s and 1980s, millions of people in India and other Asian countries were sterilized or had IUDs, as well as other contraceptives, inserted in unhygienic conditions. Numerous cases of uterine perforation, excessive bleeding, infections, and even death were reported, but these programs made little effort to treat these conditions, or even determine their frequency, so we don't know precisely how common they were.”

In the late 1980s, revelations in Brazil uncovered the NSSM 200 in Brazil since its implementation in 1975 under the Ford Presidency. An official government investigation was launched, and it was discovered that, “an estimated 44% of all Brazilian women aged between 14 and 55 had been permanently sterilized.” Further, the programs of sterilization, undertaken by a number of international organizations, were coordinated under the guidance of USAID.

At the UN’s 1994 World Population Conference in Cairo, Third World delegates to the conference emphasized the need for development policies as opposed to demographic policies; that the focus must be on development, not population. This was essentially a setback for the radical population control movement; however, it wasn’t one they couldn’t work around. There was still a great deal of support among Western elites and co-opted developing world elites for the aims of population control. As Connelly articulated:

    It appealed to the rich and powerful because, with the spread of emancipatory movements and the integration of markets, it began to appear easier and more profitable to control populations than to control territory. That’s why opponents were correct in viewing it as another chapter in the unfinished history of imperialism.

It was around this point that the population control movement, while continuing on its overall aims of curbing population growth of Third World nations, began to further merge itself with the environmental movement. While always working alongside the environmental movement, this period saw the emergence of a more integrated approach to policy agendas.

Environmentalism as Eugenics

Michael Barker extensively covered the connection between the Rockefeller and Ford foundations in funding the environmental movement in the academic journal, Capitalism Nature Socialism. As Barker noted, following World War II, the public became increasingly concerned with the environment as the “chemical-industrial complex” grew at an astounding rate. Since Rockefeller interests were heavily involved in the chemical industry, the rising trend in environmental thought and concern had to quickly be controlled and steered in a direction favourable to elite interests.

Two important organizations in shaping the environmental movement were the Conservation Foundation and Resources for the Future, which largely relied upon Rockefeller and Ford Foundation funding, and both conservation organizations had interestingly helped to “launch an explicitly pro-corporate approach to resource conservation.” Laurance Rockefeller served as a trustee of the Conservation Foundation, and donated $50,000 yearly throughout the 50s and 60s. Further, the Conservation Foundation was founded by Fairfield Osborn, whose cousin, Frederick Osborn, became another prominent voice in conservation. Frederick Osborn was also working with the Rockefeller’s Population Council and was President of the American Eugenics Society.

In 1952, the Ford Foundation created the organization Resources for the Future (RFF), (the same year that the Rockefellers created the Population Council), and the original founders were also “John D. Rockefeller Jr.’s chief advisors on conservation matters.” Laurance Rockefeller joined the board of the RFF in 1958, and the RFF got $500,000 from the Rockefeller Foundation in 1970. The Ford Foundation would also go on to create the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. McGeorge Bundy, who was President of the Ford Foundation from 1966 until 1979, once stated that, “everything the foundation did could be regarded as ‘making the world safe for capitalism’.”

Certainly one of the pre-eminent, if not the most prominent environmental organizations in the world is the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF). The WWF was founded on September 11, 1961, by Sir Julian Huxley, the first Director General of the UN organization, UNESCO. Sir Julian Huxley was also a life trustee of the British Eugenics Society from 1925, and its President from 1959-62. In the biography of Julian Huxley on the British Eugenics Society’s website (now known as the Galton Institute – a genetics research center), it stated that, “Huxley believed that eugenics would one day be seen as the way forward for the human race,” and that, “A catastrophic event may be needed for evolution to move at an accelerated pace, as the extinction of the dinosaurs gave the mammals their chance to take over the world. It is much the same with ideas whose time has not yet come; they must survive periods when they are not generally welcome. Like the small mammals in dinosaur times they must await their opportunity.”

[Continued…]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,058
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.infowars.com/1973-un-publication-proposes-creation-of-global-family-planning-communication-resource-units/

1973 UN Publication Proposes Creation of Global “Family Planning Communication Resource Units”

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com
July 30, 2010

As we have seen, the elite are going all the way with their eugenics-based programs. From genetically modified crops, finding their way into our daily meals, to the introduction of eco-taxes and bogus “carbon cops.” Mainstream media, as usual, have aligned themselves in injecting preprogrammed messages of impending doom. This, as we shall learn, is no coincidence.


                  “Family planning is for YOU.”

A 1973 UNESCO-publication called Mass Media, Family Planning and Development: Country Case Studies on Media Strategy [.pdf] proposes the creation of a ‘family planning communication resource unit’ for every nation concerned within the UN-system, especially third-world nations. The reason being, so the report states, that “culturally, there is an emphasis on fertility, and the birth of children to the family is celebrated, as a symbol of prosperity and for status for women.

Because the boys from the UN can’t have that, significant reduction of the population-size should be accomplished through an elaborate media campaign from every possible viewpoint. But for this media onslaught to be effective, the engineers must first go after ancient tribal instincts, revolving around procreation and creativity. They must be branded suspect- and so must religion and tribal mythology.

The writers however, mean not to destroy these human tendencies, they mean to utilize them to their own advantage and that of their masters instead. “The religion”, they say, “supports the idea that children are ‘God’s Greatest Blessing’ but can also be used to encourage the idea that every child should be given the best opportunities parents can offer. There is also a favourable attitude to economic development, a desire to raise living standards, and a desire for education. These factors are helpful in the development of a Preliminary Media Strategy.

A Communication Resource Unit”, the document continues, “is responsible for the implementation of media policy for one, or more than one field.” The document proceeds with outlining the functions of such a unit in regards to family planning messages: “The integration of messages is a matter which concerns the Communication Resource Unit, in that an integrated approach to family planning needs to be worked out. (…) These (messages) may be ‘family planning for maternal health’, ‘family planning for family prosperity’, ‘family planning for your figure’, ‘family planning for national prosperity’, family planning for child development.’ These messages will be pretested to find those which seem to appeal most to the eligible age groups.

One of the many case studies (country case study nr.1) involves an unnamed “small island”, total population 3,000,000. Describing the current situation, the report states: “Mass media approaches to family planning are wholly financed by the Government and, since 1968, radio, television and the press have been used to give information about family planning and to create an awareness of the need for population control.” One of the chief objectives for the ‘resource unit’, will be to “extend(ing) the family planning coverage to 90% of the eligible population. The aim at this point is to bring the number of children per family nearer to three rather than four, and to gradually reduce this to two children per family at a later stage.

As one of the first proposed ‘phases’ of the programme, the document describes several messages to be embedded within television commercials. “A couple are shown over one of the new Government flats. They are unable to take it, because the accommodation provided is for families with two or three children. Preference is given to smaller families. They (the large family) will have to wait longer.” Another example: “The picture shows a married woman with one child. She is stopped by a voice saying “Do you know about family planning?” “Your local clinic has all the information.”" Or: “(Picture changes to a smiling woman with clinic appearing) “Family planning is free in all clinics (…)”". How about this one: “Don’t put off family planning. Tomorrow may be too late. See your clinic today.” You gotta also love this one: “A picture on the screen could show a woman talking to a consultant about family planning. She turns to the viewers and says: “I’m glad I made up my mind about family planning.””

Cartoons, say the authors, could also help implant a family planning message, for example “a cartoon in the most widely read newspaper could take the opportunity to ridicule those who cling to the old ways to the detriment of their families.

Both television and radio advertisements are subject to the strategies of the Communication Resource Unit: “Advertising on television will be in the evenings, between popular programmes, when a broader audience (both male and female) is expected.” With regards to radio advertising, the report says: “The commercials can be played into record request programmes, women’s programmes, at programme junctions, before and after news breaks, popular serials and plays. The message should be simple, sympathetic, catchy.

For example”, the report continues, “messages like these can appeal specifically to the over thirty age group: “Family planning is for YOU. Have you had two children or more? The now’s the time to visit your local clinic.” And: “Most people plan their families. They know that education, clothing, housing, all cost money. How many children can you afford?” In another instance, people are being scared with all kinds of gruesome images: “For example, the commercial might begin with the hungry cries of four or five children, followed by the tired voice of the mother.” The examples in the document go on and on, crudely distributing messages into the mass media: “A sequence might be set up, (…) showing John and Mary with two children. The caption reads: “John and Mary…. nice house ……lovely children”, and another (showing another couple with four children), “Doris and Jack….. no house ….. too many children.

Personality shows”, the report mentions, “can be useful in the reinforcement phase. (…) A well known personality who demonstrates an interest in family planning, or remarks on the success of the campaign, can often add credibility to the family planning message.” The report would like to see these personalities follow the script word for word, for example in response to a woman, who recently gave birth to her first child: “Well, that’s marvellous”, the radio personality should respond, “Congratulations Mrs……… I suppose you won’t be having any more children for a bit. You want that boy of yours to grow healthy and strong and I know you need time to recover- Children take up a lot of your time, don’t they?” The document states that personality alone cannot fully carry the message through to the listening audience: “Jingles and spot announcements, jokes and quick comments, can be included in the programmes, which will then have the effect of keeping the subject of family planning firmly in mind.

How would the Unesco-people arrange all this, just by voluntary compliance of the media-people involved? “There may be some scheme whereby those people will be paid for their work (…)”- says the document. In other words: bribery is being proposed as an acceptable means of bringing the media into the overall strategy.

Also community plays should be used to convey the message: “The afternoon play can carry the theme, skillfully woven into the story. It is possible that some plays could be specially written for the purpose, but it is probable that the message can be incorporated into plays by those writers who have been briefed well enough in advance.” Music and pamphlets are another way of doing it, the report says: “Songs can be useful in this phase, (…). They must be professionally composed and recorded, and the messages must be reasonably subtle if it is to be acceptable to programmers.

But the Resource Unit won’t restrict itself to just radio, TV and plays. Feature films are considered perhaps to be the most effective tools in conveying the message to unsuspecting audiences: “(…) There are two ways in which the family planning message can be included in feature films. The first is for the family organisation to commission a film specifically for the campaign. (…) if it is to be successful, well known and popular actors must be chosen, and the scripting and direction has to be professionally executed. Another method is for the family planning theme to be introduced into feature films which are already planned and prepared by local commercial production companies. In this case, the family planning organisers must be aware of the possible ways in which the theme can be subtly incorporated, as producers are not likely to respond to a suggestion which involves the total re-thinking of the plot. (…) Suitable opportunities can be found in love stories, in stories based on conflicts between men and women (…).”

And the document continues on, listing example after example- illustrating quite vividly the willingness on the part of the Malthusian-minded elite to lie, cheat and deceive in order to convince people that ‘less is more’. As this document shows, nation after nation is methodically bombarded with predictive programming-propaganda, requiring of the receiver an almost superhuman set of defence mechanisms to fence off the pitchforks of the eugenicists, poking at them from all sides.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,058
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Brain Eating Vaccines: The Reality Behind The “Conspiracy Theory”
« Reply #42 on: August 04, 2010, 07:20:14 PM »
http://www.prisonplanet.com/brain-eating-vaccines-the-reality-behind-the-conspiracy-theory.html

Brain Eating Vaccines: The Reality Behind The “Conspiracy Theory”

Wired Magazine hit piece attempts to debunk legitimate concerns about agenda to chemically lobotomize general public through vaccines, water supply



Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Wired Magazine writer Jonah Lehrer has labeled concerns that vaccines which alter brain chemistry and induce states of “focused calm” could be abused by governments to create lobotomized, servile populations as delusional, paranoid, and idiotic conspiracy theories, despite the fact that major mental health professionals are already pushing for lithium to be introduced into water supplies as a means of mass medicating against “mood disorders”.

Lehrer, an Oxford University graduate and a Rhodes Scholar, brazenly calls Alex Jones a liar in his article today after Jones put out a You Tube video in which he warned that new vaccines designed to reduce stress and neutralize people’s anger could lead to a nightmare THX 1138 scenario, in which the population is controlled and subjugated through the use of special drugs to suppress emotion.

Jones also encouraged listeners to Google search the words “brain eating vaccines,” causing the term to rise to the number 1 position on Google Trends for August 3rd.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm3PYZ0N7Dg (Media Pushes BRAIN Eating Vaccine... Nano Tech Injection Lobotomy)

In the video, Jones makes the point that vaccines being proposed by people like Robert Sapolsky to impose a state of “focused calm” by altering brain chemistry, as well as shots aimed at curbing drug and cigarette addictions, fit the very definition of being “brain eating” because they fundamentally rewire the brain and shut down innate processes that naturally produce stress, anxiety and aggression – which are all necessary human traits vital to survival and healthy mental functioning.

Many vaccines contain the preservative thimerosol, a compound derived from mercury. As the video below from the University of Calgary demonstrates, mercury is a potent neurotoxin and causes neurodegeneration, altering the very structure of the brain. The U.S. government has been forced to admit that childhood vaccines preserved with thimerosol have contributed to the explosion in autism cases in the United States.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKuznYVn40s (Watch Mercury Kill The Brain: Vaccines And Neurodegeneration)

Lehrer unwittingly exposes his bias tactic to label legitimate concerns surrounding these vaccines as mythical fantasies when he claims that plans by governments to artificially add lithium to the water supply are in fact “idiotic conspiracy theories”.

Perhaps Lehrer can explain why Professor Allan Young of Vancouver’s Institute for Mental Health told the BBC that “Large-scale trials involving the addition of lithium to drinking water supplies may…be feasible,” following claims that lithium led to a reduction in the number of suicides in Japan and helped to alleviate “mood disorders”. It’s hardly an “idiotic conspiracy theory” when one of Canada’s foremost mental health professionals is calling for its potential implementation, is it Mr. Lehrer?

Lehrer also includes a lengthy passage from a separate blog which scoffs at people who are worried about authorities attempting to “sterilize and/or pacify their populations through drugs in their water supplies”.

Apparently, if you are concerned about brain eating vaccines then you’re also stupid enough to think that powerful men in positions of influence have publicly called for the population to be mass medicated against their will by means of sterilants in the water supply.

Presumably then we should take a shot of Robert Sapolsky’s anti-stress vaccine and not concern ourselves with the trivial fact that Barack Obama’s top science czar John P. Holdren advocated in his own textbook Ecoscience that a “planetary regime” should employ a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children.

Neither should the fact that Holdren reiterated these talking points as recently as 2006 be a topic of consternation, and anyone who makes reference to it is obviously just engaging in another “delusional rant,” to use Lehrer’s term.

Indeed, Lehrer’s own fellow Oxford luminary Julian Savulescu, in a 2008 white paper, called for populations to be mass-medicated through pharmacological ‘cognitive enhancements’ added to the water supply.

Of course, this is not the first time that we’ve warned against the dangers of vaccines and been proven right, despite being attacked as delusional conspiracy theorists for doing so at the time. The same claims were made about the H1N1 vaccine when Alex Jones and other leading alternative researches identified the ‘pandemic’ hype as a hoax to sell vaccine stocks and impose an untested formula created with cancer cells– now Wolfgang Wodarg at the Council of Europe has exposed that it was a false panic deliberately-fueled by WHO officials and vaccine industry representatives.

Lehrer’s paltry rebuttal, which consists mainly of playground insults and strawman invocations, is perhaps best answered by the readers of his article, the vast majority of whom express their vehement disagreement.

“After reading this article and then watching the Alex Jones well documented video there is no question who is telling the truth and it is most certainly not the author of this article. Major failure Jonah,” writes one, pointing out that Lehrer refuses to even link directly to Jones’ You Tube video, probably because he is unable to debunk Jones’ exhaustively documented analysis about the threat posed by brain-altering vaccines.

“All you did was prove Alex Jones right,” writes another. “That’s what is sad here…you’re not an intellectual. Your a hypocrite with a weak ass puff piece that does nothing to prove Alex Jones wrong but just attacks his character”.

“A vaccine to alleviate stress. Only a domesticated drugged mind could not see the danger in that and then to attack someone who does see danger in it!” points out another.

“I’m an RN, and one of the reasons I am leaving this profession is the vaccine/autism issue. Look into the history of eugenics, and govt testing on unwitting human subjects, and tell me that Alex Jones and the questioning public he serves are “paranoid.” Look at the history of the twentieth century and tell me that governments would never treat their own citizens in this way. Lithium additives to the water supply ARE being proposed, ostensibly as a way to lower the suicide rate. Sodium Floride WAS used by the Nazis to make jewish populations more docile. The CDC and the corporate mainstream media urged pregnant mothers and children to use the flu shot last season, assuring them it was safe, and deriding the “paranoid conspiracy theorists” who warned against it – and I myself, in administering it, read the package insert which clearly stated “The safety of this vaccine for use with pregnant women and children has not been evaluated.” This is about money and power. Give yourself an education in both before you join the simian hooting against “liars” and “paranoids” that follows fact-challenged ad hominem attacks such as the above article,” concludes another commenter.

Jonah Lehrer has been publicly invited to appear on The Alex Jones Show to defend his claim that “Alex Jones is a liar” on the subject of brain eating vaccines. Watch this space to see if he accepts the challenge, or if he continues to hide behind sophomoric jibes and strawman arguments.

The following statement by Alex Jones was submitted to the Wired website but never appeared in the comments section in response to Lehrer’s hit piece.

Lehrer,

This is Alex Jones publicly challenging you to appear on my radio show and face the music. You know full-well that my video quotes the New York Times, top bioethicists and major medical associations calling for Lithium to be added to the drinking water in order to “calm the public.” In the “Brain Eating Vaccines” video, I talk about multiple classes of live viruses (so-called “vaccines”) that travel to the brain and destroy receptor sites. Many of them deal with “curing drug addictions.” There are also many “stress vaccines” currently being developed. But of course you already know of this; this is your field, after all. It’s clear you were counting on what you perceived as the ignorance of your readers.

The good news, however, is that more than 90% of your readers’ comments see through the dumbed-down pap you shoveled at them for what it really is: condescending, arrogant control-freakism. British newspapers are now reporting that the government has suspended the H1N1 vaccine to under fives because of its ten-fold increase in violent seizures. So many people have died or have been irrevocably damaged by vaccines that now their surviving family and friends are joining together to investigate the crimes of Big Pharma and take action against the new-eugenicist servants of death. The Rhodes Scholarship was founded by Cecil Rhodes to develop a covert plan for world government. But you already know that, being a Rhodes Scholar.

The truth is, Jonah, you’re going to lose. More and more people see you and your cohorts for what you are, and you and your brethren will all be brought to justice. Stop trying to “improve” us with your GMO garbage, and get the hell out of our lives, you parasite. Check your email for our contact information. You threw down the gauntlet; let’s see if you’re man enough to meet head-to-head.”
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,058
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.infowars.com/rockefeller-foundation-developed-vaccines-for-%e2%80%9cmass-scale%e2%80%9d-fertility-reduction/

Rockefeller Foundation Developed Vaccines For “Mass-Scale” Fertility Reduction

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com
Thursday, August 5, 2010

In its 1968 yearly report [.pdf], the Rockefeller Foundation acknowledged funding the development of so-called “anti-fertility vaccines” and their implementation on a mass-scale. From page 51 onward we read:

“(…) several types of drugs are known to diminish male fertility, but those that have been tested have serious problems of toxicity. Very little work is in progress on immunological methods, such as vaccines, to reduce fertility, and much more research is required if a solution is to be found here.”

The possibility of using vaccines to reduce male fertility was something that needed to be investigated further, according to the Rockefeller Foundation, because both the oral pill and the IUD were not suitable for mass-scale distribution:

“We are faced with the danger that within a few years these two “modern” methods, for which such high hopes have been held, will in fact turn out to be impracticable on a mass scale.”

The possibility of administrating hormone preparations to reduce fertility was also mentioned, although- states the report- they have been known to “cause bleeding problems, which may limit their usefulness.”

“A semipermanent or renewable subcutaneous implant of these hormones has been suggested, but whether or not the same difficulties would result has not been determined.”

Saying that research thus-far had been too low-grade to produce any substantial results, the report was adamant:

“The Foundation will endeavour to assist in filling this important gap in several ways:

1- “Seeking out or encouraging the development of, and providing partial support to, a few centres of excellence in universities and research institutions in the United States and abroad in which the methods and points of view of molecular biology are teamed with the more traditional approaches of histology, embryology,and endocrinology in research pertinent to development of fertility control methods;”

2- “Supporting research of individual investigators, oriented toward development of contraceptive methods or of basic information on human reproduction relevant to such developments;”

3- “Encouraging, by making research funds available, as well as by other means, established and beginning investigators to turn their attention to aspects of research in reproductive biology that have implications for human fertility and its control;”

4- “Encouraging more biology and biochemistry students to elect careers in reproductive biology and human fertility control, through support of research and teaching programs in departments of zoology, biology, and biochemistry.”

The list goes on and on. Motivation for these activities, according to the RF?

“There are an estimated five million women among America’s poverty and near-poverty groups who need birth control service (…). The unchecked fertility of the indigent does much to perpetuate poverty, undereducation, and underemployment, not only in urban slums, but also in depressed rural areas.”

It wasn’t long before all the Foundation’s efforts began to have effect. In its annual report of 1988 [.pdf], The RF was happy to report the progress made by the Foundation’s Population Division in the field of anti-fertility vaccines:

“India’s National Institute of Immunology successfully completed in 1988 the first phase of trials with three versions of an anti-fertility vaccine for women. Sponsored by the government of India and supported by the Foundation, the trials established that with each of the tested vaccines, at least one year of protection against pregnancy could be expected, based on the levels of antibodies formed in response to the immunization schedule.”

In its 1997 review of anti-fertility vaccines [.pdf], Indian based International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology didn’t forget to acknowledge its main benefactor:

“The work on LHRH and HCG vaccines was supported by research grants of The Rockefeller Foundation, (…).”

In the 1990s the work on anti-fertility vaccines went in overdrive, especially in third-world nations, as did the funding provided by the deep pockets of the Rockefeller Foundation. At the same time, the target-population of the globalists- women- began to stir uncomfortably with all this out-in-the-open talk of population reduction and vaccines as a means to achieve it.

Betsy Hartman, Director of the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College, Massachusetts and “someone who believes strongly in women’s right to safe, voluntary birth control and abortion”, is no supporter of the anti-fertility vaccine, as brought into being by the Rockefeller Foundation. She explains in her essay Population control in the new world order [.pdf]:

“Although one vaccine has been tested on only 180 women in India, it is being billed there as ‘safe, devoid of any side effects and completely reversible’. The scientific community knows very well that such assertions are false – for instance, many questions still remain about the vaccine’s long-term impact on the immune system and menstrual cycle. There is also evidence on film of women being denied information about the vaccine in clinical trials. Nevertheless, the vaccine is being prepared for large-scale use.”

The Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, quoted “a leading contraceptive researcher as saying:

“Immunological birth control methods will be an ‘antigenic weapon’ against the reproductive process, which left unchecked, threatens to swamp the world.”

Animal rights activist ms. Sonya Ghosh also expressed concerns [.pdf] about the Rockefeller-funded anti-fertility vaccine and its implementation:

“Instead of giving individual women more options to prevent pregnancy and protect against AIDs and sexually transmitted diseases, the anti fertility vaccine is designed to be easily administered to large numbers of women using the least resources. If administered to illiterate populations the issues of user control and informed consent are further cause for concern.”

To avoid such debates, the Foundation has in the last couple of decades consorted to its long-practised and highly successful methods of either outright lying through its teeth or using deceptive language to hide the fact that it continues to work tirelessly toward its long-stated mission. If you think the RF and others have abandoned their anti-fertility efforts with the help of vaccines, think again or read this article.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,058
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Ban Ki-moon’s Top Advisor Advocates Global Population Control
« Reply #44 on: August 17, 2010, 12:16:45 PM »
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ban-ki-moons-top-advisor-scientific-elite-should-spearhead-global-population-control.html

Ban Ki-moon’s Top Advisor: Scientific Elite Should Spearhead Global Population Control



Jurriaan Maessen
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Randomly pick a globalist scholar, one that is celebrated by academia and government alike, and you’ll find a can of worms under the crust, to be sure.

While reading a panel discussion on “achieving the MDGs by 2015: Preparing for the 2010 UN MDG Summit” [.pdf], I stumbled upon recent remarks made by professor of health policy and management and director of the Columbia University based Earth Institute, Mr. Jeffrey Sachs. He stressed urgent need for population reduction. The person in charge of transcribing the discussion, made the following note:

“(…) the fertility reduction and stabilization of population is crucial. He (Sachs) concluded by urging for the adoption of a globally agreed action plan at next year’s Summit to achieve the MDGs by 2015, and proposed to form Working Groups with members of the delegations around particular themes. He characterized this effort as not negotiation, but as global problem solving and suggested that the Working Groups would brainstorm on the globally agreed plan.”

Now, Mr. Sachs, like many of his colleagues, can be considered a prime example of a death-promoting globalist, and one who is not afraid to admit it. Sachs is something of a character, to be sure. Besides being named among the 100 most influential people in the world by Time Magazine, Sachs is also special advisor to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

It wasn’t the first time that Mr. Sachs called for global coordination in regards to population control. In a September 2009 UN press release, Sachs not only lamented human activity on the planet, but argued for scientists and engineers to take the steering-wheel in this process:

“We’re in the age of this planet where human activity dominates the earth’s processes. Humanity has become so large in absolute number and in economic activity that we have overtaken earth processes in vital ways to the point of changing the climate, the hydrologic cycle,” he told the UN Conference on Trade and Development.”

“We don’t necessarily need diplomats around the table”, Sachs continued. “We need engineers around the table, scientists around the table. We need to put the cards down and have a new kind of process.”

What kind of model does Sachs envision for his usurping utopia? He said it in an Economist publication [.pdf] in 2000:

“The model to emulate is the Rockefeller Foundation, the pre-eminent development institution of the 20th century, which showed what grant aid targeted on knowledge could accomplish.”

In his commentary The Specter of Malthus Returns [.pdf], Sachs gives an adequate description of Agenda 21 without actually mentioning the UN plan for wealth redistribution and global population reduction:

“We will need to rethink modern diets and urban design to achieve healthier lifestyles that also reduce consumption. And to stabilize the global population at around eight billion, we will have to help Africa and other regions in speeding their demographic transition. We are definitely not yet on such a trajectory. We will need new policies to push markets down that path and to promote technological advances in resource saving. We will need a new politics to recognize the importance of a sustainable growth strategy and global cooperation to achieve it.”

Global government, in other words, to facilitate a global scientific dictatorship. The plan is ready. The cards, as Sachs said, are on the table.

“The shortfalls in health, education, and population control are of course mutually interactive”, Sachs wrote in February of 2001 in the working paper: The Decade of Development: Goal Setting and Policy Challenges in India [.pdf].

In order for this “global plan” to be adequately facilitated, Sachs figures, the need for global government is pressing. In the preparatory MDG Gap Task Force Report 2010 [.pdf], the Assistant Secretary-General for Economic Development (UN-DESA) sums up the needed action:

-“New global economic coordination mechanism”

-“Global governance must provide sufficient national policy spacing”

-“Global Green New Deal”

-“Coordinate international financial regulation through new multilateral authority”

In an opinion-letter for The Economist [.pdf], Sachs clarifies his opinion in regards to global fertility reduction:

“With sensible policies and international support, these very poor countries could do themselves a huge favour by reducing fertility rates sharply through voluntary means. The rich countries, on their part, could do themselves and the world a huge favour by putting their efforts into reducing their greenhouse-gas emissions and following through on promised aid, including for universal access to family-planning services, rather than on raising their own fertility rates.”

Now remember, this is the guy advising Ban Ki-moon on issues concerning population and other matters.

In a 2007 publication named Revamping U.S. Foreign Assistance [.pdf], Sachs called for the “Reinvigoration of Global Population Policies”(page 22) in regards to the developing world:

“Total Fertility Rates often average 6 to 8 children per mother in impoverished rural areas, and notably in the impoverished dry lands. These regions are without reliable access to modern contraception and family planning services, despite the pledges of the world community to ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health services by the year 2015. Much research has demonstrated that the failure of population control in the poorest countries poses enormous risks for those societies and for the rest of the world.

In 2009, Sachs (yes, he is mighty productive) co-authored a paper with a certain Matthew H. Bonds on the subject of poverty in relation to infectious diseases (here is a slide show of their presentation). As it turns out, this Bond-character is a loyal protégé of Sachs. In his dissertation Sociality, Sterility, and Poverty; Host-Pathogen Coevolution, with Implications for Human Ecology [.pdf], Bonds concludes that the best way to eradicate poverty is to, well… eradicate humans.

“We find that, after accounting for an income effect, reducing fertility may result in significantly lower disease prevalence over the long (economic) term than would a standard S-I-R epidemiological model predict, and might even be an effective strategy for eradicating some infectious diseases. Such a solution would make Malthus proud.”

“(…) the new model, which accounts for an economic effect, predicts that a reduction in fertility may be significantly more effective than a vaccine. It also illustrates that a sustained vaccination policy would be more likely to eradicate a disease if done in conjunction with decreased reproduction.

O yes, don’t think for a second that their plans are not out in the open and in your face.

“This model is likely to understate the true benefits of reduced fertility because the effect of reducing the birth rate is to reduce the flow of susceptibles for all diseases, which is the equivalent of a vaccine for all infectious diseases at the same time.

So speaks the scientific dictatorship, no holds barred. If you eradicate the human, you eradicate the disease, problem solved:

“Infectious diseases, however, continue to be most significant in developing countries, which experience relatively rapid population growth. The effect of this influx of children on the persistence and dynamics of childhood diseases, as well as on the critical vaccination coverage, is reasonably well-established (McLean and Anderson, 1988a; Broutin et al., 2005). But it is now warranted to turn this framework on its head: can fertility reduction be an integral element of a disease eradication campaign?

In the interest of consistency, here’s Jeffrey Sachs again, attempting to sweet-talk and recruit future scientists for the upcoming UN Millennium Development Goals Summit. Always remember, when these globalist control freaks speak of “sustainable development” and such, there’s always a eugenic overlay.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mll3tZOyHa4 (Dr. Jeffrey Sachs to college students: A call to action in 2010)
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,939
Re: New Eugenics and the Rise of the Global Scientific Dictatorship
« Reply #45 on: August 17, 2010, 12:49:38 PM »
Jeffrey Sachs’s $200 Billion Dream
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/07/sachs200707

Jeffrey Sachs—visionary economist, savior of Bolivia, Poland, and other struggling nations, adviser to the U.N. and movie stars—won't settle for less than the global eradication of extreme poverty. And he hasn't got a second to waste.

Excerpts:

According to Sachs, his job is to be "a pest." Bono, who wrote the foreword to Sachs's best-selling book, The End of Poverty, makes the same point, more or less poetically: "He's an irritant," Bono told me, paying Sachs a compliment. "He's the squeaky wheel that roars."

Mark Malloch Brown, who was deputy secretary-general of the United Nations under Kofi Annan, described Sachs to me as "this magnificent battering ram." In unadorned English he added, not without respect, "He's a bully. For the record, he's a bully."

Never mind. To Sachs, the end of poverty justifies the means. By hook or by crook, relentlessly, he has done more than anyone else to move the issue of global poverty into the mainstream—to force the developed world to consider his utopian thesis: with enough focus, enough determination, and, especially, enough money, extreme poverty can finally be eradicated.

Once, when I asked what kept him going at this frenzied pace, he snapped back, "If you haven't noticed, people are dying. It's an emergency."

...

... One of Sachs's biggest supporters is the financier and philanthropist George Soros,
who recently donated $50 million to the Millennium Villages Project. (The project is a partnership among the U.N., Columbia, and Sachs's own nonprofit organization, Millennium Promise.) According to Soros, whose foundation gives away between $350 million and $400 million a year, investing in Sachs offered an attractive "risk-reward ratio." "Even though it's a large amount of money, $50 million, I thought there was really little downside," Soros told me. "As a humanitarian action, it was a good investment on its own But if it succeeded, then of course you would get a reward that would be way out of proportion to the investment made."

(Full article)
And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,058
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Sugar Beets: Monsanto Wins Again
« Reply #46 on: August 17, 2010, 05:08:14 PM »
http://www.infowars.com/sugar-beets-monsanto-wins-again/

Sugar Beets: Monsanto Wins Again

Cassandra Anderson
Infowars.com
August 17, 2010

Last Friday a federal judge imposed a nationwide ban on GMO sugar beets and it was overturned the next business day.  Sugar beets comprise 50% of the sugar used in US food, and 95% of the sugar beets grown in the US are GMO.  It is the jurisdiction of the US Department of Agriculture to determine whether plants are environmentally safe; this case is about whether the plants can cross pollinate (by wind, insects, etc) and contaminate other plants.  This could have cost Monsanto billions of dollars.(1)


The sugar beet ban was overturned, based on a Supreme
Court decision, which lifted the nationwide ban on GMO alfalfa
in June.


Less than 2 weeks ago, wild growing canola in North Dakota was discovered to be 86% GMO.  Because GMO crops are crossed with herbicide resistant plants (usually weeds), they grow like weeds and contaminate natural plants.  Alarmingly, two of the canola samples collected by scientists showed that multiple genes from different species of GMO canola plants cross pollinated without cultivation, and probably for several generations.  The implication of this is that GMO seeds can readily contaminate natural seeds and become out of control.(2)

The GMO alfalfa ban lawsuit about contamination was the first GMO case ever heard by the Supreme Court, despite countless lawsuits from farmers whose fields have been polluted by GMOs.   The sugar beet ban was overturned, based on a Supreme Court decision (7-1), which lifted the nationwide ban on GMO alfalfa in June.

The Supreme Court ruling stated that the nationwide GMO alfalfa ban was too broad, so it was lifted; an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be performed by the USDA is still pending.  GMO crops are environmentally dangerous because they can readily spread, as proven by the wild GMO plants found in North Dakota.  The Supreme Court never addressed the issue of whether GMO plants contaminate natural plants through cross pollination.

Remember that the appointed Supreme Court judges collect their paychecks from the federal government.  The USDA co-owns a patent with Monsanto for the ‘Terminator’ gene (which make seeds go sterile after one harvest).  Is the Supreme Court’s loyalty to the federal government, in this case protecting the ‘Terminator’ patent owned by the USDA and its business-partner Monsanto, or is their loyalty to the American people?

The Supreme Court has never accepted a GMO food safety case, which falls under the jurisdiction of the corrupt FDA.  Organ damage and sterility have been linked to a GMO food diet in lab animals.

Many of the organizations that represent farmers whose farms appear to be compromised.  For instance, Andrew Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety has another tax-exempt organization that is pursuing the removal of natural colloidal silver from public use and has accepted $1.75 million from the John Merck Fund, which has ties to the Rockefellers, who have been major financiers of biotechnology and food control for decades.

The Sierra Club’s own website supports the United Nations Population Fund which has its roots in eugenics.(3)

Earthjustice is another example of  a tax-exempt organization that uses the Agenda 21 Sustainable Development model for “helping” people and the environment, when really the overall objective is to reduce the population.  They have $30 million in funding and support the Sierra Club’s mission against the “overriding threat of spiraling population growth and over consumption.”(4)

Monsanto’s GMOs, which no one would want if they fully understood the health and contamination dangers, have thoroughly infiltrated America’s farms and food supply by way of government regulations, which is how monopolies are created.  The Rockefellers have practiced food control for generations and fund biotechnology. The US government has worked in opposition to farmers and public health in granting Monsanto patents on seeds, thus enabling Monsanto’s licensing agreements with farmers that keep the farmers paying royalties even after they stop growing Monsanto products.  The United Nations has been complicit in spreading GMO seeds across the world through WTO regulations and other means.  Many environmental NGOs are accredited through the UN, “non-profit” organizations (tax-exempt is a better description because many of these 501(c)3 organizations reap plenty of profits) and tax-exempt foundations all work together to pursue the Agenda 21 Sustainable Development goals of depopulation and total control, using the environment as the excuse.

For a full analysis, please click on these links:

The Rockefeller Family- Part One: http://www.morphcity.com/home/65-food-and-depopulation-part-1-of-4

Monsanto’s Monopoly- Part Two: http://www.morphcity.com/home/71-food-and-depopulation-part-2-of-4

Internaional Takeover by the UN- Part Three: http://www.morphcity.com/home/73-food-and-depopulation-part-3-of-4

Scams & Solutions- Part Four: http://www.morphcity.com/home/75-food-and-depopulation-part-4-of-4


Sources:

(1) http://www.gmwatch.eu/latest-listing/1-news-items/12417-judges-ruling-uproots-use-of-gm-beets

(2) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129010499

(3) http://www.sierraclub.org/population/UNFPA/ http://www.albatrus.org/english/lien_of_oz/one%20world%20government/eugenics_racism_population_control.htm

(4) http://www.earthjustice.org/about/clients_coalitions/sierra-club-of-canada http://www.earthjustice.org/about/clients_coalitions
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,058
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.infowars.com/conclusive-global-distribution-of-rockefeller-funded-anti-fertility-vaccine-coordinated-by-who/

Conclusive: Global Distribution of Rockefeller-Funded Anti-Fertility Vaccine Coordinated by WHO

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com
August 27, 2010

In addition to the recent PrisonPlanet-exclusive Rockefeller Foundation Developed Vaccines For “Mass-Scale” Fertility Reduction — which outlines the Rockefeller Foundation’s efforts [.pdf] in the 1960s funding research into so-called “anti-fertility vaccines”– another series of documents has surfaced, proving beyond any doubt that the UN Population Fund, World Bank and World Health Organization picked up on it, further developing it under responsibility of a “Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation”.


WHO and the Rockefeller Foundation have worked together on “anti-
fertility” vaccine since the 1960s.


Just four years after the Rockefeller Foundation launched massive funding-operations into anti-fertility vaccines, the Task Force was created under auspices of the World Health Organization, World Bank and UN Population Fund. Its mission, according to one of its members, to support:

basic and clinical research on the development of birth control vaccines directed against the gametes or the preimplantation embryo. These studies have involved the use of advanced procedures in peptide chemistry, hybridoma technology and molecular genetics as well as the evaluation of a number of novel approaches in general vaccinology. As a result of this international, collaborative effort, a prototype anti-HCG vaccine is now undergoing clinical testing, raising the prospect that a totally new family planning method may be available before the end of the current decade.

In regards to the scope of the Task Force’s jurisdiction, the Biotechnology and Development Monitor reported:

The Task Force acts as a global coordinating body for anti-fertility vaccine R&D in the various working groups and supports research on different approaches, such as anti-sperm and anti-ovum vaccines and vaccines designed to neutralize the biological functions of hCG. The Task Force has succeeded in developing a prototype of an anti-hCG-vaccine.

One of the Task Force members, P.D. Griffin, outlined [.pdf] the purpose and trajectory of these Fertility Regulating Vaccines. Griffin:

“The Task Force has continued to coordinate its research activities with other vaccine development programmes within WHO and with other international and national programmes engaged in the development of fertility regulating vaccines.”

Griffin also admitted to the fact that one of the purposes of the vaccines is the implementation in developing countries. Griffin:

“If vaccines could be developed which could safely and effectively inhibit fertility, without producing unacceptable side effects, they would be an attractive addition to the present armamentarium of fertility regulating methods and would be likely to have a significant impact on family planning programmes.”

Also, one of the advantages of the FRVs over “currently available methods of fertility regulation” the Task Force states, is the following (179):

“low manufacturing cost and ease of delivery within existing health services.”

Already in 1978, the WHO’s Task Force (then called Task Force on Immunological Methods for Fertility Regulation) underlined [.pdf] the usefulness of these vaccines in regards to the possibility of “large scale synthesis and manufacture” of the vaccine:

“The potential advantages of an immunological approach to fertility regulation can be summarized as follows: (a) the possibility of infrequent administration, possibly by paramedical personnel; (b) the use of antigens or antigen fragments, which are not pharmacologically active; and (c) in the case of antigens of known chemical structure, there is the possibility of large-scale synthesis and manufacture of vaccine at relatively low cost.

In 1976, the WHO Expanded Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction published a report, stating:

“In 1972 the Organization (…) expanded its programme of research in human reproduction to provide an international focus for an intensified effort to improve existing methods of fertility regulation, to develop new methods and to assist national authorities in devising the best ways of providing them on a continuing basis. The programme is closely integrated with other WHO research on the delivery of family planning care by health services, which in turn feeds into WHO’s technical assistance programme to governments at the service level.”

Although the term “Anti-Fertility Vaccine”, coined by the Rockefeller Foundation, was replaced by the more bureaucratic sounding “Fertility Regulating Vaccine (FRV), the programme was obviously the same. Besides, The time line shows conclusively that the WHO, UN Population Fund and World Bank continued on a path outlined by the Rockefellers in the late 1960s. By extensions, it proves that all these organization are perfectly interlocked, best captured under the header “Scientific Dictatorship”. The relationshipbetween the WHO and the Rockefeller Foundation is intense. In the 1986 bulletin of the World Health Organization [.pdf], this relationship is being described in some detail. While researching the effectiveness of “gossypol” as an “antifertility agent”, the bulletin states:

“The Rockefeller Foundation has supported limited clinical trials in China and smallscale clinical studies in Brazil and Austria. The dose administered in the current Chinese trial has been reduced from 20 mg to 10-15 mg/day during the loading phase in order to see if severe oligospermia rather than consistent azoospermia would be adequate for an acceptable, non-toxic and reversible effect. Meanwhile, both the WHO human reproduction programme and the Rockefeller Foundation are supporting animal studies to better define the mechanism of action of gossypol.

In August of 1992, a series of meetings was held in Geneva, Switzerland, regarding “fertility regulating vaccines”. According to the document Fertility Regulating Vaccines [.pdf] (classified by the WHO with a limited distribution) present at those meetings were scientists and clinicians from all over the globe, including then biomedical researcher of the American Agency for International development, and current research-chief of USAID, Mr. Jeff Spieler.

In 1986 Mr. Spieler declared [.pdf]:

“A new approach to fertility regulation is the development of vaccines directed against human substances required for reproduction. Potential candidates for immunological interference include reproductive hormones, ovum and sperm antigens, and antigens derived from embryonic or fetal tissue.(…). An antifertility vaccine must be capable of safely and effectively inhibiting a human substance, which would need somehow to be rendered antigenic. A fertility-regulating vaccine, moreover, would have to produce and sustain effective immunity in at least 95% of the vaccinated population, a level of protection rarely achieved even with the most successful viral and bacterial vaccines. But while these challenges looked insuperable just a few years ago, recent advances in biotechnology- particularly in the fields of molecular biology, genetic engineering and monoclonal antibody production- are bringing antifertility vaccines into the realm of the feasible.”

“Vaccines interfering with sperm function and fertilization could be available for human testing by the early 1990s”, Spieler wrote.

In order for widespread use of these vaccines, Spieler writes, the vaccine must conquer “variations in individual responses to immunization with fertility-regulating vaccines”.

“Research”, he goes on to say,”is also needed in the field of “basic vaccinology”, to find the best carrier proteins, adjuvants, vehicles and delivery systems.”

In the 1992 document, the problem of “variations in individual responses” is also discussed:

“Because of the genetic diversity of human populations”, states the document, “immune responses to vaccines often show marked differences from one individual to another in terms of magnitude and duration. These differences may be partly or even completely overcome with appropriately engineered FRVs (Fertility Regulating Vaccines) and by improvements in our understanding of what is required to develop and control the immune response elicited by different vaccines.

The picture emerging from these facts is clear. The WHO, as a global coordinating body, has since the early 70s continued the development of the Rockefeller-funded “anti-fertility vaccine”. What also is becoming clear, is that extensive research has been done to the delivery systems in which these anti-fertility components can be buried, such as regular anti-viral vaccines. It’s a mass-scale anti-fertilization programme with the aim of reducing the world’s population: a dream long cherished by the global elite.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Re: New Eugenics and the Rise of the Global Scientific Dictatorship
« Reply #48 on: August 27, 2010, 05:09:08 PM »
They busted them innoculating women with anti-fertility drugs in the Philippines.  It is absolutely incredibel that they would do that to women unwittingly.  The personal tragedies they have caused in these women's lives reek to high heaven. Rotten, rotten bastards.  I don't have words to express my contempt. Fu#%ers!

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,058
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Vaccine Deaths And Injuries Skyrocket As Cover-Up Implodes
« Reply #49 on: August 30, 2010, 05:42:19 PM »
http://www.prisonplanet.com/vaccine-deaths-and-injuries-skyrocket-as-cover-up-implodes.html

Vaccine Deaths And Injuries Skyrocket As Cover-Up Implodes

Global revolt against deadly vaccines spreads as cases of debilitating illnesses, soft-kill side-effects and even instant deaths become widespread



Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, August 30, 2010

Cases of debilitating illnesses, soft-kill side-effects and even instant deaths as a result of vaccinations across the world are skyrocketing as the cover-up of deadly inoculations implodes and more people than ever become suspicious about what they are being injected with by health authorities who have proven they cannot be trusted.

The implosion of the vaccine cover-up is sure to discourage more parents from vaccinating their children in the coming months, with the swine flu shot now being combined with the regular seasonal flu jab. A recent Rasmussen poll found that 52 per cent of Americans were concerned about the safety of vaccines as we approach the start of school and college terms, where many children and teenagers will be “required” to take shots before they can attend.

A global revolt against dangerous vaccines is brewing following a series of cases where children have been killed as a direct result of inoculations.

A measles vaccination program in India was halted after four children died almost immediately after receiving the shot. “Four children died within minutes of receiving a vaccine for measles followed by drops of Vitamin A solution on Saturday,” reports MedGuru.

Indian newspaper reports carried eyewitness accounts of what happened. “The four children were reported to have fainted soon after they were vaccinated and witnesses reported seeing the children’s eyes roll back as they began to have seizures,” reports Blitz.

Furious villagers reacted to the tragedy by going on a rampage, attacking health workers and holding government doctors hostage.

Health professionals and doctors with government ties were also blamed in Finland and Sweden after a H1N1 vaccination program was halted following a 300 per cent increase in cases of the neurological disorder narcolepsy amongst children and young people who had received the shot over the last six months.

According to Kari Lankinen, head physician of the Finnish Medicines Agency, doctors were complicit in hiding the link between the swine flu shot and narcolepsy and did so to advance their careers.

Meanwhile, concerned mothers whose daughters have been injured or killed by the Gardasil vaccine have put together a website that documents the truth about how the vaccine has killed and injured thousands of young girls since it was introduced in 2006. Thousands of teenagers have suffered adverse reactions and at least 71 have died from the vaccine since the HPV program was launched four years ago.

The global vaccine cover-up took a massive blow after it was confirmed that the 2009 swine flu outbreak was, as we predicted from the start, a contrived scam centered around making vast profits for pharmaceutical companies while endangering the health of the public.

As we reported earlier this year, Chair of the Council of Europe’s Sub-committee on Health Wolfgang Wodarg’s investigation into the 2009 swine flu outbreak found that the pandemic was a fake hoax manufactured by pharmaceutical companies in league with the WHO.

Wodarg said that governments were “threatened” by special interest groups within the pharmaceutical industry as well as the WHO to buy the vaccines and inject their populations without any reasonable scientific reason for doing so, and yet in countries like Germany and France only around 6 per cent took the vaccine despite enough being available to cover 90 per cent of the population.

Wodarg said there was “no other explanation” for what happened than the fact that the WHO worked in cahoots with the pharmaceutical industry to manufacture the panic in order to generate vast profits, agreeing with host Alex Jones that the entire farce was a hoax.

He also explained how health authorities were “already waiting for something to happen” before the pandemic started and then exploited the virus for their own purposes.

Professor Ulrich Keil, director of the World Health Organization’s Collaborating Centre for Epidemiology, also slammed the swine flu epidemic as an overblown “angst campaign”, devised in conjunction with major drug companies to boost profits for vaccine manufacturers.

As Natural News’ Mike Adams reported, several members of the Emergency Committee expert panel that advised the World Health Organization (WHO) during the swine flu scare were receiving financial support from pharmaceutical manufacturers either during or prior to the epidemic.

Both H1N1 and seasonal flu shots have been linked with a number of different side-effects across the globe, including Guillain-Barré Syndrome as well as dystonia, a paralyzing neurological disorder.

The seasonal flu vaccine has also been linked with convulsions and fits in under-5’s.

Many batches of the swine flu vaccine included squalene and mercury amongst their ingredients, two substances that have been directly connected with the explosion of autism amongst children as well as other diseases. Individuals within government and the military were privileged to receive additive free shots that did not include these substances. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and government ministers, as well as German soldiers, were amongst those who received access to the so-called “friendly” version of the vaccine.

In order to head off legal claims for side-effects caused by the swine flu vaccination program, the U.S. government provided vaccine makers with blanket legal immunity before the shots began to be dispersed.

Citing concerns over safety, Prime Minister Donald Tusk and Health Minister Ewa Kopacz, with the broad support of the public, ensured that Poland was the only country in the world to completely reject the H1N1 vaccine.

“We are making this decision only in the interest of the Polish patient and the taxpayer,” Tusk said. “We will not take part because it’s not honest and it’s not safe for the patient.”

In a 2008 trial for a bird flu vaccine, three Polish doctors and six nurses faced criminal charges after the vaccine killed 21 homeless people who were participating in the test.

The Czech Republic rejected a swine flu vaccine produced by pharmaceutical manufacturer Baxter after the company was caught shipping vaccines contaminated with deadly live H5N1 avian flu virus to 18 countries by a lab at an Austrian branch of Baxter.

Given the routinely stated goal on behalf of mega-rich foundations that fund vaccination programs around the world, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, to use vaccines as a way of sterilizing the planet’s population as part of the global eugenics soft-kill assault on humanity, it’s unsurprising that as more people become aware of this agenda, take-up rates of new as well as seasonal vaccines continue to decline.

As Jurriaan Maessen recently documented in his Infowars exclusive, in its 1968 yearly report, the Rockefeller Foundation acknowledged funding the development of so-called “anti-fertility vaccines” and their implementation on a mass-scale.

This program was then launched by a group that was created under auspices of the World Health Organization, World Bank and UN Population Fund entitled “Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation”. In the 1990’s, the WHO was mired in controversy after it distributed a “tetanus vaccine” to poor girls and women in the third world that was contaminated with human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG), a hormone that induces involuntary abortion.

During a TED conference earlier this year, Bill Gates openly stated that vaccines would be used to lower the earth’s population in the name of combating climate change. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is one of the major funders of vaccine research and production in the third world.

Warning that the global population was heading towards 9 billion, Gates said, “If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services (abortion), we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 per cent.”

Quite how an improvement in health care and vaccines that supposedly save lives would lead to a lowering in global population is an oxymoron, unless Gates was referring to vaccines that sterilize people, which is precisely the same method advocated in White House science advisor John P. Holdren’s 1977 textbook Ecoscience, which calls for a dictatorial “planetary regime” to enforce draconian measures of population reduction via all manner of oppressive techniques, including sterilization.

With people globally becoming increasingly aware of the role of vaccines in the agenda to reduce world population, the cover-up of debilitating diseases, soft kill side-effects, and instant fatalities as a result of vaccinations will continue to implode, until authorities are forced by law to implement vastly more stringent screening procedures and remove the toxic additives from vaccines that are causing these deaths and diseases.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Re: New Eugenics and the Rise of the Global Scientific Dictatorship
« Reply #50 on: August 30, 2010, 05:49:42 PM »
My wife and I have discussed it.  Our two-year-old will not receive the seasonal flu shot this year as it is supposed to contain the H1N1 vaccine.  She did not receive the H1N1 vaccine last year, though every student at the school at which I teach did (South Korea).

I showed her articles about cases of negative reactions and countries that had banned the shots.  If a member of your family is still unaware of these problems, I recommend it as a good approach.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,058
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: New Eugenics and the Rise of the Global Scientific Dictatorship
« Reply #51 on: August 30, 2010, 06:01:24 PM »
I showed her articles about cases of negative reactions and countries that had banned the shots.  If a member of your family is still unaware of these problems, I recommend it as a good approach.

Thanks in large part to the compulsory government school system, many if not most people are virtually allergic to reading.

So another approach worth considering is to first have them turn their cell phones off (if they refuse to do this, then you're probably wasting your time), and to then have them watch the following:

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIFpbAxDMYI
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,058
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
World Bank Threatens “Drastic Steps” if Nations Refuse Population Reduction
« Reply #52 on: September 02, 2010, 10:47:01 AM »
http://www.infowars.com/world-bank-threatens-drastic-steps-necessary-if-nations-refuse-population-reduction-implementation/

World Bank Threatens “Drastic Steps Necessary” if Nations Refuse Population Reduction Implementation

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com
September 2, 2010

It’s the eugenicist in the Discover Channel building multiplied by a million. Not simply a lone eco-terrorist saying “parasitic human infants” must die, but one of the largest international financial institutions demanding it. To make the contrast even more remarkable, James J. Lee scared the living daylights out of some Discovery Channel employees, the IMF & World Bank take hostage entire nations.


The IMF & World Bank take hostage entire nations.

In its 1984 World Development Report [.pdf], the World Bank threatens nations who are slow in implementing the Bank’s “population policies” with “drastic steps, less compatible with individual choice and freedom.”

The report, literally saturated with dehumanizing proposals, is devoted entirely to the World Bank’s long-term strategies in regards to population control:

“(…) economic policy and performance in the next decade will matter for population growth in the developing countries for several decades beyond; population policy and change in the rest of this century will set the terms for the whole of development strategy in the next.”

To illustrate how serious the World Bank is in achieving the overall strategy objectives on population control, the report does not shy away from outright threats:

“Population policy has a long lead time; other development policies must adapt in the meantime. Inaction today forecloses options tomorrow, in overall development strategy and in future population policy. Worst of all, inaction today could mean that more drastic steps, less compatible with individual choice and freedom, will seem necessary tomorrow to slow population growth.

In the Foreword, then President of the World Bank and 1985 Bilderberg attendee, A.W. Clausen stated:

“(…) although the direct costs of The World Bank programs to reduce population growth are not large, a greater commitment by the international community is sorely needed to assist developing countries in the great challenge of slowing population growth.”

“(…) governments can use incentives and disincentives to signal their policy on family size”, the report continues. “Through incentives, society as a whole compensates those couples willing to forgo the private benefits of an additional child, helping to close the gap between private and social gains to high fertility.”

To give an adequate illustration of the World Bank’s preference for all-out government control over the people, and their intent on meddling in people’s personal decisions, the following quote will suffice (page 107):

“By taxing and spending in ways that provide couples with specific incentives and disincentives to limit their fertility, government policy can also affect fertility in the short run. Government can offer “rewards” for women who defer pregnancy; it can compensate people who undergo sterilization for loss of work and travel costs; and it can provide insurance and old-age security schemes for parents who restrict the size of their families. Each of these public policies works through signals which influence individual and family decisions- when to marry, whether to use contraception, how long to send children to school, and life expectancy, and whether and how much family members work.”

Under the header “Incentives and disincentives” (page 121), the World Bank proposes several more examples of government interference in the affairs of free humanity:

“To complement family planning services and social programs that help to reduce fertility, governments may want to consider financial and other incentives and disincentives as additional ways of encouraging parents to have fewer children. Incentives may be defined as payments given to an individual, couple, or group to delay or limit child-bearing or to use contraceptives. (…). Disincentives are the withholding of social benefits from those whose family size exceeds a desired norm.”

The report uses the example of China to make clear such measures can be highly successful if governments would only be willing to implement them:

“With the possible exception of China, efforts to raise the age at marriage by persuasion and edict have not been particularly successful.”

“In China the birth rate at the end of 1982 was estimated to be nineteen per 1,000 people, down from forty in the 1960s. The current figure, based on birth registrations rather than on a census, may slightly understate the actual birth rate; but it would still be well below current rates in South Asia, Africa, and most of Latin America.”

On page 124, the World Bank report further marvels at the Chinese government’s accomplishments:

“China has the most comprehensive set of incentives and disincentives, designed (most recently) to promote the one-child family. Since the early 1970s women undergoing various types of fertility-related operations have been entitled to paid leave: in urban areas fourteen days for induced abortion; ten days for tubal ligation; two to three days for insertion or removal of an IUD; and in the case of postnatal sterilization, seven extra days over the normal fifty-six of paid maternity leave.”

Bizarrely, the report even goes so far as to suggest introducing “sterilization vans” and “camps”:

Male and female sterilization and IUDs can be made more readily available through mobile facilities (such as sterilization vans in Thailand) or periodic “camps” (such as vasectomy and tubectomy-camps in India and IUD “safaris” in Indonesia).”

Making clear that the overall World Bank population reduction strategy must be implemented in a country-specific manner, the report states:

“The specific policy agenda for each country depends on its political culture, on the nature of the problem it faces, and on what it has already accomplished.”

What does have to be global, according to the World Bank, is continuing urbanization: people nicely locked up in massive townships. The report explains:

“Living in small towns does less to reduce fertility than does living in larger cities. That many of these changes take time to have an effect only underlines the need to begin them now. At the same time, other measures that complement and speed socioeconomic change can hasten a decline in fertility.”

This report is completely in step with the strategies outlined by the UN, the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, World Health Organization and IMF as they move to depopulate the earth in a consorted global effort. The pretexts for fertility reduction given throughout the report are “sustainable development” and “poverty reduction”. The truth is, so states the World Bank itself, to introduce and further develop “policy measures to increase people’s welfare as well as (and as a means) to reduce fertility.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,058
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Eugenics Alert: World Bank Population-Reduction Lending Schemes Already Underway
« Reply #53 on: September 03, 2010, 03:37:01 PM »
http://www.infowars.com/eugenics-alert-world-bank-population-reduction-lending-schemes-already-underway/

Eugenics Alert: World Bank Population-Reduction Lending Schemes Already Underway

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com
September 3, 2010

Following up on yesterday’s article World Bank Threatens “Drastic Steps Necessary” if Nations Refuse Population Reduction Implementation, recent reports by the World Bank suggest the “drastic steps” considered necessary are now being implemented.


World Bank “in-country units” will “strengthen” the institutions that
distribute the Rockefeller-funded anti-fertility vaccines and GM Food.


According to two subsequent documents put out by the World Bank, new guidelines dictate that in order to qualify for World Bank lending, nations must implement population reduction objectives as outlined by the World Bank and UN Population Fund.

Already tested and implemented in Yemen and Niger, these new guidelines are destined for global implementation within the next decade, says the World Bank.

In the World Bank’s Reproductive Health Action Plan 2010-2015 [.pdf], published in April of this year, the Bank structurally speaks of Millennium Development Goals number 5 (or MDG5), which stands for “Reproductive Health” (or RH).

As we know, this is eugenics-new-speak for population control. As pro-death globalist professor John Cleland argued at a 2006 gathering [.pdf] in the company of like-minded individuals from the United Nations Population Fund, the International Planned Parenthood Foundation, the European Commission, the World Bank and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation:

“It does this cause no service at all to continue to shroud family planning in the obfuscating phrase “sexual and reproductive health”. People don’t really know what it means. If we mean family planning or contraception, we must say it. If we are worried about population growth, we must say it. We must use proper, straightforward language. I am fed up with the political correctness that daren’t say the name population stabilization, hardly dares to mention family planning or contraception out of fear that somebody is going to get offended. It is pathetic!”

The 2010 report put out by the World Bank however, chooses to use this deceptive phrase continually. And, from its dark point of view, it is right to do so- for the resistance against this 21st century eugenics grows steadily. The Bank, just like the UN, has no choice but to cloak itself in deceptive language so as not to raise too much suspicion as they move forward:

“(…) a renewed global consensus on the need to make progress on MDG5, together with greater attention to gender issues within and outside the Bank is refocusing attention on RH and offering an unprecedented opportunity to redress the neglect of the previous decade. Notable among these developments is that in 2007 the UN fully incorporated RH within the MDG framework.”

Apart from all the available evidence of a global push for population reduction, The term Global Consensus alone proves it:

“The Global Consensus”, says the report, “recognizes that MDGs 4 & 5 will not be reached without country leadership and the prioritization of reproductive, maternal, and newborn health at country level. The Global Consensus proposes a five point plan that includes: (i) political, operational, and community leadership and engagement; (ii) a package of evidence-based interventions through effective health systems along a continuum of good quality care, with a priority on quality care at birth; (iii) services for women and children free at the point of use if countries choose to provide them; (iv) skilled and motivated health workers in the right place at the right time, with supporting infrastructure, drugs, and equipment; and (v) accountability for results with robust monitoring and evaluation.”

In order to translate this “Global Consensus” to the nation-states under its control, the World Bank boasts:

“The World Bank is uniquely positioned at the country level to take on advocacy for reproductive health, particularly in reaching Ministers of Finance. This will require utilizing the World Bank‟s economic analysis and technical resources to marshal arguments for investment in reproductive health. Bank’s country directors have key role to play in process of making RH a country priority through their policy dialogue with governments.”

There it is again. The World Bank- as lender- has the dependent nations in a stranglehold. If nations don’t comply with its directions, the Bank can cut the financial lifeline, no problem at all.

A World Bank discussion-paper from 2007 called Population Issues in the 21st century: The Role of the World Bank [.pdf], explains how this process works in more detail:

The Bank has a potential comparative advantage to address these issues at the highest levels of country policy setting, not only with ministry of health counterparts, but also with officials from finance and planning. This is important given the increasing recognition that political economy is a critical factor in the implementation of population and reproductive health programs, particularly in high-fertility countries.

“Its involvement in many sectors in countries”, the authors continue, “can produce synergies that will allow faster progress than a more narrow focus on family planning services. The Bank will need its partners – United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), World Health Organization (WHO), key bilaterals – to provide technical expertise and administrative knowledge in areas such as procurement of contraceptives, service delivery, and demand creation.”

The document makes clear that this global and coordinated push for total control is not some vague dream. It is already being test-cased in several developing nations. The document states two cases that are currently underway. In the first example, Niger, the World Bank already has in place so-called “benchmarks” that the nation in question has to live up to in order to enjoy the continued support of the World Bank. In the case of Niger, considered by the IMF as a “Highly Indebted Poor Country”- and therefore easy to subdue- the document states:

“Population growth is documented and a population ESW (Economic and Sector Work) planned. A national Population and Reproductive Health Strategy is not only a CAS (Country Assistance Strategy) benchmark, but also a lending trigger, while reproductive health is included in one of the CAS pillars.”

“High fertility and rapid population growth were not only acknowledged as major problems, but fertility was also used as one of the CAS performance benchmarks. Moreover, a population ESW was planned and subsequently delivered. That ESW has been most instrumental in enhancing the in-country policy dialogue on population issues, and has led to a free-standing International Development Association (IDA) population operation, currently in preparation, which is the first population-specific operation in many years in the World Bank Africa Region. The preparation of a National Population and Reproductive Health Strategy was also a CAS benchmark as well as a lending trigger, while reproductive health was included in one of the CAS pillars. Other Bank partners such as the EU have joined the effort. Finally, population issues have also been given a high priority in the new Rural and Social Policy Reform (Development Policy Lending) Credit.

The devil is in the details. The extend to which the World Bank and UN is willing to blackmail “Highly Indebted Poor Country’s” in implementing globally coordinated population control policies also becomes obvious in the second test-case example: Yemen:

“In the lending portfolio, restructuring of the Health Sector Reform Project (which includes family planning) is proposed and is expected to lead to a Population II Project to specifically address high fertility and family planning issues. Pillars two and three address population and reproductive health. Contraception is addressed effectively, and CPR is included as a CAS indicator. Furthermore, earlier in 2006, the Bank produced a study on “Promoting the Demand for FP in Yemen.”

High fertility and rapid population growth”, the document reads, “were not only acknowledged as major impediments to economic growth and poverty reduction, but was included as one of the specific goals that was subsequently translated into policies, programs, and an indicator (reduce population growth rate by 3 percent per annum). Moreover, budget was allocated specifically for each of the four population policies that were outlined.

The dimensions of this “Global Consensus” are extensive. These diabolical dimensions are being described in the 2007 “Discussion Paper” with the help of the catch-phrase: “Multisectoral approach”:

“A more systematic approach to mainstream population within the core agenda (…) would greatly enhance the adoption of a truly multisectoral approach. (….) The Bank’s comparative advantages in strengthening health systems are mainly in the areas of health financing, system governance, accountability for health service delivery, and demand-side interventions, all of which are important to further the population agenda.

The authors continue:

By supporting large-scale implementation of an integrated health sector plan that includes family planning, the Bank can play an important role in keeping family planning as a priority in high fertility and high-population-momentum countries. Even though historically some successful family planning programs were based on a vertical approach, such an approach is now considered less attractive, both from a sustainability standpoint as well as from a comprehensive reproductive health approach.”

However deceptive and “rational” the language, the document is nevertheless strangely upfront about their full-spectrum dominance, to make use of a military phrase:

“Unless population issues are approached in a multipronged fashion, it is unlikely to accelerate a demographic transition in these countries.”

“The Bank is well positioned to systematically include population and reproductive health dimensions in key strategic documents (…). The Bank is particularly well placed to provide the fiscal and economic analysis to ensure that funding of population issues is placed within the overall development financing agenda of the country.”

This strategy can be best achieved by a coordinated strategy implemented by a visible, strong, and high-level in-country unit with the mandate to design, monitor, and evaluate the effectiveness of the program. The Bank can help strengthen such institutional mechanisms, and foster collaboration with external national or international partners.

There it is. World Bank “in-country units” will “strengthen” the institutions that distribute the Rockefeller-funded anti-fertility vaccines and GM Food. Above all this, the Bank uses the tools confided to them by the scientific dictatorship:

“The role of political economy in the implementation of population and reproductive health programs and policies is critical. The Bank, by providing the necessary analytical basis for policy discussion, can play a constructive role in prompting policy makers to take action now for future changes in population structure and size.”

Speaking of the scientific dictatorship, the World Bank works in concert with all the other arms of the octopus:

“As was noted in the section on the global policy context, it is impossible for the Bank to work on reproductive health issues without the support and collaboration of the broader international community. The UNFPA is the lead technical agency in the population field, with a large network of field offices. The Bank already uses UNFPA’s contraceptive procurement know-how and has intensified its collaboration in other areas (e.g., training and country program management). The WHO, as the normative agency, is a critical partner at both the global and country levels. As population issues are linked to reproductive health, HIV/AIDS, and child survival, the Bank works also with WHO, UNAIDS, and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), respectively.”

Returning to the essence, the intention and the strategy leave little for the imagination: a global consensus is in place between all the major transnational institutions and banks: the earth’s population must be brought down, with all means necessary. The World Bank uses financial tools to bring nations on their knees, demanding they cull their numbers; the UN guarantees the political legitimizing for these depopulation policies (Agenda 21); the Foundations develop the anti-fertility vaccines and GM Food, the World Health Organization takes care of the “health-standards” and distribution. In this global construct, carefully coordinated from the top-down, the scientific dictatorship has circled the wagons around all of free humanity.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Femacamper

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,973
  • PUTIN HACKED MY MIND!
    • TRUNEWS
Re: New Eugenics and the Rise of the Global Scientific Dictatorship
« Reply #54 on: September 04, 2010, 08:30:35 PM »
Thanks in large part to the compulsory government school system, many if not most people are virtually allergic to reading.

So another approach worth considering is to first have them turn their cell phones off (if they refuse to do this, then you're probably wasting your time), and to then have them watch the following:

       http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6890106663412840646

Need Korean subtitles.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,058
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Vaccinate the World: Gates, Rockefeller Seek Global Population Reduction
« Reply #55 on: September 08, 2010, 02:29:05 PM »
http://www.globalresearch.ca/vaccinate-the-world-gates-rockefeller-seek-global-population-reduction/20942

Vaccinate the World: Gates, Rockefeller Seek Global Population Reduction

by Daniel Taylor



Global Research, September 7, 2010
oldthinkernews.com - 2010-09-04

The global elite has launched a world-wide operation against an unaware population to reduce and control fertility. Vaccines and even staple food crops have been modified to achieve these goals.

If you can't seem to bring yourself to believe that such an undertaking is possible, or that there are human beings willing and capable; Look back in time, this kind of conspiracy isn't new, in fact this kind of control was idealized by Plato some 2,300 years ago in his momentous work The Republic. Plato wrote that a ruling elite should guide society, "...whose aim will be to preserve the average of population." He further stated, "There are many other things which they will have to consider, such as the effects of wars and diseases and any similar agencies, in order as far as this is possible to prevent the State from becoming either too large or too small."

The activities of the ruling elite in controlling population, writes Plato, must be kept secret. He writes, "Now these goings on must be a secret which the rulers only know, or there will be a further danger of our herd... breaking out into rebellion."

Peering back into the mists of time and history reveal that there is truly nothing new under the sun. What has been done will be done again, and the 21st Century manifestation of global elites have advanced tools at their disposal.

The GAVI Alliance (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization)

The GAVI Alliance, founded in 2000 with the help of the Gates Foundation, has the goal of vaccinating all of the third world. The member organizations of GAVI are listed on group's the website, which include:

    "...national governments of donor and developing countries, the Bill and Melinda Gates Children’s Vaccine Program, the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA), the Rockefeller Foundation, UNICEF, the World Bank Group and the World Health Organization (WHO)."

In December of 2000, David Rockefeller and William H. Gates Sr., among others, (pictured to the right) visited the Rockefeller University campus to take part in a meeting on "Philanthropy in a Global Century". While there, Gates spoke glowingly about his inspiration from Rockefeller in founding GAVI,

    "Gates said that 'Taking our lead and our inspiration from work already done by The Rockefeller Foundation, our foundation actually started GAVI by pledging $750 million to something called the Global Fund for Children's Vaccines, an instrument of GAVI.'"

    He also praised the Rockefeller family's century of philanthropy, saying, 'It seems like every new corner we turn, the Rockefellers are already there. And in some cases, they have been there for a long, long time.'"

The fact that such a global mechanism like GAVI exists - in the hands of outspoken population control advocates - for delivering vaccines to millions of people across the world should be disconcerting to say the least; Especially when confronted with the mountains of documentation proving that anti-fertility vaccines have been researched and delivered by the World Health Organization with grant money from the Rockefeller Foundation.

Bill Gates reaffirmed the global population control agenda during a recent TED conference presentation in which he stated,

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Re: New Eugenics and the Rise of the Global Scientific Dictatorship
« Reply #56 on: September 14, 2010, 06:00:09 PM »
It really should be "two teachers" or a granny, but it really needn't be an either or IMO.

Gates is wrong.  There are a plethora of other ways we can bring health care costs down in the U.S. and see that healthcare is more affordable  -- some of it by doing away with gov't. intervention in the healthcare market and extension of patents for medicine.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,058
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: New Eugenics and the Rise of the Global Scientific Dictatorship
« Reply #57 on: September 14, 2010, 06:09:31 PM »
Gates is wrong.  There are a plethora of other ways we can bring health care costs down in the U.S. and see that healthcare is more affordable  -- some of it by doing away with gov't. intervention in the healthcare market and extension of patents for medicine.

I'm afraid you lost me on that one, because overextended drug patents -- particulary those granted for "me-too" drugs and for drugs developed primarily at taxpayer expense -- are what allowed Big Pharma to systematically price gouge everyone in the first place.

Thus, if we extend those patents even further, that will only result in more price gouging, not less.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Re: New Eugenics and the Rise of the Global Scientific Dictatorship
« Reply #58 on: September 14, 2010, 06:14:15 PM »
No, let me make that more clear.  I am for doing away with exactly just such extensions.

Sorry if that was worded funny, but grammatically I think it was correct.

I am for doing away with market interventions AND extension of patents.

Actually, I believe they are an "intervention" of a sort.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,058
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: New Eugenics and the Rise of the Global Scientific Dictatorship
« Reply #59 on: September 14, 2010, 06:18:35 PM »
No, let me make that more clear.  I am for doing away with exactly just such extensions.

Sorry if that was worded funny, but grammatically I think it was correct.

Yes, I see now I misread it. My bad.

For my views on health care reform, see the following (if you haven't already):

       http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=52952.0
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,058
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Bill Gates Death Panels Tip of Iceberg
« Reply #60 on: September 15, 2010, 01:29:47 PM »
http://www.infowars.com/bill-gates-death-panels-tip-of-the-iceberg/

Bill Gates Death Panels Tip of Iceberg

Paul Joseph Watson, Kurt Nimmo & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
September 15, 2010

Bill Gates’ advocacy for “death panels” has caused controversy amongst conservative commentators, but the real outrage behind the story has been completely overlooked – the fact that Gates is a hardcore eugenicist and has called for lowering the global population through vaccines which his foundation funds to the tune of billions.

Gates’ “death panel” comments were actually made over two months ago at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Aspen Colorado, but they only garnered attention when the video clip appeared on numerous conservative websites on Sunday, including Breitbart.tv and The Blaze.

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03MZG9vK0W8 (Bill Gates: End-of-Life Care vs. Saving Teachers' Jobs)

The Aspen Ideas Festival is a project of the Aspen Institute. The Aspen Institute is primarily funded by foundations such as the Carnegie Corporation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford Foundation. In 1952, the Rockefellers established the Population Council, a eugenics operation.

Jurriaan Maessen and other researchers have documented how the Rockefeller Foundation has pioneered “anti-fertility vaccines” and worked with the UN Population Fund, World Bank and World Health Organization to reduce world population. “Just four years after the Rockefeller Foundation launched massive funding-operations into anti-fertility vaccines, the Task Force was created under auspices of the World Health Organization, World Bank and UN Population Fund,” writes Maessen.

The Carnegie Institution established a laboratory complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island in 1904 that stockpiled millions of index cards on ordinary Americans, as researchers carefully plotted the removal of families, bloodlines and whole peoples. “From Cold Spring Harbor, eugenics advocates agitated in the legislatures of America, as well as the nation’s social service agencies and associations,” Edwin Black wrote for the San Francisco Chronicle in 2003.

In the United States, key eugenic organizations funded by the Rockefeller, Harriman and Carnegie families included the American Eugenics Society, and its sister organization, the American Society of Human Genetics established in 1947, the above mentioned Cold Springs Harbor Experimental Station for the Study of Evolution, the Eugenic Record Office, and the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research.

During a question and answer session at the Aspen Ideas Festival, Gates implied that elderly patients undergoing expensive health care treatments should be killed and the money spent elsewhere.

Gates said there was a “lack of willingness” to consider the question of choosing between “spending a million dollars on that last three months of life for that patient” or laying off ten teachers.

“But that’s called the death panel and you’re not supposed to have that discussion,” added Gates.

The Microsoft owner’s advocacy for killing granny in the name of spending the money elsewhere strikes at the root of why so many Americans are outraged over Obamacare, which contains as one of its core components a cost/benefit board which will be able to refuse care to elderly patients, proving that death panels will indeed come into force despite establishment media PR campaigns to convince the public otherwise.

Prior to the passage of Obamacare, the corporate media excoriated critics of the plan for mentioning inclusion of death panels. As Joseph Ashby notes, however, death panels were established before Obamacare was enacted.

The Recovery and Reinvestment Act, commonly known as the Stimulus Bill, provided more than a billion dollars to fund the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The Council was devised by former Health and Human Services Secretary Nominee Tom Daschle. “Daschle’s stated purpose (and therefore President Obama’s purpose) for creating the Council is to empower an unelected bureaucracy to make the hard decisions about health care rationing that elected politicians are politically unable to make,” writes Ashby.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, sits on the Council. Under the rubric of “social justice,” Emanuel advocates denying medical care to patients who are no longer “participating citizens,” that is to say people who are considered useless eaters by the state. “Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination,” writes Emanuel, “every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years.”

Denying medical care to patients is not a recent phenomenon. Wesley J. Smith, an award winning author and a Senior Fellow in Human Rights and Bioethics at the Discovery Institute, has written extensively about “bioethicists and others among the medical intelligentsia” who have rationalized denying medical care to “dependent people and the growing number of our elderly.” Smith documents how the “bioethics movement” has successfully changed the classification for human care to medical care and in the process has paved the way for denial of health care and the establishment of death panels.

“Obamacare is intent on cutting costs,” Smith writes in a blog post entitled Obamacare: “Harardous Pathway,” The Road to Death Panels. “The great danger is that while the government will never ration its own spending, never cut its own perks, never decide that a program has outlived its usefulness, it will readily cut the most vulnerable among us out of life itself.”

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0NEWERgqg0 (At 11:20 Alex covers hospitals denying care to citizens while offering it to illegal aliens.)

Although Americans will be subject to the whims of death panels, the federal government will “continue to require hospitals to provide emergency treatment to illegal immigrants at taxpayer expense,” the New York Times reported.

However, the wider significance of Gates’ comments has gone completely unnoticed by those outraged over what he said.

Gates is an avowed eugenicist who is committed to drastically reducing the world’s population in the name of combating global warming. This is alarming given the fact that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation funds the production and distribution of vaccines to the third world.

During a February 2010 TED conference, Gates openly stated that vaccines would be used to reduce global population and lower CO2 emissions.

Stating that the global population was heading towards 9 billion, Gates said, “If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services (abortion), we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 per cent.”

Watch the clip.

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WQtRI7A064 (Bill Gates Admits Vaccines Are Used for Human Depopulation)

Quite how an improvement in health care and vaccines that supposedly save lives would lead to a lowering in global population is an oxymoron, unless Gates was referring to vaccines that sterilize people, which is precisely the same method advocated in White House science advisor John P. Holdren’s 1977 textbook Ecoscience, which calls for a dictatorial “planetary regime” to enforce draconian measures of population reduction via all manner of oppressive techniques, including sterilization.

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snPExUJl6po (The Real Story Behind Bill Gates And "Death Panels")

Indeed, As Natural News’ Mike Adams revealed, one of the Gates Foundation’s current projects revolves around the funding of a “sterilization program that would use sharp blasts of ultrasound directed against a man’s scrotum to render him infertile for six months.”

“Now, the foundation has funded a new “sweat-triggered vaccine delivery” program based on nanoparticles penetrating human skin,” writes Adams. “The technology is describes as a way to “…develop nanoparticles that penetrate the skin through hair follicles and burst upon contact with human sweat to release vaccines.”

The Microsoft founder’s advocacy for death panels is a shocking admission, but it pales in significance when one considers that Gates, as one of the richest men on the planet who routinely meets with other billionaires to discuss population reduction efforts, has publicly stated his intention to use the billions of dollars worth of vaccines that he funds to lower global population in the third world, which could only be achieved if the vaccines were designed to forcibly sterilize people without their consent or induce forced abortions.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,058
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Geo-Engineering: Killing Off The Useless Eaters
« Reply #61 on: September 18, 2010, 11:42:55 AM »
http://www.infowars.com/geo-engineering-killing-off-the-useless-eaters/

Geo-Engineering: Killing Off The Useless Eaters

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
September 17, 2010



Global warming loons are at it again – despite the science behind man-made climate change being completely discredited by the Climategate fiasco and with increasing numbers of Americans skeptical about AGW, mad scientists at the Carnegie Institution are using taxpayer money to lay the groundwork for injecting the atmosphere with dangerous compounds which are known to cause debilitating health problems and could lead to massive droughts and famines.

Alarmists are once again trying to play God in a bid to solve an imaginary climate crisis based around their own fraudulent belief system, fully aware of the fact that the consequences of their actions will likely kill off millions in the third world, people who they see as nothing more than “useless eaters”.

Based around the madcap method of “injecting aerosols of sulfate into the stratosphere” to produce “a global sunshade,” researchers at the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology have been running advanced trials on how to distribute artificially added sulfates to the atmosphere in the name of cooling the planet.

“The Carnegie scientists ran five simulations using a global climate model with different sulfate aerosol concentrations depending on latitude. They then used the results from these simulations in an optimization model to determine what distribution of sulfates would come closest to achieving specified climate goals. They then tested these distributions in the global climate model to assess how well the climate goals were met,” states a press release about the study.

One of the main authors of the study was Ken Caldeira, the man who told a conference of fellow warmists earlier this year that it would be a good idea to make the emission of CO2 an illegal act. Presumably, that would include the very process of breathing since all humans exhale carbon dioxide. That’s right – the man tasked with playing God with the environment thinks breathing should be criminalized.

But it gets worse – Caldeira is an advisor for and is being funded by Bill Gates – the man who thinks that old people should be killed to save teaching jobs, and the man who says that vaccines which his foundation bankrolls to the tune of billions should be used to lower population and bring CO2 emissions down to a level approaching zero.

This gaggle of Dr. Strangelove characters, people like White House science czar and geo-engineering enthusiast John Holdren, the man who advocated forced sterilization, mandatory abortion, and drugging the water supply, are now tinkering with the planet in pursuit of their barbaric eugenicist agenda.

Would you let Ted Bundy take your teenage daughter out on a date? Would you allow Ian Brady and Myra Hindley to baby sit your children? And yet here we have a gang of elitists who have publicly stated their intent to use the threat of global warming and overpopulation as a justification for killing and sterilizing people, and we’re giving them free reign with taxpayer money to play God with planet Earth? What is wrong with this picture?

Injecting the atmosphere with sulfate aerosols is a completely insane, untested and dangerous proposal.

Rutgers University professor Alan Robock has warned that such experiments “could create disasters,” damaging the ozone layer and potentially altering the stratosphere by eliminating weather patterns such as the annual Asian monsoon rain season, which 2 billion people rely upon to water their crops and feed the population.

“Imagine if we triggered a drought and famine while trying to cool the planet,” Robock told a geo-engineering conference last year.

However, when you consider the fact that the global warming mantra is a thin veil for eugenics and population control, it’s unlikely that the world’s elite care about one third of the planet’s population being unable to eat, in fact they would probably see that as a bonus.

The known facts about what happens when the environment is loaded with sulphur dioxide are bad enough, since the compound is the main component of acid rain, which according to the EPA “Causes acidification of lakes and streams and contributes to the damage of trees at high elevations (for example, red spruce trees above 2,000 feet) and many sensitive forest soils. In addition, acid rain accelerates the decay of building materials and paints, including irreplaceable buildings, statues, and sculptures that are part of our nation’s cultural heritage.”

The health effects of bombarding the skies with sulphur dioxide alone are enough to mothball taxpayer funded research into the idea.

The following health effects are linked with exposure to sulphur.

- Neurological effects and behavioral changes

- Disturbance of blood circulation

- Heart damage

- Effects on eyes and eyesight

- Reproductive failure

- Damage to immune systems

- Stomach and gastrointestinal disorder

- Damage to liver and kidney functions

- Hearing defects

- Disturbance of the hormonal metabolism

- Dermatological effects

- Suffocation and lung embolism

According to the LennTech website, “Laboratory tests with test animals have indicated that sulfur can cause serious vascular damage in veins of the brains, the heart and the kidneys. These tests have also indicated that certain forms of sulfur can cause foetal damage and congenital effects. Mothers can even carry sulfur poisoning over to their children through mother milk. Finally, sulfur can damage the internal enzyme systems of animals.”

Fred Singer, president of the Science Environmental Policy Project and a skeptic of man-made global warming theories, warns that the consequences of tinkering with the planet’s delicate eco-system could have far-reaching dangers.

“If you do this on a continuous basis, you would depress the ozone layer and cause all kinds of other problems that people would rather avoid,” said Singer.

Even Greenpeace’s chief UK scientist – a staunch advocate of the man-made global warming explanation – Doug Parr – has slammed attempts to geo-engineer the planet as “outlandish” and “dangerous”.

Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, who proposed a bizarre plan to send spaceships into the upper atmosphere that would be used to block out the Sun, admits that geo-engineering could cause “conflicts between nations if geo-engineering projects go wrong.”

As we have previously highlighted, discussions regarding the possibility of “geo-engineering” the earth’s climate to counter global warming by “shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays” have stoked fresh concerns that similar programs are already underway, and that chemtrails are directly connected to such experimentation.

Chemtrails differ from ordinary contrails in that they hang in the sky for hours and are often observed to be emitted from planes that fly criss-cross routes, leading to the formation of ‘X’ and grid-like patterns in the sky. Chemtrails also directly effect localized weather by turning a clear blue sky into a hazy overcast.

In 2008, a KSLA news investigation found that a substance that fell to earth from a high altitude chemtrail contained high levels of Barium (6.8 ppm) and Lead (8.2 ppm) as well as trace amounts of other chemicals including arsenic, chromium, cadmium, selenium and silver. Of these, all but one are metals, some are toxic while several are rarely or never found in nature. The newscast focuses on Barium, which its research shows is a “hallmark of chemtrails.” KSLA found Barium levels in its samples at 6.8 ppm or “more than six times the toxic level set by the EPA.”

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okB-489l6MI (Local news station confirms barium in chemtrails)

KSLA also asked Mark Ryan, Director of the Poison Control Center, about the effects of Barium on the human body. Ryan commented that “short term exposure can lead to anything from stomach to chest pains and that long term exposure causes blood pressure problems.” The Poison Control Center further reported that long-term exposure, as with any harmful substance, would contribute to weakening the immune system, which many speculate is the purpose of such man-made chemical trails.

As we covered in a previous in-depth report, numerous universities and government agencies have been conducting studies in the field of geo-engineering for years.

In addition, the Obama administration’s interest in exploring “geo-engineering” mirrors recent publications penned by the elite Council On Foreign Relations.

In a document entitled Geoengineering: Workshop on Unilateral Planetary Scale Geoengineering, the CFR proposes different methods of “reflecting sunlight back into space,” which include adding “small reflecting particles in the upper part of the atmosphere,” adding “more clouds in the lower part of the atmosphere,” and placing “various kinds of reflecting objects in space either near the earth or at a stable location between the earth and the sun.”

The proposals in the CFR document match exactly the atmospheric effects observed in the aftermath of chemtrail spraying.

On the face of it, the idea of artificially poisoning the atmosphere with a substance known to cause massive health problems and one that many environmentalists say will lead to crippling droughts and famines, is a complete over-reaction to combating climate change which has naturally occurred for eons before man ever set foot on the planet. Add to that the fact that the people proposing, funding, and researching the issue are all avowed eugenicists who have been vocal in their mission to enact draconian measures of population control and the true scope of what we’re dealing with is clear – an effort by control freaks whose sole interest is not about caring for the planet but hijacking well-placed concerns about the environment as a vehicle through which to enforce their putrid cocktail of death and tyranny.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,058
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Sterilizing Those Pesky Humans: Earth Day with Paul Ehrlich
« Reply #62 on: April 21, 2011, 12:02:47 PM »
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/04/21/sterilizing-those-pesky-humans-earth-day-with-paul-ehrlich/

Sterilizing Those Pesky Humans: Earth Day with Paul Ehrlich

by Paul Kengor
LifeNews.com
4/21/11

Every April 22 is Earth Day. As one who studies Soviet Russia, I can’t help notice that the day coincides with the birthday of Vladimir Lenin. The inaugural Earth Day occurred April 22, 1970, no less than Lenin’s birth centennial.



This is most ironic. Lenin is a decaying symbol of central planning, which, regrettably, is the ideological preference of many of those filling the streets on Earth Day. Although Lenin was a collectivist, not an environmentalist, he is frequently recycled, as mortuary specialists from Russia’s health ministry regularly re-embalm him in his tomb.

Lenin had no respect for life. He declared certain people “harmful insects.” In Lenin’s deadly worldview, pesky humans were not precious, special, unrepeatable; they were disposable.

That brings me to a living symbol of Earth Day: Paul Ehrlich. Dr. Ehrlich’s explosive bestseller, The Population Bomb, inspired the freshman class that first Earth Day, embodying the wildest fears of apocalypse mongers. The great Johnny Carson was, sadly, one of Ehrlich’s dupes, giving him a platform on “The Tonight Show” dozens of times.

Much has been said about Ehrlich’s book. But as author John Berlau reports, one item has been conveniently sunk into a land-fill. “He [Ehrlich] flirted with a proposal to require adding contraceptive material to all food items in the United States,” writes Berlau in Eco-Freaks. “But Ehrlich’s most drastic—and contemptuous—measures were reserved for the third world. Ehrlich advocated that all men in India who had three or more children be forcibly sterilized.”

Really? That was something I needed to see for myself, certainly never learning this in my public education. So, I tracked down a September 1971 edition of The Population Bomb.

What Ehrlich wrote is jaw-dropping. Dealing first with pesky Americans, he wrote (pages 130-31):

“[T]he first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size. Those of you who are appalled at such a suggestion can rest easy. The option isn’t even open to us, since no such substance exists. If the choice now is either such additives or catastrophe, we shall have catastrophe. It might be possible to develop such population control tools, although the task would not be simple. Either the additive would have to operate equally well and with minimum side effects against both sexes, or some way would have to be found to direct it only to one sex and shield the other.”

As for pesky (non-white) folks in places like India, Ehrlich was less patient. On pages 151-52, he favored “sterilizing all Indian males with three or more children,” and with the direct help of the U.S. government. “We should have volunteered logistic support in the form of helicopters, vehicles, and surgical instruments,” advised Ehrlich. “We should have sent doctors to aid in the program by setting up centers for training para-medical personnel to do vasectomies.”

Was this “coercion?” asked Ehrlich. Of course, but it was “coercion in a good cause.”

Immediate action was imperative, assessed the professor. It was, after all, 1970, and the human race had precious little time. Ehrlich warned of humans metastasizing all over Mother Earth. He said stoically:

“I wish I could offer you some sugarcoated solutions, but I’m afraid the time for them is long gone. A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells…. Treating only the symptoms of cancer may make the victim more comfortable at first, but eventually he dies—often horribly…. We must shift our efforts from treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions. The pain may be intense.”

To borrow from other scaremonger imagery of the era, such as the hysterical propaganda film Soylent Green, it was only a matter of time before the helpless masses started consuming one another. Only government action by anointed elites could save us from Armageddon.

Today, Ehrlich remains an icon, holding a plum spot at Stanford as the Bing Professor of Population Studies. Because he’s a liberal, a “progressive,” the 78-year-old has gotten away with this, much like Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood matron, who ran a “Negro Project,” spoke at a KKK rally, labeled certain pesky people “human weeds” and “imbeciles” and “morons,” and preached “race improvement.”

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Paranoid Puppet Master

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 831
Re: MSNBC In Cover-Up Of Manifestly Provable Population Control Plan
« Reply #63 on: May 17, 2011, 07:37:23 AM »
Paul Joseph Watson hits it out of the ballpark with this one!

...


Genocidal Population Reduction Programs Embraced By Academia

One such individual who embraces the notion that humans are a virus that should be wiped out en masse for the good of mother earth is Dr. Eric R. Pianka, an American biologist based at the University of Texas in Austin.


Dr Erik Pianka, the American biologist who
advocated the mass genocide of 90% of the
human race and was applauded by his peers.



Thanks for the post, this and other articles on this thread have been quite informative. I am always amazed at the hypocrisy of population-control advocates. When we are importing food from India and China, how can the world be over-populated until it is at least as densely populated as those two countries?

Anyway, I don't have a problem with people who like eating, but to go on and say that people use too many resources when not worrying about how many resources they themselves are using, I don't know how they manage that. It's like Al Gore sitting in his mansion saying the rest of us are using too much energy in our homes.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,058
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/detroit-columnist-calls-for-sterilants-in-drinking-water-to-curb-poverty-numbers.html

Detroit Columnist Calls for Sterilants in Drinking Water to Curb Poverty Numbers

Proposal that aims to stop welfare dependents from “breeding poverty” would poison everyone with birth control spiked in public water.

Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
February 13, 2012



Water fluoridation was always just a gateway for a greater drugging of society.

The Detroit News has published a call to add contraceptives to the water supply, a dangerous and repugnant proposal for gross state power over life and death–-all in the name of fighting the “breeding poverty” of the welfare class. Editorial page editor Nolan Finley writes:

“Since the national attention is on birth control, here’s my idea: If we want to fight poverty, reduce violent crime and bring down our embarrassing drop-out rate, we should swap contraceptives for fluoride in Michigan’s drinking water.“

This arrogant proposal–-straight from the classic Eugenics model–-will not curb the dependency in the welfare class. Instead, if implemented, it would cause a spike in the cancer rate, exacerbate the presence of gender-bending compounds in our common provisions, all while serving to legitimize nanny state control over all of us– not just those taking handouts or “breeding” irresponsibly.

In the first sense, Finley is airing class warfare arguments designed to play off segments of society under a larger climate of anger about the economic crisis or the socialistic takeover under ObamaCare (now couched in a debate about subsidized birth control). No doubt Detroit is plagued with problems, but this proposal is an elitist problem-reaction-solution ploy (whether the author realizes it or not) aptly geared at drawing ire from its readers about paying out the dole to the undeserving, all while instead cheering for their own destruction via drugging the water supply.

Why?

Let’s breakdown a few key points here:

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,058
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Ethicists Argue Killing Newborn Babies Should Be Allowed
« Reply #65 on: February 28, 2012, 03:58:08 PM »
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ethicists-argue-killing-newborn-babies-should-be-allowed.html

Ethicists Argue Killing Newborn Babies Should Be Allowed

Shocking reminder that eugenicist beliefs underpin medical establishment

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, February 28, 2012

A paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics argues that abortion should be extended to make the killing of newborn babies permissible, even if the baby is perfectly healthy, in a shocking example of how the medical establishment is still dominated by a eugenicist mindset.



The paper is authored by Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne.

The authors argue that “both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons,” and that because abortion is allowed even when there is no problem with the fetus’ health, “killing a newborn should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

“The fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant,” the authors claim, arguing that adoption is not a reasonable counter-argument because the parents of the baby might be economically or psychologically burdened the process and the mother may “suffer psychological distress”. How the mother could not also “suffer psychological distress” by having her newborn baby killed is not explained.

“Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal,” the authors write.

The practice of infanticide has its origins in barbaric eras of ancient history, but it is still common is many areas of the world today, including China where the one child policy allied with the social pressure to have boys has resulted in a massive imbalance in the population. Studies have found that 40 million girls are ‘missing’ in China as a result of gender-selective abortion and infanticide. In India, there are 50 million less females for the same reasons.

In Pakistan, over 1000 babies a year are the victims of infanticide, which is rarely punished.

Matthew Archbold of the National Catholic Register explains how the legalization of infanticide, killing newborn babies, is the logical conclusion of the starting point of the argument, which is that the fetus is not human and has no right to live.

“The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand,” he writes.

Respected bioethicist Wesley J. Smith notes that the debate surrounding “the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious,” which eventually led to events like the Terri Schiavo case, started with articles in bioethics and medical journals.

“Or to put it another way, too often bioethics, isn’t. On the other hand, to be fair, the ancient Romans exposed inconvenient infants on hills. These authors may want to take us back to those crass values, but I assume they would urge a quicker death,” he writes.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,058
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
5 Billion on Elite’s Hitlist
« Reply #66 on: April 10, 2012, 09:13:12 AM »
http://www.prisonplanet.com/5-billion-on-elites-hitlist.html

5 Billion on Elite’s Hitlist

Prisonplanet.com
Tuesday, April 10, 2012

MIT predicts half of humanity to be culled in post-industrial crash.

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_3_P0fqPZk
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,340
Re: 5 Billion on Elite’s Hitlist
« Reply #67 on: April 10, 2012, 01:36:25 PM »
http://www.prisonplanet.com/5-billion-on-elites-hitlist.html
5 Billion on Elite’s Hitlist
Prisonplanet.com Tuesday, April 10, 2012
MIT predicts half of humanity to be culled in post-industrial crash.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_3_P0fqPZk

Hammer and sickle

This is their system - culling and purging.  

Sickle = Culling to decimate populations into submission. (via various means  outright genocidal murder, pointless fruitless wars "perpetual war", depressions, poverty, eugenics Population control "PLANNED" parenthood and starvation)

Hammer = Purging to eliminate remaining dissenters





Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,340
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/04/global-war-on-children-part-3-culling.html
The Global War on Children, part 3: Culling the Human Race

The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. Margaret Sanger – Founder of Planned Parenthood.

Paul Adams, J.D. Activist Post

The globalists are attacking children through the genocide of abortion, often justified under the false Malthusian premise that the world is overpopulated so the human race must be culled.  

For example, President Obama’s top science and technology advisor John P. Holdren co-authored a 1977 book in which he advocated the formation of a 'planetary regime' that would use a 'global police force' to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children.

Holdren’s model seems to be that of Communist China, where family planning authorities forcibly abort nine-month year-old children under a draconian one-child policy.  Said policy has resulted in a massive imbalance in the population with 40 million girls are ‘missing’ in China as a result of gender-selective abortion and infanticide.  That is, 40 million Chinese males will not find a spouse or ever start a family.

In addition to sponsoring vaccine research to reduce the population, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation supports the services of Planned Parenthood, which includes millions of abortions.  

Bill Gates’ father even served on the board of Planned Parenthood.  

In 2000, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation provided the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPrison Planet Forum) $8.8 million. Likewise, Planed Parenthood receives financial support from the federal government, many millionaires, corporations and foundations, including the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie foundations and billionaire investor Warren Buffet’s foundation.

Planned Parenthood performed 332,278 abortions in the United States in 2009.

That is about as many as the 333,012 people who lived in the city of Cincinnati, Ohio, in 2009, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,340
Paul Joseph Watson hits it out of the ballpark with this one!
...
Genocidal Population Reduction Programs Embraced By Academia

One such individual who embraces the notion that humans are a virus that should be wiped out en masse for the good of mother earth is Dr. Eric R. Pianka, an American biologist based at the University of Texas in Austin.


Dr Erik Pianka, the American biologist who  advocated the mass genocide of 90% of the human race and was applauded by his peers.

During a speech to the Texas Academy of Science in March 2006, Pianka advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the world’s population through the airborne ebola virus. The reaction from scores of top scientists and professors in attendance was not one of shock or revulsion – they stood and applauded Pianka’s call for mass genocide.

Now what I found interesting a month after this  he is awarded and tones down his real beliefs:

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2006/04/05/nat_sci/
Eric Pianka named 2006 Distinguished Scientist by Texas Academy of Science
April 5, 2006

AUSTIN, Texas—Eric Pianka, the Denton A. Cooley Centennial Professor of integrative biology, was recognized as the 2006 Distinguished Scientist by the Texas Academy of Science (TAS) for his distinguished career and numerous seminal contributions to the discipline of ecology.

In recognition of this honor, Pianka gave a lecture during the TAS meeting in Beaumont, Texas on March 3. Pianka’s talk focused on the threat that human overpopulation poses to the delicate web of life on Earth. He cautioned that a serious epidemic could lead to a reduction in human population.
 
Pianka suggested that the rapidly growing human population, with its sociality and mobility, has created an environment in which viruses and bacteria can prosper and threaten a worldwide pandemic.
 
“I don’t mean any ill will toward humanity,” says Pianka, “but I do think that we need to decrease our population in order to live more sustainably on this Earth. We need to make a transition to a sustainable world. If we don’t, nature is going to do it for us in ways of her own choosing. By definition, these ways will not be ours, and they won’t be much fun.”
 
Pianka, a lizard ecologist, began his career 40 years ago when he produced the first synthetic review of latitudinal gradients in species diversity. He came to The University of Texas at Austin in 1968.
 
Pianka has invented many new ecological study techniques and concepts, and his publications are widely cited. He has contributed to the field of ecology in the areas of foraging theory, reproductive tactics, species diversity and community structure, to name a few.
 
Pianka’s classic textbook, “Evolutionary Ecology,” is now in its sixth edition and has been translated in Greek, Japanese, Polish, Russian and Spanish. He has published several other significant books, including an autobiography, “The Lizard Man Speaks,” and “Lizards: Windows to the Evolution of Diversity,” coauthored with Dr. Laurie Vitt and winner of the Robert W. Hamilton Book award in 2005.
 
The purpose of the Texas Academy of Science is to promote scientific research among the colleges and universities of the State of Texas, to promote undergraduate research and to enhance the professional development of its members.
 
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,058
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
What does America’s dark history of eugenics mean for society today?
« Reply #70 on: March 04, 2013, 12:41:15 PM »
http://www.prisonplanet.com/what-does-americas-dark-history-of-eugenics-mean-for-society-today.html

What does America’s dark history of eugenics mean for society today?

Jonathan Benson
Natural News
March 4, 2013

Adolph Hitler’s rise to power in Germany and corresponding efforts to ethnically cleanse not only his own country but the entire world of those he deemed as “undesirables” is generally recognized as one of the most horrific mass genocides in history. But according to some historians, Hitler’s maniacal playbook to create what he believed would be a perfect and superior race was largely derived from American eugenicists who were pushing their own ethnic cleansing agendas long before Hitler was even born.

As it turns out, there is evidence that as far back as the early 1700s, eugenicists in America were busy devising schemes to quietly eliminate from society those they considered to be inferior. The foundations for so-called “degeneracy theory,” which purports that races of civilized people could degenerate into more primitive forms if they engaged in certain behaviors or possessed certain inherent traits, were initially laid back in the 18th century. And over time, adherents of this theory used it as an excuse to reclassify groups of people as subordinate.

“In practice, Eugenicists’ first order of business in the late 18th and early 19th century was to identify society’s ‘degenerates,’” explains Tiffany Gabbay in a recent piece on the history of eugenics in America for TheBlaze.com. “Those deemed undesirable ranged from the mentally ill, handicapped, and the physically disabled (this included the blind and deaf), to the poor and uneducated, promiscuous women, homosexuals and certain racial groups — particularly Jews and blacks.”

Forced sterilization, racial dividing, and ethnic cleansing were all taking place in America long before Nazi Germany

In 1907, more than a decade before Hitler began his ascent to power in Germany, the U.S. had already enacted its first eugenics sterilization law. According to historical accounts, then-Indiana Governor J. Frank Hanly approved a law mandating sterilization of certain individuals in state custody, building on systems of thought already covertly established in the late 1800s that alleged traits like criminality, mental problems, and even being poor were hereditary.

This law, of course, set the precedent for forced sterilization mandates included in Hitler’s Mein Kampf, the infamous autobiographical outline of the fuhrer’s deranged political philosophies. Though American eugenicists never achieved the same level of mass carnage and destruction as Hitler, their philosophies were largely the same, and had the same endgame in mind — to engineer a “purified” human race that was free of the “burdens,” the “degenerates,” and the “second-class.”

“Throughout their crusade, the Nazis showed neither remorse nor mercy, and always presented their ethnic cleansing, just as the Americans had done before them, as a means for good,” writes Gabbay. “By ridding Germans of the societal, financial and, ultimately, genetic burden of the ‘undesirable,’ and by ridding the undesirables of their ‘miserable’ existence, the Germans maintained that theirs was actually an act of virtue.”

Modern-day eugenics is still taking place today

Though many would prefer to deny its existence, eugenics is still alive and well in America today. Planned Parenthood, for example, was the birth child of eugenicists who have always intended to use it as a way to kill off undesirables, and it is largely used for that purpose today. Genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), fluoridated water, vaccines, and many pharmaceutical drugs are examples of modern-day eugenics as well, as each of these unnatural mechanisms has the capacity to slowly poison, sterilize, and eventually kill off populations.

“In (the) west, the slow kill method has been implemented,” explains The Globalist Agenda about modern-day eugenics programs in Western nations. “This includes vaccines containing mercury and Simian 40 cancer viruses; fluoride in water supplies as used by Hitler and Stalin in their concentration camps; the introduction of the excitotoxin aspartame into the food supply; the presence of xeno-estrogen / bisphenol in plastics; (and) the introduction of GMO crops and their well understood destructive side effects.”


Sources for this article include:

http://www.theblaze.com

http://www.in.gov/history/markers/524.htm

http://globalistagenda.org/health.htm
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,058
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Since there are now blame-the-victim-firsters in the "liberty movement" who are using their class-based hatred of the poor as an excuse to advocate eugenics, I thought I'd bump this thread.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,058
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
A Right to Abort But Not to Give Birth? Peter Singer’s Extremism
« Reply #72 on: June 10, 2013, 03:09:34 PM »
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/06/10/a-right-to-abort-but-not-to-give-birth-peter-singers-extremism/

A Right to Abort But Not to Give Birth? Peter Singer’s Extremism

by Wesley J. Smith
LifeNews.com
6/10/13



I have noticed over the years that many bioethics death pro choicers (autonomy) actually envision the right as a one way street; a right to die but not a right to live. For example, almost all agree that we have a right to refuse medical treatment–even if it means we die. Okay, I’m cool with that.

Most others say that seriously ill/disabled/mentally ill should be able to access assisted suicide or a lethal jab from doctors. I am definitely not cool with that. But then, when some patients want life-extending treatment with which the bioethicists disagree, well autonomy has its limits. Suddenly, doctors and bioethics committees should have the final say.
 
Now, the same paradigm may be forming around childbirth. Peter Singer–the usual suspect–a supporter of an absolute right to abort, claims that to save the planet, destitute women should not have a concomitant right to give birth.
 
From the PRI story:

    Then Singer compared women’s right to bear children to the traditional villager’s right to graze their cows on “common” grounds. As the villagers get more affluent and their cows die less from disease, he said, until the commons are overgrazed,  ”yields are falling… and that’s a road to disaster.”
     
    “Turns out that the right to graze as many cows as you like on the common was not an absolute right,” said Singer. “Obviously this is what I think we ought to be saying even about how many children we have… I hope we don’t get to a point where we do have to override it… but I don’t think we ought to shrink away from considering that as a possibility.”

In other words, the technocrats get to decide how many babies women can bear. We’ve seen the horrors that such a policy created in China.
 
Singer is far from alone. As I have written here many times, radical environmentalists and global warming hysterics have boosted China’s tyrannous one-child policy as a model for the rest of the world. But most advocates would have thought twice, I think, before impliedly comparing poor women giving birth to grazing cows on an overused pasture. If a conservative ever made such a statement, the response from the press would have been, “Racist!”
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,058
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy: Abortion and Planned Parenthood
« Reply #73 on: June 28, 2013, 01:51:30 PM »
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/06/28/margaret-sangers-eugenic-legacy-abortion-and-planned-parenthood/

Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy: Abortion and Planned Parenthood

by Lauren Enriquez
LifeNews.com
6/28/13



Dr. Angela Franks, author of the incredibly well-researched and scholarly book “Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy,” is perhaps the nation’s foremost authority on the issue of Margaret Sanger’s troubling history of eugenic activism.

Franks spoke to attendees at this year’s NRLC Convention about the eugenic roots of Planned Parenthood’s founder in a talk entitled “Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood: The Eugenics Connection.”

Franks draws out and clarifies the image that Planned Parenthood has attempted to create of its infamous founder. The organization has turned a blind eye to her eugenic history, and when challenged on issues such as her support for sterilization, Planned Parenthood has a habit of saying that Sanger did not, in fact, endorse sterilization, or changing the uncomfortable subject to something else to divert attention from Sanger’s troubling views.

What did Sanger think about the issue of sterilization?

First of all, Franks points out, Sanger stringently pushed a policy of the government compensating poor citizens in exchange with a poor person’s agreement to be sterilized as a means of population control. “In this way,” Sanger said, “the moron and the diseased would have no posterity to inherit their condition.” (Franks points out in her book that bribing a poor person with money in exchange for sterilization is in fact a deeply immoral and unethical act.) Franks points out that this bribery is something that has frequently occurred in other developing countries.

Franks points out that Planned Parenthood, in the past, has dealt with this embarrassing history of Sanger encouraging sterilization in three ways:

1.      Sanger is not a eugenicist, this is a terrible lie.

2.      But even if she were, lots of other people were at the time, too.

3.      Let’s talk about something else. “We do sooo many great things for poor people…”

Frank points out that the first strategy is hard to utilize, since it’s simply untrue. Strategies two and three, however, have really come to the fore.

Frank discussed the anecdote of Hilary Clinton receiving Planned Parenthood’s highest honor, the Margaret Sanger Award. When Clinton was questioned by legislators as to why she had accepted an award named after a confirmed eugenicist given her position in government, Clinton defended Sanger. She said that Thomas Jefferson was a great guy, but he supported the possession of slaves. Similarly, she posited, Sanger was a great woman who just had the little flaw of supporting forced sterilization and eugenics. Franks, as she is apt to do, took hold of the contradiction, clarifying that unlike Sanger, Jefferson did not dedicate his entire life to the slavery movement. Sanger dedicated the sum of her life’s work to furthering the eugenic cause, however. So Clinton’s comparison was not very valid.

Franks then touched on Planned Parenthood’s defense of Sanger as “primarily a feminist,” rather than a eugenicist. However, another contradiction emerges here: if Margaret Sanger was a true-blood feminist, why did she not pursue the woman’s right to vote (the premier feminist issue of Margaret Sanger’s time)? Why did she work for a cause that promoted the forced sterilization of women? This is not genuine feminism, Franks acknowledges, but Planned Parenthood suggests that Sanger was simply making eugenic statements because it was the popular notion among the white elite of her time, and not because she actually sided with the ideology. Once again, this is a lie: if eugenics were not Sanger’s personal ideology, why did she gush about it in private letters to friends?

“For [Sanger], female liberation was primarily about sexual liberation,” Franks points out. Sanger was by no means “pro-choice” or a true feminist. She only believed that certain populations had a right to bear children, and was comfortable dictating the reproductive futures of everyone.

Planned Parenthood may try to characterize its founder as a pro-woman, pro-choice individual who benefited the society in which she lived, but the reality is that she was an elite member of society whose ideals were shaped by bitterness towards child-bearing, and did not look out for the common good as much as they looked out for the comfort of other people like herself.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,058
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/06/28/melinda-gates-promised-not-to-push-abortion-now-promotes-planned-parenthood/

Melinda Gates Promised Not to Push Abortion, Now Promotes Planned Parenthood

by Nadja Wolfe
LifeNews.com
6/28/13



When Melinda Gates announced the Gates Foundation’s expanded commitment to contraception, she made certain to spell out that this commitment did not embrace abortion or population control.[1]  Successful pursuit of this “middle road” Gates thinks should cause “no controversy”[2] has frustrated both those who oppose government-run efforts focused on contraception[3] and those who believe any reproductive health program that does not include abortion fails women.[4]

The Gates Foundation has a long history of efforts to increase contraception access and use.  When Bill and Melinda Gates created their foundation, they identified access to birth control as a priority early on.[5]  However, while continuing to fund such efforts, the foundation gave public priority to causes such as child health and vaccination.[6]  Recently reorganizing its priorities towards contraception in developing countries,[7] the Gates Foundation has become a major sponsor of and participant in the United Nation’s Women Deliver conferences held every three years as part of its drive for increasing contraceptive use.

Women Deliver’s May 2013 conference in Kuala Lumpur described itself as “the largest global meeting of the decade to focus on the health and well-being of women and girls.”[8]  Of the U.N. Millennium Goals, Women Deliver naturally focuses on the fifth, part A of which refers to reducing maternal mortality rates, and part B of which calls for “universal access to reproductive health,”[9] specifying contraception, but not mentioning abortion on its main page.  However, critics allege international development money has been used to force poor countries into population reduction programs,[10] and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has been an active participant in the brutal  One Child Policy of China.[11]

The speaker list in Kuala Lumpur was also instructive.  Several panels featured speakers from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (the largest abortion provider in the U.S.)[12], International Planned Parenthood Federation, which boasts of dramatically increasing its abortion services worldwide in recent years, and Marie Stopes International (two of the largest abortion providers in the world)[13].[14]  Each of these promotes abortion as a central part of their mission; in fact, IPrison Planet Forum’s African division has a goal of increasing abortions by 82% by 2015.[15]  Even if these organizations’ focus at the event was contraception, they were joined by late-term abortion provider LeRoy Carhart and Princeton ethicist Peter Singer.  Whatever Mrs. Gates’ personal beliefs may be, it is clear that those with whom she shares the stage, her celebrity, and her funding believe abortion to be an inherent component of “reproductive health,” and have few qualms about population control, if any.

Dr. Carhart has been in the news in the past year for the death of a patient attributed to complications following the abortion[16] and for a video in which he describes a late-term  unborn child as “meat in a crock pot.”[17]  One of the most prominent late-term abortion providers in the U.S., he has sued against legal restrictions on abortion.[18]  In many countries and some U.S. states the late-term service he is known for is illegal.[19]  If “safe and legal” abortion is the goal, Carhart is a poor representative of it.

Peter Singer has also been no stranger to controversy for many years.  While pioneering expansive notions of animal rights, Singer has also championed population control,[20] abortion[21] and even infanticide.[22]  His appointment at Princeton was met with protests by advocates for the disabled objecting to the hiring of someone to teach ethics who suggested that those with disabilities have less of a right to life than those without them.[23]  At Women Deliver 2013, Singer suggested contraception will not solve the overpopulation problem he sees, given that women can still choose to have more children than he considers ecologically responsible.[24]  “I hope we don’t get to a point where we do have to override” a woman’s freedom to have as many children as she likes, he stated, but he clearly considered it an option.[25]  At least one other speaker at the Gates event mentioned forcible population control.[26]

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,058
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
2016 Candidate Hillary Clinton Endorses Eugenics
« Reply #75 on: August 01, 2013, 09:36:24 AM »
http://www.prisonplanet.com/2016-candidate-hillary-clinton-endorses-eugenics.html

2016 Candidate Hillary Clinton Endorses Eugenics

Prison Planet.com
July 31, 2013

Back in April of 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accepted Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award, named after the founder of the American Birth Control League, which changed its name to Planned Parenthood in the 1940s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGhQMgmIxLo
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,058
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Eugenics & Depopulation Are The Means; Scientific Dictatorship Is The Goal!
« Reply #76 on: November 07, 2013, 04:44:26 PM »
In light of what was discussed earlier on today's show (particularly during the second and third hours), I thought I'd bump this thread.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geniocrat

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,875
Re: Eugenics & Depopulation Are The Means; Scientific Dictatorship Is The Goal!
« Reply #77 on: November 07, 2013, 05:44:41 PM »
DHS has all that ammo, and the states have all those FEMA Camps.

It's only a question of when !!!

Offline iamc2

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,818
Re: Eugenics & Depopulation Are The Means; Scientific Dictatorship Is The Goal!
« Reply #78 on: November 07, 2013, 06:11:38 PM »
 When the Lights go Out---the Game Begins

"When the Truth was murdered:
Common Sense ran away..."

Offline Geniocrat

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,875
Re: Eugenics & Depopulation Are The Means; Scientific Dictatorship Is The Goal!
« Reply #79 on: November 07, 2013, 08:07:58 PM »
The sad thing is so many are still clueless.

It is going to take the FEMA trucks and drones till some people get it !!!!

Floridians are so touristy minded and customer service orientated that yesterday one was like...

"Oh yeah they'll open up the FEMA camps to help all the homeless people.  Then help them get back on their feet."

I was like... "More like into a casket or an incinerator."