|
|
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
3 unConstitutional wars. Illegal Wiretaps. Czars around every corner scrutinizing everyone's every move. Comfort Rooms. Trillion dollar banker bailouts. Billion dollar car-manufacturer buyouts. Obama Youth. Nationalization of everything. Complete control. Everything for the state and corporations - NOTHING for you.
These things alone are bad enough, eh? Just wait until you come down with cancer and are told that there aren't enough funds to provide you with adequate health care - or that you're just too old for the Gov't to bother saving your life.
Say goodbye to Grandma and Grandpa little Johnny, they're off to the Comfort Room to go meet Jesus. Say goodbye to Daddy too.... he's got the cancer, and it's real expensive to treat... he's going to meet Jesus too.
Euthanasia? YES WE CAN!!
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Friday, June 5, 2009
 The following has been taken in its entirety from: http://davidrothscum.blogspot.com/2009/05/starvation-is-used-as-political-weapon.html :
The UN's Jacques Diouf recently warned that this year an additional 104 million people are likely to go hungry, while the number of people considered hungry in 2007 increased by some 75 million and further 40 million joined the ranks in 2008. An estimated 13 million people die every year from starvation, and those who survive growing up malnutrated often suffer from brain damage and a low IQ for the rest of their lives.
The reason isn't our inability to stop this, or overpopulation in the 3rd world. This worsening global famine that kills 13 million people every year could be completely eliminated, and all it would take would be a yearly investment of 30 billion dollar to double the global food production. This is less than the money the US spends on the war in Iraq every three months.
Starvation is an ancient weapon, and it was heavily used by the British Empire to control it's colonies. George Monbiot wrote in the Guardian:
In his book Late Victorian Holocausts, published in 2001, Mike Davis tells the story of famines that killed between 12 and 29 million Indians. These people were, he demonstrates, murdered by British state policy. When an El Niño drought destituted the farmers of the Deccan plateau in 1876 there was a net surplus of rice and wheat in India. But the viceroy, Lord Lytton, insisted that nothing should prevent its export to England. In 1877 and 1878, at the height of the famine, grain merchants exported a record 6.4m hundredweight of wheat. As the peasants began to starve, officials were ordered "to discourage relief works in every possible way". The Anti-Charitable Contributions Act of 1877 prohibited"at the pain of imprisonment private relief donations that potentially interfered with the market fixing of grain prices". The only relief permitted in most districts was hard labour, from which anyone in an advanced state of starvation was turned away. In the labour camps, the workers were given less food than inmates of Buchenwald. In 1877, monthly mortality in the camps equated to an annual death rate of 94%. British elites recommended in books that food be used as a weapon to reduce the world's population. Bertrand Russel for example wrote:
“To deal with this problem [increasing population and decreasing food supplies]
it will be necessary to find ways of preventing an increase in world population. If this is to be done otherwise than by wars, pestilence, and famines, it will demand a powerful international authority. This authority should deal out the world’s food to the various nations in proportion to their population at the time of the establishment of the authority. If any nation subsequently increased its population it should not on that account receive any more food. The motive for not increasing population would therefore be very compelling. What method of preventing an increase might be preferred should be left to each state to decide.” - 124 Currently a powerful international authority exists that deals out food to various nations. It's called the World Food Programme, the food aid branch of the United Nations.
On January 28 this year, The Times reported that President Obama wants a fresh approach to toppling Robert Mugabe and is discussing with aides an unprecedented, US-led diplomatic push to get tough new UN sanctions imposed against the Zimbabwe regime.
The Times went on to say that a key figure in any new approach will be Susan Rice, Obama's ambassador to the United Nations.
Just one day later, another British paper, the Guardian reported that the United Nations World Food Program would halve the food rations for Zimbabwe.
The World Food Programme is to cut the core maize ration in February from 10kg to 5kg a month – or just 600 calories a day – for 7 million Zimbabweans, about 70% of the people left in the country. The recommended ration is 12kg a month.
As a Rhodes Scholar, and more importantly, a member of the Executive commitee of the Trilateral commision, Susan Rice is a top globalist.
The United States officially recognizes food as a political weapon so this move should come as no surprise. In 1976 a follow up report to Henry Kissinger's NSSM 200 was published by his successor as national security advisor. It raised the following questions along with recommended answers to these issues:
Would food be considered an instrument of national power? (Yes.) On what basis should such food resources then be provided? (To countries with Population Control Programs in place.) In Afghanistan it appears that top US military personnel wanted to use food as a weapon as well.According to Bob Woodward, an unnamed two-star general was going to give Bush a presentation, with one slide labeled, “Thinking Outside the Box—Poisoning Food Supply.” National Security Council staffer Franklin Miller showed this to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and pointed out that the US is legally prohibited from committing chemical or biological attacks. Rice talked to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and the two of them agreed to take the slide out of the presentation before Bush would see it.Afghanistan now has about 8.5 million inhabitants on the brink of starvation.
Other organisations are implicated in the global famines we see as well, including the IMF and the World Bank. On 4 july 2002, in the British Parliament, IMF Managing Director, Horst Koehler, blamed the World Bank and the EU for urging Malawi to sell 28,000 tons of maize to repay debts. The nation ended up in the biggest famine in it's history.
A second famine occured in 2005 caused by the World Bank and donor nations that encouraged Malawi to sell it's food reserves and dismantle the state-run agricultural system.
In 2007 Malawi's new president decided to subsidise fertilizer, something the World Bank and other organisations urged against. By ignoring the "advice" of these organisations, the country could finally succesfully feed it's own population and even had enough food left to help feed the people in Zimbabwe and other countries.
In India the lending organisations helped create a famine as well. In 2002 the New York Times reported that the Indian government buys food from farmers, but the World Bank and other organizations prohibit the Indian government from selling this food to the people at subsidized prices. As a result the food just rots away instead. This at a time when 50 million Indians were on the brink of starvation, and 250 million were underfed.
In 2005 the Guardian reported that people in Niger were suffering from starvation because the government under pressure from the IMF refused to hand out food to the poor and allowed traders to export the food produced to other countries.The IMF came under strong criticism when it praised the government of Niger for it's actions.
President Obama has also been a strong proponent of biofuels. American biofuel made from corn that is. The New York Times reported that the Obama camp is strongly connected to the American biofuel industry that receives high subsidies to turn food into fuel.
Obama says he supports biofuel, but supports the high import tarrif on Brazilian biofuel made from sugar cane as well as the subsidy on biofuel from corn produced in the US. Sugar cane, while still using occupying land that should be used to feed human beings, is more effective than corn fuel.
Brazilian biofuel produces about 8.3 to 10.2 more energy than is used to produce it. American biofuel produces only 1.3 to 1.6 times the energy required for it to be produced. To the American biofuel Industry that is heavily subsidized this is of no concern of course. But for the billions of people world wide suffering from food prices that have increased by 75% because of biofuels according to a secret report by the World Bank released in 2008 it is.Obama however said in March of 2009 that he wants to preserve the Ethanol Industry while funding additional ways to produce biofuel from other feedstocks.
Multinational corporations and 1st world nations are now beginning to buy up land in 3rd world countries to grow crops used for biofuels. This land is often currently used by people who have lived there for generations but don't legally own the land. In a previous report I mentioned the revolution in Madagascar that was caused by the nation's president handing most of the good farmland of this nation to a South Korean Biofuel firm for free while millions of people in Madagascar are malnutrated. This is part of a larger global pattern of 3rd world farmland being acquired by rich nations for the production of biofuel.
The most dangerous method that is used to cause starvation may be the spread of genetically manipulated crops. Studies point out that GM crops have a yield about 10% below that of their most closely related Organic relatives. Because special varieties that have an even higher yield can not be used, the complete loss we suffer due to these crops may be even higher. The long term effects may be even worse. A new study claims that Bt-Cotton may leave the soil it's grown on unable to produce food within a decade of first being planted:
A recent scientific study carried out by Navdanya, compared the soil of fields where Bt-cotton had been planted for 3 years with adjoining fields with non GMO cotton or other crops. The region covered included Nagpur, Amravati and Wardha of Vidharbha which accounts for highest GMO cotton planting in India, and the highest rate of farmers suicides (4000 per year). In 3 years, Bt-cotton has reduced the population of Actinomycetes by 17%. Actinomycetes are vital for breaking down cellulose and creating humus. Bacteria were reduced by 14%. The total microbial biomass was reduced by 8.9%. Vital soil beneficial enzymes which make nutrients available to plants have also been drastically reduced. Acid Phosphatase which contributes to uptake of phosphates was reduced by 26.6%. Nitrogenase enzymes which help fix nitrogen were reduced by 22.6%. At this rate, in a decade of planting with GM cotton, or any GM crop with Bt genes in it, could lead to total destruction of soil organisms, leaving dead soil unable to produce food.
Multiple studies have pointed out that genetically manipulated corn genes have found their way into indigenous corn varieties across Mexico. The transgenes will not disappear from our crops by simply declaring GM crops illegal, because they've already spread and infected the organic varieties. The Biotech companies, apparently aware of the catastrophe that is ahead have build an underground seed bank in the Artic Circle to preserve the original varieties if they would ever go extinct.
Extinction of our main food crops may sound unbelievable but it's a possibility, and if it happens the same biotech companies now storing these seeds will be responsible. Researchers believe that a single genetically manipulated fish escaping could cause the extinction of a complete species of fish. Other researchers point to a phenomenon known as error catastrophe. When the mutation rate becomes to high, a species can go extinct. This is used to treat people against certain viruses. The problem is that genetically manipulating a crop also raises the mutation rate, and appears to eventually destroy the entire genome.
If the genetically manipulated versions cause certain crops to go extinct, we will be dependent on these companies and tax free foundations to give us the original versions we have used for generations. This would hand them complete control over our food production, which is the true goal of Monsanto according to whistleblowers who worked for the company.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
 Everywhere one looks in the media, it's Al Qaeda this and Al Qaeda that... Al Qaeda hiding in your closet, patiently awaiting its chance to pounce on you in your sleep!! We are inundated with fearmongering rhetoric pushing ghosts and fairy tales to scare old women and the ignorant.I'm going to tell you something that might scare old ladies even more than the nightly news - Al Qaeda doesn't exist! At least not the way you think it does. Allow me to explain.In the words of Paul Joseph Watson: So if the group doesn't exist, where did the name come from?
You have heard before that "Al-Qaeda" roughly translates into "the base,"
but were you aware that "Ana raicha Al Qaeda" is arabic colloquial for "I'm going to the toilet"?
Would hardened terrorists hell bent on the destruction of the west name their organization after a euphemism for taking a shit? The truth about where the name "Al-Qaeda" originated explains why no would-be fundamentalist suicide martyr could have been involved in its creation. Former Leader of the House of Commons Robin Cook, who admirably resigned in protest of the 2003 Iraq invasion, penned a piece in the London Guardian shortly before his death that shed light on the true genesis of the name. "Al-Qaida," states Cook, "literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians." Former French Military Intelligence official Pierre Henry Bunel expands, noting that "Al-Qaeda," was an early form of intranet, which was used by Islamic nations and influential families to communicate with each other. It was also used by the "American agent," Osama bin Laden to send coded or covert messages back to his CIA handlers from Afghanistan. It's worthy to conclude with Bunel's assertion that "Al-Qaeda" as an organization is about as genuine as George W. Bush's Texas brush clearing cowboy image. "The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the 'devil' only in order to drive the 'TV watcher' to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money." (1)
One might ask, "well, what about Bin Laden?" The Bin Laden family has ties to the Bush family (Bush I was high level CIA (2)) that go way back, primarily through The Carlyle Group. (3) Much like father Bush, Bin Laden himself has deep ties to the CIA. (4) In fact, it was reported by Untied Press International and France's Le Figaro that Bin Laden was visited by the CIA as late as July 2001, when Bin Laden was in a Dubai hospital. (5) Osama stayed in the hospital from the 4th - the 14th... would've been a great time to apprehend this shadowy figure, wouldn't you think?
How did Osama become involved with the CIA? Zbigniew Brzezinski, who at the time was serving under Carter, along with CIA funding, helped set up the Taliban to fight off the Russians who had been lured into invading Afghanistan by the US. (6) In a candid 1998 interview, Zbigniew Brezinski, Carter's national security adviser, confirmed that U.S. aid to the rebels began before the invasion: According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan [in] December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: indeed, it was July 3, 1979, that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.... We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.... That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap.... The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War." The Carter administration was well aware that in backing the mujahideen it was supporting forces with reactionary social goals, but this was utweighed by its own geopolitical interests. In August 1979, a classified State Department report bluntly asserted that "the United States' larger interest...would be served by the demise of the Taraki-Amin regime, despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan." That same month, in a stunning display of hypocrisy, State Department spokesperson Hodding Carter piously announced that the U.S. "expect[s] the principle of nonintervention to be respected by all parties in the area, including the Soviet Union." The Russian invasion in December was the signal for U.S. support to the Afghan rebels to increase dramatically. Three weeks after Soviet tanks rolled into Kabul, Carter's secretary of defense, Harold Brown, was in Beijing arranging for a weapons transfer from the Chinese to the ClA-backed Afghani troops mustered in Pakistan. The Chinese, who were generously compensated for the deal, agreed and even consented to send military advisers. Brown worked out a similar arrangement with Egypt to buy $15 million worth of weapons. "The U.S. contacted me," [then-Egyptian president] Anwar Sadat recalled shortly before his assassination [in 1981]. "They told me, 'Please open your stores for us so that we can give the Afghans the armaments they need to fight.' And I gave them the armaments. The transport of arms to the Afghans started from Cairo on U.S. planes." (7)
It was during this time that many believe Osama, through his prominent role in the Afghan war, became involved with the CIA. (8)Why has Al Qaeda been the "go-to" boy for the US government and it's media mouthpiece? Since the inception of the computer database called "Al Qaeda", Al Qaeda has been blamed for nearly every bump in the night - moreso since the gov't sponsored terror attacks on 9/11. Now, our government uses Al Qaeda as the reason for taking our rights via the Patriot Acts I and II, the FISA wiretapping, many newly implemented various profiling methods (The Domestic Extremist Lexicon) (9), implementing free-speech zones, the amplified police state, etc. How does losing our freedom help in the "fight" against "Al CIAda" - when the whole reason they're "after us" is because "they hate us for our freedoms"? In taking the freedoms of the American people away, hasn't our government done exactly what Al CIAda wants? Could it be that the agenda we're being sold on television isn't what's really going on?It seems if you are in gov't and you want something done, simply scream "Al Qaeda!!!!" and your wish is our total loss of freedom. Now that the gov't has their new boogeyman (Communist Russia served this role well for nearly 40 years...), they have declared the right to deem everyone a terrorist simply by implication via the mainstream criminal media. Check this out from the Washington Times:The video aired earlier this year as a recruitment tool makes clear that al Qaeda is looking to exploit weaknesses in U.S. border security and also is willing to ally itself with white militia groups or other anti-government entities interested in carrying out an attack inside the United States, according to counterterrorism officials interviewed by The Washington Times. (10)
Or this: Echoing the much derided 2003 FBI warning that a good way to spot potential terrorists is to check if they are carrying an almanac, Fox News went beyond the pale this morning in suggesting that Al-Qaeda's most likely acolytes are blonde haired, blue eyed Caucasian westerners with no criminal record. Fox and Friends' ever ready Neo-Con slug Brian Kilmeade, who in November called on Americans to support terrorist car bombings in Iran, as well as funding for terrorist groups to "create havoc in Iran", interviewed ex-CIA spook Mike Baker, whose company Diligence LLC has close ties to the Bush administration and just happens to butter its bread with the aid of a steady supply of global unrest and terror hype. The story, which is based on a comment by a single MI5 source (must be true then) that was subsequently picked up in a Scotsman article, claims that Al-Qaeda have recruited 1,500 white Britons to carry out attacks in the UK. For those of us who recoiled in absolute horror at the proficiency of dumb and dumber's summer exploits in setting a car on fire at Glasgow airport, it's obvious that "Al-Qaeda's" recruiting efforts need to improve if they are to live up to the status lavishly bestowed upon them by the establishment media. (11)
If you're white, have no criminal record, own a gun, and don't happen to agree with your government's criminal activities, congratulations - you are now a terrorist! You're in good company... if our forefathers were alive today, they'd be on the list too!1. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2006/061006alqaedacrap.htm2. http://www.bushwatch.com/family.htm3. http://www.bushwatch.com/bushmoney.htm4. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1245.htm5. http://www.prisonplanet.com/bin_laden_treated_us_hospital.html6. http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/16-02-2009/107105-usa_ussr_afghanistan-07. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html8. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=220829. http://www.sixtyyearswar.com/leeblogmiles/2009/05/domestic-extremist-lexicon-are-you.html10. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/03/al-qaeda-eyes-bio-attack-via-mexico-border/?feat=home_cube_position111. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011408_new_alqaeda.htm
Thursday, May 28, 2009
 NY Times, May 26th, 2009: WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it easier for the police and prosecutors to question suspects, lifting some restrictions on when defendants can be interrogated without their lawyers present.
In a 5-to-4 ruling, the court overturned its 1986 opinion in a Michigan case, which forbade the police from interrogating a defendant once he invoked his right to counsel at an arraignment or a similar proceeding. That 1986 ruling has not only proved “unworkable,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, but its “marginal benefits are dwarfed by its substantial costs” in that some guilty defendants go free. Justice Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. In an angry dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the 1986 decision, said that contrary to the majority’s assertion, that decision protected “a fundamental right that the court now dishonors.” (1)--- In 1986 it was ruled that defendants has right to legal counsel in a police interrogation. Now, some 23 years later, that right has been stripped away by our Supreme Court. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law...Now, with this recent unconstitutional ruling from our "Supreme" Court, the defendant is forced to face the advanced interrogation tactics of the police on their own, with no legal sanctuary whatsoever. In a time of police brutality (2), cover-ups, falsified evidence (3), and false confessions (4), the average person's freedom from unjust procedures and chances of false conviction has gone through the roof, meanwhile his legal protection has been cut out at the knees. As if we didn't have enough harmless folks in prison already (5) (overpopulation reactionaries should take solace knowing that 2.3 million men and women are locked up and not taking up space anymore ;), we're facing a very real threat of skyrocketing false imprisonment. (6) Scalia makes the argument that the cost of providing this right to the people is prohibitive. I wonder what the cost of this recent decision will be? I wonder how many lives will be needlessly turned upside-down? I wonder what the cost to taxpayers will be to house the influx of wrongfully and questionably convicted "criminals"? And I wonder what this most recent loss of freedoms will cost us as once sovereign individuals...What should we do? I would suggest never calling the police - ever. If you have an altercation with someone else, do your best to resolve it amongst yourselves like adults. If you do not own a gun for home and self protection, get one. (7) The average police response time to a home break in is 5-15 minutes! (8) If you are wrongfully accused of a crime, do your best to get your story out to the media and to your local community. Have family and friends call into local talk shows, pass out flyers stating your cause, stage protests, etc. Do whatever you can to bring your case to light. Unlike many of our "lawful" courts in this country, the court of public opinion is still strong.Lastly, before you're targeted by the police yourself, I'd strongly advise you watch and heed this video: www.metacafe.com/watch/2449133/dont_talk_to_the_police_by_professor_james_duane/Now go out and enjoy your day... and try not to look too suspicious!1. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/27scotus.html?_r=1&ref=politics2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_brutality3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsified_evidence4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsified_evidence5. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm6. http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/11865ee4-8734-4565-863b06b64ae7e727/alpha/f/7. http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html8. http://www.homesecurity911.com/home-invasion-prevention-tips-part-ii/
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
 Note: Please read entries on Eugenics (1) before digesting this entry. A thorough understanding of the "population control" agenda is necessary to see what is really going on here...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6350303.ece
SOME of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health and education.
The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.
Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America’s wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey.
These members, along with Gates, have given away more than £45 billion ($73 billion) since 1996 to causes ranging from health programmes in developing countries to ghetto schools nearer to home.
...The issues debated included reforming the supervision of overseas aid spending to setting up rural schools and water systems in developing countries. Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority.
This could result in a challenge to some Third World politicians who believe contraception and female education weaken traditional values.
Gates, 53, who is giving away most of his fortune, argued that healthier families, freed from malaria and extreme poverty, would change their habits and have fewer children within half a generation.
At a conference in Long Beach, California, last February, he had made similar points. “Official projections say the world’s population will peak at 9.3 billion [up from 6.6 billion today] but with charitable initiatives, such as better reproductive healthcare, we think we can cap that at 8.3 billion,” Gates said then.
Patricia Stonesifer, former chief executive of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which gives more than £2 billion a year to good causes, attended the Rockefeller summit. She said the billionaires met to “discuss how to increase giving” and they intended to “continue the dialogue” over the next few months.
Another guest said there was “nothing as crude as a vote” but a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.
“This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers,” said the guest. “They need to be independent of government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see looming.”
Why all the secrecy? “They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government,” he said. (Emphasis added)
---
So the Good Club met in secret recently to discuss population control? Sounds like a great way to spend a couple of days - discussing the undeniable need to cull the human race...
Let's take a look at this "Good" Club:
Bill Gates - Aside from what I've already shown about Gates, (2) it is interesting to note that his father held a prominent position within Planned Parenthood, and has often openly advocated population reduction, as has Gates himself.
David Rockefeller - The Rockefeller Foundation funds some of the most insidious eugenical groups on earth. The Rockefellers have funded Sanger and still fund Planned Parenthood, as do most of the others within the "Good Club". (3) Rockefeller is also closely linked to Henry Kissinger, who penned the infamous NSSM 200 document that advocated various nefarious means of "population control" for many 2nd and 3rd world nations in the 70's. (4)
The Rockefellers founded The Population Council, which has been directly linked to scores of sterilization campaigns throughout the world. (5)
The Rockefellers funded the Nazis' eugenics programs (6). Rockefeller funded coerced sterilization of nearly 40,000 women in Columbia in the 60's. (7) Rockefeller is also behind the abortion drug RU-486 along with Buffett and Bill Gates. (8) RU-486 has a wonderful legacy of "healthful" "benefits" that readers might find interesting... (9)
Ted Turner - One of the most outspoken members of the "Good Club" when it comes to his views on eugenics. Ted advocates a one child policy for the world (it should be noted that Mr. Turner has 5 children). He also said over ten years ago that a 95% reduction in the world's population would be ideal. (10) Turner has donated billions to the cause of population reduction.
Warren Buffett - Rather than give his money to his children (as most folks do), Mr. Buffett is donating his life earnings to... you guessed it... Population Control! His own daughter told the media this was the agenda. One of the foundation's directors, Mr. Buffett's daughter, Susie, told The Chronicle that she did expect that population control would be the foundation's top priority. "That's what my father has always believed was the biggest and most important issue, so that will be the focus," she said. "I feel as his child that it's important to carry out his wishes. It's his money." (11) Ted Turner had this to say about his buddy Buffett:
"Warren Buffett, he's a decent human being, he said he's going to give his money away when he dies for population control," continued Mr. Turner. "He may live 20 more years. By then, the world's population is going to double again." (12)
George Soros - Aside from being a convicted felon for his insider trading overseas (14) Soros is also a eugenicist who has donated copious amounts of money to Planned Parenthood. (15)
Michael Bloomberg - The current mayor of New York and Billionaire, Michael Bloomberg has recently joined forces with Bill Gates to take on "Reproductive Health" in developing nations. (16) In reading the article, one might be tempted to think of this venture as benign or even caring. I'd caution you to remember the many other eugenical endeavors Mr. Gates has been involved in and supported in the past that were packaged with similar non-descript, double speak wording.
Oprah Winfrey - Oprah Winfrey... Need I say more?
For those who still doubt the motives of these folks - this "Good Club" - I would ask you to step back and look at the big picture. Here, we've got a group of multi-billionaires, all of whom are dedicated to culling the population significantly, all of whom are willing to spend the majority of their money to achieve these ends... some of whom worked with the Nazi's and some who are quoted as saying that a 95% reduction in the human populace would be ideal. Others who openly fund UN organizations who've been caught numerous times practicing eugenics in nations around the world. (And for some reason, Oprah is there too... having more than a few enlightening "Aha" moments, no doubt.)
Who asked these folks to solve the fallacy of too many people? Do you think they'll offer their children up as a "population reduction" sacrifice to the ghost of Malthus in a good faith and altruistic attempt to assuage the climate gods? Doubtful. But a few million poor Africans will do for a start... (17)(18)(19)(20)
1.http://www.sixtyyearswar.com/leeblogmiles/2009/05/eugenics-oak-roots-dont-grow-appletrees.html
2. ibid
3. http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/tay/tay_04robthecrad.html
4. http://www.population-security.org/28-APP2.html
5. http://www.cwluherstory.com/CWLUArchive/puertorico.html
6. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/11/09/ING9C2QSKB1.DTL
7. http://www.cwluherstory.com/CWLUArchive/cesa.html
8. http://www.whale.to/b/genocide_q.html
9. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34779
10. http://www.jonesreport.com/article/04_08/28turner_911.html
11.http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v10/i03/03001201.htm
12. ibid
13.http://www.pop.org/00000000257/warren-buffett-ends-support-for-population-control-programshttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/14/business/worldbusiness/14iht-soros.1974397.html
14.http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/GEORGE%20SOROS%27%20WEB%20OF%20OBSTRUCTION.htm
15.http://www.gatesfoundation.org/press-releases/Pages/improving-reproductive-health-in-the-developing-world-030605.aspx
16. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/health/main678089.shtml
17.http://www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSL26350073._CH_.2400
18. http://www.aidsorigins.com/
19. http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/AIDS/
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
 How did Eugenics turn into Population Control and why?
Throughout history, "nobility" has intermarried with other families in efforts to keep their bloodline "clean" and their "stock" of a high caliber. (1) These same folks felt the need to cull the population of the "plebs" in order to make for a better human race, one free of unwanted genetic abnormalities. This is one of the basic tenants of eugenics. As we've already covered, many methods for controlling the "stock" included inoculations, abortions, using food as a weapon, disease, miseducation, and even outright holocaust. As one might imagine, word soon got out that eugenics is an inhumane device whose aim is directly focused at culling the masses in a big way. Backlash ensued.
What was needed, the eugenicists thought, was a rebranding of their agenda. What follows is a brief glimpse into social engineering, a restructuring of group think. It has worked quite well. It is my hope that we can begin to deconstruct these ideologies - to show the truth underneath the dogma and the rhetoric and the doublespeak that we've unwittingly been subjected to for the majority of our lives.
I found the following here:
Major General Frederick Osborn; President, American Eugenics Society "...the reasons advanced must be generally acceptable reasons.
Let's stop telling anyone that they have a genetically inferior genetic quality, for they will never agree. Let's base our proposals on the desirability of having children born in homes where they will get affectionate and responsible care, and perhaps our proposals will be accepted. It seems to me that if it is to progress as it should, eugenics must follow new policies and state its case anew, and that from this rebirth we may, even in our own
lifetime, see it moving at last towards the high goals which Galton set for it." (2)
Galton is considered the "father" of eugenics. His vision was one of racial cleansing for the betterment of mankind. The following is taken from "Memories of Life": Chapter XXI. Race Improvement: I cannot doubt that our democracy will ultimately refuse consent to that liberty of propagating children which is now allowed to the undesirable classes, but the populace has yet to be taught the true state of these things. A democracy cannot endure unless it be composed of able citizens; therefore it must in self-defence withstand the free introduction of degenerate stock. (3)
The "liberty of propagating children... allowed to the undesireable classes?" The implication here is that the liberty to bear children can be taken away - and knowing that Galton would argue said rights should be taken away is sickening. The right to bear children is a fundamental human right - regardless of one's social, genetic, economic or racial standing. Does allowing the "degenerate stock" to multiply somehow denegrate humanity - or does it allow humanity to flourish in all of its varities and "abnormalities"? Furthermore, who decides what constitutes "degeneracy" and what gives them the right to decide such things for others?
Back to "Population Research" in our education system:
The Office of Population Research was founded in 1936 when Frederick H. Osborn '10, a charter trustee of Princeton, formerly a trustee at the Milbank Memorial Fund, used his good offices with both of these institutions to persuade the University to found a program in teaching and research in population, and the Milbank Fund to provide much of the initial financing. Osborn, later a major general during World War II, appointed to study and foster improvement in the morale of the armed services, had a deep interest in population matters, as well as in his alma mater. (4)
The Office of Population Research at Princeton University is the oldest population research center in the country. Founded in 1936, it has trained more than a hundred students who received doctoral degrees and more than a hundred others who received one-year professional training. Many of these alumni occupy important professional positions in developing countries; others are on university faculties in this country and abroad. (5)
"Even before 1945, various American publications--peer-review journals, memos, and periodicals--reveal that millions of dollars were poured into eugenics research and policy studies in this country, much of it directly referencing [Ernst] Rudin and his Nazi colleagues. Funding for these projects over the years has since come from private foundations, primarily the Rockefeller Foundation, individual "benefactors," the National Institutes of Health, and other government agencies. At the forefront of such effort in the United States has always been the American Eugenics Society(AES) Research shows an enormous overlap of membership in the early American Eugenics Society and the Population Council, the latter established in the 1950s by John D. Rockefeller III and General Frederick Osborn, who was also an AES president. Remember that in the 1950s, the memory of Htler's mass extermination and Ernst Rudin's part in it were fresh. It is odd, therefore, that despite that, copious editorial comments appeared in the organization's publication, Eugenics Quarterly (later changed to Social Biology) hawking a concept called "negative eugenics" and urging the use of what the authors called "eugenic propaganda" to promote public support for measures designed to detect and remove "the heavy burden of the socially inadequate and other defective hereditary types." (p. 171)
According to the now renamed AES periodical Social Biology, in an excellent article on the history of the organization by former AES co-founder and president Frederick Osborn, the society held a conference in 1961 on the teaching of eugenics to medical students at Rockefeller Institute in New York City. The conference was jointly sponsored with the Population Council, which paid for travel expenses, and the National Institutes of Health. Publicity given to the AES by those conferences, the periodical says, resulted in "large numbers of individual inquiries on hereditary defects" as well as additional sponsorships.[...] Between 1960 and 1970, writes Osborn, the society strengthened its position as a center for bringing together various disciplines having a common interest in "human evolution." The intent to link birth control and eugenics in America is found in the older December 1961 Eugenics Quarterly, in which policies for "influencing the future course of evolution" were urged, beginning with "eugenic birth selection based on voluntary controls"
In 1964, the annual workshop-conference was inaugurated, called the Princeton Conferences. At the third of these Princeton Conferences, not only were demographers, "behavioral geneticists," anthropologists, and psychiatrists in attendance, but a computer specialist attended. By November 1969, the Fifth Princeton Conference took the bold step of going under the title "Genetic Reconstruction of Human Populations." Remember that by then, the periodical Eugenics Quarterly had sanitized its name to Social Biology. By 1970 Rockefeller Center was more or less serving as a hub for discourse in behavioral eugenics." (6)
Frederick Osborn "reformed" eugenics by proposing that eugenicists conceal their true goal, which was, and is, to control human evolution by limiting marriage and parenthood to the superior stocks. He believed that less than ten percent of the population were worthy to have children. But he proposed that eugenicists never mention their conviction that most children should never have been born. Eugenicists were to assert instead a hypocritical concern for the welfare of the children of the inferior. This is the origin of Planned Parenthood's oft repeated slogan "Every child a wanted child". In reality, the eugenicists hope to manipulate the social and economic climate so that children unwanted by the eugenicists will be miserable and their miserable parents will "spontaneously" cease to want them. Ceasing to have children due to manipulation by eugenicists is called "voluntary unconscious selection" or, in other words, "CHOICE".
This project is laid out in the Galton lecture, "Galton and Mid Century Eugenics" which Osborn delivered in 1956:
"The very word eugenics is in disrepute in some quarters ... We must ask ourselves, what have we done wrong?
"I think we have failed to take into account a trait which
is almost universal and is very deep in human nature.
People simply are not willing to accept the idea that the genetic base on which their character was formed is inferior and should not be repeated in the next generation. We have asked whole groups of people to accept this idea and we have asked individuals to accept it. They have constantly refused and we have all but killed the eugenic movement ... they won't accept the idea that they are in general second rate. We must rely on other motivation. ... it is surely possible to build a system of voluntary unconscious selection.
But the reasons advanced must be generally acceptable reasons. Let's stop telling anyone that they have a generally inferior genetic quality, for they will never agree. Let's base our proposals on the desirability of having children born in homes where they will get affectionate and responsible care, and perhaps our proposals will be accepted." (7) This plan is working! Notice the lexicon of today's 20-30 somethings. Many folks in this demographic often speak this way - viewing children as more trouble than they're worth. 100 years ago, a child was viewed as a wonderful and joyous addition to a family - even within poorer families where raising a child was very tough. Today, our collective mindset has been changed to the point where we would view our own children as a drag on us, on our lifestyle, our notions of what happiness is. 2. Frederick Osborn in The Eugenics Review 1956/57 p. 22 6. Frederick Osborn, "History of the American Eugenics Society," Social Biology, vol. 21 no. 2 Summer 1974, 115-126; see also: B.K. Eakman's The Cloning the American Mind 7. "Galton and Mid Century Eugenics" by Frederick Osborn, Galton Lecture 1956, in Eugenics Review, vol. 48, 1, 1956
|
|
