[An excellent interview, by a highly connected individual who has been researching this for decades. Well worth the 34 minutes to watch. TMR]
Thursday, September 14, 2017 by: Mike Adams
(Natural News) A November 4, 1969 New York Times feature article authored by Gladwin Hill called for sterilization chemicals to be added to the food supply in order to achieve globalist goals of human depopulation. That article, entitled “A Sterility Drug in Food is Hinted” came with the byline, “Biologist Stresses Need to Curb Population Growth.”
Until the New York Times memory holes the article, you can still find it in the NYT archives at this link, in fact. You can also see a partial photo of the NYT article below.
Most people living today — especially younger people — have no idea that a key agenda of globalism is the elimination of “undesirable” humans from the gene pool. They believe that ideas of “eugenics” and genocide were only carried out by the Nazis, not by American university professors and presidential science advisors. So they have no grasp of the context in which Planned Parenthood, for example, operates today as a depopulation engine to eliminate blacks from society. (Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was a black-hating eugenicist whose ideas directly inspired the genocidal goals of the Third Reich.)
The New York Times article, shown below, quotes Dr. Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, a depopulation advocate, as well as President Richard Nixon’s chief science adviser, Dr. Lee DuBridge, who said that “population control should be the prime task of every government.” (Read PopulationControl.news for more headlines on this subject.)
Compulsory family regulation run by government
In the article, shown below, Dr. Ehrlich laments the fact that biologists believe, “compulsory family regulation will be necessary to retard population growth.” In essence, he is arguing that the government should be in charge of reproductive rights, determining who is allowed to reproduce and who must be sterilized.
To achieve the sterilization goals, he “urged establishing a Federal Population Commission ‘with a large budget for propaganda,’” reports the New York Times. He also called for, “the addition of a temporary sterilant to staple food, or to the water supply” in order to cause mandatory infertility.
Dr. Barry Commoner of Washington University in St. Louis added to the discussion:
Can we not invent a way to reduce our population growth rate to zero? Every human institution – school, university, church, family, government and international agencies such as Unesco – should set this as its prime task.
This agenda is already well under way
Most Americans have no awareness that this agenda is well under way. Flu shots, for example, are now scientifically confirmed to cause spontaneous abortions, a form of infertility and population control. This explains exactly why the CDC began pushing for flu shot vaccines during all three trimesters of gestation in expectant mothers.
Sperm viability is also plummeting across the modern world, according to dozens of published scientific studies. One such study — conducted by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem — found that sperm concentrations have plummeted more than 50 percentfrom 1973 to 2011. According to the abstract of this study as reported in Science Daily:
These findings strongly suggest a significant decline in male reproductive health that has serious implications beyond fertility and reproduction, given recent evidence linking poor semen quality with higher risk of hospitalization and death.
Covert vectors for depopulation that are being pursued right now
The depopulation goals from 1969 are in full force in America today. Some of the vectors for covert sterilization and depopulation now include:
- Covert genetic modification of crops to grow RNA interference fragments that nullify male fertility in humans.
- The continued use of toxic mercury in flu shots in order to cause spontaneous abortions in pregnant women.
- Planned Parenthood abortion centers that target minority communities for eugenics “cleansing” of the gene pool.
- Inoculation of all vaccine recipients with hidden, cancer-causing viruses that are deliberately allowed to contaminate many vaccines. (See the SV40 Simian Virus fiasco affecting 98 million Americans via the polio vaccine.) (Also, read the book “Plague” by Judy Mikovitz.)
- The planned, deliberate use of cancer-causing ingredients in the popular food supply, including sodium nitrite in processed meat, inducing widespread cancer and early deaths (the clueless population then eats itself to death, while enriching the cancer industry).
- Spiking public health vaccines with covert sterilization chemicals, exactly as has been confirmed in African vaccination campaigns that target young black women for sterilization without their knowledge or consent.
If you do not know that mass sterilization efforts are underway right now to eliminate human fertility and drastically reduce the global population, then you are not yet well-versed on reality. Even Bill Gates openly talks about achieving the correct amount of population reduction by using vaccines and other vectors, saying:
The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.
For the sake of preserving the historical record, we are reprinting the NYT article here, knowing that they are very likely to attempt to memory hole this article in another swipe at Orwellian-style revisionist history.
A STERILITY DRUG IN FOOD IS HINTED
Biologist Stresses Need to Curb Population Growth
By GLADWIN HILL
Special to The New York Times
SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 24 – A possibility that the government might have to put sterility drugs in reservoirs and in food shipped to foreign countries to limit human multiplication was envisioned today by a leading crusader on the population problem.
The crusader, Dr. Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, among a number of commentators who called attention to the “population crisis” as the United States Commission for Unesco opened it 13th national conference here today.
Unesco is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. The 100-member commission, appointed by the Secretary of State, included representatives of Government, outside organizations, and the public. Some 500 conservationists and others are attending the two-day meeting at the St. Francis Hotel, devoted this year to environmental problems.
President Nixon’s chief science adviser, Dr. Lee DuBridge, brought up the population question in his keynote speech last night, calling the reduction of the earth’s population growth rate to zero “the first great challenge of our time.”
Godfrey a Speaker
His comments went beyond recent statements of President Nixon, who in a message to Congress stressed the provision of birth control information to underprivileged women.
But the Federal Government’s willingness to come to grips with population limitation was questioned by another speaker, Arthur Godfrey, radio-television star and a conservation campaigner.
“Dr. DuBridge rightly said that population control should be the prime task of every government,” he said. “But is there anyone here – anyone – who thinks that this Administration, or the next of the next, will act with the kind of force that’s necessary?”
Dr. Erlich, who is a biologist said:
“Our first move must be to convince all those we can that the planet Earth must be viewed as a spaceship of limited carrying capacity.”
“I think that 150 million people (50 million fewer that there are now) would be an optimum number to live comfortably in the United States.
‘Alternative to Armageddon’
“Some biologists feel that compulsory family regulation will be necessary to retard population growth. It is a dismal prospect – except when viewed as an alternative to Armageddon.”
He urged establishing a Federal Population Commission “with a large budget for propaganda,” changing tax laws to discourage reproduction and instituting mandatory birth control instruction in public schools.
He also urged “changing the pattern of Federal support of biomedical research so that the majority of it goes into the broad areas of population regulation, environment sciences, behavior sciences and related areas rather than into short-sighted programs on death control.”
If such steps are unavailing, he continued, the nation might resort to “the addition of a temporary sterilant to staple food, or to the water supply,” with limited distribution of antidote chemicals, perhaps by lottery.
Although it might seem that such a program could be started by doctoring foods sent to underdeveloped countries, he said, “the solution does not lie in that direction” because “other people already are suspicious of our motives.”
Economic Pressure Urged
Rather, he suggested, the United States should stop economic aid to countries that do not try to limit their populations.
Dr. Barry Commoner of St. Louis, Washington University ecologist, in an ensuing discussion period differed with Dr. Ehrlich.
He said that he thought the urge to multiply was rooted in the sense of insecurity. And that the better way to reduce reproduction was by “increasing the well-being of peoples.”
He also opposed chemical strategems on the ground that “every technological trick like that we’ve tried has caused disaster.”
Recapitulating the environmental problems stemming from population, Dr. Dubridge said: “Do we need more people on the earth? We all know the answer to that is no. Do we have to have more people? Also no.
“Can we reverse the urges of a billion years of evolving life? We can. We know techniques for reducing fertility. We are not fully utilizing them.”
Citing a widespread attitude, he said: ‘We have the right to have as many children as we can afford,’ we say. Do we, today? No.
“Can we not invent a way to reduce our population growth rate to zero? Every human institution – school, university, church, family, government and international agencies such as Unesco – should set this as its prime task.”
Source: The New York Times
Published: November 25, 1969
We’ve all seen it before – the sharp yellow flag featuring a rattlesnake and the words “Don’t Tread On Me.” Chances are if you’re here, it’s because you got curious enough to Google the meaning of the flag, and want to know at least a little bit about its historical significance. Chances are you have also seen it quite a few times before Googling, maybe even used it yourself without knowing the full history, bought a T-shirt with the symbol on it, or seen someone walking around with one on.
The flag featuring the defiant rattlesnake and sharp yellow background, is actually called the Gadsden Flag, and it’s been around since Benjamin Franklin’s time. Franklin actually referred to the imagery of the flag when he suggested sending rattlesnakes to England as a method of repaying England for sending criminals to America way back in his day. But we’ll get into the flag’s historical significance more in a later section in this article.
Ever since it’s creation, the rattlesnake, the flag itself, and the message – “Don’t Tread on Me” have been a visible symbol of American individualism and assertiveness over the years. It’s a message that has lived on through the ages, and I feel will continue to represent strength in the years to come.
WHAT DOES “DON’T TREAD ON ME” MEAN? WHAT DOES THE RATTLESNAKE SYMBOLIZE
The Gadsden flag is often described as the American equivalent of the Spartan “molon labe” (“come and take [them]”) motto. The comparison is apt as they both represent responding with force to perceived threats, but I have always preferred the Gadsden flag as the perfect expression of subtle defiance and resistance. It’s not a declaration of war, but rather an implicit threat implying: “We won’t take shit from anyone.”
This is spelled out, not as a contrarian argument, but more as a fact – a plainly put statement of resistance, which makes it far more applicable to day-to-day life and thus far more frequently used and thus ubiquitous in terms of seeing it used regularly. In my mind, “Don’t Tread on Me” is very similar to the Roman, “Si vis pacem, para bellum” (If you want peace, prepare for war). It’s a fair warning for all would-be oppressors to back off. Regardless of where you’re from, I think this is a sentiment you can relate to on a human level.
THE HISTORY BEHIND THE GADSDEN FLAG
The Gadsden Flag was designed in 1775 during the American Revolution by the general and politician Christopher Gadsden. Originally, it was flown by the Continental Marines as a motto flag along with the Moultrie (Liberty Flag).
Its application in history is rooted in its imagery – the infamous snake has been used in the past by Benjamin Franklin’s “Join, or Die.” – which was actually the first political cartoon – and the rattlesnake as a symbol continued to be used throughout the years as the representation of the American people and their drive for self-determination.
If you’re wondering if it’s ever been used to promote racist agendas before, yes, it has. Indeed the “Don’t Tread on Me” flag has at times in the past been hijacked by less than savoury groups. Frankly, however, I wouldn’t put much weight on that. Why? That’s not at all what it was created to mean. It was never originally intended to be used this way, and if tomorrow, My Little Pony were randomly hijacked to represent something terrible, degrading, and racist, I’d like to think people wouldn’t put any fault on My Little Pony for that – it’s just plain not what the intended purpose of the original creation was.
It’s very easy for people to claim any symbol “as their own” and twist it for their own ends. Objectively speaking, we can find negative connotations attached to all symbols, so on that note; any mention of racist connotations regarding the Gadsden flag or the phrase “Don’t Tread On Me” demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of its history and seems to be pushed by a movement levelled by individuals who have an axe to grind against anything that didn’t spawn at a Starbucks. I find it thoroughly disappointing that so much of our relations with our fellow man have dwindled down to petty partisan bullshit, but here we are.
2017 folks. The fact that this is even being debated is tragic, but to settle the matter once and for all; From the New Yorker:
“The origins of ‘Don’t Tread On Me,’ “ Leepson summarizes, “were completely, one hundred percent anti-British, and pro-revolution.” Indeed, that E.E.O.C. directive agrees, “It is clear that the Gadsden Flag originated in the Revolutionary War in a non-racial context.”
[*] I am aware that as a Brit, it is extremely ironic that I am happy to use the Gadsden flag as a symbol of defiance. On that note, if you accept Her Majesty the Queen as your sovereign monarch I am sure all will be forgiven. I’ll await for your formal notice. 😉
With regards to the rattlesnake’s historical adoption as a symbol of the strength of American independence, Benjamin Franklin phrased it best in his essay published by the Pennsylvania Journal (quote pulled from this source);
I recollected that her eye excelled in brightness, that of any other animal, and that she has no eye-lids. She may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance. She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: She is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage. As if anxious to prevent all pretensions of quarreling with her, the weapons with which nature has furnished her, she conceals in the roof of her mouth, so that, to those who are unacquainted with her, she appears to be a most defenseless animal; and even when those weapons are shown and extended for her defense, they appear weak and contemptible; but their wounds however small, are decisive and fatal. Conscious of this, she never wounds ’till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her.
Was I wrong, Sir, in thinking this a strong picture of the temper and conduct of America?
All this to say, using the rattlesnake as a symbol of American independence and strength made perfect sense due to the predominance of the timber rattlesnake throughout the Thirteen Colonies and the perception of the rattlesnake as an animal that won’t attack until provoked, but will leave a nasty bite once it is.
As a side note, the original Gadsden flag shows the snake by itself. Modern versions from the 20th century onwards, sometimes have a grass bed below the rattlesnake. There can also be some debate over the use of an apostrophe over the “Don’t,” but early versions all (for the most part) use an apostrophe, so as far as I am concerned it is the standard. Similarly, the snake is usually facing left.
MODERN APPLICATIONS: HOW THE FLAG IS USED TODAY
The Gadsden flag has carried over as a symbol of defiance against the perception of tyranny. Its significance, I feel, transcends all nationalities and creeds.
In present day, the Gadsden Flag is iconic in its symbolism as a rallying cry for Libertarianism and individual liberty, as far as the modern mainstream political discourse will allow it to be.
I will say that common criminals masquerading as “anarchists” have in the past hijacked this flag, and it’s a damn shame that that’s happened to such a valuable historical symbol of strength, but broadly speaking the flag still is taken to represent freedom and, more importantly, the willingness to fight for this freedom.
To the best of my knowledge, no single group has ever “claimed” the flag, appropriating it completely for itself. Instead, the flag has been used time and time again as an iconic symbol of rebelliousness.
One example of the flag having been used in an attempt to show a rebellious spirit with no ill-intention meant: the heavy metal band Metallica using the outline of the rattlesnake on the cover of their Black Album back in 1991.
Walk around malls often enough and you’re likely to see the rattlesnake featured on band t-shirt reproductions of this popular cover art.
The perception from the media (broadly speaking) is that this flag is a right wing symbol. This is patently false. You also often get the perception, from the media, that this flag is somehow representative of anti-government ways of thought, which I feel is moderately true – only insofar as it’s often used to be representative of the oppression of government and the sacrifice of individual liberties.
The Gadsden flag cannot be considered anti-government from a historical perspective, especially considering how Benjamin Franklin used it in the past. Again it remains, in my opinion, a symbol of individual liberty and freedom, and strength in the face of potential oppressors of that liberty. 2nd amendment causes, individual liberty, pro constitution, and anti big government movements have rallied around this symbol, though this doesn’t fall out of line with the general message of the flag because they consider big government to be their potential oppressors.
PERSONAL MEANING: WHAT “DON’T TREAD ON ME” MEANS TO ME
As for me?
I take this flag to mean – I’ll mind my own business, if you mind yours. If you don’t, you will regret it.
This way of thinking is becoming a rarity in mainstream culture. We tiptoe around our individuality promoting this bizarre sense of forced collective cohesion, which I think is incredibly detrimental to society. We have forgotten that it is a-okay to dislike other people, and yet still respect them and their individual right to dislike you in turn.
People are different. That’s normal. That’s good. We should accept that fact and move on.
Resisting is not a bad word, nor should it be considered one. Why? Because being different is not bad, and it should be celebrated instead of condemned. Resisting other’s attempts at forcing you to do things you don’t want to do, resisting attempts at taking away your personal liberties – I feel this is an important message that the Gadsden flag still reinforces today. The Gadsden flag is a representation that consequences are on the table should respect not be reciprocal – there’s nothing in that sentiment that’s negative, in my opinion.
Personally, I don’t view the Gadsden flag as abrasive in nature, despite recent media frenzy over it. For me, the flag and the snake represent accountability. Every action has a reaction – a rattlesnake will hold you accountable for provoking it. Again, it doesn’t strike first, just reacts defensively to keep itself safe from harm from another entity. It’s a tacit acceptance that even with everything that is going on around us, all the rage, anger and accusations being thrown around the media, some of us will hold our ground; our rights are our own and will remain as such – because we will defend them to make it so.
Something to think about.