No acceptable. This is intrusion on steroids.
To my friends in Australia: the vaccine war deepens
by Jon Rappoport
September 20, 2017
The string of abuses laid on citizens of Australia by their government grows almost week by week.
Now, parental rights to raise children, without interference from the State, is under a new form of attack. This must be resisted.
Schools are bringing doctors on board, as a permanent feature. Young children will be subjected to medical diagnoses and treatment, without consent or approval from parents, even if those parents actively object. The State is stealing the role of guardian.
The Herald Sun reports. Read carefully:
“DOCTORS will have the power to treat students as young as 12 in schools even if parents refuse their consent.”
“GPs will consult at 100 Victoria high schools for up to one day a week as part of a $43.8 million program.”
“Guidelines released on Thursday show that even if…
View original post 662 more words
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
A fascinating read.
The Jesuits and Tupper Saussy
by Jon Rappoport
September 13, 2017
My late friend, Tupper Saussy, wrote a shocking book titled, Rulers of Evil. It was published in 2001. It’s about the Jesuits. It’s about their influence on the founding of the United States.
Tupper was a brilliant researcher, among his other talents. While making his case in the book, he lets the reader know when the points of reference are circumstantial. Tupper was a man who knew how to assess degrees of evidence.
One of most shocking facts about the highly controversial book was its publication by HarperCollins, a major house. That feat was somehow accomplished by agent Peter Fleming. Peter did what no other agent could have done. He pulled off a magic trick for the ages.
I’m sure, once the book was in print, the people at Harper looked at each other and said, “What did…
View original post 961 more words
Recently, during a radio show on which I appeared as a guest, a caller posed a question I frequently get asked: “Do the administration of cross-gender hormones and genital surgery change a boy into a girl or a girl into a boy?”
The answer is simple: biologically, not at all.
Underneath all the cosmetic procedures, vocal training, and hair growth or hair removal lies a physical reality. Biologically, the person has not changed from a man into a woman or vice versa.
Sex is an indelible fact of a person’s biology. Specifically, it describes one’s biological makeup with respect to its organization for reproduction. As Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh explain in The New Atlantis:
In biology, an organism is male or female if it is structured to perform one of the respective roles in reproduction. This definition does not require any arbitrary measurable or quantifiable physical characteristics or behaviors; it requires understanding the reproductive system and the reproduction process.
The authors go on to note that “[t]here is no other widely accepted biological classification for the sexes.” Sex pertains to the two different ways males and females are structured for reproduction, and these structures are permanently engrained in one’s biology. They cannot be chosen at will.
A man can mutilate his body, but he can never transform it to be organized as a female—and vice versa for the woman.
This makes sense of the head-snapping (and false) headline many of us saw about a man having a baby. The “man” featured in the story is simply a biological woman who kept her childbearing anatomy intact.
My Sex Change Fiction
My “sex change” surgery from male to female was performed by Dr. Stanley Biber in Trinidad, Colorado.
His unusual field of expertise drew clients from around the world and earned the small mountain town the nickname “Sex Change Capital of the World.” The surgeon estimated that he performed over 5,000 such surgeries during his career.
I lived legally and socially as a female for eight years, but I came to the realization that I wanted to go back to living as a man. To legally change my gender back to male, I needed to file a petition with the California Superior Court that verified I met certain criteria. (The process has since changed.)
My surgeon wrote a letter to the court stating that I met the medical criteria for the courts to legally change my birth certificate back to male. The very surgeon who earlier said that hormones and surgery had changed me to female, now admitted that it did not.
In the letter, he testified that the surgery and cross-gender hormones had the effect of neutering my external appearance and genitalia, but my internal biological structure and my genetics were still male.
That’s the key to understand: Hormones and surgical changes can affect one’s external appearance, but no innate biological change of sex occurs.
This truth should seem obvious, but discontented trans women contact me who say they didn’t know that they could never become a “real” woman. They are unhappy and opting to go back to the gender of their birth.
False Hope Could Lead to More Suicide
A 2004 U.K. Guardian article, “Sex Changes Not Effective,” points out: “While no doubt great care is taken to ensure that appropriate patients undergo gender reassignment, there’s still a large number of people who have the surgery but remain traumatized—often to the point of committing suicide.”
Too many post-surgical patients contact me to report they deeply regret the gender change surgery and that the false hope of surgical outcomes was a factor. For children, the focus on encouraging, assisting, and affirming them toward changing genders at earlier and earlier ages, with no research showing the outcomes, may lead to more suicides.
Others Advocate Less Surgery
A growing number of people like me, 50 years after the first surgery at Johns Hopkins University Gender Clinic in 1966, are advocating the scaling back of the radical, irreversible, often unnecessary genital mutilation surgeries.
Rene Jax, in his 2016 book, “DON’T Get on The Plane!” says, “Sex change surgery will ruin your life.”
Jax and I have had similar experiences. Both of us were approved for hormones and surgery to resolve our gender dysphoria, and after following the medically prescribed full regimen of hormones and genitalia surgery, and living as women, both of us came away with the same conclusions:
- Gender change surgery was a destructive body mutilation and a waste of time and money.
- After the medically-certified gender change, life didn’t improve.
- Gender dysphoria, that feeling of unease with one’s gender, persisted, and was not relieved as promised.
Surgery as a Last Resort
Based on the emails I receive, I would urge the person who thinks that gender change is the answer in their situation to delay any surgical changes, or at the very least to restrict any physical changes to ones that are reversible.
This is especially important for younger people who may want to have children one day.
Today in 10 states, only a verbal declaration and a doctor’s letter supporting the change are needed to legally change the gender on a birth certificate. Cross-gender hormones or surgery are not required. Only 10 states affirm that surgery and hormones do not change biology.
Studies show that two-thirds of people with gender dysphoria have co-existing disorders, such as depression and anxiety.
I’ve become an outspoken critic of gender reassignment surgeries because many people are not being treated for other co-existing problems first. Instead, they are quickly prescribed cross-gender hormones and shuttled on a path toward surgery.
But as noted earlier, this surgery cannot succeed in delivering what it promises. It will only mutilate the body, a far cry from the promised “sex change.”
By Jon Rappoport
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them…”