|
The Dehumanisation of the Masses: Population Control & Reduction
[The following interview,
undertaken in late December 2009, was extracted from
Thus Speaks Qadosh Erectus: Political Thoughts For a Sane Society
Interviewer: The Copenhagen summit has recently finished and turned into a bit of a fizzer in regards to reaching a legally binding climate change deal. Did this surprise you?
QE: Yes to tell the truth I was moderately surprised but most happy that it was a fizzer to use your words. But no doubt officials are already working behind the scenes to iron out the problems that arose so I would suspect that in the not too distant future another summit will be held. If people want this to fail they had better become better organised because United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has publicly admitted [1] that the agenda behind the Copenhagen summit and the climate change fraud is the imposition of a global government and the end of national sovereignty. Sadly many people fail to understand that global governance will develop out of any future agreement on emissions and they also fail to understand that policies shall certainly be introduced to reduce world population numbers.
Interviewer:
QE: Negotiation is about give and take - compromise. If parties sit down to negotiate a deal you can not in all fairness lay the blame at the feet of one party if an agreement is not reached. The so-called sticking point is that China wants consumer countries to take responsibility for the carbon emissions generated in the manufacture of goods, not the producer countries that export them. According to Mr Li,[2] an official with China's National Development and Reform Commission and climate change negotiator; "As one of the developing countries, we are at the low end of the production line for the global economy. We produce products and these products are consumed by other countries … This share of emissions should be taken by the consumers, not the producers." Now according to Oslo's Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research in Norway, a third of all Chinese emissions are linked to exports, with nine per cent caused by exports to the US, and six per cent from producing goods for Europe.
Interviewer: Do you think that a compromise will be reached between the West and China that consumers should carry the burden of emissions?
QE: I would be very surprised if a future agreement is not reached because of China’s stance. In fact I would go as far to say that there is a segment in the West that may have helped to orchestrate the failure of an agreement at the Copenhagen summit because the Chinese way is what they desire.
Interviewer: If such an agreement is reached wouldn’t this imply that everything produced would be given a carbon foot-print?
QE: Yes, that is how I would interpret it.
Interviewer: You mentioned population reduction…I haven’t heard about such plans?
QE: I was reading
[3]
about the front-page commentary in the Vatican newspaper
L'Osservatore Romano that took the Copenhagen summit to task
over its "nihilism,"
Interviewer: In regards to Tedeschi’s statement opposing the lowering of the birth-rate…do you believe that there is a problem of over-population in the world?
QE: Firstly, what do you mean by over-population? What standard do you apply in reaching a conclusion there are too many people? Do you apply the criteria of (a) the world’s ability to produce enough food to feed everyone or (b) the ability of each individual country to feed its people?
If we apply criterion (a) then we apparently do not have over-population in the world as the world has the capability to produce enough food to feed a far larger population of people. If on the other hand we apply criterion (b) then there are a number of countries in the world that lack this ability for various reasons.
Then of course if we apply a different criterion, that of a “standard of living”, then we can come to a different conclusion depending on what is meant by “standard of living”. What standard do we apply? Do we apply standard in the US or perhaps Europe, or maybe the standard in China or India?
What is wrong with the standard of living of some herdsman in Africa living a nomadic lifestyle? They have no need of electricity and all the mod-cons that rely on electricity. What is wrong with the standard of living of an Amazon Indian living a simple lifestyle on what the jungle provides?
So what standard do we apply? Do we allow the controllers of Capital like the Rothschilds and Rockefellers to set the standard? What God given right have they been given to set the standard especially taking into consideration it has been these types of people that have contributed greatly to many of the world’s problems.
Interviewer: Do you believe that there is an optimum world population and if so what would it be?
QE: It is something for each individual country to figure out, not some over-paid and well-fed controller of Capital or Global Bureaucrat.
Now every country should have the ability to feed its own; this includes the ability to put aside surplus to see them through periods of unsettled seasons that would affect their food production. If a country has this ability it would be logical to conclude it does not have a population problem.
Interviewer: I would have to assume that you do not believe the world has an over-population problem. Would I be correct?
QE: The problem is that over-population catastrophists have been predicting doom and gloom for centuries. Now before I go further I would I to quote the following:
"What most frequently meets our view (and occasions complaint), is our teeming population: our numbers are burdensome to the world, which can hardly supply us from its natural elements; our wants grow more and more keen, and our complaints more bitter in all mouths, whilst Nature fails in affording us her usual sustenance. In very deed, pestilence, and famine, and wars, and earthquakes have to be regarded as a remedy for nations, as the means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race." [4]
Now this quote did not come from Thomas Malthus, whose Essay on Population in the late eighteenth century is the seminal work to which much of the modern concern about overpopulation can be traced. It did not come from Botero, a sixteenth-century Italian whose work anticipated many of the arguments advanced by Malthus two centuries later. Neither is it is not found in the more modern catastrophist works such as The Limits to Growth [5] and Beyond the Limits.[6]
No this quotation was penned by Tertullian, a resident of the city of Carthage in the second century AD, when the population of the world was about 190 million, or only three to four percent of what it is today. And the fear of overpopulation did not begin with Tertullian as I understand that similar concerns were expressed in the writings of Plato and Aristotle in the fourth century B.C., as well as in the teachings of Confucius in the sixth century B.C.
While the facts show that the world has experienced population expansion that began in the eighteenth century resulting in a six fold increase in population over the next 200 years most people fail to realise that the six fold increase in world population was dwarfed by the eighty-fold increase in world output. As real incomes rose, people were able to live healthier lives. Infant mortality rates plummeted and life expectancies soared.
If we look back to 1900 the average world life expectancy was about 30 years, but in 1993 it was just over 65 years so over a period of ninety years life expectancy has doubled.
Now the most startling revolution in the 20th century was one of health. Where a century ago, almost any disease could kill someone in a matter of days, these diseases are now routinely cured. Where once someone could hope to live into their 60s, people now routinely live well into the 70s, 80s, and even 90s. I believe that the political economist Nicholas Eberstadt sums it up nicely when he stated that it is not that people "reproduce like bunnies" rather that they "no longer die like flies."
While we are still bombarded with propaganda from the over-population catastrophists they fail to inform people that presently more than 80 countries have achieved what is known as below replacement fertility, the point at which women are having so few children, generally thought to be below 2.1 children per woman, that countries are no longer replacing themselves. The UN predicts that every nation on earth, with the exception of a few African nations, will reach below replacement fertility within the next twenty years.
Interviewer: I never knew that.
QE:
People also fail to realise while population
growth peaked at 2.1 percent per year in the late 1960s it has
declined to its present rate of 1.14 percent. There is no doubt that
this trend will continue since, according to the latest information
supplied by the World Health Organization, the total fertility rates
- the number of births per woman - declined from 4.5 in 1970 to just
3.3 in 1990. That is exactly fifty percent of the way toward a
fertility rate of 2.1 which would eventually bring population growth
The Economist,[7] a UK publication, recently had an interesting article on below replacement fertility that in part stated:
“Today’s fall in fertility is both very large and
very fast. Poor countries are racing through the same demographic
transition as rich ones, starting at an earlier stage of development
and moving more quickly. The transition from a rate of five to that
of two, which took 130 years to happen in Britain - from 1800 to
1930 - took just 20 years - from 1965 to 1985 - in South Korea.
Mothers in developing countries today can expect to have three
children. Their mothers had six. In some countries the speed of
decline in the fertility rate has been astonishing. In Iran, it
dropped from seven in 1984 to 1.9 in 2006 - and to just 1.5 in
Tehran. That is about as fast as social change
Interviewer: So it looks like there really isn’t any so-called population problem?
QE: Well before I go further I should explain that the term total fertility rate is used to describe the total number of children the average women in a population is likely to throughout her life. Associated with total fertility rate is the concept of replacement rate. The replacement rate is the number of children each woman needs to have to maintain current population levels or what is known as zero population growth. In developed countries, the necessary replacement rate is about 2.1. Since replacement can not occur if a child does not grow to maturity and have their own offspring, the need for the extra point one child - a 5% buffer - per woman is due to the potential for death and those who choose or are unable to have children. In less developed countries, the replacement rate is around 2.3 due to higher childhood and adult death rates. You understand what I am saying?
Interviewer: Yes.
QE: Now referring back to your question. I believe I would disagree with you on that. I just mention that the world appears to be heading for a birth-rate that well lead to a decline in population. What people fail to realise is that if birth rates fall too far below replacement levels this is going to create very serious problems leading to a rapidly aging population that turns the demographic pyramid on its head.
Look at this map of the world and you well get a better understanding of the situation.
Now the statistics used here are a few years out of date but they serve the purpose for the subject we are discussing.
Now the countries highlighted in red have fertility rates of less then two which places them below replacement, the countries highlighted in yellow have a fertility rate of about two which places them on or below the replacement rate. The countries highlighted in green have a fertility rate of three to four while the countries highlighted in blue have a fertility rate of four or more. While most of the countries highlighted in blue fall within the African continent people should remember that these African countries have (a) a high infant mortality rate and (b) many of these countries have an Aids problem that is predicted to decimate many of them. Interviewer: Yes I comprehend the point you made. But surely with the right economic policies and financial incentives people could be encouraged to at least have enough children to keep the population stable?
QE: One would hope so. I would like to add that is what the economic policies contained in Social Survivalism are designed to do. But encouraging couples to have larger families aside, there appears to be a much more serious problem that has to do with the apparent rise in both female and male infertility rates in the industrialised countries. I should point out when I say infertility I mean the inability to become pregnant or the ability to father a child.
Dr. Doris J. Rapp MD one of the worlds leading Paediatric Allergists and Environmental Physicians says that by 2045 only 21% of the men on the entire planet will be fertile.[8]
Interviewer: Growing infertility rates? What countries are affected?
QE: I already mention Europe but the problem is also affecting North America, Australia and also New Zealand. As I mentioned it was predicted that within fifty years males in Europe will be sterile and I would assume the same outcome in North America, Australia and New Zealand.
I remember reading an article a
while ago that pointed out that the ratio of male to female children
being born is also being affected. Apparently the number of male
children being born is starting to decline compared to the number of
female children born. Now something is drastically wrong and yet the
problem is completely ignored.
Interviewer: These facts surprise to say the least. But is it really as bad as you put it?
QE: Let’s look at some facts to give an idea on the seriousness of the developing situation:
· The Internet Journal of Urology 2004: Volume 2 Number 1 had an article entitled “The sperm count has been decreasing steadily for many years in Western industrialised countries: Is there an endocrine basis for this decrease?” which states "If the decrease in sperm counts were to continue at the rate that it is then in a few years we will witness widespread male infertility.” [Emphasis added] · An article in the New Scientist [January 1998] entitled "Confused fish" states; "...children of older mothers having boys of lower fertility because of damage to mitochondrial DNA, according to Justin St. John of the Sheffield Jessop Hospital for Women."
·
A documentary produced by the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation entitled "The Disappearing Male" stated
that the quality of sperm is declining and that
· “LONDON. NEW research has confirmed fears that men are becoming less fertile. The study shows a halving of sperm production in 10 years. Scientists made the discovery after post-mortem studies of mostly middle-aged men from Finland who died between 1981 and 1991. During that time the proportion of men who had the normal biological processes leading to sperm production fell from 56.4 per cent to 26.9 per cent. During the same period there was a significant increase in the number of cases of ‘spermatogenic arrest’, or men who did not have any mature sperm cells. The incidence of complete spermatogenic arrest rose from 8 per cent to 20 per cent, and of partial spermatogenic arrest from 31.4 per cent to 48.5 per cent. The weight of the men's testicles had also diminished during the 10 years. Earlier studies had already indicated a long-term lowering of both sperm, in quantity and quality. A British study last year showed that men born in the 1970s produced on average 25 per cent fewer sperm than those born in the 1950s. An annual decline of 2 per cent suggested that boys born 60 years from now could be infertile. – PA” [9] · “Research into declining male fertility was controversial because the results relied on sperm counts made on semen samples, which are notoriously unreliable. But researchers led by Jarkko Parjarinen of the University of Helsinki avoided the problem by examining We stffl tissue from the testes, taken at post-mortem from 528 middle-aged Finnish men who died suddenly in either 1981 or 1991. Among the men who died in 1981, 56.4 per cent had normal, healthy sperm production. By 1991, however, this figure had dropped dramatically to 26.9 per cent. The average weight of the men’s testes decreased over the decade, while the proportion of useless, fibrous tissue increased, says a paper from the Finnish team in the 4 January issue of the British Medical Journal.” [10] · "The average sperm count of men may have fallen by as much as 29 per cent over the past 12 years, according to a large new UK study." [11] · “A survey of 1,350 sperm donors in Paris found a decline in sperm counts by around 2% each year over the past 23 years, with younger men having the poorest-quality semen” [12] · “Results from a study of sperm counts among men attending Scottish fertility clinics between 1989 and 2002 were announced recently at the fourth joint meeting of the Association of Clinical Embryologists and the British Fertility Society, 5-6 January 2004. The SPIN (Semen Parameters in the Northeast) study measured sperm counts in more than 16,000 semen samples from over 7,500 men attending the Aberdeen Fertility Centre. They found that among men with sperm counts within the normal range (above 20 million sperm per millilitre), the average sperm count had fallen over 14 years from around 87 million sperm per ml to 62 [million] sperm per ml. Although still well within normal parameters, this decrease represented a 29% drop in average sperm levels over this period.” [13] · “Today the numbers of infertile men are much higher than it was during the last decade. The recent Male Fertility Study, compiled by Norwich Union Healthcare indicates that 2.5 million British men are affected. It is estimated that one in 10 male has infertility problem due to low sperm count.”[14] · “In a well-respected study published in Environmental Health Perspectives, an American reproductive epidemiologist named Shanna Swan published work confirming that sperm counts are dropping by about 1.5 percent a year in the United States and 3 percent in Europe and Australia, though they do not appear to be falling in the less-developed world. This may not sound like a lot, but cumulatively - like compound interest - a drop of 1 percent has a big effect.” [15] · “The quality of New Zealand men’s sperm has halved in two decades – the most dramatic drop of any Western country. . . A gathering of international fertility researchers in Brisbane [were] told the sperm count carried by the average New Zealand man decreased from about 110 million to 50 million per millilitre between 1987 and 2007” [16]
While falling fertility among males is happening there are other factors arising that also impact on reproduction:
· In an article in The Journal of the American Medical Association[17] researchers from the World Resources Institute in Washington, DC, show that the number of male births in several industrialized nations has declined significantly in the past few decades. Devra Lee Davis and colleagues examined data from Denmark, the Netherlands, Canada and the US, and found similar declines in the sex ratio, or the number of male births per female births, in these countries. · Damaged sperm have been linked to a 300% increase in testicular cancer - a form of cancer that affects young men in their 20s and 30s. · The number of boys born with penis abnormalities and genital defects has increased by 200% in the past two decades. · Boys have a higher incidence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, learning disabilities, Tourett's syndrome, cerebral palsy and dyslexia. · Boys are four times as likely to be autistic.
Now all the facts I have just given are easily verified.
Interviewer: I must say I had no idea on how serious this problem of infertility is.
QE: Well there is also the problem of female
infertility. It is estimated that female reproductive problems
account for 40 percent of all infertility cases facing couples.
Numerous studies have documented the increased risk for miscarriage and increase in infertility as women age. As women age the incidence of chromosomally abnormal eggs increases dramatically; poor egg quality results in poor embryo quality, which reduces the chances of becoming pregnant and having a successful outcome. Also male children born to older women tend to have a lower fertility because of damage to mitochondrial DNA.
It is also interesting to note that male children born to older women tend to have a lower fertility because of damage to mitochondrial DNA.
Interviewer: Mitochondrial DNA…?
QE: Mitochondrial DNA is maternally inherited - inherited from the mother
Interviewer: You mentioned in the section "Domination:
Obsession & Power " that fluoride has been shown to cause hormone
disruption and low sperm counts. Do you believe
QE: Firstly, it should be explained that there are two types of fluoride. Calcium fluoride, which appears naturally in underground water supplies, is relatively benign. However, too much consumed daily can lead to bone or dental problems. Calcium is used to counter fluoride poisoning when it occurs. This redeeming factor indicates that the calcium in naturally formed calcium fluoride neutralizes much of fluoride's toxic effects.
On the other hand, the type of fluorides, fluorosilicate acid, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride, added to water supplies and toothpaste, etc, are industrial waste products of the nuclear, aluminium, and now mostly the phosphate industries. Now when I use the term fluoride it covers all the three types that occur as waste products from the various industries just mentioned.
While both types of fluoride, the naturally occurring calcium fluoride and the industrial waste fluorides all contain fluoride, they are in fact totally different chemical compounds, therefore the effects on the human body will be different. In fact it has been claimed that industrial waste fluoride is 85 times more toxic than natural occurring calcium fluoride. This was proven in a scientific study[18] done some years ago called "Comparative Toxicity of Fluorine Compounds." After this study was completed, this statement was made:
"…this meant a daily intake of approximately 40 mg/kg of fluorine from sodium fluoride as compared with 3400 mg/kg from calcium fluoride. Therefore, from the standpoint of lethal concentrations and amount of fluorine necessary to cause growth inhibition, wide differences in toxicity of some of the compounds of fluoride were noted."
There is strong evidence that fluoride is a contributor but I believe that there are a number of other contributing factors playing a part.
Interviewer: You say strong evidence…I gather you have done research into this subject.
QE: Yes I have over the last several years.
Interviewer: Could you give some highlights from your investigation to back up your claims?
QE: Sure…no problem.
The following is an extract from a document released by the (US) National Federation of Federal Employees entitled "WHY EPA'S HEADQUARTERS UNION OF SCIENTISTS OPPOSES FLUORIDATION": [19]
“In 1995, Mullenix and co-workers [20] showed that rats given fluoride in drinking water at levels that give rise to plasma fluoride concentrations in the range seen in humans suffer neurotoxic effects that vary according to when the rats were given the fluoride - as adult animals, as young animals, or through the placenta before birth. Those exposed before birth were born hyperactive and remained so throughout their lives. Those exposed as young or adult animals displayed depressed activity. Then in 1998, Guan and co-workers [21] gave doses similar to those used by the Mullenix research group to try to understand the mechanism(s) underlying the effects seen by the Mullenix group. Guan's group found that several key chemicals in the brain - those that form the membrane of brain cells - were substantially depleted in rats given fluoride, as compared to those who did not get fluoride.”
The article then goes on to state some startling facts:
“In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China,[22]-[23] that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years.
“Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride's interference with the function of the brain's pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body's internal clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke [24] has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in 1956, as part of the Kingston/Newburgh study, which is discussed below. In fluoridated Newburgh, young girls experienced earlier onset of menstruation (on average, by six months) than girls in non-fluoridated Kingston.[25]” [Emphasis added]
Now 125 years ago, the average American girl reached puberty at age 17 but presently the average age is below 10 - and dropping with every month that passes.[26] It is not only the US that has experienced a lowering in the age of girls attending puberty at an increasingly younger age. The magazine New Zealand Listener had an article "Growth spurt" which stated "that the average age of puberty has crept down" in New Zealand and that: "According to the Ministry of Health, puberty starts for New Zealand girls some time between nine and 14." [27]
Of course there is the problem of precocious puberty which involves a "growing number of young children beginning puberty early. They are getting breasts, beginning menstruation and growing sexual hair as young as three or four-years-old, some even sooner." [28]
Now to the average person this may not sound all that much to get worried about, but taking into consideration that a woman has only so many fertile years it would be logical to conclude that the earlier that a female reaches puberty – the beginning of fertility – the earlier in life her fertility will start declining.
And while
on the subject of female reproductive health; State University of
New York researchers in the USA found more premature births in
fluoridated than non-fluoridated upstate New York communities,
according to a presentation made at the American Public Health
Association’s annual meeting on November 9, 2009
In a research document entitled "Influence of Fluoride Intake on Reproduction in Mice" by H. H. Messer, et al, the researchers state the following:
"Female mice were fed a low fluoride diet (0.1 to 0.3 ppm fluoride) plus drinking water containing 0, 50, 100 or 200 ppm fluoride as sodium fluoride. Toxic effects of fluoride were evidenced by retarded growth and impaired reproduction in mice with intakes of 100 and 200 ppm fluoride, and the higher level resulted in a high mortality rate (50% deaths in 5 weeks). Mice with a low fluoride intake developed signs of fluorine deficiency, with a progressive development of infertility in two successive generations. Growth rate and litter size were not affected by the low fluoride intake, but the percentage of mice producing litters was lower, and the age at delivery of the first litter was greater than in mice receiving 50 ppm fluoride." [Emphasis added]
Another group of researchers [30] reported:
“Decrease in male reproductive
potential was observed in rats and rabbits after exposure to
fluoride (Kumar & Susheela 1994, 1995; Narayana & Chinoy 1994; Zhang
While much evidence is there to condemn fluoride as dangerous and it does in fact impact on human fertility we can not lay the blame for all the rise of infertility in the industrialised world at the feet of this chemical. A Reuter’s article[31] in April 2009, "First European evidence for earlier female puberty" stated:
"NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Girls are beginning to grow breasts at an earlier age, and starting their periods sooner too, new research from Denmark shows. "The findings back up recent studies that found earlier breast development in American girls over the past several years, but still can't answer the question of why this might be happening, Dr. Lise Aksglaede of Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, the lead researcher on the study, told Reuters Health. 'At this point, we don't know what is happening, and that is also what worries us.’ "Aksglaede noted that she and her colleagues have seen an increasing number of girls with precocious puberty, meaning sexual maturation beginning before age eight."
It should be pointed out that Norway does not add fluoride to its drinking water, although some sources of drinking water does have naturally accruing fluoride [32] concentrations ranging with time from 1.4 to 2.4 ppm, the authorities in the Nordic countries recommend the use of fluoride toothpaste twice a day.[33]
Interviewer: What other chemicals cause or have been implemented in impairing fertility?
QE: I believe that one of the main causes of concern is a number of chemicals used in a large range of plastic items. One group of chemicals are called phthalates. [Pronounced "THAL-ates"] Phthalates, or phthalate esters, are esters of phthalic acid which are oily, colourless liquids that have been used as plasticizers - added to plastics to increase their flexibility, transparency, durability, and longevity. These chemicals are found in many thousands of plastic items from products as vinyl flooring and seat coverings, raincoats, shower curtains, garden hoses, a variety of hospital equipment, children’s toys and items such as teething rings for children. They are even used in sex toys, in the coatings of pharmaceuticals to create "enteric" coatings and in the plastic linings of food and beverage cans. Phthalates are also used to “fix” scents in products such as lotions, shampoos, soaps, and cosmetics.
There are numerous types of phthalates used. I believe there are about two dozen common phthalates used, eight-ten phthalate aka 810P, butylbenzyl phthalate aka BBP, di-n-butyl phthalate aka DBP, diethyl phthalate aka DEP, diisobutyl phthalate aka DIBP, diisohexyl phthalate aka DIHP, diisononyl phthalate aka DINP, dimethyl phthalate aka DMP, and dipropyl phthalate aka DPP, and the list goes on.
Another dangerous chemical used in a number of plastics is called Bisphenol A, which is commonly abbreviated as BPA. Unlike phthalates, which are found in soft plastic products, BPA is found in hard plastics like baby bottles and plastic containers such as plastic water bottles. It is also used in the plastic linings of food and beverage cans.
Phthalates are easily released into the environment because there is no covalent bond between the phthalates and plastics in which they are mixed. As plastics age and break down the release of phthalates accelerates. But what is not generally known by the public is that phthalates are Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals aka EDC’s which interfere with the function of sex hormone receptors in humans.
Hundreds of animal studies have demonstrated that phthalates can damage the liver, kidneys, lungs and reproductive system, especially the developing testes. They can be absorbed through the skin, inhaled as fumes, ingested when they contaminate food or when children bite or suck on toys, and are inadvertently directly administered to patients from PVC medical devices.
As stated in the 2002 “Aggregate Exposures to Phthalates in Humans” report:[34]
“Reports in the scientific literature over the past 10-15 years have raised additional concerns. Developing organisms are uniquely vulnerable to phthalate exposures, and in particular, the developing male reproductive tract appears to be the most sensitive organ system. Abnormal development of the testes, penis, and other components of the male reproductive tract occurs at levels of exposure that are hundreds or thousands of times lower than those necessary to cause damage in adults.” [Emphasis added]
In animal tests, DBP - dibutyl phthalate - has been shown to produce detrimental effects. The US based Environmental Working Group[35], a non-profit environmental research organization, found that: “DBP is a developmental and reproductive toxin that in lab animals causes a broad range of birth defects and lifelong reproductive impairment in males [when] exposed in utero and shortly after birth. DBP damages the testes, prostate gland, epididymus, penis, and seminal vesicles. These effects persist throughout the animal's life." In fact men who enjoy chugging down a can of beer or sucking on bottled water might be feeling the after effects in the bedroom if what a group of Chinese researchers found is correct.
Interviewer: What do you mean?
QE: As I mentioned before that the plastic linings of food and beverage cans contain BPA. Researchers in China conducted a five year study of 634 male workers from four Chinese factories where exposure to BPA was significant. Researchers then compared the incidence of sexual dysfunction among these men with a control group who did not have workplace exposure to BPA. The result: The men who were exposed to the BPA were four times more likely to suffer from erectile dysfunction and seven times as likely to have difficulty with ejaculation. Moreover, it didn't take long periods of exposure for the sexual problems to kick in. Indeed, men who worked in the factories only a matter of months appeared to be as affected as those who spent years being exposed to the chemical.[36] I wonder if this is the reason for the noticeable increase in advertising offering men the opportunity to pop a pill to help them with erectile dysfunction, a disorder that has become one of the many epidemics in our new plastic world.
Interviewer: So you are saying that food stored in plastic can becomes contaminated with the chemicals contained in plastics?
QE: An interesting article "Are Plastic Food and Beverage Containers Safe?" [37] by James Ferrel mentions a study released in 2003 by Croatian scientists:
"In 2003 a group of Croatian scientists reported that phthalates in plastics dissolved in various solutions. They used a variety of plastic items, including plastic food containers. After 10 days of sitting in distilled water, an average of 55.4 mg/ of phthalates from each kilogram of plastic ‘migrated’ into the water. To a lesser degree the phthalates from plastics dissolved into acetic acid 3% (44.4 mg/kg) and 10% ethyl alcohol (32.3 mg/kg)."
The article then points out: "Fatty foods in plastic containers are even more problematic, as fats are absorbed differently and carry their phthalate solvents into our bodies more easily. Phthalates bio-accumulate because of their fat solubility. Phthalates concentrate in such fat organs in our bodies such as brains, prostates, testicles, ovaries, breasts and, unfortunately, breast milk. (The other popular food alternatives for infants are worse. Commercial baby formulas are loaded with the manmade phthalates.)"
It is also interesting to note that a study examining the association between employment in the plastics industry and infertility found higher incidences of infertility among women working in the plastics industry.[38]
Not only can phthalates apparently affect women’s fertility but if expectant mothers are exposed to this chemical during pregnancy, they may then feminize their unborn male babies.
A BBC News article [39] last November covering research at the University of Rochester in the UK showed that two types of phthalates can affect boys play behaviour and can make boys more like girls. Elizabeth Salter-Green, head of the British group CHEMTrust, called the chemicals “true gender benders”, and said parents should be concerned about the impact on their children. The news item stated that there "are many different types and some mimic the female hormone oestrogen." and that: "Phthalates have the ability to disrupt hormones" and "impact on the developing brain, by knocking out the action of the male hormone testosterone."
The Telegraph, a UK publication, also had an article on the above research and stated: “Scientists at the University of Rochester in New York discovered that boys born to women exposed to phthalates had smaller penises and other feminisation of the genitals.” [40]
One must wonder what researchers would find if they investigated the relationship of the impact of these chemicals in regards to sexual orientation in males and whether there was a connection between these chemicals and what appears to be the increasing incidence of homosexuality; it would be logical to conclude that feminised males would be more susceptible to a homosexual lifestyle.
Interviewer: So you think that phthalates could affect a child’s sexual orientation as it develops? QE: I suspect there could very well be a connection.
While a number of phthalates have a feminising effort on boys there is a growing body of scientific evidence suggesting that the other chemical I previously mentioned Bisphenol A, commonly referred to as BPA, is masculinising girls.
One of the latest studies involving BPA reported by USA Today [41] stated:
"In the study of 249 pregnant women, the first to examine the effects of BPA on children's behavior, researchers found that girls whose mothers had the highest levels of BPA during pregnancy were more aggressive and hyperactive at age 2 than other girls. Findings appear today in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
"Girls were more likely to be aggressive if their mothers had high levels of BPA - an estrogen-like chemical used in many consumer products - early in pregnancy or at about 16 weeks, the study says."
While BPA apparently makes young females more aggressive it is interesting to note that the above study showed “evidence of increased depression and anxiousness among BPA-exposed boys.” [42
Interviewer: How long has BPA been used in plastics?
QE: I believe that BPA was invented 1891 but it wasn't until the 1930’s that scientists discovered that BPA was an artificial estrogen and its use soon after began as a pharmaceutical hormone. Another drug, diethylstilbestrol aka DES was invented in 1938 which was a stronger estrogen mimic then BPA; in 1941 the US FDA approved DES which resulted in BPA being shelved. I believe in was in the early 1950’s that it was discovered that adding BPA to certain plastics gave them strength and thus BPA once again had a commercial use.
It should be noted that BPA has been suspected of being hazardous to humans since the 1930s and yet it appears that this was kept from the public’s attention until recent times when independent researchers learnt of BPA’s insidious influence upon the human body.
Interviewer: You say “insidious influence” could you elaborate briefly?
QE: I will give you a few highlights from what researchers have discovered which you can easily verify:
· Low doses of the environmental contaminant bisphenol A (BPA), widely used to make many plastics found in food storage containers, including feeding bottles for infants, can impair brain function, leading to learning disabilities and age–related neurodegenerative diseases, according to Yale researchers and colleagues. "These data heighten concerns about the potential long–term consequences of human BPA exposure," said Neil J. MacLusky of Helen Hayes Hospital, who conducted the study with Csaba Leranth, M.D., professor in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences and in the Department of Neurobiology at Yale School of Medicine. Leranth's group, which also included Tibor Hajszan, M.D., a research scientist at Yale, found that low doses of BPA in female rats inhibit estrogen–induction of synaptic connections in the hippocampus, an area of the brain involved with expression of sexually differentiated behaviours, as well as with formation and retention of memory.[43] [Emphasis added] · Hugh Taylor, MD, professor and chief of the reproductive endocrinology section at Yale University School of Medicine and his co-workers at Yale injected pregnant mice with a low dose of BPA on pregnancy days 9 to 16. After the mice gave birth, the scientists analyzed the uterus of female offspring and extracted DNA. They found that BPA exposure during pregnancy had a lasting effect on one of the genes that is responsible for uterine development and subsequent fertility in both mice and humans (HOXA10). Furthermore, these changes in the offspring's uterine DNA resulted in a permanent increase in estrogen sensitivity.[44] [Emphasis added] · The contaminant bisphenol-A (BPA)--widely used to make many plastics found in food storage containers and dental products - can have long-term effects in female development, according to a recent study by Yale School of Medicine researchers. . . Taylor explained that if pregnant women are exposed to the estrogen-like properties found in BPA, it may impact female reproductive tract development and the future fertility of female foetuses the mother is carrying. In addition to this new link to fertility and reproductive health, previous findings by Csaba Leranth, M.D., also in Yale Ob/Gyn, found that low doses of BPA in female rats inhibited estrogen induction in the brain. This can lead to learning impairment and, in old age, the onset of neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease.[45] [Emphasis added] · Bisphenol A, a chemical widely used in plastics and known to cause reproductive problems in the offspring of pregnant mice exposed to it, also has been found to retard the growth of follicles of adult mice and hinder their production of steroid hormones, researchers report. Their study is the first to show that chronic exposure to low doses of BPA can impair the growth and function of adult reproductive cells. The researchers will describe their findings this month at the annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Reproduction. A healthy, mature follicle, called an antral follicle, includes a single egg cell surrounded by layers of cells and fluid which support the egg and produce steroid hormones, said University of Illinois veterinary biosciences professor Jodi Flaws, who led the study with graduate student Jackye Peretz. "These are the only follicles that are capable of ovulating and so if they don't grow properly they're not going to ovulate and there could be fertility issues," Flaws said. "These follicles also make sex steroid hormones, and so if they don't grow properly you're not going to get proper amounts of these hormones." Such hormones are essential for reproduction, she said, "but they're also required for healthy bones, a healthy heart and a healthy mood." [46] [Emphasis added] · When it comes to Bisphenol A (BPA) exposure from polycarbonate plastic bottles, it's not whether the container is new or old but the liquid's temperature that has the most impact on how much BPA is released, according to University of Cincinnati (UC) scientists. Scott Belcher, PhD, and his team found when the same new and used polycarbonate drinking bottles were exposed to boiling hot water, BPA, an environmental estrogen, was released 55 times more rapidly than before exposure to hot water. "Inspired by questions from the climbing community, we went directly to tests based on how consumers use these plastic water bottles and showed that the only big difference in exposure levels revolved around liquid temperature: Bottles used for up to nine years released the same amount of BPA as new bottles." [47] [Emphasis added] · A new study from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) researchers found that participants who drank for a week from polycarbonate bottles - the popular, hard-plastic drinking bottles and baby bottles - showed a two-thirds increase in their urine of the chemical bisphenol A (BPA). Exposure to BPA, used in the manufacture of polycarbonate and other plastics, has been shown to interfere with reproductive development in animals and has been linked with cardiovascular disease and diabetes in humans. "We found that drinking cold liquids from polycarbonate bottles for just one week increased urinary BPA levels by more than two-thirds. If you heat those bottles, as is the case with baby bottles, we would expect the levels to be considerably higher. This would be of concern since infants may be particularly susceptible to BPA's endocrine-disrupting potential," said Karin B. Michels, associate professor of epidemiology at HSPH and Harvard Medical School and senior author of the study.[48] [Emphasis added] · In 1988, Patricia Hunt was conducting a routine experiment in her lab at Case Western Reserve University when she ran into an unforeseen complication. All of a sudden, the geneticist noticed that 40 percent of the eggs of mice in her control group - the group she was not experimenting on - had defects in chromosome behaviour, the kind of defects that can lead to genetic errors like Down syndrome in humans, and that normally occur in just 1 to 2 percent of all mouse eggs. . . Ultimately, Hunt and her colleagues traced the problem back to the plastic cages the mice inhabited. Just before the spike in egg abnormalities, they discovered, a lab technician had accidentally washed the cages with a harsh detergent that caused the plastic to begin breaking down.[49] [Emphasis added] · Researchers at Yale School of Medicine now have a clearer understanding of why synthetic estrogens such as those found in many widely-used plastics have a detrimental effect on a developing foetus, cause fertility problems, as well as vaginal and breast cancers. . . Pregnant women are frequently exposed to other similar substances with estrogen-like properties, such as Bisphenol-A (BPA). BPA is found in common household plastics and has recently been linked to long-term fertility problems. Like DES, these other substances may also impact female reproductive tract development and the future fertility of female foetuses.[50] [Emphasis added]
It is also interesting to note that an association between BPA and an increased risk of miscarriage has also been found.[51] BPA exposure is linked to an error in cell division called aneuploidy, which causes 10-20% of all birth defects in people, including Down Syndrome. In studies with mice, BPA causes aneuploidy even at extremely low doses.[52] Now I should explain that aneuploidy is an error in cell division that results in cells having the wrong number of chromosomes. In some cases there is a missing chromosome, while in others an extra. Most cases of aneuploidy result in spontaneous miscarriage of the foetus, but those babies that survive to birth after aneuploidy are born with birth defects.
Interviewer: Surely with all the evidence available manufacturers using BPA would be looking for a safe alternative and be warning consumers of the dangers?
QE: Maybe so in a perfect world. For a start the global production of bisphenol A in 2003 was estimated to be over 2 million tonnes [53] and that the amount of BPA used in the US is equivalent to six pounds per habitant per year[54] thus the production of BPA is a multi-billion dollar industry and its continued production and use is supported by some very powerful interests. Of course the manufacturers of BPA and those with a vested interest in its use have responded to concern about health risks by criticizing the evidence as controversial, limited and overblown.
Take for example an article that appeared in The Washington Post exposing how big businesses interests were planning a strategy to counteract a growing public concern over the dangers associated with BPA.
"According to internal notes of a private meeting, obtained by The Washington Post, frustrated industry executives huddled for hours Thursday trying to figure out how to tamp down public concerns over the chemical bisphenol A, or BPA. The notes said the executives are particularly concerned about the views of young mothers, who often make purchasing decisions for households and who are most likely to be focused on health concerns. . . Industry representatives weighed a range of ideas, including ‘using fear tactics [e.g. 'Do you want to have access to baby food anymore?' as well as giving control back to consumers (e.g. you have a choice between the more expensive product that is frozen or fresh or foods packaged in cans) as ways to dissuade people from choosing BPA-free packaging,' the notes said...The attendees estimated it would cost $500,000 to craft a message for a public relations campaign, according to the notes. ‘Their 'holy grail' spokesperson would be a 'pregnant young mother who would be willing to speak around the country about the benefits of BPA,' the notes said." [55] [Emphasis added]
Interviewer: Are you claiming that vested interests are hiding the dangers of BPA from the public…surely a number of people would consider such a statement as outrageous?
QE: An outrageous statement…well to the naïve person it may appear so, but if one has a understanding of how all these big businesses are linked to those powerful elites pushing for population reduction then it does not appear to sound all that outrageous at all. Now whether or not there is a conspiracy on behalf of these elites to cover up the impact of these estrogen type chemicals I am unable to say with any certainty as I have not researched that angle. But never-the-less one should not dismiss such a possibility taking into account the links between the main manufactures of BPA in the US such as, Bayer MaterialScience, Dow Chemical Company, SABIC Innovative Plastics - formerly GE Plastics - Hexion Specialty Chemicals, and Sunoco Chemicals and their link to such organisations as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission; organisations that, as I have previously stated, support and promote population reduction.
Now when we look at phthalates we find also that the manufacturing of this group of chemicals is also a multibillion dollar enterprise. If we look at Western Europe for example we find that over one million tons of phthalates are produced there each year.[56] Of course any talk of phthalates being dangerous to humans is vigorously countered by vested interests in the manufacturing and marketing of phthalates. A good example would be when researchers discovered a link between prenatal exposure to the phthalates DEHP and DBP. The European Council for Plasticisers and Intermediates, aka ECPI, issued a press release stating that this research “claiming to show prenatal exposure to DEHP and DBP has feminising effect on young boys should be treated with extreme caution”.[57]
Interviewer: What is the ECPI exactly?
QE: It is a Brussels-based trade association representing the common interests of European manufacturers of plasticisers. The ECPI's membership consists of nine major European manufacturers such as Arkema, BASF AG, Evonik Oxeno GmbH, ExxonMobil Chemical in Europe, OXEA GmbH, Oxochimie, and Perstorp Oxo AB. Of course it should be realised that the ECPI is just a public relations front, or if you wish to be blunt a propaganda organisation, for a much larger trade body the CEFIC - the European Chemical Industry Council - which represents the views and interests of the European chemical industry at a European Union level.
Of course
a quick study of the seven major European manufacturers of
phthalates I just mentioned reveals that at least some of the top
executives and major share-holders in these companies have a close
relationship to such organisations as the Club of Rome, the Council
on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderberg
Group. Of course I have to emphasise again that these organisations
I just mention, the Club of Rome, the Council on Foreign Relations,
and the Trilateral Commission, are all obsessed with population
reduction. Interviewer: How extensive are these connections?
QE: During my research I stumbled across a number of interesting connections but as of yet I have not had the time to do an in-depth investigation.
Interviewer: Do you intend to follow this up?
QE: If or when I get the time I most probable will; at the moment though I haven’t the time as I am involved in a number of other projects.
Interviewer: You stated that BPA apparently makes young females more aggressive …now I’m a bit confused here. I thought that the male hormone testosterone is usually associated with aggression…can a compound that is estrogenic increase aggressiveness in females?
QE: Although estrogen is often considered a
“female hormone,” it actually helps to “masculinise” the male brain
around the 11th and 12th weeks of pregnancy.
Interviewer: But what you have just stated would it be too far fetch to consider that man-made chemicals could also be increasing the incidence of lesbianism?
QE: That is a very good point. I remember stating in the "Questions & Answers: August 2007" that according to research “polycystic ovarian syndrome is twice as common in lesbians.” When I was doing research into the impact of the various chemicals used in plastics I remembered that “polycystic ovarian syndrome” seem to play a role in lesbianism so I did a bit of checking and discovered a few interesting facts that seemed to point to such a connection.
[NOTE: Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (pronounced pah-lee-SIS-tik) is also referred to as Polycystic Ovarian Disease and Polycystic Ovary Disease]
An association between BPA exposure polycystic ovarian syndrome has been made by Dr. Hugh S. Taylor, M.D., of Yale University, USA.[59]
Japanese scientists found that women with polycystic ovarian syndrome had higher serum levels of BPA relative to women with normal ovarian function, and that there were positive correlations between BPA concentrations and androgen levels (Takeuchi et al. 2006). [60]
Taken in its totality, the range of toxic effects linked to BPA is startlingly similar to the litany of human health problems on the rise or common across the population, including breast and prostate cancer, diabetes, obesity, infertility, and polycystic ovarian syndrome (Myers 2007).[61]
Regarding the link between polycystic ovarian syndrome and lesbianism?
Researchers have found the first evidence that a common cause of infertility in women is more prevalent amongst lesbians than heterosexuals, and they suggest that the biochemical disorder associated with the condition might contribute to the women's sexual orientation. . . Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is the commonest cause of ovarian dysfunction in women and is caused by an imbalance of sex hormones. One of the main features of PCOS is hyperandrogenism [male steroid hormones in women causing excess facial and body hair, deepening of the voice and loss of breast tissue] and now that the researchers have discovered the increased prevalence of PCOS amongst lesbian women they hypothesize that hyperandrogenism could be contributing to the women's sexual orientation.[62]
Researchers found that the prevalence of PCO [polycystic ovaries] was 32% in heterosexual women and 80% in lesbian women.[63]
[Note: The term 'polycystic ovaries' describes the ovaries, as seen on the ultrasound scan. Many women have ovaries that are polycystic, but do not have any of the other symptoms or hormone findings as described previously]
Now I have mentioned a few studies done on the connection between BPA and polycystic ovarian syndrome.
The connection between it all is just a matter of connecting the dots. Well we know that BPA’s are gender benders and we also know that BPA’s are linked to polycystic ovarian syndrome and that the incidence of polycystic ovarian syndrome is much higher among lesbian women. I believe a strong case exists that lesbianism to a large degree is created due to one or more chemical contaminants.
Interviewer: Do you have any idea on how widespread polycystic ovarian syndrome is?
QE: According to the US based Hormone Foundation:[64] "As the leading cause of infertility and the most common hormone disorder among women of childbearing age (15-45) Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) affects as many as 7 million women in the United States alone." The Foundation also list some of the symptoms associated with polycystic ovarian syndrome such as:
· Irregular menstrual cycles - Fewer periods than normal or periods marked by heavy or excessive bleeding · Infertility - Polycystic Ovary Syndrome inhibits a woman’s ability to form eggs in a normal way, which may lead to an inability to conceive
·
Unwanted body or facial
hair growth - Because Polycystic Ovary Syndrome involves the excess
production of androgens, it can lead to thicker and darker facial
hair · Weight gain - Another common symptom of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome is that women gain weight easily while having difficulty taking it off
Another article this time in the UK online magazine Healthy [65] states that: “PCOS is the most common hormonal disorder in women of childbearing age. Up to one in four women in industrialised countries has certain features of the condition and most of them don’t even know it. Symptoms of PCOS typically start in puberty and continue through adulthood, and can range from very mild to severe.” [Emphasis added]
Interviewer: You state a strong case exists that lesbianism to a large degree is created due to one or more chemical contaminants. Do you have any other evidence based on research to add apart from the connection with polycystic ovarian syndrome?
QE: A while ago I came across two interesting documents by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden. In one study using positron emission tomography the researchers studied responses to a testosterone derivative in men's sweat, called AND, and an estrogen-related compound in women's urine, called EST on heterosexual men and women and homosexual men and lesbian women.
In the 2006 study[66] the researchers discovered that when heterosexual women and homosexual men smelled AND their brains showed activity in the anterior hypothalamus, a region of the brain that is highly involved in sexual behaviour but EST only produced activity in the olfactory region of their brains which is the area that processes smells. But when heterosexual men smelled AND it only produced activity in the olfactory region of their brains while EST produced activity in the anterior hypothalamus.
In a second study [67] done in 2007 on lesbian women and positron emission tomography the researchers discovered in contrast to heterosexual women, lesbian women processed AND stimuli by the olfactory networks and not the anterior hypothalamus. Furthermore, when smelling EST, they partly shared activation of the anterior hypothalamus with heterosexual men. The article states that the data supported the researchers’ “previous results about differentiated processing of pheromone-like stimuli in humans and further strengthen the notion of a coupling between hypothalamic neuronal circuits and sexual preferences.”
Interviewer: You say that when smelling EST, they partly shared activation of the anterior hypothalamus with heterosexual men. Any ideas on why this should be so when the results from tests with homosexual men and heterosexual men and women were so cut and dry?
QE: Interesting point. In regards to lesbian women showing similar brain activity to heterosexual men when they inhaled EST the lead researcher, Ivanka Savic, stated:[68] "We can't say whether the differences are because of pre-existing differences in their brains, or if past sexual experiences have conditioned their brains to respond differently." Now this bit about brain conditioning which implies a psychological manipulation ring a bell in my mind regarding what the molecular geneticist and researcher Angela Pattatucci said about lesbianism being “culturally transmitted”.
If it is true that lesbianism can be “culturally transmitted” this would mean, in some women at least, that lesbianism is brought about by psychological conditioning and is not chemically driven.
In regard to this I found a statement by Dr. Dean Hamer,[69] who was at the time, chief of gene structure and regulation at the Laboratory of Biochemistry at the National Cancer Institute in the USA, quite revealing when he said: “Women tend to be more sexually fluid. We've interviewed lesbians who have always identified as lesbian but who fantasize about men.” If what Dr. Hamer says is correct in that women “tend to be more sexually fluid” this would give weight to Angela Pattatucci’s statement that lesbianism can be “culturally transmitted”.
Interviewer: What is the anterior hypothalamus?
QE:
The anterior hypothalamus is part of the
hypothalamus. The hypothalamus is located below the thalamus, just
above the brain stem. In humans, it is roughly the size of an almond
that contains a number of small nuclei with a variety of functions.
One of the most important functions of the hypothalamus is to link
the nervous system to the endocrine system via the pituitary gland.
Interviewer: Right…I understand.
QE: The published results from the 2006 study[70] done by the Karolinska Institute involving lesbian women states:
“In animals, the choice of sexual partner is highly influenced by signals from sex-specific pheromones. These signals are processed by specific nuclei located in the anterior hypothalamus, identified as male and female mating centers. A lesion of the respective mating center as well as impairment of pheromone transduction may alter the coital approach in a sex-specific way. For example, electrolytic lesion of the preoptic area is reported to shift the mean preference of male ferrets away from the estrous females to the stud males. Male rats are found to reduce their coital behavior after destruction of the preoptic area and show more interest in stimulus males than receptive females. Female ferrets, however, preferred females after destruction of the ventromedial hypothalamic nucleus and did not allow males to intromit, whereas female rats increased the proportion of female approaches after kindling of the preoptic area.” [Emphasis added]
[The preoptic area is a region of the hypothalamus. According to the MeSH classification, it is considered part of the anterior hypothalamus.]
[The ventromedial hypothalamic nucleus is a nucleus of the middle hypothalamus, the largest cell group of the tuberal region with small-to-medium size cells.]
Now it was this reference to damage to the “preoptic area” changing the sexual orientation of animals that made me think about the possibility of damage to the hypothalamus in humans also affecting their sexual orientation.
I came across an article in The Advocate [71] that mentioned a study by Simon LeVay that showed that the anterior hypothalamus was twice as large in straight men as in gay men. I tracked an article down [72] relating to this research and it stated that LeVay had “found that a particular cluster of cells in the forefront of the hypothalamus was, on average, less than half as large in the brains of homosexual men as in their heterosexual counterparts.” It also mentioned that “the hypothalamus is known as the seat of the emotions and sexual drives.”
Now being cautious I looked for more similar research to see that if after researchers had reached the same conclusion. I found an interesting article entitled "Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture" by Ryan D. Johnson [73] that mentioned two other studies. One in 1990 by D.F. Swaab who “became the first to document a physiological difference in the anatomical structure of a gay man's brain. Swaab found in his post-mortem examination of homosexual males' brains that a portion of the hypothalamus of the brain was structurally different than a heterosexual brain. The hypothalamus is the portion of the human brain directly related to sexual drive and function.” The other study by scientist Laura S. Allen around the same time as Swaab’s also made a similar discovery.
Now it appeared logical to me that if the anterior hypothalamus plays a part in sexual preference, to consider the possibility that the anterior hypothalamus could be compromised by chemicals originating outside of the body i.e. Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals.
A bit of searching found an interesting study [74] by L. Monje, et al, which examined the effects of neonatal exposure to the endocrine disruptor bisphenol A, also referred to as BPA, on the hypothalamic circuitry controlling the female sexual behaviours of adult rats. The study concluded that; “Our results show that BPA permanently alters the hypothalamic estrogen-dependent mechanisms that govern sexual behavior in the adult female rat.” [Emphasis added]
Another study [75] by T. Funabashi, et al, dealing with rats stated; "The present study suggests that BPA influences reproductive functions, including sexual behaviour even in adulthood, by altering the PR system in the hypothalamus." [Emphasis added]
In the article by Ryan D. Johnson [76] which I mentioned previously he states:
“The neuroendocrine viewpoint's basic hypothesis is that sexual orientation is determined by the early levels (probably prenatal) of androgen on relevant neural structures.[77] If highly exposed to these androgens, the fetus will become masculinized, or attracted to females. This research was conducted on rats at Stanford. The adult female rats that received male-typical levels of androgens sufficiently early in development exhibited male symptoms of attraction. The same was true in the reverse when applied to the male subjects. The female exposed to high levels of the hormone exhibited high levels of aggression and sexual drive toward other females, eventually trying to mount the other females in an act of reproduction. In the males, the subject who received deficient levels of androgen became submissive in matters of sexual drive and reproduction and were willing to receive the sexual act of the other male rat.[78]” [Emphasis added]
Even though the researchers used rats it should be remembered that the hypothalamus has the same function in all mammals.
QE: Androgens come in two chief forms,
testosterone and
androstenedione, that stimulates
or controls the development and maintenance of masculine
characteristics
Now another researcher, A.E. Taylor [79] states :
"Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a
common reproductive disorder that is first clinically diagnosable
approximately 3 years after menarche. Women with PCOS
It was on reading this and taking into account that it has been claimed that up to one in four women in industrialised countries has certain features of polycystic ovary syndrome that I wondered about the effects this would have on male-female relationships.
Interviewer: What do you mean by this?
QE:
I know for example women in the
US[80]
initiate divorce twice as often as men and that men are initially
more negative about divorce than women and devote more energy in
attempting to salvage the marriage. The numbers of female solo
parents has increased dramatically over the last three decades or
so. Women have become more aggressive…I suppose some people might
use the term “more liberated”.
Interviewer: Are there
any “safe levels” regarding Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals? QE: Research has shown that Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals - EDC's - like hormones themselves require very minute amounts to have physiologic impact. Now it should be heeded that EDC's are active in parts per trillion! For example, the usual adult maintenance dose of levothyroxine, a synthetic form of thyroxine to replace depleted natural thyroid hormone in hypothyroidism, is I believe 1.6 micrograms per kilo of body weight a day. Now I remember reading somewhere that American children can consume several milligrams of phthalate each day. Now a milligram is a thousand times as much as a microgram. Why would anyone consider that a dose in the milligrams of a known EDC would be safe, especially for a child or developing foetus?
Animal testing has shown that exposure to even small amounts of BP, as an example - lower than the levels found in the typical human - can lead to prostate cancer and breast cancer. Of course the companies involved in the manufacture and selling of these EDC’s claim that low level exposure is safe but a number of researchers claim the opposite.
Of course what we have to take into consideration is the fact that humans are exposed to more than one endocrine disruptor at a time and, therefore, that synergistic effects cannot be excluded. As an example research done by the USA Environmental Protection Agency’s Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory found that mixing together two types of phthalates at theoretically safe levels triggered mutations in the reproductive organs of rat foetuses. Now from what I understand mixtures of phthalates are commonly found in many products including children's toys.
Now what would the effects be
from the contamination of three or four different phthalates; would
the synergistic effect be far greater then the results of just
combining two? Looking at the research done, although it could be
claimed it is limited, I would have to err on the side of safety and
say that no safe level of contamination can be set.
Oops…nearly forgot. Then we have
the influence of soy and soy containing foods and their proven
gender bending effects. Now one good article on soy is "Soy is
making kids 'gay'” by Jim Rutz.[81] · The root sex problem is that soy is loaded with isoflavones, plant estrogens that operate like human female estrogen, which occurs naturally in our bodies, male and female. These "phytoestrogens" cause serious developmental problems. They're only 1/1,000th to 1/1,200th the potency of human estrogen, ounce for ounce, but it's common for babies to consume them in such large quantities that they overwhelm their bodies' delicate testosterone-estrogen balance, leaving their victim – male or female – with a wild variety of lifelong symptoms, sometimes even disfigurement.[82]-[83]-[84]-[85] · Toxicologists estimate that an infant fed exclusively on soy formula is getting the equivalent of three to five birth control pills per day.[86] One study found that soy-fed babies had 13,000 to 22,000 times more estrogen in their blood than milk-fed babies.[87] · One percent of U.S. girls are now growing breasts or pubic hair before age three. By age eight, either of these two abnormalities is appearing among 14.7 percent of white girls and a staggering 48.3 percent of black girls.[88] Why so many black girls? Probably because they are more likely to be given soy infant formula. They are being robbed of their girlhood. Soy formula-fed girls are also more likely to have lifelong menstrual problems (primarily longer and more painful periods), hormonal changes associated with infertility, and other health problems.[89] · The situation is just as bad for boys. Boy babies fed soy formula may go into puberty late or not at all. Some of these boys are so feminized that their breasts grow but their penises don't. Some mature into adults with penises not much bigger than the ones they were born with! Others might look normal and go through puberty on time, but can't father children because their sperm are too few in number or poor swimmers and thus unable to fertilize eggs.[90] · Paediatricians are seeing so many over-estrogenized boys today with breasts, delayed puberty and /or behavioural problems that they've come up with the terms "Developmental Estrogenization Syndrome" and "Testicular Dysgenesis Syndrome" [91] · It's not just the sex organs that are affected during the key developmental phases of pregnancy and infancy. The brain, too, can be irrevocably changed by excess estrogens, which suppress testosterone. That may contribute to altered sexual behaviour and sexual preference. Estrogenized males of many species are more likely to suffer from ADD/ADHD and even to perform more like females on tests.[92]-[93]-[94] · One out of every 125 male babies is now born with the once-rare condition called hypospadias, a gruesome malformity of the penis in which the urethra opening lies somewhere along the underside of the penile shaft instead of at its end.[95] The penis is also shorter – 2.6 inches shorter in the more severe cases. Overall, the malformity is associated with homosexuality; one small study showed that 7.6 percent of the control (healthy) subjects were exclusively homosexual compared with 20.3 percent of those with hypospadias (plus another 15.5 percent who were bisexual).[96]
Now I have given what I consider the major points on the dangers of soy in a condense form. If you wish to educate yourself further I would suggest starting at a New Zealand site called SoyOnLine or visit the US site called The Weston A. Price Foundation.
Now the ability of soy to decrease Testosterone levels has been well demonstrated. One study displayed a 76% reduction of Testosterone production in men, after ingestion of soy protein over a brief period of time.[97] In yet another study, an inverse association was found between soy protein intake and Testosterone levels in Japanese men.[98]
In both men and women high estrogen creates infertility.[99]
Now if shooting blanks is worrisome, how about being unable to shoot at all? Two other recently published papers reveal that at least one soy component clearly impairs erectile function in animals -and may do so in men as well. The studies, published in the Journal of Andrology and Urology respectively, looked at the effect of daidzein on the sexual function of male rats. Moderate doses of the phyto-estrogen administered either in youth or adulthood significantly affected the quality of their erections. Among other changes, the daidzein-exposed males produced less testosterone, had softer erections, and experienced biochemical changes to their penile tissues that left these tissues less elastic and less capable of complete blood engorgement. The studies, published in the Journal of Andrology and Urology respectively, looked at the effect of daidzein on the sexual function of male rats. Moderate doses of the phyto-estrogen administered either in youth or adulthood significantly affected the quality of their erections. Among other changes, the daidzein-exposed males produced less testosterone, had softer erections, and experienced biochemical changes to their penile tissues that left these tissues less elastic and less capable of complete blood engorgement. While acknowledging that rat results do not always directly translate to humans, the authors of the first study suggest that this time there's reason to believe they will. They cite, among other things, a ten percent higher incidence of erectile dysfunction in Chinese men known to consume high amounts of soy compared with men who avoid it.[100]
Studies show an alarming number of men who, post puberty, never develop an increase in the flaccid size of their penis.[101] Patients with hypospadias have a total flaccid penile length of less than 4 centimeters. This has serious implications in reproduction and in self-esteem for males. In reproduction, when the shaft of the penis is longer, sperm have less of a distance to travel post ejaculation. This is a problem that comes to fruition only after puberty; thus, ingestion of phytoestrogens even after birth, during the pre-pubertal years, can cause reduced development of the penile shaft.[102]
Soy can cause gynecomastia which is the development of abnormally large mammary glands in males resulting in breast enlargement.[103]
Now just recently I found out that the chemicals in soy can also cause "significant testicular cell death." [104]
Interviewer: If soy is as bad as you have stated why is it promoted as being healthy? Also we are told that soy has always been part of the Asian diet.
QE: Of course those with a vested interest in the promotion of soy will present a different picture and come-up with all sorts of statistics to create confusion over the claims that soy is harmful in the quantities being consumed in the West. While male fertility has been in decline in the West for several decades the levels of soy have risen steadily in the Western diet since the nineteen-forties. The soy industry has developed into a multi-billion dollar enterprise with soy-based products found in two-thirds of manufactured food including biscuits, sweets, pasta and bread, according to the Institute of Food Research in Norwich in the UK.[105]. Sixty percent of the refined foods in U.S. supermarkets now contain soy and the percentage is rising.[106] Australia and New Zealand also appear to be on par with the UK and the US.
Researchers have shown that isoflavones in soy mimic the female sex hormone estrogen, and that these isoflavones found in soy are Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals; there is no doubt about this fact. Now we are meant to believe that if a male consumes Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals this will not have any affect while he is developing in his mother's womb, or if he consumes Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals while growing up this won't have any effect on him? I'm afraid the evidence from independent researchers shows there is a danger not only to the male but also the female in regards to these EDCs. So who do we listen to when fears are raised over its safety; those with a vested interest in the product or independent researchers who have no vested interest in the product?
Now that bit about the Asian diet. The Asians never ate as much soy as Westerners think. People in some Asian countries have consumed soy but this was only in small portions as a condiment or a supplement with a meal i.e. soy sauce, miso, and natto, etc. Traditionally, soy plants were ploughed under in fields as fertilizer and soy was only consumed in quantity by the poor in times of famine.
Writings
about the soybean date back to 3000 B.C., when the Emperor of China
listed the virtues of soybean plants for regenerating the soil for
future crops. Note his praises centred on the root of the plant, not
the bean. About 1000 B.C. the Chinese discovered that the process of
fermentation neutralised the toxins present and made the nutrients
in the beans available to the body; this process lead to the
creation of the still popular foods tempeh, miso, natto, and of
course soy sauce. Some time later another process was discovered
that involved coagulating soy, which left most of the toxins in the
discarded liquid, and then pressing the resulting curds into blocks.
It should be noted that the fermentation process only neutralises the natural toxins or "anti-nutrients" which are potent enzyme inhibitors that block the action of trypsin and other enzymes needed for protein digestion; the fermentation process does not neutralise the isoflavones in soy that mimic the female sex hormone estrogen. The same with the process for coagulating soy; this process removes most of the natural toxins found in soy but does not remove the isoflavones found in soy.
Now it is my understanding that up to relatively modern times the only time Asians ate unprocessed Soya beans was in an act of desperation during periods of famine.
Interviewer: So fermented products made from Soya beans are not harmful?
QE: With fermented soy foods, a little goes a long way. The nutrients found in miso, tempeh, and natto can be beneficial in the moderate amounts found in the typical Asian diet, but have the potential to do harm in higher amounts. In China and Japan, about an ounce of fermented soy food is eaten on a daily basis. When fermented soy foods are used in small amounts they help build the inner ecosystem, providing a wealth of friendly micro-flora to the intestinal tract that can help with digestion and assimilation of nutrients, and boost immunity.[107] Of course nowadays the biggest problems associated with fermented soy products comes from the origin of the soy itself as a major percentage of Soya beans grown are now genetically modified and it is possible that this unnatural modified products may have unknown long-term consequences on fertility.
Interviewer: If the decline in fertility is as serious as it appears why isn’t action being done to investigate its cause and try to reverse the trend before it’s too late?
QE: Why solve this “problem” when the intention is to drastically reduce the world’s population numbers? Now before I go further let’s take a quick look at how soy was introduced into the diet of the Western world.
On of the first Westerners to
spend a significant amount of time in East Asia studying soy foods
was a Dr. Artemy Alexis Horvath, a Russian scientist. In 1923
Horvath joined the staff of the Peking University Medical College (PUMC)
established by the Rockefeller
Foundation. Working under a
Rockefeller grant, he was put in charge of a new soybean research
laboratory and program, which soon began to generate a
number of publications on soy foods and nutrition.[108]
Horvath was the author of numerous
“scientific” articles about soy foods and wrote a number of books;
his most famous “The Soybean as Human Food,” published in Peking in
1927.
Interviewer: You say that Dr. Horvath was Russian? It’s not a very Russian sounding name.
QE: Dr. Horvath was born in Russia but from what I understand the surname Horvath is Jewish. Now according to the SoyInfo Center, in the US, Horvath worked steadily to help introduce soy-foods, especially soy flour and oil to America and goes on to say that Horvath had deep knowledge on the subject of Soya beans. Apparently Horvath‘s research was quite extensive because in 1926 he published "Changes in the Blood Composition of Rabbits Fed on Raw Soybeans," in which is mentioned the fact that rabbits developed kidney swelling when fed a diet of soaked raw soybeans.
The
interesting question now arise as to why The Rockefellers would
finance a researcher to write various publications praising the
virtues of a bean that at the time was used as an industrial crop in
the US? After all it was not like the US was short of food and
needed a miracle crop to fight-off starvation, in fact at this time
the US was producing more food than it could consume. Interviewer: An industrial crop?
QE: Up until the nineteen-thirties Soya beans were grown for their oil which was used for a number of industrial purposes.
Now the now questions arise: Did Horvath with his deep knowledge on the subject of Soya beans know that soy reduced fertility and could cause infertility? Did Horvath with his deep knowledge on the subject of Soya beans know that soy had a feminism effect on males and could affect a male’s sexual orientation? Was this the reason why the Rockefeller Foundation financed Horvath’s research in China and later on in the US?
It is interesting to note that the decline in fertility in the West did not start until after the introduction of soy. It is also interesting to note that as soy consumption has increased since the seventies so has infertility and the apparent increase in sexual disorientation and sexual abnormality. This is backed-up by a Japanese researcher, M. Fukutake, who makes a connection between consumption of soy products and a decrease in sperm counts.[111] In his 1996 paper, wherein he noted the fact that affluent nations with increasing reductions in sperm counts have been consuming increasing quantities of soy and products containing soy.
It is interesting to note that soy protein has been pushed as the solution to low-cost feeding of the masses.[112] Of course we know the contempt the Rockefellers and their ilk have towards the Masses e.g. dumb, stupid animals, useless eaters, tacky poor people – the bottom feeders at the wrong end of the wealth pyramid.
Now you might be prepared to give the Rockefellers the benefit of the doubt, but I am too cynical to do so, especially knowing the history of the Rockefellers and their connections to eugenics and population control.
Interviewer: Well…based on my knowledge of the Rockefellers and what you have stated previously about population reduction I can see the logic in your conclusion.
QE: Now I am not claiming that soy is solely responsible for the decline in fertility; the evidence also points to the Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals found in plastics are also contributing factors.
Taking the rate of decline in fertility over the last two decades it would not be unreasonable to consider the possibility of a synergistic effect between the consummation of products containing soy and the Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals in plastic. Whether studies have been done regarding this I do not know. I certainly haven’t come across any such research during my investigations.
Oops nearly forgot to mention that artificial sweeteners have also been associated with infertility.
Aspartame, also known under the brand names as Equal, NutraSweet, Equal-Measure, Spoonful, has been shown in a number of studies to “reduced fertility in both males and females - shrunken testes and ovaries were seen in the original studies by the makers of aspartame... we see reduction in the gonadotrophins-ICSH, FSH, LH and prolactin. In addition there are direct effects on the sperm and ova." [113]
Splenda also known as sucralose has been linked to increased male infertility and in experiments has caused infertility issues in both male and female rats.
Interviewer: But I thought that Splenda is made from ordinary cane sugar?
QE: Splenda is in fact a synthetic chemical made from sucrose a.k.a. sugar by adding three chlorine molecules to the sucrose molecule. So in fact Splenda is a synthetic sugar molecule that does not occur in nature, and therefore your body does not possess the ability to properly metabolise it.
Now I
don't wish to come across as being paranoid but when one
investigates the history of the companies involved in soy, the
promotion of fluoridation, and artificial sweeteners in the US, one
discovers a connection with various private organisations that also
support population reduction, such as the
Council on Foreign Relations.
As I said before why solve this “problem” of falling infertility and sexual dysfunction when the intention is to drastically reduce the world’s population numbers? After all, all we hear is that the world has a PROBLEM because there are too many people. Even recently an article in the Dominion Post [114] on a newly released UN Population report stated “urgent action has to be undertaken to reduce fertility rates.” Now I would like to comment on this article and then I would like to explain the hidden purpose behind the plans to reduce CO2 emissions.
Interviewer: Please go ahead.
QE: The article based on the UN Population report stated: “It revealed that, contrary to received wisdom, rates of unintended pregnancies were higher in rich countries than in poor ones. In Europe, the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand, an average of 41 per cent of pregnancies were unintended…” Now the purpose of any propaganda is to mislead and this statement even though it might be factual certainly misleads people into thinking that these countries have a population problem when in fact all these countries have a low birth-rate well below replacement rate. But I must give credit where credit is due at least the report admitted that Japan’s population was expected to fall even though it did not acknowledge that Japan’s birth-rate has been below replacement levels for sometime. But on the other hand it stated that the US population was expected to increase without mentioning that the US birth-rate is below replacement levels and that this increase would come from immigration.
Now the article had four paragraphs that I found most revealing:
1. BRITAIN: Investing in birth control to reduce population growth could be more effective in cutting greenhouse gas emissions than building wind turbines or nuclear power stations. [Emphasis added] 2. The report said reducing population growth would allow the 2050 target for global average emissions per person to be increased significantly above two tonnes. [Emphasis added] 3. “No human is genuinely carbon neutral,” the report said. “Therefore, everyone is part of the problem, so everyone must be part of the solution in some way. Each birth results not only in the emission attributable to that person in his or her lifetime, but also the emissions of all his or her descendents.” [Emphasis added] 4. The report said that population growth was only beginning to be recognised as an important topic in international negotiations on climate change. [Emphasis added]
The claim in the report that “population growth was only beginning to be recognised as an important topic” is blatantly untrue as the whole climate change issue right from its conception was a tool to be used to reduce population numbers.
Of course when this is supported by influential writers such as Diane Francis one begins to get an uneasy feeling and begins to wonder where this is all leading, especially when she states [115] that a "planetary law, such as China's one-child policy" is needed and nothing "will work unless a China one-child policy is imposed." Now notice the she says "planetary law”.
If one does an in-depth study on how the over-population myth developed one must conclude that the pre World War Two eugenics movement has been repackaged and presented as saving the world from the ravages of over-population. The whole man-made climate warming myth is just a cloak to disguise the real purpose which is the introduction of a programme of depopulation on a global scale.
Let’s put it this way. If the main players promoting the reduction of carbon dioxide output were Nazis who believe in reducing the numbers of “the tacky poor people" - you know “undesirables” - and the result of the plan they promoted enhanced their agenda to reduce the number of “undesirables” then the Left would be up in arms doing their best to derail the plan along with exposing the Nazis as barbaric. But alas because this plan is hidden under layers of noble causes and promoted by powerful people who have virtually unlimited wealth at their disposal to propagandize their ambitions as a noble course; people who can afford to purchase the best PR people money can buy to front their program, thus many are blinded to the true nature and goals of the plans to reduce CO2 output. The Left and the environmentalists have been duped as “useful idiots”, as Lenin would say, and thus are blinded to the fact that they are being used.
The plan to reduce carbon dioxide output is nothing more then a cover for what can only be referred to as the Final Solution; a hidden plan to reduce the numbers of the “tacky poor” people in the world.
Alas, once the need to reduce CO2
is accepted and policies introduced to bring about this reduction,
this will slowly lead to the introduction of draconian measures. Interviewer: Isn’t that a rather…emotive and a rather extreme statement to make?
QE: It may well be that I spoke in an emotional way but that shouldn’t distract from the points I put across. In regards to the statement being extreme…well…the reality of a situation when put bluntly can sound rather extreme to some people especially if they have no understanding or only a little knowledge of the matter being discussed.
In regards to the average person’s knowledge on the long term impact on their lives from the Master Plan to reduce CO2 output…they have no comprehension.
Have the politicians told the people that the only way CO2 reduction can be implemented is by limiting the carbon footprint of each individual? Has it been explained that the only way this can be accomplished is by issuing a certain number of carbon credits to each individual and tracking their use through a Carbon Card? Do people realise that such a Carbon Card will be in effect an IDENTIFICATION CARD? The only question that now needs answering is whether this ID card will be controlled through a national database or a global database? My feeling is that this Carbon Card will eventually be tied into a global database.
Do people realise that when such
a card is introduced it will not be possible to purchase anything
without first presenting your Carbon Card to allow the carbon
footprint
Taking this a bit further then it would be logical for all businesses to be issue with a carbon identification number to track their carbon footprint, meaning that a business would not be able to trade, i.e. buy and sell, without joining and being compliant to such a scheme.
Of course thinking logically the next step would be do away with cash and have a cashless society in which the Carbon Card is used for all transactions thus eliminating fraud within the system and forcing compliance upon everyone.
Now I suppose what I have just stated would be considered a rather wild and extreme statement to make…but hey, before rejecting what I say, let’s consider a few facts plus look at some highlights from a number of news items and statements from influential people on this matter.
Firstly let’s start with John P. Holdren, who was on December 20, 2008, appointed by US President Obama as Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. In the book "Ecoscience: Population, Resources and Environment," last revised in 1977, which Holdren co-authored together with co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich, he advocates some rather extreme totalitarian measures to control the population. Some of the points in the book:
· Social pressures on both men and women to marry and have children must be removed. Page 786 · The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food. Pages 787 – 788 · Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not. Page 837 · People should be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility. Page 838 · He seems to support what he refers to as a Planetary Regime to control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or non-renewable. He hints at this Planetary Regime being given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and that the Regime should have power to enforce the agreed limits. Pages 942 – 943
Now in an earlier booklet published in 1971, co-authored with Malthusian population alarmist Paul Ehrlich, Holdren predicted that global over-population was heading the Earth to a new ice age unless the government mandated urgent measures to control population, including the possibility of involuntary birth control measures such as forced sterilization.
It is most interesting to note that John P. Holdren is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations[116] From 1991 to 2005, Holdren served as a member of the Board of Trustees of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, helping shape that foundation’s programs on international peace and cooperation, environment, and population [117] with a special focus on Mexico, Nigeria, and Russia.[118]
Now since I have mentioned the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation it should be noted that this same organisation along with the Ford Foundation and the Rockefellers gave financial assistance to the Chinese in the form of research grants to help the Chinese formulate and implement their one child policy.
That aside it should be of interest to note that Holdren also sat on the international advisory board of Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs along side Tom Foley who is the North American chairman of the Trilateral Commission, John M. Deutch who was a former US Director of Central Intelligence, and Nathaniel Rothschild.[119]
Regardless if the alarm bells were rang over global cooling or global warming the underlying concern was and still is over-population and the only solution to the problem was and still is the reduction of population numbers. Now this man Holdren currently holds a very high advisory position in the US government and he has expressed views that are held by many powerful and influential people in the world. What is also of significance is that Holdren talks of the need for a “Planetary Regime” to control population in his book “Ecoscience"
Now this “Planetary Regime” talked about by Holdren over three decades ago appears to be on the verge of becoming a reality if what Lord Christopher Monckton claims is correct. Interviewer: Who is Lord Christopher Monckton?
QE: He is a British politician, business consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, inventor, and hereditary peer. He served as an advisor to Margaret Thatcher's policy unit in the 1980s and invented the Eternity puzzle at the end of the 1990s. More recently, he has attracted controversy for his public opposition to the mainstream scientific consensus on climate change.
As I was about to say… Monckton has warned [120] that the Copenhagen climate change treaty represents a global government power grab on an “unimaginable scale,” which mandates the creation of 700 new bureaucracies as well as a colossal raft of new taxes including two percent levies on both GDP and every international financial transaction. He is quoted as saying; “Once again they are desperately trying to conceal from everybody here the magnitude of what they’re attempting to do – they really are attempting to set up a world government,” adding that the word “government” was no longer used but the process of further centralization of power into global hands was clearly spelled out in the treaty.
Now Monckton's mention of power grab on an “unimaginable scale,” brings to mind that Simon Linnett, the Executive Vice-Chairman of Rothschild, was pushing back at the beginning of 2008 when he called for a new international body, the World Environment Agency, to regulate carbon trading. In a paper entitled "Trading Emissions - Full global potential", for the Social Market Foundation,[121] Linnett argued that the international problem of climate change demands an international solution and that unless governments ceded some of their sovereignty to a new world body that the global carbon trading scheme could not be enforced and regulated.[122]
Now at this point I feel that I have to repeat what I have stated at an earlier time to press home a point about the hoax of man-made climate change and its connection to reducing population numbers.
As I stated in the section “Climate Change” the Director of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology, Christopher Field, had been elected co-chair of Working Group 2 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He was formerly a coordinating lead author on the 2007 IPCC report, Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability to Climate Change but now Field will be leading the group as they develop their next major report on climate change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability, due in 2014.
Now since this Carnegie Institution is supplying the head bureaucrat who is playing a major role in shaping policy that is going to affect most people throughout the world I gave a brief rundown of the Carnegie Institution’s history and the people associated with it. The highlights are as follows:
· It was a private organisation founded by Andrew Carnegie in Washington in 1902 to fund educational, religious, and political organizations to "cultivate the international mind" - the Carnegie Institution was just one of twenty-two different organisations that he created. It should be noted that Andrew Carnegie was a close associate of the Rockefellers. · The first head of the Carnegie Institution was Daniel Coit Gilman who established The Russell Trust in 1856. The Russell Trust is the business name for the Skull and Bones society. Skull and Bones is a secret society based at Yale University, in New Haven, Connecticut. Also known as The Brotherhood of Death, also known as Chapter 322 or simply The Order, the powerful secret society that was established at Yale University for the elite children or grandchildren of the Wall Street Banking Establishment. Therefore it is more than a mere student fraternity for high jinx, as it only recruits from those in their final year at Yale, the potential business and political leaders, and thereafter meets as a conspiratorial "old boys’ network". · It is interesting to note that a 1911 study, financed by the Carnegie Institution, identified eighteen possible methods of implementing eugenics in America and around the world. Gas chambers were deemed to be the most effective method, but it was felt that American society was not yet prepared to accept them. Thus, a number of other eugenic methods were adopted, most notably mass sterilization. American Eugenics was conceived at the onset of the twentieth century and was implemented by America’s wealthiest, most powerful, most learned and most influential individuals and institutions, including the Carnegie Institution and the Rockefeller Foundation. · Robert S. Woodward was president of the Institution from 1904 to 1920, and helped to plan the Second International Congress of Eugenics. · John C. Merriam was president of the Institution from 1921 to 1938. Merriam was a founding member of the Galton Society, founded in New York City in 1918; it was the most overtly racist of the American eugenics organizations. · Caryl P. Haskins was president of the Institution from 1956 to 1971. Haskins was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. · Philip Abelson was president of the Institution from 1971 to1978. Abelson was a member of the United States Association for the Club of Rome. · Richard A. Meserve became the ninth president of the Carnegie Institution in April 2003, after stepping down as chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Meserve is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
But should we be concern about the Carnegie Institution shady history? I suppose this information taken by it self doesn’t prove any future intention. Now we know that the Carnegie Institution has a strong influence on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and we know that the IPCC is joined at the hip with the United Nations Organisation Now when we dig deeper and examine the Unite Nations Organisation we must in all fairness become alert to the possibility that something is amiss.
For example the first director of UNESCO, Julian Huxley, stated on page 21 of the publication he authored in 1946, “UNESCO ITS PURPOSE AND ITS PHILOSOPHY”: "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."
Interviewer: You mention eugenics and population reduction in the same breath…how can you equate them both?
QE: Because eugenics was repackage and presented as a crusade against “over-population”.
Interviewer: Why was eugenics repackaged and how was this done?
QE: According to James Corbett,[123] at of the end of the Second World War the word eugenics had become tainted…I suppose it would be better to say the word eugenics became a dirty word. So a need arose to repackage the whole concept of eugenics and that is what was done. Now how was this done? For example the American Eugenics Society morphed into the Population Council, a group set up by John D. Rockefeller the third, and the British Eugenics Education Society merely changed its name to The Galton Institute. Of course the old battle of fighting “bad genes” was dropped for the new crusade launched against “over-population”.
This fact was highlighted by the feminist author Germaine Greer in her book “Sex and Destiny” when she wrote:
"It now seems strange that men who had been conspicuous in the eugenics movement were able to move quite painlessly into the population establishment at the highest level, but if we reflect that the paymasters were the same - Ford, Mellon, Du Pont, Standard Oil, Rockefeller and Shell - are still the same, we can only assume that people like Kingsley Davis, Frank W. Notestein, C.C. Little, E.A. Ross, the Osborns Frederick and Fairfield, Philip M. Hauser, Alan Guttmacher and Sheldon Segal were being rewarded for past services." [Emphasis added]
Now take for example the name
Frederick Osborn that was just quoted. According to
Eugenics Watch
[124]
he was the dominant figure in the eugenics movement in the United
States. In 1956, he said people
"won't accept the idea that they are in
general, second rate. We must rely on other motivation."
He called the new motivation
Interviewer: Where and when did eugenics originate?
QE: Most people believe that eugenics originated in Nazi Germany but the fact is the concept of eugenics came out of England and was conceived by an Englishman by the name of Francis Galton who was the cousin of Charles Darwin, yes the same Charles Darwin that wrote “Origin of Species” dealing with the Theory of Evolution. It appears that after Darwin published his “Origin of Species” Galton became fascinated with the idea that the "survival of the fittest" did not just take place between species, but within them.
The idea developed into a study of the characteristics of various racial and social groups with an aim to explaining why the various peoples of the world occupy the positions they do. Galton invented the term eugenics in 1883 and set down many of his observations and conclusions in the book "Inquiries into human faculty and its development".
According to James Corbett;[126]
”Unsurprisingly, the promoters of eugenics concluded that the rich and powerful were rich and powerful because they were genetically superior, and it offered a simple solution for improving the lot of humanity: make sure that the affluent upper classes breed as much as possible (preferably within their own families, in order to preserve their superior stock), and make sure the lower classes breed as little as possible.”
It is interesting to note that Galton was knighted in 1909 and thereafter bore the title of Sir Francis Galton, so his views could not have been the repugnant to the British Elite. This is not all the surprising taking into account that eugenics was not aimed at royalty, the aristocracy, or the moneyed elite; it was something to be applied against the Masses, the people at the bottom of the wealth pyramid.
Of course many of the
"respectable" organisations leading this battle against the “burden
of over-population” talk of "reproductive health" which is
politically correct slang for contraception, sterilization, and
abortion. Organisations such as the
Rockefeller Foundation, Ford
Foundation, Gates Foundation,
Kaiser Family Foundation,
WestWind Foundation; the list goes
on and on. And what have all these organisations have in common…for
a start they have all been established by the wealthy elite who
consider themselves like some modern day aristocracy, they are all
involved in promoting various environmental issues, and most if not
all promote "gay rights." Interviewer: You state that the wealthy elite consider themselves like some modern day aristocracy…do you really believe this?
QE: Well I will try and put it in very simple terms so that you can comprehend where I am coming from so-to-speak.
Through my life I have known a number of people who have come from a working class background and who were raised in a working class environment. Of course when they became adults some of them accumulated wealth either from speculative ventures or because they went into some sort of businesses venture. Now I can honestly say that without exception all these people who “bettered themselves” now consider themselves superior then their poorer working class brethren they knew when they were growing up. They have developed a mentality that an individual’s status depends on their wealth. Of course they no longer have any desire to live in a working class area; in fact they want to live in a well-to-do area away from the riff-raff and amongst the “better” people. Of course when these people with the same status get together they complain about the taxes they have to pay and moan about the poorer people in society being a burden on the system.
Now this trait, this feeling of superiority or perceived status based on wealth, is generally exhibited by most people; of course there are a few rare exceptions put generally, from my observation, this feeling of superiority derived from wealth appears to be the rule.
Of course this feeling of superiority based on wealth grows stronger and becomes more dominate as you rise upwards through the wealth pyramid. Now if you divide this wealth pyramid I talk about into various levels or strata representing various ranks of wealth you will find that individuals in the higher levels look upon those in the preceding levels with some degree of disdain.
Of course the higher up the wealth pyramid the more intense this feeling of superiority becomes. Of course within the higher levels of the wealth pyramid the individuals become so full of their perceived importance they believe that they are a sort of aristocracy and act accordingly. These people honestly feel that they are superior and the Masses that they dominate are inferior. Doubt what I say…Well let’s take a quick look to see if there is some substance to what I state.
I suppose we can kick-off with the statement from:
· Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and patron of the World Wildlife Fund, wrote in the foreword to Fleur Cowles 1986 book If I Were an Animal; "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.” Now taking into account that he has four children one most wonder that if he ever got his wish - as being reincarnated as a killer virus - if he would target some of his own children or grandchildren. But I suppose when he made that statement he was thinking more along the lines of targeting the more “poor tacky people” in the world. · And talking of “poor tacky people” brings us to Al Gore. Yes here is a man with a giant carbon footprint, preaching about the need to reduce population numbers, and yet lives in a twenty room mansion and has four children. · David Rockefeller Sr., now deceased, Club of Rome executive member and founder of the Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations member, and attendee of various elitist Bilderberg Group meetings; he had six children.
·
Then we have David
Lionel de Rothschild; head of
Adventure Ecology which describes itself as "a leader in
Education for Sustainable Development". · Next we have the multibillionaire Bill Gates who has three children. · Next is billionaire Maurice F. Strong, world renown environmentalist and population reductionist; he has four children. · And of course we cannot forget to mention CNN founder and multibillionaire Ted Turner. Turner is a member of the Society of the Pacifica House, the secret society of Brown University which is very similar to the Skull and Bones at Yale University; it is interesting to note that Turner is also a long-time member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Turner is also UN supporter and founder of the United Nations Foundation. He was quoted as saying; "Personally, I think the population should be closer to when we had indigenous populations, back before the advent of farming. Fifteen thousand years ago, there was somewhere between 40 and 100 million people. But [population researchers] Paul and Anne Ehrlich have convinced me that if we're going to have a modern infrastructure, with commercial airlines and interstate highways around the world, we're going to need about two billion people to support it."[127] In an interview with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution he stated; "We're too many people; that's why we have global warming," and that "everybody in the world's got to pledge to themselves that one or two children is it." [128] It should be noted that Ted Turner has five children.
Now I hope if you forgive me if the saying “Don’t do as I do, DO AS I SAY” pops into my head. These people are nothing but arrogant, self-centred hypocrites and I believe that Henry Kissinger, who is often referred to as the New World Order Ambassador, sums up the real contempt the wealthy elite feel in general towards the Masses when he stated that; “Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” [129]
Interviewer: I find it strange that Bill Gates would support “gay rights” I thought that he was considered relatively conservative?
QE: According to LifeSiteNews [130] in July 2007 Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates acquired a major stake in a homosexual activist publishing company. “SEC Filings reveal that Cascade Investment, which invests Gates' money, is among a group of investors that has bought a $26.2 million share in PlanetOut, a publishing company which runs Out magazine as well as the dating website Gay.com which is used primarily for sexual "hook-ups" and all-gay RSVP Cruises. . . The online material put out by PlanetOut also features hard core homosexual pornography.”
Interviewer: I am most surprised…Now I should have asked before so I better ask you now...You stated that many of the foundations pushing population control and population reduction also promote “gay right”…why do they promote “gay rights” after all many of these people who have donated vast sums of money to these foundations don’t appear to be “gay” as most appear to be married with children?
QE: For a start homosexuals rarely have families thus homosexuality helps to reduce population growth. Don’t forget these foundations have two prime objectives and they are to curb population growth and to reduce population numbers. The promotion of “gay rights” along with homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle fits into and helps the agenda of these foundations.
The continued promotion of “gay rights” and homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle also undermines the traditional concept of family and family values which fits in with their new global values for the Masses. Of course as more and more people are conditioned into accepting homosexuality as a normal part of society less questions are asked about what is causing the apparent increasing numbers of homosexuals.
Raise any questions that are considered negative about homosexuality and you are attacked as homophobic and thus no rational debate or investigation can take place.
Now there is no scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed but there is plenty of evidence to show it can be arranged.
Currently there is plenty of scientific evidence that points to the fact that homosexuality is not genetic but that it is the result of foetal exposure to chemicals, during a critical time of development, resulting in a retardation of normal sexual orientation. It would appear to me that if the question of rising homosexual numbers can not be investigated in a rational manner, without the investigator being verbally attacked and harassed and made to look unreasonable by being accused of being homophobic, then the question of chemicals affecting normal sexual orientation would be unlikely to be pursued with vigour or in a rational manner free of corrupting influences.
Interviewer: Your statement could well be considered paranoid by some people.
QE: Paranoid..? If you have an agenda and you promote something that fits in with your agenda then I cannot be called paranoid for pointing this out. Cripes if someone saw a known arsonist with an empty can of fuel in their hands walking away from a burning building you certainly could not label someone paranoid for thinking the arsonist may have been involved somehow with the fire. The same applies to the foundations we were talking about. Look at what they promote and look at the people and organisations they associate with.
Interviewer: Fair enough…I see the point you make.
QE: And of course we cannot forget the role the United Nations Organisation has played
If you jog your memory you will
remember that I mention in the section “Domination: Obsession &
Power” that in the 1990’s the UN’s World Health Organization
launched
Now in the section “Domination: Obsession & Power” also covered the subject of the World Health Organisation encouraging virologists and molecular biologists to work with deadly animal viruses in an attempt to make an immunosuppressive hybrid virus that would be deadly to humans and I mentioned that William Campbell Douglass, M.D., in his book, “AIDS: The End of Civilization” bluntly blaming the World Health Organization for murdering Africa by lacing African vaccines with the AIDS virus.
Now keeping these facts in mind let’s look at some statements emanating from some influential people pushing the man-made global warming bandwagon and CO2 reduction to see if there is an underlying theme between this and population reduction.
Interviewer: You have certainly whetted my appetite…so fire away.
QE: Right…as I stated there a number of statements emanating from a number of influential organisations and individuals who strongly support the reduction in man-made CO2 output and who in their enthusiasm have given a strong indication to what future action will need to be taken if the goals that have been set are to be obtained. Take for example a proposal put forwarded by the Australian Professor Barry Walters. His proposal, reported in the Medical Journal of Australia, called for parents to be charged $5000 a head for every child after their second, and an annual tax of up to $800. He also proposed that couples who were sterilised should be eligible for carbon credits and went on to state that the “debate [around population control] needs to be reopened as part of a second ecological revolution."[131]
It was reported in the UK paper The Sunday Times [132] that Jonathon Parritt, a patron of the Optimum Population Trust and one of Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers, has warned that Britain must drastically reduce its population if it is to build a sustainable society. He was quoted as calling "for Britain to cut population to 30m - roughly what it was in late Victorian times." Parritt went on to state that: “Each person in Britain has far more impact on the environment than those in developing countries so cutting our population is one way to reduce that impact.” Now take note; he is talking about the need to reduce the UK’s population numbers by over a half.
Now before I go on it should be noted that the Optimum Population Trust counts as its patrons Jane Goodall who is a member of the Club of Rome, Sir Crispin Tickell who is also a member of the Club of Rome and former chairman of the Gaia Society, and Dr. James Lovelock the scientist responsible for the Gaia theory. Another interesting OPT patron is Partha Dasgupta, who is a university fellow of the controversial Ford and Rockefeller initiated group, Resources for the Future [133] which was formed in 1952 by the Ford Foundation. That aside I shall continue.
In an article written by Dr. James Lovelock in the UK newspaper The Sunday Times [134] Lovelock states: “The high-sounding and well-meaning visions of the European Union of ‘saving the planet’ and developing sustainability by using only “natural” energy might have worked in 1800 when there were only a billion of us, but now they are a wholly impractical luxury we can ill afford.” He goes on to say: "No voluntary human act can reduce numbers enough even to slow climate change. Merely by existing, people and their dependent animals are responsible for more than 10 times the greenhouse emissions of all the airline travel in the world."
In a statement issued in August 2009, the Optimum Population Trust [135] "called on climate change negotiators to ensure that population restraint policies are adopted by every state worldwide to combat climate change." In another News Release issued in September 2009 the Optimum Population Trust [136] states: "Contraception is almost five times cheaper than conventional green technologies as a means of combating climate change"
An article in UK newspaper The Guardian [137] announced a scheme called “PopOffsets” whereby consumers in the developed world are to be offered a method of offsetting their carbon emissions by paying for contraception measures in poorer countries. The article states: “The scheme - set up by [The Optimum Population Trust] an organisation backed by Sir David Attenborough, the former diplomat Sir Crispin Tickell and green figureheads such as Jonathon Porritt and James Lovelock - argues that family planning is the most effective way to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.” The article then mentions the cost-benefit “analysis commissioned by the trust claims that family planning is the cheapest way to reduce carbon emissions. Every £4 spent on contraception, it says, saves one tonne of CO2 being added to global warming, but a similar reduction in emissions would require an £8 investment in tree planting, £15 in wind power, £31 in solar energy and £56 in hybrid vehicle technology.” The article also mentions that calculations “based on the trust's figures show the 10 tonnes emitted by a return flight from London to Sydney would be offset by enabling the avoidance of one unwanted birth in a country such as Kenya.” Of course no mention was made in regards to who did not want this “unwanted birth”…the mother of the unborn child or Sir David Attenborough and company?
Interviewer: I must admit that this sounds good coming from people who have a lifestyle and carbon foot-print that most Kenyans can only dream about.
QE: I would have to agree with you. These types would have a carbon foot-print thousands, if not tens of thousands, times greater then the average Kenyan. No these people like Attenborough and Co are just arrogant, hypocritical, and self-centred people who believe that they are superior to the Masses; an attitude most common among the world’s wealthy elite.
Now
The Guardian
[138]
article I just mentioned also stated that UN “scientists”
say global carbon emissions must have reduced by at least 80% by
2050
Interviewer: So if CO2 output is to be reduced so drastically how is it to be accomplished?
QE: As I mentioned before people well be eventually issued with a Carbon Card and a Carbon Allowance. This Carbon Allowance will have a sinking lid, meaning that over a period the Carbon Allowance well be steadily reduced.
Interviewer: Are you implying that this Carbon Card well be compulsory?
QE: Of course.
Interviewer: Taking into account that a large segment of population is doubtful about man being responsible for global warming surely there would be quite an amount of resistance to the implementation of such a scheme?
QE: It will be announced that everyone is to be issued with this card and at a specified date in the future it will have to be used. Now the card arrives in the post. You open the envelope and there is the Card with your name on it including your unique personal ID number. What are people going to do? Send it back; throw it away? One day in the near future when the compulsory use of the card arrives very few people will be able to survive without using the Card. NO CARD - NO FOOD, NO ELECTRICITY, NO FUEL, and NO TRAVEL.
Of course there well be resistance but with some slick propaganda most people will willingly or with reservations accept and use the Carbon Card. And in regards to businesses, well they will have to comply or cease trading.
Don’t forget that a large percentage of private financial transactions today are with either credit cards or EFTPOS cards. Of course loyalty cards or reward cards, you know the different cards that can be swiped when you purchase something giving you points that can be accumulated and used to purchase items etc, have been around for a while. Now there is quite a wide acceptance of these cards so people have been pretty well conditioned in using these cards so the introduction of a Carbon Card wouldn’t appear to be too strange to many people.
Interviewer: Has there been any mention about this Carbon Card in New Zealand before now…I mean if it is the intention to introduce such a card in New Zealand one would believe it would have been mentioned before now?
QE: The only mention I have been able to find on this matter in New Zealand publications was in an article in the Listener [140] about two years ago. Of course the Carbon Card has been mentioned in a number of countries overseas, especially in the UK. In fact from what I understand a number of countries are running volunteer schemes, nothing on a massive scale, but never-the-less a number of schemes are in existence.
Interviewer: What you have just stated is rather disturbing.
QE: I think it gives a preview of what is intended to be implemented. And the implementation of such a scheme is being backed by some very powerful people.
The intention to introduce a Carbon Card has been endorsed by the UK Environment Secretary David Miliband. It should be noted that David Miliband is the elder son of Jewish immigrants Marion Kozak and the late Marxist intellectual Ralph Miliband. It is interesting to note that in December 2007, Miliband stood in for Prime Minister, Gordon Brown at the official signing ceremony in Lisbon of the EU Reform Treaty, which was attended by all other European heads of government. This should prove his important political ranking.[141] An article on the BBC website [142] in December 2006 had Secretary David Miliband who had commissioned a feasibility study Carbon "credit cards" as stating that the scheme could be working within five years - 2011 - as part of a nationwide carbon rationing scheme. The article went on to say that Miliband insisted that climate change required "cumulative, consistent radicalism" rather than "one shot wonders". Miliband went on to say that climate change was “the mass mobilising movement of our age". The “environmental” group Friends of the Earth was quoted as saying that the principle of using a limited "budget" of carbon per person was sound.
An article in November 2009 in the to the UK newspaper The Times [143] stated that the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee had called on the Government last year to resume research on a rationing scheme and to be “courageous” in seeking to overcome likely public hostility to the idea. It said in a report: “Opposition to personal carbon trading could be reduced if the public could be convinced of three things. First, that it is absolutely essential to reduce emissions; second, that this can only be achieved if individuals take personal responsibility for reducing their own emissions; and third, that personal carbon trading is a fairer and more effective way of reducing personal emissions than alternatives such as higher taxes.” The committee concluded: “Widespread public acceptance, while desirable, should not be a pre-condition for a personal carbon trading scheme; the need to reduce emissions is simply too urgent.” [Emphasis added]
Another article in the UK newspaper The Telegraph [144] in November 2009 with the sub-heading “Everyone in Britain should have an annual carbon ration and be penalised if they use too much fuel, the head of the Environment Agency will say”, stated that “Lord Smith of Finsbury believes that implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.” The article quoted Ruth Lea, an economist from Arbuthnot Banking Group, as saying: "This is all about control of the individual and you begin to wonder whether this is what the green agenda has always been about. It's Orwellian." [Emphasis added] An interesting article on BusinessGreen.com a UK based website stated: “The [UK] Environment Agency will argue today that carbon rationing is the fairest and most effective way for the UK to meet its legally binding targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions.” The article went on to say; “The Agency’s chairman, Lord Smith, will propose at the organisation's annual conference in London that every citizen be provided with a "carbon account" and unique number that they submit when buying carbon-intensive items such as petrol, electricity or airline tickets.” [Emphasis added]
Interviewer:
I have to say that I had not heard anything about
this at all and I am rather shocked by your
revelations about what is proposed
QE: Well
there are a few more surprises to come. Interviewer: Please go on.
QE: For a start everything that is manufactured/consumed has a certain carbon foot-print. In the beginning the Carbon Card may only cover the main items such as food etc but no doubt as more and more items are added to the list eventually the Carbon Card will be required for everything an individual needs to survive.
Interviewer: Surely some people would be able to opt out of the system. I mean if you had land and could grow your own food and supply your own energy needs you would have no need to accept the Carbon Card?
QE: Hmmm… Yes I know of a few people who believe that can opt out of the system but I am afraid they are very naïve people. For a start if you lived in a remote part of a third world country you could get away with it but in the Western World I do not think it will be possible. Firstly it is not possible to be fully self-contained you will eventually require something controlled by the system for your survival. Secondly the system will mark you out as a threat and will eventually weed you out. If you have any livestock you well be required to pay a carbon tax on these animals and of course to do this you will require your Carbon Card. If you think that you can operate a system of barter with others you well be in for another shock because you well be (1) required to pay taxes on such trade and (2) such transactions would have to be made with the use of your Carbon Card. Try and circumvent the system and the system will classify you as a criminal with the full force of the “law” used to bring you to heel. Of course if the Carbon Card is required to access bank accounts then you have problems paying rates, land taxes, and what ever other taxes they throw at you. Can’t pay your taxes, they will sell your land. No, people who believe they can escape the crutches of Big Brother, when he arrives, are in for a rude awakening.
Mentioning livestock brings me to another part of agenda.
There was an interesting article that appeared in the New York Daily Times[145] which was written by Peter Singer, who is a professor of bioethics at Princeton University, in the US. He states, "...taxing meat would be a highly effective way of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and avoiding catastrophic climate change.” He goes on to write; "In 2006 the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization surprised many people when it produced a report showing that livestock are responsible for more emissions than all forms of transportation combined. It’s now clear that that report seriously underestimated the contribution that livestock - especially ruminant animals like cattle and sheep - are making to global warming.” Singer then goes on to mention that “a more recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has shown, over the critical next 20 years, the methane these animals produce will be almost three times as potent in warming the planet as the FAO report assumed. " And his solution to solve this red meat problem was to “start with a 50% tax on the retail value of all meat, and see what difference that makes to present consumption habits. If it is not enough to bring about the change we need, then, like cigarette taxes, it will need to go higher."
Now it should be noted that under the Climate Change Act, Britain is obliged to cut its emissions by 80 per cent on 1990 levels by 2050.[146] This means annual CO2 emissions per person will have to fall from about 9 tonnes to only 2 tonnes.[147]
In a News
Release issued by the UK based Optimum
Population Trust[148]
on the highlights of a conference called “Environmentally
Sustainable Populations: The scientific case for population policy -
and ways of achieving sustainability” the OPT stated that to
“reduce London’s current ‘food
footprint’...to a globally sustainable
So while there is talk about high taxes on red meat in the UK I recently read an article in the Dominion Post [149] regarding a paper by two senior fellows from the Motu Economic and Public Policy Research which “is New Zealand’s leading non-profit economic and public policy research institute that carries out high quality, long-term, socially beneficial research programmes” according to their website. Anyway in the article this research group stated that a “carbon trading price of $25 a tonne could cut dairy farms’ profits by 20 per cent, and sheep and beef farms’ profits could fall by 40 per cent.” Of course if profit margins fall the farmers will want more for their product that is if the consumer can afford the prices being asked. Of course these estimates are based on $25 per tonne; if the price, because of “market forces”, should go up to $100 or $150 per tonne the price of red meat well become too expensive for the average consumer and many farmers well be force of the land.
So to reduce CO2 emissions the Masses have to eat far less red meats thus reducing the numbers of methane farting animals as methane is causing the planet to heat up. So since cattle and sheep are so polluting they will be given a large carbon foot-print along with high retail taxes on their meat. Of course the products such as milk produced by methane farting animals along with products such as butter and cheese made from this milk will also incur high taxes.
And just who are the Masses I am talking about…the people on the bottom of the wealth pyramid of course. The low paid individuals; you know what is referred to as the useless eaters, the surplus population no longer needed; the people who can ill-afford to purchase extra Carbon Credits and to pay the high taxes to be placed on essential food items such as red meat and healthy baby formula. But not to worry there is always synthetic meat manufactured from soy based protein. Well we know the results from eating too much soy, don’t we? But hey don’t tell the Masses. Of course mothers won’t have to worry about not being able to feed their infants if they are unable to breast-feed; there is always that “healthy” soy milk that is affordable. And don’t worry about not being able to afford butter there will be plenty of that “healthy” margarine made from polyunsaturated Soya bean oil with added chemicals that make it taste just like butter.
Of course once the system is implemented it would be very simple to genetically modify the Soya bean to artificially lower the already low fertility rates.
Interviewer: Do you think that is possible and do you believe they are capable of doing that?
QE: Well I mentioned in my December 2008 Interview about a small Californian biotech company called Epicyte that in 2001 announced the development of genetically engineered corn which contained a spermicide which made the semen of men who ate it sterile. Now if it can be done with corn I do not see any reason why it couldn’t be done with the Soya bean. Now do I think they are capable of introducing something into the food chain to lower fertility? Well they have already done that over six decades ago with the introduction of the Soya bean into the Western diet. Of course the question arises would they go further and introduce a genetically engineered product into the food chain specifically designed to drastically reduce fertility? I am afraid it has been suggested a number of times before that an additive be placed either in the water or food to cause general infertility.
Interviewer: You have mentioned previously about an agenda to drastically reduce population numbers. Do you think this will be accomplished by further lowering fertility and the eventual introduction of licensing to restrict the numbers of those who wish to have children or do you think that a more draconian approach maybe taken?
QE: I gather by draconian approach you mean the actual killing of people?
Interviewer: Yes.
QE: Firstly there is little doubt in my mind that fertility will be controlled even to the extent of mass controlled fertility. In regards to a more draconian approach…I suppose to most people such a proposal would be rather difficult to envisage happening in this day and age, especially in the Western world. Now can we actually dismiss such a possibility…I have to say that a person with a basic understanding of the people pulling the strings of power in the world would have to be very naïve to rule out such an action.
Interviewer: Could you explain what you mean by that?
QE: I have touched on this before but never-the-less I don’t mind going over it again briefly.
I mentioned about “The Declaration of a Global Ethic” promoted by the Global Ethic Foundation which is an attempt to lay the foundation for a new world religion. In 1993 at a forum entitled “Parliament of the World's Religions”, sponsored by the United Nations, 143 leaders from all of the world's major faiths agreed to and signed this “Global Ethic”.
Now the Global Ethic seems to contain a rather strange or, as some people have claimed, a deeper message. It defines those who support the objectives of the Declaration as “authentically human”. [150]
Now the question is; if you support the Global Ethic you are considered “authentically human” does this mean if you find the Global Ethic in conflict with your own beliefs, and you reject the Global Ethic because of this, does this make you not “authentically human” perhaps even “subhuman”?
Now the people promoting this New Age crap are not people who can be classified as nobodies without significance. Many of the people who push this philosophy hold important and influential positions in the world. An example being Horst Köhler who is a supporter of the "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic". Köhler was Chairman of the Executive Board and Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund who resigned his position at the IMF in March 2004, following his nomination for the position of President of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Then we have the “Earth Charter” and its "global ethics" which is referred to as the "New World Ten Commandments" promoted by Maurice Strong, Mikhail Gorbachev and Stephen Rockefeller.
It is interesting to note that in 2003 the Vatican warned[151] against the "global ethics" which are the origin and core of the Earth Charter. Archbishop Javier Lozano Barragán, president of the "Pontifical Council for Health Care Workers” warned that the “global ethic” movement was an eco-religion which holds "sustainable development" as the highest good. He said it manifests itself "as a new spirituality that supplants all religions, because the latter have been unable to preserve the ecosystem." In a word, this is "a new secular religion, a religion without God, or if you prefer, a new God that is the earth itself with the name GAIA." he stated. [Emphasis added]
Then we have the warning from the occultist Barbara Marx Hubbard who is a “Creative Member” of the Club of Budapest International Foundation which is an offshoot of the Club of Rome. She is also a member of the World Commission on Global Consciousness and Spirituality. It is interesting to note that the World Wisdom Council was initiated by The Club of Budapest International in association with the World Commission of Global Consciousness & Spirituality.
Now just in case you think that old Hubbard is just a poor nobody ranting and raving away I will give you a bit of background information on her. In 1970, she co-founded the Committee for the Future and she is on the “Global Advisory Council” of the World Future Society. She made political history in 1984 when her name was placed in nomination for the vice presidency of the United States on the Democratic ticket.
Now Hubbard makes her position quite clear in her book Manual for Co-Creators of the Quantum Leap. On pages 55-57 she states:
"Humanity will not be able to make the transition from Earth-only to universal life until the chaff has been separated from the wheat. The great reaper must reap before we can take the quantum leap to the next phase of evolution. No worldly peace can prevail until the self-centered members of the planetary body either change or die. That is the choice. The red horse is the destruction during the birth process of those who refuse to be born into God-centered, universal life . . . This act is as horrible as killing a cancer cell. It must be done for the sake of the future of the whole." [Emphasis added]
On pages 60-61 Hubbard states:
"We, the elders, have been patiently waiting until the very last moment before the quantum transformation, to take action to cut out this corrupted and corrupting element in the body of humanity. It is like watching a cancer grow; something must be done before the whole body is destroyed . . . the self-centered members must be destroyed. There is no alternative. Only the God-centered can evolve." [Emphasis added]
In
The Book of Co-Creation written by
Hubbard she states: "One-fourth
of humanity must be eliminated from the social body. . . We are
in charge of God's selection process for planet Earth. He selects,
we destroy. We are the riders of the pale horse, Death."
[Emphasis added] Interviewer: What does she mean by “God-centred” and “self-centred”?
QE:
Hubbard and company preach that there is no separation between God
and you, for you are God. If you accept this belief you are
classified as “God-centred”.
So taking into account the character of some of the people involved and the fact that there is evidence suggesting that these people desire to reduce world population numbers down to somewhere between five hundred million to two billion one ready can not rule out the possibility of extreme measures being taken to accomplish this.
Interviewer: But surely in this day and age there is no way that people such as Hubbard could get their way?
QE: Take into consideration the Holocaust
committed in Israel in the 1950's that involved the deliberate mass
radiation poisoning of nearly all Sephardi Jewish youths, In a mass atomic experiment done under the disguise for the treatment of ringworm it was intended that every Sephardi child in Israel was to receive “35,000 times the maximum dose of x-rays through his head. For doing so, the American government paid the Israeli government 300 million Israeli liras a year. The entire Health budget was 60 million liras. The money paid by the Americans is equivalent to billions of dollars today.” [152]
This act of genocide, financed by the USA, was ordered by the light skinned Ashkenazi Jewish leaders against the darker skinned Sephardi youths because they were considered inferior. In a documentary shown in Israeli in 2005 a historian who outlined a history of the eugenics movement declared that the ringworm operation was a eugenics program aimed at weeding out the perceived weak strains of society.
It is amazing that even among
those Jews who believe that they are “the Chosen People” there are
some that consider themselves superior to some of their more
Then we have Pol Pot who was backed by the USA by proxy through the Chinese. During his time in power Pol Pot imposed a version of agrarian collectivization whereby city dwellers were relocated to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labour projects - you could say he was a Greenie well ahead of his time. Under his rule and direction the Khmer Rouge slaughtered an estimated 3 million people - anyone who did not fit into Pol Pot's New Order was systematically eliminated.
Now it appears to me that Hubbard and company are not any better then the people involved in the act of genocide against the Sephardi youths nor are they any better then Pol Pot's lot. Now if anyone believes that past acts of insane violence could not possible happen again then I strongly suggest that they study the Milgram experiment conducted by psychologist Stanley Milgram.
Interviewer: You have talked about a Carbon Card and the possibility that it may have an international data base. Now I don’t wish to put you in an awkward position but since we have touched on the subject of religion do you think that this Carbon Card, if it does eventuate, would fit the description in various religious teachings that refer to the Mark of the Beast?
QE: There have been many claims on what this so-called Mark of the Beast will be, but taking the turn of events I would have to say the Carbon Card would be a logical contender.
It is interesting that you brought up this subject. Now what I find most intriguing is the fact that while there is talk of reducing carbon dioxide output on one hand on the other hand everything is given a carbon foot-print; not a carbon dioxide foot-print but a carbon foot-print. Also in regards to the Carbon Card I discussed; once again it is referred to as a Carbon Card not a Carbon Dioxide Card. Why on one hand talk about carbon dioxide and on the other hand talk of carbon; is this a sleight of hand?
At this point it is most interesting to note that the atomic number of carbon is 6. Now there are 15 known isotopes of carbon of which only three are found in nature, the rest of the other carbon isotopes are produced in the laboratory i.e. man made.
Of these three naturally occurring carbon isotopes, carbon-12, carbon-13, and carbon-14, only two, carbon-12 and carbon-13, are classified as stable. Carbon-12 which has 6 neutrons forms 98.93% of the carbon on Earth. Carbon-13 which has 7 neutrons is formed after a carbon-12 nucleus fuses with a proton to form nitrogen-13 which eventually decays to form carbon -13, makes up most of the remaining 1.07% of carbon isotopes.
Carbon-14, which has 8 neutrons makes-up less than one-billionth of carbon on Earth, is created in the upper atmosphere by interaction of nitrogen-14 with cosmic rays which then spreads evenly throughout the atmosphere. Now Carbon-14 is an unstable isotope which eventually decays back to nitrogen-14.
Are you with me so far?
Interviewer: I think so…please carry on.
QE: Now humans are classified as a Carbon-12
life form; taking this fact into consideration it becomes most
intriguing to discover that Carbon-12 has 6 protons,
Interviewer: 6 protons, 6 neutrons, and 6 electrons? Now I hope I don’t appear to be paranoid if the number 666 pops into my head?
QE: For a start
I’m not what would be considered a religious man. Although I believe
in the existence of a higher power I do not belong to any church and
the only times I have been in a church is to either attend a
marriage or a funeral. That aside I have to admit that the Carbon
Card certainly made me think about Revelation 13:18;
I had to think to myself… cripes… now is all this just a coincidence?
Interviewer: Do you think this is just a coincidence?
QE: I truly hope it is. But on the other hand when one back-tracks through all the front organisations pushing the misinformation on claims that man is responsible for the climate warming and all the propaganda and hysteria connected with it, then one discovers people at its root who can only be described as evil and completely devoid of any empathy towards mankind. So, based on my knowledge, I certainly can not dismiss it outright so I will just keep an open mind on this for the time being.
Interviewer: I thought Revelation 13:18 stated “the number of a man” but you state “the number of mankind”?
QE: Most translations read this verse of Scripture as "the number of a man" but it is my understanding that this is incorrect and that the correct translation is "the number of mankind" meaning all men and women - humanity.
Interviewer: The verse you quote, from what bible does it come?
QE: The Concordant Literal New Testament.
Interviewer: I have never heard of that version
QE: The Concordant Literal New Testament was the work of a man named A. E. Knoch. He was born in St. Louis, Missouri in the US in 1874 and died, I believe, in 1965. Now Knoch, who had an excellent grasp of Greek, believed there were many errors in the Bible translations of his day and he dedicated much of his life in producing a translation of the scriptures that he felt to be accurate and free from personal bias.
Interviewer: Are you claiming that they majority of Christians who believe that the verse is “the number of a man” are wrong?
QE: There are dozens of different English translations of the Bible and each one chooses different translations of various words to express what the translation's authors felt were accurate. Now it is estimated that there are approximately 38,000 Christian denominations in the world [153] which includes approximately 1,000 Christian faith groups in the U.S. and Canada who each believe themselves to be the only true Christian denomination. Now can you tell me please, leaving out all the various non-English adaptations, which of these dozens of different New Testament translations written in English is a complete and accurate version of the original Greek transcripts?
Now it is just not possible for all the dozens of different English translations of the Bible to be all completely correct as the various authors of the different translations used various words to express what they felt were accurate. Now is there any English translation of the New Testament that is a completely true and accurate translation from the original Greek? To make it a bit more simple has anyone who accepts the commonly accepted version of Revelation 13:18 taken the time and effort to check its accuracy or have they just accepted someone’s word that it is accurate?
On the other hand just because the majority believe something true does that make it true? In our past it was once Church doctrine that the sun revolved around the earth and if you publicly disputed this belief you ran the risk of being tied to a stake and burnt alive as a heretic.
Now it is
not my intention to get into a debate with you over Scripture.
Whether I am right or wrong, in accepting the Concordant Literal New
Testament interpretation
Interviewer: No doubt some people well think you are a bit of a crack-pot conceding the possible of a connection between the Carbon Card and the Mark of the Beast?
QE: I have a very open and enquiring mind and I certainly do not discount something outright if the evidence suggests otherwise. If people wish to believe that I am a crack-pot then so be it; it certainly is no skin off my nose.
But before I carry on I have to say that if there is no God then humanity is in very serious trouble because what I believe that faces humanity further down the track will need some sort of God-like intervention if the bulk of humanity is to survive.
Interviewer: What are you exactly getting at? What serious trouble?
QE: As I mentioned earlier the male
fertility rates are falling at an alarming rate and if this
continues, and there is no reason to doubt that they will continue
to fall, then within thirty years or maybe less most males will be
sterile. Now where will this lead us to, especially if those
“people” pushing for Global Governance get their way?
Interviewer: But why the contempt?
QE: These “people” consider themselves superior and look upon the Masses as a cancer upon the planet using valuable resources and destroying “their” environment. Secondly too many people are a potential threat to them because we far outnumber “them”; far easier to control five hundred million or maybe two billion people then seven, or eight, or nine billion. Thirdly because of advances in technology and automation the bulk of the Masses are considered redundant by these “people”, you know obsolete, not needed.
Interviewer: I get your point.
QE: Good…now where was I…Now as I was saying the fertility rates are falling and what is being done about it? NOTHING AT ALL. Of course from time to time researchers raise the alarm but as I said nothing is done.
Of course when a couple wish to start a family and they discover they have a fertility problem they turn to IVF, or donated sperm, or donated eggs and now donated embryos. Of course there is always surrogacy, you know a couple pay another woman to carry their child for them or if you are really trendy and PC you can adopt a child from one of the third world countries.
People are not questioning why they are infertile and looking for the answers, they just appear to accept it as part of live. People are slowly being conditioned to accept the fact that infertility is a part of life.
Now if human breeding is to be regulated in the future, under the guise of cutting CO2 output, and there is evidence to suggest this is the intention, it is more then probably this will be overseen by a Global Authority as well. Of course the willy-nilly approach to treating infertility by independent clinics will in all probability become a thing of the past as a more central approach is taken.
Interviewer: I have an uneasy feeling what you are coming to, especially taking into consideration the connection you made before regarding eugenics and population control.
QE: You appear to becoming attuned to my thinking. But it is not the issue of eugenics I was going to rise but the issue of generically modifying humans.
Interviewer: Aren’t you crossing into the realms of fantasy?
QE: Am I? I think that if people dismiss such a possibility then they are the ones living in a fantasy and should wake-up because such experiments are in progress.
As an
example a mouse without a father has been created for the first time
in an experiment that shatters the standard scientific belief that
mammals of the same sex cannot produce viable offspring. The mouse
was conceived from the unfertilised eggs of two mothers, making her
the first mammal to be born without a male genetic contribution.[154]
The point I make here is that if it can be done with a mouse
it can be done with humans. Then we had the news item carried by the
BBC in February 2008 claiming that researchers at Newcastle
University in the UK have created a human embryo with three separate
parents; the embryos were created using DNA
Interviewer: What do you mean?
QE: For years scientists have added human genes to bacteria and farm animals.[156] Scientists have already begun blurring the line between human and animal by producing chimeras - a hybrid creature that's part human, part animal. In Minnesota, pigs are being born with human blood in their veins; and it's not just pig blood cells being swept along with human blood cells as some of the cells themselves have merged, creating hybrids. In Nevada, there are sheep whose livers and hearts are largely human. In California, mice peer from their cages with human brain cells firing inside their skulls.[157] From what I understand researchers intend to create mice whose brains are 100 per cent human.[158]
Chinese
scientists at the Shanghai Second Medical University in 2003
successfully fused human cells with rabbit eggs. The embryos were
reportedly the first human-animal chimeras successfully created.
They were allowed to develop for several days in a laboratory dish
before the scientists destroyed the embryos to harvest their
Some researchers like Robert Streiffer, a professor of philosophy and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin in the US, fantasise over a human-chimpanzee chimera endowed with speech and an enhanced potential to learn - what some have called a "humanzee." [160] Of course there are claims from researchers that if such chimeras were created they would be given protection. But then we have likes of Harvard political philosopher Michael J. Sandel stating that the chances are that these hybrid humans would be made to “perform menial jobs or dangerous jobs.” [161]
In February 2007 it was announced in the UK that women "will be able to sell their eggs for scientific research after British regulators give the all-clear." [162] A few months later in September 2007 it was revelled in COSMOS[163] magazine that "Britain's fertility regulator had decided in principle to allow scientists to create human-animal hybrid embryos for research purposes." COSMOS went on to state that researchers intend "transferring nuclei containing DNA from human cells to animal eggs that have had nearly all their genetic information removed. The resulting embryos are therefore mostly human, with a small animal component."
Then we have David P. Barash, a professor of psychology at the University of Washington saying that reproductive facilities should work towards creating a race of human/chimpanzee hybrids, but, he admits, only because it would offend Christians. He reveals, however, that his motivation is not a pure interest in advancing science, but his hatred for “know-nothing anti-evolutionism,” and “religious fundamentalists,” who hold human life to be sacred. Now note "hatred for those who hold human life to be sacred." According to an article on the LifeSiteNews website Barash says that creating animal/human hybrids would effectively quash the belief that “the human species, unlike all others, possesses a spark of the divine and that we therefore stand outside nature.” The article quotes Barash as stating: “Should geneticists and developmental biologists succeed once again in joining human and nonhuman animals in a viable organism,” then “it would be difficult and perhaps impossible for the special pleaders to maintain the fallacy that Homo sapiens is uniquely disconnected from the rest of life.” [164] [Emphasis added]
Now thinking of the advancements in technology and the increasing scientific breakthroughs being made one cannot avoid remembering the words of Aldous Huxley:
"There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution." [165]
But today science has made
advances further beyond what existed in Huxley’s time. Why use drugs
when genes can be manipulated to produce “compliant” creatures
According to the article scientists in the USA have discovered that by blocking the effects of a gene in the brain called D2 in monkeys, the monkeys’ behaviour can be permanently altered, turning the subjects from aggressive to “compliant” creatures. It was noted in the article that humans have an identical gene and that “scientists acknowledge that methods of manipulating human physical and psychological traits are just around the corner.”
If people hold the view that mankind is just another animal then the bulk of humanity shouldn’t complain if they end-up being treated like an animal. On the other hand if people believe that mankind is special and thus have a special status above that of other life forms on this planet then they had better heed the warning I have given and take action to protect their status especially taking into consideration that there are people in the world who believe that they are apart from, and superior to, the rest of humanity and view people outside of their group as no better than cattle.
Now looking at the evidence presented here and taking into consideration what I have stated the average person would have to be rather dim-witted if they didn’t feel a bit of anxiety in regards to what the future holds for them, their family, and humanity in general.
1 PrisonPlanet. December 16, 2009. "UN Chief: We Will Impose Global Governance" http://www.prisonplanet.com/un-chief-we-will-impose-global-governance.html 2 THE AGE [Australia] March 19, 2009. "China's new carbon card" http://www.theage.com.au/world/chinas-new-carbon-card-20090318-924v.html 3 LifeSiteNews. December 18, 2009. "Vatican Newspaper Slams the Copenhagen Summit over Population Control, 'Nihilism'" http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/or_quo/commenti/2009/291q01b1.html 4 Oslington P. "Economics and religion, Volume 2" pp 79 5 The Limits to Growth is a 1972 book modelling the consequences of a rapidly growing world population and finite resource supplies, commissioned by the Club of Rome. Its authors were Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III. The book echoes some of the concerns and predictions of the Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus in An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798). 6 Beyond the Limits was a 1992 book continuing the modelling of the consequences of a rapidly growing global population that was started in Limits to Growth. Donella Meadows, Dennis Meadows, and Jorgen Randers are the authors and all were involved in the original Club of Rome study as well. 7 The Economist "Falling fertily" http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14744915 8 "Is This Your Childs World" by Dorris J. Rapp MD, published by Bantam, page 501 9 Dhushara website http://www.dhushara.com/book/diversit/extra/sperm.htm 10 New Scientist: 11th January, 1997. "Fresh Alarm overThreatened Sperm" http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15320640.500-fresh-alarm-over-threatened-sperm.html 11 Impact Lab. January 5, 2004. "Sperm Count Dropping Rapidly http://www.impactlab.com/2004/01/05/sperm-count-dropping-rapidly/
12
The
Internet Journal of Urology 2004: Volume 2 Number 1.
"The sperm count has been decreasing steadily for many years
in Western industrialised countries: 13 PHG Foundation. 6 January 2004. "Concern over falling sperm counts in UK men" 14 MeD INDIA. 13 October, 2005 "The Falling Sperm Count In Men" http://www.medindia.net/news/The-Falling-Sperm-Count-In-Men-5276-1.htm 15 Slate. May 3, 2006. "What's Really Behind the Plunge in Teen Pregnancy?" 16 The Dominion Post [NZ]. 21 October, 2008. "Kiwi men’s sperm count drops" http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/archive/national-news/682484 17 JAMA 1998 Apr 1;279(13):1018-23 18 Natural News, June 2, 2009. "A Fluoride-Free Pineal Gland is More Important than Ever" http://www.naturalnews.com/026364_fluoride_pineal_gland_sodium.html 20 Mullenix PJ, et al. 1995. "Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats." Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1995 Mar-Apr;17(2):169-77. 21 Guan Z.Z., et al. 1998. "Influence of chronic fluorosis on membrane lipids in rat brain." Neurotoxicology and Teratology 20 537-542 22 Li XS, Zhi JL, Gao RO. "Effect of Fluoride Exposure on Intelligence in Children." Fluoride [JOURNAL of the International Society for Fluoride Research] Volume 28 Number 4 November 1995. pp 187-260 23 Zhao, L.B., et al. “Effect of high fluoride water supply on children's intelligence.” FLUORIDE [QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR FLUORIDE RESEARCH] Vol.29 No.4 November 1996. pp 187-260 24 Luke, J.A. “Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland.” Caries Research 28 204 (1994). 25 Schlesinger, E.R. et al. “Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years.” JADA 52 296-306 (1956). 26 Radiant Health. “Fluoride Causes Hypothyroidism” http://owen.curezone.com/healing/flouridehypothyroidism.html 27 The New Zealand Listener, April 1-7 2006 Vol 203 No 3438. "Growth spurt" 28 KESQ.COM "'Precocious Puberty': Children Growing Up Too Fast" 29 Hart R, et al. 2009. “Relationship between municipal water fluoridation and preterm birth in Upstate New York.” Paper 197468 presented at American Public Health Association, Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. November 9, 2009. http://apha.confex.com/apha/137am/webprogram/Paper197468.html 30 Pushpalatha T, et al. 2005. "Exposure to high fluoride concentration in drinking water will affect spermatogenesis and steroidogenesis in male albino rats." Biometals 18:207-12. 31 REUTERS, April 27, 2009. "First European evidence for earlier female puberty" http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE53Q6FD20090427 32 Larsen MJ, et al. "Fluctuation of fluoride concentrations in drinking waters: a collaborative study." Int Dent J. 1989 Jun;39(2):140-6. 33 Nina J. Wang. PUblic Dental Services, Oslo, Norway. "Government policies on fluoride utilization in the Nordic countries" Acta Odontologica 1999, Vol. 57, No. 6, Pages 342-347 34 "Aggregate Exposures to Phthalates in Humans" www.ecocenter.org/dust/Phthalate_hcwh.pdf 35 Environmental Working Group. "Beauty Secrets: Health Effects of Dibutyl Phthalate (DBP)" http://www.ewg.org/node/8173 36 ABC News Men's Health Coverage, November 11, 2009 "Plastic Bottle Chemical Tied to Male Infertility" http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MensHealthNews/bpa-linked-sexual-dysfunction-men/story?id=9048200 37 Ferrel J. "Are Plastic Food and Beverage Containers Safe?" http://ezinearticles.com/?Are-Plastic-Food-and-Beverage-Containers-Safe?&id=57347 38 Hougaard KS, et al. 2009. "Increased incidence of infertility treatment among women working in the plastics industry" PMID: 19429396 39 BBC News, November 16, 2009. "Plastic chemicals 'feminise boys' " 40 Telegraph [UK] 23 October, 2009. "Why boys are turning into girls " 41 USA Today. "Plastic chemical linked aggression in toddler girls" http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-10-06-bpa-pregnancy_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip 42 Canada.com. October 5, 2009. "Girls with prenatal exposure to bisphenol A more aggressive, hyperactive: Study" 43 ScienceDaily. April 13, 2005. "Chemical Present In Clear Plastics Can Impair Learning And Cause Disease" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050413090800.htm 44 ScienceDaily. June 12, 2009. "Bisphenol A Exposure In Pregnant Mice Permanently Changes DNA Of Offspring" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090610124428.htm 45 ScienceDaily. February 15, 2007. "Plastics In Common Household Items May Cause Fertility Defects" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070215145120.htm 46 ScienceDaily. July 9, 2009. "Plastics Chemical, Bisphenol A, Retards Growth, Function Of Adult Reproductive Cells" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090708101306.htm 47 ScienceDaily. February 4, 2008. "Plastic Bottles Release Potentially Harmful Chemicals (Bisphenol A) After Contact With Hot Liquids" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130092108.htm 48 ScienceDaily. May 22, 2009. "BPA, Chemical Used To Make Plastics, Found To Leach From Polycarbonate Drinking Bottles Into Humans" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090521141208.htm 49 NATIONAL WILDLIFE. Feb/Mar 2004, vol. 42 no. 2. "Protecting Yourself From Unsafe Plastics" http://www.nwf.org/nationalwildlife/article.cfm?articleId=890&issueId=66 50 ScienceDaily. April 2, 2008. "Why Synthetic Estrogens Wreak Havoc On Reproductive System" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080331093530.htm 51 MedPage, February 5, 2009. "Bisphenol A Mimics Estrogen, Phthalates Target Testosterone" http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/PublicHealth/12767 52 Hunt PA, et al. 2003. "Bisphenol A exposure causes meiotic aneuploidy in the female mouse." Current Biology 13: 546-553 (2003). 53 Lang IA, et al. September 2008. "Association of Urinary Bisphenol A Concentration With Medical Disorders and Laboratory Abnormalities in Adults" JAMA. 2008;300(11):1303-1310 54 New York Times [USA]. November 7, 2009. "Chemicals in Our Food, and Bodies" http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/opinion/08kristof.html?_r=1 55 The Washington Post. May 31, 2009. "Strategy Being Devised To Protect Use of BPA" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/30/AR2009053002121.html
56
Phthalates Information Centre Europe.
"Types of Phthalates" 57 DEHP Information Centre. November 16, 2009. "Study claiming to show prenatal exposure to DEHP and DBP has feminising effect on young boys should be treated with extreme caution says ECPI" http://www.dehp-facts.com/module/news/display/newsdisplay.aspx?news=33 58 New American, October 7, 2009. "Are Hormone-mimicking Chemicals Harming Our Children?" 59 MedPage, February 5, 2009. "Bisphenol A Mimics Estrogen, Phthalates Target Testosterone" http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/PublicHealth/12767 60 Environmental Working Group [USA] "Bisphenol A: Toxic Plastics Chemical in Canned Food: BPA and human diseases on the rise" 61 Environmental Working Group [USA. March 2007 “A Survey of Bisphenol A in U.S. Canned Foods" 62 Aphrodite Women's Health. Juy 3, 2003. "Polycystic Ovaries Twice As Common In Lesbians" 63 Ibid 64 The Hormone Foundation. "Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS)" 65 Healthy [UK]. November 28, 2009. "Could you have PCOS?" http://www.healthy-magazine.co.uk/experts/could-you-have-pcos 66 Savic I, et al. April 2005. "Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men" http://www.pnas.org/content/102/20/7356.full.pdf+html?sid=b153bb89-03b9-420f-9f04-d850e73e7d20 67 Berglund H, et al. March 2006. "Brain response to putative pheromones in lesbian women" http://www.pnas.org/content/103/21/8269.full.pdf+html?sid=b153bb89-03b9-420f-9f04-d850e73e7d20 68 NewScientist. May 8, 2006. "Clue to sexual attraction found in lesbian brain" http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9125-clue-to-sexual-attraction-found-in-lesbian-brain.html 69 The Advocate (US homosexual & lesbian newsmagazine). February 17, 1998. "Gay for the thrill of it." Cited at The Free Library. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Gay+for+the+thrill+of+it.(genetics+and+homosexuality+researcher+Dean...-a020368658 70 Savic I, et al. April 2005. "Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men" http://www.pnas.org/content/102/20/7356.full.pdf+html?sid=b153bb89-03b9-420f-9f04-d850e73e7d20 71 The Advocate. July 5, 2005 [US homosexual & lesbian newsmagazine] "Scents and sexuality: this spring's breakthrough study on how gays and straights respond differently to human smells is only the latest in a long line of studies suggesting a genetic link to sexual orientation." 72 SCIENCE NEWS. August 31, 1991. "Brain feature linked to sexual orientation” View @ The Free Library: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Brain+feature+linked+to+sexual+orientation.-a011315232 73 AllPsych Journal. Johnson R.D. April 2003."Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture" 74 Monje L., et al. 2009. "Neonatal exposure to bisphenol A alters estrogen-dependent mechanisms governing sexual behavior in the adult female rat " Reproductive Toxicology. Volume 28, Issue 4, December 2009, Pages 435-442 75 Funabashi T, et al. 2003. "Bisphenol A increases progesterone receptor immunoreactivity in the hypothalamus in a dose-dependent manner and affects sexual behaviour in adult ovariectomized rats." J. Neuroendocrinol. 15:134-140 (2003). 76 AllPsych Journal. Johnson R.D. April 2003."Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture" 77 Pillard, Richard. “NPR Letters on the Biological Basis of Homosexuality.” Online. 8 April 2003. Available http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/RootWeb/npr_letters_on_the_biological_ba.htm 78 Ibid. 79 Taylor AE. 2000. "The gonadotropic axis in hyperandrogenic adolescents." PMID: 11117670 80 Mediate.com. June 1997. "Psychological and Emotional Aspects of Divorce" by Kathleen O'Connell Corcoran. http://www.mediate.com/articles/Psych.cfm 81 WorldNetDaily, December 12, 2006. "Soy is making kids 'gay' by Jim Rutz. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327 82 Franke, AA, Custer LG et al. "Quantification of phytoestrogens in legumes by HPLC." J Agric Food Chem, 1994, 42, 1905-13. 83 Markiewicz J, Garey J et al. "In vitro bioassays of non-steroidal phytoestrogens." J Steroids Biochem Mol Biol, 1993, 45, 5, 399-405. 84 Irvine CHG, Fitzpatrick MG, Alexander SL. "Phytoestrogens in soy-based infant foods: concentrations, daily intake and possible biological effects." Proc Soc Exp Biol Med, 1998, 217, 247-253. 85 Setchell KDR, Zimmer-Nechemias L et al. "Exposure of infants to phyto-oestrogens from soy-based infant formula." Lancet, 1997, 350, 9070. 86 Office of the Swiss Federal Health Service Bulletin #28, July 20, 1992. 87 Setchell KDR, Zimmer-Nechemias L et al. "Isoflavone content of infant formulas and the metabolic fate of these phytoestrogens in early life." Am J Clin Nutr, 1998, 69 (suppl) 1453S-61S. 88 Giddens, Herman et al. “Secondary sexual characteristics and menses in young girls seen in office practice.” Study from the Pediatric Research in Office Settings Network, 1997, 99, 4, 505-512. 89 WorldNetDaily. December 26, 2006. "The trouble with soy, part 3" by Jim Rutz. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53507 90 Ibid. 91 Baskin, Laurence, ed. “Hypospadias and Genital Development, Advances in Experimental Biology and Medicine”, vol 545. (N.Y. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2004. The definitive textbook. 92 Hines M. “Hormonal and neural correlates of sex-typed behavioral development in human beings.” In Marc Haug, ed. “The Development of Sex Differences and Similarities in Behavior” (Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic, 1993). 131-147. 93 Harrison PJ, Everall IP et al. "Is homosexuality hardwired? Sexual orientation and brain structure." Psych Med, 1994, 24, 811-16. 94 Lund TD, West TW et al. “Visual spatial memory is enhanced in female rats.” BMC Neurosci, 2001, 1, 1-13.
95
Baskin, Laurence,
ed. "Hypospadias and Genital Development, Advances in
Experimental Biology and Medicine," vol. 545. (N.Y. Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2004). The definitive textbook.
On soy and homosexuality, see also: Lephart ED, Setchell KD,
Lund TD. “Phytoestrogens: hormonal action and brain
plasticity”. Brain Res Bull, 2005 Apr 15; 65 (3): 193-8.
Also see Lephart ED, Rhees RW et al. “Estrogens and
phytoestrogens: brain plasticity of sexually dimorphic 96 Ibid 97 Zhong, et al. "Effects of dietary supplement of soy protein isolate and low fat diet on prostate cancer." FASEB J 2000;14(4):a531.11 98 Nagata C, et al. "Inverse association of soy product intake with serum androgen and estrogen concentrations in Japanese men." Nutr Cancer 2000;36(1):14-8. 99 "The Zardoz Effect: The Epidemic of Male Infertility." By William Wong ND, PhD. 100 Men'sHealth.com. "Is This the Most Dangerous Food for Men?" http://www.menshealth.com/bestfoods/food_features/Is_This_the_Most_Dangerous_Food_for_Men3.php 101 Irvine CH and others. Phytoestrogens in soy-based infant foods: concentrations, daily intake, and possible biological effects. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1998 Mar 217:3 247-53.
102
The Weston A. Price Foundation. "The Effects of Antenatal
Exposure to Phytoestrogens on Human Male Reproductive and
Urogenital Development" 103 Men'sHealth.com. Op. cit. 104 "Bad Protein" by TC 105 The Guardian [UK]. July 24, 2008. "Health: Soya-based foods may harm male fertility, say scientists" http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jul/24/foodtech.medicalresearch 106 WorldNetDaily. "Soy is making kids 'gay'" by Jim Rutz http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327 107 PreventDisease. "Fermented Soy Is The Only Soy Food Fit for Human Consumption" http://preventdisease.com/news/09/020409_soy.shtml 108 SoyInfo Center. “Dr. Artemy Alexis Horvath: Work with Soyfoods” 109 Ibid 110 Ibid 111 Fukutake M., et al. “Quantification of Genistein in Soybeans and Soybean Products.” Food and Chemical Toxicology, 1996;34:457-461. 112 Dr. Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN. "The Whole Soy Story: The dark side of America's favorite health food." 113 Blaylock, Russell MD, Email Correspondence with Cori Brackett, 2005. Cited in "Aspartame and Pregnancy" Healthy Holistic Living http://www.healthy-holistic-living.com/aspartame-and-pregnancy.html 114 The Dominion Post [NZ] November 20, 2009. “Birth control may beat climate change” pp B1 115 Financial Post [USA]. December 8, 2009. "The real inconvenient truth" by Diane Francis 116 Harvard Science. "John P. Holdren named President-elect Obama’s Science Advisor" 117 Ibid 118 John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. "Human Rights & International Justice" 119 Wikipedia. "Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfer_Center_for_Science_and_International_Affairs 120 informationliberation. December 10, 2009. "Monckton: Secretive Copenhagen Treaty Creates Larcenous Global Government Tax" http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=28252
121
Social Market Foundation. "Trading Emissions - Full
global potential" by Simon Linnett, Executive Vice Chairman
of Rothschild.
122 The Telegraph [UK]. January 31, 2008. "Carbon trading must be globally regulated" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/3323732/Carbon-trading-must-be-globally-regulated.html 123 Corbett Report. December 11, 2009. "Carbon Eugenics" http://tinyurl.com/y8fbvgo 124 Eugenics Watch. "Introduction to Eugenics" http://www.eugenics-watch.com/intro.html#ref2 125 Osborn, Frederick, Galton Lecture, Eugenics Review, 1956-1957, p. 21 -22 126 Corbett Report. December 11, 2009. "Carbon Eugenics" http://tinyurl.com/y8fbvgo 127 Tracey C. Rembert, "Ted Turner: Billionaire, Media Mogul ... And Environmentalist" (Interview), E Magazine, January/February 1999, Volume X, number 1, p. 10 128 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. April 3, 2008. "Ted Turner: Global warming could lead to cannibalism" http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/news/stories/2008/04/03/turner_0404.html 129 Quoted in the book Final Days by Woodward and Bernstein. 130 LifeSiteNews. July 5, 2007. "Bill Gates Among Investors with $26 Million Share in Homosexual Activist Publishing Company" 131 news.com.au. December 10, 2007. "Tax babies 'to save planet'" http://www.news.com.au/tax-babies-to-save-planet/story-e6frfkp9-1111115078151 132 TimesOnLine. March 22, 2009. "UK population must fall to 30m, says Porritt" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5950442.ece?Submitted=true 133 Swans Commentary. August 10, 2009. "The Philanthropic Roots Of Corporate Environmentalism" by Michael Barker. 134 Times Online. February 8, 2009. "The fight to get aboard Lifeboat UK" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5682887.ece 135 The Optimum Population Trust. "Population Growth and Climate Change" 136 The Optimum Population Trust NEWS RELEASE September 9 2009 "CONTRACEPTION IS ‘GREENEST’ TECHNOLOGY" http://www.optimumpopulation.org/releases/opt.release09Sep09.htm 137 The Guardian. December 3, 2009. "Rich nations to offset emissions with birth control" http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/03/carbon-offset-projects-climate-change 138 Ibid 139 NewsWithViews. November 14, 2006. "DEPOPULATION AND THE AMERICAN MUTTS - PART 1" http://www.newswithviews.com/Levant/nancy66.htm 140 NZ Listener. November 24-30 2007 Vol. 211 No 3524. “On the cards” 141 Wikipedia. "David Miliband" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Miliband#cite_note-43 142 BBC NEWS. December 11, 2006. "Carbon 'credit card' considered" 143 The Times [UK]. November 9, 2009. "Carbon ration account for all proposed by Environment Agency" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6909046.ece 144 The Telegraph [UK]. November 9, 2009. "Everyone in Britain could be given a personal 'carbon allowance'" 145 NY Daily News. October 25, 2009. "Make meat-eaters pay: Ethicist proposes radical tax, says they're killing themselves and the planet" 146 Optimum Population Trust NEWS RELEASE. March 26 2009.”SEX IS MAIN CAUSE OF POPULATION GROWTH” http://www.optimumpopulation.org/releases/opt.release26Mar09.htm 147 The Telegraph [UK] November 9, 2009. Op. cit. 148 Optimum Population Trust NEWS RELEASE. March 26 2009.”SEX IS MAIN CAUSE OF POPULATION GROWTH” http://www.optimumpopulation.org/releases/opt.release26Mar09.htm 149 The Dominion Post [NZ]. December 22, 2009. “Change to land tax ‘could reduce bill’ for Maori” 150 Global Ethic Foundation. "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic" 151 LifeSiteNews. July 7, 2003. "Canada's Heir-Apparent Prime Minister Courts One-Worlder Maurice Strong for Advisor" 152 PRISON PLANET. October 25, 2005. "The Ringworm Children: How the Israeli Government Irradiated 100,000 Israeli Kids" http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2005/281005ringwormchildren.htm 153 About.com. "Christianity Today - General Statistics and Facts of Christianity" http://christianity.about.com/od/denominations/p/christiantoday.htm 154 TimesOnLine. April 22, 2004. "The mouse with two mothers . . . but no father" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article831717.ece 155 BBC News. February 5, 2008. "Three-parent embryo formed in lab" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7227861.stm 156 National Geographic News. January 25, 2005. "Animal-Human Hybrids Spark Controversy" http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0125_050125_chimeras.html 157 The Washington Post. November 20, 2004. "Of Mice, Men and In-Between" 158 National Geographic News. January 25, 2005. Op. cit. 159 Ibid 160 The Washington Post. November 20, 2004. "Of Mice, Men and In-Between" 161 Ibid 162 COSMOS [UK magazine] February 19, 2007. "Women to be paid for eggs" © Copyright Qadosh Erectus. Permission granted to freely distribute this article for non-commercial purposes if unedited and copied in full, including this notice. Reproduction of this article for the purposes of commercial redistribution is prohibited except with written permission from Qadosh Erectus. QadoshErectus[at]gmail.com No copyright is claimed on the images used in this publication nor on the material quoted.
This Article On Pdf file For Printing
By the same author:
|
David Duke reviews
Inglourious Basterds.
He shows that the film starring Brad Pitt and Eli Roth is nothing but a sadistic
and pro-torture, sick Jewish hate film.
