Eugenics & Depopulation Today

Harvard Fellow calls for genocidal measure to curb Palestinian births

2010-02-26T06:20:00.000-08:00

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11091.shtml

Harvard Fellow calls for genocidal measure to curb Palestinian births
The Electronic Intifada
Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:30 EST

Here's Martin's schizoidal idea: if we kill enough surplus Muslims, then there'll be less of them around to become radicals. Genius, no?

A fellow at Harvard University's Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Martin Kramer, has called for "the West" to take measures to curb the births of Palestinians, a proposal that appears to meet the international legal definition of a call for genocide.

Kramer, who is also a fellow at the influential Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), made the call early this month in a speech at Israel's Herzliya conference, a video of which is posted on his blog ("Superfluous young men," 7 February 2010).

In the speech Kramer rejected common views that Islamist "radicalization" is caused by US policies such as support for Israel, or propping up despotic dictatorships, and stated that it was inherent in the demography of Muslim societies such as Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Israeli-occupied Gaza Strip. Too many children, he argued, leads to too many "superfluous young men" who then become violent radicals.

Kramer proposed that the number of Palestinian children born in the Gaza Strip should be deliberately curbed, and alleged that this would "happen faster if the West stops providing pro-natal subsidies to Palestinians with refugee status."

Due to the Israeli blockade, the vast majority of Palestinians in Gaza are now dependent on UN food aid. Neither the UN, nor any other agencies, provide Palestinians with specifically "pro-natal subsidies." Kramer appeared to be equating any humanitarian assistance at all with inducement for Palestinians to reproduce.

He added, "Israel's present sanctions on Gaza have a political aim -- undermine the Hamas regime -- but if they also break Gaza's runaway population growth, and there is some evidence that they have, that might begin to crack the culture of martyrdom which demands a constant supply of superfluous young men." This, he claimed, would be treating the issue of Islamic radicalization "at its root."

The 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, created in the wake of the Nazi holocaust, defines genocide to include measures "intended to prevent births within" a specific "national, ethnic, racial or religious group."

The Weatherhead Center at Harvard describes itself as "the largest international research center within Harvard University's Faculty of Arts and Sciences." In addition to his positions at Harvard and WINEP, Kramer is "president-designate" of Shalem College in Jerusalem, a far-right Zionist institution that aspires to be the "College of the Jewish People."

Pro-Israel speakers from the United States often participate in the the Herzliya conference, an influential annual gathering of Israel's political and military establishment. This year's conference was also addressed by The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman and, in a first for a Palestinian official, by Salam Fayyad, appointed prime minister of the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority.

Kramer's call to prevent Palestinian births reflects a long-standing Israeli and Zionist concern about a so-called "demographic threat" to Israel, as Palestinians are on the verge of outnumbering Israeli Jews within Israel, and the occupied Palestinian territories combined.

Such extreme racist views have been aired at the Herzliya conference in the past. In 2003, for example, Dr. Yitzhak Ravid, an Israeli government armaments expert, called on Israel to "implement a stringent policy of family planning in relation to its Muslim population," a reference to the 1.5 million Palestinian citizens of Israel.

The nazis' idea of murdering Jews, Gysies and communists in gas chambers was an American idea

2010-02-21T15:30:00.000-08:00

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/02/nazis-murder-of-jews-communists-and.html

Washingtonblog.com
Sat, 20 Feb 2010 12:29 EST

Believe it or not, the Nazis' murder of Jews, communists and gypsies using gas chambers was actually an American idea.

As the San Francisco Chronicle wrote in 2003:

the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn't originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little-known, role in the American eugenics movement's campaign for ethnic cleansing.

Eugenics was the pseudoscience aimed at "improving" the human race. In its extreme, racist form, this meant wiping away all human beings deemed "unfit," preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in 27 states. In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in "colonies," and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilizations were done in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such surgeries.

California was considered an epicenter of the American eugenics movement. During the 20th century's first decades, California's eugenicists included potent but little-known race scientists, such as Army venereal disease specialist Dr. Paul Popenoe, citrus magnate Paul Gosney, Sacramento banker Charles Goethe, as well as members of the California state Board of Charities and Corrections and the University of California Board of Regents.

Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America's most respected scientists from such prestigious universities as Stanford, Yale, Harvard and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics' racist aims.

Stanford President David Starr Jordan originated the notion of "race and blood" in his 1902 racial epistle Blood of a Nation, in which the university scholar declared that human qualities and conditions such as talent and poverty were passed through the blood.

n 1904, the Carnegie Institution established a laboratory complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island that stockpiled millions of index cards on ordinary Americans, as researchers carefully plotted the removal of families, bloodlines and whole peoples. From Cold Spring Harbor, eugenics advocates agitated in the legislatures of America, as well as the nation's social service agencies and associations.

The Harriman railroad fortune paid local charities, such as the New York Bureau of Industries and Immigration, to seek out Jewish, Italian and other immigrants in New York and other crowded cities and subject them to deportation, confinement or forced sterilization.

The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.

Much of the spiritual guidance and political agitation for the American eugenics movement came from California's quasi-autonomous eugenic societies, such as Pasadena's Human Betterment Foundation and the California branch of the American Eugenics Society, which coordinated much of their activity with the Eugenics Research Society in Long Island. These organizations -- which functioned as part of a closely-knit network -- published racist eugenic newsletters and pseudoscientific journals, such as Eugenical News and Eugenics, and propagandized for the Nazis.

The most commonly suggested method of eugenicide in the United States was a "lethal chamber" or public, locally operated gas chambers. In 1918, Popenoe, the Army venereal disease specialist during World War I, co-wrote the widely used textbook, "Applied Eugenics," which argued, "From an historical point of view, the first method which presents itself is execution . . . Its value in keeping up the standard of the race should not be underestimated." Applied Eugenics also devoted a chapter to "Lethal Selection," which operated "through the destruction of the individual by some adverse feature of the environment, such as excessive cold, or bacteria, or by bodily deficiency."

Comment: For more information about the concept of "Lethal Selection" see the following here and here.

In light of the above, one might question whether the motivation behind the global financial meltdown was deliberately engineered for just this purpose.

Eugenic breeders believed American society was not ready to implement an organized lethal solution. But many mental institutions and doctors practiced improvised medical lethality and passive euthanasia on their own. One institution in Lincoln, Ill., fed its incoming patients milk from tubercular cows believing a eugenically strong individual would be immune. Thirty to 40 percent annual death rates resulted at Lincoln. Some doctors practiced passive eugenicide one newborn infant at a time. Others doctors at mental institutions engaged in lethal neglect.

Even the U.S. Supreme Court endorsed aspects of eugenics. In its infamous 1927 decision, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough." This decision opened the floodgates for thousands to be coercively sterilized or otherwise persecuted as subhuman. Years later, the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials quoted Holmes' words in their own defense.

Only after eugenics became entrenched in the United States was the campaign transplanted into Germany, in no small measure through the efforts of California eugenicists, who published booklets idealizing sterilization and circulated them to German officials and scientists.

Hitler studied American eugenics laws. He tried to legitimize his anti- Semitism by medicalizing it, and wrapping it in the more palatable pseudoscientific facade of eugenics. Hitler was able to recruit more followers among reasonable Germans by claiming that science was on his side. Hitler's race hatred sprung from his own mind, but the intellectual outlines of the eugenics Hitler adopted in 1924 were made in America.

During the '20s, Carnegie Institution eugenic scientists cultivated deep personal and professional relationships with Germany's fascist eugenicists. In Mein Kampf, published in 1924, Hitler quoted American eugenic ideology and openly displayed a thorough knowledge of American eugenics. "There is today one state," wrote Hitler, "in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception (of immigration) are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States."

During the Reich's early years, eugenicists across America welcomed Hitler's plans as the logical fulfillment of their own decades of research and effort. California eugenicists republished Nazi propaganda for American consumption. They also arranged for Nazi scientific exhibits, such as an August 1934 display at the L.A. County Museum, for the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association.

In 1934, as Germany's sterilizations were accelerating beyond 5,000 per month, the California eugenics leader C. M. Goethe, upon returning from Germany, ebulliently bragged to a colleague, "You will be interested to know that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making program. Everywhere I sensed that their opinions have been tremendously stimulated by American thought . . . I want you, my dear friend, to carry this thought with you for the rest of your life, that you have really jolted into action a great government of 60 million people."

More than just providing the scientific roadmap, America funded Germany's eugenic institutions.

By 1926, Rockefeller had donated some $410,000 -- almost $4 million in today's money -- to hundreds of German researchers. In May 1926, Rockefeller awarded $250,000 toward creation of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry. Among the leading psychiatrists at the German Psychiatric Institute was Ernst Rüdin, who became director and eventually an architect of Hitler's systematic medical repression.

Another in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute's complex of eugenics institutions was the Institute for Brain Research. Since 1915, it had operated out of a single room. Everything changed when Rockefeller money arrived in 1929. A grant of $317,000 allowed the institute to construct a major building and take center stage in German race biology. The institute received additional grants from the Rockefeller Foundation during the next several years. Leading the institute, once again, was Hitler's medical henchman Ernst Rüdin. Rüdin's organization became a prime director and recipient of the murderous experimentation and research conducted on Jews, Gypsies and others.

Beginning in 1940, thousands of Germans taken from old age homes, mental institutions and other custodial facilities were systematically gassed. Between 50,000 and 100,000 were eventually killed.

Leon Whitney, executive secretary of the American Eugenics Society, declared of Nazism, "While we were pussy-footing around ... the Germans were calling a spade a spade."

A special recipient of Rockefeller funding was the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics in Berlin. For decades, American eugenicists had craved twins to advance their research into heredity.

The Institute was now prepared to undertake such research on an unprecedented level. On May 13, 1932, the Rockefeller Foundation in New York dispatched a radiogram to its Paris office: JUNE MEETING EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS OVER THREE YEAR PERIOD TO KWG INSTITUTE ANTHROPOLOGY FOR RESEARCH ON TWINS AND EFFECTS ON LATER GENERATIONS OF SUBSTANCES TOXIC FOR GERM PLASM.

At the time of Rockefeller's endowment, Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer, a hero in American eugenics circles, functioned as a head of the Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics. Rockefeller funding of that institute continued both directly and through other research conduits during Verschuer's early tenure. In 1935, Verschuer left the institute to form a rival eugenics facility in Frankfurt that was much heralded in the American eugenics press. Research on twins in the Third Reich exploded, backed by government decrees. Verschuer wrote in Der Erbarzt, a eugenics doctor's journal he edited, that Germany's war would yield a "total solution to the Jewish problem."

Verschuer had a longtime assistant. His name was Josef Mengele.

Rockefeller executives never knew of Mengele. With few exceptions, the foundation had ceased all eugenics studies in Nazi-occupied Europe before the war erupted in 1939. But by that time the die had been cast. The talented men Rockefeller and Carnegie financed, the great institutions they helped found, and the science they helped create took on a scientific momentum of their own.

As Michel Crichton wrote in 2004:

Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.

These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.

All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.

The plan was to identify individuals who were feeble-minded --- Jews were agreed to be largely feeble-minded, but so were many foreigners, as well as blacks --- and stop them from breeding by isolation in institutions or by sterilization.

Such views were widely shared. H.G. Wells spoke against "ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens." Theodore Roosevelt said that "Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind." Luther Burbank" "Stop permitting criminals and weaklings to reproduce." George Bernard Shaw said that only eugenics could save mankind.

Eugenics research was funded by the Carnegie Foundation, and later by the Rockefeller Foundation. The latter was so enthusiastic that even after the center of the eugenics effort moved to Germany, and involved the gassing of individuals from mental institutions, the Rockefeller Foundation continued to finance German researchers at a very high level. (The foundation was quiet about it, but they were still funding research in 1939, only months before the onset of World War II.)

Since the 1920s, American eugenicists had been jealous because the Germans had taken leadership of the movement away from them. The Germans were admirably progressive. They set up ordinary-looking houses where "mental defectives" were brought and interviewed one at a time, before being led into a back room, which was, in fact, a gas chamber. There, they were gassed with carbon monoxide, and their bodies disposed of in a crematorium located on the property.

Eventually, this program was expanded into a vast network of concentration camps located near railroad lines, enabling the efficient transport and of killing ten million undesirables.

After World War II, nobody was a eugenicist, and nobody had ever been a eugenicist. Biographers of the celebrated and the powerful did not dwell on the attractions of this philosophy to their subjects, and sometimes did not mention it at all. Eugenics ceased to be a subject for college classrooms, although some argue that its ideas continue to have currency in disguised form.

The scientific establishment in both the United States and Germany did not mount any sustained protest. Quite the contrary. In Germany scientists quickly fell into line with the program. Modern German researchers have gone back to review Nazi documents from the 1930s. They expected to find directives telling scientists what research should be done. But none were necessary. In the words of Ute Deichman, "Scientists, including those who were not members of the [Nazi] party, helped to get funding for their work through their modified behavior and direct cooperation with the state." Deichman speaks of the "active role of scientists themselves in regard to Nazi race policy ... where [research] was aimed at confirming the racial doctrine ... no external pressure can be documented." German scientists adjusted their research interests to the new policies. And those few who did not adjust disappeared.

What Britain’s Assisted Suicide War Should Teach Us

2010-02-20T12:33:00.000-08:00

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/17/what-britains-assisted-suicide-war-should-teach-us/

Ann Neumann
February 17, 2010

Culture wars do nothing to correct social problems and, by distracting from the underlying challenges and focusing on one contentious issue, actually exacerbate social ills and prevent practical solutions from gaining traction.

This should be common knowledge; under the weight of the abortion debate in the U.S., delivery of women’s reproductive services beyond abortion remain uncertain, erratic, and regional.

In the past few decades we’ve witnessed the deafening calls against abortion drown out all discussion of other reproductive health needs. Contraception, sterilization, condom use, sex education, tubal ligation and other reproductive services like basic testing, check-ups, and pre- and post-natal care have, for women’s choice advocates, had to take a back seat in the defense of abortion rights. Yes, some improvements have been made but after a disappointing summer of health care reform defeats, women’s rights groups have had to admit that new strategies are necessary.

A resonant scenario is playing out in the U.K. over the legality of assisted suicide. Since multiple sclerosis patient Debbie Purdy won a case during the summer that would allow her husband, Omar, to legally accompany her to Switzerland should she choose to end her life, the country has been mired in an emotional, star-studded, increasingly strange war over assisted suicide.

In Britain, “assisting suicide” is prosecutable, but supporters, like Purdy, have successfully argued that assisted suicide is not the same as aid in dying. Those who are sentenced to death by a fatal disease, they say, are not committing suicide – they’re already being killed by cancer, MS, or other illnesses – but ending the unbearable suffering that their disease has caused. But in the midst of all the noise, such distinctions are hard to make.

Since July, Director of Public Prosecutions, Kier I-wouldn’t-characterize-myself-as-a-bleeding-heart-liberal Starmer has been working to revise the prosecutorial guidelines on assisted suicide. It’s been a resoundingly thankless job. ”Anti-euthanasia” and/or “pro-life” organizations have successfully dogged his efforts to the point of standstill. He can do no right, as the situation stands. Into the debate maw have jumped countless well-meaning but colorful and high-profile individuals.

Sir Terry Pratchett, one of Britain’s most acclaimed authors, publicly voiced his support for assisted suicide in August. Noting that he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, Pratchett said:

‘I believe that if the burden gets too great, those who wish should be allowed to be shown the door,’ he said. ‘In my case, in the fullness of time, I hope it will be in the garden under an English sky. Or, if wet, the library.’

Another author got into the act in January. Swaggering Martin Amis suggested that the best way to deal with the encroaching “silver tsunami” of elders would be to make assisted suicide legal and convenient. ”There should be a booth on every corner where you could get a martini and a medal,” he said.

And just this week, famed British broadcaster Ray Gosling (pictured above) admitted in a BBC special that he had smothered his suffering lover decades ago with a pillow. His partner was dying of AIDS and the two had made a pact that should the suffering become unbearable, Gosling would do whatever was necessary to spare him from that suffering. Gosling now faces legal questioning. (UPDATE: Gosling was arrested for questioning today.)

Even the BBC, seemingly accustomed to accusations of bias, is not exempt from getting drawn into the assisted suicide war. They are promoting “euthanasia” say the accusers, many of whom are MPs.

All this attention on the issue of assisted suicide has made for some widely-read and sensational news. But, as Peter Beresford blogs at the Guardian today, the war over assisted suicide has done little to address the practical, non-contentious issues surrounding assisted suicide.

Beresford asks, “Why isn’t the same political and media interest given to palliative and end of life care, carers and social care generally as to assisted dying?” At first it’s a naive-sounding question. Isn’t the purpose of a culture war to drown out subtleties? But his asking makes patients’ rights advocates again face the fact that they haven’t yet learned their culture war lesson.

Un-nuanced debate has pitted organized, emotional, resource-rich “pro-life” groups against the legalization of assisted suicide, leaving supporters of end of life choice to run around flapping their hands. As we saw in the U.S. over the summer, however ridiculous it may sound to accuse government of wanting to kill the vulnerable in society, such accusations have traction when grasped by the busy-body media and dished to the uninformed public. Beresford continues:

We know that the former [palliative and hospice care, caregivers] all are under pressure and have inadequate support. Specialist palliative care services are underfunded and unequally distributed. Much-valued hospices are increasingly at risk of closure, rather than blossoming in number, while carers are still treated by the government as a resource to be exploited, rather than as family members to be supported.

The failure to bring social care policy, provision and funding into the 21st century is at last making the front pages, but what the headlines make clear is the failure of all the political parties to work for any sustainable consensus for the future.

Beresford’s solution?

The appalling lack of skilled advocacy services in England is a major problem. Policy-makers and politicians are happy to talk about providing more information, but when it comes to the ongoing guidance, support and advice that people want – and that can only really be provided by an independent, trained advocate – there is much less political will. Such advocacy has serious cost implications, but in the long run can save lives and money.

What is most needed now is a safe space for an inclusive discussion about social care, including palliative care and assisted dying, which truly involves the widest range of experience and opinion. Then we may begin to get somewhere.

Wishful thinking! When you’re in a culture war, there is no DMZ. And everybody is an “independent advocate.” Who do you ask for that safe space? The government? The media? The church? The medical profession? Because other end of life care issues have been framed into the assisted suicide debate, they can’t be addressed in a rational, meaningful way. Is the solution increased public education? A broader coalition for patients’ right?

I don’t necessarily have an answer but neither does Beresford. Clearly the same ineffective strategies of old – like interjections from high-profile advocates, and raising volume and tone to match one’s opponents – don’t work. The lesson from Britain is this: what patients’ rights advocates are doing now to win the discussion back from the war on assisted suicide isn’t working. New thinking is necessary in both Britain and the U.S.

“There will be casualties”

2010-02-20T11:16:00.000-08:00

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/there_will_be_casualties/

Michael Cook | Friday, 19 February 2010

Euthanasia activists in Australia, the UK and the Netherlands have lost touch with reality.

Australian euthanasia activist Dr Philip Nitschke loves publicity. But whenever he opens his mouth, even the most progressive journalists avert their eyes in squeamish embarrassment. This week’s gaffe was to defend his barely legal promotion of a suicide drug for the elderly and terminally ill. It turns out that nearly two-thirds of the Australians who died after quaffing Nembutal – at least 51 over the past 10 years -- were under 60, and quite a few were in the 20s and 30s. This suggests that mental illness or depression, not unbearable pain, was the reason for the suicide. So how did Nitschke respond?

''There will be some casualties,” he said with the tenderness of General Haig sending troops over the top at the Somme, “but this has to be balanced with the growing pool of older people who feel immense well-being from having access to this information,'' [about suicide drugs].

The notion that young people are just collateral damage in a war to defend their grandparents’ inalienable right to make a quick getaway outraged many Australians. There were calls for Dr Nitschke to be hauled into a court for putting lives at risk.

But after tracking the increasingly outrageous suggestions from advocates for assisted suicide and euthanasia, I feel that jail is not the place for people like Nitschke. They belong in a straitjacket. It is becoming increasingly clear that euthanasia advocacy is an illness characterised by an unwillingness to take responsibility for one’s actions, an inability to empathise with normal people, and a morbid desire to help others die. Like mad cow disease, it lies dormant for years. Its victims look normal, but eventually the spongy degeneration of the brain becomes evident.

Nitschke is a classical case. An intelligent man with a PhD in physics and a qualified doctor, he entered the public debate by decrying the cruelty of forcing the terminally ill to die in excruciating pain. Autonomous adults should have the right to die at a time and place of their choosing, surrounded by their loved one, he argued. It sounded vaguely plausible to the media and to his doddering but increasingly numerous groupies, it was a new gospel. But bit by bit, it became clear that his goal was death-on-demand, even for troubled teenagers. He seems incapable of grasping that most of us want teenagers to stick around for a few more years rather than kill themselves over a cruel Facebook post.

In England, the latest case of euthanasia madness is a 70-year-old veteran BBC broadcaster and gay rights campaigner, Ray Gosling. He confessed in the middle of a TV show that he had smothered an unnamed gay lover suffering from AIDS some 20 years ago.

“In a hospital one hot afternoon, the doctor said ‘There’s nothing we can do’, and he was in terrible, terrible pain. I said to the doctor ‘Leave me just for a bit’ and he went away. I picked up the pillow and smothered him until he was dead. The doctor came back and I said ‘He’s gone’. Nothing more was ever said.”

Mr Gosling sobbed a bit, but was adamant that killing someone and concealing the murder was the right thing. “If there’s a heaven and he’s looking down, he’d be proud of me,” he told the BBC. He was oblivious to all the safeguards promised by euthanasia advocates. A right to smother someone, anywhere, anytime, without consulting doctors, without notifying the police, without proving your disinterestedness, and without even consulting the victim raises questions in most sane minds about the possibility of widespread collateral damage. Perhaps only BBC journalists would be allowed to do mercy killings, but some sane people might even object to that.

In the Netherlands euthanasia loopiness has become epidemic. It is legal there and every year about 2,500 acknowledged cases of doctor-administered death take place.

But amongst the numerous Dutch victims of spongy-brained euthanasia syndrome some are more affected than others. Recently a distinguished group called “Out of Free Will” has complained that there are too many restrictions on euthanasia in the Netherlands. Even in the mercy-killing heartland, people are required to have some sort of terminal illness. But the new lobby group wants the right for to anyone sane over the age of 70 to die with a professionally-trained expert’s assistance. They have already begun collecting signatures to lobby for improvements to the legislation.

Part of their scheme is a completely new profession: specialist suicide assistants. These people will need to pass a “Completed Life” training program and to join a professional association which will maintain standards of professional, transparent and safe conduct.

The age limit of 70 is arbitrary. “Whether it should be 65 or 90 is a good question,” says legal scholar Eugene Sutorius. “We think that once someone has reached old age, he has proved abilities at living. He can then choose to leave this life in a procedural, medicalised manner.”

Three spokesmen told the NRC Handelsblad that collateral damage by “angels of death” in nursing homes – rogue doctors and nurses who enjoy killing people -- was unlikely to be a problem, especially in view of the country’s positive experience with euthanasia. “It was thought to be the first step on a slippery slope that would lead the medical profession to lose its integrity,” says Mr Sutorius. “But I have seen nothing of the kind happen.”

That last sentence is a tell-tale symptom of spongy-brain euthanasia disease. Before euthanasia was legalised, Dutch doctors were already doing it enthusiastically. It was legalised for consenting adults in pain from a terminal condition, and now it is permitted for non-consenting infants. Dutch doctors routinely lie on their official reports. If they are squeamish about lethal injections, they kill patients through the lingering death of terminal sedation – which is not counted as euthanasia. All these facts are well known. Yet Mr Sutorius sees no slippery slope, no loss of medical integrity. Mr Sutorius belongs in a straitjacket, not in a comfy chair giving interviews. (If you speak Dutch, he explains his position here in a YouTube video.)

What is happening here? How can intelligent, well-educated people be so obtuse about the dangers of legalising the killing of innocent, infirm human beings? Perhaps the conviction that some killing is permissible is so morally corrupting that it infects the intellect and distorts reality. And arguing with them is futile. As Chesterton wrote:

If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgement. He is not hampered by a sense of humour or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.

Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet.

Nitschke unapologetic about collateral damage

2010-02-17T11:30:00.000-08:00

I thought collateral damage was about civilians getting killed during wars not euthanasia!

http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/bioethics/bioethics_article/8851/

Nitschke unapologetic about collateral damage
posted by Michael Cook | 16 Feb 2010 | Comments

Finally, a key performance indicator for Australian euthanasia activist Dr Philip Nitschke! In Australia, after recent legislation, it is illegal to promote assisted suicide in print or on the internet, so it is hard to measure how successful he has been. However, recent figures from the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine show that 51 people throughout the country have died after taking Nembutal, his drug of choice, in the past 10 years.

Somewhat embarrassingly for Dr Nitschke and his organization, Exit International, six people in their 20s and eight in their 30s had died of Nembutal poisoning. Because this drug is illegal in Australia for human consumption, Dr Nitschke has been encouraging people to smuggle it in from overseas, mostly from Mexico, or to manufacture it themselves. The most pessimistic interpretation of the figures is that 14 young people who were not terminally ill discovered how to obtain lethal doses of the poison from Exit members.

However, the figures, which were generated for The Age newspaper in Melbourne, are difficult to interpret, because only 38 of the 51 cases were thoroughly examined by a coroner. And the total could be higher, as it includes only those which emerged from a search of a national database. Of the 38, only 11 were suffering from a serious physical illness. Of the 51, nearly two-thirds were under 60. Without a more detailed knowledge of the cases, the data strongly implies that most of the people who used Nembutal to kill themselves were either mentally ill or just weary of life.

Typically, Dr Nitschke was unapologetic about possible collateral damage from his campaign for euthanasia for people suffering from terminal illness and loss of autonomy. ''There will be some casualties… but this has to be balanced with the growing pool of older people who feel immense well-being from having access to this information,'' he said. ~ The Age, Feb 15

Report: No crime wave among Hurricane Katrina evacuees

2010-02-14T07:32:00.000-08:00

Ironic this coincides with something my friend Judyth and I are writing in our Book on political ponerology! The media reported hell on earth so they could get it for the puppet masters! It was a third-person way to kill off a bunch of 'useless eaters'!!! I'm thinking of starting my 104th blog and call it 'The MADNESS of IT ALL'!!!

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-02-12-hurricane-katrina-crime_N.htm

Report: No crime wave among Hurricane Katrina evacuees
Dan Vergano
USA Today
Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:47 EST

Hurricane Katrina didn't lead to a massive crime wave in evacuee cities, report criminologists, despite news reports and police warnings at the time.

In the current Journal of Criminal Justice study led by sociologist Sean Varano of Roger Williams University in Bristol, R.I., the authors look at statistics for robbery, rape, murder, car theft and other violent crimes in Houston, San Antonio and Phoenix before and after Katrina evacuees arrived in those cities. The 2005 storm, which killed about 1,800 people and caused more than $80 billion in damages, according to the National Hurricane Center, led to the relocation of more than one million people.

Houston received about 240,000 evacuees (a 7% population increase); San Antonio, about 30,000 (a 3% increase); and Phoenix, about 3,000 (less than a 0.5% increase). The cities were selected for the study due to their spread of evacuee impact. "Public officials and news reports suggested a criminal class was arriving in these places," Varano says. After welcoming evacuees, Houston handles spike in crime, was a 2006 headline in The Washington Post.

"But if there was any effect, it was a modest one," Varano says, after his group weighed police crime data from the three cities to look for trends for each crime from 2004 to 2006. The study found a slight rise in murder and robbery in Houston, when adjusted for the long-term crime patterns, but no increase in other crimes (and suggested drops in rape and aggravated assaults); no effect at all in San Antonio; and another slight statistical rise in the murder rate in Phoenix. "Any increase in murder is intolerable," Varano says, but a lack of increase in crimes such as car theft and robbery, where economic motives most clearly would tempt so many displaced people, argues against a crime wave driven by evacuees, he says.

Meanwhile, "Many communities across the United States ... also reported increases in violent crime between 2004 and 2006," notes the study, including a 30% increase in aggravated assault in cities such as Baltimore and Detroit.

A crime wave spawned by evacuees is typical of "disaster myths" seen after catastrophes, such as the mythical Superdome riots reported in the days after the hurricane, says disaster management scholar Joseph Trainor of the University of Delaware, who was not part of the study. "This is a very strong study showing long-term effects and (showing) people's resiliency after a disaster."

Disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and the Jan. 12 earthquake in Haiti almost always spawn fears of riots or criminality, seen in some early reports from Port-Au-Prince. But on Jan. 18, U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Mike Rogers, Director of Intelligence for the Joint Staff, told a news conference, "we have seen nothing that suggests to us that we have widespread disorder; no sense of widespread panic."

"Fifty years of social science show people are not victims of disasters, they are survivors," Trainor says. "People are adaptive and altruistic, mass rioting and mass looting are just disaster myths for the most part."

The crime data study, gathered from public police records, can't indicate whether Katrina evacuees were perpetrators, victims or uninvolved in the increased murders. And it can only talk about the three study cities, not the situation elsewhere, Varano acknowledges. But he suggests there are some lessons raised by the findings.

"One lesson is that after disasters we have to think about where evacuees land, and not just the disaster site itself," Varano says. He argues that crime rate changes after displaced people arrive in a city like Houston or Phoenix tells us more about the conditions at the arrival location than about the displaced people themselves. Strong communities undoubtedly handle influxes of evacuees better than already weak ones, he says.

"Another is that public officials, and news organizations, have a responsibility to speak very carefully about the reality of disaster situations," Varano concludes. "There's a danger of host cities not wanting to accept people in desperate straits because of false perceptions."

US babies mysteriously shrinking

2010-02-12T14:20:00.000-08:00

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18434-us-babies-mysteriously-shrinking.html?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=dn18434

26 January 2010 by Ewen Callaway
Magazine issue 2745.

Birthweights in the US are falling but no one knows why, according to a study of 36.8 million infants born between 1990 and 2005.

A 52-gram drop in the weight of full-term singletons – from an average of 3.441 to 3.389 kilograms – has left Emily Oken's team at Harvard Medical School scratching their heads. It can't be accounted for by an increase in caesarean sections or induced labours, which shorten gestation. What's more, women in the US now smoke less and gain more weight during pregnancy, which should make babies heavier. Oken suggests that unmeasured factors, such as diet or exercise, could explain why babies are being born lighter.

"For your average baby, 50 grams probably makes no difference at all," she stresses. But those born substantially lighter could be at increased risk of heart disease and diabetes later in life.

Journal reference: Obstetrics & Gynecology, DOI: 10.1097/aog.0b013e3181cbd5f5

'Conspiracies of Rich Men' to Commit War Crimes and Aggression

2010-02-12T13:16:00.000-08:00

READ BELOW: Over a civilized lunch, this 'conspiracy of rich men' planned the extermination of the jews of Europe. THE SAME THING IS HAPPENING NOW!!!

http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2010/02/conspiracies-of-rich-men-to-commit-war.html

FEBRUARY 02, 2010

'Conspiracies of Rich Men' to Commit War Crimes and Aggression
by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The establishment derides conspiracies and, for awhile, it was fashionable to deny the existence of 'conspiracies'. In fact, conspiracies are how things get done. Very little is accomplished by one person working alone. If what is to be accomplished is illegal, the 'conspiracy' is called a 'crime syndicate' or 'orgnized crime'.

If the 'conspiracy' in question is legal, however questionable, it is called a corporation or a business enterprise. Theorists on the high court have said corporations are people! But, should you call five idiots who have thus conspired to subvert the U.S. Constitution by the term 'conspirators', you are likely to be called a nut job! But SCOTUS believes mere words on paper is a real, living breathing person if it happens to have a seal on it supplied to you by the Delaware Secreatary of State! So --I ask you --who is nuts?

The government often cites the specter of 'organized crime' in order to rally voters to a 'right wing' cause like 'law and order', a big issue in the 1960s. In order to fully exploit this 'threat', this 'clear and present danger' to the lives of middle America who seemed to have been cowering in fear, it was necessary to promote all manner of fears --hippies, black people, rock n' rolll, and crime syndicates. Law and order' was, therefore, a big issue among the GOP hoping to exploit the fears of 'hippies' and 'black people' --both of whom were unhappy with increasing poverty, denial of rights, the seemingly endless, mindless and destructive war in Viet Nam. It was a war fought on behalf of a 'conspiracy of rich men' --ITT, Honeywell et al --all of whom hoped to make a killing with defense contracts.

George H. W. Bush, otherwise called Sr now, had hoped to achieve high office by exploiting those fears. It is no stretch to conclude that George H. W. Bush had made a Faustian bargain with the leadership of GOP. George H. W. Bush --by the time I met him --has already sold his soul to what St. Thomas More has already described as a 'conspiracy of rich men to procure their commodites'.

The Senior Bush won two elections for a seat in the House of Representatives, but lost two bids for a Senate seat. It was in during one of his Senate races that I first met the Senior Bush who was not so well known when I interviewed Bush Sr with regard to this very issue. I was a very young reporter, somewhat naive, learning the ropes and had not yet made it to a major market or a network. Honestly --I did not know what to make of Bush's 'non'-answer. It consisted of slogans, buzzwords, and meaningless gobbledy gook. Little has changed. The Bush family still talks like that!

After Bush's second race for the Senate, President Nixon appointed him U.S. delegate to the United Nations. He later became Republican National Committee chairman. He headed the U.S. liaison office in Beijing. It was years later, in Houston, that the Senior Bush would regale me with a story about how he was 'duped' into eating 'dog lips' --apparently a Chinese delicacy --at a formal, diplomatic dinner in the Forbidden City.

Bush would eventually become Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. At the time, many wondered what, precisely, was it that qualified Bush to head up the CIA, an agency that I have called 'World's Number One Terrorist Organization'. Despite his criticism of Reagan's “voodoo economics" , Bush became Reagan's running mate in 1980; by 1984, Bush had won acclaim for his devotion to Reagan's conservative agenda. Thus would espouse an utterly failed policy and one that he himself has opposed. Reagan's 'voodoo economics' caused a two year long recession, the deepest and most severe depression since Hoover's great depression of 1929. But that clearly did not matter to Bush Sr. He would hitch his wagon to whatever star was ascendant and, at the time, it was the ascendant Ronald Reagan who would preside over a 'conspiracy' to sell arms to Iran, which was, at the time, an officially declared enemy of the United States, a sponsor of world wide terrorism. This 'conspiracy' on behalf of rich men would then funnel the proceeds of those sales to the so-called Contras in Nicaragua. There is a word for this: high treason:

The Iran/contra investigation will not end the kind of abuse of power that it addressed any more than the Watergate investigation did. The criminality in both affairs did not arise primarily out of ordinary venality or greed, although some of those charged were driven by both. Instead, the crimes committed in Iran/contra were motivated by the desire of persons in high office to pursue controversial policies and goals even when the pursuit of those policies and goals was inhibited or restricted by executive orders, statutes or the constitutional system of checks and balances.

The tone in Iran/contra was set by President Reagan. He directed that the contras be supported, despite a ban on contra aid imposed on him by Congress. And he was willing to trade arms to Iran for the release of Americans held hostage in the Middle East, even if doing so was contrary to the nation's stated policy and possibly in violation of the law.

The lesson of Iran/contra is that if our system of government is to function properly, the branches of government must deal with one another honestly and cooperatively. When disputes arise between the Executive and Legislative branches, as they surely will, the laws that emerge from such disputes must be obeyed. When a President, even with good motive and intent, chooses to skirt the laws or to circumvent them, it is incumbent upon his subordinates to resist, not join in. Their oath and fealty are to the Constitution and the rule of law, not to the man temporarily occupying the Oval Office. Congress has the duty and the power under our system of checks and balances to ensure that the President and his Cabinet officers are faithful to their oaths. --Lawrence Walsh, Special Prosecutor, Concluding Observations, FINAL REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL

FOR IRAN/CONTRA MATTERS
No one ever called Sr a 'conspiracy theorist'. That's because he was not a theorist; he was a 'conspirator' for real!
"I can perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men procuring their own commodities under the name and title of the commonwealth."- Sir Thomas More (1478 - 1535), Utopia, Of the Religions in Utopia

Last time I checked the Cornell Univ Law Library and FINDLAW, I found hundreds if not thousands of court decisions, including SCOTUS, having to do with conspiracies large and small, of one sort or another. Someone should inform SCOTUS that conspiracies do not exist, but, I suspect, the very fact that they are recognized by the higher courts, including SCOTUS, creates them if they had not existed prior.

In his 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich', William Shirer described what St. Thomas More would have called a 'conspiracy of rich men' to invade the nations of Europe, steal their resources and divide up the booty.

Goebbels was jubilant. "Now it will be easy," he wrote in his diary on February 3, "to carry on the fight, for we can call on all the resources of the State. Radio and press are at our disposal. We shall stage a masterpiece of propaganda. And this time, naturally, there is no lack of money."(2)

The big businessmen, pleased with the new government that was going to put the organized workers in their place and leave management to run its business as it wished, were asked to cough up. This they agreed to do at a meeting on February 20 at Goering's Reichstag President's Palace, at which Dr. Schacht acted as host and Goering and Hitler laid down the line to a couple of dozen of Germany's leading magnates, including Krupp von Bohlen, who had become an enthusiastic Nazi overnight, Bosch and Schnitzler of I. G. Farben, and Voegler, head of the United Steel Works. The record of this secret meeting has been preserved.

Hitler began a long speech with a sop to the industrialists. "Private enterprise," he said, "cannot be maintained in the age of democracy; it is conceivable only if the people have a sound idea of authority and personality . . . All the worldly goods we possess we owe to the struggle of the chosen . . . We must not forget that all the benefits of culture must be introduced more or less with an iron fist." He promised the businessmen that he would "eliminate" the Marxists and restore the Wehrmacht (the latter was of special interest to such industries as Krupp, United Steel and I. G. Farben, which stood to gain the most from rearmament). "Now we stand before the last election," Hitler concluded, and he promised his listeners that "regardless of the outcome, there will be no retreat." If he did not win, he would stay in power "by other means . . . with other weapons." Goering, talking more to the immediate point, stressed the necessity of "financial sacrifices" which "surely would be much easier for industry to bear if it realized that the election of March fifth will surely be the last one for the next ten years, probably even for the next hundred years."

All this was made clear enough to the assembled industrialists and they responded with enthusiasm to the promise of the end of the infernal elections, of democracy and disarmament. Krupp, the munitions king, who, according to Thyssen, had urged Hindenburg on January 29 not to appoint Hitler, jumped up and expressed to the Chancellor the "gratitude" of the businessmen "for having given us such a clear picture." Dr. Schacht then passed the hat. "I collected three million marks," he recalled at Nuremberg.(3) --William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, The Nazification of Germany: 1933–34

We are fortunate that no one 'informed' informed Shirer that conspiracies do not exist before he bothered unearthing the mountain of Nazi documents that prove the meeting, the Nazi conspiracy to wage war and genocide for the benefit of global corporations that participated. This meeting of 'industrialists' took place just as surely as did the meeting of Dick Cheney's 'Energy Task Force' which carved up an 'alloted' the oil fields of Iraq long before the events of 911 would give these 'conspiractors' the pre-text they would require to attack Iraq, wage war upon that nation and, in the process, steel its resources for the likes of Dick Cheney's own Halliburton and other members of an energy consortium.

The results were published in a 'National Energy Policy' report in May 2001, several months before 911 would give them the pretext to make the report come true. This is precisely the kind of of conspiracy that had been described so accurately, precisely by St. Thomas More in his "Utopia", a classic of English literature.

I can perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men procuring their own commodities under the name and title of the commonwealth.

They invent and devise all means and crafts, first how to keep safely, without fear of losing, that they have unjustly gathered together, and next how to hire and abuse the work and labour of the poor for as little money as may be. These devices, when the rich men have decreed to be kept and observed for the commonwealth's sake, that is to say for the wealth also of the poor people, then they be made laws. But these most wicked and vicious men, when they have by their insatiable covetousness divided among themselves all those things, which would have sufficed all men, yet how far be they from the wealth and felicity of the Utopian commonwealth? Out of the which, in that all the desire of money with the use of thereof is utterly secluded and banished, how great a heap of cares is cut away! How great an occasion of wickedness and mischief is plucked up by the roots!
Sir Thomas More (1478 - 1535), Utopia, Of the Religions in Utopia

Another example is Heinrich Heydrich's infamous meeting at Wansee, attended by Nazi bureaucrats, and corporate kiss ups. Over a civilized lunch, this 'conspiracy of rich men' planned the extermination of the jews of Europe.

... within a few months after the meeting, the first gas chambers were installed in some of the extermination camps in Poland. These six camps, Belzec, Birkenau, Chelmno, Majdanek, Sobibor, and Treblinka were in operation in Poland.

Responsibility for the entire project was placed in the hands of Heinrich Himmler, Reichsführer-SS, and head of the Gestapo and the Waffen-SS.

The Wannsee Conference did not mark the beginning of the "Final Solution." The mobile killing squads were already slaughtering Jews in the occupied Soviet Union. Rather, the Wannsee Conference was the place where the "final solution" was formally revealed to non-Nazi leaders who would help arrange for Jews to be transported from all over German-occupied Europe to SS-operated "extermination" camps in Poland. Not one of the men present at Wannsee objected to the announced policy. Never before had a modern state committed itself to the murder of an entire people--The Wannsee Conference, Holocaust Education & Archive Research Team

Very little is EVER accomplished by one person working alone unless you happen to be Michelangelo. Conspiracies exist! Our own Supreme Court has said so and, by law, they have defined themselves as 'infallible'. They are, themselves, of late, a conspiracy of Republicans to subvert the Constitution.

Because conspiracy --in fact --exist, wars will continue to be fought by the poor for the benefit of the rich. The mechanism by which this is accomplished is called the military-industrial complex. It's job is to divide the spoils of war among Dick Cheney's oil buddies and other 'paid thugs' like Blackwater, who conveniently hide behind the monicker --'defense contractor'.

For eons wars have been fought for booty! That's why the US fights them today. Rome invaded Dacia for the gold. The U.S. wages war in the Middle East for oil, the booty du jour! To deny one the right to oppose those wars --as Supreme Court Justice Holmes denied Eugene Debs --is a recipe for military dictatorship. In a text-book example of the false analogy, Holmes likened Debs' opposition to U.S. entry in WWI to yelling 'fire in a crowded theater'. I ask: isn't it more dangerous NOT to shout fire if the theater really is on fire?

Today --the theater is on fire. Our government has repeatedly failed us on almost every front. We are expected to die abroad in order to enrich numerous conspiracies of rich men --oil barons, arm merchants, the very minions of the Military-Industrial Complex. Corporations, we are told, are people and the conspiracy we used to dignify with the term --Supreme Court --has said so! And I ask you: if the MIC is not a 'conspiracy of rich men', then what is? If the Supreme Court has not deteriorated into a conspiracy of right wing ideologues, then why are not the dictionaries re-written and the thousands of pages of case law burned or dumped offshore so that we cannot learn the truth for ourselves. We are expected to buy the lies and die for this wicked, venal conspiracy. Well, I won't and never will!

St. Thomas More would have called the Military-Industrial complex and their shills on K-street a "conspiracy of rich men to procure their commodities in the name and title of the commonwealth!" [See: Thomas More, Utopia] This is why wars have been waged throughout the ages! If Justice Holmes were alive, I would tell him that it is wrong NOT to yell fire in a crowded theater if the theater is, indeed, on fire! At this moment in our history, the American republic is threatened, and among those threatening it is the US Supreme Court itself!

I am yelling FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!

A Quarter of U.S. Nuclear Plants Leaking

2010-02-11T05:55:00.000-08:00

It seems that the elites who own it all and run it all have no compassion for the regular people plus they want those pesky untermenschen to die! It's not secret that they want to depopulate the planet. Just google 'depopulation' and you'll get all kinds of hits on this. Google 'kissinger depopulation' and you'll get over 100,000 hits! *Think For Yourself* and do the research yourself. Then articles like the one below will make great sense to you!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/01/national/main6163433.shtml

MONTPELIER, Vt., Feb. 1, 2010
A Quarter of U.S. Nuclear Plants Leaking
27 of 104 Plants Leak Radioactive Tritium, a Carcinogen, Raising Concerns About Nation's Aging Plants

The cooling towers of Three Mile Island's Unit 1 Nuclear Power Plant pour steam into the sky in Middletown, Pa., in this March 17, 2009 file photo. Radioactive tritium, a carcinogen, now taints at least 27 of the nation's 104 nuclear reactors — raising concerns about how it is escaping from the aging nuclear plants. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

(AP) Radioactive tritium, a carcinogen discovered in potentially dangerous levels in groundwater at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, now taints at least 27 of the nation's 104 nuclear reactors — raising concerns about how it is escaping from the aging nuclear plants.

The leaks — many from deteriorating underground pipes — come as the nuclear industry is seeking and obtaining federal license renewals, casting itself as a clean-green alternative to power plants that burn fossil fuels.

Tritium, found in nature in tiny amounts and a product of nuclear fusion, has been linked to cancer if ingested, inhaled or absorbed through the skin in large amounts.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Monday that new tests at a monitoring well on Vermont Yankee's site in Vernon registered 70,500 picocuries per liter, more than three times the federal safety standard of 20,000 picocuries per liter.

That is the highest reading yet at the Vermont Yankee plant, where the original discovery last month drew sharp criticism by Gov. Jim Douglas and others. Officials of the New Orleans-based Entergy Corp., which owns the plant in Vernon in Vermont's southeast corner, have admitted misleading state regulators and lawmakers by saying the plant did not have the kind of underground pipes that could leak tritium into groundwater.

"What has happened at Vermont Yankee is a breach of trust that cannot be tolerated," said Republican Gov. Jim Douglas, who until now has been a strong supporter of the state's lone nuclear plant.

Vermont Yankee has said no tritium has been found in area drinking water supplies or in the Connecticut River and that earlier, lesser tritium levels discovered last month were of no health concern. Messages left for a plant spokesman Monday were not immediately returned.

President Barack Obama, in his State of the Union address last week, called for "building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country." His 2011 budget request to Congress on Monday called for $54 billion in additional loan guarantees for nuclear power.

The 104 nuclear reactors operating in 31 states provide only 20 percent of the nation's electricity. But they are responsible for 70 percent of the power from non-greenhouse gas producing sources, including wind, solar and hydroelectric dams.

Vermont Yankee is just the latest of dozens of U.S. nuclear plants, many built in the 1960s and '70s, to be found with leaking tritium.

The Braidwood nuclear station in Illinois was found in the 1990s to be leaking millions of gallons of tritium-laced water, some of which contaminated residential water wells. Plant owner Exelon Corp. ended up paying for a new municipal water system.

After Braidwood, the nuclear industry stepped up voluntary checking for tritium in groundwater at plants around the country, testing that revealed the Vermont Yankee problem, plant officials said.

In New Jersey last year, tritium was reported leaking a second time from the Oyster Creek plant in Ocean County, just days after Exelon won NRC approval for a 20-year license extension there. The Pilgrim plant in Plymouth, Mass., like Vermont Yankee, owned by Entergy, reported low levels of tritium on the ground in 2007. The Vermont leak has prompted a Plymouth-area citizens group to demand more test wells at the Massachusetts plant.

NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan says leaks have occurred at least 27 of the nation's 104 commercial reactors at 65 plant sites. He said the list likely does not include every plant where tritium has leaked.

The leaks have several causes; underground pipes corroding and the leaking of spent fuel storage pools are the most common. The source of the leak or leaks at Vermont Yankee has not been found; at Oyster Creek, corroded underground pipes were implicated.

Many radiological health scientists agree with the Environmental Protection Agency that tritium, like other radioactive isotopes, can cause cancer.

That worries Vermont public officials and lawmakers. Rep. Tony Klein, chairman of the Natural Resources and Energy Committee in the Vermont House, said he fears public officials may be downplaying the risk.

"When you have public officials that the public depends on for their health and welfare making casual statements that a radioactive substance is not harmful to you, I think that's ludicrous," Klein said.

There's disagreement on the severity of the risk.

"Somebody would have to be drinking a lot of water and it would have to be really concentrated in there for it to do any harm at all," said Jacqueline Williams, a radiation biologist at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York state.

But in 2005, the National Academy of Sciences concluded after an exhaustive study that even the tiniest amount of ionizing radiation increases the risk of cancer.

"The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial," Richard R. Monson, associate dean for professional education and professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, said when the NAS released its study.

Paul Gunter of the Maryland-based anti-nuclear group Beyond Nuclear, said in many instances, it's impossible to know how much tritium is getting into the environment.

"These are uncontrolled, unmonitored releases from these plants," he said.

Steve Kerekes, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group, said the public shouldn't be unduly worried.

"These are industrial facilities, and any industrial facility from time to time is going to have equipment problems or challenges," Kerekes said. "Not every operational issue rises to the level of being a safety issue."

Vermont, with a strong anti-nuclear movement, is the only state in the country where the Legislature decides whether to relicense a nuclear plant. Vermont Yankee's current 40-year license is up in 2012, and Entergy is asking for 20 more years.

Dutch plea to allow over-70s to end life

2010-02-10T14:02:00.000-08:00

http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/dutch-rss-news/dutch-plea-to-allow-over-70s-to-end-life_23335.html

09/02/2010
Dutch plea to allow over-70s to end life

A group of prominent Dutch has launched a people's initiative for a bill allowing people over 70 to end their lives under professional supervision.

Among the members of the group, named Of Our Own Free Will, are former ministers Frits Bolkestein, Hedy d'Ancona and Jan Terlouw, singer and Unicef ambassador Paul van Vliet and neurologist Dick Swaab, all aged around 70. The essence of the group's proposal is that assisting at suicide should no longer be punishable if several experts have given their agreement according to a narrowly defined procedure.

A people's initiative has to be discussed by the lower house when there are at least 40,000 signatories. The proposal is likely to be opposed by Christian parties in parliament. The group will begin collecting signatures after presenting its proposal to the lower house in The Hague on Tuesday.

The next big population bogeyman could well be 'overcrowding'. Should we worry?

2010-02-03T11:14:00.000-08:00

Vincenzina Santoro | Wednesday, 3 February 2010
Monaco to Mongolia: population density and prosperity

“Stop the World -- I Want to Get Off” was the title of a hit Broadway play some years ago. Today, getting people off the planet is what the United Nations population control crowd would like to do in order to “save” it. After the failed Copenhagen climate control confabulation last December, they will be refocusing their strategy and may target the presumed horrors of overpopulation in the form of large concentrations of people in any given place.

The constantly updating “population clock” of the U.S. Census Bureau showed that the U.S. population was over 308 million and world population not quite 6.8 billion as I write. To the population worriers, these numbers are far too many. Population nihilists conjure up horrendous stories of hordes of people living extremely closely together in dire poverty, clamoring for scarce resources. Fewer people equals less carbon footprints, they claim.

What about “overcrowding?” China’s coercive one-child policy to explicitly curb population is well known, but is China that densely populated? Not at all, when one looks at the relevant data. While the population of China at 1.3 billion is the highest of any country in the world, China ranks only 53rd out of 192 countries in terms of population density, as can be observed in data assembled by the CIA.

This begs the question: Which is the most densely populated country on earth? It happens to be Monaco – that wonderful principality bordering France on the Mediterranean. Monaco is by far the most densely populated country, with a population of only 32,140 but a population density of 41,971 per square mile. Singapore is the distant second, followed by Malta.

What is life like in Monaco? Certainly not what the population doomsayers would predict. The tiny country has one of the highest standards of living, quality of life and personal wealth anywhere on earth. Per capita income is the 20th highest in the world, according to the World Bank. Monaco’s population density is 2.5 times that of next ranking Singapore, which is also among the most prosperous countries, and life in Malta is equally pleasant.

The least densely populated country is Mongolia, sandwiched between China and Russia, which has a density of only five persons per square mile and a total population of 2.8 million. A mountainous and cold country, it too has a vast territory, though much smaller than its two mega-neighbors, and its partly nomadic people rank among the world’s poorest in per capita income.

Of the five most populous countries – China, India, USA, Indonesia, and Russia – India, China, and Indonesia rank 18th, 53rd, and 60th in population density, respectively. India and China each have a population exceeding one billion, but they are not nearly as crowded as other places. The USA with a fertility rate that currently is at the replacement level of 2.1, ranks number 142 on the list, while Russia, the world’s largest country in land area, with an extremely low fertility rate of 1.4 and a population already in decline, ranks as low as 177.

Although Africa is often the target of the population monitors, data do not corroborate their concerns. The United Nations population counters let it be known recently that Africa’s population had just reached the one billion mark. Even so, Africa accounts for only 15 per cent of global population, compared with 60 per cent for Asia. Among the 50 least densely populated countries, 19 are African. Of the 50 most densely populated countries only two are on the African continent: Rwanda and Burundi, and four are small island nations – São Tomé and Principe (in the Gulf of Guinea) and Mauritius, the Comoros and the Seychelles (in the Indian Ocean) which are considered part of Africa.

At a conference in New York on January 22nd, a highly acclaimed demographer who formerly headed the Population Division at the United Nations asked the hypothetical question: What would happen if all the 6.8 billion people currently on earth were to move to the United States? His answer was that the U.S. population density would become the same as that of the Netherlands! Moreover, New York, the most populous city in the United States with a population of 8.5 million has a population density of 26, 403 per square mile – less than that of Monaco.

And a final word about Monaco. Land-wise, all of Monaco can fit comfortably into the 1.32 square miles of New York City’s Central Park.

So, when we hear the cry that there are “too many people” here or there, we should ask, “Too many people for what?” It is all relative to the culture and the economy of the place. Those are the things we should be working to change, if necessary, not the number of people.

Vincenzina Santoro is an international economist in New York City. She represents the American Family Association of New York at the United Nations.

Saving the lives of women and children

2010-02-03T11:12:00.001-08:00

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/saving_the_lives_of_women_and_children/

Brian Lilley | Monday, 1 February 2010
Saving the lives of women and children

The G8 appears set to take on the issues of child and maternal mortality. Can they do it while saving lives, not destroying them?

Upon hearing the statistics it is hard not to be moved, to feel that something must be done to change this. Each year, in the developing world, more than 500,000 women die in pregnancy and childbirth, some 9 million children die each year before their fifth birthday. It was these grim numbers that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper used in a keynote address at the Davos World Economic Forum to call for concerted action by G8 countries.

The problems of heightened infant and maternal mortality in the poorer countries of this planet are not news, they have been known for sometime. In 2000, leaders gathered at the United Nations headquarters to endorse the Millennium Development Goals, which included reducing child mortality by two-thirds and maternal mortality by three-quarters by 2015. In the years since, not much has happened.

So in an open letter published in the Toronto Star, Montreal’s La Presse and Le Figaro in Paris, Stephen Harper announced that as president of the G8 this year, Canada will host the G8 and G20 this June, he will push leaders to make a tangible difference for the women and children of the developed world, saying relatively simple health-care solutions could alter the outcomes.

"The solutions are not intrinsically expensive. The cost of clean water, inoculations and better nutrition, as well as the training of health workers to care for women and deliver babies, is within the reach of any country in the G8. Much the same could be said of child mortality. The solutions are similar in nature – better nutrition, immunization – and equally inexpensive in themselves."

The plan laid out by Prime Minister Harper is hard to criticize and it was good to hear, during his speech at Davos, that he has spoken with other G8 leaders and they appear willing to take on this neglected Millennium Development Goal. "It is therefore time," says Harper, "to mobilize our friends and partners to do something for those who can do little for themselves, to replace grand good intentions with substantive acts of human good will."

Yet, when Harper does try to reach out to other nations and get them on board he will face several challenges in bringing about the type of change most of us think of when a world leader says they want to improve the health outcomes of the world's poorest people. The first challenge surfaced in Ottawa at the same time that word of this plan was spreading through the frozen Canadian capital; some development agencies see abortion as the key to reducing infant and maternal mortality.

The change in policy towards family planning in Washington is well documented; abortion is back on the agenda as an acceptable public policy tool for the United States to export around the world. The case in other counties of the G8, Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan plus Russia is less well known.

One of the key advisors to Britain's Labour government, or at least Prime Minister Gordon Brown, is Jonathon Porritt of the Optimum Population Trust. Porritt is the man who wants Britain's population cut in half to 30 million people. In conjunction with the United Nation's Population Fund, the OPT also wants to see Africa's population reduced for environmental reasons using family planning, which is often now a program well beyond contraception and includes abortion.

My reason for pointing this out is not to engage in an overall argument about abortion but to set the stage for the argument that what you and I hear when a politician promises something may not be what actually happens. When Prime Minister Harper, as president of the G8, speaks of infant and maternal mortality rates and says, "Far too many lives and futures have been lost." Most of us think his goal is to lower the mortality rates by saving the lives of pregnant women and children under five by improving access to clean water, primary health care, vaccines. That may be what Mr. Harper has in mind and those are in fact what he lists in his speech, but the policy people have other ideas in mind.

Shortly after Harper's push for the G8 to take on this issue became known, a media event was held with Canada's minister of International Cooperation Bev Oda. Ms. Oda gathered several non-governmental groups around the table for a chat on the issue, a brainstorming session of sorts and invited the media to attend. Several well known names were there, UNICEF, CARE, Plan International and World Vision, there was also a group I had not heard of until that day, Action Canada for Population and Development. One of the goals of Action Canada, as I discovered after chatting with their official afterwards, is to promote abortion around the world as a human right.

Now I don't really care which side of the abortion debate you are on, I think we can all agree that when a politician says we should reduce the number of children that die before their fifth birthday, one of the solutions you automatically think of is not abortion. Most reasonable people would think of improving health outcomes. After calls to the offices of Prime Minister Harper and Minister Oda, I've been assured that is what they mean when they speak of this problem, saving lives. Still, they will have a fight on their hands at the G8 from not only the worldwide coalition of NGOs who back Action Canada's viewpoint, but also from other G8 members, like Britain and the United States who may take a different view.

One of the other challenges Harper will face in getting his G8 partners to "replace grand good intentions with substantive acts of human good will," is that what has been tried over the past 15 years or so has not worked. Reducing the mortality rate among mothers and young children may have been a UN Millennium Development Goal but politicians have been speaking about it much longer than the last 10 years. Go back just a bit further and you find these same goals as central to the 1994 Cairo Conference.

Clearly what has been happening so far has not worked. Whether this lack of progress is due to a lack of funds or poorly designed programs is not clear but with billions having been poured into this field over the last decade and zero progress, I'd put my bet on the latter. That won't stop activists for the status quo from trying to ensure their current methods prevail. Stephen Lewis, the former U.N. Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS is chastising Harper for coming to this issue late, "It takes a lot of chutzpah to pretend that somehow you're championing something that others have championed so vigorously before you."

We can only hope, for the sake of the women and children whose lives are at risk, that Mr. Harper can convince his fellow G8 leaders not only to get on board with his initiative, but to look at it with fresh eyes, which will take chutzpah, and possibly also include ignoring Stephen Lewis.

DID GOVERNMENT APPROVE CITIZENS AS TOXIC WASTE SITES?

2010-02-02T10:28:00.000-08:00

http://www.apfn.org/THEWINDS/archive/medical/fluoride01-98.html

ARE WE BEING POISONED?

"Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened." -Winston Churchill-

It has been a long established joke about not drinking the water in Third World countries. Now it is here in America that the water has been declared unsafe to drink, and it is no joke. Whereas the greatest problem with water in the underdeveloped nations is usually such as amoebic dysentery, serious but reversible, in the U.S. it is rat poison one gets in the drinking water--and it is no accident.

Extensive studies, ignored with a yawn by those who believe they are being served well by the media and various dental associations, have shown that the consumption of fluoride in drinking water and prescription doses is extremely harmful and deleterious in a number of ways.

Reputable researchers from such as Harvard and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and numerable other research investigators, have shown that fluoridation of drinking water can result in brain and other physiological damage producing such abnormalities as:
Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)
Hyperactivity or passive malaise -- depending on whether exposure is pre- or postnatal
Alzheimer's disease or senile dementia
The death of brain cells directly involved in the decision making processes
Cracked, pitted and brittle teeth and bones not being considered as a potential leading cause of osteoporosis
Higher hip fracture rates
Reduction in intelligence and increased learning disability

The list goes on of primary and ancillary defects and damage caused by the addition of a substance used in rat poison.

In a 1997 copyrighted article once seriously considered for publication by The New York Times Magazine, investigative reporter Joel Griffiths followed a convoluted trail of once-secret documents stretching as far back as the Manhattan Project. In a subsequent article entitled, "Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb" Griffiths collaborated with journalist Christopher Bryson to piece together not only the origin of water fluoridation, but its secret rationale and the insidious reasoning behind the introduction into the drinking water of two-thirds of American cities of what is nothing more than a toxic waste product.

Griffiths told The WINDS that The New York Times Magazine had shown great interest in his original article to the point of suggesting specific rewrites resulting even in the submission of a final working draft. Then, according to Griffiths, their interested suddenly disappeared. Later when Bryson joined with Griffiths the two journalists had a similar experience with The Christian Science Monitor who had actually accepted their final co-authored work for publication but never put it in print and finally canceled.

The authors, who have worked for such as the BBC, New York Public Television, The Christian Science Monitor and others, boldly introduced their work by stating, "The following article exposes the biggest ongoing medical experiment ever carried out by the United States government on an unsuspecting population," and continues with meticulously verified sources derived largely from documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. ***

"One of the most toxic chemicals known," they claim, "fluoride rapidly emerged as the leading chemical health hazard of the U.S. atomic bomb program -- both for workers and for nearby communities, the documents reveal." Other revelations include:

"Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide 'evidence useful in litigation' against defense contractors for fluoride injury to citizens. The first lawsuits against the U.S. A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the documents show."

Dr. John R. Lee, MD[2], was chairman of the Environmental Health Committee of his local medical association in Marin County, California when he came head-to-head with the fluoride issue. According to Dr. Lee, the county had continually pushed water fluoridation on the local ballot until it passed by a slim one per cent.

"The medical society was receiving a lot of phone calls from people who were wondering what the truth was about the benefit, or lack of benefit, of fluoride. As a result, they turned it over to the Environmental Health Committee."

Dr. Lee was the perfect, unbiased investigator because, "Up until then," he told The WINDS, "I didn't know anything about fluoride, so our committee got the scientific references from both sides of the issue. We studied the references that led to more references--and we tracked it all down and found that the fluoride literature is mostly hogwash.

"Then," he continues, "we asked the medical society if we could do a study to determine how much fluoride there already was in the food--because in Canada they had been monitoring that and found that there was a lot of fluoride in their food chain due to, among other things, processing with fluoridated water.

"Our study of the food that children eat determined that there was plenty of fluoride in it and there was really no reason to add more to the water because it already exceeded what the public health department determined was the maximum daily dose.

"That's when I became aware of what was going on and went to testify at the State Board of Health. It was amazing to see these guys come out with their references that really aren't references--statements taken out of someone else's paper that wasn't based on anything--a kind of circular, self-referencing research. ["Joe said it so now I can quote Joe, even though Joe was just quoting me."] They would take statements made in textbooks that were published before there was any fluoridation and food was not being processed with fluoridated water--and they would just change the dates. We found all these tricks being played with the data. It was then that I discovered that it was not a scientific dispute but dishonest trickery. It was all a sham."

When The WINDS asked Dr. Lee why, according to his research into the controversy, he thought there was so much political force driving the fluoridation movement, the physician/scientist said, "It's a toxic waste product of many types of industry; for instance, glass production, phosphate fertilizer production and many others. They would have no way to dispose of the tons of fluoride waste they produce unless they could find some use for it, so they made up this story about it being good for dental health. Then they can pass it through everyone's bodies and into the sewer." [A novel approach to toxic waste disposal--just feed it to the people and let their bodies "detoxify" it]. "It is a well coordinated effort," Dr. Lee added, "to keep it from being declared for what it is--a toxic waste."

This could cause one to wonder if the public were not already aware of the dangers of radioactive plutonium waste, what means the government would use to dispose of it.

Dr. Lee's argument carries considerable credibility in light of the revelations proceeding from Griffiths' and Bryson's research into the previously classified documents. That research shows, as mentioned previously, that the idea of fluoride being good for people's teeth originated with the atomic bomb's Manhattan Project. That "fact" that fluoride was beneficial constituted the government's cardinal defense against lawsuits stemming from an environmental contamination that took place from the Du Pont chemical factory in Deepwater, New Jersey in 1944. "The factory was then producing millions of pounds of fluoride for the Manhattan Project, the ultra-secret U.S. military program racing to produce the world's first atomic bomb."

It should be noted here that, without exception, all scientists interviewed during the course of researching this article agreed upon one overwhelming motivation for the government's vigorous promotion of water fluoridation and other dental applications of fluoride--though they've known since the mid 30's of the highly toxic nature of the substance. That unanimous opinion was that it ultimately posed a very tidy solution to the disposal of a very nasty toxic waste. One EPA scientist quoted previously, Dr. William Hirzy, went so far as to conjecture that the red ink that would be produced by the fertilizer industry alone, if it were required to properly dispose of fluoride as a waste product, would exceed $100 million a year. As the legendary New York City Police Detective, Frank Serpico, was once warned, "With that kind of money you don't [mess] around."

The WINDS has obtained a copy of a letter dated March, 1983 on EPA letterhead, written by then U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, Rebecca Hanmer. In that document Ms. Hanmer frankly admits that:
In regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency [the EPA] regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product [read that: toxic waste-product] fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them.

Keeping in mind that the EPA considers a spill of more than twenty-five pounds of common table salt an environmental hazard or "incident", in fairness it must be asked, first, is fluoride really effective in reducing tooth decay and, secondly, at the same time is it safe for drinking water?

The answer to the first question: not according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:
...Investigators have failed to show a consistent correlation between anticaries [cavities] activity and the specific amounts of fluoride incorporated into enamel.
...Since the 1970s, caries scores have been declining in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities in Europe, the United States, and elsewhere. ...National decreases have not occurred in all countries, notably Brazil and France where the caries scores have not changed, and Japan, Nigeria, and Thailand where the scores have increased." [3] [Japan & Thailand report high dietary fluoride levels].

A TRAIL OF CASUALTIES

The political and financial forces surrounding the fluoride industry, according to Dr. Lee and others, are vicious and unrelenting in their assaults upon anyone daring to place themselves at odds with it. Dr. Lee briefly outlined cases with which he is personally acquainted where reputable doctors and scientists have had their careers either ruined or severely crippled as the result of trying to introduce truth into this darkness-shrouded global enterprise. Cases in point:

During the time of the election [to decide on whether or not to fluoridate the county's water supply], Lee said the head of the Marin County Public Health Department was claiming "it was beneficial and perfectly safe. After the election, when I discovered all these things, I presented them to her, showing her all the tricks that had been used. She then asked the state public health department if she had the power to stop the fluoridation, realizing she had been mistaken. The next thing I knew," Lee continued, "she had taken early retirement and left for New Orleans to take care of her mother. She told me that if she made any statement about it at all she would have lost all her retirement benefits."

Dr. Allan S. Gray, a British Columbia health officer, did a study of all school children's teeth in that province, which is only about 15% fluoridated. He found that the teeth of those children in British Columbia where there was no fluoridation were in much better condition than in the fluoridated areas. His findings were published in the Journal of the Canadian Dental Association, entitled, "Time for a New Baseline?" [4]. So the message was that fluoridation did not provide any benefit to children and for publishing that research the top public health dentist in British Columbia was demoted and sent to Ottawa where he was put in a basement office and ordered to never speak to anybody about the matter again. If he did, he would lose his standing in the public health department of Canada and very likely all of his retirement benefits.

Dr. John Colquhon, an Aukland, New Zealand dental researcher with a prominent university, performed studies on children's teeth and the neighboring towns that were not fluoridated and discovered the children had no difference in cavity rate--they just all had fluorosed teeth [damage done by the presence of fluoride in their drinking water]. When he published his findings he was demoted and lost all of his retirement benefits and was forced to retire. As a Ph.D. he had to take a teaching position--all of the people he had considered his colleagues for thirty years suddenly didn't recognize him any more."

Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D., formerly of Harvard University experienced the wrath of the industry when she walked blindly into the fluoride fray as part of her research program with Harvard's Department of Neuropathology and Psychiatry. While holding a dual appointment to Harvard and the Forsyth Dental Research Institute, Dr. Mullenix established the Department of Toxicology at Forsyth for the purpose of investigating the environmental impact of substances that were used in dentistry. During that undertaking she was also directed by the institute's head to investigate fluoride toxicity. That's where, as she puts it, "things got weird."

THE DARK ODYSSEY OF DR. PHYLLIS MULLENIX

While conducting interviews and gathering the data contained in this writing, this office was repeatedly referred by EPA scientists, university professors and physicians to Dr. Mullenix's research at the Forsyth Dental Institute as a primary and seminal source of reliable scientific research on fluoride toxicity.

The Forsyth Dental Center is a highly respected research institution established in 1910 for the purpose of providing free dental care for the children of Boston. It is the largest and, considered by many, the most highly respected dental research institution in the world. All Harvard dental students are required to take a portion of their training at Forsyth.

It is interesting to note that the, then, director of the institute, Dr. Jack Hein, who was responsible for her assignment to fluoride toxicology studies was, according to Mullenix, instrumental in some of the original research that led to the introduction of fluoride into toothpaste while he was working for Colgate.

"I wasn't too excited about studying fluoride," Mullenix told this reporter, "because, quite frankly, it was 'good for your teeth' and all that, and I thought the studies would be basically just another control and I had no interest in fluoride." However, because it was part of what she was hired to do, she said, and because she had just astounded the institute by achieving the unattainable--securing a grant from the National Cancer Institute to study the neurotoxicity of the treatments used for childhood leukemia--she decided to incorporate the fluoride studies into that research milieu. In fact, Mullenix claimed, "I was in the top four per cent in the country" for such funding. "The institute was tickled pink, but I really had no idea what a quagmire I was getting into."

For her toxicology studies Dr. Mullenix designed a computer pattern recognition system that has been described by other scientists as nothing short of elegant in its ability to study fluoride's effects on the neuromotor functions of rats.

THE "MIRACLE OF FLUORIDE" -or- A DIRTY INDUSTRY?

"By about 1990 I had gathered enough data from the test and control animals," Mullenix continues, "to realize that fluoride doesn't look clean." When she reviewed that data she realized that something was seriously affecting her test animals. They had all (except the control group) been administered doses of fluoride sufficient to bring their blood levels up to the same as those that had caused dental fluorosis [a brittleness and staining of the teeth] in thousands of children. Up to this point, Mullenix explained, fluorosis was widely thought to be the only effect of excessive fluoridation.

The scientist's first hint that she may not be navigating friendly waters came when she was ordered to present her findings to the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) [a division of NIH, the National Institute of Health]. "That's when the 'fun' started," she said, "I had no idea what I was getting into. I walked into the main corridors there and all over the walls was 'The Miracle of Fluoride'. That was my first real kick-in-the-pants as to what was actually going on." The NIH display, she said, actually made fun of and ridiculed those that were against fluoridation. "I thought, 'Oh great!' Here's the main NIH hospital talking about the 'Miracle of Fluoride' and I'm giving a seminar to the NIDR telling them that fluoride is neurotoxic!"

What Dr. Mullenix presented at the seminar that, in reality, sounded the death knell of her career was that:

"The fluoride pattern of behavioral problems matches up with the same results of administering radiation and chemotherapy [to cancer patients]. All of these really nasty treatments that are used clinically in cancer therapy are well known to cause I.Q. deficits in children. That's one of the best studied effects they know of. The behavioral pattern that results from the use of fluoride matches that produced by cancer treatment that causes a reduction in intelligence."

At a meeting with dental industry representatives immediately following her presentation, Mullenix was bluntly asked if she was saying that their company's products were lowering the I.Q. of children? "And I told them, 'basically, yes.'"

The documents obtained by authors Griffiths and Bryson seem to add yet another voice of corroboration to the reduced intelligence effects of fluoride. "New epidemiological evidence from China adds support," the writers claim, "showing a correlation between low dose fluoride exposure and diminished I.Q. in children."

Then in 1994, after refining her research and findings, Dr. Mullenix presented her results to the Journal of Neurotoxicology and Teratology [5], considered probably the world's most respected publication in that field. Three days after she joyfully announced to the Forsyth Institute that she had been accepted for publication by the journal, she was dismissed from her position. What followed was a complete evaporation of all grants and funding for any of Mullenix's research. What that means in the left-brain world of scientific research, which is fueled by grants of government and corporate capital, is the equivalent to an academic burial. Her letter of dismissal from the Forsyth Institute stated as their reason for that action that her work was not "dentally related." [Fluoride research--not dentally related?] The institute's director stated, according to Mullenix, "they didn't consider the safety or the toxicity of fluoride as being their kind of science." Of course, a logical question begs itself at this last statement: why was Dr. Mullenix assigned the study of fluoride toxicity in the first place if it was not "their kind of science"?

Subsequently, she was continually hounded by both Forsyth and the NIH as to the identity of the journal in which her research was to be published. She told The WINDS that she refused to disclose that information because she knew the purpose of this continual interrogation was so that they could attempt to quash its publication.

Almost immediately following her dismissal, Dr. Mullenix said, the Forsyth Institute received a quarter-million dollar grant from the Colgate company. Coincidence or reward?

Her findings clearly detailed the developmental effects of fluoride, pre- and postnatal. Doses administered before birth produced marked hyperactivity in offspring. Postnatal administration caused the infant rats to exhibit what Dr. Mullenix calls the "couch potato syndrome"--a malaise or absence of initiative and activity. One need only observe the numerous children being dosed with Ritalin as treatment for their hyperactivity to draw logical correlations.

Following her dismissal, the scientist's equipment and computers, designed specifically for the studies, were mysteriously damaged and destroyed by water leakage before she could remove them from Forsyth. Coincidence?

Dr. Mullenix was then given an unfunded research position at Children's Hospital in Boston, but with no equipment and no money--what for? "The people at Children's Hospital, for heaven's sake, came right out and said they were scared because they knew how important the fluoride issue was," Mullenix said. "Even at Forsyth they told me I was endangering funds for the institution if I published that information." It has become clear to such as Dr. Mullenix et al, that money, not truth, drives science--even at the expense of the health and lives of the nation's citizens.

"I got into science because it was fun," she said, "and I would like to go back and do further studies, but I no longer have any faith in the integrity of the system. I find research is utterly controlled." If one harbors any doubt that large sums of corporate money and political clout can really provide sufficient influence to induce scientists and respected physicians to endorse potentially harmful treatment for their patients, consider the results published in a January 8th article of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)[6]. The Journal revealed their survey of doctors in favor of, and against, a particular drug that has been proven harmful (in this case calcium blockers shown to significantly increase the risk of breast cancer in older women).

"Our results," the Journal said, "demonstrate a strong association between authors' published positions on the safety of calcium-channel antagonists and their financial relationships with pharmaceutical manufacturers."

When The WINDS asked Dr. Mullenix where she planned to take her research, she said that she is not hopeful that any place exists that isn't "afraid of fluoride or printing the truth."

The end result of the dark odyssey of Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D., and her journey through the nightmare of the fluoride industry is, essentially, a ruined career of a brilliant scientist because her's was not "their kind of science".
PRIOR KNOWLEDGE

It has become evident, as the result of the once-secret documents obtained by Griffiths and Bryson that Dr. Mullenix's research was not the first to discover the dangers of fluoride. "The original secret version -- obtained by these reporters -- of a 1948 study published by Program F [the code name given fluoride studies] scientists in the Journal of the American Dental Association shows that evidence of adverse health effects from fluoride was censored by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) -- considered the most powerful of Cold War agencies -- for reasons of national security." One would necessarily have to ask what the perceived threat was to national security if fluoride was found to be toxic by the American Dental Association. Did they perhaps perceive a potential threat as proceeding from the American people?

"...Up to eighty percent," the Griffiths/Bryson article continues, "in some cities -- now have dental fluorosis, the first visible sign of excessive fluoride exposure, according to the U.S. National Research Council. (The signs are whitish flecks or spots, particularly on the front teeth, or dark spots or stripes in more severe cases)."

Dr. William Hirzy, an organic chemist and a senior scientist in Environmental Risk Assessment with EPA originally became involved in the fluoride issue "as a matter of professional ethics when one of the EPA scientists came to us and complained that he was being asked to write a Federal Register notice with which he has substantial ethical problems." The scientist protested that "the agency wants me to write this notice that says it's alright to have teeth that look like you've been chewing on rocks and tar balls. I have a real problem with that," he told Hirzy.

To issue a notice of intended regulation in the Federal Register means that after a specified period of time the notice essentially becomes law and is entered into either the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) or the United States Code (USC). This process is a much used manner of creating law by circumventing the constitutional process of legislation. It becomes what is called "administrative law."

"At that time," Hirzy said, "EPA was revising its drinking water standards for fluoride and was about to issue a notice that four milligrams per liter was an acceptable level of fluoride for drinking water." The great problem with that, Hirzy explained, "indicated that a substantial number of people who were exposed to that concentration would have teeth suffering from severe dental fluorosis eroded, cracked and pitted and stained....The agency [EPA] was saying that it was not a health effect, it was only cosmetic. Frankly," Hirzy remonstrated, "it doesn't seem to be a very ethical stance for us to say that if your teeth don't work--if they're cracked and pitted and falling out--that it's not a health effect.

"The agency," Hirzy told The WINDS, "was taking that position because of the peculiar wording of the Safe Drinking Water Act which says that EPA has to set standards that protect against adverse health effects with an adequate margin of safety." So they wanted to say, according to Dr. Hirzy, that "severe dental fluorosis is not an adverse health effect." If, in essence, you just say it is not an adverse health effect, you then effectively comply with the law by juggling the definition.

The great problem with the system, Hirzy explained, is that the EPA is not a constitutionally mandated organization and therefore cannot [or is not supposed to] make law but can only advise the executive branch of government. The dilemma arises when whatever administration is in office comes to the agency and says, "We want you to write that the science supports this particular decision, whatever it may be, that's where I draw the line and say 'no dice, we're not going to do that....You can't make us lie about the science.' It makes us complicit in deception. We do not want to have to invoke the Nuremberg defense," (i.e., I was just doing what I was told).

Hirzy said that the EPA, in fact, got away with imposing a standard that effectually ruins the teeth of very many who drink fluoridated water because, though "widely known to cause severe fluorosis at four milligrams per liter, that is the standard in effect to this day."

Of even more ominous portent, Hirzy said, is that, far from being merely cosmetic in effect, "what's going on in the teeth is a window to what's going on in the bones. What fluoride does in the hydroxy-epitite structure in teeth it does to the same structure in bone. It is well known now that fluoride produces faulty bone, more brittle, basically mimicking in the bone what is clearly visible in the teeth." A kind of artificial osteoporosis.

"It's an outrageous situation," the EPA scientist claims, when you have fluoridated household drinking water in such concentration that the agency must inform parents that they "should not be allowing their children to drink four milligrams per liter of fluoride, and if they have that in their water supply they should go to an alternative source." Does it not seem a little strange that the government authorizes the addition of a chemical to ostensibly help children's teeth and then tells parents not to allow their children to drink it? We are most certainly not in Kansas anymore, Toto!

So toxic is the fluoride added to drinking water that, according to Hirzy, if one were to take a dose of it about half the size of that "500 mg vitamin C tablet you take in the morning, you'd be dead long before the sun went down. When you're talking about something with that kind of potent toxicity," he says, "it's unrealistic to think that the only adverse effect it has is death. It must be doing something intracellularly to cause these effects."

As evidence that the government has known for over sixty years that fluoride is a health hazard, Hirzy quoted from an article, "clear back in 1934 in which the American Dental Association plainly treats the subject very matter-of-factly. It calls fluoride a general protoplasmic poison."

Robert Carton, Ph.D., twenty years with EPA and now employed as a scientist with the Army, claims that, on "July 7, 1997 the EPA scientists, engineers and attorneys who assess the scientific data for the Safe Drinking Water Act standards and other EPA regulations have gone on record against the practice of adding fluoride to public drinking water.

Question: if the Environmental Protection Agency possesses the clout to virtually confiscate a man's land because some of it is a little soggy--calling it wetlands--why do they not exercise that power to enforce de-fluoridation of drinking water, which they have declared unsafe? Does money play any role in this?

Dr. Carton informed this office that fluoride itself is not the only major hazard stemming from its introduction into city water supplies. "A very real danger lies in the fact that fluosilicic acid leaches lead from plumbing. "There are a couple of places in the country," Dr. Carton said, "Seattle being one and Thermont, Maryland...that when they stopped adding fluoride to their water the lead levels dropped in half."

The problem with the data used to determine the safety of fluoride, Carton said, is that it is all based on the original figures presented by the chief scientist in charge of the Manhattan Project's fluoride safety, Dr. Harold Hodge. He falsified or "cooked the numbers," as Carton put it, to make his data fit what the government wanted.

In addition to the dental and skeletal damage caused by fluoride, Dr. Carton also cites research that claims that a specific antibody (immunoglobulin - IgM) that is missing from patients with certain types of brain tumors is also missing from the blood of those tested with elevated blood fluoride levels. This is leading many to theorize that such brain tumors are much more likely among individuals consuming fluoride compounds in their diet. Since most juice concentrates and food stuffs are processed with fluoridated water, such blood elevations are becoming much more common.
ENOUGH ALREADY? NOPE, THERE'S MORE--

In a study published last October in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences [7], Dr. Robert L. Isaacson makes a number of astounding revelations about this toxic waste in our water.

"Probably the most startling observation from our first experiment," Isaacson states, "was the high mortality rate in the group of animals that received the lowest dose of AlF 3 [aluminum fluoride]. Different groups of rats had been given one of three levels of AlF3 in double distilled drinking water: 0.5 ppm, 5 ppm, and 50 ppm starting at about four months of age. A fourth group received only the distilled water." The experiment lasted only 45 weeks but, Isaacson stated, "Eighty per cent of the rats in the [lowest concentration group] died before the end of the experiment" which was the highest mortality rate of all. "Not only did the rats in the lowest dose group die more often during the experiment, they looked poorly well before their deaths.

Even the rats in the low dose group that managed to survive until the end of the 45 weeks looked to be in poor health. They had much thinner hair than those in the other groups and the exposed skin was bronzed, mottled and flaky. Their teeth and toe nails were excessively dark." Follow-up studies, the scientist said, "showed the same high level of mortality." The study goes on to say that, in subsequent research, low levels of the same kind of fluoride that is added to city drinking water "also allows the enhancement of brain levels of Al."

Another prominent finding by Isaacson's group was the significant reduction on the cells of the hippocampus, that part of the brain that acts like a central processing unit in a computer, telling other parts what to do and how to function. The hippocampus is the primary decision making part of the brain, damage to which causes the victim to become more submissive and less challenging to his environment. One could logically question if this is not a pivotal reason for the government's push for universal fluoridation.

In the brain of his low dose test animals, Isaacson observed a tangling of capillary blood vessels, reduced oxygen uptake along with the peculiar crystalline structures, all of which are identical to those found in Alzheimer's victims. Dr. Isaacson's research indicates that the Alzheimer's-like effects result from the transport of aluminum to the brain and the high death rates from the toxicity of the fluorine.

Aluminum has previously to this, of course, been implicated in Alzheimer's, but how is the link made between fluoridation of human drinking water and the presence of aluminum fluoride? According to Drs. Carton and Burgstahler, fluoride being the most electrochemically active of all the elements, it has a strong propensity to create metallic compounds with itself whenever fluoridated water comes into contact with such things as aluminum cooking vessels. Ergo: there is created aluminum fluoride from cooking with such vessels using fluoridated water and not incidentally, according to Dr. Robert Carton, former EPA scientist, aluminum is used in city water treatment.

"An incidental observation of possible importance must be mentioned," the research paper adds. "Pathologic changes were found in the kidneys of animals in both the AlF 3 and NaF [sodium fluoride] groups." If all this weren't enough, the research team observed a "general impairment in the immune capacities of the treated subjects." They also found that the death rate increased among those animals treated with the aluminum fluoride where stress was elevated due to a training regime.
The research clearly indicates that not only does the presence of fluoride reduce the body's ability to utilize oxygen and nutrients, but actively inhibits the system's ability to rid itself of waste. This creates an apparent synergistic assault upon the health by poisoning the body with its own toxic waste while impairing its effectiveness to use the nutrients that would help in the detoxification process.
In the face of overwhelming data proving that fluoride is not only not beneficial but extremely harmful; the reliable evidence that the government has known of this for over sixty years; the continuing press for fluoridation in the drinking water of American cities, makes all the more believable the portentous claim set forth in the Protocols:
"...We now appear on the scene as apparent saviors of the common worker, saving him from this oppression by enrolling him in the ranks of our various forces fighting for imaginary civil liberties. The upper class, which enjoyed by law the labor of the workers, was interested in seeing that the workers were well fed, healthy and strong. We are interested in just the opposite-in the diminishment, the killing out of the nations. Our power is in the chronic...physical and mental weakness of the worker. What that results in is his being made the slave of our will, and he will not find in the authorities of his own society either the strength or energy to oppose us."

REFERENCES:
1. "Fluoride, Teeth and the Atomic Bomb", Griffiths & Bryson, 1997. Author Griffiths indicated that this URL contains an accurate reproduction of their article.
2. John R. Lee, MD, article: "The Truth About Mandatory Fluoridation", April 15, 1995.
3. "Review of Fluoride Benefits and Risks", Department of Health and Human Services, February 1991, p. 7 & p. 31.
4. The Journal of the Canadian Dental Association, Vol. 53, pp 763-765, 1987.
5. "Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in Rats", Mullenix, P. Neurotoxicology and Teratology", 17(2), 1995.
6. The New England Journal of Medicine -- January 8, 1998 -- Volume 338, Number 2 [SPECIAL ARTICLE] "Conflict of Interest in the Debate over Calcium-Channel Antagonists", Henry Thomas Stelfox, Grace Chua, Keith O'Rourke, Allan S. Detsky.
7. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 825 "Neuroprotective Agents, Third International Conference." Title: "Toxin-Induced Blood Vessel Inclusion caused by the Chronic Administration of Aluminum and Sodium Fluoride and their Implication for Dementia." Robert. L. Isaacson, et al, p. 152-166.

Further reading:
FLUORIDE: Protected Pollutant or Panacea? A very extensive source for scientific papers published on fluoridation
Robert J. Carton, Ph.D., Former EPA scientist. Article: "Corruption and Fraud at the EPA"

fficer Errs, Uses Pepper Spray On Burning Man

2010-01-30T13:59:00.000-08:00

This is how they get rid of us: One person at a time...The police can't determine the difference between pepper spray (very small canister) and a fire extinguisher (very big red cannister)???

Officer Errs, Uses Pepper Spray On Burning Man
Dodge City Man Dies After Setting Self On Fire
January 29, 2010

PORTLAND, Ore. -- Portland Police Chief Rosie Sizer said an officer who was attempting to help a man who had set himself on fire accidentally sprayed him with pepper spray.

Sizer said the officer spotted the man in flames Wednesday in downtown Portland and hurried to get a fire extinguisher from the trunk of her patrol car. Instead, Sizer said, she accidentally grabbed a large can of pepper spray, colored red like an extinguisher. Portland fire officials said the nonflammable spray had no additional effect on the man.

The man, identified as 26-year-old Daniel Shaull of Dodge City, Kan., died at a hospital later Wednesday. His father, Warren Shaull, told The Oregonian that his son had psychiatric problems and was living on the streets.

Bill Gates pledges $US10b for vaccines

2010-01-30T13:39:00.000-08:00

And WHAT WILL THESE VACCINES DO?
1) Prematurely kill people
2) Give people diseases including cancer
3) Make people sterile (get rid of the pesky poor another way)
4) Make people pay all their money for medicines that won't heal
VACCINES ARE POISON AND KILL PEOPLE!!!

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/mp/6740137/bill-gates-pledges-us10b-for-vaccines/

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates has pledged $US10 billion ($A11.18 billion) over the next decade to research and deliver vaccines to the world's poorest countries.

Increased vaccination could save more than eight million children by 2020, said the entrepreneur-turned-philanthropist, announcing the commitment on Friday by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation he heads with his wife.

But he added that money was needed and called on governments and the private sector to do more.

"We must make this the decade of vaccines," said Gates at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos.

"Vaccines already save and improve millions of lives in developing countries.

"Innovation will make it possible to save more children than ever before."

Gates, who is a regular at the annual Swiss ski resort meeting of political and business leaders, called on others to "fill critical financing gaps in both research funding and childhood immunisation programs...

"Increased investment in vaccines by governments and the private sector could help developing countries dramatically reduce child mortality by the end of the decade," said a Foundation statement.

The projections were based on research by experts at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the United States, on the potential impact of vaccines on childhood deaths over the next 10 years.

By boosting the delivery of vaccines in developing countries to 90 per cent coverage, the experts' model suggested that the lives of 7.6 million under-fives could be saved in the next decade.

An additional 1.1 million youngsters could be saved by rapid introduction of a malaria vaccine in 2014, bringing the total lives saved to 8.7 million.

Melinda Gates, who heads the couple's Foundation with her husband, added: "Vaccines are a miracle - with just a few doses, they can prevent deadly diseases for a lifetime.

"We've made vaccines our number-one priority at the Gates Foundation because we've seen firsthand their incredible impact on children's lives," she added at the annual meeting of political and business leaders in the Swiss ski resort.

Commenting on the announcement, WHO chief Margaret Chan said the Gates' commitment was "unprecedented, but just a small part of what is needed.

"It's absolutely crucial that both governments and the private sector step up efforts to provide life-saving vaccines to children who need them most," she added.

Author Martin Amis calls for euthanasia booths in UK's street corners to prevent a 'silver tsunami'

2010-01-28T14:44:00.000-08:00

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245714/Author-Martin-Amis-calls-euthanasia-booths-street-corners-prevent-silver-tsunami.html#

By Vanessa Allen
Last updated at 7:50 AM on 25th January 2010

Martin Amis: The author has called for euthanasia booths on street corners and said 'the denial of death is a great curse'
Euthanasia 'booths' should be established on street corners for pensioners to end their lives with 'a martini and a medal', novelist Martin Amis said yesterday.

Britain is facing a demographic timebomb as its ageing population places an impossible burden on society, the controversial writer claimed.

Anti-euthanasia campaigners reacted with horror to the suggestion of euthanasia booths for pensioners and called Amis's idea 'repugnant and offensive'.

The 60-year-old novelist predicted Britain could be engulfed by a 'civil war' between the old and young if it did not tackle its ageing population.

'How is society going to support this silver tsunami?' he asked in an interview with the Sunday Times.

'There'll be a population of demented very old people, like an invasion of terrible immigrants, stinking out the restaurants and cafes and shops.

'I can imagine a sort of civil war between the old and the young in ten or 15 years' time.'

Amis, a grandfather, added: 'There should be a booth on every corner where you could get a martini and a medal.'

Amis said medical science had ' overvaulted itself' in extending human life, adding: 'There's a certain point where your life slips into the negative.'

He told how his support for euthanasia had deepened since the death of his stepfather, Lord Kilmarnock, last year.

He said he had wanted to help the Roman Catholic peer to die because it was clear he was fighting a 'lost battle'.

He said: 'He thought he was going to get better. But he didn't. I think the denial of death is a great curse. We all wanted to assist him... it was clearly a lost battle.'

The writer said he had also been influenced by the death of writer Dame Iris Murdoch in 1999, two years after her husband revealed she had Alzheimer's.

He said: 'There should be a way out for rational people who've decided they're in the negative.

Amis said he had been influenced by the death of writer Dame Iris Murdoch, pictured, two years after it was revealed she had Alzheimer's

'That should be available, and it should be quite easy. I can't think it would be too hard to establish some sort of test that shows you understand.'

Alistair Thompson, of anti-euthanasia group Care Not Killing, said the idea of euthanasia booths was 'offensive'.

He added: 'We would resist any attempt to put these death booths on the streets of this country.

'How on earth can people describe themselves as civilised when they're advocating this style of euthanasia for the elderly and disabled? It's completely repugnant.'

Amis gave the interview to promote his novel, The Pregnant Widow, which is out next month.

Mr Thompson said: 'There is a very nasty smell about using this to promote a book.

'There is a very nasty smell that someone as high-profile as Martin Amis could actually make such a ludicrous proposal.'

Dr Richard Lamerton, of the pressure group Alert, which campaigns against legalised euthanasia, said he was horrified by Amis's comments.

He said: 'I can think of quite a few modern writers who, if they killed themselves off, never would be missed.

'But to give elderly people the message that it would only be decent to get out of the way would be to deny the wonderful contribution of grandfathers and grandmothers to the lives of young people.

'If Martin Amis wants to avoid lame brains in our society he would do more good fighting against the young people's drug culture.'

Dr Philip Nitschke displaying his computerised 'death machine' in his home in Darwin - he plans to open new clinics to provide legal euthanasia services

The campaign group Dignity In Dying, which lobbies for medically assisted suicides for terminally ill adults, said: 'Like too many people in the UK, Martin Amis has witnessed the bad death of a loved one.

'The answer to this problem is two-fold - we need better access to high quality end-of-life care and we need a change in the law to allow the choice of assisted dying for those terminally ill, mentally competent adults who want it.

'Dignity In Dying's campaign for a change in the law is not about the introduction of "euthanasia booths", nor is it in anticipation of a "silver tsunami".

'Our campaign is about allowing dying adults who have mental capacity a compassionate choice to end their suffering, subject to strict legal safeguards.'

China’s Cassandra prophecy

2010-01-27T17:33:00.000-08:00

This what happens in patriarchies!

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/chinas_cassandra_prophecy/

Constance Kong | Monday, 25 January 2010
The Government’s 2020 vision has been blind-sided by a think tank's report on its population policy disaster

To say that China’s one-child family policy has been a disaster is an understatement. A report released earlier this month by the nation’s top think tank – the Communist Government’s Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) - says that the policy has created a huge gender imbalance with significant implications for future social stability.

Indeed, according to the report, 24 million men reaching marriageable age by 2020 will never marry because of the sex imbalance. Think of it in these terms: what if the entire population of New York City or of Australia was never able to marry.

Imagine the social implications in a city or nation that large where no one can marry. Imagine if that city or country is comprised solely of 24 million men; men with no homes to return to at night; men without the responsibilities of a family to keep them engaged in productive pursuits.

The CASS report – carrying the understated title “Contemporary Chinese Social Structure” - raises some key questions but it is short on answers.
Since the report was published many Chinese bloggers have been commenting on its implications. Some more daring Chinese netizens have highlighted that many boys entering puberty are oblivious to the fact that they will never be able to marry; they ask which parents wish to tell their sons to prepare for a bleak future alone – unable to find a wife and unable to establish their own families. Interestingly the CASS report termed those condemned to bachelorhood “bare branches” because they would not be able to establish family trees of their own.

How China got to this pitiful state is well documented. A rigid one child per family policy, legal and easily available abortion, and a cultural and economic preference for sons, resulted in sex selective abortions since the early 1980s. Laws to deter such behaviour have failed resoundingly. For example, obtaining knowledge of an unborn baby’s sex from ultrasounds was made illegal to stop abortions of baby girls by the 1990s. But throughout China’s rural villages and towns it remains possible to bribe staff in medical clinics and hospitals to find out the sex of an expected child. Once the parents decide to abort an unborn baby, Chinese law does not require them to carry an unborn baby girl to term.
More girls than boys are aborted. Many more. So much more that Mao Zedong’s words – to emphasise the equality of the sexes - that “women hold up half the sky” will soon ring hollow.

Of course, China has never really given women true equality. Whether it was foot-binding – an atrocious practice only finally outlawed by the Communists – or the Communists telling women how many children they may have, Chinese women have long been denied the right to determine their own futures, especially when it has come to their most basic right, the right of reproduction. The fact that women in China’s National Population and Family Planning Commission promote the policy does not make it any the less repressive of women.
The main concern raised by the CASS report is that 24 million men condemned to a life alone will result in a major strain on the State welfare system. Essentially, without families of their own to care for them as this generation starts ageing, the State will need to step in with sufficient pension funds and aged care facilities for the old bachelors of the latter decades of the 21st Century.

But other problems – such as a rising incidence of prostitution and violent crime - are on the horizon, judging by some current trends.
For example, while the number of baby girls being born has declined, the number of kidnappings and trafficking of young girls has risen. According to the National Population and Family Planning Commission – that’s right, the very organization responsible for the one child family policy -- abductions and trafficking of women and girls has become “rampant”.

Young girls are being kidnapped within China and also from neighboring countries (Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar, Thailand) by organized gangs who sell them to families with boys of a similar age. The girls will be raised by the families and given as brides to their sons as soon as they reach marriageable age. Others are shipped to brothels within China for a life as sex slaves.
Needless to say China’s neighbours are not enamored of the growing practice. Diplomatic tensions have risen over the issue and China has had to establish a special police unit to help its neighbours combat the very crime its policy has created.
Even more bizarre crimes have been reported in this patriarchal society where it is believed that a wife is necessary to tend to her husband even after death. A rising practice in some remote areas of China is to dig up the corpses of single women to sell to families whose sons may have recently perished. Posthumous wedding ceremonies are held to ensure the deceased son does not have to endure the next life alone. With higher prices commanded by fresh corpses of young women the practice has led to murders of young girls by some crime gangs looking to capitalize on distraught parents enduring the loss of a young son.

It appears the CASS report has merely touched the tip of the iceberg. But it is interesting that the nation’s top Government think-tank is publicly discussing the matter. Could the public airing of the coming social problems caused by the one-child family policy mean that the Government is ready to repeal the policy? Or has CASS just made a Cassandra prophecy?
Indeed, it seems unlikely the Government will pay too much attention to the real implications of the report. More likely the Government will only continue tinkering at the edges of the policy.

For the past couple of years, China has allowed married couples in its larger cities, where both members of the couple are themselves the only children of their parents, to have two children. In all probability, China is only going to extend this privilege to its smaller cities and maybe to some towns in rural areas. This belief is supported by the fact that the Government continues to argue the overall success of the one child family policy in reducing China’s population by around 400 million.

As long as the Government believes the country is over-populated it will not rescind its policy – no matter what the costs. Short of a change of Government (not very likely in this nation where, as Mao put it, “power comes from the barrel of a gun” rather than the ballot box), the focus on reducing population size in China is here to stay.

But even if China totally repealed the one-child family policy today, it would be too late for today’s generation of teenage boys. By 2020 some 24 million men will start realizing that a family life is not for them – no matter how much they yearn for it. China should expect them to be just a little angry.

Constance Kong is the pen name of a Shanghai-based business consultant.

SC politician's welfare comments called `immoral'

2010-01-26T06:04:00.000-08:00

It is this kind of elitist and arrogant thinking that inspires and continues eugenics!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_lt_gov_don_t_help_the_poor

SC politician's welfare comments called `immoral'
By SEANNA ADCOX, Associated Press Writer
Mon Jan 25, 10:47 pm ET

COLUMBIA, S.C. – When things looked their darkest for Gov. Mark Sanford — when he was in danger of being impeached for running off to Argentina to see his mistress — his best insurance policy may well have been South Carolina's lieutenant governor, Andre Bauer.

Lawmakers knew if they removed Sanford, they would end up with Bauer, a fiercely ambitious Republican with a reputation for reckless and immature behavior.

Now Bauer has folks shaking their heads again, after he likened government assistance to the poor to feeding stray animals.
At a town hall meeting Thursday, Bauer, who is running for governor in his own right now that Sanford is term-limited, said:

"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed! You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that."

Democrats and others railed at him.

"I am disgusted by these comments. They show an unbelievable lack of compassion toward the unemployed workers in our state who are hurting during these hard times," said state Sen. Vincent Sheheen, a Democrat who is also running for governor.
"His comments were immoral and out of line."

South Carolina schools Superintendent Jim Rex, another Democratic candidate for governor, called Bauer's comments "reprehensible" and said he should apologize.

Bauer said Monday that he regrets his choice of words but that government should expect welfare recipients to try to better themselves. He wants to require them to take drug tests and attend parent-teacher conferences if they have children in school.

A child of divorce who benefited from free lunches himself, Bauer insisted he wasn't bad-mouthing people laid off from work in the recession or advocating taking food from children, but rather emphasizing the need to break the cycle of dependency.
"Do I wish I'd used a different metaphor? Of course I do," the 40-year-old said. "I didn't intend to offend anyone."

Bauer has long been a love-him-or-hate-him figure in South Carolina politics. A nonstop campaigner and self-described workaholic, he was the youngest elected lieutenant governor in the country when he first won the No. 2 spot in 2002 at age 33.

Before his 2006 re-election, he shattered his heel when the single-engine plane he was piloting ran into power lines, crashed and caught fire. Bauer's office said the maintenance company that overhauled the engine botched the job. Court records show that a federal administrative law judge in June fined the company for returning the plane with incorrect bolts.

During the campaign, it was also disclosed that Bauer had been stopped for speeding twice, but not ticketed, even though in one instance he was going 101 mph in a 70 mph zone. He said he didn't realize how fast he was going and never asked for preferential treatment.

Bauer twice ran on a separate ticket from Sanford and the two have never been chums. In 2006, Sanford's now-estranged wife, Jenny, supported Bauer's primary opponent.

Bauer almost ascended to the top office last summer, after Sanford disappeared from the state for five days to be with his mistress. But the Legislature stopped short of impeachment.

Politicians who had gubernatorial ambitions of their own, or were backing other candidates, knew that replacing Sanford with Bauer would have given the lieutenant governor a year-and-a-half tryout for the job and the benefit of running as an incumbent.

At least three other Republicans and five Democrats have said they are running for governor.

Neal Thigpen, a political scientist at Francis Marion University, said Bauer tends to speak so fast and enthusiastically ("It's almost like a Gatling gun") that he sometimes "gets his mouth in place quicker than his head." Thigpen said the lieutenant governor's latest remarks could hurt him in the general election in the fall by allowing Democrats to portray him as "insensitive and downright cruel."

But as for the June Republican primary, "don't count him out. The kid's got a fanatical following," Thigpen said. "They're going to forgive him almost anything and stick to him like glue."

Similarly, Winthrop University political scientist Scott Huffmon said Bauer's words "came out as condescending and insulting," but his overall message about government dependency and personal responsibility will appeal to his evangelical Republican base.

State GOP Chairwoman Karen Floyd, who is not taking sides in the race for the nomination, said the flap should be a lesson to everyone to "choose our words more carefully."

Dealing With The Truth And USING It

2010-01-21T10:01:00.001-08:00

You can't have Justice without the Truth!!! Written by a friend of mine.

http://www.rense.com/general89/trust.htm

Dealing With The Truth And USING It
By Ted Twietmeyer
1-21-10

It's been said that there's a price to be paid for knowing the truth.

In the pre-USB and pre-CDROM days you could readily buy preformatted floppy disks for your computer. All societies raise children to accept their unique preformatted thought patterns and way of life. The collective name for this is "culture." It doesn't matter what country on Earth it is, this still applies. While some may consider this a necessary evil for any society or country to survive, others simply call it by what it is - brain-washing.

Having been exposed in my profession to the real truth of how life works and learning more about it personally from others has permanently changed my perspective on life. An old expression is still quite true "Nothing is as it seems." I can remember the very place I was standing the day the veil was lifted from me. It was a warm summer day in August many years ago while standing outside on my deck. An awareness of what's behind the curtain and what's been planned hit me like a ton of bricks. I'm sure many readers who experienced this can recall when it happened to them.

There are at least two belief systems people have one for political and another for spiritual or religious matters. For those who already experienced a paradigm shift they must still function and live within their respective country while simultaneously possessing the real knowledge of how life works. At times this is not easy for anyone to do. It also creates a dichotomy in our belief systems when we realize that not everything is as it appears.

A friend who remote-viewed religion years ago to see how it began told me what he saw. An alien race (possibly the same race that may have put us here) gave humans religion. The purpose for doing this was to provide a peaceful means of controlling people. When I heard this many years ago I found it hard to believe. But over time I've observed that this is exactly what religion does to people.

Oddly enough, good honest people seem to love being degraded by clergy and told they are going to hell. These same people will also give away their hard-earned wages to be told this! Most religions are expert at subjecting their members to what can only be called "busy-work." For most mainstream religions this has been perfected into an art form. With busy work people are kept very busy with meetings, rituals and duties. This prevents them from even thinking about what they are doing, and why.

God exists in parallel with mankind-created religion. Mankind has used the name of God as a means to propagate peaceful control of the masses. Human nature causes us to fear things we don't fully understand, especially those things of a paranormal nature. Scriptures proclaim God is a deity of mercy. Yet at the very same time countless ministers, fathers, priests and pastors will tell their congregations who ruthless God is and that you should fear him. No wonder people are confused. This often makes lay people look to those with theology doctorates for answers - answers which they may never get.

In the western world elections that are rigged, politicians making promises they never intend to keep, governments spend far more money than they will ever have, rich criminals walk away from murder simply because they can drag out a trial for a year or more and grind down the jury, people starve while new wars are started, children are ruthlessly brainwashed by schools and recruited as spies for the state, governments make bio-engineered diseases and race-specific viruses, buildings are blown up in front of the entire world on television by government employees and so much more. These are but a few of the blatant acts in society which almost defy explanation.

Yet the average person rarely notices any of these things happening right in front of them and asks WHY? The populace is raised in such a clever way by school educators they tend to ignore it. People can also choose not to see it on purpose, fearing something will happen to their social security or pensions (I've had people tell me that point blank.) Or people laugh at the idea there are puppet masters and slap on the conspiracy label. But none of these inactions will change the truth of our real reality, and what's happening right in front of them will catch up to them one day. On that day you will hear them whining, "I should have listened and done something about it when I could."

At one time there was a local electronics wholesaler in a city nearby. In front of the pickup counter the owner had super-glued a quarter to the floor. Both owner and clerks alike delighted at watching people waiting in line reach down and try to pick up the coin. There is an analogy here with the quarter, in that the average person only sees one side of life. Unconsciously in their mind, the other side of the coin bearing the real truth about life is super-glued to a wall. Silent controllers of our society take great delight at watching the sheep do what they're told, while simultaneously seeing the frustration of those who have already awoken.

Any form of control is most effective when no one suspects it's being used on them. At the same time its human nature to rebel at being physically controlled or restrained. With religion there is no physical control, which is just one reason it works so well.

Those in control in the background have never made any secret about their agenda which is extermination of most of mankind. Even world leaders have openly said most people are "useless eaters" and openly call for exterminating 80 to 90% of humanity.

Let's look at one example of this philosophy boldly engraved in stone:

Erected on March 22 1980, this 240,000 lb. monument is almost 20 feet tall and is known as the Georgia Guidestones. It is located in a rural part of Albert County on a farm in Georgia, USA. It is not known for certain who expended a considerable sum of money to quarry, cut, engrave and erect this monument.

Inscribed upon the monument is the following text in English, Spanish, Swahili, Hindi, Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese, and Russian:

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.
10.Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature

The messages given here are mixed - extermination to reduce the Earth's population to 500 million, fair laws, world court, be not a cancer on the Earth and leaving room for nature. But interspersed with this is faith, compassion, letting nations rule internally, avoiding petty laws, sacrificing personal rights if needed, etc

Put simply, it means shut up and die if you're not one of the chosen to live, and those who do get to live must happily accept the new way of life dictated for them.

Reducing world population by allowing only one out of 16 people to live would seem like an animal erected it and not a human being. "Leave room for nature" is repeated twice to reinforce this thought. Perhaps someone from the future erected this monument to brag about what's coming. It was made of stone so it cannot be destroyed by fire or some other calamity allowing it to last for centuries. It may have been erected at this location for a particular reason - to survive the coming destruction.

This is yet a perfect example of how those in control (or think they are in control) do not hide their control-freak mentality.

So can we stop it? To answer this we need to take a look at modern history. Modern wars are won in a matter of days using advanced technology - when it's desirable to do so. But to be able to manage and control entire countries after victory is far more difficult. Consider what the German people did when Hitler took control. Thousands of Germans refused to submit to totalitarian government and fought against it, resulting in heavy losses.

An army colonel once told me, "The more advanced the technology the easier it is to defeat it." When you ponder a few things you quickly discover how true this is.
A simple paintball gun can disable any video camera, no matter how expensive it is. A camera on a tall pole can be taken down with a oxy-acetylene torch or a hacksaw. In the UK they started filling the poles with concrete to prevent this, so people doused the camera box with a burnable fluid and lit it, destroying it right on the pole. There is no real way to prevent camera damage. A high power laser is also effective and could be used from inside a vehicle.

A simple paper clip can disable the most powerful computer when dropped into a ventilation slot or CDROM drive. A paper clip can also jam or damage a printer when dropped into the mechanism.

Microwave psychotronics making your life miserable? A simple corner reflector can be built using two metallic surfaces joined at a right angle, erected with the inside corner facing the microwave source. Two foil-covered four foot by eight foot foam insulation sheets from a home improvement center are ready-made into a reflector. Erected vertically, this reflector will send microwaves back at the operator of the psychotronic device, regardless of whatever horizontal angle it's aimed at you from. It's about time they suffer from their own weapons. Such a reflector can also work against area denial weapons which are truck mounted. This system irradiate a crowd of people with 42Ghz radiation boiling moisture on the skin instantly creating a burning feeling. Apparently the manufacturer thinks no man wants to be a father someday, and this will help insure that.

The list is almost endless of how ordinary low tech objects can damage or disable high tech devices.

We know enough about the wizard behind the curtain, how life really works and into what world the back-stage planners *think* they create. What they cannot possibly grasp is the amount of resistance they will meet. Not everyone will be going peacefully. Even soldiers have a conscious - consider the high suicide rate now prevalent in the military.

Afghanistan is a great example of a wasted 9 years of war and thousands of lives, and it still isn't over. In Vietnam failure was blamed on the jungle and tunnels. So what's the excuse for the war dragging on in rocky, barren, cold Afghanistan? It's the same story as Vietnam government doesn't want the war to end. And the proof of this is the new front already starting in Pakistan. But with war comes a heavy price tag measured in human lives and big bucks which will only get worse.

In the end, war is a losing proposition for everyone involved whether it be governments, soldiers or civilians. Even soldiers don't believe in what they are doing anymore, even though they volunteered for the armed forces. As mentioned earlier, suicide rates for US troops are now at an all-time high yet few people even notice it and even fewer care.

Many think daily life is hard and no one has time to do anything about what's going on. For those that think this, consider life during the period of the 1700's in which America's founding fathers lived. Here's a few samples of what America's founding fathers had to deal with: They crapped and pissed in buckets, women suffered while menstruating once a month and everyone went outside to dump their bodily waste.

Candles or lanterns were required to have meetings or to read and write at night. Founders suffered numerous diseases and illnesses resulting in shortened lifespan. They knew nothing about bacteria, viruses or hygiene and had no central heating or air conditioning. These hardy people chopped down trees with axes and split wood by hand (did that as a sole source of heat through just ONE winter and it was brutal,) saddled horses or used open carriages for the shortest rides in bitter cold, blizzards or boiling hot days, washed clothes by hand and hung them up to dry, fed and took care of horses, livestock, planted and harvested crops all by hand, slaughtered animals, dressed them, etc No radios, DVDs, telephones, computers or televisions. Nothing. Not even a wind-up phonograph to listen to since the phonograph wouldn't be invented for another 100 years. If you wanted to hear music, you either learned how to play an instrument or find someone that could. Or just whistle or sing to yourself.

Even a broken bone that went unattended to could take a life. When a broken bone is not promptly set the ends of the bone die which releases deadly toxins into the system causing organ failure. Even today, sometimes people are found dead in their homes from a simple, curable broken bone. Not everyone 300 years ago could afford a doctor, lived near one or had slaves. Many people were forced to set broken bones themselves the best they knew how.

Not all of the founding fathers or signers of the Declaration of Independence or Constitution could afford to have a slave to do their daily chores. The average person of the past usually did everything themselves. That was the normal way of life for many at that time.

People today think they have too many problems and no free time to fight tyranny, or even time to just say NO. Today everyone has FAR MORE FREE TIME to deal with all the problems those in power want to dump upon us.

If all that's important to someone is football, basketball, hockey, baseball etc.. then they deserve everything they have coming to them. And rest assured they will get it, too.

I won't be shedding any tears for those who have been warned.

Ted Twietmeyer

In-Depth Exclusive: Diary of a Madman - Rare Mengele Memoir Unearthed by Auctioneer

2010-01-20T14:50:00.000-08:00

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Diary-of-a-Madman--Rare-M-by-Gustav-Wynn-100120-322.html

January 20, 2010
In-Depth Exclusive: Diary of a Madman - Rare Mengele Memoir Unearthed by Auctioneer
By Gustav Wynn

This Thursday, an auctioneer of historical documents is offering an extremely rare diary written by the fugitive Nazi doctor Josef Mengele. The auction tomorrow also features a revealing letter written by Mengele during his Auschwitz tenure, but the diary presents a rich, detailed look into Mengele's mind. According to the auctioneer, it originated from a source close to the family.

I was able to inspect the diary Monday, ironically written into a small children's composition book with "Zoological Workbork" printed onto one of the pages within. The doctor covered every one of the book's blank pages with vignettes of the past and present day, interspersing his thoughts on everything from art, literature, religion, modernity, German history andwomen's rights to predictions for the future of mankind, clearly showing a preoccupation with eugenics, natural selection and the recurring concept of loyalty.

The catalog description offered from the site of auctioneer Alexander Autographs is here, yet shows only a few pictures of diary pages and a limited representative sampling of the writing. Written in German, the memoir begins in May, 1960 when Mengele was 49, but later entries do not include dates. Aside from the first page written in pencil, the balance is written in blue ink in his distinctive script, including footnotes, corrections and annotations throughout.

The content is remarkable, particularly because it shows blow-by-blow the thought processes of the man known as "The Angel of Death" who sent tens of thousands to their death in Auschwitz, conducted bizarre experiments on live human subjects and ultimately escaped trial and execution by hiding out using a series of aliases.

Given exclusive in-depth access, it was clear to me Mengele remained committed to his belief that humans should be bred for superior genetic characteristics and the inferior should be euthanized or prevented from reproducing, but his content segues from the mundane to the philosophical to the autobiographical to the historical in a visible stream of consciousness that makes quite transparent his internal connections. Presented here are only short excepts from the the 180 pages of handwritten entries.

Marking his first year anniversary in his new home, Mengele decides "I see how right my plans have been all along and I understand now that following people's advice mostly results in irreparable nonsense. But I refuse to pass guilt onto others: "I was solely responsible for my decisions." He proclaims himself in "good spirits" offering a review of the then-popular book Dr. Zhivago, he considers the characters and their ideas of truth and beauty, launching into a polemic on natural selection: "There's only one truth and one true beauty....There's no 'good' or 'bad' in nature. There's only 'appropriate' or 'inappropriate.' However 'appropriate' things are not necessarily beautiful. Both sides receive equal chances. Nevertheless, nature provides a strainer. Things which are 'inappropriate' fall through since they do not succeed in the struggle for survival."

Continuing on natural selection, in part: "...human beings have a sense of absolute beauty even though it seems to be subjective at first. (Experiments by Lenz!)...I believe that all human beings share the same ideal of beauty. There are no racial differences to be found....the artistic endeavor is a struggle to create the best representation of the human body...absolute beauty seems to me a prerequisite for all human beings. This is how absolute beauty becomes the superior notion that unites all mankind. Let's go one step further and impose the idea of beauty on the animal world....ideal beauty for a certain species transcends racial boundaries."

Mengele compares horses bred for polo versus horses bred for pulling trucks, noting the "noble horse" has been intentionally bred by humans. In part: "whenever we observe horses critically, we almost start to believe that they recognize the quality of their own beauty...this is a beautiful area for studying animal psychology."

Then, Mengele seems to pivot to his work with humans in self-described "deep thoughts": "We started with the idea of beauty, and we condensed this common notion more and more the further we went. We achieved this point by contrasting the notions of 'beautiful' and 'good'...you cannot find anything 'good' in the realm of biology. Now, I would like to look at humanity through religious eyes and under the assumption that human beings have an immortal soul. This is the notion of 'goodness' in a typical human idea. It's a ploy to separate mankind from his or her biological existence...Think about loyalty! It's a result of breeding, as for example in dogs, man's oldest companion. But you cannot breed qualities that weren't there all along!"

In the South American jungle, Mengele observes bird and other animal behaviors and monkeys in particular, writing about the first time he saw a monkey in the wild. Contrasting his experiments on primates in the lab, "I've taken many monkey carcasses out of the formol and prepared muscles and parts of the pancreas. I was familiar with the bone structures of different monkey races as a part of my studies in comparative anatomy." In another entry, he describes encounters with wild ostriches, noting how herd-like, observant and skittish they are. "They certainly don't bury their head in the sand....I assume, people find the ostrich's anatomy ideal for such behavior and simply invented this biological trait. If only the ostrich knew!"

Mengele observes the pristine state of the "virgin jungle" and the idea of "Paradise Lost" as settlers changed the landscape: "Nothing has changed for thousands of years. Like in a vision, you can see how there used to be an ocean right here, and you can feel how the waters slowly retreated and turned into gigantic rivers that still flow today...Finally, human beings arrived."

Mengele points out that cultures didn't flourish in this dense, lush Eden, however, preferring higher grounds. "The European colonial forces were the first to exploit the vast regions that still seem sleepy and ancient today. This is still the greatest accomplishment of the Spaniards and the Jesuits...The ranches are being drained through huge canals....the forest will be cultivated, and expressways will go everywhere. Maybe modern man will turn some of the areas into sanctuaries so that people can observe the many forms of nature from their cars."

In observing local villagers collecting wood for a bonfire commemorating St. John, Mengele enjoins a treatise on holiday rituals and recalls his experiences as an organizer for a German youth movement back in high school in order to give "insight into a certain stage of my personal development", beginning "...most people didn't know the deeper meaning of celebrating solstice. The youth movement restored the original meaning of solstice, which the Christian church had changed to it's own advantage.

It makes no sense to honor a saint (John) through bonfires. It's simply the Christian reinterpretation of a heathen rite to celebrate the beginning of summer. There are many other examples like this one; the most famous is Christmas which was nothing more than the celebration of winter solstice. Nordic people started celebrating Christmas, as it is done today."

Mengele describes the worldwide spread of these Germanic rites into "...a procession of Christian festivities. They hoped that the origins would slowly fall into oblivion. In Germany, this trend was stopped for at least a while, thanks to the youth movement and religious re-awakening." On Candlemas, he tells of priests telling their parish "the light is Maria's present" to obscure that "...one more hour of sunlight was quite important for traditional Germanic agriculture. This is the main reason the day of light was celebrated."

Noting the impact of his generation, "Our Germanic religion was directly connected to nature in which human beings feel logically at home. The youth movement never intended to reject or doubt Christian beliefs or religious institutions....We had to remember our inner strength, and this was of utmost importance after World War I and the shameful peace that followed....We had to find the deepest sources of German strength to make our restoration possible. We could not expect other people to help us, and we couldn't rely on religion. For example, what has the Catholic Church done to amend or get rid of the Treaty of Versailles?"

"The youth movement laid the spiritual foundation for the national uprising that was to follow World War I. Later on, the youth movement became part of the great political organization, the Hitlerjugend."

Galvanizing many under a common banner "who all had the same goal", Mengele notes the movement to re-purify German culture included groups interested in sports, military training, folk music, dance, travel and theater. "We had to learn German fairy tales and study the notions of a Germanic afterlife. We had to liberate Germanic history from Roman and Catholic influences", emphasizing German authors and composers to embrace "an idealistic, heroic way of life....We were ready for another attempt to change the empire's shameful history. In the end, this heroic way of life prevailed, and ten years later all of Germany embraced it....During the years 1927, 1928, 1929 and 1930, I was the head of our local B.D.J. chapter and it was my responsibility to organize the solstice events."

Mengele then describes his tenure in June of 1928 as leader of a local youth group consisting of 60 boys and 30 girls. "The girls did their stuff by themselves and therefore they created no work for me....the girls were either older than I was, or they were my age. The girls' leader was quite older; she was 5 years my senior. We had very little contact....the age difference made romance impossible; on the other hand, relationships between boys and girls were proper, relaxed and caring."

Describing the solstice event he was charged with organizing, Mengele recalled precisely the program itinerary and selections sung, being "Flames Rise" and "No Country More Beautiful", followed by a march home. Praising the rally's effectiveness, he notes : "...it left it's impression on the population. Jumping over the fire had made our group rambunctious" but he then abruptly segues into an account of his efforts leading up to the event, in which he describes himself toiling mightily and almost single-handedly to collect the wood and deliver it to the site using a decrepit cart.

At one point, stuck at the bottom of a steep hill with no help in sight, he notes "But when you become destitute, God's help isn't far", recounting how a carriage appeared to help tow his load up the hill. "I unloaded the cart and built a beautiful pyre that burned great that evening...The fire made us so proud!...it proclaimed a small group of boys and girls were celebrating solstice...to awaken the people of our country. We wanted them to throw off the handcuffs that the Treaty of Versailles had put upon us. The fire was to liberate you from thoughts of egotism...to keep us warm, just like the love for our people and their superior culture...to destroy all disagreements among Germans."

Perhaps becoming self-aware, Mengele askes "Why am I writing all of this down in such detail? One day, when my sons will read these lines, I want them to grasp the enthusiasm we felt back then...Do you understand now why two high school kids pushed a heavy cart through your city? Did they only want to build a big fire, grab a few girls and jump over it? Oh no, boys were not interested in such things back then. We wanted to build a big fire, a reminder to everyone in Germany that the fatherland was in distress...There were many teachers who didn't at all like what we were doing....they tried to pollute our souls."

He describes how they overcame this, "Our voluntary obedience was possible only because we acknowledged that camaraderie was the highest ideal. Whoever disrespected one of our comrades didn't stay long with us."

Another section details in roughly ten paragraphs Mengele's hunt for a Yacare (crocodile) sneaking into the water supply, describing the first time he'd seen a figurine of a crocodile in a church display and his attempts to shoot the creature: "I don't really believe in 'monsters'..."

Next Mengele revisits the themes of eugenics and loyalty as he reviews another book read, The Barrings by William von Simpson, which he says "got to me", likening the death of an older character to that of his own father, but with distinctions: "My father did a better job holding on to his properties, even though they were subsequently divided into different parts."

Critiquing the writing, he continues "Gerda's behavior has no psychological explanation...there is one solution for all of their financial problems: The sick, old man should be substituted with somebody new, but nobody seems to think of that....Their political background is intriguing even though the depiction of World War II is unsatisfying. The author pays too little attention to the question of 'why' things happened." He admits the book is "enthralling" but faults the Prussian nobility for the German loss of the region and the war. "The man who wanted to complete Bismarck's work was not of their standing. They refused to follow him unconditionally and victory was lost".

Later, Mengele discusses India: "British rule in India wasn't that bad and the higher classes (Brahmans, Maharajas) weren't that noble!" Commenting on the book The Great Rain by Louis Bromfield, Mengele believes Bolshevic influence made India into a "gooey mess", adding "This is where the great sadistic problem begins that even Gandhi didn't understand. His adversary understood the dilemma well. I had a chance to work with one of them (Dr. Mitra) at the same scientific institute....the castes are not expressions of prejudice; they convey status and racial qualities within the Indian society...Brahmans are built nicely; some of them even have blue eyes. They have small, straight noses and they're in general high quality human beings. And this is because the Brahmans used the highest caste to preserve their noble blood. They are the descendants of Nordic peoples who once conquered and ruled India."

Relating Indians to the Romans and Greeks, Mengele discusses how to create an upper class: "It can only be done by selecting the best", considering the influences of life experience, schooling, and politics, as well as the unintended circumstances of violence, catastrophe and necessity. "Only the free play of powers can produce substance. We have seen this process in nature and human history alike."

Discussing cycles of class: "...this is only logical and inevitable, and results from selection according to 'performance'. A process was set into motion based on the simple and fundamental truth that human beings are not equal."

Expounding on the professional roles going back to ancient societies: "It was the same in medieval society with nobility, clergy, middle class and those who were in bondage. The class system remains intact as long as the ruling class stays strong and in numbers. The decay begins whenever the ruling class has fewer children, while the lower classes of have-nots reproduce in unlimited numbers." Mengele then comports this with the modern day "...for the first time in human history we don't have any slaves any more, and nobody is in bondage!!"

This takes Mengele back to ancient Rome, where he describes the ascent of the "proles", mixing "highly educated Greek teachers" with "merchants from Syria" and "skilled soldiers from the German forests" and then demanding political change. "When nobility, clerics and bourgeoisie neglected to engage the lower class, and when no fundamental rights were given, violence ensued....lower classes grew and grew. They fought a series of revolutions and succeeded in abolishing everybody's rights...Everywhere else on this planet everybody can try to achieve whatever his plans are. He can work in any profession, he can buy whatever he wants, he can go wherever he wants to go, and he can marry whoever he wants to marry. And sometimes, he can even say what he wants to say."

Mengele continues railing on about natural and human selection, "Maybe there will be a time when people are either unable or unwilling to wage war against eachother (?!) but mankind is doomed even without war." Believing wealth as the current determinate, Mengele expresses a view that overpopulation will eventually overcome us, unless we groom enough creative scientists, chemists, biologists, mathematicians and engineers to guarantee a basic food supply, meet our growing energy needs and find ways to "exploit the Earth in the most rational ways".

He adds "armies of specialists will substitute for slaves" in a complex future in which scientists will be in short supply. Mengele predicts there will be 5 billion people by the year 2000 (he was off by over a billion) but feared the "intelligentsia" would be greatly outnumbered.

Then he cites stats on German and US college enrollment, comparing the paths to success for the technician, the manager, the director and "Joe Shmo". Questioning why societies don't offer much incentive for scientific careers, he asks "Why do you want to be a doctor or a professor if your salary won't even guarantee a lower middle-class existence? At the same time, you'll observe the president of a cannery who knows nothing about food science but knows a lot about advertisement. This man will take cheap fruit and turn it into expensive jam which every housewife will buy. He will be richer than you could ever imagine."

Mengele observes "the number of children is reversed in relation to their parent's social status...unskilled workers have more children than highly trained workers do." This snowballs because the "foreman can make sure his son becomes an engineer if he only has one or two children. His sense of responsibility forces him to have fewer children."

He laments: "But where are we going to get these high-quality human beings if the cradles of the 'intelligentsia' remain empty? Many people thought they were able to disregard the warnings of politicians and eugenics researchers. Where their work was put into practice, their attempts were brutally destroyed. They thought that these dire necessities were irreconcilable with a liberal, democratic wordview."

Mengele states plainly that "Things that were considered trivial when we wanted to preserve our true culture are now seen as imperative to preserve civilization and food supply as a whole." Mengele feels humans must arrange for less survival, as nature once did, noting man's "humanity made him help fellow humans who were unable to cope with life. He kept them alive, and he helped decaying elements of his species to keep procreating. We now have to mobilize higher human abilities again, and we have to make sure that nature's suspended eradication will continue through human arrangements...If we don't want the physically or mentally disabled left to their natural fate, and if we want them to be a burden on society, we should at least be ethical enough to make sure that their inferior genes aren't passed on...We know all the general objections to our point of view, and we consider any kind of a discussion a waste of time."

Next, Mengele fashions a history of traditional "village idiots" who were prevented from reproducing, including females. "The female village idiot has always been a sex object" but rarely had children out of wedlock, he notes, "After the first bastard child, the female idiot experienced so many hostilities and problems that another child was out of the question."

Relating nukes to eugenics, Mengele writes "Nuclear warfare will kill worthy and unworthy life alike, and reduce survival to a mere coincidence." But he predicts "Humans will invent a weapon to counter nuclear weapons. There won't be any more wars until this weapon has been developed".

Relating globalization to eugenics, Mengele imagines "People will stop killing eachother in the name of ideology. And maybe things will be so intertwined and connected that no country on Earth can "go nuts" because it's sharing all the resources with everybody else...But this beautiful dream will only be possible if mankind has enough gifted, talented people available." Otherwise, he says, "Everything will end in a catastrophe if natural selection is altered to the point that gifted people are overwhelmed by billions of morons." He predicts 90% of humans will starve due to stupidity with 10% surviving like reptiles when the dinosaurs went extinct.

Mengele offers a "little opus" on prevention of the rise of the "idiot masses", in which every country decides on it's own measures. For Germany, he suggests required training accompanying every marriage certificate, to include counseling in health, genetics, hygiene, sexual psychology, population policy, financial burdens of child rearing, birth control and more. He recommends government subsidies for advanced degrees, and stipends dependent on the genetic qualities of the children. Mengele also requires limiting profits of merchants to support producers.

Mengele then instructs Germany to "Abandon feminist ideology; biology doesn't support equal rights. Women shouldn't be working in higher positions. Women's work has to depend on fulfilling a biological quota. Birth control can be done by sterilizing those with deficient genes. Those with good genes will be sterilized when the number of 5 children has been reached". Mengele recommends making 3-4 children "seem fashionable" and sterilization for any woman over 40 seeking an abortion, adding "Exact statistics will be required."

Though I've only covered here a portion of the material, this diary is without a doubt a fascinating primary document giving deep insight into the mental workings of an extremely controversial historical figure. Not only didn't Mengele show repentance for the eugenics policies he promoted at the Kaiser-Wilhelm institute, he seems to have become more and more obsessed in defense of them by the early 1960s.

In light of recent climate talks in Copenhagen and success in carbon-reduction goals coming through China's highly criticized family planning approaches, this newly discovered diary may add dimension to considerations of how forward-thinking societies can feasibly integrate more sustainability into human endeavors without resorting to the inhuman methods practiced by Dr. Mengele and the Third Reich.

Mentally Ill Sentenced to Death by NHS

2010-01-17T03:23:00.000-08:00

There is a word for this in western capitalism: EFFICIENCY. Anything to save a corporation (for profit or not) money...

http://www.NaturalNews.com/z027927_NHS_mentally_ill.html

by David Gutierrez, staff writer

(NaturalNews) In a letter to the Daily Telegraph newspaper, a group of medical experts has claimed that a government protocol intended to reduce suffering in the terminally ill may actually be causing the deaths of patients who might otherwise have recovered.

The Liverpool Care Pathway, originally developed by the cancer nonprofit Marie Curie, has been adopted as a recommendation by the British government's health regulatory body, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Patients are placed on the pathway if their entire medical team, including a senior doctor, concludes that they are approaching death and cannot be saved. At this point, doctors halt treatment with any drugs or invasive procedures that are judged unhelpful. They may receive food and water if they can still keep it down, but may instead be put on continuous sedation until they die.

Yet experts warn that the symptoms used to diagnose someone for the pathway, including confusion, loss of consciousness or difficulty swallowing medication, can be caused by other conditions -- such as mental illness or the combination of painkillers and dehydration.

"Forecasting death is an inexact science," the letter read. "As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients."

Meanwhile, continuous sedation can conceal signs that a patient is improving. And once they place a patient on the pathway, many medical workers stop looking for signs of recovery.

"If they are sedated it is much harder to see that a patient is getting better," said Professor Emeritus Peter Millard of the University of London.

"I have been practicing palliative medicine for more than 20 years and I am getting more concerned about this 'death pathway' that is coming in," said signatory Peter Hargreaves of St Luke's Cancer Center. "It is supposed to let people die with dignity but it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy."

Is death better than disability?

2010-01-15T15:13:00.000-08:00

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/is_death_better_than_disability/

Michael Cook | Monday, 11 January 2010
Whom better to ask than the disabled? They give some surprising answers.

When assisted suicide is legalised most of the people who will die are disabled. And American disability advocates take a very dim view of it. This is the theme of a hard-hitting series of articles in the latest issue of the Disability and Health Journal.
The editor, Suzanne McDermott, of the University of South Carolina School of Medicine, writes that she changed her own mind after studying the issue. At first she believed that assisted suicide was solely a personal autonomy issue. But eventually she was persuaded that it is at the heart of the movement for disability rights: "Almost all people at the end of life can be included in the definition of ‘disability’. Thus, the practice of assisted suicide results in death for people with disabilities."

The special issue is a response to a controversial 2008 decision by the American Public Health Association (APHA) to back "aid in dying" (ie, assisted suicide). This slipped almost completely under the media’s radar, but it means that the official policy of the "oldest, largest and most diverse organization of public health professionals in the world" – 30,000 of them – is to support assisted suicide to the hilt. Or, as they prefer to call it in Oregon, "patient-directed dying" or "physician aid-in-dying".

Rather than worrying about some ambiguous language in the Obama administration’s health reform legislation or scrutinising the publications of his health advisors for a few indiscreet phrases, the elderly and their relatives ought to be worried about the 30,000 members of the APHA. They are the ones who could be sitting on the "death panels". The authors of the articles in the Disability and Health Journal certainly are worried.

Several themes emerge from the articles.

First, the very existence of legalised assisted suicide leads to an expectation that the disabled, elderly and infirm should shuffle off their mortal coil a bit early to relieve the burden on their carers.

This fear has been ridiculed by supporters, who contend that all they want is choice at the end of life and that a lifelong experience of disability is different from the pain of seeing one’s life ebb away. They think that disability advocates are demonising euthanasia lobby groups and exaggerating their own vulnerability

Nonsense, says Diane Coleman, of the lobby group Not Dead Yet. She points out – quite eloquently -- that pity can be more dangerous than a mad doctor in a nursing home. We are, she says, "more frightened by the doctors who are out to help us but who see our lives as burdensome and who know little about options that make life with disability valuable."

Why should valuable resources be wasted on them, anyway? "Every week, I hear another person with a disability recount a disturbing interaction with a physician, nurse, or other health professional who clearly transmitted the view that life with a disability is inherently burdensome," she writes. "It does not feel safe to have one's life in the hands of someone who views that life as unfortunate, maybe even tragic or unfair."

Second, advocates of assisted suicide and euthanasia ignore the experience of the disabled because they think that a dying 80-year-old is radically different from someone who has spent a lifetime in a wheelchair. Show me the evidence for this, Ms Coleman demands. Anyone, at any age, can learn to cope with disability. "To dismiss these efforts as futile because the individual is near the end of life has no empirical foundation and raises questions about the commitment of assisted suicide proponents to the genuine self-determination of people with terminal illnesses."

What these articles convey strongly is that supporters of assisted suicide simply do not care how much collateral damage their campaign for "dying with dignity" will do to people who have lived with their disability for years. Ms Coleman savagely comments: "Proponents of legalized assisted suicide are willing to treat lives ended through abuses of the practice as ‘acceptable losses’ when balanced against their wish for a pleasant way out and their unwillingness to accept disability, or responsibility for their own suicide."

Third, the danger is not mandated euthanasia, as in Nazi Germany. Rather, it is a subtle and widespread expectation that death is better than disability. "If the legalization of assisted suicide continues, I believe the rank and file will some day see nothing wrong with hastening the deaths of many people," writes Dr Carol J. Gill , director of the Chicago Center for Disability Research. "They will stand by and do nothing to stop it and will endorse the policies and institutions that advance it – not because they are evil people but because it will no longer be evil in our culture to do so. It will be compassionate, respectful, routine."

Fourth, several authors argue forcefully that Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, which is the model for assisted suicide in the US, is deeply flawed. After about 15 years, several intractable problems have emerged. The authors claim that there is very little patient control; that statistics are incomplete; that oversight is minimal and secretive; that safeguards are easily circumvented; and that negligent doctors cannot be prosecuted. Allegations that in Oregon and in the neighbouring state of Washington, which has also legalised assisted suicide, the circumstances of deaths are routinely falsified are especially disturbing. In fact, Washington actually requires that doctors falsify the death certificate by listing the terminal disease as the cause of death rather than the lethal dose of barbiturates.

Nearly always the debate over assisted suicide focuses on disabled people who want to choose death. Why not ask disabled people who want to choose life? They are the biggest stakeholders. Like most academic publications, the Disability and Health Journal normally offers obscure and specialised reading. But this month’s issue is a must-read for anyone interested in the future of "death with dignity".

Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet.

Skewed China birth rate to leave 24 mln men single

2010-01-11T12:56:00.000-08:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100111/hl_afp/chinapopulationmenmarriage

Mon Jan 11, 5:59 am ET

BEIJING (AFP) – More than 24 million Chinese men of marrying age could find themselves without spouses in 2020, state media reported on Monday, citing a study that blamed sex-specific abortions as a major factor.

The study, by the government-backed Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, named the gender imbalance among newborns as the most serious demographic problem for the country's population of 1.3 billion, the Global Times said.

"Sex-specific abortions remained extremely commonplace, especially in rural areas," where the cultural preference for boys over girls is strongest, the study said, while noting the reasons for the gender imbalance were "complex."

Researcher Wang Guangzhou said the skewed birth ratio could lead to difficulties for men with lower incomes in finding spouses, as well as a widening age gap between partners, according to the Global Times.

Another researcher quoted by the newspaper, Wang Yuesheng, said men in poorer parts of China would be forced to accept marriages late in life or remain single for life, which could "cause a break in family lines."

"The chance of getting married will be rare if a man is more than 40 years old in the countryside. They will be more dependent on social security as they age and have fewer household resources to rely on," Wang said.

The study said the key contributing factors to the phenomenon included the nation's family-planning policy, which restricts the number of children citizens may have, as well as an insufficient social security system.

The situation influenced people to seek male offspring, who are preferred for their greater earning potential as adults and thus their ability to care for their elderly parents.

The Global Times said abductions and trafficking of women were "rampant" in areas with excess numbers of men, citing the National Population and Family Planning Commission.

Illegal marriages and forced prostitution were also problems in those areas, it said.

Authorities put the normal male-female ratio at between 103-107 males for every 100 females. But in 2005, the last year for which data were made available, there were 119 boys for every 100 girls, the newspaper said.

However, the study said that in some areas the male-female ratio was as high as 130 males for every 100 females, a report by the Mirror Evening newspaper said.

The report said the study urged the government to relax the so-called "one-child" policy and study the possibility of encouraging "cross-country marriages."

China first implemented its population control policy in 1979, generally limiting families to one child, with some exceptions for rural farmers, ethnic minorities and other groups.

It has said the policy has averted 400 million births.

Researchers said the gender imbalance problem cropped up in the late 1980s when the use of ultrasound technology became more prevalent.

This allowed women to easily determine the sex of their foetuses, leading to an increased number of sex-selective abortions.

John Lennon on the population bomb

2010-01-06T12:15:00.000-08:00

http://www.mercatornet.com/demography/view/6336/

John Lennon on the population bomb
Michael Cook | 5 Jan 2010

Arguments from authority are very weak indeed, but when the authority is John Lennon, what the heck.

Check out this brief clip from an undated interview with Lennon and Yoko Ono on the Dick Cavett show.

Someone in the audience asks Yoko Ono about over-population and she expresses her scepticism. Then Lennon chips in, “I don’t really believe it… I think we’ve got enough food and money to feed everybody… There’s enough room for us and some of us can go to the Moon anyway.”

“I think you’re wrong about that,” says Cavett.

“Oh, I don’t care,” Lennon responds. It seems that he thinks that the population bomb was a beat-up by the government to distract the public from really important issues like Vietnam and Northern Ireland.

It doesn’t prove anything, I suppose, but at least I’m in good company.

Bangladesh to introduce family planning policy

2010-01-05T12:47:00.000-08:00

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-12/23/content_12694940.htm

DHAKA, Dec.23 (Xinhua) -- Bangladesh is going to introduce "one couple, one child" population planning policy soon without making it mandatory in a bid to contain the growing population of the country.

The Director General of the Directorate of Family Planning Mohammad Abdul Qayyum told Xinhua in an interview Wednesday "The Chinese policy influenced us in framing our policy though we are not making it mandatory," He said they will create awareness among people about "one couple, one child" policy.

The directorate drafted the policy to popularize the slogan "Nomore than two children, one is best," the official said.

The couples having one child would be given preferences in different state facilities like financial grants and other areas.

"We are eager to develop relationship with Chinese population planning authorities for training our men, using modern contraceptive and other related matters," Qayyum said.

Bangladesh is the most densely populated country in the world with more than 1,000 people living in one square kilometer area, and the population growth rate is now at 1.39 percent, the director general said, adding that according to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) estimate, Bangladesh's population is now at 162.2 million though the Bangladeshi government counts it to be 140 million.

Qayyum said, "The population situation of the country will be grave after 50 years if the current growth rate is not halted."

He said they want to contain the population growth, otherwise, it would create pressure on basic rights of people like education, health, housing and food.

Qayyum said the government has reduced child mortality rate to 65 now from 150 per thousand live birth.

The director general said the country at present has nearly 25 million fertile couple and 56 percent of whom are adopting various methods of population planning.

Depopulation by Medicine

2010-01-04T10:29:00.000-08:00

February 2007

Dee Nicholson,
National Communications Director,
Freedom in Canadian Health Care
http://freedomincanadianhealthcare.com
Email: fchc.ca@gmail.com

When we look at modern medicine, we truly discover the depth of depravity of the so-called "Illuminated Ones" behind this New World Order. Not only are they culling the "herd" mercilessly with increasingly toxic food, water, air, and medicine, they are deliberately using pharmaceutical medicines to make us sick, so as to make more money out of "treating" our illnesses before we succumb, while actively suppressing real, proven natural cures.

In fact, the pharma cartel has virtual control over every aspect of health care, despite thousands of peer-reviewed studies showing that, as double Nobel Laureate Dr. Linus Pauling stated, every disease can be traced to a nutritional deficiency.

There is much evidence of their goal of aggressive depopulation. From the proven toxicity of literally all pharmaceutical products, to the mustard-gas and radiation based "treatments" for cancer, to the scandal of FDA-approved Aspartame (one of the best ant-killers on the shelf ) being foisted on dieters and diabetics alike, no other conclusion can be drawn.

By far their most effective depopulation tool for over 150 years has been vaccination. Following a concerted effort to establish control over the practice of medicine they have created a perpetually sickened crop of humans who can be used to produce incalculable wealth from contrived illnesses. All this while hiding the truth about what keeps us healthy, and can heal us of just about anything: proper nutrition.

First they made it their business to fund medical schools and institutions, to create "experts" to fill government agencies and advisory panels, to stack public boards and social programs (through the Rockefeller Foundation, among others) in order to ensure that they became the sole credible authority on health and healing. From that point it was easy to convince the masses that vaccinations were safe and effective, despite the stacks of bodies piling up behind their jab campaigns.

Every day we are regaled with commercials and "expert" opinions advising us to bare our arms for the flu shot, or to make sure our children's vaccinations are up to date. In Ontario, it is recommended that infants receive up to 24 injections before age 1. That's 24 injections hit up on a baby body with a barely-formed immune system, which shots contain formaldehyde, Polysorbate 80, methyl mercury, MSG, foreign DNA from monkeys, decaying chicken embryo matter, and lung tissue from aborted human fetuses.

There's a new kid on the block: Gardasil, the Merck invention currently being foisted on pre-menstrual girls as "protection from cervical cancer caused by HPV, human Papilloma virus", which is spread by sexual activity. Governor Rick Perry of Texas just signed an executive order to mandate vaccination with Gardasil of all 11 and 12-year-old girls in his state, essentially assuming they will all be sexually active before entering high school. As atrocious a concept as this is, Canadian health officials are now mulling over making this vaccine available to young Canadian girls.

What's in it? Lots of the aforementioned stuff, and in addition, 225 mcg. of aluminum per shot, with three shots necessary, making a total of 675 mcg. of aluminum per child. Aluminum causes tangles of nerve fibres, leading to Alzheimer's Disease. In addition, Gardasil contains Polysorbate 80, which is linked to infertility in mice.

One very telling point is contained in proposed legislation copying Texas' mandated Gardasil vaccination program, presently before the state legislature of Virginia (HB2035), in this clause: "G. The Commonwealth waives immunity from tortuous liability if a female who is inoculated with the HPV vaccine becomes incapable of naturally conceiving a healthy child carried to live birth or experiences impaired fertility as a result of the HPV vaccine." This waiver clause was rejected by the House. Now, why would it be necessary to protect the state from liability, if there were not some known, realistic basis of concern?

Do you smell the coffee yet?

The Codex Alimentarius Committee, a committee of the World Health Organization, will play the ultimate role in control of worldwide health care, and the complete suppression of health freedom. Other agreements, such as the Security and Prosperity Partnership between Canada, Mexico and the USA, set the stage for international harmonization of health laws that can force the emergency mass vaccination of the entire population of North America at the whim of the trilateral committee.
Bear in mind that under these agreements, nations lose their sovereignty by agreeing to govern according to the wishes of the group they're signed up with, which means that these foreign, unelected committees will decide what's good for us, and to hell with the opinions of the people. In fact, our whole economy is now governed externally, through these agreements, made without benefit of public oversight or consultation.

Organized medicine has become the tip of the Illuminati iceberg that is sinking us all, while the sleeping masses snore. And while they snore, their numbers are being culled, as directed by former World Bank head Robert McNamara, when he said, "One must take draconian measures of demographic reduction against the will of the populations. Reducing the birthrate has proved to be impossible or insufficient. One must therefore increase the mortality rate. How? By natural means. Famine and sickness."

Korea’s population crisis

2009-12-30T04:48:00.000-08:00

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/koreas_population_crisis/

Choi Seon-jeong | Wednesday, 1 July 2009
Korea’s population crisis

Korea is suffering from a national crisis of super-low fertility. The head of the Korean affiliate of Planned Parenthood explains why.

The head of the Korean affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation recently pleaded with his countrymen and women to have more children. Choi Seon-jeong, president of the Planned Population Federation of Korea, warned in the JoongAng Daily that his government must combat a "national crisis of super-low fertility", or Korea will disappear. MercatorNet asked him to explain how this has happened and how he proposes to increase birth rates.

MercatorNet: The latest statistics show that the fertility rate in the Republic of Korea is one of the lowest in the world. You have described this as a "national crisis of super-low fertility". What do you fear will happen?

Choi Seon-jeong: Nowadays South Korea has the lowest fertility rate and the quickest ageing rate in the world. Experts are worrying that these will seriously affect the sustainable development of Korean society. If the current trends continue, the total population will decrease after reaching 49,340,000 in 2018. It is expected that after reaching 0% in 2019, the growth rate of the population will get slower and turn into negative growth. The working–age population (between 15 and 64 years) will decrease after reaching 36,190,000 in 2019. The 25 to 49 age group will decrease after reaching 20,660,000, slowing the rate of economic growth.

MercatorNet: Korea now faces rapid population ageing. Will this have economic consequences?

Choi Seon-jeong: It will take only 18 years for an ageing society (7% over 65) to become an aged society (14% over 65) and only 8 years for an aged society to become a super-aged society (20% over 65). If the preparation to meet the situation of aged society and super-aged society is not well done, many social problems are inevitable. The working-age population will bear heavier burdens of tax and social security because it has to support the aged population. Conflict between different generations will probably get severe.

In 2007 it took 7 persons among the working-age population to support one aged person. In 2020 it will take 4.5 persons and in 2050 it will take 1.4 persons.

The ageing rate of workers will also increase. Workers aged 40 and over accounted for 15.7% of the workforce in 1980 and for 39.5% in 2004. The rate of workers in their 20s decreased sharply from 60.6% in 1980 to 27.5% in 2004.

MercatorNet: For years, the Korean government has encouraged married couples to have only one child. It seems to have succeeded. But, in hindsight, was this a misguided policy?

Choi Seon-jeong: To reduce the volume of population was one of the top priorities in 1960s when Korea had a total fertility rate (TFR) of 6.1. To achieve this, the Korean government pushed a policy promoting one child per family. The Family Planning Association of Korea (currently PPFK) was the implementation organisation of the policy. This policy was deeply combined with other policies focusing on the economic development. In other words, the family planning policy was urgently needed and strongly implemented from an economic point of view at the time.

But looking back, we recognise that the direction of policy had to be changed when the TFR reached 2.1. In fact, the change was not realised until 20 years later in the early 2000s. We can say that the one-child policy met the needs of its time but it did not change at the proper time.

The reasons for low fertility rate are late marriage, an unfavourable social environment for women to do "work and home" at the same time, too much money needed to raise children, and so on.

MercatorNet: Some observers say that young Koreans no longer see marriage and having children as unnecessary for a full and satisfying life? Do you think that this is true? If so, how can attitudes be changed?

Choi Seon-jeong: It is true that the attitude towards marriage and having children has changed a lot among the younger generation. They think more highly of relationships with their partners and are less likely to depend for fulfilment on their children.

One study conducted in 2006 by the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs (KIHASA) shows that 71.4% of men and only 49.2% of women among those 20 years old and over think positively about marriage.

Apart from the changed attitude towards marriage, the growing rate of women in their middle and late 20s who participate in society and the weakness of the social system to support those working women who want to have children (many of them have to abandon either their job or their home) contributes to the low fertility rate in Korea.

To change the situation, we need to introduce or develop various and flexible working types such as part-time working or working from home; to build a strong social infrastructure to let women feel comfortable about child-bearing and child-rearing; and to create a new corporate atmosphere which does not discriminate against women because of their marriage and child-bearing and child-rearing.

MercatorNet: In the 1960s, the fertility rate was about 6 children per woman and now it is about 1.19. How has Korean society changed as a result?

Choi Seon-jeong: The possibility for women to participate in society as workers has increased from 47% in 1995 to 58.7% in 2007. The concept of nuclear family with just one or two children has become universal in Korea. The traditional preference for sons has been weakened.

MercatorNet: What changes in social policy are needed to lift the birthrate to at least replacement levels?

Choi Seon-jeong: Several things. Korea needs to create a new social atmosphere to make a woman’s job and her home life compatible. We need to allow workers to spend more time with their families. The annual working hours of a worker in Korea is 2,357 hours, the longest in the world. We need to vitalise the public education system to reduce the financial burden of private education and other expenses for children. We need to provide financial support for families, such as a child allowance or a child-rearing allowance, even if only for a very short period.

MercatorNet: Are parents spending too much on their children’s education?

Choi Seon-jeong: In Korea, elementary and middle school education is compulsory. So when it comes to public elementary and middle school, there are no school fees. After middle school, students have to enter high school, university and graduate school -- as far as they would like to keep studying. Most of the high school students go to private academy or get extra-curricular lectures personally to get into the prestigious universities.

MercatorNet: You recently argued in the JoongAng Daily that "Religious groups need to advocate respect for life, abortion prevention and positive values on marriage and parenthood, encouraging the younger generation to form families and have children." These are unusual suggestions from Planned Parenthood. Does this indicate a shift in policy, or special circumstances faced by Korea?

Choi Seon-jeong: It is true that Korea implemented the family control policy to reduce the volume of population. It was a kind of family planning to meet the needs of that time. In principle, family planning means to plan how many children to have for happy family life. So when too many children impose a heavy burden on a family and the society, to reduce the number could be an appropriate way of family planning. On the contrary, when there are few children, to bear and raise more children will contribute to our happiness and the way of family planning will be also changed accordingly.

As the needs of Korean society have changed, we changed the name from "family planning association" into "planned population federation" in 2006.

With the change of name, we have reorganised ourselves into a low fertility rate team, an ageing society team, a public relation team, and so on and started to design and implement more comprehensive family planning programs, such as programs to prevent induced abortions, programs to support infertile couples, match-making programs, programs to dispatch assistants to women with her new-born babies, programs to enhance awareness of the public, and so on. To promote child-bearing and child-rearing, we should make efforts to prevent induced abortion, especially in cooperation with religious circles.

MercatorNet: Are Koreans taking this warning seriously?

Choi Seon-jeong: The Korean government has taken the low fertility phenomenon very seriously and has launched several laws and regulations to overcome it: for example, a "basic law in the age of low fertility rate and ageing" was introduced in 2005.

A Low Fertility Rate and Ageing Society Commission has been also established under direct control of the president and in cooperation with several ministries as well. From 2008 on, the Minister of Health has taken the position of chairperson of the Commission.

For the last 5 years, 15 central ministries and offices, research institutes and non-governmental professionals have participated in the Commission and completed a policy-shaping guideline titled "the First Basic Five-Year Plan for Low Fertility Rate and an Ageing Society (from 2006 through 2010)".

According to this plan, the central government and local authorities are implementing annual projects such as providing infertile couples with financial support.

Choi Seon-jeong, a former Korean minister of health and welfare, is the president of the Planned Population Federation of Korea.

Premature Death from the Evil Puppet Masters

2009-12-29T06:00:00.000-08:00

Obama Science Advisor Called For “Planetary Regime” To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures

2009-12-27T09:47:00.003-08:00

Go to URL below to see screenshots of pages from the book!

http://www.whale.to/b/obama9.html

Obama Science Advisor Called For “Planetary Regime” To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures
In 1977 book, John Holdren advocated forced abortions, mass sterilization through food and water supply and mandatory bodily implants to prevent pregnancies

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Saturday, July 11, 2009

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

The concepts outlined in Holdren’s 1977 book Ecoscience, which he co-authored with close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, were so shocking that a February 2009 Front Page Magazine story on the subject was largely dismissed as being outlandish because people couldn’t bring themselves to believe that it could be true.

It was only when another Internet blog obtained the book and posted screenshots that the awful truth about what Holdren had actually committed to paper actually began to sink in.

This issue is more prescient than ever because Holdren and his colleagues are now at the forefront of efforts to combat “climate change” through similarly insane programs focused around geoengineering the planet. As we reported in April, Holdren recently advocated “Large-scale geoengineering projects designed to cool the Earth,” such as “shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays,” which many have pointed out is already occurring via chemtrails.

Ecoscience discusses a number of ways in which the global population could be reduced to combat what the authors see as mankind’s greatest threat – overpopulation. In each case, the proposals are couched in sober academic rhetoric, but the horrifying foundation of what Holdren and his co-authors are advocating is clear. These proposals include;

- Forcibly and unknowingly sterilizing the entire population by adding infertility drugs to the nation’s water and food supply.

- Legalizing “compulsory abortions,” ie forced abortions carried out against the will of the pregnant women, as is common place in Communist China where women who have already had one child and refuse to abort the second are kidnapped off the street by the authorities before a procedure is carried out to forcibly abort the baby.

- Babies who are born out of wedlock or to teenage mothers to be forcibly taken away from their mother by the government and put up for adoption. Another proposed measure would force single mothers to demonstrate to the government that they can care for the child, effectively introducing licensing to have children.

- Implementing a system of “involuntary birth control,” where both men and women would be mandated to have an infertility device implanted into their body at puberty and only have it removed temporarily if they received permission from the government to have a baby.

- Permanently sterilizing people who the authorities deem have already had too many children or who have contributed to “general social deterioration”.

- Formally passing a law that criminalizes having more than two children, similar to the one child policy in Communist China.

- This would all be overseen by a transnational and centralized “planetary regime” that would utilize a “global police force” to enforce the measures outlined above. The “planetary regime” would also have the power to determine population levels for every country in the world.

The quotes from the book are included below. We also include comments by the author of the blog who provided the screenshots of the relevant passages. Screenshots of the relevant pages and the quotes in their full context are provided at the end of the excerpts. The quotes from the book appear as text indents and in bold. The quotes from the author of the blog are italicized.

Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

As noted in the FrontPage article cited above, Holdren “hides behind the passive voice” in this passage, by saying “it has been concluded.” Really? By whom? By the authors of the book, that’s whom. What Holdren’s really saying here is, “I have determined that there’s nothing unconstitutional about laws which would force women to abort their babies.” And as we will see later, although Holdren bemoans the fact that most people think there’s no need for such laws, he and his co-authors believe that the population crisis is so severe that the time has indeed come for “compulsory population-control laws.” In fact, they spend the entire book arguing that “the population crisis” has already become “sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions

“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”

Holdren and his co-authors once again speculate about unbelievably draconian solutions to what they feel is an overpopulation crisis. But what’s especially disturbing is not that Holdren has merely made these proposals — wrenching babies from their mothers’ arms and giving them away; compelling single mothers to prove in court that they would be good parents; and forcing women to have abortions, whether they wanted to or not — but that he does so in such a dispassionate, bureaucratic way. Don’t be fooled by the innocuous and “level-headed” tone he takes: the proposals are nightmarish, however euphemistically they are expressed.

Holdren seems to have no grasp of the emotional bond between mother and child, and the soul-crushing trauma many women have felt throughout history when their babies were taken away from them involuntarily.

This kind of clinical, almost robotic discussion of laws that would affect millions of people at the most personal possible level is deeply unsettling, and the kind of attitude that gives scientists a bad name. I’m reminded of the phrase “banality of evil.”

Not that it matters, but I myself am “pro-choice” — i.e. I think that abortion should not be illegal. But that doesn’t mean I’m pro-abortion — I don’t particularly like abortions, but I do believe women should be allowed the choice to have them. But John Holdren here proposes to take away that choice — to force women to have abortions. One doesn’t need to be a “pro-life” activist to see the horror of this proposal — people on all sides of the political spectrum should be outraged. My objection to forced abortion is not so much to protect the embryo, but rather to protect the mother from undergoing a medical procedure against her will. And not just any medical procedure, but one which she herself (regardless of my views) may find particularly immoral or traumatic.

There’s a bumper sticker that’s popular in liberal areas which says: “Against abortion? Then don’t have one.” Well, John Holdren wants to MAKE you have one, whether you’re against it or not.

Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn’t harm livestock

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”

OK, John, now you’re really starting to scare me. Putting sterilants in the water supply? While you correctly surmise that this suggestion “seems to horrify people more than most proposals,” you apparently are not among those people it horrifies. Because in your extensive list of problems with this possible scheme, there is no mention whatsoever of any ethical concerns or moral issues. In your view, the only impediment to involuntary mass sterilization of the population is that it ought to affect everyone equally and not have any unintended side effects or hurt animals. But hey, if we could sterilize all the humans safely without hurting the livestock, that’d be peachy! The fact that Holdren has no moral qualms about such a deeply invasive and unethical scheme (aside from the fact that it would be difficult to implement) is extremely unsettling and in a sane world all by itself would disqualify him from holding a position of power in the government.

Page 786-7: The government could control women’s reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control

Involuntary fertility control

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

Note well the phrase “with official permission” in the above quote. John Holdren envisions a society in which the government implants a long-term sterilization capsule in all girls as soon as they reach puberty, who then must apply for official permission to temporarily remove the capsule and be allowed to get pregnant at some later date. Alternately, he wants a society that sterilizes all women once they have two children. Do you want to live in such a society? Because I sure as hell don’t.

Page 838: The kind of people who cause “social deterioration” can be compelled to not have children

“If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.“

To me, this is in some ways the most horrifying sentence in the entire book — and it had a lot of competition. Because here Holdren reveals that moral judgments would be involved in determining who gets sterilized or is forced to abort their babies. Proper, decent people will be left alone — but those who “contribute to social deterioration” could be “forced to exercise reproductive responsibility” which could only mean one thing — compulsory abortion or involuntary sterilization. What other alternative would there be to “force” people to not have children? Will government monitors be stationed in irresponsible people’s bedrooms to ensure they use condoms? Will we bring back the chastity belt? No — the only way to “force” people to not become or remain pregnant is to sterilize them or make them have abortions.

But what manner of insanity is this? “Social deterioration”? Is Holdren seriously suggesting that “some” people contribute to social deterioration more than others, and thus should be sterilized or forced to have abortions, to prevent them from propagating their kind? Isn’t that eugenics, plain and simple? And isn’t eugenics universally condemned as a grotesquely evil practice?

We’ve already been down this road before. In one of the most shameful episodes in the history of U.S. jurisprudence, the Supreme Court ruled in the infamous 1927 Buck v. Bell case that the State of Virginia had had the right to sterilize a woman named Carrie Buck against her will, based solely on the (spurious) criteria that she was “feeble-minded” and promiscuous, with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes concluding, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Nowadays, of course, we look back on that ruling in horror, as eugenics as a concept has been forever discredited. In fact, the United Nations now regards forced sterilization as a crime against humanity.

The italicized phrase at the end (”providing they are not denied equal protection”), which Holdren seems to think gets him off the eugenics hook, refers to the 14th Amendment (as you will see in the more complete version of this passage quoted below), meaning that the eugenics program wouldn’t be racially based or discriminatory — merely based on the whim and assessments of government bureaucrats deciding who and who is not an undesirable. If some civil servant in Holdren’s America determines that you are “contributing to social deterioration” by being promiscuous or pregnant or both, will government agents break down your door and and haul you off kicking and screaming to the abortion clinic? In fact, the Supreme Court case Skinner v. Oklahoma already determined that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment distinctly prohibits state-sanctioned sterilization being applied unequally to only certain types of people.

No no, you say, Holdren isn’t claiming that some kind of people contribute to social deterioration more than others; rather, he’s stating that anyone who overproduces children thereby contributes to social deterioration and needs to be stopped from having more. If so — how is that more palatable? It seems Holdren and his co-authors have not really thought this through, because what they are suggesting is a nightmarish totalitarian society. What does he envision: All women who commit the crime of having more than two children be dragged away by police to the government-run sterilization centers? Or — most disturbingly of all — perhaps Holdren has thought it through, and is perfectly OK with the kind of dystopian society he envisions in this book.

Sure, I could imagine a bunch of drunken guys sitting around shooting the breeze, expressing these kinds of forbidden thoughts; who among us hasn’t looked in exasperation at a harried mother buying candy bars and soda for her immense brood of unruly children and thought: Lady, why don’t you just get your tubes tied already? But it’s a different matter when the Science Czar of the United States suggests the very same thing officially in print. It ceases being a harmless fantasy, and suddenly the possibility looms that it could become government policy. And then it’s not so funny anymore.

Page 838: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size

“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”

Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?

Why?

I’ll tell you why, John. Because the the principle of habeas corpus upon which our nation rests automatically renders any compulsory abortion scheme to be unconstitutional, since it guarantees the freedom of each individual’s body from detention or interference, until that person has been convicted of a crime. Or are you seriously suggesting that, should bureaucrats decide that the country is overpopulated, the mere act of pregnancy be made a crime?

I am no legal scholar, but it seems that John Holdren is even less of a legal scholar than I am. Many of the bizarre schemes suggested in Ecoscience rely on seriously flawed legal reasoning. The book is not so much about science, but instead is about reinterpreting the Constitution to allow totalitarian population-control measures.

Page 942-3: A “Planetary Regime” should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born

Toward a Planetary Regime

“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.”

“The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”

In case you were wondering exactly who would enforce these forced abortion and mass sterilization laws: Why, it’ll be the “Planetary Regime”! Of course! I should have seen that one coming.

The rest of this passage speaks for itself. Once you add up all the things the Planetary Regime (which has a nice science-fiction ring to it, doesn’t it?) will control, it becomes quite clear that it will have total power over the global economy, since according to Holdren this Planetary Regime will control “all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable” (which basically means all goods) as well as all food, and commerce on the oceans and any rivers “that discharge into the oceans” (i.e. 99% of all navigable rivers). What’s left? Not much.

Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force

“If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”

The other shoe drops. So: We are expected to voluntarily surrender national sovereignty to an international organization (the “Planetary Regime,” presumably), which will be armed and have the ability to act as a police force. And we saw in the previous quote exactly which rules this armed international police force will be enforcing: compulsory birth control, and all economic activity.

It would be laughable if Holdren weren’t so deadly serious. Do you want this man to be in charge of science and technology in the United States? Because he already is in charge.

Page 749: Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism

“Another related issue that seems to encourage a pronatalist attitude in many people is the question of the differential reproduction of social or ethnic groups. Many people seem to be possessed by fear that their group may be outbred by other groups. White Americans and South Africans are worried there will be too many blacks, and vice versa. The Jews in Israel are disturbed by the high birth rates of Israeli Arabs, Protestants are worried about Catholics, and lbos about Hausas. Obviously, if everyone tries to outbreed everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all. This is another case of the “tragedy of the commons,” wherein the “commons” is the planet Earth. Fortunately, it appears that, at least in the DCs, virtually all groups are exercising reproductive restraint.”

This passage is not particularly noteworthy except for the inclusion of the odd phrase “pronatalist attitude,” which Holdren spends much of the book trying to undermine. And what exactly is a “pronatalist attitude”? Basically it means the urge to have children, and to like babies. If only we could suppress people’s natural urge to want children and start families, we could solve all our problems!

What’s disturbing to me is the incredibly patronizing and culturally imperialist attitude he displays here, basically acting like he has the right to tell every ethnic group in the world that they should allow themselves to go extinct or at least not increase their populations any more. How would we feel if Andaman Islanders showed up on the steps of the Capitol in Washington D.C. and announced that there were simply too many Americans, and we therefore are commanded to stop breeding immediately? One imagines that the attitude of every ethnic group in the world to John Holdren’s proposal would be: Cram it, John. Stop telling us what to do.

Page 944: As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000

“Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants’ destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world.”

This is the final paragraph of the book, which I include here only to show how embarrassingly inaccurate his “scientific” projections were. In 1977, Holdren thought we were teetering on the brink of global catastrophe, and he proposed implementing fascistic rules and laws to stave off the impending disaster. Luckily, we ignored his warnings, yet the world managed to survive anyway without the need to punish ourselves with the oppressive society which Holdren proposed. Yes, there still is overpopulation, but the problems it causes are not as morally repugnant as the “solutions” which John Holdren wanted us to adopt.

It is important to point out that John Holdren has never publicly distanced himself from any of these positions in the 32 years since the book was first published. Indeed, as you can see from the first picture that accompanies this article, Holdren prominently displays a copy of the book in his own personal library and is happy to be photographed with it.
It is also important to stress that these are not just the opinions of one man. As we have exhaustively documented, most recently in our essay, The Population Reduction Agenda For Dummies, the positions adopted in this book echo those advocated by numerous other prominent public figures in politics, academia and the environmental movement for decades.

Consider the fact that people like David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, and Bill Gates, three men who have integral ties to the eugenicist movement, recently met with other billionaire “philanthropists” in New York to discuss “how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population,” according to a London Times report.

Ted Turner has publicly advocated shocking population reduction programs that would cull the human population by a staggering 95%. He has also called for a Communist-style one child policy to be mandated by governments in the west.

Of course, Turner completely fails to follow his own rules on how everyone else should live their lives, having five children and owning no less than 2 million acres of land.

In the third world, Turner has contributed literally billions to population reduction, namely through United Nations programs, leading the way for the likes of Bill & Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet (Gates’ father has long been a leading board member of Planned Parenthood and a top eugenicist).

The notion that these elitists merely want to slow population growth in order to improve health is a complete misnomer. Slowing the growth of the world’s population while also improving its health are two irreconcilable concepts to the elite. Stabilizing world population is a natural byproduct of higher living standards, as has been proven by the stabilization of the white population in the west. Elitists like David Rockefeller have no interest in “slowing the growth of world population” by natural methods, their agenda is firmly rooted in the pseudo-science of eugenics, which is all about “culling” the surplus population via draconian methods.

David Rockefeller’s legacy is not derived from a well-meaning “philanthropic” urge to improve health in third world countries, it is born out of a Malthusian drive to eliminate the poor and those deemed racially inferior, using the justification of social Darwinism.

As is documented in Alex Jones’ seminal film Endgame, Rockefeller’s father, John D. Rockefeller, exported eugenics to Germany from its origins in Britain by bankrolling the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute which later would form a central pillar in the Third Reich’s ideology of the Nazi super race. After the fall of the Nazis, top German eugenicists were protected by the allies as the victorious parties fought over who would enjoy their “expertise” in the post-war world.

The justification for the implementation of draconian measures of population control has changed to suit contemporary fads and trends. What once masqueraded as concerns surrounding overpopulation has now returned in the guise of the climate change and global warming movement. What has not changed is the fact that at its core, this represents nothing other than the arcane pseudo-science of eugenics first crafted by the U.S. and British elite at the end of the 19th century and later embraced by Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.

In the 21st century, the eugenics movement has changed its stripes once again, manifesting itself through the global carbon tax agenda and the notion that having too many children or enjoying a reasonably high standard of living is destroying the planet through global warming, creating the pretext for further regulation and control over every facet of our lives.

The fact that the chief scientific advisor to the President of the United States, a man with his finger on the pulse of environmental policy, once openly advocated the mass sterilization of the U.S. public through the food and water supply, along with the plethora of other disgusting proposals highlighted in Ecoscience, is a frightening prospect that wouldn’t be out of place in some kind of futuristic sci-fi horror movie, and a startling indictment of the true source of what manifests itself today as the elitist controlled top-down environmental movement.

Only through bringing to light Holdren’s shocking and draconian population control plans can we truly alert people to the horrors that the elite have planned for us through population control, sterilization and genocidal culling programs that are already underway.

Obama Science Advisor Called For “Planetary Regime” To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures

2009-12-27T09:47:00.001-08:00

China’s Solution for Global Warming: Kill the Children & Executions

2009-12-22T15:56:00.000-08:00

http://freeordie.org/chinas-solution-for-global-warming-kill-the-children-executions/

China’s Solution for Global Warming: Kill the Children & Executions
Posted by Moe Bedard on December 16, 2009

China defended its family planning policy as a way to reduce global warming. According to Beijing, its one-child and birth control policies, which include forced abortions and sterilisations on unwilling women, are part of its global strategy to fight climate problems and should be adopted by the international community. – Asia News

You better not think that I am some conspiracy theorist because this is a fact folks and I can prove it any day of the week. In fact, China is in Copenhagen,Denmark giving the United States and the world advice. They are calling for us to cut our emissions and quite possibly kill your children. All the while they kill children, have forced abortions right next to the factories where they make our toys and cheap clothes that they REFUSE to clean up or regulate.

I guess in China, a factory is worth more than millions of human lives? Really, it is nothing more than corporate genocide. Heck, those Chinese make great affordable products for WalMart as they take our jobs and they kill their own children, right?

Is the US going to listen to these killers?

This is straight from Asia News:
Copenhagen (AsiaNews/Agencies) – Population controls can save the environment and the international community should adopt China’s one-child policy with that objective in mind, Chinese government sources said. The head of China’s delegation to the UN Conference on Climate in Danish capital urged US President Barack Obama to cut greenhouse gases. European leaders pulled an all-nighter to reach a deal on helping developing countries fight global warming. The € 6 billion (US$ 9 billion) aid package would be spread over three years.

In spite of the gross violation of human rights, the strategy has been a “great success” according to Chinese authorities. “I’m not saying that what we have done is 100 per cent right, but I’m sure we are going in the right direction,” said Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China.

Operation Softkill: Street Drugs Used for Population Control

2009-12-22T15:53:00.000-08:00

http://freeordie.org/operation-softkill-street-drugs-used-for-population-control/

Operation Softkill: Street Drugs Used for Population Control
Posted by Moe Bedard on December 22, 2009

The are many people in the freedom movement who believe an individual’s right to choose. Whether that choice is good or bad, it is up to that person to discern his or her own course in life within the natural laws of our land. That decision to sow a certain seed into what is now officially the New World Order will be something which any individual will have to intelligently consider before partaking in any extra curricular activity on this prison planet.

An individual’s right to use drugs in the police state and New World Order in which we live cannot be taken lightly. These laws are put in place by the commanding elite in order to keep a perpetual flow of forced inmate labor into their internment camps and also population control. Thus enslaving many who find themselves locked up or on parole to a life of 24/7 slavery as opposed to voluntary wage slavery on the streets where one can at least get a 10-12 hour break from your masters. Or if you want to pull the wool over your own eyes, you can all it a paycheck and a boss to deal with reality.

Simple usage of illegal substances in the Western Hemisphere can land you in a concentration camp (which we call prisons) or death by overdose. Those in the know, we understand that part of the NWO plan is to always allow a supply of illegal drugs to circulate on the streets in order for population control methods and also forced inmate labor.
In China, they don’t screw around with drug peddlers. They execute them.

Here in the U.S. and over the pond in the UK, the government uses petty criminals as slaves and now what appears to be evidence in this article of human Guinea Pigs.

If you think about it, the powers at be use cocaine and heroin like a rat catcher uses cheese to entice the confused and beaten down rats to take a bite, thus ensnaring them in their rat traps that we humans know as our legal systems, jails and prisons.

For example, not only can cocaine and heroin lead you to a life in out of a cage with forced labor, these drugs can be very deadly without adding other chemicals into their natural properties. Now it appears that cocaine is not only being released on the streets in larger quantities, it is also being used to carry out soft-kills to the beaten down and trodden sheeple on the streets.

MedPage Today:
The CDC has confirmed reports from other government agencies that cocaine users are at risk for agranulocytosis because of contamination with the veterinary drug levamisole.

Over the past two years, public health authorities in four western states, with help from the CDC, have identified 21 cases agranulocytosis cases attributed to cocaine use, according to a report from Monica Brackney, MS, of the New Mexico Department of Health, and others in the Dec. 18 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Although levamisole, an antihelminthic drug, was positively detected in only a minority of cases, the agent is a common adulterant in street cocaine, and agranulocytosis — failure of the bone marrow to make enough white blood cells — is a known, if rare, side effect.

Why illegal drug sellers use levamisole with cocaine is unclear, the researchers said.

From Bloomberg:
Two-thirds of cocaine smuggled into the U.S. is laced with a cattle-worming drug linked to a rare immune disorder in a rash of cases, a report says.

The veterinary drug, levamisole, was connected to new cases of the immune disorder agranulocytosis in Canada a year ago.

Public health officials in New Mexico and Washington now blame tainted cocaine for a cluster of 21 cases of the illness,
including one death, according to the weekly morbidity and mortality report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in Atlanta.

Sixty-nine percent of cocaine seized at U.S. borders as of July 2009 contained levamisole, the agency said, citing figures from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in Washington. This is more than double the occurrence in September 2008. Levamisole, an antibiotic, is used to wipe out parasitic worms in livestock, including pigs as well as cattle.

Agranulocytosis “is a life-threatening condition,” said Deborah Busemeyer, a spokeswoman for the New Mexico Department of Health. “We’re advising people who use cocaine to seek medical attention if they have a persistent sore throat, fever, swollen glands, skin infections, or other unusual infections.”

One of the best ways to kill people en mass is to entice the potential victims to kill themselves by consent. What better way is there to carry out a massive secret soft-kill operation on the people than lacing illegal street drugs with a deadly chemical agent and then blaming it on the drug dealers and or users?

SF Gate:
DJ AM died accidentally from a lethal cocktail of prescription drugs and cocaine, the medical examiner’s office ruled Tuesday.
The toxicology report showed the 36-year-old had in his system cocaine, OxyContin, Hydrocodone or Vicodin, antianxiety drugs Xanax and Ativan, Klonopin which also controls anger, Benadryl, and Levamisole, a drug apparently used to cut cocaine.
The cause of death was acute intoxication due to the combined effects the drugs, the medical examiner’s office said. The dosage of each drug was not released.

Guardian UK – Anthrax alert as heroin addict dies in Glasgow -
Police and public health officials in Glasgow are checking to see if the rare but deadly infection has emerged either from a batch of the drug or a cutting agent mixed with it.

Contaminated heroin is being investigated as the possible source of an outbreak of anthrax which has killed one drug user and left another seriously ill in hospital.

Levamisole is a drug that is often used in humans, the brand name is Ergamisol. It is used as an conjunction to a particular form of chemotherapy – fluorouracil (5-FU). Levamisole is a complex immunomodulator with an unknown mechanism of actions, but when used in this manner it has been shown to restore the depressed immune function associated with the use of 5-FU for chemotherapy.

Agranulocytosis, along with neutropenia, anemia, and throm Abocytopenia have all been noted in humans receiving the combination of levamisole and 5-FU, but such reactions also occur from the use of 5-FU alone. The incidence of such these adverse events is reportedly very low with levamisole alone, and appears to be more related to the 5-FU, or the combination of the two agents.

What is even more frightening is that DNA mutations can also occur in the host victim. Thus causing hereditary defects in childreno f people that have been contaminated with the drug. Causing their kids to acquire agranulocytosis and neutropenia which lower white blood count and severly weaken the immune system.

Kostmann’s syndrome is an inherited disorder of the bone marrow. Children born with this condition lack neutrophils (a type of white blood cell that is important in fighting infection, also called granulocytes). These children suffer frequent infections from bacteria which in the past led to death in three-quarters of cases before 3 years of age. This disease is also known as severe congenital neutropenia (SCN).

Alternative names for Kostmann’s syndrome (or disease) include not only severe congenital neutropenia (SCN) but also infantile genetic agranulocytosis and genetic infantile agranulocytosis.
Here is a link that gives you the list of drugs which cause this disease in 85% of the people who aquire it. Please note that most all drugs are approved by the FDA.

Many drugs can cause agranulocytosis and neutropenia. The mechanism of neutropenia can be varied depending on the drug. Many anti- neoplastic drugs cause agranulocytosis and neutropenia by bone marrow suppression. Neutropenia and agranulocytosis can also result from antibody or compliment mediated damage to the stem cells. Some drugs may cause increased peripheral destruction of white cells. About three fourth of all agranulocytosis in the United States is related to drugs.

What also has been found is that levamisole can cause a nasty reaction when consuming alcohol. It is widely known that cocaine users often combine alcohol and other drugs when using the narcotic and this choice can now be very deadly. Other reactions a person may have if they have taken drugs contaminated with Levamisol are – nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, blotchy skin, hives, etc.

So, the question of the population control day is, “How did this potentially deadly drug magically become the cut of choice for 70% of the world’s cocaine?” My New World Order, educated guess is that drug users are being used as guinea pigs for a mass population control method that will kick into high gear. It will involve lacing street drugs with other drugs that either kill the user or severely weaken the persons immune system. Thus, making them more susceptible to viruses that will end up killing them like the HIN1 swine flu. In addition, the users children will suffer from DNA mutations cutting the life spans of millions of children world wide.

If you use drugs of any kind, now may be the time to seriously consider quitting and abstaining from all use. This simple choice of deciding what we put in our bodies may now be what decides if your blood line will survive this New World Order.
Please circulate this article to your friends who use drugs recreationally or are addicted to them. These words are a warning of what is to come and is already here. What they decide to do from there may simply cure them or tragically kill them. Knowledge is power and ignorance is now death.

135,000 Uninsured Americans Will Die Before Health Reform Takes Effect, Analysis Finds

2009-12-16T10:26:00.001-08:00

http://rawstory.com/2009/12/135000-uninsured-americans-die-health-reform-takes-effect-study/

135,000 Uninsured Americans Will Die Before Health Reform Takes Effect, Analysis Finds
Brad Jacobson
Raw Story
Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:49 EST

Over 6,600 uninsured veterans will die by 2013: estimate

If Democrats manage to pull off efforts to reform the US healthcare system and ensure coverage for millions who are currently without insurance, the new system -- by design -- will likely still leave tens of thousands to die without insurance before reforms kick in.

A Raw Story analysis, based on a recent Harvard Medical School study, estimates that 135,000 American citizens and over 6,600 US veterans will die due to a lack of health insurance before current proposed healthcare reform measures would take effect.

One hundred and thirty-five thousand US lives far exceeds the total number of Americans who died in the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the attacks of 9/11 combined. The lives of over 6,600 US veterans is more -- by over 1,300 -- than the total number of US soldiers who have thus far died in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a professor of medicine at Harvard University and co-author of the Harvard Medical School study, called Raw Story's estimates "quite reasonable."

Even more shocking is that these are conservative estimates.

Health reform policy experts who spoke with Raw Story confirmed that the House and Senate bills would do virtually nothing for currently uninsured Americans until 2013 and 2014, respectively. Raw Story's calculations are based on the House health reform bill's projections. The Senate bill, however, would add another year of lethal lag time, driving up the estimated death rate by tens of thousands more US citizens and veterans.

In part, the proposed Senate and House healthcare reform bills don't begin providing comprehensive coverage for several years because they are designed to meet President Obama's promised goal of creating a "deficit-neutral" healthcare package.

Raw Story's analysis is based on a recent Harvard Medical School study published in the American Journal of Public Health and a subsequent report by a team of Harvard Medical School researchers who took part in the initial study.

The first study revealed that approximately 45,000 Americans die each year from lack of health insurance. The second study, released on the eve of this past Veterans Day, estimated that more than 2,200 US veterans died in 2008 due to a lack of health insurance.

In an interview with Raw Story, Dr. David Himmelstein, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and co-author of the two studies, also pointed out a rarely discussed fact: The proposed reforms in both the House and Senate bills, even in the long run, would still leave "vast numbers" of Americans uninsured and those who are partially insured with inadequate coverage.

In the House bill, for instance, even after uninsured Americans would begin receiving health insurance, a projected 18 million would still not be covered; roughly 23 million would remain uninsured in the Senate bill.

"So basically they've taken the bad approach and the slow approach both," said Himmelstein, a proponent of a national single-payer healthcare system. "And there's no particular reason other than political expediency why either of those things should exist."

Veterans' advocate says analysis 'very disturbing'

Paul Sullivan, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense, called Raw Story's analysis "very disturbing" and said the "tragic" numbers demand "immediate action by the President of the United States."

"Veterans for Common Sense is outraged that, in 2009, veterans are dying because of a lack of healthcare," Sullivan said. "We believe healthcare is a human right."

He did, however, credit President Obama for taking steps to reverse what he described as former President Bush's "deplorable" legacy of neglecting veterans' health.

Sullivan also believes this is a national security issue and cited, for example, the correlation between the shortage of physicians in the military and the suicide epidemic.

Just last month, the Christian Science Monitor reported that the US Army is understaffed by as many as 800 mental health professionals and 300 substance abuse counselors. On Monday, Time magazine reported that the Army has so far lost 147 soldiers this year to suicide, which is the highest number of suicides since the Army began keeping track of them in 1980.

"You can't deploy someone to war two or three times and never give them a mental health exam," Sullivan said.

"And when a veteran says he's having nightmares, he can't sleep and has to see a doctor," he continued, "but he has to wait several months before someone tells him he's not going to see a doctor at all and then goes and blows his brains out. That's essentially what's happening right here. And that's a legacy of President Bush's failure."

Woolhandler, who testified before Congress in 2007 about uninsured veterans, also sees these numbers, both for US veterans and everyday citizens as a national security issue.

"Other developed countries have dealt with it that way," said Woolhandler, who supports a single-payer healthcare system. "They've said as a matter of national policy, we need to make our people healthy and secure financial health with health insurance and have felt that was a national obligation. I think that the other nations are correct in that regard."

Himmelstein said that the health of our citizens and veterans is not considered a national security issue "because the powerful forces in our country don't care about the people who die."

"The insurance companies and the corporate interests who largely fund our government don't actually care if 45,000 people or 2,200 veterans die," he said. "They do care to maintain the US control of, or at least contention for, oil-rich parts of the world and strategic assets and those sorts of things. So I think it's a matter of what's in the interest of the corporations that by and large make policy in this country."

© Unknown
Why the wait until 2013 or 2014?

While a new health insurance system certainly can't be implemented overnight, health and policy experts believe the delay in providing uninsured Americans with health insurance is chiefly due to political considerations.

Dr. Himmelstein asked, "Why do we need to wait three or four years for a program to kick in?" and noted the speed with which Medicare went into effect.

President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into law on July 30, 1965 and millions of seniors began receiving coverage within 11 months.

Himmelstein said the reason for the delay in either of the health reform bills is "very simple" and called it an "accounting trick."

"It's because it's so expensive that in order to get a ten-year budget estimate that's under the $900 billion figure, you have to delay it for three or four years," he explained. "It's really a budget estimate that's only six years worth of reform. That's the only way they can keep the cost estimate down to something that's conceivable."

Agreeing with Himmelstein's assessment, Dr. Woolhandler said, "Logistics are doable in a very short timeframe. The politics are the difficult part."

She added, "Ten years of taxes and six or seven years of benefits, so of course you can make something break even."

Steve Findlay, senior health policy analyst at Consumers Union, the independent non-profit publisher of Consumer Reports, thinks that's "absolutely" the case and described it as "a tried and true" method of funding big government programs.

"Part of the drill here is to start collecting money and then the benefit doesn't actually kick in until later," Findlay said. "Once you begin to parse things out, you realize that one of your most substantial ways of saving money or of making the budget work is to, well, let's just put that off for a year."

Congressional Budget Office spokeswoman Melissa Merson declined to comment for this article.

Findlay, though, did point out that it's going to take time to set up the new marketplace.

But he added, "Could they do it faster than 2014 or 2013? You know, you go to war sometimes in two weeks. So I mean when you want to do things, you can do them. But in this case, arguably it's not war. We would love to see it implemented sooner."

Additionally, Findlay sees "industry influence" as a deciding factor in the lag time.

He explained that whenever large-scale changes and "mega programs" like this are launched they usually have an implementation process that takes two to three years.

"But the reason for that, speaking very frankly," Findlay said, "is industry influence on the process. Industry will always be arguing in the hallways of Congress, 'If you're going to do it, you know, at least give us a few years.' And their argument is always the same really: 'It's going to cost us a lot of money to do this. We have to change our systems. We have to readjust our products and our services.' And blah, blah, blah."

"That's an argument that almost always prevails with respect to whether it's environmental regulations, welfare policy, you name it," he continued.

But Findlay noted the stimulus package, in which some of our largest financial institutions received a government bailout in a much shorter timeframe, was an exception.

Margaret F. Riley, a health law professor at the University of Virginia, thinks the budget is a "huge" reason for the delay. Yet she also believes there are other reasonable political considerations at play, such as the desire to avoid negatively affecting the health insurance of Americans who are already receiving benefits in the process of rolling out a new system.

Still, she said, "I'm not a fan of the delay. I think there are many reasons the delay runs risks."

Her primary concern is what might transpire in the interim.

"In the political world," Riley noted, "four years is an eternity and anything could happen to any bill passed."

The White House, Senate Leader Harry Reid's office, and House Leader Nancy Pelosi's office did not return Raw Story's calls for comment.

Fastest Food Inflation Since Riots Means Milk Up 39%

2009-12-15T12:13:00.001-08:00

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=anmWH3QNomt0

Fastest Food Inflation Since Riots Means Milk Up 39%
Alan Bjerga, Madelene Pearson and Yi Tian
Bloomberg
Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:21 EST

Falling production in commodities from rice to milk is bad news for just about everyone except investors.

Rice may surge 63 percent to $1,038 a metric ton from $638 on Philippine imports and a shortage in India, a Bloomberg survey of importers, exporters and analysts showed. The U.S. government says nonfat dry milk may jump 39 percent next year, and JPMorgan Chase & Co. forecasts a 25 percent gain for sugar. Global food costs jumped 7 percent in November, the most since February 2008, four months before reaching a record, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.

Farm prices this year lagged behind copper futures that doubled and oil's 57 percent increase. A recovery from the worst recession since World War II would spur food demand and boost costs for buyers of commodities including milk processor Dean Foods Co. while increasing the number of hungry people that the UN says now exceeds 1 billion.

"Agricultural commodities will be a great investment in the next three to five years," said Oliver Kratz, who manages $10 billion as head of Global Thematic Strategy investments at Deutsche Bank AG's DB Advisors in New York, including $3 billion in agriculture. For those who can't afford to pay more for food, there's the "painful" risk of hunger, he said.

Expanding populations and higher incomes are boosting consumption in China and India. China's milk demand is recovering after domestic supplies were tainted with melamine, a chemical used in making plastics that killed at least six babies and sickened almost 300,000 children. Droughts in India and Argentina and typhoons in the Philippines have reduced output.

Food-Price Risk

"Inventories are extremely low in a number of grains markets," Barclays Capital said Dec. 10. "The prospect of a further bout of food-price inflation in 2010 cannot be ruled out since many of the factors that contributed to higher prices in 2007 and 2008 are still a feature."

Stockpiles of corn and rice will drop before the 2010 harvest for the first time in three years, U.S. Department of Agriculture data show. The International Sugar Organization forecasts a second straight global supply deficit in the year through September 2010, and the USDA predicts stores of the sweetener will drop to the lowest level since 1995.

Pork, Poultry

Wholesale-pork prices in the U.S. are up 27 percent this year, heading for the first annual gain since 2004, as farmers hurt by two years of losses cut the domestic breeding herd to the smallest level since the USDA started collecting the data in 1964. Chicken output is sliding in the U.S., where the number of eggs placed into incubators each week is headed to the lowest quarterly average since 2002.

"The tendency for food prices is up, it's not down," Unilever Chief Executive Officer Paul Polman said Dec. 11 in a Bloomberg Television interview in Copenhagen. Rotterdam- and London-based Unilever, the largest consumer-product company after Procter & Gamble Co. in Cincinnati, makes Lipton tea, Hellmann's mayonnaise and Bertolli sauces. "We need to be sure that we have the food supply, that we don't waste, and that we continue to get increasingly efficient means to get that food to the consumers," Polman said.

The risk of accelerating prices may be muted by "healthy" gains in inventories, including wheat, according to the FAO. Supplies in warehouses are enough to meet about 23 percent of global demand, compared with 19 percent two years ago, the FAO said last week. Inventories are "far more comfortable" than during last year's crisis, the UN agency said.

More Wheat Supply

Global wheat stockpiles on May 31 are expected to jump 17 percent to an eight-year high of 190.9 million metric tons, after production last year reached a record 682 million tons, the USDA said Dec. 10.

Food costs jumped to a record in June 2008 as wheat, corn, rice, oats, soybeans, animal feed and cooking oil reached the highest prices ever. Indonesia, Argentina and India restricted trade to protect supplies, according to the UN. Shortages sparked about 60 riots from Haiti to the Philippines before the global credit crisis and recession sent prices plunging.

Global economic recovery means there is "increasing pressure on food prices to rise," Nomura International Plc said in a report. "Volatility in price and supply are with us for the predictable future," according to Josette Sheeran, the executive director of the UN's World Food Program. "Risk is the new normal when it comes to food."

Economic Growth Seen

The global economy will expand 3.1 percent in 2010 as more than $2 trillion in stimulus combined with demand in Asia pulls the world out the recession, the Washington-based International Monetary Fund said on Oct. 1.

The U.S. will expand 2.6 percent next year, compared with a contraction of 2.5 percent in 2009, according to the median of estimates from 83 economists in a Bloomberg survey. China's growth will accelerate to 9.4 percent next year from 8.5 percent in 2009, a Bloomberg survey of 31 economists showed.

Some food supplies already are falling. Global production of rice, the staple for more than half the world, has lagged behind demand in four of the past eight years, USDA data show. Rising consumption is expected to erode stockpiles by 41 percent to 85.9 million tons in the 2009-2010 marketing year, down from a record 146.7 million in 2001-2002, the USDA forecasts.

Rice may exceed $1,000 a ton as dry El Nino weather, caused by a warming of sea waters in the equatorial Pacific Ocean, shrinks output and the Philippines and India boost imports, according to Sarunyu Jeamsinkul, the deputy managing director at Asia Golden Rice Ltd. in Thailand, the largest exporting nation.

Rice, Corn, Soybeans

The Thai rice price may soar to last year's record of $1,038 a ton, according to the highest estimate in a Bloomberg survey last month of 10 importers, exporters and analysts in Vietnam, Thailand, India, Singapore and Pakistan.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said Dec. 3 that corn and soybeans will rally through 2011. Corn will reach $4.75 a bushel next year and $5 in 2011 on higher demand for fuels made from the grain, the bank said. Soybeans may reach $11 a bushel in the next 12 months and average $12 a bushel in 2011, Goldman said.

Decatur, Illinois-based Archer Daniels Midland Co., the second-largest U.S. producer of corn-based ethanol behind Poet LLC, reported a 53 percent drop in quarterly profit last month on tighter supplies of soybeans it processes into animal feed and cooking oil.

In the sweeteners and starches business, Archer Daniels Midland's profit more than tripled to $194 million, partly because of higher selling prices and reduced costs for corn, which fell from last year's record. Archer Daniels gained 14 percent since the end of June to $30.49 in New York trading.

Milk Supplies

U.S. manufacturers' stockpiles of nonfat dry milk fell to 90.1 million pounds on Oct. 31, 47 percent lower than a year earlier and less than half of what they were in June, the USDA said Dec. 4. Domestic production this year is down 8.2 percent, including a 27 percent drop in October, as farmers culled dairy herds to end a surplus, government data show.

The price of nonfat dry milk, used in baking products and baby formula, will rise to an average of $1.275 a pound next year from 92 cents, and cheese will increase 28 percent, the USDA said on Dec. 10. Processed and fluid milk will jump 31 percent to $16.75 per 100 pounds, the USDA said.

"We've been through the boom and then the bust, and it looks like we're going to have another boom," said Michael Harvey, an international analyst at Melbourne-based Dairy Australia, a trade group.

Milk output will fall 4 percent in Australia in 2009-2010. New Zealand's production slipped 2 percent in the first three months of its season, and Brazil's supply dropped 4 percent to 5 percent through July, Dairy Australia said in a report.

Westpac Forecast

Milk-powder prices may gain more than 20 percent to exceed $4,000 a ton early next year, said Westpac Banking Corp., Australia's second-largest bank. Whole milk powder for February delivery rose to a 16-month high of $3,523 a ton at auction, Fonterra, the world's largest dairy exporter, said on Dec. 2.

Dean Foods, the largest U.S. milk processor, said Nov. 2 that fourth-quarter profit may fall more than analysts expected, to at least 36 cents a share, because of rising raw-milk costs. Chief Executive Officer Gregg Engles told investors that prices, which will climb through next year, probably won't surpass the records set in 2007 and 2008. Since Oct. 30, shares of Dallas- based Dean are down 5.4 percent at $17.25 in New York.

Global sugar supplies will remain "tight" for the first half of 2010, JPMorgan Chase said. There's a "material risk" that prices for March and May will jump 28 percent to 30 cents a pound, Tobin Gorey, the bank's global commodity strategist, wrote in a report dated Dec. 10. Sugar for March delivery in New York increased 6.6 percent last week to close at 24 cents a pound on Dec. 11.

Palm Oil, Food Output

Palm oil, the world's most-used cooking oil, may soar to 3,000 ringgit ($882) a ton by March as El Nino parches crops in Asia, said Dorab Mistry, director of Godrej International Ltd., one of India's biggest edible-oil buyers, on Dec. 4. Palm-oil futures for February delivery closed at 2,530 ringgit on Dec. 11 in Kuala Lumpur. Production may drop next year, he said.

Food output will need to rise 70 percent in the next four decades as the global population expands to 9.1 billion in 2050 from 6.8 billion, the FAO estimates. Seven nations in sub- Saharan Africa, the world's most famine-prone region, will see per-capita income fall next year, according to the UN, fueling an increase in hunger, which the organization now estimates affects 1.02 billion people.

"The politicians had best be able to at least feed their populations or they're going to have uprisings," said Jeffrey Saut, chief investment strategist at Raymond James & Associates in St. Petersburg, Florida, which manages $220 billion. "One of the first things, other than clean water and a toilet, that people want when their per capita income rises is food."

Ecoscience Co-Author Paul Ehrlich Maintains Global Population Control Advocacy in Recent Interview

2009-12-13T16:44:00.000-08:00

http://www.infowars.com/ecoscience-co-author-paul-ehrlich-maintains-global-population-control-advocacy-in-recent-interview/

Ecoscience Co-Author Paul Ehrlich Maintains Global Population Control Advocacy in Recent Interview
Posted By admin On December 13, 2009
Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com
December 13, 2009

In response to questions raised by University World News, biologist and co-author of Ecoscience, Paul R. Ehrlich is still calling for “interventions to decrease birth rates”.

As current Bing professor of Population Studies and President of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University, Ehrlich is living proof that old habits die hard- and eugenic habits die even harder.

Paul R. Ehrlich, co-author of Ecoscience, advocates the creation of a “global system” to create a “behavioral change”.
After his famous book The Population Bomb was published in 1968, he has fallen somewhat in credibility for the world kept on turning and mankind is apparently still around, despite of the doom predicted. In 1969 Ehrlich predicted that ““smog disasters” in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles” and “By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people”.

Nevertheless, despite Ehrlich’s prediction of the total collapse of human society if the population would continue to rise, after 40 years the man still maintains his point, this time pointing to “climate change” as the consequence of human activity. In the interview of December 13th, Ehrlich states:

“The population explosion will come to an end. The only question is whether it will do so by humanity balancing its interventions to decrease death rates with interventions to decrease birth rates, or whether the death rate will soar.”

Malthus nor Mao Zedong could have said it better themselves. Speaking of China- and specifically, China’s coercive one-child policies- Ehrlich maintains:

A d v e r t i s e m e n t
“India and China are both vastly overpopulated by the simple standard that they are living on (and exhausting) their natural capital – agricultural soils, ground water, and the biodiversity that runs our life-support systems. Until and unless we can humanely begin to shrink the global population, following the lead of over-consuming and over-populated European nations, the future seems grim.”
“Humanely shrink the global population”, says Ehrlich. He is wise enough to edit the word “humanely” in if he is to avoid the same indignation that befell his friend John Holdren, who co-authored Ecoscience with him in 1977. There is of course no humane way of shrinking the global population. Only a planetary authority, enforcing such a shrinkage, could get the job done. And it is exactly such a planetary regime Mr. Ehrlich called for, together with current chief science advisor to President Obama.

In the following fragment, Paul Ehrlich advocates the creation of a “global system” to create a “behavioral change”. Ehrich: “We don’t have any international effort to say, you know, how are we behaving. We have global problems, why don’t we have a global system to fix it.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulkt4j-qooQ

Under threat of some worldwide virus taking hold to finish off a large part of the world population, Ehrlich advocates global interventions to decrease birthrates. One could argue that Ehrlich advocates only voluntary actions to make sure the birthrates do not increase, were it not that he himself implies such voluntary actions are not sufficient:

“Most unfortunately”, Ehrlich asserts, “over the past few decades the principal population issues considered by activists and foundations have been of reproductive health and rights. Those, of course, are very important but they will be totally moot if overpopulation, helping to drive climate disruption, land-use change, ocean overharvesting, toxification of the entire planet, the increased probability of novel epidemics, and greater threats of resource wars – especially a nuclear one – has not abated.”

Well, it seems Mr. Ehrlich will have his way with humanity if the Copenhagen Treaty will have success. There is your global system, with a globally enforceable mandate- at first to impose carbon taxes upon humanity- later on to do what the eugenicists have always called and planned for: the orderly extermination of at least 80 percent of the global population.

Top researcher who worked on cervical cancer vaccine warns about its dangers

2009-12-13T07:51:00.000-08:00

Studies are starting to show that this vaccine makes people sterile...

http://www.NaturalNews.com/z027196_cancer_cervical_cancer_cancer_vaccine.html

October 8 2009
Top researcher who worked on cervical cancer vaccine warns about its dangers (update 1)
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) One of the key researchers involved in the clinical trials for both Gardasil and Cevarix cervical cancer vaccines has gone public with warnings about their safety and effectiveness. This highly unusual warning against these vaccines by one of Big Pharma's own researchers surfaced in an exclusive interview with the Sunday Express in the UK over the last few days. There, Dr. Diane Harper openly admitted the vaccine doesn't even prevent cervical cancer, stating, "[The vaccine] will not decrease cervical cancer rates at all."

This is astonishing news. The whole push behind the cervical cancer vaccines is based on the belief that they prevent cervical cancer. That belief, it turns out, is a myth.

Editor's note: This story has been updated since first being published. The Sunday Express story originally quoted here has been pulled. We suspect the intimidation of Dr. Harper to retract her statements may be a factor. Read full details in this updated report: http://www.naturalnews.com/027225_c...

Dr. Harper also warned that the cervical cancer vaccine was being "over-marketed" and that parents should be warned about the possible risk of severe side effects from the vaccine. She even concluded that the vaccine itself is more dangerous than the cervical cancer it claims to prevent!

Hysteria over genital warts?

In a New York Times article published last year, Dr. Harper spoke about the fear-based marketing of Gardasil by Merck:

"'Merck lobbied every opinion leader, women's group, medical society, politicians, and went directly to the people -- it created a sense of panic that says you have to have this vaccine now..."

This behavior by drug companies -- using fear tactics to promote a particular disease in order to sell the "treatment" -- is called disease mongering. Most of the pharmaceutical profits generated today are based on precisely this tactic: Spread the fear, then sell the treatment. Read more about disease mongering here: http://www.naturalnews.com/disease_...

You can also toy around with the NaturalNews disease mongering engine, where you can invent your own diseases at the click of a button: http://www.naturalnews.com/disease-...

Why is disease mongering so important to the profits of the drug companies? They figured out many years ago that selling drugs only to those people who are sick was a very limited income opportunity. To rake in the real profits, they needed to devise a way to sell drugs to healthy people (i.e. people who don't need them). That's what cervical cancer vaccines really are: A scheme to sell vaccines to people who aren't suffering from any disease at all.

That one of the industry's own researchers is willing to speak out against this is not just highly unusual; it's also highly courageous. It makes you wonder: Who, exactly, is this Dr. Harper?

Dr. Diane Harper

Dr. Harper is a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She studied additional courses at Stanford and received her medical degree from the University of Kansas. She was a key researcher in both Gardasil and Cervarix vaccines, and she's one of the most experienced researchers in the world on HPV-related diseases. She's done work for both Merck and GlaxoSmithKline.

Dr. Harper's warnings about cervical cancer vaccines are especially relevant considering her expertise in the cost/benefit analysis of vaccines. Her conclusion is that cervical cancer vaccines aren't worth the risks, nor are they worth all the effort being put into hyping them to the public. "This may not be the best use of our resources at this time," she said in a Washington Post article.

So why do cervical cancer vaccines continue to be pushed by doctors and health authorities across the US, UK and other first-world nations? Because Big Pharma is the great corporate puppeteer that's pulling the strings of legislators. With enough money and lobbyists, you can always overcome scientific thinking with fear-based marketing and under-the-table deal-making. Science-based medicine has no place in a world where disease is big business.

There's a ridiculous amount of money to be made by pushing vaccines onto people who don't need them. If I had ten bucks for every teenage girl that's been injected with a cervical cancer vaccine, I'd be... well... GlaxoSmithKline.

Forced Birth Control Kills Mother and Child

2009-12-11T13:25:00.000-08:00

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18338&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=1

Forced Birth Control Kills Mother and Child
By Xue Fei
Epoch Times Staff

A forced abortion under China’s one child policy killed a mother and her 9 month old fetus in east China’s Guancheng Town, Liaocheng City, Shandong Province on June 12.

According to a doctor from the hospital where she died, the Birth Control Office staff kidnapped the unnamed mother and took her to the local hospital to force her to have an abortion. Because of her advanced maternal age, her pregnancy was not permitted under the local policy. The doctor said that the woman fought with all her strength attempting to protect the unborn baby.

There were no other family members present; however, nearly 20 birth control staff members were present.

“The baby was completely healthy and able to live if born naturally. Everyone was saddened seeing the woman struggling and fighting back. There wasn’t much anybody could have done because of the local policy,” said the doctor.

Half a dozen men pushed the woman down on a bed and injected her with a drug to induce labor. The woman fought desperately and got away twice, but not the third time.

In the early morning of June 12, the woman had repeated pains in her abdomen. At around 6 a.m., she had a stillbearth. The injection had poisoned and killed the fetus.

According to the doctor, immediately after the woman’s placenta was passed, she had a massive hemorrhage. She died after hospital staff attempted an emergency rescue.

An insider disclosed that at the time of death, her husband was not present. The head of the village signed her death certificate.

After the death, the local regime mobilized police and forced the family to accept a compensation of 210,000 yuan (US$30,000) with the condition the officials could immediately cremate the body.

The news was posted on the Internet, and many bloggers condemned the murderous act and stated they were aware of similar cases happening in other areas also.

Millions dying from starvation as a direct consequence of global warming fraud

2009-12-11T13:22:00.000-08:00

http://www.prisonplanet.com/third-world-under-attack-from-genocidal-climate-change-policy.html

Third World Under Attack From Genocidal Climate Change Policy
Millions dying from starvation as a direct consequence of global warming fraud
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, December 10, 2009

The implementation of policies arising out of fraudulent fearmongering and biased studies on global warming is already devastating the third world, with a doubling in food prices causing mass starvation and death – a primary reason why the climategate crooks and their allies should be criminally investigated and hit with the strongest charges possible.

As Lord Monckton outlined in his recent Alex Jones Show appearance, climate change alarmism and implementation of global warming policies is a crime of the highest nature, because it is already having a genocidal impact in countries like Haiti, where the doubling of food prices is resulting in a substantial increase in starvation, poverty and death.

Poor people around the world, “Are being killed in large numbers by starvation as a result of (climate change) policy,” said Monckton, due to huge areas of agricultural land being turned over to the growth of biofuels.

“Take Haiti where they live on mud pie with real mud costing 3 cents each….that’s what they’re living or rather what they’re dying on,” said Monckton, relating how when he gave a speech on this subject, a lady in the front row burst into tears and told him, “I’ve just come back from Haiti – now because of the doubling in world food prices, they can’t even afford the price of a mud pie and they’re dying of starvation all over the place.”

As a National Geographic Report confirmed, “With food prices rising, Haiti’s poorest can’t afford even a daily plate of rice, and some must take desperate measures to fill their bellies,” by “eating mud,” partly as a consequence of “increasing global demand for biofuels.”

In April last year, World Bank President Robert Zoellick admitted that biofuels were a “significant contributor” to soaring food prices that have led to riots in countries such as Haiti, Egypt, the Philippines, and even Italy.

“We estimate that a doubling of food prices over the last three years could potentially push 100 million people in low-income countries deeper into poverty,” he stated.

“That’s how serious this is, these people, by their scientific fraud and financial fraud, they’re profiting enormously….while people die of starvation in a dozen regions of the world….it is a scandal of the worst proportion – our own fellow creatures are being killed by starvation because these people have lied and made up the science and hidden it so nobody else could check,” said Monckton.

If the measures currently being debated at the Copenhagen summit in the name of fighting global warming are passed, we can only expect a further assault on the already horrifying plight of the population of the third world.

In the leaked Copenhagen text that emerged earlier this week, leaders of third world countries were horrified to discover that developed nations would take on less of a burden than anticipated and that more would be demanded of poorer countries despite the fact that any further cuts in CO2 emissions would further cripple their flimsy economies and poverty-stricken people.

In addition, the leaked paper revealed that funds from climate financing, originally allocated to go to the UN and then be doled out piecemeal to third world nations, would instead be paid directly into the coffers of the World Bank and IMF, organizations that have made a habit out of looting poorer countries with crippling loans that cannot be paid back, forcing such countries to hand over their entire infrastructure to globalist loan sharks.

The fact that policies arising out of the contrived science of global warming are already killing people in vast numbers in the third world further illustrates the fact that the entire climate change movement is a Malthusian offshoot of the profusely stated goal on behalf of the global elite to eliminate a huge chunk of the global population via modern-day eugenics.

This agenda was vehemently argued for by President Obama’s top science advisor and one of the pre-eminent climate change ringleaders, John P. Holdren, in his 1977 book Ecoscience, in which he called for installing a “planetary regime” to enforce draconian population control measures such as forced abortion and mandatory sterilization through the water supply.

Watch the segment from the interview below where Monckton discusses how the climate crooks are deliberately devastating the third world with their lies about global warming.

"This Is Ugly; This Is Evil; This Is Unforgivable"

2009-12-10T16:16:00.001-08:00

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/12688

"This Is Ugly; This Is Evil; This Is Unforgivable"

December 8, 2009 (LPAC)-- The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, gave a press conference on Monday to announce—as expected—that the EPA had "found" that carbon dioxide, CO2, "threatens the public health and welfare of current and future generations," and therefore has to be regulated and drastically reduced. The so-called reasons she adduced—global warming, rising sea levels, entire species dying right and left—are almost identical to the lies publicized around the globe on Monday, in a common editorial published in 56 newspapers in 45 countries, on the occasion of the opening of the Copenhagen Climate Control Summit.

That piece of lying, fascist crap, drafted principally by the London Guardian editorial board, shrieks that the Copenhagen conference will be "fourteen days to seal history's judgment on this generation," and that failure to act would mean that "climate change will ravage our planet.... Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea."

Responding to the EPA insanity, the Copenhagen developments, and the broader British imperial policy of green Malthusian genocide, Lyndon LaRouche today stated:

"We should say this is pure evil—pure evil. They are lying; they either don't know what they're talking about, or they are lying, one of the two. This means mass murder. If it's implemented, it means mass murder of Americans, among others. And therefore it cannot be Constitutional, because you are depriving people of their rights. You are depriving them of due process.

"What's going to happen," LaRouche continued, "is you're going to create a crisis under which you are going to have a revolt by the people of nations. You are in danger of creating a situation in which you will get a dictatorship of those who revolted, who secured power, by revolting against this crap. And their passions will be so strong, that you can't resist it.

"This is ugly; this is evil. This is unforgivable," LaRouche said of these policies.

LaRouche noted that the British Empire is pushing these policies as the entire global financial system is going down on its own steam, faster than people wish to admit. The crash has already happened, he emphasized, and its effects are going to occur anyway, however people may choose to delude themselves. But the timeframe that reality is imposing is that action is needed now: failure to act poses the key, existential threat humanity is facing now.

The LaRouche movement is delivering that message directly at the Copenhagen Summit, among other places. A team of LaRouche organizers handed out thousands of leaflets to conference participants, media, and others, which prompted one high-level African delegate to tell us on the way out that the leaflet "was amazing and probably true," and that everyone was talking about it inside the conference.

The leaflet, a slightly modified version of Helga Zepp-LaRouche's statement on Copenhagen, with the headline "Global Warming Hoax Spells Genocide—Adopt the LaRouche Plan for Development!" states at the outset:

"We must face the ugly truth. The catastrophe that threatens mankind is not climate change, or carbon, or any one of a number of phony 'environmental' issues; it is the breakdown of the world's imperial monetarist system, imperilling the lives of billions. The real threat is that those shaping this Climate Conference, starting with the British Monarchy itself, have an agenda of reducing population worldwide, by setting up a form of global governance to reduce consumption and production. This genocidal agenda must be rejected, in favor of the LaRouche Plan for reversing the economic crisis, which is on the table of major world governments right now."

Why Climate Change Malthusians Are Wrong

2009-12-10T09:34:00.000-08:00

Malthus was one of those demons in flesh I'm always warning people about. It doesn't matter that he was a 'man of the cloth' as he didn't serve a good god but a god of evil, set-an, who was his creator. Malthus' job was to justify genocide, eugenics and thus depopulation. That's WHAT demons do! They cause evil and if possible, continuing evil (like the Malthuses of the world). Judge the devils by their deeds!

December 10, 2009
Why Climate Change Malthusians Are Wrong
On Population
By JAMES FARIS

From the relevant publications of Malthus in 1830, the threat of human population growth periodically raises its ugly head, for certainly we have had a dramatic increase in population since Malthus. But after a period in the 1970s, following the publication of Paul Erlich’s The Population Bomb, and its respondents, (1) there has been little concentrated focus on the issue of human population dynamics—as if the critical respondents had won.

This year has seen a resurgence of concern over the threat. The Center for Biological Diversity launched a campaign to address “an essential cause (of a worsening planetary extinction crisis): unsustainable human population growth.” And the progressive journalist and commentator, Chris Hedges argues that human population growth is a critical problem in climate change, and that we must do something to try to stop the increase in order to save the world. He builds upon Paul Erlich, E.O. Wilson, and James Lovelock, to argue that projected population growth is not only unsustainable, but disastrous. He has been rebutted by several, mostly arguing (as in the 1970s) such notions were reactionary, for

1) population growth is slowing,

2) the focus on population masks poverty and inequality,

3) hunger is not a function of “too many mouths” to feed,

4) the driving force behind environmental degradation (and hence climate change) is not population growth,

5) population pressure is not the fundamental cause of political insecurity and conflict,

6) population control programs target women’s fertility and restrict reproductive rights,

7) existing population control programs have negative effects on basic health care,

8) population alarmism encourages apocalyptic thinking that legitimize human rights abuses,

9) images of overpopulation scapegoat vulnerable communities and reinforce racial and ethnic stereotypes,

10) focus on these overpopulation notions stand in the way of greater global understanding and solidarity. (2)

Rather than argue, however, along the same lines as the criticisms (however much I agree with them), I’d like to focus more on population history, human social change and development, to attempt to theorize human population change, and suggest a theory of our population dynamics.

First, we are unlike any other animals which have to control their populations because they cannot alter their food resources in significant ways. They do this by a variety of means. One is social control—that is, some members of the group are denied access to resources by means of territorial management and control, biologically-driven (or at least seldom challenged) hierarchical arrangements, birth control and infanticide. Failing these mechanisms, the animal population faces extinction. And this has happened repeatedly in history—indeed; the vast majority of species that ever have existed no longer exist. Species extinction is nothing new. And this is independent of humans, for we have only been around for a very small portion of time in relation to other animals. It is not our fault dinosaurs, saber-toothed tigers, etc., are no longer extant. Non human animals cannot change this because they cannot significantly change their environment, so are always subject to the brutal efficiency of natural selection. We are different. We can change our environment, and we can develop other ways to produce our consumption and our food. This is the history of the human species. We produce, they don’t. Human hunters, gatherers, and foragers in history are not at all like non-human hunters, gatherers, and foragers. We use (and have consistently evolved) a variety of productive techniques to increase the available food resources--traps, poisons, organization of personnel, and selective encouragement of plant and animal resources--that led to the development of husbandry in many cases. Moreover, humans treat gathered and harvested food resources differently than other animals, so that the aged, the infirm, and other unproductive members of the group besides just the young are kept alive. If you can no longer hunt or gather or forage in non-human society, you die. Humans have kept alive the non-productive since the beginning—priests, poets, seniors, the infirm, and today, academics, artists, musicians, corporate heads, generals, congresses, and a variety of other non-productive members of society—some, one might argue, less necessary than others.

But the point is: we produce. We can make more food, breed more animals, plant more crops. We can capture labor and knowledge in tools and techniques. I am not suggesting the current way we (the capitalist West) do this (factory farms and feed lots) is a good idea, but the point remains. At the present time, as many critics have argued, we don’t really need more food, we need different modes of distribution.

Now this ability to produce, uniquely human, is the ability to transform, to some extent, our environment. It is also the ability to destroy our environment, but the latter is not necessarily implied by the former—it is simply the way the current capitalist system has enriched the few at the expense of the many, as well as the planet. It overproduces and it destroys. Climate change is real, and humans are certainly implicated. The point here is we don’t have to produce our futures in the way we currently do; we could thrive without destruction to ourselves and to our surroundings.

II

Look at human population history. We spend many thousands of years foraging, hunting and gathering. Some folks still do (or did, until the penetration of capitalism and globalization all over the world). There is nothing wrong with this, for as Marshall Sahlins once argued, it was “the original affluent society.” Life could be good, especially during good times. Amongst some, such as those who hunted and gathered in more temperate climes (i.e., not in the arctic), they may have encouraged plant resources, even planting certain seeds occasionally (probably done mostly by women, who were more familiar with plant resources from gathering). In normal circumstances, these plantings could be left to mature, and in good times, they could be harvested. They didn’t have to be tended, only collected when ripe.

These plantings didn’t yield a great deal, but what they did was welcomed, for no hard labor was involved. When these casually-planted consumables didn’t grow, other gathering and hunting and foraging provided food. Nobody spent very much time on these plantings, and thus any crop was a bonus. But those casual planters knew that if they spent more time on the crop—hoeing, tilling, selecting seeds, and keeping animals and birds away, greater crops could result. So long as regular hunting and gathering sufficed, there was no need to spend much more time on these casual crops. Why spend 6 days each week cultivating, when hunting and gathering and foraging as usual required only 4 days? When forced, however, in bad years, they had this alternative form of agriculture. And eventually, some peoples left hunting and gathering, to become agriculturalists, working more, but also producing more. No genius with the idea of agriculture was needed, people already knew. The same is true of domesticated animals. A wild goat kid or a wild sheep lamb or a fowl might be captured and kept—fed as necessary. Everyone understood it could be done, but everyone also understood it required more time in herding, gathering fodder, etc., that was normally required to hunt and gather or forage subsistence. And it is easy to see that when humans put more time into these domesticated endeavors, selective breeding of animals and plants was not far behind.

The population dynamics of classical hunters and gatherers and foragers was basically a no growth pattern. That is, enough offspring were born to insure reproduction of the domestic units to cover needs for social reproduction (of work groups and the aged, etc.) and replacing children who didn’t survive. It yielded sufficient personnel to keep alive the aged, the infirm, and the other non-productive members of these social forms. Now if agriculture had been adopted as the prevailing productive enterprise, by necessity or choice, the only way for people to cut down on time spent in these new endeavors was to have more offspring and more personnel for the increased needs to achieve successful agriculture. So they did. Agriculture did not come into being to take care of increasing populations as in the traditional evolution paradigm; it required increasing populations to do the jobs of the new production. (3)

These new requirements demanded more people—for both the tasks at hand, and to enable the modicum of leisure that is necessary to all human groups, and to keep alive the non-productive. We probably began planting full time as animals and plants, on which we had traditionally counted, were no longer available in sufficient quantities due to environmental shifts and climate changes, or from other factors, such as plant or animal diseases striking the now-domesticated resources. Contrary to some contemporary thought, I think it unlikely that human hunter/gatherers or foragers over-harvested resources, to any significant degree, and I do not believe this led to the advent of agriculture. Hunters, gatherers and foragers are usually quite knowledgeable about the quality of their resources, and plan accordingly.

Once we became producers of a new type, requiring more people, we also had the capacity to have more surpluses (due in part to the constant technical innovations all humans have always come up with, and the increased efficiency and knowledge exhibited by all good producers). With a surplus, there will be those who prefer to live on it rather than producing themselves, and we see the beginning of greater hierarchical arrangments, as the non-producers justify their consumption. An early (or initial) hierarchy was probably men over women, elders over juniors, and so forth. With the evolution of agricultural forms, with different population dynamics, innovations and technical developments yielding ever more differentiation, eventually there were chiefs, priests, professors, poets, armies. And then kings, nobles, generals. Population increase is thus in place, almost down to the modern era, or at least immediately prior to the industrial period, for the stress put on producers with some many more non-productive to support required more children.

III

Prior to the advent of industrialism agriculturally based social forms varied immensely—from near subsistence forms to highly stratified state organizations, complete with standing armies and class structures. The specific type of production does not really matter. After all, indigenous peoples on the Northwest coast of North America, produced class-organized hierarchies (including organized warfare and military specialization, and the capture of others who became slaves) based solely on hunting, gathering and foraging. To be sure, this was a rich environment, with abundant marine life and plentiful gathering, but it is an excellent example of a system based on an economic foundation that in conventional wisdom is incapable of yielding such complexity. Again, it is not the type of production, it is its organization. So complex systems exclusively based on agriculture (as well as hunting/gathering/foraging) are well known in human history. Indeed, classical Greece is one such example. It produced such surplus that entire groups of scientists were enabled that sketched steam engines, etc., that required much later technical innovations to be realized. People such as Leonardo da Vinci invented devices the social form had neither capacity nor technology to realize at the time (mortars, submarines, flying machines). Necessity is seldom the mother of invention. Bright, curious humans are common everywhere. Innovative individuals and technologies are nearly always around, and there is in the ordinary undergraduate classroom enough intelligence, if used right, properly trained and enabled, to produce (or reproduce) all of Western civilization. But with any hierarchy, greater exploitation of labor often results-- and the consequent surpluses produced flow upwards.

Industrialization was not brought it into being by population increase, it was a matter of control—control of people (such as scientists and inventors), as well as resources and markets. Embodied labor (or what has been called “yesterdays’ labor”) was captured in sophisticated tools, techniques, etc., and this continually changed with innovations. By the late European Middle Ages, technology and bureaucracy was sufficiently developed that people were driven off the land or required (by taxation, for example) to have more children to be able to send some off the land into specialized production in organized form—that is, into what became factories, mines, and capitalist manufacture. Since that time, population dynamics have served those interests, and they do to this day. State organizations--always servants of the economic forms--make this possible in a variety of ways.

Take the U.S. for example. Prior to the advent of fully industrialized factory organized capitalism (or at its dawn), our population dynamics required a steep growth curve and high birth rate to produce the agricultural surplus necessary to feed the non-agricultural as well as the incipient urban workers needed to staff the burgeoning factories (and the military and police forces to keep this system going and to secure markets and resources for this new production). Medicine evolved to keep alive more children, immigration was encouraged, and by the end of the 19th century, we had a quite steeply rising population growth curve in this country. It was not until the advent of social security and the spread of sufficient wealth throughout the population in the 20th centjury that we experienced our first decline in the population growth rate. That is, the security of the aged (no longer requiring children to provide for them), development and spread of sufficient wealth (with accompanying medical innovations, etc.) meant it was no longer necessary to have such large families. So we stopped having them. In social systems still stressed by more severe exploitation, large families are a necessity. With basic widespread development and security, populations will essentially reproduce themselves.

When populations are stressed through overwork or are insecure (financially or, otherwise, such as in times of war), they have more children. As an instance of human populations under stress (in times of war and insecurity), we have the example of the Dutch wartime population statistical surveys from World War II, which charted the rise in population growth during the severe stress of the Nazi occupation of Holland and its subsequent leveling off after the war.

Today in regions where producers are still stressed and there is no social security for the aged or health care for the infirmed, population growth remains high. Elsewhere, population growth curves essentially level off. Developed industrial social forms, (Europe, Russia, China, North America, and industrial economies which provide social security and some freedom from productive stress) have very low or zero population growth curves. In Africa, parts of Asia and the Americas, population growth curves are steeply upward. And everywhere, significantly, the least secure segments and poor of the developed population areas have the steepest population growth curves. In America, the steepest population growth curves are found in migrant populations, and those living under most economic and social stress. China enforced a single child policy in the 1980s, but later, as it began to develop, there was no longer as much need for the coercive child restriction policy, and today the sanctions are less severe than they were at one time; moreover, provinces in China now have different policies. The more widespread security and development become, the less need there will be for enforced restrictive policies.

IV

In my view here, then, human population dynamics are a function of security, development, social stress, and exploitation. The Third World is the most rapidly growing because it is the most exploited and the least secure. The First World is growing the slowest (in some countries, below zero population growth) because it has the most development and security. If it is considered that the world human population growth curve is too steep, then develop and provide security to the Third World and the least fortunate and least secure humans. Various population ideologies (such as religion, or beliefs that greater numbers of children are better) have much less effect when people are not stressed. France and Italy are Roman Catholic countries with low or zero population growth curves despite religion, as people are generally provided adequate security, health care, etc.

None of this is rocket science—we just have to examine population history, the history of exploitation, and the history of development and security. The resources wasted on hierarchies, and today, capitalist production and consumption (and its constant warfare for resources and markets, overproduction, and wholly stupid consumption) make it clear that human population growth curves are not the problem—they are a symptom. More than enough food is produced—it is simply badly distributed. Fossil fuels would last much longer (and might be used more sparingly and more wisely) were it not for capitalist consumption. And climate change, insofar as it is caused by humans, could be addressed as an issue of urgency, were it not for capitalism.

James Faris is a retired anthropologist in Santa Fe, NM. He can be reached at jfaris@newmexico.com.

(1) This is not to underemphasize the response—indeed, many valuable programs were inaugurated to specifically challenge notions of the threat of human population dynamics. Amongst these (just in the U.S.) are the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College and the Committee on Women, Population and the Environment.

(2) This list is taken from the Hampshire College Program in Population and Development website.

(3) In specific cases, however, this could very well have been the reverse. I simply reject population pressure as a principal cause of the dynamics of human population growth in evolutionary history.

Study Found More than 200 Chemicals in Cord Blood of African American, Asian and Hispanic Newborns

2009-12-04T07:19:00.001-08:00

http://www.ewg.org/minoritycordblood/pressrelease?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ewg_alltopics+%28EWG%3A+All+Topics%29

Study Found More than 200 Chemicals in Cord Blood of African American, Asian and Hispanic Newborns
Environmental Working Group
Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:19 EST

Laboratory tests commissioned by Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Rachel's Network have detected bisphenol A (BPA) for the first time in the umbilical cord blood of U.S. newborns. The tests identified the plastics chemical in 9 of 10 cord blood samples from babies of African American, Asian and Hispanic descent.

The findings provide hard evidence that U.S. infants are contaminated with BPA beginning in the womb.

Additional tests conducted by five laboratories in the U.S., Canada and Europe found up to 232 toxic chemicals in the 10 cord blood samples. Besides BPA, substances detected for the first time in U.S. newborns included a toxic flame retardant chemical called tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) that permeates computer circuit boards, synthetic fragrances (Galaxolide and Tonalide) used in common cosmetics and detergents, and perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA, or C4), a member of the notorious Teflon chemical family used to make non-stick and grease-, stain- and water-resistant coatings for cookware, textiles, food packaging and other consumer products.

The EWG study is the first to find perchlorate contamination in cord blood samples from multiple states. (A study by researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently found perchlorate in cord blood samples from infants born in New Jersey.) Nine of the 10 samples in the EWG study were contaminated with perchlorate, a solid rocket fuel component and potent thyroid toxin that can disrupt production of hormones essential for normal brain development.

The minority cord blood study is the 11th biomonitoring investigation commissioned by EWG. These projects, employing leading biomonitoring labs around the world, have together identified up to 486 chemicals, pollutants and pesticides in 186 people, from newborns to grandparents. Each study contributes new pieces to a mosaic of the "human toxome," as EWG analysts call pollution in people.

"Each time we look for the latest chemical of concern in infant cord blood, we find it," said Anila Jacob, M.D., EWG senior scientist and co-author of the report. "This time we discovered BPA, among other dangerous substances, in almost every infant's cord blood we tested."

"This study proves newborns are exposed to BPA in the womb," Jacob said. "After they are born, they'll encounter more BPA by drinking from a bottle, drinking canned infant formula and, eventually, eating canned food like ravioli and chicken noodle soup."

"When I learned of EWG's groundbreaking biomonitoring research four years ago, I knew Rachel's Network members would want to be involved. We are proud to have funded this research, and it is imperative that Congress now take action to strengthen chemical regulation," said Winsome McIntosh, founder and president of Rachel's Network. "This issue affects all of us; EWG's testing proves that a toxic chemical burden exists in women and children regardless of geographic location or socioeconomic status."

Cord Blood from Babies of Minority Backgrounds

Racial and ethnic minority communities in the U.S. are often bombarded with environmental pollutants. Whether through poverty or historical patterns of discrimination, they are more likely to spend much of their time near busy roads and industrial sites and in older housing.

The 10 children in this study were born between December 2007 and June 2008 in Michigan, Florida, Massachusetts, California and Wisconsin. They are otherwise anonymous. EWG has no way of knowing anything about the homes and neighborhoods into which they were born. The study tested for chemicals that can be found in virtually every American household. Additional studies are needed to define the risk from localized pollution sources.

We did not test for chemicals such as the byproducts of smoking or alcohol consumption that would indicate behaviors by the mother that could in any way jeopardize the health of the child. Instead, the contaminants found in these children are from unintended exposures to some of the most problematic consumer products and commercial chemicals offered for sale on the market. Their presence in fetal cord blood represents a significant failure on the part of the Congress and government agencies charged with protecting human health.

Our results strongly suggest that the health of all children is threatened by trace amounts of hundreds of synthetic chemicals coursing through their bodies from the earliest stages of life.

Broken federal toxics regulatory law:

In recent speeches laying out the Obama administration's key principles for federal chemicals policy reform, Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, has cited previous cord blood research by EWG.

The federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which Jackson, EWG and many others in the environmental and public health community are committed to reform, is so weak that it has prevented EPA from banning asbestos, a known human carcinogen responsible for the deaths of 10,000 people every year.

The failed federal toxics law is primarily to blame for the widespread contamination in umbilical cord blood. The 1976 act does not require manufacturers to prove through scientific tests that chemicals are safe for humans and the environment before going on the market. There are currently more than 80,000 chemicals in consumer goods, with little or no safety information about their impact on human health.

In the previous two congresses, Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) have introduced the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act. Now joined by Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL), the four are currently working to draft TSCA reform legislation. The bill is expected to fundamentally change the way chemicals are assessed by placing the burden on manufacturers to prove the substances are safe before they are marketed.

"There is increasing evidence that we must test and regulate potentially toxic substances that wind up in our bodies," said Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg. "America's system for regulating toxic chemicals is broken. The legislation I am currently drafting will strengthen chemical safety laws and give Americans confidence that products they use are safe."

Congressional, medical, environmental and religious leaders react to the study

Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL)
"The EWG study sheds a disturbing light on a toxic substance that adds yet another burden to consumers -- this time, it's women of childbearing age and the potential for harm to their unborn fetuses. The results of this study are shocking and deserve further scrutiny. I look forward to being part of a constructive effort to address the issues raised in this report."

U.S. Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY)
"The results of this EWG study are illuminating - and frightening. Even more frightening is the fact that we do not have an understanding of how the presence of synthetic chemicals in the body affects children throughout their lives. I have been deeply concerned about this issue for years and this week re-introduced legislation authorizing the NIEHS to establish a comprehensive program to better understand the impact of hormone disrupting pollutants in the environment on the health of women and children."

Sandy Buchanan, Executive Director, Ohio Citizen Action
"We are all exposed to chemicals in the food we eat, the air we breathe and the water we drink, but a baby in the womb should be allowed to develop free from an onslaught of industrial pollutants. This study is yet another wakeup call that the federal Toxic Substances Control Act has failed to block toxic chemicals from entering our environment and ultimately us."

Jeanne Rizzo, President and CEO, The Breast Cancer Fund
"Right now, Congress is considering a ban on BPA in food and beverage containers. Babies are being born already contaminated with BPA. What more compelling evidence could we possibly need to prompt immediate action?"

Craig D. Hafer, Chairman, Pennsylvania Institute for Children's Environmental Health
"This study is evidence that our federal laws are antiquated and do not do enough to protect children from unnecessary exposure to potentially harmful substances within the womb. We need to protect all unborn children from harm. We cannot selectively choose those times to protect unborn children when it is politically convenient, but then knowingly ignore them when there is such compelling evidence that they are being exposed to potentially harmful substances."

Anne Rolfes, Founding Director, The Louisiana Bucket Brigade
"This study has found jet fuel in babies' cord blood; it is obvious that swift legislative action is urgent. This can't be just another problem for minority communities, another problem that gets pushed aside for another day. We have to do something about it, and we have to do it now."

The Rev. Richard Cizik
"Our nation's leaders have a moral obligation to protect unborn children from chemical contamination. When babies are born with an untold number of industrial pollutants already inside their small, developing bodies, it should shock us all into demanding action. Can you call yourself 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice' and do nothing? Regardless of party or politics, let's face up to the reality that we can prevent future generations from the risks today's children already face."

David Baker, Founder and Director, Community Against Pollution
"Today, industrial pollution in humans begins in the womb, and this new report underscores that regardless of a person's race or ethnicity, everyone is affected. The chemical industry had the floodgates opened over 30 years ago when a federal law went on the books that ultimately swamped the marketplace with more than 80,000 chemicals; many of them are now in people and linked to a number of serious health risks that have spiked among children."

Dr. Woodson Merrell, Chairman, Department of Integrative Medicine, Beth Israel Medical Center, N.Y.
"This EWG research initiative crucially augments similar studies from the Centers for Disease Control and helps further establish links between pollution and many chronic and fatal diseases reaching near-epidemic proportions in the U.S., including asthma, breast and prostate cancer, diabetes, obesity and ADHD. It's critical that we begin to understand the health impacts of exposure to pollutants, especially for women of childbearing age as regards the chemicals highlighted in this report, which have hormone disrupting and carcinogenic properties. I urge journalists, scientists, physicians and members of industry to take a close look at this latest groundbreaking research."

Dr. Beverly Wright, Executive Director, Deep South Center for Environmental Justice
"This study really highlights the need for reform of the current law that regulates chemicals. Babies from all communities and backgrounds should be born without being exposed to industrial chemicals during their development."