Much has been written this year about Rockefeller Foundation annual reports going back decades showing plans on how to sterilise undesirables without them knowing about it, but without connecting the dots no one would believe that they are actually doing it. The time for evidencing the theory is over. It is time to lay out cold the evidence that they are actually doing it now.
In this article I would like to concentrate on an area of concern that everyone can grasp: everyone, that is, except our own governments. Our governments listen more to the lobbies than they do to We the People. This can mean one of two things: either they are really so disconnected from the electorate to believe that we cannot determine for ourselves what is and is not safe to eat and therefore must rely on 'experts' with their own commercial vested interests, or they are in on the whole plan to get rid of as many of us as they possibly can.
Before I go into the meat of this article, I feel it would be polite to thank the people who have pointed me at certain research papers and key documents - without them I would not have all the information I have now to write this piece. Jurriaan Maessan of InfoWars, David Rothscum, Paul Joseph Watson and his brother Steve Watson of PrisonPlanet, Mike Adams and his team of writers at Natural News, and last but by no means least, Jeffery M. Smith. There are many others that I have forgot to mention or do not know the names of, but my gratitude extends to them also. These researchers have done a lot of the hard work for all of us who wish to expose the plans of the globalist elites, so that we may stop their Eugenics programmes dead in their tracks. We have a debt of gratitude to these people. Most of the heroes of the Resistance are not hardened protesters or cybernetic warfare specialists, or even, whistle-blowers. Most of them are ordinary people who know how to do deep research on subjects that many do not want to touch, and who are also able to disseminate this information in such a way that the man on the street can understand it. I take my hat off to these people.
Therefore, a brief overview of what we already know needs to be done to refresh our memories, as much time has passed since I last wrote a major article on the subject of Eugenics. Of course, Eugenics is an euphemism, and one for something far worse than what the name suggests. To use the most blunt terms possible, what we are talking about is scientific, methodical, medicalised, mass genocide.
It was through Eugenics that Hitler did his T4 programme throughout the Third Reich to get rid of as many disabled people as he possibly could, and this led directly to the Holocaust. It is a logical progression for such sick minds to go from killing the weak and infirm to killing whole groups of people that they don't like, be they Jews, Roma, Slavs, or Russians. During the Holocaust, the Nazis liquidated approximately 6 million Jews, 2 million Roma, 3 million political dissidents, communists, Slavs, and homosexuals, and also, although this is not often written about in the history books, 26 million Russians.
Stalinist Russia at the height of the Soviet tyranny use the Gulag Archipelago system to intern through false diagnosis of mental illness, and eventually liquidate, 40 million Soviet citizens: political dissidents, counter-revolutionaries, poets, philosophers, writers, doctors, or anybody else that Stalinist Russia did not like. This sounds much like the Fixated Threat Assessment Centres over here, and with the new edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, especially with Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), one can see how both of these can be abused if our own government so desires.
Under Chairman Mao, 45 million Chinese were wiped out during the Great Leap Forwards, and up to another 50 million during the Cultural Revolution. Most of the deaths during the former mass murder event was cause primarily by the control of food, and those that did not toe the party line soon found themselves without it, only to suffer a slow, painful, and deliberate death through forced starvation. From 1975 Communist China also brought in a "One Child Policy" directly funded and supported by successive U.S. Administrations and the United Nations Population Fund. God only knows just how many children were forcefully aborted by the state.
Even now, the Chinese Authorities are still carrying out forced abortions on anyone who dares to disobey the "One Child Policy", and recently Hillary Clinton gave a speech in which she supported Population Control as a part of U.S. Foreign Policy. So as we go through these documents let it be known that western governments are as keen to reduce human populations as their communist and fascist counterparts, and that as we go further into hot tyranny, all our lives are in danger from the state and the organisations that control our governments.
One such method of population control, among many, is the control of food - what food we can eat, where we can get it from, how much of it we can have, and whether or not this food is actually safe to eat. The World Trade Organisation has already started regulating our food through Codex Alimentarius (the food code), and the US Senate has just passed S510 - the "Food Safety Modernization Act" - by sneaking it through another bill when S510 was already defeated through a blue slip error. Canada has also passed similar legislation conforming to Codex Alimentarius. As for those of us in the European Union, we are still waiting to see how they plan to implement Codex Alimentarius over here, and as soon as we know, we shall oppose it with every ounce of our beings.
I realise that I am going over ground that I have already covered elsewhere, but I feel it is vital to lay a foundation of evidence that is pertinent to the subject at hand: The weaponisation of food to better facilitate the reduction of human population levels. For new readers, this is going to be a lot of key information to digest and get your heads around, and I would advise those readers to do their own research before dismissing what I am saying. As I always say, "Evidence it, then Disseminate it".
In the 1986 Rockefeller Foundation annual report, the writers discuss using the glossypol gene found in the cotton plant (more specifically expressed in the cotton plant seeds) in Genetically Modified Organisms for human consumption as a way of reducing male human fertility. The chemical composition of the substance the gene produces reads as "C30H30O8", and Chinese researchers have found it efficacious for reducing male fertility in their clinical trials. As they said themselves in this annual report:
“Male contraceptive studies are focused on gossypol, a natural substance extracted from the cotton plant, and identified by Chinese researchers as having an anti-fertility effect on men. Before widespread use can be recommended, further investigation is needed to see if lowering the dosage can eliminate undesirable side-effects without reducing its effectiveness as a contraceptive. The Foundation supported research on gossypol’s safety, reversibility and efficacy in seven different 1986 grants.”
I doubt very much if the Rockefeller Foundation really cares if the use of the glossypol gene in GM food is safe and reversible or not, just so long as it accelerates the decrease in male human fertility. What I do know is that genetic engineering is not as an exact science as its proponents would like to make out, and one is never sure exactly how inserted genes will express themselves, or how they will affect the expressions of other genes. As Jeffery M. Smith writes in his seminal work, Seeds of Deception (pages 57-58), the method of inserting new genes into an organism is far from precise:
"We have used the word "insert" when describing the "placement" of foreign genes into a host DNA. That's more than polite. One common method used to "insert" genes is to blast them into the DNA with a 22-calibre gene gun. Scientists first coat thousands of tiny shards of gold or tungsten with the foreign gene. Then they point it at a dish containing thousands of unsuspecting cells. Then they fire, hoping that at least some of the foreign genes will end up in the right place in at least some of the DNA. This, by the way, is what the biotech industry refers to as their highly precise method of gene transfer."
This can cause the genes to end up anywhere in the target DNA, with many unforeseen consequences.
Jurriaan Maessen goes into far more detail about the research into using the glossypol gene to reduce male human fertility by the Rockefeller Foundation, and how other research organisations have run with the work already done. What is particularly disturbing is how these other researchers are willing to look at the use of a genetically modified cotton plant as an actual source of food.
Already we are seeing fertility issues with Genetically Modified food through research done by Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov at the Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and with the National Association for Gene Security. Surov triple blind tested Monsanto's GM soy on hamsters, and found some rather starling results:
"This study was just routine," said Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov, in what could end up as the understatement of this century. Surov and his colleagues set out to discover if Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) soy, grown on 91% of US soybean fields, leads to problems in growth or reproduction. What he discovered may uproot a multi-billion dollar industry.
After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups.
And if this isn't shocking enough, some in the third generation even had hair growing inside their mouths—a phenomenon rarely seen, but apparently more prevalent among hamsters eating GM soy.
The study, jointly conducted by Surov's Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security, is expected to be published in three months (July 2010) — so the technical details will have to wait. But Surov sketched out the basic set up for me in an email.
He used Campbell hamsters, with a fast reproduction rate, divided into 4 groups. All were fed a normal diet, but one was without any soy, another had non-GM soy, a third used GM soy, and a fourth contained higher amounts of GM soy. They used 5 pairs of hamsters per group, each of which produced 7-8 litters, totally 140 animals.
"Originally, everything went smoothly. However, we noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as before. These pairs' growth rate was slower and reached their sexual maturity slowly."
He selected new pairs from each group, which generated another 39 litters. There were 52 pups born to the control group and 78 to the non-GM soy group. In the GM soy group, however, only 40 pups were born. And of these, 25% died. This was a fivefold higher death rate than the 5% seen among the controls. Of the hamsters that ate high GM soy content, only a single female hamster gave birth. She had 16 pups; about 20% died.
Surov said "The low numbers in F2 [third generation] showed that many animals were sterile."
The published paper will also include measurements of organ size for the third generation animals, including testes, spleen, uterus, etc. And if the team can raise sufficient funds, they will also analyze hormone levels in collected blood samples."
It appears that genetically modified soy, over several generations, can seriously reduce mammalian fertility.
Ordinary soy does contain enzymes that can affect mammalian fertility if a high amount of it is in the diet. The Chinese do not seem to have this problem with their high soy diet, but then they roast it first, which kills the enzyme. Soy sauce, and the Japanese Miso, is made exclusively with roasted soy. Soy milk, and other western soy products, are made with soy beans that have not been roasted first, and therefore is not recommended in high amounts in the human diet. As for GM Soy, the risk of fertility problems with humans, as illustrated by the above research, can be even higher.
This can not only cause unwanted affects in GM Soy with regards to its own natural enzymes being wrongly expressed to such an extent that the usual roasting of soy will not kill these enzymes, but that if the glossypol gene is inserted into GM Soy, the effects on human fertility can be so much more dire.
We do not know what genes have been inserted into GM Soy, as most of this information is a "trade secret" covered by biotech patents and not looked into at all by the FDA or any other food & drug safety body.
One major problem with inserting foreign genes into a target organism is that you have no idea where those new genes are going to end up within the target DNA, and how this is going to affect their expression. This is not the only possible cause for unwanted side effects with GM food. In Seed of Deception, Jeffrey M. Smith goes on to list the other possible causes of unwanted side effects in GM food (pages 61-62):
"In normal circumstances, a gene in one cell will busily pump out its protein, while in another cell, that same gene just quietly hangs out, unused; its protein isn't needed. Take, for example, the gene whose protein makes the eyes blue. In the pigment cells of the iris, that gene stays busy. But in the whites of the eyes, that same gene gets to relax. Otherwise, if it got activated, perhaps the entire eye would turn blue.
Who tells the gene when to work and when to rest? Somehow every cell provides a clear-cut job description to all its genes. Work here; rest there; work for a little bit, then take a break. And the job description can change depending on what the body needs.
When genetic engineers put an insecticide gene into the DNA of maize, however, the maize cell doesn't have a clue what to do with this gene that it's never seen before. Should it be turned on or off? Biologists can't speak the language of the cell. They don't know how to tell it to monitor the whole organism and to switch on the new gene only when needed - as it does with all the other genes. Instead, biologists do something unprecedented in the cell's experience. The new gene is sent in with a "light switch" permanently in the "on" position, set to high intensity. This keeps the new gene working 24/7, non-stop, in all cells of the plant. The light switch, called the "promoter", consists of genetic material that is attached to the insecticide gene before insertion.
The selection of this genetic material presents an interesting and dangerous challenge. The cell protects DNA from foreign invaders. In plants and animals, an elaborate defence system normally prevents foreign genes from getting a foothold. But there are certain highly aggressive genetic invaders that get past the cell's defences. Most notable among these are viruses, some of which are cancer-causing. These can wreck havoc on the DNA and the entire organism."
So not only can the glossypol gene be inserted into, say, GM Soy, but when inserted it will be set to "full on". And if that new gene, placed in the wrong part of the DNA of the plant, expressing in the wrong way, and being set to "full on", finds a way, like a virus, into invading the DNA of the creature that eats the GM Soy, what kind of havoc would that cause to the new host organism? Yes, we have pretty good immune systems, but our immune systems have never had to deal with a foreign gene set to "full on" through Genetic Manipulation within our stomachs that can possibly act like a virus.
With the use of viruses and bacteria to fire the new gene into the target host DNA, we cannot be sure if some of the virus's or bacteria's own properties are not also embedded in the new gene expression. In other words, the new alien gene could possibly act like a virus when ingested. And viruses, once safely in a new host, replicate themselves, and can even alter the DNA of this new host.
Going back to the Russian study above, one can see why randomly expressed genes in GMO Soy could cause such fertility problems after three generations of hamsters, and by implication, what problems this could cause with human fertility in the future. And if it is the glossypol gene being expressed in a viral form, these problems could be worse than we can possibly imagine.
To further illustrate this issue, I would like to turn to another book by Jeffrey M Smith -Genetic Roulette (page 24):
1.2 Rats fed GM tomatoes got bleeding stomachs, several died.
1. Rats were fed the GM FlavrSavr tomato for 28 days.
2. Of the 20 rats, 7 developed stomach lesions (bleeding stomachs); another 7 of 40 died within two weeks and were replaced in the study.
This is the summary of intestinal problems suffered by rats in just one feeding test. Several feeding tests, including rats and mice, which show similar problems are shown in entries throughout this section of the book.
Despite these obvious problems with this strain of GM tomato, page 25 notes:
"According to a 2002 paper by Arpad Pusztai, the 'study was poorly designed and executed and, most importantly, led to flawed conclusions'. He said, 'the claim that these GM tomatoes were as safe as conventional ones is at best premature and, at worst, faulty'."
So from this test alone, along with many others listed in Genetic Roulette, we can see that GM Organisms can cause major intestinal problems, which could leave the host animal even more prone to unwanted gene transferral.
Some might consider that I have over-laboured the point about the unknown risks of GMO, but when it comes to our food security and food safety, I cannot labour the point enough. As far as I am concerned I do not ever want to see GMO in my diet. The accidental risks of Genetically Modified Organisms are bad enough, but if scientists at the behest of the Rockefeller Foundation and United Nations Population Fund start messing around with our food in order to make us sterile, things for us can only get so much worse.
The fact that the UK Government is determined to allow GM Food into the United Kingdom's food supply despite heavy public opposition shows a cavalier attitude to human life by the powers that be. They are not scientists, and the people lobbying them to allow GMO in the UK have a vested interest which is not based on our health. The fact that recently leaked diplomatic cables show how US interests were quite willing to retaliate against the EU if they continued to refuse clearance for the use of GMO within the EU is even more disturbing. I am quite sure that I do not need to spell out what this could mean for our food safety and security if they manage to do this, especially if they attempt to do this through the World Trade Organisation and Codex Alimentarius.
With the aforementioned Rockefeller Foundation annual reports looking at ways to sterilise humans through Genetically Modified Organisms in their food supply, as well as their research into anti-fertility vaccines utilising the Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin (hCG) hormone within tetanus shots through several research organisations world wide (along with many other methods of creating anti-fertility vaccines), one has to accept the fact that Eugenics is alive and well in the higher echelons of (in)human society. The globalist elites don't really need us in a post-industrial, post-democratic world, and the quicker they can get rid of us the better as far as they are concerned.
This is a very hard wake up call, but one that the whole of humanity must heed if we are to prevent these plans for the mass culling of humanity from ever becoming a reality.
Read more: http://www.setyoufreenews.com/2010/12/eugenics-alert-use-of-gmo-food-to.html#ixzz1BrsCPuNU