Archive for the ‘Government’ Category

By on January 12, 2014
rockefeller-vaccines

(Truthstream Media.com)

The Rockefellers, one of the world’s wealthiest families, have been the largest financial backer of Eugenics and other population control measures.

Author Jurriaan Maessan stumbled upon some very compelling and important research back in 2010 while digging through annual reports for the Rockefeller Foundation that conclusively prove that it funded numerous research projects into the development “anti-fertility” vaccines, with its origins in scientific research dating back to at least 1968, and with successful research conducted by at least 1988. There now exists several methods to sterilize both men and women by injection, as well as to terminate pregnancies and/or induce spontaneous abortions.

This is highly significant research because the Rockefeller family, dating back to oil baron John D. Rockefeller, has been on the cutting edge of financing Eugenics policy and research. Rockefeller and other primarily Anglo elites based in the U.S. East Coast and England fostered /festered a whole paradigm of social policy centered around the quack science that asserted that the superiority of some gene stocks over others was provable, while seeking various ways to reduce the populations of the “lesser” genetic groups of the world.

EUGENICS SPECIAL: Global Extermination Database Exposed

This racist ideology manifest in Eugenics laws in 27 U.S. states, and later in Nazi Germany, also taking root in much of the Western world. The Rockefeller family, among others, financed Eugenics research at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Nazi Germany, where some of the most horrifying “scientific” research was conducted – including the work of Josef Mengele.

Following World War II, Eugenics was re-branded to cast of its associations with the Nazis, and emerged, as it were, in the form of such social policy topics as “population control,” “family planning,” abortion/Planned Parenthood, health care, various types of genetics, even laced in between such screeds as global warming/climate change – which leads to arguments about reducing the burden of over-population upon the earth.

Today, figures like Bill Gates have been quite open about connecting the use of vaccines, GMOs, health care and reducing the population through a (mostly covert) Eugenics – even in the name of reducing the impact of climate change.

The powerful Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation formally tied its agenda to aims of the Rockefeller Foundation, including in its funding for vaccinations and population reduction.

Bill Gates and David Rockefeller were the leading members of a billionaires’ club that met in secret to discuss how to strengthen measures for population control, particularly in the developing world, through the guise of “philanthropy.” Other notable members include Ted Turner, George Soros, Warren Buffett, Oprah Winfrey, Michael Bloomberg

Worse, there is evidence that these anti-fertility vaccines – developed through Rockefeller-funded research – may have been used covertly used in several developing nations (for instance, in the Philippines), where women experienced loss of pregnancy after receiving tetanus shots – one of the main carriers for the Rockefeller-funded HcG anti-fertility vaccine.

Below is Jurriaan Maessan’s original and groundbreaking report. Please visit his site at Explosive Reports.com:

Rockefeller Anti-Fertility Vaccines Exposed

Jurriaan Maessan
ExplosiveReports.com

In the course of August and September 2010, I wrote several articles for Infowars on the Rockefeller Foundation’s admitted funding and developing of anti-fertility vaccines intended for “mass-scale distribution.” As the soft-kill depopulation agenda accelerates it seems all the more relevant to re-post these articles as one.

1- Rockefeller Foundation Developed Vaccines For “Mass-Scale” Fertility Reduction

In its 1968 yearly report, the Rockefeller Foundation acknowledged funding the development of so-called “anti-fertility vaccines” and their implementation on a mass-scale. From page 51 onward we read:

“(…) several types of drugs are known to diminish male fertility, but those that have been tested have serious problems of toxicity. Very little work is in progress on immunological methods, such as vaccines, to reduce fertility, and much more research is required if a solution is to be found here.”

The possibility of using vaccines to reduce male fertility was something that needed to be investigated further, according to the Rockefeller Foundation, because both the oral pill and the IUD were not suitable for mass-scale distribution:

“We are faced with the danger that within a few years these two “modern” methods, for which such high hopes have been held, will in fact turn out to be impracticable on a mass scale.”

“A semipermanent or renewable subcutaneous implant of these hormones has been suggested, but whether or not the same difficulties would result has not been determined.”

Saying that research thus-far had been too low-grade to produce any substantial results, the report was adamant:

“The Foundation will endeavour to assist in filling this important gap in several ways:

1- “Seeking out or encouraging the development of, and providing partial support to, a few centres of excellence in universities and research institutions in the United States and abroad in which the methods and points of view of molecular biology are teamed with the more traditional approaches of histology, embryology,and endocrinology in research pertinent to development of fertility control methods;”

2- “Supporting research of individual investigators, oriented toward development of contraceptive methods or of basic information on human reproduction relevant to such developments;”

3- “Encouraging, by making research funds available, as well as by other means, established and beginning investigators to turn their attention to aspects of research in reproductive biology that have implications for human fertility and its control;”

4- “Encouraging more biology and biochemistry students to elect careers in reproductive biology and human fertility control, through support of research and teaching programs in departments of zoology, biology, and biochemistry.”

The list goes on and on. Motivation for these activities, according to the RF?

“There are an estimated five million women among America’s poverty and near-poverty groups who need birth control service (…). The unchecked fertility of the indigent does much to perpetuate poverty, undereducation, and underemployment, not only in urban slums, but also in depressed rural areas.”

It wasn’t long before all the Foundation’s efforts began to have effect. In its annual report of 1988, The RF was happy to report the progress made by the Foundation’s Population Division in the field of anti-fertility vaccines:

“India’s National Institute of Immunology successfully completed in 1988 the first phase of trials with three versions of an anti-fertility vaccine for women. Sponsored by the government of India and supported by the Foundation, the trials established that with each of the tested vaccines, at least one year of protection against pregnancy could be expected, based on the levels of antibodies formed in response to the immunization schedule.”

In its 1997 review of anti-fertility vaccines, Indian based International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology didn’t forget to acknowledge its main benefactor:

“The work on LHRH and HCG vaccines was supported by research grants of The Rockefeller Foundation, (…).”

In the 1990s the work on anti-fertility vaccines went in overdrive, especially in third-world nations, as did the funding provided by the deep pockets of the Rockefeller Foundation. At the same time, the target-population of the globalists- women- began to stir uncomfortably with all this out-in-the-open talk of population reduction and vaccines as a means to achieve it.

Betsy Hartman, Director of the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College, Massachusetts and “someone who believes strongly in women’s right to safe, voluntary birth control and abortion”, is no supporter of the anti-fertility vaccine, as brought into being by the Rockefeller Foundation. She explains in her essay Population control in the new world order:

“Although one vaccine has been tested on only 180 women in India, it is being billed there as ‘safe, devoid of any side effects and completely reversible’. The scientific community knows very well that such assertions are false – for instance, many questions still remain about the vaccine’s long-term impact on the immune system and menstrual cycle. There is also evidence on film of women being denied information about the vaccine in clinical trials. Nevertheless, the vaccine is being prepared for large-scale use.”

The Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, quoted “a leading contraceptive researcher as saying:

“Immunological birth control methods will be an ‘antigenic weapon’ against the reproductive process, which left unchecked, threatens to swamp the world.”

Animal rights activist ms. Sonya Ghosh also expressed concerns about the Rockefeller-funded anti-fertility vaccine and its implementation:

“Instead of giving individual women more options to prevent pregnancy and protect against AIDs and sexually transmitted diseases, the anti fertility vaccine is designed to be easily administered to large numbers of women using the least resources. If administered to illiterate populations the issues of user control and informed consent are further cause for concern.”

To avoid such debates, the Foundation has in the last couple of decades consorted to its long-practised and highly successful methods of either outright lying through its teeth or using deceptive language to hide the fact that it continues to work tirelessly toward its long-stated mission.

2- Global Distribution of Rockefeller-Funded Anti-Fertility Vaccine Coordinated by WHO

In addition to the recent PrisonPlanet-exclusive Rockefeller Foundation Developed Vaccines For “Mass-Scale” Fertility Reduction– which outlines the Rockefeller Foundation’s efforts in the 1960s funding research into so-called “anti-fertility vaccines”- another series of documents has surfaced, proving beyond any doubt that the UN Population Fund, World Bank and World Health Organization picked up on it, further developing it under responsibility of a “Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation”.

Just four years after the Rockefeller Foundation launched massive funding-operations into anti-fertility vaccines, the Task Force was created under auspices of the World Health Organization, World Bank and UN Population Fund. Its mission, according to one of its members, to support:

“basic and clinical research on the development of birth control vaccines directed against the gametes or the preimplantation embryo. These studies have involved the use of advanced procedures in peptide chemistry, hybridoma technology and molecular genetics as well as the evaluation of a number of novel approaches in general vaccinology. As a result of this international, collaborative effort, a prototype anti-HCG vaccine is now undergoing clinical testing, raising the prospect that a totally new family planning method may be available before the end of the current decade.”

In regards to the scope of the Task Force’s jurisdiction, the Biotechnology and Development Monitor reported:

“The Task Force acts as a global coordinating body for anti-fertility vaccine R&D in the various working groups and supports research on different approaches, such as anti-sperm and anti-ovum vaccines and vaccines designed to neutralize the biological functions of hCG. The Task Force has succeeded in developing a prototype of an anti-hCG-vaccine.”

One of the Task Force members, P.D. Griffin, outlined the purpose and trajectory of these Fertility Regulating Vaccines. Griffin:

“The Task Force has continued to coordinate its research activities with other vaccine development programmes within WHO and with other international and national programmes engaged in the development of fertility regulating vaccines.”

Griffin also admitted to the fact that one of the purposes of the vaccines is the implementation in developing countries. Griffin:

“If vaccines could be developed which could safely and effectively inhibit fertility, without producing unacceptable side effects, they would be an attractive addition to the present armamentarium of fertility regulating methods and would be likely to have a significant impact on family planning programmes.”

Also, one of the advantages of the FRVs over “currently available methods of fertility regulation” the Task Force states, is the following (179):

“low manufacturing cost and ease of delivery within existing health services.”

Already in 1978, the WHO’s Task Force (then called Task Force on Immunological Methods for Fertility Regulation) underlined the usefulness of these vaccines in regards to the possibility of “large scale synthesis and manufacture” of the vaccine:

“The potential advantages of an immunological approach to fertility regulation can be summarized as follows: (a) the possibility of infrequent administration, possibly by paramedical personnel; (b) the use of antigens or antigen fragments, which are not pharmacologically active; and (c) in the case of antigens of known chemical structure, there is the possibility of large-scale synthesis and manufacture of vaccine at relatively low cost.”

In 1976, the WHO Expanded Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction published a report, stating:

“In 1972 the Organization (…) expanded its programme of research in human reproduction to provide an international focus for an intensified effort to improve existing methods of fertility regulation, to develop new methods and to assist national authorities in devising the best ways of providing them on a continuing basis. The programme is closely integrated with other WHO research on the delivery of family planning care by health services, which in turn feeds into WHO’s technical assistance programme to governments at the service level.”

Although the term “Anti-Fertility Vaccine”, coined by the Rockefeller Foundation, was replaced by the more bureaucratic sounding “Fertility Regulating Vaccine (FRV), the programme was obviously the same. Besides, the time-line shows conclusively that the WHO, UN Population Fund and World Bank continued on a path outlined by the Rockefellers in the late 1960s. By extension, it proves that all these organization are perfectly interlocked, best captured under the header “Scientific Dictatorship”. The relationship between the WHO and the Rockefeller Foundation is intense. In the 1986 bulletin of the World Health Organization, this relationship is being described in some detail. While researching the effectiveness of “gossypol” as an “antifertility agent”, the bulletin states:

“The Rockefeller Foundation has supported limited clinical trials in China and smallscale clinical studies in Brazil and Austria. The dose administered in the current Chinese trial has been reduced from 20 mg to 10-15 mg/day during the loading phase in order to see if severe oligospermia rather than consistent azoospermia would be adequate for an acceptable, non-toxic and reversible effect. Meanwhile, both the WHO human reproduction programme and the Rockefeller Foundation are supporting animal studies to better define the mechanism of action of gossypol.”

In August of 1992, a series of meetings was held in Geneva, Switzerland, regarding “fertility regulating vaccines”. According to the document Fertility Regulating Vaccines (classified by the WHO with a limited distribution) present at those meetings were scientists and clinicians from all over the globe, including then biomedical researcher of the American Agency for International development, and current research-chief of USAID, Mr. Jeff Spieler.

In 1986 Mr. Spieler declared:

“A new approach to fertility regulation is the development of vaccines directed against human substances required for reproduction. Potential candidates for immunological interference include reproductive hormones, ovum and sperm antigens, and antigens derived from embryonic or fetal tissue.(…). An antifertility vaccine must be capable of safely and effectively inhibiting a human substance, which would need somehow to be rendered antigenic. A fertility-regulating vaccine, moreover, would have to produce and sustain effective immunity in at least 95% of the vaccinated population, a level of protection rarely achieved even with the most successful viral and bacterial vaccines. But while these challenges looked insuperable just a few years ago, recent advances in biotechnology- particularly in the fields of molecular biology, genetic engineering and monoclonal antibody production- are bringing antifertility vaccines into the realm of the feasible.”

“Vaccines interfering with sperm function and fertilization could be available for human testing by the early 1990s”, Spieler wrote.

In order for widespread use of these vaccines, Spieler writes, the vaccine must conquer “variations in individual responses to immunization with fertility-regulating vaccines”.

“Research”, he goes on to say,”is also needed in the field of “basic vaccinology”, to find the best carrier proteins, adjuvants, vehicles and delivery systems.”

In the 1992 document, the problem of “variations in individual responses” is also discussed:

“Because of the genetic diversity of human populations”, states the document, “immune responses to vaccines often show marked differences from one individual to another in terms of magnitude and duration. These differences may be partly or even completely overcome with appropriately engineered FRVs (Fertility Regulating Vaccines) and by improvements in our understanding of what is required to develop and control the immune response elicited by different vaccines.”

The picture emerging from these facts is clear. The WHO, as a global coordinating body, has since the early 1970s continued the development of the Rockefeller-funded “anti-fertility vaccine”. What also is becoming clear, is that extensive research has been done to the delivery systems in which these anti-fertility components can be buried, such as regular anti-viral vaccines. It’s a mass-scale anti-fertilization programme with the aim of reducing the world’s population: a dream long cherished by the global elite.

3- On Top of Vaccines, Rockefeller Foundation Presents Anti-Fertility Substance Gossypol for “Widespread Use”

It seems there is no limit to the Rockefeller Foundation’s ambitions to introduce anti-fertility compounds into either existing “health-services”, such as vaccines, or- as appears to be the case now- average consumer-products.

The 1985 Rockefeller Foundation’s annual report underlined its ongoing dedication towards finding good use for the anti-fertility substance “gossypol”, or C30H30O8 – as the description reads.

Indeed, gossypol, a toxic polyphenol derived from the cotton plant, was identified early on in the Foundation’s research as an effective sterilant. The question was, how to implement or integrate the toxic substance into crops.

“Another long-term interest of the Foundation has been gossypol, a compound that has been shown to have an antifertility effect in men, By the end of 1985, the Foundation had made grants totaling approximately $1.6 million in an effort to support and stimulate scientific investigations on the safety and efficacy of gossypol.”

In the 1986 Rockefeller Foundation annual report, the organization admits funding research into the use of fertility-reducing compounds in relation to food for “widespread use”:

“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.”

In the RF’s 1988 annual report, gossypol as a contraceptive was also elaborated upon (page 22):

“Gossypol, a natural substance found in the cotton plant, continues to show promise as an oral contraceptive for men. Because it suppresses sperm production without affecting sex hormone levels, it is unique among the experimental approaches to fertility control in men. Foundation-funded scientists worldwide have assembled an aray of information about how gossypol works, and studies continue on a wide variety of its clinical applications. Dose reduction is being investigated to reduce health risks associated with the use of gossypol.”

The following year, according to the annual report, funds were allocated to several research institutions to see how this “dose reduction” could best be accomplished without interfering with the ant-fertility effects of gossypol.

(1988- $ 400,000, in addition to remaining funds from prior year appropriations) To support research on gossypol, its safety, reversibility, and efficacy as a contraceptive for use by men (…).”

Mention is made on money allocated to the University of Texas, “for a study of gossypol’s effects on DNA replication (…).”

The last mention of gossypol in the Foundation’s annals we find in the 1994 annual report, where funds were appropriated to the University of Innsbruck of Austria “for a study at the Institute of Physiology on the molecular action of gossypol at the cellular level.”

It seems that the funded scientists have indeed found a way of “lowering the dosage” of gossypol, circumventing the toxicity of the substance, so as to suppress or even eliminate these “undesirable side-effects”, which include: low blood potassium levels, fatigue, muscle weakness and even paralysis. If these effects could be eliminated without reducing the anti-fertility effects, the Foundation figured, it would be a highly effective and almost undetectable sterilant.

Although overtly, research into and development of gossypol as an anti-fertility compound was abandoned in the late 1990s, the cottonseed containing the substance was especially selected for mass distribution in the beginning of the current decade. Around 2006 a media-campaign was launched, saying the cottonseed could help defeat hunger and poverty.

In 2006, NatureNews reported that RNA interference (or RNAi) was the way to go. On the one hand it would “cut the gossypol content in cottonseeds by 98%, while leaving the chemical defenses of the rest of the plant intact.” Furthermore, the article quoted Dr. Deborah P. Delmer, the Rockefeller Foundation’s associate director of food security, who was quick to bury any concern:

“Deborah Delmer, associate director of the Rockefeller Foundation in New York City and an expert in agricultural food safety, points out that a benefit of using RNAi technology is that it turns off a gene process rather than switching on a novel function. “So instead of introducing a new foreign protein, you’re just shutting down one process,” Delmer says. “In that sense, I think that the safety concerns should be far less than other GM technologies.”

A 2006, National Geographic article Toxin-Free Cottonseed Engineered; Could Feed Millions Study Says, quotes the director of the Laboratory for Crop Transformation (Texas A&M Universtity), Keerti Singh Rathore as saying:

“A gossypol-free cottonseed would significantly contribute to human nutrition and health, particularly in developing countries, and help meet the requirements of the predicted 50 percent increase in the world population in the next 50 years.”

“Rathore’s study”, states the article, “represents the first substantiated case where gossypol was reduced via genetic engineering that targets the genes that make the toxin.”

I bring into recollection the statement made by the Rockefeller Foundation in its 1986 annual report, which reads:

“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.”

In the 1997 Foundational report, Rathore is mentioned (page 68). A postdoctoral fellowship-grant was given to a certain E. Chandrakanth “for advanced study in plant molecular biology under the direction of Keerti S. Rathore, Laboratory for Crop Transformation, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.”

Compromising connections, in other words, for someone who claimed academic objectivity in regards to gossypol and its sterilizing effects. Rathore explained the workings of RNAi in a 2006 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“Cottonseed toxicity due to gossypol is a long-standing problem”, Rathore said, “and people have tried to fix it but haven’t been able to through traditional plant breeding. My area of research is plant transgenics, so I thought about using some molecular approaches to address this problem.”

Rathore also mentioned the desired main funder of his work without actually saying the name:

“we are trying to find some partners and will probably be looking at charitable foundations to help us out in terms of doing all kinds of testing that is required before a genetically engineered plant is approved for food or feed. We are in the very early stages and have a lot of ideas in mind, but we need to pursue those. Hopefully, we can find some sort of partnership that will allow us to do them.”

He also expressed the final adaptation of the cottonseed for widespread use is something of the long term:

“(…) right now there are many hurdles when you are dealing with a genetically modified plant. But I think in the next 15 or 20 years a lot of these regulations that we have to satisfy will be eliminated or reduced substantially.”

The Foundation, as is evident from the statements of Rockefeller’s own Deborah Delmer, is more than interested. Even worse, through the process of readying gossypol for mass-distribution in food, the fulfillment of their longstanding goal of sterilizing the populous into oblivion comes into view.

4- Rockefeller Foundation Conceptualized “Anti-Hormone” Vaccine in the 1920s and 30s, Reports Reveal

Rockefeller Foundation minion Max Mason, who acted as president in the mid-1930s, on multiple occasions expressed his master’s desire for an “anti-hormone” that would reduce fertility worldwide. Now keep in mind, this is more than 35 years before the Foundation actually mentioned funding “anti-fertility vaccines” in subsequent annual reports from 1969 onward.

Having traveled far beyond the realm of rumor and speculation, research into the admitted funding of anti-fertility vaccines has uncovered more and more sinister revelations along the way.

By the mid-1930s, Mason of the Rockefeller Foundation thought that “the ultimate solution of the problem [of birth control] may well lie in the studies of endocrinology, particularly antihormones.” The Foundation’s 1934 annual report states:

“The Rockefeller Foundation has decided to concentrate its present effort in the natural sciences on the field of modern experimental biology, with special interest in such topics as endocrinology, nutrition, genetics, embryology, problems centering about the reproductive process, psychobiology, general and cellular physiology, biophysics, and biochemistry.”

“(…) research work is being conducted on the physiology of reproduction in the monkey. This work was begun at the Johns Hopkins University in 1921, and since 1923 has been continued at the University of Rochester. It involves observational and experimental studies of the reproductive cycle in certain species of the higher primates, in which this cycle closely resembles that of the human species. The effect of the various interrelated reproductive hormones is being studied.”

In the annual report of the previous year (1933), the Foundation stresses the fact that work on the reproductive hormones of primates serves to experiment on man in the future:

“(…) much work has been done in the formulation and solution of basic problems in the general biology and physiology of sex in organisms other than man. It was essential that this fundamental work on infra-man pave the way for that on man.”

In the book Discipling Reproduction by Adele E. Clarke, the roots of Rockefeller-funded “anti-hormones” is being described in some detail, pointing out that the family’s ambitions to control man’s fertility date back even further than the 1930s. Clarke writes:

“On a cold morning in 1921, George Washington Corner, a physician and fledgling reproductive scientist, awoke in Baltimore to discover that it was snowing.”

“By 1929”, Clarke writes a bit further on, “Corner had mapped out the hormonal action of progesterone, an essential actor in the menstrual cycle and subsequently an actor in birth control pills.”

The 1935 Rockefeller Foundation annual report acknowledges funding Dr. Corner’s research:

“To the University of Rochester, for research on the physiology of reproduction under the direction of Dr. G. W. Corner during the threeyear period beginning July 1, 1935, and ending June 30, 1938, there has been appropriated the sum of $9,900. Dr. Corner’s activities are concentrated on a study of the oestrus cycle, using monkeys as the experimental animals. A colony of about thirty monkeys has been maintained, and experiments have furnished information on the normal histology of the reproductive cycle, the time of ovulation, the relation of ovulation to menstruation and other anatomically detectable correlations of the oestrus cycle. Work is continuing on two main lines: normal sex reproduction in the monkey, including the histology of ovary and uterus, and, secondly, the effects of the ovarian hormone.”

Again, never forget that the Foundation in 1933 stated outright that “It was essential that this fundamental work on infra-man pave the way for that on man.”

Another essential problem which arises, of course, is how exactly the funding-mechanism worked by which Corner’s research could be made ready for mass-consumption. Clarke mentions that officially the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), was the institute responsible for the task of doing so. More specific: the Committee for Research in Problems of Sex (CRPS):

“The NRC itself was founded in 1916 as an agency to inventory research toward enhanced military preparedness.”

“The NRC”, states the author, “was a prestigious organization from its inception, thanks to its early association with the NAS, the Carnegie Corporation, and the Rockefeller Foundation. Kohler (1991:109) has argued that the NRC essentially served as an intermediary between the foundations and scientists in the interwar years.(…). The NRC/CRPS itself was funded almost exclusively by Rockefeller monies, initially through the Bureau of Social Hygiene and, after 1931, through the Rockefeller Foundation.”

On the subject of so-called “current immunological contraceptive research”, Clarke channels Rockefeller-president Max Mason:

“Other lines of current immunological contraceptive research continue to seek what, during the 1930s, Max Mason of the Rockefeller Foundation called “anti-hormones”: vaccines to block hormones needed for very early pregnancy and a vaccine to block the hormone needed for the surface of the egg to function properly.”

In a February 1934 “progress report” written by Warren Weaver (director of the Natural Sciences Division of the Rockefeller Foundation) once again underlined the endgame:

“Can man gain an intelligent control of his own power? Can we develop so sound and extensive a genetics that we can hope to breed, in the future, superior men? Can we obtain enough knowledge of physiology and psychobiology of sex so that man can bring this pervasive, highly important, and dangerous aspect of life under rational control?”

The same Warren Weaver wrote a “biographical Memoir” in honor of his friend Max Mason, revealing some more interesting facts. Weaver, who describes himself as a great personal friend of Mason, gives a general description of him as Rockefeller-minion:

“He had by that time developed a consuming interest in behavioral research, and particularly in the possibility that the physical sciences, working with and through the biological sciences, could shed new and revealing light on the normal and abnormal behavior of individuals, and ultimately on the social behavior of groups of men.”

Here we have it. The blueprint for sterilizing vaccines has been first conceptualized way back in the 1920s and 1930s by social scientists of the Rockefeller Foundation. Although later the eugenic language (“anti-fertility vaccine”) was polished up with the help of some linguistic plastic surgery producing the term “immunological contraceptive”, the ultimate goal remains the same.

October 27, 2013 By Leave a Comment

21st Century Wire says…


The state will use intimidation and force, in order to preserve corporate cartel market price-fixing and control of the supply chain. 

British authorities have raided a workshop, for allegedly ‘printing illegal gun parts’. Police believe that that the basis of their raid in Manchester, England, was that:

“Police believe the parts represent the “next generation” of firearms, which can be created by gangsters in the privacy of their own homes and smuggled with ease due to the fact they can avoid X-ray detection.

Police found what is suspected to be a 3D plastic magazine and trigger which could be fitted together to make a working gun.”

3-D printers are still in their infancy, but they pose a threat to corporate hegemony, so it’s expected that both US and UK authorities will seek to make this new technology heavily regulated and licensed, if not illegal. Their main point of attack on the technology will be the ability to make a gun or extended magazine with a 3-D printer

Making guns for personal use has been legal for decades, but doing so has required machining know-how and a variety of parts. You can make a crude shotgun, or a deadly sling shot with materials available in most garden sheds. With 3-D printers, users download blueprints from the Internet, feed them into the machine, and make the parts they need. 

The Washington Post reported earlier this year on the impact of this new technology for the better of humanity:

“Restrictions are difficult to enforce in a world where anybody can make anything,” said Hod Lipson, a 3-D printing expert at Cornell University and co-author of the new book, “Fabricated: The New World of 3D Printing.” “Talking about old-fashioned control will be very ineffective.”


21WIRE reported on the man who tested the forst 3-D printed gun, Cody Wilson (photo, above), founder of Defense Distributed back in May 2013, as well is information you can go to now to see how to create your own 3-D printed item.

RT reports…

.

Lock, stock and a smoking printer? UK police seize ‘3D-printed gun parts’

.

A handout picture taken on October 24, 2013 and released by Greater Manchester Police on October 25, 2013 shows a 3D printer seized by British police during an operation that also resulted in the seizure of plastic 3D components that police believe could be used to make a viable 3D-printed gun in the Baguley area of Manchester, northwest England on October 24, 2013. (AFP Photo)

A handout picture taken on October 24, 2013 and released by Greater Manchester Police on October 25, 2013 shows a 3D printer seized by British police during an operation that also resulted in the seizure of plastic 3D components that police believe could be used to make a viable 3D-printed gun in the Baguley area of Manchester, northwest England on October 24, 2013. (AFP Photo)

British police say they’ve seized a 3D printer and 3D-printed gun components, including a trigger and a magazine capable of holding bullets, during a raid in Manchester. Critics, however, say they found nothing more than spare printer parts.

The alleged gun parts were discovered, along with the 3D printer, when officers from the Greater Manchester Police force carried out a search Thursday in the Baguley area of Wythenshawe, in the south of Manchester. 

If the parts prove to be legitimate, the bust would represent the first-ever seizure of the next-generation weapon, which can be constructed by a 3D printer almost entirely out of plastic – creating the possibility of evading detection by airport security metal detectors. 

The components are now being forensically examined by firearms specialists to establish if they could be used to construct a functional device. 

A man has been arrested on suspicion of making gunpowder and is currently in custody for questioning. 

Police fear such weapons can be created by criminals in the privacy of their own homes, thus evading detection by security scanners at airports and other high-risk targets. 

“If what we have seized is proven to be viable, components capable of constructing a genuine firearm, then it demonstrates that organized crime groups are acquiring technology that can be bought on the high street to produce the next generation of weapons,”
 Greater Manchester Detective Inspector Chris Mossop told Sky News. 

“In theory, the technology essentially allows offenders to produce their own guns in the privacy of their own home, which they can then supply to the criminal gangs who are causing such misery in our communities,” he said. “Because they are also plastic and can avoid X-ray detection, it makes them easy to conceal and smuggle. These could be the next generation of firearms.”
 

A commenter on the California tech-blog GigaOM noted, however, that the parts being paraded in the media “are actually spare parts for a 3D printer,” and not components for a weapon. 

“If the police thinks that the part on the photo is a trigger, just search mk8 on thingiverse.com and you will see that it’s a upgrade part for a printer. I really don’t get this media/police fascination relating to 3d printers with guns… it’s a tool to make 3d parts, not guns,” user nuno gato wrote. 

A handout picture taken on October 24, 2013 and released by Greater Manchester Police on October 25, 2013 shows a plastic component that British police suspect to be a trigger that could be used to make a viable 3D-printed gun, seized by police during searches as part of an operation in the Baguley area of Manchester, northwest England on October 24, 2013. (AFP Photo)

A handout picture taken on October 24, 2013 and released by Greater Manchester Police on October 25, 2013 shows a plastic component that British police suspect to be a trigger that could be used to make a viable 3D-printed gun, seized by police during searches as part of an operation in the Baguley area of Manchester, northwest England on October 24, 2013. (AFP Photo)

Hours later, New Scientist came to the same conclusion, noting the “trigger” identified by police appears to be part of a MakerBot 3D printer designed to extrude 3D-printing plastic to make an object. The “clip,” incidentally, looks like a part intended to hold spools of plastic. 

“It does look like the MakerBot part,” Stuart Offer, of 3D-printing firm 3T RPD in the UK city of Newbury, told the magazine. “These 3D printed guns seem to have hit the headlines, but I’ve no idea why they take off so much,” he said, noting that homemade weapons were not that difficult to manufacture. ”A little engineer in his shed with a mill down the bottom of the garden could make a proper metal barrel capable of firing a high-velocity bullet.” 

A handout picture taken on October 24, 2013 and released by Greater Manchester Police on October 25, 2013 shows a plastic component that British police suspect to be a magazine that could be used to make a viable 3D-printed gun, seized by police during searches as part of an operation in the Baguley area of Manchester, northwest England on October 24, 2013. (AFP Photo)

A handout picture taken on October 24, 2013 and released by Greater Manchester Police on October 25, 2013 shows a plastic component that British police suspect to be a magazine that could be used to make a viable 3D-printed gun, seized by police during searches as part of an operation in the Baguley area of Manchester, northwest England on October 24, 2013. (AFP Photo)

3D printed weapons first came to the attention of law enforcement officials worldwide after Defense Distributed announced it had successfully test-fired a handgun created with a 3D printer. 

In May, the organization, founded by a 25-year-old crypto-anarchist Cody Wilson, posted blueprints for the single-shot .380-caliber Liberator online. 

The files were downloaded more than 100,000 times in just two days before the US State Department demanded that they be removed. Britain was the No. 5 downloader of the plans upon publication, with Germany, Brazil, the United States and Spain filling out the top four positions. 

A working version of the Liberator went on display in September in the Victoria and Albert Museum in London. 

The only non-plastic part of the Liberator is a tiny nail that acts as the firing pin, as well as a .380 cartridge it fires. Wilson is reportedly working on fabricating plastic bullets, a move that would make it nearly undetectable at security screenings.  3D-printed firearms can also be manufactured without serial numbers or unique identifiers, tripping up ballistics testing. 

Anyone with a sufficiently sophisticated 3D printer, which can be bought for $1,725 or even less, can make such weapons. 

After users download designs for guns or components, the printers themselves ejects molten plastic to produce 3D shapes of whatever design has been downloaded. 

An actual 3D gun can be made for as little as $25, according to a report by Forbes magazine. 

Police agencies in Germany, Austria and Australia (http://rt.com/news/3d-gun-australia-police-758/) have been testing 3D weapons to get a better sense of their efficacy. Preliminary tests indicate a strong likelihood users could maim or kill themselves instead of the intended target, however, though the guns are expected to become increasingly sophisticated as technologies advance. 

“In Germany and in most European countries, the possession of an unregistered weapon, even if it is manufactured at home, is illegal and punishable by law,” Michael Brzoska, a security expert and director of the Institute for Peace Research and Security Studies at the University of Hamburg, recently told the New York Times. “But the temptation to try, if it’s technically possible, is a great one.” 

While it is currently legal for a person to manufacture a firearm for personal use in the US, the production of weapons using 3D printers is already banned by a European Union directive to member countries.

The UK imposed a ban on handguns after the 1996 Dunblane Primary School massacre, when a gunman shot 16 children and one adult before committing suicide. 

So far, there are no reported violence crimes committed with 3D printed weapons.

This is a hard one for me because I have a ginormous soapbox I wanna get up on right now. It’s a complicated issue and a really hard one to see and talk about. I urge you to do it anyway. Watch this and then do some of your own research. What you’ll find will probably be appalling.

At 5:06, the kids themselves describe their own experiences. That should be all you need to hear to understand something is seriously wrong here.

WARNING: This video includes some disturbing scenes involving children.

http://www.upworthy.com/something-sickening-is-happening-to-some-of-our-schoolchildren-and-you-probably-have-no-idea

PN

Press For Truth
April 4, 2013

The destruction of the family unit is an essential step to take towards achieving totalitarian rule. Radical feminism and global collectivism are slowly but surely eradicating individuals and families alike paving the way for a one world government controlled by the state.

Support independent media by making a contribution:
Donate through Paypal

We rely on you the viewer to help us continue to do this work. With your help I can continue to make videos and documentary films for youtube in an effort to raise awareness all over the world. Please support independent media by joining Press For Truth TV!

As a Press For Truth TV subscriber you’ll have full access to the site’s features and content including Daily Video Blogs on current news from the PFT perspective and High Quality Downloads of all Press For Truth Films, Music and Special Reports! Subscribe…

View original post 28 more words

Power plant deal leaves the UK handing £90bn to France and paying DOUBLE the going price of electricity for 35 years

By Jon Rees, Financial Mail On Sunday

PUBLISHED: 22:26, 19 October 2013 | UPDATED: 08:34, 21 October 2013

President Francois Hollande will be rubbing his hands with glee this week when the British Government is expected to sign a deal on nuclear power that could funnel £90billion into French coffers.

The agreement with French state-owned EDF Energy will create a price the Government guarantees will be paid for the electricity generated. This is likely to provoke fury as it is twice the market level.

Osborne last week announced plans to allow Chinese firms to take a minority stake in Britain’s nuclear power industry. But remarkably, even after that announcement, the Department of Energy issued a terse statement saying the exact terms of the deal with EDF were ‘still being negotiated’.

 
Nuclear power deal: The agreement with EDF could see electricity prices doubling

Nuclear power deal: The agreement with EDF could see electricity prices doubling

The Government appeared to have made promises to the Chinese before agreeing the guaranteed price with the French, though it refused to comment on its apparent blunder.

Critics say the Government found itself ‘over a barrel’, with the French and Chinese the only bidders left offering to build two nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset – the first in the UK since 1995 – at a price of £14billion.

With the inflation-linked price per megawatt hour likely to be about £90, many are questioning whether this is too much or simply what Britain must pay to keep the lights on and meet environmental targets.

A spokesman for the Energy Intensive Users Group, representing big business users of electricity, said: ‘Major industry needs security of supply and nuclear power can give us that – but not at any price.

‘This deal will cost the consumer more than coal and gas would, but as we decarbonise it is vital that nuclear is part of the mix. Renewable energy, like wind power, is just not reliable enough.

‘Nuclear is not going to come cheap, but it is secure and that is what big users need.

‘Given that we have lost control of our energy industry it is far better that this project is going ahead than not.’

 
Invitation: George Osborne has opened the door for China to enter the UK power market

Invitation: George Osborne has opened the door for China to enter the UK power market

China has even been told it may be allowed to operate nuclear power plants in the UK on its own in the future. Angela Knight, chief executive of the energy companies’ trade body Energy UK said: ‘Energy is a global business and the massive sums needed mean we must attract multi-national investment.’

The £90 per megawatt hour will be guaranteed to EDF through customers’ bills no matter what happens to prices in the wholesale energy market. Offshore wind power has a higher price, at £155 per megawatt hour, but that will last only 15 years.

EDF will make an estimated £90billion over the length of the contract, which is likely to be 35 years, almost as much as the £110billion that the Government estimates is needed to invest in the UK energy market over the next decade. It is a far cry from the £80 per megawatt hour the Treasury was apparently seeking originally.

The Government strongly denies that it is a subsidy. If it were, the whole deal could fall foul of European Union rules against state aid.

Current guidelines do not explicitly exclude nuclear power from receiving state aid and the EU declined to comment on the deal, since it has yet to be signed, but there has never been a test case on the issue so Britain’s would be the first.

Germany, which abandoned its nuclear power programmes after the Fukushima disaster in Japan in 2011, is expected to raise questions about what it may regard as a UK subsidy.

The guaranteed price has been at the crux of tortuous negotiations between the Government and EDF for months.

But as coal-fired power stations are forced to close to meet EU climate-change rules, the UK’s spare capacity in the electricity market is predicted by the National Grid to be as low as 5 per cent this winter, which compares badly with an average of about 15 per cent in America.

Green energy schemes are not able to take up the slack and any doubt over the provision of nuclear power would throw the energy industry into chaos.

Upset over U.S. fiscal crisis, China urges a ‘de-Americanized world’

Bloomberg¿s David Ingles reports on China criticizing the U.S. over the political deadlock, calling for a new reserve currency. He speaks to Susan Li on Bloomberg Television¿s ¿First Up.¿

By Jim PuzzangheraOctober 14, 2013, 6:43 a.m.

WASHINGTON — Upset that the fiscal stalemate in Washington is threatening the global economy, China called for the U.S. dollar to be replaced as the international reserve currency as well as for broader steps to create a “de-Americanized world.”

China also called for an end to the “pernicious impasse” in the U.S. over the raising the debt limit and ending the partial government shutdown, saying the world needed another reserve currency so nations could protect themselves “from the spillover of the intensifying domestic political turmoil in the United States.”

Most countries hold their foreign exchange reserves in U.S. dollars because the currency is viewed as the world’s most stable. China is the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt, with about $1.3 trillion in Treasury bonds, and is concerned about the impact of a U.S. failure to raise the debt limit on those holdings.

With Washington politicians still far from a deal as the Thursday deadline for raising the $16.7-trillion debt limit looms, China’s official state-run news agency published a sharply worded editorial Sunday criticizing U.S. leadership.

QUIZ: Test your knowledge about the debt limit

“As U.S. politicians of both political parties are still shuffling back and forth between the White House and the Capitol Hill without striking a viable deal to bring normality to the body politic they brag about, it is perhaps a good time for the befuddled world to start considering building a de-Americanized world,” the Xinhua news agency said in an English-language commentary.

China’s concerns echo those of economic officials around the world about the effects of a failure to raise the U.S. debt limit, which could trigger the federal government’s first-ever widespread default.

Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund, told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that global finance ministers are worried the uncertainty surrounding a U.S. default “would mean massive disruption the world over, and we would be at risk of tipping yet again into a recession.”

The Xinhua editorial took swipes at the U.S. for claiming “the moral high ground” while “covertly doing things that are as audacious as torturing prisoners of war, slaying civilians in drone attacks, and spying on world leaders.”

While slamming the U.S. for the Iraq war and military activity around the world, the article focused much of its fire on the U.S. role in the global economy, saying “the world is still crawling its way out of an economic disaster thanks to the voracious Wall Street elites.”

“Most recently, the cyclical stagnation in Washington for a viable bipartisan solution over a federal budget and an approval for raising debt ceiling has again left many nations’ tremendous dollar assets in jeopardy and the international community highly agonized,” Xinhua said.

Xinhua called for a “a new world order” in which “all nations, big or small, poor or rich, can have their key interests respected and protected on an equal footing.”

That new order should start with respect for the sovereignty of other nations, the editorial said. It also should include major financial reforms, such as allowing developing and emerging economies to have more say in the operations of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, it said.

Dr. Carol Rosin was the first female Corporate Manager of Fairchild Industries in the 1970’s. She worked closely with Wernher Von Braun shortly before his death, specifically in the subject of space based weapons.
How people with invested interests in military, corporations and government have been dictating our the geo-politics of the world happens and ultimately where we are heading in the future of the global war game.