The Dehumanisation of the Masses:
Population Control & Reduction
Based on a interview
with Qadosh Erectus
[The following interview,
undertaken in late December 2009, was extracted from
Thus Speaks Qadosh Erectus: Political Thoughts For a Sane Society
and distributed as a separate publication.]
Interviewer: The Copenhagen summit has recently finished
and turned into a bit of a fizzer in regards to reaching a legally
binding climate change deal. Did this surprise you?
QE: Yes to tell the truth I was moderately
surprised but most happy that it was a fizzer to use your words. But
no doubt officials are already working behind the scenes to iron out
the problems that arose so I would suspect that in the not too
distant future another summit will be held. If people want this to
fail they had better become better organised because United Nations
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has publicly admitted
that the agenda behind the Copenhagen summit and the climate change
fraud is the imposition of a global government and the end of
national sovereignty. Sadly many people fail to understand that
global governance will develop out of any future agreement on
emissions and they also fail to understand that policies shall
certainly be introduced to reduce world population numbers.
From news reports we are given the impression
that it was China’s fault that a binding agreement wasn’t reached at
the Copenhagen summit. Do you believe what we are told is factual?
is about give and take - compromise. If parties sit down to
negotiate a deal you can not in all fairness lay the blame at the
feet of one party if an agreement is not reached. The so-called
sticking point is that China wants consumer countries to take
responsibility for the carbon emissions generated in the manufacture
of goods, not the producer countries that export them. According to
an official with China's National Development and Reform Commission
and climate change negotiator;
"As one of the developing countries, we
are at the low end of the production line for the global economy. We
produce products and these products are consumed by other countries
… This share of emissions should be taken by the consumers, not the
producers." Now according to Oslo's
Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research in
Norway, a third of all Chinese emissions are linked to exports, with
nine per cent caused by exports to the US, and six per cent from
producing goods for Europe.
Interviewer: Do you think that a compromise will be
reached between the West and China that consumers should carry the
burden of emissions?
QE: I would be very surprised if a future
agreement is not reached because of China’s stance. In fact I would
go as far to say that there is a segment in the West that may have
helped to orchestrate the failure of an agreement at the Copenhagen
summit because the Chinese way is what they desire.
Interviewer: If such an agreement is reached wouldn’t this
imply that everything produced would be given a carbon foot-print?
QE: Yes, that is how I would interpret it.
Interviewer: You mentioned population reduction…I haven’t
heard about such plans?
QE: I was reading
about the front-page commentary in the Vatican newspaper
L'Osservatore Romano that took the Copenhagen summit to task
over its "nihilism,"
and consequent emphasis on population control
and de-industrialisation. The article quoted Ettore Gotti Tedeschi,
who is the President of the Vatican Bank as stating that;
"Nihilistic thought, with its
rejection of any objective truth and values causes serious damage
when applied to economics."
Tedeschi recalled as an example the
"disastrous consequences" of Malthus' argument that population
growth causes poverty, as well as the theory that the economy is
morally autonomous, which he said has led to an
"overly consumerist and materialistic"
mentality. He went on to say that, when
applied to environmental issues,
"even more serious damage."
In this case it leads to the attempt
"to solve climate problems - where
much confusion reigns - through
lowering the birth rate and
de-industrialization, rather than through the promotion of
values that lead the individual to his original dignity."
Interviewer: In regards to Tedeschi’s statement opposing
the lowering of the birth-rate…do you believe that there is a
problem of over-population in the world?
QE: Firstly, what do you mean by
over-population? What standard do you apply in reaching a conclusion
there are too many people? Do you apply the criteria of (a) the
world’s ability to produce enough food to feed everyone or (b) the
ability of each individual country to feed its people?
If we apply criterion (a) then we
apparently do not have over-population in the world as the world has
the capability to produce enough food to feed a far larger
population of people. If on the other hand we apply criterion (b)
then there are a number of countries in the world that lack this
ability for various reasons.
Then of course if we apply a
different criterion, that of a “standard of living”, then we can
come to a different conclusion depending on what is meant by
“standard of living”. What standard do we apply? Do we apply
standard in the US or perhaps Europe, or maybe the standard in China
What is wrong with the standard
of living of some herdsman in Africa living a nomadic lifestyle?
They have no need of electricity and all the mod-cons that rely on
electricity. What is wrong with the standard of living of an Amazon
Indian living a simple lifestyle on what the jungle provides?
Whose standard do we apply?
So what standard do we apply? Do
we allow the controllers of Capital like the Rothschilds and
Rockefellers to set the standard? What God given right have they
been given to set the standard especially taking into consideration
it has been these types of people that have contributed greatly to
many of the world’s problems.
The whole world
over-population myth is a propaganda exercise created by
people with a Master Plan
Interviewer: Do you believe that there is an optimum world
population and if so what would it be?
QE: It is something for each individual
country to figure out, not some over-paid and well-fed controller of
Capital or Global Bureaucrat.
Now every country should have the
ability to feed its own; this includes the ability to put aside
surplus to see them through periods of unsettled seasons that would
affect their food production. If a country has this ability it would
be logical to conclude it does not have a population problem.
Interviewer: I would have to assume that you do not
believe the world has an over-population problem. Would I be
QE: The problem is that over-population
catastrophists have been predicting doom and gloom for
centuries. Now before I go further I would I to quote the following:
"What most frequently meets our view (and occasions complaint), is
our teeming population: our numbers are burdensome to the world,
which can hardly supply us from its natural elements; our wants grow
more and more keen, and our complaints more bitter in all mouths,
whilst Nature fails in affording us her usual sustenance. In very
deed, pestilence, and famine, and wars, and earthquakes have to be
regarded as a remedy for nations, as the means of pruning the
luxuriance of the human race."
quote did not come from Thomas Malthus, whose
Essay on Population in the late
eighteenth century is the seminal work to which much of the modern
concern about overpopulation can be traced. It did not come from
Botero, a sixteenth-century Italian whose work anticipated many of
the arguments advanced by Malthus two centuries later. Neither is it
is not found in the more modern catastrophist works such as
The Limits to Growth
and Beyond the Limits.
quotation was penned by Tertullian, a resident of the city of
Carthage in the second century AD, when the population of the world
was about 190 million, or only three to four percent of what it is
today. And the fear of overpopulation did not begin with Tertullian
as I understand that similar concerns were expressed in the writings
of Plato and Aristotle in the fourth century B.C., as well as in the
teachings of Confucius in the sixth century B.C.
facts show that the world has experienced
population expansion that began in the eighteenth century resulting
in a six fold increase in population over the next 200 years most
people fail to realise that the six fold increase in world
population was dwarfed by the eighty-fold increase in world output.
As real incomes rose, people were able to live healthier lives.
Infant mortality rates plummeted and life expectancies soared.
If we look back to 1900 the
average world life expectancy was about 30 years, but in 1993 it was
just over 65 years so over a period of ninety years life expectancy
Now the most startling revolution in the 20th
century was one of health. Where a century ago, almost any disease
could kill someone in a matter of days, these diseases are now
routinely cured. Where once someone could hope to live into their
60s, people now routinely live well into the 70s, 80s, and even 90s.
I believe that the political economist
Nicholas Eberstadt sums it
up nicely when he stated that it is not that people
"reproduce like bunnies"
rather that they
"no longer die like flies."
It is not that people
"reproduce like bunnies" rather that they "no longer die
While we are still bombarded with propaganda from
the over-population catastrophists they fail to inform people
that presently more than 80 countries have achieved what is known as
below replacement fertility, the point at which women are having so
few children, generally thought to be below 2.1 children per woman,
that countries are no longer replacing themselves. The UN predicts
that every nation on earth, with the exception of a few African
nations, will reach below replacement fertility within the next
Interviewer: I never knew that.
People also fail to realise while population
growth peaked at 2.1 percent per year in the late 1960s it has
declined to its present rate of 1.14 percent. There is no doubt that
this trend will continue since, according to the latest information
supplied by the World Health Organization, the total fertility rates
- the number of births per woman - declined from 4.5 in 1970 to just
3.3 in 1990. That is exactly fifty percent of the way toward a
fertility rate of 2.1 which would eventually bring population growth
to a halt. It is interesting to note that presently  the
current World Total Fertility Rate is now 2.58 so the “population
explosion” has begun to fizzle.
a UK publication, recently had an interesting article on
below replacement fertility that in part stated:
“Today’s fall in fertility is both very large and
very fast. Poor countries are racing through the same demographic
transition as rich ones, starting at an earlier stage of development
and moving more quickly. The transition from a rate of five to that
of two, which took 130 years to happen in Britain - from 1800 to
1930 - took just 20 years - from 1965 to 1985 - in South Korea.
Mothers in developing countries today can expect to have three
children. Their mothers had six. In some countries the speed of
decline in the fertility rate has been astonishing. In Iran, it
dropped from seven in 1984 to 1.9 in 2006 - and to just 1.5 in
Tehran. That is about as fast as social change
Interviewer: So it looks like there really isn’t any
so-called population problem?
OVER-POPULATION IS A MYTH
QE: Well before
I go further I should explain that the term total fertility rate is
used to describe the total number of children the average women in a
population is likely to throughout her life. Associated with total
fertility rate is the concept of replacement rate. The replacement
rate is the number of children each woman needs to have to maintain
current population levels or what is known as zero population
growth. In developed countries, the necessary replacement rate is
about 2.1. Since replacement can not occur if a child does not grow
to maturity and have their own offspring, the need for the extra
point one child - a 5% buffer - per woman is due to the potential
for death and those who choose or are unable to have children. In
less developed countries, the replacement rate is around 2.3 due to
higher childhood and adult death rates.
You understand what I am saying?
QE: Now referring back to your question. I
believe I would disagree with you on that. I just mention that the
world appears to be heading for a birth-rate that well lead to a
decline in population. What people fail to realise is that if
birth rates fall too far below replacement levels this is going to
create very serious problems leading to a rapidly aging population
that turns the demographic pyramid on its head.
If birth rates fall below
replacement levels then this is a recipe for social
disaster as many economies will be able to afford to
support the older people
this map of the world and you well get a better understanding of the
Now the statistics used here are
a few years out of date but they serve the purpose for the subject
we are discussing.
Now the countries highlighted in
red have fertility rates of less then two which places them below
replacement, the countries highlighted in yellow have a fertility
rate of about two which places them on or below the replacement
rate. The countries highlighted in green have a fertility rate of
three to four while the countries highlighted in blue have a
fertility rate of four or more. While most of the countries
highlighted in blue fall within the African continent people should
remember that these African countries have (a) a high infant
mortality rate and (b) many of these countries have an Aids problem
that is predicted to decimate many of them.
Interviewer: Yes I comprehend the point you made. But
surely with the right economic policies and financial incentives
people could be encouraged to at least have enough children to keep
the population stable?
QE: One would hope so. I would like to add
that is what the economic policies contained in Social Survivalism
are designed to do. But encouraging couples to have larger families
aside, there appears to be a much more serious problem that has to
do with the apparent rise in both female and male infertility rates
in the industrialised countries. I should point out when I say
infertility I mean the inability to become pregnant or the ability
to father a child.
J. Rapp MD one of the worlds leading Paediatric Allergists and
Environmental Physicians says that by 2045 only 21% of the men on
the entire planet will be fertile.
By 2045 only 21% of the men on the
entire planet will be fertile.
Rapp MD "Is This Your Childs World" page 501
infertility rates? What countries are affected?
QE: I already mention Europe but the problem
is also affecting North America, Australia and also New Zealand. As
I mentioned it was predicted that within fifty years males in Europe
will be sterile and I would assume the same outcome in North
America, Australia and New Zealand.
I remember reading an article a
while ago that pointed out that the ratio of male to female children
being born is also being affected. Apparently the number of male
children being born is starting to decline compared to the number of
female children born. Now something is drastically wrong and yet the
problem is completely ignored.
If a farmer was facing this same
decline in fertility amongst his livestock alarm bells would be
going off and the government would be spending money on
investigating the cause of the problem.
Interviewer: These facts surprise to say the least. But is
it really as bad as you put it?
QE: Let’s look at some facts to give an idea
on the seriousness of the developing situation:
Journal of Urology 2004: Volume 2 Number 1
had an article entitled “The sperm count has been decreasing
steadily for many years in Western industrialised countries: Is
there an endocrine basis for this decrease?” which states
"If the decrease in sperm counts were
to continue at the rate that it is then
in a few years we will witness widespread male infertility.”
An article in the
New Scientist [January 1998]
entitled "Confused fish" states;
"...children of older mothers having boys of lower fertility because
of damage to mitochondrial DNA, according to Justin St. John of the
Sheffield Jessop Hospital for Women."
A documentary produced by the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation entitled "The Disappearing Male" stated
that the quality of sperm is declining and that
cent of the sperm produced by a healthy male is DNA-damaged.”
“LONDON. NEW research has confirmed fears that men are becoming less
fertile. The study shows a halving of sperm production in 10 years.
Scientists made the discovery after post-mortem studies of mostly
middle-aged men from Finland who died between 1981 and 1991. During
that time the proportion of men who had the normal biological
processes leading to sperm production fell from 56.4 per cent to
26.9 per cent. During the same period there was a significant
increase in the number of cases of ‘spermatogenic arrest’, or men
who did not have any mature sperm cells. The incidence of complete
spermatogenic arrest rose from 8 per cent to 20 per cent, and of
partial spermatogenic arrest from 31.4 per cent to 48.5 per cent.
The weight of the men's testicles had also diminished during the 10
years. Earlier studies had already indicated a long-term lowering of
both sperm, in quantity and quality. A British study last year
showed that men born in the 1970s produced on average 25 per cent
fewer sperm than those born in the 1950s. An annual decline of 2 per
cent suggested that boys born 60 years from now could be infertile.
“Research into declining male fertility was controversial because
the results relied on sperm counts made on semen samples, which are
notoriously unreliable. But researchers led by Jarkko Parjarinen of
the University of Helsinki avoided the problem by examining
We stffl tissue from the testes,
taken at post-mortem from 528 middle-aged Finnish men who died
suddenly in either 1981 or 1991. Among the men who died in 1981,
56.4 per cent had normal, healthy sperm production. By 1991,
however, this figure had dropped dramatically to 26.9 per cent. The
average weight of the men’s testes decreased over the decade, while
the proportion of useless, fibrous tissue increased, says a paper
from the Finnish team in the 4 January issue of the British Medical
"The average sperm count of men may have fallen by as much as 29 per
cent over the past 12 years, according to a large new UK study."
“A survey of 1,350 sperm donors in Paris found a decline in sperm
counts by around 2% each year over the past 23 years, with younger
men having the poorest-quality semen”
“Results from a study of sperm counts among men attending Scottish
fertility clinics between 1989 and 2002 were announced recently at
the fourth joint meeting of the Association of Clinical
Embryologists and the British Fertility Society, 5-6 January 2004.
The SPIN (Semen Parameters in the Northeast) study measured sperm
counts in more than 16,000 semen samples from over 7,500 men
attending the Aberdeen Fertility Centre. They found that among men
with sperm counts within the normal range (above 20 million sperm
per millilitre), the average sperm count had fallen over 14 years
from around 87 million sperm per ml to 62 [million] sperm per ml.
Although still well within normal parameters, this decrease
represented a 29% drop in average sperm levels over this period.”
“Today the numbers of infertile men are much higher than it was
during the last decade. The recent Male Fertility Study, compiled by
Norwich Union Healthcare indicates that 2.5 million British men are
affected. It is estimated that one in 10 male has infertility
problem due to low sperm count.”
“In a well-respected study published in Environmental Health
Perspectives, an American reproductive epidemiologist named Shanna
Swan published work confirming that sperm counts are dropping by
about 1.5 percent a year in the United States and 3 percent in
Europe and Australia, though they do not appear to be falling in the
less-developed world. This may not sound like a lot, but
cumulatively - like compound interest - a drop of 1 percent has a
“The quality of New Zealand men’s sperm has halved in two decades –
the most dramatic drop of any Western country. . . A gathering of
international fertility researchers in Brisbane [were] told the
sperm count carried by the average New Zealand man decreased from
about 110 million to 50 million per millilitre between 1987 and
While falling fertility among
males is happening there are other factors arising that also impact
In an article in The Journal of the
American Medical Association
researchers from the World Resources Institute in Washington, DC,
show that the number of male births in several industrialized
nations has declined significantly in the past few decades. Devra
Lee Davis and colleagues examined data from Denmark, the
Netherlands, Canada and the US, and found similar declines in the
sex ratio, or the number of male births per female births, in these
Damaged sperm have been
linked to a 300% increase in testicular cancer - a form of cancer
that affects young men in their 20s and 30s.
The number of boys born
with penis abnormalities and genital defects has increased by 200%
in the past two decades.
Boys have a higher
incidence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, learning
disabilities, Tourett's syndrome, cerebral palsy and dyslexia.
Boys are four times as
likely to be autistic.
Now all the
facts I have just given are easily verified.
"If the decrease in sperm
counts were to continue at the rate that it is then in a
few decades we will witness widespread male
Interviewer: I must say
I had no idea on how serious this problem of infertility is.
QE: Well there is also the problem of female
infertility. It is estimated that female reproductive problems
account for 40 percent of all infertility cases facing couples.
course it has been the trend for women to wait until their thirties
before starting a family; this of course reduces their chances of
conceiving as a woman’s fertility peaks around the age of
19-24, and generally declines after 30.
Numerous studies have documented
the increased risk for miscarriage and increase in infertility as
women age. As women age the incidence of chromosomally abnormal eggs
increases dramatically; poor egg quality results in poor embryo
quality, which reduces the chances of becoming pregnant and having a
successful outcome. Also male children born to older women tend to
have a lower fertility because of damage to mitochondrial DNA.
It is also interesting to note
that male children born to older women tend to have a lower
fertility because of damage to mitochondrial DNA.
QE: Mitochondrial DNA
is maternally inherited - inherited from the mother
Interviewer: You mentioned in the section "Domination:
Obsession & Power " that fluoride has been shown to cause hormone
disruption and low sperm counts. Do you believe
that fluoride is
playing a major part in the decline of fertility?
QE: Firstly, it should be explained that
there are two types of fluoride. Calcium fluoride, which appears
naturally in underground water supplies, is relatively benign.
However, too much consumed daily can lead to bone or dental
problems. Calcium is used to counter fluoride poisoning when it
occurs. This redeeming factor indicates that the calcium in
naturally formed calcium fluoride neutralizes much of fluoride's
On the other hand, the type of
fluorides, fluorosilicate acid, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium
fluoride, added to water supplies and toothpaste, etc, are
industrial waste products of the nuclear, aluminium, and now mostly
the phosphate industries. Now when I use the term fluoride it covers
all the three types that occur as waste products from the various
industries just mentioned.
While both types of fluoride, the
naturally occurring calcium fluoride and the industrial waste
fluorides all contain fluoride, they are in fact totally different
chemical compounds, therefore the effects on the human body will be
different. In fact it has been claimed that industrial waste
fluoride is 85 times more toxic than natural occurring calcium
fluoride. This was proven in a scientific study
done some years ago called "Comparative Toxicity of Fluorine
Compounds." After this study was completed, this statement was made:
"…this meant a daily intake of approximately 40
mg/kg of fluorine from sodium fluoride as compared with 3400 mg/kg
from calcium fluoride. Therefore, from the standpoint of lethal
concentrations and amount of fluorine necessary to cause growth
inhibition, wide differences in toxicity of some of the compounds of
fluoride were noted."
There is strong evidence that
fluoride is a contributor but I believe that there are a number of
other contributing factors playing a part.
Interviewer: You say strong evidence…I gather you have
done research into this subject.
QE: Yes I have over the last several years.
Interviewer: Could you give some highlights from your
investigation to back up your claims?
QE: Sure…no problem.
following is an extract from a document released by the (US)
National Federation of Federal Employees entitled "WHY EPA'S
HEADQUARTERS UNION OF SCIENTISTS OPPOSES FLUORIDATION":
“In 1995, Mullenix and co-workers
showed that rats given fluoride in drinking water at levels that
give rise to plasma fluoride concentrations in the range seen in
humans suffer neurotoxic effects that vary according to when the
rats were given the fluoride - as adult animals, as young animals,
or through the placenta before birth. Those exposed before birth
were born hyperactive and remained so throughout their lives. Those
exposed as young or adult animals displayed depressed activity. Then
in 1998, Guan and co-workers
gave doses similar to those used by the Mullenix research group to
try to understand the mechanism(s) underlying the effects seen by
the Mullenix group. Guan's group found that several key chemicals in
the brain - those that form the membrane of brain cells - were
substantially depleted in rats given fluoride, as compared to those
who did not get fluoride.”
The article then goes on to state
some startling facts:
support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies
that show decreases in I.Q. in children
who get more fluoride than
the control groups of children in each study. These
decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points
in children aged 8 to 13 years.
“Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride's
interference with the function of the
brain's pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which,
among other roles, mediates the body's internal clock, doing such
things as governing the onset of
puberty. Jennifer Luke
shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and
inhibits its production of melatonin.
She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier
onset of sexual maturity, an effect
reported in humans as well in 1956, as part of the
Kingston/Newburgh study, which is discussed below. In fluoridated
Newburgh, young girls experienced
earlier onset of menstruation (on average, by six months) than girls
in non-fluoridated Kingston.”
years ago, the average American girl reached puberty at age 17 but
presently the average age is below 10 - and dropping with every
month that passes.
is not only the US that has experienced a lowering in the age of
girls attending puberty at an increasingly younger age. The magazine
New Zealand Listener had an article "Growth spurt" which stated
"that the average age of puberty
has crept down" in New Zealand and
that: "According to the Ministry
of Health, puberty starts for New
Zealand girls some time between nine and 14."
course there is the problem of precocious puberty which involves a
"growing number of young children beginning
puberty early. They are getting
breasts, beginning menstruation and
growing sexual hair as young as three or four-years-old, some even
the average person this may not sound all that much to get worried
about, but taking into consideration that a woman has only so many
fertile years it would be logical to conclude that the earlier that
a female reaches puberty – the beginning of fertility – the earlier
in life her fertility will start declining.
on the subject of female reproductive health; State University of
New York researchers in the USA found more premature births in
fluoridated than non-fluoridated upstate New York communities,
according to a presentation made at the American Public Health
Association’s annual meeting on November 9, 2009
research document entitled "Influence of Fluoride Intake on
Reproduction in Mice" by H. H. Messer, et al, the researchers state
"Female mice were fed a low fluoride diet (0.1 to 0.3 ppm fluoride)
plus drinking water containing 0, 50, 100 or 200 ppm fluoride as
sodium fluoride. Toxic effects of fluoride were evidenced by
retarded growth and impaired
reproduction in mice with intakes of 100 and 200 ppm fluoride,
and the higher level resulted in a high mortality rate (50% deaths
in 5 weeks). Mice with a low fluoride intake developed signs of
fluorine deficiency, with a progressive
development of infertility in two successive generations. Growth
rate and litter size were not affected by the low fluoride intake,
but the percentage of mice producing litters was lower, and the age
at delivery of the first litter was greater than in mice receiving
50 ppm fluoride."
group of researchers
“Decrease in male reproductive
potential was observed in rats and rabbits after exposure to
fluoride (Kumar & Susheela 1994, 1995; Narayana & Chinoy 1994; Zhang
et al. 2000; Collins et al. 2001). Besides
decreased sperm count, sperm motility,
the sperm viability and HOS sperm coiling percentages were also
adversely affected in NaF-exposed rats. These changes were
greater in rats exposed to higher dose of NaF. The decreased
testicular steroidogenic enzyme activity levels may lead to
decreased steroidogenesis in experimental rats, which in turn may
suppress the reproductive activities in the male rats."
much evidence is there to condemn fluoride as dangerous and it does
in fact impact on human fertility we can not lay the blame for all
the rise of infertility in the industrialised world at the feet of
this chemical. A Reuter’s article
in April 2009, "First European evidence for earlier female puberty"
"NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Girls are beginning
to grow breasts at an earlier age, and starting their periods sooner
too, new research from Denmark shows.
"The findings back up recent studies that found
earlier breast development in American girls over the past several
years, but still can't answer the question of why this might be
happening, Dr. Lise Aksglaede of Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, the
lead researcher on the study, told Reuters Health.
'At this point, we don't know what is happening, and that is also
what worries us.’
"Aksglaede noted that she and her
colleagues have seen an increasing number of girls with precocious
puberty, meaning sexual maturation beginning before age eight."
be pointed out that Norway does not add fluoride to its drinking
water, although some sources of drinking water does have naturally
concentrations ranging with time from 1.4 to 2.4 ppm, the
authorities in the Nordic countries recommend the use of fluoride
toothpaste twice a day.
Interviewer: What other
chemicals cause or have been implemented in impairing fertility?
believe that one of the main causes of concern is a number of
chemicals used in a large range of plastic items. One group of
chemicals are called phthalates. [Pronounced "THAL-ates"]
Phthalates, or phthalate esters, are esters of phthalic acid which
are oily, colourless liquids that have been used as plasticizers -
added to plastics to increase their flexibility, transparency,
durability, and longevity. These chemicals are found in many
thousands of plastic items from products as vinyl flooring and seat
coverings, raincoats, shower curtains, garden hoses, a variety of
hospital equipment, children’s toys and items such as teething rings
for children. They are even used in sex toys, in the coatings of
pharmaceuticals to create "enteric" coatings and in the plastic
linings of food and beverage cans. Phthalates are also used to “fix”
scents in products such as lotions, shampoos, soaps, and cosmetics.
There are numerous types of
phthalates used. I believe there are about two dozen common
phthalates used, eight-ten phthalate aka 810P, butylbenzyl phthalate
aka BBP, di-n-butyl phthalate aka DBP, diethyl phthalate aka DEP,
diisobutyl phthalate aka DIBP, diisohexyl phthalate aka DIHP,
diisononyl phthalate aka DINP, dimethyl phthalate aka DMP, and
dipropyl phthalate aka DPP, and the list goes on.
Another dangerous chemical used
in a number of plastics is called Bisphenol A, which is commonly
abbreviated as BPA. Unlike phthalates, which are found in soft
plastic products, BPA is found in hard plastics like baby bottles
and plastic containers such as plastic water bottles. It is also
used in the plastic linings of food and beverage cans.
Phthalates are easily released
into the environment because there is no covalent bond between the
phthalates and plastics in which they are mixed. As plastics age and
break down the release of phthalates accelerates. But what is not
generally known by the public is that phthalates are Endocrine
Disrupting Chemicals aka EDC’s which interfere with the function of
sex hormone receptors in humans.
Hundreds of animal studies have
demonstrated that phthalates can damage the liver, kidneys, lungs
and reproductive system, especially the developing testes. They can
be absorbed through the skin, inhaled as fumes, ingested when they
contaminate food or when children bite or suck on toys, and are
inadvertently directly administered to patients from PVC medical
As stated in the 2002 “Aggregate
Exposures to Phthalates in Humans” report:
“Reports in the scientific
literature over the past 10-15 years have raised additional
concerns. Developing organisms are uniquely vulnerable to phthalate
exposures, and in particular, the developing male reproductive tract
appears to be the most sensitive organ system.
Abnormal development of the testes,
penis, and other components of the male reproductive tract occurs at
levels of exposure that are hundreds or thousands of times lower
than those necessary to cause damage in adults.”
In animal tests, DBP - dibutyl
phthalate - has been shown to produce detrimental effects. The US
based Environmental Working Group,
a non-profit environmental research organization, found that:
“DBP is a developmental and reproductive toxin
that in lab animals causes a broad range of birth defects and
lifelong reproductive impairment in males [when] exposed in utero
and shortly after birth. DBP damages
the testes, prostate gland, epididymus, penis, and seminal vesicles.
These effects persist throughout the animal's life."
In fact men who enjoy chugging
down a can of beer or sucking on bottled water might be feeling the
after effects in the bedroom if what a group of Chinese researchers
found is correct.
Interviewer: What do
QE: As I mentioned before that the plastic
linings of food and beverage cans contain BPA. Researchers in China
conducted a five year study of 634 male workers from four Chinese
factories where exposure to BPA was significant. Researchers then
compared the incidence of sexual dysfunction among these men with a
control group who did not have workplace exposure to BPA. The
result: The men who were exposed to the BPA were four times more
likely to suffer from erectile dysfunction and seven times as likely
to have difficulty with ejaculation. Moreover, it didn't take long
periods of exposure for the sexual problems to kick in. Indeed, men
who worked in the factories only a matter of months appeared to be
as affected as those who spent years being exposed to the chemical.
I wonder if this is the reason for the
noticeable increase in advertising offering men the opportunity to
pop a pill to help them with erectile dysfunction, a disorder that
has become one of the many epidemics in our new plastic world.
Interviewer: So you are saying that food stored in plastic
can becomes contaminated with the chemicals contained in plastics?
QE: An interesting article "Are Plastic Food
and Beverage Containers Safe?"
by James Ferrel mentions a study released in 2003 by Croatian
"In 2003 a group of Croatian scientists reported
that phthalates in plastics dissolved in various solutions. They
used a variety of plastic items, including plastic food containers.
After 10 days of sitting in distilled water, an average of 55.4 mg/
of phthalates from each kilogram of plastic ‘migrated’ into the
water. To a lesser degree the phthalates from plastics dissolved
into acetic acid 3% (44.4 mg/kg) and 10% ethyl alcohol (32.3
then points out:
"Fatty foods in plastic containers are even more
problematic, as fats are absorbed differently and carry their
phthalate solvents into our bodies more easily. Phthalates
bio-accumulate because of their fat solubility. Phthalates
concentrate in such fat organs in our bodies such as brains,
prostates, testicles, ovaries, breasts and, unfortunately, breast
milk. (The other popular food alternatives for infants are worse.
Commercial baby formulas are loaded with the manmade phthalates.)"
It is also interesting to note
that a study examining the association between employment in the
plastics industry and infertility found higher incidences of
infertility among women working in the plastics industry.
Not only can phthalates
apparently affect women’s fertility but if expectant mothers are
exposed to this chemical during pregnancy, they may then feminize
their unborn male babies.
A BBC News article
last November covering research at the University of Rochester in
the UK showed that two types of phthalates can affect boys play
behaviour and can make boys more like girls. Elizabeth Salter-Green,
head of the British group CHEMTrust, called the chemicals
“true gender benders”,
and said parents should be concerned about the impact on their
children. The news item stated that there
"are many different types and some
mimic the female hormone oestrogen."
"Phthalates have the ability to disrupt hormones"
on the developing brain, by knocking out
the action of the male hormone
Telegraph, a UK publication, also had an article on the above
research and stated: “Scientists at the University of Rochester in
New York discovered that boys born to women exposed to phthalates
had smaller penises and other feminisation of the genitals.”
One must wonder what researchers
would find if they investigated the relationship of the impact of
these chemicals in regards to sexual orientation in males and
whether there was a connection between these chemicals and what
appears to be the increasing incidence of homosexuality; it would be
logical to conclude that feminised males would be more susceptible
to a homosexual lifestyle.
Interviewer: So you
think that phthalates could affect a child’s sexual orientation as
QE: I suspect there could very well be a
number of phthalates have a feminising effort on boys there is a
growing body of scientific evidence suggesting that the other
chemical I previously mentioned Bisphenol A, commonly referred to as
BPA, is masculinising girls.
the latest studies involving BPA reported by
"In the study of 249 pregnant women, the first to
examine the effects of BPA on children's behavior, researchers found
that girls whose mothers had the highest levels of BPA during
pregnancy were more aggressive and hyperactive at age 2 than other
girls. Findings appear today in the journal Environmental Health
"Girls were more likely to be aggressive if their
mothers had high levels of BPA - an estrogen-like chemical used in
many consumer products - early in pregnancy or at about 16 weeks,
the study says."
While BPA apparently makes young females more
aggressive it is interesting to note that the above study showed
of increased depression and anxiousness among
Interviewer: How long has BPA been used in plastics?
QE: I believe that BPA was invented 1891 but
it wasn't until the 1930’s that scientists discovered that BPA was
an artificial estrogen and its use soon after began as a
pharmaceutical hormone. Another drug, diethylstilbestrol aka DES was
invented in 1938 which was a stronger estrogen mimic then BPA; in
1941 the US FDA approved DES which resulted in BPA being shelved. I
believe in was in the early 1950’s that it was discovered that
adding BPA to certain plastics gave them strength and thus BPA once
again had a commercial use.
It should be noted that BPA has
been suspected of being hazardous to humans since the 1930s and yet
it appears that this was kept from the public’s attention until
recent times when independent researchers learnt of BPA’s insidious
influence upon the human body.
Some type 3 plastics may leach
Some type 7 plastics may leach
Interviewer: You say
“insidious influence” could you elaborate briefly?
QE: I will give you a few highlights from
what researchers have discovered which you can easily verify:
Low doses of the environmental contaminant
bisphenol A (BPA), widely used to make many plastics found in food
storage containers, including feeding bottles for infants, can
impair brain function, leading to learning disabilities and
age–related neurodegenerative diseases, according to Yale
researchers and colleagues.
"These data heighten concerns about the
potential long–term consequences of human BPA exposure,"
said Neil J. MacLusky of Helen Hayes Hospital,
who conducted the study with Csaba Leranth, M.D., professor in the
Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences and in
the Department of Neurobiology at Yale School of Medicine. Leranth's
group, which also included Tibor Hajszan, M.D., a research scientist
at Yale, found that low doses of BPA in
female rats inhibit estrogen–induction of synaptic connections in
the hippocampus, an area of the brain involved with expression of
sexually differentiated behaviours, as well as with formation and
retention of memory.
Hugh Taylor, MD, professor and chief of the reproductive
endocrinology section at Yale University School of Medicine and his
co-workers at Yale injected pregnant mice with a low dose of BPA on
pregnancy days 9 to 16. After the mice gave birth, the scientists
analyzed the uterus of female offspring and extracted DNA.
They found that BPA exposure during
pregnancy had a lasting effect on one of the genes that is
responsible for uterine development and subsequent fertility in both
mice and humans (HOXA10). Furthermore, these changes in the
offspring's uterine DNA resulted in a permanent increase in estrogen
The contaminant bisphenol-A (BPA)--widely used to make many plastics
found in food storage containers and dental products - can have
long-term effects in female development, according to a recent study
by Yale School of Medicine researchers. . . Taylor explained that if
pregnant women are exposed to the estrogen-like properties found in
BPA, it may impact female reproductive tract development and
the future fertility of female foetuses
the mother is carrying. In addition to this new link to
fertility and reproductive health, previous findings by Csaba
Leranth, M.D., also in Yale Ob/Gyn, found that low doses of BPA in
female rats inhibited estrogen induction in the brain. This can lead
to learning impairment and, in old age, the onset of
neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease.
Bisphenol A, a chemical widely used in
plastics and known to cause reproductive problems in the offspring
of pregnant mice exposed to it, also has been found to retard the
growth of follicles of adult mice and hinder their production of
steroid hormones, researchers report. Their study is the first to
show that chronic exposure to low doses
of BPA can impair the growth and function of adult reproductive
cells. The researchers will describe their findings this month
at the annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Reproduction.
A healthy, mature follicle, called an antral follicle, includes a
single egg cell surrounded by layers of cells and fluid which
support the egg and produce steroid hormones, said University of
Illinois veterinary biosciences professor Jodi Flaws, who led the
study with graduate student Jackye Peretz.
the only follicles that are capable of ovulating and so if they
don't grow properly they're not going to ovulate and there could be
fertility issues," Flaws said.
"These follicles also make sex
steroid hormones, and so if they don't grow properly you're not
going to get proper amounts of these hormones."
Such hormones are essential for reproduction,
"but they're also required for healthy bones,
a healthy heart and a healthy mood."
When it comes to Bisphenol A (BPA) exposure
from polycarbonate plastic bottles, it's not whether the container
is new or old but the liquid's temperature that has the most impact
on how much BPA is released, according to University of Cincinnati (UC)
scientists. Scott Belcher, PhD, and his team found when the same new
and used polycarbonate drinking bottles were exposed to boiling hot
water, BPA, an environmental estrogen, was
released 55 times more rapidly than
before exposure to hot water.
"Inspired by questions from the climbing community, we went directly
based on how consumers use these plastic water
bottles and showed that the only big difference in exposure levels
revolved around liquid temperature: Bottles used for up to nine
years released the same amount of BPA as new bottles."
new study from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) researchers
found that participants who drank for a week from polycarbonate
bottles - the popular, hard-plastic drinking bottles and baby
bottles - showed a two-thirds increase in their urine of the
chemical bisphenol A (BPA). Exposure to BPA, used in the manufacture
of polycarbonate and other plastics,
has been shown to interfere with reproductive development in animals
and has been linked with cardiovascular disease and diabetes in
humans. "We found that
drinking cold liquids from polycarbonate bottles for just one week
increased urinary BPA levels by more than two-thirds. If you heat
those bottles, as is the case with baby bottles, we would expect the
levels to be considerably higher. This would be of concern since
infants may be particularly susceptible to BPA's
endocrine-disrupting potential," said
Karin B. Michels, associate professor of epidemiology at HSPH and
Harvard Medical School and senior author of the study.
In 1988, Patricia Hunt was conducting a routine experiment in her
lab at Case Western Reserve University when she ran into an
unforeseen complication. All of a sudden, the geneticist noticed
that 40 percent of the eggs of mice in her control group - the group
she was not experimenting on - had defects in chromosome behaviour,
the kind of defects that can lead to
genetic errors like Down syndrome in humans, and that normally
occur in just 1 to 2 percent of all mouse eggs. . . Ultimately, Hunt
and her colleagues traced the problem back to the plastic cages the
mice inhabited. Just before the spike in egg abnormalities, they
discovered, a lab technician had accidentally washed the cages with
a harsh detergent that caused the plastic to begin breaking down.
Researchers at Yale School of Medicine now have a clearer
understanding of why synthetic estrogens such as those found in many
widely-used plastics have a detrimental effect on a developing
foetus, cause fertility problems,
as well as vaginal and breast cancers. . . Pregnant women are
frequently exposed to other similar substances with estrogen-like
properties, such as Bisphenol-A (BPA). BPA is found in common
household plastics and has recently been linked to long-term
fertility problems. Like DES, these other substances may also impact
female reproductive tract development and
the future fertility of female foetuses.
also interesting to note that an association between BPA and an
increased risk of miscarriage has also been found.
BPA exposure is linked to an error in cell division called
aneuploidy, which causes 10-20% of all birth defects in people,
including Down Syndrome. In studies with mice, BPA causes
aneuploidy even at extremely low
Now I should explain that aneuploidy
is an error in cell division that results in cells having the wrong
number of chromosomes. In some cases there is a missing chromosome,
while in others an extra. Most cases of aneuploidy result in
spontaneous miscarriage of the foetus, but those babies that survive
to birth after aneuploidy are born with birth defects.
Interviewer: Surely with all the evidence available
manufacturers using BPA would be looking for a safe alternative and
be warning consumers of the dangers?
QE: Maybe so in a perfect world. For a
start the global production of bisphenol A in 2003 was estimated to
be over 2 million tonnes
and that the amount of BPA used in the US is equivalent to six
pounds per habitant per year
thus the production of BPA is a multi-billion dollar industry and
its continued production and use is supported by some very powerful
interests. Of course the manufacturers of BPA and those with a
vested interest in its use have responded to concern about health
risks by criticizing the evidence as controversial, limited and
Take for example an article that appeared in
The Washington Post exposing how
big businesses interests were planning a strategy to counteract a
growing public concern over the dangers associated with BPA.
"According to internal
notes of a private meeting, obtained by The Washington Post,
frustrated industry executives huddled for hours Thursday trying to
figure out how to tamp down public concerns over the chemical
bisphenol A, or BPA. The notes said the executives are particularly
concerned about the views of young mothers, who often make
purchasing decisions for households and who are most likely to be
focused on health concerns. . . Industry representatives weighed a
range of ideas, including ‘using
fear tactics [e.g. 'Do you want to have access to baby food
anymore?' as well as giving control back to consumers (e.g. you have
a choice between the more expensive product that is frozen or fresh
or foods packaged in cans) as ways to dissuade people from choosing
BPA-free packaging,' the notes said...The attendees
estimated it would cost $500,000 to craft a message for a public
relations campaign, according to the notes.
‘Their 'holy grail' spokesperson would
be a 'pregnant young mother who would be willing to speak around the
country about the benefits of BPA,'
the notes said."
Independent Science Shows Harmful
Effects from BPA
while Industry claims there is none
Interviewer: Are you claiming that vested interests are
hiding the dangers of BPA from the public…surely a number of people
would consider such a statement as outrageous?
QE: An outrageous statement…well to the
naïve person it may appear so, but if one has a understanding of how
all these big businesses are linked to those powerful elites pushing
for population reduction then it does not appear to sound all that
outrageous at all. Now whether or not there is a conspiracy on
behalf of these elites to cover up the impact of these estrogen type
chemicals I am unable to say with any certainty as I have not
researched that angle. But never-the-less one should not dismiss
such a possibility taking into account the links between the main
manufactures of BPA in the US such as, Bayer MaterialScience, Dow
Chemical Company, SABIC Innovative Plastics - formerly GE Plastics -
Hexion Specialty Chemicals, and Sunoco Chemicals and their link to
such organisations as the Council on Foreign Relations and the
Trilateral Commission; organisations that, as I have previously
stated, support and promote population reduction.
Now when we look at phthalates we find also that
the manufacturing of this group of chemicals is also a multibillion
dollar enterprise. If we look at Western Europe for example we find
that over one million tons of phthalates are produced there
Of course any talk of phthalates being dangerous to humans is
vigorously countered by vested interests in the manufacturing and
marketing of phthalates. A good example would be when researchers
discovered a link between prenatal exposure to the phthalates DEHP
and DBP. The European Council for Plasticisers and Intermediates,
aka ECPI, issued a press release stating that this research “claiming
to show prenatal exposure to DEHP and DBP has feminising effect on
young boys should be treated with
Interviewer: What is
the ECPI exactly?
QE: It is
a Brussels-based trade association representing the common interests
of European manufacturers of plasticisers. The ECPI's membership
consists of nine major European manufacturers such as
Evonik Oxeno GmbH,
ExxonMobil Chemical in Europe,
Perstorp Oxo AB. Of course it
should be realised that the ECPI is just a public relations front,
or if you wish to be blunt a propaganda organisation, for a much
larger trade body the CEFIC - the European Chemical Industry Council
- which represents the views and interests of the European chemical
industry at a European Union level.
a quick study of the seven major European manufacturers of
phthalates I just mentioned reveals that at least some of the top
executives and major share-holders in these companies have a close
relationship to such organisations as the Club of Rome, the Council
on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderberg
Group. Of course I have to emphasise again that these organisations
I just mention, the Club of Rome, the Council on Foreign Relations,
and the Trilateral Commission, are all obsessed with population
Interviewer: How extensive are these connections?
During my research I stumbled across a number of interesting
connections but as of yet I have not had the time to do an in-depth
Interviewer: Do you
intend to follow this up?
QE: If or
when I get the time I most probable will; at the moment though I
haven’t the time as I am involved in a number of other projects.
Interviewer: You stated that BPA apparently makes young
females more aggressive …now I’m a bit confused here. I thought that
the male hormone testosterone is usually associated with
aggression…can a compound that is estrogenic increase aggressiveness
QE: Although estrogen is often considered a
“female hormone,” it actually helps to “masculinise” the male brain
around the 11th and 12th weeks of pregnancy.
quotes Louann Brizendine, a neuropsychiatrist and author of the
book, “The Female Brain” on this subject:
“In the developing brain, timing
is everything.” Brizendine goes on to
say; “I'm worried that tiny
amounts of this stuff [BPA], given at just the wrong time, could
partly masculinise the female brain.”
Interviewer: But what you
have just stated would it be too far fetch to consider that man-made
chemicals could also be increasing the incidence of lesbianism?
QE: That is a very good point. I remember
stating in the "Questions & Answers: August 2007" that according to
research “polycystic ovarian
syndrome is twice as common in lesbians.”
When I was doing research into the impact of the various chemicals
used in plastics I remembered that “polycystic ovarian syndrome”
seem to play a role in lesbianism so I did a bit of checking and
discovered a few interesting facts that seemed to point to such a
Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (pronounced pah-lee-SIS-tik) is also
referred to as Polycystic Ovarian Disease and Polycystic Ovary
An association between BPA
exposure polycystic ovarian syndrome has been made by Dr. Hugh S.
Taylor, M.D., of Yale University, USA.
scientists found that women with polycystic ovarian syndrome had
higher serum levels of BPA relative to women with normal ovarian
function, and that there were positive correlations between BPA
concentrations and androgen levels (Takeuchi et al. 2006).
Taken in its totality, the range
of toxic effects linked to BPA is startlingly similar to the litany
of human health problems on the rise or common across the
population, including breast and prostate cancer, diabetes, obesity,
infertility, and polycystic ovarian syndrome (Myers 2007).
Regarding the link between polycystic
ovarian syndrome and lesbianism?
Researchers have found the first
evidence that a common cause of infertility in women is more
prevalent amongst lesbians than heterosexuals, and they suggest that
the biochemical disorder associated with the condition might
contribute to the women's sexual orientation. . . Polycystic ovarian
syndrome (PCOS) is the commonest cause of ovarian dysfunction in
women and is caused by an imbalance of sex hormones. One of the main
features of PCOS is hyperandrogenism [male steroid hormones in women
causing excess facial and body hair, deepening of the voice and loss
of breast tissue] and now that the researchers have discovered the
increased prevalence of PCOS amongst lesbian women they hypothesize
that hyperandrogenism could be contributing to the women's sexual
Researchers found that the
prevalence of PCO [polycystic ovaries] was 32% in heterosexual women
and 80% in lesbian women.
The term 'polycystic ovaries' describes the ovaries, as seen on
the ultrasound scan. Many women have ovaries that are polycystic,
but do not have any of the other symptoms or hormone findings as
Now I have mentioned a few studies done on the
connection between BPA and polycystic ovarian syndrome.
The connection between it all is just a matter of
connecting the dots. Well we know that BPA’s are gender benders and
we also know that BPA’s are linked to polycystic ovarian
syndrome and that the incidence of polycystic ovarian syndrome is
much higher among lesbian women. I believe a
strong case exists that lesbianism to a large degree is created due
to one or more chemical contaminants.
Interviewer: Do you have any idea on how widespread
polycystic ovarian syndrome is?
QE: According to the US based
leading cause of infertility and the most common hormone
disorder among women of childbearing age (15-45) Polycystic Ovary
Syndrome (PCOS) affects as many as 7 million women in the United
States alone." The Foundation also list
some of the symptoms associated with polycystic ovarian syndrome
Irregular menstrual cycles - Fewer periods than
normal or periods marked by heavy or excessive bleeding
Polycystic Ovary Syndrome inhibits a woman’s ability to form eggs in
a normal way, which may lead to an inability to conceive
Unwanted body or facial
hair growth - Because Polycystic Ovary Syndrome involves the excess
production of androgens, it can lead to thicker and darker facial
as well as increased hair growth on other parts of the body
Weight gain - Another common symptom of
Polycystic Ovary Syndrome is that women gain weight easily while
having difficulty taking it off
Another article this time in the
UK online magazine Healthy
“PCOS is the most common hormonal
disorder in women of childbearing age. Up to
one in four women in industrialised
countries has certain features of the condition and most of them
don’t even know it. Symptoms of PCOS typically start in puberty and
continue through adulthood, and can range from very mild to severe.”
Interviewer: You state a strong case exists that
lesbianism to a large degree is created due to one or more chemical
contaminants. Do you have any other evidence based on research to
add apart from the connection with
polycystic ovarian syndrome?
while ago I came across two interesting documents by the
Karolinska Institute in Stockholm,
Sweden. In one study using positron emission tomography the
researchers studied responses to a testosterone derivative in men's
sweat, called AND, and an
estrogen-related compound in women's urine, called
EST on heterosexual men and women
and homosexual men and lesbian women.
the researchers discovered that when heterosexual women and
homosexual men smelled AND
their brains showed activity in the anterior hypothalamus, a region
of the brain that is highly involved in sexual behaviour but
EST only produced activity in the
olfactory region of their brains which is the area that processes
smells. But when heterosexual men smelled
AND it only produced activity in
the olfactory region of their brains while
EST produced activity in the
done in 2007 on lesbian women and positron emission tomography the
researchers discovered in contrast to heterosexual women, lesbian
women processed AND stimuli by the
olfactory networks and not the anterior hypothalamus. Furthermore,
when smelling EST, they partly
shared activation of the anterior hypothalamus with heterosexual
men. The article states that the data supported the researchers’
results about differentiated processing of pheromone-like stimuli in
humans and further strengthen the notion of a coupling between
hypothalamic neuronal circuits and sexual preferences.”
Interviewer: You say
that when smelling EST, they
partly shared activation of the anterior hypothalamus with
heterosexual men. Any ideas on why this should be so when the
results from tests with homosexual men and heterosexual men and
women were so cut and dry?
Interesting point. In regards to lesbian women showing similar brain
activity to heterosexual men when they inhaled
EST the lead researcher, Ivanka
"We can't say whether the differences are
because of pre-existing differences in their brains, or if past
sexual experiences have conditioned their brains to respond
Now this bit
about brain conditioning which implies a psychological manipulation
ring a bell in my mind regarding what the molecular geneticist and
Angela Pattatucci said about lesbianism being “culturally
If it is
true that lesbianism can be “culturally transmitted” this would
mean, in some women at least, that lesbianism is brought about by
psychological conditioning and is not chemically driven.
to this I found a statement by Dr. Dean Hamer,
who was at the time, chief of gene structure and regulation at the
Laboratory of Biochemistry at the National Cancer Institute in the
USA, quite revealing when he said:
“Women tend to be more sexually fluid.
We've interviewed lesbians who have always identified as lesbian but
who fantasize about men.” If what Dr.
Hamer says is correct in that women
“tend to be more sexually fluid”
this would give weight to Angela Pattatucci’s statement that
lesbianism can be “culturally transmitted”.
Interviewer: What is
the anterior hypothalamus?
The anterior hypothalamus is part of the
hypothalamus. The hypothalamus is located below the thalamus, just
above the brain stem. In humans, it is roughly the size of an almond
that contains a number of small nuclei with a variety of functions.
One of the most important functions of the hypothalamus is to link
the nervous system to the endocrine system via the pituitary gland.
QE: The published results from the
done by the
involving lesbian women states:
“In animals, the choice of
sexual partner is highly influenced by signals from sex-specific
pheromones. These signals are processed by specific nuclei located
in the anterior hypothalamus, identified as male and female mating
centers. A lesion of the respective mating center as well as
impairment of pheromone transduction may alter the coital approach
in a sex-specific way. For example, electrolytic lesion of the
preoptic area is reported to shift
the mean preference of male ferrets away from the estrous females to
the stud males. Male rats are found to reduce their coital behavior
after destruction of the preoptic area
and show more interest in stimulus males than receptive females.
Female ferrets, however, preferred females after destruction of the
ventromedial hypothalamic nucleus
and did not allow males to intromit, whereas female rats increased
the proportion of female approaches after kindling of the
preoptic area is a region of the
hypothalamus. According to the MeSH classification, it is considered
part of the anterior hypothalamus.]
ventromedial hypothalamic nucleus
is a nucleus of the middle hypothalamus, the largest cell group of
the tuberal region with small-to-medium size cells.]
Now it was this reference to damage to the
“preoptic area” changing the sexual orientation of animals that made
me think about the possibility of damage to the hypothalamus
in humans also affecting their sexual
I came across an article in
 that mentioned a study
by Simon LeVay that showed that the anterior hypothalamus was twice
as large in straight men as in gay men. I tracked an article down
 relating to this
research and it stated that LeVay had
“found that a particular cluster of
cells in the forefront of the hypothalamus was, on average, less
than half as large in the brains of homosexual men as in their
heterosexual counterparts.” It also mentioned that “the hypothalamus
is known as the seat of the emotions and sexual drives.”
Now being cautious I looked for
more similar research to see that if after researchers had reached
the same conclusion. I found an interesting article entitled
"Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture" by Ryan D. Johnson
that mentioned two other studies. One in 1990 by
D.F. Swaab who
“became the first to
document a physiological difference in the anatomical structure of a
gay man's brain. Swaab found in his post-mortem examination of
homosexual males' brains that a portion of the hypothalamus of the
brain was structurally different than a heterosexual brain. The
hypothalamus is the portion of the human brain directly related to
sexual drive and function.”
The other study by scientist Laura S.
Allen around the same time as
Swaab’s also made a similar discovery.
Now it appeared logical to me that if the
anterior hypothalamus plays a part in sexual preference, to consider
the possibility that the anterior hypothalamus could be compromised
by chemicals originating outside of the body i.e.
Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals.
A bit of
searching found an interesting study
by L. Monje, et al, which examined the effects of neonatal
exposure to the endocrine disruptor bisphenol A, also referred to as
BPA, on the hypothalamic circuitry controlling the female sexual
behaviours of adult rats. The study concluded that;
“Our results show that
BPA permanently alters the hypothalamic
estrogen-dependent mechanisms that govern sexual behavior in the
adult female rat.” [Emphasis added]
by T. Funabashi, et al, dealing with rats stated;
"The present study suggests that
BPA influences reproductive functions,
including sexual behaviour even in adulthood,
by altering the PR system in the
article by Ryan D. Johnson
which I mentioned previously he states:
“The neuroendocrine viewpoint's basic hypothesis is that sexual
orientation is determined by the early levels (probably prenatal) of
androgen on relevant neural structures.
If highly exposed to these androgens, the fetus will become
masculinized, or attracted to females. This research was conducted
on rats at Stanford. The adult female
rats that received male-typical levels of androgens sufficiently
early in development exhibited male symptoms of attraction. The
same was true in the reverse when applied to the male subjects.
The female exposed to high levels of
the hormone exhibited high levels of aggression and sexual drive
toward other females, eventually trying to mount the other females
in an act of reproduction. In the
males, the subject who received deficient levels of androgen became
submissive in matters of sexual drive and reproduction and were
willing to receive the sexual act of the other male rat.”
though the researchers used rats it should be remembered that the
hypothalamus has the same function
in all mammals.
hypothalamus has the same function in all mammals
Interviewer: What are
QE: Androgens come in two chief forms,
androstenedione, that stimulates
or controls the development and maintenance of masculine
in vertebrates by binding to androgen receptors.
Now another researcher, A.E. Taylor
"Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a
common reproductive disorder that is first clinically diagnosable
approximately 3 years after menarche. Women with PCOS
exaggerated gonadotropin secretion, with an elevated LH/FSH ratio,
as well as an increased frequency and amplitude of LH pulsations.
Since the elevated pulse frequency is a marker of unusually rapid
hypothalamic GnRH secretion, these
results imply a defect at the level of the hypothalamus."
It was on reading this and taking into account
that it has been claimed that up to one in four women in
industrialised countries has certain features of polycystic
ovary syndrome that I wondered about the effects
this would have on male-female relationships.
Interviewer: What do
you mean by this?
I know for example women in the
initiate divorce twice as often as men and that men are initially
more negative about divorce than women and devote more energy in
attempting to salvage the marriage. The numbers of female solo
parents has increased dramatically over the last three decades or
so. Women have become more aggressive…I suppose some people might
use the term “more liberated”.
Interviewer: Are there
any “safe levels” regarding Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals?
QE: Research has shown that Endocrine
Disrupting Chemicals - EDC's - like hormones themselves require very
minute amounts to have physiologic impact. Now it should be heeded
that EDC's are active in parts per trillion! For example, the usual
adult maintenance dose of levothyroxine, a synthetic form of
thyroxine to replace depleted natural thyroid hormone in
hypothyroidism, is I believe 1.6
micrograms per kilo of body weight a day. Now I remember
reading somewhere that American children can consume
several milligrams of
phthalate each day. Now a milligram
is a thousand times as much as a
microgram. Why would anyone consider that a dose in the
milligrams of a known EDC
would be safe, especially for a child or developing foetus?
Animal testing has shown that
exposure to even small amounts of BP, as an example - lower than the
levels found in the typical human - can lead to prostate cancer and
breast cancer. Of course the companies involved in the manufacture
and selling of these EDC’s claim that low level exposure is safe but
a number of researchers claim the opposite.
Of course what we have to take
into consideration is the fact that humans are exposed to more than
one endocrine disruptor at a time and, therefore, that synergistic
effects cannot be excluded. As an example research done by the USA
Environmental Protection Agency’s Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory found that mixing together two types of
phthalates at theoretically safe levels triggered mutations in the
reproductive organs of rat foetuses. Now from what I understand
mixtures of phthalates are commonly found in many products including
Now what would the effects be
from the contamination of three or four different phthalates; would
the synergistic effect be far greater then the results of just
combining two? Looking at the research done, although it could be
claimed it is limited, I would have to err on the side of safety and
say that no safe level of contamination can be set.
The only safe
and sane course of action is an immediate ban of the use of these EDC’s in products that come into contact with food or products or
are handled by the general population. If it was feasible then the
use of these chemicals in other products should be banned or strict
safety measures implemented to ensure that these materials are
handled safely by people using them. The health of society and that
of future generations should be of paramount importance.
Oops…nearly forgot. Then we have
the influence of soy and soy containing foods and their proven
gender bending effects. Now one good article on soy is "Soy is
making kids 'gay'” by Jim Rutz.
I will quote a few of the eye-opening points raised by him:
The root sex problem is that soy is loaded with isoflavones, plant
estrogens that operate like human female estrogen, which occurs
naturally in our bodies, male and female. These "phytoestrogens"
cause serious developmental problems. They're only 1/1,000th to
1/1,200th the potency of human estrogen, ounce for ounce, but it's
common for babies to consume them in such large quantities that they
overwhelm their bodies' delicate testosterone-estrogen balance,
leaving their victim – male or female – with a wild variety of
lifelong symptoms, sometimes even disfigurement.---
Toxicologists estimate that an infant fed exclusively on soy formula
is getting the equivalent of three to five birth control pills per
One study found that soy-fed babies had
13,000 to 22,000 times more estrogen in their blood than milk-fed
One percent of U.S. girls are now growing breasts or pubic hair
before age three. By age eight, either of these two abnormalities is
appearing among 14.7 percent of white girls and a staggering 48.3
percent of black girls.
Why so many black girls? Probably because
they are more likely to be given soy infant formula. They are being
robbed of their girlhood. Soy formula-fed girls are also more likely
to have lifelong menstrual problems (primarily longer and more
painful periods), hormonal changes associated with infertility, and
other health problems.
The situation is just as bad for boys. Boy babies fed soy formula
may go into puberty late or not at all. Some of these boys are so
feminized that their breasts grow but their penises don't. Some
mature into adults with penises not much bigger than the ones they
were born with! Others might look normal and go through puberty on
time, but can't father children because their sperm are too few in
number or poor swimmers and thus unable to fertilize eggs.
Paediatricians are seeing so many over-estrogenized boys today with
breasts, delayed puberty and /or behavioural problems that they've
come up with the terms "Developmental Estrogenization Syndrome" and
"Testicular Dysgenesis Syndrome"
It's not just the sex organs that are affected during the key
developmental phases of pregnancy and infancy. The brain, too, can
be irrevocably changed by excess estrogens, which suppress
testosterone. That may contribute to altered sexual behaviour and
sexual preference. Estrogenized males of many species are more
likely to suffer from ADD/ADHD and even to perform more like females
One out of every 125 male babies is now born with the once-rare
condition called hypospadias, a gruesome malformity of the penis in
which the urethra opening lies somewhere along the underside of the
penile shaft instead of at its end.
The penis is also shorter – 2.6 inches
shorter in the more severe cases. Overall, the malformity is
associated with homosexuality; one small study showed that 7.6
percent of the control (healthy) subjects were exclusively
homosexual compared with 20.3 percent of those with hypospadias
(plus another 15.5 percent who were bisexual).
Now I have given what I consider
the major points on the dangers of soy in a condense form. If you
wish to educate yourself further I would suggest starting at a New
Zealand site called SoyOnLine or
visit the US site called The Weston A.
ability of soy to decrease Testosterone levels has been well
demonstrated. One study displayed a 76% reduction of Testosterone
production in men, after ingestion of soy protein over a brief
period of time.
In yet another study, an inverse association was found between soy
protein intake and Testosterone levels in Japanese men.
men and women high estrogen creates infertility.
shooting blanks is worrisome, how about being unable to shoot at
all? Two other recently published papers reveal that at least one
soy component clearly impairs erectile function in animals -and may
do so in men as well. The studies, published in the
Journal of Andrology and Urology respectively, looked at the
effect of daidzein on the sexual function of male rats. Moderate
doses of the phyto-estrogen administered either in youth or
adulthood significantly affected the quality of their erections.
Among other changes, the daidzein-exposed males produced less
testosterone, had softer erections, and experienced biochemical
changes to their penile tissues that left these tissues less elastic
and less capable of complete blood engorgement. The studies,
published in the Journal of Andrology
and Urology respectively, looked at the effect of daidzein on
the sexual function of male rats. Moderate doses of the phyto-estrogen
administered either in youth or adulthood significantly affected the
quality of their erections. Among other changes, the daidzein-exposed
males produced less testosterone, had softer erections, and
experienced biochemical changes to their penile tissues that left
these tissues less elastic and less capable of complete blood
engorgement. While acknowledging that rat results do not always
directly translate to humans, the authors of the first study suggest
that this time there's reason to believe they will. They cite, among
other things, a ten percent higher incidence of erectile dysfunction
in Chinese men known to consume high amounts of soy compared with
men who avoid it.
show an alarming number of men who, post puberty, never develop an
increase in the flaccid size of their penis.
Patients with hypospadias have a total flaccid penile length
of less than 4 centimeters. This has serious implications in
reproduction and in self-esteem for males. In reproduction, when the
shaft of the penis is longer, sperm have less of a distance to
travel post ejaculation. This is a problem that comes to fruition
only after puberty; thus, ingestion of phytoestrogens even after
birth, during the pre-pubertal years, can cause reduced development
of the penile shaft.
cause gynecomastia which is the development of abnormally large
mammary glands in males resulting in breast enlargement.
recently I found out that the chemicals in soy can also cause
"significant testicular cell death."
Interviewer: If soy is as bad as you have stated why is it
promoted as being healthy? Also we are told that soy has always been
part of the Asian diet.
course those with a vested interest in the promotion of soy will
present a different picture and come-up with all sorts of statistics
to create confusion over the claims that soy is harmful in the
quantities being consumed in the West. While male fertility has been
in decline in the West for several decades the levels of soy have
risen steadily in the Western diet since the nineteen-forties. The
soy industry has developed into a multi-billion dollar enterprise
with soy-based products found in two-thirds of manufactured food
including biscuits, sweets, pasta and bread, according to the
Institute of Food Research in Norwich in the UK..
Sixty percent of the refined foods in U.S. supermarkets now
contain soy and the percentage is rising.
Australia and New Zealand also appear to be on par with the UK and
Researchers have shown that isoflavones in soy mimic the female sex
hormone estrogen, and that these isoflavones found in soy are
Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals; there is no doubt about this fact.
Now we are meant to believe that if a male consumes Endocrine
Disrupting Chemicals this will not have any affect while he is
developing in his mother's womb, or if he consumes Endocrine
Disrupting Chemicals while growing up this won't have any effect on
him? I'm afraid the evidence from independent researchers shows
there is a danger not only to the male but also the female in
regards to these EDCs. So who do we listen to when fears are raised
over its safety; those with a vested interest in the product or
independent researchers who have no vested interest in the product?
bit about the Asian diet. The Asians never ate as much soy as
Westerners think. People in some Asian countries have consumed soy
but this was only in small portions as a condiment or a supplement
with a meal i.e. soy sauce, miso, and natto, etc. Traditionally, soy
plants were ploughed under in fields as fertilizer and soy was only
consumed in quantity by the poor in times of famine.
about the soybean date back to 3000 B.C., when the Emperor of China
listed the virtues of soybean plants for regenerating the soil for
future crops. Note his praises centred on the root of the plant, not
the bean. About 1000 B.C. the Chinese discovered that the process of
fermentation neutralised the toxins present and made the nutrients
in the beans available to the body; this process lead to the
creation of the still popular foods tempeh, miso, natto, and of
course soy sauce. Some time later another process was discovered
that involved coagulating soy, which left most of the toxins in the
discarded liquid, and then pressing the resulting curds into blocks.
The end product was tofu.
be noted that the fermentation process only neutralises the natural
toxins or "anti-nutrients" which are potent enzyme inhibitors that
block the action of trypsin and other enzymes needed for protein
digestion; the fermentation process does not neutralise the
isoflavones in soy that mimic the female sex hormone estrogen. The
same with the process for coagulating soy; this process removes most
of the natural toxins found in soy but does not remove the
isoflavones found in soy.
Now it is
my understanding that up to relatively modern times the only time
Asians ate unprocessed Soya beans was in an act of desperation
during periods of famine.
fermented products made from Soya beans are not harmful?
fermented soy foods, a little goes a long way. The nutrients found
in miso, tempeh, and natto can be beneficial in the moderate amounts
found in the typical Asian diet, but have the potential to do harm
in higher amounts. In China and Japan, about an ounce of fermented
soy food is eaten on a daily basis. When fermented soy foods are
used in small amounts they help build the inner ecosystem, providing
a wealth of friendly micro-flora to the intestinal tract that can
help with digestion and assimilation of nutrients, and boost
Of course nowadays the biggest problems associated with
fermented soy products comes from the origin of the soy itself as a
major percentage of Soya beans grown are now genetically modified
and it is possible that this unnatural modified products may have
unknown long-term consequences on fertility.
Interviewer: If the decline in fertility is as serious as
it appears why isn’t action being done to investigate its cause and
try to reverse the trend before it’s too late?
QE: Why solve this “problem” when the
intention is to drastically reduce the world’s population numbers?
Now before I go further let’s take a quick look at how soy was
introduced into the diet of the Western world.
On of the first Westerners to
spend a significant amount of time in East Asia studying soy foods
was a Dr. Artemy Alexis Horvath, a Russian scientist. In 1923
Horvath joined the staff of the Peking University Medical College (PUMC)
established by the Rockefeller
Foundation. Working under a
Rockefeller grant, he was put in charge of a new soybean research
laboratory and program, which soon began to generate a
number of publications on soy foods and nutrition.
Horvath was the author of numerous
“scientific” articles about soy foods and wrote a number of books;
his most famous “The Soybean as Human Food,” published in Peking in
In 1927 Horvath moved to the USA where he joined the research
staff of the Rockefeller Institute
of Medical Research at Princeton, New Jersey. It is
interesting to note
that some of his work there was done with the Department of Animal
He became a consultant to many soy foods producers and soybean
processors and he went on to be a member of the American Soybean
Association and a special associate member of the National Soybean
Interviewer: You say that Dr. Horvath was Russian? It’s
not a very Russian sounding name.
Horvath was born in Russia but from what I understand the surname
Horvath is Jewish. Now according to the
SoyInfo Center, in the US,
Horvath worked steadily to help introduce
soy-foods, especially soy flour and oil to America and goes on to
say that Horvath had deep knowledge
on the subject of Soya beans. Apparently Horvath‘s research was
quite extensive because in 1926 he published "Changes in the Blood
Composition of Rabbits Fed on Raw Soybeans," in which is mentioned
the fact that rabbits developed kidney swelling when fed a diet of
soaked raw soybeans.
interesting question now arise as to why The Rockefellers would
finance a researcher to write various publications praising the
virtues of a bean that at the time was used as an industrial crop in
the US? After all it was not like the US was short of food and
needed a miracle crop to fight-off starvation, in fact at this time
the US was producing more food than it could consume.
Interviewer: An industrial crop?
until the nineteen-thirties Soya beans were grown for their oil
which was used for a number of industrial purposes.
now questions arise: Did Horvath with his
deep knowledge on the
subject of Soya beans know that soy reduced fertility and could
cause infertility? Did Horvath with his
deep knowledge on the
subject of Soya beans know that soy had a feminism effect on males
and could affect a male’s sexual orientation? Was this the reason
why the Rockefeller Foundation financed Horvath’s
research in China and later on in the US?
"It is widely known throughout
Asia that when a woman does not want to have sexual
relations with her husband any more, she feeds him more
and more tofu! Monks in monasteries needing to be
celibate are urged to eat more tofu and soy products. In
Asia, it is common knowledge that soy reduces sexual
urge and ability.”
Wong ND, PhD. "The Zardoz Effect: The Epidemic of Male
interesting to note that the decline in fertility in the West did
not start until after the introduction of soy. It is also
interesting to note that as soy consumption has increased since the
seventies so has infertility and the apparent increase in sexual
disorientation and sexual abnormality. This is backed-up by a
Japanese researcher, M. Fukutake, who makes a connection between
consumption of soy products and a decrease in sperm counts.
In his 1996 paper, wherein he noted the fact that affluent nations
with increasing reductions in sperm counts have been consuming
increasing quantities of soy and products containing soy.
interesting to note that soy protein has been pushed as the solution
to low-cost feeding of the masses.
Of course we know the contempt the Rockefellers and their
ilk have towards the Masses e.g. dumb,
stupid animals, useless eaters, tacky poor people – the bottom
feeders at the wrong end of the wealth pyramid.
In 1960 a good sperm count was
considered to be 120 million sperm per millilitre of
seminal fluid. Anything lower than that and a man was
considered to be only marginally fertile. These days,
things have become so bad that a man is considered
fertile if he has only 20 million sperm per millilitre
Wong ND, PhD. "The Zardoz Effect: The Epidemic of Male
might be prepared to give the Rockefellers the benefit of the doubt,
but I am too cynical to do so, especially knowing the history of the
Rockefellers and their connections to eugenics and population
on my knowledge of the Rockefellers and what you have stated
previously about population reduction I can see the logic in your
By 2045 only 21% of the men
on the entire planet will be fertile.
Rapp MD "Is This Your Childs World" page 501
QE: Now I
am not claiming that soy is solely responsible for the decline in
fertility; the evidence also points to the Endocrine Disrupting
Chemicals found in plastics are also contributing factors.
the rate of decline in fertility over the last two decades it would
not be unreasonable to consider the possibility of a
synergistic effect between the consummation of
products containing soy and the Endocrine Disrupting
Chemicals in plastic. Whether studies have been
done regarding this I do not know. I certainly haven’t come across
any such research during my investigations.
Oops nearly forgot to mention that
artificial sweeteners have also been associated with infertility.
Aspartame, also known under the brand names as
Spoonful, has been shown in a
number of studies to “reduced fertility
in both males and females - shrunken testes and ovaries were seen in
the original studies by the makers of aspartame... we see reduction
in the gonadotrophins-ICSH, FSH, LH and prolactin. In addition there
are direct effects on the sperm and ova."
also known as sucralose has been linked to increased male
infertility and in experiments has caused infertility issues in both
male and female rats.
Aspartame was invented by the G D
Searle Co. acquired by Monsanto in 1985
Splenda was co-developed by Tate &
Lyle and Johnson & Johnson
Interviewer: But I thought that Splenda is made from
ordinary cane sugar?
Splenda is in fact a synthetic chemical made from sucrose a.k.a.
sugar by adding three chlorine molecules to the sucrose molecule. So
in fact Splenda is a synthetic sugar molecule that does not occur in
nature, and therefore your body does not possess the ability to
properly metabolise it.
don't wish to come across as being paranoid but when one
investigates the history of the companies involved in soy, the
promotion of fluoridation, and artificial sweeteners in the US, one
discovers a connection with various private organisations that also
support population reduction, such as the
Council on Foreign Relations.
we look further we see a connection between these private organisations, the wealth elite, and the various foundations
promoting population reduction under the guise
health" i.e. abortion, sterilization, and contraception, long with
"gay rights". Now when one connects all the dots a certain picture
is formed...now is this picture incorrect...I mean is this just
coincidence or does this picture reflect an agenda?
As I said before why solve this
“problem” of falling infertility and sexual dysfunction when the
intention is to drastically reduce the world’s population numbers?
After all, all we hear is that the world has a PROBLEM because there
are too many people. Even recently an article in the Dominion Post 
on a newly
released UN Population report stated
“urgent action has to be
undertaken to reduce fertility rates.”
Now I would like to comment on this article and then I would like to
explain the hidden purpose behind the plans to reduce CO2 emissions.
Interviewer: Please go ahead.
QE: The article based on the UN Population
report stated: “It revealed
that, contrary to received wisdom, rates of unintended pregnancies
were higher in rich countries than in poor ones. In Europe, the
United States, Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand, an average
of 41 per cent of pregnancies were unintended…”
Now the purpose of any propaganda is
to mislead and this statement even though it might be factual
certainly misleads people into thinking that these countries have a
population problem when in fact all these countries have a low
birth-rate well below replacement rate. But I must give credit where
credit is due at least the report admitted that Japan’s population
was expected to fall even though it did not acknowledge that Japan’s
birth-rate has been below replacement levels for sometime. But on
the other hand it stated that the US population was expected to
increase without mentioning that the US birth-rate is below
replacement levels and that this increase would come from
Now the article had four paragraphs
that I found most revealing:
BRITAIN: Investing in
birth control to reduce population growth could be
more effective in cutting greenhouse
gas emissions than building wind turbines or nuclear power
stations. [Emphasis added]
The report said reducing population growth
would allow the 2050 target for global
average emissions per person to be increased significantly above
two tonnes. [Emphasis added]
“No human is genuinely carbon neutral,”
the report said. “Therefore, everyone is part of the problem, so
everyone must be part of the solution in some way.
Each birth results not only in the
emission attributable to that person in his or her lifetime, but
also the emissions of all his or her descendents.” [Emphasis
The report said that
population growth was only beginning to
be recognised as an important topic in international
negotiations on climate change. [Emphasis added]
The claim in the report that
“population growth was only beginning
to be recognised as an important topic”
is blatantly untrue as the whole climate
change issue right from its conception was a tool to be used to
reduce population numbers.
Of course when this is supported
by influential writers such as Diane Francis one begins to get an
uneasy feeling and begins to wonder where this is all leading,
especially when she states
"planetary law, such as China's
one-child policy" is needed and nothing
"will work unless a China one-child
policy is imposed." Now notice the she
says "planetary law”.
"Socialism should make it possible to
regulate the reproduction of human beings. We should be
able to produce human beings under a quota system, just
as we produce bicycles and tons of steel."
Premier Chan Muhua, Head of China's Family Planning
W. Mosher “Broken Earth: The Rural Chinese”
Muhua's quote is on page 224.
If one does an in-depth study on
how the over-population myth developed one must conclude that the
pre World War Two eugenics movement has been repackaged and
presented as saving the world from the ravages of over-population.
The whole man-made climate warming myth is just a cloak to disguise
the real purpose which is the introduction of a programme of
depopulation on a global scale.
Let’s put it this way. If the main players
promoting the reduction of carbon dioxide output were Nazis who
believe in reducing the numbers of
- and the result
of the plan they promoted enhanced their agenda to reduce the number
then the Left would be up in arms doing their
best to derail the plan along with exposing the Nazis as barbaric.
But alas because this plan is hidden under layers of noble causes
and promoted by powerful people who have virtually unlimited wealth
at their disposal to propagandize their ambitions as a noble course;
people who can afford to purchase the best PR people money can buy
to front their program, thus many are blinded to the true nature and
goals of the plans to reduce CO2 output. The Left and the
environmentalists have been duped as “useful idiots”, as Lenin would
say, and thus are blinded to the fact that they are being used.
The plan to reduce carbon dioxide output is
nothing more then a cover for what can only be referred to as the
Solution; a hidden plan to reduce the numbers of the
“tacky poor” people in the world.
“The notion that
the world would be a much better place if all the
tacky poor people in it would simply control their
reproductive urges is hardly new. It has long been
accepted wisdom among social elites. And while no
one could deny that Vice President Al Gore is - by
birth, upbringing and lifestyle - a full fledged
member of the American aristocracy, it was still
strange to hear just how blunt Mr. Gore is prepared
to be on the subject of what to do to get rid of extra
people.” [Emphasis added]
THE WASHINGTON TIMES, October 9, 1997
Alas, once the need to reduce CO2
is accepted and policies introduced to bring about this reduction,
this will slowly lead to the introduction of draconian measures.
world will eventually become a global concentration camp, with an
elite governing body, an administrative bureaucracy, along with its
police enforcing the “law” and keeping order amongst the inmates. Of
course your social status in this concentration camp will depend on
your personal allotment of carbon credits which will depend on your
submissiveness and usefulness to the Elites running the Global
Interviewer: Isn’t that
a rather…emotive and a rather extreme statement to make?
QE: It may well be that I spoke in an
emotional way but that shouldn’t distract from the points I put
across. In regards to the statement being extreme…well…the reality
of a situation when put bluntly can sound rather extreme to some
people especially if they have no understanding or only a little
knowledge of the matter being discussed.
In regards to the average
person’s knowledge on the long term impact on their lives from the
Plan to reduce CO2 output…they have no comprehension.
Have the politicians told the
people that the only way CO2 reduction can be implemented is by
limiting the carbon footprint of each individual? Has it been
explained that the only way this can be accomplished is by issuing a
certain number of carbon credits to each individual and tracking
their use through a Carbon Card? Do people realise that such a
Carbon Card will be in effect an IDENTIFICATION CARD? The only
question that now needs answering is whether this ID card will be
controlled through a national database or a global database? My
feeling is that this Carbon Card will eventually be tied into a
Do people realise that when such
a card is introduced it will not be possible to purchase anything
without first presenting your Carbon Card to allow the carbon
of the item purchased to be deducted from their carbon
Taking this a bit further then it
would be logical for all businesses to be issue with a carbon
identification number to track their carbon footprint, meaning that
a business would not be able to trade, i.e. buy and sell, without
joining and being compliant to such a scheme.
Of course thinking logically the
next step would be do away with cash and have a cashless society in
which the Carbon Card is used for all transactions thus eliminating
fraud within the system and forcing compliance upon everyone.
Now I suppose what I have just
stated would be considered a rather wild and extreme statement to
make…but hey, before rejecting what I say, let’s consider a few
facts plus look at some highlights from a number of news items and
statements from influential people on this matter.
Firstly let’s start with John P.
Holdren, who was on December 20, 2008, appointed by US President
Obama as Director of the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and
Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology. In the book "Ecoscience: Population,
Resources and Environment," last revised in 1977, which Holdren
co-authored together with co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich, he
advocates some rather extreme totalitarian measures to control the
population. Some of the points in the book:
Social pressures on both men and women to marry
and have children must be removed. Page 786
The population at large
could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the
nation's drinking water or in food. Pages 787 – 788
Women could be forced
to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not. Page 837
People should be
required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility. Page 838
He seems to support
what he refers to as a Planetary Regime to control the development,
administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural
resources, renewable or non-renewable. He hints at this Planetary
Regime being given responsibility for determining the optimum
population for the world and that the Regime should have power to
enforce the agreed limits. Pages 942 – 943
Now in an earlier booklet
published in 1971, co-authored with Malthusian population alarmist
Paul Ehrlich, Holdren predicted that global over-population was
heading the Earth to a new ice age unless the government mandated
urgent measures to control population, including the possibility of
involuntary birth control measures such as forced sterilization.
most interesting to note that John P. Holdren is a member of the
Council on Foreign Relations
From 1991 to 2005, Holdren served as a member of the Board of
Trustees of the John D. and Catherine
T. MacArthur Foundation, helping shape that foundation’s
programs on international peace and cooperation, environment, and
with a special focus on Mexico, Nigeria, and Russia.
I have mentioned the John D. and
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation it should be noted that this
same organisation along with the Ford
Foundation and the Rockefellers
gave financial assistance to the Chinese in the form of research
grants to help the Chinese formulate and implement their one child
aside it should be of interest to note that Holdren also sat on the
international advisory board of Belfer
Center for Science and International Affairs along side Tom
Foley who is the North American chairman of the
Trilateral Commission, John M.
Deutch who was a former US Director of
Central Intelligence, and Nathaniel
Regardless if the alarm bells
were rang over global cooling or global warming the underlying
concern was and still is over-population and the only solution to
the problem was and still is the reduction of population numbers.
Now this man Holdren currently holds a very high advisory position
in the US government and he has expressed views that are held by
many powerful and influential people in the world. What is also of
significance is that Holdren talks of the need for a “Planetary
Regime” to control population in his book “Ecoscience"
Now this “Planetary Regime”
talked about by Holdren over three decades ago appears to be on the
verge of becoming a reality if what Lord Christopher Monckton claims
Interviewer: Who is
Lord Christopher Monckton?
QE: He is a British politician, business
consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, inventor, and
hereditary peer. He served as an advisor to Margaret Thatcher's
policy unit in the 1980s and invented the Eternity puzzle at the end
of the 1990s. More recently, he has attracted controversy for his
public opposition to the mainstream scientific consensus on climate
As I was about to say…
that the Copenhagen climate change treaty represents a global
government power grab on an “unimaginable scale,” which mandates the
creation of 700 new bureaucracies as well as a colossal raft of new
taxes including two percent levies on both GDP and every
international financial transaction. He is quoted as saying;
“Once again they are desperately
trying to conceal from everybody here the magnitude of what they’re
attempting to do – they really are attempting to set up a world
government,” adding that the word
“government” was no longer used but the process of further
centralization of power into global hands was clearly spelled out in
Now Monckton's mention of power
grab on an “unimaginable scale,” brings to mind that Simon Linnett,
the Executive Vice-Chairman of
Rothschild, was pushing back at the beginning of 2008 when he
called for a new international body, the World Environment Agency,
to regulate carbon trading. In a paper entitled "Trading Emissions -
Full global potential", for the Social
Linnett argued that the international
problem of climate change demands an international solution and that
unless governments ceded some of their sovereignty to a new world
body that the global carbon trading scheme could not be enforced and
Now at this point I feel that I
have to repeat what I have stated at an earlier time to press home a
point about the hoax of man-made climate change and its connection
to reducing population numbers.
As I stated in the section “Climate Change”
the Director of the Carnegie
Institution’s Department of Global Ecology, Christopher Field,
had been elected co-chair of Working
Group 2 of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. He was formerly a coordinating lead
author on the 2007 IPCC report,
Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability to Climate Change but now
Field will be leading the group as they develop their next major
report on climate change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability, due
this Carnegie Institution is
supplying the head bureaucrat who is playing a major role in shaping
policy that is going to affect most people throughout the world I
gave a brief rundown of the Carnegie Institution’s history and the
people associated with it. The highlights are as follows:
It was a
private organisation founded by Andrew Carnegie in Washington in
1902 to fund educational, religious, and political organizations to
"cultivate the international mind"
- the Carnegie Institution was just one
of twenty-two different organisations that he created. It should be
noted that Andrew Carnegie was a close associate of the
The first head of
the Carnegie Institution was
Daniel Coit Gilman who established The
Russell Trust in 1856. The Russell
Trust is the business name for the
Skull and Bones society.
Skull and Bones is a secret society based at Yale University, in
New Haven, Connecticut. Also known as
The Brotherhood of Death, also known as
Chapter 322 or simply
The Order, the powerful secret
society that was established at Yale University for the elite
children or grandchildren of the Wall Street Banking Establishment.
Therefore it is more than a mere student fraternity for high jinx,
as it only recruits from those in their final year at Yale, the
potential business and political leaders, and thereafter meets as a
conspiratorial "old boys’ network".
It is interesting to note that a 1911
study, financed by the Carnegie
Institution, identified eighteen possible methods of
implementing eugenics in America and around the world. Gas chambers
were deemed to be the most effective method, but it was felt that
American society was not yet prepared to accept them. Thus, a
number of other eugenic methods were adopted, most notably mass
sterilization. American Eugenics was conceived at the onset of
the twentieth century and was implemented by America’s wealthiest,
most powerful, most learned and most influential individuals and
institutions, including the Carnegie
Institution and the Rockefeller
Robert S. Woodward was president of the
Institution from 1904 to 1920, and helped to plan the
Second International Congress of
John C. Merriam was president of the
Institution from 1921 to 1938. Merriam was a founding member of the
Galton Society, founded in New York
City in 1918; it was the most overtly racist of the American
Caryl P. Haskins was president of the
Institution from 1956 to 1971. Haskins was a member of the
Council on Foreign Relations.
Philip Abelson was president of the
Institution from 1971 to1978. Abelson was a member of the
United States Association for the Club
Richard A. Meserve became the ninth
president of the Carnegie Institution in April 2003, after stepping
down as chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Meserve
is a member of the Council on Foreign
should we be concern about the Carnegie
Institution shady history? I suppose this information taken by
it self doesn’t prove any future intention. Now we know that the
Carnegie Institution has a strong
influence on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
and we know that the IPCC is joined at the hip
with the United Nations Organisation Now when we dig deeper
and examine the Unite Nations Organisation we must in all fairness
become alert to the possibility that something is amiss.
example the first director of UNESCO, Julian
Huxley, stated on page 21 of the publication he authored in 1946,
“UNESCO ITS PURPOSE AND ITS PHILOSOPHY”:
"Thus even though it is quite true that any
radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and
psychologically impossible, it will be important for Unesco to see
that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and
that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much
that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable."
ITS PURPOSE AND ITS PHILOSOPHY
by JULIAN HUXLEY is still available in its entirety from
the Unesco website [LINK].
If this link is dead you may download the document from
Interviewer: You mention eugenics and population reduction
in the same breath…how can you equate them both?
QE: Because eugenics was repackage and
presented as a crusade against “over-population”.
Interviewer: Why was
eugenics repackaged and how was this done?
QE: According to James Corbett,
at of the end of the Second World War the word eugenics had become
tainted…I suppose it would be better to say the word eugenics became
a dirty word. So a need arose to repackage the whole concept of
eugenics and that is what was done. Now how was this done? For
example the American Eugenics Society morphed into the
Population Council, a group set up
by John D. Rockefeller the third, and the British Eugenics Education
Society merely changed its name to The
Galton Institute. Of course the old battle of fighting “bad
genes” was dropped for the new crusade launched against
This fact was highlighted by the
feminist author Germaine Greer in her book “Sex and Destiny” when
"It now seems strange that
men who had been conspicuous in the eugenics movement were able to
move quite painlessly into the population establishment at the
highest level, but if we reflect that the paymasters were the same -
Mellon, Du Pont,
Shell - are still the same, we can
only assume that people like Kingsley
Davis, Frank W. Notestein,
E.A. Ross, the
Philip M. Hauser, Alan Guttmacher
and Sheldon Segal were being
rewarded for past services."
Now take for example the name
Frederick Osborn that was just quoted. According to
he was the dominant figure in the eugenics movement in the United
States. In 1956, he said people
"won't accept the idea that they are in
general, second rate. We must rely on other motivation."
He called the new motivation
"a system of voluntary unconscious
selection." The way to persuade
people to exercise this voluntary unconscious
selection was to appeal to the idea of "wanted" children. Osborn
said, "Let's base our proposals on the
desirability of having children born in homes where they will get
affectionate and responsible care."
In this way, the eugenics movement
"will move at last towards the high goal which Galton set for it."
Interviewer: Where and
when did eugenics originate?
QE: Most people believe that eugenics
originated in Nazi Germany but the fact is the concept of eugenics
came out of England and was conceived by an Englishman by the name
of Francis Galton who was the cousin of Charles Darwin, yes
the same Charles Darwin that wrote “Origin of Species” dealing with
the Theory of Evolution. It appears that after Darwin published his
“Origin of Species” Galton became fascinated with the idea that the
"survival of the fittest" did not just take place between species,
but within them.
developed into a study of the characteristics of various racial and
social groups with an aim to explaining why the various peoples of
the world occupy the positions they do. Galton invented the term
eugenics in 1883 and set down many of his observations and
conclusions in the book "Inquiries into human faculty and its
to James Corbett;
”Unsurprisingly, the promoters of eugenics
concluded that the rich and powerful were rich and powerful because
they were genetically superior, and it offered a simple solution for
improving the lot of humanity: make sure that the affluent upper
classes breed as much as possible (preferably within their own
families, in order to preserve their superior stock), and make sure
the lower classes breed as little as possible.”
interesting to note that Galton was knighted in 1909 and thereafter
bore the title of Sir Francis Galton, so his views could not have
been the repugnant to the British Elite. This is not all the
surprising taking into account that eugenics was
not aimed at royalty, the aristocracy, or the moneyed elite; it was
something to be applied against the Masses, the people at the bottom
of the wealth pyramid.
Of course many of the
"respectable" organisations leading this battle against the “burden
of over-population” talk of "reproductive health" which is
politically correct slang for contraception, sterilization, and
abortion. Organisations such as the
Rockefeller Foundation, Ford
Foundation, Gates Foundation,
Kaiser Family Foundation,
WestWind Foundation; the list goes
on and on. And what have all these organisations have in common…for
a start they have all been established by the wealthy elite who
consider themselves like some modern day aristocracy, they are all
involved in promoting various environmental issues, and most if not
all promote "gay rights."
Interviewer: You state that the wealthy elite consider
themselves like some modern day aristocracy…do you really believe
QE: Well I will try and put it in very
simple terms so that you can comprehend where I am coming from
Through my life I have known a
number of people who have come from a working class background and
who were raised in a working class environment. Of course when they
became adults some of them accumulated wealth either from
speculative ventures or because they went into some sort of
businesses venture. Now I can honestly say that without exception
all these people who “bettered themselves” now consider themselves
superior then their poorer working class brethren they knew when
they were growing up. They have developed a mentality that an
individual’s status depends on their wealth. Of course they no
longer have any desire to live in a working class area; in fact they
want to live in a well-to-do area away from the riff-raff and
amongst the “better” people. Of course when these people with the
same status get together they complain about the taxes they have to
pay and moan about the poorer people in society being a burden on
Now this trait, this feeling of
superiority or perceived status based on wealth, is generally
exhibited by most people; of course there are a few rare exceptions
put generally, from my observation, this feeling of superiority
derived from wealth appears to be the rule.
Of course this feeling of
superiority based on wealth grows stronger and becomes more dominate
as you rise upwards through the wealth pyramid. Now if you divide
this wealth pyramid I talk about into various levels or strata
representing various ranks of wealth you will find that individuals
in the higher levels look upon those in the preceding levels with
some degree of disdain.
Of course the higher up the
wealth pyramid the more intense this feeling of superiority becomes.
Of course within the higher levels of the wealth pyramid the
individuals become so full of their perceived importance they
believe that they are a sort of aristocracy and act accordingly.
These people honestly feel that they are superior and the Masses
that they dominate are inferior. Doubt what I say…Well let’s take a
quick look to see if there is some substance to what I state.
I suppose we can kick-off with
the statement from:
Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and patron
of the World Wildlife Fund, wrote in the foreword to Fleur Cowles
1986 book If I Were an Animal;
event that I am reincarnated, I would like to
return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve
overpopulation.” Now taking into
account that he has four children
one most wonder that if he ever got his wish - as being reincarnated
as a killer virus - if he would target some of his own children or
grandchildren. But I suppose when he made that statement he was
thinking more along the lines of targeting the more “poor tacky
people” in the world.
And talking of “poor
tacky people” brings us to Al Gore. Yes here is a man with a giant
carbon footprint, preaching about the need to reduce population
numbers, and yet lives in a twenty room mansion and has
David Rockefeller Sr.,
now deceased, Club of Rome executive member and founder of the
Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations member, and
attendee of various elitist Bilderberg Group meetings; he had
Then we have David
Lionel de Rothschild; head of
Adventure Ecology which describes itself as "a leader in
Education for Sustainable Development".
While Rothschild is
presented as an environmental warrior it is interesting to note that
he has three children.
Next we have the
multibillionaire Bill Gates who has
Next is billionaire
Maurice F. Strong, world renown environmentalist and population
reductionist; he has four children.
And of course we cannot forget to mention CNN
founder and multibillionaire Ted Turner. Turner is a member of the
Society of the Pacifica House, the
secret society of Brown University which is very similar to the
Skull and Bones at Yale University;
it is interesting to note that Turner is also a long-time member of
the Council on Foreign Relations.
Turner is also UN supporter and founder of the
United Nations Foundation. He was
quoted as saying;
"Personally, I think the population
should be closer to when we had indigenous populations, back before
the advent of farming. Fifteen thousand years ago, there was
somewhere between 40 and 100 million people. But [population
researchers] Paul and Anne Ehrlich have convinced me that if we're
going to have a modern infrastructure, with commercial airlines and
interstate highways around the world, we're going to need about two
billion people to support it."
In an interview with
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
he stated; "We're too many people;
that's why we have global warming,"
"everybody in the world's got to pledge to themselves that one or
two children is it."
It should be noted that Ted Turner has
Now I hope if you forgive me if the saying
“Don’t do as I do, DO AS I SAY”
pops into my head. These people are nothing but arrogant,
self-centred hypocrites and I believe that Henry Kissinger, who is
often referred to as the New World Order
Ambassador, sums up the real contempt the wealthy elite feel in
general towards the Masses when he stated that;
“Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to
be used as pawns in foreign policy.”
"Habit, if not resisted,
soon becomes necessity."
Interviewer: I find it strange that Bill Gates would
support “gay rights” I thought that he was considered relatively
QE: According to
in July 2007 Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates acquired a major stake
in a homosexual activist publishing company.
“SEC Filings reveal that Cascade
Investment, which invests Gates' money, is among a group of
investors that has bought a $26.2 million share in
PlanetOut, a publishing company
which runs Out magazine as well as
the dating website Gay.com which is used primarily for sexual
"hook-ups" and all-gay RSVP Cruises. . . The online material put out
by PlanetOut also features hard
core homosexual pornography.”
Interviewer: I am most surprised…Now I should have asked
before so I better ask you now...You stated that many of the
foundations pushing population control and population reduction also
promote “gay right”…why do they promote “gay rights” after all many
of these people who have donated vast sums of money to these
foundations don’t appear to be “gay” as most appear to be married
QE: For a start homosexuals rarely have
families thus homosexuality helps to reduce population growth. Don’t
forget these foundations have two prime objectives and they are to
curb population growth and to reduce population numbers. The
promotion of “gay rights” along with homosexuality as an alternative
lifestyle fits into and helps the agenda of these foundations.
The continued promotion of “gay
rights” and homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle also
undermines the traditional concept of family and family values which
fits in with their new global values for the Masses. Of course as
more and more people are conditioned into accepting homosexuality as
a normal part of society less questions are asked about what is
causing the apparent increasing numbers of homosexuals.
Raise any questions that are
considered negative about homosexuality and you are attacked as
homophobic and thus no rational debate or investigation can take
Now there is no scientific
evidence that sexual orientation can be changed but there is plenty
of evidence to show it can be arranged.
There is no scientific
evidence that sexual orientation can be changed but
there is plenty of evidence to show it can be arranged
Currently there is plenty of
scientific evidence that points to the fact that homosexuality is
not genetic but that it is the result of foetal exposure to
chemicals, during a critical time of development, resulting in a
retardation of normal sexual orientation. It would appear to me that
if the question of rising homosexual numbers can not be investigated
in a rational manner, without the investigator being verbally
attacked and harassed and made to look unreasonable by being accused
of being homophobic, then the question of chemicals affecting normal
sexual orientation would be unlikely to be pursued with vigour or in
a rational manner free of corrupting influences.
Scientific evidence points
to the fact that homosexuality is not genetic but that
it is the result of foetal exposure to chemicals, during
a critical time of development, resulting in a
retardation of normal sexual orientation
statement could well be considered paranoid by some people.
QE: Paranoid..? If you have an agenda and
you promote something that fits in with your agenda then I cannot be
called paranoid for pointing this out. Cripes if someone saw a known
arsonist with an empty can of fuel in their hands walking away from
a burning building you certainly could not label someone paranoid
for thinking the arsonist may have been involved somehow with the
fire. The same applies to the foundations we were talking about.
Look at what they promote and look at the people and organisations
they associate with.
enough…I see the point you make.
“Eugenic goals are most likely to be achieved under
another name than eugenics.”
FREDERICK OSBORN "The Future of
Human Heredity" 1968,
of course we cannot forget the role the United Nations Organisation
If you jog your memory you will
remember that I mention in the section “Domination: Obsession &
Power” that in the 1990’s the UN’s World Health Organization
a campaign to vaccinate millions of women of child-bearing
age in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines between the ages of 15
and 45 against tetanus. The strange thing was that vaccine was not
given to men or boys, despite the fact they are also prone to
becoming infected with the tetanus bacterium. Because of that
curious anomaly the Comite Pro Vida de
Mexico, a Roman Catholic lay organization, became suspicious and
had vaccine samples tested. The tests revealed that the tetanus
vaccine being distributed by the World Health Organization
only to women of child-bearing age
contained human Chorionic
Gonadotrophin or hCG, a
natural hormone which when combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier
stimulated antibodies rendering a woman incapable of maintaining a
pregnancy. Now understand…this was no accident…the only way the
hCG contaminate could have got
into the tetanus vaccine was if it was wilfully put there.
Now in the section “Domination:
Obsession & Power” also covered the subject of the World Health
Organisation encouraging virologists and molecular biologists to
work with deadly animal viruses in an attempt to make an
immunosuppressive hybrid virus that would be deadly to humans and I
mentioned that William Campbell Douglass, M.D., in his book, “AIDS:
The End of Civilization” bluntly blaming the World Health
Organization for murdering Africa by lacing African vaccines with
the AIDS virus.
Now keeping these facts in mind
let’s look at some statements emanating from some influential people
pushing the man-made global warming bandwagon and CO2 reduction to
see if there is an underlying theme between this and population
Interviewer: You have
certainly whetted my appetite…so fire away.
QE: Right…as I stated there a number of
statements emanating from a number of influential organisations and
individuals who strongly support the reduction in man-made CO2
output and who in their enthusiasm have given a strong indication to
what future action will need to be taken if the goals that have been
set are to be obtained.
Take for example a proposal put forwarded by
the Australian Professor Barry Walters. His proposal, reported in
the Medical Journal of Australia, called for parents to be charged
$5000 a head for every child after their second, and an annual tax
of up to $800. He also proposed that couples who were sterilised
should be eligible for carbon credits and went on to state that the
“debate [around population control] needs to be reopened as part of
a second ecological revolution."
It was reported in the UK paper
The Sunday Times
Parritt, a patron of the Optimum
Population Trust and one of Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s
leading green advisers, has warned that Britain must drastically
reduce its population if it is to build a sustainable society. He
was quoted as calling "for
Britain to cut population to 30m - roughly what it was in late
Victorian times." Parritt went on to
state that: “Each person in Britain has
far more impact on the environment than those in developing
countries so cutting our population is one way to reduce that impact.”
Now take note; he is talking about the need to reduce the UK’s
population numbers by over a half.
Now before I go on it should be noted that the
Optimum Population Trust counts as
its patrons Jane Goodall who is a member of the
Club of Rome, Sir Crispin Tickell
who is also a member of the Club of
Rome and former chairman of the
Gaia Society, and Dr. James Lovelock the scientist responsible
for the Gaia theory. Another
interesting OPT patron is Partha Dasgupta, who is a university
fellow of the controversial Ford and Rockefeller initiated group,
Resources for the Future
 which was formed in
1952 by the Ford Foundation. That aside I shall continue.
article written by Dr. James Lovelock in the UK newspaper
The Sunday Times
Lovelock states: “The high-sounding and
well-meaning visions of the European Union of ‘saving the planet’
and developing sustainability by using only “natural” energy might
have worked in 1800 when there were only a billion of us, but now
they are a wholly impractical luxury we can ill afford.”
He goes on to say:
voluntary human act can reduce numbers enough even to slow climate
change. Merely by existing, people and their dependent animals
are responsible for more than 10 times the greenhouse emissions of
all the airline travel in the world."
statement issued in August 2009, the Optimum Population Trust
"called on climate change
negotiators to ensure that population
restraint policies are adopted by every state worldwide to combat
climate change." In another News
Release issued in September 2009 the Optimum Population Trust
"Contraception is almost five times cheaper
than conventional green technologies as a means of combating climate
An article in UK newspaper
announced a scheme called “PopOffsets” whereby consumers in the
developed world are to be offered a method of offsetting their
carbon emissions by paying for contraception measures in poorer
countries. The article states:
“The scheme - set up by [The Optimum Population Trust] an
organisation backed by Sir David Attenborough, the former diplomat
Sir Crispin Tickell and green figureheads such as Jonathon Porritt
and James Lovelock - argues that family planning is the most
effective way to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic global
The article then mentions the cost-benefit
“analysis commissioned by the trust
claims that family planning is the cheapest way to reduce carbon
emissions. Every £4 spent on contraception, it says, saves one tonne
of CO2 being added to global warming, but a similar reduction in
emissions would require an £8 investment in tree planting, £15 in
wind power, £31 in solar energy and £56 in hybrid vehicle
article also mentions that calculations
“based on the trust's figures show the 10 tonnes emitted by a return
flight from London to Sydney would be offset by enabling the
avoidance of one unwanted birth in a country such as Kenya.”
Of course no mention was made in
regards to who did not want this “unwanted birth”…the mother of the
unborn child or Sir David Attenborough and company?
Interviewer: I must admit that this sounds good coming
from people who have a lifestyle and carbon foot-print that most
Kenyans can only dream about.
QE: I would have to agree with you. These
types would have a carbon foot-print thousands, if not tens of
thousands, times greater then the average Kenyan. No these people
like Attenborough and Co are just arrogant, hypocritical, and
self-centred people who believe that they are superior to the
Masses; an attitude most common among the world’s wealthy elite.
article I just mentioned also stated that UN “scientists”
say global carbon emissions must have reduced by at least 80% by
"meaning the carbon footprint of each citizen in 2050 will have to
be very low."
"Aristocrats have us believing that
our planet is dying, pandemics are forthcoming, nuclear
annihilation is probable, and that we must think and do
exactly as they tell us to do in order to survive. . .
Aristocrats believe in supremacy. They always have and
they still do. Aristocrats despise the common man and
consider him to be a lesser species, which is why
commoners have been steadfastly and continually used as
guinea pigs for aristocrats and their inventions."
Levant "DEPOPULATION AND THE AMERICAN MUTTS - PART 1"
Interviewer: So if CO2
output is to be reduced so drastically how is it to be accomplished?
QE: As I mentioned before people well be
eventually issued with a Carbon Card and a Carbon Allowance. This
Carbon Allowance will have a sinking lid, meaning that over a period
the Carbon Allowance well be steadily reduced.
Interviewer: Are you
implying that this Carbon Card well be compulsory?
Interviewer: Taking into account that a large segment of
population is doubtful about man being responsible for global
warming surely there would be quite an amount of resistance to the
implementation of such a scheme?
QE: It will be announced that everyone is to
be issued with this card and at a specified date in the future it
will have to be used. Now the card arrives in the post. You open the
envelope and there is the Card with your name on it including your
unique personal ID number. What are people going to do? Send it
back; throw it away? One day in the near future when the compulsory
use of the card arrives very few people will be able to survive
without using the Card. NO CARD - NO FOOD, NO ELECTRICITY, NO FUEL,
and NO TRAVEL.
Of course there well be
resistance but with some slick propaganda most people will willingly
or with reservations accept and use the Carbon Card. And in regards
to businesses, well they will have to comply or cease trading.
Of course there well be resistance
but with some slick propaganda most people will
willingly or with reservations accept and use the Carbon
Card. And in regards to businesses, well they will have
to comply or cease trading.
Don’t forget that a large
percentage of private financial transactions today are with either
credit cards or EFTPOS cards. Of course loyalty cards or reward
cards, you know the different cards that can be swiped when you
purchase something giving you points that can be accumulated and
used to purchase items etc, have been around for a while. Now there
is quite a wide acceptance of these cards so people have been pretty
well conditioned in using these cards so the introduction of a
Carbon Card wouldn’t appear to be too strange to many people.
Interviewer: Has there been any mention about this Carbon
Card in New Zealand before now…I mean if it is the intention to
introduce such a card in New Zealand one would believe it would have
been mentioned before now?
QE: The only mention I have been able to
find on this matter in New Zealand publications was in an article in
about two years ago. Of course the Carbon Card has been mentioned in
a number of countries overseas, especially in the UK. In fact from
what I understand a number of countries are running volunteer
schemes, nothing on a massive scale, but never-the-less a number of
schemes are in existence.
Interviewer: What you have just stated is rather
QE: I think it gives a preview of what is
intended to be implemented. And the implementation of such a scheme
is being backed by some very powerful people.
intention to introduce a Carbon Card has been endorsed by the UK
Environment Secretary David Miliband. It should be noted that David
Miliband is the elder son of Jewish immigrants Marion Kozak and the
late Marxist intellectual
Ralph Miliband. It is interesting to note that in December 2007,
Miliband stood in for Prime Minister, Gordon Brown at the official
signing ceremony in Lisbon of the EU Reform Treaty, which was
attended by all other European heads of government. This should
prove his important political ranking.
An article on the BBC website
in December 2006 had Secretary David Miliband who had commissioned a
feasibility study Carbon "credit cards" as stating that the scheme
could be working within five years - 2011 - as part of a nationwide
carbon rationing scheme. The article went on to say that Miliband
insisted that climate change required
"cumulative, consistent radicalism"
"one shot wonders".
Miliband went on to say that climate
change was “the
mass mobilising movement of our age".
The “environmental” group Friends of
the Earth was quoted as saying that the principle of using a
limited "budget" of carbon per person was sound.
“The Sierra Club made the Nature
Conservancy look reasonable. I founded Friends of the
Earth to make the Sierra Club look reasonable. Then I
founded Earth Island Institute to make Friends of the
Earth look reasonable. Earth First! now makes us look
reasonable. We’re still waiting for someone else to come
along and make Earth First! look reasonable.”
quoted by Ron Arnold and Alan Gottlieb in their book
“Trashing the Economy” (1993)
“Childbearing [should be] a
punishable crime against society, unless the parents
hold a government license... All potential parents
[should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the
government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for
quoted by Dixy Lee Ray in “Trashing the Planet”
An article in November 2009 in
the to the UK newspaper The Times
stated that the
House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee had called on the
Government last year to resume research on a rationing scheme and to
be “courageous” in seeking to overcome likely public hostility to
the idea. It said in a report:
“Opposition to personal carbon trading
could be reduced if the public could be convinced of three things.
First, that it is absolutely essential to reduce emissions; second,
that this can only be achieved if individuals take personal
responsibility for reducing their own emissions; and third, that
personal carbon trading is a fairer and more effective way of
reducing personal emissions than alternatives such as higher taxes.”
The committee concluded:
“Widespread public acceptance, while desirable, should not be a
pre-condition for a personal carbon trading scheme; the need to
reduce emissions is simply too urgent.”
NO CARD = NO FOOD, NO ELECTRICITY, NO
FUEL, and NO TRAVEL
article in the UK newspaper The Telegraph
in November 2009 with the sub-heading “Everyone in Britain should
have an annual carbon ration and be penalised if they use too much
fuel, the head of the Environment Agency will say”, stated that
“Lord Smith of Finsbury believes that
implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be
the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse
gas emissions.” The article quoted Ruth
Lea, an economist from Arbuthnot Banking Group, as saying:
"This is all about control of
the individual and you begin to wonder whether this is what the
green agenda has always been about. It's Orwellian."
interesting article on BusinessGreen.com a UK based website stated:
“The [UK] Environment Agency will argue
today that carbon rationing is the fairest and most effective way
for the UK to meet its legally binding targets to cut greenhouse gas
The article went on to say;
chairman, Lord Smith, will propose at the
organisation's annual conference in London that every citizen be
provided with a "carbon account" and
unique number that they submit when buying
carbon-intensive items such as petrol, electricity or airline
tickets.” [Emphasis added]
I have to say that I had not heard anything about
this at all and I am rather shocked by your
revelations about what is proposed
there are a few more surprises to come.
Interviewer: Please go
QE: For a
start everything that is manufactured/consumed has a certain carbon
foot-print. In the beginning the Carbon Card may only cover the main
items such as food etc but no doubt as more and more items are added
to the list eventually the Carbon Card will be required for
everything an individual needs to survive.
some people would be able to opt out of the system. I mean if you
had land and could grow your own food and supply your own energy
needs you would have no need to accept the Carbon Card?
Yes I know of a few people who believe that can opt out of the
system but I am afraid they are very naïve people. For a start if
you lived in a remote part of a third world country you could get
away with it but in the Western World I do not think it will be
possible. Firstly it is not possible to be fully self-contained you
will eventually require something controlled by the system for your
survival. Secondly the system will mark you out as a threat and will
eventually weed you out. If you have any livestock you well be
required to pay a carbon tax on these animals and of course to do
this you will require your Carbon Card. If you think that you can
operate a system of barter with others you well be in for another
shock because you well be (1) required to pay taxes on such trade
and (2) such transactions would have to be made with the use of your
Carbon Card. Try and circumvent the system and the system will
classify you as a criminal with the full force of the “law” used to
bring you to heel. Of course if the Carbon Card is required to
access bank accounts then you have problems paying rates, land
taxes, and what ever other taxes they throw at you. Can’t pay your
taxes, they will sell your land. No, people who believe they can
escape the crutches of Big Brother, when he arrives, are in for a
Mentioning livestock brings me to another part of agenda.
an interesting article that appeared in the New York Daily Times
which was written by Peter Singer, who is a professor of
bioethics at Princeton University, in the US. He states,
"...taxing meat would be a
highly effective way of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and
avoiding catastrophic climate change.”
He goes on to write;
"In 2006 the United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization surprised many people when it produced a
report showing that livestock are
responsible for more emissions than all forms of transportation
combined. It’s now clear that that report seriously
underestimated the contribution that livestock - especially ruminant
animals like cattle and sheep - are making to global warming.”
Singer then goes on to mention that
“a more recent report by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has shown, over the
critical next 20 years, the methane these animals produce will be
almost three times as potent in warming the planet as the FAO report
assumed. " And his solution to solve
this red meat problem was to
“start with a 50% tax on the retail value of all meat, and see what
difference that makes to present consumption habits. If it is not
enough to bring about the change we need, then, like cigarette
taxes, it will need to go higher."
should be noted that under the Climate Change Act, Britain is
obliged to cut its emissions by 80 per cent on 1990 levels by 2050.
This means annual CO2 emissions per person will have to fall
from about 9 tonnes to only 2 tonnes.
In a News
Release issued by the UK based Optimum
on the highlights of a conference called “Environmentally
Sustainable Populations: The scientific case for population policy -
and ways of achieving sustainability” the OPT stated that to
“reduce London’s current ‘food
footprint’...to a globally sustainable
‘fair share’, Londoners would
need to eat an estimated 70 per cent less meat.”
there is talk about high taxes on red meat in the UK I recently read
an article in the Dominion Post
regarding a paper by two senior fellows from the
Motu Economic and Public Policy
“is New Zealand’s leading non-profit
economic and public policy research institute that carries out high
quality, long-term, socially beneficial research programmes”
according to their website. Anyway in
the article this research group stated that a
“carbon trading price of $25 a
tonne could cut dairy farms’ profits by 20 per cent, and sheep and
beef farms’ profits could fall by 40 per cent.”
Of course if profit margins fall the farmers
will want more for their product that is if the consumer can afford
the prices being asked. Of course these estimates are based on $25
per tonne; if the price, because of “market forces”, should go up to
$100 or $150 per tonne the price of red meat well become too
expensive for the average consumer and many farmers well be force of
reduce CO2 emissions the Masses have to eat far less red meats thus
reducing the numbers of methane farting animals as methane is
causing the planet to heat up. So since cattle and sheep are so
polluting they will be given a large carbon foot-print along with
high retail taxes on their meat. Of course the products such as milk
produced by methane farting animals along with products such as
butter and cheese made from this milk will also incur high taxes.
who are the Masses I am talking about…the people on the bottom of
the wealth pyramid of course. The low paid individuals; you know
what is referred to as the useless eaters, the surplus population no
longer needed; the people who can ill-afford to purchase extra
Carbon Credits and to pay the high taxes to be placed on essential
food items such as red meat and healthy baby formula. But not to
worry there is always synthetic meat manufactured
from soy based protein. Well we know the results from eating too
much soy, don’t we? But hey don’t tell the Masses. Of course mothers
won’t have to worry about not being able to feed their infants if
they are unable to breast-feed; there is always that “healthy” soy
milk that is affordable. And don’t worry about not being able to
afford butter there will be plenty of that “healthy” margarine made
from polyunsaturated Soya bean oil with added chemicals that make it
taste just like butter.
Of course once the system is
implemented it would be very simple to genetically modify the Soya
bean to artificially lower the already low fertility rates.
Soy for the Masses and prime cuts of
beef for the Elite
What was once a minor crop, listed in
the 1913 US Department of Agriculture (USDA) handbook
not as a food but as an industrial product, now covers
72 million acres of American farmland. . . Advances in
technology make it possible to produce isolated soy
protein from what was once considered a waste product -
the defatted, high-protein soy chips - and then
transform something that looks and smells terrible into
products that can be consumed by human beings.
Flavourings, preservatives, sweeteners, emulsifiers and
synthetic nutrients have turned soy protein isolate, the
food processors' ugly duckling, into a New Age
Nexus Magazine, Volume 7, Number 3
Interviewer: Do you
think that is possible and do you believe they are capable of doing
QE: Well I mentioned in my December
2008 Interview about a small Californian biotech company called
Epicyte that in 2001 announced the development of genetically
engineered corn which contained a spermicide which made the semen of
men who ate it sterile. Now if it can be done with corn I do not see
any reason why it couldn’t be done with the Soya bean. Now
do I think they are capable of introducing
something into the food chain to lower fertility? Well they have
already done that over six decades ago with the introduction of the
Soya bean into the Western diet. Of course the question
arises would they go further and introduce a genetically engineered
product into the food chain specifically designed to drastically
reduce fertility? I am afraid it has been suggested a number of
times before that an additive be placed either in the water or food
to cause general infertility.
March, 1969, Vice-President of US Planned Parenthood,
Frederick Jaffe's “Activities Relevant to the Study of
Population Policy for the U.S.” is printed containing a
memo to Population Council
president Bernard Berelson. It includes examples of
proposed measures to reduce U.S. fertility, such as
fertility control agents in water supply.
"Socialism should make it possible to
regulate the reproduction of human beings. We should be
able to produce human beings under a quota system, just
as we produce bicycles and tons of steel."
Premier Chan Muhua, Head of China's Family Planning
by Steven W. Mosher in “Broken Earth: The Rural Chinese”
Interviewer: You have
mentioned previously about an agenda to drastically reduce
population numbers. Do you think this will be accomplished by
further lowering fertility and the eventual introduction of
licensing to restrict the numbers of those who wish to have children
or do you think that a more draconian approach maybe taken?
gather by draconian approach you mean the actual killing of people?
Firstly there is little doubt in my mind that fertility will be
controlled even to the extent of mass controlled fertility. In
regards to a more draconian approach…I suppose to most people such a
proposal would be rather difficult to envisage happening in this day
and age, especially in the Western world. Now can we actually
dismiss such a possibility…I have to say that a person with a basic
understanding of the people pulling the strings of power in the
world would have to be very naïve to rule out such an action.
Interviewer: Could you
explain what you mean by that?
have touched on this before but never-the-less I don’t mind going
over it again briefly.
mentioned about “The Declaration of a Global Ethic” promoted by the
Global Ethic Foundation which is
an attempt to lay the foundation for a new world religion. In 1993
at a forum entitled “Parliament of the World's Religions”, sponsored
by the United Nations, 143 leaders from all of the world's major
faiths agreed to and signed this “Global Ethic”.
the Global Ethic seems to contain
a rather strange or, as some people have claimed, a deeper message.
It defines those who support the objectives of the Declaration as
the question is; if you support the
Global Ethic you are considered
does this mean if you find the
Global Ethic in conflict with your
own beliefs, and you reject the Global
because of this, does this make you not
people promoting this New Age crap are not people who can be
classified as nobodies without significance. Many of the people who
push this philosophy hold important and influential positions in the
world. An example being Horst Köhler who is a supporter of the
"Declaration Toward a Global Ethic". Köhler was Chairman of the
Executive Board and Managing Director of the
International Monetary Fund who
resigned his position at the IMF in March 2004, following his
nomination for the position of President of the Federal Republic of
have the “Earth Charter” and its "global ethics" which is referred
to as the "New World Ten Commandments" promoted by Maurice Strong,
Mikhail Gorbachev and Stephen Rockefeller.
interesting to note that in 2003 the Vatican warned
against the "global ethics" which are the origin and core of the
Earth Charter. Archbishop Javier Lozano Barragán, president of the
"Pontifical Council for Health Care Workers” warned that the “global
ethic” movement was an eco-religion which holds "sustainable
development" as the highest good. He said it manifests itself
"as a new
spirituality that supplants all religions, because the latter have
been unable to preserve the ecosystem."
In a word, this is "a
new secular religion, a religion without God, or if you prefer,
a new God that is the earth itself with
the name GAIA."
he stated. [Emphasis added]
Environmentalism: From Quality Control to Quantity
have the warning from the occultist Barbara Marx Hubbard who is a
“Creative Member” of the Club of
Budapest International Foundation which is an offshoot of the
Club of Rome. She is also a member
of the World Commission on Global
Consciousness and Spirituality. It is interesting to note that
the World Wisdom Council was
initiated by The Club of Budapest
International in association with the
World Commission of Global
Consciousness & Spirituality.
in case you think that old Hubbard is just a poor nobody ranting and
raving away I will give you a bit of background information on her.
In 1970, she co-founded the Committee
for the Future and she is on the “Global Advisory Council” of
the World Future Society. She made
political history in 1984 when her name was placed in nomination for
the vice presidency of the United States on the Democratic ticket.
Hubbard makes her position quite clear in her book
Manual for Co-Creators of the Quantum
Leap. On pages 55-57 she states:
"Humanity will not be able to make the
transition from Earth-only to universal life until the
chaff has been separated from the wheat. The great reaper must
reap before we can take the quantum leap to the next phase of
evolution. No worldly peace can prevail until the
self-centered members of the planetary
body either change or die. That is the choice. The red horse is
the destruction during the birth process of those
who refuse to be born into
God-centered, universal life
. . . This
act is as horrible as killing a cancer cell. It must be done for the
sake of the future of the whole."
On pages 60-61 Hubbard states:
"We, the elders, have been patiently
waiting until the very last moment before the quantum
transformation, to take action to cut out this corrupted and
corrupting element in the body of humanity. It is like watching a
cancer grow; something must be done before the whole body is
. . . the
self-centered members must be destroyed. There is no alternative.
Only the God-centered can evolve."
The Book of Co-Creation written by
Hubbard she states: "One-fourth
of humanity must be eliminated from the social body. . . We are
in charge of God's selection process for planet Earth. He selects,
we destroy. We are the riders of the pale horse, Death."
Interviewer: What does she mean by “God-centred” and
Hubbard and company preach that there is no separation between God
and you, for you are God. If you accept this belief you are
classified as “God-centred”.
It should be noted that in the occult
the only real “sin” is to believe in sin and to believe you are
separate from God. However if you believe that you are not God you
are classified as “self-centred”. Of course it should be realised
that Hubbard concept of God is totally different then the concept
held by Christians and Moslems.
thoughts of a sane individual or the ravings of a
“…the self-centered members
must be destroyed. There is no alternative. Only the
God-centered can evolve. . . One-fourth of humanity must
be eliminated from the social body.”
So taking into account the
character of some of the people involved and the fact that there is
evidence suggesting that these people desire to reduce world
population numbers down to somewhere between five hundred million to
two billion one ready can not rule out the possibility of extreme
measures being taken to accomplish this.
Interviewer: But surely in this day and age there is no
way that people such as Hubbard could get their way?
QE: Take into consideration the Holocaust
committed in Israel in the 1950's that involved the deliberate mass
radiation poisoning of nearly all Sephardi Jewish youths,
In a mass atomic
experiment done under the disguise for the treatment of ringworm it
was intended that every Sephardi child in Israel was to receive
“35,000 times the maximum dose
of x-rays through his head. For doing so, the American government
paid the Israeli government 300 million Israeli liras a year. The
entire Health budget was 60 million liras. The money paid by the
Americans is equivalent to billions of dollars today.”
This act of genocide, financed by
the USA, was ordered by the light skinned Ashkenazi Jewish leaders
against the darker skinned Sephardi youths because they were
considered inferior. In a documentary shown in Israeli in 2005 a
historian who outlined a history of the eugenics movement declared
that the ringworm operation was a eugenics program aimed at weeding
out the perceived weak strains of society.
It is amazing that even among
those Jews who believe that they are “the Chosen People” there are
some that consider themselves superior to some of their more
dark-skinned religious brethren.
Then we have Pol Pot who was
backed by the USA by proxy through the Chinese. During his time in
power Pol Pot imposed a version of agrarian collectivization whereby
city dwellers were relocated to the countryside to work in
collective farms and forced labour projects - you could say he was a
Greenie well ahead of his time. Under his rule and direction the
Khmer Rouge slaughtered an estimated 3 million people - anyone who
did not fit into Pol Pot's New Order was systematically eliminated.
Now it appears to me that Hubbard
and company are not any better then the people involved in the act
of genocide against the Sephardi youths nor are they any better then
Pol Pot's lot. Now if anyone believes that past acts of insane
violence could not possible happen again then I strongly suggest
that they study the Milgram experiment conducted by psychologist
Interviewer: You have talked about a Carbon Card and the
possibility that it may have an international data base. Now I don’t
wish to put you in an awkward position but since we have touched on
the subject of religion do you think that this Carbon Card, if it
does eventuate, would fit the description
in various religious teachings that refer to the Mark of the Beast?
QE: There have been many claims on what this
so-called Mark of the Beast will be, but taking the turn of events I
would have to say the Carbon Card would be a logical contender.
It is interesting that you
brought up this subject. Now what I find most intriguing is the fact
that while there is talk of reducing carbon dioxide output on one
hand on the other hand everything is given a carbon foot-print; not
a carbon dioxide foot-print but a carbon foot-print. Also in regards
to the Carbon Card I discussed; once again it is referred to as a
Carbon Card not a Carbon Dioxide Card. Why on one hand talk about
carbon dioxide and on the other hand talk of carbon; is this a
sleight of hand?
At this point it is most
interesting to note that the atomic number of carbon is 6. Now there
are 15 known isotopes of carbon of which only three are found in
nature, the rest of the other carbon isotopes are produced in the
laboratory i.e. man made.
Of these three naturally
occurring carbon isotopes, carbon-12, carbon-13, and carbon-14, only
two, carbon-12 and carbon-13, are classified as stable. Carbon-12
which has 6 neutrons forms 98.93% of the carbon on Earth. Carbon-13
which has 7 neutrons is formed after a carbon-12 nucleus fuses with
a proton to form nitrogen-13 which eventually decays to form carbon
-13, makes up most of the remaining 1.07% of carbon isotopes.
Carbon-14, which has 8 neutrons
makes-up less than one-billionth of carbon on Earth, is created in
the upper atmosphere by interaction of nitrogen-14 with cosmic rays
which then spreads evenly throughout the atmosphere. Now Carbon-14
is an unstable isotope which eventually decays back to nitrogen-14.
Are you with me so far?
Interviewer: I think
so…please carry on.
QE: Now humans are classified as a Carbon-12
life form; taking this fact into consideration it becomes most
intriguing to discover that Carbon-12 has 6 protons,
6 neutrons, and
Interviewer: 6 protons, 6 neutrons, and 6 electrons? Now I
hope I don’t appear to be paranoid if the number 666 pops into my
QE: For a start
I’m not what would be considered a religious man. Although I believe
in the existence of a higher power I do not belong to any church and
the only times I have been in a church is to either attend a
marriage or a funeral. That aside I have to admit that the Carbon
Card certainly made me think about Revelation 13:18;
"Here is wisdom. Let him who has a mind calculate the number of the
wild beast, for it is the number of mankind, and its number is six
I had to
think to myself… cripes… now is all this just a
Interviewer: Do you think this is just a coincidence?
QE: I truly hope it is. But on the other
hand when one back-tracks through all the front organisations
pushing the misinformation on claims that man is responsible for the
climate warming and all the propaganda and hysteria connected with
it, then one discovers people at its root who can only be described
as evil and completely devoid of any empathy towards mankind. So,
based on my knowledge, I certainly can not dismiss it outright so I
will just keep an open mind on this for the time being.
Interviewer: I thought
Revelation 13:18 stated “the number of a man” but you state “the
number of mankind”?
translations read this verse of Scripture as "the number of a man"
but it is my understanding that this is incorrect and that the
correct translation is "the number of mankind" meaning all men and
women - humanity.
Interviewer: The verse
you quote, from what bible does it come?
Concordant Literal New Testament.
Interviewer: I have
never heard of that version
Concordant Literal New Testament was the work of a man named A. E.
Knoch. He was born in St. Louis, Missouri in the US in 1874 and
died, I believe, in 1965. Now Knoch, who had an excellent grasp of
Greek, believed there were many errors in the Bible translations of
his day and he dedicated much of his life in producing a translation
of the scriptures that he felt to be accurate and free from personal
Interviewer: Are you
claiming that they majority of Christians who believe that the verse
is “the number of a man” are wrong?
are dozens of different English translations of the Bible and each
one chooses different translations of various words to express what
the translation's authors felt were accurate. Now it is estimated
that there are approximately 38,000 Christian denominations in the
 which includes approximately 1,000 Christian faith groups in the
U.S. and Canada who each believe themselves to be the only true
Christian denomination. Now can you tell me please, leaving out all
the various non-English adaptations, which of these dozens of
different New Testament translations written in English is a
complete and accurate version of the original Greek transcripts?
Now it is
just not possible for all the dozens of different English
translations of the Bible to be all completely correct as the
various authors of the different translations used various words to
express what they felt were accurate. Now is there any English
translation of the New Testament that is a completely true and
accurate translation from the original Greek? To make it a bit more
simple has anyone who accepts the commonly accepted version of
Revelation 13:18 taken the time and effort to check its accuracy or
have they just accepted someone’s word that it is accurate?
other hand just because the majority believe something true does
that make it true? In our past it was once Church doctrine that the
sun revolved around the earth and if you publicly disputed this
belief you ran the risk of being tied to a stake and burnt alive as
Now it is
not my intention to get into a debate with you over Scripture.
Whether I am right or wrong, in accepting the Concordant Literal New
of Revelation 13:18, this shouldn't cloud
or impact upon the facts raised on other matters during our
Interviewer: No doubt
some people well think you are a bit of a crack-pot conceding the
possible of a connection between the Carbon Card and the Mark of the
QE: I have a very open and enquiring mind
and I certainly do not discount something outright if the evidence
suggests otherwise. If people wish to believe that I am a crack-pot
then so be it; it certainly is no skin off my nose.
But before I carry on I have to
say that if there is no God then humanity is in very serious trouble
because what I believe that faces humanity further down the track
will need some sort of God-like intervention if the bulk of humanity
is to survive.
Interviewer: What are you exactly getting at? What serious
QE: As I mentioned earlier the male
fertility rates are falling at an alarming rate and if this
continues, and there is no reason to doubt that they will continue
to fall, then within thirty years or maybe less most males will be
sterile. Now where will this lead us to, especially if those
“people” pushing for Global Governance get their way?
these “people” have a general contempt for the Masses.
Interviewer: But why the contempt?
QE: These “people” consider themselves
superior and look upon the Masses as a cancer upon the planet using
valuable resources and destroying “their” environment. Secondly too
many people are a potential threat to them because we far outnumber
“them”; far easier to control five hundred million or maybe two
billion people then seven, or eight, or nine billion. Thirdly
because of advances in technology and automation the bulk of the
Masses are considered redundant by these “people”, you know
obsolete, not needed.
Interviewer: I get your point.
QE: Good…now where was I…Now as I was saying
the fertility rates are falling and what is being done about it?
NOTHING AT ALL. Of course from time to time researchers raise the
alarm but as I said nothing is done.
Of course when a couple wish to
start a family and they discover they have a fertility problem they
turn to IVF, or donated sperm, or donated eggs and now donated
embryos. Of course there is always surrogacy, you know a couple pay
another woman to carry their child for them or if you are really
trendy and PC you can adopt a child from one of the third world
People are not questioning why
they are infertile and looking for the answers, they just appear to
accept it as part of live. People are slowly being conditioned to
accept the fact that infertility is a part of life.
Now if human breeding is to be
regulated in the future, under the guise of cutting CO2 output, and
there is evidence to suggest this is the intention, it is more then
probably this will be overseen by a Global Authority as well. Of
course the willy-nilly approach to treating infertility by
independent clinics will in all probability become a thing of the
past as a more central approach is taken.
Interviewer: I have an uneasy feeling what you are coming
to, especially taking into consideration the connection you made
before regarding eugenics and population control.
QE: You appear to becoming attuned to my
thinking. But it is not the issue of eugenics I was going to
rise but the issue of generically modifying humans.
The New Eugenics is not
about the survival of the fittest but the survival of
Interviewer: Aren’t you
crossing into the realms of fantasy?
QE: Am I?
I think that if people dismiss such a possibility then they are the
ones living in a fantasy and should wake-up because such experiments
are in progress.
example a mouse without a father has been created for the first time
in an experiment that shatters the standard scientific belief that
mammals of the same sex cannot produce viable offspring. The mouse
was conceived from the unfertilised eggs of two mothers, making her
the first mammal to be born without a male genetic contribution.
The point I make here is that if it can be done with a mouse
it can be done with humans. Then we had the news item carried by the
BBC in February 2008 claiming that researchers at Newcastle
University in the UK have created a human embryo with three separate
parents; the embryos were created using DNA
from a man and two women
in lab tests.
Of course other researchers have gone well beyond this point.
Interviewer: What do
years scientists have added human genes to bacteria and farm
Scientists have already begun blurring the line between human and
animal by producing chimeras - a hybrid creature that's part human,
part animal. In Minnesota, pigs are being born with human blood in
their veins; and it's not just pig blood cells being swept along
with human blood cells as some of the cells themselves have merged,
creating hybrids. In Nevada, there are sheep whose livers and hearts
are largely human. In California, mice peer from their cages with
human brain cells firing inside their skulls.
From what I understand researchers intend to create mice whose
brains are 100 per cent human.
scientists at the Shanghai Second Medical University in 2003
successfully fused human cells with rabbit eggs. The embryos were
reportedly the first human-animal chimeras successfully created.
They were allowed to develop for several days in a laboratory dish
before the scientists destroyed the embryos to harvest their
Some researchers like Robert
Streiffer, a professor of philosophy and bioethics at the University
of Wisconsin in the US, fantasise over a human-chimpanzee chimera
endowed with speech and an enhanced potential to learn - what some
have called a "humanzee."
Of course there are claims from researchers that if such
created they would be given protection. But then we have likes of
Harvard political philosopher Michael J. Sandel stating that the
chances are that these hybrid humans would be made to
“perform menial jobs or
But creating human-animal
chimeras…has raised troubling questions: What new
subhuman combination should be produced and for what
purpose? At what point would it be considered human? And
what rights, if any, should it have?
National Geographic News.
January 25, 2005
"Animal-Human Hybrids Spark Controversy"
February 2007 it was announced in the UK that women
"will be able to sell their eggs for
scientific research after British regulators give the all-clear."
A few months later in September 2007 it was revelled in
magazine that "Britain's
fertility regulator had decided in principle to allow scientists to
create human-animal hybrid embryos for research purposes."
COSMOS went on to state that researchers intend
"transferring nuclei containing DNA
from human cells to animal eggs that have had nearly all their
genetic information removed. The resulting embryos are therefore
mostly human, with a small animal component."
Then we have David P. Barash, a professor of
psychology at the University of Washington saying that reproductive
facilities should work towards creating a race of human/chimpanzee
hybrids, but, he admits, only because it would offend Christians. He
reveals, however, that his motivation is not a pure interest in
advancing science, but his hatred for
and “religious fundamentalists,”
who hold human life to be sacred. Now
"hatred for those who hold human
life to be sacred."
According to an article on the LifeSiteNews
website Barash says that creating animal/human hybrids would
effectively quash the belief that “the
human species, unlike all others, possesses a spark of the divine
and that we therefore stand outside nature.”
The article quotes Barash as stating:
“Should geneticists and
developmental biologists succeed once again in joining human and
nonhuman animals in a viable organism,”
would be difficult and perhaps impossible for the special pleaders
to maintain the fallacy that Homo sapiens is uniquely disconnected
from the rest of life.”
Now thinking of the advancements
in technology and the increasing scientific breakthroughs being made
one cannot avoid remembering the words of Aldous Huxley:
"There will be, in the next generation or so, a
pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and
producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind
of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people
will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will
rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to
rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by
pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution."
But today science has made
advances further beyond what existed in Huxley’s time. Why use drugs
when genes can be manipulated to produce “compliant” creatures
article in the UK based Sunday Times
has shown to be feasible. It is interesting to note that the
beginning of the article made a reference to Huxley stating:
“ALDOUS HUXLEY may have got it right.
In Brave New World, his classic
futuristic novel, the author envisaged a society divided into castes
from Alpha at the top to Epsilon at the bottom.”
According to the article scientists in the USA
have discovered that by blocking the effects of a gene in the brain
called D2 in monkeys, the monkeys’ behaviour can be permanently
altered, turning the subjects from aggressive to “compliant”
creatures. It was noted in the article that
humans have an identical gene
and that “scientists acknowledge
that methods of manipulating human physical and psychological traits
are just around the corner.”
If people hold the view that
mankind is just another animal then the bulk of humanity shouldn’t
complain if they end-up being treated like an animal. On the other
hand if people believe that mankind is special and thus have a
special status above that of other life forms on this planet then
they had better heed the warning I have given and take action to
protect their status especially taking into consideration that there
are people in the world who believe that they are apart from, and
superior to, the rest of humanity and view people outside of their
group as no better than cattle.
Now looking at the evidence
presented here and taking into consideration what I have stated the
average person would have to be rather dim-witted if they didn’t
feel a bit of anxiety in regards to what the future holds for them,
their family, and humanity in general.
Copyright Qadosh Erectus. Permission granted to freely distribute
this article for non-commercial purposes if unedited and copied in
full, including this notice. Reproduction of this article for the
purposes of commercial redistribution is prohibited except with
written permission from Qadosh Erectus. QadoshErectus[at]gmail.com
No copyright is claimed on the images used in this publication nor
on the material quoted.
Oslington P. "Economics and
religion, Volume 2" pp 79
The Limits to Growth
1972 book modelling the consequences of a rapidly growing
world population and finite resource supplies,
commissioned by the Club of
Rome. Its authors were Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L.
Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III. The
book echoes some of the concerns and predictions of the
Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus in An Essay on the Principle
of Population (1798).
Beyond the Limits
1992 book continuing the modelling of the consequences of a
rapidly growing global population that was started in Limits
to Growth. Donella Meadows, Dennis Meadows, and Jorgen
Randers are the authors and all were involved in the
original Club of Rome study as well.
"Is This Your Childs World" by Dorris J. Rapp MD, published
by Bantam, page 501
Internet Journal of Urology 2004: Volume 2 Number 1.
"The sperm count has been decreasing steadily for many years
in Western industrialised countries:
Is there an endocrine
basis for this decrease?"
Mullenix PJ, et
al. 1995. "Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats."
Guan Z.Z., et al. 1998. "Influence of chronic fluorosis on
membrane lipids in rat brain." Neurotoxicology and
Teratology 20 537-542
Li XS, Zhi JL, Gao
RO. "Effect of Fluoride Exposure on Intelligence in
Fluoride [JOURNAL of the
International Society for Fluoride Research] Volume 28
Number 4 November 1995. pp 187-260
Zhao, L.B., et al. “Effect of high fluoride water supply on
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR FLUORIDE RESEARCH]
Vol.29 No.4 November 1996. pp 187-260
Luke, J.A. “Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the
pineal gland.” Caries Research 28 204 (1994).
Schlesinger, E.R. et al. “Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine
study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years.” JADA 52
29 Hart R, et al. 2009. “Relationship
between municipal water fluoridation and preterm birth in
Upstate New York.” Paper 197468 presented at American Public
Health Association, Annual Meeting, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, USA. November 9, 2009.
Pushpalatha T, et al. 2005. "Exposure
to high fluoride concentration in drinking water will affect
spermatogenesis and steroidogenesis in male albino rats."
Larsen MJ, et al. "Fluctuation of fluoride concentrations in
drinking waters: a collaborative study."
Int Dent J. 1989
Nina J. Wang. PUblic Dental Services, Oslo, Norway.
"Government policies on fluoride utilization in the Nordic
countries" Acta Odontologica 1999, Vol. 57, No. 6, Pages
38 Hougaard KS, et al.
2009. "Increased incidence of infertility treatment among
women working in the plastics industry" PMID: 19429396
52 Hunt PA, et al. 2003. "Bisphenol A
exposure causes meiotic aneuploidy in the female mouse."
Current Biology 13:
53 Lang IA, et al. September 2008.
"Association of Urinary Bisphenol A Concentration With
Medical Disorders and Laboratory Abnormalities in Adults"
60 Environmental Working Group
[USA] "Bisphenol A: Toxic Plastics
Chemical in Canned Food: BPA and human diseases on the rise"
74 Monje L., et al. 2009. "Neonatal
exposure to bisphenol A alters estrogen-dependent mechanisms
governing sexual behavior in the adult female rat "
Volume 28, Issue 4, December 2009, Pages 435-442
75 Funabashi T, et al. 2003. "Bisphenol A
increases progesterone receptor immunoreactivity in the
hypothalamus in a dose-dependent manner and affects sexual
behaviour in adult ovariectomized rats."
Taylor AE. 2000. "The gonadotropic axis in hyperandrogenic
adolescents." PMID: 11117670
82 Franke, AA, Custer LG et al.
"Quantification of phytoestrogens in legumes by HPLC." J
Agric Food Chem, 1994, 42, 1905-13.
Markiewicz J, Garey J et al. "In vitro
bioassays of non-steroidal phytoestrogens." J Steroids
Biochem Mol Biol, 1993, 45, 5, 399-405.
84 Irvine CHG, Fitzpatrick MG, Alexander
SL. "Phytoestrogens in soy-based infant foods:
concentrations, daily intake and possible biological
effects." Proc Soc Exp Biol Med, 1998, 217, 247-253.
Setchell KDR, Zimmer-Nechemias L et al. "Exposure of infants
to phyto-oestrogens from soy-based infant formula." Lancet,
1997, 350, 9070.
Office of the Swiss Federal Health Service Bulletin #28,
July 20, 1992.
Setchell KDR, Zimmer-Nechemias L et al. "Isoflavone content
of infant formulas and the metabolic fate of these
phytoestrogens in early life." Am J Clin Nutr, 1998, 69 (suppl)
Giddens, Herman et
al. “Secondary sexual characteristics and menses in young
girls seen in office practice.” Study from the Pediatric
Research in Office Settings Network, 1997, 99, 4, 505-512.
ed. “Hypospadias and Genital Development, Advances in
Experimental Biology and Medicine”, vol 545. (N.Y. Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2004. The definitive textbook.
Hines M. “Hormonal
and neural correlates of sex-typed behavioral development in
human beings.” In Marc Haug, ed. “The Development of Sex
Differences and Similarities in Behavior” (Dordrecht, Kluwer
Academic, 1993). 131-147.
Harrison PJ, Everall IP et al. "Is homosexuality hardwired?
Sexual orientation and brain structure." Psych Med, 1994,
Lund TD, West TW et al. “Visual spatial memory is enhanced
in female rats.” BMC Neurosci, 2001, 1, 1-13.
ed. "Hypospadias and Genital Development, Advances in
Experimental Biology and Medicine," vol. 545. (N.Y. Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2004). The definitive textbook.
On soy and homosexuality, see also: Lephart ED, Setchell KD,
Lund TD. “Phytoestrogens: hormonal action and brain
plasticity”. Brain Res Bull, 2005 Apr 15; 65 (3): 193-8.
Also see Lephart ED, Rhees RW et al. “Estrogens and
phytoestrogens: brain plasticity of sexually dimorphic
volumes.” J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol, 2003 June; 85 (2-5):
Zhong, et al.
"Effects of dietary supplement of soy protein isolate and
low fat diet on prostate cancer." FASEB J 2000;14(4):a531.11
98 Nagata C, et al.
"Inverse association of soy product intake with serum
androgen and estrogen concentrations in Japanese men." Nutr
Irvine CH and others. Phytoestrogens in soy-based infant
foods: concentrations, daily intake, and possible biological
effects. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1998 Mar 217:3 247-53.
Men'sHealth.com. Op. cit.
Fukutake M., et al. “Quantification of Genistein in Soybeans
and Soybean Products.”
Food and Chemical
Dr. Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN. "The Whole Soy Story: The
dark side of America's favorite health food."
The Dominion Post [NZ]
November 20, 2009. “Birth control may beat climate change”
Osborn, Frederick, Galton Lecture, Eugenics Review,
1956-1957, p. 21 -22
Tracey C. Rembert,
"Ted Turner: Billionaire, Media Mogul ... And
Environmentalist" (Interview), E Magazine, January/February
1999, Volume X, number 1, p. 10
Quoted in the book Final Days
by Woodward and Bernstein.
Telegraph [UK] November 9, 2009. Op. cit.
149 The Dominion Post [NZ]. December 22,
2009. “Change to land tax ‘could reduce bill’ for
Geographic News. January 25, 2005. Op. cit.
Qadosh Erectus. Permission granted to freely distribute this article
for non-commercial purposes if unedited and copied in full,
including this notice. Reproduction of this article for the purposes
of commercial redistribution is prohibited except with written
permission from Qadosh Erectus. QadoshErectus[at]gmail.com No
copyright is claimed on the images used in this publication nor on
the material quoted.
This Article On Pdf
file For Printing
By the same author:
Some Non-Politically Correct Facts
on the History of Slavery
....It is most interesting to note
that Ulrich B. Phillips, the author of Life and Labor
in the Old South explained in his book that white
enslavement was crucial to the development
of the Negro slave system. The system set up for the
white slaves governed, organized
and controlled the system for the black slaves.
Black slaves were “late comers fitted into a system
It is interesting to note that the first blacks in the
Virginia Colony were treated as indentured servants.
As with white indentured servants, the blacks were freed
after a stated period. Blacks gradually
did sink to a status lower than whites, and a man who
was a freed indentured servant helped
push them in that direction. A full-blooded African from
Angola, he took the English name
of Anthony Johnson. After his term of indentured service
he prospered mightily, accumulating
more than 1,000 acres and a score of servants both black
and white. He found fault with one
of his blacks, an individual named John Casor, and in
1650, after a lengthy lawsuit, persuaded a court
to make the man a servant for life. Casor, then, was one
of the first blacks condemned to chattel slavery
as we know it. It was only in 1671 that Virginia made
all blacks coming into the colony slaves for life....
There will only be
racial peace when knowledge of radical historical truths
and all sides base their actions on ethical reasoning
and not from fantasies of White guilt
and the uniqueness of Black suffering
Thus Speaks Qadosh
For a Sane Society
When I set out to understand human
nature the burning question
I wanted answered was why injustice and corruption was allowed
to rein when the majority of people basically believe in a fair-go.
What I discovered about human nature gave me the answers.
Society has developed the way it has because society is dominated
by a small Predatory Class – abnormal people who have no empathy
what-so-ever towards the majority of submissive people who make up
the bulk of a society. Understanding human nature enlightened me
as to why a tiny segment of society controls most of the wealth
and why globalisation has been a natural consequence from this
immoral concentration of wealth.
Once I understood that this Predatory Class has basically dominated
most if not all societies throughout history I concentrated on how
it would be possible to control or limit the destructive influence
of this Predatory Class. On a number of occasions I ran into a brick
I found that trying to come up with a solution I was just chasing my
I just could not find the answers. It was only a matter of time
until I realised that it was my own preconceived ideas and prejudices
that were hindering me in finding the solutions I was seeking...
Non-Politically Correct Response to:
Are the Jews God’s Chosen
Your revelations in regards to slavery are quite
You have mentioned much that I never knew.
But that aside…we live in an age where any criticising
brings the big stick called anti-Semitism down on the
of the criticiser. Aren’t you worried at all that you
may be labelled as anti-Semite?
Oh please give me a break here.
Look I’m no New Age sensitive bloke…I really not give a
if some narrow minded idiotic bigot who has trouble
with facts calls me names.
In fact there is evidence from a number of leading
anti-Zionist Jews such as Benjamin H. Freedman and
to name a few, that indicate that that the majority of
are in fact not of the Semitic race.
Not of the Semitic race?
You have lost me here…please explain...Read