Scientific American Advocates Government Violence to Finance Planned Parenthood


One of the most effective forms of violence is that which isn’t noticed or felt, and in that regard, government has all the accolades. Often, the existence of big government is justified by its supporters based on the idea that it is a government’s duty to take care of the needy, or to provide services to people who cannot pay for those services themselves. The problem arises when the government, or anyone else for that matter, initiates violence against citizens and coercively forces them to do what they would not do if left to decide: Fund and support a large, out of control government bureaucracy. One of the services government is strongly involved in today is sexual education and contraception methods, which in the United States are largely provided by Planned Parenthood.

The organization was founded by known eugenicist Margaret Sanger, who a century ago began — well intentionally perhaps — to offer birth control services to women who she believed might not have had access to them. But Sanger’s supposed well-intentioned initiative changed for the worst, as she later became a confessed anti-humanist. Her thoughts about the need to reduce world population and to do it by stealth through government-sponsored healthcare programs is documented through her books and speeches.

At the start of her adventure as a defender of women’s health, Sanger rationalized the need to provide contraception on the idea that if it wasn’t for those services, women would have to go through painful dark ally abortions which in many cases they would have to execute themselves. She also thought that the education she provided to women would help them deal with reproduction and unwanted pregnancies. But Sanger’s idea of safer pregnancies and abortions changed radically as she became influenced by colleagues and mentors.

Her little clinic grew exponentially until it became what we know today as Planned Parenthood, an institution well connected with known eugenicists like Bill Gates’ father, William Henry Gates, Sr. Gates Sr. was a lawyer and a philanthropist who admittedly founded and later funded Planned Parenthood. Gates Sr. shared Sanger’s desire to reduce the world’s population, first in the US and then the rest of the world. Today, just as Gates Sr. did in the past, Bill Gates Jr. channels money to Planned Parenthood and other eugenics projects through his foundation, the Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation, which just as many other philanthropic organizations is tax excepted. Planned parenthood itself was born out of the American Eugenics Society.

Back in 2003, Bill Gates Jr. admitted that his father was the founder of Planned Parenthood, which had been founded on the concept that human were “reckless breeders” and “human weeds”. In later interviews, such as TED conferences, Bill Gates openly spoke about reducing the world’s population in order to curb what he said was planetary collapse. In later events, Gates told a group of teachers and workers that denying healthcare to the elderly could translate into hiring more teachers, to which the audience applauded and cheered. Bill Gates & the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are now heavily invested in other eugenics operations such as genetically engineered food. The total amount of their investment reached $23.1 million in Monsanto stock. In a previous purchase, Gates bought Monsanto stock for another $360,000.

Bill Gates is also invested on another giant of the biotechnology industry known as Cargill. South Africa-based watchdog the African Centre for Biosafety reported about Gates’ investment with Cargill to develop a project to “implement the soy value chain” in the country of Mozambique. Gates is well-known for funding aid programs in Africa, where most of his projects involve sterilizing women and conducting vaccination campaigns. Given the harm that genetically engineered crops causes on people and animals, it is more than suspicious that Gates invests so heavily in two GMO companies.

Where does Scientific American fit in all this you may be asking? Apparently, the editorial board at the magazine is one of Planned Parenthood’s strongest supporters, and they’ve made it clear on an opinion piece published on June 1, 2012. According to the editorial, Planned Parenthood is under attack by conservatives and Republicans in Congress, who, they say, threaten women’s lives because of their intention to defund the eugenicist organization. But Scientific American did not stop at pointing out the supposed attack on women’s health, the article actually called for the enforcement of taxpayer funding to maintain Planned Parenthood open and providing abortions and other services to women who in their opinion cannot have access to a doctor. After quickly mentioning the so-called political attacks on Planned Parenthood, Scientific American goes on to say that most of the negative ideas about the organization are wrongly founded of its image as an abortion provider. This misconception, it says, is wrong because Planned Parenthood’s abortion only account for 3 percent of its services. That is a lie which will be explained later.

After attacking people who oppose Planned Parenthood’s funding with taxpayer money, the article praises the organization for its hard work saying:

“Stripping Planned Parenthood of federal funding would also sacrifice the 97 percent of its public health work that has nothing to do with abortion, from which many people benefit directly. One in five American women have used the group’s services, and three out of four of its patients are considered to have low incomes. In 2011 it carried out tests and treatment for more than four million individuals with sexually transmitted diseases. It supplied 750,000 exams to prevent breast cancer, the most common cancer among U.S. women. And it performed 770,000 Pap tests to prevent cervical cancer, which was a leading cause of death among women before this screen became widely available. Planned Parenthood is one of the most important public health care institutions in the country, even aside from its work in rational family planning.”

They conveniently leave out important information which again, will be explained in detail in the following paragraphs.

The most important fact is that Scientific American advocates for the government to tax citizens in order to fund an institution that not only does not need the money, but also wastes public funds that could be used to actually improve women’s lives. Planned Parenthood does not need public funds because as we mentioned before it is heavily subsidized by tax exempted foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Susan G. Komen Foundation, the Bank One Corporation, The Boston Globe Foundation II Inc, the Buffett Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Freddie Mac Foundation, the William H. Gates Foundation, the Gates Foundation, and dozens of other ones. See the complete list here. Groups like the Buffett Foundation donated almost $5 million during 5 fiscal years in a row. Most of those monies allocated to finance Planned Parenthood are sent to it through legalized tax evasion schemes which are maintained because of the Foundations’ supposed philanthropic work.

Many of the services pointed out by the magazine and its editorial board are often fake. For example, according to an article on the Weekly Standard, Planned Parenthood lied about providing mammogram services. The article tells how activist Lila Rose’s from Live Action confirmed in a video, that Planned Parenthood actually didn’t provide mammograms. However, the president of Planned Parenthood, Cecille Richards insisted on CNN that if Congress defunded the organization, they wouldn’t be able to provide such services. So not only does Scientific American supports a eugenicist organization, but also helps cover the lies spoken by Planned Parenthood’s representatives, because the article published on June 1, does not mention anything regarding the fraud, eugenics or lies coming out of the institution.

In a separate case which was also ignored by Scientific Magazine, the organization “Students for Life of America” released an undercover video of a nurse at a New Jersey Planned Parenthood facility admitting that some babies survive abortions even in advanced stages (22 weeks into the pregnancy).  “It does happen,” the nurse said. Another common occurrence is the cover ups of sexual encounters between under age girls and adult men when these girls go to a Planned Parenthood office to get an abortion. In a video obtained by, the lack of care or complicity of Planned Parenthood is put out in the open. In the same video, the nurse admits that cases of infanticide take place at the clinic. She explains that although it is not a common thing, “Usually, for the most part no, but it does happen.  It’s an actual delivery,” she says, “but it wouldn’t be able to survive on its own, so eventually the baby does die.”

For parents who are worried about their children’s well-being there are more bad news when it comes to Planned Parenthood’s actions. In an article published two days ago by CBS Los Angeles, the writer reveals that the eugenics supporting organization just opened a clinic at Roosevelt High School, in the Unified High School District, where it intends to offer its services to teenage girls. This would be just a bit less concerning if California had not approved a mandate that allows schools to vaccinate children without their parents’ consent. Girls will not be able to accept vaccines such as HPV and others that Planned Parenthood offers to women in its clinics.

The move by this organization to set up a clinic in this school, will likely be repeated in other areas of the state as well as other states, where parenting rights are quickly eroding in the hands of bureaucrats that allow organizations like Planned Parenthood to indoctrinate young women and men. “Students can visit the on-campus health clinic to get free birth control, pregnancy tests, counseling and screening for sexually transmitted diseases – the first program of its kind in the country, according to the Los Angeles Times,” says the article. Groups like Planned Parenthood are doing such a great job at brainwashing youngsters into trusting them and not their parents that many teens now don’t believe it is a good idea to tell talk to them about sex, pregnancy, abortion or similar matters. Here is a typical example: I don’t think I would tell my parents, because I feel like they would look at me as someone who’s already messed up – like early in my life, and I’d feel like I was a disappointment.”

Despite these and other examples of what Planned Parenthood actually does, Scientific American strongly supports its work saying that the organization’s family planning programs has benefited society in numerous ways. “It has saved lives, opened new horizons for women and kept populations from soaring. As a major provider of contraceptives—it furnished birth control to two million Americans last year—Planned Parenthood serves as “America’s largest abortion preventer,” says the article, citing the Chicago Tribune. The magazine the says that “access to birth control in the U.S. has helped narrow the income inequality gap between men and women by as much as 30 percent during the 1990s alone. The pill has given women greater choice about when to have children, freeing them up to acquire career skills.”

For the sake of argument let’s assume all this is true. It seems Scientific American condones the ‘great work’ conducted by Planned Parenthood which has undoubtedly contributed with the death of over 55 million unborn children in the United States. The argument that the world would be overpopulated if Planned Parenthood didn’t exist is weak and just pure speculation. So is the idea that women could not have turned successful had they not been helped by the foundation ran and funded organization. But the lies don’t end there. Let’s see what else Scientific American doesn’t say or covers up in order to make Planned Parenthood look good.

The claim that Planned Parenthood’s abortion accounts for only 3 percent of its activities is deceiving. How do they make it so? For example, back in 2006, Planned Parenthood completed 289,750 abortions, which added up to  approximately 23% of  all abortions in the country. That made the organization the largest of such procedures  in the United States.  More surprisingly, although abortion in the US continue to drop, Planned Parenthood’s sponsored abortions keep on increasing every year. This information comes from a report issued by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

While Scientific American, the Washington Post and Planned Parenthood officials say that abortion account for only 3 percent of the procedures, therefore trying to imply that such a service  is not the main reason for its existence, reality says otherwise. The deceit comes from the fact that every time that a woman visits Planned Parenthood to receive counseling, pregnancy advice, contraception guidelines or help with an abortion, each visit is counted separately, instead as a group of visits from the same patient which in many cases end up in an abortion. Since the abortion procedure is only done once, the numbers on abortion services are compared with a stack of other visits which make it seem as only a small part of Planned Parenthood’s work.

However, it is just a matter of looking a little closer to see the trees for the forest. In 2006, for example, Planned Parenthood’s services were provided to 3.1 million clients, which added up to 9 percent of the total. In this case the figures are three times what they claim. Another misleading statement often told about the greatness of Planned Parenthood is that it provides a safe way for women to have abortions, which in itself is a risky procedure. Since 1973, when abortion was made legal, thousands of women have died during and after being submitted to an abortion procedure. Many of these women died at Planned Parenthood clinics. As reported by the Los Angeles Times, a Planned Parenthood facility personnel failed to realize that one of their patients who came in for help had a vaginal infection. The clinic did not offer any treatment and the patient died a few days later. Her name was Edrica Goode a 21-year-old woman from Riverside California. Planned Parenthood was accused by Edrica’s parents for malpractice.

Another fact left out by Scientific American is that although publicly Planned Parenthood says it rejects racism, the organization was founded by a eugenicist that believed that certain people and ethnicities of people were undesirable. In fact, Planned Parenthood affiliates often set up shop in or near poor neighborhoods, where most of the people are black, hispanic of belong to other minority groups. Even though blacks only account for about 13 percent of the american population, 37 percent of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood are done on black women. Author Robert L. Zangrando explains in his book The Reader’s Companion to American History, that more unborn blacks are killed at Planned Parenthood clinics than those who were murdered by the Ku Klux  Klan in their entire history.

Planned Parenthood is not the clean dedicated organization that the Scientific American article intends to paint. In fact, it is controlled by the Planned  Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), which extends its tentacles through the work of 97 affiliates all over the United  States. Those affiliates are in charge of opening clinics in communities around the country; many of them as we said, in poor neighborhoods or schools. Its affiliates operate some 880 facilities. Besides the United States, Planned Parenthood also operates in 17 countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, three of the poorest regions of the world. In many cases, Planned Parenthood creates partnerships with governments of local medical organizations to provide abortions, contraception methods and supposed medical advice to patients.

Additionally, the Planned Parenthood Federation uses its Action Fund Political Action Committee (PPFAPAC), to lobby the US Congress on keeping abortion unrestricted by law, and well funded with taxpayer money. That may be part of the reason why Congress refuses to defund this organization despite the fact it is supported by private initiatives such as money streams from philanthropic foundations, which are already tax exempted. Annually, Planned Parenthood’s budget amounts to over $1 billion. At least a third of that budget is provided by US taxpayers. Planned  Parenthood reported an income of $100 million for surgical abortions in  2006. If that is not a sign that abortions are a business in the United States, I don’t know what it is.

All this information proved meaningless to Scientific American, so they still decided to publicly endorse the work performed by Planned Parenthood. With all this information, it is not hard to see where the future of humanity would walk towards if it was in the hands of Planned Parenthood and its eugenicist financiers. In fact, this organization may just have gotten a new tool in its battle to kill more unborn children. In an article published by the London Telegraph, writer Stephen Adams reveals how scientists will soon be able to supposedly test children for some 3,500 ‘genetic defects’. This new technology, according to Adams, may spur a new era of murder through abortions under the excuse of preventing ‘genetic disorders’. The idea that humans are defective from birth is one of the most popular sickening premises to carry out eugenics programs all around the world.

Before concluding, let’s be clear that it is absolutely unjustified to call for government-sponsored violence against its citizens in any way, shape or form for the sake of supporting any initiative created by government or any other group. Taxation is one of the clearest forms of violence conducted by government throughout the history of humanity, and it is even worse when the money stolen from the labor of citizens is used to finance well-known eugenics programs and institutions like Planned Parenthood. As for the decision of a woman to have an abortion, she is free to do it or not as this decision will directly impact her health – for the worst in most cases. It would be hypocritical to propose the use of force against women to prevent them from having an abortion or any other procedure if that is what they desire. The problem arises, as emphasized before, when governments force citizens to provide funding for abortions, which is proven to be biological murder, if the citizens do not willingly support such initiatives.

If private organizations want to endorse and provide financing to organizations like Planned Parenthood, it is their right to do so, but don’t ask to be exempted from paying taxes while everyone else is forced to pay them in order to finance the murder of unborn children. If private citizens are interested in financing abortions, they can donate their money to Planned Parenthood directly, or give it to the globalist foundations who will gladly accepted. Forcing the whole population to finance a eugenics is like asking citizens to shoot themselves twice on the head.

Revista Scientific American: Matem mais Bebês para salvar a Terra

Versão em Português
Marilia Muller

Após o vazamento de um projeto das Nações Unidas que delineou o plano para substituir a propaganda do medo sobre o aquecimento global com a ameaça da superpopulação, um artigo da revista Scientific American aborda este mesmo tópico, forçando a noção de que programas de aborto em massa e controle de natalidade precisam ser encorajados a fim de reduzir a quantidade de seres humanos exalando dióxido de carbono no planeta.

“Em última análise, planejamento familiar por si só – como o uso de preservativos- em algumas partes do mundo com populações em crescimento, incluindo os EUA, poderia conter, de uma maneira significativa, o crescimento populacional”, escreve David Biello.

Para sustentar sua argumentação, Biello menciona um artigo escrito por Paul Ehrlich, um eugenista desacreditado que, certa vez, declarou que “todos vão desaparecer em uma nuvem de vapor azul.”

Ehrlich, que escreveu Ecoscience com John P. Holdren, o livro onde os autores defendem a colocação de drogas no abastecimento de água para esterilizar pessoas e abortos forçados, é famoso por suas previsões imprecisas e espetaculares sobre como a superpopulação iria destruir o meio ambiente.

O artigo citado por Biello defende uma campanha de relações públicas dirigidas às mulheres para incentivá-las a praticar o aborto com a finalidade de reduzir a quantidade de gases de efeito estufa na atmosfera. Em outras palavras, mais bebês precisam ser mortos para evitar que eles exalem CO2. Coincidentemente, a edição da revista na qual o artigo está impresso apresenta um conjunto de crânios humanos na capa.

A verdade por trás dos temores sobre superpopulação é a redução do nível de vida global, fazendo com que o terceiro mundo nunca se torne economicamente próspero e, ao mesmo tempo, destruindo a classe média das nações ocidentais.

O objetivo das instituições globalistas é “limitar e reorientar as aspirações por uma vida melhor das classes médias em todo o mundo”, em outras palavras, reduzir o padrão de vida das classes médias na Europa Ocidental e América.

Similarmente, em seu artigo, Biello denuncia que “pessoas mais ricas” levariam a um aumento no consumo, mais uma vez revelando o fervor eugenista com que os ambientalistas querem impedir o terceiro mundo de sair da pobreza e da fome.

Na realidade, sempre que um país se desenvolve e se torna mais próspero, a população cai naturalmente, reforçando o fato de que os ambientalistas não se importam com a ameaça representada pela superpopulação, mas, sim, com o que representaria para a elite a existência de uma classe média forte.

Controles ambientais que impedem o desenvolvimento das nações do terceiro mundo e promovem fome, superpopulação e miséria, que é exatamente o que as elites querem que aconteça.

Os avisos sobre a ameaça representada pela superpopulação são fundamentalmente falhos. Na realidade, subpopulação será visto como o maior perigo para a prosperidade humana na segunda metade do século 21.

Dados da ONU indicam, claramente, que a população se estabilizará em 2020 e, em seguida, cairá dramaticamente depois de 2050. O jornal The Economist publicou que “fertilidade está caindo e as famílias estão encolhendo em alguns lugares como o Brasil, a Indonésia e até mesmo em partes da Índia (lugares onde as pessoas pensam estarem repletos de crianças). A taxa de fertilidade da metade do mundo está agora em 2,1 ou menos -o número mágico que é consistente com uma população estável e é normalmente chamado de “taxa de reposição da fertilidade”-. Em algum momento entre 2020 e 2050, a taxa de fertilidade do mundo vai cair abaixo da taxa de substituição global. “

A contagem de esperma global caiu um terço desde 1989 e pela metade nos últimos 50 anos. Este declínio está acelerarando enquanto casais encontram mais dificuldades para terem filhos. Em estudos com homens brancos europeus, a taxa de declínio de esperma é 50 por cento nos últimos 30 anos. Na Itália, isso equivale a uma redução da população em 22 por cento até 2050. A redução da população já está ocorrendo entre os habitantes nativos em muitas áreas da Europa e América.

O processo de redução da população global poderia naturalmente ocorrer aliviando a pobreza do terceiro mundo e elevando o nível de vida das pessoas em todo o mundo. Ao invés disso, globalistas querem atingir este objetico promovendo envenenamento em massa de nossos alimentos e da água.

Além disso, os governos já estão desenvolvendo bombas de nêutron que destroem humanos, mas não os edifícios, “para a limpeza étnica extrema em um mundo cada vez mais populoso”, segundo um relatório de 2007 do Ministério da Defesa Britânico , que previu que o uso de tais bombas poderia levar à aplicação de “força letal sem intervenção humana, elevando questões éticas e legais”.

Como os vídeos abaixo demonstram, a superpopulação é um mito. Globalistas e eugenistas deturparam estatísticas populacionais ao longo de décadas, a fim de justificar a sua agenda para acabar com grande parte da população. Se essa agenda genocida continuar, a humanidade vai seguir o caminho do Brontossauro. Leia aqui, a ciência por trás da questão da população do planeta.

Hay que Matar Bebes para Salvar el Planeta

Por Paul Joseph Watson
Versión Español Luis R. Miranda

Tras ser revelado un plan de las Naciones Unidas que describe como reemplazar alarmismo sobre el calentamiento global con la amenaza de la sobrepoblación, un informe de la revista Scientific American imita exactamente el punto del que habla este informe, empujando la idea de que los programas de aborto en masa y control de la natalidad deben ser alentados a fin de reducir la cantidad de seres humanos en el planeta quienes exhalan dióxido de carbono.

“En última instancia, la planificación familiar sola – como el uso de condones y otros servicios de salud reproductiva – en algunas partes del mundo con crecimiento de la población, incluidos los EE.UU., podría frenar el crecimiento de la población de manera significativa, este análisis encuentra”, escribe David Biello.

Para respaldar su argumento, Biello enlaza a un artículo completamente desacreditado del eugenista Paul Ehrlich, quien una vez afirmó que “todo el mundo iba a desaparecer en una nube de vapor de agua azul.”

Ehrlich, quien co-escribió el libro Ecoscience con El ahora Czar Ambiental de la Casa Blanca, John P. Holdren, aboga por poner drogas en el suministro de agua para esterilizar a las personas, forzar abortos, y establecer una dictadura tiránica eco-fascista dirigida por un “régimen planetario”.  Ehrlich es famoso por sus predicciones inexactas sobre cómo la sobrepoblación destruiría el medio ambiente.

El artículo citado por Biello aboga por una campaña masiva de relaciones públicas dirigidas a las mujeres para animarlas a tener abortos con el fin de reducir la cantidad de gases de efecto invernadero en la atmósfera. En otras palabras, más bebés deben ser sacrificados para evitar la exhalación de CO2. Coincidentemente, la portada de la revista Scientific American en la que aparece el artículo, presenta un conjunto de cráneos humanos como ilustración.

Como se reveló en un informe el mes pasado, la agenda verdadera detrás de avivar las mentiras  y temores acerca de la sobrepoblación es reducir los niveles de vida a nivel mundial, impidiendo que el tercer mundo nunca llegue a ser económicamente próspero, a la vez que evisceran las clases medias de las naciones occidentales.

Un plan de la ONU habla de su proyecto para revitalizar el movimiento hacia un gobierno mundial y esboza un plan para relacionar el calentamiento global con la “sobrepoblación” como una forma de desmantelar las clases medias a través de la “redistribución de la riqueza” y el aumento de la inmigración.  Esto daría un nuevo impulso a la búsqueda de un gobierno mundial.

El objetivo de las instituciones globalistas es de “limitar y reorientar las aspiraciones de una vida mejor de la creciente clase media en todo el mundo”, es decir, reducir el nivel de vida de las clases medias en el oeste de Europa y América.

Del mismo modo, en su informe, Biello condena la posibilidad de que “un número mayor de personas con poder adquisitivo superior” de lugar a un mayor consumo, una vez más, revelando el fervor eugenista que los ambientalistas que abrazan en forma deliberada la Idea de prevenir que el   tercer mundo salga de la pobreza y el hambre.

En realidad, cada vez que un país puede desarrollarse y ser más próspero, las cifras de población caen de forma natural, lo que subraya el hecho de que a los ecologistas no les importa realmente la amenaza que representa la sobrepoblación, su principal preocupación es la amenaza que representa a la élite una clase media fuerte a nivel mundial.

Los controles ambientales que impiden que las naciones del tercer mundo desarrollen su  infraestructura son los que están impulsando la sobrepoblación, el hambre y la miseria, que es precisamente lo que los elitistas quieren que siga existiendo.

Las advertencias sobre la amenaza que representa la sobrepoblación son fundamentalmente defectuosas. En realidad, la despoblación será vista como el mayor peligro para la prosperidad humana en la segunda mitad del siglo 21.

Las propias cifras de la ONU indican claramente que la población se estabilizará en 2020 y luego caerá dramáticamente después de 2050. Como The Economist informó: “La fertilidad está cayendo y las familias se están reduciendo en lugares-como Brasil, Indonesia, e incluso partes de la India-donde la gente piensa que la fertilidad es mayor. Como nuestra información muestra, la tasa de fecundidad media del planeta ahora es 2.1 o menos, lo cual es el número consistente con una población estable que se suele denominar como “la tasa de reposición de la fertilidad”. En algún momento entre 2020 y 2050 la tasa mundial de fecundidad quedará por debajo de la tasa de sustitución global “.

Por supuesto, la agenda globalista para reducir la población mundial hasta en un 80% en el nombre de salvar el medio ambiente, una cifra alcanzable sólo a través de medidas draconianas y genocidas, no tiene nada que ver con el medio ambiente y todo lo relacionado con controlar a los ciudadanos para que puedan ser más fácilmente manipulados en un sistema de neo feudalismo.

El plan eco-fascista de Holdren y Ehrlich para esterilizar a las personas a través del suministro de agua ya está en vigencia.  La fertilidad masculina se ha reducido exponencialmente a través del uso productos químicos que contaminan nuestros ríos y lagos, mientras que antiandrógenos que se rocían en nuestros alimentos en forma de pesticidas feminizan a la población masculina.

La cuenta global de esperma ha bajado en un tercio desde 1989 y a la mitad en los últimos 50 años. La tasa de disminución se acelera a medida que más y más parejas con dificultades para tener hijos. En los estudios de los hombres blancos europeos, la tasa de disminución es hasta un 50 por ciento en los últimos 30 años. En Italia, esto equivale a una reducción de la población nativa de un 22 por ciento para 2050. La reducción de la población ya está ocurriendo entre los residentes nativos en muchas zonas de Europa y América.

El orden del día para reducir la población mundial, un proceso que, naturalmente, se podría lograr mediante la mitigación de la pobreza del tercer mundo y la elevación del nivel de vida de las personas en todo el mundo, es en lugar logrado con el envenenamiento masivo intencional de los alimentos y los suministros de agua.

Además, los gobiernos ya están desarrollando bombas de neutrones que destruyen los seres humanos, no los edificios, “la limpieza étnica extrema en un mundo cada vez más poblado”, según el Informe de Ministerio Británico de Defensa de 2007, que predijo que su uso podría conducir a la aplicación “de fuerza letal sin intervención humana, elevando consecuentes problemas jurídicos y éticos. “

En los siguientes videos se muestra como la sobrepoblación es un mito. Los globalistas y sus secuaces eugenistas han tergiversado las estadísticas de población durante décadas para justificar su agenda para acabar con gran parte de la población. Si esta agenda genocida sigue, la humanidad seguirá el camino del Brontosaurio. Lea aquí la ciencia detrás de la cuestión de la población en el planeta.

Related Links:









Partner Links