Proposal that aims to stop welfare dependents from “breeding poverty” would poison everyone with birth control spiked in public water.

Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
February 13, 2012

Water fluoridation was always just a gateway for a greater drugging of society.

The Detroit News has published a call to add contraceptives to the water supply, a dangerous and repugnant proposal for gross state power over life and death– all in the name of fighting the “breeding poverty” of the welfare class. Editorial page editor Nolan Finley writes:

“Since the national attention is on birth control, here’s my idea: If we want to fight poverty, reduce violent crime and bring down our embarrassing drop-out rate, we should swap contraceptives for fluoride in Michigan’s drinking water.“

This arrogant proposal– straight from the classic Eugenics model– will not curb the dependency in the welfare class. Instead, if implemented, it would cause a spike in the cancer rate, exacerbate the presence of gender-bending compounds in our common provisions, all while serving to legitimize nanny state control over all of us– not just those taking handouts or “breeding” irresponsibly.

In the first sense, Finley is airing class warfare arguments designed to play off segments of society under a larger climate of anger about the economic crisis or the socialistic takeover under ObamaCare (now couched in a debate about subsidized birth control). No doubt Detroit is plagued with problems, but this proposal is an elitist problem-reaction-solution ploy (whether the author realizes it or not) aptly geared at drawing ire from its readers about paying out the dole to the undeserving, all while instead cheering for their own destruction via drugging the water supply.

Why?

Let’s breakdown a few key points here:

1.) BIRTH CONTROL AND OTHER HORMONAL DISRUPTORS ARE ALREADY IN THE WATER & CAUSING PROBLEMS

A few years ago, investigations by the Associated Press and others underscored a little talked about problem. Hundreds of different pharmaceuticals and modern chemical compounds are ALREADY inadvertently polluting our drinking water. Runoff and toilet-to-tap systems allow excreted and disposed pharmaceuticals and pills of all sorts to enter right back into our water supply. These dangerous compounds are affecting all stratas of society– from wealthy, “responsible” families on down. Even if targeting the dependent class was morally acceptable and desirable, there’s no way to limit the exposure.

Toxic and gender-bending hormonal endocrine disruptors are destroying the environment and triggering cancer and other health problems. Spikes in prostrate cancer, breast cancer, thyroid problems and more are attributed to these chemicals, even as much of the media tries to downplay the effects as being at “safe levels.” Some ludicrously act as if turning a blind eye to hormonal pollution will make the problem go away.

Breast Cancer & The Environmental Estrogen Connection

Instead, these artificial sex hormones, along with known carcinogens like arsenic, uranium, radium, and tetrachloroethylene not only violate the Safe Drinking Water Act, but coincide with increased reports of “‘intersex’ animals that live in or near the water: male alligators with undersize penises, male fish that produce eggs as well as sperm, male sea birds with female trait,” as Susan Kim at the Huffington Post writes.

2.) DETROIT OP-ED JUST REGURGITATING LONG-ESPOUSED COERCIVE POPULATION CONTROL MEASURES

The Detroit News‘ Nolan Finley is not presenting original ideas. Proposals to add sterilants to the water are not new; instead there are long-standing calls from eugenicists for covert mass sterilization, and this article gives reason to believe these poisonous ideas are gaining acceptance among a sheep-like and deeply divided population turned against itself.

Current White House science advisor John P. Holdren co-wrote the 1977 textbook Ecoscience, which lays out in detail a wide-array of coercive and voluntary-submission population control methods. One of the most drastic is that of “Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods” (p. 787). Other drastic proposals include starving the poor by consolidating the global food supply and depriving nations who don’t meet population reduction goals of proportionate food rations (p. 942-3).

Putting sterilants in the water, though, dates back further to a 1969 memo sent in private from Planned Parenthood VP Frederick S. Jaffe to the Rockefeller-created Population Council’s President Bernard Berelson. It advocated drastic coercive measures including “Fertility control agents in water supply” and “encourage increased homosexuality.” But much of the one-page memo also aimed to dangle state benefits over expectant mothers to encourage abortions, sterilization and birth control through payments, tax credits and public housing policies. There is no doubting the racist tinge in this language, just as in this current editorial aimed at Detroit’s large minority populations.

Both Jaffe and Berelson are recipients of the Margaret Sanger Award for their population control work. Rockefeller-funded Sanger is a classical Eugenicist, and the founder of the Birth Control League that later transformed into Planned Parenthood. She was a key player in the highly inflammatory “Negro Project” (to reduce numbers in the black population) wherein she bluntly wrote in 1939 that “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

More recently, “bio-ethicists” like Oxford professor Julian Savulescu have called for adding other drugs to the water supply, too. Savulsecu, and many others like Irish Psychiatrist Dr. Moosajee Bhamjee, have advocated that lithium could be spiked in water to curb suicides, using the acceptance of water fluoridation to legitimize more and more mass drugging by the state.

Extremists like Dr. Eric Pianka have resurrected elite cries to sterilize everyone in the world, and only offer the antidote those willing to work for it. Plastic estrogen mimickers like Bisphenol-A were already making this possible, he indicated according to the transcript. Indeed, it is a very real proposal, that includes policies to implant a removable sterilant under the arm, reinstating the ability to reproduce if authorized by the state.

3.) IT’S ABOUT SCAPEGOATING THE POOR & DEPENDENT CLASSES, NOT THE ROOT CAUSES

The fall of Detroit has already been analyzed. It was victim to globalization and elite policies to de-industrialize America. In fact, Planned Parenthood’s National Medical Director, Dr. Richard Day, was one of the biggest advocates of this policy.

As ground zero of the U.S. manufacturing base, Detroit, like many other hotspots in the rust belt, was dismantled by trade policies building up new Asian partners and other exploitable, low wage countries. When Detroit was booming, the middle class was growing rapidly, and all groups in society had the chance to prosper– a prosperity that studies show typically correlates with smaller families and greater independence. Black, White, Hispanic– it doesn’t matter.

But now that the larger economic crisis has set off, it is again trendy to blame the dependent poor for all their abuses of the welfare system. Nevermind that the same elite class who advocated de-industrializing the West also purposely triggered the 2008 implosion.

Detroit News‘ Nolan Finley gives an example of a woman on welfare who has had 12 children. “The woman’s womb is a poverty factory,” Finley writes. “In the 1990s, Michigan considered penalizing women who had more babies while on welfare, but pro-life groups killed the idea out of fear it would lead to more abortions,” he also states.

The truth is that the crony-capitalists who control the government don’t want the dependent class to be self-supporting. They’ve just targeted the poor and minority communities because they are most vulnerable and least likely to defend against the attack. Ideally, this collectivist system wants everyone to be under state control- with allotments that allow government leverage over behavior. The end result is not a hostage-taxpayer upset over paying for welfare; it is a hyper-corrupt government that wants to decide who can breed, how many children they can have and if an individual’s life is even worth living. And no, that is not a joke or exaggeration.

It can be labeled socialism. It can be labeled communism. It can be labeled fascism, or a host of other loaded names. But under globalism, our nations are pursuing planned societies, and everything from the economy, the food supply, housing, education and our own bodies are to be regulated and apportioned by the “experts” in control. Fabian Socialist planner George Bernard Shaw embodies this plan, and takes it to the logical endpoint:

“Under socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would have to live well.”

4. CLASSICAL EUGENICS EN VOGUE AGAIN?

There’s an entire history underscoring how Eugenics was sold to the population in the early parts of the 20th century on the basis of relieving the burden to taxpayers by reducing forcibly the number of dependents. The historical photo posted here will do enough to highlight the point– put pressure on populations by propagandizing about the cost of the poor to taxpayers.

Consider what the Eugenics Archives writes about Virginia’s Eugenical Sterilization Act, from the 1920s, one of more than 27 states who passed Eugenics laws based on Cold Spring Harbor head Harry Laughlin’s Model Law: “It was adopted as part of a cost-saving strategy to relieve the tax burden in a state where public facilities for the “insane” and “feebleminded” had experienced rapid growth.” Hundreds of other pro-Eugenics publications of the era made the same, or similar, pitches– to save taxpayer money.

Detroit’s Nolan Finley has undoubtedly channeled this sentiment again. But the intention is not really to save public money; it is to give the state more power.

Besides, what cost would intentionally adding sex hormones to the water have on all of us? Just think about the dangers of this proposal. How much would be saddled on taxpayers once governments were sued for inducing cancer?

Again, fighting dependency is not the true intent. The same Jaffe-Berelson discussed above that hoped to reduce U.S. fertility by sterilizing the water also advocates “Discouragement of private home ownership.” If this was about cutting the number of government dependents, why would this policy be on the books?

Instead, it implies that the “targets” of population reduction should be UNDER government housing, so that benefits can be dangled over those in need– forcing a decision between bearing children and getting enough money to survive.

But go ahead: blame the indigent, dependent poverty class for our problems. No doubt it could score some political points. Meanwhile, some of us are facing up to the war against humanity itself.