From Rousseau to the swine flu Vaccine

« From the Swillpit Chronicles: Evolving to an Existential Crossroads | Main

November 14, 2009
From Rousseau to the swine flu Vaccine
Ever since the French Revolution, it has been an axiom of the political left that the state has the vocation, not just to protect freedom, security and private property, but to create freedom, security and private property.


The guru of revolutionary politics, Jean Jacques Rousseau, observed that, “The first man who, having enclosed a piece of land, thought of saying `This is mine' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society.” And lest anyone mistake his meaning, Rousseau believed civil society was bad, as was the private property it existed to preserve. Rousseau’s antipathy to private property was matched only by his insistence that everything belonged collectively to the state. As he put it in his book The Social Contract, “Every member of the community gives himself to it at the moment it is brought into being just as he is – he himself, with all his recourses, including all his goods.” (Click here to read more quotes from The Social Contract)


According to the revolutionary model inspired by Rousseau – all things belong to the state by default, and that which we can call our own is merely that which the state, like a good mother, has graciously allowed us to enjoy for a time. Since the only true ownership is collective rather than private, and since that collective is mediated through the “General Will” of the state, political systems that are based on this model see no problem redistributing wealth and plundering the earnings of their citizens, all in the name of freedom. (See Peter Hitchens on the difference between the conservative and liberal view of Liberty)


Life: a gift from the state?


But there is a more sinister side to the revolutionary model. Not only is property and freedom a gift from the state, to be used and enjoyed conditionally, but so is life itself. Again Rousseau couldn’t have stated the matter with more clarity: “life is…a gift he has received conditionally from the state.” (The Social Contract, chapter 5)


To see the outworking of Rousseau’s idea, we could go to the French Revolution. But we could also look closer to home. The revolution’s contemporary heirs, no less than the champions of the guillotine, have realized the implications of a philosophy which asserts that life is a gift received conditionally by the state. Indeed, the contemporary eugenics movement, pioneered by the political left in the 20th century, but then hushed up after Hitler gave social engineering a bad name, was based on just such a principle. Though liberals no longer advocate forced sterilization and the incarceration of the ‘feeble minded’, they do still hold to the underlying political ideology: the state is the author of life and liberty and therefore has an unqualified authority over it. (I have already noted a similar principle in relation to health, warning that a government which takes responsibility over health will soon be a government assuming authority over health.)


Decreasing the Surplus Population


Of course, a state that has unqualified authority over life is a state that has no scruples reducing the quantity of life in order to increase the quality of life (for those who are left). Though this sounds like something from the Gulags or Nazi Germany, it is actually the operating assumption behind those political and financial gurus who have recently been calling for a massive decrease in the “surplus population.” Consider that:



In an interview with the New York Times, Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg alluded to the fact that abortion is all about getting rid of certain types of people that we do not want around: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.






Echoing comments made by the Optimum Population Trust in 2007, The London School of Economics recently suggested that the best way to combat global warming is to reduce the surplus population through contraception and abortion. (Their logic is simple: more people = more polluters.) Similarly, a 2007 report, written by specialist Professor Barry Walters for the Australian medical journal, calls for couples with more than two children to be charged a lifelong tax to offset their extra offspring's carbon dioxide emissions. Parents to be charged $5000 a head for every child after their second, and an annual tax of up to $800. (See Steve Watson’s article ‘Elite Depopulation Agenda Gains Ground’)






In its autumn 2009 edition (Issue 10), Salvo magazine reported that the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has come up with a new way to reduce poverty: reduce poor people. The campaign, which has been supported by Bill Gates, does so by supporting and funding coercive sterilization, contraception and abortion campaigns. (See Stephen Moore’s article Don't Fund UNFPA Population Control). In this regard, it should not be overlooked that many have warned that ‘Agenda 21’ of the United Nations Division For Sustainable Development also has population control implications.



In a 1981 interview which is quoted here, Thomas Ferguson of the State Department Office of Population Affairs said “we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it…."





Population control seems to be the pet topic among those men who control much of the world’s wealth. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett and Ted Turner have all spoken publically in favour of drastically reducing the human species, and supported programs designed to eliminate the excess in babies. For example, in 1996, Ted Turner stated that, “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." (See Ted Turner Wants You Dead To Save The Planet)






College professors and leaders frequently cite the Georgia Guidestones to in arguing that that we should "maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature." To achieve that, the human population would have to be thinned by 90%.






The Anglo-Dutch financial empire has been and still is committed to reducing the world’s population from the present 6.7 billion, to under 2 billion persons. As Laurence Hecht reminds us, this has been stated repeatedly in the post-war period by such leading spokesmen as Lord Bertrand Russell, Julian Huxley, and World Wildlife Fund founders Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and the still-living Prince Philip, who has reiterated many times his desire to see the human population thinned.






Robert McNamara of the World Bank has said, “Excessive population growth is the greatest single obstacle to the economic and social advancement of most of the societies in the developing world.”


Dr. Henry Kissinger has said “World population needs to be decreased by 50%.



Initiative for the United Nations ECO-92 Earth Charter reads, "The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary."



Friends of the Earth founder, David Brower, has stated, "That’s the first thing to do, start controlling the population in affluent white America, where a child born to a white American will use about fifty times the resources of a child born in the black ghetto." "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 childbearing."







President Obama’s top science and technology advisor, John P. Holdren, has advocated the possibility of a “planetary regime” that would use a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children.





The underlining premise behind all of the above is the same premise that undergirded the 20th century eugenics movement, namely the idea that irresponsible individualism in breeding is a cancer on the human population, harming posterity. Government, not God, holds the future of the human race in its reigns and can save us, quite literally, by strategic intervention designed at reducing the surplus population. Building on Rousseau’s idea that life, liberty and property are given to us by the state for the sake (not of the individual) but of the general will of the whole, it is no small step to believe that these privileges can be revoked as soon as too much life threatens the health of the collective.




Population Control by Stealth



When you have a team with as much money and power as John Holdren,, the Optimum Population Trust, The London School of Economics, the United Nations, the State Department, the Anglo-Dutch financial empire, the World Bank, Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Prince Phillip and many others all put together, who have the stated objective of significantly reducing the human population, you have to ask, "How do they intend to do it?"


The traditional methods of cultural sterilization (encouraging abortion, birth control, and negative attitudes toward children) are simply not getting the job done, as the world's population is continuing to grow, rather than shrink as these individuals would like. Christians, in particular, are producing more children than 30 years ago, creating a demographic trend that has the liberal elite running scared. Neither can they rely on plagues to accomplish the task, because the human race is simply not as vulnerable to plagues as they were in past centuries, thanks to sanitation, insect control, and fresh vegetables to eat all winter. While there are viruses like ebola and bird flu that are highly virulent, they are not very infectious, while the viruses that are highly infectious, like the common cold and regular flu, are not very virulent and kill less than 1%. There have been no viruses for a long time that both highly infectious and highly virulent.



Similarly, they cannot rely on war to accomplish the task. “War has hitherto been disappointing” in its capacity to reduce the world’s population, “but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective,” Lord Bertrand Russell proposed in 1953, savoring the benefits of spreading “a Black Death . . . throughout the world once in every generation.”


So the only way to eliminate 90% of the world population is to either inject them with a deadly disease, or toxin, or to inject them with a sterilizing agent. But this would be highly unpopular. The general population no longer favours direct population control measures as it once did. Although those with money and power would like to see a decrease in the ‘surplus population,’ there are very few who would respond favourably to the Malthusian measures that Obama’s science advisor has suggested may be necessary and which China has been enforcing.


This means that population control will have to be enforced, not by a direct policy, but by stealth.


H1N1 vaccine: a sterilization plot?


It may be that this is already happening so close to home that few have yet to recognize it. Even as I write this article, I believe a serious attempt is being made to introduce population control through the back door, in the form of the H1N1 Swine Flu Vaccine.


Consider that Dr. Richard A. Fayrer–Hosken at the University of Georgia, invented a vaccine similar to the swine flu vaccine with the expressed purpose of impairing fertility. Administered by a simply shot, the result is a lifetime of sterility. It has been found to be effective on all the mammals on which it has been tested. According to information from the patent, which is publically available HERE, the active ingredients of this sterilization vaccine are primarily antigens from porcine (pig) glyco-proteins bonded with a powerful oil-in-water “adjuvant” called squalene. The squalene is emulsified in Tween 80 for an adjuvant.


In his article ‘Immunosterilization in Humans: A 2009 Vaccination Odyssey’, A. True Ott, PhD, ND, draws our attention to the fact that Novartis’ master patent for the “swine flu” vaccine (which is also publically available HERE) similarly utilizes swine (porcine) glycol-proteins bonded with a powerful oil-in-water “adjuvant” called squalene. According to Novartis’ parent, the Squalene in the vaccine is emulsified in Tween 80 for an adjuvant, as it also is in the sterilization vaccine.


The chemical similarity between the swine flu vaccine and Dr. Fayrer–Hosken’s sterilization vaccine is too similar to dismiss as mere coincidence. The combination of these proteins can activate the human immune system to produce antigens or anti-bodies corresponding to the protein peptides, or polypeptides. These antibodies in turn will seek and destroy the naturally-occurring similar proteins or peptides which can be either the swine flu virus or human reproductive hormones. As was warned HERE, by injecting squalene/Tween 80 polysorbate into the human body, the swine-flu vaccine could trigger the human immune system to generate antibodies which will destroy hormonal peptides of the human host. The end result is infertility in male or female human body.


It cannot be mere coincidence that section 8.1 of the product information circular on the Novartis’ “swine flu” vaccine contains this warning: “Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with this —[vaccine]. It is also not known whether the vaccine can cause foetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman, OR CAN AFFECT REPRODUCTION CAPACITY.” (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION


In short, there looms on our horizon a threat more dangerous than all the proposals of Robert Malthus and Francis Galton put together, but which few have yet to recognize since it is wrapped in the package of life preservation rather than life destruction.

If the media continues to whip everyone into a state of hysteria over the swine flu, it may be that the government will put measures in place to try to force school children to have the vaccine. I have already warned that under the auspice of ‘national emergency,’ the swine flu could be used as a Trojan horse for totalitarian measures. I gave that warning before learning that the legislative framework is already in place to allow the American government to intervene in judicial and civilian law enforcement activities if they believe there is an ‘emergency.’ (This does not merely apply to America. In June 2009, the World Health Organization declared a Level 6 Pandemic, which effectively gives the WHO a degree of dominion over the entire world.)





The media will continue to use the idea of ‘emergency’ to scare parents into getting their children vaccinated. As Adam Murdock, MD pointed out in his well-researched article ‘The Threat of Mandatory Vaccinations,’ we will continue to hear the refrain:


The H1N1 ‘swine’ flu is an extraordinarily deadly virus.
You need to get the vaccine or you could suffer the consequences.
So-and-so has died in your neighborhood.
Do you want to be next?


When you hear that refrain, the best thing you can do is not to listen to the music. Instead, warn your friends and neighbours and church members not to listen. It is not the voice of those who are concerned for our safety. It is the voice of Rousseau. The last time a society listened to his voice, it echoed back in the French Revolution. Now that Rousseau’s political philosophy has become the unquestioned orthodoxy among the liberal establishment, it may be echoing back, not with the guillotine, but with the swine flu vaccine.