domingo, 31 de outubro de 2021

Echoes of a near future

Hi there, how are you?

Yes, you who are reading this disdainfully.

The doctor has told you that nothing can be done. The effects are irreversible, aren't they...?

But you already knew that, once taken, it would work as an internal tattoo and its effects would be permanent. It was not like a simple drug for which, most of the time, it's enough to adjust the dose or go through a withdrawal so that the immunological and/or biochemical parameters return to normal.

How many times in your life have you broken open a package you bought at the supermarket? You know that after opening the casing, after breaking the seal, its contents are irrevocably compromised. It's an irreversible phenomenon, there's nothing to be done. The clock starts its countdown to the imminent and inexorable end.

You tacitly accepted all the intrinsic conditions when you proceeded with the self-scheduling. How are you going to look at your daughter now and tell her that she is going to unexpectedly and prematurely lose her father, that she will be without her mother?

Wait, please don't tell me you allowed your daughter to be jabbed as well? What went through your head, honestly? Was it laziness? Ignorance? Did you blindly believe what they told you without making any counterpoint?

Whoa…I don't even know what to say. Did you educate yourself? Did you bother to study the matter well, to find out, to question the authorities who were foisting something on you as they struggled almost shamelessly to hide its disastrous effects, all the while refusing to allow informed consent?

Did that never seem suspicious to you? What about the pharmaceutical immunity to liability? And what about the compensation that governments promised them if something went awry? Did you think it was normal for them to put on the table the collective estate, which belongs to all of us (even those who didn't believe for one minute in the so-called miracle cure) ?

Didn't you find it strange that they first told you that the efficacy was 95% and then, after a few months, they recanted, claiming that after all they didn't prevent transmission and only eliminated — supposedly — some of the more serious symptoms?

Well, this fallacy was easy to detect…the effectiveness of these prophylactic measures is always measured by the ability to prevent the transmission of the pathogen, by the proportional reduction in the frequency of the disease. Didn't you suspect that something wasn't right when the rules were changed and the percentage of population needed to obtain group immunity inadvertently went from 70% to 90%? Didn't it irritate you that even with the two doses you still had to wear a mask and do everything you did before your were inoculated? Did you not become suspicious when two thirds of hospitalisations were among those injected when out here only half had taken the injection? Or when did they told you about the third injection? Or when they suggested that for the rest of your days, every six months, you would have to be inoculated repeatedly and permanently?

I also found it bizarre that several people at the inoculation centers remained undaunted in line after watching a flurry of fainting and convulsions after intramuscular administration of this licor, as if the unusually adverse reactions could only happen to the unfortunate folks who get pulled out of there on stretchers.

I was also surprised to see thousands dying all over the world at the mercy of this prophylactic measure, when, in the not-so-distant past, half a dozen deaths were enough for all the appropriate control and monitoring systems to have ordered an immediate suspension of the process. I ask myself: what became of common sense? In other times, Carmo and Trindade would have fallen… It is no wonder that clinical trials of these globally administered products take more than a decade to be completed. It is essential to properly assess their efficacy and safety.

If you think about it properly, you know you're being lied to. They lied through their teeth. You weren't tired of the pandemic. You were tired of lies. And thanks to the repression of that anger, in a symptom of petty covert aggression, you decided to unload on the only ones who were fighting for freedom, for your health, for the health of your family: the "weirdos", the "crazies" who gave up almost everything, their professions, their reputation, for the sake of truth. Have you never wondered why they were so decisively opposed to all these measures that defied logic? Did you really think it was because they had pumped-up egos or that were they were simply cowards, soaked with fear over being jabbed?  

You can't really blame anyone. To be inoculated with an experimental gene therapy, totally innovative and with surreptitious excipients, is extraordinarily frightening, particularly for those who have a clear perception of what is going on behind the scenes.

The truth is that, to the general public, its safety has never been properly demonstrated. All documents (very sparse and omitted) revealed were — after all — published by the manufacturers themselves. A very suspicious attitude, don't you agree? 

Were you...hypnotised?

All right, but… simply by nodding, by standing idly by, you let the reluctant people be totally obliterated by a brutal machine of oppression. The only ones that could have been of use to you after all, except for your own skin… You were an accomplice to a heinous crime — probably the most terrible in history — and you violated the most basic principles on which you founded your very existence — freedom.

You knew perfectly well that forcing someone to do something they didn't want was morally wrong, and yet you did nothing. So…where are your values? Your principles? Sincerely…

And what about censorship then? And preventing anyone from expressing their opinion, even if it is contrary to ours? Where is your moral compass?

Damn…whenever you watched the post-match comments of a football match, did you never notice that the questions were always directed at both coaches, at the two opposing clubs? And if it was a political debate, wouldn't you have to listen to the opinions of all candidates, regardless of your beliefs, ideas and convictions? Didn't you find it strange that the media — in relation to this topic — only reflected the official narrative, decimating any and all opposition? A behavior that shames the most basic concept of journalism.

Why did you act like a complete imbecile over something this crucial? Did you think the censorship machine was right just because, this time, it was apparently on “your side”, against the things that you didn't feel like listening to?

Sorry, but I have to tell you this: you didn't have a democratic spirit, you weren't aligned with your purpose of existence, you showed no character and allowed a dictatorship to gradually set itself up. A sanitary dictatorship. You didn't leave your comfort zone and you let yourself get caught up in the ego of the “experts” and the greed of the leaders.

And now, my dear, it is too late!

Ricardo Novais,

July, 2021


Versão original:

Translation: David Montoute

sexta-feira, 29 de outubro de 2021

Manufacturing consent for medical apartheid: Chomsky's support for ghettoising the unvaccinated


Neil Clark

26 Oct, 2021

Hitherto-revered US leftist Noam Chomsky’s call for the unvaccinated to be ‘isolated’ from the rest of society, and his cold dismissal of concerns over how they would even get food, is deeply shocking. How the mighty have fallen.

The one good thing about the last 18 months is that it has exposed who were the genuine supporters of basic human freedoms and who were not. Goodness me, there've been quite a few surprises, haven‘t there? 

If I had said to you back in 2019 that, under the guise of fighting a virus with an IFR of 0.096% states across the western world would impose the greatest peace-time restrictions on civil liberties ever seen, with people even prevented from attending the funerals of loved ones or visiting them when they were seriously ill in hospital, you’d have probably said ‘I bet that socialist-libertarian Noam Chomsky will speak out strongly against it. I don’t agree with everything he says, but he’s always against tyranny and disproportionate government measures.’

But Chomsky not only didn’t speak out against lockdowns and mandatory face-masks (if he did, I missed it), he actually went a whole lot further. Showing a level of authoritarianism that would make even Joseph Stalin blanch, he said in a recent viral interview that the “right response” towards those who did not wish to take vaccines was to “insist that they be isolated” from the rest of society. Then, as Max Blumenthal highlighted on Twitter, far from showing contrition, he doubled down. When asked ‘How can we get food to them?’ (i.e. the unvaccinated), he chillingly replied: “Well, that’s actually their problem.”

He went on to say that if they “really did become destitute” then the state would have to move in with “some measure to secure their survival,” as was done with people in jail. Thanks for being so charitable, Noam. 

To justify his extreme position, the much-lauded ‘great thinker’ then made a quite ludicrous analogy. He compared the unvaccinated to people who don‘t want to stop at red lights at traffic junctions. 

While the vaccines have been shown to reduce transmission of the virus, they don’t entirely prevent it spreading, or people becoming sick or even dying from Covid. Never mind the scientific research from Israel which shows that natural immunity confers “longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.”

No, the great Noam Chomsky actually compared people who had made perfectly rational science-based decisions not to take the new-on-the-market vaccines, with nutters who drive through red lights and who really do put themselves and others at risk. It’s a comparison that you might expect a dumbed-down shock-jock to make when they’re desperate to boost radio ratings, but... Professor Chomsky? Laureate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Arizona and Institute Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology? How the mighty have fallen.

Chomsky’s remarks would have been appalling at any time, but against the backdrop of what is actually happening they are really quite horrific. Because what he is calling for is actually being rolled out in a number of so-called ‘democracies.’ 

In Australia, the Premier of Victoria Dan Andrews has threatened that restrictions on the unvaccinated won’t be ending until “well into 2022” at the earliest. The unvaccinated would be able to shop for the basics, but they would be barred from the vast majority of venues. He also said that proof of vaccination would be needed even after all restrictions had been removed. Which is quite a restriction in itself, when you think about it.  

Even more worryingly, a huge ‘quarantine’ camp is being built near Melbourne. A place to put travellers, or a new home for those pesky anti-vaxxers? Who would bet against it, given the demonising rhetoric?

Over in New Zealand Prime Minister ‘Saint‘ Jacinda Ardern smiled as she admitted she was constructing a two-tier society, between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. This week she announced that about 40% of all New Zealand’s workers will need to be “fully vaccinated” or risk losing their jobs. While, in Canada, Justin Trudeau has announced a national Covid-vaccine mandate for all air and rail travellers, to take effect at the end of this month. 

The great irony is that, as self-styled ’progressives,’ Chomsky, Andrews, Ardern and Trudeau would all have been strong, vocal opponents of apartheid in South Africa but, thirty years on, they are endorsing social segregation and medical apartheid at home. Moreover, a medical apartheid which has a strong element of racial discrimination about it, too, given the greater ‘vaccine hesitancy’ among certain ethnic minorities.

If you want to bar a sizeable proportion of black people from everyday life, just support vaccine passports. Yet that’s what ‘progressives’ are doing. Vaccine passports are a way racists can achieve their wildest dreams. 

You’d think Chomsky – the man who, after all, co-authored a famous book about how governments “Manufacture Consent,” would know better. You’d think as a prominent Jewish intellectual he’d know only too well the terrible, nightmarish consequences that ‘othering’ certain groups can lead to. But no. He wants the ‘unvaccinated’ to be treated like outcasts. Like prisoners. Which is what they will be if we carry on along this road.



Chomsky: isolate the unvaxxed (a response from Jimmy Dore): 

terça-feira, 26 de outubro de 2021

The Plandemic & the mechanisms of totalitarian regimes.



The Covid-19 "Pandemic" and experimental inoculations are inextricably linked to the advance of totalitarianism. To speak of a "health dictatorship" is not just a figure of speech. The author takes predominantly Francophone and European realities as his reference, but they are fully applicable to other contexts.

Jean-Dominique Michel

October 23rd (leer en castellano)

When we evoke the idea of a totalitarian wave, a turn towards dictatorship or when we recall the darkest hours of our history, it raises a storm of indignation among correct-thinking progressives. Meanwhile, the adoption of laws that massively violate constitutional rights, and the establishment of an ethically detestable segregation prohibited by law finds them wholly indifferent.

Without a doubt we should see in this a repressed guilty conscience for having adhered to such problematic drifts as those that have been imposed on us in vain for the past 18 months. To continue to emphasise the point, how many times will we have to remember that Sweden, Texas, the Netherlands, and now England have renounced all liberticidal measures without experiencing harmful consequences?

How can we decently maintain that these increasingly serious and violent measures are necessary when we have the evidence before our very eyes that they are not? "Eyes Wide Shut" seems to be the correct answer.

The discomfort of looking things in the face, combined with the cost (political and psychological) ​​of realising that we have been on the wrong track for a year and a half and that we have caused economic and social disaster with a net loss, this is what inhibits the possibility of awareness for our politicians. This is also the case with the media (who produced marketing, not information throughout this affair) as it is with the scientists who support a science rife with conflicts of interest, and close their eyes to an avalanche of falsifications that have buried any worthy science of the name.

Debate is currently impossible because the endangered elites are nervous. Mauro Poggia, Minister of Health of the Canton of Geneva, has even gone so far as to invoke the memory of his parents, heroic fighters of the resistance to Mussolini in Italy, to reject the idea that we are facing a drift into totalitarianism and to disqualify those who consider themselves resistance fighters.

I sincerely and fully associate myself with the tribute he paid to his parents. The courage and selflessness of these righteous people during the dark years of fascism is infinitely admirable and should serve as an inescapable reference. However, it is difficult to see the relevance of invoking this memory whilst denying the current totalitarianism, which the Swiss minister in question is among the most zealous in wanting to further.

Let him start by recognising the Swedish, Dutch or Texan examples (states whose outcomes were not much worse than those of the canton he rules) that in no way foresee having a health pass, and then we can get into the matter. Until then, we can only regret that he remains with his peers trapped in a fatal routine that leads to more and more authoritarianism and unnecessary coercive measures, ever more attacks on fundamental freedoms and indeed, ever more damage to health and society. 

We are fully within a reality of a "soft totalitarianism", as Michel Maffesoli called it in 1978 in his doctoral thesis. "Soft" here is an elegant oxymoron that, in the meantime, has unfortunately become a heavy understatement. "Masked" would perhaps be more appropriate (in addition to being fashionable) since it is indeed a totalitarianism with a covered face, denied by cohorts of progressive thinkers whose professed values ought to encourage them to enter the resistance. 

Unless we accept as a sad truth Léo Ferré's scathing assertion that "the left has always been the antechamber of fascism". When we see forty-one French socialist deputies demanding compulsory vaccination (indeed, genetic experimentation), it is difficult to avoid this observation.

Can a civilised person stand by and watch another human being forcibly inoculated, pinned to the ground if necessary by soldiers or police? ! And for those who would see in this description yet another outrageous assertion on my part, we can try to open their eyes to the fact of the current riots in French prisons, against the mandatory vaccination imposed on prisoners.

I know how heavy the reference is, but the famous "Nuremberg Code" (effectively without legal value, except that it has significantly influenced the international conventions that resulted from it) was established precisely after the abuses of this kind, of Nazi medicine. There is a point where you have to end up crashing down the slope that we keep sliding. And this, moreover, for a medical experiment with an uncertain risk profile, the very principle of which is prohibited in the general population.

In short, our transgressions are mounting up, illustrating what Professor Maffesoli has demonstrated over several decades: the moral, political and spiritual bankruptcy of the ruling elites (this political media caste that has "the power to say or do"), for whom the inalienable foundations of our civilisation seems to be merely old-fashioned, possibly picturesque, but essentialy obsolete.

The Hippocratic Oath? Enslaved by the prescriptions of the methodologists paid by the pharmaceutical industry.

The precautionary principle regarding experimental treatments? Drowned in the tide of publicity announcements from Big Pharma, which become a scientific truth once they reach the ears of the rulers.

Habeas corpus, which for centuries prevented the authorities (the lords) from possessing the bodies of their subjects? "Ethical trinkets from another age," according to the triumphant scientocracy.

The Oviedo Convention (by its full name "Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and the Dignity of the Human Being in the Applications of Biology and Medicine, known as the Convention on the Rights of Man and Biomedicine")? An idealistic reverie from the 1970s.

Even the Constitution has been trampled on in France by a "council of wise men" whose president turns out to be the father of the associate director for France of the consultancy firm responsible for the marketing of the vaccine campaign. Said president still did not consider it appropriate to recuse himself. Recusal, also from the old days, used to be mandatory when there was a conflict of interest, but now it is as outdated as bowler hats and bicycle handlebar mustaches for men.

In short, to help the "Eyes Wide Shut" people see things clearly, I'm publishing here the first installment of a new view on the paranoid and totalitarian spirit that has taken over our social systems. The second one will continue with an eye on the reality sketched by a psychologist-psychotherapist and a medical psychiatrist.

Therefore, we will begin with a first collection of high-level reflections: first, a lucid, sad and beautiful interview entitled "To think that we are going to live normally again is a swindle" by Michel Rosenzweig, a philosopher and psychoanalyst often cited in this blog. "The atmosphere is becoming unbreathable", you have to be a "normal" left-winger or right-winger, so as pass by unnoticed.

Another great reference of course, is Ariane Bilheran, doctor in psychopathology, specialist in paranoid delusions in the individual and collective manifestations of her, also an expert in the courts. In two series of articles entitled
Psychologie du totalitarisme and Chroniques du totalitarisme published both in Antipresse and on her blog, she dissects current affairs with virtuosity but hardly reassuring for the current context: Articles by Ariane Bilheran

Finally, it is worth highlighting the work of the commission chaired by the German lawyer Reiner Fuellmich, and his interview with Prof. Mattias Desmet.
Desmet teaches clinical psychology at the University of Ghent in Belgium and specialises in the mass formations typical of totalitarian regimes. His analysis of the current situation should encourage the reticent to come out of their denial, while shedding light on the reality of this "collective hypnosis" that has taken hold and which appears to be skillfully maintainedby the powerful interests that benefit from it. The interview is conducted in English, with a subtitled Spanish translation in the video link at the end. 


Translation: David Montoute

Reiner Fuellmich - Mattias Desmet | Mass psychology and totalitarian regimes in the current crisis:

segunda-feira, 25 de outubro de 2021

Arguments that don't help us



Jesús García Blanca

23rd October

The majority of the population is still "hypnotised, brainwashed, paralysed and manipulated." This is the usual assessment of that layer of the population that cannot be other than what it is due to conditioning. This is not the place or the time to analyse one's freedom to make such a determination. 

But I am afraid that amongst the "awakened" minority (not so minoritarian, as there are several hundred million of us) there is also a majority that cannot move on from the stage of passive "resistance" to taking the initiative. That is, by going on the attack, by accepting the crisis -in the right sense of the word- and setting about building a better world that we won't be embarrassed to explain when our children and grandchildren ask us about it...which they will.

If we want to radically change the health paradigm that dominates our society today, we cannot settle for those little arguments used to get us out of trouble, or, as some folks propose, "proceed one step at a time" and not scare "the people who are still asleep”. 

On the contrary, I believe that those people are in need of a big bucket of cold water. We should leave behind all foolishness because the satraps of the Masters of the Universe are coming at us with the entirety of their destructive arsenal, and we do not have time for niceties. So here are some examples of those arguments into whose traps we must not fall. I will comment very briefly and without the inconvenience of scientific references (which of course exist) in order to simplify the reading:

SARS-CoV-2 has not been isolated as other viruses have...

—SARS-CoV-2 has not been isolated and will never be isolated because it cannot be isolated. And the reason for this is that the entities that virology calls “viruses” do not exist. In some cases they are cell particles, transport vesicles or exosomes. In other cases, they are fragments of human DNA or RNA that serve their purposes in our internal environment, and in others they are virtual constructions made using computer programs with the express intention of passing them off as new “viruses”.

PCR is not 100% reliable as a diagnostic tool...

—PCR has 0% reliability as a diagnostic tool for diseases that are blamed on “viruses”. Without the existence of viruses, there can be no components of the virus, in this case DNA or RNA with which to design the PCR. What they use are fragments of the virtual genome that they build. As I said, zero percent reliability.

Studies shows that asymptomatic people are not infectious... 

But the symptomatic people are, right? Those who seek to liberate the asymptomatic people reinforce the idea of ​​contagion that is central to this story. A study shows that asymptomatic patients are not contagious...just as another study could perfectly well demonstrate that symptomatic patients are not contagious either. But who is going to carry out that study?

Most of those supposedly infected with COVID are really influenza infections...

The "contagion" idea again. Infected here, infected there... And what difference does it actually make? What difference does it make to them - I mean, to Them - the Covid cultists, whether it is the flu or the next super-pandemic? The point is simply to reinforce Germ Theory and the lies of its champions: Pasteur, Koch and company.

COVID mortality rate of is less than that of the flu... 

The mortality rate of what? Here the trap is different: it is to reinforce the idea that there is a new disease and of course to reinforce the idea that its culprit is a "virus": "COVID" =  "Corona Virus Disease". Two birds are felled with one stone because of the carelessness of the clueless.

The COVID death rate is much lower than what is officially claimed...

—Here the trap of the new disease is repeated but with an important addition: deaths. So although it is much lower than what is officially said, what counts is that there is "COVID" and above all, that there are deaths from COVID.

There are alternative non-toxic treatments for COVID... 

There is probably no need to repeat myself. But this is yet another reinforcement of "the new disease", which is treatable, of course.

Natural immunity confers better protection than the artificial immunity of vaccines...

—Here we deal with the complementary trap to that of "contagion" and Microbial Theory. And it is the one that the "microbe hunters" first invented - the invading armies and then, led by their own warmongering logic, the defending armies. So the trap in this case is to divert attention by confronting the natural with the artificial, but filtering out the core of the question which is the reinforcement of the idea of ​​"immunity." Aware that this requires further explanations (and I would like to refer those interested to the book that Dr. Enric Costa and I wrote: Vaccines, a critical reflection) I will limit myself to saying, as a kind of provocation, that no, there is no so-called "immune system" and that in fact "immunity" is incompatible with life.

These vaccines have not been tested and authorised like the previous ones have... 

Those who use this argument seem to have no idea of ​​something called "power relations" that manifest themselves in revolving doors, in bribes, in the influence or control of multinational pharmaceutical companies, in the permanent manipulation of the Lying Media (yes, the media's falsification of reality and the censorship of critical voices) and ultimately in the control of public institutions by the foremen of the Masters of the Universe. All vaccines...all of them...are both useless and dangerous, for the simple reason that they make no biological sense and can only produce, and have produced, deaths and illnesses for more than a century. This goes for Covid vaccines and non-Covid vaccines, those authorised for emergency use and those authorised by any other means that are ultimately the only route of corruption, lies and crime.

And so it goes...

We are not going to change the reigning paradigm if we do not change the language that we use. And while the scientific-medical debate advances even at a snail's pace, we can go ahead with a change in language, banishing the concepts that have marked the dogmas of the last century or so.

Let's stop talking about "infection", "contagion", "pathogens", "defenses", "immunity", even "disease". Let us begin to expand the culture of mutual support in our internal environment, between our cells and our bacteria, and we will gradually replace the illogical logic of the exterminating the microbes that are essential for life. We will then replace it with the vital logic of cooperation, the search for balance, the understanding of life processes which frees us from mechanisation and helps us recover the living flow of things.



Translation: David Montoute

Luís Marcelo Martínez: "The Spike Protein does not exist"

Florian Philippot: "Do not expect half measures from me"


France Soir 

25th October

The leader of the anti-Health Pass movement, Florian Philippot, officially launched his presidential campaign this Sunday, 24th October in Aubervilliers. "Do not count on me to do things by halves. For that, you have all the other candidates," began the man who represented the undemonisation (dédiabolisation) of the National Front.

"France must be liberated from those who run it or rather who mistreat it. France is ruled by an oligarchy that wants the country's death. This oligarchy, let's be clear, incorporates big finance, big lobbies, especially pharmaceuticals. It brings together Big Tech (the "Gafam"), the European Union and all of the supranational structures. To this must be added, of course, like a rotten icing on the cake, Macron and his clique who have led the state astray, even more than their sinister predecessors."

For more than an hour, the leader of Les Patriotes outlined his program, starting with a broad health component. Unsurprisingly, he promised to ban the health pass and to "restore to their posts tens of thousands of firefighters, nurses, gendarmes, soldiers and so many others that have been suspended. And a general amnesty will be pronounced for all doctors persecuted by the National Order of Physicians or the Courts." 

To the cheers of the 1,000 to 1,500 supporters present, the leader of Les Patriotes pledged to make lockdowns unconstitutional and to end the systematic wearing of masks. "It has become a class symbol. The mask is for beggars and servants, not for the lords. We will also remove the mask for all children."

Believing that it was necessary to reconnect with the French conception of medicine, "that is, doctors and community-based care", Florian Philippot announced that he would guarantee
doctors' total freedom of prescription.

Finally, he spoke in favor of the abolition of the ARS (Regional Health Authorities), the suspension of France's participation in the WHO (World Health Organization), as well as the dissolution of the Council. National Order of Physicians which "has seriously discredited itself in this Covid crisis."

The former deputy of the Front National then detailed at length his plan to leave the European Union and the Euro. But also of the European Convention on Human Rights "which imposes on us the same family reunification [as in the EU] and obliges us to keep on our soil people who do not like France."

Again, to limit migratory flows, Florian Philippot believes that France must stop engaging "in wars which fracture entire regions of the world and which throw millions of migrants into flight". "I am thinking for example of the criminal war in Libya by Bernard-Henri Lévy and Nicolas Sarkozy. I am thinking of the evil game we are playing with the United States and with NATO in the Middle East." As a logical consequence, he calls on leaving NATO instantly, while counting on the doubling of the National Defense
budget over five years.

On the constitutional level, it is a genuine revolution that Florian Philippot promises, starting with the establishment of the RIC (Citizen's Initiative Referendum), one of the main demands of the Yellow Vests. As for the Constitutional Council, "it will be replaced by an assembly of citizens drawn by lot and helped by constitutional experts".

Considering also that the Parliament engaged in a serious treason in 2008, with its vote on the Treaty of Lisbon, the former right-hand man of Marine Le Pen would deprive Parliament of the power to modify the Constitution, "returning it to the people, by way of compulsory referendum". "As President, I will bring forth frequent referendums on major issues of concern to the nation." He also explained that he would reduce the number of regional advisers and parliamentarians, which now numbers 925 (577 deputies and 348 senators).

On the security side, finally, Florian Philippot attacked both petty delinquency - by calling for the automatic serving of sentences - and high-level delinquency. "The tax dodgers will no longer have a quiet time, he warned. They loot the country, they steal from our pockets, from the pockets of the working class and the middle classes to the tune of tens of billions of euros that we could put into schools, health & safety, and the protection of the most vulnerable." 




Translation: David Montoute

Brazil's Vaccine Information Wars

David Montoute

25th October, 2021

In October of 2020 Forbes magazine ran an article entitled: Researchers warn some Covid-19 vaccines could increase the risk of HIV infection. Brazil's exame magazine also covered the Forbes story at this time. The Brasil Sem Medo organisation points out that exame actually published The Lancet's original study, which was used by Forbes in its alarming article. The paper indicated that the technology used in the production of vaccines against covid-19 could increase the risk of "HIV infection". Yet, incredibly the exame magazine decided to retroactively change its story after the country's President Jair Bolsonaro cited data suggesting that the Covid injections may be triggering immune deficiency. In the international press, Bolsonaro's speech was broadly denounced as "fake news".



"HIV", like "Sars CoV-2", is a nebulous and unproven concept. Yet it is alleged to cause the progressive deterioration of the immune system and open the way for opportunistic infections and cancers. Last thursday, Bolsonaro posted a video on Facebook in which he said reports from the United Kingdom indicated the possibility that “vaccinated people are developing the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.” Facebook promptly removed the post.

The UK's dissident Exposé site has in fact pointed to the startling relation between Covid vaccines and acquired immune system deficiency using official "infection" statistics, providing figures from Public Health England (PHE) to show that this concern is more than merely theoretical. The latest PHE Vaccine Surveillance Report figures on Covid cases "show that doubly vaccinated 40-70 year olds have lost 40% of their immune system capability compared to unvaccinated people. Their immune systems are deteriorating at around 5% per week (between 2.7% and 8.7%). If this continues then 30-50 year olds will have 100% immune system degradation, zero viral defence by Christmas and all doubly vaccinated people over 30 will have lost their immune systems by March next year."

Other disturbing correlations with acquired immune deficiency are also a part of the public record. Already in September of this year, a Brazilian scientist had noted the European Medical Agency’s safety committee's conclusion that unusual blood clots with low blood platelets should be listed as "very rare side effects" of the Vaxzevria (formerly COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca) shot. In fact, within the very first month of vaccination in the United States, 36 cases of post-vaccine Immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) were reported to the U.S. government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).  Immune thrombocytopenic purpura (which involves severe depletion of the blood's platelet count) is commonly observed in AIDS, occurring in 30% or more patients. These cases in the US involved both the Pfizer-BioNTech and the Moderna vaccine, and ITP is the condition that led to the widely reported death from brain hemorrhage of a Florida doctor in January. As reported on even by the New York Times, numerous hematologist experts in ITP have openly cited Covid vaccines as likely playing a role in the onset of ITP

Yet when Bolsonaro cited this hypothesis of vaccine-induced immuno-compromise, Facebook removed his video from its platforms. Along with other tech giants, Facebook has maintained a vigorous censorship policy against doctors and laympeople alike, arrogating to itself the right to determine medical truth. Last year, Facebook and Instagram removed dozens of accounts used by Bolsonaro, his employees and his legislator sons for "violating community guidelines". This year, it was You Tube's turn, when the video platform deleted 15 videos from the Presdients channel. These included videos in which Bolsonaro claimed (accurately) that hydroxychloroquine was being used successfully around the world  to treat the smörgåsbord of symptoms that has been dubbed "Covid-19".

Facebook's latest act of censorship was accompanied by the astonishing statement that Our policies don’t allow claims that COVID-19 vaccines kill or seriously harm people. This must be news to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, whose own data has revealed some 16,310 fatalities, and 778,685 Injured by October 1st, 2021, following CV Shots. This figure represents 2.5X more post-vax deaths than those of all US vaccines for the past 30 Years. 

In effect, the Big Tech dictatorship has become even more fundamentalist than the governments and pharmaceutical companies whose interests it protects. For even those entities do not have the gall to deny that Covid vaccines can - and do - kill. Brazil's president, on the other hand, has remained consistently sceptical of these gene-modifying shots. He has said repeatedly that while all Brazilians will have the opportunity to be vaccinated, he personally will not take one, and that whoever thinks likewise should follow his example.

Now, a co-ordinated counterattack is being mounted  by the proponents of medical dictatorship. An 11-member panel of Brazilian lawmakers led by Senator Renan Calheiros has drafted an almost 1,200-page report, prepared over six months, that recommends Bolsonaro be indicted for up to 11 crimes, including crimes against public health and crimes against humanity. The report claims that Bolsonaro's government had "deliberately exposed the population to the risk of mass infection," including through the "deliberate delay" of vaccine purchases, and adds that the President was guided "by an unfounded belief in the theory of herd immunity by natural infection" and is "principally responsible for the government's errors committed during the COVID-19 pandemic".

The CPI (parliamentary commission of inquiry) rapporteur, Senator Renan Calheiros, has sought an indictment for Bolsonaro and 65 others, including his three sons, several ministers, former ministers and businessmen, and two companies. His report remains in draft form, and will need to pass a Senate vote next week, during which time it could be altered or simply vetoed. Even if approved, Brazil’s prosecutor general would still have to bring charges before the president would actually face legal proceedings. 

Bolsonaro is dismissive, and considers the investigation a politically motivated joke. Although the President evinces no concern about the possibility of an indictment, his apparent nonchalance may prove to be a mistake. The techniques off hybrid war in "regime change" operations are many and varied, and the effort to remove the Brazilian president builds upon an already well-established media hate campaign, one whose international fellow travellers have given the latest legal manouevers their glowing endorsement . The tone and even some of the content of their press coverage is similar to that endured by other Covid-sceptical heads-of-state, just before they too met untimely ends. If the Bolsonaro government falls, whether by impeachment in the next weeks, or by the people's vote in next year's general election (transparent or otherwise), the last substantial barrier to mandatory vaccination in Brazil will have been removed and South America's superpower will be firmly within the fold of the billionaire pandemic-planners and their fascistic Great Reset.


Related: Brazil: 22 thousand dead after 1st vaccine dose (an alternate hypothesis) 

Brazilian judge battles Rio's "Health Pass", citing a Nazi-style "sanitary dictatorship"


CV Vaccine Mandates Are Killing Aviation, Healthcare & Other Critical Services


Children's Health Defense

October 15th, 2001 (leer en castellano)


Is the sabotage of air travel, high-quality healthcare, first-responder capability and other core services, by vaccine mandates, an intentional step designed to further weaken Americans’ resilience and expand authoritarian controls?

The widespread hemorrhaging of experienced public- and private-sector employees — a “man-made disaster of historic proportions,” according to former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul — is hollowing out some of the most important public-facing professions in the country.

Although many factors are at play, COVID vaccine mandates are a significant contributor, with employers refusing to honor the option to refuse Emergency Use Authorization COVID vaccines that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) supposedly guaranteed.

The result has been the threatened or actual mass firing and resignation of thousands of unvaccinated workers in critical sectors like healthcare, policing, firefighting, education and aviation, with skilled and experienced workers prepared to “leave if that’s what it comes to” rather than take the risky shots.

Even though these departures are “drastically overwhelming employers’ ability to replace them,” many of the politicians and corporate executives pushing the mandates seem weirdly at ease with their policy.

This complacency begs the question: Is the sabotage of air travel, high-quality healthcare, first-responder capability and other core services an intentional step designed to further weaken Americans’ resilience and expand authoritarian controls?

Flying the friendly skies

In one of the most widely publicized recent examples of workforce havoc, Southwest Airlines had to ground 35% of its scheduled flights this past holiday weekend, less than a week after the carrier mandated COVID vaccines for all employees.

The airline’s feeble explanation — bad weather and other problems — left many stranded passengers “confounded … because weather was clear over most of the country, particularly near airports that had lots of delays and cancellations.”

As Paul wryly noted, “the weather problems that Southwest claims to be experiencing seem unique to that carrier.”

In “methinks they doth protest too much” fashion, the airline, the pilots union and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are telling the public that the flight upheaval had nothing to do with employee ire over the vaccine edict.

However, one news report indicated that on the Friday in question, only three of 35 pilots showed up for work at Southwest’s Jacksonville hub, suggesting the pilots — at least 50% of whom are unvaccinated — are “drawing a line in the sand.”

Other major airlines that have imposed mandates — JetBlue, American, United, Alaska, Frontier and Hawaiian Airlines — are also facing fierce employee pushback.

The Southwest Airlines Pilots Association has gone so far as to criticize the company’s mandate as a “bad move,” stating pilot fatigue is already at triple its historic levels, with flights “operating at a higher than normal operational risk.”

Seeking to reassure its employees, Southwest CEO Gary Kelly told ABC News in an interview after the travel kerfuffle, “we’re not going to fire any employees over this [vaccine mandates].” Kelly said Southwest would urge unvaccinated employees to “seek an accommodation.”

Certainly, further outflows of competent personnel unwilling to be jabbed would exacerbate understaffing problems — and increase airline customer risks.

Subscribe to The Defender - It’s Free!

Adverse events in mid-air?

Commercial airline executives and pilots would be well-advised to read the affidavit submitted in late September by Lt. Col. Colonel Theresa Long, M.D., brigade surgeon for the 1st Aviation Brigade in Ft. Rucker, Alabama. Long is “responsible for certifying the health, mental and physical ability and readiness for … nearly 4,000 individuals on flight status.”

The affidavit highlights serious concerns about vaccinated pilots’ fitness for duty in light of myocarditis and other cardiac risks linked to COVID injections — problems that potentially could cause pilots to die in mid-flight.

Military aviators, Long points out, must meet “the most stringent medical standards” in the entire military to be eligible for flight status. In the private sector, heart problems can cause pilots to lose their commercial airline license.

In Long’s view, it is highly likely that “all persons who have received a COVID-19 Vaccine are damaged in their cardiovascular system in an irreparable and irrevocable manner.”

Noting that she has ascertained development of “significant and aggressive systemic health issues” in multiple flight crew members within 48 hours of vaccination, Long described one particularly alarming case:

“I personally observed the most physically fit female soldier I have seen in over 20 years in the Army, go from collegiate-level athlete training for Ranger School, to being physically debilitated with cardiac problems, newly diagnosed pituitary brain tumor [and] thyroid dysfunction within weeks of getting vaccinated.”

Other military physician-colleagues, Long said, are also reporting “firsthand experience with a significant increase in the number of young soldiers with migraines, menstrual irregularities, cancer, suspected myocarditis and reporting cardiac symptoms after vaccination.”

For young and fit pilots, the conclusion is obvious: COVID vaccines “are more risky, harmful and dangerous than having no vaccine at all,” Long said.

Many members of the military have apparently reached similar conclusions. With only 62 deaths attributed to COVID during the entire pandemic — out of 2.1 million troops — hundreds of thousands of service members are not in compliance with the U.S. Department of Defense’s Nov. 2 deadline to be fully vaccinated.

In February, a poll found that 53% of active-duty personnel, spouses and veterans had no plans to get injected.

Long said military flight crews present “extraordinary risks,” not just to themselves, but also to others “given the equipment they operate, munitions carried thereon and areas of operation in close proximity to populated areas.”

Her recommendations? “[A]ll pilots, crew and flight personnel in the military service who … received any COVID-19 vaccination [should] be grounded” and the “[c]ompulsory SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination program should be immediately suspended.”

Where are we headed?

Far from being receptive to the attempts by Long and at least 15 of her colleagues to share their disturbing observations with military superiors, the physicians say they are being ignored, rejected, ostracized or met with “threats of punishment.”

Long therefore issued her affidavit under the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, fully cognizant of the “horrific repercussions” her whistleblowing may have on her “career, [her] relationships and life as an Army doctor.”

The Ft. Rucker brass’s lack of interest in the impact of the experimental vaccines on pilot health is puzzling in light of Government Accountability Office (GAO) analyses showing there are already acute shortages of military pilots.

In late September, Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw reminded the secretary of defense that military readiness is subpar and tweeted, “are you really willing to allow a huge exodus of experienced service members just because they won’t take the vaccine?”

With the U.S. mired in “the worst … healthcare labor crisis in memory,” the same question could be directed to hospital CEOs who seem willing to let go of sizeable proportions of employees — even if it means adopting drastic measures such as refusing patients, closing departments or leaving beds empty.

Fed up, 96% of union members working at Kaiser Permanente in California and Oregon just voted to go out on strike.

Notably, hospitals earned record windfall profits last year from COVID federal stimulus and Medicare add-ons for ventilator intervention, even as they furloughed, laid off or cut the pay of frontline health workers in the midst of a “pandemic.”

And this year, politicians like New York’s unelected governor seem blithely willing to let the experienced health workers who took those furloughs and pay cuts go, bringing in pinch-hitting National Guard members or imported foreign workers.

It may still be too soon to untangle the full array of corporate and political interests driving the counterproductive policies that are chasing out large swaths of competent health workers, first responders, aviation workers and service members — while demoralizing (or sickening via COVID injection) those who comply with mandates and remain.

One thing is for sure, however: COVID-19 vaccines increase the risk of blood clots and so does air travel, which could make flight personnel especially vulnerable. Members of the public who take to the skies would surely rather have an experienced unvaccinated pilot who is of the caliber of a Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger in the cockpit — rather than a “second-string” vaccinated pilot who could be at higher risk of dying in mid-flight.



¿Es el Objetivo De La "Vacuna" Reducir La Población Mundial?

Jesús García Blanca 

Discovery D Salud, julio, 2013

En 1972 la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS), el Banco Mundial y el Fondo de Población de las Naciones Unidas crearon un grupo de trabajo que según uno de sus integrantes, P. D. Griffin, tenía como misión investigar "el desarrollo de vacunas para el control de la natalidad", claro eufemismo para referirse a la vacuna anti-fertilidad en la que la Fundación Rockefeller trabajaba desde 1960 además de financiar numerosos proyectos encaminados a lograr una reducción drástica de la población del planeta. Empeño al que en los últimos años se ha sumado la Fundación Bill y Melinda Gates con la colaboración de la Alianza Mundial para las Vacunas e Inmunización de la que forman parte ambas fundaciones, el propio Banco Mundial y buena parte de la industria farmacéutica. 


«Todos los niños que nazcan por encima de los necesarios para mantener la población al nivel deseado deben perecer sin falta a menos que se les haga espacio por la muerte de otras personas. Por tanto debemos facilitar las acciones de la Naturaleza que provocan dicha mortalidad en vez de soñar torpe y vanamente con impedirlas; y si nos asusta la aparición demasiado frecuente de horribles hambrunas debemos facilitar e impulsar diligentemente otras formas de destrucción que proporcione la Naturaleza».
(Thomas Malthus. Ensayo sobre el principio de la población, 1798)

La Fundación Rockefeller financió en la tercera década del pasado siglo XX una investigación de George Washington Corner que permitió a éste estudiar en monos el ciclo reproductivo descubriendo junto a Willard Myron Allen la progesterona y estableciendo su mecanismo de acción en el ciclo menstrual y, por ende, su potencial para controlar la natalidad. Solo unos años después -en el Informe anual de la fundación correspondiente a 1933- se apuntaría ya la posibilidad de aplicar aquellos estudios sobre reproducción animal en los humanos. El entonces presidente de la misma, Max Mason, se había referido en múltiples ocasiones al deseo de «su jefe» de conseguir una «anti-hormona» que permitiera reducir la fertilidad en el mundo. Mason pensaba que «la solución definitiva al problema (del control de la natalidad) podía muy bien estar en los estudios sobre Endocrinología, particularmente en las antihormonas». Y de hecho el informe anual del año siguiente fue mucho más explícito: «La Fundación Rockefeller ha decidido centrar sus actuales esfuerzos en ciencias naturales en el campo de la Biología experimental (…) El trabajo de investigación se centra en la fisiología de la reproducción en monos, trabajo que se inició en la Universidad John Hopkins en 1921 y que a partir de 1923 se continuó en la Universidad de Rochester. Incluye estudios experimentales y observación del ciclo reproductivo en ciertas especies de grandes primates en los que este ciclo es muy semejante al de la especie humana. Se está estudiando el efecto de varias hormonas reproductivas interrelacionadas».

Sépase por cierto que la Universidad de Rochester se ha beneficiado durante mucho tiempo de sustanciosas donaciones de la Fundación Rockefeller y que la Universidad John Hopkins –en la que se halla la Escuela Bloomberg de Salud Pública, considerada la mayor escuela de salud publica del mundo con 530 profesores a tiempo completo y 620 a tiempo parcial- fue creada en 1916 por el patriarca de los Rockefeller y debe su nombre a las millonarias aportaciones del actual alcalde de Nueva York Michael Bloomberg. Pues bien, esos estudios con primates se convertirían en el germen de la investigación dirigida a producir vacunas anti-fertilidad, contragestacionales o abortivas en las que vamos a centrarnos en este artículo.


Dentro de la lógica militarista de la Medicina Moderna -que contempla las enfermedades como una batalla entre microbios invasores y anticuerpos defensores- las vacunas anti-fertilidad vendrían a ser “traidores” que convencen a una parte de nuestro “ejército” para que se vuelva contra nosotros; concretamente contra elementos claves de la reproducción. Vacunas- siempre desde esa concepción oficial de la Medicina- que utilizarían el sistema inmunitario para crear anticuerpos contra hormonas u otras moléculas asociadas al ciclo reproductivo, tanto masculino como femenino, aunque en la mayoría de los casos la investigación se ha centrado en las mujeres. ¿Y cómo se consigue que el sistema inmunitario actúe contra el propio cuerpo y ataque hormonas que en realidad son claves para el mantenimiento de la salud y la reproducción de la vida? Pues, simple y llanamente, “engañándolo”. Concretamente asociando la hormona o molécula que se quiere convertir en blanco de los ataques a una molécula extraña de modo que los anticuerpos actúen contra el conjunto por considerarlo extraño.

Las primeras vacunas experimentadas actuaban contra moléculas de la superficie del espermatozoide y el óvulo además de la Gonadotropina Coriónica Humana (GCH), una hormona producida tras la concepción por el embrión en desarrollo y posteriormente por la placenta cuya función consiste en asegurar el mantenimiento del llamado cuerpo lúteo sin el cual no hay posibilidad de embarazo. Si esta hormona se bloquea desciende el nivel de progesterona y el blastocito -el óvulo fertilizado de 5 días- es expulsado interrumpiéndose así el embarazo. La vacuna consiste exactamente en un fragmento de la GCH unido a un vector bacteriano o viral que es el que induce la creación de anticuerpos. Asimismo se han realizado otros ensayos para bloquear la Hormona Liberadora de Gonadotropina (HLG) que se produce en el hipotálamo y que es donde se regula el flujo de esteroides.

La segunda generación de vacunas anti-embarazo tenía como blanco la capa externa del embrión, denominada trofoblasto, cuya función es ayudar al embrión a implantarse en el interior del útero y formar posteriormente la placenta. Esta otra vacuna fuerza al cuerpo a identificar la cubierta del embrión como extraña y por tanto a destruirla; teóricamente sin alterar el ciclo menstrual y por tanto sin que la mujer siquiera note que se había quedado embarazada. 



Bueno, pues la evaluación realizada sobre ello en 1978 por la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) comenzaba diciendo: «No existen directrices para evaluar la seguridad de las vacunas reguladoras de la fertilidad». En los años siguientes se hicieron esfuerzos para consensuar criterios pero, con directrices o sin ellas, el hecho es que numerosos informes y estudios publicados antes y después de ese documento identificarían una serie de efectos colaterales y riesgos. Para empezar nadie sabe cómo esas vacunas que vuelven “loca” la inmunidad pueden afectar al feto si finalmente la “vacuna” falla y el embarazo continúa. Por otra parte, y debido a su mecanismo de acción -que fuerza la inmunidad para que actúe contra el propio organismo-, es lógico que existan muchas probabilidades de que se produzcan reacciones cruzadas y desórdenes autoinmunes; es decir, que los anticuerpos creados por la vacuna se vuelvan contra otras hormonas o moléculas semejantes. En el caso de la GCH, por ejemplo, hay al menos tres hormonas -la lutropina, la folitropina y la tiropina- que tienen elementos comunes de modo que los anticuerpos formados para la primera muy bien podrían atacar a las otras.

También se descubrió que la glándula pituitaria, ciertos tipos de cáncer de pulmón y otras partes del cuerpo aún desconocidas producen la GCH lo que podría provocar reacciones imprevisibles no investigadas. Otros efectos a corto y medio plazo son reacciones de hipersensibilidad a los vectores bacterianos utilizados: toxina diftérica y tetanoespasmina, menopausia prematura con riesgo de osteoporosis, incremento en el riesgo de enfermedades cardiovasculares, fiebre, formación de abscesos estériles y dolor en el lugar de la inyección. Pero lo más grave es su efecto a largo plazo debido a que no se sabe con seguridad si su acción es reversible o puede provocar esterilización. De ahí que sea lícito preguntarse si la esterilización no es en realidad un efecto colateral sino ¡el objetivo principal de estas vacunas! ¿Podría ser ello posible? Analicémoslo retrocediendo en el tiempo -hasta finales del siglo XIX- a fin de conocer las claves del denominado “movimiento eugenista” y sus conexiones con los personajes, instituciones, fundaciones y organizaciones relacionadas con las vacunas que estamos analizando. El lector entenderá así que tal hipótesis está más que justificada. 


La Eugenesia pretende básicamente “la mejora de la especie humana” pero en realidad ha servido de justificación para proceder a todo tipo de discriminaciones, violaciones de derechos humanos, asesinatos y genocidios. Ciertamente a lo largo de la historia ha habido propuestas para “mejorar” la raza humana; las hicieron los atenienses, los espartanos y los romanos -que llegaron a sacrificar a los niños más débiles- siendo una de las más antiguas esta conocida declaración de Platón efectuada en su obra La República: “Que los mejores cohabiten con las mejores tantas veces como sea posible y los peores con las peores”. El movimiento eugenista moderno se debe en cualquier caso a las ideas que Francis Galton apuntó en un artículo que publicó en 1865 con el título Talento y personalidad hereditarios y desarrollaría posteriormente en su obra -publicada cuatro años después- El genio hereditario. Ideas que conectarían con los planteamientos de Thomas Malthus quien casi un siglo antes -en 1798- había publicado de forma anónima su famoso Ensayo sobre el principio de la población en el que incluyó frases como la plasmada al inicio de este artículo o esta otra: «En lugar de recomendarles higiene a los pobres debemos estimular los hábitos opuestos. En nuestras poblaciones debemos hacer más estrechas las calles, hacinar más gente en las casas y cortejar el retorno de la peste. En el campo debemos levantar las aldeas cerca de charcas estancadas y, sobre todo, alentar la colonización de toda suerte de terrenos pantanosos e insalubres. Pero, por encima de todo, debemos reprobar los remedios específicos para enfermedades devastadoras y refrenar a esos hombres bienintencionados pero equivocados que creen hacerle un bien a la humanidad abrigando planes para extirpar por completo determinadas enfermedades».

En 1871, con la publicación de El origen del hombre de Charles Darwin, los eugenistas se sentirían arropados por lo que consideraban una “argumentación científica”; solo que sobre su “rigor” puede cualquiera hacerse una idea leyendo estos párrafos extraídos del capítulo V: “Existe en las sociedades civilizadas un obstáculo importante para el incremento numérico de los hombres de cualidades superiores sobre cuya gravedad insisten Grey y Galton; a saber: que los pobres y holgazanes, degradados también a veces por los vicios, se casan de ordinario a edad temprana mientras que los jóvenes prudentes y económicos, adornados casi siempre de otras virtudes, lo hacen tarde a fin de reunir recursos con que sostenerse y sostener a sus hijos (…) Resulta así que los holgazanes, los degradados y, con frecuencia, los viciosos tienden a multiplicarse en una proporción más rápida que los próvidos y en general virtuosos (…) En la lucha perpetua por la existencia habría prevalecido así la raza inferior sobre la superior y no en virtud de sus buenas cualidades sino por sus graves defectos”.

Agregaremos que varios hijos de Darwin -sobrinos asimismo de Galton- fueron líderes del movimiento eugenista. Leonard Darwin fue por ejemplo presidente de la Eugenics Education Society -la sociedad eugenista londinense- y sus hermanos Horace, Francis y George formaron parte de otro grupo creado en Cambridge. De hecho fue precisamente el libro de Leonard Darwin ¿Qué es la Eugenesia? -traducido a numerosos idiomas- el que contribuyó a la popularización y difusión internacional del eugenismo.


Como es fácil suponer los planteamientos eugenistas fueron inmediatamente adoptados por las poderosas familias que se estaban enriqueciendo con el petróleo, el acero y los bancos -especialmente en Estados Unidos, Inglaterra y Alemania- ya que suponían un refrendo “científico” para justificar que ellos, como “seres superiores”, poseyeran grandes fortunas mientras decenas de millones de seres humanos se hallaban “merecidamente” en la miseria.

Las ideas eugenistas desembarcarían en Estados Unidos a finales del siglo XIX siendo uno de sus pioneros el inventor del teléfono, Alexander Graham Bell. Y ya en 1896 se aprobaría en Connecticut una ley matrimonial con criterios eugenistas: la prohibición de casarse a los «epilépticos, imbéciles y débiles mentales» siguiendo rápidamente el ejemplo muchos otros estados. En 1898 el biólogo Charles Davenport -a quien se considera el «padre» del Eugenismo estadounidense- comenzaría a trabajar en el centro de investigación de Cold Spring Harbor gracias a los fondos aportados por la familia Carnegie a la que posteriormente se unirían los Rockefeller para financiar la Oficina de Registro de Eugenesia en la que se almacenaron genealogías y otros datos que sirvieron como base a diversas instituciones eugenistas que estaban proliferando por todo el país.


John Harvey Kellogg -el famoso inventor de los Corn Flakes– también crearía en esa época la Fundación para la mejora de la raza en su centro de operaciones de Battle Creek (Michigan, EEUU).Y entre sus propuestas estaban la segregación, el abandono de retrasados y minusválidos e, incluso, el exterminio de criminales, pervertidos y otros. De hecho a partir de 1907 comenzarían a aprobarse en distintos estados norteamericanos leyes que permitían ya esterilizar a «idiotas, madres solteras, enfermos mentales, criminales y chicos con problemas de conducta» que en 1927 recibieron el visto bueno de la Corte Suprema. Llegando a escribir uno de los magistrados estadounidenses de mayor prestigio internacional, el juez Oliver Wendell Holmes, lo siguiente: «Es mejor para todo el mundo que en vez de esperar a que se ejecute a sus descendientes por los crímenes que puedan cometer o que mueran por su imbecilidad innata la sociedad impida que los manifiestamente inadecuados tengan descendencia». Unas declaraciones que serían citadas por los nazis en su defensa durante los juicios de Nüremberg al igual que un informe sobre los resultados de las esterilizaciones en California publicado en 1929. El propio Adolf Hitler escribió una carta al abogado estadounidense Madison Grant para decirle que su libro El paso de la gran raza -en el que éste proponía eliminar a niños defectuosos y esterilizar a los adultos sin valor para la comunidad- era “su biblia”.

El impacto de las ideas eugenistas fue de hecho tal que en 1928 había 375 cursos universitarios a los que asistían más de 20.000 estudiantes -algunos en escuelas líderes estadounidenses- que incluían como asignatura la Eugenesia. Calculándose que desde la aprobación de la ley en 1927 hasta 1963 –año en que fue abolida- al menos 64.000 norteamericanos fueron esterilizados a la fuerza. Y las esterilizaciones continuaron después porque entre 1972 y 1976 se esterilizó mediante engaños, manipulación y presiones a 3.400 mujeres de tribus indias.


Como antes adelantamos algunos dirigentes nazis juzgados en Nüremberg tras la II Guerra Mundial justificaron las esterilizaciones masivas practicadas en Alemania aduciendo que se habían inspirado en los eugenistas estadounidenses. Solo que los alemanes multiplicaron los «esfuerzos» estadounidenses para “mejorar la especie”. Hasta el punto de que en un artículo publicado en Monash Bioethics Review se cita esta queja expresada por representantes del movimiento eugenista norteamericano: «¡Los alemanes nos están ganando en nuestro propio juego!» Y al menos en lo que se refiere a cifras así era: en julio de 1933 se aprobaría la Ley para la prevención de descendencia con enfermedades hereditarias que comenzarían a aplicar más de doscientos tribunales eugenésicos creados especialmente con ese propósito. Para lo cual se obligó legalmente a los médicos a denunciar a todo paciente que a su juicio sufriera un trastorno mental, epilepsia, ceguera, sordera o deformidades a fin de que fueran esterilizados mediante la aplicación de rayos X y la ablación de sus testículos u ovarios; lo que en la mayoría de los casos provocó la muerte de los infortunados. En apenas tres años las esterilizaciones ascendieron a unas 400.000.

Pero la devastación eugenésica no acabaría ahí porque pronto muchos otros países aprobarían leyes similares. Canadá esterilizaría a miles de personas -hasta los años setenta-, Suecia lo hizo con 62.000 “enfermos mentales” y minorías étnicas y raciales durante cuarenta años y Japón forzó abortos y esterilizaciones apoyándose en una Ley de prevención de la lepra. A esos países se sumarían luego Suiza, Dinamarca, Noruega, Finlandia, Estonia, Checoslovaquia, China, la India –solo en este país se esterilizó a más de ocho millones de personas entre 1976 y 1977- y Perú ayudados económicamente para ello por la Agencia de Cooperación Internacional (USAID) estadounidense y el Fondo de Población de las Naciones Unidas (UNFPA). Hasta Winston Churchill aprobó en 1913 en Reino Unido una ley que posibilitaba la esterilización forzosa que sería abolida gracias a la campaña montada por el escritor G. K. Chesterton. Otros famosos escritores británicos, sin embargo, se declararían eugenistas; como George Bernard Shaw o Herbert George Wells.


Tras la II Guerra Mundial y los juicios de Nüremberg la Eugenesia quedó de tal forma unida a los horrores nazis que se produjo una retirada estratégica en los discursos científicos y políticos; las sociedades eugenésicas cambiarían sus nombres y lo mismo hicieron las publicaciones que contenían ese término en sus títulos. Y los eugenistas se “reciclarían” como antropólogos, biólogos, genetistas… 

 La verdad, sin embargo, es que las ideas eugenésicas continuaron inspirando investigaciones y políticas; de hecho los programas de esterilización se mantuvieron activos hasta bien entrados los años setenta. Sin duda por el problema de la superpoblación que se convertiría en una de las preocupaciones claves de los estados del mundo desarrollado, muy en particular de Estados Unidos que en 1965 crearía la Comisión sobre la Crisis de Población, rebautizada posteriormente como Acción Internacional sobre Población (PAI), supuesta organización no gubernamental que impulsaría la creación de otras organizaciones destinadas a jugar papeles claves en las políticas internacionales relacionadas con la población hasta el día de hoy: el Fondo de Población de las Naciones Unidas (UNFPA), la Federación Internacional de Planificación Familiar (IPPF) y la Oficina de Asuntos de Población (OPA), integrada en la Agencia estadounidense para el desarrollo (USAID).

Dejemos pues que uno de sus propios dirigentes, Thomas Ferguson -de la OPA-, explique el sentido y los objetivos de las políticas que las mismas desarrollan: «Hay un único objetivo tras nuestro trabajo: reducir los niveles de población. Así que o los gobiernos lo hacen a su manera usando métodos limpios o se encontrarán con algo similar a lo ocurrido en El Salvador, Irán o Beirut. La población es un problema político que una vez fuera de control requiere gobiernos autoritarios -incluso el fascismo- para reducirla (…) Y para hacerlo rápidamente tienes que empujar a los machos a la guerra y matar a un número suficiente de hembras fértiles». Sin comentarios.

Entre tanto los autodenominados «filántropos» intentaron poner en práctica esos «métodos limpios». El informe anual de la Fundación Rockefeller correspondiente a 1968 decía: «Afrontamos el peligro de que en pocos años estos dos métodos modernos (se refería a la píldora y al DIU) sean inviables para su uso a gran escala (…) Podremos tener métodos mucho mejores gracias a la investigación de alta calidad llevada a cabo desde aproximaciones diferentes (…) La fundación se esforzará en ayudar a llenar este importante vacío de varias formas: proporcionando apoyo a universidades y centros de investigación en Estados Unidos y el extranjero en busca de métodos de control de la fertilidad (…),desarrollando métodos anticonceptivos en biología reproductiva con implicaciones para la fertilidad humana y su control (…) y apoyando programas de investigación y docencia en departamentos de Zoología, Biología y Bioquímica». Añadiendo: «Se estima en cinco millones la cantidad de mujeres pobres o cercanas a la pobreza que necesitan servicios de control de la natalidad. La fertilidad incontrolada de los indigentes contribuye a perpetuar la pobreza, la infraeducación y el subempleo».

Como puede verse los objetivos del clan Rockefeller no habían variado a finales del siglo XX. Y en las décadas siguientes se materializarían con la ayuda de numerosos gobiernos y organizaciones internacionales. Al menos cuatro informes gubernamentales -que verían la luz entre 1972 y 1981- ofrecieron el caldo de cultivo para la puesta en marcha de operaciones de esterilización a gran escala. Entre ellas las vacunas anti-fertilidad que estamos analizando (lea en nuestra web –– el artículo que con el título El modelo médico viola los derechos de las mujeres publicamos en el nº 143.


Ya en julio de 1969 el expresidente Richard Nixon dirigió al Congreso estadounidense un Mensaje especial sobre los problemas de crecimiento de la población en el que expuso los «peligros» a los que se enfrentaba Estados Unidos debido a ello proponiendo crear una Comisión sobre el crecimiento de la población y el futuro de América. Comisión que presidiría John D. Rockefeller y que en su informe final incluiría entre sus recomendaciones desarrollar programas educativos para mentalizar a las nuevas generaciones del problema de la superpoblación, eliminar obstáculos legales para poder acceder a los anticonceptivos, facilitar esterilizaciones voluntarias y abortos, dar prioridad total a la investigación sobre el control de la fertilidad buscando si fuera preciso capital privado, impulsar programas de planificación familiar, endurecer las restricciones a los inmigrantes, crear o implementar numerosas instituciones relacionadas con la población y diseñar un plan de «estabilización de la población».

Ese mismo año se crearía en el seno de la OMS el Programa de Reproducción Humana (HRP) -entre cuyos socios se encuentra el Banco Mundial y las ya mencionadas UNFPA y IPPF- desde el que se coordinan las acciones internacionales relacionadas con el control de la población con la conveniente apariencia de organización global bondadosa aunque en realidad se halla al servicio de las élites que operan tras las fundaciones que controlan la OMS y las Naciones Unidas desde su misma creación. Veamos más detalles de esta conexión.


Apenas transcurridos dos años desde el Informe Rockefeller Nixon recibiría -unos meses antes de su renuncia por el caso Watergate– el llamado Memorándum de estudio para la seguridad nacional nº 200 (NSSM 200). Implicaciones del crecimiento poblacional mundial para la seguridad de Estados Unidos y sus intereses en ultramar desclasificado por el Consejo de Seguridad Nacional el 3 de julio de 1989 y conocido desde entonces como Informe Kissinger en el que el que el Secretario de Estado y Consejero para la Seguridad Nacional Henry Kissinger -que dirigió el panel sobre seguridad nacional del Proyecto de Estudios Especiales de la Fundación Rockefeller– firmó cosas como ésta: «Creemos que se necesitarán algo más que servicios de planificación familiar para motivar a las parejas a querer familias pequeñas… Este factor lleva a la necesidad de desarrollar programas de información, educación y persuasión a gran escala dirigidos a disminuir la fertilidad». Y mencionaba claramente la estrategia a seguir vía instituciones internacionales: «Los programas de asistencia poblacional del Gobierno deben ser coordinados con los de las principales instituciones multilaterales, organizaciones de voluntarios (ONGs) y otros donantes bilaterales”.

El informe -que el presidente Gerald Ford oficializó como política gubernamental en 1975- también dejaba muy claro por dónde debía ir la investigación:“El esfuerzo para reducir el crecimiento poblacional requiere una variedad de métodos de control de natalidad que sean seguros, efectivos, baratos y atractivos tanto para los varones como para las mujeres. Los países en desarrollo en particular necesitan métodos que no requieran de médicos y que se puedan utilizar en áreas rurales remotas y primitivas o villas míseras urbanas por personas que tienen una motivación relativamente baja”.


Aún aparecerían otros dos informes aunque ya con Jimmy Carter en la presidencia cuyos borradores se elaboraron en la OPA: el Global 2000 en 1980 y el Global Future: Time to Act (Futuro global: hora de actuar) un año después. La idea fundamental que animaban esos informes -realizados con la colaboración del Consejo sobre calidad medioambiental integrado en la Oficina ejecutiva de la Presidencia y con fuertes lazos con la industria del petróleo- era reducir la población al precio que fuera. ¿Hasta dónde estarían dispuestos a llegar? Para valorarlo basta conocer la opinión de Robert McNamara quien fue presidente de la Ford, Secretario de Defensa durante ocho años y presidente del Banco Mundial además de miembro del consejo directivo del Washington Post, diario del clan Rockefeller: «Para decirlo con sencillez: el crecimiento excesivo de la población es el mayor obstáculo para el avance económico y social de las sociedades del mundo desarrollado. Sólo hay dos formas posibles de evitar un mundo con diez mil millones de personas: o bajan rápidamente las tasas de natalidad o deberán subir las de mortalidad«.


Bueno, pues para conocer lo que finalmente se coció no es preciso rebuscar en documentos secretos, prohibidos o censurados ni hacer arriesgadas suposiciones. Hay hoy en Internet suficientes documentos accesibles que permiten establecer la secuencia que demuestra la implicación de las principales instituciones internacionales en el empeño de los Rockefeller y otros por reducir la población mundial. Veámoslo.

La propia Fundación Rockefeller reconoce en sus informes anuales -algunos ya citados- que durante la década de los sesenta dedicó ingentes cantidades de dinero a financiar la investigación de vacunas anti-fertilidad como continuación de las investigaciones que inició a principios del siglo XX con primates.

A comienzos de los años setenta el propio John D. Rockefeller dirigió un informe gubernamental en el que se recomendaba la “estabilización de la población”. Pues bien, dos años después su hermano Nelson Rockefeller se convertiría en Vicepresidente de Estados Unidos y poco después se crearía en la OMS el Programa sobre Reproducción Humana cuyos socios son el Banco Mundial, UNICEF, el Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo y otros dos organismos cuya creación fue impulsada por la antigua Comisión sobre crisis de población que financiaba o auspiciaba el clan Rockefeller: el Fondo de Población de las Naciones Unidas (UNFPA) y la Federación Internacional de Planificación Familiar (IPPF), buque insignia del eugenismo, el racismo y la esterilización forzada.

 En 1972 se crearía asimismo el Programa Especial de la OMS de Investigación, Desarrollo y Capacitación en Reproducción Humana cuyo objetivo era -según un informe publicado por la OMS en 1992- «coordinar, promover, dirigir y evaluar la investigación internacional sobre reproducción humana» y que consideró como una de sus prioridades «investigar nuevos métodos de regulación de la fertilidad»; añadiendo que «la investigación sobre vacunas reguladoras de la fertilidad es un área importante en la que trabaja el programa» que en agosto de 1992 se reunió en Génova con el Comité de Dirección del Grupo sobre vacunas para la regulación de la fertilidad de la HRP y científicos de Australia, Europa, India y Estados Unidos. ¿Le extrañará al lector a estas alturas saber que entre los financiadores del Programa se cita en varias ocasiones a la Fundación Rockefeller? De hecho las principales investigaciones coordinadas por ese Programa -véase el recuadro número 1- reciben fondos bien de instituciones ligadas al HRP, bien directamente de la Fundación Rockefeller y el Banco Mundial.

En las décadas de los setenta y ochenta hubo más de 650 científicos trabajando en 60 países en el campo de la regulación de la fertilidad -vacunas y esterilización incluidas-; y aparecen informes con los avances de la investigación valorando las ventajas e inconvenientes que ofrecen, empleando como criterio fundamental para esas valoraciones la adecuación de los hallazgos a propósitos de distribución a gran escala: producción a bajo costo, facilidad de almacenamiento, posibilidad de administración por parte de personal no médico… Y junto a eso, por supuesto, los efectos colaterales en algunos casos alarmantes; como la impotencia en hombres y la dudosa irreversibilidad en mujeres.

Sin embargo a partir de 1995 no se volvieron a tener noticias de esas “vacunas anti-fertilidad”. Siendo muy posible que fuera el fracaso de un estudio clínico de fase II en Suiza que tuvo que ser suspendido ante las graves reacciones adversas que sufrieron seis mujeres lo que marcara el principio del fin de esas “vacunas”. En cualquier caso los objetivos de sus impulsores permanecen intactos. De hecho existen indicios que apuntan que se optó por utilizar las hormonas desarrolladas en el marco de esa investigación ¡en vacunas convencionales! Una tesis que se apoya en algunos hechos constatados. En 1995, por ejemplo, el Gobierno peruano se vio obligado a suspender una campaña de vacunación antitetánica al descubrir que las vacunas eran abortivas; y lo mismo sucedió en México, Filipinas y Argentina descubriéndose luego que vacunas contra el tétanos y la rubeola también contenían GCH.

Desgraciadamente hoy la Eugenesia ha traspasado aún más la línea y ha decidido valerse de la ingeniería genética para lo cual los Rockefeller se han encargado de hacer creer al mundo que se trata de una ciencia exacta. Ciencia en cuya expansión juega hoy papel protagonista otro “filántropo” de nuevo cuño: William Henry Gates III, más conocido como Bill Gates.


Y es que el fundador de Microsoft pediría en 1994 ayuda a su padre a fin de «utilizar sus recursos para promocionar la salud reproductiva e infantil en los países en vías de desarrollo». Claro que su progenitor, William Henry Gates II, tenía experiencia en ese campo ya que había sido uno de los impulsores de la Federación Americana para la Planificación Familiar creada por la segregacionista y partidaria de la esterilización Margaret Sanger, miembro destacado de la Sociedad Americana de Eugenesia junto con el abuelo de Bill: William Henry Gates I.

Sería así pues como padre e hijo crearían la Fundación William Henry Gates, germen de la actual Fundación Bill y Melinda Gates en la que el padre de Bill «conduce la visión y la dirección estratégica» y comparte presidencia con su hijo y la esposa de éste. Como cabía esperar la autopresentación de la fundación en su web tiene el habitual tono eufemístico y grandilocuente de este tipo de organizaciones creadas por los “amos del mundo” que se presentan como benefactoras de la humanidad: «Guiada por la creencia de que todas las vidas tienen el mismo valor la fundación trabaja para ayudar a todas las personas a conseguir una vida productiva y saludable». Palabras que cobran su significado real si recordamos que Bill se declaró admirador de Thomas Malthus y que durante su intervención en el TED Talks de 2010 dijo lo siguiente tras convertir en una ecuación matemática el problema del crecimiento de la población: «Si hacemos un buen trabajo con nuevas vacunas, atención sanitaria y servicios de control de la reproducción -un eufemismo para no decir abortos- quizás podamos reducirla en un 10 o 15%«.

Claro que a nadie debería extrañarle cómo materializa Bill Gates sus impulsos malthusianos porque durante años ha dedicado cientos de millones de dólares a financiar proyectos para promocionar cultivos transgénicos, agroquímicos y pesticidas, ha aportado fondos al programa del Gobierno estadounidense Feed the Future para introducir maíz transgénico en África y ha colaborado con la Fundación Rockefeller para impulsar la Alianza para una Revolución Verde en África (AGRA). Es decir, para implantar en ese continente -como ya hicieron en Iberoamérica e India- el modelo industrial capitalista de agricultura que lleva a la pobreza y a la ruina a decenas de miles de agricultores poniendo la producción agrícola en manos de unas pocas multinacionales; como Monsanto, empresa de la que Bill Gates es dueño desde 2010 de medio millón de acciones. Es más, según La Vía Campesina el 80% de las inversiones de Gates están hoy relacionadas con la biotecnología, nuevo medio tecnológico para desarrollar el Eugenismo siguiendo un camino que en realidad iniciaron los Rockefeller en 1943 con los primeros experimentos de modificación genética en el llamado «arroz de oro» (que, por cierto, fue un fracaso). 


En cualquier caso el proyecto estrella de Bill Gates es la Alianza GAVI (Alianza Global para Vacunas e Inmunización), proyecto que puso en marcha en el 2000 y en el que junto a la Fundación Rockefeller, el Banco Mundial, la UNICEF y la OMS también participan gobiernos y centros de investigación así como la Federación Internacional de la Industria del Medicamento (IFPMA) que agrupa a 55 asociaciones nacionales en países desarrollados y en vías de desarrollo. Todos unidos con el objetivo de vacunar a cada ser vivo del planeta de buen grado, por la fuerza… o mediante tecnologías de última generación como las nanopartículas. Lo que hace inferir que su proyecto de vacunas anti-fertilidad a gran escala acabó fracasando y de ahí su nuevo “proyecto humanitario”.

Jesús García Blanca