July 14

lessons on eugenics, part 1 (don’t drink the water)

a study was done 3 years ago stating that 1/3 of male fish in English rivers are turning female due to estrogen-heavy chemicals in the water (similar to drugs given to transgender men). there was concern that it could “even be affecting the fertility of men” who drink any water from these sources. “British men’s sperm counts dropped by almost a third between 1989 and 2002”, the article states, leaving little doubt as to the correlation.

flash forward to today, where “concerns about the “carbon footprint” of filtering machines means that the poisons will remain in the vast majority of the British water supply.” so the decision has been made, folks. the AlGoreWarming hoax is the cited reason for letting the peoples’ water supply remain poisoned, and the people go along with it because we have to save the polar bears’ icecaps from melting in the summer (the fact that they re-freeze in the winter is irrelevant and has nothing to do with reality). Gordon Brown’s “green adviser” surely likes that reproduction will be hindered, since he wants a 50% population decrease.

at least this is only happening to the Brits, oy? not so fast. Obama’s “science czar” would not only be okay with it, he advocated water sterilization as well as other eugenics methods such as compulsory abortions, forced sterilization, and implanted birth control, in his 1977 book Ecoscience. you see, some of the world’s “top minds” think the world is overpopulated, and (at least) 90% of humans need to die. of course, they are not included in the doomed percentage, because they are enlightened and have to carry out the plan.

do you think we all need to be sterilized? do you think we all need to be poisoned? do you think we all need to die? I should hope not. but one of our President’s top advisors certainly does. does that scare you?

conspiracy? if that’s still what you’re thinking by this point in my post, open your eyes.


Tags: , , , ,
Copyright © 2014. All rights reserved.

Posted July 14, 2009 by calenfretts in category "politics

3 COMMENTS :

  1. By Allison on

    This is not subjective in any way shape or form. Any facts you present in this article are overshadowed by your biased presentation. I guess my overall problem with this article (entry?) is the way it was written. It comes off as pompous. I had a hard time focusing on your arguments. I just had a hard time taking it seriously… Which is unfortunate because, on a third read, I found a lot of your points were pretty solid.

  2. By frettsy on

    I agree that it is not subjective – in fact, it is pretty objective ;)

    my style is pretty sarcastic, but I’m not quite sure how it’s pompous.

    but thanks for reading and, of course, agreeing with me!

  3. By Allison on

    You know I meant objective.

    Preachy.

    I didn’t say I agree with you.

Comments are closed.