Camouflaged merchandise

A badly approached debate

Chemical contraception is widely spread in France (71% of women from 20 to 44 years old use a "contraceptive" method, 40% use the pill⁽¹⁾, 16% use the IUD), and so far there has not been any important protest movement. The only audible opposition comes from the Roman Catholic Church⁽²⁾, and only from a minimal section of this Church mainly based on theological principles: the "Be fruitful and multiply" from the Genesis and the Onan affair: rejecting procreation, even if it is not through abortion, is considered a sin⁽³⁾. Recently, pharmacists of Bordeaux region - also Rescuers - have been sued for not allowing the sale of "contraceptive" hormones and the Appeal Court has rejected their case; the Figaro affirms that their behavior was due to their religious thoughts and did not mention their former arguments: the abortive effects of the so-called contraceptives.

The religious argument is the excuse used by the eugenicists´ lobbies and their allies to bury every debate about the question. But we perfectly know that these opponents are basically dishonest.

In fact, the main argument against chemical contraception is that it deals in fact with abortifacient manipulation, which should place the debate on a more serious level since it does not only involve refusing fertility but more precisely murders. We "forgot" to talk about "material elements".

The second argument involves women´s health, seriously endangered by the strong doses of synthetic hormones.

Everybody thinks they know this

For Mr. and Mrs. Everybody, chemical contraception prevents ovulation from taking place, which at the same time prevents fertilization: no human being is then conceived, therefore there is no abortion; on the contrary, the number of abortions could be lowered thanks to the pill. For them, the secondary effects and mortality induced by the "pill" are minimal, negligible and besides, the media keep on repeating it. Chemical contraception is then seen as a minor evil, adapted to the modern world.

These are just simplistic beliefs that are spread just by repeating them; they are just slogans repeated since school time.

The truth:

a) the abortifacient effects

In fact, chemical contraception has always had an abortifacient effect, most of the time hidden. Lets study the technical detail to understand: nowadays there are many categories of chemical contraception:

combined pills or oestroprogestogens: they are compounded by two synthesis hormones: oestrogens and progestogens. The doses have remarkably decreased if we compare them with the first pills in the sixties. we have changed from 150 mg to 20-35 mg of oestrogens, so as to lower the secondary effects that these synthetic hormones always cause. The ovulation rate that was already of 1 to 10%, and consequently the abortifacient effect, have also increased.

the "mini-pills" or only progestogen pills (represent about 10% of pill consumption). They usually contain only one category of hormones, "progestogen", in lower doses and sometimes these vary according to the cycle stage. They must be taken at a fixed time, often throughout the whole cycle. In 30 to 60% of cases these pills do not prevent ovulation.

the implants (Norplant) or the injections (Depo-Provera) release progestogens permanently into the body during several months and cause important secondary effects (blindness, bleedings, obesity, acne, skin discoloration, blood clots, scars)⁽⁴⁾.

"the day after" pills, which nowadays we disguise as "urgent contraception" are in fact an abortifacient kit of massive doses of hormones and their aim is to prevent the implantation of the child in the uterus. The "effectiveness" rate is of about 75%. According to the Market Sales Release Authorization, "the therapeutical action is not totally clear. This medicine could retard or inhibit ovulation. Moreover, it could induce modifications to the endometrium and then make it unfit for the implantation of the fertilized ovum. Once the egg is implanted, not even high doses of hormones can prevent the continuation of pregnancy."
The secondary effects on women can be disastrous. However, the Sales Authorization has been issued⁽⁵⁾ for a kit called Tétragynon in Europe and Preven in the United States, manufactured by the -- still -- German Schering.

A great propaganda campaign started in 1997 in the United States to promote this method⁽⁶⁾, which was less expensive than everyday pills, at least in the Third-World. Baulieu kicked off this campaign in France ⁽⁷⁾, the French socialist government is about to make its own contribution by launching a great campaign on the same subject. The WHO also spreads the propaganda for this type of abortifacient method by recommending the use of progestogen only, rather than oestroprogestogen.⁽⁸⁾.

The RU486 also fits into the "day after"pill category: it is described as such by its promoters abroad.

the copper IUDs, with or without hormonal additive, are placed in the uterus and there they cause an irritation of the uterine mucosa (the endometrium) aimed at making it unfit to host a conceived child. The IUDs do not prevent ovulation and are then mainly abortifacient (blastocides, they say). However, they are officially classified as "contraceptive objects", and their manufacturers try to hold the confusion concerning their therapeutic action by speaking about the mobility of spermatozoids, ovulation, the cervical mucus, which is dishonest.

the anti-pregnancy "vaccination" or anti-hCG, which is still being tested in the Third-World, tries to immunize the mother´s body against the hormone hcg necessary to host the conceived child. They aim at making the uterus completely unfit to host, it is a purely abortifacient method.

None of the therapeutic actions of these products is 100% reliable⁽⁹⁾. They vary according to people, the food they eat and the illnesses and treatments they undergo⁽¹⁰⁾. Consequently, a woman using one of the methods described here, even if it is not 100% abortifacient, will never know if she is aborting or not.

OV: anti-ovulation effect; ovulation is inhibited but not in 100% of cases. Moreover, this effect decreases with time and varies according to other factors.

GL: the cervical mucus is thickened and then it slows down or prevents the spermatozoids from passing. The effectiveness of this contraceptive barrier is weak: an experiment on female rabbits concluded that 72% of spermatozoids pass in spite of the effect caused by the synthetic progestogens intake.⁽¹¹⁾.

END: normally the endometrium vascularity grows so as to be able to host the child by providing him/her oxygen and glucose. The hormonal "contraceptives" prevent a normal development of the endometrium throughout the cycle and so make it unfit to host an eventually conceived child. This effect is abortifacient.

TR: certain hormones used in the "contraceptives" interfere with the passage of the conceived child to the endometrium and they interfere with the flexing and the movements of the cilia inside the fallopian tube: certain products accelerate and others slow down the child´s movement, who is then likely to arrive too early or too late to the uterus. As a result, he will find that the endometrium is not ready or is already deteriorated. Therefore this effect is abortifacient.

b) the secondary effects

The secondary effects of these hormonal products are generally important⁽¹²⁾: a synthetic hormone - thus hardly metabolized by the body - interferes with the hormonal balance⁽¹³⁾. It has been proved that some of the cancers (neck of the womb, breast cancer) are stimulated or caused by the so called contraceptive pills and that these cause serious cardiovascular disorders. A recent study on 46000 women during the period 1968-1993⁽¹⁴⁾ proved a greater mortality due to cardiovascular diseases or cancer among the pill consumers. These secondary effects are generally minimized by the media, the manufacturers and the eugenic ideologists: we speak about percentages of risks and not about accurate figures of annual decease. However, among the eugenicists, there are groups of ecologists (WWF) to denounce the industrial use of oestrogen disrupters (products that interfere with the oestrogens metabolism by imitating, blocking or canceling them or the production of natural hormones ), like the nonyl-phenol, the octyl-phenol, the PCB (poly-chlorinated biphenyls) the DDT, used in certain plastics, paintings, pesticides, etc... In fact, we have observed a feminization (under-development of male sexual organs and generation of feminine hormones) in some male animals (fish, alligators, turtles) after pollution, even old ones, caused by some of these products. These oestrogen products generally concentrate in fat and they remain in it. These ecologists attribute even a decrease in human male fertility - which they say they have noticed - to the same reasons⁽¹⁵⁾. However, the dosages found in the polluted natural environments are infinitesimal [30mg of nonylphenol per liter of water, one thousand times are enough with the octylphenol and the fish do not drink all the water] compared with the dosages imposed to a woman who takes the pill.

Ecologists and the media put special emphasis on industrial pollution, while neck of the womb cancers increased by 50% throughout the period when the hormonal "contraception" was introduced in Western countries: in the Eastern countries and in Japan, where it has not been introduced, their cancer rates are much lower than in ours although industrial pollution is much worse!

But there are two weights and two measures, according to the political goal followed: the pill makes part of the foundations of the "advanced liberal society" started by the social traitor Giscard D´Estaing. Therefore, it is also taboo, even if it kills and sickens human beings; animals are in our society, more important than humans and so deserve that we regulate a bit more the chemical industry!

c) the pedophobic mentality

Chemical contraception, due to its relatively easy use, has permitted the soon trivialization of a hedonistic mentality, that considers the child, above all, as a nuisance. This contraceptive mentality promotes abortion, according to what we can observe in the field. They sell to the young the idea of sexuality as an object of consumption, with the corresponding chemical paraphernalia, which allows them to have an "open sexual life", clearly speaking "irresponsible promiscuity". The result is a considerable increase of teenage pregnancy, an excuse for the increase of "contraceptive" pressure and the cause of a great number of a surgical abortions, considered as the spare wheel of a failing contraception. Even the French Demographic Studies Institute (INED), a State organization, recognizes now that contraception does not prevent abortion, but multiplies it.⁽¹⁶⁾.

Our responsibility

A woman who uses the hormonal "contraception", even if it is not highly abortifacient, she never knows if she is aborting or not, it is like playing the Russian roulette (on child´s temple). Actually, many chemical abortions are caused by this means. We are before a problem similar to the polluted blood: we take a risk with somebody else´s life to get personal profit; refusing to know or not asking at all does not relieve us of responsibility; refusing to take knowledge into account states the guilt, at least that is the case of promoters and manufacturers⁽¹⁷⁾.

As there are no statistics about the number of abortions provoked by this means, we could calculate a range of 400,000 to 2 millions per year in France.

This message must be urgently spread and as a start, those who do not want abortion should stop using these camouflaged abortifacient means.

Subversion

To reach the universal usage of these abortifacient devices, while most of the population of the world is a priori against abortion, it has been necessary to lie, and lie, and to install effective disinformation devices:

The first stage, infiltration:

to "make people swallow the pill" they have hidden its abortifacient nature, which was suspected from the beginning and was quickly confirmed.

Thus, in 1965, a catholic woman said: "The question in my mind was, How does it work? (...) I know that one university theologian was alarmed about the moral implications. (...) The main question was: Does it prevent conception--or does it destroy the fetus after conception occurs? Nobody knew quite how the Pill worked."⁽¹⁸⁾, this did not bar her from taking the pill all the same...

The eugenicist lobby had begun to hush up the affair: the Swedish researcher Bent Boving had already commented as follows on a Parenthood Planning / Population Council symposium in 1959: "Finally, the fact of giving implantation control the advantage of being socially considered as conception prevention rather than the destruction of an initiated / established pregnancy, is simply the habit of prudent language"⁽¹⁹⁾.

Indeed at that time (1964), the Population Council very well knew that the acceptance or rejection of their products relied on their being abortifacient or not.

In 1969, the FDA Consulting Committee (USA), under the direction of doctor Philip Corfman issued the following report on the use of the "pill": "The second major effect is on the endometrium. The progestin acts as an antiestrogen causing alteration in endometrial glands and as a progestin, causing pseudodecidual reactions. Both of these alter the ability of the endometrium to participate in the process of implantation."⁽²⁰⁾.

Like all other scientific reports, this one and the others were not easily available to the general public. Several books have been published about the secondary effects on women. Generally, they are overwhelming and cast doubt on the pharmaceutical industries, not very inclined to see its clients diminish. Among these books, the "Dossier Hormones"⁽²¹⁾ by B. and G. Seaman is remarkable: the authors, of a feminist-eugenicist mind analyze the facts ; this book, published in 1977 in the United States, is published in France in 1982, translated among others by Maya Surduts, who reappears later in the CADAC (extremist anti-Rescue group) seeking to promote the "pill".

We are wrong if we think that we failed to communicate the abortifacient nature of hormonal contraceptives. Reality is even more disturbing: anyway the public did not want to know about it: in the short run, chemical contraception permitted women to best plan their professional and family life, within a context of family devaluation and ever growing fiscal and social pressure. This new technique also permitted to vulgarize the sexual revolution, sold as a liberation from oppressing and unfair taboos.

The second phase, consolidation,

consists in changing the sense of words to strengthen the ignorance of reality . First, they seek to deceive people about the human nature of the embryo. The American Academy of Gynecology invents a new definition of "conception" in 1965: "Conception is the implantation of fertilized ovum".

A new definition of the word "abortion" then appeared: make the embryo die after implantation, thus assimilating abortion to the mechanic phenomenon of pulling the foetus out from the uterus and not to moral or criminal accusation anymore. The advertisement of "emergency contraception" states: "(...) emergency contraceptive pills (...) does not cause an abortion. (In fact, because emergency contraception helps women avoid getting pregnant when they are not ready or able to have children, it can reduce the need for abortion.) Emergency contraceptive pills or the IUD as emergency contraception work before pregnancy begins. According to leading medical authorities (...) pregnancy begins when the fertilized egg implants in the lining of a woman's uterus. Implantation begins five to seven days after sperm fertilizes the egg, and the process is completed several days later. Emergency contraception will not work if a woman is already pregnant."⁽²²⁾

Baulieu, who is the media voice and promoter of the RU486 -- which he has never invented, let's not disappoint his flatterers --, makes the promotion of the abortifacient preimplantation drugs with the same argument, while he has recognized that the embryo is a human being from fertilization (process Nathanson/ Baulieu 1992).

Occidental countries legislated within confusion maintained⁽²³⁾: That is how the IUD and the hormone pills have been classified as "contraceptive" means.

Other language subversions are also being operated by the same eugenicist industrial complex focusing the Third World countries opposed to abortion: in Bangladesh they talk about extraction or about menstrual regulation: the word abortion would start repression, the replacement words, manipulated with art, will make the change.

The third phase, deployment,

consists in going even further and to shift the words sense a bit more, up to the point of inverting the sense: by calling contraception to the abortion , and bioethics, to eugenics. Thus they present abortion as a means to save lives. The WHO calculates unreliable figures of dead women as consequence of clandestine abortions (they have just passed from 200,000 to 80,000 women / year in the world in a mysterious way)⁽²⁴⁾ since by definition that which is clandestine is impossible to count. In contrast they accuse the pro-life of killing abortionists (who is benefiting from these crimes, but the pro-abortion lobby?).

It is also the sense of the present campaign in favor of massively abortifacient drugs (low dosage pills, RU486, Tétragynon, Preven, etc...), on the pretext of reducing the doses and therefore the secondary effects, together with the mass media construction smokescreen of "genetic manipulations ", which the press always represents as dangerous if a hypothetical military (eugenicist dictator, the word is old-fashioned) wanted to make use of them. Thus they seek to hide the real contemporary eugenics which is shown in the violent depopulationist maneuvers in the Third World and in the increasing exploitation of the very young human beings: fabrication of cells, vaccines, sera, of organs for transplants, experiments of transplantation of human organs to animals and vice-versa, tests to measure the efficacy of chemical substances or of vaccines against inoculated diseases or tests of chemical or biological weapons to develop "ethnical weapons"; today, it is less expensive (sale forbidden, free transfer) to use a human embryo⁽²⁵⁾, or a fetus, or a child aborted through a caesarian at eight months, to make these abhorrent experiments (civil and military, which do not have any equivalent in history but the "experiments" of Mengele/ Von Vershuer, Clauberg, Ishi, etc.), than using monkeys or rats, increasingly protected by their friends, the ecologists. But they will attest that they are not seeking to make fair haired and blue eyed children⁽²⁶⁾. On the other hand, they know very well how to select big amounts of children for reimplantation in IVF/ET. woe betide the one who as a suspect gene, he will end in a lab or in the drainage!

What is really at stake

Sexual revolution, invented together and separately by the eugenicists of Sanger's sphere of influence (today represented by Planned Parenthood) and by the Marxist revolutionaries (Wilhelm Reich, Gramsci, represented today in France by the leftist-communist, now in power), is an extremely powerful tool used to change values and behavior. By leading the population to its own corruption through unhealthy practices, they become an immoral people thus incapable of fighting injustice, of righting a wrong: when you are implicated, you cannot protest anymore, because, in fact you are an accomplice, you would go back on your decision.

At the same time, the encouragement of unemployment and of material misery through the large-scale exploitation of society by the State (excessive taxes and levies), weakens the capacity of reaction of the population and increases the pressure it undergoes.

Social engineering is then possible on this anaesthetized and conditioned "mass" in order to attempt to carry out important utopia: therefore it is necessary for these to be carried out, that the human nature changes and that a human evolution (in the Darwinian sense) takes place. These utopia are eugenicist and elitist; in spite of their propaganda, they are not focused to the general wealth but to the interest of the ruling classes, which estimate that the most important part of the population is inferior to them, and should have the rank of animals.

These policies are fully unrealistic on the long run and absurd (if we considered that their promoters are sincere), which does not bar them from carrying them out with enthusiastically and causing damages. It is within this frame that we can find compulsory abortions (China) and masked sterilization (Philippines, India, Mexico, Peru, etc...), abortions camouflaged as contraception (everywhere), with the financial and logistic support of the UN through its different branches: the UNFPA, the UNICEF, the WHO.

The first victims are children and women. The aimed at target is the family institution, namely in order to prevent it from playing its counter-power role in view of the State's hegemony and of the UN. That is the reason why it is possible to find Marxists of all kinds whose god is the almighty State.

Besides this political motive, we can find a religious masked motive. The will to make people abort, i.e. to kill human beings, is essential to a large number of paganisms and in witchcraft: sacrifice, above all human sacrifice, permits to obtain the "powers".

Moreover, one of the activities and sources of important revenues of witchcraft has been since ancient times the preparation of abortifacient filters, (the word "pharmacy" comes from the Greek word "pharmakeia" which means "witchcraft").⁽²⁷⁾

Therefore it is natural that abortion and eugenics promoters have affinity with New-Age (the contemporary revival of paganisms) and witchcraft. It is possible to find in their ways of going about things a certain number of permanent features peculiar to alchemy, its main occidental branch, such as:

the replacement of science by superstition and dangerous, not very scientific makeshifts, including the spiritual elements (sacrifice of children); the UN is increasingly openly in line with this promotion of superstition: its promotion of the "earth's chart " shows its materialist pantheism, worshipper of Gaia, mother Earth, in opposition to all monotheisms. The interest of human beings is not the main concern, but that of a "deity", the earth, for which they would only be a threat; therefore it is necessary that they do not grow too much, from which the concept of "sustainable development" (for Gaia) is derived as well as the promotion of eugenics and of depopulation.

the search for the philosopher's stone: that which would transform today's "savage" humankind in a "superior" humankind, which would also solve the [false] problem of overpopulation; thus eugenicists dream of cheap and very effective sterilization, in this connection they seek to introduce the so called contraceptives in the Third World, by explaining that they will become gold, that of an economic development caused because of a lowering in the fertility rate (which is an economic absurdity!),

fraud: the deceit as to the merchandise and the laziness of alchemists; in fact "the most typical motive of alchemists isn't but (...) their lack of capacity to earn their living like everyone else and the desire to survive otherwise than through agriculture, commerce, craft or industry. (...) They prefer to become rich all of a sudden through supernatural means such as alchemy."⁽²⁸⁾. Isn't that a good description of Sanger, Pincus, and other sorcerer's apprentices? Is there a more disloyal means of facing emerging countries's competition than eliminating them physically?

What can we do?

Isn't there any woman in France who has felt cheated, deceived, manipulated after having used chemical contraception in good faith, sincerely believing that she had not committed abortion? Wouldn't it be possible to take proceedings because of fraud with goods sold, poisoning,, etc. Do the parents of a young woman who was poisoned with the "pill" consider the loss of their daughter as a small percentage?

While boycott is not legal in France, at least pressure on the manufacturers could be exerted: Roussel-Uclaf had to be sensitive to it.
The power of truth can change many things, it will finally remain, even if it is difficult to convey the message, as far as a big portion of the public does not want to listen to it.

But we are not here to tell stories to please our contemporaries.

Thierry LEFEVRE

Notes :