Restoring the Rule of Law: Legal Implications of Covert Population Control Measures

The end of the Second World War augured the formation of the United Nations and a new system of peace preservation and international cohabitation based on two global security prerogatives, covert depopulation and coerced globalization; the first to allow nations to live within their means by restricting population growth and the second to facilitate development and prosperity across the world by allowing all nations to access vital natural resources irrespective of where they are found and at a price dictated by supply and demand. It was hoped that by tackling the underlying causes of poverty and war the UN, empowered to impose population control measures across the globe and to force nations to share their resources with the rest of the world through the open market, would not fail to preserve the peace as the League of Nations had failed for such a failure would be catastrophic in the era of nuclear weapons [1].

Coerced globalization or resource sharing is beyond the scope of this paper since it has been pursued openly not secretly and has had a minimal and for the most part positive impact on the rule of law and on fundamental rights and liberties despite its negative impact on the distribution of wealth and income. The same cannot be said about covert depopulation, which has been shrouded in mystery and has wreaked havoc on human and social health having a particularly destabilizing effect on medicine and law that cancels its indisputable economic benefits many times over and if continued spells the end of mankind.

Since 1945, the international order rests on the willingness and ability of nation states, aided by the UN system, to subvert fertility and promote morbidity, as needed, through covert chemical and biological means that limit births and increase deaths so as to bring them into equilibrium and thus stabilize the population. It also rests on the ability and willingness of nations to keep families few and small by delaying family formation, childbearing and entry into the workforce through underhanded legal, psychosocial and economic means for the sake of stopping population growth [2].

Heads of state and government the world over have made a cold and calculated decision to sacrifice their people’s fundamental rights and basic health as well as rob them of the joy of parenthood for the sake of national prosperity and international peace. Enforced by mutual coercion mutually agreed upon this secret accommodation replaced periodic conventional war between nations with constant unconventional war within nations, directed not at life and property but at fertility and longevity, to prevent nuclear confrontation, preserve natural resources for future generations and protect the environment from human destruction, but has exacted an equally high price from the health of individuals and society by annihilating fundamental rights and liberties, shredding the social contract and utterly perverting the rule of law, turning medicine and public health as well as the administration of justice into handmaidens of genocide and coconspirators in crimes against humanity and bringing human civilization and human populations to the brink of collapse [3].

To give the international security prerogative of population control precedence over social, moral, legal, and cultural norms and to commit genocide in its name without the public’s knowledge or consent legal covenants, bioethical conventions and declarations, and the criminal code of every nation on earth have been blinded and circumvented and the spirit and letter of the law abused and violated with impunity.

The rule of law has been suspended. It exists only as a fiction in the minds of those who never try to exercise their rights and liberties. And it serves as a guardian of last resort for those who have placed themselves above the law and who misuse it without shame from positions of authority and in blatant contradiction to their stated duties. As a result, the world is in the unenviable, unprecedented and extremely dangerous situation of having the rule of law not only suspended but also corrupted from within the administration of justice and of having no untainted organs of state or intergovernmental organizations to turn to for redress. How did this come to be?

The suspension of the rule of law and the global legal vacuum this has created are unwanted though foreseeable consequences of the inability of democratic Christian societies to legislate limits on fertility as soon as the international community embarked upon population control as a substitute to war at the end of WW2 and of their unwillingness to change course when this became possible in 1991 once the Soviet Union collapsed and the threat of nuclear annihilation disappeared.

The political establishment in 1945 was prevented from legislating population control by three structural obstacles that could not be overcome at that time: lack of birth control technology and the reluctance to discuss sexual issues openly and publicly due to obscenity laws, the intractability of religious authorities and especially the Catholic Church with respect to abortion and contraceptives, and the impossibility of being elected to high office in a democracy on a platform of limits to family size [4].

Paradoxically, religion and democracy, the West’s greatest assets, are the main culprits for the criminality of this New World Order; the first for preventing the expansion of morality to allow people to assume control over and responsibility for their reproductive organs and rights, and the latter for rendering any and all politicians suggesting limits to family size and laws for population control unelectable.

Unable to overcome these structural obstacles policy makers pursued population control by the only remaining alternative, namely through secret chemical methods and began subverting fertility first through water fluoridation and fluoride supplements and later also through salt and milk fluoridation and the direct application of fluoride veneers on teeth by dentists and along the decades with the help of dozens of endocrine disruptors deliberately inserted in food, water, beverages, dental and cosmetic products to prevent the moment of conception [5].

Subverting fertility, however, offends moral norms and since 1948 is also a violation of the Genocide Convention [6], which is why the international community had to find a cover for the mass involuntary sterilization program it had embarked upon and that gave rise to the euphemistic term the demographic transition, thus the transition from high birth and death rates that has characterized human populations in their natural state since times immemorial to low birth and death rates [7], which is an artificial and unnatural state that is entirely the result of human interference.

Behind the rather docile term demographic transition hide three population control objectives that are being pursued in secret replacement level fertility, peak population, and optimal population levels and that are explained in this short video [8].

Since population control offends moral norms and therefore falls under the purview of ethics, policy makers needed and sought the permission of spiritual leaders, and since public health is the only cover sufficiently large and credible to hide a global program of genocide they needed and sought the cooperation of the medical establishment, which was a logical choice since the reproductive system falls within the proper domain of medicine.

In the UK and the US, where the elites adopted social, legal and economic measures to limit fertility long before the formation of the UN, the Anglican Church passed a pro-contraception resolution at the Lambeth Conference in 1930 and America’s Presbyterian and Methodist churches followed suit in 1931 in addition to calling for family size limitations. But the Roman Catholic Church did not go along. Christendom’s highest moral authority gave its permission in tacit oral form in 1953, during the reign of Pope Pius XII, and in explicit written form in 1968, during the reign of Pope Paul VI, but with the caveat that the people’s sterilization is legal only if caused in the process of healing disease, as expressed in paragraph fifteen in the encyclical letter Humanae Vitae: On the Regulation of Birth [9].

Since global policy is shaped by consensus and consensus is always driven by the lowest common denominator, the Vatican’s position has forced nation states and the UN system to use medicine as a cover for population control. Ever since, national leaders and international technocrats have used the moral permission given by Church leaders to subvert fertility under the pretext of curing one disease or another, be it tooth decay (hence depopulation by fluoridation), vitamin deficiencies (hence depopulation by GMOs), infectious diseases (hence depopulation by sterilizing immuno-depressing vaccines), food poisoning (hence depopulation by endocrine disrupting substances), and environmental ills (hence depopulation by aerosol spraying/ chemtrails).

This modus operandi has had a devastating impact on the integrity of science, which has been debased to produce false research to provide medical justification for the application of chemicals, drugs, vaccines, and treatments that are of little or no benefit to human health but are indispensable for either damaging fertility or immunity to limit births and increase deaths, the two means of stable populations, when and as needed by governments.

Over the decades, medical research has been subverted to such an extent as to cause the complete breakdown of medicine and public health, prompting the editor-in-chief of the Lancet, Dr. Richard Horton to state: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.” His assessment is mirrored by Dr. Marcia Angell, the editor-in-chief of an equally important and esteemed peer-reviewed medical journal, the New England Journal of Medicine, who stated: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines” [10].

The veracity of research, the integrity of researchers, the credibility of the medical profession, the reliability of drugs and treatments, and the authority of national medical institutions and international public health organizations have been damaged to such an extent as to render the entire healthcare system untrustworthy and dangerous to human health, which is why chronic man-made illnesses now affect the lives of 60% of the population of the developed world and are the leading cause of death in both the developed and the developing world [11].

This would not be possible without the willingness of scientists in the employ of the pharmaceutical and biomedical industries to first engage in biological warfare and then falsify research and manufacture drugs and vaccines and formulate protocols with a hidden purpose so as to deceive the public and medical practitioners throughout the system who are administering these drugs and vaccines and following protocols that are designed to damage the immune and reproductive systems without knowing their full purpose and composition and thus in good faith that they are in full compliance with the Hippocratic Oath and with the best medical knowledge and practices.

This would not have been possible without the willingness of scientists in the employ of the chemical industry to falsify research to deem safe the application of toxins that have devastating developmental, reproductive, neurological and immune effects in both humans and animals.

This would not have been possible without the willingness of jurists to pervert the administration of justice and without the willingness of lawmakers to corrupt the legislative branch of government so as to provide legal cover, both passively and actively, for the commission of genocide.

Until 1951, when the Genocide Convention came into force, the Allied Powers were unfettered by legal covenants and free to impose population control measures on the losing Axis Powers and cobelligerents who had surrendered unconditionally. And that is exactly what they did starting with Japan in the aftermath of WW2, which is why Japan is the only Asian nation that does not have a baby boom generation. Germany and Italy were equally hammered, making the former three Allied Powers the first nations in the world to reach a state of inverted population pyramids and therefore have more elderly above 65 years than children below 15 years of age.

To do the same in their own countries and on their own people, however, the 51 governments that founded the United Nations had to hide their intentions from the public that elected them and had to invent a plausible cover for the involuntary sterilization of the populace as well as the plausible deniability necessary to conceal the deception, maintain the legality of the state and remain unpunished should the truth surface. Medicine and public health provided both, a plausible cover and plausible deniability and that is why and how socialized healthcare began. To hide genocide behind medicine the state assumed the cost of healthcare. That was the price of international peace and the demand of secrecy and deception. The monetary cost of healthcare was offset by the economic rewards accrued from controlling population growth. The human cost, however, will never be recovered.

The Soviet Union, unlike its allies the United States and the United Kingdom, had no democratic pretenses and was not concerned with appearances or with human rights and civil liberties. It conducted an open population control program on the Baltic nations by exterminating a good proportion of their citizens in Siberian gulags and relocating just as many across the Soviet Union to annihilate cultural differences and national sentiments. The population stabilization of its own people, however, and of the people and nations in its sphere of influence behind the Iron Curtain, was accomplished primarily by legalizing abortion and making it freely available on demand by greatly expanding and nationalizing healthcare services and only secondarily by selectively employing covert chemical methods of sterilization via fluoridation and other endocrine disruptors.

While the “free” West used medicine as a front for covertly sterilizing the populace through adulterated vaccines and immune system destroying medicines in addition to poisoning the food, water, beverages and consumer and cosmetic products with endocrine disruptors such as fluoride, BPA and artificial sweeteners, the “oppressive” East used medicine to provide free and unrestricted abortions as well as free voluntary and involuntary surgical sterilizations.

Unbeknown to the world, the price of belonging to the international community and remaining a UN member state hinges on the willingness of national governments to subject their people to covert chemical and biological sterilization to prevent conception (the West’s model), to treat the unborn with callous disregard and provide on demand abortion (the Soviet model), to legislate limits to fertility and enforce them without exception (the Chinese model), or to impose replacement level fertility through involuntary surgical sterilization (the Indian model).

The UN advises national governments what high crimes to commit in order to achieve a low, median or high population projection [12] and national governments decide which to choose. But forced to choose they are. They are forced to choose by their commitment to the international system of peace and security that they as signatories must abide by if they are not to be ostracized from the community of nations and shut out of international trade and barred from accessing vital raw materials, know-how and technology, and they are forced to choose by the inexorable pressures that their growing populations and consumption levels put on resources, government services and the environment.

Geopolitical pressures and material limitations create an inescapable trap for any government and leader irrespective of political ideology and culture, which is why to date all but four nations have embarked upon the hard road and multigenerational task of stabilizing their populations through covert methods of depopulation that constitute genocide by any and all definitions.

The statistical, demographic, documentary and medical data the author provides in Peace Without Poison is irrefutable evidence that the entire world is subsumed by the Global Depopulation Policy, that dropping fertility rates predate family planning programs and have little or nothing to do with contraceptive prevalence and abortion rates, that affluence is a product of low fertility and not vice versa as it is being asserted to hide the use of covert chemical and biological methods of population control, and that nearly every government on earth knowingly violates the law and the people’s fundamental rights to comply with an international system of peace preservation and resource sharing that is paradoxically based on genocide (Table 1).

Table 1: Chronology.

Since each nation has started at a different time, has proceeded at its own pace and not always steadily, and has either welcomed, produced or rejected immigrants, each nation is at a different stage along the demographic transition (Table 2).

Table 2: Status of the demographic transition/depopulation genocide by country.

Having ascertained that the Global Depopulation Policy is a global instrument and that the UN system and nearly every national government is implicated in the program of population control for decades it is time to establish to what extent this system is unlawful since its immorality is rather obvious and does not require expert knowledge to quantify and qualify. Poisoning children in their mothers’ wombs and the entire global populace through the basic elements of life or the instruments of medicine is morally reprehensible and unacceptable by any standard and in any culture.

The best way to discern the implications and ramifications of covert population control measures on the rule of law and the administration of justice is to look at the covenants and articles of law these measures violate and to see who is complicit and responsible and to what extent.

To simplify the task I will start with international covenants since they carry greater weight and imply the culpability and victimization of large numbers of people and then work my way down to national criminal codes, specifically the Swiss criminal code since both the highest medical and legal intergovernmental bodies of the UN system are located on Swiss soil, namely the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Human Rights Council (HRC) and as such have to answer and conform to Swiss law.

Before we can grasp the full scope and breadth of the depopulation program’s illegality we still need to spell out how medicine and public health have been perverted, and to what scope, to serve as a cover for involuntary mass sterilization and for attacking the immune system, so as to limit fertility to two children for every woman and longevity to ideally 70 years of age, which is the most economically advantageous formula.

To this end, it should be stated that the onus of the population control effort in the early stages of the engineered demographic transition is on undermining fertility to reduce the average number of children born to every woman to two children only, the so-called replacement level fertility, while in the latter stages it is on undermining immunity to increase the death rate among the elderly, which I shall call displacement level mortality, so their number relative to the working population is brought down to a proportion governments can afford. In other words, if two children are born to every couple and two elderly die over the course of a lifetime then the population neither grows nor decreases and is in a state of equilibrium.

The demographic transition of any country would be complete when the following four objectives are reached and maintained:

1. Parity between the birth and the death rate at 10 each for every 1000 people

2. A population pyramid shaped like a bullet and therefore a burden rate of maximum 50% (25% for children 0 to 20 years of age and 25% for elderly 60 years of age and over)

3. Optimal population as per overshoot index [13] and as required by long-term sustainability, a high standard of living, and environmental preservation

4. And optimal consumption level and low carbon economy [14], as required by decarburization, i.e. the transition from a high carbon to a low carbon economy

The last two objectives are the requirements of what I shall call the environmental transition, which can be defined as the transition from high population and unsustainable consumption to low population and sustainable consumption.

In this equation, demographic, economic and environmental objectives are indivisible (i.e. inextricably linked to the achievement of another goal), reinforcing (i.e. aids the achievement of another goal), and enabling (i.e. creates conditions that further another goal), to use the latest jargon of the UN system [15]. In this equation human life and health are also readily sacrificed for geopolitical and environmental prerogatives.

This intrusive and perverse program of population control has had an incalculably high price on individual and social health because the demographic transition has caused the epidemiologic transition. Infectious diseases due to natural pathogens have been replaced with chronic or non-communicable diseases due to sustained poisoning with depopulation toxins/endocrine disruptors, delivered through the food chain and vaccines, and the natural and short-term epidemics of infectious diseases that have plagued mankind in the past have been replaced with unnatural, man-made and continuous epidemics of chronic diseases in the present [4].

The scientific community that is still untainted by the Global Depopulation Policy is now of one mind with respect to the cellular, molecular and epigenetic changes caused by exposure to endocrinedisrupting chemicals and the negative effects these toxins engender in individuals and their descendants in the form of obesity and diabetes, male and female reproductive problems, cancer, prostate and thyroid dysfunction, as well as developmental and neurodevelopmental disorders; effects that are feared to be far worse than the current evidence suggests due to the unpredictability of non-monotonic dose responses, the low-dose and cocktail effects, as well as early exposure and developmental vulnerability [16].

The high child mortality rates outside the womb prior to the introduction of covert chemical and biological methods of population control have been replaced by even higher child mortality rates inside the womb through occult pregnancy loss (30%), clinical miscarriages (10%) and abortions (20%), none of which are added to current child mortality statistics although most if not all are the result of the onslaught of depopulation poisons governments subject us to and to the psychosocial and economic pressures imposed on the populace to keep families small and few [17].

The individual’s independence and self-determination have been replaced by state dependence and social interdependence putting people at the mercy of the state and the state at the mercy of harsh economic realities that force governments to sacrifice people [18]. And natural evolution has been displaced by social devolution since our intellectual and genetic endowment is being downgraded with every generation as the effects of covert chronic poisoning grow worse from generation to generation being cumulative and heritable [19].

The highest price and one that we have yet to pay and have just begun to pay is near universal sterility, pervasive morbidity, premature death, widespread mental retardation and physical debilitation if covert methods of depopulation via covert chemical and biological means are allowed to continue. This spells the end of our species and there is no name or punishment in the criminal code of any nation for engineering extinction.

In the most concrete terms, the following tables sketch a picture of the cost in human life that we have paid so far (Table 3), as well as what has been averted (Table 4) and the tragedy to come if we continue on the same misguided path (Table 5).

Table 3: The cost in human life.

Table 4: What has been averted.

Table 5: The tragedy to come.

Having lost the ability to poison the population into sterility and morbidity through covert chemical methods by adulterating food, water, beverages, cosmetic and consumer products with endocrine disruptors, once the author published Peace Without Poison in 2014 and forced heads of state and government through ultimatums and a hunger strike [20] to begin the process of removing them, which is now underway [21], governments are left with only biological depopulation methods. To this end, the authorities have increased the regime of recommended and mandatory vaccines and expanded it to adults [22] to damage the human reproductive system through immunological interference (aimed at reproductive hormones, ovum and sperm antigens, sperm production and maturation, or at spermovum interaction), a methodology long in the making [23], or most recently through gene silencing [24] and to damage our immune systems through heavy metals and cancer causing retroviruses (such as gammaretroviruses and lentiviruses) [25].

To be able to periodically vaccinate billions, the military-industrial complex has been tasked to develop and release dangerous viruses into select populations so the World Health Organization (WHO) can then declare an epidemic or pandemic and engage its newest instrument of global coercion called “public health emergency of international concern” (PHEIC) while big pharma dutifully brings out yet another vaccine carrying the latest sterility and morbidity causing technology. Under the pretext of protecting public health and stopping the spread of the infection, the population is then mass vaccinated and temporarily or permanently sterilized. If and when needed, the same methodology of mass vaccination is applied to weaken the immune system so as to increase morbidity and mortality to achieve parity between births and deaths as and when needed, which is the formula for population stabilization [19].

In the developed world, which has reached that last stage of the demographic transition and where the onus of the depopulation effort is on shortening life, the flu vaccine is the primary morbidity causing instrument through intrinsic pathways, which is why retired people in state institutions are routinely administered this vaccine and why all public servants across the developed world have to accept inoculation as a condition of employment. Public servants and the old represent the greatest cost and threat to national budgets and policy makers will not allow the dependency burden of the old to double from now until 2050 and reach a crushing 60%, as would happen absent drastic intervention [26]. By prematurely killing its public servants and the baby boom generation governments solve the problem of underfunded pension plans and crushing social entitlements.

The primary morbidity causing instrument through extrinsic pathways is the program of aerial spraying NATO conducts in the airspace of its member states. Although chemtrails are primarily intended to delay global warming by increasing the planet’s albedo effect and thus reflecting more sunlight into space rather than allowing it to enter the atmosphere and be trapped in it by greenhouse gases, they are secondarily intended to increase the presence of heavy metals and welsbach materials in the environment to cause morbidity and mortality in vulnerable populations the poor, the weak and the old who pose a heavy economic burden on developed nations that have conducted covert population control for decades and have therefore reached the last stage of the demographic transition and have inverted population pyramids [27].

All of the above methods of population control constitute covert chemical and biological war against innocent civilians but are hidden behind secrecy, deception and false pretenses. The most frightening aspect of this scenario is that the aggressors are the very governments, institutions and organizations tasked with the protection of our rights, liberties and lives but who instead abuse and misuse our trust to harm us.

The subversion of the rule of law and the administration of justice by international security prerogatives

To make the genocide invisible the global depopulation program has to be hidden behind the cover of medicine. To bypass the rule of law it has to be couched as a public health measure so that all legal impediments are trumped by the medical prerogatives of a purported medical emergency or herd immunity. To make it imperceptible the damage done to the immune and reproductive systems has to be small and gradual. To make it unpunishable the depopulation genocide has to be protected by plausible deniability; in other words, the damage done is supposedly both unintended and unforeseeable and therefore no one can be held accountable.

Water, salt, milk and dental fluoridation presumably for the prevention of tooth decay; hundreds of endocrine disruptors masked as stabilizers, preservatives, taste enhancers and colorants; GMOs contaminated with cancer-causing glyphosate herbicides and organophosphate fertilizers as the solution to world hunger and vitamin deficiency; mandatory immunizations for invented or manmade pandemics and epidemics (such as Zika, Ebola, H1N1 influenza, MERS, West Nile Virus or Hantavirus); recommended and mandatory vaccinations for childhood and infectious diseases without which children are not allowed to attend school and public servants are not allowed to come to work; as well as vaccines for a growing number of exaggerated threats from cervical cancer to dengue fever, allow governments and the UN system to bypass the following articles of the 2005 Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights [28].

Article 3: Human dignity and human rights

1. Human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms are to be fully respected.

2. The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.

Article 6: Consent

1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.

2. Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities for withdrawal of consent. Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice. Exceptions to this principle should be made only in accordance with ethical and legal standards adopted by States, consistent with the principles and provisions set out in this Declaration, in particular in Article 27, and international human rights law.

3. In appropriate cases of research carried out on a group of persons or a community, additional agreement of the legal representatives of the group or community concerned may be sought. In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.

Article 16: Protecting future generations

The impact of life sciences on future generations, including on their genetic constitution, should be given due regard.

They also allow the state to comply with the ethical loophole for genocide created by the Catholic Church for secular authorities in the encyclical letter Humanae Vitae: On the Regulation of Birth, which states that:

“The Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there fromprovided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever”[9].

And they allow the state and the UN system to pretend that they are not in violation of Article 2 of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which states:

“In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group” [6].

While governments could be exonerated from being in violation of sections (a) and (e) of the Genocide Convention they are in blatant violation of sections (b), (c) and (d) and punishable under Article 3, which states:

“The following acts shall be punishable:

(a) Genocide

(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide

(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide

(d) Attempt to commit genocide

(e) Complicity in genocide.”

And thanks to Article 4, constitutionally responsible rulers and public officials are not exempt from punishment for violating the Genocide Convention and cannot avoid prosecution by invoking international security prerogatives in their defense.

Genocide is clearly established by the drop in fertility rates to below-replacement level in advance of family planning programs and despite low contraceptive prevalence rates, low abortion rates and low sterilization rates that cannot possibly explain the drastic drop in fertility; drop that coincides however with national political decisions to limit family size and with the beginning of close cooperation with the UN system. Nor can genocide be hidden behind the pretense that low fertility is a consequence of growing affluence-pretense invoked to hide the use of covert chemical and biological methods of depopulation-when in fact the opposite is true, namely that affluence is not possible without first lowering fertility.

Conspiracy to commit genocide is clearly established by the refusal of policy makers and elected officials to respond to requests from members of the public for answers and investigations; by the refusal of the mainstream media to even mention the subject of depopulation and to willfully disregard any public actions against the depopulation program; by the continuing production and distribution of products contaminated with depopulation toxins either through the food supply chain via endocrine disruptors or the medical supply chain via adulterated vaccines and drugs despite evidence of the deliberate harm inflicted on the population at large; by the deliberate misleading of the public through false research and the suppression of valid research; and by the misuse of public funds, law enforcement and intelligence agencies to destroy the lives of any person who exposes aspects of the depopulation program either from within or outside the system as well as to control the social media and the academic environment in order to prevent the dissemination of information about chemical and biological methods of population control and to vilify, demonize and discredit anyone through orchestrated and sustained personal attacks on the person’s mental health and credibility. All of the above betray high level coordination and cooperation between the organs of state, between nation states and the UN system, and between public and private entities.

There is no evidence of direct and public incitement to commit genocide as that would damage the secrecy that protects the program from public scrutiny and since the program is not malevolent but benevolent in as much as it is intended to do as little harm as possible to individuals while accomplishing objectives necessary for the longterm survival of mankind.

Attempt to commit genocide is clearly established by the manipulations of the institutions of state by policy makers and public servants to misuse medicine and public health and to engage the assistance of the pharmaceutical, chemical and biotechnology industries for the purpose of preventing births, causing serious bodily harm, and inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction to at least part of the population.

Complicity in genocide is clearly established by the passive refusal of the legislative and judiciary branches of government and by law enforcement to stop the carnage and their willingness to actively protect the population control program by: (a) misusing the letter and spirit of the law to promulgate and enforce pecuniary penalties and penal consequences for parents who refuse to vaccinate children; (b) defending civil actions by biotechnology companies against farmers harmed by GMO seed contamination; (c) delaying and preventing reform of the chemical environment so that dangerous chemicals are prevented from entering the food system instead of placing the burden of proof on those who are damaged by such chemicals and are then faced with the impossible task of having to prove causation; (d) refusing to dismantle laws that protect Big Pharma from liability and criminal prosecution in the event of children damaged by vaccines; and (e) failing to launch civil and criminal lawsuits against the aerial spraying of the population with unknown chemicals for unknown purposes; to name but a few.

While the Genocide Convention and the Bioethics Declaration are violated directly and explicitly by the Global Depopulation Policy, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is violated also indirectly and implicitly.

The depopulation program violates the equality in rights and the spirit of brotherhood provisions of article 1; the entitlement to all rights and liberties of article 2; the rights to life and security of article 3; the prohibition of cruel, inhuman an degrading treatment of article 5; the provision for equal protection under the law of article 7; the right to an effective remedy of article 8; the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal of article 10; the right not to be subjected to arbitrary interference with one’s privacy and family and the right to protection against such interference under article 12; the provision for the protection of the family by the State of article 16; the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion under article 18; the right to freedom of opinion and expression under article 19; the right to the fulfillment of one’s economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for dignity and free development under article 22; the right to special care and assistance during motherhood and childhood under article 25; and the right to a social and international order in which all other rights can be fully realized, as stated in article 28 [29].

The Swiss Criminal Code [30] violations committed by those complicit in the depopulation genocide are equally clear and every bit as serious as the violations of international legal covenants.

Because the WHO is located on Swiss soil, all WHO employees, irrespective of nationality, can be prosecuted under Article 6 of the Swiss Criminal Code (“offences committed abroad prosecuted in terms of an international obligation”) and Article 7 (“other offences committed abroad”).

Article 6

1. Any person who commits a felony or misdemeanor abroad that Switzerland is obliged to prosecute in terms of an international convention is subject to this code provided:

(a) The act is also liable to prosecution at the place of commission or no criminal law jurisdiction applies at the place of commission; and

(b) The person concerned remains in Switzerland and is not extradited to the foreign country.

Article 7

1. Any person who commits a felony or misdemeanor abroad where the requirements of Articles 4, 5 or 6 are not fulfilled is subject to this code if:

(a) The offence is also liable to prosecution at the place of commission or the place of commission is not subject to criminal law jurisdiction

(b) The person concerned is in Switzerland or is extradited to Switzerland due to the offence, and

(c) Under Swiss law extradition is permitted for the offence, but the person concerned is not being extradited.

2. If the person concerned is not Swiss and if the felony or misdemeanor was not committed against a Swiss person, paragraph 1 is applicable only if:

(a) The request for extradition was refused for a reason unrelated to the nature of the offence or

(b) The offender has committed a particularly serious felony that is proscribed by the international community.

The employees of the WHO and other UN system agencies involved in the Global Depopulation Policy are willfully committing a number of felonies and cannot invoke negligence.

Article 12: Intention and negligence definitions

1. Unless the law expressly provides otherwise, a person is only liable to prosecution for a felony or misdemeanor if he commits it willfully.

2. A person commits a felony or misdemeanor willfully if he carries out the act in the knowledge of what he is doing and in accordance with his will. A person acts willfully as soon as he regards the realization of the act as being possible and accepts this.

3. A person commits a felony or misdemeanor through negligence if he fails to consider or disregards the consequences of his conduct due to a culpable lack of care. A lack of care is culpable if the person fails to exercise the care that is incumbent on him in the circumstances and commensurate with his personal capabilities.

The employees of the WHO and all other UN system agencies involved in the Global Depopulation Policy violate the following articles of the Swiss Criminal code:

Article 25: Complicity

Any person who willfully assists another to commit a felony or a misdemeanor is liable to a reduced penalty.

Article 117: Homicide through negligence

Any person who causes the death of another through negligence or recklessness is liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty.

Article 122: Assault serious assault

Any person who intentionally inflicts a life-threatening injury on another, any person who intentionally inflicts serious injury on the person, or on an important organ or limb of another, makes an important organ or limb unusable, makes another permanently unfit for work, infirm or mentally ill, or who disfigures the face of another badly and permanently, any person who intentionally causes any other serious damage to the person or to the physical or mental health of another, is liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding ten years or to a monetary penalty of not less than 180 daily penalty units.

Article 123: Common assault

1. Any person who willfully causes injury to the person or the health of another in any other way is liable on complaint to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty. In minor cases, the court may impose a reduced penalty (Art. 48a).

2. The penalty is a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or a monetary penalty, and the offender is prosecuted ex officio, if he uses poison, a weapon or a dangerous object, if he commits the act on a person, and in particular on a child, who is unable to defend himself, or is under his protection or in his care.

Article 125: Assault through negligence

1. Any person who causes injury to the person or the health of another through negligence is liable on complaint to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty.

2. If the injury is serious, the offender is prosecuted ex officio.

Article 127: Endangering the life or health of another abandonment

Any person who exposes a helpless person under his protection or care to a life-threatening danger or to a serious and immediate danger to health, or abandons the person to such a danger is liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding five years or to a monetary penalty.

Article 129: Endangering life

Any person who unscrupulously places another in immediate lifethreatening danger is liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding five years or to a monetary penalty.

Article 134: Attack

Any person who participates in an attack on one or more other persons which causes death or injury to a person attacked or another is liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding five years or to a monetary penalty.

Article 230: Causing danger by means of genetically modified or pathogenic organisms

1. Any person who willfully releases genetically modified or pathogenic organisms or the disrupts the operation of a facility for the research into, or the safeguarding, production or transport of such organisms is liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding ten years, provided he knows or must assume that through his acts:

(a) He will endanger the life and limb of people; or

(b) The natural composition of communities of animals and plant or their habitats will be seriously endangered.

2. If the offender acts through negligence, he is liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty.

Article 231: Transmission of human diseases

1. Any person who willfully transmits a dangerous communicable human disease is liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding five years or to a monetary penalty of not less than 30 daily penalty units. If the offender acts in a particularly depraved manner, the penalty is a custodial sentence of from one to five years.

2. If the offender acts through negligence, the penalty is a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or a monetary penalty.

Article 234: Contamination of drinking water

1. Any person who willfully contaminates drinking water intended for people or domestic animals with substances that are damaging to health is liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding five years or to a monetary penalty of not less than 30 daily penalty units.

2. If the person concerned acts through negligence, the penalty is a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or a monetary penalty.

Article 264: Genocide

1. The penalty is a custodial sentence of life or a custodial sentence of not less than ten years for any person who with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a group of persons characterized by their nationality, race, religion or ethnic, social or political affiliation:

(a) Kills members of such a group, or seriously harms them physically or mentally;

(b) Inflicts living conditions on members of such a group that are calculated to bring about its total or partial destruction;

(c) Orders or takes measures that are directed towards preventing births within such a group; or

(d) Forcibly transfers children in such a group to another group or arranges for such children to be forcibly transferred to another group.

Article 264a: Crimes against humanity

1. The penalty is a custodial sentence of not less than five years for any person who, as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population:

(a) (Extermination) intentionally kills a number of persons or intentionally inflicts conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of all or part of the population;

(b) (Other) commits any other act of a comparable seriousness to the felonies mentioned in this paragraph and thereby causes severe pain or suffering or serious injury, whether physical or mental, to a person.

2. In especially serious cases, and in particular where the offence affects a number of persons or the offender acts in a cruel manner, a custodial sentence of life may be imposed.

3. In less serious cases under paragraph 1 letters c–j, a custodial sentence of not less than one year may be imposed.

Article 264b: Scope of application

Articles 264a and 264b apply in connection with international armed conflicts including occupations as well as, unless the nature the offences requires otherwise, in connection with non-international armed conflicts.

Article 264c: Serious violations of the Geneva Conventions

1. The penalty is a custodial sentence of not less than five years for any person who commits a serious violation of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 in connection with an international armed conflict by carrying out any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the Conventions:

(c) Causing severe pain or suffering or serious injury, whether physical or mental, in particular by torture, inhuman treatment or biological experiments;

2. Acts in terms of paragraph 1 committed in connection with a non-international armed conflict are equivalent to serious violations of international humanitarian law if they are directed against a person or property protected by international humanitarian law.

3. In especially serious cases, and in particular where the offence affects a number of persons or the offender acts in a cruel manner, a custodial sentence of life may be imposed.

4. In less serious cases under paragraph 1 letters c–g, a custodial sentence of not less than one year may be imposed.

Article 264d: Other war crimes

(a) Attacks on civilians and civilian objects

1. The penalty is a custodial sentence of not less than three years for any person who in connection with an armed conflict directs an attack:

(a) Against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities

2. In especially serious cases of attacks on persons, a custodial sentence of life may be imposed.

3. In less serious cases, a custodial sentence of not less than one year may be imposed.

Article 264e

(b) Unjustified medical treatment, violation of sexual rights and human dignity

1 The penalty is a custodial sentence of not less than three years for any person who, in connection with an armed conflict:

(a) Causes severe pain or suffering or serious injury or danger, whether physical or mental, to a person protected by international humanitarian law by subjecting that person to a medical procedure that is not justified by the state of his or her health and which does comply with generally recognized medical principles;

(b) Rapes a person of the female gender protected by international humanitarian law or, after she has been forcibly made pregnant, confines her unlawfully with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of a population, forces a person to tolerate a sexual act of comparable severity or forces a person protected by international humanitarian law into prostitution or to be sterilized;

(c) Subjects a person protected by international humanitarian law to especially humiliating and degrading treatment.

2. In especially serious cases, and in particular where the offence affects a number of persons or the offender acts in a cruel manner, a custodial sentence of life may be imposed.

3. In less serious cases, a custodial sentence of not less than one year may be imposed.

Article 264k: Criminal liability of superiors

1. A superior who is aware that a subordinate is carrying out or will carry out an act under the Title Twelve bis or Title Twelve ter and who fails to take appropriate measures to prevent the act is liable to the same penalty as the perpetrator of the act. If the superior fails to prevent the act through negligence, the penalty is a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or a monetary penalty.

2. A superior who is aware that a subordinate has carried out an act under Title Twelve bis or Title Twelve ter and who fails to take appropriate measures to ensure the prosecution of the perpetrator of the act is liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or a monetary penalty.

Article 264l: Acting on orders

A subordinate who, on orders from a superior or on orders of equivalent binding effect, carries out an act under Title Twelve bis or Title Twelve ter is guilty of an offence if he was aware at the time that the act is an offence.

Article 264m: Acts carries out abroad

1. A person who carries out an act under Title Twelve bis, Title Twelve ter or Article 264k while abroad is guilty of an offence if he is in Switzerland and is not extradited to another State or delivered to an international criminal court whose jurisdiction is recognized by Switzerland.

2. Where the victim of the act carried out abroad is not Swiss and the perpetrator is not Swiss, the prosecution, with the exception of measures to secure evidence, may be abandoned or may be dispensed with provided.

(a) A foreign authority or an international criminal court whose jurisdiction is recognized by Switzerland is prosecuting the offence and the suspected perpetrator is extradited or delivered to the court or

(b) The suspected perpetrator is no longer in Switzerland and is not expected to return there.

3. Article 7 paragraphs 4 and 5 applies unless the acquittal, or the remission or application of time limits for the execution of the sentence abroad has the aim of protecting the offender from punishment without justification.

Article 264n: Exclusion of relative immunity

The prosecution of offences under Title Twelve bis, Title Twelve ter and under Article 264k does not require authorization in accordance with any of the following provisions:

(a) Article 7 paragraph 2 letter b of the Criminal Procedure code

(b) Article 14 and 15 of the Government Liability Act of 14 March 1958

(c) Article 17 of the Parliament Act of 13 December 2002

(d) Article 61a of the Government and Administration Organization Act of 21 March 1997

(e) Article 11 of the Federal Supreme Court Act of 17 June 2005

(f) Article 12 of the Federal Administrative Court Act of 17 June 2005

(g) Article 16 of the Patent Court Act of 20. March 2009

(h) Article 50 of the Criminal Justice Authorities Act of 19 March 2010.

Article 266: Foreign operations and activities directed against the security of Switzerland

1. Any person who with a view to bringing about or supporting foreign operations or activities directed against the security of Switzerland, contacts a foreign state, foreign parties, or other foreign organizations or their agents, or issues or disseminates false or distorted information is liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding five years or to a monetary penalty.

2. In serious cases, a custodial sentence of not less than one year may be imposed.

Article 275: Unlawful association

Any person who founds an association, the aim of which or the activity of which involves the commission of acts that are offences under Articles 265, 266, 266 bis, 271-274, 275 and 275 bis, any person who joins such an association or participates in its activities, and any person who calls for the formation of such an association or follows its instructions, is liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty.

Article 312: Abuse of public office

Any member of an authority or a public official who abuses his official powers in order to secure an unlawful advantage for himself or another or to cause prejudice to another is liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding five years or to a monetary penalty.

The most consequential legal implications that arise from this situation of illegality by nation states and the UN system is not that the authorities are responsible for genocide, which is obvious now that the walls of secrecy and deception have fallen, but rather what legal duties this knowledge imposes on the rest of us.

The following articles in the Swiss Criminal Code are pertinent as they shed light on our responsibility to act:

Article 11: Commission by omission

1. A felony or misdemeanor may also be committed by a failure to comply with a duty to act.

2. A person fails to comply with a duty to act if he does not prevent a legal interest protected under criminal law from being exposed to danger or from being harmed even though, due to his legal position, he has a duty to do so, in particular on the basis of:

(a) The law

(b) A contract

(c) A risk-bearing community entered into voluntarily or

(d) The creation of a risk.

3. Any person who fails to comply with a duty to act is liable to prosecution only if, on the basis of the elements of the offence concerned, his conduct is, in the circumstances, as culpable as it would have been had he actively committed the offence.

4. The court may reduce the sentence.

Under article 11, commission by omission, failing to comply with our duty to act makes us as culpable as those who have committed the crime.

Article 15: Legitimate self-defense

If any person is unlawfully attacked or threatened with imminent attack, the person attacked and any other person are entitled to ward off the attack by means that are reasonable in the circumstances.

Under article 15, legitimate self-defence, we are allowed to use any reasonable force necessary to ward off the attack.

Article 16: Mitigatory self-defense

1. If a person in defending himself exceeds the limits of self-defence as defined in Article 15 and in doing so commits an offence, the court shall reduce the sentence.

2. If a person in defending himself exceeds the limits of self-defence as a result of excusable excitement or panic in reaction to the attack, he does not commit an offence.

Under article 16, mitigatory self-defence, if as a result of excusable excitement or panic we use excessive force in our self-defence the court cannot consider this a crime.

Article 17: Legitimate act in a situation of necessity

Any person who carries out an act that carries a criminal penalty in order to save a legal interest of his own or of another from immediate and not otherwise avertable danger, acts lawfully if by doing so he safeguards interests of higher value.

Under article 17, legitimate act in a situation of necessity, the law allows us to carry out an act otherwise considered criminal to protect ourselves or others from danger so long as we safeguard interests of higher value. No prosecutor on this earth will be able to argue that protecting our species, our children, and our fellow men from poisoning and genocide does not constitute interests of higher value.

Article 18: Mitigatory act in a situation of necessity

1. Any person who carries out an act that carries a criminal penalty in order to save himself or another from immediate and not otherwise avertable danger to life or limb, freedom, honor, property or other interests of high value shall receive a reduced penalty if he could reasonably have been expected to abandon the endangered interest.

2. If the person concerned could not have been reasonably expected to abandon the endangered interest, he does not commit an offence.

Under article 18, mitigatory act in a situation of necessity, committing an act that carries a criminal penalty in order to save ourselves or others from harm is not an offense in the eyes of the law if we did not have a choice. After four years of unheeded pleas and ultimatums to those who poison us and our children it is safe to say that the application of force is a measure of last resort at this point.

Article 128: Failure to offer aid in an emergency

Any person who fails to offer aid to another whom he has injured or to another who is in immediate life-threatening danger, in circumstances where the person either could reasonably have been expected to offer aid, any person who prevents or hinders others from offering aid, is liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty.

Every day the depopulation program is allowed to continue countless innocents around the world are being crippled, sterilized, chronically sickened, enfeebled, prematurely killed and irreversibly degraded both intellectually and genetically. Failure to stop the Global Depopulation Policy is according to the article 128 a failure to offer aid in an emergency, a crime punishable by up to three years imprisonment.

Six separate articles of law in the Swiss criminal code compel any person who is aware of the crimes committed by national and international authorities to act as an agent of the law and to use any and all force necessary to protect themselves and others from harm. Any person who reads this article is therefore not only empowered but also compelled by law and by the knowledge conferred herein to apply the duty to rescue or the duty to assist, which is enshrined in the criminal code of most nations, as well as act in the name of selfdefense, which is a universal legal covenant. In so doing we reinstate the rule of law and save mankind from genocide and crimes against humanity, which are criminal offenses so serious as to justify the application of force of any magnitude.

The implications of this knowledge cannot be overstated. First, it makes every person on the planet an agent of the law without having to seek prior permission from the administration of justice as this is an emergency situation that demands immediate action and since the administration of justice of most nations is complicit in genocide. Second, it makes every person in the system both at the national and international level a potential target of force applied by a citizen or citizens anywhere on the planet since each and every person in this global system is an accessory to crimes against humanity and genocide and therefore culpable under the law as part of the apparatus committing genocide and crimes against humanity across the world through structural violence. Third, it justifies the application of force, indeed of any force necessary to stop the genocide and makes any and all acts of force to stop the genocide unpunishable by law. Any person who uses force against national and/or international entities implicated in the depopulation genocide can invoke in his or her defense “Peace without Poison”, as well as the author’s many hunger strikes, public actions and open letters, as evidence that all peaceful avenues to stop the genocide have been tried, have been exhausted, and have been ignored.

Knowledge of the depopulation genocide, of the right to self-defense and the duty to protect, and of the many peaceful attempts made by others to compel governments and the UN system to stop the genocide with no avail form a legal trinity that confers immunity from prosecution to any person on the planet who uses force against the people and organizations involved in the depopulation genocide. The suspension of the rule of law and the legal vacuum created to allow the depopulation genocide to proceed above and beyond the law, thus extrajudicially, by governments that have never asked and received permission from the electorate to suspend the rule of law and wage covert chemical and biological war on the citizenry provide an additional and ironclad justification for the use of force against national and international entities responsible either directly or indirectly for the depopulation genocide.

As a peace-loving person who understands the urgency and importance of the international security prerogatives pursued through population control and the largely benevolent intentions of those who delegate the depopulation genocide I am reluctant to launch an attack on any person involved in genocide or against any physical or institutional infrastructure used for genocide despite having exhausted all peaceful means three times over, which is why as a last straw I am appealing to those within the system both at the national and international level, both for their own sake and for the sake of the world, to refuse to participate in this international order based on genocide as this makes them complicit in genocide and therefore legitimate targets of the use of force by any and all citizens empowered to use force by the legal trinity described above.

Author reminds those within the system that they still have legal elbowroom to escape prosecution and retribution so long as they act now. The following four articles in the Swiss criminal code provide the opportunity to make right a wrong before the wrong has to be punished with the full force of the law.

Article 21: Error as to unlawfulness

Any person, who is not and cannot be aware that, by carrying out an act, he is acting unlawfully, does not commit an offence. If the error was avoidable, the court shall reduce the sentence.

In reading this article and seeing the evidence of genocide presented herein and in the cited sources any individual inside the system can no longer invoke article 21 to exonerate himself or herself from complicity in genocide. The law, however, through article 23, provides an escape pod for those individuals who assist in preventing a criminal act.

Article 23: Withdrawal and active repentance

1. If the person concerned of his own accord does not complete the criminal act or if he assists in preventing the completion of the act, the court may reduce the sentence or waive any penalty.

2. If two or more persons carry out or participate in a criminal act, the court may reduce the sentence or waive any penalty in respect of any person concerned who, of his own accord, assists in preventing the completion of the act.

3. The court may also reduce the sentence or waive any penalty in respect of a person who withdraws from carrying out or participating in a criminal act if the withdrawal of the person concerned would have prevented the completion of the act had it not remained uncompleted for other reasons.

4. If one or more of the persons carrying out or participating in a criminal act makes a serious effort to prevent the completion of the act, the court may reduce the sentence or waive any penalty if an offence is committed irrespective of the efforts of that person or persons.

Since the UN and its agencies as well as 192 UN member states have committed genocide for decades, the crimes committed to this point are a fait accompli and cannot be retracted or redressed. But the crimes that will be committed from this point on if those within the system continue to be complicit in genocide through their employment in the system can only be prevented if they withdraw their participation.

Article 52: Grounds for exemption from punishment, no need for a penalty

The competent authority shall refrain from prosecuting the offender, bringing him to court or punishing him if the level of culpability and consequences of the offence are negligible.

Article 54: Effect on the offender of his act

If the offender is so seriously affected by the immediate consequences of his act that a penalty would be inappropriate, the responsible authorities shall refrain from prosecuting him, bringing him to court or punishing him.

Those individuals who withdraw their participation from the system of genocide once they understand that they are complicit and can no longer invoke ignorance in their defense and who actively prevent the commission of further acts of genocide as well as show genuine remorse will provide the courts with grounds for exemption from punishment.

The rule of law can be reactivated by denying all individuals within the system the ability to hide behind real or feigned ignorance of their participation in genocide and by compelling them to stop their complicity in genocide and start their active participation in the dismantling of the system of genocide. By providing them with evidence that they participate in a system that commits genocide and by reminding them of their legal duties, we can turn all individuals who are now accessories to genocide into agents of the law and combatants of genocide.

In the legal vacuum created by policy makers to make genocide possible and to keep it secret the only possibility of reviving the rule of law is for individuals to become administrators of justice and fill the vacuum left by the abandonment of duties by the current administrators of justice who have made a conscious choice to blind the law and abuse their positions of authority to enable genocide.

If knowledge of their participation in genocide does not compel those individuals within the system to change course, the application of force by citizens acting under the duty to rescue and the right to selfdefense will be unavoidable and any force used will be justifiable until the system of genocide collapses. Refusing to acknowledge complicity in genocide by continuing to feign ignorance or by insisting on remaining ignorant will not exonerate anyone from being tried and found guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity and will not protect anyone, from the lowest civil servant to the highest statesman, from being targeted for their complicity in genocide so long as they remain active, passive or tacit contributors to the system of genocide.

No one can henceforth hide behind the system. And no one outside the system can henceforth pretend that they do not have a legal duty to stop the depopulation genocide by any means necessary, force included. Invoking pacifism allows people to renege on their right to self-defense but does not allow anyone to renege on the legal duty to rescue, especially in the case of parents who have an additional legal duty to protect the children under their care. Failing to stop the genocide makes everyone who has knowledge of the depopulation genocide liable to prosecution and as culpable as those who are actively committing genocide. In this environment citizens represent the last line of defense for innocent children if not for their fellow man.

In light of the potential for violence and justification for the use of force against national and international authorities that this situation engenders, it is critically important and desperately urgent that policy makers resolve the issue of clashing prerogatives [31] that arises from the secret commission of genocide for population control purposes in an environment of loss of secrecy and legal vacuum that compels citizens to take the law into their own hands as the only remaining alternative to self-defense and the duty to rescue and for the restoration of the rule of law without which no society can function or exist.

By restoring the rule of law policy makers will also restore the legitimacy of the state. So long as lawmakers refuse to act to resolve the issue of clashing prerogatives governments remain criminal and illegitimate and society suspended in a legal vacuum, conditions that make the use of force against national and international organs inevitable, justifiable, unpunishable and long overdue.

Since the goals of the Global Depopulation Policy can neither be abandoned without endangering the survival of mankind and spelling the end of human civilization nor continued by the current methods as they constitute genocide and lead to the degradation of humanity’s genetic and intellectual endowment and ultimately to the annihilation of our species, the higher and global security prerogatives pursued by policy makers for the sake of international peace and global cohabitation can only be accomplished if population control is enshrined in law through a universal replacement level fertility law instituted from the global governance level by a newly created organization empowered to this end [32].

National policy makers and the technocrats that run the UN system are delusional if they believe the citizenry and especially parents will allow their sacrifice and the sacrifice of their children for the sake of balanced budgets, institutional efficiency, environmental ambitions and corporate profit.

The suspension of the rule of law that enables governments and the UN system to pursue demographic objectives through covert chemical, biological, psychosocial and economic methods that constitute crimes against humanity and genocide indicts national and international organs and delegitimizes the authority of the state and the UN system while legitimizing citizens to use any and all force necessary in their self-defense and in compliance with the duty to rescue.

In the absence of immediate action on the part of governments and the international community to bring the population control objectives now pursued in secret and outside the rule law into the open and within the rule of law, and in light of the absolute threat to the lives and limbs of 7 billion people that this methodology of population control represents, the very system embarked upon to preserve international peace now threatens universal conflict.

Only a global replacement level fertility law derived from a new and global institutional architecture can resolve the issue of clashing prerogatives that arises between individual and governmental rights and responsibilities.

Absent such a law and institutional architecture, and having exhausted all conceivable channels for justice-legal, political and media-both nationally and internationally, citizens have no choice but to use force in their self-defense and in compliance with the duty to rescue as this is the only remaining way in which to protect themselves, their children, their lineages and their fellow man from an international system based on genocide.

The demise of secrecy and deception that have kept the populace ignorant about the program of population control through covert chemical and biological poisoning and through coerced psychosocial and economic means has left the world in a legal vacuum and with a moral dilemma that empower citizens to become agents of the law to reinstate the rule the rule of law, which has been paradoxically shattered by the very people and organizations entrusted with its preservation, but who instead have chosen to become accessories to genocide for personal and geopolitical benefits.

The prerogatives of policy makers, who commit genocide in secret and in violation of legal codes and moral norms to save a select and privileged portion of mankind and the planet from overpopulation, clash with the prerogatives of parents and citizens, who are under chemical and biological attack and who can only rescue themselves, their children, their health, and their genetic lineages from engineered genocide committed through structural violence by national and international organs that have lost the right to govern the moment they decided to solve the world’s economic, environmental and demographic problems through genocide.

This is an unprecedented situation that threatens the survival of mankind in the long-term as well as peace and stability worldwide in the short-term and that can only be resolved through a new political accommodation at the global governance level that is long overdue and that cannot come fast enough.

Ignoring it will have devastating and irreversible consequences.