Former Governor Jesse Ventura: WTC Collapse A Controlled Demolition
Navy veteran and movie star savages official story, says media covering up truth about attacks
Paul Joseph Watson
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura vehemently savaged the official 9/11 story on a syndicated national radio show today, saying the WTC collapsed like a controlled demolition and was pulverized to dust as he also highlighted the impossible 10 second free fall speed of the towers.
Appearing on The Alex Jones Show, Ventura said that his initial reaction to 9/11 was much like most people at the time, and he accepted the official story outright, a response he now regrets because he was in a position of power and could have used it to raise a lot of pointed questions.
“I kicked myself when it initially happened that the light didn’t go off but I was so shocked that this thing had even taken place that I apologize for not being more aware,” said Ventura, adding that watching Loose Change at the insistence of his son was part of the catalyst for his wake up call.
Host Alex Jones is executive producer of Loose Change (get it here) http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/lochficut.html
the most watched Internet movie of all time. Ventura said he ran through a rollercoaster of emotions when he saw the film.
“When I finally did watch it I went through every emotion you could imagine, from laughing, crying, getting sick to my stomach, to the whole emotional thing,” said the former Governor.
“To me questions haven’t been answered and are not being answered about 9/11,” said Ventura, before highlighting the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story tall skyscraper that was not hit by a plane but collapsed in its own footprint in the late afternoon of September 11.
“Two planes struck two buildings….but how is it that a third building fell 5 hours later?” asked Ventura, “How could this building just implode into its own footprint 5 hours later – that’s my first question – the 9/11 Commission didn’t even devote one page to that in their big volume of investigation,” added the former Governor.
Ventura then explored how it was possible that all three buildings could rapidly collapse at almost free fall speed.
“How could those buildings fall at the speed of gravity – if you put a stopwatch on them both of those World Trade Center buildings were on the ground in ten seconds – how can that be?” asked Ventura.
“If you took a billiard ball and dropped it from the height of the World Trade Center in a vacuum it would hit the ground in 9.3 seconds and if you took that same billiard ball and dropped it 10 stories at a time and merely stopped it and started it it would take 30 seconds – if you dropped it every floor of the World Trade Center to the ground, simply stopping and starting it on gravity it would take over 100 seconds to reach the ground,” he surmised.
The former wrestling star then questioned how low-temperature burning jet fuel could melt steel.
“Jet fuel is four fifths kerosene – which is not a hot burning fuel – and they wanted us to believe it melted these steel structured girders and caused these buildings to pancake collapse to the ground?” he stated.
“I was on the site within two weeks after it happened and I saw none of these pancakes – wouldn’t they all be piled up in a huge mass on the ground and yet everything was blown into dust – when you look at it from that aspect none of it makes any sense,” said Ventura.
“Never before in the annuls of history has a fire caused a steel structure building to fall to the ground like these two did,” he concluded.
Having undergone Basic Underwater Demolition Seal training, Ventura is speaking from an experienced standpoint and he unequivocally stated that he thought the buildings were deliberately imploded.
“Upon looking at the film in super-slow motion and the way the buildings fell and comparing that to the way that they do like a controlled demolition of a hotel in Las Vegas, they both fell identical.”
“I did watch the film of Building 7 going down and in my opinion there’s no doubt that that building was brought down with demolition,” said the former Governor.
Ventura also questioned the lack of wreckage outside of the Pentagon after Flight 77 allegedly struck the building.
“When I was watching Loose Change with a friend of mine – he happens to work for a company that helps build the Boeing airplanes and they said that when the engines completely disappeared and were destroyed, his response was, excuse my French – bullshit!,” said Ventura.
“I turned to him and said why and he said because they’re made of titanium steel – they can’t disintegrate.”
Ventura said that the corporate media were going to continue to cover-up the truth about 9/11, but that the number of credible people speaking out and increasing education and knowledge about the subject would eventually reap dividends.
“We don’t want to lose our country, after all it’s still our country and until they put us down we have the power,” Ventura concluded.
The Governor’s bold comments about 9/11 come on the heels of similar views expressed by American icon Willie Nelson during an interview on the same radio show in February.
The scientific value of a study can only be determined by examining how it was conducted, not by parroting its “conclusions.” This section is intended to make available the actual study rather than what people are saying about it.
Authored by Gary Mauser, professor at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada, this study examines crime trends in Commonwealth countries that have recently introduced firearm regulations: i.e., Great Britain, Australia, and Canada. The widely ignored key to evaluating firearm regulations is to examine trends in total violent crime, not just firearms crime. The United States provides a valuable point of comparison for assessing crime rates because its criminal justice system differs so drastically from those in Europe and the Commonwealth. Perhaps the most striking difference is that qualified citizens in the United States can carry concealed handguns for self-defense. The upshot is that violent crime rates, and homicide rates in particular, have been falling in the United States. The drop in the American crime rate is even more impressive when compared with the rest of the world. The study can be downloaded as a 304K pdf file.
From, of all places, the United Nations, comes this look at crime rates and victim attitudes for 17 major industrialized countries. What is of interest to gun owners is the not-so-surprising revelation that England now has the worst crime rate of all major countries. Following a near-total ban on civilian ownership of firearms, crime in England began to skyrocket. In the UN study, researchers found that nearly 55 crimes are committed per 100 people in England and Wales compared with an average of 35 per 100 in other industrialized countries. England and Wales also have the worst record for “very serious” offenses, recording 18 such crimes for every 100 inhabitants, followed by Australia with 16 (yet another country that has all but banned legitimate self-defense, thus creating a lucrative hunting ground for criminals). In typical UN layered-bureaucracy fashion, the ICVS is funded out of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, but the link is to the Dutch WODC (Research and Documentation Centre). Study data are available for download in English as Acrobat pdf files.
More United Kingdom data. Found here is an interesting and comprehensive dichotomy involving the differing approaches to fireams ownership in Northern Ireland and England itself. Of particular interest is the “Minutes of Evidence” section, whereby Members of the House of Commons respond to questions about just how trustworthy folks are with these pesky guns.
Dr. John R. Lott of More Guns, Less Crime fame teamed with John E. Whitley of the University of Adelaide on this study of more than twenty years worth of “Lock Up Your Safety” madatory gun storage laws. They found no support at all for the usual gun banner claims that such laws will reduce juvenile accidental gun deaths and suicides. On the contrary, the data suggest that these laws appear to impair the ability of citizens to properly use their guns in self-defense. During the first five full years after the passage of the safe storage laws, the group of fifteen states that adopted these laws faced an annual average increase of over 300 more murders, 3,860 more rapes, 24,650 more robberies, and over 25,000 more aggravated assaults. On average, the annual costs borne by victims averaged over $2.6 billion as a result of lost productivity, out-of-pocket expenses, medical bills, and property losses. The link is to the abstract; the actual study available for download is a 238K Acrobat pdf file.
This groundbreaking study, published in The Journal of Law and Economics, has discovered that states implementing concealed carry laws benefit the safety of police. The author, David B. Mustard of the University of Georgia’s Department of Economics, found that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons “does not endanger the lives of officers, and may help reduce their risk of being killed.” This is an Acrobat pdf file.
From the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention within the U.S. Department of Justice comes this study focusing on crime, gang activity, and drug use among youths in cities. Of particular interest is page 18. The study showed that those youths who owned illegal guns are involved in street crime at a whopping 71% rate. By contrast, the government researchers admit that youths owning legal guns have a crime rate lower than those who own no guns at all! The link between the socialization of the family and instruction by fathers to legal gun ownership and low crime rates is mentioned. The thugs, of course, are getting their socialization “on the street.” This is an Acrobat pdf file.
A federal grant from the Clinton Justice Department went to two anti-gun scholars to fund this research project. Result: findings which support the work on defensive uses of firearms done by Dr. Gary Kleck of FSU. Kleck’s research has been unfairly vilified in the media, but now even anti-gun researchers are admitting to more than a million defensive uses per year. The above link is to a text version; the 20-page report is also available as an Adobe Acrobat file.
This is the famous 1996 Lott and Mustard multi-year study which proves the link between concealed carry and the lowering of the crime rate. Several download options available.
This Clinton Department of Justice study looks at crime in the U.S. vs. the U.K. from 1981-1996. Gun control in England is nearly total, with yet another major ban passing in 1997. England’s attempts to control its society-wide crime problem with ever-more restrictive gun control have proven to be a dismal failure.
The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. Most files available as .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) only.
One of the oldest studies, from October of 1994, relying heavily upon early Florida and Washington data.
From the Florida Department of State, updated monthly.
Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication
BBC’s killer documentary called “The Power of Nightmares“. Top CIA officials openly admit, Al-qaeda is a total and complete fabrication, never having existed at any time. The Bush administration needed a reason that complied with the Laws so they could go after “the bad guy of their choice” namely laws that had been set in place to protect us from mobs and “criminal organizations” such as the Mafia. They paid Jamal al Fadl, hundreds of thousands of dollars to back the U.S. Government’s story of Al-qaeda, a “group” or criminal organization they could “legally” go after. This video documentary is off the hook…
FOX NEWS Interview with Ian Blair (LINK):Blair said, “Al Qaeda is not an organization. Al Qaeda is a way of working … but this has the hallmark of that approach.”
Still no connection between Saddam and Al-qaeda – March 2008
Depopulation of a Planet Thinning Out The “Useless Eaters”
An Unspoken NWO Agenda
|Part I:||Historical Perspective|
|Part II:||What you can’t see will hurt you!|
|Part III:||No easy Answers!|
|Part IV:||A Picture Emerges|
|Part V:||U.N. Rings the Alarm|
|Part VI:||The Final Chapter|
A Report by RICK MARTIN
Part I: Historical Perspective 11/19/95 Many writers have spoken of intentional plans by certain Elite to thin-out the world’s population; it’s a recurring theme among so-called conspiracy theorists. There are frequent references to “useless eaters”, which includes the bulk of mankind. Most, when hearing of plots to depopulate the planet, simply say under their breath, “Yeah, right,” or more often, while shaking their head, “You’re nuts.” But when there is a careful examination of writings by prominent authors of this century, pieces of the puzzle certainly do fall into place – pieces which support the contention that there are certain individuals, if not entire governments, who have implemented a program of global genocide in an effort to salvage and corner “resources”.
What you will be reading in this series on Depopulation Of A Planet are selected writings from a wide cross-section of viewpoints and political leanings. I will be using “their” own documents, their own words, to weave a fabric which, in the end, will be a tapestry of undeniable clarity for those with eyes to see.
Without the historical foundation upon which to base understanding, writing about current efforts at depopulation, through the use of viruses and microorganisms, would have far less significance. So please stay with it as you read and it will come together. I realize that some of this initial material may seem dry, but it is important for a broader understanding of this critical and timely issue.
THOMAS MALTHUS Thomas Robert Malthus was a parson of the English State Church and an economist who lived from 1766-1834. He is best known for his writing An Essay On The Principle Of Population, published in 1798. His main idea is that populations increase more rapidly than food supplies. So, he claimed, there would always be more people in the world than can be fed, and wars and disease will be necessary to kill off the extra population.
Malthus did not claim to be the originator of this idea, although it has come to be known as the “Malthusian Theory”. Malthus based his argument on the works of Condorcet, David Hume, Adam Smith, Defoe, Sir James Steuart, Townsend, Franklin, and others.
Malthus’ Essay suggested to Charles Darwin the relationship between progress and the survival of the fittest. This was the basic idea in Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Turning to the New American Encyclopedia, we read, “Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), German philosopher of idealism who had an immense influence on 19th and 20th-century thought and history. During his life he was famous for his professorial lectures at the University of Berlin and he wrote on logic, ethics, history, religion and aesthetics. The main feature of Hegel’s philosophy was the dialectical method by which an idea (thesis) was challenged by its opposite (antithesis) and the two ultimately reconciled in a third idea (synthesis) which subsumed both. Hegel found this method both in the workings of the mind, as a logical procedure, and in the workings of the history of the world, which to Hegel was the process of the development and realization of the World Spirit (Weltgeist). Hegel’s chief works were Phenomenology of the Mind (1807) and Philosophy Of Right (1821). His most important follower was Marx.”
In the book edited by Carl J. Friedrich entitled The Philosophy of Hegel, Hegel writes in The Philosophy of History, “In the Christian religion God has revealed Himself, giving to men the knowledge of what He is so that He is no longer secluded and secret. With this possibility of knowing Him, God has imposed upon us the duty to so know Him. The development of the thinking spirit, which has started from this basis, from the revelation of the Divine Being, must at last progress to the point where what was at first presented to the spirit in feeling and imagination is comprehended by thought. Whether the time has come to achieve this knowledge depends upon whether the final end of the world has at last entered into actual reality in a generally valid and conscious manner.”
Hegel concludes with, “World history, with all the changing drama of its histories, is this process of the development and realization of the spirit. It is the true theodicy, the justification of God in history. Only this insight can reconcile the spirit with world history and the actual reality, that what has happened, and is happening every day, is not only not ‘without God’, but is essentially the work of God.”
In his work A History Of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell writes, “Throughout the whole period after the death of Hegel, most academic philosophy remained traditional, and therefore not very important. British empiricist philosophy was dominant in England until near the end of the century, and in France until a somewhat earlier time; then, gradually, Kant and Hegel conquered the universities of France and England, so far as their teachers of technical philosophy were concerned.”
Russell continues, “[Condorcet 1743-1794]…was also the inventor of Malthus’s theory of population, which, however, had not for him the gloomy consequences that it had for Malthus, because he coupled it with the necessity of birth control. Malthus’s father was a disciple of Condorcet, and it was in this way that Malthus came to know of the theory.”
Of Hegel, Russell writes in part, “Hegel does not mean only that, in some situations, a nation cannot rightly avoid going to war. He means much more than this. He is opposed to the creation of institutions – such as a world government – which would prevent such situations from arising, because he thinks it is a good thing that there should be wars from time to time. War, he [Hegel] says is the condition in which we take seriously the vanity of temporal goods and things. (This view is to be contrasted with the opposite theory, that all wars have economic causes.) War has a positive moral value: ‘War has the higher significance that through it the moral health of peoples is preserved in their indifference towards the stabilizing of finite determinations.'”
Still quoting Bertrand Russell, “The Philosophical Radicals were a transitional school. Their system gave birth to two others, of more importance than itself, namely Darwinism and Socialism. Darwinism was an application to the whole of animal and vegetable life of Malthus’s theory of population, which was an integral part of the politics and economics of the Benthamites – a global free competition, in which victory went to the animals that most resembled successful capitalists. Darwin himself was influenced by Malthus, and was in general sympathy with the Philosophical Radicals. There was, however, a great difference between the competition admired by orthodox economists and the struggle for existence which Darwin proclaimed as the motive force of evolution. ‘Free competition,’ in orthodox economics, is a very artificial conception, hedged in by legal restrictions. You may undersell a competitor, but you must not murder him. You must not use the armed forces of the State to help you to get the better of foreign manufacturers. Those who have not the good fortune to possess capital must not seek to improve their lot by revolution. ‘Free competition,’ as understood by the Benthamites, was by no means really free.
“Darwinian competition was not of this limited sort; there were no rules against hitting below the belt. The framework of law does not exist among animals, nor is war excluded as a competitive method. The use of the State to secure victory in competition was against the rules as conceived by the Benthamites, but could not be excluded from the Darwinian struggle. In fact, though Darwin himself was a liberal, and though Nietzsche never mentioned him except with contempt, Darwin’s Survival Of The Fittest led, when thoroughly assimilated, to something much more like Nietzsche’s philosophy than like Bentham’s. These developments, however, belong to a later period, since Darwin’s Origin Of Species was published in 1859, and its political implications were not at first perceived.”
KARL MARX In his 1843 writing from The Kreuznach Manuscripts: Critique Of Hegel’s Philosophy Of Right [from Discussion Of The Princely Power, Comments On Hegel’s 279] Karl Marx writes, [quoting:]
“Democracy is the truth of monarchy; monarchy is not the truth of democracy. Monarchy is forced to be democracy as a non sequitur within itself, whereas the monarchical moment is not a non sequitur within democracy. Democracy can be understood in its own terms; monarchy cannot. In democracy, none of its moments acquires a meaning other than that which is appropriate to it. Each is actually only a moment within the whole demos. In monarchy, a part determines the character of the whole. The whole constitution has to take shape of this firm foundation. Democracy is the type or species of the constitution. Monarchy is a variety, and indeed a bad variety. Democracy is ‘form and content’. Monarchy is supposed to be only form, but it falsifies the content.
“In monarchy, the whole, the people, is subsumed under one of its particular modes of existence, that of the political constitution. In democracy, on the other hand, the constitution itself appears as only one determination, and indeed, as the self-determination of the people. In monarchy, we have the people of the constitution; in democracy we have the constitution of the people. Democracy is the riddle of all constitutions solved. In democracy the constitution is always based on its actual foundation, on actual man and the actual people, not only in itself, according to its essence, but in its existence and actuality; it is postulated as autonomous. The constitution is seen as what it is, the freely-created product of man. One could say that in some respects this is also true of constitutional monarchy, but what specifically differentiates democracy is the fact that in democracy the constitution is only one particular moment in the existence of the people, that the political constitution does not itself constitute the state.
“Hegel begins with the state and turns man into the state subjectivized; democracy begins with man and makes the state into man objectivized. Just as religion does not create man but man creates religion, so the constitution does not create the people but the people create the constitution. In certain respects, democracy bears the same relation to all other forms of state as Christianity bears to all other religions. Christianity is religion par excellence, the essence of religion, man deified as a particular religion. Similarly, democracy is the essence of every constitution; it is socialized man as a particular constitution. Democracy is related to other constitutions as a species is related to its varieties. But in democracy the species itself appears as a particular [form of] existence, as one therefore that appears as a particular type vis-a-vis other particular [individual] existences that do not correspond to their essence. Democracy is the Old Testament in relation to all other forms of state. Man does not exist for the law, but the law exists for man. In democracy law is the existence of man, while in other forms of state man is the existence of law. This is the fundamental distinguishing mark of democracy.”
Marx concludes with, “In all states other than democracy the state, the law, the constitution is dominant without actually dominating, i.e., without penetrating materially the content of the remaining non-political spheres: in democracy the constitution, the law, the state itself as a political constitution is only a self-determination of the people, a particular content of theirs.
“It is self-evident, incidentally, that all forms of state have democracy as their truth, and are therefore untrue in so far as they are not democratic.”
In a correspondence of 1843, which was an exchange of letters between Marx, Ruge, and Bakunin concerning the prospects of social and political emancipation, Marx writes,
“Man’s self-esteem, freedom, must be awakened once more in the heart of these men. Only this feeling, which disappeared from the world with the Greeks and vanished into the blue mists of heaven with Christianity, can once more transform society into a fellowship of men working for their highest purposes, a democratic state.
“Those people, on the other hand, who do not feel themselves to be men become appendages of their masters, like a herd of slaves or horses. The hereditary masters are the point of this whole society. This world belongs to them. They take it as it is and as it feels. They take themselves as they find themselves and stand where their feet have grown, on the necks of these political animals who know no other destiny than to be subject, loyal and at their master’s service.
“The world of the Philistines is the political kingdom of animals; if we have to recognize its existence then we have no alternative but simply to accept the status quo. Centuries of barbarism created and shaped it and it now exists as a consistent system, whose principle is the dehumanized world. The perfected world of the Philistine, our Germany, naturally had to lag far behind the French Revolution, which restored man to himself. A German Aristotle, who would take his Politics from our conditions, would write on the first page: ‘Man is a social, but a completely apolitical, animal’.”
Further on, Marx continues,
“To be sure, in times when the political state as such is born, violently, out of civil society, when men strive to liberate themselves under the form of political self-liberation, the state can and must go on to abolish and destroy religion. But it does so only the way that it abolishes private property, by setting a maximum, providing for confiscation and progressive taxation, just as it abolished life by establishing the guillotine. In moments when political life has a specially strong feeling for its own importance, it seeks to repress its presuppositions, civil society and its elements, and to constitute itself as the real, harmonious species-life of man. It can do this only by entering into violent contradiction with its own conditions of existence; it can do so only by declaring the revolution to be permanent; and the political drama therefore necessarily ends with the restoration of religion, of private property, and of all the elements of civil society, just as war ends with peace…
“We have shown, then, that political emancipation from religion leaves religion standing, even if not as privileged religion. The contradiction in which the follower of a specific religion finds himself in relation to his citizenship is only one aspect of the universal secular contradiction between the political state and civil society. The consummation of the Christian state is a state that recognizes itself as state and abstracts itself from the religion of its members. The emancipation of the state from religion is not the emancipation of actual man from religion.”
In Capital, Marx writes, (quoting:) The laboring population therefore produces, along with the accumulation of capital produced by it, the means by which itself is made relatively superfluous, is turned into a relative surplus-population; and it does this to an always increasing extent. This is the law of population peculiar to the capitalist mode of production; and in fact every specific historic mode of production has its own specific laws of population, historically valid within its limits alone. An abstract law of population exists for plants and animals only, and only insofar as man has not interfered with them. [end quoting]
Bertrand Russell writes in A History Of Western Philosophy, “Marx’s philosophy of history is a blend of Hegel and British economics. Like Hegel, he thinks that the world develops according to a dialectical formula, but he totally disagrees with Hegel as to the motive force of this development. Hegel believed in a mystical entity called Spirit, which causes human history to develop according to the stages of the dialectic as set forth in Hegel’s Logic. Why Spirit has to go through these stages is not clear. One is tempted to suppose that Spirit is trying to understand Hegel, and at each stage rashly objectifies what it has been reading. Marx’s dialectic has none of this quality except a certain inevitableness. For Marx, matter, not spirit, is the driving force. But it is a matter in the peculiar sense that we have been considering, not the wholly dehumanized matter of the atomists. This means that, for Marx, the driving force is really man’s relation to matter, of which the most important part is his mode of production. In this way Marx’s materialism, in practice, becomes economics.”
In one of his Fabian Essays [The Fabian Society], entitled Economic, George Bernard Shaw wrote the following in 1889, “All economic analyses begin with the cultivation of the Earth. To the mind’s eye of the astronomer the Earth is a ball spinning in space without ulterior motives. To the bodily eye of the primitive cultivator it is a vast green plain, from which, by sticking a spade into it, wheat and other edible matters can be made to spring.” Shaw continues, “It was the increase of population that spread cultivation and civilization from the center to the snow line, and at last forced men to sell themselves to the lords of the soil: it is the same force that continues to multiply men so that their exchange value fails slowly and surely until it disappears altogether – until even black chattel slaves are released as not worth keeping in a land where men of all colors are to be had for nothing. This is the condition of our English laborers today: they are no longer even dirt cheap; they are valueless, and can be had for nothing.”
On overpopulation Shaw writes, “The introduction of the capitalistic system is a sign that the exploitation of the laborer toiling for a bare subsistence wage has become one of the chief arts of life among the holders of tenant rights. It also produces a delusive promise of endless employment which blinds the proletariat to those disastrous consequences of rapid multiplication which are obvious to the small cultivator and peasant proprietor. But indeed the more you degrade the workers, robbing them of all artistic enjoyment, and all chance of respect and admiration from their fellows, the more you throw them back, reckless, on the one pleasure and the one human tie left to them – the gratification of their instinct for producing fresh supplies of men. You will applaud this instinct as divine until at last the excessive supply becomes a nuisance: there comes a plague of men; and you suddenly discover that the instinct is diabolic, and set up a cry of ‘overpopulation’. But your slaves are beyond caring for your cries: they breed like rabbits; and their poverty breeds filth, ugliness, dishonesty, disease, obscenity, drunkenness, and murder. In the midst of the riches which their labour piles up for you, their misery rises up too and stifles you. You withdraw in disgust to the other end of the town from them; you appoint special carriages on your railways and special seats in your churches and theaters for them; you set your life apart from theirs by every class barrier you can devise; and yet they swarm about you still: your face gets stamped with your habitual loathing and suspicion of them: your ears get so filled with the language of the vilest of them that you break into it when you lose your self-control: they poison your life as remorselessly as you have sacrificed theirs heartlessly. You begin to believe intensely in the devil. Then comes the terror of their revolting; the drilling and arming of bodies of them to keep down the rest; the prison, the hospital, paroxysms of frantic coercion, followed by paroxysms of frantic charity. And in the meantime, the population continues to increase!”
GEORGE ORWELL In George Orwell’s classic Animal Farm, he writes,
“Now, comrades, what is the nature of this life of ours? Let us face it: our lives are miserable, laborious, and short. We are born, we are given just so much food as will keep the breath in our bodies, and those of us who are capable of it are forced to work to the last atom of our strength; and the very instant that our usefulness has come to an end we are slaughtered with hideous cruelty. No animal in England knows the meaning of happiness or leisure after he is a year old. No animal in England is free. The life of an animal is misery and slavery: that is the plain truth.
“But is this simply part of the order of nature? Is it because this land of ours is so poor that it cannot afford a decent life to those who dwell upon it? No, comrades, a thousand times no! The soil of England is fertile, its climate is good, it is capable of affording food in abundance to an enormously greater number of animals than now inhabit it. This single farm of ours would support a dozen horses, twenty cows, hundreds of sheep – and all of them living in a comfort and a dignity that are now almost beyond our imagining. Why then do we continue in this miserable condition? Nearly the whole of the produce of our labour is stolen from us by human beings. There, comrades, is the answer to all our problems. It is summed up in a single word – Man. Man is the only real enemy we have. Remove Man from the scene, and the root cause of hunger and overwork is abolished for ever.
“Man is the only creature that consumes without producing. He does not give milk, he does not lay eggs, he is too weak to pull the plough, he cannot run fast enough to catch rabbits. Yet he is lord of all the animals. He sets them to work, he gives back to them the bare minimum that will prevent them from starving, and the rest he keeps for himself. Our labour tills the soil, our dung fertilizes it, and yet there is not one of us that owns more than his bare skin. You cows that I see before me, how many thousands of gallons of milk have you given during this last year? And what has happened to that milk which should have been breeding up sturdy calves? Every drop of it has gone down the throats of our enemies. And you hens, how many eggs have you laid in this last year, and how many of those eggs ever hatched into chickens? The rest have all gone to market to bring in money for Jones and his men. And you, Clover, where are those four foals you bore, who should have been the support and pleasure of your old age? Each was sold at a year old – you will never see one of them again. In return for your four confinements and all your labour in the fields, what have you ever had except your bare rations and a stall?
“And even the miserable lives we lead are not allowed to reach their natural span. For myself I do not grumble, for I am one of the lucky ones. I am twelve years old and have had over four hundred children. Such is the natural life of a pig. But no animal escapes the cruel knife in the end. You young porkers who are sitting in front of me, every one of you will scream your lives out at the block within a year. To that horror we all must come – cows, pigs, hens, sheep, everyone. Even the horses and the dogs have no better fate. You, Boxer, the very day that those great muscles of yours lose their power, Jones will sell you to the knacker, who will cut your throat and boil you down for the foxhounds. As for the dogs, when they grow old and toothless, Jones ties a brick around their neck and drowns them in the nearest pond.
“Is it not crystal clear, then, comrades, that all the evils of this life of ours spring from the tyranny of human beings? Only get rid of Man, and the produce of our labour would be our own. Almost overnight we could become rich and free. What then must we do? Why, work night and day, body and soul, for the overthrow of the human race. That is my message to you, comrades: Rebellion! I do not know when that Rebellion will come, it might be in a week or in a hundred years, but I know, as surely as I see this straw beneath my feet, that sooner or later justice will be done. Fix your eyes on that, comrades, throughout the short remainder of your lives! And above all, pass on this message of mine to those who come after you, so that future generations shall carry on the struggle until it is victorious.
“And remember, comrades, your resolution must never falter. No argument must lead you astray. Never listen when they tell you that Man and the animals have a common interest, that the prosperity of the one is the prosperity of the others. It is all lies. Man serves the interests of no creature except himself. And among us animals let there be perfect unity, perfect comradeship in the struggle. All men are enemies. All animals are comrades.”
“There is, of course, no reason why the new totalitarians should resemble the old. Government by clubs and firing squads, by artificial famine, mass imprisonment and mass deportation, is not merely inhumane (nobody cares much about that nowadays); it is demonstrably inefficient and in an age of advanced technology, inefficiency is the sin against the Holy Ghost. A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and school teachers. But their methods are still crude and unscientific. The old Jesuits’ boast that, if they were given the schooling of the child, they could answer for the man’s religious opinions, was a product of wishful thinking. And the modern pedagogue is probably rather less efficient at conditioning his pupils’ reflexes than were the reverend fathers who educated Voltaire. The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr. Churchill calls an “iron curtain” between the masses and such facts or arguments as the local political bosses regard as undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent denunciations, the most compelling of logical rebuttals. But silence is not enough. If persecution, liquidation and the other symptoms of social friction are to be avoided, the positive sides of propaganda must be made as effective as the negative. The most important Manhattan Projects of the future will be vast government-sponsored enquiries into what the politicians and the participating scientists will call “the problem of happiness” – in other words, the problem of making people love their servitude. Without economic security, the love of servitude cannot possibly come into existence; for the sake of brevity, I assume that the all-powerful executive and its managers will succeed in solving the problem of permanent security. But security tends very quickly to be taken for granted. Its achievement is merely a superficial, external revolution. The love of servitude cannot be established except as the result of a deep, personal revolution in human minds and bodies. To bring about that revolution we require, among others, the following discoveries and inventions. First, a greatly improved technique of suggestion – through infant conditioning and, later, with the aid of drugs, such as scopolamine. Second, a fully developed science of human differences, enabling government managers to assign any given individual to his or her proper place in the social and economic hierarchy. (Round pegs in square holes tend to have dangerous thoughts about the social system and to infect others with their discontents.) Third (since reality, however utopian, is something from which people feel the need of taking pretty frequent holidays), a substitute for alcohol and the other narcotics, something at once less harmful and more pleasure-giving than gin or heroin. And fourth (but this would be a long-term project, which it would take generations of totalitarian control to bring to a successful conclusion) a foolproof system of eugenics, designed to standardize the human product and so to facilitate the task of the managers. In Brave New World this standardization of the human product has been pushed to fantastic, though not perhaps impossible, extremes. Technically and ideologically we are still a long way from bottled babies and Bokanovsky groups of semi-morons. But by A.F. 600, who knows what may not be happening? Meanwhile the other characteristic features of that happier and more stable world – the equivalents of soma and hypnopaedia and the scientific caste system – are probably not more than three or four generations away. Nor does the sexual promiscuity of Brave New World seem so very distant. [Let me remind you this was written in 1946.] There are already certain American cities in which the number of divorces is equal to the number of marriages. In a few years, no doubt, marriage licenses will be sold like dog licenses, good for a period of twelve months, with no law against changing dogs or keeping more than one animal at a time. As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase. And the dictator (unless he needs cannon fodder and families with which to colonize empty or conquered territories) will do well to encourage that freedom. In conjunction with the freedom to daydream under the influence of dope and movies and the radio, it will help to reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate.
“All things considered it looks as though Utopia were far closer to us than anyone, only fifteen years ago, could have imagined. Then, I projected it six hundred years into the future. Today it seems quite possible that the horror may be upon us within a single century. That is, if we refrain from blowing ourselves to smithereens in the interval. Indeed, unless we choose to decentralize and to use applied science, not as the end to which human beings are to be made the means, but as the means to producing a race of free individuals, we have only two alternatives to choose from: either a number of national, militarized totalitarianisms, having as their root the terror of the atomic bomb and as their consequence the destruction of civilization (or, if the warfare is limited, the perpetuation of militarism); or else one supra-national totalitarianism, called into existence by the social chaos resulting from rapid technological progress in general and the atomic revolution in particular, and developing, under the need for efficiency and stability, into the welfare-tyranny of Utopia. You pays your money and you takes your choice.”
Mark Twain in The Mysterious Stranger writes, “And what does it amount to?” said Satan, with his evil chuckle. “Nothing at all. You gain nothing: you always come out where you went in. For a million years the race has gone on monotonously propagating itself and monotonously re-performing this dull nonsense to what end? No wisdom can guess! Who gets a profit out of it? Nobody but a parcel of usurping little monarchs and nobilities who despise you; would feel defiled if you touched them; would shut the door in your face if you proposed to call; whom you slave for, fight for, die for, and are not ashamed of it, but proud; whose existence is a perpetual insult to you and you are afraid to resent it; who are mendicants supported by your alms, yet assume toward you the airs of benefactor toward beggar; who address you in the language of master toward slave, and are answered in the language of slave toward master; who are worshipped by you with your mouth, while in your heart if you have one you despise yourselves for it. The First man was a hypocrite and a coward, qualities which have not failed yet in his line; it is the foundation upon which all civilizations have been built.”
In a lecture titled The Population Explosion, delivered at Santa Barbara, California. in 1959, Aldous Huxley said, “Today I want to pass on to what is happening to the human species and to think a little about what our philosophy and our ethical outlook on the subject should be. This lecture is essentially about human numbers and their relation to human well-being and human values in general.
“Needless to say, any accurate estimation of human numbers is very recent, but we can extrapolate into the past and come to what seem to be fairly good conclusions. Although there are some fairly wide margins of difference among the experts, the numbers they come to are roughly in agreement. They agree that in pre-agricultural days, for example in the lower Palaeolithic times, when man was a food-gathering creature, there were probably not more than twenty million humans on this whole planet. In later Palaeolithic times, after organized hunting had been invented, the number probably doubled. We can make a rough estimate of what an organized hunting people could do because we know how many Indians were present in North America when the white man arrived – not more than one million in the entire North American continent east of the Rockies – and this gives one an indication of the extremely low density of population possible in a hunting economy.
“The Great Revolution came about 6000 B.C. with the invention of agriculture, and the creation of cities in the next millennia. By about 1000 B.C., after five thousand years of agriculture, there were probably about one hundred million people in the world.
“By the beginning of the Christian era, this figure had a little more than doubled: it was somewhere between two hundred million and two hundred and fifty million – less than half the present population of China. The population increased very gradually in the following years; sometimes there were long periods of standstill and sometimes there were even periods of decrease, as in the years immediately following 1348, when the Black Death killed off 30 percent of the population of Europe and nobody knows how much of the population of Asia.
“By the time the Pilgrim fathers arrived in this country, it is estimated that the population of the world was about twice what it had been on the first Christmas Day – that is to say, it had doubled in sixteen hundred years, an extremely slow rate of increase. But from that time on, from the middle of the seventeenth century, with the beginnings of the industrial revolution and the first importation of food from the newly developed lands of the New World, population began rising far more rapidly than it had ever risen before.
“By the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, the figure for the human population of the world was probably around seven hundred million; it must have passed the billion mark fairly early in the nineteenth century and stood at about fourteen hundred million around the time when I was born in the 1890s. The striking fact is that since that time the population of the planet has doubled again. It has gone from fourteen hundred million, which is already twice what it was at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, to twenty-eight hundred million. And the rate of increase now is such that it will probably double again in rather less than fifty years.
“Thus the rates of increase have been increasing along with the absolute increase in numbers.”
[Please remember, this was written in 1959. The world’s current population is rapidly approaching the 7 Billion figure – those are not “official” numbers, however.]……… [and 8 billion now in the year 2000 – update]
Still quoting Huxley:
“Let us now ask ourselves what the practical alternatives are as we confront this problem of population growth. One alternative is to do nothing in particular about it and just let things go on as they are, but the consequences of that course are quite clear: the problem will be solved by nature in the way that nature always solves problems of over-population – when any animal population tends (a) to starve and (b) to suffer from severe epidemic and epizootic diseases.
“In the human population, we can envisage that the natural check on the unlimited growth of population will be precisely this: there will be pestilence, famine, and, since we are human beings and not animals, there will be organized warfare, which will bring the numbers down to what the Earth can carry. What nature teaches us is that it is extraordinarily dangerous to upset any of its fundamental balances, and we are in the process of upsetting a fundamental balance in the most alarming and drastic manner. The question is: Are we going to restore the balance in the natural way, which is a brutal and entirely anti-human way, or are we going to restore it in some intelligent, rational, and humane way? If we leave matters as they are, nature will certainly solve the problem in her way and not in ours.
“Another alternative is to increase industrial and agricultural production so that they can catch up with the increase in population. This solution, however, would be extremely like what happens to Alice in Through The Looking Glass. You remember that Alice and the Red Queen are running a tremendous race. To Alice’s astonishment, when they have run until they are completely out of breath they are in exactly the same place, and Alice says, ‘Well, in our country…you’d generally get to somewhere else – if you ran very fast for a long time as we’ve been doing.’
‘A slow sort of country!’ says the Queen. ‘Now here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!’
“This is a cosmic parable of the extremely tragic situation in which we now find ourselves. We have to work, to put forth an enormous effort, just to stand where we are; and where we are is in a most undesirable position because, as the most recent figures issued by the United Nations indicate, something like two-thirds of the human race now lives on a diet of two thousand calories or less per day, which – the ideal being in the neighborhood of three thousand – is definitely a diet of undernourishment.”
Further into the speech, quoting Huxley again:
“The third alternative is to try to increase production as much as possible and at the same time to try to re-establish the balance between the birth rate and the death rate by means less gruesome than those which are used in nature – by intelligent and humane methods. In this connection it is interesting to note that the idea of limiting the growth of populations is by no means new. In a great many primitive societies, and even in many of the highly civilized societies of antiquity, where local over-population was a menace, although less fearful than the natural means, the most common was infanticide – killing or exposing by leaving out on the mountain unwanted children, or children of the wrong sex, or children who happened to be born with some slight deficiency or other. Abortion was also very common. And there were many societies in which strict religious injunctions imposed long periods of sexual continence between the birth of each child. But in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries various methods of birth control less fearful in nature have been devised, and it is in fact theoretically conceivable that such methods might be applied throughout the whole world.
“What is theoretically possible, however, is often practically almost impossible. There are colossal difficulties in the way of implementing any large-scale policy of limitation of population; whereas death control is extremely easy under modern circumstances, birth control is extremely difficult. The reason is very simple: death control – the control, for example, of infectious diseases – can be accomplished by a handful of experts and quite a small labour force of unskilled persons and requires a very small capital expenditure.”
“The problem of control of the birth rate is infinitely complex. It is not merely a problem of medicine, in chemistry, in biochemistry, in physiology; it is also a problem in sociology, in psychology, in theology, and in education. It has to be attacked on about ten different fronts simultaneously if there is to be any hope of solving it.”
And, continuing later in Huxley’s speech,
“Merely from a technical and temporal point of view, we are obviously in a very tight spot. But we have also to consider the political point of view. There would undoubtedly have to be either world-wide agreement or regional agreements on a general population policy in order to have any satisfactory control of the situation at all. But there is absolutely no prospect at the present time of our getting any such political agreement.”
“Now we have to ask ourselves what our attitude should be towards these problems. We come to the other end of the bridge. We pass from the world of facts to the world of values. What we think about all this depends entirely on what we regard as the end and purpose of human life. If we believe the end and purpose of human life is to foster power politics and nationalism, then we shall probably need a great deal of cannon fodder, although even this proposition becomes rather dubious in the light of nuclear warfare. But if, as I think most of us would agree, the end of human life is to realize individual potentialities to their limits and in the best way possible, and to create a society which makes possible such a realization and philosophical way about the population problem. We see that in very many cases the effort to raise human quality is being thwarted by the mere increase of human quantity, that quality is very often incompatible with quantity. We have seen that mere quantity makes the educational potentialities of the world unrealizable. We have seen that the pressure of enormous numbers upon resources makes it almost impossible to improve the material standards of life, which after all have to raise to a minimum if any of the higher possibilities are to be realized: although it is quite true that man cannot live by bread alone, still less can he live without bread, and if we simply cannot provide adequate bread, we cannot provide anything else. Only when he has bread, only when his belly is full, is there some hope of something else emerging from the human situation.
“Then there is the political problem. It is quite clear that as population presses more and more heavily upon resources, the economic situation tends to become more and more precarious. As there is a tendency in precarious situations for centralized government to assume more and more control, there is therefore now a tendency towards totalitarian forms of government, which certainly we in the West find very undesirable. But when you ask whether democracy is possible in a population where two-thirds of the people are living on two thousand calories a day, and one-third is living on over three thousand, the answer is no, because the people living on less than two thousand calories will simply not have enough energy to participate in the political life of the country, and so they will be governed by the well-fed and energetic. Again, quantity militates against quality.”
And later, “Finally, the unlimited increase in human numbers practically guarantees that our planetary resources will be destroyed and that within a hundred or two hundred years an immensely hypertrophied human species will have become a kind of cancer on this planet and will ruin the quasi-organism on which it lives. It is a most depressing forecast and possibility.
“I think one can say from this last point that the problem of quality and quantity is really a religious problem. For, after all, what is religion but a preoccupation with the destiny of the individual and with the destiny of society and the race at large? This is summed up very clearly in the Gospel when we are told that the Kingdom of God is within us but at the same time it is our business to contribute to the founding of the Kingdom of God upon Earth. We cannot neglect either of these two aspects of human destiny. For if we neglect the general, quantitative, population aspect of destiny, we condemn ourselves, or certainly our children and grandchildren, as individuals. We condemn them to the kind of life which we should find intolerable and which presumably they will find intolerable too.
“There are no certain theological objections to population limitation. Most religious organizations in the world today, both within and outside the Christian pale, accept it. But the Roman Catholic church does not accept any method of population control except that which was promulgated and made permissible in 1932 – the so-called rhythm method. Unfortunately, where the rhythm method has been tried on a considerable scale in an undeveloped country such as India, it has not been found to be very effective. The fact that the Church recognizes this problem was brought home very clearly in 1954 at the time of the first united Nations Population Congress, which took place in Rome, when the late Pope, in an allocution to the delegates, made it quite clear that the problem of population was a very grave one which he recommended to the consideration of the faithful.”
And later, “We can conclude, then, by saying that over-population is quite clearly one of the gravest problems which confront us, and the choice before us is either to let the problem be solved by nature in the most horrifying possible way or else to find some intelligent and humane method of solving it, simultaneously increasing production and balancing the birth rate and the death rate, and in some way or other forming an agreed international policy on the subject. To my mind, the most important prerequisites to such a solution are first of all an awareness of the problem, and then a realization that it is a profoundly religious problem, a problem of human destiny. Our hope, as always, is to be realistically idealistic.”
LETTER TO U.N. SECRETARY GENERAL U THANT August 30, 1965 – My Dear Mr. Secretary General: The United States Government recognizes the singular importance of the meeting of the second United Nations World Population Conference and pledges its full support to your great undertaking.
As I said to the United Nations in San Francisco, we must now begin to face forthrightly the multiplying problems of our multiplying population. Our government assures your conference of our wholehearted support to the United Nations and its agencies in their efforts to achieve a better world through bringing into balance the world’s resources and the world’s population.
In extending my best wishes for the success of your conference, it is my fervent hope that your great assemblage of population experts will contribute significantly to the knowledge necessary to solve this transcendent problem. Second only to the search for peace, it is humanity’s greatest challenge. This week, the meeting in Belgrade carries with it the hopes of mankind.
Lyndon B. Johnson [President]
POPE PAUL VI
HUMANAE VITAE (1968)
[Quoting:] “The changes which have taken place are in fact noteworthy and of varied kind. In the first place, there is the rapid demographic development. Fear is shown by many that world population is growing more rapidly than the available resources, with growing distress to many families and developing countries, so that the temptation for authorities to counter this danger with radical measures is great. Moreover, working and lodging conditions, as well as increased exigencies both in the economic field and in that of education, often make the proper education of an elevated number of children difficult today.
“This new state of things gives rise to new questions. Granted the conditions of life today, and granted the meaning which conjugal relations have with respect to the harmony between husband and wife and to their mutual fidelity, would not a revision of the ethical norms in force up to now seem to be advisable, especially when it is considered that they cannot be observed without sacrifices, sometimes heroic sacrifices?
“…conjugal love requires in husband and wife an awareness of their mission of “responsible parenthood,” which today is rightly much insisted upon, and which also must be exactly understood. Consequently it is to be considered under different aspects which are legitimate and connected with one another.
“In relation to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means the knowledge and respect of their functions; human intellect discovers in the power of giving life biological laws which are part of the human person.
“In relation to the tendencies of instinct or passion, responsible parenthood means that necessary dominion which reason and will must exercise over them.
“In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth.
“These acts, by which husband and wife are united in chaste intimacy and by means of which human life is transmitted, are, as the council recalled, “noble and worthy” and they do not cease to be lawful if, for causes independent of the will of husband and wife, they are foreseen to be infecund, since they always remain ordained toward expressing and consolidating their union. In fact, as experience bears witness, not every conjugal act is followed by a new life. God has wisely disposed natural laws and rhythms of fecundity which, of themselves, cause a separation in the succession of births. Nonetheless the church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by her constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (“qui libet matrimonii usus”) must remain open to the transmission of life.
“In conformity with these landmarks in the human and Christian vision of marriage, we must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth.
“Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman.
“Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.
“To rulers, who are those principally responsible for the common good, and who can do so much to safeguard moral customs, we say: Do not allow the morality of your peoples to be degraded; do not permit that by legal means practices contrary to the natural and divine law be introduced into that fundamental cell, the family. Quite other is the way in which public authorities can and must contribute to the solution of the demographic problem: namely, the way of a provident policy for the family, of a wise education of peoples in respect of the moral law and the liberty of citizens.
“We are well aware of the serious difficulties experienced by public authorities in this regard, especially in the developing countries. To their legitimate preoccupations we devoted our encyclical letter “Populorum Progressio.” But, with our predecessor Pope John XXIII, we repeat: No solution to these difficulties is acceptable “which does violence to man’s essential dignity” and is based only “on an utterly materialistic conception of man himself and of his life” The only possible solution to this question is one which envisages the social and economic progress both of individuals and of the whole of human society, and which respects and promotes true human values.
“Neither can one, without grave injustice, consider Divine Providence to be responsible for what depends, instead, on a lack of wisdom in government, on an insufficient sense of social justice, on selfish monopolization or again on blameworthy indolence in confronting the efforts and the sacrifices necessary to insure the raising of living standards of a people and of all its sons.”
U THANT “I do not wish to seem over dramatic, but I can only conclude from the information that is available to me as Secretary-General, that the Members of the United Nations have perhaps ten years left in which to subordinate their ancient quarrels and launch a global partnership to curb the arms race, to improve the human environment, to defuse the population explosion, and to supply the required momentum to development efforts. If such a global partnership is not forged within the next decade, then I very much fear that the problems I have mentioned will have reached such staggering proportions that they will be beyond our capacity to control.” U Thant, 1969.
UNITED NATIONS WORLD POPULATION CONFERENCE(1974) Resolutions and Recommendations
[Quoting:] The World Population Conference, having due regard for human aspirations for a better quality of life and for rapid socio-economic development, and taking into consideration the interrelationship between population situations and socio-economic development, decides on the following World Population Plan of Action as a policy instrument within the broader context of the internationally adopted strategies for national and international progress.
POPULATION GOALS AND POLICIES
Recommendations for Action
Population growth: According to the United Nations medium population projections, little change is expected to occur in average rates of population growth either in the developed or in the developing regions by 1985. According to the United Nations low variant projections, it is estimated that as a result of social and economic development and population policies as reported by countries in the Second United Nations Inquiry on Population and Development, population growth rates in the developing countries as a whole may decline from the present level of 2.4 percent per annum to about 2 percent by 1985; and below 0.7 percent per annum in the developed countries. In this case the world-wide rate of population growth would decline from 2 percent to about 1.7 percent.
Countries which consider that their present or expected rates of population growth hamper their goals of promoting human welfare are invited, if they have not yet done so, to consider adopting population policies, within the framework of socioeconomic development, which are consistent with basic human rights and national goals and values.
Countries which aim at achieving moderate or low population growth should try to achieve it through a low level of birth and death rates. Countries wishing to increase their rate of population growth should, when mortality is high, concentrate efforts on the reduction of mortality, and where appropriate, encourage an increase in fertility and encourage immigration.
Recognizing that per capita use of world resources is much higher in the developed than in the developing countries, the developed countries are urged to adopt appropriate policies in population, consumption and investment, bearing in mind the need for fundamental improvement in international equity.
Consistent with the Proclamation of the International Conference on Human Rights, the Declaration of Social Progress and Development, the relevant targets of the Second United Nations Development Decade and the other international instruments on the subject, it is recommended that all countries:
(a) Respect and ensure, regardless of their overall demographic goals, the right of persons to determine, in a free, informed and responsible manner, the number and spacing of their children;
(b) Encourage appropriate education concerning responsible parenthood and make available to persons who so desire advice and means of achieving it;
(c) Ensure that family planning, medical and related social services aim not only at the prevention of unwanted pregnancies but also at elimination of involuntary sterility and sub-fecundity in order that all couples may be permitted to achieve their desired number of children, and that child adoption be facilitated;
(d) Seek to ensure the continued possibility of variations in family size when a low fertility level has been established or is a policy objective;
(e) Make use, wherever needed and appropriate, of adequately trained professional and auxiliary health personnel, rural extension, home economics and social workers, and non-governmental channels, to help provide family planning services and to advise users of contraceptives;
(f) Increase their health manpower and health facilities to an effective level, redistribute functions among the different levels of professional and auxiliaries in order to overcome the shortage of qualified personnel and establish an effective system of supervision in their health and family planning services;
(g) Ensure that information about, and education in, family planning and other matters which affect fertility are based on valid and proven scientific knowledge, and include a full account of any risk that may be involved in the use or non-use of contraceptives.
It is recommended that countries wishing to affect fertility levels give priority to implementing development programs and educational and health strategies which, while contributing to economic growth and higher standards of living, have a decisive impact upon demographic trends, including fertility. International co-operation is called for to give priority to assisting such national efforts in order that these programs and strategies be carried into effect.
While recognizing the diversity of social, cultural, political and economic conditions among countries and regions, it is nevertheless agreed that the following development goals generally have an effect on the socio-economic context of reproductive decisions that tends to moderate fertility levels:
(a) The reduction of infant and child mortality, particularly by means of improved nutrition, sanitation, maternal and child health care, and maternal education;
(b) The full integration of women into the development process, particularly by means of their greater participation in educational, social, economic and political opportunities, and especially by means of the removal of obstacles to their employment in the non-agricultural sector wherever possible. In this context, national laws and policies, as well as relevant international recommendations, should be reviewed in order to eliminate discrimination in, and remove obstacles to, the education, training, employment and career advancement opportunities for women;
(c) The promotion of social justice, social mobility, and social development particularly by means of a wide participation of the population in development and a more equitable distribution of income, land, social services and amenities;
(d) The promotion of wide educational opportunities for the young of both sexes, and the extension of public forms of preschool education for the rising generation;
(e) The elimination of child labour and child abuse and the establishment of social security and old age benefits;
(f) The establishment of an appropriate lower limit for age at marriage.
The projections of future declines in rates of population growth, and those concerning increased expectation of life, are consistent with declines in the birth rate of the developing countries as a whole from the present level of 38 per thousand to 30 per thousand by 1985; in these projections, birth rates in the developed countries remain in the region of 15 per thousand. To achieve by 1985 these levels of fertility would require substantial national efforts, by those countries concerned, in the field of socio-economic development and population policies, supported, upon request, by adequate international assistance. Such efforts would also be required to achieve the increase in expectation of life.
In the light of the principles of this Plan of Action, countries which consider their birth rates detrimental to their national purposes are invited to consider setting quantitative goals and implementing policies that may lead to the attainment of such goals by 1985. Nothing herein should interfere with the sovereignty of any Government to adopt or not to adopt such quantitative goals.
JIMMY CARTER’S MESSAGE TO CONGRESS MAY 23rd 1977
“Rapid population growth is a major environmental problem of world dimensions. World population increased from three to four billion in the last 15 years, substantially canceling out expansion in world food production and economic growth of the same period.
“Without controlling the growth of population, the prospects for enough food, shelter, and other basic needs for all the world’s people are dim. Where existence is already poor and precarious, efforts to obtain the necessities of life often degrade the environment for generations to come.
“It is, of course, up to each nation to determine its own policies, but we are prepared to respond promptly and fully to all requests for assistance in population and health care programs. At my direction, the Department of State and the Agency for International Development stand ready to cooperate through international organizations, through private voluntary organizations, or through direct contacts with other governments.”
CONSIDER THIS On page 65 of Population: Opposing Viewpoints, we read, [quoting:]
“According to the United Nations, which follows these things closely, some 5.3 billion people enlivened our planet by 1990. By November 1992, that number will have increased to 5.5 billion, an addition nearly equal to the population of the United States. Or course no one, including the UN, has a reliable crystal ball that reveals precisely how human numbers will change. Still, people have to plan for the future, and so the UN’s analysts and computers have been busy figuring what might happen. One possibility they consider is that future world fertility rates will remain what they were in 1990. The consequences of this, with accompanying small declines in death rates, are startling. By 2025, when my now-16-year-old daughter will have finished having whatever children she will have, the world would have 11 billion people, double its number today. Another doubling would take only a bit more than 25 years, as the faster-growing segments of the population become a larger proportion of the total. At my daughter’s centennial, in 2076, the human population would have more than doubled again, passing 46 billion. By 2150 there would be 694,213,000,000 of us, a little over 125 times our present population.”
PRINCE PHILIP OF GREAT BRITAIN On March 30, 1990, The Washington Post reported Prince Philip as making the following statement: “We are constantly being reminded of the plight of the poor, the hungry, the homeless and the diseased. What does not make the headlines is that even if the proportion of those unfortunate people remains the same in relation to the total population, their number is bound to increase as the size of the population as a whole increases … The best hope of limiting the increase in the number of such people would be if the world population could be stabilized.”
Go to Part 2 of 6: If you thought it was bad … It’s worse than you think!
March 4, 2008
In response to the arrest of a 9/11 demonstrator during a Bill Clinton appearance in Corpus Christi, corporate media shill and former Republican Congress critter Joe Scarborough and his co-hosts demanded 9/11 truthers be tasered and taken to detention camps. “Where’s the taser?” Joe wants to know as MSNBC runs footage of the man’s arrest. “Tase him!” His co-host adds: “Led away in handcuffs and hopefully taken to one of those secret prisons in eastern Europe and never to be heard from again… I hope we have a special prison for 9/11 conspiracy theorists.”
In other words, the corporate behemoth MSNBC believes people who disagree with the government not only do not deserve First Amendment rights and protection, but also believe demonstrators should be kidnapped by the CIA and taken to a “special prison” to be tortured and ultimately killed, as this is the fate of many who disappear suffer.
Is it possible the United States is about to become like Pinochet’s Chile? In 1973, thanks to the CIA and U.S. corporations, Chile became a brutal police state. Chileans were subjected to systematic and massive violations of their most basic human rights. Official figures indicate that nearly 3,000 people were executed, disappeared or lost their lives as a result of torture and political violence. It would seem “Morning Joe” would enthusiastically welcome the installation of a fascist state where those he disagrees with are disappeared, tortured, and murdered.
Last October, CNN host Glenn Beck called 9/11 truthers “insane” and “dangerous anarchists” in response to 9/11 truthers infiltrating the Real Time with Bill Maher show. “These truthers are exactly the kind of people who want to rock this nation’s foundation, tear us apart and plant the seeds of dissatisfaction in all of us… [this is] the kind of group a Timothy McVeigh would come from,” declared Beck, setting a precedence followed this morning by the scurrilous Joe Scarborough and his complaisant minions.
“In thousands of 9/11 protests over the course of the last six years, not one person has been arrested for violent conduct,” Steve Watson wrote at the time. “To cart blanches suggest that the truth movement is dangerous, ‘a threat to children’ and intent on violence is extremely inflammatory and indicates just how afraid of investigating and debating the facts people like Glen Beck actually are.”
The core of the 9/11 truth movement is composed of highly educated and progressive individuals who are strictly opposed to violence and are intent on protecting a free and peaceful society which has been under dire threat ever since the attacks of 9/11 and the ensuing cover up.
Furthermore the movement represents the very antithesis of anarchism in that it is actively seeking to restore and protect our traditional form of government which has been usurped by an unaccountable cabal that continues to operate outside of Constitutional law and with little restraint using 9/11 as justification.
Indeed, Beck and Scarborough are calling for such draconian measures simply because the 9/11 truth movement is comprised “of highly educated and progressive individuals who are strictly opposed to violence” and because of this they must be demonized as a threat to national security and thus the government must kidnap, torture, and murder them. Although Scarborough did not suggest 9/11 truth “idiots” be murdered, this is of course the ultimate fate of those who oppose militarized fascism, now gaining speed in the United States.
Bilderberg 2007 – Towards a One World Empire?
Discussions at the 2007 Bilderberg Group meetings covered concerns over the World Bank presidency, Russia’s muscle-flexing on energy issues and the failure of US-led NATO forces in Afghanistan.
PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. firstname.lastname@example.org
Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.com
The Sun has set on Bilderberg 2007 in Istanbul, Turkey. After a sumptuous lunch on this warm and sunny 3rd June, most Bilderbergers returned to their countries of choice, freshly armed with precise instructions from the Steering Committee on how to proceed in covertly expanding the powers of One World Government. Amongst this year’s luminaries in attendance were: Henry Kissinger; Henry Kravis of KKR; Marie-Josée Kravis of Hudson Institute; Vernon Jordan; Etienne Davignon, Bilderberg Group President; Her Majesty Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands, daughter of one of the founders, Prince Bernhard; and the King and Queen of Spain.
As a rhetorical question, can someone please explain to me how it is that progressive liberals such as John Edwards and Hillary Clinton as well as do-gooder humanitarians with multiple social projects on the go, such as David Rockefeller and every Royal House in Europe, can perennially attend Bilderberg meetings knowing that the final objective of this despicable group of hoodlums is a fascist One World Empire? How could it be orchestrated?
The idea is to give to each country a political constitution and an appropriate national economic structure, organised for the following purposes: (1) to place political power into the hands of chosen people and eliminate all intermediaries; (2) to establish a maximum concentration of industries and suppress all unwarranted competition; (3) to establish absolute control of prices of all goods and raw materials (Bilderbergers make it possible through their iron-grip control of The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization); and (4) to create judicial and social institutions that would prevent all extremes of action.
NOT PRIVATE, BUT SECRET
Although participants emphatically attest that they attend the Club’s annual meeting as private citizens and not in their official government capacity, that affirmation is dubious-particularly when you compare the Chatham House Rule with the Logan Act in the United States, where it is absolutely illegal for elected officials to meet in private with influential business executives to debate and design public policy.
Bilderberg meetings follow a traditional protocol founded in 1919, in the wake of the Paris Peace Conference held at Versailles, by the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) based at Chatham House in London. While the name Chatham House is commonly used to refer to the Institute itself, the Royal Institute of International Affairs is the foreign policy executive arm of the British monarchy.
According to RIIA procedures: “When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed; nor may it be mentioned that the information was received at a meeting of the Institute.”
The Logan Act was intended to prohibit United States citizens without authority from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments. However, there have been a number of judicial references to the Act, and it is not uncommon for it to be used as a political weapon.
Those who have attended Bilderberg Group meetings over the years and flouted the Logan Act include: Allen Dulles (CIA); Senator William J. Fulbright (from Arkansas, a Rhodes Scholar); Dean Acheson (Secretary of State under President Truman); Nelson Rockefeller and Laurance Rockefeller; former President Gerald Ford; Henry J. Heinz II (former CEO, H. J. Heinz Co.); Thomas L. Hughes (former President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace); Robert S. McNamara (President Kennedy’s Secretary of Defense and former President of the World Bank); William P. Bundy (former President of the Ford Foundation, and former editor of the Council on Foreign Relations’ Foreign Affairs journal); John J. McCloy (former President of Chase Manhattan Bank); George F. Kennan (former US Ambassador to the Soviet Union); Paul H. Nitze (former representative of Schroeder Bank; Nitze played a very prominent role in matters of arms control agreements, which have always been under the direction of the RIIA); Robert O. Anderson (former Chairman, Atlantic Richfield Co., and Chairman, Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies); John D. Rockefeller IV (former Governor of West Virginia, now US Senator); Cyrus Vance (Secretary of State under President Carter); Eugene Black (former President of the World Bank); Joseph Johnson (former President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace); Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster (former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, and later Superintendent of West Point Academy); Zbigniew Brzezinski (National Security Adviser to President Carter, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission); General Alexander Haig (once European NATO Commander, former assistant to Henry Kissinger, and later Secretary of State under President Reagan); James S. Rockefeller (former President and Chairman, First National City Bank, now Citibank).
BILDERBERG 2007 CONCLUSIONS
Thanks to our inside sources at the conference, we have compiled what we believe to be an accurate and a credible model of the Bilderberg 2007 conclusions. Following is a summary of some key points with some additional commentary added. Other subjects discussed were climate change and global warming, Turkey’s role in the new European Union, World Bank reforms, Middle East geopolitics, the conflict in Iraq, Iran’s potential nuclear threat, and the future of democracy and populism.
Robert Zoellick and The World Bank
The United States delegation is standing unanimously behind Robert Zoellick’s candidacy as the next President of The World Bank. Zoellick is a 53-year-old Wall Street executive, a former official in two Bush administrations and a free-market fundamentalist. During the meeting, he pledged “to work to restore confidence in the bank”. “We need to put our differences aside and focus on the future together. I believe that the World Bank’s best days are still to come,” Zoellick said. The chances of Zoellick not being approved for the presidency are slim to none. The final decision is to be made in late June by the bank’s 24-member board of directors.
The United States and Europe have a tacit agreement between them that the World Bank’s President should always be a US national, while its sister institution, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), should always be headed by a European. Nevertheless, according to our sources at the conference, European Bilderbergers are not at all pleased with continuing the status quo, in which the US nominates a single candidate after informal consultations with World Bank members.Ê
The Zoellick nomination also appears to short-circuit burgeoning calls for reform of this selection process at the World Bank, one of the cornerstones of the global financial architecture as designed by the victors of World War II. One Belgian Bilderberger proposed “a merit-based selection process, without regard to nationality”, something which will obviously be discarded by the inept Bush administration. What is quite remarkable is that on several occasions European Bilderbergers openly rejected the current model, saying “the nomination reeks of double standards”, especially because both the USA and the World Bank preach accountability and transparency to developing countries-the main clients of the bank.
But with the IMF under the control of a Spaniard, Rodrigo Rato, and the European Central Bank headed by a Frenchman, Jean-Claude Trichet, it was difficult to imagine that the USA would give up control of the World Bank. Only the US Federal Reserve would remain in the hands of the Americans.
“Replacing one Bush appointee with another will not resolve the fundamental governance problems of the World Bank,” said one Scandinavian. “Member governments should reject a back-door deal that leaves the bank’s governance structure intact, and should press for an open, merit-based selection process,” he said.
Zoellick’s name also raised eyebrows among development groups for his close ties to the US establishment and corporate interests.
One of the attendees (I have not been able to confirm this individual’s identity) asked Zoellick how he was planning to patch up relationships with Third and Fourth World nations when he is best remembered during his tenure as US Trade Representative for arm-twisting poor nations’ governments to adhere to US-imposed intellectual-property laws that make medicines, for example, unaffordable in the developing world. Zoellick has been a close friend to the brand-name pharmaceutical industry, and the bilateral trade agreements he has negotiated effectively block access to generic medications for millions of people.
However, what has really riled both the American and European delegates is the fact that the World Bank’s dirty linen is being washed in public, thanks in great part to Paul Wolfowitz and his ineptness, which incidentally he has blamed on the press.
[Postscript: On 25 June, Robert Zoellick was unanimously elected President of The World Bank for a five-year term, taking over from Paul Wolfowitz on 1 July. In a statement posted at http://www.worldbank.org, he said: “Once I start at the World Bank, I will be eager to meet the people who drive the agenda of overcoming poverty in all regions, with particular attention to Africa, advancing social and economic development, investing in growth, and encouraging hope, opportunity and dignity.”]
Relations with Russia
Another issue of great concern to both American and European Bilderbergers is Russia’s current muscle-flexing on the issue of energy. The controversy over the TNK-BP licence, BP’s Russian venture, is just one of many circumstances causing anger amongst the globalist elite.
One American Bilderberger said that after years of economic stagnation, “Russia is acting against unipolarity’s accommodating ideologies and politics, against its recently resurgent manifestations and machinations, and against the instruments of its perpetuation, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation [NATO]”.
Bilderberg 2007 served as a consensus-building exercise to decide on a common policy and strategy to deal with Russia’s resurgence. In particular, Bilderberg is not at all happy with Russia’s current strategy of actively dismantling what remains of “the atmosphere of acquiescence to America’s will”, in the words of one Bilderberger, which arose in the post-Soviet period and was absolutely crucial to the thriving of US-led unipolarity.
That was in the beginning of the 1990s, the early stages of the Yeltsin reign. With the wholesale looting of Russia in the 1990s through shock therapy and the loans-for-shares scheme, engineered by the socialist theoreticians at Harvard such as Jeffrey Sachs, Andrei Schliefer, David Lipton and Jonathan Hay, the country was brought into the dawn of the 21st century capitalist economy. As a result, Russia eventually toppled into anarchy, its population rendered desperate; its ability to support a world-class military establishment was smashed, which then made it inevitable that colonial behaviour would occur. That is exactly what George Ball was proposing during the Bilderberg 1968 meeting in Canada. I’ll get back to Ball later in this section.
Incidentally, the term “shock therapy” refers to the sudden release of price and currency controls combined with the withdrawal of state subsidies and immediate trade liberalisation within a country-all the necessary ingredients for impoverishment of the society…in this case, Russia.
In Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book The Grand Chessboard,1 “Russia” and “vital energy reserves”, as it turns out, are mentioned more frequently than any other country and subject in the book. Brzezinski is President Carter’s former National Security Advisor, a co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Club and a close associate of David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger. He is the proverbial insider’s insider. According to Brzezinski, global US and thus Bilderberg hegemony depended on having complete control of Russia’s vital energy reserves in Central Asia. As long as Russia remained strong, it remained a threat-a potential block to the complete imposition of Bilderberg-led economic and military will.
Bilderberg energy imperatives and geopolitical control are once again coming to play a key role in the lives of hundreds of millions of unsuspecting people.
Brzezinski spelled out in The Grand Chessboard the compelling energy issue driving American policy: “A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent. About 75 percent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprise and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 percent of the world’s GNP and about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources.”
The history of mankind has always shown that controlling the heart of Eurasia was the key to controlling the entire known world. Azerbaijan, containing the riches of the Caspian Sea Basin and Central Asia, is a case in point. From the US perspective, the independence of the Central Asian states will be rendered nearly meaningless if Azerbaijan becomes fully subordinated to Moscow’s control. To the Bilderbergers, energy imperatives are the end game.
The energy theme appears again later in Brzezinski’s book, written four years before 9/11: “The world’s energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the US Department of Energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia’s economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy.”
Clearly, to the Bilderbergers, Russia was the beginning of the end game.
During a presentation titled “Internationalisation of Business” to the 26-28 April 1968 Bilderberg meeting at Mont Tremblant, Canada, George Ball provided a far more truthful and insightful glimpse into the group’s economic orientation. Ball, who was Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs under JFK and Lyndon Johnson, a Steering Committee member of the Bilderberg Group as well as a Senior Managing Director for Lehman Brothers and Kuhn Loeb Inc., defined the Bilderberg’s new policy of globalisation and how it would shape the New World Order.
As Pierre Beaudry noted in Synarchy Movement of Empire,2 “…Ball presented an outline of the advantages of a new-colonial world economic order based on the concept of a ‘world company’, and described some of the obstacles that needed to be eliminated for its success. According to Ball, the first and most important thing that had to be eliminated was ‘the archaic political structure of the nation state’.”
In other words, Ball was calling for a return to the old colonialism system, but this time built on the concept of a “world company”.
“Ball wrote: ‘To be productive, we must begin our inquiry by explicitly recognizing the lack of phasing between development of the world company-a concept responding to modern needs-and the continued existence of an archaic political structure of nation states, mostly small or of only medium size, which is evolving only at glacier pace in response to new world requirements of scope and scale.'”
Beaudry concluded: “It was clear for Ball that the very structure of the nation state, and the idea of the commonwealth, or of a general welfare of a people, represented the main obstacle against any attempt of freely looting the planet, especially the weak and poor nations of the world, and represented the most important impediment to the creation of a neo-colonial world empire. The priority of the world company is obviously based on international free trade without restraint, that is, trade measured by the British standard of profit of buying cheap and selling dear. The problem is that national governments have priorities, which are different than and contrary to those of a looting company…”
On page 39 of a Bilderberg transcript from the 1968 meeting at Mont Tremblant, Ball self-assuredly stated the following: “Where does one find a legitimate base for the power of corporate managements to make decisions that can profoundly affect the economic life of nations to whose governments they have only limited responsibility?”
In other words, Messrs Rockefeller and Davignon, what Mr Ball would like to know is: how does one establish a Halliburton type of world company, which would greatly surpass in authority any government on the planet? Isn’t that what “world company”, run by the ruling class, stands for?
Not according to Bilderberg President and Belgian multimillionaire Etienne Davignon. During his 2005 BBC interview, Mr Davignon said: “I don’t think a global ruling class exists. Business influences society, and politics influences society-that’s purely common sense. It’s not that business contests the right of democratically elected leaders to lead.”
Is that so, Mr Davignon? Current parliamentary democracy works on the basis of an “elected” head of state and a parliament, which can be dumped any time you decide to orchestrate a crisis and put a third branch of government in charge of its financial system, called an “independent central banking system”.
In the United States, this “independent” banking system is known as the Federal Reserve, a privately owned bank interlocked with the Bilderberg Group. In Europe, the independent banking system is run through the European Central Bank, whose monetary policies are put together by the leading members of the Bilderberger elite, such as Jean-Claude Trichet. In Britain, this independent system is run by the Bank of England, whose members are also full-time members of the Bilderberg Group’s inner circle. The independent central banking system controls the emission of currency, controls national credit and interest rates, and, any time the government displeases it, uses its power to orchestrate the overthrow of the government. The British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was overthrown because she opposed the wilful handover of British sovereignty to the global world company superstate designed by the Bilderbergers. This is what Kuhn, Loeb and Lehman Brothers have been building worldwide, by way of mergers and acquisitions, from the 1960s until today. In the past decades, the entire deregulation policy of US industries and banking was precisely set up in response to this blueprint scenario for creating giant corporations for a new empire whose intention is nothing short of perpetual war.
Could the eventual dismemberment and weakening of Russia-to the point that it could not oppose US military operations that have now successfully secured control of the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia-been part of a multi-decade plan for global domination? Most credible senior analysts definitely believe so.
At a 1997 symposium held in Bonn, Germany, Dr Sergei Glazyev, Chairman of the Economic Policy Committee of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, explained: “This colonisation, masked as reforms, destroyed the basic institutions of Russian society along the following basic lines: (1) destruction of the financial system of the state by means of an endless build-up of the state debt pyramid, shrinking of the tax base, deepening of the non-payments crisis, and disorganisation of the monetary system; (2) destruction of the scientific and technological potential of the country, achieved by means of a many-fold reduction in state financing of science, the collapse of technological cooperation and scientific production integration in the course of mass privatisation, and the refusal of the government to have any scientific and technical, industrial or structural policy at all; (3) sale of controlling blocs of shares in the leading and most valuable Russian firms, in industry, electric power and telecommunications, to foreign companies; (4) Transfer of the right to exploit the most valuable Russian raw materials deposits to transnational corporations; (5) establishment of foreign control over the Russian stock exchange; (6) establishment of direct foreign control over the shaping of Russian domestic and foreign economic policy.”3
The Bilderberg conclusions are striking in their candidness: “The US can no longer ride roughshod over, nor bully, nor simply ignore resurgent Russia, rising China or the globe’s regimes that supply the vital oil that fuels the US economy. Something must be done, and urgently, in order to cut deeply into Russia’s mounting global energy leverage. The US-Russia strategically deteriorating relations are one victim of this geopolitical struggle for energy supremacy.”
One Finnish delegate’s opinion that “no US-Russia military confrontation is likely, no matter how tense things should get” is increasingly an unsafe one as a more desperate US pushes back against a much more aggressive Russia. Dr Henry Kissinger added that “aggressive, unilateralist US foreign policy has forced ‘axis of evil’ states to accelerate their pursuit of nuclear weapons to immunise themselves against US military strikes”.
Richard Perle pointed out that in response to aggressive US tactics across the globe, Russia has undertaken asymmetric steps to undermine the ability of the US to project its military power effectively into their neighbourhoods and into those of their partners and allies. When one American Bilderberger tried to object, European delegates brought up China’s recent response to US intentions to weaponise space: a simple and relatively inexpensive demonstration of destruction of its satellite. The example produced snickering in the room, much to the chagrin of the Americans.
Afghanistan and the price of treason
Another subject under discussion dealt with Afghanistan. It was commonly agreed by the attendees that the US-led NATO alliance/mission is in a state of quagmire and that “the situation in the country is getting worse”. The problem can be defined, in the words of one British Bilderberger, as “one of the unreal expectations”. He went on to explain that clamouring for democratic reform while simultaneously propping up Pashtun warlords without delivering serious progress “has managed to discredit a lot of our basic notions in the eyes of the Afghans”.
Bilderbergers, however, aren’t the only ones left scratching their heads as to how Western governments and their carefully chosen Afghan partners have managed to spend billions of dollars in development assistance with little to show for it.
Catastrophe is good for business; always has been. Without suffering, there would be no humanitarian assistance. And without humanitarian assistance, there would be no room for undercover intelligence network operations as part of Western imperatives for geopolitical control.
The worse it looks, the better it sells. While the American people were getting their daily diet of ubiquitous images of repression, suffering and burka-clad Afghani women beamed into every living room in America, a propaganda campaign was surreptitiously launched in the pages of newspapers and glossy magazines. The New York Times and the New Yorker were greasing the gears of the misery machine by urging the US government, the United Nations and anyone who would listen to “do something”-amid the jewellery advertisements. Terror and horror, like expensive jewellery, became commodities.
Today, Afghanistan and its African cousins of Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Congo and Rwanda and the rest of the nations blessed with Western humanitarian help are all basket cases. Bilderbergers seem to be asking: how is it possible that humanitarian missions of such scale and magnitude could have failed so miserably? Is it a case of good-intentioned exercises going bad due to corruption, greed and lack of oversight? Or is it the merciless dismemberment of yet more foreign lands and cultures exercised stealthily through humanitarian aid agencies tied to the larger apparatus of government?
Furthermore, the US government’s support for known Afghani drug warlords adds another vital clue to the puzzle. The amount of profit generated annually by the drug trade, according to the United Nations, is somewhere around $700 billion in tax-free cash flow per year. Seven hundred billion dollars a year is too much money to hide in a sock. You need a lot of experience and expertise to move those kinds of funds stealthily. Does anyone doubt that Afghanistan is about drugs? Does anyone doubt that the CIA is involved?
For example, the CIA financed the Muslim Brotherhood in 1977 and trained the mujahedin in preparation for the campaign of collusion between Washington and right-wing Islam: the Afghan War. The roots to the Afghan conflict can be traced to Al-Azhar Mosque in Cairo, the centre of the Muslim Brotherhood’s activity. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, alleged airline hijacker Mohammed Atta was identified as a Muslim Brother in several Western publications such as the Washington Post (22 September 2001), the Observer (23 September 2001) and Newsweek (31 December 2001). Other Muslim Brothers involved were Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef, who masterminded the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man, an Egyptian by the name of Ayman al-Zawahiri, is also a lifelong member of the Brotherhood.
Robert Dreyfuss, in his extremely important book Devil’s Game,4 explained it thus: “They returned to Afghanistan and formed a branch of the Brothers, the Islamic Society. Later, these same ‘professors’, as they were known, would form the backbone of the Afghan mujahedin who waged a US-backed, decade-long war against the Soviet occupation. The three leading ‘professors’ were Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, Burhanuddin Rabbani and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.” Sayyaf and Hekmatyar, two big-time Pashtun drug traffickers and CIA assets, were backed by Pakistani Intelligence as well as Pakistan’s own “branch” of the Brotherhood and funded by Saudi money.
There is yet another link between the Brotherhood and the super-secret Bilderberg Group. In the early 1980s, Bilderberger Michael Ledeen of the ultraconservative American Enterprise Institute and Bilderberger Richard Perle used Hekmatyar as a poster boy of anti-Soviet resistance at the time when Hekmatyar was actively working with Hezb-i-Islami terrorists to undermine America’s influence in Afghanistan. Does anyone reading this doubt that this is hardly a coincidence?
First came the “humanitarian relief” through non-government organisations. In short order, this was followed by the US military which came to the rescue out of the goodness of its heart for “purely humanitarian objectives”. Once on the ground, it became an exercise in “nation-building”. In the end, it morphed into the hunt for a terrorist dictator.
During an animated discussion at Bilderberg 2007 in Istanbul, one Italian asked if the US-led NATO forces have “the will to stay the course”. In the wake of the US military siege of Tora Bora, Afghanistan, in December 2001, the commanding general, Tommy Franks, reportedly said it was not his intention to “get embroiled in a Soviet-style long-term engagement as in the 1980s”.5 Now, however, American Bilderbergers are pressuring NATO allies to provide larger troop contributions to the cause.
Dr Kissinger insisted that “the will” is lacking and so “we must now begin to acknowledge our limits”. “The choices facing us are very difficult,” reflected one European Royal, wholeheartedly agreeing with Kissinger’s assessment on the lack of commitment and will. A NATO representative categorically stated that the West has neither the political intelligence nor the understanding to fight a protracted, decade-long counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan.
A MEANS TO AN END?
The Bilderberg Group is not the end but the means to a future One World Government. This organisation has grown beyond its secretive beginnings to become a virtual shadow government which decides in total secrecy at annual meetings how its plans are to be carried out. The ultimate goal of this nightmare future is to transform Earth into a prison planet by bringing about a single globalised marketplace, controlled by a One World Government, policed by a United World Army, financially regulated by a World Bank, and populated by a microchipped population whose life’s needs have been stripped down to materialism and survival-work, buy, procreate, sleep-all connected to a global computer that monitors our every move.
And it is becoming easier because the development of telecommunications technology together with profound advances in present-day knowledge and new methods of behaviour engineering to manipulate individual conduct are converting what, in other epochs of history, were only evil intentions into a disturbing new reality. Each new measure, viewed on its own, may seem an aberration, but a whole host of changes, as part of an ongoing continuum, constitutes a shift towards total enslavement.
But there is hope. In almost every corner of the planet, stress points are beginning to fracture and people are starting to take sides. There is a general awakening taking place as people hold mirrors up to the irrationality that’s being imposed upon them. This awakening is beginning to empower our collective learning and understanding. You see, the powers-that-be have told us that world events are too difficult for the layperson to understand. They lied! We have been told that national secrets must be zealously protected. Indeed, they must! No government wants its citizens to discover that its best and brightest participate in massive collusion, conspiracy and pillaging of the planet.
Now, as the year 2007 unfolds, we find ourselves at the crossroads. The road we take from here will determine the very future of humanity and whether we will become an electronic global police state or remain free human beings. We must always remember that it is not up to God to bring us back from the “New Dark Age” planned for us. It is up to us. Forewarned is forearmed. We will never find the right answers if we don’t ask the right questions.
1. Brzezinski, Zbigniew, The Grand Chessboard: American primacy and its geostrategic imperatives, Basic Books, New York, 1997
2. Beaudry, Pierre, Synarchy Movement of Empire, Leesburg, Virginia, USA, 2005, Book IV, chapter 4, pp. 104-05, at http://www.pehi.eu/organisations/SME/Synarchy_Movement_of_Empire_book_04.pdf
3. Glazyev, Sergei, “From a Five-Year Plan of Destruction to a Five-Year Plan of Colonisation”, EIR Bonn Symposium, 1997
4. Dreyfuss, Robert, Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam, Henry Holt & Co., New York, 2005
5. Smucker, Philip, “Missions impossible: NATO’s Afghan dilemma”, Asia Times Online, 1 June 2007, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IF01Df01.html
About the Author:
Based in Spain, Daniel Estulin is an award-winning investigative journalist who has been researching the Bilderberg Group for over 15 years. He is the author of La Verdadera Historia del Club Bilderberg (2005), a bestseller in Spain and now in its 13th printing; it has been translated into 24 languages and sold to over 42 countries. The English-language edition, The True Story of the Bilderberg Group, is to be published by Trine Day, USA in September 2007 (available through Amazon.com). The sequel, Los Secretos del Club Bilderberg (2006), is already in its second printing in Spanish; bidding for international rights is scheduled for (northern) autumn 2007.
Estulin’s previous contribution to NEXUS was in 2005 with “Breaking the Silence: Bilderberg Exposed” (vol. 12, no. 5). The original text of this 2007 article is at the web page http://www.danielestulin.com/?op=noticias¬icias= ver&id=345&idioma=en.
Daniel Estulin can be contacted by email at email@example.com. For more information, visit his website at http://www.danielestulin.com.
DELEGATES AT BILDERBERG 2007
Istanbul, Turkey, 31 May – 3 June 2007
This year’s delegation included many of the most important politicians, businessmen, central bankers, European commissioners and executives of the Western corporate press. They were joined at the table by leading representatives of European royalty.
According to the Bilderberg Steering Committee list which this author has had access to, the following names have now been confirmed as attendees at the Bilderberg 2007 conference (uncharacteristically, David Rockefeller was not present).
Graham Allison, Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University (USA); George Alogoskoufis, Minister for Economy and Finance (Greece);
Ali Babacan, Minister for Economic Affairs (Turkey); Francisco Pinto Balsemo, Chairman and CEO, IMPRESA SGPS, former Prime Minister (Portugal); Michel Barnier, Vice President, Merieux Alliance; former Minister for Foreign Affairs (France); Michael Barone, Senior Writer, US News & World Report (USA); Martin Bartenstein, Federal Minister of Economics and Labour (Austria); Nicolas Baverez, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (France); Her Majesty Queen Beatrix, Queen of The Netherlands (The Netherlands); Leonor Beleza, President, Champalimaud Foundation (Portugal); Franco Bernabe, Vice Chairman, Rothschild Europe (Italy); Rosina M. Bierbaum, Professor and Dean, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan (USA); Carl Bildt, Minister for Foreign Affairs, former Prime Minister (Sweden); Mehmet A. Birand, Columnist (Turkey); Lloyd C. Blankfein, Chairman and CEO, Goldman Sachs & Co. (USA); Anders Borg, Minister for Finance (Sweden); Charles G. Boyd, President and CEO, Business Executives for National Security (USA); Umit N. Boyner, Member, Executive Board, Boyner Holding (Turkey); Vendeline A. H. von Bredow, Business Correspondent, The Economist; Rapporteur (Germany); Ian Bremmer, President, Eurasia Group (USA); Oscar Bronner, Publisher and Editor, Der Standard (Austria); Hubert Burda, Publisher and CEO, Hubert Burda Media Holding (Belgium); Gerald Butts, Principal Secretary, Office of the Prime Minister of Ontario (Canada);
Cengiz Candar, Journalist, Referans (Turkey); Henri de Castries, Chairman of Management Board and CEO, AXA (France); Juan Luis Cebrian, CEO, Grupo PRISA media group (Spain); Hikmet Cetin, Former Minister for Foreign Affairs and former NATO Senior Civilian Representative in Afghanistan (Turkey); Kenneth Clarke, Member of Parliament (UK); Timothy C. Collins, Senior Managing Director and CEO, Ripplewood Holding, LLC (USA);
Frans van Daele, Permanent Representative of Belgium to NATO (Belgium); George A. David, Chairman, Coca-Cola HBC SA (Greece); Etienne Davignon, Vice-Chairman, Suez-Tractebel, Honorary Chairman, Bilderberg Meetings (Belgium); Richard Dearlove, Master, Pembroke College, Cambridge (UK); Kemal Dervis, Administrator, UNDP (Turkey); Anna Diamantopoulou, Member of Parliament (Greece); Thomas E. Donilon, Partner, O’Melveny & Myers LLP (USA); Mathias Dopfner, Chairman and CEO, Axel Springer AG (Germany); Cem Duna, Former Ambassador to the European Union (Turkey); Esther Dyson, Chairman, EDventure Holdings, Inc. (USA);
Anders Eldrup, President, DONG AS (Denmark); John Elkann, Vice Chairman, Fiat SpA (Italy);
Ulrik Federspiel, Permanent Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Denmark); Martin S. Feldstein, President and CEO, National Bureau of Economic Research (USA);
Timothy F. Geithner, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of New York (USA); Paul A. Gigot, Editorial Page Editor, The Wall Street Journal (USA); Eival Gilady, CEO, The Portland Trust, Israel (Israel); Dermot Gleeson, Chairman, AIB Group (Ireland); Emre Gonensay, Professor of Economics, Isik University, and former Minister for Foreign Affairs (Turkey); Marc Grossman, Vice Chairman, The Cohen Group (USA); Alfred Gusenbauer, Federal Chancellor (Austria);
Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations (USA); Victor Halberstadt, Professor of Economics, Leiden University, former Honorary Secretary-General of Bilderberg Meetings (The Netherlands); Peter D. Hart, Chairman, Peter D. Hart Research Associates (USA); Frank Heemskerk, Minister for Foreign Trade (The Netherlands); Paul Hermelin, CEO, Cap Gemini SA (France); Richard C. Holbrooke, Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC (USA); Jan H. M. Hommen, Chairman, Reed Elsevier NV (The Netherlands); Jaap G. de Hoop Scheffer,* Secretary-General, NATO (The Netherlands/International);
Atte Jaaskelainen, Director of News, Sports and Regional Programmes, YLE (Finland); Kenneth Jacobs, Deputy Chairman, Head of Lazard USA, Lazard Freres & Co. LLC (USA); James A. Johnson, Vice Chairman, Perseus LLC (USA); Vernon E. Jordan, Jr, Senior Managing Director, Lazard Frres & Co. LLC (USA); His Majesty, King Juan Carlos I,* King of Spain (Spain);
Jyrki Katainen, Minister of Finance (Finland); Jason Kenney, Member of Parliament (Canada); Muhtar Kent, President and Chief Operating Officer, The Coca-Cola Company (USA); John Kerr (Lord Kerr of Kinlochard), Member, House of Lords, Deputy Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell PLC (UK); Henry A. Kissinger, Chairman, Kissinger Associates (USA); Eckart von Klaeden, Foreign Policy Spokesman, CDU/CSU (Germany); Klaus Kleinfeld, President and CEO, Siemens AG (Germany); Mustafa V. Koc, Chairman, Ko Holding AS (Turkey); Bruce Kovner, Chairman, Caxto Associates LLC (USA); Henry R. Kravis, Founding Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (USA); Marie-Josée Kravis, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc. (USA); Idar Kreutzer, CEO, Storebrand ASA (The Netherlands); Neelie Kroes, Commissioner, European Commission (The Netherlands/ International);
Bernardino Leon Gross, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Spain); Mogens Lykketoft, Member of Parliament (Denmark); William J. Luti, Special Assistant to the President for Defense Policy and Strategy, National Security Council (USA);
Jessica T. Mathews, President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (USA); Michael McDowell, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Ireland); John R. Micklethwait, Editor, The Economist (UK); Mario Monti, President, University Commerciale Luigi Bocconi (Italy); Craig J. Mundie, Chief Research and Strategy Officer, Microsoft Corporation (USA); Egil Myklebust, Chairman, SAS and Norsk Hydro ASA (Norway);
Matthias Nass, Deputy Editor, Die Zeit (Germany); Ewald Nowotny, CEO, BAWAG PSK (Austria);
Christine Ockrent, Editor-in-Chief, France Television (France); Jorma Ollila, Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Chairman and CEO, Nokia Corporation (Finland); George Osborne, MP, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer (UK);
Laurence Parisot, President, MEDEF (Mouvement des Entreprises de France) (France); Christopher Patten, Member, House of Lords (UK); Richard N. Perle, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (USA); Rick Perry, Governor of Texas (USA); Volker Perthes, Director, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (Germany); HRH Prince Philippe of Belgium (Belgium);
Rodrigo de Rato y Figaredo, Managing Director, IMF (International); Olli Rehn, Commissioner, European Commission (International); Heather Reisman, Chair and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc. (Canada); Mat’as Rodriguez Inciarte, Executive Vice Chairman, Grupo Santander, Ciudad Grupo (Spain); Olivier Roy, Senior Researcher, CNRS (France);
Paolo Scaroni, CEO, Eni SpA (Italy); Eric Schmidt, Chairman of the Executive Committee and CEO, Google (USA); Rudolf Scholten, Member of the Board of Executive Directors, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG (Austria); Jorgen E. Schrempp, former Chairman of the Board of Management, DaimlerChrysler AG (Germany); Klaus Schwab, Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum (Switzerland); Robert W. Scully, Co-President, Morgan Stanley (USA); Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas (USA); Josette Sheeran, Executive Director, UN World Food Programme (USA); Kristen Silverberg, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Interational Organization Affairs (USA); Domenico Siniscalco, Managing Director and Vice Chairman, Morgan Stanley (Italy); Javier Solana,* High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union and the Western European Union (International); Her Majesty Queen Sophia, Queen of Spain (Spain); Ayse Soysal, Rector, Bosphorus University (Turkey); Lawrence H. Summers, Charles W. Eliot University Professor, Harvard University (USA); Peter D. Sutherland, Chairman, BP PLC, and Chairman, Goldman Sachs International (Ireland); Carl-Henric Svanberg, President and CEO, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Sweden);
Paul A. Taggart, Professor of Politics, University of Sussex (UK); Sidney Taurel, Chairman and CEO, Eli Lilly and Company (USA); J. Martin Taylor, Chairman, Syngenta International AG (UK); Peter A. Thiel, President, Clarium Capital Management, LLC (USA); Teija Tiilikainen, State Secretary, Ministry for Foreign Affairs (Finland); Michel Tilmant, Chairman, ING NV (The Netherlands); Jean-Claude Trichet, Governor, European Central Bank (France/International);
Jens Ulltveit-Moe, CEO, Umoe AS (Norway);
Daniel L. Vasella, Chairman and CEO, Novartis AG (Switzerland); Jeroen van der Veer, Chief Executive, Royal Dutch Shell PLC (The Netherlands);
Jacob Wallenberg, Chairman, Investor AB (Sweden); Vin (J.V.) Weber, Partner, Clark & Weinstock (USA); Guido Westerwelle, Chairman, Free Democratic Party (Germany); Ross Wilson, Ambassador to Turkey (USA); James D. Wolfensohn, Chairman, Wolfensohn & Company, LLC (USA); Paul Wolfowitz, President, The World Bank (International); Joseph R. Wood, Deputy Assistant to the Vice President, National Security Affairs (USA); Adrian D. Wooldridge, Foreign Correspondent, The Economist; Rapporteur (UK);
Arzuhan Dogan Yalindag, President, TUSIAD (Turkey); Erkut Yucaoglu, Chairman of the Board, MAP, former President, TUSIAD (Turkey);
Philip D. Zelikow, White Burkett Miller Professor of History, University of Virginia (USA); Robert B. Zoellick,* former US Trade Representative, former Deputy Secretary of State, Managing Director, Goldman Sachs (USA).
* Known to have attended Bilderberg 2007, although not included on the official list of attendees distributed by the Bilderberg Meetings office.
Vaccines: Pure Profit Up Front…then Customers for Life
Vaccines are the biggest deception and biggest lie ever perpetrated against man kind. Injecting filth — viruses and chemicals — is not about health; it is a guise for profit. The billion dollar profits on sale of vaccines (see below) is a drop in the bucket compared to the multiple billions in profits made on the drugs used to treat the diseases that vaccines cause.
My new book, “Saying No To Vaccines: A Resource Guide for All Ages” will be out soon…my hope is that the book will help save many children and adults from disaster. We MUST just learn to say NO and stand up against the ever growing medical tyranny in this country.
Parents: You’ve been brainwashed into believing in the “need” for a pediatrician. Learn to care of fevers and colds at home. You Can Do It!
Parents: Learn how to keep children healthy with great food, homeopathics, simple supplements and support groups to share ideas about keeping their kids healthy. There are really great books available to help you!!
Parents: Be strong and say “no” to vaccines. Don’t allow yourself to be bullied into submission (if you have a story about being bullied, please let me know at DrTenpenny.com
Parents: Talk to your parents, your grandparents, your aunts. They have a wealth of information to share. Home remedies have been around for centuries for a reason. Don’t let your child become dollars for pharma.
See the article below for why you should refuse vaccines….And know I’m on your side!
February 11, 2008
Time To End Profit Driven Mandatory Vaccination Racket
By Evelyn Pringle
The push to keep adding more vaccines to the mandatory schedules comes directly from a purely profit motivated industry and a recent investor report estimates that the world-wide market will quadruple from about $4.3 billion in 2006 to more than $16 billion in 2016, with the biggest boost coming from kids in the US.
A November 2007 report entitled, “Pipeline and Commercial Insight: Pediatric and Adolescent Vaccines,” authored by vaccine analyst, Hedwig Kresse, for the independent market analyst Datamonitor discusses the future outlook for vaccine profits.
The report provides an assessment of products and a patient-based forecast of market size and coverage rates to the year 2016, and predicts that the introduction of high price vaccines will induce rapid growth in the pediatric and adolescent vaccines market.
The report predicts that due to the “promising commercial potential” of new, high-price vaccines, the pediatric and adolescent market will quadruple from approximately $4.3 billion in 2006, to over $16 billion by 2016, across the US, the EU-five including France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK, and Japan.
The crucial factor for success in the pediatric market, the report notes, is the introduction of a product into national vaccination schedules. “Along with reimbursement, this virtually guarantees the rapid uptake and continuously high coverage rates in the target population,” Ms Kresse states. As an example, she cites Wyeth’s Prevnar, as the first premium price vaccine launched in the US in 2000 for vaccinating infants against pneumonia and meningitis.
Since then, Prevnar has been added to the childhood vaccination schedules in the US and EU-five despite its high price of nearly $320 for the 4-dose regimen. In 2006, Global sales reached almost $2 billion, making Prevnar the first vaccine to attain blockbuster status, according to the report. By 2016, Datamonitor expects the total value of the infant market for pneumococcal vaccines to increase to $2.3 billion.
In June 2006, Merck’s Gardasil was approved for cervical cancer. Because it was the first vaccine offered as a preventive measure for a form of cancer, its approval generated tremendous public attention along with pressure for healthcare authorities to make the vaccine available to teenage girls at a cost of $360 for 3 doses.
“Although most cases of cervical cancer in the developed world can be prevented through the existing pap smear screening programs, the expensive HPV vaccination has been recommended and is reimbursed for teenage girls across the US and Europe,” Ms Kresse reports.
She notes that this decision about the HPV vaccine is driven more by public pressure and excitement about the opportunity to vaccinate against cancer rather than by real need. The widespread publicity has led to a good uptake in the target group of adolescent girls, which is usually hard to reach for vaccination, Ms Kresse points out to investors.
Datamonitor sees a huge commercial opportunity in HPV vaccines, with annual sales of $1.4 billion in teenage girls for the seven major markets by 2016 and a cumulative catch-up opportunity in women aged 13-26 that could add up to over $17 billion until 2016.
But Ms Kresse warns investors that the “lack of medical need” for rotavirus vaccines such as RotaTeq will limit their uptake in most markets. RotaTeq is advertised to combat diarrhea that usually affects infants under the age of two, and was introduced by Merck in the US in 2006, at a price of $200 for the three-dose regimen. According to Ms Kresse, many countries, but not the US, have refused to add the vaccine to their schedules due to cost-benefit reasons. “In the developed world, rotavirus diarrhea is rarely severe for small infants and quick and efficacious treatment is already available,” she writes. “Consequently, healthcare authorities see no need to widely introduce a very expensive vaccine.”
Datamonitor estimates that annual sales will remain limited to approximately $1 billion across the 7 major markets by 2016 and predicts that the US will account for the majority of sales, being the only country to have recommended the rotavirus vaccine for all infants.
Wyeth’s Prevnar vaccine came on the market in 2000 and is recommended for children under 2. The vaccine was hailed as a breakthrough and had sales of more than $1.5 billion in 2006. Prevnar is given as four shots to children between 2 and 15 months.
On September 18, 2007, NewsMax reported that the vaccine has dramatically curbed pneumonia and other serious illnesses in children but is also having an unfortunate effect: “promoting new superbugs that cause ear infections.” According to NewsMax, doctors reported finding the first such germ that is resistant to all drugs approved to treat childhood ear infections and 9 toddlers in Rochester, N.Y., have had the bug and that it also may be turning up elsewhere.
It is a strain of strep bacteria not included in the pneumococcal vaccine. Prevnar prevents seven strains responsible for most cases of pneumonia, meningitis and bloodstream infections. But dozens more strains exist and some have become resistant to antibiotics since the vaccine combats the more common strains.
If the new strains continue to spread, “it tells us the vaccine is becoming less effective” and needs to be revised, Dr Dennis Maki, infectious diseases chief at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Hospitals and Clinics, told NewsMax. A new study in the November 8, 2007 New England Journal of Medicine by researchers at Oregon Health & Science University, supported by the United States Public Health Service, suggests that the schedule for vaccinating and revaccinating against diseases should be reevaluated and adjusted.
The study found that in many cases, the established duration of immunity for vaccines is greatly underestimated, which means that people are getting booster shots when their immunity levels do not require it and those antibody responses caused by viruses such as measles mumps, and rubella remained at protective levels for several decades and in most cases, for life.
The research also reconfirmed a previous finding by Slifka and his colleagues: that the duration of immunity after smallpox vaccination is much longer than previously thought. In that earlier study published in the journal Nature Medicine in 2003, these OHSU researchers observed surprisingly long-lived antiviral antibody responses but they were unable to measure the slow rate of decline.
The study indicates that the duration of immunity after smallpox vaccination is maintained with a calculated half-life of 92 years and that a person who has received the primary series of tetanus vaccine is likely to be protected for 3 decades.
Experts say we have allowed ourselves and our children to be overdosed through a culture dominated by industry marketing influence which has now become dangerously out of control and detrimental to our children’s health. “In the 21st century, it is unacceptable to be marketing medication to infants and children that may not work,” Dr Steven Czinn, chair of the department of pediatrics at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, told Reuters on October 11, 2007.
In the November 19, 2007 Huffington Post article, “Over Medicated and Over-Vaccinated: The Unintended Consequence of Medicines Meant to Protect,” Deirdre Imus asks, “Where are the conflict-free studies that prove giving infants and children 49 immunizations – most of them by age 5, are safe and effective?”
She points out that studies have provided evidence that the over-vaccination of dogs and cats can result in numerous maladies including cancer, skin and ear conditions, arthritis, allergies, diabetes, aggression, behavior problems and other immune system dysfunctions. “There is even a name for the conditions caused by animal over-vaccination, vaccinosis,” she notes.
Ms Imus also points out that the mercury-containing preservative, thimerosal, used in vaccines for over 50 years was removed from animal vaccines in 1992. “Unfortunately for the kids,” she writes, “it remained in children’s vaccines for another decade and remains in some vaccines like the influenza (25 micrograms) and tetanus vaccine (25 micrograms) today and in trace amounts (3 micrograms) in some immunizations.”
She says most people do not realize is that any liquid waste containing more than 200 parts per billion (ppb) mercury must be deposited at a hazardous waste site and that drinking water cannot exceed 2 ppb mercury. “But when the influenza vaccines arrive and are injected into pregnant woman and infants as young as six months, those vaccines contain 50,000 ppb mercury,” Ms Imus notes.
This amount of mercury is 250 times higher than hazardous waste, she notes, and according to EPA guidelines, this amount can only be considered safe if a person weighs 550 pounds. “Even trace amounts of mercury in vaccines can be anywhere from 600 to 2000 ppb,” she warns.
On November 13, 2006, PutChildrenFirst.org, a parent-led organization advocating vaccine safety, issued a press release to announce the results of a survey conducted October 27-30, 2006, by Zogby International of over 9,000 Americans to learn their plans for getting flu shots, their knowledge of its ingredients, and who they hold responsible for making sure vaccines are safe. The survey showed that an overwhelming majority of Americans were unaware that most flu shots contain mercury and that they would refuse a shot with mercury. After learning that mercury is an ingredient, 74% of those polled said they were less likely to get a flu shot and 86% of parents said they were less likely to allow their child to get a shot.
Lisa Handley is a founding parent of PutChildrenFirst.org, whose son Jamison had an adverse reaction to a flu shot with mercury in 2003. “I know firsthand how life-changing a flu shot with mercury can be, since our son began his regression into autism after his flu shot,” she states. “With everything we know about the dangers of mercury and the havoc it can wreak on young, developing brains, there is no excuse for any vaccine to contain mercury,” says Lyn Redwood, RN, MSN, President of SafeMinds, a nonprofit organization committed to ending mercury-induced neurological disorders. “The survey reveals that Americans are overwhelmingly in the dark about what is in most flu shots,” Ms Redwood stated in the press release.
“They do not want a known neurotoxin injected into their children, and they believe Congress and medical professionals must be more vigilant about keeping vaccines safe and mercury-free,” she added.
PutChildrenFirst also advises that two recent studies in leading medical journals admitted that limited data exists to support the effectiveness of flu vaccines. One study, in the Journal of the American Medical Association, noted that, “there is scant data on the efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccine in young children,” the release notes.
According to Ms Imus, we are beginning to see prescribed vaccines, like the whole cell DPT and Rotovirus, which are later found to be unsafe. “While physicians warn the public about the over use of antibiotics,” she points out, “it is the physicians themselves that over-prescribed these antibiotics for every ailment under the sun.”
“And like antibiotics,” she writes, “every time a new vaccine was developed, it quickly found its way onto the immunization schedule along with the recommended booster shots. We are now reaping the unintended consequences of the overuse of these medical interventions,” she states. “Instead of being healthier, we have a nation of very sick children.”
Forcing parents to inject poisonous concoctions into innocent, helpless children against their will is a gross violation of their most basic parental rights.
Authors Bio: Evelyn Pringle is a columnist for OpEd News and investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in government and corporate America.