Uncategorized

Newsflash to psychiatry: a human being is not a thing

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=4tixiugab&v=001yqHNAgdI3XiWkSNhKucQGmw6_f-G0cOeG-MirjKNUVtvZJqRprzN3fa5ITX76V1zRP0PINVYr8f_opwZXsHESV086cfKoDCiJejztGR64IU%3D

Newsflash to psychiatry: a human being is not a thing

Newsflash to psychiatry: a human being is not a thing

by Jon Rappoport

January 31, 2013

http://www.nomorefakenews.com

The ability to separate components of a machine, to increase the efficiency and power of each component, to link up all the elements in smoother ways; this is one of the hallmarks of the technological society.

And when the current machine is superseded by a new one, the process of improving efficiency starts all over again.

But a human being is not a machine, because consciousness is not a machine.

The rise of what has been called industrial psychology, or scientific management, tries to overcome that “flaw.” This is described well in Scott Noble’s film, Social Engineering in the 20th Century (posted at YouTube).

For example, the modern factory assembly line, in which workers did multiple tasks and functioned as skilled artisans, was overthrown in favor of a system in which each worker performed the same severely restricted, specialized task over and over again. A machine making machines.

And not just in America. In Russia, in the early stages of the revolution, worker-owned companies were on the rise. But that development was too conscious, too participatory. Lenin imposed his top-down version of human machines making machines, all in the service of constructing a super-state.

In the same way, the rise of psychology and psychiatry reflect the impulse to treat the mind as a machine. The expanding concoction of so-called mental disorders are arbitrary attempts at categorizing human thought, desire, and behavior as diseases.

Have you ever tried to solve an arbitrarily cooked-up problem for millions of people? Of course not. Who in his right mind would? Yet this is exactly what the “mental sciences” have accepted as their mission.

Consciousness is not public business. Its dimensions and capabilities are there for every person to explore on his own terms. This is called freedom.

Psychiatry has sought to redefine consciousness solely in terms of brain function. This materialist obsession is also an attempt to gain control of the mind.

In the wake of Sandy Hook, we are seeing the escalation of a social and political bargain: the sacrifice of freedom in return for more invasive “mental health,” which would purportedly reduce the number of mass murders.

Of course, this is a false promise. There is no psychiatric prospect for reducing killings (especially since some of their medicines induce extreme violence.) There is only more diagnosis of mental disorders, followed by drugging with toxic and dangerous chemicals.

This is all based on an unspoken bias against freedom and consciousness, in favor of “evening out” the emotional range and experience of humans. Psychiatrist Peter Breggin rightly characterizes this as drug-induced emotional flatness and anesthesia.

Worse yet, this layer of flatness can disintegrate, leaving the patient in a synthetically created, out-of-control emotional state.

But psychiatry’s political allies, all too happy to delegate violent-crime prevention to mental-health professionals, are viewing society as a numbers game. For them, averaging out human emotions into an acceptable and harmless range is a preferred overall solution. It’s a system of control.

Therefore, this really isn’t about violent-crime prevention at all. It’s about rendering humans into a state where they react like predictable Things under chemical restraint.

No doubt we’ll soon see a new generation of devices for stimulating brain centers, aimed at inducing pleasure and satisfaction. And the covert agenda will be to render consciousness a servant to the status quo.

The people who own governments and countries look upon this model as a reasonable method for producing “the normal human” who accepts things as they are.

Let’s face it, wherever human beings feel the possibility of liberation, they begin to devise their own communities and workplaces. They innovate. Forms and structures are created so that each person can benefit from the whole.

But top-down, this is viewed as a dangerous development. Leaders, in the camp of monopolists, do everything they can to squelch such movements. Which means they reduce the human being and consciousness to a cipher within a system, thus defeating their nemesis: decentralization.

It has been so since the beginning of time. Somewhere in a cave, prehistoric men and women, striving to survive in a hostile environment, began to think about new social relationships in their extended families—and a few leaders, watching this unwelcome development, decided they had to invent the first false flags (creation of non-existent enemies), in order to declare DEFCON 1 and centralize their control over the group.

From its earliest experiments, forged by Palov, Wundt, and other like-minded researchers, psychology has sought to prove that the conditioned-reflex (machine) model of human behavior was a true reflection of life on planet Earth.

They were given entrance into the club of controllers for precisely that reason: humans as machines was a perfect pseudoscience to build on.

Once you strip away the sophisticated complexities of modern psychiatry, you see the same proposition: the human brain, through chemical intervention, can be modified to produce “better behavior.”

Progressing from the sheer madness of researchers like Jose Delgado and Ewen Cameron, who believed no human had an inherent right to his own personality, but should be altered to fit the social needs of the State, psychiatry, hand-in-hand with Pharma, has developed kinder, gentler language to describe its mission:

Healing disease; ending suffering; bringing greater happiness.

This decades-long propaganda blitz has benefited psychiatry enormously. Smoothly fitting into programs of its government backers, promoted as the “official word” by major media, the profession has gained a primacy exceeding its most optimistic projections.

In America and many other countries, there now exists Official Mental Science. That most people don’t even notice this fact speaks to the overwhelming success of psychiatry.

Think about that. In what kind of political State do you need an official science of the mind? There is only one explanation for it. The State is a dictatorship.

In a free society, government would never dream of taking sides with one explanation of the human mind. It wouldn’t dare enable that explanation through its law-enforcement officers, court system, and publicly funded psych wards and research grants.

In the US, we have the federal NIMH, the National Institute of Mental Health, a sub-branch of the National Institutes of Health. It operates on an annual budget of $1.5 billion. Wikipedia names NIMH “the largest research organization in the world specializing in mental illness.”

In this obvious puff piece written for NIMH, Wikipedia goes on to state: “For the institution to continue fulfilling this vital public health mission it must further innovative thinking…in the evolving science of brain, behavior, and experience. In this way, breakthroughs in science can become breakthroughs for all people with mental illnesses…NIMH is particularly known for studies of genetics, neuroscience, and clinical trials of psychiatric medication.”

Official mental science. Backed and enforced by the US government.

In previous articles, I’ve demonstrated that, for all 297 officially certified mental disorders, there are NO physical tests to confirm a diagnosis. None. And on that non-basis, millions of doses of toxic and dangerous drugs are prescribed to Americans every year.

So much for science. But for control? Ah, that’s quite a different story. The power to invade and interfere with people’s lives is on the upswing.

Government simply says, “We care about you,” and for most people, this is apparently enough to satisfy them that psychiatry is a good thing, an objective thing, a thing worthy of being official and enforced and funded.

In 1906, Ivan Pavlov, the celebrated innovator in what is now called “classical conditioning,” wrote: “Mankind will possess incalculable advantages and extraordinary control over human behavior, when the scientific investigator will be able to subject his fellow men to the same external analysis he would employ for any natural object…”

Nearly half a century later, one of the most celebrated psychologists of the 20th century, BF Skinner, offered this pithy assessment of humans: “The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do.”

Skinner’s answer to that question was no; instead, humans were driven entirely by a set of their past behaviors that were reinforced positively by others.

In both Pavlov’s and Skinner’s universe, free will was out of the question. It was only a matter of deciding how to condition people.

Modern psychiatry, 40 years ago, formed an overt alliance with pharmaceutical companies, to sell chemically-imposed conditioning as treatment for disease. At least the early behaviorists wore their agenda on their sleeves. These days, it’s all subterfuge and deception.

When all is said and done, brain researchers of the 21st century steadfastly believe that human thought, feeling, desire, and consciousness can be reduced to predetermined signals and chemicals and electronics taking place inside the skull. Therefore, for them, creating changes in those signals is entirely legitimate and ethical: they are merely making over the Unfree Human Thing into a Better Unfree Thing.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Advertisements
Uncategorized

How psychology undermined Western civilization

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=4tixiugab&v=001Ro55SkI4QPYWRH3jvOd5p_4xb-vXWsBPMblkRfn2uGEKHp59-0f-r-WrxQW3Lq7TTA9jcmNzcGT5cYHkPyKn2eBFUvhZ9GovOcQtQaHUpcE%3D

How psychology undermined Western civilization

How psychology undermined Western civilization

by Jon Rappoport

January 30, 2012

http://www.nomorefakenews.com

After the Sandy Hook murders, psychology and psychiatry have taken another leap forward in expanding their influence throughout society. “More mental-health services” is the catch-all phrase our leaders use in “solving” these massacres—along with gun control.

But just as grabbing guns won’t reduce the bulk of gun violence in America, the vague mental-health dictum won’t work, either.

This article focuses on psychology, which is branch of false knowledge different from the false knowledge of psychiatry.

A psychiatrist is a medical doctor who has received special training in diagnosing and prescribing drugs for “mental disorders,” none of which disorders can be confirmed to exist by any test.

A psychologist doesn’t need to be a medical doctor. With an advanced degree and a license, he can do therapy with patients and try to resolve “mental and emotional issues,” for which no diagnostic tests exist.

From the beginning of the history of psychology, it was really a simple trick. Establish a loose category called “mental problem,” pour money and research into solving it, and enroll patients.

This approach has become so pervasive that most people can’t conceive of an alternative. A person is acting strange, he has a problem, and a mental-health practitioner can help him solve it. What else do we need to know?

Well, for starters, we need to know why the category of “mental problem” is necessary. Why should we assume it means anything?

Instead, for example: what about people making an inventory of their own deeply held convictions, followed by a self-assessment, to see how well or badly they’re living up to those convictions?

Why did that approach go out the window?

Because it’s based on some sense of responsibility, which is now verboten in a society where “intervening” and “fulfilling needs” are paramount.

If a person can’t or won’t discover what his most deeply held convictions are, what hope does he have? What problems can he solve that are going to make any great difference?

“Let’s see. I’m living a life I don’t want, and that life is throwing problems at me. If I solve the problems, I’ll be okay, right?”

Are you kidding?

Academic psychology, if you read its history, its textbooks, its methods, has nothing of value or substance to say about a person’s most profound personal convictions. That’s not on the radar. It never was. What you get is sophisticated babble about mental conditions and unresolved issues.

The existence of these issues and conditions is PROMOTED by psychology. Psychology is a self-fulfilling prophecy: if you assume these conditions actually exist and if you believe they are real, then you can chew on them for ten or 15 years and come up with explanations, answers, and solutions.

Yes, that’s right. The human being is a very adaptable creature. If you can insert a primary assumption into his mind, where he accepts it as authentic, he’ll begin to cogitate and calculate around it.

Because the assumption was never his to begin with. He bought it. He went for it. He took the bait.

Now if you consider that millions and millions of people are working on this fake reality, having accepted that they suffer from mental problems, what do you get?

You get a society that, more and more, is paralyzed into inaction. You get passivity. You get an overall depletion of energy and power. You get a victim-club mentality.

Freud picked the “Oedipal Complex” out of a hat. The incest fantasy. He made this the foundation of his breakthrough. He sold it. He sold it as the underlying trauma and taboo that was always and forever twisting the minds of every male on Earth. He decided that this fantasy had to be exorcised with years of specialized therapy.

It was a new version of old guilt. Forget about the Garden of Eden and eating forbidden fruit from the tree. The incest wish was the real source of human guilt.

Psychology, from Freud forward, quickly became a prison term from which the inhabitant could be released when the therapist determined basic problems had been defeated.

Freud’s opponents and detractors argued for their own version of the correct prison (the basic mental problem). But the whole underlying notion of “a person captured” needed to come under scrutiny, and of course that never happened, as long as psychologists and psychiatrists ruled the roost.

Psychology became a major force that undermined freedom, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution in America. It asserted or implied that no rights or responsibilities meant anything as long as people were chained to their own problems and issues. This was an argument from Inherent Limitation. It was persuasive.

From the perspective of psychology, only rubes and Neanderthals would claim freedom was a core fact of existence. The more educated classes would realize they had to swim through an undersea jungle of their own mental and emotional restraints, guided by a steady professional hand, before they could finally emerge and come to experience the meaning of freedom.

So of course that journey became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There was one catch. Most people, after years of therapy, felt no dramatic difference. This disappointment translated into a deep cynicism about life. It meant more passivity.

Psychology has not only promoted the existence of mental problems, it has stated that these conditions are rock-bottom facts: there is no way to overcome them, short of talk therapy or psychiatric drugs. Psychology argues that it is useless to try to “ignore mental conditions.” That won’t work. It can’t work.

And if the patient agrees, he can go on to manufacture problems without end.

Whereas, the truth is, every so-called mental or emotional condition is a signal. It alerts a person that he is heading the ship away from its destination. He’s experiencing a crisis that has everything to do with the question: WHAT IS MY COURSE IN LIFE?

Finding an answer to that question makes all the difference.

I know somebody is going to write me about how nutrition can solve mental problems. Somebody is going to write and tell me how vaccines, medical drugs, chemtrails, GMOs, dyes and colors in food, etc., create mental problems.

I’ve written about these factors for years. Understand, however, that, in these cases, what the person is really suffering from is a severe nutritional deficit, or from the toxic overload of the vaccines, drugs, GMOs. To say it’s a mental problem is to misname what is really going on. In the same way, saying a person has an irresistible itch when what he really has is poison ivy is a diversion from the main event.

Psychology says: “Here is the mind. It contains conditions and issues. We can resolve them.”

That’s false. That’s the illusion. The mind doesn’t CONTAIN CONDITIONS or issues.

The conditions-hoax is perfectly paralleled by the disorder-hoax of psychiatry. These are, at the very best, metaphors. At their worst, they’re intentional ruses.

Here are ACTUAL rock-bottom conditions: freedom, independence, deep and profound desire, the power and energy to fulfill those desires, a sense of what is right and wrong, the wish to see others succeed brilliantly, community, expressing self, creative power, action in the world.

These are the elements of a philosophy, not psychology. These are elements of life abundant.

These are loci of decision for every conscious person.

And, as it turns out, psychology came late to the party. For millennia, humans have been engaging in philosophy and the exploration of spiritual dimensions.

The assumption of “gross limitation caused by internal problems” is a very recent concoction.

The assumption is simply the result of propaganda bought and sold.

When we delete such nonsense, we can discover the kind of personal truth that rings the bell clearly, if we are up to the task.

The rise of psychology was in part fueled by the notion that science could resolve human problems. But humans aren’t machines; they aren’t closed systems; they aren’t planets moving in fixed orbits. The analogy doesn’t work. It fails miserably.

Exploring instead, for example, what the ancient alchemists were really up to, and the original teachers of Tibet who employed the techniques of itinerant adepts from India, gives us a startling perspective on the UNLIMITED human being.

These teachers weren’t, in any meaningful sense, psychologists. They were philosophers of action. They were adventurers and explorers. They didn’t sit in offices dealing with the latest symptoms of people suffering from the malaise of a brainwashed society.

They knew there was a Matrix; they knew it was a heavy blanket of illusion; they knew it both corralled the individual and the community; and they knew it could be dispelled. It was their mission to make that happen, and they didn’t stint.

Theirs was a heraldic enterprise. It surpassed, by light years, stirring sand in a childish playpen of therapy.

That heraldic thread of adventure never dies. It can be stifled at times, but it remains alive under the surface.

Liberating the creative force in a person is the key. Not through some external and removed and remote process. The process involves everything you’ve got.

It goes down to the center of the Earth and out to the stars, and beyond. When so engaged, the mind cooperates and collaborates with the adventurer. It moves through so-called mental problems like a rocket burning up old paper.

One summer in the 1980s, when I was just starting out as a reporter, I scored a few front-page stories for LA Weekly, because other writers were out of town. I managed to squeeze in one of the weirder features the Weekly had published up to that time: off-the-record interviews with therapists detailing their private fantasies—all of which turned out to be intensely anti-social.

I later learned the “therapy community in town” didn’t appreciate my approach.

Similarly, I expect some psychologists will rankle at this one. But the point is, all these fantasies, of both patient and therapist are outcomes of the creative force in action—nothing less or more—and they should be seen that way.

Instead of assigning fantasy A to mental condition A and fantasy B to condition B, why not just throw all the insanity overboard and acknowledge, finally, that what underlies fantasia is the beginning and end of the answer to what’s bothering people and troubling them and driving them into despair and deep boredom:

Imagination and the creative force are tigers waiting to be let out of their cages so they can invent astonishing Futures.

This would be a truly modern psychology and a thoroughly contemporary reflection of what we all know.

From our deepest wellsprings, we:

INVENT;

IMAGINE;

CREATE;

IMPROVISE;

BUILD;

WORK TO MAKE WHAT WE IMAGINE INTO FACT IN THE WORLD.

Exploring the meaning and action of THIS is a worthy undertaking, and it would happily supersede what has absurdly been called psychology.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Uncategorized

House Of Rothschild Hoarding Gold In Face Of Coming Collapse? | ExplosiveReports.Com

http://explosivereports.com/2013/01/28/house-of-rothschild-hoarding-gold-in-face-of-coming-collapse/

House Of Rothschild Hoarding Gold In Face Of Coming Collapse?

Gallery

GoldHeader

Jurriaan Maessen
ExplosiveReports.Com
January 28, 2013

A recent appointment of Rothschild as “financial advisor” by the Board of Directors of gold exploration company Spanish Mountain Gold is yet another unmistakable indication that the ancient family is moving the world’s gold supply to both “emerging markets” and Central Banks worldwide, strengthening the family’s monopoly position when the fiat-based house of cards comes crashing down in the West.

The Board of Directors of the British Columbia based gold exploration company appointed Rothschild to “review strategic options with the objective of maximizing shareholder value.” In July of 2012, Spanish Mountain Gold’s CEO Brian Groves boasted already that the excavation in British Colombia is a project worth “several million ounces in gold” and is backed by “an enormous network of connections globally”, Groves told Resource Clips.

Indeed, this recent appointment of Rothschild’s financial expertise (from centuries worth of experience) has increased the value of this company somewhat, propelling the gold-producing company into newer heights (or depths), depending on what end of the gold bar you find yourself. It also is a sure sign that the family is tightening its grip on gold, in both the excavation, the producing and the trading phase.

In the beginning of this century there were signs that Rothschild was starting to pull back from gold. With the announcement of Lord Jacob Rothschild that his “investment vehicle” RIT Capital Partners “has ridden the rally in gold prices but will now incrementally sell down” many observers were led to believe the ancient house was abandoning the precious stuff. Jacob Rothschild stated in 2011:

“There is I believe a growing awareness of the dangerous position which confronts many countries, particularly those in the developed world. In spite of these concerns, we continue to take advantage of areas that we believe are attractive, but we will remain cautious in terms of the quantum of capital that we allocate”. JacobRothschild

Already in 2004 Rothschild blew the horn, announcing with a loud voice (that tends to carry far and wide throughout the world’s financial community) that the family was withdrawing from its gold-based assets. In April of 2004 the Telegraph reported:

“The investment bank that has chaired the London meetings setting the world gold price since 1919 is quitting the market.”

In 2011, an analysis makes clear how and why Rothschild manipulates the price of gold downward:

Despite these earlier indications that Rothschild was backing away from its gold assets (which smell like the calculated diversion techniques of an experienced illusionist), the recent appointment in the Spanish Mountain project is a clear sign that gold is still foremost on the mind of the family, as it has been for many centuries past. These earlier manoeuvrings by Rothschild seem to suggest a consciously constructed effort to bring down the price of gold- with the aim of buying large quantities later on, when the price was especially low. The reason for such a move is explained by Jeff Thomas in February 2012, when he wrote:

“Many economists project that, following the crashes of the Euro and the dollar, a return to gold-backed currencies would appear as a world trend. This is only natural, as the fiat currency concept would have been shown to be the farce that it is.”

For this reason, Thomas argued, the hoarding of gold is being done with the aim of redistributing it later on to those nations (or supra-nations, such as the EU and China) the elite have destined to be the future global engines after the old one has been discarded:

“It is entirely possible that all currencies could receive a shake-up, and an entire worldwide system of gold-backed currencies may develop. If this were to occur, the countries that held the largest amounts of gold at that time would be out in front economically.”

gold1
This indeed seems to be the case. As Edmond de Rothschild’s France-based asset management company analyzes for 2013, the so called “emerging markets” are increasingly scooping great chunks of gold from the world’s supply:

“It is (…) reassuring to see that physical demand has started the year well with an increase in Chinese and Indian buying. The Chinese are buying before the Lunar New Year while Indians seem to be anticipating higher duties on imported gold. At the same time, central bank buying continues. They bought 536 tonnes in 2012 (+17% on record 2011 levels) or 13% of total demand.”
gold-china-leaders-big

Another document issued by Edmond de Rothschild’s “Goldsphere”-enterprise analyzes the global gold-trade, the buyers, the sellers, the winners and the losers. In one of its assessments the global elite recognizes that European nations are reluctant to sell their gold stocks and the current trend is a continuous rover of gold towards the East:

“European countries are in no rush to sell their bullion reserves as they are small in value compared to their debt problems and some of the gold might already have been pledged in collateralised loans.”

While all the major strongholds of the elite are being abandoned in the US, new lairs are being set up in China. The document concludes by saying that gold-producing companies and miners are not sufficiently riding the wave of ever-rising gold prices:

“All the recent meetings we have had with gold companies tend to confirm the industry’s acceptance that gold mines and gold projects have to be better managed so as to get shareholder returns more in line with the current strong gold price. And some projects have in fact already been postponed or cancelled because of insufficient profitability.”

This puts the recent “appointment” of Rothschild by Spanish Mountain Gold somewhat into perspective doesn’t it? It seems the ancient House of Rothschild has feigned a retreat from gold in the beginning of this century, only to then snatch it again at a good prize and move it into the East- their future global engine. When Baron Benjamin de Rothschild was asked by Israeli newspaper Haaretz what the family’s intentions are in regards to China, he answered unhesitatingly “to increase our focus in that region”.

As the elite’s engine of control is incrementally deconstructed in the West, the world’s gold is gradually moving towards its new engine in the East.

Like this:

Like
Be the first to like this.

January 28, 2013 Leave a Reply

Uncategorized

How television news creates the illusion of knowledge

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=4tixiugab&v=001-jHgZ8K8LRIPqQGqDanKwx6xiz6LujcNw8TjlzME3IKtQ4jUHfbv_20TzIvnBkuHfFqNE6IPmlJsCQ1yDjQ5OP-9iOSU3NH8d6bLY_s58xo%3D

How television news creates the illusion of knowledge

How television news creates the illusion of knowledge

by Jon Rappoport

January 27, 2013

http://www.nomorefakenews.com

In analyzing network coverage of the Sandy Hook murders, I had no intention of doing a series of articles on television news, but the opportunity to deconstruct the overall grand illusion was compelling.

A number of articles later, I want to discuss yet another sleight-of-hand trick. The myth of “coverage.”

It’s familiar to every viewer. Scott Pelley, in seamless fashion, might say, “Our top story tonight, the widening conflict in Syria. For the latest on the Assad government crackdown, our coverage begins with Clarissa Ward in Damascus…” .

Clarissa Ward has entered the country secretly, posing as a tourist. She carries a small camera. In interviews with rebels, she discovers that a) there is a conflict, b) people are being arrested c) there is a funeral for a person who was killed by government soldiers, d) defiance among the citizenry is growing.

In other words, she tells us almost nothing.

But CBS is imparting the impression that her report is important. After all, it’s not just anchor Scott Pelley in the studio. It’s a journalist in the field, up close and personal. It’s coverage.

Here are a few of the many things we don’t learn from either Pelley or Ward. Who is behind the rebellion in Syria? What is their real goal? What covert role is the US playing? Why are there al Qaeda personnel there?

But who cares? We have coverage. A key hole view. It’s wonderful. It’s exciting for two minutes. If we’re already brainwashed.

Coverage in television means you have the money, crew, resources, and stand-up reporters you can send out into the field. That’s all it means. It has nothing to do with information.

CNN made its reputation by coverage, from one end of the planet to the other. Yet, what did we really learn in all those years? We learned that, by straining to the point of hernia, a cable network could present news non-stop, 24/7.

The trick of coverage is the smooth transition from anchor in the studio to reporter in the field. The reporter is standing in front of something that vaguely resembles or represents what we imagine the locale contains. A large squat government building, a tower, a marketplace, a river, a skyline.

At some point during the meaningless report, the screen splits and we see both the anchor and the reporter. This yields the impression of two concerned professionals discussing something significant.

Then we’re back to the reporter in the field filling up the whole screen.

The anchor closes with a question or two.

“Denise, have you seen any tanks in the area?”

“No Wolf, not in the last hour. But we have reports from last night of shelling in the village.”

Well, isn’t this marvelous. Wolf is in Atlanta and Denise is in Patagonia. And they’re talking to each other in real time. Therefore, they must be on top of what’s going on.

“Denise, we understand medical help arrived a short time ago.”

“Yes, Wolf. Out in the desert, in tents, surgeons are performing emergency operations on the wounded.”

Well, what else is there to know? They’ve covered it.

In a twist on this performance, Denise might say, “Government officials are cautiously optimistic about repelling the invading force.” We cut to an interview conducted by Denise, in a hotel room, a few hours earlier.

She’s sitting across from a man in a suit. He’s the minister of information for the ruling party.

Denise: Is it true, Dr. Oobladee, that rebels groups in the suburbs have taken over several branch offices of the central bank?

Dr. Oob: We don’t believe that’s accurate. Our soldiers have been providing security for families in the area.

Denise: And their fortifications are secure?

Dr. Oob: They’ve trained for this mission, yes.

Cut back to Denise standing where she was standing before.

“Wolf, as the night wears on, we hear sporadic gunfire from the civic center. It’s a repeat of the last three evenings. The rebels are determined to make a stand and not give up further ground, in this war that enters its sixth month…”

Cut back to the studio in Atlanta.

“Thank you, Denise. We’ll take a break and be back in a minute to discuss the upcoming controversial film, Cold War in a Hat, starring George Clooney.”

We went from Atlanta to a street corner in the capital of Patagonia and then to a hotel room in the city, and then back to the street corner, then to Atlanta, off to a commercial, and then back to the studio for teasers on a new film. The technology and the technique are indeed impressive. The knowledge imparted is hovering at absolute zero, but it doesn’t matter. They have coverage.

It’s on the order of a magician sawing a woman in a box in half, after which the box is opened and found to be empty.

Coverage can also be simultaneous. In the middle of the screen is the anchor, head and shoulders, talking about the latest shooting. In the upper left-hand corner is a little static scene of three police cars with flashing lights sitting near a strand of yellow tape across a front yard. At the bottom of the screen is a moving line of text recapping headlines of the hour. Coverage. Look at all that. They must know what they’re doing.

Then we have the bonanza of coverage, a story that deals cards to several reporters in the field at different locations. As always, the anchor retains control. He may have two or three reporters on screen at the same time after they individually file their thirty-second pieces.

There is a bit of crosstalk. The anchor mediates. The shipment of frozen food was tainted. Therefore, we have a reporter standing in front of FDA headquarters in Maryland, another reporter in front of the manufacturer’s home office in Indiana, and a third reporter outside a hospital emergency room in San Francisco, where a child is having his stomach pumped. There is also a three-second clip of a lab in which workers in white coats and masks are moving around, and a clip of a moving assembly line which presumably has something to do with the production of the tainted product.

The whole story, as the network tells it, could be compressed down to 20 seconds, total. But they want coverage.

On election night, a network could simply show three or four newsmen sitting around in shirtsleeves smoking cigars and talking about the Jets for a few hours, after which one of them says, “Obama just won.”

But instead, we get the circus. A half-dozen stand-ups from various campaign headquarters, a numbers guru with a high-tech map as big as a movie screen pulling up counties in the studio, an anchor “bringing it all together,” and pundits weighing in with sage estimates. Team coverage. The “best in the business.”

I love hearing Wolf Blitzer utter that line. It makes me think of a guy selling expired cheese. But after all, he has a right to promote his people. He’s not just in a studio, he’s in The Situation Room. Where there is coverage.

The height of absurdity is achieved during a violent storm. A reporter has to be standing out in the rain and vicious wind, water seeping into his shoes, holding an umbrella in one hand and a mic in the other, looking for all the world like the umbrella is going to take him up into the sky.

The storm could be shot from inside a store at ground level, and the reporter could be sitting in a chair next to the cash register peering out through the window, but that wouldn’t really be coverage.

If you were to compare the anchor/reporter-in-the-field relationship of 40 years ago to today, you’d see a stark difference. In days of yore, it was exceedingly clunky and clumsy. It was one anchor and one reporter, but at least the man in the field was expected to have something to say. Now it’s all flash and intercutting. Now it’s the technique. The facile blending. The rapid interchange of image. It’s nothing made into something.

Segueways and blends are far more important than content. The newspeople are there merely to illustrate smoothness and transition. Brian Williams (NBC) is the champion operator for this mode. He is the doctor who can impart to you a diagnosis of a disease that doesn’t exist, but you don’t care. He’s a fine waiter in an expensive restaurant who will deliver three small items in the center of a very large plate and make you feel honored. He’s a golfer with such a fine swing you don’t care how many strokes he takes to get to the green. When he shifts to his man or woman in the field, you feel he’s conferring knighthood. Brian knows coverage.

There is a phenomenon that ought to be called minus-coverage coverage. Sandy Hook gave us wall-to-wall everything without exposing a single fact behind a fact. We saw nothing but Sandy Hook for two days on end, with stand-ups from every hand on deck, and yet we learned almost zero after the first few hours.

In the second Gulf War, we were bombarded with studio and field reports, but we saw no engagement or conflict that exposed both sides in simultaneous action against each other. Embedded reporters had to pledge the life of their first-born they wouldn’t break a rule laid down for journalists by the Army command.

Modern network coverage does one important thing. It establishes a standard by which other news is measured. For most viewers, if the news can’t display full technique, full smoothness, full effortless transition, it must be lacking in some important, though undefined, way.

Coverage is almost synonymous with transition. How the news moves from anchor to reporter(s) and back is Value. This is highly significant because it mirrors what a good hypnotist is able to do. If he’s a real pro, he doesn’t just put someone in a trance and talk to him, he puts him under and then moves from one topic to another—without breaking the trance. This is a skill.

In fact, the hypnotist’s transitions are a vital aspect of the process itself. The patient feels the guidance as the scene changes before his eyes. The hypnotist (or news anchor) is presenting scene after scene and extending time without causing a jarring ripple in the still lake of consciousness.

Coverage.

Whatever a person learns in a trance state, while, for example, watching the news, functions somewhat differently from what he learns while he is awake. Trance learning tends to settle in as a lens, as a way of thereafter viewing the world. It doesn’t add content or knowledge so much as it produces a viewpoint that generates an attitude toward reality.

As in: THESE are the parameters of reality, but THOSE aren’t. I care THIS much, I don’t care THAT much. I care in THIS way, not in THAT way. I’m at THIS distance from what is happening, not at THAT distance.

To enhance this level of teaching, the major networks utilize technology and personnel in the direction of making each edition of the national news, every night, one seamless ribbon of flowing river, with straightaways, corners, turns, adjustments; never breaking, never ceasing until the last breath of the anchor and the closing music fadeout.

That’s coverage.

And the next challenge for them is the integration of commercials, so the viewer truly doesn’t register a shift of consciousness during those moments.

Some day, people will look back on the news of today and say, “How could they have altered the mood during commercials? That was ridiculous. They were really primitive, weren’t they? What were they they thinking? The whole idea is to have one uninterrupted experience.”

The blue hues in the news studio set will match up perfectly with the blues in the commercials. The sound and tone of the anchor’s voice will be mirrored by the narrator of the commercial. The pace of the commercial will match the pace of the news.

In fact, it’s already starting to happen. If you watch shows via a DVR, you might notice that fast-forwarding through commercials is a different experience these days. It used to be a cinch to stop the fast-forward when the show began again, because the colors and shapes of the commercials were so different from those of the show. But now, not so much. The commercials are tuned more closely to the programs.

Some day, the meaning of network coverage will include commercials. The one unending stream will sustain the light trance of the viewer.

Major corporate advertisers will realize they don’t want to jolt the viewer out of the show; they want to leave him in the trance. In other words, corporations won’t be so concerned about competing against other corporations. With these companies coming, more and more, under centralized ownership, under the control of big banks, the whole idea will be to tune the attitude of the viewer toward “corporate buying” in general.

Every huge corporation, allied with big government, will aim to condition the viewing audience to the State Oligarchy.

Coverage in the Matrix.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Uncategorized

The club of liberals, transhumanism, depopulation

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=4tixiugab&v=001lnBTEkB9iIFVGjcxk8R4jeJvqXxxgbrx2HaVApnnHv1XhvIwyb6IbYIe6LfFzXzbZYPwqibGc54PW0md6P9viRYrzMF4NsoCfG61tOk0pvw%3D

The club of liberals, transhumanism, depopulation

The club of liberals, transhumanism, depopulation

by Jon Rappoport

January 25, 2013

http://www.nomorefakenews.com

By liberals, I simply mean those people who accept big government as a given, regardless of their political affiliation.

And yes, at certain key levels, they are a club. They come from major media, large corporations, banks, the military, well-funded foundations, investment houses, do-good non-profits, legal and medical societies, academic factories, think tanks, and of course the huge pool of government employees.

For them, big, bigger, and biggest government is a rock-bottom assumption that requires no thought. The sun comes up every morning, and there is big government.

This assumption supersedes anything written in the US Constitution explicitly limiting the power of central authority.

Where there is conflict between that document and the actions of government, the Constitution automatically takes a back seat. It is looked upon as a primitive, ancient, and worn-out set of ideas.

In fact, the Club is surprised and shocked that anyone would try to impede government based on fanciful notions about powers reserved for the individual states, or readings of the 2nd Amendment.

Long ago, the Club decided that every statement made in the Constitution was subject to revision or outright dismissal, based on the arrogant concept that changing times require new measures and new solutions.

In their eyes, they are working with reality, whereas Constitutionalists have a quirky and disturbing obsession that clings to absolute Principle. If Principle isn’t a sign of a mental disorder, it at least indicates an unhealthy nostalgia about a fairy tale of days gone by.

The Club blithely assumes it has won its battle.

The Club is focused on what big government, in concert with its corporate allies, can do to further expand. This is where a disjunction of attitude occurs.

For some Club members, the mission of government is to do good, to give to those in need, no matter how many are in need or how much that need grows.

For other Club members, at higher levels, the massive giveaway and fulfilling of need is just a pose, a tactic to gain more adherents who will trade a great deal of their freedom for a little security.

But there is no debate within the Club about this matter. No one wants to rock the boat. Those at higher levels view the do-gooders within their ranks as useful and amusing dupes.

The do-gooders, if they glimpse the faces and intentions of the higher-ups, shrug it off, assuming that somehow, in the long run, the vision of “a shared and just world” will triumph, because the universe wants to make it so.

The Club has one major enemy.

Abundance.

The idea that there is enough for everyone who wants to work for it, the idea that individuals can pursue their deepest dreams and desires, and win…that is anathema.

Why? Because if that perception operated widely in the society, it would rule out the grasping need for invasive central government.

Therefore, creating artificial scarcities is at the top of the Club’s to-do list. Of course, this agenda must be masked behind false cover. The scarcities must seem to be inevitable, or at least caused by forces beyond our control.

Scarcity of money, health, prosperity, freedom, property, sanity, natural resources…they must appear to be naturally occurring crises, for which the only answer is parental control over populations.

When Buckminster Fuller offered his brilliant analysis of abundance and how we could achieve it on planet Earth, he was missing only one piece: who would implement it? Who would revolutionize life for all?

The obvious answer is: the people in charge. But that doesn’t work, for the simple reason that those people are dedicated to producing false scarcities.

To reject abundance, the elite Club of Rome published its famous study, “The Limits to Growth,” in 1972. It essentially used computer modeling to predict failure for civilization, and ushered in a tsunami of propaganda aimed at floating the planet’s only hope for survival: a recognition of global interdependence and the distribution of the world’s resources from a point of Central Planning.

This concept, in turn, was translated to mean “addressing needs.”

The conclusion? Big government was the addresser, the single most important institution for saving us all.

Hand in hand, elite planners and propagandists invented a loop that guaranteed the primacy of a bill of needs over a bill of rights.

Individual freedom stood accused in the dock as the criminal. It had led to the wealthy few and the poor many. A world out of balance.

Members of the Club, sitting in their massive London drawing rooms and their Park Avenue apartments, applauded this “progression of awareness.”

To say they were laughing up their sleeves would be a vast understatement.

From FDR to Truman, from Eisenhower to Kennedy, from LBJ to Nixon, from Ford to Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Bush Jr., the Club watched their plans solidify. Regardless of what these presidents said or did, government expanded, and the official status of “fulfilling needs” was welded ever more securely to government’s mission.

Finally, in a considerable victory, to symbolically signify the emergence of the “lowest to the highest,” a man who represented former slaves on the American continent took up residence in the White House.

He, above previous presidents, would raise the sword to equalize all status in society. He would right past wrongs, square past debts, and fly the flag of humanity. Justice would be served.

No matter that the condition of “his own people” would worsen during his reign. No matter that the condition of all Americans would diminish. No matter that he was the agent of a operation designed to put the crown on government as the great provider.

From Buddha to Jesus to Karl Marx, the Club has borrowed sentiments of high hope and realization, in order to sell its program. The Club has cast its role as the messianic force. It has filled the pews of its church with followers, who have no clue as to the actual plan, but instead mouth the words and sing the songs and praise the gifts.

The marketing of these sentiments, their weave, fabric, tone, and flow are the substance of a trance induction.

And at the end of the line? America harmonized in its structure with other nations, and the subsuming of the USA under a regional and global arch of management.

As David Rockefeller, one of the designers of the plan, put it in his 2003 Memoirs: “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

There are millions of people who refuse to believe that a high humanitarian sentiment or ideal can be enrolled and deployed to defeat us. They automatically assume what stirs them is for the good.

They are crowded together in the middle of the trance. They clog the arteries of the body politic. They foment a disease of the public immune system attacking itself, and it is long past the time when they should wake up and cure their distorted perception.

But as far as the Club is concerned, they are useful. And useful they will stay, as long as they can be hypnotized into the future glory that lies just over the next hill.

And now we come to the technocrats.

The technocrats among Club leaders consider the overall mission in terms of a systems fix. There are flaws in the way humans have chosen to organize themselves, and these flaws need to be corrected.

With the important information entered into computers armed with algorithms, models can be obtained. These models will take into account vital resources, such as water, breathable air, earth minerals, fuel, food crops, transportation, housing, education, medical care, and so on. Planetary allocation quotas for all territories and regions can be arrived at.

Dispassionately, the human condition can be modified.

The technocrats consider this an interesting problem. It will take work, but it can be solved.

Certain factors, however, must be reduced or eliminated. Freedom, choice, personal decision-making have to be devalued in the new System, in order to avoid the introduction of random and unpredictable outcomes.

The very meaning of a technocratic system precludes freedom as an objective, because that quality of humans isn’t circumscribed and can’t be inserted as a pure passive object into calculations.

Technocrats value systems above all. They live to build self-referential closed structures. This fascination negates a whole range of emotions.

The technocrats aren’t admirers of emotion, which are unpredictable when it comes to the mathematics of a new planet.

Joy, for example. How would one enter joy into an equation? How could it be quantified?

Technocrats are, in a sense, a separate species. They are intensely cerebral. They view human beings as troublesome pieces of a puzzle. A system is erected on the basis of built-in controls. Humans tend not to fit.

This they find annoying. But there are ways to limit the trouble. Chemicals can be introduced into the brain. The chemicals will regulate behavior. This is another interesting problem awaiting a solution, a whole series of solutions. The drugs we now have are only a minor step in the right direction.

It’s all in the service of a better system, which is what technocrats must have. They would wither and die if they couldn’t have it. They would feel isolated and useless and rejected.

If you want to see a technocrat squirm and wriggle and scream, like a person being tortured, take away his access to systems.

The greatest acceleration of human organization took place in the century just past. The obsession for big, bigger, and biggest flowered as never before. Now, in this century, the push is for refinement. To the technocrat, that means much greater definition of roles for humans.

Specialization will take on new restrictions and regulations. Plugging people into a system is one thing; carefully ordering their limits and restraints is another.

Take the long view of this century. The overall aim is for a structure that will encompass the actions of every human on Earth; every person with a designated function rigorously placed in the correct slot.

This will be promoted as salvation. It will be floated as the genius of the species finally taking hold.

However, it’s clear that for such an enormous structure, machines will perform better as workers than people in most cases. As Bucky Fuller pointed out, automation is the wave of the future.

Then what is to be done with humans?

The obvious answer is massive depopulation.

This is on the drawing board. No doubt about it. It is being enacted in certain regions.

But there is a significant glitch. Among the most important Club members are heads and owners and financiers of mega-corporations.

Those corporations are already experiencing dead time in their operations. Their production lines are moving at half-mast, because the available consumer base is too small. Out of the world’s population, perhaps only a billion people have the means to participate in what is commonly understood as the consumer economy. Corporations can accommodate far greater numbers.

This is a genuine conflict. It has been brewing for some time.

If you have any knowledge about the men who run these companies, you know they will not go gently into the good night of major depopulation. That would reduce their consumer base to a much greater degree.

So far, all attempts to artificially create more consumers has failed. The overall picture hasn’t markedly changed, nor does it appear vast government giveaways will do the job in the future.

There is a thread of Globalist calculation that appears to be an answer to the problem. It’s based on the old Nazi presumption of a lost master race, a genetic strain certain Nazi leaders were dreaming and fantasizing about—and trying to recreate.

The new IG Farben (a vast chemical/pharmaceutical Nazi cartel) is a loose collection of corporations that now constitutes global leadership in pharmaceutical/genetic research. It certainly wants to invent “enhanced humans.” This is one of its prime goals. A laboratory-induced master race.

Here is my opinion on how the hideous project could proceed:

Over time, through food, drugs, and definitely vaccines, genetic factors would be inserted in human beings to render them infertile. The gradually ensuing decline in new births would be explained away by false cover stories. These stories, particularly when they come from “eminent researchers,” would be rather easy to sell.

As the global population decreases, a re-seeding and replacement operation would be launched.

This would certainly include genetically enhanced humans, but it would also consist of favored body profiles and races, because the overall program is most assuredly a racialist scheme.

In those regions where the population is made to fall, import the favored humans and genetically enhanced specimens.

This isn’t ultimately a depopulation program at all. In its later stages, it is quite the opposite. The objective is to reduce and then bring back a full ten or 20 billion people on the planet.

It’s all about replacement. It’s all about the assumption that “superior humans” will flourish. They will buy and consume the products of the mega-corporations. They will carry out, to a T, their assigned roles in the new civilization, along side the machines of the technocrats.

It’s a plan to: rewrite the future; and, when things are humming again, to forget the genocidal past entirely, in four or five generations.

This would solve the conflict within the Club, among the technocrats, the mega-corporations, and the Rockefeller-type Globalists.

And somewhere today, a young person, filled to the brim with vague ideals and hope, buying the promise that everyone’s needs will be met, that suffering and pain and injustice will be solved, has no clue that such pretty thoughts can be hijacked in the service of building a system to eradicate what it means to be alive.

This young person thinks freedom, liberty, and the intentions of the Constitution are frivolous obstructions to a better world.

Dispense with the Constitution. It isn’t part of the modern trend.

Instead, join the crowd. Shout with delight for the political salvation that is only a few more joined hands from realization.

Forget. Believe. Go along.

Reject as absurd the possibility that elite planners have a completely different version of the world in tow.

Yell for equality, whatever that may be shaped to mean.

Think about nothing. Just swim into the days with faith born from what our leaders are selling on the shore of the new shining city.

Believe. Trust.

Your job isn’t to imagine and invent your own reality. That is a meaningless proposition.

No, your job is to love the State because the State loves you.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Uncategorized

Monsanto Formally Joins Global Agenda 21 Front Group | ExplosiveReports.Com

http://explosivereports.com/2013/01/24/monsanto-formally-joins-global-agenda-21-front-group/

Monsanto Formally Joins Global Agenda 21 Front Group

Gallery

MONSANTO-1

Jurriaan Maessen
ExplosiveReports.Com
January 24, 2013

The global front group of the Agenda 21 program which was formalized during the UN’s 1992 Earth Summit is proud to welcome Monsanto as its newest “member”, joining the likes of such “sustainable” businesses as Coca Cola, Dutch Royal Shell and other global leviathans.

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) has put out a press release, announcing that Monsanto has joined the effort for “global sustainable development”. The Council consists of several global mega-corporations such as Dutch Royal Shell and Coca Cola, to mention just a few.

The press-release notes that by joining the Council “Monsanto is taking an important step along a continuum towards developing a more sustainable agriculture system – one that improves our daily lives, respects our global environment and recognizes the importance of the world’s small-holder farmers”.

President of the WBCSD, Peter Bakker, stated that “a future vision” is required to move “to protect soils, enhance ecosystems and optimize land use in ways that are environmentally sound.”

“(…) we must move towards a future vision for agriculture where absolutes become as out of place as a one-size-fits-all approach to farming.”

Jerry Steiner, Executive Vice President, Sustainability and Corporate Affairs at Monsanto said:

“We are excited to join the WBCSD and connect with a global coalition of more than 200 companies that advocate for progress on sustainable development.”

The global coalition Steiner speaks about consists of just about all global mega-corporations. Here’s an overview of the membership-list as posted on the WBCSD’s website:

Companies_web banner_011012

The Council on their website admits that it strives to execute Agenda 21 as part of a “One World Vision”. Furthermore, the WBCSD describes that it “has its roots in the proactive stance adopted by a group of visionary business leaders during and after the Rio Summit.”

“The Rio Summit in 1992 was a defining event for sustainable development. It added development to the environmental agenda, produced the Rio Declaration, the Climate Change and Biological Diversity Conventions and set in motion Agenda 21. Importantly, it positioned business as a key actor.”

Adding global GM food producer Monsanto to its roundtable equals victory for Agenda 21, as global food production is a prime concern as formulated during the 1992 Earth Summit.

Peter Bakker, the Council’s president, recently gave a speech in London for prince Charles, stating he is “delighted to be able to announce that WBCSD will collaborate with the Prince of Wales’ Accounting for Sustainability programme in convening a forum for CFOs and Accountants to discuss and develop scaled up solutions for finance and reporting in the run up to 2020”.

Bakker stated:

bakkerhrh
“In 1992 the United Nations organized the first Earth Summit in Rio and Agenda 21 was published. If you read this document today you will be amazed at how relevant the descriptions of the world’s challenges are still in 2012 – only their urgency has increased since 1992.”

In 2011 the Council prepared a document for the latest Earth Summit in 2012 titled Vision 2050. In the document a “radical strategy” is being proposed in order to achieve this “one world” under an Agenda 21 regime:

“From 2020 to 2050, the traits formed during the first decade mature into more consistent knowledge, behavior and solutions. It is a period of growing consensus as well as wrenching change in many parts of society – climate, economic power, population – and a time for fundamental change in markets that redefines values, profits and success.”

The manuscript stresses that the vision for 2050 entails, among other things, a stabilization of the global population and a redistributing of the global population into compact cities:

“In 2050, some 9 billion people live well, and within the limits of the planet. The global population has begun to stabilize, mainly due to the education and economic empowerment of women and increased urbanization. More than 6 billion people, two-thirds of the population, live in cities. People have the means to meet their basic human needs, including the need for dignified lives and meaningful roles in their communities.”

Another aspect of the described “vision” relates to a new “green revolution” and the use of biotechnologies to “feed the world”:

A 21st century version of the Green Revolution has helped the larger 2050 population meet its nutrition needs. Improved agricultural practices, water efficiency, new crop varieties and new technologies, including biotechnologies, have allowed a doubling of agricultural output without associated increases in the amount of land or water used.”

This, of course, is where our old friend Monsanto comes into play, which has now formally aligned itself with the global coordinating group of Agenda 21.

Like this:

Like
Be the first to like this.

January 24, 2013 Leave a Reply

Uncategorized

Hillary Clinton’s E-Journal Retracts Neo-Malthusian Essay By Crocodile Hunter’s Daughter | E xplosiveReports.Com

http://explosivereports.com/2013/01/24/hillary-clintons-e-journal-retracts-neo-malthusian-essay-by-crocodile-hunters-daughter/

Hillary Clinton’s E-Journal Retracts Neo-Malthusian Essay By Crocodile Hunter’s Daughter

Gallery

bindi-irwin

Jurriaan Maessen
ExplosiveReports.Com
January 24, 2013

According to the daughter of the late Steve Irwin, her essay on the “population problem” was first edited, then retracted altogether by the editors of the State Department’s e-journal.

Bindi Irwin, the now 14-year old daughter of the late Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin was apparently invited by the editors of the State Department’s e-journal as part of Clinton’s “endangered species initiative” to write an essay on how the young Irwin views wildlife conservationism. Irwin, in response to the assignment, spoke her mind, regurgitating the same old neo-Malthusian death-talk we have become accustomed with from the mouths of conservationists such as David Attenborough, Paul Ehrlich and other people devoted to reducing the world’s population “for the earth”.

When the editors of Hillary Clinton’s State Department’s online journal received Irwin’s essay, they returned the thing with all references to “overpopulation” edited out.

Bindi’s mother, Terri Irwin, spoke to News.com.au, stating that “she (Bindi) was asked to write an essay about the environment and included the consideration of population (growth) and they returned her essay edited and completely edited that out.”

“So Bindi wrote to Hillary Clinton’s organisation and said ‘what happened to freedom of speech?”, Terri Irwin continued.

After the editors of Hillary Clinton’s journal told Irwin there wasn’t enough time for a rewrite, Bindi decided to withdraw the article altogether.

As I said, Irwin’s original, unedited essay contains classical Malthusian and Ehrlichian thinking based on the faulty opinion that more people means less resources.

“I believe that most problems in the world today, such as climate change, stem from one immense problem which seems to be the ‘elephant in the room’ that no-one wants to talk about.”, Bindi writes.

Further on she writes: “How is it possible that our fragile planet can sustain these masses of people.”

I assume Irwin wrote her essay in ignorance. She might be persuaded to think otherwise after seeing the following video:

In any case it seems the State Department is extremely cautious on the subject, perhaps afraid to be subjected to all kinds of criticism for openly providing a platform to advocates of population control (although there are still some first class neo-Malthusian snakes slithering around the White House). In the final equation, I think the government’s caution in regards to everything relating to this subject is a good thing. After all, it shows they are on the defense, knowing that a growing number of people have become aware of the elite’s depopulation plans.

Like this:

Like
Be the first to like this.

January 24, 2013 Leave a Reply