BOMBSHELL Study: Covid ‘Vaccines’ Alter Human Behavior
Proof that the covid-19 vaccine causes mental illness
Leading Cardiologist: 100 Million Vaccinated Americans May Have IRREVERSIBLE Heart Damage
Bombshell Study Exposes Toxic Effects of Covid mRNA ‘Vaccines’
FDA ‘s Process of Drug and Vaccine Evaluation, Part I
HORRIFIC: Heart Attacks in 2-Year-Olds…Courtesy of the Clot Shots
HOW DID THEY SAY COVID VACCINES WERE “SAFE”?
Another trick you need to know about
Some good news for a change! From those medical professionals who do actually adhere to the Hippocratic Oath. Meanwhile in the US folk are still being told ‘Trust the Science’. Unfortunately, some NZ Councils are falling in line). EWNZ
From nzdso.com
We are encouraged and heartened by a recent vote taken by the Whangarei District Council resolving NOT to chemically fluoridate the city’s water supply despite the direction given by the former Director General of Health (DGoH) Dr Ashley Bloomfield and now being continued by the current DGoH Dr Diana Sarfati.
The councillors of Whangarei who voted NO are to be commended for having listened to their constituents and having taken it upon themselves to look at the science and human rights issues rather than just trusting and obeying the words of the Ministry of Health.
Despite many approaches from concerned individuals, groups and councils, the Ministry of Health and Dr Sarfati have refused to engage in discussion or conversation, instead referring those asking questions to out-of-date reports, ignoring the questions altogether or doubling down on their threatening behaviour.
If the science is so settled in their favour, the Ministry of Health should be able to engage in a polite public discussion, answer questions and defend their actions. They should be able to explain why the risk of neurotoxicity to children in the US that has caused a Federal Court to rule that action must be taken, does not apply to New Zealand children.
Perhaps Dr Reti could provide the different science he believes in such that he can discount the US neurotoxicology report?
If the benefits are so large and the risks so small that it is justified to override right 11 (Right to refuse to undergo medical treatment) of the NZ Bill of Rights, it should be straightforward to provide a BORA analysis. However, it is over a year since Dr Sarfati was ordered by the courts to produce one and it is yet to be provided.
Not once has Dr Sarfati been seen publicly justifying her actions and threats to councils. She continues to hide behind her officials and lawyers (all funded by the taxpayer, of course).
Despite repeated requests the MoH has not been able to point to any research that shows the combination of fluoride and chlorine in NZ water has been proven to be safe, particularly for iodine-dependent tissues such as the thyroid gland and female breast.
Despite several inquiries it is still not clear who the official provider of the medical treatment (water fluoridation) is. The MoH says it has no provider-consumer relationship with the recipients of the medication, so it is not responsible, while the local councils say they are following orders and are not medically responsible. Meanwhile, the Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC) has just answered an OIA enquiry, saying it too has no responsibility for protecting our rights against compulsory medical treatment with fluoridation chemicals. That’s strange as the law says exactly that. Another agency throwing up its hands.
The impacts of fluoridated water discharged into the environment also appear not to have been considered and many questions remain unanswered.
In ordinary times when a doctor or health practitioner is helping a person to make a medical decision, they would consider the benefits, risks and alternatives.
Current research shows the benefits of community water fluoridation in a time when fluoride is readily available (to those who want it) from other sources (such as toothpaste or a visit to the dental nurse) are minimal to non-existent.
Current research also shows that the harm from ingested fluoride on developing brains is serious, as per the US Government’s National Toxicology Program (NTP) report recently released under court order.
There are far better ways of obtaining the outcome that, presumably, we all want – healthy teeth for all New Zealanders. These include avoiding sugary drinks, eating better, optimising levels of micronutrients and healthy bacteria, brushing teeth, and attending to dental problems early.
We urge other councils to take a closer look at the science and human rights issues involved, listen to their communities and (take similar actions) push back against over-reach, community harm and commercial agreements.
Thank you very much to the courageous councillors of Whangarei.
Image Credit: pixabay.com
He spoke up very loudly early on in the plandemic and put his colleagues on notice about administering the treatment hailed as ‘safe and effective’ but which he had noted, was killing people. Do watch his clip – he is bold and specific in his announcement…
“Stop forcing these vaccines on people who are getting killed by them!”
Before long many of these white coats, I now refer to them as, start filing out one by one.
They are no longer to be trusted.
He doesn’t blame them however and explains that they are powerfully persuaded by Big pHarma and peer/colleague pressure.
Notice how lamestream headlines in caps the anti vax rhetoric. Anything to divert your attention from his real message.
EWNZ
Learn more at the many links below:
Dr William Bay’s Landmark Victory in Queensland Court: What It Means for Medical Freedom (NZDSOS)
How BIG PHARMA SURGICALLY INDOCTRINATES someone without them even KNOWING! or Why so Few Stood Up to the Tyranny
The Courage And Triumph Of Dr. Billy Bay: Bravo Australia! Thank You For Showing It’s Possible To Persist and Prevail Over These Evil Snakes of mRNA Totalitarianism
By Frank Rowson
Posted by Ursula Edgington, PhD @ Informed Heart substack
Good news in NZ though, Whangarei DC recently rejected the order to fluoridate EWNZ
1. In 1962, Rachel Carson stated:
“We are rightly appalled by the genetic effects of radiation: how then can we be indifferent to the same effect in chemicals that we disseminate widely in our environment”.
“poisoning humanity with the consent of scientists whose knowledge and concept of toxicity dates back to the Stone Age, and we have become the victims of cancer, nerve paralysis, genetic mutations, and…are now in no better situation than Borgia’s guests”.
An excellent short doco about fluoride use in New Zealand’s drinking water, can be found here.
Fluoride is a byproduct of the agrichem industry, and defined as a hazardous substance.
a) MoH has taken on sole administration in this matter when:
it has neither the authority, expertise nor knowledge to administer what is an environmental and animal health issue: in fact evidence in the promulgation of this FA suggests they have no expertise or knowledge of the many adverse effects of their pollution of public water supplies for the last 60 years with fluoride and other ecotoxic Hazardous Substances (HS) from the fertiliser industry all of which are accumulative and potentiate each other.
[ii] This role belongs to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) which is the case in the USA, and which has had no role in the promulgation of this FA and failed to provide ALL relevant information to Parliament or courts. EPA have also failed to inform MoH this FA is outside their remit, exceeding their powers..
[iii] The Ministry of Primary industries (MPI) has also failed in their duty to provide relevant information in a matter that has serious repercussions in animal food and health and hence human health issues; this demonstrates the serious lack of competence to fulfil their obligations, including failure to perform due diligence to safeguard the health and safety of the food chain; and to inform MoH this FA contravenes the statutes which MPI administer.
Unlucky for some….
Informed Heart is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Image credit: pixabay.com
From Agent131711 @ substack
This stack is I believe, the last bastion of Agent131711, he’s been removed from various venues already. Exposing too many untruths? EWNZ
I don’t throw around the word “scam” but when it comes to Plastic “Recycling”, this is some next-level-Enron-sh*t that is going to blow your mind and equally make you livid that you spent all those years peeling labels. I have Carpal tunnel from my mom making my 9-year-old-self soak and scrub off labels in the late 1980s (I’m joking…but for real, those labels were a pain in the… hand.
So yeah, the government essentially created the plastic industry during WWII and this is what ultimately led to the birth of Big Plastic. Now keep in mind, Plastics are produced from what? Natural Gas and Crude Oil. Who regulates natural gas? The government. Who owned oil? Rockefeller. [insert DUN, DUN, DUNNNNNNNN! sound effect]
The problem was that, unlike glass, plastic didn’t break, so people were not becoming repeat-plastic customers so, in order for this to be a goldmine, the industry needed people to keep buying more and more and more plastic. What they did was so incredibly diabolical that it will make you wonder how on earth they can ever utter the phrase “climate change”… be sure to send this article to your mother who made you prep the recyclables… (30 second video)
Watch & read at the LINK
From: slaynews.com
via Exposing the Darkness @ substack
“Edward Dowd, world-renowned data expert has just issued a red alert after uncovering evidence that reveals excess deaths are continuing to skyrocket in children who received” the safe & effective treatment.
By Frank Bergman December 12, 2024
A world-renowned data expert has just issued a red alert after uncovering evidence that reveals excess deaths are continuing to skyrocket in children who received Covid mRNA “vaccines.”
According to an alarming warning from leading Wall Street data analyst Ed Dowd, excess child deaths are still accelerating and show no sign of slowing down.
Dowd is a former executive at the world’s largest investment firm BlackRock and is considered one of America’s leading data experts.
Through his expert analysis of insurance industry data, Dowd has become a prominent figure in investigations into the impact of the global Covid vaccination campaign.
Dowd is currently a founding partner with Phinance Technologies a global macro alternative investment firm.
The team at Phinance, which includes a handful of high-level scientists, data analysts, and financial experts, has been investigating surges in deaths and injuries following the Covid “vaccine” rollout.
During a new interview on “The Jimmy Dore Show,” Dowd produced shocking data showing that excess child deaths are still surging higher, long after the Covid mRNA “vaccines” were first released almost four years ago.
Dowd made the discovery while analyzing the official data from the UK government’s Office for National Statistics (ONS).
“The UK has a problem,” Down warns.
However, while the deaths were identified in UK data, the trend is most likely reflected in other nations with a similar mass vaccination protocol, including the United States, Canada, Australia, and much of Europe.
Dowd’s data shows that excess deaths for children aged one to fourteen have surged higher each year since the Covid mRNA “vaccines” were rolled out in 2021.
According to Dowd, excess deaths for children in this age group spiked by a staggering 22% in 2023 – the last full year of data.
Dowd notes that this trend didn’t start until “the magic juice started to be issued to children later in 2021.”
The data shows that deaths were actually lower than expected in 2020 but started surging in 2021.
According to Dowd’s findings, each year’s data shows:
As Dowd notes, while the “vaccines” were rolled out for public use in early 2021, they were authorized for children later in the year.
Although the data for 2024 isn’t yet complete, Dowd reveals that, so far, the official figures show that the surging death trend has continued through this year.
“Figures from the Office for National Statistics show about 10% more deaths (across all age groups) than expected since April this year,” Down adds.
Yet, despite the clear correlation with the mass vaccination campaign, UK health officials insist that “circulatory diseases and diabetes are … behind the increase.”
WATCH: (click on image for video at rumble)
The revelation comes as Dowd and his team continue to uncover alarming data exposing the impact of the Covid mRNA “vaccines” on public health.
As Slay News previously reported, Dowd recently exposed the shocking number of sudden and unexpected deaths caused by the Covid mRNA “vaccines” around the world.
Dowd revealed that up to 15 million people have now been killed by the injections globally.
During an interview with Bret Weinstein, former professor of evolutionary biology, Dowd dropped bombshell figures for the number of vaccinated people who have died suddenly and unexpectedly.
“So five billion people on the planet got a vaccine of some sort,” Down told Weinstein.
“If you apply the range of the death rate in the US that I gave you earlier, you get a range of globally 7.3 million to 15 million died from the vaccine.”
Dowd’s upper-range numbers align with figures produced by leading expert Denis Rancourt, a former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa.
Rancourt estimates that 17 million people have been killed by the Covid shots.
However, despite the alarming nature of the death toll figures, Down revealed that the situation is far direr.
Dowd continued by detailing the number of people left injured and disabled from the injections.
“Disabilities, when you look at the ratio of four to one, you multiply the 7 million and the 15, approximately 15 million times four, you get a range of 29 to 60 million disabled globally.
“And then injuries, if you take 18% of the vaccinated, just using the Pfizer [trial data], so that again, this could be money, but we get a range of at the high end, 900 million, 500 million at the low end injured.
“500 million to 900 million who had an injury that has not disabled.”
WATCH (click on the image below):
RELATED
(info on NZ’s Data Analyst Barry Young’s revelations)
NZ’s Vaccine Data Whistleblower Could Face up to 7 Years in Prison
To review the long lists of ‘Died Suddenly’ world wide see the substack of Dr Mark Crispin Miller (NY University) who is documenting them. More recently the listings of children began to increase.
Image by Soledadsnp from Pixabay
From Dr. Suneel Dhand @ substack
“Clown world” doesn’t even begin to describe the absurdity gripping certain corners of the medical establishment. It’s hard to fathom, but one of the newest and most heavily promoted initiatives for healthcare professionals is to get involved in combating climate change. Yes, climate change. At a time when the very foundations of healthcare are crumbling—longer wait times, skyrocketing costs, and millions struggling to see a doctor and get good care—this has somehow become a top priority for some medical leaders.
Go ahead and Google “doctors and climate change.” You’ll find an avalanche of articles from supposedly respected organizations promoting this agenda. Medical journals are also full of articles on “climate and healthcare.” Many are suggesting that doctors should shift their focus from immediate patient care to becoming warriors in the battle against a phenomenon as complex as Earth’s climate.
Let’s be clear: the climate has been evolving for billions of years. To suggest that human beings can wield complete control over such vast systems is, frankly, ludicrous. Of course, we should care for our environment responsibly and strive to make it as clean and non-polluting as possible—but making climate change a healthcare priority? That’s insane.
The state of healthcare today is nothing short of a disaster in many Western countries. Patients face unprecedented barriers to accessing basic care. Chronic conditions—largely preventable through proper lifestyle interventions—are skyrocketing. Yet, rather than addressing these glaring issues, medical schools and healthcare organizations are diverting attention to training “climate-savvy” doctors.
A piece from CNN highlights this perfectly. Published just a few months ago, it encapsulates this new movement.
The article discusses a new program designed to “mint certified experts in climate medicine.” This program claims to prepare doctors to combat “climate-driven health effects”. Medical schools are also rushing to include climate change in their curriculums— all while basic courses on nutrition and metabolic health remain glaringly absent from medical education.
One anecdote in the piece described a doctor motivated by a serious summer heatwave. Another highlighted an oncologist inspired by a patient who passed away during a winter storm. Tragic weather events, sure—but natural disasters have occurred since the dawn of time. Meanwhile, real medical emergencies—including our failing healthcare system and metabolic health catastrophe (patients battling obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and other lifestyle-related inflammatory diseases)—are being sidelined.
Ultimately, it’s the patients who pay the price for these misplaced priorities as doctors’ attention shifts away from where it should be. Instead of focusing on what truly matters—helping individuals improve their health through real evidence-based interventions, giving our patients better access to care, adequately staffing healthcare facilities, encouraging lifestyle changes, and campaigning against the corporate-driven establishment that creates a toxic food environment and pharma-happy culture—leaders are chasing an agenda far removed from patient needs and would truly benefit the general public.
This is why so many people have dismal experiences with healthcare, and suffering continues to escalate. The system is failing because those at the top prioritize flashy, ideological campaigns over fixing what’s broken.
I urge you to stay grounded. I know you are sensible—after all, that’s why you’re here. While the above may seem somewhat amusing, it’s actually a travesty for healthcare. Let’s focus on what truly matters: improving the system, empowering our patients, and addressing the root causes of our health crises.
Keep calling out their nonsense. Don’t let them fool you or divert your attention.
Best regards,
Dr. Suneel Dhand
www.drsuneeldhand.com
Do share my newsletter with anyone else who may enjoy reading!
From expose-news.com via Meryl Nass @ Substack
In 1996, Henry Lamb exposed the UN’s plan to take over the world using a book the UN had published the year before. The title of the book is ‘Our Global Neighbourhood’.
Written by 28 “experts” the book describes a global taxation scheme to fund the UN’s operations; a standing UN army; an Economic Security Council; UN authority over the global commons, expanded authority for the Secretary-General and much more. By 1996, some of the plans had already been implemented. As the years have gone by, more and more of the plan has been and is being rolled out.
Henry Lamb was a renowned expert on global governance and its implications on individual freedom and private property rights. He was the author of ‘The Rise of Global Governance’. He was also the author of the article ‘The UN and Property Rights’, the report ‘Global Governance: Why? How? When?’ and a columnist for Renew America. And chairman of Sovereignty International, a non-profit organisation dedicated to promoting individual sovereignty and limited government, founder of the Environmental Conservation Organisation and Freedom21, Inc.
In 1996, Lamb gave a t talk on the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Wildlands Project at the Granada Forum.
“All of the conspiracy theories that you’ve ever heard about ‘One World Government’, about the UN takeover of the world, all of those conspiracies have now been laid to rest,” he said. “There’s nothing conspiratorial about it. It’s all published!”
“The UN-funded Commission on Global Governance began meeting in 1992, in earnest … and last fall released their final report. It is entitled ‘Our Global Neighbourhood’,” he said.
After briefly describing the 1995 document, he goes on to talk about Agenda 21, the Biodiversity Treaty, The Wildlands Project and the Global Biodiversity Assessment.
If the video above is removed from YouTube, you can watch it on Rumble HERE and BitChute HERE. Hyperlinks to some of the documents referred to above can be found HERE.
In the video above, Lamb also mentioned topics on which we have previously published articles: Agenda 21, the Biodiversity Treaty, The Wildlands Project, Global Biodiversity Assessment and the 30×30 plan. See our articles HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.
Further resources: Agenda 21 Course: Confronting Agenda 21 (Part 3), Henry Lamb, 8 March 2013
For this article, we are focusing on the first document Lamb mentioned: ‘Our Global Neighbourhood’.
Our Global Neighbourhood is the report of the Commission on Global Governance issued in 1995. The Commission on Global Governance, an international commission of 28 people, was established in 1992 to suggest new ways in which the international community might cooperate to further an agenda of global security.
The report presented the Commission’s conclusions and recommendations for discussion at the General Assembly of the United Nations’ 50th-anniversary session. Divided into seven chapters, the report served as “a call to action,” encouraging world leaders and non-governmental actors to work together toward achieving the goals expressed by the commission.
‘Our Global Neighbourhood’ was 410 pages long. A shorter version, 120 pages, can be found HERE and archived HERE.
In 1996, Henry Lamb published ‘A Summary Analysis’ which is 22 pages. The following is a summary of Lamb’s analysis. You can read his full analysis HERE.
Table of Contents
The Commission on Global Governance released its recommendations in preparation for a World Conference on Global Governance, scheduled for 1998, where official world governance treaties were expected to be adopted for implementation by the year 2000.
The Commission’s proposals included expanding the authority of the United Nations (“UN”) to provide global taxation, a standing UN army, an Economic Security Council, UN authority over the global commons and an end to the veto power of permanent members of the Security Council.
Other proposals include the establishment of a new parliamentary body of “civil society” representatives (“NGOs”), a new “Petitions Council”, a new Court of Criminal Justice, binding verdicts of the International Court of Justice and expanded authority for the UN Secretary-General.
The Commission consisted of 28 people, carefully selected for their prominence, influence, and ability to effect the implementation of the recommendations. It was endorsed by the UN Secretary-General and funded through various trust funds and foundations.
The Commission on Global Governance has released its recommendations in preparation for a World Conference on Global Governance, scheduled for 1998, where official world governance treaties are expected to be adopted for implementation by the year 2000.
‘Our Global Neighbourhood’, was published by Oxford University Press in 1995 and reflects the work of dozens of different agencies and commissions over several years.
The Commission on Global Governance was established in 1992 with 28 members and funding from the UNDP, nine national governments and private foundations.
The Commission was formed after a report on global governance opportunities was presented in April 1991, in Stockholm, by Ingvar Carlsson, then Prime Minister of Sweden, and Shirdath Ramphal, Secretary General of the Commonwealth.
The report was initially requested by former West German Chancellor Willy Brandt, who called a group of international leaders to Konigswinter, Germany in January 1990.
The Commission’s co-chairmen, Ingvar Carlsson and Shirdath Ramphal, met with UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali in April 1992 to secure his endorsement of the effort.
1. Ingvar Carlsson, Sweden Prime Minister of Sweden 1986-91, and Leader of the Social Democratic Party in Sweden.
2.Shirdath Ramphal, Guyana Secretary-General of the Commonwealth from 1975 to 1990, President of the IUCN, Chairman of the Steering Committee of the Leadership in Environment and Development Program; Chairman, Advisory Committee, Future Generations Alliance Foundation, Chancellor, University of the West Indies, and the University of Warwick in Britain, member of five international commissions in the 1980s, and author of Our Country, The Planet, written especially for the Earth Summit.
3. Ali Alatas, Indonesia Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia since 1988; permanent representative to the United Nations.
4. Abdlatif Al-Hamad, Kuwait Director-General and Chairman of the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development in Kuwait. Former Minister of Finance and Minister of Planning; member of the Independent Commission on International Development Issues; Board member of the Stockholm Environment Institute.
5. Oscar Arias, Costa Rica President of Costa Rica from 1986 to 1990; drafted the Arias Peace Plan which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize; founded the Arias Foundation for Peace and Human Progress.
6. Anna Balletbo i Puig, Spain Member of the Spanish Parliament since 1979; member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and on Radio and Television; Executive Committee of the Socialist Party in Catalonia; General Secretary of the Olof Palme International Foundation; President of Spain’s United Nations Association; and activist on women’s issues since 1975.
7. Kurt Biedenkopf, Germany Minister-President of Saxony since 1990; member of the Federal Parliament; Secretary General of the Christian Democratic Union of Germany.
8. Allan Boesak, South Africa Minister for Economic Affairs for the Western Cape Region; Director of the Foundation for Peace and Justice; Chairman of the African National Congress (ANC); President of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and a Patron of the United Democratic Front.
9. Manuel Camacho Solis, Mexico Former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Mayor of Mexico City; Mexico’s Secretary of Urban Development and Ecology.
10. Bernard Chidzero, Zimbabwe Minister of Finance; Deputy Secretary-General of UNCTAD; Chairman of the Development Committee of the World Bank and the IMF; and member of the World Commission on Environment and Development.
11. Barber Conable, a former United States President of the World Bank, is mentioned alongside his roles as Chairman of the Committee on US-China Relations and Senior Advisor to the Global Environment Facility.
12. Jacques Delors, President of the European Commission since 1985, is noted for his positions as Minister for Economics, Finance and Budget, and Mayor of Clichy.
13. Jiri Dienstbier, Chairman of the Free Democrats Party in the Czech Republic, also served as Deputy Prime Minister of Foreign Affairs.
14. Enrique Iglesias, President of the Inter-American Development Bank since 1988, held various positions including Minister of External Relations and Executive Secretary of the UN Economic Commission for Latin America.
15. Frank Judd, a member of the House of Lords in the United Kingdom, served as Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Minister for Overseas Development, and Director of Oxfam.
16. Hongkoo Lee, Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Korea, held positions as Minister of National Unification, Ambassador to the United Kingdom, and Professor of Political Science at Seoul National University.
17. Wangari Maathai, founder of the Green Belt Movement in Kenya, also served as Chair of the National Council of Women of Kenya and spokesperson for non-government organizations at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio.
18. Sadako Ogata, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees since 1991, held positions as Director of the International Relations Institute and Chairman of the Executive Board of UNICEF.
19. Olara Otunnu, President of the International Peace Academy in New York, served as Foreign Minister of Uganda and Chaired the UN Commission on Human Rights.
20. I.G. Patel, Chairman of the Aga Khan Rural Support Programme, held various positions including Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, Chief Economic Adviser to the Indian Government, and Deputy Administrator of the United Nations Development Program.
21. Celina Vargas do Amaral Peixoto, Director of the Getulio Vargas Foundation, also served as Director-General of the Brazilian National Archives and Director of the Centre of Research and Documentation on Brazilian History.
22. Jan Pronk, Minister for Development Co-operation in the Netherlands, held positions as Vice Chairman of the Labor Party, Member of Parliament, and Deputy Secretary-General of UNCTAD.
23. Qian Jiadong, Deputy Director-General of the China Centre for International Studies, served as Ambassador and Permanent Representative in Geneva to the United Nations and Ambassador for Disarmament Affairs.
24. Marie-Angelique Savane, Director of the Africa Division of the UN Population Fund, held positions as Director of the UNFPA in Dakar, Advisor to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and President of the Association of African Women for Research and Development.
25. Adele Simmons, President of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, served as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the UN High Level Advisory Board on Sustainable Development, and President Carter’s Commission on World Hunger.
26. Maurice Strong is a prominent figure from Canada, holding multiple positions including Chairman and CEO of Ontario Hydro, Chairman of the Earth Council, and Secretary-General of Earth Summits I and II. He is also a member of the World Commission on Environment and Development, and his work is featured in the November/December 1995 issue of Ecologic.
27. Brian Urquhart, from the United Kingdom, is a Scholar-in-Residence at the Ford Foundation’s International Affairs Program and has served as the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Special Political Affairs from 1972 to 1986. Urquhart is also a member of the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues.
28. Yuli Vorontsov, from Russia, has held various diplomatic positions including Ambassador to the United States, Ambassador to the United Nations, and Advisor to President Boris Yeltsin on Foreign Affairs. Vorontsov has also served as Ambassador to Afghanistan, France and India.
The Commission believed that world events, advances in technology and global awareness of environmental catastrophe create a climate in which the people of the world would recognise the need for global governance.
According to the report, global governance “does not imply world government or world federalism,” but rather a new system of governance that employs a variety of methods, without giving the governed an opportunity to vote on the outcome.
The foundation for global governance is based on the belief that the world is ready to accept a “global civic ethic” based on core values such as respect for life, liberty, justice and equity, and that governance should be underpinned by democracy and the rule of enforceable law.
However, the report’s definition of “respect for life” is not limited to human life, but rather means equal respect for all life, consistent with the biocentric view that all life has equal intrinsic value.
[We have previously published articles to explain that “equity” is not the same as “equality.” In fact, the two concepts are fundamentally different. See HERE and HERE.]
The Commission’s proposals were based on a set of core values that prioritise human security, environmental protection and global governance. These core values have been emerging in UN documents since the late 1980s and have dominated international conferences, agreements and treaties since 1992, including Agenda 21 adopted in Rio de Janeiro.
The Commission on Global Governance emphasised the importance of extending respect for life to all living beings, not just humans, and noted that the impulse to possess territory is a powerful one that must be overcome.
It also highlighted the need to balance national sovereignty with international responsibility, stating that although states are sovereign, they are not free to do whatever they want and that global rules of custom constrain their freedom.
Maurice Strong, a member of the Commission, suggests that sovereignty cannot be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states and that it will yield to the imperatives of global environmental cooperation.
[Related: The Man Who Invented Climate Change – Maurice Strong]
The Commission proposed sweeping changes to the UN based on the core value of “justice and equity,” which aims to reduce disparities and bring about a more balanced distribution of opportunities around the world.
It also emphasised the importance of “mutual respect,” defined as “tolerance,” and noted that individual achievement and personal responsibility may be counter to this value.
The UN’s World Core Curriculum, authored by former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations Robert Muller, aims to promote a global approach to education and encourage students to become “true planetary citizens.”
[Related: Education for the New World Order, Prof. Johan Malan and Introducing Universal Core Curriculum, The Encyclopaedia of World Problems and Human Potential]
The Commission’s proposals also institutionalised the value of “caring,” which aims to encourage cooperation to help those in need and defines “integrity” as the adoption and practice of core values and the absence of corruption. It believed that as the world adopts these core values, a “global ethic” will emerge, which will embody a set of common rights and responsibilities and provide a framework for effective global governance.
The proposed global ethic would bestow upon all people certain rights, including a secure life, an opportunity to earn a fair living and equal access to the global commons.
The Commission noted that the effectiveness of this global ethic will depend on the ability of people and governments to transcend narrow self-interests and agree on a set of common rights and responsibilities.
The Commission on Global Governance emphasised that the right to a “secure life” encompasses not only freedom from war but also protection from chronic threats such as hunger, disease and repression, as well as sudden disruptions in daily life.
Human security was considered a goal as important as state security, marking a significant expansion of the United Nations’ responsibilities, which would now include the security of individuals within member states.
The Commission also highlighted the importance of environmental security, emphasising the need to control human activities that harm the planet’s life support systems and applying the “precautionary principle” to mitigate these risks.
The right to earn a “fair living” has far-reaching implications, including the need for fair distribution of natural resources, elimination of extreme income disparities, and the creation of job opportunities for all people.
The Commission proposed the establishment of an Economic Security Council to oversee global economic governance and ensure that all people have the opportunity to earn a fair living.
The Trusteeship Council would be given the mandate to exercise trusteeship over the global commons, including the administration of environmental treaties and the levying of user fees, taxes and royalties for permits to use the global commons.
The global commons are defined as the atmosphere, outer space, the oceans and related environment and life-support systems that contribute to the support of human life.
The Commission’s recommendations for achieving global governance involved enforcing core values through a global bureaucracy, which would be established through a revitalised and restructured United Nations system.
The UN Security Council, the supreme organ of the United Nations system, would be reformed to have 23 members, with the permanent members’ veto power phased out and the remaining members serving as “standing members” until a full review of member status can be conducted.
New principles for the Security Council’s actions would be established, including the right to a secure existence for all people, the prevention of conflict and war and the elimination of conditions that generate security threats.
The Security Council would be empowered to intervene in the affairs of sovereign states when the security of individuals is in jeopardy, including military intervention as a last resort, and would be authorised to raise a standing army, known as the United Nations Volunteer Force.
The United Nations Volunteer Force would be a small, highly trained, well-equipped force of 10,000 troops, available for rapid deployment anywhere in the world, under the exclusive authority of the UN Security Council and the day-to-day command of the UN Secretary-General.
The Trusteeship Council, an original principal organ of the United Nations system, would be reconstituted to have authority over the global commons, with a fixed number of members, including qualified members from “civil society,” such as accredited NGOs.
The Commission proposed a significant shift in the UN system, giving unelected, self-appointed environmental activists a position of governmental authority on the governing board of the agency controlling the use of the atmosphere, outer space, the oceans and biodiversity.
The Economic and Social Council (“ECOSOC”) would be retired, and its agencies and programmes would be shifted to the Trusteeship Council, which would ultimately be governed by a special body of environmental activists chosen from accredited NGOs appointed by delegates to the General Assembly.
The United Nations Environment Programme (“UNEP”), along with all environmental treaties under its jurisdiction, would be governed by this special body, and the environmental work programme of the entire UN system would be authorised and coordinated by it.
Enforcement would come from an upgraded Security Council and the new Economic Security Council (“ESC”), described as an “Apex Body,” that would have the standing concerning international economic matters that the Security Council has in peace and security matters.
The ESC would be a deliberative, policy body that works by consensus without veto power by any member, and its responsibilities would include continuously assessing the overall state of the world economy, providing a long-term strategic policy framework to promote sustainable development and securing consistency between the policy goals of international economic institutions.
The ESC would also study proposals for financing public goods by international revenue raising, address long-term threats to security and promote sustainable development, with a focus on issues such as shared ecological crises, economic instability, rising unemployment, mass poverty and environmental sustainability.
The Commission recommended that the ESC have no more than 23 members, be headed by a new Deputy Secretary-General for Economic Co-operation and Development, and use Purchase Power Parity (“PPP”) to measure the gross domestic product (“GDP”) of all member nations.
The ESC would have authority over telecommunications and multimedia, and businesses that use the airwaves and satellites would be subject to its policies, to provide a measure of global public service broadcasting not linked to commercial interests.
The World Trade Organisation (“WTO”) and the International Labour Organisation (“ILO”) would be brought under the authority of the new ESC, which would aim to promote open and stable trade based on multilaterally agreed rules to raise the living standards of the poor and achieve environmental sustainability.
The Commission on Global Governance emphasised the need for a system of global governance to oversee the global information society through a common regulatory approach, with the World Trade Organisation (“WTO”) giving preferential treatment to poor countries in license allocations and creating rules to counter national monopolies.
The Economic Security Council (“ESC”) is expected to address various global issues, including tariffs and quotas, technical and product standards, social provision and labour markets, competition policy, environmental control, investment incentives, corporate taxation and intellectual property law.
The ESC aims to centralise and consolidate policymaking for world trade, the international monetary system and world development, with a broad consensus on elements such as environmental sustainability, financial stability and a strong social dimension to policy.
To deal with third-world debt, the Commission recommended establishing a system similar to corporate bankruptcy, where a state’s affairs are managed by the international community, allowing for a fresh start.
The ESC is expected to facilitate technology transfer, crucial for development in developing countries, and establish immigration policies to address the inconsistency in government treatment of migration.
Environmental policies will be under the authority of the Trusteeship Council, with implementation and enforcement coordinated through UN organisations and non-governmental organisations (“NGOs”) such as the World Conservation Union (“IUCN”), the World Resources Institute (“WRI)” and the World Wide Fund for Nature (“WWF”).
The Commission on Sustainable Development (“CSD”), created as a result of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, would serve as the focal point for coherence and coordination of UN programmes, providing political leadership in implementing Agenda 21 and achieving sustainable development.
The Commission recognised the importance of NGOs and institutions as partners with government and businesses in achieving economic progress and sustainable development, citing the contributions of organisations such as the IUCN, WRI, and WWF.
The Commission emphasised the importance of involving civil society in global governance, leading to more people-focused and productive programmes and projects. To achieve this, the Commission proposed the creation of two new bodies: the Assembly of the People and the Forum of Civil Society, which would provide a platform for representatives of NGOs to participate in global governance.
The Assembly of the People would consist of representatives elected by national legislatures, with the possibility of direct election by the people in the future.
The Forum of Civil Society would comprise 300-600 representatives of accredited NGOs, meeting annually before the UN General Assembly to provide considered views on global governance.
The Commission recognised the essential role of NGOs in global governance, which is a demonstrated fact of life, and sought to institutionalise their participation through legal status.
The idea of NGO participation in global governance dates back to the founding of the UN, with Julius Huxley playing a key role in establishing the International Union for Conservation of Nature (“IUCN”) in 1948.
The IUCN has been instrumental in promoting NGO participation in global governance, with 980 accredited NGOs as of 1994, and has created influential organisations such as the WWF and the WRI.
These NGOs have been involved in shaping major environmental documents and have a significant presence in global and regional conferences, including the UN Conference on Environment and Development (“UNCED”).
The Commission noted that there are 28,900 known international NGOs, many of which are directly involved in advancing the agenda of global governance, and have significant resources and national constituencies.
The participation of NGOs in global governance is not limited to international conferences but is also being applied to domestic policy, with national NGOs playing a key role in shaping the domestic agenda on global issues.
The structure of “civil society” participation in global governance is revealed in various documents from UN organisations, the IUCN, WWF and the WRI, often described as “Public-Private Partnerships.”
These partnerships involve the creation of “boards” or “councils” representing the interests of all “stakeholders,” but are often dominated by well-prepared NGOs.
At the local level in the USA, NGOs are frequently full-time professionals, funded through the Environmental Grantmakers Association or the federal government, and coordinate with regional and national NGOs.
The NGOs that set the US national agenda are often the same ones accredited to the UN or members of the IUCN and ultimately aim to establish a “Bioregional Council” with authority over local land and resource use decisions.
The Commission recommended the creation of a “Right of Petition” available to international civil society, which would allow NGOs to petition the UN directly through a Council for Petitions.
This Council would be a high-level panel of five to seven persons, independent of governments, appointed by the Secretary-General with approval of the General Assembly, and would make recommendations to the Secretary-General, the Security Council and the General Assembly.
Although this mechanism had not been formally incorporated into the UN system in 1996, it was being used, as seen in the example of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition petitioning the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO to intervene in a private company’s plans to mine gold near Yellowstone Park.
The Commission aimed to remedy the historical limitations of international law by developing and drafting proposed international law through the UN International Law Commission and the IUCN’s Environmental Law Centre.
The Commission recommended that treaties and agreements include binding adjudication by the World Court and that all nations accept compulsory jurisdiction of the World Court, with the WTO being a step in this direction.
Even in 1996, the WTO had a system where members agreed to accept WTO decisions and not seek bilateral resolution of disputes, ensuring compliance with global rules.
Also by 1996, the International Law Commission (“ILC”) had developed statutes for a new International Criminal Court, which would have an independent prosecutor to investigate alleged crimes, acting independently without instructions from governments or other sources.
The Commission recognised that implementing international standards could face opposition from internal political processes within nation-states and populist action, citing the example of the Biodiversity Treaty that was not ratified by the US Senate due to grassroots opposition.
The Commission noted that accredited NGOs and their affiliates are seen as “expanding democracy” through civil society participation, while non-accredited civil society activity is viewed as “political pressure” and “populist action.”
The Commission proposed a fresh look at globally redistributive tax principles to finance global governance, suggesting a more sustainable approach to managing the global commons, particularly environmental issues.
The UN’s annual expenditures in 1996 were around $11 billion, with the cost of implementing Agenda 21 estimated at $600 billion per year, which in a Globalist’s mind highlights the need for a more robust financing system.
The Commission proposed establishing practical, small-scale schemes of global financing to support specific UN operations while avoiding giving the UN direct taxing power and instead relying on member nations’ assessments and voluntary contributions.
The Commission noted that the United States had often withheld payment to influence UN policy and that the UN has no power to enforce payment of assessments or voluntary contributions, constraining the exercise of the General Assembly’s collective authority.
The Commission on Global Governance suggested that user charges, levies and taxes should be agreed upon globally and implemented through a treaty or convention to generate revenue for the United Nations. The Law of the Seas treaty served as an example, authorising a UN organisation to charge application fees and royalties to companies mining the sea bed, despite the United States not having ratified the treaty.
The Commission proposed various global revenue-raising schemes, including charging for the use of common global resources, corporate taxation of multinational companies and a tax on international monetary exchange, as suggested by Nobel Prize winner James Tobin.
The Commission says “It would be appropriate to charge for the use of some common global resources. Another idea would be for corporate taxation of multinational companies.”
The favoured scheme was first advanced by Nobel Prize winner, James Tobin. He has proposed a tax on international monetary exchange which would yield an estimated $1.5 trillion per year.
“Charges for use of the global commons have a broad appeal on grounds of conservation and economic efficiency as well as for political and revenue reasons.”
The Commission supports a $2 per barrel tax on oil, which automatically escalates to $10 per barrel in 10 years.
“A carbon tax introduced across a large number of countries or a system of traded permits for carbon emissions would yield very large revenues indeed.”
Our Global Neighbourhood: A Summary Analysis by Henry Lamb, February 1996
As well as charging for the use of the global commons, and taxation on multinational companies, monetary exchange, oil and carbon, other recommended global revenue sources included a surcharge on airline tickets, charges for ocean maritime transport, user fees for ocean fishing and special fees for activities in Antarctica and geostationary satellites.
The Commission supported the concept of global taxation and urged the evolution of a consensus to realise this concept.
By 1996, many of the Commission’s recommendations had already been incorporated into treaties, agreements and proposals, with some already implemented, and the General Assembly was scheduled to hold a World Conference on Governance in 1998.
The Commission called for preparatory work to develop documents on global governance, which will be adopted at the 1998 Conference and ratified for implementation by the year 2000.
Only accredited NGOs would be allowed to participate in the preparatory work, and only delegates appointed by the President of the United States would be able to cast votes on issues affecting Americans. The same would apply to all countries.
The NGO machinery of global governance is active in America, promoting the global governance agenda through various means, including agitation, lobbying and discrediting dissenting voices.
By 1996, the US national media was already portraying dissenting voices as right-wing-extremist, militia-supporting fanatics, leaving many American citizens unaware of the progress of the global governance agenda.
The United States is the only remaining power strong enough to influence the UN, and 1996 may be the last opportunity to avoid or influence the shape of global governance, Lamb said.
Lamb added that the Commission on Global Governance’s recommendations, if implemented, would lead to a dramatic transformation of society, creating a global neighbourhood managed by a worldwide bureaucracy under the authority of a small group of appointed individuals. This bureaucracy would be policed by thousands of individuals paid by accredited NGOs, certified to support a specific belief system that many people find unacceptable.
Survivors speak of that horrendous day, those who barely escaped with their lives. Who can forget that NZ’s official rescuers decided not to go?
Civil Defense had morphed into NEMA just 10 days prior. You can read about that at this link. We were on the ‘eve’ literally of many changes that would come with the ensuing 4 year event that has changed lives forever. It has also changed life as we knew it.
60 Minutes Australia also report on the aftermath for the surviving victims:
There are many more videos on YT that tell the stories of respective survivors.
Image Credit: By GNS Science (formerly Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Ltd.) – GeoNet: Whakatane, archived from the original on 9 December 2019, CC BY 3.0 nz, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=84750271
This totally makes sense. Drawing attention here to the Atlas Network & the Mont Pelerin Society. Perchance you are wondering who they are, I’ve included videos below the article, interviews on topic from Central News UTS and discussions with Dr Jeremy Walker (Australia) who has written extensively on topic. He is also interviewed by DOC Studios @ Youtube, with a particular focus on NZ. Shining a light on Seymour’s connection to the network. EWNZ
“…why those opposing the bill should be taking every opportunity to hammer home to the public the corporate ties held by Seymour and his backers and their intention to extract Aotearoa’s resources and siphon the profits to the wealthy here in New Zealand and to international corporations. It’s not about equality, it’s about opening up New Zealand to corporate exploitation.”
David Seymour’s Treaty principles bill is now in select committee phase, and open for submissions.
National and New Zealand First claim they won’t support it going further, but public opposition will need to be clear and overwhelming to ensure it doesn’t proceed.
If the bill went to referendum, current polling suggests it would have a good chance of passing, with 36 percent of the public supporting redefining the Treaty principles, and 30 percent undecided.
For those opposed, there are a few important things to consider, writes Ryan Ward.
We can expect an all-out propaganda campaign in favour of the bill.
This will be led by right-wing lobbying groups like Hobson’s Pledge, the Taxpayer’s Union, Groundswell, and others. Hobson’s Pledge has already indicated they have tens of thousands of submissions in favour of the bill ready to go and will be soliciting many more. They and other lobbying groups will also blitz the media with ads and messaging in favour of the bill.
David Seymour has been laying the groundwork for this campaign all along. His consistent and careful messaging surrounding the bill has framed its goal as providing equal rights to all New Zealanders, rather than giving special rights to different groups depending on their ancestry.
He has repeated this message over and over. According to Seymour, it’s about democracy and fairness.
This political messaging will be extremely difficult to counter using the predominant oppositional messaging which focuses on the bill’s racism or ignorant interpretation of the translation or meaning of the Treaty.
It will not be enough to loudly proclaim that the bill is racist toward Māori (it is very much so) or that Seymour is ignorant of the true meaning of the Treaty (he is not).
As evidenced by his dismissal of expert opinion and the haka and protest in parliament, and his minimisation of the hīkoi last week (possibly the largest protest in New Zealand’s history), Seymour is unmoved by factual argument or large shows of public disapproval. (A petition against his bill currently has just over 290,000 signatures, more than the 246,000 people who supported Act in the last election.)
By framing his bill in terms of “equality for all”, David Seymour has shrewdly tapped into the existing racial biases that have successfully torpedoed recent attempts to provide more representation and equity for Māori.
Much of the campaign messaging in the last election by Act, National, and New Zealand First railed against ideas of “co-governance” and unequal treatment of Māori at the expense of the rest of New Zealand. Seymour and his backers will continue to use this divisive rhetoric to turn the public against Māori and in favour of the bill. The recent Voice referendum in Australia and our own recent election results indicate that the public is very vulnerable to this type of dishonest and divisive political messaging.
Getting sucked into the race-war rhetoric that Seymour and his backers are trafficking in has been a losing strategy so far. It puts the opposition on the defensive: the disingenuous arguments about equality for all New Zealanders seem to place Seymour and his bill on an obvious moral high ground and are very difficult to counter effectively.
As Seymour said at the bill’s first reading: “The challenge for people who oppose this bill is to explain why they are so opposed to those basic principles.” We already know how difficult it is to win against such disingenuous framing.
Those opposing the bill need to find another political message that will resonate with the public. A simple message that can’t be co-opted by leveraging entrenched racial biases and relying on the public to understand complex legal and translational arguments.
A recent editorial in the Spinoff by Rupert O’Brien pulls the curtain back on Seymour’s dissembling language of equality and provides an offensive rather than a defensive oppositional rhetorical strategy.
O’Brien notes that while most of the discussion and analysis of the bill has been related to whether it accurately interprets the meaning of Te Tiriti, the real motive behind the bill is related to Act and its backers’ long-term strategy of deregulating business and opening up New Zealand to corporate investment, extraction, and exploitation.
As O’Brien writes, Act and their benefactors “know that it [Te Tiriti] stands as a major obstacle in their goal of deregulation and promoting laissez-faire economics.”
“They aim to achieve deregulation by, in part, turning government departments into state-owned enterprises (corporatising) and subsequently selling these as going concerns on the private market (privatising) . . .
“The Treaty principles have proved a significant roadblock to both corporatisation and privatisation in the past and present a clear threat to any plans of future development of public assets to the private sector.”
This is likely the real, though unspoken, reason that Seymour and his backers are pushing so hard to redefine the Treaty principles. By framing the bill as a means for equality for all New Zealanders, and then inflaming the race-war rhetoric that results from the justified outrage from Māori, Seymour can avoid discussing the real reasons behind the bill and his ties to domestic and international corporate interests that will profit handsomely from opening up Aotearoa to unregulated corporate development. Industries such as gas and mining have been long stymied by the legal interpretation and enforcement of the Treaty.
Focusing on the race war stops the public from “following the money”, as the saying goes.
But the money has been followed. And it leads to domestic and international right-wing lobbying and funding groups whose main goal is to enact policy that results in upwards wealth transfer and corporate exploitation. Many of Act’s largest donors are individuals such as Graeme Hart and the Gibbs family, who profited handsomely from the privatisation of New Zealand’s public sector in the 1990s under National.
There is a reason why Seymour desperately wants to keep the real motivations for his Treaty principles bill secret. The public generally don’t look favourably on politicians and political agendas that are blatantly in favour of corporate interests at the expense of the rest of us. If the real reason for the bill were made clear and widely known, the current framing would crumble, and the equality-race-war rhetoric would no longer likely be an effective strategy to win public support for the bill.
This is why an oppositional strategy focused only on the race-war rhetoric will fail, and why those opposing the bill should be taking every opportunity to hammer home to the public the corporate ties held by Seymour and his backers and their intention to extract Aotearoa’s resources and siphon the profits to the wealthy here in New Zealand and to international corporations.
It’s not about equality, it’s about opening up New Zealand to corporate exploitation.
By making this crystal clear to the public, and focusing relentlessly on a simple oppositional message, we can unite Aotearoa and turn the tide against Seymour and his reinterpretation of the Treaty principles.
Ryan Ward is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Psychology at the University of Otago.
VIDEO & OTHER LINKS BELOW: (content warning, the DOC Studios videos do contain a few expletives)
The Atlas Network: Big oil, climate disinformation and constitutional democracy (includes Dr Jeremy Walker) From Central News UTS
David Seymour and Debbie Ngawera Packer on Q&A | Jeremy Walker on if Atlas is involved (Dr Walker begins at 1hr 11 mins)
Further info from Dr Jeremy Walker who has written extensively on topic drawing the public attention to the Atlas Group (posted @ Central News UTS) :
Further resources and tips on Atlas from Dr Jeremy Walker. Please disseminate where useful. Some tips on research methods for researching the Atlas Network’s global reach and organisation in specific countries and regions. A key insight was provided to me by Mirowski and Plewhe’s (2009) Road from Mont Pelerin, which defines a “neoliberal” as one of the membership of the global Mont Pelerin Society and/or of the thinktanks of the Atlas Network (p. 4). That book focuses mainly on the ‘economic ideas’ of Hayek, Friedman et al. in Western countries, but as my book More Heat than Life (2020) shows, these ‘ideas’ were paid for by oil money from the beginning, and promoted by oil money via the ever-growing network of thinktanks modelled on the original, the IEA (London) which almost from the beginning was supported by Big Oil, uranium, banking etc, as its seems most of the later clone ‘thinktanks’ are or were where we have any data. The senior exec directors of Atlas orgs are often MPS members. DeSmog has a list of MPS members including the date they were admitted as at 2013. You will find Alan Gibbs under the UK section. https://www.desmog.com/wp-content/uploads/files/Mont%20Pelerin%20Society%202013-membership-listing_Redacted.pdf
Very interesting names on it, including Charles Koch who has ploughed untold millions into the Network, also for example Aust PM John Howard. Wayback machine is vital, Atlas posted their global directory on their website until c. 2021. https://web.archive.org/web/20210824142756/https://www.atlasnetwork.org/partners/global-directory
There is plenty to learn from searching the Atlas site itself. You should also use Wayback to explore deleted material from individual websites. On the basis of that list a team of researchers based at DeMontford has compiled this very important database which: “contains the name and roles of board members, supervisory board members, academic advisory boards, and CEO’s of all think tank organisations that are part of the Atlas Network/Atlas Economic Research Foundation between January 2021 and December 2022. The dataset covers each continent under separate sections for individual continent analysis. https://figshare.dmu.ac.uk/articles/dataset/Atlas_Think_Tank_Main_Employers/22217050?file=39486961
Search for academic literature on neoliberalism, Mont Pelerin Society, and the names in the MPS directory, but Atlas Network as such as very limited exposure. As far as I know no one has published on the basis of this archive, like the MPS records, at the Hoover Institution. https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c80k2f0h/
DeSmog has the best resources on various thinktanks and the hacks that work for them, but yet to fully incorporate the Atlas dimension as they have only recently grasped this. Eg. ‘the Koch network’ is more or less on overlap of the US Atlas orgs, as oil billionaire Charles Koch has been on the Atlas board to my knowledge since 1987, and is a key funder of George Mason University where the head office is based. Also useful is SourceWatch, LittleSis https://www.desmog.com/databases/
Robert Brulle’s paper’s on the funding of climate denial orgs in the US is very useful, although likewise confined to the US and not cognisant until recently that nearly all the orgs named are in fact Atlas affiliates, spinoff orgs, and/or staffed and funded by the same set of ‘philanthropies’, including Donor’s Trust (set up by Atlas HQ to disguise donors identities) and the various Scaife and Koch foundations, as well as others named in Jane Mayer’s Dark Money (Olin, Bradley). https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=PlB0bM4AAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate
Esp these two: https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-178750/v1/77e68e86-364d-45b5-b426-b0355e605d70.pdf?c=1631873834https://www.activist360.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Institutionalizing-Delay-Climatic-Change.pdf
Below are links to an online version of my book, and two subsequent pieces showing the method above used in the Australian context and some of the sources in the bibliography may be useful. Walker, J (2023) Silencing the Voice: the fossil-fuelled Atlas Network’s campaign against constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australia, Cosmopolitan Civil Societies,15(2). (Open Access) https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/mcs/article/view/8813
Walker, J (2022) Freedom to burn: mining propaganda, fossil capital and the Australian neoliberals. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359443471_Freedom_to_Burn_Mining_Propaganda_Fossil_Capital_and_the_Australian_Neoliberals
In Slobodian, Q & Plehwe, D (eds) Market Civilisations: Neoliberals East and South, Princeton University Press. https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9781942130673/market-civilizations
Walker, J (2020). More Heat than Life: the Tangled Roots of Ecology, Energy and Economics, Palgrave. https://archive.org/details/walker-more-heat-then-life.-the-tangled-roots-of-ecology-energy-and-economics-2020/page/259/mode/2up?q=atlas
Image Credit: By Glenn Davies – Own work, CC BY 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=136317457
A quick post to apologize. I’m having difficulties with the WP editor/s grrr. Wouldn’t save, wouldn’t embed, on and on… I deleted each time but forgot that each time, an email would go out.
Couldn’t even reply to the person (bastrazu) who complained, or approve their comment. None of this has been intentional.
Please bear with me …
Image by Andrew Martin from Pixabay
Perpetual leases are land grabs in poor disguise. Lands taken from Māori over 100 years back, tied up in perpetual leases that are handed down from generation to generation so the owners cannot their lands back short of spending millions to recover improvements made. In this video the whānau of a man who went off to fight for NZ in WW1 returned to find their lands taken. Some of his descendants are now homeless! This is not a one off exceptional story. If you care to watch the video the same pattern repeats over in the Taranaki. Keen to hear from the ‘one rule for all’ brigade. The government has no will to correct this. As the woman from this whānau points out, the land was taken by the stroke of a pen, it could be returned by the same. EWNZ
NOTE: They do intend to infect you one way or another. Watch all injectables. EWNZ
From Exposing the Darkness @ substack
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT: Our Food Is About To Be Poisoned With NEW “Transgenic Edible Vaccines”
They’re Being Funded Right Now BY TAXPAYERS, mRNA Food Vaccine FACTORIES. Kamala Harris Administration has been using US Tax Payer money to fund the development.
Rep. Thomas Massie: “…Does the term ‘Transgenic Edible Vaccines’ sound far-fetched? Well, it’s not. We are funding it. In fact scientists from the University of California, Riverside funded with your tax payer dollars, have been studying whether they can turn edible plants such as lettuce and spinach into mRNA vaccine factories, thereby creating a Transgenic Edible Vaccine…I don’t think this is a good idea. I don’t think the American people should be funding this…”
Click on the link HERE for the video
Image by Diana Cherry from Pixabay
Analysis: ACT’s bill can be seen as the culmination of moves over several decades by the Crown to use Treaty principles to rewrite te Tiriti and justify its own power, writes Jane Kelsey.
Analysis: ACT Party leader David Seymour has said the goal of his Treaty Principles Bill is to stimulate an overdue conversation on te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi. At that level at least he has succeeded.
His proposal to rewrite te Tiriti through new legislation has certainly triggered debate – to the point where the most profound constitutional question of all has been asked on the floor of parliament: did Māori cede sovereignty when they signed te Tiriti in 1840?
But the debate has also exposed deep ignorance, among political leaders and many others, about te Tiriti and the more recent concept of Treaty “principles”.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon fell back on Governor Hobson’s unilateral proclamations of sovereignty in 1840, which relied on what Māori scholar Margaret Mutu calls “the English draft of Hobson’s that Māori never agreed to”.
Meanwhile, Labour leader Chris Hipkins accepts there was no Māori cession of sovereignty, but that somehow the Crown has sovereignty now.
Beyond parliament, inflammatory and easily discredited disinformation about te Tiriti has circulated widely, backed by those who also advocate for the Treaty Principles Bill and its aim to cement into law a fundamental rewriting of te Tiriti.
READ AT THE LINK
RELATED:
Treaty bill plays on ignorance
Photo Credit: By Archives New Zealand from New Zealand – Reconstruction of the Signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, Marcus King, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=51249748
by Connie Buchanan @ E-TANGATA
A very familiar modus operandi that became more glaringly obvious during and after 2020. EWNZ
Giving an apology on behalf of the state is tricky business. Here’s Connie Buchanan with a summary of how to do the bare minimum.
Stay in your own house. Be where you make the rules and feel most at ease. Where there’s plenty of room for you, but limited space for others.
Invite a mere handful of the thousands of survivors who are owed the apology. Put these few in another room of your house. Give them time to respond to the apology that you haven’t yet delivered. Five minutes each. Do not, yourself, go and sit in that room. It was bad enough having to read their horrible stories in the very long report.
While they are responding to the things you haven’t said yet, get ready to deliver the apology. Wear your normal suit like it’s a normal work day. Stand in your normal spot, surrounded by your normal crew. When you’re ready, bring them in from the other room. Make them be quiet. Make them listen. Make them obey the rules of your house. Keep the rest of the thousands at bay on a one-way live stream.
READ MORE AT THE LINK
From The Exposé
Through pacts the United Nations is hoping will be adopted in less than two weeks at the ‘Summit of the Future’, the UN is establishing a One World Government through the monopoly of national sovereignty.
However, there is no lawful authorisation for delegates to vote on the ‘Pact for the Future’, ‘Declaration for Future Generations’, ‘Global Digital Compact’ and António Guterres’ ‘Our Common Agenda’.
Serve this notice and declaration on the United Nations, your government representative to the United Nations and your government. Demand that your voice is heard before the exclusive Summit of The Future takes place from 20 to 23 September 2024.
The Summit of the Future is a high-level United Nations (“UN”) event scheduled for 22 and 23 September 2024, with “action days” being held on 20 and 21 September. The Summit will culminate in the adoption of the ‘Pact for the Future’.
Leaders from UN Member States will attend the Summit to reaffirm existing commitments, including the Sustainable Development Goals (“SDGs”) and the UN Charter, and move towards a “reinvigorated multilateral” system.
It is expected that other participants of the Summit will include representatives from various UN agencies, selected non-governmental organisations, selected private sector businesses and industries, selected representatives from universities and research institutions, selected municipalities, regional governments and local authorities, and the dystopian and nefarious sounding “representatives of future generations.”
There are two chapters in the draft Pact of the Future: a chapter on science, technology, innovation and digital cooperation, and a chapter on youth and future generations. The draft chapter on youth and future generations builds on the 1997 ‘UNESCO Declaration on Responsibilities towards Future Generations’ and takes the perspective on future generations further.
Read more: An Overview of the Pact for the Future, UNESCO, 2 February 2024
Future generations are defined by the ‘Declaration on Future Generations’ – the UN also refers to this document as ‘Declaration for Future Generations’ which is annexed to the Pact for the Future – as “all those generations that do not yet exist, and who will inherit this planet.”
By definition, the future generations will always “not yet exist,” ad infinitum. In 100 years, the future generations at that time will not yet exist. In 1,000 years, the same; future generations will not yet exist. The “future generations” concept is simply a poor excuse for a selected few – “representatives of future generations” – to make rules that they expect billions of people who do exist to obey, ad infinitum.
Further reading: UN Pact for the Future: All our lives will be dictated to by a selected UN envoy to represent generations not yet born
Who are the “representatives of future generations,” how many of them are there and who selects them? As is usual for the UN and its agencies, the document that member states are expected to adopt is sparse of such important details; perhaps it is because they don’t want member states to know who the few that are selected, or self-selected, to rule the world are.
The only details we’re given who the selected few rulers are is in The Declaration on Future Generations. It merely states that member states agree to the UN Secretary-General’s proposal of the appointment of a “UN Special Envoy for Future Generations,” which we assume may play a crucial role once they have been appointed. But as far as negotiations and representation for future generations at the Summit are concerned, the World Future Council (“WFC”) plays a leading role, or so they claim:
The World Future Council is well placed to play a leading role in the Summit of the Future, having focussed on the rights of futures [sic] generations as its main task since its launch 15 years ago.
The WFC has long pleaded for Representatives/ Guardians of Future Generations to be installed at international, national and local levels, with authority to scrutinise and propose policies to uphold their interests, including the right to peace, intergenerational justice, and a healthy, sustainable environment.
From the very beginning the World Future Council is mainly involved in the preparations of the Summit and its preparatory process.UN Summit of the Future – towards a global Pact for the Future, World Futures Council
It’s almost irrelevant who and how many are involved in the small clique dictating what people who do exist should do for people who do “not yet exist.” The concept of “future generations” dictating our lives alone, as with the entire Pact for the Future, is enough to outright reject it before it even gets to the stage of the UN appointing a “Special Envoy for Future Generations.”
To this end, Shabnam Palesa Mohamed has prepared a notice for anyone from any country to serve on their country’s UN representative ahead of the Summit. She has also included a list of permanent country representatives and observers to the United Nations so citizens can easily find who the notice should be served on. AS Mohamed recommends, don’t forget to copy in your Member of Parliament or government representative. And since some local municipality and government representatives may be attending the Summit, or so it is claimed, perhaps copy them in too.
UN_Notice_And_Declaration_2024_UpdatedDownload
The following is summarised and paraphrased from the notice for serving on the UN representative and/or observers from your country. You can read and download the full notice either in the file attached above or on Mohamed’s Substack page HERE.
Mohamed’s document contains three notices in one:
She has organised the document into five sections:
The UN system is intended to operate on the principle of the Rule of Law, as outlined in the UN’s own official documentation. The intention of this principle is to ensure transparency, accountability and respect for human rights in all UN activities and decision-making processes. Yet, during the covid event, the UN was fully aware of human rights abuses around the world. This includes draconian lockdowns, state violence, poverty and destructive social crisis.
Additionally, before any government can declare a state of emergency, it must show that the alleged public health crisis “threatens the life of the nation” according to specific criteria. These criteria were not met for covid; international law was knowingly violated.
Deepening the distrust in the UN is its inaction and silence against those who intimidated delegates at the 77th World Health Assembly into agreeing with amendments to the International Health Regulations 2005.
Due to a lack of comprehensive public participation relating to the UN Secretary-General’s ‘Our Common Agenda’ document and the ‘Pact for the Future’ – with its annexes the ‘Global Digital Compact’ and the ‘Declaration on Future Generations’ – We The People insist that the following are included in the discussions of and report on the Summit of the Future:
We demand that both the Pact for the Future and Our Common Agenda be withdrawn at the upcoming Summit for the Future. Should this not happen, member state delegates, who answer to the people of the countries they represent, must reject these documents outright. They must not be intimidated for doing so, as was the case at the WHO’s World Health Assembly in May this year about International Health Regulations 2005.
Explainer: The UN operates a “silence procedure.” This is when a proposal or text is circulated among participants, often with a deadline for comments or amendments. If no objections are raised before the deadline, the text is considered adopted by all participants. If a participant still has fundamental issues with the text, they can “break the silence” by raising an objection before the deadline. This allows for further negotiations or revisions.
The notice prepared by Mohamed notes that the silence procedure on the Declaration on Future Generations has been broken. However, the UN has withheld which countries voiced objections to this Declaration. “Civil society has a right to know which countries have objected,” Mohamed’s notice states.
The United Nations faces legitimate criticism for consistently falling far short of legitimate expectations and demands that the UN documents and its staff have proclaimed. This includes ongoing secretive negotiations on the Pact for the Future and Our Common Agenda. There has been little to no meaningful public participation at the UN and member state level. There is therefore growing international resistance.
The UN also faces criticism for, inter alia, top-down approaches and political and economic influences.
In 2020, UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, issued a vision for human rights, titled ‘The Highest Aspiration: A Call to Action for Human Rights’. In it, “The ‘three P’s’: participation, protection and promotion” were highlighted. These undertakings have not been achieved by the UN. The UN has failed to uphold its commitments in general, and in particular, in relation to the Pact for the Future, the Declaration on Future Generations, the Global Digital Compact and Our Common Agenda.
The UN is fully aware that it is only a select group of civil society organisations that interact with the UN or that have a seat at the table. Even these organisations continue to complain about the lack of inclusion, transparency and respect afforded to them by the UN and its agencies, including the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) and the IMF.
Civil society non-governmental organisations (“NGOs”) have expressed discontent with the UN’s transparency and lack of inclusion, particularly in the accreditation process for NGOs seeking consultative status with the UN. Key issues include bias in the ECOSOC Committee, lack of transparency in decision-making, restrictive criteria and limited representation.
In September 2023 a letter was sent by 11 member state delegates UN GA president Dennis Francis and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. The member states were objecting to unilateral coercive measures and violations of human rights and international law relating to the adoption of a high level political declaration on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.
The political declaration was being adopted using the “silence procedure.” Both WHO Director-General Adhanom Tedros Ghebreyesus and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres ignored this letter from the 11 member states and declared that all 193 member states of the United Nations had approved the political declaration on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
Through the Pact for the Future, Our Common Agenda and Emergency Platform, the UN is establishing a One World Government through the monopoly of national sovereignty.
There is no lawful authorisation to vote on the Pact for the Future, Declaration for Future Generations, Global Digital Compact, and Our Common Agenda.
Featured image: Planning ahead: Five things to know about the UN’s landmark Summit of the Future, United Nations. This is an image taken from the UN’s webpage for the Summit of the Future. Notice the snakes, three heads, wrapping around the world!
Like your (pretend) govt the kindly UN really loves you. They promise you will own nothing & be happy. Their plans are always there in plain sight if you care to search out and read them. See the latest planned for 2025.
Excerpt: Failure to comply or resist will be met by violent and brutal force, and those not in compliance should expect to be shot on sight
Read at the link
Richard Vobes
Whistleblower, Irene Chain joins me to explain how the important role of the midwife is being manipulated in New Zealand, as well as the rest of the world.
RELATED
Cervix with a smile, unjabbed midwife Irene Kalinowski, Author of “My Body my baby” Vinny Eastwood
From Steve Kirsch @ Substack
Here are the emails I sent to the Australian attorneys hired by HNZ and the NZ ERA . Bottom line: Trying to hide public health info from the public is never a good idea. Never. I will not comply.
Maybe they should change their tagline to “Hiding public health records from the public since 2022.”
Trying to hide public health info from the public is never a good idea, especially when you are killing the public with a vaccine you are pushing.
Health New Zealand can’t explain how their data is consistent with a safe vaccine (it isn’t).
So they are trying to con my hosting provider into taking down my site. Shame on them! Censoring truth is never a good plan and those participating in such an effort should be ashamed of themselves.
Why can’t we have a public discussion on what the data says instead of trying to censor the truth?
Here are two emails I just sent out. Enjoy.
From: Steve Kirsch
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2024 10:13 PM
To: Cooke, Anthony <Anthony.Cooke@clydeco.com>
Cc: Berkahn, Richard; Patey, Lachlan ; Andrew Slater; Margie Apa
Subject: URGENT – Deletion request
Importance: High
Hi Anthony,
What a pleasure to meet you!
If you want me to remove PHI, I would be happy to do so.
Why didn’t you just ask me nicely? Doing an end-run directly to my hosting provider doesn’t sound like you are dealing in good faith.
I’m sure you want to save lives just like I do, but pulling a stunt like this is NOT HELPFUL to building a great relationship with me.
As you know, you have no jurisdiction over me or my hosting provider. So pissing me off is simply NOT a good idea. It doesn’t serve your client well to do that.
You’ll have as much luck COMPELLING me to remove the data as the DOJ had with the NY Times and the Pentagon Papers. You should study that decision. It didn’t end well for the DOJ. Here’s a link.
I’ve told Margie Apa that I’d be happy to remove any MRN which discloses PHI.
I also shared my offer to her publicly.
She ignored my request. I don’t get it.
If you want to mitigate damages, ignoring my request is stupid.
I suggest you tell them to IMMEDIATELY supply a list of offending MRNs and the NHI number which matches. Will you do that for me?
As far as I know, all the records I published are fully obfuscated so that it is impossible, even for me, to discover the PHI of any person or match the MRN with an NHI.
The records I published do not match the records of any person living or dead. Not a single one. Am I mistaken?
If Health New Zealand disagrees, kindly provide the MRN and the matching NHI identifier.
If you cannot do this, then what’s the issue?
I don’t want to harm anyone, and I’m happy to VOLUNTARILY redact any offending records, but you have provided NO EVIDENCE OF HARM.
I request that you IMMEDIATELY provide a list of offending MRNs and the associated NHI so that damages can be mitigated.
I can be reached at <redacted> and would be DELIGHTED to have a RECORDED discussion on this matter if you have any questions. I’m in California and you can call up to 10pm PST.
Finally, 2 months ago, I published an article “An offer you can’t refuse.”
Health New Zealand took NO ACTION on my request.
If they publish the FULL data, I’m happy to remove my data as it will no longer be needed. Why did they ignore that? That’s another way to solve the problem.
I look forward to hearing from you.
-steve
P. S. Barry Young is a hero. These records prove that Health New Zealand has been KILLING people with these vaccines. Maybe you should ask them to look at the data that was leaked? I requested a meeting with their epidemiologists to explain to me why, if the vaccine is safe, the mortality curves between vaxxed and background diverge. THEY REFUSED TO DO THAT. Why would they do that unless they are HIDING SOMETHING: like the fact that the vaccines are the cause of the excess deaths of THOUSANDS of people in New Zealand. Why can’t we talk about it? I’d be happy to invite YALE PROFESSOR HARVEY RISCH to the meeting; he is one of the TOP EPIDEMIOLOGISTS in the world. WHY CAN’T WE TALK ABOUT IT?
To: christchurchera@era.govt.nz
Cc: Berkahn, Richard; Patey, Lachlan ; Andrew Slater; Margie Apa; Cooke, Anthony <Anthony.Cooke@clydeco.com>
Subject: [2023] NZERA 718 3266200 Health New Zealand will not comply with my request to mitigate damages. They should be ordered to supply offending MRNs
Importance: High
Barry Young disclosed the information to me. I am a US journalist and published the obfuscated records on the Internet.
I told the chief executive of Health New Zealand I’d be happy to VOLUNTARILY remove any record which “would likely have significant and irreparable adverse consequences for individuals and their whanau.”
They have refused to comply with my request.
I request the ERA order them to supply me with the offending records (using the MRN record identifier) and explain how it is possible for the record to be matched to any person, dead or alive, in a way that harms that person.
All the records were obfuscated using a ONE WAY randomization algorithm so that the data for a given person cannot be identified. Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for any person to identify someone else’s record.
So a breach of PHI is IMPOSSIBLE. No one has contacted me to remove their record because nobody can find their record because it is unfindable.
They need to provide proof to the ERA that there is at least one of the 4M records published on my S3 site that could reveal PHI or could have SIGNIFICANT or IRREPARABLE consequences.
Where is that proof?
They CANNOT meet that burden.
I said I would remove any such record from my website voluntarily.
They REFUSED to identify the MRN(s) of any such records!!!
They should be ordered by the ERA to identify the MRNs of these records IMMEDIATELY to mitigate damages.
If they fail to do that, they should be held accountable for any such harm that their inaction has caused.
I can be reached at <redacted> and would be DELIGHTED to have a RECORDED discussion on this matter if you have any questions.
They refuse to engage in dialog to settle this matter.
I have NO desire to harm people, but they refuse to provide any evidence of harm.
Where is the list of MRNs to be removed and the description of the irreparable harm for each of the records requested?
They will not provide this voluntarily. THEY SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PRODUCE THIS LIST IMMEDIATELY SO THAT ANY DAMAGES CAN BE MITIGATED.
Steve Kirsch
US journalist
Health New Zealand is trying to enforce an order which was obtained under false pretenses claiming that there are “significant and irreparable adverse consequences for individuals and their families” through the publication of the obfuscated records.
This is blatantly false.
They cannot identify a single record in the data that I publicly released that can cause “significant and irreparable adverse consequences for individuals and their families.” Not a single one.
When I asked them to identify the MRN of any offending record so that I can voluntarily remove it, they refused to respond to my request.
What they want is to have the entire database taken down to cover their crime.
They’ve been killing people and they are unable to explain their own data.
Even top New Zealand experts can’t explain away the New Zealand data leaked by Barry Young. Epic fail every time. It’s ludicrous. For example, Janine Paynter got so pissed that I wasn’t falling for her bullshit handwaving arguments that she blocked me. Way to resolve conflict Janine! Maybe try data next time instead of nonsensical bullshit arguments?
Health New Zealand wants the public health data censored so the public won’t have the evidence to convict them of negligent homicide. It’s as simple as that.
Sorry, but I’m not going to be a party to the cover up of the crime scene.
Please share this post widely, especially if you live in New Zealand.
SOURCE
https://kirschsubstack.com/p/health-new-zealand-is-at-it-again
RELATED:
My generous offer sent to Health New Zealand today… you’re going to love it!
$25,000 reward for the first person to show that I’ve leaked any PHI
EWNZ Comment: all that stands out for me about this man is the smirk we saw on his face when he said in the midst of ‘their’ plandemic that destroyed countless people’s lives … ‘wait until we see the next one [fake ‘virus’] … that, and 47K crippled children …. he is no philanthropist ..
“Gates doesn’t simply receive rent checks from his Nebraska farmland. He’s also using it to borrow staggering sums of money.”
From expose-news .com
In 2017, the Canadian board made the decision to sell a significant portion of its American farmland portfolio, which amounted to half a billion dollars and included all 22,830 acres of its land in Nebraska. The purchaser and financial details of these seemingly ordinary Nebraska farms remained undisclosed until recently, it has now been revealed that the individual behind this purchase is none other than Bill Gates and over the past six years, Gates has has invested more than $113 million in purchasing farmland in Nebraska.
Gates’ ownership of farmland is structured through over 20 shell companies located across the country. Some of these entities trace back to a P.O. Box in Kirkland, Washington, where Cascade Asset Management, responsible for managing all of Gates’ investments, is headquartered. Bill Gates’ Nebraska neighbors don’t know he owns the soybean field down the road.
Here’s the story of his spending spree, including the massive loan he took out against his land by Destiny Herbers of Flatwater Press.
READ AT THE LINK
Kiwis (in case you think we’re GE free) go here for up to date info on topic for NZ … that clean green paradise (not) in the Sth Pacific … (see also here, here, here and here) … EWNZ
From Jon Rappoport @ Substack
I found an interesting section in an FDA report, “GMO Crops, Animal Food, and Beyond.” The information is listed as current as of August 2022.
Are There GMO Animals in the Food Supply? Yes. FDA has approved an application allowing the sale of the AquAdvantage Salmon to consumers. The AquAdvantage Salmon has been genetically modified to reach an important growth point faster. FDA has also approved an alteration in the GalSafe pig for human food consumption and potential therapeutic uses. The GalSafe pig was developed to be free of detectable alpha-gal sugar on its cell surfaces. People with Alpha-gal syndrome (AGS) may have allergic reactions to alpha-gal sugar found in red meat (e.g., beef, pork, and lamb). FDA has determined that food from the AquAdvantage Salmon and the GalSafe pig are as safe and nutritious to eat as food from non-GMO salmon and pigs.
Sounds wonderful. Shall we try a bit of each? I’ve ways wanted to eat salmon that was engineered to grow faster than usual.
Perhaps we should read a piece in the Alaska Beacon first. Title: “Pushback continues against genetically modified salmon being raised at Indiana farm.” October 10, 2023.
Engineered by biotech company AquaBounty Technologies Inc., the “AquAdvantage” salmon is the first such altered animal to be cleared for human consumption in the United States.
In 2018, the federal agency greenlit AquaBounty’s sprawling Indiana facility, which as of last December was raising roughly 492 metric tons of salmon from eggs imported from Canada but is capable of raising more than twice that amount. The company is currently making improvements to its Indiana production facility. Once completed, salmon harvests are expected to increase.
During the 2023 Farm Aid concert site, organizers from Block Corporate Salmon traveled an hour north to AquaBounty’s salmon growing facility where they sought to raise awareness about the “risks and harms” of genetically engineered fish.
“AquaBounty misrepresents its system to raise salmon in tanks that they claim will be recirculating water,” said Jaydee Hanson, Policy Director of Center for Food Safety. “In fact, their operations literally mine water, foul it with salmon feces, and dump it into the nearest river. They have a serious problem of illness in their chronically inflamed fish. They are not disclosing how many antibiotics they use. Consumers don’t need sick fish like these.”
Earlier, in 2022, Block Corporate Salmon also released “AquaBounty Exposed,” a report that outlined allegedly concerning conditions at AquaBounty’s Albany facility.
Former employee Braydon Humphrey, who spoke at last month’s news conference, shared more than 60 pages of photos and videos that he claims detail how AquaBounty “regularly violated food and worker safety standards, ignored animal welfare concerns, and caused environmental damage unbeknownst to the public and its investors.”
“I was deeply disturbed by what I witnessed during my time at AquaBounty,” said Humphrey, who worked as a tech at the Indiana facility from December 2018 to January 2020. “Among other atrocities, we saw high mortalities in densely packed fish tanks—including common instances of AquAdvantage salmon dying from ruptured stomachs, caused by their artificially fast growth rate.”
—Waiter? I’ll pass on the salmon. How about the rattlesnake fang sushi instead? I think it’ll be safer.
And now, on to the GalSafe GMO pigs. Approved for people with meat allergies. Sort of.
A publication called The Counter brings up rather disturbing facts.
FDA only evaluated [the pig producer] Revivicor’s claim that GalSafe pigs are, in fact, free of alpha-gal and safe to eat. But because Revivicor did not provide data or make claims related to food allergies, FDA didn’t “evaluate food safety specific to those with [alpha-gal syndrome].” In other words, GalSafe pigs aren’t expected to trigger reactions in people with red meat allergies, but FDA has not scrutinized any allergy-related guarantees. “People with an alpha-gal allergy that would like to consume meat from these pigs but have questions should talk to their doctor,” an agency spokesperson said in an emailed statement. This caveat is worrisome for some consumer interest advocates, who believe that FDA jumped the gun with its approval.
“It shouldn’t have been approved until they had adequately addressed the allergenicity of the product,” said Jaydee Hanson, policy director for the Center for Food Safety.
Eating the GMO pigs might be a problem for people with allergies. Or it might not.
Very good. Glad we got that straight.
Another brilliant decision from the FDA.
When I eat GMO bacon or GMO salmon—I have a special microscope that allows me to make that determination—I drop the meat in a vat full of a propriety poison I manufacture in my garage. It removes any trace of GMO problems. So far, only one of my arms has fallen off from the poison.
It’s a trade-off.
Or Love your GMOs. Assume They’re good for you.
— Jon Rappoport
Episode 57 of Rappoport Podcasts—“Aaron Rodgers and the death of television! Rodgers, Jimmy Kimmel, Jeffrey Epstein, COVID, Fauci, ESPN, Disney, Taylor Swift, ‘Mr. Pfizer’—it’s one big ball of wax; Let’s melt it down and see what it looks like”—is now posted on my substack. It’s a blockbuster. To listen, go here. To learn more about this episode of Rappoport Podcasts, go here.
Thousands of paid subscribers
The Hottest Takes on Culture
Image by Dmitry Grushin from Pixabay
From Mark Crispin Miller
The US under “Joe Biden” is a rogue state doing all it can for world depopulation, through incessant WAR all over
I wrote the following article a few days ago. It was published in a somewhat watered down form by Sputnik International News. (MSM is the same everywhere, it only varies by degrees.) This is the original. Feel free to publish or share. The news it contains IS important. There is also a link to a second article with very important news below my article.
Reuters reports that NATO “exercise” Steadfast Defender 2024, will begin on Monday, January 22nd, and will run “through” May, which means until June. The deployment will include 90,000 troops, 50 ships, including aircraft carriers, more than 80 combat aircraft, including fighter jets, and over 1,100 combat vehicles, including at least 133 tanks and over 500 infantry fighting vehicles. The fact that the “exercise’ begins next week, and the Western MSM is only now publicizing it, means that all the military assets are already in position. They’re not “coming”, they’re here.
January 18, 2024
This is the biggest NATO combined arms “exercise” since REFORGER 1988, back when the USSR and Warsaw pact were still in existence. In other words, this is the biggest NATO troop movement since the end of the Cold War, almost doubling the previous largest, which was 50,000 troops involved in Trident Juncture in 2018. 90,000 troops on the move for almost half a year, concentrating in the Baltic states on Russia’s borders, in Romania, on the Ukraine border, and in Germany, the military logistics hub of NATO, and where it all started “last time”. You know what I mean.
Politics and war can best be exemplified by the game of chess. In chess, there are three specific stages – the opening, the middle game, and the end game. The opening is when the two opponents move their pawns into a defensive line and develop the major pieces for maneuver. It is relatively bloodless, and if done correctly, more strategic than tactical. There is no defining moment when the game transitions from the opening game to the middle game, but the middle game is where the fighting really begins, and you know it when you get there.
The middle game is where the majority of pieces are lost, the fighting is most intense, and surprise moves are most likely. The game can often end in checkmate during this phase, with one side being totally defeated by a surprise move they did not see coming. Remember that.
If there is no surprise defeat, the middle game is usually short, and when it is over, the chessboard is vastly different than when it began. In the end game, the majority of pieces on both sides have been eliminated, only a few pieces remain – the kings, of course, and a few pieces close to them, defending them. From here, the game ends in checkmate, a definitive defeat of one side or the other, or a stalemate, where both sides agree that neither can win, thus ending the game, and agreeing to start over at some time in the future.
(Russell Bentley in the opening game, on frontline position “Blesna”, 2015)
With Steadfast Defender, Europe (and probably the world) enter the middle game. Fasten your seatbelts, we are in for a rough ride. This middle game will almost certainly not be confined to Europe. and before it is over, will most probably include surprise moves in the form of the use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. No place on Earth will be safe, except, perhaps, for the luxury bunkers of the world’s billionaire elite. Maybe not even there…
The “Great Reset” has been interpreted by some as code for a depopulation plan to cull the human herd of the majority of its members. This idea has been dismissed by popular culture as just another “conspiracy theory”, but in reality, it remains the most plausible explanation for the many developments of the last few years. For instance –
The proof that the covid virus, and the “vaccine” it engendered, are actually biological weapons grows stronger every day. The genocide in Gaza, and Israel’s absolute disregard for international law and total lack of any meaningful response to it by the UN or international “community”, the intentional destruction of the US and European economies, spending, borrowing and looting national treasuries as if there were no tomorrow, the ecological destruction fomented by the very ones who pass draconian laws they claim are in order to protect it, the disinformation and gaslighting aimed at destroying people’s very ability to discern truth, and therefore, reality …
All of these developments that have intensified and accelerated in the last few years, when taken as a whole, can only be rationally and realistically explained thusly – “They (the global Parasite Class) are not stupid, they are doing it on purpose.” If there really is a plan by world elites to depopulate the planet, (There is, because) everything they have done would be exactly the way they would do it. Think about it. Prepare. And don’t forget to say your prayers. The middle game, just like Steadfast Defender, is already upon us. The end game begins soon, but it may well end in a stalemate like this…
======================================================
From Dr Mark Crispin Miller @ Substack
Musicians in US (7), Brazil (2), UK, Ireland, Netherlands, Germany (2), Italy (3), Congo, Russia, India, Vietnam, Japan; cops in US (8), Brazil, Paraguay, Spain, Italy, India, Australia; & more
READ AT THE LINK
Check out our sister site truthwatchnz.is for other news
From Dr Mark Crispin Miller @ Substack
John Lodge, the bass guitarist and one of the primary singers and songwriters for the Moody Blues, is recuperating from what is described as a “serious medical issue” during the Christmas holiday. A January 11, 2024, post on hisFacebook page noted he is “already well on the mend.” However, the unidentified health issue has forced the postponement of his “Performs Days of Future Passed” U.S. tour that was planned for February and March.
READ MORE AT THE LINK
Check out our sister site truthwatchnz.is for other news
Why ever would they refuse? It would prove to the nay sayers the needles were safe & effective. (On the SE topic check out Jon Rappoport’s latest comment, hint, it’s about the FDA). They won’t ever of course (even though some have already done smaller studies, never reported on) because well, they know who will lose hands down… (See also here, here, here & here). One of those links I had to retrieve from archives in Way Back Machine. See how this info is diligently scrubbed from everywhere? … EWNZ
Check out our sister site truthwatchnz.is for other news
Photo: pixabay.com
From Liz Gunn & FreeNZ @ Substack
Note: Liz Gunn & cameraman Jonathan Clark were at the airport to greet folk from Tokelau whom they had assisted in escaping a very long lockdown in their homes because they declined the ‘safe & effective’ (links to that in the article, plus here) … EWNZ
“So to the police it’s time to reveal the footage that shows a cop who heavily assaulted me to such an extent that there were tears and pulls all around my shoulder blade, underneath my arm, right up my back. And that pain that I was in, most mornings I’ve become used to waking between 3 and 5 in the morning in very bad nerve pain.”
Today [Wednesday the 17th of January], Liz Gunn and cameraman Jonathan Clark appeared in the Manukau District Court, facing a number of charges, including an alleged assault, at Auckland Airport early last year.
READ AT THE LINK
Note: this case reminds me of the case against the late Graeme Sturgeon who was assaulted by security thugs at a 1080 storage site, with witnesses, then charged with assault. In court he won but was left with a fine of over $20K. Links to this case can be seen here...EWNZ
From mercola.com
“Shot Dead The Movie,” tells the heartbreaking stories of children who died after receiving COVID-19 shots. Their parents are left behind to pick up the pieces, wondering how and why a shot they were assured was safe took the lives of their children, ranging in age from newborn to 18.
While the U.K. and Denmark stopped their vaccination programs for children, U.S. health authorities continue to state adverse reactions are “rare” and the benefits of COVID-19 shots outweigh the risks of COVID-19 for children.1 Even as children are dying, no warnings have been issued to let parents know of this very real risk.
Meanwhile, parents of children who have died say they’re being given the run around from different agencies and purposely being kept in the dark.2 Board-certified internist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough explains in the film:3
“The tsunami of misery, of acute respiratory infection, hospitalization, post-acute sequelae syndrome, sadly, death with the illness, and now the wave of vaccine injuries, disabilities and deaths has been crushing in terms of human despair. It has been overwhelming in terms of misery, and it has changed the course of people’s lives. Remember even the rarest side effect is meaningful when a therapy or a vaccine is applied to a giant population.”
Trista was a healthy 18-year-old getting ready for college when she got a COVID-19 shot. Her health began to decline shortly after, and she died three months later.
“She woke up that morning and was complaining of not being able to breathe and that her whole body hurt, all over everywhere,” her mother says. “But she was she was a tough girl, and so she said she was gonna go lay back down and see if she could feel better. And then her sister went to check on her about 10 minutes later, and she couldn’t get her to wake up.”4
The Oklahoma Medical Examiner’s Office submitted a report to the family listing pulmonary emboli, acidosis, respiratory failure, renal failure, cardiac right ventricular failure, early myocardial infarction, gastrointestinal hemorrhage and multiple additional maladies that were present at the time of Trista’s death, concluding her official cause of death was “undetermined.”5
In another case, 16-year-old Ernesto Ramirez Jr. died five days after receiving Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot. He had gone to play basketball with a friend and collapsed while running across a parking lot. According to McCullough:6
“In the case of young Ramirez, what we learned is that the heart was swollen in the setting of myocarditis, before COVID. Our guidelines say they can never exercise. If there’s myocarditis or heart inflammation, there can be no exercise, because the surge of adrenaline can stimulate the electricity to begin to have this abnormal conduction through the area of injury and circle back around.
That’s called a reentrant arrhythmia, ventricular tachycardia. Ventricular tachycardia is very fast, and in a young man like this, it couldn’t be tolerated for maybe a minute or so or less.
It basically degenerates into ventricular fibrillation, which is a near flatline rhythm. And unless properly shocked at the VT or VF stage, it’s over with, and the death ultimately is a flatline death … it’s considered a sudden, arrhythmic death, a cardiac arrest, directly related to COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis …
Since his case, there have been a multitude of similar cases of death that’s occurred after COVID-19 vaccination that likely is fatal myocarditis.”
McCullough says he’s seeing a “tsunami of cardiovascular issues” in his practice, including myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart. “All the regulatory agencies agree the vaccines cause myocarditis,” he says.
“There are over 200 peer-reviewed literature papers on both fatal and nonfatal myocarditis, acceleration of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart attacks and ischemic strokes, blood clots, blood clots occurring in the arteries, the veins, blood clots in a whole variety of scenarios.”7
While SARS-CoV-2 infection may promote cardiovascular disease, the risks are time-limited. “There is a risk period for heart attacks, strokes, other cardiovascular events. It’s about six weeks after an infection, that’s the risk period, of which the infection itself could provoke a cardiovascular event,” McCullough says.8 But in the case of vaccine-induced myocarditis in children, there doesn’t appear to be a time limit — permanent scarring of the heart may develop:9
“What we’ve learned, sadly, is it doesn’t go away in a matter of a few days or a few weeks. And some unlucky children, the heart develops a permanent scar. So, with a permanent scar, it’s possible in the wrong conditions, at the wrong time, everything lining up with a permanent scar, to get an abnormal heart rhythm … and have a cardiac arrest.
… So now we have children taking the COVID-19 vaccine. Some of them are developing a scar … some of the scars in children are substantial. And they don’t always feel it. They don’t feel the symptoms when they take the vaccine. They’re suffering heart damage.
They develop a myocardial scar … an unlucky child will lose their life months after taking the vaccine due to a cardiac arrest. And the underlying pathology is vaccine-induced myocarditis and myocardial scar.”
The first case of fatal myocarditis after a COVID-19 shot was reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2021.10
“If this happens, how come it doesn’t happen to everyone? And that’s what we’re trying to study. We’re doing careful research following the literature very carefully. As we sit here today, we are looking at billions of people worldwide who have been exposed to the virus or the vaccine or both.
Now, even if a small fraction of those individuals have a complication, a side effect or residual syndrome, that percentage, no matter how small, is a huge number of individuals,” McCullough says.11
Former Blackrock portfolio manager Edward Dowd has also pointed out “a spike in mortality among younger, working-age individuals [that] coincided with vaccine mandates. The spike in younger deaths peaked in Q3 2021 when COVID deaths were extremely low (but rising into the end of September).”12 According to Dowd:13
“There was a shift from 2020 to 21 of excess mortality from old to young. So, in 2020 it was mostly old people … The excess mortality has shifted so much that it’s pretty phenomenal … But what I find interesting and curious is as excess mortality continues and disability continues, our health authorities have no interest in trying to figure out what’s going on. There should be a national story in my mind.”
Dr. James Thorp, a maternal fetal medicine expert, and colleagues published a preprint study that found striking risks to pregnant women who received the shots, along with their unborn babies.14 The outcomes were so dire that the researchers concluded pregnant women should not receive COVID-19 shots until further research is completed.
The film shares the story of baby Naomi, who died 11 hours after birth. Her mother, Tory, received a COVID-19 shot during her first trimester of pregnancy in order to keep her job at a nursing home. Naomi was diagnosed with two serious conditions — congenital diaphragmatic hernia and a short umbilical cord, which contributed to her death. Thorp says:15
“Is there any relationship with the vaccine? … absolutely, yes. Any vaccine that causes inflammation certainly has the potential of causing any malformation because it’s crucial to the development.
Probably the foremost expert in the world, maternal fetal medicine doc, is Roberto Romero. He’s a very brilliant researcher. And he’s done research on inflammation and pregnancy for five decades … even supported by the government and the NIH … any substance that causes inflammation in pregnancy, it’s a death knell to every organ system.
It’s the most inflammatory substance that has in my experience ever occurred in the history of human beings. And when that spike protein attaches to the ACE receptor, it’s a furin cleavage site, it causes severe inflammation, severe inflammation throughout the body. It’s devastating.”
Problems began to appear shortly after COVID-19 shots were rolled out, such that a leaked email from a large California hospital was sent out in warning to 200 nurses. The email, from September 2022, contained the subject line, “Demise Handling,” referring to an increase in stillbirths and fetal deaths. A TCW report by journalist Sally Beck shared the email’s content, which read:16
“It seems as though the increase of demise patients [babies] that we are seeing is going to continue. There were 22 demises [stillbirths and fetal deaths] in August [2022], which ties [equals] the record number of demises in July 2021, and so far in September [2022] there have been 7 and it’s only the 8th day of the month.”
One nurse who works in the neonatal ward, Michelle Gershman, had her bonus withheld because she spoke out about the rise in fetal deaths. She says:17
“Before March of 2021, we would have maybe one or two fetal demises every couple of months. And then after March of 2021, pretty much we started having one or two per week … they were basically full term and it looked like a pattern was happening.
These mothers would go to their doctor office, while full term, they’d receive a COVID vaccine. And then within like one week they’re delivering a dead baby. I kept seeing these fetal demises. I kept seeing these mothers with health problems.
I kept seeing mothers with high blood pressure issues, bleeding from their eyes, blood clots coming out of them, like all these horrific things that you would only see in a horror movie.
And this is like every time I come to work, and then I see these babies that are having severe cases of like jaundice, and they’re having respiratory issues, all these things that didn’t used to happen … And two months ago, one of the nurses told me that there were eight in one day. And then three or four weeks before that there were five in one day. So, the number has increased.”
Pfizer’s own data was also alarming, showing the shots led to a miscarriage rate of 81%, a fivefold increase in stillbirth rate, a 7.9-fold increase in neonatal death rate and a 13.7% risk of adverse complications in newborns breastfeeding from mothers who’d received a COVID-19 shot.18
Thorp describes the COVID-19 shot as the deadliest drug ever, citing data which the drug company, Pfizer, the CDC and the FDA tried to bury for 75 years:19
“Viewers, you can go look at it yourself. You won’t find it on the Google search engine, because it’s hidden. They don’t want you to see this, but you will find it on any other search engine. Just go to Pfizer 5.3.6, and then go to page seven. You will see in the first 10 weeks of rollout it was the deadliest drug ever known to man.
I challenge anybody watching this, as I’ve done for the last two years, to show me another drug rollout that’s had more than 1,223 dead people after the vaccine. It doesn’t exist.”
The parents in the film are among the brave few who are speaking out to raise awareness of COVID-19 shot risks. Many other are suffering silently, pressured to keep quiet about the true cause of their child’s demise. McCullough explained that from the lack of efficacy alone, the shots should be removed from the market. And the case gets even stronger when you factor in the significant number of related disabilities and deaths:20
“Multiple sources of bias created illusion that vaccines worked as they failed in the real world … claims that the COVID-19 vaccines worked to reduce spread of infection, hospitalization, and death must be rejected.
The burden of proof has not been met and threats to validity have not been overcome. All of the COVID-19 vaccines should be removed from the market and we should begin the investigative phase into how this massive program failed to stop COVID-19.”
Sources and References
1 U.S. CDC, 6 Things to Know about COVID-19 Vaccination for Children
2 Rumble, Shot Dead The Movie, 14:00
3 Rumble, Shot Dead The Movie, 49:00
4 Rumble, Shot Dead The Movie, 8:37
5 Rumble, Shot Dead The Movie, 1:03
6 Rumble, Shot Dead The Movie, 17:40
7, 8 Rumble, Shot Dead The Movie, 5:49
9 Rumble, Shot Dead The Movie, 7:58
10 N Engl J Med. 2021 Aug 18 : NEJMc2109975
11 Rumble, Shot Dead The Movie, 18:41
12 Zero Hedge February 5, 2022
13 Rumble, Shot Dead The Movie, 19:43
14 Preprints 2022, 2022090430. doi: 10.20944/preprints202209.0430.v1, Intro (PDF download)
15 Rumble, Shot Dead The Movie, 33:30
16 TCW March 20, 2023
17 Rumble, Shot Dead The Movie, 38:30
18, 19 Rumble, Shot Dead The Movie, 42:29
20 Substack, Courageous Discourse March 29, 2023
Nothing to see here …
From Mark Crispin Miller @ Substack
Sheffield Eagles full-back Quentin Laulu-Togaga’e “recovering from heart attack”; footballer Tom Holmes “diagnosed with rare form of cancer”; ITV soap “Emmerdale” adds cancer storyline
READ MORE ….
More celebrities sidelined dramatically in just the last few days—and a sampling of the “rare”conditions now afflicting countless tots and babies (none famous, or related to celebrities)
Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay undergoing treatment for “severe respiratory illness”
These first two items reconfirm what we (who pay attention) have unhappily observed since early 2020—that cultural rebelliousness (Stern’s raunchy humor, RATM’s loud dissidence) does not make you anti-authoritarian (if you’ve been stupefied with fear).
Though he’s never felt sicker, Stern credits the “vaccine,” without which he’d feel even worse, he thinks (if one can use that verb with so feral a Covidian).
READ MORE ….
You must be logged in to post a comment.