Government in the 21st Century

Enemy of the State

Professor Steven Hoffman, visiting scholar at the University of Buffalo, recently acknowledged this phenomenon in a study "There Must Be a Reason: Osama, Saddam and Inferred Justification." Hoffman concluded, "Our data shows substantial support for a cognitive theory known as 'motivated reasoning,' which suggests that rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe. In fact, for the most part people completely ignore contrary information." Crimes Against Democracy

OK, let me make it very clear. I am officially an enemy of the state. No need to adjust your scanners and sniffers, sifters, optics and satellites. I admit it. In plain old fashioned language. If you are "The State" I am your enemy. I want you gone. I want you and your money lenders out of business, once and for all.

I wonder why, how, there exists people who aren't like me. Well, this is nothing new, I've always wondered what people were thinking and why they were thinking it. Myself included. Many a times I have looked down, head slowly moving side to side and said, "What the hell was I thinking...". Not a day goes by that I don't pose that question concerning the behavior of others. It seems to happen more and more as I get older and look closely at the world and it's people. If I was king I'd make it a commandment that everyone must attend special classes for, oh let's say, 20 or 30 years before they got to participate in social decision making. I'd make it a law. One of the few, very few, laws we'd have.

One of the classes I'd have taught would be how to deal with people you don't know. Just some basic lessons (ones that weren't taught in any of the "State" schools) in knowing people. Say, for instance, "who we know and who we don't". That would be a good place to start. I keep seeing these comments on articles about politicians and appointees, people are talking about them like they know them. People they've never met. People they were introduced to through the TV. They say things like, "I trust them...". When did this happen? When did people start putting faith in people they'd never met? We tell kids don't talk to strangers, but I see a great many, so called, adults handing over there money, health and future to people they don't know. Never laid eyes on, or thought about, six months before. All of a sudden they know them? They trust them? Kind of kooky.

There is a phenomena at work in the U.S. The people have turned their lives over to complete strangers. Not only that, but no matter what the strangers do, no matter how many times they do it, a large portion of the population remains enamored with them. I think I know what's happening. I don't think these same people would react the same way to the people where they work. I don't think it happens anywhere but with politics and celebrities. I see this similarity going on where people treat politicians as celebrities and they don't treat them as people. They don't treat the cashier at the store in the same way. Those are people. People are what you see all the time. People on the train with you - those are people. Kind of the same thing takes place with Doctors. There are people, and there are Doctors. I even had to capitalize Doctor. Spell check sees them as different too.

They're just people. In fact we're all just people. Know any non-people? Why would someone deserve trust? How does someone you've never met, don't know from Adam, warrant trust? Or respect? What is authority? People? What is a law? People? We need to back up and look at what we're doing and why we're doing it. Is there a good reason to support our government? What is our government? People. Who are they? Where did they come from? A "people" just got elected that we do have a little "public" knowledge of. He's a comedian. We know what he thinks is funny. Do we know what his world vision is? Do we really know what any of the people in our government have in mind? If they got to be the "King of the World" what would they do? What would we be doing? How will we ever know any of these people?

We only know them by what they do. What are they doing? That's a long story and it's being told as we speak - or read. One thing is obvious: what they want has nothing to do with what we want. Not hard to put that to the test - do you have what you want? Is this the world you would make if you were the world maker. Think there are no world makers? What do you think the role of the "State" is? It makes laws and policies that create the societal world in which we exist. Unlike the way it sort of started out, where the State was a collective elected to represent the folks back home, we have a fortress where in lives the ones in charge of defending the interests of those who paved the way to get them into office. It's next to impossible for the best people to get into office. Look closely at how the senate is set up, look at how the electoral college came to be. Who does that system serve? But back to the main question.

No one in there right mind would support our government. No one in there right mind would vote to have a state run nation. Those are strong words. What makes them more palatable is the realism that too many look at the "State" not using there right mind. Most use there right mind when they look at people in the park. Anywhere one sees people they usually see them using there right mind. If we were to look at the government like we look at all the other people we come into contact with we could make clear reasonable judgments. Not all of us. All of us aren't clear headed and reasonable. But we could get a good percentage of the population, in every nation, to see it for what it is. A bad system. A failed system. It's not failing itself. It's failing the nation. The nation isn't the "State" - the nation is the people.

When we hear things about Iran or Afghanistan what is referred to? We think about nations as governmental bodies. We thought about Iraq as Saddam. Why? We were told to. We've started to move away from a world of people into a world of "States". Why? We're told to. We're told everyday what's important. What we should be concerned about. What to fear and how to defend ourselves. More to the point, that we can't defend ourselves, that we will be protected. Are the worlds people - that scary? Set aside the mind bending religions and the extreme political minorities and what's left? The majority of the worlds people. Most of the governments of this world are made up of extreme political minorities. I can't speak as to their religious bent because I would have to see what they do concerning it. I can see what they are doing as far as their world visions. In that I can say with all assurance: they are the minority. They are the extremists. The fanatics of the world. I have no choice but to be their enemy. I stand in there way.

People on the news, people in congress, heads of state, ambassadors, economists, preachers, teachers, presidents, scientists - just people. We should treat them like people. We all need to look at them for what they are - people. If they do something wrong, stupid or shady we should do what we would do with anyone else. Fire them, ignore them, stop talking to them. One thing we can all do to affect our world in a positive reasonable way. We can start getting people we know and putting them in office. In cities and counties and states. They don't have to be perfect - just people we know.

Fascism

Fascism: a regime that exalts nation and race above the individual and that stands for a centralized government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition (Webster's definition)

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism – ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power."
Franklin Delano Roosevelt

"I call these elements Fascist. You may not like names and labels but technically as well as journalistically and morally they are correct. You may substitute Tories, or Economic Royalists, or Vested Interests, or whatever you like for the flag-waving anti-American Americans whose efforts and objectives parallel those of the Liga Industriale which bought out Mussolini in 1920, and the Thyssen-Krupp-Voegeler-Flick Rhineland industry and banking system which subsidized Hitler when Naziism was about to collapse. Their main object was to end the civil liberties of the nation, destroy the labor unions, end the free press, and make more money at the expense of a slave nation."
George Seldes (1943), Facts and Fascism

"Sure we'll have Fascism here, but it will come as an anti-Fascism movement."
Huey Long

World Depopulation is top NSA Agenda: Club of Rome

A Timely Repost: More on Rockefeller and Codex below...

The Haig-Kissinger depopulation policy by Lonnie Wolfe

Special Report EIR (Executive Intelligence Review) March 10, 1981

Investigations by EIR have uncovered a planning apparatus operating outside the control of the White House whose sole purpose is to reduce the world's population by 2 billion people through war, famine, disease and any other means necessary. This apparatus, which includes various levels of the government is determining U.S. foreign policy. In every political hot spot -- El Salvador, the so-called arc of crisis in the Persian Gulf, Latin America, Southeast Asia and in Africa- the goal of U.S. foreign policy is population reduction. The targeting agency for the operation is the National Security Council's Ad Hoc Group on Population Policy. Its policy-planning group is in the U.S. State Department's Office of Population Affairs, established in 1975 by Henry Kissinger. This group drafted the Carter administration's Global 2000 document, which calls for global population reduction, and the same apparatus is conducting the civil war in El Salvador as a conscious depopulation project.

"There is a single theme behind all our work-we must reduce population levels," said Thomas Ferguson, the Latin American case officer for the State Department's Office of Population Affairs (OPA). "Either they [governments] do it our way, through nice clean methods or they will get the kind of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran, or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it "The professionals," said Ferguson, "aren't interested in lowering population for humanitarian reasons. That sounds nice. We look at resources and environmental constraints. We look at our strategic needs, and we say that this country must lower its population-or else we will have trouble.

So steps are taken. El Salvador is an example where our failure to lower population by simple means has created the basis for a national security crisis. The government of El Salvador failed to use our programs to lower their population. Now they get a civil war because of it.... There will be dislocation and food shortages. They still have too many people there."

Civil wars are somewhat drawn-out ways to reduce population, the OPA official added. "The quickest way to reduce population is through famine, like in Africa or through disease like the Black Death," all of which might occur in El Salvador. Ferguson's OPA monitors populations in the Third World and maps strategies to reduce them. Its budget for FY 1980 was $190 million; for FY 198l, it will be $220 million. The Global 2000 report calls for doubling that figure. The sphere of Kissinger In 1975, OPA was brought under a reorganized State Department Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental, and Scientific Affairs-- a body created by Henry Kissinger.

The agency was assigned to carry out the directives of the NSC Ad Hoc Group. According to an NSC spokesman, Kissinger initiated both groups after discussion with leaders of the Club of Rome during the 1974 population conferences in Bucharest and Rome. The Club of Rome, controlled by Europe's black nobility, is the primary promotion agency for the genocidal reduction of world population levels. The Ad Hoc Group was given "high priority" by the Carter administration, through the intervention of National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and Secretaries of State Cyrus Vance and Edmund Muskie.

According to OPA expert Ferguson, Kissinger initiated a full about-face on U.S. development policy toward the Third World. "For a long time," Ferguson stated, "people here were timid" They listened to arguments from Third World leaders that said that the best contraceptive was economic reform and development. So we pushed development programs, and we helped create a population time bomb. "We are letting people breed like flies without allowing for natural causes to keep population down. We raised the birth survival rates, extended life-spans by lowering death rates, and did nothing about lowering birth rates.

That policy is finished. We are saying with Global 2000 and in real policy that you must lower population rates. Population reduction and control is now our primary policy objective- then you can have some development."Accordingly, the Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental, and Scientific Affairs has consistently blocked industrialization policies in the Third World, denying developing nations access to nuclear energy technology--the policies that would enable countries to sustain a growing population. According to State Department sources, and Ferguson himself, Alexander Haig is a "firm believer" in population control.

"We will go into a country," said Ferguson, "and say, here is your goddamn development plan. Throw it out the window. Start looking at the size of your population and figure out what must be done to reduce it. "If you don't like that, if you don't want to choose to do it through planning, then you'll have an El Salvador or an Iran, or worse, a Cambodia. "According to an NSC spokesman, the United States now shares the view of former World Bank President Robert McNamara that the "population crisis" is a greater threat to U.S. national security interests than "nuclear annihilation." "Every hot spot in the world corresponds to a population crisis point," said Ferguson who would rename Brzezinski's arc of crisis doctrine the "arc of population crisis."

This is corroborated by statements in the NSC Ad Hoc Group's April 1980 report. There is "an increased potential for social unrest, economic and political instability, mass migration and possible international conflicts over control of land and resources," says the NSC report. It then cites "demographic pressures" as key to understanding "examples of recent warfare in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, El Salvador. Honduras, and Ethiopia, and the growing potential for instability in such places as Turkey, the Philippines, Central America, Iran, and Pakistan." Through extraordinary efforts, the Ad Hoc Group and OPA estimate that they may be able to keep a billion people from being born through contraceptive programs.

But as the Ad Hoc Group's report states, the best efforts of the Shah of Iran to institute "clean programs" of birth control failed to make a significant dent in the country's birth rate. The promise of jobs, through an ambitious industrialization program, encouraged migration toward "overcrowded cities" like Tehran. Now under Ayatollah Khomeini, the "clean programs" have been dismantled. The government may make progress because it has a program "to induce up to half of Teheran's 6 million residents to relocate, as well as possible measures to keep rural migrants from moving to the cities." Behind the back of the President Ferguson and others involved with the OPA and NSC group maintain that the United States will continue a foreign policy based on a genocidal reduction of the world's population.

"We have a network in place of co thinkers in the government," said the OPA case officer. "We keep going, no matter who is in the White House." But Ferguson reports that the "White House" does not really understand what they are saying and that the President "thinks that population policy means how do we speed up population increase. "As long as no one says differently," said Ferguson, "we will continue to do our jobs."

THE MYTH OF PLANETARY OVERPOPULATION

Dr.Jacqueline Kasun, professor of economics at Humboldt State University in California (U.S.A.), observes the myth of overpopulation in her 1988 book The War Against Population.

POPULATION CONTROL

Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb , 1968. Population Control.

POPULATION CONTROL & DEPOPULATION "American Patriot Friends Network"...a network of net workers..."

Warning: Reading this material might induce significant anxiety or depression. Individuals with a history of heart problems, or who are being treated for depression, may find it advisable not to read this report. Population Control & Depopulation article

The People Planners

"It is Kissinger's belief ... that by controlling food, one can control people, and by controlling energy, especially oil, one can control nations and their financial systems. By placing food and oil under international control along with the world's monetary system, Kissinger is convinced a loosely knit world government can become a reality by 1980." - Paul Scott - nationally syndicated columnist

The Rockefellers learned nearly a century ago that there are two standard ways for one of their companies to absorb another corporation. If the firm to be acquired is much smaller, a "take over" is the simplest procedure: buy em out. But if the competitor is more your equal, a merger- "must be arranged". The same principles hold true among nations. No matter how much this country sends abroad as foreign aid, technical assistance, loans that are never repaid, or other largess, there is simply no way another country -or even a bloc of countries- can be made powerful enough to take us over.

Recognizing this political fact of life, the master planners devised the strategy of a merger - a Great Merger - among nations.

But before such a merger can be consummated, and the United States becomes just another province in a New World Order, there must at least be the semblance of parity among the senior partners in the deal - How does one make the nations of the world more nearly equal? The Insiders determined that a two-prong approach was needed, use American money and know-how to build up your competitors, while at the same time use every devious strategy you can devise to weaken and impoverish this country. The goal is not to bankrupt the United States, we must emphasize. Rather, it is to reduce our productive might, and therefore our standard of living, to the meager subsistence level of the socialized nations of the world.

Only a fascist-socialist dictatorship would have the power to accomplish such a - redistribution.- Notice that the plan is not to bring the standard of living in less developed countries up to our level, but to bring ours down to meet theirs coming up. You may be assured, however, that the Rockefellers and their allies are not talking about reducing their own quality of life. It is your standard of living which must be sacrificed on the altar of the New World Order.

The Rockefeller game plan is to use population, energy, food, and financial controls as a method of people control which will lead, steadily and deliberately, into the Great Merger. Much of the spade work for setting up this ploy is being done by Henry Kissinger, who was a personal employee of Nelson Rockefeller for a decade before Rocky placed him in the Nixon Administration. On numerous occasions Herr Kissinger has declared that his goal is to create a "New World Order." Syndicated Washington columnist Paul Scott reveals:

It is Kissinger's belief, according to his aides, that by controlling food, one can control people, and by controlling energy, especially oil, one can control nations and their - financial systems. By placing food and oil under international control along with the world's monetary system, Kissinger is convinced a loosely knit world government operating, under the frame-work of the United Nations can become a reality before 1980. Common sense tells us that a Rockefeller hireling such as Kissinger would not be setting up an "international control" system which takes assets from the Rockefellers and gives them to someone else. Obviously, the game plan is to take other people's assets and put them under the umbrella of a Rockefeller-controlled World Government.

This new strategy may be termed the crisis route to World Order. It runs parallel to and eventually will converge with the Atlantic Union treaty and regional government approach to the Universal State. Washington columnist Paul Scott calls this "the new strategy change from the direct to the indirect approach to bring about world government. "The plan, as publicly stated by the CFR's Richard Gardner, part-time State Department functionary and Columbia University Professor of Law and International Organization, amounts to this: Instead of trying to make the UN a complete world dictatorship immediately, the Establishment will identify different problems in different countries. Then they will propose a "solution," which can only be achieved by some kind of international agency, so that each country concerned will be forced to surrender another segment of its national independence. Gardner considers this piecemeal approach the practical road to the end of nationhood:

We are likely to do better by building our "house of world order - from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great - booming, buzzing confusion " to use William James' facetious description of reality; but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, is likely to get us to world order faster than the old-fashioned frontal assault.

So this is what the Rockefeller gang, working through agents like Kissinger and Gardner, have in mind-an "end run around national sovereignty." Gardner continues, with obvious glee:

The hopeful aspect of the present situation is that even as nations resist appeals for " world government- and "the surrender of sovereignty," technological, economic and political interests are forcing them to establish more and more far-ranging institutions to manage their mutual interdependence.

One of the most obvious back-door approaches to World Order is through the control of food. The ploy is to establish a World Food Bank, with the necessary goodies supplied (naturally) by the United States. The concept was proposed at the International Monetary Fund Conference in Nairobi by long-time Rockefeller front man Robert 5. McNamara (CFR). R. Strange McNamara (yes, that really is his middle name) was made president of the World Bank after he had successfully completed his earlier assignment of crippling this country's military might. McNamara advocated the food-producing nations of the world surrender their surpluses to a " world authority," which would then take charge of redistributing the bounty to the 'have-not" nations. The topic was to be discussed at the UN's World Food Conference in Rome in November 1974. Between the time of the original proposal and the Rome conference, Richard Nixon was shuffled into an early retirement and was replaced by a compliant Jerry Ford.

One of Ford's first official acts was to go before the UN General Assembly and assure the international flotsam gathered there that the voice of the Rockefeller's Charlie McCarthy, Henry Kissinger, was the very voice of America in all matters pertaining to international relations. Later, Ford announced that the Secretary of State would appear as keynote speaker on behalf of the United States at the

upcoming World Food Conference, superseding the more logical choice, Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz, who was the official head of the US delegation. Of the hundreds of political commentators around the country, only Paul Scott had the courage to assess the implications of Ford's actions: Whether he fully realizes it or not, President Ford has put his stamp of approval on Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's grand design foreign policy for the establishment of a loosely knit world government before the end of the 1970s.

By calling for the development of a global strategy and policy for food and oil within the structure of the United Nations, the President clearly signaled his acceptance of the "new international order" being sought by Kissinger. Scott went on to point out that instead of using this nation's enormous food production as a weapon of US foreign policy, to promote the expansion of freedom throughout the world, Ford accepted Kissinger's plan of passing policy control over US food surpluses, "and eventually all US food " to a national food bank.

Herr Henry made no bones about the fact that all of this is designed to further the New World Order. He told the delegates at Rome: "Weare faced not just with the problem of food but with the accelerating momentum of our interdependence." And "our-man in Rome went even further; he declared we should" make global cooperation in food a model, for our response to other challenges of an interdependent world - energy, inflation, population, protection of the environment. Agriculture Secretary Earl Butz admitted of the proposed food bank that "in the end it will be the American taxpayer who pays for it." Who else? And the fact that worldwide distribution of our food will inevitably create food shortages and skyrocketing prices in America has not been overlooked by the Rockefeller conspirators. That is part of the plan.

And before you conclude that any such program would be emphatically rejected by an angry American electorate, remember this: by the time the plan is implemented, the UN will have an army to back up its looting of America! Doubtless the clan's minions in the bureaucracy and the media will refer to the planned food shortage as a mandatory national diet program.

The whole thrust of the Rome gathering was that it is the obligation of the United States which means you, the worker and taxpayer -to feed the world. This, despite the fact that for years America has supplied more than 80% of the food given to foreign countries. It is such American giveaways that in recent years have provided over $25 billion in foodstuffs to such ingrates as Marxist India, now a dictatorship openly allied with the Soviet Union, where the bulk of our grains winds up feeding rats, not hungry people. * While US reserves of food and feed grains are already being depleted, Russia and Communist China have quietly been using part of their massive purchases of bargainpriced American grain to build up their stockpiles. Crews of US and foreign ships carrying US grain to Russian and Chinese ports have been told by Communist dock workers that every third or fourth shipment of US grain is being placed in permanent storage facilities as part of those countries' national reserves.

At least $200 billion in such aid has been similarly squandered to more than 125 nationsincluding more millions now going to members of the OPEC cartel, which has quadrupled oil prices. To pay for all of these giveaways, the Insiders who run the show have used printing press inflation money to add hundreds of billions of dollars to our National Debt. This, coupled with the consequent reduction of domestic supplies, has sent our own food prices out of sight.

But, at least in the past our stupidity was of our own doing and under our own control. Informed Americans could have stopped it-and could still stop it today-by throwing the Congressmen who voted for the giveaways out of office. In the future, when the Rockefeller Kissinger plan for the international authority over food is implemented, our food supply will no longer be under our control. What then?

Increasingly we hear plaintive bleats from the Rockefellers' sheep in the media, calling for Americans to make increased sacrifices to feed the rest of the world. Incredible as it may seem, the truth-twisters of the airwaves and press are attempting to make us feel guilty that we are not starving.

None of these Rockefeller lackeys dares suggest, of course, that the difference between American agricultural production and the poverty levels of the so-called -have notnations is the difference between individualism, with its reliance on private property and free enterprise, and feudalism-fascism-socialism-collectivism. It is the difference between incentives and a planned economy; between efficiency and wasteful boondoggles; between a million salesmen pushing the "too much - and a million ration clerks dividing up the "too little."

This is not to say America's agricultural system is perfect. To the extent that we have instituted price supports and subsidies, paying men not to grow food, we have suffered. Nevertheless, the success of American agriculture under freedom is a model the rest of the world should be encouraged to copy.

But if more nations achieved independence in food production, much of the impetus for world government would disappear faster than a freeloader when the check arrives. In order for the Rockefellers to achieve their New World Order, first they must create famines and the fear of further suffering. All that is required to create a famine is to put all agriculture under control of government bureaucracy, then wait awhile. The bigger the bureaucracy the shorter the wait, and international bureaucracy is the ne plus ultrain producing red tape instead of wheat.

Intertwined with food production grab is the push for population control. People planning are an important tool in building the net that will drag us fishes into the New World Order. The -population bomb- real or exaggerated, is being used in conjunction with food, energy, and international money problems as part of the One-Big-Brother snare. Coinciding with the UN-sponsored conferences in Nairobi and Rome, the United Nations sponsored the World Population Conference at Bucharest, Romania in August 1974. Headlining the program was none other than John D. Rockefeller III, who proclaimed: " I come to Bucharest with an urgent call for a deep and probing reappraisal of all that has been done in the population field. I have changed my mind and now believe family planning alone is not adequate."

An Associated Press report explained: - Rockefeller ... has for years been one of the world's leading advocates of family planning. He donated millions of dollars toward population research and is founder and chairman of the Population Council, a private US organization funded largely by [millions of dollars] the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations." The wire service continued: "His speech reflected the viewpoint voiced at this conference by many members of the Third World and Socialist [that is, Communist] countries." John D. III obviously felt right at home behind the Iron Curtain, as he called for a redistribution of wealth and piously proclaimed that modern development should emphasize "inequitable distribution of the fruits of progress."

In his remarks to the gathering of people planners, the eldest of the Royal Rockefellers made three main points: First, he echoed the Communist line that the rich must give their wealth to the -poor. Second, he asserted that voluntary family planning is inadequate and called for Big Brother to start dictating whether or not a couple is permitted to have a baby. Third, in calling for -moderate levels of consumption- in advanced nations, Rockefeller advocated that Americans voluntarily reduce their standard of living. The fact that it is a little incongruous-not to say hypocritical -for a man whose family is worth uncounted millions, who has thousands of servants, hundreds of luxurious homes and lives in an opulence unknown by the oriental potentates of yore, to ask the rest of his fellow citizens to scale down their living standards, went unnoticed in the New York Times. But to belabor the obvious, whose wealth do you think Rockefeller wants to share, yours or his?

Going along with the call by Rockefeller (who claimed the -United Nations is the world's highest authority for governmental control over people), the conference set in motion the machinery to institutionalize the totalitarian demands of the Stop the Storkers. The Washington Post ,a chief Establishment mouthpiece, has discussed the Nazi like policies being advocated by the people planners:

The day may be approaching when couples will have to prove eligibility and demonstrate qualifications before they are permitted to become parents. Or there may be baby ration cards for couples, group marriages, mass distribution of antifertility drugs, parent licensing, legal Polygamy, abortions on demand, more varied life options for women and more restricted ones for men-such as forced paternity leave for new fathers.

Understand that such enforced infertility is not planned for India or Senegal, but for the United States, where zero population growth is already a fact.

All this, despite the provable fact that there is ample room on earth for all of us-in fact if every man woman and child in the entire world moved to the State of Washington, (twentieth in size of all the states), each would have 490 square feet of space. But we are being led to believe that unless we give Big Brother total power over people's rights to have children, we will all be ankle deep in human beings within a decade. Such august organizations as the National Academy of Sciences are helping to hawk this Rockefeller line, with doomsday messages such as:"There can be no doubt concerning the long-term prognosis. Either the birth rate of the world must come down or the death rate must go up.

This is not to discount the possibility that overpopulation, particularly in backward nations, cannot be a genuine problem. But, if the Rockefellers were truly interested in curbing population growth without enslaving everybody, there is a much better solution. When a country's standard of living goes up, the birth rate goes down-voluntarily. Assist nations such as India and Red China to benefit by the adoption of free market, private property principles, and the abundance produced by such newly free peoples would astound the world. The Rockefellers, however, are interested in more controls, not fewer problems.

The specious Rockefeller argument that the world must accept Mao-style people control or perish is so phony that it is amazing the conspirators have gotten anyone to buy it. As Reverend R. J. Rushdoony points out in his excellent book, The Myth of Overpopulation: Socialism always creates ultimately an imbalance between the number of people living and their food supply, which results in hunger or famine. There is in this sense therefore always a problem of overpopulation under socialism. Socialism, moreover, affects both the food supplies, by limiting it, and also the population, by both expanding it at one stage and limiting it at another.

To the Rockefellers, socialism is not a system for redistributing wealth - especially not for redistributing their wealth -but a system to control people and competitors. Socialism puts power in the hands of the government. And since the Rockefellers control the government, government control means Rockefeller control. You may not have known this, but you can be sure they do!

When the Rockefellers join the UN's World Population Conference in calling for the promotion " of a new economic order by eradicating the cause of world poverty, by ensuring the equitable distribution of the world resources, by eliminating the injustices of existing world trade systems and exploitation perpetrated by capitalistic ... corporations, - something smells as fishy as an unwashed tuna boat.

Curbing population growth is just part of the Rockefeller war on the American family. Abortion is another. According to John H. Knowles, president of the Rockefeller Foundation and one of America's foremost promoters of the slaughter of the unborn, the goal of the Foundation is to achieve the capacity in America for 1.8 million abortions every year.

Not coincidentally, it was John D. Rockefeller III who was appointed by Richard Nixon as chairman of the newly created Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. In accepting the appointment, John D Ill pontificated: The average citizen doesn't appreciate the social and economic implications of population growth and what it does to the quality of all our lives. Rather than think of population control as a negative thing, we should see that it can be enriching. One of the early reports of the Rockefeller Commission recommended: ... that present state laws restricting abortion be liberalized along the lines of the New York State Statute, such abortions to be performed on request by duly licensed physicians under conditions of medical safety.

And the Commisssion further suggested that -federal, state, and local governments make funds available to support abortion services in states with liberalized statutes."Rockefeller is so callous about individual beliefs that he would forcibly extract money from Catholic taxpayers, among others, to finance what their religion teaches is the murder of the unborn. Tough rocks, says the Rock: "Religious preconceptions must be overcome. " The New York model abortion law which chairman John enthusiastically applauded was passed, of course, under the leadership of brother Nelson. During the Vice Presidential confirmation hearings Dr. Charles Rice, Professor of Law at the Notre Dame Law School, characterized Nelson as "the incarnate symbol of the anti life movement - and said that Mr. Rockefeller"is perhaps the leading proponent of permissive abortion in the United States.

The Rockefellers have even financed the establishment of an abortion mill. In the summer of 1971, Planned Parenthood-New York City opened its first large scale abortion center -a prototype for the development of additional centers throughout the city, state, and nation. The center was originally designed to perform more than 10 000 abortions a year for an average fee of $80, with funds provided in many cases by Medicaid. The initial funds to establish the abortion mill came from a $200,000 pledge from The Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

The past three generations of Rockefellers have not been notoriously considerate of other people's feelings and beliefs. When a group of pro-life activists picketed a speech by Nelson Rockefeller in Nebraska, the loveable old politician told a 15 - year old girl: "Don't knock it [abortion], girl, you might need one someday.

In all wars this nation has fought, from the battle of Lexington in 1776 through the last fatality in Vietnam, American combat deaths totaled 668,226 men. Yet, in just the single year of 1972, 700,000 innocent babies were killed in this country, legally, before they could draw their first breath. (Current estimates are that this figure could increase to 1.6 million abortions a year.)

That is the price of the Rockefellers' promotion of easy abortion in the United States. But it is just part of the price all of us will pay (and pay, and pay), if the people planners succeed in herding all of us into their New World Order.

Yes, the Rockefellers are planners. As John D.'s aide, Fred Gates, once confessed: "In our dreams we have limitless resources and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands."Now, thanks to the taxpayers, the Rockefellers have almost limitless funds. As a result, faceless bureaucrats in Washington whom you did not hire and whom you cannot fire -now tell you how to run your business, whom you may hire, where your children will be bussed to school, what products you can purchase, and even what foods you car and cannot eat. It is only a matter of time until the dictocrats tell you how many children you are permitted to have.

There is nothing wrong with planning. The question is who is doing it. Our Founding Fathers believed people should be free to plan their own lives. The Rockefellers believe their agents in the federal government must plan your life for you. It is a simple choice: Will you run your own life, or will you be forced to obey the dictates of bureaucrats, social workers, college professors, sociologists, psychologists, and others who are fronting for the House of Rockefeller?

Nelson is very candid about it. In an October 1975 interview in Playboy magazine, Rocky admitted: "I'am a great believer in planning. Economic, social, political, military, total world planning."(Emphasis added.)

When Big Brother arrives, he may well be wearing horn-rimmed glasses.

Breaking the United Nations: Code X

by Robert Singer posted on Tuesday, 3 February 2009

The Codex Alimentarius Commission

...based in Rome, is an international organization jointly created in 1962 by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) of the United Nations, "allegedly" to protect the health of consumers with guidelines for food standards.

Codex Alimentarius may present the greatest disaster for our food supply-and thus for our health-this country has ever seen, and if not stopped is likely to be implemented starting in 2011.

Let me repeat that, the greatest disaster to our health if not stopped, starting in 2011.

The Codex and regulations affecting our food sovereignty go back to 1962. Fortunately, in 1994 Congress passed the Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act (DSHEA), which for the moment preserved the definition of vitamins, minerals, and herbs as foods.

Without Congressional oversight, the U.S. will move towards Canada and Mexico where supplements are considered drugs, not foods. Codex if implemented will reverse DSHEA and the U.S. will no longer treat dietary supplements as foods, but as toxins.

Let me repeat that, Codex treats foods as toxins!

And, of course, Codex, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and the "World According to Monsanto" are all related. The U.S. and the Codex commission do not require labeling of GMOs. For 18 years, Norway, Switzerland, Russia, Japan, the European Union, and virtually all African countries have fought the U.S. unsuccessfully to require labeling of GMOs. The U.S. erroneously considers GMOs equal to non-GMOs based solely on a 1992 Executive Order from then Skull and Bones president, George H. W. Bush.

If Codex is finalized, the FDA will use its automatic weapons to outlaw more than raw almonds and tryptophan.

In Ohio, the USDA raided a food co-op Gestapo style because it "didn't have a business license". Is the FDA looking out for consumers? Half of the 198 new drugs the FDA approved from 1976 to 1985 had to be withdrawn or relabeled because they caused unexpected side-effects. Predictably, no one at the FDA withdrew Donald's Aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet), a deadly carcinogen we can't avoid because it's an additive in just about every food we eat.

Looking out for consumers, the FDA? - Unlikely.

The story gets even more interesting when you find out Nazi Germany's notorious I.G. Farben cartel is behind Codex and the proposals that would drastically curtail our healthcare freedoms.

The UN has put out dozens of public documents calling for an 80% world population reduction. Catherine Bertini, the head of the UN food programs in 1995, paraphrased the famous Kissinger statement, "Food is power. We use it to change behavior."

And although the effects of Codex are devastating and will result in humans dying from starvation and preventable diseases from under-nutrition, any claims that WHO or FAO have released epidemiological projections are untrue.

New World Order, depopulation? Stan Monteith, MD, and others think so.

"None Dare it Genocide" is a video lecture by Monteith, who believes Codex is part of a New World Order agenda to reduce the population by 80%. Why else would there be a worldwide push to reclassify our food as a toxin? Conspiracy theorists, in particular F.W. Engdahl, the leading analyst of the New World Order, expect a depopulation event to rid the planet of 5 billion "useless eaters." The Illuminati and the One World governors need only 500 million of us for slaves when they take over the world.

Never heard of "Codex Alimentarius"? Now that's unusual because Codex is an "open secret." You would expect the leading opponents of Global Government and the New World Order to be shouting "Codex" at the top of their websites that reach millions everyday.

F.W. Engdahl writes for Michel Chossudovsky's Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), an independent research and media group of writers, scholars, and activists committed to curbing the tide of globalization. You can find hundreds of articles by both Chossudovsky and Engdhal on Globalization, New World Order, and the Economic Crisis, but as of February 1, a Google search of Codex of Global Research Articles (2001-2008) resulted in: No matches found.

Let me repeat that: A search for articles about the greatest disaster to our food supply-and thus for our health-this country has ever seen, scheduled to take effect on December 31, 2011, produced No matches found on a website that reaches 30,000 unique visitors per day. Now, more than ever, readers should demand more coverage on Codex from these popular websites.

Similarly, Jeff Rense has the popular UFO talk and political intrigue conspiracy site, Rense.com. But out of the thousands of articles about every conspiracy known to man, alien, and reptilian alike, you can find only two and they don't even begin to address the situation's seriousness.

What about the vitamin and supplement trade associations? Monsanto, Big Pharma, Chema, and Agra have convinced them "Codex is a nonissue", and that they will actually gain market share when Codex is implemented.

Or the muckraking leftist newsletter Counterpunch.org, edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair? You guessed it...

Your search "Codex Alimentarius on Counterpunch" did not match any documents.

So who is raising awareness about this issue?

John C. Hammell of International Advocates for Health Freedom and Ian Crane, an ex oilfield executive. Ian lectures and writes on U.S. hegemony and the NWO agenda for control of Global Resources.
Since 2007, Ian has focused on the excesses of Codex Alimentarius. Ian is an independent researcher and, of course, self-funded. No banner ads torment you on his website. He observes:
"After spending the past twelve months investigating Codex Alimentarius, I am deeply disturbed by the almost total lack of awareness (or even interest) with regard to the implications of this pernicious global Commission, particularly amongst those most affected by the excesses of this restrictive legislation."
That's no surprise because his website Ianrcrane.co.uk is traffic ranked: 2,381,595 (very few visitors per day, Yahoo is ranked #1 and Google is #2).

Ian has warned that the effects of the "pernicious" legislation, starting in 2011, would be devastating, and he believes that, "without a shadow of a doubt", there is a plot by major food and pharmaceutical companies to see that the Codex proposals become international law... and so should you.

Codex is laying siege to our freedom of choice. Let's try and stop it.

Normally I don't recommend those "take action" campaigns: the ones that tell us, it's not too late, click here to importune our "elected" representatives with emails and faxes.

But Codex is different.

The inconvenient truth for our elected representatives, their families, and staff is, they have to eat and take vitamins and supplements...just like us. So, go ahead and email, fax, and phone; this is one email campaign that might just work.

It's going to come down to a massive rebellion. The DSHEA law that kept the FDA off our backs was passed because millions and millions of letters were sent to people in Congress demanding health freedom. International Advocates for Health Freedom website has a "take action" page.

Think buying organic will help you? Well, not as much as you think, because the U.S. currently allows for up to 10% of GMO contamination of organic foods (the highest of any country in the world, most permit 0.1%).

If you really want to make a difference: support local organic Farmers, Grow your own Food, and of course;Watch: "How Cuba Survived Peak Oil"

Because guess what? They can't stop us from growing our own food. It's that simple.

Robert Singer

Robert Singer is a retired information technology professional and an environmental activist living in Southern California. In 1995 he and his cousin Adam D. Singer founded IPC The Hospitalist Company, Inc., where he served as chief technology officer. Today the company manages more than 130 practice groups, providing care in some 300 medical facilities in 18 states. Prior to that he was president of Useful Software, a developer and publisher of business and consumer software for the personal computing industry.

Read Other articles by Robert Singere.
echochambers
Ron Paul Revolution
Feds Accuse Student Of "Terror and Espionage" For Talking About Constitution

Global Food - Crisis - Engineered Depopulation via Starvation

Depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy towards the Third World. - Henry Kissinger

A succinct description of the elite's plan for depopulation via mass starvation, Ian Angus writes Capitalism, Agribusiness and the Food Sovereignty Alternative:

Nowhere in the world, in no act of genocide, in no war, are so many people killed per minute, per hour and per day as those who are killed by hunger and poverty on our planet. - Fidel Castro

The starting point for our analysis must be this: there is no shortage of food in the world today

Contrary to the 18th century warnings of Thomas Malthus and his modern followers, study after study shows that global food production has consistently outstripped population growth, and that there is more than enough food to feed everyone. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, enough food is produced in the world to provide over 2800 calories a day to everyone - substantially more than the minimum required for good health, and about 18% more calories per person than in the 1960s, despite a significant increase in total population

Over the past three decades, transnational agribusiness companies have engineered a massive restructuring of global agriculture. Directly through their own market power and indirectly through governments and the World Bank, IMF and World Trade Organization, they have changed the way food is grown and distributed around the world

The fact that there is already enough food to feed the world shows that the food crisis is not a technical problem - it is a social and political problem.

Why can't the global food industry feed the hungry? The answer can be stated in one sentence. The global food industry is not organized to feed the hungry; it is organized to generate profits for corporate agribusiness.

Please do read the entire article.

Possibly related posts:

Were the doomsayers right after all?
Corn-to-Ethanol: US Agribusiness Magic Path To A World Food Monopoly
The Feed 2 Bag, Handbag of the Day
The World's Growing Food-Price Crisis