• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The "New World Order"
[size="3"]The NWO (New World Order) is out in the open, out of the realm of "conspiracy theories." The EU President, Herman Van Rompuy, had proclaimed 2009 as the “first year of global governance.” That it has been spoken of using different terminologies, as New World Order (George Bush Senior, 1991), as New Global Order (Gordon Brown, 2008), as Global Financial Constitution (Gordon Brown, 2010) as One World Government, or as Global Financial System, does not take away the fact that history is in the making, and there is nothing pretty about it.[/size][size="3"]

Here is a quote from a former Director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, in 1956:

Quote:... the individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent.

[/indent][size="3"]P. Warburg, a member of the CFR, 1950

Quote:We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest.

[/indent] [size="3"]In 2002, Rockefeller authored his autobiography Memoirs wherein, on page 405, he wrote:

Quote:For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents … to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

[/indent] [size="3"]Henry Kissinger, January 5, 2009, in a CNBC interview, about president-elect Obama:

Quote:...he can give new impetus to American foreign policy … I think that his task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period, when really a ‘new world order’ can be created. It’s a great opportunity. It isn’t such a crisis.

[size="3"]According to Professor Carroll Quigley, in his book Tragedy and Hope (1966)

Quote:... there exists a conspiratorial network which wants "nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole ... his [the individual's] freedom and choice will be controlled within very narrow alternatives by the fact that he will be numbered from birth and followed, as a number, through his educational training, his required military or other public service, his tax contributions, his health and medical requirements, and his final retirement and death benefits.

In None Dare Call it Conspiracy (1971), Gary Allen & Larry Abraham opine that the network ...

Quote:... wants control over all natural resources, business, banking and transportation by controlling the governments of the world. In order to accomplish these aims the conspirators have had no qualms about fomenting wars, depressions and hatred. They want a monopoly which would eliminate all competitors and destroy the free enterprise system.



the first job of any conspiracy, whether it be in politics, crime or within a business office, is to convince everyone else that no conspiracy exists. The conspirators success will be determined largely by their ability to do this. That the elite of the academic world and mass communications media always pooh-pooh the existence of the Insiders merely serves to camouflage their operations.


More excerpts from None Dare Call it Conspiracy (1971):

Quote:Because the Establishment controls the media, anyone exposing the Insiders will be the recipient of a continuous fusillade of invective from newspapers, magazines, TV and radio. In this manner one is threatened with loss of "social respectability" if he dares broach the idea that there is organization behind any of the problems currently wracking America. Unfortunately, for many people social status comes before intellectual honesty. Although they would never admit it social position is more important to many people than is the survival of freedom in America

Quote:One thing which makes it so hard for some socially minded people to assess the conspiratorial evidence objectively is that the conspirators come from the very highest social strata. They are immensely wealthy, highly educated and extremely cultured. Many of them have lifelong reputations for philanthropy. Nobody enjoys being put in the position of accusing prominent people of conspiring to enslave their fellow Americans, but the facts are inescapable.

Quote:It is difficult for the average individual to fathom such perverted lust for power. The typical person ... has no desire to exercise power over others, to conquer other lands or peoples, to be a king. He wants to mind his own business and enjoy life. Since he has no lust for power, it is difficult for him to imagine that there are others who have ... ut we must realize that there have been Hitlers and Lenins and Stalins and Caesars..

This thread is expected to collect information and news/articles related to machinations of the globalists towards setting up the NWO.

The thread [b]International Banking and the Capitalist Conspiracy deals with the financial oligarchs of this neo-feudalistic order, while the topic Orwellian Surveillance Society focuses on the rapidly developing spying control grid. The thread Slaves of the System covers the methodologies employed to exercise control over society through mind and thought manipulation using technologies and systems affecting culture and trends.
Before we proceed further, I wanted to x-post the following, which scientifically explains the difficulty that people have in accepting uncomfortable realities. I had posted it in the "Medical News of Use" thread.


A study explains the "Normalcy Bias", or the "Ostrich" syndrome, so common among the majority of the population.

[indent]Definition: [url="http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Ostrich_syndrome"]Ostrich Syndrome[/url]

Quote:Ostrich Syndrome is when people prefer to 'stick their heads in the sand', much as an ostrich does, rather than accept some uncomfortable facts. On wikis, especially liberal ones like Wikipedia, this is achieved by deleting such uncomfortable facts from articles or talk pages. [Image: icon_mrgreen.gif]

[/indent]Definition: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias"]Normalcy bias[/url]

Quote:The normalcy bias, or normality bias, refers to a mental state people enter when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster occurring and its possible effects. This often results in situations where people fail to adequately prepare for a disaster, and on a larger scale, the failure governments to include the populace in its disaster preparations. The assumption that is made in the case of the normalcy bias is that since a disaster never has occurred then it never will occur. It also results in the inability of people to cope with a disaster once it occurs. People with a normalcy bias have difficulties reacting to something they have not experienced before. People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation.


[url="http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-10-brain-imaging-reveals-optimistic-reality.html"]Brain imaging reveals why we remain optimistic in the face of reality[/url]

Quote:For some people, the glass is always half full. Even when a football fan's team has lost ten matches in a row, he might still be convinced his team can reverse its run of bad luck. So why, in the face of clear evidence to suggest to the contrary, do some people remain so optimistic about the future?

In a study published today in Nature Neuroscience, researchers at the Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging at UCL (University College London) show that people who are very optimistic about the outcome of events tend to learn only from information that reinforces their rose-tinted view of the world. This is related to 'faulty' function of their frontal lobes.

People's predictions of the future are often unrealistically optimistic. A problem that has puzzled scientists for decades is why human optimism is so pervasive, when reality continuously confronts us with information that challenges these biased beliefs.

"Seeing the glass as half full rather than half empty can be a positive thing – it can lower stress and anxiety and be good for our health and well-being," explains Dr Tali Sharot. "But it can also mean that we are less likely to take precautionary action, such as practising safe sex or saving for retirement. So why don't we learn from cautionary information?"

In this new study, Dr Sharot and Professor Ray Dolan from the Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, together with Christoph Korn from the Berlin School of Mind and Brain have shown that our failure to alter optimistic predictions when presented with conflicting information is due to errors in how we process the information in our brains.

Nineteen volunteers were presented with a series of negative life events, such as car theft or Parkinson's disease, whilst lying in a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scanner, which measures activity in the brain. They were asked to estimate the probability that this event would happen to them in the future. After a short pause, the volunteers were told the average probability of this event to occur. In total, the participants saw eighty such events.

After the scanning sessions, the participants were asked once again to estimate the probability of each event occurring to them. They were also asked to fill in a questionnaire measuring their level of optimism.

The researchers found that people did, in fact, update their estimates based on the information given, but only if the information was better than expected. For example if they had predicted that their likelihood of suffering from cancer was 40%, but the average likelihood was 30%, they might adjust their estimate to 32%. If the information was worse than expected – for example, if they had estimated 10% – then they tended to adjust their estimate much less, as if ignoring the data.

The results of the brain scans suggested why this might be the case. All participants showed increased activity in the frontal lobes of the brain when the information given was better than expected, this activity actively processed the information to recalculate an estimate. However, when the information was worse than estimated, the more optimistic a participant was (according to the personality questionnaire), the less efficiently activity in these frontal regions coded for it, suggesting they were disregarding the evidence presented to them.

Dr Sharot adds: "Our study suggests that we pick and choose the information that we listen to. The more optimistic we are, the less likely we are to be influenced by negative information about the future. This can have benefits for our mental health, but there are obvious downsides. Many experts believe the financial crisis in 2008 was precipitated by analysts overestimating the performance of their assets even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary."

'Understanding the brain' is one of the Wellcome Trust's key strategic challenges. At the Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, clinicians and scientists study higher cognitive function to understand how thought and perception arise from brain activity, and how such processes break down in neurological and psychiatric disease.

Commenting on the study, Dr John Williams, Head of Neuroscience and Mental Health at the Wellcome Trust, said: "Being optimistic must clearly have some benefits, but is it always helpful and why do some people have a less rosy outlook on life? Understanding how some people always manage to remain optimistic could provide useful insights into happens when our brains do not function properly."

More information: Tali Sharot, Christoph Korn & Raymond Dolan. How unrealistic optimism is maintained in the face of reality. Nature Neuroscience; e-pub 9 October 2011.

[/indent]The neuroscience study (advance online publication) of Sharot et al, referred to in the above article, is available here: [size="4"][url="http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/%7Etsharot/Sharot_NN_11.pdf"]How unrealistic optimism is maintained in the face of reality[/url][/size] (pdf)
[size="4"][color="#008080"]Quotable Quotes: on the NWO[/color][/size]

-- Source: "Final Warning - A History of the New World Order (2004)" by David Allen Rivera

[Image: line-horizontal-black-fade.gif]

Adolf Hitler:

"National Socialism will use its own revolution for the establishing of a new world order."

In the 1932 book The New World Order, author F. S. Marvin said:

"... the League of Nations was the first attempt at a New World Order ... nationality must rank below the claims of mankind as a whole."

Edward VIII (former King of England, then Governor of the Bahamas), 1940:

"Whatever happens, whatever the outcome, a new Order is going to come into the world ... It will be buttressed with police power ... When peace comes this time there is going to be a new Order of social justice."

Richard Gardner, (former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations under Kennedy and Johnson, and a member of the Trilateral Commission) in the April, 1974 issue of Foreign Affairs:

"In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down ... an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault."

Richard A. Falk (in his article “Toward a New World Order: Modest Methods and Drastic Visions”):

"The existing order is breaking down at a very rapid rate ... We believe a new world order will be born no later than early in the next century and that the death throes of the old and the birth pangs of the new will be a testing time for the human species."

In 1975, 32 Senators and 92 Representatives in Congress signed “A Declaration of Interdependence” which said:

"... we must join with others to bring forth a new world order ... Narrow notions of national sovereignty must not be permitted to curtail that obligation."

Congresswoman Marjorie Holt, who refused to sign it, said:

"It calls for the surrender of our national sovereignty to international organizations. It declares that our economy should be regulated by international authorities. It proposes that we enter a 'new world order' that would redistribute the wealth created by the American people."

George Weigel (director of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.):

"If the United States does not unashamedly lay down the rules of world order and enforce them ... then there is little reason to think that peace, security, freedom or prosperity will be served."

Mikhail Gorbachev (December, 1988 speech in the UN):

"Further global progress is now possible only through a quest for universal consensus in the movement towards a new world order."

President George Bush (September 11, 1990 address to a joint session of Congress):

"The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective– a New World Order– can emerge ... When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this New World Order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the United Nations’ founders."

Time magazine (September 17, 1990 issue):

"... the Bush administration would like to make the United Nations a cornerstone of its plans to construct a New World Order."

Jeanne Kirkpatrick (former U.S. Ambassador to the UN) said that one of the purposes for the Desert Storm operation, was to show to the world how a

"... reinvigorated United Nations could serve as a global policeman in the New World Order."

Gorbachev (December 31, 1990) said that the New World Order would be ushered in by the Gulf War.

Henry Kissinger (while campaigning for the passage of NAFTA):

"NAFTA is a major stepping stone to the New World Order."

David Rockefeller (September 14, 1994, while speaking at the Business Council for the United Nations):

"But this present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for long."

He said at another time:

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." [color="#ff00ff"]{ ..and the right major crisis - 9/11 - happened ... }[/color]

Former West German Chancellor Willy Brandt:

"The New World Order is a world that has supernational authority to regulate the world commerce and industry; an international organization that would control the production and consumption of oil; an international currency that would replace the dollar; [color="#ff00ff"]{ ... yeah... after euro, it will very soon be the turn of the dollah ...}[/color] a World Development Fund that would make funds available to free and Communist nations alike; and an international police force to enforce the edicts of the New World Order."
[size="4"][color="#008080"]Quotable Quotes: On the hidden hand behind the NWO[/color][/size]

-- Source: "Final Warning - A History of the New World Order (2004)" by David Allen Rivera

[Image: line-horizontal-black-fade.gif]

On October 1, 1877, Henry Edward Manning, Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, said of the trouble in the Balkan States:

"It is not emperors or kings, nor princes, that direct the course of affairs in the East. There is something else over them and behind them; and that thing is more powerful than them."

In 1902, Pope Leo XIII wrote of this power:

"It bends governments to its will sometimes by promises, sometimes by threats. It has found its way into every class of Society, and forms an invisible and irresponsible power, an independent government, as it were, within the body corporate of the lawful state."

Walter Rathenau, head of German General Electric, said in 1909:

"Three hundred men, all of whom know one another, direct the economic destiny of Europe and choose their successors from among themselves."

President Woodrow Wilson said in 1913:

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had mens' views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."

John F. Hylan, mayor of New York City (1918-25), said in a March 26, 1922 speech:

"...the real menace of our Republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of a self-created screen ... At the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller

Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as 'the international bankers.' The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States Government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both political parties.

In a letter dated November 21, 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote to confidant Colonel Edward House:

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson."

In the July 26, 1936 issue of the New York Times, Joseph Kennedy, patriarch of the Kennedy family, was quoted as saying:

"Fifty men have run America and that's a high figure."

James Warburg, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17, 1950:

"We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent."

In 1952, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, said:

"The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes."

In 1966, Dr. Carroll Quigley, in his book Tragedy and Hope, says:

"There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. ... I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known ... because the American branch of this organization (sometimes called the 'Eastern Establishment') has played a very significant role in the history of the United States in the last generation."

Dr. Quigley also says that the aim of the network is ..

"... nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the worlds' central banks which were themselves private corporations. The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and indirect injury of all other economic groups."

Professor Arnold Toynbee (a founding member of the Round Table) said in a June, 1931 speech to the Institute of International Affairs in Copenhagen:

"We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world."

Major General John Frederick Charles Fuller, a British military historian, said in 1941:

"The government of the Western nations, whether monarchical or republican, had passed into the invisible hands of a plutocracy, international in power and grasp. It was, I venture to suggest, this semi-occult power which ... pushed the masses of the American people into the cauldron of World War I."

In 1947, the American Education Fellowship (formerly known as the Progressive Education Association) called for the

"... establishment of a genuine world order, an order in which national sovereignty is subordinate to world authority ..."

Brock Chisholm, the first director of the UN World Health Organization said:

"To achieve one world government it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, their loyalty to family traditions and national identification."

Sen. William Jenner said in a February 23, 1954 speech:

"Today the path to total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by the Congress, the President, or the people ... Outwardly we have a constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government, a bureaucratic elite which believes our Constitution is outmoded and is sure that it is the winning side ... All the strange developments in foreign policy agreements may be traced to this group who are going to make us over to suit their pleasure ... This political action group has its own local political support organizations, its own pressure groups, its own vested interests, its foothold within our government."

In a 1963 symposium (sponsored by the leftist Fund for the Republic, of the Ford Foundation) called “The Elite and the Electorate: Is Government by the People Possible?” Senator J. William Fulbright, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said:

"The case for government by elites is irrefutable ... government by the people is possible but highly improbable."

Congressman Larry P. McDonald, who, in 1983 was killed in the Korean Airlines flight 007 that had been shot down by the Soviets said:

"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control ... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was President Carter’s National Security Advisor, said:

"... this regionalization is in keeping with the tri-lateral plan which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of 'one world government' ... National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept ..."

During the 1991 Bilderberger Conference held in Evians, France, Dr. Henry Kissinger said:

"Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order (referring to the riot caused by the Rodney King incident). Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. [color="#ff00ff"]{ ... such as the 9/11 ... }[/color] It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."

On October 29, 1991, David Funderburk, a former U.S. Ambassador to Romania (1981-85), told a group in North Carolina:

"George Bush has been surrounding himself with people who believe in one-world government. They believe that the Soviet system and the American system are converging,"

and the manner in which they would accomplish that was through the United Nations,

"the majority of whose 166 member states are socialist, atheist, and anti-American."

Time magazine on July 20, 1992, in an article called “The Birth of the Global Nation,” Strobe Talbott, an Editor (later Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State) wrote:

"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a good idea after all ... But it has taken the events in our own wondrous and terrible century to clinch the case for world government."

In 1993 he received the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award for the article and for what he has accomplished “for the cause of global governance.”
[url="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8886498/The-EUs-architects-never-meant-it-to-be-a-democracy.html"]The EU's architects never meant it to be a democracy[/url]: The Telegraph, UK, 12 Nov 2011

Quote:[floatleft][Image: greekriot_2054057c.jpg]

[size="2"]Greek police face the wrath of the people in Athens, the cradle of democracy.[/size][/floatleft]So, as headlines scream that vain bids to save the euro threaten us with “Armageddon”, the EU’s ruling elite has toppled two more elected prime ministers, to replace them with technocratic officials who can be trusted to do Brussels’s bidding.

The new Greek prime minister, Lucas Papademos, was the man who, as head of Greece’s central bank, fiddled the figures to enable Greece to get into the euro (against the rules) in the first place – before being rewarded with a senior post in the European Central Bank. He is no more democratically elected than Mario Monti, who will most likely be Italy’s new prime minister and had hurriedly to be made a “senator for life” to qualify him for the job. Monti’s main qualification is that, as a former senior EU Commissioner, he has long been a member of the Brussels elite himself.

One of the few pleasures of watching this self-inflicted shambles unfolding day by day has been to see the panjandrums of the Today programme, James Naughtie and John Humphrys, at last beginning to ask whether the EU is a democratic institution. Had they studied the history of the object of their admiration, they might long ago have realised that the “European project” was never intended to be a democratic institution.

The idea first conceived back in the 1920s by two senior officials of the League of Nations – Jean Monnet and Arthur Salter, a British civil servant – was a United States of Europe, ruled by a government of unelected technocrats like themselves. Two things were anathema to them: nation states with the power of veto (which they had seen destroy the League of Nations) and any need to consult the wishes of the people in elections.

As Richard North and I showed in our book The Great Deception, this was the idea that Monnet put at the heart of the “project” from 1950 onwards, modelling his “government of Europe” on precisely the same four institutions that made up the League of Nations – a commission, a council of ministers, a parliament and a court. Thus, step by step over decades, Monnet’s technocratic dream has come to pass.

The events of last week were by no means the first time that an elected prime minister has been toppled by the Euro-elite. The most dramatic example, as we also showed in our book, was in 1990, when Mrs Thatcher had emerged as the biggest obstacle to the next great leap forward in their slow-motion coup d’etat, the Maastricht Treaty, creating the European Union and the single currency. Following her ambushing at a European Council in October 1990, when she was outnumbered 11 to one, the trap was sprung. An alliance between the European elite, led by Jacques Delors, and our own Tory Europhiles, led by Geoffrey Howe and Michael Heseltine, brought her down within weeks.

They had disposed of the greatest political obstacle to the onward march of their project just as ruthlessly as they were later to brush aside all those referendums expressing the objections of the French, the Dutch and the Irish to their Constitution. The one thing for which there has never been any place in their grand design is democracy. What a pity the Today programme didn’t wake up to that years ago.

... ... ...
One of the despicable agendas of the NWO is depopulation.

Dr Rima Laibow on "Food Nazification" and solutions, as she talks about Codex Alementarius

(Being translated in real time, there are very brief gaps/pauses throughout to retain only the English lecture)



... continued from previous post


Bertrand Russell (1872- 1970) was a renowned British philosopher and mathematician who was an adamant internationalist. In his book "The Impact of Science on Society" (1952) he describes a variety of methods that could be (and have been) used to reduce the world population. Here are some excerpts from his book:

[indent][quote name="Bertrand Russell"]There are three ways of securing a society that shall be stable as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and third that of general misery except for a powerful minority.[/quote]

[/indent][indent][quote name="Bertrand Russell"]... a scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is a world government ... unless there is a world government which secures universal birth control, there must from time to time be great wars, in which the penalty of defeat is widespread death by starvation ...[/quote]

[/indent][indent][quote name="Bertrand Russell"]To deal with this problem [increasing population and decreasing food supplies] it will be necessary to find ways of preventing an increase in world population. If this is to be done otherwise than by wars, pestilence, and famines, it will demand a powerful international authority. This authority should deal out the world's food to the various nations in proportion to their population at the time of the establishment of the authority.[/quote]

[/indent][indent][quote name="Bertrand Russell"]If raw materials are not to be used up too fast, there must not be free competition for their acquisition and use but an international authority to ration them ...[/quote]


Bertrand Russell was a Nobel Laureate in literature.

In more recent times, Obama got a Nobel prize for peace. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Rolleyes' />
US citizens under siege?

[url="http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-and-the-tea-party-cant-save-you-2012-national-defense-act-is-terrifying-2011-12"]Ron Paul And The Tea Party Can't Save You: 2012 National Defense Act Is 'Terrifying'[/url]: Dec. 2, 2011

Quote:There has been considerable confusion over the past few hours as to whether the Senate -- which passed the National Defense Authorization Act (FY 2012) -- included a last-minute "waiver" to protect American citizens from some of the bill's more outrageous and fascist elements, including the right of the US government to detain citizens -- even those on American soil, and not charged with a crime -- indefinitely in military prison. This means that peaceful protesters could be rounded up, dishonestly labeled as potential terrorists or "suspicious," and imprisoned for life without a trial or attorney. This means that federal military personnel would be patrolling our streets, literally signaling the end of our free republic. The offending section of the NDAA has been compared to the internment camps the US government ran during World War II, except this time around it will be Ron Paul supporters, Tea Party members, and young Occupy Wall Street organizers in the detainment camps.

It doesn't matter if a last-minute waiver is in the bill; the offending portions are currently worded so vaguely, that any US citizen can be considered a "terrorist" or an aid to terroristic activity. Any US citizen who is inconvenient to the US government can be detained and silenced.

Also, the intent was extremely bad here -- Sens. John McCain, Carl Levin, and Lindsey Graham INTENDED for this bill to redefine the US homeland as a "battlefield" (Graham's words, not mine), allowing the revocation of even our most basic civil rights and access to due process.

When the intent is bad, an intentionally vague section of the NDAA can be interpreted by authorities in the worst possible way. The whole bill must be thrown out, except for key parts to continue military operations and crucial funding of our armed forces.

Let me remind you that this is not a drill. This is not an inflammatory blogger's post. This actually happened, and with the Senate's passage of this bill, it is very close to becoming law. The US mainstream media is not covering this AT ALL, as I pointed out in a recent column. The only source for even remotely accurate information right now is on the social networks, especially Twitter -- this reminds me of something you'd experience in Iran or Syria, not in America.

The best CNN has done, for example, is to mention there's been some "controversy" about new "detainee rights" outlined in the National Defense Authorization Act.

The network neglects to tell its readers and viewers that "detainee" now means American citizen. This is chilling. Americans now have the same rights as random enemy combatants in Afghanistan. Your government is now treating you as it'd treat a member of the Taliban. Congress has committed treason against the American people.

Up until now, no matter how much (or how little) wealth you had... no matter how much or little education and influence you had... every American was at least guaranteed a freedom from fear: your government could not come in the middle of the night with military non-police forces, without charge, and take you away.

If the National Defense Authorization Act clears the House and is not vetoed by President Obama, that will no longer be true. None of us will be safe. And you won't be given access to a trial or a lawyer.

The media is not telling the public about this bill, which means you have to, before your right to speak out disappears. Tell everyone. This cannot be allowed to stand. This is still the United States of America. And any senator who voted in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act in its current form should be forced to resign from public office immediately. They've crafted a bill that turns America's military against its own people and suspends habeas corpus.

[url="http://www.prisonplanet.com/exclusive-government-activating-fema-camps-across-u-s.html"]Exclusive: Government Activating FEMA Camps Across U.S.[/url]: prisonplanet.com, December 7, 2011

Quote:[floatright][Image: kbremail.png][/floatright]Infowars.com has received a document originating from Halliburton subsidiary KBR that provides details on a push to outfit FEMA and U.S. Army camps around the United States. Entitled [url="http://static.infowars.com/2011/12/i/general/kbr-doc.pdf"]“Project Overview and Anticipated Project Requirements,”[/url] the document describes services KBR is looking to farm out to subcontractors. The document was passed on to us by a state government employee who wishes to remain anonymous for obvious reasons.

Services up for bid include catering, temporary fencing and barricades, laundry and medical services, power generation, refuse collection, and other services required for temporary “emergency environment” camps located in five regions of the United States.

Internment Camp Services Bid Arrives After NDAA

KBR’s call for FEMA camp service bids arrives soon after the [url="http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/12/05/the-national-defense-authorization-act-is-the-greatest-threat-to-civil-liberties-americans-face/"]Senate overwhelmingly passed the National Defense Authorization Act[/url] (NDAA) which permits the military to detain and interrogate supposed domestic terror suspects in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Posse Comitatus.

Section 1031 of the NDAA bill declares the whole of the United States as a “battlefield” and allows American citizens to be arrested on U.S. soil and incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay.

A number of civil liberties groups have come out in strong opposition to the legislation, most notably the Japanese American Citizens League (JACL), the nation’s oldest and largest Asian American civil and human rights organization.

In a [url="http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/safefree/senator_letter_re_detention_9-19-11.pdf"]letter addressed to Congress[/url], S. Floyd Mori, the national director of JACL, said the NDAA is the first time that Congress has scaled back on the protections provided by the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Detention_Act"]Non-Detention Act of 1971[/url]. Mori said the legislation, if enacted and put into use, would be reminiscent of the unconstitutional indefinite detention of Japanese Americans during World War II.

KBR Instrumental in Establishing Camps in 2006

In 2006, KBR was awarded a contingency contract from the Department of Homeland Security, allegedly to support its Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities in the event of an emergency, [url="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/kbr-awarded-homeland-security-contract-worth-up-to-385m"]Market Watch[/url] reported.

The contract was effective immediately and provided for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to expand existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs, KBR said. The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster, the company explained.[floatright][Image: 5regions.jpg]

[size="2"]The 45 regions indicated in the KBR document.[/size][/floatright]

Army Releases Civilian Inmate Labor Program Document

Soon after KBR’s announcement, a little-known Army document surfaced. Entitled the [url="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r210_35.pdf&ei=9pTeTsaBL66ksQKL8KzgBg&usg=AFQjCNHB5ODc2cPm5lgYqdZamUPyDwsbSg&sig2=m_zmxZgQwWw39X2Ww5O2xQ"]“Civilian Inmate Labor Program,”[/url] the unclassified document describes in detail Army Regulation 210-35. The regulation, first drafted in 1997, underwent a “rapid act revision” in January 2005 and now provides a policy for the creation of labor programs and prison camps on Army installations.

National Emergency Centers Act

In 2009, the [url="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-645"]National Emergency Centers Act or HR 645[/url] was introduced in Congress. It mandates the establishment of “national emergency centers” to be located on military installations for the purpose of providing “temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster,” according to the bill.

In addition to emergencies, the legislation is designed to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse, as [url="http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-legislation-authorizes-fema-camps-in-us.html"]Paul Joseph Watson[/url] noted in January of 2009.

Also in 2009, the Army National Guard began posting advertisements calling for [url="http://www.infowars.com/army-national-guard-advertises-for-internment-specialists/"]Internment/Resettlement Specialists[/url], a fact noted by Infowars.com, Prison Planet.com and other alternative media outlets but ignored by the establishment media.

Precursor: Rex 84 Mass Detention Operation

[url="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3010"]Rex 84[/url], short for Readiness Exercise 1984, was established under the pretext of a “mass exodus” of illegal aliens crossing the Mexican/US border, the same pretense used in the language of the KBR request for services.

During the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987, however, it was revealed that the program was a secretive “scenario and drill” developed by the federal government to suspend the Constitution, declare martial law, assign military commanders to take over state and local governments, and detain large numbers of American citizens determined by the government to be “national security threats.”

Rex 84 was devised by Col. Oliver North, who was with the NSC and appointed liaison to FEMA. John Brinkerhoff, the deputy director of “national preparedness” programs for FEMA, and North designed the plan on a 1970 report written by FEMA chief Louis Giuffrida, at the Army War College, which proposed the detention of up to 21 million “American Negroes” in the event of a black militant uprising in the United States.

DHS Coordinating Occupy Arrests

Following a crackdown by police on Occupy Wall Street protesters around the nation, Oakland, California, mayor [url="http://capitoilette.com/2011/11/15/oakland-mayor-jean-quan-admits-cities-coordinated-crackdown-on-occupy-movement/"]Jean Quan[/url] mentioned during an interview with the BBC that she was on a conference call with leaders of 18 US cities shortly before a wave of raids broke up Occupy Wall Street encampments across the country. It was later discovered that the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and other federal police agencies [url="http://www.examiner.com/top-news-in-minneapolis/were-occupy-crackdowns-aided-by-federal-law-enforcement-agencies"]had coordinated the often violent response to the protests[/url].

New York [url="http://www.infowars.com/department-of-homeland-security-adviser-helped-coordinate-police-crackdowns-on-protests-in-18-cities/"]Rep. Peter King[/url], who heads up the House Homeland Security Subcommittee, signaled a sense of urgency when he said the federal government has “to be careful not to allow this movement to get any legitimacy. I’m taking this seriously in that I’m old enough to remember what happened in the 1960′s when the left-wing took to the streets and somehow the media glorified them and it ended up shaping policy. We can’t allow that to happen.”

The federal government responded similarly in the 1960s and 70s when the FBI organized and unleashed its unconstitutional secret police under the covert banner of COINTELPRO.

In addition to the DHS characterizing Americans supporting states’ rights and the Constitution as terrorists, the Defense Department’s Antiterrorism and Force Protection Annual Refresher Training Course in 2009 advised its personnel that [url="http://www.prisonplanet.com/protesters-march-against-bill-that-could-designate-them-terrorists.html"]political protest amounts to “low-level terrorism.”[/url]

Elements of the Police State Coming Together

The KBR document is more evidence that the federal government has established internment camps and plans to fill them with dissidents and anti-government activists that have been demonized consistently by the establishment media.

The NDAA was crafted precisely to provide the legal mechanism for tasking the military to round up activists it conflates with al-Qaeda terrorists. The plan was initially envisioned by Rex 84 and in particular [url="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDcQFjAD&url=http://www.uscg.mil/directives/cim/3000-3999/CIM_3010_14.pdf&ei=iKDeTveVKK_KsQLE8b3fBg&usg=AFQjCNGpPPCcWLk2GDbUq5NuByKI2ge4UA&sig2=68f_4BZMoh03XhqoFHrAcQ"]Operation Garden Plot[/url], an operational plan to use the Army, USAF, Navy, and Marine Corp. in direct support of civil disturbance control operations. It has since added numerous elements under the rubric of Continuity of Government, the overall war on terror, civil disturbance and emergency response.

The government has patiently put into place the crucial elements of its police state grid and overarching plan for the internment of political enemies.

We are quite literally one terror event away from the plan going live. As the DHS and the establishment media keep telling us, the next terror event will be on American soil and not the work of al-Qaeda but domestic patriot political groups. The FBI has specialized in creating domestic terrorists – or rather patsies – and shifting the blame over to their political enemies.
[url="http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/198687-internet-piracy-bill-a-free-speech-kill-switch"]Internet piracy bill: A free speech 'kill switch'[/url]: The Hill, 12/12/2011

Quote:What began as an attempt to restrain foreign piracy on the Internet has morphed into a domestic “kill switch” on First Amendment freedom in the fastest-growing corner of the marketplace of ideas. Proposed federal legislation purporting to protect online intellectual property would also impose sweeping new government mandates on internet service providers – a positively Orwellian power grab that would permit the U.S. Justice Department to shut down any internet site it doesn’t like (and cut off its sources of income) on nothing more than a whim.

Under the so-called “Stop Online Piracy Act” (SOPA) the federal government – which is prohibited constitutionally from abridging free speech or depriving its citizens of their property without due process – would engage in both practices on an unprecedented scale. And in establishing the precursor to a taxpayer-funded “thought police,” it would dramatically curtail technology investment and innovation – wreaking havoc on our economy.

Consider this: Under the proposed legislation all that’s required for government to shutdown a specific website is the mere accusation that the site unlawfully featured copyrighted content. Such an accusation need not be proven – or even accompanied by probable cause. All that an accuser (or competitor) needs to do in order to obtain injunctive relief is point the finger at a website.

Additionally, SOPA would grant regulators the ability to choke off revenue to the owners of these newly classified “rogue” websites by accusing their online advertisers and payment providers as co-conspirators in the alleged “piracy.” Again, no finding of fact would be required – the mere allegation of impropriety is all that’s needed to cut the website’s purse strings.

Who’s vulnerable to this legislation?

“Any website that features user-generated content or that enables cloud-based data storage could end up in its crosshairs,” writes David Sohn, senior policy council at the Center on Democracy and Technology. “(Internet Service Providers) would face new and open-ended obligations to monitor and police user behavior. Payment processors and ad networks would be required to cut off business with any website that rights-holders allege hasn't done enough to police infringement.”

The Center’s president and CEO, Leslie Harris, points a bleak picture of the impact SOPA and its companion legislation in the U.S. Senate would have on the world wide web, arguing that the legislation would “(jeopardize) the continued development of powerful new forums for free expression and political dissent.”

“If these bills pass, there will be major collateral damage to Internet innovation, online free expression, the inner workings of Internet security, and user privacy,” Harris writes.

Google’s public policy director Bob Boorstin takes it one step further, arguing that the bills “would put the U.S. government in the very position we criticize repressive regimes for doing – all in the name of copyright.”

The proliferation of free expression on the Internet has spawned a vibrant new marketplace of ideas – toppling the old legacy media construct and ushering in an era of enhanced accountability in which thousands of new voices provide heightened scrutiny of our elected officials.

Obviously, silencing those voices and stifling the web’s innovative potential would exact a heavy toll on this new accountability – and on the U.S. economy. In a letter urging their colleagues to oppose SOPA, U.S. Reps. Zoe Lofgren and Darrell Issa speak to this very concern.

“Online innovation and commerce were responsible for 15 percent of U.S. GDP growth from 2004 to 2009,” Reps. Lofgren and Issa write. “Before we impose a sprawling new regulatory regime on the Internet, we must carefully consider the risks that it could pose for this vital engine of our economy.”

Safeguarding intellectual property is certainly an important goal. The ability to protect one’s work product is vital to the proper functioning of the free market – and key to preserving its innovative potential. However in enhancing property protections, we cannot permit the government to trample over our right to free speech and due process.

SOPA is the equivalent of curing a headache with a guillotine. It may stop piracy, but it would shut down our economy and unconstitutionally erode our most basic freedoms in the process.

[quote name='sumishi' date='05 December 2011 - 03:16 PM' timestamp='1323077908' post='113952']

One of the despicable agendas of the NWO is depopulation.

Dr Rima Laibow on "Food Nazification" and solutions, as she talks about Codex Alementarius


[/quote][floatright][Image: 220px-Thomas_Jefferson_by_Rembrandt_Peale%2C_1800.jpg]

[size="2"]Thomas Jefferson (1743 – 1826)[/size][/floatright]

With respect to Dr. Rima Laibow's "Food Nazification" presentation, and the Pharma Industry's vision statement of having every person on at least one, preferably two, prescription drugs for life [See Dr. Sherri Tenpenny's interview on Gardasil Vaccine (for HPV) -- [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpSIoE1gPOg&feature=related"]Gardasil Vaccine, Injection of Death!: Dr. Sherri Tenpenny Reports 1/2[/url] ; [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v9Xk1Rq4n4&NR=1"]Gardasil Vaccine, Injection of Death!: Dr. Sherri Tenpenny Reports 2/2[/url] ], the following are a couple of important quotes from the history of the founding of the American Republic:

Thomas Jefferson was author of the Declaration of Independence (1776), an influential Founding Father, and the third president of the United States (1801–1809). A paraphrased quote of his was:

[indent]If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls who live under tyranny.


[floatright][Image: 220px-Benjamin_Rush_Painting_by_Peale.jpg]

[size="2"]Benjamin Rush (1745[/size][size="2"] – [/size][size="2"]1813)[/size][/floatright]Benjamin Rush was a colonial physician known as the "Father of American Medicine." He signed the American Declaration of Independence. He reportedly said about the Constitution around 1787:

[indent]The Constitution of this Republic should make special provision for medical freedom. To restrict the art of healing to one class will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic. ... Unless we put medical freedom into the constitution the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship and force people who wish doctors and treatment of their own choice to submit to only what the dictating outfit offers.

Trailer of real-life "Terminator 3 - Rise of the Machines" [the difference being that the "skynet" in our case will be the NWOers]

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/a-future-for-drones-automated-killing/2011/09/15/gIQAVy9mgK_story.html"]A future for drones: Automated killing[/url]: The Washington Post, September 20, 2011

Quote:One afternoon last fall at Fort Benning, Ga., two model-size planes took off, climbed to 800 and 1,000 feet, and began criss-crossing the military base in search of an orange, green and blue tarp.

The automated, unpiloted planes worked on their own, with no human guidance, no hand on any control.

[floatright][Image: w-Drones-g.jpg]

[size="2"]Future war: Drones that talk to each other and coordinate an attack[/size][/floatright]After 20 minutes, one of the aircraft, carrying a computer that processed images from an onboard camera, zeroed in on the tarp and contacted the second plane, which flew nearby and used its own sensors to examine the colorful object. Then one of the aircraft signaled to an unmanned car on the ground so it could take a final, close-up look.

Target confirmed.

This successful exercise in autonomous robotics could presage the future of the American way of war: a day when drones hunt, identify and kill the enemy based on calculations made by software, not decisions made by humans. Imagine aerial “Terminators,” minus beefcake and time travel.

The Fort Benning tarp “is a rather simple target, but think of it as a surrogate,” said Charles E. Pippin, a scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute, which developed the software to run the demonstration. “You can imagine real-time scenarios where you have 10 of these things up in the air and something is happening on the ground and you don’t have time for a human to say, ‘I need you to do these tasks.’ It needs to happen faster than that.”

The demonstration laid the groundwork for scientific advances that would allow drones to search for a human target and then make an identification based on facial-recognition or other software. Once a match was made, a drone could launch a missile to kill the target.

Military systems with some degree of autonomy — such as robotic, weaponized sentries — have been deployed in the demilitarized zone between South and North Korea and other potential battle areas. Researchers are uncertain how soon machines capable of collaborating and adapting intelligently in battlefield conditions will come online. It could take one or two decades, or longer. [color="#ff00ff"]{... please spare us the lullaby!! The technology is almost here. What do you think all the money pumping by the [/color][color="#ff00ff"]"point-a-gun"[/color][color="#ff00ff"] in military black projects been doing all these decades?....}[/color] The U.S. military is funding numerous research projects on autonomy to develop machines that will perform some dull or dangerous tasks and to maintain its advantage over potential adversaries who are also working on such systems.

The killing of terrorism suspects and insurgents by armed drones, controlled by pilots sitting in bases thousands of miles away in the western United States, has prompted criticism that the technology makes war too antiseptic. Questions also have been raised about the legality of drone strikes when employed in places such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, which are not at war with the United States. This debate will only intensify as technological advances enable what experts call lethal autonomy.

The prospect of machines able to perceive, reason and act in unscripted environments presents a challenge to the current understanding of international humanitarian law. The Geneva Conventions require belligerents to use discrimination and proportionality, standards that would demand that machines distinguish among enemy combatants, surrendering troops and civilians. [color="#ff00ff"]{ ...In case you haven't noticed in the events they spring upon us from time to time, like the Arab Spring, the NWOers care two hoots for "international humanitarian law" and "Geneva Conventions", except when they use them as tools to further their agenda... }[/color]
-- failed post -- Attempt 1 --self deleted --
-- failed post -- Attempt 2 --self deleted --
-- failed post -- Attempt 3 --self deleted -- This is fun!
-- failed post -- Attempt 4 --self deleted -- Even more fun!! <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/angry.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':angry:' />
-- failed post -- Attempt 5 --self deleted --

Admins, please wake up to this Forum's truancy of the now-so-frequent "Page not found" error pages while posting.
[url="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article2752711.ece"]Unconstitutional, unethical, unscientific[/url]: The Hindu, December 28, 2011

--Pushpa M. Bhargava (former Vice-Chairman, National Knowledge Commission)

Quote:[size="4"]The Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill, if passed, will adversely affect agriculture, health of humans and animals, and the environment, causing unparalleled harm.[/size]

[floatleft][Image: vbk-27leadGMCrop_876222f.jpg]

[size="2"]In this August 2011 photo hundreds of farmers, NGOs and social activists take out a mock funeral procession

rally and demand the turning away of big multinational seed and agro-chemical companies from domestic

markets and to stop all kind of trials on GM crops, in Bhopal. Photo: A.M. Faruqui[/size][/floatleft]It is now widely accepted that the existing procedure in India (and even elsewhere) for regulation of genetic engineering technology is faulty and insufficient. It was for this reason that Jairam Ramesh, then Minister for Environment and Forests, put an indefinite moratorium on the open release of genetically engineered Bt brinjal, which was approved by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee of the Ministry on October 14, 2009.

The Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill, proposed to be put up to Parliament, claims to take care of the deficiencies in the existing system of approval of genetically modified (GM) crops. As it turns out, the Bill is unconstitutional, unethical, unscientific, self-contradictory, and not people-oriented.
It suffers from greater flaws and deficiencies than the present system. If passed, it will seriously and adversely affect agriculture, health of humans and animals, and the environment, causing unparalleled harm.

BRAI will consist of three full-time and two part-time members. It will have three divisions, each headed by a Chief Regulatory Officer. It will be supported by a Risk Assessment Unit, an Enforcement Unit, a Monitoring Office, a Product Ruling Committee, an Environmental Appraisal Panel, Scientific Advisory Panels, an Inter-ministerial Governing Board, a Biotechnology Advisory Council, and State Biotechnology Regulatory Advisory Committees. These bodies would consist mostly of bureaucrats who are likely to have little knowledge of the highly complex issues that arise in today's biotechnology. No civil society participation is proposed anywhere. Even the proposed Biotechnology Regulatory Appellate Tribunal will not accept complaints from civil society, in spite of the fact that the Bill directly or indirectly affects every citizen. It is not even clear which department of the Government of India will service BRAI. The Convener of the Selection Committee for members of BRAI will be from the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), which is a vendor of genetic engineering (the technology that BRAI is supposed to regulate) in the country. The Bill says the members of BRAI will be persons of integrity. There is, however, no requirement of integrity for members of any of the other committees mentioned above!

The Bill is unconstitutional as agriculture is a State subject, and it takes away from the State government the authority to take decisions on GM plant products. In this connection, it is noteworthy that more than 10 States cutting across political affiliations formally told Mr. Ramesh in 2009-2010 that they would not permit Bt brinjal to be released in their territories.

[size="4"]No public consultation[/size]

Article 28 of the Bill states the information declared by BRAI “confidential commercial information” will not come under the RTI Act, and there is no way civil society can challenge its decision to declare any information confidential. In spite of the fact that BRAI encompasses activities that would virtually affect every Indian, there is no mention in the Bill of public consultation.

Articles 81, 86 and 87.2, which allow BRAI to override any existing law in the areas covered by BRAI, contradict Article 86, which says “the provisions [of BRAI] shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force.”

The definition of modern biotechnology in Article 3 ( r) is absurd as it excludes a large number (over 25) of areas such as peptide synthesis, immuno-technology, tissue culture, stem cells and nano-biotechnology that are an integral part of today's biotechnology. Not only that, it would make techniques that are used in everyday research in modern biology such as isolation or sequencing of DNA and the PCR technique illegal, unless approved by BRAI in every specific case. So every university in the country teaching these extremely widely used techniques will have to get BRAI permission for teaching them to undergraduate and postgraduate students.

Funnier is the inclusion in Schedule I (which lists organisms and products “which should be regulated by the Authority”) of cloned animals, DNA vaccines, and stem cell-based products. There is no mention of them in the main text of the Bill. Schedule 1 also includes “products of synthetic biology for human or animal use.” I have been in the business of modern biology for six decades and seen the modern biological evolution from very close quarters with more than 20 of my friends having won Nobel prizes but, for the life of me, I cannot make out what is meant by “products of synthetic biology.”

In fact, if one strictly followed item 2(d) of Schedule 1, no organ transplantation would be possible in the country without BRAI permission!

One would also have expected that the Bill, if it was people-oriented, to state the procedure to be adopted before approval of a GM product. The first step should be to determine the need for the product through a socio-economic survey and analysis. If there is need, then one should determine if there are cheaper, better and well-established alternatives such as smart or molecular breeding, organic agriculture, or use of Integrated Pest Management or bio-pesticides in the case of GM products containing a foreign pesticidal gene. If it is concluded that there is no alternative to, say, a GM crop, one would need to state a mechanism for deciding what tests the GM crop would need to undergo, and a statement of who will do the tests to ensure public credibility. There is no provision in the Bill for an independent testing laboratory for GM crops, in which civil society would have confidence.

[size="4"]No mention of mandatory labelling[/size]

There is no mention of mandatory labelling of GM food products, and there is no protection provided to, say, farmers whose fields growing, for example products of organic agriculture, get contaminated with a GM product of the neighbouring farm.

Article 62 under “Offences and Penalties” is unprecedented. It implies that anyone making a statement about a GM crop which BRAI decides is false or misleading, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend up to three months and also with a fine which may extend to Rs. 5 lakh. BRAI will not be obliged to state the basis of its decision which is not challengeable by any member of civil society. The Bill thus assumes that all the wisdom of biotechnology lies with the five members of the Authority, and what thousands of leading scientists say will cut no ice with the members of BRAI.

One may justifiably ask why this Bill. The reasons are clear. Food business is the biggest in the world. Whosoever controls it will control the world. To control food production, one needs to control just seed and agrochemicals production. This is what a handful of multinational seed companies, which are also producers of agrochemicals such as pesticides and weedicides, are attempting to do through patented GM crops. [color="#ff00ff"]{ One of the major NWO strategies to control the planet }[/color] These companies are located in the United States, and liaise closely with the U.S. government.

In fact, one of the biggest quarrels between the U.S. and Europe is that Europe, by and large, does not allow GM crops and requires appropriate labelling of all food products that contain more than 0.9 per cent of GM material. No such labelling is required in the U.S. where, therefore, a person today does not know if he is consuming GM food.

Till a few years ago, there was no significant opposition to GM crops in India. In fact, the mechanism set up by the Government of India, ostensibly to regulate GM products, largely worked as a vendor of GM products, serving the interests of seed and agrochemical MNCs.

But, then, people of India became wiser and better-informed. Consequently, against all odds and expectations of the MNCs, and of the U.S. government and the rulers in India, we had an indefinite moratorium on Bt brinjal, and the opposition to GM crops became a force to reckon with. Some components of the existing regulatory system have also begun to assert themselves. As of today, at least five States (Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh) have formally declared that they will not allow field trials and/or open release of any GM crop. So, the present system had to be disabled, and roadblocks to fulfilling the ambition of the U.S. and the seed MNCs removed. What better way to achieve this than by BRAI — so the government thought. But, I believe, the GoI has again underestimated the collective wisdom of the people of India!

[url="http://www.thehindu.com/news/article2783795.ece"]‘National sovereignty no more absolute'[/url]: The Hindu, January 8, 2012

Quote:[floatleft][Image: TH08_THERN_DAVID_MI_887229e.jpg][size="2"]

Former British Foreign Secretary and Labour MP, David

Miliband, lecturing on “The Emerging New World

Order: Economics and Politics
" [/size][size="2"]in Chennai[/size][size="2"].

[/size][/floatleft][size="4"]Increasing interdependence of states a key feature of international relations today.

The former British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, on Saturday said the increasing interdependence of states was a key feature of international relations today, and it was necessary to have a shared doctrine on how to manage such interdependency.

Arguing that the Westphalian notion of national sovereignty was no more absolute, Mr. Miliband said what was needed was “responsible sovereignty” by which a nation could be questioned if it abused the rights of its citizens or caused injury to global interests, especially the global commons.

Delivering a talk here on “The Emerging New World Order: Economics and Politics,” the Labour MP for South Shields raised the question: “Who is to stand up for citizens when they are abused by their own government?” Further, actions of a nation-state could affect people in another side of the world. In such situations, for instance, concerning the situation in Syria, the world had a legitimate right to comment on its treatment of its citizens.

Borrowing a metaphor used by the former U.S. Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, who compared managing international relations in the Cold War era to navigating a ship in the Suez Canal — where one had to be slow and straight — Mr. Miliband said that in the post-Cold War era, it was like steering a ship in the English Channel — “one could see land within 26 miles, from Dover to Calais.” However, in the “post-post-Cold War era”, “It is like being on the high seas, you can't see land, you don't have a good compass, and navigators have to find land in a new environment.”

In such a situation, he said, there were five “gusts of wind” that would affect the navigation of “ships of state” in international relations: the seismic shift in economic power from the West to the East, the “civilian surge” by which individuals across the world have developed the power to share ideas, aggregate opinions and organise themselves using technology, the shift from a situation of “resource plenty” to one of “resource scarcity,” the rise of political Islam as an important force in the world, and the social, economic and political inter-dependence of the world that made it a “global village.”

On the first point, he said 50 to 70 million people in Asia would soon be joining the global middle class. “This kind of shift, and at such speed, has not happened before.” By 2018, China would be the biggest economy in the world, and India the third biggest by 2030. Jim O'Neill, who coined the term BRICS to identify the new players in the world economy, had another list of 11 countries who would join them. And six of these would be from Asia. “This is a fundamental change,” he said.

Mr. Miliband said the “civilian surge” [color="#ff00ff"]{... like the Arab Spring the globalists instigated to start the talking point which follows... }[/color] implied that people could connect together and “create a global conversation.” It raised the barrier for accountable government in several countries. “It means rulers will have to legitimate their governments.” [color="#ff00ff"]{... by applying for certificates from the NWO, I gather!...}[/color]

He said when states were socially, economically and politically interdependent, there was an asymmetry to their relations, as small actors could cause big consequences. The debt problem of Greece was small in comparison with Europe's economy, but it became a crisis for Europe because it was not addressed.

There were two aspects to such interdependence — a democratising one that involved holding nations to account, but another that could create instability. “One is essentially positive, the other, scarily about the threat of chaos.”

The British MP identified four areas to be thought about in the face of such interdependency: the need for a shared doctrine, which means having responsible sovereignty rather than absolute sovereignty [color="#ff00ff"]{ ... aka hand over sovereign controls to the NWO, sweet eh!... }[/color], to have stronger regional institutions — “the European Union is a success, not a failure” [color="#ff00ff"]{ ... sure, success in centralising power into a bureaucratic dictatorial EU ... }[/color] , tackling inequalities within a country [color="#ff00ff"]{ ... with NWO intervention... }[/color], and preserving the common resources of the world [color="#ff00ff"]{ ... like the global temperature, by handing over carbon tax monies to the NWO... } [/color].

He noted that the dilemmas of democratic systems were apparent in both Britain and India, but there was a difference, he said, between the two. “Britain can still produce ideas, but the decisive player among the two of us is India. This is both a blessing and a burden for you,” he said, and added that at present, the burden of global leadership was being unequally shared. “We support India's entry into the Security Council so that it can share the burden of global leadership.”


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)