“This Is An Emergency Action Notification… Your Channel Has Been Force Tuned” Overtakes TV Stations For Thousands of Viewers

SHTFplan
by Mac Slavo

EAN-th

Thousands of viewers in Atlanta, Austin and Dallas had their television service overtaken by the national Emergency Action Notification system today. According to Fox Engineers, the EAN can only be activated by the President of the United States, prompting questions about to how the system was able to force tune regularly scheduled programming when no emergency had been declared.

A statement from AT&T U-verse says the company is trying to figure out how and why the EAN system was activated on their network:

“Earlier today U-verse TV customers may have received an Emergency Alert notification. We have confirmed that there is no emergency at this time and we are investigating why this occurred. We apologize for any inconvenience.”

Viewers who saw the message appear on their television captured screen shots and sent them to local news stations and news web sites:

 EAN

Infowars’ Paul Joseph Watson notes:

The Emergency Alert System is mandatory by law – stations have no control or power to block the signal once it is sent out by the federal government. Broadcasters are required to install and maintain FCC-certified EAS decoders and encoders at their control points, meaning the signal cannot be switched off or interrupted.

How sensible is it that the feds ‘mistakenly’ sent out an emergency alert – potentially causing panic – amidst national concerns about the Ebola outbreak in the United States?

The United States has several Emergency protocols that allow the government to take over communications systems at the behest of the President.

In 2010 Congress heavily pushed legislation that would have given the President authority to shut down the internet in the event of an emergency such as cyber attack targeting America’s financial system. The bill expired before a vote was taken, but it is believed by many that America’s domestic security agencies have already  developed and implemented an “internet kill switch” that would, among other things, give the government complete control of data across the public internet, including the ability to take major internet access points offline.

Cell phone networks have also been augmented to include Emergency Alert systems that can be initiated by the government. At Watson notes, the system malfunctioned in 2011 when messages sent to cell phone users warned their owners that they needed to take shelter because of an imminent catastrophe.

According to a report from 2012, the Federal Bureau of Investigation may have the capability to shut down entire cell phone subscriber blocks by working in tandem with device manufacturers and mobile phone companies. Hackers who infiltrated FBI records found lists that included the device identifiers, phone numbers, and address books for 12 million Apple subscribers. The infiltration suggests that the FBI has specific details about users and the networks they use to communicate, prompting fears that they could initiate this “geo fence” technology to shut down or overtake cell phone service in a specific city, region or the entire country.

Though Americans currently enjoy the ability to freely utilize their televisions, computers and cell phones as they see fit, during a nationally declared emergency everything can change within seconds.

Technology such as what the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security has implemented could potentially be used to not only alert Americans of potential emergencies, but to redirect the messages that are being broadcast to the public. Specifically, they now have complete access to shut down any news, information, videos or citizen reports that run contrary to the government’s narrative.

Those concerned with the possibility of losing communications with loved ones in an emergency should consider implementing alternate communication protocols.

SHTFplan

America’s Weaponization of Ebola

Strategic Culture
by Wayne MADSEN

President Barack Obama has received a torrent of criticism for dispatching U.S. troops and National Guardsmen to the Ebola-ravaged West African countries of Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea to help control the spread of the highly-lethal Ebola-Zaire hemorrhagic virus. While Cuba has sent qualified doctors to the stricken region, Obama has responded with troops answering to the U.S. Africa Command in Stuttgart, Germany. 

Evidence has recently surfaced in a 2009 U.S. embassy Berlin cable to the U.S. State and Defense Departments that German authorities hesitated to send hemorrhagic fever cultures to the suspected biological warfare laboratory at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) in Fort Detrick, Maryland because the Germans feared the Army might «weaponize» the cultures.

The cable, classified as «Sensitive», is dated December 15, 2009 and states:

«German MFA [Ministry of Foreign Affairs] Deputy Head of Division for Export Control Markus Klinger provided the following non-paper to Econoff [Embassy Economics Officer], seeking additional assurances related to a proposed export of extremely dangerous pathogens to the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases. The Army’s end use certificate provided to Germany is lacking an official seal. Klinger’s deputy, Nancy Reck, noted that Germany had made two follow-up requests to the Army seeking assurances and clarifications related to this proposed export. The GOG [Government of Germany] seeks assurances from the USG [US Government] or US Army that the end use certificate and the information contained therein are legitimate and accurate».

The «non-paper» reference is to an «aide-memoire», what is known in the diplomatic world as a note without an author, source, or title that is used to prepare for negotiations. The following «non-paper», which was originally written in German, was translated by the embassy and sent to Washington:

«For Official Use Only 

Against the background of our partnership in the area of non-proliferation and our excellent cooperation in the matters of export controls, we would like to bring the following issue to the attention of your government. 

A German firm has applied for the approval of the export of 184 genetic elements with nucleic acid sequences of viruses for the production of recombinant viruses. The viruses will be used in optical imaging to identify host factors required for viral replication. The recipient in the USA is, according to the enclosed end use certificate, the Department of the Army ‘US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID)’ Fort Detrick, Maryland. 

Specifications in English about the goods, the recipient and end use can be seen from the end use certificate. The goods are controlled by the Australia Group and are subject to compulsory export approval (List position C1C353A). This matter concerns the complete genome of viruses such as the Zaire Ebola virus, the Lake Victoria Marburg virus, the Machupo virus and the Lassa virus, which are absolutely among the most dangerous pathogens in the world. The delivery would place the recipient in the position of being able to create replicating recombinant infectious species of these viruses. 

Because of the particular criticality of these goods, the German federal government practices an exceptionally restrictive approval policy for such exports. An approval here can only be issued if an improper end use in association with the development or production of biologic weapons approaches can be foreclosed with a probability approaching certainty. The enclosed end use certificate is on the letterhead of the U.S. Army. The required official seal is missing, however. A decision about the export has not yet been made. Given the foregoing, we would appreciate confirmation that the end use certificate really is from the Department of the Army and of the accuracy of the data contained therein. We look forward to the continuation of our excellent cooperation in matters of non-proliferation and export controls.»

The German government specifically stated that the ability of Fort Detrick to «create replicating recombinant infectious species» of dangerous hemorrhagic viruses could violate international controls on the export of dangerous weapons of mass destruction that are enforced by the Australia Group of signatories to biological, chemical, and nuclear export treaties.

The Germans are in a position to be well aware of past U.S. involvement in biological warfare operations, especially in Zaire, where, in 1976, the first major outbreak of the Zaire Ebola virus, referenced by the Germans in their aide-memoire, occurred near the Ebola River in northern Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo).

In 1976, while the CIA was experimenting with Ebola and HIV in Zaire as part of its illegal covert war against the Marxist government of Angola, Orbital Transport und Raketen AG (OTRAG), or Orbital Transport and Rockets, Inc., a Stuttgart-based West German corporation closely linked to West Germany’s Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) intelligence service and the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), helped establish a huge 100,000-square mile rocket base in the Shaba (Katanga) province of Zaire. 

The base was not only involved in launching rockets but also in providing the CIA with a base of operations against the Marxist government of neighboring Angola. The authorization for the CIA to use the OTRAG zone as a base of operations for its illegal support for right-wing guerrillas in Angola came from Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and the operations were carried out by CIA director George Bush.

OTRAG’s Zaire base was shut down in 1979 and it was relocated, courtesy of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, to the Libyan Desert in 1981. Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev was so concerned about the OTRAG base’s offensive capabilities he pressured French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing to weigh in with Mobutu to force the base’s ouster from Zaire. The German government’s present concern about the American weaponization of hemorrhagic fevers that have plagued Zaire/Congo indicates that Brezhnev was correct in suspecting the actual purpose of the OTRAG base. The first Ebola outbreak in Zaire in 1976 coincides with the start of operations at the OTRAG base.

The CIA’s longtime Technical Services Director, Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, who came up with various ways to infect CIA targets like Congolese Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, Cuba’s Fidel Castro, and Iraqi leader General Abdel Karim Kassem with lethal toxins, admitted to a congressional hearing that as early as 1960 he disposed in the Congo River a large quantity of viruses to contaminate anyone who used the river for drinking water.

The U.S. embassy in Lusaka, Zambia was quick to report in an October 3, 2008 cable to Washington the outbreak of an unknown virus among six South African members of a safari group on the Lower Zambezi River that was caused by «person-to-person transmission may be via bodily fluids — vomit, saliva, blood, etc.» However, with only preliminary evidence from the CDC, the embassy was quick to rule out «Ebola, Marburg, and Crimean-Congo» as the cause of the illness of the South Africans. 

The Walter Reed Johns Hopkins Cameroon Program (WRJHCP), based in Yaoundé, Cameroon, and involving both the CIA-connected U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Military HIV Research Program (USMHRP), has been closely «monitoring» Cameroon’s border with the Republic of Congo for Ebola and other hemorrhagic fever outbreaks.

It is not only in Africa that the United States is suspected of violating the 1972 Biological Warfare Convention by engaging in bio-weapons research. In addition to the United States, an October 4, 2008 cable from the U.S. Mission in Geneva to Washington stated that Ukraine, then under the rule of pro-NATO President Viktor Yushchenko, was insisting that compliance with the Biological Warfare Convention was the responsibility of «individual scientists’» adhering to unenforceable «codes of conduct.» 

Another 2008 cable from the U.S. embassy in Manila describes how the U.S. Centers for Disease Control assisted the Philippines in examining the outbreak of the milder form of Reston Ebola in the Philippines swine stock. The Reston strain gets its name from a 1989 outbreak of Ebola at the Reston Primate Quarantine Unit in Virginia, near Washington, DC that killed a number of primates. The facility was linked to Ebola and Marburg virus research at Fort Detrick. Viral outbreaks in Southeast Asia, such as that Ebola Reston swine outbreak in the Philippines, also involved researchers from the U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit (NAMRU-2) in Jakarta, Indonesia. Several Indonesian health officials and politicians have charged that the U.S. Navy facility is not only involved in bio-warfare research but also directly assisting U.S. Big Pharma companies in research of airborne influenza, such as H5N1 avian flu, as well as anthrax, infectious bursal disease, and other pathogens. 

Indonesian Health Minister Siti Fadilah Supari charged that NAMRU-2 was illegally sending biological specimens out of the country. Indonesian Foreign Minister Hasan Warijuda demanded to know why NAMRU-2 personnel enjoyed diplomatic immunity. Soeripto, the Deputy Chair of Parliamentary Commission III on Law and Human Rights, claimed that NAMRUs were a front for intelligence activities and called for NAMRU-2’s immediate closure. In 2010, the Indonesian government ordered NAMRU-2 to close and it was relocated to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. NAMRU-2 maintains a detachment in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. 

The Navy continues to maintain NAMRU-3 in Cairo, NAMRU-K in Nairobi, NSAMRU-6 in Lima, and a special detachment in Bangkok. These facilities are engaged in the same type of «research,» including of hemorrhagic fever and influenza outbreaks, which resulted in NAMRU-2’s «walking orders» from Jakarta. All these Navy units have relationships with the perennially suspect USAID, which maintains its own «Public Health Team.» Personnel from NAMRU-3 and the U.S. Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine in Landstuhl, Germany were sent to Kuwait in August 2009 to investigate the sudden outbreak of H1N1 swine flu among U.S. troops stationed at Camp Arifjan. 

U.S. activities at Landstuhl, Stuttgart, Germany’s OTRAG base in Zaire, and a research institute seeking to export Ebola and other deadly pathogens to Fort Detrick have focused on Germany as a nexus for America’s quiet treaty-violating bio-warfare research. One single cable out of a tranche of 250,000 cables released to WikiLeaks has provided the «smoking test tube» for this illegal research that may be behind the current Ebola outbreak in West Africa.

Strategic Culture

Who Will Control Your Internet?

The New American
by William F. Jasper

internet control

In late September and early October of this year, huge demonstrations broke out in Hong Kong. The protesters were outraged by the decision of Communist Party leaders on the mainland to stack the deck for elections to Hong Kong’s chief executive post with pro-Beijing lackeys. Day after day, as the “umbrella revolution” in Hong Kong swelled from thousands to hundreds of thousands, China’s infamous “Great Firewall” effectively prevented most Chinese from even learning about the Hong Kong protests. China’s army of Internet censors, ably assisted by software and hardware from Western companies, worked furiously to block and scrub stories, images, and comments about the demonstrations from news sites, blogs, social media, and search engines.

Beginning on October 1, the propaganda organs of the People’s Republic began flooding China’s media — including the regime’s controlled Internet sites and social media — with stories extolling patriotism and images of parades and other events celebrating National Day, the PRC’s great communist holiday. When coverage of Hong Kong finally did appear on mainland television and Internet, it was to falsely present the largely peaceful demonstrations as violent and lawless. The man-on-the-street interviews presented by the Party-controlled media, not surprisingly, presented comments that universally condemned the Hong Kong protests and unanimously supported the “democracy” willed by the party leaders.

But the rigid control exercised by Communist China over the Internet does not merely encompass censorship of truths that the regime finds inconvenient. It also entails tracking down those who dare to dissent from the party line in cyberspace.

“A friend of mine recently tried to access some politically sensitive websites while at an Internet café in a remote, small city in Xinjiang Province,” recounted human rights activist Harry Wu, in Congressional testimony in 2006. “The police quickly showed up to arrest him.” They had been able to track down his friend thanks to the “Golden Shield” program, an integral part of China’s Great Firewall for Orwellian control of the Internet. Wu, who spent 19 years in China’s labor camps, explained that Golden Shield has been built with indispensable assistance from U.S.-based companies. “The project will help prolong Communist rule by denying China’s people the right to information,” Wu testified. “In order to develop the ‘Golden Shield,’ China has utilized the technologies of a number of foreign companies, such as Intel, Yahoo, Nortel, Cisco Systems, Motorola, and Sun Microsystems. The ‘Golden Shield Project’ would not have been possible without the technology and equipment from these companies.” Communist China may be infamous for its Golden Shield and its Great Firewall, but it is far from alone in using draconian police powers to troll, patrol, and censor the Internet. The member states of the United Nations comprise a den of thugs and thieves with atrocious human rights records. Even the governments we are accustomed to deeming more “enlightened” — such as those of the United States and Western Europe — have been revealed, by recent leaks and admissions, to be more than willing to trample the rights of netizens. The National Security Agency, Department of Homeland Defense, FBI, IRS, and other agencies have shown that they have already opened the door for tyrannical abuse of their awesome capabilities to monitor virtually every word and action of every American — not to mention the billions of other human inhabitants of our planet.

Who will control the Internet — and all of our personal and business data, communications, and activities that stream through it? The United Nations? The U.S. government? Multinational corporations? A hybrid consortium of governments, non-governmental organizations, UN agencies, and corporations?

Those were the important questions under discussion and negotiation at the recently concluded Ninth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which took place September 1-5 in Istanbul, Turkey. Considering the magnitude of the issues involved — privacy, surveillance, cybercrime, national security, intellectual property rights, not to mention trillions of dollars in commerce — the UN-sponsored IGF summit received remarkably little coverage from the mainstream media. A Plenipotentiary Conference of the UN’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is taking place in Busan, South Korea, during the last week of October and the first week of November.

It was the ITU’s World Conference on International Telecommunications 2012 (WCIT-12) in Dubai that touched off a worldwide reaction against the UN grab for control over the Internet.

China, Russia, Cuba, Iran, and other repressive regimes that already drastically censor and restrict Internet usage, while at the same time using cyberpolice to track and arrest dissidents, have been demanding that control over the Internet be “internationalized” under some sort of multilateral UN apparatus that would give governments Beijing-style controls globally. When the secret text of the ITU’s proposed Dubai “reforms” leaked out in 2012, it was clear that it reflected these statist influences.

On September 22, 2012, the U.S. Senate, in a rare show of unity, by unanimous consent passed a resolution introduced by Senators Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) calling on the U.S. government to oppose United Nations control of the Internet. The U.S. House of Representatives, likewise, approved the same resolution by a 397-0 vote.

Other “stakeholders” — NGOs, corporations, think tanks, and Western governments — have been pushing for a “multistakeholder” mixed form of “global governance” for the Internet that appears, on the surface at least, to be a better alternative. But as is so often the case, surface appearances can be misleading.

Nevertheless, the Obama administration has already begun transferring stewardship of the Internet to a nebulous and evolving multistakeholder system that may prove little different from the UN’s multilateral model. Despite repeated pledges by President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and other administration spokesmen of commitment to openness, transparency, privacy rights, and freedom of expression on the Internet, the reality is that the administration is moving toward more censorship, surveillance, and repression on the Internet.

On March 14, the Obama administration announced that in October 2015 the United States will relinquish all remaining control over the “root” of the Internet to an obscure, non-profit organization. That group, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), promises to create a new structure that will keep the Internet private, safe, and robust. From the start of the Internet in the early 1990s, a computer genius named Jon Postel managed the Internet from his office at the Information Sciences Institute at the University of Southern California, under the name Internet Assigned Names Authority (IANA). When Postel died suddenly in 1998 at age 55, his responsibilities were transferred to ICANN under the control of the Department of Commerce (DoC). But the contract under which ICANN has been operating ends in September 2015, after which ICANN will operate on its own. According to Larry Strickling, the head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) inside the DoC, the new ICANN management will not lead to control by the UN or any other international government agency. “I want to make clear,” said Strickling, “that we will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an intergovernmental solution.”

However, these and other assurances notwithstanding, there is more than ample cause for the freedom-minded to be concerned about the administration’s Internet policy. On October 1, 2011, President Obama signed the global Internet treaty known as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which, among other things, sets up international governing and adjudicating bodies and would allow foreign companies to demand that ISPs (Internet Service Providers) remove web content in the United States without any legal oversight. Typical of his modus operandi, President Obama has attempted to implement this treaty as an executive agreement, in clear violation of our Constitution’s requirement of congressional approval. In addition to ACTA, the Obama White House has also been simultaneously championing the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House of Representatives and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) in the Senate, both of which contain dangerous ACTA-style censorship and control provisions. Then, of course, there is Presidential Policy Directive 20 (PPD 20), which was secretly implemented by President Obama in October 2012, ostensibly as a security directive against cyberattacks. The American people didn’t find out about it until June 2013, when PPD 20 was leaked by Edward Snowden.

But the threat to freedom in cyberspace does not emanate only from the Obama White House and the United Nations. As with virtually every other effort to expand “global governance” over some vital aspect of our lives — energy, air, fresh water, oceans, forests, firearms, education, medicine — there is the usual convergence of socialist, communist, and authoritarian regimes with globalist think tanks, multinational corporations, and tax-exempt foundations, all aiming to centralize control over the Internet. Specifically, leading the charge in this push for control are the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), also known as Chatham House, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), also known as Pratt House, the World Economic Forum (WEF), the Trilateral Commission, and the Ford, Rockefeller, and Soros Foundations.

In an essay entitled “The Strategic Significance of the Internet Commons,” former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff describes cyberspace and the Internet as a “global commons” that must come under “global governance.” The article by Chertoff (a Trilateral Commission member) was published in the Summer 2014 issue of Strategic Studies Quarterly, a journal published by the Air Force Research Institute. In it, Chertoff writes:

 

Cyberspace, much like the high seas, air, outer space, and Antarctica should be viewed as the newest global commons…. Cyberspace is a strategic resource that is essential to today’s global economy yet poses unprecedented risk and vulnerability. Like the development of global governance for the high seas and outer space, cyberspace needs global governance that preserves its freedom and openness while strengthening its security to protect the shared economic and utility value of all nations.

 

Chertoff & Chatham

Former DHS Secretary Chertoff (who now heads the high-powered Chertoff Group consultancy) is especially fond of the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), citing it several times as the model for dealing with the cyberspace global commons. This is revealing, inasmuch as LOST has been a cauldron of controversy for decades, since it would: a) challenge the sovereignty of our inland and coastal waters; b) give the UN pretended legal authority over “all ocean space”; c) give the UN a huge constant revenue stream from seabed mineral rights and sea lane taxes; d) subject our naval operations to UN interference; and much more.

Chertoff seems to speak with authority on this subject by virtue of the fact that he sits on the impressive-sounding Global Commission on Internet Governance. Sounds very official and important, right? So it might be fair to ask who commissioned this commission.

According to a press release from Chatham House on January 22 of this year:

 

Carl Bildt, Sweden’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, will chair a new Global Commission on Internet Governance, launched by The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) and the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House).

 

The Royal Institute of International Affairs is the British cabal of globalists who serve as the de facto governing class of the U.K., in much the same manner that its New York-based sister house, the Council on Foreign Relations, operates here in the United States.

Bildt serves on the International Advisory Board of the CFR. Another CFR luminary serving on the new Global Commission on Internet Governance is Nobel Prize-winning economist Michael Spence, author of The Next Convergence. And another is Joseph Nye, professor and former dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, former chair of the National Intelligence Council, current executive director at the CFR, and current North American chairman of the Trilateral Commission. As we’ve already noted, Chertoff is also a member of the Trilateral Commission, a very rarified group of one-worlders organized by David Rockefeller (former chairman of the board and current honorary chairman of the CFR, as well as founder and current honorary chairman of the Trilateral Commission). The CFR, RIIA, and Trilateral Commission form the top tier of globalist think tanks promoting world government. Notable allied outfits in this effort include the Brookings Institution, Aspen Institute, Peterson Institute, Club of Rome, Club of Madrid, Rand Corporation (of which Bildt is also a trustee), and a host of the big foundations, such as Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Gates, Soros, Hewlett, et al.

Not surprisingly, Chertoff’s views concerning Internet governance fit nicely with his un-American views of “homeland security.” In 2012, he co-chaired the Aspen Institute’s Homeland Security Group, which produced a report entitled “Homeland Security and Intelligence: Next Steps in Evolving the Mission.” As to be expected, the Chertoff-led Aspen report advocated for evolution in the direction of centralized, nationalized control of police functions. That is always a given, for in the CFR-RIIA worldview, power — political and economic — must always “evolve” (with plenty of helpful pushes, shoves, and brow beatings by the CFR thought cartel) toward more concentrated and centralized power, first by breaking down checks and balances and transferring authority from the local to the national level, and then from the national to the regional and global levels.

Chertoff is getting an assist in this effort from former CIA Director General Michael Hayden, a CFR member, who is a principal of the Chertoff Group. General Hayden served as a member of the CFR’s Advisory Committee that helped produce the Council Special Report No. 56 entitled “Internet Governance in an Age of Cyber Insecurity.” The report was a project of the CFR’s International Institutions and Global Governance program, an ongoing project that is ever pushing for more centralized, concentrated global government.

 

Globalists, Socialists Unite

Among the many other key CFR hands in the Internet governance game are Senator John D. “Jay” Rockefeller and technology/investment guru Esther Dyson. Rockefeller is enthusiastic over the internationalizing of the Internet, stating,

 

Since 1998 the U.S. has been committed to transitioning management of the Internet’s domain name system to an independent entity that reflects the broad diversity of the global Internet community. This is the next phase in this transition.

 

Esther Dyson served, along with General Hayden, on the Advisory Committee that produced the above-mentioned CFR report. But Dyson’s role goes much deeper — she was the founding chairwoman of ICANN when it was established in 1998 to take over the Internet domain roots. And although she often is described as “an entrepreneur and philanthropist,” like many of her fellow global corporatist elites, she has an affinity for authoritarian (and totalitarian) regimes. Dyson, for instance, is a major investor in Russian tech companies and a big promoter of Skolkovo, Russia’s effort to build a competitor to America’s Silicon Valley.

We reported on Dyson’s infatuation with then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Vladimir Putin’s sock puppet, in an August 5, 2010 article entitled “‘Breathing Pixie Dust’ Investing in Russia”:

 

“Maybe I’m breathing the same pixie dust, but there’s real momentum for this,” says Esther Dyson, in a June 25 online article for Foreign Policy magazine reporting on Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s visit to California’s Silicon Valley. Dyson, a globally celebrated technology guru, is a major promoter of Skolkovo, the ambitious project near Moscow that Kremlin leaders intend to make into a high-tech research and production center.

A one-time member of the Skolkovo advisory board, Dyson is the founder of EDventure holdings, which has invested heavily in Russian start-up companies. She sits on the advisory board of AmBAR, the American Business Association of Russian-speaking Professionals, which organized a major summit of American venture capital investors in Russia this past May. Dyson and AmBAR also were involved in facilitating Medvedev’s tech-shopping trip to the United States in June.

 

We also noted in the same article that Dyson had been appointed to the Presidential IT Advisory Council of Bulgaria, by Bulgarian President Georgi Parvanov, who, like Putin and so many “former” communists now in power in central and eastern Europe, is a veteran “Chekist,” a member of the secret police. But CFR/RIIA globalists such as Bildt, Dyson, Hayden, Rockefeller, et al., have never had a problem consorting with tyrants.

It is worth noting that the venue chosen by the RIIA for its press release announcing the launch of the Global Commission on Internet Governance was the 2014 World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland. WEF/Davos is that annual glamorous soirée of globalist billionaires, bankers, butchers, dictators, politicians, and academics where the CFR-RIIA elites of the capitalist world hobnob and network with their communist and socialist counterparts. Thus the subsequent explosion of activity and prop­aganda in favor of “global governance” for the Internet.

The timing of the RIIA announcement at the WEF was not accidental. The organized one-worlders targeted 2014 as the critical  year to advance their agenda to seize the Internet with the NETmundial conference in Brazil in March, the IGF summit in Istanbul in September, and the ITU conference in South Korea in October-November.

At the Istanbul summit, the WEF proposed that its elite “grass tops” membership is the perfect partner for the “grassroots” activist organizations supporting an open, transparent, freedom-promoting Internet. It is noteworthy that “grass tops” is a term the WEF has adopted to describe the cozy relationship that its uber-rich elites enjoy with the street activists.

Alan Marcus, head of IT and telecommunications industries at the World Economic Forum, told IGF participants that the WEF-ICANN NETmundial initiative is intended to “bring our ‘grass tops’ community to the issues of internet governance,” and “bring their resources and identifying solutions and convening coalitions around those solutions to move some of our collective challenges forward.”

Of course, many of the so-called grassroots groups attending the IGF summit are actually “AstroTurf” organizations that already are financial beneficiaries of the WEF “resources” to which Marcus made reference. The WEF is based in Geneva, Switzerland, which makes for easy collaboration between its grasstops members and the multitude of UN agencies headquartered in that city, including the International Telecommunications Union.

The September IGF confab in Istanbul was noteworthy on several other accounts, not the least of which is the irony (or mockery) in selecting Turkey for the venue. After all, the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, embroiled in one scandal after another, has resorted to extreme repressive measures to prevent exposure of its corruption via the Internet and social media. Turkey’s notorious Law No. 5651 on the Struggle Against the Crimes Committed on the Internet has been used to block YouTube, Vimeo, Twitter, Blogger, and, reportedly, thousands of other websites. According to the liberal-left Freedom House, the government of Turkey also is “the world’s leading jailer of journalists.”

But the despot pedigree of the IGF conference didn’t begin and end merely with the host country. Befitting an event sponsored by the UN, the Istanbul Internet Governance Forum was presided over by Wu Hongbo, under-secretary-general of the UN’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Comrade Hongbo, besides representing the UN, ultimately answers to his real bosses in Beijing, the leaders of the Communist Party of China. The communist Beijing regime, of course, is notorious for brutal repression of all human rights, including rigid censorship and aggressive policing of the Internet. Under-Secretary-General Hongbo issued the UN’s official invitation for the IGF confab “on behalf of the Secretary-General of the United Nations,” Ban Ki-moon.

Comrade Hongbo had plenty of help at the IGF from fellow Communist Party members, who attended as “official participants,” as well as members of the IGF’s Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). China’s representation includes Professor Liang Guo of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Lee Xiaodong, CEO of CNNIC (China Internet Network Information Center, an agency of China’s Ministry of Information); and Chen Hongbing, China’s permanent representative to the UN office in Geneva. These are the folks that have helped build and maintain China’s shameful “Great Firewall” that the communist regime uses to spy on, censor, restrict, and police Internet usage.

In addition, there is the High-Level Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms, which has had a huge hand in forming the agenda for the IGF. Among its members is Liu Qingfeng, director of the National Speech & Language Engineering Laboratory of China.

Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin had their representatives at the IGF/Istanbul as well. One of them was Robert Aleksandrovich Schlegel, a member of Russia’s State Duma, where he is deputy chairperson of the Committee on Physical Culture, Sports and Youth Affairs. Schlegel is also a spokesman for the Russian Internet Governance Forum, where his official bio unabashedly admits (or perhaps boasts) that he was press director of the “Nashi” movement, Putin’s version of the Hitler Youth.

So, American taxpayers should be happy to know that Secretary of State John Kerry (CFR) was so impressed with the potential of this conference that he allocated $350,000 to the IGF to boost their “reform” effort.

“As part of the United States efforts to ensure a continued open, interoperable, and secure Internet through global, multistakeholder participation, the State Department’s Bureau of International Organization Affairs is providing $350,000 as a one-time contribution for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) from its 2012 International Organizations and Programs (IO&P) budget,” the Department said in a press release.

Lest one may think that the Istanbul IGF conference was a one-off, unique affair, as far as providing a venue that is unfriendly to freedom is concerned, consider the 2012 IGF in Baku, Azerbaijan, hosted by the ultra-repressive regime of Ilham Aliyev. Aliyev inherited his position as “president” from his father, Heydar Aliyev, the KGB chief and Communist Party dictator of Azerbaijan under the old Soviet Union.

 

Socialist International

Unfortunately, Schlegel, Hongbo, Xiaodong, and others of similar ilk are not rare outliers; they are representative of the prevailing makeup of the UN, the IGF, and the Internet governance “reform” effort. One of the most ominous signals that this UN-led effort is fatally tilted against freedom is the dominance of the process by leaders of the Socialist International, which traces its lineage to the First International founded by Karl Marx.

The Socialist International (SI) is a massive, globe-straddling organization of 168 political parties and organizations from all continents, including 60 member parties that currently are running national governments. Its members are completely at home inside the United Nations and are comfortable collaborating with representatives of communist regimes. In fact, many Communist Parties of the former Soviet bloc have simply renamed themselves (as socialists or democrats) and are now member parties of the SI. Speakers at Socialist International confabs address each other as “comrade,” and the SI still maintains the old Soviet organizational structure, governed at the top by a “Presidium.”

Prominent SI members have dominated many of the UN’s agencies, departments, commissions, and conferences for decades. Currently, former Swedish Foreign Minister Jan Eliasson serves as deputy secretary-general at the UN, second only to Ban Ki-moon in the organization’s hierarchy. Eliasson is a member of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, which is a member party of the Party of European Socialists (PES) and the Socialist International.

Estonian President Toomas Ilves serves as chairman of the aforementioned High-Level Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms. His Estonian Social Democratic Party is a member party of SI, and when Ilves served as a member of the European Parliament, he sat with the Party of European Socialists group. Also on the Panel is Thorbjørn Jagland, former Norwegian prime minister and leader of the Norwegian Labour Party, an SI member party.

The most significant person in the SI orbit regarding “global governance” of the Internet may be High-Level Panel member Nitin Desai. A former UN under-secretary-general and former secretary-general of the UN’s World Summit for Sustainable Development, Desai has been in the forefront of the globalist effort to place the Internet under “international” control. Desai, who was appointed in 2004 by the UN secretary-general to chair the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), has been an active participant in many SI activities. During the 2012 Rio+20 Earth Summit on sustainable development, Desai penned an op-ed attacking the United States for failing to jump on board the UN’s global-warming bandwagon. “The American way of life — and, for that matter, the way of life everywhere — has to be up for negotiation,” opined Desai. “This is because climate change is the mother of all externalities — global, long-term and potentially catastrophic in its impact.”

Other high-level Socialist International agents within the UN system include former Irish President Mary Robinson and former prime minister of Norway Gro Harlem Brundtland. Robinson, who was previously appointed UN high commissioner for human rights (1997-2002), now serves as UN special envoy for climate change. Brundtland, a former SI vice president and former director general of the UN World Health Organization, now, along with Robinson, also draws a lucrative salary as UN special envoy for climate change.

The Socialist International’s many hands are especially evident in the hijacking of Internet “reform” in the service of “sustainable development,” that favorite all-purpose term the United Nations finds ever useful in its efforts to usurp new powers. In 2003, the UN’s World Summit on the Information Society declared its challenge “to harness the potential of information and communication technology (ICT) to promote the development goals of the Millennium Declaration.” Those Millennium Development Goals have been the centerpiece of the UN’s plan for global wealth redistribution for the past decade-and-a-half. Naturally, the high-flying, high-living UN plutocrats intend for the dwindling middle classes of the United States and Europe to foot the bill for this trickle-down program, which, incidentally, will never result in any appreciable level of aid actually trickling down to those genuinely in need.

Despite the continuing rhetoric from the Obama administration and many of the leading advocates of the new “multistakeholder governance” system, the entire future of the Internet has been put in jeopardy. Very clearly, many of the top globalists in our government, the corporate world, and the think tank/foundation world are, for the most part (if not entirely), comfortable with the authoritarian/totalitarian regimes that use the Internet to enforce Orwellian conformity and tyranny. That means that actions taken by netizens to influence Congress in the next weeks and months may well determine whether cyberspace will continue to offer a window of freedom for communication and expression, or whether it will become the new tax and surveillance arm of Global Big Brother.

The New American

Planned Obsolescence: Shiny Toys for Human Pets

The Daily Sheeple
by Aaron Dykes

lightbulbmoney

The game is, of course, rigged.

Admittedly, technological devices all around us, in our everyday lives are planned to fail – to break down, stop working, need frequent replacement. From light bulbs, to automobiles, to computers, software, smart phones and more, planned obsolescence is implemented officially (and unofficially) with products and goods across the marketplace.

This means the lives of products marketed and sold to us are shortened to enhance profits for the companies that make them (making suckers and easy marks out of us as consumers).

Reality is suppressed. That game is rigged, too.

In a wider picture, it is also evidence that we are a kept people – highly entertained by gizmos and gadgets – but on a rather short leash with the things we rely upon. Rather than durable goods that can be used to build a future of personal independence and prosperity, most must turn to the same leading companies that have effectively bought up government channels, steered the public consciousness and even socially engineered the thoughts and attitudes of future generations.

Who has the power, if you can’t even trust that you are getting a fair deal, or a say in how technology is used, pursued, developed or unveiled?

Unveiled? Obviously, many technological and scientific developments have been suppressed. Some are just being planned for future markets; others are simply not suitable to the dynamic between the consumer-populace and the owners.

Truthstream News will be pursuing this idea in greater depth in the forthcoming Episode 4 on Free Energy. So please stay tuned…

But for now, please watch this documentary on the historically known Phoebus Cartel, which fixed light bulb prices globally, and shortened the life of bulbs – offering consumers much less than the technology is capable of yielding.

the light bulb conspiracy | planned obsolescence

And ask yourself, where are we headed?

Is it any wonder that Ray Kurzweil, Bill Joy and other founding minds in future technologies see humanity as pets – to be kept, cutely, on a leash, or otherwise pruned, dumped or disposed of?

But hey, the wearable iPhone 9 is supposed to be coming out soon, right?

If THEY could use planned obsolescence globally back then with something so simple as a light bulb, what are they really holding back from us?

And just what is The Impact of Science on Society that Lord Bertrand Russell warned about in 1952… oh yeah, it is the emerging Scientific Dictatorship.

You might want to look that up, because we’re living it.

The Daily Sheeple

Obama Chip to PIN Exec Order Brought to You By Visa & MasterCard

Occupy Corporatism
by Susanne Posel

Orig.src.Susanne.Posel.Daily.News- chip.pin.visa.mastercard.obama.executive.order_occupycorporatism

President Obama has taken the reins in signing an executive order to implement the BuySecure Initiative (BSI) to “provide consumers with more tools to secure their financial future by assisting victims of identity theft, improving the Government’s payment security as a customer and a provider, and accelerating the transition to stronger security technologies and the development of next-generation payment security tools.”

To make the private sector more secure, Obama’s BSI will:

  • Make Federal payments more secure to help drive the market forward: The President’s Executive Order (EO) lays out a new policy to secure payments to and from the Federal government by applying chip and PIN technology to newly issued and existing government credit cards, as well as debit cards like Direct Express, and upgrading retail payment card terminals at Federal agency facilities to accept chip and PIN-enabled cards.
  • Companies join national effort to improve transaction security: Home Depot, Target, Walgreens, and Walmart will be rolling out secure chip and PIN-compatible card terminals in all their stores — most by January 2015. Also in January, American Express will start a new program to support small businesses upgrading their point of sale terminals to more secure standards. Finally, Visa will launch a new program to educate consumers and merchants on chip and other secure technologies, sending experts to 20 cities in a national public service campaign.

The new standard for the federal government is the chip to PIN cards (CPIN) that are facilitated by government programs such as SmartPay® and Direct Express®; including the beginning of a “a replacement program on January 1, 2015, and will, within the calendar year, issue over one million new, more secure government payment cards.”

This includes “updating the CPIN card terminals” for federal agencies processing consumer sales with the help of a plan devised by the US Department of Treasury “which establishes requirements that federal agencies must follow when receiving credit and debit card payments when using Treasury’s collection system.”

This includes the Obama administration informing the public to build “public-private awareness” to the necessity of a CPIN card switch in the US.

Back in January, the National Retail Federation (NRF) wrote a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker John Boehner to implore Congress to adopt the CPIN cards with legislative backing in order to ensure the public is protected by the federal government against hackers.

Matthew Shay, president and CEO of the NRF wrote : “Our partners in the financial sector have a critical role to play in making sure their cards are secure,” NRF President and CEO Matthew Shay said in the letter. “For years, banks have continued to issue fraud-prone magnetic stripe cards to U.S. customers, putting sensitive financial information at risk while simultaneously touting the security benefits of next generation ‘Pin and chip’ card technology for customers in Europe and dozens of other markets.”

The NRF correlates the small percentage of CPIN cards being used in the US as problematic in shielding the public from hacker attacks.

Two months later, Visa and MasterCard combined forces to revamp payment processes and up security measures in the wake of retail data breaches.

This new super-group of credit issuers will include:

• Banking institutions
• Credit unions
• Retail corporations
• Industry trade groups

The purpose of the conglomerate is to push for the adaptation of the EMV chipped card so that activity can be monitored for customer safety.

Both MasterCard and Visa laid out an ultimatum to the public that by October 2015 all retailers must adopt this new payment system or suffer the consequences.

Ryan McInerney, president of Visa asserted: “The recent high-profile breaches have served as a catalyst for much needed collaboration between the retail and financial services industry on the issue of payment security.”

The Smart Card Alliance (SCA) believes that “chip-based payment cards and terminals” are the only way to protect customer funds.

The SCA explains that “EMV chip cards contain embedded microprocessors that provide strong transaction security features and other application capabilities not possible with traditional magnetic stripe cards.”

In 2011, MasterCard positioned itself against cash payments in a “war on cash” which focused on markets such as India to bring the “cashless society” to reality.

Ajay Banga, chief executive officer of MasterCard Worldwide spoke at the Fletcher School about the advantages of a cashless world and outlining the “challenges of moving away from cash.”

Banga said that there probably will not be a completely pure cashless society; however under the guise of improving the current payment system, cash is not sustainable.

MasterCard is dedicating itself to a strategy that will set a standard and become influential to the future of payments. By coercing urbanized centers to the trendiness of going cashless, their influence on the behavior of consumers and their perception of being cashless can ensure that this move is made.

The focus on developing nations such as India and Nigeria are because their governments are willing to take “foreign aid” in exchange for enslaving their citizens.

Banga explained: “I absolutely think that electronic payments can be helpful. The problem is that the money has to reside somewhere… If immigrant communities find it difficult to put their money with a bank, I don’t know if they’ll do it with a cell phone provider either. The challenge is finding a way to anchor mobile payments for the future.”

Occupy Corporatism

Madsen: Ebola Epidemic Linked to CIA

InfoWars
by KURT NIMMO

ebola cia

Says militarized response by U.S. to crisis in West Africa suspicious

Investigative journalist and former NSA contractor Wayne Madsen told Press TV on Monday the latest Ebola outbreak in Africa may be a resurfacing of an earlier infection linked to the CIA.

“We see a year [1976] when the US was violating a Senate law that forbid the US from engaging in the Angolan Civil War and we saw Zaire being used as a bait for the CIA and then we saw the outbreak of Ebola in Zaire. The same year that George H. W. Bush was the director of the CIA,” Madsen said.

“In 1980 we saw the outbreak of HIV in Zaire and Angola where the CIA was operating,” he said.

“I think what we need to see is an investigation of how intense the CIA biological warfare program was in Zaire and Angola between 1976 and 1980, and what has hit in Sierra Leon and other countries is the Zaire strain of Ebola.”

Madsen said the militarization of the U.S. Ebola effort in West Africa is suspicious. “It’s very peculiar that the US is sending the military in when obviously health workers, doctors, and other health care professionals are needed,” he said.

CIA and U.S. military involvement in the use of biological pathogens as weapons is well documented. In the 1970s, evidence was revealed by the Church Committee.

Madsen told Alex Jones Ebola outbreak is a police state false flag.

“Although such military research was highly classified, by 1975 concern over revelations of myriad intelligence abuses led to a comprehensive investigation by the U.S. Senate’s Church Committee, which published a CIA memorandum listing the deadly chemical agents and toxins then stockpiled at Fort Detrick. These included anthrax, encephalitis, tuberculosis, lethal snake venom, shellfish toxin, and half a dozen lethal food poisons, some of which, the committee learned, had been shipped in the early 1960s to Congo and to Cuba in unsuccessful CIA attempts to assassinate Patrice Lumumba and Fidel Castro,” Ellen Ray and Willam H. Schaap write in Bioterror: Manufacturing Wars the American Way.

Citing the Tuskegee syphilis experiments and the 1978 hepatitis-B experiments as a precedent, researchers also believe the CIA is behind the AIDS epidemic originating in West-central Africa. Many prominent Africans, including  former South African President Thabo Mbeki and Wangari Mathai, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, believe the CIA is responsible.

In the 1980s, John Stockwell, a former CIA paramilitary intelligence case officer stationed in Angola, said there is circumstantial evidence the CIA was involved in spreading the deadly virus.

Stockwell suggested the origin of AIDS may be linked to a mass smallpox inoculation conducted by WHO and that the disease was used by the agency intentionally to target gay men and intravenous drug users.

InfoWars

Is The US Government The Master Criminal Of Our Time?

InfoWars
by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Two Scientists Say Ebola Originated In US Bio-warfare Lab

washington

UPDATE: As I read this notice from ClinicalTrials.gov, a service of the US National Institutes of Health, the US Government and Pharmaceutical corporations have been conducting ebola tests on humans.http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02041715

This is official confirmation of Dr. Boyle and Dr. Broderick’s reports that the US government has conducted ebola experiments. Perhaps the vaccine was not effective, and those on whom the experiment was conducted came down with ebola and perhaps also employees in the US bio-warfare laboratories located in Africa where the experiment was conducted.

It appears that the test consists of giving an ebola vaccine and then exposing the unaware person to ebola, apparently an engineered version for bio-warfare. Whatever the tests are, it is clear that Boyle and Broderick in their articles below are correct that experimentation with ebola by the US government is underway.

Two Scientists Say Ebola Originated In US Bio-warfare Lab

Experts have brought to the public’s attention that ebola is a genetically modified organism developed in US biowarfare laboratories in Africa.

In the two articles below reproduced from Tom Feeley’s Information Clearing House
(a good site worthy of your support), Dr. Francis Boyle of the University of Illinois and
Dr. Cyril Broderick of the University of Liberia and the University of Delaware provide their fact-based assessments. Dr. Boyle drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the US implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention.

For speaking out, both Boyle and Broderick will be viciously attacked by the US print and TV media. Remember the case of Gary Webb who exposed the CIA’s drug-running that supported the Contras in Nicaragua. The cocaine that launched the War on Drugs was brought in by the CIA.http://www.opednews.com/articles/WPost-s-Slimy-Assault-on-G-by-Robert-Parry-CIA_Cocaine_Gary-Webb_Journalism-141018-836.html

These are the URLs for the articles by Dr. Boyle and Dr. Broderick:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40012.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40013.htm

See also: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/10/no_author/its-the-worse-strain-of-ebola-ever/

US Bio-warfare Laboratories in West Africa Are The Origins Of The Ebola Epidemic

Professor Francis A. Boyle interviewed by Aggeliki Dimopoulou

Could Ebola Have Escaped From US Bio-warfare Labs? American law professor Francis A. Boyle, answers questions for tvxs.gr and reveals that USA have been using West Africa as an offshore to circumvent the Convention on Biological Weapons and do bio-warfare work.

Is Ebola just a result of health crisis in Africa – because of the large gaps in personnel, equipment and medicines – as some experts suggest?


That isn’t true at all. This is just propaganda being put out by everyone. It seems to me, that what we are dealing with here is a biological warfare work that was conducted at the bio-warfare laboratories set up by the USA on the west coast of Africa. And if you look at a map produced by the Center of  Disease Control you can see where these laboratories are located. And they are across the heart of  Ebola epidemic, at the west coast of Africa. So, I think these laboratories, one or more of them, are the origins of the Ebola epidemic.


US government agencies are supposed to do defensive biological warfare research in these labs. Is there any information about what are they working on?


Well, that’s what they tell you. But if you study what the CDC and the Pentagon do… They say it is defensive, but this is just for public relation purposes than anything. It’s a trick. What it means is what they decide at these bio-warfare labs. They say, “well we have to develop a vaccine”, so that’s their defensive argument. Then what they do is to develop the bio-warfare agent itself. Usually by means of  DNA genetic engineering. And then they say, “well to get the vaccine we have to develop the bio-warfare agent” – usually by DNA genetic engineering – and then they try to work on the vaccine. So it’s two uses type of work. I haven’t read all these bio-warfare contracts but that’s typical of the way the Pentagon CDC has been doing this since at least the 1980’s. I have absolute proof from a Pentagon document that the Center of Disease Control was doing bio-warfare work for the Pentagon in Sierra Leone, the heart of the outbreak, as early as 1988. And indeed it was probably before then because they would have had to construct the lab and that would have taken some time. So we know that Fort Detrick and the Center for Disease Control are over there, Tulane University, which is a well-known bio-warfare center here in USA – I would say notorious for it – is there. They all have been over there.

In addition, USA government made sure that Liberia, a former colony of  the USA, never became a party to the Biological Weapons Convention, so they were able to do bio – warfare work over there – going back to 1980’s – the USA government, in order to circumvent the Biological Weapons Convention. Likewise, Guinea the third state affected here – and there is an increase now – didn’t even sign the Biological Weapons Convention. So, it seems to me, that the different agencies of the US government have been always there try to circumvent the Biological Weapons Convention and engage bio-warfare work. Indeed, we had one of these two lab bio-warriors admit in the NY Times that they were not over there for the purpose of either screening or treating people. That’s not what these labs are about. These labs are there in my opinion to do bio-warfare work for different agencies of the US government. Indeed, many of them were set up by USAID. And everyone knows that USAID is penetrated all up and down by the CIA and CIA has been involved in bio-warfare work as well.


Are we being told the truth about Ebola? Is that big outbreak began all of a sudden? How does it spread so quickly?
 

The whole outbreak that we see in the west coast of Africa, this is Zaire/Ebola. The most dangerous of five subtypes of Ebola. Zaire/Ebola originated 3500 km from the west coast of Africa. There is absolutely no way that it could have been transmitted 3500 km. And if you read the recently published Harvard study on the DNA analysis of the west Africas’ Zaire/Ebola there is no explanation about how the virus moved there. And indeed, it’s been reported in the NY Times that the Zaire/Ebola was found there in 1976, and then WHO ordered to be set to Porton Down in Britain, which is the British equivalent to Fort Detrick, where they manufacture all the biological weapons for Britain. And then Britain sent it to the US Center for Disease Control. And we know for a fact that the Center for Disease Control has been involved in biological warfare work. And then it appears, at least from whatever I’ve been able to put together in a public record, that the CDC and several others US bio-warriors exported Zaire/Ebola to west Africa, to their labs there, where they were doing bio-warfare work on it. So, I believe this is the origins of the Zaire/Ebola pandemic we are seeing now in west Africa.


Why would they do that?

Why would they do that? As I suggested to try to circumvent the Biological Weapons Convention to which the US government is a party. So, always bio-warriors do use offensive and defensive bio-warfare work, violating the Biological Weapons Convention. So effectively they try to offshore it into west Africa where Liberia is not a party and Guinea is not a party. Sierra Leone is a party. But in Sierra Leone and Liberia there were disturbances which kept the world from really paying attention of what was going on in these labs.


USA sent troops to «fight» Ebola. What do you think about that move?


The US military just invaded Liberia. They send in the 101st Airborne Division to Liberia. That’s an elite division of combat and they have no training to provide medical treatment to anyone. They are there to establish a military base in Liberia. And the British are doing the same in Sierra Leone. The French are already in Mali and Senegal. So, they’re not sending military people there to treat these people. No, I’m sorry.


Weren’t they afraid Ebola’s going to go out of control even in the USA or EU in a massive way?
 

It’s already gone in the USA and the European Union. So, there it is. Which raises the question: Was this Zaire/Ebola weaponized at any of these labs? I don’t have an answer to that question. I am trying to get an answer. And therefore it is much more dangerous than the WHO and the CDC are telling everyone. The WHO and the CDC are up to their eyeballs in this. They know all about what ‘s going on. It was the WHO that ordered the original Zaire/Ebola in 1976 to be sent to Porton Down for biological warfare purposes. So this could be more dangerous than the WHO and the CDC are saying.

And you can’t believe anything they telling you because they are involved in that. But certainly I can’t say it has been weaponized. I don’t know that yet for sure. I have the Harvard genetic analysis of it. When I was in college I had very good courses in genetics, and biochemistry and population biology but I am not a professor of genetics. I have a friend who is a professor of genetics and he is going to take a look at this and try to figure out if there’s been DNA genetic engineering perpetrated or performed on the Zaire/Ebola. Is there a genetically modified organism at work, a GMO? I don’t know. But if a GMO is at work that’s a pretty good sign it’s been weaponized. But in anyway, it is far more dangerous than the CDC and the WHO are telling anyone, because it’s clearly transmitted for a certain distance – we don’t know how far – by air. Breathing and coughing and sneezing. So, anyone treating people, seems to me, are going to need not only a protective suit but probably a breathing apparatus, at minimum. And you saw what happened to that Spanish nurse and that Spanish priest that were brought in, infected with Ebola. So right now the WHO and the CDC are telling healthcare workers that in addition to suits they need breathing apparatuses. So, again, I don’t believe you can trust anything the WHO or the CDC are telling you. And I really don’t know about the European Health Agency… If they‘re believing the WHO and the CDC then, in my opinion, they ‘re not properly protecting the health of the European people. And it’s simply bizarre that the CDC and WHO are relegating the screenings to the people in west Africa. It’s just bizarre. They need to be protecting health of their own people and they aren’t doing that. I read some of the European press but I’m not sure precisely what the European Health Agency is recommending but they certainly can’t rely upon the WHO and the CDC. As for Greece, I know you have your own Health Ministry there and they cannot rely upon them at all, as well.

Some experts told recently the Forbes magazine that even ISIS could use Ebola as a biological weapon. I would like to have your comment on that.

This is total propaganda. These people are trying to distract public opinion from the fact. My opinion is that the origins of the current pandemic came out of the USA bio-warfare labs in west Africa. That’s what is going on here. ISIS has nothing to do with this. That’s just propaganda which is trying to scare and distract public attention away of what really is going on here. They doing the same thing here in USA. That’s what we need to concentrate on. Number one. And number two? We have to find out: was this Zaire/Ebola GMOed by either Porton Down or CDC or these US bio-warfare labs? It is far more dangerous than it currently appears. That’s the real issue. And I don’t have an answer to that question. It was the US government labs that research here. I’m not saying that Ebola was released deliberately by these labs. I have no evidence to that. It could have escaped. But this is really what we need to be focusing on. Not ISIS. It’s ridiculous, it’s preposterous.

What do you think should be done?


I would encourage the Greek government to convene an emergency meeting of your top health science people and to look into this on comprehensive bases and figure out what to do under these circumstances to protect the health of people of Greece. In particular they must not believe anything they are being told by the WHO and CDC. There is a need of open objective minds here about what is really going on. I think this needs to be done.

Back in 1985, I was down in Nicaragua investigating atrocities of the Contras there and all of a sudden the country was hit with an outbreak of a hemorrhaging Dengue Fever which is similar to Ebola. And it seemed pretty suspicious to me. So I met with some of the highest level officials of the Nicaraguan government and said: “you know, this very well could be US bio-warfare against Nicaragua. They did the same thing to Cuba. And my advice is you convene health care medical experts, not politicians, to look into this. And if you agree with me and that’s the result, file a complaint with the UN Security Council for violation of the Biological Weapons Convention against the USA”. And eventually that is what they did. Here I am not recommending the Greek authorities to file a complaint against the USA. What I am recommending is the same thing I did to the Nicaraguans. That you need to convene some of your top experts geneticists, doctors, etc.

And don’t get anyone in this group who has ever done any type of research for any agency of the US government. They are completely unreliable. Get Greeks experts completely independent of the US government or the British government. It’s funny here in the USA when the media want to get experts on this, all the experts they talk to are people who have done biological warfare work for the USA. And they are up to their eyeballs on this Ebola. And doing research on this Ebola. Of course they’re not going to give you proper advice. So, find this experts and make sure they never done any research for USA or Britain on any of this stuff  but are qualified and can give you a qualified opinion of what is really going on and how dangerous this stuff is. And then aim to protect the health of Greek people. You definitely don’t have to wait for the European Union in Brussels to do it for you. I’m not telling Greece what to do. I’m just telling you how to do it. And this should be done immediately. It should have been done already. But ok, better late than ever.

Francis A. Boyle is a leading American professor, practitioner and advocate of international law. He was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. He served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia – Herzegovina at the World Court. Professor Boyle teaches international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign. He holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University.
He is also the author of “Biowarfare and Terrorism”. The book outlines how and why the United States government initiated, sustained and then dramatically expanded an illegal biological arms buildup.

Ebola Is A GMO Product Of US Bio-warfare Laboratories

Dr. Cyril Broderick

Dear World Citizens:

I have read a number of articles from your Internet outreach as well as articles from other sources about the casualties in Liberia and other West African countries about the human devastation caused by the Ebola virus. About a week ago, I read an article published in the Internet news summary publication of the Friends of Liberia that said that there was an agreement that the initiation of the Ebola outbreak in West Africa was due to the contact of a two-year old child with bats that had flown in from the Congo. That report made me disconcerted with the reporting about Ebola, and it stimulated a response to the “Friends of Liberia,” saying that African people are not ignorant and gullible, as is being implicated. A response from Dr. Verlon Stone said that the article was not theirs, and that “Friends of Liberia” was simply providing a service. He then asked if he could publish my letter in their Internet forum. I gave my permission, but I have not seen it published. Because of the widespread loss of life, fear, physiological trauma, and despair among Liberians and other West African citizens, it is incumbent that I make a contribution to the resolution of this devastating situation, which may continue to recur, if it is not properly and adequately confronted. I will address the situation in five (5) points:

1.    EBOLA IS A GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISM (GMO)

Horowitz (1998) was deliberate and unambiguous when he explained the threat of new diseases in his text, Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola – Nature, Accident or Intentional. In his interview with Dr. Robert Strecker in Chapter 7, the discussion, in the early 1970s, made it obvious that the war was between countries that hosted the KGB and the CIA, and the ‘manufacture’ of ‘AIDS-Like Viruses’ was clearly directed at the other. In passing during the Interview, mention was made of Fort Detrick, “the Ebola Building,” and ‘a lot of problems with strange illnesses’ in “Frederick [Maryland].” By Chapter 12 in his text, he had confirmed the existence of an American Military-Medical-Industry that conducts biological weapons tests under the guise of administering vaccinations to control diseases and improve the health of “black Africans overseas.” The book is an excellent text, and all leaders plus anyone who has interest in science, health, people, and intrigue should study it. I am amazed that African leaders are making no acknowledgements or reference to these documents.

2.  EBOLA HAS A TERRIBLE HISTORY, AND TESTING HAS BEEN SECRETLY TAKING PLACE IN AFRICA

I am now reading The Hot Zone, a novel, by Richard Preston (copyrighted 1989 and 1994); it is heart-rending. The prolific and prominent writer, Steven King, is quoted as saying that the book is “One of the most horrifying things I have ever read. What a remarkable piece of work.” As a New York Times bestseller, The Hot Zone is presented as “A terrifying true story.” Terrifying, yes, because the pathological description of what was found in animals killed by the Ebola virus is what the virus has been doing to citizens of Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia in its most recent outbreak: Ebola virus destroys peoples’ internal organs and the body deteriorates rapidly after death. It softens and the tissues turn into jelly, even if it is refrigerated to keep it cold. Spontaneous liquefaction is what happens to the body of people killed by the Ebola virus! The author noted in Point 1, Dr. Horowitz, chides The Hot Zone for writing to be politically correct; I understand because his book makes every effort to be very factual. The 1976 Ebola incident in Zaire, during President Mobutu Sese Seko, was the introduction of the GMO Ebola to Africa.

3.    SITES AROUND AFRICA, AND IN WEST AFRICA, HAVE OVER THE YEARS BEEN SET UP FOR TESTING EMERGING DISEASES, ESPECIALLY EBOLA

The World Health Organization (WHO) and several other UN Agencies have been implicated in selecting and enticing African countries to participate in the testing events, promoting vaccinations, but pursuing various testing regiments. The August 2, 2014 article, West Africa: What are US Biological Warfare Researchers Doing in the Ebola Zone? by Jon Rappoport of Global Research pinpoints the problem that is facing African governments.

Obvious in this and other reports are, among others:

(a) The US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), a well-known centre for bio-war research, located at Fort Detrick, Maryland;

(b) Tulane University, in New Orleans, USA, winner of research grants, including a grant of more than $7 million the National Institute of Health (NIH) to fund research with the Lassa viral hemorrhagic fever;

(c) the US Center for Disease Control (CDC);

(d) Doctors Without Borders (also known by its French name, Medicins Sans Frontiers);

(e) Tekmira, a Canadian pharmaceutical company;

(f) The UK’s GlaxoSmithKline; and

(g) the Kenema Government Hospital in Kenema, Sierra Leone.

Reports narrate stories of the US Department of Defense (DoD) funding Ebola trials on humans, trials which started just weeks before the Ebola outbreak in Guinea and Sierra Leone. The reports continue and state that the DoD gave a contract worth $140 million dollars to Tekmira, a Canadian pharmaceutical company, to conduct Ebola research. This research work involved injecting and infusing healthy humans with the deadly Ebola virus. Hence, the DoD is listed as a collaborator in a “First in Human” Ebola clinical trial (NCT02041715, which started in January 2014 shortly before an Ebola epidemic was declared in West Africa in March. Disturbingly, many reports also conclude that the US government has a viral fever bioterrorism research laboratory in Kenema, a town at the epicentre of the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. The only relevant positive and ethical olive-branch seen in all of my reading is that Theguardian.com reported, “The US government funding of Ebola trials on healthy humans comes amid warnings by top scientists in Harvard and Yale that such virus experiments risk triggering a worldwide pandemic.” That threat still persists.

4.    THE NEED FOR LEGAL ACTION TO OBTAIN REDRESS FOR DAMAGES INCURRED DUE TO THE PERPETUATION OF INJUSTICE IN THE DEATH, INJURY AND TRAUMA IMPOSED ON LIBERIANS AND OTHER AFRICANS BY THE EBOLA AND OTHER DISEASE AGENTS.

The U. S., Canada, France, and the U. K. are all implicated in the detestable and devilish deeds that these Ebola tests are. There is the need to pursue criminal and civil redress for damages, and African countries and people should secure legal representation to seek damages from these countries, some corporations, and the United Nations. Evidence seems abundant against Tulane University, and suits should start there. Yoichi Shimatsu’s article, The Ebola Breakout Coincided with UN Vaccine Campaigns, as published on August 18, 2014, in the Liberty Beacon.

5.   AFRICAN LEADERS AND AFRICAN COUNTRIES NEED TO TAKE THE LEAD IN DEFENDING BABIES, CHILDREN, AFRICAN WOMEN, AFRICAN MEN, AND THE ELDERLY. THESE CITIZENS DO NOT DESERVE TO BE USED AS GUINEA PIGS!

Africa must not relegate the Continent to become the locality for disposal and the deposition of hazardous chemicals, dangerous drugs, and chemical or biological agents of emerging diseases. There is urgent need for affirmative action in protecting the less affluent of poorer countries, especially African citizens, whose countries are not as scientifically and industrially endowed as the United States and most Western countries, sources of most viral or bacterial GMOs that are strategically designed as biological weapons. It is most disturbing that the U. S. Government has been operating a viral hemorrhagic fever bioterrorism research laboratory in Sierra Leone. Are there others? Wherever they exist, it is time to terminate them. If any other sites exist, it is advisable to follow the delayed but essential step: Sierra Leone closed the US bioweapons lab and stopped Tulane University for further testing.

The world must be alarmed. All Africans, Americans, Europeans, Middle Easterners, Asians, and people from every conclave on Earth should be astonished. African people, notably citizens more particularly of Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone are victimized and are dying every day. Listen to the people who distrust the hospitals, who cannot shake hands, hug their relatives and friends. Innocent people are dying, and they need our help. The countries are poor and cannot afford the whole lot of personal protection equipment (PPE) that the situation requires. The threat is real, and it is larger than a few African countries. The challenge is global, and we request assistance from everywhere, including China, Japan, Australia, India, Germany, Italy, and even kind-hearted people in the U.S., France, the U.K., Russia, Korea, Saudi Arabia, and anywhere else whose desire is to help. The situation is bleaker than we on the outside can imagine, and we must provide assistance however we can. To ensure a future that has less of this kind of drama, it is important that we now demand that our leaders and governments be honest, transparent, fair, and productively engaged. They must answer to the people. Please stand up to stop Ebola testing and the spread of this dastardly disease.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Dr. Cyril E. Broderick, Sr.

About the Author:

Dr. Broderick is a former professor of Plant Pathology at the University of Liberia’s College of Agriculture and Forestry.  He is also the former Observer Farmer in the 1980s.  It was from this column in our newspaper, the Daily Observer, that Firestone spotted him and offered him the position of Director of Research in the late 1980s.  In addition, he is a scientist, who has taught for many years at the Agricultural College of the University of Delaware.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is now available.

InfoWars

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,069 other followers

%d bloggers like this: