Tag Archives: wto
The Flattening Forces of Globalization Continue to Advance.
My first trip to Europe was when I was a young boy and Kennedy was still president. Everything seemed so different there, from the public restrooms at the Brussels airport where the men’s and women’s entrances led into the exact same room to the frothy, thick, hot milk in an almost-too-big tasse that I happily slurped in a small Parisian café, leaving a warm, white smear on my face and in my throat. There were no McDonald’s, Starbucks, or ubiquitous American sitcoms like Friends. Life, European life, was an alien bustle and blur that never quite lost its seductive grip on my soul.
Kennedy is long gone now, many times more distant to us now than was the end of the Second World War to me during that first of many trips to Europe. So, too, is that Europe of those distant days, as is even that United States from which I traveled so long ago. In their place is the Shiny New World of Tomorrow as it is slowly being pieced together out of the dreams – or nightmares – of those who rule us from the shadows.
Now, in 2014, a year that that long-gone boy could only imagine as an astonishingly unreachable future crafted by writers such as Robert Heinlein, there are Starbucks on nearly every corner of Paris, Burger Kings amidst the United Kingdom, and McDonald’s feeding German hordes. There are no starships to Mars, Alpha Centauri, or human moon bases; in that, my Heinlein juvenile science fiction novels utterly failed me.
Trade Agreements and Globalization
Instead, we have trade agreements and international organizations stitching the world together into that shiny new place that exalts the material over the essential. From the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) to the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement (TBT) and just-born Trade in Services Agreement (TISA)1 not to even mention the World Trade Organization (WTO), these trade agreements, both bilateral and multilateral, abound. Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Beijing, San Francisco, Houston, and New York are all converging on a common, harmonized future.
It all began well before my first European vacation. In the aftermath of World War II, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades (GATT) was created to facilitate international trade. GATT trundled along for decades, growing incrementally until the “Uruguay Round” of trade negotiations in 1986–1994. These negotiations resulted in GATT’s replacement by a more-powerful trade forum called the WTO. The WTO was qualitatively different than its predecessor organization. GATT dealt with tariffs and import barriers and had no real enforcement powers. The WTO – essentially GATT with steroids now coursing through its veins – became an expanded forum for reducing even non-tariff barriers that interfered with international trade. And the WTO, through its newly created dispute-settlement mechanism, could levy trade sanctions against offending member states that thwarted international trade.
But dissatisfied with the WTO, the European Union (EU) began adopting a strategy of pushing through bilateral agreements to create an international network of trade agreements that would essentially substitute for the WTO and cover all sectors involved in trade. Negotiations sprouted up like weeds leading to, among other things, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations between the United States and the EU as well as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA)2 negotiations between Canada and the EU.
The TTIP alone will cover over 50% of the World’s Gross Domestic Product and over 600 million of the richest consumers. It is concerned with two major topics: tariffs and regulations. And of the regulations, these principally concern health, safety, the environment, and financial security.
I have previously written about the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is a misnamed “free trade” agreement described by many as nothing more than “NAFTA on steroids.” (See NewsWithViews, September 2012, at http://www.newswithviews.com/Tips/scott116.htm) Well, consider the TTIP as the TPP’s Atlantic twin brother. Coupled with the global TISA, the TPP and the TTIP will define and fix international trade in goods and services, creating a common, tariff-free market for them, for a very long time and for more than a billion people. These three trade agreements alone will reshape our World in ways that we may not see for a decade or more.
The brainchild of the Transatlantic Business Dialogue, the TTIP was first conceived of in the 1990s. But it wasn’t until the Transatlantic Economic Council was established in 2007 that the push for TTIP really took solid shape.
The TTIP is intended as an all-encompassing, very broadly reaching agreement that will permeate all areas of international trade, covering goods and services as well as intellectual property. However, since there are practically no tariffs between Europe and the United States at present, there is nothing to be gained by TTIP. That means that TTIP is really concerned with eliminating the regulatory obstacles to trade, such as national rules and regulations that exact other costs and erect other barriers to trade, than the simple imposition of a protective tariff to block goods or increase their prices to noncompetitive levels.
Currently in its sixth round of negotiations, the EU–U.S. trade talks on TTIP will be hosted by the European Commission in Brussels from July 14 to 18, 2014 (just after press time for this article). A stakeholder meeting for industry and consumer groups to air their views will be held on July 16th; but don’t be fooled, as many corporations already have insider seats at the negotiating table and have no need for this dog-and-pony show. (See http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip)
Like TPP, TTIP Negotiations are Secret
Yet, we really know very little about the true aims and goals of the corporate and government negotiators and lobbyists who swarm the TTIP negotiating meetings. They are so secretive that even most lawmakers do not know TTIP’s negotiating terms.
These secret negotiations, ironically enough, transgress TTIP’s own mandate calling for greater transparency. Interestingly, however, “transparency” in the TTIP world means something different than you and I might think; it simply means that before any TTIP rules may be changed, the proponents of the changes must first disclose all materials to the corporate interests behind TTIP. TTIP proponents argue that, of course, negotiations must be conducted in private, but they overlook the fact that both the WTO and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) conduct their negotiations in the open. There is no reason that TTIP and TISA cannot be developed in transparency, particularly since they concern so many public interests.
Leaked documents give us what little information we really know, although the EU is now acting to dispel growing opposition based upon TTIP’s lack of transparency by disclosing some details of TTIP through its Europa.eu Web site.3 In a press release issued from Berlin on July 3, 2014, European Trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht argues that the TTIP has been made transparent on at least the EU side of the bargaining table, that it is not about lowering standards, and that “TTIP will not result in any [much-feared] privatization of public services.” (See http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-14-529_en.htm) Many disagree with this characterization, although they commend the EU for being more transparent than the US has been. Opponents are able to parlay this fear of the unknown into support for their anti-TTIP movements.
In an attempt to play catch-up, the U.S. trade delegation posts its own “readouts” about what has happened at each Round of TTIP negotiations (see www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/transatlantic-trade-and-investment-partnership/readouts), but reading those and trying to gain any understanding as to what has really transpired is like trying to dance ballet in a deep-diving suit. It is just not going to happen.
TTIP vs. National Legislation
The vast majority of any trade issues between the EU and the United States/Canada involve food. The divide between the two continents is vast and deep in this respect. The North Americans are big on bovine growth hormone for cattle, GMO foods, ractopamine for pigs and the use of other such food toxins, all of which are given euphemisms that misdirect consumers and others into thinking they are consuming safe foods when they are not. The Europeans, on the other hand, tend to consider public-health issues as co-equal to the business trade interests promoted by the North Americans. These EU interests even include regulations governing animal-welfare and chemicals in the environment, which are largely missing in America. In particular, one enormous question is whether TTIP would permit broader fracking within the European Union.
In the financial and banking sector, though, the roles are curiously reversed. The Americans and Canadians are the ones with the tighter regulatory regime while the British and some other Europeans are trying to dilute any TTIP regulations that might restrict the bankers’ activities. Do not be misled, however, into thinking that tighter banking regulations equate with better government control over the banking industry. In the system that exists virtually worldwide and has been exalted to its highest form in North America, bankers are themselves the regulators, so that tighter regulations simply mean that the bankers in control have more political power to enforce their banking monopoly and exclude any potential competition or changes to that system.
So, on many fronts, preservation of national legislation in the face of a TTIP agreement can be a touchy subject, especially for European consumers. An article written by Baskut Tuncak, the chemicals program attorney for the Center for International Environmental Law, drives this point home:
“It might come as a shock to EU voters to learn exactly how weak US laws are when it comes to toxic chemicals, especially when the US’s chief negotiator for the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) has been claiming otherwise. This unprecedented ‘trade’ agreement is primarily about regulation, and threatens to create new and additional avenues for industry and government to use their influence to stall necessary action on toxic chemicals, climate change, and other critical issues that must be addressed by the EU and global community to protect human health and the environment.
“How weak are US laws for toxic chemicals? Only eleven ingredients are restricted from cosmetics in the US, versus over 1300 in the EU. Under a law dating back to 1976, US regulators have only been able to restrict the use of merely five of over 60,000 industrial chemicals that were presumed safe when the law was adopted, including asbestos. Under this law, and despite over a century of substantial evidence of serious adverse effects, US regulators were unable demonstrate sufficient “risk” to justify a ban on the use of asbestos, unlike EU counterparts. Moving ahead of the US, the EU has started to implement legislation that has the potential to systematically substitute over 1000 toxic chemicals—including those linked to cancer, interference with hormone systems, reproductive harms, and other serious adverse health effects—with safer alternatives in a wide range of everyday products. The US has no such law.”
These are the consumer issues that trouble most ordinary, thinking citizens in both countries, who feel that they have no real say in the monumental economic changes that are being crafted without their input.
TTIP Dispute Panels
The widespread fear that TTIP will suppress national legislation protecting consumers is bolstered by equal concern over the TTIP’s “Investor State Dispute Settlement” mechanism. Because any investor company would have TTIP status equivalent to any member country, even if they do not have a direct contractual stake in a dispute, the company can take a member country to court. In other words, a public policy can be held to ransom by private business interests.
If, as anticipated, these panels operate as they have under NAFTA, then they will be manned by three persons, some of whom would be “former” corporate lobbyists or attorneys and the panels would adjudicate trade disputes with the power to strike down any public-interest legislation that offends TTIP.
Still, as reported by the BBC, European Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht demurs, “Fears that a transatlantic trade deal between Europe and the U.S. could see offshore arbitration panels used to strike down national laws are unfounded.” (BBC News Northern Ireland, June 25, 2014, at www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-28016421)
Opponents are concerned that corporations will use the investor–state dispute settlement procedure to arbitrate lost profits resulting from governmental actions if those corporations believe they have been treated wrongfully by a government in a way that breaches the TTIP. This fear is not unfounded since that is exactly what has happened under NAFTA. Recently, a corporation, using NAFTA, sued the government of Quebec for interfering with its profits when that government banned fracking within the Province.
TTIP Economic Reboot?
When confronted with the above problems of corporate over-influence, unfair dispute panels, suppression of national legislation, and lack of transparency, TTIP proponents pull out what they think is their trump card: The claim that TTIP will reboot the Atlantic economies and lead us to the Promised Land of somewhere between 1.25 and 2 million extra jobs. We should recall that similar claims were made for the United States prior to the passage of NAFTA; yet, here we are years later with at least a 700,000 job deficit due to that agreement.
Most likely, the roots of this employment problem lay in the reality that TTIP is “managed” trade and not true free trade. Corporate-welfare benefits are the illegitimate offspring of these types of trade agreements, which is exactly why leftists and rightists often unite in opposition to such rampant corporatism and favoritism. But most of all, history is already showing that managed trade agreements have done for the economy what panty hose have done for foreplay. As they say, time will tell.
They Said It Best
There is still a tribe in the Brazilian Amazon that has largely kept its integrity in the face of all of the onslaughts that the Western World has thrown its way. Called the Kayapo, these truly proud people’s encounters with Brazilian pioneers and traders led to their first exposure to Brazilian banknotes. The Kayapo had to create a new word for this money and the most appropriate seemed to be pe-o caprin, which translates into English as “sad leaves.”
As forest clear-cutting, oil drilling, and cattle ranching increasingly change the Kayapo domains, the Kayapo are learning the tough lesson that the sad leaves they are accumulating are a poor replacement for the world they grew up in. Like that young boy in Paris a lifetime ago, they had envisioned a different future – a future that did not include an obsession with sad leaves.
- The Australian government’s TISA page tells us that: “The TiSA negotiations will cover all services sectors. In addition to improved market access commitments, the negotiations also provide an opportunity to develop new disciplines (or trade rules) in areas where there has been significant developments since the WTO Uruguay Round negotiations. There negotiations will cover financial services; ICT services (including telecommunications and e-commerce); professional services; maritime transport services; air transport services, competitive delivery services; energy services; temporary entry of business persons; government procurement; and new rules on domestic regulation to ensure regulatory settings do not operate as a barrier to trade in services.” See also Carey L. Biron, “Wikileaks: Leaked TISA Text Shows US, EU Aggressively Rolling Back Regulations,” Mint Press, June 30, 2014, at http://www.mintpressnews.com/leaked-trade-text-shows-u-s-e-u-aggressively-rolling-back-regulation/193167/.
- From the European Commission’s website, we learn that “[o]n 18 October 2013, EU and Canada have reached a political agreement on the key elements of a trade agreement (CETA). The agreement will remove over 99% of tariffs between the two economies and create sizeable new market access opportunities in services and investment. At a later stage, the agreement will need to be approved by the Council and the European Parliament. Negotiations were launched in May 2009 and the content of the CETA and its general modalities were agreed in June 2009.”
- For online TTIP updates from an independent source, go to TTIP Updates—The Glyn Moody Blogs, at http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2013/11/ttip-updates-the-glyn-moody-blogs/index.htm.
© Scott C. Tips 2014
Scott C. Tips is President of the National Health Federation. Scott is a California-licensed attorney, specializing in food-and-drug law and trademark law, but also engages in business litigation, general business law, and nonprofit organizations, with an international clientele. Since 1989, Scott has been the General Counsel for the National Health Federation, the World’s oldest health-freedom organization for consumers, as well as the Editor In Chief of its magazine, Health Freedom News. In 2007, he became NHF President, and has been a frequent speaker for the organization and for health freedom on several continents. As legal columnist, Scott writes a monthly column for Whole Foods Magazine called “Legal Tips,” a column he started many years ago. Currently, he is primarily occupied with health-freedom issues arising from national governments’ and such international organizations as the Codex Alimentarius Commission’s attempts to limit individual freedom of choice in health matters. In that capacity, he has compiled, edited, and published a book on the subject entitled Codex Alimentarius – Global Food Imperialism. He also attends Codex meetings worldwide and has attended more Codex meetings than any other health-freedom activist.
Does a shadowy group of obscenely wealthy elitists control the world? Do men and women with enormous amounts of money really run the world from behind the scenes? The answer might surprise you. Most of us tend to think of money as a convenient way to conduct transactions, but the truth is that it also represents power and control. And today we live in a neo-fuedalist system in which the super rich pull all the strings.
When I am talking about the ultra-wealthy, I am not just talking about people that have a few million dollars. As you will see later in this article, the ultra-wealthy have enough money sitting in offshore banks to buy all of the goods and services produced in the United States during the course of an entire year and still be able to pay off the entire U.S. national debt. That is an amount of money so large that it is almost incomprehensible.
Under this ne0-feudalist system, all the rest of us are debt slaves, including our own governments. Just look around – everyone is drowning in debt, and all of that debt is making the ultra-wealthy even wealthier. But the ultra-wealthy don’t just sit on all of that wealth. They use some of it to dominate the affairs of the nations. The ultra-wealthy own virtually every major bank and every major corporation on the planet. They use a vast network of secret societies, think tanks and charitable organizations to advance their agendas and to keep their members in line.
They control how we view the world through their ownership of the media and their dominance over our education system. They fund the campaigns of most of our politicians and they exert a tremendous amount of influence over international organizations such as the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. When you step back and take a look at the big picture, there is little doubt about who runs the world. It is just that most people don’t want to admit the truth.
The ultra-wealthy don’t run down and put their money in the local bank like you and I do. Instead, they tend to stash their assets in places where they won’t be taxed such as the Cayman Islands. According to a report that was released last summer, the global elite have up to 32 TRILLION dollars stashed in offshore banks around the globe.
U.S. GDP for 2011 was about 15 trillion dollars, and the U.S. national debt is sitting at about 16 trillion dollars, so you could add them both together and you still wouldn’t hit 32 trillion dollars.
And of course that does not even count the money that is stashed in other locations that the study did not account for, and it does not count all of the wealth that the global elite have in hard assets such as real estate, precious metals, art, yachts, etc.
The global elite have really hoarded an incredible amount of wealth in these troubled times. The following is from an article on the Huffington Post website…
Rich individuals and their families have as much as $32 trillion of hidden financial assets in offshore tax havens, representing up to $280 billion in lost income tax revenues, according to research published on Sunday.
The study estimating the extent of global private financial wealth held in offshore accounts – excluding non-financial assets such as real estate, gold, yachts and racehorses – puts the sum at between $21 and $32 trillion.
The research was carried out for pressure group Tax Justice Network, which campaigns against tax havens, by James Henry, former chief economist at consultants McKinsey & Co.
He used data from the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, United Nations and central banks.
But as I mentioned previously, the global elite just don’t have a lot of money. They also basically own just about every major bank and every major corporation on the entire planet.
According to an outstanding NewScientist article, a study of more than 40,000 transnational corporations conducted by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich discovered that a very small core group of huge banks and giant predator corporations dominate the entire global economic system…
The researchers found that this core group consists of just 147 very tightly knit companies…
When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a “super-entity” of 147 even more tightly knit companies – all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity – that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. “In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network,” says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.
The following are the top 25 banks and corporations at the heart of this “super-entity”. You will recognize many of the names on the list…
1. Barclays plc
2. Capital Group Companies Inc
3. FMR Corporation
5. State Street Corporation
6. JP Morgan Chase & Co
7. Legal & General Group plc
8. Vanguard Group Inc
9. UBS AG
10. Merrill Lynch & Co Inc
11. Wellington Management Co LLP
12. Deutsche Bank AG
13. Franklin Resources Inc
14. Credit Suisse Group
15. Walton Enterprises LLC
16. Bank of New York Mellon Corp
18. Goldman Sachs Group Inc
19. T Rowe Price Group Inc
20. Legg Mason Inc
21. Morgan Stanley
22. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc
23. Northern Trust Corporation
24. Société Générale
25. Bank of America Corporation
The ultra-wealthy elite often hide behind layers and layers of ownership, but the truth is that thanks to interlocking corporate relationships, the elite basically control almost every Fortune 500 corporation.
The amount of power and control that this gives them is hard to describe.
Unfortunately, this same group of people have been running things for a very long time. For example, New York City Mayor John F. Hylan said the following during a speech all the way back in 1922…
The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation. To depart from mere generalizations, let me say that 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 parties, write political platforms, make catspaws of party leaders, use the leading men of private organizations, and resort to every device to place in nomination for high public office only such candidates as will be amenable to the dictates of corrupt big business.
These international bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of the newspapers and magazines in this country. They use the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of office public officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government. It operates under cover of a self-created screen [and] seizes our executive officers, legislative bodies, schools, courts, newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.
These international bankers created the central banks of the world (including the Federal Reserve), and they use those central banks to get the governments of the world ensnared in endless cycles of debt from which there is no escape. Government debt is a way to “legitimately” take money from all of us, transfer it to the government, and then transfer it into the pockets of the ultra-wealthy.
Today, Barack Obama and almost all members of Congress absolutely refuse to criticize the Fed, but in the past there have been some brave members of Congress that have been willing to take a stand. For example, the following quote is from a speech that Congressman Louis T. McFadden delivered to the U.S. House of Representatives on June 10, 1932…
Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government board, has cheated the Government of the United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board has cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.
Sadly, most Americans still believe that the Federal Reserve is a “federal agency”, but that is simply not correct. The following comes from factcheck.org…
The stockholders in the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks are the privately owned banks that fall under the Federal Reserve System. These include all national banks (chartered by the federal government) and those state-chartered banks that wish to join and meet certain requirements. About 38 percent of the nation’s more than 8,000 banks are members of the system, and thus own the Fed banks.
According to researchers that have looked into the ownership of the big Wall Street banks that dominate the Fed, the same names keep coming up over and over: the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, the Warburgs, the Lazards, the Schiffs and the royal families of Europe.
But ultra-wealthy international bankers have not just done this kind of thing in the United States. Their goal was to create a global financial system that they would dominate and control. Just check out what Georgetown University history professor Carroll Quigley once wrote…
[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, 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 to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.
Sadly, most Americans have never even heard of the Bank for International Settlements, but it is at the very heart of the global financial system. The following is from Wikipedia…
As an organization of central banks, the BIS seeks to make monetary policy more predictable and transparent among its 58 member central banks. While monetary policy is determined by each sovereign nation, it is subject to central and private banking scrutiny and potentially to speculation that affects foreign exchange rates and especially the fate of export economies. Failures to keep monetary policy in line with reality and make monetary reforms in time, preferably as a simultaneous policy among all 58 member banks and also involving the International Monetary Fund, have historically led to losses in the billions as banks try to maintain a policy using open market methods that have proven to be based on unrealistic assumptions.
The ultra-wealthy have also played a major role in establishing other important international institutions such as the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. In fact, the land for the United Nations headquarters in New York City was purchased and donated by John D. Rockefeller.
The international bankers are “internationalists” and they are very proud of that fact.
The elite also dominate the education system in the United States. Over the years, the Rockefeller Foundation and other elitist organizations have poured massive amounts of money into Ivy League schools. Today, Ivy League schools are considered to be the standard against which all other colleges and universities in America are measured, and the last four U.S. presidents were educated at Ivy League schools.
The elite also exert a tremendous amount of influence through various secret societies (Skull and Bones, the Freemasons, etc.), through some very powerful think tanks and social clubs (the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, the Bohemian Grove, Chatham House, Club of Rome, etc.), and through a vast network of charities and non-governmental organizations (the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the World Wildlife Fund, etc.).
But for a moment, I want to focus on the power the elite have over the media. In a previous article, I detailed how just six monolithic corporate giants control most of what we watch, hear and read every single day. These giant corporations own television networks, cable channels, movie studios, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, music labels and even many of our favorite websites.
Considering the fact that the average American watches 153 hours of television a month, the influence of these six giant corporations should not be underestimated. The following are just some of the media companies that these corporate giants own…
Home Box Office (HBO)
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
CW Network (partial ownership)
New Line Cinema
Time Warner Cable
ABC Television Network
Buena Vista Home Entertainment
Buena Vista Theatrical Productions
Buena Vista Records
Walt Disney Pictures
Pixar Animation Studios
Buena Vista Games
Paramount Home Entertainment
Black Entertainment Television (BET)
Country Music Television (CMT)
Nick at Nite
The Movie Channel
Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Fox Television Stations
The New York Post
Fox Searchlight Pictures
Fox Business Network
Fox Kids Europe
Fox News Channel
Fox Sports Net
Fox Television Network
My Network TV
News Limited News
Phoenix InfoNews Channel
Phoenix Movies Channel
STAR TV India
STAR TV Taiwan
Times Higher Education Supplement Magazine
Times Literary Supplement Magazine
Times of London
20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
20th Century Fox International
20th Century Fox Studios
20th Century Fox Television
The Wall Street Journal
Fox Broadcasting Company
Fox Interactive Media
The National Geographic Channel
National Rugby League
Sky Radio Denmark
Sky Radio Germany
Sky Radio Netherlands
CBS Television Network
CBS Radio Inc. (130 stations)
CBS Consumer Products
CW Network (50% ownership)
Simon & Schuster (Pocket Books, Scribner)
Westwood One Radio Network
NBC Television Network
Syfy (Sci Fi Channel)
NBC Universal Television Distribution
NBC Universal Television Studio
Paxson Communications (partial ownership)
Universal Parks & Resorts
Universal Studio Home Video
And of course the elite own most of our politicians as well. The following is a quote from journalist Lewis Lapham…
“The shaping of the will of Congress and the choosing of the American president has become a privilege reserved to the country’s equestrian classes, a.k.a. the 20% of the population that holds 93% of the wealth, the happy few who run the corporations and the banks, own and operate the news and entertainment media, compose the laws and govern the universities, control the philanthropic foundations, the policy institutes, the casinos, and the sports arenas.”
Have you ever wondered why things never seem to change in Washington D.C. no matter who we vote for?
Well, it is because both parties are owned by the establishment.
It would be nice to think that the American people are in control of who runs things in the U.S., but that is not how it works in the real world.
In the real world, the politician that raises more money wins more than 80 percent of the time in national races.
Our politicians are not stupid – they are going to be very good to the people that can give them the giant piles of money that they need for their campaigns. And the people that can do that are the ultra-wealthy and the giant corporations that the ultra-wealthy control.
Are you starting to get the picture?
There is a reason why the ultra-wealthy are referred to as “the establishment”. They have set up a system that greatly benefits them and that allows them to pull the strings.
So who runs the world?
They do. In fact, they even admit as much.
David Rockefeller wrote the following in his 2003 book entitled “Memoirs”…
“For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro 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 is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
There is so much more that could be said about all of this. In fact, an entire library of books could be written about the power and the influence of the ultra-wealthy international bankers that run the world.
But hopefully this is enough to at least get some conversations started.
So what do you think about all of this? Please feel free to post a comment with your thoughts below…
Michael T. Snyder is a graduate of the McIntire School of Commerce at the University of Virginia and has a law degree and an LLM from the University of Florida Law School. He is an attorney that has worked for some of the largest and most prominent law firms in Washington D.C. and who now spends his time researching and writing and trying to wake the American people up. You can follow his work on The Economic Collapse blog, End of the American Dream and The Truth Wins.
It is incredible that mention of a one-world government in many circles is still considered to be conspiracy talk. Fortunately, the global political awakening that arch-globalist Zbigniew Brzezinski has referred to is forcing ever-increasing justifications for their use of globalist language.
One would hope that a relatively new Council on Foreign Relations initiative that is expanding can lay to rest any debate about the desire to form a global government in the name of supposedly solving global problems.
The initiative called The Council of Councils was featured in a recent round table discussion of the central problems facing the world that they believe require multilateral cooperation. The discussions and recommendations released from this convention of experts is important to keep available the next time you hear the label conspiracy theorist hurled in your direction. The title of the round table was Challenges for Global Governance in 2013.
Just as we have seen from other think tanks such as the Project For a New American Century, The Royal Society, and the Brookings Institution, among others; their thoughts translate to reality on a less-than-coincidental frequency, so we would do well to listen to what they are saying.
The Council of Councils initiative was announced in March, 2012 and clearly identifies a strategy for forming alliances across a series of shared concerns as set forth by the CFR. It is important to note from the beginning that the CFR bills itself as non-partisan; and here is where the uninitiated can immediately be tripped up. Non-partisan sounds like a good thing, going beyond typical party divisions, while striking a note that rings of independence and an objective search for the truth.
However, when one understands that in their own words, “The founding membership of the Council of Councils includes leading institutions from nineteen countries, roughly tracking the composition of the Group of Twenty (G20),” we begin to get an inkling that their version of non-partisan means that they are flexible in their use of whatever political language is expedient to get results that go beyond any concept of nationalism.
The party of the CFR is the One World Party.
There have been many predictions for 2013: political, economic, and environmental. These predictions take a large step toward confirmation when we read the writings of elite think tanks; they tell us explicitly what the plan is. The conferences themselves illustrate much of what we can expect on the globalist agenda for 2013, and it seems to line up perfectly with events that would benefit those in favor of a one world system and centralized control.
From the CFR website:
December 12, 2012—December 13, 2012
On December 12-13, 2012, CFR convened the second Council of Councils regional conference: “Russia, Europe, and the Future of Global Governance.”
Participants discussed four major themes:
• Russia’s G20 chairmanship
• The eurozone crisis and global economy
• Syria and the function of the UN Security Council
• Cybersecurity and institutional reforms
October 30, 2012—October 31, 2012
On October 30-31, 2012, CFR convened the first Council of Councils regional conference: “Asia at the Crossroad: Regional Priorities for the Twenty First Century.”
Participants discussed five major themes:
• Stabilizing the global financial system
• Advancing trade liberalization
• Strengthening maritime security and freedom of navigation
• Assessing the proliferation threat in Asia
• The future of Asian security cooperation
March 12, 2012—March 13, 2012
CFR convened the inaugural Council of Councils conference on March 12-13 in Washington, DC. Participants tackled four major themes:
• The overall state of global governance and multilateral cooperation
• The status of the nuclear nonproliferation regime (with a focus on Iran)
• The dollar’s future as the world’s reserve currency
• The criteria for humanitarian intervention, in the wake of regime change in Libya, and an ongoing crisis in Syria.
The documents above are ponderous reading to say the least, but they echo what we see currently playing out on the world stage to such an extent that they are better understood as a blueprint.
The themes above can best be distilled into the following 5 directives:
- Managing global economic collapse and the loss of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency (stabilizing the global financial system).
- Managing “humanitarian intervention” through UN representation (fulfilling the narrative of abusive dictators in need of regime change).
- Managing Eurasia, i.e. China’s economic influence and Russia’s political influence (Asia trade liberalization and Russian G20 chairmanship).
- Managing nuclear “rogue states” (Iran and North Korea – “proliferation”).
- Managing the Internet (Cybersecurity and related institutions).
To understand how crisis managers like the CFR operate, we must look at their false premises. Every single point that they cite as an urgent need for reform was created well in advance, so that they could hold conferences offering wide-ranging solutions.
We need to change the international system for a global system in which new, active, and creative forces — recently developed — should be integrated.
This has been used to great effect by the U.S. to start wars where “terrorist” regimes can be subverted or dismantled, and their flags (resources) captured. Likewise, financial wars create the need for reorganization. As stated in the Prospects For The Russian Chairmanship of the G20:
Generally speaking, the authors would like to see the G20 emerge from merely a crisis committee to become a more enduring steering group for the global economy…
A more ruthless approach to who gets to participate at the top table and the number of formal presentations made during the meetings would be another important contribution to Russia’s aim of getting back to basics. (emphasis added)
There are indeed many moving pieces on The Grand Chessboard, but there does appear to be an urgency to make 2013 a transformative year within the “Great Game” which could lead to a WWIII scenario as the final consolidation both political and economic comes to fruition.
Between Two Ages was published in 1970.
“The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.” (This was an excellent prediction although it is slightly worse now.) – Warrantless wiretapping was approved for another five years, putting no restraints on what will be done by the NSA’s new facility set to open in September, 2013
“In the technotronic society the trend would seem to be towards the aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities effectively exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason.” (Fox CNN and Facebook?) – Social media and the control exercised by effectively privatizing free speech. The recent Facebook shutdown of political dissidents only hints at how this aggregation mechanism can become a tool of government suppression.
“Today we are again witnessing the emergence of transnational elites … [Whose] ties cut across national boundaries …It is likely that before long the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be highly internationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook … The nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty… Further progress will require greater American sacrifices. More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken, with some consequent risk to the present relatively favorable American position.” – Precisely what is sought after in Challenges to Global Governance 2013, as outlined above.
Interesting on page 57 “By the year 2018, technology will make available to the leaders of the major nations, a variety of techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of the security forces need be appraised. One nation may attack a competitor covertly by bacteriological means, thoroughly weakening the population (though with a minimum of fatalities) before taking over with its own armed forces. Alternatively, techniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm…” (Has the world already gone way beyond this?) — Yes it has: the “bare minimum of security forces” can be seen in drone warfare. One only needs to look at the battlefield of 2017, as created by General Atomic’s next generation of Predator C Avenger designed specifically to reduce human numbers. Oh, and it will use a “death ray” — also referred to on page 57. Weather modification and its use in warfare is explicitly covered in the 1996 Air Force report: Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather by 2025.
Other sources for this article:
In a stunning display of nutritional ignorance, three women ram through a Codex standard that leaves many with sub-optimal nutrition
The Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) just finished meeting all last week (December 3-7) in Bad Soden, a small German city near Frankfurt am Main. Nearly 300 delegates were in attendance, comprised of government functionaries and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) representatives. So, for one week, the assembled delegates – including the INGO delegation of the National Health Federation (NHF) –met, discussed, and debated a wide number of food and food-supplement issues, including the controversial draft Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs) for vitamins and minerals.
Remember, the food guidelines and standards adopted by this Committee, and approved by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, are important because they are then used domestically by numerous countries worldwide and by virtually all countries in international food trade.
Nutrient Reference Values
Those who have been following the National Health Federation’s efforts at Codex since the mid-1990s will recall that at the Codex Nutrition Committee meeting in Dusseldorf, Germany in 2009, the NHF singlehandedly launched the opposition that stopped the Australian delegation and others from “dumbing down” these Nutrient Reference Values.
Australia and its supporters had wrongly proposed that lower NRVs be adopted for certain important vitamins and minerals, including Vitamin C. For example, the Proposed Draft Additional or Revised NRVs for Labelling Purposes in the Codex Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling suggested reducing the Vitamin A NRV from 800 micrograms down to 550 micrograms, Vitamin C down from an already-abysmally-low 60 milligrams to 45 milligrams, Thiamin down from 1.4 milligrams to 1.2 milligrams, Niacin from 18 milligrams down to 15 milligrams, Magnesium down from 300 milligrams to 240 milligrams, and so forth.
These values are already at subsistence levels, and most consumers need far more than the miserable amounts that Codex would parsimoniously dole out to them in order to enjoy optimal and robust health. Yet Australia and its supporters are so fixated on reducing the values even more that they have blinded themselves to the real science showing the absolute need for more nutrient intake, not less.
Fortunately, thanks to NHF and its key supporters India and Iraq at the 2009 meeting, the Committee wisely chose not to move forward with any of those proposed NRVs and instead held the work back for further review and study. Three years have passed since we first stopped these NRVs from being adopted, and each year of non-adoption has been a victory for NHF, and for you.
The Electronic Working Group
Last year, the Committee created an electronic Working Group (eWG) – chaired by ever-present Australia – to look at the hard numbers for each of the vitamins and minerals under consideration. NHF was a member of that group along with twenty other delegations. Working through e-mails, the Australian-led eWG gradually prepared a report; and the NHF and other delegations submitted comments throughout 2012, to be included in that report.
Unfortunately, the United States seemed to have had more of Australia’s ear than anyone else; and the eWG accordingly submitted to this year’s Committee a Final Report (over NHF’s objections) that essentially split the vitamins and minerals into two groups: One that the “eWG” (read here, Australia and the United States) considered “suitable” for adoption; and a second group that was considered “unsuitable” and would need further work.
Strangely enough, this was exactly the approach pushed by the United States at the 2010 CCNFSDU meeting held in Santiago, Chile, but which NHF, the European Union, and others had opposed and defeated back then. Resurrected from its vampire grave just in time for this 2012 meeting, this plan found support with both Australia and the United States working hard to ensure that, this time, at least half of the dumbed-down nutrient values could be pushed forward towards adoption.
The 2012 Meeting
As planned, the Committee once again took up discussion of the appropriate NRVs for Codex to adopt, using the eWG Report as its starting point. Of course, the Committee covered other topics, such as draft guidelines on the addition of essential nutrients to foods and formulated supplementary foods for older infants and children. The latter was as hotly-debated a topic as the NRVs.
The Chairwoman was once again Dr. Pia Noble, appointed by the German Health Ministry. Co-NHF delegate, Katherine Carroll, spent time during breaks speaking with Dr. Noble to advance NHF, but it is clear that Dr. Noble has little regard for the INGOs, who are just nuisances getting in the way of pushing her agenda forward. Not surprisingly, Dr. Noble is popular with some of the delegates because, as they put it, “she moves things along.”
Well, “moving things along” – like “Fly Me To The Moon” – has become something of a theme song for this Codex Committee. Real nutritional science is trampled into the mud as the Committee rushes pell-mell to adopt guidelines and standards without considering the consequences of what it is doing. Unfortunately only a few delegates realize what is happening, the majority are content to drift along in concert with and at the direction of the few leaders.
On the second day of the meeting, just before the lunch break, the Australian delegate, Janine Lewis, read through her eWG Final Report while we all listened. I knew what was coming because I had spoken with her before the meeting had started, asking her to, at the very least, withhold calcium from her “suitable” list of nutrients that she would advance for adoption. When she asked and heard in response that I had only spoken with her and the U.S. delegate about that, her position visibly hardened and she told me simply, “Let’s see what the Committee does.”
It became obvious soon enough what the Committee would do, as I pushed the button on my microphone to speak when the meeting resumed after the lunch break. As in 2009, I was the second person to speak! This is highly unusual since the Codex procedure is to let all of the country delegations speak first, and only then allow the INGOs to speak. Being second meant that there were few who wanted to speak out on this issue.
Barbara Schneeman, the U.S. delegate, had spoken immediately before me and said the U.S. “liked these [NRV] figures” and thus liked the idea of advancing the “suitable” nutrients to the Commission for adoption. With that, my microphone illuminated red and it was my turn to speak. I told the Committee that, except for calcium (whose value had been increased while magnesium’s had been decreased, the exact opposite of what should happen with these twin minerals), the Australian figures were all too low, that the NRVs were being reduced by anywhere from 15% to 25%, and questioned why Australia was always choosing the lowest values it could find, even lower than what the guidelines would call for. The safety of vitamins and minerals, I argued, was unparalleled, so that there could be no problem with having higher levels of these nutrients. Moreover, lowering the NRVs was inconsistent with Codex’s announced goal of preventing malnutrition.
The International Alliance of Dietary Food Supplements Associations (IADSA) and the International Dairy Federation (IDF) spoke up after NHF, both attacking the proposed values of a specific nutrient – IADSA advocating a higher value for Biotin and IDF a lower value for Calcium (because the higher value would mean that milk could no longer be considered a “rich” source of calcium). The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), to the confusion of many, simply said “We would like to stress the scientific underpinnings of these numbers.” Did that mean they supported the values, or opposed them? It sounded more like the former, but we could not tell.
As expected, Australia responded in defense of the dumbed-down NRVs; and NHF then challenged those numbers yet again. But this time, the Malaysian, Iranian, and South African delegates spoke up one right after another in strong support of NHF and in favor of more sensible NRVs. It was heartening to hear these three women speak out for sensible nutrition based upon real science.
NHF and IADSA spoke up again, respectively opposing the adoption of any of these values and, in the case of IADSA, the Biotin value. The European Union (EU) delegate, Basil Mathioudakis, quite sensibly asked the Chairwoman what logic did it make to advance some and not all of the NRVs at the same time. Switzerland disagreed with the EU, but NHF spoke up in support of the EU’s question and suggested that the so-called “suitable” NRVs be held back, or at the very least some of the more questionable ones such as Calcium and Vitamin K. IADSA, in turn, pointed out that the Committee was going against its own guidelines by not selecting the proper value, a higher value, for Biotin.
But the Chairwoman, Pia Noble, was having none of that and insisted that these “suitable” NRVs were going forward despite the substantial opposition. In a last-ditch effort, I asked the Chairwoman to at least move the Vitamin K, Biotin, and Calcium from the “suitable” Table to the “unsuitable” category. Not only was the answer “no,” but Dr. Noble decided that since opposition might grow against these so-called “suitable” NRVs, then they should be advanced along the path of adoption as quickly as possible. So, she unilaterally undertook to advance them along the 8-Step adoption process to Step 5/8, where they now hover on the edge of full adoption by the Commission itself next year.
As an added insult, the following day, the Committee discussed another Agenda Item, that is, revisions to the Codex General Principles for the Addition of Essential Nutrients to Foods, which in small but important part dealt with the question of whether Codex should or could state that nutrients can prevent or reduce the risk of disease. Amazingly enough, many delegations spoke out against such language. Only the U.S. delegation and two INGOs (NHF and GAIN) defended this statement.
The Troika of Pia Noble, Janine Lewis, and Barbara Schneeman succeeded in finally pushing forward eleven of the nineteen vitamins and minerals further along the road to adoption. At the Codex Alimentarius Commission meeting next July there will be a further push to adopt these eleven vitamins and minerals and set their low (except for Calcium) values in stone. Barbara Schneeman, the U.S. delegate, will not be there as her retirement was announced at the CCNFSDU meeting. Fortunately, there is still an opportunity to derail this effort to steam-roller consumers into ill-health and NHF intends to make the most of it.
In addition, the Chairwoman reauthorized the eWG to continue its work on the “unsuitable” nutrient values and the NHF is taking an active part in that working group’s activities. The eWG will report back to the CCNFSDU when it meets again next Fall in Germany.
Barbara Schneeman’s legacy at Codex has been an unfortunate one of pushing big corporate interests while thumbing her nose at consumers. Whether it was her obstinate opposition to adopting a guideline for labeling GMO foods (at the Codex Committee on Food Labelling) or her questionable support for dumbing-down NRVs (at CCNFSDU), she has unfortunately been too often on the wrong side of the issues. Perhaps, in the interests of better health for consumers worldwide, her retirement from Codex could have happened a few years earlier. While this might sound uncharitable, inflicting ill-health upon billions of humans is far less charitable still.
The Troika has cleverly pushed forward some of the nutrient NRVs in the hope that the others must inevitably follow along. Whatever their agenda might truly be, the sad fact is that consumer health will suffer from their thoughtless and stercoraceous actions.
The problem facing consumers is not vitamin-and-mineral toxicity, it is widespread deficiencies of those nutrients. Too many Codex delegates are stuck in the mindset that human populations only need bare subsistence nutrition; that is, that nutrition that merely keeps them breathing and their feet moving one step at a time. The concept that there is a greater level of nutrition – of optimal nutrition – is as foreign to them as space flight would be to Stone Age people. They fail to comprehend that nutrients at proper levels can actually enable individuals to function at more proficient levels and without those diseases that afflict sub-optimally fed populations.
The disservice done to Humanity by those too lazy to think and then act is so profound as to be disheartening to many others. Many among us question the motivations of those who want to only push a guideline or standard forward to final adoption simply to “get it done and out of the way.” Is their thinking really as shallow as that? Maybe we better hope it is, as that is an easier mindset to deal with than one of active malevolence.
 The National Health Federation delegation consisted of Scott Tips and Katherine A. Carroll. The NHF-Germany Executive Director, Petra Weiss, took ill and could not attend this year. Attorney Jeannine Stewart and others helped Scott Tips draft the NHF’s submission paper arguing for higher levels of NRVs. This NHF paper was published by the German Codex Secretariat as Conference Room Document 13 (CRD 13) and made available to all of the CCNFSDU delegates at the meeting and can be found on-line at www.thenhf.com/codex/. All photographs in this article were taken by Katherine Carroll.
 Not to be confused with Maximum Upper Permitted Limits, NRVs are nothing more than souped-up RDAs. These are numerical values assigned to specified nutrients that will supposedly cover 98% of the population’s nutritional needs for that nutrient. By referring to the NRV for a vitamin or mineral, the consumer is supposed to know whether he or she is getting an adequate intake of that nutrient, even if, as in the case of Vitamin C, 100% of the NRV is defined as 45 milligrams! These values are claimed to be set according to rigorous scientific evidence; but, in reality, “science” at Codex levels is often nothing more than a flimsy set of assumptions and erroneous conclusions cobbled together to justify keeping consumers “safe” from “dangerous” vitamins and minerals.
 The proposed Codex NRVs are: Vitamin A (dropped from 800 mcg to 550 mcg); Vitamin D (5 mcg or 200 IUs); Vitamin E (8.8 mg); Vitamin K (60 mcg); Vitamin C (dropped from 60 mg to 45 mg); Thiamin (dropped from 1.4 to 1.2 mg); Riboflavin (dropped from 1.6 mg to 1.2 mg); Niacin (dropped from 18 mg to 15 mg); Vitamin B6 (dropped from 2 mg to 1.3 mg); Folate (raised to 400 mcg); Vitamin B12 (2.4 mcg); Pantothenate (5 mg); Biotin (30 mcg); Calcium (raised from 800 mg to 1000 mg); Magnesium (dropped from 300 mg to 240 mg); Iodine (150 mcg); Iron (14.3-43.1 mg depending upon bioavailability); Zinc (dropped from 15 mg to 3.6-11.9, depending upon bioavailability); Selenium (30 mcg); Phosphorus (700 mg); Chloride (2.3 grams); Copper (900 mcg); Fluoride (3.5 mg); Manganese (2.1 mg); Chromium (30 mcg); and Molybdenum (45 mcg).
 See CCNFSDU document number CX/NFSDU 12/34/8.
 NHF has been opposed to Australia’s desire to raise the Calcium NRV from 800 mg to 1000 mg for several reasons. First of all, it is infantile nutritional science to think that health can be improved by raising Calcium intake while simultaneously lowering Magnesium intake (here, from 300 mg to 240 mg!). Magnesium and Calcium are twin minerals and raising Calcium intake while lowering Magnesium intake is a certain recipe for disaster, as it invites the calcium to settle into the soft tissue like the skin and arteries and not go to where it properly belongs, in the bones and teeth. Secondly, by fixing the NRV for Calcium, the Committee has limited the range in which the Committee may now set the NRV for Magnesium. If the Committee is to follow sound nutritional science, then the Magnesium NRV cannot now be set any lower than 500 mg. That is a great distance from the measly 240 mg value that the Chairwoman and Australia would like to establish.
 Vitamin K, Thiamin, Riboflavin, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Folate, Vitamin B12, Pantothenate, Biotin, Calcium, and Iodine.
 These three strong-willed delegates are: Fatima Sulong (Malaysia), Atefeh Fooladi Moghaddam (Iran), and Andiswa Ngqaka (South Africa), who resisted the strong urgings of the Chairwoman to simply look the other way and advance the dumbed-down NRVs. The three women took an unpopular stand and are true heroines, and to be much commended for speaking out for health.
By Scott C. Tips – President of The National Health Federation
Also see related article by Kat Carroll, NTP, Associate Editor, Health Freedom News, National Health Federation http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/update-results-of-codex-alimentarius-meetings-2012-in-frankfurt-germany/
Codex Alimentarius is a UN-sponsored concept and organization, which – under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) – creates food standards and guidelines used in international trade. In 1994, the World Trade Organization (WTO) replaced the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) with actual trade-sanction power to enforce Codex and other standards and guidelines. Not surprisingly, Codex took on an entirely new importance.
Now nearly 300 of us – Country delegates and International Non-governmental Organizations (INGOs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_nongovernmental_organization) – were involved in Germany this December in a playoff where inches of dry but crucial script would gain the yardage of victory or bitter defeat. This was the 34th session of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU), alias “Malnutrition Meeting,” in frigid Bad Soden, Germany the first week of December 2012, where the National Health Federation sought to make its own gains and preserve our health freedoms.
In this innocuous meeting room at the Ramada Inn, play by play, line by line, either the “ball” is moving forward, backward, or it’s being passed or kicked into oblivion without regard to any real goal in a last-ditch effort to get rid of it before being tackled. In this case, for the majority of the represented World, ‘tackled’ was a voluntary fumble, “When is it break time? Let’s just agree with the provided wording and get a cup of coffee.” You have to realize the World doesn’t often enjoy what the United States takes completely for granted, in this case, safe, high-quality supplements in abundance.
In a worst case scenario, Codex is rigged and we merely delay the inevitable passage of their ultimate will. It takes a skillful operator – in this case Dr. Pia Noble (what a misnomer…) – who can lead the room and in clearly balanced opposition somehow convince or cow the country delegates into believing there is actually consensus. That’s how Codex operates: by consensus. We don’t vote unless pushed. The World must agree, must cooperate…however, what I witnessed at this session of the CCNFSDU was clearly, in legal terms, “leading” and manipulating the room to the wishes of three strong forces: the U.S., Australia, and, of course, Chairwoman Dr. Pia (anything but) Noble.
At Codex Alimentarius (Latin for “Food Code”), the plays are read, line by line, and debated on by a World that doesn’t necessarily even accept certain principles in their daily life – like taking supplements. As a Nutritional Therapist, this was my meeting. I had to be there. Thankfully a few staunch supporters made sure that happened.
In the case of this particular Codex meeting held in Bad Soden, the ball was in jeopardy of being punted into oblivion when we hit the discussion of Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs). Was there anyone out of the nearly 300 delegates who really cared at all about the issues that will impact you when you go to the health-food store this coming year? This was my second Codex meeting and I could see clearly that the paragraphs dedicated to the discussion of our NRVs were in danger of being accepted as written and set into stone around the World, all in favor of just getting to the coffee break, and I mean that literally.
You have to understand, United States citizens enjoy unprecedented access to supplements with values that actually have the power to prevent disease or heal ill health – the rest of the World either does not use supplements, believing they are toxic – like drugs – or the nutrient reference values (RDAs) are so low that multiple bottles would have to be purchased at great expense to create the impact that one good U.S. bottle creates, or they simply don’t have them because no one could afford them when their healthcare system provides “free” drugs as an alternative.
I saw the low reference values firsthand in Germany. We went into a health-food store and I could hardly find the vitamin/mineral section. I had to ask. When I did find the one small shelf, the highest values for Vitamin D3 were 400 IUs. I take 25,000 IUs daily…talk about breaking the bank. No wonder the World, represented in the form of country delegates, was anxious to get to the free coffee, sweet rolls, etc. at the break. Their countries cannot afford what seems to them to be nonsense, so they mentally have moved on and disregarded any pro-vitamin/mineral argument. This is not their World. In fact, if the National Health Federation were not present at this crucial meeting on setting Nutrient Reference Values, I can guarantee you that your World would never be the same again. Once lowered, do you really think NRVs would ever stand the chance of somehow going through Codex’s 8-step process to rise again?
From a Nutritional Therapist’s standpoint, several of the nutrients that were placed on Codex’s sacrificial altar were methylation factors. B6, B12, Folic Acid…If we don’t methylate well, we can develop opportunistic diseases. Cancer…heart attack that occurs when Homocysteine elevates…Some, like calcium, which Codex wished to elevate out of proportion to stabilizing magnesium, and when taken out of balance, creates disease as well by mineralizing in soft tissue like blood vessels instead of the bone and teeth. So, at this point I’m thinking, “Is Codex out to kill us?”
So many of the final decisions made by Codex equal ill health for the World. It means both Big Pharma and the so-called “health” care system profits, while we grow ill and die. It is no secret that depopulation is one aspect of the World’s agenda. “Dr. Henry Kissinger himself wrote: “Depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy towards the Third World.” Apparently America is the new ‘third World.’
If you ever needed an advocate for your health and your health freedom, it is now. Now is the time to have your wishes and your Voice represented at Codex. Is it any wonder that Codex is not letting any more health-freedom organizations into the elite representation? The National Health Federation (NHF) is the ONLY health-freedom organization that has the power to speak out and, believe me, we do and we have – frequently. We have also submitted comments to the Electronic Working Groups that often meet in cyberspace before the meetings, and we also have the power to propose correction of the final report. Do you know how many delegates stick around for the tedious, line-by-line reading of the final report? Many are long gone, mistakenly trusting that the work they performed for the World will actually be represented accurately in the final report. NHF stays … to the bitter end. Hours of rehashing what we have spent the week working toward, defending our documented statements, defending the truth that too-often gets somehow skewed, omitted, or somehow rendered opaque.
NHF came to this meeting to promote and defend healthier Nutrient Reference Values. The attack by Australia and others on these particular NRVs, from my professional standpoint, is designed to take out a large number of the population at least in the U.S. where we have access to supplements with values that are currently at least approaching sufficiency and where we have the incomes generally to support their purchase.
What was so incredibly ironic about this meeting was the emphasis on malnutrition in the World. It actually sparked a growing interest in me about the integrity of infant formulas. They are including transfats and contaminants in infant formula! When we learn that in France, for example, breast feeding is neither popular nor widely practiced, it pays to defend the integrity of infant formulas! But the trajectory of the morning – 3 hours before NRVs were even approached – was on ‘growing up milk,’ which Elizabeth Streken (an INGO representative of the International Baby Formula Action Network) said was a market ploy to get mothers to feel guilty if they didn’t keep bottle feeding babies way past time… At any rate, the discrepancy and complete disconnect in regards to the NRVs was that supposedly Codex was there to prevent malnutrition in the World, yet here they were, the very last ones in favor of optimal nutrition for infants. Instead, Codex was lowering our already malnutrition-promoting, low NRVs, which are set to prevent the very last-ditch disease processes before death instead of promoting optimum nutrition and vibrant, disease-resistant health.
So, these two themes predominated: (1) Get through the tedious drivel and get me to the coffee and donut cart; and (2) The incongruous ‘Yes, we are all for stopping malnutrition … let’s lower the values in the supplements, shall we?” And then let us not forget the overarching theme by Mme. Chair – “not so terribly Noble, Pia”— “What I Decide, Will Be.”
The National Health Federation has been in existence long before any other health-freedom organization was even a ‘gleam in the father’s eye.’ We are the granddaddy of them all. We’ve employed a lobbyist in Washington, D.C. for more than 50 years. We alone hold the distinction of being the only health-freedom organization able to speak at Codex. So, do you see now how important this ability is? Not only can we speak; but, as mentioned above, we can submit written comments and arguments – and we did, three times – on the NRV issue alone prior to the meeting in Germany (twice as part of the electronic working group hosted by the ultimate opposition: Australia, and once directly to the Committee).
Do I feel fortunate to be on the team of the most powerful health-freedom organization at Codex? I feel incredibly humbled. For one who had little political interest or influence in the past, I am now thrust into the heart of the action where policy is set for the World. It is not only quite humbling but it carries an enormous responsibility to carry the wishes and desires of those whom NHF speaks for and represents to the seat of power. And we do so faithfully time and again.
The lives that are impacted are not only our own but those of our children and grandchildren. Our family’s health is at stake. In the final analysis, if we lose our health, we have lost. It is all we have besides the faith that sustains us and keeps us seeking the path of Light in the growing darkness of the World. The Codex meeting on nutrition was anything but. It was about some elite marketers seeking to manipulate the World – guilting them into keeping children on formulas when they needed to embrace a solid diet – real ‘growing up’ food. It was about government regulators lowering key nutrients and raising others that would ensure that our health would deteriorate. It masqueraded in the guise of compassion and the oft-said mantra “consumer protection,” yet all the while was undermining our health by chipping away at the very foundations in the name of control and ill health.
We at NHF spoke for you. At the end of the day, I approached the dais where Dr. Pia Noble held court. I asked her for 5 minutes at the next meeting to explain the science behind our commitment to NRVs. She grimaced, rolled her eyes, disregarded me completely in the most disrespectful way possible for one woman to address another, and then deferred to the Secretariat. The answer was – you guessed it – NO. “It might create further discussion….” Codex is a body that is supposed to elevate your health, not suppress it. But who speaks for you there? The National Health Federation. That’s the real WHO.
By Kat Carroll, NTP,
Associate Editor, Health Freedom News, National Health Federation
To access NHF President Scott Tips’ article summarizing the Codex meeting, visit the website at www.thenhf.com or this direct link: http://www.thenhf.com/article.php?id=3567 or http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/codex-nutrition-committee-chooses-malnutrition/. While you’re there, we invite you to join our efforts to protect the health of the World by becoming a member or helping to underwrite expenses to future Codex Alimentarius meetings like the one upcoming in March 2013 in Beijing where the topic of ‘contaminants’ will be reviewed. My personal passion is focusing on contaminants in infant formulas, as well as aspartame and aluminum in our food supply. We really cannot fight this fight without every one of you pitching in and doing your part. Believe me, it’s so satisfying to know we really ARE making an impact on this World for the benefit of future generations.
“The great strength or our Order lies in its concealment; let it never appear in any place in its own name, but always concealed by another name, and another occupations.” - Adam Weishaupt/Founder of the Illuminati
Let no man or woman dare speak of a shadow government. The crony corruptocrats that make up the ruling elites of the world must maintain the illusion, that elected governments are based upon willful consent and have the legitimate authority to establish rules of conduct that their citizen are obligated to obey. For those regimes that maintain their grip of power by undemocratic means, the apologists for the international community give a wide berth of acceptance in order to maintain the appearance of individual national sovereignty.
In the essay, There Is No Conspiracy – Only Official Policy provides a study in power politics when a banana republic dares defy the moneychangers.
“The lesson for world leaders is you don’t cross the masters of power, but for Americans it is that a world run by the IMF never benefits us, the people. The enactment of the FTAA is just one more element in the grand scheme of global rule. There is no need to dapple in extraordinary theories; it is all in the open for everyone to see. The policy is clear – the nations of the world are mere colonies to the interests of the ruling elites. Citizens of countries and their elected leaders are mere subjects of the international community. Not exactly the revered Republic that we all owe allegiance, is it?”
The pattern of retribution against any tin horn leaders that refuse to succumb to the boot of the World Bank or the IMF is in plain sight. Just ask the mutilated and deceased Muhammad al-Gaddafi for testimony of the enforcement treatment one can expect for opposing the world financial plutocracy. While the imperium empire of drone warfare, targets governments that oppose the global hegemony, the behind the screens discord among varied vying factions often goes unnoticed.
The Constitution Society sees the nature of The Shadow Government differently from most popular interpretations of the power elite.
Some of the best indications that the Shadow Government is not centered in the financial sector are the things it has to do to finance itself. Shadow Government is expensive. We can identify the main sources of its revenue:
(1) Black budgets. This is the core of its operations, but is not enough to secure its control over the country and the world.
(2) Drug trade. It has seized control of the major part of the illegal traffic in addictive substances, in part by using the organs of law enforcement to eliminate competition, and by gaining control of the money and the ways it gets re-introduced into the economy.
(3) Raiding financial institutions. This is what was done with the S&Ls, and is being done, more slowly, with the banks. It involves several aspects: diversion of the funds, seizure of smaller institutions by a few large ones under Shadow Government control, with the seizure financed by the taxpayers, and acquisition under distressed prices of the assets of those institutions, many of which are well-positioned business enterprises that give the Shadow Government both control of the key enterprises in most business sectors and sources of revenue. The Savings & Loan raid was used to finance a major expansion of the Shadow Government. However, it is not a method that can be repeated.
(4) Public authorities. These are quasi-governmental enterprises that control substantial assets, often taxpayer-subsidized, without effective accountability. They include housing, port, energy, water, transportation, and educational authorities. To this might also be added various utilities, and both public and publicly-regulated private monopolies, like local telephone and cable companies. They are also a major source of government contracts.
(5) Government contracts. Major source of diverted funds, but must often be shared with others involved.
(6) Arms trade. Another major source of funds, both direct and diverted. But requires payoffs to local officials.
What this viewpoint ignores is that the tactics of subversive operations frequently demand undercover execution and plausible deniability. The methods of covert operations conducted by black bag operatives avoid the question; who really controls the intelligence agencies? It is a fatal error to reject the prevalent role of the money center institutions and central banks in the unified network of financial control and global integration.
A more perceptive breakdown by Richard Boylan Ph.D. offers a structural analysis of the secret “shadow” government.
In the Shadow Government five branches may be identified. These branches are: the Executive Branch, the Intelligence Branch, the War Department, the Weapons Industry Branch, and the Financial Department.
An analysis of the overall purposes of these five branches suggests that the overall purpose of the Shadow Government is to exercise covert control by:
1. Collecting comprehensive institutional and personal information
2. By establishing national and international policy independently of the established Government
3. By developing high-tech arms and equipment, and, with these, establishing small, specialized, highly mobile, elite military units to effect these covert policies, when need arises, without having to rely on the official (and “unreliable”) Armed Services, (whose subservience to the Shadow Government is reasonably suspect)
4. By developing an armed capability to repel any threat to the status quo, (including the uncertain ontological, social, and economic impacts of any revelation of the reality of UFO and extraterrestrial presence) through the development of a Star Wars/BMDO ground and space-based surveillance and SDI weapons network
5. By denying information compromising to the Shadow Government from all those outside “need-to-know” policy-making levels
6. By exercising control on the money supply, availability of credit, and the worth of money, through policy decisions made outside of the official Government
The essential political planetary threat that faces humanity is rooted in the globalist drive to accelerate their NWO plans for a neo-colonial feudal hierarchy. The New World Order Feudal Enslavement System outlines the plot. However, the elements that comprise the surreptitious functions and assignments of shadow government missions need to maintain a clandestine secrecy to be effective. Stealth practices often foster perpetual public ignorance.
Contrast this with maybe the best example of the most visible globalist institution that is used by the shadow elites as their private administration tool for worldwide compliance. The John Birch video U.N. and the United States | John F. McManus presents the argument that Americanism is incompatible with the international community of collectivists that the United Nations is based upon.
The interminable public feuding in General Assembly sessions are sheer spectacle for the uninformed. The real dirty work is done behind the scenes through coerced implementation of programs like Agenda 21. (Also see our Agenda 21 section in special interests)
The best way to come out of the shadows is to strip back the curtain. Effectiveness dictates that the banksters and corporatists use the dark art of intrigue and subterfuge to manipulate the systems of governance, which they put in place, to serve their own interests.
The destruction of the unique American experiment falls upon the treason of the ruling class. Human Depravity, James Madison, and The Founding Fathers explains the nature of the existential internal threat that destroyed the essence of the old Republic. Madison wrote:
“If we were all like angels, blameless and freely able to exercise perfect control, we would not need rules or regulations. Why, then, do we have so many laws and statutes? Because of man’s wickedness, for he is constantly overflowing with evil; this is why a remedy is required.”
When the shadow government usurps the stated original limited authorities and separations of powers, the citizens of the country are relegated to a menu entrée on the feasting table of the power elites. The globalism agenda is the objective of the shadow government. Participants need not be spooks or machinates. Those who influence the operations of the sub-rosa establishment may wear the garb of Illuminati or use the signals of secret societies, but most are pure button down internationalists.
The populace is viewed as useless eaters to the elites, who labor to drive a wedge between government and the ordinary man. The privileged oligarchs see themselves as the ennobled in the entitlement enslavement society of their creation. Keeping the masses dependent until the ultimate elimination of dissenters is the objective.
The specter of the shadow government has always been part of the inner conflict for national integrity. The difference at this time is that it is all pervasive. The United States has become a global empire designed to impose an internationalist monitory yoke around the neck of subservient serfs.
The money machine of shadow banking practiced by the Bank for International Settlements on Big Banks is a prime component of the definitive ruling elite comradeship. Governments are no longer sovereign entities. They function as subsidiaries of the global satanic New World Order conglomerate. The crony corruptocrats bury deep their crimes and give new meaning to being above the law. Without a widespread public awakening, the forces of wickedness will triumph.
Less we forget . . . “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Ephesians 6:12
SARTRE is the pen name of James Hall, a reformed, former political operative. This pundit’s formal instruction in History, Philosophy and Political Science served as training for activism, on the staff of several politicians and in many campaigns. A believer in authentic Public Service, independent business interests were pursued in the private sector. As a small business owner and entrepreneur, several successful ventures expanded opportunities for customers and employees. Speculation in markets, and international business investments, allowed for extensive travel and a world view for commerce. He is retired and lives with his wife in a rural community. ”Populism” best describes the approach to SARTRE’s perspective on Politics. Realities, suggest that American Values can be restored with an appreciation of “Pragmatic Anarchism.” Reforms will require an Existential approach. “Ideas Move the World,” and SARTRE’S intent is to stir the conscience of those who desire to bring back a common sense, moral and traditional value culture for America. Not seeking fame nor fortune, SARTRE’s only goal is to ask the questions that few will dare … Having refused the invites of an academic career because of the hypocrisy of elite’s, the search for TRUTH is the challenge that is made to all readers. It starts within yourself and is achieved only with your sincere desire to face Reality. So who is SARTRE? He is really an ordinary man just like you, who invites you to join in on this journey. Visit his website at http://batr.org.
U.S. meat supplies to Russia have been banned. The Russian Federation and the United States differ in the assessment of the causes of the situation. Russia claims that the reason for the ban was the presence of ractopamine drug in US meat. America insists that Russia’s actions were a response to the adoption of the Magnitsky Act by the Senate and accuses Russia of violating WTO rules.
On December 7, 2012 Russia’s Federal Agency for Agricultural Control, Rosselhohznadzor, banned the imports of meat containing ractopamine. This is a food additive that allows to reduce the content of fat in beef and pork. The drug is added to food so that animals grow the muscle mass instead of fat. According to researchers, ractopamine affects the human cardiovascular system, and in some cases can cause food poisoning. This drug is banned for use in 160 countries, including China and Russia. It is allowed in 24 countries, including Canada and the United States. Codex Alimentarius of the World Health Organization, adopted in July 2012 in Rome by representatives of 186 countries, allows the contents of ractopamine in meat.
Formally, Russia does not prohibit the delivery of pork and beef from the United States. It only notified a number of countries, including the US of A, of the need to provide documents saying that animals had not been fed ractopamine – the drug that is banned in Russia. However, the warned countries (in addition to the U.S. the list includes Canada, Brazil and Mexico and excludes 20 countries where the drug is used) do not have the appropriate expertise, because there was no need to have it before. Rosselkhoznadzor promised to introduce a transitional period for those countries, until about the end of January 2013. However, specific implementation mechanisms remain unclear.
As for foreign countries, the move of the Russian Agency for Agricultural Control will hit the United States most. Russia is the fourth largest importer of U.S. meat and spends about $500 million a year on it. The Russian market consumes 0.6 percent of all beef and 1.4 percent of pork produced in the United States. More than 200 containers of meat products worth about $20 million are currently on their way to Russia from the United States.
However, the lack of U.S. meat on the Russian market will affect the Russian economy. The pork from the United States comes fourth on the volume of shipments to Russia. In total, the share of imported meat in the Russian market makes up not less than a third.
The United States regards the ban of meat imports as a political move. According to American analysts, Russia has reacted so to the recent adoption of the Magnitsky Act by the U.S. Congress. On December 6, the U.S. Senate almost unanimously (92 votes “for” and 4 – “against”) approved the bill that imposed visa and financial sanctions against Russian officials involved, according to Washington, in the death of Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer of Hermitage investment fund. The first three parts of this document are devoted to the interaction of Russia and the U.S. in the WTO. In particular, the bill abolishes the Jackson-Vanik amendment for Russia and Moldova, which was adopted in 1974. It is expected that U.S. President Barack Obama will sign the bill in the near future.
“This seems to be in retaliation to the Senate’s passage of the trade bill with Russia … there is certainly no doubt about it,” Rich Nelson, chief strategist at research and brokerage company Allendale Inc, said.
Russian officials were surprised to know that US analysts associated the ban on meat imports with the Magnitsky Act.
“One can speculate about whether it was done in retaliation or not, but the measure was based on the content of some additives in meat that are contrary to Russian sanitary standards,” deputy director of the Institute of the USA and Canada, Victor Supyan told Pravda.Ru.
Previously, the Russian side promised to take comprehensive, multidimensional and extremely strong measures should the Magnitsky Act be adopted in the USA. Presently, the United States accuses Russia of violating WTO rules. “All WTO members break these rules. This is normal,” Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich said in response to similar accusations in November of this year in an interview with the Kommersant newspaper. However, on Saturday, U.S. officials said they were expecting actions from Russia to change the situation. The U.S. side expressed a hope that in the near future Russia would remove the ban on the imports of meat, thus fulfilling its obligations as a WTO member. Russia, in turn, does not see any violations in its actions.
The world as we once knew it is gone. The rosy cheeked children, bursting with energy, that once climbed trees and got up to mischief, are extinct. The people are still here, but they are pale, lethargic and slowly dying… ~ Daisy Luther
Every bite of food provided to these people is the product of a laboratory – the genetically modified spawn of Big Agri and Big Pharma.
The food looks incredible – huge, radiant tomatoes such a vivid red that one would think the lycopene was virtually emanating from the skin of the fruit. Inside that appealing package is a food-like substance, utterly raped of nutrients.
The people are unable to go to a health-food store and purchase vitamins or an herbal tonic to put the spring back in their step.
Herbs, vitamins and nutrients in general have been labeled “toxins” and are only available via prescription at high prices and low doses.
If the people are caught hoarding treasured fertile heirloom seeds, and heaven forbid, planting them to grow their own food, punishment is swift and sure. The bounty is taken and the people starve again.
Amidst the abundance of burgeoning supermarket shelves, the majority of the world’s population is slowly starving to death…
The world according to Codex Alimentarius looks grim indeed. Codex Alimentarius (Latin for “food code”) is a global set of standards created by the CA Commission, a body established by a branch or the United Nations back in 1963.
The CA Commission’s purported mission, like all Agenda 21 missions, sounds so wonderful that it might have been created by a committee from heaven above. The main purposes of this Programme are protecting health of the consumers and ensuring fair trade practices in the food trade
Don’t you wonder what could possibly be wrong with that? The UN wants us to be healthy and wants everyone to be paid fairly.
Codex Alimentarius sounds great! Let’s institute these standards right away!
As with all globally stated agendas, however, CA’s darker purpose is shielded by the feel-good words.
Global committees have been established to regulate the following topics, to name a few.
· fruits and vegetables
· fruit and vegetable juices
· fats and oils
· meat, poultry and fish
· cereals, pulses (used for food and animal feed) and legumes
· milk and milk products
· natural mineral waters
· cocoa products and chocolate
· food hygiene
· food labeling (as a way not to disclose GMO foods and ingredients)
· pesticide residues;
· residues of veterinary drugs found in foods
· food additives
The unfortunate thing is, the regulations ensure money, not safety. They guarantee profit, not health benefits.
“Codex Alimentarius is a dark marriage between pharmaceutical and chemical industries and the WTO, conceived to exact complete and regimented control over all food products and nutrients worldwide.” ~ writes Chantal Boccaccio of The People’s Voice.
Follow the Money
So if all of these regulations don’t benefit the consumers, who do they benefit? Dr. Rima Laibow, of Health Freedom USA (view speech below) estimated that for every dollar spent on natural health solutions and supplements, Big Pharma loses $40. Therefore, if people have the option to chose vitamins over valium, Big Pharma loses billions per year.
The medical establishment benefits. When people are able to manage chronic conditions and avoid surgery through carefully choosing what they eat or what supplements they take, the medical establishment loses out on those costly visits that people must undertake in order to “manage” their conditions.
Pesticide manufacturers benefit. GMO foods require greater pesticide use, thus manufacturers of pesticides like Round-up (Monsanto) reap the financial rewards while being allowed to poison the environment.
Food processors benefit. CA requires food to be irradiated, a low cost (and nutrient-destroying) practice to require lower standards of hygiene and sanitation.
Big Pharma benefits. CA mandates that nutrients be classified as drugs; therefore the purchase of vitamins will eventually require a prescription. Prescription drugs, of course, are monitored by the FDA, which means only the Big Pharma companies will be able to manufacture and supply them.
Maybe, then, the United States should just refuse to take part in CA.
That’s not going to happen, because all members of the World Trade Organization are legally bound under global guidelines, including CA standards. CA standards override all national laws.
Lack of compliance to these standards may result in fines and/or crippling trade sanctions. If a country wants to play the global trading game, that country has no option whatsoever but to comply with CA.
Those who do not comply automatically forfeit the judgment in any global trade dispute regarding food or nutrients.
“If people let 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 of those who live under tyranny.” Thomas Jefferson (1762-1821)
It’s Already Here
In 2010, during the distraction of the BP Oil Spill, Barack Obama signed an Executive Order (#13544) to implement CA in the US over the course of the next few years.
More akin to a royal decree than a constitutionally acceptable legislation, Obama proved his arrogance once again: he does NOT require the approval of Congress to make sweeping legislation’s.
In the United States, the FDA is in charge of implementing the standards. Over the next two years, with the Food Safety Modernization Act, they will be doing just that.
According to a Natural News article by Dr. Gregory D’Amato, these irrevocable standards are on their way of being implemented to allow the US to “HARMonize” with Codex.
* All nutrients (vitamins and minerals) are to be considered toxins/poisons and are to be removed from all food because Codex prohibits the use of nutrients to “prevent, treat or cure any condition or disease”
* All food (including organic) is to be irradiated, removing all toxic nutrients from food (unless eaten locally and raw).
* Nutrients allowed will be limited to a Positive List developed by Codex which will include such beneficial nutrients like Fluoride (3.8 mg daily) developed from environmental waste. All other nutrients will be prohibited nationally and internationally to all Codex-compliant countries .
* All nutrients (e.g., CoQ10, Vitamins A, B, C, D, Zinc and Magnesium) that have any positive health impact on the body will be deemed illegal under Codex and are to be reduced to amounts negligible to humans’ health .
* All advice on nutrition (including written online or journal articles or oral advice to a friend, family member or anyone) will be illegal.
* All dairy cows are to be treated with Monsanto’s recombinant bovine growth hormone.
* All animals used for food are to be treated with potent antibiotics and exogenous growth hormones.
* The reintroduction of deadly and carcinogenic organic pesticides that in 1991, 176 countries (including the U.S.) have banned worldwide including 7 of the 12 worst at the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pesticides (e.g., Hexachlorobenzene, Toxaphene, and Aldrin) will be allowed back into food at elevated levels .
* Dangerous and toxic levels (0.5 ppb) of aflotoxin in milk produced from moldy storage conditions of animal feed will be allowed. Aflotoxin is the second most potent (non-radiation) carcinogenic compound known to man.
* Mandatory use of growth hormones and antibiotics on all food herds, fish and flocks
* Worldwide implementation of unlabeled GMOs into crops, animals, fish and trees.
We’ve already seen incidences of health food stores being raided as though they were selling crystal meth instead of Vitamin C and organic vegetables.
Family farms are being driven out of business because they can’t afford to keep up with the ever-increasing regulations.
Natural healers have been criminalized throughout Europe, and that criminalization is on its way to North American shores.
Death by Codex
If it was only about the almighty dollar and the building of monopolies, one could almost comprehend the corporate greed behind Codex Alimentarius. The plot is more sinister than even greed could create.
Codex Alimentarius, quite simply, is an instrument of depopulation and control.
Sickly people die off at a faster rate, dropping health care costs. Dwindling populations consume fewer resources and leaving more for the Elite.
Morally, this soft kill approach is more palatable than outright attacks, like the release of viruses. There is the risk that biological attacks could also affect the Elite.
Military attacks, like nuclear war, could have a devastating effect on the environment, which would also negatively affect the elite. Subtly starving the masses, without them even realizing it, is the simplest method, and also the least likely to harm the NWO puppet masters that are in control of the United Nations.
As the attack on the world’s people becomes more obvious, the decision makers also risk being the victims of violent revolution. Codex also helps to cover that aspect.
If people are malnourished, they are unable to resist tyranny with the same enthusiasm as a healthy population. They are also far more susceptible to disease, should biological warfare be one day in the best interests of the Elite.
It’s win-win, if you happen to be a member of the Elite. The outcome doesn’t look so great for the rest of us.
View the documentary “We Become Silent – The Last Days Of Health Freedom”
Watch a speech by, Dr. Rima Laibow “Codex Alimentarius Nutricide, Criminalizing Natural Health, Vitamins”
Daisy Luther postedon BeforeIt’sNews
The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC),based in Rome, Italy, is an international organization jointly created by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) of the United Nations. The Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Use (CCNFSDU) is responsible for Dietary Supplements and Medical Foods and is one of some 27 separate Codex committees. The CCNFSDU meets once yearly in Berlin, Germany (its host country) and the National Health Federation is a Codex-recognized organization with the right to attend and speak out at these meetings.
The purpose of Codex is to provide a forum to facilitate global trade in foods and promote consumer food “safety” by developing science based standards and guidelines for use by member countries. Codex guidelines and standards are automatically implemented by the General Agreement on Trade & Tariffs (GATT) of the WHO and become binding for all international trade among GATT signatory countries. The CAC process calls for proposed committee standards and guidelines to be forwarded and approved by the Codex Alimentarius Commission’s Executive Committee. When the proposals reach final approval (after an eight-step process), they then become binding on all GATT signatories, including the United States. Thereafter, no GATT-signatory country may use as a trade barrier any standard or guideline that disagrees with a Codex guideline or standard. According to some, it does not mean that all GATT countries must adopt Codex standards for their own domestic use. According to the NHF, Codex guidelines and standards will inevitably supersede domestic laws, including the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994.
History has shown that the safest food products do not come from a top-down driven, controlled-market economy where an elitist select few decide what is “best” for all of us. Rather, the safest and healthiest individuals are those who are free to choose for themselves what is best for their health. Recent history has shown centralized, planned economies to be among the unhealthiest for their citizens. And the more that free-market economies themselves are seduced into allowing health-care decisions to be made by elitist planners, the more health and health freedom will suffer.
Codex members wrongly believe that consumer health will be enhanced by: (1) denying that dietary supplements can benefit normal, healthy people; (2) incorrectly defining dietary supplements as only those vitamins and minerals that the body cannot manufacture itself; (3) restricting the upper-limit amounts of vitamins and minerals, particularly by referring to currently-crude and archaic medical beliefs about nutrients; (4) restricting any physiological benefit information for consumers; (5) restricting the lower-limit amounts of vitamins and minerals that may be consumed by individuals; and (6) creating “positive” and “negative” lists of dietary supplements.
The direction of Codex is off course and is unfortunately driven by a statist and elitist mentality that thinks it knows what is best for consumer health and protection. Unfortunately, such a mindset comes from the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s kind of “brave new world” thinking that elevated central planners into a form of “God on Earth.” That kind of out-dated thinking has caused more misery, death and disease than can possibly be imagined. A free-market system of choice and knowledge will avoid the errors of central planning that sets standards into stone. With the doubling time of knowledge constantly accelerating, mankind cannot afford the “luxury” of getting stuck in health standards established in the 20th Century while new health knowledge and products are discovered almost daily. The best way to ensure such progress and advancing health is to keep the planners and bureaucrats from straitjacketing dietary supplements with medievalist thinking and restrictions.
Below is a very important video. Wake up to Monsanto, Codex Alimentarius and the depopulation agenda, by reducing vitamin intake and genetically modifying our food so they have no nutritional value or don’t get absorbed properly due to the genetic mutation.
• The world’s oldest health-freedom organization
• The only one with a seat at the Codex Table
• International, with members in 20 countries
• Working hard to protect your health rights
View speech from Dr. Reba Laibow:
Since Obama took office in 2009, political analysts and mainstream media pundits have failed to accurately identify any central ideology or grand strategy driving the administration’s policies. The government’s National Security Strategy Report has been the most likely place to find such a doctrine expressed officially, but when Obama’s administration issued their version in 2010, the mainstream media failed to bring to light the real agenda conveyed in the document. The establishment media’s general interpretation was that the strategy represented a shift away from past policies of unilateralism, preemptive warfare, and military preeminence, towards policies of greater cooperation with international institutions. But an independent examination of the report, along with some of its guidelines now in operation, reveals that the document’s primary policy positions, while setting new precedents, are derived from an old, deep rooted agenda for a world empire, propelled by elite finance oligarchs and global corporatists. The document centers around the building of a new “international order” by overhauling, revitalizing and granting more authority to international institutions including the IMF, WTO, NATO, G20, the World Bank and especially the UN.
Decoding the 2010 National Security Strategy
In May of 2010, during presentations introducing and summarizing the new National Security Strategy Report, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke of shaping an international order that would emphasize the role of global institutions in national security policy. While speaking at the Brookings Institute, Clinton listed this new international order as one of the government’s four central goals, saying “Our approach is to build the diverse sources of American power at home and to shape the global system so that it is more conducive to meeting our overriding objectives: security, prosperity, the explanation and spread of our values, and a just and sustainable international order.” Obama had used similar language a few days earlier at West Point saying, “So we have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation” and “The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times…”
Hearing the president speak of shaping a new international order as part of America’s National Security Strategy alarmed those in the alternative media who recognized the phrasing as a familiar reference to the Anglo-American elite’s efforts at establishing a world empire or “new world order.” The mainstream media, however, made no connections to a long term elitist agenda and instead framed the speech by contrasting Obama’s new strategy with those released under the Bush administration. The Washington Post claimed that “Obama pledged to shape a new ‘international order’ based on diplomacy and engagement” which distanced itself from the Bush Doctrine of preemptive warfare. But when the document was later released, its contents proved to justify the concerns of so called “conspiracy theorists.” Rather than simply promoting global cooperation or representing a positive new direction in policy, the strategy is instead a bold jump forward in the overarching, multi administration spanning agenda of global finance oligarchs to construct a world government. The fact that this agenda has now openly emerged in America’s National Security Strategy doctrine illustrates the advanced degree to which this scheme has progressed outside public awareness, without any public discussion or debate.
The National Security Strategy Report (NSSR) is the primary policy document, prepared by the executive branch, outlining an administration’s formulation of grand strategy for the country. According to the National Security Strategy Archive, “It is intended to be a comprehensive statement articulating the worldwide interests, goals, and objectives of the United States that are important to its security.” Involvement in the creation of the report is regarded by many policy planners as “direct access to the President’s overall agenda and thus highly desirable.” Typically its contents have been the responsibility of National Security Council staff members, but influence has been proven to come from other sources as well. Years after the 2002 NSSR was released, its primary author was revealed to be Philip Zelikow, a former National Security Council staffer under George Bush Sr. from 1989 to 1991. Zelikow was not a member of George W. Bush’s administration at the time, but rather worked as a “consultant” to his national security advisor Condoleezza Rice. Long after the report’s publication, he was discovered to be the secret writer of its infamous preemptive (more accurately preventive) war policy, earlier formulated by Paul Wolfowitz, which came to be known as the “Bush Doctrine.”
These reports are responsible for the implementation of long term policy directives that can extend far into future administrations. Modern versions of the report have provided a continuity to national security policy by only being produced every four years in the middle of the presidential term, even though they are supposed to be released every year. According to the Goldwater-Nichols Act, “The President shall transmit to Congress each year a comprehensive report on the national security strategy of the United States,” in a “classified and unclassified form.” The notorious Bush NSSRs were issued in 2002 and 2006. Obama’s NSSR came in 2010 and the next NSSR will most likely be released in the middle of 2014.
The unclassified version of the new National Security Strategy was released to the public in late May of 2010 with little controversy considering its alarming contents. (Screenshots of this report and other sources have been provided, with added highlighting or underlining, for quick reference.) The document centers around the old and familiar narrative of modern global crises requiring global solutions in the form of a new international order. This theme is introduced in the forward of the report and repeated throughout, with the “international order” being referenced more than 25 times in the 52 page document, including major sections and subsections devoted to it. The following screenshots from page one contain the document’s opening paragraph summarizing the report’s overview and showing the central theme of the strategy to be the creation of this new international order.
(screenshot below of NSSR’s opening paragraph of the overview on page 1)
(Screenshot below from 2010 NSSR’s overview on page 1)
While initial use of the phrase “shape an international order” is purposefully broad, further examination of the report clarifies its language of “shape” to be synonymous with “create,” and is used in the document interchangeably with the word “build.” The report’s primary use of the term “international order” is not to generically describe the existing international system or community, but rather to denote a new world system or architecture, led by the United States. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described it as a “new global architecture” that the administration has “begun to build” during “a new American moment” in international affairs “when our global leadership is essential, even if we must often lead in new ways.”
The NSSR uses the term “international order” in the same way that the more controversial term “new world order” has been used in the past to describe a system of global governance centered around international institutions and organizations including the IMF, WTO, NATO, G20, the World Bank and the UN. Many high profile politicians have publicly used the phrase in relation to these institutions, as a way to signal large political changes in world affairs.
George Bush Sr. used the “new world order” phrase repeatedly during his presidency, stressing the role of the United Nations in creating a “new world order where diverse nations are drawn together…” In 1991, while addressing the General Assembly of the UN, Bush explained that the UN could offer new life to dormant institutions of freedom, saying “These institutions play a crucial role in our quest for a new world order.” He then spoke of America’s role in the new world order, saying “We will offer friendship and leadership. And in short we seek a Pax Universalis built upon shared responsibilities and aspirations.” He urged the assembly to take the challenge seriously so that future generations could say about the men and women of the UN that they “built an era of peace and understanding” and “inaugurated a new world order, an order worth preserving for the ages.” The term seemed to fade into the background somewhat after Bush received a backlash of criticism for its excessive use.
Similarly, former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, another avid proponent of global governance, has used the term publicly numerous times referring to this same system of institutions. In a 2008 article out of The Independent titled “Transformed UN proposed to create ‘new world order,’” we read that “Gordon Brown has begun secret talks with other world leaders on far-reaching reform of the United Nations Security Council as part of a drive to create a ‘new world order’ and ‘global society.’” It goes on to say “He will call for the World Bank to lead the fight against climate change as well as poverty in the developing world, and argue that the International Monetary Fund should prevent crises like the credit crunch rather than just resolve them.”
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, devoted NATO proponent, CFR member, and former Colorado Senator, Gary Hart suggested that, because of increased support for NATO, the crisis could be used to further George Bush Sr.’s new world order agenda. Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations Hart stated, “There is a chance for the President of the United States to use this disaster to carry out what his father…a phrase his father used I think only once, and hasn’t been used since…and that is a new world order. Think about this. We already have the support of NATO in a remarkable historic departure.” In 2008 he argued that “Unless we want to lose tens of millions of people to viral pandemics, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, climate change and a whole host of other new realities,” we will “need a new international order.”
Many other global elites, influential politicians, and world leaders have referenced the term “new world order” in relation to these institutions, including billionaire financier George Soros. When asked in 2009 what kind of financial deal Obama should seek to strike while in China, Soros answered, “I think this would be the time because you really need to bring China into the creation of a new world order.” He explains the need arising from China’s lack of “contribution” to the IMF and sees the makings of the new world order already taking place with their involvement in the G20′s current policies.
While avoiding the controversial term “new world order,” Obama’s NSSR 2010 makes clear that the international order his administration is building is synonymous with the popular euphemism. According to the document, this “international order” is to be created by revamping the system of international institutions founded after WWII, including the UN, NATO, IMF, and the World Bank. The new strategy aims to accomplish this transformation by “modernizing” and “engaging” these international institutions while ”strengthening” their “legitimacy and authority.” Under the section titled “Promoting a Just and Sustainable International Order” the report states that the new order will be tested by its ability to “facilitate cooperation” and “generate results” using a variety of tools including sanctions, isolation, and force, to change the conduct of nations it deems to be non compliant.
(Screenshot below from 21010 NSSR pages 12,13)
(Screenshot below from 2010 NSSR page 13)
Obama Doctrine In Action
The document asserts that the administration is building a new international order by modernizing the existing international infrastructure into a new global architecture by strengthening the institutions and granting them more authority. Here we can again clarify the broad language of the report; this time with the added context of its implemented policies in the illegal Libyan War of 2011. Just as the Gulf War was considered by the establishment to be a “test” of the New World Order under George Bush Sr., the Libyan War served as a test for the new international order under Barack Obama. In a February 2011 article titled “Libya’s Test of the New International Order” from the Brookings Institute, we read that “The current dangerous situation in Libya has become a serious test for the international community’s resolve and credibility, especially in the context of a changing Arab world. In particular, it is a test of the ability of a much heralded multipolar new world order…” Later, as if to announce to the world that the operations in Libya were a showcase for the Obama doctrine, CNN featured a segment on the Libyan War prominently titled “The New World Order” with a panel discussion between representatives of establishment think tanks including the Council On Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institute.
With the war in Libya, the Obama administration was setting a new precedent. Just as directed by the 2010 NSSR, the U.N. was given more authority, in this case more than America’s own Congress, when Obama sent Speaker of the House John Boehner a letter citing authority from the United Nation’s Security Council alone as justification for military operations in Libya. Later we saw Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey’s citation of “international permission,” rather than permission from Congress, as the justification for military action in Syria. It was again suggested that the UN or NATO could provide the necessary “legal basis” for U.S. military action and that Congress might only be informed of the decision afterwards.
These examples cut to the heart of the primary concerns among opponents of the new world order: that a country’s assimilation into a global government would mean the loss of its national sovereignty and the undermining of its constitution. While some proponents openly admit that world government would necessarily involve the loss of national sovereignty, many others claim that the concern is unfounded. However, we can see for ourselves in “Libya’s test of the new international order,” that one of the most significant and critical aspects of a nation state’s government, the act of waging war, is being further removed from the control and consent of the common American citizen. In this case the sovereignty of both countries was violated, as the UN was used by the establishment to disregard and supersede the US Congress while promoting and justifying the use of force by military intervention in Libya.
The leading pretext among the propaganda used to justify the Libyan War was that of “humanitarian intervention.” This aspect of the Obama Doctrine appears to be largely drawn from the UN’s R2P doctrine or “Responsibility to Protect” which is cited in the 2010 NSSR. The “Responsibility to Protect” policy is used to disguise the imperial use of force with humanitarian rhetoric. The actual realities of the war, being anything but humanitarian, reveal the hypocritical nature of the policy’s implementation, and with all its rhetoric of cooperation with international institutions, the 2010 NSSR still retains the right to unilateral use of force.
Obama Doctrine At Home
While the Libyan War was a clear implementation of guidelines set in the 2010 NSSR, determining exactly what other policies from the document are being transmitted and put into action is more difficult. The document is intended to be a broad comprehensive outline of policy, so it is very vague and general to begin with. Another layer of vagueness is added due to it being an unclassified version of the strategy; not necessarily designed for the public, but rather designed to withstand public scrutiny. Add to this surreptitious composition the system’s tactic of hiding its true intentions behind euphemistic propaganda, and the document becomes rather cryptic, requiring much added context to decipher its true essence and aims. Because the controlled mainstream media often work as public relations organizations for the government and elite, the job of interpreting documents like the NSSR to determine what its implementation will entail is left to the alternative media and the general public.
Along with R2P we can expect to see more UN programs, like Agenda 21 and Codex Alimentarius, being enforced in the US, as the elite further “strengthen” and “engage” these institutions of global governance. The rhetoric of “food security” and “sustainable development,” seen in the NSSR, is the commonly used jargon of Codex Alimentarius and Agenda 21 to hide their policies of corporate domination, population control and social engineering, in the same way that the humanitarian rhetoric of R2P is used to disguise the imperialistic use of force. Under these programs the people’s legitimate concerns for the environment and global health are co-opted and turned against them as they lose their rights to control their own property, their freedom to choose alternative and natural medicines and their access to clean, healthy foods. Obama’s Executive Order #13575, establishing the White House Rural Council in 2011, is very much in the vein of UN Agenda 21, as the government aims to seize more power over rural America and takes greater control over food and energy production. Policies like the 2010 “Food Safety Modernization Act,” featured a huge expansion of FDA power and a plan with “Recommendations on whether and how to harmonize requirements under the Codex Alimentarius.”
When the NSSR promises to ”pursue potential ‘game changers’ for development such as new vaccines, weather-resistant seed varieties, and green energy technologies,” we can assume that big pharma and bio-tech corporations like Monsanto will be the primary beneficiaries. Along with many other examples of these policies in action, we saw in 2012, that the USDA approved field trials of Monsanto drought-resistant corn without even conducting a legitimate environmental risk analysis.
The co-opting of the environmental movement extends to the policies surrounding climate change, a major motivation and justification behind Agenda 21. The NSSR’s section dealing with climate change states that “The danger from climate change is real, urgent, and severe.” Among the efforts discussed to deal with this issue the report states, “Globally, we will seek to implement and build on the Copenhagen Accord…” The section also lists as a goal that “the necessary financing is mobilized so that developing countries can adapt to climate change…” Among the many agendas behind the 2009 Copenhagen Summit, the UN’s Secretary General Ban Ki-moon openly admitted that developing a world government “structure” was one of the most important. Referring to commitments made in the Copenhagen Treaty, the Secretary General said in an interview with the L.A. Times, “We will establish a global governance structure to monitor and manage the implementation of this.” He also wrote in an editorial for the New York Times, that a “comprehensive, equitable and ambitious deal” in Copenhagen “must include an equitable global governance structure.” In 2010 The Guardian obtained a confidential document revealing “the US government’s increasingly controversial strategy in the global UN climate talks.” Outlining the key messages the Obama administration wanted to convey in the run up to the UN climate talks later that year, the document’s number one listed objective was to “Reinforce the perception that the US is constructively engaged in UN negotiations in an effort to produce a global regime to combat climate change. This includes support for a symmetrical and legally binding treaty.” After the Copenhagen summit, the media misled the public by portraying the final agreement as a failure, while the final text of the accord accomplished its goal of establishing the framework for a global government with the ability to impose taxes for funding.
The elite’s efforts to shape a North American Union (NAU) by combining US, Mexico, and Canada, seem to be hinted at in the NSSR’s section concerning North America. While discussing NAFTA and using the associated NAU buzzwords of security, prosperity, and partnership, the NSSR informs us that “We must change the way we think about our shared borders, in order to secure and expedite the lawful and legitimate flow of people and goods while interdicting transnational threat that threaten our open societies.” Modeled after the EU, the NAU has been organized in stealth through trade deals, treaties, and region-level agreements like NAFTA and the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). In 2011 Obama implemented a key initiative of the SPP by signing the declaration titled “Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness.” The continental perimeter created by the declaration partially reveals what the NSSR meant by “We must change the way we think about our shared borders.” Using the direct language of the NSSR report, the declaration’s preamble states, “we intend to pursue a perimeter approach to security, working together within, at, and away from the borders of our two countries to enhance our security and accelerate the legitimate flow of people, goods, and services between our two countries.” Obama also signed Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” in 2012, in an effort to facilitate North American integration by “harmonizing US regulations with foreign ones.”
We might also interpret in the NSSR’s foggy language, a foreshadowing of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act’s (NDAA) provision concerning the indefinite detention of American citizens. In the section titled “Legal Aspects of Countering Terrorism” the report states that “The increased risk of terrorism necessitates a capacity to detain and interrogate suspected violent extremists…” and “for detainees who cannot be prosecuted […] any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.” Although the NSSR doesn’t clarify whether American citizens would be subjected to this policy as we saw with the NDAA, another section on page 10 dealing with the NSSR’s merging of homeland security and national security departments, points to this possibility as it states “We are now moving beyond traditional distinctions between homeland and national security. This includes a determination to prevent terrorist attacks against the American people by fully coordinating the actions that we take abroad with the actions and precautions that we take at home.” A few other possible examples of this policy in action could be; the effort to implement re-education camps domestically, the use of drones over the U.S., and more broadly the designation of the world as a battlefield by the 2012 NDAA.
Although it is difficult to fully interpret much of the report’s murky content into actual policies observed in action, the main thrust of the strategy clearly articulates the creation of a system of global governance with increased authority being given to the international institutions. There is no adequate effort being made to address the vast corruption of these international institutions, as the administration proposes to give them a more powerful and influential role in world affairs. The NSSR casually dismisses worries of their “shortfalls,” “shortcomings“ and “imperfections” and conflates those concerns with a desire to reject them as a whole, presenting a false dichotomy of “isolationism” vs. “engagement of the institutions” (which equates to giving them more authority). In addition to the corrupt and destructive behavior of the international institutions that make up the new international order, there are other signs indicating the type rule it would impose. The very undemocratic nature of word government’s stealth construction is a major warning sign illustrating the lack of relevance the average person will have in this system and the secrecy in which it will operate. Created without their input, consent, or awareness, the average person can expect to have no voice in a global, scientific dictatorship managed by technocrats. Another stark indicator of future life under this world government is the behavior of these institutions when they visit cities across the world to hold conferences. Scenarios resembling martial law crackdowns unfold as police dressed in full riot gear are unleashed on the citizens, whose peaceful protests are deemed “unlawful.”
Advisors, Thinktanks, and Globalist Operatives: The Elite’s Hidden Hands Of World Government
While the Obama Doctrine brazenly works to establish new norms and set new precedents, its program for a new international order is not actually new. It is merely the latest variation of the global elite’s agenda which has been in progress since at least as far back as the crises surrounding WWI with their efforts in “building a new world order” through the Wilson administration. After WWI, the League of Nations was being touted as a way to provide collective security in response to various crises and was considered then to be “the key to a new world order.” The ruling elite were able to influence Wilson through his “proto-national security advisor” Edward House and an advisory group House helped create called “The Inquiry.” House and the Inquiry’s attempt at building global government through the League of Nations failed due to strong American opposition, but their work continued as The Inquiry’s efforts morphed into the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Functioning as the premier policy think tank of elite corporatists and finance oligarchs, the CFR would continue to push for a world government on their behalf. In the same way that the Inquiry’s post WWI planning pursued world government through the League of Nations, the CFR’s War & Peace Studies Project would provide a framework for the new world order after WWII and contribute to the creation of the United Nations. While there is no doubt that many people promoting the UN had good intentions and high hopes that it could bring world peace, imperialists represented by groups including the CFR saw it as a vehicle for world domination.
Over time, the elite grew and expanded their networks of- intelligence agencies, foundations, secret societies, private corporations, and think tanks. The interconnected and overlapping groups including- the Trilateral Commission, Brookings Institute, Bilderberg Group, Rand Corporation, and the CFR evolved into a shadow network which hid from the public, their supreme influence over governments and corporations. These groups worked to develop policy, build consensus around those policies and implement them, as they placed their members into high level positions throughout government and corporate institutions. A slow, step by step approach helped to them to avoid opposition.
In 1958, the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations invited the Council On Foreign Relations, the Brookings Institute and 10 other organizations to contribute research to a massive study of U.S. foreign policy. When the CFR’s report, named “Study No. 7, Basic Aims of U.S. Foreign Policy,” was released the following year it advised that the United States build “a new international order” by taking measures that included maintaining and gradually increasing the authority of the U.N.
Using this gradual approach, the global elite incrementally pieced together elements of a world empire structure while remaining largely invisible to the general public. When major changes are made to the system, like the creation of new international institutions, they are usually introduced in the context of large catastrophes such as world wars or economic depressions. By taking advantage of existing crises or wholly manufacturing new ones, the ruling elite are able to manipulate vulnerable populations into accepting policy changes they might otherwise reject. Major crises are valued by elite world planners and social engineers as prime opportunities for the molding of world order and shaping of social structures.
This view has been expressed repeatedly by establishment operatives such as Henry Kissinger who has had a long career advocating and forecasting a new world order. As the global elite’s archbishop of international policy, Kissinger is well versed in their philosophical staples of “opportunity from crises” and “order out of chaos.” In 2008 he evoked these concepts during a conversation about the “new world order” with Charlie Rose stressing that “there are so many problems in the world at this moment that can only be dealt with on a global basis,” and that issues like proliferation, environment, energy, and global health “necessitate a global approach.” Comparing it to the situation after the crises and chaos of WWII, when there was a “creative period” from which the United Nations and NATO emerged, he noted that when the new administration assesses the “huge crisis” it will find itself in, it might be able to use the crises to “construct an international system.”
Kissinger had been making this specific prediction as far back as 2005, when he stated that “the beginning of a new international order” would emerge in the next four years. He reaffirmed the prediction in 2007 saying that “there is a need for a new world order” and that “at the end of this administration with all its turmoil, and at the beginning of the next, we might actually witness the creation of a new order…” So when Barack Obama emerged as the successor to the disgraced Bush administration, Kissinger immediately recognized the opportunity that the new president’s mass appeal provided the administration he eagerly anticipated to usher in the new international order. While lauding the political usefulness of Obama’s extraordinary reception around the world in a 2009 interview with CNBC’s Mark Hainse and Erin Burnett he stated that, “The president-elect is coming into office at a moment when there is upheaval in many parts of the world simultaneously…” and 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 just a crisis.”
Soon after, he argued in a New York times op-ed titled “The Chance for a New World Order” that the grave financial and international crises provided Obama’s administration “a unique opportunity for creative diplomacy.” He wrote that amid the simultaneous economic and political crises “an international order will emerge if a system of compatible priorities comes into being” and that “the alternative to a new international order is chaos.”
Kissinger’s legendary influence transcends individual administrations and political parties. David J. Rothkopf, a CFR member and author of the book Running the World: The Inside Story of the National Security Council and the Architects of American Power, wrote in a 2005 article titled “The Two Degrees of Henry Kissinger,” that within the small world of the U.S. national security community “a number of individuals have become especially influential…” and that “Nobody better personifies this influence than Henry Kissinger, the dean of modern U.S. foreign-policy professionals.” Mitt Romney’s advisor Aaron Friedberg wrote in 2011 that Kissinger “may be the most influential figure in the making of American foreign policy since the end of World War II…” Kissinger is the ultimate case study of an operative working on behalf of the elite, influencing policy for generations, usually outside of public awareness. He is the consummate insider, having been a member of such influential societies and think tanks as the Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Aspen Institute, Bohemian Grove, and the Council on Foreign Relations. His career is filled with numerous consulting roles for government agencies, studies programs, and brain trusts like the Rand Corporation. Puppet presidents come and go, but establishment cronies like Kissinger remain lurking in the shadowy background of the national security state.
Over the years Kissinger has remained close to centers of power through several advisory roles, serving as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State under President Richard Nixon and then continuing his position as Secretary of State under Gerald Ford. In 2006, author and journalist Bob Woodward revealed in his book, State of Denial, that Kissinger had been advising George Bush and Dick Cheney during the Iraq War. He admitted to Woodward that he had “met with Cheney every month and the president every other month since he took office.” Woodward points out that “a total of 36 hours over six years adds up to more time with the president than almost any outsider ever.”
In a twisted display of interweaving conflicts of interest, Kissinger was initially appointed by Bush to head the investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but was forced to withdraw from the position after family members of 9/11 victims requested he reveal his financial dealings with the Bin-Laden family. He was then replaced by CFR member Philip Zelikow, who was less well known but whose conflicts of interests, especially his role as the secret author of the 2002 NSSR Bush Doctrine, were just as dubious. Later, illustrating how tight and fast the circle of revolving doors spin for connected insiders, both of these men returned to play roles in the Obama administration as The Daily Telegraph reported in 2009 that Kissinger had been sent to Russia on behalf of Barack Obama to win backing for a nuclear disarmament initiative, and Zelikow was appointed to Obama’s Intelligence Advisory Board in 2011. Kissinger’s behind the scenes relationship to Obama was further revealed by Obama’s National Security Advisor Gen. James Jones in 2009. Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations, Jones, a former NATO Supreme Commander in Europe, stated “As the most recent National Security Advisor of the United States, I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger, filtered down through General Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger, who is also here. We have a chain of command in the National Security Council that exists today.”
Considering that Obama’s administration is filled with and surrounded by members of the global elite’s policy think tanks like the CFR, Bilderberg, Brookings and Trilateral Commission and their political operatives like Henry Kissinger, it should be no surprise that its NSSR narrative of global crises requiring a new international order directly matches their writings. While many Americans hoped and believed they were going to see a great change with a new president from an opposing party, establishment think tank members from the Bush administration were simply replaced with different members of the same establishment think tanks in the Obama administration. In some cases members actually continued their roles from one administration to the next like former Director of Central Intelligence (under Bush Sr.) and CFR member Robert Gates who kept his job as Secretary of Defense when Obama took office.
Whether a Republican or Democrat is put into office, the grand strategy behind the administration has been and will continue to be controlled by the oligarchs. This method of control has been developed over a long period of time to reach the extreme form it has taken today. Agent Kissinger has been promoting exactly this kind of bipartisan continuity of agenda for over 20 years. In a 1988 article he coauthored for the CFR titled, “Bipartisan Objectives for American Foreign Policy,” he stated “…we are convinced that the American national purpose must at some point be fixed. If it is redefined—or even subject to redefinition—with every change of administration in Washington, the United States risks becoming a factor of inconstancy in the world.” Noting that the “nation is on the eve of a new international era” he expressed hope that “the next president will appreciate the value of continuity in American foreign policy.” In 2008 he revisited this concept in a speech at the Montreal Conference of the Americas. After promoting the destruction of the current system of world order based on sovereign nation states as “one of the creative acts of the current period…” he predicted a post election bipartisan effort in favor of a world order model like that of the the European Union where “European countries freely are ceding their… much of their sovereignty.” In the speech’s closing Kissinger stated, “I will tell you that however our election ends (…), a number of us in both parties have concluded that when it’s over, we are going to make an effort to bring about a bipartisan outcome, or direction of foreign policy.”
The public is deceived by a false choice between two sides, both dominated by the elite, who use the two party system as a divide and conquer tactic, stalling the population by focusing their attention inward while the rulers accomplish their wider agenda unimpeded. While the masses are divided on wedge issues and distracted by the circus of the right vs. left paradigm, the political establishment carries out the bipartisan destruction of the economy, wages endless illegal and immoral wars, and aggressively assaults civil liberties, as they transform America into a surveilled police state resembling a hybrid fusion of popular science fiction dystopias.
The controlled mainstream media has fed the public a synthetic reality, laced with artificial narratives and modified histories. Mind controlled and brainwashed, their behavior programmed and their thoughts prefabricated for them, the people have developed a deformed, toxic consciousness due in large part to the continuous consumption of this false reality. Hypnotised and sedated, they sleepwalk in this impaired state, through the complete destruction of their democratic republic, while the ruling elite consolidate their grip on power by secretly shaping a tyrannical, authoritarian, fascistic world government.
The Obama Doctrine, as embodied in the 2010 NSSR, is a rejuvenated, bold effort to bring this long term new world order agenda to fruition. The scheme has reached an advanced stage in its evolution, as it now unmasks itself in an unprecedented way, by emerging from the shadows to take front stage in America’ s primary strategy publication. While the Bush Doctrine advanced imperial aggression and power, the Obama Doctrine seeks to advance and extend the scope and authority of the empire as a whole. These progressions of empire will be passed on to and carried forward by the next administration just as Obama carried forward the imperial progressions passed to him. The left hand is working with the right to strangle the globe in a straitjacket of international institutions and corporations under elite control. We haven’t even seen three full years of the 2010 NSSR in action, and whether under a new administration or not, the next NSSR, not due until 2014, won’t override the current grand strategy but rather adjust and fine tune its guidance.
The terms “new international order” and “new world order” are nothing more than public relations buzzwords and marketing catchphrases that function as euphemisms working to portray the agenda as a modern arrangement that has something to offer the rest of the world. In reality it is a return to imperialist systems of the past, representing a return to serfdom and slavery for the masses. The modern world order system of independent sovereign nation states we have had since the Treaty of Westphalia is being abolished and replaced by a neo feudal corporate world empire run by Anglo-American finance oligarchs and elite global corporatists.
The Obama Doctrine is not about cooperation with international institutions nor is it merely about humanitarian intervention; it is about a world government. There is no more time for denial. American citizens and the common people of the world will have to come together like never before to address this global threat. They will have to get past the divisions of race, religion and superficial party affiliations to unite in an effort to confront this threat and take the reigns of global control from the elite and their corporations, institutions and think tanks.
A grassroots globalism is needed to fight their engineered corporate globalism. This is not about a class war with battle lines drawn between the upper, middle or lower classes. It is between the dominant minority superclass vs. the masses. World wide freedom is at stake and there has never been a more important time than now to resist the global elite’s tyranny by raising awareness and exposing their new world order agenda.
You Can View Lucas Bowse’s work at VICTORYPOST