Category: Behind the News

From New Dawn Special Issue Vol 15 No 1 (Feb 2021)

Life-changing events are a frequent occurrence in politics and economics. Recent examples include the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy (JFK) in 1963, the events of 11 September 2001 (9/11), COVID-19 (which began in the eponymous year), and the Global Financial Crisis (2007-08). Some events are accidents. Others arise from systemic factors. But, on occasion, hidden manipulators known as the “Deep State” are to blame.

After looking at cases of political interference, such as the soft coup against Australia’s Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in the 1970s, this article considers two examples of Deep State events: the clandestine “Gladio” networks set up across Europe after World War II (1939-45) and the collapse of the World Trade Center in New York, which triggered a “global war on terror” in which most of the nations of the world participated. These are known to researchers as “Deep State” events. They are contrived and covered up by agents of the security apparatus and dismissed by mainstream media as baseless conspiracy theory.

Before exploring the differences between the “Deep State” and the “Open State,” consider some definitions. 

WHAT IS “THE DEEP STATE”?

The term Deep State is widely attributed to the academic Peter Dale Scott, who notes that at least four major political events in modern US history were designed by Deep State actors: the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Watergate (1972-74), the Iran-Contra Affair (1985-87), and 9/11. In each case, Deep State actors reportedly had access to a doctrine called Continuity of Government (COG): a contingency plan that allows for surface-level government shutdowns in the event of major crises. Scott argues that COG was unofficially invoked to hide the sale of weapons to Iran by the US to finance the latter’s dirty war against socialists in Nicaragua (Iran-Contra). But COG was officially implemented for the first time on 9/11.

Within each state’s “deep” network lie competing factions; for example, there is often a rift between intelligence analysts and operations units. The latter tend to work against the former for political reasons, which further complicates the nexus of surface-level vs. deep politics. For instance, Michael Scheuer, former head of the US Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) unit responsible for finding the alleged leader of “al-Qaeda,” Osama bin Laden, told the BBC that the Bill Clinton administration (1993-2001) had ten “easy opportunities” to kill or capture bin Laden between 1998 and 1999. But, on each occasion, Clinton declined to act. The implication is that certain Deep State actors working against Scheuer’s brief wanted bin Laden alive. 

But conspiracy researchers often fail to look at broader, structural reasons for unusual events. Many refuse, for instance, to critique the workings of capitalism as explanations for certain occurrences. For example, on 8 March 2020, Dr Anthony Fauci who served on US President Donald Trump’s Coronavirus Task Force, told Americans not to wear facemasks because they allegedly don’t work. Fauci later said that masks are indeed effective against COVID. Fauci acknowledged that he had lied because, at the time, masks were in short supply and he wanted to ensure that frontline workers were prioritised over members of the public who might otherwise panic-buy. Fauci’s immoral act was not part of a mandatory mask conspiracy: it was a reflection of capitalism. Masks were not profitable until the pandemic struck, so corporations didn’t stock them and the few that were available went to healthcare workers. 

By contrast, “ad hoc” theorists – i.e., those who think that all political decisions are surface-level and made off-the-cuff in response to unexpected circumstances – refuse to explore the hidden workings of states and corporations. They fail to accept a striking facet of human nature: the tendencies of many individuals to form secret, mutual associations and to consciously plot against and deceive others. It is, therefore, important to distinguish between events caused by systemic design and events orchestrated by invisible forces. 

Sometimes, major events occur because laws, lobbying, and licentiousness allow them space to happen. In the US, for instance, decades of financial deregulation enabled investors and traders to create bubbles of worthless, fancy-sounding products that were tied to bad mortgages: “collateralised debt obligations,” “credit default swaps,” and “derivatives,” against which the multibillionaire Warren Buffett had previously warned, describing them as “financial weapons of mass destruction.” Because the aforementioned toxic financial products were bloating the portfolios of asset managers, banks, hedge funds, liquidity firms, and more, the collapse of certain banks triggered an entire global financial crash. Unlike Deep State events, this was not a conspiracy. It was the inevitable consequence of deregulated, neoliberal capitalism. 

WHITLAM AND WILSON: DEEP VS. OPEN STATES 

On other occasions, however, things happen as a result of forces that are hidden from public and media scrutiny under the veils of national security and plausible deniability. These events are said by conspiracy researchers and the few scholars open-minded enough to look at them to be the calculated works of Deep State actors. 

In November 1975, for example, Australia’s Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, dismissed the leader of the Labour government, Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. The official reason was that Whitlam’s minority government was a lame duck: it could not get a budget through the Senate and Whitlam refused to resign or call an election. But researchers like the journalist John Pilger note that there was more to the situation than meets the eye. 

Australia is home to Pine Gap, a ground-based listening station belonging to the US military and serving the US National Security Agency’s permanent global surveillance operation. The original members of the top-secret alliance were known as the Five Eyes. They included Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and the leader of the pack, the USA. Today via secret projects like PRISM, dozens of US allies, from Germany to Israel, provide the US Deep State with surveillance-based intelligence by sweeping the electronic signals of the world – from civilian telephone calls and private internet searches to conversations in living rooms via hacked smart TVs and sounds picked up through baby monitors. 

Since the 1950s, Governor-General Kerr had allegedly been courted by the CIA. He was, for instance, a member of the Australian Association for Cultural Freedom, an entity later exposed in the US Congress as a CIA front. Christopher Boyce, an employee of the CIA contractor TRW, described him as “our man Kerr.” Victor Marchetti, a CIA officer previously involved with Pine Gap, told journalist Pilger that Whitlam’s hints against the US spy base “caused apoplexy in the White House.” The US and British Deep States collaborated to depose Whitlam.

Each state, including democratic ones, has its own parallel government, which is kept secret from the public. 

As Whitlam was being sacked in Australia, the UK’s internal Security Service, Military Intelligence Section Five (MI5), was spying on the left-wing Labour PM, Harold Wilson, as well as dozens of left-leaning MPs and intellectuals. Fifty years earlier, the nascent Labour Party’s chances at the general election 1924 were torpedoed by the UK’s external Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), the equivalent of the CIA. To sabotage Labour, MI6 forged a letter purportedly written by the Soviet communist, Grigory Zinoviev. The preposterous letter claimed that the Bolsheviks, who had recently come to power in a coup in Russia, would back the Labour Party and foment civil war in the UK. 

The letter is an example of what is known as black propaganda: putting false words in the mouths of enemies as part of strategic influence operations. The right-wing press at the time happily disseminated this Deep State propaganda at the general election which helped to crush Labour and thus the social and political progress of working people. 

Today, two figures at opposite ends of the political spectrum, the 45^th President of the United States, Donald Trump, and the recently-defeated leader of Britain’s Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, were victims of Deep State propaganda in the form of the Integrity Initiative (II) and related actors. Conducting information warfare by working with “clusters” of sympathetic journalists, the II was funded by the British Conservative Party through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and is an offshoot of the anti-Russia think-tank, Institute for Statecraft. The II line was that Corbyn was a “useful idiot” for the Kremlin. Where Corbyn genuinely wanted peace with Russia, and indeed with all nations, Trump merely paid lip-service, continuing in reality to encircle Russia with US-backed forces. But for the fanatically anti-Russian elements of the Deep State, many of them Cold War holdovers, lip-service was enough to get Trump smeared as a blackmail risk. Companies working with the US Democratic National Committee paid Christopher Steele, MI6’s former Moscow station chief, to write a report on Trump’s alleged connections to Russian President Vladimir Putin. The objective was to stop Trump from becoming President. 

The above are examples of soft coups and weaponised propaganda. But the Deep State also engages in violent acts, such as using far-right militias as proxies to attack left-wing governments and leverage features of the “Open State” (like MPs and ministers) against enemy states. Enter Gladio. 

THE DEEP STATE’S SECRET ARMIES

From the 1940s to the 1990s, Europe was terrorised by far-right and far-left groups that were apparently committed to bombings and assassinations. It turns out that many of the far-right groups were organised by MI6 and the CIA, with help from the given country’s own Deep State. The terror was often blamed by media and political opponents on far-left groups, some of which were linked to the Soviet Union. The Italian branch of the CIA-MI6 nexus was called Gladio, named after the Latin word gladius – a double-edged sword. Journalists and scholars used “Gladio” as a generic term for the pan-European operations, which also stretched as far as Algeria and Turkey. 

Gladio began with Britain’s Special Operations Executive (SOE), which was formulated by the Chiefs of Staff in 1940 to repel a potential Nazi invasion of the British Isles. PM Winston Churchill supposedly expanded this doctrine to include the whole of the UK, as well as allied European countries. SOE’s SO1 operations included black propaganda and deception. SO2 included sabotage. Historian David Stafford writes that one directive “envisaged SOE building up and equipping paramilitary organisations to support conventional forces.” Operations included “interrupting enemy signals communications and transport, counter-sabotage, [and] attacks on enemy aircraft and air personal.” 

The SOE dissolved in 1946. With the Nazis defeated, Gladio would target the Soviets – and leftism in general – via so-called stay-behind guerrilla networks. SOE units in Austria and Germany continued under MI6’s Special Operations Branch. In the US, the Central Intelligence Agency was formed to replace the Office of Strategic Services. The CIA worked with MI6 on setting up the Gladio network. The US National Security Council’s Directive 10/2 established the Office of Special Projects, later known as the Office of Policy Coordination. It decreed that “overt foreign activities of the US Government must be supplemented by covert operations.” The first was the German Stay Behind Organization, headed by the Nazi intelligence officer, General Reinhard Gehlen. MI6 set up the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations, which, says historian Dave Renton, “encouraged former Nazi sympathisers and other so-called freedom fighters from Eastern Europe to spy and commit acts of sabotage behind the Iron Curtain.”

In 1947 under “Plan Bleu,” the CIA and British Special Air Service coordinated the other networks by establishing France’s stay-behind organisation. This was followed by the Western Union Clandestine Committee (WUCC). The WUCC was then integrated into France’s NATO units under the name, “Clandestine Planning Committee.” In 1958, NATO founded the Allied Clandestine Committee and the French Gladio was established with help from the Service de Documentation Extérieure et de Contre-Espionnage and France’s SAS-equivalent, the 11e régiment parachutiste de choc (11th Shock Parachute Regiment). 

  In 1959, the anti-US French President and former leader of the anti-Nazi Resistance, Charles de Gaulle, had come to power. Despite de Gaulle’s expulsion of NATO from France, the French Gladio networks continued to operate, apparently without his consent. CIA agent Philip Agee said at the time that the CIA “wanted to stop the left from coming to power, and want even more to stop Communist participation in the government. For the CIA this is evidently the priority and priorities.”

Operations moved from France to Belgium. Britain’s involvement in the Belgian Gladio appears to have started in 1948, when PM Paul-Henri Spaak authorised his secret service (the Staatsveiligheid) to contact Britain’s MI6. Between 1982 and 1985 and known as the Brabant killings, apparently deranged masked gunmen murdered 28 people in sprees across Belgian supermarkets. Belgium’s Gladio networks used robberies as counter-terror training exercises. The far-right activist Paul Latinus claims to have been involved in a Belgian Gladio unit responsible for the killings. The job of Latinus and his second-in-command, Michel Libert, was reportedly to pass surveillance information to the Gladio units.

The British were training Belgian Gladio units as late as at least 1989. Colonel S. Schwebach of the Belgian intelligence service told the Defence Minister that an exercise called Waterland had occurred that year, in which the Royal Marines Special Boat Squadron landed in Flanders and was guided by Belgian civilians. Speaking to the Associated Press, a former army intelligence officer said that as late as October 1990, weapon caches were spread across Belgium.

A BBC documentary from the early-1990s puts it well: “For 40 years, secret terrorist organisations, many trained by Western intelligence agencies, have manipulated the political control of European sovereign states by a campaign of terror and murder.” In addition to empowering neo-Nazis, the consequences of Gladio included alienating left-wing parties by associating them with terrorism. Strict anti-terror laws designed to impinge on freedom of speech were adopted by the parliaments of many countries. “Nigel West” (real name Rupert Allason, a Tory and editor of Intelligence Quarterly Magazine), told the Associated Press in 1990: “We [the British] were heavily involved and still are,” in helping to “finance and run” the networks. 

In the late-1970s, the CIA and MI6 used their Gladio skills to bring Islamic terrorists from Algeria, China, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere into Afghanistan, which bordered Soviet countries. Known as Operation Cyclone, the aim was to “draw the Russians into the Afghan trap,” in the words of US President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski. Cyclone created a vast terrorist network later dubbed “al-Qaeda” by Western media and punditry.

TURNING POINT: 9/11

Gladio was designed to defeat both leftism and Sovietism. By 1991, the US had won the Cold War and the Soviet Union was no more. But the threat of leftism persisted. Enter the “global war on terror” (GWOT) and the creation of new layers of the “national security state.” The GWOT was launched after 9/11 by the George W. Bush administration (2001-09). Bush’s father, George H.W., had been Director of the CIA for a year, beginning 1976, during which time he oversaw Gladio operations. Bush the elder was also President of the USA from 1989 to 1993. Several times he spoke publicly of wanting to build a “New World Order” in the post-Soviet era. A businessman, Bush also invested in the acquisitions firm, the Carlyle Group, whose investors included the Bin Laden family: Osama bin Laden being the alleged “al-Qaeda” mastermind whose networks were trained by US and British forces between 1979 and 1989.

The Presidencies of Bush senior and junior are rare examples of the Deep State operating as an open state. 

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was a right-wing, imperialist think tank whose associates included former Presidents Bush senior and junior. Other members and associates who ended up in the Bush junior administration included future Vice President Dick Cheney, future Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, future Deputy Defense Sec. Paul Wolfowitz, and Defense Sec. Advisor Richard Perle. 

In September 2000, before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq under the pretext of fighting the GWOT, PNAC stated that its goal was “to shape a new century favourable to American principles and interests.” American business interests are assured by the US “fighting and winning multiple large-scale wars,” backing out of anti-missile treaties in order to weaponise space, and exploiting the “revolution in military affairs.” The document says that drones will “project military power around the globe” and that “advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.” 

The plan to attack US targets and blame enemies was hinted at in the document: “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” The demolition of the World Trade Center in New York a year later was blamed on Arab airline hijackers. To confuse the military and intelligence units that were not involved in the false-flag attack, the Deep State perpetrators created their own “fog of war” by timing the events to coincide with multiple training exercises. 

For example, the National Reconnaissance Office was running an exercise simulating a small corporate jet crashing into a building. The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) was running its annual Operation Northern Vigilance, which began on 9 September and ran for several days. NORAD was also running Vigilant Guardian, which involved several scenarios. On the ground, the Federal Emergency Management Agency was positioned in New York on the night of 10 September in preparation for Operation Tripod, a huge counter-bioterrorism drill scheduled in New York for 12 September. 

After 9/11, the strategically important nation of Afghanistan was occupied, as were the oilfields of Iraq. A new hi-tech economy was created, with drones and big data. Shortly after the attacks, lawyer, future Obama diplomat, and ex-Democratic Senator, Gary Hart, chaired the US government’s Commission on National Security in the 21st Century, during which he said: “There is a chance for the President of the United States [George W. Bush, a Republican] to use this disaster to carry out a phrase his father used… and that is a ‘new world order’.” Several years later, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan University: “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq” (that’s actually three things). Within a decade, the US security and surveillance industry was worth $1 trillion. In Wired for War, P.W. Singer notes that five years after 9/11, border, construction, and airport security was a $30bn market, leading one private industry report to state: “Thank you, Osama bin Laden!” 

9/11 was orchestrated by a Deep State cabal, whose surface-level members, like the Bush family, had come to power in the US. In the absence of new enemies, like the Soviets, their aim was to attack civilian targets and blame Islamic terrorists. This could justify the next phase of US military global domination and stimulate hi-tech investment. 

In his farewell address, US President Dwight Eisenhower (1953-61) warned Americans about the potential of “misplaced power” by “a scientific-technological elite.” He admonished the people to “guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” The revelations of NSA contractor, Edward Snowden, decades later proved beyond doubt that Eisenhower’s warnings about an emerging Deep State were based in fact. 

CONCLUSION

To deny the existence of a Deep State operating within one’s country is to fail to understand, holistically, how the nation-state works: in whose interests it operates and the laws and regulations, or lack of, that allow for violent, clandestine activities. Structural factors underlie many major events, like the Financial Crisis. Accidents also occur, like nuclear power plant disasters. But, in addition, conspiratorial agents are responsible for certain events. Part of the process of deciphering propaganda, be it from the mainstream or from the alternative media, is to figure out what is structural, what is accidental, and what is conspiracy.

This article has focused on the US and British Deep States and their effect upon both geo- and domestic politics. Each country has its own Deep State, sometimes working alone, sometimes working in collaboration with others. Sometimes the Deep State will work in total secrecy against democratic elements abroad, other times it will work with the Deep State of the host country. The presence of US spy installations on Australian soil is a classic case of sympathetic parallel structures colluding with foreign elements to interfere in democratic processes. 

It is all-too-easy for academia, media, and political punditry to ignore, dismiss, and ridicule the Deep State as a conspiracy theory. But the Deep State thrives on conspiracy. Conspiracy is its business. To ensure its own survival and thus the privileges of the small number of elites it serves, maintaining conspiracy is essential. Once in a while, innocent people around the world pay the price for the actions of these dark agents.  

[alert type=”general” dismiss=”no”]This article was published in New Dawn Special Issue Vol 15 No 1.[/alert]

[alert type=”success” dismiss=”no”]If you appreciate this article, please consider subscribing to help maintain this website.[/alert]

Footnotes

1. For instance, Peter Dale Scott (2017) The American Deep State: Big Money, Big Oil, and the Struggle for U.S. Democracy.

2. Interview BBC 2, The Conspiracy Files: Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?

3. “Fact check: Outdated video of Fauci saying ‘there’s no reason to be walking around with a mask’,” 8 October 2020, www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-fauci-outdated-video-masks-idUSKBN26T2TR

4. “Why Weren’t We Wearing Masks From the Beginning? Dr. Fauci Explains,” The Street, 12 June 2020, www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-directive-coronavirus

5. “Buffett warns on investment ‘time bomb’,” 4 March 2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/2817995.stm

6. “Final Report of the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States,” Jan 2011, www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf

7. Christopher Sweeney, “Australia in turmoil as Whitlam,” Guardian, 12 November 1975

8. Glenn Greenwald & Ewen MacAskill, “NSA Prism program taps in to user data of Apple, Google and others,” Guardian, 7 June 2013

9. Adam Parris-Long and Andy Hayes, “WikiLeaks releases files claiming MI5 and CIA hacked TVs and used them as bugs,” Sky News, 8 March 2017

10. Canadian intelligence officer, Mike Frost, interviewed by 60 Minutes (US), https://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm

11. John Pilger, “The British-American coup that ended Australian independence,” Guardian, 23 October 2014

12. “MI5 kept secret file on Harold Wilson,” Independent, 23 Oct 2011

13. Richard Norton-Taylor, “Zinoviev letter was dirty trick by MI6,” Guardian, 4 February 1999

14. Parliament, “Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Integrity Initiative,” Written Questions, 27 November 2018

15. Christopher Steele, Company Intelligence Report, No. 2016/080, https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984/Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.pdf

16. ‘“Hitler’s Irish hideout”: a case study of SOE’s black propaganda battles’ (2006) in Mark Seaman (ed.) Special Operations Executive: A New Instrument of War, Routledge, p. 203. 

17. Stafford in Mark Seaman (ed.) (2006) Special Operations Executive: A New Instrument of War, Routledge.

18. Dave Renton (2000) Fascism, Anti-Fascism and Britain in the 1940s, Palgrave Macmillan.

19. Daniele Ganser (2005) NATO’s Secret Armies, Frank Cass. 

20. Ganser, op. cit.

21. Ibid. 

22. Clare Pedrick (1990), “CIA organized secret army in Western Europe,” Washington Post

23. BBC 2, Timewatch: Gladio, 1992, www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YhRBxxyRqs

24. Quoted in Ganser, op. cit. 

25. Quoted in Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn, “How Jimmy Carter and I started the Mujahideen,” Counterpunch, 15 January 1998

26. Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger, “The ex-presidents’ club,” Guardian, 31 October 2001

27. “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century,” Project for the New American Century, September 2000, https://web.archive.org/web/20130501130739/http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

28. Ibid. 

29. ‘Agency planned exercise on Sept. 11 built around a plane crashing into a building’, Associated Press, www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/0903_plane_exercise.htm

30. NORAD (2001), ‘NORAD maintains Northern Vigilance’, Public Affairs, www.norad.mil/Newsroom/Article/578022/norad-maintains-northern-vigilance

31. Department of Defense (US) (2001), Battle Staff Exercise: Vigilant Guardian 01-02, Brief Morning, 11 September 2001, RDOD0301314[2?], www.archives.gov/files/declassification/iscap/pdf/2013-002-doc4.pdf

32. ‘Attack on America’, CBS, www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmMRWL-jEVE

33. New York City (2002), ‘Tripod’, Press Release, https://web.archive.org/web/20030626185936/http://nyc.gov/html/oem/html/other/sub_news_pages/tripod05_22_02.html

34. Gary Hart (2001), US Commission on National Security in the 21st Century, www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-ezBk1ZFU0

35. Quoted in Haaretz and Reuters, “Report: Netanyahu Says 9/11 Terror Attacks Good for Israel,” 15 April 2008

© New Dawn Magazine and the respective author.
For our reproduction notice, click here.

From New Dawn Special Issue Vol 16 No 1 (Feb 2022)

In his classic novel Nineteen Eighty-four, author Eric Blair (better known as George Orwell), famously laid out how a totalitarian technocracy would look. The phrase Orwellian has justifiably become an utter cliché, but despite the familiar territory it is worth looking at the aspect of the book that deals with the Ministry of Truth and its employees, who were tasked by the regime with “memory holing” history and rewriting dictionaries (“newspeak”) to reduced language and thus thought to simplistic, binary concepts, such as people and unpeople. 

Consider how the definition of “vaccine” has been altered in recent years to appease the designers of mRNA technology. Birmingham and Lambert define vaccination as “the practice of artificially inducing immunity.”¹ A book with a foreword written by Bill Gates defines vaccine-induced immunity as follows. “The quality of […] antibody responses, eg, their avidity or specificity, has been identified as a determining factor of efficacy.” 

The authors continue: “long-term protection requires the persistence of vaccine antibodies and/or the generation of immune memory cells capable of rapid and effective reactivation with subsequent microbial exposure.”² 

But the purported Covid-19 vaccines stimulate antibodies for months at a time, requiring multiple boosters. By a definition endorsed by Gates, the injectable products are not vaccines despite Gates’s use of the term.

The pre-pandemic definition of vaccine has been memory-holed. Putting aside the changes in definition confluent with technological developments, the former definition of vaccine offered by Merriam-Webster was “a preparation… that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease.”³ The Covid-era definition is: “a preparation that is administered… to stimulate the body’s immune response.” 

Notice that the threshold has been lowered from increasing immunity to merely stimulating an immune response. The same big tech that suppresses web search results promotes articles that support the given narrative. In this case, we are being told outright lies: that mRNA is not new, untested technology; that vaccines can indeed be developed within months, not years; that humans are not experimental subjects; and that the injectable products are safe.⁴ 

WHEN A TEST IS NOT A TEST

Polymerase chain reactions (PCR) work by amplifying nucleic acids to detect virus particles. 

In the late-1980s, virologists were concerned that PCR tests were contaminated by two sources: the carry-over of material from one tube to another and the presence of dead human skin cells. When controlled and uncontrolled PCR tests were compared, the authors of one study found high rates of false-positives.⁵ 

A decade later, another study searching for respiratory adenoviruses (Ad) in humans had a 94 per cent efficacy rate when using primers for Ad7 proteins called hexons. But when the primers were not included, the results were much less effective. Detection efficacy for enzyme immunoassays and time-resolved fluroimmunoassys were between 53 and 46 percent.⁶ 

Ten years on, Applied Biosystems produced the TaqMan real-time PCR (RT-PCR) which detects viral and bacterial particles via processes called Plus/Minus and Allelic Discrimination. When testing the Plus/Minus to detect Escherichia coli, “an inordinately high proportion of false-positive signals was observed.” Correct thresholds require template controls.⁷ In one 2015 study using assays, PCR test estimation was over 40 per cent.⁸

The most common SARS-CoV-2 detector is the Nucleic Acid Amplification Test RT-PCR. “[N]one of the tests have sufficient clinical sensitivity to detect virus during the first several days after infection, nor are they 100% sensitive at the time of peak infectiveness.”⁹ 

Recall the late-‘80s PCR test problems mentioned above. In 2020, the same issues plagued the Covid tests: “Technical problems including contamination during sampling (eg, a swab accidentally touches a contaminated glove or surface), contamination by PCR amplicons, contamination of reagents, sample cross-contamination, and cross-reactions with other viruses or genetic material could also be responsible for false-positive results.”¹⁰ 

In addition, the duration of viral infection affects PCR detection ability. The longer the infection, the lower the chances of detection. One kit had an average 77 per cent efficacy (depending on the assays) up to four days. The kit’s efficacy declined to as low as 38 per cent after 10 days of infection.

[alert type=”general” dismiss=”no”]This article was published in New Dawn Special Issue Vol 16 No 1.[/alert]

[alert type=”success” dismiss=”no”]If you appreciate this article, please consider subscribing to help maintain this website.[/alert]

Footnotes

1. Maureen Birmingham and Claudia Stein, “Global Burden of Disease” in Barry R. Bloom and Paul-Henri Lambert (2003) The Vaccine Book, Elsevier, 3

2. Claire-Anne Siegrist, “Vaccine immunology” in Stanley A. Plotkin, Walter A. Orenstein and Paul A. Offit (eds.) (2013, 6th) Vaccines, Springer, 14 

3. Merriam-Webster online, “vaccine,” https://web.archive.org/web/20201105154809/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine

4. Merriam-Webster, “Vaccine,” https://web.archive.org/web/20211201095040/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine

5. P.A. Kitchin, Z. Szotyori, C. Fromholc and N. Almond (1990) “Avoidance of PCR false positives,” Nature, 344: 201 

6. R. Räty, M. Kleemola, K. Melén, M. Stenvik and I. Julkunen (1999) “Efficacy of PCR and other diagnostic methods for the detection of respiratory adenoviral infections,” Journal of Medical Virology, 59(1):66-72

7. Forough L. Nowrouzian, Ingegerd Adlerberth, and Agnes E. Wold (2009) “High frequency of false-positive signals in a real-time PCR-based ‘Plus/Minus’ assay,” APMIS, 117(1):68-72

8. David Svec, Ales Tichopad, Vendula Novosadova, Michael W. Pfaffl, and Mikael Kubistaa (2015) “How good is a PCR efficiency estimate: Recommendations for precise and robust qPCR efficiency assessments,” Biomolecular Detection and Quantification, 3: 9-16

9. Glenn D. Braunstein, Lori Schwartz, Pamela Hymel, and Jonathan Fielding (2021) “False Positive Results With SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Tests and How to Evaluate a RT-PCR-Positive Test for the Possibility of a False Positive Result,” Journal of Occupational Environmental Medicine, 63(3): e159-62

10. Elena Surkova, Vladyslav Nikolayevskyy, and Francis Drobniewski (2020) “False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs,” Lancet, 8(12): 1167-68

© New Dawn Magazine and the respective author.
For our reproduction notice, click here.

From New Dawn Special Issue Vol 15 No 6 (Dec 2021)

In Brave New World, author Aldous Huxley wrote that the slaves of the future are happy. Drugged and genetically modified, their personalities are blunted and their bodies and minds configured by a technocracy whose scientists design humans to maximise their outputs for the benefit of the ruling classes. 

Outside the world of fiction, the World Economic Forum (WEF) is an umbrella of multibillion-dollar, mostly US-based corporations and billionaires; a think tank in which the rulers of the world meet to discuss and try to shape the general direction of the global order. With permanent strikers in the US, for instance, refusing to work in what the late anthropologist David Graeber eloquently called “bullshit jobs,” the WEF’s academics and researchers understand that they could lose their grip on power. Global financial inequalities are widening as anti-democratic sentiments grow within “democratic” societies, whose populations realise that they have no control over their lives. 

Rather than risk revolutions in numerous countries from strikers – now called The Great Resignation – the WEF seeks to ideologically capture potential revolutionary leaders and re-programme them to favour the WEF system (e.g., Greta Thunberg’s platform at the annual conference). The businesses that fund and join WEF’s Davos meetings recognise that real estate remains the physical basis on which profitable assets are constructed. Under slogans like the Great Reset, the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and Build Back Better, WEF elites want to cement their new world order. 

But what will that new order look like for non-elites? Unlike the present global malaise, the “new normal” – or “next normal” as WEF elites are calling it – aims to use hi-technology and data collection to tailor environments to the needs and wishes of the public who will be expected to participate in “sustainable” infrastructure and be data points for constant public health monitoring. 

Like the hapless victims of Huxley’s dystopia, tomorrow’s society will be happily enslaved, at least in the minds of WEF planners. Workspaces will blur the lines between personalisation and professionalism, feelings of being cheated by the system will be reconceived as consuming less to help the environment, and the pains of reality will be soothed with immersion into joyous, incessant virtual reality like Facebook’s new Meta concepts. 

BUILD BACK BETTER

Mega-wealth in the global economy is a house of cards: it consists of digits on bank account computer screens that increase when the rich buy and sell repackaged debts to each other. When the gravy train derails every decade or so, the public bails out the perpetrators. Yet, the three main bases on which the intangible economy is constructed are tangible: precious metals, hydrocarbons, and real estate. 

The new rulers of the world are the asset managers who hold the stocks, shares, bonds, and portfolios of the banks, hedge funds, insurers, pension companies, and real estate holdings. They include BlackRock, State Street, UBS, and Vanguard. Their fake wealth would not exist without the physical ownership of land. Real estate is the skin of the balloon in which they blow the hot air of money markets. 

The WEF corporations understand the importance of real estate in relation to wealth inequality and uber-profits. They also understand that the younger generations are getting more and more desperate. In terms of size, housing quality is leading to mental health issues as younger people live and work in increasingly crowded and expensive cities. Not only is property ownership a dream for the majority of young westerners, renting is becoming harder as owners are reluctant to let their property to people in the insecure work of the expanding gig economy. 

WEF corporations fear a brain and labour drain from cities as work-from-home youngsters flee to the countryside where dwellings are bigger and cheaper. The WEF notes that cities generate 80 per cent of global GDP, yet their revenues (e.g., from local taxes and property sales) are expected to fall as fewer people use public transport and reduced council budgets lead to disinvestment from public services. Asset companies want to keep workers locked into cities and are looking to redesign urban hellholes to make them more appealing: eco-friendly, health conscious, and tailored to the psychology of the individual.¹

WEF authors say that the new agenda will take place via “an increase in public-private cooperation,” meaning the taxpayer foots the bill, as usual. New urban slums will be greenwashed and prettied via the harnessing of personalised big tech data collection for “customisation.” While the rich continue to plunder, the working classes will have to get used to “adaptive reuse”; an eco-friendly normalisation of second-hand products; or “pre-loved” as they now call them. The WEF says that, “The private sector can also play an instrumental role in helping the public sector craft legislation that is viable for business.” What could possibly go wrong? 

WEF emphasises that a whole tenth of global GDP is concentrated in a single sector: real estate. Commenting on the above, Christian Ulbrich, Global Chief Executive Officer and President of the real estate services company JLL, confirms: “The world will look different in the coming years; our cities and urban centres especially so.”² 

On greenwashing in response to public pressure, Ahmed Galal Ismail, Chief Executive Officer of the holding company Majid Al Futtaim Properties, says “global investors, pension funds and financial institutions are demanding that their investee companies incorporate, track and report ESG [environmental, social and governance] performance into the risk-adjusted returns that they deliver.”³

As we shall examine in more detail, artificial intelligence and the instantaneous advertising and automated services markets are exploding. In so-called smart homes, the wishes and intentions of the occupant will be sales opportunities for programmed machines, from fridges to heating systems, as the very biology of the tenant is tracked and analysed under the PR-friendly cover of public health monitoring. 

Under counter-Covid biosurveillance, prospective AI in smart homes might also be tailored to provide commercial services. AI could, for instance, offer to adjust the solar-controlled room temperature if in-home cameras sense that the occupant might be too hot or cold. “Autonomous buildings autotune, adapting to dynamic indoor and outdoor conditions, create optimal working conditions.” Through bastardised communitarianism designed by WEF to prevent the poor from ever attaining wealth under the slogan of “equity,” the buildings will be designed with “cost-sharing mechanisms.”

Existing examples, not yet fully authoritarian like the above, include the hub at Causeway, Boston, Massachusetts: a mixed-use revitalisation project that includes heat-regulating glass, airflow-supported balconies, and local food production. Another is Hong Kong’s Taikoo Place: an interconnected business hub. Citing patents per head of population, the WEF notes that increased population density – i.e., big cities – is linked to increased creativity and productivity. But the people who do the hard work don’t share in the patent wealth. Taxpayers, for instance, funded the vaccines that low-paid nurses administer, yet big pharma reaps the rewards. 

In other words, they want people crammed into cities to boost innovation, but they also want to polish the turd of urbanisation by making dystopian dives look like efficient, modern pockets of eco-friendly mingling. 

For instance, knowing that most people prefer the more relaxed atmosphere of villages to crowded and impersonal cities, the government of Victoria, Australia supports the 20 Minute City concept in which the village – grocer, butcher, baker, pharmacy, health clinic, bus stop – is integrated into the city.⁴ 

“Sustainable McDonald’s” is an oxymoron, yet Australia once again serves as a testbed for the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) with “sustainable” fast-food outlets that allegedly cut CO₂ emissions by a third. The solar-powered “smartly” ventilated takeaway/restaurant in Melton South is a prototype for other sites. Through Podium, Australia is also pioneering the end-to-end digitisation of real estate: from design, purchase, lease, and construction, to repurchase, letting, contract, and the new age of tailored living. This will create a new blockchain for real estate markets.

In this part of the new world order, constant labour is normalised. “From focus zones to work cafes, the space integrates ‘external’ elements such as coworking and the home office.” Happy slaves must also be healthy slaves. Design concepts include an “ergonomically supportive home office with limited distractions.” There will be a “blend of social spaces with productivity enablers,” such as colleagues who give unconscious prompts to others to work harder. This will be achieved through the design of the building itself. For instance, computers on which people work might be strategically placed near the coffee machine so that the idler sees their colleagues labouring and is prompted to return to work. Exercise machines might be placed near the snack bar so that workers tempted by candy are also guilted into doing a few minutes’ exercise before returning to their toil. 

THE FOURTH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

Covid has given WEF corporations the chance to integrate public health concepts via constant social biosurveillance in their existing 4IR agenda. Over the last few decades, the phrase “new normal” became normal as politicians, intellectuals, and the media sought to brainwash us into believing that terrorism would make total surveillance and travel restrictions a new normal, as would limitations on freedom and growth caused by anthropogenic climate change. 

Since Covid, the WEF asks: “What will the ‘next normal’ look like?” (Emphasis added). WEF’s message is confused. On the one hand, its authors lessen mental health concerns by promoting community, but on the other, they note that the structure of the socioeconomic order will increase isolation. Facebook is notorious for keeping people isolated in echo chambers, but the new Meta rebranding, as we shall see, will blend isolation and community in augmented, virtual reality (VR) settings. The happy slave will be alone in their tiny, greenwashed hovel but feel emotionally connected with friends in a VR universe.

When it comes to online shopping, there will be less “face-to-face interaction.” The last-minute deliveries spurred by Covid “will persist beyond the pandemic”⁵ and be delivered by the kinds of people whom the WEF envisages occupying the above properties. Jab mandates for working people are part of the “next normal,” and patents on the vaccines are of primary interest to the mega-rich. But the WEF is less interested in ensuring the safety and efficacy of Covid vaccines and more concerned with bolstering “vaccine confidence.” Even though the jab appears to be effective only in reducing hospitalisations, the WEF was quick to ask how its thought leaders could work to promote “trust” in big pharma’s rushed products.⁶ 

It is important to distinguish between words and actions. Sometimes, WEF founder and chairman Klaus Schwab speaks truth and horrifies those familiar with his words. Examples include references to microchipping the population and replacing humans with robots.⁷ At other times, Schwab seems to say the opposite, acknowledging that what is erroneously called “capitalism” – which actually means state-backed monopoly corporatism – has damaged the younger generations, stagnated the middle classes, and fuelled the climate crisis. In order to look good and paint the global elite’s WEF as some kind of progressive or “woke” (as the right-wing say) face of “capitalism,” Schwab points out that which is wrong with the “capitalist” order.

The reality is that pretty words and agreement with those injured by profit-driven corporatism is a cover. It is as if an abuser consoles their victim while continuing to abuse them. In his introduction to the WEF’s report on youth, Schwab plays this game, writing things many of us would agree with: that long-term planning is better than short-term profit and that intergenerational parity is better than growing inequality.⁸

As part of its pyramid structure, the WEF claims that its global reach on this issue was over two million people, the vast majority of whom were journalists, intellectuals, businesspeople, and community leaders; in other words, rungs on the ladder of hierarchy, not ordinary people. These so-called cultural leaders will shape the doctrines for those below them through entertainment, education, media, and the workplace. 

The report pays lip service to getting corporations to disinvest from fossil fuels and working with Generation Z’s thought leaders to create a new agenda for sustainability. In reality, it is the same old monopoly corporatism in which ordinary people are the flotsam and jetsam in the plans of those higher than them in the social order. For example, one Lab held in Luxembourg concluded that the WEF should decide what is or is not ethical consumption: “It would be unfair and naïve to put all the burden on consumers having to educate themselves in order to avoid greenwashing.”⁹ 

If, for instance, someone decides not to buy the latest Apple gadget because ‘child mining’ in Congo extracted the device’s coltan, ‘forced labour’ in China created the product, ‘air miles’ brought the item to the West, and ‘tax avoidance’ enables the company to be a monopoly, a WEF messaging campaign might greenwash and claim that the gadget’s production was ethical and its carbon footprint neutral.

Another event in Australia concluded that the WEF should harness the wisdom of indigenous people when promoting the new agenda so that people resonate with ancient ways of living whilst continuing to work for corporate overlords. 

This is a form of mind control in which the labouring masses have internal freedom and believe they participate in a spiritual society, when in fact the limits of their reality are set by superiors who pretend to consult with and gain the approval of those they are controlling. The Davos Lab’s Millennium Manifesto is jam-packed with empty verbiage such as, “We will ask big questions to advance bold solutions.”¹⁰

THE GREAT RESET

Another aspect of the WEF agenda is what Schwab calls the Great Reset: a professed plan to promote economic and social equity while cementing the structures that guarantee worsening inequality. In addition to trapping working people in properties designed to enhance their productivity and monetise their idiosyncrasies (like the AI temperature control example above), the revolutionary potential of the exploited classes as well as their dissatisfaction will, if the WEF planners get their way, be quelled by the promotion of transhumanism and virtual reality, in which humanity is “reset” to begin anew with biological and digital enhancements. 

One of the methods of control is trapping people in social media bubbles. After US President Donald Trump came to power (2017–21) and threatened the neoliberal agenda, ideological managers such as mainstream media, think tanks, and political unions, took action against what they call “fake news.” Fact-check organisations have morphed into the guardians of neoliberal elites. Often “populists” like Trump and his supporters lie, misreport, and publish fake news. Fact-checkers expose those lies, but they have a deeper agenda. 

In most cases, so-called fact-checkers simply argue over interpretations of truth, which the fact-checkers then use to delegitimise real populism. The ideological basis from which they operate promotes the agenda of the World Economic Forum and others. But who fact checks the fact-checkers? Researchers have uncovered their connections to the political, corporate, and media establishment. In this revolving door system, former mainstream corporate media editors and journalists take up new roles as self-professed fact-checkers whose targets are those opposed to the neoliberal order.

In addition, social media have, for years, been on a deplatforming crusade as part of “woke washing” (while keeping oppressive and prejudicial structures in place) and under the influence of the intelligence services. In their evidence to US Congress after the 6 January Capitol insurrection, both Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey confirmed that because of “security” concerns, domestic US intelligence agencies advised (i.e., leaned on) them to deplatform accounts, including the President’s. 

All of the above serves to blandify social media content and constrain users to the boundaries of what is acceptable within neoliberal culture. Anything too progressive (e.g., the World Socialist Web Site) or regressive (e.g., Breitbart News) is censored, pushing the entire user base of hundreds of millions of people into a giant corporate-approved echo chamber (e.g., CNN, New York Times). 

This process is called “digital literacy” by the WEF and others. Without “digital literacy,” people might fall for dangerous “fake news” (i.e., news not approved by WEF corporations). But people might also create and share real news and real information that does not fall within the bounds of accepted neoliberal ideology, such as questioning the efficacy of big pharma-produced vaccines or pointing out the serious problems with the corporate-political elite. In making the world “digitally literate,” the WEF employs doublethink: “Steps must be taken to prevent abuse and harm while maintaining the freedom to openly exchange ideas.”¹¹ 

Slaving for the ultra-rich in personally-tailored smart cities, the younger generations censored into the neoliberal sheep pen by social media will, according to the WEF model, augment their capacities with technology. The transhumanist agenda is specifically harnessed for the older, infirm generations who have gone from being useless eaters – from the WEF perspective – to potential data points for augmentative technologies. As part of the WEF propaganda campaign, the organisation is preparing to “Articulate the potential benefits of artificial intelligence,” particularly for the older generations.¹² 

For “older” people, which we assume means the over-60s, WEF suggests placing representatives in the design process, the reasoning being that over-60s tend to have different aesthetic tastes, practical preferences, and physical and cognitive requirements to young people. The young are born into the new technological changes, and those changes become part of their environment. In contrast, the over-60s must adapt. Pursuing profit, companies are using the WEF as a vehicle to help turn the over-60s into transhumanist augmentation technology consumers: home-help robots, implants for better eyesight, time-released painkillers, etc. The WEF does not seek solutions for ending the collection and selling of personal data but rather for more transparency. This way companies can cheat consumers whilst being honest that they are cheating them. The aim is to make consumers feel less angry because they appreciate the honesty. 

WEF suggests that companies “Disclose the data being collected.” They hope that older people will thus be more willing to have their information sold. The WEF also wants to “Obtain meaningful consent.” The clue is in the word “meaningful,” suggesting that up until now, consent has not been meaningful. One of the more insidious agendas is to “Design for appropriate trust.” Just as they seek to make the younger generations “digitally literate,” i.e., keep them in a mental prison, WEF corporations aim to protect the elderly from “deception,”¹³ but not the deceptions on which their system is built.

The WEF is aware that the general public might, if left on their own, form groups, communities, parties, and movements that spread an anti-“capitalist” message and develop new social models. If such a long-term grassroots revolution succeeded, it would not only hurt the profits of the owner-classes but threaten the system they spent so long developing. Repackaging profit-driven agendas as some form of third position between capitalism and socialism is achieved, in part, by rhetorically emphasising “corporate responsibility.”¹⁴ 

The WEF also seeks to capture potential revolutionaries by appealing to “social justice.” The WEF intellectuals are aware that young people tend to be driven more than old people by outrage. The right-wing dismisses these young, conscious activists as “social justice warriors.” Instead of encouraging people to change the system in their own image, WEF intellectuals want to make people feel like they have – without actually having – input into their conditions. “[R]ecognising, co-designing, partnering and learning with impacted stakeholders… must be at the centre of any corporate action on equity and social justice in our unequal world.”¹⁵

Another factor profitable to the corporate class is social impact bonds. Historically, the underclasses – those below the working classes – were a financial negative. They claimed benefits, needed free healthcare, public housing, etc. The working classes laboured, the middle classes paid the most relative taxes, and the rich lived off the labour of the poor, profits generated by the consuming middle classes, and hording through tax avoidance. 

But over the last decades, banks figured out ways of profiting from the underclasses: social impact bonds. Under such systems, government cuts back on social welfare and relies instead on charities to keep offenders out of prison and reach homelessness reduction targets, etc. The banks that fund the charities are then reimbursed by government, and the loans of the banks are serviced by taxpayers. This social impact bond system creates an incentive to have a permanent underclass and champion the alleged virtues of “charity” instead of systemic change that brings genuine inclusivity and democratic empowerment.¹⁶ Gerbrand Haverkamp, Executive Director of the World Benchmarking Alliance, is quoted as saying: “[W]e need businesses that can profitably solve societal problems, without profiting from societal harms.”¹⁷ This model incentivises the creation of a permanent underclass.

ENGINEERED ‘LIFE’ IN FAKE WORLDS

There is a sinister, occultic element to the WEF’s agenda. Certain members who currently practice what they believe to be online “meme magic(k)” are also involved in the development of Facebook’s VR world: the Metaverse. 

A near-billionaire developer and Trump supporter, Palmer Luckey, used social media to boost Trump’s profile and deflate his rival Hillary Clinton in the run-up to the 2016 US presidential election. Luckey made his fortune selling the Oculus VR headset to Zuckerberg. Luckey’s benefactor, a lobby called Nimble America, believed that “meme magic is real.” The Millennial generation started to use images with text circulated online to boost their agendas and attack their enemies (memes). One famous meme was Pepe the Frog, an innocent cartoon hijacked by racists and right-wingers (usually both) to signal their political allegiances. The cultists behind the spread of such memes believed that they could invoke spiritual power (“meme magic(k)” to vanquish enemies. Pepe, to give one of many examples, is drawn with light reflecting in both eyes in the shape of a Freemasonic dot-triangle. 

Regardless of his involvement or lack of involvement in such practices, the executive director of Oculus, Jason Rubin, sent his 50-page report on the Metaverse to Zuckerberg. Just as US military planners devised a “shock and awe” terror campaign to inflict on the Iraqi people in 2003, Rubin said that “shock and awe” tactics would condition the user to accept their new digital life in the Metaverse. CNBC has seen leaked policy documents: “It imagined users floating through a digital universe of virtual ads, filled with virtual goods that people buy.”¹⁸

Chillingly (no pun intended), FB Oculus’s Michael Abrash says: “It all started with Snow Crash,” the futuristic ‘90s novel written by Neal Stephenson. The Guardian, which picked up the Abrash quote, conveniently omits a crucial detail about the novel: that the fictional online world on which the new scheme is based contains a mind virus that can infect users as they merely look at the screen. Likening it to Snow Crash, though providing no evidence, certain individuals claim that the Pepe meme that evolved into something else has, for many years, contained a hidden mind virus. 

Whether the mind virus is real or not is beside the point. Certain online occultists, including Luckey, are using the fear of mind control, coupled with what Rubin calls “shock and awe,” to get users to submit to the dialectic: a “progressive” Zuckerberg world order of Joe “Build Back Better” Biden in a virtual reality, or a more overtly fascistic world order of “meme magic(k)” and mind warfare using Trump as a frontman. 

Part of the Trump meme war and the fake news hysteria surrounding the President had the effect of making ‘truth’ a vague and flexible concept. As the concept of truth becomes fuzzy, that which is real is set to become fuzzier. WEF says of Meta: “This could manifest itself in several ways, but many experts believe that ‘extended reality’ (XR) – the combination of augmented, virtual and mixed reality – will play an important role.”¹⁹ The WEF hopes that once we have been bombarded into the new system, we will all be Huxleyan happy slaves in their Brave New World, playing with intangible VR toys and mingling with avatars of our loved ones. 

[alert type=”general” dismiss=”no”]This article was published in New Dawn Special Issue Vol 15 No 6.[/alert]

[alert type=”success” dismiss=”no”]If you appreciate this article, please consider subscribing to help maintain this website.[/alert]

Footnotes

1. World Economic Forum and BCG, Insight Report, April 2021, www3.
weforum.org/docs/WEF_A_Framework_for_the_Future_of_Real_Estate_2021.pdf

2. Quoted in ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. WEF and McKinsey, “Pandemic, Parcels and Public Vaccination:
Envisioning the Next Normal for the Last-Mile Ecosystem,” Insight Report, April 2021, www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Pandemic_Parcels_and_Public_Vaccination_report_2021.pdf

6. WEF, Insight Report, May 2020, www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_How_
to_Build_Trust_in_Vaccines_2021.pdf

7. Interview with Radio Télévision Suisse, 10 January 2016, www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJcey1PPiIM

8. Klaus Schwab, “Introduction,” “Davos Lab: Youth Recovery Plan,” Insight Plan, WEF, August 2021, www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Davos_Lab_Youth_Recovery_Plan_2021.pdf

9. WEF, ibid.

10. Ibid. 

11. Ibid.

12. WEF,” Insight Report, August 2021, www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_
Designing_Artificial_Intelligence_Technologies_for_Older_Adults_2021.pdf

13. Ibid. 

14. WEF, Business for Social Responsibility and Laudes Foundation, Insight Report, September 2021, www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Lighthouse_
Action_Social_Justice_Stakeholder_Inclusion_2021.pdf

15. Ibid. 

16. Ibid. 

17. Quoted in ibid.

18. Salvador Rodriguez, CNBC, 30 October 2021, www.cnbc.com/2021/10/30/facebooks-meta-mission-was-laid-out-in-a-2018-paper-
on-the-metaverse.html

19. Stefan Hall and Cathy Li, WEF, 29 October 2021, www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/10/facebook-meta-what-is-the-metaverse

© New Dawn Magazine and the respective author.
For our reproduction notice, click here.

From New Dawn 187 (Jul-Aug 2021)

A few years ago, commentators argued that “data is the new oil”:¹ a precious commodity that makes the world go ‘round. Instead of wars for control over natural resources, à la Iraq, Libya, and Syria, the new battles will be fought across informational landscapes by tyrannical tech monopolies whose software is based on designs that emerged from the state-funded military sector and whose power is too vast for governments to break. 

For-profit transhumanism was the plan all along. Referring to brain implants, the founder and head of what became the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, said in 2016: “first we will implant them in our clothes as ‘wearables’ and then we could imagine that we will implant them in our brains or in our skin.” Schwab said that this will eliminate the boundaries between digital and physical space.² In 2017, Jun Wang, co-founder of the health company iCarbonX, said: “We want an exact 3-D figure of you: the fat, the muscle – your entire body shape, plus facial recognition, and what’s going on with your skin.”³ 

Governments’ responses to the Covid pandemic worldwide have given our new biotech overlords the perfect opportunity to roll out and impose a myriad of next-generation gadgets for the control of humanity. 

SELLING YOUR DATA

Consider how anti-democratic forces have exploited national health services for profit. Billionaire tech entrepreneur Peter Thiel once wrote: “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”⁴ In-Q-Tel is a US Central Intelligence Agency seed-funding company whose investments, with others, helped to set up Google and Thiel’s Palantir: an AI and analytics company.⁵ Palantir was awarded US Defense Department contracts in foreign battlefields, including Afghanistan, to build biometric databases of the world.⁶ 

NHSX is a unit of the British National Health Service (NHS) designed to put the final nails in the NHS coffin by digitising patient care. In July 2019, long before the world was aware of the growing pandemic, Palantir UK’s Louis Mosley dined with the chair of NHS England, David Prior. The pair discussed selling NHS data to the US-based firm.⁷ In 2020, with Covid ripping through Britain, Palantir was awarded a £23 million contract under the secret Crown Commercial Services G-Cloud 11 Framework.⁸ The NHS later developed its own App for track and trace, which in April 2021 the Transport Secretary, Grant Shapps, said could be used for vaccine travel passports.⁹ 

GenVis is an Australian company specialising in surveillance analytics. It describes itself and its products as building and presenting “compelling criminal cases underpinned by video forensics,” “real time intelligence,” and “people management.”¹⁰ A snazzy GenVis video promotes Australia’s 500 per cent increase in CCTV over the last decade, adding that 80 per cent of footage is unused due to monitoring costs. GenVis’s “intelligence path mapping” software can rectify this alleged problem by tracking targets and using visuals to make data easy to understand.¹¹ The authorities in both South and Western Australia gave GenVis a contract to monitor Covid patients in quarantine via the G2G Now app, which the police also utilise to enforce travel restrictions.¹² 

VACCINES AND TRACKING

Accenture is a company with an Australian presence that provides numerous services, including artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and data analytics.¹³ Accenture has also won military consultation contracts and promotes the aerospace sector on its website.¹⁴ In March 2021, the Australian government teamed up with numerous companies, including Accenture, to deliver vaccines to the population. Greg Hunt, the Minister for Health and Aged Care, said: “Accenture will provide tracking of vaccine doses as well as enabling overall program implementation monitoring.”¹⁵ Vaccine bookings would be managed by HealthEngine: a company that boasts 1.5 million monthly users, most of whom are Australia’s 70,000 GPs and health clinics. But the company had already been fined for unlawfully sharing patient data.¹⁶

International Business Machines (IBM) provided Hollerith punch-card systems to Nazi Germany, which the regime used to code and tabulate non-Aryans for slave labour and extermination.¹⁷ IBM also made money off the back of the US taxpayer. By the 1950s, for example, the IBM 701 computer was processing 17,000 instructions per second for researchers and the US government.¹⁸ The pandemic has given IBM an opportunity to utilise its data-gathering and processing for public health services. The US government contracted IBM to develop a Digital Health Pass. The operation is described as follows: “Pharmacies and labs can issue verifiable credentials – such as test results or Covid-19 vaccine certificates – and send to an individual’s smartphone.”¹⁹ 

According to the New York State, the Excelsior Pass “provides a free, fast and secure way to present digital proof of Covid-19 vaccination or negative test results.”²⁰ The Excelsior Pass is based on IBM’s Digital Health Pass.²¹ Carbon Health, the Commons Project, the CARIN Alliance, Evernorth, the Mayo Clinic, Microsoft, the MITRE Corporation and many others have spawned a mini vaccine/test passport industry via apps and initiatives like Change Healthcare, FirstVitals, and VaxYes.²²

LIFE IN CHAINS

IBM’s systems are built on a new model of data storage that creates new endpoints tied to previous information: blockchain. Blockchain advocates reckon that end-to-end data can fast-track test results and vaccine certificates.²³ But blockchain potentially threatens privacy by including in the chain all the informational points about the given person. 

For decades, privacy advocates have warned about the incremental steps toward a cashless society in which every transaction by every citizen is not only tracked, recorded, and analysed but marketised in the form of surveillance capitalism. Buying habits form personal profiles of the consumer from which insurance companies, data brokers, and advertisers profit. Blockchain was created specifically for cashless digital money transactions called cryptocurrency.²⁴ Fear of catching Covid has made growing numbers of consumers and shop assistants increasingly reluctant to handle cash, so much so that by November 2020, nearly six in 10 consumers were willing to pay bank fees in order to make non-physical transactions.²⁵ 

As with data companies, cryptocurrency designers have used Covid as an opportunity to promote their products. “Governments are very interested in the cashless society,” says the Financial Times. In the US, the Federal Reserve has quarantined its cash. The e-commerce-friendly Chinese Community Party, which had already encouraged payment by QR codes, has literally disinfected its money. The Reserve Bank of India has actively encouraged electronic payments.²⁶ 

YOU ARE DATA

Financial technology (fintech) is another sector actively stimulated by governments. FinTech Magazine reports that the kind of biometrics envisaged by the likes of Klaus Schwab originated in the 19^th century with the eugenicist Francis Galton. As growing numbers of apps and software on iPhones, iPads and other devices give users the option or indeed require having fingerprint recognition, palm prints, voice recognition, and eye scans, cryptocurrencies go hand-in-hand with biometrics. Set up by the entrepreneur Mihai Draghici, PayByFace, for instance, uses recognition algorithms to enable instant transactions. Similar companies have focused on eye recognition in light of mask mandates that render whole-of-face recognition software useless.²⁷

In America, the Scripps Research Translational Institute “aim[s] to make individualised medicine a reality for everyone. We use the tools of genomics and digital medicine combined with cutting-edge informatics techniques to better understand each individual and ultimately render more effective healthcare.”²⁸ Over the years, the Institute has received money from the US Department of Defense, including grants to build an artificial immune system.²⁹ In August 2020, employees of the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System wore the Institute-produced Fitbit watch designed to identify early Covid symptoms.³⁰

In 2018, Amazon acquired Wholefoods for $13.4 billion. A few months ago, it was reported that in Wholefoods stores in Seattle, customers will be able to wave their palms over biometric payment devices as they previously had at Amazon One stores.³¹ The news comes at a time when Amazon Prime drivers are quitting over company demands that they consent to yield their biometric data in the form of in-car surveillance that monitors them to authenticate their identity and track their levels of fatigue as they drive.³² 

Breaching Sovereign Inner Space 

In an era of what the US Pentagon calls “full-spectrum dominance,” these separate nodes of technology create a cohesive whole that scans, tracks, and monitors not only every movement and digital transaction but, increasingly, the very intimate and sovereign inner space of the human being. The ancient wisdom that teaches lack of separation between the human and the infinity of god is being replaced with a new philosophical paradigm: the human as a data point in the infinite universe of 0s and 1s, whose gods are the surveillance capitalists and transhumanists, like Jun Wang and, more powerfully, Klaus Schwab and his technofascist ilk. 

[alert type=”general” dismiss=”no”]This article was published in New Dawn 187.[/alert]

[alert type=”success” dismiss=”no”]If you appreciate this article, please consider subscribing to help maintain this website.[/alert]

Footnotes

1. www.wired.com/insights/2014/07/data-new-oil-digital-economy/.

2. www.rts.ch/play/tv/pardonnez-moi/video/klaus-schwab?urn=urn:rts:video:7400263

3. www.technologyreview.com/2017/10/03/67827/how-ai-will-keep-you-healthy

4. www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian

5. https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e

6. Annie Jacobsen (2021) First Platoon: A Story of Modern War in the Age of Identity Dominance, Dutton.

7. www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2021-02-24/revealed-data-giant-given-emergency-covid-contract-had-been-wooing-nhs-for-months

8. www.digitalhealth.net/2020/12/palantir-awarded-23m-deal-to-continue-work-on-nhs-covid-19-data-store

9. Simon Hodes and Azeem Majeed (2021) BMJ, 373: 1178.

10. GenVis, https://genvis.co/contact

11. https://twitter.com/genvis_/status/1054606176615165952

12. Javad Jarrahi, BiometricUpdate.Com, 9 February 2021. 

13. www.accenture.com/au-en

14. https://newsroom.accenture.com/industries/health-public-service/us-department-of-defense-awards-accenture-improvement-contract.htm

15. www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-greg-hunt-mp/media/contracts-signed-for-rollout-of-covid-19-vaccine

16. Katharine Murphy, Guardian, 11 March 2021.

17. Edwin Black (2001) IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation, Dialog Press.

18. www.ibm.com/ibm/history/history/decade_1950.html

19. www.ibm.com/products/digital-health-pass

20. https://covid19vaccine.health.ny.gov/excelsior-pass

21. www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-launch-excelsior-pass-help-fast-track-reopening-businesses-and

22. https://mashable.com/article/private-companies-vaccine-passports

23. Moritz Platt (2021) JMIR of Public Health Surveillance, 7(4): e26460. 

24. www.pwc.com/us/en/industries/financial-services/fintech/bitcoin-blockchain-cryptocurrency.html

25. https://fintechmagazine.com/digital-payments/covid-cashless-and-convenience-rise-biometrics

26. www.ft.com/partnercontent/comarch/covid-19-the-viral-spread-of-cashless-society.html

27. Girling, op. cit. 

28. www.scripps.edu/science-and-medicine/translational-institute/about/index.html

29. https://web.archive.org/web/20141027020036/https://www.scripps.edu/news/press/2014/20140924darpa.html

30. Laura Bliss, Bloomberg, 19 August 2020.

31. www.cnet.com/news/amazon-palm-readers-coming-to-whole-foods-checkouts

32. www.cnet.com/news/amazon-drivers-must-consent-to-biometric-monitoring-or-lose-jobs-reports-say

© New Dawn Magazine and the respective author.
For our reproduction notice, click here.

From New Dawn 186 (May-June 2021)

Born in New York, John Davison Rockefeller (1839-1937) was the world’s first billionaire¹ (he’d be worth around $13.7 billion in today’s money). As a Republican, Rockefeller supported Abolition, back when southern Democrat-voting industrialists profited from their human property. He was also a Methodist/Baptist Christian who believed that god had made him rich. 

In 1864, he founded the grain and produce company, Clark, Rockefeller, & Co., with business partner, Maurice Clark (1827-1901). The company profited from the American Civil War (1861-65)² and Rockefeller used his money to establish the company that made him his fortune: Standard Oil of California. With notions of the Protestant work ethic and Christian charity, Rockefeller and his employees attempted to craft an image of the family dynasty as philanthropic.

Rockefeller’s various institutes and foundations spawned other entities, including the University of Chicago, the General Education Board, and the eponymous Institute for Medical Research. But diary entries, papers, letters, and memos from the time confirm that the motive was primarily to make the public healthier and more educated in order to get them to work for the businesses in which Rockefeller had invested. By the mid-20^th century, it was clear that “philanthropy” was also a massive, legal tax dodge.³ 

Rockefeller’s profit-making agenda included the promotion of so-called “scientific medicine,” which has now become the norm. Although Rockefeller personally championed natural remedies, including homeopathy, publicly he funded allopathic medicine and was a major cog in the machine that brought America’s medical practices up to Europe’s technological standards. But institutions, be they religious, corporate, or national, are not self-containing. They expand. Rockefeller’s philanthropy was de facto colonialism in countries including China and the Philippines, where the offshoots of his Foundation trained indigenous elites to use Western “scientific medicines” and lessen their traditional, natural cures.

THE FOUNDATION AT HOME: “HEALTH IS PROFITABLE”

Former US President Bill Clinton (in office 1993-2001) says: “The academic study of public health owes its origins to Rockefeller, who financed the earliest programs at institutions like Johns Hopkins and Harvard [Universities].”⁴ 

Not all 19^th century US physicians had formal qualifications. Founded in 1846-47, the American Medical Association lobbied to ensure that physicians were qualified and trained up to particular standards.⁵ But the formalisation of healthcare training reinforced the race, gender, and class structure in that females, poor people, and non-whites were typically excluded.⁶ In addition to producing young, white, male doctors from the middle- and upper-classes, the system also battled natural health in favour of the new “scientific medicine.”⁷ By contrast, the Popular Health Movement was a natural health lobby which, in the 1850s, sought to remove legal protections for reckless physicians.

Despite Rockefeller’s private belief in homeopathy, one of the effects of his Foundation’s work in medicine was to undermine natural alternatives to chemical prescriptions. The formalisation of GP training led to monopolies. Most medical courses were offered by just three universities: Dartmouth, Harvard, and Pennsylvania.⁸ As late as the early-20^th century, US doctors typically trained in Europe. Rockefeller’s agenda was to bring the US medical profession up to Europe’s standards.⁹ Rockefeller modelled his health foundation on Berlin’s Koch Institute (founded 1891) and Paris’s Pasteur Institute (1887).

After studying in France and Germany, the American parasitologist, Charles Wardell Stiles (1867-1941), went to work at the Rockefeller Foundation’s forerunner, the Rockefeller Sanitary Commission. Stiles advised on the abdominal disease hookworm, which mainly affected agricultural workers and thus Rockefeller et al.’s profits in his textiles investments. Stiles believed that hookworm caused “some of the proverbial laziness of the poorer classes of the white population.”¹⁰

One of Rockefeller’s main ideologues was the Baptist clergyman, Reverend Frederick Taylor Gates (1853-1929, no relation to Bill). In the capitalist spirit of the age, Gates saw the human body as an amalgam of separate parts, akin to a factory. Gates’s view was that “the great organs of the body like the liver, stomach, pancreas, kidneys, gall bladder, are great local manufacturing centres, formed of groups of cells in infinite number, manufacturing the same sorts of products, just as industries.”¹¹

Gates initially advised Rockefeller’s Standard Oil before promoting the magnate’s health ventures. Gates noted that at any one time, 20 per cent of staff in any given institution was home sick each day and said that “health is found in a variety of ways to be profitable.”¹² He objected to the Rockefeller-founded University of Chicago’s 1898 efforts to align with the pro-homeopathy Rush Medical College. After studying in Germany, the bacteriologist and pathologist William H. Welch (1850-1934) co-founded the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health. Gates asked Welch to run the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, which by 1928 had received $28m in funding (around $385m today).¹³ 

Hookworms are parasitic organisms that live in the abdomen and are typically picked up by affected persons when walking barefoot and consuming soils near to which people have defecated. The roots of the Foundation’s global health hegemony were planted in the American south, where Black agricultural labourers continued to toil in cotton fields.¹⁴ The Foundation’s failed efforts to eradicate hookworms nevertheless gave the planners enough confidence that their work could be exported. But their methods sought to integrate foreign traditional healers into “scientific” medical practices. 

Historian Angela Matysiak writes that during the 1917 campaign to eradicate hookworm in Brazil, civil society feared that Rockefeller’s International Health Board (IHB) would replace curanderos: natural healers. “To address these tensions, the staff of the IHB in Brazil, Costa Rica, and other countries looked for ways to integrate native healers into public health campaigns.” But Rockefeller opposed domestic natural medicines; at least for the public. For example, it was only when the supply of the drug thymol was disrupted by the First World War (1914-18) that Rockefeller’s IHB gave patients oil of chenopodium (the flower of the goosefoot plant). With zero ethical protocols in place, Rockefeller’s doctors poisoned to death 222 children with the oil between 1914 and 1932, something that natural healers were unlikely to have done.¹⁵

ROCKEFELLER ABROAD: “HEALTH HAS ADVANTAGES OVER MACHINE GUNS”

The Rockefeller Foundation established a series of successive health entities to exploit foreign medicines and assimilate other people’s traditional practices into Western-led methods. The International Health Board and its successors spent billions of dollars (tens of billions in today’s money) in over 100 countries, establishing 25 schools and institutes, and sponsoring over 2,500 nurseries.¹⁶

The entities included the International Health Commission (1913-16) and International Health Board (a.k.a., Division, 1916-27). At the time, representatives of the global body, the League of Nations, described Rockefeller’s International Health Board as “the only existing truly international agency which is working at present to further constructive work in the domain of public health all over the world.”¹⁷ The motives were profit-driven. Rockefeller Foundation President, George E. Vincent (1864-1941), said that when it came to conquering foreigners, public health had “advantages over machine guns.”¹⁸ The Philippines International Health Commission visited the Moro tribes and acted, in the words of Foundation officers, as “wedge for permanent civilising influences.”¹⁹

After the British Empire’s occupation (circa 1842-1912), but before the economic nationalism of Chairman Mao (1893-1976), US investors sought to exploit China’s huge working population and raw materials. Rockefeller and his successors funded the Peking Union Medical College to the tune of $45m (or half a billion today). Chinese traditional medicine includes but is not limited to acupuncture, cupping, diet, herbs, and qigong. It has been used for thousands of years and is regularly attacked in the West by advocates of Big Pharma. Rockefeller money started the anti-traditional medicine movement in China while taking some of its ideas and products to synthesise them as modern drugs. 

For instance, ephedra plants are shrubs that grow in most countries and produce certain green teas. Known in Chinese medicine as ma-huang (right, above), ephedra shrubs have been used for 5,000 years and were first catalogued by Emperor Shen Nung in 2700 BCE.²⁰ The Japanese Professor, Nagayoshi Nagai, isolated ephedrine from the shrub in 1885 to produce synthetic chemicals for blood pressure treatment. The Rockefeller-funded Peking Union Medical College took credit for isolating and synthesising the chemical. The Lancet reports that the College “spread modern medical sciences throughout China.”²¹

Today, we hear about the dangers of “vaccine nationalism.”²² Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine against Sars-CoV-2 (COVID-19) was demonised by Western media²³ before being accepted as >90 per cent efficacious by Western journals.²⁴ The UK’s AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine was sold to the British public as effective,²⁵ yet several heads of state at the European Union, which is promoting the US-German Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, publicly cautioned against the UK vaccine. 

Vaccine nationalism began with the Rockefeller Foundation. Yellow fever is a deadly (50 per cent death-rate) mosquito-derived, tropical virus.²⁶ Rockefeller’s International Health Board stoked controversy by pointing to side effects in yellow fever vaccines developed by rival institutes, such as the Pasteur Institute, which was operating in France’s colonial subject, Tunisia. Rockefeller’s vaccines were initial failures. The authors of an article on biological history state: “the success of [Rockefeller-]sponsored anti-yellow fever campaigns was obtained through a traditional means: the elimination of the disease’s vector, the mosquito.”²⁷ 

“Paris Green” was named after its use against rats in the sewers of the famous French capital. It is an arsenic-based toxin that was used as an insecticide. It was mass-produced in New York. The Bulletin of the Industrial Commission reported at the time that “[c]onsiderable illness has been found to exist among many of the workers engaged in this production.” The Department of Labor described it as “a dangerous poison and sickness results from the breathing of air containing it, through broken skin, and through the mouth.”²⁸ The Rockefeller International Health Board experimented in anti-malaria techniques in Brazil, Bulgaria, El Salvador, India, Italy, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palestine, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico. The League of Nations argued that sanitation was key to beating disease, but Rockefeller lobbyist and physician Lewis Hackett (1884-1962) argued for the use of “Paris Green.” The International Health Board used its propaganda to promote the results of a dubious, preliminary study in Italy. 

One historian writes: “the anti-mosquito strategy… laid the groundwork for the subsequent DDT revolution in malariology.”²⁹ DDT is also a toxin trialled by the US Typhus Commission. During the Second World War (1939-45), the Rockefeller Foundation’s health institutes tested DDT on German and Italian prisoners of war, as well as on Algerian inmates before heralding DDT operations a success in Sardinia.³⁰ 

Rockefeller’s motives for eradicating mosquitos are exemplified by the case of Mexico. Disease historians note that the yellow fever virus mainly affected the nation’s shipping ports that were crucial for US corporate profits, including Rockefeller’s Standard Oil. The company relied on the malaria-ridden port of Veracruz.³¹ In addition to using poison to blitz mosquitos to clear ports for profit, the Foundation used its eugenics ideas to encourage Mexican women to produce “strong” babies that could grow into healthy workers.³²

COMING AROUND

After WWII, the Foundation lost its direction. The so-called third world became a battleground between US imperialism and Soviet dominance, with the Rockefeller Foundation struggling to design an internationalist, post-War policy. The giant, US, post-War machine referred to by future President Dwight D. Eisenhower as the “military-industrial complex” meant that research grants were awarded through the government’s National Science Foundation, making Rockefeller money less immediately appealing to young researchers. The Rockefeller Foundation initially succeeded by funding the shift in research from chemistry to biology, particularly the study of proteins for vaccination. “That decision has been widely viewed as stimulating the rise of the new field of molecular biology.” What began as schools for research turned into captive instruments that awarded funding for clear proposals, not for theoretical research. But theoretical research is where major breakthroughs tend to occur.³³

The founding of the World Health Organization in 1948 coincided with the dissolution of the Rockefeller Foundation’s International Health Board, which was subsumed into the Division of Medicine and Public Health in 1951.³⁴ The Rockefeller Foundation failed to make the shift from protein to DNA research and lost ground to big biotech firms, like Monsanto (now Bayer). But cultural changes began to take shape. 

The Foundation started out taking natural plants from traditional medicine practitioners and using them to promote synthetic pharmaceuticals. But, having been part of the mechanisms that destroy the world with their interests in oil, banking, and pesticides, the Rockefellers have now seen profit-potential in solutions to the problems they allegedly helped to create. In more recent years, the Foundation and Rockefeller’s successors have come to recognise the value of naturopathy.

A few years ago, scientists contrived a new epoch: the Anthropocene. In the Anthropocene, the dominant species causing potentially irreversible destruction to the planet’s ecosystem is the human. The Rockefeller Foundation and The Lancet published a report stating: “Far-reaching changes to the structure and function of the Earth’s natural systems represent a growing threat to human health.” 

Having gone from seeing the human body as a factory comprised of separate parts in the 19^th century and promoting molecular biology to stimulate biotech profits in the 20^th, the Foundation now decries “an increasingly molecular approach to medicine, which ignores social and environmental context.”³⁵ 

Sometimes, the parasitic greed of the ruling classes destroys the host, in this case the planet, forcing our “betters” to modify their propaganda in the new ages they contrive. 

[alert type=”general” dismiss=”no”]This article was published in New Dawn 186.[/alert]

[alert type=”success” dismiss=”no”]If you appreciate this article, please consider subscribing to help maintain this website.[/alert]

Footnotes

1. Natalie Burclaff, “Rockefeller: Making of a Billionaire,” Inside Adams Science, Technology and Business, Library of Congress, 14 January 2020, https://blogs.loc.gov/inside_adams/2020/01/rockefeller-billionaire

2. Ron Chernow (1998) Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, London: Random House, 25-31

3. Berrien C. Eaton (1949) “Charitable Foundations, Tax Avoidance and Business Expediency,” Virginia Law Review, 35(7): 809-61 

4. Bill Clinton, “Introduction” in Eric John Abrahamson (2013) Beyond Charity: A Century of Philanthropic Innovation, New York: Rockefeller Foundation, 23

5. American Medical Association, “AMA history,” no date, www.ama-assn.org/about/ama-history/ama-history

6. Robert B. Baker (2014) “The American Medical Association and Race,” American Medical As-sociation Journal of Ethics, 16(6): 479-88

7. J.T.H.J. Dekkers (2009) What about Homeopathy? A comparative investigation into the causes of current popularity of homeopathy in The USA, The UK, India and The Netherlands, Master’s thesis, University of Utrecht, 20-24, https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/35695/ScriptieJorisDekkers.pdf

8. Robert G. Slawson (2012) “Medical Training in the United States Prior to the Civil War,” Journal of Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 17(1): 11-27

9. J. Andrew Mendelsohn (2002) “‘Like All That Lives’: Biology, Medicine and Bacteria in the Age of Pasteur and Koch,” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 24(1): 3-36

10. Quoted in E. Richard Brown (1980) Rockefeller Medicine Men: Medicine and Capitalism in America, Berkeley: University of California, 115-16

11. Quoted in Brown, op. cit., 120

12. Quoted in Brown, op. cit., 113

13. Brown, op. cit., 105 

14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US), “Hookworm FAQs,” no date, www.cdc.gov/parasites/hookworm/gen_info/faqs.html

15. Angela Matysiak (2014) Health and Well-Being: Science, Medical Education, and Public Health, New York: Rockefeller Foundation, 59-75 

16. A.E. Birn (2014) “Backstage: the relationship between the Rockefeller Foundation and the World Health Organization, Part I: 1940s-1960s,” Public Health, 128: 129-40

17. Ilana Löwy and Patrick Zylberman (2000) “Medicine as a Social Instrument: Rockefeller Foundation, 1913–45,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 31(3): 365-79

18. Quoted in Brown, op. cit., 124

19. Quoted in Brown, op. cit., 124

20. M.R. Lee (2011) “The history of Ephedra (ma-huang),” Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, 41: 78-84

21. Editorial (2014) “China Medical Board: a century of Rockefeller health philanthropy,” The Lancet, 384: 717-19

22. United Nations News, “WHO chief warns against COVID-19 ‘vaccine nationalism’, urges support for fair access,” 18 August 2020, https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/08/1070422

23. One of many: Denise Chow, “‘Reckless and foolish’: Why Russia’s vaccine has experts alarmed,” NBC News, 11 August 2020, www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/reckless-foolish-why-russia-s-vaccine-has-experts-alarmed-n1236466

24. Ian Jones and Polly Roy (2021) “Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine candidate appears safe and effective,” The Lancet, 2 February 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00191-4

25. Maria Deloria Knoll and Chizoba Wonodi (2020) “Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine efficacy,” The Lancet, 397(10269): 72-74

26. World Health Organization, “Yellow fever,” 7 May 2019, www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/yellow-fever 

27. Löwy and Zylberman, op. cit.

28. Monthly Review of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Dangers in the Manufacture of Paris Green and Scheele’s Green,” 5(2): 78-83 

29. Darwin H. Stapleton (2004) “Lessons of History? Anti-Malaria Strategies of the International Health Board and the Rockefeller Foundation from the 1920s to the Era of DDT,” Public Health Reports, 119(2): 206-15

30. Ibid. 

31. Andrew L. Knaut (1997) “Yellow Fever and the Late Colonial Public Health Response in the Port of Veracruz,” Hispanic American Historical Review, 77(4): 619-44

32. Linnete Manrique (2016) “Dreaming of a cosmic race: José Vasconcelos and the politics of race in Mexico, 1920s–1930s,” Cogent Arts & Humanities, 3(1218316): 1-2, 11n5

33. P. G. Abir-Am (2010) “The Rockefeller Foundation and the Post-WW2 Transnational Ecology of Science Policy: from Solitary Splendor in the Inter-war Era to a ‘Me Too’ Agenda in the 1950s,” Cenataurus, 52: 323-37

34. Rockefeller Foundation, “International Health Division,” Archive, https://rockfound.rockarch.org/international-health-division

35. Sarah Whitmee et al. (2015) “Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: report of The Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet Commission on planetary health,” The Lancet, 386: 1973-2028

© New Dawn Magazine and the respective author.
For our reproduction notice, click here.