The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), headquartered in New York, is one of the key power centres pushing Globalism for All.
As I’ve been writing for some time, medical programs are a clever and deceptive strategy for advancing this goal – the coagulation of Earth under one system of political management.
Global control is not a “right-wing” fantasy. It’s an objective much like the European Union, only writ much larger. Gradually, through attrition, sovereign nations decay under a super-bureaucracy that makes all the rules, issues the currency, and, over time, runs a tighter and tighter ship.
The outer shell of the CFR, founded 90 years ago as a Rockefeller plantation of control, is made up mostly of pundits and funded fellows and business leaders and politicians who look and sound like pompous blowhards.
On October 16, 2009, the CFR held a symposium titled: Pandemic Influenza: Science, Economics, and Foreign Policy.
Much of the information in this symposium report is window dressing. However, it’s worth noting a few comments made by presenters:
“Laurie Garrett, senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations, said at the October 16, 2009 New York symposium that amid the array of unknowns surrounding the H1N1 virus, one certainty is that ‘this is a worldwide event and it is occurring in the dawn of our age of globalisation.’ Garrett added, ‘It’s a darn good thing we are dealing with a relatively mild flu this time, because clearly we are ill-prepared at this moment for a more virulent or more dangerous virus, either if this one takes on a more dangerous form… or if a second totally different virus does emerge.’ Helen Branswell of the Toronto-based Canadian Press agreed: ‘We thought we were preparing for a more serious (bird flu H5N1) issue, but we are in fact not prepared for a mild one.” (Pandemic Influenza: Science, Economics, and Foreign Policy, Symposium Rapporteur Report, October 16, 2009)
So two points were established early on: the Swine Flu is a mild disease, not a pandemic by any sensible definition; and leaders of “our age of globalisation” must be prepared for a more drastic disease event by taking worldwide measures now.
This latter issue is highlighted by another contributing CFR speaker:
“It was the overarching consensus of the symposium, first forwarded in the gathering by Financial Times correspondent Andrew Jack of London, that the current pandemic must serve as ‘a teachable moment’, focusing expert attention on the inherent contradictions in global governance of health issues, inequities in world access to jjabs and medical supplies, weaknesses in planning and management of epidemics with worldwide risks for economics and politics, and the public’s respect for science and public health.”
Andrew Jack thus punches up the notion that solutions to so-called global health problems can only be attained through international means.
Medical Crises and Global Governance
The report continues:
“[Robert] Rubin [former US Secretary of the Treasury and Co-Chair of the CFR] noted that the increased global interdependency of the current economy has changed the game for pandemic responses in the United States, leaving only one option: ‘If the United States, and the world global economy, is going to be moderately well-prepared for this, there has to be an enormous amount of planning and agreed-upon processes and regimen decisions before the [pandemic] hits’.”
These speakers are talking about a vast system, a medical bureaucracy that can oversee planning and execution of “epidemic control” on a global scale.
Laurie Garrett then makes a pitch for equitable redistribution of wealth among nations:
“Moderator Garrett said: ‘We have globalised [epidemic] risk and threat today, but not globalised benefits. So the whole world shares the risk of pandemic influenza, but only a small percentage share jjabs, medicines and treatments’.”
Who would make those wealth-redistributing decisions from the top? Who would allocate money and drugs and jjabs and doctors from Greenland to Tierra Del Fuego? There is only one answer: an internationally organised body that could override the wishes of sovereign countries.
Then John Lange sounds a sour note of failure in this regard:
“In face of profound scientific and economic insecurities, important foreign policy decisions must be made by the United States to address the globalisation of pandemic protection and benefits, as well as threat.
“Ambassador John E. Lange, of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and former Special Representative on Avian and Pandemic Influenza for the State Department, said international coordination in response to the H5N1 pandemic [another mild flu season] of the 1990s paved the way for today’s response to H1N1.
“Nevertheless, Lange said, little has been done to move towards a more institutionalised global response, due as much to a lack of political will as to strained resources, in spite of high expectations.”
Lange thus draws the problem. The US has lagged behind. The US is not eager enough for “a more institutionalised global response.” The US doesn’t want to cede power to some agency like the World Health Organisation (WHO).
Another speaker takes off the mask and drives home Lange’s point harder:
“Canadian Press’ Branswell doubted how feasible it will be for countries such as the United States and Canada to deliver on these expectations. At the heart of the debate is the issue of sovereignty, which may prevent states from carrying through with their agreements in the face of pandemic pressure, instead choosing to nationalise local supplies of jjabs, masks, protective gear and other medical supplies. Conversely, sovereignty has been invoked as the basis for refusing to share samples of dangerous flu viruses with WHO and international scientists, and for declining outside inspections of local outbreaks.”
Surrendering National Sovereignty
Well, there it is. It doesn’t take a genius to read between the lines. The surrender of national sovereignty is necessary if the world is going to deal with encroaching waves of pandemics. Nations will have to give up their independent status in these situations – and you can be sure that the international body formed to govern epidemic disease will be permanent.
No one is stupid enough to think that the enormous effort and time and money needed to establish such a bureaucracy would fade away after the latest and greatest pandemic. Control would transfer now and in the future.
Medical crises, in this way, translate into further steps along the way to global governance.
Before citing more statements from the CFR symposium, let me offer some numbers on these “waves of world illness” we have endured over the last 15 years or so. Keep in mind that epidemics are the primary justification for internationalisation of a medical monarchy.
Total cases and deaths:
- SARS – 8,096 cases – 774 deaths.
- WEST NILE – 27,836 cases – 1,088 deaths.
- BIRD FLU – 262 deaths.
SWINE FLU – On April 26, 2009, with 20 cases of Swine Flu in the US and no deaths, the US Dept. of Health and Human Services declared a nationwide public health emergency.
The WHO changed its definition of pandemic so that “enormous numbers of deaths and illness” was removed from the definition. This happened in May 2009.
Thus far, WHO estimates about 8,200 deaths from Swine Flu, worldwide. That would average out to about 15,000 deaths for the year. But the CDC claims 36,000 people die every year from ordinary flu in the US alone.
So far (Feb. 2010), the global count of Swine Flu cases is 587,653.
Yet WHO states:
“Every winter, tens of millions of people get the [ordinary] flu. Most are only ill and out of work for a week, yet the elderly are at a higher risk of death from the illness. We know the worldwide death toll exceeds a few hundred thousand people a year…”
Fear Mongering New Diseases
So why is Swine Flu a pandemic, and why is ordinary flu not a pandemic? Fear mongering is about NEW diseases. That’s why.
It gets worse.
In early November, an explosive report by Sharyl Attkisson hit the CBS News website: Of all the probable or suspected swine flu cases in California actually tested by state labs since July 2009, based on 13,704 tests, only 2% of the patients had Swine Flu. 12% had some other kind of flu. And a whopping 86% didn’t have flu at all.
In Florida, based on 8,853 tests for suspected/probable Swine Flu, only 17% had Swine Flu. 83% were negative for other flu. So 83% didn’t have ANY kind of flu.
In Alaska, based on 722 tests for suspected/probable Swine Flu, only 11% had Swine Flu. In Georgia, based on 3,117 tests, only 2% had Swine Flu.
My point here is this: All these recent “epidemics” have been outright fakes. The numbers of cases and deaths are miniscule compared with older traditional illnesses – for which no pandemic emergencies have been declared.
Therefore, when the CFR is talking about globalising pandemic responses, and nations surrendering their sovereignty, it’s all based on an epidemic cover story that is patently false.
It’s like saying, “The sky is falling. You have to lend all your support to the construction of a dome that will shield us from the lethal debris. A global ‘health czar’ will be in charge of building and maintaining the dome, and all governments must bow to his orders, which are given to protect everyone.”
Continuing now, with the CFR symposium report: We come to the toxic portion of the issue. In many nations, there has been vigorous debate over the use of so-called adjuvants in flu jjabs. One such substance, squalene, has been banned in several countries, because it can have dangerous effects.
But the CFR would apparently like to override this question and promote universal use of squalene in jjabs, despite the glaring fact that Swine Flu itself is so mild the risks of the jjab far outweigh its need.
“While recently the Obama administration brokered a deal among eleven wealthy nations to donate 10 percent of their jjab supply of H1N1 to WHO for use in developing countries, Canada has not signed on, in an uncharacteristic decision… On the other hand, the Obama administration has refused the use of adjuvants, which are used in Europe, Canada and Japan to stretch out the antigen supply for wider global use, causing Lange to question the role of the United States as a true ‘global player’. Adjuvants help trigger the immune response, allowing dilution of precious flu antigens so that upwards of ten times as many people can be immunised with the same antigen supply. If the US were using adjuvant in its H1N1 jjabs, the country could be in a position to offer sufficient surplus product to WHO to bring the agency’s supply for poor countries up by hundreds of millions of doses.”
Not “a true global player.” That epithet carries considerable weight in CFR and allied circles. It means, “Let’s watch this person. If he wants our support, he’s going to have to change his tune. Let him understand that.”
Combating “anti-jjab hype”
Finally, the CFR report takes a swipe at people who are educating themselves on the historical toxicity of jjabs. And here, it does:
“The public perception of swine flu has further complicated the issue, causing both public doubt and panic at the same time. Branswell fears that ‘the WHO has lost control of the message’, allowing misinformed threats, such as the current anti-jjab hype, to resonate around the world as the scientific community races to catch up with the facts.
“The last great flu pandemic of 1968 occurred in a deeply divided world, where entire regions of the planet were no-travel zones for billions of people. It was an era of telephones and posted mail, evening newscasts, and morning newspapers. Both viruses and information spread comparatively slowly.
“Though today the jjab methods of production and distribution mirror those practiced a half-century ago, the age of globalisation has ushered in rapid human and animal travel, leading to worldwide spread of viruses. The internet has similarly opened the door to viral spread of disease truths, half-truths and outright lies. Thankfully, the mild H1N1 has offered the world community an opportunity to see these 21st Century challenges without simultaneously experiencing worst-case outcomes. It is a teachable moment, but it remains to be seen whether – on both global and local scales – governments, companies and individuals are learning.”
Twenty years ago, when I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., I realised that medical propaganda could be used as a pre-eminent tool in controlling populations, because doctors and public health bureaucrats exude an air of political neutrality.
These esteemed figures appear to have no agenda of a political or economic nature. They speak as minor saints. They always “care and share.” When they say citizens must take certain actions to protect themselves and their loved ones, they speak with great authority.
Under that flag, much destruction can be wrought. For example, in certain areas of Africa, people have been dying from the same causes for hundreds of years: protein-calorie malnutrition; outright starvation; gross lack of sanitation; overcrowding; contaminated water supplies; abject poverty; no hope; and more recently, jjabs and medical drugs which, administered to people whose immune systems are already devastatingly compromised, can be lethal.
At the root of these causes is stolen land. Colonisation by governments and then mega-corporations, and brutal repression by local dictators – such controllers want to conceal their own naked actions, and they also want to keep hidden the actual immediate causes of death in Africa – the causes they, the controllers, invoke and maintain.
What better way to reframe this incriminating picture than to claim that a few politically neutral germs are the agents of death.
Then, you can build a few showplace hospitals, bring in a bevy of doctors, set up a lab or two and demand that pharmaceutical companies donate medicines for the suffering. Meanwhile, no one cleans up the water, no one restores good land to the dispossessed, and no one alleviates the massively overcrowded living conditions.
Isolate any germ under the sun, give any medicine, as long as the fundamental horrendous facts of life remain the same, people will die in great numbers, and those in control will remain in control.
WHO & CFR: Globalise “humanitarian solutions”
The CFR is part of a sophisticated operation to globalise “humanitarian solutions” under the rubric of medical care. Its main ally is the World Health Organisation, an agency of the UN. Near the close of World War II, members of the CFR were, in fact, tapped to write the basic outline of the soon-to-be created UN.
The WHO is on the march. It is trying to insert itself and its rulings and demands into the governments of many nations. In 2003, it won its biggest one-shot victory.
Through fraudulent travel advisories, based on non-science, it raised fears about SARS (at best, a tiny illness) and managed to effectively shut down air travel in and out of Toronto.
Toronto lost several billion dollars in the process. I was a peripheral part of a budding effort to convince local business owners to file a lawsuit. At first, there was some enthusiasm, but then it faded out. The people of Toronto knuckled under, some of them lost their shirts, and they plowed on.
The WHO is, by far, the most successful agency of the UN. It has emerged as the rising star of that moribund organisation. It has delivered victories because it is flying under the banner of medical power. The modern priesthood.
CFR, its inner core, is well aware that medical control is a trump card it can play to great advantage. The October Symposium was an event with such an edge.
This is no one-time takeover by force. This is no crashing coup. In intelligence-agency parlance, it’s a step-operation. A little progress here, a little progress there. Speakers at the Symposium called Swine Flu “a teaching moment.”
By this they meant two things. This mild flu gives CFR and its allies a chance to expand their global influence, through the expansion of public-health agencies, most notably WHO and the American CDC. And the population of the planet is “taught” to respect so-called epidemics and the resulting missives that come down from their leaders.
The pace of these fake epidemics and the accompanying media propaganda is quickening. There is an ultimate vision here that at least a few major power players entertain: subsume every citizen of planet Earth under a network of authoritarian medical control – as part of a global-management political system.
Cradle to grave, every person is diagnosed with at least several diseases or mental disorders and falls under the continuing treatment of doctors. These treatments are, for the most part, toxic. That is to say, they weaken the immune system and scramble neurotransmitter systems of the brain.
People become less able to take effective action in any direction. People everywhere become fixated on their diseases. They become less able to maintain their freedom. They view themselves as lifelong patients.
In case you think this is pure fantasy, let me recite a few facts about the US medical-care system. These numbers are based in part, but not wholly, on a landmark paper published on July 26, 2000, in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The paper was titled, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?” The author was Barbara Starfield, who was then associated with the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. In other words, this was a mainstream piece of work all the way.
Each year in the US there are:
- 12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgeries;
- 7,000 deaths from medication error in hospitals;
- 20,000 deaths from other errors in hospitals;
- 80,000 deaths from infections acquired in hospitals;
- 106,000 deaths from FDA-approved correctly prescribed medicines.
- The total of medically-caused deaths in the US every year is 225,000.
This makes the medical system the third leading cause of death in the US, behind heart disease and cancer.
Then if you multiply these numbers by all the people who are emotionally involved in, and temporarily paralysed by, the deaths of these 225,000 Americans, you begin to see the fuller picture of the effects on every level. And all this is just in America.
In, say, Africa, the diversion of attention, by medical propaganda and cover stories, from the real causes of millions of annual deaths? How can one even begin to calculate those effects?
If, over the next 10 or 20 years, CFR and its allies, with direct intent or even blind do-good hope, make large strides toward globalising a medical bureaucracy that would oversee the “health of the planet,” consider what that will do, what consequences that will have.
By Jon Rappoport, New Dawn Magazine
©Copyright New Dawn Magazine. If you appreciated this article, please consider a digital subscription.