India

Official Culture Reprise VII: Moving Away From the Psychopath’s Dream (4)

“Perhaps the most important lesson of Ladakh has to do with happiness. Only after many years of peeling away layers of preconceptions did I begin to see the joy and laughter of the Ladakhis for what it really was: a genuine and unhindered appreciation of life itself. In Ladakh I have known a people who regard peace of mind and joie de vivre as their unquestioned birthright. I have seen that community and a close relationship to the land can enrich human life beyond all comparison with material wealth or technological sophistication.”

Helena Norberg-Hodge, Ancient Futures


 Ladakh_panorama

Learning from Ladakh

One example of the social consequences of Official Culture meeting pathology-free communities is from the thousand year-old Buddhist people of Ladakh situated in the desert of the Western Himalayas known as : “little Tibet.” There is no romantic gilding here, theirs is a story of survival, endurance and physical hardship set against a harsh environment. The  essence and principles of their continued existence and the coming of Western “development” places in sharp relief the kind of values necessary to create a community and to see it function and thrive. Yet, the deep spiritual resource that the Ladakhis embodied and which pervaded every facet of their lives was a lesson in ancient humility and reverence for a sacredness that we have lost – to our absolute detriment. Simplicity, yes, raw nature, indeed. But the Ladakhis appeared to have a spiritual health that was far in advance of our own. Like many indigenous cultures, it is not so hard to see why. For all our intellectual feats of daring-do, our Western populations in particular, remain desperately unhappy and dangerously lost.

So, what does that mean?  That we all give up our i-pads and urban lifestyles and go and live in yurts and commune with nature?

(more…)

World State Policies IX: Food as a Weapon and GM Crops Unleashed

“If you control oil, you control nations. If you control food, you control people.”

– Henry Kissinger


henrykissinger“Food is power! We use it to change behaviour. Some may call that bribery. We do not apologize.” So said past Executive Director of the United Nations World Food Program, Catherine Bertini.

One can imagine that humility may be very low down on the list of qualities for a person voted “the most powerful woman in the world” by The Times of London newspaper in 1996. And by a spooky quirk of fate, Bertini is also a member of the Advisory Council at Rockefeller College on Public Affairs and Policy, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations and a Senior Fellow of the Rockefeller supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation. If her Elite membership doesn’t tell you all you need to know from the outset then her mentor Henry Kissinger will place her remarks in context.

One of a number of Elite pensioners who seem to live forever while avoiding any kind of accountability for their crimes, Kissinger is one of the most reviled and revered elder Statesman who has never left the political game. CEO of Kissinger Associates, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and a long-time Bilderberger, he is the public face of those who prefer to remain out of the spotlight. He has strong ties to the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), JP Morgan Chase Bank, the Rockefeller Foundation and is international advisor to the Hollinger Group. He has held many public office positions including Head of the State Department and National Security Council under Nixon in the late 1960s and early 70s. He received the Noble Peace Prize in 1973 despite being instrumental in creating the Vietnam and Yom Kippur war between Egypt / Syria and Israel.

henry_kissinger

Kissinger 1971 (wikipedia)

Kissinger’s presence has been around like a persistent stain on the carpet of US geo-politics since the 1950s and no matter what truth rises to the surface, the old man still appears on T.V. shows and gives authoritative interviews despite volumes of evidence for his crimes including conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, alleged child rape and torture. He encouraged the Kurds to take up arms against Saddam Hussein in 1972-75 and then abandoned them to a slow death; his participation in the promotion of South African apartheid; the destabilisation of Angola; the whitewashing of Central American death-squads; political protection for the Pahlavi dynasty in Iran and its system of torture and repression; the genocide of civilian populations in Indochina; the planning of the coup in Chile and the assassination of democratically elected President Salvador Allende and many other crimes extending to Bangladesh, Cyprus, East Timor, and Washington, D.C.

So, it was fitting that Kissinger would continue his crimes undetected by coming up with the policy to use food as a weapon. [1]

On Dec. 10, 1974, a 200 page classified study (later de-classified in the 1990s) was completed by the US National Security Council called: “National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.” Overseen by Kissinger, it landed on his desk for review and then on to President General Ford to be adopted as official policy in 1975.  The basic thrust of the study followed the same Malthusian line that population growth in developing countries was a threat to US National Security and therefore had to be curbed by overt and covert means. The former was to be birth control and the latter, the creation of war and famine. It just happened to neatly coincide with political and strategic interests which were underway in countries that were chosen for depopulation. These included: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Mexico, Brazil and Colombia. The power status of each of these countries could not be allowed to exceed the level that would put US interests at risk. The report stated: “Already the most populous country on the continent, with an estimated 55 million people in 1970, Nigeria’s population by the end of this century is projected to number 135 million. This suggests a growing political and strategic role for Nigeria, at least in Africa.” [2] Which certainly wouldn’t do since America had grand plans for an unimpeded resource grab. US economic dominance and population control strategies converge in the following paragraph:

The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries [see National Commission on Materials Policy, Towards a National Materials Policy: Basic Data and Issues, April 1972]. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States [3] [Emphasis mine]

Many, if not most of the problems now experienced in the developing world are a direct result of Western economic policy. Rockefeller Foundation, Planned Parenthood International and others were still busy in India pushing through birth control policies under threat of economic sanctions just as Kissinger was suggesting to withhold food supplies unless mass birth control became standard practice:

“There is also some established precedent for taking account of family planning performance in appraisal of assistance requirements by AID [U.S. Agency for International Development] and consultative groups. Since population growth is a major determinant of increases in food demand, allocation of scarce PL 480 resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production. In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion.” [4]

Spoken like a true Machiavellian. He continued:

“Mandatory programs may be needed and we should be considering these possibilities now,” adding: “Would food be considered an instrument of national power? … Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can’t/won’t control their population growth?” [5]

It was only in the late 1980’s that the Brazilian Ministry of Health began investigating reports of systematic sterilisation of Brazilian women and was amazed to find that: “… an estimated 44 percent of all Brazilian women aged between 14 and 55 had been permanently sterilized,” while older women had been sterilized fourteen years before at the start of the program. As they pursued their investigations various American and some Brazilian organisations and agencies were found to be involved including the US Pathfinder Fund, International Planned Parenthood Federation, the Association for Voluntary Surgical Contraception, Family Health International – all under the guiding hand of the US Agency for International Development (USAID). [6]

The NSSM 200 study allowed what was essentially a eugenics-based National Security policy for depopulation to secretly develop in third world countries enhancing and expanding the work already carried out by Rockefeller minions twenty years before. Using euphemisms such as “family planning” and “population explosion” the propaganda of imminent population growth tied to the availability of strategic minerals could advance world Establishment designs in a way that had not been possible before the Nixon-Kissinger double act.

Author on geopolitics F. William Engdahl wrote from his 2007 book Seeds of Destruction:

While arguing for reducing global population growth by 500 million people by the year 2000, Kissinger noted elsewhere in his report that the population problem was already causing 10 million deaths yearly. In short he advocated doubling the death rate to at least 20 million, in the name of addressing the problem of deaths due to lack of sufficient food. The public would be led to believe that the new policy, at least what would be made public, was a positive one. In the strict definition of the UN Convention of 1948, it was genocide. […]

Kissinger was, in effect, a hired hand within the Government, but not hired by a mere President of the United States. He was hired to act and negotiate on behalf of the most powerful family within the post-war US establishment at the time — the Rockefellers. [7]

The Rockefeller Foundation had already established itself as part of the factions behind post war Washington policy where oil, defence and global agriculture were all integral to the expansion of American hegemony. Or in Kissinger’s words: “If you control oil, you control nations. If you control food, you control people.” [8]

Food as a weapon is nothing new but the consolidation of this tactic has reached a degree of technological sophistication not seen for hundreds of years. By 1974, the biggest six companies controlling 95 percent of world food were (and still are) Cargill, Continental, Louis Dreyfus, Bunge, André, and Archer Daniels, Midland / Töpfer all of whom are spawned from an Anglo-Dutch-Swiss food cartel, though all based in the US.

Under the rationale of “efficiency” and “maximizing profit ratios” US agriculture policy drove hundreds of thousands of family farmers into bankruptcy in order to pave the way for the monolithic machine of agribusiness, where the remaining farmers would exist only as serfs to trans-national corporations’ production methods. William Pearce, Cargill’s vice-president of Public Affairs was instrumental in this domination. He was on President Nixon’s 1974 Committee for Economic Development and made sure that US trade policy would leave a clear run for American agrichemical business to monopolize the world market in seeds, pesticides and most importantly, genetically modified plants. From that moment on, corporations like Cargill and Archer Daniels would not only reorganize farming policy but work to create a new one.

cargill

Cargill food giant logo

All legislation regarding family farm protections were phased out in favour of a rapidly deregulated “free market.” Just like the 2008 financial warfare perpetrated by Goldman Sacs et al and the federally mandated use of billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money in bailouts, so too Nixon’s farming policy was to change the face of America and the very nature of food. Wall St. only saw dollar signs as the social fabric of farming was torn apart.

The net result of such a systematic grab for power meant that Third World countries were especially vulnerable to these predator corporations who wanted to divert all self-sufficient and sustainable operations into a long-distance relationship of dependency where only fruits, sugar, coffee and vegetables would feature. US grains and other products were offered in return for payment by exporting their fruit and vegetables. This was to be the open door to massive worker exploitation and the loss of domestic food production. It was to signal the arrival of huge fields with cheaper yields dependent on a host of chemical products while the local and often ancient farming practices either instantly died or were absorbed into mechanised and synthetic “efficiency.”

Rather than ensuring that local farmers could provide for their communities by planting high-protein/high calorie crops and even sell the excess abroad at competitive prices, corporations oversaw the rise of a New World of poverty and its underclass, comprehensively denying them the assistance and ability to become self-sufficient in a monopoly that was both ecologically damaging as it was extraordinarily myopic. Cheap imports devalued their economies whilst access to their land was denied. Ensuring healthy, local economies could prosper was never the objective of American agri-business. Exploitation and ruthless stripping of the land, culture and people was the only way forward to ensure maximum profits divorced from limitations, morals and values.

The infamous General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) underwent several incarnations before finally being replaced with the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1993, fully operational by 1995. During President Richard Nixon’s tenure and through the auspices of the GATT Toyko round he was able to give carte blanche to the new global agribusiness export agenda while ensuring that developing countries would never gain their own independent food production. Nixon proposed to Congress a new way of managing trade negotiations which were termed “fast track”, for which Congress had to vote “yes” or “no” on a particular trade agreement. All changes to U.S. law had to conform to its terms – without any amendments. This was typical of the Kissinger-Nixon tag team. Under fast track, not only had Congress to conduct a vote within a brief 60 to 90 days of the President’s submission of the agreement, but the subsequent debate had to be limited to 20 hours.

As Congress was effectively removed from the negotiation process this opened the way for Nixon’s idea for a system of advisory groups and think-tanks drawn from the private sector. These appointed groups have enormous power and influence. Closed to public scrutiny, the documents are confidential with security clearances in operation for representatives. Indeed, the documents themselves are virtually unreadable to any but the initiated. Independent presidential candidate and social activist Ralph Nader wrote: “Once the agreements are completed – or on those rare occasions when a draft of the agreements is “liberated” – any person who wants to figure out what the agreements say faces a Herculean task. The agreements are very complex and written in arcane, almost impenetrable technical jargon that bears only a passing resemblance to the English language.” [9]

richard-nixon-and-henry-kissinger-1972

Puppets & players on a mission: Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger 1972

This obfuscation is intentional. The last thing the high priests of unfettered corporatism want is for the public, media or any democratic body casting a curious eye over agreements which are inherently anti-human. The big transnational food corporations intend to keep the public ignorant of trade agreements and excluded from the approval process as they know full well that if they were cross-examined the practices would be seen for what they are – a product of unrestrained, cartel capitalism.

What is perhaps the most dangerous development is the use of genetically modified foodstuffs under the pretext of feeding the world’s poor which were made poor by the very same entities and for that very same purpose.

The success of the WTO was mainly down to the Cargill Corporation’s aggressive lobbying of Congress (otherwise known as mass-bribing) through the auspices of the influential Business Round Table group (An off-shoot of the Round Table of European Industrialists) which is an alliance of corporatists pushing for total deregulation of trade. In other words, limitless exploitation of the world’s resources without national borders or bureaucracy. This lobbying took the form of a WTO paper entitled: “The WTO Agreement on Agriculture” which was penned by a gaggle of corporate plunderers such as Cargill, Monsanto, DuPont, Nestlé, Unilever, and others. [10]Most of these companies had many thousands of patents on new trans-genic plants. It was to be a perfect platform for GMO companies like Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences, and Syngenta to merge their monocultures towards the 4Cs: commercialisation, consolidation and centralisation leading to absolute control of the world’s food and its destiny.

The WTO’s remit was to be primarily a global free trade enforcer, a supranational entity fuelled by the insatiable drive of agribusiness and therefore answerable only to private agribusiness companies. Lip-service was paid to the plaintive cries for accountability because it had real power compared to the less efficient GATT agreements of the past. That usually means if the socio-economic and GMO order is not adhered to, the WTO can levy financial penalties to keep countries in line with the agribusiness agenda. For that reason, the WTO was designed to be above the laws of nations, answerable to no public body beyond its own walls. As we shall see presently, this organisation was to be used as the primary means by which genetically modified food and crops would become dominant in the world agriculture market.

By the time the 1986 Uruguay round of GATT talks had arrived and after a successful dismantling of public health and safety provisions in the US and the onset of rapid financial deregulation care of the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, agribusiness was primed to road test its new WTO toy. World cereals and grain supplies, meat, dairy, edible oils and fats, sugar, fruits and vegetables and all forms of spices are controlled by these corporations which operate as a food cartel working in tandem with the various principles of World State visionaries. They can apply enormous pressure to the West and developing countries. In combination with financial warfare and the “shock doctrine”of the World Bank and IMF, infrastructure support and capital goods are routinely denied and so too the possibility for self-reliance and self-sufficiency if a country doesn’t wish to play the game of cartel economics.

Thanks to historic monopolies forged in the dim and distant past these corporations have had a progressively ruthless stranglehold on much of the third world. Most countries don’t have any choice but to import from the food cartel’s export regions or see their populations starve. The shocking disappearance of thousands of global farmers is testament to the power of the food cartel and the crucial part they play in the 4Cs.  $90 million in grants for molecular biology and genetic research were dispensed by the Rockefeller Foundation between 1932 -1957, excited at the prospect of seeing their passion for social engineering bolstered by these new fields of science. For the Rockefellers, eugenics was about to become turbo-charged with much greater advances in manipulating the human mind and body.

GMOslabelling

10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health

With the Rockefeller Foundation’s well-established web of micro-biologists and bio-technicians spanning the globe the next war against natural food and human health of the most vulnerable was to proceed. On December 9, 1959, with some extra support from the Ford Foundation and the Philippines government, the Rockefeller’s International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) was established. The Institute’s research headquarters are located on the University of the Philippines campus in Los Baos, south of the Philippine capital, Manila, the largest non-profit agricultural research centre in Asia. With offices in 11 other countries, agricultural research institutes, international development agencies, and philanthropic organisations recently celebrated its 50th anniversary with much back slapping and congratulations by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation who have continued to support its work with hefty donations.

With close ties to business, government and biotech industries in the Philippines, the Manila bulletin gushes about the influence of the Institute and lays out the philanthropic Rockefeller script we’ve come to know so well: “In the 50 years of IRRI, the institute’s work has helped feed much of the world’s population, reduce poverty and hunger, improve the health of rice farmers and consumers, and ensure that rice production is environmentally sustainable. IRRI’s high-yielding rice varieties have helped significantly increase world rice production, especially in Asia, saving millions from famine while protecting the environment and training thousands of researchers.” [11]

In fact, the above quote is a woeful misrepresentation of the big picture riding on the assumption that global monoculture farming methods have been a grand success for all concerned, rather than the obvious ecological and social disaster they truly are. Yet, still the Rockefeller Foundation and its enormous corporate and civil society connections thrives on its perceived innovation and philanthropy. The IRRI is major player in the corporate take-over of Asia and its food. Sustainability and assisting sections of the population living in poverty is just another cynical ruse, though many of those employed by these companies no doubt want to believe the fantasy.

Over several decades IRRI has genetically modified over 300 High Yielding Varieties (HYVs) and as Dr Richard Hindmarsh of the University of Queensland points out, prior to such attempts to improve on nature over 100,000 different rice varieties thrived in farmers’ fields. [12] Yet once agribusiness technology tore into natural crop diversity and the ecological balance which existed then it was not long before the natural varieties became extinct, often without seed documentation or collection. Once a monoculture dominates, their genetic uniformity is inherently weaker with increasing vulnerability to disease, pest invasions, biological stress and weed proliferation due to intensive fertiliser use. Intensive farming becomes a false economy since it cannot exist without the inflow of high quantities of pesticides, herbicides and the deployment of massive irrigation projects, all of which destroy communities and eventually the land.

riceRegarding the PR of high yields of rice, with expanding irrigated land and large-scale chemical fertiliser use, IRRI claims that there was significant increase from 2.3 percent per annum before 1964 to 4.5 percent between 1965 and 1980. However, as the Food Security Fact Sheet states, IRRI rice yields at their research farm actually decreased: “… at a rate of 1.25 percent per year from 1966 to 1987, a decline of 27.5 percent in 21 years. From 1966 to 1980, the yield from a variety named IR8 fell from 9.5 tons per hectare to about 2 tons per hectare while still receiving 120 kilograms of pure nitrogen fertilizer per hectare. Yet by 1990, IR8 and similar varieties were planted on about 80 percent of Philippine rice crop area.” [13]

Foundations and NGOs lay the groundwork for a new colonisation under the mantle of philanthropy, which is why IRRI’s annual reports from 1963-1982 show grants from a multitude of US and European chemical corporations from such as Monsanto, Shell Chemical, Union Carbide Asia, Bayer Philippines, Eli Lilly, Occidental Chemical, Ciba Geigy (later part of Novartis Seeds / Syngenta), Chevron Chemical, Upjohn, Hoechst, and Cyanamid Far East. [14] With bio-safety and regulatory frameworks still to be implemented or reinstated, this new form of monopoly is set to continue regardless of the consequences to ordinary people on the ground. Even IRRI’s host country the Philippines, has been importing increasing amounts of rice every year despite following IRRI’s programs with religious conviction. This is in part caused by geography and climate but the heavy use of insecticide and the resultant poor soil content also caused financial and health-related health problems for farmers, the effects of which were inevitably passed onto consumers.

Marketed and promoted by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations and their bid to gain control over the world’s rice supply and replace it with GM varieties, the IRRI was a big player in riding the mythological wave of this “Green Revolution” and the tag-line of “solving the world’s hunger problem.” A concentrated effort to neglect indigenous rice varieties with a proven high yield was put into action as the start of a multi-pronged campaign to push the developing world into the palm of biotechnology. [15] The IRRI; the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation; UN development Program; the World Bank and several other environmental and agribusiness organisations formed a global steering Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR) established in 1972. The much vaunted “success” of this Green Revolution was given a major thumb’s down by Philippines’ famers during a CGIAR Annual General Meeting in 2002 near the offices of IRRI. Demonstrations and street protests called for both institutions to be dismantled with statements decrying the record of the IRRI and CGIAR believing them to be “failed research institutions.” Farmers made it clear that they believed: “… a genuine, farmer-centred research institution should develop technologies that shall liberate farmers from dependence on any agro-chemical TNC [Trans-National Corp.] promote sustainable agriculture, conserve the environment, and protect the health of farmers.” [16]

One of the world’s leading experts on rice science Dr. R.H. Richaria, has been warning of the real nature of the “Green Revolution” since the 1980s. His concern over the severe disturbance of the agro-ecological balance has led to: “… intensive use of inputs such as genetically uniform seeds, fertilisers, pesticides, and water and energy, [which] certainly resulted in major environmental degradation, including salinity, soil erosion, desertification, chemical pollution of land and waterways, die-back, loss of crop diversity, and the turning of renewable resources, such as soil and water, into non-renewable resources.” [17]

gmoratios

Source: Issues Surrounding Genetically Modified (GM) Products’ by Subhuti Dharmananda, Ph.D., Director, Institute for Traditional Medicine, Portland, Oregon

The global farming revolution was part of an ambitious strategy to steer the world from agriculture towards agribusiness, with an exclusively GM-centred production line. A global concentration of hybrid seed patents would be in the hands of just a few seed companies. The in-built sell-by-date of these GM seeds meant that farmers were forced into a modern-day form of bonded labour from which it is almost impossible to escape.

The creation of vast tracts of land for the planting GM crops displaced many peasant families and communities who wound up in in the poorest parts of cities and therefore vulnerable to exploitation by those same companies who were always on the look-out for cheap labour. Moreover, developing nations were forced into debt to pay for the expensive technology that produced initially high yields only to rapidly fade in the middle to long-term thus becoming the hook to purchase more and more “add-ons” to sustain the fertility of soil and crops. Those who could not afford it had to borrow the money but with interest rates so high many peasant farmers lost their farms (and generations of farming history) to larger land-owners sponsored by trans-national companies. World Bank loans were easily extended while the banking cartels quite literally, had a field day.

The main task of CGIAR was to achieve excellence in the field of agronomy and agricultural science in general and to apply monoculture production back in the US and the developing world. From that blitzkrieg it laid the foundation for the “Green Revolution” which was in fact the pretext for the “Gene Revolution” and the distribution of GMO-based farming, riding on the wave of a deregulated free market. It followed the same 4Cs formula as John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil where the once the seed was planted and in the right way, it was just a matter of time before the planter could monopolise the whole garden and control the parameters of production so that they serve multiple objectives benefiting only the “Master.” Once families like the Rockefellers controlled the food supply they were able to extend their reach over a hundreds of companies and their subsidiaries in the supply line, from petroleum and agrichemicals to irrigation projects and food aid.

Behind this façade of helping the world’s poor quite apart from the obvious ecological and health dangers Rockefellers’ remit is to introduce the science of eugenics (social biology, Planned Parenthood etc.) through as many of societies’ domains as it can. Genetic modification of food is one such important spoke in the wheel. The food chain would be under corporate control matching the aspirations underpinning the human genome program.

Using the banner of a Green Revolution, the agri-chemical business has expanded into Africa courtesy of the Rockefellers and Bill & Melinda Gates foundation’s innocently named ‘The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa’ (AGRA). Its advisory board of directors is riddled with Rockefeller go-betweens such as Strive Masiyiwa, Board Chair (Rockefeller Foundation) Jeff Raikes, Co-Chair, Programs and Policy Committee, (Rockefeller Foundation); Judith Rodin, Co-Chair, Programs and Policy Committee (Rockefeller foundation); Akinwumi Adesina, Associate Director, (Rockefeller Foundation) Pamela K. Anderson, Director of the Agricultural Development Program, (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) [18]

Different name, same story.

Looking at the website you would be forgiven for thinking that so many happy, smiling faces denotes an agricultural future where all such agendas and drawbacks are fantasies of the pessimistic and deranged. Africans will be saved from their poverty by the goodness of a corporate West and their utopian world of hybrid seeds and high yields. That is, if you forget that a chemically saturated Africa and the diminishing returns of GM foods will mean that the long-term health and prosperity of Africa and its people is under question.

Amid the UN sex trafficking and abuse scandals Kofi Annan is no stranger to being used as an Establishment tool should the salary be sufficient. Annan’s job as Board Chair Emeritus of AGRA is to penetrate GM crops deep into the African heartland. Along with the geo-political shenanigans of AFRICOM, AGRA represents the same resource grabbing goals dressed up as agricultural emancipation. With the help of the World Bank, USAID, Monsanto, CGIAR member Syngenta AG of Switzerland, handsomely paid African scientists awash with sweeteners, incentives, sponsorships and initiatives, Africa’s governments are being seduced into accepting a New African Order of biotechnology.

logo

The GM crop leaders are presently the United States, Canada, India, Argentina, Brazil, and China. 1996 – 2006 saw the biggest leap in the production of genetically modified foodstuffs and crops with new countries signing up including South Africa, Paraguay, Uruguay and Australia. The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) has stated that the world’s farmers planted 148m hectares of genetically modified crops in 29 countries in 2009. The USA is the leader in GM cultivation at 66.8m hectares over 2 million more than the previous year. [19]

Brazil’s economic boom (and inevitable bust sometime in the future) has meant that Genetically Modified Organisms have been included in the ascent with some 10m hectares planted since 2008 overtaking Argentina as the second-biggest grower in 2010. By 2011, that had reached 303,000 km2. [20] 50 percent of GM crops grown worldwide were grown in developing countries, with the largest increase in Brazil in the same year. There has also been rapid and continuing expansion of GM cotton varieties in India since 2002 (Cotton is a major source of vegetable cooking oil and animal feed) with 106,000 km2 of GM cotton harvested in India in 2011.

By 2004, global GM crop acreage had hit the 167 million mark. By 2010, Latin America had been breached with Mexico, Chile, Colombia, Honduras and Costa Rica all yielding an average of 0.1 million hectares. Negligible but present nonetheless. Asia and Latin America are providing many hectares set aside for GM crops and associated biotechnology. The rise in GM farming is likely to increase year by year on these continents and in the developing world.

Agri-business makes the idea of choice a pipe dream. Soyabean crops have wreaked ecological destruction on much of Latin America producing huge profits for invested companies. Soya and herbicide resistant crops remain the most popular products that farmers ending up needing once stuck on the monoculture system. GM crop production is still not popular with Europeans due to an ethical and environmental reasoning which has expressed itself through an organised activist movement at local and national levels. Europe is also subject to clear restrictions on growing GM crops. Nevertheless, creeping acreage is appearing with GM maize production having taken place in Spain, Portugal, Germany and France and more recently in the Czech Republic, Sweden, Poland, Slovakia and Romania, all with an average of 0.1 million hectares. [21]

As Africa is invaded by Chinese, European and American corporations, so too the potential for GMOs to hitch a ride. Burkino Faso and Egypt are the latest victims (or innovators depending on your position) with Pakistan, the newly and conveniently “liberated” Myanmar and the Philippines following closely behind. [22] Iran climbed aboard in 2005.

See also:

Redesigning Nature

Update: Big Biotech’s big lie: National sciences group concludes GMOs do not increase crop production

 


Notes

[1] ‘The Case Against Henry Kissinger Part One The making of a war criminal’ by Christopher Hitchens
Harpers magazine, March 2001. | http://harpers.org/archive/2001/02/the-case-against-henry-kissinger-2/
[2] National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200) 1974.
[3] Ibid.
[4] ‘Kissinger’s 1974 Plan for Food Control Genocide,’ by Joseph Brewda, December 8, 1995 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
[5] Ibid.
[6] op. cit. Engdahl (p.53)
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid. (p.41)
[9] ‘The Globalisation Agenda – Grave New World – The Democracy Grab’ by Ralph Nader and Lori Wallach from The Case Against the Global Economy and For a Turn Towards the Local by E. Goldsmith and Jerry Mander – Sierra Club Books, 1991.
[10] http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/14-ag_01_e.htm
[11] ‘International Rice Research Institute celebrates its 50th Anniversary’ December 9, 2009, Manilla Bulletin.
[12] http://www.panap.net/docs/analysis/gerice.pdf
[13] Rice, Trade and Biotechnology in the Philippines by Steve Suppan Food Security Fact Sheet No. 5, September 1996.
[14] ‘Laying the Molecular Foundations of GM Rice Across Asia’
[15] IRRI powerbase.info.
[16] ‘Richaria’s study proves deliberate neglect of indigenous varieties’ by Bharat Dogra Leisa India Supplement December 1999.
[17] IRRI powerbase.info. dismantal IRRI / CGIAR.
[18] http://www.agra-alliance.org/
[19] Ibid.
[20] ‘The adoption of genetically modified crops – Growth areas’ Feb 23rd 2011, The Economist online.| ‘ISAAA Brief 43, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011’ By James C (2011). ISAAA Briefs. Ithaca, New York: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).
[21] Op. cit. The Economist
[22] Ibid.

World State Policies VIII: Depopulation

“A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95 percent decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

Ted Turner, in an interview with Audubon magazine.


georgia-guidestonesThe Georgia Guide Stones

In Elbert County, Georgia, United States in a secluded field lies a 19 foot, granite monument called “The Georgia Stones” or sometimes known as the “American Stonehenge” erected by “philanthropists” with a strangely familiar ideology. A message comprising ten inscribed propositions in eight modern languages, and a shorter message at the top of the structure in four ancient language scripts: Babylonian, Classical Greek, Sanskrit, and Egyptian hieroglyphs. Ostensibly, it is nothing more than a plea for humanity to live in harmony with Mother Earth. However, the inscription also reads: “Maintain humanity under 500,000, in perpetual balance with nature.” Delightful. Except that is, if you are not listed as one of those granted access to the penthouse suites of the lucky 1/2 a million. Needless to say that the benefactor behind these stones, one R.C. Christian doesn’t say how he would like to eliminate the pesky populations of the world.

The rest of the messages are as follows:

  • Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
  • Unite humanity with a living new language.
  • Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
  • Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
  • Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
  • Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
  • Balance personal rights with social duties.
  • Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
  • Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature.

At the centre of each slab is a small circle, containing a letter representing the respective compass direction (N, S, E and W). And at the top centre of the tablet is written: “The Georgia Guidestones, Center cluster erected March 22, 1980.” Underneath this inscription is a square inside of which is written: “Let these be guide stones to an Age of Reason.” This looks suspiciously like a message from a collection of the usual suspects from the Eugenics or Fabian Society; a gaggle of population control advocates, a dash of Illuminism and a sop to balance, harmony and ecological respect, to round it all off. [1]  (A further small square inscribed with “2014” was also in place in the same year, presumably placed their by the same patrons.  Clearly, 2014 is a pivotal year for someone…)

The average number of children per woman has been declining rapidly for decades. According to official UN data, [2]the average number of children per woman worldwide for the period 1965 to 1970 was 4.85. Yet 40 years later, for the period of 2005 to 2010, that number dropped nearly 50 percent to 2.52. This trend has nothing to do with the interference of families like the Rockefellers, but everything to do with a natural self-regulating decrease. These facts however, have little impression on depopulationist beliefs. That is not to say that there are unsustainable levels of population in various countries around the globe but this has everything to do with socio-economic and ecological  factors which, if addressed would significantly alleviate the problem.

English scholar Thomas R. Malthus’ theories on population growth have been greatly influential on the minds of world controllers. His Essay on the Principles of Population published between 1798 and 1826 maintained that populations were chaotic and unprincipled without any constraints on their growth so that eventually famine and poverty would naturally arrive and cull the populations down to size. Like Nature, they had to be tamed and regulated. He predicted that the population growth rate would exceed the growth of the food supply. These flawed ideas concerning population dynamics inevitably fed into the desire for conquest and land acquisition. The leaders of any invasion are always looking for pretexts. Land grabs to support an expanding population that would inevitably spill over its borders became justification enough.

Naturalists and biologists Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin both acknowledged their debt to Malthus whom they saw as an inspiration in the development of their own ideas, Darwin wrote: “In October 1838 … I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population … it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species.”[3]

Followers of Malthus, like acolytes of Freud, reduced everything down to the sexual drive and its spiritual vacuum that would place the 19th and 20th century in a stranglehold of determinism. It was to be a convenient belief for building, colonialism and state domination. The ordinary man became the experiment and the target of Elite subjugation and their self-protection. There would be no room for complex, non-linear set of variables we now know to exist in the formation and maintenance of living systems of ecology.

As we saw with psychoanalysis, the narrow definitions that force beliefs into the category of science are woefully premature. However, it proved very appealing indeed to those stuck in the paradigm of superiority and the potential of a Master Race. Like so many collectivists like  John Ruskin and Bertrand Russell, Malthus was an idealist stuck on the idea of a socialist Utopia. Science had little to do with his theories, however logical they seemed. The Darwinist belief-train was already hurtling at full speed towards shaping a future society by synthesizing Malthusian and Darwinist schools producing Social Darwinism. This fed straight into the fertile ground of Elitism already looking around for a scientific validation for their lofty place on the ladder of evolution.

As we have seen, Thomas Huxley, president of the Royal Society, and Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton were instrumental in the development and academic progression of eugenic and population control and their legacy remains strong in the fields of ecology and politics. Yet, in reality, most population experts agree that global population will level out by about 2100 at 10 billion with further decreases following. Global population growth has been steadily declining for decades and it has nothing to do with dramatic attempts to halt it based on hysterical and ideological drives. According to official UN data, the average number of children per woman worldwide for the period 1965 to 1970 was 4.85. From 2005 to 2010, that number dropped nearly 50% to 2.52. That is eminently supportable, especially if we are able to change direction away from the reins of elite psychopaths who created so many of these iniquitous conditions in the first place. [4]

populationcontrol

Professor of global health at Sweden’s Karolinska Institute, Dr. Hans Rosling’s work focuses on dispelling common myths about the so-called developing world and presents convincing evidence that global populations are decreasing as a natural cycle stating: “The number of children is not growing any longer in the world. We are still debating peak oil, but we have definitely reached peak child.”  The professor is one of many academics discarding the accepted belief in extreme population reduction policies. [5]

This brings us to Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population by Matthew Connelly, an associate professor of history at Columbia University. The author does an extraordinary job in tracking the truth of the movement and its current incarnations in some of the most influential institutions of the 21st century. He explores the vast scope of the population control movement and the pressure it brought to bear on any institution, organization and government which could be used to expand the population control agenda and its directives. Foreign aid, feminism, environmentalism, corporatism and non-governmental organisations were merged into a cohesive global propaganda exercise so pernicious and pervasive that it is seen as quite normal today, even though the science is more than suspect. (The applied formula can be likened to the tactics of human-influenced global warming hysteria that we see being employed to great affect). [6]

After World War II and throughout the 1950s there was a population explosion across the world, most notably in the United States and Europe. Causes for this stemmed from an improvement in public health, reduced infant mortality, the development of antibiotics, certain vaccines, pesticides and the invention of DDT and programs to wipe out malaria-causing mosquitoes. It was at the International Congress on Population and World Resources in Relation to the Family held in Cheltenham, UK, in 1948, where the population control planners produced some of the groups and organisations we have explored so far. Julian Huxley and his colleague Joseph Needham head of UNESCO science had their chance to hob-knob with Rockefeller representatives who had already chosen Japan as their first target for experimentation and were at the conference to finalise directives.

Margaret Sanger would immediately form Planned Parenthood after consultations with others in the movement, while the sociologist, economist and eventual noble laureate Gunnar Myrdal also attended on behalf of Sweden. It would be his wife politician and diplomat Alva Myrdal who would become director of social sciences at UNESCO in 1952. Feminism and a high degree of propaganda as proposed by Huxley was thought by Myrdal to be crucial in developing a comprehensive “family Planning” and “family reduction” offensive while also providing for women’s rights.

By 1955, though Russia was among only a very few countries who resisted UN-based population control programs the vast majority of nations in the developing world proved to be easy prey. International Planned Parenthood Federation, United Nations agencies, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, and the major American and European drug companies flocked to vulnerable continents of Asia and India. They began by funding local population studies discovering that population growth rates were increasing in many Third World countries. Connelly’s research shows similar comprehensive Rockefeller-funded studies were carried out on birth control, frequency of sexual intercourse, women’s menstrual cycles, miscarriages, births, and contraceptive use. In the end, India proved extremely resistant to this interference due in part, to the complexities of data gathering that were founded on assumptions and simplistic cultural evaluations which were eventually highlighted by subsequent anomalies and paradoxes. For instance, one village and one region differed so dramatically that it proved difficult to formulate a working blueprint for the programs. Understandably, Indian people did not like interlopers placing them in a sexual laboratory. The sponsored programs were a failure. So much so, that the foundations decided to go about their business in a far more “discreet” way. Population control was about to enter new ground as the revolutionary 1960s moved into view.

Fear-mongering on behalf of the eugenicists’ pet project of controlling the population had a huge boost from over 100 scientists and 39 Nobel Prize winners who signed a petition to the UN urging the organization to take action to protect the world’s resources and achieve a balanced population. The petition predicted dire, even apocalyptic consequences for all if the plea fell on deaf ears: “… there is in prospect a Dark Age of human misery, famine, under-education and unrest which would generate panic, exploding into wars fought to appropriate the dwindling means of survival.” [7] This seems to be a fair assessment of what has happened since, the only difference being it has been perpetrated by legions of corporations, and private armies sanctioned by an Anglo-American, geo-strategic alliance. Population control has proven useful as a justification for all kinds of corruption and misguided thinking, nowhere more so than on the African continent.

It was during the 1960s push that the appeals for funds began to pluck the heartstrings of the well-intentioned. This was especially curious because Africa at that time had both a low birth rate and healthy rate of exports with Africans consuming a very small portion of the world’s resources.
Connelly observes:

“[Africa] featured some of the lowest rates of growth in the world. It is also odd that even sophisticated analysts continued to assume that starvation would represent the first constraint on continued population increases. A broader view of the earth’s “carrying capacity” might have noted declines in commodity prices as well as the fact that poor countries consumed relatively little and their share had actually been shrinking.” [8]

Catch phrases such as “human tidal wave” that would “explode out of national boundaries” and “the decline of civilization” that would follow as a consequence of all these inconveniently coloured poor people who would be labelled both a threat and a victim – “family planning” was the only solution. Where the initial Rockefeller mission failed in India, by 1963, Ford Foundation funding had achieved success in creating programs to distribute IUDs and conduct sterilization programs with further IUD programs promoted by the Foundation in Pakistan, Korea and Taiwan. The success of the Intrauterine Device (IUD) was another matter.

Planned Parenthood President Alan Guttmacher whom we met previously, came up with the idea to use the long discredited product en masse, despite being fraught with a multitude of risks including a high percentage of expulsions, infections, bleeding and pain. At the outset, it seemed that no one but the (male) inventor believed it could work – and of course, Alan Guttmacher. This may have been in part because of the 1962 Population Council convened to assess how the World (de)population programs were fairing country by country.

Bending the ear of Guttmacher at the conference was Mr. J. Robert Willson, Chair of Obstretrics and Gynaecology at Temple University who agreed with the Doctor stating a common perception in medical and academic circles: “We have to stop thinking like doctors … Now obviously we are going to use these devices, they are occasionally going to be put in the wrong patient. Again, if we look at this from an overall, long-range view – these are the things I have never said out loud before and I don’t know how it is going to sound – perhaps the individual patient is expendable in the scheme of things, particularly if the infection the patient acquires is sterilizing but not lethal.” [9]

Eminently logical – unless that is, you happen to be the expendable statistic which rapidly grew from the “individual” to the many.

Foreign aid and the economic framework were tied closely to population control and the multi-million profits that could be made from bogus science and racist ideology. If India did didn’t wish to play ball then all US President Lyndon Johnson had to do was to threaten to withhold U.S. grain supplies and encourage the spectre of starvation. India was boxed in to aid that was inseparable from controlled performance. USAID (with some members often acting as part of a CIA front) would soon have millions more to play with as the lobbyists began to do their work in Congress. New countries were sought so that the family planning model could be introduced. Massive public funding meant massive propaganda and the subsequent ill-informed but greedy exodus of consultants, educationalists, public health officials, activists and scholars eager to cash in, while believing their conscience clean.

The justification for this great leap forward was that every birth prevented was a boon to society. From this calculus emerged the doctrine that having children was anti-social and not having children promoted social good. People naturally began to have fewer children as economic growth accelerated. This had nothing to do with population control programs. Fertility rates had been declining since the end of the 1950s with a peak at in 1957 with 123 births per thousand women. By 1976, there were 76 births per thousand women.

Despite this, the darling of the social biologist Establishment Professor Paul Ehrlich and his 1968 book The Population Bomb was highly influential. Ehrlich presented a hypothesis that had eugenicists and depopulationists clapping in the audience: unless population growth was reduced to zero in America – by compulsory methods if necessary – it would the end of the world as we knew it. Here, we see the China template once again. For Ehrlich: “Population control is the conscious regulation of the number of human beings to meet the needs not just of individual families, but of society as a whole.” Society, always society. And it is people like this esteemed biologist who think that it is up to them to decide: “… how to give societies the number of children they need,” otherwise: “…people would still be multiplying like rabbits.” It seems we must all toe the line and: “… hopefully through changes in our value system, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail.” [10]

The control of the American populace is the first step in a wider set of measures, the message of which, for Ehrlich is: “… based on ‘do as we do’ – not ‘do as we say.’” Obviously, the concept of values and ethics take on epic proportions of flexibility in Ehrlich’s mind. Sure enough, indoctrination of population control and the related methods of sex education should begin before junior school. The UN should administer a global program, along with financial coercion and incentives. But Dr. Ehrlich goes further:

“If we could, somehow, get a program underway in which the ODCs made a genuine attempt to aid the UDCs [underdeveloped countries], what form might that program take? The specific requirements of the program would vary from area to area. Possibly the first step in all areas would be to set up relay stations and distribute small transistorized TV sets to villages for communal viewing of satellite-transmitted programs… TV programs would explain the rehabilitation plan for each area. These programs would have to be produced with the combined skills of people with great expertise in the subject to be presented and intimate knowledge of the target population. The programs could be presented both “straight” and as “entertainment.”… The programs would use the prospect of increased affluence as a major incentive for gaining cooperation. It seems unlikely that the threat of future starvation would have much impact. If necessary, however, the TV channel could be used to make it clear that the continuance of food supplies depends on the cooperation of the people in the area…” [11]

Ehrlich has either read Orwell’s 1984 and Huxley’s Brave New World for inspiration or he was just born that way. He pushes his grand authoritarian vision into the info-tainment arena with Big Brother healthcare making a 24hr appearance: “Obviously, such measures should be coordinated by a powerful governmental agency,” he says, “A federal Bureau of Population and Environment [BPE] should be set up to determine the optimum population size for the US and devise measures to establish it.”

The Population BombJulian Huxley, Bertrand Russell, a host of Fabian socialists and Rockefeller agents of change all agree that the best pathway for their propaganda to take seed is through the education system. Ehrlich is no different when he states: “It is now imperative that we restrict the reproductive function of sex while producing a minimum of disruption in the others.” The professor then conforms to the plan of conjoining the New World of emasculation and gender confusion along seemingly benign lines of female emancipation. In one fell swoop he manages to disparage and denigrate traditional gender roles, the institution of family and thereby community. What he is referring to has nothing to do with true freedom for men and women but a socialised conformity. Motherhood is marginalized and trivialized in favour of a ill-defined “gender equality”:

With a rational atmosphere mankind should be able to work out the problems of deemphasizing the reproductive role of sex. These problems include finding substitutes for the satisfaction and rewards that women derive from childbearing and for the ego satisfaction that often accompanies excessive fatherhood. Implicit attitudes and social pressures within our society toward parenthood, especially motherhood, add up to an even more powerful prenatal policy than our legal system represents. Equal opportunities and salaries for women in business and the professions, which are now being sought by the women’s liberation movement, would strongly encourage them to seek other outlets for their energy and talents besides motherhood. Society would greatly benefit both from the resulting lowered fertility and the productive contributions of women.[12] [Emphasis mine]

Who would argue against the right for women to seek other ways of fulfillment besides motherhood? Yet, in this context that is not the desired objective. After trashing marriage as a licence for sex and accidental births, he offers the solution to society’s population problem (which is really the wish to get rid of “undesirables”) by offering a greater availability of contraceptives and abortion. Dr. Ehrlich suggests halting foreign aid for countries that are “beyond help,” while suggesting the development of mass sterilization agents.

When The Population Crisis Committee decided that juvenile delinquents, drug addicts, and idle welfare recipients were a potential population threat you can see clearly that underlying eugenics meme of “desirables contaminating the gene pool” was resurfacing once again. Listen folks, if you leave it up to us to decide who gets to live and die (with concurrent penalties should people resist) then we could reduce crime and save lots of cash for federal government and welfare programs… What could be more ethical?

Thankfully, some scientists were not taken in by the politics of population control. Much like the issues of global warming, as science began to dig deeper, factual inconsistencies flew in the face of population control advocates. One example from demographic research showing that high fertility was not closely correlated with poverty. Several scientists offered thorough rebuttals of Ehrlich’s “science” to the extent he was roundly discredited. Yet the population control myth persists.

In the 1970s The UN Fund for Population Activities increased funding and so too the propensity for corruption and competition from both UN agencies and foreign governments and their bureaucrats. As increased funding hit record levels and a problem that characterizes so many governmental agencies was how to spend the money fast enough to justify an increased allocation for next year. When research universities and pharmaceutical companies started to get involved in the easy money network, then UN bureaucrats began to invent methods to deflect criticism and keep the media and public away from any snooping. After all, the UN agencies were working to reduce population levels to protect the planet and future generations, what could there be to criticize?

In 1973, some were beginning to question these intentions behind PC, not least the science upon which their ideas were based. The Rockefeller foundation, The Brain Trust and other philanthropic, UN agency minions, could not prove the causal links to justify further fertility programs and therefore the basis for advising governments how to control population growth was somewhat shaky. Yet it was onwards and upwards for the over 900 world-wide projects in operation.

By the end of the 1970s there were accusations of neo-Malthusian agendas from Africa and from some quarters in Europe yet massive propaganda initiatives and programs continued in India. The 1980s saw international sterilization programs being funded to the tune of $35 million worldwide. [13] In the end, a widespread revolt against the population controllers’ directives erupted from the developing world. Matthew Connelly highlights the economic segment of the PC pie-chart where leaders wanted to marry PC and economic development under free trade. The US delegates tried to sell the idea that to push down world fertility made plain economic sense. If not, food riots and revolutions would ensue placing the stability of foreign markets and US investment in a New Economic Order at risk. However, the nepotistic, cosy relationships that existed at the UN for many officials were also beginning to cause opposition.

In 1974, at the World Population Conference in Bucharest, feminists were ironically allowed to assume a population control mandate as representative of women’s collective desire when prominent feminists attacked advocates for conspiring to have an all-male cast. They were so roundly accused of imperialism and colonialism by various delegate groups that International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and speaker David Rockefeller had to hastily backtrack with substantial amounts of egg on their faces. A rethink was in order.

As Indira Gandhi was fighting a rear-guard action of corruption charges and arresting her many accusers causing all kinds of chaos, the population controllers saw their chance to act: Parents who had three children and did not accept sterilization were now jailed. Indian bureaucrats elevated a ‘right to progress’ as superseding individual rights. The new program raised incentive payments for sterilization as well as the age of marriage and women’s literacy. Then things became nasty. In scenes reminiscent of Nazi Germany Indira Gandhi’s State of emergency saw neighbourhoods demolished, human rights trampled on and many people killed in the riots that followed, all for resisting sterilization programs. The World Bank’s response was to provide another $26 million in aid for India based on a precondition that they commit to a sterilization programs. That plan was to take the India and China model world-wide.

The problem of global fertility rates falling and the dire prediction of global famine absent did not help the legitimacy of the world-wide expansion of these programs. Economic development was touted as justification of their continuance but as the Population Council floundered and the IPPF was investigated by Congress after denying that any sterilizations were forced, profits and progress began to wane. 80, ooo sterilizations that took place in 1976 were certainly forced and Congress in a rare state of clarity had evidence to prove it. [14]

populationindiaSource: ‘Population alarmists disregard human feelings’ Canberra Times,

A huge backlash against the depopulationists was beginning and by 1977 the hidden agenda was truly out in the open courtesy of Rimert Ravenholt, head of USAID Office of Population, during an interview with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Ravenholt said that 25 percent of all the fertile women in the world must be sterilised in order to meet the U.S. goals of population control and to maintain “the normal operation of U.S. commercial interests around the world.” According to Ravenholt, these measures were required to contain the “population explosion” which, if left unchecked, would so reduce living standards abroad that revolutions would break out “against the strong U.S. commercial presence.” [15]

The Rockefeller Foundation and The United Nation’s World Health Organization have worked together since 1972 working their birth control “magic” on developing nations parallel to GM crop research. In the 1990s Mexico, Nicaragua and the Philippines were under the cross- hairs of population reduction from vaccination campaigns, ostensibly against tetanus. On the rare occasions that independent bodies have tested certain vaccines they have tended to harbour less than innocent ingredients, the tetanus vaccine was no exception. Strangely enough, none of these vaccines were offered to men and boys – only women and girls of child-bearing age from 15-45. The Roman Catholic organisation Comité Pro Vida de Mexico, had the vaccine tested and found it contained Chorionic Gonadotrophin, or hCG, a hormone necessary for the maintenance of pregnancy. What was it doing in a vaccine destined to combat tetanus?

When hCG is combined with a tetanus toxid carrier, antibodies are produced against hCG actually reversing the role of the hormone and making pregnancy impossible. None of the women were told that this was effectively an abortion vaccine. Studies in Nicaragua and the Philippines also found the vaccine to contain hCG hormones. In 1995 the discovery of hidden sterilization programs under cover of vaccine initiatives did not go down well with the public and lay clergy in the Philippines. Catholic Women`s League of the Philippines took on UNICEF’s anti-tetanus program and won a court order halting it’s tracks due to the inclusion of undisclosed B-hCG in the vials. “The Supreme Court of the Philippines found the surreptitious sterilization program had already vaccinated three million women, aged 12 to 45. B-hCG-laced vaccine was also found in at least four other developing countries.” This Recombinant birth control vaccine still has a functioning patent. The debate rages on as to whether this was mere Catholic propaganda or a genuine “well-intentioned” subterfuge by our global managers. [16] [17]

Screen-shot from: Paradise Stolen – The Myth of Overpopulation by Stephen Verstappen

The science behind the scare-mongering of a “population bomb” has been comprehensively rebutted and debunked for many years. It is another important example of social engineering designed to provide excuses for systematic depopulation and macro-managment of societies. That’s the goal when you strip it all down to the bare essentials. The simple facts are that the rate of population growth was already long since declining when Ehrlich penned his doomsday scenario. It was also a deeply unoriginal idea having been culled from the warnings of an earlier eugenicist William Vogt and his highly influential book Road to Survival (1948), the biggest environmental best-seller of all time until the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. Vogt, like so many other Malthusian-ecologists placed all the world’s problems on the population explosion, the weak and the poor being the culprits who had to be stopped from breeding uncontrollably otherwise everyone’s future would be in jeopardy. But the data simply didn’t add up. Evidence actually showed that people who had a comfortable standard of living had fewer children despite access to a healthier and more abundant food supply, the latter being a most important point to remember.

According to Vogt and Ehrlich and other Neo-Malthusians and eugenicists, industrialisation equalled an increasing birth rate. In fact, this could be observed only in the early stages of the process, followed by a clear and steady decrease. Around the world there is also a large decrease in the number of children women are having as well as a decline in the size of families generally. As one commentator recently penned: “The big story is that rich or poor, socialist or capitalist, Muslim or Catholic, secular or devout, with tough government birth-control policies or none, most countries tell the same story: Small families are the new norm.” [18]

The many other invasive methods to poison and sterilise the world’s population is a mix of faulty science, the well-intentioned and covert psychopathy. The macabre irony is that resource scarcity, economic disparity and crippling debt all contribute to the unnatural rise in populations directly attributed to cartel capitalism. Thus the methods of population control implemented by neo-liberalist visions or the “globalist Elite” are a direct consequence of their own misunderstandings of the human and natural world; a result of their imposition of materialist agenda of the 4C’s and the inevitable effects it produced. Ultimately, for the psychopath, this is about reducing the numbers of normal people in the global population by using direct and indirect methods of depopulation policies on a global scale.

Author and philosopher Stephan Verstappen makes the entirely valid point that if we had not had psychopaths holding the reins of power the trillions upon trillions spent on the weapons industry (and wasteful economic debt slavery) each and every American could each have had a small house and plot of land through which to be self-sufficient. Verstappen highlights a common argument that there isn’t enough room to provide decent homes in similarly decent communities. As he makes clear, this is simply more lies and propaganda where we have been made to believe that everyone must live shoulder to shoulder in high-density dwellings. And of course, the SMART technocrats and eco-Intelpro agents would love to continue this argument under the guise of protecting the planet and social welfare. Let’s quote Mr. Verstappen from his recent video: The Myth of Overpopulation:

“If we assume and average of 3 people per family – or one home for every three people – that would mean about 750 people live there [in an average communiity] Including parks and playgrounds, the whole community sits on 12 acres of land. Now let’s take the U.S. population of 320 million and divide them into communities of 750 people each, which gives us: 426, 666 villages. Each village sits on 12 acres so multiply that by 12 which equals 5, 119, 992 acres. Convert acres to square miles and we have just under 8,000 square miles. That means we could fit everyone in America, in a one-storey home, with a front yard and a back yard, with plenty of parks and playgrounds and waterways for every 750 people and it would all fit easily on the available land mass of the state of New Hampshire, and still have a thousand square miles to spare. That could leave the entire rest of the country, including Alaska, without a single person living there. See now how ridiculous it is to think the entire land mass of the U.S. cannot provide the needs and resources for a low density population taking up less room than New Hampshire.”

Logically, Verstappen takes this further:

overpopulation2

Screen-shot from: Paradise Stolen – The Myth of Overpopulation by Stephen Verstappen

“…That means we could fit everyone in the world … in a one storey home, with a front yard and a back yard with plenty of parks and playgrounds and waterways for every 750 people; and the entire world population would all fit easily on less than 75% of the available land mass …. of the State of Texas and still have 80,000 sq. miles of Texas to spare.”


Overpopulation? Maybe, but let’s be honest about the root causes and the clear solutions available. Moreover, we must see exactly how this is being used to corral populations into accepting policies which will make life considerably worse with no prospect of escape.

 


Note: For more data on depopulation please read Kevin Magur Galalae’s Killing us Softly: Causes and Consequences of the Global Depopulation Policy (2013). Prior to reading a warning must be attached to the book in that after a detailed analysis of the historical methods of GPC the author advocates much the same methods though with the caveat of transparency which does not automatically mean a correct path. As such, he acts as a supporter of population control methods and buys into the myth. These problems will not be solved by adopting the same methods, however “transparent.” Transparency laid over a gullible populace does not equate to accountability. A whole new perception across all societal domains is necessary. The data in the book is often erroneously interpreted and filtered through his own beliefs in order to support what he perceives as a benevolent set of policies to save humanity from itself. He even manages to tie in global warming and cognitive dissonance of the public in misunderstanding the issue of population growth. This is gross naiveté or intentional deception on the part of the author. But this does not discount the research if viewed with a discerning eye. The e-book can be found available online through any search engine.

 


Notes

[1] Some have suggested that the messages listed and the themes therein refer to the secret society of Rosicrucians, a parallel branch of Illuminism, long thought to have been spearheaded by Sir Francis Bacon who then became the medium for a new Baconian philosophy of reason or scientific materialism. Whether this is true or not is impossible to say, though Bacon’s book The New Atlantis portrays a land ruled by Rosicrucians. pp.61–68; The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age, By Frances Yates, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 2001 | ISBN-10: 0415254094
[2] United Nations Population Division Depart of Economic and Social Affairs: World Population Prospect 2010 revision / April 2011. http://www.esa.un.org/
[3] p.120; The autobiography of Charles Darwin. By Nora Barlow, 1958. New edition 1993 | ISBN-10: 0393310698
[4] For further news on the Population expansion myth see UN data studies here: esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Excel-Data/DB01_Period_Indicators/WPP2010_DB1_F01_TOTAL_FERTILITY.XLS | Global Population projections from: ‘Seven billion and counting’ By Jeff Tollefson, 19 October 2011, Nature 478, 300 (2011) doi:10.1038/478300a.
[5] See also Has Rosling’s TED Talks at http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_religions_and_babies.html
[6] Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population by Matthew Connelly, Published by Harvard University Press, 2008 | ISBN-10: 0674024230.
[7] op. cit. Connelly (p.190)
[8] Ibid.
[9] op. cit. Connelly (pp.202-203)
[10] p.79; The Population Bomb By Paul Erhlich. Buccaneer Books Inc; 1968. Reprint edition Dec 1995 | ISBN-10: 1568495870.
[11] op. cit. Erhlich (p.150)
[12] Ibid. (p.139)
[13] op. cit. Connelly (p.129)
[14] ‘Relying on Hard and Soft Sells India Pushes Sterilization,’ New York Times, June 22, 2011.
[15] The New Atlantis: Society and Technology ‘The Population Control Holocaust’ by Robert Zubrin. Number 35, Spring 2012.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Recombinant birth control vaccine United States Patent 5733553: Talwar, Gursaran Prasad (c/o National Institute of Immunology, Shadid Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi, IN) Srinivasan, Jay (Dept. of Biology, Washington University Campus, Box No:1137, One Brookings, St. Louis, MO, 63130-4899) Chakrabarti, Sekhar (c/o The National Institutes of Health, (Room 237, Building 4), Bethesda, MD, 20892) Application Number: 08/263483 Publication Date: 03/31/1998 Filing Date: 06/21/1994 freepatentsonline.com
[18] ‘On World Population Day, take note: population isn’t the problem’ By Fred Pearce, grist.com, Jully 11 2010.


For a more esoteric overview of depopulation and eugenics see: Mark Passio – The Unholy Feminine – Neo-Feminism & The Satanic Epi-Eugenics Agenda

See also:

Western Civillisations Will Go Extinct

Meet Paul Ehrlich, Pseudoscience charlatan

Don’t Panic – The Truth About Population

Save

Rape: Corporate Camouflage and Across the Gender Divide

By M.K. Styllinski

“When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town.  But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder.  You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.”

– Deuteronomy 20:10-14


As the above Bible quotation illustrates, whether a psychopathic God, tribal leader or armchair geo-politician such as Henry Kissinger, rape and plunder can be used as powerful political tool.

To step down the implications of ponerology we can use the standard definition of rape where a male forces a female or another male to submit to sexual intercourse against his or her will. We can see that the act of rape is both a literal and metaphorical expression of the ponerisation of social systems. Definitions of rape, rates of reporting, collection of data, prosecution and conviction has led to rape being the most contested of all crime-related statistics. It is also considered the most under-reported crime due to socio-cultural stigmas; the individual’s distrust of the authorities (as well as their culture of denial) the prospect of facing the attacker in court and his or her own sense of shame.

According to a 2001-2002 United Nations report where government statistical data was compiled from over 65 countries 250,000 cases of male-female rape or attempted rape were recorded by police annually. [1]  The rate of rape may still be conservative when we consider that in cases where women whose husbands or boyfriends force them to have sex they are unlikely to say “yes” when asked whether or not rape has occurred. To make things worse, male-female rape is the only kind reported in some countries.

Award-winning journalist and human rights activist Jan Goodwin described the horrors in the Democratic Republic of Congo over ten years ago. Her article illustrates how so called “globalisation” is largely nothing more than an excuse to export more systems of neo-imperialistic exploitation. The myth of neo-liberal democracy continues to feed on the rest of the world, most notably in the war-weary continent of Africa where rape plays a strategic role in the fortunes of tribal warfare, governments and corporations.

Goodwin writes:

Last May, 6-year-old Shashir was playing outside her home near Goma, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), when armed militia appeared. The terrified child was carried kicking and screaming into the bush. There, she was pinned down and gang-raped. Sexually savaged and bleeding from multiple wounds, she lay there after the attack, how long no one knows, but she was close to starving when finally found. Her attackers, who’d disappeared back into the bush, wiped out her village as effectively as a biblical plague of locusts.

‘This little girl couldn’t walk, couldn’t talk when she arrived here. Shashir had to be surgically repaired. I don’t know if she can be mentally repaired,’ says Faida Veronique, a 47-year-old cook at Doctors on Call for Service (DOCS), a tented hospital in the eastern city of Goma, who took in the brutalized child.

‘Why do they rape a child?’ asks Marie-Madeleine Kisoni, a Congolese counselor who works with raped women and children. “We don’t understand. There’s a spirit of bestiality here now. I’ve seen 2- and 3-year-olds raped. The rebels want to kill us, but it’s more painful to kill the spirit instead.’ [2]

And “killing the spirit” is the part of the armoury of corporate psychopathy, fostered and encouraged.

In the Eastern regions of the Congo gang rape still continues with the relatively new phenomena of “fistulas” caused by the introduction of objects such as sticks, pipes or gun barrels into the vagina, usually after repeated raping. These acts cause serious internal damage leading to the rupturing of the walls that separate the vagina and bladder or rectum. Instances of carefully shooting the victim in the vagina so that the woman or girl remains alive are increasing. Dr. Denis Mukwege, medical director of Panzi Hospital:  “The perpetrators are trying to make the damage as bad as they can, to use it as a kind of weapon of war, a kind of terrorism. Instead of just killing the woman, she goes back to her village permanently and obviously marked. ‘I think it’s a strategy put in place by these groups to disrupt society, to make husbands flee, to terrorize.” [3]

The age old, colonial formula came under some rare scrutiny by a UN Security Council panel which cited: “… eighty-five multinational corporations, including some of the largest US companies in their fields, for their involvement in the illegal exploitation of natural resources from the Democratic Republic of Congo. The commerce in these ‘blood’ minerals…drives the conflict. The brutality of the militias – the sexual slavery, transmission of HIV/AIDS through rape, cannibalism, slaughter and starvation, forced recruitment of child soldiers – has routinely been employed to secure access to mining sites or insure a supply of captive labor.” [4]

congovideowarchild.org

(click on the image above to watch the documentary)

4a9fd4d86

“A mother carries her children in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. Forcibly displaced women face grave threats and abuse in the volatile region.” – ‘ Source: The Congolese rape victims a UNHCR officer will never forget’ By Francesca Fontanini in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo | Telling the Human Story, 3 September 2009.


UNICEF works with the same multinationals, which patronize and donate to many other leading NGOs and charities. Rape has always been a weapon of war, but now it has been recognised as an intentional tool rather than a by-product of conflict. As the author states, this is an international problem where the yolk of conscience that has long since seeped away.

As of 2013, this ponerological disease has begun to spread into the social infrastructure where reports of some teachers and senior officials raping school children in their care. According to a July 6th 2013 report by the Association Africaine de Défense des Droits de l’Homme (ASADHO)  “Young girls are regularly raped in schools” in Kinshasa with local police providing statistics for the town of Matadi. As the report outlined, the abuse is met: “… with authorities and the justice system remaining silent.”

Despite these horrors, there are dedicated people on the ground achieving minor and sometimes major successes. What acts as a constant brick-wall to progress is the governmental bureaucracy and corporate complicity which handicaps the long-term effectiveness of these breakthroughs. Successful prosecutions for these crimes are pitifully small and will remain so when human rights violations serve the corporate and banking interests. Ancient tribal divisions are purposely exacerbated and brought into sharp relief in order to monopolise the rich resources available in the African continent. This is now common knowledge and easily verified. Yet, at the time of the Rwanda genocide for instance, the media sought fit to paint such a human disaster as simple blood-lust fuelled by tribal racism that simply surfaced “out of the blue”. These deep insecurities and fears were brought to boiling point and unleashed on a nation precisely because vested interests knew where to apply the pressure so that corporate plunder could continue while Africa’s citizens were fully embroiled in killing each other. The divide and rule formula is nothing new, though the effects of lighting the tinder-box and the required atrocities can burn way out of control.

In 2012 the number of rapes rose dramatically due to various rebel militia groups upping the ante. The presence of Western corporations in DRC and their indirect funding of groups and militias to intentionally keep this resource-rich country destabilized is now a matter of record and has continued despite many commentators drawing our attention to the blatant hypocrisy on show. Unfortunately, until our socio-political system changes and changes radically, we can only expect the results of this neo-colonialism and its horrific effects to continue.

Across the Gender Divide

Though as much a reality as female rape, male rape is barely acknowledged as a problem, let alone an endemic one. In East Africa, where male rape is high, bringing the issue to light is hindered by the fact that homosexuality is still seen as a crime in 38 of the 53 African nations.

In a recent Observer article journalist Will Storr reported on male rape in Africa notably from victims in and around the Congo. Storr interviewed Eunice Owiny who is employed by Makerere University’s Refugee Law Project (RLP) in Kampala, Kenya “… to help displaced people from all over Africa work through their traumas.”  The situation, while horrific for women and children is all the more harrowing for men because no one wants to know. “They will probably be ostracised by friends, rejected by family and turned away by the UN and the myriad international NGOs that are equipped, trained and ready to help women. They are wounded, isolated and in danger. In the words of Owiny: ‘They are despised.’” [5]

Slowly victims are hearing of the services offered by RLP and attendance is rising rapidly. Storr met several young men out of more than 150 who had been raped and assaulted during conflict. He recounted the tale of one Jean-Paul, a student at university in Congo, who had been studying electronic engineering when his father – a wealthy businessman – was accused by the army of aiding the enemy and shot dead. Jean Paul fled in January 2009, only to be abducted by rebels. Along with six other men and six women he was marched to a forest in the Virunga National Park. Once captured Jean-Paul was taken deep into the jungle with the other women. While they were told to make coffee and fetch water, the rebels set up camp and then turned their attention to their new captives:

 ‘You are all spies,’ the commander said. ‘I will show you how we punish spies.’ He pointed to Jean Paul. “Remove your clothes and take a position like a Muslim man.”

Jean Paul thought he was joking. He shook his head and said: ‘I cannot do these things.’

The commander called a rebel over. Jean Paul could see that he was only about nine years old. He was told, “Beat this man and remove this clothes.’ The boy attacked him with his gun butt. Eventually, Jean Paul begged: ‘Okay, okay. I will take off my clothes.’ Once naked, two rebels held him in a kneeling position with his head pushed towards the earth.

At this point, Jean Paul breaks off. The shaking in his lip more pronounced than ever, he lowers his head a little further and says: “I am sorry for the things I am going to say now.” The commander put his left hand on the back of his skull and used his right to beat him on the backside “like a horse”. Singing a witch doctor song, and with everybody watching, the commander then began. The moment he started, Jean Paul vomited.

Eleven rebels waited in a queue and raped Jean Paul in turn. When he was too exhausted to hold himself up, the next attacker would wrap his arm under Jean Paul’s hips and lift him by the stomach. He bled freely: ‘Many, many, many bleeding,” he says, ‘I could feel it like water.’ Each of the male prisoners was raped 11 times that night and every night that followed. […]

It is for this reason that both perpetrator and victim enter a conspiracy of silence and why male survivors often find, once their story is discovered, that they lose the support and comfort of those around them. In the patriarchal societies found in many developing countries, gender roles are strictly defined. [6]

The most shocking aspect was revealed to Storr when he discovered that not only is “male sexual violence a component of wars all over the world” but that international aid organisations are failing victims. He quotes Lara Stemple’s study from the University of California which cites a review of 4,076 NGOs that have addressed wartime sexual violence. “Only 3 percent of them mentioned the experience of men in their literature. “Typically … ‘as a passing reference.’” [7]

RLP director Chris Dolan was not surprised: “The organisations working on sexual and gender-based violence don’t talk about it,” he says. “It’s systematically silenced. If you’re very, very lucky they’ll give it a tangential mention at the end of a report. You might get five seconds of: ‘Oh and men can also be the victims of sexual violence.’ But there’s no data, no discussion.” [8]

The reason that there is no discussion supports the data in this blog/book that there is gender bias that is now equal if not greater towards men than women in a variety of social and cultural domains, especially within charity and non-governmental organisations or as Dolan wryly points out: “There’s a fear among them that this is a zero-sum game; that there’s a pre-defined cake and if you start talking about men, you’re going to somehow eat a chunk of this cake that’s taken them a long time to bake.”

4d6bd2826© unknown


“There are no detailed statistics, but sexual violence against men and boys is increasingly being recognized as a protection concern in conflict and forced displacement situations.”

UNHCR issues guidelines on protection of male rape victims


Dolan also mentions a November 2006 UN report that followed an international conference on sexual violence in this area of East Africa where the authors insisted that the definition of rape was restricted to women, where even:  “… one of the RLP’s donors, Dutch Oxfam, refused to provide any more funding unless he’d promise that 70 percent of his client base was female. Another serious case of male rape was referred to the UN’s refugee agency, the UNHCR who told him: “We have a programme for vulnerable women, but not men.” (Happily, things are slowly beginning to improve.  For the first time, guidelines for UNHCR staff and other aid workers were issued in 2012 on: “… how to identify and support male victims of rape and other sexual violence in conflict and displacement situations.”)

Storr is reminded of a scene described by Eunice Owiny: “‘There is a married couple,’ she said. “The man has been raped, the woman has been raped. Disclosure is easy for the woman. She gets the medical treatment, she gets the attention, she’s supported by so many organisations. But the man is inside, dying.” Dolan agrees: “Part of the activism around women’s rights is: ‘Let’s prove that women are as good as men.’ But the other side is you should look at the fact that men can be weak and vulnerable.’ ” [9]

This gender bias and overt discrimination against men is a concurrent theme and represents a serious problem in organisations tasked to help all those suffering from human rights abuses.  It will need not just a radical change in the law to change such aberrations, but equally dramatic change in the very notion of economics and the unfettered powers of international banking. This is the form of globalisation which underpins almost all of our social ills and the eventual atrocities which inevitably occur. Unless the core issues are addressed humanitarian professionals who struggle daily to cope with these iniquities will be forever submerged in the tide of trans-national profits divorced from values and any accountability for their crimes.

It would also be a mistake to see the exploitation of ancient tribal feuds as an exclusively African problem. The same atrocities were witnessed in the former Yugoslavia where the primary drive for was the control of oil, weapons sales and the creation of a geo-strategic arena called Kosovo. This was also under the guise of an humanitarian effort.

Among countries which report these statistics, the United States has the highest rape rate, 4 times higher than that of Germany, and 20 times higher than that of Japan and 13 times higher than that of England, though the latter country’s rates are increasing with 5,000 children under sixteen raped every year. [10]  In 1991 alone there were estimated to be 700,000 rapes of adult women,[11] while 1 in 3 sexual assault victims are under the age of 12. [12] The figure for reported child rapes for the same year is 1.4 million. The first comprehensive report on the financial cost of rape has the highest annual victim costs at $127 billion per year with child abuse at $56 billion. [13] Unsurprisingly perhaps: “compared to their non-crime victim counterparts, three times more likely to develop major depression; 4.1 times more likely to have seriously contemplated suicide and 13 times more likely to have actually made a suicide attempt.” [14]

By 2008, the statistical counts and rates * of rape in each country has continued to rise with the US, taking the lead, followed by United Kingdom, France, Korea, Germany, the Russian Federation and Sweden representing some of the highest counts of rape. While Belgium, New Zealand, United States, Lesotho, Trinidad and Tobago and Sweden are reaching the highest rates of rape per year. However, even the United Nations report is far from definitive when we realise that there are differences between recording and reporting as well as difficulties in bringing to trial or being convicted as well. We must also include the disparity of definitions for rape around the world and the significant amounts of data still missing. Finally, even when reports of cases making it to court can be counted, less than half of those arrested for rape are convicted.[15]

High profile cases of false rape accusations by women and the oft quoted spectre of “date rape” in Western Europe have tarnished and distorted the acute problem of rape in society fuelling the idea that all rape is merely in the imagination of the female concerned. Such fraudulent claims only do harm to objective investigation to sexual assault overall and most certainly to those accused, often ruining lives in the process. Even if those accused are subsequently cleared, the damage is done, leading to stigmatization from colleagues and friends and in some cases resulting in suicide. According to UK Home Office research, between “…3 percent and 9 percent of all reports of rape are found to be false … with 16 and 25 making up both the largest group of victims and the accused.” [16]

Given the rise in narcissism within our societies – and women in particular – this may be, in some way connected. The law is also very different in the United Kingdom and the United States. In one case the British Court of Appeal dismissed a claim by a former nurse who was jailed for two years after falsely accusing a man she had met online. The presiding judge said that false allegations damage conviction rates of genuine rapes and are “terrifying” for innocent victims where: “False complaints of rape necessarily impact upon the minds of jurors trying rape cases.” [17]

In the US no appeals can take place because no such law exists for false rape claims. Of the 90,427 forcible rapes reported in 2007, 40 percent were cleared by arrest or “exceptional means.”  This translates as those suspects whom have died before an arrest can be made (not very common) the accusation of rape has been retracted (common) the suspect is held in another state with jurisdiction and extradition has been denied or evidence for a rape is non-existent. A percentage of rape complaints have been classified as “unfounded” by the police for decades and excluded from the FBI’s statistics. [18] Not exactly a scientific way of producing definitive data on such an important issue.

An article by Bruce Gross in the Forensic examiner described this anomaly in the following terms: “…there are no formal negative consequences for the person who files a false report of rape. Not only did the false allegation serve a purpose for the accusers, they actually never have to fully admit to themselves, their family, or their friends that the report was a lie. Although there are grounds for bringing legal action against the accuser, it is virtually never done. Even should a charge be filed, in most jurisdictions filing a false report is only a misdemeanor.” [19]

Present day figures on rape have increased. According to the UK Government’s Action Plan on Violence Against Women and Girls, 80,000 women are raped a year, and 400,000 women are sexually assaulted in the UK alone. [20] In 2012, thousands of women in India took to the streets to protest “endemic and unchecked violence against women” sparked by the death of a woman named Damini who had been gang-raped, dying of her injuries a few weeks later. An article in the UK Independent highlighted the fact that it is comforting to think that this is a strictly Indian or African problem when in fact, it is a convenient myth designed to brush what is a global problem, under the cultural carpet. One example from the developed nations of Europe came from France in 1999, where: “… two then-teenagers – named only as Nina and Stephanie – were raped almost every day for six months. Young men would queue up to rape them, patiently waiting for their friends to finish in secluded basements. After a three-week trial this year, 10 of the 14 accused left the courtroom as free men; the other four were granted lenient sentences of one year at most.” [21]

As we can see, the fluctuations of gender bias manifests in many different ways.

 


* “Counts” are raw numbers; the “rate” is the statistical average from that data.


Notes
[1] ‘The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems’ (2001–2002) – Table 02.08 Total recorded rapes.
[2] ‘Silence = Rape’ By Jan Goodwin, The Nation, 2004.
[3] “More Vicious Than Rape” by Rod Nordland, Newsweek, November 13 2006.
[4] Ibid.
[5] ‘The rape of men ’By Will Storr, The Observer, July 2011.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] ‘Revealed: the horror of the 5,000 children under 16 raped every year’ by Denis Campbell, The Observer, May 14, 2006.
[11] ‘Minnesota Sex Offense Screening Tool – Revised’ by D. Epperson (2000) presented at Sinclair Seminars Sex Offenders Re-Offense Risk Prediction, Madison Sq. Wisconsin.
[12] The impact of violence on children. The Future of Children: 33-49.Snyder, H., Sickmund, M. Juvenile offenders and victims: 1999 national report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
[13] In February 1996, the National Institute of Justice released the first comprehensive report on the cost of victimization. Data was gathered from criminal justice agencies, medical professionals, hospitals, insurance companies, mental health professionals, crime victim compensation programs, and crime victims, significant information is available about the immediate, short-term and long-term financial impact of victimization.
[14] US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Victims Assistance Academy 1996. Chapter 1. The Scope of Violent Crime and Victimization, Statistical overview.
[15] The Response to Rape : detours on the road to equal justice : by United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Congressional Sales Office, 1993. ISBN: 0160417872.
[16] ‘Forever Accused’ BBC News, February 12, 2008.
[17] ‘Prison ‘inevitable’ for false rape claims’ by Tom Whitehead, The Telegraph, October 30, 2009.
[18] Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). (2008d). Percent of crimes cleared by arrest or exceptional means, 2007. (Clearance Figure). Uniform Crime Report: Crime in the United States, 2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offense/ clearances/index.html#figure.
[19] ‘False Rape Allegations: An Assault on Justice’ By Bruce Gross, PhD, JD, MBA, The Forensic Examiner, September 15, 2009.
[20] ‘Sexual violence is not a cultural phenomenon in India – it is endemic everywhere’ The Independent December 30, 2012. |/www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/sexual-violence-is-not-a-cultural-phenomenon-in-india.
[21] Ibid.