2012 Thoughts on Trading in Birth Certificates

A few years ago, some of the global implications of my 2009 entry "Trading in Birth Certificates - Double Entendre" became clearer in a new way. Since I live in Australia, a country that had a "White Only" immigration policy through the 1960's, I wondered why, now that I live here, things had changed so radically and the government seemed to be in a special rush to bring in Asians and, more recently those from Sub-Sahara Africa. When I thought about it, there had to be some big financial pay-off for officialdom. At first, I thought maybe they were just being literally paid off by the British government to relocate those left stranded in various ways by the crumbling empire. Then, when I realized that all Western governments had gone bankrupt around 1933, and they were likely begging for large loans to stay afloat from the World Bank or International Monetary Fund, initially, for collateral, they simply used the Birth Bonds of their own citizens. Then slowly, as they saw the limitations of that pool of people, they realized that by allowing immigration from Third World nations, the citizens of whom were not yet registered anywhere, they had a fresh source of funding. Thus, First World applicants for immigration were much less welcome, because their bonds had already been used by their native countries. Although the Australian government has a supposedly strong anti-illegal immigration stance, regarding those who are smuggled into the country by boat, it actuality has a large yearly migrant intake of about 200,000 - 300,000 people, currently mainly from China. Again, their policies disciminate against the mature-age migrants, while being much more welcoming to the youth. This dovetails in almost every "First World" country with the puzzling intake of huge numbers of migrants while those countries are struggling with high unemployment as well. Note that I have no proof of the above, but see if you don't have an 'Ah-ha' experience while reading this.

Ten Years Post 9/11

It is becoming clearer all the time, that the death of John F. Kennedy, the assassination, now proven in a U.S. court, by the U.S. government of Martin Luther King, and the 9/11 coup d'etat are likely all interrelated. Because even now, with Jackie Kennedy's audio tapes being unsealed, the MSM will not mention that she thought Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson was behind her husband's assassination. Of course, the C.I.A.'s fingerprints are all over these things, along with Bush senior's, and Dick Cheney's and all the usual suspects. There have been several things that have surprised me about this over the years. One is that with all the hundreds of universities and colleges in the United States, why no political science professor stepped forward to start a movement towards truth. All hid behind their academic gowns and either were too stupid to see the truth, or too afraid to lose their jobs. The only prominent academic to come forward in the past ten years has been Prof. Stephen Jones, who did lose his job at Brigham Young University by coming forward, but he is a physicist, not a social scientist. Another thing that has surprised me is how much, the two political parties of the United States are basically one party, or one body, with two heads. They pretend to be different in outlook to get elected, but when they gain power they just continue the awful policies that have come before. The American voting system is a total, manipulated sham. We were all amazed at how calm, cool and collected Obama was before he was elected. I am now convinced he was that way because he had been told that he only had to go through the motions, as the election was fixed in his favor. As Wayne Madsen says, he has likely been an C.I.A. tool since birth, because his mother and grandparents all worked as undercover agents for that body, and it is likely that Obama was groomed for the job he now holds. With all the signs that America is becoming a fascist, police state, everyone is behaving like it ain't happening. It is like some slow-motion reverse of the kind of censorship and repression that has always existed in China. We were a free country, losing our freedoms, China was a chained country now gaining some freedom, the freedom to make money in creative ways. That this is happening in this way, I believe, is intentional. It is to level the playing field for the whole world. Bring the West down to its knees, and bring the East up. That way the elite can carry forth their world government plan with their agenda--not likely to be a pretty one.

Trading in Birth Certificates - 2011 Update

I am still surprised that I am receiving e-mails regarding a topic I blogged about in 2009, when in March of that year I discovered that my birth certificate was part of a Fidelity Fund at that time. I described to everyone how to discover their own birth certificate fund numbers on the Fidelity.com website. But I just tried to find it again today and it no longer works. They have obviously hidden the accounts, and most likely they were never publically trading anyway.
I know people are desperate to get their finances in order and shine the light of day on all these nasty hidden governmental transactions, but the only way forward that I can see now is to support people like Julian Assange, and Bradley Manning in their fight to have more governmental transparency. In case you haven't noticed America is no longer a democracy, and we have an awful fight on our hands to restore some semblance of democracy in the States. Almost certainly the powers that be wish to destroy America in order to bring about world government. It is in our hands now to defend what few rights we have left. Pay attention.

Trading in Birth Certificates - 2010 Update

My post, made a year ago, concerning our governments trading in birth certificates has had a wide readership resulting in my still getting e-mails to this day asking me how to nullify one's birth certificate registration, in order to recoup the funds owed one. I have not attempted to do this at all, as it would be so time consuming to figure out all the legalities required, and may result in some unpleasant experiences along the way. But if some of you have more time and chutzpah than I do, please go right ahead.

Here are some more useful resources for understanding what I mean by "trading in birth certificates."

An American resource, and Winston Shrout's website.

An Homogenized World - Posted to TPMuckracker

When I was a high school junior at Montgomery Blair High School in Silver Spring, Maryland, I started a United Nation’s Club. I vaguely remember that Carl Bernstein joined my club, before he graduated to become a cub reporter at the Washington Post. As a result of my love for the UN, I subsequently became the national student chairman of the United World Federalists, a group led by Norman Cousins that wanted a world government based on the U.N. charter. The United World Federalists aspired to put some teeth into the structure of the United Nations, so that it could eventually replace nation state armies with its own superior forces. This we hoped would prevent world war III.

That was almost 50 years ago, and I have since learned a few things about this planet. I now believe that in my youth I was a pawn for the American version of the English Fabian Socialist movement. The Fabians helped create the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921, the United Nations in 1945, and other New World Order groups that aim for a world government based upon communist principles, with a softer, gradualist, non-violent approach. Their ideal is to promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people, in opposition to principles of individuality and freedom,

Led by the Rockefeller family, who donated the block of land upon which the U.N. complex now sits, they have an elitist agenda. You can see signs of that agenda everywhere these days—control of the masses through distraction from the real issues of the day, through entertainment, gossip and yellow journalism; the creation of faux political fights where nothing ever changes, or it’s one step forward, two steps backward. They want to control all financial transactions, our food supply, our medicine and drugs, and our travel. They are orchestrating the world financial crisis in order to centralize control of all currencies. They are coordinating the control of our food through multi-national agrochemical corporations that have gobbled up seed companies all over the world, ensuring that farmers can no longer save seed for subsequent years. They are redistributing various ethnic and racial groups to various parts of the world, calling it “a melting pot,” or “multiculturalism.” Such mixing of races and cultures tends to reach a point that rarely engenders harmony, but instead keeps various nationalities and races fighting for the same jobs, and the same real estate. This tends to foment old hatreds in new locations.

I had sincerely hoped that Obama was not part of this scenario, but with each passing day, I am disappointed. He has made no moves to clean the Faustian Augean stables of all the real damage the past eight years have done to American and world society. There has been no repeal of the Patriot Act. No arrests of the many criminals who profited and lied to us. No connecting of the dots concerning World Trade Center Building No. 7 that fell into its own footprint at 5:25 pm on September 11th, 2001, conveniently incinerating the Security and Exchange Commission’s financial records of Enron and its rip-off of Californians during the energy crisis. Even today with all the evidence of the many lies of the last administration, no MSM or fast-rising blogger has teased apart the official theory of what happened on that day.

Well, if you like homogenized milk, then welcome to an homogenized world.

Genetically Manipulated Food News

New York Times article that I missed on how companies like Monsanto are preventing agricultural researchers from using their GM seed for research.

And here is an article about a BBC program that was aired in Australia last week that was extremely pro-GM food:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9183

GM's charm offensive
By Greg Revell - posted Friday, 17 July 2009

Am I really helping to starve Africans?

I feel really bad. I've just seen the documentary "Can GM save the world?" shown on SBS TV recently. As a critic of genetically modified (GM) foods, I was left wondering if I'm morally a bad person for contributing to the starvation of millions in Africa by opposing GM crops - at least that's what this documentary would have you believe.

But am I morally bankrupt for advocating clean, green food production systems rather than corporate controlled biotech seeds, pesticides and other industrial agrichemicals? If so, then that makes me, along with many scientists, environmental groups and most consumers, complicitous in a massive Mao-like genocide.

Maybe it's not me. Perhaps the documentary wanted me to think that. If you thought that the documentary sounded like a paid advertisement for the biotechnology industry, then you'd be forgiven for thinking so. The biotech industry has long recognised that their aggressive, and some say arrogant, style has sullied the impact that any direct advertising could possibly have. Far better to work with TV and radio researchers to promote your message using celebrities and the noble scientist as a proxy - preferably both at the same time. And the documentary's host, Jimmy Doherty is the perfect foil. His boffin appeal and pin-up boy good looks plays straight out of the Jamie Oliver school of geezer charm. Surround him with a slew of pro-GM scientists and create an air of impartiality by offering Jimmy as a self-styled poster child for sustainable farming and you've got a winning formula. A stroke of directorial genius I would have thought.

But charm offensive aside, the documentary's main conclusions were clear: GM was "so simple", "so natural" that it would be morally corrupt to be critical of a technology that "was amazing" and "offered hope" to millions in the developing world. Sure, there were nominal offerings by two GM critics, but quite apart from the fact that each had less than a minute of air time, they were both book-ended by rebuttals from GM scientists, ensuring that they served as little more than a linking device for the main pro-GM thrust.

The "GM will feed the world" myth is a deviously clever piece of PR. The need has arisen because GM food has not enjoyed the worldwide acceptance that their biotech inventors had hoped for. On the contrary, GM crops have engendered massive consumer resistance with environmental and consumer groups rallying together to create a powerful global "no GMO" voice. Reeling from this unexpected rejection and devoid of any saleable consumer benefits, the biotech industry needed a distraction. Their target was the emotional heart-strings of western consumers. And the vehicle? The hungry in the third world. Without their consent, the plight of the third world has been thrust into the service of biotech operatives.

The myth is powerful because who wants to be seen as opposing a technology that will feed hungry mouths? But can it? Before we slavishly succumb to its emotional pull, does the assertion stand up to scrutiny?

The framing of the "can GM feed the world?" question assumes a priori that there isn't enough food already being produced. This is demonstrably false. Critics point to a 2006 UN FAO report that acknowledges that world agriculture today produces 17 per cent more calories per person than it did 30 years ago despite a 70 per cent population increase, yet the gap between the fed and the underfed is greater than ever.

We now have the perverse situation where there are more obese people in the west than there are malnourished in the third-world. The real reason people go hungry is because they don't have the money to buy food, the arable land to grow it or because of war and conflict. The distorted global food trading system that favours large agribusiness interests at the expense of the subsistence farmer also plays its part.

Asking if GM can feed the world suggests that GM is the only solution. Omitted from consideration are truly environmentally, economically and culturally sustainable food production systems such as organics and biodynamics that place people and soils at the centre of their food security. New genetically modified magic beans that are subject to intellectual property rights are clearly not a solution donated to the world community for their attendant use.

To feed the hungry, GM crops need to be accessible to those who need them, yet 95 per cent of all GM crops are grown in just four countries: The US, Argentina, Canada and Brazil most of which are fed to animals, ostensibly to fatten up livestock for fast-food hamburgers and for use in other highly processed foods - no third world lives saved there.

But maybe GM crops have something special that will increase yields? With only two commercial GM traits available; one being herbicide resistance, the other that allows the plant to create it's own insect toxin, the current suite of GM crops are more about ensuring continued sales of pesticides more than feeding the hungry. There is simply no such thing as a commercially available GM crop to increase yield or exhibit drought tolerance. Such falsehoods are the flights of PR fancy but are required to sustain the "feed the world" myth.

As a society, we need to ask: Who is telling us that GM can solve world hunger? Not surprisingly, it's those who stand to benefit financially.

But surely we don't believe that Monsanto, the company that gave the world PCBs, Agent Orange, dioxins and GM crops, is now a benevolent philanthropist out to save needy people? If GM crops were truly about feeding the hungry, then why does Monsanto so aggressively assert their intellectual property rights by suing farmers for the simple act of saving seeds from their crops? Third world farmers simply cannot afford this legal risk, much less the royalty fees, expensive seeds and chemicals that GM agriculture mandates.

In response, we are starting to see a seismic change in people's attitudes when it comes to food. People are connecting the dots between a genetically modified, industrialised, global farming model and the impact to human health, the environment and global food security. Truly sustainable farming systems that nurture people, their soils and communities through a harmonic resonance with natural systems are experiencing a renaissance across the world as witnessed by the phenomenal growth of the organics sector and the proliferation of farmers markets in every city, town and village across the globe.

Most importantly the renaissance is helping to feed people where it's needed most - in the third world. In stark contrast, the only thing that GM crops are feeding is corporate profits.

Letter to Sydney Morning Herald On GM "Science"

Some readers, like Mr. Colin Jeffrey, think that genetically manipulated food is the product of good science and nothing to be afraid of. Well, thalidomide, DDT, and releasing the cane toad in Australia were all considered to be good science in their day. Just because someone wears a white coat and works in a clean, shiny laboratory does not make them a good scientist.

We know enough now about how unlabeled GM was inserted into our diets to be a bit skeptical of governmental reassurances. Politicians are always seeking funding for reelection, and thus they make sure that GM is given a green light with lax safety regulation. The safety testing involved lasts about three weeks to three months on lab rats, and if the rats don't die, then we get to eat the stuff. To hurry the "patented food" to market, there is no multi-generational tests done, and no inspection of the effects on reproduction.. All testing is done in corporate labs, with governmental labs simply rubber stamping the results.