Posts Tagged ‘depopulation’

Secret Project Created Weaponized Ebola in South Africa in the 1980s

October 20, 2014 2 comments

Operating out of South Africa during the Apartheid era in the early 1980’s, Dr. Wouter Basson launched a secret bioweapons project called Project Coast. The goal of the project was to develop biological and chemical agents that would either kill or sterilize the black population and assassinate political enemies. Among the agents developed were Marburg and Ebola viruses. 

Basson is surrounded by cloak and dagger intrigue, as he told Pretoria High court in South Africa that “The local CIA agent in Pretoria threatened me with death on the sidewalk of the American Embassy in Schoeman Street.” According to a 2001 article in The New Yorker magazinethe American Embassy in Pretoria was “terribly concerned” that Basson would reveal deep connections between Project Coast and the United States.

In 2013, Basson was found guilty of “unprofessional conduct” by the South African health council.

Bioweapons expert Jeanne Guillemin writes in her book Biological Weapons: From the Invention of State-Sponsored Programs to Contemporary Bioterrorism, “The project‘s growth years were from 1982 to 1987, when it developed a range of biological agents (such as those for anthrax, cholera, and the Marburg and Ebola viruses and for botulinum toxin)…“

Basson’s bioweapons program officially ended in 1994, but there has been no independent verification that the pathogens created were ever destroyed. The order to destroy them went directly to Dr. Basson. According to the Wall Street Journal, “The integrity of the process rested solely on Dr. Basson’s honesty.”

Basson claims to have had contact with western agencies that provided “ideological assistance” to Project Coast. Basson stated in an interview shot for the documentary Anthrax War that he met several times with Dr. David Kelly, the infamous UN weapons inspector in Iraq. Kelly was a top bioweapons expert in the United Kingdom. He was found dead near his home in Oxfordshire in 2003. While the official story claims he committed suicide, medical experts highly doubt this story.

In a 2007 article from the Mail Online, it was reported that a week prior to his death, Dr. Kelly was to be interviewed by MI5 about his ties to Dr. Basson.

Dr. Timothy Stamps, Minister of Health of Zimbabwe, suspected that his country was under biological attack during the time that Basson was operating. Stampstold PBS Frontline in 1998 that “The evidence is very clear that these were not natural events. Whether they were caused by some direct or deliberate inoculation or not, is the question we have to answer.”

Stamps specifically named the Ebola and Marburg viruses as suspect. Stamps thinks that his country was being used as a testing ground for weaponized Ebola.

“I’m talking about anthrax and cholera in particular, but also a couple of viruses that are not endemic to Zimbabwe [such as] the Ebola type virus and, we think also, the Marburg virus. We wonder whether in fact these are not associated with biological warfare against this country during the hostilities… Ebola was along the line of the Zambezi [River], and I suspect that this may have been an experiment to see if a new virus could be used to directly infect people.”

The Ghanaian Times reported in early September on the recent Ebola outbreak, noting connections between Basson and bioweapons research. The article points out that, “…there are two types of scientists in the world: those who are so concerned about the pain and death caused to humans by illness that they will even sacrifice their own lives to try and cure deadly diseases, and those who will use their scientific skill to kill humans on the orders of… government…”

Indeed, these ideas are not new. Plato wrote over 2,000 years ago in his work The Republic that a ruling elite should guide society, “…whose aim will be to preserve the average of population.” He further stated, “There are many other things which they will have to consider, such as the effects of wars and diseases and any similar agencies, in order as far as this is possible to prevent the State from becoming either too large or too small.”

As revealed by The Age, Nobel prize winning Australian microbiologist Sir Macfarlane Burnet secretly urged the Australian government in 1947 to develop bio weapons for use against the “overpopulated countries of South-East Asia.” In a 1947 meeting with the New Weapons and Equipment Development Committee, the group recommended that “the possibilities of an attack on the food supplies of S-E Asia and Indonesia using B.W. agents should be considered by a small study group.”

This information gives us an interesting perspective on the recent unprecedented Ebola outbreak. Is it an organic natural phenomenon? Did this strain of Ebola accidentally escape from a bioweapons lab? Or, was it deliberately released?


Behind the Mask of Altruism: Imperialism, Monsanto and the Gates Foundation in Africa

October 16, 2014 Leave a comment

Since 2006, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has funded the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) to the tune of almost $420 million. Activists from Zimbabwe, Nigeria, South Africa, Uganda, and Ethiopia recently attended the US-Africa Food Sovereignty Strategy Summit in Seattle to argue that the Foundation’s strategy for agriculture in Africa is a flawed attempt to impose industrial agriculture at the expense of more ecologically sound approaches.

Daniel Maingi works with small farmers in Kenya and belongs to the organization Growth Partners for Africa. The Seattle Times reported him as saying that while the goal of helping African farmers is laudable, the ‘green revolution’ approach is based on Western-style agriculture, with its reliance on fertilizer, weed killers and single crops, such as corn [1].

Maingi was born on a farm in eastern Kenya and studied agriculture from a young age. He remembers a time when his family would grow and eat a diversity of crops, such as mung beans, green grams, pigeon peas, and a variety of fruits now considered ‘wild’.

Following the Structural Adjustment Programs of the 1980s and 1990s and a green revolution meant to boost agricultural efficiency, the foods of his childhood have been replaced with maize, maize, and more maize.

The Seattle Globalist reported him as saying:

“In the morning, you make porridge from maize and send the kids to school. For lunch, boiled maize and a few green beans. In the evening, ugali, [a staple dough-like maize dish, served with meat]… [today] it’s a monoculture diet, being driven by the food system – it’s an injustice.” [2]

As much of Africa is so dry, it’s not suited for thirsty crops, and heavy use of fertilizer kills worms and microbes important for soil health. Maingi argued that the model of farming in the West is not appropriate for farming in most of Africa and that the West should invest in indigenous knowledge and agro-ecology.

Growth Partners Africa works with farmers to enrich the soil with manure and other organic material, to use less water and to grow a variety of crops, including some that would be considered weeds on an industrial farm. For Maingi, food sovereignty in Africa means reverting back to a way of farming and eating that predates major investment from the West.

Mariam Mayet of the African Center for Bio-safety in South Africa says that many countries are subsidizing farmers to buy fertilizer as part of the chemical-industrial model of  agriculture, but that takes money away from public crop-breeding programs that provide improved seeds to farmers at low cost.

Seattle times quoted her as saying:

“It’s a system designed to benefit agribusinesses and not small-scale farmers.”

She added that so many institutions, from African governments to the World Bank, have ‘embraced’ the ‘green revolution’ that alternative farming methods are getting short shrift.

Elizabeth Mpofu, of La Via Campesina, grows a variety of crops in Zimbabwe. During a recent drought, neighbors who relied on chemical fertilizer lost most of their crops. She reaped a bounty of sorghum, corn, and millet using what are called agro-ecological methods: natural pest control, organic fertilizer, and locally adapted crops.

Anna Goren of The Seattle Globalist reported that panelists at the Summit discussed the loss of traditional diets and ways of life and were also concerned about the increased reliance on expensive inputs and the dramatic drop in price of crops. This has resulted in poverty for the small farmer.

Goren quoted Daniel Maingi as saying:

“What the World Bank has done, the International Monetary fund, what AGRA and Bill Gates are doing, it’s actually pretty wrong. The farmer himself should not be starving”.

He added that what AGRA is doing is “out of sync with the natural process” by bringing in imported seeds, which are not adapted to the land and require excessive fertilizer and pesticides.

Maingi has every right to be concerned. While small farms produce most of the world’s food, recent reports show they face being displaced from their land and are experiencing unnecessary hardship [3,4].

AGRA is part of a global trend that is being driven by big agritech that seeks to eradicate the small farmer and undermine local economies and food sovereignty by subjecting countries to the vagaries of rigged global markets [5,6].

Giant agritech corporations like Monsanto with their patented seeds and associated chemical inputs are working to ensure a shift away from diversified agriculture that guarantees balanced local food production, the protection of people’s livelihoods and environmental sustainability.

Small farmers are being displaced and are struggling to preserve their indigenous seeds and traditional knowledge of farming systems. Agritech corporations are being allowed to shape government policy by being granted a strategic role in trade negotiations [7].

They are increasingly setting the policy/knowledge framework by being allowed to fund and determine the nature of research carried out in public universities and institutes [8]. They continue to propagate the myth that they have the answer to global hunger and poverty, despite evidence that they do not [9,10].

The Gates Foundation, Monsanto and Western governments are placing African agriculture it in the hands of big agritech for private profit and strategic control under the pretext of helping the poor [11].

Of course there is another major concern pertaining to the motives of the Gates Foundation and Monsanto in Africa and elsewhere; that of depopulation [12,13].

These two entities are not just linked together through their involvement in Agra. The Gates Foundation has substantial shares in Monsanto [14]. With Monsanto’s active backing from the US State Department [15] and the Gates Foundation’s links with USAID [16], together they comprise a formidable geopolitical strategic force.

Given that the Gates Foundation is about to be hauled through the Indian legal system for its vaccination program in that country [17] and Monsanto has a decades’ long track record of deception and criminality [18], it is important for everyone (not least the mainstream corporate media) to question why agriculture is being handed over to such entities.

… take capitalism and business out of farming in Africa. The West should invest in indigenous knowledge and agro-ecology, education and infrastructure and stand in solidarity with the food sovereignty movement.” Daniel Maingi, Growth Partners for Africa.

Original article found at


UN Tricks and Treaties

October 19, 2010 Leave a comment

By Cassandra Anderson

The United Nations has ensnared the world in voluntary treaties intended to become mandatory later, tricking politicians and the public.  The treaties may be vague and open to interpretation over time, using a tactic known as ‘incrementalism’.  These treaties affect many branches of government.  The treaties are designed to deindustrialize and economically break nations, restrict energy resources (especially for electricity and transportation) and implement taxation schemes based on manipulated science from the UN (the EPA has authority to implement Cap-and-Trade).


Agenda 21 Sustainable Development was introduced at the 1992 Earth Summit; it is not a treaty but uses treaties as a tool to implement its action plan for depopulation and total control.   Michael Shaw has described Agenda 21 as the head of a monster whose tentacles have infiltrated all levels of government, affecting almost all areas of life, and he says that if you take out the head of the monster (Agenda 21), its tentacles will wither.

The UN avoids using the word ‘treaty’.  Most people understand that treaties erode national sovereignty and power.  Voluntary treaties can be used to slide a foot in the door in order to trample sovereignty later through mandatory regulations.

Conventions, Protocols, Agreements, Covenants and Accords take the form of a treaty, which may be binding international legal instruments or may become binding later when negotiations are completed.

An Initiative is a type of referendum in which a proposal is placed on the ballot by way of petition.

A Declaration does not have any legal power to enforce compliance but relies on the moral weight it carries.

UNFCCC: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is a voluntary treaty ratified by the US in 1992 following the Earth Summit; no limits were set for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but the treaty provided for updates (protocols) to set mandatory limits.

The Kyoto Protocol is an amendment to the UNFCCC which is legally binding but the US never ratified this treaty.  The Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, hence the push to ratify it, or a similar treaty like the Copenhagen Accord.


SNF04MAG04_380_745755aAccording to Richard Courtney’s article (May 1999) the real danger of global warming is the extreme response that politicians have had to imaginary global warming.  Courtney says that the theory of global warming was developed during the Industrial Revolution in the 1880′s, but remained relatively obscure until 1979 when Margaret Thatcher became the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Courtney’s article explains that Thatcher desired respect and followed the advice of Sir Crispin Tickell, depopulation advocate and UK ambassador to the UN.  He pointed out that she could gain international credibility if she promoted the global warming (GW) deception because most politicians are scientifically illiterate (Thatcher holds an undergraduate degree in chemistry).  The benefits to the Thatcher Administration GW policies were:

• GW fear was used to weaken US power- if all other countries enacted carbon taxes and industrial reductions they could pressure and gain benefit over the US.

• Thatcher belonged to the Conservative Party that held a grudge against the National Union of Mineworkers who were blamed for the Party’s prior defeats, so GW provided an excuse shut down many coal mines and eliminate the miners’ political power.

• Nuclear energy emits no carbon dioxide (CO2), and many coal plants were replaced with nuclear power plants.  Nuclear power, which presents its own risks, was 4 times as expensive as coal-fired electricity.

• The new nuclear power plants were necessary to produce nuclear weapons.

Thatcher established the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, the operating agency for the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).   Hadley is located at East Anglia University, the focal point of the ‘Climategate’ scandal.



UN global warming policies refuse to die because the EPA enforces them and endorses UN IPCC “science”.  The EPA created the first Cap-and-Trade scheme for acid rain by expanding the Clean Air Act in 1990 that generates billions a year in taxes for a problem that is not serious and this is the model for carbon taxation.

The EPA, through the Clean Air Act and a broad Supreme Court case ruling in 2007, has authority over air pollution that endangers public health.   In 2009 the EPA came out with the CO2 ‘endangerment finding’ that determined CO2 threatens public health!   Therefore, the EPA appears to have the authority to regulate harmless CO2 and other minor greenhouse gas emissions (Texas is suing the EPA).  The EPA has an 18,000 page document with new regulations that includes a Cap-and-Trade scheme, which is the back-up plan because the national bills for Cap-and-Trade failed.

The EPA and other federal agencies have received money from the taxpayer funded $787 billion Recovery Act stimulus program to pursue useless green policies.  Over $7 billion dollars has been allocated to the EPA directly; the total amount for all agencies pursuing restrictions on electricty and transportation, in the name of the environment, is not known.


The Department of Energy (DOE) has received over $30 billion from the Recovery Act stimulus program. The DOE is spending this money on perpetuating bad UN policies that include:

Energy Efficiency- this paves the way for licensing your home for energy efficiency (HR 2454).

Modernizing the Electric Grid- this program institutes the “Smart Grid” program that monitors your energy usage: how much is used, when it is used, and it can even track some appliances.  Some people fear that the government will use the grid to remotely control personal energy usage.  Here’s a map of the DOE’s consolidation of federal grids across America:


Carbon Capture and Storage- this program is a giant waste of money because carbon is harmless and even if there was 500% more carbon dioxide in the environment, it would be a benefit for agriculture and would not harm the atmosphere or animals and humans.

Transportation: Obama is proud of this program and boasted about creating jobs at a battery plant in Michigan, but $548 million was spent to create 309 jobs (that’s $1.4 million per job).

Renewable Energy: this program focuses on biofuels, wind and solar power.  Biofuel crops have cut down on food production. Wind and solar are inefficient.   Of course, industrial hemp, a plant that is a source of fuel, food, paper and plastic replacement, is not mentioned, nor will it receive any funding because it threatens too many monopolies and is illegal to grow.


securedownload-3The centralization of power designed to depopulate and control people is funded by the people. The policies are dreamed up in think tanks affiliated with the UN, like the Club of Rome, famous for this quote:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

The policies are then supported by UN “science” that has proven to be manipulated, if not outright fraudulent.  Based on inaccurate UN science, nations fund these programs and implement the policies. The taxpayers fund the governments, so We The People are actually paying for our own demise!

NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations) are deeply rooted in promoting propaganda to implement these programs and over 2400 NGO representatives went to the 1992 Earth Summit, and over 17,000 attended the parallel forum.

Here is a list of foundations that fund global warming propaganda and programs:


Deindustrialization through limiting electricity and transportation is a primary goal of Agenda 21 and the people are funding it.  Therefore, the people and a true free market should decide the course of the future.   Fossil fuels pollute, but severely reducing them would set us back to a pre-industrial existence.  Nuclear power has serious risks.   Renewable energy will not sustain an industrialized society.


Darkness is destroyed by light.  Exposure of Agenda 21′s dark intentions is the first critical step.  Action is essential.   The most effective way to get rid of Agenda 21 is to educate your hometown local government officials (both city and county) that have far more power than most people realize.

Click here to download information from to give to your local officials:

Primer about Agenda 21 in local governments

Model legislation to remove Agenda 21 from your city

We have a tremendous opportunity to replace 37 Governors on November 2nd and to restore State sovereignty and action that can be taken on the state level.  Please read “STATES OF EMERGENCY” at (publish date 10/21/2010).

%d bloggers like this: