John R. Houk, Blog Editor
© January 27, 2023
The New World Order (NWO) perpetrated largely under the
leadership of the World Economic Forum (WEF) under what many might consider an
odd mixture of Marxism, Fascism and Corporatism is being pushed not only in
America but also on people of the once-considered Free World.
The masses are being brainwashed with 1984-style/Brave
New World-style Newspeak or Double-Speak in which lies are called truth and
the truth is called lies.
The masses are everyday people which once imagined they lived
free making a living planning for their future or a better posterity for their
progeny. The Elite are the modern wealthy and powerful who desire to construct
a cultural world in which the masses serve the whims of the Elite. If significant
portions of the masses are considered irrelevant, a hindrance or a threat to
Elitist whims and cultural agendas; THEN those particular portions of the
masses are then considered expendable worthy of elimination.
As you read and/or watch the below intentions/actions exposed
among the Elitist designs, YOU should reflect: “Are YOU worthy of
being one of the ELIMINATED?”
I begin with a Mises
Institute post entitled, “Mastering
the Future: The Megalomaniacal Ambitions of the WEF”. This
quote from the post defining the difference between “shareholders” and “stakeholders”
should capture in your mind just the Elites think of your existence in this
world:
“In the 1971 book, Schwab and
Kroos suggested that “the management of a modern enterprise must serve not only
shareholders but all stakeholders to achieve long-term growth and prosperity.” The
stakeholders are the compliant and complicit corporations and governments, not
the citizenry.”
Next, I am sharing my UGETube borrow of a Gettr video
of Jack Posobiec & Noor Bin Laden going over the tyrannical ponderings of
the WEF-Davos meeting that transpired between January 16-20, 2023 under the
title, “HUMAN
EVENTS SUNDAY SPECIAL The Truth About The Economic Forum with Jack Posobiec
Noor Bin Laden”.
Next, a look at the WEF desire to reengineer YOUR
food supply as in EAT BUGS and be happy: “The
‘Great Food Reset’: Who’s Behind Plan to Reengineer the Global Food Supply?”
How about a look at Pfizer, as in a Project Veritas look.
Yup, Pfizer want to keep mutating COVID to keep the cash flowing from useless,
ineffective and DANGEROUS mRNA Jabs: “Pfizer
Executive: ‘Mutate’ COVID via ‘Directed Evolution’ for Company to Continue
Profiting Off of Vaccines … ‘COVID is Going to be a Cash Cow for Us’ … ‘That is
Not What We Say to the Public’ … ‘People Won’t Like That’ … ‘Don’t Tell Anyone’”.
Project Veritas actually has a Youtube version of the video;
however since I expect censorship I’ll provide a Bitchute link.
I also have discovered that the propaganda for the Left MSM
has attempted to discredit the Project Veritas expose by lying about the
credentials of drunken Jordon Trishton Walker spilling the Pfizer beans by
questioning his youthful appearance and his level as a Pfizer executive.
Project Veritas actually provides the documentation credentials of Walker which
can be examined:
ΓΌ Debate
About Purported Pfizer Exec's Identity: Disbelief that a callow,
intoxicated youth could hold an executive position; By JOHN LEAKE; Courageous Discourse (Substack);
1/26/23
So yup, AGAIN the Left Lies and the Right exposes the TRUTH!
THEN, I subscribe to a Bitchute Channel with the
lengthy name of Americans United
Against The New World Order. A great channel for informative
re-broadcast videos however a bit lacking in providing the Who-What-Where info
of the videos. Of interest is WHO Whistleblower Astrid Stuckelberger interviewed
by Del Bigtree of The HighWire (the info garnered from watching and
not in the description): “W.H.O. WHISTLEBLOWER ASTRID
STUCKELBERGER EXPOSES GLOBALIST AGENDA”.
LAST is a post from CHD.TV
(a part of Children’s
Health Defense website) of Riley Vuyovich interviewing
Holocaust Survivor Vera Sharav about the
parallels used by Nazi Germany on German citizens and Jews in particular and
today’s tyranny to control the masses: “CHD.TV
Exclusive With Vera Sharav”. CHD.TV does not provide video
embed info so I placed the interview on my Bitchute Channel to
embed on my Blog.
JRH 1/27/23
Thank you to those who have stepped up!
READER SUPPORTED! I
need Readers willing to chip in $5 - $10 - $25 - $50 - $100. PLEASE I
need your PayPal generosity. PLEASE GIVE to Help me be a voice for
Liberty:
YOU
CAN ALSO SUPPORT via buying healthy supplements/products from Online stores
(mine & my Honey):
My Store (please use referral code 2388058): https://modere.co/3SrOHzI
My Better Half’s Store (please use referral code 3917004): https://dianahouk.shiftingretail.com/
Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on
all social media platforms!
**************************
Mastering the Future: The Megalomaniacal Ambitions of the
WEF
1/24/2023
The fifty-third annual meeting of the World Economic Forum
(WEF) brought together fifty-two world leaders, seventeen hundred corporate
executives, sundry artists, and other personalities to address “Cooperation in
a Fragmented World.” Fragmentation is the nemesis of the World Economic Forum
and its United Nations (UN) and corporate partners. “Fragmentation” means that
segments of the world population are not adhering to the agenda of climate
change catastrophism and the precepts of the Great Reset.
The Great Reset, meanwhile, amounts to a hybrid
state-corporate woke cartel administering the global economy (and by extension
the world’s political systems) under the direction of the WEF, the UN, the
International Monetary Fund (IMF), the European Central Bank (ECB), and the
World Health Organization, as well as top corporate decision-makers like
BlackRock’s CEO, Larry Fink.
Lest we imagine that the WEF and its meetings merely
represent the grandiose delusions of some ineffectual clowns, it should be
noted that the WEF’s “stakeholder capitalism”—introduced in 1971 by Klaus
Schwab, the WEF founder and chair, and Hein Kroos, in Modern
Enterprise Management in Mechanical Engineering—has been
embraced by the UN, by most central banks, as well as by the world’s leading
corporations, commercial banks, and asset managers. Stakeholder capitalism is
now considered to be the modus operandi of the world economic system.
In the 1971 book, Schwab and Kroos suggested that “the
management of a modern enterprise must serve not only shareholders but all
stakeholders to achieve long-term growth and prosperity.” The stakeholders are
the compliant and complicit corporations and governments, not the citizenry.
BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, holds upwards
of $10 trillion in assets under management (AUM), including the pension funds
of many US states. In 2019, BlackRock’s CEO, Larry Fink, led the US Business Roundtable on stakeholder
capitalism. CEOs from 181 major corporations redefined the common purpose of
the corporation in terms of Schwab’s brainchild, stakeholder capitalism,
signaling the supposed end of shareholder-driven capitalism. In his 2022 letter to CEOs, Fink made BlackRock’s own
position on investment decisions quite clear. “Climate risk is investment
risk,” Fink declared. He promised a “tectonic shift in capital,” an increased
acceleration of investments going to “sustainability-focused” companies.
Fink warned CEOs: “And because this will have such a
dramatic impact on how capital is allocated, every management team and
board will need to consider how this will impact their company’s stock”(emphasis
mine). According to Fink, stakeholder capitalism is not an aberration. Fink
provides evidence of stakeholder capitalism’s woke imperative in his denial of
the same: “It is not a social or ideological agenda. It is not ‘woke.’ It
is capitalism.” This definition of capitalism would certainly have come as
news to Ludwig von Mises.
Fink sits on the board of trustees of the WEF, along
with former US vice president Al Gore; IMF managing director Kristalina
Georgieva; ECB president Christine Lagarde, and Canadian deputy prime minister
and minister of finance Chrystia Freeland, among others.
In his 2023 welcoming remarks and special address, Schwab
pointed to the multiple crises facing the world: “the energy transformation,
the consequences of covid, the reshaping of supply chains are all serving as
catalytic forces for the economic transformation.” Incidentally, these are all
factors that the WEF has promoted and/or exacerbated. And together they have
added to the “high inflation, increasing interest rates, and growing national
debt” that Schwab also decried.
Schwab pointed to the problem of social and geopolitical
fragmentation and “a messy patchwork of powers,” alluding to the war in
Ukraine. But Schwab also bemoaned “large corporate and social media powers, all
competing increasingly for power and influence. As a result, the trend is again
moving toward increased fragmentation and confrontation”—no doubt referring, at
least in part, to the recent takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk, the loss of a
major platform for propaganda and censorship. Naturally, Schwab referred to
“climate change” and “viruses” as existential threats that could lead to “the
extinction of large parts of our global population.” The question is whether
“climate change” and “viruses” or rather the responses to these supposed
menaces will be the cause of mass extinctions.
But “the most critical fragmentation” threat, Klaus argued,
is posed by those who “go into the negative” and hold a “critical and
confrontational attitude” to the Davos agenda—those with the temerity to oppose
a global agenda of climate change catastrophism, with its attendant control
over production and consumption and the virtual elimination of property and
property rights for the vast majority.
A central issue that the fifty-third annual meeting
addressed was “the Current Energy and Food Crises in the Context of a New
System for Energy, Climate and Nature.” The theme accords with the WEF’s
earlier and repeated claims that the agricultural supply chain is too
“fragmented” for “sustainable” farming. “A resilient, environmentally-friendly
food system will require a shift away from our current fragmented supply
chains,” wrote Lindsay Suddon, chief strategy officer
of Proagrica, in 2020. In Suddon’s and many other WEF papers, the
“fragmentation” refrain is repeated. Sustainable farming cannot be achieved
under the “fragmented” agricultural conditions that currently obtain.
One paper—entitled “Can Collective Action Cure What’s Ailing Our Food Systems?,”
part of the 2020 WEF annual meeting—argued that fragmentation represents the
ultimate barrier to sustainability:
As the heads of leading
multilateral and commercial agricultural finance institutions, we are
convinced that fragmentation within the current food systems represents the
most significant hurdle to feeding a growing population nutritiously and
sustainably.
Written by Wiebe Draijer, then chairman of the managing
board at Rabobank, and Gilbert Fossoun Houngbo, the director general–elect of
the International Labour Organization (ILO), the paper was quite telling. It
warned that unless fragmentation is addressed, “we will also have no hope of
reaching the Sustainable Development Goal of net zero emissions by 2050, given
that today’s agricultural supply chain, from farm to fork, accounts for around
27% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.”
Rabobank is one of the financial sponsors of the WEF’s Food Action Alliance (discussed below). On
its website, Rabobank notes that it operates in the
Netherlands, serving retail and corporate clients, and globally, financing the
agricultural sector. The ILO is a UN agency that sets labor standards
in 187 countries.
What interests could an international bank and a UN
international labor agency have in common? According to their jointly authored
paper, they have in common a resolve to eliminate fragmentation in agriculture.
The banking interest in defragmentation is to gain a controlling interest in
fewer and larger farms. The labor union management interest is to have more
workers under its supervision and control. The banking and labor interests
combined result in large farms worked by organized farm
laborers—nonowners—under the controlling interest of the bank. A bonus
rationale (more likely the main one) for this “scheme” is that the sustainable
development goals (SDGs) of the UN’s Agenda 2030 can thereby more easily be
implemented across “agricultural value chains and farming practices.” The
authors conclude: “Most critically, we need to aggregate opportunities,
resources and complementary expertise into large-scale projects that
can unlock investment and deliver impact” (emphasis mine). “Collective action”
is the “cure.”
In terms of agriculture, that is, “fragmentation” means too
many discrete and disparate farms. The solution to this problem is
consolidation, or the ownership of agricultural assets by fewer and fewer
entities. Enter Bill Gates in the US. The “large-scale projects” will be owned
by those who can afford to abide by the European Commission’s (EC) Farm to Fork Strategy. “The Farm to Fork Strategy
is at the heart of the European Green Deal.” The goal of the European Green
Deal is “no net emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050.” (More on the Farm to
Fork Strategy and its effects on hunger and starvation below.)
The issue of food supply was addressed in a session entitled
“Sustainably Served.” The summary caption for the
session notes that “nearly 830 million people face food insecurity and more
than 3 billion are unable to afford a healthy diet. Challenges to human and
planetary health have been further compounded by rising costs, supply chain
disruptions and climate change.”
The highlight of the “Sustainably Served” panel, which otherwise amounted
to virtue signaling, came in the form of questions posed by an audience member,
“Jacob, from America”:
I want to ask a question about
food production. Last year the Dutch government announced harsh restrictions on
the use of nitrogen fertilizers. Such restrictions forced many farmers to put
much of their land out of production. And these policies led to 30,000 Dutch
farmers protesting these government policies. And this was being done at a time
when food production was already being severely curtailed because of the war in
Ukraine. My questions are, one, does the panel support similar policies being
implemented throughout the world? And do you support the Dutch farmers who are
protesting? Do not such strict policies leading to reduced food production
ultimately harm the poorest people of the world and exacerbate the problem of
malnutrition?
The questioner was one of four, yet his questions dominated
the rest of the session and led the moderator, Tolu Oni, and panelist Hanneke
Faber, the president of nutrition at Unilever, which is based in the
Netherlands, to become quite defensive. The latter replied:
I am Dutch, and our business is
based in Holland. It’s a very difficult situation in Holland. I have a lot of
sympathy for the farmers who are protesting, because it’s their livelihoods and
their businesses at risk. But I also have a lot of sympathy for what the
government is trying to do, because the nitrogen emissions are way too
high. . . . So, something needs to be done. . . .
But it’s a very Dutch problem. I
don’t think that you have to worry that those same solutions will have to go
somewhere else.
This last statement is belied by the fact that the
Netherlands is the headquarters of the WEF’s Food
Action Alliance program and the site of the Global
Coordinating Secretariat (GCS) of the WEF’s Food Innovation Hubs. Launched at the Davos Agenda
meeting in 2021, the Food Innovation Hubs have as their goal alignment with the
UN Food Systems Summit: “The role of the GCS will be to coordinate the efforts
of the regional Hubs as well as align with global processes and initiatives
such as the UN Food Systems Summit.” And the stated goal of
the UN Food Systems Summit is to align agricultural production with Agenda
2030’s SDGs: “The UN Food Systems Summit, held during the UN General Assembly
in New York on September 23 [2021], set the stage for global food systems
transformation to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030.”
“Sustainability” and “sustainable development” do not mean,
as the words seem to suggest, the ability to withstand shocks of various
kinds—economic crises, natural disasters, etc. They mean development
constrained by utopian, unscientific environmentalist imperatives, inclusive
of reduced production and consumption in the developed world and the thwarting
of development that would result in the production of additional GHGs in the
developing world. In terms of agriculture, this entails a reduction in the use
of nitrogen-rich fertilizers and their eventual elimination and the phasing out
of methane- and ammonia-producing cattle. In the Netherlands, the Food Hubs
initiative has already led to the government’s compulsory buyout and closure of as many as
three thousand farms, which will lead to dramatically reduced crop yields from
the world’s second-largest exporter of agricultural products.
The situation in the Netherlands is also part of the
European Commission’s Farm to Fork Strategy. Under the Trump administration,
the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) found that adopting the plan would result in a
decline in agricultural production of between 7 percent and 12 percent for the
European Union, depending on whether the adoption is EU-wide or global. With
EU-only adoption, the decline in EU agricultural production was projected to
be 12 percent, as opposed to 7 percent should the adoption become global. In
the case of global adoption, worldwide agricultural production was projected to
drop by 11 percent. Further, the USDA reported:
The decline in agricultural
production would tighten the EU food supply, resulting in price increases that
impact consumer budgets. Prices and per capita food costs would increase the
most for the EU, across each of the three scenarios [a middle scenario of
adoption of Farm to Fork by the EU and neighboring nation-states was included
in the study]. However, price and food cost increases would be significant for
most regions if [Farm to Fork] Strategies are adopted globally. For the United
States, price and food costs would remain relatively unchanged except in the
case of global adoption.
Production declines in the EU
and elsewhere would lead to reduced trade, although some regions would benefit
depending on changes in import demand. However, if trade is restricted as a
result of the imposition of the proposed measures, the negative impacts
are concentrated in regions with the world’s most food-insecure populations. . . .
Food insecurity, measured as the
number of people who lack access to a diet of at least 2,100 calories a day,
increases significantly in the 76 low- and middle-income countries covered in
our analysis due to increases in food commodity prices and declines in income,
particularly in Africa. By 2030, the number of food-insecure people in
the case of EU-only adoption would increase by an additional 22 million more
than projected without the EC’s proposed Strategies. The number would climb to
103 million under the middle scenario and 185 million under global adoption.
(emphasis mine)
Thus, we see that “sustainably served” means sustainably
starved.
Another panel of note was “Stewarding Responsible Capitalism,” which featured
Brian T. Moynihan, CEO of Bank of America and chair of the WEF business
council, among others. An arch proponent of stakeholder capitalism, Moynihan
suggested that companies that do not meet environmental, social, and governance
(ESG) criteria will simply be left behind. No one will do business with such
companies, he said.
Moynihan’s comments revealed the extent to which stakeholder
capitalism and the metric for measuring it, the ESG index, have penetrated
commercial banking. In fact, over three hundred major banks are signatories of
the UN’s “Principles for Responsible Banking,” “representing
almost half of the global banking industry.” Meanwhile, forty-seven hundred
asset management firms, asset owners, and asset service providers have signed the UN’s six “Principles for Responsible Investment.” These
principles are entirely focused on ESG compliance and meeting the UN’s Agenda
2030 sustainable development goals. ESG indexing now pervades every aspect of
banking and investment businesses, including what companies they invest in, how
they adhere to ESG metrics themselves, and how they cooperate with competitors
to promote ESGs. Thus, the goal of the principles is to universalize ESG
investing. ESG indexing raises the cost of doing business, starves the
noncompliant of capital, and creates a woke cartel of preferred producers.
In the “Philanthropy: A Catalyst for Protecting Our Planet”
session, US climate envoy John Kerry suggested that he and the people at Davos
were “a select group of human beings, [who], because of whatever touched us at
some point in our lives, are able to sit in a room and come together and
actually talk about saving the planet.” Betraying the religious, cultlike
character of the Davos group, Kerry suggested that his and others’ anointment
as saviors of the planet was “almost extraterrestrial.” If you tell them you
are interested in saving the planet, “most people,” Kerry continued, “they
think you are a tree-hugging leftie liberal do-gooder.” But I submit that “most
people” think Kerry and his ilk are not do-gooders at all but rather control
freaks and megalomaniacs bent on controlling the world’s population.
On other panels, the speakers stated that eating meat,
driving cars, and living outside the bounds of fifteen-minute
cities should be disallowed.
In short, with the Davos agenda, we are confronted with a
concerted, coordinated campaign to dismantle the productive capabilities in
energy, manufacturing, and farming. This project, driven by elites and accruing
to their benefit, is amounting to the largest Great Leap Backward in
recorded history. If it is not stopped and reversed, it will lead to economic
disaster, including dramatically reduced consumption and living standards. And
it will almost certainly result in more hunger in the developed world and
famines in the developing world. WEF chairman Schwab may outdo Chairman Mao.
If we let him.
Michael Rectenwald is
the author of twelve books, including The Great Reset and the
Struggle for Liberty: Unraveling the Global Agenda, Thought Criminal, Beyond
Woke, Google Archipelago, and Springtime for Snowflakes.
He is a distinguished fellow at Hillsdale College.
Mises Institute is a tax-exempt
501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Contributions
are tax-deductible to the full extent the law allows. Tax ID# 52-1263436. Mises Wire.
+++++++++++++++++++++
UGETube VIDEO: HUMAN EVENTS SUNDAY SPECIAL
The Truth About The Economic Forum with Jack Posobiec Noor Bin Laden
Posted by John Houk
Published on 25 Jan 2023
Jack Posobiec & Noor Bin Laden report on the WEF-Davos
meeting that took place M-F (1/16 to 1/20/23). The video was originally on
Gettr on Sunday 1/22/23 under the production Human Events: https://gettr.com/streaming/p25yo2af49d
+++++++++++++++++++
The ‘Great Food Reset’: Who’s Behind Plan to Reengineer
the Global Food Supply?
Journalist James Corbett identifies the cast of
characters driving the Great Food Reset, a plan to reengineer the global food
supply under the guise of a fake food crisis.
1/25/23
The world’s food supply is being reengineered under the
guise of a fake food crisis, according to journalist James Corbett.
“From cricket
powder dumplings and bug
burgers to GMOs and glyphosate to bioreactors and designer
microbes to nutrigenomics and 3D printed
material, the future of ‘food’ is shaping up to be radically
different from anything you’ve eaten before,” the author of the “The
Corbett Report” said.
Food, Corbett noted a week earlier on his Substack, has been
leveraged throughout human history as a “powerful
tool of control.”
But it’s not too late to “start formulating our own plans
for counteracting this agenda” of control, Corbett said.
What’s the first step? Look closely at who’s behind the
agenda.
According to Corbett:
“In order to truly do something
to derail the runaway train that is the Great
Food Reset, we must first understand it. And in order to understand
it, we have to know something about the people behind this agenda.”
Corbett provided an information-packed rundown of the groups
and individuals he believes are the drivers — historically and today — of the
Great Food Reset.
The Rockefeller Foundation
According to Corbett, the Rockefellers and their namesake
foundation — who “are in many ways the progenitors and the architects
of the Great Food Reset” — are pushing for further
centralization of control over the food supply, including “a
new, integrated nutrition security system.”
“From the beginning of the so-called ‘Green Revolution’ to
the so-called ‘Gene Revolution,’ the Rockefellers have been there,” Corbett
said, “helping to move things along with their ‘philanthropic’ donations.”
Corbett cited the Rockefellers’ recent work in Africa, which
operates under the name Alliance for a
Green Revolution in Africa. The alliance’s stated goal — to
“elevate the single African voice” — “sounds nice and fuzzy, until you learn
that 200 organizations have come together to denounce
the alliance and its activities,” Corbett said.
Corbett said the 200 critics of the alliance “claim that the
group has not only ‘unequivocally
failed in its mission,’ but has actually ‘harmed broader efforts to
support African farmers.’”
Bill Gates
Corbett pointed out that Bill
Gates, Sr., in 2009, admitted he had looked to the Rockefeller
Foundation as an example to follow when he helped his son set up the Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation — so it comes as “no surprise” that Bill Gates is
heavily invested in the Great Food Reset.
Gates is “literally invested” in the food reset through his
financing of the fake
meat industry, Corbett said.
“Gates was, infamously, an important
early backer of ‘Impossible Burger’ and its lab-grown
synthetic biology food substitute,” Corbett said. “He also provided capital to Impossible rival Beyond
Meat . . . until Beyond’s stock began to crumble.”
“Miraculously, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust
was able to divest
itself of its Beyond Meat stock right before the shares tanked
in 2019,” Corbett said, adding, “The Gateses must be super-shrewd investors!”
Corbett also noted that Gates invested millions into “hacking
your microbiome” to reengineer humans’ gut bacteria.
Gates became the biggest
owner of U.S. farmland in 2021.
“Gee, I wonder why someone who’s so obsessed with completely
reengineering the food supply and making us dependent on the lab-grown
synthetic food substitutes he funds would be buying up farmland?” Corbett said.
World Economic Forum
The World
Economic Forum (WEF) is behind many different aspects of the
so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution, including “Great
Reset” food initiatives, Corbett said.
Among other goals, the WEF wants more people to eat more
insects.
“[Klaus]
Schwab’s desire to get humans off of traditional sources of
protein and nutrients is very much a part of that Great Reset plan,” Corbett
said.
Corbett told readers that a quick search of the word
“insects” on the WEF website reveals the organization has been regularly
spouting ideas such as, “5
reasons why eating insects could reduce climate change,” and “Insects
could soon be appearing on restaurant menus in Europe.”
“The fat cats are now unwinding after their hard
week at Davos,” Corbett said. “You can bet they’re not snacking
down on cricket croquette or mealmoth flambΓ© . . . though they may expect you
to.”
The EAT Forum (Davos for Food)
Describing itself as the “Davos
for food,” an organization called the EAT Forum — cofounded by
the Wellcome
Trust — says it is a “science-based global platform for food system transformation.”
Corbett pointed out that according to a Feb. 17, 2022, analysis
by Dr. Joseph Mercola, the EAT Forum’s largest initiative — FReSH —
aims to transform the food
system as a whole and features project partners
including Bayer, Cargill, Syngenta,
Unilever and Google.
Moreover, the EAT Forum, he said, also works with “nearly 40
city governments in Europe, Africa, Asia, North America, South America and
Australia, and helps the Gates-funded United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
create updated dietary guidelines.”
USAID
Corbett discussed a working paper — “Systemic
Solutions for Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Food Systems” — released in 2022, by the U.S.
Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Board for International Food and
Agricultural Development in conjunction with “Feed the Future,” the U.S.
government’s global hunger and food security initiative.
“The whole document is couched in the bland bureaucratic
doublespeak of ‘equity,’ ‘inclusion’ and ‘sustainability,’” Corbett said. “But,
if you know how to read between the lines, it isn’t hard to understand what the
report is really saying.”
“USAID’s ‘leverage’ over developing countries — specifically
referenced no less than 125 times — gives an insight into the Kissingerian
food-as-a-weapon mentality that is the very basis of USAID and
its mission,” Corbett said.
He added:
“The entire enterprise
reeks of a neocolonial landgrab masquerading as ‘philanthropy’ — the kind of
territorial taking that people in Africa and elsewhere have been warning about
for decades.”
Suzanne
Burdick, Ph.D., is a reporter and researcher for The
Defender based in Fairfield, Iowa. She holds a Ph.D. in Communication Studies
from the University of Texas at Austin (2021), and a master's degree in
communication and leadership from Gonzaga University (2015). Her scholarship
has been published in Health Communication. She has taught at various academic
institutions in the United States and is fluent in Spanish.
© 2016 - 2023 Children's Health Defense® •
All Rights Reserved
The Defender HOMEPAGE
+++++++++++++++++++++
Pfizer Executive: ‘Mutate’ COVID via ‘Directed Evolution’
for Company to Continue Profiting Off of Vaccines … ‘COVID is Going to be a
Cash Cow for Us’ … ‘That is Not What We Say to the Public’ … ‘People Won’t Like
That’ … ‘Don’t Tell Anyone’
Jordon
Trishton Walker - Mutating COVID
JANUARY 25, 2023
· Jordon
Trishton Walker, Pfizer Director of Research and Development, Strategic
Operations - mRNA Scientific Planner: “One of the things we're exploring is
like, why don't we just mutate it [COVID] ourselves so we could create --
preemptively develop new vaccines, right? So, we have to do that. If we're
gonna do that though, there's a risk of like, as you could imagine -- no one
wants to be having a pharma company mutating f**king viruses.”
· Walker:
“Don’t tell anyone. Promise you won’t tell anyone. The way it [the experiment]
would work is that we put the virus in monkeys, and we successively cause them
to keep infecting each other, and we collect serial samples from them.”
· Walker:
“You have to be very controlled to make sure that this virus [COVID] that you mutate
doesn’t create something that just goes everywhere. Which, I suspect, is the
way that the virus started in Wuhan, to be honest. It makes no sense that this
virus popped out of nowhere. It’s bullsh*t.”
·
Walker: “From what I’ve heard is they [Pfizer
scientists] are optimizing it [COVID mutation process], but they’re going slow
because everyone is very cautious -- obviously they don’t want to accelerate it
too much. I think they are also just trying to do it as an exploratory thing
because you obviously don’t want to advertise that you are figuring out future
mutations.”
[NEW YORK – Jan. 25, 2023] Project Veritas released a new
video today exposing a Pfizer executive, Jordon Trishton Walker, who claims
that his company is exploring a way to “mutate” COVID via “Directed Evolution”
to preempt the development of future vaccines.
Youtube VIDEO: Pfizer
Exposed For Exploring "Mutating" COVID-19 Virus For New Vaccines Via
'Directed Evolution'
[Posted by Project Veritas
Jan 25, 2023
In case of Youtube censorship: Bitchute version]
Walker says that Directed Evolution is different than
Gain-of-Function, which is defined as “a mutation that confers new or enhanced
activity on a protein.” In other words, it means that a virus such as COVID can
become more potent depending on the mutation / scientific experiment performed
on it.
The Pfizer executive told a Veritas journalist about his
company’s plan for COVID vaccines, while acknowledging that people would not
like this information if it went public.
“One of the things we [Pfizer] are exploring is like, why
don't we just mutate it [COVID] ourselves so we could create -- preemptively
develop new vaccines, right? So, we have to do that. If we're gonna do that
though, there's a risk of like, as you could imagine -- no one wants to be
having a pharma company mutating f**king viruses,” Walker said.
“From what I’ve heard is they [Pfizer scientists] are
optimizing it [COVID mutation process], but they’re going slow because everyone
is very cautious -- obviously they don’t want to accelerate it too much. I
think they are also just trying to do it as an exploratory thing because you
obviously don’t want to advertise that you are figuring out future mutations,”
he said.
“Don’t tell anyone. Promise you won’t tell anyone. The way
it [the experiment] would work is that we put the virus in monkeys, and we
successively cause them to keep infecting each other, and we collect serial
samples from them.”
Walker drew parallels between this current Pfizer project
and what may have happened at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.
“You have to be very controlled to make sure that this virus
[COVID] that you mutate doesn’t create something that just goes everywhere.
Which, I suspect, is the way that the virus started in Wuhan, to be honest. It
makes no sense that this virus popped out of nowhere. It’s bullsh*t,” he said.
“You’re not supposed to do Gain-of-Function research with
viruses. Regularly not. We can do these selected structure mutations to make
them more potent. There is research ongoing about that. I don’t know how that
is going to work. There better not be any more outbreaks because Jesus Christ,”
he said.
Walker also told the Veritas journalist that COVID has been
instrumental for Pfizer’s recent business success:
Walker: Part of what they
[Pfizer scientists] want to do is, to some extent, to try to figure out, you
know, how there are all these new strains and variants that just pop up. So,
it’s like trying to catch them before they pop up and we can develop a vaccine
prophylactically, like, for new variants. So, that’s why they like, do it
controlled in a lab, where they say this is a new epitope, and so if it comes
out later on in the public, we already have a vaccine working.
Veritas Journalist: Oh my
God. That’s perfect. Isn’t that the best business model though? Just control
nature before nature even happens itself? Right?
Walker: Yeah. If it
works.
Veritas Journalist: What
do you mean if it works?
Walker: Because some of
the times there are mutations that pop up that we are not prepared for. Like
with Delta and Omicron. And things like that. Who knows? Either way, it’s going
to be a cash cow. COVID is going to be a cash cow for us for a while going
forward. Like obviously.
Veritas Journalist: Well,
I think the whole research of the viruses and mutating it, like, would be the
ultimate cash cow.
Walker: Yeah, it’d be
perfect.
Walker went on to explain how Big Pharma and government
officials, such as at the Food & Drug Administration [FDA], have mutual
interests, and how that is not in the best interest of the American people:
Walker: [Big Pharma] is a
revolving door for all government officials.
Veritas Journalist: Wow.
Walker: In any industry
though. So, in the pharma industry, all the people who review our drugs --
eventually most of them will come work for pharma companies. And in the
military, defense government officials eventually work for defense companies
afterwards.
…
Veritas Journalist: How
do you feel about that revolving door?
Walker: It’s pretty good
for the industry to be honest. It’s bad for everybody else in America.
Veritas Journalist: Why
is it bad for everybody else?
Walker: Because when the
regulators reviewing our drugs know that once they stop regulating, they are
going to work for the company, they are not going to be as hard towards the
company that’s going to give them a job.
About Project Veritas
James O'Keefe established Project Veritas in 2010 as a
non-profit journalism enterprise to continue his undercover reporting work.
Today, Project Veritas investigates and exposes corruption, dishonesty,
self-dealing, waste, fraud, and other misconduct in both public and private institutions
to achieve a more ethical and transparent society and to engage in litigation
to: protect, defend and expand human and civil rights secured by law,
specifically First Amendment rights including promoting the free exchange of
ideas in a digital world; combat and defeat censorship of any ideology; promote
truthful reporting; and defend freedom of speech and association issues
including the right to anonymity. O'Keefe serves as the CEO and Chairman of the
Board so that he can continue to lead and teach his fellow journalists, as well
as protect and nurture the Project Veritas culture.
Project Veritas is a registered 501(c)3 organization.
Project Veritas does not advocate specific resolutions to the issues raised
through its investigations.
© 2023 Project Veritas. All rights
reserved.
[Blog Editor: Dr. Robert Malone provided commentary on
his part in the video on his Substack page:
o Project
Veritas has broken Pfizer's Gain-of-Function Research Program Wide Open:
Pfizer's research is dangerous, immoral and must be shut down now; By Robert W
Malone MD, MS; Who is
Robert Malone; 1/26/23]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bitchute VIDEO: W.H.O.
WHISTLEBLOWER ASTRID STUCKELBERGER EXPOSES GLOBALIST AGENDA
Posted by Americans United
Against The New World Order - AmericansUnitedAgainstMarxismAndTheNewWorldOrder
First Published January 26th, 2023 04:29 UTC
+++++++++++++++++
CHD.TV Exclusive With Vera Sharav
Vera Sharav & Riley
Vuyovich - Good Morning CHD
JAN 25, 2023
‘Never Again Is Now Global,’ a five-part docuseries directed
by holocaust survivor Vera Sharav highlights the
parallels between Nazi Germany and global pandemic policies, will premier
exclusively, for free on CHD.TV beginning Monday, Jan. 30, at 7 p.m.
EST.
Holocaust Survivors, featured in the docuseries explain how
Nazi interventions — including the suspension of freedoms, imposition of
lockdowns, coerced medical procedures and identity passports — are similar to
modern-day dictatorial constraints on citizens worldwide.
We sat down with Vera at her home in the Upper West Side of
New York City — for an hour and a half CHD.TV exclusive to discuss the
docuseries + the importance of disobeying the totalitarian continuum. Don't
miss this iconic interview.
[Blog Editor: For embed purposes I uploaded to my
Bitchute Channel. Note there is a little over a minute delay before the program
proceeds.]
Bitchute VIDEO: CHD.TV EXCLUSIVE WITH VERA
SHARAV
[Posted by SlantRight2
First published January 26th,
2023 18:46 UTC]
References:
Mark
Your Calendar — Holocaust Survivor Vera Sharav Premiers ‘Never Again Is Now
Global’ On CHD.TV
© 2016 - 2023 Children's Health Defense® • All
Rights Reserved
CHD.TV HOMEPAGE
No comments:
Post a Comment