In his latest best-selling book “The New Confessions of an Economic Hit Man,” John Perkins tells how American companies used loans from the World Bank to take control over developing nations. In the first part of an exclusive interview with Sputnik Germany, Perkins gave an inside look at his former job.
Sputnik: Your criticism of the current global economic system dominated by the United States is based on your own experience. Back in the day, you were an “economic hitman.” What was your job?
John Perkins: My official position was called “senior economist and economic adviser” at a major consulting company. My job was to find countries with large reserves that our American companies wanted to seize. I mean oil and other things. Then I arranged large loans for those countries via the World Bank and its partner organizations. But those governments never received the money. Instead, the money was transferred – directly or indirectly – to American companies, including construction firms like Halliburton or suppliers like General Electric.
Those companies then launched infrastructure projects in the countries, including power grids, industrial parks and highways, which generated huge profits. But those profits ended up in the pocket of American companies and several rich local families. What those countries had was huge debts that caused suffering both for the poor and the middle class.
Sputnik: When working for Chas T. Main, an American consulting firm, you were involved in providing loans to developing countries. How large were those loans?
John Perkins: You know it’s difficult to recall because I was involved in this business back in the 1970s. The amount of a loan was different at the time. Some deals were multibillion. It depended on a country and on a particular project. For some countries, multimillion budgets were arranged to build a nationwide power grid. That included the construction of hydroelectric power plants and power distribution stations and cable installation. In such cases, it was always about big money.
Sputnik: What exactly you were doing? Could give us an example, maybe related to economic activities in Panama or Honduras? What does it look like when an “economic hitman” takes on a job in a developing country?
John Perkins: As for Panama, the plan was to build a power grid in the country and large loans were provided to the government. But the real goal in Panama was to discredit national leader Omar Torrijos, in other words to bribe him and then put him in a situation so he owed us a lot of money. So, we could blackmail and control him.
Torrijos tried to wrest the Panama Canal from the grasp of the US and return it to his country. But what was even more important, he had a reputation of a politician from a small country who could confront such a great power as the US. He was a man who wanted to return the Panama Canal to his people. But the situation was not only about the US control over the waterway. Torrijos was standing against American imperialism. He became a political and spiritual leader of a global scope.
(In 1977, Torrijos signed a deal with the US, which guaranteed that the government of Panama would have full control of the Panama Canal starting 1999. In 1981, he was killed in a car crash. Perkins was involved in activities in South America at the time. He claims that Torrijos was assassinated by the CIA. He tells this story in his book “The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” — Sputnik)
Sputnik: That is, those loans and hence debts were used to blackmail national leaders and to control them?
John Perkins: Credits were used in many ways. Panama was an exception, because it was about the political leadership of a state. As for more suitable examples, there are Ecuador, Indonesia and Colombia where we were hunting oil. We believed there were a lot of oil fields. We managed to persuade the governments to accept our huge loans and give their oil fields in pledge. So, we usually told them, “You borrowed millions of dollars from us, and in exchange, American companies will have access to your oil at very low prices and on very moderate market conditions, without the commitment to observe any environment rules and regulations.”
When some of those countries were unable to service their debt we often said, “Ok, you may not pay now, but your country will vote to support the US at the next vote in the UN. Or you will allow the US to build a military base on your territory.” Or something else of the kind. In fact, this is a very old form of establishing control over a nation. This practice goes down in history for centuries. Many empires have used it, including the Soviet Union.
Sputnik: You were involved in such activities until 1981. Today, where do you see signs of “economic hitmen”? Are they targeting Russia?
John Perkins: Of course, Russia is in the crosshairs. And at the same time, Russia is targeting the US. Two months ago, I was speaking at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. I was on the stage with [Russian] President Vladimir Putin and UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres. Putin had a pretty strong impression on me. He said: “Is Russia spying on the US. Yes, of course. Is the US spying on us? Sure. This is happening, of course.” But he also said: “Basically, this is nothing new.”
We need to learn to understand that we all have to deal with the global crisis, including climate change, security threats, injustice and the risk of nuclear war. I believe that many global leaders are realizing that the old system doesn’t work anymore. We need a new system. It looks like only US President Donald Trump understands nothing and is lagging behind everyone.
In the second part of this interview, Perkins will tell how the former “economic hitman” knew that his employer was cooperating with the CIA and the NSA. Perkins will also explain why he decided to quit and speak out about “economic hitmen.”
If you walk into the film industry and start interviewing people like Eli Roth, you will almost certainly hear incredible and bizarre things. Roth would tell you that he aspires to “fu$k up an entire generation” through movies.
Roth and his brethren have been in the business for years, so they know the drill. Roth probably knows the story of Samson and Delilah. He probably knows that Samson’s lust darkened his mind and eventually sent him to his death.
Roth almost certainly knows that the best way to destroy the morals of his audience is to prey on their lust and appetite. That is why Roth’s brethren have spent years fighting against obscenity laws and pornography in the United States.
As Jewish scholar Nathan Abrams himself puts it,
“Older generation of Jewish filmmakers and actors, here [Woody] Allen, [Stanley] Kubrick and [Ron] Jeremy, arguably not only increased the Jewishness of their work, but updated it to match the new post-1990 sensibility by defining it in increasingly sexualized (and pornographic) terms.”
Abrams declared elsewhere that “Jewish involvement in porn” is actually “is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion.”
Another Jewish scholar by the name of Josh Lambert tells us that people like Larry David and Sarah Silverman “are challenging America’s powerful religious, family-friendly culture and asserting their Jewishness by glorifying obscenity.”
Yet David and Silverman are hardly the only people who are “glorifying obscenity” in Hollywood. David Cronenberg obviously beat them to the punch. Cronenberg got to the heart of the matter years ago by laying out his ideological weltanschauung in an interview with the Rolling Stone this way:
“Nothing is true. It’s not an absolute. It’s only a human construct, very definitely able to change and susceptible to change and rethinking. And you can then be free. Free to be unethical, immoral, out of society and agent for some other power, never belonging.
“Ultimately, if you are an existentialist and you don’t believe in God and the judgment after death, then you can do anything you want: You can kill, you can do whatever society considers the most taboo thing.”
Cronenberg’s moral calculus here is logically and philosophically incoherent. If “nothing is true,” then Cronenberg’s statement that “nothing is true” is not true. In order for the statement to make sense, Cronenberg has to assume that it is true! And if it is true, then the “nothing is true” is categorically false, which means that his entire argument collapses.
In short, Cronenberg is positing truth claims while denying truth exists! He is trapped in his own ideological matrix.
Living the incoherency of his system aside, Cronenberg is basically saying that you can only be free if you can come to the conclusion that nothing is true and that morality is, as philosopher Michael Ruse believes, “flimflam.” But because he is morally and intellectually blind, Cronenberg could not realize that his axiom is self-defeating.
Morality, as we all know, is inexorably linked to practical reason. It is also essential to esthetic truth and intellectual pursuit and honesty. As E. Michael Jones rightly puts it,
“The intellectual life is a function of the moral life of the thinker. In order to apprehend truth, which is the goal of the intellectual life, one must live a moral life. One can produce intellectual product, but to the extent that one prescinds from living the moral life, that product will be more a function of internal desire—wish fulfilment, if you will—than external reality. This is true of any intellectual field and any deeply held desire.”
Truth, as Plato puts it, is like seeing things the way they really are. And practical reason (another word for morality) is one of the main tools for discovering metaphysical truth.
Yet since Cronenberg dismisses practical reason in his ideological calculus, there was no way for him to make a logical point without falling into his own trap. In the process, he has become a monster, as one scholar has argued.
The Rolling Stone interviewer asked, “Does the artist have any moral or social responsibility?” Cronenberg:
“No…Your responsibility is to be irresponsible. As soon as you talk about social or political responsibility, you’ve amputated the best limbs you’ve got as an artist. You are plugging into a very restrictive system that is going to push and pull and mold you and is going to make your art totally useless and ineffective.”
Cronenberg’s philosophy, scholar William Beard tells us, is “the disappearance of ethics.” It is actually “a world of unimpeded desires without consequences, where ‘everything is permitted.’ Metaphorically, this is the world of violent video games, of indulgent Hollywood movies, and also of the transgressive, boundary-piercing cinema of David Cronenberg.”
No responsibility, no morality, no ethical values, and no limit, nothing but ultimate meaninglessness and existential hell in movies. Existence itself, as indicated in Cronenberg’s movie eXistenZ, means corruption, moral degradation, and ultimately pathetic death. The axiom of eXistenZ is that “nothing is true; everything is permitted.”
“Every time I kill someone in my movie,” says Cronenberg, “I’m rehearsing my own death…It’s an existential truth, it’s very raw and real.” Didn’t Cronenberg state that nothing was true? Why is he now smuggling in truth in his philosophical trap?
Cronenberg, who has a “historic affinity with existentialism,” is also playing with the lives of his viewers. He admits that eXistenZ is filled with “existential propaganda.” Scholar William Beard comments:
“The disappearance of stable theoretical foundations for human society and human values, the stark realization of the insignificant position of humanity in a material cosmos, the undermining of all kinds of knowledge about the world and ourselves, leaves the existential human subject without clear guideline for living, with no certainty of anything but his or her own death…Culture, science, the whole edifice of modern European civilization are ineffectual in addressing the individual’s desperate plight.”
Once the existentialist denies metaphysical truth, he has to start creating his own “truth”: “From this we must create ourselves as meaningful beings, and create the world as meaningful for ourselves. From this we must build up the new foundations of our own lives, adding other people, culture, history, and politics tentatively and fragmentedly as necessary…”
Existentialists like Cronenberg, says Beard, “cut individuals off from the fundamental questions of personal existence, and leave them alienated in a world crowded with facts but void of meaning.” The philosophy of existentialism teaches Cronenberg that people “are all doomed to die and be swallowed up by Nothingness, but along the way we may carve out a niche or ledge on the cliff…”
Therefore “science” and technology are meaningful if they can advance sexual desires and appetite. It was no coincidence that Cronenberg has seized technology in the information age to advance his appetite to a wider audience. He bragged that “technology is with us,” meaning that he can use that kind of medium to get his essentially Freudian and therefore Talmudic ideas to unsuspecting viewers.
Put simply, Cronenberg is indirectly reinventing what Nietzsche would have called the transvaluation of all values, which again states that morality is an illusion and that any culture which becomes docile to the moral order must be overthrown.
But in order to do that, Cronenberg has to go back to his revolutionary roots, which is neither Western nor rational but essentially Talmudic or Freudian: “I think we start off with what Freud called a polymorphous perverseness.”
One can easily argue that this “polymorphous perverseness” is at the core of virtually every Cronenberg film. In fact, Cronenberg admitted that characters in movies like Crash, M. Butterfly, Naked Lunch, Dead Ringers, and Sterero, were “reinventing sexuality,” which is another way of saying that Cronenberg’s characters were subverting the sexual order. Cronenberg’s existential philosophy, Beard says, is
“sexual or predatory, a drive, an appetite, that invokes Freud far more readily than the Sartre who heatedly rejected a Freudian view of life in which individuals were unfree prisoners of their psychic histories and hardwired desires.”
Cronenberg’s characters in eXistenZ, Beard continues,
“seem to reproduce that quasi-Freudian sense that their individual freedom—a sacrosanct item of the existentialist creed—is compromised by appetites that are so powerful they are strongly impelled to do something ethically ugly. This happens to Pikul in the Chinese restaurant. He finds he wants to kill the waiter, and is told by Geller that the impulse is part of his game character’s make-up and that he won’t be able to do anything to stop it.”
The interesting thing is that Cronenberg has successfully passed his essentially diabolical ideas to his son Brandon, who is now following the family tradition. That fact became quite obvious when David edited Brandon’s first feature film Antiviral, which the Rolling Stone itself has described as “sickening,” and which has the same “disturbing obsession with bodies and technology that animates his father’s films, from The Fly and Dead Ringers to Videodrome and Existenz.” The Rolling Stone reported,
“The son was infected with his father’s own sense of cerebral horror, and he is not rebelling against it. ‘I wrestled with it at first,’ he says, ‘but you get affected by how you grow up….’”
Cronenberg, whether he likes it or not, should be called a Satanist precisely because he is anti-Logos. But there is a bigger picture here. Cronenberg’s ideology has been transported to places like Japan as well. For example, one of Japan’s most controversial filmmakers is none other than Takashi Miike.
Miike says that he is a fervent admirer of directors like David Lynch (Lost Highway), Paul Verhoeven (Basic Instinct), and of course David Cronenberg. These people are what one should call cultural subverters. Verhoeven meant it when he said:
“As a director, my goal is to be completely open. Just look at how I portray sex in my films. They’re considered shocking and obscene because I like to carefully examine human sexuality. It has to be realistic.”
Verhoeven also declares that he has been “fascinated by the occult: black magic, UFOs, and kinetic energy. I also experimented with hypnotism, trying to get my friends to remember former lives.” It was a natural step for Verhoeven to move from an interest in the occult to bringing his viewpoint to life in films. Turning from the unknown and unknowable, Verhoeven replaced his own ideology with reality:
“My films became my anchor to reality, and I began to make extremely realistic movies. I felt compelled to show things as explicitly as possible—a tendency which many film critics have dismissed as banal.”
Verhoeven applied this tendency most often to the area of sexuality, explicitly portraying sex in movies like Showgirls, Basic Instinct, Turkish Delight, and The Fourth Man. Yet even in RoboCop, which in comparison has little sexuality, Verhoeven’s worldview is clear—this time he is substituting Logos incarnate with his own imagination:
“It’s pure resurrection. For me, RoboCop is a Cytale. First, Murphy is gunned down in the most horrific way: that is the Crucifixion. And it has to be so violent, because the audience has to remember him.
“Before that, he has not done anything in the film. He comes to the police station to put on his uniform, then he goes after the villains with his partner, and bang! he is dead. That shooting is the only thing about him—I did that deliberately.
“Next, the film makes a steep descent into the finite, after which he experiences his Resurrection, in a modern day…RoboCop is a Jesus figure—an American Jesus…Americans want to be humane, but if they think it takes too long, Christian morality is pushed aside for the moment and they go for their weapons—just like Robocop.”
Biographer Rob van Scheers writes,
“Both in his films and in his personal life, Paul Verhoeven has always practiced a free sexual morality of which he makes no secret…Verhoeven would add in the gay magazine The Advocate: ‘Sex is a form of play—doing what you did when you were four or five years old and were playing in the street with your friends. Once you are grown up, it is difficult to be playful, but one of the ways you can is with sex. It is a way of showing yourself: That’s how I’m made. This is what I like.”
In short, Verhoeven and Takashi Miike are on the same subversive boat. Both individuals want to overthrow the moral order. Eli Roth and Takashi Miike are also on the same boat, working to “fu$k an entire generation.” Of course, Roth himself admitted that he admires Miike’s work. In fact, Roth would have loved to make Ichi the Killer 2. Keep in mind that Ichi the Killer is one of Miike’s “most controversial films,” an “ultra-violent” film which portrays “sadomasochistic” scenes.
Miike admits in an interview with the BBC that he is a “feminist,” so it was inevitable that he would pull this ideology out of his film. “Miike has garnered international notoriety for depicting shocking scenes of extreme violence and sexual perversions…” Of course, this is exactly what Eli Roth and David Cronenberg have been doing for years.
What we are seeing here is that Hollywood stirred the subversive pot, and other nations such as Japan and South Korea followed suit. Even the new South Korean movie, Train to Busan, “borrows heavily from World War Z in its depiction of the fast-moving undead masses while also boasting an emotional core the Brad Pitt-starring extravaganza often lacked.”
If no social progress is possible outside the moral order, then Satanists in Hollywood are contributing to the demise of social docility and cultural harmony around the world. The solution?
A return to practical reason and metaphysical Logos, the essence of true creativity and beauty. Movies such as The Lord of the Rings were written under those premises. As Israel Shamir rightly points out, Logos is “the main fountain of creativity.” Shamir also argues that true visual art or poetry simply cannot exist outside of Logos.
If Satanists in Hollywood rejects “the main fountain of creativity,” then they can only produce degradation, ugliness, meaninglessness, despair, and ultimate chaos and confusion. It was only a matter of time before the art world was used as a weapon against Logos:
“A photograph of a crucifix in a container of urine, entitled Piss Christ, was exhibited in the Whitney Museum, which is headed by a great friend of [former Israeli Prime Minister] Ariel Sharon, a member of Mega, Leonard Lauder.”
This is one reason why people like Carolee Scheemann use nothing but blatant sadistic/ sadomasochistic sexual imagery in their “art.”
 Josh Lambert, “‘Dirty Jews’ and the Christian Right,” Haaretz, February 3, 2014.
 David Breskin, “David Cronenberg: The Rolling Stone Interview,” Rolling Stone, February 6, 1992: 66-70.
 It is almost the same thing with relativism. I have been listening to an interview E. Michael Jones did with Alex Fontana during which Fontana declared that he doesn’t know if he agrees with “objective reality.” He then lays out his position by saying, “I guess I am a relativist.” I was completely stunned because during the entire interview Fontana was basically dissecting some ideas in the culture and implicitly arguing that they were wrong! Fontana could not see that there is no way to adjudicate two fundamentally opposite ideas if relativism is true. I was also shocked because relativism has been abandoned by serious thinkers years ago precisely because it is devoid of coherency and rigor. This is why Jones told him that relativism “is incoherent. It makes no sense ultimately.” I have discussed the incoherency of relativism in numerous articles. An example can be found here.
 Michael Ruse, “God is dead. Long live morality,” Guardian, March 15, 2010.
 E. Michael Jones, Degenerate Moderns: Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2012), 15.
 Plato, The Republic (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 116.
 See for example William Beard, The Artist as Monster: The Cinema of David Cronenberg (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006).
 Breskin, “David Cronenberg: The Rolling Stone Interview,” Rolling Stone, February 6, 1992: 66-70.
 William Beard, The Artist as Monster: The Cinema of David Cronenberg (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006), 434.
The so-called Paradise Papers may sound familiar – leaked documents from a law firm that specialises in offshore services reveal how the global elite avoids paying taxes. Even the name has the same ring to it as last year’s Panama Papers expose. But the Paradise Papers are different, reflecting the complexity of the global offshore tax system.
Panama is generally considered among tax haven experts as one of the least reformed corners of the offshore world. International rules regarding tax evasion and avoidance are intended to help national governments to pursue their own offenders, but the Panama Papers revealed that the country was being used primarily by the business and political elites of countries like Russia, China and many more in Latin America and Asia; countries where the governments are closely linked to business and which are less likely to use tools provided by new international rules to pursue offenders. Hence, relatively few Americans or Europeans were caught in the Panama story. And Mossack Fonseca, the law firm at the centre of the leak has since been discredited.
The Paradise Papers reveal the goings on of the elites of the offshore world – this time in the supposedly highly-regulated havens of the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Singapore and the like. All places that received a fairly clean bill of health during the OECD peer review process only a few years ago. The law firm at the centre of this new leak, Appleby, insists there is “no evidence of wrongdoing” in any of the revelations.
Nonetheless, the Paradise Papers will tell us a lot about the activities of business and political elites of well-regulated countries like the US and UK – implicating big multinationals such as Nike and Apple, and individuals including the British Queen.
1. Tax avoidance is a booming industry
Clearly, jurisdictions such as the Caymans Islands and Bermuda that levy no income tax, capital gains tax, VAT, sales, wealth or corporate tax, still attract a great deal of businesses. Why, for instance, has the Duchy of Lancaster, the Queen’s private portfolio, invested in two offshore funds, in Cayman and Bermuda? After all, the Queen pays tax only voluntarily.
A more charitable interpretation is that any big investor who is seeking to diversify their portfolio would inevitably end up using offshore funds. The papers show that about £10m (US$13m) of the Queen’s private money was invested offshore – a very small percentage of her wealth. There is nothing illegal about this but the ethics of it have been questioned.
Practically, the entire wealth investment industry – the industry that invests for the rich and the wealthy of our world – operates through the offshore world. And the reason why is simple. Each fund or transaction, or aeroplane or yacht, or whatever that one cares to register in the Caymans or Bermuda, is not subject to tax. And it’s hidden from public view.
2. Secrecy prevails through trusts
Despite a spate of new regulations, the Paradise Papers show that anyone who wishes to conceal their affairs from competitors, allies, governments or the public can still do so with great ease. And they can do so through the facilities of a “trust”, an archaic Anglo-Saxon instrument that serves as a foolproof shield from scrutiny.
We have learned, for instance, that Wilbur Ross, the US secretary of commerce, had commercial links to Vladimir Putin’s family, which operated through a system of linked trusts located in various offshore jurisdictions. I do not think that even the Mueller inquiry in the US into the Trump administration’s links with Russia could have pierced the veil of secrecy offered by offshore trusts.
But the leaked documents from law firm Appleby reveal that any complex business deals that would involve concealment and subterfuge would work their way through trusts. It is high time we do something about these trusts.
3. Highly complex tools are used
The Paradise Papers show how complex financial innovations such as the use of derivatives and financial swaps arrangements, can be used for tax avoidance. This is an area of avoidance that is normally not well understood and scantily studied.
New research colleagues and I are conducting, however, has found that cross-currency interest rate swaps are used pervasively in tax minimisation mechanisms. It is difficult to detect and involves a parent and subsidiary companies swapping a loan in one currency to another. This swaps the risks and the interest rate of the original currency for the subsidiary’s – a legitimate risk minimisation instrument. At the same time, this facilitates moving funds offshore to low tax jurisdictions.
4. The law needs to change
Many professional service firms operate through offshore jurisdictions. They all claim to be highly professional, following not only the letter, but also the spirit of the law.
But if these firms are not directly liable for the activities of their clients, the offshore world will continue to thrive. These firms take advantage of regulatory loopholes to arbitrate between different rules and jurisdictions in order to minimise taxation. The question is for how long such practices are going to be considered legitimate.
The Paradise Papers reveal how little the world really knows about the level of tax avoidance that takes place. UK citizens, for instance, can legally invest in offshore funds and set up companies in those havens. But they must reveal these holdings to the tax man. We do not know whether those named in the papers did, and we do not know whether the tax authorities will do something about those who did not. We only know that a lot is going through offshore. The Paradise Papers show that, despite promises of the opposite, opacity is still pervasive in the offshore world.
Now, a new study conducted by the Scripps Research Institute and published in the science journal PLoS blows the lid on exactly why flu shots are the greatest medical hoax in the history of science and medicine.
The production method for flu vaccines, in other words, renders certain influenza viral strains nearly useless. This is obviously part of the reason why people who get flu shots still manage to catch the flu with alarming frequency.
(That failure of flu vaccine effectiveness, ironically, is used by the media to encourage people to get even more flu shots, as if receiving multiple injections of a quack vaccine might magically make it work better.)
From the abstract of the study:
The effectiveness of the annual influenza vaccine has declined in recent years, especially for the H3N2 component, and is a concern for global public health. A major cause for this lack in effectiveness has been attributed to the egg-based vaccine production process…
Overall, these findings help explain the low effectiveness of the seasonal vaccine against H3N2 viruses… It is common to use chicken eggs for culturing clinical isolates and for large-scale production of vaccines. However, influenza virus often mutates to adapt to being grown in chicken eggs, which can influence antigenicity and hence vaccine effectiveness.
In the summary of the paper, the author openly admits that flu vaccines don’t work and urges the vaccine industry to urgently change its production practices:
Our study describes a mechanism for the low influenza vaccine effectiveness and reaffirms the urgency for replacing the egg-based production of influenza vaccines…
The author even admits that flu vaccine propaganda is largely false, describing how the goal of flu shot immunization has still not been achieved even after 70 years of quackery, propaganda and social engineering to push vaccines that simply don’t work:
Despite the first commercial influenza vaccines being approved in the US more than 70 years ago, complete and broad protection from an influenza vaccine has remained out of reach.
Furthermore, in the past decade, the effectiveness of the seasonal vaccine against H3N2 viruses has been particularly low.
This graphic from the study shows the mutation of the physical structure of the viral fragments, rendering them ineffective for immunization:
Contrast all this with the quackery and lies of the vaccine industry which absurdly claims two utterly false things:
False claim #1: All vaccines work all the time on all people.
False claim #2: Vaccines pose no risks whatsoever and are always safe for everyone.
These two persistent lies continue to be pushed by vaccine industry cultists, doctors, pharmacists, medically illiterate news reporters and dishonest medical quacks, which is why the CDC, vaccine makers and deceptive vaccine propagandists increasingly look like fools and hucksters to the informed public.
“Vaccine Injury Denialism” is now essentially a dangerous mental disorder that has now spread across the corrupt medical industry which rejects real science in order to worship a kind of “vaccine cult” that denies biological reality. https://player.vimeo.com/video/240218670 Vaccines are a medical hoax… and it’s all admitted right on the insert sheet
The irrefutable truth about vaccines is that they don’t work most of the time, but they simultaneously expose recipients to serious risk of harm, mostly stemming from toxic vaccine ingredients that are formulated into the vaccine cocktail alongside the viral strains.
These toxic ingredients are widely documented to cause paralysis, comas, seizures, neurological disorders and even death.
Vaccines have been repeatedly and scientifically linked to an increased risk of autism. Merck vaccines reportedly killed these babies in Mexico, and in one Mexican town, 75% of the children who received vaccine shots ended up either dead or hospitalized.
…there have been no controlled trials adequately demonstrating a decrease in influenza disease after vaccination with FLULAVAL.
There’s even more. If you keep reading the FLULAVAL insert, it says in black and white text:
“Safety and effectiveness of FLULAVAL in pediatric patients have not been established.”
The same insert also says, “FLULAVAL has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility.”
As you can also see, this same insert also explains that when you’re being injected with a flu shot, you’re also being injected with mercury, formaldehyde and other toxic ingredients:
“Thimerosal, a mercury derivative, is added as a preservative. Each… dose contains 50 mcg thimerosal. Each dose may also contain residual amounts of ovalbumin, formaldehyde, and sodium deoxycholate from the manufacturing process.”
The science paper mentioned above is just the latest example of real science exposing the quackery and fraud of flu shot vaccines, which still contain toxic mercury — a brain-damaging neurotoxin — in the form of thimerosal, a toxic preservative.
Now, thanks to real science that’s finally emerging, we know why flu shots don’t work. In fact, the scientists studying why they don’t work are now openly admitting the fact that they don’t work!
I wonder, will vaccine zealots now call the Public Library of Science a “conspiracy publication” because they published a science article that explored the riddle of why flu vaccines fail so often? I’ve been warning you for over a decade that flu shots don’t work.
Now, it seems, my warning has become a published conclusion in the scientific record. The fact that flu shots don’t work is so widely known in the scientific research community that the idea itself isn’t even controversial.
This study, after all, didn’t even need to determine whether or not flu shots actually work… it’s a given that they don’t work… rather, the study sought to determine the reason why flu shots don’t work.
Another year has passed with no one from a Wall Street bank going to jail for the criminal behavior everyone knows helped cause the financial crisis. Fines against Wall Street banks are reaching $100 billion, but all will be paid by stockholders. Bank CEOs and managers pay no fines and face no prison.
There has been no reform — zilch, nada — of the credit-rating agencies. They are right back rating securities from issuers who pay them for their ratings.
If you still can’t trust the credit-rating on a bond, and if Wall Street’s bigs still stand immune from the law even after the 2008 crash they had played a huge role to cause, then in what way can the US Government itself be called a ‘democracy’?
Kaufman tries to get the American public interested in overcoming the US Government’s profound top-level corruption, but few US politicians join with him on that, because only few American voters understand that a corrupt government (especially one that’s corrupt at the very top) cannot even possibly be a democratic government.
However, America’s aristocracy are even more corrupt than Wall Street itself is, and they control Wall Street, behind the scenes. And their ‘news’media are under strict control to portray America as being still a democratic country that somehow lives up to its anti-aristocratic and anti-imperialistic Founders’ intentions and Constitution. Maybe all that remains of those Founders’ intentions today is that Britain’s aristocracy no longer rules America — but America’s aristocracy now does, instead. And, this isn’t much, if any, of an improvement.
Although the US aristocracy — America’s billionaires and centi-millionaires — are the principals, and Wall Street are only their financial representatives (rather than the aristocracy itself), Wall Street was blamed by liberals for the 2008 economic crash; and, of course, Wall Street did do lots of dirty work deceiving outside investors and many home buyers and others in order to extract from the public (including those much smaller investors) the hundreds of billions of dollars that the US aristocracy and its big-finance agents drew in pay and bonuses and other ways, from these economic extractions. But the aristocrats themselves emerged unscathed, even in their reputations, and were mainly financially enriched by the scams, which had been set-up by Wall Street in order to enrich the investment-insiders (the aristocrats themselves) at the expense of investment-outsiders, and of the public-at-large. Conservatives blamed the Government for the crash (as if the Government didn’t represent only the aristocracy, but instead represented the American public). However, liberals blamed Wall Street (the financial agents of America’s aristocracy). And, nobody blamed the aristocracy itself.
America’s entire political system, the liberal and the conservative politicians and press, thus hid, from the public, the role that the principals, the aristocrats themselves, had played, demanding these crimes from and by their agents. In other words: the top people who had caused the 2008 crash, didn’t only — and all of them did — avoid prison entirely, but the worst that some of them suffered, was only that the financial firms that some of them had headed, became hit by wrist-slap fines, and that some of their lower-level employees who had actually executed or carried out the scams are being prosecuted and might someday be fined or even sent to prison. But neither the aristocrats nor their financial agents who run Wall Street were punished, either by the law, nor by their personal reputations. They still are treated in their ‘news’media as sages and ‘philanthropists’, instead of as the nation’s most-successful organized gangsters.
And, on 20 September 2016, Dave Johnson of the Campaign for America’s Future, headlined “Banks Used Low Wages, Job Insecurity To Force Employees To Commit Fraud”; so, there was no way that the employees could keep their jobs except to do the crimes that they were being virtually forced by their bosses to do. The criminality was actually at the very top — even above where Obama had promised “I’m protecting you,” which was directed instead only to the Wall Street bigs, and not to the billionaires they served. And even those people mainly weren’t billionaires at all; they were mainly just top financial agents for the billionaires, grasping to join the aristocracy. Obama, like they, represented the billionaires, though as a politician; and, so, he talked publicly against some of these agents, basically against Republican ones, in order to keep the votes of Democrats — he just kept suckering the liberals, the Democratic Party of the US aristocracy’s voters.
The aristocracy’s ‘news’media present the storyline that the billionaires and centi-millionaires were merely among the many victims of the scams that had produced the 2008 crash; but there is a problem with that storyline: the Government bailed-out those giant investors, because those were overwhelmingly the investors in “Strategically Important Financial Institutions” — not in medium and small-sized ones, not in merely community banks, but in the giant banks and insurers.
These mega-investors were the controlling interests in America’s international corporations. They consequently controlled US Government politics and political fundraising.
The entire system, both private and public, was thus controlled by the aristocracy; and, so, even now a decade after the crash, the responsible aristocrats remain at the very top, both financially and in terms of prestige, and the statutes-of-limitations on possible prosecutions of decisions they had made which had actually produced the crash, have expired, so that these individuals can’t be prosecuted, not even if an honest person were elected to the White House and were to become supported by an honest Congress. “Equal Justice Under Law” — this certainly isn’t that, nor anything close to it. In fact, America has the world’s highest percentage of its population in prison of any country, but aristocrats never end up there unless the aristocrat is a drug-kingpin, and even those are rarely prosecuted, even though their underlings are. And, how can such a nation as this, be called a “democracy”? But it’s not only a dictatorship; it is an imperial one: Obama himself said many times, such as on 28 May 2014, “The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation,” which means that every other nation was “dispensable” to him; and, any foreign aristocracy — and any democracy (if such any longer exists) — will therefore be either a vassal-nation, or else “the enemy,” and thus be destroyed, at the sole discretion of America’s (and its allied) aristocracies.
For example, to George W. Bush, Saddam Hussein was “the enemy” and Iraq was “dispensable” (to use Obama’s term); and, to Obama, Muammar Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad, and Viktor Yanukovych, were “enemies,” and those nations also were “dispensable.” During earlier eras, Mohammed Mosaddegh, and Jacobo Arbenz, and Salvador Allende, were “enemies,” whose governments were, in their own times, “dispensable,” and so the US aristocracy replaced them by US-Government-selected tyrants. (Assad, however, was able to stay in power, not only because he had the support of the majority of Syrians, but because Russia decided to protect Syria’s national sovereignty — to make its firm stand, there, not allow that ally, too, to fall by means of an American invasion, as Ukraine had fallen by means of an American coup in 2014.) Trump seems to think that Iran and North Korea are especially “dispensable” (again, using Obama’s term).
Trump came to power promising opposition against the US aristocracy; but, instead, he’s on the attack against Obama’s least-bad policies, while trying to out-do Obama’s worst policies (such as by his cancelling the Iran deal, and by his trying to destroy Obamacare and the Paris Climate Agreement). If Obama turned out to be a Democratic George W. Bush, then perhaps Trump will turn out to be a Republican Barack Obama, and this will be the ‘bipartisanship’ that US voters say they want. But the polls don’t show that America’s electorate actually want the type of ‘bipartisanship’ that the US aristocracy are delivering, via the nonstop neoconservatism of Bush, and then of Obama, and then (perhaps too) of Trump. The aristocracy are neoconservative (or “imperialistic,” to employ the Continental term for it); and, though the public don’t even know what that means, bipartisan neoconservatism always bring on yet more invasions and wars, which lower the welfare of the public, even while the welfare of the aristocrats goes up from it. The public just don’t know this.
A good example, recently, of how the US aristocracy deceive the US public, to accept such a barbaric Government (a neoconservative regime) is the uniform neoconservatism of both the Democratic and the Republican Parties, and of their respective ‘news’media, this uniform neoconservatism that’s being reflected by the almost simultaneous publication in the Establishment’s ownForeign Affairs(from the Council on Foreign Relations), and from the British Guardianthat’s now controlled by George Soros and US and-affiliated international corporations, and also from the US military-industrial complex’s bipartisan neoconservative propaganda-organ The Atlantic, and also from the neoconservative Vox online ‘news’-site. In all of these ‘news’media, almost on the very same day, are being published articles by, and interviews of, Ms. Emma Sky, a thoroughly undistinguished and undistinguishable neoconservative “intellectual” (CFR, Yale, Harvard, Oxford, Officer of the British Empire, etc.), who, with no demonstrated outstanding abilities, but only with the hypocrisy and callousness that aristocrats tend to seek out in those whom they select to execute their dirty-work, graduated from an elite college and then (without needing to obtain any higher academic or other degree, and with no record of personal achievement at anything) went virtually straight into advising governments and serving as the US invading and occupying General David Petraeus’s (the US torture-meister’s) right-hand political advisor in Iraq, with the title of “Governorate Co-ordinator of Kirkuk for the Coalition Provisional Authority, 2003-2004”, and, then, ultimately, as “advisor to the Commanding General of US Forces in Iraq from 2007-2010,” before becoming widely published in the US empire’s various ‘news’media, with not only these hypocritical articles from her that were linked-to at those four publications, but also books, all of them being standard discreet neoconservative fare, ‘compassionately’ gung-ho on the US empire, and especially rabid against Iran, because Iranians in 1953 had voted for Mohammed Mosaddegh as Prime Minister, who promptly passed a land-reform act, and nationalized the UK aristocracy’s Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, after which the US CIA engineered a coup overthrowing him, grabbing Iran’s oil, and establishing in Iran the Pahlevi Shah’s brutal dictatorship with torture-chambers, which dictatorship Ms. Sky evidently wants restored in some form to Iran, perhaps as punishment to the Iranian people, for having stood up against the American invaders and occupiers, in 1953. Such people are PR agents, not really journalists or historians — of anything. But, apparently, readers find their misrepresentations to be tolerable; so, at least her propaganda isn’t amateurish. If only readers would just ask themselves the type of question that the victims of these invasions might likely ask, then the true character of such writers would become horrendously and immediately clear: “What right do you have to be invading and occupying our land?”
No one can understand the reality on the basis of the West’s honored ‘historians’ and ‘journalists’, because they’re propagandists for the imperial system, which used to be British but now is American. The neoconservative New York TimesSunday Book Review section published, on 12 July 2015, a review from the neoconservative Christopher Dickey, the Foreign Editor of the neoconservative The Daily Beast ‘news’-site, of the neoconservative Emma Sky’s book The Unraveling: High Hopes and Missed Opportunities in Iraq. He presented Iran as being America’s enemy-in-chief, and presented especially “Qassim Suleimani, the head of Iran’s Quds Force, the section of the Revolutionary Guards responsible for covert and overt operations in Lebanon, Syria and, above all, Iraq” as being America’s enemy; and he wrote that:
the betrayal of the Sunnis by the Baghdad government the Americans left behind has been crucial to recruiting by the self-proclaimed caliphate. Many of those who had helped crush Al Qaeda in Iraq eight years ago have concluded that no one except ISIS will protect them from Suleimani’s fighters and flunkies.
To counter Iran in Iraq and prevent the alienation that created ISIS would have required a better ambassador than Hill and a more attentive State Department than the one run by Hillary Clinton. It would have required, perhaps, a thousand Emma Skys. But there was only one of those. And it would have meant many more years of enormous involvement on the ground, but the American people had no taste for that.
Even Hillary Clinton wasn’t enough of a neocon to suit him; but Emma Sky was.
Neoconservatives support Israel, and support the Saud family who rule as absolute dictators over — they own — Saudi Arabia. And, both Israel and the Saud family have labelled Iran as an “existential threat” to themselves, without ever providing any reasonable evidence to indicate it to be that, neither against the Saud family nor against a non-apartheid Israel (though some Iranian leaders have indeed damned the existing apartheid Israel). The US aristocracy are in bed with both the Saud family and the Israeli Government, to conquer Iran — yet again, to control it, like during 1953-1979. The three aristocracies — the Sauds, America’s aristocracy, and Israel’s aristocracy — are perpetrating a Long War against not only Iran, which is the leading Shia-majority nation, but also against Shia Muslims in all countries.
One cannot understand US foreign relations without, as I titled this matter in a previous article, “Understanding the Power-Contest Between Aristocracies”. That article opened, “At the core of global power stands the conflict between the Sauds and their Sunni clergy, versus the Iranians and their Shiite clergy. One can’t understand US-Russian relations, nor much else of what is happening in the world, without knowing the relevant historical background; and the origins and nature of the Sunni war against Shia are arguably the most essential part of that.”
This is more important to the US aristocracy than is anything that concerns the welfare of the American public. And, in order to understand why we invaded Iraq in 2003, and Syria subsequently — not to mention invaded Libya in 2011, which was run by the Sunni moderate, Muammar Gaddafi, who wanted good relations with both Iran and Russia — one must understand the US-Israeli-Saudi obsession to reconquer Iran, and to wage wars against Shia everywhere. The US, and Western publics, are in the thrall of these three aristocracies; and writers such as Emma Sky and Christopher Dickey are propagandists for those masters. Only in this light do their writings actually make sense — as propaganda. Why do people pay good money to read or hear propaganda?
For those who doubt that Big Pharma is part of the destructive Deep State, consider the following:
Since July 26, 2000, when a landmark review was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), pharmaceutical companies, their FDA partner, many members of Congress, medical schools, and doctors have been aware that approved medical drugs have been killing and maiming Americans at a disastrous rate.
These drugs, brought to you by Pharma, kill 106,000 Americans a year like clockwork. That extrapolates to over a MILLION deaths per decade.
The 2000 JAMA review was written by the late Dr. Barbara Starfield, who was a revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.
I interviewed Dr. Starfield in 2009, a year or so before her death. She confirmed several key points: the figure of 106,000 deaths was a conservative estimate; there was NO comprehensive effort by the federal government to reverse this trend; no one from the federal government had ever approached her to consult on “the situation.”
At the top of the food chain, Big Pharma executives and financiers are completely aware of what their drugs are doing.
You could call this reckless endangerment, or negligent homicide. I call it what it is: murder.
The effort to kill, maim, debilitate, and disable large sectors of the population makes that population easier to control. That IS a Deep State operation. In one way or another, it has been so since the dawn of organized society.
Now we have the opioid crisis. These medical drugs are wiping out people at an alarming rate. As I’ve written in recent articles, one of the two major pipelines for the trafficked drugs starts with the pharmaceutical manufacturers, who are intentionally distributing opioids far beyond any legitimate need.
Here are my raw notes I prepared for the Coast to Coast AM interview I did two days ago with George Noory. They tell the story in telegraphic fashion:
PURDUE PHARMA push their opioid far beyond any ethical boundary—Sackler family—$35 billion in profits from OXYCONTIN. Paid $600 million in fine. Several individuals sentenced to, wait for it, 400 hours of community service.
PURDUE guilty of lying to doctors about dangers, falsely claiming patients could stay on drug long term. Paid doctors and researchers to say the dangers of addiction were overblown. Promoted that the drug could be used for a wide range of (off-label) conditions.
INSYS PHARMA: DOJ JUST ARRESTED THE FOUNDER JOHN KAPOOR ON CHARGE OF RICO RACKETEERING—USING BRIBERY AND FRAUD TO ILLEGALLY DISTRIBUTE FENTANYL TYPE OPIOID.
EXAMPLES OF OPIODS: MORPHINE, FENTANYL, OXYCONTIN, NALAXONE, DEMEROL, HEROIN, DILAUDID, VICODIN, CODEINE, PERCODAN, PERCOSET. THESE ARE GATEWAY DRUGS INTO HEROIN WHEN A PERSON’S PILLS ARE CUT OFF.
FENTANYL 50 TIMES STRONGER THAN MORPHINE.
OVER 100 MEDICAL OPIOIDS. UNCONSCIONABLE. ONLY NEED MORPHINE AND A FEW OTHERS. PROLIFERATION OF THE DRUGS FUELED EPIDEMIC AND ADDICTION. THESE ARE THE PILLS ON THE STREETS.
KILLER STATS: 2 MILLION OPIOID ADDICTS IN THE US.
300,000 DEATHS SINCE THE YEAR 2000 IN THE US.
ROUGHLY 33 THOUSAND DEATHS PER YEAR FROM OPIOIDS.
CBS: IN 2015, 90 MILLION ADULTS IN THE US TOOK A LEGIT PRESCRIBED OPIOID. Doesn’t count illegal trafficking.
EFFECTS: DEATH FROM RESPIRATORY DEPRESSION, OVERDOSE.
Common side effects of opioid administration include sedation, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, constipation, physical dependence, tolerance, and respiratory depression. Physical dependence and addiction are clinical concerns that may prevent proper prescribing and in turn inadequate pain management.
MY INSIDER SOURCE AND WASHINGTON POST: A 2016 LAW SIGNED BY OBAMA SHACKLED DEA IN ITS EFFORTS TO CRACK DOWN ON BIG PHARMA TRAFFICKERS (That law is the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act of 2016, signed by President Obama on 4/9/16.)
THE OTHER MAJOR TRAFFICKING PIPELINE—FOX NEWS—CHINA UNDERGROUND LABS/DEA: “A homemade designer version of fentanyl, the highly addictive opioid which is similar to morphine but is 50 to 100 times more potent, has been the center of drug busts across the country this month—with law enforcement pinpointing its origin from underground labs in China. The DEA says the China-U.S. supply is further fueling the country’s drug epidemic.”
“’This [Chinese] stuff is unbelievably potent. It is so powerful that even a tiny amount can kill you,’ DEA spokesman Rusty Payne tells FOX Business. ‘China is by far the most significant manufacturer of illicit designer synthetic drugs. There is so much manufacturing of new drugs, [it’s] amazing what is coming out of China. Hundreds of [versions], including synthetic fentanyl and fentanyl-based compounds’.”
“Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez announced this week details on a mail-order furanyl fentanyl smuggling ring bust. The operation had been bringing the drug — which has been dubbed ‘White China’ — into the U.S from Asia. NYPD Chief of Detective Bob Boyce said that this was the first time investigators have seen this type of fentanyl in New York City.”
“Also this week, Cincinnati Customs and Border Protection agents said they seized 83 shipments of illegal synthetic drugs, including 36 pounds of furanyl fentanyl, from China.”
The Boston Globe: “An extremely powerful drug used as an elephant tranquilizer has quickly become a new killer in the nation’s opioid epidemic, and New England authorities and health workers are bracing for its arrival.”
“The drug, carfentanil, is a synthetic opioid that is 10,000 times stronger than morphine and 100 times more potent than fentanyl, another deadly synthetic opioid.”
“The Drug Enforcement Administration has issued a nationwide alert about the drug, which its acting chief called ‘crazy dangerous.’ In Massachusetts, State Police have warned their crime lab staff about how to handle carfentanil during analysis. Even inhaling the drug or absorbing it through a cut can be fatal.”
“Law enforcement and health officials believe most users do not know they are ingesting carfentanil, which apparently is often mistakenly thought to be heroin or a mixture of heroin and fentanyl, a weaker but still lethal synthetic opioid.”
“If carfentanil’s trade route is similar to that of fentanyl, the path stretches from Chinese manufacturers to Mexican processors to smugglers who supply dealers in the United States, law enforcement officials said.”
—end of my notes—
People don’t want to admit Big Pharma trafficking operations are conscious and intentional. “Oh, they made a mistake.” “Oh, they didn’t know.” “Oh, it’s only about the money.”
When you make the drugs and sell the drugs and traffic the drugs and see the catastrophic effects, it’s not a mistake.
It’s not only about money.
At the highest levels, you want to be doing what you’re doing.
Just consult the two great British Opium Wars against China. The 19th century wars were fought to ensure a clear path for the exporting of opium into China, where millions of dead-end addicts were created. On purpose.
The idea that we now live in a kinder gentler society where the pharma barons would never intentionally do harm…that is a nothing more than a convenient fiction.
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
(Natural News) A new study conducted at the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington (HealthData.org) and published in The Lancet medical journal finds that a shocking 20 percent of global deaths are caused by toxic foods, junk foods, processed foods and harmful food ingredients. In essence, the study reveals that the toxic food industry is now about as dangerous as Big Tobacco.
The study, based at the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, compiles data from every country in the world and makes informed estimates where there are gaps… Diet is the second highest risk factor for early death after smoking. The problem is often seen as the spread of western diets, taking over from traditional foods in the developing world.
In other words, all the toxic food ingredients, processed foods, junk foods and fast foods that we’ve been warning you about for years are now being recognized by the science establishment to be one of the leading killers of human beings across our planet. Many of these foods are saturated with glyphosate and pesticides, and an increasing number are also genetically engineered. The food industry, in other words, is about as dangerous to human health as the tobacco industry, yet while Big Tobacco is highly regulated, there are virtually no enforced regulations that limit heavy metals, pesticides or dangerous chemical ingredients (like aspartame) in the U.S. food supply.
Natural News warnings about toxic foods confirmed yet again
Once again, this emerging science confirms Natural News as being scientifically correct and way ahead of the curve. We’ve been warning readers about the toxicity of the food supply for almost 15 years, even as the corrupt food industry attempted to discredit anyone who dared report the truth about toxic ingredients such as high-fructose corn syrup or partially hydrogenated oils.
Watch the full report in the Natural News videos here: