by Jurriaan Maessen, IW

In the course of the last couple of weeks, Infowars published a three-part series on the Rockefeller Foundation’s admitted funding and developing of anti-fertility vaccines intended for “mass-scale distribution.” I ask the great Infowars readership to launch a counterstrike against the new world order by, on our part, mass-distributing this information to as many people as possible. The more people aware of the Rockefeller’s plans for humanity, the smaller the chance that they will be successful. They may have the vaccines and GM Food, but we have the knowledge to stop them in their tracks.

Jurriaan Maessen

Part 1: Rockefeller Foundation Developed Vaccines For “Mass-Scale” Fertility Reduction

In its 1968 yearly report, the Rockefeller Foundation acknowledged funding the development of so-called “anti-fertility vaccines” and their implementation on a mass-scale. From page 51 onward we read:

“(…) several types of drugs are known to diminish male fertility, but those that have been tested have serious problems of toxicity. Very little work is in progress on immunological methods, such as vaccines, to reduce fertility, and much more research is required if a solution is to be found here.”

The possibility of using vaccines to reduce male fertility was something that needed to be investigated further, according to the Rockefeller Foundation, because both the oral pill and the IUD were not suitable for mass-scale distribution:

“We are faced with the danger that within a few years these two “modern” methods, for which such high hopes have been held, will in fact turn out to be impracticable on a mass scale.”

The possibility of administrating hormone preparations to reduce fertility was also mentioned, although- states the report- they have been known to “cause bleeding problems, which may limit their usefulness.”

“A semipermanent or renewable subcutaneous implant of these hormones has been suggested, but whether or not the same difficulties would result has not been determined.”

Saying that research thus-far had been too low-grade to produce any substantial results, the report was adamant:

“The Foundation will endeavour to assist in filling this important gap in several ways:

1- “Seeking out or encouraging the development of, and providing partial support to, a few centres of excellence in universities and research institutions in the United States and abroad in which the methods and points of view of molecular biology are teamed with the more traditional approaches of histology, embryology,and endocrinology in research pertinent to development of fertility control methods;”

2- “Supporting research of individual investigators, oriented toward development of contraceptive methods or of basic information on human reproduction relevant to such developments;”

3- “Encouraging, by making research funds available, as well as by other means, established and beginning investigators to turn their attention to aspects of research in reproductive biology that have implications for human fertility and its control;”

4- “Encouraging more biology and biochemistry students to elect careers in reproductive biology and human fertility control, through support of research and teaching programs in departments of zoology, biology, and biochemistry.”

The list goes on and on. Motivation for these activities, according to the RF?

“There are an estimated five million women among America’s poverty and near-poverty groups who need birth control service (…). The unchecked fertility of the indigent does much to perpetuate poverty, undereducation, and underemployment, not only in urban slums, but also in depressed rural areas.”

It wasn’t long before all the Foundation’s efforts began to have effect. In its annual report of 1988, The RF was happy to report the progress made by the Foundation’s Population Division in the field of anti-fertility vaccines:

“India’s National Institute of Immunology successfully completed in 1988 the first phase of trials with three versions of an anti-fertility vaccine for women. Sponsored by the government of India and supported by the Foundation, the trials established that with each of the tested vaccines, at least one year of protection against pregnancy could be expected, based on the levels of antibodies formed in response to the immunization schedule.”

In its 1997 review of anti-fertility vaccines, Indian based International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology didn’t forget to acknowledge its main benefactor:

“The work on LHRH and HCG vaccines was supported by research grants of The Rockefeller Foundation, (…).”

In the 1990s the work on anti-fertility vaccines went in overdrive, especially in third-world nations, as did the funding provided by the deep pockets of the Rockefeller Foundation. At the same time, the target-population of the globalists- women- began to stir uncomfortably with all this out-in-the-open talk of population reduction and vaccines as a means to achieve it.

Betsy Hartman, Director of the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College, Massachusetts and “someone who believes strongly in women’s right to safe, voluntary birth control and abortion”, is no supporter of the anti-fertility vaccine, as brought into being by the Rockefeller Foundation. She explains in her essayPopulation control in the new world order:

“Although one vaccine has been tested on only 180 women in India, it is being billed there as ‘safe, devoid of any side effects and completely reversible’. The scientific community knows very well that such assertions are false – for instance, many questions still remain about the vaccine’s long-term impact on the immune system and menstrual cycle. There is also evidence on film of women being denied information about the vaccine in clinical trials. Nevertheless, the vaccine is being prepared for large-scale use.”

The Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, quoted “a leading contraceptive researcher as saying:

“Immunological birth control methods will be an ‘antigenic weapon’ against the reproductive process, which left unchecked, threatens to swamp the world.”

Animal rights activist ms. Sonya Ghosh also expressed concerns about the Rockefeller-funded anti-fertility vaccine and its implementation:

“Instead of giving individual women more options to prevent pregnancy and protect against AIDs and sexually transmitted diseases, the anti fertility vaccine is designed to be easily administered to large numbers of women using the least resources. If administered to illiterate populations the issues of user control and informed consent are further cause for concern.”

To avoid such debates, the Foundation has in the last couple of decades consorted to its long-practised and highly successful methods of either outright lying through its teeth or using deceptive language to hide the fact that it continues to work tirelessly toward its long-stated mission. If you think the RF and others have abandoned their anti-fertility efforts with the help of vaccines, think again or read this article.

Part 2: Global Distribution of Rockefeller-Funded Anti-Fertility Vaccine Coordinated by WHO

In addition to the recent PrisonPlanet-exclusive Rockefeller Foundation Developed Vaccines For “Mass-Scale” Fertility Reduction- which outlines the Rockefeller Foundation’s efforts in the 1960s funding research into so-called “anti-fertility vaccines”- another series of documents has surfaced, proving beyond any doubt that the UN Population Fund, World Bank and World Health Organization picked up on it, further developing it under responsibility of a “Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation”.

Just four years after the Rockefeller Foundation launched massive funding-operations into anti-fertility vaccines, the Task Force was created under auspices of the World Health Organization, World Bank and UN Population Fund. Its mission, according to one of its members, to support:

“basic and clinical research on the development of birth control vaccines directed against the gametes or the preimplantation embryo. These studies have involved the use of advanced procedures in peptide chemistry, hybridoma technology and molecular genetics as well as the evaluation of a number of novel approaches in general vaccinology. As a result of this international, collaborative effort, a prototype anti-HCG vaccine is now undergoing clinical testing, raising the prospect that a totally new family planning method may be available before the end of the current decade.”

In regards to the scope of the Task Force’s jurisdiction, the Biotechnology and Development Monitor reported:

“The Task Force acts as a global coordinating body for anti-fertility vaccine R&D in the various working groups and supports research on different approaches, such as anti-sperm and anti-ovum vaccines and vaccines designed to neutralize the biological functions of hCG. The Task Force has succeeded in developing a prototype of an anti-hCG-vaccine.”

One of the Task Force members, P.D. Griffin, outlined the purpose and trajectory of these Fertility Regulating Vaccines. Griffin:

“The Task Force has continued to coordinate its research activities with other vaccine development programmes within WHO and with other international and national programmes engaged in the development of fertility regulating vaccines.”

Griffin also admitted to the fact that one of the purposes of the vaccines is the implementation in developing countries. Griffin:

“If vaccines could be developed which could safely and effectively inhibit fertility, without producing unacceptable side effects, they would be an attractive addition to the present armamentarium of fertility regulating methods and would be likely to have a significant impact on family planning programmes.”

Also, one of the advantages of the FRVs over “currently available methods of fertility regulation” the Task Force states, is the following (179):

“low manufacturing cost and ease of delivery within existing health services.”

Already in 1978, the WHO’s Task Force (then called Task Force on Immunological Methods for Fertility Regulation) underlined the usefulness of these vaccines in regards to the possibility of “large scale synthesis and manufacture” of the vaccine:

“The potential advantages of an immunological approach to fertility regulation can be summarized as follows: (a) the possibility of infrequent administration, possibly by paramedical personnel; (b) the use of antigens or antigen fragments, which are not pharmacologically active; and (c) in the case of antigens of known chemical structure,there is the possibility of large-scale synthesis and manufacture of vaccine at relatively low cost.”

In 1976, the WHO Expanded Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction published a report, stating:

“In 1972 the Organization (…) expanded its programme of research in human reproduction to provide an international focus for an intensified effort to improve existing methods of fertility regulation, to develop new methods and to assist national authorities in devising the best ways of providing them on a continuing basis. The programme is closely integrated with other WHO research on the delivery of family planning care by health services, which in turn feeds into WHO’s technical assistance programme to governments at the service level.”

Although the term “Anti-Fertility Vaccine”, coined by the Rockefeller Foundation, was replaced by the more bureaucratic sounding “Fertility Regulating Vaccine (FRV), the programme was obviously the same. Besides, the time-line shows conclusively that the WHO, UN Population Fund and World Bank continued on a path outlined by the Rockefellers in the late 1960s. By extension, it proves that all these organization are perfectly interlocked, best captured under the header “Scientific Dictatorship”. The relationship between the WHO and the Rockefeller Foundation is intense. In the 1986 bulletin of the World Health Organization, this relationship is being described in some detail. While researching the effectiveness of “gossypol” as an “antifertility agent”, the bulletin states:

“The Rockefeller Foundation has supported limited clinical trials in China and smallscale clinical studies in Brazil and Austria. The dose administered in the current Chinese trial has been reduced from 20 mg to 10-15 mg/day during the loading phase in order to see if severe oligospermia rather than consistent azoospermia would be adequate for an acceptable, non-toxic and reversible effect. Meanwhile, both the WHO human reproduction programme and the Rockefeller Foundation are supporting animal studies to better define the mechanism of action of gossypol.”

In August of 1992, a series of meetings was held in Geneva, Switzerland, regarding “fertility regulating vaccines”. According to the document Fertility Regulating Vaccines (classified by the WHO with a limited distribution) present at those meetings were scientists and clinicians from all over the globe, including then biomedical researcher of the American Agency for International development, and current research-chief of USAID, Mr. Jeff Spieler.

In 1986 Mr. Spieler declared:

“A new approach to fertility regulation is the development of vaccines directed against human substances required for reproduction. Potential candidates for immunological interference include reproductive hormones, ovum and sperm antigens, and antigens derived from embryonic or fetal tissue.(…). An antifertility vaccine must be capable of safely and effectively inhibiting a human substance, which would need somehow to be rendered antigenic. A fertility-regulating vaccine, moreover, would have to produce and sustain effective immunity in at least 95% of the vaccinated population, a level of protection rarely achieved even with the most successful viral and bacterial vaccines. But while these challenges looked insuperable just a few years ago, recent advances in biotechnology- particularly in the fields of molecular biology, genetic engineering and monoclonal antibody production- are bringing antifertility vaccines into the realm of the feasible.”

“Vaccines interfering with sperm function and fertilization could be available for human testing by the early 1990s”, Spieler wrote.

In order for widespread use of these vaccines, Spieler writes, the vaccine must conquer “variations in individual responses to immunization with fertility-regulating vaccines”.

“Research”, he goes on to say,”is also needed in the field of “basic vaccinology”, to find the best carrier proteins, adjuvants, vehicles and delivery systems.”

In the 1992 document, the problem of “variations in individual responses” is also discussed:

“Because of the genetic diversity of human populations”, states the document, “immune responses to vaccines often show marked differences from one individual to another in terms of magnitude and duration. These differences may be partly or even completely overcome with appropriately engineered FRVs (Fertility Regulating Vaccines) and by improvements in our understanding of what is required to develop and control the immune response elicited by different vaccines.”

The picture emerging from these facts is clear. The WHO, as a global coordinating body, has since the early 70s continued the development of the Rockefeller-funded “anti-fertility vaccine”. What also is becoming clear, is that extensive research has been done to the delivery systems in which these anti-fertility components can be buried, such as regular anti-viral vaccines. It’s a mass-scale anti-fertilization programme with the aim of reducing the world’s population: a dream long cherished by the global elite.

Part 3: On Top of Vaccines, Rockefeller Foundation Presents Anti-Fertility Substance Gossypol for “Widespread Use”

It seems there is no limit to the Rockefeller Foundation’s ambitions to introduce anti-fertility compounds into either existing “health-services”, such as vaccines, or- as appears to be the case now- average consumer-products.

The 1985 Rockefeller Foundation’s annual report underlined its ongoing dedication towards finding good use for the anti-fertility substance “gossypol”, or C30H30O8 – as the description reads.

Indeed, gossypol, a toxic polyphenol derived from the cotton plant, was identified early on in the Foundation’s research as an effective sterilant. The question was, how to implement or integrate the toxic substance into crops.

“Another long-term interest of the Foundation has been gossypol, a compound that has been shown to have an antifertility effect in men, By the end of 1985, the Foundation had made grants totaling approximately $1.6 million in an effort to support and stimulate scientific investigations on the safety and efficacy of gossypol.”

In the 1986 Rockefeller Foundation annual report, the organization admits funding research into the use of fertility-reducing compounds in relation to food for “widespread use”:

“Male contraceptive studies are focused on gossypol, a natural substance extracted from the cotton plant, and identified by Chinese researchers as having an anti-fertility effect on men. Before widespread use can be recommended, further investigation is needed to see if lowering the dosage can eliminate undesirable side-effects without reducing its effectiveness as a contraceptive. The Foundation supported research on gossypol’s safety, reversibility and efficacy in seven different 1986 grants.”

In the RF’s 1988 annual report, gossypol as a contraceptive was also elaborated upon (page 22):

“Gossypol, a natural substance found in the cotton plant, continues to show promise as an oral contraceptive for men. Because it suppresses sperm production without affecting sex hormone levels, it is unique among the experimental approaches to fertility control in men. Foundation-funded scientists worldwide have assembled an aray of information about how gossypol works, and studies continue on a wide variety of its clinical applications. Dose reduction is being investigated to reduce health risks associated with the use of gossypol.”

The following year, according to the annual report, funds were allocated to several research institutions to see how this “dose reduction” could best be accomplished without interfering with the ant-fertility effects of gossypol.

(1988- $ 400,000, in addition to remaining funds from prior year appropriations) To support research on gossypol, its safety, reversibility, and efficacy as a contraceptive for use by men (…).”

Mention is made on money allocated to the University of Texas, “for a study of gossypol’s effects on DNA replication (…).”

The last mention of gossypol in the Foundation’s annals we find in the 1994 annual report, where funds were appropriated to the University of Innsbruck of Austria “for a study at the Institute of Physiology on the molecular action of gossypol at the cellular level.”

It seems that the funded scientists have indeed found a way of “lowering the dosage” of gossypol, circumventing the toxicity of the substance, so as to suppress or even eliminate these “undesirable side-effects”, which include: low blood potassium levels, fatigue, muscle weakness and even paralysis. If these effects could be eliminated without reducing the anti-fertility effects, the Foundation figured, it would be a highly effective and almost undetectable sterilant.

Although overtly, research into and development of gossypol as a anti-fertility compound was abandoned in the late 1990s, the cottonseed containing the substance was especially selected for mass distribution in the beginning of the current decade. Around 2006 a media-campaign was launched, saying the cottonseed could help defeat hunger and poverty.

In 2006, NatureNews reported that RNA interference (or RNAi) was the way to go. On the one hand it would “cut the gossypol content in cottonseeds by 98%, while leaving the chemical defenses of the rest of the plant intact.” Furthermore, the article quoted Dr. Deborah P. Delmer, the Rockefeller Foundation’s associate director of food security, who was quick to bury any concern:

“Deborah Delmer, associate director of the Rockefeller Foundation in New York City and an expert in agricultural food safety, points out that a benefit of using RNAi technology is that it turns off a gene process rather than switching on a novel function. “So instead of introducing a new foreign protein, you’re just shutting down one process,” Delmer says. “In that sense, I think that the safety concerns should be far less than other GM technologies.”

A 2006, National Geographic article Toxin-Free Cottonseed Engineered; Could Feed Millions Study Says, quotes the director of the Laboratory for Crop Transformation (Texas A&M Universtity), Keerti Singh Rathore as saying:

“A gossypol-free cottonseed would significantly contribute to human nutrition and health, particularly in developing countries, and help meet the requirements of the predicted 50 percent increase in the world population in the next 50 years.”

“Rathore’s study”, states the article, “represents the first substantiated case where gossypol was reduced via genetic engineering that targets the genes that make the toxin.”

I bring into recollection the statement made by the Rockefeller Foundation in its 1986 annual report, which reads:

“Before widespread use can be recommended, further investigation is needed to see if lowering the dosage can eliminate undesirable side-effects without reducing its effectiveness as a contraceptive.”

In the 1997 Foundational report, Rathore is mentioned (page 68). A postdoctoral fellowship-grant was given to a certain E. Chandrakanth “for advanced study in plant molecular biology under the direction of Keerti S. Rathore, Laboratory for Crop Transformation, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.”

Compromising connections, in other words, for someone who claimed academic objectivity in regards to gossypol and its sterilizing effects. Rathore explained the workings of RNAi in a 2006 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“Cottonseed toxicity due to gossypol is a long-standing problem”, Rathore said, “and people have tried to fix it but haven’t been able to through traditional plant breeding. My area of research is plant transgenics, so I thought about using some molecular approaches to address this problem.”

Rathore also mentioned the desired main funder of his work without actually saying the name:

“we are trying to find some partners and will probably be looking at charitable foundations to help us out in terms of doing all kinds of testing that is required before a genetically engineered plant is approved for food or feed. We are in the very early stages and have a lot of ideas in mind, but we need to pursue those. Hopefully, we can find some sort of partnership that will allow us to do them.”

He also expressed the final adaptation of the cottonseed for widespread use is something of the long term:

“(…) right now there are many hurdles when you are dealing with a genetically modified plant. But I think in the next 15 or 20 years a lot of these regulations that we have to satisfy will be eliminated or reduced substantially.”

The Foundation, as is evident from the statements of Rockefeller’s own Deborah Delmer, is more than interested. Even worse, through the process of readying gossypol for mass-distribution in food, the fulfillment of their longstanding goal of sterilizing the masses into oblivion comes closer into view.

In its 1968 yearly report, the Rockefeller Foundation acknowledged funding the development of so-called “anti-fertility vaccines” and their implementation on a mass-scale. From page 51 onward we read:

“(…) several types of drugs are known to diminish male fertility, but those that have been tested have serious problems of toxicity. Very little work is in progress on immunological methods, such as vaccines, to reduce fertility, and much more research is required if a solution is to be found here.”

The possibility of using vaccines to reduce male fertility was something that needed to be investigated further, according to the Rockefeller Foundation, because both the oral pill and the IUD were not suitable for mass-scale distribution:

“We are faced with the danger that within a few years these two “modern” methods, for which such high hopes have been held, will in fact turn out to be impracticable on a mass scale.”

The possibility of administrating hormone preparations to reduce fertility was also mentioned, although- states the report- they have been known to “cause bleeding problems, which may limit their usefulness.”

“A semipermanent or renewable subcutaneous implant of these hormones has been suggested, but whether or not the same difficulties would result has not been determined.”

Saying that research thus-far had been too low-grade to produce any substantial results, the report was adamant:

“The Foundation will endeavour to assist in filling this important gap in several ways:

1- “Seeking out or encouraging the development of, and providing partial support to, a few centres of excellence in universities and research institutions in the United States and abroad in which the methods and points of view of molecular biology are teamed with the more traditional approaches of histology, embryology,and endocrinology in research pertinent to development of fertility control methods;”

2- “Supporting research of individual investigators, oriented toward development of contraceptive methods or of basic information on human reproduction relevant to such developments;”

3- “Encouraging, by making research funds available, as well as by other means, established and beginning investigators to turn their attention to aspects of research in reproductive biology that have implications for human fertility and its control;”

4- “Encouraging more biology and biochemistry students to elect careers in reproductive biology and human fertility control, through support of research and teaching programs in departments of zoology, biology, and biochemistry.”

The list goes on and on. Motivation for these activities, according to the RF?

“There are an estimated five million women among America’s poverty and near-poverty groups who need birth control service (…). The unchecked fertility of the indigent does much to perpetuate poverty, undereducation, and underemployment, not only in urban slums, but also in depressed rural areas.”

It wasn’t long before all the Foundation’s efforts began to have effect. In its annual report of 1988, The RF was happy to report the progress made by the Foundation’s Population Division in the field of anti-fertility vaccines:

“India’s National Institute of Immunology successfully completed in 1988 the first phase of trials with three versions of an anti-fertility vaccine for women. Sponsored by the government of India and supported by the Foundation, the trials established that with each of the tested vaccines, at least one year of protection against pregnancy could be expected, based on the levels of antibodies formed in response to the immunization schedule.”

In its 1997 review of anti-fertility vaccines, Indian based International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology didn’t forget to acknowledge its main benefactor:

“The work on LHRH and HCG vaccines was supported by research grants of The Rockefeller Foundation, (…).”

In the 1990s the work on anti-fertility vaccines went in overdrive, especially in third-world nations, as did the funding provided by the deep pockets of the Rockefeller Foundation. At the same time, the target-population of the globalists- women- began to stir uncomfortably with all this out-in-the-open talk of population reduction and vaccines as a means to achieve it.

Betsy Hartman, Director of the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College, Massachusetts and “someone who believes strongly in women’s right to safe, voluntary birth control and abortion”, is no supporter of the anti-fertility vaccine, as brought into being by the Rockefeller Foundation. She explains in her essayPopulation control in the new world order:

“Although one vaccine has been tested on only 180 women in India, it is being billed there as ‘safe, devoid of any side effects and completely reversible’. The scientific community knows very well that such assertions are false – for instance, many questions still remain about the vaccine’s long-term impact on the immune system and menstrual cycle. There is also evidence on film of women being denied information about the vaccine in clinical trials. Nevertheless, the vaccine is being prepared for large-scale use.”

The Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, quoted “a leading contraceptive researcher as saying:

“Immunological birth control methods will be an ‘antigenic weapon’ against the reproductive process, which left unchecked, threatens to swamp the world.”

Animal rights activist ms. Sonya Ghosh also expressed concerns about the Rockefeller-funded anti-fertility vaccine and its implementation:

“Instead of giving individual women more options to prevent pregnancy and protect against AIDs and sexually transmitted diseases, the anti fertility vaccine is designed to be easily administered to large numbers of women using the least resources. If administered to illiterate populations the issues of user control and informed consent are further cause for concern.”

To avoid such debates, the Foundation has in the last couple of decades consorted to its long-practised and highly successful methods of either outright lying through its teeth or using deceptive language to hide the fact that it continues to work tirelessly toward its long-stated mission. If you think the RF and others have abandoned their anti-fertility efforts with the help of vaccines, think again or read this article.

Part 2: Global Distribution of Rockefeller-Funded Anti-Fertility Vaccine Coordinated by WHO

In addition to the recent PrisonPlanet-exclusive Rockefeller Foundation Developed Vaccines For “Mass-Scale” Fertility Reduction- which outlines the Rockefeller Foundation’s efforts in the 1960s funding research into so-called “anti-fertility vaccines”- another series of documents has surfaced, proving beyond any doubt that the UN Population Fund, World Bank and World Health Organization picked up on it, further developing it under responsibility of a “Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation”.

Just four years after the Rockefeller Foundation launched massive funding-operations into anti-fertility vaccines, the Task Force was created under auspices of the World Health Organization, World Bank and UN Population Fund. Its mission, according to one of its members, to support:

“basic and clinical research on the development of birth control vaccines directed against the gametes or the preimplantation embryo. These studies have involved the use of advanced procedures in peptide chemistry, hybridoma technology and molecular genetics as well as the evaluation of a number of novel approaches in general vaccinology. As a result of this international, collaborative effort, a prototype anti-HCG vaccine is now undergoing clinical testing, raising the prospect that a totally new family planning method may be available before the end of the current decade.”

In regards to the scope of the Task Force’s jurisdiction, the Biotechnology and Development Monitor reported:

“The Task Force acts as a global coordinating body for anti-fertility vaccine R&D in the various working groups and supports research on different approaches, such as anti-sperm and anti-ovum vaccines and vaccines designed to neutralize the biological functions of hCG. The Task Force has succeeded in developing a prototype of an anti-hCG-vaccine.”

One of the Task Force members, P.D. Griffin, outlined the purpose and trajectory of these Fertility Regulating Vaccines. Griffin:

“The Task Force has continued to coordinate its research activities with other vaccine development programmes within WHO and with other international and national programmes engaged in the development of fertility regulating vaccines.”

Griffin also admitted to the fact that one of the purposes of the vaccines is the implementation in developing countries. Griffin:

“If vaccines could be developed which could safely and effectively inhibit fertility, without producing unacceptable side effects, they would be an attractive addition to the present armamentarium of fertility regulating methods and would be likely to have a significant impact on family planning programmes.”

Also, one of the advantages of the FRVs over “currently available methods of fertility regulation” the Task Force states, is the following (179):

“low manufacturing cost and ease of delivery within existing health services.”

Already in 1978, the WHO’s Task Force (then called Task Force on Immunological Methods for Fertility Regulation) underlined the usefulness of these vaccines in regards to the possibility of “large scale synthesis and manufacture” of the vaccine:

“The potential advantages of an immunological approach to fertility regulation can be summarized as follows: (a) the possibility of infrequent administration, possibly by paramedical personnel; (b) the use of antigens or antigen fragments, which are not pharmacologically active; and (c) in the case of antigens of known chemical structure,there is the possibility of large-scale synthesis and manufacture of vaccine at relatively low cost.”

In 1976, the WHO Expanded Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction published a report, stating:

“In 1972 the Organization (…) expanded its programme of research in human reproduction to provide an international focus for an intensified effort to improve existing methods of fertility regulation, to develop new methods and to assist national authorities in devising the best ways of providing them on a continuing basis. The programme is closely integrated with other WHO research on the delivery of family planning care by health services, which in turn feeds into WHO’s technical assistance programme to governments at the service level.”

Although the term “Anti-Fertility Vaccine”, coined by the Rockefeller Foundation, was replaced by the more bureaucratic sounding “Fertility Regulating Vaccine (FRV), the programme was obviously the same. Besides, the time-line shows conclusively that the WHO, UN Population Fund and World Bank continued on a path outlined by the Rockefellers in the late 1960s. By extension, it proves that all these organization are perfectly interlocked, best captured under the header “Scientific Dictatorship”. The relationship between the WHO and the Rockefeller Foundation is intense. In the 1986 bulletin of the World Health Organization, this relationship is being described in some detail. While researching the effectiveness of “gossypol” as an “antifertility agent”, the bulletin states:

“The Rockefeller Foundation has supported limited clinical trials in China and smallscale clinical studies in Brazil and Austria. The dose administered in the current Chinese trial has been reduced from 20 mg to 10-15 mg/day during the loading phase in order to see if severe oligospermia rather than consistent azoospermia would be adequate for an acceptable, non-toxic and reversible effect. Meanwhile, both the WHO human reproduction programme and the Rockefeller Foundation are supporting animal studies to better define the mechanism of action of gossypol.”

In August of 1992, a series of meetings was held in Geneva, Switzerland, regarding “fertility regulating vaccines”. According to the document Fertility Regulating Vaccines (classified by the WHO with a limited distribution) present at those meetings were scientists and clinicians from all over the globe, including then biomedical researcher of the American Agency for International development, and current research-chief of USAID, Mr. Jeff Spieler.

In 1986 Mr. Spieler declared:

“A new approach to fertility regulation is the development of vaccines directed against human substances required for reproduction. Potential candidates for immunological interference include reproductive hormones, ovum and sperm antigens, and antigens derived from embryonic or fetal tissue.(…). An antifertility vaccine must be capable of safely and effectively inhibiting a human substance, which would need somehow to be rendered antigenic. A fertility-regulating vaccine, moreover, would have to produce and sustain effective immunity in at least 95% of the vaccinated population, a level of protection rarely achieved even with the most successful viral and bacterial vaccines. But while these challenges looked insuperable just a few years ago, recent advances in biotechnology- particularly in the fields of molecular biology, genetic engineering and monoclonal antibody production- are bringing antifertility vaccines into the realm of the feasible.”

“Vaccines interfering with sperm function and fertilization could be available for human testing by the early 1990s”, Spieler wrote.

In order for widespread use of these vaccines, Spieler writes, the vaccine must conquer “variations in individual responses to immunization with fertility-regulating vaccines”.

“Research”, he goes on to say,”is also needed in the field of “basic vaccinology”, to find the best carrier proteins, adjuvants, vehicles and delivery systems.”

In the 1992 document, the problem of “variations in individual responses” is also discussed:

“Because of the genetic diversity of human populations”, states the document, “immune responses to vaccines often show marked differences from one individual to another in terms of magnitude and duration. These differences may be partly or even completely overcome with appropriately engineered FRVs (Fertility Regulating Vaccines) and by improvements in our understanding of what is required to develop and control the immune response elicited by different vaccines.”

The picture emerging from these facts is clear. The WHO, as a global coordinating body, has since the early 70s continued the development of the Rockefeller-funded “anti-fertility vaccine”. What also is becoming clear, is that extensive research has been done to the delivery systems in which these anti-fertility components can be buried, such as regular anti-viral vaccines. It’s a mass-scale anti-fertilization programme with the aim of reducing the world’s population: a dream long cherished by the global elite.

Part 3: On Top of Vaccines, Rockefeller Foundation Presents Anti-Fertility Substance Gossypol for “Widespread Use”

It seems there is no limit to the Rockefeller Foundation’s ambitions to introduce anti-fertility compounds into either existing “health-services”, such as vaccines, or- as appears to be the case now- average consumer-products.

The 1985 Rockefeller Foundation’s annual report underlined its ongoing dedication towards finding good use for the anti-fertility substance “gossypol”, or C30H30O8 – as the description reads.

Indeed, gossypol, a toxic polyphenol derived from the cotton plant, was identified early on in the Foundation’s research as an effective sterilant. The question was, how to implement or integrate the toxic substance into crops.

“Another long-term interest of the Foundation has been gossypol, a compound that has been shown to have an antifertility effect in men, By the end of 1985, the Foundation had made grants totaling approximately $1.6 million in an effort to support and stimulate scientific investigations on the safety and efficacy of gossypol.”

In the 1986 Rockefeller Foundation annual report, the organization admits funding research into the use of fertility-reducing compounds in relation to food for “widespread use”:

“Male contraceptive studies are focused on gossypol, a natural substance extracted from the cotton plant, and identified by Chinese researchers as having an anti-fertility effect on men. Before widespread use can be recommended, further investigation is needed to see if lowering the dosage can eliminate undesirable side-effects without reducing its effectiveness as a contraceptive. The Foundation supported research on gossypol’s safety, reversibility and efficacy in seven different 1986 grants.”

In the RF’s 1988 annual report, gossypol as a contraceptive was also elaborated upon (page 22):

“Gossypol, a natural substance found in the cotton plant, continues to show promise as an oral contraceptive for men. Because it suppresses sperm production without affecting sex hormone levels, it is unique among the experimental approaches to fertility control in men. Foundation-funded scientists worldwide have assembled an aray of information about how gossypol works, and studies continue on a wide variety of its clinical applications. Dose reduction is being investigated to reduce health risks associated with the use of gossypol.”

The following year, according to the annual report, funds were allocated to several research institutions to see how this “dose reduction” could best be accomplished without interfering with the ant-fertility effects of gossypol.

(1988- $ 400,000, in addition to remaining funds from prior year appropriations) To support research on gossypol, its safety, reversibility, and efficacy as a contraceptive for use by men (…).”

Mention is made on money allocated to the University of Texas, “for a study of gossypol’s effects on DNA replication (…).”

The last mention of gossypol in the Foundation’s annals we find in the 1994 annual report, where funds were appropriated to the University of Innsbruck of Austria “for a study at the Institute of Physiology on the molecular action of gossypol at the cellular level.”

It seems that the funded scientists have indeed found a way of “lowering the dosage” of gossypol, circumventing the toxicity of the substance, so as to suppress or even eliminate these “undesirable side-effects”, which include: low blood potassium levels, fatigue, muscle weakness and even paralysis. If these effects could be eliminated without reducing the anti-fertility effects, the Foundation figured, it would be a highly effective and almost undetectable sterilant.

Although overtly, research into and development of gossypol as a anti-fertility compound was abandoned in the late 1990s, the cottonseed containing the substance was especially selected for mass distribution in the beginning of the current decade. Around 2006 a media-campaign was launched, saying the cottonseed could help defeat hunger and poverty.

In 2006, NatureNews reported that RNA interference (or RNAi) was the way to go. On the one hand it would “cut the gossypol content in cottonseeds by 98%, while leaving the chemical defenses of the rest of the plant intact.” Furthermore, the article quoted Dr. Deborah P. Delmer, the Rockefeller Foundation’s associate director of food security, who was quick to bury any concern:

“Deborah Delmer, associate director of the Rockefeller Foundation in New York City and an expert in agricultural food safety, points out that a benefit of using RNAi technology is that it turns off a gene process rather than switching on a novel function. “So instead of introducing a new foreign protein, you’re just shutting down one process,” Delmer says. “In that sense, I think that the safety concerns should be far less than other GM technologies.”

A 2006, National Geographic article Toxin-Free Cottonseed Engineered; Could Feed Millions Study Says, quotes the director of the Laboratory for Crop Transformation (Texas A&M Universtity), Keerti Singh Rathore as saying:

“A gossypol-free cottonseed would significantly contribute to human nutrition and health, particularly in developing countries, and help meet the requirements of the predicted 50 percent increase in the world population in the next 50 years.”

“Rathore’s study”, states the article, “represents the first substantiated case where gossypol was reduced via genetic engineering that targets the genes that make the toxin.”

I bring into recollection the statement made by the Rockefeller Foundation in its 1986 annual report, which reads:

“Before widespread use can be recommended, further investigation is needed to see if lowering the dosage can eliminate undesirable side-effects without reducing its effectiveness as a contraceptive.”

In the 1997 Foundational report, Rathore is mentioned (page 68). A postdoctoral fellowship-grant was given to a certain E. Chandrakanth “for advanced study in plant molecular biology under the direction of Keerti S. Rathore, Laboratory for Crop Transformation, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.”

Compromising connections, in other words, for someone who claimed academic objectivity in regards to gossypol and its sterilizing effects. Rathore explained the workings of RNAi in a 2006 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“Cottonseed toxicity due to gossypol is a long-standing problem”, Rathore said, “and people have tried to fix it but haven’t been able to through traditional plant breeding. My area of research is plant transgenics, so I thought about using some molecular approaches to address this problem.”

Rathore also mentioned the desired main funder of his work without actually saying the name:

“we are trying to find some partners and will probably be looking at charitable foundations to help us out in terms of doing all kinds of testing that is required before a genetically engineered plant is approved for food or feed. We are in the very early stages and have a lot of ideas in mind, but we need to pursue those. Hopefully, we can find some sort of partnership that will allow us to do them.”

He also expressed the final adaptation of the cottonseed for widespread use is something of the long term:

“(…) right now there are many hurdles when you are dealing with a genetically modified plant. But I think in the next 15 or 20 years a lot of these regulations that we have to satisfy will be eliminated or reduced substantially.”

The Foundation, as is evident from the statements of Rockefeller’s own Deborah Delmer, is more than interested. Even worse, through the process of readying gossypol for mass-distribution in food, the fulfillment of their longstanding goal of sterilizing the masses into oblivion comes closer into view.

Global revolt against deadly vaccines spreads as cases of debilitating illnesses, soft-kill side-effects and even instant deaths become widespread

by Paul Joseph Watson, IW

Cases of debilitating illnesses, soft-kill side-effects and even instant deaths as a result of vaccinations across the world are skyrocketing as the cover-up of deadly inoculations implodes and more people than ever become suspicious about what they are being injected with by health authorities who have proven they cannot be trusted.

The implosion of the vaccine cover-up is sure to discourage more parents from vaccinating their children in the coming months, with the swine flu shot now being combined with the regular seasonal flu jab. A recent Rasmussen poll found that 52 per cent of Americans were concerned about the safety of vaccines as we approach the start of school and college terms, where many children and teenagers will be “required” to take shots before they can attend.

A global revolt against dangerous vaccines is brewing following a series of cases where children have been killed as a direct result of inoculations.

A measles vaccination program in India was halted after four children died almost immediately after receiving the shot. “Four children died within minutes of receiving a vaccine for measles followed by drops of Vitamin A solution on Saturday,” reports MedGuru.

Indian newspaper reports carried eyewitness accounts of what happened. “The four children were reported to have fainted soon after they were vaccinated and witnesses reported seeing the children’s eyes roll back as they began to have seizures,” reports Blitz.

Furious villagers reacted to the tragedy by going on a rampage, attacking health workers and holding government doctors hostage.

Health professionals and doctors with government ties were also blamed in Finland and Sweden after a H1N1 vaccination program was halted following a 300 per cent increase in cases of the neurological disorder narcolepsy amongst children and young people who had received the shot over the last six months.

According to Kari Lankinen, head physician of the Finnish Medicines Agency, doctors were complicit in hiding the link between the swine flu shot and narcolepsy and did so to advance their careers.

Meanwhile, concerned mothers whose daughters have been injured or killed by the Gardasil vaccine have put together a website that documents the truth about how the vaccine has killed and injured thousands of young girls since it was introduced in 2006. Thousands of teenagers have suffered adverse reactions and at least 71 have died from the vaccine since the HPV program was launched four years ago.

The global vaccine cover-up took a massive blow after it was confirmed that the 2009 swine flu outbreak was, as we predicted from the start, a contrived scam centered around making vast profits for pharmaceutical companies while endangering the health of the public.

As we reported earlier this year, Chair of the Council of Europe’s Sub-committee on Health Wolfgang Wodarg’s investigation into the 2009 swine flu outbreak found that the pandemic was a fake hoax manufactured by pharmaceutical companies in league with the WHO.

Wodarg said that governments were “threatened” by special interest groups within the pharmaceutical industry as well as the WHO to buy the vaccines and inject their populations without any reasonable scientific reason for doing so, and yet in countries like Germany and France only around 6 per cent took the vaccine despite enough being available to cover 90 per cent of the population.

Wodarg said there was “no other explanation” for what happened than the fact that the WHO worked in cahoots with the pharmaceutical industry to manufacture the panic in order to generate vast profits, agreeing with host Alex Jones that the entire farce was a hoax.

He also explained how health authorities were “already waiting for something to happen” before the pandemic started and then exploited the virus for their own purposes.

Professor Ulrich Keil, director of the World Health Organization’s Collaborating Centre for Epidemiology, also slammed the swine flu epidemic as an overblown “angst campaign”, devised in conjunction with major drug companies to boost profits for vaccine manufacturers.

As Natural News’ Mike Adams reported, several members of the Emergency Committee expert panel that advised the World Health Organization (WHO) during the swine flu scare were receiving financial support from pharmaceutical manufacturers either during or prior to the epidemic.

Both H1N1 and seasonal flu shots have been linked with a number of different side-effects across the globe, including Guillain-Barré Syndrome as well as dystonia, a paralyzing neurological disorder.

The seasonal flu vaccine has also been linked with convulsions and fits in under-5?s.

Many batches of the swine flu vaccine included squalene and mercury amongst their ingredients, two substances that have been directly connected with the explosion of autism amongst children as well as other diseases. Individuals within government and the military were privileged to receive additive free shots that did not include these substances. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and government ministers, as well as German soldiers, were amongst those who received access to the so-called “friendly” version of the vaccine.

In order to head off legal claims for side-effects caused by the swine flu vaccination program,the U.S. government provided vaccine makers with blanket legal immunity before the shots began to be dispersed.

Citing concerns over safety, Prime Minister Donald Tusk and Health Minister Ewa Kopacz, with the broad support of the public, ensured that Poland was the only country in the world to completely reject the H1N1 vaccine.

“We are making this decision only in the interest of the Polish patient and the taxpayer,” Tusk said. “We will not take part because it’s not honest and it’s not safe for the patient.”

In a 2008 trial for a bird flu vaccine, three Polish doctors and six nurses faced criminal chargesafter the vaccine killed 21 homeless people who were participating in the test.

The Czech Republic rejected a swine flu vaccine produced by pharmaceutical manufacturer Baxter after the company was caught shipping vaccines contaminated with deadly live H5N1 avian flu virus to 18 countries by a lab at an Austrian branch of Baxter.

Given the routinely stated goal on behalf of mega-rich foundations that fund vaccination programs around the world, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, to use vaccines as a way of sterilizing the planet’s population as part of the global eugenics soft-kill assault on humanity, it’s unsurprising that as more people become aware of this agenda, take-up rates of new as well as seasonal vaccines continue to decline.

As Jurriaan Maessen recently documented in his Infowars exclusive, in its 1968 yearly report, the Rockefeller Foundation acknowledged funding the development of so-called “anti-fertility vaccines” and their implementation on a mass-scale.

This program was then launched by a group that was created under auspices of the World Health Organization, World Bank and UN Population Fund entitled “Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation”. In the 1990?s, the WHO was mired in controversy after it distributed a “tetanus vaccine” to poor girls and women in the third world that was contaminated with human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG), a hormone that induces involuntary abortion.

During a TED conference earlier this year, Bill Gates openly stated that vaccines would be used to lower the earth’s population in the name of combating climate change. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is one of the major funders of vaccine research and production in the third world.

Warning that the global population was heading towards 9 billion, Gates said, “If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services (abortion), we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 per cent.”

Quite how an improvement in health care and vaccines that supposedly save lives would lead to a lowering in global population is an oxymoron, unless Gates was referring to vaccines that sterilize people, which is precisely the same method advocated in White House science advisor John P. Holdren’s 1977 textbook Ecoscience, which calls for a dictatorial “planetary regime” to enforce draconian measures of population reduction via all manner of oppressive techniques, including sterilization.

With people globally becoming increasingly aware of the role of vaccines in the agenda to reduce world population, the cover-up of debilitating diseases, soft kill side-effects, and instant fatalities as a result of vaccinations will continue to implode, until authorities are forced by law to implement vastly more stringent screening procedures and remove the toxic additives from vaccines that are causing these deaths and diseases.

from Daily Mail

Family rights campaigners have called for a change in the law after it was revealed that girls as young as 12 can be given the cervical cancer vaccine without their parents’ consent.

Doctors and nurses have been told they are under no legal obligation to seek the permission of the parent or guardian.

The jab is being offered to girls between 12 and 18 as part of a nationwide programme designed to protect them against the sexually transmitted HPV virus, which causes 70 per cent of cervical tumours.

Opponents have argued that giving girls the jab and protecting them against a sexually transmitted infection before they are even teenagers is giving them the go-ahead to experiment sexually.

Norman Wells, director of Family and Youth Concern, said: ‘Giving the vaccination to girls without the consent of their parents is unethical and a recipe for disaster.

‘It is sending out the message that girls under 16 have a right to a private sex life and is treating parents with contempt.’

The Department of Health confirmed that parental consent was desirable but not essential.

by Rick Rozoff, BLN

The government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently concluded the largest of a series of so-called Canadian sovereignty exercises in the Arctic, Operation Nanook, which ran from August 6-26.

Harper, Minister of National Defence Peter MacKay and Chief of the Defence Staff of the Canadian Forces General Walter Natynczyk visited the nation’s 900 troops participating in the “Canadian Forces’ largest annual demonstration of Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic” [1] which included “Canada’s air force, navy, coast guard…testing their combat capabilities in the frigid cold.” [2]

Nanook military exercises were commenced in 2007 when Russia renewed its claims to parts of the Arctic and resumed air patrols in the region after an almost twenty year hiatus. They are complemented by two other Canadian military drills in the region, Operation Nunalivut in the High Arctic and Operation Nunakput in the western Arctic.

Canada is formally involved in territorial disputes with two other Arctic claimants: The United States over the Beaufort Sea lying between Canada’s Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory and the American state of Alaska, and Denmark over the Hans Island between Canada’s Ellesmere Island and Denmark’s Greenland possession on the other end of the Arctic.

Four of the five nations with Arctic claims, all except Russia, are founders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization whose charter commits member states to mutual military assistance.

With the melting of the polar ice cap and the opening of the fabled Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans for the first time in recorded history, the scramble for the Arctic – reported to contain 30 percent of the world’s undiscovered natural gas and 13 percent of undiscovered oil according to last year’s U.S. Geological Survey – is under way in earnest. The military value of the navigability of the passage is of even greater and more pressing significance.

The George W. Bush administration’s National Security Presidential Directive 66 of January 12, 2009 states:

“The United States has broad and fundamental national security interests in the Arctic region and is prepared to operate either independently or in conjunction with other states to safeguard these interests. These interests include such matters as missile defense and early warning; deployment of sea and air systems for strategic sealift, strategic deterrence, maritime presence, and maritime security operations; and ensuring freedom of navigation and overflight.” [3]

The U.S. insists that the Northwest Passage is open to international navigation while Canada claims it as solely its own. Yet Ottawa has accommodated Washington at every turn while persisting in saber-rattling comments and actions alike vis-a-vis Russia.

Sixteen days after the release of the White House’s Arctic directive of last year NATO conducted a two-day Seminar on Security Prospects in the High North in Iceland attended by the military bloc’s secretary general, its two top military commanders and the chairman of its Military Committee, and stated that “Clearly, the High North is a region that is of strategic interest to the Alliance.” [4]

Although Canada’s territorial disputes in the Arctic are with fellow NATO members the U.S. and Denmark, the three nations have recently coordinated their strategies and in this year’s Operation Nanook have for the first time collectively participated in military exercises in the Arctic region.

In mid-July NATO’s chief European military commanders, Admiral James Stavridis, Supreme Allied Commander Europe, and General Sir John McColl, Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, arrived in the Canadian capital at the invitation of the nation’s military chief, General Walter Natynczyk. The three consulted on “how to take the Alliance forward” and Stavridis “conveyed his latest appraisal of NATO’s progress in Afghanistan and commended Canada on its contributions to NATO’s efforts around the world.” [5]

Canadian Defence Minister MacKay stated almost two years ago: “We are concerned about not just Russia’s claims through the international process, but Russia’s testing of Canadian airspace and other indications…(of) some desire to work outside of the international framework. That is obviously why we are taking a range of measures, including military measures, to strengthen our sovereignty in the North.” [6]

A year ago Canada and the U.S. conducted a 42-day joint Arctic expedition to survey the continental shelf for future bilateral demarcation, following a more modest effort along the same lines in 2008 and followed this year by one with U.S. and Canadian ships from August 7 to September 3. The latter was announced two weeks after a Russian research vessel left St. Petersburg on a mission to delimit the borders of Russia’s Arctic continental shelf.

The U.S. State Department described the purpose of this year’s expedition: “The mission will help delineate the outer limits of the continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean for the U.S. and Canada, and will also include the collection of data in the disputed area where the U.S. and Canada have not agreed to a maritime boundary.” [7] It is being held in the Canada Basin, the Beaufort Shelf, and the Alpha Mendeleev Ridge. The last, along with the Lomonosov Ridge, is the basis of Russian Arctic claims.

On May 14 Canada and Denmark signed a military agreement, a memorandum of understanding pledging to collaborate more closely in the Arctic “through enhanced consultation, information exchange, visits, and exercises,” according to the Canadian Forces. [8] The preceding month Denmark deployed a unit to participate in the Operation Nunalivut exercise in the High Arctic.

The Royal Danish Navy sent the HDMS Vaedderen ocean patrol vessel and the HDMS Knud Rasmussen offshore patrol vessel to join the recently concluded Nanook 10 exercises, where they were joined by the U.S. Second Fleet’s naval destroyer USS Porter and the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Alder “for the purpose of exercising and increasing…interoperability with Arctic allies.”

As for the Canadian contribution, “The Air Force [provided] air movement and mission support through the CC-177 Globemaster III, CC-130 Hercules, CP-140 Aurora, CH-146 Griffon, and CC-138 Twin Otter aircraft.

“The maritime component [included] Her Majesty’s Canadian Ships (HMCS) Montreal, Glace Bay and Goose Bay; and Canadian Coast Guard Ships CCGS Des Groseilliers and CCGS Henry Larsen.” [9]

Military personnel involved included “About 900 Canadian troops [who patrolled] parts of the Eastern and Northern Arctic by air, land and sea.” Another “600 military personnel from the Danish Royal Navy, the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard are also [took] part in the operation.” [10]

In the words of Lieutenant Commander Albert Wong of Canada Command, “They’re our allies. Collaboration is part of what Canada does.” [11]

This year’s exercise was based in Resolute Bay in the Nunavut federal territory where the Harper government is building a new army Arctic warfare training center in Resolute and a deep-sea port for the Nanisivik Naval Facility to be constructed on Baffin Island. Canadian Navy Lieutenant Commander Robert Houle said before the event that “2010′s military operation will push further north than in past years.” [12] That is, north of the Arctic Circle for the first time.

“The US Navy 2nd Fleet, the US Coast Guard and the Royal Danish Navy…joined in the war games in an effort to enhance the allies’ capabilities to cooperate in Arctic waters.” [13]

In fact the NATO allies collaborated to an unprecedented degree, as “Danish and American vessels” conducted “ocean exercises throughout eastern Nunavut.” [14]

After visits by Canada’s defense and military chiefs to inspect the multinational war games, Prime Minister Harper arrived in Resolute on August 25, the penultimate day of the 20-day military maneuvers, to – in the words of one of the nation’s main news agencies – rally the 1,500 Canadian, American and Danish troops present. [15]

Harper’s visit to inspect the exercise occurred only hours after another – potentially dangerous – publicity stunt by his government: Dispatching CF-18 fighter jets (variants of the American F/A-18 Hornet) to allegedly ward off two Russian Tupolev Tu-95 (Bear) strategic bombers patrolling off Canada’s northern border, “something the Russian military does frequently.” [16]

Harper’s press secretary, Dimitri Soudas, “said the two CF-18 Hornet fighters visually identified the two Russian aircraft approximately 120 nautical miles north of Inuvik in Northwest Territories,” [17] over international waters.

The timing of the Canadian action, as that of its announcement, was calculated. As was a comparable incident in February of 2009 when then recently installed U.S. President Barack Obama paid his first visit abroad to Ottawa, to meet with Harper, and his host scrambled warplanes to intercept a Russian Tu-95 bomber – on a routine mission thousands of kilometers from the Canadian capital – in a show of bravado and of loyalty to his ally south of the border.

“The Russians said then the plane never encroached on Canadian airspace and that Canada had been told about the flight beforehand.” [18]

Last year Canada’s prime minister and defence minister made the following comments:

Harper: “We have scrambled F-18 [CF-18] jets in the past, and they’ll always be there to meet them.”

MacKay: “When we see a Russian Bear [Tu-95] approaching Canadian air space, we meet them with an F-18.” [19]

A few days before Operation Nanook began, July 28, Canada also deployed CF-18 fighters against Russian Tu-95 bombers “as debate rage[d] over whether Canada needs the next generation of fighter jets to replace the nearly 30-year-old CF 18s. The Harper government has committed to buying 65 F-35 stealth fighters at a cost of $9 billion. Critics have said such Cold War-type jets are no longer needed.” [20]

The same source provided background information concerning what is being fought over:

“Canada is in a race with Russia and other Arctic nations to lay claim to the frozen territory that may hold untold treasures.

“Geologists believe the Arctic shelf holds vast stores of oil, natural gas, diamonds, gold and minerals. A 2007 Russian intelligence report predicted that conflict with other Arctic nations is a distinct possibility, including military action ‘in a competition for resources.’” [21]

Regarding the later occurrence on August 24, “The Prime Minister’s Office used the incident to promote Ottawa’s plan to buy 65 stealth fighter jets for $16 billion.” [22]

The discrepancy in (Canadian) dollar amounts is attributable to Ottawa’s attempt in May to underestimate the actual cost of the purchase when Defence Minister MacKay said “There is eye-watering technology now available, and a fifth-generation fighter aircraft will be brought to Canada after the year 2017.” [23], but failed to disclose the total cost.

When in-service support and other additional outlays are included, the total package will be $16 billion, according to a major Canadian newspaper “one of the most expensive military equipment purchases ever.” [24]

In fact the F-35 Lightning II fifth generation stealth fighter project also has been estimated to be “the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons program” at a cost of $323 billion for 2,443 of the warplanes. [25]

Last month Defence Minister MacKay confirmed that Canada will buy 65 of the Joint Strike Fighters. At the same time Ottawa announced that the $3 billion Joint Support Ship project will be restarted, as “the military [wants] Joint Supply Ships to be capable of carrying army vehicles and to provide support to ground forces ashore. The ships would also have an air-force element on board, having helicopters and repair facilities for those aircraft. A hospital would also be included on the vessels.” [26]

On August 25 Dmitri Soudas, Harper’s director of communications, trumpeted the news of the non-encounter between Canadian and Russian military aircraft and laid the bravado on thickly – and not without a purpose. His comments included:

“Thanks to the rapid response of the Canadian Forces, at no time did the Russian aircraft enter sovereign Canadian airspace.

“The Harper Government has ensured our Forces have the tools, the readiness and the personnel to continue to meet any challenges to Canadian sovereignty with a robust response.

“This is true today, it will be true tomorrow and it will be true well into the future.

“The CF-18 is an incredible aircraft that enables our Forces to meet Russian challenges in our North. That proud tradition will continue after the retirement of the CF-18 fleet as the new, highly capable and technologically-advanced F-35 comes into service. It is the best plane our Government could provide our Forces, and when you are a pilot staring down Russian long range bombers, that’s an important fact to remember.” [27]

The Associated Press reported on the above statement that “Soudas noted…Canada’s recent purchase of 65 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets from U.S. aerospace giant Lockheed Martin Corp. The $8.5 billion purchase, one of the biggest military equipment purchases in the country’s history, was due to be debated at a parliamentary defense committee hearing on Wednesday. [August 25, the date of Soudas' comments]. The jets will replace the Air Force’s aging fleet of CF-18s.” [28]

According to a Canadian journalist:

“This week…we learned that the Cold War is not, in fact, over and that Russia remains an active threat in the north….Harper’s press spokesman, noted Sovietologist Dimitri Soudas, explicitly turned the Russian flyby into an argument for a $16-billion, sole-sourced upgrade of Canada’s fighter-plane fleet.” [29]

Canada requires an adversary to justify large-scale arms acquisitions. In the past three years it has bought and leased 120 Leopard tanks from Germany and the Netherlands for the war in Afghanistan. It has purchased and used Israeli-made Heron drones (unmanned aerial vehicles) for the same war theater and beyond, one of which crashed near a military base in Alberta last month knocking out power lines.

It has also acquired Chinook, Griffon and Mi-8 helicopters for NATO’s war in South Asia, where it has deployed 2,830 troops and where 151 of its soldiers have been killed.

The Polar Epsilon spaced-based satellite project is being developed for the Arctic, and while in Resolute Bay on Wednesday Prime Minister Harper reiterated that the RADARSAT Constellation Mission, a three-spacecraft fleet of satellites that is the centerpiece of Polar Epsilon, “will provide the Canadian military with daily coverage of Canada’s land mass and ocean approaches ‘from coast-to-coast-to-coast, especially in the Arctic.’” [30]

In June defense chief MacKay disclosed that Canada will spend over $30 billion “to build 28 large vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard and navy, as well as 100 smaller ships.” [31]

Canada is, as NATO’s top military commander Admiral Stavridis remarked in Ottawa last month, providing the Western military bloc and the Pentagon indispensable services around the world. In the Arctic as much as if not more than anywhere else.

Related articles:

Canada: Battle Line In East-West Conflict Over The Arctic
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/canada-battle-line-in-east-west-conflict-over-the-arctic

Encroachment From All Compass Points: Canada Leads NATO Confrontation With Russia In North
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/encroachment-from-all-compass-points-canada-leads-nato-confrontation-with-russia-in-north

Loose Cannon And Nuclear Submarines: West Prepares For Arctic Warfare
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/loose-cannon-and-nuclear-submarines-west-prepares-for-arctic-warfare

Canada: In Service To The Pentagon And NATO At Home And Abroad
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/canada-in-service-to-the-pentagon-and-nato-at-home-and-abroad

Notes

1) Xinhua News Agency, August 7, 2010
2) Agence France-Presse, August 25, 2010
3) NATO’s, Pentagon’s New Strategic Battleground: The Arctic
Stop NATO, February 2, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/natos-pentagons-new-strategic-battleground-the-arctic
4) Ibid
5) North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe
July 11, 2010
6) Canwest News Service, September 12, 2008
7) Russian Information Agency Novosti, July 27, 2010
Nunatsiaq News, May 24, 2010
9) Xinhua News Agency, August 7, 2010
10) CTV, August 25, 2010
11) Nunatsiaq News, June 16, 2010
12) CBC News, August 3, 2010
13) Agence France-Presse, August 25, 2010
14) CBC News, August 18, 2010
15) Canadian Press, August 25, 2010
16) CTV, August 25, 2010
17) Xinhua News Agency, August 25, 2010
18) Associated Press, August 25, 2010
19) Encroachment From All Compass Points: Canada Leads NATO Confrontation With
Russia In North
Stop NATO, August 5, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/encroachment-from-all-compass-points-canada-leads-nato-confrontation-with-russia-in-north
20) Toronto Sun
Quebec Media, Inc. Agency
July 30, 2010
21) Ibid
22) CTV, August 25, 2010
23) Canwest News Service, May 28, 2010
24) Ottawa Citizen, July 12, 2010
25) PBS Newshour, April 21, 2010
26) Ottawa Citizen, July 12, 2010
27) CBC News, August 25, 2010
28) Associated Press, August 25, 2010
29) Susan Riley, The Russians aren’t coming
Ottawa Citizen, August 27, 2010
30) Agence France-Presse, August 25, 2010
31) Xinhua News Agency, June 4, 2010

Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

from Washington’s Blog

I have repeatedly pointed out that it is possible that the IMF’s special drawing rights (SDRs) will become the world’s reserve currency.

And as I noted in April 2009, there is some possibility that the “Bancor” will ultimately fill that role:

But you probably have not heard that:

China’s government has floated a variant of this idea, suggesting a currency based on 30 commodities along the lines of the “Bancor” proposed by John Maynard Keynes in 1944.

Indeed, the head of the China’s central bank wrote recently:

Though the super-sovereign reserve currency has long since been proposed, yet no substantive progress has been achieved to date. Back in the 1940s, Keynes had already proposed to introduce an international currency unit named “Bancor”, based on the value of 30 representative commodities. Unfortunately, the proposal was not accepted. The collapse of the Bretton Woods system, which was based on the White approach, indicates that the Keynesian approach may have been more farsighted. The IMF also created the SDR in 1969, when the defects of the Bretton Woods system initially emerged, to mitigate the inherent risks sovereign reserve currencies caused. Yet, the role of the SDR has not been put into full play due to limitations on its allocation and the scope of its uses. However, it serves as the light in the tunnel for the reform of the international monetary system.

Keynes proposed that the Bancor was to be fixed in terms of 30 commodities, of which one would be gold. The arguments for currency fixed on a basket of commodities was that it would stabilize the average prices of commodities, and with them the international medium of exchange and a store of value.

As China’s central banker said, the goal would be to create a reserve currency “that is disconnected from individual nations and is able to remain stable in the long run, thus removing the inherent deficiencies caused by using credit-based national currencies”.

But Keynes’ Bancor proposal did not only entail pegging SDR’s to a basket of currencies:

He proposed a global bank, which he called the International Clearing Union. The bank would issue its own currency – the bancor – which was exchangeable with national currencies at fixed rates of exchange. The bancor would become the unit of account between nations, which means it would be used to measure a country’s trade deficit or trade surplus.

Every country would have an overdraft facility in its bancor account at the International Clearing Union, equivalent to half the average value of its trade over a five-year period. To make the system work, the members of the union would need a powerful incentive to clear their bancor accounts by the end of the year: to end up with neither a trade deficit nor a trade surplus. But what would the incentive be?

Keynes proposed that any country racking up a large trade deficit (equating to more than half of its bancor overdraft allowance) would be charged interest on its account. It would also be obliged to reduce the value of its currency and to prevent the export of capital. But – and this was the key to his system – he insisted that the nations with a trade surplus would be subject to similar pressures. Any country with a bancor credit balance that was more than half the size of its overdraft facility would be charged interest, at a rate of 10%. It would also be obliged to increase the value of its currency and to permit the export of capital. If, by the end of the year, its credit balance exceeded the total value of its permitted overdraft, the surplus would be confiscated. The nations with a surplus would have a powerful incentive to get rid of it. In doing so, they would automatically clear other nations’ deficits.

As FT Alphaville’s Izabella Kaminska reported recently, the IMF has recently floated the idea of SDR and perhaps ultimately Bancor as world reserve currency:

FT Alphaville missed this IMF paper when it first came out in April, 2010.

Authored by Reza Moghadam, director of the IMF’s strategy, policy and review department, it discusses how the IMF sees the International Monetary System evolving after the financial crisis.

***

In the eyes of the IMF at least, the best way to ensure the stability of the international monetary system (post crisis) is actually by launching a global currency.

And that, the IMF says, is largely because sovereigns — as they stand — cannot be trusted to redistribute surplus reserves, or battle their deficits, themselves.

The ongoing buildup of such imbalances, meanwhile, only makes the system increasingly vulnerable to shocks. It’s also a process that’s ultimately unsustainable for all, says the IMF.

***All in all, the IMF believes there has simply been too much reserve hoarding going on:

Reserve accumulation has accelerated dramatically in the past decade, particularly since the 2003-4. At the end of 2009, reserves had risen to 13 percent of global GDP, doubling from their 2000 level, and over 50 percent of total imports of goods and services. Emerging market holdings rose to 32 percent of their GDP (26 percent excluding China). Twenty-seven of the top 40 reserve holders, accounting for over 90 percent of total reserve holdings, recorded doubledigit average growth in reserves over 1999-2008.

Holdings have also become increasingly concentrated, with over half the total held by only five countries. These numbers exclude substantial foreign assets of the official sector not recorded as reserves, including in sovereign wealth funds (SWFs), and yet invested in liquid, dollar denominated financial instruments, that have grown even more in recent years.1

Of course, in the first instance, the solution probably lies in closer collaboration between sovereigns, most likely via the more active use of such things as special drawing rights, says the IMF.

But in the end, a global currency makes the most sense, the paper concludes — especially since the SDR is currently just an accounting tool that draws on the freely usable currencies of member states , not an actual currency itself.

As they summarise:

48. From SDR to bancor. A limitation of the SDR as discussed previously is that it is not a currency. Both the SDR and SDR-denominated instruments need to be converted eventually to a national currency for most payments or interventions in foreign exchange markets, which adds to cumbersome use in transactions.

And though an SDR-based system would move away from a dominant national currency, the SDR’s value remains heavily linked to the conditions and performance of the major component countries. A more ambitious reform option would be to build on the previous ideas and develop, over time, a global currency. Called, for example, bancor in honor of Keynes, such a currency could be used as a medium of exchange—an “outside money” in contrast to the SDR which remains an “inside money”.

But before you get ready to burn your fiat currency, it’s not actually a turnaround the IMF sees being executed any time soon.

As they conclude:

It is understood that some of the ideas discussed are unlikely to materialize in the foreseeable future absent a dramatic shift in appetitefor international cooperation.

However, in a possible indication of how seriously the SDR is being taken, the U.S. Postal Service is quoting SDR to dollar conversion rates:

1. Convert the U.S. dollar amount to the special drawing right (SDR) valueand enter it in the SDR value block. For example:

INSURED VALUE
$100.00 (U.S.)
65.76 SDR

(Here is the original web page, without highlighting.).

A search of the U.S. Postal Office website shows that - as of April 2008 – the relevant web page did not have any reference to SDRs. The most recent revisions to this web page were made on July 30, 2010. However, I cannot tell whether the references to SDRs were added in the most recent July revision, or in a previous edit.

I am not implying that this is nefarious. I’m not entirely sure what this means, but – as far as I can tell – no other currencies other than SDRs and the U.S. dollar are mentioned in this section of the Postal Service website. At the least, it is interesting.

The Swedish postal service is also purportedly giving SDR conversions.

Whether or not SDRs (or Bancors) are coming soon, one thing is for certain. The dollar is losing its luster as world reserve currency. See this, this, this and this.

Update: Further digging shows that some postal services have adopted SDRs as part of the international multilateral agreements of the Universal Postal Union, an international organization of postal services. See this website from the Czech Republic, for example, from October 2009.

The earliest reference to postal service use of SDR’s which I have found is aJanuary 2007 version of the Swedish post office’s website, stating:

Posten’s responsbility for lost or damaged International Parcel Post is limited to SDR 40 per mailing + SDR 4.50 per kilogram of the gross product weight, in accordance with the acts of the Universal Postal Union (UPU).