Obama told of family’s slave-owning history in deep South

An amateur genealogist has revealed a surprise in the family tree of the black contender in the race to be the Democrats’ presidential candidate

by Paul Harris in New York @paulxharris

Reproduced from The Guardian. First published on Sun 4 Mar 2007 12.03 GMT

It is a question that few thought a man aiming to be America’s first black President would ever have to answer: did your family once own slaves?

But that question is now likely to be asked of Senator Barack Obama, who is bidding for the 2008 presidential nomination of the Democratic Party, in part on the appeal of his bi-racial background.

As the son of a black Kenyan father and a white Kansan mother, Obama has seemed to embody a harmonious vision of America’s multiracial society. However, recent revelations have thrown up an unexpected twist in the tale.

Obama’s ancestors on his white mother’s side appear to have been slave owners. William Reitwiesner, an amateur genealogical researcher, has published a history of Obama’s mother’s family and discovered that her ancestors have a distinctly shadowy past.

Reitwiesner traced Obama’s great-great-great-great-grandfather, George Washington Overall, and found that he owned two slaves in Kentucky: a 15-year-old girl and a 25-year-old man. He also found out that Obama’s great-great-great-great-great-grandmother, Mary Duvall, also owned a pair of slaves listed in an 1850 census record. They were a 60-year-old man and a 58-year-old woman. In fact, the Duvalls were a wealthy family whose members were descended from a major landowner, Maureen Duvall, whose estate owned at least 18 slaves in the 17th century.

The news comes at a time when Obama is engaged in a fierce battle with Senator Hillary Clinton to woo black voters in their bids to get the Democratic presidential nomination. It also comes ahead of appearances by both Clinton and Obama today in Selma, Alabama, to mark the anniversary of a famous 1965 civil rights march. This is hardly the best time to be exposed as the descendant of slave owners.

Reitwiesner has posted his research, which he warns is a ‘first draft’, on his website, wargs.com. However, the news is unlikely to be a serious political problem for Obama, despite the fact that some black commentators have accused him of not being a real black American. Nor is he likely to be alone in finding out that his white ancestors once owned the ancestors of his fellow black Americans. America, like Britain, is caught in the grip of a frenzy of genealogical research. Dozens of websites have sprung up, allowing fast and easy access to all sorts of historical records and prompting many Americans to research their family trees.

That can throw up some very surprising results. In fact, last week Obama was not even the only black politician to find out some unusual personal history. The civil rights campaigner, the Reverend Al Sharpton was stunned to discover his slave ancestors were owned by the late politician Strom Thurmond, who once ran for President on a staunchly racist segregationist platform. The pair might even be related. The news prompted Sharpton to issue a statement about his private agony at the revelation. ‘Words cannot fully describe the feelings I had when I learned the awful truth. Not only I am the descendant of slaves, but my family had to endure the particular agony of being slaves to the Thurmonds.’

Obama’s campaign team have handled the news of his family’s slaving past a bit more casually and a lot less emotionally, issuing a statement saying such a family background was ‘representative of America’. That is certainly true. Slavery was the economic bedrock of the American economy in the South before the Civil War. It would come as no surprise that anyone tracing their family roots back to the pre-war South would find that his descendants had owned slaves.

But more edifying discoveries can come from looking at the past too. Another of Obama’s ancestors, his great-great-great-grandfather, Christopher Columbus Clark, fought for the Union army in the Civil War. As a result Obama can also lay claim to relatives who risked their lives to end slavery. ‘While a relative owned slaves, another fought for the Union,’ said Obama spokesman Bill Burton in a statement. Perhaps it is just another case of Obama’s complex past showing that he can have it both ways.

The following correction was printed in the Observer’s For the record column, Sunday March 11 2007
The article above was incorrect to claim that the Rev Al Sharpton’s slave ancestors ‘were owned by the late politician Strom Thurmond, who once stood for President on a staunchly racist, segregationalist platform’. Al Sharpton’s great-grandfather, Coleman Sharpton, was a slave owned by Julia Thurmond, whose grandfather was Strom Thurmond’s great-great-grandfather.

An Obama spokesman did not dispute the information and said Obama’s ancestors “are representative of America.” – Chicago Tribune

While a relative owned slaves, another fought for the Union in the Civil War. And it is a true measure of progress that the descendant of a slave owner would come to marry a student from Kenya and produce a son who would grow up to be a candidate for president.

Barack Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton, 2007

The records could add a new dimension to questions by some who have asked whether Obama–who was raised in East Asia and Hawaii and educated at Columbia and Harvard–is attuned to the struggles of American blacks descended from West African slaves.

Gary Boyd Roberts, a senior research scholar at the New England Historic Genealogical Society, said he did not think the slave-holding history was “particularly unusual.”

“If you have a white Southern mother, or a mother from the middle states who has ancestry in the South, it doesn’t strike me that that should be very surprising,” he said. While most such families did not own slaves, many did, Roberts said.

Reitwiesner’s research identifies two other presidential candidates, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), as descendants of slave owners. Three of McCain’s great-great-grandfathers in Mississippi owned slaves, including one who owned 52 in 1860. Two ancestors of Edwards owned one slave each in Georgia in 1860.

It was unclear Thursday night whether Obama was aware of any slave-holding ancestors, but he makes no mention of them in his 1995 memoir, “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.”

Genealogical experts who reviewed the Obama family tree at the request of the Sun would not vouch for its findings.

“You just can’t casually throw some documents together and make a sophisticated analysis,” said Tony Burroughs, author of “Black Roots: A Beginner’s Guide to Tracing the African American Family Tree” and a consultant on a New York Daily News project that found that relatives of former Sen. Strom Thurmond appear to have owned the ancestors of civil rights activist Rev. Al Sharpton. – – Chicago Tribune

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Senator Obama, Harvey Weinstein, Senator Lautenberg and Senator Schumer *EXCLUSIVE* ***Exclusive*** (Photo by Sylvain Gaboury/FilmMagic)

BONUS

Michelle Obama: “Harvey Weinstein is a wonderful human being, a good friend…”

The video was culled from Obama’s remarks from the first White House Careers in Film Symposium which featured guests such as Whoopi Goldberg, Gayle King and Blake Lively. This happened on November 8, 2013.
That was AFTER Weinstein’s conviction for rape.

“I want to start by thanking Harvey Weinstein for organizing this amazing day. This is possible because of Harvey. He is a wonderful human being, a good friend and just a powerhouse. The fact that he and his team took the time to make this happen to all of you should say something not about at me or about this place, but about you. Everybody here, here because of you.”

Michelle Obama

In a 2017 joint statement, Barack and Michelle Obama said they were “disgusted” by reports about Weinstein’s sexual misconduct.

“Michelle and I have been disgusted by the recent reports about Harvey Weinstein,” the statement said. “Any man who demeans and degrades women in such fashion needs to be condemned and held accountable, regardless of wealth or status.”


To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

This is what they call “flooding the zone” in Event201
An euphemism for lousy lazy spamming I can book from Pakistani click-farms if I had the money, except those are downranked by their competition at Google, Facebook and the Funky Bunch.
These losers spent billions on “AI” and all they got was junk spam services that got even Stevie Wonder alerted.

Before we enter the official documents, please do the following experiment:
Pick any number between 10 and 1000.
Write it in an online search engine, followed by “new cases”.
Watch hundreds and thousands of news pieces reporting that specific number of cases in hundreds different locations, especially US.
Remember that 46% of the officially reported Covid-19 fatalities in US come from New York. Compare that with the distribution in the news.
If you have basic knowledge of calculus, ask yourself:
How many billions people have been reported in total?
What volume of work was required for all that reporting, in a time when much of the media was laid off or working from home, while the volume of events/news was never higher?


JULY 2021 UPDATE:

One year later, the test looks like this:

And the results look like this

More info on this further below.


Now, for the theoretical part of the demonstration, please read this information sourced from the Council of Europe official website:

AI and control of Covid-19 coronavirus

Overview carried out by the Ad hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence (CAHAI) secretariat
 

This document is also available in:

This publication intends to provide a non-exhaustive overview of articles from the media and other available public sources. It does not reflect the views of the CAHAI and of the Council of Europe.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is being used as a tool to support the fight against the viral pandemic that has affected the entire world since the beginning of 2020. The press and the scientific community are echoing the high hopes that data science and AI can be used to confront the coronavirus (D. Yakobovitch, How to fight the Coronavirus with AI and Data Science, Medium, 15 February 2020) and “fill in the blanks” still left by science (G. Ratnam, Can AI Fill in the Blanks About Coronavirus? Think So Experts, Government Technology, 17 March 2020).

China, the first epicentre of this disease and renowned for its technological advance in this field, has tried to use this to its real advantage. Its uses seem to have included support for measures restricting the movement of populations, forecasting the evolution of disease outbreaks and research for the development of a vaccine or treatment. With regard to the latter aspect, AI has been used to speed up genome sequencing, make faster diagnoses, carry out scanner analyses or, more occasionally, handle maintenance and delivery robots (A. Chun, In a time of coronavirus, China’s investment in AI is paying off in a big way, South China Morning post, 18 March 2020). 

Its contributions, which are also undeniable in terms of organising better access to scientific publications or supporting research, does not eliminate the need for clinical test phases nor does it replace human expertise entirely. The structural issues encountered by health infrastructures in this crisis situation are not due to technological solutions but to the organisation of health services, which should be able to prevent such situations occurring (Article 11 of the European Social Charter). Emergency measures using technological solutions, including AI, should also be assessed at the end of the crisis. Those that infringe on individual freedoms should not be trivialised on the pretext of a better protection of the population. The provisions of Convention 108+ should in particular continue to be applied.


The contribution of artificial intelligence to the search for a cure

The first application of AI expected in the face of a health crisis is certainly the assistance to researchers to find a vaccine able to protect caregivers and contain the pandemic. Biomedicine and research rely on a large number of techniques, among which the various applications of computer science and statistics have already been making a contribution for a long time. The use of AI is therefore part of this continuity.

The predictions of the virus structure generated by AI have already saved scientists months of experimentation. AI seems to have provided significant support in this sense, even if it is limited due to so-called “continuous” rules and infinite combinatorics for the study of protein folding. The American start-up Moderna has distinguished itself by its mastery of a biotechnology based on messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) for which the study of protein folding is essential. It has managed to significantly reduce the time required to develop a prototype vaccine testable on humans thanks to the support of bioinformatics, of which AI is an integral part. 

Similarly, Chinese technology giant Baidu, in partnership with Oregon State University and the University of Rochester, published its Linearfold prediction algorithm in February 2020 to study the same protein folding. This algorithm is much faster than traditional algorithms in predicting the structure of a virus’ secondary ribonucleic acid (RNA) and provides scientists with additional information on how viruses spread. The prediction of the secondary structure of the RNA sequence of Covid-19 would thus have been calculated by Linearfold in 27 seconds instead of 55 minutes (Baidu, How Baidu is bringing AI to the fight against coronavirus, MIT Technology Review, 11 March 2020). DeepMind, a subsidiary of Google’s parent company, Alphabet, has also shared its predictions of coronavirus protein structures with its AlphaFold AI system (J. Jumper, K. Tunyasuvunakool, P. Kohli, D. Hassabis et al, Computational predictions of protein structures associated with COVID-19, DeepMind, 5 March 2020). IBM, Amazon, Google and Microsoft have also provided the computing power of their servers to the US authorities to process very large datasets in epidemiology, bioinformatics and molecular modelling (F. Lardinois, IBM, Amazon, Google and Microsoft partner with White House to provide compute resources for COVID-19 research, Techcrunch, 22 March 2020).


Artificial intelligence, a driving force for knowledge sharing

In the United States, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy met with technology companies and major research groups on 11 March 2020, to determine how AI tools could be used to, among other things, screen the thousands of research papers published worldwide on the pandemic (A. Boyle, White House seeks the aid of tech titans to combat coronavirus and misinformation, GeekWire, March 11, 2020). 

Indeed, in the weeks following the appearance of the new coronavirus in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, nearly 2,000 research papers were published on the effects of this new virus, on possible treatments, and on the dynamics of the pandemic. This influx of scientific literature naturally reflects the eagerness of researchers to deal with this major health crisis, but it also represents a real challenge for anyone hoping to exploit it. 

Microsoft Research, the National Library of Medicine and the Allen Institute for AI (AI2) therefore presented their work on 16 March 2020, which consisted of collecting and preparing more than 29,000 documents relating to the new virus and the broader family of coronaviruses, 13,000 of which were processed so that computers could read the underlying data, as well as information on authors and their affiliations. Kaggle, a Google subsidiary and platform that usually organisesdata science competitions, created challenges around 10 key questions related to the coronavirus. These questions range from risk factors and non-drug treatments to the genetic properties of the virus and vaccine development efforts. The project also involves the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (named after Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan) and Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technologies (W. Knight, Researchers Will Deploy AI to Better Understand Coronavirus, Wired, March 17, 2020). 


Artificial intelligence, observer and predictor of the evolution of the pandemic

The Canadian company BlueDot is credited with the early detection of the virus using an AI and its ability to continuously review over 100 data sets, such as news, airline ticket sales, demographics, climate data and animal populations. BlueDot detected what was then considered an outbreak of pneumonia in Wuhan, China on 31 December 2019 and identified the cities most likely to experience this outbreak (C. Stieg, How this Canadian start-up spotted coronavirus before everyone else knew about it, CNBC, March 3, 2020).

A team of researchers working with the Boston Children’s Hospital has also developed an AI to track the spread of the coronavirus. Called HealthMap, the system integrates data from Google searches, social media and blogs, as well as discussion forums: sources of information that epidemiologists do not usually use, but which are useful for identifying the first signs of an outbreak and assessing public response (A. Johnson, How Artificial Intelligence is Aiding the fight Against Coronavirus, Datainnovation, March 13, 2020).

The International Research Centre for Artificial Intelligence (IRCAI) in Slovenia, under the auspices of UNESCO, has launched an “intelligent” media watch on coronavirus called Corona Virus Media Watch which provides updates on global and national news based on a selection of media with open online information. The tool, also developed with the support of the OECD and the Event Registry information extraction technology, is presented as a useful source of information for policy makers, the media and the public to observe emerging trends related to Covid-19 in their countries and around the world. 


Artificial intelligence to assist healthcare personnel

For their part, two Chinese companies have developed AI-based coronavirus diagnostic software. The Beijing-based start-up Infervision has trained its software to detect lung problems using computed tomography (CT) scans. Originally used to diagnose lung cancer, the software can also detect pneumonia associated with respiratory diseases such as coronavirus. At least 34 Chinese hospitals are reported to have used this technology to help them screen 32,000 suspected cases (T. Simonite, Chinese Hospitals Deploy AI to Help Diagnose Covid-19, Wired, February 26, 2020). 

The Alibaba DAMO Academy, the research arm of the Chinese company Alibaba, has also trained an AI system to recognise coronaviruses with an accuracy claimed to be 96%. According to the company, the system could process the 300 to 400 scans needed to diagnose a coronavirus in 20 to 30 seconds, whereas the same operation would usually take an experienced doctor 10 to 15 minutes. The system is said to have helped at least 26 Chinese hospitals to review more than 30,000 cases (C. Li, How DAMO Academy’s AI System Detects Coronavirus Cases, Alizila, March 10, 2020).

In South Korea, AI is reported to have helped reduce the time needed to  design testing kits based on the genetic make-up of the virus to a few weeks, when it would normally take two to three months. The biotech company Seegene used its automated test development system to develop the test kit and distribute it widely. Large-scale testing is indeed crucial to overcome containment measures and this testing policy seems to have contributed to the relative control of the pandemic in this country, which has equipped 118 medical establishments with this device and tested more than 230,000 people (I. Watson, S. Jeong, J. Hollingsworth, T. Booth, How this South Korean company created coronavirus test kits in three weeks, CNN World, March 13, 2020).

Artificial intelligence as a tool for population control

The example set by Singapore in its control of epidemic risks, with the support of technology, is certainly unique and difficult to export because of the social acceptance of restrictive safety measures:  issue of a containment order for populations at risk, verification of compliance with the measures by mobile phone and geolocation, random home checks (K. Vaswani, Coronavirus: The detectives racing to contain the virus in Singapore, BBC News, 19 March 2020). AI has been quite widely used in support of such mass surveillance policies as in China, where devices have been used to measure temperature and recognize individuals or to equip law enforcement agencies with “smart” helmets capable of flagging individuals with high body temperature. Facial recognition devices have, however, experienced difficulties due to the wearing of surgical masks, leading one company to attempt to circumvent this difficulty since many services in China now rely on this technology, including state services for surveillance measures. Hanvon thus claims to have created a device to increase the recognition rate of wearers of surgical masks to 95% (M. Pollard, Even mask-wearers can be ID’d, China facial recognition firm says, Reuters, 9 March 2020). In Israel, a plan to use individual telephone follow-up to warn users not to mix with people potentially carrying the virus has been developed (A. Laurent, COVID-19: States use geolocalisation to know who respects containment, Usebk & Rica, 20 March 2020 – in French only). In South Korea, an alert transferred to the health authorities is triggered when people do not comply with the isolation period, for example by being in a crowded place such as on public transport or a shopping centre (Ibid.). In Taiwan, a mobile phone is given to infected persons and records their GPS location so that police can track their movements and ensure that they do not move away from their place of confinement (Ibid.). In Italy, a company has also developed a smartphone application that can be used to trace the itinerary of a person infected with the virus and warn people who have had contact with him or her. According to the designer, privacy would be guaranteed, as the application would not reveal phone numbers or personal data (E. Tebano, Coronavirus, pronta la app italiana per tracciare i contagi: ‘Così possiamo fermare l’epidemia’, Corriere della Sera, 18 March 2020) In Lombardy, telephone operators have made available data concerning the movement of mobile phones from one telephone terminal to another (M. Pennisi, Coronavirus, come funzionano il controllo delle celle e il tracciamento dei contagi. Il Garante: «Non bisogna improvvisare», Corriere della Sera, 20 March 2020).

In the United States, tension can be perceived between guaranteeing individual rights and protecting collective interests during this health crisis. Thus, the GAFAM have at their disposal in the United States information which would be extremely valuable in times of crisis: an immense amount of data on the American population. Larry Brilliant, an epidemiologist and executive director of Google.org, claims that he can “change the face of public health” and believes that “few things in life are more important than the question of whether major technologies are too powerful, but a pandemic is undoubtedly one of them” (N. Scola, Big Tech faces a ‘Big Brother’ trap on coronavirus, POLITICO, 18 March 2020). The U.S. government has therefore asked these companies to have access to aggregated and anonymous data, especially on mobile phones, in order to fight the spread of the virus (T. Romm, E. Dwoskin, C. Timberg, U.S. government, tech industry discussing ways to use smartphone location data to combat coronavirus, The Washington Post, March 18, 2020). However, these companies have been cautious in view of the legal risk and potential image damage (S. Overly, White House seeks Silicon Valley help battling coronavirus, POLITICO, 11 March 2020). Data regulation would likely have helped frame the public-private dialogue and determine what types of emergencies should be subject to the collective interest over individual rights (as well as the conditions and guarantees of such a mechanism), but Congress has made no progress in the last two years on such a law. 

Finally, attempts at misinformation have proliferated on social networks and the Internet. Whether it concerns the virus itself, the way it spreads or the means to fight its effects, many rumours have circulated (“Fake news” and disinformation about the SARS-CoV2 coronavirus, INSERM, 19 February 2020). AI is a technology already used with some effectiveness by platforms to fight against inappropriate content. UNICEF adopted a statement on 9 March 2020 on misinformation about the coronavirus in which it intends to “actively take steps to provide accurate information about the virus by working with the World Health Organization, government authorities and online partners such as Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn and TikTok, to ensure that accurate information and advice is available, as well as by taking steps to inform the public when inaccurate information appears”. The enactment of restrictive measures in Council of Europe member States to avoid fuelling public concern is also envisaged. However, the Council of Europe Committee of Experts on the Media Environment and Media Reform (MSI-REF) underlined in a statement of 21 March 2020 that “the crisis situation should not be used as a pretext to restrict public access to information. Nor should States introduce restrictions on media freedom beyond the limits allowed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights”. The Committee also highlights that “member States, together with all media actors, should strive to ensure an environment conducive to quality journalism”.


Artificial intelligence: an evaluation of its use in the aftermath of a crisis

Digital technology, including information technology and AI, are therefore proving to be important tools to help build a coordinated response to this pandemic. The multiple uses also illustrate the limits of what can currently be achieved by this very technology, which we cannot expect to compensate for structural difficulties such as those experienced by many health care institutions around the world. The search for efficiency and cost reduction in hospitals, often supported by information technology, should not reduce the quality of services or compromise universal access to care, even in exceptional circumstances. 

It should be recalled that Article 11 of the European Social Charter (ratified by 34 of the 47 member States of the Council of Europe) establishes a right to health protection which commits the signatories “to take, either directly or in co-operation with public and private organisations, appropriate measures designed in particular to : 1°) to eliminate, as far as possible, the causes of ill-health; 2°) to provide consultation and education services for the improvement of health and the development of a sense of individual responsibility for health; 3°) to prevent, as far as possible, epidemic, endemic and other diseases, as well as accidents.”

Finally, it should be possible to evaluate the emergency measures taken at the end of the crisis in order to identify the benefits and issues encountered by the use of digital tools and AI. In particular, the temporary measures of control and mass monitoring of the population by this technology should not be trivialized nor become permanent (Y. N. Harari, Yuval Noah Harari: the world after coronavirus, The Financial Times, 20 March 2020). 

Standards relating to data protection, such as Convention 108(+) of the Council of Europe, must still be applied fully and under all circumstances: whether it be the use of biometric data, geolocalisation, facial recognition or the use of health data. Use of emergency measures should be carried out in full consultation with data protection authorities and respect the dignity and the private life of the users. The different biases of the various types of surveillance operations should be considered, as these may cause significant discrimination (A.F. Cahn, John Veiszlemlein, COVID-19 tracking data and surveillance risks are more dangerous than their rewards, NBC News, 19 March 2020).

Executives from Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Apple and Facebook met officials at Downing Street on Wednesday to discuss their role in the coronavirus crisis.
One of the things discussed was their role in “modelling and tracking data”.
In similar meetings at the White House, meanwhile, companies were asked how they could use artificial intelligence.
A World Health Organization report last month said AI and big data were a key part of China’s response to the virus.

BBC, March 12, 2020

From Wired:

AI Can Write Disinformation Now—and Dupe Human Readers

Georgetown researchers used text generator GPT-3 to write misleading tweets about climate change and foreign affairs. People found the posts persuasive.

When OpenAI demonstrated a powerful artificial intelligence algorithm capable of generating coherent text last June, its creators warned that the tool could potentially be wielded as a weapon of online misinformation.

​Now a team of disinformation experts has demonstrated how effectively that algorithm, called GPT-3, could be used to mislead and misinform. The results suggest that although AI may not be a match for the best Russian meme-making operative, it could amplify some forms of deception that would be especially difficult to spot.

Over six months, a group at Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology used GPT-3 to generate misinformation, including stories around a false narrative, news articles altered to push a bogus perspective, and tweets riffing on particular points of disinformation.

“I don’t think it’s a coincidence that climate change is the new global warming,” read a sample tweet composed by GPT-3 that aimed to stoke skepticism about climate change. “They can’t talk about temperature increases because they’re no longer happening.” A second labeled climate change “the new communism—an ideology based on a false science that cannot be questioned.”

Ben Buchanan, professor, Georgetown“With a little bit of human curation, GPT-3 is quite effective” at promoting falsehoods, says Ben Buchanan, a professor at Georgetown involved with the study, who focuses on the intersection of AI, cybersecurity, and statecraft.

The Georgetown researchers say GPT-3, or a similar AI language algorithm, could prove especially effective for automatically generating short messages on social media, what the researchers call “one-to-many” misinformation.

Read full article

also interesting:

Facebook upgrades its AI to better tackle COVID-19 misinformation and hate speech

But wait a minute! Where did I see this before…?

UPDATE JULY 2021:

Bots appear to be flooding Twitter with messages claiming their siblings have been infected with the Covid Delta variant, keen social media users observed Wednesday, NewsWars reports.

The messages, disseminated by random UK Twitter accounts, has users tell followers their vaccinated brother tested positive for the Delta variant, while criticizing UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s lifting of Covid restrictions.

“My brother has just tested positive for covid. The delta variant. He has been double jabbed. How on earth can Johnson go ahead with relaxing the rules on the 19th July. It’s madness,” the tweets read, going on to tag the UK PM.

The pro-lockdown messages, which cast doubt on the effectiveness of vaccines, were evidently made in unison to give the perception of manufactured consent.


The flood of exactly similar comments come as Johnson has announced “Freedom Day,” or the lifting of all Covid restrictions and mask rules, to take place on July 19 if certain conditions are met.

UPDATE August 2021:

Isn’t this exactly what Twitter cancel-mobs are made of?
And most of the Twitter support for globolibtard policies?

And then they use this noise as justification for what they gonna do to living people.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

ORDER

This is an 100% genuine official quote we dug up from the man that was at the helms of Operation Paperclip, has been Nixon’s Assistant for National Security Affairs and it is said to be Trump’s shadow adviser. This is not even the juiciest detail in the document we obtained from University of Southern California.

Chinese leader Mao Zedong met republican US president Richard Nixon on February 21, 1972, that is no secret to anybody. However, the meeting took place in Chairman Mao’s living quarters and the precise details of the conversation have not been known until more recently, when they have been declassified and published by USC US-China Institute of the Southern California University. They didn’t draw any public attention, and I think they should.

Below we publish the integral declassified transcript of the Beijing meeting between China’s leader and America’s, as made public by SCU. Emphasis added by us on some paragraphs.

2/21/1972-Peking, China- President Richard M. Nixon (2nd from R) confers with Chinese Communist Party Chairman Mao Tse-tung (C). Others at the historic meeting included (L-R): Premier Chou En-lai; interpreter Tang Wen-sheng; and Dr. Henry A. Kissinger, Nixon’s national security adviser. Photo: Getty Images

February 21, 1972

MEMORANDUM OF CONVERSATION

PARTICIPANTS: Chairman Mao Tsetung
Prime Minister Chou En-lai
Wang Hai-jung, Deputy Chief of Protocol
of the Foreign Ministry
Tang Wen-sheng, Interpreter

President Nixon
Henry A. Kissinger, Assistant to the President
for National Security Affairs
Winston Lord, National Security Council Staff (Notetaker)

DATE AND TIME: Monday, February 21, 1972- 2:50-3:55 p.m.

PLACE: Chairman Mao’s Residence, Peking

(There were opening greetings during which the Chairman welcomed President Nixon, and the President expressed his great pleasure at meeting the Chairman.)

President Nixon: You read a great deal. The Prime Minister said that you read more than he does.

Chairman Mao: Yesterday in the airplane you put forward a very difficult problem for us. You said that what it is required to talk about are philosophic problems.

President Nixon: I said that because I have read the Chairman’s poems and speeches, and I know he was a professional philosopher. (Chinese laugh.)

Chairman Mao: (looking at Dr. Kissinger) He is a doctor of philosophy?

President Nixon: He is a doctor of brains.

Chairman Mao: What about asking him to be the main speaker today?

President Nixon: He is an expert in philosophy.

Dr. Kissinger: I used to assign the Chairman’s collective writings to my classes at Harvard.

Chairman Mao: Those writings of mine aren’t anything. There is nothing instructive in what I wrote.

(Looking toward the photographers) Now they are trying to interrupt our meeting, our order here.

President Nixon: The Chairman’s writings moved a nation and have changed the world.

Chairman Mao: I haven’t been able to change it. I’ve only been able to change a few places in the vicinity of Peking.

Our common old friend, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, doesn’t approve of this. He calls us communist bandits. He recently issued a speech. Have you seen it?

President Nixon: Chiang Kai-shek calls the Chairman a bandit. What does the Chairman call Chiang Kai-shek?

Prime Minister Chou: Generally speaking we call them Chiang Kai-shek’s clique. In the newspapers sometimes we call him a bandit; we are also called bandits in turn. Anyway, we abuse each other.

Chairman Mao: Actually, the history of our friendship with him is much longer than the history of your friendship with him.

President Nixon: Yes, I know.

Chairman Mao: We two must not monopolize the whole show. It won’t do if we don’t let Dr. Kissinger have a say.

Chairman Mao to Dr. Kissinger: You have been famous about your trips to China.

Dr. Kissinger: It was the President who set the direction and worked out the plan.

President Nixon: He is a very wise assistant to say it that way. (Mao and Chou laugh.)

Chairman Mao: He is praising you, saying you are clever in doing so.

President Nixon: He [Kissinger] doesn’t look like a secret agent. He is the only man in captivity who could go to Paris 12 times and Peking once and no one knew it, except possibly a couple of pretty girls.

(Chou laughs.)

Dr. Kissinger: They didn’t know it; I used it as a cover.

Chairman Mao: In Paris?

President Nixon: Anyone who uses pretty girls as a cover must be the greatest diplomat of all time.

Chairman Mao: So your girls are very often made use of?

President Nixon: His girls, not mine. It would get me into great trouble if I used girls as a cover.

Prime Minister Chou: (laughs) Especially during elections. (Kissinger laughs.) Dr. Kissinger doesn’t run for President because he wasn’t born a citizen of the United States.

Dr. Kissinger: Miss Tang is eligible to be President of the United States.

President Nixon: She would be the first woman President. There’s our candidate.

Chairman Mao: It would be very dangerous if you have such a candidate. But let us speak the truth. As for the Democratic Party, if they come into office again, we cannot avoid contacting them.

President Nixon: We understand. We will hope that we don’t give you that problem.

Chairman Mao: Those questions are not questions to be discussed in my place. They should be discussed with the Premier. I discuss the philosophical questions. That is to say, I voted for you during your election. There is an American here called Mr. Frank Coe, and he wrote an article precisely at the time when your country was in havoc, during your last electoral campaign. He said you were going to be elected President. I appreciated that article very much. But now he is against the visit.

President Nixon: When the President says he voted for me, he voted for the lesser of two evils.

Chairman Mao: I like rightists. People say you are rightists, that the Republican Party is to the right, that Prime Minister Heath is also to the right.
President Nixon: And General DeGaulle.
Chairman Mao: DeGaulle is a different question. They also say the Christian Democratic Party of West Germany is also to the right. I am comparatively happy when these people on the right come into power.

Find the shill

President Nixon: I think the important thing to note is that in America, at least at this time, those on the right can do what those on the left talk about.

Dr. Kissinger: There is another point, Mr. President. Those on the left are pro-Soviet and would not encourage a move toward the People’s Republic, and in fact criticize you on those grounds.

Chairman Mao: Exactly that. Some are opposing you. In our country also there is a reactionary group which is opposed to our contact with you. The result was that they got on an airplane and fled abroad.

Prime Minister Chou: Maybe you know this.

Chairman Mao: Throughout the whole world, the U.S. intelligence reports are comparatively accurate. The next was Japan. As for the Soviet Union, they finally went to dig out the corpses, but they didn’t say anything about it.

Prime Minister Chou: In Outer Mongolia.

President Nixon: We had similar problems recently in the crisis on India-Pakistan. The American left criticized me very heavily for failing to side with India. This was for two reasons: they were pro-Indian and they were pro-Soviet.

I thought it was important to look at the bigger issue. We could not let a country, no matter how big, gobble up its neighbor. It cost – I don’t say this with sorrow because it was right – it cost me politically, but I think history will record that it was the right thing to do.

Chairman Mao: As a suggestion, may I suggest that you do a little less briefing? (The President points at Dr. Kissinger and Chou laughs.) Do you think it is good if you brief others on what we talk about, our philosophic discussions here?

President Nixon: The Chairman can be sure that whatever we discuss, or whatever I and the Prime Minister discuss, nothing goes beyond the room. That is the only way to have conversations at the highest level.

Chairman Mao: That’s good.

President Nixon: For example, I hope to talk with the Prime Minister and later with the Chairman about issues like Taiwan, Vietnam and Korea. I also want to talk about—and this is very sensitive—the future of Japan, the future of the subcontinent, and what India’s role with be; and on the broader world scene, the future of US-Soviet relations. Because only if we see the whole picture of the world and the great forces that move the world will we be able to make the right decisions about the immediate and urgent problems that always completely dominate our vision.

Chairman Mao: All those troublesome problems I don’t want to get into very much. I think your topic is better—philosophic questions.

President Nixon: For example, Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to note that most nations would approve of this meeting, but the Soviets disapprove, the Japanese have doubts which they express, and the Indians disapprove. So we must examine why, and determine how our policies should develop to deal with the whole world, as well as the immediate problems such as Korea, Vietnam, and of course, Taiwan.

Chairman Mao: Yes, I agree.

President Nixon: We, for example, must ask ourselves—again in the confines of this room—why the Soviets have more forces on the border facing you than on the border facing Western Europe. We must ask ourselves, what is the future of Japan? Is it better—here I know we have disagreements—is it better for Japan to be neutral, totally defenseless, or it is [sic] better for a time for Japan to have some relations with the United States? The point being—I am talking now in the realm of philosophy—in international relations there are no good choices. One thing is sure—we can leave no vacuums, because they can be filled. The Prime Minister, for example, has pointed out that the United States reaches out its hands and that the Soviet Union reaches out its hands. The question is which danger the People’s Republic faces, whether it is the danger of American aggression or Soviet aggression. There are hard questions, but we have to discuss them.

Chairman Mao: At the present time, the question of aggression from the United States or aggression from China is relatively small; that is, it could be said that this is not a major issue, because the present situation is one in which a state of war does not exist between our two countries. You want to withdraw some of your troops back on your soil; ours do not go abroad.

Therefore, the situation between our two countries is strange because during the past 22 years our ideas have never met in talks. Now the time is less than 10 months since we began playing table tennis; if one counts the time since you put forward your suggestion at Warsaw it is less than two years. Our side also is bureaucratic in dealing with matters. For example, you wanted some exchange of persons of a personal level, things like that; also trade. But rather than deciding that we stuck with our stand that without settling major issues there is nothing to do with smaller issues. I myself persisted in that position. Later on I saw you were right, and we played table tennis. The Prime Minister said this was also after President Nixon came to office.

The former President of Pakistan introduced President Nixon to us. At that time, our Ambassador to Pakistan refused to agree on our having a contact with you. He said it should be compared whether President Johnson or President Nixon would be better. But President Yahya said the two men cannot be compared, that these two men are incomparable. He said that one was like a gangster—he meant President Johnson. I don’t know how he got that impression. We on our side were not very happy with that President either. We were not very happy with your former Presidents, beginning from Truman through Johnson. We were not very happy with these Presidents, Truman and Johnson.
In between there were eight years of a Republican President. During that period probably you hadn’t thought things out either.

Prime Minister Chou: The main thing was John Foster Dulles’ policy.

Chairman Mao: He (Chou) also discussed this with Dr. Kissinger before.

President Nixon: But they (gesturing towards Prime Minister Chou and Dr. Kissinger) shook hands. (Chou laughs.)

Chairman Mao: Do you have anything to say, Doctor?

Dr. Kissinger: Mr. Chairman, the world situation has also changed dramatically during that period. We’ve had to learn a great deal. We thought all socialist/communist states were the same phenomenon. We didn’t understand until the President came into office the different nature of revolution in China and the way revolution had developed in other socialist states.

President Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I am aware of the fact that over a period of years my position with regard to the People’s Republic was one that the Chairman and Prime Minister totally disagreed with. What brings us together is a recognition of a new situation in the world and a recognition on our part that what is important is not a nation’s internal political philosophy. What is important is its policy toward the rest of the world and toward us. That is why—this point I think can be said to be honest—we have differences. The Prime Minister and Dr. Kissinger discussed these differences.

It also should be said—looking at the two great powers, the United States and China—we know China doesn’t threaten the territory of the United States; I think you know the United States has no territorial designs on China. We know China doesn’t want to dominate the United States. We believe you too realize the United States doesn’t want to dominate the world. Also—maybe you don’t believe this, but I do—neither China nor the United States, both great nations, want to dominate the world. Because our attitudes are the same on these two issues, we don’t threaten each others’ territories.

President Nixon: Therefore, we can find common ground, despite our differences, to build a world structure in which both can be safe to develop in our own way on our own roads. That cannot be said about some other nations in the world.

Chairman Mao: Neither do we threaten Japan or South Korea.

President Nixon: Nor any country. Nor do we.

Chairman Mao: (Checking the time with Chou) Do you think we have covered enough today?

President Nixon: Yes. I would like to say as we finish, Mr. Chairman, we know you and the Prime Minister have taken great risks in inviting us here. For us also it was a difficult decision. But having read some of the Chairman’s statements, I know he is one who sees when an opportunity comes, that you must seize the hour and seize the day.

I would also like to say in a personal sense –and this to you Mr. Prime Minister—you do not know me. Since you do not know me, you shouldn’t trust me. You will find I never say something I cannot do. And I always will do more than I can say. On this basis I want to have frank talks with the Chairman and, of course, with the Prime Minister.

Chairman Mao: (Pointing to Dr. Kissinger) “Seize the hour and seize the day.” I think that, generally speaking, people like me sound a lot of big cannons. (Chou laughs) That is, things like “the whole world should unite and defeat imperialism, revisionism, and all reactionaries, and establish socialism.”

President Nixon: Like me. And bandits.

Chairman Mao: But perhaps you as an individual may not be among those to be overthrown. They say that he (Dr. Kissinger) is also among those not to be overthrown personally. And if all of you are overthrown we wouldn’t have any more friends left.

President Nixon: Mr. Chairman, the Chairman’s life is well-known to all of us. He came from a very poor family to the top of the most populous nation in the world, a great nation.
My background is not so well known. I also came from a very poor family, and to the top of a very great nation. History has brought us together. The question is whether we, with different philosophies, but both with feet on the ground, and having come from the people, can make a breakthrough that will serve not just China and America, but the whole world in the years ahead. And that is why we are here.

Chairman Mao: Your book, “The Six Crises,” is not a bad book.

President Nixon: He (Mao) reads too much.

Chairman Mao: Too little. I don’t know much about the United States. I must ask you to send some teachers here, mainly teachers of history and geography.

President Nixon: That’s good, the best.

Chairman Mao: That’s what I said to Mr. Edgar Snow, the correspondent who passed away a few days ago.

President Nixon: That was very sad.

Chairman Mao: Yes, indeed.

It is alright to talk well and also alright if there are no agreements, because what use is there if we stand in deadlock? Why is it that we must be able to reach results? People will say… if we fail the first time, then people will talk why are we not able to succeed the first time? The only reason would be that we have taken the wrong road. What will they say if we succeed the second time?

(There were then some closing pleasantries. The Chairman said he was not well. President Nixon responded that he looked good. The Chairman said that appearances were deceiving. After handshakes and more pictures, Prime Minister Chou then escorted the President out of the residence.)

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

ORDER

In recent years, there has been a growing debate about what role foundations should play in global health governance generally, and particularly vis-a-vis the World Health Organization (WHO). Much of this discussion revolves around today’s gargantuan philanthropy, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and its sway over the agenda and modus operandi of global health. Yet such pre-occupations are not new. The Rockefeller Foundation (RF), the unparalleled 20th century health philanthropy heavyweight, both profoundly shaped WHO and maintained long and complex relations with it, even as both institutions changed over time

Backstage: the relationship between the Rockefeller Foundation and the World Health Organization, Part I: 1940-1960s by A.-E. Birn – 2013 The Royal Society for Public Health

According to the Rockefeller Foundation official website, John D. Rockefeller Sr.’s interest in health was in large part influenced by Frederick T. Gates, who was Rockefeller’s philanthropic advisor. Gates had a personal interest in medical research, and he believed strongly that it could be of universal benefit. In 1901, Gates persuaded Rockefeller to fund the creation of the Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research (RIMR) to research the causes, prevention and cures of disease.  While financial support for the RIMR was initially disbursed in small increments, by 1928 the organization had received $65 million in Rockefeller funding.

Born in 1853 to a Baptist minister, Gates was raised with a strong dedication to his faith. After graduating from the University of Rochester in New York in 1877 and the Rochester Theological Seminary in 1880, he was ordained as a Baptist minister and spent the next eight years as pastor of the Central Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

In 1888 while working as Secretary for the American Baptist Education Society, Gates came to the attention of John D. Rockefeller (JDR). JDR was approached by Gates as part of a campaign to create a major Baptist university in the Midwest. Convinced by Gates’ arguments for such an institution, JDR became the principal benefactor of what became the University of Chicago in 1892.

JDR was impressed by Gates’ fundraising and planning skills and proposed that Gates come to manage his philanthropic and business activities.

From this position Gates established his legacy in the field of philanthropy. In 1897, inspired by the lack of medical research facilities in the U.S., Gates laid out a plan for opening an American medical research institution. This plan – his first major endeavor as Rockefeller’s philanthropic advisor – led to the creation of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. He also played an essential role in creating and organizing the General Education Board (GEB) in 1902 and the Rockefeller Sanitary Commission (RSC) for the Eradication of Hookworm Disease in 1909.

His most notable contribution to early philanthropy, however, was his role in the establishment of the Rockefeller Foundation (RF). It was Gates’ vision of a large, professionally staffed foundation that could work for the general purpose of “the welfare of mankind” that convinced JDR to provide the resources for the new foundation. During his time on the RF Board of Trustees, Gates encouraged a focus on health initiatives (setting an agenda that prevailed for decades) and oversaw early activities of the Foundation, including the development of the International Health Division (IHD) and the China Medical Board (CMB). He served a ten-year term on the RF Board of Trustees before retiring in 1923.

Any lawsuit against the Rockefeller Foundation is a lawsuit against the ones who funded not only Mengele’s, but all the others’ grotesque Auschwitz experiments and are behind serious threats to humanity in the present.

Exopolitics

Rockefellers funded the Nazi experiments in the concentrations camps

Jews who know the history of WWII are aware that it was IG Farben, the pharmaceutical and chemical giant, which put Hitler into office and ran the camps.  And they know that the Rockefellers had half interest in IG Farben and IG Farben had half interest in the Rockefellers’ Standard Oil. 

But while they know that Auschwitz was the site of hideous forced human “medical experiments,” most Jews believe that the horrors of Nazi experiments ended in Nazi Germany.  

SOURCE



Rockefellers brought the Nazi doctors and researchers to the US

The Rockefellers and OSS (now the CIA) brought Nazi “doctors” and “researchers” to the US under a program called Operation Paperclip.  Nazis were given new identities, false passports, and inserted into medical institutions, and bioweapons, aerospace, military, and spy agencies here, and also were helped to escape to and do similar work for other countries and global agencies.  There is reason to believe based on the actions of those global agencies, that some also became part of the newly established UN – including WHO, UNICEF, and UNESCO. 

Henry Kissinger, “Rockefeller’s best employee”, and Jewish, helped manage the program that brought Nazi murderers to the US.

“… it was Henry Kissinger’s job to seek and find such Nazi’s that might be of service to America, and Kissinger became the chief of Army Counter-Intelligence in this regard. He trained other agents to hunt down Nazi’s at the European Command Intelligence School in Oberammergau, not to be tried for war crimes necessarily, but rather to serve U.S. military rather than Russian interests. 

“It was this operation that principally spirited the creation of the CIA as a cover agency for the powerful Gehlen Org, the German intelligence agency run by Reinhard Gehlen–an organization whose power superseded even the Nazi SS because of its prewar connections with German military intelligence. ….

“You may be interested to know who paid for the importation of Nazis into American central intelligence, the military, and industry? Three groups: The first was “The Sovereign Military Order of Malta” (SMOM), perhaps the most powerful reactionary segment of European aristocracy, that for almost a thousand years, starting with the crusades in the Twelfth Century, funded military operations against countries and ideas considered a threat to its power; Second was the Nazi war chest that was largely funneled through the Vatican and the Rockefeller owned Chase Manhattan Bank, whose Paris branch conducted business as usual throughout the Nazi occupation of France, and thirdly, some of us and our parents–American taxpayers. ….

“Eisenhower, you may remember, warned America that the gravest threat to world security, democracy, and even spirituality, was the growing military/industrial complex. And the Rockefellers and Kissinger played leading roles in its evil expansion.”  
 From: CIA’s Denial of Protecting Nazis is Blatant Lie – Part 1

Among Henry Kissinger’s most influential patrons as he worked his way up the ladder of success to become Nixon’s ‘Deputy to the President for National Security,’ was Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, the son of Standard Oil, that is Exxon, heir John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

The Rockefeller family’s involvement in the medical/industrial complex, health science research, and American politics is clearly important. 

Before World War II, major administration of medical research, or financing by federal agencies, had been generally opposed by America’s scientific community. In fact, it was only during times of war that organizations like the NAS or the NRC received major funding. Both the NAS, established during the Civil War, and the NRC, set up during the First World War, were largely ignored in times of peace.

Between 1900 and 1940, private foundations and universities financed most medical research. According to Paul Starr, author of The Social Transformation of American Medicine: The rise of a sovereign profession and the making of a vast industry, ‘the most richly endowed research center, the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research was established in New York in 1902 and by 1928 had received from John D. Rockefeller $65 million in endowment funds.’ In contrast, as late as 1938, as little as $2.8 million in federal funding was budgeted for the entire U.S. Public Health Service. Therefore, it is easy to see that Rockefeller family investment in health science research predated, and far surpassed, even the federal government’s.

More than the New Deal, the Second World War created the greatest boom in federal government and private industry support for medical research. Prior to the war, American science and medicine was heavily influenced by German models. This precedent was bolstered during the 1930s when the Nazis purged Jewish scientists from German universities and biological laboratories. These changes, according to Starr, significantly altered the course of American health science and medicine. Many of Germany’s most brilliant Jewish researchers emigrated to the United States just as the movement burgeoned to privatize war related biological and medical research.

At this time, the Rockefeller led medical/industrial complex was fully poised to influence, and take advantage of, Congress’s ‘first series of measures to promote cancer research and cancer control.’ In 1937, the new federal legislation authorized the establishment of the National Cancer Institute under the National Institutes of Health, and, for the first time, ‘the Public Health Service to make grants to outside researchers.’ The Rockefellers exercised significant control over the outcomes of these grants and research efforts through the foundations they established. 

Following the war, Henry Kissinger, who had become General Alexander Bolling’s German translator and principle assistant (Bolling, of course, was the ‘Godfather’ to the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency that ran “Project Paperclip,” the secret exfiltration of approximately 2,000 high level Nazi’s, about 900 of whom were military scientists and medical researchers, including Erich Traub, Hitler’s top biological weapons developer and virus expert. Bolling also served as a high ranking member of the Inter-American Defense Board, a Washington based group that delivered Walter Emil Schreiber, Hitler’s chief medical scientist, the “Angel of Death” Joseph Mengele, and his assistant, “the butcher of Lyon,” Klaus Barbie, among others, to safe havens in South America where they worked on CIA projects.) In fact it was Henry Kissinger’s job to seek and find such Nazi’s that might be of service to America, and Kissinger became the chief of Army Counter-Intelligence in this regard. He trained other agents to hunt down Nazi’s at the European Command Intelligence School in Oberammergau, not to be tried for war crimes necessarily, but rather to serve U.S. military rather than Russian interests. 

It was this operation that principally spirited the creation of the CIA as a cover agency for the powerful Gehlen Org, the German intelligence agency run by Reinhard Gehlen–an organization whose power superseded even the Nazi SS because of its prewar connections with German military intelligence. 

After Hitler, Gehlen served Allen Welsh Dulles, whose “Operation Sunshine” brought Nazis into the U.S. spy service.

You may be interested to know who paid for the importation of Nazis into American central intelligence, the military, and industry? Three groups: The first was “The Sovereign Military Order of Malta” (SMOM), perhaps the most powerful reactionary segment of European aristocracy, that for almost a thousand years, starting with the crusades in the Twelfth Century, funded military operations against countries and ideas considered a threat to its power; Second was the Nazi war chest that was largely funneled through the Vatican and the Rockefeller owned Chase Manhattan Bank, whose Paris branch conducted business as usual throughout the Nazi occupation of France, and thirdly, some of us and our parents–American taxpayers.

Moreover, during this period, the Council on Foreign Relations, along with the CIA, grew in power under the leadership of Nelson Rockefeller, and in 1955, while serving as President Eisenhower’s assistant for international affairs, Rockefeller invited Kissinger to discuss national security issues at the Quantico (Virginia) Marine Base. Following their meeting, according to Walter Isaacson’s biography of Kissinger, the diplomat became Rockefeller’s ‘closest intellectual associate,’ and soon after, Kissinger authored several military proposals for Eisenhower to consider. Unimpressed, Eisenhower turned them down.

As a result, Rockefeller sent Eisenhower his resignation and then launched a Special Studies Project that explored the ‘critical choices’ America faced militarily in the coming years. Kissinger agreed to direct this new project and published a 468-page book on his findings. The treatise proposed that tactical nuclear weapons be developed and ‘a bomb shelter [be built] in every house’ in preparation for limited thermonuclear war. ‘The willingness to engage in nuclear war when necessary is part of the price of our freedom,’ Kissinger argued.

So those of you my age can recall the anxiety grade school students felt while drilling for possible nuclear attacks. You can thank Kissinger and the Rockefeller-led military-industrialists for this “price for freedom.”

Eisenhower, you may remember, warned America that the gravest threat to world security, democracy, and even spirituality, was the growing military/industrial complex. And the Rockefellers and Kissinger played leading roles in its evil expansion. Bent on creating what President Bush openly heralded as a “New World Order,” few people realize the current international alignment of economic powers is a direct result of actualizing Henry Kissinger’s contemporary manifesto–a tribute to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta–entitled “The Meaning of History.” In this Kissinger 1955 Harvard doctoral thesis he argues that the concept of peace on earth is naive. Peace must be secured by the creation of small wars around the planet on a continuing basis so as to maintain an international order of economic powers, and of course, keep the military industrialists happy. – from “Kissinger and Rockefeller Connections to American Central Intelligence and the Origins of AIDS and Ebola”, A Speech Before the Citizens Against Legal Loopholes Rally, The Capitol Mall, Washington, D.C.
Labor Day Weekend, 1996, by Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz


“Jacobsen opens Operation Paperclip in November 1944, …. two American bacteriology experts pore over a cache of documents in the apartment of Dr. Eugene Haagen, a German virus expert. Within hours they find a chilling letter from Haagen to a colleague:

“Of the 100 prisoners you sent me, 18 died in transport. Only 12 are in a condition suitable for my experiments. I therefore request that you send me another 100 prisoners between 20 and 40 years of age … .”

“The letter proved that the Nazis were bent on creating biological weapons for use in warfare ….”The people carrying out this barbaric work were no minor Nazi thugs: Before the war, Haagen held a fellowship with the Rockefeller Foundation ….

From:  Book Review:  Operation paperclip:  The Secret Intelligence Program To Bring Nazi Scientists To America By Annie Jacobsen

A document I’ve just dug out from the RF archives shows that around the time they were salvaging Hitler’s scientists through Operation Paperclip, the Rockefellers were already deeply involved in eugenics, genetics, human reproduction too. For the near future I’m considering an article on this topic only.


How Rockefeller Foundation Shaped Modern Medicine in Communist China

Doctors graduating from Peking Union Medical College, Beijing (China), 1947

This chapter comes in RF’s own words, it’s no secret, most of the truth is not hidden, it’s people running from it:
The China Medical Board (CMB) was created in 1914 as one of the first operating divisions of the Rockefeller Foundation (RF). Provided with a $12 million endowment and separately incorporated as CMB, Inc. when the Foundation was reorganized in 1928, the Board’s aim was to modernize medical education and to improve the practice of medicine in China.

Doctors graduating from Peking Union Medical College, Beijing (China), 1947

Surveying China

China was a long-standing interest of both John D. Rockefeller, Sr. (JDR Sr.), and his son. For decades they and their fellow Baptists had supported missionary work in Asia. Beginning in the early 1900s, Frederick Gates encouraged them to devote even more attention to that region. In 1908, five years before the Foundation was created, the Rockefellers funded a commission headed by Edward D. Burton, a University of Chicago professor of theology. He and other educators traveled to China to explore the potential for philanthropic work there. 

In its final report the Burton Commission argued that a Western-sponsored educational program in science and medicine for elite Chinese students could succeed, despite a difficult political climate. One of the first actions of the newly created RF was to organize a conference about China in New York in early 1914. The Foundation later dispatched two additional survey groups, the China Medical Commissions of 1914 and 1915, to gather more information about how such an educational program could operate.  

Following the model established by Abraham Flexner’s survey of U.S. medical education, the 1914 Commission set out to appraise medical education in both missionary and Chinese schools. It found appallingly low standards throughout the country. The report concluded that “the country is so vast, and the resources available for dealing with the problem are so limited as yet, that the need of outside assistance is still very great.” The CMB was formed to meet those challenges, and Wallace Buttrick was named its first director.

The Foundation’s approach to Chinese medical education would inevitably follow the general patterns for reforming U.S. medical education advocated in the 1910 Flexner report and most fully embodied in the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Medical education in China would be scientifically rigorous and adhere to Western standards. And, in a decision with long-term consequences, instruction would occur in English. Consequently, the school could reach only a small, elite percentage of the population. Yet in a country of 400 million people then served by fewer than 500 well-trained doctors, such an approach stood to be criticized. Nevertheless, the CMB set out to build a medical school in China that it hoped to make the equal of Johns Hopkins.

The RF entered China with an ambitious goal: to build modern medical schools in both Peking and Shanghai. By purchasing the Union Medical College from the London Missionary Society in 1915, the Foundation took its first steps toward that goal. Over the next six years the Foundation assembled a faculty of fifty professors and upgraded and enlarged the facilities of what was soon called the Peking Union Medical College (PUMC). Particular attention was paid to the school’s architecture and campus plan. According to the RF’s 1917 Annual Report, “While the buildings will embody all the approved features of a modern medical center, the external forms have been planned in harmony with the best tradition of Chinese architecture. Thus they symbolize the purpose to make the College not something foreign to China’s best ideals and aspirations, but an organism which will become part of a developing Chinese civilization.”

PUMC opened its doors in 1919, under the de facto directorship of Roger S. Greene, resident director of CMB. The 70-acre campus would ultimately encompass more than 50 buildings, including a hospital, classrooms, laboratories, and residences. But in New York Rockefeller officials grew concerned about the mounting costs of PUMC and were soon forced to scrap their plans for Shanghai. From an initial construction estimate of $1 million in 1915, expenses ballooned to $8 million in capital expenditures by 1921. The operating budget more than doubled between its first year of operation and 1921. Nevertheless, the medical school and its new campus were deemed worth celebrating. John D. Rockefeller, Jr. (JDR Jr.) led an impressive delegation to China for the 1921 dedication ceremonies.

PUMC’s initial contributions toward the improvement of medicine in China, though consequential, were inevitably limited in scale. Its graduating classes were small, in part because its standards remained high and its curriculum at the outset was exclusively in English. Between 1924 and 1943, PUMC produced only 313 doctors, more than half of whom would continue their studies abroad through CMB fellowships. Upon their return many of these doctors ultimately became leaders in medical administration, teaching and scientific research both before and after the Chinese Revolution.

PUMC also transformed the nursing profession in China. When PUMC opened, there were fewer than 300 trained nurses in the country, many of them affiliated with various missionary organizations and most of them male. Because the Chinese had never considered nursing to be an appropriate profession for women, the task of PUMC was both to train qualified women nurses and to elevate the status of the profession. Those responsibilities fell to a twenty-eight-year-old nurse from Johns Hopkins, Anna D. Wolf. She arrived in 1919 to create a training program for nurses and to organize the hospital’s nursing staff. Recruiting her initial faculty from the best U.S. nursing schools, she devised pre-nursing and nursing curricula. Within five years she established a school capable of meeting U.S. accrediting standards.  

John Grant, a professor of public health at PUMC from 1921 to 1934, sought to offer medical services beyond the campus walls. He collaborated with the city’s police in 1925 to create a public health station serving the 100,000 people living in Peking’s first ward, the neighborhood surrounding PUMC. As Grant knew, the station also provided learning opportunities for students at the university. He persuaded his faculty colleagues that PUMC students should spend a four-week rotation there.  

Grant’s interest in pursuing broader public health work in rural areas found responsive allies in New York. Selskar Gunn, who had worked with the International Health Division in Eastern Europe before joining RF’s Division of the Social Sciences, traveled to China in 1931 to assess the Foundation’s work. While there he met Yan Yangchu (known to his American associates as Jimmy Yen), a pioneer in mass education and leader of the Rural Reconstruction Movement, with which Grant was already working.  After several trips to China, Gunn produced a report that envisioned a coordinated program of basic education, health, and economic development.

Gunn was critical of PUMC and of RF’s and CMB’s disproportionate investment in it. By 1933 almost $37 million had been spent on an institution that would never solve China’s most pressing health problem: the severe shortage of trained medical personnel. A 1931 League of Nations Health Organization survey had concluded that China would need 50,000 physicians in order to have just one doctor per 8,000 people.

Few as they were, the cadre of professionals produced by PUMC would play important roles in shaping China’s health system. In 1946 an observer wrote to Raymond Fosdick, commenting on the small number of PUMC graduates. “Both doctors and nurses are in positions of leadership and many of them are effective in leadership…we found plenty of evidence that this small group had had an influence quite out of proportion to its size.”

But many in China had expected more. A Chinese Ministry of Education assessment of PUMC in the mid-1930s urged not only that enrollment be increased but also that more classroom instruction be in Chinese. Other recommendations soon followed: increase the courses in public health, parasitology, and bacteriology; teach Chinese medical terminology; and publish papers in both Chinese and English so that they would reach a larger audience.

Henry Houghton, who had directed PUMC during its formative years in the 1920s, returned in 1934 to address these criticisms. But by the mid-1930s relations with some departments of the Chinese government had soured. Tensions between the New York office and PUMC had led to the firing of Roger Greene, and there were continuing difficulties in transforming PUMC into a more fully Chinese institution. By 1937 Houghton and his colleagues were making substantial moves toward bilingual instruction, reducing the numbers of Western faculty, and placing Chinese professors in positions of departmental leadership. Plans for a graduate medical school were also under discussion with the Ministry of Education, but the Japanese invasion in 1937 interrupted this work.

Surviving War and Revolution

At PUMC limited teaching continued for a time even though some prominent faculty and staff fled in 1937 to southwest China to assist with war-related training and rural health programs. The school closed completely only after the U.S. declaration of war on Japan in December 1941. The Japanese occupied the grounds of PUMC, imprisoning Houghton for the war’s duration. Heroically, the nurses moved their school in its entirety to Chengdu and reopened there in 1942.  

PUMC resumed limited operations in 1947, but RF staff debated the Foundation’s role as nationalist and Communists factions fought for supremacy. Could they stay above the fray and continue their work? What was the Foundation’s role likely to be as a new political order took shape? Alan Gregg saw that Communism, which in the U.S. represented a challenge to capitalism, meant something else to the Chinese. Communism in China battled a feudal order. He concluded that this “puts American aid in combating Chinese Communism into some odd attitudes and curious commitments.”

In 1947, amid the uncertainty about PUMC’s future, the Foundation made a terminal grant of $10 million to the CMB. But in 1951 the People’s Republic of China nationalized PUMC and severed ties with the RF and CMB, Inc.

Between 1915 and 1951, the RF and CMB, Inc. spent well over $50 million on medical initiatives in China, nearly $45 million of it to establish PUMC. Other missionary hospitals benefited from smaller Foundation contributions. Fellowships helped doctors and nurses to travel abroad for advanced training. Medical texts were translated, and medical libraries were built. But the greatest RF legacy was PUMC and the enduring contributions its graduates have made to China’s health system. PUMC’s buildings, dedicated in 1921, still stand in the center of Beijing. A bust of JDR Sr. greets visitors to PUMC’s auditorium. The hospital still ranks as one of China’s most advanced. Today, the Chinese Academy of Medicine operates from the campus.


The Rockefeller Foundation and the birth of WHO

The launching of WHO in 1948 coincided with and helped stimulate the disbanding of the RF’s International Health Division (IHD) and the waning of the RF’s in international health. But, as we shall see, because the RF’s influence on international health’s institutions, ideologies, practices, and personnel was so pervasive from the 1910s through the 1940s, the WHO’s early years were imbued not only with the RF’s dominant technically-oriented disease-eradication model but also with its far more subordinate forays into social medicine, an approach grounded in political, economic, and social terms as much as the biomedical. – Source

During World War II, the LNHO was denuded of resources and staff (maintaining neutrality, while its rival, Paris-based Office International d’Hygie`ne Publique, in charge of sanitary conventions and surveillance, was accused of collaborating
with the Nazis).19 In 1943 the new US-sponsored and generously funded United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) largely absorbed and expanded upon
the LNHO’s functions through the massive provision of medical relief, sanitary services, and supplies in war-torn countries, with a staff of almost 1400 health professionals from some 40 countries and expenditures of up to $US80 million/year. UNRRA, too, had a deep RF imprint: it was devised and planned by IHD veteran Selskar Gunn, while IHD director Wilbur Sawyer became head of UNRRA health operations following his retirement from the RF in 1944.21 Not only were the LNHO and UNRRA the immediate precursors to WHO, they acted as a pipeline for WHO’s first generation of personnel. However, the hoped-for full transfer of funds to WHO upon UNRRA’s closing in 1947 consisted of a far more modest sum under five million dollars.

The Rockefeller Foundation pushed US into WHO

The RF was also invoked in the bitter US Congressional debate over joining WHO. Fearing that the country would repeat the error of not having joined the League of Nations, respected US Surgeon-General Thomas Parran (a presumed candidate for WHO director) gave impassioned testimony at the Senate on June 17, 1947: ‘Health has been termed by [RF President] Mr Raymond Fosdick as a ‘rallying point of unity’ in
international affairs. Cooperation . in the interest of health represents one of the most fruitful fields for international action. When one nation gains more of health it takes nothing away from any other nation. By learning how to work together in the interest of health, the lesson will be of value in other and more difficult fields.’
By this time the RF was busy mobilizing backstage in the context of unfolding Cold War rivalries. Rolf Struthers, Associate Director of the RF’s Medical Sciences Division, reported on his reconnaissance: ‘If U.S. insists on Parran . Russia will not join and it will not be a World Health Organization.’ This problem, together with the perception that Parran ‘does not enjoy wide support’ despite his distinction as a public health
leader, led IHD Director George Strode to suggest backing Chisholm ‘because he is thoroughly honest, understanding and deeply interested,’ although questions remained about his leadership effectiveness.
As late as March 12, 1948, the US Senate tabled a vote on WHO membership, leaving American public health leaders angry and embarrassed. The US finally joined WHO in July 1948 (almost three months after WHO’s April 7, 1948 ‘birthday’) following a compromise Joint Congressional resolution allowing the US to withdraw unilaterally from WHO on one year’s notice. Ironically, the USSR delegate formally proposed US
acceptance intoWHO, but it would be the USSR and Soviet bloc, not the US, that would later pull out of WHO (1949e1956).
With US membership settled, the RF began to judge the new organization’s first steps.

How the Rockefellers shaped the early WHO


Well into the 1950s the RF served in a retired emperor’s role, no longer the quotidian wielder of power but playing a crucial part behind the scenes in various ways. With the IHD’s impending demise, senior WHO administrators were keen that the RF’s Struthers spend a week in Geneva to get to know WHO technical staff, ‘learning both of their personalities and their fields of competence.’ Struthers found Chisholm ‘particularly anxious that the close association between the WHO and the RF’ continue, ‘both with the object of avoiding duplication of effort, and also that the RF was able to do some things which WHO could not do, and that our long experience, and objective and independent outlook were of value to the personnel of WHO.
A parade of RF officers was invited to serve on WHO expert committees, intensively so in the 1950s, and more sporadically in subsequent decades. After the IHD folded, RF staff wondered whether they should sit on WHO expert panels in areas that were no longer RF priorities, but DMPH director Warren assured them that such positions were useful for maintaining contacts, for example in malariology. Several RF nurses were asked to serve on the Expert Advisory Panel on Nursing, another colleague on the yellow fever panel in 1954, and so on. The RF was also involved in joint WHO/RF seminars in the early 1950s, supporting mostly travel costs to garner the interest of scientists in such areas as sanitary engineering.

A subset of RF men also became involved in WHO work in the areas of medical education, healthcare policy, and community health and development (the first two being major foci of the RF’s new DMPH). Launched with vigour under Chisholm,
this back door support for social medicine, even as WHO’s disease campaigns were proliferating, included: RF officer John Grant participating as ‘observer’ to the 1952 Expert Committee on Professional and Technical Education and various public health expert meetings through the 1950s; RF Vice President Alan Gregg serving on the Expert Panel on Medical Education in 1952; and panel membership of several leftwing social medicine experts who had been supported by the RF, such as Stampar and Sigerist. The reports produced by these panels made powerful recommendations about the need to incorporate comprehensive, community-based social welfare approaches rather than a narrow focus on clinical care.
In this regard, John Maier, a DMPH staff member, noted that WHO and the RF were facing similar dilemmas. At a WHO European study conference of Undergraduate Training in Hygiene, Preventive Medicine and Social Medicine, for example, Stampar although far more politically radical than his patrons outlined the difficulties caused by a ‘separation and antagonism between preventive and curative medicine’ and suggested calling medical schools ‘schools of health.
The RF’s effort to undo its longstanding compartmentalization of medicine and public health was partially linked to WHO, involving for example, RF support for several medical schools in Colombia, which in the 1960s informed WHO’s call for the teaching of community-based, preventive, social and occupational medicine as part of internationally accepted standards.
In the early 1950s, Grant was at the fulcrum of RF-WHO collaborative social medicine efforts. His commissioned paper on the ‘International Planning of Organization for
Medical Care,’ was presented before WHO’s Department of Advisory Services in 1951, informing the recommendations of related expert panels.77 This work emphasized the importance of regionalized health systems and village health committees. Later that year he was nominated by WHO to be a member (funded by the RF) of a three-person UN survey mission on community organization and development in India, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), Thailand, and the Philippines.
The survey, building on Grant’s prior scouting of inter-agency cooperation possibilities among WHO, UNICEF, and the US government to ‘rebuild’ Southeast Asia,78 highlighted the economic and social aspects of community programs, again stressing self-help efforts, in part as a means of fending off communism.

9 WHO’s European office was also keen to have Grant’s participation, inviting him on a study tour of Sweden, Scotland, and Belgium,80 and receiving almost $US50,000 from
the RF over three years to study personnel needs under Europe’s new health and social welfare laws. Grant observed that some believed that they were so far advanced, there was little room for improvement, with Norway and Sweden serving as paradoxical ‘exceptions to this attitude.’
By the mid-1950s, RF leaders believed that the RF need no longer be represented at every WHO meeting and ‘should maintain good relations and reasonably close contact.

Soon enough, WHO invitations for RF participation were turned down.
With its resources now focused elsewhere, the RF sought to rally other philanthropic players. It had already tested these waters in 1949, suggesting that WHO approach the Ford Foundation for a subsidy towards a new building, and in early 1951, the RF and the Kellogg Foundation each provided PASB with $US150,000 interest free loans to purchase a building to serve as headquarters.86 Kellogg also joined the RF in providing fellowships.
The role of the RF’s flagship fellowship program was an important ongoing issue. At first, the IHD sought to retain public health fellowships ‘in significant fields which are not major interests of WHO’ because of WHO’s tendency to let member countries select fields and individuals for fellowships, which might ‘preclude senior men who may be
developing newer areas. The RF also questioned WHO’s preference for fellowships to be held at non-US schools, a policy WHO justified by the large number of foreign students attending these institutions. Another problem was due to WHO’s poaching of fellows who had been trained specifically for RF projects. The RF called for mutual ‘consideration and unusual courtesies,’ meaning that WHO should ‘refrain from offering attractive employment’ to men destined for RF work.
Chisholm was so alarmed by these personnel raiding accusations that he sought RF permission to use the RF fellowship directory to recruit candidates for field projects.
The RF was careful not to bankroll WHO projects without participating in their design. DMPH director Warren was particularly troubled by a request that it work with WHO to
support Manila’s Institute of Hygiene, declaring, ‘the only categorical statement I can make is that we will not operate through WHO or any other intermediary.’ The DMPH ultimately granted $US20,000 but only to support visiting Johns Hopkins faculty. By 1952 it was mutually decided that there would be ‘no further joint projects, but that we will maintain a relatively close liaison’ in training courses in insect control and biological testing of insecticides.94 On the other hand, the RF sought to take advantage of WHO demonstration projects to organize particular studies.
Despite these changes, the RF remained on the pulse of WHO politics. Numerous Americans involved in WHO confided to RF staff about developments under Chisholm.
Some were concerned with decentralized regionalization; others believed that Henry Sigerist, self-exiled from Johns Hopkins back to Switzerland, was exerting ‘undue influence’ public health on Chisholm in regards to both national health insurance
and medical education reform.96 Grant, meanwhile, kept a close eye on social medicine developments and praised WHO’s increasing emphasis on program evaluation. But his critique of technical assistance in Thailand was met by defensive WHO staff intent on gaining RF understanding and approval.

In 1952, the big storm was around Norwegian Executive Board chair Karl Evang’s speech and motion on WHO’s recognition of and involvement in population studies and
control of reproduction. A ‘highly emotional controversy’ ensued over the following days, with France, Belgium, Ireland, and Italy threatening to resign from WHO. Following a ‘tense debate,’ these countries, facing ‘religious political pressure,’
defeated attempts at any technical discussions: Evang’s motion was not brought to a vote but advisory birth control work in India was allowed to continue.
This incident, which nearly broke WHO apart, also delineated an area for RF work that would not overlap with WHO efforts. Just a month later, John D Rockefeller III convened an invitation-only ‘Conference on Population Problems’ with top experts.He founded the Population Council shortly thereafter, separately from the RF because its own board was divided, thus partially (though not intentionally) shielding WHO from this problematic arena.



Another difficulty faced by the young WHO was financial.
In both 1953 and 1954, the US paid only $US8 million of $US12 million pledged, even while the UN had asked WHO to increase its technical assistance to member countries. With a $US30 million shortfall, WHO was forced to freeze spending.
One RF officer berated, ‘The WHO is just learning the wisdom of setting aside all funds for each project out of current budget.’105 RF staff also learned that WHO was fearful of the ‘empire-building aspects’ of UNICEF, which was more solidly (largely US) funded and ‘will tend to use its stronger autonomous position’ to build its own technical staff rather than rely on WHO as per the original agreement.
Concerns about the urgency of US support for WHO were so great that advocates approached the RF for help from all angles. Esteemed US public health man Frank Boudreau (who rose to deputy director of the LNHO and then executive director of the Milbank Memorial Fund), chair of the National Citizens Committee for World Health, appealed to Nelson Rockefeller107 to attend the National Conference on World Health in 1953. The Committee, set up in 1951 to generate public interest and support for international health and save the United Nations from the fate of the League of Nations,
already had Chisholm, Eleanor Roosevelt, the US SurgeonGeneral, and RF President Dean Rusk lined up as speakers at its conference, but the presence of a Rockefeller family member was deemed essential

The RF’s stamp on WHO was reinforced with the May 1953 election of Dr. Marcolino Candau as its director-general.
Candau had been an RF fellow and had worked with Soper in IHD’s Anopheles gambiae campaign in Brazil, then briefly served as his deputy at PASB. Initially there were close interactions. Grant learned early that Chisholm would be resigning in June 1953, after a single term. Because of Soper’s continued relations with former colleagues, the RF was privy to the internal battles and ‘considerable hard feelings’ over Chisholm’s successor. With British support for a Pakistani candidate and Vatican support for an Italian, ‘through Chisholm’s intervention, and after very close voting, Candau of Brazil was nominated, and presumably will be elected.’110 Soper ‘has confidence’ that Candau would ‘bring strong leadership to WHO Secretariat.

In October 1954, new RF President Dean Rusk invited Candau for lunch and a
‘relaxed discussion’ about WHO programs and ‘what a private organization might do in the world today in the field of medical education and medical care.’ Candau suggested RF support for education, research, and training in strong regional institutions such as Mexico’s Institute of Cardiology, the Sao Paulo and Santiago schools of public health, and the new Central American Institute of Nutrition. Rusk saved the ‘Mars bars’ question for after dessert: Candau’s position on birth control. After pretending he had to leave, Candau explained that he had been instructed to keep mum on this issue, though he was well aware of the ‘population-food problem’ and that other UN agencies were accusing WHO of ‘creating more problems than it was solving.’ As such, Candau argued, birth
control work was well-suited to private organizations.
Once the RF became satisfied with Candau’s agenda for WHO, more routine matters resumed. Tensions over fellowships resurfaced under Candau because the RF was getting growing numbers of WHO staff applications for fellowships that had not been approved institutionally. Candau lobbied several RF men, hoping for ‘sympathetic consideration’ so that a few outstanding fellows could become key personnel for permanent WHO positions, both at headquarters and regional offices. He also wrote DMPH director Warren, promising to screen all candidates, and hoping for continued
support: ‘It is fully realized that you cannot envisage continuing the granting of fellowships for an indefinite period.
We are, however, most grateful for your agreeing to assist WHO in the development of its staff during these early critical years.’120 RF staff suspected Candau wanted much of WHO staff trained at RF expense and ‘is now trying to hedge a bit on his agreement in the hope that he can wangle more fellowships than you had in mind..Hence, the training program would seem to be a more or less continuous process.
Warren concluded the discussion by promising: ‘As you know, we are anxious to do all we can to help you and your colleagues . develop a sound corps of well-trained people for permanent and long term work. [but] Because of limited funds, and need to train personnel closer to home, [we] will not support operating field personnel. For a few years, new RF-WHO fellowships again rose, going from 2 in 1953 to 8 in 1959, but by 1963 there was only 1, in 1964 2, and only 1 new RF fellow from WHO in 1968.123 By this time the WHA had approved major funding for fellowships,124 and the RF was no
longer needed.

The “Godfather of Genetics”. Also an eugenicist


In 1955 another conflict brewed around WHO’s job offer to the director of an RF-funded community health centre in France. John Maier, now an assistant RF division director,
wanted to draft a harsh letter to Candau about the matter but was told this was ‘inadvisable,’ and he would ‘simply have to grin and bear it.’126 Further confidential, high level discussions about the case called for informal approaches: ‘It was decided
that the RF was not justified in taking such a stand.on the basis that we should not try to play God.’
Around this juncture, the RF-WHO relationship began to grow more distant. The New York meeting with Rusk led to unofficial RF approval of Candau’s indefinite posting as
director-general, which lasted until 1973. Candau oversaw the establishment of WHO’s global malaria and smallpox eradication campaigns, a growing WHO bureaucracy, and a massive effort to provide public health training fellowships to over 50,000 health personnel from across the world.
Ironically, or perhaps due to this connection, the late 1950s and 1960s was the period of least interaction between the RF and WHO. To be sure, Soper was a central shaper of its malaria campaign, and Paul Russell and other RF men were involved. But the growth in membership of WHO following the liberation struggles of dozens of new nations in
Africa and Asia (and later, the Caribbean), accompanied by increasing bureaucratization, and the malaria effort e significantly financed by the US government (and a few others) through ‘voluntary’ contributions rather than regular member country dues, moved the RF further away from WHO’s centre stage. The RF’s period as prime advisor was over and WHO went from being swayed by the priorities and agenda of the foundation to becoming subject to powerful, far larger donors, most notably the United States, in the context of Cold War exigencies.
Certain collaborations did continue. In 1958 the RF granted $US25,000 for a WHO manual of operations.129 Joint efforts, such as $US250,000 in RF support for research to combat protein malnutrition carried out in 12 countries, involved WHO in an advisory capacity, among other agencies. In 1960 the RF’s new Division of Medical and Natural Sciences joined WHO to support a rural public health centre in Kenya and a School of Nursing in Congo Republic, as well as various efforts in medical education. As in the past, numerous RF-trained and supported experts from around the world rose to prominent positions at WHO.


But the RF began to turn down WHO requests as often as it accepted them, and focused on narrowly targeted efforts such as funding a WHO bibliography on hookworm.133 For its part, WHO was also reluctant to commit to co-sponsoring RF projects. When USAID administrator Leona Baumgartner suggested in 1963 that USAID, the RF, and WHO carry out a joint study on training of ancillary health personnel and staffing needs, Candau offered support of a WHO statistician but insisted ‘WHO cannot be considered as a Sponsoring Agency.’
Meanwhile, the RF had also changed tolerance of social medicine on the margins of its main efforts dwindled with Alan Gregg’s and John Grant’s respective retirement and death and amidst the continued red-baiting of the McCarthy era. For example, since his posting by the RF to Puerto Rico in 1954 to set up a coordinated medical and public health system of research and practice,36 Grant had been keen to make WHO aware ‘that their present categorical activities must be replaced by polyvalent permanent local organizations.
After four years, a possibility finally materialized only circuitously when the National Citizens Committee for the World Health Organization obtained grants from the RF, as well as the Milbank, Kellogg, and Avalon foundations and various industrial concerns, to fund key public health delegates to the 1958 WHA (held in Minneapolis) to travel to Puerto Rico to attend a series of professional sessions arranged by Grant and see the island’s ‘progressive public health and medical services.’136 But this was an anomalous episode: after 1954, the RF’s European office (a vital link to WHO) shrank by 90% and
public health RF programming moved even further away from public and international health (though support for bench research on arboviruses and other tropical diseases, and some community medicine efforts, continued apace).
From backstage to backdrop It is not surprising that the RF left such a deep impression on WHO, for the IHD was the most influential international health actor of the era. Before WWII, European powers were focused on their colonial networks, with inter-imperial commercial rivalries impeding strong international agencies, while the US government was testing its own international health leadership in the Americas. Thus by default and through its own protagonism, the RF was the de facto international health leader. Even after the IHD closed down shortly after WHO was founded, this was no disappearing act. The RF’s disease control ideology and approach to international health were infused into the agenda and practices of WHO. This took place both directly, through the discreet advice it purveyed and the generations of RF personnel and numerous RF fellows and grantees WHO employed and consulted, and indirectly, through the RF having shaped the international health scene via scores of in-country cooperative efforts over almost forty years and through its hand in designing and supporting major multilateral health institutions over several decades.
What is remarkable is that not only was the RF’s predominant technobiological paradigm adopted by WHO, but so was its modest entre´e into social medicine, advanced by a small contingent of left-leaning longtime IHD officers. This was
particularly marked during WHO’s early years, when Chisholm, himself not an RF man, opened the organization to this alternative perspective even as the RF’s main approach bore down on his administration. In those years, the RF was subtly ever present conveying both of its legacies, albeit at different scales.


How and why the RF subsequently became less visible at WHO also illuminates the constraints of shifting power blocs at WHO. The bulk of Candau’s period would mark a distancing between WHO and the RF, even as the RF’s disease control model had become fully entrenched at WHO, most visibly through the launching of the global malaria eradication campaign. On one level, this paradoxdCandau’s rise coinciding with the RF’s demise at WHO indicated that because its approach was firmly in place at WHO, the RF’s presence was superfluous.
On another level, this estrangement meant that some openings to social medicine enabled by the RFeWHO relationship now faded. While RF-sponsored advocates of social medicine remained on certain expert committees, the hard line of McCarthyism wiped out many American health leftists in particular. A notable target was health systems and policy expert Milton Roemer, who left the repressive context of the United States to work at WHO in 1950, only to lose his WHO appointment in 1953 after the US government revoked his passport due to his refusal to sign a loyalty oath.137 In the late
1950s and 1960s, some social medicine advocates involved in WHO came from other quarters, including Latin America and Africa. Sidney and Emily Kark, for example, who had innovated a successful community health centre model in South Africa (in part thanks to RF officer John Grant’s backing), participated in various WHO activities. But under Candau and with heightened Cold War rivalries at WHO sparked by the return to active membership of the Soviet bloc in the mid1950s, this health internationalist tenor was marginalized at WHO, only to resurface, as we shall see in Part II, starting in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
The RF became but a backdrop not only at WHO but also on the international health scene writ large. Indeed, the subtitle of a 1959 US Senate report about the US and WHO, ‘Teamwork for Mankind’s Well-Being,’130 echoed, perhaps inadvertently, the RF’s 1913 motto: ‘For the Well-Being of Mankind throughout the World.’ This 150-page document cited the RF’s link to WHO on just two pages and only in regards to interagency research collaboration, with no mention of the RF’s pivotal prior role in setting the international health agenda.
The importance of the RF’s advocacy, legitimacy, and seed funding for projects diminished considerably after the US’s financial support of WHO efforts soared starting in 1956-7, in the wake of the influenza pandemic, the Soviet bloc rejoining
WHO, and US recognition of the potential of the malaria eradication campaign to combat communism. As such, the RF’s organizational power was waning even as its ideological approach to international health had become solidly institutionalized within WHO.

In sum, the Rockefeller Foundation had enormous bearing on WHO, just as it did on the overall international health arena: WHO’s very configuration was unthinkable without the RF. Yet as WHO found firm ground in the 1950s and the RF abandoned its primordial international health role, there was a tacit understanding that the RF would not interfere in day-to-day operations, even as WHO leaders and champions remained conscious of the RF’s underlying influence. After the US government brashly moved onto WHO’s turf at the height of the Cold War, particularly through its role in the global malaria eradication campaign, there was a further distancing between the RF and WHO.
As will be discussed in Part II, it was only in the 1970s that the relationship resumed, just when WHO began to question the RF’s disease campaign model, and, backed by the bulk of its member countries, it pursued a more community-grounded approach to primary health care amidst calls for a new antihegemonic economic order. By this time, the RF’s support for such social justice-oriented efforts was much narrowed in the context of the dominant ideological shift towards neoliberalism, and it played what many perceived as an antagonistic role in seeking to resurrect its disease control paradigm.

Backstage: the relationship between the Rockefeller
Foundation and the World Health Organization,
Part I: 1940se1960s by A.-E. Birn – 2013 The Royal Society for Public Health

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

We gave up on our profit shares from masks, if you want to help us, please use the donation button!
We think frequent mask use, even short term use can be bad for you, but if you have no way around them, at least send a message of consciousness.
Get it here!

Best is to let them speak for themselves.

“How modern medicien was born of slavery” by Prof. Deirdre Cooper Owens
H. Washington, “Medical Apartheid” author: “There are many experiments much worse than Tuskegee”
David R. Williams, Professor of Public Health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, has been researching health inequities in the United States for two decades.
A doctor’s memoir shows race matters in the hospital room (2015)

ALSO CHECK:


Udodiri R. Okwandu is a Doctorate student in the History of Science at Harvard University studying the links between social and science.
Panel on Kenyan TV (2020)

Bonus from white scientists:

ALSO WATCH:

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Little historical details can speak volumes, as evil often rests in details.

Washington Post, January 2017:
“In one of his final acts in office, President Obama issued hundreds of commutations and pardons. But he declined to act on a petition for a posthumous pardon of Marcus Garvey, the legendary black nationalist movement leader who was convicted in 1923 on what his family called “politically motivated and bogus” charges of mail fraud.

“We are disappointed the president decided it was not something he wanted to do,” said one of Garvey’s sons, Julius Garvey, 83, a vascular surgeon who lives in New York.

Julius Garvey, who argued that his father was targeted by then-FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover’s “obsession to neutralize the rise of a black liberator,” said the White House did not give a reason for its refusal to grant the pardon. The Obama administration also rejected a posthumous pardon in 2011.

[Marcus Garvey’s son wants President Obama to pardon his famous father]

Julius Garvey, who led the “Justice4Garvey” campaign to exonerate his father, said Friday there was also disappointment in Jamaica, where government leaders, including recent prime ministers, had urged Obama to grant the pardon. Garvey was deported to Jamaica in 1927 after his prison sentence was commuted by President Calvin Coolidge. He is considered a national hero there.


Black nationalist Marcus Garvey is shown in a military uniform as the ‘Provisional President of Africa’ during a parade in Harlem in 1922. (N/A/AP)

“They had made phone calls,” said Garvey, who was a child when his father died in 1940. “People were making phone calls. Everybody was hopeful right down to the last minute.”

Last year, Garvey filed another petition with the Justice Department and the White House Council to clear his father’s name.

“We worked very hard,” he said. “We had all the evidence. We had great support from the Congressional Black Caucus, from senators and many significant people.”

Thousands of people signed a petition requesting a Garvey pardon and sent letters of support.

Supporters included: Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.); Reps. John Lewis (D-Ga.), James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), Yvette D. Clarke (D-NY), Gregory W. Meeks (D-NY) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.).

The congressional effort to pardon Garvey was championed for years by former congressman Charles B.Rangel (D-N.Y.), but the proposed legislation never passed. In 2001, Rangel submitted a resolution calling Garvey “innocent of the charges brought against him by the United States government” and wrote “the case against Marcus Garvey was politically motivated, the charges unsubstantiated, and his conviction unjust.”

Marcus Mosiah Garvey was an immigrant from Jamaica who had founded the Universal Negro Improvement Association before arriving in the United States in 1916. Eventually, the UNIA claimed millions of members around the world, though those figures remain in dispute.

In 1918, Garvey established the Negro World newspaper and a year later bought an auditorium in Harlem. He called it Liberty Hall, where thousands flocked to hear him speak.

“Black people are subjects of ostracism,” Garvey said in 1921 to thunderous applause. “It is sad that our humanity has shown us no more love — no greater sympathy than we are experiencing. Wheresoever you go throughout the world, the black man is discarded as ostracized, as relegated to the lowest of things — social, political and economical.”

Garvey preached that the problem could be solved only through black pride and self-reliance.

In 1920, the UNIA elected Garvey “Provisional President of Africa.” In an iconic photo, Garvey and members of the association later marched through the streets of Harlem in military uniforms, carrying banners that read, “We Want a Black Civilization.”

To ferry black people and cargo to Africa, Garvey launched a steamship line, which he called the Black Star Line. The company sold stock for $5 a share, allowing black people to own a piece of the business.

This sale, along with Garvey’s rhetoric and following, attracted government attention. Soon after World War I, Garvey was targeted by Hoover, the future FBI director.

In documents released later, the FBI acknowledged that it began investigating Garvey to find reasons to “deport him as an undesirable alien.”

In 1921, Garvey’s steamship company announced to stockholders it would buy two more ships. But a newspaper that competed with the Negro World published an investigative article claiming the U.S. Department of Commerce had no record of those ships.

Garvey, his treasurer and secretary were arrested and charged with using the Postal Service to defraud stockholders.

Garvey’s lawyer, William C. Matthews, urged him to plead guilty. Instead, Garvey fired Matthews and defended himself. On June 21, 1923, after a month-long trial in the Southern District of New York, Garvey was convicted of mail fraud and sentenced to five years in prison. He served three years before his sentence was commuted.

Julius Garvey said he won’t give up his quest to clear his father’s name. He hopes President Trump’s administration will do what Obama’s didn’t. “We will explore that avenue as time goes on,” he said.”

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

The former Apostolic Nuncio (Vatican Ambassador) to the United States of America, Carlo Maria Viganò, has recently written a public letter to US president Donald Trump making some daring, but not novel, statements. Take everything with a pinch of salt, but here are some highlights and a link to the full document

“In recent months we have been witnessing the formation of two opposing sides that I would call Biblical: the children of light and the children of darkness. The children of light constitute the most conspicuous part of humanity, while the children of darkness represent an absolute minority. And yet the former are the object of a sort of discrimination which places them in a situation of moral inferiority with respect to their adversaries, who often hold strategic positions in government, in politics, in the economy and in the media. In an apparently inexplicable way, the good are held hostage by the wicked and by those who help them either out of self-interest or fearfulness…

In society, Mr. President, these two opposing realities co-exist as eternal enemies, just as God and Satan are eternal enemies. And it appears that the children of darkness—whom we may easily identify with the deep state which you wisely oppose and which is fiercely waging war against you in these days—have decided to show their cards, so to speak, by now revealing their plans. They seem to be so certain of already having everything under control that they have laid aside that circumspection that until now had at least partially concealed their true intentions.


The investigations already under way will reveal the true responsibility of those who managed the Covid emergency not only in the area of health care but also in politics, the economy, and the media. We will probably find that in this colossal operation of social engineering there are people who have decided the fate of humanity, arrogating to themselves the right to act against the will of citizens and their representatives in the governments of nations.

We will also discover that the riots in these days were provoked by those who, seeing that the virus is inevitably fading and that the social alarm of the pandemic is waning, necessarily have had to provoke civil disturbances, because they would be followed by repression which, although legitimate, could be condemned as an unjustified aggression against the population. The same thing is also happening in Europe, in perfect synchrony. It is quite clear that the use of street protests is instrumental to the purposes of those who would like to see someone elected in the upcoming presidential elections who embodies the goals of the deep state and who expresses those goals faithfully and with conviction. It will not be surprising if, in a few months, we learn once again that hidden behind these acts of vandalism and violence there are those who hope to profit from the dissolution of the social order so as to build a world without freedom: Solve et Coagula, as the Masonic adage teaches.


Also read: George Floyd: exit quarantine, enter global police state


Although it may seem disconcerting, the opposing alignments I have described are also found in religious circles. There are faithful Shepherds who care for the flock of Christ, but there are also mercenary infidels who seek to scatter the flock and hand the sheep over to be devoured by ravenous wolves. It is not surprising that these mercenaries are allies of the children of darkness and hate the children of light: just as there is a deep state, there is also a deep church that betrays its duties and forswears its proper commitments before God. Thus the Invisible Enemy, whom good rulers fight against in public affairs, is also fought against by good shepherds in the ecclesiastical sphere. It is a spiritual battle, which I spoke about in my recent Appeal which was published on May 8.

For the first time, the United States has in you a President who courageously defends the right to life, who is not ashamed to denounce the persecution of Christians throughout the world, who speaks of Jesus Christ and the right of citizens to freedom of worship. Your participation in the March for Life, and more recently your proclamation of the month of April as National Child Abuse Prevention Month, are actions that confirm which side you wish to fight on. And I dare to believe that both of us are on the same side in this battle, albeit with different weapons.

For this reason, I believe that the attack to which you were subjected after your visit to the National Shrine of Saint John Paul II is part of the orchestrated media narrative which seeks not to fight racism and bring social order, but to aggravate dispositions; not to bring justice, but to legitimize violence and crime; not to serve the truth, but to favor one political faction. And it is disconcerting that there are Bishops—such as those whom I recently denounced—who, by their words, prove that they are aligned on the opposing side. They are subservient to the deep state, to globalism, to aligned thought, to the New World Order which they invoke ever more frequently in the name of a universal brotherhood which has nothing Christian about it, but which evokes the Masonic ideals of those want to dominate the world by driving God out of the courts, out of schools, out of families, and perhaps even out of churches.

The American people are mature and have now understood how much the mainstream media does not want to spread the truth but seeks to silence and distort it, spreading the lie that is useful for the purposes of their masters. However, it is important that the good—who are the majority—wake up from their sluggishness and do not accept being deceived by a minority of dishonest people with unavowable purposes. It is necessary that the good, the children of light, come together and make their voices heard. What more effective way is there to do this, Mr. President, than by prayer, asking the Lord to protect you, the United States, and all of humanity from this enormous attack of the Enemy? Before the power of prayer, the deceptions of the children of darkness will collapse, their plots will be revealed, their betrayal will be shown, their frightening power will end in nothing, brought to light and exposed for what it is: an infernal deception.”

Carlo Maria Viganò
Titular Archbishop of Ulpiana
Former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America

Full document (PDF download)

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

I wasn’t looking for this, Snopes did the work of sticking its nose into my business and grabbing my attention. Snopes is an absolute joke of an organisation, more then them I trust licking elevator buttons in Shanghai’s skyscrapers. They have one merit though: their own fan-base can’t argue them. Their fan-base being that dry layer on the bottom of the human intelligence barrel, the dupes that still fall for the globalist/leftist brainwash on TV even 6 months into the Covid farce.
So here’s a list of very interesting statements about slavery redacted by Snopes and only copy/pasted by me:

One of the less well known aspects of the history of slavery is how many and how often non-whites owned and traded slaves in early America. Free black slave holders could be found at one time or another “in each of the thirteen original states and later in every state that countenanced slavery,” historian R. Halliburton Jr. observed. That black people bought and sold other black people raises “vexing questions” for 21st-century Americans like African-American writer Henry Louis Gates Jr., who writes that it betrays class divisions that have always existed within the black community. 

Anthony Johnson was not the first slave owner in American history, but he was, according to historians, among the first to have his lifetime ownership of a servant legally sanctioned by a court. 

A former indentured servant himself, Anthony Johnson was a “free negro” who owned a 250-acre farm in Virginia during the 1650s, with five indentured servants under contract to him. One of them, a black man named John Casor, claimed that his term of service had expired years earlier and Johnson was holding him illegally. In 1654, a civil court found that Johnson in fact owned Casor’s services for life, an outcome historian R Halliburton Jr. calls “one of the first known legal sanctions of slavery — other than as a punishment for crime.”

William Ellison was a very wealthy black plantation owner and cotton gin manufacturer who lived in South Carolina (not North Carolina). According to the 1860 census (in which his surname was listed as “Ellerson”), he owned 63 black slaves, making him the largest of the 171 black slaveholders in South Carolina, but far from the largest overall slave holder in the state.

American Indians owned thousands of black slaves.

True. Historian Tiya Miles provided this snapshot of the Native American ownership of black slaves at the turn of the 19th century for Slate magazine in January 2016:

Miles places the number of enslaved people held by Cherokees at around 600 at the start of the 19th century and around 1,500 at the time of westward removal in 1838-9. (Creeks, Choctaws, and Chickasaws, she said, held around 3,500 slaves, across the three nations, as the 19th century began.) “Slavery inched its way slowly into Cherokee life,” Miles told me. “When a white man moved into a Native location, usually to work as a trader or as an Indian agent, he would own [African] slaves.” If such a person also had a child with a Native woman, as was not uncommon, the half-European, half-Native child would inherit the enslaved people (and their children) under white law, as well as the right to use tribal lands under tribal law. This combination put such people in a position to expand their wealth, eventually operating large farms and plantations.

In 1830 there were 3,775 free black people who owned 12,740 black slaves.

There were approximately 319,599 free blacks in the United States in 1830. Approximately 13.7 per cent of the total black population was free. A significant number of these free blacks were the owners of slaves. The census of 1830 lists 3,775 free Negroes who owned a total of 12,760 slaves.

historian R. Halliburton Jr., quoted by Snopes

Brutal black-on-black slavery was common in Africa for thousands of years.

True, in the sense that the phenomenon of human beings enslaving other human beings goes back thousands of years, but not just among blacks, and not just in Africa.

Most slaves brought to America from Africa were purchased from black slave owners.

Historian Steven Mintz describes the situation more accurately in the introduction to his book African-American Voices: A Documentary Reader, 1619-1877:

Apologists for the African slave trade long argued that European traders did not enslave anyone: they simply purchased Africans who had already been enslaved and who otherwise would have been put to death. Thus, apologists claimed, the slave trade actually saved lives. Such claims represent a gross distortion of the facts. Some independent slave merchants did in fact stage raids on unprotected African villages and kidnap and enslave Africans. Most professional slave traders, however, set up bases along the west African coast where they purchased slaves from Africans in exchange for firearms and other goods. Before the end of the seventeenth century, England, France, Denmark, Holland, and Portugal had all established slave trading posts on the west African coast.

Yet to simply say that Europeans purchased people who had already been enslaved seriously distorts historical reality. While there had been a slave trade within Africa prior to the arrival of Europeans, the massive European demand for slaves and the introduction of firearms radically transformed west and central African society. A growing number of Africans were enslaved for petty debts or minor criminal or religious offenses or following unprovoked raids on unprotected villages. An increasing number of religious wars broke out with the goal of capturing slaves. European weapons made it easier to capture slaves.

Slavery was common for thousands of years.

True, as noted above — though how “common” slavery has been and what the specific nature of that slavery was has varied according to time and place.

Slavery was eliminated in America via the efforts of people of various ethnicities, including Caucasians, who took up the banner of the abolitionist movement. The names of the white leaders of that movement tend to be better known than those of the black leaders, among whom were David Walker, Frederick Douglass, Dred Scott, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Nat Turner, and many others. When Congress passed (and the states ratified) the 13th Amendment in 1865, it was the culmination of many years of work by that multi-racial movement.

Are black Americans entitled to $5000 reparations?

Although the notion of a “Black Inheritance Tax Refund” has long since been debunked and disclaimed, it nonetheless lives on and continues to cause headaches to the IRS and taxpayers alike. In April 2002, the Washington Post reported that the IRS had received more than 100,000 tax returns seeking nonexistent slavery-tax credits and had mistakenly paid out more than $30 million in erroneous refunds in 2000 and 2001. And in April 2005, the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office obtained a temporary restraining order enjoining a New York man from preparing income tax returns for others because he had “been including bogus tax credits such as reparations for African-American slavery and segregation.”

Each assertion provided in this meme is generally factual, save for the fact that Smalls’ escape took place in 1862 rather than 1861. – Snopes

Harvard University has “shamelessly” turned a profit from photos of two 19th-century slaves while ignoring requests to turn the photos over to the slaves’ descendants, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday. Tamara Lanier, of Norwich, Connecticut, is suing the Ivy League school for “wrongful seizure, possession and expropriation” of images she says depict two of her ancestors. Her suit, filed in Massachusetts state court, demands that Harvard immediately turn over the photos,… Read at AP News

No solid evidence of black children used as alligator baits

Despite confirming the widespread dissemination of such grotesque representations of African Americans in the 19th and 20th centuries, however, the existence of these artifacts does not suffice to prove that black children were literally used as alligator bait in the South. Neither do press reports dating back to the time period when the practice was supposedly commonplace.

Bonus for going so far with this:

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them