Joe Biden should be in a diaper in a nursing home and not spreading fear.
Vladimir Zev Zelenko MD
journals.plos.org
Zn2+ Inhibits Coronavirus and Arterivirus RNA Polymerase Activity In Vitro and Zinc Ionophores Block the Replication of These Viruses…
Author Summary Positive-stranded RNA (+RNA) viruses include many important pathogens. They have evolved a variety of replication strategies, but are unified in the fact that an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) functions as the core enzyme of their RNA…
On DECEMBER 12, 2019 an agreement was signed (pg 105) that Dr. Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina would receive "mRNA corona virus vaccine candidates developed and jointly-owned by NIAID and Moderna"@Rossana38510044@ydeigin@BillyBosticksonhttps://t.co/taAbB9FIvp
Full text: Coronavirus Research Conducted by Dr. Ralph Baric’s Team at University of North Carolina2021-11-09 10:45
The full text of the non-paper entitled “Coronavirus Research Conducted by Dr. Ralph Baric’s Team at University of North Carolina.”
Dr. Ralph Baric and his team from the UNC have been systematically working on coronavirus-related researches for a long time, including Gain-of-Function (GOF) research. They possess synthetic biology techniques used for manipulation and modification of coronavirus genome and have applied for multiple patents related to coronavirus research.
In the aftermath of the SARS outbreak in 2003, the Baric team collaborated with the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease (USAMRIID) and developed a novel reverse genetic system for synthesis of a full-length cDNA of the SARS-CoV, which was published in a paper in 2003. The paper claimed that within two months after obtaining the RNA of the SARS virus, the full-length cDNA of the virus was successfully synthesized, which shows that as early as 2003, these institutes already had advanced capabilities to synthesize and modify SARS-related coronavirus.
In December 2008, Dr. Baric co-authored another paper on the successful reconstitution of a chimeric virus with the genome backbone from a bat SARS-like coronavirus and the receptor binding domain (RBD) from SARS-CoV using similar synthetic biology techniques, arguing that the design and synthesis of various SARS-related coronaviruses are important steps to prevent similar outbreaks in the future.
It is worth noting that the Baric team has close collaboration with the USAMRIID, and they co-own the patent related to manipulation of coronavirus genome and have published multiple papers together. The scope of this cooperative relationship was further expanded after Lisa Hensley, one of Dr. Baric’s students, joined the USAMRIID.
In November 2015, the Baric team published a paper titled “A SARS-like Cluster of Circulating Bat Coronaviruses Shows Potential for Human Emergence”. According to the paper, a chimeric coronavirus was made with the genome backbone from a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV virus provided by the U.S. team and the RBD from a bat SARS-related CoV SHC014 discovered by Zhengli Shi’s team from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Dr. Baric’s lab tested the pathogenesis of the chimeric virus in mice and even reconstituted the full length SHC014 virus. In this study, both the virus modification and the experiment on mouse infection were conducted at the UNC and the chimeric virus was not provided to Shi’s team.
Some people in the United States claim that GOF researches by the Wuhan Institute of Virology have caused bat coronaviruses to mutate into SARS-CoV-2 and a lab leak led to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a matter of fact, the United States have sponsored and carried out more such researches than any other country. In particular, the Baric team leads the world in researches in this field. A thorough investigation into Dr. Baric’s lab will help clarify whether such researches have led to or can lead to SARS-CoV-2.
Remember when ferritin in Covid bioweapons was a conspiracy theory and we were getting our YouTube channels and socials wiped out for exposing it? That was fun!
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. 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
Alternatively, you can look Berkut up on YouTube and activate the automatic translations, as I did. He was generous with his ideas, unlike other “colleagues”. They are usually published on a channel called “Dawn”, which also means “Lucifer” in Russian. Here’s their full Berkut playlist, 15 vids, great memes material!
Heavenly Jerusalem (also New Jerusalem, Israel 2.0, New Israel) is a project whose goal is to form a Jewish state within Ukraine on the territories of its five southern regions: Odessa , Dnipropetrovsk , Zaporozhye , Kherson and Mykolaiv .
The project is long-term, its terms are determined by the Board of Benefactors, the time is described until 2049 and even after 2060 [1] .
Project Description
According to I. Berkut , the author of the idea and the executive director of the project [2] [3] [4] : the next five years is destruction and fragmentation after 19, and the next five years, after 2024, is reformatting. 2029 is the first step for NI”
So, by the end of 2029, about 5 million Jews are expected to arrive in the New Motherland for the construction of New Jerusalem [5] .
Israeli Prime Minister B. Netanyahu has already discussed the organization of the resettlement and settlement of Jews, as well as possible economic and political assistance in the implementation of the project, with the current Prime Minister of Ukraine V. Groisman , Prime Minister of the Russian Federation D. A. Medvedev , senior adviser to US President Donald Trump and a member of the influential Jewish organization Chabad Lubavitch , Jared Kushner .
It is noteworthy that despite its scale of the project, it is not covered either in the world or even in the local Ukrainian press (meaning the central media channels), with very rare exceptions.
Almost all information about the project implementation comes from its executive director Igor Berkut . Video interviews of I. Berkut, covering the progress of the project, are posted on the YouTube channel “Rassvet”.
The official announcement of the New Jerusalem project is planned to be made after the adoption of the law on the decentralization of Ukraine in 2021-2022. In July 2019, Switzerland allocated €25 million, including for the decentralization of Ukraine [8] [n1].
The New Jerusalem project started in early 2017 with the landing in the port of Odessa of the first group of immigrants from Israel, headed by I. Berkut [2, 19:40]. This group of 183 Jewish pioneers arrived in Ukraine from Haifa ( Israel ) to lay the first stone in the foundation of Heavenly Jerusalem on the fertile land of southern Ukraine.
The management of the New Jerusalem will be entrusted to the “Council of Benevolent” consisting of 12 leaders [9] :
1. A native of Kiev , Golda Meir , 5th Prime Minister of the State of Israel, was declared Honorary Eternal Head of the Council;
2. B. Netanyahu will become the Chairman-Prime Minister, after the completion of the powers of the Prime Minister in the State of Israel ;
4. Defense issues will be in charge of the current Minister of Defense of Israel, a native of Chisinau, Avigdor Lieberman ;
5. The secret services will be headed by Yakov Kedmi , former head of the Nativ Bureau for Relations with Jews of the USSR and Eastern Europe, who was born in Moscow ;
11. The chief rabbi is supposed to appoint an ethnic Ashkenazi Khazar version of the appearance of this branch of the tree of Israel;
12. Hidden Apostle
It is planned to create two capitals in New Jerusalem [10] : the first, political and business capital, will be located in today’s city of Dnepropetrovsk and will be called consonant with the New Jerusalem project, the second, cultural, will be located in Odessa and will be called “Adessa”.
Reforms in Ukraine
The New Jerusalem project is consulted by the Polish Minister of Finance Leszek Balcerowicz [11] [12] , who, together with I. Berkut and other participants, is the author of economic reforms in Ukraine. According to the authors of the reforms, the depopulation of the population should become the basis for the welfare of the citizens of the future Ukraine: “The main principle of the reform is that the smaller the population, the higher the GDP per capita. Therefore, the main way of reform is a steady gradual decrease in the population of the country,” admits I. Berkut [13] [14] .
In accordance with these reforms, in 2017 the Minister of Social Affairs politician A. Reva said [15] [16] : “Ukrainians are not only too many, but they still eat a lot.” V. Groysman, in turn, found the courage and for the first time in the history of Ukraine said [17] [18] : “Ukrainians study too much.” I (I. Berkut) and V. Groysman, we both understand that “for a Ukrainian child, this should be” day of kavun “,” day of tsibuli “,” day of embroidery “; for a Jewish child, this should be” day of physics “,” chemistry day”, “programming day”
Financing
As of the end of 2016, I. Berkut cites the following sources of funding for the project as part of economic reforms in Ukraine [19] : $250,000 from one of the IMF tranches ($1 billion), $250,000 from the F4 fund (Ukrainian Economy Modernization Fund, Switzerland , “Friedman, Feldman, Fishman and Firtash”), we hope to receive another $ 450,000 from the George Soros Foundation .
In another video [20] , the executive director of the project speaks as follows: The foundation (financial) is laid by divine providence. Today, 2-3 billionaires leave for the other world every day. If they leave all the inheritance to their relatives, it will harm them. They can donate money to the project. Assistance is also expected from the billionaires of Kazakhstan, Russia and many other countries. This will be assistance from Russia, Germany, the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, the House of Rothschild , the USA, from hundreds of family funds, from Hollywood , from Apple , Facebook , Google .
In July 2019, Ukraine received funding from Switzerland (€25 million), the EU (€137 + 29.5 million) and technical assistance from the US ($695 million) [21] . We are talking about supporting public administration reforms and qualitative changes in the provision of services, as well as decentralization.
Criticism
Despite the scale of the project, its consistency with high-ranking people (B. Netanyahu, D. A. Medvedev, V. Groysman, Jared Kushner, Leszek Balcerowych), it is not covered either in the world or even in the local Ukrainian press (on central channels) . The exception is the Israeli press [22] .
In his informative videos, I. Berkut speaks more than once about the outstanding figure of our time , Lee Kuan Yew , the creator of the Singaporean ” economic miracle “. I. Berkut cites this statesman as an example, and speaks of Singapore as a possible development model for New Jerusalem. At the same time, the approach of I. Berkut to the financing and development of the project is based, respectively, on the desire to receive money from global corporations [20] and the depopulation of the population of Ukraine [13]. The fact is that from the book of Lee Kuan Yew “Singapore history. From the “third world – to the first” it follows that Lee Kuan Yew has nothing to do with the approach of I. Berkut to the development of the state. He never counted on “foreign” money and dealt with the solution of numerous problems and the development of Singapore, relying only on his exceptional mind and human resource, never resorting to population depopulation.
I. Berkut, speaking in a video interview on the YouTube channel “Rassvet” about the New Jerusalem project, makes many shocking statements, which, according to critics, indicate that he suffers from chauvinism . So, at the beginning of the video [23] , a picture of the future “New Jerusalem” is presented with an explanation: “the dog in the picture represents all peoples except the Jewish and Ukrainian”
To the question of one of the spectators [24] : “I will not allow a Jewish project to be built on my land”, I. Berkut answers: “dear Petya, there is nothing of yours there and never has been. Petya – you are a disappearing small particle of biomass that the wind of change brought into our objective reality. This was explained to you under Kravchuk, under Yushchenko, etc. Petya, look around and see where you are and remember – there is nothing there, there was not and there will not be anything of yours ”
Speaking about a possible threat to Israel, I. Berkut reports [25] that in this case, from the territory of Heavenly Jerusalem, nuclear strikes by medium-range missiles with nuclear warheads (prohibited by the INF Treaty, INF Treaty ) will be launched on, possibly, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Iran. Quote [26] : “Thanks to Crimea, we can bomb with impunity any state that acts from anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli positions from the Heavenly Jerusalem … even if Turkey prohibits the passage of missiles over its territory, then a nuclear strike will also be inflicted on it”
Interesting Facts
Answering the question: “Do the Jews plan to leave Israel completely in the future?” I. Berkut spoke as follows: “Jews will not leave Israel until our Sun goes out and turns into a white dwarf, which will happen in about 7 billion years” [27] [28] [29] . The fact is that before the moment of transformation into a white dwarf, the sun will go through a phase of significant increase in size and increase in its brightness. This will happen in 3.5 billion years. By that time, the water from the surface of the planet will completely disappear, volatilizing into space. This catastrophe will lead to the destruction of all forms of life on Earth. It is very unlikely that the Jews will remain in Israel at that time.
Reflecting on the future of convenient transport between Israel and New Jerusalem, I. Berkut allows the use of comfortable airships. Interestingly, they will be equipped with everything that the soul of a Jew desires, including swimming pools and playgrounds [30] .
Two existing nuclear power plants in the territory of the future New Jerusalem are supposed to be used for bitcoin mining [31] . The mining of a cryptocurrency like bitcoin is based on the “ proof of work ” (PoW) method, in which the probability of creating the next block is higher with the owner of more powerful equipment. An alternative to it is the “ proof of ownership ” method (Proof-of-stake, PoS), in which the probability of the participant forming the next block in the blockchainis proportional to the share that the accounting units of this cryptocurrency belong to this participant from their total number. In view of the fact that PoS does not require significant expenditures of electricity, cryptocurrencies based on this principle seem to be more promising at the moment.
I. Berkut, talking about New Jerusalem, repeatedly refers to chapter 21 of the Revelation of John the Theologian , which deals with the second coming of Christ and the creation (more precisely, the descent from heaven) of Heavenly Jerusalem [32] [33] [34] [35] . Also, based on Revelation, the composition of the council of benefactors of Heavenly Jerusalem is chosen [9] . Moreover, if the Revelation speaks of representatives of the twelve tribes of Israel, then the Jews are elected to the council of benefactors without regard to belonging to any tribes. This fact may be due to the fact that 10 of the 12 tribes of Israel are considered lost .
During the implementation of the “Heavenly Jerusalem” project, the conflict between the Galicians and the Jewish community in Ukraine was exposed. In one of the videos [36] I. Berkut reads a poem from a certain Jew Mikhail Fonkin called “To the slanderers of Jerusalem”, which is clearly a parody of A. S. Pushkin’s poem “To the slanderers of Russia” [37] . Moreover, I. Berkut does not give references to A. S. Pushkin, but presents this mix as an insight of this very Fonkin. Two points from “Fonkin’s poem” can be noted: the words of A. S. Pushkin “redeemed with blood” were replaced with “redeemed with money; also the words “you did not read these bloody tablets” were replaced with “you did not read either the Protocols of the Wise Men or the Tablets of Moses … “Here we are talking about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion , the main document”The Jewish-Masonic Conspiracy , as well as the Pentateuch of Moses and the Talmud – the main books of Judaism.
Pam Barker | Director of TLB Europe Reloaded Project
Genetic research showing that eastern European Jews do indeed originate from the historical region of Khazaria in Central Asia and not Palestine has been officially accepted, which Jim Wald discusses below. Curiously, a mere month before this news was released in 2014, the western-backed coup in Ukraine erupted. Just a coincidence? As our first author JC Collins observes, the war in Ukraine was intended to clear the Russians out of the Donbas and Crimea.
And Khazakhstan, a large country some distance to the east of Ukraine (see map), has been developing relations with Israel since the collapse of the Soviet Union around 1990, relations on a number of key fronts. Astana, its capital located in the far north-east of the country, has undergone a construction boom with key monuments having a strongly Masonic character.
As Collins observes, strange times on the new world frontier.
************
ER ed.: this article was first published on May 30, 2016
The Planned Jewish Migration Out of Israel
JC COLLINS
On March 16, 2014 the Times of Israel published a little discussed pieced titled Leaked Report: Israel Acknowledges Jews in Fact Khazars; Secret Plan for Reverse Migration to Ukraine. Just four weeksbefore this explosive publication, on February 18, 2014, the official and democratic government of Ukraine was ousted and a Jewish-supported new interim government was appointed. Both of these occurrences can be connected to the larger construction of a new world capital in Kazakhstan called Astana (see image).
The Times of Israel piece is important because, for the first time, there is a semi-official pronouncement of the Khazarian heritage of Eastern European Jews who migrated to the land of Palestine and established the nation of Israel.
This idea was first promoted by the Hungarian historian Arthur Koestler in his 1976 book titled The Thirteenth Tribe. Koestler suffered heavy criticism and his book was the target of a massive propaganda campaign meant to discredit his work. The fact that an official Jewish publication is now discussing a “secret report” promoting the same conclusion should not go unnoticed by the large contingent of online scholars and historians.
The Khazars were a Mongol-Tatar people (see map below) who converted to Judaism en masse during a tumultuous time in Eastern European history. Surrounded on both sides by the warring religions – Christianity and Islam, the Khazar Empire choose the path of Judaic conversation as a means of stemming off invasion from either of its larger neighbors.
In the 11th Century, the Russian Empire conquered Khazaria and destroyed any possibility of a larger establishment of a Khazarian/Jewish homeland in Eastern Europe. Centuries later, the Khazarian remnants gained a level of revenge by orchestrating the Bolshevik Revolution and murdering the Russian monarch family the Romanovs.
It is probable, but not easily proven, that after Lenin’s death and the rise of Stalin, the Soviet Union once again came under control of the ethnic Russians. This lasted until the fall of the Berlin Wall and the complete collapse of the USSR, at which time the foreign encouraged oligarchs who contributed to the economic downfall of the Union established a de facto business and industrial dictatorship over what remained.
Ironically, the nation of Israel established diplomatic ties with the former Soviet Union member state of Kazakhstan in 1991, along with others, such as Georgia. The relationship between Israel and Kazakhstan has grown at a steady pace and includes coordination along political, trade, economic, defense, and intelligence lines.
Since the rise of Vladimir Putin in Russia and the arrest and expulsion of the oligarchs, there has been an exodus of ethnic Russians from Kazakhstan back to the motherland. This migration has included Russian doctors, teachers, scientists, and other prominent members of society. As such, Israel has been providing Kazakhstan with an increase in Jewish expertise in those same areas as relations tighten even further.
In addition, 25% of Israel’s oil comes from Kazakhstan. This is set to grow substantially in the coming years as Israel finds itself further isolated diplomatically and will be forced to give up the West Bank and possibly the Gaza Strip in order to appease international pressure. Settlers from these areas have already begun to migrate into Kazakhstan, but not at the anticipated pace of migration into Eastern Ukraine.
As strained relations between Russia and Kazakhstan increase, and military bases on both sides of the border are hardened, the battle for control of Eastern Ukraine quietly continues without much coverage in the Western media. This war is meant to remove the ethnic and Russian speaking majority from the east of the country – a region which made up a large section of the Khazar Empire a thousand years before.
When the map of ancient Khazar is superimposed over a modern map of Eastern Europe, we can clearly see the importance of Ukraine and Crimea, as well as other areas of past tension and war, such as Georgia.
Igor gekko golden eagle personal life. Who is Berkut and who is his “Brother”? “I have nine passports by profession”
Born in 1964 in Severodonetsk Lugansk region where he spent his childhood. After graduating from school number 10, he entered and successfully graduated from the Moscow Higher Combined Arms Command School. Having received a military education, in 1986-1987 he served as a commander of a reconnaissance platoon in the Central Group of Forces in the forty-fifth separate airborne assault battalion. In 1988, at his own request, he was sent to the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, as a reconnaissance platoon commander, then as a battalion reconnaissance chief. In 1989, in connection with the reform of the 40th Army, he was transferred to the Central Asian Military District, where he served until 1991. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, he retired at the age of 27…
Why does the “former spy” need Severodonetsk?
I will not speak for a long time about the book, in which the probable scenarios for the dismemberment of Ukraine are described with particular voluptuousness. I am more curious about the person of Igor Berkut, the leader of the Great Ukraine political party, a native of Yenakiyevo, a businessman who has long and fruitfully worked in Kazakhstan and Russia (he himself claims that he has a business in Ukraine as well). The real name is Gekko, but for political work he took the pseudonym Berkut. The Great Ukraine party was registered in 2006 after a long and stubborn resistance from then Minister of Justice Roman Zvarych.
We are mobile phone contacted Mr. Zvarych to ask why he did not want to register “Great Ukraine”.
I don’t remember all the details, he said. – After all, then we daily made decisions on some parties, but my claims in the “Great Ukraine” consisted in the fact that its program documents contained goals and objectives that did not imply the preservation of the sovereignty and state borders of Ukraine.
It is not known for sure whether the party corrected the program, or whether the minister was replaced, but in 2006 Great Ukraine was registered and became a political party.
I turned to experts close to Viktor Yushchenko. Well, they must know who ordered the anti-Ukrainian and anti-presidential book. “We don’t know for sure, most likely the Russian special services, the GRU, the FSB,” they answered me.
The biography of Igor Vitalievich, who calls himself a “former spy”, and now a successful banker, fits into three lines. He graduated from the Moscow Combined Arms Command School, a veteran of the war in Afghanistan, where he commanded a reconnaissance company and where he went of his own free will. The last place of service of Igor Gekko wasCentral Asian Military District . After the collapse of the country, he refused to swear allegiance to another state, resigned. We will not analyze and dig into how in 1991 he won a grant to study in the USA. Well, the man was lucky… The fact is that Igor Vitalyevich returned from there as a junior partner of TEXAKABANK, which was registered in Kazakhstan.
Later, Igor Vitalievich and his American partner resell this bank to Sberbank of Russia (Russian business publications mention this), during the same period they talk about the purchase of Metrocombank in Moscow by Igor Gekko. And now, on the official web page of the bank, the head of the board of the bank in the capital of the Russian Federation is the brother of Igor Vitalievich Valery Gekko. And the head of the board of directors of the Kazakhstan branch of the bank – Igor Vitalievich Gekko himself .
political activity in Ukraine, this citizen is engaged sporadically and still to no avail.
In 2001, before the elections in Verkhovna Rada Mr. Gekko appears in Severodonetsk, takes the local newspaper under his wing and puts forward his candidacy in the 112th single-mandate constituency. Interestingly, Gekko scored 20.8% and finished in second place. But then a scandal followed. The press wrote that in 2001 he did not earn a penny in Ukraine. Since one of the requirements of the law for candidates for deputies is permanent residence in Ukraine for 5 years before the elections, this led to a number of proceedings. Then the Ministry of Internal Affairs accused Gekko that he lived in Kazakhstan and had at least two passports. During further proceedings, it emerged that he had illegally obtained Ukrainian citizenship. In 2003, about the citizenship of Gekko, the Prosecutor General’s Office of Kazakhstan officially applied to the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs, which tried to find out on what basis a citizen of Kazakhstan was registered as a candidate for Ukrainian deputies. Over time, the scandal subsided. Everyone was busy with the presidential campaign.
In 2004, Igor Vitalyevich was a participant in the “Civil Initiative” action and seemed to even sympathize with the opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko. However, already in 2005, Gekko “disappointed” in the leader of the orange. In the same year, he created the Rodina-East movement, which began operations in Luhansk and the region. The project is now closed…
In 2005, Igor Vitalievich was registered by the Central Exhibition Commission as 15th issue of the Evgeny Marchuk Block, a member of his own party “Freedom” in the parliamentary elections in 2006.
The press writes that in early 2007, Gekko announced himself in Kyiv, initiating one of the first referendums on the resignation of Leonid Chernovetsky. This initiative gained a second wind in the winter of 2008. Together with him, representatives of Mikhail Brodsky, the Klitschko Bloc and other political forces attended a press conference against Chernovetsky.
They say that in 2008 the party was taken under guardianship by David Zhvania. Whether this is true or not, we don’t know. Since Igor Vitalyevich’s public defense of David Zhvania in the latter’s “passport scandal” cannot serve as confirmation of their cooperation. But now Igor Berkut is on the radar again. It is not surprising. The country smells of elections.
“I have nine passports by virtue of my profession”
We visited the round table, the main participants of which were Igor Berkut and the co-author of the book mentioned above, Roman Vasylyshyn. General impression of Igor Vitalievich? He is not without the charm of masculinity … Big growth, a scar on his face, an open face, his speech is simple, but thoughtful, with facts. The rhetoric is anti-government, but not openly Vitrenkovian. Scolds mostly irresponsibility of the President. Scolds that the National Security Council is headed by a female gynecologist and that the civilian Minister of Defense does not understand military equipment. He scolds the current electoral system for closed lists, for the impossibility of democracy, for the fact that in Ukraine the real winner of the elections will still not be able to take part in government. He scolds the authorities for the fact that in Russia, for example, Mordashov (head of Severstal) pays more than 440 dollars of tax per ton of steel, while in Ukraine Akhmetov pays only 140. Is this fair?
I, unable to stand it, interrupted somewhat impolitely:
Is that why you do business exclusively in Russia and Kazakhstan?
Igor Vitalyevich, with impeccable restraint, replies that he also has a business in Ukraine, and then he talks in detail and reasonably about the success of reforms in Kazakhstan.
In Ukraine, all TV channels belong to five or six families, he continues.
Well, in Russia, all TV channels are in the same hands, – I continue to taunt, – so five or six owners are not so bad … After reading your book, we assumed that your sponsor is either the FSB, or the GRU, or similar near-Putin structures … The GRU loves such names – “Great Gagauzia”, ”Great Adygea”, by analogy “Great Ukraine” … But recently they started talking about David Zhvania being related to “Great Ukraine”. Could you clarify for us who is the financial sponsor and political father of the Great Ukraine project? I asked.
Igor Vitalyevich smiles encouragingly, tells how difficult it is in Ukraine. He comes to Ternopil, and there they refuse to talk to you until you express your position on the second state and NATO, and how difficult it is to campaign in Donetsk, where they don’t want to talk to you if you are not a “regional”.
You may not believe. But I am not from the FSB and not from the GRU, and what does Zhvania have to do with it?
“I don’t believe it,” I mentally answer. And since there were no questions in the hall, I continue to be interested:
You had serious problems with Ukrainian citizenship in the last elections. Are you sure that you have a passport of Ukraine and that you are a citizen of this country?
Igor Vitalievich answers without a shadow of indignation:
I have nine passports by profession. And there were twelve in general, three had a statute of limitations. This was necessary for the safety of my family. But yes, I am a citizen of Ukraine.
After the press conference, Igor Vitalievich was approached by a pensioner and a pioneer – they invited him to cooperate and expressed support. And in this, in general, a clear story, I was missing one link. For me, this is a deeply secondary matter – which of the local top politicians does Mr. Gekko-Berkut work part-time and what tactical tasks he solves. Soon the elections, everything will become clear.
But it is obvious that he is in the service of another state. Why, the very name of the Great Ukraine project was not invented in Ukraine. Ukraine is not particularly interested in “greatness”. We are not Gagauzia and not Russia. Ukrainians do not have such ambitions – to be “great” (but poor), it is enough for us to be a strong, prosperous, European power, and not “great”. A bank account and clean streets are more important to us than having a nuclear bomb. Any Ukrainian-mental resident of our country will understand this.
By the way, in the newly published book, Berkut and Vasilishin praise Putin for his response to the “Chechen terrorist attacks” – the explosions of houses in Buynaksk, Moscow and Volgodonsk. While it is no secret to anyone that these explosions thinking people have not been considered “Chechen terrorist attacks” for a long time. According to the Western community, the mentioned explosions are only a stage for a “small victorious war” conceived by the Kremlin political strategists in order to raise Vladimir Vladimirovich’s rating before the first presidency. The book scolds Mikhail Khodorkovsky, but for some reason forgets how Putin’s friends dismantled the best Russian company, Yukos, piece by piece.
It seemed to me that Igor Vitalyevich most likely did not read the book itself. Its main writer, co-author is Roman Vasylyshyn ( former member People’s Rukh of Ukraine), who offered to exchange Putin for Yushchenko at a press conference and said that “Ukraine can crumble like a rotten deck.” He has an ambiguous reputation among the old Rukhites.
Rukh from the very beginning of its foundation was literally “stocked” with Russian agents, Yaroslav Kendzor said in a commentary to UNIAN. – I think Vasilishin is one of them. He somehow got into the trust of Gennady Udovenko, who headed the party. And then, when his goals became obvious, he left Rukh under pressure. But now, with the advent of this anti-Ukrainian book, it is clear who he works for.
… As for Berkut, the question is really interesting: why did he need to acquire a Ukrainian passport and take part in Ukrainian elections? Can you imagine taking yourself by the hair, pushing yourself into a plane and flying to some Severodonetsk, imitating that you live and work there? Why so much effort? Why spend so much money on PR? Why abandon the banking business in Russia and Kazakhstan for the sake of Severodonetsk?
An epoch-making event at the beginning of 2017, which the Ukrainian media did not even mention in passing, was the landing in the port of Odessa of the first group of immigrants from Israel, led by the former Soviet military intelligence officer Igor Berkut, who is now revered by many Jews around the world as “Mashiach Ben Yosef” .
Igor Vitalyevich Berkut (real name – Gekko) was born in 1964 in Severodonetsk, Luhansk region, where he spent his childhood. After graduating from school No. 10, he entered the Moscow Higher Combined Arms Command School, which he successfully graduated from. Having received a military education, in 1986-1987 he served as a reconnaissance platoon commander in the Central Group of Forces in the 45th separate air assault battalion. In 1988, at his own request, he was sent to Afghanistan, where he was the commander of a reconnaissance platoon, then he was appointed head of the reconnaissance battalion. In 1989, in connection with the reform of the 40th Army, Igor Gekko was transferred to the Central Asian Military District, where he served until 1991. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, he (at the age of 27) retired. Thanks to a grant received under the program for former Soviet military personnel, Igor Gekko received a financial education in Russia and the USA in 1991-1992. Probably, during the years of study abroad, he was recruited by the Israeli special services (otherwise, further events in his fate simply cannot be logically explained). Then he worked in the banking and financial sector, where he made a very successful career. Organized and led the party “Great Ukraine”. He wrote the book “The True History of Ukraine”, where he sets out his own version of the events that took place on the territory of our country, starting from 142,000 BC.
In January 2017, a group of 183 Jewish pioneers arrived in Ukraine from Haifa (Israel) on a ship to lay the first stone in the foundation of the so-called Heavenly Jerusalem on the fertile southern Ukrainian land. This event marked the beginning of the practical implementation of the grandiose Jewish civilizational project “Heavenly Jerusalem” (also called “New Jerusalem”), which, according to its organizers, will be implemented on the territory of 5 regions located in southern Ukraine: Odessa, Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, Kherson and Nikolaevskaya.
It is assumed that the next object may be the Crimea. It is known that under the Bolsheviks, the Jews already intended to create a Jewish republic in the Crimea, the project was considered from 1924 to 1944. Now they, having strengthened during the period of “democratic reforms” and enlisted the support of a number of Jewish figures in the leadership Russian Federation Apparently, they intend to bring the matter to an end.
After all, as I. Berkut explains, according to the teachings of Kabbalah, the number 5 means harmony, development and the possibility of self-improvement; and the number 6 is the acquisition of an eternal home.
From the speech of Igor Berkut himself – the executive director of the project to create the main center of world Jewry on the territory of five southern Ukrainian regions – it became known that by 2027 “New Jerusalem” should become a center of prosperity for the Jewish settlers, built on the technologies of the 7th economic order ( see video below).
Enormous money and decisive breakthrough technologies for the “Heavenly Jerusalem” will be given by the largest banking houses and the world’s multinational companies, most of which, as is well known, are owned by Jews. The “Heavenly Jerusalem” project is a practical response to the predictions of the well-informed political heavyweight, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and the late Palestinian prophet Sheikh Yassin, that by 2022-2025 the settlement of Jews in the current territory of Israel will become impossible due to the aggressiveness of the surrounding Muslim population, natural anomalies and the coming cataclysm of the “Battle of the End”, predicted by the prophet Daniel.
According to Igor Berkut, an advanced group of Jewish settlers under his leadership has already begun in the most active way preparing the infrastructure to receive the first hundred thousand Jews. Their arrival and resettlement on the territory of the “New Jerusalem”: Odessa, Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, Kherson and Nikolaev regions, is expected until mid-2018. And in total, by the end of 2022, 6 million Jews from Israel and more than 12 million from Russia, the USA and the EU countries are expected to arrive in the New Motherland.
The management of the “New Jerusalem”, when it is officially announced (after the adoption of the Law on Decentralization of Ukraine), will be entrusted to the Board of Benevolents, consisting of 12 leaders. Here is the final composition:
A native of Kyiv, Golda Meir, the 5th Prime Minister of the State of Israel, was declared Honorary Eternal Head of the Council.
B. Netanyahu will become the chairman-premier, after the end of the powers of the prime minister in the State of Israel.
The Speaker of the Council will be the former President of the Russian Jewish Congress Evgeny Satanovsky.
The finances will be managed by the former head of the US Federal Reserve, Ben Shalom Bernanke.
Defense issues will be in charge of the current Minister of Defense of Israel, a native of Chisinau, Avigdor Lieberman.
The secret services will be headed by the Moscow-born former head of the Nativ Bureau for Relations with Jews of the USSR and Eastern Europe, Yakov Kedmi.
Foreign affairs will be in charge of the Moscow-born political scientist and publicist Avigdor Eskin.
Internal affairs will be entrusted to the former Minister of Internal Affairs of the State of Israel, Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky.
Propaganda will be led by the famous Russian TV presenter Vladimir Solovyov.
Tatiana Montyan, a native of Crimea, a lawyer and jurist, will deal with issues of justice.
The chief rabbi is supposed to appoint an ethnic Ashkenazi Khazar version of the appearance of this branch of the tree of Israel.
Literally everything has been thought out, up to the creation of analogues of the Soviet organizations of the Octobrists and Komsomol members. As conceived by the organizers, residents of any non-Jewish nationality living on the territory of the “New Jerusalem” will be asked to take the appropriate exams to obtain a certificate officially confirming that this person is not an anti-Semite. This document will give the right to work in the government agencies of the new Jewish state, the rest of the “natives” living there will be given a cash allowance so that they can survive without problems and do not engage in crime. Dnepropetrovsk will be the official capital, and Odessa will be the cultural capital.
Reflections on the New Jerusalem Project
According to astrologers, according to the so-called “Law of Changes”, the arrival of the cosmic energies of the year of the red rooster (01/28/2017) heralds the beginning of a new stage in the cycles of history. At the same time, the cycle itself starts in 2020 (according to the Eastern calendar, the year of the white rat). And in general, apparently, the very next few years will become a turning point: a radical change in the mindset of the masses, the way of life of the elites, the very system of power and the political course of the heirs of the USSR from the current “admiration for the West” to “self-reliance”.
As a consequence, this will inevitably give rise to a wave of changes with a powerful amplitude. A wave that naturally, first of all, can sweep away the main conductors of such projects to change the world order, which have already brought almost the entire planet and our country, in particular, into a state of the deepest systemic crisis.
Something tells us that the described Jewish plans will not be able to come true. They’ve got a start, yes. However, the beginning alone does not guarantee a successful completion. As they say, the Jews propose, but the Almighty disposes.
However, this does not mean that one can sit back and wait for the Lord God (Almighty, Higher power, History, Space, Noosphere, etc. – whoever likes it) will correct the situation, and direct it for the better. You have to fight for your future. And first of all, by raising our own level of general literacy in the broadest sense of the word. Then people will be more difficult to manipulate and the project, like the one described above, will not be successful. It should be understood that now people are actually being constantly brainwashed through most of the leading TV channels, magazines and newspapers, owned by you-know-who.
Igor Berkut says: Ukraine-Israel: one nation, one destiny…» Is it true? As is well known, representatives of more than 130 nationalities and nationalities live on the territory of Ukraine. How many of them are ready to agree with such a statement? How many of them are ready to start studying the basics of Judaism and pass the relevant exams in order to receive a certificate from Jews who arrived from Israel, giving them the right to work in their native Ukraine? How many Orthodox people (or Muslims, or Catholics, or Protestants) want their children to join the youth organization of the “Cossack Jews” (analogous to the Soviet Komsomol)?
If you don’t have time to watch both parts of the interview “Ukraine-Israel: One People, One Destiny” (and this is a total of about two hours), in any case, we recommend watching the last three minutes of the 2nd part of the video (after 1:03:00) , where the executive director I. Berkut addresses the Ukrainian opponents of the Jewish civilizational mega-project “New Jerusalem” headed by him – this is very impressive!
By the way, on December 8, 2014, the well-known Ukrainian public figure of Jewish nationality Eduard Khodos published “Appeal to Ukrainians. Khazar Khaganate: blood and hell. The essence of the appeal: Jews, using Ukrainian nationalists, turn Ukraine into a Khazar Khaganate, they seize the territory of Ukraine, receive it on a symbolic silver tray from the hands of the Ukrainians themselves, fooled by Jewish propaganda of hatred for Russians as enemies. The substitution of concepts is a classic method of the Jews. Russian friend, blood brother is called an enemy. Some Russians have also recently begun to regard Ukrainians as enemies.
Russians and Ukrainians fell into almost the same mousetrap in 1917, when the fraternal Slavic peoples, divided by Jewish propagandists into reds and whites, killed each other in order to bring to power the Bolsheviks, whose top leadership consisted almost entirely of Jews. Unfortunately, since then, many Ukrainians and Russians have not wised up. Today they are killing each other in Ukraine to make room for the Jews who started this bloody mess. There is no anti-Semitism in this appeal! It’s simple historical facts, this is just the naked truth without embellishment and without verbiage.
Why did he have to take part in the Ukrainian elections? Can you imagine taking yourself by the hair, pushing yourself into a plane and flying to some Severodonetsk, imitating that you live and work there? ..
The other day she donated a mite to the pro-Russian leader of the Ukrainian political party “Great Ukraine” Igor Berkut. I bought his book “Brother” with the face of Vladimir Putin on the cover. Forty-nine hryvnias – my modest contribution will go either to the needs of the political party, or to the accounts of the boys working in the Lubyanka …
Why does the “former spy” need Severodonetsk?
I will not speak for a long time about the book, in which the probable scenarios for the dismemberment of Ukraine are described with particular voluptuousness. I am more curious about the person of Igor Berkut, the leader of the Great Ukraine political party, a native of Yenakiyevo, a businessman who has long and fruitfully worked in Kazakhstan and Russia (he himself claims that he has a business in Ukraine as well). His real name is Gekko, but for political work he took the pseudonym Berkut. The Great Ukraine party was registered in 2006 after a long and stubborn resistance from then Minister of Justice Roman Zvarych.
We contacted Mr. Zvarych by mobile phone to ask him why he didn’t want to register Great Ukraine.
I don’t remember all the details, he said. “After all, at that time we made decisions on some parties every day, but my claims in Great Ukraine were that its program documents contained goals and objectives that did not imply the preservation of the sovereignty and state borders of Ukraine.
It is not known for sure whether the party corrected the program, or whether the minister was replaced, but in 2006 Great Ukraine was nevertheless registered and became a political party.
I turned to experts close to Viktor Yushchenko. Well, they must know who ordered the anti-Ukrainian and anti-presidential book. “We don’t know for sure, most likely the Russian special services, the GRU, the FSB,” they answered me.
The biography of Igor Vitalyevich, who calls himself a “former spy” and now a successful banker, fits into three lines. He graduated from the Moscow Combined Arms Command School, a veteran of the war in Afghanistan, where he commanded a reconnaissance company and where he went of his own free will. The last place of service of Igor Gekko was Central Asian Military District. After the collapse of the country, he refused to swear allegiance to another state, resigned. We will not analyze and dig into how in 1991 he won a grant to study in the USA. Well, the man was lucky… The fact is that Igor Vitalyevich returned from there as a junior partner of TEXAKABANK, which was registered in Kazakhstan.
Later, Vitaly Andreevich and his American partner resell this bank to Sberbank of Russia (Russian business publications mention this), during the same period they talk about the purchase by Igor Gekko of Metrokombank in Moscow. And now, on the official web page of the bank, the head of the board of the bank in the capital of the Russian Federation is the brother of Igor Vitalievich Valery Gekko. And the head of the board of directors of the Kazakhstan branch of the bank – Igor Vitalievich Gekko himself .
This citizen is engaged in political activities in Ukraine sporadically and still to no avail.
In 2001, before the elections to the Verkhovna Rada, Mr. Gekko appeared in Severodonetsk, took the local newspaper under his wing and put forward his candidacy in the 112th single-mandate constituency. Interestingly, Gekko scored 20.8% and finished in second place. But then a scandal followed. The press wrote that in 2001 he did not earn a penny in Ukraine. Since one of the requirements of the law for candidates for deputies is permanent residence in Ukraine for 5 years before the elections, this led to a number of proceedings. Then the Ministry of Internal Affairs accused Gekko that he lived in Kazakhstan and had at least two passports. During further proceedings, it emerged that he had illegally obtained Ukrainian citizenship. In 2003, about the citizenship of Gekko, the Prosecutor General’s Office of Kazakhstan officially applied to the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs, which tried to find out on what basis a citizen of Kazakhstan was registered as a candidate for Ukrainian deputies. Over time, the scandal subsided. Everyone was busy with the presidential campaign.
In 2004, Igor Vitalyevich was a participant in the “Civil Initiative” action and seemed to even sympathize with the opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko. However, already in 2005, Gekko “disappointed” in the leader of the orange. In the same year, he created the movement “Motherland-East”, which began its activities in Lugansk and the region. The project is now closed…
In 2005, Igor Vitalievich was registered by the Central Exhibition Commission as 15th issue of the Evgeny Marchuk Block, member of his own party “Freedom” in the parliamentary elections in 2006.
The press writes that in early 2007, Gekko announced himself in Kyiv, initiating one of the first referendums on the resignation of Leonid Chernovetsky. This initiative gained a second wind in the winter of 2008. Together with him, representatives of Mikhail Brodsky, the Klitschko Bloc and other political forces attended a press conference against Chernovetsky.
They say that in 2008 the party was taken under guardianship by David Zhvania. Whether this is true or not, we don’t know. Since Igor Vitalyevich’s public defense of David Zhvania in the latter’s “passport scandal” cannot serve as confirmation of their cooperation. But now Igor Berkut is on the radar again. It is not surprising. The country smells of elections. sexoprague
“I have nine passports by profession”
We visited the round table, the main participants of which were Igor Berukt and the co-author of the book mentioned above, Roman Vasilishin. General impression of Igor Vitalievich? He is not without the charm of masculinity … Big growth, a scar on his face, an open face, his speech is simple, but thoughtful, with facts. The rhetoric is anti-government, but not openly Vitrenkovian. Scolds mostly irresponsibility of the President. Scolds for the fact that the National Security Council is headed by a female gynecologist and that the civilian Minister of Defense cannot distinguish a dot from the moon, and a daisy from a tulip. He scolds the current electoral system for closed lists, for the impossibility of democracy, for the fact that in Ukraine the real winner of the elections will still not be able to take part in government. He scolds the authorities for the fact that in Russia, for example, Mordashov (head of Severstal) pays more than 440 dollars of tax per ton of steel, while in Ukraine Akhmetov pays only 140. Is this fair?
I, unable to stand it, interrupted somewhat impolitely:
Is that why you do business exclusively in Russia and Kazakhstan?
Igor Vitalyevich, with impeccable restraint, replies that he also has a business in Ukraine, and then he talks in detail and reasonably about the success of reforms in Kazakhstan.
In Ukraine, all TV channels belong to five or six families,” he continues.
Well, in Russia, all TV channels are in the same hands, – I continue to taunt, – so five or six owners are not so bad … After reading your book, we assumed that your sponsor is either the FSB, or the GRU, or similar structures near Putin … The GRU loves such names – “Great Gagauzia”, ”Great Adygea”, by analogy “Great Ukraine” … But recently they started talking about David Zhvania being related to “Great Ukraine”. Could you clarify for us who is the financial sponsor and political father of the Great Ukraine project? I asked.
Igor Vitalyevich smiles encouragingly, tells how difficult it is in Ukraine. He comes to Ternopil, and there they refuse to talk to you until you express your position on the second state and NATO, and how difficult it is to campaign in Donetsk, where they don’t want to talk to you if you are not a “regional”.
You may not believe. But I am not from the FSB and not from the GRU, and what does Zhvania have to do with it?
“I don’t believe it,” I mentally answer. And since there were no questions in the hall, I continue to be interested:
You had serious problems with Ukrainian citizenship in the last elections. Are you sure that you have a passport of Ukraine and that you are a citizen of this country?
Igor Anatolyevich answers without a shadow of indignation:
I have nine passports by profession. And there were twelve in general, three had a statute of limitations. This was necessary for the safety of my family. But yes, I am a citizen of Ukraine.
After the press conference, Igor Vitalyevich was approached by a pensioner and a pioneer who invited him to cooperate and expressed their support. And in this, in general, a clear story, I was missing one link. For me, this is a deeply secondary matter – which of the local top politicians is part-time Mr. Gekko-Berkut and what tactical tasks he solves. Soon the elections, everything will become clear.
But it is obvious that he is in the service of another state. Why, the very name of the project “Great Ukraine” was not invented in Ukraine. Ukraine is not particularly interested in “greatness”. We are not Gagauzia and not Russia. Ukrainians do not have such ambitions – to be “great” (but poor), it is enough for us to be a strong, prosperous, European power, and not “great”. A bank account and clean streets are more important to us than having a nuclear bomb. Any Ukrainian-mental resident of our country will understand this.
When I was about to wrap this up, I found great Israel 2.0 coverage (as per usual) on TruNews, great for a conclusion SO FAR:
AND WHEN YOU THOUGHT YOU HAVE IT FIGURED OUT…
Q: Historically speaking, do you know who has been obsessed with a New Jerusalem way longer than modern Ukraine and the likes of Zelensky or Soros? A: RUSSIA. And it started when Ukraine was Russia.
Q: Remember what Putin and Zelensky have in common (besides the first name)? A: CHABAD LUBAVITCH.
Travels of Russians to the Holy Land in the 19th Century
ABSTRACT This article focuses on three main aspects: the presence of the Holy Land in the Russian literature of pilgrimage, the creation in Palestine of Russian institutions, and the representations of the Holy Land in Russian architecture. By doing that, this article aims at analyzing how personalities of the Russian cultural, literary and religious world spoke about the Holy Land in the 19th century (the so-called ‘Russian Palestine’), while pointing out the value of pilgrimage to the Holy Land for the Russian Orthodox tradition and also recalling the important element of the representation of ‘Jerusalem outside Jerusalem’.
In this essay the author examines the disappearance from official Russian discourse of the idea of Muscovy as the New Israel. She suggests that it may partly be explained in relation to his opponents’ accusations of blasphemy against Patriarch Nikon for naming his monastery on the River Istra as New Jerusalem. These accusations were made in the context of apocalyptic rumours about Nikon as the Antichrist, and about the imminent appearance of the Antichrist in Jerusalem in 1666. The decisions of the Church council of 1666–1667 – including its repudiation of the idea of the Third Rome – seemed to many Old Believers to confirm prophecies about 1666 as the date of a third and final apostasy from the true faith, after the Great Schism of 1054 and the Union of Brest of 1596. The ideas of the Third Rome and New Israel persisted among some Old Believers; but unlike the idea of the Third Rome, which was re-interpreted in the 19th and 20th centuries as evidence of Russian messianism and imperialism, the idea of the New Israel has been comparatively neglected.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. 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
IT DOESN’T MATTER WHICH GOVERNMENT OR OTHER SOCIOPATHIC CRIME SYNDICATE HATES YOUR GUTS FOR READING OUR TYPE OF STUFF, THEY’RE PROBABLY IN SOME EPSTEIN OR MAXWELL BOOKS AND PICS. SEE DETAILS / ORDER
In a sane functional society, this would totally dominate the news cycle, even ahead FTX or Arizona! Election fraud is common, so is money laundering, but the level of fraud here, the ramifications and the genocidal consequences are beyond anything I know of. Except maybe the Plandemic itself.
These are just some highlights of a larger feature which I don’t want to “pirate”, but to push. So Head to EpochTV and help it gain traction and enter the main public debate agenda!
“Why is that important beyond Israel?…Because Israel was essentially the first country to launch [a] national vaccination campaign, and it did that under a very unique agreement with Pfizer that essentially made Israel a worldwide lab for the rest of the world. And indeed, if you follow all the approval stages of the FDA of the vaccine, in each one of them, Pfizer is quoting and relying on data from Israel.”
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. 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
Mr. Dimitri A. Khalezov, a former Soviet citizen, a former commissioned officer of the so-called “military unit 46179”, otherwise known as “the Special Control Service” of the 12th Chief Directorate of the Defense Ministry of the USSR. The Special Control Service, also known as the Soviet atomic (later “nuclear”) intelligence was a secret military unit responsible for detecting nuclear explosions (including underground nuclear tests) of various adversaries of the former USSR as well as responsible for controlling of observance of various international treaties related to nuclear testing and to peaceful nuclear explosions. After September the 11th Khalezov undertook some extensive 9/11 research and proved that the Twin Towers of World Trade Center, as well as its building 7, were demolished by three underground thermo-nuclear explosions – which earned the very name “ground zero” to the demolition site. Moreover, he testifies that he knew about the in-built so-called “emergency nuclear demolitions scheme” of the Twin Towers as long ago as back in the ‘80s – while being a serviceman in the Soviet Special Control Service.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. 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
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. 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
… caused a bunch of alarmist headlines about the WEF and “poop water”, and they are not wrong, just behind the curve:
But poop-water’s story goes back more than a decade. By my observations, whatever it is, if it’s happening now, it’s probably been in the works for 2o years or longer. This next thing is from 2011 Buzzfeed:
Why Drinking Purified Poo Water Is So Gross, Even When It Shouldn’t Be
There’s a reason you don’t drink out of the toilet. It’s gross. Even if you got a super toilet that only flushed diamond rain water, it’d still be disgusting. But that’s the thing. The only thing keeping you from drinking cleansed pisswater is you.
According to NPR, proposals to reuse sewage and turn it into drinking water have been shot down numerous times over the years. And it’s not that the water didn’t meet standards for cleanliness. It would have been fine. Rather, they never got off the ground simply because the idea sounded so nasty.
And don’t get me wrong. We’ve done it, too. It just has everything to do with a phenomenon called psychological contagion. Remember the episode of Seinfeld when Jerry accidentally knocks his girlfriend’s toothbrush into the toilet? And, after brushing her teeth with it, she forever after had a “taint”? Same deal. The dirtiness of the toilet attached itself to her mouth. So too does the dirtiness of our poop to the water that was cleansed of it. We still think it’s dirty.
So how do you fix it? More psychology. Scientists found that after making people think about the purified water in an underwater aquifer, they were more apt to drink it. Which is kinda crazy. Just think. You could make me drink actual poo water if you made me think it was mountain fresh, but telling me truly clean water originated in a sewer would make me cringe.
Moreover, actually putting that thinking into practice would be expensive. Running the water some kind of underground spring just to make you think it’s clean could make it dirty all over again. So then it has to be cleaned again, making the process cost maybe three times as much as it already does. And you’d probably have to pay more for it, too.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. 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 people saving us today from Covid and economic collapse also “saved” millions from being born or dying of natural causes.
Remember when Kissinger called Luke Rudkowski “a sick person”? Here’s what that was all about:
The origins of the Commission are traced to a concern with the consequences of U.S. population growth on the part of such key individuals as John D. Rockefeller 3rd and Paul Ehrlich. Because the Commission was a statutory creation of Congress, its membership included 4 Congressmen in addition to 20 distinguished citizens representing a spectrum of groups and views. The evaluation of the consequences of growth, as opposed to the means of reducing fertility, became the major concern of the research effort. Several issues led to differences within the Commission: 1) A narrow versus a broad definition of the scope of the report; 2) differing perceptions of the population problem as manifested by the ecological view, the “unwanted fertility” school, and the social justice view. The social science work contracted by the Commission had a significant impact on the final report’s substance: 1) the demographic work on population projections was crucial to the analysis of the consequences of growth; 2) evaluating the demographic capability of national “growth center strategy” had an influence; and 3) the need to eliminate unwanted fertility was confirmed as a necessary priority. The basic thrust of the Commission’s report was to recomment slowing growth in order to maximize the quality of life.
In some ways, the history of NSSM-200 is just a restatement of the history of the world over the course of 250 years or so. With so much information having a bearing on the subject, we can do no more than plant some sign posts for the reader to use in doing their own research. It should be noted that this ‘history’ often reflects points of interest that the advocates for population control themselves indicate. In fact, in order to generate some of the most pertinent details of this timeline, we merely started with the writings of the population control advocates themselves, noted the individuals and events that they stated were formative, and worked backwards through time. Darwin quoted Malthus, the eugenicists cited Darwin, the population control advocates invoked the eugenicists, and so on…
———–
Malthus
Darwin — quoting Malthus
Eugenicists — quoting Darwin
World War 1 — Germany in particular saw the conflict as the fitness of one culture prevailing against another. (Until they lost!)
Period between WW1 and WW2 — a full on push for eugenics starts winding down. Eugenicists begin switching their emphasis to ‘population’ studies
Margaret Sanger … The Pivot of Civilization
Guy Irving Burch … A staunch eugenicist, Burch founded the Population Reference Bureau in 1929 and was widely consulted on ‘population matters.’ His book, Human Breeding and Survival (also published as Population Roads to Peace or War – 1945) cites Malthus approvingly and was well regarded by other ‘founders’ of the population control movement, namely William Vogt. His eugenic perspective and belief that birth control, population control, and evolutionary principles go hand in hand are on display in the following passage from PRPoW, pages 73-4:
There is one tremendous value of birth control knowledge which deserves special emphasis when it is widespread instead of a class privilege. Where contraceptive knowledge has been democratized and has reached all economic and social levels of the population the most responsible and intelligent parents have the largest families. […]
Drs. Huntington, Whitney, and Phillips have found the same trend in their studies of Harvard and Yale graduates; and Dr. Thompson found similar evidence in his studies of the fertility of Negroes in our Northern cities. The most successful parents had the largest families. Here we find an intelligent and peaceful substitute for the bloody and destructive laws of the jungle which can make possible the continued evolution of human life. This is, indeed, a Vital Revolution. References for most of these studies may be found in Dr. Warren S. Thompson’s book, Population Problems, 1935, pp. 386-387.
World War 2 — Nazis enthusiastically apply eugenics principles, albeit filtered through a nationalistic prism.
Immediately after World War 2 — overt eugenics falls completely out of favor. They turn to ‘crypto-eugenics’, explicitly turning the direction of their efforts to the most ‘politically acceptable’ alternatives that were consistent with eugenics principles: family planning and population control.
Fairfield Osborn
Fairfield Osborn had already spent decades in the eugenics movement before pivoting to population control advocacy, presiding, for example, over the 1921 International Eugenics Congress. His book Our Plundered Planet is frequently mentioned by population control advocates in the decades following its publication in 1948. Fairfield Osborn was the uncle of Frederick Osborn, a president of the American Eugenics Society and the Population Council. In Our Plundered Planet, on page 204, Osborn thanks William Vogt for “his philosophical approach to the problem”, which is to say, he acknowledges that there is an ideological underpinning to the whole population control mindset (which he shares), and on pgs 205-206, he thanks Guy Irving Burch for providing “information regarding human populations”. One should begin to get the impression that eugenicists, birth control advocates, and population control agitators are all peas in the same pod.
William Vogt
Vogt was the National Director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America from 1951 to 1962. His 1948 book, Road to Survival, was extremely influential. Given his prominent station at Planned Parenthood for such a long period of time, and in particular dovetailing into the 1960s, when the ‘population crisis’ was a veritable froth, it is absurd to believe that he did not imprint his population control mentality on that organization. On page 146 of his book, he uses the sub-heading “Too Many Americans.” This may have been the inspiration for Lincoln and Alice Day’s title of their book by that very name (see below). Vogt is a good illustration of the historical fact that there was direct continuity and perfect compatibility between ‘birth control’ advocates and population control activists and the eugenics movement itself.
His book lists Guy Irving Burch first in his entire list of references, saying that he was “indebted” to him, saying: “Foremost among these are […] Guy Irving Burch, who not only granted permission to quote from Human Breeding and Survival (originally published as Population Roads to Peace or War), of which he is co-author, but who has also been extraordinarily helpful with advice, bibliographic suggestions, and critical discussion.”
Not coincidentally–and again, illustrating a continuity within the ideology, Vogt mentions Malthus approvingly.
Vogt’s book is introduced by Bernard Baruch, a wealthy and influential progressive, involved in making the Federal Reserve a reality, and supporting the United Daughters of the Confederacy (which may be of particular interest to modern readers who intone a one to one correspondence between racism and the Confederate flag).
Population Control imposed on the Japanese people by the United States
1950s — Eugenicists-now-turned-population-control-advocates consolidate their change of emphasis, eschewing ‘eugenics’ per se, and focusing on genetic counseling (hereditary clinics) and calling attention to ‘over-population.’
Charles Francis Darwin
Harrison Brown
“Among the more important books designed to be read by the general public are: Our Plundered Planet by Fairfield Osborn, The Road to Survival by William Vogt,”
Grounds his arguments extensively on Evolution. Explicit eugenicist.
Cites Charles Galton Darwin at length, approvingly.
Frederick Osborn was a propaganda officer during World War 2. After the war, he first focused on advocating for eugenics, serving as the president of the American Eugenics Society. The AES found their work to be difficult in a post-Holocaust era. He advocated for ‘crypto-eugenics,‘ for example calling for the establishment of heredity clinics and the ‘genetic counseling’ profession to persuade people to make eugenic decisions without knowing they were doing so. He called this ‘voluntary unconscious selection.’ Later, he served as the president of the Population Council, succeeded by Bernard Berelson (who is more directly implicated in NSSM-200). He never stopped thinking in eugenic terms, but, like the expert propagandist that he was, was always ready to bend and twist as circumstances warranted it. Guy Irving Burch cited him approvingly in his PRPoW in reference to linking birth control to population control: “one of the latest and most authoritative books on the subject of population [… Preface to Eugenics … by Frederick Osborn, says] the control of births can–if we will–be used to further all efforts to improve the conditions of human life.”
It may be wondered why abortion was not more frequently listed as a eugenic or population control measure, but this is not strictly true. It was a political hot potato and contemplating its use in these ways was only useful in theory to them, because it was not yet legal throughout the United States. A telling quote by Frederick Osborn testifies to the ‘crypto-eugenic’ path that the eugenicists took after WW2 as well as the recognition that abortion (and birth control, of course) had ‘eugenic effects’:
“The name [of their eugenics journal] was changed because it became evident that changes of a eugenic nature would be made for reasons other than eugenics, and that tying a eugenic label on them would more often hinder than help their adoption. Birth control and abortion are turning out to be great eugenic advances of our time. If they had been advanced for eugenic reasons it would have retarded or stopped their acceptance.”
H.J. Muller
Julian Huxley
1960s — Population Control advocates are firmly entrenched in public positions, but lack the political support to enact their proposals. Wealthy adherents launch numerous advertising campaigns to win over the public.
Hugh Moore — (see: Lawrence Lader — Breeding Ourselves to Death)
Lincoln and Alice Day — Too Many Americans
Paul Ehrlich — The Population Bomb
Bernard Berelson — President of the Population Council (replacing Frederick Osborn)
Frank Jaffe — Vice-President of Population for Planned Parenthood
Richard Nixon — in 1969 calls for a national population policy and directs money to be spent for that purpose (eg, Title X, in 1970)
Nixon orders Kissinger to study how ‘over-population’ in “developing countries” threatens the U.S. Kissinger’s highly classified report is turned in December of 1974
Nixon is impeached.
Gerald Ford signs an executive order implementing NSSM-200.
The Global 2000 Report under Jimmy Carter is released in 1979. The report accepts every premise of the population control advocates. Noteworthy participants include John Holdren (at present, the chief ‘science’ officer in the Obama Administration.
1980s
Ronald Reagan, in the so-called “Mexico City” policy, forbids the use of taxpayer dollars to fund any international program that promotes or finances abortions… population control advocates have a royal conniption that lasts to this very day. Evidently, without abortion on demand, they feel they can do very little to achieve their goals.
1990s
George H. Bush re-implements the Mexico City policy.
Bill Clinton reverses the Mexico City policy.
NSSM-200 is declassified as the result of a Freedom of Information Request, which itself was spawned by suspicions overseas that certain programs were in fact population control programs.
2000s
George W. Bush reinstates the Mexico City policy.
Barack Obama revokes the Mexico City policy.
Population and the American Future
The Report of The Commission on Population Growth and the American Future
March 27, 1972
To the President and Congress of the United States:
I have the honor to transmit for your consideration the Final Report, containing the findings and recommendations, of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, pursuant to Sec. 8, PL 91-213.
After two years of concentrated effort, we have concluded that, in the long run, no substantial benefits will result from further growth of the Nation’s population, rather that the gradual stabilization of our population through voluntary means would contribute significantly to the Nation’s ability to solve its problems. We have looked for, and have not found, any convincing economic argument for continued population growth. The health of our country does not depend on it, nor does the vitality of business nor the welfare of the average person.
The recommendations offered by this Commission are directed towards increasing public knowledge of the causes and consequences of population change, facilitating and guiding the processes of population movement, maximizing information about human reproduction and its consequences for the family, and enabling individuals to avoid unwanted fertility.
To these ends we offer this report in the hope that our findings and recommendations will stimulate serious consideration of an issue that is of great consequence to present and future generations.
Respectfully submitted for the Commission,
John D. Rockefeller 3rd
Chairman
The President
The President of the Senate
The Speaker of the House of Representatives
The Commission
Chairman
John D. Rockefeller 3rd
Vice Chairman
Grace Olivarez
Executive Director
Food for All, Inc.
Vice Chairman
Christian N. Ramsey, Jr., M.D.
President
The Institute for the Study of Health and Society
Joseph D. Beasley, M.D.
The Edward Wisner Professor of Public Health
Tulane University Medical Center
David E. Bell
Executive Vice President
The Ford Foundation
Bernard Berelson
President
The Population Council
Arnita Young Boswell
Associate Field Work Professor
School of Social Service Administration
University of Chicago
Margaret Bright
Professor
Dept. of Behavioral Sciences and Dept. of Epidemiology
School of Hygiene and Public Health
The Johns Hopkins University
Marilyn Brant Chandler
Housewife, Volunteer, Student
Paul B. Cornely, M.D.
Professor
Dept. of Community Health Practice, College of Medicine
Howard University
Assistant to the Executive Medical Officer
Welfare and Retirement Fund United Mine Workers of America
Alan Cranston
United States Senator
California
Lawrence A. Davis
President
Arkansas Agricultural, Mechanical & Normal College
Otis Dudley Duncan
Professor of Sociology
University of Michigan
John N. Erlenbom
United States Representative
14th C. District of Illinois
Joan F. Flint
Housewife, Volunteer
R. V. Hansberger
Chairman and President
Boise Cascade Corporation
D. Gale Johnson
Chairman
Department of Economics
University of Chicago
John R. Meyer
President
National Bureau of Economic Research
Professor of Economics Yale University
Bob Packwood
United States Senator
Oregon
James S. Rummonds
Student
Stanford School of Law
Stephen L. Salyer
Student
Davidson College
Howard D. Samuel
Vice President
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America
James H. Scheuer
United States Representative
22nd C. District of New York
George D. Woods
Director and Consultant
The First Boston Corporation
This report represents the official views of the Commission, particularly as to the listed recommendations. Clearly, in the case of a Commission with such diverse membership, not every Commissioner subscribes in detail to every suggestion or statement of policy.
[…]
Because he deepened our conviction that each individual has a unique contribution to make to the dignity and worth of all mankind, the Commission and staff dedicate this report to the memory of our colleague, staff member, and friend. Ritchie H. Reed
1941-1971
Preface
For the first time in the history of our country, the President and the Congress have established a Commission to examine the growth of our population and the impact it will have upon the American future. In proposing this Commission in July 1969, President Nixon said: “One of the most serious challenges to human destiny in the last third of this century will be the growth of the population. Whether man’s response to that challenge will be a cause for pride or for despair in the year 2000 will depend very much on what we do today.” The Commission was asked to examine the probable extent of population growth and internal migration in the United States between now and the end of this century, to assess the impact that population change will have upon government services, our economy, and our resources and environment, and to make recommendations on how the nation can best cope with that impact.
In our Interim Report a year ago, the Commission defined the scope of our mandate: “. . . to formulate policy for the future”— policy designed to deal with “the pervasive impact of population growth on every facet of American life.” We said that population growth of the magnitude we have experienced since World War II has multiplied and intensified many of our domestic problems and made their solution more difficult. We called upon the American people to begin considering the meaning and consequences of population growth and internal migration and the desirability of formulating a national policy on the question.
Since then, the Commission and staff have conducted an extensive inquiry. We have enlisted many of the nation’s leading scientists in more than 100 research projects. We have heard from more than 100 witnesses in public hearings across the country and have met with experts in many days of executive meetings. And we are aware that population has become an active subject of consideration in a number of states in our country concerned about their future. We have come to recognize that the racial and ethnic diversity of this Commission gives us confidence that our recommendations—the consensus of our members—do indeed point the way in which this nation should move in solving its problems. Because of the importance of this matter, the Commission recommends that future federal commissions include a substantial representation of minorities, youth, poor citizens, and women among their members, including congressional representatives, and the commission staffs and consultants include significant numbers of minorities, youth, and women.
We offer this report in the hope that our viewpoints and recommendations will stimulate serious consideration and response by the citizens of this nation and of nations throughout the world to an issue of great consequence to present and future generations.
In the brief history of this nation, we have always assumed that progress and “the good life” are connected with population growth. In fact, population growth has frequently been regarded as a measure of our progress. If that were ever the case, it is not now. There is hardly any social problem confronting this nation whose solution would be easier if our population were larger. Even now, the dreams of too many Americans are not being realized; others are being fulfilled at too high a cost. Accordingly, this Commission has concluded that our country can no longer afford the uncritical acceptance of the population growth ethic that “more is better.” And beyond that, after two years of concentrated effort, we have concluded that no substantial benefits would result from continued growth of the nation’s population.
The “population problem” is long run and requires long-run responses. It is not a simple problem. It cannot be encompassed by the slogans of either of the prevalent extremes: the “more” or the “bigger the better” attitude on the one hand, or the emergency-crisis response on the other. Neither extreme is accurate nor even helpful.
It is a problem which can be interpreted in many ways. It is the pressure of population reaching out to occupy open spaces and bringing with it a deterioration of the environment. It can be viewed as the effect on natural resources of increased numbers of people in search of a higher standard of living. It is the impact of population fluctuations in both growth and distribution upon the orderly provision of public services. It can be seen as the concentration of people in metropolitan areas and depopulation elsewhere, with all that implies for the quality of life in both places. It is the instability over time of proportions of the young, the elderly, and the productive. For the family and the individual, it is the control over one’s life with respect to the reproduction of new life—the formal and informal pronatalist pressures of an outmoded tradition, and the disadvantages of and to the children involved.
Unlike other great public issues in the United States, population lacks the dramatic event—the war, the riot, the calamity—that galvanizes attention and action. It is easily overlooked and neglected. Yet the number of children born now will seriously affect our lives in future decades. This produces a powerful effect in a double sense: Its fluctuations can be strong and not easily changed; and its consequences are important for the welfare of future generations.
There is scarcely a facet of American life that is not involved with the rise and fall of our birth and death rates: the economy, environment, education, health, family life and sexual practices, urban and rural life, governmental effectiveness and political freedoms, religious norms, and secular life styles. If this country is in a crisis of spirit—environmental deterioration, racial antagonisms, the plight of the cities, the international situation—then population is part of that crisis.
Although population change touches all of these areas of our national life and intensifies our problems, such problems will not be solved by demographic means alone. Population policy is no substitute for social, economic, and environmental policy. Successfully addressing population requires that we also address our problems of poverty, of minority and sex discrimination, of careless exploitation of resources, of environmental deterioration, and of spreading suburbs, decaying cities, and wasted countrysides. By the same token, because population is so tightly interwoven with all of these concerns, whatever success we have in resolving these problems will contribute to easing the complex system of pressures that impel population growth.
Consideration of the population issue raises profound questions of what people want, what they need—indeed, what they are for. What does this nation stand for and where is it going? At some point in the future, the finite earth will not satisfactorily accommodate more human beings—nor will the United States. How is a judgment to be made about when that point will be reached? Our answer is that now is the time to confront the question: “Why more people?” The answer must be given, we believe, in qualitative not quantitative terms.
The United States today is characterized by low population density, considerable open space, a declining birthrate, movement out of the central cities—but that does not eliminate the concern about population. This country, or any country, always has a “population problem,” in the sense of achieving a proper balance between size, growth, and distribution on the one hand, and, on the other, the quality of life to which every person in this country aspires.
Nor is this country alone in the world, demographically or in any other way. Many other nations are beginning to recognize the importance of population questions. We need to act prudently, understanding that today’s decisions on population have effects for generations ahead. Similarly, we need to act responsibly toward other people in the world: This country’s needs and wants, given its wealth, may impinge upon the patrimony of other, less fortunate peoples in the decades ahead. The “population problem” of the developing countries may be more pressing at this time, but in the longer perspective, it is both proper and in our best interest to participate fully in the worldwide search for the good life, which must include the eventual stabilization of our numbers.
A Diversity of Views
Ultimately, then, we are concerned not with demographic trends alone, but with the effect of these trends on the realization of the values and goals cherished as part of the American tradition and sought after by minorities who also “want in.”
One of the basic themes underlying our analysis and policy recommendations is the substitution of quality for quantity; that is, we should concern ourselves with improving the quality of life for all Americans rather than merely adding more Americans. And unfortunately, for many of our citizens that quality of life is still defined only as enough food, clothing, and shelter. All human beings need a sense of their own dignity and worth, a sense of belonging and sharing, and the opportunity to develop their individual potentialities.
But it is far easier to achieve agreement on abstract values than on their meaning or on the strategy to achieve them. Like the American people generally, this Commission has not been able to reach full agreement on the relative importance of different values or on the analysis of how the “population problem” reflects other conditions and directions of American society.
Three distinct though overlapping approaches have been distinguished. These views differ in their analysis of the nature of the problem and the general priorities of tasks to be accomplished. But, despite the different perspectives from which population is viewed, all of the population policies we shall recommend are consistent with all three positions.
The first perspective acknowledges the benefits to be gained by slowing growth, but regards our population problem today primarily as a result of large numbers of people being unable to control an important part of their lives—the number of children they have. The persistence of this problem reflects an effective denial of freedom of choice and equality of access to the means of fertility control. In this view, the population problem is regarded more as the sum of such individual problems than as a societal problem transcending the interests of individuals; the welfare of individuals and that of the general society are seen as congruent, at least at this point in history. The potential conflict between these two levels is mitigated by the knowledge that freedom from unwanted childbearing would contribute significantly to the stabilization of population.
Reproductive decisions should be freely made in a social context without pronatalist pressures—the heritage of a past when the survival of societies with high mortality required high fertility. The proper mission for government in this matter is to ensure the fullest opportunity for people to decide their own future in this regard, based on the best available knowledge; then the demographic outcome becomes the democratic solution.
Beyond these goals, this approach depends on the processes of education, research, and national debate to illuminate the existence of any serious population “problem” that transcends individual welfare. The aim would be to achieve the best collective decisiOn about population issues based on knowledge of the tradeoffs between demographic choices and the “quality of life,” however defined. This position ultimately seeks optimize the individual and the collective decisions and then accepts the aggregate outcome—with the understanding that the situation will be reconsidered from time to time.
The second view does not deny the need for education and knowledge, but stresses the crucial gaps between what we claim as national values and the reality experienced by certain groups in our society. Many of the traditional American values, such as freedom and justice, are not yet experienced by some minorities. Racial discrimination continues to mean that equal access to opportunities afforded those in the mainstream of American society is denied to millions of people. Overt and subtle discrimination against women has meant undue pressure toward childbearing and child-rearing. Equality is denied when inadequate income, education, or racial and sexual stereotypes persist, and shape available options. Freedom is denied when governmental steps are not taken to assure the fullest possible access to methods of controlling reproduction or to educational, job, and residential opportunities. In addition, the freedom of future generations may be compromised by a denial of freedom to the present generation. Finally, extending freedom and equality—which is nothing more than making the American system live up to its stated values—would go far beyond affecting the growth rate. Full equality both for women and ‘for racial minorities is a value in its own right. In this view, the “population problem” is seen as only one facet, and not even a major one, of the restriction of full opportunity in American life.
The third position deals with the population problem in an ecological framework, one whose primary axiom asserts the functional interdependence of man and his environment. It calls for a far more fundamental shift in the operative values of modern society. The need for more education and knowledge and the need to eliminate poverty and racism are important, but not enough. For the population problem, and the growth ethic with which it is intimately connected, reflect deeper external conditions and more fundamental political, economic, and philosophical values. Consequently, to improve the quality of our existence while slowing growth, will require nothing less than a basic recasting of American values.
The numbers of people and the material conditions of human existence are limited by the external environment. Human life, like all forms of life on earth, is supported by intricate ecological systems that are limited in their ability to adapt to and tolerate changing conditions. Human culture, particularly science and technology, has given man an extraordinary power to alter and manipulate his environment. At the same time, he has also achieved the capacity virtually to destroy life on earth. Sadly, in the rush to produce, consume, and discard, he has too often chosen to plunder and destroy rather than to conserve and create. Not only have the land, air, and water, the flora and fauna suffered, but also the individual, the family, and the human community.
This position holds that the present pattern of urban industrial organization, far from promoting the realization of the individual as a uniquely valuable experience, serves primarily to perpetuate its own values. Mass urban industrialism is based on science and technology, efficiency, acquisition, and domination through rationality. The exercise of these same values now contains the potential for the destruction of our humanity. Man is losing that balance with nature which is an essential condition of human existence. With that loss has come a loss of harmony with other human beings. The population problem is a concrete symptom of this change, and a fundamental cause of present human conditions.
It is comfortable to believe that changes in values or in the political system are unnecessary, and that measures such as population education and better fertility control information and services will solve our population problem. They will not, however, for such solutions do not go to the heart of man’s relationship with nature, himself, and society. According to this view, nothing less than a different set of values toward nature, the transcendence of a laissez-faire market system, a redefinition of human identity in terms other than consumerism, and a radical change if not abandonment of the growth ethic, will suffice. A new vision is needed—a vision that recognizes man’s unity with nature, that transcends a simple economic definition of man’s identity, and that seeks to promote the realization of the highest potential of our individual humanity.
The Immediate Goal
These three views reflect different evaluations of the nature of the population problem, different assessments of the viability of the American political process, and different perceptions of the critical values at stake.
Given the diversity of goals to be addressed and the manifold ramifications of population change throughout society, how are specific population policies to be selected?
As a Commission and as a people, we need not agree on all the priorities if we can identify acceptable policies that speak in greater or lesser degree to all of them. By and large, in our judgment, the policy findings and recommendations of this Report meet that requirement. Whatever the primary needs of our society, the policies recommended here all lead in right directions for this nation, and generally at low costs.*
Our immediate goal is to modernize demographic behavior in this country: to encourage the American people to make population choices, both in the individual family and society at large, on the basis of greater rationality rather than tradition or custom, ignorance or chance. This country has already moved some distance down this road; it should now complete the journey. The time has come to challenge the tradition that population growth is desirable: What was unintended may turn out to be unwanted, in the society as in the family.
In any case, more rational attitudes are now forced upon us by the revolutionary increase in average length of life within the past century, which has placed modern man in a completely different, historically unique, demographic situation. The social institutions and customs that have shaped reproductive behavior in the past are no longer appropriate in the modern world, and need reshaping to suit the new situation. Moreover, the instruments of population policy are now more readily available—fuller knowledge of demographic impacts, better information on demographic trends, improved means by which individuals may control their own fertility.
As a Commission, we have come to appreciate the delicate complexities of the subject and the difficulty, even the impossibility, of solving the problem, however defined, in its entirety and all at once. But this is certainly the time to begin: The 1970’s may not be simply another decade in the demographic transition but a critical one, involving changes in family life and the role of women, dynamics of the metropolitan process, the depopulation of rural areas, the movement and the needs of disadvantaged minorities, the era of the young adults produced by the baby boom, and the attendant question of what their own fertility will be—baby boom or baby bust.
Finally, we agree that population policy goals must be sought in full consonance with the fundamental values of American life: respect for human freedom, human dignity, and individual fulfillment; and concern for social justice and social welfare. To “solve” population problems at the cost of such values would be a Pyrrhic victory indeed. The issues are ethical in character, and their proper solution requires a deep sense of moral responsibility on the part of both the individual family and the national community: the former in considering another birth, the latter in considering appropriate policies to guide population growth into the American future.
A separate statement by Commissioner James S. Rummonds appears on page 164.
For our part, it is enough to make population, and all that it means, explicit on the national agenda, to signal its impact on our national life, to sort out the issues, and to propose how to start toward a better state of affairs. By its very nature, population is a continuing concern and should receive continuing attention. Later generations, and later commissions, will be able to see the right path further into the future. In any case, no generation needs to know the ultimate goal or the final means, only the direction in which they will be found.
Statement About the Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future
THE Commission on Population Growth and the American Future has formally presented its report to me today, thus completing its 2 years of work.
The men and women on this panel have performed a valuable public service in identifying and examining a wide range of problems related to population, and have contributed to an emerging debate of great significance to the future of our Nation.
I wish to thank the able and energetic Chairman of the Commission, Mr. John D. Rockefeller 3d, for his tireless efforts, not only on this Commission but in other capacities, to focus the Nation’s attention on these important issues.
The extensive public discussion already generated by this report clearly indicates the need to continue research in areas touching on population growth and distribution.
While I do not plan to comment extensively on the contents and recommendations of the report, I do feel that it is important that the public know my views on some of the issues raised.
In particular, I want to reaffirm and reemphasize that I do not support unrestricted abortion policies. As I stated on April 3, 1971, when I revised abortion policies in military hospitals, I consider abortion an unacceptable form of population control. In my judgment, unrestricted abortion policies would demean human life. I also want to make it clear that I do not support the unrestricted distribution of family planning services and devices to minors. Such measures would do nothing to preserve and strengthen close family relationships.
I have a basic faith that the American people themselves will make sound judgments regarding family size and frequency of births, judgments that are conducive both to the public interest and to personal family goals–and I believe in the right of married couples to make these judgments for themselves.
While disagreeing with the general thrust of some of the Commission’s recommendations, I wish to extend my thanks to the members of the Commission for their work and for having assembled much valuable information.
The findings and conclusions of the Commission should be of great value in assisting governments at all levels to formulate policy. At the Federal level, through our recent reorganization of the Executive Office of the President, we have the means through the Domestic Council and the Office of Management and Budget to follow up on the Commission’s report. The recommendations of the Commission will be taken into account as we formulate our national growth and population research policies, and our agency budgets through these processes for the years ahead.
Many of the questions raised by the report cannot be answered purely on the basis of fact, but rather involve moral judgments about which reasonable men will disagree. I hope that the discussions ahead will be informed ones, so that we all will be better able to face these questions relating to population in full knowledge of the consequences of our decisions.
Note: The report is entitled “Population and the American Future” (Government Printing Office, 186 pp.).
Commission Chairman John D. Rockefeller 3d and members Graciela Gil Olivares and Christian N. Ramsey, Jr., met with the President at the White House to present the report.
Richard Nixon, Statement About the Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/254752
Gerald Ford Directive to Implement NSSM-200, Memo NSDM 314
Brian Clowes of Human Life International on NSSM 200
There are surprisingly few people who have tried to research the extent to which NSSM 200 is official US Government policy to this date. One example is Dr. Brian Clowes of Human Life International.
This paper was published in the wake of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical ‘Evangelicum Vitae’, which condemns abortion and contraception. The author describes how, in the mid-1970’s, the Vatican blocked the implementation of President Nixon’s ‘National Security Study Memorandum 200’, which was intended to combat global overpopulation. The author explains that excessive population growth is considered threatening to U.S. security interests, and concludes that “papal security-survival along with the influence of fundamentalist Protestant opposition to birth control is now pitted against the U.S. and world security-survival.”
THE LIFE AND DEATH OF NSSM 200 How the Destruction of Political Will Doomed a U.S. Population Policy by Stephen D. Mumford (1996)
Chapter 2 – The “Rockefeller Commission” on Population Growth President Nixon’s remarks upon signing the bill creating the Commission in 1970, and the Commission’s recommendations submitted in 1972 on nearly 50 areas of policy and action, including sex education, equal rights for women, contraception and minors, voluntary sterilization, abortion, and population stabilization.
Chapter 3 – The NSSM 200 Directive and the Study Requested The 1974 Directive signed by Henry Kissinger on behalf of President Nixon, and the text of the study report, “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.”
Chapter 6 – Why Did Our Political Will Fade Away? Describes the increasing involvement of the Roman Catholic Church in scuttling any positive action toward implementation of the NSSM 200 recommendations.
Chapter 7 – What Was the Role of the Vatican? How the Reagan Administration altered its foreign aid program to comply with Vatican insistence on an outright ban on use of foreign aid funds for the performance or promotion of abortions.
Chapter 8 – The Bishops’ “Pastoral Plan” The master blueprint for the infiltration and manipulation of the American democratic process at all levels of government. Includes the complete “unsanitized” text of the U.S. Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities.
Chapter 9 – Implications of the Pastoral Plan Analysis of the Plan and its implementation, including the roles of the Catholic Press Association, Catholic physicians guilds, Catholic lawyers associations, hospital associations, lay organizations — and the paralyzing influence of “ecumenical activity.”
Chapter 10 – The Human Life Amendment — and Beyond Evidence of the bishops’ great success in killing American political will through implementation of the Pastoral Plan but without yet achieving passage of the Human Life Amendment.
Chapter 11 – The Cross of Papal Infallibility The history and dynamics of the dogma of papal infallibility. Because of it, the Vatican has been forced to undermine the political will of governments that are striving to deal with overpopulation.
Chapter 13 – Defection of the Faithful Why American Catholics are not conforming to papal teachings — with many leaving the Church and becoming Protestants.
Chapter 14 – Vatican Rejection of Freedom of the Press Examines 150 years of uninterrupted papal hostility toward freedom of the press. Discusses techniques used to “bridle” the press and the conclusion of George Seldes, acknowledged dean of investigative reporters, that on “Catholic issues” there is no free press.
Chapter 16 – “Things Are Seldom What They Seem” The “dis-uniting” of America. Explores the broad consequences of the Pastoral Plan, including the erosion of public confidence in our political system.
Chapter 17 – Conclusions How the Vatican has no qualms about destroying American democratic institutions in its battle to save the Papacy.
And probably 90% of everything we’ve ever published.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. 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 strongly suggest you too start this journey there.
Then, I can’t insist enough for you to watch the whole thing! At times he’s just regurgitating so many libtard tropes it feels like it will never end, but almost every other minute he delivers some surprising admission, argument or revelation that makes you wonder if he’s there to represent the Military BioTech Complex or to whistleblow against it. And the final Q&A is the icing on the cake!
In addition to being a brilliant scientist, Dennis Bushnell has the advantage of enjoying an eagle’s-eye view of most of the exciting new technologies vying for a place, from under the oceans to low-Earth orbit to the moon, Mars, and deep space. In this discussion, he’ll take a close look at our near-term challenges and the technical solutions he suggests for moving beyond them. –
This starts slow, but it gets better and better, culminating around min. 37, where he starts ranting again about brainchips and becoming cyborgs. Peak Transhumanism and Great Reset in 2011!
Keynote by Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist, NASA Langley on the major issues facing humans & society indicating where water fits in and explicating the water solution spaces and potential silver bullets, including Frontier/ Revolutionary energetics, advanced nano-technology and the use of salt loving plants, Halophytes, for Global Food Production. BlueTech, Feb 10, 2012
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. 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 will perish as a species if people don’t immediately come to terms with the fact that our society is a human farm managed by communazi eugenicists, and the population culling is real and habitual.
Dennis Meadows is his name. Look him up, not a secretive guy, more like his own trumpet.
He touches on almost everything we see happening today, from Sri Lanka to The Netherlands and Canada. I’ll comment at the end of this report.
In 1972, environmental guru Dennis Meadows predicted in his seminal study “The Limits to Growth” that the world was heading toward an economic collapse. Forty years on, he tells SPIEGEL ONLINE that nothing he has seen since has made him change his mind.
People scavenging at a dump in India: Where are the limits to growth? Foto: Daniel Berehulak/ Getty Images
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Professor Meadows, 40 years ago you published “The Limits to Growth” together with your wife and colleagues, a book that made you the intellectual father of the environmental movement. The core message of the book remains valid today: Humanity is ruthlessly exploiting global resources and is on the way to destroying itself. Do you believe that the ultimate collapse of our economic system can still be avoided?
Meadows: The problem that faces our societies is that we have developed industries and policies that were appropriate at a certain moment, but now start to reduce human welfare, like for example the oil and car industry. Their political and financial power is so great and they can prevent change. It is my expectation that they will succeed. This means that we are going to evolve through crisis, not through proactive change.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Several central forecasts you made in the book have come true, the exponential growth of the world’s population, for example, and widespread environmental destruction. Your prediction regarding economic growth, namely that it would ultimately cease and the global economy would collapse, has not yet come to pass.
Meadows: The fact that the collapse hasn’t occurred so far doesn’t mean it won’t take place in the future. There is no doubt that the world is changing, and we will have to go along with it. There are two ways to do that: One is, you see the necessity of change ahead of time and you make the change, and the second is that you don’t and are finally forced to do it anyway. Let’s say that you’re driving a car inside a factory building. There are two ways to stop: Either you put on the brakes or you keep going and hit the wall. But stop you will, because the building is finite. And the same holds true for Earth’s resources.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: That sounds convincing, but is it really true? Will not private companies react to dwindling resources with innovation in an effort to maintain profitability?
Meadows: The really big changes don’t come from inside of established industries. Who made the iPhone? Not Nokia, not Motorola, nor any of the other established mobile phone producers. It came from Apple, totally outside the industry. There are many other examples of this kind.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: What about in areas that are under state control or regulation?
Meadows: That’s even worse. Our history with fishing shows that we are destroying the oceans’ ecosystems, for example. And we’re using our atmosphere as a free industrial waste dump. Nobody has an incentive to protect them.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is not the desire for humanity’s survival enough of a motivation?
Meadows: You see, there are two kinds of big problems. One I call universal problems, the other I call global problems. They both affect everybody. The difference is: Universal problems can be solved by small groups of people because they don’t have to wait for others. You can clean up the air in Hanover without having to wait for Beijing or Mexico City to do the same. Global problems, however, cannot be solved in a single place. There’s no way Hanover can solve climate change or stop the spread of nuclear weapons. For that to happen, people in China, the US and Russia must also do something. But on the global problems, we will make no progress.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Are you not underestimating people and the reaction when our backs are to the wall? Australian businessman and environmentalist Paul Gilding, for example, argues in his book “The Great Disruption” that while a crisis is coming, humanity will mobilize to fight it as seen during times of war.
Meadows: He is right. But will it succeed? It could, if the delays were very short. But unfortunately, they are not. In climate change, for example, the delays are very long. Even if we were to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to zero today, warming would still continue for centuries. The same is true for soil, which we are destroying globally. Recovery can take centuries.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Surely technological innovation has served to reduce the impact of some long-term problems. Since your book appeared four decades ago, for example, modern medicine has increased life expectancy and reduced infant mortality rates. New technologies have dramatically increased harvests and computers and the Internet have brought the world closer together and improved access to education.
Meadows: Technology doesn’t invent itself. These achievements were the results of decades of hard work, and someone has to pay for these programs. One big source of money is the military. Another is corporations, and they are not motivated to solve global problems, they’re motivated to make money. The drug companies in the United States spend more money on hair-loss prevention than on preventing HIV infections. Why? Because rich people go bald and poor people get HIV.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: But imagine the profits that would accrue to the inventor of a new, clean and limitless source of energy.
Meadows: I hope you’re not talking about fusion, because that’s bullshit. I think we will discover a major new energy source. But afterwards, it would take decades for it to make an impact. Even if there was no resistance, even if there were no environmental impacts and even if it wouldn’t make a lot of people bankrupt — still it would take a long time. So if someone tells you that technology is going to save us just like that, he does not know how technology is developed.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: What about resources. Past forecasts predicted that there would be hardly any oil left by 2012, but there still seems to be plenty available. Recent estimates even show that the US might soon produce more oil than Saudi Arabia.
Meadows: That may very well be. But the oil reserves we are talking about are scarce and very expensive to exploit. And they, too, will be depleted one day. And then we have a problem. Here’s an example: I have a neighbor, she’s rich. Her electric bill is, let’s say, 1 percent of her income. Then comes Hurricane Sandy, and suddenly she had no electricity in her house. Does her quality of life go down by 1 percent? No! Her food is spoiled; she can’t turn on her lights; she can’t work anymore. It’s a disaster for her. Take a look around. The chair you sit on, the glass windows, the lights — everything is here for one single reason: We enjoy cheap energy.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Let’s assume that you are right and that the collapse will arrive in this century. What will it look like?
Meadows: It will look different in different places. Some countries are already collapsing, and some people won’t even notice. There are almost a billion people who are starving to death these days, and people here basically aren’t noticing. And there is the issue of speed: The difference between a decline and a collapse is speed. The rich can buy their way out of a lot of things. The end of fossil energy, for example, will be gradual. But climate change will come to the industrial countries no matter what. And the geological record clearly shows that the global temperature doesn’t increase in a linear way. It jumps. If that happens, a collapse will occur. But it would be nothing new, of course. Societies rise and fall. They have been doing so for 300,000 years.
Interview conducted by Markus Becker
“The original Limits To Growth (LTG) study published in 1972 1 , the “Report for The Club of Rome‘s Project on the Predicament of Mankind”, insistently urged humanity to act. Its vivid and almost haunting description of the consequences of exponential growth which is confronted with finite resources, is still as perspicuous as it was back then: continuous economic and demographical growth will hit the limits of naturally provided resources and very likely lead to overshoot, collapse, and radical decrease of most people’s standard of living, accompanied by international crises, conflicts and catastrophes. The study was supported by the German Volkswagen Foundation”
– Volkswagen Foundation
WolksWagen, you know, Hitler’s cars…
Here’s a presentation he did for The Smithsonian in 2012, important to view because he makes some points about assumptions and limits of growth, almost outing his own scam.
“Dennis Meadows was appointed to the MIT faculty in 1969. In 1970 he assembled a team of 16 scientists to conduct a two-year, computer-model based study on the long-term causes and consequences of physical growth on the planet Earth. That project was funded by the Club of Rome and lead to 3 reports, one of which, The Limits to Growth, was presented for the first time to the public in the Smithsonian Institution Castle in March 1972. The book was eventually translated into about 35 languages, and it was selected as one of the most influential environmental books of the 20th century. He worked subsequently with Jørgen Randers and with Donella Meadows, senior author of Limits to Growth, to produce a second edition in 1994 and a third edition in 2004. Before becoming Professor Emeritus of Policy Systems in 2004, Dennis Meadows was a professor for 35 years at MIT, Dartmouth College, and the University of New Hampshire earning tenure in schools of engineering, management, and the social sciences. He has received numerous honorary doctorates in the US and Europe for his contributions to environmental education. His many awards include the 2009 Japan Prize. He has co-authored 10 books and designed numerous computer-based strategic planning games that are used in many nations to teach principles of sustainable resource use. He remains very active, especially in Europe and Japan, speaking, writing, and advising corporate and government leaders on issues related to growth.” – The Smithsonian
That’s just an anecdotal association I made above, to contribute the huge web of connections and influences that observably radiate from this massive con artist. But my anecdotes prove more factual than their news, over time. It’s incredible how easy it is to bullshit the rich inbred bullshitters in politics and above!
You can also observe that our owners cranked up the insanity after 2012. He sounds more like a press secretary at a press conference on societal collapse, but he’s definitely to blame for providing the elites with these propaganda concept. I bet many elites started to consume from their propaganda stash, the dumbing down trickles up eventually.
And almost all these expert brainfarts are just gas. Gases and mirrors.
I should’ve have made a separate article about what’s wrong with the “Infinite growth on a finite planet” scam, but, instead, I just dumped the concept in the trunk of this report
And I don’t mean the nature of oil, but the nature of energy. It’s all in the link above, in one little red pill. I could make a book out of it, but if you won’t read and spread that thing, you surely won’t buy the book.
Btw, don’t ever spend a dime on this scumbag! Let me help:
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. 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
SILVIEW.media 
