Democratic Marxism

[Pargat Perrer]

Originally posted by Pargat Perrer
but let's realize that (during the pandemic) governments had to do SOMETHING.

This is why it [Sid's last few posts in this thread] belongs in this thread, not the COVID thread. The governments were the ones that created the virus and attacked us, committing an act of bioterrorism. The goal was one of eldercide and suppressing all treatments so they could get an EUA to mass exterminate the population with slow-kill injectable bioweapons, which is exactly what is happening now. The more jabs, the more the immune system is destroyed.
This has very little to do with "COVID" and everything to do with a genocidal group of governments, which is why it belongs here. You say you trust governments, but I say not! Read about the history of the WHO I posted that has a long history of "culling the population."

Ok, now it is me that has to ask you a question: you seem to be criticizing all governments, thus are you saying we need to be totally rid of governments?

You are saying "the governments" created the covid virus .... really? I've heard of the Wuhan lab theory and the Chinese wet market theory and the U.S. military theory but not a theory that says all the world governments created the virus (deliberately, I would have to assume).

I just read today that Denmark is the nation that trusts its government more than any other nation. And as a result, Denmark has now gone almost totally cashless. The people trust that if something breaks the digital payments system, the government will save them. That simply could NOT happen here, and definitely not in USA. Interestingly, as a result of going cashless, Denmark now has for the past year 0 bank robberies. I am not in favor of cashless economy, in fact I am deadset against it, because I believe such a level of trust is NOT good. So no Sid, I am not saying I totally trust government. Not at all. In fact, if indeed Denmark had 0 bank robberies in the past year, I would bet that they had a huge INCREASE in cyberattacks and ransomware attacks and similar things. They have, I wold bet, only traded one problem for another (and worse) problem.

What I have been saying is that government is NECESSARY to do things that entrepreneurs won't do but still need done, and lawyers are also necessary to figure out how to apply regulations that MUST be maintained. Dilip doesn't agree, he believes anyone can become an entrepreneur and should be free of government regulation in the process. That would just not work at all, as the dot com crash of 2000 proved to us. Dilip only believes in one regulation, "fair competition" which he leaves undefined and says judges and police will enforce (police state). So the other reason we need lawyers is to fight for the oppressed against the tyranny of such a police state.

I've said it before in this thread and here it is again: what we have now, the balancing act between moderately right-wing and moderately left-wing administrations of government, is the best we can hope for. Any swing to the extreme left or extreme right will be bad, as it always has been.

I would also say that so far, I don't think Bob A.'s Democratic Marxism is an extreme swing to the left. I seem to remember reading in my younger days about the Greek city states, which sounds a lot like Bob A's local political units. It didn't work too well for Greece as I seem to recall, but I could be mistaken. Did they get invaded and found themselves unable to act in a cohesive manner in self-defence because they had ceded away central authority? I'm having some kind of a flashback to reading about that, years ago.

Bob A, maybe you can compare your DM with the Greek idea of city states and comment on what entailed for the Greeks during that time (the time of Plato and Socrates, I believe).

[Bob Armstrong]

Definitional Clarity

Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper # 3

Note: cyclically re-posted for the benefit of new DMGI members, DM-G viewers, and DMGF members/viewers.





Some Confusion

There have always been, side by side in the “free world” a partisan “Socialist” Party, and a partisan “Communist” Party. We have always believed, and we think they both believed, that they had “substantially” different platforms of governance/economics.

Many, though, have really been quite unaware of the fundamentally different features that identify one from the other – we simply have never done much theoretical digging on this.

Recently we developed the view that indeed our concept of “Democratic Marxism” also had a substantially different platform of governance/economics from the other two. We had been of the view that Democratic Socialism and Communism had as a key feature, “central planning”. Democratic Marxism, however, was based on the bottom-up decentralized governance principle (Principle of Subsidiarity), with an economic platform wherein, basically, labour has priority over capital (This latter seemed a feature shared by all three).

But some recently pointed out the fact that “Socialism” can be of 2 types:

1. Central Planning (Venezuela)
2. Decentralization (the Jewish Kibbutz system).

The Wikipedia entry on “Socialism”, indeed confirms this view.

The Canadian Situation

What happens when this question is applied to Canada?

It is clearly a “Democratic Capitalist” country. Yet, with respect to resident health care, it is said to have “socialized medicine”. This is as opposed to “Private Health Care” in the USA.

But what are the key features that define Canadian health care as a “socialist government program”? One key factor is that the full cost of the program (Or most, at least) is paid for by all the population generally out of the government general tax revenue. It is also operated by the government itself, and uses various agencies, such as the provinces, to implement the “free-to-the-people” program. But is this health program one of “Centralized Planning” in the “socialist” sense?

First of all, health care is a provincial power, not a federal one. So the federal program is an optional program to the provinces........organize your health care to these basic federal criteria, and you will qualify for funding. Beyond these criteria, you are free to develop the rest of your provincial health care system as you like (Though the reality is that the criteria are so extensive and stringent, that there is not a lot of room for provincial customization).

Secondly, in Canada, the governments provide public services in combination with community participation. So a hospital is not owned and operated by a government. It is a not-for-profit private, community corporation. It has “members” from the community, and they elect their Board of Directors, which decides on that hospital's policies and services (within government regulations). But once again, their government grant money to substantially cover the cost of operating the hospital, comes with the many strings of the outsourcing contract – one of which is to comply with the Ministry of Health guidelines. So...we have a community/government partnership. And the provincial Ministry guidelines must themselves conform with the terms of the federal outsourcing grant.

All this to ask – is “Centralized Planning” (in the socialism understanding) a key feature of the Canadian Health Care Service? In other words, is it a misnomer to refer to the Canadian Health Care system as “socialized”, meaning as would be established in a country with Democratic Socialism, such as for example, Venezuela?

A Definitional Realignment

Given all of the above, it is our conclusion that “Socialism” is a broad generic word indicating certain key features on implementation. And there are three distinct historical implementations of “Socialism”:

1. Democratic Socialism – as in Venezuela
2. Communism – as in China (Non-democratic; implemented by force)
3. Democratic Marxism – the closest a government came to this was Chile (1970-3) under the Unity Government of President Salvadore Allende (Coalition of a plurality Socialist party and smaller traditional national Communist Party).

Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI)

Original– 20/5/1

Author: Bob Armstrong, Coordinator, DMGI

Recent Revision: 20/10/17 - Bob Armstrong

Most Recent Postings:

24/1/23: CT.DM; DM-G; DMGF; TRN


Fb Page: Democratic Marxism – Global

(https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064839518717)

Fb Group: Democratic Marxist Global Forum

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2045...ref=nf&__xts__[0]=68.ARB5MaP7fzlN9ItgmSkMWzv60Rd9mIxsQIkIgIa6_Guh2MGR6mV82GdH-IxgmiiVaJcZ-NLi7Cz46VX0nn78clmPjd-pttzlYPR9dmEubTBnBdnGohd0bl3Fy4k02cb3BVHNVOcfjANvEEUCRw6k1IZDDsZV6l9V1Id5_NomySGWmEpA3Inygttyrt3-jYH1m1M50W3d94tVElUVaZ-SrM-WZ4BkYEj0ZYF5Y5X2d7KRG_MQJtND8fXyDSkU0F1I4FVHkI_eoiyOazUgCRS0lmfetiENOGsaJPb6MfuHzQ92-u7gMI_E8888fus

E-mail:

demmarxglobalin@gmail.com

Snail Mail:

DMGI

P.O. Box 3246,

Meaford, Ontario, Canada

N4L 1A5

Website:

In development



Copyright – Democratic Marxist Global Institute - 2020

[Sid Belzberg]

Everything you just wrote may very well be true .... but first of all, it belongs in the covid thread because even non-socialist governments have acted the same with respect to the so-called covid vaccines. I agree that they are not vaccines at all and are experimental treatments ... but let's realize that governments had to do SOMETHING. They couldn't just sit there with their hand in their pockets and expect to survive the next election.

My main arguments in this thread have to do with economics, not with pandemics. I really believe that when it comes to any pandemic that reaches the severity that covid reached, governments of ALL STRIPES are going to act basically the same. So whether we have DM or Libertarianism won't matter in those cases.

You have succeeded in hijacking this thread into covid issues, perhaps my points here were just so strong you felt the need to redirect the whole thread. Dilip himself has been very silent, other than his pathetic backpedaling once I pointed out that the world's happiest countries year after year are all social democracies and the most capitalist country, USA, is way down the list every year due to pervasive poverty, income disparity, health insurance issues, drug and alcohol issues, gun and mass killing issues, etc etc etc.

Dilip's response: "Chesstalkers know that there are minimal differences in the 'happiness' levels of the top 20 countries... the differences having more to do with their historically inherited wealth and their various idiosyncrasies rather than the minor differences in their governance .... blah blah blah...."

Backpedaling.... very hard to face up to the fact that 250 of the world's richest individuals are asking governments to tax them MORE.

but let's realize that governments had to do SOMETHING.

This is why it belongs in this thread, not the COVID thread. The governments were the ones that created the virus and attacked us, committing an act of bioterrorism. The goal was one of eldercide and suppressing all treatments so they could get an EUA to mass exterminate the population with slow-kill injectable bioweapons, which is exactly what is happening now. The more jabs, the more the immune system is destroyed.
This has very little to do with "COVID" and everything to do with a genocidal group of governments, which is why it belongs here. You say you trust governments, but I say not! Read about the history of the WHO I posted that has a long history of "culling the population."

[Pargat Perrer]

I have news for you. The injections have DNA contaminants and integrate directly into the genome. The next generation has inherited this poison, and these shots were designed to render the next generation sterile. Thanks to governments, we are well on our way to going extinct. This has been an unholy alliance
of corrupted governments and anti-human business leaders that use corrupted governments to enforce their depopulation agenda. It has been going on for a long time and they finally succeeded to a large extent in ending the human race as we know it.
Interesting that you ignore the 800lb gorilla in the room, the greatest crime against humanity ever perpetrated by governments.
.....

Everything you just wrote may very well be true .... but first of all, it belongs in the covid thread because even non-socialist governments have acted the same with respect to the so-called covid vaccines. I agree that they are not vaccines at all and are experimental treatments ... but let's realize that governments had to do SOMETHING. They couldn't just sit there with their hand in their pockets and expect to survive the next election.

My main arguments in this thread have to do with economics, not with pandemics. I really believe that when it comes to any pandemic that reaches the severity that covid reached, governments of ALL STRIPES are going to act basically the same. So whether we have DM or Libertarianism won't matter in those cases.

You have succeeded in hijacking this thread into covid issues, perhaps my points here were just so strong you felt the need to redirect the whole thread. Dilip himself has been very silent, other than his pathetic backpedaling once I pointed out that the world's happiest countries year after year are all social democracies and the most capitalist country, USA, is way down the list every year due to pervasive poverty, income disparity, health insurance issues, drug and alcohol issues, gun and mass killing issues, etc etc etc.

Dilip's response: "Chesstalkers know that there are minimal differences in the 'happiness' levels of the top 20 countries... the differences having more to do with their historically inherited wealth and their various idiosyncrasies rather than the minor differences in their governance .... blah blah blah...."

Backpedaling.... very hard to face up to the fact that 250 of the world's richest individuals are asking governments to tax them MORE.

[Sid Belzberg]

Global Good Health & the World Health Organization (WHO)

Global COVID-19 vaccine injection promotion was to:

1. Minimize transmission (It never claimed to be able to "eradicate" transmission);
2. Limit the intensity of the illness, including reduction of possible mortality rates if no vaccine was available (It never claimed to be a "cure").

Though there may be negatives about the vaccine, on a cost/benefit analysis, society benefited more than it was harmed, by mass inoculation. And, generally, up-take of the vaccine was voluntary.

Bob A (Vaccinated - High Mortality Risk; no negative outcomes; participating in longitudinal outcomes survey)

Point 1 is incorrect. It does ZERO to minimize transmission. A vaccine injected into the deltoid muscle does not induce mucosal antibodies in the nasal passages, the primary point of attack for a respiratory virus. Hence all vaccines for respiratory viruses (ie flu vaccine) do not stop infection or transmission. Even Dr. Fauci published paper in Cell magazine stated this.

Point 2 also incorrect. data shows the opposite it does ZERO to limit the duration of the illness and in fact induces mny other diseases including cancers and in fact mortality rates are dramatically up.

3) the data shows increased mortality rates society did not benefit at all. As far as voluntary uptake is concerned, millions were coerced into taking these shots that violate the Nuremberg code.

You don't carefully read or listen to anything I post and ignorantly spew propaganda. Yes, you have the attention span of a gnat by your own admission, so maybe you should put some effort into refraining from posting uninformed posts.

[Bob Armstrong]

Democratic Marxism
(Started: 24/1/3)



Weekly Overview

Notes:

1. The “Weekly Overview” of the topic is posted for the benefit of new members who may have come in between the “Weekly Overviews”. It provides an executive summary of the issue for new viewers.
2. The Stats of participation are important to allow all to determine the extent of continuing interest. For thread originators/responders, they are important to see if the interest no longer warrants the labour. Or alternatively, they show that those of us discussing it are drawing in more participants, because they have begun to see the importance of our topic.

A. Statistics

Week # 3 (24/1/15 – 21 [7 days])

(Sometimes Adjusted for no. of days)

A. Weekly Stats:
.....................................................2024 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(3 wks.)

…29........................19.......................20


................................................2024 Average

Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day

Responses/Day....Resp./Day.......(3 wks.).

........3.......................2........................2


B. Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's stats are showing a continued steady rise from when the thread started. There is modest interest in CT'ers of learning something about the political system known as “Democratic Marxism”!

Goal of this Thread

• To make clear what Democratic Marxism is, and what it is not (Old-style USSR Communism)
• To provide materials that help CT'ers analyze the pluses and minuses of DM.

Additional Notes:

1. The goal of this thread is not to try to beat opposing views into oblivion. Political economy spans the spectrum. Every position is entitled to post as it sees fit, regardless of the kind of, and amount of, postings by other positions. What is wanted is serious consideration of all posts........then you decide among the many competing political philosophies.

2. I, Bob A, personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least twice per week, but admit my busy schedule means I may sometimes fall short on this. So it is necessary that a number of other CT'ers post responses here somewhat regularly as well.


Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI)

Author: Bob Armstrong, DMGI Coordinator

Most Recent Revision: 24/1/22

Fb Page: Democratic Marxism – Global

(https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064839518717)

Fb Group: Democratic Marxist Global Forum

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2045...ref=nf&__xts__[0]=68.ARB5MaP7fzlN9ItgmSkMWzv60Rd9mIxsQIkIgIa6_Guh2MGR6mV82GdH-IxgmiiVaJcZ-NLi7Cz46VX0nn78clmPjd-pttzlYPR9dmEubTBnBdnGohd0bl3Fy4k02cb3BVHNVOcfjANvEEUCRw6k1IZDDsZV6l9V1Id5_NomySGWmEpA3Inygttyrt3-jYH1m1M50W3d94tVElUVaZ-SrM-WZ4BkYEj0ZYF5Y5X2d7KRG_MQJtND8fXyDSkU0F1I4FVHkI_eoiyOazUgCRS0lmfetiENOGsaJPb6MfuHzQ92-u7gMI_E8888fus

E-mail:

demmarxglobalin@gmail.com

Snail Mail:

DMGI

P.O. Box 3246,

Meaford, Ontario, Canada

N4L 1A5

Website:

In development



Copyright – Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI) - 2024

[Bob Armstrong]

Global Good Health & the World Health Organization (WHO)

Global COVID-19 vaccine injection promotion was to:

1. Minimize transmission (It never claimed to be able to "eradicate" transmission);
2. Limit the intensity of the illness, including reduction of possible mortality rates if no vaccine was available (It never claimed to be a "cure").

Though there may be negatives about the vaccine, on a cost/benefit analysis, society benefited more than it was harmed, by mass inoculation. And, generally, up-take of the vaccine was voluntary.

Bob A (Vaccinated - High Mortality Risk; no negative outcomes; participating in longitudinal outcomes survey)

[Sid Belzberg]

WHO/Gates India's Polio Vaccination Program 2000-2017

491,000 more cases of non-Polio acute placid paralysis.

Neetu Vashisht and Jacob Puliyel, the authors of a research paper on the polio vaccination program in India, noted that between 2000 to 2017, there were 491,000 additional cases

of non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) in India, which they posited as potentially being linked to the oral polio vaccine.


The paper essentially raised concerns about the escalating cases of NPAFP in India, while hypothesizing a potential connection with repeated doses of the oral polio vaccine. The

Authors observed a directly proportional relationship between the number of oral polio
vaccine doses received and the incidence of NPAFP in a region.


2022: Court order to release the Pfizer trial-results of C-19 injections, documents, which the FDA requested the Court to to keep hidden for 75 years, to hide the real purpose of the C-19 injections: Depopulation through Genocide


The Pfizer Documents

After the court order to release the C-19 injections trial results, Pfizer released 55,000 documents per month, with each document containing as many as 10,000 pages.

The documents show Pfizer’s internal experiments leading up to the injection, and what

happened to people when they were injected with the mRNA injection.


Three and a half thousand medical and scientific experts from around the world analyzed

the documents. Here are their findings so far:

1. Pfizer knew in November 2020, i.e. one month after rollout of the injection, that the vaccines didn’t work to stop COVID. Also at that time, Pfizer identified vaccine failure and failure of efficacy. Additionally, they identified that the third most common side effect of the Pfizer vaccine is… COVID infection!

2. Within a month or two after the release of the vaccine, Pfizer was getting so many reports

of adverse effects in injected people, that they were forced to hire 2,400 staffers to process
the flood of the adverse effects reports coming in.


3. in May of 2021, Pfizer knew that their vaccines were causing heart damage in minors at the

rate of 35 cases per week. All the Pfizer documents have a note at the bottom stating: “FDA

confidential”, so Pfizer shared these documents, and the information on the adverse effects,

with the FDA. However, the government of the United States did not disclose to the parents

until August of 2021, that there was an elevated risk of heart damage from the injection, in

their healthy children.



4. The CDC said that the material in the injection stays in the injection site - it does not.

The components of the injection are: lipid nanoparticles, mRNA, and Spike Protein.

While Pfizer were assuring the population that the injection stays at the injection site, it was

well known to Pfizer that, in fact, the components of the injection, all of the components, are

distributed throughout the body within 48 hours after the injection. The components do not

stay at the site of the injection.

Lipid nanoparticles is industrial fat which is covered in polyethylene glycol – a petroleum by-

product. They are liquid at super cold temperatures but clot at room temperature and at

body temperature. Lipid nanoparticles are designed to cross every membrane of the human

organism – this has been known for ten years. So the vaccine components go to the brain,

they bio-distribute to the liver, the adrenals, the spleen, and in women, the vaccine

components accumulate in the ovaries. They also, to a lesser extent, accumulate in men’s

testicles. What is scary is that there is no known mechanism for the body to clear away

these lipid nanoparticles or cause them externally to be removed from the women’s ovaries.




5. The Pfizer documents show that in three months after the first injections, there were over

1,200 deaths out of 42,000 adverse events. The side effects consist of catastrophic

categories: Strokes, hemorrhages, blood clots – lung clots, leg clots, neurological disorders,

dementia-type disorders, Guillain-Barre syndrome, Bell’s Palsy; but the number 1 side

effect is joint pain. Another common side effect is myalgia – muscle pain. According to the

Pfizer documents, joint and muscle pain occurs in young, otherwise healthy, fit young

people after receiving the injection.

These are not the side effects that the CDC or your doctor tells you about. According to the

CDC, you may experience some chills, a headache, maybe a little swelling at the injection

site, but the Pfizer documents tell a more disturbing story. According to Pfizer, there were 61

deaths, for example, from stroke and half of the stroke adverse events took place within 48

hours of the injection. Five deaths occurred from liver damage and half of the adverse

effects of the liver damage occurred within 48 hours of the injection.




6. Pfizer report #56 refers to children. In early 2021, months before the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) was issued for children to receive the COVID vaccine, i.e. before the vaccine was legal for children, Pfizer injected 62 children with the COVID vaccine. Some of the children were as young as two months old. Of the 62 children, records exist only for 34 children.

The records for the remaining 28 children have disappeared; it is not known whether the children are still alive. Of the 34 records remaining, one seven-year old girl sustained a stroke and a two months old baby had a liver damage. At that same time, and before the EUA was passed, 1000 children were experimented on with the COVID vaccine, in various medical centres in the US.




7. The key section of the Pfizer documents is the experiment on human reproduction -

specifically, on how to disrupt and impair human reproduction. In this experiment involving the COVID vaccine, Pfizer instructed participating women not to get pregnant – a curious instruction considering that COVID is a respiratory disease. Despite these instructions, 270 of the participating women got pregnant. Out of the 270 pregnant women, Pfizer “lost” the records of 234 women. Of the 36 pregnant women whose records are available, over 80 % lost their babies due to miscarriage.



8. Is shedding real? Yes, shedding is real. The Pfizer documents define exposure to the vaccine as: skin contact, inhalation, and sexual intercourse. The lipid nanoparticles traverse the woman’s placenta, invade the placental fluid and every cell of the placenta environment and the fetus.

Dr. David Thorpe, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, found in his vaccinated patients that the

placenta has formed a network of calcifications caused by the vaccine lipid nanoparticles. The compromised or impaired placentas in these women resulted in pre-mature deliveries of the babies. Dr. Thorpe also observed chromosomal abnormalities in these newborns of vaccinated mothers.



9. The Pfizer documents also reveal that lipid nanoparticles enter breast milk. Four of the moms in the study produced breast milk that turned blue-green. Subsequent to the Pfizer study, the NIH conducted another study which also showed that babies nursed by vaccinated moms were having failure to thrive and to putt on weight, the babies were agitated, restless and sleepless.



10. In the documents, Dr. Chandler found that of the adverse events, 72% were sustained by women and this a constant 3:1 ratio women to men. This is not to say that men are not harmed, they are, but women are harmed in disproportionately greater numbers . Of the 72%, Pfizer found that 16% were reproductive disorders. The number for men was 0.49%.

In 2022, nine months after the rollout of the vaccine in Western Europe and North America, there is a 13 to 20 % drop in live births. The sub-data show double the number of still births in Scotland, 89 still births in one Canadian Province, where the usual number is 2 or 3 still births for the same time period.



11. Amy Kelly found that lipid nanoparticles degrade baby boys in utero. Lipid nanoparticles

travers the testicular membrane of the boys’ Sertoli cells (necessary for sperm production in males) and Leydig cells (primary source of testosterone or androgens in males). It is not yet known if these baby boys of vaccinated moms will be able to grow up to be reproductively functioning adult men.



12. Considering the fact that COVID is a respiratory infection, the question remains why did Pfizer conduct COVID vaccine experiments on rats focusing specifically on the reproductive organs of the rats. The answer is clear: Pfizer was searching for a vaccine designed specifically to disrupt human reproduction. The vaccine is a manufactured bio weapon.



13. Pfizer partnered with BioNTech to create the COVID vaccine. According to the SEC filings. in 2021 there was a 100% IP transfer from BioNTech to China. China then opened manufacturing facilities for these vaccines in Europe, the US (and in China, only for export).




The COVID 19 vaccines do not prevent transmission and do not cure the disease. So why was the global population forced to be injected? - The answer is clear - it is to cripple

...

[Sid Belzberg]

William Gates Sr. and Planned Parenthood

William Gates Sr., the father of Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, served on the board of Planned Parenthood Federation of America during the late 1960s and early 1970s. The Gates family has been open about their support for "reproductive health" and "family planning causes." Bill Gates Jr. has mentioned in interviews that his father's involvement with Planned Parenthood influenced his and the Gates Foundation's commitment to "reproductive health initiatives globally.”

At $60.1billion paid out since the year 2000, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is one of the largest in the world. As a private organization, the Foundation is accountable solely to its now two trustees, Bill and Melinda Gates.

“You may have foundations with assets larger than almost 70% of the world's nations making decisions about public policy and public priorities without any public discussion or political process" - Pablo Eisenberg, the Georgetown Public Policy Institute

Because the Gates Foundation allocates enormous amounts of money to fund health research, it treats research like a business. Tim Schwab, who has been investigating the Gates Foundation for years, said that the Gates Foundation "feels more like an investment bank than it does a charity. If you look across global health, they're funding everybody," he said, "Nobody is more than one degree removed from the Gates Foundation. If you're a journalist writing about global health, you might end up getting a fellowship or a grant to do reporting that's funded by the Gates Foundation. So it's really hard to overstate how much influence that gives the foundation. Through June 2020 the foundation had given more than $250 million to journalism and outlets such as the BBC, NBC, The Atlantic, and the Center for Investigative Reporting.

According to The Seattle Times, the Gates foundation is funding the research around journalism, training for journalists, crafting media fact sheets, and even shaping op-eds

which have been found in places like The New York Times.


Rockefeller Financed Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment

Conducted between 1932 and 1972, the study was a joint venture between the Rockefeller-financed Tuskegee Institute (University) and the US Public Health Service (USPHS), to observe the natural progression of syphilis in untreated African American population. Participants were told they were treated for “bad blood” and would get free medical exams, meals and burial insurance for their participation. Early on, Dr. Eugene Dibble, as a Black American Doctor, was recruited to gain the confidence of his fellow African Americans - victims in this heinous crime. Participants were not asked to sign informed consent and, after 1940, when penicillin became available as a treatment for syphilis, the participants were denied the treatment. The only treatment the participants sick with syphilis received, was heavy metals therapy. During the study, forty wives of the participants also contracted syphilis and 19 children were born with it.

Creation of The World Health Organization

After World War II, the Rockefellers continued to relentlessly push their eugenics depopulation agenda by institutionalizing it globally through the establishment of the World Health Organization.

During the 1945 United Nations Conference on International Organization, Szeming Sze,

a delegate from China, conferred with Norwegian and Brazilian delegates on creating an international health organization under the auspices of the new United Nations.


Sze went to the 1945 U.N. conference in San Francisco as an aide to Chinese Foreign Minister T.V. Soong.

During a “medical lunch” that Sze had with Dr. Karl Evang of Norway and Dr. Geraldo De Paula Souza of Brazil, Evang proposed setting up a new health organization in conjunction with the United Nations.


The men asked Sze to put forth the idea in his role as a member of the Chinese delegation, one of the four nations--Britain, the United States, the Soviet Union and China--sponsoring the conference.

Sze got the approval of Soong, the head of the Chinese delegation, and wrote the declaration to set up an international conference to create the World Health Organization, which the San Francisco meeting adopted.


The constitution of the World Health Organization was signed by all 51 countries of the United Nations, and by 10 other countries, on July 22, 1946. Its constitution formally came into force

on April 7, 1948, when it was ratified by the 26th member state. The first meeting of the World Health Assembly concluded on July 24, 1948, having secured a budget of US$5 million, some of which came from the Rockefeller Foundation. The Foundation played a pivotal role in shaping global health policies and institutions. Before the establishment of WHO, the Rockefeller Foundation was actively involved in international health through its its International Health Division. When WHO was being established, the Rockefeller Foundation provided both, technical expertise and financial support.


Prior to the creation of the WHO, Dr. René Sand, a Belgian medical doctor, social worker, and co-founder of the WHO, was chairman of the committee of experts whose aim was to create the WHO. Several of Dr. Sand’s initiatives were funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.


Dr. Sand recruited Dr. Brock Chisholm, a Canadian psychiatrist and an outspoken eugenicist, to be the WHO's first Director-General. Before his tenure at the WHO, Dr. Chisholm voiced concerns about overpopulation and was an ardent proponent of eugenics. During his leadership, "family planning" became part of the WHO's central discussion, paving the way for controversial population control measures.


Tetanus Vaccine in Kenya

WHO's Research on Birth Control using hCG as hidden sterilization component

of a Tetanus Vaccine

Background: During the 1970s and 1980s, the World Health Organization sponsored research into creating a birth control vaccine. The idea behind the vaccine was to stimulate the body's immune system to produce antibodies against human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), a hormone essential for maintaining pregnancy. By causing the immune system to treat hCG
as a foreign invader, it would prevent the hormone from sustaining a pregnancy, thereby acting as a contraceptive.


Development: The vaccine was developed by adding a small amount of hCG to the tetanus toxoid (an exotoxin secreted by bacteria). This process would then cause the recipient's immune system to recognize both the tetanus and the hCG as foreign invaders, producing antibodies against both.

Clinical Trials: The WHO conducted clinical trials in the 1980s and early 1990s to test the efficacy and safety of this contraceptive vaccine. The vaccine was never widely distributed or made commercially available due to concerns about its efficacy and potential side effects.


Tetanus Vaccine Disaster

Beginning of Catastrophe: In the 1990s, allegations arose claiming that tetanus vaccines provided by the WHO in developing countries, notably the Philippines, Mexico, and several African nations, were contaminated with hCG. The claim suggested that the WHO was secretly trying to sterilize women without the women’s knowledge or consent.

Investigations: Multiple investigations were carried out, both by independent organizations and the WHO, and instances were found where hCG was detected in the vaccines.

WHO's Response: The WHO has consistently denied any wrongdoing or intent to sterilize women covertly. The WHO’s implausible explanation that hCG-tetanus toxoid vaccine

was distinct from regular tetanus vaccines and was not used outside the context of closely monitored clinical trials, begged the question of how hCG originated in some of the vaccines

in the first place.


This controversy led to a deep distrust towards vaccination campaigns in several countries, long before the roll out of the C-19 injections.

The 1990s campaign to vaccinate women against tetanus became a public relations disaster for the WHO when the Catholic Church in Kenya proved that some of the vaccines, specifically those aimed at women of reproductive age, contained hCG. The results were subsequently confirmed by other outside tests.

[Sid Belzberg]

IBM’s involvement with Eugenics Record Office and, subsequently, Nazi Germany and the Holocaust


IBM's involvement with eugenics in the U.S. context predates its collaborations with Nazi Germany, and there is evidence that ties the company to other prominent eugenics supporters in the United States, including institutions funded by Carnegie, Rockefeller, and other influential figures.


Eugenics Record Office (ERO) at Cold Spring Harbor: Established in 1910 with funding from the Carnegie Institution and later receiving support from the Rockefeller Foundation, the ERO was a central institution in the American eugenics movement. Charles Davenport and Harry H. Laughlin were key figures at the ERO. IBM, through its punch-card technology, helped the ERO systematize and process vast amounts of data on family lineages, traits, and other information used in eugenics research. This technological aid facilitated the ERO's push for eugenic policies, such as forced sterilizations.


1930s – Census and Sterilization Laws: IBM's punch card technology played a role in the U.S. census of the 1930s which, in turn, was used by States to enforce sterilization laws. By making it easier to categorize and track individuals deemed "unfit," the technology indirectly supported eugenic policies. ERO’s Harry H. Laughlin, provided testimonies and crafted model sterilization laws adopted by many states.


Connection to Prominent Figures: While IBM's collaborations with ERO were largely on an institutional level, these institutions were supported by philanthropic giants such as the Carnegie Institution and the Rockefeller Foundation. The financial ties between these entities are well-documented, even if direct personal collaborations between IBM's top executives
and figures such as Carnegie or Rockefeller. might not be as explicit.

During the early 20th century, eugenics was a mainstream scientific pursuit, and many institutions, scholars, and businesses were involved in it to varying degrees.

IBM's involvement with eugenics, particularly during the early 20th century, is a documented part of IBM’s history, most notably in its collaboration with the Third Reich during the 1930s and 1940s.

Thomas J. Watson, the CEO of IBM during the 1930s, oversaw the company's business dealings with Nazi Germany. IBM, through its German subsidiary, Dehomag, provided punch-card systems that were used in censuses and helped facilitate the Nazis' identification, segregation, and extermination of groups they considered undesirable, including Jews, Roma, and others.


While it is clear that IBM's technology was employed in the service of the Nazis' eugenics and genocidal programs, Watson’s personal support of eugenic beliefs is a more complex matter. Watson did have a relationship with the Nazi regime—he was awarded the Order of the German Eagle by Hitler in 1937, though he returned the medal in 1940 as World War II escalated. IBM's business dealings with Nazi Germany were largely driven by economic interests.


The connection between IBM and the Nazi regime's eugenic practices is explored in depth in Edwin Black's book "IBM and the Holocaust."



Eugenics Record Office and Vaccine Passports


Eugenics, despite being discredited as a science, has left an indelible mark on global health policies and practices. Its remnants can be seen in the ethical challenges we face today in public health. Understanding this history is crucial for ensuring informed, ethical, and inclusive global health decisions.


In the US, in a 1976 investigation, the Government Accountability Office found that over 25 percent of Native Americans were forcibly sterilized in the early 1970s. In China, many Chinese geneticists sought to improve population quality. Beginning in the 1990s, some Chinese government officials sought to eliminate those with opposing moral values which tend to
be influenced by the Buddhist and Taoist religions.

The ERO, armed with the early IBM punch card technology, was a precursor to the infamous digital vaccine passport during COVID-19. Today’s ultra-sophisticated data collection technology makes it possible for governments to access detailed information on any group
of people or specific individuals.


Rockefeller Financed Margaret Sanger and the Negro Project: The Genesis of “Planned Parenthood”

In 1921, Margaret Sanger established the American Birth Control League (ABCL).

In 1939, Sanger reorganized ABCL and renamed it the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA). That same year, Sanger initiated The "Negro Project”. In 1942, the BCFA changed its name to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which is still in operation today as Planned Parenthood.


The “Negro Project”, ostensibly aimed at introducing "birth control" to the African American community, was in reality a project intended to reduce the Black population. Sanger collaborated with Black leaders, including W.E.B. Du Bois, deceptively convincing them
that birth control could improve the socio-economic conditions of the Black community.


The "Negro Project" was paternalistic and exploitative, aiming to control Black reproduction under the guise of "helping" the Black community.The project targeted Black communities as particularly "unfit" and sought to reduce their numbers.

The following quote from a letter Margaret Sanger wrote in 1939 to Dr. Clarence Gamble, discussing the "Negro Project” illustrates Sanger’s true intentions:

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

[Sid Belzberg]

That is very interesting wording you used .... "the population is too stupid to decide for themselves what they can do".

No. The population is quite able to decide for themselves what they can do. The problem is that if every such decision had always been just up to the "population" we would no longer be here on Earth as a species. We would be extinct by now.

If fentanyl was not an illegal substance, most of the U.S. population would be dead from it by now. The population is very good at deciding they want to get high on fentanyl. Look at how easy it is to get and consume alcohol, and look at the societal cost of that. And yes, I realize that in Canada, the provincial governments control alcohol sales and makes huge revenues from it -- this is an example of government doing what the population wants it to do. It might as well be entrepreneurs who are selling the alcohol because the provincial governments are hardly at all restricting availability of alcohol. But in Canada, it is generally much more expensive to buy alcohol than in USA, and these statistics below seem to indicate how much worse a problem alcohol is in USA than in Canada:

Statistics Canada: There were 3,790 alcohol-induced deaths in Canada in 2020 and 3,875 in 2021, compared with 3,200 in 2019.

Center For Disease Control in USA: More than 140,000 people die from excessive alcohol use in the U.S. each year.

USA has about 10 times the population of Canada, so you should expect 10 times the alcohol-induced deaths. Instead it is roughly 35 times more! So it looks like higher government control of alcohol sales DOES have a benefit to society.

Governments generally do the things that need to be done to keep society functioning properly. Entrepreneurs generally aren't interested in doing these types of things. Their ONLY interest is generally in getting as rich as possible. Notice I use the word "generally" throughout this paragraph, meaning there are exceptions... but the exceptions make the rule.

This is why entrepreneurs can be called "more efficient" than governments .... because the governments aren't generally doing things with the express purpose of making money (lotto ticket sales would be a notable exception). Governments will often over-staff a department just to make sure the important work does get done, whereas an entrepreneur would under-staff to keep costs down even if service gets reduced. So efficiency comparisons between entrepreneurs and governments are A FALSE INDICATOR that is used by flea-brains like Dilip to say we need more entrepreneurs and less government.

In our increasingly complex world, we need governments more and more because there are more and more "un-sexy" and even uneconomical things that need to get done just to keep society functioning. It is the nature of our technology-driven societies.

This is why I believe 250 of the world's top 1% of wealthy people signed the petition to TAX THEM MORE. They see the problems being created and can see that more needs done that entrepreneurs are not willing to do.

The problem is that if every such decision had always been just up to the "population" we would no longer be here on Earth as a species. We would be extinct by now.

I have news for you. The injections have DNA contaminants and integrate directly into the genome. The next generation has inherited this poison, and these shots were designed to render the next generation sterile. Thanks to governments, we are well on our way to going extinct. This has been an unholy alliance
of corrupted governments and anti-human business leaders that use corrupted governments to enforce their depopulation agenda. It has been going on for a long time and they finally succeeded to a large extent in ending the human race as we know it.
Interesting that you ignore the 800lb gorilla in the room, the greatest crime against humanity ever perpetrated by governments.

https://rumble.com/v2hpryu-naomi-wol...documents.html







A History of Eugenics in the United States and How it influenced Bill Gates Jr and the subsequent WHO-Sponsored Genocides

By Sid Belzberg



The Origins of Eugenics:


Sir Francis Galton, a pioneering figure in eugenics, was inspired by the work of his half-cousin, Charles Darwin, especially Darwin's theory of evolution. Galton's central belief was that both desirable and undesirable traits were inherited, and he proposed that society should encourage the breeding of those with favorable traits and discourage the breeding of those with unfavorable traits. He coined the term "eugenics" to describe this proposed science of "good birth.”


This foundational understanding of eugenics is crucial as it sets the stage for how the movement developed and the subsequent policies it influenced during the 20th century.

Sir Francis Galton lived from 1822 to 1911.


Early 20th Century Eugenics in the U.S.


Notable Advocates:


Many influential figures believed eugenics could improve society. As it was then, the Industrial Elites advocated for Eugenics and depopulation.


Andrew Carnegie: His foundation funded the Station for Experimental Evolution and the Eugenics Record Office (ERO), in Cold Spring Harbor in 1913, with active operations until 1939.

Henry Ford: He expressed anti-Semitic views, asserting Jews were behind the "mongrelization" of the white race.


Thomas Edison: Supported eugenics as a tool for improving the human race.


John D. Rockefeller: Staunch supporter of eugenics up until and after World War II. In the 1930s, Rockefeller funded Nazi scientists’ eugenics research used to rationalize the extermination of the Jewish Population in World War II.

Rockefeller initially funded Dr. Rene Sand to organize the WHO after Word War II, who hired

Dr. Brock Chisholm as the WHO’s first Director Genera. Dr. Chisholm was a passionate eugenicist, and depopulation advocate.


Thomas Watson Sr.:The first CEO of IBM and passionate eugenics supporter, used punch card technology for the Eugenics Research Office that recorded data on the US population.

During WW II, Watson Sr. made the data collection technology available to assist the Nazis in organizing extermination of the Jews. The IBM punch card technology was used to organize all records of Jews’ personal details.


Eugenics Record Office (ERO)


Founded in Cold Spring Harbor, New York in 1910 and endowed by Andrew Carnegie in 1913, the ERO subsequently became a hub for eugenics research, amassing large amounts of data on US individuals and families. Charles Davenport and Harry Laughlin were two leading figures at the ERO.


Founding Figures: The ERO was founded by Charles B. Davenport, a biologist and early advocate of the American eugenics movement. Davenport secured funding from

Mrs. E.H. Harriman, the widow of railroad magnate Edward Harriman, and later from the Carnegie Institution, to establish the ERO in 1913.


Activities: Data Collection: The ERO collected vast amounts of data on American families, creating pedigrees that traced the inheritance of physical, mental, and moral traits. This information was used to argue for the inheritance of intelligence, criminality, and other traits and to support eugenics-based policies.

Research & Publications: The office produced numerous studies, publications, and lectures promoting eugenics theory and practice, popularizing concepts such as the "degenerate" family lineages, exemplified by the infamous (and pseudonymously named) "Jukes" and "Kallikak" families.

Promotion of Sterilization: Harry H. Laughlin, the superintendent of the ERO, was a significant advocate for eugenic sterilizations. He crafted a model sterilization law adopted by many U.S. States. By the 1930s, thousands of forced sterilizations were carried out in the U.S., largely targeting people in prisons, asylums, and other such institutions.

Field Workers: The ERO employed field workers - data collectors - to collect data from various populations around the country. These workers were often college students trained by the ERO to gather family histories, measure individuals using anthropometric methods, and assess the "fitness" of different families.


Controversies, Criticism and Closure: By the late 1920s and early 1930s, the ERO's research methodologies and conclusions increasingly came under criticism from other scientists for their lack of rigor and overtly racist and classist biases.


Closure: The ERO's funding received from the Carnegie Institution was withdrawn in 1939, leading to ERO's closure. This decision was due in part to a report by a committee led by the geneticist L.C. Dunn, which highlighted the ERO's unscientific methodologies and unsound conclusions.


Legacy: While the ERO was closed in 1939, its influence persisted. The sterilization laws it championed continued to be enforced in several states well into the latter half of the 20th century and in one State to this day. The ERO's legacy serves as a cautionary tale about the misuse of science and the consequences of unchallenged pseudoscientific beliefs. It remains a topic of study and reflection in the history of science, bioethics, and the broader history of the United States.

[Pargat Perrer]

So, to be clear, you are saying governments should think for us because the population is too stupid to decide for themselves what they can do?
......

That is very interesting wording you used .... "the population is too stupid to decide for themselves what they can do".

No. The population is quite able to decide for themselves what they can do. The problem is that if every such decision had always been just up to the "population" we would no longer be here on Earth as a species. We would be extinct by now.

If fentanyl was not an illegal substance, most of the U.S. population would be dead from it by now. The population is very good at deciding they want to get high on fentanyl. Look at how easy it is to get and consume alcohol, and look at the societal cost of that. And yes, I realize that in Canada, the provincial governments control alcohol sales and makes huge revenues from it -- this is an example of government doing what the population wants it to do. It might as well be entrepreneurs who are selling the alcohol because the provincial governments are hardly at all restricting availability of alcohol. But in Canada, it is generally much more expensive to buy alcohol than in USA, and these statistics below seem to indicate how much worse a problem alcohol is in USA than in Canada:

Statistics Canada: There were 3,790 alcohol-induced deaths in Canada in 2020 and 3,875 in 2021, compared with 3,200 in 2019.

Center For Disease Control in USA: More than 140,000 people die from excessive alcohol use in the U.S. each year.

USA has about 10 times the population of Canada, so you should expect 10 times the alcohol-induced deaths. Instead it is roughly 35 times more! So it looks like higher government control of alcohol sales DOES have a benefit to society.

Governments generally do the things that need to be done to keep society functioning properly. Entrepreneurs generally aren't interested in doing these types of things. Their ONLY interest is generally in getting as rich as possible. Notice I use the word "generally" throughout this paragraph, meaning there are exceptions... but the exceptions make the rule.

This is why entrepreneurs can be called "more efficient" than governments .... because the governments aren't generally doing things with the express purpose of making money (lotto ticket sales would be a notable exception). Governments will often over-staff a department just to make sure the important work does get done, whereas an entrepreneur would under-staff to keep costs down even if service gets reduced. So efficiency comparisons between entrepreneurs and governments are A FALSE INDICATOR that is used by flea-brains like Dilip to say we need more entrepreneurs and less government.

In our increasingly complex world, we need governments more and more because there are more and more "un-sexy" and even uneconomical things that need to get done just to keep society functioning. It is the nature of our technology-driven societies.

This is why I believe 250 of the world's top 1% of wealthy people signed the petition to TAX THEM MORE. They see the problems being created and can see that more needs done that entrepreneurs are not willing to do.

[Dilip Panjwani]

And when Javier Milei deregulated the housing market ... as in no more rent control ... the supply of rental units in Buenos Aires doubled and prices fell by over 20%.

The President of Argentina, Javier Milei, opted to fly to the World Economic Fund summit in Davos on a scheduled flight, an uncommon move for a major Head of State. Milei and four delegates flew economy with German flag carrier Lufthansa from Buenos Aires to Zurich via Frankfurt.

[Sid Belzberg]

Actually, most are instead involved in CREATING demand where none existed before .... for silly unnecessary things. Pet rocks ... Rubik cubes ... plastic junk ... ... "hoverboards" that don't hover and catch fire easily ... the list goes on and on .....

Not only that, but the demand that entrepreneurs DO anticipate is for things that are detrimental to society overall .... luxury cars, yachts and RVs with engines that burn gallons of fuel just to get a few miles ... guns for mentally-disturbed and angry men .... harmful foods full of sugars and fats ... riding lawnmowers so that people can sit and accumulate fat rather than do some work as was intended for them .... the list goes on and on ...




And here once again, showing his complete lack of knowledge of the world. The world's richest and "most free" country, USA, regularly finishes well below 10th place in the annual list of the world's happiest countries. The ones that finish in the top 5 are all social democracies, i.e. Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Canada, Norway, Denmark .....

Hopefully I am convincing many CT readers to tune out false messages and lies promising a Libertarian utopia that can never exist.

And here we have many of the world's richest individuals PETITIONING governments to TAX THEM MORE:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/news...us/ar-BB1gZMn6

"Over 250 wealthy individuals have signed an open letter petitioning global leaders to implement a wealth tax.

The letter straightforwardly declares, "Our request is simple: we ask you to tax us, the very richest in society." It also says that taxing the super-wealthy won't "deprive" their children or "fundamentally alter" their standard of living."

It must be very embarrassing to have your whole argument for Libertarian government argued AGAINST by the people who would stand to benefit the most from it!

So, to be clear, you are saying governments should think for us because the population is too stupid to decide for themselves what they can do?
The government has done the thinking for us in mandating lethal injections that, based on excess deaths, has resulted in estimates of 17,000,000 and upward vax
caused deaths.
The most common injury is myocarditis, and peer-reviewed studies have shown that 20% of the injected get it. I posted all kinds of evidence here on Chesstalk before this data came out that this was inevitable. Doctors in Canada who dared talk about this were reprimanded by the College of Physicians and Surgeons so that even if a vax-infected patient with heart injuries was examined, Doctors were not free to give this diagnosis. There is no such thing as "mild myocarditis" 50% of patients are dead within five years. 75% within ten years.
6 billion jabbed means 600 million dead in the next few years of this alone.
By the way, the group of dissident Doctors and scientists have found a way to treat myocarditis with sub-antimicrobial doses of Doxycycline. But why listen to us? We are just crazy "conspiracy theorists".
You know, the Canadians with "unacceptable views" that "should not be tolerated," according to your beloved tyrant Justin Trudeau.

Faith in Governments? Try again!

[Dilip Panjwani]

Pargat's Post # 32

Very good points Pargat..........we can reasonably hope that CT'ers are reading with some attention, and separating out the wheat from the chaff. I am not one who tosses regularly that CT'ers are brain-dead......I mean we all know chess players are a notch above!

Bob A (Dem. Marxist)

Chesstalkers know that there are are minimal differences in the 'happiness' levels of the top 20 countries... the differences having more to do with their historically inherited wealth and their various idiosyncrasies rather than the minor differences in their governance, but the most striking fact is that all Marxist countries are way down the list! And Bob, your desire to race to the bottom will get you nowhere else but to the bottom...