17 inter-connected organisations are determining global financial policy

Source:

https://expose-news.com/2022/12/04/17-organisations-determe-global-fin-policy/

Professor Peter Phillips wrote that in 2017 there were 17 global financial conglomerates, with 199 directors, in a self-investing network that spans the globe.  117 of these directors were in the USA.  And 12 of these super-connected conglomerates had representatives in the Group of 30 and the Trilateral Commission.

The Group of 30 issues instructions on global financial policy.  But, said Feisal Mansoor, it is the global financial system that is causing the problem with goods reaching the people who need them at a price they can afford.  In other words, it is the global financial system these few organisations are devising that causes inequality in the world.

Mansoor is a Sri Lankan who spent more than 20 years as a systems analyst and programmer until he burnt out in 1992. He resolved never to work for money again, while at the same time beginning a study of money and how it is created and disbursed.  In a presentation to the World Council of Health, Mansoor spoke about valuing work in the 21st century.  Below we look at some aspects he raised in the first half of his presentation.  You can watch his 46-minute presentation on Rumble HERE or YouTube HERE.

17 Global Financial Conglomerates

Peter Phillips, a professor of political sociology at Sonoma State University, published a book in 2018 titled ‘Giants: The Global Power Elite’.  In it, he detailed exactly who the new “power elite” are and, more important, how they collude to ensure control over the global capitalist marketplace.

Phillips identifies the super-super-rich as the multibillionaires who are part of the global “Transnational Capitalist Class.” In 2017 they included Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett. “These billionaires are similar to colonial plantation owners,” he writes.  What makes Phillips’ exhaustive research more rewarding, if not scarier, is the level to which the new power elite collaborate and socialise with each other. Put simply, they all are wealthy and have significant stock holdings in one or more of each other’s operations.

Phillips identified 17 global financial conglomerates that collectively manage $41.4 trillion in a self-investing network that spans the globe.  In his presentation to the World Council for Health, Mansoor showed a complete list of these 17 top asset management firms (timestamp 3:22).  The first on the list are BlackRock, Vanguard Group and JP Morgan Chase. The 17 organisations together control “41.1 trillion dollars’ worth of assets which constitutes at least 60% of global trade,” Mansoor said during an assembly of the World Council for Health.

“These 17 giants of capitalism that collectively manage this concentration of $41.1 trillion operate in nearly every country.  They are the central institutions of the financial capital that power the global economic system.  Western governments and international policy bodies tend to work in the interests of these financial giants to protect the free flow of capital investment and ensure debt collection everywhere in the world,” Mansoor said.

In 2011, a Swiss study titled ‘The Network of Global Corporate Control’ found that 147 companies in Europe controlled 40% of the world’s wealth.  Mansoor explained that Prof. Phillips found 15 of the top 17 asset management firms he had identified were among the top 27 most centralised firms identified in the Swiss study, and 9 were among the top 10 super-connected firms.

During a 2013 interview, World Bank whistle-blower Karen Hudes referred to this Swiss study. The global elite doesn’t just control these mega-corporations, according to Hudes, they also dominate the unelected, unaccountable organisations that control the finances of virtually every nation on the face of the planet.  The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and central banks such as the Federal Reserve literally control the creation and the flow of money worldwide.

Others confirm the existence of a small group of oligarchs pulling the strings behind the scenes.  In a 2008 interview, John Perkins described the concept of corporatocracy. “Corporatocracy is this group of individuals who run our biggest corporations and they really act as the Emperor of this Empire,” Perkins said.  And last year, Philippe Argillier said there were 38 individuals behind the shadow government who “run the daily lives of 8 billion people on Earth.”

At the time Prof. Phillips wrote his book, that is 2017, the 17 global financial conglomerates had 199 directors on their boards.  These 199 individuals represent the financial management core of global capitalism:

• 117 are from the USA;
• 22 each from UK and France;
• 3 each from Germany and Switzerland;
• 3 each from Italy, Singapore, India and Austria;
• 2 each from Japan and Brazil; and,
• 1 each from South Africa, the Netherlands, Zambia, Kuwait, Belgium, Canada, Mexico, Qatar and Columbia.

World Council for Health: Feisal Mansoor, Valuing Work in the 21st Century (timestamp 5:27)

The Group of 30

The G-30 is a ‘club’ in the transnational policy community.  Clubs are held together by elite peer recognition, common and mutually reinforcing interests and an ambition to provide global goods in line with values its members consider honourable.

Club governance and the making of global financial rules, Review of International Political Economy, Eleni Tsingou (2015)

Prof. Phillips identified a combined 86 individuals in the Group of 30 (“G-30”) and the Trilateral Commission – 12 of the 17 Giants have representation in these privately funded non-profit organisations.  The G-30, founded in 1978, releases reports and findings from studies made by powerful elite bankers, financiers, policymakers and academics.  Its findings are usually accepted and implemented across the globe. Andrew Gavin Marshall noted in his 2013 exposé of the G-30 that “they don’t produce mere ‘recommendations’, but rather ‘instructions’ which they expect to be followed.”

Marshall was referring to a report the G-30 published in 2012.  The report was compiled by the Working Group on Long-term Finance, which was composed of nearly two-thirds of the membership of the G-30. “It is of significance that many of those who produced the report and who are members of the G30 conveniently hold an official position so as to be able to dutifully implement those instructions,” Marshall wrote.

[The report noted] that the world’s major economies would be continuing to undergo austerity measures – or “fiscal consolidation” programs – over the “medium-term,” the ability of governments to make investments would be heavily restrained. Thus, “the private sector will need to be mobilised to fill the gap.” In other words, so-called “public-private partnerships” become the route to go, to ensure that corporations and banks reap massive profits, subsidised by governments.

The report noted some “ideal candidates” to manage long-term financing, such as pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, insurance companies, endowments and foundations.

Global Power Project: The Group of Thirty and Its Methods of Financial Governance, Andrew Gavin Marshall, 12 April 2013

In 2017, Prof. Phillips noted that of the 32 policy directors of the G-30, 12 were from the US (one of which is a dual Israeli nationality), 3 were from France (one of which is a dual Ivory Coast nationality), 2 are UK peers in the House of Lords, 2 each from Germany and Mexico, and 1 each from Poland, Canada, Spain, Argentina, Italy, Brazil, Switzerland, Japan, India, Singapore and China.

Currently, the G-30 has 44 members, including Augustin Carstens the General Manager of the Bank for International Settlements and Mario Draghi former Prime Minister of Italy and former President of the European Central Bank. In 2012 the EU ombudsman launched an enquiry on Mario Draghi’s membership of the G-30 and another enquiry in 2017 but in 2018 it was announced his membership was compatible with the European Central Bank. On 1 December 2022, Mark Carney, former Governor of the Bank of England and Bank of Canada, became the chair of the G-30.

Further reading: The Group of Thirty might finally end its scandalous existence, 23 January 2017

The Problems Caused by the Current Financial System

Money has only one societal function of necessity, said Mansoor, and that is as legal tender: currency in which the state accepts taxes. Citizens are not bound to exchange goods and services between themselves exclusively in “legal tender.”

What Mansoor means by this can be explained by an analogy.  If you have a house and agree with someone to exchange it for their car, you are free to do so and no one can stop you. The money value, or legal tender, is taken into consideration when taxing the transaction.  To be able to charge tax a monetary value is assigned and tax payable is calculated on that value.  So ‘legal tender” has created a cause and effect, which has been perverted into a system of reward and punishment. And the concept of rewards and punishment is closely related to value.  This is what Mansoor refers to as the “abstract nature of money creation” or the “abstracted financial system.”

“We’re a technological society producing all these goods and services but our global financial system will not allow us to distribute those goods and services to people who will willingly consume them,” Mansoor said. “The central bank administered global financial system is unable to distribute its goods and services to willing customers.”  He believes that it is the global financial system that is causing the problem with goods reaching the people who need them at a price they can afford:

It’s perhaps more obvious now than it has ever been that we can produce goods and services at a rate considerably greater than the possible rate of consumption of the world and that this production and distribution may be achieved with a fraction of the available labour.

It is equally clear that despite this huge potential reservoir of goods and services, the larger proportion of society is unable to get them. It is clear then that the gap between demand and supply has little to do with the ability of production and industrial system to answer the calls of need, but all to do with the organisation which stands between them, the abstracted financial system.

Valuing Work in the 21st Century, Feisal Mansoor (timestamp 22:13)

Mansoor proposes that the solution is to change the basis of how value is measured from a centralised “legal tender” to one that recognises energy as the basis for calculating value.  In this way, local products and services will be cheapest where they are produced because the energy required to transport goods, for example, would add value, or cost.   He believes this will encourage local economies to grow according to the needs of the local community.  Some form of accounting for the value would still be required but again this would be a local solution.  For example, a local currency for that town or region and whether that be in the form of electronic currency or tangible notes depends on what suits the people within that region best.

---

UK Government quietly confirms COVID Vaccinated Children are up to 137x more likely to die than Unvaccinated Children

Source:

https://expose-news.com/2022/12/03/covid-vaccinated-children-137x-more-likely-die-2/

The UK Government has quietly confirmed that the Covid-19 vaccines are killing children at an unprecedented rate.

Shocking figures contained in an official report, published just hours before Boris Johnson announced his resignation as Prime Minister of the UK, reveal Covid-19 vaccinated children are 4423%/45x more likely to die of any cause than unvaccinated children and 13,6333/137x more likely to die of Covid-19 than unvaccinated children.

---

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

TYPE YOUR EMAIL…

---

A UK Government agency, known as the Office for National Statistics (ONS), recently published new data on deaths by vaccination status in England.

The latest dataset from the ONS is titled ‘Deaths by Vaccination Status, England, 1 January 2021 to 31 May 2022‘, and it can be accessed on the ONS site here, and downloaded here.

Source

Table 6 of the dataset contains data on deaths involving Covid-19, deaths not involving Covid-19 and all-cause deaths by age group in England between 1st January 2021 and 31st May 2022, and it includes the number of deaths among children aged 10 to 14 by vaccination status, and teenagers aged 15 to 19 by vaccination status.

However, it is quite clear from the data that the ONS are not being as transparent as we would like to believe. This is because they fail to provide the death rate per 100,000 person-years among children or teenagers, whereas they have provided it for all other adult age groups in every other table contained in the dataset.

For example, here’s a snapshot of the data from table 1 of the dataset showing the death rate per 100,000 person-years by vaccination status in April 2022 –

Source

Unfortunately for the ONS, they have failed in their attempts to disguise the horrific mortality rates among Covid-19 vaccinated children because they still provide us with enough information for us to calculate the mortality rates ourselves.

Here’s a snapshot of the ONS data on deaths among children aged 10 to 14 between 1st Jan 2021 and 31st May 2022 by vaccination status –

Source

The data above includes the number of deaths and the number of person-years among each vaccination group.

Therefore, all we need to do is divide each vaccination group’s ‘person-years’ by 100,000, and then divide the number of deaths among each vaccination group by the answer to the previous equation, to work out the mortality rates by vaccination status.

e.g. Unvaccinated 2,881,265 Person-years / 100,000 = 28.81
Unvaccinated Covid-19 Deaths (9) / 28.81 = 0.3 Deaths per 100,000 person-years

The following two charts show the mortality rates by vaccination status per 100,000 person-years among children aged 10 to 14 in England for the period 1st January 2021 to 31st May 2022, according to the figures provided by the ONS –

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Due to the large amount of information contained in the above two charts we’ve cherry-picked the most significant findings to create the following chart –

In regard to Covid-19 deaths, the ONS reveals that the mortality rate among unvaccinated children aged 10 to 14 equates to 0.31. But in regards to one-dose vaccinated children the mortality rate equates to 3.24 per 100,000 person-years, and in regards to triple vaccinated children the mortality rate equates to a shocking 41.29 per 100,000 person-years.

These figures reveal that unvaccinated children are much less likely to die of Covid-19 than children who have had the Covid-19 injection.

Today is the Final Day to save The Expose.
Can you help keep us online?

We’re…

100%

94%

…Covered for Next Month

Make a Donation

Based on Pfizer’s vaccine efficacy formula, this data reveals that the Covid-19 injections are now proving to have negative effectiveness against death among children, with the real-world effectiveness between January 2021 and May 2022 being as follows –

Formula:
Unvaccinated Death Rate – Vaccinated Death Rate
/
Unvaccinated Death Rate x 100 =
Vaccine Effectiveness against Death

The Covid-19 injections are proving to have real-world negative effectiveness against death of minus-966.67% among partly vaccinated children, and a shocking real-world negative effectiveness against death of minus-13,633.33% among triple vaccinated children.

This isn’t anywhere near the claimed 95% effectiveness against death made by Pfizer, is it?

In other words, partly vaccinated children are 11x/966.67% more likely to die of Covid-19 than unvaccinated children, and triple vaccinated children are 137.3x/13,633.33% more likely to die of Covid-19 than unvaccinated children.

And unfortunately, there is little improvement when it comes to non-Covid-19 deaths. Here’s the chart again showing the mortality rates by vaccination status among children in England –

The all-cause death mortality rate equates to 6.39 per 100,000 person-years among unvaccinated children, and is ever so slightly higher at 6.48 among partly vaccinated children.

However, the rate goes from bad to worse following the administration of each injection. The all-cause death mortality rate equates to 97.28 among double-vaccinated children, and a shocking 289.02 per 100,000 person-years among triple-vaccinated children.

This means, according to the UK Governments own official data, double vaccinated children are 1422% / 15.22x more likely to die of any cause than unvaccinated children. Whilst triple vaccinated children are 4423% / 45.23x more likely to die of any cause than unvaccinated children.

Unfortunately, we see much of the same when it comes to vaccinated teenagers.

The following two charts show the mortality rates by vaccination status per 100,000 person-years among teenagers aged 15 to 19 in England for the period 1st January 2021 to 31st May 2022, according to the figures provided by the ONS –

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Again, due to the large amount of information contained in the above two charts we’ve cherry-picked the most significant findings to create the following chart –

What we discover from the above is that triple vaccinated teenagers are 136% / 2.35x more likely to die of Covid-19 than unvaccinated teenagers, and 38% more likely to die of any cause than unvaccinated teenagers.

The worst figures in terms of all-cause deaths are however among double-vaccinated teenagers. Official UK Government data reveals that double vaccinated teenagers, with a mortality rate of 36.17 per 100,000 person-years, are 149.3% / 2.5 x more likely to die of any cause than unvaccinated teenagers with a mortality rate of 14.51 per 100,000 person-years.

To summarise, the official UK Government figures published by the UK’s Office for National Statistics, prove that COVID-vaccinated children and teenagers are more likely to die of both Covid-19 and any other cause than unvaccinated children and teenagers.

This indicates that in regard to Covid-19, vaccination is actually worsening the immune response to the alleged virus and increasing the risk of both hospitalisation and death. But in regards to all-cause deaths, this indicates the Covid-19 injections are directly killing children.

The Gates/Rockefeller "Green Revolution" Scam Exposed

 

Source:

https://www.minds.com/CorbettReport/blog/the-gates-rockefeller-green-revolution-scam-exposed-1286455077506125825

Corbett ReportSep 19, 2021, 11:33:11 PM

by James Corbett
corbettreport.com
September 19, 2021

You've got to hand it to the globalists: they know how to take advantage of our better instincts. They have designed an entire international institutional infrastructure around the issues that the average non-psychopath cares about (or at least pretends to): helping the poor and the downtrodden, caring for children, ending inequities, taking care of the planet, etc.

This is why Antonio Guterres, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, just released his report on "Our Common Agenda," which purports to provide a road map for "rebuilding our world and mending the trust in one another we need so desperately at this moment in history." Not because he actually cares about saving the world, of course, but because he knows that we do, and that many people can be persuaded to "make sacrifices"—up to an including relinquishing their personal sovereignty, as this report ultimately calls for—for the "greater good."

And, as viewers of this week's New World Next Week will know, this is why the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and a gaggle of their Big Agra cronies are teaming up in a billion dollar alliance to "elevate the single coordinated African voice" in a United Nations summit on food security in Africa. Not because they care about feeding starving African children or raising up poor African farmers, but because they know that we do.

Specifically, the Gates-Rockefeller-Big Ag monstrosity known as the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) and their associated fundraising vehicle, the African Green Revolution Forum (AGRF) is seeking to "elevate the single coordinated African voice" at the UN Food Systems Summit in New York this week. But, as the Alliance for Food Safety in Africa (AFSA) and literally dozens of other groups are pointing out, the AGRA-promoted approach to farming—monocultural commodity production heavily reliant on chemical inputs—is great for the big agribusiness corporations who make up the AGRA alliance but terrible for actual African farmers, not to mention terrible for long-term soil fertility and human development.

This is not by accident. In fact, the entire premise behind the "green revolution" from which AGRA and AGRF derive their name is that Big Ag is the saviour of the world and the only way to provide food security for the masses. This is a lie, of course, but it's one that plays nicely on our better instincts. After all, who wants to see African farmers living in poverty and African children starving?

But in order to better understand the scam that is being perpetrated on the people of Africa (and the people of the world), we need to look beyond this billion-dollar corporate alliance to discover the sordid history of the "green revolution" itself. As usual, the real history of this event is completely opposite to the history you will read about it in the mainstream textbooks.

First, AGRA and AGRF. The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa is, according to their own website, "an alliance led by Africans with roots in farming communities across the continent." This claim is immediately disproven by their "partners" list, however, which includes a number of multi-national Big Ag corporations, like Bayer, Syngenta, John Deere and . . . Microsoft? The alliance—as those who know what the "green revolution" was really about will have already guessed—claims to "bring together the goods and services necessary for rapid agricultural development" through "a combination of funding, technical input, coaching and convening," but it is actually primarily interested in monopolizing and dominating the agricultural market in Africa.

The Alliance has, unsurprisingly, functioned for years under the stewardship of various Gates and Rockefeller-connected leaders in an explicitly Gates and Rockefeller-driven agenda to introduce "green revolution" technologies to Africa that began nearly two decades ago. AGRA's "flagship initative," the Program for Africa’s Seed Systems (PASS) was designed and led by Joseph DeVries, a former Rockefeller Foundation employee. What's more, AGRA President Agnes Kalibata's chief of staff, Adam Gerstenmeier, was previously chief of staff to Bill Gates himself.

The African Green Revolution Forum, meanwhile, is an annual fundraising event put together by the billion dollar chemical company, Yara International. According to their own about page, the "African" forum didn't even start in Africa but in Norway. The group had to be persuaded to move to Africa and "take an African identity."

"Initially established as an annual “African Green Revolution Conference” by Yara International ASA in Norway in 2006, fostering public-private partnerships and mobilizing investments into African agriculture, the conference moved to the African continent in 2010 with the championing of the late Kofi Annan to take an African identity as the African Green Revolution Forum and ensure leadership and broader engagement of African stakeholders in the continent’s agricultural transformation agenda. The Forum now consists of an annual event combined with thematic platforms and year round engagement to track progress over time."

AGRF partners include (predictably enough) a cadre of multinational corporations and corporate "philanthropic" foundations like MasterCard, Bayer, Syngenta, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

From this alone, it isn't hard to see why actual African farmers and African NGOs are so upset about AGRF claiming to "elevate the single coordinated African voice" by speaking in their name at the upcoming UN Food Systems Summit.

But as bad as all of this seems at first glance, it's much worse upon closer inspection. That's because AGRA and AGRF did not spring out of thin air. They are the end result of nearly a century of coordinated effort to transform the nature of agriculture itself into a business enterprise dominated by an oligopoly of multinational corporations. That agenda has been sold to the public as a "green revolution" but the only thing green about it are the dollars lining the pockets of the billionaire CEOs who are taking advantage of the public's sympathy for poor farmers and starving families.

The official history of the so-called "green revolution" typically notes that this "revolution" was the result of technology transfers to the third-world that allowed developing countries to enjoy the fruits of modern agrichemical products and practices. This technology—so the story goes—greatly increased agricultural productivity around the world, thus helping to feed billions.

This greenwashed story usually starts in Mexico in the 1940s and focuses on the work of Norman Borlaug, an American scientist often credited with "saving a billion lives" for his experiments with disease-resistant, high-yield varieties of wheat in Mexico in the 1940s. However, the real history of the "green revolution" is, in contrast to this feel-good story of cooperation and philanthropy, much darker. And, unsurprisingly, that story leads us back to the Rockefellers.

Specifically, in 1940, US Vice President Henry A. Wallace, fresh off a tour of Mexico, approached the Rockefeller Foundation with the <sarc>remarkable insight</sarc> that "if the yield per acre in corn and beans could be increased, it would have a greater effect on the national life of Mexico than anything that could be done." The Rockefellers, knowing a business opportunity when they saw it, took up the cause.

Predictably enough, though, the Rockefeller family approached the problem of food production in the developing world in the exact same way they had approached the problem of oil production in the late 19th century: by turning it into a business and monopolizing the market for the product. And, just as they had consolidated the oil industry into Big Oil and consolidated allopathic medicine into Big Pharma, they now set about consolidating the developing world's agricultural industry into Big Ag. Mexico was to be the testbed for this business strategy.

As the Los Angeles Times reported in 1995¸Nelson Rockefeller set up the Mexican American Development Corp. in the 1940s and then used his family's bank, the Chase National Bank—then under the stewardship of Winthrop Aldrich, the Rockefeller brothers' uncle, and soon thereafter under the stewardship of David Rockefeller himself—to set up Chase Bank's Latin American division in the country. As William Engdahl writes in his comprehensive overview of the green revolution and the gene revolution, Seeds of Destruction, one important motive for these moves was to "regain a foothold in Mexico through the guise of helping to solve the country’s food problems."

With their business ducks in a row, the Rockefellers were ready to get down to the corporate "philanthropy" which had increased the family's fortune—not to mention their reputation—since John D. Rockefeller, Sr. had plowed his oil money into the establishment of the Rockefeller Foundation. In this case, the Rockefellers established the Mexican Agricultural Program (MAC), headed by George Harrar, who would go on to become the president of the Rockefeller Foundation. It was from MAC that Norman Borlaug and the fabled green revolution was to emerge.

The story of the green revolution continued in Brazil, where another of the Rockefeller's seemingly infinite corporate extensions was hard at work transforming that nation's agricultural industry. This time the culprit was the International Basic Economy Corporation (IBEC), set up by Nelson Rockefeller in 1947. According to the Rockefeller Archive Center:

"The Corporation was developed as a private business enterprise that would focus on upgrading the "basic economies" of lesser-developed nations by lowering food prices, building sound housing, mobilizing savings, and fostering industrialization. The objective was for the business to be profitable and sustainable, and to encourage others, especially nationals, to establish competitive businesses and thereby establish a "multiplier" development effect"

But the real insight into what IBEC (and the "green revolution" in general) was actually about comes from Lester Brown, who was also a beneficiary of Rockefeller largesse: his Worldwatch Institute was founded in 1974 with the aid of a $500,000 grant from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. As Brown admitted in his 1969 book on the subject, Seeds of Change:

"Fertilizer is only one item in the package of new inputs which farmers need in order to realize the full potential of the new seeds. Once it becomes profitable to use modern technology, the demand for all kinds of farm inputs increases rapidly. And only agribusiness firms can supply these new inputs efficiently. This means that the multinational corporation has a vested interest in the agricultural revolution along with the poor countries."

This is the basis of the so-called green revolution: multinational corporations finding a profit motive for "developing" the agricultural sector of third world countries by selling them fertilizers, chemicals and capital-intensive technology. It's no surprise to learn that the very term "agribusiness" emerged from the Harvard Business School out of research conducted by Wassily Leontief under a Rockefeller Foundation grant.

It is also no surprise, then, that the Gates Foundation picked up where the Rockefeller Foundation left off in the world of agricultural "philanthropy." As viewers of my Who Is Bill Gates? documentary will remember, Bill Gates, Sr. admitted in his 2009 book, Showing Up for Life, to basing the Gates' philanthrocapitalistic efforts on the Rockefeller Foundation's model.

But here again we can be misled by our own good intentions. We might buy into the (PR-constructed) myth of "philanthropy" that the would-be monopolists use to disguise their true agenda. "Well," we might argue, "if agribusiness actually increases food production in these countries, what's the harm in that? Some starving people get fed and some corporations make a profit. Win win!"

But, of course, this is a lie. It always had been. It's been pointed out many times before in many different contexts, but it is pointed out quite forcefully by the AFSA in their press release on AGRA and the upcoming Food Systems Summit:

"Over a decade of research has exposed the failure of AGRA on its own terms. After nearly 15 years and spending of more than US$1 billion to promote the use of commercial seeds, chemical fertilizers, and pesticides in 13 African countries, and additional US$1 billion per year of African government subsidies for seeds and fertilizers, AGRA has failed to provide evidence that yields, incomes or food security increased significantly, and sustainably, for smallholder households across its target countries. Since the onset of AGRA’s program in 2006, the number of undernourished people across these 13 countries has increased by 30 percent. Even where staple crop production did increase, there was little reduction of rural poverty or hunger. Instead, diverse, climate-resilient crops that provide a more diverse and healthy diet for rural Africans have been displaced."

The green revolution was a fraud. It sold entire nations into debt slavery to multinational corporations and didn't even lead to food security. Instead, it has led to increased poverty and malnutrition in the service of the production of monocultural cash crops for exports to foreign companies. The entire process is a sham from top to bottom.

Sadly, the billions that are sloshed around by the multinationals in their Alliances and Fora are enough to buy off much of the opposition. Even so, there is still an incredible amount of opposition to the green revolution agenda and many, many authentic organizations that are protesting and boycotting its rollout. However, their voices are given short shrift in the mass media that has long since been bought and paid for by the same Big Ag companies and "philanthropic" foundations that are driving this agenda. It is up to us to spread the word about these voices of dissent.

Our instincts are correct. We should care about poverty. We should desire food security for all. We should want poor farmers in Africa and everywhere else around the world to thrive. But we should not fall for the propaganda that tells us that the only way to achieve these things is by supporting Big Ag and their cronies.

Billions of lives could be in danger due to covid vaccines, Japanese professor says

Source:

https://expose-news.com/2022/12/01/billions-of-lives-could-be-in-danger-due-to-vaccines/

At a press conference for bereaved families held on 25 November, Dr. Masanori Fukushima, Professor Emeritus at Kyoto University, warned about Covid injection harms:

“Given the wide range of adverse events, billions of lives could ultimately be in danger … You spend trillions of yen importing and inciting the population [to have it] … In professional magazines, the misunderstanding has come to light and now it is understood how dangerous it is.”

Dr. Masanori Fukushima: “Vaccine damage now a global problem. Billions of lives at possible risk” (5 mins)

Dr. Masanori Fukushima has published several articles on biomedical research and translational medicine, and, as well being Professor Emeritus at Kyoto University, works in the Translational Research Informatics Centre Foundation for Biomedical Research and Innovation, Kobe, Japan.  He has also written over 200 papers which have been cited over 7,000 times.

With comprehensive experience spanning over the past three decades as a medical oncologist at Aichi Cancer Centre and Kyoto University Hospital, Dr. Fukushima has engaged in the practice and dissemination of standard cancer treatment and reform of Japan’s medical care system and is active to date contributing to building up the infrastructure of clinical trial focusing on translational research.

Wake Up tweeted another clip from the press conference, a husband whose wife was killed by a Covid vaccine said:

“How many people are you guys going to kill [with the vaccines]? … We, the people, are neither toys nor guinea pigs.”

The above clips are taken from an almost two-hour video which you can find on Odysee HERE (Japanese only). 

The conference was organised by Kazuhisa Ukawa with a view to giving family members of those who have died post-vaccination and those who have suffered discrimination due to vaccine mandates a chance to tell their stories and to offer them guidance and support.  The purpose of the conference, Ukawa stated on his website, was to:

• Provide advice to vaccine-injured people to prepare the paperwork and the procedures to be followed for national and local governments.
• Examination and consultation with doctors.
• Litigation support for those who have been discriminated against due to vaccinations.
• Support regarding class action suits for the vaccine-injured and bereaved families.

The website states that human rights abuses due to vaccines are occurring, for example, unvaccinated people are not allowed to visit nursing homes or hospitals, are not admitted to hospitals for treatment and are discriminated against at work.