Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 411

The US Campaign Against Breastfeeding

Story at-a-glanceAccording to the World Health Organization (WHO), between 2011 and 2016, only 40% of infants under the age of 6 months were being exclusively breastfed, worldwideThanks to growing awareness of the science behind the “breast is best” slogan, breastfeeding rates in the U.S. have risen from a low of 24% in 1971 to 81% in 2016The global goal is to get 70% of infants exclusively breastfed for the first six months by 2030. To achieve that, the World Health Assembly introduced a nonbinding resolution in early 2018 to encourage breastfeeding and stress the health benefits of breastfeedingIn a move that shocked the world, U.S. delegates opposed the resolution, demanding that language calling on governments to “protect, promote and support breastfeeding” be deletedThe American delegation threatened countries with sanctions lest they reject the resolution. It was even suggested that the U.S. might cut its financial support to the WHO. Russia ultimately introduced the resolution

Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published July 24, 2018.

What’s the optimal food for your newborn baby? Common sense would tell you that a mother’s breast milk is as optimal as infant nutrition could possibly get, yet that fact — indisputable as it may seem — is something that makers of infant formula have spent decades’ trying to sweep under the carpet.1 Following the development of manufactured infant formula, mothers were told breastfeeding was unnecessary.

Formula offered greater freedom for busy moms, and the promotion of the obnoxious idea that breastfeeding in public is shameful fueled the transition, making more moms defer to the bottle rather than their breast. For years, women could even be fined for “public indecency” if caught breastfeeding in public. In 2018, Utah became the last state to enact laws protecting the rights of breastfeeding mothers by permitting nursing in public.2

As of April 2018, all 50 states must provide workplace protection for nursing mothers, however many suffer discrimination for needing time to express milk. In terms of nutrition, moms have, and still are, told there’s “no difference” between bottle feeding and breastfeeding, yet nothing could be further from the truth.

There is very little similarity between the two, from a nutritional perspective. Unfortunately, marketing materials have a way of giving mothers the false idea that formula may actually provide better nutrition.

Now, even the pro-breastfeeding slogan “breast is best” has been usurped and turned into “fed is best”3 — meaning, as long as your baby is well-fed, it doesn’t matter if it’s breast milk or formula. A recent bioethical argument in the journal Pediatrics even advises pediatricians it’s time to stop referring to breastfeeding as something “natural.”4 How did we get so off course? You might as well argue against the naturalness of urination.

Only 4 in 10 Infants Are Exclusively Breastfed for 6 Months

According to a January 2, 2018, report5 by the World Health Organization (WHO) on infant nutrition, between 2011 and 2016, a mere 40% of infants under the age of 6 months were being exclusively breastfed, worldwide. Only 33 countries have breastfeeding rates higher than 50%, while 68 nations have rates below 50%.

Thanks to growing awareness of the science behind the “breast is best” slogan, breastfeeding rates in the U.S. have risen dramatically in recent decades, from a low of 24% in 19716 to 81.1% in 2016.7

The global goal is to get 70% of infants exclusively breastfed for the first six months by 2030, and to achieve that, the World Health Assembly, which is the decision-making body of the WHO, introduced a nonbinding resolution in early 2018 to encourage breastfeeding and stress the health benefits of breastfeeding.

The resolution stressed that decades of research show breast milk is the healthiest choice, and urged governments to rein in inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes.

US Government Backs Formula Makers

In a move that shocked the world, the U.S. delegates opposed the resolution, demanding that language calling on governments to “protect, promote and support breastfeeding” be deleted.8 They also wanted to erase a passage calling on policymakers to restrict promotion of foods that can have adverse effects on the health of young children.

The global delegation was even more shocked when the Americans started threatening countries with sanctions lest they reject the resolution. It was even suggested that the U.S. might cut its financial support to the WHO.

[…]

 

A Mother’s Choice

A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) denied the agency had anything to do with the threats leveled at Ecuador, telling The New York Times the DHHS had sought to modify the original draft resolution11 because it “placed unnecessary hurdles for mothers seeking to provide nutrition to their children.”

According to the DHHS, women may not be able to breastfeed for a variety of reasons and “These women should have the choice and access to alternatives for the health of their babies, and not be stigmatized for the ways in which they are able to do so.” This is an incredibly weak rebuttal, as encouraging breastfeeding and promoting its health benefits in no way diminishes a woman’s right or ability to opt for formula if she finds she cannot breastfeed.

Formula makers have also tried to distance themselves from the embarrassment. Still, while witnesses at the assembly meeting claim they saw no evidence of formula makers trying to wield their influence, there’s no denying they’ve spent a lot of money lobbying to protect their market share, which means minimizing the importance of breastfeeding.

According to a MapLight analysis,12 the three leading formula companies, Abbott Laboratories, Nestle and Reckitt Benckiser, have spent $60.7 million lobbying lawmakers in the U.S. over the past decade.

Lucy Sullivan, director of 1,000 Days, a mother and infant nutrition advocacy group, told The Atlantic,13 “What this battle in Geneva showed us is that we have a U.S. government that is strongly aligned with the interests of the infant-formula industry and dairy industry, and are willing to play hardball.”

As is customary, the DHHS held stakeholder listening sessions with various industry groups prior to the World Health Assembly meeting, where the dairy, grocery and infant formula groups all had their say about the proposed resolution.

What surprised everyone was “how forcefully the U.S. delegates acted on the trade groups’ opposition,” The Atlantic writes.14 While it may have been more aggressive than usual, as you will see below, the U.S. has an embarrassing history of pushing the use of infant formula over breast milk.

Health Benefits of Mother’s Milk

From a nutritional science point of view, there’s simply no dispute that breast milk is the optimal food for newborns and young infants.15,16 Breastfeeding also has a number of health benefits for the mother, and it’s the least expensive alternative. Below is a summary of some of the key health benefits for mother and child.

Infant formula, on the other hand, has been linked to an increased risk of infant death. In her paper, “Marketing Breast Milk Substitutes: Problems and Perils Throughout the World,” published in the Archives of Disease in Childhood in 2012, June Brady starts out by highlighting the U.S. government’s shameful lack of support of proper infant nutrition, choosing instead to cater to the formula makers’ right to profit.

[…]

Via https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/06/07/campaign-against-breastfeeding.aspx

 

Covid Hospital Death Trap Killed 97.2% Over 65

Dr MercolaStory at-a-glanceWithin weeks of the pandemic outbreak, it had become apparent that the standard practice of putting COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation was a death sentence; 76.4% of COVID-19 patients (aged 18 to 65) in New York City who were placed on ventilators died. Among patients over age 65 who were vented, the mortality rate was 97.2%The recommendation to place COVID patients on mechanical ventilation as a first-line response came from the World Health Organization, which allegedly based its guidance on experiences and recommendations from doctors in China. But venting COVID patients wasn’t recommended because it increased survival. It was to protect health care workers by isolating the virus inside the vent machineData suggest around 10,000 patients died with COVID in NYC hospitals after being put on ventilators in spring 2020. Other metropolitan areas also saw massive spikes in deaths among younger individuals who were at low risk of dying from COVID. It’s possible many of these deaths were the result of being placed on mechanical ventilationThe WHO must be held accountable for its unethical recommendation to sacrifice suspected COVID patients by using ventilation as an infection mitigation strategy — especially considering they’re now trying to get unilateral power and authority to make pandemic decisions without local inputShowing how the WHO’s recommendation to put patients on mechanical ventilation resulted in needless death among people who weren’t at great risk of dying from COVID is perhaps one of the most powerful talking points a country can use to argue for independence and rejection of the WHO’s pandemic treaty

Within weeks of the pandemic outbreak, it had become apparent that the standard practice of putting COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation was a death sentence.1

By early April 2020, many doctors were already questioning their use, as data2 showed 76.4% of COVID-19 patients (aged 18 to 65) in New York City who were placed on ventilators died. Among patients over age 65 who were vented, the mortality rate was a whopping 97.2%.

If you were older than 65, you were 26 times more likely to survive if you were NOT placed on a vent.3 A small study from Wuhan, China, put the ratio of deaths at 86%,4 and in Texas, 84.9% of patients died after more than 96 hours on a ventilator.5

In a widely-shared YouTube video6 (above) posted March 31, 2020, Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell, a critical care specialist at the Mount Sinai Health System in New York, warned that “we must change what we are doing if we want to save as many lives as possible.” Sidell was adamant that doctors were “treating the wrong disease” and that putting COVID patients on mechanical ventilation was all wrong.

[…]

Why Were COVID Patients Put on Vents?

The recommendation to place COVID patients on mechanical ventilation as a first-line response came from the World Health Organization,7 which in early March 2020 published a COVID-19 provider guidance8 document to health care workers, based on experiences and recommendations from doctors in China.

According to the WHO, treatment needed to be rapidly escalated to mechanical ventilation. Ideally, patients should be placed on it immediately.9 What escaped the public was the primary reason why. Venting COVID patients wasn’t recommended because it increased survival; rather, it was to protect health care workers by isolating the virus inside the mechanical vent machine.

Using less invasive positive air pressure machines could result in the spread of infectious aerosols, the WHO warned. In other words, they put patients to death to “save” staff and other, presumably non-COVID, patients.

[…]

Even Dr. Anthony Fauci, in a mid-June 2022 lecture (above), admitted that placing patients on mechanical ventilation did more harm than good.

[…]

Yet government treatment guidelines, to this day, include invasive mechanical ventilation.12 If the White House Coronavirus Task Force knew in the summer of 2022 that venting patients caused more harm than good, why didn’t they instruct hospitals to stop using it? Or at bare minimum, strongly advise against it?

And why did the government continue to financially incentivize the use of mechanical ventilation after they’d realized how bad it was? While many hospitals did cut down on their use of mechanical ventilation toward the end of 2020 and beyond, it still hasn’t been entirely replaced with noninvasive strategies shown to be far more effective.13

Many ‘COVID Patients’ Didn’t Have COVID

The matter becomes even more perverse when you consider that many “COVID cases” were patients who merely tested positive using faulty PCR testing. They didn’t have COVID but were vented anyway, thanks to the baseless theory that you could have COVID-19 and be infectious without symptoms.

Hospitals also received massive financial incentives to diagnose patients with COVID — whether they had it or not — and to put them on a vent. They also received bonuses for using toxic remdesivir, and they were paid for each COVID death as well. The entire system was set up to reward hospitals for misdiagnosing, mistreating and ultimately killing patients.

China also benefited from the WHO’s misguided advice. While the U.S. clamored for more ventilators, Chinese hospitals started relying on them less and instead they were being exported in huge quantities.14

How Many COVID Patients Were Killed by WHO’s Bad Advice?

Just how many COVID-19 patients were killed by being placed on mechanical ventilation in the spring of 2020? That’s a question attorney and author Michael P. Senger tries to answer in his May 25, 2023, article “The Great COVID Ventilator Death Coverup.”15

[…]

Inpatient Mortality Around the US, 2020 Through Present

Senger goes on to show the same all-cause mortality graphs for hospital inpatients for each of the largest cities in the U.S.: Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. All show massive spikes in hospital deaths, especially among the elderly (65 and older), around the same time periods as NYC. He also produced charts for deaths on the state level, as follow:20

[…]A Morally Indefensible Coverup

Senger points out that, in speaking with other attorneys, most agree that hospitals face virtually no risk of litigation over ventilator deaths, for the simple reason that everyone perceived COVID to be a global emergency, and during emergencies, you just do the best you can with what you have and what you know.

[…]

Even so, “the situation is morally inexcusable,” Senger says, adding that we do need to get to the bottom of how and why these patients died. I agree. While Senger wants the truth to understand what happened and to honor the diseased, I would add that we need the truth in order to avoid making the same mistake again, because there will be a next time.

The WHO Must Be Held to Account

The WHO must be held accountable for its unethical recommendation to sacrifice suspected COVID patients by using ventilation as an infection mitigation strategy — especially considering they’re now trying to get unilateral power and authority to make pandemic decisions without local input.

Showing how the WHO’s recommendation to put patients on mechanical ventilation resulted in needless death among people who weren’t at great risk of dying from COVID is perhaps one of the most powerful talking points a country can use to argue for independence and rejection of the WHO’s pandemic treaty.

They simply cannot be trusted to make sound medical decisions for the whole world. No one is. We need to allow local medical experts to make the calls in situations like this, and to collaborate and share information between themselves. The top-down one-size-fits-all medical paradigm that the WHO wants to implement is nothing short of disastrous, and the COVID pandemic response proves it.

Also, let’s not forget that the misuse of mechanical ventilation created the appearance that COVID was exceptionally deadly, regardless of your age, which in turn helped promote acceptance of the experimental COVID shots that are now a leading cause of frequent sickness, chronic disability and excess deaths. Of course, that’s also being covered up.

In the final analysis, the WHO’s handling of the COVID pandemic will undoubtedly go down as the worst in medical history. Can we really trust them to make better decisions in the future?

I think not, which is why we must do everything in our power to prevent the U.S. from signing the pandemic treaty. Better yet, we need to exit the WHO entirely. To that end, I urge you to contact your local House representatives and Senators and urge them to:

Support the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act24,25,26,27,28Withhold funding for the WHOSupport U.S. withdrawal from the WHO

[…]

Via https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/06/07/covid-death-coverup.aspx?ui=26ae5a785a45f97d5e56bf4c7d0c2d6b647952a589d7936d74fc35371b657d40&sd=20210209&cid

Endotoxin Contamination of Lab-Grown Meat

A recent research paper released by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory makes public for the first time (to my knowledge) the dangerous endotoxins released during the production of lab grown meat. According to the paper, endotoxins, well know for their role in numerous chronic and autoimmune diseases, are a critical component of the outer membrane of Gram-negative bacteria used to produce artificial meat.

In a section entitled “The Endotoxin Challenge,” the paper minimizes the risk of these lab-produced endotoxins to human beings, by explaining numerous techniques used to “reduce” their concentration:

The Endotoxin Challenge

These TEAs highlighted many of the technical challenges related to ACBM production, but growth medium refinement was identified as one of the most important considerations for nearterm analysis. One aspect of this refinement is the endotoxin reduction/removal for each growth medium component. Endotoxins, also known as lipopolysaccharides (LPS) are a critical component of the outer membrane of Gram-negative bacteria. Endotoxins contain a hydrophilic polysaccharide fraction, which is covalently bonded to a hydrophobic lipid known as lipid A (Magalhães et al., 2007). Gram negative bacteria are ubiquitous to the environment and are commonly found in tap water (Vaz-Moreira et al., 2017). In cell culture the presence of endotoxin can have a wide variety of effects. For example, at an endotoxin concentration as low as 1 ng/ml it reduced pregnancy success rates by 3 to 4-fold during in vitro fertilization of human IVF embryos (Dawson, 1998; Fishel et al., 1988; Snyman & van der Merwe, 1986). Gram negative bacteria shed small amounts of endotoxin into the environment when they proliferate and shed large amounts when they are inactivated (Corning, 2020).

Animal cell culture is traditionally done with growth medium components which have been refined to remove/reduce endotoxin (Corning, 2020). The method of endotoxin reduction or elimination is highly dependent upon the properties of the substance being purified (EMD Millipore, 2012). There are a multitude of methods employed for the separation of endotoxin from growth medium components and these include use of LPS affinity resins, two-phase extractions, ultrafiltration, hydrophobic interaction chromatography, ion exchange chromatography, and membrane adsorbers (Magalhães et al., 2007). In turn, the use of these refinement methods contributes significantly to the economic and environmental costs associated with pharmaceutical products since they are both energy and resource intensive (Wernet et al., 2010).

The paper’s authors seem more concerned about the environmental cost of removing endotoxins from lab-grown meat. I myself am more concerned about the potential harm to human health. I also have no confidence whatsoever in government regulatory regimes to ensure that lab-grown meat will be free of disease-causing endotoxins.

Over the past 10 years, researchers have identified numerous chronic and auto-immune diseases caused by the endotoxins released by gram negative gut bacteria: coronary artery disease, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, Parkinson’s Disease, obesity and type 2 diabetes, and autism, Alzheimer’s schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder and chronic fatigue.

 

 

Steve Bannon and China’s Deep State

By Matthew Ehret “I consider Xi Jinping the most dangerous enemy of open societies in the world. –George Soros, 2021 “China has emerged as the greatest economic and national security threat the United States has ever faced” –Steve Bannon, 2019

China’s Government in Exile

On June 4, 2020, purged billionaire deep state operative Guo Wengui (aka: Miles Guo), now operating from New York City, established a new organization called ‘The New Federal State of China’ with a shiny new flag, constitution and cheesy anthem – devoted entirely to the overthrow of the Chinese government… which will undoubtedly happen any day within Guo’s wildest imagination.

When this project was unveiled, Steve Bannon and Guo stood shoulder to shoulder on the Asian millionaire’s $28 million yacht in the New York harbor with the statue of liberty featured in the background and planes carrying flags announcing the new Federal State of China flying overhead.

Since escaping arrest from China in 2014, Guo soon partnered up with Steve Bannon, financing his War Room broadcast, and co-founding several media platforms and foundations such as GTV, Gnews, the Rule of Law Foundation and Rule of Law Society.

Introducing Miles Guo

Miles Guo represented a typical local oligarch in China accumulating a vast fortune which peaked at over one billion dollars in 2014 when he headed Zenith Enterprises real estate and Beijing Morgan Investments (a JP Morgan tentacle inside China).

While never becoming a member of the Communist Party,  unlike disgraced deep state figure Jack Ma of Alibaba and Davos fame, Guo had made his fortune much like the Russian oligarchs of the liberalizing 1990s — via blackmail, bribery and plunder. In 1980s China, just as we saw across 1990s Russia, a vast predatory looting occurred into the hands of conscience-free pirates beholden to their western controllers in London and Wall Street.

Guo was among the first batch of young sociopaths who played a role in the attempted Soros-fueled color revolution led by Soros-asset Zhao Ziyang (former Premier 1980-1987 and then head of the Chinese Communist Party from 1987-89).

When Zhao was removed from power during his attempted coup d’état at Tiananmen Square in June 1989, leading to Soros’ lifetime ban later that year, Guo was one of the hundreds of Zhao assets arrested, spending nearly two years in jail during the early 1990s [1].

Upon his release, Guo quickly went back to work rebuilding his empire using no shortage of dirty tricks and help from leading figures centered around China’s powerful ministry of state security and billionaire Shanghai Clique of former CPC chairmen Jiang Zemin (1989-2002) and Hu Jintao (2002-2012).

Guo’s luck ran out in 2014 when he found himself facing dozens of charges of bribery, extortion, blackmail, and rape. Guo’s inevitable prosecution was fueled by a much larger crackdown of China’s deep state led by Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption campaign.

Upon Xi Jinping’s victory as General Secretary of the CPC in 2012, Guo’s luck ran out when he found himself facing dozens of charges of bribery, extortion, blackmail and rape. Guo’s inevitable prosecution was fueled by a much larger crackdown of China’s deep state led by an unprecedented anti-corruption campaign.

Xi Jinping Drains the Swamp

Between 2012-2022, over 4.7 million Chinese party officials faced punishment for bribery and corruption charges, while CIA front groups tied to the National Endowment for Democracy were cut off from their western support. US Intelligence operatives including disgraced neo-con John Bolton admitted as much in a Nov. 10, 2021 Bloomberg article which read:

“Xi’s sweeping efforts to change China’s domestic politics and consolidate his control also have taken a toll on American intelligence… The shift from a system of ‘collective’ leadership under former Presidents Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao toward one dominated by Xi means that the CIA has had to go from focusing on the inner circles of seven or even nine top leaders to, effectively, just one.”

Some examples of high officials purged from positions of vast power within China include Ministry of State Security officials Ma Jian (vice minister for Public Security from 2006-2015) and Zhou Youngkang (minister of public security from 2002-2007) who were arrested and sentenced to life in prison in 2015 and 2018 respectively.

According to investigative reporter Pepe Escobar, both men were handlers of Miles Guo and were close allies to Ling Jihua (Chief of Staff to Hu Jintao) who was found guilty of bribery and sentenced to life in prison in 2016. Another associate of this hive was Sun Zhengcai who found himself ousted as a Politburo member and sentenced to life in prison in 2018. On top of this list, former vice minister of police Sun Lijun was arrested in 2022 on corruption charges, Chinese Interpol Chief Meng Hongwei was jailed for 13.5 years in 2019 on bribery charges while former Justice Minister Fu Zhenghua was given a suspended death sentence in 2021.

The list goes on much longer, but you get the point.

Miles Guo Comes to America

While his handlers and associates went to prison, Guo’s usefulness within China dried up and so he joined thousands of other billionaire traitors receiving sanctuary abroad where he was put to work in the USA conducting asymmetrical warfare operations against his homeland.

In January 2021, two Bannon-Guo controlled think tanks named The Rule of Law Society and Rule of Law Foundation financed the report conducted by Hong Kong-based researcher Dr Li Meng Yan painting China as the singular agency which unleashed COVID-19 onto the world. Although this claim was not based on any actual evidence, its conclusions were amplified across think tanks, government agencies, and western press outlets while ignoring the 320+ Pentagon-controlled biolabs scattered across the face of the earth.

Among Guo’s close friends has been none other than Tony Blair (who wrote Guo a letter of recommendation when he applied to purchase his first $60 million condo in New York in 2015) and Connie Morgan, heiress to the JP Morgan dynasty who is also a leading supporter of Guo’s Federalist State of New China.

During a June 4, 2022 event celebrating the second anniversary of the Federalist State of New China (and anniversary of the failed Tiananmen Square color revolution), Guo interviewed Ms. Morgan where the heiress explained that the Morgan clan are American heroes for having bailed out the USA in times of financial crisis in 1903 and 1913 which was re-emphasized by Guo who proudly felt that he had set the record straight once and for all.

[…]

A Word on Steve Bannon 

It is worthwhile to take a moment to review the role played by Guo’s close associate and devout anti-China Cold Warrior Steve Bannon who President Trump rightly booted from his team in August 2017.

Between 2017 to the present, Bannon has worked hard to coral Trump supporters in America and the European right into a new anti-Chinese united front while reviving the neo-con “clash of civilizations” doctrine with a vengeance — except modified for an alt-right audience distrustful of the conventional tactics of mainstream neocons.

One of the main conduits Bannon chose to unleash this assault early on was titled the Committee on Present Danger-China which he founded alongside a group of intelligence operatives, raging neocons and grifters in March 2019.

[…]

Bannon has also found himself working ever more tightly with the anti-Beijing CIA-funded cult Falun Gong which has been banned from China since 1999 and used by the CIA as a propaganda weapon against China claiming anecdotal evidence of Beijing-sponsored organ harvesting and killing of religious minorities.

[…]

Bannon has interfaced closely with the Falun Gong on a variety of projects including promoting the Falun Gong-affiliated Epoch Times which serves as the crown jewel in the Falun Gong’s New Tang Dynasty media empire. Bannon has even produced a Falun Gong-financed film titled Claws of the Red Dragon — putting him into the same boat as his left-handed mirror image George Soros who also supports the Falun Gong through Open Society Foundation’s partner organization Freedom House.

The contradiction arising from this alliance of pro-Trump sociopaths working with anti-Trump sociopaths only makes sense when you look at the anti-human game from the top down rather than the bottom up.

Setting the Stage for a New Crusade

It is here, that we start getting a fuller picture of the nature of the false ‘left vs right’ game being played, as we look at a City of London-based think tank which Bannon leads called the Dignitatis Humanae Institute located within an 800 year old monastery.

[…]

Games within Games: How Not to Get Played

In an August 22, 2016 Daily Beast article, journalist Ronald Radosh described a conversation he had with Bannon two years earlier saying:

“… we had a long talk about his approach to politics. He never called himself a “populist” or an “American nationalist,” as so many think of him today. “I’m a Leninist,” Bannon proudly proclaimed. Shocked, I asked him what he meant. “Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down and destroy all of today’s establishment.”

On October 21, 2021 Bannon poured fuel onto the Liberal-narrative of “MAGA insurrection” on January 6, 2021 by calling for “20,000 shock troops to take over the government”.

[…]

Footnote

[1] When the bloodbath failed to be sparked, with only 200-300 deaths (many of which being PLA soldiers), the plan was aborted and the most radical provocateurs beholden to the Soros operation were carried off to safer grounds in the USA and Canada under an MI6/CIA operation titled “Operation Yellowbird”. With the vast assistance of Hong Kong triads, these inciters were snuck out of China where many received luxurious rewards and scholarships at Ivy league universities in the USA forming what the Washington Post’s Gavin Hewitt described as “the nucleus of a democracy movement in exile”. Much has been written on the truth of Tiananmen Square’s events in 1989, and for any honest person evaluating the evidence presented on the topic (such as here, or here, or here), the case should be considered closed.

[…]

Via https://matthewehret.substack.com/p/steve-bannon-and-chinas-deep-state

Russia Claims Evidence of Avian Flu Pathogens with Up to 40% Human Lethality at US Biolab in Ukraine

Jim Hoft

Back in March 2022, RINO Senator Mitt Romney accused former Democrat Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of spreading ‘treasonous lies’ for simply talking about the US-funded biolabs in Ukraine.

“There are 25+ US-funded biolabs in Ukraine which if breached would release and spread deadly pathogens to US/world.” Gabbard said at the time.

“We must take action now to prevent disaster. US/Russia/Ukraine/NATO/UN/EU must implement a ceasefire now around these labs until they’re secured and pathogens destroyed,” she added.

 

Tulsi Gabbard made her statement based on testimony from the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in Eurasia, Victoria Nuland.

Victoria Nuland admitted during testimony before a US Senate committee the existence of biological research labs in Ukraine.

Less than 24 hours later, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said that reports of biolabs in Ukraine were fake news propagated by Russia.

The Democrat-fake news-media complex then attacked anyone who brought up the biolabs in Ukraine.

US Department of Defense Finally Comes Clean – Admits in Public Document that There Are 46 US Military-Funded Biolabs in Ukraine

Mitt Romney lashed out at Tulsi Gabbard, saying,

“Tulsi Gabbard is parroting false Russian propaganda. Her treasonous lies may well cost lives.”

Then this happened– Russia released alleged captured documents from Ukraine exposing evidence of US Military Biolabs in Ukraine.

Russia made the accusations in front of the United Nations General Assembly.

The Pentagon in June 2022 finally admitted in a public statement that there are 46 US-funded biolabs in Ukraine.

This is after months of lies and denials by Democrats, the Biden regime and their fake news mainstream media!

The Pentagon FINALLY came clean.

Now Russia is accusing the US of experimenting with Avian flu pathogens at a US biolab in Ukraine with a lethality rate up to 40% in humans.

@mod_russia: Documents seized in the veterinary laboratory of the Biosphere Reserve in Askania Nova, Kherson region, confirm the involvement of the Kharkov Institute of Veterinary Medicine in the work of UP-8 & P-444 Projects and preparations for the Flu-Fly-Way project. pic.twitter.com/BoB4yB7Y8N

— Russian Embassy in USA (@RusEmbUSA) May 26, 2023

 

Read in full briefing by @mod_russia on US military-biological activity.

Evidence of the research of dangerous pathogens in Ukraine
Development of biological weapons by the US
Establishment of BSL-4 biolabs abroad by the US

https://t.co/ocZoPmxSB4 pic.twitter.com/kDngcI1uix

— MFA Russia (@mfa_russia) May 26, 2023

Russian officials announced their findings on Friday.

The Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation continues to analyse the military and biological activities of the U.S. and its allies in Ukraine and elsewhere in the world.

We noted earlier that during the special military operation, documentary evidence was obtained confirming that employees of the Biosphere Reserve in Askania Nova, Kherson region, were studying the migration routes of migratory birds and selecting and transferring biological material abroad.

The task force of the Russian Ministry of Defence together with officers of the Federal Security Service and Rosselkhoznadzor have confirmed the collection and certification of avian influenza virus strains with a high potential for epidemic spread and the ability to cross the species barrier, particularly the H5N8 strain, whose lethality in human transmission can reach 40%. Remember that 1% of new coronavirus infections result in death.

Despite efforts by the Reserve’s staff to destroy the biomaterials by cutting off the power to the refrigeration units and destroying the cryopreservoir with liquid nitrogen, specialists from the 48th Central Research Institute of the Russian Ministry of Defence found traces of genetic material of highly pathogenic avian influenza, Newcastle disease virus, and avuloviruses even in the samples that had undergone decomposition.

According to the employees who remained in the Reserve, the Ukrainian side offered them a large cash reward for removing or destroying the research results.

Documents seized in the Reserve’s veterinary laboratory confirm the involvement of the Kharkov Institute of Veterinary Medicine in the work of the American UP-8 and P-444 Projects and preparations for the Flu-Fly-Way project.

Their goal was to evaluate the circumstances in which the transmission of diseases associated with economically significant infections may become uncontrollable, result in economic harm, and constitute a threat to food security.

It is necessary to emphasize that once more that the U.S. Department of Defense, an organisation that has nothing to do with the research of bird migratory routes, commissioned the projects.

[…]

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-claims-they-collected-evidence-avian-flu-pathogens-lethality-rate-up-40-humans-us-biolab-ukraine/5821329

Club of Rome “Limits to Growth” Author Promotes Genocide of 86% of the World’s Population

By Rhoda Wilson

Dennis Meadows, one of the main authors of the Club of Rome’s The Limits to Growth, is an honorary member of the Club of Rome and a member of the World Economic Forum. If you thought his ideology had softened and become less anti-human since the publishing of his book, you’d be wrong. 

Here’s a 2017 video of Meadows musing over his hopes that the coming inevitable genocide of 86% of the world population could be accomplished peacefully under a “benevolent” dictatorship. He said:

“We could [ ] have eight or nine billion, probably, if we have a very strong dictatorship which is smart … and [people have] a low standard of living …  But we want to have freedom and we want to have a high standard of living so we’re going to have a billion people. And we’re now at seven, so we have to get back down.  I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal, you know, so that people share the experience.”

As will become apparent at the end of this article, it is no coincidence that Meadows’ words echo the words in the 1995 Global Biodiversity Assessment first presented at the United Nations climate change conference COP1 which stated:

An ‘agricultural world’ in which most human beings are peasants, should be able to support 5 to 7 billion people … In contrast, a reasonable estimate for an industrialised world society at the present North American material standard of living would be one billion.

Global Biodiversity Assessment, UNEP, 1995, pg. 773

What the advocates of this ideology seem to omit mentioning is that, according to Worldometer, the population of the world is currently over 8 billion which doesn’t stack up with their fear-mongering predictions. There’s a good reason they avoid real-world scenarios because their models are a sleight of hand, they manipulate the data.

While many are now familiar with the manipulation of predictive modelling by Neil Ferguson during the covid-19 crisis, a network of powerful Malthusians have used the same tactics for the better part of the last century to sell and impose their agenda.

Malthusians are the disciples of Thomas Malthus (1766 – 1834).  Malthus promoted the mathematical thesis that population levels will always tend towards geometric growth, while agricultural resources will tend to arithmetic growth resulting in relatively forecastable “crisis points.” Malthus believed that social engineers representing the British Empire must use these “crisis points” to scientifically manage the “human herd.” Malthus believed that nature bestowed upon the ruling class certain tools that would allow them to accomplish this important task – namely war, famine and disease.

Established in 1968, the Club of Rome quickly set up branches across the Western world with members whom all agreed that society’s best form of governance was a scientific dictatorship.

It is a globalist non-governmental organisation (“NGO”) that convenes meetings between heads of state, members of royal families, business leaders, international financiers, academic scholars, laboratory scientists, and administrators of global governance institutions, such as the United Nations (“UN”), the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (“IMF”), and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (“OECD”). Modelled after the “Round Table” structure of the Bilderberg Group, the Royal Institute for International Affairs (“RIIA”), and the Council on Foreign Relations (“CFR”), the Club of Rome facilitates meetings where delegates plan the global economy through public-private stewardship of the world’s natural and human resources in accordance with the Malthusian ecology of sustainable development.

In 1972, the Club of Rome’s The Limits to Growth published the results of computer-simulated forecasts calculated by a team of statisticians recruited from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”).   It was the culmination of a two-year study undertaken by the MIT team under the nominal heading of Jay Forrester and Dennis Meadows.  The Limits to Growth is arguably the most influential book about “sustainability.”   It became the bible and blueprint of the new anti-humanist movement that birthed today’s Green New Deal agenda.

The Club of Rome’s The Limits to Growth is not only Malthusian in principle, but a survey of its bibliography reveals that it is also backed by extensive citations from an array of Malthusian-eugenicists and affiliated institutions that have been dedicated to population control.

A 2012 article celebrating the book’s 40th anniversary stated: “It is worth revisiting Limits [to Growth] today because, more than any other book, it introduced the concept of anthropocentric [human caused] climate change to a mass audience.”  It’s worth revisiting Limits to Growth for other reasons as well.

One reason is that The Limits to Growth was the first of its kind to fuse global temperature with economic variables like population growth, resource loss, and the under-defined category of “pollution.” By utilising linear equations to extrapolate trends into the future, Meadows and his co-authors, one of whom was his wife, had set the stage for two major fallacies:

The fabric of physical space-time shaping the discoverable universe is intrinsically non-linear and thus not expressible by any form of linear equations regardless of the computing power involved. Human creative mentation is most explicitly non-linear as it is tied to non-formalisable states of existence like inspiration, love of truth, dignity, and beauty which no binary system can approximate.  The Club of Rome programmers ignored these facts and assumed the universe was as binary as their software.The data sets themselves could easily be skewed and re-framed according to the controllers of the computer programmers who aspired to shape government policy. We have already seen how this technique was used to drive fallacious results of future scenarios under the hand of Imperial College’s Neil Ferguson and the same technique has been applied in ecological modelling as well.

Another reason to revisit The Limits to Growth is to highlight the influence it had and still has on supranational organisations.  For decades, New Age guru Barbara Marx Hubbard – who called for one-fourth of the human population to be culled to usher in a New World Order – championed transhumanism and Malthusian sustainable development, which is the crux of The Great Reset and the Fourth Industrial Revolution.  Hubbard’s Malthusian overpopulation theories were partly inspired by The Limits to Growth. In fact, in Hubbard’s Book of Co-Creation, there are multiple passages which warn of Malthusian “limits to growth” that could lead to ecological catastrophes. She also met personally with Club of Rome co-founder, Aurelio Peccei who prompted the World Economic Forum to adopt the Malthusian tenets of The Limits to Growth at the World Economic Forum’s Third Annual Meeting in 1973.

Last, but not least, we have Club of Rome member and author of Limits to Growth, who manipulated his predictive modelling, hoping that a dictatorship will slowly and “peacefully” cull 86% of the world’s population.

[…]

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/author-limits-growth-promotes-genocide-86-world-population/5818133

Faster Rollout of Wireless Infrastructure Serves Industry Not U.S. Citizens

 

By  Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D.

Federal and state lawmakers are advancing bills to speed up deployment of wireless infrastructure across the country — a move critics said will worsen the nation’s “digital divide,” not make it better as lawmakers and industry claim.

The U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee last month advanced seven bills that lawmakers said are intended to streamline and speed up the deployment of wireless infrastructure across the country.

But critics claim deployment of wireless infrastructure — rather than fiber optics, which they claim is a safer, superior technology — was likely to exacerbate, not solve, the digital divide and will serve the interests of the wireless industry, not the interests of U.S. citizens.

“Lawmakers are claiming that they are trying to eliminate regulatory barriers, but instead they’re creating bills that favor the wireless industry,” said technology attorney Odette Wilkens.

Wilkens, who also is president and general counsel for Wired Broadband, Inc., a nonprofit that advocates for hard-wired high-speed internet, told The Defender:

“The phrase ‘reducing regulatory barriers’ is a phrase being used as a euphemism to erect barriers against local government and residents, to take away their right to hearings and their right to be heard.

“In fact, regulations are designed to protect local government power and residents’ health, safety and welfare, and to preserve residents’ right to due process.”

Irene Polansky, a citizen who routinely participates in the National Call for Safe Technology hosted by Wired Broadband, Inc. and Virginians for Safe Technology, also criticized the bills.

“This is no time to speed up and increase wireless deployment as if it’s a panacea for connectivity,” Polansky said.

According to Polansky, the federal bills are “more evidence” that elected officials are “captured by telecom” because they facilitate the telecommunication industry’s wireless deployment initiatives — including the rollout of 5G — despite evidence of harm from wireless radiation.

One of the bills passed last month, H.R.3565, would reauthorize the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Spectrum Auction Authority, which allows the agency to sell licenses and/or permits for use of the electromagnetic spectrum and to use that money “for communications and technology initiatives, and for other purposes.”

The agency historically has overseen this competitive bidding process between telecommunication actors, but the agency’s authority to auction spectrum licenses expired on March 9.

Reauthorizing it is “critical to ensuring adequate access to 5G services and raising revenue to pay for new legislation,” according to Jeffrey Westling, director of technology and innovation policy at the American Action Forum.

The other six bills, if passed, would expedite and streamline the process of evaluating telecommunication companies’ proposals for the deployment of wireless broadband, and set up digital systems for tracking the deployment of wireless infrastructure.

According to House Energy and Commerce Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), the bills are necessary for closing the “digital divide” so that all Americans have access to high-speed internet.

Rodgers said:

“In order to deploy broadband, providers need to go through burdensome permitting processes at the federal, state, and local level and the time to receive approval on a permit can range from several months to several years.

“Our legislation would cut the red tape and ensure that this money can reach rural, unserved Americans quickly.”

The seven bills will be scheduled for a vote on the House floor.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee’s press secretary did not respond by deadline to The Defender’s request for more information regarding when the bills would likely be scheduled.

Solving the digital divide — a ‘cruel hoax’

The bills are being promoted as a solution to the digital divide — “but this is a cruel hoax,” according to Sidnee Cox, director of the EMF Safety Network.

Cox told The Defender:

“Wireless broadband, especially the kinds of basic services offered to low-income families, is notoriously slow, unreliable, and unable to meet the demands of present and future digital communications.

“Also, wireless networks are easily hacked, causing security and privacy concerns.”

In contrast, fiber offers “greater capacity, predictable performance, lower maintenance costs, and a longer technological lifetime than wireless technologies,” Cox said, adding that “fiber service is not degraded by line-of-sight issues and is not affected by capacity issues.”

A June 2020 U.S. Government Accountability Office report concluded wireless 5G deployment is likely to exacerbate disparities in accessing telecommunications services.

The National Digital Inclusion Alliance came to the same conclusion, testifying in 2020 before Congress that “5G will not solve the digital divide.”

Additionally, Polansky pointed out that the FCC has yet to comply with a court-ordered mandate to explain how the agency determined its current guidelines adequately protect humans and the environment against the harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation.

RF radiation refers to the range of frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum between 3 kHz and 300 GHz, which typically are used by wireless devices.

Lawmakers are ignoring “clear and convincing evidence of risks” by considering it permissible and necessary to expose people to “inescapable hazardous electromagnetic radiation (EMR) pollution while hundreds of scientists and organizations have called for a revision of the limits for better protection of humans and the environment.”

“Where and when can we expect service to the public’s safety and welfare?” she asked. “The answers are not in these bills.”

Polansky said a “sensible” bill would be for the federal government to mandate that each state have a registry to record, track and monitor reported cases of electromagnetic sensitivity (EMS).

People who are electromagnetically sensitive or EMS-disabled suffer from a sensitivity to wireless radiation that makes living in a wireless world intolerable.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) has repeatedly — first in May 2022, again in June 2022 and most recently in April 2023 — led advocacy groups in submitting comments to the FCC, urging the agency to prevent digital discrimination by accommodating the electromagnetically sensitive in its Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) rules.

The FCC has yet to issue an order adopting DEI rules.

California bills ‘recklessly speed up’ permitting process

Meanwhile, two “pro-telecom” bills recently passed by the California Assembly are being reviewed by the California Senate, Cox said.

Cox called one of the bills — AB1065, which passed May 30 on the Assembly floor — the “greedy telecom bill” because it would allow telecom companies to use taxpayer funds for wireless broadband projects instead of fiberoptic connections.

The other bill — AB965, which passed May 22 on the Assembly floor — would allow telecommunications companies to get permits for wireless broadband projects more easily and more quickly by allowing them to submit up to 50 antenna applications at the same time and by placing strict deadlines on local authorities for approving them.

If local authorities are unable to grant approval in the allotted time, the bill states the applications will all automatically be “deemed approved.”

The bills passed through the Assembly before many citizens were aware of them, Cox said.

“Now we’re on it and there is a big push to contact the senators to say no,” she said.

In a June 1 letter to California Sen. Mike McGuire, the EMF Safety Network said the bills were a “one-two punch.”

The EMF Safety Network told McGuire:

“AB 1065, derails the public process of planning and implementing the expenditure of the federal dollars on broadband by hijacking dollars designated for WIRED broadband.

“AB 965, recklessly speeds up the permitting process for antenna approval so for-profit wireless can carpet areas using the federal dollars.”

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/wireless-5g-rollout-industry-profit/

‘Death Sentence for Millions’: WHO, EU Launch New Global Vaccine Passport Initiative

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

Technology expert Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D., told The Defender that, under the guise of preserving freedom, a digital passport system “means restraints on movement and living for the unvaccinated and forced vaccination to participate in life.”

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Commission — the executive branch of the European Union (EU) — on Monday launched a “landmark digital health partnership” marking the beginning of the WHO Global Digital Health Certification Network (GDHCN) to promote a global interoperable digital vaccine passport.

Beginning this month, the WHO will adopt the EU’s system of digital COVID-19 certification “to establish a global system that will help facilitate global mobility and protect citizens across the world from on-going and future health threats, including pandemics,” according to Monday’s announcements by the WHO and the European Commission.

WHO & @EU_Commission launch landmark digital health initiative to help protect people across the world from on-going & future health threats

This is the first building block of the WHO Global Digital Health Certification Network that will develop a wide range of digital products… pic.twitter.com/IPlxn8wAXv

— World Health Organization (WHO) (@WHO) June 5, 2023

The WHO and European Commission claim the GDHCN initiative, which has been in the works since 2021, “will develop a wide range of digital products to deliver better health for all.”

The organizations said the WHO will not collect individuals’ personal data via these digital passports — stating that such data collection “would continue to be the exclusive domain of governments.”

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus lauded the new agreement:

“Building on the EU’s highly successful digital certification network, WHO aims to offer all WHO Member States access to an open-source digital health tool, which is based on the principles of equity, innovation, transparency and data protection and privacy.

“New digital health products in development aim to help people everywhere receive quality health services quickly and more effectively.”

However, experts who spoke with The Defender said the ramifications of such a system for human liberty and freedom of movement raised concerns.

Independent journalist James Roguski told The Defender the WHO is not waiting for a successful conclusion of these negotiations in order to implement initiatives such as a global digital vaccine passport. He said:

“The announcement by the WHO and the European Commission regarding the launch of their digital health partnership was hardly a surprise. Over a month ago, the WHO quietly published that they were working on ‘operationalizing’ the very things that were being ‘negotiated.’

“This is just one example that clearly shows that the super-secret ‘negotiations’ regarding the International Health Regulations (IHR) are a charade.”

Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D., author of “Google Archipelago: The Digital Gulag and the Simulation of Freedom,” told The Defender that, under the guise of preserving freedom, a digital passport system “means restraints on movement and living for the unvaccinated and forced vaccination to participate in life.”

The announcement of the WHO-European Commission collaboration came just days after the conclusion of the WHO’s annual World Health Assembly (WHA).

While the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments were not finalized at this year’s meeting, high-level WHO officials warned of the risk of a future pandemic and spread of a deadly “Disease X,” and expressed the need to “restrict personal liberties” during a future health emergency.

The EU has been a strong proponent of digital vaccine passports, first launched for its member states in late 2020 — concurrent with the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccines — under the name “Green Pass.” The EU’s experience with the digital passes is noted in Monday’s announcement, which states:

“One of the key elements in the European Union’s work against the COVID-19 pandemic has been digital COVID-19 certificates. To facilitate free movement within its borders, the EU swiftly established interoperable COVID-19 certificates.

“Based on open-source technologies and standards it allowed also for the connection of non-EU countries that issue certificates … becoming the most widely used solution around the world.”

Roguski told The Defender the EU also was among the strongest proponents of vaccine passports during ongoing negotiations for the WHO’s “pandemic treaty” and amendments to the IHR.

“They really want the global digital health certificate,” Roguski told The Defender in March. “Primarily, that’s coming from the European Union.”

‘Pandemic passports a death sentence for millions’

According to Roguski, the EU, during negotiations for the IHR amendments, put forth proposals that seek to “‘normalize’ the implementation of a global digital health certificate.”

The Czech Republic called for Passenger Locator Forms “containing information concerning traveller’s destination,” preferably in digital form, for the purpose of contact tracing.

They also proposed that the WHO’s Health Assembly “may adopt, in cooperation with the International Civil Aviation Organization [ICAO] … and other relevant organisations, the requirements that documents in digital or paper form shall fulfill with regard to interoperability of information technology platforms, technical requirements of health documents, as well as safeguards to reduce the risk of abuse and falsification.”

The WHO lists ICAO as an officially recognized “stakeholder.”

The Czech Republic and the EU proposed documentation not just for vaccination, but “test certificates and recovery certificates” in cases “where a vaccine or prophylaxis has not yet been made available for a disease in respect of which a public health emergency of international concern has been declared.”

Plans for the WHO’s GDHCN have been in the works since at least August 2021, when the WHO released a document titled “Digital documentation of COVID-19 certificates: vaccination status: technical specifications and implementation guidance, 27 August 2021.”

The GDHCN framework made its way onto the agenda of this year’s WHA, which stated:

“The Secretariat has developed SMART (Standards-based, Machine-readable, Adaptive, Requirements-based, and Testable) Guidelines on the digital documentation of COVID-19 certificates, comprising recommendations on the data, digital functionality, ethics, and trust architecture needed to ensure the interoperability of immunization and health records globally.”

The WHO also announced the successful completion of a “technical feasibility study for establishing a federated global trust network, which tested the ability to interoperate the health content and trust networks across existing regional efforts.”

EU officials have frequently praised themselves over the launch of the bloc’s “Green Pass,” touting how individuals’ privacy would be protected on the app. The introduction of the “Green Pass” was accompanied by statements by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen calling for a “discussion” on mandatory vaccinations in the EU.

One of the EU’s stated priorities as part of its 2019-2024 five-year plan is to create a “Digital Identity for all Europeans.” Namely, each EU citizen and resident would have access to a “personal digital wallet,” which would include national ID cards, birth and medical certificates, and drivers’ licenses.

These proposals and initiatives appear to be closely aligned with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and in particular, Target 16.9, which calls for the provision of a digital legal identity for all, including newborns, by 2030.

Tedros said the SDGs are “our north star,” while addressing this year’s WHA.

Rectenwald called “pandemic passports” a “death sentence for millions.” He told The Defender:

“Despite the studies demonstrating that vaccines to curb pandemics have been deadly and useless, the WHO is doubling down on vaccine mandates.

“Pandemic passports equal a death sentence for millions and the abrogation of rights for the non-compliant. The WHO should be stopped before it completes the construction of a global totalitarian system.”

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/who-eu-global-vaccine-passport-initiative/

India’s Epic Literature: the Ramayana

Episode 6 Epic Literature: the Ramayana

A History of India

Michael Fisher (2016)

Film Review

Because Indian had no classical historians similar to those of Greece and Rome, scholars rely on mythological/literary texts to follow the chronology of kings and priests who ruled North India’s emerging kingdoms between 500 BC and 400 AD. Fisher compares the Ramayana, one such text (written been 800 BC and 400 AD), to Homer’s Iliad and Virgil’s Aeneid. Both recount the involvement of two semi-gods (Ulysses, the son of Mercury, and Aeneas. the son of Venus) in the Trojan War.

An epic poem, Ramayana recounts the story of Rama (a human incarnation of the god Rama) and Sita (a human incarnation of Vishnu’s wife Lakshmi), who is abducted by the demon king Ravana. Valmiki,* a former bandit and forest dweller who reformed and became an ascetic, is the purported author of the Ramayan. He composed it in 32-syllable Shloka meter and is revered as India’s first poet.

In the Ramayana, the demon Ravana, who has no power against human beings, nearly enslaves all the gods. To thwart him, the chief god Vishnu incarnates as the four sons of Dasaratha, the ruler of Ayodhya. After the eldest son Rama marries Sita, Dasaratha abdicates and arranges for Rama to be crowned king. Rama’s stepmother thwarts him by substituting her son Bahrata as king and persuading Dasaratha to exile Rama and Sita.

Rama and Sita wander the length of India and in South India, the demon iRavana carries off Sita. To rescue her, Rama recruits the help of numerous bears and monkeys, including the divine monkey Hanuman, who leaps across 1200 kilometers of ocean to Sri Lanka to find her. Building a bridge from south India to Sri Lanka, Rama kills Ravana and forces Sita to pass through sacred fire to prove her purity. After she conceives and gives birth to twins, she and Rama return to their divine forms.

Originally written in Sanskrit, the Ramayana has been translated numerous times over the centuries:

In 870 AD it was translated into Javanese in Indonesia.In the 13th century the poet Kaban translated it into Tamil (a south Dravidian language presently spoken by 75 million).In the 16th century the Mughal empire Akhbar supervised its translation to Persian.Tulsigas translated it into Hindi in the 16th century.In 2016, Robert and Sally Goldman completed a 40-year project translating it into English.

Over time the teachings of the Ramayana spread to the Southeast Asian countries of Burma, Thailand, Cambodia and Indonesia.

* Under India’s traditional caste system, Valmiki would have been classified as Untouchable. However after Untouchability was outlawed following Indian independence (1948), Valmiki’s descendants proudly declared themselves. In South India’s Tamil speaking region, E V Ramasamy (1879-1973) founded and led the Dravidian Organization (aka the DK Movement) campaigning against the Ramayana as a history of the unjust invasion of South India by Indo-Europeans. His movement particularly objected to the representation of the inhabitants of South India as monkeys and bears and those of Sri Lanka as demons. They organized protests where Rama and Sita idols were paraded without clothes and beaten with shoes.

Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.

https://pukeariki.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/video/366254/366183

Robert F Kennedy Jr Banned by Major Social Media Sites and Campaign Pages Blocked

 

Posted BY: | NwoReport

Twitter owner Elon Musk invited Democrat presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for a discussion on his Twitter Spaces after Kennedy said his campaign was suspended by Meta-owned Instagram.

“Interesting… when we use our TeamKennedy email address to set up @instagram accounts we get an automatic 180-day ban. Can anyone guess why that’s happening?” he wrote on Twitter.

An accompanying image shows that Instagram said it “suspended” his “Team Kennedy” account and that there “are 180 days remaining to disagree” with the company’s decision.

In response to his post, Musk wrote: “Would you like to do a Spaces discussion with me next week?” Kennedy agreed, saying he would do it Monday at 2 p.m. ET.

Hours later, Kennedy wrote that Instagram “still hasn’t reinstated my account, which was banned years ago with more than 900k followers.” He argued that “to silence a major political candidate is profoundly undemocratic.”

“Social media is the modern equivalent of the town square,” the candidate, who is the nephew of former President John F. Kennedy, wrote. “How can democracy function if only some candidates have access to it?”

[…]

Via https://nworeport.me/robert-f-kennedy-jr-was-banned-by-major-social-media-sites-and-campaign-pages-blocked/