"First They Came for the Anti-Vaxxers" by Bretigne Schaffer
Submit Your Questions to Real Time With Bill Maher Tonight Featuring Robert F. Kennedy Jr

State of Plague, Part 4:Disease-Mongering as Militarized Trojan Horse for Globalization and Surveillance

4-A viral totem Adriana GamondesIt was very simple, and at the end of that moving appeal to every altruistic sentiment it blazed at you, luminous and terrifying, like a flash of lightning in a serene sky: `Exterminate all the brutes!' 

~ Joseph Conrad, The Heart of Darkness

Read Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.

By Adriana Gamondes

Totem Theory—The Virus of Nationalism

If the cult of state science or “scientism” is the ultimate earmark of 20th century totalitarianism, it’s a cult founded in analogies that grew “fungus-like” from the discovery of infectious pathogens. It’s a form of tribalism that represents itself with a totem of the viral theory of politics and the orgy of disease metaphors arising from the militarization of science, including the disastrous view of human beings, other cultures and ideas as forms of “contagion” that must be “cured.”  

On the literal end of the viral theory, Pacific Standard, a magazine “created for opinion leaders, policymakers, and concerned citizens who are interested in developing solutions to some of the world’s toughest social and environmental problems,” published an article titled The Germ Theory of Democracy, Dictatorship and All Your Most Cherished Beliefs. The article concludes that managing disease is the key to spreading democracy throughout the world: 

According to the “pathogen stress theory of values,” the evolutionary case that  [Randy] Thornhill and his colleagues have put forward, our behavioral immune systems—our group responses to local disease threats—play a decisive role in shaping our various political systems, religions, and shared moral views.

If they are right, Thornhill and his colleagues may be on their way to unlocking some of the most stubborn mysteries of human behavior. Their theory may help explain why authoritarian governments tend to persist in certain latitudes while democracies rise in others; why some cultures are xenophobic and others are relatively open to strangers; why certain peoples value equality and individuality while others prize hierarchical structures and strict adherence to tradition. What’s more, their work may offer a clear insight into how societies change. According to Thornhill’s findings, striking at the root of infectious disease threats is by far the most effective form of social engineering available to any would-be reformer…

Thornhill points out that this rise [in modern democratic states] coincided with an era in which major health interventions, including vaccine programs, the chlorination of drinking water, and efforts to reduce food-borne disease, became commonplace in many parts of the world. Thornhill is not shy about the implications. If promoting democracy and other liberal values is on your agenda, he says, health care and disease abatement should be your main concern.

No one would disagree that managing disease could potentially make societies more stable. But even aside from  the issue that, for better or worse, there are various ways of doing this, the argument that democracy hinges on disease management doesn’t pan out historically.  For instance, Murdoch-held Vox magazine featured an article titled Even ISIS Supports Kids Getting Vaccinated that was dubbed “the weirdest appeal to authority ever.” And in Nazi Germany, the head of the SS  once threatened to shoot any German official who criticized vaccination.  Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu was so enthusiastic about Western medicine that he lifted a blockade solely for vaccines and ordered children in orphanages to be inoculated for Hepatitis B which had been spread by repeat blood transfusions. Unfortunately the needles used for both transfusions and inoculations were shared and the children were vaccinated several times a year for the same disease, spreading both AIDS and arguably autism.   

Randy Thornhill, the evolutionary psychologist who coined the germ theory of democracy, also authored a related theory arguing that societal violence ties directly to the prevalence of disease, therefore implying that social engineering through public health interventions may pave the way to a less violent future for mankind.

If the name rings a bell, Thornhill came to fame more than a decade ago after co-authoring The Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases for Sexual Coercion, in which authors recommend that women stop dressing provocatively in order to avoid men’s inherant evolutionary impulses to commit sexual assault. Apparently Thornhill’s contagion theory of violence encompasses every form of aggression except rape, since he also once theorized that the individuals who are the most disease-resistant tend to be the most sexually attractive, implying that rates of rape would only increase in societies which more successfully control communicable disease. In Thornhill’s brave new disease-resistant utopia, all women might have to take to the veil to defend themselves against the one violent impulse that survives the public health revolution.

Thornhill’s pathogen theory of violence falls apart further when considering how wars of aggression can be waged by societies with relatively low communicable disease rates, not to mention how these wars spread both disease and further violence.  An obvious illustration of this is the US invasions of Iraq—a case of a developed country with a lower domestic communicable disease rate attacking a developing country with far higher disease mortality. In the Desert Shield/Desert Storm period,  an estimated 1.7 million deaths, half among children from diseases including cholera and diarrheal illness, were largely caused by embargoed water purification chemicals (a deliberate strategy according to leaked documents).  Then the more recent war in Iraq and the war on terror have led to an estimated 1.3 million deaths and have conceivably triggered blowback in the form of ISIS, a militant movement that multiple political analysts have called the “Frankenstein” of Western expansionism.

It’s also questionable whether an advanced public health system has actually created a healthier society considering the predicted reversal of American longevity and the fact that infant mortality in the US is the worst in the developed world.  Maybe Thornhill is suggesting that western war profiteers are immune compromised.

This leads back to the main problem with Thornhill’s theory that public health measures to control disease promote democracy. Even if the theory had some basis in fact, schemes based on it would still fail the reality test.  If the West is the “doctor” and  the goal to spread the healthy state of democracy, it’s been mostly quackery and malpractice. As the Monaco letter illustrates,  a state’s officially stated aims of spreading democracy and individualism frequently don’t conform with actual agendas or end results involved with supposedly democratizing interventions. It presupposes that the US is even a democracy at this point, when researchers from Princeton recently concluded that we are now an oligopoly and pointed out the obvious problem this poses for “spreading democracy”:

“Making the world safe for democracy” was President Woodrow Wilson’s rationale for World War I, and it has been used to justify American military intervention ever since. Can we justify sending troops into other countries to spread a political system we cannot maintain at home?

The failed reality test of social engineering via disease management is a place where more literal and starry-eyed germ theories in social science like Randy Thornhill’s interplay with more proverbial viral theory of political ideology and panoticism, each serving as a potential Trojan horse for the other.

Foucault  viewed the effect of panopticism somewhat neutrally and, for better or worse, as an inevitable component of civilized culture.  Foucault’s moral relativism on the issue might explain how the social theorist eventually became publicly sympathetic to neoliberalism that, ironically,  happens to find its best points of entry in what are definably panoptic disaster-and-rescue scenarios ( as Naomi Klein documents, Iraq War leading to Shell and BP’s claim of Iraq’s oil reserves, post-Katrina sale of public housing, hospitals and schools to private investors, etc.).  

But to political analyst and linguist Noam Chomsky, who debated Foucault on human nature and the nature of power in 1971,  there’s nothing morally ambiguous about the viral concept of political ideology and how it relates to the authoritarian view of threats to state security that were purposefully characterized by Henry Kissinger as a “contagion” in order to justify wars of aggression.

 In Kissinger’s analysis, a politically contagious threat is the development of independent nationalism in other countries that somehow presents either ideological or economic competition—or anything else that stands in the way of, as Dr. Chomsky also put it,  “securing state power from the domestic population and securing concentrated private power”:

To borrow Henry Kissinger’s terminology, independent nationalism is a “virus” that might “spread contagion.” Kissinger was referring to Salvador Allende’s Chile.  The virus was the idea that there might be a parliamentary path towards some kind of socialist democracy.  The way to deal with such a threat is to destroy the virus and to inoculate those who might be infected, typically by imposing murderous national security states.  That was achieved in the case of Chile, but it is important to recognize that the thinking holds worldwide.

It was, for example, the reasoning behind the decision to oppose Vietnamese nationalism in the early 1950s and support France’s effort to reconquer its former colony.  It was feared that independent Vietnamese nationalism might be a virus that would spread contagion to the surrounding regions, including resource-rich Indonesia.  That might even have led Japan — called the “superdomino” by Asia scholar John Dower — to become the industrial and commercial center of an independent new order of the kind imperial Japan had so recently fought to establish.  That, in turn, would have meant that the U.S. had lost the Pacific war, not an option to be considered in 1950.  The remedy was clear — and largely achieved.  Vietnam was virtually destroyed and ringed by military dictatorships that kept the “virus” from spreading contagion.

Up until Edward Snowden’s divulgences in 2013 that the NSA has been domestically engaged in mass data collection, most Americans had at least an illusion of relative freedom compared to the many countries that have been “inoculated” against democratically elected leadership in the transnational corporate push for globalization and US expansionism for resources.  But as further Snowden leaks illustrate, terrorist watchlisting has expanded to include assorted domestic and foreign nonviolent activists and political groups, aiming the panoptic lens squarely at citizens and civil rights activists. Americans and their own “nationalist” conceptions of constitutionally protected rights and freedoms are treated as enemies and monitored as potential vectors of ideological infection.  

Again, we’ve become the disease and, for that analogy, the NSA is the Center for Ideological Disease Control.  As Wikileaks’ Julian Assange describes it, the surveillance agency is a “state within a state” comprised of 6 million individuals, a shocking proportion of whom—reportedly 1.4 million, a third of them contractors for private corporations with overlapping ties to some of the world’s worst industrial offenders—with Snowden-level security clearance.

The “security state” has a population larger than Denmark. It is its own country and one hostile to the privacy of average citizen and plausibly hostile to consumer activists. And the snooping and surveillance once presumably reserved for foreign foes appears to be one of the US’s current remedies  to guard against domestic ideological shifts—i.e., activism— that threaten institutional and corporate power. In fact, another leak by Snowden showed that, nine times out of ten, ordinary people—about half American citizens— have been the subject of mass email collection rather than actual foreign targets.  

The advantage of a conceptional and not literal contagion is obviously that  the crisis justifying incursions on rights and privacy never ends. But a cover of managing actual contagion would still appear to be the most effective means to instill a state of plague.  As the interrupted vaccine series in Neptune Spear illustrated, the fact that children’s health was not apparently the central point of certain philanthropic campaigns has merely heightened suspicion of western intent around the world because the suspicion was already long-standing.

  4-B Apocalypse Now Still

Diamond Bullet

In Joseph Conrad’s The Heart of Darkness,  “enlightened” and “progressive” European prescriptions on the “jolly march to progress” for curing so-called savagery in the Congo are a panoptic cover for “rapacious greed, exploitation and barbarity,” as journalist Chris Hedges summarized.  In the Western “scramble for Africa” which took place in the late 19th and early 20th century, the cure was far worse than the supposed ailment, leading to the first genocide of the 20th century, one that would be followed by many others.

Panoticism is even more literally applied in Apocalypse Now, Francis Ford Coppola’s  modern adaptation of Conrad. Setting Conrad’s story in Vietnam, the film  illustrates the US mission to “inoculate” the region against communism and independent nationalism, and Captain Willard’s individual mission to quarantine Colonel Kurtz’s contagious psychopathic excesses. The panoptic disease-as-Trojan-horse-for-occupation model  is  illustrated blatantly in the film when  Colonel Kurtz’s pinpoints the particular moment he went mad— the time he served in Special Forces and was providing vaccinations to children in a village camp in Vietnam.

Kurtz: Horror has a face... and you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not, then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies! I remember when I was with Special Forces... seems a thousand centuries ago. We went into a camp to inoculate some children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went back there, and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember... I... I... I cried, I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out; I didn't know what I wanted to do! And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it... I never want to forget. And then I realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought, my God... the genius of that! The genius! The will to do that! Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger than we, because they could stand that these were not monsters, these were men... trained cadres. These men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love... but they had the strength... the strength... to do that. If I had ten divisions of those men, our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral... and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling... without passion... without judgment... without judgment! Because it's judgment that defeats us.

Because of the nature of US Army Special Forces—which have been engaged for unconventional warfare and psychological operations since 1952, often to covertly train and lead guerillas in occupied countries—Kurtz’s speech in Coppola’s retelling implies the vaccine campaign was part of a CIA joint mission.

 The Kurtz character was apparently based on several real life military figures and the film’s vaccination vignette was apparently borrowed directly from the experience of a gungho Vietnam veteran named Fred Rexer. The time frame of Kurtz’s enlistment with Special Forces in the film—1964— would explain use of an injectable Salk polio vaccine and Kurtz’s initial contact with the Montagnard tribe.

The real life historical model under which Kurtz’s vaccination campaign took place would have been something along the lines of the expansion of the “Buon Enao Experiment” that began in Vietnam and extended into Cambodia.

The Buon Enao operation involved teams led by medical personnel from Special Forces cultivating various sects of the Montagnards—the indigenous warriors depicted in Kurtz’s Cambodian camp in the film— to get them to declare for the South Vietnamese government and cooperate with US forces. In Vietnam, this was done in part through a program to train village medics to work in projects intended to replace South Vietnamese government healthcare and assistance programs that had been discontinued due to conflicts with the Viet Cong. Villages were thereby turned into “camps” for the Civilian Irregular Defense Groups (CIDG) or Montagnard guerrilla troops.  

In short, the cover for Kurtz’s mission in the film— the Trojan horse of medical philanthropy in exchange for political conversion—is blown and unleashes the merciless wrath of the enemy—the amputation of children’s inoculated arms.  Medicine was the key entry point for control, to turn a country against itself,  and the violent act was a rejection of a ploy.  

At some point, the real life Buon Enao experiment began to go badly even according to official military history. In the less “official” but still documented history of the war recounted by political analysts like Chomsky, disaster resulted from a schizophrenic American pretense of preparations for withdrawal coupled with secret escalation of the war, including the US enactment of a coup against the Diem regime after the regime threatened to make a truce with North Vietnam—an unwelcome outcome since it would have ended the war without a US victory over the “contagion” of states in the region escaping Western influence. 

The narrators of both the Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now (“Willard” in the film or “Marlow” in the novel) could be said to represent  blind indoctrination struggling to retain civilized illusion.  This is exposed when Willard/Marlow initially can’t believe that  a man of such learned credentials as Kurtz could become so “savage.” 

But Conrad’s overall thrust is that the very idea that level of savagery of any individual or group has anything to do with level of education is an artifact of the western cult of progress which mistakes status,  social training and its own advanced technological juju for morality. As Elie Wiesel wrote in the foreword to Annas’ and Grodin’s The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code:

It is not only medicine and human experimentation which is called into question: The areas of scholarship, learning, education and culture must also be reexamined in the light of what happened. That doctors participated in the planning, execution and justification of the concentration camp massacres is bad enough, but it went beyond medicine. Like a cancer of immorality, it spread into every area of spiritual, cultural, intellectual endeavor. Thus, the meaning of what happened transcended its own immediate limits…I couldn’t understand these men who had, after all, studied for 8,10,12 or 14 years in German universities, which then were the best on the Continent, if not in the world. Why did their education not shield them from evil? This question haunted me.

Conrad seems to argue that, rather than being implanted from outside, any developing savagery in the well-bred  metastacizes from already established flaws in thinking and character that are then nurtured to psychopathic extremes in the darkness of self deception.

The self deception in Kurtz’s case—the same that’s exposed in Willard’s/Marlow’s—is that they have come to help.

In the end, both Marlow and Willard wearily recognize that Kurtz’s death was necessary to remove a threat against western mythology, not because Kurz was in any way a genuine anomaly to the West’s “jolly pioneers of progress.” What drives Kurtz mad in both versions of the story is a shocking glimpse in the mirror.

Kurtz’s heart is initially broken because he enters the jungle filled with noble ideals as the “emissary of pity, and science, and progress.” He had begun to believe in the civilizing cure of western magic—the Trojan horse  he had brought to confound the intended targets. When the intent is seen through and the offering rejected in the most blunt way,  rather than rethinking the cause and shedding his paternalist delusions, he snaps and simply adjusts his delusions to the failure of the cover, pledges greater loyalty to the cause and fully transforms into the genocidal Second Coming of the technological Apocalypse. In the final analysis, Kurtz has not “gone native” but is simply struck with the diabolical “diamond bullet” of a scheme to more quickly advance Western ends: to engage the targets in their own extermination. He concedes that this had always been the point. He simply dispenses with the hypocrisy.

The declassification of the CIA’s Phoenix Assassination program which was officially launched in 1968 and amassed a “kill list” of tens of thousands of civilians suspected of supporting the North Vietnamese regime lends credence to the entry in Kurtz’s taped diary in Apocalypse Now:

What do you call it, when the assassins accuse the assassin? They lie. They lie and we have to be merciful, for those who lie. Those nabobs. I hate them. I really hate them."

A “nabob” is a mogul or a Westerner who enriches themselves through foreign expedition. Willard, the film’s protagonist, also begins to contract the same cynicism towards his commanders’ hypocrisy:

It was a way we had over here of living with ourselves. We'd cut them in half with a machine gun and give them a Band-Aid. It was a lie. And the more I saw of them, the more I hated liars. Those boys were never gonna look at me the same way again, but I felt like I knew one or two things about Kurtz that weren't in the dossier.

What is not in the fictional dossier is that Kurtz is a perfectly representative  emissary of civilization, albeit one stripped of humanitarian cover.

Part 5 looks into some of the combined stakes of the Gates Foundation’s emissaries of progress, science and pity and whether they’ve really come to help.

Adriana Gamondes is a Contributing Editor to Age of Autism and one of the blog’s Facebook administrators.

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Linda1


"...including the disastrous view of human beings, other cultures and ideas as forms of “contagion” that must be “cured.”

Adriana,
Your statement reminded me of Martin Blaser's book _Missing Microbe_, in which he describes how precious the microbes of the last remaining indigenous peoples are, those who have not had contact with western medicine and microbe altering and destroying drugs. Then in the same breath, he describes how important it is to vaccinate them (which is what they did to a group that they found and studied).

This blindness is a special brand of insanity. Myth of human progress indeed.

Nora

I am really enjoying this series. It is right up there with Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine." The overlapping of so called western medicine including vaccines with the military, what a perfect front. We have watched as the CIA targeted other nations and their governments with these vaccination programs. Each military invasion since WW II has just strengthened the bond between the two. This series of articles has provided a synoptic history not easily seen as a casual observer. The
diabolical efforts learned by the CIA are now coming home to roost. Our more sinister parts of government/medicine turned on us and now use the strategies they crippled other countries with to cripple us.
I await part 5

Adriana

Greggarious-- There's a great poem by former Soviet dissident poet Yevgeni Yevtushenko called "Snow in Tokyo" on the chaos of activism. I think the basic gist is that, though it may be a train wreck of egos and strange agendas, there's something beautiful about the struggle and it's important to keep on track all the same, do your thing. Also very interesting about the "crunchy violence" at the conference you attended. If you dig around, bet you'd find some "doctrine of salvation" in there-- the concept that human beings "evolve morally." Hedges warns about it in the Myth of Human Progress. As hopeful as that concept sounds, it never bodes well apparently, no matter who's proposing it.

Adriana

Denise-- thank you for the kind words. I don't think anyone writing for this cause will be in the running for industry-sponsored awards or Dan Olmsted,Sharyl Attkisson, David Kirby and others like Lawrence Solomon would have gotten a few a long time ago. But one upside of this activism boat is that there's more freedom to let chips fly on the whole system. Clearer view from the bottom of the activism heap.

Benedetta, I think I like your summary better than my own. The reference to the Second Coming is really about science playing Jesus, "scientism" as a doctrine of salvation and a magical cult. As Hedges wrote, the one area where Darwin and the bible agree is that human nature does not improve in a moral sense, we can't escape our nature. But we can try to avoid organizational patterns that optimize corrupt impulses and minimize decency.

Denise Anderstrom Douglass

Thank you, Adriana, for doing this series. It is eye opening, and I think it should win a Pulitzer

Brad Call

I have a friend who spent some years in China. He tells me that the average man on the street will readily admit that China will take over and possess America one day. We are talking about an officially atheist, communist dictatorship. 83% of our vaccines are made in China. Think about the national security implications of allowing a nation, hostile to our interests, preparing compounds to be injected into the bodies of their enemies. It does not take much imagination to consider the possibility of these sworn enemies delivering a gift to us of a modern-day Trojan Horse. They could design these vaccines to begin to show symptoms a few months after administration that would severely weaken or disable us all. The delay in onset of debility would allow time for most of us to receive our dose before anyone is alerted to the danger. To make this plan work, it would be very helpful to have vaccines made MANDATORY. Mandatory?! This sounds like current events. Our government agencies, tasked with verifying the safety of vaccines, such as the flu shot, do not test them! Sorry, boys, my family and I will NOT drink their Cool-Aid. To allow mass vaccination of our entire population with Chinese poison and not see it as a risk is treasonous. How can we allow such a glaringly obvious breach of national security?
To see how GAVI, in association with Bill Gates, sterilizes women in Africa via their stealth vaccine programs, please watch the lecture by Dr. David Ayoub. Their vaccines are designed in such a way that makes it nearly impossible to detect any problem with the vaccine even by laboratory analysis. The women know, however, by observing their sisters' inability to conceive ever again after the vaccinators have been on the prowl in their region.
His lecture is very good. The last half speaks of the sterilization scam. He goes into detail about how this vaccine achieves its "side-effect" which is actually the intended result of sterilization. It reminds me of the bastards at CDC with their Tuskeegee experiment on unsuspecting black men with syphilis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VgZszilk7A

Benedetta

Geesh, I did not write that much! I don't know how all that came up . It is a double thing though and repeats. Sorry .

Benedetta

Are you writing this series to help us understand that it is not some think tank group of people at the top that have decided to solve the over population problem and the best way to do that is through vaccinations?

Are you trying to show us it is worse than even that? That it is human nature and unless Jesus comes back it is going to be really Hell here on Earth?

Okay let me see if I am getting it?
So special ops was giving polio shots to Vietnam back woods kids in a hope of winning over hearts and minds - as well as collecting intelligence. The other side saw through it and was willing to cut off the inoculated arms of small children.

So the guy in special ops is appalled, but at the same time admires the ones that did this because they were willing to do what it takes.

So, which side is the guys like Tom Insel and Colleen Boyle come up on? The ones willing to do what ever it takes to win the war on disease, or the special ops guy that is just doing a job of winning hearts and minds using humanitarian approach to do it? I bet I am missing something.

Conrad "The Heart of Darkness" I have read it - and yes, I did feel I missed a lot there too.

The super white man in the heart of the African continent took up with a tribe, became a leader, married, and yet he worked for some people willing to come and make them all slaves. In the end; where did his loyalties lay?

Well what was wrong with these African tribal people willing to make him a leader? He was an outsider for goodness sakes. Perhaps he was too armed?

Not sure I understand that but I do understand this:

President Clinton and Hillary Clinton was in the news today. Seems like they came in after the Haitian Earthquake with "humanitarian" thoughts on their minds - only it looks like it was more of how much money they could make out of a chaos, tragic situation. They were not the only ones either - lots of Billionaires came to do the same thing. What is wrong with these people to flock to that island waiting for the generous donations of good people to come pouring it- and them catching it all in their money nets? How come people like the Clintons, Rockfellers, Gates, - long list just cant' get enough money or power? Sorry if some one likes the Clintons - Bill was probably a good president, but there is a reason we have an 8 year limit since power corrupts all. .

Those are the big guys - what about those six million??? collecting data on the American people? Some one or a group somewhere must be directing them somewhere.

And that leads me a show I watched on TV just a couple of nights ago. Yes, to my surprise they had a show on called the Mexican Drug Wars (Fast and Furious) There was actual a news media who looks like they did their research? Well! Thank God!

They interviewed the whistle blower - he said he monitored the guns and the guys that bought them and was ready to arrest them when they were told not to. This went on for two whole years, or more! He said that the reason you don't arrest is in hopes of getting a bigger guy. HE said though that after a while they kept coming up with the FBI - as the next level. It turns out that the FBI was helping one Cartel over all the other cartels for information on the other cartels.
They were making big arrest, that ended up in the news, and big pats on the back for doing a good job In return FBI was giving this one Cartel protection, all the money they needed to buy guns, even helping them smuggle their drugs in.

The whistle blower said that if it was not for the federal government - there would be no cartels - no big money for weapons in the first place. Nothing like the a crime wave caused by our tax dollars at work????.

The supplier of the weapons turned out to be a good citizen too. He was told they were doing a sting, and so he sold the guns to these drug cartel bad guys. He had no idea that they were buying the guns, and keeping them and using them on people. After it all came to light he is angry and very bitter about it. He said he loves his country and would die for it; but he would not even cross the street for his government.

How do you distinguish the two?
What happens if there really is a bunch of religious nuts coming for our heads, or some nationalist loving Hitler?

Do we have the government we deserve? Did I do something wrong? Is my thinking messed up about some things? Is my neighbors and friends all as a collective messed up?

I know one thing - Politics should never bore you. Mark was right - forget trying to prove vaccine injuries are destroying the nation through science - time to take it up politically. Are you writing this series to help us understand that it is not some think tank group of people at the top that have decided to solve the over population problem and the best way to do that is through vaccinations?

Are you trying to show us it is worse than even that? That it is human nature and unless Jesus comes back it is going to be really Hell here on Earth?

Okay let me see if I am getting it?
So special ops was giving polio shots to Vietnam back woods kids in a hope of winning over hearts and minds - as well as collecting intelligence. The other side saw through it and was willing to cut off the inoculated arms of small children.

So the guy in special ops is appalled, but at the same time admires the ones that did this because they were willing to do what it takes.

So, which side is the guys like Tom Insel and Colleen Boyle come up on? The ones willing to do what ever it takes to win the war on disease, or the special ops guy that is just doing a job of winning hearts and minds using humanitarian approach to do it? I bet I am missing something.

Conrad "The Heart of Darkness" I have read it - and yes, I did feel I missed a lot there too.

The super white man in the heart of the African continent took up with a tribe, became a leader, married, and yet he worked for some people willing to come and make them all slaves. In the end; where did his loyalties lay?

Well what was wrong with these African tribal people willing to make him a leader? He was an outsider for goodness sakes. Perhaps he was too armed?

Not sure I understand that but I do understand this:

President Clinton and Hillary Clinton was in the news today. Seems like they came in after the Haitian Earthquake with "humanitarian" thoughts on their minds - only it looks like it was more of how much money they could make out of a chaos, tragic situation. They were not the only ones either - lots of Billionaires came to do the same thing. What is wrong with these people to flock to that island waiting for the generous donations of good people to come pouring it- and them catching it all in their money nets? How come people like the Clintons, Rockfellers, Gates, - long list just cant' get enough money or power? Sorry if some one likes the Clintons - Bill was probably a good president, but there is a reason we have an 8 year limit since power corrupts all. .

Those are the big guys - what about those six million??? collecting data on the American people? Some one or a group somewhere must be directing them somewhere.

And that leads me a show I watched on TV just a couple of nights ago. Yes, to my surprise they had a show on called the Mexican Drug Wars (Fast and Furious) There was actual a news media who looks like they did their research? Well! Thank God!

They interviewed the whistle blower - he said he monitored the guns and the guys that bought them and was ready to arrest them when they were told not to. This went on for two whole years, or more! He said that the reason you don't arrest is in hopes of getting a bigger guy. HE said though that after a while they kept coming up with the FBI - as the next level. It turns out that the FBI was helping one Cartel over all the other cartels for information on the other cartels.
They were making big arrest, that ended up in the news, and big pats on the back for doing a good job In return FBI was giving this one Cartel protection, all the money they needed to buy guns, even helping them smuggle their drugs in.

The whistle blower said that if it was not for the federal government - there would be no cartels - no big money for weapons in the first place. Nothing like the a crime wave caused by our tax dollars at work????.

The supplier of the weapons turned out to be a good citizen too. He was told they were doing a sting, and so he sold the guns to these drug cartel bad guys. He had no idea that they were buying the guns, and keeping them and using them on people. After it all came to light he is angry and very bitter about it. He said he loves his country and would die for it; but he would not even cross the street for his government.

How do you distinguish the two?
What happens if there really is a bunch of religious nuts coming for our heads, or some nationalist loving Hitler?

Do we have the government we deserve? Did I do something wrong? Is my thinking messed up about some things? Is my neighbors and friends all as a collective messed up? Perhaps this is my fault - for not being all that interested in politics. But in my defense I was young and now I am old and it took a life time to figure out the tricks and tactics people in power do. And still I am amazed at their - what would you call it -- their un ashamed - yes - no shame behavior.

greggarious

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the author has approved them? This sounds like a kind of immune system to reject any contaminating comments. Haha, just kidding.
This is a fascinating study and informs much of our lives. Even among 'activists' we have a kind of self-limiting homogenizing effect, where even mild diversity is seen as a kind of contagion and disease, and killer cells forbid any departure from some kind of pre-established though never articulated norm. I was at the Earth at Risk conference, which was heavily influenced toward a form of anti-masculine feminism, violence in response to state and corporate repression was cheered, and indigenous and quasi-indigenous beliefs and values were assumed paramount. Any attempt to depart from these ideals and philosophies would surely have been met with severe disapproval. Diversity is the disease, and social disapproval is the immune response.

Jeannette Bishop

Thanks, Adriana, for writing this series.

Adriana

Thank you so much, Donna K. One of the challenges of trying to unravel the mess of spin and agendas involved in public health corruption is that it gets into dry or ugly territory-- a bit like scooping up roadkill and trying to taxidermy it. But if we try to understand (the roadkill), I figure we might be able to do something about it.

Stephen Becker

WOW! Foucault takes on the medical mythology.

Donna K

I suspected I'd be missing out on something extraordinary if I didn't force myself to make the time to follow your latest contribution. I was right, am captivated and looking forward to Part 5.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)