Part 5 (series contents). Post Edition 2 (July 3, 2016), Updated: February 25, 2018 (Edition 2.A)
Readers who want to add their knowledge are welcome to do so via email or comments. Messages may be edited for profanity and legal concerns.
As mentioned already (http://canadianliberty.com/?p=23214), there are passages in Brave New World in which Mustapha Mond explains the dictatorship’s control over science. In the same post, I presented testimony in mainstream media to the total failure of “science” in the real world, in terms of peer review and the unreliability of scientific papers. I also discussed some examples of how the dogma of evolution has been promoted using fraud (with the purpose being social engineering: how we view the world affects what we accept as inevitable). Another example is Haeckel’s embryos (see http://newbooksnetwork.com/nick-hopwood-haeckels-embryos-images-evolution-and-fraud-chicago-university-of-chicago-press-2015/ and http://canadianliberty.com/?p=23086).
Fortunately, we are not at the point of full censorship, although we see clear signs of establishment efforts to censor the media with the Leveson Inquiry in the UK (http://canadianliberty.com/?p=11039), and a similar development to control media in Australia (http://canadianliberty.com/?p=13690). Also, we know about various copyright-based efforts to censor the Internet, including for example the TPP trade agreement (http://canadianliberty.com/?p=22733). And there is the 2016 effort to suppress a documentary about vaccines: https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/why-vaxxed-was-shot-down-at-tribeca-up-close-and-personal/).
I want to illustrate how there are already mechanisms of control over the direction of scientific research by government agencies and large corporate foundations. To me, whether funding is public or private is not the issue. We are not living in a true free market system, so we don’t need to carry preconceived notions of private funding being superior to public funding or vice versa. From what I can tell, the system we live under, including government, was designed by private entities for monopolization of resources. I just want to consider the degree of control, centralization and lack of independence when it comes to research. Also we can see a pattern with some examples of the type of research being funded. A large part of it really does seem to be intended for a world in which there are major modifications made to human beings and society for the purpose of greater control.
By way of illustration, let’s single out the University of Toronto in Canada.
Rockefeller Foundation Funding (1919)
Here is just one early example of Rockefeller Foundation funding in alliance with funding from the Canadian establishment: http://www.mqup.ca/rockefeller-foundation-funding-and-medical-education-in-toronto–montreal–and-halifax-products-9780773528970.php
This article at the McGill-Queen’s University Press website is a description of the book Rockefeller Foundation Funding and Medical Education in Toronto, Montreal, and Halifax by Marianne Fedunkiw (published in 2015).
Fedunkiw is an associated scholar with the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology at the University of Toronto.
In 1919 a five million dollar Rockefeller Foundation gift to certain Canadian medical schools, coupled with a major donation from Sir John Craig and Lady Eaton, helped bring Canadian medical education into the twentieth century. . . .
Fedunkiw focuses on three recipients – the University of Toronto . . . , McGill University . . . , and Dalhousie University . . . – to demonstrate how the money made possible the introduction of full-time clinical teaching and encouraged greater public and private support for medical education. The shift to full time, although advocated by progressive educators, also led to a backlash in Toronto resulting in a provincial inquiry in Ontario that threatened to return the University of Toronto to government control. Her book not only provides a history of Canadian medical education and large-scale philanthropy in North America but also analyses the effects of philanthropic giving, the practice of matching fund gifts, and accountability.
I don’t know what the author’s conclusions are, but if a large foundation is dominating the funding of multiple medical schools, then it seems likely that medical school faculties are influenced by the policies and direction of that foundation. So we have either foundation control over teaching in this case (as opposed to scientific research) through funding, or we have government control. Either way we have control and lack of independence. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if there had been more independence for each institution with government funding, especially since we are talking about three different Canadian provinces. Nowadays, however, I suspect that very few governments are operating independently of the ideology and influence of the huge web of international organizations associated with or similar to the Rockefeller Foundation.
For more context of why this would be the case, I can point to The Open Conspiracy by H. G. Wells (a Fabian like Aldous Huxley) (http://canadianliberty.com/?p=7771) and also to the United Nations’s Agenda 21 (http://canadianliberty.com/?p=9010).
Research Funding Sources Available at the University of Toronto
The main “Research and Innovation” page at the University of Toronto is https://www.utoronto.ca/research-innovation. The “Research and Innovation” website lists the major examples of funding resources here: http://www.research.utoronto.ca/faculty-and-staff/secure-research-funding/find-funding/
“CIHR [Canadian Institutes of Health Research] is Canada’s primary federal [government] agency for health research. . . . ”
According to CIHR’s “funding overview” page http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/37788.html:
CIHR provides funding opportunities for four themes of health research:
Health systems services
Social, cultural, environmental and population health”
To see a list of programs CIHR sponsors, including grants and awards, go to http://www.research.utoronto.ca/sponsor/canadian-institutes-of-health-research-cihr/.
Another government agency:
NSERC is Canada’s primary federal agency for research in science and engineering.
Website for National Sciences and Engineering Research Council: http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/index_eng.asp. From http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/Index_eng.asp:
NSERC aims to make Canada a country of discoverers and innovators for the benefit of all Canadians. The agency supports university students in their advanced studies, promotes and supports discovery research, and fosters innovation by encouraging Canadian companies to participate and invest in postsecondary research projects. NSERC researchers are on the vanguard of science, building on Canada’s long tradition of scientific excellence.
NSERC funding opportunities: http://www.research.utoronto.ca/sponsor/natural-sciences-and-engineering-research-council-of-canada-nserc/
A third government agency:
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) is Canada’s primary federal agency for social science and humanities research. . . .
Website for SSHRC: http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/home-accueil-eng.aspx
From SSHRC’s funding page http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/index-eng.aspx:
SSHRC supports postsecondary-based research, research training and knowledge mobilization activities in the social sciences and humanities. . . .
Programs sponsored by SSHRC: http://www.research.utoronto.ca/sponsor/social-sciences-and-humanities-research-council-of-canada-sshrc/
An American government agency, National Institutes of Health:
NIH is the United States’ medical research agency –supporting scientific studies that turn discovery into health.
NIH website: https://www.nih.gov/
The funding page http://grants.nih.gov/funding/index.htm states:
NIH offers funding for many types of grants, contracts, and even programs that help repay loans for researchers. Learn about these programs, as well as about NIH’s budget process, grant funding strategies, and policies, and more.
Funding opportunities are listed here: http://www.research.utoronto.ca/sponsor/national-institutes-of-health-nih/
Continuing, the same page http://www.research.utoronto.ca/faculty-and-staff/secure-research-funding/find-funding/ also lists “other common international funding sources”:
5. Global Affairs Canada, formerly CIDA:
“Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) [became part of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFAIT), now Global Affairs Canada: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_International_Development_Agency, http://o.canada.com/news/cida-officially-no-more, http://www.international.gc.ca/development-developpement/index.aspx?lang=eng, http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/cidaweb/cpo.nsf/vLUWebMainPageEn/InternationalDevelopmentProjectBrowserMain and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Affairs_Canada]
6. International Development Research Centre (IDRC)
IDRC funds research in developing countries to create lasting change on a large scale.
To make knowledge a tool for addressing pressing challenges we:
- provide developing-country researchers financial resources, advice, and training to help them find solutions to local problems.
- encourage knowledge sharing with policymakers, researchers, and communities around the world.
- foster new talent by offering fellowships and awards.
- strive to get new knowledge into the hands of those who can use it.
In doing so, we contribute to Canada’s foreign policy, complementing the work of Global Affairs Canada, and other government departments and agencies.
7. Ford Foundation
I notice how this foundation likes to use the word “equality”. Foundations, as we see in many of these examples, are a big part of the control and direction of science. See what has happened in the past here: http://canadianliberty.com/?tag=reece-committee.
All of it is about social engineering, about funding societal “revolutions” which purport to give us progress and make our lives better, in order to standardize human beings into a more easily manipulated conformity that strips us of our natural identities and ties to each other. Even war, if you listen to the interview with the Reece Committee representative, is about social engineering ( http://canadianliberty.com/?p=18383).
8. Rockefeller Foundation
9. United Nations Agencies
An example of a UN agency is UNESCO: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/fellowships:
The UNESCO Fellowships Programmes:
Fellowships are an effective modality for UNESCO to enhance the human resources and capacity-building of Member States, especially developing countries. Fellowships are specially tailored training which are designed to give qualified persons practicing or intending to practice a profession in the field of the UNESCO programme priorities an opportunity to receive additional and practical training, thus contributing to the advancement and circulation of knowledge and skill promoting development and international understanding. . . .
2009-2010 UNESCO/Japan Young Researchers’ Fellowships Programme
Since 2001, the Government of Japan has generously funded each year 20 fellowships through the UNESCO Co-Sponsored Programme. This partnership between UNESCO and Japan has offered several opportunities to young researchers from developing countries to study abroad and to bring back to their countries an added
value of knowledge and skills in the field of scientific research. They acquired rich experience allowing them to better contribute to the development of their countries”
10. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
See Bill Gates promoting genetically modified (GMO) crops here: http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/18/8056163/bill-gates-gmo-farming-world-hunger-africa-poverty.
But now we have contrary information about the effectiveness (false promises) of GMO crops: see https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2016/06/19/the-gmo-big-lie-dies-on-the-vine/ (orig: https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/06/19/the-gmo-big-lie-dies-on-the-vine/), which refers to this document here: http://www.nap.edu/read/23395/chapter/1 and
CORRECTION: PAGE 102 (NOT PAGE 66)
The nation-wide data on maize, cotton, or soybean in the United States do not show a significant signature of genetic-engineering technology on the rate of yield increase.
11. Many US-based Foundations
Through unique research and training programs, Mitacs is developing the next generation of innovators with vital scientific and business skills. In partnership with companies, government and academia, Mitacs is supporting a new economy using Canada’s most valuable resource – its people.
University of Toronto is a Mitacs Full Academic Partner. . . .
Mitacs programs are listed at their website: http://www.mitacs.ca
Mitacs is a national, not-for-profit organization that has designed and delivered research and training programs in Canada for 15 years. Working with 60 universities, thousands of companies, and both federal and provincial governments, we build partnerships that support industrial and social innovation in Canada. . . .
Government partners: http://www.mitacs.ca/en/about-mitacs/partners#government-partners
Academic partners: http://www.mitacs.ca/en/about-mitacs/partners#academic-partners
Research partners: http://www.mitacs.ca/en/about-mitacs/partners#research-partners. A couple of examples of “research partners” include Canadian Water Network http://www.cwn-rce.ca/ and National Initiative for the Care of the Elderly (NICE) http://www.nicenet.ca/.
The long list of research partners is interesting, and includes groups that seem to want to make the world a better place. However, it would be good to look into what organizations are behind each group, and what their goals are. I don’t assume that they follow the same values that I have. What about individuals, families and existing communities? Don’t we have a say as ordinary people, as “one person, one vote”? Maybe it’s not anyone else’s business– including private consortiums–to tell us how to make decisions about our lives and resources, so why aren’t we all involved in deciding who gets funded or not!? Maybe it is important that we assert our beliefs and values very clearly. Isn’t our society supposed to be a democracy?
13. U of T’s Connaught Fund
The discovery of insulin by U of T’s Fredrick Banting and Charles Best in 1921 led to international recognition for the Connaught Medical Research Laboratories – the first lab to produce insulin commercially. In 1972, U of T established the Connaught Fund after it sold the Connaught Medical Research Laboratories to the Canadian Development Corporation for approximately $29 million.”
Connaught is an internal program that provides U of T researchers with funding to further their work.
Some funds are specifically designed for young researchers to get their research careers started. Other funds focus on interdisciplinary work and innovation – with a strong emphasis on meeting challenges facing global society. “
Progams sponsored by the Connaught Fund: http://www.research.utoronto.ca/sponsor/connaught-fund/
This article https://www.utoronto.ca/news/connaught-committee-funds-rising-research-stars lists examples of student research being funded by this program, and it seems like a diverse range of subjects to me.
Comments on the Phrase “Challenges Facing Global Society”
It seems like we can catch a glimpse of some independence in funding with these sources, but the overall picture is of a web of connected government agencies and big corporate foundations who focus on the “challenges facing global society”, whatever that means. It was only in recent decades when we would hear this concept of “global society”. Why should some “global society” be of any concern to anyone? Because we are told to be concerned about it by the media, corporations and government. Adviser to U.S. presidents Zbigniew Brzezinski talks about the emergence of “global consciousness” in his 1970s book Between Two Ages (http://canadianliberty.com/?p=11339).
I think “challenges facing global society” refers to the elite’s views on what they perceive as “challenges” that prevent them from IMPOSING a “global society,” frankly a global imperial project (as also explained in a different way in the PNAC document: http://canadianliberty.com/documents/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf).
Many people might want to do their own thing with their own lives and resources, and they also have their own traditional ideas about values. Possibly (and hopefully) their societies and their own minds are still too strong, and too much oriented towards nature and reality to be defeated by the “global society” project.
The propaganda messaging directed at our minds, consisting of ridiculous nonsense that turns reality upside down, is combined with various means of delivering substances that disrupt the human mind and body. Together, the toxic psychological manipulation combined with the toxic substances amounts to what is called “science.” And if you disagree with any of it, you are painted as backwards and “anti-science” by blatant propagandists in the mainstream media (http://canadianliberty.com/?p=13775).
There is an effort to standardize people in order to rule over them more effectively (http://canadianliberty.com/?p=13273), but going hand in hand with standardization, there is also just complete and utter destructiveness. It’s all warfare. Independent, natural and traditional ways of living (such as reproduction!) are standing in the way of “global government” and monopoly control over all resources.
So the younger generations especially, those who are more vulnerable to new propaganda, are being hit the hardest, in order to turn their minds against what some of us claim is natural, healthy and reality-based. Various false dialectics, along with the divide and conquer tactics of isolating the generations and separating male and female have created so much confusion and demonization of disagreement (if you oppose A, you must be for B, because there is only A or B), that it will be an uphill battle to shake people out of their media and chemical-induced ignorance. They even have fake church groups going around protesting funerals and people take that as real. It seems that most people believe all the nonsense in the media. They believe there are too many people. They don’t value human life. So they won’t value themselves. Their minds are toast. They will make good slaves. They will make great informants against dissidents. They will make great spies, monitoring everyone to make sure they pay their carbon taxes. They will make great sterilization subjects “to save the earth”. They worship the “government”. Their parents didn’t stop this from happening anyway and never raised a finger. It’s Brave New World (and 1984) if things aren’t reversed.
14 Other Sponsors and Programs in the U of T Research Database
Go to http://www.research.utoronto.ca/sponsor/canadian-institutes-of-health-research-cihr/ . The page comes up with the results based on the “Sponsor” field being preset to CIHR, but the field shows “All Sponsors”. The “Disciplines” field displays “All Disciplines,” which includes five categories of science-related disciplines. With those default settings, click “Submit” to see the full list of programs and sponsors, not just CIHR. You can also search particular terms in this database, such as “fertility” or “vaccines”.
Click on the Sponsors field, and scroll down the drop-down list to see all sponsors. Select examples such as the “The Carnegie Corporation”, or “Arthritis Society” and click submit to see the programs they sponsor.
There are a lot of well known organizations, but some of the sponsors that stand out for me are: Canada Council for the Arts (government funding for the arts), the European Commission, the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health, and the Genome Canada/Ontario Genomics Institute. I think it is worth looking into many of these programs in order to understand better how “our society” operates.
For me, a sponsor and program that stands out is the following:
The Ontario Genomics Institute (OGI) is pleased to announce the Genome Canada Request for Applications (RFA) for the 2015 Large Scale Applied Research Project Competition “Natural Resources and the Environment: Sector Challenges – Genomic Solutions”.
This competition aims to support applied research projects focused on using genomic approaches to address challenges and opportunities of importance to Canada’s natural resources and environment sectors, including interactions between natural resources and the environment, thereby contributing to the Canadian bioeconomy and the well-being of Canadians.
. . . The scope of this funding opportunity includes areas such as genomics research related to energy, mining, forestry, water stewardship, wildlife management/conservation and bioproducts that help conserve natural resources and protect the environment. It also includes the use of genomics to identify key elements that impact ecosystem structure, function and diversity. . . . “
From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genomics#Conservation_Genomics:
Genomics is a discipline in genetics that applies recombinant DNA, DNA sequencing methods, and bioinformatics to sequence, assemble, and analyze the function and structure of genomes (the complete set of DNA within a single cell of an organism). . . .
This is the project database for all projects that have been funded by Genome Canada: http://www.genomecanada.ca/en/project_search.
There are many projects and types of applications. One of the projects, as an example that comes up when selecting the Fisheries and Aquaculture sector is this one: Environmental Barcoding through Massively Parallelized Sequencing (http://www.genomecanada.ca/en/environmental-barcoding-through-massively-parallelized-sequencing).
Whether or not this particular project was successful or not, or outdated, I don’t know, nevertheless it was funded by Genome Canada (which receives subsidies from government budgets: http://canadianliberty.com/?p=1488). And here is some of the gist of it:
. . . Biodiversity monitoring programs in Canada are focused on the delivery of sound science to regulators for the purpose of timely and accurate reporting on the state of the environment . . . Such information is of equal importance and value to industries involved in natural resource extraction . . .
. . . In this regard, DNA-based biomonitoring offers a rapid, cost-effective and information-rich method of data collection, which can be easily integrated into long-term ecosystem monitoring programs and site-specific inventory and assessment. . . .
Integration of DNA-based taxonomic analysis into Canada’s National Parks system is already underway . . .
Environmental barcoding is a democratising technology . . . The rapid assessment of hunting and fishing areas, habitats for key species at risk such as fish, waterfowl and other game, and for culturally critical species such as caribou would be a significant contribution to their sound and sustainable management.
How Scientific Research Relates to Agenda 21
Genomics seems to be mainly about the management of natural resources, and I see genomics (genetics more broadly) and many other sciences as relating to Agenda 21’s intent to monitor and create an inventory of all resources globally.
The United Nations Agenda 21 document can be found here: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/Agenda21.pdf and here: http://www.canadianliberty.com/documents/Agenda21.pdf.
Search for the word “genetic”. There are many occurrences, including the term “genetic resources.”
For example: 13.7 b.
Build an inventory of different forms of soils, forests, water use, and crop, plant and animal genetic resources, . . .
Search for the word “inventory”.
Another example: 7.29
All countries should consider, as appropriate, undertaking a comprehensive national inventory of their land resources . . .
and 12.12 a.
Undertake and update existing inventories of natural resources, such as energy, water, soil, minerals, plant and animal access to food, as well as other resources, such as housing, employment, health, education and demographic distribution in time and space;
Search for the word “monitor” or “monitoring”:
Governments at the appropriate level, with the support of the relevant international and regional organizations, should: a. Maintain and establish meteorological, hydrological and physical monitoring analysis and capabilities that would encompass the climatic diversity as well as water distribution of various mountain regions of the world; . . . .
Search for the word “surveillance”, e.g. in the context of “marine living resources”:
Strengthen their legal and regulatory frameworks, where appropriate, including management, enforcement and surveillance capabilities, to regulate activities related to the above strategies;
and 18.40 g.
Monitoring and surveillance of water resources and waters receiving wastes:
United Nations Agenda 21, also called “Sustainable Development,” is an active, ongoing and updated international program that works locally via private advisory groups, backed by federal and provincial government legislation, who interfere with local councils. It operates semi-covertly and its biggest cloak it operates under is the “environmental movement,” and that is the basis on which it is accepted. “Sustainability” is one of the terms that is often used publicly.
In those early years, the New World Order was announced, and communist agents had to find something else to do, as the east and west were merged into the “third wave”, so they spread out to do the bidding of the banking elite.
Mainly the “environmental movement,” ever since the initial climate treaties in the early 1990s, are into demonizing carbon dioxide, which is essential for plant life, and an inescapable but non-toxic product of human combustion and energy generation that allows us to live with industry and hospitals and experience the benefits of being able to eat affordably and travel, etc.
The First Global Revolution, by the Club of Rome, clearly states that this think-tank had been seeking a way to unite humanity (create a world government) against a common enemy, and that the easiest way was to make humanity the enemy of itself, and that things like “global warming” (very dubious for a long time now) would “fit the bill” (http://canadianliberty.com/?p=864).
“Science” and “scientific” institutions, which is what we’re talking about, claim that “carbon” gases such as “carbon dioxide” are causing “climate change”. Somehow this becomes an automatic global POLITICAL decision about us having to pay carbon taxes FOR EVERYTHING we do.
On the other hand, the “environmental movement” (well-funded by the usual suspects, the monopolist “big oil” banker Foundations who fund societal revolutions of all kinds) isn’t too concerned about the out of control warfare and poisoning of the world’s population via food and pharma and fluoridation, etc., because in the “environmentalist” view (based on decades of propaganda), there are too many of us, and that’s why torturing people and bombing and propaganda isn’t such a big concern for them. They’re not paid their nice Agenda 21/New World Order NGO salaries to oppose these realities–but traditional lifestyles that lead to having babies is demonized (e.g. young third world women and first world women are supposed to be in “micro”-debt, or slaving for corporate strangers for pennies, or even serving in the military instead–and if you want to do that, that’s your decision, but I hope you’re able to continue to make decisions). Also, alternative health research and accurate information about nutrition, GMOs and vaccines, is more and more portrayed as “anti-science” (by Foundation propagandists, I mean “journalists” and “activists”) with hardly a peep of an objection from “environmentalists.”
This program began formally in 1992, or a bit earlier with the Brundtland Commission (but there were signs of the exact same agenda in Aldous Huxley’s 1950s non-fiction book Brave New World Revisited http://canadianliberty.com/?p=17795 and in Julian Huxley’s essays at the time also: http://canadianliberty.com/?p=17056). The culture has been permeated with references to “overpopulation” by these people and their agents in the media, so people think it must be true. So we do everything except focus on having babies and raising healthy families in which children are raised with strong minds and/or strong independent traditions. Conformity and obedience to “authority” has been a critical factor.
I believe we can think of Agenda 21 as one huge, ongoing Domesday Book (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesday_Book) of census, surveillance and inventory where everything somehow belongs to “them.” I wouldn’t be surprised if the descendants of William the Conqueror still run things.
Some forms of “Christianity” and “New Age” religion promulgate ideas about positive thinking and blaming people for everything to do with their lack of health and wealth, so they have replaced traditional religious ideas about the centrality of the individual’s conscience and the value of their life, and the consequences of evil actions by others, and the need for justice. People are so “advanced” nowadays, they want to pretend they are not “victims” of war propaganda, and false flag hoax events that stir up war, and fraudulent drugs and fraudulent science and a fraudulent banking system. They don’t want to blame trade agreements that send jobs overseas and they don’t want to blame liars and mass murderers. To them, it’s just a matter of having a positive attitude. They’re too busy being “on top,” and others just aren’t on top like they are.
In Canada, many people supposedly are still eagerly answering census surveys nowadays, not just because they are mandatory, but because they believe in government services. The old traditions have been shredded and hospitals can barely keep anyone alive, and they have people sign documents about whether they should intervene or not, and now we hear talk about the “right to die” instead of being given proper treatment, but somehow there is some great “service” being provided. If the Canadian and NATO establishment is so wonderful, and want to provide great service, and care so much about life, then look at what happened to innocent Libyans with the NATO attacks in 2011. That’s where they want to put their money–into bombs and mercenaries who pillage independent countries.
I would also relate these Agenda 21 goals to the development of:
- “Smart Dust” (http://canadianliberty.com/?p=13514 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartdust) and
- “The Internet of Things” (http://canadianliberty.com/?p=13976, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8035425.stm, http://net-of-things.blogspot.ca/, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_of_things) and
- Smart Devices (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34324247, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_device),
- “Smart Cities”, “smart meters” and surveillance cameras (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231805/All-homes-smart-power-meters-measure-exact-energy-use.html, http://canadianliberty.com/?p=3216, http://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/smarter_cities/article/santiago_keynote.html?lnk=ibmhpls1/smarterplanet/speech/chairman_santiago, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7886656.stm, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1326035/Speed-camera-checks-insurance-tax-wearing-seatbelt.html, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_city).
Most organizations mentioned in Agenda 21 are not governments, but they work with and through governments. Someone told these organizations–“government” and “private” “stakeholders” and UN NGOs–that they are supposed to count up all the planet’s resources–in the name of saving the planet–as if they were going to centralize and grab them up for their own exclusive, globally centralized use in order to stop them from being used independently by everyday people who don’t share their plans and attitudes.
Search for “non-governmental organizations” (NGOs) in the Agenda 21 document, also “stakeholder”, also especially “private sector”,
Governments at the appropriate level, with the cooperation of the relevant United Nations bodies and, as appropriate, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, the private sector and financial institutions, should: . .
And also search for the word “partnership.”
14.2 Soldier Systems Technology Roadmap (SSTRM)
Another one of the programs sponsored by the “Government of Canada”:
The Soldier Systems TRM focuses on the soldier’s operational needs as part of an integrated system of systems. The key capability areas for the system include:
Power and Energy
Command, Control, Computer, Communications, Intelligence (C4I)
Human and Systems Integration
It does sound very transhumanist (http://canadianliberty.com/?p=23200, http://canadianliberty.com/?p=23214) and it reminds me of science fiction such as the Six Million Dollar Man series (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGO57y4td-c), or films like Black Road (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3829874/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcEc2-hd4Zw).
The military and soldiers provides a context and excuse that otherwise might not exist for this kind of government-funded research.
Looking through the diversity of organizations listed in the Sponsors field, you would hope there still must be some real diversity in terms of funding sources and their respective beliefs and goals. Other sponsors in this list, besides other government agencies and famous corporations include:
14.3 Guggenheim – John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation (http://canadianliberty.com/?p=18383)
14.4 IBM (CAS Research, or Centre for Advanced Studies)
14.5 John Templeton Foundation which sponsors Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities
14.6 L’Oreal Foundation and UNESCO
14.7 Royal Society of Canada
14.8 Stem Cell Network
14.9 World Cultural Council
14.10 Grand Challenges Canada, USAID
These two sponsors sponsor a program called “Saving Lives at Birth” http://www.research.utoronto.ca/research-funding-opportunities/saving-lives-at-birth/
Grand Challenges Canada in partnership with United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Government of Norway, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, UK’s Department of International Development (DFID), and the Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) have joined together to launch the sixth round of Saving Lives at Birth: A Grand Challenge for Development.
Saving Lives at Birth partners are looking for Expressions of Interest (EOI) for innovative approaches to address roadblocks to healthy pregnancies and births in three areas:
Science & Technology,
“Demand Side” Innovation
There is a lot of information on population control at canadianliberty.com, and I believe this program really has to do with population control and getting more and more control over human reproduction, the same as with other resources. Talk about “healthy pregnancies” is the standard cover strategy. See more about Bill Gates and “maternal health” here: http://canadianliberty.com/?p=2267. The lack of “health” or supposed threats to “health” can be turned against a group in order to stop them from having children, as with the propaganda about zika virus (https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/07/01/zika-hoax-strategy-of-liars-house-of-cards/). More than that, “health” just becomes the concept of how governments and corporations manage our “health services”, which includes abortion and contraception and vaccines, and also methods of birth becoming as artificial as possible, along with a bombardment of half-baked ultra-sound and genetics information. All of this can be called “health,” along with drugs that can make people very sick. That’s “health” too.
14.11 World Food Prize Foundation
This one is fascinating. Their website lists the Council of Advisors, at http://www.worldfoodprize.org/en/about_the_prize/council_of_advisors/ which includes George Bush Sr. and Jimmy Carter.
And this is their Sponsors page: http://www.worldfoodprize.org/en/about_the_prize/sponsors/
The many donors include:
The Rockefeller Foundation
Howard G. Buffett Foundation
Archer Daniels Midland Company
United Soybean Board
USDA Agricultural Research Service
Wallace Genetic Foundation
World Initiative for Soy in Human Health
All of these relate to “food”, right?
Some of those obviously include promoters of genetically modified and other problematic foods.
Here is a video of President George Bush Sr. visiting Monsanto a long time ago to see the genetically modified soy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLoW-3gaTPo and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi41QwwyZE0
See the government report referred to in this article: https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2016/06/19/the-gmo-big-lie-dies-on-the-vine/ (orig: https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/06/19/the-gmo-big-lie-dies-on-the-vine/) .
15. What Does “Scientific Research” Mean and What Are the Control Mechanisms?
Another page at the University of Toronto is from the U of T Faculty of Medicine: http://medicine.utoronto.ca/research/identify-souces-funding (main page: http://medicine.utoronto.ca/research)
In addition to other information about funding sources, it includes information on the three federal government agencies mentioned earlier. From these descriptions, it helps to clarify what is meant by science and scientific research. Notice how much of the following areas of research can relate to increased control over human beings and a greater altering of human society. Almost all of it relates to those agendas one way or the other, but I’ve highlighted a few that stand out:
CIHR funds basic, applied, clinical or health research; health research includes health services, population health, determinants of health, health economics, environmental health, psychosocial and behavioural research, health policy, health promotion, and health ethics;
SSHRC funds psychology and educational psychology research, including experimental social psychology, interpersonal communication, social processes, social issues, personality, developmental psychology; computer and applied sciences, nursing (sociological, psychological or management) research; archaeology, arts, geography;
NSERC funds life sciences research including molecular and developmental genetics, cell biology, psychology (perception, cognition, learning, motivation; underlying neural mechanisms), evolution and ecology, plant biology, animal biology, and physiology; physical sciences, computational sciences, engineering.
Then there is some information about “Questions to Consider” when applying for funding. I would say there are a couple of obvious and predictable points at which independent ideas and direction in science are likely to be filtered out:
Does your research fit the mandate of the agency to which you are applying? . . .
Consult your University Department Chair regarding requirements for an internal peer review. Experience has demonstrated that internally peer reviewed applications have a better chance of being funded.
So I would think there is pressure to not even bother trying research that is outside of accepted “scientific” dogma or outside the scope of corporate and government politically correct doctrine. Students are trained to believe in accepted doctrines anyway, so wouldn’t most not even be able to think outside the box they are in? And also, there are probably not many independent institutions available that could fund independent-minded research, so I bet it is easier to just to go with the flow and not bother looking for alternative sources. It makes sense that science all goes in the same predictable and guided directions, especially as major media is concentrated in the hands of fewer corporations, and as government and corporations seem to become closer and closer in making common cause together as far as everything to do with trade agreements, war, vaccines, scientific theories, GMOs, etc.
16. Canadian government appoints panel to review research funding
As of this month (June, 2016), a panel of experts has been created to review how the Canadian federal government supports university-based scientific research:
“Panel to review federal funding for university-based scientific research” by Ivan Semeniuk, The Globe and Mail, Jun. 13, 2016
According to the article, the government is “expected to funnel more than $3-billion” to Canadian research.
One point of criticism raised in the article is that some are calling for combining the multiple funding agencies together, and this was also advocated by a scientist in the U.K. I don’t think such centralization would help with the concern I have about the independence of funding sources. The tendency is towards standardization. People can always claim it’s about “saving money”.
Another point of criticism in the article about the current system is about biases in the current system, for example, against good science at smaller universities. One of those quoted called for a more “quantitative and impartial system . . . ” and said there were “too many opportunities for human impressions . . . ” in the evaluation process. That makes me wonder if this kind of criticism would lead to literally less humans being involved in evaluating the proposals, even to the point of having an automated approval process that relies on computer software. This would just lead to greater conformity as applicants end up using all the politically and scientifically “correct” key words in their proposals.
I would be concerned about this, because it’s already the case that publishers have accepted worthless scientific papers of gibberish created by software programs. I wouldn’t be surprised if they are relying on software to “review” the papers. In any case, the following is more evidence of the unreliability of “science”, scientific journals and how the process is corrupted:
“Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers”
By Richard Van Noorden 24 February 2014 Updated: 25 February 2014
The publishers Springer and IEEE are removing more than 120 papers from their subscription services after a French researcher [computer scientist Cyril Labbé of Joseph Fourier University in Grenoble] discovered that the works were computer-generated nonsense.. . . .
Some readers might think writers like me are engaged in speculation. But actually, as the above facts illustrate, what is important is collecting as many facts as possible, getting a fuller picture about how the world really operates, as opposed to the limited picture that people get when they are depending on the education system and particular media sources, or government spokespeople.
Everyone should have noticed that when governments speak through politicians, they are just like corporate public relations officers, who put the best spin on whatever is going on. So, of course those sources of information are good for social engineering and propaganda and selling products and policies, but the content is just almost completely WORTHLESS.
There is no comparison with that kind of junk information–thick with slogans and emotional button-pushing–compared to studying what is really going on and allowing ourselves to make rational interpretations of the full context of what we can know about the agenda and beliefs of those who are in power.
There is a lot of real information available on the Internet and in libraries. Why is it available? I believe that most people are wired to report the truth, and they want to feel good about being accurate and they want to feel good about the organization they are a part of. Most do not want to censor or distort. That is the paradox with the world being ruled by a force that is hostile to the those who are being ruled. At one level, it requires complete corruption–paying off millions of literal and figurative mercenaries of all kinds–military, intellectual, professional and media.
Everyone wants to make a living and do well, so almost all of us serve the system to one degree or another because we think we have to do so in order to eat and keep our families intact and not be locked up, etc. At another level, many human beings have an innate sense of wanting to be good and honest, and they can only be corrupted so far before they completely collapse in every way, so that many won’t be able to serve a system that eventually is cloning people and openly depopulating and openly mandating controls over reproduction. And I think that is a possibility, that many will leave and drop out of the system and possibly even resist the system, as predicted by writers like H. G. Wells in The New World Order, and Jacques Attali in A Brief History of the Future.
But will the system have already converted over to servants who are totally brainwashed and mind controlled and relying more and more on modified cyborgs who are still human but no longer have any will to think for themselves? In that case, the system may not need the rest of us. And then it’s a toss-up how things would go, but the anti-human system, the Brave New World will possibly have found the way to be viable if everyone has already succumbed too far.
I’m sure they want us to believe that resistance is hopeless, but maybe those of us who are aware should have more confidence in others and work harder to find those who will have the capacity to make a substantial difference in blocking the continuing onslaught of Brave New World.