Tuesday, 3 March 2009

Privatisation & People Control

"If the truth be known..."

Carrying on from yesterday, particularly regarding the corporations perched on high in our world - that is to say, our current world of reality - I'd like to pull some further thoughts together on this subject.

Where to begin...ah. A good place, and person: George Monbiot's column in today's Guardian. He talks about the scam in both the US and the UK of prisons being turned over to private corporations, to be run for a profit; whereupon, it turns out, that a couple of judges in one of the American states have been caught out assigning youngsters to prison for a kickback. Because the corporation involved makes more money the more prisoners they are assigned. So we're talking corruption here. Yawn? So what's new? Well, for one thing, the way it is taking place: through what are known as PFIs, private finance initiatives (aka PPPs, or Private-Public Partnerships). To say: the government contracts out previous public-sector projects - hospitals, schools, etc. - to the private arena. The rationale is that they are more efficient, and other such euphemisms; the reality is that it is because (a) the government can then take such projects off their books, which look cleaner, then; and (b) powerful friends of their boyos in government can make a lot of money, some of which can - as we have seen above - find its way back into the pockets of said boyos. Everybody, then, benefiting - except the poor dumb taxpayer, who is now saddled with debts for 25-30-year contracts, whether or not the project is even fit for purpose by then. (Whereas if the government had borrowed the money to do the job in the first place, it could have borrowed it at lower rates of interest than can private contractors.)

But even this particular issue, of public facilities being used for private gain - which Monbiot rightly deplores - is not my main
point, and concern. That has to do with the uses which these scams can be put to.

Take the sale of water suppliers to private enterprisers, and therefore out of the (controlling) hands of the public. Problem? Besides the public's water supply now in private hands (think Ecuador, and the public's demonstration against such a setup, ultimately tossing the 'responsible' government out, and reclaiming their control over their fate), here is another little matter; as referred to in an article in the 27 February Guardian, headed: 'Plan may open fluoride floodgates'. Quote: "The [English] government changed the law in 2003 to enable health chiefs to order, rather then (sic) request, water companies to add fluoride." (Say Ahhh...)

The government, echoing its "health chiefs", "argues that the practice cuts tooth decay and that long-established schemes in both the US and England...have thrown up no evidence that it is harmful." I'll pause to throw up here, and then continue: "Opponents object to what they see as mass medication and say there are potential health risks, including lower IQ in children, bone cancer, and hip fractures in older people."

And that's not the half of it; but well done, Guardian, for being willing to mention at least part of the downside of this story. And if one digs a little deeper, one will find out that this is not just a matter of making a lot of money out of an industrial by-product - whereby the manufacturers (primarily the aluminium and artificial fertilizer industries) not only evade major charges for environmental pollution otherwise, but make money out of it as well; clever lads, these - but it is a matter of engaging in (and here it comes; put on your anti-conspiracy theory hat) people control.*

Why would the government be interested in people control?

If you had to ask that, you're not paying attention to what's going down these days. National ID cards; the surveillance society; the insidious erosion of civil liberties...One would think the government was preparing for rough times ahead.

And therefore that they know something that we, the people don't.

Or at least, not widely. Not widely enough, yet. To mount a sustained objection to. And pay sufficient attention to. Including the desired inclusion on centralized databases of everyone's medical records.

Why would the PTB want to have that info?

Well; it might be because of the cover story. Instant access to people's medical histories in case of car accidents, and such.

And then again, it might be because the surveillance society would like to know who has received what medication, and who has not.

Example of what this subject area might entail.

Some years ago, some citizens in a developing country in the Americas got suspicious about a vaccine that was being administered to young girls. They were told that it was a vaccine for tetanus. So why young girls?...an interesting story short: it was discovered that the vaccine contained an anti-fertility component. (And a footnote to the story is that a former CIA agent was interviewed for a documentary video, years later, and admitted on camera that they were behind it, 'for national security purposes'. To keep the US from being overwhelmed from the south by economic refugees. If the global economy tanked. But let's not go there right now. But: interesting, no? Since this was in the decade previous to the globalized economy beginning to show signs of collapse.)

I'll cut to the chase, of the truth in these matters. In short: People can be controlled - or sickened - by ingredients in vaccines.
Or even killed.

If you wanted to get rid of a lot of people fast - say, the "useless eaters" of Kissinger's Elite Team considerations - how would you go about it? You could explode a nuclear bomb; but that might affect you, too. So how could you do it in a more specific way? I got it: create a panic; say a panic about bird flu - and line everybody up for a jab. And if they don't want it, tough. Make them out to be a menace to their neighbors, and make it mandatory.

Like health chiefs ordering, rather than requesting, something to be put into the water supplies.

Like the UK government slowly creating the conditions for a move to make vaccines mandatory in this country, as they are in the US, for children to be able to enter the education system. (And along that line: I note that a Murdoch is now on the board of Glaxo-Smith-Kline (GSK), manufacturers of the MMR jab, which the Sunday Times -a Murdoch publication - has recently been in the business of pushing, by demonizing the gastroenterologist who voiced concerns about it, in regards to its possible association with gut damage to a subset of children who became autistic after its application.)

I am saying that the corporate elite, in cahoots with their placemen in government, are making a move for their vaunted New World Order, when the citizenry will be beholden to them, on pain of incarceration, or worse.

But that's only part of where I want to go with this thread of thought.

I want to get to the fundamental issue of human nature. And of human potential. For evil. And for good.

And how we are verging on the potential of going either way, at a major turning-point time for humanity.

Down. Or up. It's up to us.

To be continued...

* Fluoride has a tranquilizing effect. It also creates illness conditions, which the pharmaceutical industry can then make a lot of money from. But that's another part of the story.

No comments: