Sunday, October 23, 2016

(LUSAKA TIMES) IMF Bailout: A Strangulation of Zambia’s Future

COMMENT - Excellent article. Even more, it is already known that if there is this level of economic violence, pushed to a head by austerity measures, there are going to be what the former World Bank Vice Chairman Joseph Stiglitz has called the IMF Riots.

(LUSAKA TIMES) IMF Bailout: A Strangulation of Zambia’s Future
October 23, 2016

Fellow countrymen and women, comrades and friends, allow me to first echo the wise words of the revolutionary icon Thomas Sankara. “Debt is a cleverly managed reconquest of Africa.” “He who feeds you, controls you.”

Once again, our leaders today have failed to think. They were employed by the Zambian people to think wisely on behalf of the nation. They were voted to improve and safeguard the welfare of the Zambian people. They were not employed to contract gigantic loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or any other lending institution. Even at gun point, I refuse to accept that borrowing money from the IMF at the detriment of Zambia’s future is part of their mandate. Their mandate is to think of alternative sustainable ways to resuscitate the economy, as opposed to rushing to the IMF for a bailout that strangles the country’s future especially the poorest citizens. A government that cannot think of alternative ways to regrow the economy apart from borrowing from these money-lending institutions is not fit to hold public office. It is now clear, our ministers are appointed, not to think on behalf of the ministries they lead, but to ceremonially occupy such positions while shamelessly enjoying free housing, transport, electricity, airtime, state security and gallivanting around the globe at the expense of taxpayer’s money.

the IMF promotes a fertile ground for breeding poverty, making it impossible for poor countries to eradicate poverty and realize food security

I am struggling to understand why our politicians have failed to comprehend that the so called bailout package from the IMF has never been a viable and sustainable option to resuscitate an ailing economy. You do not need a PhD, bachelor’s degree, diploma, or certificate to understand the ramifications of an IMF bailout package. A simple perusal through the conditionalities attached to such a bailout package should enable even a rural dweller, who has never been to school, to understand that the IMF bailout is a well-calculated scheme to keep the poor poorer.

There is no rocket science involved in understanding that the IMF discourages you from subsidizing your own farmers. In this regard, the IMF promotes a fertile ground for breeding poverty, making it impossible for poor countries to eradicate poverty and realize food security. The IMF further emphasises reduction of government funding to health and education, a condition that goes counter to the campaign championing access to education and healthcare for all. Such a condition further strangles the country’s efforts to build a productive human resource pool. It is simple. If you don’t fund your education system, then the country’s capacity to produce its own skilled manpower – teachers, nurses, medical doctors, lawyers et cetera is substantially curtailed. In the long term, such skills will have to be sourced externally at an astronomical cost on the country’s treasury. Moreover, privatization and liberalization, which are a hallmark of the IMF, have the potential to completely decimate domestic industries. Fellow Zambians, you will agree with me that we have been yearning for a Zambia with the capacity to produce its own goods and services. The IMF is here to shatter this dream. Surely, with all these real-life practical examples, it is shocking to see our ministers, some of them very educated, failing to understand that the IMF is here to perpetuate poverty. Our dream to become a politically and economically independent country will remain an illusion as long as we embrace institutions like the IMF and the World Bank.

Fellow patriots, allow me to conclude by stating one logical fact. Should Zambia accept this IMF bailout, it is the elite politicians that should bear the burden of austerity measures. Ordinary Zambians have suffered enough already. As part of austerity, the republican president should be relocated to another modesty housing. This may sound crazy to most of you because you are accustomed to seeing a republican president living a lavish lifestyle in state house. It cannot be disputed that the country spends astronomical sums of money in trying to sustain state house.

Moreover, it is immoral to continue enjoying a lavish life in state house while your citizens are dying of hunger induced by austerity measures from the IMF. Unless an international trip will add value to the country’s well-being, the republican president and his ministers should not gallivant around the world. It is important to note that most of the international trips are totally irrelevant to the suffering common man. Additionally, the use of a private jet aircraft on international trips should be abolished. We should also scrape off free entitlements such as housing, fuel, electricity, transport et cetera from our ministers. Most importantly, the ridiculously big and expensive ministerial cars which guzzle unreasonable litres of fuel should be auctioned and cheaper cars purchased in their place. There are many other ridiculous entitlements that we need to scrap off from our public office bearers. Politicians too, need to share in the burden of austerity.

By Peter Mubanga Cheuka

Labels: , , , ,


Tuesday, September 13, 2016

(MINT NEWS PRESS) Mugabe: The Dictator?

COMMENT - Rhodesia was named after Cecil John Rhodes, the Founding Chairman of the board of directors of De Beers, which was to become the world's largest diamond mining company. De Beers was founded by the First Lord Rothschild in 1887. Zimbabwe could seriously upset the diamond market by supplying 20% of global diamond production from the Chiadzwa and Marange diamond fields. Morgan Tsvangirai used to work for Anglo-American De Beers when he was a miner.
"Morgan loves the mining industry because he was a miner and was given his start in life by Anglo American. He is a miner at heart but he sees both sides of the picture and this policy is not good for the workers or investors," said Tsvangirai's biographer Sarah Hudleston.
Or their desire to turn Chiadzwa and Marange into DebZim or ZimDeb, like Debswana and Namdeb - the MDC's Plans For The Mines:
We will nationalise diamonds and ensure that government goes into partnership with genuine investors.
Like the world's biggest diamond miner, De Beers. - MrK

(MINT PRESS NEWS) Mugabe: The Dictator?
Is Zimbabwe’s 92-year-old leader really the oppressive dictator the West makes him out to be, or is he demonized for not succumbing to a history of destabilization and intervention attempts by the West?
By Caleb T. Maupin | August 27, 2016

WASHINGTON — (Analysis) In covering a recent protest movement unfurling in Zimbabwe, mainstream Western media seem unable to report on country’s president without making references to him as a “dictator” and “authoritarian.”

Yet the case against Robert Mugabe, the 92-year-old president of Zimbabwe and leader of the Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), is difficult to justify, especially considering all of Zimbabwe’s recent elections have been monitored by the United Nations, and the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), the main opposition party, currently divided into two factions, is widely represented in the government.

Further, Zimbabwe’s emergence as a nation struggling against not just the power of colonialism and white supremacists, but also the economic domination of a settler minority, tells an entirely different story.

Opposition parties like the MDC, which receives support from the United States, are allowed to operate freely in Zimbabwe. Newspapers that support the MDC and openly praise the previously existing apartheid regime are widely distributed, coexisting alongside pro-government state media. The idea that Zimbabwe is a totalitarian state that forbids dissent is simply not consistent with reality.

While Western media has few positive things to say about Mugabe, Zimbabwean voters clearly disagree. A 2015 survey by Zimbabwe’s Mass Public Opinion Institute found that Mugabe continues to enjoy popularity among the country’s urban and rural populations.

Even in 2012, a year before the last elections were held, popular support for the MDC was on the decline. In May 2013, The Guardian quoted Raymond Majongwe, secretary general of the 14,000-strong Progressive Teachers’ Union, as saying: “I’m feeling seriously let down by the MDC.”

His statement came after the party entered into a power-sharing agreement with the ZANU-PF following contested elections in 2008, but before that so-called “unity government” ultimately dissolved. He noted, presciently:

The power-sharing agreement could be the undoing of the MDC leadership. They exposed their own naivety and appetite for opulence and extravagance. In four years the level of wealth these MDC guys have accumulated is shocking. If the MDC wins the election, fine, they can go ahead and loot the country like their predecessors.”

US has long planned to oust Mugabe

U.S. machinations to overthrow the Mugabe-led government in Zimbabwe are nothing new, particularly in terms of Washington’s support to the MDC.

Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the MDC, who served as prime minister from 2009-2013, toured the world in 2009, meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and U.S. President Barack Obama. After his meeting with Obama, Tsvangirai said he was “grateful to him for his leadership” and that Obama would “continue to provide us with direction.”

In “Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record 2005-2006,” the State Department reported: “The U.S. human rights strategy in Zimbabwe focused on maintaining pressure on the regime, assisting democratic forces, strengthening independent media, increasing public access to information, promoting accountability for the regime’s crimes, and providing humanitarian aid for Zimbabwe’s suffering people.”

The report further noted U.S. efforts to disseminate information on civil rights and made accusations of fraudulent parliamentary elections.

The State Department’s 2007 Performance Report on Zimbabwe boasted of the United States’ role in propping up the MDC as a viable opponent to Mugabe’s ZANU-PF:

“Following the bloody onslaught of the Mugabe regime against the MDC and civil society during the past year, USG [U.S. government] assistance helped rebuild the party’s battered structure and better position it to participate in the upcoming elections. The USG also assisted the MDC to effectively identify, research, and articulate policy positions and ideas within Zimbabwe, in the region, and beyond. In particular, USG technical assistance was pivotal in supporting MDC\’s formulation and communication of a comprehensive policy platform, which demonstrates the party’s preparedness to take over the reins of government in 2008.”

In a 2008 analysis of the document, Stephen Gowans, a Canadian writer and political analyst, noted:

“The neo-liberal, foreign investor-friendly economic policies Washington favors are central to the policy platform of the Tsvangirai faction of the MDC. The State Department document reveals that the MDC’s policy orientation may be based more on US government direction than its own deliberations.”

It’s also important to consider the role of U.S. aid money and the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, in Zimbabwe. The organization, which has a long history of imperialist intervention under the guise of humanitarian aid, has remained active in Zimbabwe despite targeted sanctions imposed by the U.S. In fiscal year 2012, for example, Zimbabwe received $152,534,664 in U.S. economic assistance, including $61,987,763 from USAID and $49,648,024 from the State Department.

‘Rhodesia’ was wiped off the map

To understand why Washington is working to topple Mugabe, the country’s repeatedly elected president, and the ZANU-PF, its internationally-recognized government, one must be familiar with Zimbabwe’s history.

Defenders of the Israeli settler regime will often accuse their critics of being “inflammatory” and “extremist” for wanting to “wipe Israel off the map.” However, there is historical precedent for the erasure of European settler regimes. Zimbabwe became a country after Rhodesia, a country whose 1969 constitution enshrined the rule of whites, was toppled.

Rhodesia was the name given by settlers to the region in southern Africa that the indigenous people called Zimbabwe. It was named after Cecil Rhodes, the famed colonizer and advocate of British imperialism. When Zimbabwe declared its independence from Britain in 1965, the white minority owned almost all of the land, except for the Tribal Trust Lands, where black Africans were forced to live, similar to the “bantustans” of South Africa. During the day, blacks worked as servants and laborers in the estates, plantations, and cities owned by whites, and at night they returned to the designated areas where they were allowed to live and farm.

Roger Riddell, a staff member of the Catholic Institute for International Relations and editor of the institute’s series “From Rhodesia to Zimbabwe,” wrote an article in 1980, titled “Zimbabwe’s Land Problem: The Central Issue.” In the article, Riddell explains that not only did Europeans hold vastly more land than the Africans, they also held more fertile agricultural land:

“The importance of land in Rhodesia does not lie so much in the inequalities per se, but because inequalities in access to land are accompanied by growing overpopulation, landlessness, land deterioration, and increasing poverty in the African areas alongside serious underutilization of land in the European areas.”

The 7 million Africans were not full citizens of Rhodesia, unlike the white minority, which peaked at just under 300,000 in the late 1960s. Ian Smith, the wealthiest white farmer and prime minister of Rhodesia from 1964-1979, said: “The white man is the master of Rhodesia, has built it and intends to keep it.” The country’s 1961 Unilateral Declaration of Independence, which was committed to independence from Britain but not majority rule, reserved 50 national assembly seats for the country’s white settler minority and just 15 for the African majority.

Receiving weapons and support from both China and the Soviet Union, the indigenous African population took up arms against Smith’s white-minority rule in the 1970s. ZANU-PF, currently the ruling party in Zimbabwe, is the result of a merger of several different armed revolutionary organizations that fought against the apartheid government of Rhodesia. Britain deployed troops to fight against the African people, and the U.S. formally recognized and backed the Rhodesian apartheid regime. International media and Western politicians generally referred to the uprisings of impoverished African people as “terrorism” and supported the white settler government in the name of opposing “communism.”

As the white settler government of Rhodesia faced a wider insurgency from African people, it became a favored cause among white supremacists. Neo-Nazis and fascists from all over the world went to fight against the African rebels. James Earl Ray, who was convicted of assassinating Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., had worked closely with the “Friends of Rhodesia.” During his 2015 killing spree inside a church in South Carolina, the white supremacist murderer Dylann Roof wore the flag of the long deposed Rhodesian settler government.

Mugabe emerged as the charismatic leader of the armed uprising. With Mugabe as their commander and representative, guerrilla fighters carved out what the white settlers called “no-go areas,” liberated territories which were controlled by the African revolutionaries and served as bases for the uprising. ZANU-PF described itself as a socialist party. Interviewed during the war, Mugabe said:

“It is absolutely wrong to allow a set of individuals to acquire control and ownership of those resources that are God-given. They are not man-made, the land, the water, the forest, the animals, the fish in the river, the minerals. These are given to us by nature, and it is in principle wrong for any one man to claim ownership of such resources that should belong to the people as a whole.”

On Dec. 21, 1979, the prolonged conflict known as the Rhodesian Bush War concluded with the signing of the Lancaster House Agreement. Rhodesia was abolished, and the Republic of Zimbabwe came into existence. The treaty specified that the new government could not seize white-owned land for ten years. At the time of the agreement, the country’s 120,000 white families controlled at least half of the country’s arable farmland, while 7 million Africans lived in extreme poverty.

Eroding white supremacy, changing property relations

Many predicted a “white genocide” following ZANU-PF’s election under the new constitution. However, once ZANU-PF assumed power in the elections following the 1979 treaty, no such thing occurred. Despite leading a “white republic” and ordering his troops to slaughter tens of thousands of civilians, Ian Smith, the leader of the white settler government, was spared any punishment for his documented war crimes. He lived in luxury on his estates until his death of natural causes in 2007.

Many whites left Zimbabwe, relocating to South Africa or Europe, but aside from a few incidents, no reports of widespread revenge killings took place. In accordance with the Lancaster House Agreement, whites who were owed pensions by the oppressive Rhodesian apartheid government continued to received payments from the new government until 1990.

The government led by ZANU-PF vastly expanded access to education, and Zimbabwe leads Africa in adult literacy. During the 1990s, the economy of Zimbabwe, presided over and tightly regulated by the ZANU-PF, was described by the Washington Post as being “among the strongest on the continent.”

The ZANU-PF government stayed true to its promise not to forcibly redistribute property until 1997, long after the ten year period agreed to in the treaty. Prior to 1997, many white farmers left Zimbabwe, voluntarily selling their property to the state for negotiated compensation. Britain welcomed white farmers with open arms, and has even established Zane, a charity that supports whites who wish to migrate from Zimbabwe.

Beginning in 1997, land belonging to the white minority has been gradually, forcibly redistributed to Africans. Veterans of Zimbabwe’s revolutionary army were the first to receive land, and by 2011, over 237,000 African families had acquired their own land, while 300 white farms remained intact.

When the land seizures began, Western press reports alleged the land reform was corrupt and giving land only to government bureaucrats. However, The Zimbabwean published the results of a 10-year study of the program, which found that less than 17 percent of the land went to civil servants, and the overwhelming majority went to rural peasants, unemployed Africans, and others who were not deeply connected to government officials.

No one debates that the majority of those who have received land hold a favorable view of the ZANU-PF government. Following the land redistribution campaign, violence erupted on more than a few occasions when white farmers refused to give up land and held violent standoffs with government officials and locals.

‘We want to be left alone’

As the reforms began, Mugabe was subject to demonization in Western media. In 2000, ZANU-PF suffered its first major defeats at the polls and began sharing power with the MDC, which has received funding from the State Department and whose leader has openly admitted to taking “direction” from President Obama.

The redistribution process slowed agricultural production in Zimbabwe. The process of transitioning farms from the large plantations owned by white settlers, to small individual plots owned by African families, was difficult on its own. But it was also compounded by the fact that Africans who had never owned their own farms did not have easy, immediate access to many types of modern agricultural technology previously employed by white farmers. The U.S. made the economic situation far worse by imposing economic sanctions on Zimbabwe starting in 2001, heavily restricting its ability to export agricultural goods. The sanctions also limited Zimbabwe’s access to key agricultural imports needed to make fertilizer.

Speaking at the U.N. General Assembly in 2008, Mugabe said, “We want to be left alone.” He urged Western forces to stop meddling in his country’s internal affairs, and to allow Zimbabwe to alter its economic system toward one featuring a more equitable distribution of wealth.

Despite continued demonization in Western media, Zimbabwe continues to make economic changes. In December, Zimbabwe announced that it was adopting the Chinese yuan as legal tender. In exchange, the People’s Republic of China cancelled Zimbabwe’s $40 million debt to Chinese banks.

In March, Mugabe announced that the country’s diamond mines will be nationalized.

“Companies that have been mining diamonds have robbed us of our wealth,” Mugabe said. “That is why the state must have a monopoly.”

When making the announcement, Mugabe also pointed out that a recent drop in diamond prices has increased the frequency of swindling and corruption surrounding the already crime-stricken industry. Zimbabwe supplied about 13 percent of the world’s diamonds in 2013, but experts quoted by Reuters warned that the country is expected to account for less than 3 percent of the global supply this year.

The president criticized not only Western-owned mining corporations, but also those based in China, and argued that nationalizing the mines will ensure that the people of Zimbabwe get a fair share of the wealth created by their natural resources.

For those who follow U.S. foreign policy, it should be clear why Washington seeks an end to the rule of Mugabe and the ZANU-PF: Zimbabwe’s government is seizing control of the country’s natural resources, redistributing land, and cutting into the profits of Western corporations. Furthermore, Zimbabwe has aligned itself with China, an emerging economic rival of Wall Street.

Western intervention is never the answer

Western media and the CIA have learned to manipulate humanity’s basic feelings of compassion and solidarity for the purpose of conducting “regime change.” Media campaigns routinely highlight atrocities — both real and invented — and build up public opinion for “humanitarian intervention.”

This is the case in Zimbabwe, where Western media selectively report on corruption, violence and suffering in line with biases for regime change held by Washington and its Western allies.

It also happened in Libya, where NATO bombing and a coordinated campaign to topple the government of Moammar Gadhafi were carried out with the stated objective of saving the lives of innocent people. However, the result has been widespread chaos and poverty in what was once Africa’s most prosperous country. The previously stable country stands divided today, as rival factions battle for power, while militant groups like Daesh (an Arabic acronym for the terrorist group known in the West as ISIS or ISIL) have set up shop.

Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria have all suffered the effects of U.S.-backed regime change waged in the name of human rights. The populations that were championed as oppressed victims in the Western media broadcasts that built the case for intervention, are far worse off than before.

American media’s talk about human rights is selective. Governments that reject economic domination by American-based banks and corporations, and those which compete with them on the global market, become targets of demonization. Meanwhile, atrocities perpetrated by repressive regimes that cooperate with the U.S. are generally overlooked, or, as in the case of Saudi Arabia, supported.

A movement like the one unfolding in Zimbabwe right now — a movement championed in Western media and led by someone who has since fled to the U.S. — is unlikely to improve the situation of Zimbabwe’s people. U.S. efforts to cripple Zimbabwe’s current leader and party by funding the opposition isn’t evidence of U.S. concern for human rights; it’s evidence that Mugabe and the ZANU-PF aren’t adhering to the rules of U.S. hegemony and Western dominance.

While Zimbabwe certainly faces social and economic challenges, the Pentagon will not solve them. Western destabilization and intervention will make matters worse. Only the African people — people who have defeated an oppressive regime and rolled back the horrors of white minority rule — only they can lead the country forward.

Be Sociable, Share!

Labels: , , , , ,


Tuesday, September 06, 2016

(THE PATRIOT ZW) Story behind demos

(THE PATRIOT ZW) Story behind demos
By Patience Rusare -
September 1, 2016

ZIMBABWE, in recent weeks, has been rocked by violent demonstrations, mainly by MDC-T, Zimbabwe People First supporters and the ‘civil’ society, in a bid to effect regime change.

A spate of clashes spread on the streets of Harare as the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) fought running battles with violent protesters who hurled stones at law enforcement agents, set tyres ablaze, burnt a ZRP and a ZBC vehicle, while some razed to the ground the popular Copacabana flea market in the central business district (CBD).

They looted shops including one of the chain supermarkets Choppies and attacked innocent citizens, in the mayhem.

‘Managed Change Formula’

It is important to note that what is happening now is exactly what happened between 2007 and 2008 under ‘Save Zimbabwe Campaign’, then led by Dewa Mavhinga.

It is a repeat of the regime change agenda coined ‘Managed Change Formula’ by the International Crisis Group (ICG).

Managed Change Formula is a pre-programmed series of co-ordinated events taking place in different parts of the world, but timed to happen as part of a series with one event designed to influence the decisions of the next event and so on.

On March 5 2007, the ICG published a report titled Zimbabwe: An end to stalemate which claimed that a solution to the problem of Zimbabwe had been found as an agreement had been reached between the democrats of MDC and the moderates of ZANU PF to form an interim government.

In its report, long before people knew, the ICG, purported to be an intelligence supplier to Western governments documented that, ‘ZANU PF would negotiate with the MDC on a constitutional framework, power-sharing agreement, detailed agenda and benchmarks for a two-year political transition beginning in March 2008’.

And exactly six days later, there was violence as MDC senior party officials like Morgan Tsvangirai and Nelson Chamisa deliberately provoked the ZRP in order to be restrained physically.

The violence was timed to influence a meeting organised by the British Parliament to discuss the ‘Zimbabwean issue’.

Again, it was to influence the March 23 2007 US Congress meeting on Zimbabwe.

It is at the US Congress meeting where Dr Douglas Gwatidzo, who was chairperson of the Zimbabwe Association of Doctors for Human Rights; the same doctor who treated Tsvangirai, Chamisa and other MDC officials, gave an exaggerated medical report on the extent of the injuries.

In his accounts Dr Gwatidzo admitted to having been warned in advance to prepare to receive and treat injured people prior to the violence.

However, the climax was on March 28 2007, at a British sponsored hearing on Zimbabwe in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) where Britain called for Chapter Seven sanctions and Zimbabwe only survived the sanctions because China and Russia used their veto.

In events strikingly similar to the repetitive cycle of violence in 2007, the current disturbances, however, came at a time the MDC-T has reached a dead end and all opposition political parties on the table have no chance of winning elections.

After all failed attempts to give Tsvangirai and MDC countless political make-overs, US and the West ‘went shopping’ for a new face and voice with the same message (regime change).

The latest protests come nearly two months after a ‘stay-away’ advocated by a social media movement #ThisFlag led by one Pastor Evan Mawarire.

Enter Mawarire

Pastor Mawarire was barely known beyond his small congregation in Harare when he posted a ‘scripted video’ on the internet in April calling for Zimbabweans to ‘shutdown’ the country.

As part of his training to what he is doing now, Mawarire and his wife Samantha were in London, England, between 2007 and 2011 disguised as directors of church-cum companies His Generation Ministries and World Changers Limited respectively.

After his initial training he was despatched back to Zimbabwe in 2011 and set up his own church called ‘His Generation’ that has a congregation of about 50 – again another cover-up.

The narrative used to describe Pastor Mawarire as a simple pastor who came out of nowhere is not by coincidence.

And Mawarire is not a political accident who emerged as the voice of the voiceless Zimbabweans who took his creativity to the social media.

As part of further training, Mawarire had to undergo leadership development training.

In The Patriot of August 19-25 2016, a story headlined ‘Mawarire: Con artist or activist’ highlights that upon his return from Britain in 2011, Mawarire underwent some sort of leadership-development training, attending the Toastmasters International (TI) sessions.

Toastmasters International is a non-profit educational organisation that operates clubs worldwide for the purpose of helping members improve their communication, public speaking and leadership skills.
It offers a programme of communication and leadership projects designed to help people learn the art of speaking, listening and thinking.

After about 10 years of training, he knew exactly what to say, to ‘move’ the Nation.

Besides, he had a ‘good’ background; serving as child president in Zimbabwe between 1993 and 1994 after having been elected child MP for Mashonaland West Province’s Hurungwe constituency.
In 2011, he was chosen one of Zimbabwe’s 10 Outstanding Young People by the Junior Chamber International (JCI) for moral leadership.

The JCI is an American non-governmental organisation (NGO) of young people between 18 and 40 years old.
It’s supposed to encourage youths to be responsible citizens and to participate in efforts towards social and economic development and international co-operation, good-will and understanding.

Pre-meditated violence

Prior to the violent protests, international media was deployed to cover every form of violence against these groups for distribution to the rest of the world.

Last week’s protests were designed to damage the image of President Robert Mugabe at the Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD) VI summit in Kenya and at the 36th Southern African Development Community (SADC) summit in Swaziland.

The protests were designed to influence SADC to have Zimbabwe on their agenda.

It is our reading that the climax could be slated for the UN Security Council meeting running concurrently with the General Assembly to be held next month in New York, US.
Mawarire’s arrest was well orchestrated.

He wanted to be arrested and the ZRP unwittingly played right into his hands. He became the ‘victim’.

And the huge crowds that gathered at the Harare Rotten Row Magistrates’ Courts during his hearing were all staged to strengthen his profile.

He now had an excuse to leave the country and go to South Africa; first to garner support of fellow Africans, before travelling to US to mobilise support of Zimbabweans in the Diaspora sympathetic to opposition parties.

And the timing was also calculated.

Mawarire had to be in the US for at least a month, touring most strategic American states while mobilising support for demonstrations at the UN General Assembly in New York from September 17-21 2016 because President Mugabe will be attending the meeting.

Upon his arrival in the US, Mawarire visited different cities including Atlanta, Washington DC and Dallas.

He met with US personalities including former congressman Ambassador Andrew Jackson Young from Georgia.
Ambassador Young once served as the United States Ambassador to United Nations.

While in Washington DC, Mawarire had to put up a little drama as he wept while addressing a seminar at the Atlantic Council think tank.

The Patriot can reveal that Mawarire plans to stage the protests daily, with Saturday and Wednesday as the major days.

On Saturday September 17, protests will be at the Zimbabwe Consulate offices from 12pm to 4pm ‘to raise awareness to the world all over’.

“Saturday’s demo is mainly to raise awareness to the world all over,” said one of the organisers, Moses Mafusire, on facebook page North America #Thisflag.

“Protesting kuUN headquarters is a little complicated because security is tight, so our message might not be heard easily and second, there will be other protestors from different countries protesting about their issues, so we will be sharing attention.

“So on Saturday, we will be at the Zim UN offices, so the attention is focused on us and our objective to raise awareness is easily executed.”

Another organiser of the demonstrations, Chiwoniso Mpofu, urged protesters to come mainly on September 21 to ‘heckle’ President Mugabe as he gives his address to the General Assembly.

“Wednesday 21 is very important because this is the day Mugabe is going to give his speech and address the GA,” she said.

“It will be great if those who can attend during the week to come on Wednesday 21 and confront him.
“We won’t be able to see him, but while he talks we will be talking too.”

For the march, the organisers are yet to secure permits for various areas between Union Square, the Palace Hotel and the Zim Consulate buildings.

Apparently shuttle buses are to ferry people from nearby areas such as Manhattan, Brooklyn, Plainfield, White Plains and Iselin.

And accommodation is all in place for those travelling from Boston, Massachusetts, Virginia, Texas, Indiana, Philadelphia and Washington DC.

Some protestors are booked at The Courtyard Newark Downtown located at 858 Broad streel Newark NJ 07102 under the name ‘Zimbabwe Family Reunion Group’.

The organisers say they expect thousands of people to attend the demos and speakers include, Mawarire, Thomas Mapfumo, Dr Noah Manyika, Promise Mkwananzi of Tajamuka and Patson Dzamara.

Dr Manyika is the founder of ‘Build Zimbabwe’, an organisation opposed to ZANU PF.

Again the New York demonstrations are designed to ensure Zimbabwe is discussed at the Security Council and Chapter seven sanctions is enacted.

Concurrently back home, the protests will gain momentum.

They are planning on increasing the violent protests from once a week, to twice or thrice a week.
Protestors will continue to provoke the ZRP for clashes as the pictures will legitimise their claims of ‘gross human rights abuses’ in Zimbabwe at the international platform.

They want the UN to intervene under the pretext that the country is now a threat to international peace and security.

They are willing to go to any length to have Zimbabwe on the agenda.

On August 10 2016, at an Itai Dzamara-organised demonstration, demonstrators tried to use children as ‘human shields’.

Innocent children, flowers in hand, were put at the front to confront ZRP officers.
The protestors were hoping ZRP would beat or disperse the children with teargas and water cannons and have the pictures all over the world with headlines screaming ‘Gross human rights abuses’, but their efforts were in vain.

Riot police neither attacked the children nor adult protestors who had no police clearance, a prerequisite to hold a demonstration.

Could it be that opposition forces are becoming desperate by the day?
NERA: Another Save Zimbabwe campaign?

One thing the opposition is good at is re-inventing itself into coalitions or alliances by a variety of names.

National Electoral Reform Agenda (NERA) is just like the 2007 Save Zimbabwe Campaign that brought together most opposition political parties and major civil society organisations with the agenda of ousting President Mugabe from power.

Opposition parties that had become irrelevant have suddenly found their voices.
Mawarire’s call to remove a democratically elected Government presented them with an opportunity to become relevant.

They are well aware they are not capable of winning any elections hence their resorting to violence.
Opposition parties are thriving on violence.

They have nothing to lose in promoting the violence and in fact, it is only violence that gives them political relevance.

Who can explain why NERA, formed in December 2015, is suddenly active after eight months of hibernation?

Suddenly, from not more than five political party signatures since December to June 2016 to 22 political party signatures in just a month?

Is there a third force behind?

They have been told to join hands for what they call the ‘greater good’ of removing President Mugabe and ZANU PF from power.

While Mawarire is garnering for support from the West and the US, these opposition parties will continue to cause havoc in the country.

They have called for another demonstration (today) and hope innocent citizens get seriously injured or die in the process.

No wonder the false social media message that a soldier had stoned a boy to death last week Friday.
This is what agents of regime change want.

They are not worried about the safety of citizens, let alone the needs of citizens.
They do not care that the so-called ‘Arab spring’ did not bring any good summer to countries such as Egypt, Tunisia and much worse Libya.

Prior to 2011, Muammar Gaddafi had turned Libya into Africa’s most progressive welfare state. Libya had the highest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita and highest life expectancy in Africa. Less people lived below the poverty datum line than in The Netherlands.

It boasted free healthcare, education and numerous subsidies to support the well-being of the Libyan people

But look at what happened to Libya after the US/NATO interventionism.

It is now a failed state in complete political anarchy, with a destroyed economy and a war-torn society.

Libya does not have a functioning government, control of its borders or basic public services.
It’s being torn apart by warlords and rival militant groups.

Leaked emails for investigation of US Hillary Clinton’s server scandal revealed that the war against Libya was waged for economic and political reasons.

Libya’s nationalised oil reserves and plans to use gold as the chief reserve currency in Africa to compete against the euro and US dollar threatened US capitalist penetration in Africa.
It was never about the Libyans and in Zimbabwe it is still not about Zimbabwean interests.
It is well documented that Zimbabwe is endowed with vast minerals.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has assessed that Zimbabwe is the richest country in terms of natural resources per person.

What is currently happening in Zimbabwe is a push towards a war to loot the country’s natural resources and leave Zimbabwe a destroyed state, just like Libya.

That is the real story behind these so-called demonstrations.

Labels: , , ,


Monday, August 29, 2016

(THE PATRIOT ZW) The Struggle For Land in Zimbabwe (1890 – 2010)

COMMENT - The monopolisation of land a major source of poverty in Rhodesia, South Africa, Namibia, Kenya. It used to be 'white farmers' who monopolised the land, however they too are now increasingly removed from their land by the giant corporations, assisted by the IMF/World Bank's policies and approval. (Moeletsi Mbeki, 02:50) See Ambreena Manji's The Politics Of Landreform In Africa.

It is time to take the land from the giant corporations, and give it to the people. - MrK

(THE PATRIOT ZW) The Struggle For Land in Zimbabwe (1890 – 2010)… the BSAC usurped Chief Mutasa’s land
By The Patriot Reporter -
August 25, 2016

By 1896, more than 1 500 000 acres (600 000 hectares), virtually 100 percent of all arable land in the Melsetter District (Chimanimani), had been acquired and occupied by the Boer settler-farmers from South Africa, writes Dr Felix Muchemwa in his book The Struggle For Land in Zimbabwe (1890 – 2010) that The Patriot is serialising.

THERE were lots of gold reserves in the Manyika Kingdom, both reef and alluvial gold, especially along the Revuwe, Chua, Chimezi and Nyahombwe river valleys.

From the mid-19th Century, the Portuguese, led by businessmen Colonel Joaquim Carlos Paiva de Andrade, well known as Gouveia, and Manuel Antonio de Souza, supported by the Portuguese Government, grabbed land from Paramount Chief Mutasa in Manyika.

The Mozambican businesspersons and their company, the Mozambique Company, owned goldfields particularly in Mutare, Revuwe and Buzi river valleys, but not by Mutasa’s permission, but that of the Portuguese Government.

In fact, the Portuguese Government claimed ‘large parts of Shona country on the grounds that their traders and adventurers had penetrated this region during the early 16th Century’.

The claims included Umtali District (Mutare) and Nyanga as on Portuguese maps of that time, but this only drew counter-claims by the British South Africa Company (BSAC) and another company, the African Portuguese Syndicate (APS), owned by South Africans. (Bhila, 1982: pp.234-7)

Then the BSAC went further to impose a treaty on Paramount Chief Mutasa on September 19 1890, which provided that no one could possess land in Manyika except with the consent of the company.

The terms of this concession were quite similar, both in content and in spirit, to the Rudd Concession.
Two months later, on the night of November 16 1890, Major Patrick Forbes, supported by Captain R. Fiennes, made his way to the Paramount Chief, stormed Mutasa’s court, disarmed Gouveia’s soldiers, arrested the Portuguese leaders who were celebrating an agreement with the Paramount Chief and then replaced the Portuguese flag with the Union Jack.

Later on, however, an Anglo-Portuguese Convention of June 11 1891 partitioned the Manyika Kingdom, giving Portugal the Mozambican part of Manyika plus Gazaland and following the partition and the conquest of Matabeleland in 1893, the BSAC went further to include Manicaland in the Matabeleland Order-in-Council on July 18 1894 on the pretext that Manicaland was ruled by King Lobengula as part of Mashonaland before 1893 and was therefore part of the conquest of Matabeleland. (Palley, 1966: pp.114)
But Mutasa was not amused by this and protested directly to the British Secretary of State for the Colonies in London.

And, he was very emphatic that he had never been under King Lobengula’s rule or any king and that since inception in the 14th Century, the Manyika Kingdom had never been under foreign rule. (Bhila,1982: pp.240)

The Paramount Chief’s son, Chimbadzwa, the heir-apparent, was even angrier with these insults from the British.

Despite the conflict between Paramount Chief Mutasa and the BSAC, the Company had, through the Order-in-Council of July 18 1894, laid claim to more than 1 907 492 acres (762 997 hectares) of land which was virtually over 70 percent of Umtali District which included Nyanga. (Palmer, 1977: pp.182)

By 1896, this amounted to 224 farms allocated and occupied by European settler-farmers in this most favoured agricultural region one on the Zimbabwean Highveld and it left very little land for Mutasa’s people who were being forced out of the district by the BSAC.

On January 9 1894, the acting resident magistrate of Umtali demanded the supply of compulsory labour from Chikanga, ‘one of Mutasa’s daughters in charge of a ward,’ and the Sub-chief totally refused to supply the ‘forced’ labour to the gold mines and farms in Umtali District.

The result was that when Magistrate G. Seymour Fort returned, he gave her a 48-hour ultimatum which she again ignored resulting in him moving to confiscate livestock as well as effect arrest.

During the ensuing altercation, Fambesa, the sub-chief’s husband was shot dead while defending her. (Bhila, 1982: pp.241)

In her trial, sub-chief Chikanga completely rejected the Company’s presence and any claimed rights in Manyika and the BSAC responded by banishing the sub-chief, her brother, Chimbadzwa (Mutasa’s heir apparent) and the Manyika Spirit Medium, Muredzwa, to Barwe country.

Paramount Chief Mutasa was also required to unconditionally surrender his whole territory, including the gold-fields, to the BSAC (Bhila pp. 244) and to promise that his people would pay ‘Hut Tax’ and ‘rent’ to the Company and to European settler-farmers.

Behind the scenes, the judgement was, of course, informed by Magistrate Seymour Fort’s prior knowledge of a raging succession war between Chimbadzwa, who detested the BSAC and his half-brother Chiobvu, who favoured the British.

It was a succession battle the Company had fuelled for over four years in a bid to win over Manyika.
So it was that by 1896, virtually all of Mutasa’s land had been usurped by the BSAC and the European settler-farmers and many of his people had left Manyika.

Chimbadzwa, his sister, sub-chief Chikanga, and the Manyika spirit medium, Muredzwa, had been forced into exile.

Tendai Mutasa was a very lonely man and he was little expected to rise against the European settler-occupation of land in June 1896, when the First Chimurenga broke out.

Melsetter District (Chimanimani)

South of Umtali District, Melsetter had been made an administrative district in 1895.
By 1896, more than 1 500 000 acres (600 000 hectares), virtually 100 percent of all arable land in the Melsetter District, had been acquired and occupied by the Boer settler-farmers from South Africa. (Palmer, 1977: pp.182)

Little land remained in African hands, the population of which had dwindled from over 40 000 in 1891, to less than 13 245 people by 1896. (Warhurst, 1975)

Most African people in the district had been gradually forced out of their ancestral lands and driven into the Odzi/Sabi low-veld areas of Zimunya, Marange, Nyanyadzi, Chibuwe, Chisumbanje and Chiredzi.
Those who remained in the district only remained as ‘forced’ labourers or ‘slaves’ called ‘Shangaans’ on settler-farms.

However, despite the great reduction in their number, subjugation of their chiefs and their enslavement, the people of Melsetter still rose up and joined the First Chimurenga against the Boer settler-farmers on August 13 1896.

But unfortunately for them, they were quickly defeated by the Boer territorial forces called the Burghers on August 27 1896.

Labels: , , , , ,


Friday, August 12, 2016

Bertolt Brecht On Economic And Political Illiteracy

“The worst illiterate is the political illiterate, he doesn’t hear, doesn’t speak, nor participates in the political events. He doesn’t know the cost of life, the price of the bean, of the fish, of the flour, of the rent, of the shoes and of the medicine, all depends on political decisions. The political illiterate is so stupid that he is proud and swells his chest saying that he hates politics. The imbecile doesn’t know that, from his political ignorance is born the prostitute, the abandoned child, and the worst thieves of all, the bad politician, corrupted and flunky of the national and multinational companies.”

― Bertolt Brecht


Thursday, July 28, 2016

Stratfor on President Mugabe, Minister Mnangagwa, De Beers and Diamonds

COMMENT - Wikileaks shows the cluelessness of Stratfor's understanding of the Zimbabwean situation, as well as De Beers working in Zimbabwe against US policy. They admit sanctioning entire industries and many companies, in order to shape what comes after Mugabe - shape the Zimbabwean political scene. Not very democratic. According to Mark Schroeder of Stratfor:

To me this sanction is not about US businesses there (not much), but about
sanctions on Zimbabwean elite involved in the diamonds there to shape what
succeeds Mugabe

In other words, they think they are using sanctions to shape the Zimbabwean political scene. - MrK

Re: [Africa] ZIMBABWE/US/MINING - US blacklists Zimbabwean diamond companies

Released on 2013-02-26 00:00 GMT
Email-ID 5042006
Date 2011-12-13 20:49:49
Re: [Africa] ZIMBABWE/US/MINING - US blacklists Zimbabwean diamond

Maranga is good to make cash for some ZANU-PF elite. It is seen as under the control of the securocrats faction that involved the defense minister. The Mujurus, on the other hand, were seen as behind the River Ranch diamond area in the south, close to the border with South Africa.

To me this sanction is not about US businesses there (not much), but about sanctions on Zimbabwean elite involved in the diamonds there to shape what succeeds Mugabe. Mnangagwa and a host of other securocrats are facing this sanction. So the calculation among the securocrats has to be, if they go forward with Mnangagwa as their candidate, he is already under US-led international sanction, and the country will not be normalized. The US is likely to increase their rhetoric if Mnangagwa goes on to succeed Mugabe -- it's one thing to let Mugabe die out (the international community can do little about Mugabe), but they will not work with another securocrat.

Mnangagwa succeeding Mugabe will likely trigger renewed focus on sanctions and ZANU-PF might not have what it takes to withstand another 5 years of that.

So that's why they might need to focus on finding a successor who is not
under sanction but who can provide them security and financial guarantees,
in return for yielding power and not ending up in The Hague.

On 12/13/11 12:14 PM, Adelaide Schwartz wrote:

How important are the Marange/Chiadzwa mines for a ZANU-PF campaign? Is
this the principal operation from which Mugabe and co. receive cash for
political buy offs?

If this is a political move by the US as you raise below then I can't
help but think it is poorly calculated. What US businesses are still
there after repeated sanctions?
I agree that Mnangawa seems to be in the
top position for a "passed down win."

imo, real pull is US getting De Beers operators out (I don't think De
Beers has re-entered on their own but I would need to confirm since SA
changed the Kimb Process a few months ago)

On 12/13/11 9:11 AM, Mark Schroeder wrote:

here's an interesting development following the conclusion of the
ZANU-PF congress, though the date of the move is not clear. It would
mean that beneficiaries of Marange diamonds will not get US
cooperation-- and rather, will face sanction.
It is believed that the
Mnangagwa faction (the securocrats) benefits from the Marange
Back to our conversation on the future Zimbabwean election,
it would thus be very difficult for Mnangagwa to secure the election,
as he will face considerable international sanction/pressure against
Remember that the rival ZANU-PF faction led by Joyce Mujuru is
effectively knocked out of the running following the death by
mysterious fire of her husband, Solomon Mujuru.

On the other hand, the MDC is still in a weak position and no way
ZANU-PF will just give up and let them win. It thus opens the door for
some compromise accommodation, though surely with some hard bargaining
to be done.

On 12/12/11 11:48 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

US blacklists Zimbabwean diamond companies

Text of report by South African privately-owned, established daily
newspaper The Star on 12 December

[Report by Peta Thornycroft, Independent Foreign Service: "US
Blacklists Zim Diamonds"]

HARARE: The US has blacklisted several diamond companies that are
extracting rough stones from controversial diamond fields in eastern

The Office of Foreign Assets Control has blacklisted companies owned
by a state mining company and a private limited company which has
been financially backed by a South African investor.

Human rights organizations and investigators were infuriated when
the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme recently cleared the
diamonds for export from Zimbabwe

But it will now become impossible for any US citizen -and the EU is
likely to follow -to buy any stones from or via any of the
companies, all based in Zimbabwe.

The stones sold in Zimbabwe are mostly bought by buyers in Asia that
don't have any trade restrictions.

Mining licences in the diamond fields have been issued to Mbar
Diamonds (Mbada)
, a Zimbabwean company backed by a Mauritian company
and funded by South African scrap dealer New Reclamation
, in which
Old Mutual has a 5.6 per cent share.

South African David Kassel is the CEO of New Reclamation, and has
been involved closely in helping set up the diamond mine run by

The companies placed on the blacklist are: Marange Resources
(Private) Limited (aka Block Wood Mining, aka Marange Resources, aka
Mmarange Resources Ltd) MMCZ Building, 90 Mutare Road, Harare,
Zimbabwe (Box 4101, Harare); Zimbabwe Mbada Diamonds (Private)
Limited (aka CONDURANGA, aka Mbada, aka Mbada Diamond Mining, aka
Mbada Diamonds), New Office Park, Block C, Sam Levy's Village,
Borrowdale, Harare.

Source: The Star, Johannesburg, in English 12 Dec 11 p 5

BBC Mon AF1 AFEausaf 121211 jo

Labels: , , , ,


Thursday, June 30, 2016

How De Beers Pays Shareholders 23 times more than Workers

This report shows how De Beers is paying billions to it's international shareholders, money that is taken directly out of the South African economy. In fact, if they ever want to make the 'we bring jobs' argument, the same article also shows that De Beers spends 23 times more on it's international shareholders than on it's South African employees. This is the dispensation that Apartheid was intended to protect, and that is continuing under the ANC.

De Beers's Report To Society 2008 (cached)

De Beers Payments (billion USD) to:

International Shareholders: $6.2
South African Workers: $0.269
South African Taxman: $1.4


De Beers paid US$6.2 billion (2007: US$6.2 billion) to stakeholders around the world

Payments to partners, joint ventures and suppliers amounted to US$4.8 billion (2007: US$4.9 billion).

About US$3.2 billion of this was paid for diamonds and services in Africa (2007: US$3.6 billion)

Payments to employees in Africa amounted to US$269 million (2007: US$332 million)
De Beers paid US$1.4 billion in taxes and royalties to governments; 87.9%
of this (US$1.2 billion) was paid to governments in Africa

A total of US$1.1 billion was allocated to preferential procurement in southern Africa and Canada (2007: US$1.0 billion)

More than US$1.1 billion in rough diamonds was supplied to Sightholders for manufacture in southern Africa (2007: US$1.0 billion)


If the global economic crisis has underlined the extent to which the diamond industry is key to the prosperity of our producer countries, it has also highlighted the importance of recent efforts to leverage diamond revenues as a catalyst for building strong diversified post-mining economies in these countries.

The deployment of natural resources wealth as a platform for developing diversified economies in Africa requires firstly an effective model for the creation and distribution of natural resource wealth and secondly an effective model for translating this wealth into a robust economic, social and political capital base. The remarkable contribution of diamonds to development in countries like Botswana, Namibia and South Africa owes a great deal to the effectiveness of our partnership model in achieving the former. The year 2008, however, will be remembered across the Family of Companies for the progress made in supporting governments to achieve the latter through beneficiation programmes.

De Beers support for government-led economic diversification efforts in producer countries has focused until recently on local procurement and enterprise development initiatives. Beneficiation by contrast aims to leverage the current pipeline position of producer countries by facilitating the development and promotion of local downstream diamond sorting, cutting and polishing industries that, it is hoped, will endure well beyond the life of existing mines.

While the short-term success of these initiatives will inevitably be impacted by the current economic downturn, the long-term supply and demand fundamentals of the diamond industry bode well for the success of this process.

Labels: , , ,


Tuesday, June 28, 2016

They want to win at any cost

All our thoughts are with Fred M'membe of The Post, his wife and editor. What this PF government is doing is disgraceful. More here.

TODAY'S EDITORIAL COMMENT: They want to win at any cost By Editor |
Updated: 27 Jun,2016

THE International Press Institute (IPI) has revealed that there is a strategic plan by the PF government to shut down The Post and other private media in order for the ruling party to rig the August 11 general elections.

In a statement, IPI director of advocacy and communications Steven Ellis revealed that PF’s strategy to rig election results and brutalise the opposition were clearly outlined in a leaked document.

“Among other efforts, the document indicated that ‘No form of media should be given to the UPND in the form of news or campaign advertisements’ and that a ‘massive media character assassination’ campaign should be launched against UPND presidential candidate Hakainde Hichilema,” read the IPI statement. “The document also said that ‘prime efforts’ would be made to eliminate coverage by The Post .”

With or without the IPI revelations, it has always been clear to many Zambians that Edgar Lungu and his crooked, corrupt friends in the Patriotic Front want to retain power and continue to enrich themselves at any cost.

This is not only the most corrupt government in the history of this country but also the most intolerant and unrestrained regime. Edgar is all the time reminding Zambians about how much power he sits on. He has openly threatened to crush his political opponents, real or perceived, like a tonne of bricks. Edgar has issued open threats to the editor of The Post , telling him “alefwaya ukwakufwila”. He has also openly told The Post editor that he is the Head of State and there is no way anyone can fight with him and win.

The agenda to manipulate the electoral process and keep themselves in power has been on the cards for a long time. And The Post has consistently been warning the Zambian people about the high possibility of this year’s elections being rigged. It was The Post that exposed Edgar’s dealings with Timor Consulting, an Israeli firm of election ‘experts’. They denied this. But why should one deny a firm they are dealing with? Clearly, there was something wrong, something unacceptable they had been doing with Timor Consulting.

Then came the issue of the Ugandans who managed Yoweri Museveni’s last rigged election. It is these same characters Edgar has brought in to assist him in ‘winning’ this year’s elections. It is these same characters that worked with the Dubai printing company, Al Ghurair, that the Electoral Commission of Zambia has been forced to contract against dissent from the opposition. There are problems in Uganda. And there will be similar problems here. In Uganda, Museveni has resorted to tyranny, repression to silence anyone questioning or challenging the election results.

Edgar is doing the same.

Last week, he was threatening to sort out Hakainde Hichilema if he refuses to accept the election results, telling him “akamona efyo nkamuchita”. It is clear that as things stand today, we are highly unlikely to have free and fair elections whose results will be accepted by all participants – the winners and the losers. Edgar knows that with The Post around, it will be difficult for him to crush or sort out those who will refuse to accept the rigged results. Hence, his haste to get The Post closed before the elections.

We have stated it several times that it is not tax collection they are after from The Post; it is The Post, as a publication, they do not want to appear on the streets and expose their corrupt and crooked schemes. This explains why Edgar last week was very annoyed with the intelligence for failing to find out where The Post was being printed and stop it from coming out. What they don’t want is The Post hitting the streets. It’s not about taxes.

What is happening here is exactly what happened and is happening in Uganda. In Uganda, foreign nationals were registered to vote and they voted. Here, we have citizens of our neighbouring countries having been registered to vote. Zambia Police Service officers have been sent to Malawi to find out about the registration of foreign voters. They found it to be true.

But there had been a foolish scheme of trying to admit that indeed foreigners have registered as voters, but this was the work of the opposition. How stupid can one be to take such a line! What would this mean? This would mean that Edgar and his friends have not been working. If they have been working, how can the opposition issue National Registration Cards to Malawians and other foreign nationals?

The truth of the matter is that this is part of their own rigging scheme in the Ugandan style and fashion. Edgar’s threats to sort out Hakainde are similar to those of Museveni. We all know what has happened or is happening to Ugandan opposition leader Dr Kigya Besigye. He has been beaten, humiliated and locked up on trumped up criminal charges. Edgar is preparing himself for that type of brutality, repression.

And the first enemy of tyrants is always the free press. Wherever there is tyranny, the first to be hit, harassed or even annihilated is the free press. They know that without a free press, the protests, demonstrations, statements of those affected by their tyranny will not be heard. Where there is tyranny, there is no free speech and press. What we have in Zambia today is a highly corrupt and intolerant regime that has no scruples or restraint. They do not in any way realise that the exercise of power must be a constant practice of self-limitation and modesty.

With politicians like Edgar and his friends in power, Zambians must brace themselves for the worst. The bells tolling on The Post today will tomorrow toll on many other Zambians, and eventually on the whole country. The signs, the warnings of this are there. What remains is whether or not we heed them.

Don’t be deceived by the pretence of Edgar being a man of prayer. Even Hitler and Mussolini went to church. Even that monster Idi Amin masqueraded as a devout Moslem. But do religious people do what Hitler, Mussolini, Idi Amin did? Mobutu Sese Seko presented himself as a devout Catholic and was dining and wining with Catholic priests and bishops while committing all sorts of crimes and corrupt deeds against his people and his country. Edgar can build the so-called National House of Prayer and present himself as a man who prays to God to help him solve national problems, but behind that façade, the man is something else – evil.

And you hear it every day in Edgar’s language. Edgar’s language is that of threats – crush this one or that one, sort out this one or that one, fix this one or that one. That’s Edgar’s language. Is that the language of a religious man? In fact, it is a tendency of criminals to present themselves as very humble and religious people. Do you remember how humble and religious that criminal, Uncle Barry, was? You would leave him with your one-day baby without any suspicions of him hurting her. But he was one of the worst and most dangerous criminals this country has ever known. How else can criminals catch their prey if not by pretending to be humble, God-loving and fearing?

Anyway, when a prolonged, stubborn and heated struggle is in progress, there usually begins to emerge after a time the central and fundamental points at issue, upon the decision of which the ultimate outcome depends, and in comparison with which all the minor and petty episodes of the struggle recede more and more into the background. That, too, is how matters stand today in Zambia. What is at stake is now clear for all to see. It is all about Edgar defending his hold on power and privileges. He is not ready to lose the August 11 elections at any cost, even if that means closing The Post and sending all its employees on the street, manipulating the electoral process to such a degree that its results will be rejected by the losers and plunge the country into post-election chaos.

Edgar is not even ready to listen to the voice of reason from the Church. He is only listening to his own inner demons.

But at the rate Edgar is going, he is likely to end up at The Hague.
- See more at:

Labels: , , , ,


Saturday, June 18, 2016

US Ambassador Thomas Lies About Economic Sanctions

This post is a response to the latest US ambassador to Zimbabwe, who seems to feel he is in a position to lecture the Zimbabwean government about 'fiscal responsiblity' and 'chasing away foreign investors', while being blissfully unaware of his own government's actions to destroy the Zimbabwean economy.

(NEWZIMBABWE) Pay your debts! US envoy tells Harare
By Anna Chibamu, UK Bureau

THE economic crisis which has brought Zimbabwe to its knees has nothing to do with United States sanctions but the failure by President Robert Mugabe's government to pay the country’s debts.

Well no. This is my response:

So this is the latest fool they have sent down, to sell us their US state department garbage. Before him there was Ambassador Bruce, before him Charles Ray, before him Johnny Carson. Now it's ambassador Thomas. No relation to Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas, I hope?

Let me help the ambassador out, because he is clearly out of his depth, wading into matters he does not understand.

1) We have the law

We don't need your ensurances about 'targeted sanctions'. We have the text of the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001, Section 4C, which specifically mentions "the Government of Zimbabwe", twice. So keep your lawyerly lies about 'targeted sanctions' to yourself.

2) This article tries to connect things that are not connected.

Debt default had ruined Harare’s credit worthiness even before the US passed its Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Reform Agenda (ZIDERA) of 2001, Washington’s new envoy said in the capital on Thursday.

Mugabe also conceded the bad debtor problem at a meeting with war veterans in April, saying: “We’ve a disease in Zimbabwe, that of receiving and forgetting that debt should be settled.”

Let me remind everyone of the irony, that the US government is reminding the Zimbabwean government to pay it's debt, when it was the US government under Reagan and the Thatcher government, which reneged on their obligation to pay their part in the Willing Buyer, Willing Seller landreform program, which eventually led to it's breakdown (made official by Clare Short in her Nov. 1997 letter), and the replacement of Willing Buyer, Willing Seller with the Fast Track landreform program, against which Rothschild/De Beers/US object so much. I'll leave historic debts alone for a while.

Poor creditworthiness may sound like a fitting insult, and also conveniently ignores the disastrous economic effects of the neoliberal ESAP from 1991 to 1996, however creditworthiness has nothing to do with the collapse of the Zimbabwe Dollar in the year 2002. Creditworthiness doesn't paint extra zeros on banknotes. Not even an IMF decreed currency devaluation does that. Only a country that from day one to day two no longer has access to lines of credit, and is forced to operate on a cash only basis, would do that.

Creditworthiness also has nothing to do with the creation of ZDERA in 2001. (Read it.) Section 4A mentions that the IDA (International Development Agency) has suspended loans to the government of Zimbabwe in previous years, however, this is stated as a finding, and is not given as the reason for ZDERA. It has nothing to do with 'creditworthiness', and you can read the reasons given in the law itself.

The fact is that they wanted landreform to fail, and they did not trust the program or country to fail on it's own. The fact is that they want to prevent landreform in South Africa, let alone Namibia, Botswana and Kenya, if not more countries.

An MDC MP called it "slashing an already deflated tire".

3) Years ago, the MDC admitted that they too, when they were in government (look that up, mr. Ambassador, there was an MDC government), could not "move" with ZDERA in place.

Listen to that interview with former Finance Minister Tendai Biti, mr. Ambassador, before addressing this forum about the effects of America's economic sanctions against ("the Government of") Zimbabwe.

Subsequently, in 2010, there was a law introduced by US Senator Jim Inhofe to remove ZDERA. Around the same time, then US Senator and ZDERA co-sponsor Russ Feingold lost his seat. He had been trying to continue the economic sanctions against Zimbabwe through his own Zimbabwe Transistion to Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2010 (ZTDERA).

4) If it was not ZDERA, what else happened in the year 2002, that made the Zimbabwe Dollar collapse against the US Dollar? Notice the rapid excelleration of the the fall of the exchange rate from 2002 onwards.

That's 2002, not 2001, 2003, 2004, etc. 2002 is the year ZDERA 2001 came into effect.

Just a reminder of what these economic sanctions were:

(c) MULTILATERAL FINANCING RESTRICTION- Until the President makes the certification described in subsection (d), and except as may be required to meet basic human needs or for good governance, the Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United States executive director to each international financial institution to oppose and vote against--

(1) any extension by the respective institution of any loan, credit, or guarantee to the Government of Zimbabwe; or

(2) any cancellation or reduction of indebtedness owed by the Government of Zimbabwe to the United States or any international financial institution.
Now, do these sound like 'targeted sanctions' against individuals or individual corporations, or are these sanctions against "the Government of Zimbabwe", as mentioned twice?

5) What is the effect of economic sanctions worldwide?

Lest we think that economic sanctions only hurt Zimbabwe because 'somehow' the economy of Zimbabwe is exceptionally fragile, it would help to see what US economic sanctions have done to other economies around the world.

This was the effect of economic sanctions on the population of Iraq. BTW, Madeleine Albright is a business partner of Lord Jacob Rothschild, and George Soros, in Helios Towers Africa. It are the Rothschild Barons who funded De Beers, the world's largest diamond mining company, which is behind the propaganda against Zimbabwe. Also, Zimbabwe was formerly known as Rhodesia, named after Cecil Rhodes, the Founding Chairman of the board of directors of De Beers from 1888 until his death.

Were 500,000 dead Iraqi women and children "worth it" to weaken President Hussein? Was the destruction of the Zimbabwe Dollar through a credit freeze 'worth it', to dislodge President Mugabe and thwart landredistribution?

Labels: , , , ,


Friday, May 20, 2016

President Mugabe's Speech To The UN

COMMENT - President Mugabe is one of Africa's last Liberation War Heroes.

A woman from Eritrea sitting next to me in the gallery whispered: “He is a legend!” There were tears in her eyes. And when I told her later that I came from Zimbabwe, she looked at me with disbelief. “You are from there? You don’t know what you have,” she said rubbing tears from her eyes. ‘Go and tell them we can have the UN headquarters moved from there. It was a mistake to have it there in the first place.”

(THE PATRIOT ZW) Mugabe holds AU spellbound
By Alexander Kanengoni -
February 4, 2016

Recently in Addis Ababa, Ethopia

THE problem at the AU summit in Addis Ababa last week began when the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, took to the podium and, like a school head teacher, accused African leaders of bad governance and undemocratic practices, singling a few for praise.
“Leaders should not use undemocratic constitutional changes and legal loopholes to cling to power. Leaders must protect their people, not themselves,” he lectured. It was not difficult to guess the leaders he meant. He was so authoritarian and swashbuckling you couldn’t believe it was the same man who cringes at the sight of the Americans and the Europeans at the United Nations. He praised President Alpha Conde of Guinea, President Ellen Sirleaf Johnson of Liberia, President Ernest Bai Koroma of Sierra Leone and Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa.

That is how the problem began.

So that by the time President Robert Mugabe, the outgoing chairman of the AU took to the same podium to deliver his farewell message, he put aside his prepared speech and for 20 minutes, spoke directly to the UN Secretary- General a few metres away from him.

“It’s a pity I speak immediately after the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas because he represents a problem the UN has failed to resolve for decades. How long will the UN stand idle while Israel demolishes Palestinian homes and builds houses for its citizens on the rubble?” he asked the secretary-general.

Then he lambasted the undemocratic nature of the UN and how that has to change. He lamented the routine pilgrimages to New York each September to deliver hollow speeches in the General Assembly that no one listens to because decisions are made by the five members in the UN Security Council. He decried the hopeless position of the African because the whiteman deems him inferior. He warned if that is not changed and Africa given a permanent seat in the Security Council, they may pull out of the UN.

“Go and tell them that,” he challenged Ban Ki Moon, who kept holding his head down.
The summit responded with an ovation that rose and rose, rising to the roof of the conference center. Someone in the gallery screamed. President Yahya Jammeh of Gambia, unmistakable in his trademark white flowing gown and matching turban stood up clapping his hands. Then Paul Kagame of Rwanda followed, then Mahommed Buhari of Nigeria, then they all stood up. Later, everyone would agree it was an unprecedented historical moment. Jacob Zuma looked around and hesitated; you saw it in the way he looked around and the cumbersome manner in which he eventually rose. Robert Mugabe was writing his own bit of African history.

Yet he had not even started giving the grim details of the African story. He began with the horrible story of the slave trade when millions of Africans were shipped across the Atlantic to America to work in their sugar and tobacco plantations. That humiliation was followed by the colonisation of the continent until we had to take up arms to fight for our freedom and independence.

He remembered how Charles de Gaulle refused to grant Algeria independence because, he argued, it was part of France. There was a bloody 10-year war from 1954 to 1962 that claimed the lives of more than 300 000. Franz Fanon, a medical doctor who treated the wounded in that war would chronicle his ghastly experience into a historic book on the plight of the oppressed, The Wretched of the Earth.

Robert Mugabe remembered Ben Bella, the leader of that revolution and his enduring words at the formation of the OAU in Addis Ababa in 1963: “We must all die a little for people in apartheid South Africa to be free”. The sentiment constituted the bedrock upon which the philosophy of pan-Africanism was founded.

I looked down at Jacob Zuma from the gallery. He fiddled with a sheaf of papers on the desk in front of him. Perhaps he had been reminded of the xenophobic attacks that swept across his country in 2013 and left many fellow Africans dead. It was perplexing how South Africans forgot the sacrifices Africa made so that they could be free.

Robert Mugabe remembered Julius Nyerere and how he set up the liberation committee to help liberate Southern Africa, how all the liberation movements were offered military training facilities in the country. He remembered Nigeria and the difficulty it faced to pay its obligation to the OAU because of the war in Biafra at the end of the 1960s. And once the war was over, how Nigeria paid its arrears of seven million pounds in a single staggering lump. He remembered Kwame Nkrumah, Africa’s inspiration. He also remembered how every country in Africa was once a colony and how they fought to be free.

A woman from Eritrea sitting next to me in the gallery whispered: “He is a legend!” There were tears in her eyes. And when I told her later that I came from Zimbabwe, she looked at me with disbelief. “You are from there? You don’t know what you have,” she said rubbing tears from her eyes.

‘Go and tell them we can have the UN headquarters moved from there. It was a mistake to have it there in the first place.”

Ban Ki-Moon forced a smile but kept holding his head down. You wondered whether he understood what Robert Mugabe was saying. If he did, as we say in Shona, he must have wished the floor swallowed him.

At the summit, Robert Mugabe was the voice of Africa. He raised the meaning of being African to a new level by defining an African who was not confined to colonial borders.
“I am an African and I belong anywhere in Africa,” he said.

It was evident at the summit Africa listens and believes in voices similar to Robert Mugabe’s voice, the voice of the founding fathers. He told the African story. His leadership left an indelible mark on the African political landscape.

In his acceptance speech, the incoming AU chairman, President Idriss Deby of Chad admitted it was a daunting task to come after someone like Robert Mugabe because of the high benchmarks he had left.

And yet Robert Mugabe’s own story has not been told. There has been a spirited attempt by outsiders, especially our former colonisers to tell it. Their stories are driven by a dark desire to demonise his monumental African legacy. The British will dismiss any attempt by an outsider to tell Winston Churchill’s story; that is indisputable. We have to tell Robert Mugabe’s story.

And when at last he went to his prepared speech, back to programmes and strategies to fulfil Agenda 2063, he had already bared his soul. He is an African hero.

Labels: , ,


Saturday, May 07, 2016

The Vaccine Origin Of Monkey Virus Epidemics

The Vaccine Origin Of Monkey Virus Epidemics

The explanations for the HIV and later the Ebola virus epidemic have been prosaic. The notion that 1) monkey hunters in jungle somewhere ate these monkeys, got infected that way and 2) this led to a slow, spreading generalized epidemic breaking free from it's former jungle environment.

There is a simpler, more direct explanation. That explanation is, that for decades, western scientists have flown to Africa, trapped monkeys and flew them to the United States. From this organ tissue, they cultivated vaccines. Not all the monkey viruses were removed from these vaccines.

The result was that millions of people worldwide have become infected with monkey viruses. This has been the case for: HIV, SV40, Ebola and Zika. It is remarkable that all these viruses have been known to vaccine producers for over half a century.


MrK: This evidence is from an interview with the head of vaccine development at the Merck corporation, dr. Maurice Hilleman. In his words, "we brought the AIDS virus to the United States".

(YOUTUBE) Vaccine pioneer admits adding cancer-causing virus to Vaccine

(Natural News) Merck vaccine scientist Dr. Maurice Hilleman admitted presence of SV40, AIDS and cancer viruses in vaccines

Thursday, September 15, 2011
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of (See all articles...)
Tags: Dr Maurice Hilleman, SV40, vaccines

(NaturalNews) One of the most prominent vaccine scientists in the history of the vaccine industry -- a Merck scientist -- made a recording where he openly admits that vaccines given to Americans were contaminated with leukemia and cancer viruses. In response, his colleagues (who are also recorded here) break out into laughter and seem to think it's hilarious. They then suggest that because these vaccines are first tested in Russia, they will help the U.S. win the Olympics because the Russian athletes will all be "loaded down with tumors." (Thus, they knew these vaccines caused cancer in humans.)

This isn't some conspiracy theory -- these are the words of a top Merck scientist who probably had no idea that his recording would be widely reviewed across the internet (which didn't even exist when he made this recording). He probably thought this would remain a secret forever. When asked why this didn't get out to the press, he replied "Obviously you don't go out, this is a scientific affair within the scientific community."

In other words, vaccine scientists cover for vaccine scientists. They keep all their dirty secrets within their own circle of silence and don't reveal the truth about the contamination of their vaccines.

You can hear this interview at:

Here is the full transcript. (Thanks are due to Dr. Len Horowitz for finding this recording and making it publicly available.)

Transcript of audio interview with Dr. Maurice Hilleman
Dr. Len Horowitz: Listen now to the voice of the worlds leading vaccine expert Dr Maurice Hilleman, Chief of the Merck Pharmaceutical Company's vaccine division relay this problem he was having with imported monkeys. He best explains the origin of AIDS, but what you are about to hear was cut from any public disclosures.

Dr Maurice Hilleman: and I think that vaccines have to be considered the bargain basement technology for the 20th century.

Narrator: 50 years ago when Maurice Hilleman was a high school student in Miles City Montana, he hoped he might qualify as a management trainee for the local JC Penney's store. Instead he went on to pioneer more breakthroughs in vaccine research and development than anyone in the history of American medicine. Among the discoveries he made at Merck, are vaccines for mumps, rubella and measles…

Dr Edward Shorter: Tell me how you found SV40 and the polio vaccine.

Dr Maurice Hilleman: Well, that was at Merck. Yeah, I came to Merck. And uh, I was going to develop vaccines. And we had wild viruses in those days. You remember the wild monkey kidney viruses and so forth? And I finally after 6 months gave up and said that you cannot develop vaccines with these damn monkeys, we're finished and if I can't do something I'm going to quit, I'm not going to try it. So I went down to see Bill Mann at the zoo in Washington DC and I told Bill Mann, I said "look, I got a problem and I don't know what the hell to do." Bill Mann is a real bright guy. I said that these lousy monkeys are picking it up while being stored in the airports in transit, loading, off loading. He said, very simply, you go ahead and get your monkeys out of West Africa and get the African Green, bring them into Madrid unload them there, there is no other traffic there for animals, fly them into Philadelphia and pick them up. Or fly them into New York and pick them up, right off the airplane. So we brought African Greens in and I didn't know we were importing the AIDS virus at the time.

Miscellaneous background voices:…(laughter)… it was you who introduced the AIDS virus into the country. Now we know! (laughter) This is the real story! (laughter) What Merck won't do to develop a vaccine! (laughter)

Dr Maurice Hilleman: So what he did, he brought in, I mean we brought in those monkeys, I only had those and this was the solution because those monkeys didn't have the wild viruses but we…

Dr Edward Shorter: Wait, why didn't the greens have the wild viruses since they came from Africa?

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …because they weren't, they weren't, they weren't being infected in these group holding things with all the other 40 different viruses…

Dr Edward Shorter: but they had the ones that they brought from the jungle though...

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …yeah, they had those, but those were relatively few what you do you have a gang housing you're going to have an epidemic transmission of infection in a confined space. So anyway, the greens came in and now we have these and were taking our stocks to clean them up and god now I'm discovering new viruses. So, I said Judas Priest. Well I got an invitation from the Sister Kinney Foundation which was the opposing foundation when it was the live virus…

Dr Edward Shorter: Ah, right…

Dr Maurice Hilleman: Yeah, they had jumped on the Sabin's band wagon and they had asked me to come down and give a talk at the Sister Kinney Foundation meeting and I saw it was an international meeting and god, what am I going to talk about? I know what I'm going to do, I'm going to talk about the detection of non detectable viruses as a topic.

Dr Albert Sabin …there were those who didn't want a live virus vaccine… (unintelligible) …concentrated all its efforts on getting more and more people to use the killed virus vaccine, while they were supporting me for research on the live viruses.

Dr Maurice Hilleman: So now I got to have something (laughter), you know that going to attract attention. And gee, I thought that damn SV40, I mean that damn vaculating agent that we have, I'm just going to pick that particular one, that virus has got to be in vaccines, it's got to be in the Sabin's vaccines so I quick tested it (laughter) and sure enough it was in there.

Dr Edward Shorter: I'll be damned

Dr Maurice Hilleman: … And so now…

Dr Edward Shorter: …so you just took stocks of Sabin's vaccines off the shelf here at Merck…

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …yeah, well it had been made, it was made at Merck…

Dr Edward Shorter: You were making it for Sabin at this point?

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …Yeah, it was made before I came…

Dr Edward Shorter: yeah, but at this point Sabin is still just doing massive field trials…

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …uh huh

Dr Edward Shorter: okay,

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …in Russia and so forth. So I go down and I talked about the detection of non detectable viruses and told Albert, I said listen Albert you know you and I are good friends but I'm going to go down there and you're going to get upset. I'm going to talk about the virus that it's in your vaccine. You're going to get rid of the virus, don't worry about it, you're going to get rid of it… but umm, so of course Albert was very upset...

Dr Edward Shorter: What did he say?

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …well he said basically, that this is just another obfuscation that's going to upset vaccines. I said well you know, you're absolutely right, but we have a new era here we have a new era of the detection and the important thing is to get rid of these viruses.

Dr Edward Shorter: Why would he call it an obfuscation if it was a virus that was contaminating the vaccine?

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …well there are 40 different viruses in these vaccines anyway that we were inactivating and uh,

Dr Edward Shorter: but you weren't inactivating his though…

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …no that's right, but yellow fever vaccine had leukemia virus in it and you know this was in the days of very crude science. So anyway I went down and talked to him and said well, why are you concerned about it? Well I said "I'll tell you what, I have a feeling in my bones that this virus is different, I don't know why to tell you this but I …(unintelligible) …I just think this virus will have some long term effects." And he said what? And I said "cancer". (laughter) I said Albert, you probably think I'm nuts, but I just have that feeling. Well in the mean time we had taken this virus and put it into monkeys and into hamsters. So we had this meeting and that was sort of the topic of the day and the jokes that were going around was that "gee, we would win the Olympics because the Russians would all be loaded down with tumors." (laughter) This was where the vaccine was being tested, this was where… so, uhh, and it really destroyed the meeting and it was sort of the topic. Well anyway…

Dr Edward Shorter: Was this the physicians… (unintelligible) …meeting in New York?

Dr Maurice Hilleman …well no, this was at Sister Kinney…

Dr Edward Shorter: Sister Kinney, right…

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …and Del Becco (sp) got up and he foresaw problems with these kinds of agents.

Dr Edward Shorter: Why didn't this get out into the press?

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …well, I guess it did I don't remember. We had no press release on it. Obviously you don't go out, this is a scientific affair within the scientific community…

Voice of news reporter: …an historic victory over a dread disease is dramatically unfolded at the U of Michigan. Here scientists usher in a new medical age with the monumental reports that prove that the Salk vaccine against crippling polio to be a sensational success. It's a day of triumph for 40 year old Dr. Jonas E Salk developer of the vaccine. He arrives here with Basil O'Connor the head of the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis that financed the tests. Hundreds of reporters and scientists gathered from all over the nation gathered for the momentous announcement….

Dr Albert Sabin: …it was too much of a show, it was too much Hollywood. There was too much exaggeration and the impression in 1957 that was, no in 1954 that was given was that the problem had been solved , polio had been conquered.

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …but, anyway we knew it was in our seed stock from making vaccines. That virus you see, is one in 10,000 particles is not an activated… (unintelligible) …it was good science at the time because that was what you did. You didn't worry about these wild viruses.

Dr Edward Shorter: So you discovered, it wasn't being inactivated in the Salk vaccine?

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …Right. So then the next thing you know is, 3, 4 weeks after that we found that there were tumors popping up on these hamsters.

Dr. Len Horowitz: Despite AIDS and Leukemia suddenly becoming pandemic from "wild viruses" Hilleman said, this was "good science" at that time.

NaturalNews wishes to thank Dr. Len Horowitz for uncovering this interview from the national archives, and for getting it released so the public can learn the truth behind the deadly vaccine industry.

Learn more:


Zika was first isolated from a rhesus monkey in Uganda in 1947, by the Rockefeller Foundation. From the patent office, purchasable on line for a mere E599,-.

Patent: Zika virus (ATCC® VR-84™)
Name of Depositor: J. Casals, Rockefeller Foundation
Source: Blood from experimental forest sentinel rhesus monkey, Uganda, 1947
Year of Origin: 1947


The ebola outbreak started as suddenly as it ended. This is because the virus was the same it had always been. Ebola is far too virulent to survive in the human population for any length of time. Any virus that kills it's host with 3 weeks doesn't have the potential to infect a lot of people. On top of that, an ebola patient is only infectious in a few days before their death, when the disease is at it's worst. In other words, there is not a lot of opportunity for this disease to infect a lot of people. So how did a lot of people end up dying from ebola? The answer is that a lot of people were infected at once, and then the disease did what it does and the epidemic burned itself out. So how did lots of people get to be infected all at once? And how did the Zaire Ebola Virus make it all the way to Guinea, if not by migrating flocks of fruitbats or chimpanzees? The most obvious explanation is that a lot of people were injected with ebola, whether by accident or on purpose, as part of a vaccination campaign, and then sent home.

Either way, there is a biowarfare lab within 80 miles of Gueckedou, the alleged ground zero of the epidemic, according to the BBC at that time.

The VHFC or Viral Hemorrhagic Fever Consortium in Kenema, Sierra Leone, is staffed by employees of Harvard, the Broad Institute, Tulane University, Corgenix, Autoimmune Technologies LLC, University of Texas Medial Branch, Zalgen Labs, and more. The team is headed by dr. Robert Garry.

Labels: , , ,