ONLY DEVELOPMENT WILL HEAD OFF EBOLA THREAT Despite the WHO declaring the Ebola outbreak in western Africa “a public health emergency of international concern”, very little international action has yet materialised. At least part of the reason is that which also underlies the potential scale of this outbreak—the deliberate lack of new economic infrastructure driven by the desire among leading government strategists and supranational institutions, such as the IMF and World Bank, to foster the depopulation of the planet. In his 1951 book, The Impact of Science on Society, Lord Bertrand Russell demanded population reduction policies, declaring that “War has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove effective. If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full.” In the 1970s American economist Lyndon LaRouche, in the early stages of forming his international organisation, recognised beyond the shadow of a doubt that such policies, designed to deliberately suppress the development of mankind, including crucial scientific and technological progress, and the discovery of new physical principles, had the potential to usher in a global holocaust. LaRouche forewarned of the genocidal results of these policies beginning in 1974, when he set up a task force to study the worldwide biologic ecological breakdown, and emergence of new diseases that would ensue if the “zero growth” economic policies then being imposed upon Africa, were maintained and came to prevail more widely. As of the 1980s, such consequences were already unfolding. A report of the task force was published in 1974. In 1983, LaRouche wrote of “the threatened resurgence of epidemics and perhaps even pandemics now that endemic potentials are arising from collapsing economies in both the industrialised and developing nations.” EIR’s 1985 Special Report detailed the scenario of a potential “biological holocaust”; in February 1986, an updated report was published, “An Emergency War Plan To Fight AIDS and Other Pandemics.” In a presentation on Aug. 30, 1997, LaRouche stated: “With the [Rwandan and Ugandan] invasions around the Ebola districts in Africa, we’re in danger of an Ebola breakout internationally, as well as other diseases, which turn up from obscure places, and can tend to become pandemic—epidemic and pandemic—for which humanity has no present immune potential; can kill off whole masses of people in very short periods of time, under these kinds of Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse conditions.” To prevent the danger of pandemics, he advocated for Africa in particular, as well as the rest of the world, water, power, and infrastructure development so that productive economies could be built, and modern, in-depth public health, and sanitation systems installed, and medical care established. Such developments would prevent the continent from being turned into a breeding ground for pandemics. On July 1, 1985, LaRouche’s Biological Holocaust Task Force released an “EIR Special Report: Economic Breakdown and the Threat of Global Pandemics,” presenting hand book style documentation of microbial disease threats. It detailed the scenario of a potential “biological holocaust,” of new and re-emerging human, animal, and plant diseases, if economic growth policies were not restored. HIV/AIDS, newly identified, was in the forefront. Seventy percent of the world’s HIV/AIDS victims are now in Africa. In an article published in the 1985 Special Report, “The Role of Economic Science in Projecting Pandemics as a Feature of Advanced Stages of Economic Breakdown”, LaRouche stated that underdeveloped, undernourished populations, with the collapse of sanitation, health care, and basic economic infrastructure, would increase death rates and “might become a breeding-culture for eruption of epidemic and pandemic disease, which requires special attention.” (Emphasis added.) LaRouche went on to explain that a healthy economy must develop and grow, in the same way that we see with healthy organisms and with the biosphere. But the growth of economies is a wilful, rather than an inbuilt or involuntary, process, dependant upon the minds of men. In recent years LaRouche’s scientific team has elaborated upon that idea, namely that the economy must keep pace with that of the evolution of the biosphere, or we will rapidly fall behind. The notentropic (expanding at a non-linear rate) growth of the biosphere ensures that new diseases, and new mutations, reassortments and recombinations of virus RNA strands, etc, come into being, as part of its natural evolution—all hastened by a fertile breeding ground (poor, undernourished people). To stay on top of these threats, man has no choice but to develop his knowledge and capabilities, as well as his economic infrastructure. Over the course of history most species have been rendered extinct because they were not capable of developing, and thus of keeping ahead of the curve of the ever-changing biosphere, and whatever it dealt them as a species. Man, however has the willful capability to break free of this extinction cycle—if we decide to. A healthy economy is characterised by a high rate of creative breakthroughs which translate into new technologies and innovations, requiring less input for a greater economic output, and more free energy for other pursuits. The only way to stop this Ebola outbreak, therefore, is to reverse the last 40 years of deindustrialisation, deregulation, globalisation, the deliberate shut-down of the physical economy in favour of services and speculation, and instead reinvigorate industry, agriculture, and science—especially missions which require upgrading our capabilities. Leonardo Sobehart, from the Nuclear Projects Division of a high-tech company in Argentina, INVAP, talked about this idea at the Seventh International Congress on Oil & Gas, in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, 21 August 2014. In an interview he said that we need to launch major projects that will mobilise entire nations, citing JFK’s Moon project as an example. “What is most difficult, is to choose the different problems to resolve. If the challenge is not sufficiently ambitious, there will not be any real advance in capability...” Brazil’s Vice President, Alvaro Garcia Linera, spoke about nuclear energy as “the fi re of the 20th and 21st centuries” which must be mastered, at the same event. This is the journey that Egypt has already embarked upon with its New Suez Canal and Toshka irrigation projects. This is what Australia must do, in coordination with our Asian neighbours. Many needless deaths have already occurred due to the policies which have deliberately imposed pandemics on Africa and other parts of the world—expect many more unless we replace these policies now! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= The only way to recover from a dark age, is to force the sorts of increases in energy flux density that will make up for the attrition of the intervening period. During all of that time, we were not “standing still.” A zero-growth society is a collapsing one. “Standing still” can only be accomplished by increasing the margin of physical economic productivity in tandem with the steady increase of physical economic consumption. In this respect, “standing still” in economic time is nothing other than irresponsibly managing to barely eke out that level of progress which is required to balance the attrition associated with the passage of physical time. In other words, human progress is not measured against some fixed backdrop called absolute time, of the sort posited by Newton and taken to absurd extremes by LaPlace. Human progress is measured against the constant evolutionary development of the universe as a whole. It is a relative time, defined by the relationship among physical processes of anti-entropic development. The kind of so-called “zero growth” or “sustainable development policies” proposed by the lunatics known as environmentalists, is in reality a policy of collapse. The attempt to stop human development will result—by their own admission—in the rapid death of 5 to 6 billions of people on this planet over the course of the coming decades. This is the policy of “population reduction” proposed by those promoting a “green” agenda. It is a genocide policy, which makes use of that peculiar fact of the physical universe which we have just discussed: It is not possible to simply stand still. It is as though the universe comes with a sign built in reading: “Do not back up. Severe tire damage.” - “Self-Developing Systems and Arctic Development: Economics for the Future of Mankind”, published in EIR 6 January 2012. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ‘LETHALLY INADEQUATE’ RESPONSE TO EBOLA OUTBREAK IS DELIBERATE GENOCIDE Barack Obama’s belated announcement today of sending 3,000 troops to Africa to help fight the spread of Ebola comes many months after the deadly virus first broke out and a full two months after Obama supposedly made it a national security priority. This action is now too little and too late to arrest a pandemic that is spiralling out of control, with the numbers of infected now doubling every three weeks. The Australian government, which is ever-ready to charge into Anglo-American wars, is firmly part of the “global coalition of inaction” that Médecins Sans Frontières has charged with being “lethally inadequate” in responding to the deadly Ebola outbreak. Indeed, at the very time the Ebola virus is spreading uncontained across the African continent killing thousands, not only is the Abbott government yet to respond with more than extra biosecurity at the airports, it is in fact ploughing ahead with slashing the CSIRO budget by an extra $112 million dollars, on top of the cuts imposed by the previous Labor government. This is forcing as many as 1,200 staff cuts across the CSIRO, including at Australia’s leading infectious disease research centre, the Australian Animal Health Laboratory in Geelong—a world class facility that is the only one in Australia equipped to deal with infectious diseases such as Ebola! The indifferent response to this global pandemic threat, and the take down of Australia’s scientific capabilities, can be attributed to a deeply held Malthusian world-view that has stymied effective action because of a belief in “overpopulation”. This genocidal ideology holds that such pandemics are nature’s way of correcting overpopulation—the stated view of Prince Philip, the great David Attenborough, so-called peace guru Lord Bertrand Russell and the original British exponent, Thomas Malthus. This green ideology has infected the outlook of millions of people in developed countries, who only become concerned when Ebola threatens to spread around the globe to their neighbourhood. THE DEADLY THREAT OF EBOLA There is no “cure” for the Ebola virus. Once a person is infected, the death rate ranges from 30-90 per cent. The virus appears to originate in bats, which is then transmitted to humans when those bats are eaten as “bush meat”—a source of wild food for many poor Africans. The virus then spreads from human to human through contact with body fluids, such as sweat and saliva of the infected. When a person dies from organ failure as a result of Ebola, the body is still infectious, posing a very high danger of infecting others in contact with the body. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), as of 12 September, over 2,218 people have died from Ebola and 4,366 cases have been reported in five African countries. However, the Ebola virus is not something new. In an Oxford study released on 8 September, new mapping of the virus reveals there have been 23 outbreaks in humans over the past 38 years, yet this current outbreak, which began in the west African countries of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone in December 2013, is the worst in history—far worse than all other outbreaks combined. Why is this Ebola outbreak the worst in history? The primary cause is that nations around the world have chosen to ignore it. A silent genocide has been allowed to occur, as the crisis has been met with indifference from many national governments. In Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone, there is virtually no healthcare infrastructure to deal with the outbreak. Hundreds of infected people are right now dying in the doorways of overcrowded medical clinics. The doctors and nurses who live in these regions are being killed by the virus too, and many now refuse to work in the clinics because they fear for their lives, due to lack of protective medical items such as face masks. Over one month ago, on 8 August, the WHO announced that this crisis, now spreading into neighbouring countries Senegal and Nigeria, constituted “a public health emergency of international concern”. One month on from the WHO announcement, there has been no adequate international response to halt the outbreak. It is this lack of response that has provoked angry doctors on the ground from Médecins Sans Frontières to accuse leading nations of having “joined a global coalition of inaction”. This is therefore not a crisis caused by the Ebola virus per se, but by the inadequate healthcare systems, and poverty in general, of a region which cannot cope. With an adequate response, it could have been contained early: as the Australian Medical Association President Brian Owler said in a 10 September press conference, the death rates for Ebola can be very high, but the provision of simple healthcare, such as receiving intravenous fluids for a period of up to three weeks, can cut mortality rates down to 30 per cent—a fact known all along, which didn’t require Obama to take two months to figure out. The crisis is the lack of physical economic development in these countries—the result of a failed global economic system—that has abandoned Africa to whatever chaotic outcome ensues. SOLUTION Citizens Electoral Council leader Craig Isherwood today charged that Australia’s lack of response, like other countries’, is because the Malthusian ideology governs both budget decisions and public health issues. “Why are we in Australia laying off scientists at a time when pandemic threats such as Ebola are out of control?” Isherwood demanded. “The government needs to abandon its Malthusian fiscal budget, because it literally is going to kill people, at home and abroad.” He continued, “To combat Ebola, we must combat the economic and environmental conditions that assist the virus to spread. Not only must we help Africa, with military and civilian logistical support, we must also dump the Malthusian and ‘zero-growth’ anti-development policies of the IMF and World Bank, who have failed Africa so miserably.” Isherwood pointed to the BRICS countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa—which in Julyestablished a New Development Bank with an initial capital injection of $100 billion, as an alternative to the IMF/World Bank system, to provide nations with credit for development. Isherwood concluded, “Australia and every nation must abandon the failed London-Wall Street system that loots Africa for its resources, and instead join with the BRICS countries in their agenda of restoring the respect for national sovereignty, and collaborating on physical economic development to uplift the living standards of all people.” Click here for a free literature package, of Executive Intelligence Review magazine’s reports on the Ebola crisis, and the comprehensive response required to solve it.
Posted on: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 16:44:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015