Chemically Induced Frankenstein-Humans

Robert Hunziker

One of the biggest open questions of this century is whether 144,000 different chemicals swirling throughout the world are properly tested and analyzed for toxicity. By almost all accounts, the scale of toxic risk is unknown. This may be the biggest tragedy of all time, a black eye of enormous proportions.

Correspondingly and very likely, not yet 100% proven but probably 99%, as a result of ubiquitous chemical presence, one hundred fifty million (150,000,000) Americans have chronic disease, including high cholesterol, high blood pressure, arthritis, heart disease, diabetes, fibromyalgia, cancer, stroke, asthma, cystic fibrosis, obesity, and osteoporosis (Rand Corporation Review 2017). Why?

According to Dr. Paul Winchester, who discovered the link between chemicals, like pesticides atrazine and glyphosate aka Roundup and epigenetic human alteration, the findings are: “The most important next discovery in all of medicine.” (Source: EcoWatch, Aug. 16, 2018)

Dr. Winchester was one of the researchers/authors of “Atrazine Induced Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Disease, Lean Phenotype and Sperm Epimutation Pathology Biomarkers,” PLOS, published September 20, 2017.

The grisly underlying message of that study is as clear as a bell: Chemicals found far and wide throughout America alter human hormones as well as human DNA, which passes along generation-to-generation known as transgenerational inheritance.

Frankly, nothing more should need to be said to spur outrage and pissed-off people all across the land because, if that seminal study is correct in its analysis that chemicals mess up/distort/disrupt human hormones and alter human DNA in a destructive manner, then the streets of America should be filled with people wielding pots and pans, probably pitchforks, and ready for the fight of a lifetime because, by any account, there has been massive failure of ethical standards and regulations of chemicals for decades and decades. Who’s to blame?

The primary targets are (1) the EPA and (2) FDA and (3) pesticide/chemical manufacturers, like Monsanto, and ultimately the U.S. Congress.

The chemicals in the aforementioned study include the herbicide atrazine, one of the most widely used herbicides in the country and commonly detected in drinking water. The study demonstrated that atrazine is an endocrine disruptor that negatively alters human hormonal systems, as chronic diseases overwhelm American society.

The European Union (EU) banned atrazine in 2003 because of persistent groundwater contamination. However, as for the EPA in America, it’s okay, no problem. But, doubtlessly one of those jurisdictions is dead wrong because it’s a black and white matter. Either toxic chemicals horribly messes up DNA and cause chronic diseases or not, no middle ground. As for America, chronic disease is at epidemic levels at 60% of the population. Where, why, and how if not from environmental sources?

Yet, the most disturbing issue is the epigenetic impact, meaning that environmental factors impact the health of people and also their descendants. It stays with and passes along the human genome generation-by-generation-by-generation.

According to Dr. Winchester, “This is a really important concept that is difficult to teach the public, and when I say the public, I include my clinical colleagues.” (EcoWatch)

Still, atrazine is not the only human hormone-altering chemical in the environment. Dr. Winchester tested nearly 20 different chemicals and all demonstrated epigenetic effects, for example, all of the chemicals reduced fertility, even in the 3rd generation.

Still, why do 150,000,000 Americans have chronic diseases?

Researchers believe that every adult disease extant is linked to epigenetic origins. If confirmed over time with additional research, the study is a blockbuster that goes to the heart of public health and attendant government regulations.

According to Dr. Winchester: “This is a huge thing that is going to change how we understand the origin of disease. But a big part of that is that it will change our interpretation of what chemicals are safe. In medicine I can’t give a drug to somebody unless it has gone through a huge amount of testing. But all these chemicals haven’t gone through anything like that. We’ve been experimented on for the last 70 years, and there’s not one study on multigenerational effects.” (EcoWatch)

The U.S. Congress passed a new chemical safety law for the first time in 40 years with the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act in 2016, but the provisions for regulation are totally overwhelmed by the tasks at hand. For starters, more than 60,000 chemicals came to the market without safety testing, and the burden of proof for regulators previously was so burdensome that the EPA wasn’t able to ban asbestos when necessary.

As for the effectiveness of the new law, consider this statement in the following article, “It Could Take Centuries for EPA to Test all the Unregulated Chemicals Under a New Landmark Bill,” PBS SoCal, June 22, 2016: “The new law requires EPA to test tens of thousands of unregulated chemicals currently on the market, and the roughly 2,000 new chemicals introduced each year, but quite slowly. The EPA will review a minimum of 20 chemicals at a time, and each has a seven-year deadline. Industry may then have five years to comply after the new rule is made. At that pace it could take centuries for the agency to finish its review.”

If that’s the best Congress can do to protect its citizens from toxic chemicals, they should be run out of town tarred and feathered on a rail. One more reason to abandon America’s socio-economic-politico scenario; maybe socialism would work better at protecting citizens.

Meantime, children are caught up smack dab in the middle of this 70-yr. experiment of untested and poorly/ill-tested chemicals.

Roundup (glyphosate) for breakfast? Yes, independent lab tests by Eurofins Analytical Laboratories found hefty doses of the weed-killer Roundup in oat cereals, oatmeal, granola, and snack bars. (Source: Alexis Temkin, Ph.D. Toxicologist, Breakfast With a Dose of Roundup? Environmental Working Group (EWG), Aug. 15, 2018)

“EWG tested more than a dozen brands of oat-based foods to give Americans information about dietary exposures that government regulators are keeping secret. In April, internal emails obtained by the nonprofit US Right to Know revealed that the Food and Drug Administration has been testing food for glyphosate for two years and has found ‘a fair amount,’ but the FDA has not released the findings.” (Environmental Working Group, August 15, 2018)

California state scientists and the World Health Organization have linked glyphosate to cancer. Yet, the chemical is pervasively found in products. Yes, on regular ole grocery store shelves.

EWG found the chemical in several cereals such as Back to Nature Classic Granola, Quaker Simply Granola Oats, Honey, Raisins & Almonds, Great Value Original Instant Oatmeal, Cheerios, Lucky Charms, Barbara’s Multigrain Spoonfuls Original, Quaker Old Fashioned Oats, etc.

Ironically, they all sound so very very healthy.

Why are French media obsessed with Ecology Minister Hulot’s resignation?

Francis Dubois

For a week, the French political establishment has been giving wall-to-wall coverage to the sudden resignation of Ecology Minister Nicolas Hulot on August 28. He announced his resignation in a short statement in an interview on France Inter radio, apparently without warning either President Emmanuel Macron or Prime Minister Edouard Philippe. Just before, he had declared that the government had not reached any of its ecological objectives, because it was not interested in them. He added that his decision had “matured over many months.”

Pundits and politicians turned Hulot, the former presenter on the extreme sports TV show “Ushuaïa,” into a great moral conscience of France, and his resignation into a moral crisis of the government.

Le Point called it “A resignation that hurts,” while Le Monde said the autumn would be “struck by the Hulot storm.” Unsubmissive France (LFI) leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon hailed Hulot’s gesture as “a vote to censure Macron.” Olivier Besancenot, of the Pabloite New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA), applauded Hulot’s resignation on Twitter, writing: “For Macron it’s not just the political back-to-school period, it’s a car crash!”

One-term ex-president François Hollande saluted Hulot, intoning, “He was right!” Hollande added, “I know what he brings, he is both a conscience and an expert of planetary issues.”

Macron’s party, The Republic on the March (LRM), did not admit to being moved, but was at least “bothered” by Hulot’s resignation. Le Monde wrote, “This departure upsets the vast majority of the members of the president’s party, who were deeply attached to the person of this ecologist and the causes he defends.” It cited an LRM leader who said Hulot represented “a struggle for ecology that is based in reality,” that is to say, based on capitalism, that corresponds “perfectly to the political identity of LRM members. His departure leaves us pretty bothered.”

With this flood of platitudes about Hulot, the ruling elite is trying to reassure TV audiences, and itself, on the cheap. Despite the collapse of the big-business Socialist Party (PS) last year and rising working-class anger at austerity, the political establishment is recklessly plunging ahead with plans to demolish the pension system and pledging to spend hundreds of billions of euros on the army. Fifty years after the May 1968 general strike, an explosive confrontation is being prepared.

Indeed, 10 days after an Elabe poll found that only 16 percent of Frenchmen think Macron’s policy helps France, and only 6 percent think it helps them, the media are all talking about Macron’s crisis. But it is only to noisily and endlessly congratulate itself that the ruling establishment contains moral giants, like what they pretend Hulot is, who are capable of being so true to themselves.

The constant praise of Hulot obscures the vast unpopularity of attacks on workers’ social rights; the role played by LFI, the NPA and the trade unions who sign contracts validating Macron’s social attacks; and the real danger of war. As Hulot resigned, Moscow was urgently warning NATO of the danger of a direct military clash in Syria. The official obsession with Hulot only underscores the vast class gulf separating the financial aristocracy from the workers and the perplexity of a ruling class that is historically doomed.

Of course, as the media never tire of repeating, Hulot is France’s most popular politician—though it is from the not-so-towering heights of a 38 percent approval rating. This puts him above Macron, Philippe and Mélenchon (17 percent in July). It is true that unlike Hollande or Macron, the presenter of “Ushuaïa” gives the impression that he would be happier doing TV entertainment than ordering drone murder or shaking the hand of a bloodthirsty dictator like Hollande’s friend, Egyptian General Abdel Fattah al Sisi.

Hulot was clever enough not to comment on the main policies of the government of which he was a member: the vast surge in military spending, the building of a network of internment camps for refugees, and the slashing of workers’ social rights. Unlike Macron, he did not snigger at the death of Comorian refugees drowning in the Indian Ocean or denounce the “crazy amounts of money” that France spends on social programmes for the working poor.

The fact that one becomes by default France’s most popular minister by not commenting on political events testifies, however, not to the strength but the degeneracy of the ruling elite. If this silence won him a small measure of popular sympathy, it does not make him a moral titan.

Hulot did not oppose the policies of the most right-wing government France has known since the Nazi occupation, a government he said he had “immense friendship” with as he resigned. He did not resign after Macron demolished the Labour Code with his antidemocratic decrees, launched an unprovoked bombing of Syria, privatised the National Railways, or rammed through a draconian immigration bill destroying the right to asylum.

He had entered the government knowing full well it was dedicated to austerity and militarism and based its foreign policy on France’s nuclear deterrent. When Macron sent military police to besiege and then brutally assault ecological protesters at Notre-Dame-des-Landes, Hulot approved the assault and hailed the policemen for their “restraint.”

His presence in government underscores above all the hypocrisy and blindness of a certain type of petty-bourgeois Green politics, which criticises the construction of nuclear power plants but calmly watches on as the government plans nuclear war.

Hulot declared a net worth of €7.2 million, including a personal fleet of six cars that attracted criticism for giving Hulot a large carbon footprint. In the context of the #MeToo campaign, Hulot was also targeted this spring by still unverified rape allegations from sections of the PS that were vastly hyped by the media and linked to aggressive calls for his resignation.

Now, he is instead being hailed for choosing the right time to leave the government, whose actions are now directly contradicting Hulot’s statements. The day after he resigned, a joint report of the economy ministry and Hulot’s own ecology ministry, stamped “top secret,” called for the building of six new nuclear reactors in France.

With Hulot running the ecology ministry, the government stepped up the burial of nuclear waste, even as studies confirm the rise of cancer rates around burial sites like Soulaines. Health researchers have confirmed a 28 percent increase in lung cancer mortality in a 15-kilometre radius around the nuclear site at Soulaines compared to the entire Aube and Haute Marne administrative department where Soulaines is located.

To win over the hunting lobby, the Macron government is working on a reform of hunting laws that makes broad concessions to traditionally right-wing hunters’ organisations. Hulot was then beset by criticisms from animal rights and scientific groups.

With relations between the financial aristocracy and the working class tense to the point of breakdown, Hulot carried out a policy that was entirely based on entertaining certain ecological and political illusions in wealthy and conformist layers of society. In the working class, an entirely different type of movement is being prepared, with revolutionary implications.

US push for sanctions of China over treatment of Uyghur minority

Peter Symonds

As the Trump administration escalates its trade war measures with China, a powerful group of US lawmakers headed by Senator Marco Rubio issued a letter last week calling for sanctions against Chinese officials allegedly responsible for human rights abuses against the Muslim Uyghur minority in the western province of Xinjiang.

There is no doubt that the Chinese police-state apparatus is responsible for gross violations of democratic rights against the Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities, as well as the Chinese working class as a whole. Under conditions of slowing economic growth and rising social tensions, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) regime is terrified that any opposition can become the focus for a broader movement that could threaten its rule.

Washington’s selective spotlighting of human rights abuses, however, has nothing to do with defending the Uyghur minority. It is aimed at whipping up anti-Chinese sentiment and encouraging separatist movements. Rubio chairs the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC)—an anti-China body that last month tabled a report replete with unsubstantiated allegations of Chinese interference in American politics. 

The letter signed by Rubio and 16 other members of congress called on Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to impose sanctions on Chen Quanguo, CCP secretary for the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, and other officials involved in human rights abuses. It also called for sanctions against Chinese companies, such as Hikvision and Dahua Technology, that allegedly profit from government contracts for surveillance projects.

“The detention of as many as a million or more Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim ethnic minorities in ‘political re-education’ centres or camps,” the letter declared, “requires a tough, targeted, and global response.” It called on the State Department to engage in “robust diplomatic engagement with likeminded governments to further elevate this human rights crisis” on the international stage.

Just days after the letter was published, the US and international media exploited a report from the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to inflate claims of Uyghur persecution in China. The Los Angeles Times headlined its article “UN accuses China of holding more than a million Muslims in secret detention centres.”

The UN report itself was more cautious about its claims, stating that large numbers of ethnic Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities were held without charge or trial under the pretext of countering terrorism and religious extremism. “Estimates about them range from tens of thousands to upwards of a million,” it declared, without citing any evidence to support the claim.

In its submission to the UN committee, the US-based Human Rights Watch suggested that “at least tens of thousands of Uyghurs” have been arbitrarily detained in political education centres. It referred to human rights abuses, including torture and restrictions on movement, freedom of religion and expression.

China, in its submission to the UN committee, said “there are no such things as re-education centres or counter-extremism training centres in Xinjiang,” adding that claims of a million Uyghurs being held in such facilities were “completely untrue.” Such declarations are certainly false. Beijing has cracked down ruthlessly on any protests or expressions of separatist sentiment in Xinjiang and heavily censors news reports.

Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying pointed to the hypocrisy of the US congressmen by suggesting that “China’s ethnic minority policy and actual situation are much better than those of the United States.” Highlighting the atrocious US record on democratic rights and its support for autocratic regimes around the world, however, is not a justification for CCP police-state measures.

Significantly, Rubio and his fellow lawmakers have concentrated on Xinjiang, rather than Tibet, which has been exploited previously in a similar fashion. Their letter hints at why. It declared that “the last thing China’s leaders want is international condemnation” of its abuses, “at a time when the Chinese government is seeking to expand its influence through the Belt and Road Initiative.”

The Belt and Road Initiative is a massive Chinese infrastructure project involving the construction of rail, road, port and communication facilities to link the Eurasian landmass by land and sea. Developed in response to the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia” aimed at undermining and encircling China, Beijing is trying to more closely integrate Eurasia economically and in doing so prevent China’s isolation.

As the westernmost province of China, Xinjiang is a focus for many of the land routes and pipelines planned to Central Asia and on to Europe. The congressional letter to the Trump administration seeks to encourage Washington to exploit Uyghur separatism to disrupt the Belt and Road Initiative and potentially fracture China itself.

The CIA and other agencies of US imperialism have long-standing ties with various Uyghur and Tibetan separatist organisations around the globe. Funds have been funnelled through the US-financed National Endowment for Democracy to the Uyghur American Association and the World Uyghur Congress based in Munich, which has close connections to the US propaganda arm, Radio Free Asia. These US activities are used by Beijing as another justification for their own repressive measures.

Democratic rights for the various ethnic minorities in China will not be won through the reactionary intrigues of the US and its various accomplices, but only in unity with the working class throughout China in a struggle against the oppressive CCP regime as part of the fight for genuine socialism internationally.

US report on Chinese “United Front Work” seeks to whip-up hostility towards China

Gabriel Black

On August 24, the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission published a new report entitled, “China’s Overseas United Front Work: Background and Implications for the United States.” Written by Alexander Bowe, it argues that China is working to “co-opt and neutralize sources of potential opposition” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in the US by funding and directing Chinese cultural student groups.

The report is, in reality, more of a pseudo-factual tirade aimed at whipping up an atmosphere of hysteria towards Chinese “spying” and “overreach” on American soil. It is the latest of many such hypocritical reports and articles that ideologically lay the groundwork for much more aggressive US measures against China, with the ultimate aim being the justification of war.

The main body of the report reproduces a host of alleged incidents of CCP funding and direction of Chinese student organizations in the US, which it claims are part of China’s “United Front” policy of “neutralizing” dissent abroad. The report, however, can only cite examples from two organizations, the Chinese Students and Scholars Associations (CSSA) and the Confucius Institutes.

The CSSA, which is present on many major campuses in the US, is, according to its Wikipedia entry, the “official organization for overseas Chinese students and scholars registered in most colleges, Universities, and Institutions outside of China.” It puts on social events and cultural events, like important Chinese holidays, and helps Chinese students navigate being in a foreign country.

The report notes several controversies surrounding the CSSA, including a CSSA allegedly paying its members $20 each for showing up to see former President Hu Jintao speak in 2011, emails presented by Foreign Policy showing, in 2018, that Georgetown University CSSA accepted funding from the Chinese Embassy in Washington, D.C., and the UC San Diego CSSA protesting the Dalai Lama speaking, a known asset of US intelligence. The report worries that China is exercising its “soft power” by financing and directing these cultural agencies.

Were all the factual allegations of this report true, they would amount to a small pile of salt next to the towering crimes and interventions of US imperialism in other countries. The US government alleges that the Chinese government is “neutralizing dissent” by funding these organizations on US soil. But, if paying students $20 to attend a speech is part of a larger plan to “neutralize dissent” in China against the CCP, then it would be difficult to find words to adequately describe the blood-soaked century of regime changes and war crimes perpetrated by the US, including numerous coups and CIA-backed civil wars.

An underlying fear in the report, is that positive Chinese-American relations could give Americans a positive association with China. For example, it complains that the Chinese government, through the Confucius Institutes, pays for 6,000 US high school students to visit China. The author writes, “An important goal of these exchanges is to try to build a friendly environment for China’s interests by giving participants favorable views of China, which they then disseminate, helping to legitimize the CCP.”

The report cites favorably a remark from Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian, an editor for Foreign Policy and writer for the Daily Beast, who actually advised the writing of the report, that the students would not have been able to afford to visit China had the government not funded it. The implication is that the US state-complex would prefer that US students have less contact with China, not visit the country so much, and not form “favorable views” that could help “to legitimize the CCP.”

Allen-Ebrahimian’s work, which is cited frequently in the report, is also aimed at whipping up anti-China sentiment. Her most recent article, published in the Daily Beast is titled, “NO ESCAPE: Chinese Cops Now Spying on American Soil.”

The Commission report makes the point that the greatest difficulty of China’s so-called “United Front” tactic, is that it “seek[s] influence through connections that are difficult to publicly prove and to gain influence that is interwoven with sensitive issues such as ethnic, political, and national identity, making those who seek to identify the negative effects of such influence vulnerable to accusations of prejudice.” In other words, the United States has a hard time justifying to the public cracking down on, or discouraging institutions, whose primary activity is cultural and social because it would look bad.

In another section, the report says China’s “United Front” tactic poses “a number of difficulties to US law enforcement and counterintelligence agencies.” It continues, “For instance, in light of the fact that the United Front work and China’s intelligence services specifically target ethnic Chinese, US law enforcement agencies attempt to design their counterintelligence protocols to avoid the perception of discrimination, with investigators focusing on tracking the activity of intelligence collectors to find out whom they have targeted, not the other way around.”

The passage then goes on to cite former FBI agent David Major, who testified to the China Economic Security and Review Commission in 2016 that, “It’s not how [the US government looks] at ethnicity; it’s how the [Chinese intelligence] collector looks at ethnicity. The Chinese intelligence services specifically target people who are [Han]. [Chinese-Americans] … have a higher probability of being targeted because of what [China’s] world view is.”

This is a remarkable passage. It is a back-handed justification of a mass dragnet against Chinese nationals living in the US on the basis that they are supposedly susceptible to the actions of Chinese intelligence—all of which is unsubstantiated.

The report must be placed in the context of the intensifying drive to war against China.

In November 2011, President Barack Obama declared the “pivot to Asia,” a comprehensive military, economy, and political strategy to encircle China and undermine its regional influence. The pivot included, among other things, the redeployment of 60 percent of the US armed forces to the Asia-Pacific region. The Trump administration has escalated the confrontation with China with a series of trade war measures which only heighten the danger of conflict.

It also takes place amid bitter infighting in US ruling circles over unsubstantiated allegations of “Russian interference” in the 2016 presidential elections and Trump’s collusion with Moscow. The feuding reflects tactical differences within the American security, military and political establishment over whether Russia or China should be confronted first. The report has the character of riposte by those who consider China to be the greatest danger to US global dominance.

Significantly, the report relies heavily on alleged Chinese interference and influence in Australia and New Zealand as proof of China’s global machinations. In reality, the allegations of Chinese activities in these two countries—both closely aligned with the US against China—are just as threadbare as those in the US report. In a warning of what is being prepared in the US, the Australian parliament has just rammed through draconian new “anti-foreign interference” legislation that creates a battery of new crimes that will be used against individuals and organizations opposed to the US war drive against China.

The burning down of Brazil’s national museum: A capitalist crime against the heritage of humanity

Bill Van Auken 

Brazil’s National Museum in Rio de Janeiro was gutted Sunday night by a massive fire that consumed not only the historic 19tth century palace that housed the institution, but a vast and irreplaceable collection of what was by far the largest natural history and anthropology museum in Latin America. The majority of the 20 million items it contained were destroyed.

While the immediate cause of the blaze is still unknown, this catastrophe and the irreparable loss to human culture were the product of policies of austerity and the diversion of vast social resources to feed the profits of international finance capital and a rapacious and culturally backward Brazilian capitalist ruling class.

Starved for resources by the Brazilian government, the museum was a disaster waiting to happen. Firefighters who arrived to fight the blaze were ill-prepared thanks to relentless budget cuts, lacking necessary ladders and other equipment. They found that hydrants near the museum had no water and they were forced to try to pump water from a badly polluted lake nearby.

Museum workers and scientific researchers rushed into the burning building in a desperate attempt to save what little they could. Local residents brought water to the scene and did what they could to help. Many workers, devastated by the scene of destruction, were in tears and embracing each other.

Luiz Duarte, one of the museum’s vice-directors, told TV Globo: “It is an unbearable catastrophe. It is 200 years of this country’s heritage. It is 200 years of memory. It is 200 years of science. It is 200 years of culture, of education.”

Destroyed by the fire was the oldest ancient Egyptian collection anywhere in the Americas, along with Greek artifacts and Roman frescoes that had survived the volcanic destruction of Pompeii.

The blaze also consumed what were the oldest human remains discovered in Latin America, those of “Luzia”, known as “the first Brazilian,” estimated at between 12,500 and 13,000 years old. Likewise destroyed was the 44-foot reconstructed skeleton of a Maxakalisaurus, a plant-eating dinosaur that lived in what is now Brazil 80 million years ago.

The museum also housed a priceless collection of some 100,000 pre-Columbian artifacts from Brazil and elsewhere in the Americas, including Andean mummies, textiles and ceramics.

Also contained in the museum were historic documents chronicling two centuries of Brazilian history. Burned remnants of these priceless papers were found as far as 3 kilometers from the museum after the fire.

The building that housed the museum, the São Cristóvão palace, is one of the most historic structures in Brazil. It became the residence of the royal family of Portugal, which had fled the invasion of Napoleon’s armies for Brazil. It was in the palace that Brazilian independence was declared in 1822, and in which the first Constituent Assembly of the Brazilian Republic convened in 1890, marking the end of the rule of the Portuguese emperor.

Under the management of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro since 1946, the museum was also a research facility in which Brazilian anthropologists conducted studies that derived from human remains evidence of migration from Polynesia to what is now Brazil. The museum also contained vast collections of flora and fauna specimens, including from extinct species.

The museum was also engaged in training scientists for an expedition to Antarctica to study fossils on the continent.

Professor Paulo Buckup, an expert in fish science at the museum, told the BBC that he was able to rescue a “tiny” part of the museum’s collection of thousands of specimens of mollusks.

“I don’t know how many tens of thousands of insects and crustaceans were lost,” he said. “I feel very sorry for my colleagues, some of whom have worked here for 30 or 40 years. Now all evidence of their work is lost, their lives have lost meaning, too.”

Demonstrators, most of them students from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, forced their way onto the site of the destroyed museum on Monday to protest the Brazilian government’s protracted cuts to funding for science and education that found their disastrous expression in the burning down of the museum. Police attacked the students with pepper spray, tear gas and stun grenades.

The burning down of a museum that contained a significant share of the heritage of humanity in the Americas and worldwide was the entirely predictable and preventable outcome of the policies pursued by Brazil’s governments in the face of the onset of the country’s economic crisis in 2014, both under the Workers Party (PT) administration of President Dilma Rousseff and, following her 2016 impeachment on trumped-up charges of budgetary malfeasance, her former right-wing vice president and successor, Michel Temer.

The museum went from receiving a budget of $310,000 in 2013 to just $132,000 in 2014. However, over the last three years it has received 60 percent or less of this amount. The cuts were first imposed under Rousseff’s PT government and then intensified under Temer.

The museum had submitted a report in 2015 saying that it needed 150 million reais (US$36 million) to repair the building, which lacked a sprinkler system and even any basic electrical wiring diagram for the centuries-old structure.

In 2015, the museum was forced to close its doors entirely because it lacked even the funding to pay staff or for minimum service from contractors. The closure had a lasting impact on attendance, which remained at record lows.

The museum marked its bicentenary in June under conditions in which massive budget cuts inflicted by successive governments had left it in a state of advanced decay, with a third of its exhibition halls closed, including some of its most popular, like the one containing the largest dinosaur discovered on Brazilian soil, its base having been eaten away by termites.

In an article on the bicentenary published by Folha de S. Paulo, the reporter noted that “the physical decay of the building that houses the museum ... is visible to visitors, who pay 8 reais [less than US$2] for a full-priced ticket. Many of its walls are peeling, there are electrical wires exposed and generalized poor maintenance.”

In the absence of even the most minimal budgetary allocations from the Brazilian government, the museum had launched an internet crowd-funding campaign to raise enough money to reopen its main exhibition hall.

Even as it starved the national museum for funding, the Brazilian government poured millions into structures for the World Cup and the Olympics, which generated lucrative contracts and kickbacks for the ruling PT and other sections of the ruling establishment.

The burning down of Brazil’s national museum and the obliteration of a significant share of the heritage of humanity stands as an indictment of a world capitalist system and a Brazilian national bourgeoisie that subordinates all questions of social policy to the imperative that a handful of individuals continues to accumulate immense riches.

In a country where the wealth of six men is equivalent to that of 50 percent the population, the destruction of culture is an inevitable byproduct of social inequality. Brazil’s super-rich have no interest in anything other than what they can own, pouring their money into helicopters that fly them over the country’s favelas to their offices in Rio and Sao Paulo and into Miami real estate and the global stock markets.

The destruction of the Brazilian National Museum stands as a stark warning to working people in Brazil and throughout the world. The defense of culture, history and the entire legacy of humanity depends upon the building of a mass movement of the international working class directed at putting an end to the irrational, destructive and selfish system of the capitalist ruling class.

Korean Government Scholarship Programme (Bachelors, Masters & PhD) for Developing Countries 2019/2020

Application Deadline: Applicants submit their applications either to the Korean Embassies around the world or to the partnering universities in Korea.

Applications (Embassy, University) are expected from:

• Undergraduate: September 2018 to October 2018 (To open in September 2018)
• Graduate: February 2019 to  March 2019 (To open in February 2019)

Offered annually? Yes

Accepted Subject Areas: Courses offered at one of the 60 participating Korean higher institutions

Eligible Countries: The Korean Government Scholarship is open to students from the following countries:
China, Japan, Russia, Cambodia, Mongolia, Vietnam, Mexico, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Kazakhstan, Myanmar, Chinese Taipei, Uzbekistan, Turkey, USA, Ethiopia, Colombia, Nepal, Senegal, Bangladesh, Ukraine, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Morocco, Azerbaijan, El Salvador, Egypt, Tanzania, Germany, France, Dominica, Chile, Iran, Canada, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kyrgyzstan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Pakistan, Gabon, Romania, Belarus, Bulgaria, Slovakia, United Kingdom, Czech, Guatemala, Ecuador, Algeria, Yemen, Uganda, Belize, Honduras, Italy, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Poland, Ghana, Georgia, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Nigeria, Republic of South Africa, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, Rwanda, Libya, Lithuania, Moldavia, Bahrain, Barbados, Bahamas, Venezuela, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Brazil, Brunei, Serbia, Seychelles, Sudan, Sweden, Slovenia, Armenia, Argentina, Haïti, Ireland, Afghanistan, Angola, Oman, Austria, Uruguay, Iraq, Israel, Zambia, Cameroon, Qatar, Kenya, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Croatia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Panama, Paraguay, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Fiji, Hungary, Australia, Jordan

About Scholarship: The Korean Government Scholarship Program (KGSP) is offered to international students who want to pursue Bachelors, Masters and PhD degrees in Korean Universities. The scholarship is aimed to provide international students with an opportunity to conduct advanced studies at higher educational institutions in Korea, to develop global leaders and strengthen Korea-friendly networks worldwide.

Eligibility: To be eligible for the Korean Government Scholarship:

Citizenship

• Candidates and their parents must hold non-Korean citizenship.

Age

• KGSP-G: under 40
• KGSP-U: under 25

Health

• Candidates must be physically and mentally healthy for their studies in Korea.

Degree Requirements

• KGSP-G: Bachelor’s or Master’s degree
• KGSP-U: High school diploma

Grades

• The cumulative grade point average (CGPA) must be 80% or higher; or
• The CGPA must be 2.64/ 4.0, 2.80/ 4.3, 2.91/ 4.5, or 3.23/ 5.0 or higher.

Number of Scholarships

• KGSP Undergraduate: around 170 grantees will be awarded annually
• KGSP Graduate: around 800 grantees will be awarded annually

Scholarship Benefits: Flight | Tuition | Stipend | Medical Insurance | Settlement Allowance | Completion Grants

Selection Procedure:

1st Selection: Applicants submit their applications either to the Korean Embassies around the world or to the partering universities in Korea. The embassies and universities select the successful candidates among the applicants in the 1st round of selection. The applicants of the successful candidates will then be forwarded to NIIED

2nd Selection: The NIIED selection committee selects the successful candidates among those who passed the 1st round.

3rd Selection: Among the successful candidates who have passed the 2nd round, the applications of those who applied through the Korean Embassies will be reviewed by universities for admission. Successful candidates must get admission from at least one of the universities.

Duration:

• 1 year Korean language course +2 year Associate degree
• 1 year Korean language course + 4 year Bachelors degree
• 1 year Korean language course+ 2 years of Master’s degree
• 1 year Korean language course + 3 years of Doctoral degree

To be taken at: Korean Universities.

How to Apply: Applicants can only apply for the Korean Government Scholarship through the Korean Embassy in their home country or a participating Korean University.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for Details about this scholarship. Also check here

Sponsors: The Korean Government, National Institute for International Education (NIIED)

250 Hong Kong PhD Fellowship Scheme for International Students 2019/2020

Application Deadline: 1st December 2018 at Hong Kong Time 12:00:00

Offered Annually? Yes

About the Award: The Hong Kong PhD Fellowship Scheme (HKPFS), established in 2009 by the Research Grants Council (RGC), aims at attracting the best and brightest students in the world to pursue their PhD programmes in Hong Kong’s institutions. About 250 PhD Fellowships will be awarded this academic year. For awardees who need more than three years to complete the PhD degree, additional support may be provided by the chosen institutions. The financial aid is available for any field of study.

Fellowship Worth: The Fellowship provides an annual stipend of HK$301,200 (approximately US$38,600) and a conference and research-related travel allowance of HK$12,600 (approximately US$1,600) per year for each awardee for a period up to three years. For awardees who need more than three years to complete the PhD degree, additional support may be provided by the chosen universities. For details, please contact the universities concerned directly.

Eligibility: Candidates who are seeking admission as new full time PhD students in the following eight institutions, irrespective of their country of origin, prior work experience, and ethnic background, should be eligible to apply.

• City University of Hong Kong
• Hong Kong Baptist University
• Lingnan University
• The Chinese University of Hong Kong
• The Education University of Hong Kong
• The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
• The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
• The University of Hong Kong

Applicants should demonstrate outstanding qualities of academic performance, research ability / potential, communication and interpersonal skills, and leadership abilities.

Selection Criteria: While candidates’ academic excellence is the primary consideration, the Selection Panels will take into account factors as follows:

• Academic excellence;
• Research ability and potential;
• Communication and interpersonal skills; and
• Leadership abilities.

Number of Scholarships: 250

Selection Panel: Shortlisted applications, subject to their areas of studies, will be reviewed by one of the following two Selection Panels comprising experts in the relevant board areas:

• sciences, medicine, engineering and technology

• humanities, social sciences and business studies

Application Process:

• Eligible candidates should first make an Initial Application online through the Hong Kong PhD Fellowship Scheme Electronic System (HKPFSES) to obtain an HKPFS Reference Number by 1 December 2018 at Hong Kong Time 12:00:00 before submitting applications for PhD admission to their desired universities.
• Applicants may choose up to two programmes / departments at one or two universities for PhD study under HKPFS 2019/20. They should comply with the admission requirements of their selected universities and programmes.
• As the deadlines for applications to some of the universities may immediately follow that of the Initial Application, candidates should submit initial applications as early as possible to ensure that they have sufficient time to submit applications to universities.

Visit Scholarship webpage for more details

Commonwealth Short Story Prize for Commonwealth Countries 2019

Application Deadline: 1st November, 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Commonwealth countries (See below for list of countries)

About the Award: The Prize is awarded for the best piece of unpublished short fiction (2,000–5,000 words) in English written by a citizen of a Commonwealth country. Short stories translated into English from other languages are also eligible, and we invite writers from Mozambique who write in Portuguese, and writers who write in Samoan, Swahili and Bengali, and who do not have an English translation of their story, to submit their stories in the original language.

Offered Since: 2012

Type: Contest

Eligibility: To be eligible, candidates must:

• have an unpublished short fiction (2,000–5,000 words)
• be a member of a Commonwealth country
• For regional purposes, entries will be judged by country of citizenship. Where the writer has dual citizenship, the entry will be judged in the region where the writer is permanently resident.
•  must be aged 18 years or over on 1 November 2018.
• There is no requirement for the writer to have current residence in a Commonwealth country, providing she/he is a citizen of a Commonwealth country.

All entries will be accepted at the discretion of the Commonwealth Foundation which will exercise its judgement, in consultation with the prize chair as necessary, in ruling on questions of eligibility. The ruling of the chair on questions of eligibility is final, and no further correspondence will be entered into.

Selection Criteria: The international judging panel comprises one judge from each of the five regions – Africa, Asia, Canada and Europe, the Caribbean and the Pacific. While the entries will be judged regionally, all judges will read and deliberate on entries from all regions.

Number of Awardees: 5

Value of Contest: Regional winners receive £2,500 and the overall winner receives £5,000.

Eligible Countries: 
Countries in Africa include:

• Botswana, Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia. Overseas Territories: St Helena, Tristan Da Cunha, Ascension Island.

Other countries:

• Asia: Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, India, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka.
• Canada and Europe: Canada, Cyprus, Malta, United Kingdom. Overseas Territories: Gibraltar, Falkland Islands.
• Caribbean : Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago. Overseas Territories: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Turks and Caicos Islands.
• Pacific: Australia, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu. Overseas Territory: Pitcairn.

How to Apply: Before you enter your story, do make sure you read the eligibility and entry guidelines. Then apply here

Visit Contest Webpage for details

Award Provider: Commonwealth Foundation

Australia Awards Scholarships (Masters and Short Courses) for 1,000 African Students 2019/2020

Application Deadline: for Masters: 3rd December 2018 | Application for Short Courses closes 15th January 2019.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroun, Cape Verde, Comoros, Congo(Republic of), Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome & Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia etc
In addition to the above, the following countries are eligible for Short Course Awards (SCAs)
Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Mauritania, Niger, North Sudan, Republic of Guinea, South Sudan

About the Award: There are two categories of Award: Australian Awards Scholarships, to undertake higher degree studies in Australia at Masters level. And Australia Awards Short Courses, to undertake short-term, targeted professional training courses, in Australia and/or in Africa, in a range of development-focused sectors.

To be taken at: African or Australian Universities.

Priority Fields (varies by African country)

• Agriculture/Food Security
• Education
• Health
• Public Policy (including public sector management, public sector reform, trade, international diplomacy)
• Environmental Management
• Natural Resource Management (including mining related subjects)
• Technical and Vocational Education & Training (available for Short Courses only)
• Energy (including Natural Gas and Oil Technology)
• Infrastructure
• Natural Resource Management
• Transport (including Ports, Roads and Airports Management)

About the Award: Australia Awards, a cornerstone of the Australian Government’s development assistance program for Africa, provide access to postgraduate education, training and professional development opportunities for suitably qualified Africans from eligible countries. On their return to the workplace, Australia Awards Alumni are expected to contribute actively to development in their home countries.

Offered Since: 1980

Type: Masters taught degrees and short courses

Eligibility: To be considered for a masters scholarship or short course award, applicants must meet their country’s eligibility requirements. In general, the following requirements apply

• Citizen of an eligible African country
• Minimum academic requirement: Bachelor’s degree or equivalent
• Mid-level to senior-level professional, currently employed in a relevant field
• Meet relevant post-graduate work experience requirements
• Demonstrate a clear vision of how the knowledge gained through the scholarship will be used to improve policy, practice or reform in their home country
• Satisfactory English proficiency to enable full participation in a training course delivered in English
• Satisfy all requirements of the Australian Government for the appropriate student visa (subclass 500).

Target Group

• You are a national of an African country. See country list below
• You are an early or mid-career professional working in the Public Sector, the Private Sector or a Non-Government Organisation (Civil Society) in one of the listed priority fields of study.
• You wish to undertake a Masters degree in Australia in one of the listed priority fields of study. You cannot study a Masters of Business Administration.
• You have a clear vision for how you will use the knowledge gained through the Masters degree to improve policy, practice or education in the proposed field of study.
• Gender Equality: Australia Awards target equal participation by women and men. Applications from women are strongly encouraged, and mechanisms are in place to support women applicants and Awardees.
• Disability Inclusion: Australia Awards aim to ensure that people with a disability are given fair and equal opportunity to compete for and obtain a scholarship. Applications from people with a disability are strongly encouraged. Mechanisms are in place to support applicants and Awardees requiring specific assistance.

Number of Scholarships: Up to 1,000

Value of Scholarships: This is a Full government sponsored scholarship

Duration of Scholarship: For the duration of candidate’s programme

How to Apply: Apply by selecting country and course HERE

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Sponsors: Australia Awards in Africa (AAA) is an initiative of the Australian Government.

DAAD Masters in Tropical and International Forestry Scholarship for Developing Countries 2018 – Germany

Application Deadline: 30th October 2018

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Germany

About the Award: The Georg-August-Universität Göttingen offers the MSc programme Tropical and International Forestry with the international degree Master of Science (M.Sc.). The programme is for students interested in pursuing an international career in forestry, nature conservation, ecosystem research or in development organisations.
Students are admitted to the MSc programme on the condition that they obtain a scholarship or bring their own financial support. The DAAD Scholarship Program is offered to students from Developing Countries.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: To be considered for the DAAD scholarship:

• Applicants work at either a public authority or a state or private company in a developing country
• Holds a Bachelor’s degree (4 years) in a related subject (Forestry, Biology, Agriculture, Ecology, Geography, etc.)
• Will have completed an academic degree far above average (at least 2nd class upper division) and at least two years of related professional experience
• Is no older than 36; his/her respective academic degrees should normally not be more than 6 years old
• Has an internationally recognized English test score: IELTS (minimum: band 6.0) certificate or TOEFL (minimum score: 550 paper based, 213 computer based, 80 internet based)

To be considered for the programme, applicants must have:

• BSc degree (or equivalent) in Forestry or a related field (e.g. Agriculture, Biology, Ecology, Geography) with very good to good results conferred by an institute of higher learning or a similar qualification
• proven proficiency in English (TOEFL 80 points/ibt, IELTS 6 points at least)
• Professional experience is also welcome

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The scholarship covers living costs, study fees, health insurance, travel costs and German language courses for the whole course (24 months). The monthly allowance is about € 750 plus additional payments.

Duration of Program: 24 months

How to Apply: Interested applicants should go through all application instructions before applying.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD)

The Carnival of Homelessness: How the Filthy Rich React

Binoy Kampmark 

An aggressive sign of an affluent society can usually be gauged by its invidious misuse of its privilege.  Poverty is deemed necessary, and the rich must try to understand it.  To be privileged is to be guilty, a tickling of the conscience as the pennies pile up and the assets grow; and from that premise, efforts must be made to give shape to the forgotten, and, in most cases, the invisible.

To be guilty is a spur for works that supposedly highlight those nagging reasons for feeling guilty.  You might supply donations.  You can become a philanthropist.  You can join a charity.  Obscenely, you can become a creature of mocking persuasion, a person of pantomime: you can assume the position of a poor person, a homeless person, and pretend to be him.  And let it be filmed.

“When I was given the opportunity to spend 10 days experiencing different forms of homelessness for an SBS documentary, I jumped at the chance to understand more about a crisis that now sees more than 116,000 Australians homeless on any given night.” So go the words of veteran thespian Cameron Daddo, a person who never explains how understanding Sydney’s poverty leads to results, other than spending time on the screen and proving rather awkward to boot.

The individuals involved in the tawdry Australian spectacle Filthy Rich & Homeless have various reasons for participating.  They have a chance, not merely to appear before the cameras, but to explore another part of Sydney.  What matters for Skye Leckie is the anger of authenticity.  Socialite that she is, she does not believe that her participation in the venture is “poverty porn” despite being the very same creature who benefits from having a good quotient of poor around.  “Those who say it’s stunt TV are being totally ignorant to the homeless situation out there.”  This is a delicious way of self-justification, a positioned blow to excuse how her exploitation of a social condition is entirely justified by a mysterious, holy insight.  Her pantomime, in other words, is heralded as genuine.

Benjamin Law, author and very much an identity beacon (those things help these days), played the cool cat.  In such ensembles, it’s always good to have the confidently composed, the person who won’t fall for the pathos of the show.  “I went to Filthy Rich and Homeless being adamant that it was only 10 days, and that I wasn’t going to cry – I felt it’d almost be insulting to people who were actually homeless.”  So goes his justification for actually participating in the project: he would hold firm, stay calm, keep his tear ducts dry. “But when it’s demonstrated that this could easily be a family member, and someone you love, I couldn’t not be affected.”

The show is sugary fodder for social media masturbation, an ever so prodding tease for those who feel pangs of stirring guilt. Nonsense about “genuine compassion” and “empathy” whirl through the chattersphere, with a disconcerting gurgle of approval at the program.  The implication is clear: like true porn, it produces a release, an orgiastic sensation. The poor are sociological wank fodder. In the aftermath is the little death, or should be.  Such programs float on the froth of sentiment, and last longer than they should.

There are shades of the carnivalesque, as Mikhail Bakhtin called it, in this exercise. The tradition of the carnival, he explained, suggested alternate worlds, inverted ones where social orders might, just temporarily, be suspended.  The performer, and the audience, would become one.  Communal dialogue might emerge.  But the participants will eventually go home; the nobility will revert to their high standing, and the poor will undress and return to their squalid, putrid existence.

Feudalism and tribalism may have made their official exit in the historical textbooks, but we still find stirrings of old custom in the media industry.  The poor are there to be mocked; the vulnerable are there to be, in some form, exploited.  Gone is the exaggerated chivalric code, as meagre as it was (keeping people in place), and the presumption of charity.  In its place is the clawing, scraping urge of the media moguls and networks keen to capitalise upon a condition, a disability, a drawback. Poverty is visual and lucrative for all – except the impoverished.

An obvious flaw in this project – several wealthy members of society burying themselves in the poor underbelly – is contrived anonymity. The monarchs supposedly travel incognito amongst the slums. The participants supposedly become unknown for a time.  The King and Queen scrap around the hovels.  But who recognises them?  Presumably everybody.  Not having a home, or living in indigence, doesn’t mean not having access to the saturation coverage called the World Wide Web.  The camera crews might be a giveaway, the very reality of which produces distortions in the interviews.

The grotesque scene uncovers itself, and the tears, spilling on cue, supply catharsis.  “Most interesting,” noted the Sydney Morning Herald, “is just how little time on the street it takes for them to be reduced to tears.”  To be fair, they only had ten days, so the performance clock was ticking.  The filthy rich feel justified – they acknowledged pain and desperation.  The poor, their role achieved, can simply go on living.