WEF: Schwab replaced by WEF clone. George Christensen reports
Dear friend,
The globalist house of cards is shaking—and not a moment too soon.
Klaus Schwab, the unelected overlord of the World Economic Forum, the man who smiled as he promised you’d “own nothing and be happy,” has fallen. Not stepped down gracefully. Not retired honourably. Fallen. Dragged out by a tidal wave of whistleblower allegations so shocking, so brazen, they make a mockery of the moral superiority he’s cloaked himself in for decades.
Klaus Schwab was forced out of the World Economic Forum after whistleblowers exposed years of financial misconduct and abuse of power.
Leaked accounts revealed Schwab used WEF funds for personal luxuries, while promoting austerity and control through globalist policies.
His replacement, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, built a legacy at Nestlé marked by human rights violations and ruthless resource monopolies.
The leadership change signals a deeper entrenchment of the WEF’s agenda, not a shift in direction or values.
Nations must cut ties with WEF-driven initiatives to halt the spread of surveillance, corporate control, and digital oppression.
However… don’t expect the globalists to let one of their own go without a cover-up. The World Economic Forum, in its polished press releases and hushed board meetings, tried to spin his departure as part of a planned “transition.” But the truth broke through the PR fog. Schwab was forced out after an anonymous letter—penned by current and former WEF staff—blew the lid off a regime of excess, arrogance, and abuse.
According to those inside the belly of the beast, Schwab used junior staffers as personal cash couriers, withdrew thousands for his own use, and billed luxury in-room massages to the Forum’s accounts. His wife Hilde, a central figure in the WEF’s operations, allegedly arranged lavish getaways disguised as business trips. Together, the Schwabs used a multi-million-dollar WEF-owned villa—paid for by corporate donors—as their personal retreat. This wasn’t a glitch in the system. This was the system.
And while Schwab pampered himself on your dime, he preached austerity to you. He demanded the world submit to “stakeholder capitalism,” digital IDs, central bank surveillance, ESG tyranny, and climate lockdowns—all under the banner of “The Great Reset.” When COVID hit, he didn’t mourn. He mobilised. In his own words, it was a “narrow but unique window” to “revamp all aspects of our societies.” He called for stronger, more aggressive governments, and pushed for a “Fourth Industrial Revolution” where not only your work and money, but your very identity would be transformed.
He spoke fondly of implantable microchips. Of biometric monitoring. Of AI-run systems to govern your life. He wasn’t joking. He wasn’t theorising. He was planning. His books outlined it. His speeches confirmed it. The goal was never health, or equity, or sustainability. The goal was control. Global control.
But now, the wizard has been dragged from behind the curtain. The WEF board, facing internal revolt and global scrutiny, met in crisis over Easter. They ousted their figurehead. But instead of repentance, they doubled down. They chose as Schwab’s replacement another globalist titan—one with an even darker corporate legacy.
Enter Peter Brabeck-Letmathe.
The man whose name the media barely mentions. The former CEO of Nestlé—the world’s largest food and beverage conglomerate. The man who once said, cold as steel, “Water is not a human right.” (LINK)
He wasn’t speaking metaphorically. Under his leadership, Nestlé bought up global water rights, extracting billions in profits while towns like Flint, Michigan choked on poison.
While Schwab dreamed of digital prisons, Brabeck perfected resource monopolies—commodifying the most basic human needs, and locking down supply chains with ruthless efficiency. Nestlé’s global expansion under his watch wasn’t just about chocolate bars and instant coffee. It was about empire-building.
Brabeck ran Nestlé from 1997 to 2008, and the company’s history during those years reads like a corporate dystopia.
In 2005, a lawsuit was filed against Nestlé on behalf of trafficked children from Mali, who claimed they were forced into slavery on cocoa plantations in the Ivory Coast—plantations Nestlé sourced from. The plaintiffs alleged that Nestlé not only knew, but incentivised cost-cutting practices that led to forced child labour, beatings, and years of stolen childhood. Nestlé, of course, denied any wrongdoing. But the accusations were damning—and during Brabeck’s tenure, the company fought tooth and nail to avoid accountability.
Meanwhile, back in the Philippines, union leader Diosdado Fortuna—who led a workers’ strike against Nestlé—was assassinated in 2005. Shot twice in the chest, just like his predecessor years before. Brabeck never faced consequences. No outrage. No inquiries. Just profits and promotions.
This is the man now chairing the World Economic Forum.
Let that sink in.
The WEF isn’t reforming. It’s reloading. It’s shedding its old skin, hoping to deceive the world into believing it has changed. But the core is the same. The ideology is the same. And the mission is the same.
Once, the WEF was a simple business forum—born as the European Management Forum in 1971, intended to help European companies learn American-style competitiveness. But Schwab, ever the megalomaniac, transformed it into a vehicle for global social engineering. What started as trade talk turned into a shadow government for the 21st century—one where billionaires, unelected officials, and self-righteous celebrities gather each year to decide your future without asking you.
And now, the same machine is running, only with Brabeck at the wheel.
Make no mistake—this is not over. Schwab’s resignation is not a victory yet. It’s an opening. A crack in the foundation. A moment we must seize before they patch it over with another layer of corporate gloss.
Because this system thrives in secrecy. It survives on compliance. And it advances every time a citizen shrugs and says, “That’s just how it is.”
No. That’s not how it has to be. Not in your country. Not in mine. Not anywhere.
It’s time to sever all ties to this cabal of control. Nations must withdraw from WEF-aligned initiatives, end cooperation with its technocratic offshoots, and purge every public policy infected by its ideology. That means rejecting digital ID schemes. That means killing net-zero mandates designed by billionaires. That means returning power to the people—not to a boardroom in Geneva.
Klaus Schwab is out. But the globalist machine marches on.
It’s our job to block it. To expose it. To dismantle it. Piece by piece.
And we start by never letting them rewrite this moment. Schwab didn’t retire. He ran. And the man replacing him isn’t a saviour—he’s proof that the system still thinks it can win.
Let’s prove it wrong.
Until next time, God bless you, your family and nation.
Take care,
George Christensen
Michael Darby’s comment on Nestlé.
For very many decades Nestlé has pushed the message worldwide that breastfeeding is backward and prmitive, and that all modern women must instead force “infant formula” upon their babies. Papua New Guinea is just one example of a “market” where countless mothers have been propaganised and bullied into denying their babies the natural immunity inherent in mothers’ milk. Instead, mothers have been induced to threaten the health of their infants by mixing formula with unsafe and potentially polluted water for delivery through unhygenic bottles and teats.
There was always plenty of opportunity for profit in marketing safe supplements for nursing mothers. Not enough for Nestlé. I have an imperfect recollection of writing to this effect (as John Ainslie) in the Wagga Daily Advertiser in 1973.
Here is the LINK to the International Baby Food Network. In the days before WHO’s health focus was replaced by the current malign political focus, in 1981, the 34th General Assembly of the World Health Organisation adopted resolution WHA34.22, which included the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes.
Australian Federal Election Day, 3 May 2025
Principled Move by the One Nation team
The One Nation Team has recommended that Nationals and Liberals be preferenced ahead of Labor, Greens and Teals. Moreover, in key seats the One Nation How-To-Vote is reportedly recommending that all of the above be preferenced ahead of the Trumpet of Patriots candidate, in response to the ill-advised Trumpet of Patriots decision to place sitting members last. If proved correct, and One Nation supporters take notice of their Party’s HTV, this will be a heavy blow to the prospects of individual Trumpet of Patriots candidates and also to the prospects of Trumpet of Patriots Senate candidates.
Death of the Pope
George Christensen and I may differ on some issues. In all circumstances I can vouch for his integrity and sincerity. His viewpoint deserves to be heard.
George Christensen @NationFirstAust writes:
The death of Pope Francis is the final chapter in one of the most divisive and destructive papacies in modern Church history. I was at the Vatican on Easter Sunday 2018. Metres away from him. He passed by in the popemobile. The crowd roared. But what legacy did he leave?
Francis’ pontificate will be remembered for confusion, contradiction, and a catastrophic fracturing of doctrine. While the Church was bleeding members in the West, he opened the doors to ideas that would’ve made even the 1960s modernists blush.
This is not just about Catholics. This matters to anyone who values truth, order, faith, and the moral bedrock of the West. The Roman Catholic Church, still the largest Christian body in the world, has a gravitational pull that shapes Christianity’s direction globally.
And what of Francis’ theology? In Singapore, he declared “all religions are a path to God.”
He compared them to different languages. Bishop Joseph Strickland urged him to say clearly: “Jesus Christ is the only Way. To deny this is to deny Him.”
This wasn’t a one-off. In 2018, a boy asked if his atheist father was in Heaven. Francis responded, “God won’t abandon him.” It sounds compassionate and it's great PR but scripture and Catholic doctrine affirm: those who reject Christ do not inherit eternal life.
In a post to social media platform X after Francis’ death became news, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò recalled that 2018 Scalfari interview in which Francis reportedly said: “There is no hell, sinful souls simply disappear.”
Viganò wrote: “His soul has not disappeared, nor has it dissolved: he will have to account for the crimes he has committed, first of all having usurped the throne of Peter in order to destroy the Catholic Church and lose so many souls.”
He continued: “But if this non-pope and anti-pope can no longer harm the Mystical Body, his heirs still remain, the subversives whom he has invalidly created ‘cardinals’... It is on these people that the greatest responsibility for the outcome of the next conclave falls.”
Viganò’s mention of non-pope and anti-pope may bewilder some. However, many Catholics — including canonists and theologians — have questioned the validity of Francis’ election, citing murky resignation wording from Benedict XVI or pre-conclave politicking.
Worse, he’s left behind a College of Cardinals stacked with ideological clones — men who share his vision of a “synodal Church,” pluralistic, progressive, and allergic to clarity. The next pope may be even worse.
And synodality? Francis’ beloved project led to the Synod on Synodality — a global mess that encouraged heresy. Germany’s synod voted to bless same-sex unions and support abortion. Bishops nodded along. Francis looked the other way.
Then there were the scandals. In 2019, he allowed pagan Pachamama idols to be honoured at the Vatican. They were even placed near altars. Catholics across the world were horrified. Paganism was literally welcomed into the heart of Christendom.
An Austrian Catholic, Alexander Tschugguel, heroically dumped the idols into the Tiber River. Francis later apologised — not for the idolatry, but to the offended pagans. This wasn’t evangelisation. This was apostasy.
In 2017, Dutch abortion advocate Lilianne Ploumen was awarded the papal Order of St. Gregory. She bragged it confirmed her work. The Vatican later claimed it was just a diplomatic formality. Yet the Pope never revoked it.
Meanwhile, a stalwart pro-life priest Fr. Frank Pavone who ran Priests for Life was defrocked because he went too hard with visuals on social media. He was actually accused of blasphemy for his pro-life posts.
Even the Vatican’s top doctrinal appointee — Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández — once wrote about “theology of the kiss” and argued that in a good kiss “there’s theology” and “a little orgasm.” This is the man who oversaw doctrine under Francis.
Cardinal Orgasmo had a lot to do with Fiducia Supplicans — the Vatican doc that greenlit blessings for same-sex couples. It upended centuries of Catholic teaching by normalising sin under the guise of "pastoral care." Even faithful prelates called it heretical.
This has been more than a “liberal pope.” This has been a slow-moving spiritual train wreck. Francis hollowed out the Faith, confused the flock, appeased the wolves, and paved the way for something darker.
FOLLOW ME here on X
and SUBSCRIBE to my newsletter and blog at
http://nationfirst.com.au
— because we will keep holding the line against this collapse.
Thanks to George Christensen.
Michael Darby Comments:
Trevor Loudon’s book, helpfully brought to attention by renowned freedom campaigner Charles Kovess, highlights the importance of rejecting the Uniparty mob’s ALP-inspired false assertion that the major political parties are the same. Responsible voters who care about Australia see the difference and should vote accordingly. Make judgements based on how candiates allocate preferences. Freedom Candidates who preference Nationals/ Liberals ahead of Teals ahead of Labor ahead of Greens in that order deserve support. I shall preference Nationals/ Liberals ahead of Teals ahead of Labor ahead of Greens in that order. For the Senate I shall vote on the same basis, while being sure to number every column above the line so that the value of my vote is maximised. Please encourage everyone to do likewise by sharing to your mailing list THIS LINK to this substack. In any column of the Senate ballot paper it is fine to vote below the line if you wish.
Robert Balzola Writes:
Mon 21/04/2025 10:52 AM
Oh now you realise it.
In 1984 when I was on the Young Labor Council State Executive fighting in the Right Wing to nearly defeat him by less than 7 votes that would have ended his Career then, no one paid any attention.
No one engaging in direct Party Politics, see these tyrants rise to power then after they reach High Civic Office you right Memoire After Thoughts about the RLG (Radical Leadership Group) and its infiltration in contemporary Australian Politics I have been fighting with real people in real branches in in real politics over a lifetime.
This is the Real Australia. Reading about the takeover on Memes and watching it on TV whilst taking no action whatsoever.
Sincerely,
Robert Balzola
Robert Balzola and Associates (Legal) Pty Ltd
By email of Wednesday, 16 April 2025, Peter Newland, author of Elections and Voting for Dummies, writes:
I agree with Monica Smit, yet your second item knocking my 2-step strategy is totally wrong.
Sincere thanks to all who helpfully forward to friends the Michael Darby in Australia substack. Instead of forwarding, please SHARE THIS LINK TO THIS SUBSTACK.
THE LINK saves on data transmission and allows the recipients to see corrections and updates. Please also recommend to friends and post the link to social media.
NEW POLICY FOR THIS SUBSTACK
This elderly commentator on important issues can no longer afford to feed the cats while maintaining a significant research effort involving high communications and software costs to deliver valuable material to nearly ten thousand recipients of whom less than one fifth of one percent (God bless them!) are paid subscribers. I intend to keep feeding the cats, with your help. The substack system requires a minimum annual payment of $50 for a paid subscriber, but allows incentives to paid subscribers. Here are the incentives:
First up, until further notice every new paid subscription of $50 will be immediately upgraded to a ten-year subscription.
Secondly, every paid subscriber, including existing paid subscribers, will have unrestricted access to a growing audio library of Australian poetry recorded by me in my capacity as current Bush Poetry Champion of Australia. An example of an Australian poetry recording with my voice, is the wonderful Henry Lawson poem “The Fire at Ross’s Farm”, at this link. This version was produced by star audio engineer Peter Kukura. Some of my audio tracks are similarly enhanced.
Thirdly, for every book written or edited by me during your ten-year subscription, you will receive a personalised pdf by email. In case you have not yet read Unchain Australia (August 2021), here is the link.
VICTIMS OF VACCINE HARM AND SIMILAR GOVERNMENTAL OVERREACH: You will always be entitled to paid subscription status at no charge. To secure your paid status, email “Paid status please” with your name and phone number to mrmichaeldarby@hotmail.com.
The leading article of each Michael Darby in Australia Substack begins with an introduction available to all. The bulk of the article will often (but not always) be reserved for paid subscribers. This is standard practice by a very large number of substack writers. Thank you for your understanding, your cooperation and your dollars. The cats will be even more grateful than I am.
Extracts from the Catholic Weekly article
Thousands gathered outside NSW Parliament House on Wednesday evening to protest against an extreme bill that would – among other things – allow the NSW Health Minister to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortions and remove conscientious objection rights from health care practitioners.
The footpaths on both sides of Macquarie Street were already filling up thirty minutes before the rally’s official start. By the time it began, police needed to close two lanes of traffic to accommodate the burgeoning crowd.
Anti-abortion advocate Professor Joanna Howe welcomed the crowd, saying: “We put the call out less than a week ago; I was hoping we would get 200 people here; we’ve got thousands.”
Liberal member of parliament, Susan Carter, called for the “bad bill” to be rejected in its entirety. “When businesses act unconscionably it generally costs people money. But when medical professionals act against conscience there is often a life at stake. And what is more important?” she asked. “We need stronger consciences to shape our society – not a State that seeks to limit how we can use our conscience.” As she addressed the crowd, she was joined by many of her parliamentary colleagues, including Anthony Roberts, Natasha Maclaren-Jones, Tim James and Rachel Merton.
NSW registered nurse Naomi Bunker spoke about the real threats to nurses who conscientiously object. “We’re already struggling under the weight of a system that diminishes our conscience, disregards our ethical concerns and demands our participation in something that most of us don’t support,” she said. “This legislation doesn’t expand choice; it expands coercion… Abortion is not healthcare. It’s about ideology steamrolling over ethics, safety and common sense.”
Women’s Forum Australia CEO, Rachael Wong was next to address the crowd, taking aim directly at the proponents of the bill. “It is not enough for the Greens to have abortion until birth in NSW, the Greens want more abortion,” she said. “NSW Greens MP and former abortionist, Amanda Cohn, couches her radical and authoritarian new bill in the language of women’s rights… this is a bill put forward by a party that doesn’t even know what a woman is,” Wong quipped, extracting roars of laughter and applause from the crowd.
Comment by Michael Darby
There is a serious danger to Australia that Albanese will win on 3 May 2025. The reason is the strategic brilliance of the Labor Party.
The Labor Party customarily governs badly. While governing so badly the ALP still manages to dominate Australian politics by its focus on wining elections. That focus is wholly unscrupulous, as frankly disclosed by Graham Richardson’s 1994 book “Whatever it takes”.
An especially clever ALP strategy was the skilful promotion prior to the 2022 election of the furphy “The major political parties are all the same”, otherwise known as the Uniparty Myth.
The Uniparty Myth was enthusiastically promoted by a raft of individuals with varying opaque motives, from perceived self-interest to blatant desire for Labor victory.
There is a long-established Australian tradition that the faction running a political party will never miss an opportunity to change the rules in favour of the faction.
Half a century ago, the factional leaders became alert to the wonderful prospects offered by public funding of political parties. This potential bonanza would free factional leaders from boring tasks like pleasing their own supporters at least to the extent that the supporters be motivated to run events from chook raffles to formal dinners to pay for campaigns.
The driving force for continuous expansion of excuses for giving taxpayer dollars to political parties has been the ability and determination of parties in power to maximise their revenue, most easily achieved by doing everything possible to disadvantage small parties and independents.
An egregious example is the refusal to pay pro-rata funding to independents and/or small party candidates earning less than four percent of the vote. An independent candidate must be nominated by 100 registered voters, a requirement which is disgracefully waived for the candidates of registered political parties. Such a “registered” candidate can stand, and be elected, without have been able to find even one supporter beyond the party secretary.
Perhaps the most painful imposition upon independents and small parties is excessively high nomination fees, now the unconscionable figure of $2,000 for Federal Elections.
One day of pre-polling is quite enough. Every extra day is a deliberately inflicted disadvantage to small parties and independents.
These issues were not addressed and corrected by the power of the Freedom Movement in the course of the 2022 Federal Election Campaign, because the Freedom Movement was totally derailed in 2022 by a bunch of blowhards pushing the false story that the major parties are all the same.
Potential Freedom Candidates in the 2025 election face major disadvantages including the 4% threshold and the punitive nomination fee. A team of freedom candidates, for example a couple in the Senate and a half dozen in the House of Representatives, would have been able to prevent abuses and make changes for the better.
Whatever factional leaders may say and do to the contrary, to win and hold Government the Nationals/Liberals need the support of the Freedom Movement to offset the malign influence of hugely well-funded GetUp! and a raft of fake charities such as Oxfam and the Australian Conservation Foundation, all propagandising for socialist candidates hostile to Australian sovereignty, hostile to reliable energy and hostile to human life.
A price well worth paying by the Liberals and Nationals for the support of the Freedom Movement through the preference system, is allowing the possibility that Freedom Movement candidates can win seats, in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. The Nationals and Liberals should leap at the opportunity to preference, ahead of Teals, Labor and the Greens, in that order, all candidates who undertake to preference the Liberals and Nationals ahead of Teals, Labor and the Greens, in that order.
Organisations who demonstrably prefer defeat of Labor and the Greens, including but not limited to IPA, Advance Australia, and the Aligned Council, should change their business plan immediately. Instead of constantly asking for money to pay for their research and/or promotional programs they should be at this moment offering to pay the $2,000 nomination fee of every Freedom Movement candidate who undertakes to preference the Liberals and Nationals ahead of Teals, Labor and the Greens, in that order.
Coal Australia, the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association (APPEA) and the Austalian Nuclear Association (ANA) and the Australian Livestock Exporters Council should at this moment be offering to pay the $2,000 nomination fee of every Freedom Movement candidate who undertakes to preference the Nationals and Liberals ahead of Teals, Labor and the Greens, in that order.
All of the abovementioned friendly organisations should already have sent to their supporters an election timetable (above) asking that they ensure every eligible person whom they know gets on the electoral roll before the Monday 7 April deadline.
The Freedom Movement still exists and in very many electorates represents between ten percent and fifteen percent of voters. One way of identifying Freedom Movement participants is "Independents and candidates for minor parties, whether registered or otherwise. who respect opinions expressed by Gina Rinehart AO, and who do not trust Andrew "lethal humidity" Forrest AO.
Those good folk are presently directionless, and their potential to influence the result in favour of the Nationals and Liberals is undermined daily by the Uniparty lot, led by a plausible but wrong-thinking fellow named Topher Field.
Voters make judgements based on what they see on a How to Vote card. Liberal/ National voters can be persuaded to vote for a candidate, or for several candidates, who clearly recommend preferences for Liberal/National ahead of the Teals, ahead of Labor and ahead of the Greens, in that order.
Teal candidates can be persuaded to vote for a candidate, or for several candidates, who clearly recommend preferences for the Teals ahead of Labor and ahead of the Greens.
Labor candidates can be persuaded to vote for a candidate, or for several candidates, who clearly recommend preferences for Labor ahead of the Greens.
Greens candidates expect to be last on most ballot papers, and some will nevertheless vote for a freedom candidate or direct preferences to a freedom candidate, especially if there is a local issue involved. Topher Field's current video is at this LINK: https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=Topher+Field+video&mid=4D7AF4391DDC8DDBC8F14D7AF4391DDC8DDBC8F1&mcid=F33F6D0B7CF047F59B915762F17BEC79&FORM=VIRE
Topher Field makes clear his belief that only a moral defect could induce anyone to vote [2] Liberal instead of preferencing firstly his chosen coterie of candidates. His war is now transparently against the Liberal Party.
Topher Field and his fellow tools of the Labor Party destroyed the freedom movement in 2022 by guaranteeing that not one freedom candidates would be elected. If not silenced by the weight of public opinion, Topher Field and his fellow tools of the Labor Party will do the same again, and will course blame everyone but themselves.
There is only one way for freedom candidates to be elected. That is through a collaboration of candidates who need share agreement on only one issue. Differences of opinion among freedom candidates are wide indeed, the free trade Vs protection issue being one of many examples. There is only one area of agreement which is practicable and also very necessary for a genuine and successful collaboration.
That practicable and necessary area agreement is a commitment to recommend preferences for Liberal/National ahead of the Teals, ahead of Labor and ahead of the Greens, in that order.
Freedom candidates who collaborate have the power to put one of their number ahead of a major party candidate, and so have a path to possible victory on preferences.
For the Senate, members of such a collaboration should add a commitment to number every column so the vote keeps right on working.
The perfect collaborationist candidate is a member of the congregation at a church which happens to be a polling booth. The members of the congregation round up the nominations and provide the staff for the polling booth. Now that nominations have closed, it is not too late for independents to approach churches and seek support. Some Churches are also Pre-poll voting centres, an example being the Northside Church at 217 Bobbin Head Road, North Turramurra.
In most electorates, between ten percent and twenty percent of polling places are Christian Churches or Christian Schools, and the great majority of those are led by a Christian minister of religion who is very concerned about the hostility towards Human Life displayed by the Greens and their potential allies in the next Parliament, the ALP.
If you are representing an organisation which has thoughtfully provided you with $2,000 for the purpose, arrive today half an hour before a service and have a word with the Priest or Minister. If you are not so fortunate, try to offer $1,000 out of your own pocket and suggest that 25 parishioners kick in forty bucks each to reach $2,000.
In whichever payment scenario, the idea is that during the cuppa after the service a name is drawn out of a hat to select the candidate and the congregation gets on the job of staffing of prepoll and Polling Day.
This is the link to all the polling places in Australia in order of State, Postcode and Location. So wherever you are, you can confirm your electorate and identify your most convenient polling booth where you can support candidates whose How-to-Votes recommend preferences for Liberal/National, Teals, Labor and Greens in that order.
For the Senate, please follow the same principle and place unique numbers in every column, either above or below the line, so that the value of your vote is maximised.
Unfortunately the Electoral Office has not published an easily accessible list of Pre-Poll Locations. This is the necessary LINK.
Click above for a visual litany of windmill horrors. Stop these environmental disasters!
"...Papua New Guinea is just one example of a “market” where countless mothers have been propaganised and bullied into denying their babies the natural immunity inherent in mothers’ milk...."
Worse still many medicos inject hormones into lactating women to suppress their natural milk production in favour of recommending the "convenience" of commercial milk formulae and the false perceptions of poor hygiene and the "anti-social" spectacle of breast feeding mothers in public.