Archive | February 7, 2016

New Zealand’s ‘The Natural Health Supplementary Products Bill’ Bans Natural Products*

New Zealand’s ‘The Natural Health Supplementary Products Bill’ Bans Natural Products*

This is a very complex Bill with many unacceptable aspects. Due to the need for brevity and clarity we have restricted our comments mainly to aspects that will affect consumers.


The third reading of the Natural Health and Supplementary Products Bill is imminent. This Bill will ban most Natural Health Product (NHP) ingredients without just cause.

NHPs in NZ are presently regulated under a ‘Black-list’ (a short list of banned substances that have shown evidence of harm). We currently have the right to consume any Natural Health ingredients not on the ‘Black-list’, which gives us access to an unquantifiably high number of ingredients with no history of harm.

Under the new Bill this present ‘Black-list’ approach will be replaced by a new ‘White-list’ approach, with a very limited ‘White-list’ of ‘permitted ingredients’. Any ingredient that is not on this permitted ‘White-list will not be allowed to be sold in NZ

Many Natural Health Products will disappear if they contain even one ingredient that is not on their ‘Permitted White-list’. Many suppliers will also disappear as a result.

Any NHP ingredient that is recognised as having therapeutic (health improving) effect can be re-classified as a medicine by the MoH. Once it is classed as a medicine, it will be black-listed for use in Natural Health products. (This is already happening)

There is no accountability for harm or death as a result of consumers losing healthcare products that they depend on. There are no provisions in the Bill to make allowances for this if it does happen.

You can provide feedback to the Government on the Bill, sign a petition on and sign up with HFNZ for updates on this important matter.


The passing of the Natural Health and Supplementary Products Bill will result in many Natural Health Products becoming either severely restricted (via new proposed low dosage limits), or being made outright illegal in NZ.

All of the following contain one or more ingredients that do not appear on the list provided by the Ministry of Health, meaning consumers will no longer be able to purchase these products.

These are just a few examples that have been sent to us by consumers:

Liposomal Vit C,

Liposomal Glutathione,

Truehope EMPowerplus,

Hardy Nutritionals Daily Essential Nutrients,

5-HTP – all products,

L-Methionine – all products,

Metagenics Azeo-Pangen,

MediHerb TyAdren Support,

Pure Encapsulations Ascorbyl Palmitate,

Go Healthy Go Prostate Protect,

Syntol AMD,

Douglas Laboratories De-Mer-Tox,

Future Formulations Inner Healing.

We invite readers to contribute to this list by emailing us at

Natural Health Practitioners will be unable to properly practice as they will no longer be able to prescribe to their patients’ needs.

The Ministry has stated in the consultation document that products made by a practitioner for an individual patient will be exempt from the Bill – including Rongoā Māori and Traditional Chinese Medicine – but that these same products will not be allowed to be sold over the counter.

However New Zealand Health Trust’s interpretation of the Supplementary Order Paper (the most up-to-date version of the Bill) differs from this entirely in that Māori health practitioners and others using traditional herbal and other remedies to administer to an individual will be unable to use non-permitted ingredients.

We feel this is a classic example of how unreliable and misleading the Ministry’s information is in relation to this Bill. To make matters even more uncertain the Bill is crafted to allow most of the detail to be added AFTER the Bill has been passed!

Products presently classified as ‘Practitioner Only Range’ will not be exempt from the ingredient restrictions.

The proposed financing model of the new system presents significant risk to the majority of NZ small business supplement manufacturers, an outcome likely to result in only a small handful of large manufacturers remaining viable. This will result in a significant loss of variety of product in the natural supplements market in NZ.

The new regulatory system will be funded by industry on a Full Cost Recovery Basis by annual registration charges on all products. Note that there have never been any registration charges before.

These charges will rise as the range of products decreases due to the ‘White-list’ restrictions. Short run products will become economically unviable and thus will be discontinued, forcing smaller operators to close.

Every time a manufacturer reduces its product range or closes its doors, the remaining products and remaining manufacturers will have to shoulder more of the financial burden of funding the agency. The biggest players will benefit from this approach, as they can afford the fees – and this approach will increase their market share. This is one reason why large manufacturers support this bill.

Presently in Australia under the TGA it costs manufacturers $40,000 – $150,000 just to apply for one ingredient to be accepted on their White-list, with no guarantee of success.

There is little incentive to make an application because, if successful, a manufacturers’ competitors are able to benefit at no cost to them. And as only one or two ingredients per year have ever been passed by the TGA, manufacturers are discouraged from even trying. There is no reason to believe that this will not also apply here in NZ should the Bill be passed.

The Pharma based ‘single ingredient approach’, which is the framework of the Bill, is inappropriate and misleading for two reasons:

1. It does not reflect the fact that when NHP ingredients are consumed together, higher doses can be safely tolerated above the consumption of a single ingredient.

2. If any one ingredient in a product exceeds a specified dose, then the entire product will be outlawed in NZ. Most supplements have multiple ingredients, affecting a huge number of supplements that New Zealanders are already relying on for their health and well-being.

The Bill will allow Medsafe (the business unit of the Ministry of Health) to increase its control over NHPs by the following means:

It will reverse the basic historic principle confirming our rights to consume any natural health ingredient that is absent from a short defined ‘Black-list’ of substances where there is robust evidence of harm.

The number of ingredients we can currently access is too high to quantify, yet no deaths have been attributed to these ingredients or products (see “No Deaths from Supplements. No Deaths from Minerals. No Deaths from Amino Acids. No Deaths from Herbs”

Our present system will be replaced by a ‘White-list’ of permitted ingredients and only ingredients on this list will be sold in NZ. Furthermore, many permitted ingredients have severe dosage and application restrictions placed upon them. There is no scientific reasoning or justification for such limitations, and no history of risk to human health.

The proposed ‘White-list’ currently contains 5,545 ingredients. This may sound like a lot, but to indicate what this means in terms of what we stand to lose, we only need to add up a small handful of the numerous categories of currently permitted ingredients to appreciate the magnitude of loss. There are so far over 8,000 identified Polyphenols, over 3,000 Enzymes and over 12,000 Medicinal Plants. These few examples alone make it easy to see that only a small fraction of our current range of natural ingredients will remain, should this legislation be enacted.

Permitted Ingredients ‘White-list’ File

It is vitally important for you to check if any ingredients that you presently use in your supplements are not on the permitted list.

Which ingredients do YOU rely on? Check them out here. Or here in Excel spreadsheet form.

You can search the file by entering the ingredient name, or searching alphabetically in the Excel Spreadsheet. If the ingredient is not on the list at all, then it will not be permitted in over-the-counter products. Also check the maximum permitted daily dose, and whether it will be permitted for internal or external application only.

What the Columns Mean

In the ‘Outcome’ column

– ‘Y’ means ‘Permitted’ (but make sure you check the maximum permitted amount, and the application, e.g. Glutathione (an important antioxidant) is permitted, but only for applying to the skin),
– ‘N’ means ‘Unaccepted’,
– ‘U’ means ‘Under Review’.

If the ‘Reason’ column states ‘rejected by IJEACCM on safety grounds’ – IJEACCM stands for ‘The Interim Joint Expert Advisory Committee on Complementary Medicines’, a NZ/Australian initiative.

What is the Background to this Bill?

There has been a de facto pharmaceutical monopoly on medicines for almost 100 years.

When we become ill we need medicines. But pharmaceutical medicines are dangerous and can cause substantial harm.

The monopoly has endured and grown stronger due to laws that have been passed. There have been many discoveries made over those 100 years that offered safer, cheaper and more effective treatments than the pharmaceutical options, but the regulators have always stepped in to prosecute, confiscate product and even imprison the people who made or used the discovery.

Very occasionally the regulators’ attempts to destroy a new discovery are not completely successful, and a natural alternative flourishes for a few years. But the Big Pharma lobbyists respond and it doesn’t take long for new laws to be drafted that strengthen the monopoly and the status quo remains.

We can’t prevent Big Pharma and their lobbyists from trying to maintain and strengthen their position. They are very much aware of the impact that an appropriately regulated Natural Health Product industry would have on their market share. They have a duty to their shareholders to prevent natural medicines from entering the market.

But our elected MPs need to wake up and stop passing such laws. The Natural Health and Supplementary Products Bill is Pharma-based and hostile to the interests of the consumer and the Natural Health industry.

Consumers stand to be the biggest losers if this Bill is passed. There are many importers, manufacturers and re-sellers who do not oppose the bill for fear of retribution, as a lot of the fine print will be decided after it has been passed. They hope to be able to stay in business with reduced ranges and less effective products.

Consumers on the other hand, stand to lose access to life saving Natural Health Products.

NHPs can save lives in several ways, from helping people to stay well so the need for pharmaceutical intervention doesn’t arise (the death toll from adverse reactions to properly prescribed pharmaceutical medicines is over 100,000 a year in the USA alone) to products that are capable of returning seriously ill people back to good health.

Health Freedom NZ supports the aims and proposed legislative model of the New Zealand Health Trust. Their mission is to ensure that the consumer comes first in all health regulation, and that Natural Health should be regulated through a stand-alone regulator, not as a division of a larger pharmaceutical or food regulator. When you run this bill through the NZHT checklist of appropriate regulation it fails on every count.

What Can You Do?

This Bill will soon have its third and final reading to become law, and is expected to take effect around June 2016. The Regulations are expected to come into force shortly afterwards.

The Government is asking for public feedback on the Bill

The consultation document contains a list of 47 questions and a “consultation submission” can be filled out online.

However HFNZ recommends that the questions should not be answered because the regime is fundamentally flawed and engaging in the detail implicitly validates this unsuitable regulatory model.

For those who have limited time to prepare a submission and wish to oppose the Bill in principle, click the link below for a short pre-prepared submission.  We recommend you personalise your submission as much as possible.

SEND submissions to

Should you require additional time to make a submission, you should request an extension of time from the Ministry:

  1. Submissions on the Consultation Document close at 5pm on Friday 4 March 2016

    2. Submissions on the Draft List of Conditions about which a claim can be made & the Draft Permitted List will open on 6 Feb 2016 and close on 31 May 2016.

You can make a submission by emailing:

Or by posting your submission to:

Natural Health Products
Ministry of Health
PO Box 5013
Wellington 6145

Sign and Share the Petition Started by Professor Julia Rucklidge

This is on  Simply add your first name, last name, email, city (and reason if you like) to the text box on the right of the page, then click Sign.

We invite all consumers who want to be kept informed of developments and help to save our right of access to Natural Health ingredients to sign up for the Health Freedom Newsletter.


Related Topics:

Maori Elder Sends TPPA Partners, Queen A Formal Notice of Veto of Trade Agreement*

Deadline to Keep Homeopathy as a Health Choice*

You are in the Throes of Being Denied the Right to Good Health!

Canada Clamps Down on Healthy Living!

Sowing Seeds of Health, Hope and Humanity*

Falling Profits and Desperate Junk Food Companies Make Fun of Healthy Diets*

Criminalizing Healthy Food Paves Way for TPP*

Why is Vladimir Putin Meeting War Monger Kissinger?

Why is Vladimir Putin Meeting War Monger Kissinger?

Related Topics

Russia Says No to One-World Government*

Ban Ki-moon Wants Russia to Join America’s War on Humanity*

Putin’s Address to the U.N. in 10 Quotes*

Brzezinski to Putin: Stop hitting OUR al-Qaeda or it’s World War III*

Putin Blows the Whistle on the Who and the Why of ISIS*

U.S. on Russia’s Borders Trying to Provoke War*

As far as Honour Goes U.S. has None: Tries to Bait Russia with Lifting of Sanctions for Russian Withdrawal from Syria*

Russia has had enough: No more ‘business as usual’ with U.S.*

Media Campaign for Cameron’s New War*

Media Campaign for Cameron’s New War*

David Cameron is deciding whether to ask the U.K. if he can wage another war, this time in Libya. His deliberation over military intervention in the country, comes just a couple of months after the heated vote in parliament on Cameron’s request for airstrikes in Syria.

That deeply contested win for the Prime Minister – MPs voted 397-223 in favour – had very little support from the U.K. public. So, the mainstream media have already dutifully begun pushing out pro-military action propaganda to make Cameron’s plea, if he makes it, more palatable this time around.

The debate on military action in Libya has gained momentum following a recent U.S. intelligence assessment. Reportedly, an anonymous defence official has claimed the findings show ISIS (Daesh) is declining in Iraq and Syria, but gaining ground in Libya. On Tuesday, U.S. secretary of state John Kerry said:

“We’re still not at the victory that we want to achieve and will achieve in either Syria or Iraq, and we have seen Daesh playing a game of metastasizing out to other countries, particularly Libya…The last thing in the world you want is a false caliphate with access to billions of dollars of oil revenue.”

France is also said to be keen to move towards a military solution, and Italy has suggested it would consider being involved. In fact, Algerian newspaper al-Khabar recently reported that the U.S., U.K., and France, have already informed the Algerian government that they are planning airstrikes on Daesh in Libya – although their claim could not be independently verified.

Bomb first, think later

As the last decade and a half have shown, it is not unusual for western governments to use military action as a first resort, rather than last. They also often refuse to learn lessons from past wars. However, with the U.K.’s Syrian intervention very much a current issue, it’s ‘success’ should be taken into account when considering the prospect of strikes in Libya.

So, have the Syrian strikes been successful? Not at all, actually quite the opposite. As writer Tom Pride has pointed out, the strikes have even been criticised by anti-Daesh groups within the region. A Syrian journalist, working with RBBS – a collective of citizen journalists reporting from the ground – commented:

“Increases every day the number of air strikes on the city, and the misfortune of civilians. Most of the strikes targeted the National Hospital, the largest hospital in the city and the lifeline for all; today the National Hospital became completely out of service, and disease has become a calamity.”

Admittedly, it’s difficult to know which country carried out the strikes the journalist mentions, because there are so many militarily involved in Syria. In fact, Tom Pride points out that very few U.K. strikes have actually occurred, because of a lack of available targets in a battle with so many players. Extraordinarily, the UK even targeted oil fields that were already supposedly “obliterated” by Russia – that’s how sparse genuine targets actually are.

What the strikes have been successful in, is giving Daesh the anti-western propaganda they need to flourish. This is true in Syria and Iraq, and would certainly apply to Libya. Dr Arturo Varvelli, Head of Terrorism and Research Fellow at the Italian Institute for International Political Studies, spoke to Sputnik news on the matter:

“An external intervention could help ISIS [Daesh] in Libya to enlarge the cooperation with other radical groups — IS could then become stronger”

Seemingly, such cooperation between radical groups in Libya is already starting to happen, amid the discourse on intervention.

Hungry for more war

Despite the serious questions, and flaws, that need to be addressed before an intervention in Libya is decided, the mainstream media has already begun a propaganda campaign to justify the action. News outlets are pushing the narrative that a Daesh “surge” is occurring in Libya, where top Daesh commanders are “taking refuge“, and “control and crucifixions” dominate daily life. As Media Lens have identified:

The BBC is pulling no punches in their manipulation of the public mind. They have even made clear how readers should feel about their reporting on life in Libya:

“Warning: You may find some of the content below disturbing”

It is questionable that the media have taken such a strong, and dramatic, interest in exposing the troubles in Libya, at the very point when western leaders are looking to justify intervention. Even more suspicious is the lack of media attention being given to the giant Libyan elephant in the room. Journalist Glenn Greenwald sums this up with perfect ridicule here:

Daesh was handed the opportunity to flourish in Libya by the western military intervention in 2011 that toppled – in the most brutal fashion – its leader Muammar Gaddafi. Political analyst, Hafsa Kara, explained to Sputnik news:

“One of the reasons ISIS is in Libya is precisely because of the NATO onslaught of 2011 which led to a power vacuum in which terrorist organizations such as ISIS actually thrive…It was hugely predictable that this would happen given the Iraqi scenario of ten years before.”

The suggestion that Daesh will be defeated by the same actions that ensured its rise in the first place is utter insanity. Regardless, the media will bang the war drum in line with their governments tune in typical fashion, as we saw in the reporting leading up to the Syrian strikes. Let’s hope the public sees through this, and presses on their government the total lunacy of military intervention in Libya.


Related Topics:

No Confidence Vote in David Cameron Passes 170,000 Signatures*

Europe is Built on Corpses and Plunder*

U.S. Special ops Forces Told to Leave Libya after Arriving*

U.S. Helps ISIS Gain New Stronghold in Libya*

Libyans Tell Obama ‘Thanks for destroying our country’*

Statement on the UK Government’s Military Involvement in Libya

Statement on the Invasion of the African State of Libya By the Imperialist Forces

The War Against Libya in Historical Perspective

Libya: Condemnation of Assassination By Imperialist Forces

Libya: 11 Imams From Peace Mission Massacred

Libya: Anatomy of a Murder

France’s Zionist Prime Minister, Manuel Valls*

France’s Zionist Prime Minister, Manuel Valls*

By Guillaume Durocher

Valls’ Early Career: A Neoliberal with an “Ethnic” Rotten Borough

Valls calls himself a “Blairite” and a “Clintonian.” This is appropriate. He indeed represents that “right-wing” edge of the Socialist Party, the part that wants “modernize” the left by jettisoning the White working class in favour of unabashedly conforming to globalism and indeed even changing the name of the party. Indeed, the globalist paradigm — with unlimited open borders for immigrants and corporations — is incompatible with traditional left-wing goals, such as effectively taxing the rich, regulating finance, maintaining the welfare state, or protecting jobs and wages. Thus, Valls wants a “New Left” which abandons the old dream of socialism, while still claiming to be in some sense of the left. He represents both the Left’s selling out to global plutocracy and a kind of realism as to what can be achieved under the constraints of open borders.

An early case illustrates this reality well. In December 1980, Valls and Bauer attacked the Communist mayor of Vitry-sur-Seine’s for a plan to remove immigrants from the town. Valls was actually almost kicked out of the Socialist Party for this, as it was then allied with the Communists. This limited opposition to immigration dissipated in the Socialist Party as the alliance with the (effectively Stalinist) Communists was dissolved and (often Jewish) Trotskyites and anti-racists rose in the organization. (Can we ever emphasize enough, from a nationalist point of view, the moral superiority of Stalinists over Trotskyites?) As Vice Mayor of Argenteuil, Valls promoted illegal immigration with a “republican baptism” of illegals at the town hall in which supporters committed to help the lawbreakers to remain in France

Valls then rose with the “modernizing” wing of the Socialist Party represented by Michel Rocard. During Jospin’s term as prime minister, Valls was in charge of relations with the media, acquiring a reputation for intimidating journalists who asked the wrong questions. A magazine reported:  “The methods of this Catalan of origin are sometimes brutal: fits, threats against journalists [. . .] charged with following day by day the head of government’s action, the Homeric rages of the young Socialist are well-known”.

Valls reaped the benefits of the Socialists’ slow replacement of the indigenous French population when he was elected in 2000 as mayor of Évry, which his authorized biographers describe as “a mosaic city, where the [ethnic] communities, numerous, have gradually become ghettoized” (39). He thus enjoyed a kind of rotten borough through the Socialists’ appeal to ethnic blocs of voters eager to benefit from wealth transfers from the French majority and allergic to the conservatives’ symbolic Islam-baiting. Valls urged public subsidies for mosques and allowing all foreigners resident in France to vote in municipal elections. (More recently as prime minister, Valls has suggested giving up reforming the constitution to allow non-EU foreigners to vote in municipal elections as too divisive and unpopular, and instead his focus has changed in order to “concentrate [. . .] on naturalizations.”In 2008, he was re-elected as mayor of Évry with over 70% of the vote and a staggering abstention rate of 63%. Ratier reports that 45% of residents benefit from social housing.

Valls himself however is rather cynical about the Africans and Muslims in his “multicultural” city. He lives in an upper-middle class White area. Like a Potemkin village, graffiti sprayed by urban youths are hastily removed when out-of-town notables visit. In a June 2009 TV appearance, Valls, apparently unaware he was being filmed in the streets of the city, commented sarcastically with open scorn on the overwhelmingly non-White crowd around him: “a fine image of the city of Évry. . . . Could you put me a few Whites, a few Whites [in English], a few Blancos?”. Valls went strangely unpunished for the remark. It goes without saying that no nationalist politician would be allowed to make such a statement without being required to atone profusely or be excluded from “democratic politics.”

Valls’ short temper was also notorious at Évry. One municipal councillor said: “[Valls’ staff] are scared as hell. [. . .] Manuel has a fascistic side. He is a real dominant male who has a certain brutality. The guys obey. Sit! Don’t move [i.e. like ordering a dog]”.

Valls occupied a very strange niche: Enjoying a safe left-wing ethnic stronghold, he was free to promote himself as a “modern” neoliberal, with policies anathema to the Socialist Party base, such as bringing the national deficit under 3% of GDP, increasing the value-added tax, a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, abolishing the 35-hour workweek, and so on. Valls emphasized communications, increasing that share of the municipality’s budget by 800%. During his term as mayor between 2001 and 2012, municipal debt increased by 70% while its taxes shot up 45.7%.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, President Sarkozy told Valls in February 2004: “Manuel, you will see . . . One day I ask you to work with me . . . And you will accept joining the government!”. Indeed, it is striking to observe how much Sarkozy and Valls play the same role on television. Both agree that the globalist program should be maintained — submission to the American Empire and E.U. integration, giving international finance free reign and off-shoring of jobs abroad, supporting Israel and spreading chaos in the Middle East, and ultimately physically replacing the indigenous French population with Africans and Muslims.

This process, naturally, creates enormous amounts of stress and anxiety among the French, due to a palpable loss of national independence, to constant double-digit unemployment, and the social dysfunction, criminality, and the cultural change the Afro-Muslims bring with them. Sarkozy and Valls are more television personalities then empowered statesmen, appealing to these anxieties by playing the tough guy in the media, empowering the surveillance state and removing civil liberties, without addressing the underlying globalist causes.

Valls won less than 6% of the vote in the Socialist Party’s 2011 primaries to choose their presidential candidate. He remained a fairly marginal figure until he was propelled to the interior ministry and finally the office of prime minister following his fellow Socialist François Hollande’s election as president in 2012.

Valls the Pro-Palestinian

Ratier carefully documents a very curious aspect of Valls’ career: That before becoming Zionist-in-Chief in the government, he was as mayor of Évry a staunch supporter of Palestine and a fierce critic of Israel. With its heavily Afro-Muslim demographics, Évry is a leading bastion of pro-Palestinian sentiment in the country, and Valls was happy to pay lip service to this cause for years.

Évry-Palestine, founded in 1988, was the largest pro-Palestinian organization in France. It was subsidized by the municipality and even promoted the Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions (BDS) movement, which today is outright illegal under French law on grounds of “national discrimination” (this same boycott, obviously, was considered a perfectly legal tool when it was applied to South Africa in the 1980s). Évry was symbolically twinned with the Palestinian refugee camp of Khan Yunis.

After being elected mayor in 2001, Valls helped to organize the “Six Hours for Palestine” festival at the town hall. He also hosted senior Palestinian officials. In November 2002, he participated in a meeting of EuroPalestine — a hodgepodge of pro-Palestinian figures presenting lists in the European elections — and signed a petition for the suspension of the European Union-Israel Association Agreement. Valls’ speech from the occasion is worth quoting. He referred to Israel’s “terrible oppression over another people” and said the Israeli Labour Party was “making a terrible mistake which has made it lose its soul by participating in the coalition led by [Ariel] Sharon.” He continued, noting the conscious destruction of the Palestinian Authority, the terrible repression and its trail of deaths, the occupation and destruction of towns, villages, and houses, the continuation of [Jewish] colonization which violates international law and which indeed has never ceased, the unemployment, social and sanitary misery which the Palestinians experience. [The Israelis] want to destroy the infrastructure, memory, and future of this people. This is unacceptable and requires the mobilization of the entire international community. [. . .] Israel must respect the U.N.’s resolutions. For this a show of force is indispensable and so yes we must convince parliaments and governments to suspect the European Union-Israel Association Agreement.

The speech is remarkable in both the intensity of its moral condemnation of Israel and its urging of, in effect, economic coercion. (The E.U.-Israel agreement gives Israel greater access to the European market and various funds). Actually putting material pressure on the Israelis to respect human rights, as opposed to just voicing empty platitudes, is a big no-no both for strongly-identified Jews and for “liberal” Jewish organizations in France.

This was not an isolated event. In February 2003, Valls demanded that France use her veto to block any United Nations resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq and expressed concern about the humanitarian impact of the longstanding embargo of the country. In 2006 he again co-organized and attended Six Hours for Palestine. In 2007, he urged support for the Hamas-backed National Unity Government of Palestine and demanded that the West “undo the blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip which condemns almost 1.4 million people to live in a ghetto” (53).  He went on to attack “the construction of a shameful wall, the continuation of colonization.”

All this has changed however, and today Valls enthusiastically meets with the hardcore Jewish racial nationalists who rule Israel, such as Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. And that is besides the shockingly unconditional declarations of support for Israel and Zionism.

Valls’ Zionist Turn: Love or Interest?

Valls advertising his new Jewish wife

Valls’ turn towards Israel was first evident in his decision, in January 2009 at the height of the Israelis’ murderous Operation Cast Lead against the Gaza Strip, announcing Evry’s twinning with an Israeli town. In November 2009, he declined for the first time to host Six Hours for Palestine at the town hall.

Having divorced his first wife after having four children, Valls remarried with the Romanian-origin Jewish violin-player Anne Gravoin in 2010. The marriage apparently unlocked considerable networking opportunities for Valls. One attendee of the wedding reported that: “It was fun, the town hall was chock full. Anne, of Jewish origin, had invited a branch of her family, orthodox Jews. [. . .] [There were] men who wore kippas, coming from Manhattan or London, and imams from the Essonne [the county Évry is located in]”. One magazine reported that “Anne Gravoin opened to her husband her ‘cultural’ networks, show-business, and does not hesitate to say in socialite dinners that ‘Manuel’s career’ owes her a great deal”. Valls was keen to advertise his new love interest, appearing in Paris Match with a full-page photograph of them kissing.

There have been many claims that Gravoin has played a major role in her husband’s embrace of Zionism and in particular in his relentless persecution of the Cameroonian-French comedian Dieudonné. Former foreign minister Roland Dumas — who had served under President François Mitterrand, himself highly critical of Jewish power — claimed that Valls was “under Jewish influence” through his wife.

While women often command a powerful influence over their husbands, I tend to think that Valls’ Zionist turn is more hard-headed: Simply, he is pandering to the most powerful ethnic networks in the country. His wife is complementary to that end. As he rose in the Socialist Party, his constituency shifted from the anti-Zionist Afro-Muslims in the party’s base, to the Zionist Jews that are critically overrepresented among the party’s elite. Valls apparently calculated this Zionist turn was necessary to having a successful national career, with support both in the party and the media. As a typical “democratic politician,” Valls was willing to prove perfectly unprincipled and change his opinions to suit the constituency of the moment.

In February 2010, Évry municipality’s subsidies to Évry-Palestine were cut. In November he co-signed an editorial in Le Monde entitled “The Boycott of Israel Is a Shameful Weapon.” In March 2011, he blocked the holding a debate organized by Évry-Palestine. In June 2011, he gave his infamous Radio Judaïca Strasbourg interview in which he declared:

My family has deep ties with Vladimir Jankélévitch [a Jewish philosopher], who has written the most beautiful book one can write on the unpardonable and on the Shoah. By my wife I am eternally bound to the Jewish community and to Israel. Come on! So I do not come here to be lectured on the fight against anti-Semitism.

Ratier speculates that Valls chose this particular media as it was listened to by the Jewish community but not by the French public at large. In any event, Valls’ unusual declaration of identification with Jews and Israel went viral on the Internet. Later, Front National spin doctor Florian Philippot alluded to Valls’ statement during a prime time television debate in February 2014: “These foreigners, if one day they become French, [I want] them to be proud of being French, eternally bound to France; come on, Monsieur Valls” .

In April 2012, Valls signed an incredibly one-sided “Friends of Israel” charter. In May 2012, he told a CRIF dinner: “When a Jew of France is attacked, the Republic itself is attacked”. At an event with CRIF President Richard Prasquier, he said he would “fight anti-Zionism, this anti-Semitism which aims to negate Israel” and that he was “proud to be part of a government which wants to build a strong friendship with Israel.” In September 2012, Valls told a synagogue: “the Jews of France can be proud to wear their kippa” and “the Jews of France’s carnal attachment for their country could obviously not prevent ties uniting them with the land of Israel.” He has elsewhere said that, in the name of secularism, “[t]he [Islamic] veil [. . .] but remain for the Republic an essential struggle.”

In November 2012, Valls was hosted as the guest of honour at the annual gala of Radio J (a Jewish radio station), at which he declared: “The Jewish community is France and France with the Jewish community is no longer exactly France”. Valls has repeatedly made statements of this type. In January 2013, Valls stated: “France without French Jews would not be France [. . .]. There is a Judaism of France, nourished by numerous sources and steeped in the values of our Republic. This Judaism has deeply influenced France, her culture, her literature, her music, her society”

In September 2013, Valls told the Jewish Central Consistory: “Anti-semitism and anti-Zionism [. . .] are the same thing”. In January 2014 he said on television: “The Shoah is a sanctuary, one cannot desecrate it.” In February 2014 he told a newspaper that he was “worried by a kind of desacralization of the Shoah”.

Finally in March 2014, there was his infamous appearance at a Jewish rally in Paris in which he declared: “Anti-Zionism is the open door to anti-Semitism [. . .]. The Jews of France are more than ever the Frenchmen at the vanguard of the Republic and of our values.”

More generally, Valls has been keen to meet with American Jewish organizations such as the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center. In February 2013, he and Hollande hosted Ronald Lauder, the Jewish-American billionaire and head of the World Jewish Congress, at the Élysée Palace, where Lauder received the Légion d’Honneur. Valls eagerly hosts media events when a real or imagined anti-Semitic attack has occurred somewhere, no other ethnic community in France enjoying such careful attention. Valls has cordial relations with ultra-Zionist Jewish member of the National Assembly Meyer Habib, a nominal conservative.

The Zionist Rises: Valls Enters the Government

Manuel Valls in a synagogue, with his trademark intensity

Manuel Valls was appointed as interior minister in May 2012, following François Hollande’s election as president. Hollande later conceded he had been elected by default as the alternative to Sarkozy, not by any popular enthusiasm. Valls was promoted to prime minister April 2014 by the hopelessly unpopular Hollande, with approval ratings constantly hovering around 20%.

The character and brands of the two men are indicative of wider trends in French society. The flabby Hollande is the ultimate non-entity. He has never, in his entire career, done anything original or outside of Socialist Party orthodoxy. The result: absolute impotence. Hollande has had no direction in his career other than to represent the Socialist Party and to respect the Maastricht Treaty negotiated by his predecessor François Mitterrand. Maastricht, in exchange for a hollow promise of “European Union,” established neoliberal (free trade, free movement of capital, privatization) and ordoliberal (state dependence on financial markets, unaccountable central bank, making employment secondary to low inflation). These principles became enshrined in the Constitution and thus immune to the whims of changing majorities.

Thus, Hollande represents the Socialist Party’s impotence and empty promises: Having abdicated control of whole swathes of economic policy, the party is powerless to protect the French against the negative winds of globalization or to defend the masses’ purchasing power and welfare payments — the latter being redoubt of a bourgeois democracy. Hollande’s inability to resolve the financial/euro crises or reduce unemployment, his central campaign plank, have been deeply damaging to the Socialists. This was after Hollande had promised to take on German Chancellor Merkel and create a more Keynesian Eurozone (in fact, he quietly accepted Merkel’s balanced budget amendment into French basic law, humiliatingly accepting a merely symbolic concession of pseudo-stimulus from Berlin). This is also after Hollande had campaigned declaring: “My enemy is the world of finance.”

Years later, Hollande remains impotent. There is little indication that E.U. regulation will tame the financial markets and the unfathomably frequent capital flows. The E.U.’s proposed financial transactions tax remains stuck at the drawing board. Nothing was delivered.

All that was left was for Hollande to tax the rich a bit more, a measure which in over-taxed France has become self-defeating and futile when the rich (like Gérard Dépardieu) can exile themselves abroad. There was nothing left but “social” measures (such as legalizing homosexual marriage, at best irrelevant) and using the last vestigial military and diplomatic powers of the French state in service to the American Empire and international Zionism. Thus, Paris has been trying to make itself relevant by arming Islamic fundamentalists in Syria and by approving sanctions against Russia. France has lost arms sales to Russia, but won some in the Arab petro-monarchies.

In all this, Valls has been in the background, steadily being built up by the media, portraying him as the tough guy the French want (notably during the “Leonarda Affair” in which he deported an Albanian Kosovar family).

Hollande appointed Valls prime minister in March 2014, perhaps in the hope of a more effective government, or of benefiting from his relatively greater popularity. Being unable to achieve any of his left-wing promises besides man-on-man marriage, Hollande also no doubt saw the appeal of reassuring the French with a TV-tough guy like Valls — an angry neoliberal who might be better able to coerce his narrow parliamentary majority to pass right-wing economic reforms made necessary by the open borders and overvalued euro regimes.

Valls’ “Hatred of Nationalists”

Valls condemning Alain Soral and Dieudonné in a speech

The Valls government has thus abandoned any pretences of being able to defend social justice. But it has also failed to reduce unemployment, maintain wages, or reduce crime. Valls has therefore turned to anti-fascist theatrics to rally the Socialist Party’s depressed left-wing base. Thus sweaty, impassioned, and angry Valls threatened Alain Soral and Dieudonné at the party’s summer conference of 2013:

“This struggle [against the far-right] will continue. When a journalist, Frédéric Haziza [a strongly-identified Jew and Zionist], is insulted, defamed, tarnished, on the Internet, by Mister Soral, who has inspired the far-right, who finds curious ties with others, I think of Dieudonné, that means indeed that the struggle is not over and that we will pursue it because it is necessary for the Republic, the liberty of the press, and democracy.”

Thus Valls also likes to rant, in an almost Hollywood-Hitler fashion, against nationalists. Dieudonné has had much fun parodying Valls’ appearances in the National Assembly, shouting endlessly and unable to control his hand’s nervous shaking.

Valls has in general spent a rather inordinate amount of time harassing and persecuting nationalists. Indeed, Ratier speaks of Valls’ “hatred of nationalists.” There was fairly rough treatment, including use of tear gas, against peaceful protesters opposing homosexual marriage. There was the disproportionate response to accidental death of the skinny antifa provocateur Clément Méric during a fight he had instigated against a nationalist. After this, Valls simply dissolved the Jeunesses nationalistes révolutionnaires (Nationalist Revolutionary Youth) and Œuvre française (French Work) groups.

Valls has also upped persecution of Dieudonné and Soral, with repeated and politically-motivated tax investigations. In January 2014, Valls moved to ban Dieudonné’s comedy show Le Mur, saying: “The struggle against racism and anti-Semitism is one of the Government’s essential concerns and demands an energetic action”.

There was then a surreal sequence of events as judges moved, with incredible speed, to pre-emptively censor Dieudonné and ban his appearances on the extraordinarily vague and arbitrary grounds of “threat to public order,” “human dignity,” and “national cohesion.” Numerous jurists were disturbed by the decision as an attack on free speech. These included people with no love for Dieudonné, including the Jewish homosexual Socialist former minister of culture Jack Lang, who called the verdict “a profound step backwards.”

After the Charlie Hebdo massacres in January 2015, Valls helped organize massive demonstrations in Paris in defence of free speech and moved to subsidize the obscene, Muslim-baiting weekly. The very next day, he moved to arrest Dieudonné for publishing a mysterious joke on Facebook: “I feel like Charlie Coulibaly,” expressing common feelings with both the far-left cartoonists and the Islamic terrorists.

Valls’ tenure has also seen the criminalization of the quenelle gesture, which roughly means “up yours,” despite no law to this effect, including prosecution of high level dissidents like Soral and of ordinary people (including of one man who performed a quenelle in front of Valls). Speaking of Dieudonné and Soral, Valls said in January 2014 that “French democracy will know how to defeat, sooner or later, the little businessmen of hatred” (86).

All this “anti-fascist” agitation has not, however, helped the Socialists maintain their popularity or their dwindling supporters’ devastated morale. Already many years ago, the former Socialist prime minister Lionel Jospin conceded that the Front National was not a fascist party and “therefore any anti-fascism was merely theater.” The Socialist Party is then crusading against imaginary demons to shore up its inability to deliver its economic promises.

The Front National has steadily, but far too slowly, risen under Valls’ watch, winning unprecedented votes in European, municipal, and regional elections. But, at just over a quarter of the national vote, Valls has been able to safely exclude the FN from any effective participation in French politics.

Conclusion: The Bushification of France

Valls-the-tough-guy embodies the gradual return of the French state’s authoritarian and bellicose streak during recent years. He has completed the “neocon-ization” or “Bushification” of France. There has been the passage of new legislation to spy on citizens. Twitter has agreed to grant the government access to messages upon a simple email request. After the recent Paris attacks by Muslims left over 130 Frenchmen dead, the government declared an indefinite “state of emergency” rendering habeas corpus rights null and void. Valls declared, aping Bush to perfection, that France was “at war with terrorism.”

The state of emergency is to be retroactively legalized by an amendment to the French Constitution. Valls informs us it will endure “until we have gotten rid of the Islamic State,” in other words indefinitely. Again: We cannot emphasize enough how much Western leaders’ “strategy of chaos” — spreading chaos in the Middle East and Islamic colonization in the West — ultimately strengthens their power by legitimizing the need for wars in support of Israel and for liberticidal counter-terrorism measures.

Valls represents the harnessing, on the left, of French patriotism and the authoritarian French state for alien causes: The American Empire, Israel, and global plutocracy. His stated model is Georges Clemenceau, prime minister during the final years of World War I. This is an entirely appropriate model: There, a deracinated, anti-European form of French patriotism was subverted for a great battle against the sister nation of Germany, leaving millions of dead. And to whose benefit? To the Bolsheviks ruling Russia. To the United States, that increasingly Judaized liberal and financial empire. And to the Zionists, who had secured the Balfour Declaration from Britain to establish a Jewish ethnic homeland in Palestine. In each respect, Jews were among the major beneficiaries. Today things are little different, but one can echo Karl Marx’s bon mot on history repeating itself: The first time as a tragedy, the second as a farce.

Time will tell if Valls’ political career will survive much longer. The economy is weak, unemployment is still down, and petty crime is up. His popularity rating with the general public, which long held up, has now fallen to less than 30%. He continues to pander to Zionists with repeated declarations of fealty to Israel. The Franco-Israeli relationship is increasingly coming to resemble the American-Israeli one, with no official distinction between the two countries’ interests. But it is uncertain whether this will be enough to keep Valls in office or whether “the System” will soon be through with him.

Probably Valls is hoping that President Hollande, having failed to reduce unemployment, will not run for re-election 2017. Then, he could present himself and, facing a divided right-wing vote, might be lucky enough to go to the second round against Marine Le Pen, against whom he would unfortunately surely be the winner (as a result the FN’s systematic demonization by the media, its equally systematic marginalization by the rest of the political class, and, it must be said, by some self-marginalizing FN policies which play well to the fringes of the electorate but alienate mainstream voters).

Valls’ tenuous hold on power could then be maintained by the French regime’s curious insistence on maintaining the sham of the two-party political system, the conservatives and Socialists defending basically identical policies, with the only real political alternative, the nationalist, being safely excluded from participation. Unpopular with the Socialist base, Valls could well endure to play the left-wing tough-guy on television and preserve the myth of France’s two-party democracy.

More broadly, if we take mainstream French media accounts at face value, Valls’s attainment of power through his networking with Bauer and Fouks reflects the power of secretive networks and of ethnic networks in a mass media democracy like contemporary France. Valls’ power and repeated incredibly pro-Jewish and pro-Zionist statements reflect an imbalance: There are no more ethnocentric power networks on this planet than Jewish networks, these same networks are hysterically opposed to non-Jewish nationalisms and, partly as a result, ethnic Europeans are simply not allowed to openly profess ethnocentrism.

Valls the politician is of little import, apart being an exemplar of how low politicians in the West will sink in order to achieve power, fame, and fortune. But the forces he answers to and represents are much deeper and promise, if left unchecked, to destroy both France and indeed all Western nations.


Related Topics:

Strauss-Kahn and the French Battle of the Sexes

Freedom to Protest Denied in France

French Workers Threaten To Blow Up Their Factory*

French Muslims Join the protest against the Deceptive Gender Equality School Campaign*

France Gagging the Opposition*

NWO: France Clamping Down on Cash in the Name of Terror*

France OKs Mass Surveillance*

Israel Vents Fury with France after Vote to Recognise Palestine*

Italy and Spain Have Funded a Massive Backdoor Bailout of French Banks*

French Presidency Has “Kill List” of People Targeted for Assassination*

Armed French National Caused Lockdown at Gatwick Airport*

French Teacher Inflicted Self Injury Blamed ISIL for a Job Transfer*

French President Says on National TV that the ‘Illuminati’ Are Attacking Paris

France launches Airstrikes in Syria*

France is Broke, but Still Reaping from the Colonial Tax!*

How France Loots its Former Colonies*

France Leads Neocolonial Carve-up of Syria*

The Rise of the French Right and the CFA Franc

Colonial France out for Niger’s Uranium*

French Grab for Mali’s Gold*

The French Patent an African Indigenous Plant (anti-cancerous)*

This is what TPP Looks Like: World Bank Demands Argentina Pay French Company*

French Arrested in Assad Assassination Attempt*

How German and French Banks Helped Bankrupt Greece*

Nuclear Tests: South Pacific Islands to Sue France for $1billion*

U.N. Team ‘Concerned’ About African Americans*

U.N. Team ‘Concerned’ About African Americans*

By Manny Otiko


A United Nations team recently visited the United States to study the condition of Black people and was alarmed at what they found. According to a report by the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, there are wide disparities in the way Black people are treated in America, especially in the areas of criminal justice, education and health.

The Working Group stated that Black people still face structural racism and discrimination in America.

The colonial history, the legacy of enslavement, racial subordination and segregation, racial terrorism, and racial inequality in the U.S. remains a serious challenge as there has been no real commitment to reparations and to truth and reconciliation for people of African descent,” according to the Working Group’s report.

“Despite substantial changes since the end of the enforcement of Jim Crow and the fight for civil rights, ideology ensuring the domination of one group over another, continues to negatively impact the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of African Americans today.”

The Working Group, which visited Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Jackson, Miss., Chicago and New York City, was particularly alarmed by problems in America’s education system. Black students face harsher punishment and are more likely to be suspended and expelled than white students. Some schools operate harsh, zero-tolerance policies, backed up by law-enforcement officers operating in schools.

Niya Kenny, a South Carolina student who filmed her classmate being assaulted by a school police officer, also testified in front of a U.N. panel about racial discrimination in schools. She was arrested for filming the incident.

“I felt like I had to stand up for my sister right then and there,” she said during her testimony. “That could have been anyone right there.”

According to The Huffington Post, the U.N. team also expressed concern about mass school closures, which have affected Black neighbourhoods in Chicago and Philadelphia. In Chicago, children have to travel through gang-infested areas to get to new education institutions after their neighbourhood school was closed.

The Working Group also talked about police violence.

“The Working Group met with a considerable number of relatives of African-Americans killed by police officers that are still seeking justice for their loved ones including Tyrone West, Tyron Lewis, Jonathon Sanders, Oscar Grant, Tony Robinson, Marlon Brown, India Kager, Ronald Johnson, Mohamed Bah and Alonso Smith,” said the report.

“Despite some efforts made by the Department of Justice, there is still a lack of an official national system to track killings committed by law enforcement officials. Unofficial sources, such as The Washington Post and The Guardian, identified between 38 and 75 cases of unarmed African Americans killed by the police in 2015.”

The U.N. team made specific recommendations to the U.S. government. Here are some of their suggestions:

  • They recommend the U.S. government establish a national human rights commission to monitor the condition of Black people.
  • The U.S. should ratify the core international human rights treaties, of which the U.S. is not a party.
  • The Working Group also recommended the government recognize the devastating effects of the transatlantic slave trade. The U.N. team said the slave trade was a “crime against humanity” and the effects could still be found in widespread discrimination against Black people. The Working Group also said racial discrimination needed to be addressed by “reparatory justice.”
  • The group recommended the Department of Education study the effect of zero-tolerance policies on Black students.
  • They also recommended the government study extrajudicial police killings and use of excessive force by police officers.

The recommendations came from the Working Group’s initial findings. The group will give a full report to the United Nations in September.


Related Topics:

‘We Charge Genocide’: Systematic Murder & Oppression of Blacks Continues in U.S.*