November 23, 2016
No mother ever knowingly risks her child’s health. Hear what these mothers have to say about their experience with genetically modified foods.
November 23, 2016
No mother ever knowingly risks her child’s health. Hear what these mothers have to say about their experience with genetically modified foods.
September 16, 2016
This is the largest corporate cash buyout in history.
Mega-giant Bayer put $66 billion on the table, and mega-giant Monsanto said yes.
Think GMOs, crop seeds, pesticides, medical drugs.
Keep in mind that one of the consultants on the European side of this deal is the Rothschild Group.
But that’s not all. Dow and DuPont are planning to merge. Recently, another biotech giant, Syngenta, was swallowed up by the state-owned ChemChina. And this just in: two major Canadian fertilizer manufacturers, Potash Corp of Saskatchewan Inc. and Agrium Inc. are merging.
Consolidation, monopoly. The Empire strikes back.
The global rebellion against GMOs and pesticides, particularly Monsanto’s Roundup, is one of the reasons for these deals. But lurking in the background is another factor, exemplified by the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) treaty.
If the TPP passes, corporate tribunals will take over the adjudication of disputes in which a nation rejects importing toxic pesticides, medical drugs, or GMOs. These tribunals will decide whether that nation is permitted to refuse importation.
Of course, the tribunals will favor mega-corporate interests. But now, with the mergers involving Bayer, Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, Syngenta, and ChemChina, the devastating clout of the tribunals will be that much more powerful.
The ability to shove toxic products down the throats of populations will elevate.
This is the corporate face of Globalism.
This is a giant step in the direction of controlling the world’s food supply.
Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
September 19, 2016
This is a story to put a scowl on your face, for the “deal” I blogged about a few weeks ago about the “merger” of Mon(ster)santo and the big German chemical firm of Bayer, which along with Hoechst and BASF was a component company to the old IG Farben cartel. Well, to be truthful, it wasn’t so old, for as I pointed out in The Nazi INternational the cartel was only finally completely liquidated in 2003. As we know, the component companies live on, and one of them, Bayer, is up to its old tricks, targeting the notorious American GMO Mons(ster)santo for a merger. Well, that deal is now inked, and we’re watching the birth of a new creature: Monster-IG Farbensanto. So many people noticed this story that it would be impossible to thank them all, but here’s the stories:
Now, as the previous article notes, the legal firm assisting with this largest cash buyout in history – yes, Bayer had that much money on hand – was Sullivan and Cromwell.
There’s also this little tidbit(shared by Ms. C.M.):
Ok, so now Bayer, a founding corporate member of the old IG Farben cartel, has bought Mon(ster)santo, which in turn had bought the Blackwater mercenary group, and which helped the USA drop tons of Agent Orange on Vietnam – and oh, by the way, for those of you who haven’t read Hidden Finance, Rogue Networks, and Secret Sorcery, the Carl Duisberg Society helped sponsor Mohammad Atta to Germany. Who’s Carl Duisberg? He was the former head of Bayer during and after World War One who helped found the IG Farben cartel. And… one more thing, let’s not forget under all these new “free trade” agreements, it will be virtually impossible for anyone to sue a company for just about anything, and virtually impossible for anyone to write anything without violating their twisted understanding of copyright.
Bayer, Mon(ster)santo, Blackwater mercenaries.
What could possibly go wrong?
There’s a pattern here that disturbs (well, actually, several patterns), not the least of which is Bayer’s position not only as a major pharmaceutical firm, but also as a major agribusiness company, now acquiring yet another notorious company, with notorious methods for dealing with farmers, and which owns a notorious mercenary “security” firm. This is a corporate move to consolidate control of medicine, pharmaceuticals, and agribusiness in one big happy Reich… er, one big happy cartel. Then we have the 1942 IG Farben-sponsored plan for a postwar European federation which…
Continue Reading at: GizaDeathStar.com
September 13, 2016
German pharmaceutical giant Bayer AG seems to know no limits in its quest to acquire the world’s most notorious agricultural company. The drug manufacturer has recently pushed its offer for procuring Monsanto up to a whopping $65 billion.
Bayer has confirmed that the two corporations are currently engaged in “advanced negotiations,” though it seems less like negotiating and more like Monsanto trying to take Bayer for everything they have. The original offer from Bayer averaged out to $122 per share, or $62 billion. Their new $65 billion offer averages out to about $127.50 per share. Bayer would also assume Monsanto’s $9 billion in debt, which pushes their offer up by an additional 2 percent. However, Monsanto is apparently seeking a jaw-dropping $130 per share, at least according to Bloomberg.
The attempted wooing of Monsanto is just one of many consolidations that have occurred lately in the agricultural industry. Bloomberg reports, “China National Chemical Corp. agreed in February to acquire Syngenta AG, while DuPont Co. and Dow Chemical Co. plan to merge and then carve out a new crop-science unit.” These kinds of deals in the crop and seed industry threaten to leave just a few oversized global giants in the Big Ag industrial complex.
If Bayer and Monsanto were to merge, they would create what would be one of the world’s largest agricultural suppliers. Monsanto is presently the world’s largest seed manufacturer, and Bayer currently offers their own “crop-protection” products (if you can really call them that). Between the two, they will make for a nearly-untouchable conglomerate. Monsanto has announced that it is considering Bayer’s offer, but the company is not the GMO giant’s only suitor; several other companies are seeking to acquire Monsanto as well.
In spite of their tremendous offer, Monsanto reportedly feels that their company is somehow being undervalued, but is still “open” to negotiation. Clearly, Monsanto is blind to the growing aversion to its name and products.
While the apparent ego of the company is worrisome, there are many more things to be concerned about, especially if this deal were to come to fruition. If two massive companies tied to the agricultural industry join forces, it could spell disaster for farmers and food prices. Their consolidation would lead to fewer choices for farmers, and you know what happens when there is a monopoly: prices skyrocket. With farmer bargaining power limited, it’s natural to expect seed prices to increase. And that means that the price of produce in supermarkets will increase along with them.
Robert Lawrence, a professor from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and the founding director of the Center for a Liveable Future, told Market Watch, “The consolidation and driving out of smaller competitors, and controlling the marketplace and raising prices of seeds and pesticides for farmers worldwide is going to be a real shock to the food system.”
The merger could also mean fewer options for consumers, and may even effect the availability of organic crops and crops grown with fewer pesticides. Given the size of the two companies, the potential for them to further reduce farmers’ options is very real.
You would think that with the growing demand for organic, pesticide-free produce, Bayer would not be so interested in Monsanto; after all, that name has become something of a dirty word.
However, Bayer reportedly took Monsanto’s poor image into account, but made their offer to acquire the company anyway. This isn’t surprising though; anytime two large companies such as these merge together, the net result will always be more power. Even if people don’t like them, the increase in market share will still inevitably yield more economic power. And with economic power comes political power. As if Monsanto doesn’t already have their claws deep enough into our political system, merging with Bayer would surely grant them invincibility.
The most frightening thing about this acquisition is its potential to make Monsanto a stronger force in the agricultural industry, and consequently, further reduce the availability of non-GMO foods.
Read More At: NaturalNews.com
September 7, 2016
The Securities and Exchange Commission has paid out the second largest settlement in U.S. history to a former Monsanto executive who blew the whistle on the biotech giant’s shady business dealings involving Roundup, a widely used herbicide containing glyphosate which was labeled a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization last spring.
The whistleblower’s identity is being kept secret, according to reports, presumably to protect the individual from the potential backlash of powerful industry groups.
The former Monsanto executive, who exposed “accounting improprieties” involving Roundup, has been awarded more than $22 million, according to CNBC.
“The award of $22,437,800 was tied to an $80 million settlement between the SEC and Monsanto in February, according to the lawyer, Stuart Meissner in New York, in a statement.”
The SEC has accused Monsanto of lying about its earnings for Roundup. The allegations specifically involve a corporate rebate program designed to increase sales of the product.
The agency said that the seed giant “lacked sufficient internal controls to account for millions of dollars in rebates that it offered to retailers and distributors. It ultimately booked a sizeable amount of revenue, but then failed to recognize the costs of the rebate programs on its books.”
Monsanto reportedly “materially” distorted its consolidated earnings over a three-year period. The company is said to have “neither admitted nor denied” the allegations, while stating in the fiscal year 2015 that it was fully prepared to pay the resulting penalties.
“Company employees are in unique positions behind-the-scenes to unravel complex or deeply buried wrongdoing. Without this whistleblower’s courage, information, and assistance, it would have been extremely difficult for law enforcement to discover this securities fraud on its own,” said Jane Norberg, acting chief of the SEC’s Office of the Whistleblower.
The agency was given the power to award whistleblowers under the Dodd Frank financial reform law, signed by President Obama in 2010 to prevent institutions from becoming “too big to fail.”
The program has so far awarded more than $107 million to 33 whistleblowers since its implementation in 2011. The largest award was issued in 2014, totaling $30 million.
Monsanto, of course, is no stranger to the legal system. The company is facing more resistance from the government over its plans to merge with John Deere, which manufactures farming, construction and forestry equipment.
Headquartered in Moline, Illinois, John Deere revealed its plans to acquire Monsanto’s Precision Planting back in November.
The Justice Department has filed a lawsuit to block the deal, arguing that if it goes through, it will give John Deere “a stranglehold on the market for high-speed precision-planting devices,” USA Today reports.
The two companies together sell 86 percent of all equipment in the precision-planting sector.
“If this deal were allowed to proceed, Deere would dominate the market for high-speed precision-planting systems and be able to raise prices and slow innovation at the expense of American farmers who rely on these systems,” said Renata Hesse, acting assistant attorney general of the Justice’s antitrust division.
John Deere and Monsanto claim that the merger is necessary to protect farmers, and will fight the lawsuit.
Monsanto is also considering an offer by the chemical and pharmaceutical giant Bayer. The German-based company offered $64 billion to purchase its agribusiness rival, Monsanto.
August 21, 2016
[Note: All Underlines Are Hyperlinked For Those Seeking Additional Information]
What would happen if everyone stopped funding crooked corporations that throw the population under the bus tomorrow?
What would happen if people took responsibility for their health, rather than hand off that responsibility to the Medical establishment?
What would happen if individuals begun vetting all the information from every single source, rather than take everything at face value?
What would happen if individuals quit supporting corrupt politicians?
What would happen if we quit eating unsafe genetically modified foods, that have never been proven to be safe? Why do you think they want to keep you from knowing what foods are GMOs? If genetically modified foods were safe, why aren’t they labeled? Ever ruminate on that?
What would happen if we just quit giving the system our consent [silence is consent], for every illegal, inhumane and brutal action carried out on the populace?
What would happen if people quit drinking fluoridated water that causes neurological issues and countless others, that just happens to make it easier for people to be controlled, which was why the Russians and Nazis used it? [For More Info Click Here]
What would happen if people asked what toxic substances were in their food, besides genetically modified foods?
What would happen if people knew that when a label says it’s natural, it’s anything but? [If you want something that is real you need to look for Organic/Non-GMO labels on food packages, not “natural”]
What would happen if people quit running for the cure and people began searching for the cause? Better yet, what would happen if people took a look at Dr. Burzynski’s work? [Watch His Documentary Here] Or have you seen the documentary on Forbidden Cures? [You Can Watch It Here]
What would happen if individuals knew preventable medical mistakes are the third leading cause of death in the United States? Would they still trust the medical system? [That doesn’t count the many more [1.5 Million a year, every year, at last estimate] that end up getting run over by Big Medica who don’t get killed by these mistakes.]
What would happen if people knew that key vaccine studies to prove vaccines are safe are funded almost entirely by Big Pharma? That’s called conflict of interest.
What would happen if people knew the CDC covers up vaccine issues, as one of their very own scientists admitted, but which the mainstream media won’t touch?
What would happen if people knew there’s a vaccination reaction system that has paid out billions even though vaccinations are claimed to be ‘safe’?
What would happen if we quit allowing ourselves to be divided and began standing together?
What would happen if people quit taking excuses for answers from those at the top, and began finding – or better yet, creating! – solutions themselves?
What would happen if individuals decided a better world starts with them?
The point of asking those questions is to show that we, whether we like it or not, are the largest component of the system.
If we merely begun acting on everything that is in our best interest, truly our best interest and not in the interest of the corrupt corporations/politicians then everything would begin to change.
Examples of what happens when individuals begin acting in their best interest follow:
Please note, those are merely a handful of the stories available, and that’s only the change taking place regarding people wanting real food.
What would happen if…individuals realized they are the solutions to their very problems, and the time to act is now?
The idea that food is globally incredibly cheap right now doesn’t compute in the mainstream narrative.
Charles Hugh Smith
July 14, 2016
In the consensus view, agriculture is only profitable on a mega-farm corporate scale, and tool-making has been offshored because it’s unprofitable to manufacture stuff in the U.S. But what if both of these “obvious” consensus opinions are flat-out wrong? What if small-scale farming and toolmaking are both potentially profitable?
Perhaps we should be asking: what if the highest future profits will belong to small-scale agriculture and manufacturing, not Wall Street or Silicon Valley? This idea is so far out of the mainstream that it is widely considered “impossible:” nothing could be more profitable than politically sacrosanct “too big to fail” Wall Street banks or quasi-monopoly tech giants.
All of these presumed “truths” may be melting into air if small-scale machine tools and software technologies enable highly efficient and productive small-scale agriculture:
Drew Sample and I discuss these nascent but potentially revolutionary trends in a new podcast, Small Scale Farming, Small Scale Manufacturing (1:08 hrs).
Critics will quickly point out that large-scale production of grains such as corn and wheat and crops such as soy beans cannot be profitably grown in small plots. While that’s currently a financial reality, that does not imply it’s a permanent truth: large-scale agriculture consumes vast quantities of fossil fuels (currently cheap, but maybe not cheap forever) and huge quantities of minerals such as potash that are non-renewable.
Should essential non-renewables skyrocket in price, large-scale agriculture becomes a lot more costly to operate.
There’s also the question of sustainability. Typical large-scale practices such as tilling cause soil loss that cannot be “fixed” with conventional methods. Then there’s the decline of water tables as aquifers are drained by conventional agricultural practices.
In typical Wall Street fashion, the perspective on what’s sustainable currently extends about one quarter (three months). Few observers ask what will be sustainable in 20 years.
Continue Reading At: OfTwoMinds.com