D. Rockefeller’s Gruesome Legacy

D. Rockefeller’s Gruesome Legacy
Source: WilliamEngdahl.com
F. William Engdahl
March 25, 2017

The death of David Rockefeller, the de facto Patriarch of the American establishment, at age 101, is being greeted by establishment media with praise for his alleged philanthropy. I would like to contribute to a more honest picture of the person.

The Rockefeller American Century

In 1939, along with his four brothers–Nelson, John D. III, Laurance and Winthrop–David Rockefeller and their Rockefeller Foundation financed the top secret War & Peace Studies at the New York Council on Foreign Relations, the most influential private US foreign policy think-tank which also was controlled by the Rockefellers. A collection of American academics gathered even before outbreak of World War II to plan a postwar world empire, what Time-Life insider Henry Luce later called The American Century. They made a blueprint for taking over a global empire from the bankrupt British, but carefully decided to call it not an empire. Rather they called it “spreading democracy, freedom, the American way of free enterprise.”

Their project looked at the geopolitical map of the world and planned how the USA would replace the British Empire as de facto the dominant empire. The creation of the United Nations was a key part. The Rockefeller brothers donated the land in Manhattan for the UN Headquarters (and in the process made billions in the increased prices of the adjoining real estate that they also owned). This is the Rockefeller “philanthropy” method. Every grant donated is calculated to increase family wealth and power.

After the War David Rockefeller dominated US foreign policy and the countless wars in Africa, Latin America, Asia. The Rockefeller faction created the Cold War against the Soviet Union, and NATO in order to keep a reviving Western Europe under American vassal status. How they did so I documented in detail in my book, The Gods of Money. Here I consider several examples of David Rockefeller’s crimes against humanity.

Rockefeller Biology Research: ‘Control the people…’

If philanthropy should be motivated by love of our fellow man, the grants of the Rockefeller Foundation are not. Take medical research. During the period until 1939 and the War, the Rockefeller Foundation financed biological research at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin. It was Nazi eugenics—how to breed a superior race and how to kill off or sterilize those they deemed “inferior.” Rockefeller financed Nazi eugenics. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil also violated US law to secretly supply the Nazi Air Force with scarce fuel during the War. After the War the Rockefeller brothers arranged for leading Nazi scientists involved in ghastly human experiments to be brought to the USA and Canada under sanitized identities to continue their eugenics research. Many worked in the CIA top secret MK-Ultra project.

In the 1950’s the Rockefeller brothers founded the Population Council to advance eugenics, disguised as population research into birth control. The Rockefeller brothers were responsible in the 1970’s for a US Government Top Secret project directed by Rockefeller National Security Adviser Kissinger, NSSM-200 titled, “Implications of Worldwide

Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests.” It argued high population growth in developing nations with strategic raw materials like oil or minerals were a US “national security threat” as more population demands national economic growth, using those resources internally (sic!).NSSM-200 made developing world population reduction programs a precondition of US aid. In the 1970s David Rockefeller’s Rockefeller Foundation also financed together with WHO development of a special tetanus vaccine that limited population by making a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy, literally going after the human reproductive process itself.

The Rockefeller Foundation created the entire field of genetic manipulation through its ownership of Monsanto Corporation and financing of university biology research to create the “gene cannon” and other techniques to artificially alter gene expression of a given plant. The aim of GMO, since Rockefeller sponsored the disastrous Philippine Golden Rice project, has been to use GMO to control the human and animal food chain. Today more than 90% of all soybeans grown in USA are GMO and more than 80% all corn and cotton. Yet it is not labelled.

‘Control the oil…’

The Rockefeller fortune is based on oil around companies such as ExxonMobil, Chevron and others. Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller’s political adviser since 1954, was involved in every major Rockefeller project. Kissinger secretly manipulated Middle East diplomacy in 1973 to trigger an Arab OPEC oil embargo.

The Oil Shock of 1973-74 was orchestrated by a secretive organization David Rockefeller created in the 1950s known as Bilderberg Group. In May 1973 David Rockefeller and the heads of the major US and UK oil majors met in Saltsjoebaden, Sweden at the annual Bilderberg Meeting to plan the oil shock. It would be blamed on “greedy Arab oil sheikhs.” It saved the falling US dollar, and made Wall Street banks, including David Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan, into the world’s largest banks. This author has the “confidential” protocol of that meeting where the price increase strategy is described six months before the Arab-Israeli war. Please see my book, A Century of War, for documentation. In the 1970’s Kissinger summed up David Rockefeller’s world strategy: “If you control the oil, you control entire nations; if you control food, you control the people; if you control money, you control the entire world.”

‘Control the money…’

David Rockefeller was chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, the family bank. He was responsible for getting Chase Vice President, Paul Volcker, to become President Carter’s Federal Reserve chairman to make the Volcker interest rate shock that again, like the oil shock, saved the falling US dollar and Wall Street bank profits, including Chase Manhattan, at the expense of the world economy.

Volcker’s October 1979 interest rate ‘shock therapy’, backed by Rockefeller, created the 1980’s “Third World Debt Crisis.” Rockefeller and Wall Street used that debt crisis to force state privatizations and drastic national currency devaluations in countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Mexico. Rockefeller and friends such as George Soros then grabbed the crown jewels of Argentina, Brazil, Mexico at dirt cheap prices.

The model was much like the British banks used in the Ottoman Empire after 1881 when they de facto took control of the finances of the Sultan by controlling all tax revenues through the Ottoman Public Debt Administration (OPDA). Rockefeller interests used the 1980s debt crisis to loot much of the indebted Latin America and African countries, using the IMF as their policeman. David Rockefeller was personal friends to some of the more savage military dictators in Latin America including General Jorge Videla in Argentine or Pinochet in Chile, both of whom owed their jobs to CIA coups arranged by then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger on behalf of Rockefeller family interests in Latin America.

Through organizations such as his Trilateral Commission, Rockefeller was the foremost architect of the destruction of national economies and advancing so-called Globalization, a policy that mainly benefits the largest banks of Wall Street and City of London and select global corporations—the same who are invited members of his Trilateral Commission. Rockefeller created the Trilateral Commission in 1974 and gave his close friend Zbigniew Brzezinski the job of choosing its members in North America, Japan and Europe.

If we speak of an unseen, powerful network some call the Deep State, we might say David Rockefeller saw himself as Patriarch of that Deep State. His true acts deserve to be honestly seen for what they were—misanthropic and not philanthropic.

Read more at: WilliamEngdahl.com

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

How About Them Apples?

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
March 24, 2017

Over the years of watching and reporting on the GMO issue on this website, one of the things that many brought to my attention by sharing various articles and studies, is the apparent linkage between CCD (colony collapse disorder), as the populations of honey bees colonies and other pollinators have dramatically declined since the introduction of GMO foods and the heavy pesticides they involve. As a result, I have also blogged about the latest gimmick to “repair” the damage: artificial drones as pollinators. It is, after all, “no big deal” if the world’s pollinator population declines or simply goes extinct, after all, they only keep most of the world’s plant life going, and most of its food supply going. No big deal, especially if one has artificial pollinators waiting in the wings. Indeed, as I’ve previously blogged, there were scientists actually seriously proposing this as a means to get around the phenomenon of colony collapse disorder.

Well, according to this article shared by Mr. T.M., it’s now actually been accomplished:

Researchers use drone to pollinate a flower

The opening paragraphs say it all:

Researchers in Japan have successfully used a tiny drone to pollinate an actual flower, a task usually accomplished by insects and animals.

The remote-controlled drone was equipped with horsehairs coated with a special gel, which the researchers say was crucial to the process.

“This is the world’s first demonstration of pollination by an artificial robotic pollinator,” said Eijiro Miyako of the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology in Japan, one of the authors of the study, which was published in the journal Chem.

And, lest the connection between pollinator population collapse and the artificial pollinator is missed, the article itself makes the connection:

But many pollinators are under threat, particularly insects like bees and butterflies. They belong to a group — invertebrate pollinators — in which 40 percent of species face extinction, according to the same report.

The drone is an attempt to address this problem: “The global pollination crisis is a critical issue for the natural environment and our lives,” the authors wrote in the study.
There is, however, a catch: it’s still a long way from insect pollinators, due not only to the size of the drone, but due to the lack of artificial intelligence and independent movement in the artificial pollinator itself:

The peculiarity of this project is that it focuses on the pollination process, rather than the construction of a robotic bee.

As the authors note, “practical pollination has not yet been demonstrated with the aerial robots currently available.”

However, pollination was achieved on a very large flower, and the drone was not autonomous: “I believe that some form of artificial intelligence and GPS would be very useful for the development of such automatic machines in future,” said Miyako.

Much work remains to be done before we can emulate the complex behavior of insects and animals: “There is little chance this can replace pollinators,” said Christina Grozinger, Director of the Center for Pollinator Research at Penn State University.

Hidden text: “we urgently need artificial intelligence in order to construct more efficient artificial pollinators.”

And that of course, brings me to my high octane speculation of the day: suppose such artificial intelligence was constructed. And suppose, for a moment, all those artificial pollinators were under the controlled of a networked Artificial Intelligence, coordinating it all. Who is to say that said “intelligence” would even see the need for pollinator activity, or the human and animal populations that they ultimately aid in feeding? Waves of AI pollinators could conceivably become plagues of AI locusts. If this be the case, the “technological fix” could end up being an even worse nightmare.

Of course, one could always solve the problem by the simple fix of what appears to be the basis of the pollinator problem: get rid of GMOs, and let nature do what she was designed to do.

That, of course, would be far too simple, and not issue in enough research grants and profits.

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Thousands of people now have non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma due to glyphosate (Roundup) exposure, warns legal firm that’s suing Monsanto

Image: Thousands of people now have non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma due to glyphosate (Roundup) exposure, warns legal firm that’s suing Monsanto

Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
March 24, 2017

Will Monsanto finally get what they deserve for their crimes against humanity? The Miller Firm hopes to bring the corporate giant to their knees by pursuing a lawsuit that shows Roundup can cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma.

And perhaps, in their pursuance of this litigation, the EPA will be taken down, too.

Email evidence indicates that not only did Monsanto help write the so-called cancer studies on Roundup, but that EPA officials colluded to keep reports on glyphosate’s carcinogenic status in favor of the industry. Former EPA scientist Marion Copley’s heartbreaking email not only illustrates the cancer-causing capacity, but that the EPA is riddled with corruption and greed.

Copley’s letter describes a host of ways in which glyphosate can cause cancer:

  • Endocrine disruption
  • Free radical formation and inhibition of free radical-scavenging enzymes
  • Genotoxicity — which is key in cancer onset
  • Inhibition of certain DNA repairing enzymes
  • Inhibiting the absorption of essential nutrients
  • Renal and pancreatic damage that may lead to cancer
  • Destruction of gut bacteria and suppression of the immune system

“Any one of these mechanisms alone listed can cause tumors, but glyphosate causes all of them simultaneously. It is essentially certain that glyphosate causes cancer. With all of the evidence listed above, the CARC category should be changed to ‘probable human carcinogen,’” Copley states. Copley passed away in 2014, before the IARC finally did come to reach this conclusion.

And as The Miller Firm notes, recent independent studies have shown that farm workers exposed to glyphosate or Roundup are at least twice as likely to develop lymphoma. Monsanto is, at the very least, guilty of engaging in deceptive marketing tactics by making claims that their deadly herbicide is “safer than table salt” and “practically non-toxic.” Worse still, several scientists have gone to federal prisons for falsifying data on the toxicity of glyphosate. According to The Miller Firm, the issues with Roundup’s safety testing date back to 1976. In spite of this, Monsanto has spent the last few decades convincing the public that glyphosate is totally safe.

Farm workers are particularly susceptible to the adverse health effects of glyphosate exposure. The Miller Firm has launched their lawsuit against Monsanto and taken aim at the EPA as well, citing that farmers were intentionally led to believe the cancer-causing chemical was safe — and if they had known the product was toxic, they’d have at least have known of the risks and been able to better protect themselves and further minimize contact with the herbicide.

The legal team also notes that Marion Copley’s letter points to corruption and collusion occurring between Monsanto and the EPA to protect glyphosate from being exposed as toxic.

“For once in your life, listen to me and don’t play your political conniving games with the science to favor the registrants. For once do the right thing and don’t make decisions based on how it affects your bonus. You and Anna Lowit intimidated staff on CARC and changed MI ARC and IIASPOC final reports to favor industry. The CARC category should be changed to “probable human carcinogen,” Copley writes in her email to fellow EPA scientist Jess Roland.

Court documents have continued to point to a not-so-innocent relationship between Roland and Monsanto. UPI reports that emails between Roland and Monsanto scientist Dr. William Heydens reveal that Heydens offered to write a 2013 report on glyphosate for the EPA. Roland purportedly then used the reports to conclude glyphosate should not be classified as carcinogenic.

Emails have also shown that Monsanto sought Roland out to stop the Agency of Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) — another federal agency — from investigating glyphosate further. A conversation relayed to coworkers by Monsanto regulatory affairs manager, Dan Jenkins shows that Rowland said,”If I can kill this I should get a medal.”

Bloomberg reports that the ATDSR never did publish a toxicological profile on the substance.

All signs point to one thing: both the EPA and Monsanto know glyphosate is toxic and carcinogenic, but they’re doing whatever they can to keep that fact under wraps.

Will The Miller Firm be able to convince the courts to mete out the appropriate punishment in the face of such corruption?  One can only hope.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

Glyphosate.news

MillerFirmLLC.com

UPI.com

Bloomberg.com

Monsanto caught colluding with EPA in Roundup cancer cover-up

Image: Monsanto caught colluding with EPA in Roundup cancer cover-up
Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
March 24, 2017

Is the day we’ve all been waiting for finally on the horizon? Monsanto and the EPA have been caught red-handed in the midst of a legal controversy. Unsealed court documents have shown that not only is the EPA severely lacking in the standards department, but that the federal agency colluded with one of the nation’s most menacing companies, Monsanto. And in doing so, the EPA helped to keep Monsanto’s star product, Roundup, on store shelves and safe from being reviewed for its cancer-causing effects.

Court documents show that the EPA declared that Roundup was safe for use without ever testing the entire formulation’s effects, and instead relied on the industry testing done on just the key active ingredient, glyphosate.

As you can see in the graphic below, not only does the EPA not require testing of the actual product in its entirety, Monsanto itself as not conducted any studies on the chronic carcinogenic studies related to Roundup’s formulation. While this alone is certainly more than enough cause for concern — both about Roundup’s safety and the EPA’s apparent lack of integrity — this revelation is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.

(source: Zerohedge)

Recently, former EPA official Jess Rowland has come under fire for his collusion with Monsanto. The industry giant even reached out to Rowland to garner his assistance in putting the brakes on an investigation of glyphosate that was being pioneered by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

“If I can kill this I should get a medal,” Rowland said to a Monsanto employee, who then relayed the conversation to coworkers via email.

Another damning email shows that Monsanto executive William Heydens even conspired to “ghostwrite” a paper on glyphosate’s safety. Heydens claimed that having the company write their own research on key areas of the product’s safety would be “less expensive” and “more palatable.” It also appears that they were preparing for what may come of the IARC’s report on glyphosate, and how they would go about defending themselves.  See below:

(source: ZeroHedge)

Heydens also noted that this same practice of ghostwriting and getting “independent” researchers to “sign their names” on studies is how they’d handled research on glyphosate’s safety in the past. And as NPR explains, while that earlier paper that is mentioned in the email did note that Monsanto helped to “assemble” the information, no Monsanto employees are noted as co-authors.

While the EPA contends that glyphosate is safe, the World Health Organization and numerous independent studies on the chemical’s safety seem to disagree. The WHO made tremendous waves when they declared that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen, and several independent investigations of the product’s safety have shown that it’s linked to liver damage, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease, digestive disorders and other ailments.

Monsanto, of course, has wasted no time defending their product and themselves. Scott Partridge, Monsanto’s vice president of global strategy, has reportedly said that it would be “remarkable” if the corporate giant was capable of manipulating the EPA under the Obama administration.

This comment surely must have been in jest, as the EPA’s corruption runs deep; impervious to the rules of reality, the EPA has continuously proven itself to either be an agency of sheer ineptitude or great deception — look no further than the Gold King Mine spill for proof of that.

Regardless, Partridge — like any corporate talking head — maintains that glyphosate is completely safe, and cites the EPA’s assessment as proof. But as the emails show, the EPA’s assessment is little more than a regurgitated form of Monsanto’s data. So, who’s really calling the shots here?

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

ZeroHedge.com

Bloomberg.com

NPR.org

OrganicAuthority.com

Mercola.com’s GMO Awareness Week: Top GMO Myths Exposed

Source: Mercola.com
Dr. Mercola
March 23, 2017

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/art… Genetic engineering is NOT the safe and beneficial technology that it is touted to be. Take action now, join Mercola.com’s GMO Awareness Week, and help spread the word about the health dangers of genetic engineering.

Coincidence? Monsanto patented glyphosate as an “antibiotic” drug, claiming weed killer is medicine

Image: Coincidence? Monsanto patented glyphosate as an “antibiotic” drug, claiming weed killer is medicine
Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
March 23, 2017

While you’d be hard pressed to find anyone willing to use a known herbicide for medicinal purposes, that hasn’t stopped Monsanto from patenting the star ingredient of their flagship herbicide, Roundup, as a type of antibiotic. In 2003, the corporate giant first submitted a patent for glyphosate as a parasitic control-type antimicrobial agent — or, in other words, a type of antibiotic.

The patent was granted in 2010, and you can view it here. Monsanto patented the combination of glyphosate and polyvalent anion oxalic acid as a method for preventing and treating pathogenic infections like malaria. As the patent explains, parasites from the phylum of Apicomplexa are often responsible for diseases in humans and other animals — and glyphosate is capable of inhibiting the growth of these parasites.

This patent certainly brings even more concerns about the impending Bayer-Monsanto merger, but  more importantly, it raises a significant question: is glyphosate contributing to the proliferation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria?

Study finds glyphosate causes antibiotic resistance

Recent research has revealed that the herbicide could indeed be a contributing factor to the “superbug” epidemic that is being seen around the world. Scientists from the University of Canterbury in New Zealand have piloted new research that shows glyphosate is not just an herbicide, but a potential vector for antibiotic-resistant disease.

The study is the first of its kind. Professor Jack Heinemann, from the university, says that while herbicides may be tested for their ability to kill bacteria, they are not tested for what other effects they may have on microbes.

“We found that exposure to some very common herbicides can cause bacteria to change their response to antibiotics. They often become antibiotic resistant, but we also saw increased susceptibility or no effect. In most cases, we saw increased resistance even to important clinical antibiotics,” Heinemann commented.

The professor went on to explain that their results were so surprising that they enlisted another researcher from a different institution to conduct the same exact experiments in a different environment and without knowing exactly what she was adding to the bacteria, to help ensure the validity of their findings. The research conducted at Massey University yielded the same results as that done by the University of Canterbury.

According to the researchers, the effects they uncovered would be relevant to people and animals who are exposed to pesticides used in similar concentrations to that of what was tested. While the amounts used by the team were of greater concentration than what is currently supposed to be allowed in food — as we all know, the amount of glyphosate residue in and on food often surpasses what is deemed “permissible.” [RELATED: Keep up with the latest herbicide scandals at Glyphosate.news]

As antibiotic resistance continues to grow, the threat that glyphosate poses simply cannot be ignored. The effects of herbicides like glyphosate can have on bacteria are very real — especially given the chemical’s tendency to be intentionally misused by farmers as a desiccant.

Does glyphosate alter healthy bacteria in the gut, too?

Pathogenic bacteria are not the only microbes susceptible to the ill effects of glyphosate. The bacteria that reside in the human gut can also be harmed by the toxic herbicide. The very same shikamate pathway that glyphosate uses to target weeds and pathogenic bacteria species is the same pathway it would use to destroy the friendly and beneficial bacteria that inhabit the intestinal microbiome. This, of course, would come with its own host of adverse health effects.

There is no reason to believe that if glyphosate is capable of killing or altering one type of bacteria, that it would not harm other bacteria via the same pathway. Some research has already alluded to the potential for glyphosate to wreak havoc on the human digestive system. Given that the microbiome is of great importance to overall human health, findings such as this are not surprising: if glyphosate is killing off intestinal bacteria, it stands to reason that may be the first point of disease. Furthermore, some research has shown that glyphosate is capable of altering gut bacteria in other animals — for example, in 2014 German scientists found that glyphosate negatively affected the gut bacteria of cows.

It seems that the more we learn about glyphosate, the more dangerous it becomes.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

NaturalHealth365.com

SustainablePulse.com

GMOFreeUSA.org

FoodDemocracyNow.org

Agrigator.nz

Monsanto & The EPA: Your Tax Dollars (Not) At Work

MON(STER)SANTO AND THE EPA: YOUR TAX DOLLARS (NOT) AT WORK
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
March 22, 2017

Well, now it’s official, or rather, even more official than it was before, for new documents are revealing what appears to be massive collusion between agribusiness giant Mon(ster)santo and the goobernment, in this case, the Environmental Protection Agency,  according to this article shared by Mr. B:

Monsanto Colluded With EPA, Was Unable To Prove Roundup Does Not Cause Cancer, Unsealed Court Docs Reveal

Predictably, documents have been “unsealed” that reveal that the government agency charged with protecting the environment … er… for greedy megacorporations did little independent scientific investigation of its own into the safety of said greedy megacorporation’s Roundup pesticide, but (surprise surprise) relied on said greedy megacorporation’s own science to clear approval for its use:

That said, newly unsealed court documents released earlier today seemingly reveal a startling effort on the part of both Monsanto and the EPA to work in concert to kill and/or discredit independent, albeit inconvenient, cancer research conducted by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)….more on this later.

But, before we get into the competing studies, here is a brief look at the ‘extensive’ work that Monsanto and the EPA did prior to originally declaring Roundup safe for use (hint: not much).  As the excerpt below reveals, the EPA effectively declared Roundup safe for use without even conducting tests on the actual formulation, but instead relying on industry research on just one of the product’s active ingredients.

“EPA’s minimal standards do not require human health data submissions related to the formulated product – here, Roundup.  Instead, EPA regulations require only studies and data that relate to the active ingredient, which in the case of Roundup is glyphosate.  As a result, the body of scientific literature EPA has reviewed is not only primarily provided by the industry, but it also only considers one part of the chemical ingredients that make up Roundup.” (All emphases in the original)

The whopper immediately follows:

Meanwhile, if that’s not enough for you, Donna Farmer, Monsanto’s lead toxicologist, even admitted in her deposition that she “cannot say that Roundup does not cause cancer” because “[w]e [Monsanto] have not done the carcinogenicity studies with Roundup.”

Following this little revelation, the article goes on to give an actual screen capture of an internal memo, in which  a process of “doctoring” the independent World Health Organization study is clearly outlined:

That said, Monsanto, the $60 billion behemoth, couldn’t possibly afford the $250,000 bill that would come with conducting a legitimate scientific study led by accredited scientists.  Instead, they decided to “ghost-write” key sections of their report themselves and plotted to then have the independent scientists just “sign their names so to speak.”

“A less expensive/more palatable approach might be to involve experts only for the areas of contention, epidemiology and possibly MOA (depending on what comes out of the IARC meeting), and we ghost-write the Exposure Tox & Genetox sections…but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak.”
(Emphases in the original)

Of course, such tactics only ultimately serve corporations like Mon(ster)santo, which like to wallow in the muck of immorality, poorly. All the sneaking around, buying off this scientist or that scientist, padding the wallets of a politician or two, fighting this GMO or that GMO labeling law, hauling farmers into court, does not do anything positive for what little image they have left.

To this end, we have a modest proposal for Mon(ster)santo, I.G. Farbensanto, DuPontsanto, and all the other agribusiness giants: why not take a page out of Big Pharma’s playbook, and simply throw aside all pretense? Why not buy off enough politicians to pass laws mandating that people eat nothing but GMOs: people would have to save their labels and grocery receipts, and present them to the public schools in order for their children to be allowed to attend. Getting together with Big Pharma on this could do you a lot of good, for you could combine your GMO crud with vaccine crud, and have the “food-like substances” you purvey become the vaccine, and that way, you could never be sued by anyone under current laws. Or, you could just buy off enough politicians and pass laws making it impossible for anyone to sue you who comes down with something due to eating GMOs, no matter what independent science studies say.

Our advice is: Start in the one-party socialist republic of Nuttyfornia, buy off a few very corrupt and kookoo politicians in the San Franfreakshow-Bay area (they have lots of them there) and the Hell-A area (they have lots there too), send some donations to Senator McInsane’s and Senator Graham Cracker’s next campaigns by way of Saudi Arabia, and that will get the job done. It would be a bi-partisan effort. And don’t forget to blame Vladimir Putin for all the anti-GMO hysteria and for hacking the contradictory science.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.