It’s Beginning to Smell a Lot Like Totalitarianism, and I Don’t Mean Russia

It’s Beginning to Smell a Lot Like Totalitarianism, and I Don’t Mean Russia
Source: WilliamEngdahl.com
F. William Engdahl
December 13, 2016

If we smell precisely the stench of the totality of steps taken in NATO countries in recent months, especially in the United States and the European Union, we can smell the stench of totalitarian rule or some would call it, fascism, being quietly imposed on our basic human freedoms. Some recent examples give pause for reflection as to where we are allowing our world to drift.

Let’s begin with a most ominous, bizarre, Jesuitical interview that the Roman Catholic Pope Francis gave to a Belgian paper December 7, comparing what he calls defamatory news to what he called the “sickness of coprophagia.” He stated:

QUESTION – A final question, Holy Father, regarding the media: a consideration regarding the means of communication…

POPE – The communications media have a very great responsibility…It is obvious that, given that we are all sinners, also the media can…become harmful… They can be tempted by calumny, and therefore used to slander, to sully people, especially in the world of politics. They can be used as a means of defamation: every person has the right to a good reputation, but perhaps in their previous life, or ten years ago, they had a problem with justice, or a problem in their family life, and bringing this to light is serious and harmful… This is a sin and it is harmful. A thing that can do great damage to the information media is disinformation: that is, faced with any situation, saying only a part of the truth, and not the rest. This is disinformation…Disinformation is probably the greatest damage that the media can do, as opinion is guided in one direction, neglecting the other part of the truth. I believe that the media should…not fall prey – without offence, please – to the sickness of coprophilia, which is always wanting to communicate scandal…And since people have a tendency towards the sickness of coprophagia, it can do great harm.

Coprophilia is defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “marked interest in excrement, especially the use of feces or filth for sexual excitement.” And coprophagia is eating feces by humans, literally, eating shit.

What people precisely, Holy Father, have a “tendency to towards the sickness of coprophagia”? Is this the dominant sickness of the human race? And if not, why do you make such a disgusting likeness between eating shit and citizens who read about politicians and their misdeeds or media that report on same? And who is to judge if factually true dissemination of facts about political figures from their past is relevant or not to help voters judge their character? I would say the comments are a perfect example of what he pretends to condemn.

Were it only a single, off-the-cuff remark by a religious figure, we could dismiss it along with claims such as the papal infallibility declaration proclaimed by the Vatican I on 18 July 1870. However, precisely because of such dogma and of the influence of the Roman Catholic Church and its Pope, notably in the countries of Western Europe, the United States and Latin America, such vague and dangerous remarks ought to be taken seriously as a signal of what lies ahead for the public freedom of speech.

“Fake News”

The papal comments on coprophagia and journalism come amid an explosion of charges in the USA and EU that Russia is planting “fake news” as it is now being called, about Hillary Clinton in the US media by way of certain alternative media. Robby Mook, Hillary Clinton’s former campaign manager, said “fake news” was “huge problem” the campaign faced in the recent US election: “I still think we have to investigate what happened with Russia here. We cannot have foreign, and I would say foreign aggressors here, intervening in our elections. The Russian were propagating fake news through Facebook and other outlets, but look, we also had…Breitbart News, which was notorious for peddling stories like this.”

Online stories that claimed a Washington D.C. pizza restaurant, Comet Ping Pong, was used by candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign manager John Podesta for child sex, the so-called “Pizzagate” Scandal, is now being used to drum up popular opinion for censorship of the Internet as well as Facebook and other social media. Senior New York Times reporter David Sanger wrote a vague, anonymous “according to senior Administration sources,” article on December 9 under the headline, “Russia Hacked Republican Committee but Kept Data, US Concludes.” What we are seeing is precisely the kind of fake news that Hillary Clinton and the Pope talk about. But it is mainstream establishment media doing the fakery.

The fakery is being orchestrated by the highest levels of the mainstream media in collusion with NATO circles and intelligence agencies such as the CIA, which has saturated the ranks of mainstream media with their disinformation agents according to former CIA head William Colby, who once allegedly said, ““The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” The campaign will continue, likely with some horrendous stories about some psychopath taking a gun and bursting into Comet Ping Pong pizza place shooting innocent customers, because it was said he read in alternative media fake news about the pedophile ring. That already took place, but the man fired no shots. The population is being manipulated to accept extreme censorship of internet and other alternative media, something unimaginable just months ago.

Like clockwork, the “fake news” campaign has spread to the European Union. After announcing she will run again in 2017 for Chancellor, Angela Merkel spoke ominous words suggesting government censorship of independent “populist” (sic) media might be necessary: “Today we have fake sites, bots, trolls — things that regenerate themselves, reinforcing opinions with certain algorithms and we have to learn to deal with them.” She declared, “we must confront this phenomenon and if necessary, regulate it…Populism and political extremes are growing in Western democracies..” Her remarks came after Google and Facebook cut off ad revenue to what they declared to be “fake” news sites.

In the EU, especially Germany, populist has an implicit negative or even fascist connotation as in “right-wing populist” parties who oppose Merkel’s open door to war refugees policies, or who these days oppose almost anything her heavy-handed government puts forward.

War on Cash

Now if we begin to see stealth propaganda preparing us to accept severe clampdown on the one remaining free media, the Internet and related social media, we can also see an equally ominous, indeed, totalitarian move to create acceptance for the idea we give up the right to hold paper money, giving private, often corrupt, banks total control over our money, and in turn giving government agencies total control over where we spend for what.

This is the so-called cashless society. Arguments put forward are that elimination of cash will be more convenient to consumers or that it will eliminate or greatly reduce organized crime and shadow economy that evades taxation. In the EU, Sweden has already virtually eliminated cash. Sweden cash purchases today are down to just three per cent of the national economy compared to nine per cent in the Eurozone and seven per cent in the US. Public buses don’t accept cash. Three of Sweden’s four largest banks are phasing out the manual handling of cash in bank branches. Norway is following the same path.

In France today, it’s now illegal to do cash transactions over €1,000 without documenting it properly. France’s finance minister Michel Sapin, in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, blamed the attacks on the ability of the attackers to “buy dangerous things with cash.” Shortly after the Hebdo attacks he announced capital controls that included the €1,000 cap on cash payments, down from €3,000, to “fight against the use of cash and anonymity in the French economy.” In high-inflation Eurozone €1,000 is not a huge sum.

Even in conservative Germany, a leading member of the Merkel coalition proposed to eliminate the €500 note and capping all cash transactions at €5,000. Some weeks later the European Central Bank, where negative interest rates are the order of the day, announced it would end issue of €500 notes by December 2018 arguing it made it too easy for criminals and terrorists to act.

And in the United States, as the campaign to sell skeptical citizens on cashless digital bank payments increases, JP Morgan Chase, the largest and one of the most criminal banks in the US, has a policy restricting the use of cash in selected markets. The bank bans cash payments for credit cards, mortgages, and auto loans; and it prohibits storage of “any cash or coins” in safe deposit boxes. So if you have a rare cold coin collection, you better stuff it in the mattress…

Negative Rates and Cashless Citizens

As long as cash–bills and coins of a national currency–are the basis of the economy, the central banks of the USA and EU as well as Japan, are unable to impose a severe negative interest rate policy much beyond the flirtation today by the ECB and Bank of Japan. If central bank rates were to go very negative, banks would be charging customers the absurd charge to make them pay to keep their cash on deposit or in savings at those banks. Naturally, people would revolt and withdraw in cash to invest in gold or other hard, tangible valuables.

Harvard economist and member of the Economic Advisory Panel of the Federal Reserve, Kenneth Rogoff, an advocate of the “war on cash,” noted that the existence of cash “creates the artifact of the zero bound on the nominal interest rate.” In his 2016 book, The Curse of Cash, Rogoff urged the Federal Reserve to phase out the 100-dollar bill, then the 50-dollar bill, then the 20-dollar bill, leaving only smaller denominations in circulation, much like what the mad Modi has just done in India.

Any serious observer of the world economy, especially of NATO nations in Europe and North America since the financial crisis of September 2008, would have to realize the current status quo of zero or negative central bank interest rates to prop up banks and financial markets is not sustainable. Unless cash is eliminated that is.

On April 5, 1933 President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 6102, “forbidding the Hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States.” That was rightly denounced by many as outright theft, confiscation of privately held gold, by the Government.

Radical solutions such as done by President Roosevelt in 1933, yet in a monetary order where gold no longer dominates, is clearly becoming more attractive to the major bankers of Wall Street and the City of London. Rather than confiscate citizens’ gold, today the Gods of Money would have to find a way to steal the cash of citizens. Moving to their “cashless” banking, limiting how much cash can be withdrawn and then eliminating cash entirely as Swedish banks are doing would enable tax authorities to have perfect totalitarian control on every citizen’s use of money. Moreover, governments could decree, as did FDR, that cash above certain levels must be taxed under some or another national declaration of emergency.

As such bold, radical moves advance, they would of course be vociferously attacked not on CNN or The New York Times or Financial Times or other mainstream media tied to those criminal financial institutions, but in alternative media. Keep in mind it was the uncritical New York Times and Washington Post that uncritically retailed the fake news that led to declaration of war on Iraq in 2003, namely that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction aimed at Washington. That war has spread death and destruction of a scale unimaginable. No one complained at the time about that fake news.

The protest over moves to confiscate citizens’ bank holdings would come through alternate, independent media such as Zero Hedge or countless others. Recently, US media uncritically republished a purported list of “fake news” blogs and websites prepared by Assistant Professor of Communications at Merrimack College, Melissa Zimdars. Zero Hedge was on it.

This is not about endorsing or not endorsing any alternative blog or website. It is about the essential freedom of us all to be able to read and decide any and all opinions or analyses and not to have government decide what I am or am not allowed to read. It’s about the freedom to keep privacy about what I choose to buy and not leave a digital trail that my bank could release to the tax authorities or to Homeland Security or the FBI, or sell to profiling consumer operations. Controlling public communication and controlling private money would go a long way to creation of the perfect totalitarian state. Not a good idea, I would say.

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”

Vatican, Bilderberg and a ‘Migration’ Crisis

Vatican, Bilderberg and a ‘Migration’ Crisis
Source:WilliamEngdahl.com
F. William Engdahl
December 17, 2016

The annual meeting of the secretive Bilderberg Group took place this year in Dresden, Germany from June 9-12. Notable is their terminology in an official press release announcing topics for discussion. Point three (not necessarily in terms of importance) is curiously titled “Europe: migration, growth, reform, vision, unity.” Curious is the choice of the word “migration” for the EU refugee crisis that began in Spring 2015 as Turkey opened the detention centers and refugee camps from Syrian war refugees and pointed them to the EU. More about that later on. Here I want to concentrate on the little-known historical ties or links between the Bilderberg Meetings, founded in 1954, and the Vatican, and the role of both in heating up the current EU refugee instability.

In May, 1954 in Oosterbeek, near to the German border, a highly secret meeting was held at the Hotel de Bilderberg. The meeting was hosted by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, husband of Queen Juliana. It was called simply, “Bilderberg Conference,” from the name of the hotel where the first talks were held. Out of three days of private discussion, a new Trans-Atlantic think-tank was created. It was to become one of the most effective organizations for influencing world events after 1954 up to the present, and one of the most damaging and secretive.

German-born Prince Bernhard was a controversial figure, a notorious philanderer, who had been a member of the German NSDAP and Reiter SS. In 1976 Bernhard was accused of accepting a $1 million bribe from the US fighter aircraft maker, Lockheed, to influence jet purchases by the Dutch Air Force. When Bernhard was forced to resign because of the scandals, he was succeeded as Bilderberg Chairman by then German Bundespräsident, Walter Scheel, and then afterwards by Britain’s Lord Carrington, a confidante and later business partner of Henry Kissinger. From the beginning it was clear Bilderberg was not the Little League of world politics.

In 2014 the Bilderberg Group’s official website, with sparse information, stated its purpose as simply to, “foster dialogue between Europe and North America.” It adds that it meets once a year with around 120 select attendees from finance, politics, industry, media and academia. Its rules mandate that two-thirds come from Europe and the remainder from the USA and Canada, with one third of the total always from the world of politics. Bilderberg participants from the US are always members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Shadowy origins

The Bilderberg Group, in the words of the first Bilderberg Secretary General, a shadowy and enormously influential Polish exile, Joseph Retinger, came from an initiative Retinger made in 1952 to counter, “growing distrust of America which was making itself manifest in Western Europe and which was paralleled by a similar distrust of Western Europe in America.” In brief, its aim was to make certain that the strategic policy orientation of Western Europe and of the United States was in harmony. The decisive question to be asked was harmony in pursuit of which and whose geopolitical goals?

Joseph Retinger

Joseph Retinger was one of the most influential political figures shaping the pro-Atlanticist architecture of post-World War II Western Europe. He founded the Strasbourg-based Council of Europe, to lobby for the Washington-backed plan for creation of a United States of Europe, today called the European Union. He created the CIA-funded European Movement, as well as the CIA-funded European Youth Campaign. By far his most influential project was bringing the Bilderberg Group into being, and serving as its key European director and Secretary General, all far away from the public eye, as he preferred.

At the time his Bilderberg project took form the Korean War was ending and US Marshall Plan aid to Europe as well. Józef Hieronim Retinger had spent the war years in London as adviser to the exile government of Prime Minister General Wladyslaw Sikorski. While Retinger’s name was virtually unknown to the world at large, he was one of the most influential string-pullers of the postwar period in Europe and the United States. He was able to get private audiences with the Pope as well as the American President at will. It was he who selected Prince Bernhard to act as figurehead host and who selected which Americans and which Europeans would be invited to Bilderberg.

The American Steering Committee for the first Bilderberg Meeting in 1954 consisted of USA chairman Joseph E. Johnson, president of the Rockefeller-tied Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Others included George Ball, who during the Second World War was in London serving as director of the Strategic Bombing Survey, to analyze the impact of British and American bombing of German cities and civilian populations.

The American Bilderberg Steering Committee also included H. J. Heinz II, of the food group and father-in-law of John Kerry’s current wife; George Nebolsine, a State Department consultant on the Marshall Plan; and Dean Rusk, then President of the Rockefeller Foundation, later Secretary of State.

The real guiding hand behind the American side of the Bilderberg Group, however, was the first head of the newly-established Central Intelligence Agency, General Walter Bedell Smith. In 1950 Smith became Director of the CIA. The CIA helped organize, and sponsored the formation, and operation of the Bilderberg Conferences.

In late 1952, Retinger went to America to test his Bilderberg idea on his American contacts, where he met with Averell Harriman, David Rockefeller, and Bedell Smith, then director of the CIA. After Retinger explained his proposal, Smith reportedly said, “Why the hell didn’t you come to me in the first place?” The CIA chief then told Retinger to go to C. D. Jackson, who was about to become President Eisenhower’s Special Assistant for Psychological Warfare, and Eisenhower’s liaison between the Pentagon and CIA. viii.

The attendees at the 1954 initial Bilderberg Meeting included David Rockefeller, who today is the only Bilderberg “Advisory Group” Member. It included State Department official, Paul Nitze. As well, Gardner Cowles, US media baron and founder of Look magazine, who had been the US Government deputy director of the Office of War Information, the US propaganda ministry that created the Voice of America (VOA). It included J.P. Morgan Bank director Nelson D. Jay, a close Rockefeller associate.

The first Bilderberg attendees also included C.D. Jackson, by then Eisenhower’s architect of the Cold War; Alcide de Gasperi, Italian Prime Minister; and Antoine Pinay, a former French Prime Minister. Pinay was to become, the decisive personality shaping the long-term agenda of Bilderberg.

In Retinger’s words he founded Bilderberg Group simply to, “foster dialogue between Europe and North America.” That was for public consumption. In reality he built a very dark agenda that drew in the most reactionary circles in postwar Europe and tied them to the most powerful of postwar American oligarch families, that of Rockefeller, Harriman and their emerging “American Century.” The Bilderberg Group was to insure that that Century would be heavily influenced by postwar Vatican geopolitics. Its first meeting in 1954 was funded by Walter Bedell Smith’s CIA, with subsequent meetings financed by the CIA’s close ally during the Cold War, the Ford Foundation.

Le Cercle—The Vatican-Rockefeller Alliance

The key to the extraordinary power and influence of the annual Bilderberg Meetings from 1954 laid in the unpublished role of the secretive pan-Europeanist organization then known as Le Cercle, sometimes referred to as Cercle Pinay, a reference to the pivotal role in shaping Bilderberg played by the network of French Prime Minister Antoine Pinay, an intimate friend of Bilderberg founder Retinger.

Pinay’s Le Cercle (The Group) was the link that covertly tied most European intelligence services including the German BND and BfV, MI-6 in Britain, France’s SDECE, Holland’s BVD, Belgium’s Surete de l’Etat and Swiss and later even Saudi intelligence and apartheid South Africa’s secret service, BOSS. Prominent politicians associated with Pinay and Le Cercle included Franz Josef Strauss, Otto von Habsburg, Konrad Adenauer, Julio Andreotti of Italy, General Antonio de Spinola of Portugal, a conservative who went on later to become President; Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

Antoine Pinay’s group, Le Cercle, in turn was tied as well to the powerful and very right-wing Roman Catholic lay organization, Opus Dei, which had just been given final Catholic Church official approval in 1950, two years before plans for Bilderberg began, by Pope Pius XII. The organization was made well known, to its discomfort, as a subject of the 2003 Dan Brown historical novel, Da Vinci Code.

Among the later achievements of Le Cercle was the manipulation of the 1979 British elections that successfully brought in anti-labor right-wing Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. It was done with Le Cercle leading members, Sir Brian Crozier, MI-6 head Sir Arthur Franks, and MI-6 division head, Nicholas Elliott.

The late Bavarian political czar, Franz Josef Strauss, “The Lion of Bavaria,” noted in his memoirs that he had held a friendship with Le Cercle’s Antoine Pinay since the two first met in 1953. Le Cercle networks in Germany promoted Strauss’s candidacy, unsuccessfully, to become German Chancellor. In 1955 Strauss also became a regular member of the Bilderberg Meetings.

Bilderberg founder, Josef Retinger, a Polish-born Roman Catholic, organized his European network of the Bilderberg through the mediation of an Italian CIA asset, Prof. Luigi Gedda, head of Azione Cattolica. Gedda was also medical adviser to Pope Pius XII, a very strong right-wing anti-communist pontiff, who before the Second World War, as Cardinal Eugenio Giovanni Pacelli, had been architect of the 1933 Reichskonkordat with Hitler’s Nazi Party. Already in 1932 Pacelli as Vatican Secretary of State had played a key role in convincing Roman Catholic German Chancellor Franz von Papen to steer his Catholic Center Party into an anti-left alliance and join with the NSDAP of Hitler.

Clerical fascism and Pius XII

As Pope, Pius XII had a clear political bias and it was towards support of clerical or nominally Roman Catholic fascist or extremely repressive right-wing regimes, a form of what some termed clerical fascism, the fusion of the Church with fascist or dictatorial political regimes, such as in Franco’s Spain or Spinola’s Portugal.

During the Second World War Pius XII refused to condemn the clerical fascist pro-Hitler regime of Roman Catholic Ante Pavelić, the leader of the newly proclaimed Croatian state. Informed by Catholic clergy of the genocidal murders of Orthodox Serbs who had refused to embrace the Catholic faith, Pius XII, even though he possessed a list of Croatian clergy members who had “joined in the slaughter,” did not condemn the Pavelić regime or take action against the clergy involved. Instead he elevated Aloysius Stepinac—a Croatian archbishop convicted of collaborating with the Ustaše—to Cardinal.

In effect, Retinger’s European Bilderberg networks linked the extreme right-wing European anti-communist networks—including the Vatican of Pius XII, of Opus Dei, of the Franco government in Spain, of Portugal’s General Spinola and numerous other right-wing European anti-communist networks—to the triumphant American elites around the powerful Rockefeller group, through the networks and person of David Rockefeller. It was a power marriage that was to have a profound effect on the development of postwar European society and politics.

Francis and the ‘Migrants’-Words are all I have…

Now against this background of Bilderberg true history, the question to be asked is whether the first Jesuit Pope in history, Francis, is following in the heavy footsteps of Pius XII? Is he deliberately trying to stir things up in Europe through his support of the huge influx of war refugees from Syria and North Africa in the past year?

Words are an essential form of human communication, quite complex in the energy they convey to others. Depending on the word and its context, it can convey negative energy, hate energy; it can convey neutral energy, neither here nor there; it can also convey love, harmony, peace energy. If there is any organized group on the face of this Earth that is master of such word use precision it is the Society of Jesus, Pope Francis’ mother organization. This is relevant in reading his numerous missives on the population disruptions of the Middle East and Africa and the EU in the past three years.

There are three words being loosely thrown about today in regard to the EU crisis, and crisis it is. There is the word, “refugee,” legally defined as “a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.” Then there is the related term, “asylum-seeker” defined as “a person who has left their home country as a political refugee and is seeking asylum in another.” Third there is the entirely different concept behind the word used both by Pope Francis and by the 2016 Bilderberg Meeting in Dresden, namely the word “migrant.” Migrant is precisely defined as “a person who moves from one place to another in order to find work or better living conditions.” Here there is no mention of war, political persecution or life-endangering calamity.

By calling it what it clearly is not, a migration into the EU from the south, the word completely blunts the causes behind that migration, namely a US-UK-France-instigated series of wars, wars for control of oil and now gas, wars in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, initially called by Hillary Clinton the Arab Spring. The million-plus human beings streaming into the EU from Turkey over the past fifteen months are no migrants. They are refugees from wars.

In calling them migrants it implicitly makes either racist or bigot anyone questioning the legal procedures employed by the Merkel government and the German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF). According to reliable investigative reports conveyed to this author, the German Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (BAMF) since November 2014 has abandoned the rules and legal directives for refugees (not asylum seekers) for no public reason and without any notice to the public. Interesting.

“Structural Reality?”

In a Papal Message of January 17, 2016, the Pope declared, “In our time, migration is growing worldwide…Migration movements are now a structural reality, and our primary issue must be to deal with the present emergency phase by providing programmes which address the causes of migration and the changes it entails, including its effect on the makeup of societies and peoples.” He goes on, “Biblical revelation urges us to welcome the stranger; it tells us that in so doing, we open our doors to God, and that in the faces of others we see the face of Christ himself.” What if that stranger wants to kill you and to rape your daughters?

Nice words these are indeed. It ignores entirely the actual disruptive reality of the flood of war refugees into Germany and the rest of the EU. Rather than to focus his immense influence on bringing about peace and reconciliation of all domestic parties in Syria and condemning the terrorism of ISIS, Al Qaeda/Al-Nusra Front and the others destroying one of the oldest cultures in the world, a poly-religious one, Francis chooses to tell Europeans to open their hearts and even homes to the “migrants.” In this context, as I noted at the start, it is highly significant that this year’s Dresden Bilderberg Meeting referred in their discussion to “Migration” not Refugee Crisis. It appears both the Pope and Bilderberg planners are singing from the same sheet of music on this at least.

On January 6, in his message on the feast of Epiphany, the same Pope released a Papal video in which he called for creating a one world religion in effect: “Many think differently, feel differently, seeking God or meeting God in different ways. In this crowd, in this range of religions, there is only one certainty that we have for all: we are all children of God.”

Some days later, January 11, 2016 in an address to the Vatican diplomatic corps, Francis insisted that Europe has the means to absorb migrants without sacrificing its security or culture. He criticized the distinction made by the international community between refugees fleeing persecution and those fleeing poverty, referring to “the grave crisis of migration which we are facing.” He condemned various EU national attempts to find their own national solutions to this crisis of migration: “…there is no place for autonomous solutions pursued by individual states, since the consequences of the decisions made by each inevitably have repercussions on the entire international community. Indeed, migrations, more than ever before, will play a pivotal role in the future of our world.”

Unlike Francis, I firmly believe that borders DO matter, that national autonomy, like individual autonomy, does matter, is in fact, an essential component of our existence, our individual sovereignty our national sovereignty. We human beings are unique individuals every one. We are not some amorphous blob with no individuality. These differences are sacred in my view. Not according to the words of the Jesuit Pope. Our world with all its wars and deep disturbances is not at the state of nirvana which Pope Francis would like us to believe where peace and Christian charity overcome every obstacle. It well may be in the future but to pretend it already is belies in my view a hidden agenda.

David Rockefeller is an open partisan of a one world order where he and his ilk would sit atop all mankind, a disgusting idea. For such a one economic world, we must dissolve national borders. This, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is designed to do in large part, if, that is, EU leaders are suicidal enough to agree. Then to control an entire world, it needs a synthetic new religion. The forced refugee crisis is designed to blur national borders and historical ethnic or national culture. There is far more behind all the nice speeches of the Pope and the talks of Bilderberg than we are being told. It’s not without reason that the word “Jesuitical” in ordinary usage means “one using subtle or oversubtle reasoning; crafty; sly; intriguing.”

_______________________________________________________________

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”

Read More At: WillaimEngdahl.com

The Coming Battle Of Berlin…

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
December 14, 2016

Geopolitical fallout from the wave of anti-globaloneyism that appears to be sweeping the West continues. In just the last week, we’ve seen the House of Commons in the U.K. vote overwhelmingly against the “remoaners,” i.e., against the Europhiles who want to sabotage the BREXIT vote; M. Hollande has indicated he will not run for the French Presidency again; Nicholas Sarkozy was crushed in early primaries within his own party for another stay in the Elysee; Dutch opposition party leader Geert Wilders was convicted of “discrimination” by a Dutch court in what can only be viewed as a purely political attempt to derail him; Marine Le Pen’s party in France has a strong position in the polls as France heads into an election year, and Europhile Matteo Renzi suffered a crushing defeat in the Italian constitutional referendum.

But at the center, as the old pre-war song goes, of all these upcoming battles is Berlin, as outlined in this very significant article that was shared by Mr. V.Z.:

The ‘Battle of Berlin’ Will Be Last Stand of Globalism

http://tapnewswire.com/2016/12/the-battle-of-berlin-will-be-last-stand-of-globalism/embed/#?secret=erCqyebG2E

Chancellorin Merkel has squandered her once mighty political capital over the immigration (and southern European austerity) issues with such a reckless abandon that one can only wonder whether or not she engineered it. The short answer is, probably not, for she now shifting positions faster than the particles in the hadron collider(but Merkel’s PhD is, after all, in quantum chemistry, so it’s not surprising); yesterday she issues encyclicals about Muslim female attire being inappropriate for Germany (I was under the apparently false impression that the dress code had been abandoned in 1945), and today she lectures Germans on how they should all “integrate” into her multicultural paradise (and the last time I looked, I don’t recall Lederhosen were standard apparel in Libya, Turkey, or Syria, but I digress).

Now, stop and ponder that one for a moment: you’re a German, and being lectured by your furchtlose Fuehrerin on integrating into your own country! No wonder so many Germans are chanting Merkel muss weg! (Merkel must go!) One can hardly blame them. We haven’t seen such a disconnect between a politician and average people since Darth Hillary.

But behind the scenes, as this article points out, a big political battle is looming, and the stakes are globaloneyism and the “Europrojekt” itself. Frau Merkel has been shuffling her cabinet in hopes of staving off a rejection at the polls in next year’s coming German elections. The problem is, she now faces stiff opposition from her coalition partner’s party, the Social Democrats, and from former EU “parliament”(in quotations, because of course it has no real power) President Martin Schulz:

European Parliament President Martin Schulz is quitting his job in Strasbourg and aiming for higher office in Berlin. Schulz, who, in 2003, was likened by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to a Nazi concentration camp guard, appears ready to take the helm of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) in a gambit to prevent Germany from joining the ranks of the anti-European Union nations in Europe.

Schulz, sensing that Angela Merkel, Germany’s Europhile Christian Democratic Union (CDU) chancellor, is in political trouble even as she announced plans to run for a fourth term in 2017, is striving to eventually take over the reins of the SPD from Merkel’s coalition partner Sigmar Gabriel. For the time being, Schulz will be happy to assume control of the Foreign Minister portfolio from the SPD’s Walter Steinmeier, who opted to become Germany’s ceremonial president.

Schulz returns to Berlin as a politically-wounded politician. The EU Parliament was about to reject Schulz for a third term as president. The European Commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, the often-inebriated champion of a federalized Europe and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, threatened to resign his own post if Schulz was rejected by the Strasbourg assembly. Schulz, sensing defeat, opted to continue the fight for a united Europe as a member of the German Bundestag and a member of Merkel’s «grand coalition» between the CDU and SPD.

Worse, for Merkel, is the opposition within her own party:

However, the lukewarm-at-best coalition supporter of Merkel, Bavarian Prime Minister Horst Seehofer, may harbor plans to challenge Merkel for chancellor. Seehofer is a fierce critic of Merkel’s migrant policy that opened Germany’s borders to over a million mainly Muslim refugees from war zones in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Africa. Merkel, Schulz, and Gabriel continue to support the open-door migration policy even as German voters. Seehofer has crafted an anti-migration alliance with leaders of neighboring Alpine countries, particularly Austria. Austrian Freedom Party (OVP) presidential candidate Norbert Hofer, who is opposed to the EU and Merkel’s migrant policy, recently expressed his own views of Merkel during a presidential election debate with his pro-EU Green Party opponent. Hofer said Merkel «inflicted considerable damage on Europe when she opened the borders to refugees and, as a result, hundreds of thousands of refugees, including terrorists, have moved through Austria».

Seehofer has more in common with the Austrian Freedom Party of Hofer and its leader Heinz-Christian Strache than his supposed political ally Merkel. The only thing that continues to bind the anti-migrant Seehofer to the open borders champion Merkel is the rise of Germany’s nationalistic counterpart to the OVP, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. The anti-migrant AfD has eaten away at CDU-CSU support across Germany, with Bavaria being a notable exception. The AfD has won seats in ten state assemblies and risen to 15 percent support in political opinion polls. This «marriage of convenience» between Seehofer and Merkel may be coming to an end as the Bavarian Prime Minister sees an opportunity to challenge Merkel for leadership of the CDU-CSU union and lead an anti-migrant conservative coalition to challenge the Euro-fanatic Schulz on the national stage.

As the article also points out, Herr Seehofer has sought international alliances with anti-globaloneyist forces elsewhere, reaching out not only to Hungary’s Viktor Orban but also to the transition team of President-elect Trump. The stakes are high for all concerned, and the article concludes – in my opinion correctly – on the following note:

If Seehofer can take over the chancellorship of Germany from the discredited Merkel, there will be a final battle against globalization and the EU in the halls of power in Berlin. This battle will pit Seehofer and his anti-migrant and anti-EU allies against the forces led by the «concentration camp guard» Schulz. That political struggle will determine not only the future of Europe but the entire world.

So, how is Merkel to save her Chancellorship? (Herewith my high octane speculation of the day.) She must, if she is to survive, abandon the Darth Hillary approach of not listening to her own “basket of German deplorables”, which for Merkel now apparently includes all Germans opposed to her policies, particularly on immigration, but move to embrace their concerns as a part of her policies and agendas, and not just rhetorically. In other words, she stands at a crossroads…

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com
_______________________________________________________________

Profile photo of Joseph P. Farrell

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”.

 

CERN Strangelets – Dimensional Stargates – Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Interviewed By Dark Journalist

Source: DarkJournalist
Daniel Liszt
December 11, 2016

Dark Journalist Daniel Liszt invites Oxford Scholar Dr. Joseph Farrell back for part 2 of his most important interview to date. They examine the unusual links between the obscure ancient technology that Farrell has researched in his Giza Death Star books and explore the deep connections it has with the futuristic dimensional doorway that the mysterious scientific organization CERN has created under the auspices of its controversial Hadron Collider experiments. Farrell sees the CERN organization in Geneva, Switzerland as shrouded in secrecy and finds that its Hadron Super Collider, ostensibly set up to unlock the ‘Higgs Boson’ or ‘God Particle’ by the use of a particle physics experiment, is actually a public cover for a far different activity to covertly deploy a dimensional doorway developing super weapons for the 21st century that would be a modern version of the Manhattan Project with a massive military style budget of over six billion dollars!

Strangelets Intrigue

He cites the massive disturbances in the magnetosphere of the earth when the Hadron Collider is turned on and outlines that it may have serious consequences for physical life on earth and a major impact on the rotation of the planet itself. We also discover that voices in the scientific community have raised objections that CERN is unsafe due to the potential development of “Strangelets” a distorted potential byproduct of the matter smashing experiments that have been compared to mini black holes that suck in all dense matter and energy. He also shows the undeniable similarity between the CERN Hadron Collider and a Nazi Physics project called The Bell” that was an underground Torsion Physics project built by slave labor and overseen by the top Nazi Paperclip Scientists to give them a master weapon to rule the world!

Deep State Nazi Connections

Dark Journalist and Dr. Farrell investigate the history of CERN and demonstrate clear links of a post-war Nazi International through the figure of John J. McCloy , lawyer for notorious German corporate conglomerate IG Farben. McCloy was also the Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and became the American High Commissioner for post World War II Germany. In a controversial action, McCloy helped clear and vet over 70,000 Nazis, helping to utilize their intelligence networks to set up the CIA.

One of the major figures that he cleared was top Nazi legal theorist and prisoner of war Dr. Walter Hallstein who was eventually responsible for helping to set up CERN and who was also a key architect for developing the the Nazi plan for a European Federation that was eventually adopted as the blueprint for the European Union. McCloy, in a strange twist, also served on the Warren Commission to whitewash any Deep State connections to the JFK Assassination. JFK was famously committed to “Smashing the CIA into a thousand pieces” as a way to root out the Nazi infiltration of the agency and regain control over the government from suspected Nazi collaborators like CIA director Allen Dulles.

Brexit Update: Commons Votes Overwhelmingly To Proceed With Brexit

https://gizadeathstar.com/2016/12/brexit-update-commons-votes-overwhelmingly-proceed-brexit/

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
December 11, 2016

Well in case you haven’t heard, there’s been some grumbling of shocked defeat across the pond in the United Kingdom, where globaloneyist sore losers are trying to pull rabbits out of their increasingly threadbare hats to try to get Great Britain to remain in the European (dis)Union. In Britain they started off calling these “remainers”, which quickly became “remoaners,”  doubtless because the moaning chorus has been led by M. Jean-Claude Juncker (apparently no relation – other than common shared concepts and attitudes – to the Prussian landowners of yesteryear). Juncker, of course, has about as much warmth and charm as a black mamba and has been moaning ever since the results of the BREXIT referendum. His latest opus of tyranny was to urge European leaders not to allow BREXIT-like referenda in their various countries, because, as he put it in between hisses, if they should do so, everyone would vote to leave the EU, leaving poor M. Juncker to slither back to whatever technocratic paradise that hatched him. Life is so very difficult, and it is so hard to be an unimaginative bureaucratic tyrant these days… moan moan moan.

You may recall that just a few weeks ago, a British court handed down a “defeat” for the BREXITers, ruling that the referendum was non-binding, and that Parliament itself would have to formally vote to invoke article 50 of the Lisbon treaty. Of course, there were discussions and debates about something called the “crown prerogative” and whether or not Mrs. May could invoke it and bypass Parliament, but this discussion, like the British constitution itself, remains obscure, located somewhere between the perukes in the Old Bailey and afternoon tea, and accessible only to the mandarins of the Inner Temple with post-graduate degrees in Advanced Jurisprudential Obscurontology(See Charles Dickens, Bleak House).

It seems, however, that Prime Minister May has other ideas about moving things along, and may have pulled a fast one on the remoaners, according to various versions of this story that many readers of this website in the United Kingdom sent me:

BREXIT VICTORY: Remoaner plot CRUSHED as MPs vote to APPROVE triggering of Article 50

The story is simple enough: May called the bluff of the remoaners:

In a landslide victory for Brexiteers a Government amendment binding MPs to respect the prime minister’s Brexit timetable in return for a greater role in the negotiations passed by 461 votes to 89.

The history defining paragraph states that parliament “calls on the Government to invoke Article 50 by 31 March 2017”  – effectively ending any Remoaner plot to indefinity delay divorce talks with Brussels.

It also basically makes the current Supreme Court proceedings over whether or not Mrs May can trigger Article 50 without parliament’s consent redundant, because MPs are now signed up to starting the process anyway.

Government insiders were tonight hailing the passing of the motion as a huge success, with senior Brexiteers saying Labour and rebel europhiles “had their bluff called” and chose to respect the will of the people.

As the article also notes, all of this was achieved by a “compromise” that the May Government would have to inform members of Parliament of its negotiating strategy.

But then we have a bit – well, not so much a bit, but an entire opera – of a waffle in these statements by Robin Walker, Minister for Exiting the European Union:

Just before the decision was taken Robin Walker, the Minister for Exiting the European Union, urged MPs to back the amendment, which he said would make sure Government was “scrutinished” over its Brexit approach without “binding its hands” in negotiations with Brussels.

He told the House: “The Government is getting on with the job of delivering on the mandate delivered by the British people. We are taking our time to get the details right. We are moving on from 40 years of EU membership doing this properly and effectively is a complex challenge with a wide range of outcomes. (Emphasis added)

Now I have no doubt that the May Government is serious about moving forward with the BREXIT, and I have no doubt that Mr. Walker simply committed one of those mistakes we all make when we are under pressure and speaking more or less ex tempore in a public venue, when he said…

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com
_____________________________________________________________

Profile photo of Joseph P. Farrell

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”.

Conflicting Messages From NATO & EU


Source:GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
November 30, 2016

As readers here can tell, over this past week I’ve been largely concentrating on geopolitical stories, particularly those that seem to have been due to blowback and implications from the American presidential election/referendum. In this respect, there are three articles that caught my attention this week, because they are sending out mixed messages. They were shared, respectively, by Mr. E.O., Mr. T.M., and Ms. C:

‘Russia is not our enemy’ – NATO Navy Commander

The EU is pursuing defense policies that rely less on the US after Trump’s win

European Union Confirm EU Army Will Launch In 2017

Let’s start with the last article first. Notably, the expressed reason for creating a “pan-European” military is the BREXIT vote, which, as we’ll see, is probably nonsense, but a convenient way for the EU globaloney crowd to continue pouting and to strengthen their hand in the difficult negotiations ahead. The real reasons are expressed in the second article, namely, the election of Donald Trump. To be sure, this constitutes another convenient excuse, for the idea of a common European military has been the goal all along. Mr. Trump simple affords an excuse to “speed the process up”, as a common military gives a bureaucratic reason and glue to keep the otherwise faltering EU together.

From a strategic point of view, the creation of a European army is necessary, at least, if the EU’s pretensions to being the “third way” or “third superpower” between the US and Russia (or, depending on one’s lights, China), are to have any weight. With the loss of Great Britain to the project, Europe’s sole remaining acknowledged thermonuclear power is France, although most regular readers here are aware that I personally think Germany is also a thermonuclear power, a thing kept relatively quiet by the corporate globalist media, perhaps in the name of political “expediency.” More importantly, the European powers individually have neither the strategic depth of a Russia, China, USA or even Brazil, nor do any of them individually have a population base of more than 100 million. If Europe is to project deterrent power of a conventional military nature to any of the powers that do have these things, it simply will require a military on a large population base, and that is only possible with an integrated European military.

The effectiveness of such a military integration, however, is in doubt. It will require integrated armaments industries (a step towards which was taken with recent mergers of French and German armaments concerns in a kind of modern version of a Schneider Creusot-Krupp monster, if one can imagine such a thing; the Airbus consortium of companies already being a framework for potential collaboration in aerospace military matters, and of course there’s the “Eurofigher”), but more importantly, a way to manage efficiently the units of so many different nationalities and languages. Think of it as a kind of Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian army, on steroids, probably similarly based on two “official languages”, in this case, not German and Hungarian, but rather German and French. And of course, all this will mean further erosions of national sovereignty in Europe, and in the current political climate, that could become very problematic. Does the average Frenchman want decisions for war or peace being made by Brussels bureaucrats, given their track record of…

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________________________

Profile photo of Joseph P. Farrell

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”.

 

Orbital High Octane Speculation

orbit
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
October 16, 2016

This very interesting (at least, interesting to me, anyway) story was sent by Mr. V.T., and concerns the European Space Agency’s launch of three satellites to study the earth’s magnetic field:

Satellites suffer mystery blackouts: Thunderstorms on the edge of space may be causing loss of GPS signals

OK, so what, big deal? The Europeans are studying ionospheric storms and effects on GPS satellites and the Earth’s magnetic field.

Well, I told you that this is such “high octane speculation” that it’s now so far out that that it’s orbital speculation. I give full permission for anyone to say I might be just a few flies short of a Happy Meal, because I just might be. But nevertheless, since speculation is what we do here, I cannot help but speculate, so here goes:

Orbital Speculation One:

Europe, like the United States and a handful of other countries, is one of the few “countries”(since the EU isn’t a “country) to have ionospheric heaters, like the USSA’s celebrated and infamous HAARP facility (High Altitude Auroral Research Project). So much ink has been spilled over HAARP it’s probably not necessary to rehearse it all here. Essentially, HAARP is a series of phased array radio antennae capable for focussing radio waves in the gigawatt range into the ionopshere, thus “heating” it for study. As its critics (Jean Manning, Dr. Nick Begich, and Jerry Smith among many others) speculated, the original patents for the device, from the 1980s, suggested to them(and to this author), more sinister purposes, since it was also proposed as a means of manipulating weather precisely through the creation of high and low pressure regions in the ionosphere, and there was similar speculation – in the original patents – that the device could be used to create regions of high concentrations of “relativist particles” that could be used as missile defense shields, in effect scrambling the electrical circuits of ICBMs. There was even speculation that such devices could, with enough energy and charge differential, could be used to create enormous and highly concentrated lightning strikes on targeted regions of the Earth’s surface.

In Europe’s case, a similar device of similar energy output exists in Norway, called EISCAT (and predictably, the nation with the biggest interest in the device is Germany). There was speculation that the so-called Norway spiral which occurred shortly after president Obama took office, and which appeared to have interferred with a Russian missile test in the Arctic, was induced by EISCAT as a part of an anti-missile system test.

Thus, one might speculate that Europe would launch such satellites might have a more covert purpose than simply to “study the Earth’s magnetic field,” for such devices, in use, would inevitably, it would seem, have some sort of planetary-scaled effect on the planet’s magnetic field, at least locally if not regionally.

Orbital Speculation Two:

Over the years since CERN’s LHC came online, I’ve speculated that…

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com

The beginning of the end for glyphosate?

Glyphosate

Source: GMWatch.org
Peter Melchett, Soil Association
August 18, 2016

The European Parliament just voted to re-authorise glyphosate, writes Peter Melchett, but with significant restrictions on its use. So what does the vote mean for the world’s biggest selling herbicide?

EXCERPT: From a UK perspective, the most significant aspect of the European Parliament’s advisory vote on glyphosate reauthorisation is the call “for restrictions on use in agricultural fields shortly before harvesting”, saying the currently allowed practice of spraying glyphosate on wheat and other crops before harvest is “unacceptable”.

The beginning of the end for glyphosate?

Peter Melchett, Soil Association
The Ecologist, 15 April 2016
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2987564/the_beginning_of_the_end_for_glyphosate.html

* The European Parliament just voted to re-authorise glyphosate, writes Peter Melchett – but with significant restrictions on its use. So what does the vote mean for the world’s biggest selling herbicide? And how come the UK’s National Farmers’ Union welcomed the decision as an unqualified victory?

The European Parliament voted in favour of re-authorising the use of glyphosate – but crucially, qualified this approval with a number of significant restrictions.

Glyphosate is the world’s most widely sold weed-killer – most commonly sold as Monsanto’s Roundup. For decades it has been claimed to be completely safe by the pesticide industry and its supporters.

But there’s a growing body of evidence of the dangers of glyphosate, beginning with the IARC’s warning that it is a probable human carcinogen. The Soil Association believes it should be banned altogether.

From a UK perspective, the most significant aspect of the European Parliament’s advisory vote on glyphosate reauthorisation is the call “for restrictions on use in agricultural fields shortly before harvesting”, saying the currently allowed practice of spraying glyphosate on wheat and other crops before harvest is “unacceptable”.

Since last year, our “Not in my Bread” campaign has called for a UK ban on the use of glyphosate as a pre-harvest weed-killer and as a desiccant to allow faster harvesting. Spraying a probable carcinogen on food crops to kill them so they can be harvested faster sounds ridiculous, but it’s happening all across the UK on the wheat that makes our bread, flour, and other food like biscuits and cereals.

In the last year for which government figures are available, nearly a third of UK cereals, like wheat, barley, oats, and rye, were sprayed with glyphosate – a total of just over one million hectares.

Huge setback for pesticide claimed to be the “safest ever”

Just a few months ago everyone assumed that glyphosate would sail through re-authorisation in the EU without any problems. The decisions by the European Parliament are a dramatic blow, not just to the future use of glyphosate but to the pesticide industry generally. MEPs even proposed halving the extension of the license called for by the pesticide industry from 15 years to seven.

Globally, the most significant moves were the call for “full disclosure of the scientific evidence behind an assessment of glyphosate by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)” – overturning over 50 years of unpublished, industry funded studies being used in secret to get pesticides authorised in countries like the UK.

Full disclosure of almost all scientific evidence is already a requirement for medicines – but it’s not for pesticides and it’s not for GM crops. If the European Parliament’s recommendation is implemented, it would open up what’s been a secret, industry-dominated process to scientific, public and political scrutiny for the first time.

In March last year, an independent team of scientists from the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that “glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans”.

In contrast, in November 2015 the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) concluded that it was safe to use – but given that this review of glyphosate relied in part on industry funded, unpublished studies, the public, and many European politicians no longer trust the EFSA’s judgement.

This significant inconsistency between these two organisations spurred 96 prominent scientists from 25 countries to voice strong opposition to the EFSA report.

Published, peer reviewed science vs. secret industry studies

The reason that other eminent international scientists advising the WHO have already come to different conclusions is, as the EFSA themselves admit, partly because the WHO scientists are considering publicly available, peer-reviewed scientific evidence, and not secret industry studies. The WHO looked at glyphosate acting alone, and at the impacts of glyphosate as it is actually used. They found the cancer risk for both.

Although glyphosate is always used in combination with a range of other often toxic chemicals, and although researchers have found that glyphosate mixes as sold to farmers and gardeners can be up to 1,000 times more toxic than glyphosate acting on its own, EFSA insists on only looking at the impact of glyphosate alone.

It is blindingly obvious that the WHO approach is right from the perspective of public safety, and that the EFSA approach simply serves the interests of the pesticide companies.

This extraordinary argument is between two very different international teams of scientists – the IARC committee who are all named, all independent and have no vested interest in the chemical industry, and EFSA team who are nearly all anonymous, while we have no idea what connections they have to the industry.

This argument has, for the first time for more than 50 years, opened up how pesticides are regulated to scientific, political and public scrutiny – and what we are seeing doesn’t look good.

Not safe. Anywhere

In a dramatic move which will give heart to local campaigners all over the world, the European Parliament said that there should be a total ban the use of glyphosate in public spaces. This would mean no more glyphosate-based herbicides in private and public green areas, including public parks, streets, playgrounds and gardens.

This is a particularly positive result as Monsanto has been actively trying to stop local authorities and town councils across the world from banning the use of Roundup. Monsanto knows that if glyphosate has a reputation as unsafe for people to be exposed to in parks, playgrounds and streets, then it’s hard to see how it can continue to be used as an agricultural pesticide, where both farm workers and rural residents are at even greater risk.

This week’s vote saw 374 MEPs supporting the resolution only to authorise glyphosate with these significant qualifications, with 225 against and 102 abstaining, according to the European Parliament Committee on Environment.

So how come the NFU chose to welcome the vote as “positive for agriculture”? Maybe they were simply relieved that MEPs did not reject reauthorisation altogether. Maybe they were trying to mislead the public – and their own members – about the scale of the setback for glyphosate that this vote actually is.

No doubt they are hoping that the main restriction MEPs want to impose on farmers’ use of glyphosate – the ban on pre-harvest application to crops – will be dropped by ministers at the final hurdle. Or just maybe, if their press release is to be believed, the NFU really are happy to accept that restriction, recognising its benefits for consumers and the safety and good reputation of Europe’s food – in which case we should be glad of their support.

A number of EU member states like France remain opposed to any relicensing of glyphosate, while others like the UK are all for it, so the future will likely involve a compromise.

It is now crucial that the EU’s member states at the Council of Ministers include in any reauthorisation all the major demands set down by the EU Parliament this week – whether the NFU really does support them or not!

Read More At: GMWatch.org
__________________________________________________________________

Join the Soil Association’s “Not in Our Bread” campaign to get a permanent ban on pre-harvest use of glyphosate.

Peter Melchett has been Policy Director of the Soil Association, the UK’s main organic food and farming organisation, working on campaigns, standards and policy, since 2001. He runs an 890-acre organic farm in Norfolk, with beef cattle and arable seed crops.

He is a member of the BBC’s Rural Affairs Committee, and was a member of the Government’s Rural Climate Change Forum and Organic Action Plan Group, and the Department of Education’s School Lunches Review Panel. He received an honorary doctorate from Newcastle University in 2013, was on the Board of the EU’s £12m “Quality Low Input Food” research project, and is a Board member for two EU research projects on low input crops and livestock.

The Transhumanist Scrapbook: EU Wants Robots To Be Able To Copyright…

 THE TRANSHUMANIST SCRAPBOOK: EU WANTS ROBOTS TO BE ABLE TO COPYRIGHT ...
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
July 24, 2016

Never one to allow any debate or discussion of an issue, the European Union now apparently has unveiled plans to allow robots to copyright their work, and to be able to make money, according to this article that was shared by many readers here. In fact, this story emerged during the Turkish coup, and I have wanted to blog about it but unfortunately the news bumped it off these pages for a while. But it is in my estimation a significant story, not only for what it explicitly states and portends, but for those things it does not say and that lie hidden, as it were, between the lines:

Robots allowed to trade money and claim copyright on their work under radical new EU plans

You’ll note that, at least ostensibly, the plan is to free robots from “ownership”:

Robots could be freed from their human masters and handed the power to own possessions under radical new EU plans.

Officials want to have machines declared as “electronic persons” amid fears they could challenge humanity for control of the Earth.

The plans would mean the robots could claim copyright on their work and trade money – effectively allowing them to form functional societies.

Their owners could be liable to pay social security for the machines to cover any damage caused.

Now, note what we have: (1) an assertion that robots are a new kind of person, the “electronic person”, giving them the same status in law as corporations, and (2) this is being done to “free them from their human masters”, and then, on the other hand (3) “their owners could be liable to pay social security for the machines to cover any damage caused.”

Of course, we’ve come to expect such behavior from the EU: enact and regulate first, close off discussion and debate, and then allow a “debate” of sorts to take place after the fact.

However, you’ll have noted the contradiction: these robots are to be freed of their human masters, who nonetheless remain liable for their “social security”. So indulge my high octane speculation for a moment… what might be lurking in between the lines here? What I suspect is going on is this: (1) the corporation that makes the robots will force their owners to sign “licensing” agreements, (2) under these agreements, the robots make works and earn money, and the corporations receive a “cut of the action,” while (3) the robots’ owners are held liable for any damages robots might cause.

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com
_________________________________________________________________

Profile photo of 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”.

 

Brexit Is A Blow to the Oligarchs: Michel Chossudovsky Unmasks the EU Empire

Source: CorbettReport
James Corbett
July 21, 2016

SHOW NOTES AND MP3: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=19300

In order to understand Brexit in its full historical context, we must know about the origins and motivations for the formation of the European Union and the forces that have shaped the EU bureaucracy into an arm of the IMF/World Bank-led Wall Street hegemon. Today Professor Michel Chossudovsky joins us to expose the EU as the imperial project that it always was, and the growing movement against EU domination as an anti-imperial movement of world historical importance.