Travails of a Bankrupt Hegemon – F. William Engdahl

F. William Engdahl
January 17, 2016

Slightly more than seven decades ago, when the United Nations was officially founded in San Francisco, there was no question in the world about who was the Great Power, the World Hegemon. Today the situation has radically altered to the severe disadvantage of Washington and her ability to dictate terms to the rest of the world in economics, politics, and the greatly-misused expression “human rights and democracy-building.” That disadvantage may, ironically, be a blessing in disguise for us all.

In 1945, the United States Federal Reserve controlled the overwhelming majority of the world’s monetary gold. As war approached in Europe in 1939, European gold flooded into the United States for safety. In 1935 US official gold reserves were valued at just over $9 billion. By 1940 after the onset of war in Europe, it had leapt to $20 billion. As desperate European countries sought to finance their war effort, their gold went to the United States to purchase essential goods. By the time of the June 1944 international monetary conference at Bretton Woods, the United States Federal Reserve controlled fully 70% of world monetary gold, a staggering advantage in what was then a Bretton Woods Gold Exchange System with the US dollar at its heart. That wasn’t even calculating the captured gold of the defeated Axis powers of Germany or Japan, where exact facts and data are buried in layers of deception and rumor to this day.

To grasp the full dimension of the internal crisis and foreign policy dilemmas facing Washington today, it’s useful to go back to the nature of the immediate postwar “triumphalism” of US policy circles in the wake of their emergence from the war.

An ‘American Empire’ emerges

One influential geopolitical thinker of the postwar American Century, sometimes referred to as “the first Cold Warrior,” was James Burnham. During the war he had been one of Wild Bill Donovan’s US Government intelligence operatives in the pre-CIA intelligence operation called Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Burnham was one of many American Trotskyist Marxists recruited by the US intelligence. After the war, Burnham, swung from far left to far right, much as fellow former Trotskyist, Irving Kristol, the so-called Godfather of the neo-cons. Burnham together with William F. Buckley, Jr. founded the arch-conservative National Review to propagate Cold War anti-Soviet missives and pro-free market propaganda, invariably serving the foreign policy agenda of the CIA and State Department.

In 1947 Burnham wrote a major paean to America’s new world power titled The Struggle for the World. The book was adapted from a Top Secret OSS memo Burnham had prepared for the US Delegation to Yalta about the Soviet geopolitical strategy in 1944.

Burnham described in the most positive terms what he called, “an American Empire which will be, if not literally worldwide in formal boundaries, capable of exercising decisive world control.” This is what Time-Life magazine founder, Henry Luce in his 1941 essay termed, “The American Century.”

Continue Reading At:

Breaking – Campbells Moves To Label Their GMO Products / Questions Still Loom

By: Zy Marquiez
January 8, 2016

In a stunning development, Campbell Soup is breaking rank with all other companies which do not label genetically modified ingredients in their products.

Following the recent victory in Vermont that requires genetically modified organism [GMO] labeling within the state, the company has begun taking action towards this new reality.

Where all this could be headed, the following article below by the New York Times elucidates:

Campbell Labels Will Disclose G.M.O. Ingredients

Most interesting shown within the article:

Campbell is also breaking with its peers by calling for federal action to make mandatory a uniform labeling system of foods that contain such ingredients, commonly known as G. M.O. labeling, said Denise Morrison, chief executive of Campbell.

Campbell is calling for mandatory labeling of products that use ingredients from G.M.O. crops. Credit Campbell Soup Company

“We’re optimistic that a federal solution can be reached in a reasonable amount of time, but if that’s not the case, we’re preparing to label all our products across the portfolio,” Ms. Morrison said in an interview.

She said about three-quarters of the company’s products contained ingredients derived from corn, canola, soybeans or sugar beets, the four largest genetically engineered crops. The change in labeling is expected to take 12 to 18 months.

The first example provided by the company, for a SpaghettiO’s label prepared for Vermont, is sparsely worded and does not specify which individual ingredients are genetically altered. It simply states at the bottom of the label: “Partially produced with genetic engineering. For more information about G.M.O. ingredients, visit” [Bold and underline emphasis added].

Whilst the opening statement should send a shot across the entire corporate food sector, the main point should be that there is an incredible lack of specificity of GMO labeling for a company claiming it wants a ‘mandatory uniform labeling system’.

What are we to take of this?

Is Campbell’s Soup attempting to make a politically corporately correct move by asking for what it knows is coming, but doing so in such a manner [keep in mind, they are not being specific about which items are being genetically modified] that ameliorates the amount of waves being caused by showing that they haven’t fully converted their products to precise GMO labels?

Another notable point of the article was put forth by Mr. Vilsack, who is the agriculture secretary. Please keep in mind, as Jon Rappoport of has reported before, Tom Vilsack is one “of Monsanto’s most influential political allies in the world”:

“I’m going to challenge them to get this thing fixed,” Mr. Vilsack told The Register, adding that he was worried about “chaos in the market” if other states follow suit. “That will cost the industry a substantial amount of money, hundreds of millions of dollars, if not more, and it will ultimately end up costing the consumer,” he said.

The ultimate cost individuals eating GMOs would pay via their health, would be far more than what the financial increase to them will be. As penned by Christina Sarich, of, this is a great reason why “over 60 countries have already passed mandatory GMO labeling laws”, with many countries such as Russia choosing an outright ban:

64 Nations Say No To GMO, Yet US Govt Nears Illegal GMO Labeling?

As Sarich implores trenchantly in the article:

“So are we really supposed to believe that genetically engineered crops are safe and that the average consumer in America who is practically begging for organic food is simply over-reacting, or are we to correctly assume that the United States has been bought by biotech?”

An excellent synopsis of the current issues regarding the abstruse, but rather overarching aspects of the GMO issues is covered by F. William Engdahl:

“Genetic Manipulation Of Organisms: Legal Victory in “Paris vs. Monsanto GMO Cabal”

As stated by Engdahl:

The entire field of so-called biotechnology is corrupt and rotten to its very unscientific, reductivist core. That should not surprise as it was created deliberately by America’s leading eugenics family and funded by their Rockefeller Foundation to advance their mad eugenics agenda at the very same time the Rockefeller Foundation was funding the Nazi eugenics research at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin.

Within Engdahl’s analysis he also mentions what should be shocking to most, which is the fact that the Seralini study:

was the first-ever long-term rat study documenting the effects of a GMO diet in the entire twenty years’ history of commercial GMO. The results were bone-chilling.” [Bold Emphasis added].

Couple this with what investigative reporter Jon Rappoport mentions in:

Anti-GMO movement’s PR agency represent’s who??

The FDA is the criminal agency that allowed GMO crops through the door, to begin with, in 1996, by saying, based on zero research, that GMO and non-GMO crops were identical.”

Given the fact that Big Biotech has never really show any credible evidence of GMO safety in intergenerational studies, and more, should they even be trusted?

While the above news brought about by the NYT seems positive and ultimately, could be, we must remain concerned in the fact that there is still myriad issues not being addressed.

Why has Campbell Soup asked for a ‘mandatory uniform labeling system’ and then in the same breath, mention that they lack specificity in their products? It’s not like they didn’t know the labeling in Vermont was coming. If they were truly turning over a new leaf, those labels would be on the products already.

Detaching to gaze at the larger picture, why is Tom Vilsack even trusted as the secretary of agriculture, knowing he has extensive ties to Monsanto?

And finally, although over 92% of Americans polled are for GMO labeling, the better question is, why label the GMOs, when you can just ban them? Why allow ‘food’ that’s never been proven safe to be part of the food suply, especially when it has been supported by the surreptitious machinations of big biotech the whole way through?

One way or another, what Campbell Soup has carried out will show its true colors, sooner or later.

For the time being, be very skeptical, because for every new data point that arises, there are many that have are not being addressed except by a handful of people. And those questions, are ultimately where the darker side of GMOs lie.

Sources & References:

Genetic Manipulation of Organisms: Legal Victory in “Paris vs Monsanto GMO Cabal”
F. William Engdahl
January 3, 2016

There is a very positive news coming out of Paris, a city with more than her share of bad news lately. It’s a major legal victory for the voices of science and reason against the GMO Monsanto-led cabal. Its implications will be felt worldwide. If our world ever gets the will to rid the 21st Century Black Death plague masquerading under the name of Genetic Manipulation of Organisms or GMO, it will owe a huge debt of gratitude to the courageous work of Prof. Gilles-Eric Séralini and his extraordinary team of dedicated scientists at CRIIGEN, the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering, in France.

In a world where industry’s corruption of scientists has almost become ordinary, the existence of a non-industry-funded team of scientists dedicated to producing research and independent information on genetic engineering and its impacts in biology, environment, agriculture, food, medicine, and public health, including the short, medium and long-term effects on human health and on the health of the entire living ecosystem, is, so far as I am aware, unique. Few are aware of their tireless and largely thankless work.

For this reason it’s doubly good news that the Paris High Court has just announced a verdict in favor of Seralini in a libel trial. On 6 November 2015, the High Court of Paris indicted Professor Marc Fellous, former chairman of the French Biomolecular Engineering Commission, for “forgery” and “the use of forgery,” in a libel trial he lost to Prof Séralini. The penalty will be decided sometime in 2016.

The French Biomolecular Engineering Commission (CGB in French) was created within the Ministry of Agriculture and is well-known for its advocacy of GMO. The body is responsible for approving as safe a number of GMO plant varieties in France.

Fellous himself is no small fish. A fellow at the renowned Pasteur Institute, he is President of the Association Française des Biotechnologies Végétales, and he is responsible for assessment of risks of GMO at the French Ministry of Agriculture, as well as Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Paris. The case was brought by Seralini in January 2011.

According to a source close to the case, Fellous had used or copied the signature of a scientist without his agreement in order to argue that Séralini and his co-researchers were wrong in their re-assessment of Monsanto studies.

The Séralini re-assessment reported finding signs of toxicity in the raw data from Monsanto’s own rat feeding studies with GMO maize, Monsanto’s MON 863.

Continue Reading At:

Sign Of Trouble In The [Out]House Of Saud

Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
December 21, 2015

Last Thursday  I did my News and Views from the Nefarium about the  increasing signs that the (out)house of Saud may be in deep trouble, and not only in trouble, but on the menu, referring to this Daily Bell analysis of a recent article by F. William Engdahl:

House of Saud May Be in Danger of Falling

The sequence of events has, indeed, been interesting. There have been suggestions that the (out)house of Saud was persuaded by some in Washington to drastically lower the price of oil as a means of economic warfare against Russia, and some have alleged that the Suadis were also also hoping to pull the rug from underneath the emerging American fracking industry. Either way one slices it, it has left Riyadh in a financial mess, with the (out)house of Saud actually having to issue bonds to cover it budget deficits.Additionally, it is now recognized – and have been for some time –  that the Saudis have been sponsors of a great deal of Islamic terrorist organizations and front groups.

Here, as elsewhere, one is getting a set of mixed messages. Perhaps sensing the “sea change” of attitudes, the (out)house of Saud – and my thanks to a listener of News and Views for correcting me on this point – then hypocritically announced that it was putting together and intending to lead a new coalition of Muslim states against terrorism:

Did Saudi Arabia Just Clear The Way For An Invasion Of Syria And Iraq?

Saudi Arabia announces 34-state Islamic military alliance against terrorism

The problem with the coalition, however, is that it appears, according to some sources, that some of the nations allegedly on the list of coalition partners, didn’t even know they were part of a coalition:

Continue Reading At: