The Amazing Glyphosate Revolt Grows – F. William Engdahl

34534534544

Source: Journal-Neo.org
F. William Engdahl
May 23, 2016

I must make a confession. I never thought it would get this far. There is an absolutely amazing international revolt against the most deadly and most widely used weed killer in world agriculture–glyphosate. Those of you who have followed my earlier writings can detect my feeling of pessimism that mere “democratic” grass-roots protest, combined with a scientific assessment from an agency of WHO that glyphosate was a “probable carcinogen” would be enough to stop the pending, twice-postponed EU Commission renewal of the expiring license for glyphosate in the EU. It almost doesn’t matter at this point what the ultimate vote is when the next EU Commission glyphosate meeting is convened. The genie is out of the bottle. One of the world’s most important eugenics projects to maim and ultimately reduce human population is on the brink of being banned much as DDT decades ago.

On May 19, a revised proposal by the European Commission to re-approve glyphosate for use in Europe for 9 more years (rather than the original 15 years), but with almost no restrictions on use, failed to secure the required qualified majority among EU governments. This is an amazing and very positive development for democratic empowerment against an institution increasingly seen–not only by the British population–as an anti-democratic, even totalitarian structure irresponsive to the most basic concerns for the health and safety of EU citizens.

The agri-chemical industry bigs—Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and friends–are stunned at their failure. Corruption in government corridors whether in Berlin or Brussels seems to be losing its efficacy.

The next step for the troubled glyphosate renewal process will be for the EU Commission, those faceless, unelected bureaucrats, to come up with a new revised proposal that will bring Germany to approval by end of June when the old license expires or order glyphosate withdrawn from the entire EU market within six months according to Henry Rowlands’ international GMO watchdog media, Sustainable Pulse.

They cite Brussels EU Commission sources who report that the Commission did not even dare call for a formal vote, realizing that they would fail the EU requirement of Qualified Majority “yes” vote of the 28 EU states. France and Italy would have voted against in an informal polling. Germany would have abstained along with six other EU states.

Under current EU rules incorporated in the Treaty of Rome, a matter coming for a vote in the Council of Ministers of the 28 member states requiring a Qualified Majority approval, must satisfy two criteria. First, that 55% of member states vote in favor. Second, that the proposal is supported by member states representing at least 65% of the total EU population. Under the rules, an abstention under qualified majority voting counts as a vote against.

According to official statements of various EU governments in March before the latest May 19 meeting, in addition to open opposition to glyphosate license renewal on EU Commission terms expressed by France, Sweden and the Netherlands, the governments of Bulgaria, Denmark, Austria, Belgium and Italy had joined the “no” group. Their combined populations equal 53% of total EU population when Germany as abstainer is added. In that case the “yes” to glyphosate side would have a mere 47% not the required 65%.

An EU glyphosate ban today could deal a possible death blow to the global GMO project as more of the world wakes up to the fact that the entire GMO crop cultivation is part and parcel of the consumption of deadly glyphosate. It can be said that the Rockefeller Foundation’s funding of genetic manipulation, of genetics since World War II, as I document in my Seeds of Destruction book, is about eugenics or race purity as the Nazis practiced during the Third Reich. Little known is the fact that the Nazi eugenics, otherwise known as creation of the “Master Race,” was financed by…the Rockefeller Foundation. Monsanto has been in the orbit of Rockefeller core assets, now joined by Bill Gates, since World War I.

Industry Panic

At this point the global agrichemical cartel–one getting dramatically smaller from proposed mergers between ChinaChem with Syngenta and now Bayer AG with Monsanto are approved–is in a clear panic mode, and making stupid mistakes in the process. What’s at stake is huge for the health and safety of world citizens and for the future of the deadly agrichemicals industry. Glyphosate is the major component of Monsanto’s proven-toxic Roundup, the most profitable product of the GMO giant and the world’s most widely-used weed-killer.

Now Washington wants the EU to drop all health and environmental safeguards on GMOs to pave the way for a transatlantic trade agreement (TTIP). TTIP negotiations started on 25 April in New York. EU Health Commissioner Andriukaitis’ rush to ram through a re-licensing of glyphosate in May, shortly after his New York TTIP talks, was clearly another reflection of immense Washington pressure on the unaccountable EU Commission bureaucracy.

On May 16, timed for release just hours before the scheduled EU Council of Ministers vote on approval of glyphosate license renewal, the FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) released what it claimed was a scientific study. They admit in the first sentence that it was rushed to publication. The study concluded regarding glyphosate:

“The overall weight of evidence indicates that administration of glyphosate and its formulation products at doses as high as 2000 mg/kg body weight

by the oral route, the route most relevant to human dietary exposure, was not associated with genotoxic effects in an overwhelming majority of studies conducted in mammals, a model considered to be appropriate for assessing genotoxic risks to humans. The Meeting concluded that glyphosate is

unlikely to be genotoxic at anticipated dietary exposures…the meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet.”

This means that one part of the WHO says glyphosate is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet,” while another arm of WHO, the very respected World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that glyphosate, the weed-killer used in most every GMO plant worldwide, and most other crops and even home gardens as well, was a “probable human carcinogen.”

The new FAO/WHO rush job however is no science. It’s fatally flawed bought-and-paid for prostitution science, with no offense to the world’s oldest profession meant.

As one critic points out, “this announcement was made without one single regulatory or industry glyphosate study ever having been performed at a real-life dietary exposure level (under 3 mg/kg body weight/day). This is a huge hole in the risk assessment process for glyphosate, as low levels of the herbicide may hack hormones even more than high levels and hormone hacking chemicals are often carcinogens.”

Conflicts of Interest

Moreover, the FAO/WHO rush job study committee is riddled with members with glaring conflicts of interest in terms of ties to the chemical industry desperately trying to ram through glyphosate re-approval until 2031. According to a report in the UK Guardian, Professor Alan Boobis, who chaired the UN’s joint FAO/WHO meeting on glyphosate, is vice-president of the International Life Science Institute (ILSI) Europe. The co-chair of the sessions was Professor Angelo Moretto, a board member of ILSI’s Health and Environmental Services Institute, and of its Risk21 steering group too, which Boobis also co-chairs. The Guardian report pointed out that in 2012, “the ILSI group took a $500,000 (£344,234) donation from Monsanto and a $528,500 donation from the industry group Croplife International, which represents Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta and others, according to documents obtained by the US Right to Know campaign.”

Continue Reading At: Journal-Neo.org

___________________________________________________________________

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”

 

Clinton/Rothschild relationship exposed in emails

Source: RT
March 25, 2016

The Free Thought Project did a search through the Wikileaks database of Hillary Clinton emails and found many exchanges between Hillary and Lynn Forester de Rothschild, of the banking family, Rothschild. The Resident discusses how the emails shed some light on how power really works.

Say It Ain’t So! – Rothschild Family Members Sought For Banking…

Rothschild Bank Now Under Criminal Investigation After Baron De Rothschild Indictment

rths

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
March 23, 2016

Many of you shared this story with me, and it’s worth passing on, because it’s yet another example that there are two sets of laws now operative in the West: one set, for the rich and powerful, which, needless to say, isn’t the same set that they make their bough-and-paid-for politicians make the rest of us live under. In this case, it’s Baron David de Rothschild that’s being sought, but wait until you read the details!

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/rothschild-bank-criminal-investigation-baron-david-de-rothschild-idictment/embed/?wmode=transparent#?secret=nQaB9P1iRY

Now, in case you missed it, what’s going on here is that the irrepresible Rothschilds – always the epitome of propriety and virtue – have been shifting massive amounts of money to one of their favorite tax havens…

…no, not the Caymans, not Turks and Caicos, not the Channel Islands…

…but the USSA:

The Rothschild empire has been instrumental in helping move the global elite’s wealth from traditional tax havens like the Bahamas, Switzerland and the British Virgin Islands to the U.S.

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com

5 Threats Trump Poses & 6 Plans To Stop Him

QuestionEverything2
Source:NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
March 20, 2016

Note: When I say “GOP,” I also include “Globalist.” Both major Parties are in the pocket of Rockefeller Globalists.

—Here cometh the loose-talking cowboy and hustler, walking into the saloon; The Donald; and the customers are cheering.

Cheering?

What?

What went wrong? What in the world went wrong?

The first 4 threats Trump poses:

Threat One: The way he talks. It isn’t measured sing-song generality, which is the standard form of hypnotic prose in America for both politicians and media. The rise and fall of empty words isn’t his style, and believe me, that is disturbing to the establishment.

Big-time politics and news in the US must be delivered in hypnotic cadence—otherwise they fall apart, because they have no inherent substance. But everything Trump is advocating is carried on the waves of far different rhythms—casual, direct, non-teleprompter, jump-around, zig-zag, off the cuff; as if, out of some bygone era, he’s saying: “Hey kid, here’s a dime, run down to the corner and get me a newspaper, and here’s a nickel for yourself…”

Blown dry, androidal, high-flying, empty, sentimental, super-clean, sing-song—these are qualities drilled into, or already possessed by, successful pols and media stars. Trump cuts across and buries that style. He’s a disruptor, and he violates the cardinal rule, which is:

Don’t wake the children.

I can’t emphasize too strongly what a threat that poses to the status quo, which can only sustain itself through a tacit agreement, on all sides, to engage in trance-inducing speech.

On top of all this, Trump is delivering messages that are beyond the pale, according to current standards of political correctness. Another jolt.

Trump is doing one of these:

“Listen, folks, they’re all lying to you. You know who I’m talking about. Last month I was in Cincinnati and this reporter came up to me, I could see she was all ready to do me in, you know? She had this big question she wanted to ask me, like she was going to kill me with it—I’ve known lots of people like that, you have, too. People all over the country are out of work but all she can think about is her pet question…jobs, we’ve got to bring them back…I’m calling those companies that went overseas and telling them, pack your bags and come back or you’re going to face…(pointing) he knows what I mean…I can see it on your face, what’s your name?…I’ll bet you know someone close to you who was thrown out of his job, or maybe you were…”

Trump comes across every which way. Right side up, inside out, sideways.

Threat Two: He gets in the face of media personalities and slaps them down and topples them from their pedestals. He doesn’t bow. He doesn’t play the game. On a moment’s notice, not by script, he attacks when ruffled. He doesn’t care. This amounts to a declaration of war against media hegemony and media hypnosis. This is akin to a person telling a hypnotist, “Hey, take that pendulum out of my face, you idiot. I don’t need to go to sleep. I’m awake.” Media are supposed to be the providers of every slice and tidbit of information that’s important. They’re the eyes, ears, and mouths for the public. Trump is telling them to shut up and go away. His attitude flies in the face of the Program.

Threat Three: He knows what Globalist trade treaties have done to destroy jobs in America. He knows the American economy hasn’t come back after the 2008 crash. He doesn’t care who has signed on to these treaties. He says he’s going to make new deals and change the landscape and bring back jobs.

Whether he will or not, whether he can or not, he’s exposing the Globalist agenda, as well as the politicians on both sides of the aisle who have surrendered their minds and souls to it.

This Globalist agenda is the real third rail of politics, and Trump is not only stepping on it, he’s licking his fingers and putting his hand on the electricity and living (so far) to tell the tale. Once again, he doesn’t appear to care.

Is he for real? Is he a fake? Regardless, he’s talking about what is supposed to remain hidden, and he’s clicking with people all over the country who have lost their jobs to the insane trade policy of the Rockefeller forces.

This is verboten. This can’t happen. But it is happening.

And he isn’t going into a long song and dance about the theory of Globalism. He’s keeping it tight and simple. He’s keeping it emotional. He’s actually speaking a real language real people can understand and want to understand. In other words, he’s committing a grave crime.

He’s telling people their jobs and money and prosperity have been stolen and he’s going to get them back.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

Joseph Stiglitz – “American Inequality Didn’t Just Happen…It Was Created.”

Screen Shot 2016-03-15 at 3.56.59 PM
Source: LibertyBlitzKrieg.com
Michael Krieger
March 17, 2016

Yesterday, I came across an excerpt from a book written by economist Joseph Stiglitz, which touched upon many crucial points regarding the U.S. economy. I think it’s an important read since it helps explain the roots of the current rebellion taking place within the political system.

Americans aren’t angry because other Americans are fabulously wealthy. Americans are angry because the economy is intentionally rigged to benefit a small group of individuals known as “insiders.” They’re angry because rather than add value to society, these insiders parasitically take from society. Rent-seeking is what economists call their destructive behavior, and the public is fed up with it.

No one would be outraged if genuinely innovative entrepreneurs and creators were the ones cleaning up in the modern economy. Unfortunately, this is not the way things work. Indeed, it’s an unfortunate fact that a disturbingly large number of America’s so-called “economic winners” in 2016 are little more than corrupt, scheming hacks and political types unconscionably profiting from the ongoing destruction of the Republic. “The people” have finally started to wake up.

Now here are a few excerpts from Evonomics:

American inequality didn’t just happen. It was created. Market forces played a role, but it was not market forces alone. In a sense, that should be obvious: economic laws are universal, but our growing inequality— especially the amounts seized by the upper 1 percent—is a distinctly American “achievement.” That outsize inequality is not predestined offers reason for hope, but in reality it is likely to get worse. The forces that have been at play in creating these outcomes are self-reinforcing.

Addressing inequality is of necessity multifaceted—we have to rein in the excesses at the top, strengthen the middle, and help those at the bottom. Each goal requires a program of its own. But to construct such programs, we have to have a better understanding of what has given rise to each facet of this unusual inequality.

Inequality is the result of political forces as much as of economic ones. In a modern economy government sets and enforces the rules of the game—what is fair competition, and what actions are deemed anticompetitive and illegal, who gets what in the event of bankruptcy, when a debtor can’t pay all that he owes, what are fraudulent practices and forbidden. Government also gives away resources (both openly and less transparently) and, through taxes and social expenditures, modifies the distribution of income that emerges from the market, shaped as it is by technology and politics.

Indeed, a huge part of the problem centers around a two-tiered justice system in which the rich and powerful can get away with anything and everything without ever facing serious consequences. Not only does this incentivize elite theft, it destroys the very fabric of society itself.  [Bold Emphasis Adeed]

Continue Reading At: LibertyBlitzkrieg.com

Elites Link Anti-Government Thought to Mental Illness, Lay Groundwork for Incarceration

[Editor’s Note]

The below is cited at length due to the pressing concerns it exacerbates.

government-dissent-mental
Source: DailyBell.com
March 11, 2016

Believe in conspiracy theories? You’re probably a narcissist: People who doubt the moon landings are more likely to be selfish and attention-seeking … Psychologists from the University of Kent carried out three online studies … -UK Daily Mail

We are seeing an increasing number of academic studies analyzing the psychology behind “conspiracy theorists” and those who question government propaganda. The idea being that people who don’t trust government may be mentally ill.

These analyses are published in prominent publications in the UK and are building a “scientific” literature revolving psychological dysfunction and “conspiracy theory.”

More:

Do you think the moon-landings were faked, vaccines are a plot for mind control, or that shadowy government agencies are keeping alien technology locked up in hidden bunkers?

If so, chances are you’re a narcissist with low self-esteem, according to psychologists. In the internet age conspiracy theories can incubate in quiet corners of the web, but it may be psychological predispositions of believers which keep them alive, rather than cold hard facts.

The article goes on to explain that researchers at the University of Kent have used online studies  from hundreds of people to generate the study’s conclusions.

The findings appeared in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science with the suggestion that those who adopt conspiracy theories have “outwardly inflated self-confidence” but may be “overcompensating for a lack of belief in themselves.”

The article mentions a previous study conducted by Oxford’s Dr. David Robert Grimes.

From what we’ve written on this study:

Grimes had the idea that mathematics could prove or disprove certain conspiracy theories. A physicist, he “developed a mathematical equation to derive the truth of conspiracy theories,” according to the Christian Science Monitor …

Grimes calculated that the moon landing and climate change conspiracies “would require about 400,000 secret-keepers each, the unsafe vaccination conspiracy would involve 22,000 people, and the cancer cure conspiracy would involve over 710,000 people.”  Even with the utmost secrecy, Grimes reports, his equations show within four years the conspiracies would be exposed nonetheless.

At the time, we commented on Grimes’s apparent “earnestness” in struggling to “understand how people can even engage in conspiratorial thinking to begin with.” We made this comment in relationship to yet a third article on the psychology of conspiracy.

This commentary appeared in the Guardian and, as we pointed out, “argued against conspiratorial thinking based on a new book, Suspicious Minds … written by Rob Brotherton.”

Basically, the idea is that people are naturally prone to conspiracy theories because of the way their brains have evolved. “Identifying patterns and being sensitive to possible threats,” the article explains, “is what has helped us survive in a world where nature often is out to get you.”

Brotherton explains in the article that he decided that the best way to present his thesis was to avoid confronting conspiracy theories head on. Instead, he wanted to explain how people adopted such theories for psychological reasons.

“I wanted to take a different approach, to sidestep the whole issue of whether the theories are true or false and come at it from the perspective of psychology. The intentionality bias, the proportionality bias, confirmation bias. We have these quirks built into our minds that can lead us to believe weird things without realising that’s why we believe them.”

So here we have three explanations of conspiracy theories presented by major publications in less than three month’s time. And, who knows, perhaps there were more.

In the conclusion to our Grimes’ analysis, we noted that: “It looks as if a more powerful and disciplined program may be underway. Something to ponder along with a further moderation of certain public declarations.”

By “public declarations” we meant those of individuals prone to mentioning conspiracy theories in non-appropriate contexts. As it turns out, we anticipated the current news cycle only by a couple of months.

Just this week, in fact, Attorney General Loretta Lynch attended a Senate Judiciary Hearing and acknowledged discussions at the Department of Justice of taking civil action against “climate change deniers.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) questioned her on the issue and drew comparisons between such deniers and the tobacco industry that claimed for decades that the tobacco was not proven to cause ill health.

The Clinton administration eventually brought a successful civil suit against Big Tobacco. And Whitehouse suggested that civil or criminal charges might be brought against “anti-warmists.”

The forces of intolerance are gathering in the US, just as overseas.

We have urged in the past that people pay close attention to these growing trends. By turning statements of opinion into a psychological condition they are trying to discredit anyone who speaks out against the government.

Continue Reading At: DailyBell.com

The Brexit & H.M. Elizabeth II…

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
March 13, 2016

After yesterday’s blog about President Barack Obama’s planned summit with Argentine President Mauricio Marci in San Carlos de Bariloche, I’ll bet you thought things couldn’t possibly get any stranger in an increasing strange political world. Add to that the fact that Russia has warned – in no uncertain terms – North Korea to “calm down, cool it, and mind your tongue or else face the consequences,” and the world couldn’t possibly become more upside down. Unfortunately, you’d be wrong, and I found this article, shared by Mr. G.L., another testament that we “live in interesting times”:

Revealed: Queen backs Brexit as alleged EU bust-up with ex-Deputy PM emerges

The focus here is that H.M. Elizabeth II apparently let her clear feelings on the European Union, and the possibility of Britain’s exit from the same – the so-called
“brexit” – be known to Britain’s Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg:

THE Queen has been hailed as a backer of Brexit tonight after details emerged of an extraordinary alleged bust-up between her and Nick Clegg over Europe.

Her Majesty let rip at the then Deputy PM during a lunch at Windsor Castle, The Sun has been told.

The 89-year-old monarch firmly told passionate pro-European Mr Clegg that she believed the EU was heading in the wrong direction.

Her stinging reprimand went on for “quite a while”, leaving other guests around the table stunned.
Not only this, Elizabeth, now 89 years old, apparently let her thoughts be known in no uncertain terms to various MPs during a visit:

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com