agriculture

Technocracy X: Nano-Science (2)

 “We cannot rely on trial-and-error approaches to deal with existential risks… We need to vastly increase our investment in developing specific defensive technologies… We are at the critical stage today for biotechnology, and we will reach the stage where we need to directly implement defensive technologies for nanotechnology during the late teen years of this century… A self-replicating pathogen, whether biological or nanotechnology based, could destroy our civilization in a matter of days or weeks.”

― Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology


dna_nano_tech-wideThe military is the largest investor in the U.S. Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). The share of the NNI budget given to the Department of Defence (DoD) since the program started has reached $6.6 billion with part of the expenditure going to DARPA and the departmental laboratories of the Navy, Army and Air force, the rest ending up at universities as research grants or as part of the Multi-University Research Initiative (MURI).[1]  Though spending has been fluctuating since 2007, there remains steady interest in nanotech’s military capabilities. Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) revealed from their research that: “… government funding for military R&D dwarfs that spent on social and environmental programs across the industrialized world …” with military R&D fixed towards “… a narrow weapons-based security agenda.” [2]  Which means the marginalisation of conflict prevention and analysis of the roots of conflict and its links to poverty, the environment, security and health issues continue to be under-funded. Nanotech advances are being hijacked away from improving civilian life with “game-changing” technology as the culprit.

A fervent need to make these grand visions a reality was given a sturdy platform for realisation back in 2007 from the DoD and their little known advisory body called the Defence Science Board (DSB) whose paper entitled: “DSB 2006 Summer Study on 21st Century Strategic Technology Vectors” laid some important groundwork for the future. In an attempt to place nanotech at the top of the military agenda the paper drew their attention to “synergistic combinations” of all forms of nanotech and their “… truly revolutionary capabilities in human performance enhancement, medical treatment and prophylaxis, miniaturization, life extension, robotics, and machine intelligence …” [3]  It was unabashed in its agenda for clandestine tagging and tracking, where: “A combination of nanotechnology, biology, and chemistry promises to provide significant increases in capability to conduct pervasive surveillance on a global basis.”

spybee

prototype for cyborg-bee © unknown

Some of these other applications currently in R & D or primed and ready for action include the following:

Nano-biotechnology – or miniaturized biotechnology is the recent development of merging biology research with nanotechnology, most notably using biomolecules, bio-membranes and nano-photonics for vaccinations and virus research. Particularly active in medical fields the new science is seeking to generating cures; develop stem cell treatments, creating muscle tissue and artificial proteins. The convergence between computers and biology is of primary interest where eventually computing will be sourced from a biological platform where “Colonies of live neurons can live together on a biochip device.” [4]

Nano-electronics – The development of molecules with useful electronic properties which can then be used in nano-devices. This includes synthetic chemical methods and the creation of synthetic molecular motors. Other forms include carbon nano-tubes which have taken over from silicon-based chips. Now, the race is on to fit billions of these tubes onto computer chips thereby increasing the chip performance to “… run at more than three times the frequency and consuming just a third of the energy.” [5]

DNA nanotechnology – the construction of structures out of DNA and other nucleic acids. This branch has a special relationship to nano-medicine and “SMART drugs” for targeted drug delivery, the development and creation of vaccines and the adjacent field of nano-electronics with real world applications in both fields looming large. [6]

Nano-robotics/weaponryself-sufficient machines operating at the nano-scale. Applying nano-robots in medicine are proving difficult due to a multitude of problems adapting to the biology of organic systems, though progress is there. However, military nano-robotics in combination with cybernetics is moving ahead in leaps and bounds. There are still very little scholarly articles on the nature and pace of advances on military robotics along with only a sluggish attempt at raising the ethical and moral issues inherent in the use of such weaponry. What is clear is that the military is getting very excited by it all due to the unlimited scope of applications. Reduced to the size of perhaps 0.1mm or less, autonomous mini and micro-robots could be deployed on the ground, in water and in air, using the same propulsion principles found in larger electronic and mechanical systems. All forms of movement are mimicked such as human legs, various types of hopping, flapping wings like a bird, flagella, and even side-winding movements of a snake. The multi-purpose nature of robotics means that weapons systems targeting, reconnaissance, communication and surveillance are easily utilized. Insects and small mammals are already being integrated into bio-cyborg hybrids with nervous system and brain interfacing with cybernetics, software and electrodes.

cyborg-mothcyborg moth | © unknown

Returning to our whacky friends down at DARPA and their various sponsored companies and subsidiaries, we find they are still churning out helpful prototypes for new ways to spy, maim and murder. Some of these latest offerings are still prototypes, in the manufacturing stage or on the drawing board. They comprise:

1) Nano-Scouts – real insects and simulated bird-like technologies which act as the eyes and ears of intelligence. Flies and mosquitoes have embedded nanotech capabilities which allow them to determine the presence of certain chemicals, changes in moisture levels or barometric pressure, and be able to sense movements, temperature, and vibration.[7]

2) Nano-Poisons – A variety of toxic substances with nanomolecules carefully tailored to illicit the correct responses. By interfering with neuro-chemical inhibitors and release agents introducing precise “onboard” quantities of synthetic poisons behaviour modification is taken to a whole new level. Almost any type of mind control would be available from encouraging the victim to lie obsessively to provoking suicidal thoughts; stimulating a person to react violently or to kill. And of course, a Brave New World of somatic release could be programmed where the person cannot help but love everyone and where anger and aggression is blocked. Nano-molecules would effectively quadruple the effectiveness of purely psychological methods of mind control.

3) Nano Force Fields –nano-coatings which can hermetically seal a vehicle or building by allowing particles to seek out air gaps and block them.

4) Nano Mind Erasers – Want to take out a politician or spy without fuss or bother of assassination? Then, inducing the equivalent of instant Alzheimer’s is the answer. Wiping the sections of the brain clean using micro fields programmed to flare up as tiny, molecular neutron bombs would do the trick.

5) Nano Needles – With no visible wounds and invisible to the naked eye these weapons represent an up-dated version of the old KGB poison-tipped umbrella. The needles could be shot from a suitably modelled gun to paralyse people. Presumably the lethal nature of the needles would be dependent on their carrier capability.

6) Nano Heart-Stoppers – Nano-blood flow restrictors and Stroke Inducers – Long known to be a part of military-intelligence operations the assassination of sensitive targets such as politicians, heads of state and celebrities. Undetectable in the blood stream, nano-molecules could mimic heart attacks or strokes; restrict the blood flow causing an array of symptoms, even inducing personality disorders.

7) Nano-Naut Swarms These are ‘SMART dust’ particles which act as an information or sensor clouds capable of analysing areas with sharp detail and relying back information to HQ. As reported in the MSM in early February 2013, the British Army has been deploying tiny nano-drones in Afghanistan for over two years. At just 10cm long and weighing only 16 Grams they are used to relay full motion video and still images back to the devices’ handlers. But technology is advancing as fast as weapons can be bought.

8) Cyborg Insects – could be the delivery tool of much of the above allowing viruses and lethal substances to be to their individual or mass target, something that Bill Gates and his forays into mosquito-driven vaccines would no doubt happily welcome. Spying and surveillance capabilities have also been successfully tested and deployed. One of DARPA’s less malevolent offerings, the Nano Hummingbird was named One of Time Magazine’s 50 best inventions of 2011. Shaped like a humming-bird the mini robot is remotely-controlled without an external power source and can fly, hover, move forward and backward in the air while shooting Hi-Resolution video.

9) Programmable Matter – Starting in 2007, with DARPA support, Carnegie Mellon delved into the possibility of creating hardware and software to make material that can programmed to morph into 3-Dimensional shapes – essentially, shape-shifting. Named the Claytronics Project, the brains behind this venture believe that it has the capacity to change every facet of human experience. They consider claytronics to be a platform for a new form of called “Pario” with the reproduction of moving 3-D objects the primary goal. In other words, the quest to program the world around us. Just a few years later in 2010 with a “self-folding origami” robot which can literally fold itself up and crawl away. Meantime, shape-shifting sand made an appearance in 2012 where; “New algorithms enable heaps of ‘smart sand’ that can assume any shape, allowing spontaneous formation of new tools or duplication of broken mechanical parts.” This of course begins to the blur the whole fields of nanotechnology bioengineering, cybernetics, biological-based pharmaceuticals, programmable vaccines and the advance of synthetic biology.

The US Department of Defence is also researching the feasibility and applications of robotic mosquitoes. So far testing has found that they can be remotely controlled with an on-board camera and a microphone. They will be able to land on unsuspecting dissidents or terrorists with the potential to take a DNA sample or leave RFID tracking nanotechnology on your skin. Flying in through a crack in your window or attaching itself to your clothing in passing would prove no problem for these adorables. No doubt law enforcement and Homeland Security are salivating at such a prospect. [8] In fact, sightings of insect-like drones have been occurring for years in the US, most frequently at activist demonstrations and marches. According to a 2006 Flight International report: “… the CIA had been developing micro UAVs as far back as the 1970s and had a mock-up in its Langley headquarters since 2003.”

robot_insectAssuming such machines can fly onto a local protester’s arm and then wing its way back to its controller with a fresh little DNA sample to analyse, this compliments another disturbing scenario as described by authors Andrew Hessel, Marc Goodman, and Steven Kotler who “…outline futuristic human genome work that evolves from the very real GE $100 million breast cancer challenge.” In this scenario: “freelancers receive bids to design personalized virus offering customized cures for the sick.” An individual succumbs to colon cancer and instead of going the route of standard chemotherapy he chooses an immediate payment of $1000 to have his genome decoded over two days. Virologists of the near future will have information about the disease and the exclusive genome sequence. The design cure will be outsourced the winning bid providing the formula to rid your body of the specific cancer. Targeting the US President by criminal cartels or terrorist cells would be relatively easy.

A 2010 release of secret cables by WikiLeaks, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered US embassies “… to surreptitiously collect DNA samples from foreign heads of state and senior United Nations officials.” [9]With that in mind, an article by Atlantic magazine takes the next logical step in personalised bio-weapons and micro-drones.

Picture an African President busy with civil war and child soldiers. Perhaps his DNA had been sampled as part of a UN / US mandate. A drug is tailored to that genome sent to an online bio-marketplace and synthesised into actual genetic material. The authors explain that it is here that “… the future of drones and virology could intersect.”

The article continues:

A few days later tablets are delivered to a group that dissolves them and injects the liquid into a handful of micro-drones. The team releases the drones and infects the people in the African leader’s circle of advisors or family. The infected come down with flu like symptoms, coughs and sneezes that release billions of harmless virus particles — but when they bring their symptoms in the vicinity of the African leader — the particles change. Once the virus particles are exposed to that very specific DNA sequence, a secondary function within their design unlocks.[10]

Perhaps the formula contained a “fast-acting neuro-destructive disease that produced memory loss and, eventually, death.” For the African leader or any other head of state which was proving an obstacle to US hegemony “the symptoms could be tailored an infinite number of ways. Designed to reflect a uniquely local affliction like Dengue Fever, or to appear like symptoms of a genetic condition.” [11]Combined with the inherent nature of the military-coporate-banking complex and with their puppet Obama who sees no problem with murdering American citizens via remote drone attacks discarding any notions of law and democratic due process, then you can be sure that such a scenario will take place in the very near future – if it hasn’t already.

The above scenario set against military nanotechnology and other forms of “non-lethal” warfare is justified due to the threat of terrorism and the belief that we can all bring an end to the world’s violence and crime. It is believed that technology will save the day on the battlefield and in civilian life. If left to these people it would rapidly start to resemble an endless battle in itself, which is the general idea. Convincing people not to act on their “evil” thoughts by allowing nano-dust particles to seep into their brains is bread and butter behaviour modification. For anyone else, it is a step towards a Huxleyian nightmare.

Although many commentators prefer to believe that the fail-safe mechanisms of quantum computing and the intelligence apparatus would be enough to protect mainstream society, they fall into the trap of believing that those of conscience are presently guiding humanity. Once again, you cannot use a juvenile dictionary to explain a psychopathic reality that is operating on an entirely different cognitive and perceptual mainframe.

The fractal nature of the nano-world of military applications means that advances in weaponry would take place exponentially with a modus operandi that would excite any social dominator beyond all measure. Using the premise of the molecular assembler, a device capable of breaking and creating the chemical bonds between atoms and molecules, it means duplication is not only feasible and efficient but a requirement once the technology is up and running. Think of the white Storm-trooper clones in the Star Wars films – very much military-technocratic ambrosia. As nanotech guru Eric Drexler explained: “a state that makes the assembler breakthrough could rapidly create a decisive military force – if not literally overnight, then at least with unprecedented speed.” He further observes: “A nation armed with molecular nanotechnology-based weapons would not require nuclear weapons to annihilate a civilization. In fact, it seems that a rather surgical system of seeking and destroying enemy human beings as cancerous polyps could be developed–leaving the nation’s infrastructure intact to be repopulated.” [12]

irobotStill from ‘I Robot’ (2004) Twentieth Century Fox

A research paper sponsored by the European Commission for a 2004 conference on the military uses of nanotechnology and the hazards to society at large, came to some sobering conclusions. While the benefits in medical and non-military domains was clear and should not be unduly hindered provided regulations and ethical boards were swiftly introduced, there were a number of indirect ways that society could be: “detrimentally affected” through the “diffusion of the technology.” The paper offered some examples, including the temptation for the National Security State and related agencies, corporations and criminals to purloin micro-sensors and robots for spying, as well as: “the use of small autonomous systems for criminal attacks – and in particular terrorism – including attacks on critical infrastructures.” They also included a third possibility, that of:

“… implanted systems and other forms of body manipulation for ‘improving human performance’. Deciding what kinds of body manipulation should be permitted, and under which circumstances is a problem of peacetime civilian life, and should be handled by civilian society. However, military R&D and deployment of such systems could establish a fait accompli before society is able to carry out a thorough debate on the desirability of particular technological developments.”

And there’s the problem.

The last thing psychologically compromised persons enjoying their place at the helm of Official Culture is to see the involvement of local communities and civic society. Genetically modified organisms and foodstuffs went this way as did television, banking, media, warfare and most other socio-political power structures which required either secrecy, perception management or corporate monopolisation to ensure a singular reality. Nanotech will be no different if it is allowed to continue without regulations and in the hands of those who wield power for their own ends. If we have humans behaving in psychopathic ways then it doesn’t require the greatest leap of imagination to realise that military robots will be a reflection of their state of mind and intentions. Pathocratic control systems require global dominance in all domains and nanotech represents a mighty leverage in the race to achieve it. Horizontal proliferation would be nearly unavoidable with small, self-replicating systems where in principle, a single copy would be sufficient for growth in another country or sub-state entity.

The report goes on to state:

Military robots with sizes from nanometres to metres would bring threats on an unknown scale. If they could kill, they could constitute new forms of weapons of mass destruction more potent than known biological warfare agents. With non-lethal effects, such as disruption of personality, mass attacks could lead indirectly to the breakdown of a society and the death of a large portion of its members. Partly as a result of their smallness, but mainly owing to their potential for self-replication and the production of additional weapons on site, nano-robots would create extreme uncertainty. [13]

Given the nature of nanotech, automated decision making would grow based on its tendency for a kind of peak, fractal replication to emerge, once technological thresholds have been reached and surpassed. When this level of technology fuses with the mentality of unlimited growth much like the standard economic mind set currently dominating, then a virtual arms-race at the molecular level could ensue with entirely unforeseen consequences. Military production overlaid with ideological insanity.

C60a

“Buckminsterfullerene C60, also known as the buckyball, is a representative member of the carbon structures known as fullerenes. Members of the fullerene family are a major subject of research falling under the nanotechnology umbrella.” (uploaded by Mstroeck at English Wikipedia Later versions by Bryn C at en.wikipedia)

Alongside the massive drive to foist genetically modified foods on global populations agribusiness is fascinated by the part nanotech can play in making food production and consolidation more efficient. However, using molecular assembly principles “nano scale carriers” will soon be used for delivering fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and plant growth regulators. A case is being made to reduce environmental impact with nanotech. It is believed that this will improve stability and lessen environmental degradation in terms of chemical runoff and other related problems. An example of these carriers would be the use of clay nanotubes for pesticides which will apparently reduce the amount of pesticide use by 70–80 per cent. Nanoparticles can act to help mollify and transform resistant chemical compounds in to non-toxic ones while waste water treatment and disinfectants have the potential to be markedly improved. Fluorescent labelling by “quantum dots” (QDs) using bio-recognition molecules for anti-bacteria and disease control will be supplemented with an array of rapid detection and enzymatic biosensors. There is even a device called the “E-Nose” inspired by the human nose which, through the use of nanoparticle gas sensors can detect precisely the quality and quantity of gas present. [14]

Socio-economic demands will ensure that wireless nanosensors in crops designed to monitor and collate data on agronomic intelligence processes such as planting and harvesting cycles will become more and more important. Water levels, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and other treatments will also be under the nanosensor umbrella in the hope that maximization of crop yields and a reduction in resource input will be the end result. [15]

Biotechnology at the nanoscale is already having some success in the battle against plant resistance and environmental stresses such as drought, salinity and diseases. Nanobarcodes will be used for authentication and tracking in agricultural food and husbandry products. As knowledge grows in the area of plant gene traits and nanotechnology-based gene sequencing it is taken for granted that such process will offer new ways to reduce costs and maximize profits. [16]  With undoubted benefits that nanotechnology can provide, this is still inside the constraints of Official Culture. Farming has already been transformed into a leviathan of corporate efficiency where community, civic and independence has been sacrificed. Nano-farming may increase the overall efficiency and provide intermittent benefits, but will it have the capacity to transform agriculture away from agribusiness corporatism?

If new endeavours are dominated by the matrix of the 4Cs and the 3EM then it will limit the hope for social renewal and become just another tool to increase exploitation still bound by the same lowest common denominator. Consumerism, far from being modified or somehow reduced under this new technology will only intensify mechanisation, commodification and the encoding organic life, this time at the molecular level. Nanotechnology may have a place in improving humanity’s lot but not by being grafted onto a socio-political and economic framework that caused the problems in the first place.

Quite apart from providing new innovative tools for medical advances and the promise of an agricultural revolution, evidence so far in relation to health and environmental concerns doesn’t exactly promote confidence. Some of the latest research results show that:

  • Rats breathing in nanoparticles were found to exhibit inflammation, skin aging and stress responses.
  • DNA and chromosome damage which in turn “linked to all the big killers of man, namely cancer, heart disease, neurological disease and aging”.
  • Carbon nanotubes – the possible replacement for silicon – have shown to have the potential to cause mesothelioma ( a form of cancer).
  • Nanoparticles and nanofibres have shown to cause lung disease in a similar way to asbestos. [17]

Mark Wiesner Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Duke University in Durham N.C., has argued for a rethink as to the way nanoparticles are selected and defined in relation to potential impacts on human health and the environment. His international team of researchers from the federally-funded Centre for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology (CEINT), based at Duke University in the United States, have raised a number of issues which need to be addressed if nanotechnology is to prove viable and ethically responsible. He believes there is presently confusion as to what truly constitutes a nanoparticle where “… materials often do not meet full definition of having special properties that make them different from conventional materials.” According to Wiesner, a key question that needs to be answered: “… is whether or not a particular nanoparticle has toxic or hazardous properties that are truly different from identical particles in their bulk form,” and this due to the fact that: “Many nanoparticles smaller than 30 nanometers undergo drastic changes in their crystalline structure that enhance how the atoms on their surface interact with the environment.”

The professor explains further:

“…because of the increased surface-area-to-volume ratio, nanoparticles can be highly reactive with other chemicals in the environment and can also disrupt certain activities within cells. … “While there have been reports of nanoparticle toxicity increasing as the size decreases, it is still uncertain whether this increase in reactivity is harmful to the environment or human safety,” Wiesner said. “To settle this issue, toxicological studies should contrast particles that exhibit novel size-dependant properties, particularly concerning their surface reactivity, and those particles that do not exhibit these properties.” [18]

Perhaps it is not the health and environmental issues which are really the problem. We humans are extraordinarily creative and ingenious. All the above is driven on the assumption of cybernetics and its systems theory as viable working models; the idea of “nested” organic systems and dissipative structures which are interrelated and interconnected by virtue of their functional similarity. *This means that bio-engineers and technocrats look at nanosystems as providing the potential for exponential growth via automatic and autonomous emergent properties. As described previously, this opens up a whole new pandora’s box when matter becomes programmable.

nanotubes_carbone

Carbon Nanotubes Source: tpe-nanotechnologie-cb.e-monsite.com/

According to nano scientists this follows that society and the human condition is about to “reshaped” in very positive ways: cleaning the environment, easing the pressure for natural resources, tackling hunger, curing AIDS and other invasive diseases; giving new life to paraplegics whilst enhancing the human body. However, will these laudable aims be set against a background of unresolved questions which threaten to undermine the human species? What has happened to new advances in technology in the past?

Nanotech advocates display frightening naïveté in this regard and an often ironic binary evaluation of what are highly complex issues, notwithstanding an ignorance of ponerology and psychologically compromised cultures. It is a contradiction to say that strengthening our democratic processes will somehow ensure responsible ethics which will insulate against the darker applications of nanotechnology when overwhelming expenditure is already focused in the hands of those who seek weapons advancement and shareholder profits. A barrier to accountability will remain as tenacious as it has proved to be in narcotics, conventional weapons and trafficking. It benefits the Establishment just as nanotechnology promises to do.

Futurist David Brin’s prescription to cultivate a “transparent society” where privacy is effectively non-existent is dangerous as it opens the backdoor for just about every totalitarian precept going. The self-replicating nature of molecular nanotech has given rise to end time scenarios where machines take over the world replacing humanity and organic life. Eric Drexler coined the term “grey-goo” otherwise known as ‘ecophagy’ to illustrate such a cybernetic apocalypse.[19]Think along the lines of “the Collective” from the Borg in the Star Trek TV series or the “Hive mind” so beloved of humanists and transhumanists. Expansion derives from assimilation and adaptive properties – “group think” in a futurist setting.

transmission-5speed-gears.ai

Corporations will be regulated insofar as it does not impinge on the market value of nanotechnology. This means regulations in medical and consumer arenas where it matters less will be followed. Where it is most needed however, is in domains such as weaponisation and agriculture and which will likely follow the traditional route of lobbyists and cartel economics – the path of least resistance. Meanwhile, legislation will have a very tough time keeping up with the rise of nanotechnology especially when environmental and privacy laws are only applicable to those adhering to the public domain and wholly irrelevant to government /corporate experimentation outside such accountability.

Although the military is driving nanotech advances (as with all things) the testing ground has begun with many “passive” or “first generation” commercial applications finding their way to the market place. As explored in the previous post the list is endless. If sunscreen products in the US contain nanoparticles and thus freely pass through the blood-brain barrier then the background of complex toxicology issues must remain at the forefront. In the same way, as GMOs, Wi-Fi and cell phones all have serious health questions hanging over them and health and environmental concerns of nanomaterials at this early stage have been completely ignored. Issues of privacy and confidentiality are also profoundly important.

The precautionary principle means that it is essential not to jump in feet first with this technology when there is an absence of suitable definitions regarding nanoparticle properties which could help scientists determine what represents a threat to the environment or human health. Despite certain advocacy groups calling for government regulation, the only principle which governs decisions is the one leading to the quickest possible profit. Nanotech forges ahead, in love with itself and its seemingly unlimited potential.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that it will go the same way as GMOs since the focus behind the drive to conquer nature, deny death and embrace immortality is exactly the same. Until regulation, insurance and extensive public discussion is forthcoming it is likely the more negative scenarios surrounding nanotech will play a greater role. After all, once the perceived genie is out of the bottle the consequences of its “magic” are more difficult to manage. This means that with all the wondrous potential for cleanng up the environment patents will arrive forcing us to pay for such ecological magic just as it was with the so-called “Green Revolution” of genetically modified crops. This means an expansion of selective wealth where transformation happens according to your pocket and status thereby replicating the same old divisions and class divides.

To reiterate the immovable direction of technology: it is the military and nano-weaponry which will determine the future of nanotech as a whole not whether a surgeon can provide life-saving operations or the disabled individual can begin to walk again. Altruism is not the primary currency of social exchange in a world shaped by psychopaths. Nanosystems will be nurtured on the same directive until such time we can wrest control.

 


* Dissipative Structure – A system that exits far from thermodynamic equilibrium thus dissipating the heat generated to sustain it. It has the capacity of changing to higher levels of orderliness leading to self-organization. These systems contain sub-systems that continuously fluctuate.


Notes

[1] ‘More soldiers in nanotechnology labs?’ By Michael Berger, nanowerk.com August 22, 2007.
[2] Ibid.
[3] http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2006-02-Summer_Study_Strategic_Tech_Vectors_Vol_I_Web.pdf
[4] NanoMedicine – A Review by K.K. Senthil Kumar, International Journal of Innovative Drug Discovery, Vol. 2 / Issue 1 / 2012 / 40-47 (from International Journal of Biopharmaceutics)
[5] ‘Carbon nanotubes fit by the thousands onto a chip’ By Jason Palmer, BBC News, 29 October 2012.
[6] DNA nanotechnology and transhumanism seem to fit snugly together in terms of their technological vision for humanity. Whether or not most persons working in the field are predisposed to this belief is irrelevant but the belief that vaccinations across the board are absolutely necessary and beyond reproach is a powerful part of the medical establishment. As such, the transhumanist paradigm naturally joins forces with materialism, atheism and corporatism to unfold their agenda accordingly. Journalist Sayer Ji has this to say on the subject:

“Not only have humans strayed from their mammalian roots by creating and promoting infant formula over breast milk, and then promoting synthetic immunity via vaccines over the natural immunity conferred through breastfeeding and sunlight exposure, for instance, but implicit within the dominant medical model is to replace natural immunity with a synthetic one. This is the philosophy of transhumanism, a movement which intends to improve upon and transcend our humanity, and has close affiliation with some aspects of eugenics.
The CDC’s immunization schedule reflects a callous lack of regard for the 3 billion years of evolution that brought us to our present, intact form, without elaborate technologies like vaccination — and likely only because we never had them at our disposal to inflict potentially catastrophic harm to ourselves. The CDC is largely responsible for generating the mass public perception that there is greater harm in not “prophylactically” injecting well over 100 distinct disease-promoting and immune-disruptive substances into the bodies of healthy children. They have been successful in instilling the concept into the masses that Nature failed in her design, and that medical and genetic technologies and interventions can be used to create a superior human being.
In this culture of vaccination, the non-vaccinated child is “inferior,” “dirty,” perhaps even “sub-human” to those who look upon vaccination as the answer to what perfects the human immune system.
Transhumanism participates in a dialectic which requires a simultaneous and systematic dehumanization of those who do not share the same way of thinking and behaving. The eugenic undertones of mass vaccination and the cult of synthetic immunity are now only thinly veiled, as we move closer to the point where a psuedo-scientific medical dictatorship lays claim to our very bodies, and the bodies of our children.
The point of no return (if not already traversed) is only around the corner: the mass introduction of DNA and Recombinant Vector Vaccine technology. Vaccines moved through the following stages (a tortured history of failures and massive “collateral damage”): Live Vaccines > Attenuated Vaccines > Subunit Vaccines > Toxid Vaccines > Conjugate Vaccines, only now reaching towards converting our living tissue into “vaccine-making factories” through the use of DNA and Recombinant Vector Vaccines, which are designed to directly alter cells within the vaccinated person’s body so that they create the antigens normally provided by vaccines themselves.
While not yet in use, clinical trials are now underway to obtain FDA approval. If we do not educate ourselves now and act accordingly, their mass implementation is inevitable, and our very genomes will become the next target of the vaccination/transhumanist agenda.” – ‘The Vaccination Agenda: Implicit Transhumanism’ By Sayer Ji, Contributing editor, Activist Post, January 24, 2012.
[7] Most Innovative Defense Technology’ 2008 Award Nominee – Nano SCOUT AeroVironment Inc.| http://www.defense-update.com/ | ‘The dragonfly built to spy – Tiny flying robots have the military abuzz, says Mark Harris’ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tech.
[8] A COMBINED EXPERIMENTAL-NUMERICAL STUDY OF THE ROLE OF WING FLEXIBILITY IN INSECT FLIGHT Lingxiao Zheng, Xiaolin Wang, Afzal Khan, R. R. Vallance and Rajat Mittal1 Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, George Washington University, Washington DC 20052 Tyson L. Hedrick 2009. http://www.me.jhu.edu/fsag/Publications/Papers/AIAA-2009-382-170percent5B1percent5D.pdf
[9] ‘Hacking the President’s DNA’ November 12, The Atlantic Magazine, By Andrew Hessel, Marc Goodman and Steven Kotler.
[10] ‘Micro-Drones Combined With DNA Hacking Could Create A Very Scary Future’ By Robert Johnson, Oct. 28, 2012. Business Insider | http://www.businessinsider.com/
[11] Ibid.
[12] ‘A Glimpse Into China’s Post-Nuclear Super-Weapons: An Interview with Lev Navrozov on Nanoweapons by Ryan Mauro for http://www.worldthreats.com Sept. 26, 2003. | Quotes sourced from Engines of Creation By Eric Drexler (1986).
[13] ‘Military Uses of Nanotechnology – European Commission’ ec.europa.eu/research/conferences/2004/ntw/pdf/soa_en.pdf
[14] ‘How helpful is nanotechnology in agriculture?’ By Allah Ditta 2012 Adv. Nat. Sci: Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 3 033002 doi:10.1088/2043-6262/3/3/033002 Vietnam Academy of Science & Technology, 29 May 2012. IOP Science | http://iopscience.iop.org/2043-6262/3/3/033002/article#ansn431989bib05
[15] Ibid.
[16] ‘The potential and challenges of nanopore sequencing’ Nature Biotechnology 26, 1146 – 1153 (2008) Published online: 9 October 2008 | doi:10.1038/nbt.1495
[17] ‘Tiny Inhaled Particles Take Easy Route from Nose to Brain’ August 3, 2006, University of Rochester Medical Centre. | Wu, J; Liu, W; Xue, C; Zhou, S; Lan, F; Bi, L; Xu, H; Yang, X et al. (2009). ‘Toxicity and penetration of TiO2 nanoparticles in hairless mice and porcine skin after subchronic dermal exposure’. Toxicology letters 191 (1): 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2009.05.020. PMID 19501137. | Jonaitis, TS; Card, JW; Magnuson, B (2010). ‘Concerns regarding nano-sized titanium dioxide dermal penetration and toxicity study’. Toxicology letters 192 (2): 268–9. doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2009.10.007. PMID 19836437. | Schneider, Andrew, ‘Amid Nanotech’s Dazzling Promise, Health Risks Grow’, March 24, 2010. | ‘ Nanofibres ‘may pose health risk’,’ BBC News, August 24, 2012. | ‘Is Chronic Inflammation the Key to Unlocking the Mysteries of Cancer?’ By Gary Stix, Scientific American, July 2007.
[18] ‘When Nano May Not Be Nano’ Duke University, Depart. Civil & Environmental Engineering September 14 2009.
[19] ‘Some Limits to Global Ecophagy by Biovorous Nanoreplicators, with Public Policy Recommendations’ By Robert A. Freitas Jr. April 2000. | www.rfreitas.com/Nano/Ecophagy.htm

Technocracy IX: Nano-Science (1)

Ted: I don’t like it here. I don’t know what’s going on. We’re both stumbling around together in this unformed world whose rules and objectives are largely unknown, seemingly undecipherable or even possibly non-existent, always on the verge of being killed by forces we don’t understand!

Allegra: That sounds like my game, all right.

Ted: It sounds like a game that’s not gonna be easy to market.

Allegra: But it’s a game everybody is already playing.

Existenz


The above quote is taken from the 1999 film Existenz by Canadian director David Cronenberg who has been fascinated by the interaction between man and machine for much of his career. In the film, we are introduced to a near-future scenario in which virtual reality games interface directly with the body via “game pods” which have replaced electronic consoles. The pods are attached to “bio-ports”, which have been inserted in the players’ spines, through an umbilical cord of bio-cybernetic flesh. Gaming companies Antenna Research and Cortical Systematics, compete against each other. A resistance group made up of “realists” are fighting to prevent the “deforming” of reality by such technology.Though seemingly an enjoyable fantasy, it is fast becoming close to reality.

Cronenberg’s film touches on many issues associated with the hugely popular world of virtual reality and the move towards integrating the human body with computer circuitry, in this case, as an entertainment tool. This hyper-realistic world seems to provide a seductive alternative from a society which is failing people through a lack of values and the emotional and spiritual nourishment it sorely needs. The integration of synthetic environment modelling, biotechnology, genetic engineering, cognitive technology, neuroscience and SMART visions are all being applied to the future of military and law enforcement under the guiding hand of Pathocratic rule.

And what of nanotechnology and its place in this saw-see between the dark and light of humanity’s destiny?

One of the most exciting, potentially beneficial forms of technology which underlies much of the current practical advances in cutting-edge science is nanotechnology or the manipulation of physical, chemical and biological properties of matter at an atomic and molecular scale. Many scientists believe nanoscience on its own, potentially heralds a change on the scale of the Industrial Revolution.

The United Kingdom’s Institute of Mechanical Engineers (IME) produced a report in early 2015 titled: Nanotechnology: The Societal Impact of The Invisible which gave a useful summary of the benefits, risks and public concerns, though with a subtle bias in favour of nanotech overall. According to the IME report there is a distinction to made between the science and technology of this field.

“The field of nanoscience grew out of the technological advancements brought about by the tunnelling microscope, enabling scientists to begin to understand and characterise the nature of materials at the atomic level. Conversely, nanotechnology in its purest sense is the design and application of functional systems at the molecular level to create usable structures and devices”.

Nanomaterials are present both in Nature and in synthetic production, the latter essentially attempting to improve on what already exists in the natural world. These organic and in-organic structures include viruses, wax crystals on leaves, Spider silk, the bottom of gecko feet, Butterfly wings, cement, scales, paper, corals, colloids (milk and blood) skin, feathers, horns and hair, clays, opals, pigments and smoke.

Nanotechnology is apparently much more than the “very small” with precise nano-scale and recognised by what is called an  SI prefix for one billionth (n) or 10-9 (0.000000001). Some examples follow:

image

Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution: 27th Report, Novel Materials in the
Environment: The case of nanotechnology, 2008.

What makes nanoscience so compelling, even magical, is the capacity to buck the rules of Newtonian physics, where materials behave in accordance to quantum laws. This is due to the fact that the properties of materials change at the nanoscale, with a percentage of the atoms involved taking a highly significant role in the process of malleable change. The IME report describes it in the following way:

As the size reduces so the physical properties e.g. the melting/boiling point, conductivity fluorescence, magnetic permeability, absorption rates, strength and chemical reactivity begin to change; properties that the very same substances may not exhibit at the micro or macro scales. Newtonian physics no longer applies and the material behaves according to the laws of quantum physics. Nanomaterials are closer in size to atoms and molecules than they are to bulk materials, and due to this ‘smallness’, electromagnetic forces become more dominant than gravitational ones. Typically, a material or particle is referred to as ‘nano’ when it is 1–100nm in size. However the quantum effects generally occur around the 1–30nm range. At these scales it is necessary to use highly specialised microscopes, known as scanning tunnelling microscopes (STMs) which were developed in the early 1980s.

Which brings us to the process of building miniature structures at the micrometre scale, otherwise known as “microfabrication” which now extends into the nanosphere. This process obviously uses ultra-sophisticated, precision engineering techniques and high level design to carry out such manipulations. An example of how advanced such microfabrication has become hails from a 2014  German/Israeli team of engineers and their creation of a nanoscale ‘robot.’ According to the IME report, It: “…has has the potential to be small enough to manoeuvre inside the human body and possibly inside human cells.” They state further:

The robot has a tiny screw-shaped propeller that can move in a gel-like fluid, mimicking the environment inside a living organism. The filament that makes up the propeller is made of silica and nickel and is only 70nm in diameter; the entirepropeller is 400nm long, making it 100 times smaller than a human blood cell. It is so small,that its motion can be affected by the motion of nearby molecules (known as Brownian motion). The scientists were able to control the motion of the propellers using a relatively weak rotating magnetic field.

So this gives you some idea of the size we are talking about here. Nanotechnology is highly adaptable and takes four main  forms all of which are currently in commerical use.

The IME report lists these as:

    •  C60/Fullerenes – Fullerenes[20], named after Buckminster Fuller, the architect who pioneered the geodesic dome, are groupings of 60 carbon molecules often written as C60 and nicknamed buckyballs. Fullerenes are known for their strength and lightness; for example, when compressed to 70% of their original size, they become twice as hard as diamonds.
    • Carbon Nanotubes – Carbon nanotubes were first developed in 1991 and have an array of fascinating electronic, magnetic and mechanical properties; conducting heat and electricity far better than copper. They are at least 100 times stronger than steel, but only one sixth as dense.
    • Nanoparticles – Nanoparticles can be metallic, mineral, polymer-based or a combination of materials. The most common are titanium dioxide, zinc oxide and nanosilver. They have multiple uses: as catalysts, drug delivery mechanisms, dyes, sunscreens and filters.
    • Nanowires – Nanowires are extremely narrow threads (less than 50nm wide) and have the potential to be used in electronic devices. While they are still being developed, the hope is that they could enable further miniaturisation of electronic chips.

The latest hot topic in nanotech is molecular self assembly or self-assembled nanostructures. Using concepts of supramolecular chemistry, and molecular recognition these are brought together to induce single-molecule components to automatically arrange themselves into some useful conformation. In other words, this is the process by which molecules construct themselves into natural structures without external manipulation. Since molecules naturally bond at this level certain molecules are introduced to trigger particular outcomes. It is this automation that is the bedrock of nanotechnology. Research and Development is currently receiving millions of dollars to create self-assembly machines so that: “… in the near future, mass production self-assembly systems will be developed which would allow the mass assembly of electrical interconnections on semiconductor chips in large quantities with high speed and high precision.”

nanoflower

‘Nano Flower,’ a 3-D nanostructure grown by controlled nucleation of silicon carbide. (photomicrograph taken by Ghim Wei Ho, a Ph.D). Source: – redOrbit.com

In plain language, it means nanostructures will self-assemble and replicate under an autonomous yet regulated process, achieving more and more sophistication from each generational synthetic platform.

For now, business is booming with 670 nanotech companies in Europe and funded nanotechnology initiatives developing in countries such as Nepal, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Globally there are more than 2,000 firms dealing in the production of nano materials and/or research and development. Employment in nanotechnology increases year by year with an estimated 300,000 to 400,000 people in Europe  and over 2 million in the USA. The worldwide prediction of those employed in nanotech by the year 2020 is said to be 10 million. Public funding around the world involves large sums with:

“… total global funding reaching approx $10bn in 2011 (equivalent to c7.7bn). According to Observatory Nano[29], China surpassed the USA in 2011 for the first time, taking the top position as the biggest investor in nanotechnology research with public funding of c1.8bn. Russia and the USA have almost same level of funding (c1.6 and c1.44bn respectively) with Germany, France and the UK the biggest EU investors. The total public funding in the EU (including that from the Seventh Framework Programme) rose to c2bn in 2011, corresponding to approx 25% of the global total.”

A BCC Market Research report values the global market for nanotechnology products at $26 billion in 2014 with and estimate of about $64.2 billion by 2019. This is a “ compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 19.8% from 2014 to 2019.”

1417160533_NAN031F-0

Global Nanotech Market 2013-2019 ($ Millions) Source: www.bccresearch.com/

Despite the IME report findings revealing what the public already knew (intense distrust) and even though nanotechnology has been in the public domain for over 40 years with future profits and investments increasing annually, the  industry and its science is: “…failing to engage with society in an open and clear way and governments continue to lack impetus in committing to international regulation.” Yet, the proliferation of nano-products has been enormous during the past decade. This is just a small sample:

• Engine oil • Car wax • Catalysts to improve fuel consumption • Anti-bacterial fabrics • Tyres • Air and oil filters • Anti-scratch finishes • Air purifiers Clothing and Textiles • Anti-bacterial and anti-odour clothing • UV-resistant and protective clothing • Wrinkle and stain-resistant apparel • Flame-retardant fabrics Electronics • Displays electronics • Data memory • Anti-bacterial and antistatic coatings on keyboards, mouses, cell phones • Batteries • Organic Light-Emitting Diodes (OLED) and LEDs • DVD coatings • Computer processors and chips • MP3 players • Xboxes and PlayStations Cosmetics • Skin cleansers • Lipstick, mascara, make-up foundations • Make-up removal • Sunscreens • Skin creams and moisturisers Food and Additives • Nutritional supplements • Anti-bacterial utensils • Plastic wrap • Energy drinks • Cleaning products • Fabric softeners • Food storage containers • Cutting boards • Nano-tea, chocolate shakes, canola active oil Household • Anti-bacterial coatings in appliances • Irons, vacuums • Self-cleaning glass • Filters • Anti-bacterial furniture and mattresses • Air purifiers • Anti-bacterial, UV-resistant paints • Solar cells • Disinfectant sprays Sports Equipment • Tennis rackets and balls • Hockey sticks • Ski wax • Wet suits • Anti-fogging coatings • Golf balls and clubs • Baseball bats • Skis and snowboards • Bicycle parts Personal Care/Health • Contact lenses • Hearing aids • Cellulite treatment • Shampoos, hair gels • Insect repellents • Man-made skin • Home pregnancy tests • Body wash • Toothpaste • Deodorants • Anti-bacterial creams • Bandages • Drug delivery patches • Anti-bacterial baby pacifiers, mugs and bottles • Anti-bacterial stuffed toys • Stain-resistant plush toys

How many people are aware that they are already using and ingesting products which contain nano-materials? Very few. In the cosmetics sector would you mind if you were slathering your face with nano-materials? According to the report most people are ambivalent but not in outright opposition, even though the same polling stats showed that knowledge of nanoscience and technology was very low.

The Cancer Research industry has also apparently leapt at the chance to explore nanotech, continuing to ignore substantial alternative fields of research in diet, nutrition and other modalities which have presented consistent results in tackling cancer. The Cancer research industry has a lot of money riding behind it and only one way, reductionist science is allowed in  despite NO successes in curing the disease. What has developed is a dependent relationship to Big Pharma with a whole new range of expensive drugs for amelioration and palliative care. For example, Cancer Research UK is: “… funding multidisciplinary projects that are already bringing together collaborative teams of cancer researchers and scientists from the engineering and physical sciences. The new scheme is set to fund about ten projects each year with up to £500,000 each.”

(An extensive infographic entitled ‘How Nanotechnology Could Reengineer Us’ gives an overview of what nanotechnology could offer the human body, by “re-engineering” us).

So “progress” explores new avenues yet remains strangely one way… None more so than in the field of military and weapons companies. Indeed, by the year 2030 the UK Ministry of Defence sees nanotech playing a vital role across every aspect of society from nano-solar cells to: “… nano-robots designed for a range of purposes – including medical robots used internally in humans and micro-platforms for reconnaissance.”

If you recall the exploration into SMART Agrimatics, it will come as no surprise that nanotech is having a significant impact across the entire agricultural production cycle. Agrichemicals are a prime source of innovation as are the use of nano-sensors in combination with SMART technology. From nano-enhanced packaging to food-related products nanomaterials are slowly being adopted despite nebulous legislation and public suspicion. Though nanotech implementation in foodstuffs and animal husbandry still remains largely at the R &D stage, according to IME: “ The future application of agri-nanoproducts does however seem certain; the USA is already looking to license some products for use in the coming years, heralding a complete change in the way we grow, maintain and process food.”

There is no doubt there is great beauty, and awe-inspiring innovation in the field of nanotechnology with huge benefits for humanity in so many fields. However, this series is about the dark side of such technology and how these innovations always gravitate to the shadows since that is polarity dominating at this time.The Institute of Mechanical Engineers believe that although there is significant optimism regarding the future of nanotechnology there is still widespread suspicion that that this technology will not ultimately go where it is needed most i.e. for society and consumers. For this reason scientists in this field are not trusted. The fact that there is still no real engagement with the public about their concerns doesn’t help and the IME suggest descreasing that dislocation. Interestingly, they perceive the main reason for this as a misunderstanding on the part of the public:

“It has been suggested that the reason why some people express these views is that the established scientific community genuinely don’t consider what they do to be of any consequence to the wider population. Rather, the spotlight falls on technological advancement rather than highlighting consumer and societal needs. This is not done out of any malice or superiority on the part of the technologists; in truth, the technical community sees it purely as the everyday, the norm, and requiring little external endorsement or explanation.

That may well be but it is a subtle form of arrogance and a lack of awareness about society as a whole. More dangerously, if they have little need to inform the public and do not feel they have a duty to do so, then they fall into the hands of those forces that covet such a separation, namely corporate interests and the State. It is almost cliche now that scientists become so involved with the creativity of their work that they are often seen as geniuses on the one hand, and out-of-touch with the wider world. They are perceived as existing in a kind of intellectual bubble where accusations of outsourced ivory towers and naivete about the larger forces at work can easily stick. It is in this sense that there is most certainly technological advancement for its own sake predicated upon this community “normality,” and therefore a way in for institutionalized hubris. This is especially true in lieu of the massive potential changes we are talking about here.

Engineers in the global defence industry have no problem rationalising their satisfaction and subsequent salary that they receive from this line of “creative work”. They are doing what they love. One individual designs the a console and  another the software for Apache helicopters in Iraq which have notched tens of thousands of civilian deaths. Is there a responsibility there? Or do they fall back on: “If I didn’t do it, someone else would.” The same applies to the dark side of nanotechnology. Official Culture makes it much easier for us not to care and to compartmentalise our conscience, even our emotional life, away from deeper connections to our fellow man and woman.

The historical perspective of technology as an automatic saviour as well as a traditional source of State control lends itself to both a philosophical and practical critique since that is exactly the reality we are facing. The progression is not one of technological emancipation for societies where it counts, it is one of State warfare and corporatism. That is where the greatest innovations in Research and Development generally end up, with the by-products effecting the social and material ecology as a mirror of what is denied. Scientists in this context, can only be effective if the overall system in which they live is designed to foster a natural cooperation of expert and layman which leans overwhelmingly toward a socio-economic framework that is inclusive and just. Clearly, this is very far from the case. Quite apart from endemic corruption in science in general, nano-scientists, and the “technical community” are no exception when they are wholly governed by the military-corporate complex and inside Official Culture, whether they are able to see that or not. Thus it matters little whether they have good intentions, rather what the real world dictates from the outside in.

Meanwhile, the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) has referred:

“… to the possibility of information dominance through nano-electronics; virtual reality systems for training; automation and robotics to offset reductions in manpower, reduce risks to troops and improve vehicle performance; higher performance platforms with diminished failure rates and lower costs; improvements in chemical/biological/nuclear sensing and casualty care; improvements in systems for non-proliferation monitoring; and nano-/micromechanical devices for control of nuclear weapons.” [1]

Across the Three Establishment Model (3EM) the idea of enhancing human performance through the convergence of nanotechnology biology, information, cognitive science and warfare is highly seductive because it adds a technological ontology to their plans for society not least for their desire for a synthetic immortality. The promise of nano-implant devices, slowing down or reversing ageing, direct brain–machine interfaces and ‘artificial people’ has been discussed at various conferences and seminars across America since the early 2000’s. This may have something to do with the fact that “… the USA is spending far more [on nanotech] than any other country, and maybe more than the rest of the world combined.” [2]Since future science is part of the armoury of the power elite’s ideology for a World State, governments in Europe, Asia and the United States have invested almost $5 billion dollars between them, contributing to the projected annual market of around one trillion US dollars. [3]

 


Notes

[1] ‘Military Uses of Nanotechnology – European Commission’ ec.europa.eu/research/conferences/2004/ntw/pdf/soa_en.pdf
[2] Ibid. (“Figures on military NT R&D funding in other countries are difficult to obtain. The conjecture is supported by the following: the USA spends about two-thirds of the global military R&D expenditure at large (BICC, 2002); in the field of MST, according to a cautious estimate the US military R&D spending was more than ten times that of Western Europe (Altmann, 2001: 46); conference and internet presentations show an verwhelming preponderance of US work in military NT.”)
[3] ‘Apply nanotech to up industrial, agri output,’ The Daily Star (Bangladesh), 17 April 2012. | Health Risks Of Nanotechnology: How Nanoparticles Can Cause Lung Damage, And How The Damage Can Be Blocked Science Daily, June 11, 2009.

Technocracy I

By M.K. Styllinski

“Technopoly is a state of culture. It is also a state of mind. It consists in the deification of technology, which means that the culture seeks its authorization in technology, finds its satisfactions in technology, and takes its orders from technology. This requires the development of a new kind of social order, and of necessity leads to the rapid dissolution of much that is associated with traditional beliefs.”

– Neil Postman


Under the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) heavily funded by the Rockefeller Foundation we see the centralisation of food under agribusiness merging with SMART society. Technology is the key to delivering a world of plenty according to these scientists and financial backers. On the website we read: “The Rockefeller Foundation envisions a world with SMART Globalisation – a world in which globalisation’s benefits are more widely shared and social, economic, health, and environmental challenges are more easily weathered.” Recall too, our exploration into the scare-tactics of global warming, the implementation of UN Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development (SD) all of which is hijacking genuine concern for our planet in order to use it to advance a New World Control System, by stealth. On the one hand, we have overt geo-political deception forcing chaos into being upon which a Hegelian solution for that post-war (post-catastrophe?) world can be laid. On the other hand, the requisite, centralised “New International Order” is delivered as a “benign” ecological, socio-cultural and economic template incorporating urban, energy efficient and sustainable “human habitat” zones requiring a high-level population density.

2012-07-21 18.22.48© infrakshun

After great disasters, there are always great opportunities to create new institutions and infrastructure predicated on elite ideologies.  World War I and II were prime examples, and indeed partly initiated for this very purpose. Humanity’s spirit must be broken in order that such phases of a New Order are welcomed, albeit with inclusive-sounding labels for peace and prosperity. The aftermath of intense Earth changes and asymmetric warfare will provide the same opportunities for another phase in the Pathocratic encroachment over normal human beings. And what might we expect?

Think of it this way:

If the Pathocrats have their way, we will be carefully managed into SMART operated high-rises with uniform amenities and leisure parks, where metered energy consumption, automation and a digitisation will be encased in an overarching surveillance – for your own “protection.” Only the new technocratic gentry will inhabit lands deep in the countryside. For the rest of us it will be off limits, our movements strictly monitored. In accordance with New World Religion protocols and the New World Civil Servant Resolutions Nature will be protected as “sacred” and barred from the mass of humanity. These Mega-cities will provide for our every need … Provided that is, conformity and compliance remains paramount for the New Collective and the maintenance of a group consciousness duly cultivated, as envisoned by Zone Council Resolutions. This will ensure the efficiency of our SMART society, the most important precept in the New Age. Break consensus and community cracks. Serve the individual and promote the Self, SMART grid dysfunction and the potential for overall system failure is inevitable and thus a return to fragmentation and dissociation of the past. This cannot be permitted – for the good of the whole. Resistance is like an infection, before you know it, the whole grid would be infected.  As such, we must be treated like the historical virus that we are and protected from ourselves by the guiding hand of the priesthood. Otherwise, the potential despoiling of Mother Earth will occur. Accordingly, a vast number of protective measures have been put in place to maintain efficiency and inner happiness. We will want for nothing. To maintain optimum levels of sensate satisfaction, human habitats will have their own integrated “Malware” and “anti-virus” enforcement systems in place as envisioned and voted for by Neighbourhood, Zone Councils and Regional Elects – for the good of all. Community is all, group consciousness is all … Love live the New SMART Consensus.

You can probably continue the narrative with all kinds of creative allusions inspired by various books and Hollywood flicks. This is the real inverted totalitarianism that both Orwell and Huxley warned about and countless myths and oral traditions.

So, are the checks and balances in place to prevent such a future? Or is it just a silly Dystopian fantasy?

When SD and SMART systems are set against the strangle-hold that our power brokers still maintain currently manifesting as ubiquitous surveillance and the erosion of civil liberties, then questioning the direction this form of technology is taking  becomes an absolute imperative. For once we have passed a certain point in technological know-how, artificial intelligence will offer us no way to turn back without wholesale destruction.

Society is rapidly changing thorough technological innovation advancing in ways that challenge the imagination. The horizon is limitless as to how technology will be used. The important question to ask is: do we have any say in how technological knowledge is being applied in the present and thus how it will shape our future? As with most things in life, there are always positives and negatives to any new innovation on a mass scale,  but it remains to be seen which one will gain ascendance. As always, this is dependent on who holds the overall power of technology and its uses. So far, we have an appalling track record. As it stands, the advantages are set to provide unquestionable benefits in the medical field communications sectors. But what are the dangers of an over reliance on digital technology applied to all other sectors of society? Will it augment the path to true freedom or be its demise? Already there are serious questions being asked on a number of issues from health to civil liberties, artificial intelligence to cyber warfare, all of which we will explore.

chicagoillinoiswifi

As this silicon revolution continues to submerge us in an ocean of Wi-Fi waves there are signs that our intense reliance on SMART networks may not be the most expedient way to take humanity forward. Nonetheless, selling the idea of convenience and efficiency is proving extremely seductive. It also offers untold benefits to intelligence agencies, in particular the National Security Agency (NSA) to complete its mission to own information and predict behaviour of every individual in America and the globe.

The acronym “SMART” is the new mnemonic buzzword which is being used to describe a network of gadgets, utilities, services, weapons, energy systems and new forms of governance bound together in a sea of digital and Wi-Fi-based technology. Each letter in the acronym stands for a particular objective which can be loosely interpreted. They are typically defined as follows:

S = Specific / Significant

M = Measurable / Motivational

A = Attainable / Assignable

R = Relevant / Realistic

T = Time-bound / Time-Related

The technology promises a broad range of practical and philosophical ideas which are already re-shaping the very concept of communication, travel, agriculture, medicine and city infrastructure. SMART uses computerised systems which incorporate digital metering to monitor and control energy from power plants to appliances within the home.  Another acronym used to describe this technological structure of Web-connected appliances and in-home devices is the “Internet of things” (IOT). Although domestic appliances such as fridges, freezers, lighting and televisions fall under the IOT, it is the energy companies and infrastructure –  including transportation, health, oil, gas and alternative energy systems – which are being incorporated into a vast SMART grid awash with Wi-Fi technology that will connect to the internet and allow devices to “speak to each other.”

Many corporations such as AT&T, General Electric, are changing their present system of distribution, storage, administration and the very core of their manufacturing towards the IOT and SMART philosophy. For software companies such as Cisco, IBM, Siemens, Microsoft and Intel, this is a lucrative time. As a September 2013 article by online magazine Standard Digital entitled: ‘Tomorrow’s smart cities’ explained: “In Singapore, Stockholm and California, IBM is gathering traffic data and running it via algorithms to predict where a traffic jam will occur an hour before it has happened. Meanwhile in Rio (Brazil), it has built a NASA-style control room where banks of screens suck up data from sensors and cameras located around the city.” IBM has 2,500 smarter cities projects worldwide and is confident in financial future of redesigning cities. To that end it has trademarked the term “smarter cities”.

The article also quotes Anthony Townsend, director of the Institute of the Future and author of Smart Cities: Big Data, Civic Hackers, and the Quest for a New Utopia. Townsend puts his finger on the pulse when he states: “Some people want to fine tune a city like you do a race car but they are leaving citizens out of the process…” And in relation to a China’s massive new city building projects and huge central control rooms, one of which is already operational in Rio, Brazil: “The control room in Rio was created by a progressive mayor but what if the bad guys get in? Are we creating capabilities that can be misused?” Constant attempts to try and get the UK public to adopt a bio-metric, National ID card have failed, though a foreign ID card for immigrants was unveiled in 2008 as a possible “softening up” exercise for a re-introduction of the scheme. This seems to be one branch in the creation of database state in the UK and abroad. When all the databases are indexed by what is known in the UK as the National Identity Register (NIR) it is then that our lives will be defined by our NIR number and a host of invasive surveillance which may come into play.

The UK organization NO2ID which campaigns against the Database State sees “Transformational Government” as not just a threat to our civil liberties but a whole way of life. Indeed they state: “… what is being transformed is not government but its power over you.” The reason for this increasing disquiet over State interference in the lives of British people is drawn from broad range of measures integral to the emerging SMART society.

NO2ID outlines just some of the UK government’s plans currently evolving:

  • ID interrogation centres, for passports and ID cards
  • ePassports that help collect data about your travel
  • International eBorders schemes that exchange Passenger Name Record information with foreign countries as well as collecting them
  • Recording of all car journeys, using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR)
  • ‘Entitlement cards’ as part of, or linked to the ID scheme, logging use of public services
  • Centralised medical records without privacy
  • Biometrics in schools — fingerprinting children as young as 4 or 5
  • ‘ContactPoint’, a database collecting sensitive information on every child
  • Fingerprinting in pubs and bars — landlords forced to monitor their patrons
  • A greatly expanded National DNA Database (NDNAD)
  • New police powers to check identity
  • Increasing Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks for employees and volunteers
  • Businesses under pressure to verify ID of staff and customers with the government  [1]

Neil Postman’s reference to a “Technopoly” as a state of culture is another consolidation of Official Culture. It is a description of an emerging Pathocracy with emphasis on the scientific technique underpinning the dominance of technology and its applications. When combining the  Surveillance State, and SMART society we fuse Technopoly and Pathocracy to form: Technocracy. a system of society according to which government is controlled by scientists, engineers, and other experts. It is a scientific dictatorship as discussed in ‘World State Policies III: The Scientific Technique’ and to which UN Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development is integrated.

city-metropolis-buildings-skyscrapers-city-road-lights

Howard Scott and M. King Hubbert founded the Technocracy movement in 1932 during the Great Depression and produced what is seen by many as the Bible of the movement: The Technocracy Study Course. Rather than the “price system” the design was based on the metrics of energy and considered apolitical. It was primarily a technological panacea for global economic problems based on energy production and distribution together with precise monitoring and measuring as the pillars of its potential success.

It was a techno-Marxist plan which included nationalising public utilities abandoning the gold standard (which the financial oligarchs loved) and suspending the stock exchange. Why would you need one when the new currency was mainframe of automation and “digital” currency?

The Technocracy Study Course reads like a strange amalgamation of bureaucratic fundamentalism grafted on to a engineer/mathematician/accountant’s world view of humans as binary energy units. (Perfect for the Lucis Trust’s New World [Civil] Servants). They outline their meter reading diagnosis for society in typically precise fashion:

  • “Register on a continuous 24 hour per day basis the total net conversion of energy.
  • “By means of the registration of energy converted and consumed, make possible a balanced load.
  • “Provide a continuous inven­tory of all production and consumption
  • “Provide a specific registration of the type, kind, etc., of all goods and services, where produced and where used.
  • “Provide specific registration of the consumption of each individual, plus a record and description of the individual.” [2]

Many younger online users attracted to hacktivism, spirituality and social networking have been taken in by the recent manifestation of technocracy in the very slickly produced and marketed Zeitgeist films and the affiliated Venus Project founded by Jasque Fresco. The first film included some excellent truths regarding the nature of the economic world in which we live, as well as an incisive deconstruction of government influence and false flag operations. But the second film entitled: “Addendum” revealed that it had some fatal flaws. Zeitgeist was designed to grab our attention and prime the not so discerning members of the public to accept another version of Elite control this time through systemic technology as saviour, where computers make key decisions. It is the same techno-Marxism that assumes everyone will be thoroughly happy with such a Brave New World of regimented, rule-based precision; where individuals become numbers integrated into a game theory mainframe of “efficiency.”

smart-city-concept

Source: DefenseForumIndia.com

Naturally, no mention is made of authoritarians and social dominators pre-disposed to the distortion and co-option of well-intentioned technocrats. To say that such a scenario is unrealistic and naïve seems obvious, not least the undesirability of such a sterile future. It is the same old approach to people management with the blessing of the Rockefeller class, all of whom have been extremely active in the “information dominance” brand of social engineering. When you know the awareness is changing the mass mind then you offer the World State scenario under a different guise and adapt good intentions accordingly.

The Zeitgeist Mission Statement gives us all we need to know:

“This ‘Resource-Based Economic Model’ is about taking a direct technical approach to social management as opposed to a monetary or even political one. It is about updating the workings of society to the most advanced and proven methods Science has to offer, leaving behind the damaging consequences and limiting inhibitions which are generated by our current system of monetary exchange, profits, corporations and other structural and motivational components.”

The term “Technocracy” in Zeitgeist terms, is really another way of referring to the “scientific technique” dipped in coating of trans-humanist fervour. Think eco-aware, engineering geek meets bank manager, meets human resource chief. Throw in a goatee and there you have it. It’s the same story different wardrobe.

In America, appealing to the new generations born in the digital world is a vital part of the social engineering project reaching its apotheosis of the Rockefeller Foundation. The GMO/agriculture research arm of IRRI calls it: “SMART Globalisation”, a corporatist-collectivist vision that sounds wonderfully benign on the face of it. It is the latest meme designed to channel human activity into local, national and global SMART systems from which our finances, health and autonomy would be under complete and automatic control. In other words, a Global SMART Grid. It is here that we see technocracy and neo-feudalism come together in virtual “harmony,” developed with the best of intentions at the lower end of awareness but guided by the worst from the top. The current crisis in the capitalist economic order is all part of the phase to replace the old world with this new vision. Let’s just recall that David Rockefeller has been a long-time admirer of communist China and the hybrid vision of the capitalist-collectivist philosophy.

a61paj5smao7

David Rockefeller and Mao’s deputy Zhou Enlai 1973.| The Rockefellers have been hard at work engineering this World State based on the Chinese model for many decades. For more information see Rockefeller Internationalism by William Banyan

Author Naomi Klein alerted us to the fact that Chinese authorities have taken SMART society to their hearts and created a “model city” of the future re-affirming the Rockefeller and Elite vision for the world. It only took 30 years, for Shenzen to be transformed from a barren wasteland to a SMART city of 21.4 million occupants who are living the “dream” and where 200,000 cameras currently monitor and survey the populace with over 2 million more planned. What this SMART Society provides is a police State testing ground comprising of “central planning, merciless repression and constant surveillance.” Fortune 500 technology companies are watching very closely indeed. So closely, in fact, that high-tech surveillance and censorship programs were provided by IBM, Honeywell, and GE people under the generic name of “Golden Shield,” and used as a test run for what will is envisaged for the US population (once it has been thoroughly broken by social and economic chaos that is…) [3]

Recall former US National Security State advisor under Carter and Obama head hunter Zbigniew Brzezinski and his 1968 book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era. It was a call to re-envision the technetronic era after a few abortive attempts during the 1930s depression. It was to be the inspiration and backbone to the formation of the Trilateral Commission and its support of the Tiger economies of Asia. It was no coincidence that the book was extraordinarily prescient. Brzezinski, like so many geo-political establishment intellectuals often broadcasts Elite visions under a predictive and softly critical narrative. The intent is to broadcast formulas to the faithful and engage a populist understanding of the principles and their future objectives. And by “populist” we mean not just the public but those who may be termed the worker bees in the hive mind of the global Establishment.  Between Two Ages served to ignite the fuse of a Technocracy, the seeds of which were planted in another era of economic depression and ready to download directly into our minds. Brzezinski writes: “In the technetronic society the trend would seem to be towards the aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities effectively exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason.” [4]

between two agesWe are already immersed in the “ether” of radio, micro and now Wi-Fi waves * indicating that not only is this foundation for a Technocracy present, it is accelerating exponentially. For this growth to continue unabated, Brzezinski posits another future scenario that has come to pass, involving: “… the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values (of Liberty). Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.” [5]

He warns us with apparent gravitas:

“Another threat, less overt but no less basic, confronts liberal democracy. More directly linked to the impact of technology, it involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific knowhow. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control. Under such circumstances, the scientific and technological momentum of the country would not be reversed but would actually feed on the situation it exploits.” [6]

There are two ways in which this Technocracy is being implemented both of which naturally intersect:

1) Economics and energy

2) Surveillance and state controls.

In the first instance, the energy issue is being promoted and reorganized via the digital automation of SMART technologies. The US Department of Energy defines these technologies as: “… an electrical grid that uses computers and other technology to gather and act on information, such as information about the behaviours of suppliers and consumers, in an automated fashion to improve the efficiency, reliability, economics, and sustainability of the production and distribution of electricity.” [7]A similar grid is underway in Europe under “SMART Grids European Technology Platform.” [8]

America’s old and out-dated power grid is ready for an overhaul and the SMART Grid technology will mean the installation of digital meters in each home and business and 24hr monitoring of energy consumption that goes with it. What SMART means in this context is that there can be communication with other related devices within the home to relay support data information without any contact with the customer. Rather like Homeland Security and its agencies, The SMART Grid Task Force “… is responsible for coordinating standards development, guiding research and development projects, and reconciling the agendas of a wide range of stakeholders.” [9]

SMART Grid technology is big money and represents a revolution, particularly in telecommunications and energy. In 2010, the countries investing the most in SMART grid systems were China at $7.32 billion, closely followed by the United States $7.09 billion, Japan at $807 million with Spain, South Korea, France, United Kingdom, Germany, Australia and Brazil all spending millions on transforming their societies’ infrastructure. [10]

Like so much of the post-911, military-corporate infrastructure outsourced both home and abroad, the Department of Energy’s mandate to push ahead with this overhaul did not get Congressional hearing. From October 2009 – January 2010 SMART grid project funding ear-marked for 183 projects in 43 states totalled $3.4 billion thanks to the Obama Administration picking up where the Bush Administration left off with the creation of The Office of Electricity Delivery in 2003. The Department of Energy’s press release gives details of what this will mean for the average electricity consumer:

  • More than 850 sensors called “Phasor Measurement Units” to monitor the overall power grid nationwide
  • 200,000 SMART transformers
  • 700 auto­mated sub­stations (about 5 per cent of the nation’s total)
  • 1,000,000 in-home displays
  • 345,000 load control devices in homes [11]

smartgridvillageThe SmartHouse/SmartGrid Vision c/o The 7th Framework Programme funded European Research and Technological Development from 2007 until 2013 Link: http://www.smarthouse-smartgrid.eu/index.php?id=245


Systems theory and cybernetics had always been attractive to technocrats as a web of relationships that facilitate economic and social control. “The Web of Life” concept of interdependence and interrelatedness of all things within ecological systems was taken on by a number of ecologists and New Age seers. The concept of equilibrium and balance was in fact, determined by vastly unpredictable and creative confluence of non-linear principles, which is why attempts to bottle such non-linear systems into a means of socio-economic control can never work. However, this is where the World Wide Web (WWW) and the Network of Things (NOT) comes in. It is essential to the mind-set who see people as numbers and assigned values to be moved around on a computer screen like a game of SIMS.

Sims3UnivLife

Ready to become part of a virtuality and SIMS-SMART?

With NOT, technocrats wish to bathe us in a sea of Wi-Fi waves, with cities and homes awash with wireless networks where automation rules. From your dimmer switch to powering your juicer; the garage door to the security code on the residential gates. No human intervention is necessary. With strict guidelines as to what they will be programming, the new armies of programmers will be told to download exactly what they want you to see and hear, changing it as they see fit and without your knowledge. If you refuse and wish to take it to an ombudsman or even a civil action, how are you going to watch your T.V. or eat your food if your utilities are switched off? Look at the nature of banking. When did you last see your bank manager or get a problem resolved whilst speaking to some low-wage slave in India you cannot understand? Distance is designed.

The SMART Grid is married to the Wi-Fi Alliance which is readying itself to implement Wi-Fi circuitry in every conceivable device in the home and business sector. It will operate in exactly the same way as Wi-Fi-enabled network modems and routers for personal computers to mobile phones currently being used by homes and businesses globally. Telecommunications electricity, and renewable energy resources will be functionally integrated into a system automatic provision, payment and monitoring. Gmail, i-Pod applications, your fridge and T.V. and the Wi-Fi “ether” that will activate them are ready to be absorbed into the SMART Grid where literally everything communicates with each other in a fully-automated, seamlessly connected world of man and machine.

And now, it means you can literally become part of the very fabric of SMART willingly and forever with electronic senors printed directly onto your skin… Oh, the convenience! Mike Orcutt of MIT’s Technology Review comments: “Such systems could be used to track health and monitor healing …” Sure. And if you fall on the wrong side of your friendly SMART government tracking and monitoring takes on a whole different meaning. But having your i-pad on your wrist as opposed to freedom of movement is clearly more important… More on this later. [12]

printable.skin_.electronics.2x299Now, you too can become SMART!

Another aspect of the Wi-Fi revolution that is not being talked about is the health effects of living our daily immersed in this type of constant radiation. There is a glut scientific, peer-reviewed papers out there which are unsurprisingly, barely receiving a whiff of recognition that they sorely deserve. Adverse biological effects from Wi-Fi signals, Wi-Fi enabled devices or Wi-Fi frequencies (2.4 or 5 GHz) have been complied by the UK campaign group Wi-Fi in Schools (You can visit them at http://www.wifiinschools.org.uk and print out as many as you like). The many examples of extensive research undertaken by University and independent scientific research institutes provides disturbing evidence across a broad range of experiments carried out on mice, rats and tadpoles.

Some of the findings included:

  • Immunohistopathologic demonstration of deleterious effects on growing rat testes of radiofrequency waves emitted from conventional Wi-Fi devices.
  • Decreases in human sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation from the use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi.
  • Oxidative injury in rat testis and on oxidative stress in blood induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices.WI-FI_ZONE_01
  • A provocation study using heart rate variability shows Negative effects on autonomic nervous system from microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone.
  • Wi-Fi electromagnetic fields exert gender related alterations on EEG
  • 2.45-Gz wireless devices induce oxidative stress and proliferation through cytosolic Ca2+ influx in human leukemia cancer cells.
  • Microwave Irradiation-Induced Oxidative Stress Affects Implantation or Pregnancy in Mice
  • Cognitive impairment in rats was shown after long-term exposure to GSM-900 mobile phone radiation.
  • Stimulation of production of tumor necrosis when exposed in vivo and in vitro to weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range
  • Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. [Source: wifiinschools.org.uk]

Bearing in mind that 16v/m is the average level of exposure for these experiments and that when using a Wi-Fi-enabled tablet computer we can be exposed to electromagnetic fields up to 16V/m. This is only the beginning of research into these areas but the evidence for serious problems on the subtle layers of our biological and neurological make-up is already overwhelming. If we don’t put the brakes on for the health issues alone, then we will be looking at generations with behavioural difficulties, infertility, impaired cognitive ability and an epidemic of endemic brain tumours.

As smartphones begin to rain down from the technocratic ether, the most convincing evidence that mobile phones are causing brains tumours in the young has arrived from Dr. Boian Alexandrov from the Centre for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. His team have shown that terahertz (THz) waves gradually destroy human DNA which is fairly terminal for the human race. Since chips broadcasting THz waves are being considered for use in mobile phones as imaging systems tool across this SMART society and THZ scanner technology is already being used by the TSA at most of our airports, the question as to whether there are any health issues concerning terahertz technologies seems unimportant as the great wave of innovation roars ahead.

The medical establishment is encouraging the use for operations in which scanning will prove highly useful for otherwise invasive procedures while “exciting” innovations in consumer freedom will allow us all to see through objects and walls to find our lost car keys should we choose to buy into the gadget craze. Dr. Alexandrov and his team’s ground-breaking study (among others)  is lurking in the background as a minor impediment to the euphoria of “progress.” His team discovered that exposure to THz radiation builds cumulatively and affects human and animal tissue DNA, effectively “unzipping” the DNA molecule. In their paper ‘DNA Breathing Dynamics in the Presence of a Terahertz Field,’ Alexandrov et al conclude:

“We consider the influence of a terahertz field on the breathing dynamics of double-stranded DNA. We model the spontaneous formation of spatially localized openings of a damped and driven DNA chain, and find that linear instabilities lead to dynamic dimerization, while true local strand separations require a threshold amplitude mechanism. Based on our results we argue that a specific terahertz radiation exposure may significantly affect the natural dynamics of DNA, and thereby influence intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication.” [13]

So, if we continue to breathe in the SMART hype, we’ll soon see where the real growth lies.

 


* “Wi-Fi is a popular technology that allows an electronic device to exchange data wirelessly (using radio waves) over a computer network, including high-speed Internet connections.


Notes

[1] http://www.no2id.net/
[2] p.232; The Technocracy Study Source, by Howard Scott and M.King Hubbard, published by Technocracy Inc. 1940 edition.
[3] ‘China’s All-Seeing Eye’ By Naomi Klein, Rolling Stone, May 14, 2008.
[4] Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era by Zbigniew Brzezinski 1970 / ISBN-10 0313234981 (p.11)
[5] Ibid.(p.97)
[6] Ibid. (p252-253).
[7] U.S. Department of Energy. ‘Smart Grid / Department of Energy’ http://energy.gov/oe/technology-development/smart-grid.
[8] http://www.smartgrids.eu”. smartgrids.eu. 2011.
[9] Smart grid: an introduction US State Department.
[10] http://www.zprymeconsulting.com
[11] ‘Smart Grid: The Implementation of Technocracy?’ By Patrick Wood, August Review 03 March 2010.
[12] ‘Electronic Sensors Printed Directly on the Skin’ MIT Tech, Mike Orcutt, March 11, 2013.
[13] ‘DNA Breathing Dynamics in the Presence of a Terahertz Field’ by B. S. Alexandrov, V. Gelev, A. R. Bishop, A. Usheva, K. O. Rasmussen. (Submitted on 28 Oct 2009) Biological Physics (physics.bio-ph); Computational Physics (physics.comp-ph) Journal reference: Physics Letters A, Volume 374, Issue 10, 2010. Abstract: We consider the influence of a terahertz field on the breathing dynamics of double-stranded DNA. We model the spontaneous formation of spatially localized openings of a damped and driven DNA chain, and find that linear instabilities lead to dynamic dimerization, while true local strand separations require a threshold amplitude mechanism. Based on our results we argue that a specific terahertz radiation exposure may significantly affect the natural dynamics of DNA, and thereby influence intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication.

Dark Green V: Elephants & Tigers

“… all two hundred delegates signed ‘Enemies of Conservation’” with one indigenous delegate rising to state that ‘… extractive industries, while still a serious threat to their welfare and cultural integrity, were no longer the main antagonist of indigenous cultures. Their new and biggest enemy, she said, was ‘conservation.’ ”

– Mark Dowie, Conservation Refugees:The Hundred-Year Conflict between Global Conservation and Native Peoples


The same process of land ethic revivalism so favoured by the Nazis is alive and well under the Prince. WWF in partnership with Heineken Breweries and other environmental affiliates have paid for studies which conclude that a balkanisation of Europe and a dramatic increase in the creation of nature reserves, conservation areas and game parks all over Western Europe. [1]The Heineken study, sponsored by Board Chairman A.H. Heineken, “… calls for redrawing the map of Europe into 75 mini-states, with populations of 10 million people at the most. Each mini-state would be ruled by a member of one of the existing European Royal Houses.” John Loudon, International President of WWF from 1977-1981 and ex-chairman of the board of Royal Dutch Shell was a member of the Heineken board. [2]

Heineken8

“For a Fresher World” 2011 advertising artwork for Heineken brand

A long-time supporter of WWF, Heineken is one of the greenest businesses existing today with stakeholder activities focusing on sustainability, green commerce and a host of other ecologically sound initiatives. The 1994 IUCN study called “Parks for Life: Action for Protected Areas in Europe,” followed the same pattern, namely the four-fold increase in setting aside land in Western Europe. All industrialisation would cease including any new infrastructure projects from water to rail links so that millions of hectares of land for parks could be allowed to flourish. [3] Wealthy landowners, families and 1001 Club members have been busily buying up land previously designated as parks and protected areas.

Author Mark Dowie believes this policy was the result of a concept as old as the colonial forefathers called “fortress conservation,” and which is present in almost every large-scale Anglo-American environmental initiative from Agenda 21 to the Wild lands Network: expressly no humans allowed access within these hallowed conservation zones. Even though WWF does not advocate forced relocation it nevertheless firmly believes in the concept of conservation areas off limits to humans. So, how does it get around the fact that there will undoubtedly be families who do not want to leave? [4]

Dowie draws our attention to the November 2004 Third Congress of the World Conservation Union in Bangkok, Thailand, convened to explore new ways to halt the loss of global diversity. In the audience was the only black person in sea of white faces comprising of environmentalists, conservationists and eco-bureaucrats. Martin Saning’o, the Maassai leader from Tanzania was next in line. When it was his turn to comment he described: “… how nomadic pastoralists once protected the vast range in eastern Africa that they have lost over the past century to conservation projects,” and further:

“‘Our ways of farming pollinated diverse seed species and maintained corridors between ecosystems,” he explains to an audience he knows to be schooled in Western ecological sciences. Yet, in the interest of a relatively new vogue in conservation called “biodiversity,”1 he tells them, more than one hundred thousand Maasai pastoralists have been displaced from their traditional homeland, which once ranged from what is now northern Kenya to the savannah grasslands of the Serengeti plains in northern Tanzania. They called it Maasailand. ‘We were the original conservationists,’ Saning’o tells the room full of shocked white faces. ‘Now you have made us enemies of conservation.’” [5]

As Dowie understates, drily, not exactly “… what six thousand wildlife biologists and conservation activists from over one hundred countries had traveled to Bangkok to hear.”

A 2004, United Nations meeting pushed for the passing of a resolution protecting the territorial and human rights of indigenous peoples. The UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples read in part, “Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation, and where possible, with the option to return.” Later in the year another meeting of the International Forum on Indigenous Mapping, “all two hundred delegates signed ‘Enemies of Conservation’” with one indigenous delegate rising to state that “… extractive industries, while still a serious threat to their welfare and cultural integrity, were no longer the main antagonist of indigenous cultures. Their new and biggest enemy, she said, was ‘conservation.’” [6]

02_wwf-horzWWF’s tasteful advertising campaign on species extinction with a nude black woman and man set against rainforest. I’m sure the Duke of Edinburgh would have got the joke…

Dowie describes other statements becoming increasingly common from the mouths of indigenous populations historically displaced from their homes and lands which now number in Africa alone, 14 million[7] “conservation refugees.” Since the colonial era: “conservation has become the number one threat to indigenous territories;” the “appropriation of common property for conservation,” or even at international and local meetings there was the ignoring “recommendations and interests” of indigenous members along with a general marginalization “… without opportunity to take the floor and express our views.” [8] It is no surprise that delegates have walked out of many conferences when the same neo-colonialism presented itself.

The author goes on to illustrate the experiences of transnational conservation with a wide range of indigenous peoples from the Miwok, Paiute, and Ahwahneechee of Yosemite Valley to the Pygmies of Uganda and Central Africa; the Karen of Thailand to the Adevasi of India; the Kayapo of Brazil and many others. The same story unfolds in each case though differing in response to the colonialism with: “the tendency of conservationists to ignore their basic rights, at times their very existence, in the course of protecting biological diversity.” [9]

As Dowie observes, it is the type of scientific conservationism that harks back to the “scientific technique” of Bertrand Russell and friends that we can see defining the rigid belief that humans cannot co-exist with nature – separation and segregation overseen by an Elite is the only way.

wwftigerSumatran Tiger|wwf.org

Sumatran tigers numbering no more than 500 in 2009 have been part of WWF fund-raising campaigns for many years. Many of the tigers are said to live in the Tesso Nilo, just a few hours from an WWF office. Jens Glüsing and Nils Klawitter of Der Spiegel take up the story:

Sunarto is a biologist who has long worked as a tiger researcher in the Tesso Nilo. But he has never seen a tiger there. ‘Tiger density is very low here, because of human economic activity,’ says Sunarto, who like some Indonesians goes by only one name. He also points out that there are still some woodland clearing concessions within the conservation area. To enable them to track down tigers, the WWF has provided the scientists with high-tech measuring equipment, including GPS devices, DNA analysis methods for tiger dung and 20 photo traps. During the last photography shoot, which lasted several weeks, the traps only photographed five tigers.

The WWF sees its work in Sumatra as an important achievement, arguing that the rainforest in the Tesso Nilo was successfully saved as a result of a ‘fire department approach.’ In reality, the conservation zone has grown while the forest inside has become smaller.

Companies like Asia Pacific Resources International, with which the WWF previously had a cooperative arrangement, cut down the virgin forest, says Sunarto. His colleague Ruswantu takes affluent eco-tourists on tours of the park on the backs of tamed elephants. The area is off-limits for the locals, and anti-poaching units funded by the Germans make sure that they stay out. ‘The WWF is in charge here, and that’s a problem,’ says Bahri, who owns a tiny shop and lives in a village near the entrance to the park. No one knows where the borders are, he says. ‘We used to have small fields of rubber trees, and suddenly we were no longer allowed to go there.’ ” [10]

The Der Spiegel investigation into WWF highlighted what many already knew: the organisation has overseen the dwindling of farms driven out of tribal lands and the decline of the species it appointed itself to protect. As one indigenous interviewee stated in the report, with the partnership between transnational corporations and the WWF, the organisation has helped to transform “… our world into plantations, monoculture and national parks.” [11] This also brings into relief the apparent contradiction between preserving wildlife and the predilection of aristocracy and Establishment for hunting animals. It seems they just can’t help themselves.

Back in 1961, the year that Prince Philip would inaugurate the creation of WWF to protect the endangered species of the world he was on a Royal tour of India with Queen Elizabeth. It was on this tour that the Prince decided he would blow away an Indian Tiger just for fun. Environmentalists, ecologists and just about everyone else didn’t share Prince Philip’s delight in bagging a 10ft tiger and no doubt confirming his manly virility to Lizzie.  Several tigers and a rare Indian rhino (a legacy given by British tea-planters) were killed for the Royal tour all recorded for posterity by the Queen. But Prince Phillip it seems wanted a bit more of the action. He later killed a female rhino which had got caught in the hunting party after many other members of the entourage had actively tried to assist the animal to leave. Her infant calf escaped though it is highly improbable it survived without its mother. With the launch of WWF months away the whole incident was covered up.

Killing for sport has continued to be a pleasure for royalty down through the ages. The only difference is in the past, they were not pretending to protect wildlife and preach on endangered species while taking great delight in blowing them out of the sky, skewering them with spears or hunting them to death. This sporting pleasure is endemic in so called “high society” and intimately tied up with rural traditions, though firmly divorced from anything approaching pest control or crop protection. The WWF finally had to dispense with King Juan Carlos I of Spain as The President of Honour of WWF after his blood-lust became a little too much of a PR problem. The King made no secret of his love affair for hunting big game in Africa and Eastern Europe. More recently, he took part in a hunt in Romania, killing a wolf and nine bears, one of which was pregnant.[12] A Russian official also claimed that a tame bear was plied with honey and vodka before being shot dead by the King. The bear (called Mitrofan) was killed during a private visit to Russia in 2006, though it was never proven that King Juan Carlos had pulled the trigger. [13]

royalhunt

The prelude to the launch of WWF. Prince Phillip (far left) The Queen is standing just behind the ex-tiger while Prince Jagat-Singh Has his foot on the animal’s head. The tiger was over 9ft long before it’s skin was sent to Windsor Castle as a trophy. Today – like so many animals championed by WWF – it is almost extinct.

Much like Prince Philip who is not one to let the hoi-polloi dictate his pleasures, in 2006 the Polish government allowed him to kill a European bison in Bialowieza forest, even when it is an endangered species. In April 2012, the patron of the WWF was still busy hunting elephants in Botswana.

Prince Charles, also deeply involved with environmental concerns and UK head of the WWF has followed in his father’s footsteps developing a love of fox hunting along with frequent bird shoots at Balmoral. His sons have not been spared the grand tradition either. Reports that William killed a young antelope with a 7ft spear on a trip to see the Maasai were unconfirmed but not surprising. William’s cultivated interest in shooting and stalking stopped his mother Diana from becoming president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, though admittedly, hunting has always been a non-issue for the WWF.

Whether it is buying 250 pheasant, duck and partridge for his brother Harry to shoot at his 27th birthday on Queen Elizabeth’s Sandringham Estate, or boar-hunting on their rural estate in Cordoba, Spain, William is merely embracing normal pastime within the aristocracy, civil list and super-rich. In their last shoot the brothers bagged a staggering 740 partridges on a single day with help from “… Beaters and packs of dogs [who] were brought in to ensure that the princes did not return home without several ‘kills’ to their name.” [14]

Killing animals for sport under the guise of countryside traditions is nothing new and is an activity simultaneously bound up in ancient practices of survival where the animal is either venerated as a source of food or regarded as something to slaughter in a society bereft or meaning. Indigenous cultures – even peasantry in the not so distant past – took the death of their fellow creatures very seriously and afforded them the respect they deserved for providing them with nourishment. Living as we do in mostly urban environments and suburban “countryside” dotted with corporate outlets of factory farming the respect for the cycles of life and death doesn’t play much part in shooting or hunting animals since it is tied to the market place, where weekend shoots act as cathartic exercises in manliness and / or a break from the high-octane pressure of city rat-race. Deals can be done and echoes of the gentry can resurface.

Though dressed up in numerous rationalisations, the idea that hunting and killing animals for fun rather than survival in what we consider to be “civilised” societies seems to be a tradition we can eventually do without. But unless one has grown up in the “country” or is steeped in aristocratic customs one cannot possibly understand this essential “tradition” it seems … However, if we ever return to a full spectrum of true ecological awareness, self-sufficiency, respect for the natural world, a just economy and an inclusive social autonomy with a minimum of government interference, there may be a place in the world for hunting animals as part of a sacred survival, something indigenous peoples understood. Since how we treat animals in any given nation is fairly good reflection of how well we treat humans, then it maybe sometime before the view of animals as playthings or products may change.

Be that as it may, it’s all part of the normal life of so-called Royalty or “nobility” where the residues of feudalism strengthen the explicit understanding that elitism, class divisions and inherited privilege must be supported by the tax payer.

How else are we to keep the vast families and civil list in the manner to which they are accustomed?

bucket of green paint‘Green-washing’ © infrakshun

The issue is not about individual royals, rather it is the notion that we need such a structure of vastly expensive aristocracy when its continued existence only serves to buttress and maintain the status quo and its social divisions. Indeed, this must remain if monarchy, corporatism and Elite privilege is to thrive, tangled up as it is in complex ponerological webs of custom, status and wealth. The idea that we are all still subjects to a ruling King or Queen rather than citizens, has power, even if implicit. Societies at this time, need leaders but leaders with the highest principles which honour tradition as means to free the mind rather than to repeat destructive customs of power privilege and indulgence.

Similarly, organisations and agencies are following a PR image which has little to do with the values a truly progressive society would hope to encourage. WWF does not oppose hunting or situations that pose a threat to animal welfare. “Conservation” is its priority. So much so, that the following statement on the Canadian seal hunt, is illuminating: “As long as the commercial hunt for harp seals off the coast of Canada is of no threat to the population of over 5 million harp seals, there is no reason for WWF Canada to reconsider its current priorities and actively oppose the annual harvest of harp seals.” [15]

Supporting the fur industry is the type of conservation we are talking about here not least the barbarism that seal hunts entail. Clearly, as WWF has stated humane treatment of animals and animal welfare is not its concern. Nor it seems, does it view exploitation as something to be concerned about.

The Sumatran Orangutan in Indonesia, is under intense pressure from Palm oil companies causing massive deforestation. Ian Singleton, Director of the Sumatran Orangutan Conservation Program told journalist Elizabeth Batt that the Sumatran orangutan will be extinct by the end of 2012. WWF being concerned about endangered species would see this as an opportunity to protect this species, right? Wrong. WWF and other eco-groups are involved in a huge green washing deal which operates like this:

“ The global organic food industry agrees to support international agribusiness in clearing as much tropical rainforest as they want for farming. In return, agribusiness agrees to farm the now-deforested land using organic methods, and the organic industry encourages its supporters to buy the resulting timber and food under the newly devised ‘Rainforest Plus” label.’

The ‘world’s biggest wildlife conservation groups have agreed exactly to such a scenario, only in reverse.’ And it’s being led by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).

Through ‘a series of global bargains with international agribusiness, in exchange for vague promises of habitat protection, sustainability and social justice, these conservation groups are offering to greenwash industrial commodity agriculture.” [16]

Sumatra is home to a rich variety of wildlife some of which only exist in this mountainous paradise. Palm oil is used in biodiesel, toiletries and food products and is in high demand across the world. But the boom in palm oil means environmental degradation with high quantities of pesticides and “slash and burn” deforestation, despite WWF claims of sustainability. Corruption is rife. For example, RSPO stands for “Roundtable on Sustainable palm Oil,” yet as one former Indonesian WWF employee commented:

“Sustainable palm oil, is really non-existent” for the following reasons: “The certificate makes it possible to crank up production while simultaneously placating the consciences of customers. Henkel, the Düsseldorf-based consumer products company, advertises its Terra range of household cleaning products with the claim that it supports ‘the sustainable production of palm and palm kernel oil, together with the WWF.’ ” [17]

But WWF calls all this “market transformation” allowing corporations such as Unilever to process 1.3 million tons of palm oil a year a record that transforms it into the one of the world’s largest palm oil processors along with Wilmar, one of the world’s major palm oil producers. Now that they have completed their “accreditation” and taken into account “social criteria” then, all is well according to WWF. Though virgin forest continues to be cut down and environmental toxicity levels abound.

Charges of profits before principles have dogged WWF since its inception. The Cambodian government was none too pleased with the organisation and its handling of the Irrawaddy Dolphin in the Mekong river systems, listed as critically endangered by WWF since 2004. In June 2009, Touch Seang Tana, chairman of Cambodia’s Commission for Conservation and Development of the Mekong River Dolphins Eco-tourism Zone, accused WWF of misrepresenting the level of extinction danger concerning the Mekong Dolphin in order to increase fundraising. He stated: “The WWF’s report did not implement scientific research,” citing that: “Most dolphins died of fishing net from local fishermen and explosion devices for local people to catch fish. They did not die from pollution, DDT, pesticide or dams.” [18]

Heavy-Pollution-Leads-Mekong-Dolphins-to-Extinction-2

Mekong river Dolphins ‘almost extinct’

Cambodian government estimates between 155 and 175 Irrawaddy dolphins still remain in Cambodia’s stretch of the Mekong River, while WWF last year put the figure at just 85. Since 2012 Cambodia cabinet has agreed to implement a conservation area which will cover a 180-kilometer-long stretch of river from Eastern Kratie province to the border with Laos.

When WWF does do its professed job of protecting endangered species it doesn’t succeed there either, at least according to the 1989 Phillipson Report named after Oxford professor John Phillipson. He did as WWF asked and completed a commissioned internal audit to gauge the organization’s effectiveness. The 252 page report proved the charity had produced a litany of embarrassing failures. Not one endangered species project had been successful. After spending a fortune on “saving the panda” through “scientific breeding” which the fund proclaimed should be applied to all other species, it consequently “relocated” thousands of peasant Chinese so that they were out of the range of the panda’s habitat. In their bid to save the panda from extinction they squandered the millions accrued from donations.

Phillipson states:

“despite a staff of 43 (23 allegedly science-trained), panda breeding has not been a success and research output negligible…. The laboratories, equipped at a cost to WWF of SFr 0.53 million, are essentially non-functional. … A lack of proper advice, inadequately trained staff, and poor direction have resulted in a ‘moribund’ laboratory … The obvious conclusion must be that WWF has not been effective or efficient in safeguarding its massive investment … WWF subscribers would be dismayed to learn that the capital input has been virtually written off.” […]

“It must be accepted that WWF activities in China are largely in disarray … The policy of widening WWF involvement to cover other interests has, in my opinion, been counterproductive and, in view of the virtual cessation of support for all forms of panda research, amounts to an abrogation of responsibility for the much publicized ‘Panda Program.’” [19]

Furthermore, WWF had bribed Chinese officials with donated funds in order to preserve panda habitat but which also allowed the building of hydroelectric dams leading to ever increasing demands for bigger bribes. [20]

After decades of so called expertise in the field of conservation this is surely an odd state of affairs for an environmental institution which is regularly consulted on conservation issues despite having a dubious record on animal welfare and an appalling success rate in protecting species from extinction. Its bank balance is certainly something that could be termed “successful.”

In 2010, WWF proclaimed it the “Year of the Tiger” in keeping with its long tradition of campaigning on behalf of this endangered species. In the early 1970s, it managed to convince the Indian government under then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s Indian government to create some protected areas for the tigers. At the time it said there were roughly 4,000 tigers compared to just 1,700 today. Without WWF perhaps the tiger would be no more? It is hard to say. The issue of resettlement played out in India just as it would in China, with assurances by WWF staff that operations were handled properly. Given the magnitude of resettlement in India resulting 300,000 families being “persuaded” to leave their homes in order to create a conservation zone, it is hard to believe that such a mass displacement was willingly undertaken.

>WWF’s insistence that elephant populations were just fine underscored its preference for culling and hunting through much of the 1960s and 1970s. Though almost every environmental movement and nature conservation expert was saying that the elephant was in danger, WWF continued to support that line that estimates of sharp declines were exaggerated. In fact, from the results of various studies it was found that there were 3 million elephants in Africa in the early 1950s; 1.3 million elephants in the mid-70s when the ivory trade was at its height; 400,000 by 1988. Estimated populations of African elephants have recovered somewhat at between 490,000 or 65o, 000, with Asian elephants at only 60,000. [21]

International WWF chairman Sir Peter Scott also had a reputation for the option of culling animals regardless of whether numbers were dwindling or not. In 1963, in a report to the Ugandan Parks Board, Scott recommended the ‘culling’ of 2,500 elephants and according to EIR report by Allen Douglas “… game hunter Ian Parker, … massacred 4,000 hippos while he was at it.” It seems that the Chairman: “… had recommended the slaughter on the Malthusian premise that ‘overpopulation’ required the killing of many individuals in order to ‘save the species.’ In reality, as it later emerged, Scott wanted to create a valuable mahogany plantation in the forests where the elephants fed, and they were in the way.” [22]  If there was any truth to the notion that WWF was interested in preserving species then it was strongly called into question when it embraced the more lucrative idea of allowing only the privileged to kill endangered wildlife under the cover of that well-known term: “sustainable use”, which means the killing of animals in the most efficient way and which maximizes profits without damaging the long-term viability of the species.

An example of this strategy so common in nature conservation was discovered in 1994 where the Tufts Centre for Animals and Public Policy director Andrew Rowan found: “… a single difference in the responses of zoo and humane representatives to 12 hypothetical ethical problems he posed at the White Oak conference on zoos and animal protection. Most agreed that hunting is both ethically and pragmatically dubious as an alleged tool of wildlife management. Yet, endorsing the WWF view, the zoo people were virtually all willing to tolerate trophy hunting as a way to make wildlife lucrative for poor nations, and presumably therefore worth protecting.” [23]

Trophy-hunting and the neo-colonialism of the rich, white man pervades WWF philosophy and practice. In the context of “Sustainable use” this will actually speed up the likelihood of extinction when artificial practices based on blood sport and killing for pleasure wrapped up in rules and regulations replaces the natural balance of hunting for survival and necessity often sitting alongside a healthy wisdom and understanding of the natural world.  The same applies to the politics of “sustainable use” which have attracted the “change agent” doctrine that is seen in Agenda 21 and across the environmentalism movement. Such advocates within WWF and other groups have the gall to suggest to Africans and Asians living on the poverty line that they should allow rich Europeans and Americans to kill animals for sport as oppose to those who kill to survive and must be reduced to living on the scarcity of hand-outs to compensate. As one commentator reiterated: “ ‘Sustainable users’ argue that giving poor Africans and Asians a collective economic stock in wildlife will lead to the development of a collective ethic, whereby poachers will become pariahs. This ignores the history of collectivism wherever it has been attempted, from the failed USSR to Africa’s own overgrazed grasslands.” [24]

With the failure to save the Black Rhino in the 1960s and 70s as well as the declining populations of the White Rhino, John Phillipson stated:

“The project was ill-conceived and indefensible in conservation terms; the Southern White Rhino has never, at least in historic times, occurred in Kenya: Moreover, there is no evidence that the Northern White Rhino ever roamed the lands which now constitute the 87,044 hectare Meru National Park. The assumption must be that in the mid-1960s WWF was either scientifically incompetent, hungry for publicity, greedy for money, or unduly influenced by scientifically Naïve persons of stature.” […]

“The program came to an abrupt end in November 1988, perhaps mercifully in that it removed a constant source of embarrassment. Insurgent Somali poachers shot all the remaining white rhino in an act of defiance, an unfortunate end for the rhino but no doubt a welcome relief for concerned conservationists. Project 0195 is not a project that WWF should look back on with any pride.” [25]

Funded with 1 million Swiss francs Operation Stronghold was ostensibly conducted to save the Black Rhino in the Zambezi Valley from extinction. It soon became clear that this was something other than just Rhino protection and the transferral to safer regions. Taking a leaf out of the rise in private army outsourcing in countries such as America, Britain and Israel WWF paid Chief Game Ranger Glen Tatham and his men to protect the Rhino it seems at any cost. But was the Rhino really the main objective here?

blk-rhino

Black Rhino, Zambezi Valley

In November 1988, When two of Tatham’s unit were charged with murder after allegedly shooting dead “poachers” in cold blood, more details of their activities began to surface. Notwithstanding that over 145 “poachers” had been killed since 1984 and 1991, many had been targeted from helicopters manned by WWF employees. [26] Yet, according to the Game department’s own figures: “Of the 228 people killed or taken prisoner, only 107 guns were recovered. Given that another 202 individuals were recorded as having fled, some badly injured, some of whom would have lost or been unable to carry away their weapons, this means that Tatham et al., failed to recover weapons from three-quarters of those killed, taken prisoner, or driven away. This raises the question of whether those targeted by the guards were in fact armed poachers at all.”  [27]

Rhinos were in fact, shipped off to countries with privately-owned game reserves not just in Africa but all over the world, an immensely lucrative project for WWF.  Following in the wake of WWF’s sleight of hand, the IMF did what it does best and embarked on a restructuring of Zimbabwe’s economy, which meant placing it in debt and cutting what was left of social services. Dumped into the middle of this Western-imposed chaos was the monoculture business of beef ranching for Europe, slap-bang in the Zambezi Valley, the exact position where the rhino’s once lived. A government and corporate-mandated extermination of wildlife then ensued to provide for the IMF beef factories.

Black Rhinos have made a dramatic comeback after private land use was brought into the picture which also utilised armed guards and private army protection. Ever on the look-out for profit, a Price Waterhouse study commissioned by conservancies and WWF-Zimbabwe/Beit Trust to explore the land-use options available to the conservancies concluded that: “from a financial perspective, wildlife is a more desirable land-use than cattle in these Conservancies.” [28]

WWF’s earliest corporate sponsor was the petrochemical giant Royal Dutch/Shell. In 1961 it gave WWF-UK £10,000 a considerable sum back in 1961. So, before green righteousness goes to far let it be remembered that WWF was actually founded on oil money. But it doesn’t stop there. Corporate sponsorship continues apace some of whom include Canon, Volvo, Nokia and HSBC – the latter having been recently fined more that $1.5 billion for financial corruption, a banking cartel that was found to be laundering money for drug barons and crime lords whilst engaging in the kind  of financial terrorism second only to Barclays Banks. Yet getting into bed with oppressive regimes and finding time to indoctrinate slum kids in Pakistan we shouldn’t be too surprised, especially when we nip back to 1988…

In that year, a large cache of paintings were sold for £700,000 to raise money for the World Wide Fund for Nature. The money was deposited in a Swiss WWF bank account by former head of the WWF, Prince Bernhard. In the following year £500,000 was transferred back to Bernhard by director-general of the WWF, Charles de Haes for what was described as “a private project.” In fact, Prince Bernhard had used the money for Operation Project Lock to hire mercenaries—mostly British to ostensibly fight poachers in nature reserves.[29]In 1990, WWF’s cosseted existence was placed under the media spotlight embroiling the organisation in a very public scandal. A joint operation between WWF and British Special Air Services (SAS) had been tasked with infiltrating “commandos” in a bid to save the Rhino and in the hope of dismantling the illegal ivory trade and Rhino horn trading network. That was the theory hatched in the WWF boardroom. It proved to be colossal failure.

Firstly, £1 million went missing. This may have had something to do with the fact that her Majesty’s respected SAS group had set up shop with Rhino products and gone into business for themselves. Far from stopping the illegal trade, they had muscled in on the action taking over the market and continuing the supply lines. Large numbers of poachers were murdered according to statements made by Nelson Mandela’s National African Congress. Further revelations came to light about the depth of British Intelligence involvement which was fully supported by WWF’s own documents and published in the Africa Confidential Bulletin. MI5 was said to have orchestrated Operation Lock with David Stirling, creator of the SAS.

The history of African National Parks is a history of collusion between park wardens funded and armed by WWF. The “poachers” are often phantoms in that such fabrications cover the truth that they are often the very same park wardens. The SAS unit officially sent in to stop the trade were drawn from the ranks of seasoned military professionals with black operational or “dirty warfare” experience. They were members of a mercenary unit created by Stirling called KAS International and just the ticket it seemed for WWF’s designs.

Though largely downplayed and covered up by the media, the trail of culpability led directly to the door of the British Establishment and most notably Prince Philip, the Queen Mother and author Laurens Van Der Post Prince Charles’ tutor, then first counsellor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on African Affairs. (Incidentally, Van Der Post has been proven to have been a fraud who knew very little about the real Africa). Nevertheless, the Duke of Edinburgh is pleased with the legacy. And WWF’s present day “Market Transformation” team shows no sign of observing a distance between corporations and their cash. “Change agents” are at work where the big dealers and producers of commodities like soybeans, milk, palm oil, wood and meat can see the errors of their ways and be shown the righteousness of a sustainable lifestyle. As a result, Cargill and Monsanto, two of the most heinous polluters and human rights abusers on the planet, donate regularly to WWF and attend many of their meetings. Keeping the green spin turning is essential for such companies which have huge investments in genetically modified soybean.

Jobs for the boys continues in 2013 and not much has changed. Thanks to the European Union millions of pounds are being paid to green campaign groups so that they can effectively lobby themselves. The European Commission Environmental Fund and are giving grants to enable scores of green organisations to influence and promote EU policy. According to the Tax Payers’ Alliance which analyses organisations’ spending this special fund called Life+, has exceeded £90 million over the past fifteen years. Set up in the 1990s to fund non-profit initiatives at the European level but most importantly, it is in the development and implementation of Community policy and legislation where Life+ is designed to be most effective. It would be a stretch to say that this money is being used to protect the environment, rather it seems this is another example of EU policies being routed through the back door of environmentalism without due consultation. Sure enough, the European Policy office of WWF (now based in Brussels) is up at the top of the grant listing having received £7.4 million. According to a Deccember 21st 2013 report from The Telegraph entitled: ‘European Union funding £90m green lobbying con’ By Robert Mendrick and Edward Malnick:

“In its most recent round of grants for 2013, Life+ awarded £7.5 million to 32 groups, including:

  • £290,000 to CEE Bankwatch Network, a Czech-based organisation which campaigns against “the activities of international financial institutions in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) region that cause negative environmental and social impacts”;
  • £80,000 to Counter Balance, also based in Prague, which lobbies banks to ensure they “adhere to sustainable development goals, climate change mitigation policy, and the protection of biodiversity, in line with EU goals”;
  • £260,000 to Brussels-based Health Care Without Harm Europe, which campaigns to “address the environmental impact of the health-care sector in Europe … to make the health-care system more ecologically sustainable”;
  • £44,000 to Kyoto Club, based in Rome, whose main actions include “lobbying and advocacy for EU climate change mitigation policies, through policy recommendations and reports, information-sharing and campaigning, participation in EU events and stakeholder meetings, and contacts with relevant MEPs, Council and Commission officials”;
  • £350,000 to the Italian-based Slow Food, a group which campaigns to “reduce the impact of food production and consumption on the environment” and will achieve this by “participating in the international and EU debate about food through EU institution advisory committees, expert working groups and other high-level groups”.

At last, finally some cash is being used to implement a global green policy? Well, by now, it should be obvious that all this money flying about doesn’t actually alter the fundamental socio-economic structure but certainly lines the pockets of new “eco” industries and their bureaucracies. Greenpeace is possibly the only well-known environmental activist group who is acutely aware of green-washing having chosen not to take any EU or government funding. It perhaps the best known environmental campaigning organisation, has refused to take any EU or government funding. It should be commended for realising the nature of such compromise and what this really entails. Independence means it is much less likely to provide and open door to ponerisation. (It’s only a shame they don’t apply the same principles to their stance on climate change).

clip_image002.jpg

WWF “Business partners” 2012

The green charity Friends of the Earth (FoE) is another recipient of Life+ with over £2.1 million in funds in 2012 from: “… at least seven different departments of the European Commission. By contrast, the charity’s arm in Britain said it receives less than one per cent of its budget from the EU, with the vast majority of its funding coming from individuals and trusts.” The report goes on to state: “FoEE used its funding last year to produce a four-minute video to put pressure on the British and German governments to back a new EC directive which set a series of legally binding energy efficiency targets across Europe. The video was co-produced with Climate Action Network Europe, which has received £2.3 million from Life+ to ‘improve existing EU climate and energy policies’.”

In fact, the overwhelming drive to promote and lobby for EU directives under sustainable development alongside SMART society in a European setting. Higher tax bills, zero consultation on environmental policy and the new Eco-technocratic bias which goes with it blankets European perception. In the UK austerity measures, rising debt and a generation of older folk frequently have to ration their food in order to pay the electricity bills which have risen by 150 per cent in the last ten years. The German online newspaper deutschewelle.de. reported the figure of 31, 000 Britons, mostly the retired or on low incomes who died in 2012 as a result of the cold. The social and environmental costs are driving the prices sky high. SMART implementation and serious economic difficulties the funding of activist groups for measures and initiatives without due oversight and accountability is an open door to corruption and misappropriation of funds. Since most eco-activist organisations have little or no awareness of the macro-social objectives of those currently shaping European policy it means funding is generally being absorbed into the already centralised belief system inherent in Establishment support. The compromise arrives over time not necessarily in the short-term acceptance of funds. Rather, it contributes to a slow process of attrition where green policy is gradually contoured into a new socio-economic structure which may not be based on the freedom and independence those organisations and NGOs sincerely believe exists.

Employees within WWF and other organisations believe that allowing corporations to continue their natural state of plunder and exploitation while hoping for a change of face is a practical endeavour. For the multitude of good-hearted persons working in organisations like WWF whose patrons clearly have a different environmental and ideological agenda, they are in danger of becoming agents of a change that lead away from what they would sincerely like to see: the betterment of our environment and the human sphere. This will not come without a very different kind of compromise.

**

See also: Greenpeace Helps Corporations Destroy the Planet

 


Notes

[1] Ibid.
[2] Ibid.
[3] ‘Parks for life: Action for protected areas in Europe’ IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, Federation of Nature and National Parks of Europe. 1994.
[4]
Dowie, Mark; Conservation Refugees:The Hundred-Year Conflict between Global Conservation and Native Peoples Published by MIT Press, 2009. ISBN-10:0-262-01261-8.
[5] Ibid. (p.xvi intro.)
[6] Ibid.
[7] op. cit. Glüsing and Klawitter.
[8] op. cit. Dowie (p.xix)
[9] op. cit. (p. xx)
[10] op. cit. Glüsing, Klawitter.
[11] Ibid.
[12] ‘Romania: Elite Hunting Spree Sparks Calls For Better Animal’, rferl.org/ September 12, 2012.
[13] ‘Royal row over Russian bear fate’ BBC News, October 2006.
[14] ‘William and Harry fly to Spain to hunt wild boar to celebrate the end of Harry’s helicopter training’ By Rebecca English, Royal Correspondent, 17 January 2012.
[15] Op-Ed: King Juan Carlos not the only questionable association for WWF’ By Elizabeth Batt, http://www.digitaljournal.com April 2012.
[16] ‘Way Beyond Greenwashing: Have Corporations Captured Big Conservation?” by J. Latham, Independent Science News.org.
[17] op. cit. Glüsing, Klawitter.
[18] ‘Cambodia Rejects CNN, WWF Reports about Mekong Dolphin’ June 24 2009. CRI English, Xinhua.
[19] op.cit. La Rouche et al.
[20] Ibid.
[21] IUCN’s African Elephant Status Report 2007 | ‘Asian Elephant distribution’. EleAid. 2007.
[22] ‘The oligarchs’ real game is killing animals and killing people’ by Allen Douglas, EIR.1994.
[23] ‘What’s Wrong with “Sustainable Use”?’ June 1994 Animal People http://www.animalpeople.org
[24] Ibid.
[25] op. cit. Phillipson.
[26]‘Can Mercenary Management stop poaching in Africa?’ Animal People, April 1999. http://www.animalpeople.org
[27] op. cit. Douglas.
[28] Private Conservation Case Study: Private Conservation and Black Rhinos in Zimbabwe: The Savé Valley and Bubiana Conservancies, by Michael De Alessi January 2000.
[29] “Pretoria inquiry confirms secret battle for the rhino”. The Independent. 18 January 1996.

 

Dark Green II: Roots of Eco-Fascism

Eco-fascism: “… A totalitarian government that requires individuals to sacrifice their interests to the well-being and glory of the “land”, understood as the splendid web of life, or the organic whole of nature, including peoples and their states”

– Michael E. Zimmerman, pp. 531-532 in Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature


Before looking at how environmentalism and ecological thinking operates today in some sectors of the world, we need to jump back and take a look at some of its roots.

Ecology is an interdisciplinary branch of biology exploring the relationships between living organisms and their natural environment. Even though he was not an ecologist, biologist and philosopher Ernst Haeckel coined the word “oekologie,” in 1866 from the Greek oikos meaning “house” and logos meaning “science.”  The doctrine of Vitalism has strong ties to the evolution of ecology which states that “living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities because they contain some non-physical element or are governed by different principles than are inanimate things” [1] It incorporates the idea of “the soul” and “Spirit” as well as the theory of “ether” that bound all living things together; the elusive fifth element in Hermetic philosophy. This is a very old idea that can be traced back to the philosopher/surgeon Galen of Pergamon of the second Century Turkey. Ecology of the mind, land and social systems have tended to go hand in hand with the development of holism or “holistic thinking” so popular in complementary medicine and new science. This theory posits that parts of a whole have an intimate interconnection to each other and as such, cannot exist or be understood independently of that whole. Much work has been done on the validity of this theory that sees the biological organisation of life self-organising: “… into layers of emergent whole systems that function according to non-reducible properties.” [2]

This has never been more applicable to physical and mental disease and in sharp contrast to Cartesian and reductionist theories of mind and matter.

Distinct from environmentalism (philosophy, ideology and social movement) and environmental science, ecology attempts to explain life processes and adaptations; the distribution and abundance of organisms; the movement of materials and energy through living communities and the long-term development of biodiversity in the environment. A number of disciplines come under the umbrella of ecology including: behavioural ecology; community ecology (or synecology); ecophysiology; ecopsychology; ecosystem ecology; evolutionary ecology; global ecology; population ecology; human ecology and social ecology.

monolith Sculptures Near Amsterdam, Holland | © infrakshun

Whether ecology actually is a science is still hotly debated. The fact that it appeals to the wise and benevolent as much as the ignorant and evil is probably due to its diverse mix of disciplines. Whether physiology, evolutionary biology, genetics, or ethology, any science can be made to work for an ideology even at the cost of ramming that square peg into the round hole.  When a passionate love of “pure Nature” is present all that is needed to transform that belief into a toxic time-bomb is to mix in some neo-feudalism, Marxist theory and a touch of occultism and the race is on to control the “viral” spread of humanity under the guise of healing the planet. Though Darwinism and Malthusianism had little to do with ecology, they have often sat alongside ecological thinking and the fascist/collectivist policies that slowly rose up through their ranks.

Historian Anna Bramwell’s The Fading of the Greens: Decline of Environmental Politics in the West mammoth trilogy on ecology and environmental activism shows that ecologists were constantly aligned with fascist parties, fascistic philosophy, the aristocracy and Establishment. [3]   These often anti-transcendent thinkers were both pro-rural and anti-capitalist naturalists and according to Bramwell this mine discovering Nature to learn and: “… return with the recommendation that one clings to the wheel because it is the most sensible path of action. To do so requires sweeping away past identities, past traditions and past errors.” In effect, such a personality: “… a natural protestor.” [4]

Traditionally the seeds of fascistic thinking in ecology and environmental movements began to appear in Europe after the growth of the natural sciences in the 17th and 18th centuries and in the reaction to the exploitation of the land and communities that the Industrial Revolution eventually reconfigured or swept away entirely. Britain’s artists such as William Blake raged against the machine of industry as “Dark Satanic Mills” with pioneers such as John Ruskin, William Morris, Edward Carpenter and Henry Williamson continuing the struggle. Americans too were equally aghast at the destruction and consequent  “desacralisation” of Nature with the likes of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Walt Whitman and Henry Thoreau offering activist wings to ecological thoughts.

This helped to give rise to the environmental movement headed by such people as Arthur Tansley who coined the term “eco-system” and Aldo Leopold who championed the cause of “land ethics” closely mirroring the Back to the Land Movement first initiated by Ruskin, though with a somewhat more scientific focus. Indeed, scientists were beginning to offer the world an ecological framework including Charles Elton’s animal ecology and food chains, along side Alexander Stuart Watt’s plant ecology. By the middle of the 20th Century, humanism and the environment were getting closer and the World State policies trumpeted by biologist Julian Huxley as head of the UN’s UNESCO agency reflected this change. Huxley’s naturalist and ethological background (the study of animals in their natural habitats) fed into his vision of humanity on a petri-dish which needed to be ordered and managed. Since the board of UNESCO saw fit to make him the Chairman, they obviously felt the same way.

In Britain, in the early part of the 20th century the growth of various environmental movements were largely in response to the economic depression which had hit farming hard after the prosperous years of the mid-19th century. The Dartington Trust founded in the 1920s to promote rural regeneration; The Garden City movement which placed a magnifying glass on town and garden design in urban areas; The Council for the Protection of Rural England and The Ramblers Association in the 1930 concentrated on town planning and the relationship to the countryside. Landowners and farmers had to cope with falling prices, lower rents and untenanted farms. Back to the Land came into its own with The English Land Colonisation Society creating 400 farming communities. Cooperatives were formed and derelict land and run-down farms were taken over; Arts and Crafts were revived and community increased. This was something undeniably anti-industry and a healthy reversal of the “filthy tide” of industrialisation which was making the British Empire the uncontested global manager.  The money came predominantly from the wealthy and those with aristocratic connections who were intent on “preserving the countryside, controlling development and shifting the population out of big cities.” [5]

According to Bramwell’s research, ecologists were mostly conservative, monarchist and staunch traditionalists of the “green and pleasant land” mythology which derived from the same traditions as the German Romantic Movement which in turn, came from immensely deep roots in German society. This revival of the land and nature began to be part of the green social movement which meant resisting the inexorable drive of the industrialists. But there was a shadow side. This “Blood and Soil” romanticism became a powerful influence not just in Britain but across all of Europe and America. Drawn from the Völkisch or “Völk” in German culture, it refers to ethnicity from the “Blood” or ancestral descent and the homeland or “Soil”. It places a vital importance on the notion of rural living and the place humans occupy in relation to Nature and their immediate environment. It was made more popular during the rise of the Nazi Third Reich by Richard Walther Darré a Nazi party member, race theorist and eugenics advocate. Yet Blood and Soil sentiment had been present in the  pagan cults embedded in the ecological fabric of Germany and thus a potential political force deep in the psyche of Germans outside the cities. (We will come back to Darré and Germany’s influence on Eco-Fascism later on).

Literature from the 1880s – 1940s was infused with folklore, countryside mythology and the almost pagan sensuality of nature. D.H. Lawrence was one of  the best examples of this new ecological vision. It was through such persons that the emerging environmental and nature activists re-learned vitalism and the “God in Nature.” His wife, Frieda von Richtofen, introduced Lawrence to an artist colony which had a: “… distinctive German brand of serious nature-worship and sun-worship”. This seems to have been a significant influence in his art and according to Bramwell: “appears to resemble the language of the proto-Nazis.” [6] Whether or not that is true, the link between English and German fascism and the art of the European intelligentsia  was very strong indeed.

19th century author and poet Ernst Moritz Arndt and journalist and novelist Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl seemed to personify the eco-fascism of the pre-war period in Germany. Arndt seemed to write beautifully and movingly about the plight of Nature under the Industrial Revolution and the importance of ecological awareness, yet he seemed to despise human beings. He was anti-French, anti-Slav, anti-Semitic and xenophobic, placing German land and people at the forefront of perfection. Riehl learned from his teacher Arndt but differed in focus. The same nationalism and anti-Semitism was present but he leaned towards an early version of environmental activism in which he advocated a fight for “the rights of wilderness.” This was to be for the well-being of the German people alone, however.

Blut und Boden / “Blood and Soil” propaganda card.

The Völkisch movement welcomed them with open arms and as humanist writer Peter Staudenmaier comments: “… it pointedly refused to locate the sources of alienation, rootlessness and environmental destruction in social structures, laying the blame instead to rationalism, cosmopolitanism, and urban civilization. The stand-in for all of these was the age-old object of peasant hatred and middle-class resentment: the Jews.” [7]

A good example of the latent fascism residing in aristocracy and the Establishment was charismatically expressed through politician Sir Oswald Ernald Mosley, 6th Baronet, of Ancoats, who founded the BUF. On 11 May 1920 he married Lady Cynthia Curzon second daughter of George Curzon, Lord Curzon of Kedleston and married his mistress in 1933 in Germany on 6 October 1936, in the Berlin home of Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels. Adolf Hitler was one of the guests.

Mosley was a distinguished orator and and one of the youngest MPs to be elected to represent his constituency of Harrow in 1918. He began as a conservative then joined the Labour Party by 1924 immediately changed his allegiance to the Independent Labour Party (ILP). Mosley and his wife Cynthia were committed Fabians right up to the start of the 1930s. [8] When Labour won the 1929 general election he was appointed to the post of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. However, his presence in government was to be short-lived. Mosley put forward a whole scheme in the ‘Mosley Memorandum’ only to find it soundly rejected, despite the fact it preceded much of the socialist policy in the intervening years. [9]

After resigning from the cabinet in 1930 he founded the New Party which gradually warmed to fascist policies. The momentum stalled due to the General Election the following year so Mosley took the opportunity to take a tour of Mussolini’s Italy which finalised his desire to pursue overtly fascist politics back in the UK. So, the British Union of Fascists was born. His corps of black-uniformed paramilitary stewards, or “blackshirts” was constantly in the news for being involved in violent confrontations between Communist or Jewish groups which would eventually lead to the downfall of Mosley’s party. When the government passed the Public Order Act 1936 which came into into effect the following year, it marked the end for his para-military brigade.

Rather ironically, Mosley embarked on a peace campaign throughout the war and was finally interned on May 1940 along with his wife Diana Mitford and other active fascists in the grounds of Holloway prison. After the War the baron rejoined active politics and formed the Union Movement, calling for a European Super-State covering the continent of Europe (known as Europe a Nation), and later attempted to launch a National Party of Europe to this end. This time his fascism was expressed through Synarchy.

At his core, Mosley had a genuine desire to better peoples’ lives, but his powerful drive was also technocratic in that he had a precise understanding of the bureaucratic and economic machinery of his day. [10]His socialism was based on re-imagining the state towards a greater British Empire that moved into Europe and further colonised Africa as “the breadbasket for the West.”sup>[11] Thus he had a lot in common with the likes of Cecil Rhodes and his later Round Table compatriots and would be very influential for authoritarian personalities who embraced fascism in the future. Though overt environmental sympathies were missing in Mosley’s political ambitions his supporters made up for it. In fact, there have been a raft of individuals rather than groups who have both a history of environmentalist views being held by the far-right in the UK.

Oswald-Mosley-image

Sir Oswald Mosely and Diana circa 1936

Jorian Jenks was a farmer, environmentalist and political activist, serving as Mosley’s agricultural advisor in the BUF. He was “one of the most dominant figures in the development of the organic movement” [12]and yet another of the fascists who found themselves detained by the government in 1940, this time at Walton Prison and released a year later. It was after the war that Jenks moved “…  from politics to ‘meta-politics’ evolving a more spiritual ‘spiritual ecologism’ which would address the cause of national disintegration and replenish the bond between man and soil.” [13]

Niece of Lord Arthur Balfour of the Balfour declaration fame, and English farmer and organic farming pioneer, the visionary Lady Eve Balfour and her Soil Association provided Jenks with an outlet to pursue the science and practice of organic farming. He served as editorial secretary and published the association’s journal Mother Earth through which his eco-fascist views could be heard much to the delight (or consternation) of those reading the material. He stated: “An anti-modernist philosophy embracing land reform the paramountcy of agriculture; the subordination of mechanisation to organicism; the localisation of economies and the cultivation of the consciousness of the ties of blood and soil.” Jenks saw the Soil Association policy as “pure Aryan”… “though they don’t make a point of it.” [14]

Despite Jenk’s clear fascism his contribution to agricultural policy and the scientific experiments exploring the differences between organic and non-organic foods were extremely influential, as were his warnings on the dangers of chemical fertilisers and pesticides. He found his way to the Soil Association via Kinship in Husbandry which he had joined in 1942. This group had been founded by Rolf Gardiner with support from H. J. Massingham and Lord Lymington. It was essentially a platform for eco-fascist principles which had bubbled up into the Soil Association to the extent that Gardiner became co-founder; such was his passion for the future of organic farming. He was also an avid English folk dancer, naturist  and active in far right politics. Gardiner’s passion for English folk dancing helped to revive the Morris dance which was inflicted on Germany and the emerging Hitler Youth of the time. Despite the homoerotic overtones he insisted this was a thoroughly masculine and virile ritual of pagan nature worship. (The latter was part of the Third Reich’s inspirations, though it remains to be seen if they were impressed by the Morris dancing…)

dh-lawrence[1]

D.H. Lawrence

A one-time Kibbo Kift member as a Cambridge University student Gardiner had also greatly admired D.H. Lawrence  whom he visited in 1928 while in Switzerland. Their teacher-student relationship blossomed into a long lasting friendship that was based on:

“… a shared faith in the organic which was by no means confined to their descriptions of the landscape or nature. By seeking organic solutions to the problems of contemporary life – emphasising the important of ‘natural’ hierarchies, for instance, or the ‘rootedness’ of culture in the native soil, or the ties that bind language, culture and racial destiny – Lawrence and Gardiner found themselves drawing from the same wellspring which nourished Völkisch and fascist movements. Indeed in 1953, Bertrand Russell famously wrote that Lawrence’s views led straight to Auschwitz.”  [15]

Although highly ironic coming from Mr. Russell who was hoisted on the same humanist-Fabian pole, the above passage sums up perfectly the problem of the naturalists and those sensitive to the destruction of Nature who may in some instances also harbour authoritarian traits: they inevitably gravitated towards the rich history of the Völkisch and the New Order proposed by National Socialism. It was both a product of the times and a trigger which seemed to draw out the latent fascism waiting to leak from otherwise natural and healthy principles.

Writer, naturalist and farmer Henry Williamson who wrote Tarka the Otter (1927) and many other classics, supported the BUF and was greatly impressed after visiting the National Socialist Congress in 1935. (We don’t know what he thought of Gardiner’s Morris dancing, however). His growing fascist views, led him to be detained during World War II, like Mosley, under the Defence Regulation 18B. He contributed to the Anglo-German Review for whom “… the Anglo-German sympathizers of the period were united by a common interest in nature and ecology.” [16] The same Germanic sun-worshipping and pagan revivalism was found in his writings most particularly where the ancient light of the sun represented the real meaning of his own existence by illuminating his ancestral past and revealing the truth of redemption through Nature.” [17]

Like many artists of post-World War I his experiences of death and horror culminating in the Christmas truce of 1918 helped him to see Germans and the Nature worship embedded in their culture as a new light for the world. He had been seduced by the seemingly vibrant economic and cultural renaissance best symbolised by the Hitler youth with “faces that looked to be breathing extra oxygen; people free from mental fear.” Williamson was certain that National Socialism was the answer and echoed D. H Lawrence’s obsession with “blood and soil” believing that they represented: “… a race that moves on the poles of mystic, sensual delight. Every gesture is a gesture from the blood, every expression a symbolic utterance … Everything is of the blood, of the senses.” [18]

He seemed to remain a fan despite the failure of the Nazi ideal by protesting against the unjust nature of the Nuremburg trials. Although these were indeed a showpiece to cover up the fact that many of the Nazis Elite were absorbed into the American National Security State, it nevertheless showed that his sympathies remained strong. It is this paradoxical eco-fascist romanticism as sweet as syrup yet cast in molten metal that often remains impervious to any change. Just as the seeds of psychopathy have long been exposed to the right Anglo-American conditions for various strains to multiply like fungi on an otherwise healthy tree, this ecological inversion has continued from its romantic pre-war passion to much more subtle expressions. Similar to eugenics, it has insinuated itself into the fabric of society with respectable sounding names, sacred philosophies and philanthropic causes. But it is essentially the same ponerisation, yearning to control human beings, now under the cover of Gaia. [19]

That is not to say that all environmentalism has at its root latent fascism, only that we need to be aware of this inversion – roots can grow in a variety of soils given the right conditions.

In 1970, the first issue of The Ecologist magazine appeared in the UK, with genuinely fascinating and productive articles. Nevertheless, its underlying theme of “humans as virus” and ecological parasites was common throughout and a direct link back to fascistic beliefs, albeit largely unconscious.  The magazine’s founder, the late Edward Goldsmith, displayed the same beliefs as Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh, in that humanity was a disease which had to be halted. Like so many who seemed to have authoritarian tendencies he displayed a frequent wish to control and micro-manage the lives of others. Government, in Goldsmith view should mimic his own patriarchal leanings and become a “schoolmaster” to “an ever more demanding and self-indulgent electorate.” In other words, we all needed to be horse-whipped into submission so that we may break free from our wicked ways. Indeed, Goldsmith went further, suggesting  that: “… radical change in our way of looking at man’s relationship with his environment, … must involve taking measures that in many cases are contrary to our accepted values. Thus, to control population we may have to interfere with ‘personal liberty’, while to reduce economic expansion we are forced to curb ‘the march of ‘progress.’” [20]

It is hear that we come to the crux of the problem with such thinking since it perfectly aligns with elite beliefs that demand populations are suppressed and managed in much the same way as Nature has been through the centuries.  The dividing line between co-creating with the planet and bending it to our will is blurred. The wild sanctity and purity of the biosphere is set against the population who are despoilers and viri – a disease to cut out so that Nature may reign once more. The problem is clear. Such binary thinking can very easily mixed up with good intentions leading catastrophic results as we have seen time and time again. The only disease is that of ponerological strains within humanity whose job it is to subvert and invert.  Ideologies born from socio-economic distress and spiritual vacuity are blended in the minds of authoritarians and their followers and grafted onto passions and beliefs which would have otherwise remained connected to a benign and rejuvenating force.

2013-05-27 17.21.56

© infrakshun

Germany also had a pronounced tradition of controlling Nature. For over 250 years it had radically drained mash and fenlands, exploited vast tracts of Bavarian moorland, managed rivers and built dams in high valleys. The impact of hydrological dams after the 1750s was enormous, changing the face of the German landscape. Where once there was fear of the vast tracts of wilderness, for some they became the new source of romanticism, especially when they began to disappear. This was paradoxical and as historian David Blackbourne asks: “Why did the pace of moorland drainage and colonization increase after the First World War? Because Germans began to see themselves after the Treaty of Versailles as a ‘people without space,’ a Völkohne Raum, so that every cultivated acre counted.” [21]

The Conquest of the Europe meant the conquest of nature which seemed to run counter to the ecological ethos that Nazism promoted. Historians Groninga and Joachim Wolscheke-Bulmanha wrote in an article in Planning Perspectives journal of 1987: “… to explain the destruction of the countryside and environmental damage, without questioning the German people’s bond to nature, could only be done by not analysing environmental damage in a societal context and by refusing to understand them as an expression of conflicting social interests. Had this been done, it would have led to criticism of National Socialism itself since that was not immune to such forces.” [22]

Though it was not to be.

At the same time technocratic and authoritarian, in order for Nature to be returned to the romantic myth of Germanic perfection the space had be created for the German people as guardians and worshippers of Nature so that the former Edenic state could return. Once cleansed of “weeds” and the uniformity of human design the superiority of the Aryan race could stand at the head of a New World Order which would necessarily mean harmony between land and people, inseparable in the National Socialist mind.

The man who had most power in the Reich second to Hitler was probably SS Field Marshall Heinrich Himmler who epitomised classic eco-fascist ideology when he mused:

“The peasant of our racial stock has always carefully endeavoured to increase the natural powers of the soil, plants, and animals, and to preserve the balance of the whole of nature. For him, respect for divine creation is the measure of all culture. If, therefore, the new Lebensräume (living spaces) are to become a homeland for our settlers, the planned arrangement of the landscape to keep it close to nature is a decisive prerequisite. It is one of the bases for fortifying the German Völk.” [23]

The adaptation of biological concepts to social systems tied up with romantic verbiage led to the strategic importance of environmental resources. This was the official policy of Lebensräume or “Living space”. Expansionist politics would mean that the Balkans would be chosen as the provider and coincide with the extermination of the Slavic races, which they deemed inferior. As Hitler stated: “Every healthy Völk sees the right to expansion of its living space as something natural.” [24]

Land, conquest and ethnic cleansing became inextricably linked with a spiritual mission.

By the time Ernst Haeckel had invented the term “ecology” there was the appearance at least, of a “… scientifically based ecological holism with Völkisch social views,” which consisted of a potent mixture of “… nineteenth century cultural prejudices, romantic obsessions with purity [and] anti-Enlightenment sentiment,” fused with “aggressive nationalism, mystically charged racism, and environmentalist predilections.” [25]Haeckel was also responsible for merging Social Darwinism and ecology into his own philosophy of “Monism” which provided an outlet and scientific cover for his belief in Nordic racial superiority. The Third Reich’s obsession with the occult was in large part due to the Germanic nature worship and which had given rise to revivalism and green politics in the intelligentsia. This was reflected in Haeckel’s decision to join the Thule Gesellschaft or Thule Society founded by Bavarian occultist and freemason Baron Rudolf von Sebottendorff an instrumental in the formation of the Nazi Party. [26] The Society was the organisation that sponsored the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (DAP), later reorganized by Adolf Hitler into the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP or Nazi Party).

The Youth movement of the Weimar Republic or the Wandervögel (‘wandering free spirits’) was a fusion of almost every type of transcendent, occult and folklore ideology that was available. Reason and rational discourse were rejected. It was effectively a nature cult elevating peasantry to mythical status joined with the authoritarian impetus of the State which was needed to show people the way. Peter Staudenmaier believes this heralded an important: “… shift from nature worship to Führer worship,” where National Socialism’s adoption of environmentalist themes of nationalism and sacred naturalism “… was a crucial factor in its rise to popularity and state of power.” [27]

The foundation of these beliefs was made concrete through two levels of ecological support within the core of the Third Reich. These were at the ministerial and planning and administrative levels, evidence of which can be found in the archives of the Reich. Agrarian romanticism and anti-urbanism was dominant and central in Nazi ideology so that most of the leading members were ecologically aware or had some overlapping naturist belief. 60 percent of the membership rolls of several Naturschutz (nature protection) organizations during the Weimar era had joined the National Socialist Party in 1939. [28]

Gleichklang Alfred Bernert‘Gleichklang’ by Alfred Bernert

Hitler as a vegetarian and an animal lover was a believer in the Völk and the value of Nature but he was also a pragmatic strategist. However, three other notable players close to Hitler represented various shades of dark green belief within the Third Reich.  His deputy, Rudolf Hess, was an enthusiastic fervent devotee of naturism, anthroposophy and homeopathy. Working for Hesse were leading ecologists who produced draft reports on the necessity for “organic, ecologically sound land use and planning.” Hess’s top land planning officer called soil: “… the foundation of the formation of the community”.[29]

Hermann Göering was a nature conservationist, animal husbandrist and the Reich’s Chief Huntsman. He favoured the forest over the rights of the farmers and their fields. He organised many International Hunting Exhibitions for the wealthy. Hitler once referred to these groups as “the green Freemasonry”. As Air Force commander he discontinued the use of animals to test weapons and used people instead. [30]

Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler had a degree in agriculture, was a farmer, an occultist and neo-pagan. Power over the concentration camps, death squads and the liquidation of the Jews and other minorities lay at his door. And he, like Hitler, valued animals over people, being responsible for the Third Reich’s anti-vivisection legislation which was the first law of its kind. While Hitler soared into the mysticism of the Völk, Himmler’s beliefs veered towards theosophy, anthroposophy, astrology, Wicca, herbalism, organicism, astrology and homeopathy. He was the first true New Age Nazi with power at his hands, his interests of which inspired him to follow in Blavatsky’s footsteps by sending an SS team to Tibet in 1938 led by zoologist Ernst Schäfer, officially to conduct anthropological experiments, unofficially to open a dialogue between Tibetan Monks of Agharti which were following the “Black arts.” [31] (See: The Light Bringer)

With the infiltration of the Agriculture Ministry and National Food Estate by the SS under Himmler’s say so. When East Europe would be conquered and ethnically cleansed of undesirables a new race of farmers would be deposited on the land and given free farms, provided they passed the eugenics check list set up by the newly created Racial Office was created within the SS. [32]

Therefore three main green beliefs were personified within the Reich: The Aristocratic-freemasonic eco-conservativism of Göering; the folklore, anthroposophy and organicism of Hesse and the occult-neo-pagan beliefs of Himmler.

By 1937 Poland was under Himmler’s settlement program using state funds and seized land while Race and Settlement officers were busy searching for “… farms that could be farmed organically”. After all, it was only SS farmers who could understand “…the superiority of organic farming methods as opposed to artificial fertilisers”. And Chemical fertilizers were criminalised under Himmler’s land planning laws. [33] The SS-owned Institute for the Study of Medicinal and Alimentary Plants, (ISMAP) was an SS owned research organisation where German scientists, physicians, botanists, and chemists conducted research into medicinal properties of plants and many other agrarian experiments. An experimental farm called “Plantage” was based in the surrounding fields of the Dachau death camp and was the brainchild of Himmler but operated by ISMAP.

Marcus J. Smith, a US military doctor who was assigned to Dachau after it was liberated, was told by the former inmates that:

“… many ambitious projects were undertaken, such as the production of artificial pepper, the evaluation of seasoning mixtures, the extraction of Vitamin C from gladioli and other flowers, the potentiation of plant growth by hormone-enriched manure, and of most importance to Germany, the development of synthetic fertilizer. As a profitable side-line, garlic, malva, and other medicinal plants, and vegetable seeds, were cultivated by the prisoners and then sold; the profits went to the SS.” [34]

Other experimental farms were set up at Auschwitz concentration camp and Mauthausen concentration camps in Austria where experiments were conducted by the SS on different kinds of diets including “famine experiments” on Russian POWs. [35]

In 1935, Himmler, founded the Nazi think-tank Ahnenerbe to “study society for Intellectual Ancient History.” The goal was to find confirmation of the myths and philosophies relating to the Aryan race and Nordic populations from an anthropological and cultural perspective. With Himmler’s fascination with the Catharism, Norse mythology and the Knights Templars it led him to expend time and money attempting to uncover many of the alleged secrets behind the legends of the Holy Grail. Indeed, many voyages to a variety of destinations across the globe were carried out and funded by the SS. Among a handful of founding members included SS-Obergruppenführer Richard Walther Darré, Reich Minister of Food and Agriculture, animal breeder and one of the leading promoters of Nazi “blood and soil” ideology.

As a young man Darré was another Völkisch acolyte who joined the Artaman League, the same back-to-the-land movement of which Himmler was a member. This eventually led him to concoct the theory that the future of the Nordic race was deeply connected to soil and which subsequently led to “Blut and Boden” or the “Blood and Soil” meme. According to Nazi ideology, while the relationship to the environment over time becomes embedded in the consciousness of the dweller and vice versa, Germans, due to their Nordic ancestry had a peculiar, almost mystical connection to the land. German soil was sacred, in direct opposition to the “wandering Jew.” Nordicism or “Nordic Theory” claims that a Nordic race, within the greater Caucasian race constituted a master race, and it is this ethnic purity that Darré believed could be found once again.

330px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_119-2179,_Walter_Richard_Darré

Richard Walther Darré, Reich Reichsminister of Food. “The unity of blood and soil must be restored” (photo: wikipedia)

“The unity of blood and soil must be restored” was a phrase that resonated throughout the Gothic halls of the Reich and came from Darré’s 1930 book called Neuadel aus Blut und Boden (A New Nobility Based On Blood And Soil) describing a systemic eugenics program partnered with careful environmental awareness which would clear up the problem of racial impurity and return Germany to its glorious ancient past. With a keen interest and training in farming, animal husbandry and breeding Darré merely adapted his knowledge into the human world and injected it with the usual racist ideology. Geo-political conquest was justified through: “The concept of Blood and Soil [which] gives us the moral right to take back as much land in the East as is necessary to establish a harmony between the body of our Völk and the geopolitical space.” [36]

He was also a fan of the theosophical offshoot of Anthroposophy established by Rudolf Steiner despite National Socialist ideologues being hostile to the movement. Unfortunately for Darré, anthroposophy considered “Blood, Race and Folk” as primitive instincts that must be overcome. [37] Clearly, this short-coming was not enough to quash his enthusiasm for anthroposophical principles with its emphasis on Nature, art, medicine and biodynamic agriculture all based on the theory that there is an unseen spiritual world comprising a variety of “subtle realms.” As bio-dynamic farming involved a holistic view of organic agriculture the rejection of chemical fertilisers and insecticides and by extension, the trappings of industrial capitalism it was tailor-made to elevate the mythical status of the German peasant and therefore be absorbed into Nazi ideology. Racial health and ecological sustainability would be assured. Darré even “… commissioned a top anthroposophist to start a bio-dynamic farm at Marienhole. [East Germany] The farm’s journal, Demeter, had the motto: “Health through Natural Living – Harmony between Blood, Soil and Cosmos.” [38]

The anthroposophist in question, Dr. Edhart Bartsch and his biodynamic farm was run by the research group “The Imperial Association for Biodynamic Agriculture” and was closely followed by Darré and another anthroposophical convert Rudolf Hess both of whom had substantial success in pioneering bio-dynamic principles and products. However, as anthroposophy was not following Nazi principles it was all wound up by 1941. [39] The large-scale organic farming methods and ecologically sound farming practices which Darré pioneered are still in evidence in Germany and much of Europe today.

It seems eco-fascism in Nazi ideology, while no means embraced by all, (Goebbels, Boorman, Speer) was nevertheless crucial in the implementation of Nazi designs. By using potent myths and archetypes of Nature and race which had particular appeal in the German psyche these acted as part of the moral imperative to save not just the German nation but the world. It became a mystical dogma of the most virulent kind hijacked by psychopaths happy to use any and all ideologies to manifest Pathocracy. On the one hand, you had uniforms and jackboots, on the other, a symbolic return to green wellies and haystacks. Manly blond, blue-eyed Supermen working in the fields in manly union; the conservation of nature and animal husbandry on the one hand and on the other: the systematic destruction of land and people if they did not conform. It was a mass psychosis predicated on preference for ideals which have very little to do with objective reality. These are the same influences at work today the only difference being that they are more subtle and sophisticated in their manifestations.

The ideological marriage between National Socialism, nature conservation, ecology and green issues is a cast iron one. Fascism goes hand in hand with green issues and as such we need to be more prudent when those issues become politicised by any one organisation or grouping. The Nazis were a huge, technicolor warning to that end.

Once you had a confluence of Social Darwinism, politics, a green culture and occult ideology which busily distorted an otherwise healthy attention to nature then it is inevitable that it would continue to be used as a pretext for many other directives for social control. “The Natural Order” would be synonymous with a “New World Order” where “scientific technique” of race-biology would force man into their “natural” roles. Or, in the words of the National Socialist Teachers Association: “National Socialism is politically applied biology.”  [40]

 


Notes

[1] Vitalism. In E. Craig (Ed.), William Bechtel and Robert C. Richardson, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge, 1998 | http://www.mechanism.ucsd.edu/teaching/philbio/vitalism.htm
[2] Liu, J.; Dietz, Thomas; Carpenter, Stephen R.; Folke, Carl; Alberti, Marina; Redman, Charles L.; Schneider, Stephen H.; Ostrom, Elinor et al. (2009). “Coupled human and natural systems”. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 36.
[3] Blood and Soil, Richard Walter Darre and Hitler’s ‘Green Party’, Published by Kensall Press, Buckinghamshire, 1985 | Ecology in the 20th Century, A History, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1989 | The Fading of the Greens, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1994 | All by Anna Bramwell.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] ‘Fascist Ecology: The ‘Green Wing’ of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents’ By Peter Staudenmaier taken from Eco-Fascism: Lessons from the German Experience. By Janet Beihl and Peter Staudenmaier. 1995. Published by AK Press. | ISBN 1-873176 73 2. | http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html
[8] Mosley’s name can be seen in a list of Fabians from Fabian News and Fabian Society Annual Report 1929–31.
[9] p.44; Mosley By Nigel Jones, Published by Lite & Times Haus Publishing, 2004 | ISBN-10: 1904341098
[10] Sir Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists by Robert Edwards, Published by League Enterprises, 2002. (introduction) | http://www.oswaldmosley.net/rome-revisited-1933.php
[11] p.64; Very Deeply Dyed in Black: Sir Oswald Mosley by Graham Macklin, Published by I.B.Tauris, 2007. | ISBN-10: 1845112849
[12] R. More-Collyer, ‘Towards “Mother Earth”: Jorian Jenks, Organicism, the Right and the British Union of Fascists’, Journal of Contemporary History, 2004, (p.39)
[13] op. cit. Macklin (p.64)
[14] Ibid. (p.65)
[15] p.6; Rolf Gardiner: Folk, Nature and Culture in In Interwar Britain by Matthew Jefferies, Mike Tyldesley2011 | ISBN-10: 1409412040
[16] op. cit. Bramwell, Ecology, (p. 173-4)
[17] ‘Henry Williamson: Nature’s Visionary’ by Mark Deavin, National Vanguard Magazine, Number 117 March-April 1997.
[18] Ibid.
[19] “The Gaia theory was developed in the late 1960’s by Dr. James Lovelock, a British Scientist and inventor, shortly after his work with NASA in determining that there was probably no life on Mars. The theory gained an early supporter in Lynn Margulis, a microbiologist at the University of Massachusetts. […] “The Gaia Theory posits that the organic and inorganic components of Planet Earth have evolved together as a single living, self-regulating system. It suggests that this living system has automatically controlled global temperature, atmospheric content, ocean salinity, and other factors, that maintains its own habitability. In a phrase, “life maintains conditions suitable for its own survival.” In this respect, the living system of Earth can be thought of analogous to the workings of any individual organism that regulates body temperature, blood salinity, etc. So, for instance, even though the luminosity of the sun – the Earth’s heat source – has increased by about 30 percent since life began almost four billion years ago, the living system has reacted as a whole to maintain temperatures at levels suitable for life.”- http://www.gaiatheory.org/synopsis.htm
[20] ‘Living with Nature’ by Edward Goldsmith, The Ecologist July 1, 1970 (www.edwardgoldsmith.org/)
[21] p.5; The Conquest Of Nature: Water, Landscape, and the Making of Modern Germany, by David Blackbourn, Published by Pimlico, 2007 | ISBN-10: 0712667261
[22] ‘Politics, planning and the protection of nature: Political abuse of early ecological ideas in Germany, 1933–45’ by Gert Gröninga & Joachim Wolschke‐Bulmahna Planning Perspectives Volume 2, Issue 2, 1987.
[23] Peter Staudenmaier Quoting from Heinz Haushofer, Ideengeschichte der Agrarwirtschaft und Agrarpolitik im deutschen Sprachgebiet, Band II, München, 1958, (p. 266).
[24] Hitler Speech, Völkischer Beobachter, 11 November 1931.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27] op.cit; Staudenmaier.
[28] p.107;The Environmental Movement in Germany: Prophets and Pioneers, 1871–1971 by Raymond H. Dominick III Indiana University Press, 1992.
[29] op.cit. Bramwell; Ecology (p. 197-8)
[30] pp 182-190; Goring, a Biography, by David Irving. Published William Morrow and Co., New York, 1989.
[31] Himmler’s Crusade: The True Story of the 1938 Nazi Expedition into Tibet.by Christopher Hale, London: Transworld Publishers | ISBN 0-593-04952-7.
[32] op. cit. Bramwell, Blood and Soil (p. 132-8)
[33] op. cit. Bramwell, Ecology, (p. 202-4) | 0p. cit. Bramwell, Blood and Soil (p.132-38)
[34] ‘Work in the Dachau camp’ http://www.scrapbookpages.com
[35] ‘Using Science For The Greater Evil,’ Newsweek, Dec 1, 2003.
[36] op. cit. Janet Biehl, Peter Staudenmaier (p.19).
[37] Report of the SD-Hauptamtes Berlin: “Anthroposophy”, May 1936, BAD Z/B I 90.
[38] op. cit. Bramwell, Blood, (p. 203).
[39] http://www.demeter.net/ | “Biodynamic Agriculture: The Journey from Koberwitz to the World, 1924-1938”, By John Paul, Journal of Organic Systems, 2011, 6(1):27-41.
[40] Hans Schemm, Founder and Head of the National Socialist Teachers Association from Ernst Haeckel’s The History of Creation. 2 vols. (New York: D. Appleton, 1876), vol. I, p. 11.

World State Policies X: MONSANTO and Seeding the Future

“The hope of the industry is that over time the market is so flooded [with GMOs] that there’s nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender”

– Don Westfall, biotech industry consultant and vice-president of Promar International, in the Toronto Star, January 9 2001.


monsanto11

                       VISTOENLAWEB.ORG

With its astonishingly aggressive lobbying and ruthless application of gene technology, the Monsanto Corporation lies at the top of the GMO pile. if ever there was a psychopath in corporate form, Monsanto fits the bill. As the largest producer of glyphosate herbicides, Monsanto’s most popular brand, “Roundup” has proved to be a health hazard for humans and animals and just about any sentient being unfortunate enough to come into contact with its mass spraying. The Environmental Protection Agency has officially stated that Monsanto is a “potentially responsible party” for 56 contaminated sites in the United States.

Not content with routinely damaging the health of its employees or residents living nearby, the company was involved in yet another controversy when introduced recombinant Bovine somatotropin (rBST), a synthetic hormone injected into cows to increase milk production. Unfortunately for Monsanto there were substantial side effects for humans, including the reduction of natural defences against cancer. [1]Cows became seriously ill with various diseases most notably mastitis, an infection of the udder which contaminates milk with pus. It was found that the unnatural increase in milk production at the expense of the cow’s health was ultimately passed on to the consumer along with the high level of antibiotics inflicted on the cows in order to combat the original side-effects. Before selling the operation, it did not stop the company from conducting a large-scale lobbying campaign to prevent labelling of rBST milk which was largely successful.

Phil Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications summed up the regulatory ethos in 1998: “Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is FDA’s job.” And when the Food and Drug Administration has been holding hands with Monsanto throughout its career of maximizing profits over people, this statement amounts to nothing more than callous irresponsibility. [2]

With its legendary history of environmental pollution and such heart-warming products as defoliate Agent Orange in the Vietnam War, the manufacturing of DDT and widespread innovation in plastics and subsequent spread of PCBs, Monsanto feels right at home when virgin forests need clearing and indigenous peoples require to be forcibly removed if the bribes prove ineffectual. The soya bean crops can and will be planted, come what may. The dominant types of GM foods as transgenic plant products include corn, canola, rice, and cotton seed oil, all of which Monsanto produces, distributes and directs according to a military-evangelical blend of national and international lobbying. Argentina was an early target of the GMO junta and represents a classic case-study of geo-political strategy working in unison with government and agribusiness’ interests. The soya bean has radically changed socio-economic and environment of the country. The displacement of other forms of often natural crop cultivation, pasture-based cattle ranching and the destruction of virgin forests and grasslands continues apace, with China and Europe benefitting from its substantial exports.

Economically, the divide between the rich and poor always becomes more pronounced when mass farming is introduced. Argentina has seen hundreds of thousands of workers forced off the land and a rise in poverty and malnutrition since the imposition and subsequent dependency on the soya bean. According to official statistics: “20.6 percent of Argentina’s 38 million people are poor. But in the North Eastern region, where soy is king, 37 percent are below the poverty line, and 13.6 percent live in absolute poverty, unable to feed themselves properly.” [3]

individual_monsanto_federal_position-largeThe revolving door of individuals working for Monsanto and Federal government (click on the image to enlarge) Source: http://occupy-monsanto.com/

Back in the mid-1970s Kissinger, as a Rockefeller provocateur, had considerable experience in fermenting dissent in other countries. Chile had been a textbook case of black operations let loose against a democratically elected leader and replaced with General Pinochet’s brand of fascism. According to declassified US State Department documents released years after the event, the same formula was envisaged for Argentina in a 1976 meeting between Argentine Foreign Minister, Admiral Cesar Guzzetti; Rockefeller’s political go-between vice-president Nelson Rockefeller and Kissinger as Secretary of State. Author F. William Engdahl notes: “Rockefeller even suggested specific key individuals in Argentina to be targeted for elimination. At least 15,000 intellectuals, labor leaders and opposition figures disappeared in the so-called ‘dirty war.’ ” [4]

Argentina began its trade in slavery and an increase in minority wealth and social divisions. With the help of foreign investment and support from Monsanto and the big six grain conglomerates such as Cargill, wealthy landowners worked to erode traditional workers’ rights and grab as much extra land as they could. Upwards of 200, 000 rural famers and their families have been displaced from generationally owned land, inevitably finding themselves destitute or living hand to mouth on the outskirts of cities or in slum areas. Prior to Wall St. and their banking families descending on Argentina, it enjoyed one of the highest living standards in Latin America. In fact, Soy is now the main export of the nation, amounting to one-third of the country’s total exports. [5]

Both in Latin America and the USA, Monsanto is now able to hold farmers to ransom by forcing them to sign binding contracts where they must agree not to re-use saved seeds. They must also pay new royalties to Monsanto every year. The fact that farmers have been working the land for thousands of years with their own seeds provided by Nature, free of charge is a minor quibble for the corporation and its shareholders. Despite most of the world’s farmers being too poor to afford the company’s GMO license and various other seed fees, most fall under Monsanto’s targeted multi-million marketing and live to bitterly regret it. Such a system is another manifestation of the neo-feudalism so favoured amongst the Establishment. Seeds have become an intellectual property and by extension, the genetic source of Nature as patent.

With the advent of soya bean monoculture and mass farming techniques comes the intensive use of agrichemical herbicides and pesticide, and preferably for Monsanto, their favourite and highly toxic “Round up.” Ironically, parallel to much lower yields with Roundup crops compared to traditionally grown soya, health issues for rural communities, farmers and animals soared as a result of constant exposure to the spraying crops increased. They found their own natural food cultivation destroyed by the chemicals not having the built-in gene resistance found in the large Monsanto designed soya bean crops.

In 2002, it was found by the UK’s Cropscience company that chicken fed glucosinate-tolerant GM maize Chardon LL were twice as likely to die prematurely than chickens in the control group. And from the same year up to 2005, four Italian universities published articles revealing adverse effects from GM soya which targeted pancreatic, hepatic (liver) and testicular cells in young mice. [6]

In 2005 and 2006, the Russian Academy of Sciences conducted an experiment on female rats fed with glyphosate-tolerant GM soya and reported that the female rats produced an excessive number of stunted pups, over 50 percent of them dying within three weeks and the other half, sterile. Accusations of faulty data could not be levelled at the experiment as it was repeated many times with the same result. [7]

Many more studies have not only shown the toxic effects on plants and animals but the economic and environmental unsustainability of herbicide and pesticide use. As the top-soil becomes essentially burned away, more and more agrichemicals are needed to maintain a false fertility derived from a dying soil and zombie crops saturated with chemicals. This inevitably leeches into the animal and human food chain adding to the concern of health issues and the already questionable nature of GMOs themselves. Meanwhile, great profits continue to accrue for the CEOs and their shareholders safely tucked away behind their boardroom desks, buffered from the carnage of the ecological and socio-economic disaster that claims the most vulnerable, a dynamic which has continued to characterise large-scale GMO cultivation.

As F. William Engdahl observes, the consequences for the environment and human health remain worrying:

“By 2006, together with the United States, where GMO Monsanto soybeans dominated, Argentina and Brazil accounted for more than 81 percent of world soybean production, thereby ensuring that practically every animal in the world fed soymeal was eating genetically engineered soybeans. Similarly, this would imply that every McDonald’s hamburger mixed with soymeal would be genetically engineered, and most processed foods, whether they realized or not.” [8]

With the help of WTO sanctions, strong-arm tactics of companies like Monsanto and the background support of a Washington Government firmly on board, the ambitious objective of controlling the world’s food supply by seeding every country with GM crops is well underway. In 2002, aid agencies were instructed by the US State Department to take their orders from the government agency USAID and to:

“… immediately report to them any opposition in a recipient country, to GMO food imports. They were told to collect documentation to determine if the anti-GMO attitude of the local government was ‘trade or politically motivated’ If they determined it was trade motivated, the US Government had recourse to the WTO or to the threat of WTO sanctions against the aid recipient country, usually an effective warning against poor countries.” Even emergency famine relief aid came in the form of: “… genetically modified US surplus commodities, a practice condemned by international aid organizations, as it destroyed a country’s local agricultural economy in the process of opening new markets for Monsanto and friends.”

In the same vein, the cosy relationship between agri-business, GMO firms and the US State Department and its agencies is obvious when food aid organisations ship only grain that has been provided by USAID – and that meant only genetically modified US grain. [9]

In the late 1980s and 1990s Monsanto’s gene technology produced a breakthrough which would enforce the rights of the company’s gene patents and fees. It was a chilling development in biotechnology fittingly named “Terminator” where the seeds would be genetically modified to “terminate” themselves after just one harvest season. A toxin was released before the seed ripened which caused the plant embryo to die. This meant that the thousand year old tradition of saving of seeds for the next harvest would become illegal under agribusiness.

The Terminator seeds or patented ‘suicide’ seeds, officially termed GURTs (Genetic Use Restriction Technologies) hark back to a project more than twenty years old as part of the early experiments in genetic engineering. By 1998 the US Patent Office had granted joint ownership to US Dept. of Agriculture and the Delta & Pine Land Company for ‘Control of Plant Gene Expression’ Patent No. 5,723,765. [10]

In the official D&PL SEC filing it states:

“The patent broadly covers all species of plant and seed, both transgenic (GMO-ed) and conventional, for a system designed to allow control of progeny seed viability without harming the crop’. […] ‘One application of the technology could be to control unauthorized planting of seed of proprietary varieties … by making such a practice non-economic since non-authorized saved seed will not germinate, and, therefore, would be useless for planting.” With almost salacious anticipation: “the prospect of opening significant worldwide seed markets to the sale of transgenic technology in varietal crops in which crop seed currently is saved and used in subsequent seasons as seed.” [11]

The company is clearly saying that dis-empowering farmers is economically viable by preventing any escape from the GM juggernaut once it has duped its passengers into hitching a ride. It is a disturbing declaration of intent and planning which has been pressing ahead since the first GM trials back in 1982.

fluorescentTobaccoA second generation of Terminator technology was developed at the end of the 1990s called T-GURT seeds, or Trait Genetic Use Restriction Technologies. Otherwise known as the ‘Traitor’ process the plant’s fertility and its genetic characteristics can be controlled by the introduction or restriction of a chemical inducer, rather like a light switch which could be turned on or off depending on what you wanted the plant to do. It was cheaper and less complicated to produce than Terminator seeds. Tied to the agrichemicals, it was potentially a big bonanza with total control over what the farmer could and couldn’t do, charging him every step of the way. Of course, the gene resistance to certain pests would be provided by Monsanto or Syngenta who held the patent rights. You wanted your GM crops to flourish then you had to pay. If farmers tried to buy “illegal seeds” from other sources then the chemical compound needed to turn on the resistance gene would be missing. As with any commercialisation and consolidation process, more farmers in the developing world needed to be “persuaded” to climb aboard and the big companies were not afraid of using the tactics of bribery, coercion, and illegal smuggling.

The health issues still loom large in Monsanto’s continuing fortunes. For instance, in 2003, the company’s Bt maize hybrid left five Pilipino villagers dead and many seriously ill. They tested positive for antibodies to the Bt protein. [12]  The Law of Unintended consequences frequently arrives in the absence of humility. As many experts have warned, the rise of superbugs and their ability to adapt in response to highly synthetic crops and their chemicals was inevitable. A research paper published in the latest issue of the journal GM Crops & Food [13]detailed the problems from the Western corn rootworms which have been busily munching their way through genetically modified maize. A 2010 sample of the rootworm population had “… an eleven-fold survival rate on the genetically modified corn compared to a control population.” Strong resistance to GM corn is becoming the norm. As farmers become dependent on GM crops the outlook is bleak for both agriculture and consumers. Adaptation, resistance and increasing recovery rates amongst the burgeoning population of super-bugs means ultimately the poor and vulnerable and the burgeoning global middle-class will foot the bill, not just for corn which has become a vitally important derivative product, but for a range of foodstuffs and consumables in general.

The drop in GM crop yields will continue just as many farmers continue to plant, while receiving very little in return and where rising costs outweigh the perceived benefits. As food prices steadily rise in response to yet another manipulated economic downturn, Elite families like the Rockefellers are not remotely concerned. After all, they sell organic food and non-GMO food in their various cafeterias and conference venues, [14]so why should they be concerned about their agri-engineering of the world’s populations if it gives them a good return on their money and reduces the population growth that much more?

This hypocrisy gives the global population two forced choices: eat poisoned GM foods or die of starvation.

The Obama Administration carried on the tradition of staying snug and warm in the corporate pocket as the above diagram illustrates. To that end, bought-and-paid-for Congress happily allowed their puppet president to sign into law the Agriculture Appropriations Bill 2013. This effectively gave immunity from prosecution for agri-business, which means MONSANTO has a free reign to do as it pleases.

Rows of a Carrot Field

As we have seen so far in this series,  the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Population Council, the World Bank and the UN Development Program and their close working relationship with the WHO banded together to introduce covert sterilisation programs using vaccinations. Lest we think that the merging of birth control and eugenics is just paranoid ramblings of researchers with too much time on their hands, keep in mind the sources behind the genetic engineering and biotechnology are not necessarily those who work within these fields. It then becomes easier to determine which direction humanity is being led.

Transgenic plants have already taken on frog and fish genes but in the context of birth control the Rockefeller passion for a depopulated world, the geneticists have been busy bees. Take Epicyte in San Diego for example, which held a press conference in 2001 to make an announcement about its work stating:

“Epicyte reported that they had successfully created the ultimate GMO crop-contraceptive corn. They had taken antibodies from women with a rare condition known as immune infertility, isolated the genes that regulated the manufacture of those infertility antibodies, and, using genetic engineering techniques, had inserted the genes into ordinary corn seeds used to produce corn plants.” [15]

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is another media darling that has rode the wave of philanthropy and praise while concealing its real agenda. While anthropogenic global warming (AGW) (rather than Climate change) is fast being seen for what it truly is: a politically driven power-grab, this apparently escaped the notice of the billionaire in his TED talk of 2010 where he followed the Al Gore (Goldman Sacs) propaganda of CO2 emissions as the global culprit for ensuing global catastrophe. Eager to show his depopulation credentials by highlighting dire projections of a global population at 9 billion by 2050, he made this curious comment early on in the talk: “… if we do a really great job on vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps about 10 to 15 percent.” It is here we see that Bill has enthusiastically bought into the Elite nonsense and has put his money where his misinformed mouth is by pledging $10 billion for vaccines in order: “… to fight disease among the “world’s needy children.” [16] That is an extraordinarily large sum by anyone’s standards and truly admirable if it is founded on real science and long-term beneficial effects.

Unfortunately, neither of those possibilities is likely to be true.

billgates

Bill Gates

Bill Gates is famous for his relentless drive and constant activity. He is the CEO of the Microsoft Corporation representing one of the most all-encompassing monopolies on earth. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have used an almost inconceivable amount of dosh dispensed to needy causes around the world. It also helps that multibillionaire Warren Buffet added to the already blistering endowment total of $34.6 billion with a gift of a further $30 billion dollars’ worth of shares in one of his businesses which no doubt made Bill & Belinda supremely happy.

Apart from Gates’ chosen ignorance and/or indifference regarding the toxic health effects and long-time propaganda relating to GM foods and their use and distribution, vaccines are still Gate’s number one passion. His foundation decided to commission Japanese scientists to make another whacky vision a reality by engineering vaccines into mosquitoes that will deliver the inoculations through their bite. Bill & Melinda had stalwart support and involvement from the World Health Organisation, The PEW Charitable Trusts, and government agencies in the United States, England and Malaysia. They secured the development and promotion of the GM mosquitoes under the pretext of eradicating Dengue fever which was virtually non-existent until it suddenly popped up in Florida just after the genetically-modified vaccine carrying mosquitos was released. [17]In truth, GM mosquitos were released into the environment in the Cayman Islands in 2009 but the CIA sponsored experiments in bio warfare had been using mosquitoes in Florida for several decades so it was no surprise to find Dengue fever conveniently appearing to support Bill and Melinda’s quest for mass vaccination and the depopulation they so earnestly seek.[18]

Where Rockefeller’s and Gates’ visions really fuse is through the little known project that has been quietly carrying out its operations in the remote location of Svalbard, Spitsbergen, on the Barents Sea near the Arctic Ocean.

It was claimed by Norway without much fuss in 1925 because no one really wanted it. Nonetheless, on this barren outcrop of rock inside the mountain lies the “doomsday seed bank” or more officially known as the Svalbard Global Seed Vault where a motley crew of Monsanto, the Syngenta and Rockefeller foundations and Bill Gates have been investing millions; squirreling away different varieties of seeds from all over the world, ‘so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future,’ according to the Norwegian government. [19] They have the capacity to store more than 3 million seeds tucked safely away from whatever catastrophe they envisage befalling the Earth’s environment. As F. William Engdahl not unreasonably, asks: “What future do the seed bank’s sponsors foresee, that would threaten the global availability of current seeds, almost all of which are already well protected in designated seed banks around the world?” [20]

Up until 1998, Margaret Catley-Carlson was working for John D. Rockefeller’s Population Council (the eugenics inspired front for “family planning and sterilisation) and now chairs the Rome-based Global Crops Diversity Trust (GCDT) founded by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and Bioversity International (formerly the International Plant Genetic Research Institute), a branch of the CGIAR. Other GCDT members read like an Elite encyclopaedia of Establishment insiders from the weapons industry to Hollywood, biotech companies to bankers, all of whom share the same entropic perception of reality that hasn’t changed for two hundred years. With such rampant colonisation of the developing world; ecologically disastrous consequences from invasive technology like Terminator and Traitor; the death of traditional farming practices and the fake harvest gains they engender, the construction of the Doomsday Seed Vault surely raises urgent questions as to its true nature. It represents a significant biotechnology resource in combination with other seed banks around the world, all of which are owned and run by the same six agribusiness partnerships and their affiliated think-tanks and top-tier organisations. The Svalbard seed vault has the capacity to house over 4.5 million seeds, but to what end?

frohvelv_svalbard_Svalbard Global Seed Vault (left) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation HQ (right)

When you have the likes of Bill Gates, Dupont, Monsanto, Syngenta and the Rockefellers getting together for a joint venture you can be sure that it is most certainly not for altruistic reasons but to make a big, fat profit. However, they are not just in it for the money. On the one hand, the “Green Revolution” and the monoculture expansion continue to make inroads into Africa while on the other, they preserve seed diversity in a “doomsday vault.”

Is it not chilling that the guardians of this seed diversity are corporations and foundations pushing for a biotechnological free-for-all with a history of rapacious corporate predation and the funding of social control and eugenics?

***

The nature of psychopaths in power demands the introduction of long-term ideas that facilitate the reduction and dilution of the global population. Social dominators and authoritarian personalities are attracted to romantic notions of a World State and a neo-feudalism in order to maintain Elite bloodlines. Is it possible that eugenic beliefs of Anglo-Saxon superiority and various military-corporate-occult machinations are a cover for the mass culling and manipulation of “normal people” in favour of psychopathic dominance? This obsession with genetically altering nature has a variety of disturbing off-shoots in this context.

If we cast our eye back to the discussion of Israeli ethnic specific weaponry, the advances in genetic bio-warfare and interest in eugenics and place this in context of population reduction, is it really so far-fetched to expect that genetically modified crops may serve a more sinister purpose at the very top of this agricultural pyramid? A book called BattleField of the Future has a chapter written by Lt. Col. Robert P. Kadlec, USAF entitled: “Biological Weapons for Waging Economic Warfare.” Kadlec refers to cost effective and economically viable nature of biological weapons and warfare (BW) stating: “Not only is BW more affordable, but militarily significant quantities of BW agents (kilograms) in legitimate biological laboratories make BW production easy to accomplish and conceal. Any nation with a moderately sophisticated pharmaceutical industry can do so.” He then remarks on GMO-based biological weapons of mass destruction, the use of which: “… under the cover of an endemic or natural disease occurrence provides an attacker the potential for plausible denial. In this context, biological weapons offer greater possibilities for use than do nuclear weapons.” [21] Indeed, MIT biology professor Jonathan King says that the “… bio-terror programs represent a significant emerging danger to our own population,” adding: ‘while such programs are always called defensive, with biological weapons, defensive and offensive programs overlap almost completely.’ [22]

If we recall the Rockefeller history and Kissinger’s “Food as a weapon” politics and the US military fetish for bio-warfare then we must also entertain the probability that genetic engineering serves a variety of purposes all of which have nothing whatsoever to do with the betterment of humankind. If the spectre of bio-warfare and the weaponisation of food are part of the “invisible hand” of Pathocratic rule then we can expect a future planted with the same dark seeds.

There may be a further reason why the Elite are falling over themselves to eradicate a large quota of the population, build their bunkers and conserve various seed species. Do they have the inside knowledge that “something wicked this way comes”? The rise in cases of Ebola and various strains of Bubonic plague and the possibility of adaptive and muting strains may well indicate a strange confluence of natural occurrences and synthetic manipulation connected with the above bio-warfare. Further, if you are aware that the Earth endures terrain changes and cyclic catastrophes throughout its history with a similar cyclic manifestation of disease carried by cosmic harbingers such as comets and meteors, knowledge of such a confluence may be known by many at certain privileged levels. They may be at least partially aware of myth and science that tells us that we are way over due for another periodic of environmental and cosmological upheaval. Specific preparations would ensue, especially if you seek to retain control and protect your place at the top of the pyramid after the dust and ashes have settled.

Whatever the truth, it seems we won’t have too long to wait before we all find out.

In the next series of posts we will look into how the Establishment has co-opted environmentalism with special attention to the idea of eco-fascism and its traditional alignment to elite ideology.

——————

For news, resources and activism please visit:  monsantowatch.org

 


Notes

[1] Hankinson SE, Willett WC, Colditz GA, Hunter DJ, Michaud DS, Deroo B, Rosner B, Speizer FE, Pollak M (May 1998). “Circulating concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-I and risk of breast cancer”. Lancet 351 (9113): 1393–6. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)10384-1. PMID 9593409. / Pollak M (June 2000). “Insulin-like growth factor physiology and cancer risk”. Eur. J. Cancer 36 (10): 1224–8. DOI:10.1016/S0959-8049(00)00102-7. PMID 10882860. / Sandhu MS, Dunger DB, Giovannucci EL (July 2002). “Insulin, insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I), IGF binding proteins, their biologic interactions, and colorectal cancer”. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 94 (13): 972–80. DOI:10.1093/jnci/94.13.972. PMID 12096082.
[2] ‘Playing God in the Garden’. The New York Times by Michael Pollan October 25, 1998 The New York Times Magazine. p. Section 6; Page 44.
[3] ‘Soy – High Profits Now, Hell to Pay Later’ By Marcela Valente , Jul 29 , 2008 (IPS)
[4] op. cit. Engdahl (p.178)
[5] Javier Souza Casadinho, “Expansión de la soja en el Cono sur” (“Expansion of Soy in the Southern Cone”), Centro de estudios sobre tecnologías apropiadas de la Argentina Red de Acción en plaguicidas de América Latina (Center for the Study of Appropriate Technologies of Argentina, Pesticide Action Network Latin America) (Source Watch)
[6] GM Crops the Health Effects, The Soil Association 2007 | http://www.soilassociation.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=SqDvBO1pyEUpercent3D&tabid=390
[7] ‘Weaponized Food and Medicine is Bad for Your Health’ by Paul Fassa, Natural News, August 25, 2009 | http://www.naturalnews.com/
[8] op. cit. Engdahl (p.190)
[9] op. cit. Engdahl (pp.267-268)
[10] United States Patent 5,723,765 Oliver, et al. March 3, 1998: Oliver; Melvin John (Lubbock, TX), Quisenberry; Jerry Edwin (Idalou, TX), Trolinder; Norma Lee Glover (Quanah, TX), Keim; Don Lee (Leland, MS) Assignee: Delta and Pine Land Co. (Scott, MS) The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of (Washington, DC) Appl. No.: 08/477,559. http://patft.uspto.gov/
[11] op. cit. Fassa.
[12] Ibid
[13] ‘Western corn rootworm and Bt maize: Challenges of pest resistance in the field’ Volume 3, Issue 3 July/August/September 2012. Authors: Aaron J. Gassmann, Jennifer L. Petzold-Maxwell, Ryan S. Keweshan and Mike W. Dunbar. http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.20744
[14] ‘Gates and Rockefeller Cafeterias Reject Monsanto GE Foods 01 March 2012. | http://www.templestreamxangablog.com
[15] op. cit. Engdahal (p.270)
[16] ‘Gates’ Vaccine Boost’ UPI, Jan. 29, 2010.
[17] PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases – http://www.plosntds.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pntd.0001502
[18] ‘Viruses and the GM Insect “Flying Vaccine” Solution’ by Brandon Turbeville, Activist Post December 13, 2010
[19] ‘‘Doomsday Seed Vault’ in the Arctic – Bill Gates, Rockefeller and the GMO giants know something we don’t’ By F. William Engdahl Global Research, December 4, 2007.
[20] Ibid.
[21 Battlefield of the Future: 21st Century Warfare Issues Editors: Barry R. Schneider, Lawrence E. Grinter Revised Edition 1998. PDF http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/ Chapter 10 Biological Weapons for Waging Economic Warfare, Lt Col Robert P. Kadlec, MD, USAF (p.251).
[22] op. cit. Engdahl (Global Research)

Save

World State Policies IX: Food as a Weapon and GM Crops Unleashed

“If you control oil, you control nations. If you control food, you control people.”

– Henry Kissinger


henrykissinger“Food is power! We use it to change behaviour. Some may call that bribery. We do not apologize.” So said past Executive Director of the United Nations World Food Program, Catherine Bertini.

One can imagine that humility may be very low down on the list of qualities for a person voted “the most powerful woman in the world” by The Times of London newspaper in 1996. And by a spooky quirk of fate, Bertini is also a member of the Advisory Council at Rockefeller College on Public Affairs and Policy, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations and a Senior Fellow of the Rockefeller supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation. If her Elite membership doesn’t tell you all you need to know from the outset then her mentor Henry Kissinger will place her remarks in context.

One of a number of Elite pensioners who seem to live forever while avoiding any kind of accountability for their crimes, Kissinger is one of the most reviled and revered elder Statesman who has never left the political game. CEO of Kissinger Associates, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and a long-time Bilderberger, he is the public face of those who prefer to remain out of the spotlight. He has strong ties to the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), JP Morgan Chase Bank, the Rockefeller Foundation and is international advisor to the Hollinger Group. He has held many public office positions including Head of the State Department and National Security Council under Nixon in the late 1960s and early 70s. He received the Noble Peace Prize in 1973 despite being instrumental in creating the Vietnam and Yom Kippur war between Egypt / Syria and Israel.

henry_kissinger

Kissinger 1971 (wikipedia)

Kissinger’s presence has been around like a persistent stain on the carpet of US geo-politics since the 1950s and no matter what truth rises to the surface, the old man still appears on T.V. shows and gives authoritative interviews despite volumes of evidence for his crimes including conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, alleged child rape and torture. He encouraged the Kurds to take up arms against Saddam Hussein in 1972-75 and then abandoned them to a slow death; his participation in the promotion of South African apartheid; the destabilisation of Angola; the whitewashing of Central American death-squads; political protection for the Pahlavi dynasty in Iran and its system of torture and repression; the genocide of civilian populations in Indochina; the planning of the coup in Chile and the assassination of democratically elected President Salvador Allende and many other crimes extending to Bangladesh, Cyprus, East Timor, and Washington, D.C.

So, it was fitting that Kissinger would continue his crimes undetected by coming up with the policy to use food as a weapon. [1]

On Dec. 10, 1974, a 200 page classified study (later de-classified in the 1990s) was completed by the US National Security Council called: “National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.” Overseen by Kissinger, it landed on his desk for review and then on to President General Ford to be adopted as official policy in 1975.  The basic thrust of the study followed the same Malthusian line that population growth in developing countries was a threat to US National Security and therefore had to be curbed by overt and covert means. The former was to be birth control and the latter, the creation of war and famine. It just happened to neatly coincide with political and strategic interests which were underway in countries that were chosen for depopulation. These included: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Mexico, Brazil and Colombia. The power status of each of these countries could not be allowed to exceed the level that would put US interests at risk. The report stated: “Already the most populous country on the continent, with an estimated 55 million people in 1970, Nigeria’s population by the end of this century is projected to number 135 million. This suggests a growing political and strategic role for Nigeria, at least in Africa.” [2] Which certainly wouldn’t do since America had grand plans for an unimpeded resource grab. US economic dominance and population control strategies converge in the following paragraph:

The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries [see National Commission on Materials Policy, Towards a National Materials Policy: Basic Data and Issues, April 1972]. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States [3] [Emphasis mine]

Many, if not most of the problems now experienced in the developing world are a direct result of Western economic policy. Rockefeller Foundation, Planned Parenthood International and others were still busy in India pushing through birth control policies under threat of economic sanctions just as Kissinger was suggesting to withhold food supplies unless mass birth control became standard practice:

“There is also some established precedent for taking account of family planning performance in appraisal of assistance requirements by AID [U.S. Agency for International Development] and consultative groups. Since population growth is a major determinant of increases in food demand, allocation of scarce PL 480 resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production. In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion.” [4]

Spoken like a true Machiavellian. He continued:

“Mandatory programs may be needed and we should be considering these possibilities now,” adding: “Would food be considered an instrument of national power? … Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can’t/won’t control their population growth?” [5]

It was only in the late 1980’s that the Brazilian Ministry of Health began investigating reports of systematic sterilisation of Brazilian women and was amazed to find that: “… an estimated 44 percent of all Brazilian women aged between 14 and 55 had been permanently sterilized,” while older women had been sterilized fourteen years before at the start of the program. As they pursued their investigations various American and some Brazilian organisations and agencies were found to be involved including the US Pathfinder Fund, International Planned Parenthood Federation, the Association for Voluntary Surgical Contraception, Family Health International – all under the guiding hand of the US Agency for International Development (USAID). [6]

The NSSM 200 study allowed what was essentially a eugenics-based National Security policy for depopulation to secretly develop in third world countries enhancing and expanding the work already carried out by Rockefeller minions twenty years before. Using euphemisms such as “family planning” and “population explosion” the propaganda of imminent population growth tied to the availability of strategic minerals could advance world Establishment designs in a way that had not been possible before the Nixon-Kissinger double act.

Author on geopolitics F. William Engdahl wrote from his 2007 book Seeds of Destruction:

While arguing for reducing global population growth by 500 million people by the year 2000, Kissinger noted elsewhere in his report that the population problem was already causing 10 million deaths yearly. In short he advocated doubling the death rate to at least 20 million, in the name of addressing the problem of deaths due to lack of sufficient food. The public would be led to believe that the new policy, at least what would be made public, was a positive one. In the strict definition of the UN Convention of 1948, it was genocide. […]

Kissinger was, in effect, a hired hand within the Government, but not hired by a mere President of the United States. He was hired to act and negotiate on behalf of the most powerful family within the post-war US establishment at the time — the Rockefellers. [7]

The Rockefeller Foundation had already established itself as part of the factions behind post war Washington policy where oil, defence and global agriculture were all integral to the expansion of American hegemony. Or in Kissinger’s words: “If you control oil, you control nations. If you control food, you control people.” [8]

Food as a weapon is nothing new but the consolidation of this tactic has reached a degree of technological sophistication not seen for hundreds of years. By 1974, the biggest six companies controlling 95 percent of world food were (and still are) Cargill, Continental, Louis Dreyfus, Bunge, André, and Archer Daniels, Midland / Töpfer all of whom are spawned from an Anglo-Dutch-Swiss food cartel, though all based in the US.

Under the rationale of “efficiency” and “maximizing profit ratios” US agriculture policy drove hundreds of thousands of family farmers into bankruptcy in order to pave the way for the monolithic machine of agribusiness, where the remaining farmers would exist only as serfs to trans-national corporations’ production methods. William Pearce, Cargill’s vice-president of Public Affairs was instrumental in this domination. He was on President Nixon’s 1974 Committee for Economic Development and made sure that US trade policy would leave a clear run for American agrichemical business to monopolize the world market in seeds, pesticides and most importantly, genetically modified plants. From that moment on, corporations like Cargill and Archer Daniels would not only reorganize farming policy but work to create a new one.

cargill

Cargill food giant logo

All legislation regarding family farm protections were phased out in favour of a rapidly deregulated “free market.” Just like the 2008 financial warfare perpetrated by Goldman Sacs et al and the federally mandated use of billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money in bailouts, so too Nixon’s farming policy was to change the face of America and the very nature of food. Wall St. only saw dollar signs as the social fabric of farming was torn apart.

The net result of such a systematic grab for power meant that Third World countries were especially vulnerable to these predator corporations who wanted to divert all self-sufficient and sustainable operations into a long-distance relationship of dependency where only fruits, sugar, coffee and vegetables would feature. US grains and other products were offered in return for payment by exporting their fruit and vegetables. This was to be the open door to massive worker exploitation and the loss of domestic food production. It was to signal the arrival of huge fields with cheaper yields dependent on a host of chemical products while the local and often ancient farming practices either instantly died or were absorbed into mechanised and synthetic “efficiency.”

Rather than ensuring that local farmers could provide for their communities by planting high-protein/high calorie crops and even sell the excess abroad at competitive prices, corporations oversaw the rise of a New World of poverty and its underclass, comprehensively denying them the assistance and ability to become self-sufficient in a monopoly that was both ecologically damaging as it was extraordinarily myopic. Cheap imports devalued their economies whilst access to their land was denied. Ensuring healthy, local economies could prosper was never the objective of American agri-business. Exploitation and ruthless stripping of the land, culture and people was the only way forward to ensure maximum profits divorced from limitations, morals and values.

The infamous General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) underwent several incarnations before finally being replaced with the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1993, fully operational by 1995. During President Richard Nixon’s tenure and through the auspices of the GATT Toyko round he was able to give carte blanche to the new global agribusiness export agenda while ensuring that developing countries would never gain their own independent food production. Nixon proposed to Congress a new way of managing trade negotiations which were termed “fast track”, for which Congress had to vote “yes” or “no” on a particular trade agreement. All changes to U.S. law had to conform to its terms – without any amendments. This was typical of the Kissinger-Nixon tag team. Under fast track, not only had Congress to conduct a vote within a brief 60 to 90 days of the President’s submission of the agreement, but the subsequent debate had to be limited to 20 hours.

As Congress was effectively removed from the negotiation process this opened the way for Nixon’s idea for a system of advisory groups and think-tanks drawn from the private sector. These appointed groups have enormous power and influence. Closed to public scrutiny, the documents are confidential with security clearances in operation for representatives. Indeed, the documents themselves are virtually unreadable to any but the initiated. Independent presidential candidate and social activist Ralph Nader wrote: “Once the agreements are completed – or on those rare occasions when a draft of the agreements is “liberated” – any person who wants to figure out what the agreements say faces a Herculean task. The agreements are very complex and written in arcane, almost impenetrable technical jargon that bears only a passing resemblance to the English language.” [9]

richard-nixon-and-henry-kissinger-1972

Puppets & players on a mission: Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger 1972

This obfuscation is intentional. The last thing the high priests of unfettered corporatism want is for the public, media or any democratic body casting a curious eye over agreements which are inherently anti-human. The big transnational food corporations intend to keep the public ignorant of trade agreements and excluded from the approval process as they know full well that if they were cross-examined the practices would be seen for what they are – a product of unrestrained, cartel capitalism.

What is perhaps the most dangerous development is the use of genetically modified foodstuffs under the pretext of feeding the world’s poor which were made poor by the very same entities and for that very same purpose.

The success of the WTO was mainly down to the Cargill Corporation’s aggressive lobbying of Congress (otherwise known as mass-bribing) through the auspices of the influential Business Round Table group (An off-shoot of the Round Table of European Industrialists) which is an alliance of corporatists pushing for total deregulation of trade. In other words, limitless exploitation of the world’s resources without national borders or bureaucracy. This lobbying took the form of a WTO paper entitled: “The WTO Agreement on Agriculture” which was penned by a gaggle of corporate plunderers such as Cargill, Monsanto, DuPont, Nestlé, Unilever, and others. [10]Most of these companies had many thousands of patents on new trans-genic plants. It was to be a perfect platform for GMO companies like Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences, and Syngenta to merge their monocultures towards the 4Cs: commercialisation, consolidation and centralisation leading to absolute control of the world’s food and its destiny.

The WTO’s remit was to be primarily a global free trade enforcer, a supranational entity fuelled by the insatiable drive of agribusiness and therefore answerable only to private agribusiness companies. Lip-service was paid to the plaintive cries for accountability because it had real power compared to the less efficient GATT agreements of the past. That usually means if the socio-economic and GMO order is not adhered to, the WTO can levy financial penalties to keep countries in line with the agribusiness agenda. For that reason, the WTO was designed to be above the laws of nations, answerable to no public body beyond its own walls. As we shall see presently, this organisation was to be used as the primary means by which genetically modified food and crops would become dominant in the world agriculture market.

By the time the 1986 Uruguay round of GATT talks had arrived and after a successful dismantling of public health and safety provisions in the US and the onset of rapid financial deregulation care of the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, agribusiness was primed to road test its new WTO toy. World cereals and grain supplies, meat, dairy, edible oils and fats, sugar, fruits and vegetables and all forms of spices are controlled by these corporations which operate as a food cartel working in tandem with the various principles of World State visionaries. They can apply enormous pressure to the West and developing countries. In combination with financial warfare and the “shock doctrine”of the World Bank and IMF, infrastructure support and capital goods are routinely denied and so too the possibility for self-reliance and self-sufficiency if a country doesn’t wish to play the game of cartel economics.

Thanks to historic monopolies forged in the dim and distant past these corporations have had a progressively ruthless stranglehold on much of the third world. Most countries don’t have any choice but to import from the food cartel’s export regions or see their populations starve. The shocking disappearance of thousands of global farmers is testament to the power of the food cartel and the crucial part they play in the 4Cs.  $90 million in grants for molecular biology and genetic research were dispensed by the Rockefeller Foundation between 1932 -1957, excited at the prospect of seeing their passion for social engineering bolstered by these new fields of science. For the Rockefellers, eugenics was about to become turbo-charged with much greater advances in manipulating the human mind and body.

GMOslabelling

10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health

With the Rockefeller Foundation’s well-established web of micro-biologists and bio-technicians spanning the globe the next war against natural food and human health of the most vulnerable was to proceed. On December 9, 1959, with some extra support from the Ford Foundation and the Philippines government, the Rockefeller’s International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) was established. The Institute’s research headquarters are located on the University of the Philippines campus in Los Baos, south of the Philippine capital, Manila, the largest non-profit agricultural research centre in Asia. With offices in 11 other countries, agricultural research institutes, international development agencies, and philanthropic organisations recently celebrated its 50th anniversary with much back slapping and congratulations by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation who have continued to support its work with hefty donations.

With close ties to business, government and biotech industries in the Philippines, the Manila bulletin gushes about the influence of the Institute and lays out the philanthropic Rockefeller script we’ve come to know so well: “In the 50 years of IRRI, the institute’s work has helped feed much of the world’s population, reduce poverty and hunger, improve the health of rice farmers and consumers, and ensure that rice production is environmentally sustainable. IRRI’s high-yielding rice varieties have helped significantly increase world rice production, especially in Asia, saving millions from famine while protecting the environment and training thousands of researchers.” [11]

In fact, the above quote is a woeful misrepresentation of the big picture riding on the assumption that global monoculture farming methods have been a grand success for all concerned, rather than the obvious ecological and social disaster they truly are. Yet, still the Rockefeller Foundation and its enormous corporate and civil society connections thrives on its perceived innovation and philanthropy. The IRRI is major player in the corporate take-over of Asia and its food. Sustainability and assisting sections of the population living in poverty is just another cynical ruse, though many of those employed by these companies no doubt want to believe the fantasy.

Over several decades IRRI has genetically modified over 300 High Yielding Varieties (HYVs) and as Dr Richard Hindmarsh of the University of Queensland points out, prior to such attempts to improve on nature over 100,000 different rice varieties thrived in farmers’ fields. [12] Yet once agribusiness technology tore into natural crop diversity and the ecological balance which existed then it was not long before the natural varieties became extinct, often without seed documentation or collection. Once a monoculture dominates, their genetic uniformity is inherently weaker with increasing vulnerability to disease, pest invasions, biological stress and weed proliferation due to intensive fertiliser use. Intensive farming becomes a false economy since it cannot exist without the inflow of high quantities of pesticides, herbicides and the deployment of massive irrigation projects, all of which destroy communities and eventually the land.

riceRegarding the PR of high yields of rice, with expanding irrigated land and large-scale chemical fertiliser use, IRRI claims that there was significant increase from 2.3 percent per annum before 1964 to 4.5 percent between 1965 and 1980. However, as the Food Security Fact Sheet states, IRRI rice yields at their research farm actually decreased: “… at a rate of 1.25 percent per year from 1966 to 1987, a decline of 27.5 percent in 21 years. From 1966 to 1980, the yield from a variety named IR8 fell from 9.5 tons per hectare to about 2 tons per hectare while still receiving 120 kilograms of pure nitrogen fertilizer per hectare. Yet by 1990, IR8 and similar varieties were planted on about 80 percent of Philippine rice crop area.” [13]

Foundations and NGOs lay the groundwork for a new colonisation under the mantle of philanthropy, which is why IRRI’s annual reports from 1963-1982 show grants from a multitude of US and European chemical corporations from such as Monsanto, Shell Chemical, Union Carbide Asia, Bayer Philippines, Eli Lilly, Occidental Chemical, Ciba Geigy (later part of Novartis Seeds / Syngenta), Chevron Chemical, Upjohn, Hoechst, and Cyanamid Far East. [14] With bio-safety and regulatory frameworks still to be implemented or reinstated, this new form of monopoly is set to continue regardless of the consequences to ordinary people on the ground. Even IRRI’s host country the Philippines, has been importing increasing amounts of rice every year despite following IRRI’s programs with religious conviction. This is in part caused by geography and climate but the heavy use of insecticide and the resultant poor soil content also caused financial and health-related health problems for farmers, the effects of which were inevitably passed onto consumers.

Marketed and promoted by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations and their bid to gain control over the world’s rice supply and replace it with GM varieties, the IRRI was a big player in riding the mythological wave of this “Green Revolution” and the tag-line of “solving the world’s hunger problem.” A concentrated effort to neglect indigenous rice varieties with a proven high yield was put into action as the start of a multi-pronged campaign to push the developing world into the palm of biotechnology. [15] The IRRI; the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation; UN development Program; the World Bank and several other environmental and agribusiness organisations formed a global steering Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR) established in 1972. The much vaunted “success” of this Green Revolution was given a major thumb’s down by Philippines’ famers during a CGIAR Annual General Meeting in 2002 near the offices of IRRI. Demonstrations and street protests called for both institutions to be dismantled with statements decrying the record of the IRRI and CGIAR believing them to be “failed research institutions.” Farmers made it clear that they believed: “… a genuine, farmer-centred research institution should develop technologies that shall liberate farmers from dependence on any agro-chemical TNC [Trans-National Corp.] promote sustainable agriculture, conserve the environment, and protect the health of farmers.” [16]

One of the world’s leading experts on rice science Dr. R.H. Richaria, has been warning of the real nature of the “Green Revolution” since the 1980s. His concern over the severe disturbance of the agro-ecological balance has led to: “… intensive use of inputs such as genetically uniform seeds, fertilisers, pesticides, and water and energy, [which] certainly resulted in major environmental degradation, including salinity, soil erosion, desertification, chemical pollution of land and waterways, die-back, loss of crop diversity, and the turning of renewable resources, such as soil and water, into non-renewable resources.” [17]

gmoratios

Source: Issues Surrounding Genetically Modified (GM) Products’ by Subhuti Dharmananda, Ph.D., Director, Institute for Traditional Medicine, Portland, Oregon

The global farming revolution was part of an ambitious strategy to steer the world from agriculture towards agribusiness, with an exclusively GM-centred production line. A global concentration of hybrid seed patents would be in the hands of just a few seed companies. The in-built sell-by-date of these GM seeds meant that farmers were forced into a modern-day form of bonded labour from which it is almost impossible to escape.

The creation of vast tracts of land for the planting GM crops displaced many peasant families and communities who wound up in in the poorest parts of cities and therefore vulnerable to exploitation by those same companies who were always on the look-out for cheap labour. Moreover, developing nations were forced into debt to pay for the expensive technology that produced initially high yields only to rapidly fade in the middle to long-term thus becoming the hook to purchase more and more “add-ons” to sustain the fertility of soil and crops. Those who could not afford it had to borrow the money but with interest rates so high many peasant farmers lost their farms (and generations of farming history) to larger land-owners sponsored by trans-national companies. World Bank loans were easily extended while the banking cartels quite literally, had a field day.

The main task of CGIAR was to achieve excellence in the field of agronomy and agricultural science in general and to apply monoculture production back in the US and the developing world. From that blitzkrieg it laid the foundation for the “Green Revolution” which was in fact the pretext for the “Gene Revolution” and the distribution of GMO-based farming, riding on the wave of a deregulated free market. It followed the same 4Cs formula as John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil where the once the seed was planted and in the right way, it was just a matter of time before the planter could monopolise the whole garden and control the parameters of production so that they serve multiple objectives benefiting only the “Master.” Once families like the Rockefellers controlled the food supply they were able to extend their reach over a hundreds of companies and their subsidiaries in the supply line, from petroleum and agrichemicals to irrigation projects and food aid.

Behind this façade of helping the world’s poor quite apart from the obvious ecological and health dangers Rockefellers’ remit is to introduce the science of eugenics (social biology, Planned Parenthood etc.) through as many of societies’ domains as it can. Genetic modification of food is one such important spoke in the wheel. The food chain would be under corporate control matching the aspirations underpinning the human genome program.

Using the banner of a Green Revolution, the agri-chemical business has expanded into Africa courtesy of the Rockefellers and Bill & Melinda Gates foundation’s innocently named ‘The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa’ (AGRA). Its advisory board of directors is riddled with Rockefeller go-betweens such as Strive Masiyiwa, Board Chair (Rockefeller Foundation) Jeff Raikes, Co-Chair, Programs and Policy Committee, (Rockefeller Foundation); Judith Rodin, Co-Chair, Programs and Policy Committee (Rockefeller foundation); Akinwumi Adesina, Associate Director, (Rockefeller Foundation) Pamela K. Anderson, Director of the Agricultural Development Program, (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) [18]

Different name, same story.

Looking at the website you would be forgiven for thinking that so many happy, smiling faces denotes an agricultural future where all such agendas and drawbacks are fantasies of the pessimistic and deranged. Africans will be saved from their poverty by the goodness of a corporate West and their utopian world of hybrid seeds and high yields. That is, if you forget that a chemically saturated Africa and the diminishing returns of GM foods will mean that the long-term health and prosperity of Africa and its people is under question.

Amid the UN sex trafficking and abuse scandals Kofi Annan is no stranger to being used as an Establishment tool should the salary be sufficient. Annan’s job as Board Chair Emeritus of AGRA is to penetrate GM crops deep into the African heartland. Along with the geo-political shenanigans of AFRICOM, AGRA represents the same resource grabbing goals dressed up as agricultural emancipation. With the help of the World Bank, USAID, Monsanto, CGIAR member Syngenta AG of Switzerland, handsomely paid African scientists awash with sweeteners, incentives, sponsorships and initiatives, Africa’s governments are being seduced into accepting a New African Order of biotechnology.

logo

The GM crop leaders are presently the United States, Canada, India, Argentina, Brazil, and China. 1996 – 2006 saw the biggest leap in the production of genetically modified foodstuffs and crops with new countries signing up including South Africa, Paraguay, Uruguay and Australia. The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) has stated that the world’s farmers planted 148m hectares of genetically modified crops in 29 countries in 2009. The USA is the leader in GM cultivation at 66.8m hectares over 2 million more than the previous year. [19]

Brazil’s economic boom (and inevitable bust sometime in the future) has meant that Genetically Modified Organisms have been included in the ascent with some 10m hectares planted since 2008 overtaking Argentina as the second-biggest grower in 2010. By 2011, that had reached 303,000 km2. [20] 50 percent of GM crops grown worldwide were grown in developing countries, with the largest increase in Brazil in the same year. There has also been rapid and continuing expansion of GM cotton varieties in India since 2002 (Cotton is a major source of vegetable cooking oil and animal feed) with 106,000 km2 of GM cotton harvested in India in 2011.

By 2004, global GM crop acreage had hit the 167 million mark. By 2010, Latin America had been breached with Mexico, Chile, Colombia, Honduras and Costa Rica all yielding an average of 0.1 million hectares. Negligible but present nonetheless. Asia and Latin America are providing many hectares set aside for GM crops and associated biotechnology. The rise in GM farming is likely to increase year by year on these continents and in the developing world.

Agri-business makes the idea of choice a pipe dream. Soyabean crops have wreaked ecological destruction on much of Latin America producing huge profits for invested companies. Soya and herbicide resistant crops remain the most popular products that farmers ending up needing once stuck on the monoculture system. GM crop production is still not popular with Europeans due to an ethical and environmental reasoning which has expressed itself through an organised activist movement at local and national levels. Europe is also subject to clear restrictions on growing GM crops. Nevertheless, creeping acreage is appearing with GM maize production having taken place in Spain, Portugal, Germany and France and more recently in the Czech Republic, Sweden, Poland, Slovakia and Romania, all with an average of 0.1 million hectares. [21]

As Africa is invaded by Chinese, European and American corporations, so too the potential for GMOs to hitch a ride. Burkino Faso and Egypt are the latest victims (or innovators depending on your position) with Pakistan, the newly and conveniently “liberated” Myanmar and the Philippines following closely behind. [22] Iran climbed aboard in 2005.

See also:

Redesigning Nature

Update: Big Biotech’s big lie: National sciences group concludes GMOs do not increase crop production

 


Notes

[1] ‘The Case Against Henry Kissinger Part One The making of a war criminal’ by Christopher Hitchens
Harpers magazine, March 2001. | http://harpers.org/archive/2001/02/the-case-against-henry-kissinger-2/
[2] National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200) 1974.
[3] Ibid.
[4] ‘Kissinger’s 1974 Plan for Food Control Genocide,’ by Joseph Brewda, December 8, 1995 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
[5] Ibid.
[6] op. cit. Engdahl (p.53)
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid. (p.41)
[9] ‘The Globalisation Agenda – Grave New World – The Democracy Grab’ by Ralph Nader and Lori Wallach from The Case Against the Global Economy and For a Turn Towards the Local by E. Goldsmith and Jerry Mander – Sierra Club Books, 1991.
[10] http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/14-ag_01_e.htm
[11] ‘International Rice Research Institute celebrates its 50th Anniversary’ December 9, 2009, Manilla Bulletin.
[12] http://www.panap.net/docs/analysis/gerice.pdf
[13] Rice, Trade and Biotechnology in the Philippines by Steve Suppan Food Security Fact Sheet No. 5, September 1996.
[14] ‘Laying the Molecular Foundations of GM Rice Across Asia’
[15] IRRI powerbase.info.
[16] ‘Richaria’s study proves deliberate neglect of indigenous varieties’ by Bharat Dogra Leisa India Supplement December 1999.
[17] IRRI powerbase.info. dismantal IRRI / CGIAR.
[18] http://www.agra-alliance.org/
[19] Ibid.
[20] ‘The adoption of genetically modified crops – Growth areas’ Feb 23rd 2011, The Economist online.| ‘ISAAA Brief 43, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011’ By James C (2011). ISAAA Briefs. Ithaca, New York: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).
[21] Op. cit. The Economist
[22] Ibid.

Puppets & Players IX: The Rockefellers

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”

– David Rockefeller


The Rockefeller Foundation may be remembered as the primary financier of Alfred Kinsey’s “scientific” studies which helped to usher in massive changes to US and European society in the 1950s and 1960s. The much cultivated origins of their philanthropic deeds are still going strong in the form of the Rockefeller Foundation now based at 420 Fifth Avenue, New York City. However, the Rockefeller legacy has had more to do with public relations and the continuance of an ideological brand of corporatism than the official, mission “to promote the well-being of mankind throughout the world.” The dynasty has funnelled vast amounts of money into areas as diverse as construction, medical health, population sciences, agricultural and natural sciences, arts and humanities, social sciences, oil, education, economics, conservation and international politics, they have exacted an unparalleled influence over American society.

clip_image002

The Brothers Rockefeller (from left to right) are: David, the last surviving Grand-child of oil magnate John D. Rockefeller. Until recently he was Chairman of the Board of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Chase Manhattan Bank; Winthrop (deceased); John D. III (deceased) Nelson and Laurance. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF) was set up in 1940 to fund international, philanthropic endeavours. The Rockefeller Foundation has a more independent remit.

The Rockefeller family made its largest fortune in the oil business, primarily through their company Standard Oil during the late 19th and early 20th century. Their long financial association with the Chase Manhattan Bank and JP Morgan finally merged their interests to form JP Morgan Chase in 2009. Alongside Goldman Sacs, they profited hugely from the 2008 financial warfare that consolidated and centralised their global wealth into trusted mergers. No one knows the combined wealth of the family’s assets and investments but with the backing of the Rothschilds since the days of Milner and the Round table, it is likely to be very much more than substantial.

The same old boys’ network is in evidence within the banking fraternities from whom the Rockefellers extract maximum financial dividends traditionally passed only to male family members. Shares in the successor companies to Standard Oil, real estate holdings and many other diversified investments are overseen by a hand-picked and powerful trust committee headed by a revolving door of high-profile individuals drawn from Wall St., commerce and academia. A whole team of professional money managers are employed to look after the principal holding company, Rockefeller Financial Services which falls into five main branches:

  • Rockefeller & Co.
  • Venrock Associates (Venture Capital)
  • Rockefeller Trust Company (Managing hundreds of family trusts)
  • Rockefeller Insurance Company (Managing liability insurance for family members)
  • Acadia Risk Management (Insurance Broker for the art collections, real estate and private planes.)

The total philanthropic donations from two generations of the family amounted to over $1 billion from 1860 to 1960. In November 2006, the New York Times reported that the present family patriarch David Rockefeller and his total charitable benefactions amount to about $900 million over his lifetime. [1] That’s an extraordinary figure. However, the question of whether the philanthropy was (and is) an unsullied wish to assist mankind or merely another manipulative mask in a box of corporate tricks could be argued long into the night. True philanthropy is surely unconditional and without an agenda of any kind. Everything the Rockefellers do has its origins in the desire to shape humanity’s development towards its own perception of reality. As author and journalist Gary Allen observed in his book The Rockefeller File: “By the late nineteenth century, the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood that the most efficient way to gain a monopoly was to say it was for the ‘public good’ and ‘public interest.’” [2]History shows this to be the case so we can logically assume that the legacy of philanthropy has been extremely successful in offering a cover for their less well known activities throughout American and British socio-cultural change.

There were some who saw through the mask of philanthropy to the real consequences of his actions.


41QCVLcm9mL

“Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

– David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405

***

“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The super-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

– David Rockefeller, at a 1991 Bilderberger meeting

***

“But this present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for long. Already there are powerful forces at work that threaten to destroy all of our hopes and efforts to erect an enduring structure of global interdependence.”

– David Rockefeller, speaking at the Business Council for the United Nations, September 14, 1994

***

“Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.”

– David Rockefeller, statement about Mao Tse-tung in The New York Times, August 10, 1973


The early part of the 20th century saw John D. Rockefeller and his brother William Avery carve out a permanent place in US history to all but replace the Presidents’ heads carved out of the mountains at Rushmore. With many social “face-lifts” to fit  the culture of the day, the Rockefellers have been responsible for funding and promoting some of the most potent social engineering projects in America over the last one hundred years. The reason was to create an American populace that is preoccupied, docile, apathetic and ultimately accepting of a new form of global feudalism; this has always been the aim of the family and its agencies. Monopolistic control of business and people was the key driver of its ascendancy. Since politics and money are synonymous to the Rockefellers, they have been particularly busy influencing political candidates and their parties towards the goals they hold so dear.

In 1927, as a prelude to the coming Great Depression New York City Mayor John F. Hylan didn’t mince his words in an interview he gave to the New York Times. They remain as relevant now as they did then:

“The real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of a self-created screen … At the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both political parties.”

It was the ruthlessness and unswerving passion for making money that probably drew the attention of the House of Rothschild in using the Rockefellers as yet another agent for its global financial Empire. The Establishment families have an incestuous relationship across all domains, which is why so much of their funding has been thrown at political organisations and institutions that they either helped to create or best served their financial, political and ideological interests. Its support for a virtual “Who’s Who” of the Establishment speaks volumes.

Standard Oil CartoonJohn D Rockefeller’s Standard Oil company characterized as an evil octopus a common sentiment of the time. | Reproduced by the National Humanities Center Research Triangle Park, NC, 2005. Courtesy Library of Congress.


The promotion of cartel-capitalism is the Rockefeller’s’ overriding principle of world advancement. Many of these groups and their beliefs are unknown to the public and outside any democratic framework despite exerting a powerful “invisible hand” on political discourse. Most candidates in successive US administrations have been members of or affiliated to these organisations, a fact which should cause concern. As well as its funding of the Council on Foreign Relations War and Peace Studies that advised the US State Department and the US government on World War II strategy and forward planning, other long time beneficiaries include a legion of think-tanks, trusts, foundations, organisations, NGOs, and federal agencies. The most well-known of these is the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) in London; London School of Economics; the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; the Brookings Institute and the World Bank.

These tentacles also reached a number of Universities such as Harvard, Yale, Colombia, McGill and Princeton University and the University of Lyon in France who benefit from grant funding, in particular the research in social sciences, natural sciences and medicine. Steady support for ideologies dear to their hearts include the Population Council of New York; Social Science Research Council (funding for fellowships and grants-in-aid); National Bureau of Economic Research; the new building of the medical school during the 1920s-1930s and the Trinidad Regional Virus Laboratory. An emphasis on economics, social science and population control is always evident.

jdr-senior-jr

John D. Rockefeller Senior and Junior, 1921

The Rockefeller Foundation is ranked among the most influential NGOs in the world with 2010 assets totalling $3.5 billion with annual grants of over $139 million. [3] With a state charter for the foundation being granted by the New York Mayor in 1913 along with their many trusts that would emerge over the intervening years, this allowed a large portion of the Rockefeller’s fortune to fall outside the requirements for inheritance tax and therefore insulated from government and IRS control. When big money meets politics behind closed doors you can be sure that notions of transparent democracy cease to apply. In its first decade of socio-political influence, the Rockefeller foundation concentrated entirely on the sciences, public health and medical education. They knew that in order to affect long-term change according to their own agenda, it needed to be comprehensive and seemingly benevolent mask rather than at its core, an ideological and political one.

It was also in 1913 that the foundation set up the International Health Commission launching the foundation into international public health activities and forging the reputation to fund research into diseases in fifty-two countries on six continents and twenty-nine islands. The Commission established and endowed the world’s first school of Hygiene and Public Health at Johns Hopkins University and later at Harvard. It then spent more than $25 million  developing other public health schools in the US and in 21 foreign countries, helping to establish America as the world leader in medicine and scientific research. In the same year, it began a 20-year support program of the Bureau of Social Hygiene, whose mission was research and education on birth control, maternal health and sex education. Once again, this emphasis was key.

John D. Rockefeller, Jr. became the foundation chairman in 1917 and a year later, established The Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, named after his mother, shifting the focus of philanthropy more deeply into the social sciences, stimulating the founding of university research centres and creating the Social Science Research Council. This memorial fund was subsequently absorbed into the foundation in a major reorganisation in 1928/9.

rockefeller6The foundation also supported the early initiatives of notorious geo-political manipulator Henry Kissinger, such as his directorship of Harvard’s International Seminars and the early foreign policy magazine Confluence, both established by him while he was still a graduate student. Kissinger is the equivalent of the Shakespearian character of Iago in “Othello” whose job it is to play one group, government or individual against each other without them ever discovering the source of the intrigue. As an agent of the Rockefellers, Kissinger has been involved in every shady, geo-political form of skulduggery since he was National Security Advisor to Nixon and is seen as an elder geo-political statesman – the public face of those we rarely, if ever get to see. He has perhaps done more than anyone in contouring American politics and society towards Rockefeller and Elite objectives. It was he who spear-headed the concept of food as a weapon forged from the very same think-tanks and organisations we have been discussing.

1954 was a pivotal year for David Rockefeller’s global aspirations. The Bilderberg Group was founded and The Conference on International Politics, sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation was convened in Washington, D.C., in the same month. The leading lights of post-war political science were brought together including: Walter Lippmann, Kenneth W. Thompson, Hans Morgenthau, Kenneth N. Waltz, Paul Nitze, Arnold Wolfers, and Reinhold Niebuhr among others. The Rockefeller Foundation’s president chaired the conference while Waltz and Thompson helped to organize the meeting and discussions. The official objective was to explore “the state of theory in international politics” [4]

Though some commentators believe that there was a failure to arrive at a consensus towards unified theory of international relations, this was never the intention. By gathering together so many luminaries in the field of neo-realism as per the Rockefeller formula, their target was to assess an exact state of play in order to begin steering societies in the required direction at certain junctures. What better way to do this than to scan the greatest minds and extract the information? Perhaps even head-hunt the best and brightest to join the Foundation?

Kenneth W. Thompson was obviously singled out by the Foundation as a useful tool. In 1955, less than a year after the first Bilderberg conference he began working for the Rockefeller Foundation eventually becoming Vice President for International Programs, specialising in the area of institutional philanthropy and no doubt contributing – knowingly or unknowingly – to the Rockefellers’ fine-tuning of the field. As author Nicolas Guilhot observes: “One might reasonably ask whether, had he not played a crucial role within the Rockefeller Foundation for several decades, the field of IR would be the same, or whether it would exist at all.” [5]And that is surely the most obvious point of the whole conference: it was an exercise in establishing a dominant view of international relations under the cover of exploring diversity and economic prosperity. As political scientist professor Robert E. Muller Jr. comments, the conference may have helped establish:

“… a discipline separate from political science and rooted in an understanding of power politics and national interest dictated by the exigencies of the moment. And in this way, it may have invented the international relations theory that guided the thinking of American policy-makers well into the Vietnam era.” [6]

This is exactly where the Rockefeller Foundation excels.

210px-29_-_New_York_-_Octobre_2008

Symbolic of the family’s titanic aspirations: Rockfeller Center’s GE Building, New York | Photo: Martin St-Amant (wikipedia)

A familiar political philosophy for the Elite families is derived from the fusion of Marxism and Capitalism; collectivism and fascism. These beliefs are attractive to corporatist families like the Rockefellers because they offer what they consider to be the best of both worlds. China is the best example since it incorporates both which is why the Rockefeller Foundation played an important role in rebuilding intellectual ties across the Atlantic after the Second World War. They did this by using their vast storehouse of money to be the self-appointed catalyst for increasing the hybridisation of Western capitalist ethos and communist-Marxist ideas via intellectual refugees and American thinkers. It is this literal capitalisation of economic ideologies and their applications that most interests true corporatists. In their minds, it offers the best framework by which a global neo-feudalist state can manifest.

Rather than the “universalist” credentials that the Rockefeller Foundation liked to promote it was actually a mask for this economic hybrid. Rockefeller president Lindsay F. Kimball offered his own advice as to the perception of the foundation in his report from the 1950s:

“The Senate and FBI investigation of the Institute of Pacific Relations [a Rockefeller beneficiary] and the charges proffered by Representative Cox indicate the belief in at least a few minds, that the Rockefeller Foundation is either unwittingly giving support to the enemies of our country or is itself fuzzy-minded, unrealistic, and even pinkishly inclined.” [7]

Though unfashionable in its day due to the spectre of McCarthyism and the Cold War, this belied the fact that the Rockefellers were much more than “pinkishly inclined” but an active promoter of World State influences and communist ideology, unbeknownst to Kimball himself, though his highlighting of these conclusions were obviously borne from his own concerns. This was unlike many artists and intellectuals of the day who genuinely saw socialism, communism or Marxism as at least a new possibility for social change and a step away from the relentless materialism which had engulfed America.

Indeed, the communication between top level staff at the Foundation indicated that they were favourable towards socialist and communist intelligentsia. The most important field of enquiry for the Rockefeller Foundation is best summarised by Hugh Wilford, discussing the Foundation’s influence in his book: The New York Intellectuals: From Vanguard to Institution, where he asks the question: “Are thoughts organically formed? Is it possible to control or manipulate thoughts externally to make them fit into the goals of organisations such as foundations?” [8]

The answer is an unequivocal “yes.”

To that end, another significant program within the Rockefeller Foundation was its Medical Sciences Division, which extensively funded women’s contraception and the human reproductive system in general. Other funding went into endocrinology departments in American universities, human heredity, mammalian biology, human physiology and anatomy, psychology, and the pioneering studies of human sexual behaviour by Dr. Alfred Kinsey whom we looked at in the Sex Establishment.

This brings us to the core belief system of the Rockefellers and their comrades: social control largely based around eugenics – a pseudo-science as strong as it ever was in Elite circles. The Rockefellers have been responsible for funding social engineering projects with just such a belief at their root. In 1933, the president of the Rockefeller Foundation, Max Mason, proclaimed that “The social sciences … will concern themselves with the rationalisation of social control …” and this has remained so ever since. [9]

In 1952, John D. Rockefeller III founded the Population Council the presidency of which just happened to be none other than Frederick Osborn, leader of the American Eugenics Society who held the position until 1959. Nine years later he wrote: “Eugenic goals are most likely to be achieved under another name than eugenics.” And so it is. From Social Darwinism to the now to the more academically bland social biology and genetics.

General Motors, the Ford Foundation, IBM and others were all involved in supporting the Nazi regime that was both ideological, logistical and material. [10]The Rockefeller family was perhaps the most active in providing assistance to the Nazi Third Reich contributing to the speed of its rapid ascent to power. It is still largely unknown that right from the start of its creation by John D. Rockefeller, the Foundation served as a principle financier of the German Eugenics initiative and even funded the program on which Josef Mengele worked before he went to Auschwitz. [11]Successfully joining financial forces with the Carnegie Institute and the Harrimans,a host of American academics from prestigious universities such as Stanford, Yale, Harvard and Princeton happily embraced a racist, and fascist philosophy and practice existing in America at the time. The authoritarian nature of the eugenics belief was the basis upon which many of the institutions of the 1940s came into being.

When we understand that the updated, racist philosophy of Nazism is the driving force behind so called Rockefeller philanthropy and much of the Establishment’s world-view, we can begin to see the reasons for such support in a very different light. This is the reason why the Rockefeller Foundation’s main financial beneficiaries have been the very same organisations that have historically adhered to the same beliefs. Though it does not necessarily mean all subsequent generations of Rockefellers are cast in the same mold. However, the trajectory of the family and its objectives remain the same regardless of whether this is merely misguided results of brainwashed beliefs or the symptoms of inherited psychopathic traits.

NYC_-_Rockfeller_Center_-_Atlas_Statue

New York Rockefeller Center with statue of the God Atlas. The Rockefeller institutions are often saturated in mythological and occult symbolism.

The Rockefeller Foundation underwent a significant re-organisation in 1928 giving the opportunity for an agriculture department to be incorporated into the Natural Sciences division. In order to protect the family’s investments and to ostensibly guard against communist influence the Foundation gave a grant to the Mexican government for maize research, undertaken with the help of Nelson Rockefeller via the US government. Applying the principles of John D. Rockefeller’s meteoric success with Standard Oil the science of corn propagation and the new agriculture was to mark out the early 1940s as a landmark in the rise of large-scale mono-farming joining together with the commensurate rise in mechanisation and fast food economy in the US.

With close assistance from the Ford Foundation Latin America and India were the next in line to “benefit” from the vast experiment in agribusiness which would soon to be labelled the “Green Revolution” and the ultimate answer to poverty. In reality, expanding crop yields created the exact opposite by displacing farmers and their communities, creating ecological catastrophes, reducing biodiversity, lessening soil fertility and saturating the environment with pesticides from the new offshoot businesses of the agrichemical industry. In concert with international banking and commerce, far from solving the world’s poverty it served to increase it, even though the existence of food mountains would be a feature of modern farming methods parallel to famine and interstate war.

For the Rockefellers, searching for ever more efficient means of making money and redesigning humanity to a sophisticated serfdom meant using corporatism grafted onto the global ecology –  stream-lining Nature’s bounty into a vast production line. It was only natural for the Foundation to support the advances in genetically modified organisms (GMO) foodstuffs and transgenic crop production where the eventual patenting of Nature herself became the economic goal. This conveniently merged with the ideas on eugenics and population control (as all goals towards centralisation ultimately do) best espoused by the Bill and Belinda Gates foundation who finance corporate-led, scientifically dubious vaccination and agriculture projects.

There is an important crossover towards the control of populations and how food, agriculture and technology can influence an outcome that is aligned to the belief system of the Rockefellers and their associates. The radical change from localised subsistence farming to the placing of power in a handful of agribusiness corporations has been in part, thanks to considerable Rockefeller funding. (Breaking the independent clusters of family farmers has always been an integral part of Elite-sourced technological “revolutions,” as we saw in “The Courage to Critique”) .To that end, generous financing has been poured into biotechnology research personified by trans-national corporation Monsanto which has a record of worker rights, environmental and business corruption unparalleled in corporate practice.

The wholly erroneous and disingenuous assumptions that GMO can solve the world’s food crisis, has nonetheless been given a healthy dose of support in industry and the MSM, where in reality, it is nothing more than another corporate tool of exploitation. For this to work members are activated within the auspices of humanitarian directives found the United Nations, WTO, IMF and The World Bank. They also need to appeal to the spiritual and occult-minded Elite presently residing in its most public face: The Lucis Trust, an occult organisation firmly embedded in the United Nations and its affiliated agencies.

clip_image003

“In 1917, John D. Rockefeller could have paid off the whole US public debt on his own. Today, Bill Gates’ entire fortune would barely cover two months’ interest.”

It was to be during the years between 1956 – 1960 that the Rockefeller Brothers’ Fund financed the Special Studies Projectwith the help of then President Nelson Rockefeller and directed by the ever faithful Henry Kissinger. This was to be a blueprint for the future, not for America but for the “global community.” The studies were published in a now hard to come by book entitled: Prospect for America: The Rockefeller Panel Reports. It is here that the full long-term nature of the World State philosophy can be discerned though suitably dressed up in euphemisms and platitudes. The objective of the studies were to create a long-term plan so that a progressive phasing in of a global government could materialise in a post-war environment. To do this large-scale social engineering was to take place using the Fabian method of gradualism so that the American people and eventually the world, would have no idea what was being sold to them. The future they have shaped has come of age.

(For more on these studies and Prospect for America please visit wwwredefininggod.com)

 


Notes

[1] ‘Manhattan: A Rockefeller Plans a Huge Bequest’By Stephanie Strom, The New York Times, November 21, 2006.
[2] The Rockefeller File By Gary Allen. Published by ’76 Press, 1976.
[3] Return of Private Foundation, or Section 4947(a)(1) Nonexempt Charitable TrustTreated as a Private Foundation 2010. Form 90-PF. | www. dynamodata.fdncenter.org/
[4] p.240; The Invention of International Relations Theory: Realism, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory, by Robert E. Muller Jr.; Nicolas Guilhot, ed., New York: Columbia University Press, 2010.
[5] op. cit. Muller (p.15)
[6] Review of The Invention of International Relations Theory: Realism, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory, Edited by Nicolas Guilhot in Ethics & International Affairs, July 12 2012. http://www.ethicsaninternationalaffairs.org
[7] ‘The Rockefeller Foundation vis a vis National Security,’ By Lindsley F. Kimball, November 19, 1951, folder 201, box 25, series 900, RG3, RFA, RAC.
[8] p.117; The New York Intellectuals: From Vanguard to Institution By Hugh Wilford, Manchester University Press, 1995 | ISBN-10: 0719039886
[9] Max Mason quoted in ‘Mental Health, Education and Social Control’ Part 2 By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D., September 2004 | http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/006/cuddy/mental_health-2.htm
[10] IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation. By Edwin Black, Second paperback edition, Washington, DC: Dialog Press, 2009 | ISBN 13: 9780914153108
[11] Ibid.

World Revolution III: The Courage to Critique

“Deluded people. You must understand that there exists a conspiracy in favor of despotism, and against liberty, of incapacity against talent, of vice against virtue, or ignorance against light! … Every species of error which afflicts the earth, every half-baked idea, every invention serves to fit the doctrines of the Illuminati …The aim is universal domination.”

Marquis de Luchet Essay on the Sect of the Illuminati January, 1789.


The Marquis De Luchet was initially in favour of the French Revolution until presumably joined the dots regarding his friend the Comte de Mirabeau and realised all was not well. He wasn’t the only one who thought the Revolution had been hijacked away from genuine grassroots uprising. Discerning politicians in America and Britain were also sounding the alarm, but these were lone voices in a sea of romantic resolve. The Irish philosopher and Member of Parliament Edmund Burke * issued stern warnings during the onset of the Revolution and incurred the wrath of the public and many of his colleagues as a result.

clip_image002

               Edmund Burke

Burke was an expert on change. He knew intuitively that radical change, too swift and sweeping, frequently led to the very same dynamics of tyranny. While he had given his support to the American Revolution, the causes of which in his opinion, were of an entirely different nature, he felt it duty bound to resist supporting the French people for reasons that will be become apparent.

Much like the media of today, hit pieces appeared in the press which were controlled by Illuminati agents hiding behind the cover of liberal sentiments. Suddenly, Burke’s once popular standing was swiftly reduced to rubble after his publication of Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790). The treatise is now widely seen as the statesman’s defining moment for its erudition, prescience and wisdom. It consisted of a correspondence with “a Paris gentleman” a French aristocrat named Charles-Jean-François Depont who had asked Burke for his impressions of the Revolution. This resulted in two letters, the latter of which became Reflections.

As a protestant and a Whig, his conservatism was just and represented the benevolent aspect of a capitalism that grew into something quite different in this century. Liberty and power were entwined and represented a force for good or for ill depending on who was at the helm. A cardinal rule for Burke and for those of us paying attention to politics subsequently, is to recognise: “… in situations where those who appear the most stirring in the scene may possibly not be the real movers.” [1] Early on in the midst of Revolution euphoria he saw the much trumpeted “liberty” as counterfeit and cautioned people to see the Revolution for what it was – a carefully engineered coup against certain sections of society. (Such a plea for caution was levelled by many observers at the onset of Barack Obama’s election both in terms of the scale of expenditure involved and the “yes we can” Obamamania marketing which ensued. Obviously, not much has changed.

Burke wrote:

When I see the spirit of liberty in action, I see a strong principle at work; and this, for a while, is all I can possibly know of it. The wild gas, the fixed air, is plainly broke loose; but we ought to suspend our judgment until the first effervescence is a little subsided, till the liquor is cleared, and until we see something deeper than the agitation of a troubled and frothy surface. I must be tolerably sure, before I venture publicly to congratulate men upon a blessing, that they have really received one.

Flattery corrupts both the receiver and the giver, and adulation is not of more service to the people than to kings. I should, therefore, suspend my congratulations on the new liberty of France until I was informed how it had been combined with government, with public force, with the discipline and obedience of armies, with the collection of an effective and well-distributed revenue, with morality and religion, with the solidity of property, with peace and order, with civil and social manners. All these (in their way) are good things, too, and without them liberty is not a benefit whilst it lasts, and is not likely to continue long. [2] [Emphasis mine]

And he was right.

 Delacroix, Eugene Liberty Leading The People, 1830 , Paris, Louvre

Liberty Leading The People, Eugene Delacroix, 1830, Paris, Louvre

Burke was also acutely aware of the significance of the French Revolution that could remake Europe and even the world under tyrannical lines: “It appears to me as if I were in a great crisis, not of the affairs of France alone, but of all Europe, perhaps of more than Europe.” He was fully cognizant of the nature of the usurpers of power that were inspired by such thinkers as Rousseau and Voltaire who were avowed rationalists and believers in a ruling Elite – the forerunners a Hegelian World Order. Many of the the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment pioneers represented dangerous abstractions to traditionalists like Burke who knew that society was a complex organism that did not operate on simplistic laws which benefited a ruling class grounded in man’s power rather than God’s. He had no time for those who believed in authoritarian rule whether a divinely appointed monarchic Establishment or an Elite ruling class. Similarly, if a government was oppressive then the people should oppose it, therefore, rather than open revolution he preferred gradual constitutional reform.

Burke was well aware of the Order of Illuminati often referring to them as the “Philosophe sect” in many of his writings. He criticised the Enlightenment’s “social contract” which was a socio-political theory based on Goethe’s Faustian pact. One has to have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to give up one’s freedoms in exchange for what little rights may be left even though they may have been slowly eroded down to nothing, a process playing out in the West today, particularly in Britain and the United States. This surrendering to authority may be a Presidential court of law or the consensus of a majority. Either way, it is a backdoor to tyranny which is exactly why the Illuminati promoted this line of thinking.

The social contract was very much en vogue at the time. Burke granted credence to the idea that society is a contract: “But it is not a partnership in things subservient only to the gross animal existence of a temporary and perishable nature” rather, it is: “a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.” He makes a pointed reference to the cold, rationalism of the Illuminists and the beliefs of materialism, deism and atheism that they were encouraging. He makes a case for the complexities of history and the links that humans created over time with a rich tapestry of social values which cannot be suddenly erased in favour of something perceived as socially responsible and harmonious, least of all by a sect which represented the “public” image of a far greater threat than even these lone voices realised.

Burke’s views also differed from Thomas Hobbes’ theory which effectively saw man and women as numbers on an economic chart to move around at will presaging the game theorists of later years. And here one can see why the Irish philosopher was so fiercely ridiculed on orders of Illuminists: he was the polar opposite of their ideals and precisely what was needed in large numbers to counter their plans.

***

giloriglil.jpg“The Reign of Terror” commenced from 1793 until 1794 under the dictatorship of Maximilien Robespierre and the Jacobin mob. There is a general consensus from past statistics of the Terror, the causes of which came from the Orwellian-sounding Committee of Public Safety and The Revolutionary Tribunal and which stood at approximately 16,000 and 41,000 deaths. Historian Dr Marisa Linton of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at Kingston University quoted a figure of 16,594 death sentences and a total which excluded those “… that died without formal death sentences imposed in a court of law.” And further: “Many perished in overcrowded and unsanitary prisons while awaiting trial. Many of those who died in the civil wars and federalist revolts did not have their deaths officially recorded.” [3]

However, Linton continues:

“… recent estimates of the number of deaths in the Vendée have caused historians to revise that figure considerably. One historian, Pierre Chaunu, spoke of the Vendée with deliberate provocation as a ‘genocide’ and claimed that 500,000 rebels had died. More realistic estimates, such as that by Jean-Clément Martin, suggest up to 250,000 insurgents and 200,000 republicans met their deaths in a war in which both sides suffered appalling atrocities. Another group that was decimated by the unleashing of the Terror was that of the revolutionaries themselves. Successive revolutionary factions fell victim to the Terror that, in many cases, they had themselves helped to orchestrate.” [4]

Apart from other methods of execution such as hanging, firing squad and even drowning, the gruesome, mechanical evil of the guillotine sliced through the necks of anyone who disagreed with the Revolution. It was the manner in which this “social uprising” was conducted which cast a dark stain across its avowed principles. Many victims were also set upon and murdered by death squads which roamed the cities of France often as out-sourced mercenaries. As a microcosm of the Spanish Inquisition, the Nazi holocaust, the English Witch-hunts or Stalinist rule, Revolutionary France was not a place to be for any true progressive, peasant or aristocrat. Many were murdered through rumour, accusation or the denouncement of a business competitor or creditor even if entirely innocent.[5]

terror

Anonymous print: “It is dreadful but necessary” (C’est affreux mais necessaire”) from the Journal d’Autre Monde 1794

Of the thousands to be condemned to the guillotine 8 percent (1031) were aristocrats, 6 percent (674) clergy, 14 percent (2923) middle class, and a whopping 72 percent (7878) were workers or peasants accused of hoarding, evading the draft, desertion or rebellion.[6] This tells you something important about the nature of the “People’s Revolution” in itself, namely, it was a text book example of despotic rule.

The Committee for Public Safety – a classic example of paramoralistic wording – allowed revolutionary tribunals to convict people without hearing evidence and which was called the Law of Prairial. In September 1793, the Convention passed a law called the Law of Suspects where the “public safety” actually meant people could now be put in prison without trial: “Suspects shall be locked up …. The proof necessary to convict enemies … can be any kind of evidence … If proof already exists there need be no further witnesses …The penalty for all offences under the law of revolutionary tribunal is death.” [7] It didn’t really matter who you were or what you did, once in the mouth of the machine there was little anyone could do. Very often French folk were condemned to death and executed the same day.

The following examples indicate the arbitrary nature of accusations which resulted in death:

Jean-Baptiste Henry, aged 18, journeyman tailor, convicted of having sawn down a tree of liberty, executed 6th September, 1793.

Francois Bertrand, aged 37, publican, convicted of having provided the defenders of the country with sour wine, condemned and executed the same day.

Henriette Francoise Marboeuf, aged 55, convicted of having hoped for the arrival of the Austrians and Prussians and of keeping food for them, condemned to death and executed the same day. [8]

As the terror came to gradual end in July 1794, revolutionary surveillance committees (Comité de surveillance révolutionnaire) with oversight by district committees continued the formula of repression for many years after.

There is ample evidence to suggest the eradication of counter-revolutionaries was part of a larger policy of depopulating France of “enemies of the people” which meant everyone who was not of the same mind. Author Nesta Webster suggested that the almost unimaginable slaughter of hundreds of thousands of French citizens during the Terror was indeed a deliberate campaign of genocide, an 18th Century example of an Elite belief which is so prominent and popular in political, academic and UN-led institutions today. Though conceived as part of the Committee’s plan, it has the classic hallmarks of the occult Establishment clique and so many World State believers: in order to return to an Eden ruled by a superior class of demi-Gods or Olympians a periodic culling of the rabble was necessary by whatever means available at the time.

As Steve Bonta describes in his article on effectively “Two Revolutions”:

The mad Marat, for whatever reason, had an idee fixe that demanded the massacre of 260,000 victims. But his blood lust was soon surpassed by his depraved “democratic” confreres. Jean Bon St. Andre averred that France’s population of 25 million “must be reduced by more than half.” Collot d’Herbois declared it must be reduced to 10 million. Carrier insisted only 6 million should survive. Guffoy said 5 million, whilst Robespierre is reported to have said that a population of 2 million would be more than enough. “Let us make a cemetery of France rather than not regenerate her after our manner,” declared Carrier. He and his confederates proceeded to do just that. After their abominable massacres in La Verdee, the revolutionists proudly reported back to the Convention in Paris, “we have left nothing behind us but ashes and piles of corpses.” All of this a century and a half before the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and other 20th-century genocidal dictators made mass extermination a jaded political cliché. [9]

Bonta shows us that the reality of an Age of Enlightenment was in fact a quality of “illumination” which set alight only certain aspects of human endeavour in the modern age. Moreover, it’s rapid descent into destruction showed it’s shadow side in dramatic fashion. It was: “… a Revolution that began with a proud rejection of Deity, and worship of the State, turned into a hideous, blood-soaked parody of civilization, where technology and reason were applied to mass murder in the name of enlightened social engineering.” This set the stage for a fractal replication within a Western geo-political context.

Indeed, does this not describe the United States and NATO expansionism of the last fifty years?

Once again, the Jacobin Club was host to a surfeit of brutal psychopaths more than willing to take on the blood-letting. Sensing predation in the air, sniffing out victims with a super-natural instinct, another pattern of unrelenting horror was st in motion, allowing their true selves to manifest with impunity since their actions were fully mandated by the authorities. Sadistic individuals like Jean Paul Marat and his army of “Marats” or “Mulattos” were at the forefront of this mass murder, a logical result of authoritarian followers and essential psychopaths being given – quite literally – a free Reign. Marat was only among a number of anti-human individuals who undertook their tasks with extraordinary relish and were deemed useful for suppressing dissent and revolt against the Convention. Massacres and mass executions began to appear on a scale that harked back to the decimation of Cathar credents by the Inquisition in Languedoc.

Of particular note was one Jean-Baptiste Carrier who became notorious for for creating a variety of horrific ways for victims to be put to death. One method which he favoured on more than one occasion was to cram large numbers of people into boats with trap doors in the floors which he ordered sent out into the Loire to be sunk. This manner of mass death was frequently employed against the clergy whom he hated with a passion and in one instance exclaimed: “I have never laughed so much as when I saw the grimaces those priests made as they died.” So many bodies were floating in the rivers of France that it became a health problem and drinking was prohibited.

Hundreds of prisoners were also lined up in fields and summarily shot by the National Guard; anti-revolutionaries – which sometimes numbered many hundreds – were mown down by fusillades and whole cities ransacked; children were clubbed, run through with sabres and shot en masse, a particular activity close to Carrier’s heart.

Perhaps no other city suffered as much as Nantes. It was almost entirely emptied of people who were then starved in its prisons, shot to death, guillotined and cut down in their homes on orders of Carrier and his minions. Special drains were installed in the Place de la Revolution in Paris to cope with the torrents of blood from the guillotine.

rob-carrier-murat

“True Believers” of the Reign of Terror: (left) Maximillien Marie Isidore de Robespierre (top right) Jean Paul Marat (bottom right) Jean-Baptiste Carrier

As various strains of anti-social pathologies take hold and subsequently elevated to positions of influence over ordinary men and women, large-scale psychological trauma and /or genocide on a macro-social scale is the inevitable result. Sophisticated ideals and morals are swiftly torn away and discarded like confetti, rapidly overtaken by the true purpose of a Revolution of this nature: political strategy thought up and carried out with psychopathic brutality. “The end justifies the means” is the mantra of the Elite Pathocrat where all is permitted for the cause of rending flesh from the the conscience of the normal psyche.

The parallels of pathology between the “Reign of Terror” and the “Red Terror” and even the evolution of the “War on Terror” appear to come from the same source. Just as Carrier enrolled companies of criminals or “mulattos”, the same dynamics were followed by Leninists troops as they were formed during the Communistic Terror in Hungary and by agent Trotsky who created terrorist troops as well as the Chinese gangs in Russia. Russian writer Alexsi Kuprin, questioned how it was possible that such a: “… bilious and dyspeptic chemist, anarchist, spy and plotter, whose speeches are full of such phrases as ‘roast on a slow fire’, ‘strangle’, ‘inundate with blood’, ‘cut off their heads’, should be seized by a blind fate and placed in the seat of power, instead of ending his days as a ‘sadist’ in a ward for violent lunatics?” [10]

In societies dominated by a rising tide of Pathocracy such people become valued political tools who find their natural place within the various tributaries of pathology, cloaking themselves in differing garbs of beliefs and ideals.

As writer George Rivers-Pitt states:

“Robespierre and Marat, like their ardent admirers, Lenin and AS at the present day, were animated by the same noble vision, not to relieve present distress and injustice by legislation, but only to annihilate all existing conditions, and “to exterminate all classes of the community except ‘the people’ over whom they hoped to rule supreme”. […] In their vision of the ‘New Birth of Society’, it is the blood of the Caesarean section they hope to practise on the expiring mother society, not the fate of the offspring which is their chief concern. […]Now that the terrorist period appears to have burned itself out to a very great extent in Russia, it is well that we should realise that it was an essential and deliberately designed phase of the Bolshevik plan, and that, as it was manifested with the same maniacal ferocity, wholesale butchery and bestiality, in Hungary, so would it be an inevitable prelude to any successful attempt to establish the same regime in any other European country. Mob licence and destruction would be encouraged and tolerated only as a means to preparing the way for the new dictators and for placing them in power.”  [11]

The vast upsurge of revolutionary ideas which led to the Great Terror needed anti-human individuals to facilitate a framework of control whereby such unbridled desires could be exercised against the populations without resistance and where sadism manifested across the whole psychopathic spectrum. This is essentially what systematic and organised atrocity means for those who perpetrate such deeds – a pleasure that matches sexual gratification. In the sacking and plunder of Toulouse in South-Western France, 19th century author of semi-fictional Cathar accounts Maurice Magre intuited such a contagion that stimulates and appeals to the lowest instincts in man and a natural state of psychopathy when the right conditions are in place:

“I had always believed that the affinity for theft and the desire for riches were at the roots of war. I realised that they were futile. The procession of women is the propelling force that pushes men to fight. The only thing the soldiers were talking about was the beautiful women they were going to take from the conquered cities … something akin to a sexual hallucination raged like a ghost in the back of everyone’s gaze.” [12]

The ceremonial psychopathy of Illuminism permitted such ponerological influences to emerge unhindered and driven towards a specific plan. The huge fire of anti-Catholic, anti-Christian feeling was lit and fanned by the members of the Illuminati in order to begin the eradication of religion itself. It was made more radical by the installment of the Revolutionary Calendar in the same year, perfectly in line with Illuminati designs. This resulted in a swift and systematic campaign drawn from a number of disparate groups which popped up from 1789 – 1801 until the signing of the Concordat which allowed some measure of civil status to return for Catholicism in France. It was a “Cult of Reason” that decimated not just Catholic institutions but any groups, Churches or organisations under the Christian faith; a veritable microcosm of Communist Russia. For example, a 1793 law made all non-juring priests and all persons who harboured them liable to death on sight. (Rather like those suspected of being Al-Qaeda can now be assassinated without any rights whatsoever).

Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire du Jacobinisme (Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism) a four volume book published by French Jesuit priest, Abbé Augustin Barruel, proved to be a vindication of Edmund Burke’s warnings. The book was published in French in 1797-78 and translated into English in 1799. Although considered as a founding document for a right-wing or conservative interpretation of the French Revolution, this only serves to undermine the central premise and narrow down the critique to a “left-right” discourse. There are facts at work here that transcend the superficial question of whether someone has a political axe to grind.

Augustin_Barruel

French polemicist Augustin Barruel (1741-1820)

Barruel outlined the Illuminist conspiracy to overthrow the monarchy, religion and aristocratic society in Europe, a plot that was “one continuous chain of cunning, art, and seduction” carried out by a conglomeration of philosophes, freemasons, and Illuminati members. Burke wrote to Barruel clearly impressed by the book, seeing it as a vindication of his own views: “I cannot easily express to you how much I am instructed and delighted by the first volume of your History of Jacobinism,” he wrote, mentioning: “… the most judicial regularity and exactness …” of his documents and source materials. Most interesting of all is Burkes admission that he knew: “… personally five of your principal conspirators; and I can undertake to say from my own certain knowledge, that as far back as the year 1773, they were busy in the plot you have so well described, and in the manner, and on the principle you have so truly represented. To this I can speak as a witness.” [13]

Burke was not a sensationalist but a pragmatic father of liberal conservatism. It is precisely because of his wisdom and perspicacity that he was able to see through the propaganda and manipulation of the “Philosophe sect” and lend his support to Barruel’s work in the face of a legion of detractors, most of whom were riding on the new paradigm of science, reason and its domination of Nature and mind.

Ten years later, in 1798, the Scottish scientist John Robison, published a treatise under the long winded title of: Proofs of a Conspiracy against All the Religions and Governments of Europe, carried on in the Secret Meetings of the Free Masons, Illuminati, and Reading Societies which confirmed much of the information in Barruel’s volumes. The author himself commented on in correspondence with Robison: “Without knowing it, we have fought for the same cause with the same arms, and pursued the same course.” [14] Though these men constructed their critiques on the same theses of belief this should not have overshadowed the facts. Anyone paying close attention would have to agree that history has proved these men quite correct.

Edmund Burke’s comments were extraordinarily accurate on the nature of Pathocracy once the doors had been opened. He had commented that the general disorder would make the army “mutinous and full of faction,” and then a “popular general,” commanding the soldiery’s allegiance, would become “master of your assembly, the master of your whole republic.” [15] After the execution of Robespierre, the Jacobins had outlived their usefulness as rent-a-mob for the sect and fell into rapid decline. By 1795, the Directory had control of the French state until 1799, which saw the rise of next the phase of theFrench Revolution this time under Napoleon, two years after Burke’s death.

David_napoleon

Napoleon Bonaparte pictured crossing the Alps on horseback. Public domain image of the First Consul crossing the Alps at the Col du Grand St. Bernard in 1801 by artist Jacques-Louis David

The question as to whether Napoleon Bonaparte was a freemason has never been answered. In one sense, the disdain for organised religion, monarchy, aristocracy, the introduction of legal reform and the abolition of serfdom fits into the designs of Illuminism. The unimaginable changes that this one individual brought to Europe and eventually the world, in such a rapid time frame would probably have made many a French Illuminist and freemason proud. Whilst seeing it as an opportunity for his own political ambitions, he had been a supporter of the Revolution since it was obvious that corruption and elitism was eating France alive.  Extremely aware of the volatile and darker forces at work he had kept his down, avoided too much attention and bided his time.

Napoleon was highly intelligent with a philosopher’s mind entirely in keeping with the Age of Reason and Enlightenment principles. Indeed, it could be said that he personified the mentality, brute force, and the simultaneous bringer of New life, death and destruction that rationalism wrought on the collective mind. A gifted soldier and tactician first and foremost, he was unlike the Illuminists in respect to his code of honour which was as unimpeachable as his belief in the State. The use of terror tactics was an anathema to Napoleon and while his ruthlessness in war is undeniable, war crimes of rape, pillage and unnecessary death he studiously avoided, having men shot who flouted those principles. Despite certain historians with axes to grind portraying the man as a monster, he was no such thing. Certainly, he presided over hundreds of thousands of deaths on his quest for a New Napoleonic Order, but he was a soldier through and through – a warrior you might say.

Napoleon_on_the_Capitol

Bas-relief of Napoleon I in the chamber of the United States House of Repres,Center>entatives (wikipedia)

He was perhaps too much his own man and as such, pride was his downfall. One thing that authoritarian leaders have is a large – if not gargantuan – ego. It is for this reason that it is unlikely that Napoleon was anybody’s secret strategist, since he believed the power which imbued his actions came from a Divine source, even though he had little time for religious theology which grated on his scientific mind. In one of Napoleon’s own writings his final couplet reads: “God helps those who helps himself. I approve of that idea myself.” This is a good summary of the practical, independent nature of his own spirituality. Ever open to arrange events and opportunities like pieces on a chess board for multiple future “check-mates” it is therefore, more likely that Napoleon  placated and used freemasonry and Illuminism for his own ends. Or as an American freemason suggested in a lodge newsletter: “The only matter of certainty is that he countenanced the institution [of freemasonry] and astutely made it subserve his own purposes”. [16]

Andrew Robert’s comprehensive and fascinating biography of Napoleon only mentions freemasonry once. At almost 900 pages, and with access to over 30,000 personal letters of Napoleon’s at the author’s disposal, one would have imagined he would have gleaned some minor indications of a freemasonic/Illuminist influence in his plans – but none were apparent. What Robert’s does show is that freemasons “tended to be supporters of his modernization programmes – especially in Italy.” He described but one meeting on December 2nd, 1797 with Napoleon as a guest of honour at a masonic lodge in Nancy as he was on his way to Paris. [17]

Weishaupt’s Order of the Illuminati, its infiltration of freemasonry and its fuelling of the Enlightenment was well-known in the New American Republic. Head of freemasonry in the fledging nation, President George Washington was more than satisfied that “the doctrines of the Illuminati and the principles of Jacobinism” had: “spread in the United States.” Nonetheless, he was rightly convinced that original freemasonry was not at fault, rather that it was the result of individuals insinuating themselves into the lodges with their: “diabolical tenets” and “pernicious principles” and were thus: “too evident to be questioned.” [18]

476px-George_Washington,_freemason_02796u_original

“Washington as a freemason. A full-length portrait of George Washington, standing, facing slightly right, in masonic attire, holding scroll and trowel.” (wikipedia)

Thomas Jefferson took an entirely different view. So much so, that that it was he who had acted as conduit for the Illuminati to enter the newly organized lodges of the “Scottish Rite” in New England. Jefferson defended Weishaupt saying:

“As Weishaupt lived under the tyranny of a despot and priests, he knew that caution was necessary even in spreading information, and the principles of pure morality. This has given an air of mystery to his views, was the foundation of his banishment … If Weishaupt had written here, where no secrecy is necessary in our endeavors to render men wise and virtuous, he would not have thought of any secret machinery for that purpose.” [19]

Indeed, it is now difficult to know when benign freemasonry begins and Illuminism ends when the very foundation of the US constitution and political system was steeped in masonic rites.

Author David Livingston describes George Washington’s Dedication of the United States Capitol in September 18, 1793:

“Dressed in Masonic apron, the president placed a silver plate on the cornerstone and covered it with the Masonic symbols of corn, oil and wine. The plan of the city of Washington DC itself was designed by Freemason and architect Pierre Charles L’Enfante in the form of a pentagram, or five-pointed star. In 1848, in a Masonic ceremony, the cornerstone was laid of the Washington Monument, an obelisk or pillar, like those formerly dedicated to the dying gods of ancient Middle East. And, every president of the United States since Independence has purportedly been a 33rd degree Freemason.” [20]

What were freemasons to do when the nature of the pathogen was so embedded within the whole fraternity and with secrecy and psychological espionage as its by-word? The seeds of the downfall of “benevolent” freemasonry were always present within its structure. With such an ancient fraternity, its networks in every conceivable corner of the developed world and centred in all the Establishment outposts of law and governance, it was the perfect platform from which to attack society from within, or as President of the University of Yale Timothy Dwight observed, thereby introducing: “the ultimate objects of their union, … the overthrow of religion, government, and human society civil and domestic.” [21]

Another American President, John Quincy Adams offered this logical appraisal of the Illuminati and how such a perversion of its already questionable principles was always waiting to happen:

“… the society of Masons have discovered a science of government, or art of ruling society, peculiar to themselves, and unknown to all the other legislators and philosophers of the world; I mean not only the skill to know each other by marks or signs that no other persons can divine but the wonderful power of enabling and compelling all men, and I suppose all women, at all hours, to keep a secret. If this art can be applied, to set aside the ordinary maxims of society, and introduce politics and disobedience to government, and still keep the secret, it must be obvious that such science and such societies may be perverted to all the ill purposes which have been suspected …” [22]

Though these great men knew of the threat they had no solutions for countering it. As George Washington said, “truth or falsehood is immaterial to them, provided their objects are promoted,” and it is the same Hegelian tactic which cultivates friends and enemies alike in order to divide and conquer and thereby rule, just as it was then and as it remains today. [23] With the death of Washington in 1799 another great mind to counter the rot was lost and the suspicion of Illuminist infiltration slowly disappeared from view as the decades rolled away.

Weishaupt died in 1830 just as the Grand wave of Zionism and Communism was about to come crashing down on an unsuspecting world still reeling from the “romance” of the Revolution. The march to a World Revolution was very much still in the minds of the Elect.

A constant reiteration throughout series is the psychopaths’ code for doing “what thou wilt” by any means to satisfy the natural will of the archetypal Predator. The French revolutionary, writer and diplomat Comte de Mirabeau best summed up the keynote of this primal philosophy which has been handed down through history: “What matter the means as long as one arrives at the end?” – the ends justify the means. It was a belief that lies in the kernel of Illuminism and their antecedents and which has been used to justify all manner of horrors under the banner of civilised progress.[24]

Disempowerment of ordinary human beings is the key principle of any oligarchy or elite mind-set. As we will explore in subsequent posts, the Rockefeller’s “green” and GMO-based “revolutions,” the farmers and the poor become trapped in a spiral of costs which have negative consequences for both communities and their environment. They have been induced to believe the proffered pots of gold of agribusiness, having believed the multi-million dollar sales and marketing pitches. Similarly, we can see that the Reign of Terror was not directed against the aristocrats, many of whom were of the same mind-set and quite sympathetic to revolutionary goals. Part of the true objectives of the Elite was to unseat and disenfranchise the power base of the peasantry: the small farmers who refused to turn over their grain to the revolutionary tribunals in exchange for assignats. The independent farmer is a great threat to the global governance and World State ideologues because his own produce means personal capital, which gives him independence. Independent farmers and their communities thus present an impediment for World Revolution. Control of food is also power.

At first, the Bolsheviks in Soviet Russia were convinced they had the beginnings of a World Revolution on their hands but were thwarted by the resistance of enclaves of independent farmers exploding the myth that such a form of control truly was for the worker or Proletariat. In fact, just as it was during the Reign of Terror, the Communist Party iconography of the tireless worker and devoted peasantry were systematically murdered and enslaved. The exact same patterns can be seen via latter-day corporatists and descendants of the “Age of Reason” who seek to crush the small farmers from India to America in order to wrest the reins of food management, distribution and production towards fully automated, genetically-modified, lab-based food. Consequently, a handful of conglomerates straddle agribusiness and biotech industries. This is what the Rockefeller controlled agricultural programs throughout Mexico and Latin America are really about.

All societal domains have been tainted with a familiar ideology which harks back to the tenets of Illuminist thinking, and the global occult body behind it. Signs of this anti-human perception of reality can be found in the Liberal Establishment’s  United Nations, government agencies, environmental activists and transhumanist thought, while American WASP and Euro-Synarchists’s cartel-capitalism and its debt-slavery is spread over the world care of the Structural Adjustment Team.

These two primary streams are converging to form another technological revolution in the guise of an emerging SMART society. For the Illuminists’ Age of Reason and Enlightenment visions, could they have imagined a better mnemonic acronym for their extraordinary success?

 


* I have to confess a personal interest in Edmund Burke since he is an ancestor of mine. He was an example of that thoroughly rare animal: the politician with scruples, integrity and conscience; an advocate of “human-heart” based conservatism who remained a believer of the State yes, but striving to retain a genuine benevolence in a period of immense social turmoil. Winston Churchill wrote this about him:

“On the one hand Burke is revealed as a foremost apostle of Liberty, on the other as the redoubtable champion of Authority. But a charge of political inconsistency applied to this life appears a mean and petty thing. History easily discerns the reasons and forces which actuated him, and the immense changes in the problems he was facing which evoked from the same profound mind and sincere spirit these entirely contrary manifestations. His soul revolted against tyranny, whether it appeared in the aspect of a domineering Monarch and a corrupt Court and Parliamentary system, or whether, mouthing the watch-words of a non-existent liberty, it towered up against him in the dictation of a brutal mob and wicked sect. No one can read the Burke of Liberty and the Burke of Authority without feeling that here was the same man pursuing the same ends, seeking the same ideals of society and Government, and defending them from assaults, now from one extreme, now from the other.”

 


Notes

[1] Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke online PDF version: socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/burke/revfrance.pdf
[2] Ibid. (p.8)
[3] ‘Terror in the French Revolution’ by Marisa Linton, Kingston University | http://www.port.ac.uk/special/…/filetodownload,20545,en.pdf
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Extract from a law introduced by the Committee for Public Safety, 17th September 1793.
[8] Execution Records, 1793.www.ancestry.co.uk
[9] ‘Two Revolutions’ By Steve Bonta, The New American, October 12, 1998.
[10] The World Significance of the Russian Revolution by George Pitt-Rivers, Sacred Truth Publishing, With Perface by Oscar Levy, 1920, New Edition 2006.
[11] Ibid.
[12] The Blood of Toulouse by Maurice Magre, translated from French by James Bourne.
[13] Edmund Burke to Abbé Barruel, May 1, 1797, in Thomas W. Copeland, ed., The Correspondence of Edmund Burke, 10 Vols. (Chicago and Cambridge, 1958–1978), 9: 319–320.
[14] p.114; Enemies of the Enlightenment and the Making of Modernity by Darrin M. McMahon, New York: Oxford University Press, 2001 | ISBN 978-0-19-513685-2
[15] op.cit Burke; Reflections.
[16] Ars Quatuor Coronatorum vol. viii (1895). ed. G. W. Speth. Margate: Lodge Quatuor Coronati, No. 2078, London. pp. 188-89.
[17] Roberts, Andrew, Napoleon the Great (2014) (Kindle edition ref: location 3181) published by Allen Lane.
[18] George Washington, shortly before he died, read John Robison’s book Proofs of a Conspiracy and immediately expressed his belief to the preacher who had sent it to him, that the designs of the Illuminati were infecting our country. Letter to Reverend G. W. Snyder, Writings of George Washington, (p 518-519).
[19] p. 134; Livingston, David,Terrorism & the Illuminati: A Three-Thousand-Year History Published by Progressive Press, 2011 | ISBN-10: 1615773061
[20] Ibid.
[21] Yale Professor and President of the University of Yale Timothy Dwight The American Mind: selections from the literature of the United States, p. 220. 1798.
[22] op. cit. Reed (p.138)
[23] The Writings of George Washington, vol. 33. August 26, 1794.
[24] Honre-Gabriel Riquetti, Comte de Mirabeau, ‘The Great Terror’ Paris, 1789.

Redesigning Nature

 By M.K. Styllinski

“Cows are now ‘automated Consumption units’ “

Technocracy III: Tagged (and Bagged?)


As we continue looking at the expressions of our “Official Culture” the subject of food looms large, as the way we feel and think is influenced in large part by what we put into our bodies – the simple maxim of “you are what you eat” may have more layers of meaning than we suppose.

The mass production of food is intimately linked to our environment and the sensitive ecosystems of flora and fauna which are presently being vacuumed up into the vast processing plant known as trans-national economics. Our extraordinarily unhealthy diets are tied to an agriculture system that is designed to generate profit at any cost, despite what those “green” corporations will tell you. Chemical intensive and mechanized production, migrant labourers paid subsistence wages; massive wastage; long distance shipping and producers caught in “hostage” contracts from which it becomes extremely difficult to escape without expensive litigation. Large government subsidies allow corporations to do as they please and to stay above the law. An important part of this preferential treatment is the de facto support of modern debt slavery. Now that fresh, natural foods have been pushed to the periphery, we are forced to eat an unnatural diet. Most of us who cannot afford organic goods ingest daily quantities of foods that have been produced with insecticides, synthetic hormones and wasteful packaging. With the new innovation of bio-engineering, Nature herself can be patented and sold to the highest bidder – all in the name of eradicating poverty and feeding the world.

rose© infrakshun

Knowledge is also being redefined towards strict protocols of consumption. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) is recognised only when knowledge and “creativity” generate profits – usually for a tiny percentage of the planet’s population. The shift from common rights to private rights is one of the primary tenets of “globalism” and is perfectly aligned to the new colonialism of multinationals. [1] The patents so enamoured of agrichemical and bio-tech companies are now being used not only define which direction the market should go but to block other firms’ entry. Rather than being essential components in the monopoly of the seed business to extend invention and creativity, they are only required to increase market leverage and control, acting as an enforcer of IPR protection. Patents are deeply connected to universities and all manner of institutions with bribes and pay packets fixed accordingly.

Science too is working for government and corporations where true discovery, research and innovation is sucked into profit at any cost where knowledge is exploited for the fastest buck and where specialisations and studies that could benefit humankind are slowly forgotten in favour of commercial spin. One example of this is genetic engineering.

Agribusiness is gradually realising that if one creates herbicides to tackle the problem of weeds then this will pave the way for “super weeds” that adapt in such a way that stronger and stronger chemicals are needed. The agri-chemical and biotech giant Monsanto has genetically engineered its patented soya-bean to increase its herbicide sale while charging farmers a technology fee for buying more chemicals to fend off the adaptive capacity of diseases that the chemicals themselves produce. With increasing problems arising from enormous fields with depleted top soils; synthetic copies of crops that cannot sustain themselves long-term, serious questions regarding the long-term health and economic viability of such farming has yet to rise above the push for profits.

The economic fantasy that Monsanto so often relies upon before hot-footing its way towards easy gains from customary exploitation is beginning to be resisted by many farmers around the world. [2] While Monsanto pushes its hybrid “Round-Up” soya bean on unsuspecting countries such as Argentina, the “miracle” is already disappearing from several studies suggesting serious health concerns. What is especially worrying are the repeating patterns of research suggesting growth reduction and atrophying across a broad range of bodily functions.

One study found that:

… 55.6 percent of the offspring of female rats fed genetically engineered soy flour died within three weeks. The female rats had received 5-7 grams of the Roundup Ready variety of soybeans, beginning two weeks before conception and continuing through nursing. By comparison, only 9 percent of the offspring of rats fed non-GM soy died. Furthermore, offspring from the GM-fed group were significantly stunted—36 percent weighed less than 20 grams after 2 weeks, compared to only 6.7 percent from the non-GM soy control group.[3]

After only 10 days the rats showed significant health problems including “smaller brains, livers, and testicles, damaged immune systems and digestive function, partial atrophy of the liver and potentially pre-cancerous cell growth in the intestines.” [4] The understandable concern is more than justified when we know that children are more likely to be at risk from the potential dangers of GM foods. This is due to their fast-developing bodies which are more susceptible to allergies, nutritional problems and the danger from antibiotic resistant diseases.[5] As one author states: “Mice avoid eating GM foods when they have the chance, as do rats, cows, pigs, geese, elk, squirrels, and others. What do these animals know that we don’t?” [6]

By 2012, the news for Monsanto and its groupies hadn’t got any better. In a large two-year feeding study, the Committee for Research & Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) reported on rats that were given either NK603 Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize, cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone, at levels permitted in drinking water and GM crops in the United States. The study highlighted the fact that no regulatory authority requires mandatory feeding studies to be carried out for edible GMOs and pesticides. The only significant feeding trials have been performed by the biotech industry. With this in mind the results were an overwhelming confirmation that genetically engineered food and pesticide use were cancer forming. Some of the results from the study were as follows:

In females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3–2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600 days earlier. Biochemistry data confirmed very significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76percent of the altered parameters were kidney related. These results can be explained by the non-linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences. [7]

Tumour growth, accelerated mortality and cancer have proven to be the effects caused by both GM foods and now the herbicide Roundup. You don’t need to be a scientist to know that herbicide residues would naturally be incorporated into transgenic organisms. But Monsanto has made its profits from marketing its products as safe for consumption knowing full well that in all probability this was not the case. (See Figure 1. below) It has even employed PR companies to makes sure the public is denied access to the evidence that Roundup is a very harmful genotoxic and endocrine disrupting carcinogen.

Genetic engineering primarily involves the introduction of genes containing DNA (dioxyribonucleic acid) procured from humans or animals into the cells of plants, bacteria, yeast or other animals. One of the outcomes is termed a “transgenic” animal. Experiments include chicken or toad genes introduced into potatoes for disease resistance and to increase shelf-life and size,[8] or inserting mouse genes into tobacco plants or genes from fire-flies which make the leaves glow at night.[9] Then there are the cancer research scientists in the US who bred a creature called the “oncomouse”, which has been genetically engineered to develop cancer yet since its introduction in 1981 and copious amounts of money, the cure for cancer remains elusive. There is always the potentially lucrative market of animal organ transplants. Mice have been specially created to lack an immune system so that they can grow human organs, such as ears, externally and even internally.

Through this ecological roulette we have already been exposed directly to large amounts of genetically engineered organisms (plants, microorganisms, viruses) and are thus subject to an extremely high level of risk. The particular quality of risk inherent in genetic engineering is due to the fact that the source of the risk is creatively alive; it can reproduce and cannot be retrieved in case of damage. What is more, horizontal transfer of genes can and does take place, where spontaneous hybridization occurs much more often than expected after genetic manipulation. The use of herbicides is effectively useless after a few years along with a soil that has lost its health but gained a trenchant toxicity.

When the transfer of transgenic plants to other plants takes place from pollen, even from a range of a few kilometres, it is inevitable that the advantages of such a science – aside from the ethical issues – are founded on a perception that nature is there to control and manipulate rather than to work with cooperatively. This arrogant disregard for nature’s limits and rules will result in terminal harm to the ecosystem through plants foreign to the natural environment. Indeed, the repercussions of an intricate web of health risks inherent in factory farming are only just beginning to be understood. Rather than the free-roaming chicken farms of Asia it was factory farming operations that were the source of viruses like H5N1 providing easy transmission pathways to the human population. For example, the industrial poultry industry Thailand, China and Vietnam is highly developed raising, slaughtering and exporting millions of live birds and eggs annually. The genetically modified feed often includes “litter” (i.e., manure) in the ingredients that may contain live virus which is: “… on surrounding farmland, or exported as fertilizer, and through run-off may end up in surface waters where wild birds feed and rest. Chicken manure is even found in fish farm feed formulations where it is introduced directly into the aquatic environment. Wild birds and poultry that have fallen victim to HPA1 in Asia, Turkey and Nigeria appear to have been directly exposed to HPA1 virus originating in the factory farm industry.” [10]

Corporatism is encouraging experimentation that prevents any kind of long-term sustainability while reaping enormous short-term profits for the few at the probable expense of our bodies and minds. In other words, genetic engineering has long since been proven not to work and indeed acts as a highly dangerous genetic pollution into the food chain with significant health risks. [11]

If we are to believe that the earth’s ecology of which we are a part, is a complex expression of self-organizing systems that grow from within and are geared towards self-renewal, then man-made mechanistic, and exclusively reductionist applications defined by their lack of creative adaptation pose a threat to this finely tuned and delicately balanced equilibrium. We can see that we are indeed intimately connected to the environment which will mirror our perceptions accordingly.

Those pushing the genetic engineering business view nature as a vast machine from which more dollars can be extracted while herbicides, insecticides and false promises to alleviate world poverty gradually reduce the natural equilibrium dependent on the natural functioning and growth of crops. To be in favour of quantity will always equal a decrease in quality.

Those that think and act like machines are in the frontline of the continuing push to colonise nature. Genetic engineering could be playing a large part in the bid to control of the world’s food supply and the pseudo-science of population reduction, both of which derive from the belief in a New Feudalism prevalent within Establishment families.

800px-Cow-bw

What’s a Cow Mum?

Animals are also still in the firing line when it comes to genetic modification, standard factory food production, vivisection and a whole set of contradictory values about their place in man’s self-imposed pyramid of consumption.

Regardless of our opinions on vegetarianism or the perfect diet to suit each of our body types and regimens, everyone would probably agree that the treatment of animals in each country around the world is usually a reasonably good indication of how well we treat the human population. This is not saying much of course, for if our human rights are rock bottom then the ethical treatment of animals is not going to be on the table for discussion (so to speak) anytime soon. As such, it remains a problem of education that cannot be separated from our social and cultural beliefs. These  are now just as entrenched as the factory farming process that spans the globe – an interesting mirror that’s still largely hidden behind the convenience of market processes.

Animals are clinically processed to be deposited in  vast freezers amid canned muzak and the latest vacuum-packed special offers. “Consumers” as we are now called, need not even know that it was ever a living being at all. Cows, sheep, pigs, ducks and all kinds of “grain consuming animal-units” can now be safely deconstructed and commoditised for our dinner table. [12] Indeed, the processing of beef from the bovine is a direct historical path of psychopathology normalised for the dinner table.

It is not a question of “is meat murder?” Nor if animals should be eaten but the intensity of suffering this system inflicts on beings that are denied their sentiency. Animals now reflect the reality of seeing anything that isn’t human as objects for consumption regardless of the recognised ability that animals have to think, feel and suffer pain. The beef culture we have created brutalizes animals on the one hand while at the same time, we choose to anthropomorphize them into saccharin teaching aids for early schooling and entertainment. It is a dichotomy so severe that it can only have been sourced and cultivated from psychopathic view of the role of the animal kingdom in the modern world.

Let’s take the life of a pack of cheap, supermarket beef (i.e. a calf) from the USA, that bastion of fast-food culture.

It begins its life from the “teaser bulls” or “sidewinders,” so called, because they have had the penis surgically re-routed so that it comes out through the side. [13] Unable to penetrate the cow’s vagina it does however leave a mark on the female from a coloured dye marker hung around his neck. The cows are then identified and artificially inseminated. Once born the males are castrated for docility and to improve the quality of the beef. This can be done with an emasculator which crushes the testicle cord or it can be done with a knife stuck through the scrotum and the testicles pulled out. Then comes the de-horning achieved through a chemical paste that burns out the roots of their horns. Electric dehorners are used on older steers or even saws, all without the use of anaesthetics. [14]

After having a few months to be with their mothers they are transported to huge mechanized feeding lots for fattening up and slaughtering. The drugs are a major source of income for the pharmaceutical companies. Growth stimulating hormones, feed additives, including antibiotics, anabolic steroids implanted in the animals’ ears for slow release; estradiol, testosterone, progesterone are also given, artificially adding muscle and fat in order to obtain the optimum weight gain in the minimum time. [15] Most of the American beef market consistently uses growth hormones in meat and milk.[16]

Diseases are a persistent problem in conditions where production and profit is of primary concern. Therefore, more drugs are needed which the pharmaceuticals are overjoyed to research and produce for their feedlot managers. While the drugged cows stand for hours on end packed side by side at the trough they consume corn, soya and grains which are full of herbicides. With over 80 percent of these chemicals being sprayed on corn and soya, it becomes a potent cocktail.[17]

If this is not enough, factory farms are busy using manure from chicken houses and pig pens in their feed. Some factory farms and slaughter houses are mixing in cement dust, industrial sewage and oils in order to reduce costs and fatten cattle more rapidly.[18] Antibiotics, hormones and herbicides as well as the possibility of new strains of disease-causing bacteria produced from a number of unnatural practices in feeding and husbandry are posing a serious health risk to the human population. [19] We don’t need to do the math to see that all these toxins are very probably ending up in our own bodies with unknown effects on health and behaviour.

Let’s get back to that terrified calf.

After the steers have reached the required weight they are packed into trucks and transported across often unbearably hot US states where many die from being trampled to death or through lack of water. Those that are incapacitated by broken legs or pelvises are dragged out at the end of the journey (no anaesthetic of course) and left for slaughter. The rest are lined up at the processing plant, stunned with a pneumatic gun, frequently still alive and quickly hoisted by a rear hoof over the slaughter house floor while their throats are cut. The animal is then only a few hours away from being transformed into plastic and polystyrene packing, seemingly clean as a whistle and ready for the family table, while the cheapest off-cuts are mixed in with faeces, sawdust and various other everyday detritus and served up as beef burgers to millions of rapacious stomachs. Since 4,000 McDonald’s hamburgers (as many as you could get from one cow) are eaten every minute and with the largest cattle station bigger than the State of Israel, then this is one conveyer-belt of the human carnivore which vegetarianism isn’t going to impact in the foreseeable future. [20]

Nor is adopting a vegetarian diet the answer.  it goes much deeper than that. it requires a wholesale change in perception .leading to a rejection of a monoculture mentality that produces an social and economic infrastructure which can only manifest cruelty and pathology, by default. By now, our toxic food now represents a vast experiment on the human population, the results of which are unknown. The man-made chemicals released into the environment combined with the toxicity of our food are disrupting endocrine systems and sexual development of both humans and animals which countless laboratory studies have already confirmed. [21] If our interaction with animals is solely based upon destructive dynamics of unnecessary consumption and cruelty, then we cannot be surprised when those same habits are repeated and projected towards ourselves and others. By the same token, if you mess with nature and disrupt her natural, ecological pathways she will let you know in no uncertain terms.

 


Notes

[1] TRIPS – [trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights] Instigated as part of the GATT agreement of 1994. [GATT is now the World Trade Organisation (WTO)] This is no more than a blueprint for control of intellectual creativity as part of the US patenting of knowledge where strict adherence to monopolistic control can continue to function as part of the global Union drives to enforce US economic and trade policies abroad.
[2] ‘GM soya ‘miracle’ turns sour in Argentina’ by Paul Brown, The Guardian, April 16, 2004.
[3] Seeds of Deception – Is Your Food Safe? What the biotech industry doesn’t want you to know by Jeffrey Smith, Chapter 2: What Could Go Wrong-A Partial List. p.47: “The study was conducted by Dr. Irina Ermakova, a leading scientist at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). It was originally presented on October 10, 2005 to the symposium on genetic modification in Russia, organized by the National Association for Genetic Security (NAGS).” http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Institute of Responsible Technology.
[4] Ibid.
[5] ‘Genetically Engineered Foods Pose Higher Risk for Children’ by Jeffrey M. Smith http://www.seedsofdeception.com
[6] ‘Between the Chapters: The Wisdom of Animals’ p.289.
[7] Food and Chemical Toxicology Volume 50, Issue 11, November 2012, Pages 4221–4231 | ‘Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize’ by Gilles-Eric,Séralinia,     Emilie Claira, Robin Mesnagea, Steeve Gressa, Nicolas Defargea,  Manuela Malatestab, Didier Hennequinc, Joël Spiroux de Vendômoisa | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637.
[8] Report on horizontal gene transfer – Department of Public Prosecution versus Gavin Harte and others, New Ross, Ireland Mae-Wan Ho, March 22, 1999, Institute of Science in Society. Paragraph 2.13.
[9] Gene Trapping with Firefly Luciferase in Arabidopsis. Tagging of Stress-Responsive Genes1, Martha C. Alvarado, Laura M. Zsigmond, Izabella Kovács, Ágnes Cséplö, Csaba Koncz and László M. Szabados Institute of Plant Biology, Biological Research Center, Temesvári krt. 62, 6726-Szeged, Hungary.
[10] p.287-288; Seeds of Destruction The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation by F. William Engdahl, Published by Global Research  2007.
[11] One example from a plethora of cases includes this article: ‘Experiment fuels modified food concern’ BBC News, August 10, 1998.
[12] ‘Double-speak Awards Don’t Mince Words’ Dallas Morning News, November 20, 1988.
[13] p.78; Modern Meat by Orville Schell published by Vintage Books USA. 1985| ISBN: 0394729196.
[14] Although there are animal welfare “painful husbandry” procedures in most European countries that advocate a minimum age before de-horning and castration) can take place with the presence of a vet. In the commercial meat industry these guidelines are seldom observed.  In America, “farm animals used for food and fiber or for food and fiber research are not regulated under the Animal Welfare Act.” The Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC) which is part of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Library (NAL) in Beltsville, Maryland.
[15] Most of the American beef market consistently use growth hormones in meat and milk with the US Food and Drug Administration happily ignoring European data that suggest Growth promoting hormones pose health risk to consumers: See: ‘Growth promoting hormones pose health risk to consumers, confirms EU Scientific Committee’ – “The EU Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health (SCVPH) confirmed today that the use of hormones as growth promoters for cattle poses a potential health risk to consumers, following a review of 17 studies and other recent scientific data. Publishing its third opinion on the risks to human health from hormone residues in beef products, the SCVPH found no reason to change its previous opinions of 1999 and 2000.” April 23 2002, “In 1988, the EU prohibited of the use of oestradiol 17, testosterone, progesterone, zeranol, trenbolone acetate and melengestrol acetate (MGA) for growth promotion in farm animals. This prohibition applies to Member States and imports from third countries alike. […] The United States and Canada contested the prohibition in 1997 under a World Trade organization panel.” Contestation was reversed but the US still rejected the human health concerns.  EUROPA– Gateway to the European Union, http://www.europa.eu.
[16] ‘Monsanto Cranks Up Production of Controversial Bovine Growth Hormone’ – Monsanto takes over production of milk hormone By Rachel Melcer St.Louis Post-Dispatch April 20, 2006. “Monsanto Co. said Monday it is beginning in-house production of Posilac, which should ease a two-year-old shortage of the hormone used to boost milk production in cows. The Creve Coeur company received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration to begin formulating and packaging Posilac bovine somatotropin at its plant in Augusta, Ga.”
[17] The National Research Council of the Academy of Sciences, board on Agriculture, Alternative Agriculture, 49.
[18] p.13; Beyond Beef – The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture by Jeremy Rifkin, published by Viking/ Penguin Books, 1992.
[19] Mad cow disease is one of several fatal brain diseases called transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, or TSEs. The variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease has also had cases in Europe. The awkward name reflects the similarity to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), a deadly brain illness that strikes about one person per million per year, due to genetic or unknown causes.
[20] ‘How many cows are slaughtered each year to make McDonald’s hamburgers?’ September 16, 1977 | http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/176/how-many-cows-are-slaughtered-each-year-to-make-mcdonalds-hamburgers | ‘Drought Closes the World’s biggest cattle ranch in Australia’ By Nick Squires The Telegraph, June 10, 2008.
[21] Our Stolen FutureAre we threatening our Fertility, Intelligence and Survival? By Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski & John Petersen Myers. Published by Abacus, 1996 | ISBN 0-349-10878-1.