Genetic Engineering

Why Young Lives are Losing Meaning and Purpose II: The Big Three and 11 Factors

Photo by Dmitry Ratushny | unsplash.com


“Community connectedness is not just about warm fuzzy tales of civic triumph. In measurable and well-documented ways, social capital makes an enormous difference in our lives…Social capital makes us smarter, healthier, safer, richer, and better able to govern a just and stable democracy.”

~ Robert D. Putnam

Reading time: 20-25 mins

In the last post I looked at the decrease in meaning and purpose parallel to the increase in loneliness and isolation for today’s millennial and Z generations.  Sociologists, economists and psychologists generally all agree that the key to developing and holding on to meaning, purpose and well-being is sufficient social interaction with a core group of friends and family that define one’s support. This is not the same as an extended family that usually arises from enforced socio-economic factors, but one that naturally evolves based around shared vision of support and nourishment because it is both practical and sustainable, offering real world benefits.

John F. Helliwell, a prominent expert in the economics of happiness believes the quality of our relationships determines the quality of our lives at the deepest levels. And the quality of those relationships is reflected in how well we have activated our response-ability and activities that offer a form of service to the community – whatever form that might be. This is what creates and deepens ties with others: constructive actions alongside key initiatory ideas. Helliwell draws his work from very large data sets called the World Values Survey which has accrued answers from people in over 150 countries about life satisfaction along with other socio-economic information. When Helliwell crunched the data he and other researchers found that there were six reliable and consistent factors which accounted for well-being:

  1. Social support
  2. generosity
  3. trust
  4. freedom
  5. income per capita
  6. healthy life expectancy [1]

Four from the list are connected with social interaction within a community. The other factors are relational and occur as a response to, or as a natural property of social support.  So a stratum of support covering all aspects of human aspiration is a really big deal, the lack of which will play a large part in the development of our social ills.

The Big Three

It seems to me, the development of meaning and purpose is rooted in three foundational products of social interaction which, if healthy, underpin a successful society, the constituents of which all operate symbiotically and grow parallel to each other. Thus, the creation of an individual emerges and is informed by:

  1. Parents
  2. Family
  3. Community

Obvious perhaps, but in crisis nonetheless. These three make up the strata in the soil of society/culture which is dependent on the level of access to community (should it even exist) a solid connection to nature and the quality of the environment upon which all three rest. [2]  Similarly, the healthy functioning of the three will have within them poor psycho-spiritual “nutrients”, or a rich, fertile ground that is self-sustaining and therefore community-sustaining. The presence of Helliwell’s six factors will be informed by the quality of the Big Three.

(more…)

Advertisements

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)

See also: James Corbett’s excellent series on Big Oil and the Rockefellers:

 


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.

The Psychopath: A Different Species? III

“In any society in this world, psychopathic individuals and some of the other deviant types create a ponerogenically active network of common collusions, partially estranged from the community of normal people… Their sense of honor bids them to cheat and revile that ‘other’ human world and its values at every opportunity.”

  Andrew Lobaczewski, Political Ponerology, p.138)


While criminal justice and mental health systems are slowly beginning to take seriously the nature of female as well as male psychopathy, this pathogenic disease distributes and propagates the same essential evil in our world regardless of gender. Fundamental legal reform must be initiated if there is to be any hope of tackling this problem – a problem, as we shall see, goes to the heart of the human condition.

Is it possible that we can detain those with severe personality disorders in mental institutions even if no crime has been committed?  Our first reaction might be that such a measure is wholly outside what we would consider to be some of the basic tenets of a moral society that enshrines human rights and civil liberties as cornerstones of pluralistic and democratic visions. Ghandi wryly observed when a newspaper reporter asked “what do you think of Western civilisation?” I think it would be a good idea.”  And there lies the rub. Without preventative measures that would reduce and eventually eliminate the complete control that psychopaths and anti-social personalities now exert over almost every facet of our lives the hope of a more equitable and just society will remain a pleasant theory.

If it is true that the prevalence and widespread nature of anti-social behaviour exists primarily due to the increase in psychopaths at certain nodal points of power, then it is surely a logical step to accept that such dominance could only take place by first establishing fertile conditions so that their genetic code is propagated with ease. This may be what we have cyclically faced in the past and which we must now confront in the present.

Barbara Oakley reiterates the Machiavellian nature of anti-social personality disorders and sociopathic emergence:

“[T]he effect of the environment on those with a potentially Machiavellian genotype is not necessarily as straightforward as it might seem. For example, a talented boy with an underlying set of problematic genes might, as a result of abuse, descend by adulthood into obviously pathological behavior—borderline or psychopathic—that could result in his incarceration and removal from society. However, the same Machiavellian-oriented child with a mild upbringing might flower into a full Machiavellian as an adult—a charismatic man whose sinister influences could ultimately affect millions. [1] [Emphasis mine]

At the same time, psychopaths shape their environment and the people within it according to a pathological world view, whether in the heart of a family or the channels of government. Therefore, non-genetically predisposed narcissists and sociopaths can flower as a result of being exposed to these toxic influences which have subverted the chances of an otherwise normal personality growth.

psychopath3© infrakshun

Dr. Robert Hare, after decades of study is also convinced that psychopathy has an important genetic component. Could it be that the high rate of sexual promiscuity amongst male psychopaths and the subsequent abandonment of women involved indicate a high fertility rate which increases the probability of children inheriting a predisposition to psychopathy? [2] This means an increase in psychopaths or those with psychopathic tendencies within the population from causative factors which are both environmental and genetic. These somehow provide a feedback cycle that propagates and encourages a psycho-social “fertility”.

The basis for psychopathy having a strong genetic component is gaining ground from new research. One example comes from Dr. Essi Viding of the London Kings College Institute of Psychiatry and his colleagues who have discovered that “…early-onset anti-social behaviour in children with psychopathic tendencies is largely inherited.” The preliminary findings of a Twins Early Development study (TEDS) indicated that: “…within the early-onset group there are at least two etiologically [*] distinct groups of children. Antisocial beha ior in 7-year old children with callous and unemotional traits is under strong genetic influence, whereas antisocial behavior in children without such personality traits is primarily environmentally mediated.” [3]

The finds further showed that anti-social 7-year-olds “with callous and unemotional traits,”… “was strongly genetic in origin” with “a  group heritability of 80 percent”. [4] Dr. Viding stresses the preventative possibilities in achieving a tentative consensus whereby: “If these youths can be identified early, perhaps with a genetic test on cells from a cheek swab, one could target programs for them.” He stated further that: “Genes are not a blueprint that determines outcome,” … “Rather; they act together with other risk or protective factors to increase or reduce the risk of disorder.” [5] The study of East European adoptees makes a strong case in favour of environmental factors producing and selecting for sociopaths.

A psychiatrist working with so called attention deficit (AD) children recounted one experience where he was looking after a six-year old little girl with curly blond hair and blue eyes, who enthusiastically informed him she could: “‘… make the new teacher change colors!” The teacher was taken aback and asked the child to do so, curious as to what this innocent-looking child was talking about:

“We sit down with the teacher and the girl points to me and say ‘That ugly man put his hand down in my panties just now!’ Our new teacher turns pink/red, consuming this interesting piece of information. The girl smiles happily, then looks sternly at her and says ‘I know what you did yesterday to Tommy – I could tell the grown-ups all about it!’ The now quite pale woman had forgotten to pick up a child at the bus stop and had been too embarrassed to tell the other staff members. Thus the girl went on, and after a while she turned to me and triumphantly announced with innocent enthusiasm ‘You see – I can make her change colors any time!’ I told the girl to stop playing with the woman and go play with her bike instead, while I reassembled the teacher. This girl is aged six, and still cannot tell a person from a thing. To her a staff member is an advanced slot machine. A week later the girl hands me a dead pet rabbit which she has just sliced into four pieces with a pair of scissors and says unaffectedly, “It doesn’t work anymore, and it bleeds all the time – can’t you put it together again?’ – So much for happy childhood…’” [6]

What will this precocious child be like as an adult and what implications does it have for her relationships? Other cases depend on the level of exposure to sexual trauma, violence, neglect, etc.  which would indicate the need for counselling and psychotherapy rather than incarceration. The passage above is telling in its implications of mis-diagnosis and potential for accusations of abuse from psychologically deviant children. **

What seems to be a vital component in the awareness of psychopathy is the understanding that some children are born psychopaths. Evidence strongly suggests a genetically inherited factor is at play for essential psychopathy as opposed to conditioning by environmental factors. (i.e. the sociopath). Sometimes it is not the fault of a narcissistic family, parenting and social traumas but simply that the essence of the child is a psychopath. The hope is that those children with psychopathic tendencies psychological and psychotherapeutic “buffering” may be enough to ameliorate the severity of the effects against the rest of society in the future. [7]


 untitled

The film Joshua (2007)  charts the rise of a disturbed child in a typical family setting and how his deceit and manipulations destroy the family unit whilst elevating his status to that of victim. Acknowledging dramatic licence, it is an instructive piece of film-making offering a window into the mind of a child psychopath and the cultural and medical ignorance surrounding the possibility that the cause of the chaos stems from the child alone.


As psychopathy becomes more clearly defined and when scientific research reaches an unassailable consensus that a t least an epigenetic factor is strongly indicated, (a fact that seems to be fast approaching) it ironically raises questions of how society will deal with these people without falling into a Brave New World mentality. Certain limitations would have to firmly enshrine in law. But how to do so when psychopaths and pathological narcissists are already ensconced within our institutions with the power to enact those ethical laws?

One journalist posed some related questions:

Once psychopathy as a genetically caused condition becomes accepted and genetic testing and genetic engineering becomes possible do you favor or oppose the use of either genetic testing (for selective abortion) or genetic engineering (perhaps delivered in utero) to prevent the development of psychopaths? Consider your other choices. Early and lifetime institutionalization of kids who are bad to the bone would prevent them from preying on others but conflict with the assumption of “innocent until one has committed a crime”, let alone “innocent until proven guilty”. The other option is what we do now: let those kids grow up and victimize people before being caught committing crimes. That latter option consigns some people to future victimhood and, worse yet, not all psychopaths are ever caught by the criminal justice system. “Successful psychopaths” with an increased corpus callosum but with a symmetrical hippocampus are much less likely to get caught by the police than psychopaths that also have an asymmetrical hippocampus. [8]

If psychopaths determine the socio-cultural, and by extension, political and geo-political standards for behaviour in our world, then it behooves us all to begin to join up the dots and develop some creative solutions that would provide an inoculation against their pervasive and damaging influence. It is the accumulative effects of psychopathology taking place at the global level of international relations which demands attention and which have enormous consequences for the ability of normal people to successfully establish and maintain genuine relationships and a truly civic society. Underestimating the importance of this trans-millennial problem has brought our world to the brink of collapse and promises new forms of servitude. It is for this reason we must begin to wrest back the propensity for the human spirit to bond, share, create, love and network by grounding our survival in the knowledge of the psychopath and its hold on humans with conscience.

Let’s return to Andrew Łobaczewski’s enormous contribution to the understanding of institutional psychopaths and in his book: Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes. [9]

ponerology2edThe author has created a compelling hypothesis from his own experiences and that of his colleagues in psychology as to why such horror and destruction continues to plague the earth and it inhabitants; accounting for the effects of a systemised pathology within our societies.

Having suffered greatly himself under the Nazi regime and then communist Poland, Łobaczewski sought to understand why it was that pathological social systems come into being and how easily they distort and deform the purity of the initial concept or ideology.  He was well placed for this type of research and was able to “ascertain the possibilities of understanding the nature of evil, its etiological factors and to track its pathodynamics,”where his personal experience and “refined methods in clinical psychology permitted reaching ever more accurate conclusions.” [10]

Due to the inadequacy of the conceptual framework within social science which do not seem to take into account biological, psychological and pathological premises, Łobaczewski and his colleagues introduced the science of ponerology from the Greek: poneros, meaning “evil.” This is a new branch of science arising from and utilising the disciplines of biology, and clinical psychology in order to study the causes and effects of the emergence and growth of evil. According to the author: “It clarifies unknown causative links and analyses the processes of the genesis of evil without giving a short shrift to factors which have so far been underrated.” [11] This process or “genesis of evil” was called, correspondingly, “ponerogenesis”. Biological, and psychological terminology were used “to bring into focus the true nature of the phenomenon” and to discover the core reasons for the wider formation of psychopathology under any system of beliefs.

To remind ourselves what globalisation is veering towards, Łobaczewski uses the term pathocracy: “a system of government … wherein a small pathological minority takes control over a society of normal people,” and where “… a certain hereditary anomaly isolated as ‘essential psychopathy’ [is] catalytically and causatively essential for the genesis and survival of large scale social evil.” [12]

Or more simply put: the inmates take over the asylum.

Psychopathic activity seeds itself in governments and other institutions of power, developing exponentially into  destructive processes which eventually kill both the “host” and the progenitors involved. The carriers of these pathological factors are persons that are analogous to pathogens or biological agents that can cause disease and characterised by negative psychological deviations. This would explain why certain countries which have adopted the extremes of political ideologies and the authoritarian structures that accompany them result in a natural state of adaptive psychopathy. [13]

Thanks to Łobaczewski and his research colleagues, many of whom paid for their ground-breaking efforts with their lives, they were able to shine a powerful light on the reasons why it was that Western society repeated the mistakes of the past. Łobaczewski believes the qualitative analysis of such a phenomenon and their causal relationships can give rise to a new understanding and thus the possibility of ameliorating the effects by introducing protective measures which would offer a natural immunization against the growth of evil.

2ce6d12

In order to get to grips with some of the different pathologies, the author lists the primary categories of psychopathy which effectively form a hive mind of connections and which act as “worker bees” for the national and international Pathocracy. These acquired deviations include:

Characteropaths – These are individuals who have suffered brain tissue lesions as children or adults. The condition is irreversible and manifests emotional violence, egotism, insufficient control of emotions and academic or behavioural difficulties. They can act as pathological agents for ponerogenesis with sub-categories of drug induced, paranoid, frontal characteropathy. These pathological symptoms can be covertly transferred to the population at large and which can be likened to a “tenderizing” of normal persons for the later stages of ponerogenesis. Characteropaths are often dispensed with by the Pathocracy once their job is done. Entire generations of people can grow up “with psychological deformities regarding feeling and understanding moral, psychological, social and political realities.” [14]

Paranoid characteropathy – includes adherence to beliefs which have been nurtured and nourished in order to maintain their specific worldview. They are often egoists and spurn true reasoning and logic.  The power of the paranoid stems from their ability to “… enslave less critical minds, e.g. people with other kinds of psychological deficiencies, who have been victims of the egotistical influence of individuals with character disorders, and, in particular, a large segment of young people.” [15] Not all paranoid individuals have brain lesions some are functional and behavioural.

Frontal characteropathy – defined as perinatal brain tissue lesions occurring at the frontal areas of the cerebral cortex. The author states that such damage occurs frequently in the past, usually near birth, but also later in life. It plays a less dominant role in present societies mostly due to improved health-care. The condition is distinguished by manifesting an overall blanket of hysteria which develops as the individual ages, encompassing an overdevelopment of the psychological functions that were not damaged. This overcompensation leads to the dominance of knee-jerk reactions and instincts. Charisma, brutality, ruthlessness, pathological egotism, cunning and debased intuition for selfish gain are the net results. Anomalies in personality development can eventuate from being exposed to the pathology of such people over an extended period of time i.e. parents effecting (“infecting”) their children. Disregarding these characteropathic pathologies allows further extreme manifestations of the ponerogenic process to appear.

Spellbinders have pathological egotism as the dominating attribute. Such people are characterized by fanaticism and charisma to garner the converts and supporters they need to keep their ideologies and belief systems strengthened and thus their chosen denial of objective reality. They can be found in both characteropaths and psychopaths.

Inherited deviations include Schizoidia, wherein the characteristics of this anomaly include hypersensitivity, pessimism, distrust, intellectual arrogance and a lack of emotional foundation. They are prone to stress which causes them to collapse easily, though a low sensitivity to true emotional feeling allows the development of the reasoning faculty. A lack of empathy and disdain for psychological realities leads them to erroneous interpretations of others’ activities and intentions. They are hyper-reactive which can lead to psychotic states, often mistaken for schizophrenia. A condition of obsessive compulsion appears to dominate the intellectually centered types. They gravitate towards activities which have a moral foundation a description of reality that is dangerously simplistic and prone to what the author calls “double-talk” from Orwell’s “newspeak” and “double-think.” *** The use of “paramoralisms” **** and conversive thinking ***** occur across the smorgasbord of psychopathological deviancy.

Essential psychopathyPsychopaths are characterized by an absence of conscience which affords them the ability to hone their predator sense to a very fine degree indeed. After all, without the encumbrance of conscience, where are the limits on manipulation and deception? Due to this fact, psychopaths have no checks and balances on their predatory behaviour, therefore, no domain of society is immune from their workings.

Though essential psychopaths are statistically small in number in any population, their psychological footprint is large. When combined with other sub-categories of pathology such as narcissism, addictive personalities and authoritarian followers the influence is exponentially increased as those with an evolutionarily normal “psychological substratum” are targeted as fair game.

Łobaczewski identifies 2 per cent of the population as having sub-categories of psychopathy which cannot be classed as essential (primary), though at this later juncture it is likely to be much higher. These include asthenic psychopathy, which is a form of weak or partial psychopathy found in individuals that exhibit a high degree of variation and intensity. They are characterised by hypersensitivity, fervent idealism, a less sexually focused “appetite” and superficial displays of conscience.

Other psychological anomalies are designated as carriers of schizoidia or schizoidal psychopathy for whom hypersensitivity, lack of trust and self-obsession mean that the feelings of others are seldom recognised. Their hypersensitivity causes them to assume extreme positions and react to seemingly trivial transgressions. They can be eccentric, strange, with a limited capacity to understand their own psychology and that of others. They project their often warped ideas of reality and self-importance onto others’ intentions whilst coloured with their own pessimistic view of human nature. They frequently believe themselves to be mentally superior to others and sometimes excel in intellectual activities and the capacity to exercise reason. This is due to their lack of emotional foundation and understanding.

Spheres of activity that require mental calculation and cold examination are attractive to schizoidal types or anywhere where humanistic qualities of emotion are not required to be at the forefront of activities. Consequently, parenting skills are poor and the “black and white” version of reality they inhabit tends to get them into trouble through their reliance on simplistic and moralistic evaluations. Łobaczewski tells us that “… their ponerogenic role can have macro social implications if their attitude toward human reality and their tendency to invent great doctrines are put to paper and duplicated in large editions.” We can also find clues to their psychology in their statements and writings. The author gives the following example, the typical expression of which he names the “schizoid declaration” where: “Human nature is so bad that order in human society can only be maintained by a strong power created by highly qualified individuals in the name of some higher idea.” [16] 

Thus elitism, fascism, synarchy and all forms of authoritarian rule are highly appealing to such types. Schizoidal types are the book-keepers, academics and ideologues who comprise any emerging pathocracy.

Skirtoids are recognized as tough and hardy individuals with strong constitutions, inflated egos and good psychological and physical endurance. Consequently, they are attracted to the military and ill-suited to peace-time. This is not your average family man, though they will defend and seek to protect conservative or fascist principles as an inverted declaration of “family values.” Hence we may look to America once again for a probable high percentage of drafted Skirtoids within the US Army and law enforcement. Judging by the listed recordings of police brutality currently rising in the United States it is easy to conclude that Skirtoids are thick  on the ground.  One study places the incidence of this psychopathy as 5 percent much higher than Łobaczewski’s estimate of around 1.5 percent. [17]

This also brings to mind intelligence and “black-ops” cannon fodder that Łobaczewski calls Jackals which would categorise some of those who work for private security firms, mercenary units, as well as assassins and hired thugs; those who delight in the “armed struggle” rather than the freedom they claim to follow. They are in a category all their own, defined by the lack of emotional feeling, though often endowed with mental alacrity and organisational ability. Łobaczewski believes that these individuals could be examples of a “hybridization” stating that: “A jackal could then be imagined as the carrier of schizoidal traits in combination with some other psychopathy, e.g. essential psychopathy or skirtoidism.” [18]

 



*     Etiology:  the study of the causes and origins of diseases.

**   For an instructive look at the reality of child psychopaths and the havoc they can cause have a look at the film Joshua (2007) and We need to talk about Kevin (2011).
*** Łobaczewski refers to components of Double-talk or Double-think in the following way “The main ideology succumbs to symptomatic deformation, in keeping with the characteristic style of this very disease and with what has already been stated about the matter. The names and official contents are kept, but another, completely different content is insinuated underneath, thus giving rise to the well-known double talk phenomenon within which the same names have two meanings: one for initiates, one for everyone else. The latter is derived from the original ideology; the former has a specifically pathocratic meaning, something which is known not only to the Pathocrats themselves, but also is learned by those people living under long-term subjection to their rule.” (Łobaczewski ; Chapter 5; p.207)
**** “Paramoralisms: The conviction that moral values exist and that some actions violate moral rules is so common and ancient a phenomenon that it seems to have some substratum at man’s instinctive endowment level (although it is certainly not totally adequate for moral truth), and that it does not only represent centuries’ of experience, culture, religion, and socialization. Thus, any insinuation framed in moral slogans is always suggestive, even if the “moral” criteria used are just an “ad hoc” invention. Any act can thus be proved to be immoral or moral by means of such paramoralisms utilized as active suggestion, and people whose minds will succumb to such reasoning can always be found.” In searching for an example of an evil act whose negative value would not elicit doubt in any social situation, ethics scholars frequently mention child abuse. However, psychologists often meet with paramoral affirmations of such behavior in their practice, such as in the above-mentioned family with the prefrontal field damage in the eldest sister. Her younger brothers emphatically insisted that their sister’s sadistic treatment of her son was due to her exceptionally high moral qualifications, and they believed this by auto-suggestion. Paramoralism somehow cunningly evades the control of our common sense, sometimes leading to acceptance or approval of behavior that is openly pathological.” – (Łobaczewski Chapter 4; p.151). The editor’s note referenced from the same passage is also worth including in this context: “Many examples of recent years include children beaten to death by their parents for “religious reasons”. The parents may claim that the child is demon possessed, or that they have behaved so loosely that only beating them will “straighten them out”. Another example is circumcision, both for boys and girls by certain ethnic groups. The Indian custom of suttee, where the wife climbs on the funeral pyre of her husband; or in Muslim cultures where, if a woman is raped, it is the duty of her male family members to kill her to wipe away the shame from the family name. All of these acts are claimed to be “moral”, but they are not, they are pathological and criminal.”
***** “Conversive thinking is highly contagious and acts a dangerous infection entry for truly pathological material. People who have lost their capacity for logical thought (and thus the ability to distinguish between truth and lies) are thus more prone to accepting the paralogic and paramorals of psychopaths and characteropaths. For example, observe the behavior of the ‘Christian Right’ and their uncritical acceptance of war propaganda.”  www.ponerology.com/evil_2a.html

 


Notes

[1] op.cit; Oakley (p.282)
[2] op. cit. Hare.
[3] ‘The Origins of Antisocial Behaviour, Twin Study’ Medical News Today, 25 May 2005.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Severe Attachment Disorder in Childhood – A Guide to Practical Therapy by Dr. Niels Peter Rygaard authorized by D.P.A., Aarhus C, Denmark Translated from N. P. Rygaard, L’enfant abandonn6. Guide de traitement des troubles de I’attachement. 2005; Printed in Austria by SpringerWien New York. | ISBN-10 3-211-29705-7.
[7] ‘Study finds psychopaths have distinct brain structure’ By Kate Kelland, Reuters, May 7, 2012.
[8] ‘Ruthlessness Gene Discovered’ Nature April 5, 2008 |  “Some children ‘born bad’” by Debbie Andalo and agencies, The Guardian, May 25, 2005 | ‘Twins Study Finds Genetic Cause For Psychopathy’By Randell Parker, futurepundit.com May 26, 2005.
[9] Political Ponerology: A science on the nature of evil adjusted for political purposes by Andrzej M. Lobaczewski, Translated from the original Polish by Alexandra Chciuk-Celt, Ph. D. Corrected by the author in 1998 Edited with Notes and Commentary by Laura Knight-Jadczyk and Henri Sy. Published by Red Pill Press, 2006. | ISBN 1-897244-18-5.
[10] Ibid (p.99)
[11] Ibid. (p.180)
[12] Ibid. (p.197)
[13] “The conclusion is that the American way of life has optimized the survival of psychopaths with the consequence that it is an adaptive “life strategy” that is extremely successful in American society, and thus has increased in the population in strictly genetic terms. What is more, as a consequence of a society that is adaptive for psychopathy, many individuals who are NOT genetic psychopaths have similarly adapted, becoming “effective” psychopaths, or “secondary sociopaths.”– ‘Official Culture in America: A Natural State of Psychopathy?’ By Laura Knight-Jadczyk, July 30, 2003, sott.net.
[14] op. cit. Lobaczewski (p.106)
[15] op. cit. Lobaczewski (p.111)
[16] Ibid. (p.128)
[17] “Construct Validity of Psychopathy in a Community Sample: A Nomological Net Approach”, Salekin, Trobst, Krioukova, Journal of Personality Disorders, 15(5), 425-441, 2001) quoted from Political Ponerology p.18.
[18] op. cit. Lobazewski (p.138) [6 Ibid. (pp.226-227)

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.