Latest:

May 29, 2015

The TPP, Monsanto, Rockefeller, Trilateral Commission, Brzezinski

By Jon Rappoport, via Activist post

All hands on deck for global, economic, corporate dictatorship

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

There are dots to connect here. They’re real, and they’re spectacular.

Let me begin with a brief exchange from a 1978 interview, conducted by reporter Jeremiah Novak. He was speaking with two American members of the Trilateral Commission (TC), a group founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller and his intellectual flunkey, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral Commission] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others? After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.

RICHARD COOPER [Trilateral Commission member]: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches.

KARL KAISER [Trilateral Commission member]: It just hasn’t become an issue.

Source: Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management, ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.


This through-the-looking-glass moment summed up the casual arrogance of Trilateral members: of course US government policy was in the hands of Trilateralists; what else would you expect?

US government policy most certainly covers the area of international trade—and Cooper and Kaiser were foreshadowing blockbuster trade treaties to come: e.g., NAFTA, GATT (which established the World Trade Organization), CAFTA, and now, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is being negotiated in secret among 12 nations responsible for a major amount of world trade and world GDP.

Here are two key Trilateral quotes that reflect this global outlook—by which I mean a world dominated by mega-corporations:

“The nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.” — Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1969.

Brzezinski was Obama’s foreign policy mentor after Obama won the Presidency in 2008.

Any doubt on the question of Trilateral Commission goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003):

“Some even believe we 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 is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”


“Integrated global political and economic structure” means: domination of populations via giant corporations.

Here is the payoff. The current US Trade Representative (appointed by Obama in 2013), who is responsible for negotiating the TPP with 11 other nations, is Michael Froman, a former member of the Trilateral Commission. Don’t let the word “former” fool you. TC members resign when they take positions in the Executive Branch of government. And when they serve in vital positions, such as US Trade Representative, they aren’t there by accident. They’re TC operatives with a specific agenda.

The TPP IS a major item on the Trilateral to-do list. Make no mistake about it.

Let’s move along to Monsanto, one of those mega-corporations the Trilateralists fervently favor.

From 2001 to 2008, a man named Islam Siddiqui was a staunch US lobbyist for, and vice president of, CropLife America. Siddiqui represented Monsanto, BASF, Bayer, Dow, DuPont, Syngenta—the biggest and most aggressive biotech GMO corporations in the world.

On October 21, 2011, Siddiqui’s new appointment (by Obama) was confirmed. He became the federal government’s Chief Agricultural Negotiator, and served in that position until he resigned on December 12, 2013. During his tenure, Siddiqui, Monsanto’s man, was up to his ears in negotiating the TPP.

On April 22, 2009, Siddiqui had addressed the press in a US State Dept. briefing disingenuously titled “Green Revolution”:

“What we need now in the 21st century is another revolution… you would not do it just by conventional breeding. You need to have use of 21st century technologies, including biotechnology, genetic [GMO] technology… And these molecules, which are being used (inaudible), they are state-of-the-art technologies, using molecular biology. Especially in chemicals [pesticides], they have less harsh footprint on the environment, they are more green, in terms of the adverse effects and ecological effects. They are also tested more thoroughly.”

Siddiqui is a disinformation pro. For example, the most widely used pesticide in the world, deployed in conjunction with Monsanto’s GMO crops, was tested so “thoroughly” for safety that it is now declared a probable carcinogen by the World Health Organization. You may have heard of it: Roundup.

Siddiqui’s tenure negotiating US interests in the TPP surely favored big biotech, and all the companies who make their living selling GMO crop-seeds and pesticides.

The predicted outcome of the TPP vis-à-vis GMOs? It’s obvious. Nations who resist the importation of GMO food crops will be sued, in private tribunals, for interfering with “free trade.”

This is the future writ large, unless the TPP is derailed.

May 25, 2015

Government witch hunt to eliminate Monsanto critics

Government witch hunt to eliminate Monsanto critics
US Dept. of Agriculture scientists under the gun; explosive details
by Jon Rappoport
May 19, 2015 - NoMoreFakeNews.com
 
“Anybody can fake scientific results. But to be believed, you want a prestigious organization behind you with a billion-dollar budget and access to compliant reporters. You want to manipulate technical language. You want to keep saying how much you care about people. And then you also want to get down and dirty when you have to, and threaten and coerce your in-house scientific dissenters who won’t go along with the fakery. Cut their pay, demote them, fire them, ruin their careers and lives. This is all standard procedure in the major leagues of science. I’ve watched it happen.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport) 

Wonder how a federal agency as large as the USDA can keep claiming pesticides like Roundup are safe?
Wonder how the truth can be kept from leaking out?
Wonder how this agency, tasked with protecting the public from unsafe food, can turn fake science into “real science” like clockwork?
Wonder how, in Hawaii, Monsanto and Dow can defend their toxic, open-air, pesticide experiments as “approved by the USDA?” 

Government scientists who believe in exposing the truth are being targeted.
Ten scientists at the US Dept. of Agriculture are on such a target list, because their research findings would harm big-corporate agriculture. (See Common Dreams, 5/5/15, “Suppressing Science for Monsanto?”)

PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility), a non-profit group, knows who these scientists are, but they aren’t talking. Not yet. They’re trying to gain protection for the researchers.
Here is a March 26 release from PEER, “USDA Urged to Shield Its Scientists From Harassment”:

Social science provides a lot of useful insight as to why logic and data are rarely convincing

By Matt Manos | Watts Up With That? | May 23, 2015 

… In their latest speeches on global warming, Obama and the Pope weren’t trying to convince skeptics that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) is real. Instead, they were sending signals to their supporters on what “all right thinking people” should be saying. This is classic in-group/out-group communication. Obama and the Pope were setting up the talking points for their in-group members to use to determine who can be considered part of the tribe and who should be rejected for being outside of it. This is a process called Othering. Othering turns political foes into non-beings. Others have no value. Others can be discounted and ignored. Others can be mocked.

Obama and the Pope are examples of bellwethers; the sheep with the bell that the other sheep follow. Bellwether is not a derogatory term, it’s a descriptive term. The job of a political bellwether is to indicate the position that their followers should take in their everyday conversations. Obama and the Pope’s latest speeches function as position papers for the delegates of all right thinking people. You meet these people at work, church, school, at the coffee house, etc. The delegates will mirror the words that the President or the Pope used to identify other in-group members, normalize beliefs and mock out-group members. One of the main themes of both speeches was shame. Shame on those who aren’t right thinking people. Shame that they aren’t as intelligent and capable as “us.”

That type of smugness is almost impossible to penetrate. When a skeptic questions a warmist’s view on global warming/climate change, the warmist hears something vastly different than what the skeptic is saying. A skeptic might say, “The models don’t match the actual measured results.” What the warmist hears is how stupid deniers are because that’s what John Stewart told him he should think. If the warmist doesn’t prove that he thinks skeptics are stupid then he might be confused for a denier! And no one wants to be identified with being a denier because they’re mocked, don’t get tenure and don’t get invited to the right parties. No amount of science can penetrate the ROI the warmist has internalized in believing in CAGW.

Many of the warmists are running on pure rational ignorance. Rational ignorance is a belief that the cost/benefit to researching every issue is so low as to be a net negative in time utilization. Thus the ignorance is rational and everyone utilizes this mental process on certain topics. People who are rationally ignorant about global warming look to bellwethers that support their gut stance. Rationally ignorant warmists would look to world leaders, mockutainers and warmist scientists for guidance on how to communicate their position on global warming.

Penetrating rational ignorance is tough because the position warmists have taken isn’t based on logic. Their position is actually based on an appeal to authority. To question the rationally ignorant warmist is to question the field of science as a whole (to be a science denier) or to question the leadership of their favorite bellwether personalities. This will cause the rationally ignorant warmist to become defensive and try to stand up for their favorite bellwether. The rationally ignorant will also point to their favorite bellwethers and say, “Who am I to doubt all these intelligent people?” It’s intellectually offshoring. It’s lazy. It’s human nature.

The scientific method rejects outright in-group/out groups, Othering, bellwethers and rational ignorance. A scientist is supposed to follow the results of an experiment even if the results don’t support his hypothesis. The scientist is clearly not supposed to rig the data to ensure he gets invited to a party with the right people or continued funding. But science has a poor track record on controversial topics. It often takes decades to accept new theories that are clear winners (e.g., continental drift).

Scientists are still social animals. Social animals follow hierarchy and incentives. If you really want to win the debate on global warming, change the opinions of the bellwethers. Change the economic incentives for the global warming scientific paper mill. Otherwise you’re stuck debating only the people who are unable to change their minds because it would cost them personally to do so. Rare is the person intellectually honest enough to bite the hand that feeds or is willing to violate social norms to speak the truth.

May 19, 2015

Here Come The TRUTH BOMB(s)! — Bill Holter

by Bill Holter, SGT Report.com:

A few months back I theorized the rest of the world led by a Chinese/Russian alliance might let loose with a “truth bomb” or a series of them. It is clear the U.S. has been on a pathway in the desire to start a war. We have pressed in Syria and the Ukraine but so far to no avail. From the standpoint of the U.S., it is my opinion that a war is “necessary” to point at and blame for the financial collapse surely coming because in no way can “policy” be blamed. The upcoming month of June will be a telling one as the situation in Greece comes to possibly a final head. 

Tiny Greece is important for several reasons. The first and most obvious, they are certainly a firing pin for the derivatives market. Should they default, what will it be called? Somehow, some way, a Greek default cannot be classified as one because a cascade of failures will immediately follow. Financially, Greece can take the Western financial system down all on its own.

Next, Greece is also a member of NATO, what will they do when the current economic and financial sanctions on Russia run out? Will they vote to extend the sanctions or vote in their own interest against them? Or, will they accept financial help and the cash flow from the proposed natural gas pipeline? A lesser question is what will happen to their EU status? Will they quit, get kicked out or remain as a black sheep in a dirty family?

I ask these questions again because Greece now says they will run out of money on June 5th. They have already pilfered pension funds and sequestered local agency monies, while pleading for the previously pledged but so far withheld aid. Atop this and more important are the sanctions on Russia due to end also in June. June is a very pivotal month!

To this point, the Chinese and Russians have been patient but firm dealing with the U.S.. Russia has warned about arming western Ukraine and placing firepower on Russia’s borders. China has sternly warned the U.S. regarding the disputed islands in the South Sea, a near spark incident was avoided last week. My point is this, the U.S. has been pushing while Russia and China have stood their ground. How long this can go on without some sort of “accident” morphing into conflict is questionable. As an example are the recent events surrounding the Spratly islands in the South China Sea, can the U.S. really push China in their own back yard? 

China and Russia are fully aware of the U.S. falling further and further into a weakened position in many ways, time is running out before a financial collapse and they know a wounded animal often strikes in desperation. They must in my opinion do something very soon to neutralize the U.S. or face the reality of fighting.

May 17, 2015

So What Can We Do?

From Martin Armstrong,

This Sovereign Debt Crisis is the nature of the beast we face. Understanding that crisis is half the battle for after the business cycle turns, there will be a lot of finger-pointing but you can bet it will never be pointing at government. It does not matter what country we are from, the people are the same. The audience last night in Warsaw was articulate, understood, and the audience made it known that they too distrust government. It really matters not our nationality. People never start wars, only governments which are not the people.
Smith -Higest Impertenance
It is also never private debt that causes the end of a nation, it is the debt of government. When people default, their assets are seized and they were often thrown in debtors prison. When government defaults, you get revolution. Adam Smith called this the highest impertinence of kings to pretend to watch over the debts of the people and not their own. This cycle of political change is about 309.6 years. The last wave began in the 1600s and culminated in the late 1700s, The wave before that is where capitalism began during the 14th century with the reintroduction of wages and taxes following the Black Death of 1346-1353.
Paine-Common Sense
The American people were not in support of the revolution until the very end like a Phase Transition. Those who wanted to leave Britain were only about 33%. Then a writer issued a pamphlet by the name of Thomas Paine entitled Common Sense. Paine explained that the nation or society is only the people and that government views itself as the nation yet is entirely different right from its origin. He further explained that “Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter  NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse (cooperation of people creating an economy) the other creates distinctions. The first a patron, the last a punisher.”

The Hidden Government Group

From | Ottawa (Canada)


Peter Dale Scott is considered the father of “Deep Politics”— the study of hidden permanent institutions and interests whose influence on the political realm transcends the elected, appointed and career officials who come and go. A Professor of English at Berkeley and a former Canadian diplomat, he is the author of several critically acclaimed books on the pivotal events of our country’s recent past. Daniel Ellsberg said of his book Drugs, Oil and War, “It makes most academic and journalistic explanations of our past and current interventions read like government propaganda written for children.” What follows is based on a recent Scott lecture entitled “The JFK Assassination and Other Deep Events”.
JPEG - 56.4 kb
Mount Weather entrance.
For some time now, I have been analyzing American history in the light of what I have called structural deep events: events, like the JFK assassination, the Watergate break-in, Iran-Contra, or 9/11, which repeatedly involve law-breaking or violence, are mysterious to begin with, are embedded in ongoing covert processes, have political consequences that enlarge covert government, and are subsequently covered up by systematic falsifications in the mainstream media and internal government records. [1]

The more I study these deep events, the more I see suggestive similarities between them, increasing the possibility that they are not unrelated external intrusions on American history, but parts of an endemic process, sharing to some degree or other a common source. [2]

For example, one factor linking Dallas, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and 9/11, has been the involvement in all four deep events of personnel involved in America’s highest-level emergency planning, known since the 1950s as Continuity of Government (COG) planning, or more colloquially inside the Pentagon as “the Doomsday Project.” A few of these actors may have been located at the top, as overseers of the secret COG system. Others – including some I shall talk about today – were located further down in its secret communications network.

I see this planning group as one among many in what I have chosen to call the American deep state, along with agencies like the CIA and NSA, the private groups like Booz Allen Hamilton to which more than half of the US intelligence budget is outsourced, [3] and finally the powerful banks and corporations whose views are well represented in the CIA and NSA. But if only one group among many, the COG planning group is also special, because of its control of and access to a communications channel, not under government control, that can reach deeply into the US social structure. I discuss these matters at some length in my next book, The American Deep State, due out in November.