Prime Minister Johnson stated almost immediately he came to office: “A bioscience sector liberated from anti-genetic modification rules…we will be the seedbed for the most exciting and most dynamic business investments on the planet.” Johnson’s government is highly secretive about its objectives in any forthcoming US-UK trade deal and the public are being kept in the dark, whilst the US has been more explicit. The head of America’s powerful farming lobby has suggested that Britain must accept US food standards such as allowing chlorinated chicken and genetically modified crops as part of any post-Brexit trade deal.
I can remember in the mid-1980s fighting a surreal battle with the UK government, where food was being placed under the official Secrets Act, to assist Corporations in not revealing food compositions and particularly pesticide contamination, with regards to safety and health. It was a busy time for activists, who were challenging Power and its strategy of secrecy, in order to maintain control, authority and influence (Blog: Power – strategies and goals vs egalitarianism).
Your author was busy with alternative cancer research under The Karnak Trust, but was also being contacted by various activists, involved with different projects. In the 80s the National Vivisection Society, who at the time resided at 51 Harley Street in London, contacted me, when they forwarded a booklet entitled ‘Biohazard’. They had carried out careful scientific detection work to show that AIDS was created through cross contamination, during cancer research experiments (The Cancer Files).
“I met up with the American Jeremy Rifkin in 1988 who was a long-standing critic of the biotechnology industry then emerging. He was in London to spell out the potential risks associated with the new generation of GM food or biological products. One of his major battles had been the four-year battle in California to prevent the release of a genetically engineered microbe called ‘Frostban’, which was designed to protect strawberries from frost damage. Rifkin argued the threat to biodiversity and thought that by knocking out a naturally occurring microbe by the Frostban microbe, that this ultimately might threaten rainfall. He lost the battle however and the courts finally granted the company – Advanced Genetics Incorporated, permission to proceed with trials” (The Cancer Files).
“Rifkin argued at the time: “The scale of risk is enormous”. He warned of the more frightening prospect that the US patent Office was extending patenting laws to include all higher forms of animals: “altered or mutated by genetic engineering or other techniques”. Rifkin said to me at the time: “It’s a step nearer to a brave new world”. He fumed: “How can you own a species that’s been around thousands of years just because you tinkered with it – a horse is a horse – right? The guy at the Patent Office said no, that’s not quite right, a horse is just a temporary situation – it only represents a certain amount of information, and that can now be changed”. Meaning as we all suspected that everything was up for grabs – all for commercial exploitation and profit – unbridled greed definitely emerged in the 80s”(The Cancer Files).
I set up a stall outside South Kensington train station in London; an upmarket area which I thought would elicit great interest in GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) and the rush to include them in our food chain. I can’t say I managed to infuse many with a sense of urgency. Mainly they were ‘Absolutely Fabulous’ types of Edina and Patsy, on their way to “Harvey Nicks” (a very upmarket store). However the fight against GMOs did eventually take off when finally the media picked it up, referring to “Frankenstein” foods. Prince Charles was also involved which helped. I guess we thought that was the end of the battle, but it might be returning today in a US-UK Trade Deal.
A chill went down my spine when Prime Minister Johnson stated almost immediately he came to office: “A bioscience sector liberated from anti-genetic modification rules…we will be the seedbed for the most exciting and most dynamic business investments on the planet.” Donald Trump has said he and Boris Johnson have already started working on a free trade deal between the US and the UK and the concern is whether Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) are on the conspiratorial menu. I say conspiratorial because what we didn’t know in the 80s was that a globalisation plan was being enacted in secret.
The speed of the announcement, if you could call it that, revealed trade objectives in a US-UK Trade Deal, were obviously underway and unreported, in short going on in secrecy. During the 2016 referendum campaign senior figures in the Leave campaign promised a UK-US trade deal as one of the major benefits of Brexit. Although formal negotiations cannot begin until the UK has left the EU, joint working groups have forged ahead with discussions for a deal and in February 2019 the US published its negotiating objectives. Not that the public was informed about that! Certainly the media either billionaire or state owned has remained silent. Johnson’s government is highly secretive about its objectives and the public are being kept in the dark, whilst the US has been more explicit.
The Trade Justice Movement has outlined profound implications for some of the provisions in the US negotiating objectives. Although they do not mention GMOs, given Johnson’s statement I decided to dust off my GMO files. Given too, the head of America’s powerful farming lobby has suggested that Britain must accept US food standards such as allowing chlorinated chicken and genetically modified crops as part of any post-Brexit trade deal. Trump with his “America First” foreign and trade policies, will not go against his heartland supporters and farming let alone the big American biotech and pharmaceutical companies.
In a past blog I spoke of the hidden Power, behind the cancer business as the big pharmaceutical companies, with powerful lobby groups, who more or less dictate government policies with regard to health and certainly control the medical profession. Drug maker Johnson & Johnson must pay $572m (£468m) for its part in fueling Oklahoma’s opioid addiction crisis, a judge in the US state has recently ruled. I question whether the medical profession should accept some liability in their subservience to drug company reps. It has been reported that medics are often open to material persuasion, to push a drug company’s brands. The same subservience of the medical profession occurs in the cancer industry.
The biotech companies behind GMO food are an equivalent hidden Power who operate much the same strategies as one observes in the cancer business. Newspaper reports generally depict the British public as averse to the use of genetically modified crops and food products, with newspapers describing Britain as a country that is impenetrable by biotech companies interested in developing and selling GM products. GM crops became widely known as “Frankenstein foods,” and the British public was strongly opposed to their growth, sale, and consumption. The opposition was largely aimed at the large multinational companies that were seen as heavy-handed in their approach to the public’s concern as to the safety of consuming such crops.
More recent GM crop cultivation has been met with some resistance, but not quite the outrage that was seen in the 1990s, mainly because old activists go on to other things and climate change has consumed most of the young activists. The resistance of the UK to GM crops has been criticized by the government’s former chief science adviser, who estimated that Britain has lost around £4 billion (approximately US$7.2 billion) worth of revenue. The recent UK government, led by the Environment Secretary and Science Minister, is reportedly moving to push the UK towards eating more GM foods. Government policy states that provided it is used safely, GM foods could be a tool with which to address global food security and climate change, and help with sustainable agricultural protection. Well they would say that wouldn’t they, regardless of evidence and I doubt whether the Science Minister has an A-level in science subjects.
Currently genetically modified foods are not grown commercially in Britain, but a limited number can be imported. There are no fresh GM fruit or vegetables approved for consumption by humans and this remains the case in the EU. Not only will the rules underpinning most business and jobs lapse on October 31st, but so too will many of the rules that frame Britain’s environmental standards.
The EU responded to consumer concerns and activist lobbying in transforming Britain’s laissez faire approach to the environment in the 1970s and Britain eventually became a global environmental leader. It is unthinkable that Johnson in any trade deal could catapult Britain back to the 70s. Through more than 150 EU directives and 1,100 pieces of legislation covering everything from water quality in rivers and on beaches, to animal welfare, GM foods, emissions and standards for waste disposal and landfill, the EU has set and enforced standards.
Michael Gove, environment secretary under Prime Minister May, promised that standards would even be enhanced after Brexit. That certainly now seems to be a black hole where all false promises disappear. The rules were supposed to be policed by a new office for Environment Protection (OEP). Many EU rules have not yet however been transposed into British law. It will also be years before the OEP comes into existence, until then rules will be enforced by a 16-person interim board, which sounds completely inadequate and open to manipulation, through lack of independence. The rules undoubtedly will change and allow for GM food or as Johnson put it: “… A bioscience sector liberated from anti-genetic modification rules… “: 36 organisations have written to the government complaining the OEP will not be fully transparent.
I lobbied in the 80s against the chemicalisation of food and use of insecticides. Evidence of the damage to health by insecticides and other agricultural pollutants was being covered up, using the Official Secrets Act to protect chemical companies. A compliant media ran stories that claimed chemicalised food was just as safe and nutritious as organic food. Of course the wealthy and politicians soon turned to organic food, just like many doctors turn to alternative treatments, when they develop cancer.
One cannot trust Johnson’s green credentials, even though his girlfriend has a job as an environmental campaigner. Jacob Rees Mogg has referred to clean energy as “unaffordable” and Esther Mc Vey attacked “wealthy environmental activists,” whilst Liz Truss cut subsidies for solar farms.
Post Brexit the Conservatives in their need to grasp free trade opportunities, may well agree to relax environmental rules and shelve green commitments, including laws on GM foods. One can envisage a large media campaign in the pipe-line which will wheel out ‘experts’ to convince the public that GM food is safe and just as good as organic food. Gosh here we go again – around the Mulberry Bush. There will be arguments in favour, claiming sustainability, feeding the world and cheap food. The rich won’t care, they will buy organic.
In May 2003, the US and 12 other countries filed a formal complaint with the World Trade Organisation, claiming the EU was violating international trade agreements, by blocking imports of US farm products through its ban on GM food. This may well happen to the UK. The plaintiffs argued that the EU’s regulatory process was far too slow and its standards were unreasonable given the scientific evidence, showing that the crops were safe. Gosh that sounds familiar, with regards to cancer research. As with the cancer business powerful lobby groups were involved – Monsanto and France’s Aventis, as well as US agricultural groups such as the National Corn Growers Association.
In response, in June 2003 the European Parliament ratified a U.N. biosafety protocol regulating international trade in GM food and in July agreed to new regulations requiring labelling and traceability, as well as an opt-out provision for individual countries. In May 2004 approval of new GMOs resumed and was later passed, but numerous countries utilized op-out provisions, including the UK.
Wikileaks revealed that the US ambassador to France recommended “moving to retaliation” to cause “some pain” to France (and the EU) for opting out. In fact 20 out of 28 European Countries including Switzerland opted out and said NO to GMOs.
Species with altered genes become corporate property. Seeds in the hands of five corporations’ means diversity will disappear and be replaced by monocultures of GMOs. Corporations believe there are no ethical questions to be answered in that life on earth is becoming owned through patents and intellectual property rights (PR). Patents are granted for inventions and life is not an invention. The corporations are creating seed slavery in so far as farmers are being trapped in debt to pay royalties.
As I remarked in my last blog, Power strategies do not change much throughout time. The Patriarch Joseph was running a cunning wheat seed scam down there in Egypt, which had the result of starving and enslaving the Egyptians, who then had to work for the government (Theatre Earth vol.1, 294-296). And yet his activities are still included in a ‘holy’ book – The Old Testament.
Critics complain that dominance or a monopoly by a few major corporations which sell patented seeds gives the industry control of research and development. This of course is the exact position in parallel, in cancer research, where the pharmaceutical companies and orthodoxy dominate research through grant funding, peer review, publishing and media compliance. Those who pay the bills, expect favourable results when any study on their products is carried out (professional bias).
The biotech companies do not allow independent research to be carried out on their products and this is legally covered by their patents. This means that many questions which could be answered with regards to research into safety of GMOs remain unanswered, because of the restrictions to academic research.
This like cancer research is a disgraceful state of affairs, where scientists are prevented from examining the raw ingredients in a nation’s food supply, or indeed the plants that cover a large proportion of agricultural land. The situation has slightly improved since 2009, where many of the biotech companies have reached agreements with certain universities. However those agreements must be questioned for independence. Universities may have been chosen, for particular scientists who have been shown to be supportive of GM biotech. Bias cancer research followed the same strategy, where the pharmaceutical companies virtually control all research.
Your author applied to no less than 20 grant funding organisations to cover the costs of her independent research into the alternative treatment of cancer. She had to eventually fund the research herself. There are also barriers to publishing for independent alternative research (New Scientist). In 2009 a Scientific American editorial quoted a scientist who said that several studies that were initially approved by seed companies were blocked from publication when the research returned “unflattering” results. It is an old story of conflict of interests, whereby through various strategies the competition, is silenced and erased from public view.
The biotech companies argue that patented seeds produce better yields thus deflecting the higher cost of purchase to the farmer. However research shows that yields are no better than using organic farming. The fact remains that biotech companies control the future of the seed supply. Industry consolidation has been criticised by researchers, who state it hinders the development of sustainable agriculture, by the decline in renewable agriculture. There is a decline in the rate of saving and replanting seeds, as farmers used to do, when they are forced to purchase biotech seed year after year.
The biotech giant Monsanto now a Bayer company, controls the largest share of the global seed market – about 34% or more than one third of the top 20 companies based on 2017 sales. Du Pont was next with approximately 25% and Syngenta controlled 9%; Bayer (now combined with Monsanto) held more than 5%. This reflects the growing corporatism of large scale agriculture.
The biotech companies like to rely on public ignorance, where they do not explain that whilst cisgenics are GM crops from plants that are crossable by conventional breeding methods i.e. they are from the same species; transgenics are GM crops using genes inserted from different species. The glowing fish, which had a glowing gene from a jellyfish inserted, whereby it was claimed it could act as a night light, is just one horror story and contempt for life, which becomes a mere patentable product. It is the transgenic GM food that is of great concern. Labeling has been poor, even though a survey showed that 93% of Americans wanted labeling of GM food.
If you go against orthodoxy in science, your career is ruined by various means. It is not surprising therefore that 88% of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) claim GM food is safe. In 2013 the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) issued a statement claiming that there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs; signed by about 200 scientists from various disciplines. In 2015, the statement was published by Environmental Sciences of Europe as a White Paper.
Lawsuits over the years have tried to reign in the biotech companies. In 1983 the case in America of Alliance for Bio-integrity v. Shalaia saw the plaintiff argue among other issues, that GM foods should undergo the same testing requirements as food additives because they are “materially changed” and have potential unidentified health risks. The federal district court rejected all the arguments and found that the FDA’s determination that GMOs are generally recognised as safe was neither arbitrary nor capricious. How they could possibly conclude that is beyond belief, as no long term studies in humans exist.
The Case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty again in America in 1980 questioned whether GMOs could be patented. The Supreme Court in a 5-4 split decision held that: “A live, human-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter” under the meaning of U.S patent law. As Trump’s favorite book is allegedly The Bible, then perhaps he should question what happened to God’s creation in the US.
There are a small number of studies showing harm by GMOs, but the research is limited because independent research is restricted by the patents, where the GMOs are only given to researchers the biotech companies approve of. In 1999 Nature published a paper on the potential toxic effects of Bt maize on butterflies. Naturally the biotech companies wheeled out research from their preferred researchers which counter-argued the research – and so it goes on.
The question of whether conflicts of interest correlated with the outcomes of research that cast GMOs in a favourable light, led to a review of the research in 2011 which found that financial conflict of interest was not associated with study outcome; however author affiliation to the biotech industry i.e. a professional conflict of interest was strongly associated with study outcome. Well I suppose if you are earning a consultancy fee, or have shares in a biotech company, or are up for promotion into a biotech company and you did not want to lose that, you would be rather bias.
I mentioned a historical case in the UK of Professor Mc Ewan who conducted a bias trial of cancer patients at the Bristol Clinic, which suffered from professional bias (The Cancer Files). In the Review it emerged that out of 94 studies analysed, 52% did not declare funding, which leaves the question of whether they were funded by a biotech company.
Again as in cancer research, the biotech companies often use their own in-house research and if that uncovers negative or unfavourable results for a new GMO, then it is quietly shelved and not reported. In 2016 a study by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine concluded GM foods were safe for human consumption. The study also concluded that GM crops had given farmers economic advantages, but found no evidence that GM crops had increased yields. The reason often given for producing GM crops is increased yields can feed a rising population. In fact the yield is no greater than organic farming. What was noted was that weed resistance to GM crops could cause major agricultural problems.
In 2012 the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reported that “novel hazards” could be associated with transgenic strains – in short GMOs from different species mixed. Further despite claims of safety no detailed or long term research on safety of transgenic strains has occurred. Clinical studies on humans would not pass ethics and no set protocols of testing have been put forward. Long term studies of the effect and safety of GM food are not feasible according to the General Accounting Office (in a review of FDA procedures requested by Congress) and a working group of the Food and Agriculture and World Health Organisation.
There are also concerns of transfer of genes from GMO crops to non GMO crops particularly organic. Another worry is the effect on ecosystems e.g. the herbicide glyphosate used to grow GMOs kills milkweed which is the only source of food for the Monarch butterfly. Biodiversity is another issue and the decline of crop genetic diversity. Diversity has declined in India after GMO crops were planted there.
In the UK we have been used to imports of fresh fruit and vegetables from the EU where we can be sure that they are GMO free, but that will change and since Trade Deals are being surrounded in secrecy, then can we be sure that products coming from elsewhere will not contain GMOs?
The claim that GMO crops need less fertilizer is not the case. Once the main pests have been eliminated, studies have shown that secondary pests increase as they have no competition. More insecticide is then required to deal with the secondary insects. Eco-systems are complex and planting a GMO crop resistant to one pest, does not mean that other pests will not gain advantage. There is also the issue of GMO genes transferring to weeds, wild plants and non-GMO crops.
In 2015 scientists at the UK centre for Ecology and Hydrology reported the first evidence of GMO transfer of pesticide resistance to weeds. A 2010 study found that 83% of wild or weedy canola had tested positive for GMO herbicide resistant genes. In 2015 a protest occurred in Hawaii over the possibility that birth defects were being caused by heavy use of pesticides on new strains of GMO crops. The development of glyphosate-tolerant (Roundup Ready) plants altered herbicide usage. The spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds actually increased US herbicide usage.
Genetic use restriction technology (GURT) called “Terminator” genes, although as yet un-commercialised would allow sterile seeds to produce one crop only and would not be transferred. The mere name is enough for concern to your author, who has noted in her research the attitudes of a Power elite towards population numbers and control. This issue of overpopulation even shows up on the Akashic Record (Theatre Earth vol. 1), which means as a cyclical event it has occurred in the past history of Earth.
The escape of GMO seed is not only a concern to organic farmers, but to farmers who are exporting to non GMO countries. In 2000, Aventis Starlink GM corn was found in US markets and restaurants. Taco Bell – branded taco shells sold in supermarkets were found to contain it. American rice exports to Europe were interrupted in 2006 when a GM strain was found. The US has no legislation covering containment, or escape of GMO seeds and where astoundingly conventional, GM and organic crop farms are co-existent.
In the EU since 2001, conventional and organic food and foodstuffs can contain up to 0.9% of authorised GMO material without carrying a GMO label. If GMO is to be part of any US-UK trade deal, then the labels are so poorly displayed that it is nothing short of deception. Sometimes the labels are so small you need a magnifying glass to see them. The glyphosate-tolerance GM trait was found in 93% of US soy beans grown in 2009. Since vegetarians and vegans are dependent on soya, then how will this affect the UK market?
Labeling of GM food was required by 64 countries in 2014, which included the EU. However few people now check for GM ingredients in order to make an informed choice. On viewing products in my local supermarket, I could see no labels on many products either GMO or GMO free. The American Association for the Advancement of science claims labeling only falsely alarms consumers. It is a ridiculous position and people have the right to informed choice. What they really mean is products may not sell if they carry the GMO label.
As climate change and population increase put pressure on the environment, one can see many false arguments in a PR blitz being used by the biotech companies; whilst relying on the fact that the majority will trust organisations that tell them GM food is safe and industrial agriculture is a solution, producing high yields, low prices and wider choice. It is hard to argue against bias research and claims that those who adopted GM crops made 69% higher profits than those who did not. In developing countries this is a definite incentive, where damage to the environment or even humans is far down the farmers list of concerns, in his struggle for survival.
Research such as a 2009 Review by the Union of Concerned Scientists, who are opposed to GM and cloning of food animals, found in a study of yield of GM soybeans in the US, that other agricultural methods had made a greater contribution to national crop yield increases than GM crops. The problem has always been as in cancer research, in gaining independent research and independent Review. In 2011 73% of the global market in seeds, was controlled by 10 companies. They are rich, powerful and through patents control research. This gives these firms bargaining power over governments. This monopoly also allows dictation of terms and prices.
The Union of Concerned Scientists and Centre for Food Safety, have expressed concern in the US over the FDA’s lack of a requirement for additional testing of GMOs and lack of required labeling and the presumption, without long term evidence especially for transgenic GMOs that they are safe. In the US lobbyists are appointed to senior positions in the Food and Drug Administration, which generally looks at safety. One lobbyist (Taylor) was appointed as a senior adviser to the FDA on food safety in 1997. After leaving the FDA, Taylor became Vice President of Monsanto, a large biotech company which has long attracted very negative comment. In 2009 Taylor returned to government as senior adviser to the FDA Commissioner and do doubt his advice would have supported GM technology. This ‘revolving-door’ whereby a small group of men, are rotated around top jobs, when considered a safe pair of hands to relevant companies is common in many fields including cancer.
Monsanto has connections to the pharmaceutical industry, through Pharmacia Corporation and G. D. Searle. Drugs and GMO biotechnology are close bedfellows. The biotech industry has followed that of the cancer business at detriment to humanity. Just as drugs in cancer treatment have become a multi-billion pound industry and retain a monopoly on health, then as 75% of all processed foods now contain GM ingredients, then the biotech industry has become a Powerful monopoly over food .
Soya beans and corn now make up the largest portion of GMO crops. The only way to avoid these GM foods, are to read labels and reject processed foods. If you want to stay healthy stick as close to Nature as you can. It is certainly not unbelievable to your author having watched corporate strategy for over a quarter of a century, that the U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) wants companies like Monsanto-Bayer, Dow DuPont and Syngenta (now owned by Chem China) to “regulate” their own genetically engineered products, under a proposed rule the USDA euphemistically calls the “sustainable, Ecological, Consistent, Uniform, Responsible, Efficient” or “SECURE”. It is like putting the fox in the chicken house and telling the chickens they will be “secure”. It is absurd.
Secrecy and strategies to silence critics, is another method Power uses and although Bayer has acquired Monsanto, the latter is still embroiled in controversy. This included keeping lists of influential critics in possible violation of French law. I am quite aware of this method as I have been subject to it for years. Monsanto has also been made to pay damages in 3 cases involving cancer said to have been caused by its glyphosate-based weed killer – Roundup. Homebase, Wickes, B&Q, Lidl, Range and Amazon are among the UK retailers, who are still selling the weed killer Roundup, which a jury in the US found was responsible for causing cancer. Is Britain a dumping ground for the US?
There are 171 million acres of GMO crops in the US. Over years of constant application of glyphosate herbicides such as Monsanto’s Roundup, new herbicide resistant ‘super weeds’ have evolved and those weeds require significantly more not less herbicide. ABC TV in the US, a mainstream channel covered a documentary – ‘super-weeds that can’t be killed’ (2009). The programme interviewed farmers and scientists in Arkansas who described fields overrun with giant pigweed, plants that can withstand as much glyphosate as farmers are able to spray.
“GMO crops and patented seeds were developed in the 1970s with significant financial support from the pro-eugenics Rockefeller Foundation, by what were essentially chemical companies Monsanto chemicals, Du Pont and Dow chemicals. All three were involved in the scandal of the highly toxic Agent Orange used in Vietnam, as well as Dioxin in the 1970s, and lied to cover up the true damage to its own employees as well as to civilian and military populations exposed. Their patented GMO seeds were seen as a clever way to force increased purchase of their agricultural chemicals such as Roundup… farmers were trapped into both buying new seeds from Monsanto each harvest and buying the toxic glyphosate…” (The Secret History of European Union vol. 2 p. 192).
France’s University of Caen, in a team led by molecular biologist Seralini, conducted a study that showed Roundup contained one specific inert ingredient, polyethoxylated tallowamine or POEA. Seralini’s team demonstrated that POEA in Roundup was more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than even glyphosate itself. Monsanto refused to release details of the contents of its Roundup other than glyphosate, calling it ‘propriety’.” (The Secret History of European Union vol.2 p. 192).
The Seralini study found that Roundup’s inert ingredients amplified the toxic effect on human cells, even at concentrations much more diluted than those used on farms and on lawns. Glyphosate and Roundup were advertised as “less toxic to us than table salt” in a pamphlet from the Biotechnology Institute promoting GMO crops as “weed warrior.” In fact 13 years of GMO crops in the US has increased overall pesticide use, not decreased it.
In the 80s one believed one was fighting corporate power, but what had yet to emerge was a secret globalisation plan and hidden higher Power. The Power elite have since the 1950s been concerned with increasing population and decreased food supplies. Why that should have been so, just after World War II, where millions died is curious. Rising population however was justification for developing a plan for globalisation. The plan was to place a “powerful international authority” in control of world affairs. They believed that population could be controlled by food supply and resources.
Ideas found in books of the time, were taken up by the elite, or so the story goes. As we saw in Steve Bannon’s case, his book was financed by the Mercer Foundation in order to assist President Trump’s campaign (Blog: Power and its protection by secrecy). This strategy helps to erase the source of ideas and its gearing mechanism in globalisation plans. “Perhaps those agencies combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies might eventually be developed into a planetary regime – sort of an international super agency for population, resources and environment…” Many of the ideas, were strikingly similar to Nazi ideology, particularly those forwarded by John Holdren (The Secret History of European Union vol. 2 p.188). Did Rockefeller Foundation finance Holdren?
President Obama was reported in 2009 to have nominated John Holdren as his science adviser. Critics stated: “….Holdren is a globalist who has endorsed “surrender of sovereignty” to “a comprehensive planetary regime” that would control the entire world’s resources, direct global redistribution of wealth, oversee the “de-development” of the West, control a World Army and taxation regime, and enforce world population limits…” (The Secret History of European Union vol. 2 p.188). Fascism or Communism or both heads of the same coin?
A further question arises as to whether the movement towards Far Right wing populist movements, originated as a plan in the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) under Zbigniew Brzezinski a Bilderberg attendee who with David Rockefeller, the committed globalist, co-founded the powerful Trilateral Commission. Ideas and plans were floated for “….magnetic and attractive personalities effectively exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason…” (The Secret History of European Union vol.2 p. 183). We certainly saw some “magnetic and attractive personalities” emerge, using Twitter, and the “latest communication techniques” to win elections.
Brzezski back in 1970 advocated control of populations and mass surveillance. John D. Rockefeller was founder and chairman of the Population Council, a private U.S organisation funded largely by Rockefeller and Ford Foundations. Ford had a history of Fascism and Hitler kept a picture of him on his desk at the Brown House.
It was first reported in 1991 that Rockefeller thanked a toadying compliant media (The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time magazine and others), for 40 years of “discretion” in not reporting secret meetings which they attended, and the plan for a group of wealthy individuals to control the financial, political and social direction of the entire world (The Secret History of European Union Vol. 2, p. 170).
Wall Street Mega-Banks were buying up the world’s water, along with China who was buying farms (The Secret History of European Union vol.2, p. 168). The plan was and still is, to control every facet of life, a plan that took off in the 1970s. Henry Kissinger was originally an employee and toady of Nelson Rockefeller, and was later inserted into Nixon’s Administration. Kissinger like Rockefeller believed that by controlling food, one could control people and by controlling energy, especially oil, one could control nations and their financial systems. This strategy is currently being used against Iran, through sanctions. He felt that a loosely knit world government could become a reality by 1980: a period that coincided with the first GMO crop and Frostban, which I was alerted to through Rifkin. We realised then everything including DNA was up for grabs – the “god-men” had re-emerged in cyclic predictability and one could clearly see the holographic Universal Mind being re-enacted. Will man understand this science before it is too late, because the future holographs look rather exterminatory?
Catch me next time!