Would you be surprised to hear that the human race is slowly becoming dumber, and dumber?
Despite our advancements over the last tens or even hundreds of years, some ‘experts’ believe that humans are losing cognitive capabilities and becoming more emotionally unstable. One Stanford University researcher and geneticist, Dr. Gerald Crabtree, believes that our intellectual decline as a race has much to do with adverse genetic mutations. But human intelligence is suffering for other reasons as well.
According to Crabtree, our cognitive and emotional capabilities are fueled and determined by the combined effort of thousands of genes. If a mutation occurred in any of of these genes, which is quite likely, then intelligence or emotional stability can be negatively impacted.
“I would wager that if an average citizen from Athens of 1000 BC were to appear suddenly among us, he or she would be among the brightest and most intellectually alive of our colleagues and companions, with a good memory, a broad range of ideas, and a clear-sighted view of important issues. Furthermore, I would guess that he or she would be among the most emotionally stable of our friends and colleagues,” the geneticist began his article in the scientific journal Trends in Genetics.
Further, the geneticist explains that people with specific adverse genetic mutations are more likely than ever to survive and live amongst the ‘strong.’ Darwin’s theory of ‘survival of the fittest’ is less applicable in today’s society, therefore those with better genes will not necessarily dominate in society as they would have in the past.
While this hypothesis does have some merit: are genes really the primary reason for the overall cognitive decline of the human race? If humans really are lacking in intelligence more than before, it’s important to recognize other possible causes. Let’s take a look at how our food system plays a role in all of this.
It’s sad, but true; our food system today is contributing to lower human intelligenceacross the board.
Pesticides are Diminishing Human Intelligence
One study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that pesticides, which are rampant among the food supply, are creating lasting changes in overall brain structure — changes that have been linked to lower intelligence levels and decreased cognitive function. Specifically, the researchers found that a pesticide known as chlorpyrifos (CPF) has been linked to ”significant abnormalities”. Further, the negative impact was found to occur even at low levels of exposure.
Lead researcher Virginia Rauh, a professor at the Mailman School of Public Health, summarized the findings:
“Toxic exposure during this critical period can have far-reaching effects on brain development and behavioral functioning.”
Processed Foods, High Fructose Corn Syrup Making People ‘Stupid’
Following 14,000 children, British researchers uncovered the connection between processed foods and reduced IQ. After recording the children’s’ diets and analyzing questionnaires submitting by the parents, the researchers found that if children were consuming a processed diet at age 3, IQ decline could begin over the next five years. The study found that by age 8, the children had suffered the IQ decline. On the contrary, children who ate a nutrient-rich diet including fruit and vegetables were found to increase their IQ over the 3 year period. The foods considered nutrient-rich by the researchers were most likely conventional fruits and vegetables.
Interestingly, one particular ingredient ubiquitous in processed foods and sugary beverages across the globe -high fructose corn syrup – has been tied to reduced IQ. The UCLA researchers coming to these findings found that HFCS may be damaging the brain functions of consumers worldwide, sabotaging learning and memory. In fact, the official release goes as far to say that high-fructose corn syrup can make you ‘stupid’.
Gene mutations may have something to do with the ongoing decline in human intelligence, but let’s stop to think for a moment what we’re doing to ourselves to make this decline even more prominent.
Source: Underground Health
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has invested $25 million into a project to identify the DNA structure of American infants entitled the 2013 Genomic Sequencing and Newborn Screening Disorders (GSNSD) research program.
Funding for this project is provided by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI).
The initial concerns of the GSNSD are the ethical, legal and social implications of using infant genetic information for scientific study.
This endeavor is being facilitated with academic institutions in cities:
• San Francisco
• Chapel Hill
• Kansas City
The decoding of infant DNA, called genome sequencing, will create a map of each individual child’s genetic make-up to identify health risks that could develop in childhood or later in life.
Eric Green, director of the NHGRI said: “We are at a point now where powerful new genome sequencing technologies are making it faster and more affordable than ever to access genomic information about patients. This initiative will help us better understand how we can appropriately use this information to improve health and prevent disease in infants and children.”
Currently, an estimated 4 million US infants born annually have their heel pricked for a blood sample that is tested for 30 rare diseases as part of a national health initiative.
At the privately-funded Niederhuber’s Inova Translational Medicine Institute (NITMI), scientists are mapping the genetic sequence of infants and comparing them to parents and relatives of the participants.
By analyzing the genetic make-up of these children, researchers hope to discover genetic defects, developmental disorders and predict the propensity of an individual toward health problems.
John Niederhuber, director of the NITMI said : “If I truly believed that knowing one’s genome was going to be transformative to medicine over the next decade or more, then wouldn’t I want to start generating that information around the time of birth?”
Christine Eng, professor at the Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) commented: “This is a direct benefit of the Human Genome Project [the big effort to decode our DNA]. We’re now able to directly benefit patients through more accurate diagnosis.”
Eng was the lead researcher in a study that utilized a new sequencing technique that could decipher the “recipes” of proteins within a genome.
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is endeavoring to collect the DNA of all children to be stored in case of a future arrest or circumstance wherein the use of their DNA would be pertinent or necessary for involvement in criminal activity and conviction.
DHS estimates that 1 million people are subject to this intrusive collection because of incarceration and non-criminal reasons. Children who are caught in the criminal system have their DNA stored along with adult offenders, according to the Council for Responsible Genetics.
Jennifer Lynch of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) asserts: “Collecting DNA from anyone detained by the government for any number of non-criminal reasons – especially juveniles – seems to be yet another step on the slippery slope of collecting DNA from everyone in the United States, no matter their status.”
The US Congress passed the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2010 that expanded the collection of DNA in the name of protecting children and enhancing federal criminal databases. This works in tandem with the DNA Initiative which provides “funding, training and assistance to ensure that forensic DNA reaches its full potential to solve crimes, protect the innocent and identify missing persons.”
DNA collection is justified for the purposes of obtaining a medical history and predisposition to disease. These samples then become part of the warrantless collections that are mingled in with criminal profiles to create genetic databases on all American citizens.
An estimated 10 million DNA samples stored in CODIS , a massive DNA database, are collected on the local state and federal levels and provided to law enforcement. This database will be utilized for pre-crime purposes and have been sanctioned by federal courts.
After birth, infants in hospitals have their blood taken under the guise of screening for diseases; however collections where genetic information have been formed over the decades on nearly every American.
An estimated 10 million DNA samples stored in CODIS , a massive DNA database, are collected on the local state and federal levels and provided to law enforcement. This database will be utilized for pre-crime purposes and have been sanctioned by federal courts.
After birth, infants in hospitals have their blood taken under the guise of screening for diseases; however collections where genetic information have been formed over the decades on nearly every American.
Source: Susanne Posel | NSNBC
There’s a frightening new technology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) that’s right out of a comic book. Scientists at the technical school have figured out how to implant false mental reactions in a mouse.
This technological ‘advancement’ is terrifying when considering that it could lead to real life brainwashing and mind control like that shown in the classic movie The Manchurian Candidate (the classic film starring Frank Sinatra). In the film, communists turn an average man into an assassin by implanting false memories into his mind.
A similar plot is found in Total Recall. The brainwashing shown in these movies were fantasy, but what’s happening at MIT is apparently real.
A team of MIT researchers led by neuroscientist Susumu Tongawa figured out how to implant responses in the brains of mice by manipulating neurons. They even have a name for their technique, optogenetics, and it allows them to manipulate brain cells with chemicals. Remember the term optogenetics; we’re going to be hearing a lot about it in years to come.
Basically, these scientists have figured out how to hack the brain much like cyber crooks can hack your computer. They’re still a long way from hacking human brains, but that seems to be the goal here.
What’s really frightening is that the purpose of this research has not been revealed. What purpose would false memories serve? Could soldiers be programmed to forget things they saw on the battlefield that might embarrass politicians back home? Prisoners could be programmed to forget about abuse or, worse, reprogrammed to commit treason; in other words, a real-life Manchurian Candidate. Could people be convinced to do things that they believe are unethical, such as kill?
There’s also the question of who is paying for this research. MIT’s connections to the Defense Department and the military industrial complex are well known. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has reportedly been doing a lot of research on mind control and brain/computer interface. This memory research has DARPA written all over it.
Do we really want our government, or any government, to have the ability to implant false memories in people’s minds? I don’t think so. Worse, if this technology is like other DARPA developments, it won’t be long before people outside of government, such as criminals, terrorists, and cult leaders, get their hands on it.
This research needs to be investigated now to see who is developing it and why. I’d like to see Congress look into this and perhaps defund these mind control efforts. This is one technology the world probably doesn’t need
“…we are here dealing with a totalitarian state of which the philosophy included an utter contempt for the individual… any freedom of thought or action was inconceivable in the Aztec world… dependence and instability were absolute, fear reigned. Death lurked ceaselessly everywhere, and constituted the cement of the building in which the individual Aztec was prisoner… Clearly the spirituality of some aspects of Aztec life must have sprung from an old pre-Aztec tradition, later betrayed…”
Laurette Sejourne (‘Burning Water’)
The life of a nation, of a culture, is sustained by very few but very critical social circumstances. These pillars must stand strong, maintained with the utmost care and caution; as one would fight to maintain the beat of his own heart. If these vital foundations are dissolved or destroyed, the nation and the people contained within are subject to the most heinous of generational afflictions. The citizenry and all that nurtures their progress, begins to die. Slowly suffocating in a corrosive atmosphere of dishonor, men turn toward pure self interest at the expense of their greater selves, giving rise to hatred, desperation, and an environment of disturbed malleability that is easily exploited by those who seek power.
Eventually, the entire edifice comes crashing down, sometimes so far into the pits of black and terrible times that it is all but lost, even to memory…
As I look out past the near horizon of this time, and this nation, I see considerable potential for a revitalization of that which is best in humanity. I see a population that strives for independence. I see a return to the entrepreneurial spirit of discovery. I see unhindered freedom of thought and action feeding a fire of creativity that inspires us to unimaginable heights. I see new expression given license not just by the masses, but by structures of a government which truly follows the will of the common man, and not the will of an elite few. I see America breathing full, eyes wide open and alive.
However, this potential future would have to come at a considerable cost.
America has so strayed from its founding roots that it now hungers; starving for lack of nutrients from its natural soil. As with all other catastrophic societies of the past, we have been manipulated and conned into overlooking and over-rationalizing astonishing injustice and in some cases, unmitigated evil. I frankly don’t know what else to call it. There are some acts of malevolence that go beyond human weakness and inadequacy and reach into realms of calculation that are so cold, so soulless, there is simply no other way to describe them. These actions and attitudes tend to run rampant in dying nations but are rarely singled out and criticized by those in the midst of the great fall. Each begins with the loss of particular principles and inherent morals that are normally prized under more healthy circumstances, but are despised in times of chaos and uncertainty.
This begins with the rise of moral relativism.
All Is “Rational”…
The concept that our inherent conscience should be set aside at times in order to achieve a “greater good” is a long running philosophy that has led to some of the greatest evils mankind has ever witnessed. From Plato’s “noble lie”, to Machiavelli’s politics of subversion, to the Marquis De Sade’s insane fantasy world without self limit; such men and those who adopt their ideals have proven that intellect alone is no magic ticket to a well balanced society. Indeed, intellect without intuitive conscience can be a tool for rationalizing the most horrifying of crimes.
In America today, we have quite a few moral relativists at the helm of our government, and many more who would advise them.
Ralph Peters, a retired United States Army Lieutenant Colonel and former campaign adviser to John McCain, known for his array of Islamo-fearmongo books and novels, is, in my view, a perfect example of the moral relativist in action. Talking points from his writings are parroted constantly by Neo-Cons and now Neo-Libs who feel compelled to defend Barack Obama’s continued blood-letting in the Middle East. Peters asserts that American troops and warfare tactics must become essentially as monstrous as the enemy we fight in order for victory to be achieved. This is excusable, in his opinion, because America is the “good guy”, and they are the “bad guys”:
Ironically, Peters often uses the example of Rome’s genocidal attacks on Carthage as a primer for his arguments, loosely comparing the “barbarians” of Carthage to the “barbarian” Muslims of his War on Terror. His position; that Rome was safest when they were absolute in their brutality.
What Peters ignorantly overlooks (or perhaps deliberately overlooks) is that the fall of Rome was not hastened by outside “barbarians”, but by Rome’s own barbarity and stupidity. Rome’s elites provoked and gave birth to enemy hoards through their relentless acts of bloodshed across the known world over the course of centuries. America is set on the same exact path with the help of men like Peters; claiming that our principles stand in the way of our survival, and that all targets are fair game and all means are acceptable as long as we prevail. The problem is, as Peters admits, one should never declare actual victory in the War on Terror. Thus, by his own logic, there can be no conclusion, only an endless cycle of death perpetrated in ever more diabolical ways.
Nations that take on this mentality of pure destruction without boundaries lose all high ground in the annals of history.
It is not enough that a country or a culture should survive; it must also be worthy of survival. Recent debacles in Afghanistan, including the deliberate killing of 16 civilians (which I’m sure Peters would attempt to advocate), show clearly that the longer you try to occupy a foreign nation based on false premises, the more it will eventually start looking like Vietnam, along with the toll of madness and depression that overtakes soldiers after multiple tours of duty fighting a war that makes no sense to them anymore.
Science Supercedes Conscience?
In the world of Bioethics, Moral relativism has been refined to an artform, and the prominence of bioethical arguments is expanding considerably here in the U.S. The reason for this can be tied directly to the elitist adoption of environmental activism as a vehicle to promote morally relative social policies. The field of climate change continues to offer the most ample venue. If the very future of our planet is supposedly at stake due to the mere creation of carbon emissions, a product of almost every human action, then all aspects of human life come into question and eventually, lend themselves to taxation, regulation, and domination.
Despite the fact that climate research labs like those at the CRU of East Anglia and NASA still refuse to release the source data for their experiments supporting their assertions that man causes global warming, and the fact that East Anglia’s rigged computer modeling methods were exposed through the Climategate emails, the Bioethics community continues to use manmade global warming as the boogieman rationalization for scientific tyranny. This includes suggestions of medicating the populace in order to make them more “empathetic” to the dangers of climate change:
The climate change dynamic invariably leads to calls for population reduction. Arguments have been recently presented stating that because newborn babies do not have fully formed cognition, they are “not yet human” and should be susceptible to legal abortion (of course, men like Steven Pinker, Noam Chomsky, Carl Jung, and many others have proven that there are multiple inherent qualities to children at birth, and Bioethicists have no idea how much of our personality is a part of that, but hey, who am I to argue with a Bioethicist):
For the ancient Aztecs, high priests used the fake threat of the solar eclipse and the swallowing of the sun as a means to control the people and force them to conduct human sacrifice to satiate the bloodlust of their rulers. In America today, we have high priests in the garb of pseudoscience who use the specter of climate change annihilation to seize similar control and condone clinical human sacrifice to satiate the thirst of environmental elitists for depopulation.
It Always Ends In Cannibalism…
People eating other people is just one of those aspects of extreme decline that the collapse of civilizations seem to elicit. It goes against all natural law and even our animal instinct, but in a land where principles are rejected wholesale, it can become commonplace. Most animals avoid turning to cannibalism because their very genetics demand that they continue the species. This is very difficult to do when one’s own species is self consuming. Even if conscience were never a question (which it always is), our very DNA should prevent us from such activity. When it does occur, with extensive participation by the general populace, it is a sure sign of a culture on the edge of a full-on swan dive into epic seventh circle of hell-style calamity.
This is why anyone should feel rather disturbed and sickened at the news that companies like Pepsi, Nestle, and Kraft Foods are working with artificial flavor manufacturer Senomyx, which uses aborted fetal tissue in the creation of its products:
The Senomyx patents which include fetal tissue use (HEK Cell lines that express hetero oligomeric taste receptors) can be viewed here:
Senomyx and the companies associated with it have made a wide range of assertions surrounding this practice. Some deny fetal tissue is used at all. Others argue that it is only used in the “testing” of certain chemical flavorings. While the consensus is that human material is not actually present in the final food products of the companies involved, I find it a bit disconcerting to know that dead fetuses are being used to test better flavor enhancements for someone’s next soda or slice of cheese. Regardless of how you may feel about the issue of abortion, you have to admit that this lack of respect for human remains for the purposes of profit when numerous alternatives exist is chilling.
This news, along with the revelation that hybrid rice containing human DNA has been approved by the USDA, tells me that someone out there REALLY wants the average American to dive into at least lighter forms of cannibalism:
Given these developments, it is only a matter of time before present technological food practices take another step forward into even more questionable realms. Is the “Soylent Green” method of cannibalism more acceptable than the Aztec form of cannibalism? No. Ultimately, both stem from a complete lack of regard for life; a regard that usually keeps societies from tearing themselves to shreds over the rolling boil of a stew pot.
Moments Of Clarity Lost…
The above examples of undesirable trends are only a taste of the stampede of modern tyranny that we must brace for and defend against in the near term. The most important factor of all is to understand why a social condition causes us pain. In regret, and in sadness, that which makes us human is most distinctly felt. Our inner voice, once lost or forgotten, is difficult to retrieve. The ease by which the darker side of life presents itself becomes enticing, and, the good we were once capable of fades.
America (and the rest of the world) is at the most important stage of historical life; the stage at which the people choose to leave all reason behind to ride the mangling tides of fate, or, choose to stand and fight for a clarity of sight one could only define as individual destiny. Regardless of the circumstances we are eventually faced with, one difficult truth remains; without a sense of honor and principle, there can be no liberty, and therefore, no society worth a damn. Some see this as a handicap in the battle for transparency and truth in our culture. I do not.
In the end, HOW we fight is just as important as WHY we fight. The example we set is just as important as the ideals we espouse. The way we live is just as important if not more important than the length of our time on this planet. What we leave behind after the dust settles and our land driven forms remain but cast shadows in the minds of generations we will never meet, is what makes us who we are. Anyone who says that the “ends justify the means”, is not serving the future, but the moment, and that moment will be harsh and fleeting…
Source: Brandon Smith | Alt-Market
If some of the information emerging from the technology, governmental, and academic worlds are any indication, not only is the police state here; the scientific dictatorship is right around the corner. Indeed, if recent commentsmade by Juan Enriquez are indicative of the coming state merger between technology and genetics, we have much to be concerned about.
For those that are unfamiliar with Enriquez, he may not be the most flashy of the science superstars currently on the scene, but he is not exactly a nobody either. Enriquez was the founding director of the Harvard Business School Life Sciences Project and is currently chairman and CEO of Biotechonomy LLC., a “life sciences research and investment firm” and managing director of Excel Venture Management. He is the author of numerous books, including As The Future Catches You: How Genomics And Other Forces Are Changing Your Life, Work, Health, and Wealth and The Untied States of America: Polarization, Fracturing, and Our Future.
Enriquez also serves on the boards of Cabot Corporation, The Harvard Medical School Genetics Advisory Council, The Chairman’s International Council of the America’s Society, the Visiting Committee of Harvard’s David Rockefeller Center, Tuft University’s EPIIC, and Harvard Business School’s PAPSAC.
Enriquez is a Harvard graduate himself who has previously served as CEO of Mexico City’s Urban Development Corporation, Coordinator General of Economic Policy and Chief of Staff for Mexico’s Secretary of State. Enriquez also boasts of working closely with Craig Venter, who is generally credited with the mapping of the human genome.
Obviously, Enriquez has established quite the résumé in the academic and business worlds. This, combined with his appearances on the very popular TED conference talks, only add to his qualifications in the field of culture creation which is most likely his role. Indeed, much like the other scientific superstars provided to the public by the culture industry, it appears Mr. Enriquez may be more talented in the area of delivering messages than making discoveries. This is why Enriquez’s comments during the interview with Technology Review’s Emily Singer are somewhat disturbing.
The interview was conducted after Enriquez’s speech at a Technology Review conference where he mentioned that, as described by Singer, “Our newfound ability to write the code of life will profoundly change the world as we know it.” According to Enriquez, because we as humans can engineer both our environment and ourselves, humanity is now breaking the “boundaries” of our own natural existence and development which, of course, is described as “Darwinian evolution,” itself a questionable strand of ahighly suspect theory to begin with.
Nevertheless, when asked why he thought there is going to be a new human species, Enriquez responded in typical eugenicist fashion. He said,
The new human species is one that begins to engineer the evolution of viruses, plants, animals, and itself. As we do that, Darwin’s rules get significantly bent, and sometimes even broken. By taking direct and deliberate control over our evolution, we are living in a world where we are modifying stuff according to our desires.
He goes on to discuss the manner in which humans are already influencing their own “evolution.” He says:
If you turned off the electricity in the United States, you would see millions of people die quickly, because they wouldn’t have asthma medications, respirators, insulin, a whole host of things we invented to prevent people from dying. Eventually, we get to the point where evolution is guided by what we’re engineering. That’s a big deal. Today’s plastic surgery is going to seem tame compared to what’s coming.
Enriquez’s comments in this regard are a bit puzzling if the reader does not fully understand the position from which he is coming. The fact that millions of people are attached to electronic devices on which their lives depend is not a testament to guided or enhanced evolution at all. If anything, this would indicate a move in the opposite direction.
Keep in mind that Enriquez is a Darwinian Evolutionist, so he is keenly aware of the process by which Darwinian evolution allegedly progresses. For that reason, his comments may seem to be a contradiction of his own belief system to some. However, when one reads the rest of the interview, Enriquez’s statement begins to make more sense.
During the course of the short interview, Enriquez makes reference to how the new technology, as it emerges, will change virtually everything in society as we know it.
And he means everything. Not just industries. Not just economic disparity. Everything.
This includes morality itself. In fact, Enriquez even goes so far as to define this shift in morality as the “new ethics.”
Enriquez saves the best for last, however, when he explains how the “new ethics” will come into play.
The issue of [genetic variation] is a really uncomfortable question, one that for good reason, we have been avoiding since the 1930s and ’40s. A lot of the research behind the eugenics movement came out of elite universities in the U.S. It was disastrously misapplied. But you do have to ask, if there are fundamental differences in species like dogs and horses and birds, is it true that there are no significant differences in humans? We are going to have an answer to that question very quickly. If we do, we need to think through an ethical, moral framework to think about questions that go way beyond science.
This statement alone echoes the same mentality that was accepted and promoted during the early half of twentieth century to justify mass sterilization, institutionalization, social segregation, even infanticide.
Although eugenics is now allegedly abhorred by academia and the mainstream media, the fact is that it still plays as much a role in both science and government policy as it ever did. Only the names have changed.
Instead of “eugenics” and “racial hygiene,” the scientific community now promotes “social biology” and “sociobiology.” “Deficient” genes now replace the term “inferior” genes. “Family planning” now replaces “abortion” and “sterilization.”
As quoted above, Enriquez stated that eugenics were disastrously misapplied in the 1930s and 1940s. Although he does not clarify whether he is referring to the American or the German version (or both), we can reasonably assume that he meant that the program was often race-based, as opposed to being based simply on “inferior genetics” across the board. Or, perhaps he is merely referring to the public relations issues that arose from these systems. At this point, it is difficult to determine.
Regardless, he openly questions whether or not some humans are so different from one another that they may be considered an entirely different species. This, in and of itself, is reminiscent of a language used in eugenics campaigns in both Europe and America years ago.
Considering the fact that Enriquez is in favor of the creation of a “new ethics,” this statement alone, if his philosophy gains any traction, is quite concerning.
In light of the increase in propaganda masquerading as science and being peddled by science superstars like Enriquez, there is no doubt the world’s population is being prepped for a eugenics-based future. This time, of course, the system will be assisted by a much more sophisticated technological machine and, thus, a much more efficient system of eugenics. After years of non-stop television, media repetition, and “experts” who tout the benefits ofmerging man and machine, as well as the cost of inheriting “inferior” genes, there is also little doubt that the world’s population will march into this future willingly.
Although greatly improved in terms of implementation and public perception, we have seen this system before and, unfortunately, what Juan Enriquez labels a “new ethics” may not be very new at all.
Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University where he earned the Pee Dee Electric Scholar’s Award as an undergraduate. He has had numerous articles published dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, and civil liberties. He also the author of Codex Alimentarius – The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies and Five Sense Solutions.
Source: Brandon Turbeville | activistpost.com
As courts and bureaucrats continue to assert that citizens have no fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice, we find Monsanto lurking nearby. The Wisconsin judge who recently ruled that we have no right to own a cow or drink its milk resigned to join one of Monsanto’s law firms.
Former judge Patrick J. Fiedler now works for Axley Brynelson, LLP, which defended Monsanto against a patent infringement case filed by Australian firm, Genetic Technologies, Ltd. (GTL) in early 2010.
GTL had sued several biotechnology firms, a medical lab and a crime lab that had used its patented methods for analyzing DNA sequences. Though a federal case, the district court which heard the matter, sits in Dane County, Wisconsin, where Fiedler coincidentally served as a state judge.
In that case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) “upheld Genetic Technologies Ltd.’s patent for noncoding DNA technologies, giving more firepower to the Australian company’s patent infringement suit against Monsanto Inc., Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. and a slew of rival laboratories,” reports Law360.
In another link, Myriad Genetics, which holds the exclusive U.S. patent on human genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, granted the license to GTL in 2002. These human genes are associated with breast and ovarian cancer.
In 2009, the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation (PubPat) sued the PTO, Myriad Genetics, and principals at the University of Utah Research Foundation, charging that patents on genes are unconstitutional and invalid. The suit also charges that such patents stifle diagnostic testing and research that could lead to cures and that they limit women’s options regarding their medical care.
In an absurd ruling this year, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the patent on these human genes, even though the DNA sequence occurs in nature. The court decided that simply because researchers had been able to extract it, the firm owns it. Of course, under this thinking, all of nature can be patented if human technology allows extraction.
“The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has granted thousands of patents on human genes – in fact, about 20 percent of our genes are patented. A gene patent holder has the right to prevent anyone from studying, testing or even looking at a gene. As a result, scientific research and genetic testing has been delayed, limited or even shut down due to concerns about gene patents,” commented ACLU.
The US ruling gives Myriad monopolistic control over these human genes, and over diagnostic testing for that DNA sequence. The case is now headed to the US Supreme Court.
The Myriad patent was also challenged in Australia and at the European Patent Office. In 2009, the EPO granted a highly restricted BRCA1 patent.
Australia’s case will be heard in February 2012. Dr Luigi Palombi, who supports the pending Patent Amendment Bill, believes the US decision “is irrational, contrary to scientific fact and little more than a knee-jerk reaction to the fear mongering of the American biotechnology industry. It claims that without gene patents it will not have any incentive to undertake necessary research. Of course, this is a lie.”
Part of the problem, Palombi explains, is that much of the research that allowed Myriad to develop its breast cancer test was publicly funded. Going further:
“The decision turns patent law on its head because it means that the prize is given for the discovery not for the invention (a new, tangible and practical use of the discovery).
“The second problem is, Myriad’s scientists discovered and linked genetic mutations to breast and ovarian cancers, but that’s a long way off an invention. If there was any invention by Myriad (assuming it was also novel and involved an inventive step), it was in the development of a diagnostic test.”
Of note, in his dissenting opinion, Judge William C. Bryson wrote that the Dept. of Justice filed an amicus brief asserting that Myriad’s gene claims are not patent-eligible, thus undermining the PTO’s position. Bryson wrote:
“… the Department of Justice speaks for the Executive Branch, and the PTO is part of the Executive Branch, so it is fair to assume that the Executive Branch has modified its position from the one taken by the PTO in its 2001 guidelines…”
Given the DOJ’s protection of Monsanto interests, however, it is likely that its opposition to Myriad’s patents may have more to do with stifling competition than protecting nature from theft by biotech firms. After DOJ attorney Elena Kagen moved to the Supreme Court, the high court ruled in Monsanto’s favor allowing the planting of genetically modified alfalfa.
Earlier this year, Obama pressured the USDA to remove the buffer zone requirement for GM alfalfa, further ensuring genetic contamination of natural alfalfa. That decision ensures the destruction of the organic meat and dairy industries in the U.S. which rely on natural alfalfa feed. It will also strengthen biotech’s monopoly control over our food.
Obama has stacked his administration with Monsanto employees and biotech proponents, including Michael Taylor as FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods, Tom Vilsack as Secretary of Agriculture, Islam Siddiqui as Ag Trade Representative, and Elena Kagen on the Supreme Court.
In a related matter, PubPat also filed suit this year against Monsanto over the patenting of genetically modified seeds which contaminate natural crops. “As Justice Story wrote in 1817, to be patentable, an invention must not be ‘injurious to the well being, good policy, or sound morals of society,’” notes the complaint, citing studies showing harm caused by Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, including human placental damage, lymphoma, myeloma, animal miscarriages, and other impacts on human health.
That any official would approve gene patents is bad enough – discovering nature is not inventing it. But in the Wisconsin case, Judge Fiedler ruled that humans:
- “Do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;”
- “Do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;”
- “Do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;”
- “Do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice;” and
- Cannot enter into private contracts “outside the scope of the State’s police power.”
Ruling against raw milk forces consumers to drink genetically modified, antibiotic-laden milk from cows fed an unnatural diet of pesticide-loaded feed. No doubt that makes Monsanto a major fan of Patrick Fiedler. His decision was rendered on Sept. 9 and he stepped down from the bench on Sept. 30.
This case begs for competent legal counsel who can get the outrageous decision overturned.
Several books, including Seeds of Destruction and Corrupt to the Core, along with the film, The Idiot Cycle, lay out the framework for and evidence of a concerted effort to sicken and then treat humanity, while earning obscene profits. When we factor in other recent actions taken by transnational corporations and lawmakers, the conspiracy adopts a more ominous tone.
Authors William Engdahl and Shiv Chopra appear in Emmanuelle Schick Garcia’s powerful film, The Idiot Cycle: What you aren’t being told about cancer. Both writers provide detailed evidence of a corporate-government conspiracy to adulterate the food and water supply with dangerous substances linked to a host of illnesses. The Case Against Fluoride, a book using hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, provides more evidence. In David Gumpert’s Raw Milk Revolution, we get a peek at the US government’s war on the natural dairy industry.
Looking at six companies, Dow Chemical, BASF, Bayer, Dupont, Astrazeneca (Syngenta), and Monsanto, Idiot Cycle exposes corporate-government collusion in the release of carcinogenic chemicals, but also reveals how some of the same chemical companies then profit from treating cancer. It’s a cycle only an idiot would tolerate. Going further, much of the film then addresses genetically modified food and its potentially disastrous effect on health and the environment.
Before making the film, Garcia and her team spent three years on research, and it shows. The film is chock full of disturbing facts. How many people know, for example, which synthetic chemical will cause more cancer than any others? Or that only 5-10% of all cancers are genetically inherited? Or that testicular cancer in young men has increased 50% in every industrial country? In 2002, the film asserts, the top ten drug companies made more money than the top 490 wealthiest US companies combined. At $1,600 a month for cancer-treatment, we can see why it’s called Big Pharma.
Important tidbits like these make the film a must-see. But the filmmaker shows real courage when she then includes the connection with genetically modified foods. It is with this additional component that a global conspiracy more fully comes into focus.
Idiot Cycle interviews world renowned scientists Arpad Pusztai, Eric-Gilles Seralini and Shiv Chopra, two of whom suffered job loss and all of whom endured campaigns to smear their professional reputations. In the GM debate, getting the message out about hazards to human health and the environment can cost you your career.
Silencing Negative Findings of Independent Scientists
1. Arpad Pusztai
Arpad Pusztai is no doubt the most famous scientist in the film. He first blew the whistle in 1998 on the hazards of GM crops, costing him his job at Rowett Research Institute in Scotland. Having studied biotechnology for 35 years, Pusztai had well earned the title as the world’s leading expert in this highly specialized field. In 1995, he won a three-year, $1.5 million contract from the UK government to establish a testing methodology for regulators when assessing the safety of GM crops.
This marked the world’s first independent study of GM food safety, according to Engdahl. He interviewed Pusztai in 2007 for his book, Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation. Engdahl notes that Pusztai “was fully certain the study would confirm the safety of GM foods.” His team used potatoes modified by Monsanto to produce an insecticide. Writes Engdahl:
“The rats fed for more than 110 days on a diet of GM potatoes had marked changes to their development. They were significantly smaller in size and body weight than ordinary potato-fed control rats in the same experiment. More alarming, however, was the fact that the GMO rats showed markedly smaller liver and heart sizes, and demonstrated weaker immune systems. The most alarming finding from Pusztai’s laboratory tests, however, was the markedly smaller brain size of GMO-fed rats compared with normal potato-fed rats.”
When he reported his findings on national television, excluding the smaller brain size info for fear it would induce mass panic, he also added that he wouldn’t eat GM foods. For two days, the Institute applauded and supported him, even issuing a press release clarifying that his concerns were based on “ a range of carefully controlled studies.”
But then the firestorm hit. President Bill Clinton contacted Prime Minister Tony Blair, who then contacted Pusztai’s boss at the Institute. Within two days, he was fired, along with his wife, another respected researcher at Rowett. Then began a mass media campaign to discredit him and his work, as revealed by UK journalist, Andrew Rowell. The Pusztais were gagged from defending Arpad under threat of losing their pensions.
In Idiot Cycle, Pusztai called it “criminal” that GM crops have been foisted on the world without full and complete safety studies, especially in light of preliminary studies showing serious potential harm.
2. Eric-Gilles Seralini
The next most famous scientist in the GM debate, arguably, is Eric-Gilles Seralini, whose groundbreaking studies we covered here. Seralini has also been vilified by the biotech community. In The Idiot Cycle, he describes the battle that he endured to publicize Monsanto’s blood test results of rats that had eaten GM corn for three months. Once the information was made public, independent scientists could then review Monsanto’s “safe” finding.
Normally, two years of testing is the “gold standard” in the scientific community. Seralini called it “absurd” that only three months of testing allowed the GM corn to be approved in over a dozen nations. Any reputable scientist would agree. Upon reviewing Monsanto’s raw data, he and his team found, among other problems, liver damage and physiological changes into a pre-diabetic condition among the rats which had eaten Monsanto’s GM corn. And that’s just from three months of eating such food.
The rate of diabetes in the U.S. has nearly doubled since GM foods were secretly foisted on us in 1996. Today, 26 million people have it and another 79 million are pre-diabetic, according to new estimates released in January. These figures include those actually diagnosed with the disease, plus an estimate of those who have diabetes but are undiagnosed. If we look at just the “diagnosed” numbers over the last three decades (which is less than the actual number who have diabetes), we see that diabetes has tripled since 1980:
Many believe that the prevalence of GM corn and GM sugarbeets used as sweeteners in processed foods (such as high fructose corn syrup) is a leading contributing factor to the spike in diabetes. Actos, made by Takeda Pharmaceutical, and Avandia, made by GlaxoSmithKline, reportedly treat Type II diabetes, and both increase the risk of heart failure – in one study by 72%.
3. Shiv Chopra
Canada Health whistleblower Shiv Chopra, who authored Corrupt to the Core: Memoirs of a Health Canada Whistleblower, explains the genesis of the misanthropic aims of these chemical companies and their government protectors. Beginning 50-60 years ago, he says in the film, chemicals began playing a major part in agriculture. “On the one hand, they’re contaminating people’s food, and they do damage. Then they come back with chemicals to treat them.”
Chopra was eventually fired from Health Canada, along with two others, for “insubordination” because they refused to authorize (among other food processes) the long-term use of antibiotics and GM hormones in food-producing animals, given their questionable safety. In particular, he adamantly refused to authorize rBST, a genetically modified bovine growth hormone created by Monsanto and Eli Lilly to stimulate milk production in dairy cows. Studies show that large percentages of cows develop lameness and mastitis from the GM hormone.
In Corrupt to the Core, we learn that one of the other “food processes” they objected to was feeding BSE-infested slaughterhouse waste to meat and milk animals. BSE, more popularly known as mad cow disease, gives humans the lethal Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD). Chopra makes a significant contribution to human health when he discusses his Five Pillars of Food Safety:
“The source of food-borne diseases during approximately the last 50 years is reported to originate from indiscriminate application of the following five substances in food production: hormones, antibiotics, slaughterhouse wastes, genetically modified organisms and pesticides.”
In the book and in Idiot Cycle, he charges that use of these substances violates the Food and Drug Act of both the U.S. and Canada. Because the first three are banned in the European Union, the US and Canada cannot ship beef to the EU. This issue, incidentally, continues to be debated at the World Trade Organization.
4. Andres Carrasco
Though not in the film, another globally recognized scientist in the biotech world is Andres Carrasco. He and his team from Argentina and Paraguay found that Monsanto’s Roundup causes birth defects in frogs and chickens. “The findings in the lab are compatible with malformations observed in humans exposed to glyphosate during pregnancy,” he told GMWatch. In 2009, he was threatened at his lab, and in 2010 physically attacked by local police and the hired hands of a wealthy GM rice grower.
Contaminating the Natural Food Supply
GM crops contaminate natural plants, converting ownership to the patent holder under twisted, but recognized, legal logic. Idiot Cycle stresses this as a deliberate move toward complete control of the world’s food supply. It’s no idle accusation. GeneWatch UK and Greenpeace have documented over 300 contaminations through July 2010. Genetic contamination of natural plants is vast and ongoing and, until recently, courts have repeatedly penalized the farmer victimized by such contamination.
Many have heard of Percy Schmeiser’s battle with Monsanto that resulted in a pyrrhic victory for the farmer. Unaware his crops had been contaminated with transgenes, he reused the seeds. Monsanto sued, but this time, after a long and expensive litigation process, the Canadian Supreme Court backed Schmeiser and ordered Monsanto to pay for the clean up of his fields. Though not in the final release of Idiot Cycle, he does appear in the bonus clips.
An 84-page report by the Center for Food Safety published in 2005 details cases like these and others. In 2008, Vanity Fair’s Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele also posted an in-depth investigation, providing more details of farmers being victimized by contamination and then being successfully sued by Monsanto. The CFS report also describes cases where farmers bought GM seeds third hand, signing no agreement about their use or reuse. This happened to Tennessee farmer, Kem Ralph, who is also featured in The Idiot Cycle.
In court, Monsanto presented an agreement which bore his forged signature. Judge Rodney Sippel, a former Monsanto attorney, awarded judgment for Monsanto in the amount of $2.9 million. CFS documents evidence of Monsanto presenting forged signatures in court. “Forging farmers’ signatures on Technology Agreements is called ‘common’ by seed dealers. Nearly one in 10 of Monsanto’s lawsuits involve such forgeries.”
In the film we learn that Judge Sippel in Kem Ralph’s case sat on ten other lawsuits involving Monsanto, corruptly refusing to recuse himself. In all of those cases, Monsanto won.
We also find such conflicts of interest on the U.S. Supreme Court with the ethically challenged Clarence Thomas, a former Monsanto attorney. In 2001, he wrote the high court decisionallowing biotech companies to patent GM seeds. Thomas also corruptly refused to recuse himself from Monsanto v Geertson Seed, which allowed the USDA to impose a partial deregulation of GM alfalfa last June. (This January, the USDA completely deregulated GM alfalfa, even removing the requirement for buffer zones.) Plus, Thomas’ new sidekick on the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, defended Monsanto’s right to contaminate natural alfalfa crops when she served as Solicitor General arguing against Geertson.
But not all judges work for the biotech industry.After Bayer CropScience contaminated a third of the US rice supply in 2006, it found itself facing 6,000 lawsuits. In addition to cases it has already lost or settled, each under $2 million, Bayer now faces a whopping $380 million lawsuit from Riceland Foods in a trial currently underway in Arkansas. Stuttgart Daily Leader has been covering the trial, with articles postedFeb. 22, 2/24, 2/25, 2/28, March 4, Mar. 8 and Mar. 10.
Cases like these are what is surely behind a recent decision by the world’s largest seed company to modify its Technology Stewardship Agreement wherein Monsanto has shifted all liability arising from transgenic crops onto farmers who plant their seeds. How’s that for taking corporate immorality to new depths?
This falls in line nicely with a recent Supreme Court decision that protects vaccine makers from liability. In the film, one European regulator, Willy de Greef, informs us that GM crops only account for 5% of all biotechnology. Most drugs and vaccines contain GMOs. A host of deleterious effects from vaccines has been documented, including narcolepsy, sterility, mental retardation, paralysis, autism, and death. “First do no harm” has succumbed to “Make the most money.”
Given the USDA’s recent deregulation of GM alfalfa, and the certainty that natural alfalfa will become contaminated, Monsanto’s attempt to shirk responsibility with this no-liability clause “appears to be unconscionable” said environmental attorney Anthony Patchett in a video interview with Morph City. Patchett formerly worked as Assistant Head Deputy District Attorney of Environmental Crimes, OSHA Division.
That decision to deregulate a perennial plant with tiny seeds that can travel miles can be seen as nothing other than a deliberate intent to contaminate North American natural alfalfa. Biotech firms will gain ownership of contaminated fields. This will also destroy the organic meat and dairy industry in the United States, and likely Canada, as well. Biotech and chemical firms, along with all growers who chemically douse their crops, will profit enormously from the collapse of the untainted food industry. The question is, can we survive their victory?
Sick Food, Dangerous Vaccines & Eugenics
Controlling the world’s food supply is one thing. As evidence mounts that biotech crops sicken us, this assures increased profits for biotech companies that develop drugs to treat us. But, some wonder if GM crops will do more than sicken us. We have preliminary findings that GM crops cause sterility in test animals, and that Roundup is associated with spontaneous abortions in farm animals fed wheatlage under weed management using glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup. Coupling this with globalist concern with rising population, how can we avoid questioning if biotechnology is being used as a weapon?
In the film, author William Engdahl talks about his research for Seeds of Destruction. He briefly describes the relationship between depopulationists like the Rockefellers and IG Farben, the company that gassed millions to death in Nazi Germany and which also killed thousands more when testing drugs and vaccines on captured populations. For these crimes against humanity, after the war, IG Farben was broken into its original constituent companies. Bayer, BASF and Hoechst (now Aventis) eventually expanded into plant genetics. (In 2002, Bayer acquired Aventis.)
Engdahl writes: “The Rockefeller-I.G. Farben relationship went back to 1927, around the same time the Rockefeller Foundation began heavily funding German eugenics research.” Paraphrasing from his book, he explains:
“‘The Project’ I referred to is the project of the Rockefeller Foundation and powerful financial interests since the 1920’s to use eugenics, later renamed genetics, to justify creation of a genetically-engineered Master Race. Hitler and the Nazis called it the Ayran Master Race.
“The eugenics of Hitler were financed to a major extent by the same Rockefeller Foundation which today is building a doomsday seed vault to preserve samples of every seed on our planet. Now this is getting really intriguing. The same Rockefeller Foundation created the pseudo-science discipline of molecular biology in their relentless pursuit of reducing human life down to the ‘defining gene sequence’ which, they hoped, could then be modified in order to change human traits at will. Hitler’s eugenics scientists, many of whom were quietly brought to the United States after the War to continue their biological eugenics research, laid much of the groundwork of genetic engineering of various life forms, much of it supported openly until well into the Third Reich by Rockefeller Foundation generous grants.”
Seeds of Destruction provides a wealth of detailed evidence of “the hidden agenda of genetic manipulation.” It’s clear from having read the book why Garcia chose to interview him for her film. Seeds highlights bioweaponry, in the form of pandemics, and the drugs used to treat them. The recent Swine flu hype was a repeat of the Avian flu engineered just a few years before. Vaccines used in Nicaragua and the Phillipines actually sterilized people. Spermicidal corn was developed for Mexico.
Though Rockefeller, et al. may be looking to improve human genetics for traits they deem more desirable in their club, “you ain’t in it.” Neither am I; nor is 93% of humanity, if the Georgia Guidestones are any indication of what the ideal population level should be. What we get, instead, are toxic foods, grown or raised on toxic farms, and further treated and processed in toxic factories. Then we’re prescribed toxic drugs that cause side effects which hasten our death. Nice racket.
Bayer and BASF aren’t alone. Monsanto also has a history of “incidental” ecocide and genocide by the creation and deployment of Agent Orange (dioxin), PCBs, DDT, rBST, and the neurotoxin, Aspartame.
Biotech and pharmaceutical companies have also produced several hundred “pharma crops” – food that contains vaccines against a variety of diseases. Never mind that such a plan fails to consider appropriate dosage specific to a person’s age, weight and medical condition. The same failure applies to fluoride treated water, which lowers intelligence, causes skeletal and dental fluorosis, and induces depression and lethargy. (See the 2010 book, The Case Against Fluoride and this short 30-minute film, Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation.)
One final element briefly mentioned in the film plays heavily into this growing body of evidence supporting the idea of a global conspiracy to harm humanity for profit. The Idiot Cyclementions Iraq Order 81, which bans the saving of seeds. Iraqi farmers must buy GM seeds, every year. This outrageous law is a direct attack on the right to food freedom: the evolutionary imperative of humans to eat whatever natural foods their bodies crave.
Beyond that, a string of national and international laws, rules, and regulations criminalize natural plants. This will give the pharmaceutical industry complete control of healthcare, since the world’s best medicines come from plants. For example, prior to 2000, Monsanto began genetically modifying marijuana, and last November, the US Drug Enforcement Agency proposed a subtle rule change that will decriminalize synthetic THC for use as a medicine, reports Pencil Method, a medical marijuana news site:
“Paul Armentano of the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws reads the proposal as a way of legalizing marijuana so just Big Pharma can make money from it.
“’DEA is taking a shortcut by saying, well, we can reschedule organic THC because it mimics an existing drug on the market,’ Armentano said. ‘Which is ironic given that they are saying the organic substance is derivative of the synthetic substance that is actually based on the organic substance.’”
Kitty Campion, a world renowned herbalist who has written several books, and who holds a PhD from the School of Natural Healing (Utah), warns that:
“[G]overnments all over the world are joining hands with Big Pharma and Big Food, (meaning the industrialised processed food giants) in an unprecedented pogrom against herbal medicine. I left Britain in December last year after 30 years in full time herbal practice and came into Australia on a Distinguished Talent Visa, precisely because so many of the herbs I needed in my extensive herbal pharmacy had been banned by the European Commission. The Gestapo tactics have long begun. In Germany and in the UK, the ‘drug police’ recently confiscated natural remedies as though they were contraband drugs. The EU’s main strategy has been to try and place every natural product, natural remedy or natural service firmly under the thumb of prescription drug law and, of course, if a substance is treated like a drug it has to be evaluated and studied like a drug. The millions that this costs, mainly for safety and efficacy evaluation, is out of reach of the vast majority of herbal manufacturers – in effect it is a de facto ban.”
Several similar laws around the globe further the scheme to criminalize nature. Here’s a brief sampling, with some victories for food freedom:
- On May 1, 2011, thousands of herbal medicinal products become illegal in the European Union. In an email, Shiv Chopra said, “As for the sale of herbal remedies, homeopathic, Ayurvedic and Chinese medicines, EU and NAFTA are on the same page. All of them, without counting Mexico, are determined to ban any substance that interferes in the sale of their big pharma products, including drugs and vaccines causing disease and death. I am not sure what China plans to do about it but India as we all know is selling out its stakes to join the rich man’s club, without any concern for the public interest.”
- Australia has proposed a ban on thousands of plants including its national flower, since they contain DMT – a naturally-occurring hallucinogen. Marketed as a war on drugs, the bill ignores that most of these common garden plants have never been used to extract DMT, since only trace amounts are found in them. Humans also produce DMT in their bodies, so we know this is something we need.
- Canada just passed a “consumer protection” law known as C36, though the final version exempted natural health products after a nationwide fight. However, the law violates human rights by authorizing home invasions to search for suspected products. Through Canada’s 2004 Food and Drug Act and other regulations, thousands of natural health products are no longer available, writes Karen Stephenson.
- Last December, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ordered one pharmacy to stop making injectable Vitamin C, a known cure for cancer. When taken intravenously in large doses, it has remarkable healing properties. IV Vitamin C even cured a New Zealand man on death’s door with the swine flu.
- The FDA is also waging a war on natural dairy, shutting down producers and distributors even though no one has become ill from their products. David Gumpert’s book, The Raw Milk Revolution, details the government’s war on food rights (which I reviewed here). As a complete food, raw milk provides innumerable benefits, including reducing childhood allergies. Many who are labeled “lactose-intolerant” safely drink raw milk.
- Also on the dairy front, Monsanto complained to the Federal Trade Commission about organic dairy farmers who labeled their product free of artificial hormones. Though the FDA allows such labeling, it maintains that rBST (also known as rBGH) is safe and that there is no difference between organic and GMO milk. Last September, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appealsdisagreed, overturning an Ohio law banning such labels. The court found a “compositional difference” between the two kinds of milk, and also ruled that prohibiting such labels violates the first amendment rights of organic producers.
- The US Food Safety Modernization Act, signed into law in January, “extends control over all food in the US, violating the fundamental human right to food,” explains Steve Green. Providing a comment for that article, Shiv Chopra said that the bill precludes “the public’s right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes. It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one’s choice.”
- Operating under the UN and the World Health Organization, Codex Alimentarius harmonizes international food standards, ostensibly to facilitate trade. Summarizing the work of Scott Tips and the Alliance for Natural Health, Brandon Turberville writes, “At best, the guidelines will reduce dose levels [of vitamins and other supplements] to minuscule amounts too small to be beneficial, as well as causing the prices to skyrocket for both consumers and producers.”
Taken together, we are witnessing corporate-government seizure of the means by which humans survive and thrive. Major corporations, backed by government, are causing cancer and other diseases with their toxic products. Yet, natural foods and remedies are being criminalized, forcing us to rely on Western drugs with often lethal side effects. On top of this, our water supply is deliberately treated with a substance that, among other problems, lowers intelligence.
The Idiot Cycle provides an excellent summary of the major forces working against humanity, which are well documented in several books, including those listed below.
Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation
F. William Engdahl
Global Research: 2007 (341 pp.)
Corrupt to the Core: Memoirs of a Health Canada Whistleblower
KOS Publishing: 2009 (340 pp.)
The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America’s Emerging Battle over Food Rights
David E. Gumpert
Chelsea Green Publishing: 2009 (254 pp.)
The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There
Paul Connett, James Beck, Spedding Micklem
Chelsea Green Publishing: 2010 (384 pp.)
The mummies are particularly fascinating because they have Caucasian features, proving that populations migrated eastward from Europe and brought their customs and skills with them.
A museum just days away from opening a long-awaited exhibit of mummies and other historical artifacts from China is gutting the display at the request of Chinese officials, the museum announced Wednesday.
The artifacts were part of “Secrets of the Silk Road,” which is scheduled to open Saturday at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology in Philadelphia. The exhibit has already traveled to museums in California and Texas without issue.
Penn museum spokeswoman Pam Kosty said she could not offer any more information beyond a statement saying Chinese officials had requested the items not be shown. She declined to identify the officials.
Attempts to reach the Chinese consulate for comment were unsuccessful because of the Chinese New Year holiday.
The exhibit’s main attraction is a nearly 4,000-year-old, pristinely preserved mummy from far western China, whose flaxen hair and eyelashes are still intact. A well-preserved mummy of a baby, along with vibrantly colored burial trappings of a third mummy, were among more than 100 ancient objects featured.
In this March 24, 2010 file photo, Edward Roski, right, a board member at the Bowers Museum, looks at a 2,800-year-old infant mummy, Baby Bluebonnet, at the “Secrets of the Silk Road: Mystery Mummies from China,” exhibit at the museum in Santa Ana, Calif. A museum just days away from opening a long-awaited exhibit of mummies and other historical artifacts from China is gutting the display at the request of Chinese officials, the museum announced Wednesday Feb. 2, 2011. All Photos: (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, File)
The artifacts come from the Tarim Basin in the autonomous Xinjiang Uyghur region of China. Victor Mair, a Penn professor of Chinese language and literature, has been researching and leading expeditions in the area for more than 20 years and helped develop the exhibit.
On Wednesday, Mair said in an e-mail that he could not discuss the dispute but that he hoped to continue negotiating with the Chinese after the New Year holiday.
In a Jan. 21 interview with The Associated Press, Mair said “Secrets of the Silk Road” had been years in the making because China jealously guards its antiquities.
Mair was especially excited to display them at the Penn museum, a regional attraction that is a hub for research but struggles to attract visitors. It was to be the exhibit’s only East Coast stop.
“It’s going to be the rebirth of this museum,” Mair said last month. “It’s going to put it back on the map.”
As he spoke, various museum officials interrupted to report that the artifacts had arrived. Mair noted that the exhibit’s Chinese chaperones would be sightseeing in the area, including trips to New York and Atlantic City, N.J.
The mummies are particularly fascinating because they have Caucasian features, proving that populations migrated eastward from Europe and brought their customs and skills with them.
Other artifacts include clothing, fabrics, wooden and bone implements, and even preserved foods such as an early wonton, spring roll and fried dough.
There were no problems for “Secrets of the Silk Road” in the four months it spent at the Houston Museum of Natural Science, where it attracted huge crowds, museum spokeswoman Latha Thomas said Wednesday.
A call to the Bowers Museum in Santa Ana, Calif., where the exhibit was displayed early last year, was not immediately returned.
Kosty, the Penn museum spokeswoman, said previously that the exhibit was expected to be a blockbuster for the institution, its first with timed-ticket entry. Now, several thousand tickets that were pre-sold will be refunded, she said.
Instead, the museum plans to put on a pared-down display using photos of the mummies and artifacts, along with multimedia exhibits and interactive stations, Kosty said. It will be free with regular museum admission.
Article from: theday.com
Secrets of the Silk Road – Exhibit Sneak Peek
Video from: YouTube.com
Genetics of the Silk Road Mummies
Video from: YouTube.com
An Interview with Richard Forer and the Arab Awakening…
Mazin B. Qumsiyeh, was born in 1957 in Beit Sahour, a suburb of Bethlehem. He became a Professor of Genetics and taught at Yale University School of Medicine and Duke University. He is currently teaching at Birzeit Universities in occupied Palestine and his main interests are media activism and public education, human rights and international law. In a 30 January 2011, email he wrote:
“Arabs everywhere (yes even here in occupied Palestine) are talking about a transformation and about revolution. But all such transformations carry pain. Over 200 Egyptians were killed, thousands injured, and there is much destruction. Yet in a nation of 85 million people this is still a relatively peaceful transformation…I know most politicians like to feel 100% safe (mostly for their position of power) and are afraid of any change. But I wish they would realize that daring politicians make the history books and those who hang around trying to protect their seats will be forgotten. Cowardice is never a virtue…Clearly, the era of ignoring the masses is gone.”
Richard Forer, was born in New Jersey in 1948 and attended Sunday school at his reform synagogue from the ages of five through fourteen. In 2006, Forer zealously supported of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. At about the same time, he became a member of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), the most powerful pro-Israel lobbying organization in the U.S. When a Jewish friend challenged him on the ‘facts’ he used to justify his support for the invasion, he began an intensive study of the history of Israel Palestine. That led to a crisis of identity as he discovered that his attachment to the State of Israel had blinded him to the heart of Judaism and to the universal truth that lies beyond all labels and beliefs: there is no exclusive or separate self. We are all connected.
Regarding Islam, Richard said, “Many who’ve been influenced into forming enemy images of Islam will find the fact that all but one of the Koran’s 114 chapters mentions compassion infuriating because their identities require an attachment to a belief that Islam is evil. In my book, Breakthrough: Transforming Fear into Compassion – A New Perspective on the Israel-Palestine Conflict I describe my awakening to True Compassion.
“Briefly, True Compassion only arises when one gives up his/her core identity. Once that relinquishment occurs the world is no longer seen as a realm of Us against Them. That is because the attachment to a separate/individual identity requires the creation of the ‘other.’
“The other is a person, society, religion, idea that does not fit within the boundaries of how an individual, consciously and unconsciously, defines his/her identity. Thus, the other is a threat to the ‘reality’ of one’s self-image or identity. Additionally, I assert that Clarity always accompanies True Compassion. True Compassion, unbounded by labels or definitions and the influence exerted upon one’s belief structure by a presumed identity, can see from a 360 degree perspective and, therefore, understand or be willing to understand all points of view. Thus, I can also say that although I find the brutal violence carried out by extremists abhorrent I understand that deep in their hearts even these extremists want the same things we all want – self-determination, freedom and peace.”
Regarding particular Christians, Richard wrote: “Christians who ignore the suffering of human beings by using the same justification as the more fundamentalist of Jews – that ‘God gave the land to the Jewish [or chosen] people’– need to take a closer look at the teachings of Christ. Did Christ single out some for his blessing while ostracizing others? Did he teach hatred or did he teach love and compassion? And they need to look more deeply into their own hearts. Then they will discover that in denying the humanity of some they deny their own humanity…Separative thinking is never divinely inspired. It is always narcissistically inspired; it is, in fact, the very antithesis of the unifying and all-encompassing nature of the divine.” 
Regarding the fundamentalist fire and brimstone preacher, John Hagee and his Christians United for Israel/CUFI cult, Richard said:
“Hagee raises millions of dollars annually for Israel’s settlement enterprise on Palestinian land. He believes that the boundaries of Israel are set by God, that Judea and Samaria, otherwise known as the West Bank, are within these God-given boundaries and that these lands must be inhabited by Jews. This, of course, would require the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. One can argue that this viewpoint obstructs the chances for peace but it certainly doesn’t qualify as anti-Semitism.
“Unfortunately, though, Hagee is an exponent of the ‘End of Days’ when Jesus will return to Earth and non-believers, Jews included, will have to either convert to Christianity or fall into a lake of fire (Hell). Hagee further believes that the Jewish people are guilty of deicide – the murder of Christ – the one unpardonable sin. This belief has been at the heart of anti-Semitism for nearly two thousand years. Without this belief, Adolf Hitler might not have been able to rely on both the hatred and the silence of those who supported or closed their eyes to the evils of the Holocaust. But most perniciously, Hagee has stated that the Nazis had operated on God’s behalf to chase the Jews from Europe and ‘shepherd’ them to Palestine. And, Hagee continues, Hitler was a ‘hunter’ sent by God to expedite His will of having the Jews re-establish a state of Israel.”
I was born in Greenwich Village, New York in 1954 and up until that day we call 9/11, I never gave a thought beyond my family, friends and local community. That day transformed me and I began to research about the Middle East and traveled seven times to Israel Palestine beginning in 2005.
On 6 November 2007, I attended a John Hagee cult event in Miami and was astounded by his mastery of manipulating the fears of Christian Zionists and south Florida’s right wing Jewish community.
As the shofars blew in the packed to the rafters James L. Knight Center, Hagee blew idiot wind that brought the crowd to their feet, “Israel was re-born by an act of God and Israel lives! God Jehovah will bury Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran! The flag of Israel will fly over the undivided Jerusalem and be the praise of all the earth! It’s 1938 again and the new Hitler is Ahmadinejad! Radical Islamists are threatening to develop nuclear weapons in order to destroy Israel and then the USA! But we are indivisible and we are both here forever!”
The oft repeated comment ascribed to President Ahmadinejad, that “Israel must be wiped off the map,” was addressed by Virginia Tilley, Professor of political science who wrote:
“In his October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad never used the word “map” or the term “wiped off”. According to Farsi-language experts like Juan Cole and even right-wing services like MEMRI, what he actually said was “this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”
“In this speech to an annual anti-Zionist conference, Mr. Ahmadinejad was being prophetic, not threatening. He was citing Imam Khomeini, who said this line in the 1980s (a period when Israel was actually selling arms to Iran, so apparently it was not viewed as so ghastly then). Mr. Ahmadinejad had just reminded his audience that the Shah’s regime, the Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein had all seemed enormously powerful and immovable, yet the first two had vanished almost beyond recall and the third now languished in prison. So, too, the ‘occupying regime’ in Jerusalem would someday be gone. His message was, in essence, ‘This too shall pass.’”
Tikkun is Hebrew for mend, repair and transform the world.
Tikkun is also an American Jewish progressive political and spiritual community and organization, that researched and discovered that there are three distinct elements energizing the Christian Zionists:
- A strong commitment to conservative and ultra-nationalist American politics (so strong, I believe, that if the U.S. were to decide to break with Israel, this part of the Christian Zionist leadership would go along with that and drop its defense of Israeli policies).
- Dispensationalist religious commitments that lead many of the Christian Zionists to yearn for a cataclysmic “end of history” eschatological war in the Middle East that will precipitate the second coming of Jesus and the Rapture in which
- A widespread understanding among many Christians that atonement and repentance is needed for 1700 years of murder, rape, and oppression of Jews that was frequently generated by the Church (though, of course, the Evangelicals do not recognize that church as their church). In this category are many Christian Zionists who genuinely feel terrible about what has happened to the Jews and genuinely want to help the Jewish people. Their philo-Semitism is real and sincere. 
all true Christians will go to heaven and all Jews who have not yet converted to Christianity will burn in hell for eternity.
But in Miami that night, I witnessed multitudes of misled and misinformed Christian’s celebrating military occupation, violence, power and control but they ignored the gospel/good news that Jesus promised, “It is the peacemakers who shall be called the children of God.” –Matthew 5:9
Hagee repeatedly cited that all worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but neglected to mention that the first mention of Israel is in Genesis 32:22, when Jacob was renamed Israel for having wrestled and struggled with the Divine. This Christian Anarchist [meaning I take Jesus very seriously but all the rest is commentary for me] contends that anyone who wrestles and struggles with the Ultimate Mystery of the Universe is also Israel, for Israel is not just a State but a state of mind, spirit and soul.
Hagee threw out the names of Hebrew prophets, but neglected the fact that God raised up prophets to speak truth to power, to confront arrogance and to remind the people, “What does God require? He has told you o’man! Be just, be merciful, and walk humbly with your Lord.” -Micah 6:8
God also raised up prophets to remind the people that they cannot know the mind of God for “His thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.”- Isaiah 55:8
God also raised up prophets to admonish the “stiff necked people” [Exodus 34:9, Proverbs 29:1] and warned them that, “My people are fools, they do not know me! They are skilled in doing evil, they know not how to do good.”-Jeremiah 4:22
Hagee also invoked the “Torah Way” but the Torah commands:
“From Moses to Jeremiah and Isaiah, the Prophets taught…that the Jewish claim on the land of Israel was totally contingent on the moral and spiritual life of the Jews who lived there, and that the land would, as the Torah tells us, ‘vomit you out’ if people did not live according to the highest moral vision of Torah. Over and over again, the Torah repeated its most frequently stated mitzvah [command]: When you enter your land, do not oppress the stranger; the other, the one who is an outsider of your society, the powerless one and then not only ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself’ but also ‘you shall love the other.’” 
A Brief History of Christian Zionism:
In 1891, Christian fundamentalist and lay-preacher, William Blackstone appealed to President Benjamin Harrison to help establish a Jewish state in Palestine. Blackstone was a disciple of Dwight L. Moody and the father of premillenial dispensationalism, John Nelson Darby, influenced them both.
Darby had great success in connecting with the post-Civil War survivors and was able to transmit his new heretical theology into the heartland of America. Despite the horrifying news of Czarist pogroms that could have been the catalyst to establishing a Jewish state before the Holocaust, the Christian fundamentalists moved onto the Scopes Trial and forgot about the Jews-for a while.
Fifty years later and after millions of Jews and other innocents who had been deemed outcasts by the Third Reich were tortured and murdered and the British Mandate ran out, the land we call Holy was partitioned by the United Nations to make a home for Jewish immigrants.
Most evangelicals interpreted the establishment of the state of Israel to be the fulfillment of -how they understood and interpreted- certain prophetic scriptures. They interpreted the Israeli victory in the 1967 War and the capture of Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, Sinai and the Golan Heights to be an act of God but neglected to consider the fact of Israeli superior military might.
The American Bi-Centennial in 1976 was a watershed year for the religious right. While mainline churches declined, evangelical and fundamentalist churches became the fastest growing sector of American Christianity. TIME magazine named 1976 as The Year of The Evangelical and suddenly they became a political force.
Following the War of 1967, Israel gained an increased portion of USA foreign aid and military budgets, becoming the ‘western pillar’ of the USA strategic alliance against Soviet incursion into the Middle East.
During this period AIPAC and other pro-Israeli lobby agencies began their ascent to power in shaping USA foreign policy. The Roman Catholic Church and mainline Protestant denominations began to develop a more balanced approach to the Middle East, bringing them closer to the international consensus on the Palestinian question but Pro-Israel organizations interpreted this shift as being Anti-Israel and in turn began to court conservative and fundamentalist Christians.
In 1977, when President Carter stated “The Palestinians deserve a right to their homeland,” Christian fundamentalists and the Israeli lobby responded with full page ads stating: “The time has come for evangelical Christians to affirm their belief in biblical prophecy and Israel’s divine right to the land…and affirm our belief in the Promised Land to the Jewish people.”
The Reagan White House hosted a series of seminars from the Israeli lobby and Christian right. This was when Hal Lindsay, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and the Moral majority infiltrated the West Wing.
Falwell received a Lear Jet from the Israeli government for his personal travel. When Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear plant in 1981, Prime Minister Begin called Jerry Falwell -before he called Reagan- to ask him to explain to the Christian public the reasons for the bombings!
In 1996, Netanyahu and Likud ideology dominated Israeli policy and 17 evangelical USA pastors pledged their support of the illegal colonies in the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights and full support for a Jerusalem under sovereignty of Israel.
The Christian Zionists launched a PR campaign under the banner: “Christians Call for a United Jerusalem.”
They ignored the fact that they were in conflict with American policy and the Oslo process as well as a direct attack on Roman Catholic and mainline Protestant unity with the Churches for Middle East Peace that called for a Shared Jerusalem.
In 2006, Hagee wrote for the Pentecostal magazine Charisma, “The coming nuclear showdown with Iran is a certainty. Israel and America must confront Iran’s nuclear ability and willingness to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons. For Israel to wait is to risk committing national suicide.”
With the publication of the fictional Left Behind series many more Christians were mislead and a major reason I wrote KEEP HOPE ALIVE was to challenge its escapist heretical theology.
274 years ago on 29 January, Thomas Paine was born a man before his time; but his wisdom and spirit speak to the NOW:
“Soon after I had published the pamphlet Common Sense [on Feb. 14, 1776] in America, I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion…The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.”
Thomas Jefferson penned The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth which weeded out the miracle stories as it illuminated what Jesus’ was about:
Always work for PEACEFUL resolutions, even to the point of returning violence with COMPASSION.
Consider valuable the things that have no material value.
Do not judge others and do not bear grudges.
Give out of true generosity; not because you expect to be repaid.
Being true to your self is more important than being loyal to ones family/tribe.
Those who think they know the most are the most ignorant.
Jesus said that his mother, sisters and brothers were those that did the will of the Father and again, the Hebrew prophet Micah summed it up best: “What does the Lord require? He has already told you o’man: Be Just, Be Merciful and walk humbly with your God.”
To be just is to be fair and reasonable.
To be merciful means to treat all people the way we want to be treated.
To be humble is knowing oneself; and good and evil cut through every human heart.
Jesus taught that the only way to resist evil is with good. Jesus was a nonviolent Palestinian devout Jew who was mocked, whipped and nailed to a cross and his final prayer was, “Father forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.”
Education is the way to compassion and compassion will bring in the change we all really want to see in this world for we all desire this same trinity; self-determination, freedom and peace.
When the people Rise Up/Intifada to seize their RIGHTS governments had better get out of their way and let them have them.
Hear Richard’s latest interview here:
3. Rabbi Lerner, Tikkun Magazine page 9, Nov/Dec. 2007
4. Rabbi Lerner, Tikkun Magazine page 35, Sept./Oct. 2007
Just about two years ago, people were speaking of a new era: post-racial America. Well, it occurs to me that if we get any more post-racial, we’ll have a race war. And the latest on this front is a new exhibit at the Boston Museum of Science (MOS) called “RACE – Are we so different?” Reports American Thinker’s Peter Wilson:
The exhibit offers a fascinating window into the fun-house mirror world of race theorists, racial “scholars,” and a good part of the anthropology profession. Even a sympathetic reviewer in the Boston Globe admits that “there’s a wearying didacticism to the show,” and it’s no surprise that the didactic lessons about race are all slanted toward the left.
As for that Globe reviewer, Mark Feeney, he writes:
[There is] a display called “Affirmative action: undoing inequality.” That’s not science or even sociology; that’s politics. Right or wrong, some people think affirmative action furthers inequality. Another display is called “White – the color of money.” It shows stacks of dollar bills whose height corresponds to the relative wealth of whites, Asians, blacks, Latinos, and “others” in US society. A section on discrimination and real estate has two street signs, “Privilege Place” and “Racism Road.” It’s like an MSNBC production of “Sesame Street.”
Now, question: What would be the reaction if the MOS erected a display entitled “Jewish – the religion of money”? It would be called anti-Semitic. But if such a presentation would create animosity toward Jews, why would anyone think that MOS’ display doesn’t create animosity toward whites?
Whatever the target, the implicit message is that the group somehow achieved its success through oppression and exploitation. Yet this is simply not true. While there are individual exceptions (criminals), successful people of all races generally behave in a certain positive manner: They get an education, develop a marketable skill, follow just laws, obtain gainful employment, avoid destructive behaviors and don’t squander wealth. If the MOS had simply used a certain group as an exemplar of this success ethic, it would be one thing. They, however, engaged in race-baiting.
But the MOS display is just the latest example of the modern West’s racial contradictions. We’re told we shouldn’t generalize about race; that is, until it’s time to blame whites for the world’s ills. The very people who tell us to be colorblind are the first to ask for racial identification on all sorts of applications, surveys and census forms. And while these social engineers condemn discrimination, they want this information so they can more effectively discriminate in school admissions, hiring and the affording of benefits.
The kicker here is that this contradiction is on stark display within the MOS exhibit itself. While the museum seems very sure about the validity of racial categorization when speaking of “white” privilege, its stated goal is to advance an idea currently very popular among half-baked intellectuals: that “race” is a “social construct” with no biological basis. Writes Wilson:
A typical exhibit, in an online video, shows students from Cambridge attempting to guess the racial make-up of people in photographs. In one case, students guess “Filipino,” but in fact, the young man is “Hawaiian, Chinese[,] and German.” According to the show’s creator, the American Anthropological Association, this undermines our racist belief that seven billion humans fall neatly into four or five categories.
Actually, it might undermine the belief that anthropologists know word definitions. “Filipino,” “Chinese” and “German” are nationalities, not races.
Now, when promoting social-construct theory, anthropologists will point out, writes theory critic Armand Marie Leroi, “that most human genetic variation can be found within any given ‘race.’ …the difference between an African and a European would be scarcely greater than the difference between any two Europeans….” Sure, and there’s no difference at all if their sample includes only white Afrikaners or Frenchmen of Nigerian descent. But since by “African” and “European” they mean “black” and “white,” their theory is self-refuting. After all, to compare the genetic make-ups of different “races” is to tacitly acknowledge that race exists. Of course, some may say that they’re studying groups categorized based on what we call race. But then, is it simply semantics that troubles them? What is the “what” to which we’ve applied the term? A rose by any other name….
As for genetic differentiation, of course “most human genetic variation can be found within any given ‘race’” – we’re all human. But when it comes to genetics, a dab ‘ll do ya’. We share 96 percent of our DNA with chimpanzees, yet no one says that we can’t distinguish between man and ape. And the disruption of one single gene among our 30,000 can cause a severe form of mental retardation. Heck, we share about 50 percent of our DNA with the banana and have about the same amount of it as a peanut (which, actually, may help explain San Francisco). I should also add that genetic analysis of DNA can now very easily reveal the race of the individual from which a sample is taken.
So are these anthropologists a bit heavy on the chimp DNA? No, they’re not stupid. They just don’t want to know the Truth.
I’ll introduce this with a hypothetical: If evidence appeared showing definitively that one race were more intelligent than another, would you accept it? Would you at least acknowledge in your own mind that it was possibly true? Or would your own private church consider this truth such heresy that you’d banish it to the dungeon of your subconscious?
The anthropologists in question would do the latter. The damning truth is that much of social science today is an effort to deny reality in deference to ideological imperatives. For example, the idea of traditional sex roles contradicted the feminist agenda, so we were told that they, too, were merely “social constructs.” In fact, psychologists once preached that boys and girls were identical except for superficial physical differences; this lasted until hard science showed that these soft scientists were soft in the head.
And the equality agenda is also at work in the non-study of that non-existent thing, race. There are many (insofar as good intentions drive the science) who fear that research demonstrating aptitude differences among the races would lend legitimacy to bigotry and discrimination, so they would spin such data. And, they figure, a sure way to eliminate “racism” is to simply eliminate the concept of race.
The philosopher G.K. Chesterton addressed this thinking when he wrote, “Since the modern world began in the sixteenth century, nobody’s system of philosophy has really corresponded to everybody’s sense of reality; to what, if left to themselves, common men would call common sense.” And the problem is that delusion, even when scientifically crafted, also won’t work. You can’t remedy real problems by denying reality.
And it’s no coincidence that this denial has become common during a secular time in which equality is felt to be the highest value. You see, when people believe in nothing beyond this world – which includes no morality, as the concept implies God – then the things of this world assume paramount importance. It then follows that your yardstick for judging others’ worth will more likely be worldly measures, such as ability, intelligence, success and income. Thus, by this world view’s lights, when certain people are thus lacking, they are deficient in the very thing that determines their value. They aren’t merely less gifted – they’re actually worth less.
This explains modern secularists’ frenzied attempts to rationalize away group differences. It also explains why they try to silence those who speak of them; not only does such discussion shatter their rationalization, but, when you say that a group’s underperformance in an area may be partially due to innate ability, they interpret it as a claim that the group is worth less – ergo bigotry.
But the problem is theirs: They simply cannot view people as they are, warts and all, and love and value them equally anyway. This is why, when dealing with individuals they look down upon, secularists make the worst snobs. It is why, when they want to feel good about themselves by promoting equality, they make the worst social engineers. And it is why, when they have power and have shed this emotional imperative, they become the worst killers (e.g., eugenics, forced abortion).
The real solution here is not to deny group differences but embrace them as part of God’s plan. It is to understand that people are valuable not because of what they can do but because of what they are: children of God, created in His image.
As for those anthropologists, what they are is sad. Imagine, spending money and studying hard for a Ph.D. all so you can deceive self and others with credibility.
From: The Economic Collapse…
The world food situation is starting to get very, very tight. Unprecedented heat and wildfires this summer in Russia and horrific flooding in Pakistan and China have been some of the primary reasons for the rapidly rising food prices we are now seeing around the globe. In places such as Australia and the African nation of Guinea-Bissau, the big problem for crops has been locusts. In a world that already does not grow enough food for everyone (thanks to the greed of the elite), any disruption in food production can cause a major, major problem. Tonight, thousands of people around the world will starve to death. So what happens if things get even worse? Many agricultural scientists are now warning that global food production is facing dangers that are absolutely unprecedented. Crop diseases such as UG99 wheat rust and the “unintended effects” of genetic modification pose challenges that previous generations simply did not have to face. The outbreak of a real, live global famine looks increasingly possible with each passing year. So are you and your family prepared if a global famine does strike?
Already, there are huge warning signs on the horizon. Just check out what agricultural commodities have been doing. They have been absolutely soaring.
A recent article on the Forbes website noted a few of the agricultural commodities that have skyrocketed during this year….
Here’s what’s happened to some key farm commodities so far in 2010…
•Corn: Up 63%
•Wheat: Up 84%
•Soybeans: Up 24%
•Sugar: Up 55%
Are you ready to pay 84 percent more for a loaf of bread?
You better get ready – these raw material prices will filter down to U.S. consumers eventually.
So what is going to happen if the world food situation gets even tighter?
Don’t think that it can’t happen.
The following are 5 potential dangers to global crops that could dramatically reduce the world food supply….
UG99 Wheat Rust
UG99 is commonly known as “wheat rust” or ”stem rust” because it produces reddish-brown flakes on wheat stalks. The International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in Mexico believes that approximately 19 percent of the global wheat crop is in imminent danger of being infected with UG99.
Ultimately, it is estimated that about 80 percent of the wheat on the globe is capable of catching the disease.
There is no known cure.
This current strain of wheat rust was discovered in Uganda in 1999 and has spread into areas of Kenya, Sudan, Ethiopia, Yemen and Iran. It is feared that this crippling disease will spread even farther into south Asia, devastating the fertile growing regions of Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh.
If that happens, you might as well kiss world food stability goodbye.
A recent article in the Financial Times contained an absolutely stunning quote from one prominent agricultural scientist….
“You can talk about crying wolf,” says Ronnie Coffman, director of the Durable Rust Resistance in Wheat project at the University of Cornell in the US, “but it is a wolf”, he asserts, driving across the corn fields of Kansas.
Later on in the same article, Coffman warns that this disease could cause a devastating famine in which literally millions of people would die….
“It can be absolutely devastating if environmental conditions are right,“ he says. “You can count the number of people who could die from this in the millions.”
Mad Soy Disease
Mad Soy disease is spreading at an alarming rate among soy farms down in Brazil. Previously the disease had been confined to the north part of the country, but now it has been increasingly spreading south. This disease retards the maturation of infected plants, and it has been causing yield losses of up to 40 percent. The USDA says that “there are no known effective treatments.”
Verticillium Wilt is a fungus that prevents lettuce from absorbing water, causing it to quickly grow yellow and eventually wilt. This dangerous fungus is very hard to get rid of totally because it can stay in the soil for up to seven years.
Today, Verticillium Wilt is spreading all over Monterey County, California. Considering the fact that Monterey County produces more than 60 percent of the lettuce in the United States, that is very bad news.
In 2009, a disease known as “late blight” attacked potato and tomato plants in the United States with a ferocity never seen before. According to a press release from Cornell University, late blight had “never occurred this early and this widespread in the U.S.” when it started showing up all over the place early last year.
Late blight begins as ugly brown spots on the stems of potato and tomato plants, and as the spots increase in size, white fungal growth develops until finally a soft rot completely collapses the stem.
This was the disease that was responsible for the Irish potato famine in the 1850s. A major new outbreak could occur without warning.
While it may or may not technically be a disease (depending on how you look at it), genetic modification is having a very serious affect on crops around the globe.
For example, about 10 years ago Chinese farmers began to widely adopt Monsanto’s genetically modified Bt cotton. Well, researchers have found that since that time, mirid bugs that are resistant to the Bt pesticide have experienced a complete and total population boom.
Today, six provinces in Northern China are experiencing what can only be described as a “mirid bug plague”. Mirid bugs eat more than 200 different kinds of fruit, vegetables and grains. Chinese farmers in the region are completely frustrated.
In the United States, a different problem is developing. The complete and total reliance of so many U.S. farmers on Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide has resulted in several varieties of glyphosate-resistant “superweeds” developing in many areas of the United States.
The most feared of these “superweeds”, Pigweed, can grow to be seven feet tall and it can literally wreck a combine. Pigweed has been known to produce up to 10,000 seeds at a time, it is resistant to drought, and it has very diverse genetics.
Superweeds were first spotted in Georgia in 2004, and since then they have spread to South Carolina, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri.
In some areas, superweeds have become so bad that literally tens of thousands of acres of U.S. farmland have actually been abandoned.
But that is what we get for trying to “play God”.
We think that we can just do whatever we want with nature and there will not be any consequences.
One of the most frightening things about genetic modification is that it actually reduces that amount of crop diversity in the world.
For example, if nearly all farmers start using the same ”brand” of genetically modified plants that are all virtually identical, it sets up a situation where crop diseases and crop failures can cascade across the planet very easily.
Genetic variety is a very desirable thing, but today our scientists are just doing pretty much whatever they want without really considering the consequences.
It has been said many times that genetic engineering is similar to “performing heart surgery with a shovel”.
The truth is that we just do not know enough about how our ecosystems work to be messing around with them so dramatically.
Perhaps even more frightening is that once these genetically engineered monstrosities have been released into our environment, it is absolutely impossible to recall them. They essentially become a permanent part of our ecosystem.
But can we afford to make any serious mistakes at this point?
The truth is that we already live in a world that is not able to feed itself.
Tonight, approximately 1 billion people across the globe will go to bed hungry. Every 3.6 seconds someone in the world starves to death, and three-fourths of those who starve to death are children under the age of five.
It is currently being projected that global demand for food will more than double over the next 50 years.
So what is going to happen if we start seeing widespread crop failures in the coming years?
The global food supply is not nearly as stable as most people believe. At some point, it is going to be tested severely.
If you are what you eat, we are all in deep trouble. What constitutes healthy food is a debate that can encompass different viewpoints. In spite of this, control of the food chain is a concern that crosses all ideological perspectives. The most essential of all human rights is the effective ability of access and ingestion of nutrients that are necessary to sustain life. Forced feeding of toxicants, as the only foodstuff available to the masses, is a true crime against humanity. Withholding safe food from the public allows for the gluttony of elites. These masters of the universe immunize themselves by hording nontoxic provisions as they ride a black horse. The Apocalypse of a food crisis is not an accident. The GMO designer cuisine is meant to supply a poisonous menu, until the final collective culling of the herd, is ready for the planet.
Genetically Modified Organisms are really a brave new world. The practice of patenting laboratory biological genetics provides sustenance for the horror of a Frankenstein village. Rady Ananda warns, “In the US, GMOs were secretly foisted on the public in the mid-1990s, and only now is the US Supreme Court addressing the scourge. In June, the high court upheld partial deregulation of GM alfalfa, which permits limited planting while the USDA prepares an Environmental Impact Statement. Natural and organic alfalfa supply is threatened by the very real potential of GM contamination. This would destroy the organic meat and dairy industry”.
Why should folks care about organic agriculture when we live in an age of chemical wonders? The Glyphosate ingredient in Roundup is a miracle remedy for those nasty weeds. So what’s the big deal? F. William Engdahl thinks there is a sinister link to the magic seeds in his book,
“Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, GMO crops and patented seeds were developed in the 1970’s with significant financial support from the pro-eugenics Rockefeller Foundation, by what were essentially chemical companies—Monsanto Chemicals, DuPont 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 1970’s, 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 must sign a legal contract with Monsanto in which it stipulates that only Monsanto Roundup pesticide may be used. Farmers are thus trapped both in buying new seeds from Monsanto each harvest and buying the toxic glyphosate”.
Neil Foster in GM ‘Foods’ Now Legal, goes much further.
“The likes of Monsanto can well afford to take on any government in a legal challenge because they have more than enough resources to do so whereas governments, particularly in the current and what will be increasingly dire financial circumstances, will have no possibility of stopping these masters of genocide getting their evil ways.
Let’s be clear here, GM foods modify YOU! They have been PROVEN to cause numerous non-fatal and FATAL diseases including various forms of CANCER and of course the favourite effect on human beings of these perpetrators of eugenics – STERILITY!
I doubt people reading this are aware of the FACT that even the staff at Monsanto’s own factories refuse to eat their own products. It is also a fact that the British Parliament, The US Congress, The German Parliament and I’m sure the EU Parliament and others DO NOT eat this garbage.”
WOW, this begins to look like these captivating seeds are meant for certain groups, while the elites take great pains to protect their own digestive systems. If one was a conspiracy nut, you might think there is an “end of the world” plan aimed at the marginal consuming feeders that pollute the atmosphere with their excess CO2 discharges. It sure is reassuring that preparations are under way to harbor a renewal kick-start if these GMO seeds mutate into neuter germination mode. The cold storage hibernation of a “Doomsday Seed Vault” must be the insurance that protects any good farmer who plows their back forty.
“In Svalbard, the future world’s most secure seed repository will be guarded by the policemen of the GMO Green Revolution–the Rockefeller and Gates Foundations, Syngenta, DuPont and CGIAR. Plant breeders and researchers are the major users of gene banks. Today’s largest plant breeders are Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta and Dow Chemical, the global plant-patenting GMO giants. Since early in 2007 Monsanto holds world patent rights together with the United States Government for plant so-called ‘Terminator’ or Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURT). Terminator is an ominous technology by which a patented commercial seed commits ‘suicide’ after one harvest. Control by private seed companies is total”.
Don’t worry, food is cheap and only the most backward starve in a world of plenty. Don’t give it a second thought, “suicide seeds” can be hedged with a Goldman Sachs derivative. Have faith, science will keep the food wagon rolling with genetic modification and nanotechnology. “Artificial meat grown in vats may be needed if the 9 billion people expected to be alive in 2050 are to be adequately fed without destroying the earth, some of the world’s leading scientists report today”. See, seeds are not necessary when you can grow Filet Mignon in a test tube.
If you still have doubts, these two YouTube’s will charm your pallet and calm your stomach – Monsanto The Genetic Conspiracy and FoodWars Police Raid Organic Foods NWO Mafia Codex Alimentarius Depopulation Agenda Transdehumanism.
Looks like folks need to clear off their “green thumbs” and start their own victory gardens. In the global gulag, common sense solutions usually meet with preemptive resistance. You can depend on the overseers to interject a government paradigm to keep their hand in the corporate agriculture friendly environment. The summary of S. 510: FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, ensures that a factory “Animal Farm” is on the horizon for your local area.
Food Freedom warns about the consequences from this bill.
1. It puts all US food and all US farms under Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, in the event of contamination or an ill-defined emergency.
2. It would end US sovereignty over its own food supply by insisting on compliance with the WTO, thus threatening national security.
3. It would allow the government, under Maritime Law, to define the introduction of any food into commerce (even direct sales between individuals) as smuggling into “the United States.”
4. It imposes Codex Alimentarius on the US, a global system of control over food.
5. It would remove the right to clean, store and thus own seed in the US, putting control of seeds in the hands of Monsanto and other multinationals, threatening US security.
6. It includes NAIS, an animal traceability program that threatens all small farmers and ranchers raising animals.
7. It extends a failed and destructive HACCP to all food, thus threatening to do to all local food production and farming what HACCP did to meat production – put it in corporate hands and worsen food safety.
8. It deconstructs what is left of the American economy.
9. It would allow the government to mandate antibiotics, hormones, slaughterhouse waste, pesticides and GMOs.
10. It uses food crimes as the entry into police state power and control.
The final conclusion: “It removes fundamental constitutional protections from all citizens in the country, making them subject to a corporate tribunal with unlimited power and penalties, and without judicial review”.
Who benefits from such legislation? How can this kind of government intrusion advance and protect a reliable and safe food supply?
The answer to the first question is obvious. Natural Solutions Foundation provides the argument. “The Uber-Cartel, Big Pharma, Big Agribiz, Big Chema, Big Biotech and Big Medica, which are all the same industry, at base, is planning to take away the right of speech questioning or criticizing GMO food in India, just as the FDA has tried so hard to take away our right to know what food and food components can do for us, gagging free speech. What happens in one country will be globalized rapidly. Devious and dangerous laws and regulations are typically enacted in a vulnerable country, then quickly globalized rapidly to “HARMonize” through the WTO, WHO, UN and other unelected non-representational bodies whose policies are set by the Uber-Cartel, not by us”.
The second query is even clearer. S. 510 will destroy farming, our most basic of all endeavors. Begging government for crumbs is your future unless you defy such a blatant attack on your human right to feed yourself. Isn’t this the ultimate non-partisan united undertaking imaginable? Only a crazed elite committed to killing off the masses could defend a GMO malnourishment system.
“Genetics and family history can predict whether you will become obese but then so can your ZIP code,” says Adam Drewnowski, world-renowned leader in innovative research approaches for the prevention and treatment of obesity, and Director of the Nutritional Sciences Program at the University of Washington in Seattle. In December of 2003, Drewnowski said, “If poverty and obesity are truly linked, it will be a major challenge to stay poor and thin.” 
In a more recent interview regarding her new “Let’s Move” campaign to combat childhood obesity, First Lady Michelle Obama argues: “A recent study put the health care cost of obesity-related diseases at $147 billion a year. This epidemic also impacts the nation’s security, as obesity is now one of the most common disqualifiers for military service.” 
It seems morbid that national security is Michelle Obama’s primary concern regarding obesity in American children. After all, raising healthy American children to become dead American soldiers doesn’t seem like a viable health care objective. But aside from that, poverty is directly correlated with obesity in Americans of all ages. So isn’t American poverty an even worse security threat than American obesity?
Through the magic of photography, Ken Burns’ productions of “The Civil War” and “The National Parks” comprise an epic pictorial scrap book of American History, spanning more than 150 years from the early 1800s through the 1960s. But in all those pictures of millions of typical Americans, there is no sign of obesity, except occasionally amongst the extremely wealthy. So, comparing those pictures to more recent audience footage from any “Blue Collar Comedy” tour, it’s easy to see that American obesity is a relatively new phenomenon, imposed over the past 30-years or so.
Are most Americans fat because they are typically more affluent now than in past generations — or is it because the American food supply has been poisoned with chemical additives that make cheap trash more accessible and flavorful than more expensive and more nutritional food choices?
While American society has become abundantly more affluent over the past quarter century, most of that gain has been concentrated amongst a shrinking upper class minority of people whose incomes are derived primarily from ownership, not from wages. In response, the FDA has prescribed additives like monosodium glutamate and high fructose corn syrup for American workers that are in debt up to their eyeballs because they haven’t had the purchasing power to pay for healthy food since the 1960s.
The result is that deep-fried fast foods and chemically-charged, frozen garbage tend to be cheaper, more flavorful and conveniently microwavable than fresh and more nutritional, albeit less exciting, food alternatives. Efforts to improve sales by enhancing cosmetic appeal require even the ‘fresh foods’ found in the meat and produce departments of most grocery stores to be chemically treated, artificially retarding the discoloration inherent in the natural decomposition that results from the death of any plant or animal. Moreover, genetic modifications tend to compromise nutritional quality for the sake of increased production, distribution and sales of dead plants and animals that comprise the general inventory of every American supermarket.
Under capitalism, this is called ‘economic efficiency’. But all those preservatives are also high on the glycemic index and spike insulin levels that tell our brains to store fat, prompting the FDA to approve an endless variety of diet pills and weight loss programs to combat American obesity. This in turn, only exacerbates the problem of American obesity and facilitates a multi-billion dollar weight loss industry, forcing most Americans into a spiral of financial debt, psychological depression and spiritual bankruptcy.  
According to Richard C. Cook, veteran Project Manager for the U.S. Treasury Department and Policy Analyst for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration:
“Cheap, mass-produced foods are largely based on grains and beef raised by massive agribusiness firms, so that the atrocious American diet is inextricably linked with capitalist enterprise controlled by Wall Street. A key ingredient is high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), suspected of being a major cause of diabetes and heart disease, as well as obesity. Much of the HFCS is extracted from corn grown from genetically-modified seed which has been rammed down the throats of American farmers, again by the massive agribusiness firms such as Monsanto.
“American farming at present is completely incapable of supplying nutritious foods on a scale that would make a difference. In order to furnish natural and healthy foods to poorer markets would require a revolution in American farming where small family farms using heirloom seeds and natural farming methods would once again become prosperous. Unfortunately, this sector has been destroyed by agribusiness and by the federal government policies, not to mention bank lending practices, that favor it. We also have a massive food chemical industry, closely aligned with the pharmaceutical industry, that thrives on doctoring unhealthy and non-nutritious food, with the aid of the Food and Drug Administration which approves their chemical formulas.
“In other words, a big part of the U.S. economy, again under the control of Wall Street, gets rich off making kids obese and unhealthy to the point where we no longer have the capability of producing anything else on a large scale. If Michelle Obama wants to take on all this she has a pretty big job ahead of her.” 
It’s easy to find academic research on the Internet to support all these conclusions, and much of the information suggests that race is a key determinant in both poverty and obesity. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made similar observations 40 years ago, and a mountain of recent data supports his conclusions today. So why hasn’t the wife of our nation’s first Black President made the obvious connection between poverty and obesity?
Some of the best thinking on the matter of childhood obesity in the United States appears in an essay written by a high school student. Emily Cumbie-Drake of Theodore Roosevelt High School in Iowa suggests that lower income families are at the highest risk for malnutrition since foods with low nutritional value relative to calorie content are often the most economical choices available. 
In a more detailed analysis, Professor Adam Drewnowski suggests that “many health disparities in the United States are linked to inequalities in education and income:
“A reduction in diet costs in linear programming models leads to high-fat, energy-dense diets that are similar in composition to those consumed by low-income groups. Such diets are more affordable than are prudent diets based on lean meats, fish, fresh vegetables, and fruit. The association between poverty and obesity may be mediated, in part, by the low cost of energy-dense foods and may be reinforced by the high palatability of sugar and fat. This economic framework provides an explanation for the observed links between socioeconomic variables and obesity when taste, dietary energy density, and diet costs are used as intervening variables. More and more Americans are becoming overweight and obese while consuming more added sugars and fats and spending a lower percentage of their disposable income on food.” 
But instead of responding appropriately to more than 40-years of existing research conclusions by attacking poverty directly, Michelle Obama insists upon reinventing the wheel. Her revised goals include ending what she refers to as “food deserts” with a $400 million a year “Healthy Food Financing Initiative,” which will bring grocery stores to low-income neighborhoods and “help places like convenience stores carry healthier food options.” 
However, increasing the availability of healthier foods does not improve access unless American consumers have the purchasing power necessary to make healthier choices. Basic economics suggests that effective demand is not merely needs or desires; it is needs and desires backed with purchasing power. Moreover, pushing more grocery stores (i.e. Wal-Marts) into poor neighborhoods historically forces millions more people out of their homes in the name of economic development and eminent domain. From this perspective, “Let’s Move” seems a most appropriate title for Mrs. Obama’s new campaign.
According to Michelle’s new “Let’s Move” Web site, “grants will also help bring farmers markets and fresh foods into underserved communities, boosting both family health and local economies”. On the surface, this seems like a great idea. But as long as this program is reliant upon government funding, it is inherently unstable and does not empower local economies in the long run. 
A more effective approach would be for the US government to legislate in favor of cooperative enterprise and cooperative financing to facilitate the self-sufficiency of local cooperative markets. The role of an effective government is simply to govern and protect its citizens, not to provide funding for sustenance and commerce through taxation and borrowing.
Of course, government funding would make a lot more sense if it were provided from the economic surplus already generated by the nation’s productivity. Emergency programs, implemented in previous times of economic crisis, could have formed the basis for a stable American economy. This was the case when President Lincoln issued the Greenbacks during the civil war — and when colonial paper currencies allowed an emerging American society to monetize the value of the goods and services its inhabitants were able to produce — and again when President Herbert Hoover created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC), which moved to recapitalize failing non-Federal Reserve state banks in rural areas and small towns. Hoover’s efforts are not remembered as the most popular in US history. But much to his credit, RFC loan programs had a major impact over the next twenty years, providing low interest loans to the railroad industry, farmers, exporters, state and local governments, and wartime industries. .
But this is not the way government funding is provided today. Instead, the US government — even when it is led by a Black President — rewards the corruption of the extremely wealthy with billion dollar bailouts and punishes the working people of this nation with rising food costs, unemployment, mortgage foreclosures, homelessness, crime and starvation, along with a failed health care system.
Even in times when the US government seems more egalitarian in its pursuit of the general interest, it either taxes the rich to provide for the poor, and/or it lends money into circulation, borrowed from a privately owned bank called the Federal Reserve, which must be repaid with interest. The former approach at least temporarily returns to the working class some of the surplus that passive ownership has siphoned away from their productive activities. But it is also unsustainable because tax legislation is so politically driven and volatile. Meanwhile, the latter approach is nothing less than organized crime, since it forces all of American society into debt that can never be repaid.
Assuming the American public has had enough of these criminal arrangements, the most viable alternative is expansion of the cooperative sector from the local level worldwide through self-management, self-financing and the development of renewable technologies for transportation, industry and agriculture. That is to say, cooperative expansion must be self-supporting through its own contributions. This will certainly involve a network of publicly owned banks that provide credit as a public utility rather than a financial playground for an exclusively entitled minority. Eventually, it will also involve a Basic Income Guarantee, provided to every US citizen regardless of employment status.  But more importantly, these measures need to become permanent fixtures in the American economic system, not temporary emergency programs implemented in response to economic crisis.
To become a positive legacy for the First Lady, her “Let’s Move” program against American obesity must first be a campaign against American poverty. It must seek to establish more genuine conditions of economic democracy across the globe by driving people everywhere to reject both wage-slavery and debt-slavery in favor of “liberty and justice for all”. But since these are obviously not the objectives of Michelle Obama’s campaign, American communities need to find more viable ways to foster economic self-sufficiency and healthier food choices at the local level through cooperative reorganization.
 Drewnowski, Adam. (12/29/2003). “Poverty and Obesity: The Role of Energy Density and Energy Costs”. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
 Starr, Penny. (2/9/2010). “First Lady Links Childhood Obesity to National Security in Launch of “Let’s Move’ Campaign. CNS News. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/61157
 Cook, Richard C. (3/13/2010). Email correspondence.
 Cumbie-Drake, Emily. “Poverty and Obesity in the United States”. Theodore Roosevelt High School, Iowa.
 Obama, Michelle. (2010). “Let’s Move”. http://www.letsmove.gov
 Cook, Richard C. (2008-2009). “We Hold These Truths”. Tendril Press, LLC. Aurora, CO. Chapter 5, “Credit as a Public Utility”, pgs 81-112.
 Dorrien, Gary. (5/15/2009). “A Case for Economic Democracy”. OpEd News. http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-Case-for-Economic-Democr-by-Gary-Dorrien-090513-750.html
 Living for a Better You. (10/21/2009). “The Importance of Nutriton and the Effects and Causes of Malnutrition”. http://www.livingforabetteryou.com/2009/10/21/the-importance-of-nutriton-and-the-effects-and-causes-of-malnutrition.html
In 1922, Margaret Sanger wrote The Pivot of Civilization with an introduction by eugenicist H. G. Wells. The Rockefeller Foundation “enthusiastically supported the concept of ‘eugenics,’ which encourages the reproductive efforts of those deemed to have ‘good’ genes, while discouraging or stopping procreation by undesirables. But Rockefeller and others were anxious to go even further to mold America’s breeding patterns along evolutionary lines.”  John D. Rockefeller Jr., per the advice of Raymond B. Fosdick, provided financial backing for Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood movement.  Sanger, a feminist and birth control activist established the first family planning clinics in New York City. Several U.S. foundations financed eugenic research, including the Carnegie Institution, which funded Davenport’s eugenic studies at Cold Spring Harbor, and the Rockefeller Foundation, which gave grants in the 1930s for eugenic research at the Galton Laboratory at University College in London and to the Cornell Medical School in New York.  Advocates for population control and the study of eugenics include Theodore Roosevelt, Charles Wilson, president of Harvard and Irving Fisher, president of Yale and president of the Eugenics Research Association in the 1920s plus a host of other very public vocal figures.  President Theodore Roosevelt appointed Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court where he served from 1902 to 1932. Holmes was an advocate for selective breeding and issued the sterilization verdict in the case of Carrie Buck in 1927. He said, “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”  Sir Frederick Pollock, a Pilgrims Society member and law professor at Oxford, was the editor of Law Quarterly Review from 1885 to 1919. He was in close communication with Harvard-educated Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. during a sixty-year period of time. Researcher Charles Savoie maintains that the Pilgrims Society was closely connected to America’s Supreme Court for more than a century. 
The Rockefeller Foundation financed what is known as Psychiatric Genetics, a new specialty. The Foundation restructured medical training in Germany including managing the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry and the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Eugenics and Human Heredity under the direction of Swiss psychiatrist Ernst Rudin, supported by his trusty protégés, Otmar Verschuer and Dr. Franz J. Kallmann. In 1932, the British eugenics’ movement appointed Dr. Rudin as president of the worldwide Eugenics Federation. The eugenics movement promoted the killing or sterilization of burdensome people, individuals that Henry Kissinger referred to as “useless eaters.”  Rockefeller funded the Kaiser Wilhelm Eugenics Institute in Germany, founded in 1927.
The Bush family joined John D. Rockefeller and the British Royal Family in sponsoring the eugenics initiatives that gave rise to Hitler’s racial hygiene programs. Prescott Bush was later found guilty of trading with the Nazis during WWII. According to court records, the Rockefeller family and their Standard Oil Company supported Hitler more than they did the allies during the war. In fact, one judge declared Rockefeller guilty of treason. Dr. Gary Glum documented the insidious eugenics programs to create a “superior race,” which were initially sponsored not by Adolph Hitler, but by the American elite like the Rockefeller, Carnegie, Harriman, Morgan, DuPont, Kellogg and Bush families. 
Hitler, who had been financed by international bankers, became Chancellor of the Third Reich on January 30, 1933. Wilhelm Frick, the minister of the interior, introduced the early sterilization law which was enacted within six months after Hitler was appointed chancellor. Sterilization was used for “life unworthy of life.” Certain individuals who reportedly warranted serialization included those with: “congenital feeblemindedness (now called mental deficiency), an estimated 200,000; manic depressive insanity, 20,000; schizophrenia, 80,000; epilepsy, 60,000; Huntington’s chorea (a hereditary brain disorder), 600; hereditary blindness, 4,000; hereditary deafness, 16,000; grave bodily malformation, 20,000; and hereditary alcoholism, 10,000. The projected total of 410,000 was considered only preliminary, drawn mostly from people already in institutions; it was assumed that much greater numbers of people would eventually be identified and sterilized.” 
After the Nazis took power, I.G. Farben and Rockefeller’s Standard Oil merged into a single entity which contained beneficial provisions for each company. I.G. Farben was, until 1937, controlled by the Warburg family who had collaborated with Rockefeller in crafting Nazi eugenics. Standard Oil maintained their alliance with I.G. Farben even after the U.S. entered the war. In 1940-41, I.G. Farben constructed a large industrial complex in Poland adjacent the Auschwitz concentration camp where they planned to use slave labor to make gasoline from coal. Standard-Germany president Emil Helfferich admitted that Standard Oil financed part of the operations at Auschwitz. 
In the fall of 1941, Secretary of War Henry Stimson contacted Dr. Frank B. Jewett, president of the National Academy of Sciences, to discuss the further development of biological warfare. This was prior to America’s entry into World War II, but according to his diary Secretary Stimson was well aware of imminent events. Shortly afterwards, President Roosevelt authorized Stimson to create a civilian agency to supervise biological warfare under the jurisdiction of the Federal Security Agency. George Merck, owner of Merck Pharmaceutical and close adviser to Roosevelt, was appointed director of the new War Research Service. 
Frank McDougall participated in the area of public health within the old League of Nations. He made the connection between community health, nutrition, and agricultural development and economic policy. The U.N., in a conference in Hot Springs between October 16 and November 1, 1945, formulated the U.N. Interim Commission on Food and Agriculture. Officials drafted the constitution of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). McDougall was a chief architect and promoter of the organization. 
The Bureau of Human Heredity relocated from London to Copenhagen in 1947 where they moved into a newly constructed building paid for by the Rockefeller Foundation. The initial International Congress in Human Genetics after World War II was convened in Copenhagen in 1956. Verschuer, Rudin’s protégé, was by then a member of the American Eugenics Society, synonymous with Rockefeller’s Population Council. Dr. Kallmann, a director, also organized the American Society of Human Genetics which directed the Human Genome Project. Later, the Rockefellers relocated the U.S. eugenics movement to their family offices where they also controlled future population control and abortion advocacy groups. The Eugenics Society later became the Society for the Study of Social Biology. 
U.S. State Department Policy Planning Study #23, 1948, headed by George F. Kennan, concluded, “We have about 50 percent of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world benefaction. We should cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.” 
John Foster Dulles, then chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation, concluded after observations acquired on a number of tours abroad that there was a “need to stop the expansion of the non-white populations.” In 1952, Frederick Osborn, an officer of the American Eugenics Society, assisted John D. Rockefeller III in organizing the Population Council and served as its first administrator. In 1958, Eisenhower selected William H. Draper to head a committee to evaluate appropriate military actions in other countries. Draper suggested that a better focus should be the threat of population explosion and a study on depopulation procedures for poorer non-white countries that pose a national security threat to the U.S.  Apparently, a burgeoning non-white population might reduce available resources that would be put to better use by white populations. Additionally, growing populations produce resentful individuals who aggressively oppose elitist policies.
In 1965, the Population Action International (originally known as the Population Crisis Committee), was founded by Hugh Moore, Lammot du Pont Copeland and William H. Draper Jr. The worldwide organization is headquartered in Washington, DC. Since 2001, in conjunction with the Population Action International, and with the encouragement of Congress, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) distributes information in foreign countries in an effort to initiate family planning and cover other reproductive health programs.
In 1961, John D. Rockefeller III presented the Second McDougall Lecture to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. This predated by a decade Rockefeller’s population protocols that would become part of Kissinger’s NSSM 200. Rockefeller, in his address, said, “To my mind, population growth is second only to control of atomic weapons as the paramount problem of the day.” 
The Rockefeller Foundation funded England’s eugenics movement. The Rockefeller family had early ties to the House of Rothschild to which the gigantic Standard oil trust owed its beginnings. Presumably, the Rothschilds, a Talmudic family with early Masonic and Illuminati connections, actively promoted and financed eugenics and depopulation behind the scenes. By the 1960s, the Eugenics Society of England embraced Crypto-eugenics, under which they would participate in eugenics without actually calling it eugenics. The Rockefellers lent their support to England’s Eugenics Society by establishing the International Planned Parenthood Federation, in conjunction with the Eugenics Society. This formed a private, global system in which the elite could choreograph an international holocaust, within the context of offering humanitarian services, all under the jurisdiction of the U.N. flag, another Rockefeller front organization. 
George H. W. Bush of Texas, who served in Congress from January 3, 1967 to January 3, 1971, originated a legislative investigation of world overpopulation.  Dr. D. M. MacArthur, Deputy Director of Research & Technology for the Pentagon, Department of Defense, requested $10 million from the Congressional House Subcommittee on Appropriations to develop a biological weapon through House Bill 15090. On June 9, 1969, the House Republican research task committee, chaired by George H. W. Bush, heard testimony from General William H. Draper, of the Population Crisis Committee and Dr. William Moran of the Population Reference Bureau. Draper reported that there were three issues relevant to population control – the census of 1970 in the U.S. and of 1971 in Britain should be worldwide and not limited to two countries, accelerating contraception, and the World Health Organization should implement their international programs such as inoculations, etc.  Leading World Health Organization scientists, as noted in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, had requested that viruses be created in order to study their affects on humans.
The Department of Defense, now funded with $10 million, intended to conduct studies on immune-system-destroying agents for biological warfare. In 1983 Dr. Robert Strecker, an internist and gastro-enterologist who is also a trained pathologist with a Ph.D. in pharmacology, produced The Strecker Memorandum wherein he claims that the AIDS virus is man-made. Working in conjunction with his brother, attorney Ted Strecker, they discovered thousands of documents verifying the man-made origin of AIDS. Strecker maintains that it was virologically impossible for HIV to have emanated from monkeys; the disease was unknown in Africa before 1975. Strecker claims that the World Health Organization (WHO), funded by the Department of Defense, initiated testing on a lymphotrophic virus, a bovine virus that could also infect humans. In 1977, the WHO instigated a massive campaign in Africa to eradicate smallpox among the urban population. Over 100 million Africans were deliberately inoculated with AIDS-contaminated smallpox vaccine. In 1978, over 2,000 white male homosexuals were inoculated against hepatitis B by the Centers for Disease Control and the New York Blood Center, also with AIDS-contaminated vaccine.  Merck, Sharp and Dohme (MSD) funded the hepatitis B vaccine research that Dr. Strecker claimed spread HIV to homosexuals in the U.S.  These kinds of weapons were apparently a viable concern immediately after 9/11 as John Bolton gave an address at the Biological Weapons Convention on November 19, 2001 in Geneva, Switzerland, stating our concerns about “terrorists” using biological and chemical weapons.  We have trained many foreigners in the use of biological and chemical weapons at Fort McClellan, Alabama.
Kissinger received the Nobel Peace Prize after he directed the dispersion of tons of Monsanto’s toxic Agent Orange in Vietnam. This chemical, containing dioxin, continues to negatively affect Vietnamese citizens and former U.S. military personnel and their children with horrendous birth defects and neurological disorders. Conversely, Ali Hassan al-Majid, who dispersed chemicals in Halabja, was recently executed for the same activities. Kissinger orchestrated the precedent-setting secret bombing of neutral Cambodia over a four-year period, allegedly to protect Americans in Vietnam. From 1970 onward, Congress had prohibited bombing in Cambodia in every military appropriations bill except for that open-ended purpose – protecting U.S. citizens – but apparently not from Agent Orange.  According to Time magazine of April 19, 1976, “Since the Communist victory last year, an estimated 500,000 to 600,000 people, one-tenth of Cambodia’s population, have died from political reprisals, disease or starvation . . . To escape the bloodbath; at least 25,000 Cambodians have fled across the border into Thailand. They tell tales of people being clubbed to death to save ammunition. Others have been bound together and buried alive by bulldozers, or suffocated by having plastic bags tied over their heads.” 
Generating further resentment, the U.S. installed Lon Nol, who collected millions of dollars in U.S. economic aid. He declared himself Chief of State, Prime Minister and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces after he disbanded the Assembly in October 1971 in order to declare emergency rule. He then permitted the U.S. to carpet bomb Cambodia.  Lon Nol retired to Hawaii on April 1, 1975 with half a million dollars, compliments of the U.S. taxpayers.  Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge with its killing fields, the essential liquidation of the middle class, famine, the destruction of the economy and concentration camps followed America’s activities in the area.
From Kissinger’s Indochina bio warfare experiments, President Richard Nixon commissioned Kissinger to direct the compilation of a National Security Council population policy. The work was completed during President Gerald Ford’s administration. Their efforts resulted in The National Security Study Memorandum, NSSM 200, Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests, dated December 10, 1974. It was officially adopted as U.S. policy on November 26, 1975, with Memorandum 314 by President Ford. It is still in effect, as it has never been rescinded. Each succeeding administration implements the population policies using its own methodology. The NSSM 200 was declassified on February 8, 2007.
Population control serves the U.S. strategic, economic, and military interests at the expense of the developing Third World or Lesser Developed Countries (LDCs). The plan claims that their population growth is detrimental and a grave threat to U.S. national security in four ways: (1) large nations may gain political power (2) The U.S. and its allies need the strategic materials from those countries. (3) A high birth rate means more young people who are more likely than older people to challenge global power structures (4) Population growth in relatively disadvantaged countries jeopardizes U.S. investments. 
NSSM 200 has special implications for thirteen countries – India, Brazil, Egypt, Nigeria, Indonesia, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Mexico, Thailand, Turkey, Ethiopia and Colombia. NSSM 200 listed Brazil which, at that time, had a population of over 100 million which dominated the continent demographically. By 2000, the population projections totaled about 212 million people.  That kind of population growth was unacceptable to the elite.
In 1975, Kissinger traveled with Gerald Ford to Indonesia, where they met with the U.S.-backed and armed dictator Suharto, who oversaw the killing of millions during his 35-year reign. The day after Ford and Kissinger left, Indonesian forces invaded the independent territory of East Timor. One-third of the territory’s population was exterminated during the subsequent 20-year occupation, but this had little impact on continuing American and Western arms shipments to the regime in Jakarta. Recently released documents establish that Suharto received a green light for the invasion from the U.S. President and Secretary of State.
Nixon and Kissinger, along with John Negroponte, a Kissinger aide and the officer in charge of Vietnam on the National Security Council, arranged a chaos-creating government coup in Cambodia in March 1970. Negroponte would later act as Ambassador to Iraq from 2004 to 2005 and as director of national intelligence from 2005 to 2007. On March 26, 2001, the Los Angeles Times reported, “While ambassador to Honduras from 1981-85, Negroponte directed the secret arming of Nicaragua’s Contra rebels and is accused by human rights groups of overlooking—if not overseeing—a CIA-backed Honduran death squad during his tenure.” The CIA had unlimited funds to assist the government in its depopulation efforts. In concert with Oliver North, “He also helped orchestrate a secret deal, later known as Iran-Contra, to send arms through Honduras to help the Contras overthrow the Sandinista government.”  Negroponte had charge of the US Embassy in Honduras when hundreds of Hondurans labeled as “subversives” were seized, raped, tortured and slaughtered by Battalion 316, a Honduran intelligence unit trained, funded and supported by the Pentagon and the CIA. Battalion 316 also participated in the CIA’s covert operations in Nicaragua.  Negroponte was Deputy Secretary of State under Condoleezza Rice.
On October 2, 1979, Robert S. McNamara, president of the World Bank and former secretary of defense during the Vietnam War, in speaking to a group of international bankers said, “We can begin with the most critical problem of all, population growth,” concluding that, “Either the current birth rates must come down more quickly, or the death rates must go up…There are, of course, many ways in which the death rates can go up. In a thermonuclear age, we can accomplish it very quickly and decisively.” It is a surprising statement in view of the crypto-eugenic position taken by the American Eugenics Society, a stand which McNamara, evidently a dedicated eugenicist, would have certainly been aware of. It can only be assumed that he did not agree with the society’s stand, and was arrogant enough to ignore it.”  McNamara and Maurice Strong, a Rockefeller operative and ecological agitator, organized the UN Earth Summit in Stockholm in 1972.  The New York Times claimed that Strong was the “Custodian of the Planet.” Strong is indebted to George H. W. Bush who maneuvered Strong into the position of Secretary General of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development, the Earth Summit, convened in Rio de Janeiro, which elevated global economic and environmental regulations.  Strong thinks that people should be required to have a license in order to have a baby.
The Population Plan was initially implemented by Brent Scowcroft, a long-time Kissinger colleague and Vice-Chairman of Kissinger Associates and National Security Advisor under Ford from 1974–1977 and George H. W. Bush from 1989–1993. CIA Director George H. W. Bush (November 1975 to January 1977) assisted Scowcroft who co-authored A World Transformed with George H. W. Bush. In addition to the National Security Advisor, the Secretaries of the Departments of State, Treasury, Defense, and Agriculture are responsible for executing the population plan. Each administration uses those agencies and determines its own strategy for depopulating the planet. Scowcroft was President George W. Bush’s Chairman of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board from 2001 to 2005 and also assisted President Barrack Obama in selecting his national security team. Scowcroft apparently facilitated Obama’s efforts to continue Bush’s warfare depopulating strategy in the Middle East.
In 1974 the United Nations convened the World Food Conference in Rome where they focused on two issues, as suggested by the U.S. The first topic was worldwide population growth and food shortages. The second agenda item was escalating food prices as a consequence of an allegedly decreasing world food supply. Both oil and grain prices were increasing at about 300 to 400 percent annually. A supposed food crisis coupled with America’s capacity as the world’s biggest food producer placed the U.S. government in charge of food and prices resulting in an alliance between grain traders and the U.S. government which lead to genetic tampering. 
The Reagan Administration accommodated Monsanto and other private companies who manufactured questionably safe food products designed for worldwide trade. Genetically modified (GMO) products, with little or no testing, were introduced in the U.S. market. Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush, former CIA Director, was the chief proponent within the Reagan Administration for this innovative field of genetically modified products.  U.S. citizens were intentionally vulnerable, as GMO labeling had been forbidden by the FDA.  Monsanto’s expensive, elite Terminator seeds, fertile only for one planting, “in the hands of one or more governments intent on using food as a weapon, Terminator was a tool of biological warfare almost ‘too good to believe.’”  Given that so many third world countries are managed according to Anglo-American eugenics interests, Terminator seeds provide ample opportunity for tyrants to stage famines.
During the 1960s and 1970s the indigenous non-white population of the U.S., through the Indian Health Service of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, operated an methodical lost generation program against Native American women of childbearing age wherein they sterilized about forty-two percent of those living on reservations without informing them. This was accomplished in conjunction with other medical procedures. Allegedly, this program was terminated in 1976 after allegations were made and confirmed. No officials lost their jobs or suffered judicial consequences as a result of implementing of participating in this program. They were, after all, simply following government procedures as it pertained to domestic non-white populations. 
More recently, in the 1990s, the World Health Organization dispensed tetanus shots among women between the ages of fifteen and forty-five in Nicaragua, Mexico, the Philippines and some African countries. Unknown to the women, the tetanus shots were laced with Chorionic Gonadotrophin or (hCG), a natural hormone, which, when combined with tetanus toxoid, prevents a women from sustaining a pregnancy. This program, to impose a state of permanent sterilization, was financed by the Rockefeller Foundation and began in 1972.
Sterilization is incredibly appalling but it does not stop there. The depopulation efforts, conducted by the World Health Organization and the U.S. Department of Defense, include more aggressive protocols. The British military, whose tactics we have frequently adopted, first used biological warfare as early as 1385 when they tossed the remains of plague victims and diseased animal carcasses into their enemy’s towns. In North America, Lord Jeffrey Amherst had his men distribute smallpox-laden blankets among the vulnerable Indian population in order to decimate their enemy without firing a bullet.
Amherst’s tactics created an epidemic among the Cherokees in 1783 which helped George Washington’s forces and ended the Cherokee’s resistance. The Masonic-based Smithsonian Institution has acknowledged Amherst’s use of biological warfare, “During the bitter fighting in 1763-1764 General Jeffrey Amherst ordered that the Indians around Fort Pitt be infected with gifts of smallpox (laden) blankets. The Indian uprising failed, and Fort Pitt was easily relieved after a smallpox epidemic broke out among the warriors besieging the fort.”  The U.S. Army repeated Amherst’s biological warfare tactics by distributing smallpox-infected blankets to the Mandans at Fort Clark in present day South Dakota. This led to the smallpox epidemic of 1836-40. The Mandan, out of about 2,400 there were only thirty-one survivors.  The U.S. Army repeated this deadly tactic by introducing blankets laden with the same disease to the Missouri River Mandans during the 1830s.
Biological warfare became U.S. government policy after the British used it against France’s Indian allies during the French and Indian Wars (1754–63). Accordingly, during the 19th century, the U.S. Army disseminated contaminated blankets to the Indians for extermination purposes. Smallpox, now available in a dry state, and cholera were very effective.  Quite possibly, smallpox, a highly contagious disease, had claimed the lives of more Northern Plains Indians, a “virgin population,” in one year, 1837-1838, than all the military expeditions sent against them. The Indians used a very descriptive name for smallpox – rotting face.  The U.S. military also conducted germ warfare by injecting Filipino captives with plague and beriberi germs during our occupation of the Philippines beginning in 1898.
In 1998, in South Africa at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission the following testimony was given, “The United States encouraged South Africa’s apartheid regime to develop a Chemical Biological Weapons program that was aimed at the country’s black population. Dr. Wouter Basson, the South African general who headed the project from its inception in 1981, testified from notes he made of a meeting with US Major General William Augerson. He (Augerson) feels that chemical warfare is an ideal strategic weapon because infrastructure is preserved together with facilities and only living people are killed. The warm climate of Africa is ideal for this type of weapon because the diffusion of the poison is better and the absorption is increased by perspiration and increased blood flow in the persons who are targets.” 
Genocidal war is about body counts – un-armed men, women and children are all total war targets to fulfill the objective of world population reduction. However, war destroys a lot of infrastructure. Accordingly, other methods were developed that are equally effective and might even increase profits in other service industries, also affiliated with the elite who consistently view other humans as sources of profit or commodities, even in death. Genocide, under other pretenses, is regularly practiced to limit “excesses” in order to preserve the earth and its resources for the “fittest.” Elite-controlled governments are indifferent to the slaughter, starvation, slave labor, and suffering of others, as evidenced by a callous response from former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright when questioned about the 500,000 children who died in Iraq as a result of the U.S.-imposed sanctions. She said, “It was worth it.” 
The Malthusian-mentality elite believe in the survival of the fittest rendering the vast majority of the earth’s population as expendable. Choreographed economic crisis, sanctions (government-imposed famines), man-made famines, wars, directed energy warfare, diseases, and mass migrations into hostile territory are all methods of thinning out the population. Abortion, peddled as pro-choice, and homosexuality, promoted as an alternative life style, all contribute to birth reduction rates. Both Alfred Kinsey’s sexual revolution and Gloria Steinem’s women’s movement were funded and facilitated by the elite. The greedy elite manage to conceal their miserable machinations by distracting the masses with mindless entertainment and addictive substances from which they also derive profits.
Many Americans think that God sanctions our every action against other ethnic groups just because we are American. God almost certainly does not sanction everything that the U.S. government does. In reality, the fallacious claim of divine sanction cloaks the enormity of state-sanctioned wickedness. The U.S. could and should use its power for good. Apparently, we establish our own ethical standards, totally exempt from all culpability and, according to Henry Kissinger, our behavior should not be internationalized. In other words, we condone and even support unilateral attacks on other countries but other countries may not act in the same manner. The children of every country should have the same rights and protections as white American children. 
 Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences , the Red Queen and the Grand Scheme by Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., Institute for Media Education, Scottsdale, Arizona, 1998, p. 202
 The Proud Internationalist, the Globalist Vision of David Rockefeller, also available in Nexus Magazine: Vol. 10, No. 5 (August-September 2003); Vol. 20 No.6 (October-November 2003); & Vol. 11 No.1 (December 2003-January
2004); 2006, p. 38
 Eugenics: A Reassessment by Richard Lynn, edited by Seymour W. Itzkoff, Praeger, Westport, Connecticut, 2001, p. 27
 War Against the Weak, Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race by Edwin Black, Four Walls Eight Windows, New York, 2003, pp. 120-122
 Pilgrims by Charles Savoie, Silver Investor, May 2005,
 Population Control, Nazis, and the U.N! by Anton Chaitkin, http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/UN_Rockefeller_Genocide.html
 American Bar Association, http://www.healthfreedom.info/BAR%20Association.htm
 The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide by Robert Jay Lifton, Basic Books, New York, 2000, p. 25
 Population Control, Nazis, and the U.N! by Anton Chaitkin, http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/UN_Rockefeller_Genocide.html
 Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola, Nature, Accident or Intentional? by Leonard G. Horowitz, Tetrahedron, Inc. Rockport, Massachusetts, 1996, pp. 38, 40-41
 FAO Conference 31st session: Twenty-second McDougall Memorial Lecture, Rome, November 2-13, 2001, http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/004/Y2255e.htm
 Population Control, Nazis, and the U.N! by Anton Chaitkin, http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/UN_Rockefeller_Genocide.html
 U.S. State Department Policy Planning Study #23, http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/Nsc68.pdf
 Bush, Eugenics and Population Control by Alf Mendes, http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/07/344113.html
 Seeds of Destruction, the Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation by F. William Engdahl, Global Research, Centre for Research on Globalization, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2007, p. 71
 Population Control, Nazis, and the U.N! by Anton Chaitkin, http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/UN_Rockefeller_Genocide.html
 Emerging Viruses, Aids & Ebola, Nature, Accident or Intentional? By Leonard G. Horowitz, Tetrahedron Publishing, Inc., Rockport, Massachusetts, 1996, p. 521
 Ibid, pp. 156, 159
 Ibid, pp. 3-5
 Ibid, p. 12
 Biological Weapons Convention, http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/janjuly/6231.htm
 Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon, and the Destruction of Cambodia by William Shawcross, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1979, p. 277
 Kissinger, the Secret Side of the Secretary of State by Gary Allen, Shambhala Publications, 1979, p. 14
 Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon, and the Destruction of Cambodia by William Shawcross, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1979, p. 229
 Ibid, pp. 357-358
 National Security Study Memorandum NSSM 200, Implications of Worldwide Population Growth, For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM 200) – December 10, 1974, pp. 57-58
 National Security Study Memorandum, NSSM 200, Implications of Worldwide Population Growth, For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests, (The Kissinger Report), December 10, 1974, p. 31
 Bush UN Choice Faces a Fight By Maggie Farley and Norman Kempster, Los Angeles Times, March 26, 2001
 John Negroponte & The Death-Squad Connection, Bush Nominates Terrorist for National Intelligence Director by Frank Morales, World War 4 Report, http://www.ww4report.com/negropontedeathsquad
 Bush, Eugenics and Population Control by Alf Mendes, http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/07/344113.html
 Seeds of Destruction, the Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation by F. William Engdahl, Global Research, Montreal, Canada, 2007, p. 127
 Who is Maurice Strong? by Ronald Bailey, National Review, Sept 1, 1997
 Seeds of Destruction, the Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation by F. William Engdahl, Global Research, Centre for Research on Globalization, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2007, p. 43
 Ibid, p. 4
 Ibid, p. 13
 Ibid, p. 261
 A Little Matter of Genocide, Holocaust and Denial in the Americas 1492 to the Present by Ward Churchill, City Lights Books, San Francisco, p. 249
 The State of Native America: Genocide, Colonization, and Resistance edited by M. Annette Jaimes, South End Press, Boston, Massachusetts, 1992, p. 7 Jaimes Notes: Jacobs, Wilbur R., “British Indian Policies to 1783,” in Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 4: History of Indian-White Relations, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., 1988, p. 10). As regards inculcation of smallpox among the Mandans in 1837, see Connell, Evan S., Son of the Morning Star: Custer and the Little Big Horn, North Point Press, San Francisco, 1984, pp. 15-6.
 Catlin and His Contemporaries: The Politics of Patronage by Brian W. Dippie, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1990, p. 331
 Death Stalks the Yakama: Epidemiological Transitions and Mortality on the Yakama Indian Reservation, 1888-1964 by Clifford E. Trafzer, Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, Michigan, 1997, p. 151
 Rotting face : smallpox and the American Indian by R. G. Robertson, Caxton Press, 2001, Introduction, pp. 107-113
 Rogue State, a Guide to the World’s Only Superpower by William Blum, Common Courage Press, Monroe, Maine, 2005, pp. 120-121
 Howard Zinn in his lecture: Howard Zinn: The Myth of American Exceptionalism, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8632.htm
Perhaps you’ve heard the tragic story of David Reimer. Born in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada in 1966, David was the victim of a botched circumcision that left his penis charred beyond surgical repair. His parents Ron and Janet, no doubt beside themselves, were confused about the best way to proceed. Then, one day, they saw a man named Dr. John Money on television.
Money was talking about his theory of “gender neutrality,” which states that “gender identity” is learned rather than innate. The idea was that the sexes were the same except for the superficial physical differences; this implies that if a child were altered so as to superficially resemble the opposite sex and was raised as one of its members, he would be happy with that sexual identity. Hearing this, the Reimers hoped they had found their salvation.
They took their boy to Money, who told them that their son’s penis could not be restored and that he stood a much better chance of living a happy life if “sex-reassignment surgery” (in reality, reassigning sex is about as possible as reassigning species) were performed and he was raised as a girl. The Reimers agreed, and the surgery was performed when the boy, who would be named “Brenda,” was 22 months old.
In reality, the kindest way to describe Money’s theory is fanciful. His idea of “gender neutrality” was still in vogue when I was a youth, and “vogue,” in the most frivolous sense, is the correct term. It was always more style than science; it was something that I, even as a teen, knew was bunk. Yet who would listen to people such as me? We were old-fashioned, behind the times. And it didn’t matter that Money was Alfred Kinsey redux and believed pedophilia was lovely if it was for “love.” It didn’t matter that David and his twin brother, Brian, said that Money sexually abused them during photo shoots. He was a “doctor,” a Ph.D. on the cutting edge of a brave new world.
Only, David (“Brenda” at the time) wanted nothing to do with that world. Although he was never told he was a boy, had been surgically altered, was dressed and raised as a girl and was regularly seeing Money for therapy, he resisted his “gender assignment” from the outset. He acted like a boy, played with boys’ toys and objected to seeing Money from the age of seven. It wasn’t going well — and it wouldn’t end well.
At the age of 14, in a rare commendable act of teen rebellion, David threatened suicide if he were forced to continue with Money’s prescriptions. This prompted his parents to finally tell him the truth about his condition. With his eyes opened, he then replaced his estrogen treatments with male hormone therapy, took the name “David,” started living as a boy, underwent reconstructive genital surgery and later married a woman who already had children. Yet the damage had been done. His tormented life which began in such a tragic way came to a tragic end: he did commit suicide, at the age of 38.
Dr. Money, too, is now dead. Yet he died with his ideological boots on; not only did he fail to repent, he fraudulently portrayed David’s case — the one for which he was most famous — as a success for years after its failure was obvious. This, and his refusal to ever own up to the failure, only increased the chances that other children would be thus scarred.
As a testimonial to how quickly fashions pass away, Money’s theory has joined him in the grave. The stake through its heart came in the 1990s, with brain research and an improved understanding of intrauterine development proving conclusively that the sexes are different even within the womb and the skull. These new findings expressing old wisdom were related as revelation, reflecting the idea that nothing is truly valid until vindicated by “science.” So there was no collective mea culpa from the psychological establishment for clouding reality and misleading generations of naïve parents. They just continued without missing a beat, as if it were a matter no more significant than recommending the wrong size shoes for the kids. Worse still, they have now moved on to their next mistake.
We have heard about the curious case of Caster Semenya, the 18-year-old South African runner who has been competing as a woman. Semenya has become the focus of suspicion (I’ll use masculine pronouns, as I’m convinced this individual is a boy who experienced abnormal intrauterine development) because of his masculine physique, deep voice, development of facial hair, male mannerisms and the fact that he has been winning races by wide margins. As a result, a battery of medical exams to determine his true sex has been conducted, although the results have not been officially released. Yet the real story here is not what investigation may tell us about Semenya. It is what our reaction to Semenya tells us about ourselves.
This is reflected in comments found throughout the Internet. For instance, consider “JimBob” posting under this Daily Mail piece, who said,
“Why is everyone talking about genetics? What about Caster’s own mind – if she believes within herself that she’s female, then she is.”
Echoing this sentiment here, “Green Is Good” wrote,
“SHE identifies HERself as a female. Done.”
Then, back to the Mail, “Livio” opined,
“This is a clear case of gender identity discrimination. What if she is a man who identifies himself as a woman?”
That’s interesting. What if you’re a lunkhead who identifies himself as intelligent?
Yet it isn’t sufficient to just dismiss this with sarcasm, as this isn’t the rambling of only a few twisted minds.
What these posters are expressing is the handiwork of today’s Dr. Moneys, “transgender” theory. This is the idea that your “gender” can be whatever you want it to be — male, female, both male and female or neither, etc. — that it isn’t limited by biology. If you have a problem with this, bravo, but then you should have a problem with the word “gender” itself. Why? Because its current usage (it used to apply only to words) was originated by people such as Money for the purposes of facilitating the relation of their theories. Understand that while many people use “gender” as a synonym for “sex,” that is not its social sciences definition, which dictates that it refers to social rather than biological differences. Yet people love to use this and other elements of the lexicon of the left. It’s a fascinating phenomenon. If you replace a simple, one-syllable word such as “poor” or “sex” with impressive sounding terms such as “underprivileged” or “gender” for ideological reasons, people, oblivious to the underlying agenda and wishing to sound sophisticated, will glom onto them. You see, simpletons, who are relatively rare, prefer simple words. And the only other group that does is rarer still: true intellectuals. But I digress.
So, returning to Semenya, many people express the shocking idea that his actual sex should have no bearing on whether he should be allowed to compete with women. It’s that modern phenomenon — image is everything, reality is negotiable.
This notion has so taken hold that we’ve recently heard of two stories out of Britain wherein young boys, ages 12 and 9, showed up in school earlier this month as “girls,” sporting girls’ clothing and ponytails and bearing feminine names. And the schools are kowtowing to them, telling other pupils that they’ll be punished if they don’t handle the “sex change” “sensitively.” Yet sensitivity is not for the other children, who are upset and confused. In just the way that David Reimer’s body was mutilated in deference to yesterday’s latest theory, their minds must be mutilated in deference to today’s.
Now, even if someone subscribes to “transgender” theory, it is striking that he would allow a child who is too young to decide to have sex decide what sex he should be. How did we get to this point?
These parents, like Ron and Janet Reimer before them, are listening to the respected social scientists of their day. These “experts” tell them that there is something called “gender dysphoria,” which is the persistent feeling that one is a member of one sex trapped in the body of the other. It’s enough to convince many parents, such as those of German Tim Petras, who received female hormone “treatments” at age 12 and now goes by the name of Kim. Yet on what basis is this diagnosis really made?
It is truly reflective of this age, where relativism has obviated reason. That is to say, if there are no absolutes, no Truth to use as a yardstick for judging among feelings, the feelings themselves become the ultimate arbiter. Then, of course, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a Fig Newton if it feels like one.
But one of the problems with emotion is that it is by its very nature irrational. And if anyone would defend an emotion-based diagnosis such as “gender dysphoria,” note that it’s brought to us by the same psycho-babblers who have given us something dubbed “body dysmorphia.” This is this persistent feeling that a certain body part, such as an arm or leg (or multiple body parts), doesn’t belong on one’s body. And if you think it isn’t taken seriously, know that doctors have amputated healthy limbs on this basis.
Be shocked — that is, unless you accept “gender dysphoria” as legitimate. Then you’d better be introspective. For what is the difference? Why would you accept the emotion-based diagnosis of gender dysphoria but not the emotion-based one of body dysmorphia? Why are the feelings of those who suffer from the latter invalid but the feelings of those who suffer from the former a credible arbiter? Both groups have persistent feelings that their bodies aren’t as they should be. Both groups cannot bear to live in their bodies as they are. Both groups want to have their bodies altered. And both groups have found “experts” willing to put them under the knife. Sure, it strikes us as the most horrid malpractice when a doctor amputates healthy body parts, such as a pair of legs. But, then, should we view it any less dimly simply because those healthy body parts are between the legs?
Lamentably, today the answer is often yes, and this speaks volumes about our society. That is, we’ve all heard that old stereotype of a lunatic, the guy in an asylum who thinks he is Napoleon. Now the asylums have largely been emptied, and I think I know why: we’ve turned the outside world into an asylum. What was once only acceptable to a small group within the scariest of walls — detachment from reality — has now been mainstreamed. You can be a man who thinks he is a woman, yet no straitjacket is slapped on you. It is slapped on the mouths of those who dare say self-image isn’t reality.
And that is the point: there is something called reality. When feelings tell one he is, or should be, something he is not or shouldn’t be — a girl, a legless man or Napoleon — the sane conclusion is that you’re confronted with a psychological problem, not a physical one. It may be intractable, and it is certainly easier to mutilate the body than cure the mind. But you cannot mutilate reality, only obscure it. If a man loses his genitalia in an accident, does he cease to be male? Or, if “gender” is a continuum as today’s Moneys say, is he less male? Did David Reimer cease to be a boy because he was mutilated and given estrogen against his will? Of course, the “experts” would say the answer is no, since he never saw himself as a girl. Again, though, feelings cannot be the arbiters of reality. After all, I may have hypertrichosis like Jo-Jo the Dog-Faced Boy, undergo operations to create a snout, paws and a tail, howl under the moonlight and change my name to Spot. Yet am I sane if I call myself a different species?
So what are we to conclude about “gender” science? Decades ago its “experts” said society could turn your boy into a girl if it felt like it; now they say he can turn himself into a girl if he feels like it. Is it just a coincidence that Dr. Money’s “gender neutrality” theory accorded with his day’s feminist claim that sex roles should be discarded because the sexes are essentially the same? Is it just a coincidence that the current “transgender” theory accords with our day’s homosexual claim that sex roles should be discarded because everyone and his values are essentially different? It is at all possible that these theories have less to do with sound science than the spirit of the age?
We have gone from the proposition that “gender” can be whatever society says it is to the proposition that it can be whatever the individual says it is without ever stopping to wonder if the second idea is just a crank like the first. But most won’t wonder because today we place more faith in doctors than doctrine, and today’s doctors say that eternal common sense and yesterday’s doctors’ nonsense are wrong. Yet the most significant thing that distinguishes them from Dr. John Money is that they are still alive — and their theory is not yet dead.
Although the show was propaganda produced by leftist Norman Lear, no one could accuse “All in the Family” of not being funny. Its protagonist, blue-collar bigot Archie Bunker, is one of those legendary television characters, and one of his uproarious lines is apropos here. It was uttered during a scene in which his daughter, Gloria, passionately asked him, “Daddy, did you know that 65 percent of the people murdered in the last ten years were killed by handguns?” The curmudgeonly patriarch’s reply was classic: “Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed outta’ windas’?”
While what follows isn’t the conclusion Lear wanted us to draw, the truth is that many Americans would feel better. People tend to fixate on the boogeyman of their ideology, and they often don’t trouble much about evil when it’s not committed in his name.
We see examples of this phenomenon today, and this brings me to a couple of questions of my own. Can tyranny be visited in the name of only one particular lie? And would it make you feel any better if millions were oppressed or murdered to promote a fashionable lie? The truth is, sadly, millions would feel better.
Archie’s characteristic fault, bigotry, is today a very unfashionable lie. It’s also a very exaggerated one. Up until just recently, millions of Americans were absolutely certain a black man could never be elected president. I had pointed out on numerous occasions, both at private gatherings and in print (here, here and here, for instance), that America is the least “racist” country on Earth and that a black person could very easily ascend to the White House. So, before we proceed, let’s make something crystal clear.
I and my philosophical soul mates were right, and the other side was wrong.
Completely, irrefutably, unambiguously wrong.
How they could be so wrong? The answer is, they’re in the grip of a false ideology that is emotionally pleasing to them. And the cool regions of the head are easily trumped by the raging fires of the heart.
People have always been raised with certain dogmas. In our time, the three r’s of education are revisionism, relativism, and racism, and we are instilled with the notion that the last thing is the end-all and be-all, the source of all our woes. In fact, the modern version of that old biblical admonition would have to be “Racism is the root of all evil.”
This is evident in our culture. In textbooks and documentaries we are bombarded with gratuitous treatments of slavery and discrimination in America (not elsewhere, where the former is extant and the latter generally far worse), and the media report every detectable bigoted word uttered or racial act committed by white people, no matter how statistically rare it might be, for the purposes of portraying our nation as ridden with racism and in need of “the fix” (this is partially why we’ve been fixed like a dog). Then there is the matter of how communism is viewed kindly relative to National Socialism (which partially explains why “big C” communism is again on the rise). We are outraged that 11 million were killed because of a racial agenda, as we should be, yet it seems that it would make modern man’s inner little girl feel better if they had been exterminated in the name of an atheistic/economic one. After all, while the communists killed about ten times as many – 100 million worldwide during the 20th century – its defenders are never lowered to where they belong, the nadir of pariah status occupied by a neo-Nazi. But, of course, godlessness and economic egalitarianism are all the rage in these enlightened times.
Many will justify such bias, claiming that the demon of discrimination cannot be exorcised without constant prayer to the god of government; there must be a bit of over-compensation in much that same way that a crooked wire cannot be made right unless it’s bent beyond straight in the other direction. But it is also true that if you keep bending it in the fashionable direction, it becomes more crooked than it was before. The yoke of tyranny isn’t less burdensome just because it’s born of an unfashionable lie’s opposite.
This is why it’s so dangerous when we deceive ourselves about a problem. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis’ in The Screwtape Letters, the demon bent on civilization’s demise reasons that he must convince people to exaggerate their faults. Thus, we dark angels must tell the militarist that he is too pacifistic and the pacifist that he is too militaristic. In light of this, consider that certain forces in our thoroughly politically-correct society, where cultural affirmative action carries the day, continually tell us that we’re too racist.
When you understand this phenomenon whereby man swings from one extreme to the other and consider what we regard to be our greatest mistakes of the past, it becomes clear why we are in our current social state and what dangers may lie on the horizon. I will elaborate.
Barack Obama’s infamous ex-pastor, friend and confidant, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, subscribes to “Black Liberation Theology.” He expressed one of its tenets during a fiery sermon, saying:
“Jesus was a poor black man who lived in a country and who lived in a culture that was controlled by rich white people.”
Such rhetoric is tolerated by much of society. But not by those, such as authentic Christians, who understand that Jesus should not be reduced to a racial symbol. After all, such a characterization is as ridiculous as claiming Jesus was a member of the Nordic race and did battle with Jews.
Oh, by the way, the latter was claimed – by the National Socialists – in 1930s Germany. It was called “positive Christianity,” and it was tolerated by much of society. But not by people, such as authentic Christians, who understood that Jesus should not be reduced to a racial symbol.
As for citizens who disagreed with National Socialist doctrine, they were often silenced; I suppose it was very unfashionable to claim that your Aryan race didn’t enjoy superiority. We have risen beyond this today, of course. So much so, in fact, that we have speech codes in colleges and corporations and hate-speech laws in many countries which ensure that people who disagree with the doctrine of racial equivalency along every conceivable dimension will often be silenced. It’s a totally different thing.
The National Socialists (and many others) were wrong not just because they believed in differences among groups that didn’t exist, but, far more significantly, because they also assumed that a group’s worth was determined by its characteristic abilities and overall intelligence. They didn’t understand that everyone is deserving of dignity because he is a child of God; this is an easy mistake to make when your ideology becomes your god and its tenets your truth. This is why it may be comforting to certain people that our faith is so strong.
And something happens when your agenda and its truth supplant God, the Truth. When its tenets conflict with the Truth, instead of discarding the former, you rationalize away the latter. Thus, when fleet-footed Jesse Owens prevailed in the 1936 Olympics in Berlin and Joe Louis pummeled German Max Schmeling in their second heavyweight bout, it did nothing to disabuse the National Socialists of their ideas. The doctrine that they occupied the highest rung of a racial hierarchy determined by genetics could not be questioned.
We’re not like that at all. Instead, we’re diligent enough to ostracize people such as Jimmy “the Greek” Snyder and renowned scientists William Shockley and James Watson for suggesting that some group differences could have a genetic basis. The doctrine of comprehensive absolute genetic racial equivalency cannot be questioned.
In reality, the balanced view of the matter is very simple: While there are differences among groups, there are also differences within groups. The latter is why we must judge everyone as an individual, and the former is why we must judge every individual group as an individual group.
The National Socialists had a problem with this, as they were bent on believing that a person’s group identity is destiny; it was a doctrine that justified discrimination. We’re not like that at all. We insist that a group’s group identity is meaningless. Ashkenazi Jews have the highest I.Q. of any group, blacks tolerate heat better and tend to be more muscular, and I’m sure every group possesses genetically-based advantages of some kind. Yet this mustn’t be acknowledged, as it contradicts our doctrine that performance differences among groups must be attributed to discrimination.
The National Socialists were also gung-ho nationalistic; it helped greatly to rally Josef Six-pack. We’re not like that at all. In fact, we go so far as to criticize flag-wavers and, as Bill Ayers and Ward Churchill can attest, preach anti-Americanism in academia, the media and Hollywood. We have moved beyond tribal loyalties. We are internationalists.
Yes, we are nothing like those racial dogmatists of bygone days. We can truthfully say, as writer Ace Walker once pointed out, “We’re not National Socialists, you bloody fool. We’re international socialists!”
Another characteristic of the National Socialists is that before they gained the power to impose their agenda through the law, they did so through the lawless; they used brown-shirted thugs to intimidate and silence opposition.
We’re not like that at all.
Our mobs don’t wear brown shirts. They just storm stages (Columbia and other attacks on traditionalists at colleges), intimidate voters, steal conservative newspapers, attack conservative students and vandalize their homes, and force-feed students politically-correct ideas in academia.
Then there are the aspirations, which are sometimes expressed by readers of left-wing news sites. For instance, at a very popular site I came across a post to the effect of (I’m paraphrasing):
“Racists should be beaten and then put in re-education camps until their thinking is changed.”
This was not an uncommon sentiment at this site and was unchallenged by the other respondents.
To place this in perspective, remember that things such as condemning Islamist beliefs, speaking frankly about crime statistics, criticizing Obama and even opposing welfare have been labeled racist. Why, even Bill Clinton, the former and now completely white “first black president,” was labeled a racist during the primary campaign. “Racist” has become synonymous with “bad guy,” and bad guy has come to mean “someone who disagrees with our doctrine.” And, you see, the remedy for doctrinal incorrectness is a re-education camp.
So we exhibit that dreaded pattern, that tendency to go from one extreme to another. No matter how far we bend that wire, we’re continually told we’re too racist. We’re ever on the watch for closet National Socialists, inheritors of a philosophy whose adherents murdered millions under the banner of racial superiority. But what will be the result of an ever-intensifying obsession to enforce a racial-equivalency doctrine whose adherents see enemies around every corner?
Well, whatever. I’m sure modern man’s inner little girl will feel better as long as people are only pushed out of windows.
Selwyn Duke is a regular columnist for Novakeo.com
Selwyn Duke is a writer, columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show and has been a regular guest on the award-winning Michael Savage Show. His work has appeared in Pat Buchanan’s magazine The American Conservative and he writes regularly for The New American and Christian Music Perspective.
He can be reached at: SelwynDuke@optonline.net