The mayor of New York embraces Karl Marx

The mayor of New York embraces Karl Marx

by Jon Rappoport

September 8, 2017

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” (Karl Marx, 1875)

At infowars.com, Kelen McBreen has unearthed a stunning statement NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio made to New York Magazine:

De Blasio: “What’s been hardest is the way our legal system is structured to favor private property. I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be. I think there’s a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community, that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs. And I would, too. Unfortunately, what stands in the way of that is hundreds of years of history that have elevated property rights and wealth to the point that that’s the reality that calls the tune on a lot of development… Look, if I had my druthers, the city government would determine every single plot of land, how development would proceed. And there would be very stringent requirements around income levels and rents. That’s a world I’d love to see, and I think what we have, in this city at least, are people who would love to have the New Deal back, on one level. They’d love to have a very, very powerful government, including a federal government, involved in directly addressing their day-to-day reality.”

Boom.

The elimination of private property rights is one of the primary tenets of extreme socialism/Communism.

And of course, the disposition of private property—the takeover—would be achieved by government.

So for those people who think the rising tide of socialism is just a myth, you now have the mayor of the world’s most powerful city advocating it publicly and openly.

And the response of the mainstream press? A yawn, and silence.

Or to put it another way, bland acceptance.

Private property was one of the basic issues Ayn Rand, the most reviled and adored novelist of the 20th century, explored in depth. Here are several statements she uncompromisingly offered:

“Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”

“The doctrine that ‘human rights’ are superior to ‘property rights’ simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others; since the competent have nothing to gain from the incompetent, it means the right of the incompetent to own their betters and to use them as productive cattle. Whoever regards this as human and right, has no right to the title of ‘human’.”

“You cannot force intelligence to work: those who’re able to think, will not work under compulsion; those who will, won’t produce much more than the price of the whip needed to keep them enslaved. You cannot obtain the products of a mind except on the owner’s terms, by trade and by volitional consent. Any other policy of men toward man’s property is the policy of criminals, no matter what their numbers.”

In a half-sane society, private property rights would be debated in depth at every college, without interference. But that is no longer possible, owing to censorship of speech.

Beyond this restriction, students aren’t equipped with tools of analysis to approach the subject. Instead, they’re indoctrinated with vapid generalities.

As I’ve detailed in several recent articles (see tag:socialism here), the rank promotion of socialism has nothing to do with “power to the people.” Socialism is an elite strategy, boosted by Globalists as a way of gaining control of governments and populations.

Their pretense of “share and care” is a mask behind which they are instituting a worldwide management system. They, not the people, will own the means of production, and they will determine the distribution of goods and services.

Instead of solving the problem of predatory mega-corporations, “socialism” will elevate those corporations to even greater heights of power.

As just one example—what president of the US stood for, and promoted, the greatest degree of socialism? That would be Franklin Roosevelt, who presided over the New Deal and World War 2. How did he rein in corporations and prosecute their crimes? Are you kidding?

Consider Charles Higham’s classic, Trading with the Enemy:

“What would have happened if millions of American and British people, struggling with coupons and lines at the gas stations, had learned that in 1942 Standard Oil of New Jersey [part of the Rockefeller empire] managers shipped the enemy’s [Germany’s] fuel through neutral Switzerland and that the enemy was shipping Allied fuel? Suppose the public had discovered that the Chase Bank in Nazi-occupied Paris after Pearl Harbor was doing millions of dollars’ worth of business with the enemy with the full knowledge of the head office in Manhattan [the Rockefeller family among others?] Or that Ford trucks were being built for the German occupation troops in France with authorization from Dearborn, Michigan? Or that Colonel Sosthenes Behn, the head of the international American telephone conglomerate ITT, flew from New York to Madrid to Berne during the war to help improve Hitler’s communications systems and improve the robot bombs that devastated London? Or that ITT built the FockeWulfs that dropped bombs on British and American troops? Or that crucial ball bearings were shipped to Nazi-associated customers in Latin America with the collusion of the vice-chairman of the U.S. War Production Board in partnership with Goering’s cousin in Philadelphia when American forces were desperately short of them? Or that such arrangements were known about in Washington and either sanctioned or deliberately ignored?”

If you want a modern example of “socialism” at work, consider another soft promoter of this philosophy, President Barack Obama, and his response to one of the most predatory of corporations, Monsanto, and other food giants.

From Scott Creighton, “Obama Pitches India Model of GM Genocide to Africa”:

“At the G8 Summit held two weeks ago at Camp David, President Obama met with private industry and African heads of state to launch the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, a euphemism for monocultured, genetically modified crops and toxic agrochemicals aimed at making poor farmers debt slaves to corporations, while destroying the ecosphere for profit.”

“But African civil society wants no part of this latest Monsanto aligned ‘public private partnership.’ Whatever will the progressives do now that their flawless hero has teamed up with their most hated nemesis [Monsanto] to exploit an entire continent like they did to India not that long ago?…”

“With a commitment of $3 billion, Obama plans to ‘partner up’ with mega-multinationals like Monsanto, Diageo, Dupont, Cargill, Vodafone, Walmart, Pepsico, Prudential, Syngenta International, and Swiss Re because, as one USAID representative says ‘There are things that only companies can do, like building silos for storage and developing seeds and fertilizers.’

“Of course, that’s an outrageous lie. Private citizens have been building their own silos for centuries. But it’s true that only the biowreck engineers will foist patented seeds and toxic chemicals on Africa.”

Obama? A socialist warrior against corporations on behalf of the people? It’s long past the time for ripping that false mask away.

During his 2008 campaign for president, Barack Obama transmitted signals that he understood the GMO issue. Several key anti-GMO activists were impressed. They thought Obama, once in the White House, would listen to their concerns and act on them.

These activists weren’t just reading tea leaves. On the campaign trail, Obama said: “Let folks know when their food is genetically modified, because Americans have a right to know what they’re buying.”

Making the distinction between GMO and non-GMO was certainly an indication that Obama, unlike the FDA and USDA, saw there was an important line to draw in the sand.

Beyond that, Obama was promising a new era of transparency in government. He was adamant in assuring that, if elected, his administration wouldn’t do business in “the old way.” He would be “responsive to people’s needs.”

Then came the reality.

After the election, people who had been working to label GMO food and warn the public of its huge dangers were shocked to the core. They saw Obama had been pulling a bait and switch.

After the 2008 election, Obama filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA:

At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.

As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

As commissioner of the USDA, Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack. Vilsack had set up a national group, the Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership, and had been given a Governor of the Year Award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto.

As the new Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.

As the new counsel for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for another biotech giant, DuPont.

As the new head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had previously worked in key positions for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research.

We should also remember that Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.

Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, had previously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the Supreme Court.

The deck was stacked. Obama hadn’t simply made honest mistakes. Obama hadn’t just failed to exercise proper oversight in selecting appointees. He wasn’t just experiencing a failure of short-term memory. He was staking out territory on behalf of Monsanto and other GMO corporate giants. He was Monsanto’s agent.

And now let us look at what key Obama appointees wrought for their true bosses. Let’s see what GMO crops have walked through the open door of the Obama presidency.

* Monsanto GMO alfalfa.
* Monsanto GMO sugar beets.
* Monsanto GMO Bt soybean.
* Syngenta GMO corn for ethanol.
* Syngenta GMO stacked corn.
* Pioneer GMO soybean.
* Syngenta GMO Bt cotton.
* Bayer GMO cotton.
* ATryn, an anti-clotting agent from the milk of transgenic goats.
* A GMO papaya strain.

This is an extraordinary parade. It, in fact, makes Barack Obama the most GMO-dedicated politician in America.

You don’t attain that position through errors or oversights. Obama was, all along, a stealth operative on behalf of Monsanto, biotech, GMOs, and corporate control of the future of agriculture.

Socialism? Power to the people? Share and care? Special concern for the downtrodden?

Socialism is a means for government to gain ironclad control of the means of production by colluding with mega-corporations.

That collusion, that tight partnership has been called fascism. And that’s what socialism turns out to be.

To the degree that governments are socialist, in England, the US, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Russia, China, Canada, Australia and other countries, that’s the pattern.

It would evolve into the same pattern in New York, where Mayor Bill De Blasio is blowing smoke up everybody’s backside, with his remarks about people-power and strong government taking over private property.

If the mayor wants to prove otherwise, let’s see him go after the most mighty anti-people corporation in his city: Goldman Sachs. Let’s see him lead a no-holds-barred prosecution of that outfit’s crimes.

Let’s see him attack the company that is running a significant chunk of Donald Trump’s presidency.


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Bill Gates, Google’s Brin fund lab-grown meat for the masses

Bill Gates, Google’s Brin fund lab-grown meat for the masses

by Jon Rappoport

August 25, 2017

Wikipedia: “In 1998 Jon F. Vein of the United States filed for, and ultimately secured, a patent (US 6,835,390 B1) for the production of tissue engineered meat for human consumption, wherein muscle and fat cells would be grown in an integrated fashion to create food products such as beef, poultry and fish.”

Step right up and try a delicious burger grown from animal cells in a lab. What could go wrong?

True, there’s no fat in it, and the cells were grown in sketchy fetal bovine serum, and certain, ahem, “growth factors” may have been added, but don’t worry. Slather on the mustard and mayo, close your eyes, and munch.

Rest secure in the knowledge that Bill Gates and Google “don’t- be-evil” co-founder, Sergey Brin, are pumping money into the ongoing research. Brin Burger. Bill Burger.

Food giant Cargill and Bill Gates are collaborating. Brin gave money to a Dutch scientist, Mark Post, to produce a burger manufactured from cow stem cells. And various research labs around the world are experimenting with different ways of “making meat.”

The medium in which the animal cells are grown is fetal bovine serum; so the possibility of various infectious agents getting into the mix is quite real.

If this frankenfood miracle comes to pass, a whole sector of traditional animal farming would eventually shrink and be phased out; but at the same time, the amount of energy and the cost of creating meat in factories in huge vats would be considerable.

Because meat without fat doesn’t have much taste (or a full nutritional profile), fat would have to be added. How? From what source? That problem hasn’t been solved yet.

And of course, if manufactured meat took hold, the producers would have an ideal opportunity to add elements “for our own good.”

“People should have edible vaccines in their food, don’t you think? It would be so much easier than getting a shot…”

Then, imagine something like this: “Fake But Real Meat Inc. announced that six hundred vats of growing pork in its Malaysian factory are contaminated with numerous bacteria and viruses, plus fungi. A temporary power outage may have been to blame. It’s estimated that 40 million pork burgers are loose in thirteen countries. A recall has been issued, but ‘the pig is already out of the pen’.”

If you read the technical literature on this lab-meat movement, you’ll notice one thing is missing: in-depth programs for studying the long-term human health effects. Oops.

“Meat is meat is meat. Who cares where it comes from or who designed it?”

How about the mineral content of lab-meat? What manufacturer will really care about that?

How about the unpredicted consequences of adding fat after the production of the meat itself? How will that work?

How many, and which, chemicals will be added to the vats of growing meat, in order to “keep it safe?”

“Say, Bob, I think we need to put a few hundred more gallons of chlorine into Vat 7 today. Did you catch the smell over there?”

But don’t worry, be happy. It’ll all work out.

Only a few lone meat manufacturers will come up with the idea of making deals with crematoria to divert human corpses to their factories…


Exit From the Matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

If the EU goes down, all life ceases to exist

If the EU goes down, all life ceases to exist

by Jon Rappoport

July 16, 2017

I’ll get to the European Union in a minute, but first a bit of background.

System building—how do you do it? In particular, how do you build a perverse structure?

There are three sequential steps:

One: Secretly create the system.

Two: Once it’s up and running and established, act as if you’re a mere participant in the system.

Three: Claim that the system is absolutely necessary, and without it, things would collapse.

When those three steps have been accomplished, you can add other flourishes. For example, sometimes you can get away with saying the system was never created at all; it arose organically because there was a need for it. That’s a good one.

THE EU IS SUCH A SYSTEM.

The propaganda: “It wasn’t planned from the top. It came about as a response to the need for peace among nations, the need for a common market and a uniform currency, the need for an end to brutal nationalism, etc.”

Actually, the EU was created as an extension of World War 2 by other means. Hitler’s dream of a united Europe was accomplished, with a reborn Germany as the economic powerhouse. But other key players were involved: the Vatican, the City Of London, Swiss banks, etc. And after 1973, the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission. Globalists all.

The EU’s current support of the migrant flood into Europe is a case of: this is how we erase borders, destroy the traditions of separate cultures, take down separate nations once and for all, and make Europe into a single entity.

Brexit was “a disturbance in The Force,” but it is being used to advantage by the EU. In actual game theory (not the ludicrous version taught in universities), you must have threats to the system, in the wake of which the system survives. This “proves” the structure is sound and necessary, and continues to meet the needs of the people.

The EU is painted as a kind of heroic soldier who has endured many battles. This picture sells.

As time passes, expect more and more news stories featuring the propaganda theme, “The EU is on the comeback, stronger than ever.”

The truth is, the EU could vanish tomorrow, and the individual nations of Europe would find ways to connect, cooperate, and do business.

In fact, one or two adventurous countries could change the face of Europe (which tells you why the EU tries so hard to pass so many binding regulations that apply to all its members). Here is an example:

Suppose one European country decided to cancel all the odious EU regulations restricting the sale and use of nutritional supplements? Suppose the whole area of nutrition was turned over to the free choice of every citizen?

You can bet your bottom franc or pound that this nation would suddenly undergo an economic renaissance. Nutritional companies by the hundreds would set up shop. Citizens from all over Europe would move there. Jobs would multiply. In turn, this country would become a haven for all sorts of natural health practitioners and their clients.

Watching this happen, other European countries would follow suit. Suddenly, health freedom would become an economic tiger.

Big Pharma, one of the driving forces behind the EU, would be exposed as a pernicious monopoly. Never a bad thing.

Who knows how many other areas of the economy (aka free market) would suddenly reappear, free of repressive regulations?

What about GMO crops? From what I can discover, 50 GMO crops are permitted in Europe. A nation can submit a request to the EU to ban a GMO crop, and the EU makes the final decision. Suppose—if the EU vanished—one country stood up on its hind legs and declared: “We are banning ALL GMOs. If you live here, all your food will be non-GMO. That is our commitment.”

Do you think that might result in many people moving to that country?

Do you think the mega-agri GMO corporations favor the EU? Of course they do, because they believe that, in the long run, they can exert sufficient influence to have their way—whereas on a continent of separate and autonomous nations, the risk factor would be higher.

All ruthless mega-corporations embrace the EU. That is their preferred system: predators cooperating with other predators. Eventually, you look at the EU and the worst corporations in Europe, and you can’t tell the difference. They’re blood brothers.

Breaking up and dissolving the EU would smell very much like freedom, if enough citizens could remember the scent.

The EU is betting it can sustain control; its program of opening borders and letting in what amounts to a massive crime wave will somehow be given a pass by Europe’s traditional population. The EU is betting it has reduced the people of the continent to such a degree of passivity that any insult is accepted.

“The people don’t want freedom, they want the system.”

That’s a risky gamble.

The EU is showing its teeth for all to see. It’s essentially assaulting the population and daring it to rise up in rebellion.

Which is another aspect of real game theory: launch a series of insults and challenges and tests to those under your rule and see if you can grind them down further and further.

Europe was the cradle of individual liberty. Not China, not India, not Argentina, not Japan, not Bolivia, not Egypt. Europe. That’s why the Globalist EU has Europe in its sights and wants to flatten it.


The Matrix Revealed

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


The biggest systems of control are often built after the biggest wars. Those who engineer and finance those wars, on both sides, understand this. They draw up those systems, in the ashes of the prior conflict. It was always their intention. Just as key members of the Rockefeller Council on Foreign Relations were tasked with designing the Union Nations before World War 2 was finished, key Globalist players were already laying out the roadmap to the European Union at the same time.

You could say World War 2 was instigated and fought for the very purpose of bringing in these huge systems of post-war control.

War creates the perceived need for the systems.

Make no mistake about it, the ultimate plan is to erase all separate nations and turn them into distant memories.

Freedom would be the other distant memory.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Buy your food from the CIA: Amazon buys Whole Foods

Buy your food from the CIA: Amazon buys Whole Foods

by Jon Rappoport

June 19, 2017

When Amazon boss and billionaire Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post in 2013, he also had an ongoing $600 million contract to provide cloud computing services to the CIA. That meant the Washington Post, which already had a long history of cooperation with the CIA, renewed their wedding vows with the Agency and doubled down on the alliance.

By any reasonable standard of journalism, the Post should preface every article about the CIA, or article sourced from the CIA, with a conflict of interest admission: TAKE THIS PIECE WITH A FEW GIANT GRAINS OF SALT, BECAUSE OUR NEWSPAPER IS OWNED BY A MAN WHO HAS A HUGE CONTRACT TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE CIA.

Now Bezos and his company, Amazon, have bought Whole Foods for $13.7 billion. Whole Foods is the premier retailer of “natural” foods in America.

The degree of profiling of Whole Foods customers will increase by a major factor. Amazon/CIA will be able to deploy far more sophisticated algorithms in that regard.

It’s no secret that many Whole Foods customers show disdain for government policies on agribusiness, health, medicine, and the environment. Well, that demographic is of great interest to the Deep State, for obvious reasons. And the Deep State will now be able to analyze these customers in finer detail.

At the same time, the Amazon retail powerhouse will exercise considerable control over the food supply, since it will be selling huge numbers of food products to the public. Amazon will have new relationships with all the farmers Whole Foods has been using as suppliers.

Perhaps this disclaimer posted on every Whole Foods item is now in order: KEEP IN MIND THE FACT THAT THE OWNER OF WHOLE FOODS, AMAZON, HAS A VERY TIGHT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CIA. USE YOUR IMAGINATION.

Then there is this. The CIA has its own private company, called In-Q-Tel, which was founded in 1999 to pour investment money into tech outfits that could develop new ways to facilitate “data collection,” and service other CIA needs. In-Q-Tel, Jeff Bezos, and Amazon are connected. For example, here is a 2012 article from technologyreview.com:

“Inside a blocky building in a Vancouver suburb, across the street from a dowdy McDonald’s, is a place chilled colder than anywhere in the known universe. Inside that is a computer processor that Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and the CIA’s investment arm, In-Q-Tel, believe can tap the quirks of quantum mechanics to unleash more computing power than any conventional computer chip. Bezos and In-Q-Tel are in a group of investors who are betting $30 million on this prospect…”

Nextgov.com described the deal this way: “Canadian company D-Wave Systems raised $30 million to develop quantum computing systems. Bezos Expeditions, the personal investment company of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, and CIA venture capital arm In-Q-Tel participated in the latest funding round, the firm announced. The company’s quantum computing technology seeks to speed up data-crunching. If successful, the technology could aid automated intelligence gathering and analysis.”

Yes, automated intelligence gathering and analysis are exactly what outfits like Amazon and the CIA need for profiling the public. Other companies who have purchased products from D-Wave Systems? Goldman Sachs and Lockheed Martin. Let’s see: Amazon, CIA, Goldman, Lockheed—a formidable collection of Deep State players.

“Buy your food from the purest natural retailer in the world, the CIA. Oops, I mean Amazon. Oops, I mean Whole Foods.”


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Huge organic farm under threat; County will invade and spray Roundup

Huge organic farm under threat: County will invade and spray Roundup if not stopped

What?? A county government is going to destroy a massive organic farm?

by Jon Rappoport

May 15, 2017

“I have a great idea. We’re the Sherman County government. We have power. Let’s claim Azure Farms can’t control their weeds. Let’s come in and invade them with Roundup and other toxic chemicals. Let’s destroy their organic farm. We know the spraying won’t wipe out the weeds—it’ll make the situation worse. But who cares? Let’s open up ourselves to massive lawsuits. I’m sure Monsanto will give us some legal help. We can set a fantastic precedent. No organic farm is safe. No organic farmer has the right to protect his land from the government. Isn’t that a terrific idea?”

Government trespass, invasion?

So far, I have seen no coverage of this issue in Oregon newspapers. Why not? Also, I find nothing on the Sherman County, Oregon, government website about a massive spraying program.

A local government is going to decimate a huge organic farm with herbicide?

Azure Farms, a 2000-acre organic farm in Oregon, states it is under threat from the local Sherman County government. Why? Because Sherman County officials are re-interpreting a law concerning the “control of noxious weeds,” so it means “eradication.”

These weeds can be controlled on an organic farm, but the only way they can be eliminated (according to conventional “science”) is by spraying. And that means Roundup and other toxic chemicals. That would decimate the organic nature of the farm. That would decertify it as an organic farm.

Further, according to Azure, Sherman County plans to put a lien on the farm, forcing it to pay for the spraying.

The deadline for expressing opposition is May 22. A better deadline is May 17.

Here is the complete press release from Azure Farms and the ways to register your concern:

Azure Farms is a working, certified organic farm located in Moro, central Oregon, in Sherman County. It has been certified organic for about 18 years. The farm produces almost all the organic wheat, field peas, barley, Einkorn, and beef for Azure Standard.

Sherman County is changing the interpretation of its statutory code from controlling noxious weeds to eradicating noxious weeds. These weeds include Morning Glory, Canada Thistle, and Whitetop, all of which have been on the farm for many years, but that only toxic chemicals will eradicate.

Organic farming methods – at least as far as we know today – can only control noxious weeds—it is very difficult to eradicate them.

Sherman County may be issuing a Court Order on May 22, 2017 to quarantine Azure Farms and possibly to spray the whole farm with poisonous herbicides, contaminating them with Milestone, Escort and Roundup herbicides.

This will destroy all the efforts Azure Farms has made for years to produce the very cleanest and healthiest food humanly possible. About 2,000 organic acres would be impacted; that is about 1.5 times the size of the city center of Philadelphia that is about to be sprayed with noxious, toxic, polluting herbicides.

The county would then put a lien on the farm to pay for the expense of the labor and chemicals used.

Contact Sherman County Court before May 17 when the next court discussion will be held.
Contact info:
1. Via email at lhernandez@co.sherman.or.us or
2. Call Lauren at 541-565-3416.

Show Sherman County that people care about their food NOT containing toxic chemicals.

Overwhelm the Sherman County representatives with your voices!

—end of Azure Farms statement—

Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor to jonathanturley.org, has been covering this story. He reached out and obtained a devastating letter from agricultural scientist, Charles Benbrook. Benbrook has his critics within the conventional pesticide and GMO research community. Here is Smith’s piece and Dr. Benbrook’s letter:

Yesterday I fielded an article concerning a rather distressing mandate by an Oregon county weed control agency seeking to force the application of hazardous herbicides onto a 2,000 acre organic farm owned by Azure Farms. Sherman County Oregon maintains this scorched earth policy is necessary to abate, or more specifically “eradicate”, weeds listed by state statute as noxious.

Now, the scientific community is responding to this overreaching government action by acting in the interests of health and responsible environmental stewardship through advocacy in the hopes that officials in Sherman County will reconsider their mandate.

Dr. Charles Benbrook is a highly credentialed research professor and expert serving on several boards of directors for agribusiness and natural resources organizations. Having read news of Sherman County’s actions, he penned an authoritative response I believe will make informative reading for those concerned by present and future implications in the forced use of herbicides under the rubric of noxious weed eradication, and the damage to organic farming generally arising from such mandates.

Charles Benbrook has a PhD in agricultural economics from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and an undergraduate degree from Harvard University. He currently is a Visiting Professor at Newcastle University in the UK…

He was a Research Professor at Washington State University from 2012-2015, and served as the Chief Scientist of The Organic Center from 2006-2012. He was the Executive Director of the Board on Agriculture in the National Academy of Sciences from 1984-1990. He was the staff director of the Subcommittee on Department [USDA] Operations, Research, and Foreign Agriculture of the House Committee on Agriculture (1981-1983). He worked as an agricultural and natural resources policy expert in the Council for Environmental Quality in the last 1.5 years of the Carter Administration. He began Benbrook Consulting Services (BCS) in 1990, and continues to carry out projects with a wide range of clients via BCS

He coauthors an informative website Hygeia-Analytics.com.

I reached out to Dr. Benbrook and received permission to reprint his letter in the hope that with more attention, including that from the scientific community, we can arrive at a reasonable solution to the county’s concerns. Here is Dr. Benbrook’s letter:…

Tom McCoy
Joe Dabulskis

Sherman County Commissioners

Lauren Hernandez
Administrative Assistant
Sherman County, Oregon

Rod Asher
Sherman Country Weed District Supervisor
Moro, Oregon

Alexis Taylor
Director
Oregon Department of Agriculture

Dear Ms. Hernandez el al:

I live in Wallowa County. I learned today of the recent, dramatic change in the Sherman County noxious weed control program and the plan to forcibly spray a 2,000-acre organic farm in the county.

Over a long career, I have studied herbicide use and efficacy, public and private weed control efforts, the linkages between herbicide use and the emergence and spread of resistant weeds, and the public health and environmental impacts of herbicide use and other weed management strategies.

I served for six years, along with fellow Oregonian Barry Bushue, past-president of the Oregon Farm Bureau, on the USDA’s AC 21 Agricultural Biotechnology Advisory Committee. Issues arising from herbicide use were a frequent topic of discussion during our Committee’s deliberations.

I have published multiple scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals on glyphosate, its human health risks, and the impact of genetically engineered crops on overall herbicide use and the spread of resistant weeds. In a separate email, I will forward you copies of my published research relevant to the use of herbicides, and glyphosate in particular.

The notion that Sherman County can eradicate noxious weeds by blanket herbicide spraying is deeply misguided. I cannot imagine a single, reputable university weed scientist in the State supporting the idea that an herbicide-based noxious weed eradication program would work (i.e., eradicate the target weeds) in Oregon, or any other state. To hear another opinion from one of the State’s most widely known and respected weed scientists, I urge the County to consult with Dr. Carol Mallory-Smith, Oregon State University.

I also doubt any corporate official working for Monsanto, the manufacturer of glyphosate (Roundup), would agree or endorse the notion that any long-established weed in Sherman County, noxious or otherwise, could be eradicated via blanket spraying with Roundup, or for that matter any combination of herbicides.

Before proceeding with any county-mandated herbicide use justified by the goal of eradication, I urge the County to seek concurrence from the herbicide manufacturer that they believe use of their product will likely eradicate your named, target, noxious weeds.

Given that almost no one with experience in weed management believes that any long-established weed, noxious or otherwise, can be eradicated with herbicides, one wonders why the County has adopted such a draconian change in its noxious weed control program. I can think of two plausible motivations – a desire by companies and individuals involved in noxious weed control activities, via selling or applying herbicides, to increase business volume and profits; or, an effort to reduce or eliminate acreage in the Country that is certified organic.

Weeds are classified as noxious when they prone to spread, are difficult to control, and pose a public health or economic threat to citizens, public lands, and/or farming and ranching operations. Ironically, by far the fastest growing and mostly economically damaging noxious weeds in the U.S. are both noxious and spreading because they have developed resistance to commonly applied herbicides, and especially glyphosate.

There is near-universal agreement in the weed science community nationwide, and surely as well in the PNW, that over-reliance on glyphosate (Roundup) over the last two decades has created multiple, new noxious weeds posing serious economic, environmental, and public health threats.

In fact, over 120 million acres of cultivated cropland in the U.S. is now infested with one or more glyphosate-resistant weed (for details, see http://cehn-healthykids.org/herbicide-use/resistant-weeds/).

The majority of glyphosate-resistant weeds are in the Southeast and Midwest, where routine, year-after-year planting of Roundup Ready crops has led to heavy and continuous selection pressure on weed populations, pressure that over three-to-six years typically leads to the evolution of genetically resistant weed phenotypes, that can then take off, spreading across tens of millions of acres in just a few years.

Ask any farmer in Georgia, or Iowa, or Arkansas whether they would call “noxious” the glyphosate-resistant kochia, Palmer amaranth, Johnson grass, marestail, or any of a dozen other glyphosate-resistant weeds in their fields.

It is virtually certain that an herbicide-based attempt to eradicate noxious weeds in Sherman County would fail. It would also be extremely costly, and would pose hard-to-predict collateral damage on non-target plants from drift, and on human health and the environment. But even worse, it would also, almost certainly, accelerate the emergence and spread of a host of weeds resistant to the herbicides used in the program.

This would, in turn, leave the county, and the county’s farmers with not just their existing suite of noxious weeds to deal with, but a new generation of them resistant to glyphosate, or whatever other herbicides are widely used.

Sherman County’s proposal, while perhaps well meaning, will simply push the herbicide use-resistant weed treadmill into high gear. Just as farmers in other parts of the county have learned over the last 20 years, excessive reliance on glyphosate, or herbicides over-all, accomplishes only one thing reliably – it accelerates the emergence and spread of resistant weeds, requiring applications of more, and often more toxic herbicides, and so on before some one, or something breaks this vicious cycle.

I urge you to take into account two other consequences if the County pursues this deeply flawed strategy. Certified organic food products grown and processed in Oregon, and distributed by Oregon-based companies like Azure and the Organically Grown Company, are highly regarded throughout the U.S. for exceptional quality, consistency, and value.

Plus, export demand is growing rapidly across several Pacific Rim nations for high-value, certified organic foods and wine from Oregon. Triggering a high-profile fight over government-mandated herbicide spraying on certified organic fields in Sherman County will come as a shock to many people, who are under the impression that all Oregonians, farmers and consumers alike, are committed to a vibrant, growing, and profitable organic food industry.

Does Sherman County really want to erode this halo benefiting the marketing of not just organic products, but all food and beverages from Oregon?

Second, if Sherman County is serious about weed eradication, it will have to mandate widespread spraying countywide, and not just on organic farms, and not just for one year. The public reaction will be swift, strong, and build in ferocity. It will likely lead to civil actions of the sort that can trigger substantial, unforeseen costs and consequences. I am surely not the only citizen of the State that recalls the tragic events last year in Malheur County.

Plus, I guarantee you that the County, the herbicide applicators, and the manufacturers of the herbicides applied, under force of law on organic or other farms, will face a torrent of litigation seeking compensatory damages for loss of reputation, health risks, and the loss of premium markets and prices.

I have followed litigation of this sort for decades, and have served as an expert witness in several herbicide-related cases. While it is obviously premature to start contemplating the precise legal theories and statutes that will form the crux of future litigation, the County should develop a realistic estimate of the legal costs likely to arise in the wake of this strategy, if acted upon, so that the County Commissioners can alert the public upfront regarding how they will raise the funds needed to deal with the costs of near-inevitable litigation.

—end of Dr. Benbrook’s letter—

Yesterday, Sunday, I emailed the Sherman County government asking them whether they really intend to pursue this lunatic program. If and when I receive an answer, I’ll post it.

I also emailed Azure Farms, asking why they believe there is no coverage of this issue in Oregon newspapers. If I get an answer, I’ll post that, too.

Ordinarily, local papers will print a stories about contentious issues, however one-sided they may be. In this case, I find nothing.

Is it possible the threat of herbicide spraying has been overstated? Why would Azure issue a release claiming the spraying is imminent if it weren’t true? Why would Azure risk getting into a wrangle with the County government if the threat weren’t real? Why isn’t there any mention of the spraying program on the Sherman County website? Does the County actually think they can keep their intentions under wraps?

“I have a great idea. Let’s claim Azure Farms can’t control their weeds. Let’s come in and invade them with Roundup and other toxic chemicals. Let’s destroy their organic farm. We know the spraying won’t wipe out the weeds—it’ll make the situation worse. But who cares? Let’s open up ourselves to massive lawsuits. I’m sure Monsanto will give us some legal help. We can set a fantastic precedent. No organic farm is safe. No organic farmer has the right to protect his land from the government. Isn’t that a terrific idea?”


power outside the matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Genetically modified people: what could go wrong?

Genetically modified people: what could go wrong?

Genes, genes, genes: hype, hype, hype

Notes on Brave New World, against which freedom is the prime option

Freedom to refuse—

by Jon Rappoport

February 21, 2017

(Update: Part-2 here, Part-3 here, )

I’ll get to genetically modified people; but first, the background on the grand gene hype and propaganda operation—

The war against cancer has painted a picture of hope: genetic solutions.

This, despite the fact that there are no successful genetic treatments, across the board, for any form of human cancer.

The focus on genes is a diversion from obvious causes of cancer in the environment: industrial chemicals, pollutants, pesticides, food additives, and even pharmaceuticals.

This futile human gene-fix has a direct parallel in food crops: modify plants so they can grow despite drenching them with toxic pesticides.

However, massive GMO crop failures, reduced nutritive value of such crops, and the rise of super-weeds are three reasons why the gene model fails.

So it is with human cancer: “let’s modify the genes of people and they will be impervious to the environmental assault of chemicals that cause cancer.”

In other words, the fantasy proposes that someday, humans will be able to live in a toxic soup created by mega-corporations, and even thrive, because they have been genetically altered.

There is no reason under the sun to believe this.

“Trust us. Even if environmental toxins trigger gene mutations that bring about cancer, we can just cancel out those mutations through better human engineering.”

Preposterous.

This is like saying you can cure diseases caused by germs even though people’s immune systems are severely and chronically compromised.

The entire cancer industry exists to protect the corporations that are manufacturing products that cause cancer.

I’ve made these points during radio interviews, and I make them here again, because major media news outlets are silent; they are part of the cancer industry and are beholden to the cancer-causing corporations that buy huge blocks of advertising.

In the so-called research community, scientists can spin their wheels and obtain grant monies to do experiments with genes and mice and ‘cell lines’ (*) forever and never emerge with results that will save lives. (*) (Note: by the way, did you know there is a huge, general scandal with ‘cell lines’? More on that here.)

These scientists and their corporate masters can herald minor tumor reductions. But nothing changes. The war on cancer is a war on people.

Assuming gene damage can cause cancer, the triggering event can occur as a result of coming into contact with environmental toxins. In other words, the toxic effects on genes will continue apace, no matter how much research is done on the composition and disposition of the genes themselves.

Much cancer research does, in fact, discover toxic causes—and it is in the interest of companies that spew those compounds out into the world to cover up their criminal guilt. What better way to achieve that than by asserting: “cancer is all in the genes.”

Look at the giant biotech companies like Monsanto, Bayer, DuPont, Syngenta. In one way or another, they are all involved in chemical AND genetic research and production.

So they are in a prime position to deflect the chemical destruction they are wreaking by pushing “the frontiers of gene research.”

“It’s all about the genes.”

Hype. Hype. Hype.

Dr. Samuel Epstein, who devoted a major part of his life to the research of environmental toxins, wrote:

“We are losing the war against cancer. The prohibition of new carcinogenic products, reduction of toxins in use, and right-to-know laws – these are among the legislative proposals which could reverse the cancer epidemic.”

But that would be bad for business. The solution? Promote endlessly the notion that genes and only genes are at the root of cancer.

The big picture? The big con? Imagine a world drowning in pollution of all kinds, and top (bought-off) scientists saying: “Don’t worry, when it comes to cancer we’ve got it covered. Tweak this gene, tweak that gene, and poof, cancer never has a chance. Or if you get cancer, we can go in there and re-position crucial genes and knock out the disease. See, you can live in a chemical soup and never feel adverse effects…”

Genes. High-level, high-flying, high-minded, high-tech answers for the problems we face.

What? The science isn’t solid? The propaganda is wall-to-wall? The shills are everywhere? Don’t worry, be happy. The best minds will come up with solutions. Just wait and see. The great discoveries are right around the corner.

And I have condos for sale on Jupiter.

Step right up.

You can see the same kind of gene-hustle when it comes to autism, which many researchers, based on no real evidence, claim is “surely a genetic disease.”

This assertion covers up the fact that happy and healthy children, soon after receiving a vaccination, experience devastating neurological damage, leading to a diagnosis of autism.

But don’t go there, don’t look there, don’t talk about vaccines. No, instead, listen to the ascendant experts, who say it was just a coincidence that a vaccine was given and a child’s life was destroyed. You see, what really happened was: an errant gene response kicked in at the same moment as the shot of vaccine. A grand coincidence. Nothing to do with the vaccine. Certainly not.

In actuality, the dominant paradigm of this world’s power structure is: float cover stories.

Sell big cover stories and keep selling them. Use them to conceal ongoing crimes.

“It’s the genes” is the latest and greatest cover.

Some of the biggest, best-educated liars on the planet deploy it every day.

Here is the next big thing: genes injected, functioning as vaccines. The hype is over the top. Of course, scientists admit that these injected genes will incorporate themselves in the body and alter its genetic makeup permanently.

If you like and trust that idea, I have condos in the core of the sun for sale. Bargain prices.

The reference is the New York Times, 3/9/15, “Protection Without a Vaccine.” It describes the frontier of research. Here are key quotes that illustrate the use of synthetic genes to “protect against disease,” while changing the genetic makeup of humans. This is not science fiction:

“By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the [experimental] monkeys, the scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease.”

“’The sky’s the limit,’ said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.”

“The first human trial based on this strategy — called immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer, or I.G.T. — is underway, and several new ones are planned.”

“I.G.T. is altogether different from traditional vaccination. It is instead a form of gene therapy. Scientists isolate the genes that produce powerful antibodies against certain diseases and then synthesize artificial versions. The genes are placed into viruses and injected into human tissue, usually muscle.”

Here is the punchline: “The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.”

Read that again: “the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA.” Alteration of the human genetic makeup. Not just a “visit.” “Permanent residence.”

The Times article taps Dr. David Baltimore for an opinion:

“Still, Dr. Baltimore says that he envisions that some people might be leery of a vaccination strategy that means altering their own DNA, even if it prevents a potentially fatal disease.”

Yes, some people might be leery. If they have two or three working brain cells.

Let’s take this further. Under the cover of preventing disease (note: all good covert ops float a laudatory goal to conceal their true intent), vaccines are ideal carriers for all sorts of genes that would be permanently incorporated into the human structure.

The enormous tonnage of propaganda about vaccines, and the resultant mandatory laws that enforce vaccination (without fear of liability), create a powerful channel along which re-engineering is eminently possible.

Synthetic genes injected into billions of humans would form a grand experiment to create an altered species.

This grand experiment could be compartmentalized. For example, secretly, genes 1-6 will be injected into Group A in geo-location I. Genes 7-12 will be injected into Group B in location II. And so on.

Vaccine recipients will be subjected to ongoing surveillance to gauge the results. On various pretexts, members of these groups will be brought into clinics for exams and tests, to discover markers that purportedly reveal their bodies’ responses to the genetic alterations.

Are these people stronger or weaker? Do they exhibit signs of illness? Do they report behavioral changes? Through surveillance and testing, all sorts of information can be compiled.

Of course, there is no informed consent. The human guinea pigs have no knowledge of what is being done to them.

And what would be the objectives of this lunatic research program? They would vary. On a simplified level, there would be two. Create weaker and more docile and more obedient and more dependent humans. On the other side, create stronger and healthier and more intelligent and more talented humans. Obviously, the results of the latter experiments would be applied to the “chosen few.” And clearly, some of this research will be carried on inside the military. Secrecy is easier to maintain, and the aim to produce “better soldiers” is a long-standing goal of the Pentagon and its research arm, DARPA.

A global vaccine experiment of the type I’m describing here has another bonus for the planners: those people who fall ill or die can be written off as having suffered from various diseases and disorders which “have nothing to do with vaccines.” This is already SOP (standard operating procedure) for the medical cartel.

The numbers of casualties, in this grand experiment, would be of no concern to the Brave New World shapers. As I’ve documented extensively, the US medical system is already killing 2.25 million people per decade (a conservative estimate), as a result of FDA-approved drugs and mistreatment in hospitals. Major media and government leaders, aware of this fact, have done nothing about it.

Here is a quote from Princeton molecular biologist, Lee Silver, the author of Remaking Eden. It gives you a window into how important geneticists are thinking about an engineered future:

“The GenRich—who account for ten percent of the American population—[will] all carry synthetic genes. All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class…

“Naturals [unaltered humans] work as low-paid service providers or as laborers. [Eventually] the GenRich class and the Natural class will become entirely separate species with no ability to crossbreed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee.

“Many think that it is inherently unfair for some people to have access to technologies that can provide advantages while others, less well-off, are forced to depend on chance alone, [but] American society adheres to the principle that personal liberty and personal fortune are the primary determinants of what individuals are allowed and able to do.

“Indeed, in a society that values individual freedom above all else, it is hard to find any legitimate basis for restricting the use of repro[grammed]-genetics. I will argue [that] the use of reprogenetic technologies is inevitable. [W]hether we like it or not, the global marketplace will reign supreme.”

Here is another gem, from Gregory Stock, former director of the program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine:

“Even if half the world’s species were lost [during genetic experiments], enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms—some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two—burst onto the scene. We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future.”


The Matrix Revealed

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


Notice that these two well-known scientists are speaking about “ethics.” It’s important to realize that a significant number of such experts have their own extremely peculiar (to say the least) version of what is right and wrong.

With vaccines that permanently alter human genetic makeup on the horizon, and given the corporate and government-agency penchant for secrecy, we are already inhabiting the Brave New World. It’s not a distant prospect.

Every genetic innovation is aimed at bringing us closer to a stimulus-response world, and further away from freedom.

Which is why the defense of freedom becomes ever more vital.

That struggle comes down to who controls, yes, the philosophy and the science. Is each human merely and only a system waiting to be re-engineered, or is he something far, far more, inhabiting a physical form?

We already know what the vast majority of brain researchers and geneticists believe, as well as the governments and corporations and universities and foundations that make important decisions.

Of course, these days, the college faculty department considered to be the least important, the most useless, a mere appendage waiting for those with wisdom to put it out of its misery and kill it off…is the philosophy department.

That leaves us to take up the argument and the resistance.

Not Lee Silver at Princeton or Gregory Stock or Bill Gates or George Soros or David Rockefeller or the Pope or Stephen Hawking or Monsanto or Dow or PBS or FOX or socialists or Communists or liberals or conservatives or some wackadoodle at Harvard or MIT or UCLA.

Us.

Us.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Trump’s toxic agriculture policy will be as grotesque as Obama’s

Trump’s toxic agriculture policy will be as grotesque as Obama’s

by Jon Rappoport

February 1, 2017

In articles about Trump, I have praised the man for certain things he’s done and is doing. But that isn’t a reason for closing my eyes and accepting his programs wholeheartedly.

This is what I predicted in recent articles. Unless some miracle turnaround occurs, Trump’s pick for Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, will be a catastrophe. Lights out. Bang.

Big Ag vs. the small American farmer? No contest.

Katherine Paul, the associate director of the Organic Consumers Association, has the story:

“Trump heaped predictable praise on Sonny Perdue, promising that the former governor of Georgia will ‘deliver big results for all Americans who earn their living off the land’.”

“The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), that multi-billion-dollar lobbying group that represents Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, Coca-Cola, General Mills (you get the picture) rushed to praise Perdue’s nomination. In a statement, GMA’s president said her group ‘looks forward to working with [Perdue] on issues key to keeping America’s food the safest and most affordable food supply in the history of the world’. Coming from the GMA, leader of the charge to keep labels off GMO foods, we know that ‘safest and most affordable food’ is code for ‘industrial chemical GMO food’.”

“And by now, we also all know that Perdue, who was named 2009 Governor of the Year by the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, counts both Monsanto and Coca-Cola among his many corporate campaign donors.”

“A former fertilizer salesman, Perdue at one time owned Houston Fertilizer and Grain which, after its acquisition of Milner Milling Co., morphed into AGrowStar, a grain business with operations across Georgia and South Carolina. His supporters cite his business operations as proof that he’s qualified to lead the USDA. They fail to mention the role chemical fertilizers play in water pollution and global warming [I reject that latter connection], much less the cost to farmers of relying on synthetic inputs…”

“Perdue has no qualms about taking government handouts. Environmental Working Group (EWG) reports that between 1995 and 2014, he cashed in on $278,679 in taxpayer-funded subsidies for his various businesses. Will he be open to overhauling the current system which doles out $25 billion/year in subsidies (paid out mostly to large producers, not small farmers) for commodity crops, like wheat, GMO corn, GMO cotton and GMO soy?”

“At a 2003 meeting organized by his wife (then first lady of Georgia) and sponsored by Coca-Cola and Chick-fil-A, Perdue praised the soda giant for its ‘its continued effort to grow its business presence and invest in Georgia, as the Company prepares to open a $100 million plus expansion to its Atlanta production facilities’.”

“Before his nomination, Perdue served on Trump’s ag advisory committee whose talking points, as reported on November 15, by Politico, ‘offer a roadmap on how President-Elect Donald Trump’s agriculture secretary could shape agricultural policies, including the sweeping promise to “defend American agriculture against its critics,”’. Of course, what the committee means by ‘American’ agriculture is industrial factory farm and GMO commodity agriculture. And we all know who the committee sees as its critics—that would be us and a host of other groups that advocate for healthy food and a clean environment.”

“…in 2009, Perdue signed a bill that blocked local communities in Georgia from regulating animal cruelty, worker safety and pollution related to factory farms. That’s hardly ‘looking out’ for the little guy.”

—No need to read between the lines. Perdue will be Big Ag’s man in Washington.


But just in case you think he’ll reverse all the wonderful farm policies promoted by Obama, read on. Obama was nothing less than Monsanto’s man in the Oval Office. Here is my piece, from 2013:

After his victory in the 2008 election, Obama filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA:

At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.

As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

As commissioner of the USDA, Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack. Vilsack had set up a national group, the Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership, and had been given a Governor of the Year Award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto.

As the new Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.

As the new counsel for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for another biotech giant, DuPont.

As the new head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had previously worked in key positions for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research.

We should also remember that Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.

Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, had previously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the Supreme Court.

The deck was stacked. Obama hadn’t simply made honest mistakes. Obama hadn’t just failed to exercise proper oversight in selecting appointees. He was staking out territory on behalf of Monsanto and other GMO corporate giants.

And now let us look at what key Obama appointees have wrought for their true bosses. Let’s see what GMO crops have walked through the open door of the Obama presidency.

* Monsanto GMO alfalfa.

* Monsanto GMO sugar beets.

* Monsanto GMO Bt soybean.

* Coming soon: Monsanto’s GMO sweet corn.

* Syngenta GMO corn for ethanol.

* Syngenta GMO stacked corn.

* Pioneer GMO soybean.

* Syngenta GMO Bt cotton.

* Bayer GMO cotton.

* ATryn, an anti-clotting agent from the milk of transgenic goats.

* A GMO papaya strain.

* And soon, genetically engineered salmon and apples.

This is an extraordinary parade.

Obama was, all along, a stealth operative on behalf of Monsanto, biotech, GMOs, and corporate control of the future of agriculture.

He didn’t make that many key political appointments and allow that many new GMO crops to enter the food chain through a lack of oversight.

Nor is it coincidental that two of the Obama’s biggest supporters, Bill Gates and George Soros, purchased 900,000 and 500,000 shares of Monsanto, respectively, in 2010.

Obama, while on the campaign trail in 2008, was promising transparency in government, was claiming that every person has the right to know what’s in his food (GMO labeling). But clearly, that was all cover and fluff. He was lying through his teeth and he knew it. He hasn’t changed. He’s been a covert agent since the beginning.

Imposter. Charlatan. These words fit Obama. He doesn’t care that GMO food is taking over the country and the world. He wants it to happen. He’s always wanted it to happen.

Obama, Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow, among others, are prepared to do whatever is necessary to make GMO food and their attendant pesticides dominate America and, through exports, the world.


power outside the matrix

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


—Whether Trump has his eyes open or closed, he’s walking down the same path. His meetings with small farmers, and his pledge to protect clean water and air, were so much fluff.

Theoretically, he has time to reverse course, but don’t bet on it, don’t hold your breath—unless you’re living in an area downwind from a corporate factory farm, where the air is full of gently wafting toxic pesticides and GMOs.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.