BITING THE FOOD THAT KILLS YOU
All this week I have been noticing a trend the mainstream conveniently ignores. The trend is that laws are being proposed which smack of eugenics directives hidden in proposals for health care reforms.
These directives have been in the works long before the Affordable Health Care Act and have been part of the sustainability plans first proposed with Agenda 21 and the Sustainability Summit 2030.
“Blood DNA” data bases were already in the health plan in order to maintain a gene based directives for future health coverage. These plans have hidden eugenics directives that have been proposed by the CFR and will be monitored by the FBI and WHO, the CDC and the CIA.
The people are complying and there now are requirements for DNA testing through health and wellness programs proposed by various employers.
They are voluntary now – and may be law soon.
People out of fear tend to think that if an authority says it is for their own good it must be. It has been shown the mind can act irrationally during times of unrest or in times of stress.
The ruling class is pushing full spectrum control over mind and body – they want control of everything.
Well into the mid-1900’s, there were a number of elites that considered themselves the ruling class and had plans to deal with those individuals that they did not agree with or identified with. In a time of class warfare there is always a division where a certain group of people are somehow under the impression that they are superior. As I was studying the history of the United States dating back 100 years, I found documents and historical accounts of how the elite wanted to dispose of the indigent, the mentally retarded, the handicapped and even women.
The overall attitude of the elite had given way to the use of eugenics to eliminate types of people that were considered undesirables. Anymore when one has to search the internet for eugenics stories in America you have to go through the delicate word salad that makes it palatable for researchers because no one wants to admit that while we called ourselves a country that believed in human rights we all secretly had plans for those we felt deserved to be eliminated from the gene pool.
Surprisingly, the reason for the eugenics programs again was to insure that resources would be used by those who would benefit society. Those who were thought to be a burden were conveniently removed.
Most people are blissfully unaware of the extent to which pharmaceuticals companies, chemical companies, and food committees, are affecting the public health in order to make a profit.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission is the main global body that makes proposals to, and is consulted by, the Directors-General of the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations on all matters pertaining to the implementation of the Joint Food Standards Program.
The increasing popularity of food supplement, natural health practices and organic food is a serious threat to the pharmaceutical industry’s business with disease.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission adopted its first guidelines and principles for genetically-modified foods in 2003. These texts subsequently became instrumental in the United States, Canada launching, and winning, a trade dispute at the World Trade Organization against the European Union where it was argued that the EU had been applying a moratorium on the approval and importation of foods containing GM material.
The whole business is a highly-controlled system that is actually benefiting the controllers in the agribusiness and changing how farmers grow and provide us with food.
Unlike the seeds for regular foods, the seeds for GM foods can be patented.
The global commercial seed market is growing rapidly and has become highly concentrated over the last twenty years. Global production is now dominated by a handful of companies. This oligopoly is the result of countless mergers and acquisitions.
Another sobering fact is that the top 3 are all leaders in the pesticide market as well, with an obvious interest in promoting the use of their pesticides. Farmers are forced to buy seeds each year because of the increase in hybrid seeds, which do not reproduce reliably and so are not worth saving for the next sowing season, and because of intellectual property rights on seeds, which prohibit the saving of seeds and seed exchange between farmers.
Many people know that the leader in seed production is Monsanto. Monsanto has been around since the early 20th century and was well known as a chemical company. Its first product was the artificial sweetener saccharin. The company then developed into.
One of the biggest chemical producers in the U.S. and began pesticide production after World War II. Monsanto’s dioxin-contaminated herbicide, Agent Orange caused millions of cases of poisoning when used by the US troops as a defoliant during the Vietnam War.
In 1976, Monsanto launched the herbicide glyphosate, which rapidly became the company’s most important source of revenue and the world’s best-selling herbicide. Monsanto began its seed production in the 1980s and developed genetically modified soya, which tolerates Monsanto’s own herbicide, Roundup.
Today, Monsanto controls 90 % of the GMO seed market.
This means that much of our food supply is now laden with Monsanto’s toxic brew of “RoundUp” glyphosate. When combined with the mountain of aluminum and other heavy metals being sprayed on us by the climate engineers, it is a recipe for severe breakdown of the human organism.
To put all this into the overall picture, not only is climate engineering completely disabling the planet’s life support systems, the toxic heavy metal fallout is combining with the Monsanto chemical nightmare to completely disable the human health system.
Two years ago, a UN-sponsored scientific agency declared that the popular weed killer, glyphosate, probably causes cancer. That finding from the International Agency for Research on Cancer caused an international uproar. Monsanto, the company that invented glyphosate and still sells most of it, unleashed a fierce campaign to discredit the IARC’s conclusions.
New details of the company’s counterattack came to light this week. Internal company emails, released as part of a lawsuit against the company, show how Monsanto recruited outside scientists to co-author reports defending the safety of glyphosate, sold under the brand name Roundup. Monsanto executive William Heydens proposed that the company “ghost-write” one paper. In an email, Heydens wrote that “we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak.” Heydens wrote that this is how Monsanto had “handled” an earlier paper on glyphosate’s safety.
That earlier paper, published in 2000, acknowledges Monsanto’s help in assembling the data, but does not list any Monsanto employees as co-authors.
Of course, the paper indicates that there is no correlation between cancer and other maladies and that scientific institutions worldwide have concluded that there is no indication of any human health concern.
However, this paper shows just how scientist can be paid off to make erroneous statements in order to provide the propaganda necessary to hide a company’s chemical that has deadly effects on the human body.
But of course, if someone in a lab coat with a clip board says that the “science is final” the gullible public will believe it.
Court records show that Monsanto was tipped off to the determination by a deputy division director at the EPA, Jess Rowland, months beforehand. That led the company to prepare a public relations assault on the finding well in advance of its publication. Monsanto executives, in their internal email traffic, also said Mr. Rowland had promised to beat back an effort by the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct its own review.
Dan Jenkins, a Monsanto executive, said in an email in 2015 that Mr. Rowland, referring to the other agency’s potential review, had told him, “If I can kill this, I should get a medal.” The review never took place. In another email, Mr. Jenkins noted to a colleague that Mr. Rowland was planning to retire and said he “could be useful as we move forward with ongoing glyphosate defense.”
The safety of glyphosate is not settled science. A number of agencies, including the European Food Safety Agency and the E.P.A., have disagreed with the international cancer agency, playing down concerns of a cancer risk, and Monsanto has vigorously defended glyphosate.
But the court records also reveal a level of debate within the EPA. The agency’s Office of Research and Development raised some concern about the robustness of an assessment carried out by the agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs, where Mr. Rowland was a senior official at the time, and recommended in December 2015 that it take steps to “strengthen” its “human health assessment.”
In a statement, Monsanto said, “Glyphosate is not a carcinogen.”
It added: “The allegation that glyphosate can cause cancer in humans is inconsistent with decades of comprehensive safety reviews by the leading regulatory authorities around the world. The plaintiffs have submitted isolated documents that are taken out of context.”
Emails also offer hints of a friendly relationship between Monsanto and a senior regulator at the Environmental Protection Agency, Jess Rowland. The EPA was already doing its own assessment of glyphosate’s health risks, but after the U.N. report appeared, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention apparently was considering launching its own study.
All of this is being used as evidence in a lawsuit that a group of cancer victims have brought against Monsanto in California. Lawyers for the plaintiffs are arguing that Monsanto executives colluded with officials at the EPA to downplay glyphosate’s health risks.
A few years ago, Sir John Beddington, the UK government’s chief scientific advisor stated that with the world’s population growing, food supplies diminishing, and water supplies becoming more scarce, all of these factors would combine to form a ‘perfect storm’ in 2030 resulting in food shortages and rioting. However, the New England Complex Systems Institute believes he is way too optimistic with his timing. In fact, the complexity theorists think that if we don’t reverse the current trend in food prices, we’ve got until August 2013 before social unrest sweeps the planet.
The team from New England including Marco Lagi, say they believe that a single factor will trigger riots around the world within the next 11 months – the price of food. Lagi and his team say that once food prices reach a certain point, social unrest will break out in several countries, especially in poorer parts of the world.
Agenda 21 and now, Summit 2030 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which humans impact the environment. The purpose of this agenda is to review ways the world can be a better place for sustainable development. According to the report Habitat II within the agenda– sustainable development consists of a number of suggestions to improve environment.
First in the agenda is to establish a group consensus of crises and solutions that include separating the people and eventually culling them. This style of commentary was realized in Mein Kampf where Hitler stated that it is important to “sift the human material” for those who support decisions of the leaders and those who do not support these decisions.
One of fundamental ways to do this is to withhold food, or control food stuffs. When a government offers food to a poor country it is never neutral. It is never an unconditional act of charity. In most cases food can only flow with the consent of the men with power. In poorer countries where the military rules outwardly food is often controlled by the men with guns.
We should not be surprised in the future that with the poor economy, food will be used as a weapon and that sustenance will be an issue throughout the world. Starvation will run rampant and those who have interest in “sifting the human material” will find it easier to cull the population using food as a weapon.
George Orwell wrote in the book, 1984: “Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation.”
In the future sustainability plan, political maneuvers provided by the United Nations and other organizations will eventually divide us is through depleting us of our right to clean fresh water, and nutritious food sources.
It is also evident that part of this plan is to also divide us up according to our genetic makeup.
At the moment it appears that we are all being manipulated in some grand experiment.
How we react will determine the outcome of the experiment. Many Americans are as ignorant as lab rats and they will do anything to find that last piece of cheese in order to fill their stomachs.
But what if after all of our efforts we find that the cheese is poisoned?
There is actually literature available on Psychological operations and how social experiments have conducted before on individuals, even communities to see what would happen to their minds in cases of power failures, rumors of disease, and even famine.
A new paper published a few days ago just announced the famous Milgram Experiment has been replicated in Poland over 50 years since its inception in the US.
For those unfamiliar with experiment, it was a psychology test where participants were willing to shock people with excessively high voltage, just because a researcher in a lab coat told them to.
The social psychologists at SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities in Poland were driven to undertake this project in part because of the “the unique history of the countries in the region” the authors write. Poland’s history of fascist German occupation, “made the issue of obedience towards authority seem exceptionally interesting to us.”
Unfortunately, they found that since World War II, people have remained, shall we say, shockingly compliant.
Stanley Milgram, a Yale University psychologist who studied justifications for acts of genocide during the Nuremberg War Criminal Trials, began experiments on obedience in 1961, a year after Adolf Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem. He sought to answer this question: “Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?”
Milgram tested how willing participants playing the role of a “teacher” would be to deliver increasingly intense electric shocks to a person playing a “learner,” at the encouragement of a researcher. Milgram’s participants—all men—believed they were shocking a real person, as recorded shouts of pain were played, though no one was actually shocked.
In Poland, they saw the same result as before. People will follow orders blindly from someone who appears to be in authority.
Ultimately, the most jarring element of this study is not that people are willing to electrocute an innocent human being just as frequently today as in post-WWII America – it’s that we expect humanity to behave differently. The painful cognitive dissonance is that we never think that we and our loved ones would ever obey inhumane demands, but if the majority of participants are willing to, that means we and our loved ones probably would, too. Social situations clearly influence and direct our behavior, sometimes for the worst. So the big takeaway question, relevant in today’s political climate more than ever, is this: How can we resist?
The truth is most people can’t and while I hear people say they would resist attempts at DNA harvesting and Chipping of the population for health reasons. There is also the factor of healthy food and water available that would only be surrendered if they caved to the demands and wishes of the authorities.
The tampering of water and food supplies offer a mass psychological fear and is quite effective in damaging a weakened economy. Modern food supply systems have become more vulnerable due to their connections to various distribution outlets. Huge processing farms are coupled with huge shipping outlets that have multiple connections to suppliers and distributors.
Regardless of your definition of terrorism, food tampering is terrorism without political purpose. It is usually done to weaken economic progress and to sabotage products in order to restrict consumer confidence. It is hard to track any food contamination to organized terrorism because of the conspiracy of silence.
Food tampering can be as simple as someone deliberately poisoning a water or food supply or as speculative as weather control to create droughts. It can be as organized as introducing hormones into meat products and developing seeds that contain contaminating insecticides.
Monsanto one of the leading manufacturers of these genetically modified organisms inserts a bacterial gene which allows the plant to survive a normally deadly dose of Roundup herbicide. Although the spray doesn’t kill the plant, its active ingredient called glyphosate accumulates in the plant, and is then consumed by rats, livestock, and humans.
Bacteria in the intestines of animals and man are quite sensitive to glyphosate. When the balance of the “intestinal milieu” is disturbed, unhealthy organisms normally held in check will blossom. Botulism in dairy cows was once rare but, now that beneficial gut organisms are no longer capable of holding Clostridium Botulinum in check, is now becoming a common cause of death.
The sad part is that now GMO’s are now found in 86 percent corn, 93 percent of soy, canola, and cottonseed oil, and 95 percent of sugar beets. In the last 20 years food allergies are on the rise. Childhood obesity and morbid obesity are pandemic in America. People are plagued with acid reflux, and gastro intestinal problems. The Food and Drug administration has been responsible for pushing anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers, and antibiotics on the population. These drugs are being prescribed at an alarming rate. Could it be that the GMO’s we ingest are the reason we have seen an increase of stomach disorders, mood swings, and bacterial infections that cannot be eradicated by antibiotics? Making the correlation seems like a no brainer, especially when there seems to be a looming health crisis that everyone is talking about and yet no one has a clue as to how the problem can be solved.
Some health officials are claiming that GMO’s once again may be playing a part in the obesity trend. A study published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences has shown that GM foods are contributing to the obesity epidemic and increasing cases of organ damage. GM corn fed to mice increased their body weight by about 3.7%. This is the first scientific report on the comparative analysis of blood and organ system data. The increase in body fat was accompanied by an increase in the weight of the liver which went up by 11%.
The giant transnational corporations behind the GMO revolution are hitting us in our most vulnerable spot – our bellies. Most people have been brought up with an innate trust that what they purchase from the stores is safe to eat. Now we are seeing circumstantial events that are occurring that are peculiar and human health conditions that have the potential or that arguably are epidemic. The old axiom is that we are what we eat and sometimes we eat what we are. GMO companies are also involved with chimera experiments joining human DNA and human cells with vegetables. It has been reported in natural Science news that a GM rice product made by biotechnology company, Ventria Bioscience is currently being grown on 3,200 acres in Junction City, Kansas and possibly elsewhere — most people have no idea about it.
Since about 2006, Ventria has been quietly cultivating rice that has been genetically modified with genes from the human liver for the purpose of taking the artificial proteins and using them in pharmaceuticals. This has received the approval from the USDA.
While the rice has not been approved for human consumption, the science will eventually allow for the growth of bananas with human insulin and corn that is grown with the HIV Virus.
The vegetables and fruit would be the delivery system and human cells would be consumed by humans. The truth is that GMO’s literally change people from the inside, with or without human cells or DNA.
The frightening part is that these genetically modified vegetables and fruits are going to be proposed more liberally because they claim higher yields and what better way to curb the idea of famine, thus introducing super foods that have less nutritional value and may poison all of us.
The threat of tainted food, whether by chemicals or through genetic manipulation, is a cause that arouses outrage at a pitch few other causes will ever muster. The threat of a shadowy corporation with its fingers buried in the heart of our food supply only heightens this outrage, and Monsanto’s heavy-handed efforts at control have done nothing to soften its public image.
It seems that GMOs will inevitably become a larger part of our food supply, because the corporate motivator in the United States has proved to be stronger than the citizen motivator in recent years. A few protests won’t change that. It will take concerted, long-running national efforts to change diets and attitudes before Monsanto and its peers are forced to loosen their grip on American farmlands.