Tuesday, May 24, 2022

Lies, Damnable Lies And Downright Dangerous Lies

by Janet Phelan, Activist Post:

The founders of the United Nations would be heaving convulsively in their graves. A vision, forged out of the carnage of WWII for a world at peace, a world where disputes could be solved by dialogue and diplomacy rather than by bombs, has apparently succumbed to the duplicity of its moving party.

When US President Franklin Roosevelt drafted the initial Declaration of the United Nations in 1941, he penned a document that was a rallying cry for the Allies, in the face of what he termed “savage and brutal forces seeking to subjugate the world.”  The document boldly stated that “complete victory over their enemies is essential to defend life, liberty, independence and religious freedom, and to preserve human rights and justice in their own lands as well as in other lands…”

In the intervening seventy plus years, the UN has grown in scope and in reach, with divisions and treaty bodies to address trade, commerce, health, communications, human rights, disarmament, food security, refugees, education and more. It now employs over 44,000 people in offices and satellites across the globe.

However, the primary vision of the UN has been subverted by the actions of the leader of the free world. For the US is now actively misleading the UN as to the true nature of her activities.

US Lies about Human Rights

In an earlier article, the attempts by the US to create a false perception to the world human rights community were discussed relevant to  specific official statements made by US authorities during the Universal Periodic Review of the Human Rights Record (UPR) of the United States, a cyclical review process held at the UN in Geneva.  At the convening of the most recent review in 2015,  US officials were found to repeatedly and substantially tweak pivotal statistics and reports in order to cast a false (and benevolent) light upon activities which were uncomfortably redolent of human rights deprivations rather than successes.

Now, we come to assess the truthfulness of the US’s reports to the pivotally important UN 1540 Committee. As in reports on her human rights activities, the US has omitted or falsified critical information in her multiple reports to this body.

The 1540 Committee was established as part of the UN Security Council’s 1540 Resolution, which attempts to address proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The 1540 Resolution, which was unanimously adopted on April 28, 2004, calls upon state parties to take several levels of action in order to halt proliferation of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons. In this article, we will primarily be looking at the US’s compliance with non-proliferation of chemical and biological weapons.

Biological Weapons Lies

Much has already been written about the efforts by the US State Department to lead the Biological Weapons Convention around by its nose. In 2001, just months before the anthrax attacks of September, the US delegation boycotted the efforts by an ad hoc committee to develop a verification protocol for the BWC. Due to this, the BWC remains with no way to verify compliance by its member parties and no real way to assure that violations can be reported and dealt with.

In other words, the BWC is a whole lot of words, blowin’ in the wind.

Rather than any externally verifiable reporting mechanisms, the BWC now relies on “Confidence Building Measures,” wherein each state must faithfully self-report to the Convention at large its activities surrounding bioweapons, including any changes in legislation or any stockpiles. It was confirmed by US Department of State delegate Chris Park in 2011 that the US simply “forgot” to inform the Convention that the Expansion of the Biological Weapons Statute, passed into law as part of the USA PATRIOT Act, gave the US government immunity from violating its own bioweapons laws.

Of equal concern is that the US has actively lied to the BWC. In addition, top UN Disarmament Affairs officials have refused to accept documentation that the US has launched a covert delivery system.

In looking at the US’s reports to the 1540 Committee, we find a similar pattern of omissions and outright falsehoods. Nowhere in the US’s 1540 National Reports is any mention of the aforementioned legislation, passed in the wake of September 11, giving the US government immunity from violation its own bioweapons laws. Rather, the US’s initial 1540 Report, filed in 2004, claims:

In accordance with its obligations under several international agreements, the United States has enacted national implementing statutes, which prohibit the illegal possession or transfer of such weapons. In addition,conspiracies, attempts, or threats to use such weapons are also proscribed.

Read More @ ActivistPost.com

Australia “weather-experts” falsify climate change

0

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News:

“Global warming is a non-problem…I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.” (Dr. Ivar Giaever, Nobel-Prize winner in physics)

“The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact, I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change.” (Green Guru James Lovelock, who once predicted imminent destruction of the planet via global warming)

I’ve written a number of articles proving the global warming science is far from “settled.” I’ve also written about the political agenda behind climate change. It is stark:

All nations will be ordered (if treaties are signed) to REDUCE THEIR OVERALL ENERGY PRODUCTION BY A DISASTROUS AMOUNT.

Therefore, the output of carbon dioxide would be cut, and, we are told, “the planet could be saved.”

But no replacement of carbon-based fuels with solar, wind, and other popular alternative sources could possibly, given present technology, make up the difference and stave off the catastrophe stemming from a major cut in planetary energy production.

National economies would falter, poverty would deepen, chaos would expand, and in the ensuing crisis, the (Globalist) forces of order would move in and “solve the problem.” Also known as: a takeover of all major institutions of government, worldwide.

Now have a new scandal erupting, on top of a whole pile of prior scientific frauds. As The Daily Caller reports:

“Australian scientists at the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) ordered a review of temperature recording instruments after the government agency was caught tampering with temperature logs in several locations.”

“Agency officials admit that the problem with instruments recording low temperatures likely happened in several locations throughout Australia, but they refuse to admit to manipulating temperature readings. The BOM located missing logs in Goulburn and the Snow Mountains, both of which are in New South Wales.”

Let’s be clear. The missing and altered temperature readings actually indicated lower-than-normal temperatures which, if reported, would weaken the assertion that Australia is getting hotter.

The Daily Caller continues: “BOM [Australian Bureau of Meteorology] has been put under the microscope before for similar manipulations. The agency was accused in 2014 of tampering with the country’s temperature record to make it appear as if temperatures had warmed over the decades, according to reports in August 2014.”

“[Biologist and former director of the environmental unit at the Australian Institute of Public Affairs, Jennifer] Marohasey claimed at the time that BOM’s adjusted temperature records are ‘propaganda’ and not science. She analyzed raw temperature data from places across Australia, compared them to BOM data, and found the agency’s data created an artificial warming trend.”

“Marohasey said BOM adjustments changed Aussie temperature records from a slight cooling trend to one of ‘dramatic warming’ over the past century.”

But don’t worry.

The science is settled.

There must be no reasoned debate about the subject. Just start lowering the energy outputs of all countries on the planet.

Certainly don’t listen to a man like Freeman Dyson, who has no mainstream credentials—except for the following: physicist and mathematician, professor emeritus at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, Fellow of the Royal Society, winner of the Lorentz Medal, the Max Planck Medal, the Fermi Award. Dyson states:

“What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies [in climate change models] between what’s observed and what’s predicted have become much stronger. It’s clear now the [climate change] models are wrong, but it wasn’t so clear 10 years ago… I’m 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this [climate change] issue, and the Republicans took the right side…”

Pay no attention to that.

Shut your eyes, close your mouth, and wait for the lights to dim.

The people in charge are the people in charge, and if they don’t want debate, they must be right.

Censoring debate is always a sign that truth and justice are winning.

Right?

Several unhinged commentators have gone so far as to suggest jail time for scientists who deny the existence of manmade warming. Marc Morano, narrator and co-writer of the documentary, Climate Hustle, asked the popular American TV host, Bill Nye “The Science Guy,” whether he thought such jail threats against scientists would have “a chilling effect” on dissent.

Nye answered, “That there is a chilling effect on scientists who are in extreme doubt about climate change — I think is good.”

In other words, love censorship when it silences your opponents.

Bill Nye understands the proper method of science and research (experiment, replication, rejection, debate, questioning) the way a cockroach understands Aristotle’s treatises on logic.

Make no mistake about it, we are looking at fake climate science. The purveyors don’t care about truth. They only care about owning the bully pulpit and keeping dissenters away from that pulpit.

This is how official science is done. In the case of climate change, claim the planet is warming and claim the debate about the subject must be cooled until it is frozen and stored in a locker out of view.

Read More @ NoMoreFakeNews.com

War Danger Intensifies — We Must “Go Like Hell” To Expose and Destroy Russia-Gate

from LaRouchePAC:

The war party in the U.S. is escalating to a fever pitch for war, not only with Russia but now also with China. While the media and the Congress continue making up new excuses to attack Trump, to subvert his effort to build constructive relations with Putin and Xi Jinping, the British and their assets in the U.S. have dropped any pretense of sanity, demanding preparation for a nuclear world war.

Secretary Tillerson today drew out the battle lines in a press briefing at the State Department. Asked about the new sanctions on Russia passed overwhelmingly by the Congress, Tillerson was direct: “I think the American people want the two most powerful nuclear powers in the world to have a better relationship…. Neither the President nor I are are very happy about how Congress went about the sanctions bill, but we can’t let it take us off-track in trying to restore the relationship.”

Some people in the Administration did not get the message — or are out to wreck it. Vice President Mike Pence, speaking at a press conference Monday in Estonia with the three Presidents of the Baltic states, spoke with the coldest of Cold War rhetoric: “A strong and united NATO is more necessary today than at any point since the collapse of communism a quarter-century ago, and no threat looms larger in the Baltic states than the specter of aggression from your unpredictable neighbor to the east.” Today in Georgia, Pence claimed that Russia was occupying one-fifth of Georgian territory (referring to Abkhazia and South Ossetia), then said: “We stand here today in the gap — on a front line of freedom, a front line compromised by Russian aggression nearly a decade ago.”

The same end-game confrontation is being launched by the Congress against China, going for the kill on Trump’s effort to bring the U.S. and China together in the New Silk Road process. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-NC), speaking on NBC this morning, said that “There is a military option to destroy North Korea’s [nuclear] program, and North Korea itself. If there is going to be a war to stop [Kim Jong-un], it will be over there. If thousands are going to die, they are going to die there, they’re not going to die here.” He claimed President Trump agreed, referencing Trump saying that China could stop North Korea’s nuclear program but wasn’t doing enough.

Not to be outdone in the British imperial “divide and conquer” madness, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) sent a letter to the President calling for the suspension of “all mergers and acquisitions in the U.S by Chinese entities.” Keep in mind that Trump wisely invited China to bring its Belt and Road infrastructure development program to the U.S., to help restore the devestated infrastructure and industrial capacity of the nation. Schumer ranted: “It is my assessment that China will not deter North Korea unless the United States exacts greater economic pressure on China. The U.S. must send a clear message to China’s government.”

The message is clear indeed — the congressional leaders from both parties will not allow the rebuilding of the U.S. economy, and would rather launch World War III than to see Trump’s plan succeed.

Here, too, Tillerson today was a voice of reason against the war party: “We certainly don’t blame the Chinese for the situation in North Korea,” he said. “Only the North Koreans are to blame for this situation. We are trying to convey to the North Koreans: We are not your enemy, we are not your threat. But you are presenting an unacceptable threat to us, and we have to respond. And we hope that at some point they will begin to understand that, and then we would like to sit down and have a dialogue with them about the future that will give them the security they seek and the future economic prosperity for North Korea.”

It must be emphasized that the entire Russophobia rests on the now discredited “Russia stole the election” myth, which was constructed out of whole cloth by British intelligence and their collaborators in the corrupted Obama intelligence community. The LaRouche movement is now in full mobilization mode, within the U.S. and around the world, to circulate the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) July report to the President, proving definitively that the Russians did no such thing, but that angry Democrats leaked the infamous DNC emails to WikiLeaks in order to expose the Democratic Party leadership’s internal decision to prevent Bernie Sanders from getting the party nomination over war party asset Hillary Clinton. The British stole the Democratic primary election from Bernie Sanders, and then blamed Russia in order to stop Donald Trump in the November election. They failed in that effort, but are still trying to bring down his presidency today.

A special prosecutor must be appointed to bring these criminals to justice, before the U.S. destroys itself and the world in a new war.

Read More @ LaRouchePAC.com

Trump Battles the CIA: The Korea Ban & Bad Signs in the Market

by Caleb Maupin, New Eastern Outlook:

The ban on travel to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is primarily an attack on the people in the northern part of the Korean Peninsula. It is a move to further isolate the DPRK, and prevent tourist dollars from flowing in, while also preventing fraternization between Americans and citizens of the country.  However, the State Department’s decision also has another target in the crosshairs, one much closer to Washington DC.

According to reports in the press, roughly 5,000 US citizens visit the DPRK each year. Most are tourist youth attracted to the mystique and adventure of traveling to a country so widely demonized in the US media. Communist organizations send political delegations and Christian sects such as the Mennonites often send missionaries and aid workers. However, one can be sure that among the 5,000 people who visit the country each year is more than a few American spies, posing as tourists.

When one looks over the recent history of Americans being arrested in North Korea prior to the tragic death of Otto Warmbier, the reasons for the arrest almost always indicate activities that could be described as espionage. Merrill Newman, for example, was a former member of the US military’s “White Tigers” division during the Korean War. The 85 year old man was arrested in the DPRK as he wore a ring with the insignia of this anti-DPRK fighting and intelligence unit. After being arrested he confessed to participating in some of the war crimes against the Korean people during the 1950-1953 war. Newman stated “I did not realize North Korea was still at war” after his eventual release.

The State Department ban on travel to the DPRK is far more extreme than the widely challenged ban on travel to Cuba, enacted as part of the blockade. Officials say that any American who visits DPRK will automatically have their passport invalidated. The constitutionality of such an extreme ban is likely to be challenged.

In the meantime, however, any efforts by the CIA to gather information inside North Korea, or to manipulate or maneuver within its internal affairs, are greatly limited.

Two divisions of the US Federal Government that have long been at odds in issues of foreign policy have been the military and the Central Intelligence Agency. The nature of the two entity’s work lays the basis for their constant disagreement and conflict. The new State Department policy has essentially declared that the DPRK will be handled with military operations, not with “color revolutions,” plots of a coup, manipulation of the youth, or the other shenanigans carried out by the intelligence agencies.

A Longstanding Fight – CIA vs. Pentagon

The US military brass is trained at West Point, and though a great deal of history and background is provided, the focus of their training is military science and the “art of war.” Meanwhile, the Central Intelligence Agency’s administrators come from Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, and are trained in the subtle art of expanding US influence and quietly neutralizing those who challenge it.

The favorite word of those who extoll the military and disfavor the CIA is “strength.” The strategies favored by the Pentagon involve demoralizing opponents of US power with “shock and awe” style crushing of enemies. The mass bombing campaigns in Vietnam and Korea did not win credibility and respect for the US internationally, and this was not their intention. The same can be said for Bush’s unilateral invasion of Iraq. The Pentagon does not concern itself with winning friends and influencing people, but with blowing things up, and its favored foreign policy reflects this.

The CIA, on the other hand, tends to favor soft power, negotiations, and internal subversion of global rivals, all done covertly, with the USA looking like a benevolent “Mr. Nice Guy” on the surface. The CIA favors arming and training third party proxies to fight their enemies, while waging a fierce battle in the field of public relations and propaganda.

The clash between the military and the intelligence agencies has played out dramatically in recent US history. It is widely understood that John F. Kennedy began enacting policies that overwhelmingly favored the CIA prior to his death. Kennedy resisted the efforts to escalate military involvement in Vietnam, while funding and emphasizing CIA-linked operations like the Peace Corps. Kennedy’s often quoted the phrase “those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable” stated the CIA’s exact strategy for fighting Communism during the Cold War. The CIA favored “reforms” in US aligned third world regimes that made Marxist-Leninist revolution less appealing, while also presenting the US as a benevolent, charitable country that did not seek to intervene in other countries domestic affairs. The CIA worked to make sure that the hands of the USA during the rise of military dictatorships and the toppling of pro-Soviet world leaders were well hidden.

Prior to Kennedy’s assassination, a hard, right-wing mass movement against him, involving the John Birch Society and many Pentagon linked political figures, called the “Camelot” President a traitor and Soviet agent. Many sections of the military thought Kennedy’s “soft power” strategy for confronting Communism, and his ultimate refusal to invade Cuba with US troops after the CIA’s failed “Bay of Pigs” operation, showed weakness. Films like “Dr. Strangelove” widely mocked the well-known fanaticism of the military brass, which distrusted the intelligence agencies and the ability of politicians to make military decisions. Kennedy’s subtle alliance with the Civil Rights Movement, though inconsistent and widely criticized by activists, also threatened a military brass packed with the sons of wealthy southern families.

After the death of Kennedy, the US military seemed to be on top in the power struggle. Richard Nixon’s electoral victory in 1968, and his “secret plan” to win the Vietnam War with massive bombing, showed the military and its allies as the dominant force in setting policy.

But the demoralizing and unpopular war in Vietnam reversed this by the mid-1970s. Nixon found himself listening and depending more on the advice of Henry Kissinger, opening relations with the People’s Republic of China, and eventually being driven from office. Jimmy Carter took office in 1976 calling himself a “student” of CIA strategist Zbiegniew Brzezinski. Under Reagan, the CIA got stronger, with CIA chief George H.W. Bush rising to be Vice President and eventually Reagan’s successor as commander-in-chief.

The often repeated narrative that the US military’s escalation of the arms race was the key factor in defeating the USSR is said with absolute defensiveness by the Pentagon’s right-wing allies. Though the “strong man Reagan” explanation is more widely understood among the US public, within the circles of power in the USA, the CIA takes more credit.

Under the direction of Brzezinski, who boasted that he “gave the USSR a Vietnam” by funneling money and weapons to insurgents in what he called the “Afghan trap,” the CIA manipulated political situations in Eastern Europe causing unrest and a crisis that eventually toppled the USSR.  The CIA widely credits itself for terminating the Soviet Union by manipulating internal problems and applying less blatant forms of external pressure.

 

The CIA is not a “Conservative” Organization

Many leftists and anti-war activists assume that the CIA is staffed with jingoistic conservatives due to the nature of the job. While the rank-and-file of “the company” may attract a more rightist crowd of Mormons and military types, the leaders of the CIA are not conservative in any sense of the word.

John Brennan, the director of the CIA under Barack Obama admits that he voted for Communist Party Presidential Candidate Gus Hall in the 1976 Presidential election. Brennan was stationed in Riyahl for many years, and at the time of his appointment, many voices came forward to allege that he had actually converted to the Wahabbi brand of Islam.  The allegations remain unproven.

The CIA strategist who was most influential between the 1960s and the 1990s was Zbiegnew Brzezinski. To call Brzezinski conservative would be deeply mistaken. Zbeignew’s daughter, Mika Brzezinski is a host on liberal leaning MSNBC’s TV program “Morning Joe.”

Brzezinski developed the art of propaganda, presenting the USA to the world as the homeland of Beatles Music, the paintings of Jackson Pollack, and sexual hedonism. In Eastern Europe, Brzezinski’s policies convinced millions of alienated young people that overthrowing the Marxist-Leninist governments would transform their countries into Disneyland playgrounds packed with consumer goods and never ending rock and roll concerts.

In Afghanistan, Brzezinski worked with a young Saudi billionaire named Osama Bin Laden to fight against the People’s Democratic Party. With US made weapons and funding, complimented by heroin revenue, the insurgents poured acid on women’s faces and hanged literacy campaign volunteers. Brzezinski’s slick propaganda work convinced the world that these Wahabbi extremists were actually Che Guevara-esqu freedom fighters, battling the “Soviet Empire” for freedom. CBS news was even caught airing staged, fake battle footage.

The figure known as George Soros has become a favored talking point of right-wing activists in the USA. They present him as the sinister bank-roller of leftist activism. Long before Soros was promoting Democrats and Liberals in the USA, he was bank-rolling CIA supported anti-Communist “color revolutions.” Soros is known to have funded anti-communist, pro-capitalist and pro-western protest movements in the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and elsewhere.

During the Cold War, the CIA launched a program called the “Congress for Cultural Freedom.” The program funded the art of Jackson Pollack, as well as the Trotskyist magazine “Partisan Review.” The CIA also launched a project called MK-Ultra which involved distributing hallucinogenic drugs on college campuses.

Read More @ NEO.org

SCIENCE FOR SALE: Shocking emails reveal editor of food science journal was secretly on Monsanto’s payroll at $400 per hour

0

by Mike Adams, via The Common Sense Show:

The following bombshell story appears on GM Watch and was published on August 2, 2017. It appears on the same day that the New York Times published another bombshell story revealing Forbes.com to be a propaganda rag for Monsanto. What’s abundantly clear in all this is how Monsanto’s web of criminality, lies and deceit is rapidly unraveling, and the evil corporation is facing billions of dollars in damages from multiple lawsuits across the country.

Read this article from GM Watch and learn just how devious and criminal Monsanto has become. It is truly the most evil corporation on the planet, and it bankrolls evil, corrupt people like Bruce Chassy, Jon Entine and A. Wallace Hayes. Every effort to retract science papers that exposed the toxicity of GMOs and glyphosate, we now know, was orchestrated by Monsanto through a network of bribery and fraud that even ensnared the editors of science journals. No corporation has corrupted science more than Monsanto, and it is very telling that science propagandists like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye have joined the efforts of Monsanto to lie to the world and suppress scientific truth in order to protect the profits of the world’s most evil (and dangerous) corporation.

Here’s the full story from GM Watch. Also see this page of court discovery documents, listed on USRTK.org.

Uncovered: Monsanto campaign to get Séralini study retracted

Documents released in US cancer litigation show Monsanto’s desperate attempts to suppress a study that showed adverse effects of Roundup herbicide – and that the editor of the journal that retracted the study had a contractual relationship with the company. Claire Robinson reports

Internal Monsanto documents released by attorneys leading US cancer litigation show that the company launched a concerted campaign to force the retraction of a study that revealed toxic effects of Roundup. The documents also show that the editor of the journal that first published the study entered into a contract with Monsanto in the period shortly before the retraction campaign began.

The study, led by Prof GE Séralini, showed that very low doses of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide had toxic effects on rats over a long-term period, including serious liver and kidney damage. Additional observations of increased tumour rates in treated rats would need to be confirmed in a larger-scale carcinogenicity study.

The newly released documents show that throughout the retraction campaign, Monsanto tried to cover its tracks to hide its involvement. Instead Monsanto scientist David Saltmiras admitted to orchestrating a “third party expert” campaign in which scientists who were apparently independent of Monsanto would bombard the editor-in-chief of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), A. Wallace Hayes, with letters demanding that he retract the study.

Use of “third party experts” is a classic public relations tactic perfected by the tobacco industry. It consists of putting industry-friendly messages into the mouths of supposedly “independent” experts, since no one would believe industry attempts to defend its own products. Back in 2012, GMWatch founder Jonathan Matthews exposed the industry links of the supposedly independent scientists who lobbied the journal editor to retract the Séralini paper. Now we have first-hand proof of Monsanto’s direct involvement.

In one document, Saltmiras reviews his own achievements within the company, boasting that he “Successfully facilitated numerous third party expert letters to the editor which were subsequently published, reflecting the numerous significant deficiencies, poor study design, biased reporting and selective statistics employed by Séralini. In addition, coauthored the Monsanto letter to the editor with [Monsanto employees] Dan Goldstein and Bruce Hammond.”

Saltmiras further writes of how “Throughout the late 2012 Séralini rat cancer publication and media campaign, I leveraged my relationship [with] the Editor i[n] Chief of the publishing journal… and was the single point of contact between Monsanto and the Journal.”

Another Monsanto employee, Eric Sachs, writes in an email about his efforts to galvanize scientists in the letter-writing campaign. Sachs refers to Bruce Chassy, a scientist who runs the pro-GMO Academics Review website. Sachs writes: “I talked to Bruce Chassy and he will send his letter to Wally Hayes directly and notify other scientists that have sent letters to do the same. He understands the urgency… I remain adamant that Monsanto must not be put in the position of providing the critical analysis that leads the editors to retract the paper.”

In response to Monsanto’s request, Chassy urged Hayes to retract the Séralini paper: “My intent was to urge you to roll back the clock, retract the paper, and restart the review process.”

Chassy was also the first signatory of a petition demanding the retraction of the Séralini study and the co-author of a Forbes article accusing Séralini of fraud. In neither document does Chassy declare any link with Monsanto. But in 2016 he was exposed as having taken over $57,000 over less than two years from Monsanto to travel, write and speak about GMOs.

Sachs is keen to ensure that Monsanto is not publicly seen as attempting to get the paper retracted, even though that is precisely what it is doing. Sachs writes to Monsanto scientist William Heydens: “There is a difference between defending science and participating in a formal process to retract a publication that challenges the safety of our products. We should not provide ammunition for Séralini, GM critics and the media to charge that Monsanto used its might to get this paper retracted. The information that we provided clearly establishes the deficiencies in the study as reported and makes a strong case that the paper should not have passed peer review.”

Another example of Monsanto trying to cover up its involvement in the retraction campaign emerges from email correspondence between Monsanto employees Daniel Goldstein and Eric Sachs. Goldstein states: “I was uncomfortable even letting shareholders know we are aware of this LTE [GMW: probably “Letter to the Editor”]…. It implies we had something to do with it – otherwise how do we have knowledge of it? I could add ‘Aware of multiple letters to editor including one signed by 25 scientists from 14 countries’ if you both think this is OK.” Sachs responds: “We are ‘connected’ but did not write the letter or encourage anyone to sign it.”

A. Wallace Hayes was paid by Monsanto

The most shocking revelation of the disclosed documents is that the editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology, A. Wallace Hayes, entered into a consulting agreement with Monsanto in the period just before Hayes’s involvement in the retraction of the Séralini study. Clearly Hayes had a conflict of interest between his role as a consultant for Monsanto and his role as editor for a journal that retracted a study determining that glyphosate has toxic effects. The study was published on 19 September 2012; the consulting agreement between Hayes and Monsanto was dated 21 August 2012 and Hayes is contracted to provide his services beginning 7 September 2012.

The documents also reveal that Monsanto paid Hayes $400 per hour for his services and that in return Hayes was expected to “Assist in establishment of an expert network of toxicologists, epidemiologists, and other scientists in South America and participate on the initial meeting held within the region. Preparation and delivery of a seminar addressing relevant regional issues pertaining to glyphosate toxicology is a key deliverable for the inaugural meeting in 2013.”

Hayes should have recused himself from any involvement with the Séralini study from the time he signed this agreement. But he kept quiet. He went on to oversee a second “review” of the study by unnamed persons whose conflicts of interest, if any, were not declared – resulting in his decision to retract the study for the unprecedented reason that some of the results were “inconclusive”.

Hayes told the New York Times’s Danny Hakim in an interview that he had not been under contract with Monsanto at the time of the retraction and was paid only after he left the journal. He added that “Monsanto played no role whatsoever in the decision that was made to retract.” But since it took the journal over a year to retract the study after the months-long second review, which Hayes oversaw, it’s clear that he had an undisclosed conflict of interest from the time he entered into the contract with Monsanto and during the review process. He appears to be misleading the New York Times.

The timing of the contract also begs the question as to whether Monsanto knew the publication of the study was coming. If so, they may have been happy to initiate such a relationship with Hayes at just that time.

A Monsanto internal email confirms the company’s intimate relationship with Hayes. Saltmiras writes about the recently published Séralini study: “Wally Hayes, now FCT Editor in Chief for Vision and Strategy, sent me a courtesy email early this morning. Hopefully the two of us will have a follow up discussion soon to touch on whether FCT Vision and Strategy were front and center for this one passing through the peer review process.”

In other email correspondence between various Monsanto personnel, Daniel Goldstein writes the following with respect to the Séralini study: “Retraction – Both Dan Jenkins (US Government affairs) and Harvey Glick made a strong case for withdrawal of the paper if at all possible, both on the same basis – that publication will elevate the status of the paper, bring other papers in the journal into question, and allow Séralini much more freedom to operate. All of us are aware that the ultimate decision is up to the editor and the journal management, and that we may not have an opportunity for withdrawal in any event, but I felt it was worth reinforcing this request.”

Monsanto got its way, though the paper was subsequently republished by another journal with higher principles – and, presumably, with an editorial board that wasn’t under contract with Monsanto.

Why Monsanto had to kill the Séralini study

It’s obvious that it was in Monsanto’s interests to kill the Séralini study. The immediate reason was that it reported harmful effects from low doses of Roundup and a GM maize engineered to tolerate it. But the wider reason that emerges from the documents is that to admit that the study had any validity whatsoever would be to open the doors for regulators and others to demand other long-term studies on GM crops and their associated pesticides.

Read More @ TheCommonSenseShow.com

Trump’s Choices

1

by Paul Craig Roberts, Paul Craig Roberts

Donald Trump as President of the United States was humanity’s hope, or, I should say, the hope of that part of humanity aware of the danger inherent in provoking conflict between nuclear powers. For two decades, the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes have thrown sticks, stones, and nasty words at the Russian bear. The US has broken and withdrawn from security agreement after security agreement and has compounded the threat that Russia sees by conducting war games on Russia’s borders, staging a coup in Ukraine, a province of Russia for centuries, and by a continuous stream of false accusations against Russia.

The result of this irresponsible, thoughtless, and reckless policy toward Russia was the announcement a few weeks ago (ignored by the US media) by the Russian high command that Russian military planners have concluded that Washington is preparing a surprise nuclear attack on Russia

This is the most alarming event of my lifetime. Now that Washington’s criminally insane have convinced Russia that Russia is in Washington’s war plans, Russia has no alternative but to prepare to strike first.

During the Cold War both sides received numerous false alarms of incoming ICBMs, but because both sides were working to reduce tensions, the alarms were disbelieved. But today with Washington having raised tensions so high, both sides are likely to believe the false alarm. The next false alarm could bring the end of life on earth, and for this there is no one to be blamed but Washington.

Trump’s emphasis on normalizing relations with Russia was a great relief to people sufficiently intelligent to understand the consequences of nuclear war. But none of these people are in Washington, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the military/security complex, or among the presstitutes that pass for a media in America. All of these people want to destroy Trump because he wants to make peace with Russia.

Of the 535 members of the House and Senate, 530 voted in support of a bill that violates the separation of powers and prevents President Trump from removing sanctions on Russia. As the vote is so over-whelming that it is veto proof, the White House has announced that Trump will sign the bill, thus surrendering and giving up on his goal of restoring normal relations with Russia.

The White House believes that as the bill is veto proof, all that Trump could achieve by a veto is to prove the charges that he is a Russian agent and is using his office to protect Russia, and this could easily be turned into an impeachment proceeding.

However, there are things Trump could do, and since defusing the threat that Russia sees is essential to the avoidance of war, it is imperative that Trump do everything he can to prevent the military/security complex and its servants in Congress and the media from locking America into deadly conflict with Russia.

As I wrote yesterday (http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/07/31/witch-hunt-donald-trump-surpasses-salem-witch-trials-1692-93/), Trump could take his case to the American people in a major speech and point out that Congress is violating the separation of powers, hamstringing the power of the presidency, and making it illegal for him to reduce the dangerous tensions that previous administrations have created with a major nuclear power.

Trump could also tell Congress that their law is unconstitutional and that he won’t sign or veto the bill, and if Congress persists he will take it to the Supreme Court.

Trump could also get on the telephone with the German politicians and corporate CEOs who have denounced the sanctions as illegal and intended to serve US business interests at the expense of Germany. He should tell them to force Merkel to announce that Germany will not accept the sanctions. The EU leadership also denounces the sanctions. Trump, with a little effort, can organize so much European opposition that he can tell Congress that as the President of the United States he cannot permit a collection of mindless morons, which is what Congres is, to destroy Washington’s empire by driving Europeans out of it. If Trump can get the Europeans to act, he can defeat the bill, which is really nothing but Congress’ service to its political campaign contributors in the military/security complex and the US energy industry.

Trump is a fighter. And this is Trump’s fight. He has everything to gain by rising to the challenge, and so do the rest of us. The entire world should get behind Trump as there is no one else to defuse the tensions that are leading to nuclear war.

I have been amazed at the stupidity and mendacity of the American liberal-progressive-left, who have fallen in line with the military/security complex’s effort to destroy Trump, because peace with Russia takes away the orchestrated enemy so essential to the budget and power of the military/security complex. Of course, America no longer has a left. The left has been displaced by Identity Politics, a Zionist creation, as Gilad Atzmon explains in his books, that is proving effective in destroying the goyim by teaching them to hate one another. In Identity Politics, everyone is the victim of white heterosexual males, whom Identity Politics defines as misogynist, racist, homophobic gun nuts—Hillary’s “Trump deplorables.” As the “deplorables” voted for Trump, the liberal-progressive-left hate Trump and are helping the military/security complex destroy him even it it means nuclear war.

As I predicted would be the case, Trump had no idea how to appoint a government that would be on his side, and obviously failed completely. He is continually contradicted by his UN ambassador, his Secretary of State, his National Security Advisor, his Secretary of Defense. Trump is alone in his government.

So, he might as well fight. Address the American people. Organize the angry Europeans. Take the fight to criminally insane Washington before the criminals destroy the world in war.

Read More @ PaulCraigRoberts.org

Machine Mania in the Marketplace: How Computers Came to Own the World

by David Haggith, The Great Recession Blog:

With 60{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} of stocks now being traded by bots that fake each other out in order to create buying opportunities, stock exchanges have lost their connection to the reason markets are created in the first place. The exchanges no longer exist as places for people to buy and sell ownership in a corporation. They exist simply as the neural junctions of a conglomerated machine that plays tricks on itself, and your sole goal is no longer to invest, but to put money in the slot machine that is the quickest trickster.

Many of the people who think of themselves as investors see this pretend investing as being almost risk free now that computers and central banks are running the racket. They put their money in the machines, and machines follow the central banks’ lead, purring along at historically low levels of market volatility as the machines run their automated tasks. A minority of market experts see a market that is building cataclysmic risks as it accumulates fake pricing that has nothing to do with intrinsic value and as the component machines keep getting reprogrammed to do a better, faster job of faking out the other machines.

 

[Brad] Katsuyama, whose firm and company were made famous by Michael Lewis’s 2014 book, Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt, says computers running complex software conducting trades at lightening speeds [are] a “dangerous” threat to the stability of the market, juicing volumes and sparking so-called flash crashes, where assets swing rapidly in value in a matter of seconds. “I think the biggest risk in the market is that 50-, 60-plus percent of the volume is being executed by computer programs who have no idea what companies actually do. They’re just reacting to data. And I think it’s dangerous.” (MarketWatch)

 

Katsuyama, whose company is starting its own stock exchange to try to combat the machines, blames rare bouts of volatility (flash crashes) on the computer algorithms that now dominate market trading. For example, when Amazon lost $40 per share in four seconds on June 9th this year and then immediately recovered, Katsuyama says you can be certain that didn’t have anything to do with a change in Amazon’s intrinsic value nor with any fundamental economic changes in this world. Some algorithm somewhere jogged a price switch and caused other algos to sing in harmony, flash-crashing Amazon’s stock and triggering a general decline in high-tech stocks. A computer glitch? Or arcane trickery by which the brainiest bot at that particular nanosecond managed to trick all the other bots in order to create a dip and then buy the dip and make billions?

Yes, there are enemy bots that know the other bots, find and exploit their weaknesses to trick as many as they can into selling in one direction in order to buy the trade in the other direction. In fact, a virtual lexicon of slang is gaining popularity with terms like “wash trade,” “layering” and “spoofing” for the kinds of micro teases and diversions and tricks employed by enemy bots.

 

In a “wash trade,” a trader acts as both buyer and seller of a stock, to create the illusion of volume. “Layering” and “spoofing” are off-market orders designed to trick the rest of the market into thinking there are buyers or sellers of a stock waiting in the wings, in an attempt to nudge the stock price one way or the other. (Vanity Fair)

 

During the financial crisis of 2007-2009 that brought down the world, only 30{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} of assets were traded by computer-generated trades. At double that amount, the next time will be different. Old-fashioned traders who research companies to buy stocks based on perceived company value now account for about 10{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} of the US stock market. There is very little concern in today’s trading for economic and business fundamentals.

Corporations are now just toys to be played with by the machines.

 

The strange new world of undefinable, self-programming bots

 

The scary part is that no one seems to know what causes specific flash crashes in many cases. Even Katsumaya only guesses at what really happened during the Amazon flash crash because visibility in the world of trader bots (or traitor bots) is zero. By that, I mean that even the people who create these algorithms truly have no idea what the bots’ current programming is because the programming is designed to be perpetually self-modifying through some vague crocodilian artificial intelligence created at the cerebral cortex of their semi-simian brains.

While no one seems to know the cause of Amazon’s flash crash, the Nasdaq ended 1.8{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} lower that day. The bots know best, though they actually know nothing at all. They merely respond to targeted stimuli.

It is the same in bond trading as in stocks. When the market for US treasuries flash crashed in 2014, it triggered extensive studies that revealed high-frequency traders (HFTs) were the culprits. Of course, HFTs are computers that place zillions of trades based on zillions of micro calculations every day.

Bear in mind that these auto-traders were mostly designed by young people, fresh out of college who have never known a bear market during their adult lives. The machines that determine the “market value” of all the corporations in our world were programmed by people who are only familiar with the dynamics of an always-rising, central-bank-driven market. How well the machines work if the market ever finds a way to slip into reverse, no one knows. The algos have never been tested in a true bear market as to how they might team up to accelerate the market’s decline. Since they were taken out of the box, they have been reprogramming themselves entirely based on bull-market dynamics. How they work running downhill is purely theoretical and unknown even then because of their self-programming nature.

But it will be fine. Trust the machines and their child creators who have little depth in the real-world markets.

Also unknown in this realm are the hackers lurking beneath these murky waters — be they anarchists or Korean agents or teenage savants seeking instant wealth — who might exploit the weaknesses and strengths of the machines in order seize ownership of the corporate world bit by byte or all in one colossal dump.

Read More @ TheGreatRecessionBlog.com

Departing AP reporter looks back at Venezuela’s slide

0

by Hannah Dreier, AP News:

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — The first thing the muscled-up men did was take my cellphone. They had stopped me on the street as I left an interview in the hometown of the late President Hugo Chavez and wrangled me into a black SUV.

Heart pounding in the back seat with the men and two women, I watched the low cinderblock homes zoom by and tried to remember the anti-kidnapping class I’d taken in preparation for moving to Venezuela. The advice had been to try to humanize yourself.

“What should we do with her?” the driver asked. The man next to me pulled his own head up by the hair and made a slitting gesture across his throat.

What might a humanizing reaction to that be?

I had thought that being a foreign reporter protected me from the growing chaos in Venezuela. But with the country unraveling so fast, I was about to learn there was no way to remain insulated.

I came to Caracas as a correspondent for The Associated Press in 2014, just in time to witness the country’s accelerating descent into a humanitarian catastrophe.

Demonstrators destroy a wall in order to have more rocks to throw at the Bolivarian National Guard during anti-government protests in Caracas, Venezuela, one year after the death of Hugo Chavez. (AP Photo/Rodrigo Abd,

Venezuela had been a rising nation, buoyed by the world’s largest oil reserves, but by the time I arrived, even high global oil prices couldn’t keep shortages and rapid inflation at bay.

Life in Caracas was still often marked by optimism and ambition. My friends were buying apartments and cars and making lofty plans for their careers. On weekends, we’d go to pristine Caribbean beaches and drink imported whiskey at nightclubs that stayed open until dawn. There was still so much affordable food that one of my first stories was about a growing obesity epidemic.

A girl cools off in an inflatable swimming pool on the beach in La Guaira, Venezuela. Some Venezuelans took time off for carnival despite two weeks of nation-wide opposition protests. (AP Photo/Rodrigo Abd, File)

Over the course of three years, I said good-bye to most of those friends, as well as regular long-distance phone service and six international airline carriers. I got used to carrying bricks of rapidly devaluing cash in tote bags to pay for meals. We still drove to the beach, but began hurrying back early to get off the highway before bandits came out. Stoplights became purely ornamental because of the risk of carjackings.

Read More @ APNews.com

GOLD AND SILVER REBOUND DURING PHYSICAL TIME ZONES AND DURING COMEX TIMES BUT WHACKED AGAIN DURING ACCESS TIME ZONES (NON PHYSICAL)

by Harvey Organ, Harvey Organ Blog:

GOLD OI CLIMBS BY 11,000 CONTRACTS WHEREAS SILVER OI HARDLY BUDGES/TRUMP BASICALLY LAUNCHES A TRADE WAR WITH CHINA AND RUSSIA/THE EU READY TO RETALIATE AGAINST THE USA RUSSIAN SANCTIONS/ADD NOW TURKEY TO THE GROWING LIST OF COUNTRIES BUYING MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF PHYSICAL GOLD: TURKEY LAST MONTH 68.4 TONNES WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY HUGE!!/IN THE USA, 2018 LOOKS LIKE ANOTHER 30{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} RISE IN OBAMACARE PREMIUMS: BELIEVE IT OR NOT THEY ARE BLAMING TRUMP!!

In silver, the total open interest FELL BY A TINY 358 contracts from 207,643 DOWN TO 207,258 WITH NO GAIN IN THE PRICE THAT SILVER TOOK WITH RESPECT TO YESTERDAY’S TRADING (UP 0 CENT(S). WHEN YOU COMPARE THE HUGE GAIN IN OI FOR GOLD THEN YOU MUST ADMIT THAT IT SURE LOOKS LIKE BOTH THE SPECULATOR SHORTS AND THE BANKER SHORTS ARE HAVING SEVERE PROBLEMS TRYING TO COVER THEIR SHORTFALL WHICH CANNOT COME TO FRUITION. THE LONGS REMAIN STOIC AND NOTHING WILL BUDGE OUR SILVER LEAVES FROM DEPARTING OUR SILVER TREE. YESTERDAY’S TRADING IS EVIDENCE OF THAT

 In ounces, the OI is still represented by just OVER 1 BILLION oz i.e.  1.038 BILLION TO BE EXACT or 148{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} of annual global silver production (ex Russia & ex China).

FOR THE NEW FRONT MAY MONTH/ THEY FILED: 107 NOTICE(S) FOR 535,000OZ OF SILVER

In gold, the open interest ROSE by A MONSTROUS 11,747 with the RISE in price of gold ($4.95 yesterday.)  The new OI for the gold complex rests at 448,709. Yesterday we had the bankers supplying a major amount of short paper to newbie longs who entered the arena like gangbusters.  The specs shorts covered but at a higher price.No wonder a raid was orchestrated overnight with the intention of cooling gold’s jets. It seems that the raid failed again.  The bankers are losing control over the precious metal markets

we had: 193 notice(s) filed upon for 19,300 oz of gold.

Read More @ HarveyOrganBlog.com

Remember This Milestone: The Dow Jones Industrial Average Hits 22,000 For The First Time In U.S. History

by Michael Snyder, The Economic Collapse Blog:

The Dow hit the 22,000 mark for the first time ever on Wednesday, and investors all over the world greatly celebrated.  And without a doubt this is an exceedingly important moment, because I think that this is a milestone that we will be remembering for a very long time.  So far this year the Dow is up over 11 percent, and it has now tripled in value since hitting a low in March 2009.  It has been quite a ride, and if you would have told me a couple of years ago that the Dow would be hitting 22,000 in August 2017 I probably would have laughed at you.  The central bankers have been able to keep this ridiculous stock market bubble going for longer than most experts dreamed possible, and for that they should be congratulated.  But of course the long-term outlook for our financial markets has not changed one bit.

Every other stock market bubble of this magnitude in our history has ended with a crash, and this current bubble is going to suffer the same fate.

But many in the mainstream media are still encouraging people to jump into the market at this late hour.  For example, the following comes from a USA Today articlethat was published on Wednesday…

“It’s still not too late to get in,” says Jeff Kleintop, chief global investment strategist at Charles Schwab, based in San Francisco. “The gains are firmly rooted in business fundamentals, not false hopes.”

I honestly don’t know how anyone could say such a thing with a straight face.  We have essentially been in a “no growth economy” for the past decade, and signs of a new economic slowdown are all around us.

But even though price/earnings ratios and price/sales ratios are at some of the highest levels in history, some analysts insist that the stock market still has more room to go up

On the flip side, investors with time to ride out any short-term market storm should not rule out getting in the market now. Economies around the globe are improving and are boosting the profitability of corporations in the U.S. and abroad, says Chris Zaccarelli, chief investment officer at Cornerstone Financial Partners in Charlotte, N.C.

Zaccarelli won’t even rule out Dow 25,000 by the end of 2018.

Personally, I believe that it is far more likely that we would see Dow 15,000 by the end of 2018, but over the past couple of years the bulls have been right over and over again.

But the only reason why the bulls have been right is because of unprecedented intervention by global central banks.

Today, the Swiss National Bank owns more than a billion dollars worth of stock in each of the following companies: Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, Exxon Mobil, Johnson & Johnson and Facebook.

So where does a central bank like the Swiss National Bank get the money to purchase all of these equities?

It’s easy – they just print the money out of thin air.  As Robert Wenzel has noted, they simply “print the francs, exchange them for dollars and make the purchases”.

If I could create as much money as I wanted out of thin air and use it to buy stocks I could relentlessly drive up stock prices too.

Our financial markets have become a giant charade, and central bank intervention is the biggest reason why FAANG stocks have vastly outperformed the rest of the market.  The following comes from David Stockman

Needless to say, the drastic market narrowing of the last 30 months has been accompanied by soaring price/earnings (PE) multiples among the handful of big winners. In the case of the so-called FAANGs + M (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google and Microsoft), the group’s weighted average PE multiple has increased by some 50{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528}.

The degree to which the casino’s speculative mania has been concentrated in the FAANGs + M can also be seen by contrasting them with the other 494 stocks in the S&P 500. The market cap of the index as a whole rose from $17.7 trillion in January 2015 to some $21.2 trillion at present, meaning that the FAANGs + M account for about 40{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} of the entire gain.

Stated differently, the market cap of the other 494 stocks rose from $16.0 trillion to $18.1 trillion during that 30-month period. That is, 13{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} versus the 82{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} gain of the six super-momentum stocks.

If global central banks continue to buy millions of shares with money created out of thin air, they may be able to keep this absurd bubble going for a while longer.

But if the Fed and other central banks start pulling back, we could see a market tantrum of epic proportions.  In fact, almost every single time throughout history when the Federal Reserve has attempted a balance sheet reduction it has resulted in a recession

The Fed has embarked on six such reduction efforts in the past — in 1921-1922, 1928-1930, 1937, 1941, 1948-1950 and 2000.

Of those episodes, five ended in recession, according to research from Michael Darda, chief economist and market strategist at MKM Partners. The balance sheet trend mirrors what has happened much of the time when the Fed has tried to raise rates over a prolonged period of time, with 10 of the last 13 tightening cycles ending in recession.

“Moreover, outside of the 1920s and 1930s, there is no precedent for double-digit annual declines in the balance sheet/base that will likely begin to occur late next year,” Darda said in a note.

President Trump is going to get a lot of credit if the stock market keeps going up and he is going to get a lot of blame if it starts going down.

But the truth is that he actually has very little to do with what is really going on.

This stock market bubble was created by the central banks, and they also have the power to kill it if they desire to do so.

And once this bubble bursts, we may be looking at a crisis that makes 2008 look like a Sunday picnic.

Read More @ TheEconomicCollapseBlog.com