Part 1 The Ownership of All Life ...Notes on Scandals, Conspiracies and Cover ups

The OWNERSHIP of ALL LIFE 

Notes on Scandals, Conspiracies and Cover ups 

by JON RAPPOPORT 

Introduction

In the buildup to World War 2, the Nazi cartel IG Farben engaged in a kind of mystical conjuring. 

Farben had helped save Germany from final economic devastation after World War 1. It pioneered plastic fabrics and eliminated the need for Germany to go abroad for very expensive natural cloth. Farben’s oil and rubber processing, in the 1930s, were years ahead of the rest of the world’s technology. 

The Farben executives began to believe they could synthesize anything. From anything. 

They began to believe that they had the minds to see into the complete core of nature. 

Just as Hitler and Himmler were devoted to the idea of synthesizing a new created race of superior people, Farben was beginning to believe its creative sway in the field of chemistry was without limit. 

All this self-promoted arrogance was spun into the web of mystical Germanic philosophy. Somehow, these political and scientific fanatics thought, the German physical body with its “pure blood” was the best in the world, was what the world intended itself to be. 

The attempt was to manage future bloodlines. Eugenics. 

Many non-Germans were drawn into this bizarre invention of the super-race. 

The current extreme fetishism about genes and genetic engineering plays right into this belief that blood is important. Never mind that current statements about genes drastically exaggerate the importance of those bits of coding. Genes in no way account for the overwhelming majority of important human traits or human actions or human choices. But once again we see people courting eugenics and bloodline-control. 

Whether it is great sports figures, other celebrities, or the elites who run the world, millions of people want to know their secrets. And are falling into the trap of believing that, through genes, blood is central to the mystery of success, of talent, of intelligence. 

People begin to think, subliminally, that success in life is arranged entirely as a gigantic crapshoot, and we can have no say in it. “It’s all in the blood, in the genes.” 

“Maybe some day I can buy the genes I need, and then everything will change for me.” 

This is also the ultimate anti-history. Because the past and what happened in it are no longer considered of any use. What is useful is only physical manipulation of genetic structures. As that view spreads, the cruelty behind it will become more apparent. 

After World War 2, the highest ranking scientist on the executive board of IG Farben, Dr. Fritz Ter Meer, was put on trial at Nuremberg. The charges? Mass slavery and murder. 

Farben had built a rubber factory at Auschwitz. In fact, it built Auschwitz in order to ensure cheap labor in its adjoining rubber factory. Farben paid the SS to send over inmates every day to work in that factory. Those who were too weak to make it through the day were killed. 

Well, for all this Fritz Ter Meer was given seven years in jail. A pathetic seven years. 

... Sixteen years later, on August 1, 1963, the Bayer Corporation was celebrating its hundredth anniversary at Cologne. Big festivities. 

The three largest original components of IG Farben— Bayer, Hoechst, and BASF—were back in business and roaring on profit highs. They were now sanitized separate corporations, no longer parts of an official Nazi-aiding IG Farben. 

The keynote speaker at the Bayer celebration was the one and only Fritz Ter Meer. 

Out of jail. 

Murderer. 

Mass murderer.

Now chairman of the supervisory board of Bayer. Chairman. Of the Supervisory Board. Of Bayer. 

1.

Some of the most senior corporate and political leaders in America supported both sides in World War 2. This is not merely a fantasy. By reading, for example, as closely woven a book as Charles Higham Trading With the Enemy, you would discover that ITT, through its shipments of vital parts to the Germans, made it possible for that war to exist at all. 

At all.

But the denizens of the major media do not believe in conspiracy. They reserve that only for films and TV shows. 

They do not bother to think that the transnational corporations which own staggering amounts of this world, and step on the faces of millions of foreign nationals, are a friend to every US president.

That is not important.

Because that is business as usual. Because the salaries of media anchors and editors and news producers are paid by some of these transnationals, and therefore those who shape the news must become outraged and sanctimonious on other fronts.

2.

Who were some of America’s leading corporate lights who either supported Hitler, or supported both sides in the period leading up to and during World War 2?

The National City Bank, the Chase National Bank, Standard Oil of New Jersey, Ford Motor Co., ITT, General Motors, the Davis Oil Company. This is just the beginning.

Take Dean Acheson, who, during the Second World War, campaigned for the silent and, yes, conspiratorial continuation of the notorious Bank For International Settlements (BIS), a depository for Nazi millions. Acheson, later to become US Secretary of State, knew that laying open the truth about BIS would reveal that US banking leaders and British leaders were sitting on the board of that bank, part of whose assets came from melted down gold teeth and jewelry of concentration camp victims.

3.

As persons on the political left and right become more exercised about each other—which is the root of the ongoing media circus—beyond that the biggest transnationals in the world continue to add to their assets. Their lands, their slave and cheap labor, their natural resources, their understandings with heads of state, their ties with intelligence agencies and military forces.

As of 1993, 300 transnationals controlled 25% of the world’s productive capacity. (See The Economist, Mar. 27, 1993, “A Survey of Multinationals”)

This is reality.

Monsanto, Dow, Du Pont, Bayer, Hoechst, Rhone Poulenc, Imperial Chemical Industries, and Novartis are all researching and growing genetically engineered crops which have the supreme quality of being able to absorb and tolerate more of the parent company’s (specific) pesticides without curling up and dying in the fields.

Pesticide drenched fields. And drenched bodies of those who eat the foods. No word from this administration about this. The Clinton White House is, in fact, enthusiastic about genetically engineered (GE) food. Or, as the government calls it, GMOs, genetically modified organisms. There is no official US insistence that such foods be labeled or identified in any way. Because these GEs are said to be identical or equivalent to natural food. That is the fiat. You’re already eating genetically engineered soybeans from Monsanto. You’re soaking in it. You’re soaking in the power of transnationals to shape the world, to select its genes. 

But it’s not a significant story on the evening news. 

4.

Monsanto manufactures and sells Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH), the genetically engineered biological that makes cows produce more milk.

For health reasons (their cows get sick with mastitis infections, need more antibiotics, and then the medicine and pus can seep into the milk supply), farmers all over the world have been up in arms about BGH, and yet the US government has steadfastly refused to support labeling milk BGH free when it is. (Canada has just banned the use of BGH.)

The mastitis and its consequences for the milk supply, as indicated above, were obvious to Monsanto from its own studies on BGH.

An employee of the FDA (1985-88), Dr. Richard Burroughs had the job of checking data supplied by Monsanto and other companies who were testing BGH with hopes of marketing it. He decided that the books were being cooked, that data were being falsified. He went to Congress and told them this, and he also said that his bosses at the FDA were covering up these lies. In 1989 he was fired.

In the revealing book, Toxic Sludge Is Good For You, John Stauber writes, “Monsanto was the manufacturer of most of the world’s PCBs—persistent chemicals used in electrical equipment which have been shown to cause cancer and birth defects. It is also the world’s largest producer of herbicides, including products contaminated with dioxin [thought to be the world’s most toxic small molecule].” 

5.

The fact that a politician supports to one degree or another the agendas of transnationals is not even on the charts. It is not even a talking point. It is not an issue. It is not a blip on the screen of the western world. 

Being that these transnationals are the most powerful aggregate on the planet, one would think that a politician’s attitude toward them would be noticed, important. 

Why isn’t it? 

Because. 

Because some things are successfully hidden. 

In 1989, Du Pont puts 250 million pounds of industrial wastes into the earth by the deep injection method. Like drilling for oil, except you PUT extremely toxic substances there, to drift horizontally, to come up into the water table. 

This fact about Du Pont is at least as important as bombing strikes on Iraq. But no one is told that. No one makes that kind of dumping weird and foul and crazy enough to be on the news every night.  

6.

How do GE food and BGH and massive dumping of industrial pollutants assume a benign character? Through false science, through “studies” which assert that everything is all right. 

This science is beneficial to corporations who have a huge profit-stake in how their products are viewed vis-a-vis safety and efficacy. 

How far could fraud go in this? How bizarre and destructive could false science be? How widely accepted could groundless research become? [by 2022 we can tell some crazy stories about trusting 'the science' dc]

In 1991, the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of HIV, based in San Diego, collected over 300 signatures, the majority of them from scientists, at the bottom of a very spare letter, which simply said: 

“It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group of diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists now question the hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken.”

They had some very prominent scientists as signers. Two Nobel laureates. But forget stimulating the funding of new research. They couldn’t even get the letter PUBLISHED in a reputable medical journal. Not Nature. Not Science. Not the New England Journal. Not The Lancet. That’s how tight the wagons of consensus were circled against them.

Kary Mullis, Nobel laureate in chemistry, has pointed out, many times, an incredibly corrosive fact: “There is no single published journal paper which proves that HIV causes AIDS. It does not exist. It never did.” [still the truth in 2022 dc]

The day after Robert Gallo announced on national television that he had found the cause of AIDS (spring, 1984), all government monies which had been granted to support research into the cause of AIDS evaporated. Now the grants had to be about finding out the mechanism by which HIV caused AIDS.

That’s how research and publication of alternative views on AIDS causation were chilled. That’s how the fear among researchers was instilled. No honorable researcher in his right mind would accept: science by press conference/and a lack of a journal paper which proves HIV causes AIDS. That is unthinkable, particularly when people are dying all over the world. 

But it happened. Came the march of the cowards. ABC did several shows on this issue of HIV. I was interviewed for one of them, a Nightline piece in 1994. It was clear that Koppel was angered by the apparent lying that had gone on in the name of science at the highest levels. But then ABC dropped the whole thing, as if it had never existed. A story far more potent in its implications, and more scandalous, than Watergate. ABC eventually realized that three quiet separate federal investigations of Robert Gallo had been undertaken. Into possible criminality vis-a-vis his research on HIV. But even that didn’t budge them into pushing this story into orbit. The thousands of federal pages that were compiled on Gallo’s strange activities were eventually shelved by the Clinton administration. Pages, for example, on Gallo’s outright theft of French viral research. 

7.

I had written a book, AIDS INC., in 1988, in which I said that HIV had never been proved to cause AIDS. I found so many contradictions in the research picture of HIV, it was like probing the mind of a rampant dyslexic—albeit one acting with arrogance and surety.

One of the key conversations I had in writing AIDS INC. was with Jay Levy, widely accepted as a world-class AIDS researcher.

I said, “How do we know that HIV causes AIDS? Where is the proof?” He said without pause, “We know it because if you transfuse a healthy person with blood that contains HIV he gets AIDS and dies.”

I found that remark astonishing. I did a little checking around. Here is what I wrote in AIDS INC., in 1988: “Calculating from figures supplied by the American Association of Blood Banks, since 1978 about 29 million Americans have received blood transfusions. In most of these transfusions, more than one donor supplied the various pints injected, so there was ample opportunity to receive HIV in the bloodstream. The average size of a transfusion is 3.5 pints. 

“As of February 1988, the CDC reports a total of 1466 transfusion-AIDS cases in the US (since AIDS was first reported). This means that about .00005 of those who have received transfusions in the last ten years have been diagnosed with AIDS. That’s 5 thousandths of one percent. “On that basis, could you possibly infer that HIV is the cause of something called AIDS? Obviously not. One could argue that these statistics don’t absolutely rule out HIV ... but this is not the question.” So a top AIDS researcher told me how everybody knows that HIV causes AIDS. What he told me made about as much sense as Jerry Springer on acid. 

8.

But the American public has bought that explanation. This reminds me of DeNiro’s remark to Dustin Hoffman in Wag the Dog: “They showed one smart bomb going down inside a building. That one thing, and the public bought the whole [Iraq] war.” 

How does a medical researcher prove that a germ causes a disease? That’s a damn good question. The closer you look, the weirder it gets.

The researcher has something called Koch’s postulates. As full of holes as this method is, it has often been cited as the way medical researchers find out what is behind a new disease. In the case of AIDS, you would remove and isolate HIV from several humans who have been diagnosed with the syndrome, and you would inject that into animals. If you saw the illness symptoms develop in EVERY ONE of those animals, you would know you were on the right track. With AIDS, monkeys in a number of facilities have been used. The results have been zero. Over the last decade and more, the 150 or so primates have failed to show full-blown symptoms. Of course, there are comebacks for this, and they have all been used. “Let’s wait another twenty years.” “We’ll keep these damn monkeys out of their natural habitat long enough and their immune systems will finally collapse and they’ll show AIDS-like symptoms.” “Monkeys just don’t get AIDS.” “Let’s wait thirty years.” “Two monkeys got the flu. That’s good enough.” Point is, the traditional method failed. So then the most oft used backup method is correlation. Take a group of people who have been diagnosed as HIV positive, and who do not have serious illnesses, and follow them over a period of time. Do they come down with the symptoms of what is being called AIDS? The biggest group used in this respect is the San Francisco Men’s study, which began as a hepatitis B study in 1978. Several thousand men have been part of this cohort, as it’s called. Researchers, when pressed, point to this as the best evidence that HIV causes AIDS. But there is a serious flaw or two. Although a large number of men who were HIV positive went on to develop illnesses called AIDS, the study did only spotty tracking on men who never tested positive for HIV. One of the researchers on the San Francisco study told me frankly that HIV negative men could have developed AIDS-defining diseases when they were not being tracked. In which case, positive or negative would not be the defining indication of AIDS. What this researcher didn’t say was this: 

The San Francisco Men’s Study showed that an extraordinary number of men, diagnosed as HIV positive, simply by not taking the drug AZT had remained healthy for ten years. AZT happens to attack the bone marrow, where certain cells of the immune-system are manufactured. A surprise group of HIV-positive men who stayed healthy for ten years or more had not taken AZT or had stopped taking it. This fact was not trumpeted by the San Francisco Study. 

9.

Immune-system breakdown, after a certain point, has the same general appearance in people, regardless of the cause: whether we are talking about starvation and dirty water in Africa and Vietnam, immune-suppressing vaccines all over the Third World, pesticides in the American south, multiple drug use in the bath houses of San Francisco, a possibly immune-system destroying hepatitis B vaccine delivered experimentally to gay men in several cities of America, the immense overuse of antibiotics for years among a group of gay men in San Francisco and New York (brought about by unscrupulous physicians), or the incredibly toxic drug AZT.

Immune-system breakdown allows bizarre and rare infections to occur, from germs that ordinarily would cause no harm. That is how people get pneumocystis pneumonia, for example, called the primary symptom of AIDS. This microorganism is naturally present in perhaps 75% of people all over the world. It does nothing. But like other germs, if the immune system collapses entirely, FROM VARIOUS CAUSES, it comes to the fore and begins to overmultiply. Therefore pneumocystis pneumonia was found among ill-fed and orphaned children in eastern Europe or among starving children at makeshift orphanages in Vietnam during the war.  

10.

Dream monologue. 

“As CEO of one of the largest drug corporations in the world, one of the largest organizations of any kind in the history of the world, I can say that I buy time on Dan Rather for more than profit. More than promotion. I buy it to support what this country really stands for: a central source of information that has the capacity to convince the American people that what is going on is THIS NOT THAT. Every night it is this. Not that. This. When you stop and think about it, it’s a wondrous thing. Without bludgeons, without narcotics, without duress, without torture, we have found a way to keep the perception of the average person on various rails. Within certain limits. In certain boxes. I support that wholeheartedly because I know that it strengthens my world and my goddamn grip on people. For example, I realize perfectly well—because I’ve made it my business to learn the truth— that AIDS is really a collection of different forms of immune suppression from different causes around the world. I know that the causes in many cases are chemical, or relate to horrible starvation in the Third World. But my company makes no money from that. There is no medical drug we can develop to treat that. We have to have the mirage of a single medical condition caused by a single germ. 

THEN we can find a drug and a vaccine and sell them. In the case of AIDS, we saw AZT come to the fore as the drug of choice, and billions of dollars of profit were made. The AIDS vaccine, if it ever comes to market, could mean profits of two or three hundred billion dollars. For that kind of money, we need to maintain our position in people’s minds as the authorities in the field of disease. We have to present ourselves and advertise and use the best channels of information to dominate minds. Let me make this clear. I know that in the process of manipulating the truth people will suffer. People will die. People that could be cured of disease will be treated with the wrong thing and they will die. The real causes of their immune-suppression will be overlooked, will not be removed. But since we’re being candid, let me tell you that the fate of people at large is not my concern, no matter what public pronouncements I make. Whether numbers of people die is immaterial, because the species still survives. That’s how I look at it. Not everyone can be saved. I believe that the people who will survive deep into the next century will deserve to live. Their bloodlines will go on because they fought the hardest, they learned how to compete, they gave up unworkable ideas. Elimination of groups of people is one of the events of history and who wants to fight history?” 

11.

As William Burroughs used to say, “This is reality. You and a few friends get some uniforms and guns and set up a glass booth on a lonely road in Mexico. You call it an official government checkpoint and every car that comes by you step out and stop it and collect the tax.” 

In 1798, Thomas Malthus, the famous British economist, wrote his Essay on the Principle of Population. As a forerunner of those elitists who would take up the banner of good and bad genes and selective breeding and depopulation of nations, Malthus wrote these astonishing words, at the dawn of the industrial revolution:

“... if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations. But above all, we should reprobate [disapprove of as immoral] specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and [also disapprove of] those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders.” 

Although we tend to think that all the disgusting interpretations of Charles Darwin’s work which led to more ideas about eugenics and “pruning down” the human race came from interpreters of Darwin’s research, this is a distortion. Darwin himself was an admirer of Malthus, whom he took as a major stated influence. 

Darwin wrote: “With the savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to smallpox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon ... care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” 

In a letter to William Graham, Darwin followed this line of thinking: “Looking at the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.” 

12.

Alongside genocide and depopulation, you can place the program of turning the world of human beings into a kind of machine, a kind of ant colony, a collection of ant colonies. 

That is the world we are drifting into, which will be run (to a greater extent than now) by the transnationals. 

The individual human being is considered expendable by the overwhelming majority of elitists who run the global economy. 

We should understand that the eugenics program forwarded by the Nazis was a public outbreak of a philosophy which has been held close to the vest by the “big boys” for many decades. To insert the right amount of chill in the air at this point, read the words of Richard Barnet and John Cavanaugh, authors of the disturbing expose, Global Dreams: Imperial Corporations and the New World Order, as they uncover the crowning statement from the paradigm that says the world is a only a marketplace and the corporations own it: “There is much data that points to a stark reality: A huge and increasing proportion of human beings are not needed and will never be needed to make goods or to provide services because too many people in the world are too poor to buy them.” As long as we persist in thinking of the world as a gigantic mall, we are courting genocide on a scale that has never been visited on the human race.

13.

The best analyses of the history of disease on this planet have come to the conclusion that clean water, improved sanitation, better food, higher standard of living, the growth of a middle class have been the overriding factors in the decline of the bulk of human disease over time. Not antibiotics, not vaccines, not other drugs, not surgery, not hospitals. 

It is the job of the American Medical Association to focus attention toward the drugs and surgery and vaccines, even though the basic core of the doctor’s oath is to heal by using whatever will heal. 

Medical societies are in the business of asserting that germs are our real problem, not starvation, not contaminated drinking water in the Third World, not toxic industrial and agri chemicals, not any of the obvious causes of illness and death. 

The American Medical Association, since 1975, has channeled somewhere in the vicinity of $75 million into its own political action committee, the American Medical Political Action Committee (AMPAC). 

This money is funneled through to favored candidates who run for office all over the US. 

The federal watchdog agency whose job it is to keep PACs like AMPAC honest is the Federal Election Commission (FEC). 

The FEC has its Washington offices in a building at 999 E Street, NW. The building is owned by the American Medical Association. 

In 1986, the AMA rolled its AMPAC money machine up to the door of a man named David Williams, who was running for a seat in the US Congress then occupied by Pete Stark, a Demo from California. The AMA wanted to get rid of Stark because he was not supporting AMA interests to the greatest degree possible in his position as the chair of a health committee. 

AMPAC spent more than $250,000 on behalf of David Williams.

Out of nowhere. 

Stark went to the FEC and complained. 

The FEC declined to investigate the massive intervention by the AMA’s PAC. 

At that time, the head of the FEC was Lee Ann Elliot, who had once worked in a high position for the AMA. In fact, she was still getting a pension from the AMA. 

In the FEC’s internal vote to decide whether to investigate Congressman Stark’s complaint, Lee Ann Elliot’s NO ballot was the determining one. 

14.

Since 1954 in the United States, the administration of one class of twenty psychiatric drugs called neuroleptics— Thorazine, Haldol, Mellaril, Stelazine, Prolixin, and others— has caused between 300,000 and one million cases of motor brain damage.

There is no medical drug that can treat THAT. 

15.

Every year in the United States, physicians perform 15 million unnecessary surgeries. Every year, 60,000 people die from those unnecessary surgeries. 

No germ causes THAT.  

16.

In 1991, three British scientists wrote a paper. The paper was about the effects of BGH (aka rBGH, BST, Bovine Growth Hormone), a genetically engineered hormone, on the cows it was being given to by Monsanto Corporation. Monsanto was testing the hormone, prior to trying to gain governments’ approval for marketing it around the world. 

BGH makes cows produce more milk. “Good for business.” “Yep.” The three scientists, Erik Millstone, Eric Brunner, and Ian White had been analyzing data on BGH for Monsanto. These researchers were not happy. They said Monsanto had blocked publication of their paper. 

Well, their paper stated that cows injected with BGH were experiencing an infection called mastitis, and this was elevating pus and bacteria counts in the cows. 

The implication was clear. The pus would find its way into the milk that consumers drank. And the increased amounts of antibiotics which would be used to treat the mastitis would seep into the milk, and consumers would drink that too. Bad. Monsanto forbade these three men from publishing their paper. 

17. 

A Washington-based public interest group, the Foundation on Economic Trends, obtained secret documents, which it gave to the New York Times. 

These documents show one of the roads Monsanto walked to try to get US government approval to market BGH to dairy farmers. 

The President of Monsanto, Robert B. Shapiro, asked a man named Tony Coehlo for help. Coehlo is a former congressman from California “and house majority whip who left that post in 1989 amid accusations that he had improperly used his political contacts to arrange and finance a $100,000 junk-bond investment for himself. Coehlo became a New York investment banker and, because he remained very-well connected, President Clinton selected him as chief strategist for the Democratic National Committee in 1994.” Coehlo had major connections at the US Department of Agriculture. The Agriculture Secretary, Mike Espy, had run for Congress in 1986, and had received $ for his race from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee— whose chief was Tony Coehlo. In fact later on, Clinton had chosen Espy as Secretary of Agriculture after a recommendation from Coehlo. The stage was set for a dinner chat between Espy and Coehlo. In fact, an employee at Monsanto, Dr. Virginia Weldon, on Sept. 23, 1993, wrote a memo entitled, “Coehlo Talking Points for Espy Dinner.” Among the talking points was the following: “Let Secretary Espy know that companies like Monsanto will likely pull out of the agriculture biotech area [e.g. BGH] if the Administration will not stand up to persons like Senator Feingold.” Russ Feingold had put together opposition in Congress to BGH. Feingold wanted a study to be done which would analyze what increased milk production for the big dairy farmers would do to the small farmers and to the milk market in general—as in glut. 

BGH increases milk production in cows. 

The Weldon memo called for an attempt to get around any desire in Congress to do a “social impact” study of BGH. Leon Panetta was mentioned as the man to contact. The Foundation on Economic Trends, which had uncovered this memo, released its contents, and the dinner chat between Coehlo and Espy never came off. But BGH was approved by the FDA for use and it went to market in late 1993. 

Three members of Congress then accused Monsanto of a fix. The Government Accounting Office did a study, which cleared Monsanto of any wrongdoing. —This, despite the fact that the report said three FDA officials involved in approving BGH were former Monsanto players. Ex-Monsanto lawyer Michael Taylor, ex-Monsanto scientist Margaret Miller, and a student of Monsanto researcher Suzanne Sechen.

In November 1994, the Canadian Broadcasting Company aired an episode of its show, Fifth Estate, which stated that Monsanto had attempted to bribe the Canadian FDA for up to $2 million—if Monsanto got a green light to market BGH in Canada. 

Reporters for Fifth Estate claim that Monsanto tried to get the show stopped. Later, Canadian government scientists stated that the US FDA had made an invalid decision to release BGH in the US. Essentially, the Canadian scientists claimed that the FDA had misreported vital data on studies and thereby led the public to a false rosy picture of the hormone.

The reply by the US FDA spokesman, John Scheid, was astonishing. As far as the data in question were concerned, he said, the FDA had never seen them. They had only seen a summary of the key study provided by Monsanto. 

In other words, Monsanto had run a study which asserted that BGH was safe, and it provided a summary of that study (no raw data, no methods and procedures) to the FDA and the FDA had swallowed it whole with no questions. [sounds similar to the horseshit of 2020 dc ]

The Canadian scientists who blew the whistle on the US FDA had even more to say. They pointed out that in the case of BGH, “The usually required long-term toxicology studies to ascertain human safety were not conducted. Hence, such possibilities and potential as sterility, infertility, birth defects, cancer, and immunological derangements were not addressed.” Welcome to the other side of the looking glass. 

Two authors of this Canadian report, plus four other Canadian scientists, have said they were threatened with job transfers, “where they would never be heard from again,” unless they got down to serious work bringing approval for BGH in Canada. These scientists were ordered not to talk to reporters, but in government testimony sessions they made it clear that the Canadian FDA was groveling for Monsanto and saying the hell with good science and good health. 

18. 

Monsanto and other giant corporations have grabbed on to a legal strategy which allows them to minimize losses from suits filed by consumers of their products. 

Monsanto, for example, can bring a drug/hormone like BGH to market with less worries because a judge named Jack Weinstock made a crucial and strange ruling in the case of Vietnam vets asking damages from Dow, Monsanto, and Diamond Shamrock in the famous Agent Orange case.

The ruling is this: once a damage case is settled for a sum with all the plaintiffs, there can be no more suits filed on that issue, that product, even if new consumers surface who have never heard of the original settlement. 

Completely contrary to due process, this judgement means that the usual progress of suits on top of suits is curtailed, and the offending company will not be subjected to higher and higher damages as new successive evidence is uncovered of their crimes and their knowledge of those crimes and their coverups. 

19. 

A story was scheduled to be aired on Tampa Bay TV station WTVT, a Fox affiliate. The date was February 24, 1997. Two seasoned reporters, Steve Wilson and Jane Akre, had finished a four-part look at Monsanto and its BGH product. The series was going to be critical of Monsanto.

On Feb. 21, the head of Fox news, Roger Ailes, found a letter in his tray from a lawyer named John Walsh of the firm Cadwalader, Wickersham, and Taft. The firm had been hired by Monsanto. The letter stated that Monsanto felt the series was going to be unfairly slanted against the company. “There is a lot at stake,” Walsh wrote, “not only for Monsanto, but also for Fox News and its owner.” Executives at WTVT checked over the series and found no errors. They offered to re-interview Monsanto people for the series. After dialogue about this possibility, Monsanto objected to the accusatory sense of some of the topics and questions that would be recovered. Lawyer Walsh fired off a threat— “... some of the points clearly contain the elements of defamatory statements which, if repeated in a broadcast, could lead to serious damage to Monsanto and dire consequences to Fox News.” 

Now came a flood of Fox-ordered rewrites. Reporters Wilson and Akre became very uncomfortable with changes in their series. Suddenly the credentials of scientists who had come out against Monsanto were left out of the piece. A quote from one of these researchers, “We’re going to save lives if we review this [BGH] now,” was deleted. IGF-1, a growth factor (and promoter of cancer) that is found at higher levels in BGH-treated milk, was no longer mentioned by name. The word “cancer” was changed to “human health implications.” Florida grocers, in the original script, had been exposed for going back on their promise not to sell BGH-milk until it had gained wide approval. In the new script, these grocers were no longer criticized, they were complimented, as if they had decided to sell BGH-milk because consumers wanted them to. Akre and Wilson state that they were ordered to delete information about Monsanto’s past bad actions. Akre and Wilson say that a new statement was added to their script: “This [BGH] is the most studied molecule certainly in the history of domestic animal science.” The reporters felt this was a false depiction—and of course it implied that BGH was safe. In fact, there were no long term human studies of “the most studied molecule” before FDA approval to sell it in milk—and there was no order to label commercial milk as containing BGH. 

“The consumer doesn’t need to have a choice.” 

“The consumer is too stupid to know how to judge these things.” 

“What’s important is the corporation, not the consumer.” 

Tremendous pressure from Fox came down, Akre and Wilson state. Wilson says that when he and Akre responded to a threat of firing by mentioning that they would then file a formal complaint with the FCC, “We were not fired but were each offered very large cash settlements to go away and keep quiet about the story and how it was handled.” After much continued pressure, Akre and Wilson report that they were suspended without pay and locked out of their offices, where all their information on the BGH story was kept. This was October of 1997, eight months after the series was to have been aired. 

On December 2, the reporters were fired by Fox. 

20.

Think. For every toxic substance—whether food ingredient or medical drug or pesticide or industrial chemical—released on the public, there must be a supporting background of false research accepted through criminal negligence, at the least, by official government agencies. 

Here is a quote from Ross Brockley, writing in that national treasure of a magazine, the Multinational Monitor, July/August 1991. In this case, even government action against a massively toxic chemical is not enough to stop a corporation dedicated to depraved indifference to human life: 

“The EPA ordered a freeze-out of [Dow Corporation’s pesticide ingredient] DBCP on food and later banned all pesticides containing the substance. The action came after DBCP contaminated ground water in an area of thousands of square miles in the central valley of California and made agricultural workers who were exposed to it sterile. Aware of the pesticide’s devastating effects, Dow sold much of its stockpile of DBCP to the Dole Corporation which used it on banana plantations in Costa Rica.” 

21. 

Under the aegis of the Dow Corporation, the pharmaceutical house Marion Merrell Dow brought to market Clomid, a drug that attempts to produce ovulatory stimulation so that pregnancy can occur in women for whom that would otherwise be unlikely. 

In clinical trials, 7578 patients took Clomid. 2835 pregnancies were reported. 2369 of these pregnancies were then tracked. An astounding 483 spontaneous abortions occurred. There were also 24 stillbirths. 

From the Physician’s Desk Reference, here is a partial list of Clomid’s post-marketing effects: seizure, stroke, psychosis, cataracts, posterior vitreous detachment, arrhythmia, tachycardia, hepatitis, liver and breast and pituitary and ovarian and kidney and tongue and bladder cancer, brain abscess, tubal pregnancy, uterine hemorrhage, ovarian hemorrhage. In the babies born to the mothers taking Clomid, there have occurred neuroectodermal tumor, thyroid tumor, leukemia, abnormal bone development including skeletal malformations of the skull and face and nasal passages and jaw and hand and limb and foot and joints, malformations of the anus and eye and lens and ear and lung and heart and genitalia, dwarfism, deafness, mental retardation, chromosomal disorders, neural tube defects. 

22. 

70,000 people are hospitalized, and 7000 die in a year, from the effects of NSAIDS (NonSteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs). Some of these drugs are available over the counter for arthritis. (Journal of Rheumatology, 1991, Supplement 28, Volume 18, “NSAID Gastropathy,” James Fries) 

23. 

A parallel statistic: (published in Rx For Better Health, EJ Phelps and Company, San Diego, summer 1997, citing a US Drug Enforcement Agency statistic) In 1995, heroin caused 74,000 emergency room visits and 4000 deaths. 

Not quite as lethal as NSAIDS. 

24. 

The last overall report done on the field of medical practice in the United States was published in 1978. It was “Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Medical Technologies,” put together and researched by Congress’ own Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). This United States Department of Commerce Document, PB-286929, dated September 1978, states in summary, “It has been estimated that only 10-20% of all procedures currently used in medical practice have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trial.” 

25. 

“Today the Swiss company Hoffman-LaRoche is the world’s leading seller of legal psychotropic drugs ... [its former president] Elmer Bobst revealed that La Roche was heavily involved in the supply of morphine to the underworld between the two wars ... The Canton Road smuggling case heard by the mixed court of Shanghai in 1925 revealed the extensive involvement of Hoffman-LaRoche in the illegal drug trade. The case involved 180 chests of opium ... and 

26 boxes containing mostly heroin imported from Basle, Switzerland, by a Chinese dealer, Gwando... 

“... At the 1923 meeting of the Opium Advisory Committee, the Chinese representative pointed out that [pharmaceutical companies in] Germany, Great Britain, Switzerland, and the United States were all turning out ‘morphine by the ton, which was purchased by smugglers by the ton.’” 

26.

Here are two anecdotes from the landmark 1990 report “Biotechnology’s Bitter Harvest,” published by researchers of the Bio-Technology Working Group, under a grant from the CS Fund and several other funds and foundations: 

“When American Cyanamid developed a new family of imidazolinone herbicides, it contracted with Molecular Genetics to find a gene that would give crops tolerance to these chemicals [tolerance equals the ability of crops to absorb, without dying, increased amounts of these toxic chemicals]. Once the gene had been identified, Cyanamid gave it [the gene], gratis, to Pioneer Hi-Bred—the world’s largest corn breeding company. Pioneer has agreed to insert the gene into its hybrids—much to the benefit of Cyanamid (Ag Biotechnology News, 1985).”

“According to Plant Genetic Systems (a Belgian biotechnology company), development of crops tolerant to Hoechst Basta [an herbicide] would increase the herbicide’s global sales by $200 million a year...” 

27. 

For many years, patients and researchers have asserted that medical treatments for diseases can begin a dangerous cycle of more toxic drugs given for the “side-effects” of the original treatment. 

Here is a study which reveals how that can happen in a specific area. The New England Journal of Medicine, on January 4, 1990 published a paper by John Kaldor, PhD, et al, titled “Leukemia Following Hodgkin's Disease.” The abstract states, “We conclude that chemotherapy for Hodgkin's disease greatly increases the risk of leukemia and that this increased risk appears to be dose-related...” 

28.

In the autumn of 1970, the Japanese government banned the use of all medical drugs in Japan which contained the compound called clioquinol. These antidiarrheal drugs were manufactured by the Swiss chemical giant, Ciba-Geigy, under a variety of names.

More than 11,000 people in Japan had suffered from the effects of clioquinol between 1955 and 1970. Some of the symptoms: numbness, blindness, paralysis, death. 

There was a smokescreen between clioquinol and the Japanese discovering that the drug was the cause of what was being called subacute myelo-optic neuropathy (SMON). The medical establishment was bent in the direction of looking for germs. 

Eventually, through the courageous work of several researchers and a lawyer, the truth was exposed. 

Ciba knew as early as 1935 that there were serious problems with clioquinol. Reports had come in from Argentina, where the compound had been introduced as an oral preparation for the first time. The same symptoms as later surfaced in Japan were being cited in Argentina. 

Poisoning. That’s what was taking place. 

Animal tests—as misleading as they are—are relied on by pharmaceutical companies. In the case of clioquinol, Ciba found in the late 1930s that cats were convulsing and sometimes dying from the drug. Dogs were dying from seizures. Dr. Olle Hansson, a Swedish researcher, published a paper in The Lancet in 1966, linking optic atrophy and blindness to clioquinol. Ciba did nothing. Victims of the drug in Japan began to sue Ciba in 1972. It took 6 years to wring an apology and $ damages out of the company. Ciba issued a press release in 1980 on SMON, saying “there is no conclusive evidence that clioquinol causes SMON.” In fact, the company continued to manufacture and sell drugs containing clioquinol in other countries. Ciba dragged its feet until 1985, at which time it stopped manufacturing clioquinol for oral use. 

But there are, as of 1993, still a large number of drugs sold around the world which contain clioquinol or related toxic compounds, and a number of companies are making profits and poisoning people with both oral preparations and creams. In writing the book AIDS INC. in 1987, I found a number of cases in which AIDS was being used as a label to cover groups of people who were suffering with “AIDS-like illness” as a result of their ingesting toxic pharmaceuticals. I have no doubt that this has happened in the Third World with clioquinol and related drugs. In Haiti, for example, a clioquinol spin-off has been sold for gastrointestinal problems. 

It’s important to understand that many major chemical corporations, the giants, have separate divisions that produce pharmaceuticals, pesticides, genetically engineered food seeds, and industrial products (e.g., toxic PVC plastics, used universally for pipes—Dow is perhaps the largest producer of PVC in the world).

The eight largest pesticide companies in the world are, or are owned by, Monsanto, Dow, Du Pont, Imperial Chemical Industrial Industries (England), Rhone Poulenc (France), Ciba-Geigy (Switzerland—now Novartis), Bayer and Hoechst (Germany). Bayer is often ranked, from year to year, as the biggest chemical company in the world. 

Each of these corporations has pharmaceutical divisions, industrial chemical divisions, genetically engineered food divisions. 

29. 

As I began this book by saying, certain corporations do more than produce toxic products. They promote wars which are good for business, or which will establish their grip on foreign countries. 

Smedley Butler enlisted in the US Marines in 1898. After moving all the way up to Major General, he was almost court martialed in 1931. He retired. He joined The League Against War and Fascism. He wrote a book, War is a Racket. 

Here is a fragment from a speech he gave in 1933. It offers the unique perspective of a loyal soldier who sees more than just a nationalistic or jingoistic slant on war.

“I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. 

“... I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Hawaii and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. “During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals and promotions. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.” 

30.

These days we have ignorant and sold-out people arguing on both sides of the military-spending issue. 

If the US military budget goes slightly up or slightly down, these advocates will shout and campaign for what turn out to be minor adjustments in the “right direction.” The only problem is, perhaps half the military budget is there to provide, not defense, but contracts for corporations. Perhaps more. The whole cold war served as a platform from which hugely expensive R&D could be done by corporations at government/taxpayer expense. This R&D launched the electronics and computers we have today. (So much for free market capitalism.) One upper-end estimate of corporate welfare today is 500 billion dollars per year in the US. This would include military contracts and various other subsidies. 

31.

At a Washington press conference on January 21, 1999, Congressman Peter Defazio pointed out that Bill Clinton is supporting a $100 billion increase over the next five years in the military budget. This astounding gift to corporate America (through military contracts) comes on the heels of a discovered crime.

What is that crime? Have you heard about it? Has Dan Rather been pumping it furiously night after night on the news?

Certainly not. The federal government’s GAO (General Accounting Office) has discovered that the Pentagon cannot account for $43 billion of previous budget monies. It’s missing. Completely. Gone. $43 billion. The government gave it to the Pentagon and now it’s disappeared. How was it used? Was it used? Did it go to Switzerland to float the national budget of a mid-sized nation? Did it go into corporate hands? $43 billion. And the president supports a new increase of $100 billion over the next five years. [ had forgot about that one, everyone remembers the September 10th, 2001 Rummy admission though and it was was no where near the above 43 BILLION... dc]

32 

Most people do not realize that before the colonies declared independence from Britain in 1776, the King had set up the entire structure of control in America as companies or crown colonies, as they were called. 

The American revolutionaries of the new nation were as suspicious of corporations as they were of kings and state religions. This was reflected in the original structure of corporations in the United States. 

State legislatures closely limited—and granted—the charters of all corporations. Any harm to the citizenry and the state legislatures could revoke the charter and immediately put the company out of business. 

This was essentially the way the new states were set up. 

If this were the case today, most of the biggest transnationals would be out of existence. But during the 19th century, a corruption in these state laws set in, through bribes of judges by businessmen. Finally, in 1886 the US Supreme Court, in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, ruled that a corporation was a person, with all the rights of a person. This incredible corruption of earlier law meant that now a corporation could demand due process in court, and could bring to bear, in all actions against it, the full weight of its lawyers and monies and prestige and influence. Until then, the state legislature could simply take a corporation that had done harm and revoke its charter suddenly and throw it out of the state. In addition to this, corporations now being called persons, could lobby and support candidates for public office. This led to the overwhelming influence of companies on politics. 

33. 

There are three major types of genetically engineered food now produced by giant corporations.

Produced in growing fields. 

1. Seeds inserted with genes that result in only one crop generation. That is, when a crop grows it drops new seeds, and farmers traditionally pick those up and plant a new crop with them. With this terminator technology, as it’s called, that will not be possible. Farmers will have to go back to the corporation which holds patents on the terminator seeds and buy new ones. The corporation becomes Mother Nature. 

2. Seeds inserted with genes so that the food-crops that then grow will be able to withstand increased amounts of sprayed herbicides without dying. These so-called herbicide resistant seeds will tolerate more of THAT CORPORATION’S herbicides. It’s that specific. 

3. Seeds inserted with bacterial genes that will grow into crops that make their own toxin to kill pests. This is called Bt technology. It brings on victory and survivability and dominance for certain kinds of pests that are resistant to that toxin. This causes its own special brand of problem up the line, especially for organic farms, which are vulnerable to Bt-immune pests. In no case have studies been done which show that any of these technologies are safe for humans, or safe for the evolutionary future of the planet. 

In fact, the fall/winter 1998 issue of Gene Exchange (www.ucsvsa.org) indicates that Bt toxins are accumulating in the soil, poisoning it as an ecosystem. 

34. 

In November of 1998, Professor Nanjundaswamy, president of the Kamataka (India) State Farmers Association, issued a statement about experimental Bt cotton fields in Karnataka planted by Monsanto to test genetically engineered seeds: 

“Monsanto’s [Bt Cotton] field trials in Karnataka will be reduced to ashes in a few days. These actions will start a movement of direct action by farmers against biotechnology, which will not stop until all the corporate killers like Monsanto, Novartis, Pioneer etc. leave the country. We know that stopping biotechnology in India will not be of much help to us if it continues in other countries, [but] if we play our cards right at the global level and coordinate our work, these actions can also pose a major challenge to the survival of these corporations in the stock markets. Who wants to invest in a mountain of ashes, in offices that are constantly being squatted (and if necessary even destroyed) by activists?” 

Then on November 28 and December 2, Indian farmers burned those Monsanto cotton fields while TV cameras recorded the event. 

Pressure was felt by both the Indian national and provincial governments, because they had secretly collaborated with Monsanto and other agri-transnationals. 

On December 3rd, one of the provincial governments, Andhra Pradesh, told Monsanto to stop all their field experiments with genetically engineered cotton seeds in that state. 

The Indian national government restated its continuing position that food seeds genetically engineered and patented by Monsanto and, amazingly, by the US Dept. of Agriculture, would not be permitted commercial use in India. 

It is generally acknowledged that major chemical companies in America—all of whom would be willing to engineer seeds or are already doing it—have bought up enough food-seed companies in America so that they now corner the market. 

There are reports coming out of Korea and Thailand that government officials there are on the road to demanding that any genetic foods in their countries must carry specifying labels. In the US, there are no labels.

In Japan, the national government has been given citizen petitions with several million signatures. These petitions demand the same kind of labeling. 

“This food-product has been genetically engineered.” 

There is a report that US trade officials have told the Japanese government that mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods in Japan would lead to a US/Japan trade war. 

Again, some of this engineering is for the purpose of allowing the food-crops in the field to withstand the assault of more and more pesticide without curling up and dying— and we eat the pesticide. Some of the genetic engineering is the terminator technology sketched above, or Bt technology. And other engineering is for the purpose of altering the shape or look or shelf-life of the food. 

The inserted genes do in fact migrate to other plants in other fields—with unknown results. In no cases has human testing been done to ensure long term safety of these technologies. The public is assured by corporations like Monsanto and by government agencies like the FDA that no harm can come from all this, and that therefore labeling foods “genetically engineered” stirs up a false picture of possible danger in consumers’ minds. 

On December 8th, 1998, 13 environmental organizations staged a mass protest outside Monsanto’s corporate offices near Manila. Their slogans were, “Stop the Terminator Seeds” and “Put a Face on the Enemy.” Major Philippine newspapers are now covering this issue, and two government officials have introduced a resolution to hold hearings at the national level. 

Here is a report from Ronnie Cummins, editor of the excellent journal Food Bytes about the current situation in New Zealand. It illustrates significant collusion between corporations selling GE food and the Clinton administration: 

“... a major controversy has developed over revelations that a US government official threatened serious government reprisals if the country went forward with a law on mandatory labeling [of all genetically engineered foods in New Zealand]. Former associate Health Minister Neil Kirton revealed in an interview in the national press that the United States Ambassador, Josiah Beerman, visited him twice in February and March and ‘bullied’ him over the testing and labeling of genetically modified food. Kirton was later fired and replaced by another government official who was willing to go along with the US ‘no labeling’ position. Polls in New Zealand and Australia show that consumers overwhelmingly support mandatory labeling. In one 1993 poll in Australia, a full 89% of citizens said they wanted labeling and would reject foods that were unlabeled...” 

One of the leading and most credible activists in the battle against genetically engineered crops, Dr. Vandana Shiva, from India, has called Monsanto “a global terrorist” inflicting “hazardous food” on countries around the world. 

Mexico and Brazil have also shown opposition to genetically engineered food. In Mexico City, Green Party members of the national parliament are writing legislation that would require both testing and labeling of gene-altered foods. 

In Brazil, Carrefour, a huge chain of supermarkets, has taken a position against the sale of Monsanto’s herbicide resistant soybeans. Brazil ranks number two, globally, in growing soybeans. 

A 1998 lawsuit filed by the Brazilian Institute of Consumer Defense put a temporary stop to Brazilian government approval of Monsanto’s genetically engineered herbicide resistant soybeans. 

Cummins writes, “At a November international conference of IFOAM (International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements) at Mar del Plata, Argentina, delegates from more than 60 countries, representing the world’s leading organic farming organizations, called for governments and regulatory agencies throughout the world to immediately ban the use of genetic engineering in agriculture and food production because of threats to human health, the environment, and farmers rights.” 

In Europe, a leak of Monsanto’s own sponsored polls showed that “the broad climate is extremely inhospitable to biotechnology acceptance. Over the past year, the situation has deteriorated steadily and is perhaps even accelerating, with the latest survey showing an ongoing collapse of public support for biotechnology and genetically modified (GM) foods.” 

In October of 1998, all of Austria’s supermarket chains said they would refuse to sell genetically engineered foods. 

This isn’t half of the story. And yet, where is this in the American press? Nowhere. Major network and newspaper editors and reporters know that, when they go to US federal officials or Monsanto officials and ask for the low-down, they get bland assurances that the whole citizen/government resistance business is a tempest in a teacup. They are told that GE foods are safe.

Beyond that, however, there is no doubt that the story in the US is being controlled, stepped on, spiked, covered up. It is one of the major issues of our time. And an example of the networks serving masters and committing ultimate suicide. 35.

Kings once sent out explorers to find new lands and new wealth and exploit it, for the crown. In that sense, the monarchy was a corporation. Spanish rulers profited from the discovery of gold in Latin America. 

The crown sold licenses to merchants, and took part of the profit from ventures which involved stealing land and subduing the people who lived on that land. Yes? In modern times, we have a partnership of governments and large corporations. That is the contemporary equivalent of the older situation. Did only the US government profit from the winning of World War 2? Did it annex any major lands? In fact, it appears that the final outcome of the War was to make the economies of the enemies stronger than they had been. 

An odd state of affairs. 

That would be in line with the thesis that some of the heaviest corporate and political hitters in Germany and the US had, during the War, been partners, been a Fraternity. 

This thesis is firmly grounded in Charles Higham’s magnificent book, Trading With the Enemy. He points out that the very real Fraternity, in the years leading up to World War 2, hoped for a negotiated peace between Germany and the US, which would establish them (the heavy corp and pol leaders) as the de facto rulers of the planet into the future. 

A partnership of aspects of governments and corporate and financial figures. A revolution of insiders, if you will. A coalescing of greater power among those who already had much power. From this one would infer that the Fraternity’s political leaders (e.g., Allen Dulles) would also make money on the success of joining together big elite players from both sides of the Atlantic. Dulles of course did become head of the CIA. Who knows what other perks and sums and rewards behind the scenes would go to a man like that? 

The Fraternity, one would suppose, would be very generous to its own, especially to those who did not shovel in the hugest of the profits, but dedicated themselves in the political arena to greasing the wheels for their corporate brothers. The big winners from World War 2 were corporate players, the modern equivalent of pirates entering into partnership with their government soulmates. Corporations who made the weapons and bombs and planes and ships and communication devices. It’s obvious, but we forget that the huge corporations and their brother governments must act together if either is to be satisfied. 

36. 

Once upon a time, as Buckminster Fuller has pointed out, the royals ran the Western world ... but then came technology. And one of the first technologies was seafaring knowledge. The great pirates became kings of their own. They knew where to travel for novel goods, how to get there, and they could trade and discover secret resources hidden from the castle-bound rulers. The royals had run their empires on two myths. 

Pure bloodlines uninterrupted through time. And divine right. Technology arrived and eroded those myths, and the royals had to join in a new mixed bag of power. From that point on there have been many permutations and combinations, arriving at the modern giant transnational corporation. The reason for being a large modern government is ... it enables its partners: corporations. 

37. 

And of course as we well know, the corporate agenda is not made on behalf of human beings. A review of the first 3-4 years of NAFTA, which purportedly stands for free trade among companies north and south of the Mexico border: The Economic Policy Institute of Washington DC concludes that on balance NAFTA has cost the US 394,835 jobs. A study by the National Council of La Raza, the William C Velasquez Institute and UCLA’s North American Integration and Development Center pegs that loss of American jobs at 91,000. 

38.

Here are some of the before and after profits of US companies who were involved in World War 

1. More than 21,000 new millionaires (or billionaires) were hatched during the War. 

• From 1910-1914, Du Pont earned $6 million a year. During the War years, from 1914-1918, Du Pont earned $58 million a year. 

• From 1910-1914, Bethlehem Steel made $6 million a year. During the War years? $49 million a year. 

• The earnings of US Steel went from $20 million a year to $60 million a year. 

• International Nickel Company? From $4 million a year to $73.5 million a year. 

This is the way it seems to work, if we boil down the factors: 

During the actual time of the War, the US government spent $39 billion. That money came from taxes paid by citizens, it came from citizens buying Liberty Bonds, and it came from the government printing money. 

The profit on the War itself was $16 billion. Profit? Yes. That is what the 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires took in. These companies and people who made the great sums were the representatives of the crown, so to speak, and only the most naive would think that key government figures greased the wheels for such profits without getting something themselves. 

Bankers during this period played their little cruel game. When huge numbers of Liberty War Bonds had been bought at $100, they depressed the price (after all, why should the price go down unless through intentional manipulation— we were never in danger of losing the War). They took the price down to $84. Frightened small investors sold their bonds. The bankers bought them and then took the price up again to $100 and beyond. Then they sold and made their gravy. The soldiers themselves who fought and suffered and died and came home wounded in body and spirit were paid $30 a month during the War. 

Of that $30, $15 was automatically subtracted every month to support the soldier’s dependents at home. Heaven forbid that the government would offer any support to needy families. From the remaining $15 in monthly salary the soldier was forced to shell out $6 a month for accident insurance. Then, finally, soldiers were heavily pressured to buy Liberty Bonds at $100 a crack. All told, they bought $2 billion worth. 

So this is the closest accounting you will probably ever see of a war, a major war, reduced to its true and brutal terms. It is all told in a book by Major General Smedley Butler, a Marine who was there. The book is War is a Racket, and in 52 pages it will open your eyes and put a knife in your heart. 

39.

Woodrow Wilson was elected to a second term as the president in 1916 because he had made a promise to keep the country out of war. 

150 days later he told Congress we had to enter and fight the war in Europe. Well, there had been a meeting. A sit-down. A commission from Europe had come to the White House. It represented England, France, Italy. The message? The war was going very badly. Germany was going to win. England, France and Italy already owed US arms manufacturers, bankers, exporters, and other businessmen $6 billion for their “help.” There was no way they could pay that back if they lost the war. End of debate. The US was in. 

40. 

In 1937, not long before a new war in Europe, US Ambassador to Germany, William Dodd, sailed to New York. In the harbor, he held a press conference. The New York Times printed his remarkable statement: 

“A clique of US industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling class families are to the Nazi regime. On [the ship], a fellow passenger, who is a prominent executive of one of the largest financial corporations [in the US], told me point blank that he would be ready to take definite action to bring fascism into America if President Roosevelt continued his progressive policies.” 

41.

On November 23rd, 1937, there was a very private meeting held in Boston. Attendees? Representatives of General Motors, which was then owned by the Du Pont family. Also Baron Manfred von Killinger, who was running espionage operations for the Nazis on the west coast of the US. Also Baron von Tippleskirsch, leader of private Gestapo operations in Boston. 

An agreement was signed among these parties dedicating themselves to the Nazi agenda. There was an understanding that specifically Roosevelt had to be voted out of office, and “Jewish power” in American politics and culture had to be eliminated. 

The plan was to bring in a fuhrer to run the United States. The favorite choice was Montana Senator Burton Wheeler. However, details of this Boston meeting were leaked to journalist George Seldes. He printed an account in his In Fact newsletter. 

Years later, after the War had begun, Congressman John Coffee, from the state of Washington, placed the whole secret Boston agreement in the Congressional Record. The date was August 20, 1942. Coffee officially insisted that the Du Ponts and the chiefs of General Motors had to be dealt with. Nothing was done. 

42. 

The immunity of corporations and their leaders. A statement from UNICEF: “One and a half million babies die every year because they are not breastfed. Millions more become ill. What makes a woman believe she cannot breastfeed her baby is the constant undermining of her confidence, by advertising.” 

Isn’t the main culprit Nestle? 

We have been taught that corporations are not a subject for study, as if these entities are immune to investigations, as if they exist in a different sphere, protected by the fact that they participate in business, which itself is too mobile and pragmatic and tactical to get a fix on. Why isn’t UNICEF or some front for it suing Nestle, Gerber, Wyeth, Milco and Nutricia? Nestle, by the way, brings in about $30 billion a year from the sales of its candy, ice cream, pet food, beverages, coffee, tea, wines, cosmetics—and baby food.

43 

Dream conversation: 

“Let’s run an experiment on that planet. Earth.” “Do they have people?” “They’re just beginning to. Pretty dumb.” “What’s the experiment?” “Control. Population control.” “Start with some kind of religion?” “Best way.” “Then we’ll get into science.” “The payoff.” “Show them that healing is possible in certain situations with technology and trained doctors.” “Then cross them up and feed them over a long period of time more and more toxic chemicals. Drugs, agricultural chemicals, empty food, industrial chemicals as pollutants.” “What’s the point of the experiment?” “To see how long they’ll go for it. See if we can wipe them out completely before they figure out what’s happening.” 

44

On August 24th, 1994, a watchdog group called Health Action International issued a release indicating that Sandoz, the giant Swiss pharmaceutical corporation (now merged with Ciba Geigy as Novartis), had just withdrawn one of its drugs from America and Canada. 

The drug? Parlodel. 

Its strange purpose? To suppress the production of mother’s milk in a woman after she gives birth. The FDA had dragged its heels for five years before stating it was going to withdraw its approval of Parlodel. 

During those five years, 531 adverse events had been reported, including 32 deaths. There were other effects from the drug: hypertension, seizure, stroke. Suddenly the FDA decides that “lactation suppression can be managed effectively—and more safely—by the use of cold packs, compression bandages and pain medication, as needed.” No criminal proceedings against Sandoz or the FDA. Well of course not, you say. No. Not of course not. 

45. 

The following item appears in the Fall 1994 issue of The Compleat Mother: 

“The average caesarean section rate in public hospitals in Brazil is 60%. In private hospitals it is 90%.” (Robbie Davis Floyd, Dis-Embodied Childbirth) 

46 

On October 6, 1933, the president of General Motors, William Knudsen, returned from a trip to Germany. Goring had not taken over General Motors plants there. And for good reason. Knudsen was a member of the Fraternity, and supported the Nazis. Back in New York, Knudsen told reporters that Germany was “the miracle of the twentieth century.” 

Du Pont owned General Motors. 

“Along with friends of the Morgan Bank and General Motors,” Charles Higham writes in Trading with the Enemy, “certain Du Pont backers financed a coup d’etat that would overthrow the President [Roosevelt] with the aid of a $3 million-funded army of terrorists...” These businessmen had to find a military leader for the job. They chose retired Major General and Marine Commandant, recipient of two Congressional Medals of Honor, perhaps the most acclaimed soldier in America, Smedley Butler. Butler, these businessmen felt, might also take over the country if Roosevelt wouldn’t surrender. That would be fine, too. This plan met with enthusiasm from German leaders like Hermann Schmitz, chairman of IG Farben. An American lawyer, Gerald MacGuire, was chosen to present the offer to Smedley Butler. MacGuire visited Butler twice and laid out the plan. Butler was a critic of Roosevelt and the New Deal, but this was treason. He played along, expressing interest, and then spoke with President Roosevelt and spilled all the beans.

There was a terrible economic depression in the country at the time. Roosevelt felt he couldn’t directly and immediately expose Du Pont and Morgan without causing even greater damage to confidence in “the American way of life.” So Roosevelt had the story leaked to the newspapers, which ran it but spun it at the same time as an unfounded rumor. The leak deflated the planned coup. 

Thomas Lamont of Morgan Bank said the idea of such a plot was “Perfect Moonshine!” A House committee meanwhile investigated. Smedley Butler told the committee to subpoena the Du Ponts, but the committee refused. Ditto for the Morgan Bank. So Butler told reporters that General Douglas MacArthur was one of the coup plotters. Articles broke, but no one believed them. Before the House committee the lawyer MacGuire shrugged off the whole business by saying that Butler had “misunderstood” the conversations they had had. Four years later, in 1938-39, the committee finally published its conclusions, which were shown to a limited number of people: “[The] committee was able to verify all the pertinent statements made by General Butler.” The committee report revealed that Remington, a subsidiary of Du Pont, would have been responsible for supplying weapons to an army of a million men, presumably enlisted by General Butler (if he had joined up) from veterans’ associations. No one went to jail. The whole affair was buried. 

47 

After World War 2, as the decades wore on, it became more apparent to the new Hermann Schmitz's and Dupont's and Rockefellers of this world that, although large-scale wars were quite profitable, nationalisms did not have to be acted out on the world stage to produce the conditions under which transnational corporate interests could ascend to even stronger positions. 

No, if ties among these corporate gods were made lasting enough, if store fronts like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission and the UN and GATT (and eventually NAFTA) could be created and expanded, then corporations themselves could continue to become the premier island-nations of domination in the world. 

These days we are dealing with other kinds of unreported and secret coup d’etats. The promotion of genetically engineered food crops all over the world. The ownership of all the major food-seed companies by chemical corporations which are altering these seeds to absorb more pesticide, or to give birth to only one crop (terminator technology), forcing farmers to come to the corporation every year to buy new seeds. 

As I mentioned, the eight largest pesticide companies in the world are Dow, Du Pont, Monsanto, Imperial Chemical Industries (England), Rhone Poulenc (France), Ciba-Geigy (Switzerland, now Novartis after merging with Sandoz), Bayer and Hoechst (Germany). 

As cited in, among other sources, the prophetic Biotechnology’s Bitter Harvest, these companies are all involved in the research and production of genetically engineered food seeds. This research is highly dangerous to the future of the human race, seeing as no human studies have been done or will be done on the long-term effects of planting, growing, and eating various kinds of genetically altered food. 

This corporate attitude of invulnerability, or better yet, disinterest in the effects of technology, echoes the attitude of IG Farben, the Nazi cartel. Farben was among the first of the huge world corporations to engage in the mass human testing (on concentration camp inmates) of pharmaceuticals and other toxic chemicals.

One or two sources have indicated that Farben had business ties with most of the above corporations. In fact, Bayer and Hoechst were two of the three core corporations in the Farben cartel. 

Du Pont, whose lifeblood product since its beginnings was gunpowder, formed in 1926 a cartel partnership with Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), which itself had just been started by Nobel, the British explosives firm. Du Pont and ICI from that point on shared sales agents all over Latin America and Europe. By 1934, Du Pont and ICI together “owned 20 percent of one of Hitler’s munitions makers, DAG, part of the IG Farben combine.” In that same year, Du Pont “had financial and market dealings in war materials or processes with ... Switzerland’s CIBA [Geigy], France’s Rhone Poulenc...” A scorecard will not keep track of the players here. 

Money and power simply intercede in the game, and ideals and humanity and national geonames move aside. 

48. 

On September 10, 1934, a US Senate committee convened special hearings on “the munitions issue.” Du Pont, the largest weapons company in America, took center stage. The committee showed that Du Pont had agreements, before and after World War 1, with German munitions companies. These companies, in which Du Pont owned considerable stock, were now busy arming Hitler. 

In that same year, with the Du Ponts emerging from the hearings unscathed, A. Felix du Pont and sister Alice traveled “to the Brazilian plantation of Henry Ford, the Republican Party’s strong man. A Nazi sympathizer since 1923, when Hitler personally accorded him special praise, in August 1938 Ford would accept from Hitler the first Grand Cross of the German Eagle ever awarded to an American. This was the man to whom the Du Ponts were drawn in increasing political ties.” 

49. 

As of 1984, the Du Ponts controlled assets worth $211 billion. 

50.

“After Pearl Harbor, the German army, navy, and air force contracted with ITT for the manufacture of switchboards, telephones, alarm gongs, buoys, air raid warning devices, radar equipment, and thirty thousand fuses per month for artillery shells used to kill British and American troops. This was to increase to fifty thousand per month by 1944. In addition, ITT supplied ingredients for the rocket bombs that fell on London, selenium cells for dry rectifiers, high-frequency radio equipment, and fortification and field communication sets. 

“Without this supply of crucial materials it would have been impossible for the German air force to kill American and British troops, and for the German army to fight the allies in Africa, Italy, France, and Germany, for England to have been bombed, or for Allied ships to have been attacked at sea... 

“Whether or not a trading [with the enemy license] was issued [to ITT by the US government], the trading was continued with the assurance that neither the State Department nor the Department of Justice would intervene.”

Do you know a person who served in World War 2, or the family of someone who did? How long is the statute of limitations on whatever you want to call this—mass murder, treason, depraved indifference? 

51. 

Dream monologue. 

“I am a tinpot dictator in the Third World. I am sought after by wealthy foreign men who want to control some of my best lands. This is no problem to me. I can dispossess even more of my people, throw them off their fertile property. I can guarantee these wealthy foreigners that I will keep my subjects in a permanently weakened state through hunger, generation to generation, and the continued contamination of water. I can run sewage directly into the drinking water if necessary. And I do. I have no objection to western doctors and health agencies making my country the target for their pathetic heroic antics. Build a few hospitals, bring in medical drugs. I know what is causing my people to become ill and stay ill, and hospitals and drugs will have no effect on THAT. Wealthy corporate foreigners are willing to pay me very nice sums for the right to use and take pieces of my country. They want to grow coffee and sugar and cocoa and export them to industrialized nations. They want to pay almost no taxes. They want no disturbing revolutions. They want mineral rights. Some of the medical doctors want to be able to call what is killing my weakened subjects AIDS. They can call it anything they want to. The rich foreigners can send toxic and cancer-causing pesticides here and I will let my people use them. Of course. They can also send useless and toxic and unrefrigerated spoiled medical drugs here as well, and I will allow these to be sold out in the open. This is a good partnership. It works on many levels.” 

52. 

Contrary to every impulse of the early American citizen, the US federal government has long had the right to “lease public and Indian lands and mineral rights to private corporations. By 1973, the Federal Government had leased 680,854 acres of public and 258,754 acres of Indian land, containing over 20 billion tons of coal, to the corporations. Leasing halted in 1973 and did not begin again until late spring of 1979, because there was criticism of the fact that 70% of the land leased was going to only 15 multinational oil companies— Shell, Sun, ARCO, Gulf, Exxon, Mobil, etc.” 

Compare that with this situation abroad—after the US Marines spent much of the first half of the 20th century occupying Nicaragua and overseeing it, Franklin Roosevelt appointed the Somoza family to take over the country and look after US interests in the region. The Somozas were then backed by every US president until their overthrow in 1979. The Somoza family ran the CONDECA military forces which joined with banana companies to make sure US corporations were secure throughout Central America. 

The Somozas in Nicaragua owned 1 out of every 10 square feet of arable land. This was an absolute tyranny. State-sponsored terrorism was used all the way along the line to keep the population in tow and obedient. 

53.

Genetically engineered seeds now grow on 51 million acres in the US. No tests show that the crops of these seeds are safe, longterm, to eat. And as the genes come back generation after generation in the crops, what will happen? What will happen as the genes drift into other crops? These food seeds are patented by companies. Corporations owning life. That is the ultimate endgame. Monsanto has contracted with a number of investigators to follow up leads on seed thieves. These would be farmers who decided to take the falling seeds from the crops which themselves originally came from genetically engineered seeds. Second generation GE seeds. Plant them again. But no. This is illegal. You can’t watch a GE crop grow and then scoop up the seeds that drop and replant them. No. Against the law. Monsanto has filed 475 seed-theft cases across the US. 250 of these are being pursued. 100 have already been settled. One settled case is instructive. David Chancy, a Kentucky farmer, admitted that he scooped up drop-off GE seeds from his GE soybean crop and “illegally traded the pirated seed with neighbors...” So Chancy must now pay $35,000 in royalties to Monsanto. Chancy will keep his soybean farm records open to Monsanto for inspection over the next five years. Monsanto has made other farmers destroy their crops. This sounds like a perverse Sunday school story, only the teacher has a gun and courts and judges to back him up. 

And patents which say he owns little pieces of life. 

54. 

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) draws its monies from nations around the world. With loans, it then bails out countries which are economically on the ropes. However, “The IMF can use its leverage over cash-strapped developing countries to force them to open up their economies to powerful Northern multinational corporations, even before a country has built up its domestic economy.” 

This is a key point. This is a very key point. The recent crash of several Asian economies was, to a degree, based on a fast in-and-out of foreign investors to the tune of $110 billion in one year. This was more than Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Malaysia could take. The IMF is at the service of giant corporations, at the expense of ... everything else. 

55. 

Dream conversation: 

IMF: “Corcovado is about to default on its international debt. A small vulnerable country.” 

Mystery CEO: “Lots of lumber there.” 

IMF: “Indeed.” 

MCEO: “We’d certainly be interested in investing there. Cutting down trees is our life, and exporting the raw timber. But not at the wages they’re paying laborers now. And their environmental regulations would kill us.” 

IMF: “Funny coincidence. Those concerns would be solved by the conditions of our bailout there.” 

MCEO: “Really?” 

IMF: “Yes. Knocks me out. You see, we lend Corcovado a few billion, on the condition that they slash government spending. So the first agencies to go, usually, are social welfare and the environment. That means their government will only have a tenuous connection to medical benefits for workers, environmental rules, and even wages. Everything is privatized. The government basically just stands by and watches corporations like you come in and rape and pillage and export the results.”

MCEO: “Nine cents an hour and lots of dioxin in the rivers.” 

IMF: “It would go unnoticed.” 

MCEO: “By the way, I assume that part of the social programs of the government that would be cut involve feeding people.” 

IMF: “Absolutely.” 

MCEO: “Well, when we come into a country like this, we have that effect too. You know, we throw people off the land they’ve had in the family for generations. We dispossess thousands and thousands of people.” 

IMF: “So?” 

MCEO: “Hunger is a good weakener of the dispossessed person. We need that. Keeps him from organizing and revolting. But we may need additional help to keep the indigenous people in line.” 

IMF: “You mean military?” 

MCEO: “And the action wing of intelligence agencies.” 

IMF: “We’re a peace-loving agency. We leave all that up to you.” 

MCEO: “Whatever it takes.”

IMF: “Of course, we don’t want to hurt anybody.” 

MCEO: “Neither do we.” 

IMF: “By the way, we see that another big company is itching to move into Corcovado.” 

MCEO: “Really? Who is that?” 

IMF: “Can’t really say, but they’re agri. They grow genetically engineered food.” 

MCEO: “Oh, I know who you mean. We have a few of their people on our board. And some of the same Washington connections.” 

IMF: “Of course there have never been any human tests on genetically engineered food.” 

MCEO: “No problem. The marketing of the food is the test. All life is an experiment, in a way.” 

IMF: “Critics say the implanted genes drift into other plants. So that could be affecting evolution in ways we don’t understand. And eating the genes may have unforseen health effects too. If our food undergoes a subtle change, we may not get the nutrition we need from it. That would create illness on a vast scale.” 

MCEO: “Evolution is what we make it. Who knows? In a hundred years, the makeup of this planet could be quite different.” 

IMF: “What do you mean?” 

MCEO: “Survival of the fittest. That floats all boats worth floating. It answers all doubts.” 

IMF: “Why the hell not?” 

56 

There has been much talk about the meaning of the international GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade). This agreement and organization is built to serve corporations, and you can basically read “corporations” for “nations.” Through concepts like “harmonization” and “free trade” (a complete misnomer) certain traditions will be scrapped. Health and safety laws in individual nations will be destroyed over time, over the long haul, so that corporations worry less and less about shipping toxic: pesticides, GE foods, chemicals, building materials, and pharmaceuticals from nation to nation. So that nations which demand that foreign businesses within their shores must have a 51% local partner will be converted on a tide of “goodwill” about doing business without hindrances. Nations themselves will take more and more of a back seat to the collections of corporations elevated by GATT. 

The World Trade Organization (WTO), which is the enforcement arm of GATT, will ensure— unless derailed—that GE food cannot be refused by any nation, that every nation must import GE food, because “scientifically” there is no objection to it. 

If such a judgement is made and backed up, it will be the ultimate victory for fake corporate science, because of course there ARE very serious rational objections to allowing the domestic growing or the importing of GE food. 

Such transcendental fake science will also allow international “free trade” in toxic industrial chemicals, toxic pesticides, and toxic and unworkable pharmaceuticals—all under the name of “these products have been proved to be safe and effective.” 

This is the strategy, this is the road the corporations have built. 

next 57

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. As a journalist, I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of artistic, cultural, historic, religious and political issues. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Copyrighted material can be removed on the request of the owner.