& STILL ...we wonder ?

New World Order Agents Are Psychopaths       ~ hehe & that IS y ul·ti·mate·ly "they" will fail folks LOL "they" r fucking KOOKS the WHOLE  fuck~in  lot of em hehe  maybe "we" will get lucky ...ya know when "they"  r sitttin on TOP of the World "they" take a "selfie"  &   FALLLL the  FUCK  ...off        Oops

By Jonas E. Alexis on February 27, 2016,http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/02/27/new-world-order-agents-are-psychopaths/

New World Order agents were so desperate last November that they even showed “footage of Russian airstrikes passed off as American”! Doesn’t that show that NWO agents envy Russia? Doesn’t that show that Russia is doing some good?

“You know, I could sue New World Order agents for plagiarizing. Who gave them the right to show ‘footage of Russian airstrikes passed off as American’?”

…by Jonas E. Alexis

Sometimes it is quite entertaining to observe New World Order agents and their wicked plan. NWO agents are always in the state of flux because they do not have anything to stand on. Truth is not on their side. People of reason—not political prostitutes and mush-heads like John McCain and Lindsey Graham—have already abandoned them. Now they are freaking out because much of the world is watching how they are acting like psychopaths or gangsters or thieves.
Have you ever witnessed the reaction of a thief at a local store when he suddenly discovers that he is standing next to a police officer? The police officer may not even know that the guy is a thief, but because he is in fact a thief and that his conscience has already condemned him, he therefore has to react—sometimes violently. Remember what happened to Michael Brown?
NWO agents are finding themselves in the same situation. Since they are working with a wicked ideology that does not allow them to see things the way they really are, they are completely lost. As Daniel J. Flynn put it,

“When ideology is your guide, you’re bound to get lost. Ideology deludes, inspires dishonesty, and breeds fanaticism. Facts, experience, and logic are much better at leading you to the truth. Truth, however, is not everyone’s intended destination.”[1]

Does the New World Order fit that description? Indeed.
As we have argued elsewhere, the New World Order is itself an ideology which has no respect for reason and truth. In that sense, NWO agents are morally and politically naked, and people of reason are watching them. They’ve got no serious arguments, and they are committed to believe their own lies because they have realized that they can convince multiplied millions of naïve people that way.
Here is something that may make you laugh: NWO agents were so desperate last November that they even showed “footage of Russian airstrikes passed off as American”!^[2] Doesn’t that show that NWO agents envy Russia? Doesn’t that show that Russia is doing some good?

---

“Aleister Crowley would have been proud of me and my husband. I really missed him.”

But there is more here. NWO agents are more than willing to ally with any political party or even individual who vows to advance their wicked ideology. In that sense, they have become true psychopaths.[3]
Take for example Marc Bennetts of Newsweek. He has recently produced an article praising Alexei Navalny, a Russian opposition leader who has “challenged” Vladimir Putin. Bennetts tells us that Navalny is fighting for freedom and democracy. Quoting Vavalny himself, Bennetts says,
“‘To fight for your rights is easy and pleasant. There is nothing to be afraid of,’ said Alexei Navalny, the opposition’s de facto leader, in a message passed out of a Moscow detention facility. ‘Every one of us has the most powerful and only weapon we need—a sense of our own worthiness.’”[4]
Bennetts has expanded on these views in his recent book on Putin.
Bennetts is basically another Zionist shill who is desperately trying to save the sinking ship. He does not tell his readers that Navalny’s companies and some of their associates “are involved in thefts and are obscuring transparency.”

Bennetts promiscuously declares that Putin is trying to destroy democracy, but Bennetts simply cannot not address one nagging problem: 97% of Crimea voted for Putin![5]

So, what kind of democracy is this joker talking about here? Does he mean to tell us that the 3% represents democracy? Aren’t people like Bennetts psychopaths?
Bennetts doesn’t stop here. He moves on to write an entire chapter in his book supporting the Pussy Riot, the Trotskyite group which ended up having sex orgy at the Timiryazev State Biology Museum in Moscow in February 2008.
You see, if Bennetts puts these things in context, then his entire ideological project would collapse.[6] He cannot address these issues contextually because he has been paid to say weird things, crazy things, and psychopathic things.
Moreover, if Bennetts uses his own standards on the Neo-Conservative/Neo-Bolshevik ideology, the entire operation would also collapse. And this is another major problem with New World Order agents: they keep propounding that Russia threatens “the peace of Europe,”[7] but they will never tell us that the New World Order and their puppets, most specifically the Zionist State of America, have been threatening the peace of the entire world for decades.
What is equally worse is that the masses in America have virtually no clue of what is actually going on in politics. This allows NWO agents to pursue their ideological worldview with little resistance on some college campuses. For example, the average college student at George Mason University is so in tune with Kim Kardashian that they do not realize that they are being dragged into an ideological sinkhole. Consider this:

Politically-Challenged: George Mason University

Kim Kardashian has been named “the Queen of Narcissism” by sociologist Pepper Schwartz of the University of Washington.[8] Her greatest asset, which was put on display throughout the world in 2014, is her derriere. Like Iggy Azalea and Jennifer Lopez,[9] Nicki Minaj and others, she used her asset to gain entrance into the minds of countless young and impressionable people.
These sex toys and machines are certainly dragging our young people into a vortex which has no exit. And this was predicted long ago by Scottish writer Andrew Fletcher (1655 – 1716):

“If a man were permitted to make all the ballads, he need not care who should make the laws of a nation. And we find that most of the ancient legislators thought they could not well reform the manners of any city without the help of a lyrick, and sometimes of a dramatick poet.”[10]

By mentioning “city,” Fletcher probably had ancient Greece in mind, where Plato and Aristotle talk about the same issue. Plato himself said in his famous work Laws that

“Through foolishness they deceived themselves into thinking that there was no right or wrong in music — that it was to be judged good or bad by the pleasure it gave. As it was, the criterion was not music but a spirit of law-breaking.”[11]

Plato also suggested that this improper music has the potential to create dissonance, which “corrupted everything…”[12]
This is exactly what the entertainment industry is doing. And this is why prostitutes and whores and sluts like Kim Kardashian, Beyonce, Taylor Swift, among others, are dangerous. No doubt that many of them have been caught flirting with Aleister Crowley’s black magic.[13] And it is no coincidence that some of them have been doing exactly what Crowley was doing in places like Italy: sex orgy.[14]
Schwartz was right in saying:
“Instead of sending Kim K to the bank, let’s encourage her to go to a really good therapist. This kind of narcissism needs to be treated, not celebrated.”[15]

Taylor Swift: Shake It Off (Leviev Style)

---

[1] Daniel J. Flynn, Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas (New York: Crown Forum, 2004), 1.
[2] “US Media Shows Footage of Russian Airstrikes Passed Off as American,” Sputnik News, November 21, 2015.
[3] For a study on this, see for example Robert D. Hare, Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of Psychopaths Among Us (New York: Guilford Press, 1993); Kent A. Kiehl, The Psychopath Whisperer: The Science of Those Without Conscience (New York: Crown Publishers, 2014).
[4] Marc Bennetts, “How Putin Tried and Failed to Crush Dissent in Russia,” Newsweek, February 16, 2016.
[5] Charles McPhedran and Anna Arutunyan, “Crimea votes to join Russia; Ukrainians prepare for war,” USA Today, March 17, 2014; see also “Crimea referendum: Voters ‘back Russia union,’” BBC, March 16, 2014.
[6] Marc Bennetts, I’m Going to Ruin Their Lives: Inside Putin’s War on Russia’s Opposition (London: One World Publications, 2014).
[7] Dave Majumdar, “Electronic Warfare: Russian Gains Threaten to ‘Disconnect’ U.S. Forces,” National Interest, February 26, 2016.
[8] Pepper Schwartz, “Kim Kardashian, Queen of Narcissism,” CNN, August 18, 2014.
[9] “Kardashian photo plays off controversial black imagery,” USA Today, November 13, 2014.
[10] Andrew Fletcher, Political Works (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 179.
[11] For a historical study on this, see David Tame, The Secret Power of Music: The Transformation of Self and Society through Musical Energy (New York: Destiny Books, 1984); Curt Sachs, The Rise of Music in the Ancient World: East and West (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1943); Julius Portnoy, Music in the Life of Man (CT: Greenwood Press Publishers, 1963); Gilbert Rouget, Music and Trance: A Theory of the Relations Between Music and Possession (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1985); Willis Harman and Howard Rheingold, Higher Creativity: Liberating the Unconscious for Breakthrough Insights(New York: Jeremy Tarcher, 1984); Anthony Storr, Music and the Mind (New York: Ballantine Books, 1992); Robert Jourdain, Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy: How Music Captures our Imagination (New York: William Morrow Co., 1997);Subliminal Ad-Ventures in Erotic Art (Wellesely, MA: Branden Books, 1992); Julius Portnoy, The Philosopher and Music: A Historical Outline (New York: Decapo Press, 1980).
[12] Plato, The Laws (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,) 75.
[13] Richard Price, “Forget Scientology, celebs are now falling for an even more sinister ‘religion’: Introducing the Satanic sex cult that’s snaring stars such as Peaches Geldof,” Daily Mail, April 22, 2013.
[14] Gail DeLaney, “Kim Kardashian West participated in orgy and shows her nude backside on Paper,” Examiner, November 12, 2014. For further study on Crowley, see Henrik Bogdan and Martin P. Starr, eds., Aleister Crowley and Western Esotericism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012); Nevill Drury, Stealing Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Modern Western Magic (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011); Hugh B. Urban, Magia Sexualis: Sex, Magic, and Liberation in Modern Western Esotericism (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2006).
[15] Pepper Schwartz, “Kim Kardashian, Queen of Narcissism,” CNN, August 18, 2014.

Investigating 9/11 and Naming Suspects. Evaluating Evidence         ...an op within an op with in an op ???

By Kevin Ryan

Global Research, February 28, 2016

Washington's Blog 27 February 2016

Region: USA

Theme: 9/11 & 'War on Terrorism'

When people ask me what more can be done to achieve 9/11 truth and justice, I tell them to spend less time calling for a new investigation and more time investigating. Even without subpoena power, independent investigators can make a lot of progress. To help with that effort, here are three steps for an independent investigation and an objective way to evaluate suspects in the 9/11 crimes.
The first step is to ask specific, well-formulated questions. What do we need to know? We need to know things like how explosives got into the WTC, how the North American air defenses failed, how the U.S. chain of command and communication systems failed, how the alleged hijackers got away with so much, and how the planes were hijacked.
Here are examples of specific questions that will help answer these questions.

1. What more can we learn from the official accounts about transponder and autopilot use on 9/11?
2. Who was invited to the explosive disposal/terrorism meeting at WTC 7 on the morning 9/11 and what was the agenda?
3. What do the strip clubs, bars, and other businesses frequented by the alleged hijackers have in common?

The second step is to collect information that might help to answer the questions. Good sources of information include the following.

• National Archives (NARA)
• National Security Archive at GWU
• 911 Document Archive at Scribd
• 911DataSets.org
• 911Review.com
• History Commons Complete 9/11 Timeline
• Internet Search Engines: These are more useful for those who learn how to use search operators.
• University libraries
• The WayBack Machine: Wonder what a web page looked like 15 years ago?

It also helps to interview people who have detailed knowledge about the events. Most of the people who were present at the time of the attacks and during the official investigations are still alive and some of them will answer questions.
Additionally, useful information can be obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Direct requests to federal, state, or local agencies using resources like these:

• Federal: http://www.foia.gov/how-html
• New York State: http://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/html
• Other help and example letters: http://nfoic.org

The third step to investigation is to collect the information, analyze it, and then communicate it clearly and objectively. Collecting the information is relatively easy. Analysis might include categorizing or framing the information in ways that help to see linkages. Examples include creating a timeline of events or a matrix of people and events, and considering if the new information fits into the existing body of knowledge. Once new information is ready to communicate to others, there are a lot of venues for doing that. A good example is 911Blogger.
Naming Suspects and Evaluating Evidence

As answers are found or proposed, it becomes clear that there are people who can be named as legitimate suspects in the 9/11 crimes. Things can get a bit tricky here and it’s easy to be misled. What makes someone a legitimate suspect? To answer that, it helps to understand three different types of evidence: direct, indirect, and negative. Let’s start with five examples of what I would cite as direct evidence related to 9/11.
Direct evidence

1. The suspect was in a position on 9/11 to directly facilitate the crimes.
2. Evidence exists that the suspect did something on 9/11 that directly facilitated the crimes.
3. Evidence exists to charge the suspect with a crime related to 9/11.
4. The suspect was in a position prior to 9/11 to facilitate the 9/11 crimes.
5. Evidence exists to charge the suspect with having done something prior to 9/11 that facilitated the 9/11 crimes.

All of the suspects in my book, Another Nineteen, were named based on direct evidence. An example is Wirt Dexter Walker. As the CEO of Stratesec, he was in position to provide access to those who planted explosives in the WTC, as well as prevent that access from being detected. Walker can also be charged with 9/11 insider trading.
Another example is Ralph Eberhart, who sponsored the military exercises that obstructed the air defenses on 9/11. Eberhart also appears to have lowered the Infocon (communications defense) level just hours before the attacks, and gave orders that directly obstructed the interceptors. He also lied to the U.S. Congress about having received documented notification of the hijackings (a crime).
When one or more of pieces of direct evidence are established for a suspect, it makes sense to evaluate indirect evidence. Here are five types.
Indirect evidence

1. The suspect had foreknowledge of the 9/11 crimes.
2. The suspect benefited from the 9/11 crimes.
3. The suspect failed to cooperate with the official 9/11 investigations, obstructed those investigations, or lied to investigators.
4. The suspect was an expert in the technologies that were required to make 9/11 happen (e.g. communications systems, remote control technology).
5. Evidence exists that the suspect was involved in other terrorist acts or previous U.S. deep state events.

An example of a suspect for which both direct and indirect evidence exists is Barry McDaniel, the Chief Operating Officer of Stratesec. Besides having the power to grant access to those who planted explosives in the WTC, McDaniel also had expertise in the distribution of explosives from his days as the U.S. Army’s director of Materiel Readiness. That same previous position makes him a suspect in the Iran-Contra crimes. McDaniel benefited from 9/11 by starting a police-state supply company with Dick Cheney’s old business partner, Bruce Bradley.
Similarly, Ralph Eberhart is a suspect for whom there exists both direct and indirect evidence. As CINCNORAD and CINCSPACE, Eberhart was an expert on the air defense, communications, and possibly related space, systems. He also failed to cooperate with the official investigations, telling his staff to just change their responses to investigators as those responses were shown to be invalid.
Is it enough to use only indirect evidence? For example, is it enough to say that the suspect benefited from the crimes? If so, there are millions, or maybe billions, of suspects. This includes everyone who profited from the 9/11 Wars or the police state policies that have resulted. It might also include anyone who was threatened by the countries that the U.S. has attacked since 9/11: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. That would be a huge number of people so the answer is no, benefiting from 9/11 is not enough to make someone (or an entire country) a legitimate 9/11 suspect.
Is foreknowledge of the attacks enough to name someone as a legitimate suspect? If so, the governments of at least a dozen countries are all suspects. Therefore the answer is no, in the absence of direct evidence foreknowledge is not enough to name a person (or an entire country) as a 9/11 suspect.
For instance, some people are convinced that Israel committed the crimes of 9/11. When asked why they think this, the answer is usually that Israel had foreknowledge as indicated by the “Dancing Israelis” and that Israel benefited because of the countries that were attacked after 9/11. However, as indicated above this reasoning is not convincing and would certainly never stand up in a court of law.
Both foreknowledge and benefiting are examples of indirect evidence. And although indirect evidence can be helpful, direct evidence is needed to charge someone with a crime. Moreover, the direct evidence must focus on what actually happened on 9/11 that should not have happened, and what did not happen that should have happened. And that means we must focus on the specific people who were in position to make those things so.
Once direct evidence exists for a suspect, negative evidence can also be used to build the case. Negative evidence related to the 9/11 crimes includes the fact that some people did not do their jobs, either in defending the country or in investigating the case afterward. For example, Ralph Eberhart, for whom there exists both direct and indirect evidence that he was involved, failed to implement military control over U.S. airspace when he should have.
In the end, it’s possible that only independent investigation will reveal more of the truth about what happened on 9/11. But that power exists within people who spend considerable time today calling for others to investigate or posting strongly worded messages on social media. If we can harness that power and direct it toward the logical and objective answering of pertinent questions, we can make real progress.
Kevin Ryan blogs at Dig Within.

The original source of this article is Washington's Blog

Copyright © Kevin Ryan, Washington's Blog, 2016

Bees And Other Pollinators Are Facing Extinction ~hehe so what's the plan folks ! we just gonna wait till "they"( elites evil fucking monsters) turn THIS Planet into the fucking MOON ...that It that's "our" ....plan ?    HUH

By Katie Valentine

Global Research, February 28, 2016

Climate Process 26 February 2016

Region: USA

Theme: Biotechnology and GMO, Environment

Bees and other pollinators are in trouble — so much so that many of them are facing extinction, according to a new report.
The report, released Friday by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), is a two-year assessment of the threats facing pollinators — both vertebrates, such as birds and bats, and invertebrates, such as bees, butterflies, and other insects. It noted that, in some regions, 40 percent of invertebrate pollinator species are so threatened by myriad environmental impacts that they’re facing extinction, with butterflies and bees seeing the highest risk. Among vertebrates, 16.5 percent of species are threatened by extinction worldwide. Pollinators are a major group: there are 20,000 species of wild bees across the globe, the report notes, and many of them haven’t been identified yet.
Pollinators are also a hugely important group of animals. Almost 90 percent of wild flowering plants depend on pollination by animals, and 75 percent of food crops around the world depend on pollination. Globally, $235 – $577 billion worth of global crops are affected by pollinators each year, the report found.
“Without pollinators, many of us would no longer be able to enjoy coffee, chocolate and apples, among many other foods that are part of our daily lives,” said Simon Potts, co-chair of the assessment, said in a statement.

A hummingbird hawk-moth.
CREDIT: WIKIMEDIA COMMONS

IPBES, which looked at existing research to compile the report, cited pesticides and disease as two threats posed to pollinators, especially managed honeybees. Varroa mites, for instance, have become a plague on honeybee colonies. They attach themselves to bees and suck out their circulatory fluid, weakening the bees and spreading dangerous diseases. Pesticides, especially the widely-used neonicotinoids, have been found to damage bees’ brains and contribute to bee losses. The Environmental Protection Agency in January released findings on one neonic pesticide, imidacloprid, the most commonly-used neonic in the United States. The agency found that, when applied to certain crops, the pesticide was harmful to bees. The EPA is still looking into three other neonicotinoids.
The organization also listed land use changes, climate change, and invasive species as threats to pollinators. Land use changes can turn wildflower-covered fields into fields of just one or two crops, a switch from a high-nutrition landscape to a lower-nutrition one. And climate change can lead to a shift in peak nectar flow for flowering plants. If managed honeybees miss this nectar flow — if they’re delivered to beekeepers too late, for instance — the hive can be weakened. The report also found that climate change has already shifted distribution of bumblebees and butterflies and pollinator-dependent plants.
The report lists several approaches to help protect pollinator populations, including creating more pollinator-friendly landscapes, with diverse flowering plants, and reducing use of pesticides by finding more pollinator-friendly forms of pest control. There are efforts to do some of these things already: last October, for instance, the U.S. Department of Agriculture set aside $4 million to help farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners plant wildflowers, native grasses, clover, buckwheat, and other pollinator-friendly plants on their lands. Scientists and beekeepers are also researching new ways to protect bees against varroa mites and other threats: beer hops have been found to repel the mites, and mushroom juice, too, could help protect bees against diseases.

The original source of this article is Climate Process

Copyright © Katie Valentine, Climate Process, 2016

Genetic Engineering, Twisted Science, Altered Truth. Inside the Church of Pro-GMO Activism

By Colin Todhunter

Global Research, February 28, 2016

Theme: Biotechnology and GMO, Media Disinformation, Science and Medicine

Last year on Twitter, Monsanto Vice President Robert Fraley provided a link to an article that implied those who are suspicious of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), among other things, are confused, motivated by ideology or misinformed as a result of access to the ‘university of Google’, or they are simply conspiracy theorists. Fraley asked why people doubted science and seemed to be taking a swipe at critics of GMOs, who the GM sector and its mouthpieces like to depict as dealing in fear mongering and relying on ‘pseudo-science’.
The industry and its assortment of pro-GM activists in science and the media have a view of the world that requires the public to bow to some kind of scientific priesthood whose knowledge and opinions should never be questioned (listen to this recent presentation from the Oxford Real Farming Conference – from 17:00). They require us to have unquestioned belief in science’s ability to solve humanity’s problems. Deference and faith are key to the creed.
The problem is that rich corporations and individuals have manipulated the idea of science and have been able to distort scientific research. They have translated their vast financial influence into political clout and the control of science and scientific institutions. The result is that science institutes, research programmes and practitioners now too often willingly serve the interests of powerful corporations. Far from liberating humankind the control of science and scientific research and media-led rational debate in the public sphere have become a tool of deception.
The reason why so many people doubt science is because they can see how science is corrupted and manipulated by powerful corporations. It is because they regard these large corporations as unaccountable and their activities and products not properly regulated by governments.
Sociologist Robert Merton highlighted the underlying norms of science as involving research that is not warped by vested interests, adhering to the common ownership of scientific discoveries (intellectual property), promoting collective collaboration and subjecting findings to organised, rigorous critical scrutiny within the scientific community. Secrecy, dogma and vested interest thus have no place.
The reality is, however, careers, reputations, commercial interests and funding issues all serve to undermine these norms.
Twisted science, altered truth
In 2014, US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack called for “sound science” to underpin food trade between the US and the EU. Consumer rights groups in the US are pushing for the labelling of GMO foods, but Vilsack said that putting a label on a foodstuff containing a GM product “risks sending a wrong impression that this was a safety issue.”
Despite what Vilsack would have us believe, many scientific studies show that GMOs are indeed a big safety issue and what’s more are also having grave environmental, social and economic consequences (for example, see this about GM and pesticides in Argentina, this on how GM agriculture is drive ecocide and death in South America and this about the overall efficacy and impacts of GM).
By not wanting to respond to widespread consumer demands to know what they are eating and risk ‘sending a wrong impression’ (doublespeak to English translation: sending out the right impression about GM being a fundamentally flawed and corrupt endeavour), Vislack is trying to close down debate about issues that his corporate backers find unpalatable: labelling would allow consumers to reject the GMOs being fed to them. By attempting to side-line any genuine open discussion of GM in this way, the aim is to conveniently shut down any criticism of this technology and suppress scientific, political and public debate about it.
And have little doubt that the term ‘corporate backers’ applies in this case: big agribusiness has captured, or at the very least seriously compromised, key policy and regulatory bodies in the US, Europe, India and in fact on a global level (see this regarding control of the WTO).
The concept of ‘sound science’ is being manipulated to deceive and disguise the underlying agenda: GM as a strategy by global agribusiness to control intellectual property and global supply chains.
At the same time that Vilsack and others refer to some high-minded notion of ‘sound science’, they are actively striving to debase it along with its actual practice. The industry carries out inadequate, short-term studies and conceals the data produced by its research under the guise of ‘commercial confidentiality’, while there is enough research that highlights the dangers and potential harmful effects of its products (see this and this). It has also engaged in fakery in India, bribery in Indonesia and smears and intimidation against those who challenge its interests, as well as the distortion and the censorship of science (see this and this).
With its aim to modify organisms to create patents that will secure ever greater control over seeds, markets and the food supply, the GM sector is only concerned with a certain type of science which supports these aims. If science is held in such high regard by these corporations, why in the US don’t they label foods containing GMOs and throw open their studies open to public scrutiny, instead of veiling them with secrecy, restricting independent research on their products or resorting to unsavoury tactics?
If science is held in such high regard by the GM sector, why in the US did policy makers release GM food onto the commercial market without proper long-term tests? The argument used to justify this is GM food is ‘substantially equivalent’ to ordinary food. This is wrong (see this as well). Substantial equivalence is a trade strategy on behalf of the GM sector that neatly serves to remove its GMOs from the type of scrutiny usually applied to potentially toxic or harmful substances.
The reason why no labelling or testing has taken place in the US is not due to ‘sound science’ having been applied but comes down to the power and political influence of the GMO sector and because a sound scientific approach has not been applied.
The sector cannot win the scientific debate (although its PR likes to tell the world it has) so it resorts to co-opting key public bodies or individuals to propagate various falsehoods and deceptions. Part of the deception is based on emotional blackmail: the world needs GMOs to feed the hungry, both now and in the future. This myth has been taken apart (see this, this and this). In fact, in the second of those three links, the organisation GRAIN highlights that GM crops that have been planted thus far have actually contributed to food insecurity.
Research, peer review and vested interests
People’s faith in science is being shaken on many levels, not least because big corporations have secured access to policy makers and governments and are increasingly funding research and setting research agendas.
“As Andrew Neighbour, former administrator at Washington University in St. Louis, who managed the university’s multiyear and multimillion dollar relationship with Monsanto, admits, “There’s no question that industry money comes with strings. It limits what you can do, when you can do it, who it has to be approved by”.” Kamalakar Duvvuru
The reality is Monsanto is funding the research not for the benefit of either the farmer or the public, but for its own commercial interests.
Ultimately, it is not science itself that people have doubts about but science that is pressed into the service of immensely powerful private corporations and regulatory bodies that are effectively co-opted and adopt a ‘don’t look, don’t find approach’ to studies and products (see this and this) or are simply being pressured by the GM industry to come up with findings that it finds acceptable; or in the case of releasing GMOs onto the commercial market in the US, bypassing proper scientific procedures and engaging in doublespeak about ‘substantial equivalence’ then hypocritically calling for ‘sound science’ to inform debates.
We need look no further than the report Seedy Business to see how science is swayed, bought or biased by agribusiness. This is done by, for example, suppressing adverse findings, harming the careers of scientists who produce such findings, controlling the funding that shapes what research is conducted, the lack of independent US-based testing of health and environmental risks of GMOs and tainting scientific reviews of GMOs by conflicts of interest.
This is a point that Claire Robinson develops:

“It’s no surprise that many public scientists and organizations ally themselves with the GMO industry, as they rely heavily on industry funding. GMO companies have representatives on university boards and fund research, buildings and departments. Monsanto has donated at least a million dollars to the University of Florida Foundation. Many US universities that do crop research are beholden to Monsanto. Some academic scientists own GMO patents and are involved in spin-off companies that develop GM crops… Universities have become businesses and scientists have become entrepreneurs and sales people.”

The same interests are moreover undermining the peer-review process itself and the ability of certain scientists to get published in journals – traditionally, the benchmark of scientific credibility. Powerful interests increasingly hold sway over funding, career progression as a scientist, journals and peer review (see this and this, which question the reliability of peer review in the area of GMOs).
Consider what The Lancet Editor in Chief Richard Horton said in 2015:

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

Peer-review is often referred to as the ‘gold standard’ by with which we should measure the validity of knowledge. As a result, non-peer-reviewed articles, reports or research is too often cast aside in favour of a process that, despite what some would like us to believe, is massively distorted by commercial and career-related interests.
As already noted, powerful corporations fund research programmes and institutions and, by implication, provide a mapped-out career progression for individual scientists.
Through funding, they can shape the research agenda: which issues are to be examined and which are not, as well as how research is to be carried out. They are also able to divert funds to certain scientists and can suppress certain findings and bring pressure to bear on institutions and individual scientists. Corporations may also fund or hold sway over journals, as the Seralini affair showed, and peer reviewers themselves often have career or funding interests and have a stake in pushing a certain technology and thus side-lining certain findings or individual academics.
Scientist as priest: uninformed personal opinion masquerades as fact
Scientists do themselves or science no justice when they spout rhetoric in support of GM. Although they may be respected within their own particular discipline and are highly qualified, they seem to think it is therefore legitimate for them to offer uniformed personal opinion on virtually any other issue – and to be regarded as expert sources.
Regardless of the fact that scientists may know about genetic manipulation and the impacts on a particular organism in a laboratory, we should hold them to account when they say that Greenpeace should be held accountable for crimes against humanity because it is resisting GM technology. We should hold them to account when they attack agencies or individuals on the basis that they are acting like totalitarian political regimes that were responsible for the deaths of millions merely because they disagree with GM and offer credible arguments and science to support their claims about the negative impacts of this technology.
Since when did having a PhD in molecular biology or an associated field make someone an expert on political systems or the history of Cambodia, the USSR or some other country, which they are implicitly referring to when making such a ridiculous statement?
Since when did a molecular biologist become an expert in political economy and, more specifically, on trade and development, commodity markets, debt repayment, land speculation, export-oriented oil-dependent agriculture, sustainable agriculture, the dynamics of structural inequality and poverty or any of the other issues that impact on global and regional food security and create food deficit areas?
When they talk about feeding the world and attack critics of GM in the way they do, they want to promote the notion that a bogus and flawed techno quick-fix GMO solution is paramount and will suffice. Or perhaps it is highly convenient for them to overlook all of the above issues, which in reality, not in the fantasy world of the pro-GMO scientist, determine humanity’s ability for feeding itself effectively and properly.
The reality is that this rhetoric is an attempt to shut down any criticism. It is also designed to side-line legitimate analyses of the root causes of hunger and poverty, genuine solutions for productive, sustainable agriculture that can feed humanity and those who argue for them.
Readers might want to peruse this entertaining take-down of pro-GMO activist-scientists who seem to think they are experts on everything. The author states:

“… they are in fact not scientists at all but corporate propagandists. They do nothing but knowingly tell lies, claim knowledge where they have none, and… confuse the nature of every issue. All the while they sanctimoniously insist that anyone who lacks formal scientific credentials is unqualified to speak about GMOs. (This of course… doesn’t apply to corporate executives or pro-GMO politicians and media flacks.) The best proof of this… is that literally none of them… stays within the bounds of their own disciplines when pontificating about GMOs… every credentialed pro-GM activist evidently feels free to spew the most ignorant, idiotic opinions on any subject imaginable, no matter how unqualified they are according to their own credentialist standard.”

Although the flamboyant style is done to maximise impact, the writer is making some key, valid points. For example, see this for a more sober account of Kevin Folta’s utterances on issues beyond his expertise.
And yet, people like Richard John Roberts, Anthony Trewavas, Shanthu Shantharam and others like pro-corporate/GM media mouthpiece Jon Entine (‘The Chemical Industry’s Master Messenger‘) or pro-corporate/GM political mouthpiece like the UK’s Owen ‘Green Blob‘ Paterson seem to think some emotive talk about critics of GM engaging in crimes against humanity, stealing food from the poor, engaging in pseudo-science or some other sound bite designed for public consumption is fine.
If there is one thing these pro-GMO activists are truly expert at is passing off ill-informed rhetoric for expert opinion, while hiding behind a science PhD. This is nothing but spin that is designed to blur the lines between fact and fiction, science and propaganda.
Some people seem quite incredulous that people could doubt science.
Perhaps Robert Fraley should try to convince us why we should not. And while he’s at it, he might want to contemplate why we should take anything he or his company says, does or promotes as ‘science’ given its decades-long history of deceptions, cover ups and criminality.

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Colin Todhunter, Global Research, 2016

Dripping blood, a severed arm, & 67 tons of cash on a CIA plane

Posted by George Freund on February 27, 2016

Posted on February 22, 2016 by Daniel Hopsicker

It starts out like a Jason Bourne movie. There’s a plane. A body. And mountains of cash (67 tons of it) on pallets running the length of a cavernous wide-body cargo plane.

The MD-11 wide-body cargo jet is enroute from Munich to Durban, South Africa carrying what will later be called a “diplomatic shipment” for the South African Reserve Bank.

Initial reports state the plane made either A. an emergency landing at the airport in Harare, the capital of Zimbabwe, as stated in initial reports. Or B. making a routine scheduled refueling stop, according to a press release put out three days later by the owners of the plane.

Always go with the smart money



Blood spotted dripping from US plane as investigators find dead body and suitcases stuffed with millions of rand on boardThe smart money was always on “A.”

The wide-body cargo plane impounded in Harare belongs to “Western Global Airlines,” a Florida airline that is the successor to a long-time CIA subsidiary which itself is no stranger to blood dripping down the fuselage.

“Western Global Airlines” was once known as “Southern Air Transport.” The same management owns it today that brought Southern Air out of bankruptcy back in 2002. So the plane belongs to a CIA contractor.

When Western Global started service, the airline announced, but probably not tongue-in-cheek, that it would “serve the major cargo centers of South America, where they will be flying from Colombia to Miami carrying cut flowers.”



But there’s another reason that’s the real clincher: The crisis PR firm the airline hires to release the press release did PR for the Minnesota dentist who killed “Cecil the Lion.”

No wonders the American electorate in both parties is so worried about national decline.

“Somebody call the cops”



1When the ground crew at Harare International Airport comes out to refuel the plane, they’re horrified to see blood dripping down the fuselage. The plane’s crew dismisses it. Its led by two Americans, who claim they hit a bird earlier. Somebody calls the cops.

“The ground crew refueling the plane alerted local authorities,” the Zimbabwe Herald reported. “Drops of blood were coming from a door, and state security officials stationed at the airport insisted it be opened.”

They make the pilot climb up the fuselage, and open the door leaking blood. What he finds: an adult male. No bird. No feathers.

“For some reason the pilot first put on latex gloves, and then opened the door, which is quite high up the aircraft,” an aviation insider told the Zimbabwe Herald. “And thwack, a fully clothed body of a black man fell out.”

“Thwack?” Okay. But the body only falls half-out, and for the next several hours the partially-severed arm of a dead man drips blood down the fuselage which wells into a puddle on the tarmac while things sort themselves out.

The crew probably now realize that they face a bit of a sticky wicket. A dead body onboard. Cause of death unknown. Name unknown. Nationality unknown.

Senior investigator’s got some big ones



In Harare, at the airport, “state security officials” means Charity Charamba. She recently put away some elephant hunters poaching ivory. Big, hairy looking dudes.

When Senior Investigator Charamba arrives at the airport, and learns of the crew’s attempts to extricate themselves from the dripping blood thing by offering an alternative explanation, she orders the plane impounded, and the crew arrested or—accounts varied—detained. Until a post-mortem can be completed, she rules, the cargo plane will not be allowed to leave the country.

The decision can’t have been easy. Reporters have noted cars from the US embassy going in and out of the airport all day.



This is all big news at the airport in Zimbabwe. It’s the biggest thing to happen there since sixty mercenaries were busted in 2004—including, in absentia, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s son, Sir Mark—on their way to launch a coup in Equatorial Guinea.

Some of the coup plotters, like Simon Mann, did “five years in hell,” as one of them put it, in notorious Zimbabwe prison. Sir Mark, on the other hand, admitted guilt in South Africa, and paid a fine of $500,000.

His picture shows why. He’s got a head that’s too big to fail.

And this is germane because this is very much a story about the one percent.



Both of Western Global’s principals, for example, have owned homes on Miami’s exclusive Fisher Island.

When the brouhaha was all over six days later, the All Africa News Agency headline is “Cargo aircraft released, but questions remain.”

When CIA aviation assets are involved, that’s often the case.

Six Days In February



What’s interesting is what happens between the time the plane is busted, and the moment Zimbabwe police official Charity Charamba releases the plane after the autopsy of the unidentified body showed the cause of death was lack of oxygen, indicating the man was likely a stowaway.

First, there’s the money. The plane’s carrying a lot of it.

The next day, South Africa Reserve Bank spokesman in Durban say the bank is making frantic efforts to ensure that its cargo was released and transported to South Africa immediately.

The MD-11 aircraft was enroute from Munich to Durban, South Africa carrying a “diplomatic shipment” for the South African Reserve Bank, said the bank in its initial press release.

What was initially a “diplomatic shipment “quickly becomes “millions of rands.”



The Associated Press reports the plane is carrying “millions of rands,” the currency of South Africa, on its way to South Africa’s Central Bank. A million rands, the report noted helpfully, was about US $60,000.

“Millions of rands,” the AP story seems to suggest, means roughly several hundred thousand dollars.

Several hundred thousand dollars is an interesting aside., but no big deal, right? Every day, Goldman Sachs executives altogether probably spend more on lunch.

Still, despite the small sum, increasingly elaborate explanations are issued from the South African Reserve Bank (SARB). On the third day after the jet was impounded the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) issued a statement admitting the plane was carrying more than a few million rand.



“The aircraft currently detained at Harare Airport is carrying a consignment of South African banknotes that was produced overseas as part of the SARB’s annual production plan, says their press release the next day.

“The bulk of the annual production of banknotes is done locally in South Africa and a small percentage is done offshore as part of the contingency plans of the SARB.”

The next day, there’s more:

“The SARB, in the normal course of its currency operations, adheres to sound business practices and has business contingency planning arrangements in place to secure a continued supply of banknotes to the economy. These arrangements are put in place to mitigate any major disruption in the domestic banknote operations.”

Why is mention of any of this necessary? Had someone asked for an explanation for the cash, and found the answer unavailing?



Stacked on pallets in the cargo hold of Western Global Airlines MD-11 wide-body cargo plane is 57 tons of South African currency.

By the time the plane is released, that figures will have increased by another 10 tons.

In Zimbabwe, a country flirting with bankruptcy, chaos and starvation, it must have appeared as if manna had just rained from the skies.

Zimbabwe’s Big WTF moment



But what was the plane doing landing in Harare in the first place? Sources reported the US freight company had never landed in Harare before. The US pilot was unknown in aviation circles in Zimbabwe.

“The US pilot was “vague” about why he needed permission to land in Harare. The transcripts show three requests and none are clear. But he was flying low and so probably did therefore use a lot of fuel,” law enforcement sources said.

The Herald reported “A Western Global Airlines MD-11 enroute from Germany to South Africa performed an emergency landing in Harare (Zimbabwe) after being denied landing in Maputo (Mozambique).”

Senior Police Official Charamba said, “The plane tried to land in Mozambique, ‘because of technical problems’ but was refused permission to land. Only then did it divert to Harare.”

She said the plane’s crew failed to contact their company so they could land at King Tshaka Airport in Durban.

Aviation sources on the Internet were puzzled. From Munich to Maputo, then backtrack to Harare instead of continuing on to Durban? (See map.)

Speculation in aviation circles in Harare is that the US crew was trying to dump the body over Mozambique but could not open the ENA door from inside the aircraft because of cabin pressure so landed to refuel in Harare and somehow dump the body after taking off again.

Earliest lie in a story about the CIA?

Take the coverage in the New York Times. Like a UFC fighter looking for the record for the earliest knockout, the paper lies in its very first sentence:



Since The Times was shameless enough to lie in the lead, it should come as no surprise that they close with a pitch for those go-getters and real humanitarians at “Western Global Airlines.”

“Western Global Airlines, which is privately owned, advertises itself as one of the world’s fastest-growing low-cost air cargo companies, with clients around the world. It flew dozens of humanitarian missions to West Africa during the height of the Ebola crisis.”

Isn’t that getting a little old?

Predatory rich, sure. But patriotic.



“Western Global Airlines” is just the latest non-descript moniker (if it’s ‘Western, can it also be Global?’] slapped onto a cargo carrier that for decades has been hauling cargo for the CIA. The same management has managed to stay aboard through a bewildering number of name changes.



Western Global is two men: James K. Neff and Randall P. Fiorenza.

Let’s let the company’s own press tell part of the tale. “Southern Air exits bankruptcy” reported finance and business magazine The Deal on August 20, 2003.

“Southern Air Inc., the successor to CIA-backed Southern Air Transport, has emerged from Chapter 11 as a scaled-down cargo carrier. Founder and CEO James Neff filed a $2.5 million claim for the only major secured debt.”

“The company transports freight for foreign carriers like Korean Air and Lufthansa, and has also done some work for the U.S. government, particularly the Department of Defense.”

Older Americans may be a bit harder to fool. They remember General Richard Secord, who owned Southern Air during the Iran Contra Scandal, when its C-123 and C-130 military cargo planes were flying weapons down to Central America from Mena Arkansas, and returning with cocaine.



Remember Barry Seal? “El Gordo?” In the upcoming “Mena” Seal is played by Tom Cruise, who looks like Seal might look… if he’d just been released after a year of starvation in a prison in North Korea.

“Cecil,We Hardly Knew Ye”



While this story starts like a covert war thriller, it unfortunately ends on a note all too familiar to an American electorate uneasy at what it perceive to be our national decline.

On the second day after CIA-affiliated Western Global Airlines’ wide-body cargo jet was impounded in Zimbabwe, they hired a crisis public relations firm.

Austin & Associates put out a release denying the plane’s detour had been an emergency. The plane had made ‘a routine fuel stop’ in Zimbabwe. Said the release: “During a routine fuel stop in Zimbabwe, a body was found in the lower compartment. The body is presumed to be a stowaway who may have entered the airplane during a previous stop. The situation is currently under review.”



Incredibly, they chose the company that did crisis PR for a Minnesota dentist who killed Cecil the Lion during a hunting trip in Zimbabwe, an effort that hadn’t worked out particularly well.

“On Tuesday, the world lost its collective mind – whatever is left of it, anyway – when media discovered the identity of the killer of a Zimbabwean named Cecil the Lion,” said the industry website, Everything PR. “The man who shot Cecil is a dentist who paid $55,000 for a big game permit, then hired a guide to lure Cecil out from a protected area. For his craven behavior he was vilified all around the world. Lets hope Western Global Airlines, the sleazy airline with bleeding bodies, dead people and tons of cash fares no better.”

Cecil The Lion fans hounded the dentist—who wasn’t even with the CIA—for months.

http://www.madcowprod.com/2016/02/22/dripping-blood-a-severed-arm-67-tons-of-cash-on-a-cia-plane/