Ishtarmuz’s: Why Monsanto, An Ex-Chemical Company, Now A BioTech Company, Is Evil #FYW

Why Monsanto, An Ex-Chemical Company, Now A BioTech Company, Is Evil

by Ishtarmuz

The reasoning involved in the nature of the evil of an “ex-chemical company” like Monsanto is not rocket science.  We only have to consider a few basic principles.  Once they are accepted as true, the rest follows.  The first principle is that life processes and systems are complex. They are the most complex systems known.  This makes all developing life sciences, especially those involved with the dysfunction and repair of life processes, as much an art as a science.  Those that would  create a product must also be able to maintain and repair it, not only the product, but also any consequence of its use. So the practice of  ’making’  or modifying of  life must equate to the healing of life in its methods in order for it to be a moral enterprise. Those that would improve life must be able to heal it when things go awry. To confuse a practicing art with an applied science is to engage in fraud and quackery of the most unethical and dangerous sort.

Before the chemical companies like Monsanto became biotechnology companies they only dealt with chemicals that interacted with life processes.  Repeatedly chemical companies like Monsanto produced new chemicals (thousands daily now)  that  they had no way of knowing what the full long term effects would be on living systems.  They were released without sufficient study. I know this because the needed pre-release experiments would have involved the study of such long term high level multivariate interactions that it would have been impossible to do these experiments in principle (though some have theorized it was possible albeit too costly to perform such experiments in practice).  In actual practice the environment itself was the testing ground, and the lawyers and the public relations propagandists delayed the inevitable lawsuits until a profit could be turned, a subsidiary company divested and the inevitable move to another product accomplished.  This is the model set by Monsanto over its hundred year history. Just think asbestos, saccharin, PCBs, DDT,  Agent Orange (dioxin), BGH, aspartamefluoride, mercuryGMOs, monocultureNazis, nuclear waste & News Corporation when you consider Monsanto.  You might add morgellons syndrome and mass bee death to that list, but that seems premature without more evidence. Yet the evidence mounts, for the bees, for the morgellons, and for the cover-up. In some real sense this all appears to be a final Solutia scenario for mankind and an awesome business plan.

Let us not forget the biggest piece to this warped pattern of corporate amorality, that of government contracts and mandates. The growth and cover of these corporate giants was through government contracts. Wars and  rumors  of war provide unlimited funding for research and development and also unlimited cover from equitable prosecution under sovereign immunity. They did it because the government asked them to do it and the  government had to do it because they were at war.  This is the real secret behind the congressional military industrial complex.

This brings us to yet another startling piece of the puzzle.  When you are at war you also have the patriotic duty to work for less under less safe conditions and companies don’t have time to worry about the consequences of this to their workers, let alone the general population.  Pollution standards can be lowered in the name of patriotism with the added benefit that your product can be freely marketed through government propaganda.

It is one thing when these companies are given a hand up by providing materials for war; it is yet another thing when these chemical products are changed to civilian uses, but retain the same standards and agreements as were used for the military at war. This was root of the old style fascism, and its more modern guise of corporatism.

It was bad enough when it was just harmful chemicals disbursed by Monsanto, now permanently lodged in every living thing on earth, that were the product of chemical reactions, but now they want to exponentiate the level of their catastrophic failure to the level of biological reactions.  Monsanto wants you to believe that they are both competent and moral enough to patent life and license its product in combination with the same subsidiary chemicals that they released to the detriment of billions around the globe. If they couldn’t consider the interaction of molecules, in principle, then even the lowest forms of life must still be beyond their reach. When further understanding of epigenetics reveals subtle negative effects, none of the crop scientists will be able to hide behind ignorance, given the warnings of the clear and present danger. So they need hide the facts as long as possible and hope no own notices until they turn a profit. Can competition regulate such abuses? Like Spain during colonial exploration, if you can’t kill the natives, marry them.  The model works so well everyone has copied it.

The truth of this will not be easy to harvest given that it is first mowed, then raked and then key Monsanto figures are baled and placed in the government barn later to be fed to the company herd and their seeds used to replant the Monsanto fields, all using huge lobbying machines. It makes me shudder to consider the human impact and the impact on higher order systems of this agro-political business growth model. Consider such a company having complete control over the world food supply, or having a monopoly on life itself.  Also consider the faux science needed to convince people that GMOs are safe compared with Monsanto’s history of lies. God forbid that the next tool of war becomes food. Maybe war will become obsolete given that corporations can rape and pillage the world with impunity as they brainwash the remaining vestiges of the domesticated (mute) populis. Perhaps this is a bit overstated. I wouldn’t want anyone to dismiss this as just another conspiracy theory. Every aficionado of the subject knows that there is always just one conspiracy and everything ties into it. However, you might want to see how a real conspiracy theory against Monsanto would look by clicking here.

The only morality a corporation like Monsanto has is its profit.  Death is the golden skeleton that is the cost of such companies doing business.  Such is the nature of evil. I am not saying profit is evil, but those that profit from death are manifesting evil incarnate.

The linkage I make of biotech with medicine is no shallow metaphor.  The ethical credo of these companies must have in it a ‘do no harm‘ provision. The researchers in these companies also must follow the tripartite role model of the physician as a clinician, public health expert and scientist. To date all we have seen is Doctor Josef Mengele when it comes to Monsanto and its ilk. The even scarier part of all this that they have formed their own triangle of trade by becoming Biotech companies by way of pharmaceutical companies.  So they get to treat the very illnesses they have created, but no one is going to believe this until the myths of their pseudoscience are debunked.

The governments around the world are considering going after Monsanto based on antitrust laws.  If this effort were real, then they would be going after companies like Monsanto under RICO-like statutes.  By doing so they would not just be forcing them to APPEAR to break up the monopolies by divesting into interlocking directorates, but they would be empowered to place direct government oversight over the corporations continually engaging in illegal and immoral activity.

One of my readers of my original post on this subject had a point. I was painting with too broad a brush and I had no plan or alternative. I just have a hard time believing that any of the Chemical Companies were or are in any way moral. However, since I had only collected history on Monsanto, I rewrote this article as Monsanto specific. Yet, I don’t see them as the only creators of Frankenstein. They are just a major player.

He wrote:

Posted by productionengineer on January 5, 2010 at 11:16 pm

Now that you’ve defined the problem, two questions emerge: a)What do you propose be done from here forward? and b)What alternative would you have preferred in the past?

You posit that that “chemical companies” produced all sorts of new chemicals without sufficient study, since truly sufficient study would be impossible. Are you suggesting then that none of these developments should have been allowed in the first place? If so, where are you drawing the line between “chemical companies” and “manufacturing companies (non-chemical)”? No, the line is NOT obvious. Polytetrafluoroethylene, computer chips, Gatorade, Cheerios, sewage treatment – which is on the “good” or “bad” side of the line.

Have some companies performed unconscionably? I’d be a fool to deny that. Do blanket statements across all industries do much outside of the talk show circuit? Not really.

My issue here is mostly not that they do damage, the issue is that they lie about it, cover it up and set it up to do it again and again and again. Risk is essential, yes, otherwise we never get anywhere. The problem is that we need to be informed participants in the risk, not guinea pigs.

The other lesson here is that you can be too big. Once you are big enough to control governments, then governments instituted for, by and of the people  must control you. There is little choice here. Either corporations submit to ethical control or we all remain slaves to the corporation.

As for the obvious solutions, well the dirty fucking hippies had it right all along. Small systems with self sustaining technology would work. This is exactly what the giant monopolies are fighting tooth and nail to debunk. Hopefully in the last forty years we have learned enough to not let the bastards grind us down this time. Illegitimi non carborundum or more correctly operor retineo non forensis liberi attero vos.

If you think these ideas are hyperbole and that their exists peer reviewed research that contradicts what I am saying, then you have not read the Bruce Stutz article on why such true peer reviewed research has yet to be done.

For a concise history of Monsanto, check out the idiot cycle and maybe some of you might want to crawl through a hole in the fence and learn how to avoid GMO foods.

You also might like: After Monsanto’s GM Meltdown in the USA or look at the next mad cow disease.

If you think that Monsanto might just be an isolated case, look at its mirror Dupont and how they are working in concert with Monsanto and the government.

If you feel helpless in the face of all this, then consider bolo’bolo or a more artistic approach.

For some more history look here and here and here and here and here.

The Death Merchants

The World According to Monsanto – Full Documentary
Follow my videos on vodpod

O Mundo Segundo a Monsanto #ogm #gmo

1st collector for O Mundo Segundo a Monsanto
Follow my videos on vodpod

Le Monde Selon Monsanto. #gmo #ogm

1st collector for Le Monde Selon Monsanto. #gmo #ogm
Follow my videos on vodpod

You Don’t Fool Mother Nature

36 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Madeleine Love on January 17, 2010 at 9:58 am

    We were wondering why a company that has been convicted of the heinous crime of “Outrage”, as Monsanto was in Feb 2002 over PCB dumping, is actually allowed to continue trading.

    “Under Alabama law, the rare claim of outrage typically requires conduct “so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54914-2002Feb22?language=printer

    Why was Monsanto not simply broken up, and the perpetrators of the crime taken to court?

    Reply

    • I caught your open letter to Tony Burke. It was excellent. I added it as a link. Don’t you find it interesting that the global warming deniers are in the same camp as the GMO boosters? So much for the independence of science. Or more correctly, so much for science as science.

      Reply

    • I also reread your reply and decided that the article needed a reason why this company still exists. I am sure you already knew the reason. Thanks for that important catch. I added two paragraphs on the congressional military industrial complex which fosters (if not initiated) the pattern of corporate immorality described.

      Reply

  2. Posted by Madeleine Love on January 19, 2010 at 8:49 am

    I just looked up RICO. I was wondering how important Monsanto was from an export point of view – bringing in cash.

    Reply

    • The company puts billions into the economy each year, but so would any management that replaced a restructured Monsanto. One with real rules and real monitoring. Under a RICO ruling the government can make the company transparent and put in its own oversight.

      So first look at how they got to make, then export their GMO products. They have a long history of doctored experimental results. The also have a history of highly placed government officials that can push their agenda and turn a blind eye as seen here http://www.nndb.com/company/163/000049016/ They also have a history of lying in court and having key legal figures highly placed as well.

      So they wrote their own rules again, probably cooked the data to support their position again and probably covered their tracks in court as they always have done. This puts them clearly in realm of potentially facing international charges of genocide for current and past practices. Each country has a piece of the story. So it appears the Hague might be a place to go with this. Especially since multiple governments and their victimized citizens around the world are involved.

      The antitrust lawsuit is smoke and mirrors. They already have interlocking directorates and sweetheart deals with their “competitors” and “divestitures.” They also have strong ties to the media which are quite willing to cover for them. This in itself is a form a RICO.

      Although, I may have missed your question altogether :)

      Reply

      • Posted by Madeleine Love on January 20, 2010 at 11:27 am

        You answered the question. Thanks.

        “Strong ties to the media.”

        MADGE put out 18 media releases last year and not one picked up. We wondered if we were doing things wrong – should we be chummier with journalists, or should we become “more snappy” writers… what was wrong with how we were putting out releases? And then there was a reason for me to put out a release on a different issue – every media outlet in the country came running – the news went around Australia on the wire – there was radio, television, the works. When I put out another release on GM, it was completely ignored, as were all that followed. I began to investigate media ownership etc.

        We put out a release in January, and although one should NEVER EVER criticise the media if one wants publicity, we’d decided to toss in the media as an avenue of mass communication, and gave a brief reference to GM being a beneficiary of media systems.

        A journalist contacted me, furious: “Explain the media bit to me, your people seem to be very intent on including the media in your conspiracy theories, and yet you want us to continue providing coverage on media releases like this?”

        It was easy to reply to… “If ‘you’ in your sentence refers to MADGE Australia, you [journalist] have never provided us coverage.” “We put out 18 media releases last year to no response, and many more the year before, to no response. Yet we know that the releases are read, aka your response.

        After a couple of exchanges I rang him up. We talked civily. He said he was absolutely open and completely unbiased. I sent him a lot of material on a rang of topics on GM (a lot of it easy-read), we’ve chatted on the phone another time, and he hasn’t published anything, unless I’ve missed it. In Victoria where I live, Murdoch owns the biggest paper. The second biggest [Fairfax] merged with the Rural Press a few years ago.

        After this exchange we got some media advice. The advisor (a former journalist) was adamant that there was very little top down pressure to suppress stories – she said it was just lazy journalism. And yet…

      • And yet… his CYA attitude reflected not just his complacency, but the very conspiracy that he says doesn’t exist. Is that what you were about to say? Nietzche would have used — :)

      • Posted by Madeleine Love on January 21, 2010 at 5:21 am

        Since we had great trust in the skill and care of the advisor, and knew her personal rejection of GM, we had to rationalise the media advisor’s view of reality vs what appeared to be the obvious. For a journo who isn’t really sure on the topic, would it be sufficient for an editor to express a bit of concern over whether she understands enough of the tricky GM topic to write and publish an article? – would that be sufficient for most journo’s to back off on the basis of self-insecurity, perhaps not then recognising the top down influence? Surely it is a topic that would greatly interest the public and sell a paper and ignite a lot of letter-writing. Surely an enthusiastic editor could say to a journo – “Get out there and learn about it and write us an article – I know it’s tricky, do your best – these MADGE people keep sending us releases – try them – and ring Monsanto “.

        – What doesn’t kill makes us stronger?

      • Oh, yes, and they are not above blackmail: http://tinyurl.com/ybcom6d

  3. What doesn’t kill can make you stronger, if it doesn’t kill your will to resist as in the case of Winston Smith. However, I think the more apt comparison to your point might be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/science/22creature.html What doesn’t kill you can make you deadly. The lesson is to take the poisonous attitude, incorporate it and then use it against them. As I say in the article, they could not have known the results of what they did in principle. So since they cannot know, how can anyone reasonably expect a nonspecialist to know. So ignorance is a reason to proceed in the effort to stop them.

    Reply

  4. Posted by nakedmaninthetree on February 3, 2010 at 11:35 am

    It’s always good to see more entries like this raising awareness. Thanks for linking me!

    Reply

  5. [...] these critics have pointed out the facts that the actions of this company have been consistently evil.  They are evil actions because they have no idea what the effects of what they sell will have on [...]

    Reply

  6. [...] barons, where you were allowed to do just about anything to earn a buck? Maybe he should have Monsanto commercials? But more importantly she misses the point again, the real end of the LA Times article [...]

    Reply

  7. [...] is needed.   To be continued….  [note: this is satire…for my real opinion of this evil click here. [...]

    Reply

  8. Posted by Taro on May 15, 2010 at 1:40 am

    You know, that first paragraph is a masterpiece.

    Reply

  9. [...] say this is to be totally blind to the history of this company, those whistle blowers that have say the CEOs of Monsanto are front men and that [...]

    Reply

  10. [...] wants to come here and emulate us, as slaves may come to love their masters, and that a good business model like Monsanto’s will be copied around the world, have no place in a civil [...]

    Reply

  11. [...] won the battle.  Now what do you want?  Full capitulation? Murdoch’s business model, like Monsanto’s, is model based on the Borg.  Resistance is futile. You will be [...]

    Reply

  12. Posted by Veronica on February 24, 2011 at 8:51 pm

    I agree 100% about the evilness of Monsanto — but why did you slander St Germain in your satire? That was really tacky.

    Reply

  13. Very nice post, I surely love this site, keep it up.

    Reply

  14. [...] The reasoning involved in the nature of the evil of a chemical company like Monsanto is not rocket science. We only have to consider a few basic principles. Once they are accepted as true, the rest follows. The first principle is that life processes and systems are complex. They are the most complex systems known. This makes all developing life sciences, especially those involved with the dysfunction and repair of life processes, as much an art as a science. Those that would a create a product must also be able to maintain and repair it, not only the product, but also any consequence of its use. So the practice of ’making’ or modifying of life must equate to the healing of life in its methods in order for it to be a moral enterprise. Those that would improve life must be able to heal it when things go awry. To confuse a practicing art with an applied science is to engage in fraud and quackery of the most unethical and dangerous sort. [more] [...]

    Reply

  15. [...] Ishtarmuz’s: Why Monsanto, An Ex-Chemical Company, Now A BioTech(NaturalNews) Who and what is the Monsanto Corporation? The Monsanto Chemical Company has a diverse and interesting history. Monsanto is the leading chemical producer for agricultural products. They manufacture the best-selling herbicide RoundUp (as well as other herbicides). [...]

    Reply

  16. Your Article about Ishtarmuz’s: Why Monsanto, An Ex-Chemical Company, Now A BioTech Company, Is Evil Ishtarmuz's Blog Rattling fantastic visual appeal on this web site , I’d rate it 10 10.

    Reply

  17. Your Article about Ishtarmuz’s: Why Monsanto, An Ex-Chemical Company, Now A BioTech Company, Is Evil Ishtarmuz's Blog Very superb visual appeal on this web site , I’d value it 10 10.

    Reply

  18. [...] The reasoning involved in the nature of the evil of a chemical company like Monsanto is not rocket science.  We only have to consider a few basic principles.  Once they are accepted as true, the rest follows.  The first principle is that life processes and systems are complex. They are the most complex systems known.  This makes all developing life sciences, especially those involved with the dysfunction and repair of life processes, as much an art as a science.  Those that would  create a product must also be able to maintain and repair it, not only the product, but also any consequence of its use. So the practice of  ’making’  or modifying of  life must equate to the healing of life in its methods in order for it to be a moral enterprise. Those that would improve life must be able to heal it when things go awry. To confuse a practicing art with an applied science is to engage in fraud and quackery of the most unethical and dangerous sort. [more] [...]

    Reply

  19. Best Links 2011…

    Great post. I was checking continuously this blog and I am impressed! Extremely useful information specially the last part :) I care for such info a lot. I was seeking this certain information for a very long time. Thank you and good luck….

    Reply

  20. Pretty great post.

    Reply

  21. This is exactly the content I desired. Thank you writing this write-up.

    Reply

  22. I like your article. Perfect. Just what I was searching for!

    Reply

  23. I agree, excellent post.

    Reply

  24. Very decent write-up.

    Reply

  25. Quite great article.

    Reply

  26. […] Ishtarmuz’s: Why Monsanto, An Ex-Chemical Company, Now A BioTech Company, Is Evil #FYW | Ishtarmuz…. […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,268 other followers

%d bloggers like this: