Posts Tagged ‘evil empire’

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
Vodpod videos no longer available.

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

O Mundo Segundo a Monsanto #ogm #gmo

Vodpod videos no longer available.

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

Le Monde Selon Monsanto. #gmo #ogm

Vodpod videos no longer available.

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

You Don’t Fool Mother Nature

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Ishtarmuz’s Rebuttal to : Glenn Beck advertises gold and who really cares?


From :Glenn Beck advertises gold and who really cares? published on December 9, 4:23 PM byGlenn Beck ExaminerRobbin Swad in Examiner.com

Robbin Swad starts the article this way:

The Glenn Beck buzz the past few days has been the topic of … gold advertisements. Fueled mostly by … the Beck-bashing site Media Matters, the fact that Glenn Beck and his program endorse gold purchasing is now a controversy, sort of.

Yes, it is a real controversy, just not the one that people are considering.  I do think that Glenn Beck believes what he is saying, as delusional as it may appear to be to any independent observer. I also think he is unethical about how he conveys what he believes.   This is demonstrated by how he delivers his message.  He presents what he believes in the manner of a carnival barker using whatever means necessary to hold the attention of his audience.  By so doing he often helps create the situations that are the subject of his commentary. I am reminded of two Wormwood quotes from The Screwtape Letters, “Tortured fear and stupid confidence are both desirable states of mind” and “Suspicion often creates what it suspects.”  It is not so easy to take some good ideas and twist them to follow Dave Bartley’s Law: Be suspicious of anything that works perfectly — it’s probably because two errors are canceling each other out.

If I make myself the beneficiary of life insurance I have on my employees, crowd them in a theater with my competition, then cry fire in the theater, not only have I moved beyond the bounds of free speech, but I have moved beyond the bounds of commercial speech as well. In a like manner, Glenn Beck attracts sponsors which support his half baked millennial conspiracy message because it is “good for business.”  By investing in, and until recently getting paid by, those that support the fear message and encouraging others to do likewise, he has a stake in continuing to exaggerate his message of fear whether or not it has any basis in reality.  He endangers all concerned by his unethical fire cry. Maybe we should be looking for dead peasants?

… Monday … Glenn Beck began his  exposé on … the “convicted felon”– the other White House gate-crasher. … Robert Creamer… author of “Listen to Your Mother: Stand Up Straight! How Progressives Can Win.”suggested … Obama … following Robert Creamer’s plan … “trying to stir up emotion, revulsion and fear to peddle this massive government takeover.”

I have said many times about Right wing commentators, that they have no insight into their unconscious biases which lead them to project onto the Left exactly what they are doing as they project it. Glenn Beck is clearly following Creamer’s advice with his every sentence. Sadly it often works for him with the help of many others.  Just consider Goldline‘s bottom line. The sadder thing is that he is protected as a commentator like the psychic who puts up the sign “for entertainment only” and like the many Glenn Beck satires that mimic his form and method perfectly, but can freely add any random content they please. Gold will do quite nicely.

… one day following … report by Glenn Beck on Robert Creamer,…the internet … titles like “Glenn Beck’s Gold Gate problem” and Glenn Beck’s Gold Endorsement Goes Too Far For Fox” … attacking Beck’s gold advertising…

Yes, and the articles go on and on from Salon.com to Businessinsider.com to bloggrunner.com to wikio.co.uk/news to CBS to ABC to MediaMatters to Mother Jones.

The issue here is not whether the man has the right to make money.  The issue is whether he has the right to make money by any means possible. We can see he is not restricted to telling truth as an entertainer and commentator.  The fact is that FOX NEWS has won it’s misinformation lawsuit and Glenn Beck could even be considered a reporter and legally lie like the rest of the Fox disinformation staff. So can he tell any lie to undercut his competitors and profit from the growth of his supporters with his lies or delusions? All of his accessories would tend to agree that he indeed can do this to their apparent mutual gain, but like any such scheme, politely called a bubble, it will grow until it bursts.

As for the propinquity of this gold issue coming up after the party-felon issue suggesting a causal relationship in this pissing contest, this is quite  ludicrous. Correlation is not causation. Association is not proof. Maybe the Left wing blogs should have talked about all the Right wing felons working  for the News Corporation the day after the event. Now that might have been causal. I have been blogging about the FOX geeks like Glenn Beck for some time, but many have been doing it since it’s inception.

… one finds that liberal/ progressive critics like News Hounds, Air-America and especially Media Matters are among the ones crying foul the loudest. [links added by me]

Obviously not loud enough for her to hear that she contradicted herself.  Either the gold gate issue just came up after the the party-felon issue or it has been something that has been talked about right along. Whereas, the strong articles like the LA Times article cited by the Glenn Beck Examiner below clearly showed that his monetary advice to individuals may not be sound economic advice.

That is a pretty loud yell by the LA Times that Ms. Swad just sidesteps.  Moreover, Robinn Swad seems to be miss the whole point here.  Glenn Beck’s viewers are free to make their own decisions, but if he backs his advice with huckster tricks that he profits from, can we really say this is ethical? And does the disappearing ‘paid spokesman‘ from the Goldline website make it any more right or just more suspect?

Nonetheless, concerning Glenn Beck’s alleged conflict of interest, Politico conducted an in-depth look at Glenn Beck’s endorsement of gold… various … hosts … advertise gold-buying, such as Bill O’Reilly, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, Fred Thompson G. Gordon Liddy, and Dennis Miller,

From the “Right-wing talkers go for the gold” at Politico.com

“But Beck has recently come under fire from liberals alleging a conflict of interest. …The Democrat-aligned watchdog group Media Matters asserted the segment was a ‘reward’ to his gold advertisers, while liberal MSNBC host Keith Olbermann charged that Beck is ‘in it for the money. He keeps trying to sell people gold, largely because a disproportionate number of his advertisers sell people gold.’ “

The glaring statement here is that if you traffic in fear, then you traffic in gold.  Also, by the way; diamonds, insurance, lawyers and sex seem to be a good bet too.

A look beyond the far-left attacks … seem to defuse the controversy– if ever there was one.

From the article entitled “Glenn Beck’s Gold Gate” on Yahoo news:

“However, Beck, who responded to the conflict of interest allegations on his show last Thursday by saying ‘So I shouldn’t make money?’, isn’t devoid of defenders on the matter. Business Insider called the controversy ‘nonsense,’ adding ‘there’s nothing wrong with a commentator advising viewers, listeners, or readers to take positions that he is taking himself. In fact, you might wonder about the motivations of someone giving financial advice he wouldn’t take himself.’ In Beck’s defense, some have also noted that the price of gold has spiked since he started at Fox News.”

Again this misses the point. The whole idea of the sarcastic statement of  ‘So I shouldn’t make money’ is that it is value neutral.  The meaning and its truth are in the ear of the listener. Yes, you should make money, but then so should the mafia don that just wants a taste. The objection is off whose back you are making it. If the Right is selectively attending only to what it sees as destroying their worldview, and advertisers that profit from that view flock to them, then we are left only with a self fulfilling prophecy which they are uniquely placed with insider information to manipulate and  profit from the disinformation they promulgate.

Here’s more from the article at Business Insider entitled “Glenn Beck’s Gold Endorsement Goes Too Far For Fox”

“We’re not shocked that Beck’s role as an investor in gold himself and an advocate of others buying gold is drawning [sic] critiques from nattering nabobs of journalistic ‘ethics.’  …The presumption that taking money to endorse something corrupts the endorsement is basically a bias against commerce. Does anyone really think that Beck is secretly skeptical about gold going up and only advocating buying gold because Goldline is paying him? We didn’t think so. It’s far more likely that Beck is bullish on gold and found a way to make some extra money on that position.”

Another case of selective attention.  Yes, the thrust of the Business Insider was to question the questioners of Glenn Beck’s ethics, but the idea that it was the ‘journalist ethic’  breach of not disclosing that you are invested in what you are reporting about is a red herring.  Glenn Beck is not a journalist, nor is he a qualified financial adviser. To even attempt to give the appearance of being a financial adviser when you are unqualified to give that advice and to not disclose your financial holdings is unethical.  Glenn Beck is a professional comedian, entertainer and commentator.  For him to put on the guise of any other profession without a clear  disclaimer and disclosure is unconscionable. Unfortunately, the FOX lawyers have made sure Glenn Beck “noncommercial” speech is not illegal.  It is yet to be heard whether such commercial speech is illegal.

The article from The LA Timesalso refers to Fox’s take on Glenn Beck advertising gold:

“Joel Cheatwood, senior vice president for development at Fox, told DailyFinance’s Jeff Bercovici that Fox had granted Beck an exception to its rule prohibiting news personalities from making paid product endorsements. Cheatwood said the gold pitches were allowed to continue because when Beck moved to the cable station this year, he already had an “established, burgeoning radio business” that Fox didn’t want to interrupt.”

The LA Times concluded … Beck’s audiences… will “judge” just how much they really care.

“Ultimately, the audience will decide whether Beck pushes gold out of real knowledge and commitment and not, at least in part, to pad his personal bank account.”

Glenn Beck Examiner wonders … [if Beck is] pursuing free-market capitalism and exercising one’s individual right to earn a profit?

I wonder if  Robinn Swad really wants to go back to the days of the robber 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 suggested that Glenn Beck should hope that he is not judged by the same standards he judges others.  Judging from the early returns, I suspect the tide will turn on him soon.

If you see a Goldline ad under this article be sure to click on it and tell them what you think of the golden calf.

%d bloggers like this: