TMR 062 : Transcript : F. William Engdahl : Seeds of Destruction - The GMO Hidden Agenda

FWilliamEngdahl"If you control oil, you control nations. If you control food, you control people." (attributed to Henry Kissinger)

Author, professor and geopolitical analyst F. William Engdahl joins us to discuss his extremely important book Seeds of Destruction : The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation. Delving into the history of globalist agribusiness, with its astonishing connections to US imperialism and even eugenics, William Engdahl delivers an almost prophetic warning. Not only do we have grounds to fear that well-connected and powerful elites are manipulating GM science and industry in order to gain control over the world's food supply, it may well be that they are also motivated by a hidden ideology: human population reduction.

Original Audio  music148    Interview Notes  Open-folder-info48    Print Transcript  printer-blue48                                                                    Transcribed by Michael Cornelius

Julian Charles: Today is the 26th of February, 2014, and it is my great pleasure to be speaking to the geopolitical analyst William Engdahl. Mr. Engdahl is an author, professor and lecturer who has been studying the interactions between international power politics, economics and geography for more than thirty SvalbardDrawing1years. His most recent work centres in the analysis of the power of the United States as a new kind of empire builder, not just focused on military power, but also on the control of money and vital resources, such as food and energy. He is the author of several important books on geopolitics, which have been translated into over a dozen languages, one of which I think is extremely important, Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, which will be the focus of our conversation today. Mr. Engdahl, thank you ever so much indeed for joining us on The Mind Renewed.

 

William Engdahl: Thank you for having me.

 

JC: I was alerted to your work in this area through a listener who drew my attention to a lecture that you gave at the Vatican on the subject of the hidden agenda behind genetic engineering, and that prompted me to read your book, which I think is very important, detailed and very well-researched. In this book, you document how various well-connected, powerful elites, often with a disturbing history of involvement in eugenics, have financed and controlled the development of global agribusiness, including the so-called “Green Revolution” in the middle of the 20th Century, and the genetic revolution of more recent years. And you give many reasons why these historic connections between eugenics, control of the food supply, and now genetic engineering should be of great concern to us. So, could I start by asking you to give us a brief overview of the argument of your book, and perhaps give us some definitions of things like eugenics, agribusiness and genetic engineering?

 

WE: The idea for the book came from work that I had done beginning in the ‘80s when the GATT Uruguay Round of trade talks took up the question of trade and agriculture products for the first time. As an economist and an editor working in Europe at the time, I spent quite a lot of time going to Brussels interviewing farmer organisations, and so forth, and from there I built a picture of the cartel of corporations that even back in the ‘80s were controlling European as well as American - North American - food trade, and especially soybeans, corn, and the basic staples for animal feed. So, when the subject of genetic manipulation began to become a hot debate topic in Europe in the late '90s (around 1999 or 2000), I began looking at it more closely, and realised that I was onto something far different from what organisations like Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth were complaining about in terms of patenting of seeds and so forth. I came to a realisation when I saw the name of the family and the foundations that created the genetic manipulation of organisms project, and pushed it through the U.S. Supreme Court to make it patentable, and pushed it through the Bush, Sr. White House in 1992. I realised that the Rockefeller family was at the heart of this.

I had done research on the Rockefellers going back to the 1970s, and on the oil shocks where Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, and the other Seven Sisters at that time had cartelised the world oil trade (that’s no surprise to anybody), and how they used the power over oil to manipulate entire governments, economic flows and so forth, with the oil shocks of the 1970s. So, when I saw the name Rockefeller tied to genetic manipulation, I knew this wasn’t a humanitarian project. I knew this wasn’t about world hunger, because I knew a little bit about the Rockefeller 'animal', let's call it. The more I researched, that gave me an impulse that I hadn’t seen in any literature or studies of GMO up to that time (and still not, frankly, in any major way).

As I researched, I realised more and more that the eugenics movement - of which the Rockefellers and families like DuPont, Colgate, Carnegie and so forth were major funders, going back to the 1920s and even earlier - that the eugenics movement actually transformed itself after the late '40s when the horrendous stories about Auschwitz gas ovens and genocide in the Nazi period became public knowledge. And the head of the Eugenics Society, who was a Rockefeller protégé, got up and announced at an annual meeting of the American Eugenics Society in the late '40s: “From today on, the new name of eugenics is genetics.” Ever since 1938, when the Rockefeller Foundation created a fraudulent discipline of biology (this may shock a lot of your listeners), microbiology, or molecular biology, has been the hegemonic area of biology. And it's sad, because it’s wrong; it’s simply based on a wrong scientific methodology called reductivism, and misses the truth about life.

So, in any case, the Rockefellers began with a passion to try to do what they wanted with eugenics. They thought: “We can do this by manipulating the single gene—reduce everything in life down to a single gene, DNA, RNA, and so forth—and then we’ll mess around with that gene and change its traits, its characteristics, so that it will do what we want it to do. So, if you want a salmon that weighs 80 pounds, so that you can more economically raise salmon for the market and chop it up into small bits and pieces, you should be able to do that by genetically crossing it with a foreign substance. So, they began this research in the Philippines with the rice research project (which was their baby). The International Rice Research Institute was initially in the Rockefeller-financed area, going after the main food staple of Asia essentially, the bulk of the world’s population. So, they set out to make what they called a “Golden Rice.” Why did they call it Golden? Because it had a kind of —excuse me for being blunt—urine-yellow colour when they genetically modified it. And the idea was that they had modified it with a substance that would increase the content of Vitamin A. And the Rockefeller Foundation promoted this as the cure for infant blindness (Vitamin A deficiency) in Asia, and that this would enable many Asian children from impoverished families to see. Well, after years and $100 million worth of Rockefeller money research, the product came out and independent scientists tested Golden Rice. And they found that an infant, a six-month-old or one-year-old infant, would have to eat 8 kilograms of Golden Rice to get the required vitamin A to do what they claimed it would do. Well, that you can get from carrots and numerous other things that are much healthier. So, that’s a little bit of the background to GMOs, and once I got that hook into the subject, I simply traced out the history of it and my jaw dropped—many, many, times—during the research and the production of the book. I’ll stop there. Tell me which specific terms...

 

JC: The ones I had in mind were “eugenics”, and particularly “agribusiness” which we’re going to talk about in more detail, and “genetic engineering” itself.

 

WE: Okay, eugenics started in England in about the 1880s with an elite group of people (the Huxley family were part of this and others) who believed that the lower classes should somehow be reduced in number, and that the upper classes, the noble classes, should have their characteristics increased. So, they looked upon the human species as horse breeding, something that most normal people don’t think of. Then it spread to the very wealthy in the United States across the Atlantic, to families with names like Carnegie, and later Rockefeller, (the latter, in the late 1910s, around World War I, founding the American Eugenics Society. Cold Springs Harbor, Maine, was their base of operations, and they began doing all sorts of research on how to get rid of the “unfit”, and how to increase the power and the characteristics of the most “noble” ones.) And that’s called “good eugenics” for the “noble” ones, and “bad eugenics” for getting rid of the “useless eaters”.

Well, Margaret Sanger was a part of their project—you know the battler for Planned Parenthood—and she was a horrible racist. She was an intimate friend of the Rockefeller family, who supported her work, and she started something during the 1930s in Harlem called “The Negro Project.” As I quote in the footnotes to my book, one time she wrote a letter to a friend and said that if the Black Ministers ever get wind of the fact that The Negro Project is about eliminating the black population in America, I think we’re going to have real problems.

So, regarding eugenics in Germany: after World War I, beginning in the early 1920s, the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes across Germany, especially in Berlin and Munich, began doing basic eugenics research, and the money for the research in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes, right up until 1939, six years into the Nazi Third Reich, came from the Rockefeller Foundation. Leading Rockefeller Foundation board members would come to Germany, look at what the eugenics research was, with forced-sterilisation of imbeciles or lesser-desired people and so forth, and it came back and reported to their eugenics comrades in America: “Unfortunately, we only talk about what they’re doing in the Third Reich.”

 

JC: And, did that stop then?

 

WE: It stopped in 1939 for the only reason that it looked bad for the Rockefeller Foundation, and the war was beginning, and they simply stopped it. But, interestingly, after the war the Rockefeller network arranged for the leading eugenics people (the Nazi doctors) around Dr. Joseph Mengele (you know, “Doctor Death”) to get safe passage to Canada and the United States, where they could continue their experimentation on human beings, and eugenics, and so forth.

 

JC: Could you say something about John D. Rockefeller’s Population Council, because this was operating in the 1950s and 1960s, was it not?

 

WE: Well, right up to the present. The four brothers Rockefeller, shortly before the war opened, more or less divided the post-war world among themelves as a division of labour, and John D. was responsible for Asia (especiallyJapan), under MacArthur—or the other way around, MacArthur under John D. Rockefeller III—and he was also responsible for eugenics (or “population policy” as they called it by now). So, in 1953, he used Rockefeller money to create the so-called Population Council, and they financed the demography professorship at Princeton University, an elite university, so that people would believe reports issued by this institute. And they began coming out with alarming reports about a world population bomb. Paul Ehrlich, who later came up in the late '60s and the '70s with his book called The Population Bomb, came out of these circles; and it was an utter hoax, but it was a hoax that supported the eugenics agenda of reducing population in the developing world.

 

JC: Is it right that there are historical examples one can turn to of sterilisation experiments actually carried out under the Population Council?

 

WE: Oh sure, yes. The two cases that I document in the book Seeds of Destruction, are in Puerto Rico, which at that time was, and still is, a colony of the United States, with no essential legal rights—no sovereign rights. And they carried out secret sterilisation programs on women of child-bearing age in Puerto Rico, after they had one or perhaps two children. They would bring these peasant girls into a clinic and tie their tubes without telling them, so they never could have more than one or two children. And it covered a period of years; by the time it was discovered it was estimated that it covered almost 50% Puerto Rican women of child-bearing age.

 

JC: And this was in the 1950s and '60s. Is that right?

 

WE: Yes, and they did a similar thing in Brazil, and Lord knows where else. But they got more sophisticated in 1973. John D. Rockefeller presented Nixon with a population strategy for America, as an advisor on a presidential council. Nixon didn’t want to touch it because he didn’t want to anger the Catholic Church before an election; I think that was ’71 or ’72. Then Henry Kissinger, who was a protégé of the Rockefeller brothers and National Security Advisor to President Nixon at the time, commissioned a study. It’s called National Strategic Study Memorandum 200. About 1990, various freedom-of-information petitions managed to get the contents of this NSSM 200 released to the public. And it was really quite something. It was Top Secret. It involved the Defense Department; the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; the U.S. Department of Agriculture; the CIA; the State Department; and, of course, US AID, etc. The central document was that, for the first time in history, population control would be an adjunct of American foreign policy and foreign aid. So, in developing countries, they had 13 target countries, like Nigeria, Indonesia, etc. Kissinger wrote [along these lines]: “These are countries where the raw materials that America needs to fight the Cold War are strategically important, and they’re also the countries with the highest birth rates, and they must be convinced to reduce their population because growing populations demand a growing share of the pie, and we can’t allow that to interfere with American national security.” That was the argument. It’s a rubbish argument, but that was the way they pitched it. And sure enough, what they began doing was to get the World Bank and the IMF (the International Monetary Fund) to make population control programs a prerequisite for aid, or financial bailouts, or whatever. So, if a country didn’t have that—“No ticky, no laundry.”

 

JC: So, is it fair to say that that kind of ideology had actually infected U.S. policy by that point?

 

WE: Totally. It was official U.S. policy, but it was Top Secret.

 

JC: Can you describe what affect this had on Brazil, because you bring this out particularly in the book?

 

WE: Well, it had a dramatic affect on Brazil. The birth rates plunged. Brazil is a large country with abundant resources. The CIA was also active in Brazil - with the ’64 coup and various other things - to try to create a U.S. subservient vassal government, or vassal state. But….

 

JC: Was there not a mass-sterilisation program that happened in Brazil?

 

WE: Yes, they introduced a mass-sterilisation program in Brazil, which had a catastrophic effect on the birth rate.

 

JC: I want to turn to the second theme of your book, which has to do with the massive growth of U.S. agribusiness in the 20th century, which you consider alongside this other issue we’ve just been talking about. Now, you describe the conditions for that growth by explaining that the Rockefeller Foundation poured a huge amount of money into the War and Peace Studies Group of the Council on Foreign Relations during the 1930s, and how that set the stage for what it hoped would be the “Grand Area” of post-World War II U.S. Domination. And that hope was realised in the creation of the Bretton Woods economic system—the UN, the IMF, GATT, the World Bank—and then that in turn set the stage for the growth of, and the domination by, U.S. agribusiness. Could you unpack some of that history for us, and explain how all that enabled agribusiness to become a tool for globalist control?

 

WE: Well, right after the war, Nelson Rockefeller - who was the expert of the family for Latin America, and who had been the head of an essentially separate CIA aid for Latin America under FDR (Roosevelt) - Nelson Rockefeller had the idea that if we could do to food what we have done to oil, namely create a monopoly, a cartel that we control, then as Henry Kissinger said years later: “You control the oil, you control entire nations because you control their economy; if you control the food, you control the people.” And that has been the dream of the Eugenics movement since its founding: how to do this in a mass way. So, Nelson had the idea to take a Rockefeller University employee named Norman Borlaug down to Mexico, and to investigate the possibilities of industrialising the agriculture there. He began a project in the north-western part of Mexico in the direction of Arizona and California, a very fertile agricultural area of Mexico, with large acreages of flat land. And he introduced mechanisation, which is a nice outlet for selling Rockefeller oil, and diesel fuel, and various other things, lubricants, and he introduced large-scale agriculture concentrations, with so-called “Wonder Wheat,” the so-called “Green Revolution.” Well, that was a fraud that Rockefeller money financed and created to industrialise agriculture to the advantage of the large plantation owners (in Spanish they call them “latifundistas”.) The small farmers were, in effect, put out of business by this concentration of land, resources and mechanisation. So, suddenly, tens of millions of unemployed Mexican peasants were driven to go to the cities. And that was part of the aim too, because then they used that as cheap labour-pools for out-sourcing and globalised manufacturing. So, they had thought through the grand strategy on this.

The War and Peace Studies was another Top Secret project of the Rockefeller Foundation, which began in 1939 with some of the leading geopolitical strategists. Isaiah Bowman, the president of Johns Hopkins University, was one of the leading figures of it. He was a geographer, a geopolitician on the model of Halford Mackinder of Britain. And what they did was, before the first German Panzer had rolled into Poland in September 1939, they began a project with the starting premise: “There is coming a Second World War; America is going to emerge from this coming war as the sole superpower;” (where have we heard that before?) “The British Empire will be in catastrophic decline; the German Empire will be destroyed, as will the Soviet Empire, and Japan (that was a minor thing in Asia); and we have to plan now for ruling this post-war world.” Well, that was called the War and Peace Studies. They literally took every part of the globe, identified pivot countries (countries which, if you control them, you have leverage to control entire regions like South-East Asia and so forth), and that defined U.S. post-war foreign policy; because the architects of the War and Peace Studies, in the middle of World War II, in an arrangement with the Secretary of State and with Roosevelt, were sent into the State Department to shape that policy into application. Then, every Secretary of State from Eisenhower on - John Foster Dulles, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski (although he wasn’t a Secretary of State), Dean Acheson - was intimately connected with the Rockefeller Family - Chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation, etc., etc. So, it was the implementation of the Rockefeller’s War and Peace Studies that defined U.S. post-war foreign policy.

Agribusiness began in Mexico; with the support of the Ford Foundation it later came also to India. The first reports of the “Wonder Wheat” - (the “Miracle Wheat” that Borlaug had made as a hybrid variety of wheat, withstanding weather extremes and so forth) - the first harvest yields were positive, or at least they reported that they were very positive. So, that gave an impetus to governments to continue with this until the point that the damage had been done and they were firmly entrenched with agribusiness, in these two countries: one of the most populous countries, India, and also in Mexico to spread that Green Revolution down through Latin America.

 

JC: So, would you say that, as far as the Rockefellers were concerned, the Green Revolution was as an outplaying of this strategy for the domination of the Grand Area, whereas the people who were actually working scientifically within that wouldn’t have much of a clue about that agenda?

 

WE: Well, I don’t know how much of a clue Norman Borlaug had, or whether he was simply a naïve scientist who believed in what he was doing, but at a certain point he would have had to realise that his “Wonder, Miracle Wheat” was not what it was cracked up to be. A lot of innocent scientists who are politically naïve and don’t bother to look at the larger-picture implications of what they’re doing play a crucial role in all of this. If they were aware of the moral implications for the human race, they perhaps long ago would have opted out and become whistleblowers.

 

JC: Now, I want to move on to the question of genetic engineering. You say that genetic engineering in the food industry really got going during the Reagan Administration and the Bush, Sr. Administration, largely due to their culture of deregulation. So, even though there were concerns about the health effects of various GM products, it all just went ahead anyway. And, you mention a few of the most famous cases like Bovine Growth Hormone in milk, BT corn, Golden Rice, which you have already mentioned in this interview. Could you tell us something about the claimed benefits of those products and also some of the problems?

 

WE: Well, the claimed benefits of Bovine Growth Hormone for dairy cattle was that it would increase milk yields by up to 30% for a given herd. Well, what they didn’t tell you is that it did so initially at the cost of the health of the cow: the cattle developed diseases, brittleness of bones (simply because they were losing so much of their own nutrients) such that cows couldn’t stand anymore, and collapsed - horrendous side effects. But Bovine Growth Hormone is still being peddled in the developing world, where they presume the farmers using it are less intelligent than North American farmers or European farmers. So, that’s simply one example of some of these horrendous GMO products.

 

 

JC: And you say that Golden Rice - which was sold on the idea that it contained extra Vitamin A, and was therefore going to sort out blindness problems for people - that actually the amount of Vitamin A in there is not up to doing the job. Is that right?

 

WE: Yes, an infant would have to eat eight kilograms every day to get the required Vitamin A that they talk about, so it’s just a fraud. They use it as a PR favor to convince naïve people that these are the good things we’re doing with GMOs.

 

JC: Well, absolutely. Just last year our UK Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, was saying that anybody who opposes GM crops (and he was talking particularly about Golden Rice) - he described them as “wicked”. He said: “It’s just disgusting that little children are allowed to go blind and die because of a hang-up by a small number of people about this technology.”

 

WE: I think Mr. Paterson should do a little bit of his homework. I’ve read several comments on GMO by him over the last year or so, and I think the man should think, understand, and research before he opens his mouth.

 

JC: What also came over in your book is the tremendous power that the GM corporations seem to have to silence any scientific research that challenges what they’re doing. I mean you discuss the case of Dr. Arpad Pusztai at the Rowett Institute in Scotland, and how the GM industry leaned on politicians and learned societies basically to shut him up. Could you tell us briefly about what happened there?

 

WE: Well, Arpad Pusztai, who’s a dear personal friend of mine, was perhaps the most respected biology researcher on GMO in the world in the mid-1990s. At that time, he told me he was a firm believer in the progress of science, and that GMO was part of that. So, he convinced the institute director that, with British government financing, they should do an animal study on rats fed with GMO potatoes. And everybody was quite agreed, and they said that this will ease the concerns of the population about eating GMO products. So, what began to appear in the rats fed with GMO potatoes compared with the control rats, was organ shrinkage of a dramatic nature and mortality rates much higher than the normal control rats, and the most alarming thing that he saw was shrinkage of the brain, kidney, liver—all these organs were affected in grotesque ways. So, he told his director; the director got equally alarmed; and Pusztai held an interview with ITV (I think), or Channel 4 in the UK, and that thing went viral. It went worldwide with press releases, because there was no such serious scientific research by a recognised institute like Rowett. Then, roughly within 72 hours, Pusztai was approached by his director, told that his desk had been locked, and that his computer had been seized. He was to talk to no colleague - (his wife also worked there; she was also told a similar thing) - and they were not to talk to any press about his research. Essentially, they destroyed this man; they destroyed his career. He didn’t give up; he kept fighting for exoneration, which he finally got from the British Parliament. He got a personal apology from Prince Charles; it's very much to the Prince’s credit that he had the moral gumption personally to apologise for what the British Government had done to Pusztai. And what came out later was this: retired colleagues told him later that, the night after the release of this Pusztai news report on the damage of GMO, the director of the Rowett Institute got a call from a man named Tony Blair, who was then Prime Minister. Tony Blair, he later found out, reacted on a call from William Jefferson Clinton, then the President of the United States, who had gotten a call from Monsanto in Washington, saying essentially Shut this man up no matter what you have to do. And that’s what they did. They got the Royal Academy of Sciences to lie about Pusztai’s scientific report. It was an absolutely horrendous attempt at character assassination. It did not succeed, and that’s one reason there’s such a resistance across the world today to GMO.

 

JC: Yes, and you mention Monsanto. And I want to ask you about them in connection with the use of GMO for domination. In the book, you highlight Argentina and Iraq as countries that fell prey to GMO imperialism, and you paint a particularly disturbing picture of Argentina, with a massive corporate buy-up of land there in the 1990s onward, and the virtual takeover by Monsanto with its Roundup Ready soybeans. Could you tell us something about Monsanto and Roundup technology, and how powerful these have been in controlling things?

 

WE: Well, it’s useful to keep in mind - when we throw out all the silly arguments that people like Mr. Paterson in the UK make about the wonderful benefits of GMO – that the only commercial crops of any significance today on the GMO world market are GMO soybeans (the overwhelming majority being Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans), GMO corn, and GMO cotton. Monsanto dominates all three of those. There are three main growing countries today in the world for soybeans: Argentina, Brazil and the United States—the climate is ideal, the tradition, and so forth. Those three countries are dominated by the American-based grain cartel—Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge, and so forth—so, all the trade in soybean seeds worldwide is carried by these cartel companies. And the seeds are dominated by Monsanto—all of them. So, in the debt crisis of Argentina, President Carlos Menem (who, at the time, was perhaps one of the more corrupt of the corrupted in Argentine politics) gave a secret, exclusive licence to Monsanto to plant its genetically modified soybean seeds in Argentina, without any parliamentary discussion or debate. Then, because of the debt crisis and the role of the IMF telling Argentina to devalue its peso, and the usual things, people like George Soros (the billionaire from New York), and others (the Rockefellers) began buying up huge amounts of agricultural land. The peasants that had farmed the land – (in the 1960s and '70s, Argentina had had one of the highest food standards in the world) – the farmers were driven off the land, often with police, by these giant landowners. They mechanised agriculture in the form of planting soybeans with satellite-guided tractors that would work 24/7, and various other things - no-tillage agriculture. This required virtually no human labour. And not only that, they planted Monsanto GMO soybeans. The GMO soybeans are paired; they're called “Roundup Ready” soybeans. They're ready for what? They're ready to receive the world’s most deadly herbicide called Roundup, patented then by Monsanto. (The patent has expired now, and the Chinese and 'everybody and their mother' are replicating this, reverse-engineering it and putting it on the market more cheaply.) This Roundup is aerially sprayed on the fields with crop planes, which puts these toxins into the GMO soybeans, as well as into the soil. And, I think we’re going to have to make this the last point because I have another appointment...

 

JC: Okay

 

WE: Brazil had strict laws. (This was when Lula was president, a jolly, happy trade union leader who apparently sold his soul to more than one devil in his tenure.) But Brazil was constitutionally banning genetically modified agriculture planting (GMO). That began to be eroded by Monsanto. They made sure that the Argentine fields on the border with Brazil would plant GMO, and then the wind would carry the seeds into Brazil and contaminate the Brazilian soybean crops. So, eventually the government buckled under, and about six or seven years ago permitted GMO to be planted in Brazil. In the United States, from the get-go, George Bush, Sr., in 1992, met with the top leadership of Monsanto in the White House—a closed-door meeting, nothing reported about this—and they convinced Bush, Sr. to essentially prevent the health and safety agencies of the government (like the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and so forth) from doing any independent testing of any GMO product. It was called “substantially equivalent” (which is a fraudulent legal term, because “substantial” means “not a 100%”, or “roughly”; and “equivalent” means “100%”. If two is equal to two, it’s not equal to three. But with “substantial equivalence”, two could be equal to three in our world.) So, that allowed Monsanto to do its own studies, give them to the government, say: “This GMO soybean is completely healthy - no bad effects, etc.” So, after ’92, GMO soybeans were sold to the American farmers as a solution to increase their profits in tough times. They bought it and planted it, and now almost 93% of all soybeans in the United States are GMO.

 

 

JC: As we only have about a minute or so to go, could I ask you to conclude by coming back to what we were discussing at the beginning: the issues to do with population control and eugenics? Could you explain to us why you feel it is so important that we take this issue deadly seriously, because of those historic connections, massive businesses, and our food supply being in the control of very few hands? Could you spell out to us what you fear could happen in the future?

 

WE: Well, the staple food products—corn, soybeans, rice in Asia, and so forth—are controlled by three or four GMO giants like Monsanto, DuPont, Dow Chemical and Syngenta in Switzerland, with partnerships in BASF and Bayer, and so forth. If the world’s essential food staples are GMO, controlled by three or four giant corporations, three of whom have a history with Agent Orange, dioxin, and other poisons, and a history of walking away from their legal responsibilities for the damage those products have done on human populations or others, I think we run the danger that the control of the world's essential food supply in 10 to 20 years (if GMO is allowed to proliferate as an uncontrolled plague) will be in the hands of those private corporations. And that’s a power that the human race has never allowed in history. It’s a danger. Power corrupts, and this kind of power corrupts absolutely. Well also, Monsanto has had the patents for about five years on Terminator seed technology, co-patented by the U.S. government, by the way, such that the seed will commit suicide after one harvest. And that, combined with the other work that the Rockefellers and others have done on eugenics, led me to the conclusion that this is a covert war on the human population by people who are very powerful and want to reduce the human species by a number of billions of lives, over the next decades - reduce it.

 

JC: Well, it’s a very serious situation that we’re in, I do agree. And there are so many things that I would have loved to talk to you about, including the TPP and TAFTA and various things of that nature which we just do not have the time to go into.  So, may I say, William Engdahl, thank you ever so much for coming on. I will of course link to your book in the show notes, and I encourage every listener to go and read that book; I think it is so important. So, thank you ever so much, Mr. Engdahl, for coming on the program. It’s been a pleasure to speak with you.

 

WE: Well, thank you Julian.



Disclaimer: The views expressed by F. William Engdahl in this interview are his responsibility alone; they do not necessarily reflect those of The Mind Renewed.

 
Submit to DeliciousSubmit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
Joomla templates by a4joomla