(1) -
http://x28.deja.com/=yahoo/getdoc.xp?AN=572682494&CONTEXT=949000890.1235222575&hitnum=1
Subject: Re: Global Warming? I should Co-co! From: Steve Reed Date: 2000/01/14 Message-ID: Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.princess-diana [More Headers]
In article , Steve Reed writes
:In article , James Chappell
: writes
>>>Pity! The manipulation of scientific opinion is an important part of
:>>the NWO-schema. Catastrophe theories - from the laughable "extinction
:>>of the dinosaurs by a meteor-strike" to "global warming" - are being
:>>generated in order to steer the planning of world leaders along the
:>>desired course. These "theories" should be discussed and exposed.
:>>
:>Dare I ask just what you mean by the above paragraph? What's a NWO-
:>schema?
:>
:>
:
:I'm surprised that you actually go out of your way to be discourteous.
:It doesn't augment your credibility - quite the reverse. If you don't
:know what an NWO-schema is, I suggest you read this NG. Actually, I
:think I explained what I meant by the term, quite adequately, in the
:paragraphs you have cunningly snipped.
An important element of the schema which is being implemented, partly on the basis of environmental scares, is described in the following.
Phillip - this fits the pattern of agriculture-destructuring which is occurring in Europe. The intention seems to be to make the third world industrial and agricultural while Europe and North America concentrate on high tech, media and control activities. Once such a distribution of labour is accomplished, interdependence will be such that no country will be able to withdraw from it.
In message , Phillip Henika writes
:Steve - this one is rather shocking - Philip
:
:***Email to My Boss:
:
:'"The End of Agriculture in America" is New World Order politics - Robert
:Shapiro, Monsanto CEO, attended secret Bilderberg meetings in Portugal and
:Washington respectively this last year - Monsanto has secret;
:transnational; investiture designs on the food supply; water purification
:technology and aquaculture - all considered by them to be future "scarce"
:or developing resources so, who is supplying Dr. Blank with the numbers -
:is this your first taste of the possibility of global anarchy???' - Philip
:Henika
:
:***in reply to:
:
:>A METROFARM.COM RELEASE FROM MICHAEL OLSON...
:>
:>A METROFARM.COM BULLETIN FROM MICHAEL OLSON....
:>
:>"America, the most efficient producer of food in the world, is going
:>out of the business because it can no longer compete."
:>
:>According to Steven Blank, Ph.D., in "The End of Agriculture in the
:>American Portfolio," America is going out of the business of
:>agriculture and he has the numbers and projections to prove it.
:>Blank, a professor with the Agriculture and Resource Economics
:>Department at UC Davis, maintains that America simply cannot afford
:>to participate in high-risk, low-return industries like agriculture,
:>and for that reason, agricultural production in America is destined
:>to end.
:>
:>"America doing agriculture is a bit like a Ph.D. doing child's
:>work-- its a waste!"
:>
:>The January 15, 2000 edition of Saturday Morning Agriculture will
:>feature a conversation with Steven Blank about the end of
:>agriculture in the American portfolio of industries. The show will
:>air at 9am Pacific and may be heard throughout Central California on
:>AM 1080 KSCO and AM 1340 KOMY.
:>
:>Questions are expected to include: If America is the most efficient
:>producer of food in the world, why can it no longer compete? What
:>specific economic forces are at work to end the production of food
:>in the U.S? Are these economic forces also at work in other
:>developed nations? Which nations will then produce our food?
:>
:>This edition of Saturday Morning Agriculture will be archived for
:>your leisure-time listening on the radio page at www.metrofarm.com.
:>The archived show will include a discussion board so that you may
:>ask questions of Dr. Blank and leave comments for others interested
:>in the subject.
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>Unsubscribe:
:
:Philip Henika
:
:
:-- Steve Reed
(2)
Subject: New World Order (Alt-Bilderberg) From: Pro Bono Date: 2000/01/25 Message-ID: Newsgroups: uk.legal [More Headers]
In the first of a two-part series, Gibby Zobel uncovers how the global power elite decides our future at the shadowy Bilderberg Summit each year. Documents from the secret summit - leaked to The Big Issue - reveal what they said about money and war
For nearly 50 years an elite group of the West's most powerful men and women, a shadow world government, have met in secret. Tony Blair is in the club. Every US president since Ike Eisenhower has been too. So are top members of the British Government. So are the people who control what you watch and read - the media barons. Which is why you may never have heard of Bilderberg.
"Lines of black limousines, unmarked except for a 'B' on the windscreen, swept in, sometimes accompanied by police escorts, sometimes not," says an eyewitness of this year's meeting in Portugal. "A helicopter was overhead, and other security officers were prudently patrolling the hillsides. The policy on duty at the gates made it crystal clear that they were only the tip of the security iceberg."
For two-and-a-half days, relaxing in exclusive luxury amid vast armed security, the powerful leaders discussed past and future wars, a European superstate, a global currency, genetics, and the dismantling of the welfare state. Unaccountable, untroubled and unreported, the Bilderberg meetings have formed the basis of international policy for decades.
Last year freelance journalist Campbell Thomas was arrested just for knocking on doors near the clandestine gathering in Turnberry, Scotland. He remained in custody for eight hours. Other journalists were told that even the Bilderberg menu was confidential (a move they named 'Kippergate'). A serving police officer told 'The Big Issue': "Special Branch and CIA were everywhere - they were calling the shots."
Never in its 47-year history has the content of these discussions been made public. Until now. 'The Big Issue' has uncovered the Bilderberg Papers - the secret minutes of this year's meeting in Portugal. Some of it is banal, some of it sensational. It blows the lid off the thoughts of presidents, chairmen of multinational companies, world bankers, Nato chiefs and defence ministers.
The meetings are shrouded in such secrecy that Prime Minister Tony Blair, when asked last year in the House of Commons, failed to disclosed his own attendance at Bilderberg in Athens in 1993.
So, what have they been hiding?
- Nato gave Russia carte blanche to bomb Chechnya
- 'Dollarisation' could be the the next step after the single European currency
- A senior British politician thinks New Labour is "consolidating the victories of the Right". On welfare cuts he adds: "It might be easier for somebody who claimed to be a socialist to impose change."
- After Kosovo Nato is in danger of mimicking a colonial power
Although 14 media chiefs and journalists from across eight countries attended this year, none of them chose to tell their readers of the meeting. It would not serve their interests to be cut out of the elite loop. With an invite-only guest-list, covert operations and such deafening silence, it is little surprise that conspiracy theories have thrived, from the anti-semites who believe in a Jewish global elite, to the paranoid delusions of the radical left. The effect has been to leave the importance of the meetings tainted by association. It suits the Bilderbergers perfectly.
The Bilderberg meetings began in a Dutch hotel on May 29 1954, from where it gets its name. 'The Economist', in a rare reference to it in 1987, said that the importance of the meetings was overplayed but admitted: "When you have scaled the Bilderberg, you have arrived."
At last year's meeting, former defence minister George Robertson, who is now Nato secretary-general, planned strategies with the Bilderberg chair and ex-Nato chief Lord Carrington.
'Observer' editor-in-chief Will Hutton attended Bilderberg in 1997. He believes that it is the home of the "high priests of globalisation". "No policy is made here," he says, "it is all talk. But the consensus established is the backdrop against which policy is made worldwide."
The 64-page leaked document - The Bilderberg Papers - is dated August 1999. The powerful transatlantic clique at the private hideaway included new Northern Ireland secretary Peter Mandelson MP, environmentalist Jonathon Porritt, Kenneth Clarke MP, former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger, billionaire oil and banking tycoon David Rockefeller, Monsanto chief Robert B Shapiro, and the head of the World Bank, James D Wolfensohn.
Although Asian and African politics and economics were discussed the continents' countries had no seats at this summit. The official eight-strong UK delegation included bankers Martin Taylor, former chief executive of Barclay's and Eric Roll, a banker for Warburgs. They were joined by Martin Wolf of The Financial Times and two journalists from The Economist, John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, who, the minutes indicate, prepared this document.
The papers are marked 'Not for Quotation'. It states: "There were 111 participants from 24 countries. All participants spoke in their personal capacity, not as representatives of their national governments or employers. As is usual at Bilderberg meetings, in order to permit frank and open discussion, no public reporting of the conference took place."
None of the quotes in each of the 10 sections are directly attributable to any named individual, but the moderator and panellists in each discussion are listed. It is made perfectly clear, however, who is saying what. It is not known who else is in the audience, but their comments are identified by their country and profession.
Over two weeks, we report on the central themes of this year's meeting. This week: money and war. Next week: genetics - what the head of Monsanto and a leading British environmentalist discussed behind closed doors.
what they said about money
Giants of the global banking world, in a debate titled 'Redesigning the International Financial Architecture', discussed the concept of 'dollarisation' which is sure to send euro-sceptics into a frenzy.
Around the table were Kenneth Clarke MP, Martin S Feldstein, president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, Stanley Fisher, deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Ottmar Issing, board member of the European Central Bank and Jean Claude Trichet, governor of the Bank of France.
Bilderberg is understood to have been the birthplace of the single European currency. The deputy director of the IMF opens by remarking: "It is worth noting that this is the first Bilderberg meeting where the euro is fact rather than a topic for discussion."
During the discussion, "One of the panellists was sure that if the euro worked, more regional currencies would emerge. Others raised the question of dollarisation as a possible cure."
There is a dissenting voice:
"The only possible reason for surrendering control of your monetary policy to Washington (where nobody would make decisions on the basis of what mattered in Buenos Aires [or London]) is the fairly rotten financial records of the governments concerned."
what they said about war
Despite Tony Blair's presidential stance over Kosovo, Nato's historic war was pilloried at Bilderberg. "The mood at the meeting was surprisingly subdued most of the speakers concentrated on the downside of the conflict," begins the discussion on Kosovo.
Henry Kissinger, former US secretary of state, weighs in, saying Kosovo "could be this generation's Vietnam". Nato is in danger of replacing the Ottoman and Habsburg Empires in a series of permanent protectorates, he said. Another panellist warned that troops could be there for 25 years. Kissinger felt that this left Nato open to accusations of colonialism. "How did one persuade countries like China, Russia and India that Nato's new mandate was not just a new version of 'the white man's burden' - colonialism?" asked Kissinger.
Charles D Boyd, executive director of the US National Study Group, said Kosovo is now a wasteland, a humanitarian disaster comparable with Cambodia. "Nato used force as a substitute for diplomacy rather than as a support for it it used force in a way that minimised danger to itself but maximised danger to the people it was trying to protect."
An unnamed British politician "wondered whether the [Nato] alliance could hang together after the end of the war. He warned that "there would be little popular enthusiasm for putting lots of resources into solving the region's gigantic problems."
Peter Mandelson told the group that "two roads stretch in front of Nato. One leads to a new division of Europe, where the continent returns to its ethnocentric ways. Under this scenario, the UN is fairly powerless, Russia and China are excluded, and Nato is little more than an enforcer. The second road is a little closer to the nineteenth century Europe, with all the great powers - not just America and the EU, but Russia, China and Japan co-operating."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article by: Gibby Zobel
From The Big Issue, November 15-21 1999. More details from the papers will be published on November 22.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
(3)
http://x34.deja.com/~stopthebombing/[ST_rn=qs]/getdoc.xp?AN=533339454&CONTEXT=947809260.1666187268&hitnum=1
Subject:
Bilderber Loser -
Monsanto's Terminator
Seeds Date:
10/06/1999 Author:
prhen
Robert B. Shapiro - (USA; Chairman and CEO, Monsanto Company) and David Rockefeller (USA; Chairman, Chase Manhattan Bank International Advisory Committee) were attendees at the secret Bilderberg Meeting at the Hotel Caesar Park Penha Longa, Sintra, Portugal June 3-6, 1999. ( http://www.the-news.net/archives/bilburglist05-6.htm )
In a previous article (Subject: Bilderberg News - Shapiro - Monsanto; Date: 1999/06/18; Author: Philip Henika), Paul Luckman, Editor of "The News" was quoted as saying: "It is no secret that most political parties are supported to a greater or lesser extent by big business. Without their donations, financial influence and media clout, they would find it more difficult to gain, or stay in, power. Our readers may recall a recent article in The News by Gwynne Dyer 'Trust me, I'm a Genetic Engineer' in which he outlined how Monsanto wielded such influence over the US government over GM foods, even getting them to block attempts by the EU to label GM products. It went as far as getting Clinton to threaten a trade war if the EU persisted in this plan. Coincidentally, Monsanto CEO Bob Shapiro became one of the biggest contributors of 'soft money' to Clinton's 1996 election campaign, and then, guess what, became a special trade advisor to the President."
Relevant quotes in this article: "Monday's announcement closing the door more firmly came in a letter from [Bilderberg - my comment] Robert B. Shapiro, Monsanto's chairman and chief executive, to Gordon Conway, president of the [Bilderberg - my comment] Rockefeller Foundation, a leading sponsor of agricultural research in developing nations, where opposition to the so-called Terminator technology has been intense." and "Monsanto's letter to Professor Conway at the [Bilderberg - my comment] Rockefeller Foundation minimized the significance of seed sterility in biotechnology, a field in which it has become the world sales leader. [Bilderberg - my comment] Shapiro, the company's chairman, described the Terminator technology as just one of many "gene protection" systems and said that Monsanto had patents for others it might develop in the future."
As a concerned citizen, I oppose the secret consensus of the Bilderberg Club in the influence of global affairs without the People's knowledge or consent and, in this particular case, I oppose the research and development on terminator seed technology.
--- Philip Henika
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/late/05gene.html
October 4, 1999 Monsanto Bars Selling of Seeds Made Infertile By BARNABY J. FEDER
Seeking to remove itself from an inflamed debate in biotechnology, the Monsanto Company said on Monday that it would make no effort to market seeds that produce crop plants that are themselves infertile.
Although the possibility of any company's selling such seeds is years away, and Monsanto has repeatedly said that it has not developed them, its prominence in biotechnology and its plans to purchase a company that has patented such seeds have made it a lightning rod for the furor over what critics have labeled "Terminator" technology.
Seed sterility could be a very valuable trait for the major biotechnology companies, which, through genetic modification, have created plants with traits like resistance to insect pests or the ability to withstand spraying with weed killers.
If the seeds these engineered crops produced were sterile, and could not be replanted, farmers eager to profit from the valuable traits inserted by genetic engineering would pay for them year after year by buying new seeds, rather than simply saving seeds from their crops for replanting the following spring.
But critics call the technology an example of a drive by agribusinesses to make farmers dependent on them and the chemicals many of them produce. Some also suggested that pollen from the engineered crops could render plants in neighbors' fields sterile without the farmers realizing it. They hailed Monday's announcement. "We think it is a very positive sign that Monsanto recognizes there is overwhelming opposition," said Hope Shand, research director for the Rural Advancement Foundation International, a Canadian advocacy group that first drew attention to the technology.
Monsanto's move is unlikely to end work on the technology. Monsanto itself held open the possibility that it would continue research for internal use, and Delta and Pine Land, a cotton company it is trying to purchase, said it would continue its research as long as it is independent.
Other companies may continue related work, because seed sterility is just one part of a much broader area of research that is regarded as crucial to many biotechnology companies: the use of chemicals to turn particular genes on or off at specific times in the life of a plant, animal or human. Many patents covering pieces of the technology mention sterility as a possible application.
Monsanto began backing away from the controversy last spring by announcing that it would not pursue seed sterility unless worldwide discussions with customers, critics, researchers and regulators produced a consensus in favor of it.
Monday's announcement closing the door more firmly came in a letter from [Bilderberg - my comment] Robert B. Shapiro, Monsanto's chairman and chief executive, to Gordon Conway, president of the [Bilderberg - my comment] Rockefeller Foundation, a leading sponsor of agricultural research in developing nations, where opposition to the so-called Terminator technology has been intense.
The technology at the center of the debate is many years from being ready for market and some experts doubt that it could ever be.
"Seed sterility involves a complex of genes and presents a nightmare of technical hurdles irrespective of public opinion," said Charles Arntzen, president of the Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y.
Monsanto and other major biotechnology companies have all maintained that seed sterility has not been the focus of their research despite the patent claims. Most worry privately that the publicity surrounding Terminator is a public relations disaster in an industry already under attack on other, more serious fronts, like demands to label products containing genetically engineered foods and restrictions in Europe on growing or importing genetically engineered crops and food products.
The Terminator nickname, recalling a robotic killer played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, was first applied to a seed-sterility method developed by the Department of Agriculture and Delta and Pine Land, the Oxford, Miss., cotton company Monsanto has been trying to buy since the spring of 1998. That deal has been held up by antitrust reviews.
The Agriculture Department-Delta project, under Dr. Melvin Oliver, a department researcher in Lubbock, Tex., involves a tricky balance of suppressing and releasing key genes. The last step causes the plant to make a protein that sterilizes a seed after the plant is mature and every marketable element in the seed, such as vegetable oil, is fully developed.
Dr. Oliver is several weeks away from harvesting the first seeds believed to have been sterilized with the technology. The laboratory's test crop is tobacco, which is widely used in research because its genes are relatively easy to manipulate. The second target crop, cotton, is much further behind.
"This may be the right decision for Monsanto, but I think abandoning the technology is a mistake," Dr. Oliver said on Monday.
In particular, he said, seed sterility could be an important tool for making sure that other genetically engineered traits like herbicide resistance do not escape into wild plants. If such traits could be linked, any weed that picked up the gene for herbicide resistance would also be unable to pass on that valuable trait because its seeds would be sterile.
Despite Monday's announcement, Monsanto might use seed sterility technology internally, a spokeswoman, Scarlett L. Foster, said. Many researchers say genetically controlling fertility could help traditional breeders at the seed companies that have been acquired in recent years by Monsanto, DuPont and other major chemical concerns produce new hybrids efficiently.
But Ms. Foster said Monday's announcement meant that Monsanto would not only make sure that none of its commercial products were sterile, but would also refuse to license the Agriculture Department-Delta if the acquisition of Delta is completed
Delta, for its part, reaffirmed its plans to keep financing the research as long as it is independent. "There are a lot of people interested in talking about licensing it, including some fairly big seed companies," said Harry B. Collins, the company's vice president for technology transfer.
The Agriculture Department said it would continue discussing licensing of the technology with Delta and others because it has applications far beyond seed sterility.
Monsanto's letter to Professor Conway at the [Bilderberg - my comment] Rockefeller Foundation minimized the significance of seed sterility in biotechnology, a field in which it has become the world sales leader. [Bilderberg - my comment] Shapiro, the company's chairman, described the Terminator technology as just one of many "gene protection" systems and said that Monsanto had patents for others it might develop in the future.
One example covers a method that would allow farmers to buy seeds that would grow normally without special treatment but exhibit valuable genetically engineered traits only if the farmer paid a premium for Monsanto, or its seed dealer, to apply a chemical or some other treatment that activated the genes.
[Bilderberg - my comment] Shapiro said Monsanto is not currently investing in such research but that it wants an "open, independent airing of all the issues raised by the use of gene protection systems to protect the investment companies make in agricultural innovation."
