The politics of greed is what keeps this world wrapped in corruption. If you want to stick around for a while longer, I suggest you educate yourself and try to do something constructive to help save what little good, honesty, and trust we have left.

A motto for us old vets: Take one with you!

Use your Go Back and Go Forward commands to get to where you were in a previous file.

Go to Home

Highest Go To numbers are the latest Links of all coruption pages.


Go to 13107
http://www.davidduke.com/general/is-russia-the-key-to-white-survival_18.html
10/23/2004
Is Russia the Key to White survival?
Posted under: General— @ 7:45 am

By David Duke
EURO National President
www.whitecivilrights.com

David Duke speaks at the Mykovsky Museum

Everyone reading the David Duke Report understands the crisis faced by the White World. All White nations have a severe non-White immigration crisis. Every White nation has a critically low birthrate that will result in a greatly diminished White population. In America, even the U.S. Government has officially projected that those of European descent will become a minority in four or five decades. We will be outnumbered and outvoted in the nation our forefathers built!

When that happens our people will be politically prostrate at the feet of those who have envied and hated us for generations, and the result will be similar to the wide scale murder and dispossession White farmers now face in Zimbabwe. If the dispossession of our people would occur only in our beloved America, at least our genetic and cultural heritage would survive elsewhere, but every White nation on earth is undergoing a racial transformation similar to America’s.

Even a nation such as Italy, traditionally famous for its large families, now has a catastrophically low birthrate that projects a reduction of its White population by 40 to 50 percent over the next 50 years. Every White nation is saturated with equalitarian propaganda spawned by a Jewish-dominated news and entertainment media around the world. Not only are White numbers dwindling, but racial intermarriage has risen dramatically among the remaining Whites. Also, within our race itself, as is true among the non-White minorities, the brightest and most successful have the fewest children, while the least intelligent and responsible have the highest reproductive rates. So even those Whites left are being dumbed-down.

Our race faces a world-wide genetic catastrophe. There is only one word that can adequately describe it: genocide. It is a relentless and systematic destruction of the European genotype. It is not the genocide of fire and sword (although such is likely to occur in the final stages). Neither is it as emotionally evocative as the death of displacement of millions of Germans in Eastern Europe with the onslaught of the Soviet armies in the winter of 1945; Stalin’s starvation of the Ukrainians through forced collectivization; the displacement and death of many Jews in Second World War; or the 1838 westward relocation of 15,000 members of the Cherokee nation in the “Trail of Tears.” Yet, though it lost millions, the German people survived the war, the Ukranians survived Stalin’s murders, the Cherokee people persevered, and the Jews, despite their losses in the Second World War, emerged from it more powerful than ever before in their long history.

Unchecked, low White birthrates, massive non-White immigration and intermarriage will mean the complete genetic destruction of the great European race that produced an overwhelming share of the world’s great art and literature, scientific and economic advancement. Make no mistake about it: unless our people wake up and act courageously, our very genotype; our people as a unique, living breed of life upon this planet - will be wiped out! Such would be the greatest ecologic and evolutionary disaster ever to befall our planet!

Years ago, when I came to this realization, it changed my life. Every other personal interest and issue shrank to insignificance. Compared to the loss of our heritage and our very people itself, nothing else truly matters. Anyone who truly understands this, must shoulder the immense responsibility associated with this impending catastrophe. All the sacrifices, all the suffering, all the genius, all the beauty and high culture our people have created-will go tumbling into a biological abyss - unless we preserve our genotype.

David Duke and revisionist Juergen Graf

What role does Russia and the former Eastern Bloc countries play in this scheme of things? Russia is a White nation! Of the many capital cities of Europe, it is accurate to say that Moscow is the Whitest of them all. Although there is the presence of some ethnic minorities in the Russian Federation, Russia has a greater sense of racial understanding among its population than does any other predominantly White nation. There is a common awareness among the people of the Bolshevik-Jewish invasion of 1917, commonly referred to in the United States as the “Russian Revolution,” a term as inaccurate as calling the crime syndicate started in Russia and now spreading around the world: the “Russian Mafia.” The so-called “Russian Mafia” is neither Russian nor a Mafia, it is overwhelmingly Jewish, and it is now the most dangerous and powerful organized crime syndicate in the world. The Russian people also have a much greater knowledge of the power of International Zionism and the dominant Jewish role in orchestrating the immigration and multiculturalism that is undermining the West.

For the past few months, I have been researching and finishing my new book, Jewish Supremacism, An Examination of the Jewish Question, in Russia and elsewhere in Europe. I have also been working on a book I will complete later this year called For Love of My People, a book that expresses the spiritual commitment necessary for European mankind to win the coming struggle for our survival and evolutionary advancement.

I believe that Russia and the rest of Eastern Europe are critically important to the coming struggle. At this time, there is no national government that openly stands up for the interests of our people. Russia, now that it is freed from 70 years of Bolshevik murder and repression, may become that nation. In Russia, over the past few weeks, I have met with the leaders of the White patriotic movements there. I have met with members of the Russian Duma (Congress) and many public officials who openly speak about Zionism and the need for White people around the world to defend our heritage. In my opinion, Russia and other Eastern countries have the greatest chance of having racially aware parties achieve political power. If just one nation would break through for our people, I think it would cause a domino effect that would cascade throughout the whole world.

Russia has an economy that has been plundered by the Jewish oligarchs and organized crime figures such as Berezovsky, Gusinsky, Tobias, and Mogilevich. Three years ago, their currency was destroyed in a scheme hatched by Berezovsky and his partners in crime, Goldman-Sachs, Inc. in the United States. Russia has a revolutionary climate where a patriotic party can rise. Although there are many reservations about President Putin, he is perhaps the only leader in the Western World to take any measures against the Jewish-Supremacist media bosses. Gusinsky, head of the largest private TV network in Russia and also a leader in the World Jewish Congress, was actually arrested and jailed a few weeks ago. He was subsequently released after agreeing to relinquish his illegally acquired TV network. Such an event illustrates the very different political climate in Russia in comparison to the United States.

Many Russians have urged me to get my new book on Jewish supremacism into the hands of the Russian people. I have devoted time and money to having my book translated and printed in Russian. I think Russia is so important to the world-wide efforts for our people that the new book will actually have its first printing in Russia a few weeks before the English edition will appear.

In addition to writing and researching, I have traveled throughout Russia and other Eastern European nations, and have met with hundreds of leaders who have become committed to saving our race. All across the Western world, I see our racial consciousness growing, our movements increasing, our spirit rising. Everywhere, our people are putting aside petty differences and nationality divisions and understand that now we must have White Pride Worldwide and White Unity. I am doing my best to carry this spirit wherever I travel, and I can tell you that this spirit is contagious! Never have I been so encouraged.

David Duke with Jean Marie Le Pen

The leaders I have met have included, National Front leaders Jean Marie Le Pen and Bruno Gollnish at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France. Ahmed Rami, one of the leading anti-Zionist publishers in the world, Juergen Graf, the educator who has faced persecution in Switzerland for daring to historically challenge some aspects of the Holocaust story, and many other Russian, Ukrainian, Estonian, Swedish, French, Italian, German, Austrian, Danish, Spanish, and British researchers and leaders who are part of the growing worldwide movement for truth, freedom and heritage.

Shortly before I left Russia, I spoke at the Mykovsky Museum, which is situated directly across the street from the infamous Lubyanka Prison and KGB headquarters in Moscow. The packed audience of 400 White Russian patriots cheered my speech from start to finish. It looked like a campaign stop in my political races in Louisiana; yet I was 5,000 miles away. A sense of European brotherhood permeated the room and it inspired me, as I know they were inspired by my words and passion. How ironic and how fateful, that only a few meters from the most infamous site of bloody violence against Russian Christians by the Bolsheviks, one could now openly talk about the murder and torture that occurred there, and reveal the identity of those responsible.

When I spoke, the emotion of the moment burned the words into my memory.

I need not tell you that those who control the governments and mass media of the world are of the same heritage as those who slit the throats of so many of your fathers and grandfathers in the blood-drenched prison of infamy only a few steps from this hall.

They no longer wear the same uniforms and some of their methods have changed, but make no mistake: their dark purpose is the same. They not only seek the destruction of the great Russian people but of every White nationality the world over. We have here tonight, Americans and Russians, Ukranians and Estonians. Our nations have had their conflicts in the past, but although we are proud of our respective nationalities and want to preserve every cultural nuance and manifestation of our people, we all know that no White nationality can survive unless every White nationality survives.

We cannot win this struggle unless we stand indivisible against an implacable enemy whose hatred for us has grown and deepened for two millennia.

We fight not for revenge, but for our freedom. We fight not to destroy any people, but for the sacred task of our own survival.

In this holy cause we must share one immutable principle: all people of European descent, no matter where they reside in the world, are brothers. As brothers we shall fight, as brothers we shall spread our truth, as brothers we shall win!

Russia has always been a bulwark to the East, the frontier of our race, and it is now on the frontline of our current struggle. It is my prayer that Mother Russia be strong and healthy, may Mother Russia be free; may she always be White.

When a racially aware Russia and reawakened America become united in our cause, the world will change. Our race will survive and together we shall go to the stars!

I left Russia three weeks ago, yet my ears still ring with their cheers; I can still feel their strong handshakes, and my heart continues to resonate with the reawakening spirit of our race worldwide.



Go to 13106
http://www.davidduke.com/general/jewish-professor-boasts-of-jewish-pornography-used-as-a-weapon-against-gentiles_1811.html
2/26/2007
Jewish Professor of American History at Aberdeen University in UK, Prof. Nathan Abrams. He boasts that Jews were the driving force of the modern pornographic industry and that their motivation is in part to destroy Gentile morals.

Jewish Professor Says Porn Industry is a Weapon used by Jews Against Gentiles

The following is an excerpt from one of the new additions to my book, Jewish Supremacism. It offers more powerful evidence that reveals the Jewish extremist war against Gentiles, a struggle that we Gentiles are not even allowed to know about, much less resist. The new edition of Jewish Supremacism will be available for purchase in about three weeks at www.davidduke.com

From the new 2007 Edition of Jewish Supremacism by David Duke

After learning about the inordinate Jewish involvement in organized crime, historical slavery and modern white slavery, it did not surprise me when I began to learn of their domination of pornography. Just as Jewish scholars faithfully recorded the Jewish domination of the African slave trade so they have also documented their prominent role in pornography.

In a respected and scholarly magazine of Jewish intellectuals, (The Jewish Quarterly, winter 2004) Jewish professor Nathan Abrams in an article titled, “Triple Exthnics,” proudly documents the leading role of Gentile-hating Jews in pornography.

A story little told is that of Jews in Hollywood’s seedier cousin, the adult film industry. Perhaps we’d prefer that the ‘triple exthnics’ didn’t exist, but there’s no getting away from the fact that secular Jews played (and still continue to play) a disproportionate role throughout the adult film industry in America. Jewish involvement in pornography has a long history in the United States, as Jews have helped transform a fringe subculture into what has become a primary constituent of Americana. These are the ‘true blue’ Jews.

Jewish activity in the porn industry divides into two (sometimes overlapping) groups: pornographers and performers. Though Jews make up only two per cent of the American population, they have been prominent in pornography. …

In the postwar era, America’s most notorious pornographer was Reuben Sturman, the ‘Walt Disney of Porn’. According to the US Department of Justice, throughout the 1970s Sturman controlled most of the pornography circulating in the country. … It was said that Sturman did not simply control the adult-entertainment industry; he was the industry. …

Many are entirely secular, Jews in name only. Sturman, however, identified as a Jew - he was a generous donator to Jewish charities. …

Abrams shows how the corruption and debasement of Gentiles and Christian morality is a primary part of their motivation for intentionally infecting the Gentile community with pornography.

Is there a deeper reason, beyond the mere financial, as to why Jews in particular have become involved in porn? …

Al Goldstein, the publisher of Screw, said “The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don’t believe in authoritarianism.” Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged. …

Extending the subversive thesis, Jewish involvement in the X-rated industry can be seen as a proverbial two fingers to the entire WASP establishment in America. …

Opposition to Jewish extremist subversion of Gentile, Christian or Muslim morality is frequently defined as anti-Semitic “hatred” in the Jewish dominated media. Abrams writing in a Jewish journal for a presumably Jewish audience writes matter-of-factly about the “atavistic hatred” against us by Jewish pornographers and their motivation to “weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion.”

Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion. Astyr remembers having “to run or fight for it in grammar school because I was a Jew. It could very well be that part of my porn career is an ‘up yours’ to these people.” …

Obviously, there are no articles in the mainstream media exposing Jewish “atavistic hatred” against Gentiles by the promoters of pornographic depravity. Abrams even goes on to talk about the roots of this revolutionary Jewish attack on European values.

Jews were also at the vanguard of the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse and Paul Goodman replaced Marx, Trotsky and Lenin as required revolutionary reading. …

Pacheco was one Jewish porn star who read Reich’s intellectual marriage of Freud and Marx. …

In light of the relatively tolerant Jewish view of sex, why are we ashamed of the Jewish role in the porn industry? We might not like it, but the Jewish role in this field has been significant and it is about time it was written about seriously.

Notice that all those mentioned: Reich, Marcuse, Goodman, Marx, Trotsky, Lenin and Freud are Jews. From Freud to Goodman, all represent a Jewish revolution against traditional European values and morality.

When sick Jewish pornographers are part of the brutality of Jewish organized crime, the results can obviously be horrifically tragic for our people. In 2000, a Jewish “Russian” organized crime ring was uncovered that specialized in kidnapping Russian children, some as young as two years old, from parks and orphanages and then subjecting them to rape, torture and murder, all on video tape. These tapes were sold to thousands of Jewish and Gentile perverts all over the world. When police in Italy were frustrated by lack of action by the authorities they released some of the video footage to an Italian network which then showed some of the graphic images hoping to cause public outrage. Instead of outrage against the Jewish murderers the TV producers suffered outrage for showing the disturbing images.

In spite of the horror and obvious newsworthiness of this international Jewish child porn/murder operation, it received little coverage in the media in the United States. When Seth Bekenstein, the ring’s American distributor was arrested, there was little publicity, and in spite of being a part of one of the most horrific criminal activities imaginable, he was sentenced to only 18 months on guilty plea.

Porn is no longer 1950s pictures of voluptuous nude women on a deserted beach. It has become permeated with sadism, masochism, scatology, even sexual molestation, rape and murder of young children. I am no prude. I love the beauty of the human body. But, I do think that this kind of sick criminal activity, in which there is so much exploitation, so much degradation, so much catering to the depths of human depravity, should be fought with constitutional law.

Ironically, with Jewish influence over media, societal mores, and government today, it is legal, even chic to make and sell the sickest pornography showing the sick defilement of women. But, if you have unacceptable political opinions about Jewish supremacism, you may find yourself a political and social pariah, or at worst in prison. We live in a Jewish supremacist world where often the sickest porn is legal while political incorrect opinions will land you in prison.



Go to 13105
http://www.rense.com/general81/mcnasty.htm
Meet President McNasty
4-4-8

John McCain's depressing tour of places where he used to be young has also reminded America of his high-school nickname, "McNasty." Even before he was a brain-damaged old psychopath, McCain was a mean, angry creep. Let's remember all the times Walnuts went nuts in public, so we can prepare for the inevitable campaign-trail explosion that will end his campaign to be America's Oldest President.

McCain "often insults people and flies off the handle," the New York Times reported. The Arizona Republic was writing about his "volcanic temper" the last time he ran for president, in 1896 1999. His former colleague in the Senate, Republican Bob Smith, says McCain is a nutter: "I have witnessed incidents where he has used profanity at colleagues and exploded at colleagues ... He would disagree about something and then explode. It was incidents of irrational behavior. We've all had incidents where we have gotten angry, but I've never seen anyone act like that." Former Congressman John LeBoutillier, another Republican, says this: "I think he is mentally unstable and not fit to be president."

Basically everyone on Capitol Hill has been the victim of McCain's sociopathic tirades, and many have the apology letters from McCain to prove it. "Nowhere is that sentiment stronger than in the Senate, where McCain has few friends or supporters. In fact, when McCain ran for the Republican nomination for president in 2000, only four Republican senators endorsed him," writes the conservative website NewsMax. When two Arizona medical doctors met with McCain to discuss a local endangered squirrel, "He slammed his fists on his desk, scattering papers across the room .... He jumped up and down, screaming obscenities at us for at least 10 minutes. He shook his fists as if he was going to slug us." Says another GOP colleague in the Senate, "I Didn't Want This Guy Anywhere Near A Trigger." A furious McCain regularly throws F-bombs at his colleagues for no apparent reason. In 1995, at the Capitol, McCain had a "scuffle" with 92-year-old Republican Senator Strom Thurmond. That's right, McCain tried to beat up the one person who was even older than McCain himself.

"It was election night 1986, and John McCain had just been elected to the U.S. Senate for the first time. Even so, he was not in a good mood. McCain was yelling at the top of his lungs and poking the chest of a young Republican volunteer who had set up a lectern that was too tall for the 5-foot-9 politician to be seen to advantage, according to a witness to the outburst." "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Republican Senator Thad Cochran said about McCain. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."



Go to 13104
http://www.rense.com/general43/over41.htm
Overthrow Of The
American Republic
Part 41
World Trade Center Wired For Internal Explosives?
by Sherman H. Skolnick
10-21-3

Sometimes certain events of a mystery are right under the noses of the monopoly press. Either because they are lazy, or their bosses will not let them write what they find, or whatever---parts of the strange happenings remain unexplained, sometimes for years and years.
A network reporter whispered into our ear, pressed to the ground. Not an unusual happening for us. If they find out something that is censored, and they cannot go with it, because of the higher-ups---well, they know where the independent loudmouths reside. And sometimes for various esoteric reasons, they owe us some favor. (Such as by digging up "dirt", we got their boss off their back.)
Before you consider some of the details, you have to consider the following:
[A] Some of what is contained hereafter as to certain persons in the World Trade Center may remain unexplained and not completely correct. So as to give those referred to the benefits of all doubts, that they may, in fact, be innocent of complicity in 9-11.
[B] BUT, possibly true and for the first time revealed, are the details that happened right under the view of the oil-soaked, spy-riddled American monopoly press.
BACKGROUND:
1. Various details analyzed and compiled by others, strongly support the view that the World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York City, on September 11, 2001, did not suddenly collapse shortly after something---an actual airplane, or a missile disguised with a hologram projection to simulate an airplane somehow hitting the Towers and each entire plane getting somehow swallowed up inside the buildings.
Yet, aviation and engineering experts seriously doubt that a huge airplane, wings and tail, could penetrate the buildings hitting heavy reinforced pillars and such. Some question: how come the huge wings and tail, from vibration and impact, did not fall off to the ground below? How come Fire Department experts, on their walkie-talkies, stated that they got high up in one of the buildings; that the fire they saw was not that bad; and that other firemen should bring up hoses because the fire could easily be brought under control. Yet, shortly after making such a report, the buildings got pulverized and collapsed all the way down.
2. The youngest son of George Herbert Walker Bush, namely Marvin Bush, is seldom mentioned in the monopoly press. Yet, there are detailed articles available in search engines [such as www.google.com MARVIN BUSH ] that Marvin was the director of a casualty insurance company with coverage of the World Trade Center, and that the coverage was stopped sometime before 9-11. Also Marvin Bush was a director of a firm that was involved with the security of the World Trade Center.
[For more details, review the known stories about FBI Deputy Director, John P. O'Neill, an expert on counter-terrorism, who about August, 2001, quit the Bureau because the Bush White House blocked him from further investigating Osama bin Laden. Why? Clearly, because O'Neill's probe would lead to the Bush Crime Family, the Carlyle Group, and related banks and entities tied to Osama. O'Neill became the head of Security at the World Trade Center, and about his first day of work was 9-11. He was outside one of the buildings but was somehow lured inside where he perished, CONVENIENTLY.]
3. Notice this strange series of events. A group of purported German and Austrian artists apparently smuggled their way into the World Trade Center. THEY LIVED FOR SOME TIME ON THE 91st FLOOR of one of the twin towers.
[What may or may not be relevant: the U.S. authorities tried their best to torpedo a criminal action in Germany, following 9-11, as to purported Moslem "terrorists" being implicated or in some way blameable for the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings. Yet, the head of the U.S. FBI and other top U.S. officials refused to show up to testify as requested. The apparent reason? German counter-intelligence was apparently pursuing an angle troubling to the U.S. Namely, that certain Saudis, living for a while prior to 9-11 in Germany, were part of a high-level U.S. government diversion to what really happened on September 11, 2001. That is, that Osama and his cohorts were NOT actually involved. And because of the data uncovered by German authorities, the supposed Moslem "terrorists" were merely on what is known in espionage, as a "parallel track", a trick to disguise the real events and make them like Lee Harvey Oswald, a patsy, falsely blamed.]
The German and Austrian purported artists were working on a book while living on the 91st floor of one of the Twin Towers, in an area that had been a warehouse, where they built a balcony.
"In short, the book belies the extravagance of the feat it seems to document: the covert installation, and brief use of a balcony on the 91st floor of the World Trade Center, 1,100 feet above the earth. Eight photographs---some grainy, all taken from a great distance--depict one tower's vast eastern facade, marred by a tiny molelike growth; a lone figure dressed in a white jacket, standing on a lectern-size box."
"Balcony Scene (Or Unseen) Atop the World; Episode at Trade Center Assumes Mythic Qualities", by Shaila K. Dewan, Metropolitan Desk, New York Times, Saturday, August 18, 2001 (1645 words to story).
More from the same article:
"Still, how did a balcony escape the notice of one of the most security-conscious office towers in the world? An examination of the security system revealed that it was focused on the ground floor and basement. Mr. Janka [one of the "artists"] said, adding, "There's no surveillance on the facade itself".
And more from the lengthy article:
"Yet, since the Sunday morning in March 2000, when the balcony was allegedly installed, and, 19 minutes later, dismantled, the affair has taken on the outlines of an urban myth, mutated by rumors and denials among the downtown cognoscenti."
Yet, more:
The four purported artists, "...the four, wearing harnesses, unscrewed the aluminum moldings that hold the window in place and used two large suction cups to remove the glass (air pressure adds about 300 pounds to the effort). As warm air streamed past, they outfitted the window with a cantilevered box, big enough for only one person at a time."
The World Trade Center security apparently at first denied to the New York Times and others that there was anyone living inside one of the Twin Towers on the 91st Floor.
4. So, questions remain:
===were the purported "artists", escaping notice of the WTC security and living on the 91st floor, a diversion for certain persons who wired up the towers for internal explosions, to concide with something striking the towers on 9-11? Did they know, or see anything, while living inside one of the towers, by which they could be witnesses to foul play? The "artists" may deny the whole thing as merely a "prank". And vigorously deny any complicity in any dirty business to bring down the towers. Until more facts are elicited, we must consider the possibility that they may be entirely innocent. To prove they lived in the building, the artists produced a bill proving a helicopter, paid for by them, was used to photograph their occupancy of the 91st floor, photos made from the outside through a window.
===the firm that got the contract to clear up the debris after the collapse of the towers was Controlled Demolition, Inc. Is it a mere coincidence that they are the same one specializing in taking down old hotels and such, by internal explosives causing such buildings to fall down on themselves. The firm was involved with what some contend was a cover up in the rapid way in which the FBI wanted to remove all evidence of what brought down the Federal Office Building, April 19, 1995, by multiple explosions in Oklahoma City. The building was quickly smashed down and the site covered up with cement, courtesy of the FBI and apparently with the demolition firm.
We are making every effort to attach a copy of the New York Times article to this story.



Go to 13103
http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=183
THE PROPAGANDA ARM of the New World Order is the Jewish-controlled major media. Here is the New World Order Jewish hierarchy:

The Rothschild Banking Cartel: Jacob Rothschild is the pope. Ben Bernanke (Federal Reserve) and James D. Wolfensohn (World Bank) are the Cardinals.

The Council Of Foreign Relations; Trilateral Commission; Bilderberg Group: Henry Kissinger, Alan Greenspan, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz are the Priests.

Time, Newsweek, US News & World Report, Reuters (Rothschilds), The Economist (Rothschilds), CBS, NBC, ABC: Zuckerman of US News & World Report, Redstone (AKA Murray Rothstein of MTV/Viacom, Eisner of ABC, Tisch of CBS, Sarnoff of NBC, Murdoch of Fox News, are the Deacons.


PLANNING A ONE WORLD GOVERMENT

THERE ARE 3 SPHERES in which the NWO Jews have 3 specific goals:

I. The Melt-Down Of National Borders:

A) The invasion of illegals into the US.
B) The invasion of Muslims throughout Christian Europe.
C) The invasion of alien cultures into the Christian West.

II. The Melt Down Of Financial Institutions:

A) The dismantling of American Savings & Loan Banks in the 1990’s caused by the Fed’s high-interest loans to the US government & forced low interest loans of the S&Ls.

B) The dismantling of independent banks such as the recent takeover of Bear Stearns by JP Morgan and the Jewish-owned Federal Reserve Bank. (Bear Stearns was forced by the Fed to loan money to unqualified borrowers or be sued causing its collapse.)

C) The dismantling of national banks by the Jewish International Finance Cartel run by the Rothschilds of London & France.

III. The Melt-Down Of Christian Culture:

A) The eradication of public Christian expression by the Jewish-run & funded ACLU in America through the Jewish-run US legal system.

B) The eradication of Christian culture such as in Christian Kosovo wherein the Albanian Muslims of the drug-running KLA declared independence vis-à-vis sanction by the Jewish-run US State Department Here.

C) The eradication of Christian political activity throughout the Western World vis-à-vis the Jewish lie known as “Separation Of Church & State” used in the Jewish-run American & European Courts.



Go to 13102
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805?printable=true¤tPage=all
Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear
Monsanto already dominates America’s food chain with its genetically modified seeds. Now it has targeted milk production. Just as frightening as the corporation’s tactics–ruthless legal battles against small farmers–is its decades-long history of toxic contamination.
by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele May 2008 No thanks: An anti-Monsanto crop circle made by farmers and volunteers in the Philippines. By Melvyn Calderon/Greenpeace HO/A.P. Images.


Gary Rinehart clearly remembers the summer day in 2002 when the stranger walked in and issued his threat. Rinehart was behind the counter of the Square Deal, his “old-time country store,” as he calls it, on the fading town square of Eagleville, Missouri, a tiny farm community 100 miles north of Kansas City.

The Square Deal is a fixture in Eagleville, a place where farmers and townspeople can go for lightbulbs, greeting cards, hunting gear, ice cream, aspirin, and dozens of other small items without having to drive to a big-box store in Bethany, the county seat, 15 miles down Interstate 35.

Everyone knows Rinehart, who was born and raised in the area and runs one of Eagleville’s few surviving businesses. The stranger came up to the counter and asked for him by name.

“Well, that’s me,” said Rinehart.

As Rinehart would recall, the man began verbally attacking him, saying he had proof that Rinehart had planted Monsanto’s genetically modified (G.M.) soybeans in violation of the company’s patent. Better come clean and settle with Monsanto, Rinehart says the man told him—or face the consequences.

Rinehart was incredulous, listening to the words as puzzled customers and employees looked on. Like many others in rural America, Rinehart knew of Monsanto’s fierce reputation for enforcing its patents and suing anyone who allegedly violated them. But Rinehart wasn’t a farmer. He wasn’t a seed dealer. He hadn’t planted any seeds or sold any seeds. He owned a small—a really small—country store in a town of 350 people. He was angry that somebody could just barge into the store and embarrass him in front of everyone. “It made me and my business look bad,” he says. Rinehart says he told the intruder, “You got the wrong guy.”

When the stranger persisted, Rinehart showed him the door. On the way out the man kept making threats. Rinehart says he can’t remember the exact words, but they were to the effect of: “Monsanto is big. You can’t win. We will get you. You will pay.”

Scenes like this are playing out in many parts of rural America these days as Monsanto goes after farmers, farmers’ co-ops, seed dealers—anyone it suspects may have infringed its patents of genetically modified seeds. As interviews and reams of court documents reveal, Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents in the American heartland to strike fear into farm country. They fan out into fields and farm towns, where they secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners, and co-ops; infiltrate community meetings; and gather information from informants about farming activities. Farmers say that some Monsanto agents pretend to be surveyors. Others confront farmers on their land and try to pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records. Farmers call them the “seed police” and use words such as “Gestapo” and “Mafia” to describe their tactics.

When asked about these practices, Monsanto declined to comment specifically, other than to say that the company is simply protecting its patents. “Monsanto spends more than $2 million a day in research to identify, test, develop and bring to market innovative new seeds and technologies that benefit farmers,” Monsanto spokesman Darren Wallis wrote in an e-mailed letter to Vanity Fair. “One tool in protecting this investment is patenting our discoveries and, if necessary, legally defending those patents against those who might choose to infringe upon them.” Wallis said that, while the vast majority of farmers and seed dealers follow the licensing agreements, “a tiny fraction” do not, and that Monsanto is obligated to those who do abide by its rules to enforce its patent rights on those who “reap the benefits of the technology without paying for its use.” He said only a small number of cases ever go to trial.

Some compare Monsanto’s hard-line approach to Microsoft’s zealous efforts to protect its software from pirates. At least with Microsoft the buyer of a program can use it over and over again. But farmers who buy Monsanto’s seeds can’t even do that.

The Control of Nature
For centuries—millennia—farmers have saved seeds from season to season: they planted in the spring, harvested in the fall, then reclaimed and cleaned the seeds over the winter for re-planting the next spring. Monsanto has turned this ancient practice on its head.

Monsanto developed G.M. seeds that would resist its own herbicide, Roundup, offering farmers a convenient way to spray fields with weed killer without affecting crops. Monsanto then patented the seeds. For nearly all of its history the United States Patent and Trademark Office had refused to grant patents on seeds, viewing them as life-forms with too many variables to be patented. “It’s not like describing a widget,” says Joseph Mendelson III, the legal director of the Center for Food Safety, which has tracked Monsanto’s activities in rural America for years.

Indeed not. But in 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision, turned seeds into widgets, laying the groundwork for a handful of corporations to begin taking control of the world’s food supply. In its decision, the court extended patent law to cover “a live human-made microorganism.” In this case, the organism wasn’t even a seed. Rather, it was a Pseudomonas bacterium developed by a General Electric scientist to clean up oil spills. But the precedent was set, and Monsanto took advantage of it. Since the 1980s, Monsanto has become the world leader in genetic modification of seeds and has won 674 biotechnology patents, more than any other company, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data.

Farmers who buy Monsanto’s patented Roundup Ready seeds are required to sign an agreement promising not to save the seed produced after each harvest for re-planting, or to sell the seed to other farmers. This means that farmers must buy new seed every year. Those increased sales, coupled with ballooning sales of its Roundup weed killer, have been a bonanza for Monsanto.

This radical departure from age-old practice has created turmoil in farm country. Some farmers don’t fully understand that they aren’t supposed to save Monsanto’s seeds for next year’s planting. Others do, but ignore the stipulation rather than throw away a perfectly usable product. Still others say that they don’t use Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds, but seeds have been blown into their fields by wind or deposited by birds. It’s certainly easy for G.M. seeds to get mixed in with traditional varieties when seeds are cleaned by commercial dealers for re-planting. The seeds look identical; only a laboratory analysis can show the difference. Even if a farmer doesn’t buy G.M. seeds and doesn’t want them on his land, it’s a safe bet he’ll get a visit from Monsanto’s seed police if crops grown from G.M. seeds are discovered in his fields.

Most Americans know Monsanto because of what it sells to put on our lawns— the ubiquitous weed killer Roundup. What they may not know is that the company now profoundly influences—and one day may virtually control—what we put on our tables. For most of its history Monsanto was a chemical giant, producing some of the most toxic substances ever created, residues from which have left us with some of the most polluted sites on earth. Yet in a little more than a decade, the company has sought to shed its polluted past and morph into something much different and more far-reaching—an “agricultural company” dedicated to making the world “a better place for future generations.” Still, more than one Web log claims to see similarities between Monsanto and the fictional company “U-North” in the movie Michael Clayton, an agribusiness giant accused in a multibillion-dollar lawsuit of selling an herbicide that causes cancer.

Monsanto brought false accusations against Gary Rinehart—shown here at his rural Missouri store. There has been no apology. Photographs by Kurt Markus.


Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds have transformed the company and are radically altering global agriculture. So far, the company has produced G.M. seeds for soybeans, corn, canola, and cotton. Many more products have been developed or are in the pipeline, including seeds for sugar beets and alfalfa. The company is also seeking to extend its reach into milk production by marketing an artificial growth hormone for cows that increases their output, and it is taking aggressive steps to put those who don’t want to use growth hormone at a commercial disadvantage.

Even as the company is pushing its G.M. agenda, Monsanto is buying up conventional-seed companies. In 2005, Monsanto paid $1.4 billion for Seminis, which controlled 40 percent of the U.S. market for lettuce, tomatoes, and other vegetable and fruit seeds. Two weeks later it announced the acquisition of the country’s third-largest cottonseed company, Emergent Genetics, for $300 million. It’s estimated that Monsanto seeds now account for 90 percent of the U.S. production of soybeans, which are used in food products beyond counting. Monsanto’s acquisitions have fueled explosive growth, transforming the St. Louis–based corporation into the largest seed company in the world.

In Iraq, the groundwork has been laid to protect the patents of Monsanto and other G.M.-seed companies. One of L. Paul Bremer’s last acts as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority was an order stipulating that “farmers shall be prohibited from re-using seeds of protected varieties.” Monsanto has said that it has no interest in doing business in Iraq, but should the company change its mind, the American-style law is in place.

To be sure, more and more agricultural corporations and individual farmers are using Monsanto’s G.M. seeds. As recently as 1980, no genetically modified crops were grown in the U.S. In 2007, the total was 142 million acres planted. Worldwide, the figure was 282 million acres. Many farmers believe that G.M. seeds increase crop yields and save money. Another reason for their attraction is convenience. By using Roundup Ready soybean seeds, a farmer can spend less time tending to his fields. With Monsanto seeds, a farmer plants his crop, then treats it later with Roundup to kill weeds. That takes the place of labor-intensive weed control and plowing.

Monsanto portrays its move into G.M. seeds as a giant leap for mankind. But out in the American countryside, Monsanto’s no-holds-barred tactics have made it feared and loathed. Like it or not, farmers say, they have fewer and fewer choices in buying seeds.

And controlling the seeds is not some abstraction. Whoever provides the world’s seeds controls the world’s food supply.

Under Surveillance
After Monsanto’s investigator confronted Gary Rinehart, Monsanto filed a federal lawsuit alleging that Rinehart “knowingly, intentionally, and willfully” planted seeds “in violation of Monsanto’s patent rights.” The company’s complaint made it sound as if Monsanto had Rinehart dead to rights:

During the 2002 growing season, Investigator Jeffery Moore, through surveillance of Mr. Rinehart’s farm facility and farming operations, observed Defendant planting brown bag soybean seed. Mr. Moore observed the Defendant take the brown bag soybeans to a field, which was subsequently loaded into a grain drill and planted. Mr. Moore located two empty bags in the ditch in the public road right-of-way beside one of the fields planted by Rinehart, which contained some soybeans. Mr. Moore collected a small amount of soybeans left in the bags which Defendant had tossed into the public right-of way. These samples tested positive for Monsanto’s Roundup Ready technology.

Faced with a federal lawsuit, Rinehart had to hire a lawyer. Monsanto eventually realized that “Investigator Jeffery Moore” had targeted the wrong man, and dropped the suit. Rinehart later learned that the company had been secretly investigating farmers in his area. Rinehart never heard from Monsanto again: no letter of apology, no public concession that the company had made a terrible mistake, no offer to pay his attorney’s fees. “I don’t know how they get away with it,” he says. “If I tried to do something like that it would be bad news. I felt like I was in another country.”

Gary Rinehart is actually one of Monsanto’s luckier targets. Ever since commercial introduction of its G.M. seeds, in 1996, Monsanto has launched thousands of investigations and filed lawsuits against hundreds of farmers and seed dealers. In a 2007 report, the Center for Food Safety, in Washington, D.C., documented 112 such lawsuits, in 27 states.

Even more significant, in the Center’s opinion, are the numbers of farmers who settle because they don’t have the money or the time to fight Monsanto. “The number of cases filed is only the tip of the iceberg,” says Bill Freese, the Center’s science-policy analyst. Freese says he has been told of many cases in which Monsanto investigators showed up at a farmer’s house or confronted him in his fields, claiming he had violated the technology agreement and demanding to see his records. According to Freese, investigators will say, “Monsanto knows that you are saving Roundup Ready seeds, and if you don’t sign these information-release forms, Monsanto is going to come after you and take your farm or take you for all you’re worth.” Investigators will sometimes show a farmer a photo of himself coming out of a store, to let him know he is being followed.

Lawyers who have represented farmers sued by Monsanto say that intimidating actions like these are commonplace. Most give in and pay Monsanto some amount in damages; those who resist face the full force of Monsanto’s legal wrath.

Scorched-Earth Tactics
Pilot Grove, Missouri, population 750, sits in rolling farmland 150 miles west of St. Louis. The town has a grocery store, a bank, a bar, a nursing home, a funeral parlor, and a few other small businesses. There are no stoplights, but the town doesn’t need any. The little traffic it has comes from trucks on their way to and from the grain elevator on the edge of town. The elevator is owned by a local co-op, the Pilot Grove Cooperative Elevator, which buys soybeans and corn from farmers in the fall, then ships out the grain over the winter. The co-op has seven full-time employees and four computers.

In the fall of 2006, Monsanto trained its legal guns on Pilot Grove; ever since, its farmers have been drawn into a costly, disruptive legal battle against an opponent with limitless resources. Neither Pilot Grove nor Monsanto will discuss the case, but it is possible to piece together much of the story from documents filed as part of the litigation.

Monsanto began investigating soybean farmers in and around Pilot Grove several years ago. There is no indication as to what sparked the probe, but Monsanto periodically investigates farmers in soybean-growing regions such as this one in central Missouri. The company has a staff devoted to enforcing patents and litigating against farmers. To gather leads, the company maintains an 800 number and encourages farmers to inform on other farmers they think may be engaging in “seed piracy.”

Once Pilot Grove had been targeted, Monsanto sent private investigators into the area. Over a period of months, Monsanto’s investigators surreptitiously followed the co-op’s employees and customers and videotaped them in fields and going about other activities. At least 17 such surveillance videos were made, according to court records. The investigative work was outsourced to a St. Louis agency, McDowell & Associates. It was a McDowell investigator who erroneously fingered Gary Rinehart. In Pilot Grove, at least 11 McDowell investigators have worked the case, and Monsanto makes no bones about the extent of this effort: “Surveillance was conducted throughout the year by various investigators in the field,” according to court records. McDowell, like Monsanto, will not comment on the case.

Not long after investigators showed up in Pilot Grove, Monsanto subpoenaed the co-op’s records concerning seed and herbicide purchases and seed-cleaning operations. The co-op provided more than 800 pages of documents pertaining to dozens of farmers. Monsanto sued two farmers and negotiated settlements with more than 25 others it accused of seed piracy. But Monsanto’s legal assault had only begun. Although the co-op had provided voluminous records, Monsanto then sued it in federal court for patent infringement. Monsanto contended that by cleaning seeds—a service which it had provided for decades—the co-op was inducing farmers to violate Monsanto’s patents. In effect, Monsanto wanted the co-op to police its own customers.

In the majority of cases where Monsanto sues, or threatens to sue, farmers settle before going to trial. The cost and stress of litigating against a global corporation are just too great. But Pilot Grove wouldn’t cave—and ever since, Monsanto has been turning up the heat. The more the co-op has resisted, the more legal firepower Monsanto has aimed at it. Pilot Grove’s lawyer, Steven H. Schwartz, described Monsanto in a court filing as pursuing a “scorched earth tactic,” intent on “trying to drive the co-op into the ground.”

Even after Pilot Grove turned over thousands more pages of sales records going back five years, and covering virtually every one of its farmer customers, Monsanto wanted more—the right to inspect the co-op’s hard drives. When the co-op offered to provide an electronic version of any record, Monsanto demanded hands-on access to Pilot Grove’s in-house computers.

Monsanto next petitioned to make potential damages punitive—tripling the amount that Pilot Grove might have to pay if found guilty. After a judge denied that request, Monsanto expanded the scope of the pre-trial investigation by seeking to quadruple the number of depositions. “Monsanto is doing its best to make this case so expensive to defend that the Co-op will have no choice but to relent,” Pilot Grove’s lawyer said in a court filing.

With Pilot Grove still holding out for a trial, Monsanto now subpoenaed the records of more than 100 of the co-op’s customers. In a “You are Commanded … ” notice, the farmers were ordered to gather up five years of invoices, receipts, and all other papers relating to their soybean and herbicide purchases, and to have the documents delivered to a law office in St. Louis. Monsanto gave them two weeks to comply.

Whether Pilot Grove can continue to wage its legal battle remains to be seen. Whatever the outcome, the case shows why Monsanto is so detested in farm country, even by those who buy its products. “I don’t know of a company that chooses to sue its own customer base,” says Joseph Mendelson, of the Center for Food Safety. “It’s a very bizarre business strategy.” But it’s one that Monsanto manages to get away with, because increasingly it’s the dominant vendor in town.

Chemicals? What Chemicals?
The Monsanto Company has never been one of America’s friendliest corporate citizens. Given Monsanto’s current dominance in the field of bioengineering, it’s worth looking at the company’s own DNA. The future of the company may lie in seeds, but the seeds of the company lie in chemicals. Communities around the world are still reaping the environmental consequences of Monsanto’s origins.

Monsanto was founded in 1901 by John Francis Queeny, a tough, cigar-smoking Irishman with a sixth-grade education. A buyer for a wholesale drug company, Queeny had an idea. But like a lot of employees with ideas, he found that his boss wouldn’t listen to him. So he went into business for himself on the side. Queeny was convinced there was money to be made manufacturing a substance called saccharin, an artificial sweetener then imported from Germany. He took $1,500 of his savings, borrowed another $3,500, and set up shop in a dingy warehouse near the St. Louis waterfront. With borrowed equipment and secondhand machines, he began producing saccharin for the U.S. market. He called the company the Monsanto Chemical Works, Monsanto being his wife’s maiden name.

The German cartel that controlled the market for saccharin wasn’t pleased, and cut the price from $4.50 to $1 a pound to try to force Queeny out of business. The young company faced other challenges. Questions arose about the safety of saccharin, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture even tried to ban it. Fortunately for Queeny, he wasn’t up against opponents as aggressive and litigious as the Monsanto of today. His persistence and the loyalty of one steady customer kept the company afloat. That steady customer was a new company in Georgia named Coca-Cola.

Monsanto added more and more products—vanillin, caffeine, and drugs used as sedatives and laxatives. In 1917, Monsanto began making aspirin, and soon became the largest maker worldwide. During World War I, cut off from imported European chemicals, Monsanto was forced to manufacture its own, and its position as a leading force in the chemical industry was assured.

After Queeny was diagnosed with cancer, in the late 1920s, his only son, Edgar, became president. Where the father had been a classic entrepreneur, Edgar Monsanto Queeny was an empire builder with a grand vision. It was Edgar—shrewd, daring, and intuitive (“He can see around the next corner,” his secretary once said)—who built Monsanto into a global powerhouse. Under Edgar Queeny and his successors, Monsanto extended its reach into a phenomenal number of products: plastics, resins, rubber goods, fuel additives, artificial caffeine, industrial fluids, vinyl siding, dishwasher detergent, anti-freeze, fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides. Its safety glass protects the U.S. Constitution and the Mona Lisa. Its synthetic fibers are the basis of Astroturf.

During the 1970s, the company shifted more and more resources into biotechnology. In 1981 it created a molecular-biology group for research in plant genetics. The next year, Monsanto scientists hit gold: they became the first to genetically modify a plant cell. “It will now be possible to introduce virtually any gene into plant cells with the ultimate goal of improving crop productivity,” said Ernest Jaworski, director of Monsanto’s Biological Sciences Program.

Over the next few years, scientists working mainly in the company’s vast new Life Sciences Research Center, 25 miles west of St. Louis, developed one genetically modified product after another—cotton, soybeans, corn, canola. From the start, G.M. seeds were controversial with the public as well as with some farmers and European consumers. Monsanto has sought to portray G.M. seeds as a panacea, a way to alleviate poverty and feed the hungry. Robert Shapiro, Monsanto’s president during the 1990s, once called G.M. seeds “the single most successful introduction of technology in the history of agriculture, including the plow.”

By the late 1990s, Monsanto, having rebranded itself into a “life sciences” company, had spun off its chemical and fibers operations into a new company called Solutia. After an additional reorganization, Monsanto re-incorporated in 2002 and officially declared itself an “agricultural company.”

In its company literature, Monsanto now refers to itself disingenuously as a “relatively new company” whose primary goal is helping “farmers around the world in their mission to feed, clothe, and fuel” a growing planet. In its list of corporate milestones, all but a handful are from the recent era. As for the company’s early history, the decades when it grew into an industrial powerhouse now held potentially responsible for more than 50 Environmental Protection Agency Superfund sites—none of that is mentioned. It’s as though the original Monsanto, the company that long had the word “chemical” as part of its name, never existed. One of the benefits of doing this, as the company does not point out, was to channel the bulk of the growing backlog of chemical lawsuits and liabilities onto Solutia, keeping the Monsanto brand pure.

But Monsanto’s past, especially its environmental legacy, is very much with us. For many years Monsanto produced two of the most toxic substances ever known— polychlorinated biphenyls, better known as PCBs, and dioxin. Monsanto no longer produces either, but the places where it did are still struggling with the aftermath, and probably always will be.

“Systemic Intoxication”
Twelve miles downriver from Charleston, West Virginia, is the town of Nitro, where Monsanto operated a chemical plant from 1929 to 1995. In 1948 the plant began to make a powerful herbicide known as 2,4,5-T, called “weed bug” by the workers. A by-product of the process was the creation of a chemical that would later be known as dioxin.

The name dioxin refers to a group of highly toxic chemicals that have been linked to heart disease, liver disease, human reproductive disorders, and developmental problems. Even in small amounts, dioxin persists in the environment and accumulates in the body. In 1997 the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization, classified the most powerful form of dioxin as a substance that causes cancer in humans. In 2001 the U.S. government listed the chemical as a “known human carcinogen.”

On March 8, 1949, a massive explosion rocked Monsanto’s Nitro plant when a pressure valve blew on a container cooking up a batch of herbicide. The noise from the release was a scream so loud that it drowned out the emergency steam whistle for five minutes. A plume of vapor and white smoke drifted across the plant and out over town.Residue from the explosion coated the interior of the building and those inside with what workers described as “a fine black powder.” Many felt their skin prickle and were told to scrub down.

Within days, workers experienced skin eruptions. Many were soon diagnosed with chloracne, a condition similar to common acne but more severe, longer lasting, and potentially disfiguring. Others felt intense pains in their legs, chest, and trunk. A confidential medical report at the time said the explosion “caused a systemic intoxication in the workers involving most major organ systems.” Doctors who examined four of the most seriously injured men detected a strong odor coming from them when they were all together in a closed room. “We believe these men are excreting a foreign chemical through their skins,” the confidential report to Monsanto noted. Court records indicate that 226 plant workers became ill.

According to court documents that have surfaced in a West Virginia court case, Monsanto downplayed the impact, stating that the contaminant affecting workers was “fairly slow acting” and caused “only an irritation of the skin.”

In the meantime, the Nitro plant continued to produce herbicides, rubber products, and other chemicals. In the 1960s, the factory manufactured Agent Orange, the powerful herbicide which the U.S. military used to defoliate jungles during the Vietnam War, and which later was the focus of lawsuits by veterans contending that they had been harmed by exposure. As with Monsanto’s older herbicides, the manufacturing of Agent Orange created dioxin as a by-product.

As for the Nitro plant’s waste, some was burned in incinerators, some dumped in landfills or storm drains, some allowed to run into streams. As Stuart Calwell, a lawyer who has represented both workers and residents in Nitro, put it, “Dioxin went wherever the product went, down the sewer, shipped in bags, and when the waste was burned, out in the air.”

In 1981 several former Nitro employees filed lawsuits in federal court, charging that Monsanto had knowingly exposed them to chemicals that caused long-term health problems, including cancer and heart disease. They alleged that Monsanto knew that many chemicals used at Nitro were potentially harmful, but had kept that information from them. On the eve of a trial, in 1988, Monsanto agreed to settle most of the cases by making a single lump payment of $1.5 million. Monsanto also agreed to drop its claim to collect $305,000 in court costs from six retired Monsanto workers who had unsuccessfully charged in another lawsuit that Monsanto had recklessly exposed them to dioxin. Monsanto had attached liens to the retirees’ homes to guarantee collection of the debt.

Monsanto stopped producing dioxin in Nitro in 1969, but the toxic chemical can still be found well beyond the Nitro plant site. Repeated studies have found elevated levels of dioxin in nearby rivers, streams, and fish. Residents have sued to seek damages from Monsanto and Solutia. Earlier this year, a West Virginia judge merged those lawsuits into a class-action suit. A Monsanto spokesman said, “We believe the allegations are without merit and we’ll defend ourselves vigorously.” The suit will no doubt take years to play out. Time is one thing that Monsanto always has, and that the plaintiffs usually don’t.

Poisoned Lawns
Five hundred miles to the south, the people of Anniston, Alabama, know all about what the people of Nitro are going through. They’ve been there. In fact, you could say, they’re still there.

From 1929 to 1971, Monsanto’s Anniston works produced PCBs as industrial coolants and insulating fluids for transformers and other electrical equipment. One of the wonder chemicals of the 20th century, PCBs were exceptionally versatile and fire-resistant, and became central to many American industries as lubricants, hydraulic fluids, and sealants. But PCBs are toxic. A member of a family of chemicals that mimic hormones, PCBs have been linked to damage in the liver and in the neurological, immune, endocrine, and reproductive systems. The Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, now classify PCBs as “probable carcinogens.”

Today, 37 years after PCB production ceased in Anniston, and after tons of contaminated soil have been removed to try to reclaim the site, the area around the old Monsanto plant remains one of the most polluted spots in the U.S.

People in Anniston find themselves in this fix today largely because of the way Monsanto disposed of PCB waste for decades. Excess PCBs were dumped in a nearby open-pit landfill or allowed to flow off the property with storm water. Some waste was poured directly into Snow Creek, which runs alongside the plant and empties into a larger stream, Choccolocco Creek. PCBs also turned up in private lawns after the company invited Anniston residents to use soil from the plant for their lawns, according to The Anniston Star.

So for decades the people of Anniston breathed air, planted gardens, drank from wells, fished in rivers, and swam in creeks contaminated with PCBs—without knowing anything about the danger. It wasn’t until the 1990s—20 years after Monsanto stopped making PCBs in Anniston—that widespread public awareness of the problem there took hold.

Studies by health authorities consistently found elevated levels of PCBs in houses, yards, streams, fields, fish, and other wildlife—and in people. In 2003, Monsanto and Solutia entered into a consent decree with the E.P.A. to clean up Anniston. Scores of houses and small businesses were to be razed, tons of contaminated soil dug up and carted off, and streambeds scooped of toxic residue. The cleanup is under way, and it will take years, but some doubt it will ever be completed—the job is massive. To settle residents’ claims, Monsanto has also paid $550 million to 21,000 Anniston residents exposed to PCBs, but many of them continue to live with PCBs in their bodies. Once PCB is absorbed into human tissue, there it forever remains.

Monsanto shut down PCB production in Anniston in 1971, and the company ended all its American PCB operations in 1977. Also in 1977, Monsanto closed a PCB plant in Wales. In recent years, residents near the village of Groesfaen, in southern Wales, have noticed vile odors emanating from an old quarry outside the village. As it turns out, Monsanto had dumped thousands of tons of waste from its nearby PCB plant into the quarry. British authorities are struggling to decide what to do with what they have now identified as among the most contaminated places in Britain.

“No Cause for Public Alarm”
What had Monsanto known—or what should it have known—about the potential dangers of the chemicals it was manufacturing? There’s considerable documentation lurking in court records from many lawsuits indicating that Monsanto knew quite a lot. Let’s look just at the example of PCBs.

The evidence that Monsanto refused to face questions about their toxicity is quite clear. In 1956 the company tried to sell the navy a hydraulic fluid for its submarines called Pydraul 150, which contained PCBs. Monsanto supplied the navy with test results for the product. But the navy decided to run its own tests. Afterward, navy officials informed Monsanto that they wouldn’t be buying the product. “Applications of Pydraul 150 caused death in all of the rabbits tested” and indicated “definite liver damage,” navy officials told Monsanto, according to an internal Monsanto memo divulged in the course of a court proceeding. “No matter how we discussed the situation,” complained Monsanto’s medical director, R. Emmet Kelly, “it was impossible to change their thinking that Pydraul 150 is just too toxic for use in submarines.”

Ten years later, a biologist conducting studies for Monsanto in streams near the Anniston plant got quick results when he submerged his test fish. As he reported to Monsanto, according to The Washington Post, “All 25 fish lost equilibrium and turned on their sides in 10 seconds and all were dead in 3½ minutes.”

Jeff Kleinpeter, of Baton Rouge, was accused by Monsanto of making misleading claims just for telling customers his cows are free of artificial bovine growth hormone.


When the Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.) turned up high levels of PCBs in fish near the Anniston plant in 1970, the company swung into action to limit the P.R. damage. An internal memo entitled “confidential—f.y.i. and destroy” from Monsanto official Paul B. Hodges reviewed steps under way to limit disclosure of the information. One element of the strategy was to get public officials to fight Monsanto’s battle: “Joe Crockett, Secretary of the Alabama Water Improvement Commission, will try to handle the problem quietly without release of the information to the public at this time,” according to the memo.

Despite Monsanto’s efforts, the information did get out, but the company was able to blunt its impact. Monsanto’s Anniston plant manager “convinced” a reporter for The Anniston Star that there was really nothing to worry about, and an internal memo from Monsanto’s headquarters in St. Louis summarized the story that subsequently appeared in the newspaper: “Quoting both plant management and the Alabama Water Improvement Commission, the feature emphasized the PCB problem was relatively new, was being solved by Monsanto and, at this point, was no cause for public alarm.”

In truth, there was enormous cause for public alarm. But that harm was done by the “Original Monsanto Company,” not “Today’s Monsanto Company” (the words and the distinction are Monsanto’s). The Monsanto of today says that it can be trusted—that its biotech crops are “as wholesome, nutritious and safe as conventional crops,” and that milk from cows injected with its artificial growth hormone is the same as, and as safe as, milk from any other cow.

The Milk Wars
Jeff Kleinpeter takes very good care of his dairy cows. In the winter he turns on heaters to warm their barns. In the summer, fans blow gentle breezes to cool them, and on especially hot days, a fine mist floats down to take the edge off Louisiana’s heat. The dairy has gone “to the ultimate end of the earth for cow comfort,” says Kleinpeter, a fourth-generation dairy farmer in Baton Rouge. He says visitors marvel at what he does: “I’ve had many of them say, ‘When I die, I want to come back as a Kleinpeter cow.’?”

Monsanto would like to change the way Jeff Kleinpeter and his family do business. Specifically, Monsanto doesn’t like the label on Kleinpeter Dairy’s milk cartons: “From Cows Not Treated with rBGH.” To consumers, that means the milk comes from cows that were not given artificial bovine growth hormone, a supplement developed by Monsanto that can be injected into dairy cows to increase their milk output.

No one knows what effect, if any, the hormone has on milk or the people who drink it. Studies have not detected any difference in the quality of milk produced by cows that receive rBGH, or rBST, a term by which it is also known. But Jeff Kleinpeter—like millions of consumers—wants no part of rBGH. Whatever its effect on humans, if any, Kleinpeter feels certain it’s harmful to cows because it speeds up their metabolism and increases the chances that they’ll contract a painful illness that can shorten their lives. “It’s like putting a Volkswagen car in with the Indianapolis 500 racers,” he says. “You gotta keep the pedal to the metal the whole way through, and pretty soon that poor little Volkswagen engine’s going to burn up.”

Kleinpeter Dairy has never used Monsanto’s artificial hormone, and the dairy requires other dairy farmers from whom it buys milk to attest that they don’t use it, either. At the suggestion of a marketing consultant, the dairy began advertising its milk as coming from rBGH-free cows in 2005, and the label began appearing on Kleinpeter milk cartons and in company literature, including a new Web site of Kleinpeter products that proclaims, “We treat our cows with love … not rBGH.”

The dairy’s sales soared. For Kleinpeter, it was simply a matter of giving consumers more information about their product.

But giving consumers that information has stirred the ire of Monsanto. The company contends that advertising by Kleinpeter and other dairies touting their “no rBGH” milk reflects adversely on Monsanto’s product. In a letter to the Federal Trade Commission in February 2007, Monsanto said that, notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence that there is no difference in the milk from cows treated with its product, “milk processors persist in claiming on their labels and in advertisements that the use of rBST is somehow harmful, either to cows or to the people who consume milk from rBST-supplemented cows.”

Monsanto called on the commission to investigate what it called the “deceptive advertising and labeling practices” of milk processors such as Kleinpeter, accusing them of misleading consumers “by falsely claiming that there are health and safety risks associated with milk from rBST-supplemented cows.” As noted, Kleinpeter does not make any such claims—he simply states that his milk comes from cows not injected with rBGH.

Monsanto’s attempt to get the F.T.C. to force dairies to change their advertising was just one more step in the corporation’s efforts to extend its reach into agriculture. After years of scientific debate and public controversy, the F.D.A. in 1993 approved commercial use of rBST, basing its decision in part on studies submitted by Monsanto. That decision allowed the company to market the artificial hormone. The effect of the hormone is to increase milk production, not exactly something the nation needed then—or needs now. The U.S. was actually awash in milk, with the government buying up the surplus to prevent a collapse in prices.

Monsanto began selling the supplement in 1994 under the name Posilac. Monsanto acknowledges that the possible side effects of rBST for cows include lameness, disorders of the uterus, increased body temperature, digestive problems, and birthing difficulties. Veterinary drug reports note that “cows injected with Posilac are at an increased risk for mastitis,” an udder infection in which bacteria and pus may be pumped out with the milk. What’s the effect on humans? The F.D.A. has consistently said that the milk produced by cows that receive rBGH is the same as milk from cows that aren’t injected: “The public can be confident that milk and meat from BST-treated cows is safe to consume.” Nevertheless, some scientists are concerned by the lack of long-term studies to test the additive’s impact, especially on children. A Wisconsin geneticist, William von Meyer, observed that when rBGH was approved the longest study on which the F.D.A.’s approval was based covered only a 90-day laboratory test with small animals. “But people drink milk for a lifetime,” he noted. Canada and the European Union have never approved the commercial sale of the artificial hormone. Today, nearly 15 years after the F.D.A. approved rBGH, there have still been no long-term studies “to determine the safety of milk from cows that receive artificial growth hormone,” says Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist for Consumers Union. Not only have there been no studies, he adds, but the data that does exist all comes from Monsanto. “There is no scientific consensus about the safety,” he says.

However F.D.A. approval came about, Monsanto has long been wired into Washington. Michael R. Taylor was a staff attorney and executive assistant to the F.D.A. commissioner before joining a law firm in Washington in 1981, where he worked to secure F.D.A. approval of Monsanto’s artificial growth hormone before returning to the F.D.A. as deputy commissioner in 1991. Dr. Michael A. Friedman, formerly the F.D.A.’s deputy commissioner for operations, joined Monsanto in 1999 as a senior vice president. Linda J. Fisher was an assistant administrator at the E.P.A. when she left the agency in 1993. She became a vice president of Monsanto, from 1995 to 2000, only to return to the E.P.A. as deputy administrator the next year. William D. Ruckelshaus, former E.P.A. administrator, and Mickey Kantor, former U.S. trade representative, each served on Monsanto’s board after leaving government. Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas was an attorney in Monsanto’s corporate-law department in the 1970s. He wrote the Supreme Court opinion in a crucial G.M.-seed patent-rights case in 2001 that benefited Monsanto and all G.M.-seed companies. Donald Rumsfeld never served on the board or held any office at Monsanto, but Monsanto must occupy a soft spot in the heart of the former defense secretary. Rumsfeld was chairman and C.E.O. of the pharmaceutical maker G. D. Searle & Co. when Monsanto acquired Searle in 1985, after Searle had experienced difficulty in finding a buyer. Rumsfeld’s stock and options in Searle were valued at $12 million at the time of the sale.

From the beginning some consumers have consistently been hesitant to drink milk from cows treated with artificial hormones. This is one reason Monsanto has waged so many battles with dairies and regulators over the wording of labels on milk cartons. It has sued at least two dairies and one co-op over labeling.

Critics of the artificial hormone have pushed for mandatory labeling on all milk products, but the F.D.A. has resisted and even taken action against some dairies that labeled their milk “BST-free.” Since BST is a natural hormone found in all cows, including those not injected with Monsanto’s artificial version, the F.D.A. argued that no dairy could claim that its milk is BST-free. The F.D.A. later issued guidelines allowing dairies to use labels saying their milk comes from “non-supplemented cows,” as long as the carton has a disclaimer saying that the artificial supplement does not in any way change the milk. So the milk cartons from Kleinpeter Dairy, for example, carry a label on the front stating that the milk is from cows not treated with rBGH, and the rear panel says, “Government studies have shown no significant difference between milk derived from rBGH-treated and non-rBGH-treated cows.” That’s not good enough for Monsanto.

The Next Battleground
As more and more dairies have chosen to advertise their milk as “No rBGH,” Monsanto has gone on the offensive. Its attempt to force the F.T.C. to look into what Monsanto called “deceptive practices” by dairies trying to distance themselves from the company’s artificial hormone was the most recent national salvo. But after reviewing Monsanto’s claims, the F.T.C.’s Division of Advertising Practices decided in August 2007 that a “formal investigation and enforcement action is not warranted at this time.” The agency found some instances where dairies had made “unfounded health and safety claims,” but these were mostly on Web sites, not on milk cartons. And the F.T.C. determined that the dairies Monsanto had singled out all carried disclaimers that the F.D.A. had found no significant differences in milk from cows treated with the artificial hormone.

Blocked at the federal level, Monsanto is pushing for action by the states. In the fall of 2007, Pennsylvania’s agriculture secretary, Dennis Wolff, issued an edict prohibiting dairies from stamping milk containers with labels stating their products were made without the use of the artificial hormone. Wolff said such a label implies that competitors’ milk is not safe, and noted that non-supplemented milk comes at an unjustified higher price, arguments that Monsanto has frequently made. The ban was to take effect February 1, 2008.

Wolff’s action created a firestorm in Pennsylvania (and beyond) from angry consumers. So intense was the outpouring of e-mails, letters, and calls that Pennsylvania governor Edward Rendell stepped in and reversed his agriculture secretary, saying, “The public has a right to complete information about how the milk they buy is produced.”

On this issue, the tide may be shifting against Monsanto. Organic dairy products, which don’t involve rBGH, are soaring in popularity. Supermarket chains such as Kroger, Publix, and Safeway are embracing them. Some other companies have turned away from rBGH products, including Starbucks, which has banned all milk products from cows treated with rBGH. Although Monsanto once claimed that an estimated 30 percent of the nation’s dairy cows were injected with rBST, it’s widely believed that today the number is much lower.

But don’t count Monsanto out. Efforts similar to the one in Pennsylvania have been launched in other states, including New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, Kansas, Utah, and Missouri. A Monsanto-backed group called afact—American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology—has been spearheading efforts in many of these states. afact describes itself as a “producer organization” that decries “questionable labeling tactics and activism” by marketers who have convinced some consumers to “shy away from foods using new technology.” afact reportedly uses the same St. Louis public-relations firm, Osborn & Barr, employed by Monsanto. An Osborn & Barr spokesman told The Kansas City Star that the company was doing work for afact on a pro bono basis.

Even if Monsanto’s efforts to secure across-the-board labeling changes should fall short, there’s nothing to stop state agriculture departments from restricting labeling on a dairy-by-dairy basis. Beyond that, Monsanto also has allies whose foot soldiers will almost certainly keep up the pressure on dairies that don’t use Monsanto’s artificial hormone. Jeff Kleinpeter knows about them, too.

He got a call one day from the man who prints the labels for his milk cartons, asking if he had seen the attack on Kleinpeter Dairy that had been posted on the Internet. Kleinpeter went online to a site called StopLabelingLies, which claims to “help consumers by publicizing examples of false and misleading food and other product labels.” There, sure enough, Kleinpeter and other dairies that didn’t use Monsanto’s product were being accused of making misleading claims to sell their milk.

There was no address or phone number on the Web site, only a list of groups that apparently contribute to the site and whose issues range from disparaging organic farming to downplaying the impact of global warming. “They were criticizing people like me for doing what we had a right to do, had gone through a government agency to do,” says Kleinpeter. “We never could get to the bottom of that Web site to get that corrected.”

As it turns out, the Web site counts among its contributors Steven Milloy, the “junk science” commentator for FoxNews.com and operator of junkscience.com, which claims to debunk “faulty scientific data and analysis.” It may come as no surprise that earlier in his career, Milloy, who calls himself the “junkman,” was a registered lobbyist for Monsanto.

Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele are Vanity Fair contributing editors.
Use your Go Back and Go Forward commands to get to where you were in a previous file.