Wednesday, September 24, 2014



Aug 25th, 2010 | By | Category: Agra Watch Blog Posts, Events, Food Justice Blog Posts, News
[Please see fact sheet, background research and post-card text on Media Resources page of website here]
August 25th, 2010
Travis English, AGRA Watch
(206) 335-4405
Brenda Biddle, The Evergreen State College & AGRA Watch
(360) 878-7833

Both will profit at expense of small-scale African farmers

Seattle, WA – Farmers and civil society organizations around the world are outraged by the recent discovery of further connections between the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and agribusiness titan Monsanto. Last week, a financial website published the Gates Foundation’s investment portfolio, including 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock with an estimated worth of $23.1 million purchased in the second quarter of 2010 (see the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission). This marks a substantial increase from its previous holdings, valued at just over $360,000 (see the Foundation’s 2008 990 Form).
“The Foundation’s direct investment in Monsanto is problematic on two primary levels,” said Dr. Phil Bereano, University of Washington Professor Emeritus and recognized expert on genetic engineering. “First, Monsanto has a history of blatant disregard for the interests and well-being of small farmers around the world, as well as an appalling environmental track record. The strong connections to Monsanto cast serious doubt on the Foundation’s heavy funding of agricultural development in Africa and purported goal of alleviating poverty and hunger among small-scale farmers. Second, this investment represents an enormous conflict of interests.”
Monsanto has already negatively impacted agriculture in African countries. For example, in South Africa in 2009, Monsanto’s genetically modified maize failed to produce kernels and hundreds of farmers were devastated. According to Mariam Mayet, environmental attorney and director of the Africa Centre for Biosafety in Johannesburg, some farmers suffered up to an 80% crop failure. While Monsanto compensated the large-scale farmers to whom it directly sold the faulty product, it gave nothing to the small-scale farmers to whom it had handed out free sachets of seeds. “When the economic power of Gates is coupled with the irresponsibility of Monsanto, the outlook for African smallholders is not very promising,” said Mayet. Monsanto’s aggressive patenting practices have also monopolized control over seed in ways that deny farmers control over their own harvest, going so far as to sue—and bankrupt—farmers for “patent infringement.”
News of the Foundation’s recent Monsanto investment has confirmed the misgivings of many farmers and sustainable agriculture advocates in Africa, among them the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, who commented, “We have long suspected that the founders of AGRA—the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation—had a long and more intimate affair with Monsanto.” Indeed, according to Travis English, researcher with AGRA Watch, “The Foundation’s ownership of Monsanto stock is emblematic of a deeper, more long-standing involvement with the corporation, particularly in Africa.” In 2008, AGRA Watch, a project of the Seattle-based organization Community Alliance for Global Justice, uncovered many linkages between the Foundation’s grantees and Monsanto. For example, some grantees (in particular about 70% of grantees in Kenya) of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)—considered by the Foundation to be its “African face”—work directly with Monsanto on agricultural development projects. Other prominent links include high-level Foundation staff members who were once senior officials for Monsanto, such as Rob Horsch, formerly Monsanto Vice President of International Development Partnerships and current Senior Program Officer of the Gates Agricultural Development Program.
Transnational corporations like Monsanto have been key collaborators with the Foundation and AGRA’s grantees in promoting the spread of industrial agriculture on the continent. This model of production relies on expensive inputs such as chemical fertilizers, genetically modified seeds, and herbicides. Though this package represents enticing market development opportunities for the private sector, many civil society organizations contend it will lead to further displacement of farmers from the land, an actual increase in hunger, and migration to already swollen cities unable to provide employment opportunities. In the words of a representative from the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, “AGRA is poison for our farming systems and livelihoods. Under the philanthropic banner of greening agriculture, AGRA will eventually eat away what little is left of sustainable small-scale farming in Africa.”
A 2008 report initiated by the World Bank and the UN, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), promotes alternative solutions to the problems of hunger and poverty that emphasize their social and economic roots. The IAASTD concluded that small-scale agroecological farming is more suitable for the third world than the industrial agricultural model favored by Gates and Monsanto. In a summary of the key findings of IAASTD, the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) emphasizes the report’s warning that “continued reliance on simplistic technological fixes—including transgenic crops—will not reduce persistent hunger and poverty and could exacerbate environmental problems and worsen social inequity.” Furthermore, PANNA explains, “The Assessment’s 21 key findings suggest that small-scale agroecological farming may offer one of the best means to feed the hungry while protecting the planet.”
The Gates Foundation has been challenged in the past for its questionable investments; in 2007, the L.A. Times exposed the Foundation for investing in its own grantees and for its “holdings in many companies that have failed tests of social responsibility because of environmental lapses, employment discrimination, disregard for worker rights, or unethical practices.” The Times chastised the Foundation for what it called “blind-eye investing,” with at least 41% of its assets invested in “companies that countered the foundation’s charitable goals or socially-concerned philosophy.”
Although the Foundation announced it would reassess its practices, it decided to retain them. As reported by the L.A. Times, chief executive of the Foundation Patty Stonesifer defended their investments, stating, “It would be naïve…to think that changing the foundation’s investment policy could stop the human suffering blamed on the practices of companies in which it invests billions of dollars.” This decision is in direct contradiction to the Foundation’s official “Investment Philosophy”, which, according to its website, “defined areas in which the endowment will not invest, such as companies whose profit model is centrally tied to corporate activity that [Bill and Melinda] find egregious. This is why the endowment does not invest in tobacco stocks.”
More recently, the Foundation has come under fire in its own hometown. This week, 250 Seattle residents sent postcards expressing their concern that the Foundation’s approach to agricultural development, rather than reducing hunger as pledged, would instead “increase farmer debt, enrich agribusiness corporations like Monsanto and Syngenta, degrade the environment, and dispossess small farmers.” In addition to demanding that the Foundation instead fund “socially and ecologically appropriate practices determined locally by African farmers and scientists” and support African food sovereignty, they urged the Foundation to cut all ties to Monsanto and the biotechnology industry.
AGRA Watch, a program of Seattle-based Community Alliance for Global Justice, supports African initiatives and programs that foster farmers’ self-determination and food sovereignty. AGRA Watch also supports public engagement in fighting genetic engineering and exploitative agricultural policies, and demands transparency and accountability on the part of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and AGRA.

Leave a comment »

  1. But lets get this straight the GAtes Foundation spends a lot of money making the developing world better. When Monsanto and others are trying to help a countinent like Africa but agreeing to give away their technology if it can be showed to be useful, this should not be discouraged. Bill Gates happens to recognize that to feed a growing world we need new technology (and old clean technology to be applied to places like Africa. African can’t use the best technology to gropw crops they get 10% the yield in the US this is because they can’t afford the seed and people wouldn’t lend them money because there is a very good chance that drought will make the crop fail but with drought tolerant, insect protected crops they will be more likely to get a crop. Why should the US farmer have this technology to make money and the African small holder not be allowed to use it. You don’t need special equipment or much land. to use GM crops. Most users of GM croips are small holder growers. Look at the facts. Look at the WEMA Bill Gates web site and see for your self. Monsanto is a company who makes money by keeping farmers happy and profitable – there is a very quick response when they don’t – see this years’ sales and again the drought tolerant corn that GAtes is sponsoring is fee of fees that the US farmers have to pay. I hope you would agree with this or would you rather keep the African’s in poverty. tetsingw as just allowed in Kenya and Uganda for drought tolerant corn even when the EU tries to blackmail the countries into staying GM free so that they can feed the EU population. Bill Gates is pretty transparent about his support for good scientific development to help people and that includes GM crops combined with the best traditional genetics
  2. How could Gates do this? Monsanto should be banned from this planet.
  3. Since 1998 I have followed these titanic thieves. Corn and all crops are common heritage. Monsanto sues farmers who are not using their products because the wind blows the pesticide-corn pollen into unwelcoming farms. These two entities will destroy Africa and ultimately poison all the pollinators such as bees, butterflies and all. No pollinators, no food. For 10 thousand years corn thrived, even with the corn borer worm, to feed us. Now, genetically engineered corn is classified as a pesticide because cornseed has Been genetically altered to include that pesticide in every fiber, kernel and grain of pollen. Our soil is dying and soon food will be the weapon of mass oppression worldwide. No tree, blade of grass, fish, grain or eventually, person, will be safe from Big Biotech. It is indeed the end of the world as we know it. Monsanto has destroyed my faith in humanity. Beware the PinkertonPolice in your yard….
  4. Aside from the myriad, cultural, social and economic problems that the first Green Revolution caused for farmers around the world, there have been dire ecological problems, which have resulted in an inability to grow food in certain areas. The technical fixes of the first Green Revolution have left enormous swathes of dead land and dead water — soil devoid of nutrients, biomass, and living organisms that can support life in a sustainable way. Industrial agriculture destroys topsoil and depletes ground water. Over time, it creates dust bowls and dead zones due to pollution run off in the ocean. The person who posted a message about all the good done by the previous Green Revolution should ask Indian farmers about the long term “success” of the Green Revolution and watch the trailer of the film One Man, One Cow, One Planet to see what farmers all over India are doing now to restore their capacity to grow abundant, healthy, organic food with methods that do not require them to buy external inputs such as fertilizer and pesticides.
  5. In response to the first comment, the exclusive focus on yield in this country displaced a lot of farmers who couldn’t keep up with “economies of scale.” Additionally, the US has continued to subsidize industrial crops even though, through the WTO, World Bank, and IMF, most of the Global South had to give up agricultural subsidies and cut their agriculture extension programs. That Gates and co. may be funding higher yields doesn’t take into account or make any steps toward rectifying the historical and political causes of hunger, and they are repeating the first Green Revolution’s focus on yield, at the expense of biodiversity, farmers’ resiliency, variety of nutritious foods, and access to the foods that are available locally and regionally. It’s important to break down the myth that higher yield + “apolitical” scientific advancements = feeding the world, because we’ve already taken that path and it doesn’t work.
    Furthermore, while it may be commendable that Gates and others are concerned about and wants to help Africa and “developing countries,” that does not excuse them for their alliances with TNCs like Monsanto. Likewise, good intent should not excuse them for their adherence to imperialistic mainstream development discourses that a) fail to acknowledge how the West and our “technological advancements” were built on taking resources from and strategically under-developing Africa, b) fail to take on the international political-economic inequalities and structures that contribute to hunger and poverty, and c) do an enormous disservice to the work, struggles, and innovations of African people.
  6. @Mike Stephens>>> Wake up man! Monsanto is bankrupting small farmers all over the planet! They’re development of frankenfoods is poisoning all of us at the cellular level. You’ve bought all the propaganda media/government BS just like you were intended to. You’re a very good little slave/subject.
  7. Mike Stephens you are scaring me man. There is a myriad of reasons why Monsanto is doing more harm than good. First the GMO food contains DNA from things we try to avoid and there is no long term studies done to determine how these things will act in future generations of crops. There is no telling what kinds of mutations will happen. Then there is no telling what will happen to other things as this stuff is cross pollinated with the natural environment. The mutation part is why Monsanto is also modifying the DNA to keep the plant from growing a second season forcing the farmers to buy 100% seed each year. In the past farmers would only supplement with new seed and retain much of the old seed for the next crop. This practice of buying 100% seed will greatly diminish farmers returns and they are already in the red. You are completely wrong that only the small farmers are the ones using Monsanto seed it is the big guys that are using it the small guys get away with older practices of keeping old seed because they don’t show up on Monsanto’s radar. Second Monsanto holds tons of patents on seed and charge high rates to use them so once we are dependent on their seed if there is a problem with their stock we all starve. As far as Gates helping Monsanto that is only giving money to people that already have it. The government subsidizes farmers because they are always in the red and this hurts the world economy because other countries don’t do this. The government pays some farmers not to produce to keep the rates high enough to help the farmers. The US is fertile enough to grow enough food to supply the entire world and we are paying people not to grow. If they wanted to help Africa then they could just buy the corn from the farmers and save the tax payers some money and give the corn to Africa to do with as they please. If you don’t think Monsanto is doing anything wrong well why is it they fight against labeling of food as GMO or not and educating the public as to what that means and letting the public decide what they put into their bodies? The answer is no one would buy the stuff they would loose profits and no longer be in business. This is proven in Europe who does label and the people decided no GMO’s there is no place for our farmers to sell product in Europe because of this.
  8. From what I can ascertain there would seem to be two primary goals, both of which would justify the alignment between the Gates Foundation and Monsanto. Obviously Monsanto wants to profit from increased influence over the food supply. Here’s a link to a Bill Gates presentation at a TED conference as part of a video where he discusses world population.
    Here’s a link to several resources related to Monsanto and genetically modified agriculture:
  9. Just one more step to turn everyone into complete slaves dependent on the Government, or One World Government that is. Food control is the ultimate weapon.
  10. Well, you certainly see Mr. Gates anti-piracy technology of his MS products, applied to Monsanto seeds, which are re-programmed to grow-once seed and that produce fruits and vegetables with no seeds or no-growing seeds.
  11. Revealing News! Thanks for bringing this forward! The world needs to know how these evil creatures and organizations team up in their agenda of eugenics! We all need to boycott the globalists firm but peacefully! Join the international movement UNITEDWESTRIKE.COM
  12. I have long stated the belief than Microsoft was commercially successful because compromised-blackmailed judges found in it’s favor because Gates is the NSA’s man for internet control and censorship. Foundations have long been conduits for CounterInsurgency and the Monsanto connection fits.
  13. Science without heart and full integrity…. is like a dark, hungry wolf .. in sleeping sheep’s clothing.
    I wouldn’t put stock in either of them.
  14. Check out this talk by Gates at TED.
    Next to the video you read a couple of interesting things that Gates says during the talk.
    A ‘Freudian slip’?
  15. Monsanto does not sell seeds “reprogrammed to grow-once,” since these (with the “Terminator” gene) have been under a moratorium imposed by the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). My understanding is that the moratorium may be lifted at the next meeting (Oct, in Nagoya, Japan). Monsanto certainly has developed such seeds and has them ready for commercialization.
    Unfortunately, there is no effective governmental oversight (independent risk assessment and testing) regarding Monsanto’s seeds. So the possible damages can not be discounted.
  16. Monsanto is Completely evil.
  17. Monsanto has proven to be a most evil company. We should also note that it was Gate’s family that headed up planned parenthood and that Bill would love to see a LARGE global population reduction through the use of anti-fertility vaccines. Do the research, get the truth. I would love nothing more than to see Monsanto bankrupt and wiped off the face of the planet. Suing farmers for pollen blowing over into their fields? How low can you get?
  18. Hey Mike Stephens, I don’t know how well informed you are about who Monsanto is. from this insanely naive comment “But lets get this straight the Gates Foundation spends a lot of money making the developing world better. When Monsanto and others are trying to help a continent like Africa but agreeing to give away their technology if it can be showed to be useful, this should not be discouraged.” It sounds like not at all. Talk to any family farm to whom Monsanto “agreed to give away their technology” they don’t do this. this is their version of a drug dealer giving you free crack so they can you get you addicted. only they also lock you down with huge legal contracts that basically bind the farmer into a serfdom relationship with them. This is a classic case of business and charity and philanthropy as usual. While Monsanto robs the countries blind, binds them in legal and economic traps The Gates foundation will be disbursing grants to provide economic relief and cures to diseases that may well been caused by Monsanto it self. Where is Gates Found getting the grant money from? The exploitative profiteering of Monsanto. Africa would be better off not getting either Satan’s tech nor Gate’s money. They should has Haiti did burn all the equipment as soon as it touches African soil. also see this:
  19. I am apalled but not surprised. I read through this pretty quickly as I just got to work! The information you have provided is stellar,however like alot of these articles, I read them, get fired up and there are no solutions offered! Can you provide these as well as this information? Thank you, Victoria
  20. Yes, Martin, I agree, but do not pay attention to the comments made such as Mike Stephens, who happens to be a lead guy at Monsanto, there for over 11 years… Isn’t that right, Mike? These guys surf the net just for anti-Monsantoisms so they can try to dupe the public with their mis-information and make it look as if Monsanto is a ‘good guy’. Right, Mike? Looks like we aren’t being fooled any more!!! The public is stirring from its long sleep…wake up yourself and find a better job before it is too late.
  21. Mike Stephens, Monsanto paid liar, have you seen this great documentary on the corp that puts cash in your pockets and poison in our food system. Also how much did yall pay USDA for this?
  22. Mike, you are blinded by your paycheck.
  23. How reckless can you get, I thought the Gates Foundation was mindful and honorable. The truth comes out eventually I guess, control of the people that is all you wanted. Think of all the destruction of the people and the earth that Monsanto has done already. All the health of families around the world has been compromised already for generations. Do you need more experiments on how to destroy the infrastructure or what? Another way to destroy people’s seasons and rituals. Shame on you Gates Foundation and Monsanto What is the difference between theGates Foundations/ Monsanto and the Mafia. A Legitimately controlled Mafia?
  24. @Gilda, thank you for sharing who Mike Stephens is.
    I looked it up. and indeed ya’ll are correct. he the lead in St.Louis. Good catch!!!!
  25. Schumacher was on the money when he said that the only really helpful technology is intermediate technology. Technology that a community can step into, use and maintain. If we really want to help, we must resist the temptation to bestow the benefits of a supposedly superior intellect and culture and engage with a community to explore and develop progress in their terms, not ours.
  26. Thank goodness someone is critical of “the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation”. The Investment in Monsanto should be a red flag to everyone who suggest this foundation is saving lives all over the globe.They are not. In fact , if you research carefully one will find this foundation slowly killing people with there programs all aroung the globe.
  27. As a farmer I can say Monsanto seeds are bad. They are bad because the seed are terminator seeds they only have one life and will not yield more crops, so even thought there seeds cost less you will have to buy more yearly. To see Bill Gates doing this surprised me but I don’t want to jump to conclusions to soon.
  28. Bill Gates needs to be alerted to the prevailing bad impact Monsanto has on the livelyhood of Farmers and the ecological damage the company causes worldwide!
  29. it can be very easy to compare the two technologies, one is to set up an experiment in various third world countries for a 10 year span to see the effects of changing weather, social and economic impacts on the small grower, lets say you get 12 growers in each country or region and make 3 groups, A- let them have the money they requiere to use all the conventional modern technologies and B- let have the same amount of money and let them produce the way they have produced by years and C- a group that uses the organic farming technologies, you can make comparisons every year and at the end of the 10 years, lets see what group of farmers are better off.. this will settle all the discussion.
  30. I am done supporting Bill Gates. Next computer won’t be one of his.
  31. Pollinating insects have become a theatened species globally, from U.S. to Italy to China (where they use human workers to pollinate fruit trees.) An isolated test could be done with a pesticide infused GM planting using a hive of pollinating bees and see what happens to the bees to clear up the issue of possible connection.
  32. With fame and fortune comes responsibility and as I see, read and talk to farmers oversees, there is evidence that The Gates Foundation and Monsanto are destroying the planet while the are becoming more wealthy with blood money. I think it’s time for the rich and famous to wake up from their unconsciousness and begin to have compassion for the hard working farmer. Stop GMOs immediately before is too late. Don’t forget that there is Karma for all human beings!.
  33. If you think Bill Gates wants to save the world, then you need to watch this excerpt from his TED conference:
  34. There’s power, there’s money, there’s intelligence and education, and then there’s consciousness. Bill Gates and the Foundation may have power, money, intelligence and education, but they are extremely low on the scale of consciousness. Consciousness is expanded awareness: rather than looking at something with blinders on you can see the whole picture and the long-term picture and choose to do things with integrity, knowing that everything you do now can destroy the planet and health of the people who live on earth. To Bill Gates i say, “wake up and take off your blinders!”. “All the good you have done is cancelled out by the support of GMOs and Monsanto. There is a wealth of negative informationon GMOs that is beyond the sight of your blinders. How come other countries and leaders can see it and not you? Open your EYES.”
  35. Solutions for feeding the world using agroecology can see seen in a new film/movie by Marie Monique Robin (The World According to Monsanto). This film, Harvests of the Future, focuses on positive solutions to replaced failed industrial agriculture methods. If human thought and resourcefulness focusses on need and not greed and works with nature, solutions are abundant! This film is thoroughly researched, inspiring, moving, and full of the facts we need to be able to discuss this issue.
    Harvest of the Future (Marie Monique Robin), has just been shown on ARTE television and is available on DVD in English, at the moment mainly on sale in Germany and France. If you look at you will see my review of this film, I really hope English speakers can buy and watch this film very soon, it is a masterpiece.

Christians Are Being Slaughtered By Islamic Terrorists … But Sadly, the U.S. Is Supporting the Terrorists

Christians Are Being Slaughtered By Islamic Terrorists … But Sadly, the U.S. Is Supporting the Terrorists

Christians Are Being Persecuted By Islamic Terrorists

Christians are being persecuted by Islamic terrorists in Iraq and Syria.
The “ISIS” Islamic terrorists have literally CRUCIFIED people in Iraq recently, and have marked the houses of Christians … presumably for execution.
They have told Christians in Mosel, “convert to Islam or die“. They have pulled down crosses at churches in Iraq.   Thousands of residents of Iraq’s biggest Christian town have been forced to flee their homes as the ISIS killers overran their town and said: “leave, convert or die“.
The ISIS terrorists are not only beheading adult Christians, but they are systematically beheading CHILDREN.
In Syria, rebels fighting against the Syrian government told Christians, “Either you convert to Islam or you will be beheaded.”   Syrian rebels slit the throat of Christian man who refused to convert to Islam, taunting his fiance by yelling: “Jesus didn’t come to save him!”  And – like the Islamic terrorists in Iraq – they’ve  CRUCIFIED Christians.
A former Syrian Jihadi says the rebels have a “9/11 ideology”.  Indeed, they’re literally singing Bin Laden’s praises and celebrating the 9/11 attack:
It’s obvious that the Islamic terrorists are threatening Christians. And they’re threatening Jews as well.

Our Government Is BACKING Islamic Terrorists

But did you know that irrefutable proof shows that our government is backing Islamic terrorists?
ABC News reports:
The Sunni rebels [inside Syria] are supported by the Islamist rulers of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, as well as the U.S., France, Britain and others.
So the U.S. is directly supporting the terrorists … and close U.S. allies Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey France and Britain are also supporting them.
World Net Daily reports that the U.S. trained Islamic jihadis – who would later join ISIS - in Jordan.
Der Spiegel and the Guardian confirmed that the U.S., France and England trained hundreds if not thousands of Islamic fighters in Jordan.
The Jerusalem Post and Breitbart report that an ISIS fighter says that Turkey funds the terrorist group. Turkey is a member of NATO and – until very recently – a close U.S. ally.
The Independent headlines “Iraq crisis: How Saudi Arabia helped Isis take over the north of the country”:
Some time before 9/11, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, once the powerful Saudi ambassador in Washington and head of Saudi intelligence until a few months ago, had a revealing and ominous conversation with the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove. Prince Bandar told him: “The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally ‘God help the Shia’. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them.”
There is no doubt about the accuracy of the quote by Prince Bandar, secretary-general of the Saudi National Security Council from 2005 and head of General Intelligence between 2012 and 2014, the crucial two years when al-Qa’ida-type jihadis took over the Sunni-armed opposition in Iraq and Syria. Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute last week, Dearlove, who headed MI6 from 1999 to 2004, emphasised the significance of Prince Bandar’s words, saying that they constituted “a chilling comment that I remember very well indeed”.
He does not doubt that substantial and sustained funding from private donors in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to which the authorities may have turned a blind eye, has played a central role in the Isis surge into Sunni areas of Iraq. He said: “Such things simply do not happen spontaneously.” This sounds realistic since the tribal and communal leadership in Sunni majority provinces is much beholden to Saudi and Gulf paymasters, and would be unlikely to cooperate with Isis without their consent.
Unfortunately, Christians in areas captured by Isis are finding this is not true, as their churches are desecrated and they are forced to flee. A difference between al-Qa’ida and Isis is that the latter is much better organised; if it does attack Western targets the results are likely to be devastating.
Dearlove … sees Saudi strategic thinking as being shaped by two deep-seated beliefs or attitudes. First, they are convinced that there “can be no legitimate or admissible challenge to the Islamic purity of their Wahhabi credentials as guardians of Islam’s holiest shrines”. But, perhaps more significantly given the deepening Sunni-Shia confrontation, the Saudi belief that they possess a monopoly of Islamic truth leads them to be “deeply attracted towards any militancy which can effectively challenge Shia-dom”.
Western governments traditionally play down the connection between Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabist faith, on the one hand, and jihadism, whether of the variety espoused by Osama bin Laden and al-Qa’ida or by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s Isis. There is nothing conspiratorial or secret about these links: 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, as was Bin Laden and most of the private donors who funded the operation.
But there has always been a second theme to Saudi policy towards al-Qa’ida type jihadis, contradicting Prince Bandar’s approach and seeing jihadis as a mortal threat to the Kingdom. Dearlove illustrates this attitude by relating how, soon after 9/11, he visited the Saudi capital Riyadh with Tony Blair.
He remembers the then head of Saudi General Intelligence “literally shouting at me across his office: ’9/11 is a mere pinprick on the West. In the medium term, it is nothing more than a series of personal tragedies. What these terrorists want is to destroy the House of Saud and remake the Middle East.’” In the event, Saudi Arabia adopted both policies, encouraging the jihadis as a useful tool of Saudi anti-Shia influence abroad but suppressing them at home as a threat to the status quo. It is this dual policy that has fallen apart over the last year.
Saudi sympathy for anti-Shia “militancy” is identified in leaked US official documents. The then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in December 2009 in a cable released by Wikileaks that “Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan] and other terrorist groups.”
Saudi Arabia and its allies are in practice playing into the hands of Isis which is swiftly gaining full control of the Sunni opposition in Syria and Iraq.
For all his gargantuan mistakes, Maliki’s failings are not the reason why the Iraqi state is disintegrating. What destabilised Iraq from 2011 on was the revolt of the Sunni in Syria and the takeover of that revolt by jihadis, who were often sponsored by donors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates. Again and again Iraqi politicians warned that by not seeking to close down the civil war in Syria, Western leaders were making it inevitable that the conflict in Iraq would restart. “I guess they just didn’t believe us and were fixated on getting rid of [President Bashar al-] Assad,” said an Iraqi leader in Baghdad last week.
Of course, US and British politicians and diplomats would argue that they were in no position to bring an end to the Syrian conflict. But this is misleading. By insisting that peace negotiations must be about the departure of Assad from power, something that was never going to happen since Assad held most of the cities in the country and his troops were advancing, the US and Britain made sure the war would continue.
Saudi Arabia has created a Frankenstein’s monster over which it is rapidly losing control. The same is true of its allies such as Turkey which has been a vital back-base for Isis and Jabhat al-Nusra by keeping the 510-mile-long Turkish-Syrian border open.
Remember, Al Qaeda wasn’t even in Iraq until the U.S. invaded that country.
The Daily Beast (a media company formerly owned by Newsweek) notes, in a story entitled “America’s Allies Are Funding ISIS”:
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), now threatening Baghdad, was funded for years by wealthy donors in Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, three U.S. allies that have dual agendas in the war on terror.
The extremist group that is threatening the existence of the Iraqi state was built and grown for years with the help of elite donors from American supposed allies in the Persian Gulf region.
A key component of ISIS’s support came from wealthy individuals in the Arab Gulf States of Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Sometimes the support came with the tacit nod of approval from those regimes ….
Gulf donors support ISIS, the Syrian branch of al Qaeda called the al Nusrah Front, and other Islamic groups fighting on the ground in Syria ….
Donors in Kuwait, the Sunni majority Kingdom on Iraq’s border, have taken advantage of Kuwait’s weak financial rules to channel hundreds of millions of dollars to a host of Syrian rebel brigades, according to a December 2013 report by The Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank that receives some funding from the Qatari government.
“The U.S. Treasury is aware of this activity and has expressed concern about this flow of private financing. But Western diplomats’ and officials’ general response has been a collective shrug,” the report states.
When confronted with the problem, Gulf leaders often justify allowing their Salafi constituents to fund Syrian extremist groups ….
That’s what Prince Bandar bin Sultan, head of Saudi intelligence since 2012 and former Saudi ambassador in Washington, reportedly told Secretary of State John Kerry when Kerry pressed him on Saudi financing of extremist groups earlier this year. Saudi Arabia has retaken a leadership role in past months guiding help to the Syrian armed rebels, displacing Qatar, which was seen as supporting some of the worst of the worst organizations on the ground.
Business Insider notes:
The Islamic State for Iraq and the Levant … is also receiving private donations from wealthy Sunnis in American-allied Gulf nations such as Kuwait, Qatar, and, possibly, Saudi Arabia.
As far back as March, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has accused Saudi Arabia and Qatar of openly funding ISIS as his troops were fighting them.
“I accuse them of inciting and encouraging the terrorist movements. I accuse them of supporting them politically and in the media, of supporting them with money and by buying weapons for them,” he told France 24 television.
In Kuwait, donors have taken advantage of weak terror financing control laws to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to various Syrian rebel groups, including ISIS, according to a December 2013 report by The Brookings Institution, which receives some funding from the government of Qatar.
“Over the last two and a half years, Kuwait has emerged as a financing and organizational hub for charities and individuals supporting Syria’s myriad rebel groups,” the report said, adding that money from donors in other gulf nations is collected in Kuwait before traveling through Turkey or Jordan to reach the insurgents.
Ironically, Kuwait is a staging area for individuals funneling money to an ISIS organization that is aligned with whatever is left of the Baathist regime once led by Saddam Hussein. In 1990, the U.S. went to war with Iraq over Hussein’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
We noted last year:
Most of the Syrian “rebels” are Al Qaeda. The U.S. government has designated these guys as terrorists. Things are getting worse, not better: Al Qaeda is gaining more and more power among the rebels. The U.S., Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel have been backing these guys for years. Indeed, we’ve long known that most of the weapons we’re shipping to Syria are ending up in the hands of Al Qaeda. And they apparently have chemical weapons.
Even the New York Times noted last year:
With help from the CIA, Arab governments and Turkey have sharply increased their military aid to Syria’s opposition fighters.
The Times quoted government officials saying that the “scale of shipments … was very large.”
In fact, Obama signed a special exemption to the law barring arming of terrorists.
We’re now shipping heavy weapons to the Islamic extremists such as anti-tank (“TOW” missiles) and possibly even anti-aircraft weapons
Screenshot from Youtube video showing Syrian Islamic extremist using a TOW provided by the U.S.

Most of those arms have now ended up in the hands of ISIS.
And the Jihadist credited with being the “military mastermind” of the recent ISIS victories is named Tarkhan Batirashvili.  He’s not Arabic, but rather Chechen.    He doesn’t look like an Arab: he’s fair-skinned, with a long red beard.
Who are Chechens? Their country – Chechnya – was part of the Soviet Union. After the USSR broke up, the Chechens launched wars and terrorist attacks to try to gain independence from Russia.
The Wall Street Journal reported last year that Batrashvili has made the wars in Syria and Iraq “into a geopolitical struggle between the US and Russia.” 
Sadly, the U.S. has supported Sunni Islamic terrorists in Chechnya as a way to harass Russia. (And our backing of such extremists in Chechnya may well have led to the Boston bombings).

As shown below, the U.S. has been backing Islamic terrorists as part of its geopolitical struggle against Russia for many decades.

We Created Terrorists to Fight the Soviets in Afghanistan

Top American officials admit that the U.S. armed and supported Bin Laden and the other Mujahadin – which later morphed into Al Qaeda – in the 1970s, in order to fight the Soviets.
Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted on CNN that the U.S. organized and supported Bin Laden and the other originators of “Al Qaeda” in the 1970s to fight the Soviets. Brzezinski told Al Qaeda’s forefathers – the Mujahadin:
We know of their deep belief in God – that they’re confident that their struggle will succeed. That land over – there is yours – and you’ll go back to it some day, because your fight will prevail, and you’ll have your homes, your mosques, back again, because your cause is right, and God is on your side.
CIA director and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates confirmed in his memoir that the U.S. backed the Mujahadin in the 1970s.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton agrees:
MSNBC reported in 1998:
As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow’s invasion in 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab al-Khidamar – the MAK – which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war.
What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan’s state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA’s primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow’s occupation.
The CIA, concerned about the factionalism of Afghanistan … found that Arab zealots who flocked to aid the Afghans were easier to “read” than the rivalry-ridden natives. While the Arab volunteers might well prove troublesome later, the agency reasoned, they at least were one-dimensionally anti-Soviet for now. So bin Laden, along with a small group of Islamic militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps all over the Middle East, became the “reliable” partners of the CIA in its war against Moscow.
To this day, those involved in the decision to give the Afghan rebels access to a fortune in covert funding and top-level combat weaponry continue to defend that move in the context of the Cold War. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee making those decisions, told my colleague Robert Windrem that he would make the same call again today even knowing what bin Laden would do subsequently. “It was worth it,” he said.
“Those were very important, pivotal matters that played an important role in the downfall of the Soviet Union,” he said.
Indeed, the U.S. started backing Al Qaeda’s forefathers even before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. As Brzezinski told Le Nouvel Observateur in a 1998 interview:
Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
The Washington Post reported in 2002:
The United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings ….
The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books ….
The Council on Foreign Relations notes:
The 9/11 Commission report (PDF) released in 2004 said some of Pakistan’s religious schools or madrassas served as “incubators for violent extremism.” Since then, there has been much debate over madrassas and their connection to militancy.
New madrassas sprouted, funded and supported by Saudi Arabia and U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, where students were encouraged to join the Afghan resistance.
And see this.
Veteran journalist Robert Dreyfuss writes:
For half a century the United States and many of its allies saw what I call the “Islamic right” as convenient partners in the Cold War.
In the decades before 9/11, hard-core activists and organizations among Muslim fundamentalists on the far right were often viewed as allies for two reasons, because they were seen a fierce anti-communists and because the opposed secular nationalists such as Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, Iran’s Mohammed Mossadegh.
By the end of the 1950s, rather than allying itself with the secular forces of progress in the Middle East and the Arab world, the United States found itself in league with Saudi Arabia’s Islamist legions. Choosing Saudi Arabia over Nasser’s Egypt was probably the single biggest mistake the United States has ever made in the Middle East.
A second big mistake … occurred in the 1970s, when, at the height of the Cold War and the struggle for control of the Middle East, the United States either supported or acquiesced in the rapid growth of Islamic right in countries from Egypt to Afghanistan. In Egypt, Anwar Sadat brought the Muslim Brotherhood back to Egypt. In Syria, the United States, Israel, and Jordan supported the Muslim Brotherhood in a civil war against Syria. And … Israel quietly backed Ahmed Yassin and the Muslim Brotherhood in the West Bank and Gaza, leading to the establishment of Hamas.
Still another major mistake was the fantasy that Islam would penetrate the USSR and unravel the Soviet Union in Asia. It led to America’s support for the jihadists in Afghanistan. But … America’s alliance with the Afghan Islamists long predated the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and had its roots in CIA activity in Afghanistan in the 1960s and in the early and mid-1970s. The Afghan jihad spawned civil war in Afghanistan in the late 1980s, gave rise to the Taliban, and got Osama bin Laden started on building Al Qaeda.
Would the Islamic right have existed without U.S. support? Of course. This is not a book for the conspiracy-minded. But there is no question that the virulence of the movement that we now confront—and which confronts many of the countries in the region, too, from Algeria to India and beyond—would have been significantly less had the United States made other choices during the Cold War.
In other words, if the U.S. and our allies hadn’t backed the radical violent Muslims instead of more stable, peaceful groups in the Middle East, radical Islam wouldn’t have grown so large.
Pakistani nuclear scientist and peace activist Perez Hoodbhoy writes:
Every religion, including Islam, has its crazed fanatics. Few in numbers and small in strength, they can properly be assigned to the “loony” section. This was true for Islam as well until 1979, the year of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Indeed, there may well have been no 911 but for this game-changer.
Officials like Richard Perle, Assistant Secretary of Defense, immediately saw Afghanistan not as the locale of a harsh and dangerous conflict to be ended but as a place to teach the Russians a lesson. Such “bleeders” became the most influential people in Washington .
The task of creating such solidarity fell upon Saudi Arabia, together with other conservative Arab monarchies. This duty was accepted readily and they quickly made the Afghan Jihad their central cause…. But still more importantly, to go heart and soul for jihad was crucial at a time when Saudi legitimacy as the guardians of Islam was under strong challenge by Iran, which pointed to the continued occupation of Palestine by America’s partner, Israel. An increasing number of Saudis were becoming disaffected by the House of Saud – its corruption, self-indulgence, repression, and closeness to the US. Therefore, the Jihad in Afghanistan provided an excellent outlet for the growing number of militant Sunni activists in Saudi Arabia, and a way to deal with the daily taunts of the Iranian clergy.
The bleeders soon organized and armed the Great Global Jihad, funded by Saudi Arabia, and executed by Pakistan. A powerful magnet for militant Sunni activists was created by the US. The most hardened and ideologically dedicated men were sought on the logic that they would be the best fighters. Advertisements, paid for from CIA funds, were placed in newspapers and newsletters around the world offering inducements and motivations to join the Jihad.
American universities produced books for Afghan children that extolled the virtues of jihad and of killing communists. Readers browsing through book bazaars in Rawalpindi and Peshawar can, even today, sometimes find textbooks produced as part of the series underwritten by a USAID $50 million grant to the University of Nebraska in the 1980′s . These textbooks sought to counterbalance Marxism through creating enthusiasm in Islamic militancy. They exhorted Afghan children to “pluck out the eyes of the Soviet enemy and cut off his legs”. Years after the books were first printed they were approved by the Taliban for use in madrassas – a stamp of their ideological correctness and they are still widely available in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
At the international level, Radical Islam went into overdrive as its superpower ally, the United States, funneled support to the mujahideen. Ronald Reagan feted jihadist leaders on the White House lawn, and the U.S. press lionized them.
And the chief of the visa section at the U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia (J. Michael Springmann, who is now an attorney in private practice) says that the CIA insisted that visas be issued to Afghanis so they could travel to the U.S. to be trained in terrorism in the United States, and then sent back to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets.

CIA Trained Ramzi Yousef and Other Key Terrorists

Moreover, Jane’s Defense Weekly – a respected and widely-cited British military journal – reported in October 2001 that Ramzi Yousef and the other World Trade Center bombers were trained by the CIA and ISI (via the Internet Archive):
Pakistan’s sinister Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) remains the key to providing accurate information to the US-led alliance in its war against Osama bin Laden and his Taliban hosts in Afghanistan. Known as Pakistan’s ‘secret army’ and ‘invisible government’, its shadowy past is linked to political assassinations and the smuggling of narcotics as well as nuclear and missile components.
The ISI chief, Lt Gen Mahmood Ahmed, who was visiting Washington when New York and the Pentagon were attacked, agreed to share desperately needed information about the Taliban with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other US security officials. The CIA has well-established links with the ISI, having trained it in the 1980s to ‘run’ Afghan mujahideen (holy Muslim warriors), Islamic fundamentalists from Pakistan as well as Arab volunteers by providing them with arms and logistic support to evict the Soviet occupation of Kabul.
After the ignominious Soviet withdrawal from Kabul in 1989 the ISI, determined to achieve its aim of extending Pakistan’s ‘strategic depth’ and creating an Islamic Caliphate by controlling Afghanistan and the Central Asian Republics, began sponsoring a little-known Pathan student movement in Kandhar that emerged as the Taliban. The ISI used funds from Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto’s federal government and from overseas Islamic remittances to enrol graduates from thousands of madrassahs (Muslim seminaries) across Pakistan to bolster the Taliban (Islamic students), who were led by the reclusive Mullah Muhammad Omar. Thereafter, through a ruthless combination of bribing Afghanistan’s ruling tribal coalition (which was riven with internecine rivalry), guerrilla tactics and military support the ISI installed the Taliban regime in Kabul in 1996. It then helped to extend its control over 95 per cent of the war-torn country and bolster its military capabilities. The ISI is believed to have posted additional operatives in Afghanistan just before the 11 September attacks in the US. Along with Osama bin Laden, intelligence sources say a number of other infamous names emerged from the 1980s ISI-CIA collaboration in Afghanistan. These included Mir Aimal Kansi, who assassinated two CIA officers outside their office in Langley, Virginia, in 1993, Ramzi Yousef and his accomplices involved in the New York World Trade Center bombing five years later as well as a host of powerful international narcotics smugglers.
Ramzi Yousef was not only the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, but also a key member of the Bojinka Plot … the blueprint for 9/11. And see this.


As professor of strategy at the Naval War College and former National Security Agency intelligence analyst and counterintelligence officer John R. Schindler documents, the U.S. supported Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda terrorists in Bosnia.

U.S. Let Al Qaeda Escape After 9/11

Whatever its origins, you would think – at the least – the U.S. hammered Al Qaeda after 9/11.
In reality:

We Support Saudi Arabia and Other Sponsors of Terrorism

We noted above that Saudi Arabia is backing the ISIS terrorists.  The Saudi monarchy is one of the most brutal dictatorships in the world, and yet the U.S. has been heavily backing it for decades.
The Saudis support the most extreme strain of Islamic terrorism, and may well have backed the 9/11 hijackers And see this.
The U.S. also heavily backs the other supporters of the ISIS terrorists, including Qatar, Jordan, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Turkey.  In other words, we back direct sponsors of terrorists.

Conclusion: A Long Legacy of Backing Evil

57 years ago, the U.S. and Britain approved the use of Islamic extremists – including the Muslim Brotherhood – in Syria.
According to NBC News, the U.S. and Israel are supporting terrorists in Iran.
And the U.S. intentionally armed Al Qaeda in Libya. Our backing of Sunni extremists in Libya led to attacks on our embassies in Libya and Tunisia.
The bottom line, sadly, is that the U.S. has backed the world’s most dangerous and radical Muslim terrorists for decades. And see this.
Postscript: A former high-level Al Qaeda commander has repeatedly alleged that ISIS works for the CIA.


Bill Gates And Monsanto Team Up To Fight World Hunger

In his annual letter for 2012, Bill Gates announced that the Gates Foundation intends to combat world hunger by investing in genetically modified agriculture.
Two bowls full of uncooked rice.  The rice in the top bowl is bright yellow in color.  The rice in the bottom bowl is standard white rice.
Golden Rice (top) has been genetically modified to be high in beta-carotene. Developers hope that it will reduce rates of blindness caused by Vitamin A deficiency in south-east Asia.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation wants to feed the world and thinks GMOs — Genetically Modified Organisms — are the way to do it.
Critics are voicing skepticism about the motives behind this recent announcement, however. In 2010, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation bought 500,000 shares of Monsanto, a leading producer of GMOs, worth a total of $23 billion.

A New “Green Revolution”

Bill Gates recently released his annual letter for 2012, which outlines the foundation’s goals for the coming year.
The promise of the world’s agricultural future, Gates says, can be modeled on our past: the “Green Revolution” of the 1960s and 1970s, wherein engineered crops for wheat, corn, and rice helped farmers in poor nations “vastly improve their yields.”
He also stresses the importance of developing crop strains that can withstand common blights, like wheat resistant to stem rust fungus (Ug99) in the horn of Africa, and rice that can withstand increased flooding caused by global warming in Bangladesh and India.
This follows a similar announcement made by the foundation a year ago.

A Golden Promise?

In 2011, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donated $20 million to the development of “Golden Rice,” a genetically-modified rice strain high in beta-carotene.
Monsanto is a major patent-holder for the technology required to produce Golden Rice.
But Golden Rice, which first appeared on the cover of Time Magazine in 2000, still hasn’t been distributed to farmers, nor has any announcement been made about when distribution will be ready to begin.

Keep Eating Your Veggies

Dr. Vandana Shiva, environmental activist, has campaigned actively against the use of Golden Rice and other GMOs to alleviate hunger in the third world.
The benefits of the GMOs would be outweighed by the risks associated with mono-crop farming, she says. The farmers would also have to place themselves at the mercy of the genetically-modified seeds’ patent-holders.
Additionally, Greenpeace points out that no single GMO crop will alleviate the need for a balanced diet.
“Why go to the problem of producing golden rice when you still have to eat vegetables anyway?” asked Beau Baconguis in 2003. She worked for Greenpeace tracking the use of GM products in Asia.
“Just go straight to the vegetables and eat the vegetables for your vitamin A.”

Read More:

Sarah Gordon Sarah Gordon has been interested in food ethics since she was 15, learned about industrial slaughter, and launched into 10 years of vegetarianism. These days, she strives to be a conscientious omnivore. Now a PhD candidate in folklore, her research has caused her to spend a lot of time in the remote Canadian sub-arctic, where the lake trout (sustainably harvested) tastes amazing.

Bill Gates Dodges Questions on Why He Owns 500,000 Shares of Monsanto

Bill Gates Dodges Questions on Why He Owns 500,000 Shares of Monsanto

Anthony Gucciardi
Feb 12, 2013
Bill Gates is primarily known as the multi-billionaire who Microsoft, the company behind the most popular computer operating system known as Windows. With this massive wealth, he has retired from leading Microsoft and now instead focuses his money and time on furthering genetically modified technology, geoengineering, experimental vaccinations, and preaching about how Monsanto is the answer to world hunger.
It should come as no surprise, then, that Gates owns 500,000 shares worth 23 million US dollars (or more) of Monsanto stock. The very same company that has been caught running slave rings in Argentina in which workers were forced to work 14+ hours a day while withholding payment, has used their massive finances to fund organizations that literally fake FDA quotes to support GMOs, and of course peddling through GMOs that have been linked to numerous health concerns.
This is not even taking into account the farmer suicides that occur around every 30 minutes due to Monsanto’s failing GMO crop yield bankrupting small-time farmers in India’s notorious ‘suicide belt‘.
Bill Gates Funding Corporations Caught in Child Slave Rings
And if that’s not enough, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has even teamed up with Cargill to pump GMO soy into the third world. Cargill, of course, is the the 133 billion dollar corporation that also has been found in direct violation of human rights laws. Cargill was sued by the International Labor Rights Fund for trafficking children from Mali and forcing them to work on cocoa bean plantations for around 12 to 14 hours each day without pay, food, or sleep. The company even continues to purchase cotton from Uzbekistan, where it is well known that child slave labor is used in the cultivation.
Bill Gates himself even filmed commercials for Monsanto’s GMOs, propping them up as the ‘solution’ to world hunger despite even the United Nations admitting that GMOs cannot fight hunger as effectively as traditional farming. Headed by an entity known as the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), a team of 900 scientists and researchers studied the issue of world hunger. The results of the major study were very simple: 900 scientists agreed that GMO crops were not the answer to the world hunger, and revealed this in 2008 — long before Bill Gates began claiming that GMOs were the answer while ignoring this readily available information.
Even the Union of Concerned Scientists examined the true yield of GMO crops, only to find that the GM crops do not produce increased yields over the long run — despite their excessive cost and extreme danger to health and environment. The lack of scientific support behind the GMO crops was so startling to the Union that they documented all the details in a 2009 report entitled ”Failure to Yield.”
Watchdog groups have criticized Gates’ support of these corporations after finding out about his massive funding. One such group, a part of the Community Alliance for Global Justice, stated:
“Monsanto has a history of blatant disregard for the interests and well being of small farmers around the world… [This] casts serious doubt on the foundation’s heavy funding of agricultural development in Africa…”
So why is Bill Gates, a man who is propped up by the media as an angel of philanthropy, pumping millions (if not billions) into these operations? And why is he claiming that GMOs can fight world hunger when we know this is not true due to decreased yields and other problems?
I Asked Bill Gates Why
In a unique opportunity to ask Bill Gates himself why he has purchased 500,000 shares of Monsanto behind the scenes (expelled into the news thanks to tax information) and teamed up with Cargill to expand GMOs worldwide, myself and several others asked him ourselves.
Yesterday Gates opened himself up to questions from online users via the social sharing site Reddit, in which he posted an open interview of sorts known as an ‘Ask me Anything’ post. This is essentially an invitation for questions that the subject will answer via text. While I had a large number of questions for Gates, such as if he actually eats GMOs himself, I simply asked him:
“Why did you buy 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock?”
Unsurprisingly, the comment received a large degree of feedback. Users asked Gates to please respond to the question, and several others posed similar variations to Gates that all went unanswered (as to be expected). Some quotes from users in response to my question included:
User Lawfairy replied: “I wish he’d answered this one — to me, this is one of the most curious things about Mr. Gates, whom I otherwise respect as one of the foremost humanists of our generation… Mr. Gates’ relationship with Monsanto is, in my mind, simultaneously the most morally troubling thing about Mr. Gates”
Another user posted (with links intact): “Would you be willing to take some time to give us some insight with your investments in Monsanto? Despite having the headlines of “ending world hunger”, this company has done some despicable things in the past 100 years and I don’t believe they have the public’s best interest in mind. Having a single company or entity trying to “control”, “manipulate” or “own” the world’s food supply, in my opinion, is not the way to end world hunger.”
Another user answered with: “Because he is supporting the Bilderberg group!”
None of these received a response nor did the many others I could not include in this article. The answer, it seems, is to bring this topic to the mainstream. The very same mainstream that seems to think Bill Gates is some sort of philanthropic super star that can do no evil. I am opposed to all wrongdoing at every level, and I find it absolutely disturbing that someone funding the GMO agenda and sand I find it absolutely disturbing that someone funding the GMO agenda and slave-labor-linked companies has been met with applause. This post originally appeared at Natural Society