The Bayer-Monsanto Buy Out Mystery


Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
April 29, 2019

Well… this is interesting. It seems that the CEO of one of the corporations that gave the world Zyklon B is under scrutiny and fire for his role in his corporation’s buyout of the corporation that gave the world Agent Orange and Roundup with its carcinogenic and soil-nutrient-killing glyphosate; I.G. Farben meets Mon(ster)santo to become I.G. Farbensanto. And just in time, too, because we were being bombarded by the business schools and news that “bigger is better” and “economies of scale” and so on and so forth. Well, the last incarnation of I.G. Farben wasn’t too pleasant, and its current manifestation appears to be little better. It is better in one major respect, and that is that in its current manifestation, I.G. Farbensanto can at least be taken to court and sued for the harm it is doing to people, and eventually I suppose, the harm it is doing the environment.

But there’s a mystery here, and it prompts today’s high octane speculation, based on the following article from Zero Hedge that many of you sent along this past week:

In “Stunning Decision” Bayer Shareholders Dump CEO Over Disastrous Monsanto Purchase

Normally I would not cite so much of an article, but here it is essential to do so, in order to highlight the strange mystery lying at the heart of the Bayer buy out of Mon(ster)santo:

Bayer, also known as IG Farben back in the day, survived World War II (which it helped fund for Hitler’s war effort while recruiting a an army of slave workers), but it may not survive the worst acquisition in its history: the disastrous $63 billion purchase of Monsanto in 2018, which also brought over the infamous carcinogenic weed-killer Roundup, and with it countless lawsuits and legal charges.

And while the future of the iconic company which brought “cough medicine” Heroin to the world remains in question, as it is slowly been buried under an avalanche of lawsuits emerging from Monsanto’s legacy misdeeds which have slammed its stock to 7 year lows…

Late on Friday, in what Bloomberg called a “stunning development” for the German drugs and chemicals company, a majority, or about 55% of shareholders, voted against absolving CEO Werner Baumann and other managers of responsibility for their actions in the Monsanto takeover last year. Though the result isn’t legally binding, it throws his future into question and prompted an immediate supervisory board session. Similar rejections have cost German CEOs their jobs.

“Mr. Baumann, what have you done with our stable company?,” said Joachim Kregel, a representative of German shareholders association SdK. In just two years, “the erstwhile pharma giant has mutated into a dwarf,” said Ingo Speich, chief of sustainability and corporate governance at Deka Investment.

Bayer Chairman Werner Wenning said the board is taking the vote “very seriously” and would “do everything to win back the trust of shareholders as quickly and completely as possible” adding that “we regret this exceedingly.”

“Nevertheless, the voting results show that the stockholders’ meeting wanted to send a clear signal.”

The vote, which took place at around 10 p.m. local time, capped a tumultuous meeting in Bonn, with investors berating Baumann, arguing with Wenning and demanding explanations for the erasure of some 35 billion euros ($39 billion) in market value since the deal.At the heart of the debate was whether Baumann, Wenning and other leaders properly assessed the legal risks of Roundup, the controversial weedkiller it acquired together with Monsanto, according to Bloomberg. (Boldface emphasis in the original, bold-italics emphasis added)

It’s that last sentence that exposes the heart of the mystery, and that mystery has been hovering in the background ever since the buy-out occurred. We can sum up that mystery by putting it “country simple”: why on earth did Bayer buy Mon(ster)santo in the first place, when the lawsuits pending against it were so numerous and potentially risky? What on earth possessed Bayer’s executives not only to go through with the deal, but to pay cash for the headaches they bought themselves?

This question has not only troubled me ever since the acquisition was announced, but it has bothered others too. Catherine Austin Fitts and I have discussed it many times, both in her wrap up reports, and privately. I have discussed it with members of this website and with a few friends, and none of us can figure out what was going through the minds of Bayer’s executives when they made this deal, for in the final analysis, it makes no sense.

If there is an answer to that question, it has to lie somewhere on the spectrum between “just plain stupidity” (perhaps mixed with a hefty bit of “corporate it-can’t-happen-to-us-because-we’re-good-and-smart-people hubris”) to an admittedly high octane speculative scenario, which I advance here today for the first time: What if the whole thing was a deliberate act of sabotage of Bayer by agents provocateur carefully infiltrated into the company to influence its policy and direction? What if the whole thing was a part of some deliberate and wider “plan” of economic warfare between the USA and Germany, unloading an increasingly (and deservedly) unpopular American company on a German mega-corporation, and making the latter foot the bill for the lawsuits?  All that money flows from Bayer and Germany into the USA to pay for lawyers, and lawsuit settlements, leaving the stockholders in Bonn rightfully asking the same questions we are: why on earth did they do the buy-out in the first place?

Of course, that scenario sounds nutty, and like I’ve run completely off the end of the High Octane Speculation twig once again. I freely acknowledge how nutty it sounds.

But consider: we’re told over and over by Mr. Globaloney that the nation-state is obsolete, and that mega-transnational corporations are doing end runs around national sovereignty, and that the world should be run by these corporations. In effect, they are saying that these corporations are the “new sovereignties” in the world. If so, then it stands to reason that they will start doing what sovereign nations have always done: they will spy on each other, they will infiltrate long-term sleeper agents into each other’s organizations as agents provocateur, and seek to influence their competition’s policies and decisions to the detriment of their competition, and to the advantage of themselves. They will raise mercenary armies and do battle with each other; they will hire assassins, and do all the other covert things that sovereign nations have done and still do.If you don’t believe me, just recall the first example of such behavior, when the bankers of the Rialto helped to manipulate the crisis that put an end to the 14th century Florentine “mega-companies”. So perhaps, just perhaps, some major global competitor of Bayer infiltrated such agents provocateur into the very top echelon of that company’s leadership, and that leadership in turn bought, or was advised to buy, Mon(ster)santo, effectively hanging a millstone around Bayer’s neck, and taking much needed funds from its R & D and shoveling them into non-productive, non-competitive activities like defending against lawsuits…  It’s a stunningly efficient way to take out a competitor and use up its liquidity.

We’ll know in good time, of course, whether that scenario is true or not, for I strongly suspect that those Bayer shareholders are going to demand an investigation, or conduct one of their own because they won’t be in the mood to accept any explanations from the leadership that created the mess, and the precipitous drop in their share value.

And if that scenario to any degree should be born out by coming disclosures and investigations, then its a reminder of a general principle that my nutty scenario can apply to other corporations, and may rationalize corporate behavior that otherwise makes no sense from conventional analysis.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com

_______________________________________________
About The Author:

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

The GMO Scrapbook: Glyphosate: It’s Much Worse Than We Thought


Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
April 17, 2019

I had fully intended this blog to come out yesterday, to follow Monday’s first blog, but the fire at Notre Dame cathedral in Paris happened, as as I said, I didn’t really think blogging yesterday, as if nothing had happened, wouldn’t be fitting. Many people have sent in further articles and thoughts about it, asking me what I think. I may or may not eventually collect my thoughts into some sort of coherent pile and blog about them, or perhaps talk about them in a webinar, but for the moment I will keep those to myself.

Today’s article was sent in by several people, and it’s one of those things we’ve got to talk about. since it’s an article by one of my favorite researchers, F. William Engdahl:

Glyphosate Worse Than We Could Imagine https://journal-neo.org/2019/04/14/glyphosate-worse-than-we-could-imagine/

What caught my eye here were two things:

In a long-term animal study by French scientists under Gilles Eric Seralini, Michael Antoniou and associates, it was demonstrated that even ultra-low levels of glyphosate herbicides cause non-alcoholic liver disease. The levels the rats were exposed to, per kg of body weight, were far lower than what is allowed in our food supply. According to the Mayo Clinic, today, after four decades or more pervasive use of glyphosate pesticides, 100 million, or 1 out of 3 Americans now have liver disease. These diagnoses are in some as young as 8 years old.

But glyphosate is not only having alarming effects on human health. Soil scientists are beginning to realize the residues of glyphosate application are also having a possibly dramatic effect on soil health and nutrition, effects that can take years to restore.

While most attention is understandably drawn to the human effects of exposure to glyphosate, the most widely used agriculture chemical in the world today, independent scientists are beginning to look at another alarming effect of the agrochemical– its effect on essential soil nutrients. In a study of the health of soils in the EU, the online journal Politico.eu found that the effects of spraying of glyphosate on the major crops in European agriculture is having disastrous consequences on soil health in addition to killing weeds.

Scientists at Austria’s University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences in Vienna showed that casting activity of earthworms had nearly disappeared from the surface of farmland within three weeks of glyphosate application. Casting is the process of the worm pushing fertile soils to the surface as they burrow, essential for healthy soil and plant nutrition. A study at Holland’s Wageningen University of topsoil samples from more than 300 soil sites across the EU found that 83% of the soils contained 1 or more pesticide residues. Not surprisingly, “Glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA, DDTs (DDT and its metabolites) and broad-spectrum fungicides… were the compounds most frequently found in soil samples and at the highest concentrations.”

Evidence of soil experts is beginning to reveal clear links between use of pesticides such as glyphosate and dramatic drops in soil fertility and the collapse of microbe systems essential to healthy soil. Worms are one of the most essential.

It’s well-established that earthworms play a vital role in healthy soil nutrients. Soils lacking such are soils that deprive us of the essentials we need for healthy diets, a pandemic problem of soil depletion emerging globally over the past four decades, notably the same time frame that use of pesticides has exploded worldwide. Earthworms are beneficial as they enhance soil nutrient cycling and enhance other beneficial soil micro-organisms, and the concentration of large quantities of nutrients easily assimilable by plants.

The EU puts no limits on how much glyphosate can be put on crops even though it is established that glyphosate can kill specific fungi and bacteria that plants need to suck up nutrients in addition to its effects on earthworms. That is a major blind spot.

So there you have it: glyphosate not only is now linked to non-alcoholic liver disease, which according to Mayo research is now afflicting one out of three Americans, inclusive of children, it is also destroying soil nutrients, microbes, and earthworms. We should have seen this one coming, of course, because a few years ago I blogged about a University of Iowa study of the yield-per-acre of GMO versus non-GMO crops. You might recall that the Iowa study concluded that yields of GMO fields went down over time, while costs rose, whereas the non-GMO fields maintained yields  and lower costs over time.

I suspected then, and these recent studies now appear to confirm, that the soil itself was being adversely affected by the whole GMO boondoggle. What was utterly lacking ab initio with the whole GMO-glyphosate technology was, of course, proper long-term inter-generational studies of the environmental and health effects, a study that it will be recalled only the Russian Federation pointed out was lacking, and which it not only intended to conduct, but it will also be recalled that the Russian Federation has prohibited GMOs, while the neighboring Ukraine went full GMO; indeed, forgotten in the whole mess in The Ukraine was the acquisition of special port facilities for GMO companies.

Normally, of course, my habit is to indulge in a bit of high octane speculation at this juncture, but today, I’ll defer to Mr. Engdahl’s own implied speculations, because I happen to agree with him. He states:

What is becoming clearer is the colossal and obviously deliberate official blind eye given to potential dangers of glyphosate-based pesticides by regulatory bodies not only in the EU and the USA, but also in China, which today produces more glyphosate than even Monsanto. Since the Monsanto Roundup patent expired, Chinese companies, including Syngenta, Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Company, SinoHarvest, and Anhui Huaxing Chemical Industry Company, have emerged as the world’s major producers of the chemical as well as largest consumers, a not good omen for the future of the legendary Chinese cuisine.

Glyphosate is the base chemical component for some 750 different brands of pesticides worldwide, in addition to Monsanto-Bayer’s Roundup. Glyphosate residues have been found in tap water, orange juice, children’s urine, breast milk, chips, snacks, beer, wine, cereals, eggs, oatmeal, wheat products, and most conventional foods tested. It’s everywhere, in brief.

Despite the overwhelming evidence, however, EU Commission bureaucrats and the USA EPA continue to ignore prudence in not banning the toxic chemical pending thorough independent investigation over longer time. If I were cynical, I would almost think this continued official support for glyphosate-based herbicides is about more than mere bureaucratic stupidity or ignorance, even more than simply corruption, though that for sure plays a role. The nutritional quality of our food chain is being systematically destroyed and it is about more than corporate agribusiness profit. (Emphasis added)

The question, if the nutritional value not only of the food but of the soil itself is being deliberately destroyed (and for reasons other than “corporate agribusiness profit”) is why? And I suspect most regular readers here share the same suspicions that I have: we’re being made to pay for our own poisoning by governments no longer interested in the welfare of their own people, who view them simply as “marks” to be fleeced and cattle to be slaughtered. The one bright ray of sunshine in the whole mess is that Bayer, or as I like to call it, I.G. Farbensanto, is being made to pay for the damage its products are inflicting, and that damage is no longer confined to humans, but the soil itself. And in that, there are even more potentials for class action lawsuits, not only from farmers, but from governments themselves, should any of them ever choose to wake up.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
_____________________________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.