Presidential standoff becomes a holy war in Brazil

The consequential presidential race in Latin America's largest country increasingly resembles religious culture-war tactics employed in US politics.

Catholics pray during a religious event in support of Brazil's President Jair Bolsonaro, who is running for re-election, in Brasilia, Brazil, Monday, Oct. 17, 2022. Bolsonaro will compete against former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in a presidential runoff election on Oct. 30. (AP Photo/Eraldo Peres)

October 28, 2022

By 

Eduardo Campos Lima

SÃO PAULO (RNS) — In Brazil on Sunday, two titans of the country will face off in a presidential runoff election that observers within the country and around the world are calling the most consequential election in decades for Latin America’s largest country.

Former two-term president and beloved icon of the working class Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, commonly known as “Lula,” will face current incumbent president and right-wing firebrand Jair Bolsonaro after neither was able to claim a majority in the first round of the presidential elections on Oct. 2. Da Silva, who received 48% of the initial vote, has lost ground in the ensuing weeks as he works to overcome a corruption scandal that landed him in jail for more than a year. Bolsonaro, who claimed 43% of the first vote, is gaining on his opponent but faces frustration over his administration’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the faltering economy.

While issues surrounding the economy, high poverty rates and protection of the Amazon rainforest have been central talking points during their campaigns, both candidates have pivoted to social issues in the weeks since the first election. And the holy war rhetoric has escalated as supporters on both sides work ever harder to demonize the other.

“The biggest lie (Bolsonaro) tells each day is to evoke God all the time. He is lying. He uses the name of Jesus in vain to try to deceive the good faith of men and women,” Lula said on Sept. 4 during a meeting with housemaids at the Metalworkers Union in São Bernardo do Campo.

For his part, Bolsonaro continues to pound in a message that da Silva is connected with anti-religious Communist regimes, especially focusing on Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua.

“That criminal (da Silva) in the debate last Sunday did not mention his friend Daniel Ortega. His friend shuts down churches, arrests priests, forbids processions, does not respect religion, the same things PT (da Silva’s party) wants for Brazil,” Bolsonaro said during a rally on Oct. 18 in São Gonçalo, a city in the Rio de Janeiro metropolitan area.

While both men are Catholic, trading in spiritual language is somewhat unfamiliar for da Silva, who has always prioritized social and economic themes in his campaigns. Even so, his Workers’ Party (known as PT in Brazil) has historical ties with progressive Catholicism. Founded in 1980 by union leaders, left-wing activists and members of Catholic groups like the base ecclesial communities (known as CEBs), their efforts were inspired by the Liberation Theology movement.

But with Bolsonaro’s religious outreach looking more effective, members of da Silva’s campaign have clearly embraced a tactical change.

Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro speaks during a ceremony at the Planalto presidential palace, in Brasilia, Brazil, Tuesday, July 13, 2021. (AP Photo/Eraldo Peres)

Bolsonaro has long courted both evangelicals and right-wing Catholics, with an emphasis on religious freedom, anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ issues. His wife, Michelle Bolsonaro, who is a member of a Baptist church, has been playing a fundamental role this year, making speeches during evangelical church services around the country, portraying Lula and his left-wing allies as diabolical forces that can only be defeated by Bolsonaro.

The religious attacks have been playing a central role in recent polls, according to demography expert José Eustáquio Diniz.

“Six months ago, surveys showed that Lula and Bolsonaro had almost an equal share of the evangelical vote. Now, Bolsonaro has almost 70% among them,” he said. Among Catholics, da Silva has 57% of their support, while Bolsonaro has 37%.

Marcelo Vitorino, an expert in political marketing who has led the campaign of major politicians in Brazil, told Religion News Service that “Bolsonaro has built a solid reputation among conservative Christians,” so attacks against him may not harm his image much in Christian segments.

But, Vitorino also noted, when both candidates have such a high unfavorability rate among undecided voters, a warlike campaign may lead them to just stay home on election day. “That is a real risk.”

Much of this war is being fought online, by supporters, and they are not exactly following the rules of a fair fight.

Two days before the first round, on Oct. 2, a viral video, later said by its creator to have been taken out of context, was heavily promoted by Bolsonaro supporters ahead of the first round of elections. The clip showed digital influencer Vicky Vanilla, a satanist, declaring support for Lula and predicting his victory.

“That is a spiritual war,” declared Bolsonaro ally and Congresswoman Bia Kicis, along with a link to the video on her social media.

Brazil’s former president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, left, who is running for re-election, kisses a cross he received from Catholic nun Sister Rosa during a meeting with members of the Catholic Church, in Sao Paulo, Brazil, Monday, Oct. 17, 2022. Da Silva will face Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro in a presidential runoff on Oct. 30. (AP Photo/Andre Penner)

“Aimed at dispelling the fake news, the Lula campaign created an ad with the caption ‘Lula is a Christian, share the truth.’ The second of four bullet points states ‘Lula doesn’t have a pact with the Devil nor has he ever spoken with him.” The PT has also been widely publicizing photos of da Silva with Pope Francis.

The viral video was an attempt by Bolsonaro supporters at “Lula’s literal demonization in a country that is home to the largest Pentecostal and Catholic populations on the planet,” according to Andrew Chesnut, a professor and religious studies expert at Virginia Commonwealth University.

Two days later, in a counter-attack by da Silva’s supporters, social media was flooded with pictures and videos showing Bolsonaro in Masonic lodges. Soon the phrase “Bolsonaro is not a Christian,” began to trend, overtaking references to “Lula-Satanista.”

After that, a picture appeared with Bolsonaro side by side with freemasons in front of an image of Baphomet, a divinity supposedly associated with the Knights Templar and later incorporated by occultists. That picture was later proven to be a fraud, but posts connecting Bolsonaro with satanic rituals continued to be published over the next days.

“The Brazilian left wing was unprepared for these digital attacks, and without a strategy for countering fake news and moral panic,” said Magali Cunha, a PhD in communications and the general editor of fact-checking site Coletivo Bereia.

That left a vacuum for supporters to share misinformation. Cunha, who is also a collaborator with the World Council of Churches, said the posts about Bolsonaro and the Freemasonry came from digital influencers connected to the Left — not exactly from Lula’s entourage.

“In that digital war, it makes sense, especially when it comes to winning voters who still have not made a decision,” she said.

A demonstrator dressed in the colors of the Brazilian flag performs in front of a street vendor’s towels for sale featuring Brazilian presidential candidates, current President Jair Bolsonaro, center, and former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, in Brasilia, Brazil, Tuesday, Sept. 27, 2022. Nearly a dozen candidates are running in Brazil’s presidential election but only two stand a chance of reaching a runoff: former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and incumbent Jair Bolsonaro. (AP Photo/Eraldo Peres)

That’s not an excuse to stoop so low, argues theologian Leonardo Boff, a public intellectual with the Latin American Liberation Theology movement and a fierce critic of Bolsonaro.

Boff argues that progressives should not use the same logic of Bolsonaro’s campaign, with “demoralization, mockery, despise for the other and fake news.”

“One should respond to those attacks with facts and truth, maintaining a civil manner. We cannot play the same game they play. We have to be coherent,” he told Religion News Service.

Bolsonaro’s campaign reacted to the freemason photos with more religious attacks. A few days later, neo-Pentecostal Pastor Damares Alves, Bolsonaro’s former minister of Women, Family and Human Rights who was elected to the Senate in the Oct. 2 election, released a video of her testimony during a church service. She graphically described a supposed network of pedophiles in Marajó Island, in the Amazon, which was trafficking Brazilian children to other countries.

In the clip, Alves said that 3- and 4-year-olds have their teeth taken out so “they won’t bite during oral sex” and that they only receive semi-solid food “so their bowels will be clear for anal sex.”

“Bolsonaro said: ‘We will get all of them.’ And hell rose against this man. The war against Bolsonaro waged by the press, waged by the Supreme Court, waged by the Congress, believe me, is not a political war. It is a spiritual war,” she continued.

Required by federal prosecutors, Alves failed to provide evidence of what she said. Analysts pointed out the similarities of her rhetoric with the U.S. Q’Anon conspiracy theory.

“In fact, it is part of the Brazilian evangelical tradition. It is based on the idea of a world dominated by evil and that only the spiritual community of the church can protect someone,” said Francisco Borba Ribeiro Neto, the director of the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo’s Center of Faith and Culture.

The exploitation of such ideas for electoral results, however, was imported from the United States, he argued.

To great effect, according to Chesnut.

“In the country that is arguably the epicenter of global Christianity today, it comes as little surprise that presidential candidates are compelled to prove their Christian credentials while demonizing their opponents,” he declared. “The victor of the electoral holy war will very likely be elected Brazil’s next president in the upcoming second round of elections.”

Rock 'n' roll star Jerry Lee Lewis dies at 87, days after erroneous report of his death
Posted 2h ago

Musician Jerry Lee Lewis died at his home in Mississippi, with his wife by his side.

(Reuters: Karen Pulfer Focht)

American rock pioneer Jerry Lee Lewis, who was torn between his Bible-thumping upbringing and his desire to make hell-raising rock 'n' roll with hits such as Great Balls of Fire and Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On, has died at the age of 87.

Key points:

Lewis was one of the first performers inducted into the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame

He had a son and was on his second marriage before he turned 20
In 1976 Lewis accidentally shot his bass player

The news came two days after the publication of an erroneous report of his death, which was later retracted.

Lewis passed away at his home in Desoto County, Mississippi, with his wife, Judith, by his side, a statement from his publicist said. He had been ill in recent years and suffered a stroke in 2019.

Like Chuck Berry's guitar, Lewis's piano was essential in shaping rock 'n' roll in the mid-1950s.

He was part of the dazzling Sun Records talent pool in Memphis, Tennessee, that included Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash, Carl Perkins and Roy Orbison.

Lewis outlived them all.

He was one of the first performers inducted into the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame in 1986 and was so influential that when John Lennon met him backstage at a show in Los Angeles, the Beatle dropped to his knees and kissed Lewis' feet.

A life of music and scandal

Lewis filled his albums not only with ground-breaking rock but with gospel, country and rhythm and blues on tracks such as such as Me and Bobby McGee and To Make Love Sweeter for You as he endured a life often filled with alcohol, drugs and tragedy.

His music was sometimes overshadowed by scandals — including his marriage to his 13-year-old cousin Myra in 1957.

In his prime, he performed with daring, originality and a lewd wild-man stage demeanour that thrilled his young fans as much as it agitated their parents.

Typically, Lewis would kick away his piano bench and bang the keyboard with his foot while his long wavy blond hair flopped in his face.

According to legend, Lewis was once so upset that Chuck Berry had been chosen to close a show over him that he finished his set with a move that was hard to top — setting the piano on fire and walking off.

"I'm a rompin', stompin', piano-playing son of a bitch," Lewis once told Time magazine in his Louisiana drawl.

"A mean son of a bitch. But a great son of a bitch."

Lewis once set his piano on fire while sharing a bill with Chuck Berry.(AP: G. Paul Burnett)
Humble beginnings to rock 'n' roll royalty

Lewis was born September 29, 1935, in Ferriday, Louisiana, and grew up poor with two cousins also destined for fame — television evangelist Jimmy Swaggart and country singer Mickey Gilley.

He became interested in the piano at age four and by 10 was sneaking into roadhouses to hear blues performers.

He absorbed a variety of musical influences, especially the Jimmie Rodgers records that belonged to his father, a farmer who went to prison for bootlegging.

Lewis's family attended the Assembly of God church and his mother ensured he was thoroughly informed about the evils of liquor, honky-tonks and promiscuity.

But Lewis was intent on experiencing them firsthand and began playing piano in bars while still a teenager. His mother, upset by the idea of her son performing the devil's music, sent him to a Bible college in Texas.

It turned out to be a brief stay, with Lewis reportedly being dismissed from the school for playing a boogie-woogie version of My God Is Real during an assembly. The incident showed the dichotomy that Lewis had to live with.

"The man is tortured," Myra Lewis told People magazine. "Jerry Lee thinks that Jerry Lee is too wicked to be saved."

As Lewis himself once put it, "I'm dragging the audience to hell with me."

Lewis performs plays An Evening with Jerry Lee Lewis in Los Angeles in 2010.

(Reuters: Fred Prouser)
Marriage to cousin almost derailed career

Lewis had a son and was on his second marriage before he turned 20, even though he had not divorced his first wife. He was determined to be a musician and made his way to Memphis.

In 1957 he recorded two rollicking chart-topping hits for Sun — Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On and Great Balls of Fire, which he had been reluctant to record because he considered it blasphemous — that helped define early rock 'n' roll.

Lewis quickly followed with more hits — You Win Again, Breathless and High School Confidential.

His career came to a halt during a 1958 tour of Britain. Journalists discovered Lewis was now married to Myra, the daughter of his bass player, who not only was 13 years old but also was his cousin.

News coverage was so intensely negative that the tour was called off.

Back in the United States, Lewis's career was not revived until he shifted genres and recorded country hits such as Another Place, Another Time, What's Made Milwaukee Famous (Has Made a Loser Out of Me) and She Even Woke Me Up to Say Goodbye.

Lewis's string of hits was matched only by the tragedies in his life. His young son Steve Allen Lewis drowned in 1962 and another son, Jerry Lee Jr, died in a 1973 car accident at 19.

After a divorce from Myra in the early 1970s, he married Jaren Pate in 1971 but she drowned in 1982. They had been separated for eight years but not divorced.

After only a few months of marriage, his next wife, Shawn Michelle Stevens, was found dead of a drug overdose in their home in 1983.

Eight months later he started another stormy marriage with sixth wife Kerrie McCarver that lasted 20 years before they divorced and he married his seventh wife, Judith Brown, in 2012.
Living life on the edge

In 1976 Lewis accidentally shot his bass player and that same year was arrested drunk outside Presley's Graceland mansion in Memphis with a loaded pistol, demanding to see Presley.

Lewis, who lived much of his later life on a ranch in Nesbit, Mississippi, also endured costly battles with US tax officials, a nearly fatal perforated ulcer and a painkiller addiction that landed him in the Betty Ford Clinic.

In his later years he settled down but biographer Rick Bragg recalled interviewing Lewis for his 2014 book Jerry Lee Lewis: His Own Words.

Lewis showed Bragg the pistol he kept under his pillow in a bedroom pockmarked with bullet holes and a Bowie knife stuck in the door.

"I don't think Jerry Lee Lewis had to exaggerate his life one bit to make it interesting," Bragg told the Atlanta Constitution Journal.

"He really did make Elvis cry. He really did turn over more Cadillacs than most people purchased in the state of Mississippi."

Lewis's late recordings included featured guests such as Jimmy Page, Bruce Springsteen, Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Neil Young, John Fogerty, Ringo Starr and other rockers he had influenced.

Reuters

VOTE BUYING

Bolsonaro's cash injection gains traction with poor Brazilians ahead of vote

Eric Schmidt: A Conflict of Interest

by Binoy Kampmark / October 25th, 2022

Ethics and Eric Schmidt are rare bedfellows.  The former Google/Alphabet CEO/Chairman exudes a sense of predatory self-interest, always making the point that what he wants aligns with what is supposedly good for the United States.

SCHMIDT VISITED NK IN THE 2000'S 

He has splashed money on numerous projects, including such artificial intelligence outfits as Rebellion Defense, all the time maintaining uncomfortably close ties to the government advisory circuit.  For years, he has been hectoring the Department of Defense to uncritically embrace AI, in other words, machine-learning technology.  “You absolutely suck at machine learning,” Schmidt boldly told General Raymond Thomas in July 2016, head of US Special Operations Command.  “If I got under your tent for a day, I could solve most of your problems.”

His efforts to get under that tent were already well underway.  In the 2000s, Schmidt began shaping Google’s cloud computing and AI capabilities, readying it to be a recipient of DoD contracts.  But the speed of such technological adoption proved infuriatingly slow.  “I am bizarrely told by my military friends that they have moved incredibly fast, showing you the difference of time frames between the world I live in and the world they live in.”

During the Obama administration, he was highly placed on the regular guest list, and was even brought in to do some cleaning when the launch of the government’s healthcare.gov website was botched.  (Since then, he has drummed the narrative that healthcare would also benefit from a “combination of cloud, deep neural networks”.)

Thanks to WikiLeaks, we also know how deeply involved Schmidt was in Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.  “He’s ready to fund, advise [sic] recruit talent, etc.,” wrote Clinton’s excited confidante and advisor John Podesta in a 2014 email.  Preferring to avoid the direct donations route, focus was instead placed upon the stealthy funding of start-ups packed with engineers and analysts crunching campaign data for advertising and voter-turnout operations.

As chair of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI), a body formed in 2018 to advise both the White House and Congress, Schmidt formally entered the world of federal advisory committees, dubbed by the Project on Government Oversight the “fifth arm of government”.  A 2010 bill passed in the House of Representatives prohibiting the appointments of commission members with conflicts of interest failed to get traction in the Senate.

A mere five months after his appointment to the NSCAI, an investment by Schmidt was made in the British start-up company Beacon, which combines chain finance with technology to identify, as the Financial Times puts it, “the most cost-effective shipping routes for cargo.”  This also included contributions from Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Uber founder Travis Kalanick.  The whole gang, it seemed, was in on the act.

Schmidt also found himself as chair of the Defense Innovation Board, created in 2016 to establish a bridge between Silicon Valley and the US military complex.  Its more formal mission is to provide senior officials in defence “with independent advice and recommendations on innovative means to address future challenges through the prism of three focus areas: people and culture, technology and capabilities, and practices and operations.”

The Board did more than just build a bridge, beating and ultimately knocking down the doors of government in getting its way.  The October 2019 recommendations by DIB on AI ethical principles were wholly adopted by the US Secretary of Defense, Mark T. Esper, in February 2020.  In the words of the Pentagon, “These principles will apply to both combat and non-combat functions and assist the US military in upholding legal, ethical and policy commitments in the field of AI.”

Schmidt repaid the favour in a flattering statement of approval.  “Secretary Esper’s leadership on AI and his decision to use AI Principles for the Department demonstrates not only to DoD, but to countries around the world, that the US and DoD are committed to ethics, and will play a leadership role in ensuring democracies adopt emerging technology responsibly.”

The Biden administration ensured that the Big Tech focus, and its entanglement with government, would continue unabated.  Rebellion Defense, and for that matter the entire Schmidt investment universe, obtained plum positions of influence.  Schmidt Futures is also intimately involved in the funding of office staff at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), an institutionally unacceptable state of affairs justified by the body’s chronic underfunding.

The nature of such arrangements, partly covered by the American Prospect last year, meant that Schmidt was essentially advising, and berating federal entities, to advance a cause central to his own entrepreneurial projects.  Investments could be made in national security start-ups that could, in time, be sold back to the government, harmonious if you’ve got the gig, terrible if you are interested in transparent transactions.

As John Davisson, senior counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, described it, “He’s got many, many financial incentives to ensure that the Department of Defense and other federal agencies adopt AI aggressively.”

For those who feel that accountable partitions should be maintained between big business and government, the tale of Schmidt’s investment activities is woefully unethical.  Walter Shaub, a senior ethics fellow at the Project on Government Oversight makes the obvious point: “It’s absolutely a conflict of interest.”

For the cut and thrust go-getters who see little problem in advisors holding government advisory positions who make recommendations that only advance their causes and personal wealth, such conduct is admirable.  Schmidt, an unelected official, essentially shaped the rules and regulations of an emerging industry he has a vast stake in.

All in all, over 50 investments in AI companies were made as chairman of the federal commission on AI.  For a person bothered about AI and its ethical frameworks, Schmidt has shown himself to be distinctly free of ethics in terms of corporate governance and accountability.  “The ethics enforcement process in the executive branch is broken, it does not work,” a resigned Craig Holman of consumer advocacy organisation Public Citizen told CNBC.  “And so the process itself is partly to blame here.”  Well, only partly.FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne and can be reached at: bkampmark@gmail.com. Read other articles by Binoy.

When Markets Cease to Control Human Economic Life

by Kim Petersen / October 24th, 2022

Our most important contribution is to have demonstrated concretely how to reconcile democratic planning with worker and consumer autonomy. We believe this was the Achilles’ heel of socialism during the twentieth century, which must be resolved if there is to be a future for socialism in the twenty-first century.

— Robin Hahnel speaking to the breakthrough that would be achieved in A Participatory Economy, 2022 (p 236-237)

In his book, A Participatory Economy, Robin Hahnel, a professor emeritus of economics at American University, begins by clarifying the goals of a participatory economy: economic freedom, economic justice, solidarity, efficiency, environmentally sustainable, and economic variety.

Economic justice is achieved by remunerating people based on their effort and sacrifice, how much of the burden one bears. Effort and sacrifice will be judged by colleagues in the workplace. Efficiency is the converse of wastefulness — that work performed is beneficial. Environmental sustainability means attaining intergenerational equity. Economic variety recognizes that people are different, have different tastes and wants; therefore, achieving an economy that produces a diversity of outcomes and lifestyles is sought.

Chapter 2 looks at different political-economic models and discusses why a participatory economy (parecon) is preferable and superior to capitalism, communism, and democratic socialism.

Hahnel shoots down the canard relentlessly propounded by adherents of capitalism that humans are motivated by greed. Hahnel writes, “The fallacy is in asserting that people will act in the same greedy and fearful ways in a system where they are given the opportunity to make their own decisions, are positively rewarded for embracing a fair distribution of the benefits and burdens of economic activity, and are rewarded, not punished, for acting in solidarity with others.” (p 32-33)

Perhaps the most controversial feature in a parecon is that there will be no private enterprise. This is because of the belief that “… only full social ownership of all productive resources is capable of achieving economic justice and distributive justice.” (p 40)

Markets are also eschewed for a variety of reasons, including their unfairness and subversion of democracy.

Instead of markets determining outcomes, people will get together and plan the economy. This is not a centralized command economy. A permanent top-down hierarchy has been eliminated. All workers and consumers are equally empowered in a parecon, although workers within a job complex will have greater input into their particular job complex than others outside that job complex.

There are many factors that go into protecting the environment (by, e.g., eliminating externalities), determining planning, creating balanced job complexes, determining effort, special needs, etc. Nonetheless, parecon and its planning are not pie-in-the-sky. Hahnel cites the promising results of computer simulations that support the feasibility and efficiency of annual planning. (see chapter 5)

A Participatory Economy also includes a chapter on reproductive labor. Thus labor, that has traditionally been heavily skewed to women (e.g., housework, child care), is recognized for its value to not only the family unit but society. Women’s equal participation in the workplace and economic life is a given in a parecon.

Parecon is a system in which fairness means fairness is across all ethnicities, genders, and whichever identifying features people choose for themselves. Application of the principles that underlie parecon must be accorded to all human distinctions with fairness. This is a sine qua non to be faithful to parecon’s principles.

Subsequent chapters examine participatory investment planning and long-run development planning.

But how does all the forgoing relate to international economic relations? Hahnel relates that a parecon rejects foreign direct investment in all forms because it is at odds with worker self-management. Private, for-profit business is not allowed in a parecon.

Foreign trade would take into account the level of economic development in a trade partner and seek to rectify long-standing economic injustices. Hahnel details a more-than-50-percent rule to greater benefit disadvantaged economies and respect a commitment to economic justice.

Parecon is not considered a finished product. Neither is it a process. It answers the question of what kind of economy and world do we desire once markets are supplanted and the masses of people have gained control of the resources, economy, and their futures.

A Participatory Economy is an eminently worthwhile read for people devoted to social justice and an economically just society. Seek answers to your questions and gain a deeper understanding of the principles and details of a promising people-oriented economic model that cannot be sufficiently covered in a book review.FacebookTwitterReddit

Email

Kim Petersen is an independent writer and former co-editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter. He can be emailed at: kimohp at gmail.com. Twitter: @kimpetersen. Read other articles by Kim.

World’s Premier Marine Ecosystem at Risk

by Robert Hunziker / October 25th, 2022

The Southern Ocean is 10% of the world’s oceans. Yet, it is arguably the most significant ecosystem of the planet for marine sea life as well as regulation of CO2 and ocean heat, serving as a buffer to climate change and thereby benefiting the entire globe. It is the final frontier of life support for Earth.

A new scientific research paper is calling for immediate protection of the Southern Ocean: “Climate change and fishing present dual threats.” ¹

Indeed, the Southern Ocean is key to sustaining life on the planet. It deserves special focus and must be protected to stop irreparable damage to a powerful yet fragile ecosystem.

According to the report:

Antarctic waters affect the Earth’s climate, moderate sea level, and play a strong role in global ocean circulation and nutrient cycling. The Southern Ocean disproportionately absorbs global carbon dioxide and heat, thus helping to regulate temperature and buffering global impacts of climate change. The Southern Ocean biosphere also contributes to climate regulation and oxygen production through its primary production of seasonal phytoplankton blooms. In addition, the Antarctic seafloor stores extensive amounts of carbon. Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) play a critical role both as a central species in the Southern Ocean food web and in biogeochemical cycles, stimulating primary production and influencing the drawdown of atmospheric carbon to the deep sea. A host of seasonally migrating iconic marine mammals and birds depend on the Southern Ocean to supply their energetic needs. ²

In short, the entire Antarctic inclusive of the Southern Oean is critical for marine life support across the globe as well as serving as a critically powerful regulatory system of the world’s climate system. Life is simply not the same and probably impossible without it.

Of special concern, krill are the backbone of the Southern Ocean ecosystem as well as considered a “keystone” marine species. This ultra-sensitive food chain in the Southern Ocean is currently threatened by commercial fishing for Antarctic toothfish, served as Chilean Sea Bass at high-end restaurants and krill, which is used as fishmeal and oil supplements. Thus, the food chain is threatened at both the top and the bottom by unsustainable commercial fishing. According to the research team, continuation of present commercial practices will very likely jeopardize this one-of-a-kind ecosystem.

Scientists have appealed to the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCCAMLR) that commences its two-week annual meeting in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia starting October 24, 2022.

According to the scientific team:

Amid the ongoing climate crisis and given the growing evidence that fishing in its current form is jeopardizing the Southern Ocean ecosystems, CCAMLR has the incredible responsibility to take conservation action now.³

Global Warming Undercuts East Antarctica

As global warming and excessive fishing threaten the sanctity of the Southern Ocean (also known as the Antarctic Ocean) the continent of East Antarctica is acting up once again.

It was only six months ago that Conger Ice Shelf collapsed. It’s the first-ever ice shelf collapse on East Antarctica, which is the coldest and driest location on the planet. On March 14-16 Conger ice shelf suddenly disappeared from satellite photos. It had been there for over a thousand years. All it took was an unusual warm spell and more than a thousand years of solid ice collapsed within only a few days! Little wonder that scientists still remain shaken to this day. East Antarctica has always been considered invincible… until now.

Alas, more trouble has been discovered in the former land of solid ice. According to CSIRO researchers, led by senior scientist Esmee van Eijk:

The Denman ice shelf in East Antarctica is melting at a rate of 79.8B tons per year. Studies identified the potential of “unstable retreat.” ⁴

The Denman Glacier is a major drainage of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, containing an ice volume equivalent to 1.5m of global sea level rise.²

Denman is suffering from the same problem as identified by scientists for Greenland, Thwaites Glacier, Pine Island Glacier, and others, which is “warm modified Circumpolar Deep Water fills the bottom of a deep trough leading to beneath the glacier… warm water enters the cavity… carrying sufficient heat to drive high rates of basal melt.”

Conclusion: Because the oceans absorb 93% of the heat produced as a result of human-generated CO2 (burning fossil fuels) blanketing the atmosphere, in turn, warming/heating up the entire planet, Bingo! 93% is absorbed into the oceans. Result: Deep-water currents carry heated water to the base of major ice glaciers and melt the base where ice sheets extend from the land (basal melt). Over time, the ice sheets extending over water break away thereby causing the worst possible event as the entire glacier complex rapidly flows to the sea. End result: Miami under water.

The world’s two major ice sheets — Greenland and Antarctica — have been solid for thousands of years, until now. This is a tragedy unfolding right before everybody’s eyes, and scientists are reporting it as it happens. Why the world isn’t on alert to stop fossil fuels may be the most important question of the 21st century? (Instead, huge expansion of fossil fuels is scheduled thru 2030.) Why aren’t world leaders appointing scientists and engineers to an ad hoc special world commission to do whatever is required to stop a process that is destined to flood every one of the 136 port cities of the world, each with a population of over one million people? After all, the melting is already at an early stage, but it’s accelerating. “The rate is tripling right now.” ⁵

Honestly, the world is horribly distraught, messed up, and entangled in an absurd web of arbitrarily selected stupid political operatives motivated by self-aggrandizement! It’s the same stupid stuff that led to the end of the Roman Empire 1,700-years ago, to wit: (1) loss of traditional values (2) political instability (3) overexpansion and military overspending (4) the rise of opposing foreign forces (5) economic troubles (6) concentration of wealth wrapped around extremely disturbing levels of social inequality.

Sound familiar?

1. Cassandra M. Brooks, et al, “Protect Global Values of the Southern Ocean Ecosystem”, Science, October 20, 2022. []
2. Ibid. [] []
3. “Scientists Call for Setting Limits, Possible Moratorium on Fishing in Antarctica’s Southern Ocean”, University of Colorado at Boulder, PHYS.ORG, October 20, 2022. []
4. Esmee M. van Wijk, et al, “Vulnerability of Denman Glacier to Ocean Heat Flux Revealed by Profiling Float Observations”, Geophysical Research Letters, October 2022. []
5. John Englander, Expert on Sea Level Rise, Talks with US Harbors About Changing Coastal Waters, July 5, 2022. []FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Robert Hunziker (MA, economic history, DePaul University) is a freelance writer and environmental journalist whose articles have been translated into foreign languages and appeared in over 50 journals, magazines, and sites worldwide. He can be contacted at: rlhunziker@gmail.com. Read other articles by Robert.

Agri Biotech Sector Motivated by Monopoly Control and Sacred GMO Cash Cow 

by Colin Todhunter / October 26th, 2022

We are currently seeing rising food prices due to a combination of an engineered food crisis for geopolitical reasons, financial speculation by hedge funds, pension funds and investment banks and profiteering by global grain trade conglomerates like Cargill, Louis Dreyfus, ADM and Bunge.

In addition, agri firms like Bayer, Syngenta (ChemChina) and Corteva cynically regard current circumstances as an opportunity to promote their agenda and seek commercialisation of unregulated and improperly tested genetically engineered (GE) technologies.

These companies have long promoted the false narrative that their hybrid seeds and their GE seeds, along with their agrichemicals, are essential for feeding a growing global population. This agenda is orchestrated by vested interests and career scientists – many of whom long ago sold their objectivity for biotech money – lobby groups and disgraced politicians and journalists.

Meanwhile, in an attempt to deflect and sway opinion, these industry shills also try to depict their critics as being Luddites and ideologically driven and for depriving the poor of (GE) food and farmers of technology.

This type of bombast disintegrates when confronted with the evidence of a failing GE project.

As well as this kind of emotional blackmail, prominent lobbyists like Mark Lynas – unable or unwilling to acknowledge that genuine food security and food sovereignty can be achieved without proprietary products – trot out other baseless and absurd claims that industry critics are Kremlin stooges, while displaying their ignorance of geopolitics.

Indeed, who would you turn to for an analysis of current US-Russia relations? An advocate for GE foods and pesticides who makes inaccurate claims from his perch at the Gates Foundation-funded Cornell Alliance for Science. Or a renowned academic like Professor Michael Hudson whose specialist field covers geopolitics.

But it would not be the first time that an industry activist like Lynas has ventured beyond his field of claimed expertise to try to score points.

However, dirty tricks and smears are par for the course because the agri biotech emperor has been shown to have no clothes time and again – GE is a failing, often detrimental technology in search of a problem. And if the problem does not exist, the reality of food insecurity will be twisted to serve the industry agenda, and regulatory bodies and institutions supposedly set up to serve the public interest will be placed under intense pressure or subverted.

The performance of GE crops has been a hotly contested issue and, as highlighted in a 2018 piece by PC Kesavan and MS Swaminathan in the journal Current Science, there is sufficiently strong evidence to question their efficacy and the devastating impacts on the environment, human health and food security, not least in places like Latin America.

A new report by Friends of the Earth (FoE) Europe shows that big global biotech corporations like Bayer and Corteva, which together already control 40% of the global commercial seed market, are now trying to cement complete dominance. Industry watchdog GMWatch notes these companies are seeking to increase their control over the future of food and farming by extensively patenting plants and developing a new generation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

These companies are moving to patent plant genetic information that can occur naturally or as a result of genetic modification. They claim all plants with those genetic traits as their “invention”.  Such patents on plants would restrict farmers’ access to seeds and impede breeders from developing new plants as both would have to ask for consent and pay fees to the biotech companies.

Corteva has applied for some 1,430 patents on new GMOs, while Bayer has applications for 119 patents.

Mute Schimpf, food campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe, says:

Big biotech’s strategy is to apply for wide patents that would also cover plants which naturally present the same genetic characteristics as the GMOs they engineered. They will be lining their pockets from farmers and plant breeders, who in turn will have a restricted access to what they can grow and work with.

For instance, GMWatch notes that Corteva holds a patent for a process modifying the genome of a cell using the CRISPR technique and claims the intellectual property rights to any cells, seeds and plants that include the same genetic information, whether in broccoli, maize, soy, rice, wheat, cotton, barley or sunflower.

The agri biotech sector is engaged in a corporate hijack of agriculture while attempting to portray itself as being involved in some kind of service to humanity.

And this is a global endeavour, which is also currently being played out in India.

GM mustard 

A recent report on the Down to Earth website stated that the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), India’s apex regulatory body, might approve the commercial cultivation of GM mustard. In response, concerned citizens have written to the government, objecting to the potential approval of unsafe, unneeded and unwanted GMOs.

The decision whether to allow the commercialisation of what would be the first GE food crop in India has been dragging on for years. COVID delayed the process, but a decision on GM mustard now appears to be close.

However, serious conflicts of interest, sleight of hand and regulatory delinquency – not to mention outright fraud – could mean the decision coming down in favour of commercialisation.

The bottom line is government collusion with global agribusiness, which is trying to hide in the background, despite much talk of Professor Pental and his team at Delhi University being independent developers of GM mustard (DMH 11).

GM mustard presents an opportunity to make various herbicide tolerant (HT) mustard hybrids using India’s best germ plasm, which would be an irresistible money spinner for the seed and chemical manufacturers.

In 2016, campaigner Aruna Rodrigues petitioned India’s Supreme Court seeking a moratorium on the release of any GMOs into the environment pending a comprehensive, transparent and rigorous biosafety protocol in the public domain conducted by agencies of independent expert bodies, the results of which are made public.

In her writ, Rodrigues stated:

In 2002, Proagro Seed Company (now Bayer), applied for commercial approval for exactly the same construct that Prof Pental and his team are now promoting as HT Mustard DMH 11. The reason today matches Bayer’s claim then of 20% better yield increase (than conventional mustard). Bayer was turned down because the ICAR [Indian Council of Agricultural Research] said that their field trials did not give evidence of superior yield.

The petition says that 14 years later invalid field trials and unremittingly fraudulent data now supposedly provide evidence of a superior yield of 25%.

Rodrigues continues:

HT DMH 11 is the same Bayer HT GMO construct – a herbicide tolerant GMO of three alien genes. It employs, like the Bayer construct, pollen sterilisation technology BARNASE, with the fertility restorer gene BARSTAR (B & B system) (modified from the original genes sourced from a soil bacterium) and the herbicidal bar gene in each GMO parental line. The employment of the B & B system is to facilitate the making of hybrids as mustard is largely a self-pollinating crop (but outcrosses at rates of up to 20%). There is no trait for yield. HT DMH 11 is straightforwardly an herbicide tolerant (HT) crop, though this aspect has been consistently marginalised by the developers over the last several years.

In order to produce a hybrid, two parent lines had to be genetically modified. Barnase and barstar technology was used in the parent lines. And the outcome is three GMOs: the two parents and the offspring, DMH 11, which will be ideal for working with glufosinate (Bayer’s ‘Liberty’ and ‘Basta’).

According to Rodrigues:

… the plan is that the official route for the first-time release of a HT crop and a food crop will be through HT DMH 11 and/or its two HT parental lines by stealth. Since the claimed YIELD superiority of HT DMH 11 through the B & B system over non-GMO varieties and hybrids is quite simply NOT TRUE…

In her numerous affidavits submitted to India’s Supreme Court, Rodrigues has set out in some detail why GE crops are a threat to human health and the environment and are unsuitable for India. She briefly communicated some of her concerns in a 2020 interview titled GMO Issue Reaches Boiling Point in India: Interview with Aruna Rodrigues.

Moreover, various high-level reports have advised against introducing GM food crops to India: The ‘Jairam Ramesh Report’ of February 2010, imposing an indefinite moratorium on Bt Brinjal; The ‘Sopory Committee Report’ (August 2012); The ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee’ (PSC) Report on GM crops (August 2012); and The ‘Technical Expert Committee (TEC) Final Report’ (June-July 2013).

These reports conclude that GM crops are unsuitable for India and that existing biosafety and regulatory procedures are inadequate. Appointed by the Supreme Court, the TEC was scathing about the regulatory system prevailing in India, highlighting its inadequacies and inherent serious conflicts of interest. The TEC recommended a 10-year moratorium on commercial release of GM crops. The PSC also arrived at similar conclusions.

According to eminent lawyer Prashant Bhushan, these official reports attest to just how negligent India’s regulators are and to a serious lack of expertise on GM issues within official circles.

Aruna Rodrigues long ago noted the abysmal state of GMO regulatory oversight in the country and the need for the precautionary principle to be applied without delay. But not much has changed and the regulatory position basically remains the same.

Rodrigues asserts that the two parent lines and the hybrid DMH-11 require full independent testing, which has not occurred. And it has not occurred because of a conflict of interest and regulatory delinquency.

Rodrigues notes:

India is suddenly faced with the deregulation of GMOs. This is disastrous and alarming, without ethics and a scientific rationale.

GM mustard is said to out-yield India’s best cultivars by 25-30%. The choice of the correct ‘comparators’ is an absolute requirement for the testing of any GMO to establish whether it is required in the first place. But Rodrigues argues that the choice of deliberately poor ‘comparators’ is at the heart of the fraud.

In the absence of adequate and proper testing and sufficient data, no statistically valid conclusions of mean seed yield (MSY) of DMH 11 could be drawn anyhow. Yet they were drawn by both the regulators and developers who furthermore self-conducted and supervised the trials. Without valid data to justify it, DMH 11 was allowed in pre-commercial large scale field trials in 2014-15.

For an adequate basis for a comparative assessment of MSY, Rodrigues argues it was absolutely necessary for the comparison to include the cross (hybrid) between the non-modified parental lines (nearest isogenic line), at the very start of the risk assessment process and throughout the subsequent stages of field testing, in addition to other recommended ‘comparators’. None of this was done.

Deliberately poor non-GMO mustard varieties were chosen to promote prospects for DMH 11 as a superior yielding GMO hybrid, which then passed through ‘the system’ and was allowed by the regulators, a classic non-sequitur by both the regulators and Dr Pental.

The fraud continued, according to Rodrigues, by actively fudging yield data of DMH 11 by 15.2% to show higher MSY. In her various Supreme Court petitions, she has offered a good deal of evidence to show how it was done.

Rodrigues says:

It matters not a jot if HT DMH 11 is not approved. What does matter is that its two HT (GMO) parental lines are: HT Varuna-barnase and HT EH 2-barstar will be used ‘for introgressing the bar-barnase and bar- barstar genes into new set of parental line to develop next generation of hybrids with higher yields” (according to the developer and regulator).

She says this extraordinary admission confirms that the route to any number of ‘versions’ of HT mustard DMH 11 is invested in these two GMOs as parents – India will have hundreds of low-yielding HT mustard hybrids, using India’s best mustard cultivars at great harm to farmers and contaminating the country’s seeds and mustard germ plasm irreversibly.

In effect, according to Rodrigues, India faces a three-in-one regulatory jugglery in a brazen display of collusion to fraud the nation by regulatory institutions of governance.

Moreover, HT mustard DMH 11 will make no impact on the domestic production of mustard oil, which was a major reason why it was being pushed in the first place. The argument was that GM mustard would increase productivity and this would help reduce imports of edible oils.

Until the mid-1990s, India was virtually self-sufficient in edible oils. Then import tariffs were reduced, leading to an influx of cheap (subsidised) edible oil imports that domestic farmers could not compete with. This effectively devastated the home-grown edible oils sector and served the interests of palm oil growers and US grain and agriculture commodity company Cargill.

It came as little surprise that in 2013 India’s then Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar accused US companies of derailing the nation’s oil seeds production programme.

Whether in India, Europe or elsewhere, the industry’s agenda is to use GE technology to secure intellectual property rights over all seeds (and chemical inputs) and thus gain total control over food and farming. And given what has been set out here – they seek to achieve this by all means necessary.

FacebookTwitter

RedditEmail

Colin Todhunter is an independent writer specialising in development, food and agriculture. You can read his new e-book 'Food, Dependency and Dispossession: Resisting the New World Order' for free here. Read other articles by Colin.