‘Google has power to control elections, can shift millions of votes to Clinton’.

People trust the “unbiased” internet search giant Google so much it can actually influence up to 10 million undecided voters to choose Hillary Clinton for president, prominent US psychologist and author Robert Epstein told RT following years of research.

Despite being a supporter of the Democratic presidential nominee, Dr. Epstein believes Google’s unchecked algorithm of placing one candidate over the other in search results constitutes a “threat to democracy.”

RT: Robert, how did you discover that Google is possibly in cahoots with the Clinton campaign?

RE: Well I didn’t find out that they were necessarily supporting Hillary Clinton, that’s not what I found at first. First, through several years of research, I found that they had the power to control elections, the power to shift the votes. So, that was more than four years of experimental research with more than 10,000 people in 39 countries.

So, we established through some very careful experiments that by favoring one candidate in search rankings Google can shift a lot of votes. More than 20 percent of undecided voters overall, and in some demographic groups up to 80 percent of undecided voters. People trust search rankings so much that if one candidate is favored in search rankings that shifts peoples’ votes.

Now, more recently, many people have established that Google has a very close relationship with Hillary Clinton. That didn’t come from my research, that came from all kinds of investigative research by many people.

RT: Are you going to take a look at Facebook and Twitter as well? It looks like social media play an even bigger role in the elections than televised debates.

RE: Well, we know now that Facebook has the power to shift about 600,000 votes to Hillary Clinton on Election Day with no one knowing this is occurring. All they have to do is send out “Go out and vote” reminders to Hillary Clinton’s supporters, but not to Trump’s supporters. That would cause a lot of people to vote who would otherwise stay home. So yes, we’ve looked at Facebook, we’ve looked at Twitter. But again, Facebook can shift 600,000 votes, Google can shift somewhere between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes.

RT: Have you been able to find abnormal search results by Google in some other countries intended to influence the outcome of elections?

RE: We haven’t look carefully at too many countries. We’ve looked at the UK election in 2015, we looked at the national election in India, at the Lok Sabha election in 2014. What we do know is that it is the nature of Google’s algorithm to put one candidate ahead of another. That happens automatically. That happens, as Google would say, organically. So, this means that Google’s algorithm has probably been determining the outcomes of close elections around the world for many years, probably actually controlling the winner in as many as 25 percent of the national elections of the world.

RT: What do you think about this threat of big data? Do you think Google and other search engines analyses all search results by an individual for a good purpose?

RE: Well, big data at the moment is a threat. It’s a threat to democracy, at least as we have it in the United States, it’s a threat to human freedom, it’s a threat to civil liberties. This is mainly because the technologies are very new, and new means of control, of surveillance, of manipulation are being developed which at the moment are not regulated – they’re not covered by any laws or regulations. So, the problem is that these technologies have developed quickly, and we have not developed systems for monitoring these technologies, we’ve not developed systems for regulating these technologies. Obviously, we must do so.

RT: You’ve said that unlike Europe, Russia and China were able to overcome the Google monopoly, but a lot of people are still using this search engine. Do you think that the US company can manipulate public opinion in Russia as well?

RE: Well, it’s hard for them to manipulate opinion if they don’t dominate that country. Google dominates most of the countries in the world. The only countries it doesn’t dominate are Russia and China. So, Russia and China are protected a little bit from Google, but Russia and China have their own problems. Russia has Yandex, China has Baidu, and these companies can use techniques just as the ones that Google is using and perhaps they’re already using these techniques. These techniques can be used by any big tech company that provides a search engine. These techniques can be used by any big tech company that provides search suggestions.

My newest research shows, for example, that Google seems to be favoring Hillary Clinton in its search suggestions, the suggestions it gives you when you first start to type an item, and from new research I’ve done, we know that if you suppress negative search suggestions from one candidate, that shifts votes and opinions towards that candidate. So, Google is not the only problem. Any of these big tech companies can use these techniques for surveillance, for manipulation, for control, and I think we have to be concerned about the big tech industries in general around the world, not just Google.

RT: How do you oppose such great power being wielded by one corporation like Google?

RE: Well, the problem with a lot of power being in the hands of one company is that the private company is not answerable to the public. The private company does not have people who we voted on. The private company might be run almost like a monarchy, with the CEO having enormous power and the public having no say whatsoever in what they do, even not having access to their internal records. So we would have no idea of exactly what they’re doing or how they’re doing it and how they’re making decisions. This is potentially very dangerous. The situation right now is unprecedented in human history. There has never been so much power placed in the hands of so few people who are beyond the reach of any laws, beyond the reach of any regulations, and who don’t necessarily have the public interest in mind.

RT: What about Donald Trump? In your opinion, what methods and tricks has Donald Trump and his loyal media used in this presidential race?

RE: Well, I’ve said in writing, repeatedly and in many interviews that I’m a very strong supporter of Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is by far the better candidate, Donald Trump is a very weak candidate, he would not make a good leader, he would not make a good president. Plus, I know people in his family, it makes no sense to me that he is even running for president, I don’t think he wants to be president! I think he just wants to increase his celebrity so that he can start his own television network, and I think that steps are now already being taken for him to do that.

The private company might be run almost like a monarchy, with the CEO having enormous power and the public having no say whatsoever in what they do, even not having access to their internal records. So we would have no idea of exactly what they’re doing or how they’re doing it and how they’re making decisions. This is potentially very dangerous.

I made a prediction on Twitter recently, you can check this: I not only have predicted that he will set up his own television network but that he will launch his network with a guaranteed hit show. It will be a reality TV show about Donald Trump running for president, and that will be a hit show, so I think that’s his only interest here. Hillary Clinton will become our next president, it’s guaranteed and in my opinion Donald Trump has no interest, never had any interest in becoming president.

RT: Do you believe that Hillary Clinton will become US president through the manipulation of public opinion?

RE: Oh, Hillary Clinton is guaranteed to win this election, and I have said previously based on polls that seem to show a kind of a close vote, that those polls did not take into account the power that Google and other companies have to shift votes. That’s missing from these polls. So, once you realize the power that these companies have, Hillary Clinton is absolutely guaranteed to win, and she will win in the margin of somewhere between 2.6 million and 10 million votes. If we take the mean, the average of those two numbers, I guess you could say it’s pretty clear that she will win by approximately 6.5 million votes.

READ MORE: Hearts & minds: Google-run project to tackle ISIS propaganda, target US far right

RT: Given that the United States has such an expensive and powerful media industry, would you say that voters in the US have a real picture of the presidential campaign?

RE: Well, voters in the United States I think do get a pretty good picture because we have so many different kinds of media and people are just bombarded with information from newspapers, magazines and the internet, more than 400 different television channels. So I think we do get a pretty complex and deep picture of things, but you have to remember that all of these forms of media are competitive. So, we’re getting one perspective from one magazine, another perspective from another magazine.

But when you come to something like Google, there’s no competition. There’s no competitor. It’s a completely different kind of influence, it’s non-competitive. In other words, if you’re still trying to make up your mind and you go to Google and ask a question about the candidates or about some sort of issue related to the election, Google will show you whatever it wants to show you and that can easily, easily tip your opinion one way or the other and there’s no competitor, there’s no way for anyone to compensate what Google just told you.

So, this is a completely new and very dangerous kind of influence. It has no competition, there’s no corrective for it, and people trust Google – we know this from surveys – people trust Google more than they trust any newspaper, any magazine or any television station. People trust information that they get from a computer much more than information they’re getting from television or a newspaper because they know that television and newspapers are biased, because they know that people are actually giving them the information. But when they get information out of a computer they mistakenly believe that that information is impartial, that information is objective and of course, that’s not really true, but that’s what people believe.

By: RT

International Criminal Court ‘about to probe US war crimes in Afghanistan’.


Over the next few weeks, the International Criminal Court (ICC) could open an investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Afghan war, including those allegedly committed by American troops, Foreign Policy magazine reports.

Citing “several knowledgeable sources,” the magazine claims that the ICC’s chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, is several weeks from launching a thorough and comprehensive investigation into violations in conducting war that could implicate US soldiers, Taliban insurgents and, possibly, the Afghan government.

If indeed launched, the investigation would be the first of its kind. The ICC has never considered bringing war crimes charges against American army personal for acts committed in Afghanistan before.

While the investigation will be neatly timed to forgo the US presidential elections, it is expected to be set up by no later than the end of this year, Foreign Policy says. The report adds that a US delegation allegedly made a recent trip to The Hague, which hosts the ICC, to find out more about the possible scope of the probe.

It remains unknown if the prosecution would go so far as to charge American servicemen with war crimes, as such allegations need to be backed by a preponderance of incriminating evidence, which the ICC does not boast as of now.

To proceed with the investigation, the prosecutor would have to establish that the allegations have not been properly dealt with by American authorities, but the ICC has already slammed US authorities responsible for oversight for being reluctant to bring serious charges against servicemen involved in the ill-treatment of detainees.

If all of the conditions are met, a three-judge panel would decide if the court will take on the issue, as no member-state, but only the prosecutor herself, has requested that the proceedings be launched.

READ MORE: Not even US president can legalize torture, Abu Ghraib inmates allowed to sue – court ruling

In its report on Preliminary Examination Activity from November of last year, the court pointed out that the US Committee against Torture, which was specially established to look into multiple reports of CIA operatives and service members torturing and abusing detainees in Afghanistan following 9/11, might have been too lenient in punishing those implicated in committing war crimes.

The report says that, despite the US government’s claim that the Pentagon has conducted “thousands of investigations since 2001 and prosecuted or disciplined hundreds of service members for mistreatment of detainees and other misconduct,” the charges were “administrative,” not “criminal,” and those “higher than the brigade commander level” were never subjected to disciplinary measures. Moreover, some of the investigations found excuses for the mistreatment of the suspects in “unclear policy guidance,” “insufficient training,” or “command failures.”

Based on the evidence available, the court concluded “that victims were deliberately subjected to physical and psychological violence” committed “with particular cruelty.”

Washington has long claimed that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over the US, and, therefore, its citizens are not subject to its rulings, as the US has never ratified the Rome Statute that established the court in the first place.

However, the court argues that, since Afghanistan ratified the Rome Statute in February 2003, all crimes committed on its territory or by its nationals since then fall under its jurisdiction.

READ MORE: Pentagon to release almost 200 photos of tortured Afghan, Iraqi prisoners under court order

In December of 2014, a Senate report was released detailing the torture and abuse committed by CIA personnel at clandestine prison facilities set up by the US, including those in Afghanistan, which gave a glimpse at the various torture techniques that US troops used on prisoners, ranging from waterboarding and heat deprivation, to hanging them from a bar. Some suspects were detained for years without charge. While the report contains over 6,000 pages, only a short, heavily redacted summary of about 500 pages has been released. To date, Washington has not paid any compensation to the 119 victims found to have been held and tortured in CIA custody.


US vs. Russia in Syria: A Battle to Control the Truth.

us-vs-russia-in-syria-a-battle-to-control-the-truth-01President Obama during a bilateral meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the opening day of the United Nations General Assembly, on September 28, 2015. (Photo: Doug Mills / The New York Times)

There is a dangerous leader heading an irrational state who is deploying forces to Syria he insists are fighting terrorists. His decisions have led to numerous civilian casualties and the threatening of nuclear confrontation with his nation’s ideological foe. Domestically, his administration has jailed journalists and silenced critics in government, and since WWII, his country’s intelligence services have meddled in the elections of dozens of countries and are now contemplating a cyberattack on its hegemonic rival. His administration maintains alliances with corrupt juntas and religious fundamentalists while championing domestic and foreign policies that have done little to rein in the country’s violent nationalism, intolerant nativism, police brutality and enriching of the few at the expense of the many.

His name is Barack Obama. One could certainly be forgiven in thinking it was Vladimir Putin, since his justifications for Russian policy are strikingly similar.

While the US corporate media frantically reports on Russia’s actions in Ukraine and Syria, it appears content with the havoc wreaked by its Nobel Peace Prize president in sundry countries across three continents. For well-established reasons rooted in exceptionalism and indoctrination, the US mainstream media cannot refer to Obama and his administration in the same terms used to describe Putin.

Whereas The New Yorker can run a headline that states, “Putin, Syria, and Why Moscow Has Gone War Crazy,” it is unfathomable to think of the US press referring to the Obama administration’s policies in similar language. In fact, the article’s author, Joshua Jaffe, appears bewildered with Russia’s policies in the Middle East and Europe, especially the Russian Defence Ministry’s announcement on October 8 that it had deployed nuclear warheads to Kaliningrad. The fact that Kaliningrad is part of Russia aside, Jaffe writes that, “Projecting a half-lunatic readiness to blow up the world is, in essence, a cover operation: a way to make a lot of noise while the Kremlin goes about creating a lot of new facts on the ground, whether in Syria or the Baltics.”

If this Russian move is irrational, wouldn’t Obama’s actions — supporting ill-defined rebel groups in Syria, signature strikes in Pakistan and indiscriminate Saudi bombing in Yemen — be irrational as well? And in any state where the press was doing its job, wouldn’t a look at US nuclear policy — by sheer quantity of warheads, one that could be categorized as “readiness to blow up the world” — and its citizens’ attitudes toward weapons of mass destruction be prudent? It is unlikely that such a critical look will come anytime soon from the submissive US mainstream media, however. Though much has been written about Putin’s clampdown and control of the Russian press, corporate US media outlets are hamstrung by the monopoly that six corporations have on the American “marketplace of ideas.”

This is not to exonerate or extoll Putin. On the contrary, Putin is an opportunist bent on increasing his power and influence. But so is Obama and any other (future) US president, be it Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. One can only dream that the same measures that the US press takes in detailing Russian atrocities in Syria could be applied to US atrocities there, and also in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia. But the US corporate media and populace seem to believe that Russia’s intentions are malicious, while the United States’ intentions are benevolent. This why US bombings of civilians in Syria are described as “mistakes,” whereas the aim of Russian bombing can only be “terror.” For example, the bombing of a UN convoy in September that Russia says was accompanied by terrorist elements was reported in the US press as a targeted strike against civilians.

Russia may very well target civilians. The tragedy of Aleppo is well-documented. The point here is not to justify Russian actions. It is to question why the US mainstream media accept the Obama administration’s assertions that Russia’s bombs are aimed at civilians, while US bombs are not. One could argue that both Russia and the US are guilty of civilian bombings, since distinctions between rebel, terrorist and civilian are blurred in civil war. But this would challenge the notion of benevolent intentions that are at the core of American exceptionalism. Interestingly, those who have bothered to look into Obama’s abovementioned signature strikes will find that tolerance of civilian casualties is at the heart of that policy. And if a Martian — bereft of any understanding of nationalism or exceptionalism, but well-versed in international Human Rights Law — were to take a cursory look at the last 50 years of US foreign policy, he might conclude that the US does, in fact, target civilians.

A cynic would claim that the truth here does not matter. It is what people believe to be the truth that reigns supreme. To this end, both the American and Russian mainstream media and governments are presenting a one-sided version of atrocities that aims to vilify the other.

To address this dangerous trend, I presented a paper at Penza University in southern Russia on October 12, examining the language the Western media use to castigate and dehumanize Putin. The paper, “Language as a Weapon: How Western Journalists Portray Russian Policy,”was given at a conference titled, “Language. Law. Society.” After completing my talk, I fielded a question from a Russian academic regarding the role of the US as a world police force. This is a common question in the former Soviet Union and is trumpeted in the Russian press. My answer was that the US would never be a world police force, as it intervenes only in those areas where its vital economic interests are at stake. The main point being that the US corporate media do not accurately describe these interventions as power moves that waste large amounts of civilian life. Instead, the corporate media too often act as a public relations firm for the US government, repeating hollow rhetoric about freedom, liberty, democracy and the open market. The man responded that I should move to Russia, since the Russian press also make similar hollow claims in support of Putin.

Nobody would argue that Putin does not control the Russian media, and that his distorted version of the truth prevails. But one should question why, in a “free” society like the US, Obama’s distorted version does, too.


The Story of How the DOJ Tried to Thwart an FBI Investigation Into the Clinton Foundation.


Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal published a fascinating and troubling article detailing how aggressively the Department of Injustice moved to stymie efforts of FBI agents who wanted to investigate pay-to-play criminality with regard to the Clinton Foundation.

Of course, none of this should come as a surprise. The Justice Department under President Obama never met a powerful person it cared to prosecute. Indeed, under Eric Holder’s crony reign (same now with Loretta Lynch), it’s been apparent for a very long time that senior leadership at the DOJ see the institution’s primary role to be the coddling and protection of oligarch criminals, especially those in the financial sector (see: Must Watch Video – “The Veneer of Justice in a Kingdom of Crime”).

The death of the rule of law in America, otherwise known as the two-tier justice system, has been a key topic of mine since the very beginning. In fact, I think it is the number one cancer plaguing our society at this time. As I warned in the 2014 post, New Report – The United States’ Sharp Drop in Economic Freedom Since 2000 Driven by “Decline in Rule of Law”:

In my opinion, the U.S. is living on borrowed time. The entrepreneurial spirit is still very much alive, and a lot of innovative things are happening in the tech area, but other than that, the U.S. economy looks very much like a third word oligarchy. From my perspective, we need to reinstate the rule of law at once. The bad actors amongst the rich and powerful will continue to feast relentlessly on the productive parts of the economy so long as they they are never held accountable for their crimes. Simply put: The rule of law must be restored immediately.

When it comes to the restoration of the rule of law, there is simply no time to waste.

The rule of law has not been restored, a realization that is consistently reenforced by the lengths to which the Department of Justice goes to protect the powerful. Yesterday’s WSJ article gives us an additional glimpse into how that happens behind the scenes.

Here are a few excerpts from the article, FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe:

The surprise disclosure that agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation are taking a new look at Hillary Clinton’s email use lays bare, just days before the election, tensions inside the bureau and the Justice Department over how to investigate the Democratic presidential nominee.

The new investigative effort, disclosed by FBI Director James Comey on Friday, shows a bureau at times in sharp internal disagreement over matters related to the Clintons, and how to handle those matters fairly and carefully in the middle of a national election campaign. Even as the probe of Mrs. Clinton’s email use wound down in July, internal disagreements within the bureau and the Justice Department surrounding the Clintons’ family philanthropy heated up, according to people familiar with the matter.

New details show that senior law-enforcement officials repeatedly voiced skepticism of the strength of the evidence in a bureau investigation of the Clinton Foundation, sought to condense what was at times a sprawling cross-country effort, and, according to some people familiar with the matter, told agents to limit their pursuit of the case. The probe of the foundation began more than a year ago to determine whether financial crimes or influence peddling occurred related to the charity.

Some investigators grew frustrated, viewing FBI leadership as uninterested in probing the charity, these people said. Others involved disagreed sharply, defending FBI bosses and saying Mr. McCabe in particular was caught between an increasingly acrimonious fight for control between the Justice Department and FBI agents pursuing the Clinton Foundation case.

Early this year, four FBI field offices—New York, Los Angeles, Washington and Little Rock, Ark.—were collecting information about the Clinton Foundation to see if there was evidence of financial crimes or influence-peddling, according to people familiar with the matter.

Los Angeles agents had picked up information about the Clinton Foundation from an unrelated public-corruption case and had issued some subpoenas for bank records related to the foundation, these people said.

The Washington field office was probing financial relationships involving Mr. McAuliffe before he became a Clinton Foundation board member, these people said. Mr. McAuliffe has denied any wrongdoing, and his lawyer has said the probe is focused on whether he failed to register as an agent of a foreign entity.

In February, FBI officials made a presentation to the Justice Department, according to these people. By all accounts, the meeting didn’t go well.

Some said that is because the FBI didn’t present compelling evidence to justify more aggressive pursuit of the Clinton Foundation, and that the career anticorruption prosecutors in the room simply believed it wasn’t a very strong case. Others said that from the start, the Justice Department officials were stern, icy and dismissive of the case.

“That was one of the weirdest meetings I’ve ever been to,” one participant told others afterward, according to people familiar with the matter.

Anticorruption prosecutors at the Justice Department told the FBI at the meeting they wouldn’t authorize more aggressive investigative techniques, such as subpoenas, formal witness interviews, or grand-jury activity. But the FBI officials believed they were well within their authority to pursue the leads and methods already under way, these people said.

According to a person familiar with the probes, on Aug. 12, a senior Justice Department official called Mr. McCabe to voice his displeasure at finding that New York FBI agents were still openly pursuing the Clinton Foundation probe during the election season. Mr. McCabe said agents still had the authority to pursue the issue as long as they didn’t use overt methods requiring Justice Department approvals.

The Justice Department official was “very pissed off,” according to one person close to Mr. McCabe, and pressed him to explain why the FBI was still chasing a matter the department considered dormant. Others said the Justice Department was simply trying to make sure FBI agents were following longstanding policy not to make overt investigative moves that could be seen as trying to influence an election. Those rules discourage investigators from making any such moves before a primary or general election, and, at a minimum, checking with anticorruption prosecutors before doing so. 

“Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?” Mr. McCabe asked, according to people familiar with the conversation. After a pause, the official replied, “Of course not,” these people said.

For Mr. McCabe’s defenders, the exchange showed how he was stuck between an FBI office eager to pour more resources into a case and Justice Department prosecutors who didn’t think much of the case, one person said. Those people said that following the call, Mr. McCabe reiterated past instructions to FBI agents that they were to keep pursuing the work within the authority they had.

Others further down the FBI chain of command, however, said agents were given a much starker instruction on the case: “Stand down.” When agents questioned why they weren’t allowed to take more aggressive steps, they said they were told the order had come from the deputy director—Mr. McCabe.

Others familiar with the matter deny Mr. McCabe or any other senior FBI official gave such a stand-down instruction.

In September, agents on the foundation case asked to see the emails contained on nongovernment laptops that had been searched as part of the Clinton email case, but that request was rejected by prosecutors at the Eastern District of New York, in Brooklyn. Those emails were given to the FBI based on grants of partial immunity and limited-use agreements, meaning agents could only use them for the purpose of investigating possible mishandling of classified information.

Some FBI agents were dissatisfied with that answer, and asked for permission to make a similar request to federal prosecutors in Manhattan, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. McCabe, these people said, told them no and added that they couldn’t “go prosecutor-shopping.”

The above revelations, in conjunction with the email server probe being reopened by the FBI, is why I now think Donald Trump has a very good chance of winning the Presidency. As I noted in Friday’s post, Another Black Swan Hits the U.S. Presidential Election:

The problems with Hillary Clinton will never go away. They will always resurface or new problems will emerge, and it has nothing to do with a “vast rightwing conspiracy” (or Putin). It has to do with her. It has to do with the fact that her and her husband are career crooks, warmongers, and shameless looters of the American public. This re-opening of the FBI investigation just hammers all of that home for everyone. We know what 4 years of Hillary will look like. It’ll be Obama cronyism on steroids, plus endless investigations with a side of World War 3. I don’t think people want that, and so more Americans than the pundits realize will take a gamble on Trump.

It’s not just me saying it. Even longtime Clinton supporter Doug Schoen is revisiting whether he can continue to support Clinton. As he wrote in an Op-ed published at The Hill:

There will be no goodwill or honeymoon period for Clinton. Her first 100-days agenda will take a backseat to partisan divisions and polarization with little chance of constructive legislative action occurring.

We have seen that a hyper-partisan, gridlocked Washington is bad for the country. There is no reason to believe that Clinton’s tenure will be anything but more of the same in this way and, most likely, a lot worse.

Further, Russian President Vladimir Putin said (tongue-in-cheek) that we are not a banana republic.‎ I greatly fear we could become one if Secretary Clinton is elected president. Our national security will continue to be jeopardized by ongoing investigations by the FBI, and potentially the Justice Department and Congress, putting us at immediate risk of more assertive actions in Europe, Middle East and Asia by the Russians and Chinese. 

Moreover, we simply cannot face a situation where the president elect may need or want a pardon from the president to govern. Or worse yet, need to pardon herself after she takes office.

As of now, I have no confidence that either of those questions will be answered by Election Day or that we will have full clarity on an investigation into what could be as many as 650,000 emails that found their way to Weiner and Abedin’s computer. 

However, in good conscience, and as a Democrat, I am actively doubting whether I can vote for the Secretary of State. I also want to make clear that I cannot vote for Donald Trump as his world view and mine are very different.

By: Michael Krieger

Aspartame Corporation Searle Created First Birth Control Pill: American Eugenics and Big Pharma, a History.


Did you know that Aspartame producing corporation Searle also manufactured the first birth control pill?

After Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense under Gerald Ford, he was the CEO of Searle, engineering their merger with Monsanto. A testament to his influence, he became Secretary of Defense again during the Bush Administration, participating in atrocious torture and war crimes such as the ones at Abu Ghraib.

One of the most veracious proponents for forced sterilization of blacks, the poor, and “imbeciles,” Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, was a main contributor to what would culminate into Searle’s manufacture of “Enovid”: the first hormonal birth control pill. This philosophy is commonly known as “eugenics,” sometimes referred to as “dysgenics” or “epi-eugenics.”

Well summarized by the Embryo Project:

Enovid was the first hormonal birth control pill. G.D. Searle and Company began marketing Enovid as a contraceptive in 1960. The technology was created by the joint efforts of many individuals and organizations, including Margaret Sanger, Katharine McCormick, Gregory Pincus, John Rock, Syntex, S.A. Laboratories, and G.D. Searle and Company Laboratories. Although there were many pieces and contributors to the final product, it was first conceived of and created by Gregory Pincus and Margaret Sanger through the Worcester Foundation in Worcester, Massachusetts, and was distributed by Searle, located in Chicago.”

To illustrate historical ties between “big pharma” and eugenics, let’s take a look at the legacy of Dr. John Hurty, an early chemist at Prozac producer Eli Lilly and Company in the 1870’s.

Hurty would go on to influence the passage of the United States’ first mandatory sterilization law, in 1907 Indiana.

He was a tireless eugenicist, who believed that the poor, colored people, the disabled, ect. were a burden to the state and society, unfit for reproduction, and should be sterilized.

Upwards of 60,000 Americans were involuntarily sterilized through to even the 1970’s, while Dr. John Hurty, Margaret Sanger, David Starr Jordan and others made major contributions. Reading from an article by renowned author Edwin Black:

“Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in “colonies,” and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning.”

Dr. John Hurty, first president of Stanford David Starr Jordan, and Margaret Sanger were members of the scientific, academic class which birthed eugenics, and eventually the world we live in today where Searle had a hand in both birth control, and suspicious toxins such as Aspartame.

Reading from this document, which is based on the 1946 book The Hoosier Health Officer: A Biography of Dr. John N. Hurty“:

“In 1873, John Newell Hurty went to work for Col. Eli Lilly in his newly established Eli Lilly and Company Pharmaceuticals in Indianapolis as his chief chemist.  Then in 1879, Hurty opened his own drug store at the corner of Ohio and Pennsylvania streets.  In the basement of that establishment, he set up one of the first analytical laboratories in the state.  Among the variety of things he tested for purity was water for the Indianapolis Water Company.

In 1884, Dr. Hurty established, and for a time taught at, the School of Pharmacy at Purdue University.  In 1891, Hurty earned his medical degree from the Medical College of Indiana.   

In 1899, Dr. Hurty wrote a bill that became the first comprehensive food and drug legislation to be enacted in the United States.  It was not only used as a model by other states, but the Federal Law of 1906 is taken almost word for word from Dr. Hurty’s bill.”

This article/video seeks to pose the question: was birth control created as part of eugenics, population control, as part of something that goes beyond money or some alleged philanthropic agenda? Are certain chemicals or pharmaceuticals in circulation designed to fulfill an agenda that goes beyond money, an agenda perhaps that extends into eugenics?

We are not suggesting people do one thing or another with their bodies, we are not asking you to make a decision about your health, but we are presenting you with historical info to better make decisions for yourself.

We’re making the case that Searle profited from the eugenic ambitions of people such as Margaret Sanger: while it is unclear at this moment whether Searle cared about simply money or something deeper. This should raise suspicion about why they pushed so hard for the legalization of Aspartame after the FDA had already banned it, under the direction of powerful Donald Rumsfeld.

Given all of this history, we would be wise to ask: could Aspartame possibly have roots in eugenics? Could certain pharmaceutical drugs have ties to eugenics? It is not a wild accusation or unreasonable question to ponder.

To take it even further: FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg is the daughter of not one, but two directors of the American Eugenics Society, which later was quietly renamed the “The Society for Biodemography and Social Biology.”

By: Cassius Kamarampi