Lately I've been posting articles on fraudulent science. Here, I'm
reaching back several years for a piece I wrote about Monsanto, before
the company was swallowed up by Bayer, and while TV news anchor Brian
Williams was still the golden boy at NBC.
The underlying theme: most people automatically buy official
pronouncements about science as true science. It never occurs to them
that a political agenda is the real punch line.
Imagine this. A killer is put on trial, and the jury, in a surprise
verdict, finds him not guilty. Afterwards, reporters interview this
killer. He says, "The jury freed me. It's up to them. They decide.
That's what justice is all about."
Then the press moves along to members of the jury, who say: "Well, we
had to take the defendant's word. He said he was innocent, so that's
what we ruled."
That's an exact description of the FDA and Monsanto partnership.
When you cut through the verbiage that surrounded the introduction of
GMO food into America, you arrive at two key statements. One from
Monsanto and one from the FDA, the agency responsible for overseeing,
licensing, and certifying new food varieties as safe.
ONE: Quoted in the New York Times Magazine (October 25, 1998,
"Playing God in the Garden"), Philip Angell, Monsanto's director of
corporate communications, famously stated: "Monsanto shouldn't have to
vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much
of it as possible. Assuring its safety is
the FDA's job."
TWO: From the Federal Register, Volume 57, No.104, "Statement of [FDA] Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties," here is what the FDA had to say on this matter: "Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring
safety."
The direct and irreconcilable clash of these two statements is no
accident. It's not a sign of incompetence or sloppy work or a mistake or
a miscommunication. It's a clear signal that the fix was in.
No real science. No convincing evidence of safety. Passing the buck back
and forth was the chilling and arrogant strategy through which
Pandora's Box was pried opened and GMO food was let into the US food
supply.
In order for this titanic scam to work, the media had to cooperate. Reporters had to be a) idiots and b) sell-outs.
Reporters and their editors let the story die. No sane principled
journalist would have cut bait, but who said mainstream reporters are
sane or principled?
Underneath the Monsanto-FDA buck-passing act, there was a conscious deal
to give a free pass to GMO crops. This had nothing to do with science
or health or "feeding the world." It was about profits. It was also
about establishing a new monopoly on food.
Not only would big agribusiness dominate the planet's food supply as
never before, it would strengthen its stranglehold through
ownership-patents on novel types of seeds which were engineered.
It's very much like saying, "A cob of corn is not a plant, it's a
machine, and we own the rights to every one of those yellow machines."
How was Monsanto able to gather so much clout?
There was one reason and one reason only. Putting the world's food
supply into fewer hands was, and is, a major item on the Globalist
agenda. If it weren't, the FDA-Monsanto approval scam would have been
exposed in a matter of weeks.
Major newspapers and television networks would have attacked the obvious
buck-passing con job like packs of wild dogs and torn it to pieces.
But once the scam had been given a free pass, the primary
corporate-government tactic was to accomplish a fait accompli, a series
of events that was irreversible.
In this case, it was about gene drift. From the beginning, it was well
known that GMO plants release genes that blow in the wind and spread and
INSERT from plant to plant, crop to crop, and field to field. There is
no stopping it.
Along with convincing enough farmers to lock themselves into GMO-seed
contracts, Monsanto bought up food-seed companies in order to engineer
the seeds...and the gene-drift factor was the ace in the hole. Drift
makes non-GMO crops into GMO crops.
Sell enough GMO seeds, plant enough GMO crops, and you flood the world's food crops with Monsanto genes.
Back in the 1990s, the prince of darkness, Michael Taylor, who had moved
through the revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto several times,
and then became the czar of food safety at the FDA---Taylor said, with
great conviction, that the GMO revolution
was unstoppable; within a decade or two, an overwhelming percentage of
food grown on planet Earth would be GMO.
Taylor and others knew. They knew about gene drift, and they also knew
that ownership of the world's food, by a few companies, was a prime
focus for Globalist kings.
Control food and water, and you hold the world in your hand.
Here is evidence that, even in earlier days, Monsanto knew about and
pushed for the Globalist agenda. Quoted by J. Flint, in his 1998
"Agricultural Giants Moving Towards Genetic Monopolism," Robert
Fraley, head of Monsanto's agri-division, stated: "What you are seeing
is not just a consolidation of [Monsanto-purchased] seed companies. It's
really a consolidation of the entire food
chain."
And as for the power of the propaganda in that time period, I can think
of no better statement than the one made on January 25th, 2001, by the
outgoing US Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman. As reported by the
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Glickman said:
"What I saw generically on the pro-biotech [GMO] side was the
attitude that the technology was good and that it was almost immoral to
say that it wasn't good, because it was going to solve the problems of
the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the
naked. And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and
if you're against it, you're Luddites, you're stupid. There was
rhetoric like that even here in this department [USDA]. You felt like
you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present
an open-minded view on some of these issues being raised. So I pretty
much spouted the rhetoric that everybody else around here spouted; it
was written into my speeches."
Glickman reveals several things in these remarks: he was spineless;
people at his Dept. of Agriculture (a key regulatory agency re food
safety) were madly buying into the Monsanto cover story about feeding
the world; and there had to be a significant degree
of infiltration at his Agency.
The last point is major. This wasn't left to chance. You don't get a
vocal majority of Dept. of Agriculture personnel spouting Monsanto
propaganda merely because the fairy tale about feeding the world sounds
so good. No, there are people working on the inside
to promote the "social cause" and make pariahs out of dissenters.
You need special background and training to pull that off. It isn't an
automatic walk in the park. This is professional psyop and intelligence
work.
It isn't rinky-dink stuff. To tune up bureaucrats and scientists, you
have to have a background in manipulation. You have to know what you're
doing. You have to be able to build and sustain support, without giving
your game away.
Psyop specialists are hired to help make overarching and planet-wide
agendas come true, as populations are brought under sophisticated and
pathological elites who care about feeding the world as much as a
collector cares about paralyzing and pinning butterflies
on a panel in a glass case.
For an overarching view of the main Globalist operation, here is David Rockefeller, writing in his 2003 Memoirs:
"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the
best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as
'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to
build a more integrated global political and
economic structure-one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I
stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
The Globalists play for keeps.
Owning the food of the world is part of their strike-force action plan, and Monsanto is a technocratic arm of that plan.
Meanwhile, the controlled press treats the whole sordid Monsanto/FDA
story---"GMO crops are approved as safe and effective"---with its
time-honored policy of "he said-he said." This policy dictates that
stories merely present both sides of a conflict without
drawing conclusions. "Some people claim GMO crops are a danger, others
say they're perfectly safe. Period. Bye bye. What's next?"
Monsanto's lies and crimes and cover-ups are everywhere. You could wear sunglasses and find them in the dark.
The NY Times and the Washington Post could sell millions more papers on
the back of Monsanto crime stories. It would be a bonanza for them. But
no. They don't care. They'd rather keep declining and losing readers.
They'd rather die.
Normally, a business doesn't commit suicide, especially when it sees
exactly how to resuscitate itself. But here we are dealing with an
agenda which can't be disturbed. Globalism, and its agri-techno partner,
Monsanto, are creating a planetary future. Major
media are part and parcel of that op. They are selling it.
Again, we aren't talking about sloppy reporting or accidental omissions
of fact or boggling incompetence or ignorance about science. We are
talking about conscious intent to deceive.
Yes, now and then the controlled media will release a troubling piece about Monsanto.
But placement and frequency are everything. How often
do these stories run? Do they run as the lead or do we find them on page
3? Are reporters assigned to keep pounding on a basic story and reveal
more and more felonies? Does the basic story
gather steam over the course of weeks and months?
These are the decisions that make or break a story. In the case of
Monsanto and the FDA, the decisions were made a long time ago.
Part of every reporter's training in how the real world works, if he has
any ideals at all, involves him marching into his editor's office with
his hair on fire demanding to be given an assignment to expose a crime.
The editor, knowing the true agenda of his
newspaper or television network, tells the reporter:
"We've already covered that."
"It's old news."
"People aren't interested in it."
"It's too complicated."
"The evidence you're showing me is thin."
"You'll never get to the bottom of it."
"The people involved won't talk to you."
And if none of those lies work, the editor might say, "If you keep
pushing this, it would be bad for your career. You'll lose access to
other stories. You'll be thought of as weird..."
This is how the game works at ground level. But make no mistake about
it, the hidden agenda is about protecting an elite's op from exposure.
If NBC, for example, gave its golden boy, Brian Williams, the green
light, he would become an expert on Monsanto in three days. He'd become a
tiger. He'd affect a whole set of morally outraged poses and send
Monsanto down into Hell.
Don't misunderstand. Brian hasn't been waiting to move in for the kill.
But wind him up and point to a target and he'll go there.
However, no one at NBC in the executive offices will point him at Monsanto or the FDA.
All the major reporters at news outlets and all the elite television
anchors are really psyop specialists. It's just that most of them don't
know it.
One outraged major reporter who woke up and got out of the business put
it to me this way: "When I was in the game, I looked at the news as a
big public restroom. My one guiding principle was: don't piss on your
shoes. That meant: don't cover a story that's
considered out of bounds. If I talked to the boss about one of those
stories, he'd look me up and down and say, 'Hey, you pissed on your
shoes. Get out of here.'"
|
No comments:
Post a Comment