Mechanics of Power

[Sounder]

Interesting sync with AD's latest post, given that he has me on ignore.

[Sounder]

Hmmm, I guess Voltaire was right.

[Sounder]

Sounder » Wed Jul 03, 2013 7:31 am wrote:To cite a modern specific example, take The Rockefeller Trust spending 50 million dollars to establish the dominance of allopathic medicine. The result is a system where health innovations that do not include pharmaceutical inputs tend to not be supported. Excepting surgery where allopathic medicine does wonderful work. Bottom line common sense though, says that if the ‘empiricists’ were able to compete on a level playing field, both sides and medicine in general would be better off than they are now.

BPH wrote...
Is it the way the Rockefeller Trust established the dominance of allopathic medicine (That could not of course be the sole cause) with their 50m dollars that is the programmed passive response? ie, propaganda. Cause that's the part I'm interested in. The Rockefellers through all manner of machinations could create a system of medicine which benefitted their bottom line.

C2W? wrote...
I don't really see how allopathic medicine is inherently better suited to doing that than what's presently known as alternative/complementary medicine would have been had they invested $50 million dollars in it.

ON EDIT: Case in point: Osteopaths. They do all the same stuff for all the same fees.

When you say, doing that, I presume you mean: be a generator of passive emotions.

The basic point is that when we have options we have not only a wider base for investigation, we also have less inclination to fix our beliefs, and thereby exclude, marginalize, and place negative normative markers on current and future options to the current chemical 'health' model.

The concern is not with what people are doing, allopaths and osteopaths do both good and bad work, no the issue is with HOW the work is being done.

When options for investigation are intentionally being restricted, then we are being programmed via external impositions that generate passive emotions.

[Sounder]

As a method of thought alignment - and thus a cog in the wheel of the mechanics of power - Sport holds some fascination for me.

I can only speak of this, forming the views I own, from personal experience. I understand that people will disagree vehemently, but as I increasingly find myself at odds with 'reality', the search for a different way compels me to discuss certain pointers which I am beginning to perceive as pivotal in the changing of the current paradigm.

At school, from a very young age, I was just plain ol' disinterested in sport. The national obsession here in the UK is football. I was no good at it, not because of a lack of sporting prowess, nor lack of physical ability - I just couldn't be bothered with it. Any sport, in fact. The particularly sadistic physical education teacher that 'taught' me from the age of 4 1/2 years to 7 years old recognised this immediately - and during his lessons I was always put in goal (the goalkeeper), as this was supposedly the place I could do least damage to the team. This wise decision did neither him, the team or myself any favours. Basically, if one of the opposing team got a hint of a shot at goal, it was as good as in the back of the net with me defending it.

This gave the system great opportunity to label me as a 'loser'. The sadist nicknamed me 'Butterfingers' (as if my fingers were covered in butter and could hold on to nothing) and proceeded to use this term whenever I appeared in his sight (peripheral vision included), inside and outside of the lessons he taught. Other more impressionable sporting young minds began to emulate him. Of course, the inadequecies of our team's defensive play and the fear instilled by the sometimes brutal mocking of anything other than winning were glossed over as 'Butterfingers fault'.

This theme continued through my school years until at 14, my last Phys Ed teacher and I came to a tacit, unspoken agreement that I would not attend his lessons, but he would mark me on his register as attending. Good bloke

And it was this real, personal, systemic, sanctioned and pressurized bullying that lead me to question the nature of sport with regards to thought alignment of the current paradigm.

To beat the opponent?
To grind them down through attrition?
To impose your or your team's domination on another?
To exalt in victory?
To clearly delineate winners and losers?
To despair at losing?
To feel that one is a failure at not being a winner?
To feel superior to the loser?
To be more powerful than the losers?

I get it, I really do, that team sports are a means of building co-operation, comradeship and even staying fit, but it's the overiding premise of each and every member/team imposing their dominance on the losing individuals/teams that leads me to conclude that sport plays a role in the mechanics of power.

Thanks coffin dodger, sports do indeed seem to condition us to a life that reenforces our vertical authority distribution system and coercion in general.

I am torn on the issue because I grew up in a neighborhood with lots of kids and many pick up games of various sorts. I was mediocre at best yet still loved all the play.

[Elvis]

Sounder (and anyone interested in the development of the US medical establishment), if you haven't read it, this is an excellent book:

Rockefeller Medicine Men: Medicine and Capitalism in America by E. Richard Brown.
http://books.google.com/books/about/Roc ... BCsAfmNBYC

It's solid scholarship, no arm-waving; sources include the letters and papers of Gates, et. al.

[coffin_dodger]

Hey Sounder - got a few more for ya:

Financial system - ensures enforcement of non-comparable items be given a 'value' - i.e. how can the 'cost' of, say, a banana, be in any way measured against the 'cost' of burying a parent except through our current financial system? It dehumanises every action, need and emotion to a set of numbers that must be weighed against 'what is right' and 'what is affordable'. With the attendant benefits for those that control it, of course.

Fear of Death - the only thing that is guarateed in life is death. Death at the right time, from natural causes, should be embraced. The threat of death from unnatural causes - war / violence - is used to heighten the fear (and thus control) of the populace. This has become ever-increasingly more prevelent as our lives have become so much 'easier' than our descendants (standard of living is rising - so much more to lose! - so much more to live for!). One of the more powerful tools.

Education - In most cases, we are taught at school not to question authority - our 'betters' - particularly in the form of powerful adults. We are not taught how to manage money - the MOST IMPORTANT thing in our culture - nor or we taught how money works and where it comes from. That it is omitted from schooling suits the financial system just dandy. Schools are where the foundations are laid (and enforced, topped up and maintained) for many aspects of the mechanics of power.

Laws - All laws beyond 'common sense' (or common concensus) serve the interests of power.

[Sounder]

I have never heard of some of the authors mentioned in Lorde's speech.

I am curious how they might fit or not fit with a 'rigorous and radical conspiracy theory' as envisioned by AD.

Time will tell.

http://snoopman.files.wordpress.com/201 ... speech.pdf

Lorde’s Suppressed Grammy Award acceptance speech (Full Transcript)
26 January 2014
Lorde:
Thankyou soo much everyone for making this song explode because this world
is mental. (Laughter). Planet Earth is run by psychopaths that hide behind slick
marketing, ‘freedom’ propaganda and ‘economic growth’ rhetoric,[1] while they
construct a global system of corporatized totalitarianism.

As American journalist Chris Hedges has identified, a corporate totalitarian
core thrives inside a fictitious democratic shell.[2] This core yields an ‘inverted’
totalitarian state that few recognize because it does not look like the Orwellian
world of Nineteen Eighty-four.[3]

This corporate totalitarian core is spreading outward from America. Planet
Earth is being rapidly militarized by the world’s major and significant states, including their police forces.[4] Meanwhile, state surveillance is becoming universal[5] and torture is outsourced to gulags.[6]

Can we not imagine that in past times, simple folk found it hard to work out exactly how they were being manipulated by the Royal monarchies, and the Papal monarchy, who claimed a ‘divine right to rule’? Ordinary people from classical times through to the demise of the Ancien Regime could not see how the rivalrous network of elites and oligarchs were linked, not least because the illiterate masses were indoctrinated to believe in their humble lot, to obey divinely-endorsed authority and to live in fear of damnation.

So, in today’s mental world, it should become clearer now that Planet Earth
is ruled by super-wealthy people, who use their outrageous fortunes to steer
the trajectories of whole societies for their own material and political gain.[7]

These oligarchs are, in fact, colluding for economic gain and conspiring to augment more political power.[8] Armies of professional, political, religious and
military elites serve them.[9 Together, they comprise a highly-networked transnational capitalist class that has been traced in studies by: Peter Phillips and
Brady Osborne;[10] William K. Carroll;[11] David Rothkopf;[12] Daniel Estulin;[13] and Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter.[14]

As Canadian journalist Naomi Klein has argued in her book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, ‘free markets’ were slickly marketed in
the 1980s and 1990s with the idea that they would deliver individual freedom and prosperity for all.[15] Klein also wrote that the use of military violence to
facilitate the spread of ‘free markets’ in the field-testing stage from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s has continued into the 2000s. Her view is supported in
Eugene Jarecki’s documentary Why We Fight, which compellingly showed that America fights wars to make the world secure for its corporations.[16] So, get
reading and viewing! (Lorde giggles and half the audience rises to their feet applauding. The other half remain fixed in their chairs. Some reluctantly clap).

Thankyou soo much everyone for giving a shit about our song, ‘Royals’.

May you all find the balls to help construct a world based on resilient community, bona-fide freedom, and peace. To do that, we will need to redeploy the psychopaths that currently run the world to the planet’s prisons.[17]

Peace cannot happen with reconciliation. That was Nelson Mandela’s mistake.[18]

The first step to peace is justice firmly served

[TheBlackSheep]

As American journalist Chris Hedges has identified, a corporate totalitarian
core thrives inside a fictitious democratic shell.[2] This core yields an ‘inverted’
totalitarian state that few recognize because it does not look like the Orwellian
world of Nineteen Eighty-four.[3]

This corporate totalitarian core is spreading outward from America. Planet
Earth is being rapidly militarized by the world’s major and significant states, including their police forces.[4] Meanwhile, state surveillance is becoming universal[5] and torture is outsourced to gulags.[6]

Just thought I'd mention, the theis of the corporate totalitarian state was actually first conceived by Sheldon Wolin who Chris Hedges had studied under. He is the one who coined the term "inverted totalitarianism"... not meaning a critism, just thought he should get the credit because he has done some brilliant work that definitely deserves recognition.

Also, for a bit of an understanding of how British policy has also played a large role in spreading totalitarian roots and may very well have been the mentor of the United States in this regard, check out the work of Mark Curtis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Curti ... _author%29

[Sounder]

This corporate totalitarian core is spreading outward from America.

A corporate totalitarian core existed long before America, but that is only a quibble, the following interests me more.

Can we not imagine that in past times, simple folk found it hard to work out exactly how they were being manipulated by the Royal monarchies, and the Papal monarchy, who claimed a ‘divine right to rule’? Ordinary people from classical times through to the demise of the Ancien Regime could not see how the rivalrous network of elites and oligarchs were linked, not least because the illiterate masses were indoctrinated to believe in their humble lot, to obey divinely-endorsed authority and to live in fear of damnation.

So, in today’s mental world, it should become clearer now that Planet Earth
is ruled by super-wealthy people, who use their outrageous fortunes to steer
the trajectories of whole societies for their own material and political gain.[7]

‘So, in today’s mental world, it should become clearer’, but in fact it is no more clear and most folk are in the thrall of passive conditioned response patterns so that they are unable and unwilling to confront the self-identity crushing implications of the depth and style of brainwashing that still drives their general perspective.

My interest in this thread is looking at elements that function as creation and maintenance factors for power.

From the use of linguistics to Brenaysian PR tricks using association, dissociation, folks need for acceptance, and on to front running emergent narratives or co-opting original thinkers by putting them in a corporate (foundation) box. Or doing violence to rationality by encouraging the treatment of particulars as being universals, that sort of thing.

Thanks for any input.

[TheBlackSheep]

My interest in this thread is looking at elements that function as creation and maintenance factors for power.

From the use of linguistics to Brenaysian PR tricks using association, dissociation, folks need for acceptance, and on to front running emergent narratives or co-opting original thinkers by putting them in a corporate (foundation) box. Or doing violence to rationality by encouraging the treatment of particulars as being universals, that sort of thing.

Definitely some material aspects are through land tax, so that even if an individual (or group) has paid off a piece of land they must continue to devote themselves to the accumulation of wealth to stay on the land. Which means not devoting oneself(s) so self-sufficiency or non-capital accumulating activity.

Another is through architectural and city planning. Examples being leading lines to channel perception and attention. Things like the divide between a sidewalk, streets and storefronts. There are specifically designated behaviors for these areas, on the streets and sidewalks one moves in either direction. In stores there are designated interaction roles as well as acceptable behavior. Take this as opposed to an open landscape where any direction is technically possible, as well as behavior potential at least increased.

I don't think all of this is intentional, including mental channeling through linguistics, but it does become exacerbated once their mechanics are understood and consciously utilized for greater effect. I think this charaterizes a lot of "control mechanisms" in an important way... in that even without the conscious manipulation by interested parties, it would no doubt be difficult for a lot of us to get along and really work together at an optimal level. What I mean by this is that there are certain preconditions in nature wherein these problems originate without conscious machination. Afterall it would have to have been through some sort of "natural" process by which an "elite" would develop at all. It is a similar case with figures like bandits.

[TheBlackSheep]

Another is obscuritanism, which is closely tied to esotericism and specialization. The deliberate use of convoluted language, or creating new specialized terminology to discourage segments of the population and cause them to believe they are somehow stupid or inadequate because they are uninnitated and otherwise segmenting the population. And otherwise sheilding their true opinions to the initiated few.

Wikipedia has a few interesting quotes of famous theorists admitting to deliberate obscuritanism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscurantism


Here is an interesting (and somewhat neutral) essay that puts forward some thoughts about esotericism through the examination of the work of Leo Strauss who had written approvingly of the practice of esoteric writing;

http://www.gov.harvard.edu/files/Straus ... ersion.pdf

[Sounder]

Hey TheBlackSheep, this pdf on Leo Strauss is awesome. I'll try to respond after I read the whole thing.

We all could do well to know more about this fellow.


The following is a fair account of accepted history of the 70's, contrasted with Jim Willies, and many others, alternate take on these oil related events.

http://www.silverdoctors.com/jim-willie ... t-default/

The burn of Japan and Germany was a hot poker of sinister hidden motive. Both nations have historically been more energy dependent, required to import almost all their crude oil for economic purpose. Their industrial might was being thrust onto the global economy, from advanced technological design to streamlined industrial processes to efficient inventory control. The pendulum returns. Both nations are in a position to exact revenge by rejecting the USD/USTBond reserve currency, in favor of the new Gold Trade Standard promoted by Russia & China. Both Japan and Germany are in the process of joining the BRICS nations. The chess game has gone against the Americans, who find themselves increasingly isolated, their allies disgusted or betrayed. The Saudis, Iran, Japan, and Germany are gradually aligning with the East and against the King Dollar. Two generations make a great difference. Like true Nazis, the Anglos & Americans are isolated, with global war as their last option.


This paragraph sums things up pretty good for me.

All the painting of heroes and villains is nearly entirely gratuitous.

What is going on underneath? That determines how the river will flow.

[Sounder]

From the Global Warming thread. Thanks BPH


Sounder » Wed Sep 24, 2014 6:32 am wrote:

Continue reading →



Capitalism is a result not the cause of our coercive mentality, therefor Capitalism is not the root cause of our problems.

Are we born with a 'coercive mentality'?

BPH, you know well that I consider the, human nature as primary driver, concept to be highly overrated. But you are trying, so I will try harder also.

If so, are we all born with it or just some of us?

We are not born to be coercive, still and in general, we are born with immense potentials that can go ‘both ways’ depending on the opportunities presented or pursued.

What would be an example of behavior which is motivated by a 'coercive mentality'?

Look around.

Or if our 'coercive mentality' is not congenital then what is the root cause of our coercive mentality?

(Strike Or)

On edit: We do not yet have the conceptual framework that creates an illusion that 'will take us to the end', as Parmenides goddess said. Given that reason (excuses) dominates logic in this culture we may yet be many wasted words away before getting there. (I do not know what the real root is.)

My opinion is that élites have quite naturally created and support a vertical authority distribution system, because that is what (they think) makes them what they are. This process is facilitated through the suppressing of ‘enthusiasm’, or each individual’s potential connection to his/her genius. The split model of reality that we all function within also places our Source far away, or nonexistent even for the modern man.

Also, implicit in the material side of this split model, is that success is measured by ones ability to manipulate objects.

That alone is a bad ingredient for our recipe and a sure facilitator for coercion.

The deceptions and delusions of false imperatives create our suffering and misguided attempts for 'solutions'.

Define 'false imperatives'?

In this context, it is to incorrectly identify the critical element, and then to impose that as an imperative on all others no matter what the human cost.

What would be some examples of 'deceptions and delusions of false imperatives'?

War on Drugs, War on Yadayadayada, you know the drill.

Our 'beliefs' are often little more than attempts at imposing our limited conceptual models upon the whole of reality. What hubris.

Define 'belief'?

A belief is something that is taken to be true.

And why is that hubris? Sounds like the human condition to me.

Conceptual models are made to get a grip on reality, and they become laughably absurd when they claim to accurately represent ‘all’ of reality.

Since you say, 'our beliefs are often little more than...', what would be an example of when they are not?

When they stop creating pathology by taking relative truths as being absolute truth.

What would you suggest in place of our 'beliefs' which attempt to impose our (necessarily to date) limited conceptual models upon the whole of reality? Or should we just have no beliefs at all?

Probability or possibility factors might take the place of many beliefs, and as indicated previously there is room for soft or relative beliefs.

What are some examples of beliefs which are attempts at 'imposing our limited conceptual models upon the whole of reality.'

Don’t get me started.

[Sounder]

While this material is both long and comes from a source with possibly questionable motives, the facts of the issue are fairly clear and well presented.

The big ‘orgs’ always seem to acquire ‘company’ men as their leaders. The well meaning idealists in the orgs get to chew on cognitive dissonance while the sociopathic element readily accept the chairman’s advice that if the org does not want to get squashed like a bug, certain compromises must be made.

Yes, (as Naomi says), we must build institutions, but the game of ‘who harvests the power’ (of a social trend) is not recognized let alone well played by the common man or self styled aware folk.


The secret GMO war: double agents, betrayal, greed?
by Jon Rappoport
December 26, 2014
NoMoreFakeNews.com

I’ll start at an odd place, a seemingly innocuous place. Bear with me:
We need to understand the distinction between two kinds of labeling.

Voluntary labeling=“I own this health-food store, and I’m doing my best to sell you non-GMO products. All such products will carry a seal that says ‘Non-GMO’.”
Mandatory labeling=“Vermont has decided that all food products sold in the state which contain GMOs must be labeled as such—‘this product contains GMOs’.”
Two very different types of labels. They contain different information.

Also, one type is voluntary, and the other becomes mandatory after passage of a vote, in a legislature or through a ballot measure.
So what?

Well, let me put it to you this way. What would happen to Whole Foods’ program of voluntary GMO labeling if there were mandatory labeling across America, or in any state where Whole Foods does business?

Can you guess?

I’ll break it down. Whole Foods has pledged to put “non-GMO” labels on their products by 2018. They’ll do everything they can to sell as many non-GMO products as possible. The products that don’t carry the non-GMO seal will obviously be GMO, and customers can avoid them if they want to.

On the other hand, if suddenly, out of the blue, mandatory labeling became law, the whole voluntary non-GMO label enterprise would be obsolete. Why voluntarily put that label on products when mandatory labeling handles the whole issue?

“We put non-GMO labels on our food. Aren’t we wonderful?”

“Not really. The mandatory labels tell me everything that’s GMO. All the other products are non-GMO. Thanks, but no thanks.”
Does that show you something? Does it suggest that Whole Foods doesn’t really want mandatory labeling?

In fact, if mandatory labeling never passes anywhere in the US, this is a boon for Whole Foods, because they become the only big food chain that allows customers to know they’re choosing lots and lots of non-GMO food products.
________________________________________
There’s more.
Think about an outfit called the Non-GMO Project. They do certifications of food products, and allow their now-famous butterfly seal to be applied:
“Yes, sir, your energy bar has passed our rigid standards of testing, and it is non-GMO. Congratulations.”
Whole Foods is spending millions of dollars at the Non-GMO Project to get their products lab-tested and certified as “non-GMO.”
If there were mandatory labeling, that would all go away, too. Poof. The Non-GMO Project would shrink to the size of a button, and the testing labs the Project uses would take huge hits.

For example, a lab called Genetic ID in Iowa would suffer enormous consequences.
We’re not done yet.

There is a bill in the US Congress presently wending its through Committee. It was introduced by Kansas Congressman Mike Pompeo. It’s called “The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014” (HR4432).

If it passes, mandatory labeling of GMO foods will be outlawed at both state and federal levels. No more ballot initiatives. No more state bills.

So…in this topsy-turvy scene where things aren’t what they seem to be, who would want to see the Pompeo bill enacted into law? Who would look forward to a permanent ban on mandatory GMO labeling? Who would make a great deal of money if that bill passes—despite any public statements they might make to the contrary?

Two weeks ago, a Congressional Committee hearing was held on the pending Pompeo bill. A man named Scott Faber testified.
Who is Scott Faber?

He’s the executive director of Just Label It, the pre-eminent organization dedicated to mandatory labeling of GMO foods. He’s also the VP of Governmental Affairs for the powerful Environmental Working Group.

In his testimony, Faber said all the right things about wanting mandatory labeling of GMO foods. Therefore, he opposes passage of the Pompeo bill, right?
However, Faber also offered this stunning statement to the Committee. Buckle up:

“We do not oppose… genetically modified food ingredients. We think there are many promising applications of genetically modified food ingredients… I am optimistic that the promises that were made by the providers of this technology will ultimately be realized…that we will have traits that produce more nutritious food that will see significant yield…” (see the 2h29m05s mark here)

And oh yes. In his former job, Scott Faber was, get this, the vice-president for government affairs, of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the GMA. Ring a bell? This is the organization that donated millions to DEFEAT mandatory GMO labeling in several Western states.
And now he is Executive Director of Just Label It, the core group pushing FOR mandatory GMO labeling.
________________________________________
How far down the rabbit hole does all this go? Does Just Label It really want mandatory labeling? Was it created as some kind of distraction? A distraction from the far more serious business of trying to BAN GMOs? Was it a way to guide millions of well-meaning people down a false trail to a dead-end, where there is no mandatory labeling and no banning, and the expansion of GMOs and toxic herbicides continues unabated? Where the only stop-gap against Monsanto is a voluntary system of labeling, controlled by a relatively small number of retailers who profit enormously from inventing a tier of elite food products bearing the “non-GMO” seal?
________________________________________
Gary Hirshberg was a founding partner of Just Label It. He is the CEO of Stonyfield Farms, the famous yogurt company.

Of all the leaders in the labeling movement, Hirshberg is the most overtly political. Let’s look at his strange track record:

During the 2008 presidential campaign season, his home in New Hampshire was a mandatory stop for candidates. Hirshberg’s first choice for the Democratic nomination was the execrable Tom Vilsack until he dropped out of the race.

Hirshberg hosted gatherings for John Edwards and Barack Obama, and eventually decided to support Obama.

Obama, despite his nods and winks, was, from the beginning, Monsanto’s man in Washington, allowing an unprecedented parade of new GMO crops to enter growing fields and the marketplace, and appointing staunch biotech allies to key posts in his administration.

Vilsack, Gary Hirshberg’s first choice for President, became the Secretary of Agriculture under Obama. Vilsack is an avid supporter of GMO food. During his term as governor of Iowa, Vilsack was given a Governor of the Year award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

Hirshberg serves as a co-chairman of an organization called AGree (twitter). Its objective is to “build consensus around solutions” to “critical issues facing the food and agriculture system.” As researcher Nick Brannigan (twitter) has pointed out, AGree includes, among its foundation partners: the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation.

It would be hard to find foundations more friendly to, and supportive of, big corporate agriculture and GMOs.

Hirshberg is the author of Stirring It Up: How to Make Money and Save the World. He advocates revolution-by-the-consumer as an exceedingly powerful force.
It may be pretty to think so, but giving American consumers a clear choice about whether to buy GMO or non-GMO food, through labeling, isn’t going to push Monsanto up against the wall.

It isn’t going to stop Monsanto gene drift into non-GMO crops. It isn’t going to stop the aerial attack of toxic Roundup all over the planet.

But if mandatory labeling of GMOs fails, and all that’s left is voluntary labeling, Hirshberg could help launch Stonyfield Farms and other commercial ventures into new realms of profitability, by applying that “non-GMO” seal.
________________________________________
the Natural Products Association. It’s the largest trade and lobbying group in North America for natural nutritional-supplement companies. You’d think this group would be squarely in the camp of the anti-GMO movement, if the word “natural” means anything at all.

Well, the executive director of the Natural Products Association is Daniel Fabricant.

Pop quiz: what federal agency gave the original blanket approval, based on no science, for GMO crops, allowing them to enter the US food supply in the 1990s? Which agency has, for decades, consistently fought to whittle down the power and scope of the natural nutritional-supplement industry?
The FDA.

What was Daniel Fabricant’s job before he became executive director of the Natural Products Association?

Fabricant was director of the Division of Dietary Supplement Programs at the FDA.

In December of this year, the Natural Products Association held a webinar. As reported in the Food Navigator (12/19), “5 GMO myths dispelled,” one of its speakers was Greg Jaffe.
A lawyer, Jaffe (bio here) has logged stints with the EPA, FDA, DOJ, and World Bank—all groups that, in one way or another, have vigorously supported GMOs.
Jaffe proceeded to make a case for GMOs, “dispelling the myths” prevalent in the anti-GMO community.

So you have the leading trade group for the natural products industry giving a heavy wink and nod to GMO foods.

According to the Food Navigator article, Jaffe explained that the process of using bacteria to carry foreign genes into a food plant is really quite natural. Which is like saying that a glass eye is natural.

Then Jaffe presents the tired generality: “Evidence is overwhelming that there is no harm from foods made from current GE [genetic engineered] foods.” As “evidence,” he cites the FDA approval of biotech crops. The FDA—which has basically stated that Monsanto, Dow, and the other mega-giants are basically responsible for assuring the safety of GMOs.

All this cover for GMOs is being presented in a trade magazine vis-a-vis a trade group for the natural food products industry.

Is the war against Monsanto and GMOs and toxic herbicides rigged to fail?

Citing betrayal within the anti-GMO anti-Monsanto movement, an astute observer with large knowledge of the scene recently gave me his appraisal of what amounts to a covert op against the millions of people who want a healthier non-GMO future. Here’s how he succinctly described the men taking us down the wrong road:

“Gary Hirshberg is the pied piper, John Mackey [CEO of Whole Foods] is the money man, and Daniel Fabricant is the enforcer.”

As MinM's quote reads; You can be a willing participant in a conspiracy without knowing that you're part of it." Jamie Scott Enyart

[Belligerent Savant]

I have never heard of some of the authors mentioned in Lorde's speech.

I am curious how they might fit or not fit with a 'rigorous and radical conspiracy theory' as envisioned by AD.

Time will tell.

http://snoopman.files.wordpress.com/201 ... speech.pdf

Lorde’s Suppressed Grammy Award acceptance speech (Full Transcript)
26 January 2014

[snip]

Seems Lorde's 'suppressed' acceptance speech never occurred; the article is within the 'satire, sarcasm and snoofs' section of the blog linked above. A perusal of the blog itself reveals the author[s] to be clearly fictitious (see below). The content of the transcript is interesting, regardless -- perhaps a clever means of viral dissemination of subversive info to the mainstream? Or perhaps I'm giving too much credit to the source of the "transcript".

American journalist Sophia Bigg-Storm tried to break the story that World I and World II were conjured by an Anglo-American Brotherhood who conspired to dominant the world by controlling oil and finance, through a system enforced by military aggression, subversion and other intrigues. Her sleuth-work was supported by William Engdahl, author of works such as, Gods of Money and A Century of War; and also by Guido Giacomo Preparata, who wrote Conjuring Hitler. Bigg-Storm’s investigations were suppressed by her former employer, The National Enquirer, a fictional newspaper depicted the movie Citizen Kane.

Iggy Swind has worked alongside reporter Clark Kent at the Daily Planet and photojournalist Peter Parker at the Daily Bugle. Swind investigations proved both super-heroes work undercover for the Hollywood media cartel to distract their mass audiences with their mediocre ‘saving the world’ sagas, leaving those that run the world at-large. Those investigations have been suppressed.

http://snoopman.net.nz/2014/02/16/royal ... w-zealand/

http://snoopman.net.nz/2014/02/11/queen ... ntal-buzz/