Volatility

November 8, 2013

History Will Spit Out the Lukewarm (A Periodic Series)

Filed under: Mainstream Media, Scientism/Technocracy — Tags: — Russ @ 3:47 am

>

We abolitionists have taken the trouble to learn the whole range of evidence concerning GMOs, from the proven fact that they’re a crappy product which doesn’t work (they reduce yield, require greater use of poisons, generate poison-resistant superweeds and superbugs against themselves, are nutritionally inferior, and in general cost farmers and society more in order to get much less), to their malign socioeconomic and political effects, to the proven inevitable environmental contamination they cause (they’re proven to contaminate organic and non-GM conventional crops and the wild relatives of cultivated crops, and there’s evidence that GM material pollutes the soil, water, and air), to the growing evidence of their danger to human and livestock health.
 
All this sums up to prove that GMO abolition is the objectively common-sense, moderate, prudent position, and is the position dictated by science and reason. Of course, amid an insane, irrational, anti-scientific system dominated by the corporate imperative and constantly drenched in its propaganda poison, this objectively sane position may seem “extreme”.
 
In that connection, we can take note that some of the scientists who object to the lie that there’s a “consensus” on GMO safety are nevertheless anxious to insist they’re seeking a “middle ground” between “black and white”. We’ve seen this kind of thing before, including the fact that they never specify who the presumable “extremist” types are from whom they’re seeking to distance themselves. Probably from we who emphasize the proven socioeconomic malevolence of GMOs first and foremost? It’s true that most of the scientists who provide evidence against GMOs insist that they’re merely trying to reform some abuses within the corporatist system, no matter how ungratefully the system slanders and attacks them in return for their solicitude. We can infer that, like with most liberals, the Western scientists don’t object so much to corporatist domination as such, and certainly not to its depredations across the Global South, but only to ways in which it may be harming the decent Western middle class.
 
Meanwhile, for a view of how the establishment “science” views its would-be reformers, the second piece at the link reads like a synthetic compendium of the flimsy lies and totalitarian impetus of the GMO fundamentalists. ENSSER (compiler of the “consensus”-refuting statement) is an “anti-GM campaign group”; an extended compilation of quotes from a trade group’s paid hack which includes direct lies (that safety testing was ever done) and implicit ones (that epidemiological studies were ever done; thus the lie that GM foods have been “proven safe” in action, including the ever-inflating piece of gasbagging about how many GM meals allegedly have been safely eaten); bogus testimonials from corporatized “authorities”; and, amusingly, a repetition of the lie that there’s a “consensus” in favor of GMO safety, which has just been self-evidently disproven by the ENSSER statement.
 
Of course, we see how much the mercenaries are willing to reciprocate the tender collegiality of the scientists who are at such pains to stress that they’re merely skeptical about the health risks of GMOs, but certainly are not anti-GMO on account of such hippie trivia as, say, the indenture-driven cotton farmer genocide in India. (Being willing to use a word like genocide no doubt is an example of what qualifies me as one of those extremists. I wonder if they see the likes of me as “black” or “white”.)
 
The GM fundamentalists, themselves not scientists but mercenaries and technocratic ideologues, never miss an opportunity to insist that from their corporate-dictated perspective anyone who’s at all skeptical is not a scientist, but an “anti-GM campaigner” or an “activist”. So I’m sorry my friends who signed the statement, but it looks like you’re doomed to the role of filthy disgusting extremists whether you like it or not. I’d recommend that you not only get used to it but learn to embrace and like it. Take a note from our history here in America. To paraphrase Patrick Henry: “If this be extremism, let’s make the most of it.”
 
Of course, as the ENSSER statement itself documents, true scientists are unsure about the health dangers of GMOs (there’s no doubt at all about glyphosate), while science and reason condemn GM fundamentalism. These are the objectively moderate positions, as is the policy prescription that follows from it, that there must be a moratorium on all open-air planting of GM crops until long-term safety testing has been done on each GM variety. In the meantime there can be no further field testing or commercialization of new types.

 
>

Advertisements

12 Comments

  1. “…it looks like you’re doomed to the role of filthy disgusting extremists whether you like it or not. I’d recommend that you not only get used to it but learn to embrace and like it.”

    Hey Russ, this is Tom (used to post in David Gumpert’s blog). Yes your statement I’ve quoted here applies to so much. The truth is considered extreme by so many because the “mainstream” is so far from it. I stopped posting in David’s blog because, even though I like him, his basic view on raw milk (test test test) is at odds with reality, and reinforces system propaganda. People like David and Mark. who promote testing of milk, do they test any of the other foods they consume? I suspect no.

    This double standard that encourages testing is a very real threat to those of us “extremists” who agree with the evidence of history (see the real world research of Weston Price and also Robert Mccarrison), and the evidence from real world raw milk drinkers, that real milk is not dangerous, and in fact is probably the safest food you could consume (it REDUCES the risk of illness, and heals as well).

    In fact ther only reason there is a “debate” about raw milk is because of system propaganda and dirty tricks, such as they have used against grassroot movements throughout history. The fact is, illness is the biggest business today, it (“healthcare”) is bigger than oil, autos, etc. Raw milk is an ideal food to address one of the main causes if illness today, calcium deficiency. “Extremist” scientist Bob Barefoot wrote a book, The Calcium Factor, saying 95 percent of Americans have a severe calcium deficiency, and this sets the stage for all kinds of serious illness. Most all of this is preventable.

    Few foods in modern grocery stores contain much calcium, and even if you make an effort to eat collard greens say, you’d never consume near the amount you would with dairy. The pasteurization ruins the calcium absorption of dairy. This is the real reason it is forced on us. Milk, being a whole food, has all kinds of other benefits to the digestive tract and in other ways, but once pasteurized it is quite a different food.

    David’s blog had professors write in, how publishing pro raw milk material puts the professor at risk of being fired or having grant money cut off. Farmer Mark McCaffe (sp?) told of how he was fined 8000 dollars for posting asthma healing testimies from customers, on his website, and had to remove them. There are fake websites out there that claim to be about raw milk, that report “real world” cases, all of which happen to be disease stories…

    The deceptions go on and on. My advice to seekers is talk to the real raw milk drinkers, there are millions of them in this country, and get their first hand testimony. You can find all the healing stories you want.

    The govt uses agents, actors, they fake evidence, etc etc. This is old news to truth seekers, but sadly most are ignorant of it all. The more you become aware of how this global system really operates, the more of an “extremist” you will become. Tom M Culhane

    ps I also was really offended with David’s treatment of Aajonus, a long time advocate of raw milk. David basically called him a liar, saying his repeating false statements isn’t somehow going to make them true. David provided no evidence I am aware of, that Aajonus was lying about anything, and Aajonus had real evidence he was not, such as employee testimonies of wrongdoing.

    This is really sad because Aajonus was the most lucid advocate of raw milk that I am aware of. I hope the “extremist” view that this ancient superfood, raw milk, is not dangerous but actually health promoting, is not drowned out by the watered down philosophy advocated by David and others.

    I decided to post this here, instead of David’s blog, because Russ, you seem to have a much better grasp of the criminal nature of Big Ag, govt, major media, etc, and how they interrelate. (you don’t have all the pieces Russ, but you’re headed in the right direction)

    Comment by Tom M Culhane — November 26, 2013 @ 4:01 pm

    • How’s it going, Tom. The problem with the Gumpert site is that he and the others can’t make up their mind what their position is, what the site’s supposed to be about, what industrial organic is, what the FDA is, what a credentialed system cadre is, etc. The best thing about it is how it’s sometimes able to help muster big public turnouts, like in Foxboro Monday night. Still, it’s the closest thing to a real discussion of food freedom I’ve come across, which is why I still post there. The participatory sites and blogs of food freedom issues are pretty awful for the most part. But I need to do a more systematic survey.

      So exactly what pieces am I missing here?

      Comment by Russ — November 26, 2013 @ 4:59 pm

      • Yeah Russ, forums are valuable things. I did learn a few things posting in that blog for about a year. But as I say the basic mindset of David and some others there is actually dangerous to the raw milk drinkers, because he has bought into govt propaganda. Does he have his bread tested when he buys it, or his apples, or potatoes?

        Singling out milk for testing reinforces the govt smear campaign saying raw milk is dangerous. Small farmers that don’t have their milk tested for “pathogens” are more easily attacked (“Well why do farms like Organic Pastures regularly test their milk if it isn’t dangerous, huh?…) Juries can be swayed by this kind of thing…

        The people that understand the truth about milk should stick to their guns, not head down that slippery slope of trying to appease victims of establishment propaganda. Raw milk is an ancient superfood, it’s probably the safest thing you can consume. Many of the healthiest, longest lived societies consumed it. I recounted in David’s blog that Swiss society Weston Price documented in his epic book, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. They were big raw milk drinkers. They were so healthy they not only had no need for a local dentist, but had no doctors as well. The physician Robert McCarrison, a contemporary of Price’s, spent a lot of time in India, lived with the Hunzas, wrote about the superb health and long lives of the northern Indians in the 1930s, … and raw dairy and wheat were cornerstones of their diets. Some (the Pathans) consumed large amounts of meat as well, others consumed little or no meat. McCarrison is considered one of the founders of the modern organic farming movement btw.

        Real world evidence as documented by Price and McCarrison is priceless today, it flies in the face of so much disinformation we encounter in school, by the media cartel, the govt, etc.

        Another great source of information, showing raw milk is not dangerous but prevents and heals disease, is found by talking directly with raw milk drinkers and hearing their testimonies. Interested people should seek this out.

        The picture that emerges from the real world evidence is exactly the opposite of the scary, “pathogen” infested world found with the major media stories, govt health publications, microbiology textbooks, etc.

        Sorry to repeat myself here. It’s that there’s so much disinformation in print about raw milk, so I have to emphasize that the govt has an ongoing smear campaign going against it, and so the key to learning the truth is with the real world evidence one can collect from drinkers, and the documentation of people like Price and McCarrison.

        Btw Russ, my posts in DAvid’s blog are all missing now, and when I emailed the webmaster he said they changed the platform a while back, and so idle accounts like mine (I hadn’t posted in a while) were ended and some posts got erased. I hope miguel’s posts, the soil scientist, are still there. He had all kinds of great posts about how microbes are typically blamed for food related illness when in fact they are the symptom, not the cause of the problem typically. Big ag poisons like herbicides, sanitizers, pesticides… digestive tract problems due to antibiotic use, … and other unnatural assaults on our systems are usually the real cause of the problem, while the microbes blamed proliferate because the are able to live in a toxic and altered environment…

        There are some foods (namely meats) that do become rancid if left out, and your senses tell you not to eat them. But raw milk is an entirely different type of food, it does not become rancid but rather converts when left out, into curds and whey, an ancient food that is mostly unknown now… Quite amazing technology really. Not to mention all the other foods that come from raw milk, cheeses, butter, cream, ice cream, yogurt, kefir,.. But once pasteurized it’s a totally different food, and this is the real reason for claims that dairy makes things like osteoporosis worse, etc. Real dairy is an entirely different thing. A farmer told me about her friend, who had borderline osteoporosis, and so switched to raw milk, and then her bone density tests went to normal. In David’s blog there was mention of a public hearing where one person after another came up and testified to the same thing, their bone density tests showing dramatic improvement with raw dairy…

        Again sorry to be repetitive, but supporting raw dairy is the main reason I came to your blog.

        “So exactly what pieces am I missing here?” Er, well I don’t want to be a distraction in your blog, going into areas that most people are not prepared to understand. I have been a seeker since childhood, and have learned things over the years, that, if I had encountered all at once, might have overloaded my mind. You have uncovered a lot, regarding the scams that exist with this global system we currently have to deal with. But if you keep going, you will uncover more and more. The system that is threatening our food supply, is much more organized than even you realize, and is assaulting us in even more ways than you currently see. The better we see what it is doing, the better protected we are.

        I’ll give you one example, and we can always talk off blog if you like. Why is it that on tv, certain words get beeped out? why have we been taught these words are “bad words”? Have you ever thought about this? Why do many of these words have to do with sex and body parts? And why do words that have to do with sex, also have other meanings, that have to do with harm?

        This is not all a random event. It’s a type of psychological warfare. Our minds are systematically attacked. It’s called “divide and conquer”. They want us cut off from our feelings, they want us believing our bodies are obscene, that touching each other is obscene, the God punishes us for having sexual desire, etc. If you look you will see this being done to you in so many ways.

        If you wanted to subjugate birds let’s say, what would you attack? How about their favorite pastime, flying. You could make them cover their wings, as if wings are something bad. Pictures of wings you could call “dirty”, “obscene”, … You could teach them if they fly, or even covet flying, except on approved days, God will be disappointed in them and will punish them… You could put words in the language like, “Wing off”, “I really got winged over”, “go fly yourself”…

        Would it surprise you if the birds became neurotic, violent, minds out of kilter, more easily incited one group against another, etc? This type of assault on our minds has a lot to do with why people today can’t get along, and have difficulty living in groups. Historically people almost always lived in groups, it’s a much better life, much easier, much safer, you learn from each other instead of today, where people sit in front of a machine (tv) or govt employee (“teacher”) to get information…

        Being aware of the bigger picture will help the real food movement in many ways. Returning to communities, where you control your food, your energy, your childrens’ education… is the direction people need to head, in my opinion. I wrote about my efforts to form a community, in David’s blog, a few times. People do not seem ready to make the change… anyway understanding the bigger picture will help for the change to happen.

        Comment by Tom M Culhane — November 27, 2013 @ 11:04 am

      • Thought I should add a bit about the wheat I’ve been trying to grow on my land here in north Florida. (the libary here will be closed due to holidays for 2 days so I won’t be reading my emails… hope this isn’t clogging your blog)

        I had documented in David’s blog how I was growing einkorn wheat, an ancient wheat that is quite different than modern wheat today, which is mainly hybrid dwarf wheat. I had also made a video there showing my “corn harvest”, which I put on my youtube account. But as I say all those posts are gone now.

        See there’s a way to grow food using heavy mulch, instead of tilling the soil, and you should look into it if you haven’t. I had posted info on the japanese farmer who wrote One Straw Revolution, documenting his success with “no till” farming. Gordon had added that a Ruth Stout had been writing about this basic idea since the 50s….

        Wheat seemed the ideal thing to grow here over the winter., and it would give me straw to use as heavy mulch for the spring… but the einkorn never did sprout, and I planted it four different times, including a few weeks back. So I have abandoned that idea and instead ordered 12 different varieties of old school wheat seeds from the Kusa Seed Society. I planted nine of these varieties last week in small plots on the land.

        Anyway, the main point is, if any of your readers are making the move back to nature and producing their own food, to take the establishment out of the loop, consider these two ideas here, no till farming, and planting a lot of varieties to find the ones that like your land BEFORE moving on with other ideas. Get the right seeds first. It’s basic common sense but most people including myself, haven’t been doing this. A small farmer that sold me seeds, his website lists all kinds of techniques for growing organic food, but he says, the main thing he uses these days (he’s been farming for 50 years), is the right seeds, seeds that want to grow on his land. He talked about how he started growing melons three years ago and his first harvest was three pounds, and this year his harvest was 900 pounds. What he did is planted 25 different varieties of melons, and replanted the ones that grew well, and so on… very simple but like I say most people never think to use this approach.

        Comment by Tom M Culhane — November 27, 2013 @ 3:53 pm

      • Thanks for the story of your trials with wheat. I hope you find the variety which likes your land. Keep us posted.

        I’ve read Fukuoka and heard of Stout. Steve Solomon describes the pros and cons of heavy mulching. I haven’t done enough to have a strong personal opinion, but I do know that for my climate heavy mulching wouldn’t decompose quickly, so Solomon’s advice, which does involve some digging, sounds best for my situation, given what I’ve been growing so far. Maybe the summers are hot enough in north Florida, and evidently Fukuoka’s method was working for him in Japan. (But I’ve also read that Fukuoka’s disciples are prone to recommend his methods anywhere and everywhere, including many regions and climates for which they’re not well-suited.)

        Obviously the answer is to do whatever works, as long as there’s no reason to think it’s unsustainable. Your thoughts about trying out several seed varieties is common sense.

        Comment by Russ — November 28, 2013 @ 2:45 am

      • Fukuoka’s ideas, if they work, would come in quite handy for someone like myself, and others trying to bridge the two worlds, city and country. He says one or two people can prepare and plant one acre in a couple days, and then there’s really nothing left to do there until harvest time. I own five acres, in the middle of nowhere, I preserve it, and have about an acre to cultivate, and about a half acre I’ve been planting orchard trees. 45 miles is a long bike ride out there, … and currently I live in town. Wheat and trees growing whether I’m there or not sure sounds nice.

        Of course with a community, things would be a lot easier. Look into wood burning cars sometime, you can convert an old school bus, and run it on fallen branches and dead trees from the community nature preserve, commute it into town and back, say 2 times a week, so people can live in town part time and out on the nature preserve community part of the week too.

        Things like having goats and chickens are easy with a group, but as a one man band, it would be a problem for me, you have to milk those goats every day…

        I’m looking into using a native clover, buffalo clover , to plant with the wheat, to help the soil with nitrogen and also keep down weeds. There are groups that will tell you what species are native, what are invasive. Moving wild plants is very dangerous. They tell me agricultural plants are generally “well behaved” ie they don’t escape cultivation, but wild plants of course can cause big problems. I assume clover is a wild plant. I’m not planting any nut trees that are not native. The American Chestnut tree was wiped out, 4 billion, by a blight they say came from Asian chestnut trees brought into New York. These permaculture people, talking about using all these exotic species, make me nervous. If you’ve ever seen those permaculture zone maps for around your home, what types of plahts to plant where, it’s obvious to me whoever came up with that grew up in a city. That’s a good way to burn down your home, it’s a flammable carpet from the forest to your front door, if there’s a forest fire, you are in trouble.

        Yes there’s nothing like real world evidence and experience.

        Comment by Tom M Culhane — December 1, 2013 @ 11:55 am

      • To clarify, that’s one or two days to prepare an acre, using simple hand tools.

        Comment by Tom M Culhane — December 1, 2013 @ 12:05 pm

      • Tom, with that commute, you sure could use a system that needs minimal tending. It sounds like you have the right ideas about it.

        They’re still trying to bring back the American chestnut by breeding whatever’s left of its genetics with a Chinese variety, if I recall correctly.. It’s an attempted genome reclamation, but I don’t think it’s been working well.

        It’s true that most cultivated varieties require cultivation to continue, though some can become feral weeds. Permaculture’s philosophy is that things aren’t “invasive”, just opportunistic, and that it’s the cultivator’s job to craft the plantings so that the opportunism is rendered constructive rather than destructive. To an extent it makes sense, and is in line with general human practice. Pastoralism and agriculture obviously recognize no stark demarcation between artificial domestication and wildness. Terrain theory, as opposed to germ theory, doesn’t recognize existential “pathogens”, but potential pathogens which are given more or less opportunity by the environment, including human practices. A “weed” isn’t a clear-cut category, but really just any plant which is doing something different from what we want it to do.

        So it does follow that philosophically the permaculturists are right. And to the extent they’re conscientious about recommending plants which aren’t indigenous but which would constructively fit in with a region’s ecosystem, if there’s no better indigenous variety available for the gardener’s purpose, this can be a sensible practice.

        But as usual, practice has to follow up with theory. (Bt refugia are already a dubious notion in theory. But since this notion would rely on self-sacrifice from farmers and rigorous specific requirements and enforcement by regulators, none of which are forthcoming, it’s certainly a flat out fraud in reality.) So it doesn’t mean that one plants whatever is recommended and doesn’t then follow up with rigorous practice. If someone’s looking for more of a self-tending system, then it’s much better to maximize native plants as much as possible. I haven’t heard that permaculture cultivation is a fire hazard.

        We have an herbal medicine garden where our goal is for it to comprise native plants as much as possible, but where we also incorporate some non-native plants based on which are already established.

        Comment by Russ — December 2, 2013 @ 4:20 am

      • There are two groups trying to restore the American Chestnut, one by breeding surviving trees showing resistance to the blight, and the other by crossing American Chestnuts with Asian ones. The first group would produce real Amercan Chestnuts, the second, I hope ends in failure. The last thing we need is a sales pitch for more genetic tinkering.

        Btw the “Chestnut trees” sold in this country, and “chestnuts” sold, are not real American Chestnuts, they are crossed with Asian trees, and really a disgrace that people would spread those around the country.

        I have to disagree with the overall tone of your reply. Moving wild plants and animals has created disasters around the globe, and people really don’t have the wisdom or forsight to be doing such things. A while back I had posted in the froum for a local gardening group, a bit about using hedges to protect your garden, instead of fencing. Deer, for example, are leery about jumping over a hedge they can’t see thru…

        I was intending people to consider using native trees such as hawthorn.. so anyway this guy responds that he loves the idea and is going to plant some boganvillia vine or something, from south america, because the thorns on it make it impenetrable…

        This kind of thing really scares me. Anyway, it’s hard to type here as the screen is flashing, I guess to limit my wording. So I won’t get into the debate about the real history of “cultivated” and “domesticated” species (but I”m a firm believer in the view held by all ancient societies, that these species were provided thru bionengineering, not thru breeding, at least the original stock. (but apparently the ones who did it know what they were doing…)

        btw if you look at permaculture “zones” for around the home, they create a continuous flammable carpet out to the forest.

        Comment by Tom M Culhane — December 2, 2013 @ 9:58 am

      • I always feel like I can’t get a straight answer on whether there are any true American chestnuts left or not.

        Given your otherwise strong point of view on this, why do you feel justified in growing wheat, an eastern hemisphere crop, here in the western hemisphere? I wonder what other non-native crops you’re willing to grow. Or should I ask, are there any you exclude. And what about animals? Only a few of the standard domesticated varieties were originally domesticated in the Americas.

        Of course I agree with the basic point that no one should be reckless in introducing exotics, and one should prefer indigenous plants to non-indigenous ones. But I have a more elastic view of what’s natural dispersal, including that which is done through human action (which is itself part of the ecosystem), as opposed to what requires a radically artificial, non-linear, hermetic, violent intervention, as hi-tech laboratory genetic engineering does.

        So what do you want around a house, bare dirt? Pebbles?

        Comment by Russ — December 2, 2013 @ 5:53 pm

      • Supposedly there are 300 to 500 mature American Chestnut trees still growing in the US.

        Forest fires are actually a real problem outside of cities (if you have any forest left). Where my land is you often can smell forest fires. The farmer next to me says they once evacuated the whole area. Having spent a couple years in a tent out there, I often thought about this issue. Lumber corporations and co. pump out a lot of disinformation about the whole subject. My best guesstimate of how the whole thing works, at this time, is:

        Forest fires occur naturally, by lightning strikes (50,000 strikes in florida per year). However, when you have lightening strikes, you also have heavy rain, so the fire would be cool. These fires would tend to keep the fuel on the forest floor low. (I also believe what Native teachers talk about, that caretaker beings are involved in Nature, and so fires and winds and rain can be directed ie these are not the blind forces we have been taught…)

        The natural world has been so deformed that the natural cycles and unseen but very real caretaking actions have been radically interfered with. Today there are huge super hot forest fires… the fuel on the forest floors is often really high, due to years of govt stopping the natural fires cycle.

        Old timers around me tell me they used to burn the forest floor once a year to keep the fuel low. A old time carpenter in St Augustine told me the same thing. I suspect when people lived in communities, their village would typically border a river, so that provides a natural barrier to large fires. A semi circle of grazing areas surrounding the village, linked to the river would give you protection from fires in any direction.

        As a one man band, I have to say I really don’t know if I have a good answer for today. Keep some kind of significant fire break around your living structure, perhaps connected to the road. Grazing animals can keep it well trimmed. Currently I just rely on my senses, hoping I would sense if I need to high tail it out…

        As far as my views on growing wheat perhaps sounding hypocritical, I believe there is a fundamental difference between the ancient domesticated foods (wheat, corn, cows, apple trees, etc…), and wild plants and animals. As I said earlier, they were bioengineered and are basically safe to be moved. The native plant groups I have talked to agree with the safety idea.

        I realize this is quite different than what is taught by establishment academia. If you have time, here’s a post of mine in a seedsavers forum, where I debate a group of establishment types, on the subject of the history of seeds: http://forums.seedsavers.org/showthread.php?t=4928

        Comment by Tom M Culhane — December 2, 2013 @ 7:10 pm

      • There’s lots of evidence that fire has long been used to manage grassland and woodland. Which fits in with my general view that in most ways it’s possible for humans to be productive stewards. So I don’t hold with the clear-cut demarcation you’re trying to make.

        I’ll check out the Seed Savers post when I have time. I’ve looked at that forum before, but never registered.

        Comment by Russ — December 3, 2013 @ 4:48 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: