Volatility

January 23, 2014

Smash the Pro-GMO Elitists

>

From Hannah Arendt’s Origins of Totalitarianism, Chapter 7 “Race and Bureaucracy”, part iii “The Imperialist Character”:
 
Every growth of democracy or even the simple functioning of existing democratic institutions can only be a danger, for it is impossible to govern “a people by a people – the people of India by the people of England.” Bureaucracy is always a government of experts, of an “experienced minority” which has to resist as well as it knows how the constant pressure from “the inexperienced majority.” Each people is fundamentally an inexperienced majority and can therefore not be trusted with such a highly specialized matter as politics and public affairs. Bureaucrats, moreover, are not supposed to have general ideas about political matters at all; their patriotism should never lead them so far astray that they believe in the inherent goodness of the political principles in their own country…
 
Reading this nowadays, I think first of how most of today’s technical cadres are committed ideologues of corporatism and scientism, and how most are dedicated elitists who will side with corporatism and against any kind of outside-the-system dissent on anti-democracy principle.
 
I’ll add to the above that today’s corporate bureaucrats and technicians are utterly ignorant where it comes even to “specialized matters”, let alone its practical application. Where it comes to GMOs we have a near-perfect void of arrogant ignorance, where plant technicians presume to speak on human toxicology, molecular biologists on agriculture, and of course PR flacks on every branch of science. Nowhere will you find a credentialed cadre speaking knowledgeably about his own specialization.
 
(This is standard across all sectors by now, of course. No one knows less about the human economy than credentialed economists and Wall Street bureaucrats, no one less about health care than insurance bureaucrats, no one less about war than generals and War Department bureaucrats, etc.)
 
Thus we have the standard type: The credentialed technical cadre who knows nothing about agriculture or GMOs but who on principle supports Monsanto because the technocrats have to stick up for one another against the people, who they all see as the enemy. (This is even as they all live as pure leeches off our work and taxes.) Their contempt for democracy and the people comes out most clearly in their sneering dismissal of GMO labeling, which they openly oppose on the grounds that the people are too stupid to understand it.
 
Perhaps the most notorious example so far is last year’s anti-labeling editorial in “Scientific American”, once supposedly a legitimate scientific publication, but today a fully corporatized propaganda conveyor belt. The piece is remarkable in being straight, unmodified stenography of Monsanto’s own propaganda lies, no matter how tendentious, fanciful, or directly brazen these are. 
 
The whole piece reeks of contempt for the people and democracy, for how stupid and childish we are because we demand our rights and because we’re suspicious of the same propaganda campaign which said tobacco, asbestos, DDT, PCBs, thalidomide, and other technological wonders were safe.
 
Always remember that the arc of the GMO publicity fight is following with exactitude that of the fight against Big Tobacco. The only difference is that the stakes for humanity are much higher today in its struggle against the global campaign to toxify the entirety of our soil, water, and food.
 
Here’s just a few of the canned propaganda lies the piece plagiarizes:
 
*”We have been tinkering with our food’s DNA since the dawn of agriculture.”
 
Genetic engineering has nothing in common with conventional breeding, as anyone who knows anything about agronomy is aware.
 
*”Compared with conventional breeding techniques—which swap giant chunks of DNA between one plant and another—genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, is less likely to produce an unexpected result.”
 
On the contrary, sexual reproduction is well-ordered, holistic result of billions of years of evolution, which occurs within the same species, or sometimes closely related species. Genetic engineering is a random, clumsy, violent, disorderly shotgun mechanism, invading a genome with utterly alien genetic material. The results of genetic engineering are largely inscrutable even to the engineers, except insofar as they can select trial plants which demonstrate the gross phenotype sought – herbicide tolerance or Bt poison expression. For the rest, it’s a pure blindfolded crapshoot.
 
*”Many people argue for GMO labels in the name of increased consumer choice. On the contrary, such labels have limited people’s options…Today it is virtually impossible to find GMOs in European supermarkets.” 
 
Yes. The marketplace spoke. The people had full choice and they chose. In the US, on the contrary, GMOs had to be covertly infiltrated into our food. Monsanto has openly said the goal was to dominate the marketplace by stealth, and then present consumers with an accomplished fact. In the well-known words of a cartel flack: “The hope of the industry is that over time the market’s so flooded that there’s nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender.”
 
Thus we have Monsanto openly admitting that the goal was to destroy the marketplace and rob consumers of all choice. Sure enough, it’s extremely difficult to choose non-GM food in US stores.
 
As we see, “Scientific American” and its fellow hacks are on board with this conspiracy against marketplace choice.
 
*”The measure would also have required farmers, manufacturers and retailers to keep a whole new set of detailed records and to prepare for lawsuits challenging the “naturalness” of their products.”
 
This is a canned lie lifted from the Grocery Manufacturers Association’s anti-labeling campaigns. It’s a direct lie – the labeling bills and initiatives which have been proposed do not allow for lawsuits against anyone.
 
*”Private research firm Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants estimated that Prop 37 would have raised an average California family’s yearly food bill by as much as $400.”
 
The GMA hired these flacks to package the lies it wanted to tell. But it’s clear that adding one line on the existing label wouldn’t increase anyone’s food bill one cent. Companies constantly change labels far more radically than that without having to raise the price.
 
*”Antagonism toward GMO foods also strengthens the stigma against a technology that has delivered enormous benefits to people in developing countries and promises far more.” 
 
Nowhere have GMOs done anything but increase and accelerate the immiseration of farmers and their being driven off their land and into shantytowns. Again, this is part of the intended goal of this escalation of corporate enclosure and control. The editors of “Scientific American” are complicit in this crime against humanity and must answer for it.
 
They invent, but fail to link to, a “study” claiming Indian farmers have benefited from Bt cotton. The factual record of debt slavery and mass suicide, adding up to veritable genocide, tells the true story.
 
*They regurgitate the standard lies about “golden rice”, which is nothing but a media hoax. The real story is that it doesn’t work, which is the only reason it hasn’t been commercialized after all these years of development and so much public research money stolen. The fact is that the cartel doesn’t actually want to bring golden rice to the market anyway, even if this were technically possible. (All the delays are 100% because of technical breeding problems, 0% because those nasty environmentalists are obstructing it.) 
 
*”Because conventional crops often require more water and pesticides than GMOs do, the former are usually more expensive.”
 
On the contrary, conventional and organic crops require less water and far less pesticides than do GMOs. Indeed, part of the purpose of GMOs is to force ever increasing use of agricultural poisons. The record is clear and unanimous over nearly twenty years of GMO commercialization. By now these hacks are reduced to telling straight lies, hoping to gull the ignorant.
 
*”The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has tested all the GMOs on the market to determine whether they are toxic or allergenic.”
 
This is a straight, unvarnished lie. The FDA has never tested a single GMO, ever. Not one. The authors of the piece know this, and went ahead with this lie. That right there strips “Scientific American” of all credibility for the duration of its miserable existence, which we can hope will be short. It’ll also be a smoking gun piece of evidence at any tribunal trying these crimes against humanity. They may try to weasel their way out on propaganda like “it’s just like conventional breeding”, but no lawyer could ever rescue them from full conscious culpability for saying the FDA ever tested a GMO.
 
*The piece closes by broaching some more hoaxes – allegedly “improved” cassava and maize. But the factual record is unanimous. There has never been a commercial GMO which did anything but deliver poison, and all hype about other types has never been anything but that – hype.
 
Meanwhile the record of conventional breeding and agroecological practice is similarly unanimous on the positive side. For any crop you can name, true breeding has developed and is continuing to develop superb new varieties which meet every human agricultural need. This is even though public interest breeding must persevere under conditions of severely constrained funding, since today the bulk of it goes down the corporate GMO rathole.
 
Just a sampling of these great, true crops are listed here and here.
 
Just to retort to their specific lie with examples of the true cassava future: Conventional breeding has been providing African farmers with high-yield, pest-resistant, disease-resistant, beta-carotene enriched cassava. (You hear that, hacks? Unlike your “golden rice” hoax, this non-GM cassava really does provide beta carotene, and in a nutritional form people can eat.)
 
That’s just one example of what the conventional breeding of true crops can accomplish. The same kind of example can be provided for any other crop. No one on earth except a handful of corporate gangsters needs GMO false crops. 
 
****
 
This criminal piece was clearly either written directly by cartel propagandists, or was done under their supervision. Either way we know that “Scientific American” has been bought and paid for, and is now nothing but a Monsanto propaganda outlet. It should be shunned, boycotted, reviled, and smashed out of existence.
 
It’s funny how incompetent the hacks have become. It would’ve been easy for the SciAm editors to write this in their own words, saying basically the same thing instead of regurgitating verbatim every canned lie from the professional troll playbook. But these hacks seem so stupid that they were incapable even of that. Or maybe it’s arrogance, part of the propaganda line, “there is no alternative, give up all hope, surrender.” Maybe they’re so confident in their vicious, bullying aggression that they’re proud of being so uncreative and brazen about their lies.
 
Whatever the cause, it’s up to we the people to prove that these criminals have made a very bad mistake.
 
It’s obvious why these criminals live in terror of transparency, and why they so shrilly and desperately try to shout down all dissent and smother all true debate. It’s because they have literally zero facts or evidence on their side, and the overwhelming factual evidence record against them. They have nothing but secrecy, lies, and brute force. GMO labeling is just one of the many truth-bearing threats to their vile existence.

>

Advertisements

9 Comments

  1. I saw that article and could not believe how poorly written it was. I guess if the reader is extremely ignorant about the subject, it might possibly keep them stupid. But even I could spot the old propaganda and downright lies.

    Comment by DualPersonality — January 25, 2014 @ 2:48 am

    • I think most likely it was written (or reproduced from a Monsanto memo) by ignoramuses for fellow ignoramuses. Omerta means “silence”. I don’t know what the comparable word for “ignorance” would be, but there’s a comparable Code of Ignorance among all sorts of technical cadres, so-called “scientists”. They don’t want to know anything about GMOs, but are simply supposed to support a gang of fellow cadres. I suppose the same goes for every other kind of highly profitable technology which is destructive and worthless. For example, the same technocrats are probably happy to agree that fracking doesn’t poison the water.

      These same hacks all used to agree that cigarette smoking was healthy, DDT harmless, etc.

      Comment by Russ — January 25, 2014 @ 5:22 am

  2. I’ve no doubt the “scientists” will discover that DDT is not as harmful as originally thought. Actually, someone stated that to me a couple of years ago. This just screams that the people should look at these “experts” as ignorant, gullible and untrustworthy and stop paying any attention to their pontifications.

    Comment by DualPersonality — January 25, 2014 @ 10:50 pm

    • There’s already a move afoot for some years now to rehabilitate DDT. As for example the whole history of allowable levels of herbicide residue in food demonstrates, what government considers a “toxic” level of something has nothing to do with actual human health effects, but is purely a political category: How politically toxic is it to allow how much of a poison?

      As governments keep escalating allowable glyphosate levels in food and water, they’re often frank that the levels need to be raised to accommodate the necessary increase in spraying which the corporate imperative and the superweeds demand. This is a perfect example of how the main function of regulators in a “representative government” is to put a fraudulent “public safety” imprimatur on hazardous, toxic, and destructive corporate practices.

      DDT was judged by the system to be too politically toxic for the 1970s. But if they think it can be politically milder today, they’ll rehabilitate it, just as they’re trying to do with the most toxic dioxins, which will be the residue of escalated 2,4-D spraying if the Agent Orange GMOs go through.

      Comment by Russ — January 26, 2014 @ 3:21 am

  3. I love your new listings at the side, BTW. Looks good!

    Comment by DualPersonality — January 25, 2014 @ 10:52 pm

    • Thanks!

      Comment by Russ — January 26, 2014 @ 3:21 am

  4. […] run interference on behalf of the cartel, implicitly and often explicitly backing up all its lies, including the lie that it has tested GMOs for safety. It also did this prior to GMO commercialization, as in its criminal participation in the cover-up […]

    Pingback by GMO Labeling Status Report | Volatility — January 27, 2014 @ 2:34 am

  5. Love this article, worked on the 522 campaign here in Wa state and was horrified as I watched seemingly intelligent people cave into the propaganda presented in ads mostly illegally presented by the GMA, it was like watching brainwashing at its best. The veil would come down over people’s faces while they quoted the Monsanto propaganda out of their mouths. It was such a simple initiative yet the adds lied repeatedly and people didn’t research or pay attention to who was funding these adds, even though in very small writing you could see it was Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta and the GMA.

    Comment by Lori Aronica — February 1, 2014 @ 1:10 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: