Submitted by: Sandra
Yes on prop 37's biggest supporter was...Monsanto
by Jon Rappoport
December 10, 2012
We've all heard about hidden agendas, divide and conquer, controlling the narrative, and problem-reaction-solution. These are certainly time-honored and effective strategies for political elites.
To get simpler, we could just say lie-cheat-steal-kill.
But let's approach all this from a somewhat different angle.
A powerful elite group first forms a goal, an objective. It clarifies that goal. For example: domination of the global food supply.
With that goal in mind, and with the technology to genetically modify food crops, huge corporations like Monsanto, along with their politicians firmly in their pockets, decide to patent every kind of food seed possible.
Soon, they own food. They license/sell food seeds. They expand the number of GMO food crops.
But they also realize they have to deal with opposition.
There are many people who oppose GMO food. These people expose this food as nutrient-deficient and dangerous to human health. They expose the fact that much more toxic pesticide is sprayed on this new Roundup Ready food. They expose the fact that actual ownership of the food supply is passing into the hands of these elite corporations. They expose the fact that the inserted genes drift from crop to crop, field to field, and contaminate non-GMO crops.
What to do?
Monsanto and its allies have a time table. They believe they can accomplish, in a relatively short time, a fait accompli. There will be so many licensed GMO food crops and so many drifting genes, the very idea of ridding the world of GMO crops will be seen as impossible.
In the meantime, they need to stall. They need to divert attention away from the one action that could torpedo all their efforts: BANNING GMO CROPS.
This is the one thing that must not happen.
So...Monsanto covertly develops a plan: channel its opposition into lesser goals.
For example: labeling of GMO crops.
This is acceptable.
Monsanto "develops" two levels of labeling. There is voluntary labeling (preferred) and mandatory labeling (less preferred).
It plants agents into large organizations who are directed to debate the labeling issue. Debate it for a long time.
One such organization is the notorious Codex Alimentarius. Created by the UN in 1961, with the mandate of guarding the health of consumers, Codex eventually became a go-to group for the World Trade Organization, whenever disputes between trading nations arose that impacted health issues. Codex is also friendly with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
So for the past 20 years, the issue of labeling GMO foods has been debated at Codex. This in itself has been a remarkable victory for Monsanto.
Finally, in the summer of 2011, Codex decided that labeling was acceptable if it was voluntary. This grossly diluted standard was, of course, hailed as a victory by some anti-GMO activists.
With serious reservations, a huge non-profit called Consumers International, whose goal, like Codex, is "protection of consumer rights" weighed in: yes, this Codex victory was important, but not enough.
The labeling debate was going according to Monsanto's plan:
Endless talking, exceedingly minor achievements. And NO MAJOR BANS on GMO crops.
Both sides in the debate were operating as Monsanto wanted them to operate. Labeling was the diversion. It was the distraction sucking up huge amounts of time, energy, effort, and money...all along the wrong path.
The press was framing the whole GMO question in terms of labeling, reporting on the Codex debates, reporting on statements from Consumers International, reporting on activists and scientists who wanted labeling or claimed that labeling wasn't necessary.
Then came a major effort to make GMO labeling mandatory in California. It was called Prop 37. Should all GMO food sold in California be labeled or not?
The world was focused on this battle. Activists were focused on it.
Monsanto, quite satisfied, stood off to the side and poured major dollars to their PR people, who in turn campaigned against labeling.
But the victory was already in hand for Monsanto, before a single vote was cast. One way or another, labeling was going to continue to be the only real issue under debate.
If Monsanto lost the Prop 37 election, they would acknowledge the defeat "graciously," as they did in England, and support labeling. Meanwhile, they would continue to spend millions of dollars, or even billions, convincing Californians that buying (labeled) GMO food was an easy decision: buy it; it's healthy; there are no problems; who cares.
Another aspect of Monsanto's master plan needs to be understood. Monsanto encouraged the labeling debate at Codex and almost certainly threw covert support behind Consumers International because those organizations are ostensibly about CONSUMERS.
Monsanto wanted to make the whole GMO issue about people who buy products. It wanted to frame the issue around that.
Why? Because that trivializes the whole situation. It isn't about destruction of the natural food supply, it isn't about the tonnage of poisonous pesticide sprayed on Roundup Ready GMO crops. It isn't about nutrient-deficient GMO food. It isn't about owning patents on the world's food crops. It isn't about the health dangers of eating GMO food. It isn't about destroying the small farmer. It isn't about all that. It's really, you see, about the consumer's right to know what's in his food.
It's about the buyer, the person who spends money at the check-out counter. It's about consumers, and aren't we all consumers? Aren't we just people into whom are funneled all sorts of products? Isn't that who we are? Aren't we just the little creatures who buy stuff?
Prop 37 played right into that plan, because the leaders of YES ON 37 decided that the "right to know what's in your food" was the prime message they would sell. That would be the essence of the whole campaign. A consumerist message.
Label GMO food? Don't label it? That's Monsanto territory. That's the territory they can live in. They like that territory. It doesn't raise the specter of a BAN on GMO crops.
In circles of political power, in Washington DC, for example, there are people who are known as consultants, "go-to guys" who can tell you "how the real game is played." They are brought in to educate amateurs who want to win victories.
These consultants are mostly bent from the beginning. They have their their own agendas and allegiances. They are bent and crooked and smart, and they sell their advice.
They could, for instance, show the YES ON 37 people that there was only one way to win a ballot initiative in California. That way would be: talk non-stop about "the consumer's right to know" what's in his food. Marginalize every other kind of talk.
Of course, this fits perfectly with Monsanto's plan.
The more talk there is about the right to know, the less talk there is about banning GMO crops...until the day comes when an outright ban seems so far away it's viewed as rather ludicrous.
This remoteness and ludicrousness is, you must understand, an artifact created by decades of talk about labeling. Labeling was front and center for so long that it became the only visible opposition to Monsanto.
Which, again, is precisely what Monsanto wanted.
Monsanto is a criminal, but it isn't stupid. Those people are smart. They know how to invent a debate on their terms and hide the real debate. They know how to suck in people who otherwise would be pushing hard for an outright ban on GMO crops.
They know how to use proxies to advise anti-GMO forces, so those forces stay in the framework of labeling.
There are similarities here to the old FBI COINTELPRO program, in which the FBI planted agents inside anti-government groups, in the 1960s. In that case, the FBI's objective was to stir up those groups to commit violent acts, thereby discrediting their political positions. It was an Operation Chaos.
In the case of GMO food, the objective has been to move in the opposite direction: dilute the message. Make it weaker. Make it more "sensible" and "pragmatic."
"Listen, kid. Let me tell you how the real game is played. You're in the big leagues now. You can't go off half-cocked and insist on a goal that nobody will support. Forget attacking Monsanto. You can do a little of that, just to keep your adrenaline flowing. But you have to frame this whole thing around what Americans ARE. Do you know what that is? Americans are, first and foremost, consumers. That's how you reach them. You tell them they have a right to know what's in their food. Then you have a chance of winning. You pound on 'right-to-know' day and night. That's where I can help you. That's where you can find allies. That's how you raise money."
And so it was, and so it is.
In the big-picture, YES ON 37's most powerful ally has been...Monsanto.
And now here is where we are: we don't really know where some of the most important anti-GMO activists are, in their thinking and action. We thought we did. But now we aren't sure.
So we need them to step up to the plate and tell us, right now, whether they really want a ban on GMO crops or just labeling.
I'm talking about people who have done a great deal to educate us and show us the way: for example, Joe Mercola, who was the biggest funder of Prop 37, who has written extensively abut GMOs; Jeffrey Smith, who has written a major book about GMOs; and Vendana Shiva, who has done heroic work to keep small farmers alive and expose the Monsanto agenda.
Reiterate your positions now. Tell us where you stand.
Let's put everything on the table.
Let's pause and reassess. Let's consider how labeling is viewed by Monsanto in their master plan.
Let's open up the vault on YES ON 37 and hear from their leaders, too.
Who is calling the shots over there? Joe Sandler, Andy Kimbrell, Gary Hirshberg, David Bronner, Grant Lundberg?
Give us your best thinking. Tell us what you're doing and why.
There's no reason this has to be a guessing game.
That's old politics. Let's open all the windows and let in the light.
Or do those of us who have inquiring minds form too small a demographic to interest you?
Jon Rappoport
The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails atwww.nomorefakenews.com
No comments:
Post a Comment