An Homogenized World - Posted to TPMuckracker

When I was a high school junior at Montgomery Blair High School in Silver Spring, Maryland, I started a United Nation’s Club. I vaguely remember that Carl Bernstein joined my club, before he graduated to become a cub reporter at the Washington Post. As a result of my love for the UN, I subsequently became the national student chairman of the United World Federalists, a group led by Norman Cousins that wanted a world government based on the U.N. charter. The United World Federalists aspired to put some teeth into the structure of the United Nations, so that it could eventually replace nation state armies with its own superior forces. This we hoped would prevent world war III.

That was almost 50 years ago, and I have since learned a few things about this planet. I now believe that in my youth I was a pawn for the American version of the English Fabian Socialist movement. The Fabians helped create the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921, the United Nations in 1945, and other New World Order groups that aim for a world government based upon communist principles, with a softer, gradualist, non-violent approach. Their ideal is to promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people, in opposition to principles of individuality and freedom,

Led by the Rockefeller family, who donated the block of land upon which the U.N. complex now sits, they have an elitist agenda. You can see signs of that agenda everywhere these days—control of the masses through distraction from the real issues of the day, through entertainment, gossip and yellow journalism; the creation of faux political fights where nothing ever changes, or it’s one step forward, two steps backward. They want to control all financial transactions, our food supply, our medicine and drugs, and our travel. They are orchestrating the world financial crisis in order to centralize control of all currencies. They are coordinating the control of our food through multi-national agrochemical corporations that have gobbled up seed companies all over the world, ensuring that farmers can no longer save seed for subsequent years. They are redistributing various ethnic and racial groups to various parts of the world, calling it “a melting pot,” or “multiculturalism.” Such mixing of races and cultures tends to reach a point that rarely engenders harmony, but instead keeps various nationalities and races fighting for the same jobs, and the same real estate. This tends to foment old hatreds in new locations.

I had sincerely hoped that Obama was not part of this scenario, but with each passing day, I am disappointed. He has made no moves to clean the Faustian Augean stables of all the real damage the past eight years have done to American and world society. There has been no repeal of the Patriot Act. No arrests of the many criminals who profited and lied to us. No connecting of the dots concerning World Trade Center Building No. 7 that fell into its own footprint at 5:25 pm on September 11th, 2001, conveniently incinerating the Security and Exchange Commission’s financial records of Enron and its rip-off of Californians during the energy crisis. Even today with all the evidence of the many lies of the last administration, no MSM or fast-rising blogger has teased apart the official theory of what happened on that day.

Well, if you like homogenized milk, then welcome to an homogenized world.

Genetically Manipulated Food News

New York Times article that I missed on how companies like Monsanto are preventing agricultural researchers from using their GM seed for research.

And here is an article about a BBC program that was aired in Australia last week that was extremely pro-GM food:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9183

GM's charm offensive
By Greg Revell - posted Friday, 17 July 2009

Am I really helping to starve Africans?

I feel really bad. I've just seen the documentary "Can GM save the world?" shown on SBS TV recently. As a critic of genetically modified (GM) foods, I was left wondering if I'm morally a bad person for contributing to the starvation of millions in Africa by opposing GM crops - at least that's what this documentary would have you believe.

But am I morally bankrupt for advocating clean, green food production systems rather than corporate controlled biotech seeds, pesticides and other industrial agrichemicals? If so, then that makes me, along with many scientists, environmental groups and most consumers, complicitous in a massive Mao-like genocide.

Maybe it's not me. Perhaps the documentary wanted me to think that. If you thought that the documentary sounded like a paid advertisement for the biotechnology industry, then you'd be forgiven for thinking so. The biotech industry has long recognised that their aggressive, and some say arrogant, style has sullied the impact that any direct advertising could possibly have. Far better to work with TV and radio researchers to promote your message using celebrities and the noble scientist as a proxy - preferably both at the same time. And the documentary's host, Jimmy Doherty is the perfect foil. His boffin appeal and pin-up boy good looks plays straight out of the Jamie Oliver school of geezer charm. Surround him with a slew of pro-GM scientists and create an air of impartiality by offering Jimmy as a self-styled poster child for sustainable farming and you've got a winning formula. A stroke of directorial genius I would have thought.

But charm offensive aside, the documentary's main conclusions were clear: GM was "so simple", "so natural" that it would be morally corrupt to be critical of a technology that "was amazing" and "offered hope" to millions in the developing world. Sure, there were nominal offerings by two GM critics, but quite apart from the fact that each had less than a minute of air time, they were both book-ended by rebuttals from GM scientists, ensuring that they served as little more than a linking device for the main pro-GM thrust.

The "GM will feed the world" myth is a deviously clever piece of PR. The need has arisen because GM food has not enjoyed the worldwide acceptance that their biotech inventors had hoped for. On the contrary, GM crops have engendered massive consumer resistance with environmental and consumer groups rallying together to create a powerful global "no GMO" voice. Reeling from this unexpected rejection and devoid of any saleable consumer benefits, the biotech industry needed a distraction. Their target was the emotional heart-strings of western consumers. And the vehicle? The hungry in the third world. Without their consent, the plight of the third world has been thrust into the service of biotech operatives.

The myth is powerful because who wants to be seen as opposing a technology that will feed hungry mouths? But can it? Before we slavishly succumb to its emotional pull, does the assertion stand up to scrutiny?

The framing of the "can GM feed the world?" question assumes a priori that there isn't enough food already being produced. This is demonstrably false. Critics point to a 2006 UN FAO report that acknowledges that world agriculture today produces 17 per cent more calories per person than it did 30 years ago despite a 70 per cent population increase, yet the gap between the fed and the underfed is greater than ever.

We now have the perverse situation where there are more obese people in the west than there are malnourished in the third-world. The real reason people go hungry is because they don't have the money to buy food, the arable land to grow it or because of war and conflict. The distorted global food trading system that favours large agribusiness interests at the expense of the subsistence farmer also plays its part.

Asking if GM can feed the world suggests that GM is the only solution. Omitted from consideration are truly environmentally, economically and culturally sustainable food production systems such as organics and biodynamics that place people and soils at the centre of their food security. New genetically modified magic beans that are subject to intellectual property rights are clearly not a solution donated to the world community for their attendant use.

To feed the hungry, GM crops need to be accessible to those who need them, yet 95 per cent of all GM crops are grown in just four countries: The US, Argentina, Canada and Brazil most of which are fed to animals, ostensibly to fatten up livestock for fast-food hamburgers and for use in other highly processed foods - no third world lives saved there.

But maybe GM crops have something special that will increase yields? With only two commercial GM traits available; one being herbicide resistance, the other that allows the plant to create it's own insect toxin, the current suite of GM crops are more about ensuring continued sales of pesticides more than feeding the hungry. There is simply no such thing as a commercially available GM crop to increase yield or exhibit drought tolerance. Such falsehoods are the flights of PR fancy but are required to sustain the "feed the world" myth.

As a society, we need to ask: Who is telling us that GM can solve world hunger? Not surprisingly, it's those who stand to benefit financially.

But surely we don't believe that Monsanto, the company that gave the world PCBs, Agent Orange, dioxins and GM crops, is now a benevolent philanthropist out to save needy people? If GM crops were truly about feeding the hungry, then why does Monsanto so aggressively assert their intellectual property rights by suing farmers for the simple act of saving seeds from their crops? Third world farmers simply cannot afford this legal risk, much less the royalty fees, expensive seeds and chemicals that GM agriculture mandates.

In response, we are starting to see a seismic change in people's attitudes when it comes to food. People are connecting the dots between a genetically modified, industrialised, global farming model and the impact to human health, the environment and global food security. Truly sustainable farming systems that nurture people, their soils and communities through a harmonic resonance with natural systems are experiencing a renaissance across the world as witnessed by the phenomenal growth of the organics sector and the proliferation of farmers markets in every city, town and village across the globe.

Most importantly the renaissance is helping to feed people where it's needed most - in the third world. In stark contrast, the only thing that GM crops are feeding is corporate profits.

Letter to Sydney Morning Herald On GM "Science"

Some readers, like Mr. Colin Jeffrey, think that genetically manipulated food is the product of good science and nothing to be afraid of. Well, thalidomide, DDT, and releasing the cane toad in Australia were all considered to be good science in their day. Just because someone wears a white coat and works in a clean, shiny laboratory does not make them a good scientist.

We know enough now about how unlabeled GM was inserted into our diets to be a bit skeptical of governmental reassurances. Politicians are always seeking funding for reelection, and thus they make sure that GM is given a green light with lax safety regulation. The safety testing involved lasts about three weeks to three months on lab rats, and if the rats don't die, then we get to eat the stuff. To hurry the "patented food" to market, there is no multi-generational tests done, and no inspection of the effects on reproduction.. All testing is done in corporate labs, with governmental labs simply rubber stamping the results.

America has Only One Political Party

I think very few of your realize that we only have one political party in the United States. The only governing party we have puts on a charade every four years of having a real election, with candidates vying for who can be as different from the previous bums as possible.

The one party we have is like a person with a right hand and a left hand. Bush represented the right hand and Obama represents the left hand, but the brain still belongs to some secret combination of the owners of the Federal Reserve Bank, the C.I.A. and the Council on Foreign Relations. Although I really like Obama as a person, he appears more and more to be just a puppet of the powers that be, who want to keep the status quo.

Why is Fluoride in our Drinking Water?

I copied the following directly from the net, as I feel it is so important to know this information. Both Stalin and Hitler medicated the inmates of their gulags and concentration camps with this stuff, and for many years it has been in 60 percent of American drinking water, and is now being pushed in Australia too.

"Controversial fluoride is one of the basic ingredients
in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin
nerve gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUoride).

Sodium fluoride, a hazardous-waste by-product from
the manufacture of aluminum, is a common ingredient
in rat and cockroach poisons, anesthetics, hypnotics,
psychiatric drugs, and military nerve gas. It's
historically been quite expensive to properly dispose
of, until some aluminum industries with an overabundance
of the stuff sold the public on the terrifically insane
but highly profitable idea of buying it at a 20,000%
markup, injecting it into our water supplies, and then
DRINKING it. Yes, a 20,000% markup: Fluoride--
intended only for human consumption by people
under 14 years of age--is injected into our drinking
water supply at approx. 1 part-per-million (ppm), but
since we only drink 1/2 of one percent of the total
water supply, the rest literally goes down the drain
as a free hazardous-waste disposal for the chemical
industry, where we PAY them so that we can flush their
expensive hazardous waste down our toilets. How many
salesmen dream of such a deal? (Follow the money!)"

Obscene Drug Mark Ups (U.S.A.)

The women who wrote this email and signed below are Federal Budget Analysts in Washington, DC :
Did you ever wonder how much it costs a drug company for the active ingredient in prescription medications? Some people think it must cost a lot, since many drugs sell for more than $2.00 per tablet. We did a search of offshore chemical synthesizers that supply the active ingredients found in drugs approved by the FDA. The chart below speaks for itself.

Celebrex 100 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $130.27 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.60 Percen t markup: 21,712%

Claritin 10 mg Consumer Price (100 tablets): $215.17 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.71 Percent markup: 30,306%

Lipitor 20 mg Consumer Price (100 tablets): $272.37 Cost of general active ingredients: $5.80 Percent markup: 4,696%

Norvasec 10 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $188.29 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.14 Percent markup: 134,493%

Paxil 20 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $220.27 Cost of general active ingredients: $7.60 Percent markup: 2,898%

Prozac 20 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $247.47 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.11 Percent markup: 224,973%

Xanax 1 mg Consumer price (100 tablets) : $136.79 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.024 Percent markup: 569,958%

Zithromax 600 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $1,482.19 Cost of general active ingredients: $18.78 Percent markup: 7,892%

Zoloft 50 mg Consumer price: $206.87 Cost of general active ingredients: $1.75 Percent markup: 11 ,821%

So often, we blame the drug companies for the high cost of drugs, and usually rightfully so. But in this case, the fault clearly lies with the pharmacies themselves. For example, if you had to buy a prescription drug, and bought the name brand, you might pay $100 for 100 pills. The pharmacist might tell you that if you get the generic equivalent, they would only cost $80, making you think you are "saving" $20. What the pharmacist is not telling you is that those 100 generic pills may have only cost him $10! At the end of the report, one of the anchors asked Mr. Wilson whether or not there were any pharmacies that did not adhere to this practice, and he said that Costco, Sam's Club and other discount volume stores consistently charged little over their cost for the generic drugs. I would like to mention, that although these are a "membership" type store, you do NOT have to be a member to buy prescriptions there, as it is a federally regulated substance. You just tell them at the door that you wish to use the pharmacy, and they will let you in.

Sharon L. Davis, Budget Analyst, US Department of Commerce Room 6839 Office Fax: 202-482-5480 Email Address: sdavis@docgov

Mary Palmer, Budget Analyst, Bureau of Economic Analysis Office of Budget & Finance

My New York Times Comments on an Article by Pico Iyer

In response to Mr. Pico Iyer's article called "The Joy of Less"

(My comments follow)

As an American who has lived in several parts of the world, including Kyoto for a year, I couldn’t wait to learn to speak Japanese, and did so within six months of arriving there in 1966. I believe Mr. Iyer has chosen not to learn the language in order to maintain his sense of serenity. Learning a foreign language and also living in that country almost automatically mires one in its institutionalized problems. My observations now of Japan, having lived there a total of eight years, is that the modern culture is very frenetic, but is kept in a precarious balance of sanity, due to its traditional values and Zen-like qualities built into the language itself.

Having lived in Kyoto in the 60s however, I can hardly see any beauty in Kyoto these days, with its modern tall buildings obliterating the sky that used to be dominated by temples. Also, the levels of electromagnetic smog in the whole of Japan are beyond anything I can tolerate.

No, I currently reside in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney, Australia, where I write books, occasionally watch a DVD, cuddle my rabbit, and grow organic vegetables. I do worry about the state of America and the world though, as I don’t feel at all isolated from what looks like a growing worldwide political consolidation, when I would much prefer a return to an era like that of the ancient Greek city states.