GMOs | GMO Scrapbook


April 15, 2013 By Joseph P. Farrell

Normally I am about as skeptical of The New York TimesThe Washington Post and other mainstream rags as I am about the Warren Commission and other "official" explanations. But this one is so interesting I have to pass it along, and it comes courtesy of Jon Rappaport's website:

Even the NY Times is now rejecting Monsanto GMO science

Now, I have to admit to a certain amount of "I told you so" gloating here. For one thing, I was the enfant terrible in my middle and high school biology classes, always asking the unwanted question of our Darwinian textbooks: if the giraffe evolved a longer neck to eat tree leaves, why didn't the trees evolve taller and unreachable branches. The whole mechanism was a viscious circle, explaining everything, and nothing. The old adage seemed to me, even then, self-evident. If you see through everything, then that means only that you see nothing at all.

The Times Magazine article by Bittman is correct: all the millions invested in the questionable technology has only led to more resistant strains of weeds and bugs. We're looking at the same evolutionary phenomenon that we see in the case of antibiotics.

But Rappaport is also correct:

"Of course, if it were a newspaper with any real courage, it would launch a whole series of front-page pieces on this enormous failure, and the gigantic fraud that lies behind it. Then the Times might actually see its readership improve.

"Momentum is something its editors understand well enough. You set your hounds loose on a story, you send them out with a mandate to expose failure, fraud, and crime down to their roots, and you know that, in the ensuing months, formerly reticent researchers and corporate employees and government officials will appear out of the woodwork confessing their insider knowledge.

"The story will deepen. It will take on new branches. The revelations will indict the corporation (Monsanto), its government partners, and the scientists who falsified and hid data.

"In this case, the FDA and the USDA will come in for major hits. They will backtrack and lie and mis-explain, for a while, and then, like buds in the spring, agency employees will emerge and admit the truth. These agencies were co-conspirators."

The reason? The answer is simple, the Time and Post are the newspaper versions of SeeBS, CNoNews, Faux News, and all the other mighty Wurlitzers of the corporate-government incestual Fascism that rules the country:

"Yes, the Times could make all this happen. But it won’t. There are two basic reasons. First, it considers Big Ag too big to fail. There is now so much acreage in America tied up in GMO crops that to reject the whole show would cause titanic eruptions on many levels.

"And second, the Times is part of the very establishment that views the GMO industry as a way of bringing Globalism to fruition for the whole planet."

And it is, like it or not, probably part of the whole globaloney agenda of the banksters and elitists. But there is a much deeper flaw here, and it is an epistemological one, one that will unravel the elites themselves.

That flaw is the viewpoint that science, that data, can be bought, skewed, altered or photoshopped to suit their agenda. It is an epistemological warfare on the truth; it is a kind of wishful thinking by which the elite have only deluded themselves. Thus, the Times piece really is just a limited hang out, an attempt to get control of the issue once again. What the Times fails to mention, however, is the growing list of nations banning the crap that Duponzanto and "agribusiness" are peddling. That only reveals the depth of the epistemological and cultural problem. Those other nations, corrupt as their own oligarchs are, are not nearly as dysfunctional as those in the good ole bought and paid for USA.

Eventually the wholesale assault on genuine science will only mean the inevitable decline of the West, and of its elite. By buying the "right data," the elites are only re-creating an infallible magisterium with dogmas to defend and heretics to burn. And that system only lasts until someone takes a look through a telescope.

See you on the flip side.