Transhumanist

THE GMO SCRAPBOOK: CHANGING THE FORM, NOT THE SUBSTANCE

Ms. M.W. sent me this important article, and it is definitely worth sharing. The game is afoot, it seems, for yet another of those cosmetic Madison avenue approaches to "address" the GMO issue, not with substantive science, but by more tinkering with language, which has become the fundamental tool in the arsenal of social engineering; substantive issues can be diffused and real debate and science replaced by mere adjustments, George Orwell style, to language:

World Food Prize winner outlines shift in strategy FOCUS ON CONSUMERS NOT JUST GROWERS

What's behind the move? Well, as the article notes, perhaps it's Mon(ster)santo having been voted Most Evil Corporation of the Year:

"Perhaps, but one thing is certain: Monsanto does seem acutely aware that the battle between supporters and opponents of GM has heated up and is extremely fierce. Moreover, after years of accumulating what Fraley views as an unfairly bad reputation, the Gene Giant has decided to change strategy: It plans to get closer to the consumer so it can work at convincing skeptics and critics of the safety of its products and the positive effects biotechnology presumably has on world agriculture [sic].
Monsanto admits it has a growing “credibility crisis” among consumers worldwide but it is playing an old discursive trick, asserting that this is not a problem of risk but of risk communication. According to Faus’s report, Monsanto’s lack of credibility is more complicated as illustrated by consumer rankings for 'Most Evil Corporation of the Year.'”
The Orwellian nature of the planned coming campaign is quite succinctly and aptly stated: 
Monsanto likely realizes this is more than a problem of risk communication and is instead more a question of taking control of risk characterization to manipulate and create confusion and hence inaction among the broadest consumer market segments possible. Doublethink style, education is obfuscation. (Emphasis added)
True enough, that is what "education" is in modern corporate crapitalist oligarchical corrupt America: it's just another system of obfuscation:
"The artist [sic] in the age of digital reproduction becomes an information manager who is best when s/he recognize how to manipulate language and other symbolic discursive games, especially through what we might term systematically-distorted communication. Presumably it then becomes a simple matter of activating mass media discourse agents to define and constrain truth claims and the qualification of those deemed able to make objective truth claims by virtue of a particular (reductionist) way of knowing the world."
As is evident, this skilfully written and considered article is as much about the GMO issue as a culturally defining issue, exposing the methods and interests of corpoate elites and their attempts to manipulate the public through what can only be described as social engineering gimmicks: all form, and, typical for Mon(ster)santo and other GMO corporations and advocates, no substance.  So watch for it, folks, because it's coming: the agribusiness racketeers will now change the vocabularly in their commercials and appearances, from "Genetically Modified Organisms" to "Genetically Improved Food", and voila! Crisis averted.
Of course, it won't work, and it won't work because these people are clueless, and they are clueless because they have surrounded themselves with their own yes men and propaganda. What they don't get and will never admit is that the real science is increasingly against them, the real production figures and economics of genuine heirloom seeds are increasingly against them; they will never admit that their science was inadequate, they will never admit that they wickedly stacked the government deck in their favor, and that they wickedly pursued the small farmer. They won't admit that the issue is substantive, and not something that people will fall for in another advertising campaign by merely tinkering with language. They won't admit even the possibility that there may be another legitimate point of view. The inability to even acknowledge this possibility is always the first step toward Orwellian "solutions" of doublespeak.
That said, watch for the coming "language change", rather like when global warming didn't pan out, it had to be changed to "climate change." Well.. duh! The climate changes! We used to call it "the seasons."
See you on the flip side.

6 thoughts on “THE GMO SCRAPBOOK: CHANGING THE FORM, NOT THE SUBSTANCE”

  1. Russia has the right idea: draft legislation in Russian parliament proposes that producers of harmful GMOs and biotech products should be punished as terrorists.
    http://rt.com/news/159188-russia-gmo-terrorist-bill/

    In the meantime, mark your calendars for the main event:
    May 24th, 2014 … Global March Against Monsanto is happening!
    Find your local event, get info, tell your friends, and join in the fun!
    http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/p/blog-page_5.html
    https://www.rebelmouse.com/MarchAgainstMonsanto/MarchMay24/

  2. johnycomelately

    As an aside, it is very difficult to introduce novel bacteria into the human digestinal tract (apart from modifying existing strains) and that brings up the topic of airborne delivery methods which makes the anti tobacco campaign very very interesting.

    A smoker produces excess mucous which protects the lung lining from foreign particulates.

    Another interesting tidbit is that excess bacterial overgrowth induces insulin resistence and consequently low serotonin levels (which increases fearfulness), while tobacco ingestion increases serotonin levels and confidence.

    Given that the powers that be practice group think psychology, a populace with low serotonin levels is useful to induce ‘group fear’.

  3. Selling poison with different wording, the Monsteranto public relations department goes into overdrive. Well as Joseph points out, a lot of people and more to the point “countries” ain’t gunna buy it, and sooner or later Monsteranto will go the way of the dodo bird, and good riddance.
    I always differ to mother nature in these instances, what a woman!!, she not only got it right the first time, but continues to do so on a regular basis.
    Joseph’ and Dr. de Hart’ book Transhumanism nails it, and in it we see a “trend” that the elites want us all to follow, sorry, I cant do it because I woke up many years ago.

  4. marcos toledo

    There one thing the GMO dope peddlers don’t get poison by any other name it’s still poison. These zombie dead heads fantasize they can lie themselves out of any problem. It seems that their holy duty mandate from heaven is to turn Earth into DEAD WORLD for the good of the universe they hate hate themselves and their species and consider us a mistake of nature and why not make a zillion dollars while doing it.

  5. johnycomelately

    When businesses fail the usual recourse is to pull up stumps and go to a more profitable venture, this doesn’t seem to be the case with GMO which makes one think there is more than meets the eye.

    An unusual perspective I have read is that human microbiota posses the characteristic of a secondary neural network that can effect human behaviour (space bacteria all of a sudden becomes interesting). If certain fungi and bacteria have known effects then manipulating the food to advantage particular strains can have the effect of behavior control.

    A bit out there but this is the home of ‘high octane speculation’.

    1. Good point Johny. Continuing the high octane thread, I wonder just how much of our overall consciousness is the product of the micro organisms that we carry around. They outnumber our cells 10/1 so, the hive mind of these creatures may influence us or interface with us or actually be an intractable part of mind.
      Oschman et al. outlines a model for information organization at the cellular level of single celled creatures, based on the electro magnetic properties displayed by micro tubules and other protein fascial elements of the cell. This provides a model for larger organisms, when considering energetic modes of cellular communication.
      On tobacco, yes, a shamanic herb, yes, it effects various neuro transmitters, however the mucus production which is protective in nature when chronicly activated is a problem. On many levels. Then there is the additives. Its very simple, we are not designed to breath smoke. Of any kind. Especially if that becomes a regular habit.

Comments are closed.