Little Nicky Machiavelli

Little Nicky Machiavelli has evidence The Independent newspaper is now owned by Monsasnto and exists only to publish Monsanto propaganda and advance Monsanto's agenda of gaining a monopoly on seed stock for the world's stape food crops.

If GM crops are bad, show us the evidence
Steve Connor
Monday 3 June 2013
full article at The Independent

"It’s no longer tenable to call GM ‘unnatural’ and so inherently wrong

It is nearly 20 years since the first GM crops were grown.

Some 28 countries cultivate them on a commercial scale, and many hundreds of millions of people now safely eat GM food – directly or indirectly – on a regular basis. Yet, to judge from the rhetoric of anti-GM activists – from the rough-cut environmentalists to the smooth-talking purveyors of organic food – you could be forgiven for thinking that medical catastrophe and genetic Armageddon are upon us, courtesy of the “Frankenfoods” revolution.

Calestous Juma, a professor of international development at Harvard, is not one to mince his words when it comes to genetically modified crops. To paraphrase his speech at McGill University in Montreal later today, Juma believes the time has come for the vociferous opponents of GM to put up or shut up. The use of transgenic crops, he points out, has to date prevented the spraying of 473 million kilograms of toxic pesticides, reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 23.1bn kg – equivalent to taking 10.2 million cars off the road – and saved 108.7 million hectares of land from being turned into farmland. Rather than creating environmental havoc, GM crops have, by and large, been better for the environment than growing the equivalent conventional crops, with relatively lower yields and higher chemical input.

Equally, no-one has died or fallen ill directly as a result of eating GM food. Studies showing that GM food damages the health of laboratory animals have been discredited. Contrary to what the pro-organic lobby would have us believe, it is actually more dangerous to eat organic food – as the 53 people in Germany who died in 2011 from eating organic beansprouts tragically discovered."

end extract

he hi wrong on all counts. Not only is there a mountain of evidence by perfectly crespectable scientists (a couple of nobel prizewinning biologists amongs them) that cast very serious doubts on some strains of GM staple food crops (the way they generalise is an attempt at deflection typical of the corporate 'science' lobby. No genuine scientist would ever say GM foods are safe or are not safe, they would examine GM seeds species by species.

Safety is not the primary issue here, the world is overpopulated, the planet cannot sustain 7 billion people, especially with the poor five billion demanding lifestyles enjoyed by the privileged two billion, Our New Unhappy Lords will reduce population one way or another, be it by war, famine, pestilence, plague of GM organisms. No, the real issue is about monopoly control of the seed stock.

Is this shit sucking sycophant, this corporate lackey, and rent seeking apology for a human being really asking us to believe it would be a good idea to had a monopoly on the food supply to a corporation whose track records shows they are utterly ruthless in pursuit of the corporate goals, whose criminal record showws they have repeatedly falsified data, lied, bribed and used threats and coercion to foist unsafe products on the world.

Connor says, "Show us the evidence" but as with the CAGWARTs (Carbon Driven Anthropogenic Global Warming Alternative Reality Twats), the GM lobby will try to deny any evidence that exposes their scam is invalid. As for Connor, if the cupid stunt is still asking for evidence what fucking planet has he been on for the past twenty years?

One of the top comments I read under his post was this:

Gail Evans:
a) The seeds are patented, which means farmers can no longer produce seeds from their own crops for the next season, but are forced into further monetary outlay to buy from GMO seed companies. If they do not and produce their own seed from GM source material, they can get sued for millions.

b) The chemicals used on these crops are highly toxic and in Argentina have resulted in rising cases of cancer.

c) The use of these chemicals is killing off the bee population which the planet needs for pollination.

d) The studies done by the French scientists, one of the few that have actually been allowed to be published in the Main Stream Media, have proved that these GMO crops cause cancer, infertility and shortened life spans. On the contrary, companies like Monsanto who have to employ people like Blackwater, have done all they can to gag the press so that they are the alpha and the omega on the whole subject.

In South Africa a full open, honest and fully disclosed Independent Scientific Study ( independent of all companies such as Monsanto and all their affiliates, known and unknown covert operatives such a Blackwater) by at least three different laboratories over no less than a period of five years. In the interim, all products containing any GMO ingredients, or any ingredients derived from a genetically modified plant, or any meat product fed a genetically modified feed, must be labelled as such in bold and clear type.

French GMO Research Finds Monsanto Corn Causes Cancer: America Should Pay Attention
http://www.policymic.com/articles/15889/french-gmo-research-finds-monsanto-corn-causes-cancer-america-should-pay-attention_ Fatal Soybean-

The documentary shows how the lucrative soybean industry in Argentina has culminated in the death of a great number of residents suffering from cancer due to the overuse of chemical pesticides.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K92N3EG_NA4 Monsanto Now Owns Mercenaries Blackwater Newly Named ‘Academi’ http://naturalrevolution.org/monsanto-now-owns-mercenaries-blackwater-newly-named-academi/

followed by this:

albalma 8 days ago
Evidence?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=weed-whacking-herbicide-p&page=3

http://nobull.mikecallicrate.com/news/nobull-glyposate-roundup-may-in-fact-be-the-most-biologically-disruptive-chemical-in-our-enviornment-its-effects-are-insidious/

http://nosprayjeffco.com/2013/04/28/toxic-food-glyphosate-is-a-toxic-presence-in-our-food/

http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/human_urine.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257596/

Need more? Independently confirmed, Roundup is toxic! Saying otherwise is a crime and should be prosecuted because you are killing people! I have nothing against genetically modifying a plant to better survive, but the way these people are doing it is not ok!

then this:

pdjmoo 8 days ago:
The highly unregulated biotech re-engineering and patenting of life is highly dangerous and unethical. Science does not enough about the intract web of life to be meddling with singular aspects of our biosphere, creating chain reactions.

Further the issue of GMOs is more about the total impact on the environment and human health that is only now beginning to show up.

The patenting of reengineered seeds, the pesticides, chemicals, fertilizers required to grow them all owned by the same biotech cartel; and the devastation to our natural biodiversity, poisoning of our soils and waterways, killing off beneficial insects all have given our future over to a science still evolving and painfully disconnected from the greater health of our environment and human health. We are rolling the dice in a relatively new aspect of science, biotechnology, that has little or no oversight and regulation and much of it, once released, will be very difficult to reverse.

Finally, it is driven by a trillion dollar biotech cartel and, insofar as the gmo aspect and ownership of the global seed supply means control of the global food supply and the pesticides needed to control them. Not okay. YOUR FOOD, YOUR HEALTH

Back to me. GMOs are not the problem, it is making them resistant to chemicals that damage the environment and have unaccounted for reactions in the human body that is the problem.

As long as you improve the natural resistance, or growth of a plant that is not a problem at all. The problem is that by genetically modifying a plant to be resistant to weekiller and insecticide we turn that plant into a vehicle for delivering the toxin into the human food chain.

A recent report takes 123 pages to list and summarise peer reviewed research papers raising serious concerns about G M foods. Scientists respond with their usual knee jerk "ah but it's not proper science (to a 'scientist' it seem, proper science is only that which affirms their prejudices)Well you should understand by now only a fool would take a scientists word for anything. Check the evidence for youself and then see if you agree with Steve Connor and the scientific crooks and liars he writes poropaganda for. Here's the 123 pages of evidence they pretend to be unaware of

Not really evidence they will shout. Well look, the report lists project after project, all peer reviewed (scientists place great faith on peer review)so again we see the dishonesty and hypocrisy of those who defend the genetic engineering industry.

This article does not talk about the chemicals Monsanto customers are contractually obliged to use and which are deadly to humans. Science doesn't need to tell me that putting agent orange in my food is bad for me, but it does say so: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637 Rats died 2-3 times more rapidly than untreated animals. The author is a liar and he is welcome to sue me for saying so! I shall leave him without a career, a home, a family, a pot to piss in or a penny to scratch his arse with and take great pleasure in doing so.

With fascist Lib Dem and Labour MPs trying to abolish free speech and press freedom to stop intelligent commentators exposing the great scam that was global warming and science tits getting more and more hysterical in their attempts to pretend that what is happening is not the exact opposite of everything they predicted, I found this interesting essay on how the deception was carried out.

SPINNING THE CLIMATE:
THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE
CHANGE (IPCC)
Vincent Gray

Here's an extract from his introduction:

PREFACE
I have spent a lifetime on scientific research. My father was a working class intellectual, eager for knowledge. He took me to all the London museums and I remember a visit to the Royal Albert Hall to see the Exhibition which celebrated the discovery of Electromagnetic Induction by
Michael Faraday. This must have been 1931 when I was 9 years old. My secondary school in London, Latymer Upper, had top scientists, as the only job those days was teaching. I won a Major scholarship to Emmanuel College Cambridge and obtained a PhD degree from war work on flame thrower and incendiary bomb fuels.

I avoided academia as I wished to help industry, and over the years I had a range of jobs with industrial research organisations working on oil, protein, plastics, fibres, paint, adhesives, building, coal and forensic science in The UK, France, Canada and New Zealand. I published well over 100 scientific papers, several patents and several Chapters on books.

After retiring from my job in New Zealand in 1987 I worked for four and a half years in China on coal slurries. The colleges, in Hangzhou,and in Kunming,where I taught English during my last year, hadexcellent libraries of science journals in English.

I became interested in the Greenhouse Effect and gave several lectures on the subject in China. In a visit back to New Zealand in 1989 I was invited to comment on the drafts of the Supplement to the First Report (published 1992) that had been circulated to my former employer from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. These comments were submitted, amongst others, by the Director, R.S Whitney. I submitted comments as a Reviewer for all of the subsequent IPCC Reports, including the Fifth
Report, which is now pending.

The IPCC is claimed by some to have provided evidence that the earth’s climate is harmed by changes in the atmospheric concentrations. of greenhouse gases. These claims are false. This report explains how dubious observations and some genuine science has been distorted and “spun” to support a global campaign to limit human emissions of certain greenhouse gases which has no scientific basis and no proven capacity to forecast future climate.

ENVIRONMENTAL RELIGION
Environmental religion believes that humans are destroying the “planet” and the “environment” and it requires reasons and evidence to j
ustify this belief. The movement became influential in the late 1960s. A number of local meetings led to the first United Nations Conference on the Environment in Stockholm in 1972. Successful attempts weremade to abolish pesticides, restrict economic development in many countries from restrictive laws and in 1988, the Montreal Protocol prohibited substances that deplete the ozone layer.

In the late 1970s the environmental movement began to adopt the theory that emissions of “greenhouse gases” were destr oying the earth by causing “global warming”.

THE LEAD - UP TO THE IPCC
There were several scares that misfired. The “Nuclear Winter”, (Turco et al 1983), based on computer models of a nuclear war, was shown to be a hoax. There arose a “shopping list” of “Man’s Impact on the Global Environment” (Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1971) with the preparation of a “short list” that could be exploited further. The earliest success arose from the discovery of the “ozone hole” (Molina and Rowlands 1974).who claimed that halocarbons in the stratosphere were destroying ozone and thus enhancing ultraviolet radiation.

The United Nations Environment Conference in Stockholm, 1972, acted on this claim and set up the machinery to ban the use of halocarbons with the Montreal Protocol which came into force on January 1st 1989.

There followed what amounts to a shopping list of supposed human effects on the environment which could be souped up to impose restrictions on human activity (MIT 1979). Prominent amongst these was the emissions of carbon dioxide from combustion of fossil fuels . Bert Bolin, the Swedish meteorologist was behind the World Climate Research Programme is 1979 and
several conferences in Villach, Austria.

The origins of the theory that so - called green house gases enhanced global temperature, and that additions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere would cause additional warming of the climate has recently been reviewed by Gray (2013). The idea was promoted in 1895 by the ...Read all

And There's More
This Iain Dale post is worth reading for itself but have a look at the comment thread to, it isn't long but there are plenty of links cited to articles and scientific papers that prove "the science is settled" was always a big fat lie.

Have a look down this list and count how many of these tactics you see being used daily by mainstream print and broadcast media and the political, academic and business establishment

From Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist) by H. Michael Sweeney. These 25 rules are everywhere in media, from political debates, to television shows, to comments on a blog.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumors”. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a “wild rumor” which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows”, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the “high road” and “confess” with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, “just isn’t so.” Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

Source

Education Is Out, Indoctrination Is In
This is about a teacher in america who has quit the profession in disgust at the way left wing indoctrination is replacing neutral education in schools. Many British teachers have said similar things and Daily stirrer occasional contributor Sally Redfern quit the teaching profession for the same reason.

Europe Kicks Monsantos Arse Over GMOs
While the politicians and bureaucrats are mad to push GMOs down our throats (literally) publich opinion hostile to Frankenstein Foods has pushed Monsanto out of Europe ... for the present.

Forget Recession, US banks Post Record Profits
Do you feel the value of your savings has been eroded and the buying power of your earnings reduced by higher taxes and austerity measures governments have introduced to 'save the economy.'Yeah but ... we're all in this together aren't we and everybody is making sacrifices, you might well reply. Except we're not all in it together, not everyone is ...

The Monsanto Company likes to proclaim that they are the good guys, here to selflessly feed the world, help with sustainable agriculture, and, as if those lofty goals are not enough, champion human rights across the globe. All you have to do is look at their commitments page to see how worthy they are of a shiny corporate halo:'

Monsanto propaganda makes claims like this:

"At the heart of Monsanto is a very clear and principled code of conduct – one we expect all employees, contractors and management to live by every day. We operate under a genuine value system—our pledge—that demonstrates integrity, respect, ethical behavior, perspective and honesty as a foundation for everything we do.'

A key part of fulfilling the promise of our value system is by engaging our communities in a significant and positive manner. Not only do we work hard to support the family farmer in a variety of ways, but we also ..."

So why, you might well ask, does a company that is so angelic and so committed to putting common good ahead of corporate profits need a private army:

Real all about Monsanto's gowing paranoia over the anti - GM movement and the extraordinary steps the corporation is taking to protect it's poisonous intellectual property:

Why Does Monsanto Need An Army Of Mercenary Soldiers - The Organic Prepper

RELATED POSTS:
Black Hat Biotech
Is The Monsanto Scam Unravelling
He Who Controls The Food Controls The Universe

Chemical Cosh For Kids That Do Not Conform
Don't Need Control Freak Science For Better Crops