Social sciences and the destruction of the individual

by Jon Rappoport

January 3, 2015

Think of this article as an introduction, a prelude, and an invitation to my three collections: The Matrix Revealed; Exit From The Matrix; and Power Outside The Matrix.

Everything in those collections is about the individual—not merely his bare-bones survival or his desperate attempt to hold on in an increasingly Group world. No.

The Matrix series is about the unlimited expansion of the power of the individual, in thought, in action, in creating futures and new realities. This kind of natural power is a joy.

The Matrix series is all about accessing that power and using it.

Okay. Here is the prelude…

Consider this: an individual writes a book in which he states that the individual doesn’t exist. That’s quite a hustle, if he can get away with it. And of course, he can.

Naturally, he’s employed by a college. What better place to operate con games? He banks his paychecks and no one ever says, “Wait, by your own admission you’re not an individual. Therefore, your checks were made out incorrectly. Your $$ assets are null and void.”

You may or not be interested in the sexual practices of Trobriand Islanders. You may or not be interested in what some tribe in the Amazon jungle is doing on a slow Thursday.

But either way, what sociologists and anthropologists have written about such subjects is as much science as you sitting in a park and making notes on what people are doing in the playground.

One of the founders of sociology, Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), coined the phrase “collective consciousness.” Durkheim insisted there were “inherent” qualities that existed in society apart from individuals. Exposing his own absurd theory, he went so far as to claim suicide was one of those qualities, as if the “phenomenon” were present beyond any individual choice to end life.

He wrote: “Man is the more vulnerable to self-destruction the more he is detached from any collectivity, that is to say, the more he lives as an egoist.”

In other words, according to Burkheim, the individual who rejects the norms and conformity of society must be wrapped up in himself in some morally repugnant way. There are no other alternatives. He’s either part of the Good Glob or he’s a criminal.

In his book, The Division of Labour in Society (1893), Burkheim spun moral conscience in the following fashion: “…Make yourself usefully fulfill a determinate function.” He cited this as a kind of command issued by collective consciousness. This is the presentation of the individual human as machine-cog.

From the mud of sociology’s beginnings, the long sordid history of the academic discipline brings us to something like this. Peter Collero, of the department of sociology, Western Oregon University, has written a book titled: The Myth of Individualism: How Social Forces Shape Our Lives:

“Most people today believe that an individual is a person with an independent and distinct identification. This, however, is a myth.”

When Callero writes “identification,” he isn’t talking about ID cards and Social Security numbers. He’s talking about an absence of any uniqueness from person to person. He’s asserting there is no significant distinction between any two people. There aren’t two individuals to begin with. They’re a group.

This downgrading of the individual human spirit is far from accidental. It’s launched as a sustained propaganda campaign, the ultimate purpose of which is top-down control over billions of people.

“The cold truth is that the individualist creed of everybody for himself and the devil take the hindmost is principally responsible for the distress in which Western civilization finds itself — with investment racketeering at one end and labor racketeering at the other. Whatever merits the creed may have had in the days of primitive agriculture and industry, it is not applicable in an age of technology, science, and rationalized economy. Once useful, it has become a danger to society.” (Charles Beard, 1931)

Beard, a celebrated historian, sees no difference between individual racketeering and the individual freely choosing and living his own life. In making this judgment, he becomes an intellectual/propaganda racketeer of the highest order.

“British empiricist philosophy is individualist. And it is of course clear that if the only criterion of true and false which a man accepts is that man’s, then he has no base for social agreement. The question of how man ought to behave is a social question, which always involves several people; and if he accepts no evidence and no judgment except his own, he has no tools with which to frame an answer.” (Jacob Bronowski, Science and Human Values, 1956).

Bronowski is quite sure that hearing other people’s evidence and then keeping one’s own counsel is wrong. One has to accept that evidence on its face. This is sheer idiocy. Individuals are capable of deciding, on their own, what social agreements to enter into.

Even more to the point, Beard and Bronowski were both high-achieving individuals—who then turned around and celebrated the kind of society that would try to flatten and level the individual to an average.

The world has many such experts. They rise high enough and then they preach collectivism. They become social meddlers. They believe they have the tools to plan what kind of world we should live in—since they are not part of that world anymore.

Freed from the obligations with which they want to bind us, they can pontificate and scheme and fantasize about social, economic, and political constructs in which The Group is all.

This is elitism par excellence.

I’ll stick with Orwell:

“It cannot be said too often — at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough — that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of.” (George Orwell, 1944)

The people who take it upon themselves to impose a planned society on everyone else don’t have much to say about freedom. Why would they? It’s a wild card, and it belongs to the individual, whom they consider merely an obstacle to the so-called progress of the group.

The very basis of sociology and anthropology, with which college students’ heads are filled, is: know the group; belong to the group. These pseudo-disciplines have thrived because elites with real power are doing everything they can to eradicate the concept of the individual.

Why would anyone perpetuate the myth that these two academic subjects are “social sciences?” There is nothing scientific about them. Their practitioners may devise computer models and debate the merits of one generality about cultures vs. another. But otherwise, we’re looking at nothing more than a gateway into planning a world management system.

In which the individual plays no part.

And when you cut through the pompous posturing, that’s what you find: an attempt to elevate the amorphous group, which is suddenly and arbitrarily endowed with “everything good.” A hustle, a hoax, a con.

Okay. Here are the contents of Exit From The Matrix:

First, my new audio presentations:

* INTRODUCTION: HOW TO USE THE MATERIALS IN EXIT FROM THE MATRIX

* EXIT FROM THE MATRIX

* 50 IMAGINATION EXERCISES

* FURTHER IMAGINATION EXERCISES

* ANESTHESIA, BOREDOM, EXCITEMENT, ECSTASY

* ANCIENT TIBET AND THE UNIVERSE AS A PRODUCT OF MIND

* YOU THE INVENTOR, MINDSET, AND FREEDOM FROM “THE EXISTENCE PROGRAM”

* PARANORMAL EXPERIMENTS AND EXERCISES

* CHILDREN AND IMAGINATION

* THE CREATIVE LIFE AND THE MATRIX/IMAGINATION

* PICTURES OF REALITY AND ESCAPE VELOCITY FROM THE MATRIX

* THIS WOULD BE A VERY DIFFERENT FUTURE

* MODERN ZEN

* THE GREAT PASSIONS AND THE GREAT ANDRIODS

Then you will receive the following audio seminars I have previously done:

* Mind Control, Mind Freedom

* The Transformations

* Desire, Manifestation and Fulfillment

* Altered States, Consciousness, and Magic

* Beyond Structures

* The Mystery and Magic of Dialogue

* The Voyage of Merlin

* Modern Alchemy and Imagination

* Imagination and Spiritual Enlightenment

* Dissolving Stress

* The Paranormal Project

* Zen Painting for Everyone Now

* Past Lives, Archetypes, and Hidden Sources of Human Energy

* Expression of Self

* Imagination Exercises for a Lifetime

* Old Planet, New Planet, New Mind

* The Era of Magic Returns

* Your Power Revealed

* Universes Without End

* Relationships

* Building a Business for Success

I have included an additional bonus section:

* My book, The Secret Behind Secret Societies (pdf document)

* My book, The Ownership of All Life (pdf document)

* A long excerpt from my briefly published book, Full Power (pdf document)

* My 24 articles in the series, “Coaching the Coaches” (pdf document)
And these audio seminars:

* The Role of Medical Drugs in Human Illness

* Longevity One: The Mind-Body Connection

* Longevity Two: The Nutritional Factors

(All the audio presentations are mp3 files and the documents and books are pdf files. You download the files upon purchase. There is no physical ship.)

What has been called The Matrix is a series of layers. These layers compose what we call Reality. Reality is not merely the consensus people accept in their daily lives. It is also a personal and individual conception of limits. It is a perception that these limits are somehow built into existence. But this is not true.

What I’ve done here is remove the lid on those perceived limits. This isn’t an intellectual undertaking. It’s a way to open up space and step on to a new road.

That road travels to more joy and fulfillment. More and more power.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. 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 at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Scott Faber: “No one is seeking to ban GMO crops.” W-h-a-t?

Jan2

Scott Faber: “No one is seeking to ban GMO crops.” W-h-a-t?

Memo to Just Label It: fire Scott Faber, and fire yourselves

by Jon Rappoport

January 2, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Scott Faber (twitter) testifies before Congress. Wobbly drum roll, sour cymbal crash.

Faber is the executive director of Just Label It (twitter), a group that wants mandatory labeling of foods containing GMOs. He’s also the VP of Governmental Affairs for the powerful Environmental Working Group (twitter).

As the representative of all Americans who want labeling (really??), Faber recently testified before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, about the Pompeo Bill (“The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014” (HR4432)), which, if enacted into law, will put an end to mandatory GMO labeling everywhere in the US.

So what did Faber do? After finding 10 or 20 different ways to say the American people have a right to know what’s in their food, he figuratively went down on his knees and offered this sopping wet olive branch:

“We do not oppose… genetically modified food ingredients. We think there are many promising applications of genetically modified food ingredients… I am optimistic that the promises that were made by the providers of this technology will ultimately be realized…that we will have traits that produce more nutritious food that will see significant yield…” (see the 2h29m05s mark here)

Boom.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlfpViqjJTE&w=480&h=360]

He thus led inquiring minds to wonder: was his stunning testimony connected in any way to the fact that he used to work as an executive for the Grocery Manufacturers Association of America (GMA) (twitter)?

After all, that was the group which poured millions of dollars into campaigns to DEFEAT mandatory GMO labeling in four states.

To put it another way: why the hell is Scott Faber now the executive director of Just Label It?

There’s more. If you read again that little piece of pro-GMO promo Faber offered to the House Committee, you’ll understand that, by implication, he seems to be giving silent assent to the highly toxic Roundup, since it goes hand in glove with Monsanto’s Roundup Ready GMO crops. He’s certainly not attacking it.

Think about it. What impression did Faber leave with the Committee, and by extension, the full Congress?

Representatives are scratching their heads and saying, “Why did he bother testifying at all? He doesn’t sound like he’s worried about GMO food or Roundup. He doesn’t have a problem with them. He didn’t make a sharp distinction between GMO food and conventional food. He just wants people to have the right to choose between one type of harmless food and another type of harmless food? Is this guy nuts? If we go up against Monsanto and Dow and DuPont and vote down the Pompeo Bill, HE’S the guy who has our backs? Are you kidding?”

The result of Faber’s testimony, in other words, was to sway more Congressman to pass the Pompeo Bill.

Was that staggering incompetence on his part? Or was he intentionally sending a covert signal whose message was, “We’re weak. Drive over us with a steamroller.”

I’m asking. I want to know. I think other people do, too.

It’s an honest question. Scott: who are you working for? Just Label It or the Grocery Manufacturers Association? Or is Just Label It now an offshoot of the Grocery Manufacturers Association?

To be fair, and this is important to understand, the mandatory GMO labeling groups, who’ve been trying to get those ballot initiatives passed, haven’t offered any strong, what’s the word, JUICE, as they pursue their cause. Have you seen their ads?

They look like they were made by some goofball low-rent PR firm that employs anonymous, supposedly attractive humans who list “spokesperson” on their resumes.

A young blonde, for no apparent reason, walks toward the camera and flashes a warm plastic smile and says, “Hi. You have a right to know what’s in your food.”

Viewing such major productions from their tower, Monsanto crime bosses tremble in their boots. They really do. They go up to the roof and think about jumping off. It’s sheer hell for them to be up against such a charm tsunami.

The cherry on the cake? Faber, writing an opinion piece in Roll Call (12/17) (Pompeo Bill Keeps Consumers in the Dark) about his Congressional testimony, makes this preemptory lunatic assertion:

“Finally, some inevitably say we need GMO crops to feed the world. But no one is seeking a ban on GMO crops.”

No one? Is that right?

What planet do you call home, Scott? Oh wait, I get it. That was just you trying to cut people off from the only sane solution to Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, BASF, Syngenta and their ongoing population experiment using poisonous pesticides and cross-species genes. You were sending a Christmas card to the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

“No one is seeking to ban GMO crops.”

Of course not.

How silly of me to flash on Jackson and Josephine Counties in Oregon, Humboldt and Mendocino Counties in CA, Maui, Kauai, the Big Island, Burlington, Boulder, Rome, Milan, Turin, Brescia, Genoa, and for that matter Austria, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Portugal, Greece, Spain, UK, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Russia, China, Albania, Bulgaria, Canada, Cypress, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, India, Ireland, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, etc… all of whom have instituted some sort of ban on growing or importing GMOs.

“No one is seeking to ban GMO crops.”

That statement, Scott, would be true if you changed it to read, “Relatively few people in the USA know how powerful the ban-GMO movement is, because the American media are weak, soft, and sold out.”

Jon Rappoport

The individual vs. the goo

Dec31

by Jon Rappoport

December 31, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

“The people” is a convenient term for “every INDIVIDUAL.”

This has been lost in translation. It has been garbled, distorted, just as the proprietor of an old-fashioned carnival shell game distorts the audience’s perception with sleight of hand.

Are “the people” one group? Well, that’s the ultimate Globalist formulation.

However, from the point of view of the free individual, things are upside down. It is HIS power that is primary, not the monolithic corporate State’s.

From his point of view, what does the social landscape look like?

It looks like: THE OBSESSION TO ORGANIZE.

I’m not talking about organizations that are actually streamlined to produce something of value. I’m talking about organizations that PLAN MORE ORGANIZATION OF LIFE.

If you want to spend a disturbing afternoon, read through (and try to fathom) the bewildering blizzard of sub-organizations that make up the European Union. I did. And I emerged with a new definition of insanity. OTO. The Obsession to Organize.

OTO speaks of a bottomless fear that somewhere, someone might be living free.

THE JOURNEY TO GREATER INDIVIDUAL POWER IS ABOUT: ERASING THE SEPARATE INTERNAL COMPARTMENTS OF ENERGY THE PERSON HIMSELF HAS OVER-ORGANIZED.

Current technological civilization depends on fixed structures and forms and methods and systems. In certain respects, it succeeds brilliantly. But the effect is a very strong tendency to view reality through compartmentalized lenses.

People tend to think their own power is either a delusion or some sort of abstraction that’s never really EXPERIENCED. So when the subject is broached, it goes nowhere. It fizzles out. It garners shrugs and looks of confusion. Power? Are you talking about the ability to lift weights?

And therefore, the whole notion of freedom makes a very small impression, because without power, what’s the message of freedom? A person can choose vanilla or chocolate? He can watch Law&Order or CSI? He can buy a Buick or a Honda? He can take a trip to Yosemite or Disney World? He can pack a lunch or eat out at a restaurant? He can ask for a raise or apply for a better job with another company? That’s it? He can swim in his pool or work out at the gym?

He can take Prozac, or Paxil, or Zoloft?

Mostly, as the years roll by, he opts for more cynicism and tries to become a “smarter realist.” And that is how he closes the book on his life.

Or, if he is attracted to self-improvement, it’s a matter of choosing between cliches. Which cliché sounds better? Which cliché seems to offer more hope for less effort? Which cliché will connect him to people who accept the same cliché?

Every which way power can be discredited or misunderstood…people will discredit it and misunderstand it.

And then all psychological and physiological and mental and physical and emotional and perceptual and hormonal processes undergo a major shift, in order to accommodate to a reality, a space in which the individual has virtually no power at all.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t include this one: “power=greed.” Mountains of propaganda are heaped on people to convince them that having individual power to make something happen is the same as committing crimes against humanity.

Globalism=collectivism=Glob-consciousness. We’re all one Glob. We exist in that great Cheese Melt.

Even the radical Left of the 1960s, who rioted at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, because they believed the nominee, Hubert Humphrey, and his allies wouldn’t stop the war in Vietnam…even that radical force on the Left eventually gave in and morphed into romantic sentimentalists who came to love the State under Obama.

Sooner or later, it comes down to the question: does the individual conceive of himself as an individual, or as part of The Group?

Shall the individual discover how much power and freedom and imagination he actually has, or shall he cut off that process of discovery at the knees, in order to join a group whose aims are diluted and foreshortened versions of consciousness and freedom?

The individual answers these questions overtly, with great consideration, or the questions answer and diminish him through wretched default.

There are people who want their own minds to look exactly like the world. They want their minds to look like photographs of the world. This is what they strive for. The idea that they could invent something is so terrifying they opt instead for the world as it is.

This is what amused the surrealists. They started turning things upside down and inside out. They were reacting to humans who had made themselves into robots. Into robot cameras.

The Surveillance State is a robot camera. It captures everything, based on the premise that what isn’t Normal is dangerous.

The cartels of the world become the cartels of the mind.

At the outbreak of World War 2, the Council on Foreign Relations began making plans for the post-war world.

The question it posed was this: could America exist as a self-sufficient nation, or would it have to go outside its borders for vital resources?

Predictably, the answer was: imperial empire.

The US would not only need to obtain natural resources abroad, it would have to embark on endless conquest to assure continued access.

The CFR, of course, wasn’t just some think tank. It was connected to the highest levels of US government, through the State Department. A front for Rockefeller interests, it actually stood above the government.

Behind all its machinations was the presumption that planned societies were the future of the planet. Not open societies.

Through wars, clandestine operations, legislation, treaties, manipulation of nations’ debt, control of banks and money supplies, countries could be turned into “managed units.”

Increasingly, the populations of countries would be regulated and directed and held in thrall to the State.

And the individual? He would go the way of other extinct species.

For several decades, the pseudo-discipline called “social science” had been turning out reams of studies and reports on tribes, societal groupings, and so-called classes of people. Groups.

Deeply embedded in the social sciences were psychological warfare specialists who, after World War 2, emerged with a new academic status and new field of study: mass communications.

Their objective? The broadcasting of messages that would, in accordance with political goals, provoke hostility or pacified acceptance in the masses.

Hostility channeled into support of new wars; acceptance of greater domestic government control.

Nowhere in these formulas was the individual protected. He was considered a wild card, a loose cannon, and he needed to be demeaned, made an outsider, and characterized as a criminal who opposed the needs of the collective.

Collective=robot minds welded into one mind.

As the years and decades passed, this notion of the collective and its requirements, in a “humane civilization,” expanded. Never mind that out of view, the rich were getting richer and poor were getting poorer. That fact was downplayed, and the cover story–”share and care”—took center stage.

On every level of society, people were urged to think of themselves as part of a greater group. The individual and his hopes, his unique dreams, his desires and energies, his determination and will power…all these were portrayed as relics of an unworkable and deluded past.

In many cases, lone pioneers who were innovating in directions that could, in fact, benefit all of humanity, were absorbed into the one body of the collective, heralded as humane…and then dumped on the side of the road with their inventions and forgotten.

In the planned society, no one rises above the mass, except those men who run and operate and propagandize the mass.

In order to affect the illusion of individual success, as a kind of safety valve for the yearnings of millions of people, the cult of celebrity emerged. But even there, extraordinary tales of rise and then precipitous fall, glory and then humiliation, were and are presented as cautionary melodramas.

This could happen to you. You would be exposed. You would suffer the consequences. Let others take the fall. Keep your mind blank. Do nothing unusual. Shorten your attention span. Disable your own mental machinery. Then you’ll never be tempted to stand out from the mass.

The onrush of technocracy gears its wild promises to genetic manipulation, brain-machine interfaces, and other automatic downloads assuring “greater life.” No effort required. Plug in, and ascend to new heights.

Freedom? Independence? Old flickering dreams vicariously viewed on a screen.

Individual greatness, imagination, creative power? A sunken galleon loaded with treasure that, upon closer investigation, was never there to begin with.

The Plan is all that is important. The plan involves universal surveillance, in order to map the lives of billions of people, move by move, in order to design systems of control within which those billions live, day to day.

But the worst outcome of all is: the individual cannot even conceive of his own life and future in large terms. The individual responds to tighter and control with a shrug, as if to say, “What difference does it make?”

He has bought the collectivist package. His own uniqueness and inner resources are submerged under layers of passive acceptance of the consensus.

And make no mistake about it, this consensus reality, for all its exaltation of the group, is not heraldic in any sense. The propagandized veneer covers a cynical exploitation of every man, woman, and child.

Strapped by an amnesia about his own freedom and what it can truly mean, the individual opts for a place in the collective gloom. He may grumble and complain, but he fits in.

He can’t remember another possibility.

Every enterprise in which he finds himself turns out to be a pale copy of the real thing.

The deep energies and power and desire for freedom remain untapped.

Yet a struggle continues to live. It lives in the hidden places of every individual who wants out, who wants to come back to himself, who wants to stride out on a stage.

Freedom and power again. The shattering of amnesia.

In this stolen world.

The extinct individual returns.

Petty little hungers and obsessions become great hungers.

Dominoes of the collective begin to fall. The whole stinking structure collapses, a wing here and a wing there, and the robots open their eyes and turn off their cameras.

The vast sticky web called “the people” begins to disintegrate in roaring cities and in the mind.

A new instructive message appears on billboards and screens: “normal=crazy.”

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

Natural health? Scott Faber? Dan Fabricant? Really?

Dec30

Natural health? Scott Faber? Dan Fabricant? Really?

by Jon Rappoport

December 30, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

I mentioned these two men in an article I posted several days ago.

But I want to highlight them here.

They would seem to represent strong elements in the natural-health movement.

Who is Scott Faber? (twitter)

He’s the executive director of Just Label It (twitter), the pre-eminent organization dedicated to mandatory labeling of GMO foods. He’s also the VP of Governmental Affairs for the powerful Environmental Working Group (twitter).

In recent Congressional testimony, Faber said all the right things about wanting mandatory labeling of GMO foods.

However, he also offered this stunning statement. Buckle up:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlfpViqjJTE&w=480&h=360]

And oh yes. In his former job, Scott Faber was, get this, the vice-president for government affairs, of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the GMA. Ring a bell? This is the organization that donated millions to DEFEAT mandatory GMO labeling in several Western states.

And now he is Executive Director of Just Label It, the core group pushing FOR mandatory GMO labeling.

W-h-a-t?

Just Label It picks this man to head up its operation? On what possible basis? Because it wants to lose the fight it says it wants to win?

But don’t worry, be happy, ho-hum, just another day on the byways and highways of “natural-health.”

So far, I haven’t heard a peep about this astounding situation from activists inside the GMO labeling movement.

Why? Because they don’t want to ask controversial questions or risk offending anyone? Because they want to pretend all is well? Because they’re zealots in the Church of GMO Labeling and, therefore, their leaders can do no wrong?

Let’s move on to Daniel Fabricant. (twitter)

There is an organization called the Natural Products Association (twitter). It’s the largest trade and lobbying group in North America for natural nutritional-supplement companies. You’d think this group would be squarely in the camp of the anti-GMO movement, if the word “natural” means anything at all.

Well, the executive director of the Natural Products Association is Daniel Fabricant.

Pop quiz: what federal agency gave the original blanket approval, based on no science, for GMO crops, allowing them to enter the US food supply in the 1990s? Which agency has, for decades, consistently fought to whittle down the power and scope of the natural nutritional-supplement industry?

The FDA.

What was Daniel Fabricant’s job before he became executive director of the Natural Products Association?

Fabricant was director of the Division of Dietary Supplement Programs at the FDA.

That’s right. But again, nothing to worry about. All is well. It’s rainbows and marshmallows along the road to paradise.

Someday, if an historian claims that Joe Stalin organized the first gay parade in Moscow, people will say, “It turns out that Joe was really a nice guy.”

Because they can’t think anymore. Because assessing a massive, glaring contradiction creates “too much stress.” Better to paste smiles on their faces and say, “The Universe knows what it’s doing. I surrender to the Universe.”

Keeping things natural…

Jon Rappoport

Why is it illegal for communities to protect themselves from harm?

Dec30

Why is it illegal for communities to protect themselves from harm?

by Jon Rappoport

December 30, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

The supposed answer to that question is the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, Article 6, paragraph 2:

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

By inference, the individual states declare their own supremacy when local communities try to nullify or avoid state statutes.

Keep in mind that the US Constitution enumerates powers granted to the federal government, and reserves all other powers for the states or the people. But this restraint has been trampled on so many times it’s barely visible under the tonnage of federal law and regulation.

Therefore, the Supremacy Clause becomes: “We, the federal government, can do anything we want to, and the states and the people are bound by it.”

So…what happens when the people of a community decide that a medical drug or pesticide (see also this) or genetically modified organism or fracking chemical or vaccine is poisonous and must be banned?

The state preempts the community, and if the state doesn’t, the federal government will move in and assert its ultimate authority.

Take the case of Roundup, or any of the pesticides that contain the toxic glyphosate. If the EPA or the USDA or the FDA decides glyphosate is harmless, and if their “science” is a sham, and if they are merely caving in to big corporations who want to sell it, the people would have no recourse.

“It’s the law, and you have to submit to liver and kidney damage at the very least.”

That’s the absurdity.

If health and life aren’t the basis of law, if they are ignored, if they are necessary sacrifices on the altar of federal or state control, then all bets are off.

For the past 25 years, I’ve been documenting exactly this: medical and scientific fraud that leads to great harm. This fraud is not only permitted, it’s embodied in federal and state regulations.

I frequently cite Dr. Barbara Starfield’s stunning review, “Is US health really the best in the world?” It was published on July 26, 2000, in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

At the time, Starfield was a widely respected public health expert working at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

Her credentials and those of JAMA were impeccably mainstream.

She concluded that, every year, FDA-approved medical drugs killed 106,000 Americans. That adds up to over a million deaths per decade.

In the wake of her published review, and for the next nine years, as she told me in a 2009 interview, no one in the federal government approached her to help remedy this ongoing plague of destruction. Nor was she aware of any systematic remedial federal effort.

But you see, the FDA is a federal agency set up by federal law. It is tasked with approving all medical drugs as safe and effective before they are released for public use.

So if a local community decided, on its own, to ban a deadly medicine, its vote would be struck down from above.

“Suffer. Die. It’s the law.”

There are people who are happy to settle for choice. “As long as I’m free to refuse the medicine, I’m good. Let others take it if they want to.”

But we’re not talking about a choice between pears and oranges. We’re talking about poison.

And despite recalls, lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies, and heavy fines, the killing continues.

Therefore, on the basis of self-protection, a community has the right to enact a ban.

Unless self-protection must surrender to the System. Then we are looking at lawless government pretending to be lawful.

These phrases come to mind:

“…certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”

“…in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”

Making these goals come to fruition when communities are under toxic attack is impossible. Therefore, governments that support and enshrine such attacks are violating the very origin of laws.

Jon Rappoport

Boycott, ban, criminalize Roundup

Dec29

Boycott, ban, criminalize Roundup

by Jon Rappoport

December 29, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Glyphosate is the primary active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup.

There is no official figure for the amount of glyphosate used every year in the world. One estimate? 650,000 tonnes, which works out to a staggering 1.3 billion pounds.

Manufactured by Monsanto and a number of other companies, glyphosate use spiked after the introduction of Monsanto’s GMO Roundup Ready food crops in the 1990s.

Here is a sprinkle of information about glyphosate. To say it’s sobering is a vast understatement. Keep in mind that the medical cartel, which would call a mother’s touch a disease if it could get away with it, has no name for any disease or disorder caused by glyphosate. In other words, the cartel doesn’t acknowledge its existence. Who will acknowledge its existence?

One: Scientific American, June 23, 2009, “Weed-whacking herbicide proves deadly to human cells,” by Crystal Gammon:

“Glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, is the most widely used herbicide in the United States. About 100 million pounds are applied to U.S. farms and lawns every year, according to the EPA.

“Until now, most health studies have focused on the safety of glyphosate, rather than the mixture of ingredients found in Roundup. But in the new study, scientists found that Roundup’s inert ingredients amplified the toxic effect on human cells—even at concentrations much more diluted than those used on farms and lawns.

“One specific inert ingredient, polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA, was more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself – a finding the researchers call ‘astonishing.’

“‘This clearly confirms that the [inert ingredients] in Roundup formulations are not inert,’ wrote the study authors from France’s University of Caen. ‘Moreover, the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death [at the] residual levels’ found on Roundup-treated crops, such as soybeans, alfalfa and corn, or lawns and gardens.”

Two: Reuters, 4/25/13, “Heavy use of herbicide Roundup linked to health dangers—US study,” by Corey Gillam:

“Heavy use of the world’s most popular herbicide, Roundup, could be linked to a range of health problems and diseases, including Parkinson’s, infertility and cancers, according to a new study.

“The peer-reviewed report, published last week in the scientific journal Entropy, said evidence indicates that residues of ‘glyphosate,’ the chief ingredient in Roundup weed killer, which is sprayed over millions of acres of crops, has been found in food.

“Those residues enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease, according to the report, authored by Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Anthony Samsel, a retired science consultant from Arthur D. Little, Inc. Samsel is a former private environmental government contractor as well as a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“‘Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body,’ the study says.

“Of the more than two dozen top herbicides on the market, glyphosate is the most popular. In 2007, as much as 185 million pounds of glyphosate was used by U.S. farmers, double the amount used six years ago, according to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data.”

Three: A study: “An acute exposure to glyphosate-based herbicide alters aromatase levels in in testis and sperm nuclear quality”; Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, v.38. Issue 1, July 2014:

“We investigated the effects of a glyphosate-based herbicide after an 8-day exposure of adult rats… These results suggest changes in androgen/estrogen balance and in sperm nuclear quality… The repetition of exposures of this herbicide could alter the mammalian reproduction.”

Four: Truthout, Oct. 6, 2014, “Monsanto’s Roundup linked to cancer,” by Jeff Ritterman, MD:

“Roundup is now heavily sprayed in what is known as the ‘Soy Republic’, an area of Latin America larger than the state of California. This region has undergone a profound transformation since genetically modified (GM) crops were first introduced in 1996. Some 125 million acres in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Uruguay, and Paraguay are now devoted to GM soy production.

“Dr. Medardo Avila Vazquez, a pediatrician specializing in environmental health, explained his concerns:

“‘The change in how agriculture is produced has brought, frankly, a change in the profile of diseases. We’ve gone from a pretty healthy population to one with a high rate of cancer, birth defects, and illnesses seldom seen before. What we have complained about for years was confirmed and especially what doctors say about the sprayed towns and areas affected by industrial agriculture. Cancer cases are multiplying as never before in areas with massive use of pesticides.’

“Much the same was found in Chaco, Argentina’s poorest province. In 2012, two villages were compared, the heavily sprayed farming village of Avia Terai and the non-sprayed ranching village of Charadai. In the farming village, 31 percent of residents had a family member with cancer while only 3 percent of residents in the ranching village had one.”

Five: Rense.com, 8/5/2005, “Monsanto’s Roundup Killing Frogs, Amphibians Worldwide”:

“The most striking result from the experiments was that a chemical designed to kill plants killed 98 percent of all tadpoles within three weeks and 79 percent of all frogs within one day” — University of Pittsburgh researcher, Rick Relyea

Six: Global Research, July 5, 2014, “Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide and regulators ‘with something to hide’”, by Colin Todhunter:

“Last year, Friends of the Earth (FoE) and GM Freeze commissioned a study based on urine samples from volunteers in 18 countries across Europe. It found that on average 44 percent of samples contained glyphosate. The proportion of positive samples varied between countries, with Malta, Germany,the UK and Poland having the most positive tests, and lower levels detected in Macedonia and Switzerland. All the volunteers who provided samples lived in cities, and none had handled or used glyphosate products in the run-up to the tests.”

“In Mississippi, 75 percent of air and rain sample contained levels of glyphosate that could have serious physiological consequences for humans.”

“Claire Robinson from GM Watch notes that earlier this year a group of Chinese food safety volunteers submitted a request to China’s Ministry of Agriculture to disclose the study that justified issuing the safety certificate for the import into China of Monsanto’s Roundup. Writing on the GM Watch website, she says:

“‘The Ministry replied that Roundup was registered in China in 1988 based on a toxicology test report issued by a testing company called Younger Laboratories in St Louis, Missouri. The test was an acute exposure toxicity test (such tests last a maximum of a few days), with Roundup being given to rats by mouth and applied to the skin of rabbits. It claimed to find no effect on the eyes or skin, and no allergy. The volunteers asked the Ministry to release the study, and the Ministry in turn asked Monsanto. Monsanto replied that the study constituted its own commercial secret, adding that the company had never disclosed the study anywhere in the world and did not agree to disclose it now. The volunteers are appealing against the decision.’”

One of the implications of these six citations: Glyphosate, as an ingredient of Roundup and other herbicides, drifts on the wind, and its dangerous effects are felt far from agriculture centers.

As long as Monsanto is permitted to produce GMO seeds that are engineered to be immune to Roundup, the tonnage of glyphosate loosed on the world population will continue to escalate.

Properly thought of, glyphosate is a chemical-warfare agent.

The labeling of GMOs, as a response to the threat, is too little, too late. It would be akin to requiring enemy planes, loaded with bombs, to display an insignia of the country’s air force as it invades.

Jon Rappoport

The Matrix Revealed: The collective experiment on planet Earth

Dec27

by Jon Rappoport

When all obsessive group-consciousness on Earth is finished, exhausted, when it admits defeat, then a different era will emerge. But for now, we are in the middle of the collective experiment.

High-flying cloying sentiment, profound dependence on others, covert repression—these are the order of the day.

How long until the collective age is over? A hundred years? A thousand years? The answer is, as long as it takes for every human to realize that the experiment has failed, and why.

The why is clear—the individual has been overlooked. He has been demeaned. He has been grabbed up and drafted into groups. His creative power has been compromised in order to fit in.

The majority of the world still believes in this approach, as if from good groups will flow the ultimate and final solutions we have all been seeking.

This is sheer mind control, because good groups morph into evil, and vice versa, in the ongoing stage play called reality.

Ideals are twisted, infiltrators subvert plans, lessons are ignored, and the whole sorry mess repeats itself again.

What constituted a triumph of good over evil at one moment is guided into yet another collective, whose aims are “a better kind of control.”

The most deluded among us believe we are always on the cusp of a final breakthrough.

But there is no “we” to make the breakthrough.

It comes to every person on his own. And it does not arrive as the thrust of an external force, but from one’s own struggle, accompanied by insights for which there is no outside agency to lend confirmation.

If indeed it will take a thousand years to bring this collective illusion to a close, that is no cause for despondent reaction.

On the contrary, it is simply an understanding that all experiments come to an end, as does the method of thought on which they are based.

One or ten or a hundred collapses of civilization, and the resultant rebuilding, are not enough.

The pattern endures.

It can only dissolve when overwhelming numbers of individuals, each in his own way, absent self-deception, sees its bankruptcy.

The “we” and the “us” are merely postponements and cover stories splashed on the front pages of the mind.

Fighting for what is right, here and now, is vital. But it does not preclude the knowledge that, as long as people are fixated on groups as the Answer, the underlying problem will persist.

Therefore, as part of my research over the last several decades, I have explored what is now commonly called the Matrix, from the point of view of freeing the individual from it.

The first step is understanding Matrix as an ongoing perverse “work of art” and viewing the nuts and bolts of it.

That is the purpose of my first collection, The Matrix Revealed. (It is followed by Exit From The Matrix and Power Outside The Matrix.)

Here are the contents of The Matrix Revealed:

* 250 megabytes of information.

* Over 1100 pages of text.

* Ten and a half hours of audio.

The 2 bonuses alone are rather extraordinary:

* My complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, which includes the teacher’s manual and audio to guide you. I was previously selling the course for $375. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.

* The complete text (331 pages) of AIDS INC., the book that exposed a conspiracy of scientific fraud deep within the medical research establishment. The book has become a sought-after item, since its publication in 1988. It contains material about viruses, medical testing, and the invention of disease that is, now and in the future, vital to our understanding of phony epidemics arising in our midst. I assure you, the revelations in the book will surprise you; they cut much deeper and are more subtle than “virus made in a lab” scenarios.

The heart and soul of this product are the text interviews I conducted with Matrix-insiders, who have first-hand knowledge of how the major illusions of our world are put together:

* ELLIS MEDAVOY, master of PR, propaganda, and deception, who worked for key controllers in the medical and political arenas. 28 interviews, 290 pages.

* RICHARD BELL, financial analyst and trader, whose profound grasp of market manipulation and economic-rigging is formidable, to say the least. 16 interviews, 132 pages.

* JACK TRUE, the most creative hypnotherapist on the face of the planet. Jack’s anti-Matrix understanding of the mind and how to liberate it is unparalleled. His insights are unique, staggering. 43 interviews, 320 pages.

* Then there are several more interviews with brilliant analysts of the Matrix. 53 pages.

* The ten and a half hours of mp3 audio are my solo presentation, based on these interviews and my own research. Title: The Multi-Dimensional Planetary Chessboard—The Matrix vs. the Un-Conditioning of the Individual.

(All the material is digital. Upon ordering it, you’ll receive an email with a link to it.)

Understanding Matrix is also understanding your capacity and power, and that is the way to approach this subject. Because liberation is the goal. And liberation has no limit.

I invite you to a new exploration and a great adventure.

Jon Rappoport

The secret GMO war: double agents, betrayal, greed?

Dec26

The secret GMO war: double agents, betrayal, greed?

by Jon Rappoport

December 26, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

I’ll start at an odd place, a seemingly innocuous place. Bear with me:

We need to understand the distinction between two kinds of labeling.

Voluntary labeling=“I own this health-food store, and I’m doing my best to sell you non-GMO products. All such products will carry a seal that says ‘Non-GMO’.”

Mandatory labeling=“Vermont has decided that all food products sold in the state which contain GMOs must be labeled as such—‘this product contains GMOs’.”

Two very different types of labels. They contain different information.

Also, one type is voluntary, and the other becomes mandatory after passage of a vote, in a legislature or through a ballot measure.

So what?

Well, let me put it to you this way. What would happen to Whole Foods’ program of voluntary GMO labeling if there were mandatory labeling across America, or in any state where Whole Foods does business?

Can you guess?

I’ll break it down. Whole Foods has pledged to put “non-GMO” labels on their products by 2018. They’ll do everything they can to sell as many non-GMO products as possible. The products that don’t carry the non-GMO seal will obviously be GMO, and customers can avoid them if they want to.

On the other hand, if suddenly, out of the blue, mandatory labeling became law, the whole voluntary non-GMO label enterprise would be obsolete. Why voluntarily put that label on products when mandatory labeling handles the whole issue?

“We put non-GMO labels on our food. Aren’t we wonderful?”

“Not really. The mandatory labels tell me everything that’s GMO. All the other products are non-GMO. Thanks, but no thanks.”

Does that show you something? Does it suggest that Whole Foods doesn’t really want mandatory labeling?

In fact, if mandatory labeling never passes anywhere in the US, this is a boon for Whole Foods, because they become the only big food chain that allows customers to know they’re choosing lots and lots of non-GMO food products.

There’s more.

Think about an outfit called the Non-GMO Project. They do certifications of food products, and allow their now-famous butterfly seal to be applied:

“Yes, sir, your energy bar has passed our rigid standards of testing, and it is non-GMO. Congratulations.”

Whole Foods is spending millions of dollars at the Non-GMO Project to get their products lab-tested and certified as “non-GMO.”

If there were mandatory labeling, that would all go away, too. Poof. The Non-GMO Project would shrink to the size of a button, and the testing labs the Project uses would take huge hits.

For example, a lab called Genetic ID in Iowa would suffer enormous consequences.

We’re not done yet.

There is a bill in the US Congress presently wending its through Committee. It was introduced by Kansas Congressman Mike Pompeo. It’s called “The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014” (HR4432).

If it passes, mandatory labeling of GMO foods will be outlawed at both state and federal levels. No more ballot initiatives. No more state bills.

So…in this topsy-turvy scene where things aren’t what they seem to be, who would want to see the Pompeo bill enacted into law? Who would look forward to a permanent ban on mandatory GMO labeling? Who would make a great deal of money if that bill passes—despite any public statements they might make to the contrary?

Two weeks ago, a Congressional Committee hearing was held on the pending Pompeo bill. A man named Scott Faber testified.

Who is Scott Faber? (twitter)

He’s the executive director of Just Label It, the pre-eminent organization dedicated to mandatory labeling of GMO foods. He’s also the VP of Governmental Affairs for the powerful Environmental Working Group.

In his testimony, Faber said all the right things about wanting mandatory labeling of GMO foods. Therefore, he opposes passage of the Pompeo bill, right?

However, Faber also offered this stunning statement to the Committee. Buckle up:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlfpViqjJTE&w=480&h=360]

And now he is Executive Director of Just Label It, the core group pushing FOR mandatory GMO labeling.

How far down the rabbit hole does all this go? Does Just Label It really want mandatory labeling? Was it created as some kind of distraction? A distraction from the far more serious business of trying to BAN GMOs? Was it a way to guide millions of well-meaning people down a false trail to a dead-end, where there is no mandatory labeling and no banning, and the expansion of GMOs and toxic herbicides continues unabated? Where the only stop-gap against Monsanto is a voluntary system of labeling, controlled by a relatively small number of retailers who profit enormously from inventing a tier of elite food products bearing the “non-GMO” seal?

Gary Hirshberg (twitter) was a founding partner of Just Label It. He is the CEO of Stonyfield Farms, the famous yogurt company.

Of all the leaders in the labeling movement, Hirshberg is the most overtly political. Let’s look at his strange track record:

During the 2008 presidential campaign season, his home in New Hampshire was a mandatory stop for candidates. Hirshberg’s first choice for the Democratic nomination was the execrable Tom Vilsack until he dropped out of the race.

Hirshberg hosted gatherings for John Edwards and Barack Obama, and eventually decided to support Obama.

Obama, despite his nods and winks, was, from the beginning, Monsanto’s man in Washington, allowing an unprecedented parade of new GMO crops to enter growing fields and the marketplace, and appointing staunch biotech allies to key posts in his administration.

Vilsack, Gary Hirshberg’s first choice for President, became the Secretary of Agriculture under Obama. Vilsack is an avid supporter of GMO food. During his term as governor of Iowa, Vilsack was given a Governor of the Year award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

Hirshberg serves as a co-chairman of an organization called AGree (twitter). Its objective is to “build consensus around solutions” to “critical issues facing the food and agriculture system.” As researcher Nick Brannigan (twitter) has pointed out, AGree includes, among its foundation partners: the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation.

It would be hard to find foundations more friendly to, and supportive of, big corporate agriculture and GMOs.

Hirshberg is the author of Stirring It Up: How to Make Money and Save the World. He advocates revolution-by-the-consumer as an exceedingly powerful force.

It may be pretty to think so, but giving American consumers a clear choice about whether to buy GMO or non-GMO food, through labeling, isn’t going to push Monsanto up against the wall.

It isn’t going to stop Monsanto gene drift into non-GMO crops. It isn’t going to stop the aerial attack of toxic Roundup all over the planet.

But if mandatory labeling of GMOs fails, and all that’s left is voluntary labeling, Hirshberg could help launch Stonyfield Farms and other commercial ventures into new realms of profitability, by applying that “non-GMO” seal.

Let’s widen our inquiry. There is an organization called the Natural Products Association. It’s the largest trade and lobbying group in North America for natural nutritional-supplement companies. You’d think this group would be squarely in the camp of the anti-GMO movement, if the word “natural” means anything at all.

Well, the executive director of the Natural Products Association is Daniel Fabricant. (twitter)

The FDA.

What was Daniel Fabricant’s job before he became executive director of the Natural Products Association?

Fabricant was director of the Division of Dietary Supplement Programs at the FDA.

In December of this year, the Natural Products Association held a webinar. As reported in the Food Navigator (12/19), “5 GMO myths dispelled,” one of its speakers was Greg Jaffe.

A lawyer, Jaffe (bio here) has logged stints with the EPA, FDA, DOJ, and World Bank—all groups that, in one way or another, have vigorously supported GMOs.

Jaffe proceeded to make a case for GMOs, “dispelling the myths” prevalent in the anti-GMO community.

So you have the leading trade group for the natural products industry giving a heavy wink and nod to GMO foods.

According to the Food Navigator article, Jaffe explained that the process of using bacteria to carry foreign genes into a food plant is really quite natural. Which is like saying that a glass eye is natural.

Then Jaffe presents the tired generality: “Evidence is overwhelming that there is no harm from foods made from current GE [genetic engineered] foods.” As “evidence,” he cites the FDA approval of biotech crops. The FDA—which has basically stated that Monsanto, Dow, and the other mega-giants are basically responsible for assuring the safety of GMOs.

All this cover for GMOs is being presented in a trade magazine vis-a-vis a trade group for the natural food products industry.

Is the war against Monsanto and GMOs and toxic herbicides rigged to fail?

Citing betrayal within the anti-GMO anti-Monsanto movement, an astute observer with large knowledge of the scene recently gave me his appraisal of what amounts to a covert op against the millions of people who want a healthier non-GMO future. Here’s how he succinctly described the men taking us down the wrong road:

“Gary Hirshberg is the pied piper, John Mackey [CEO of Whole Foods] is the money man, and Daniel Fabricant is the enforcer.”

Jon Rappoport

Whole Foods sued for false non-GMO labeling

Dec23

Whole Foods sued for false non-GMO labeling

by Jon Rappoport

December 23, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

The case is Michelle Richard v. Whole Foods, as reported by the Food Navigator (12/5/14) and other press outlets.

The plaintiff’s claim? Whole Foods advertised and sold Blue Diamond Almond Breeze Almond Milk and Vanilla Almond Milk with non-GMO labels, when these products hadn’t been verified as such by the Non-GMO Project (twitter).

The Non-GMO Project is, by far, the largest North American group that tests and verifies food products as non-GMO, and grants the use of its “Verified” seal.

Concerning the lawsuit, Whole Foods declined to comment. The Non-GMO Project declined to comment. Blue Diamond declined to comment.

“Ongoing litigation…we weren’t involved…confidentiality of clients…”

Other Blue Diamond almond products bearing the non-GMO seal have been approved by the Non-GMO Project. So is this simply a case of a clerical error?

The plaintiff certainly doesn’t think her lawsuit is trivial. This is a class-action suit, so there are other plaintiffs.

The big question is, are there other products on the shelves at Whole Foods which claim to be non-GMO, but aren’t verified?

In 2013, Whole Foods announced a plan to label every product in its stores, so customers could tell whether or not they contain GMOs. The deadline is 2018.

Meanwhile, Whole Foods states they are working with their suppliers to vastly increase the number of non-GMO food products available to customers.

As reported by topclassactions.com (11/10/15), plaintiff Richard claims she “purchased the Almond Breeze products at one to two times per week between January and June [at Whole Foods].” Is she asserting that the unverified and illegitimate non-GMO label has been present on those products for six months?

If the case moves forward, and is not dismissed by a judge, we’ll find out more.

On its website, Blue Diamond states that it uses no GMOs in its almond products.

Jon Rappoport

GMOs: the “natural foods” industry is not your friend

Dec22

GMOs: the “natural foods” industry is not your friend

by Jon Rappoport

December 22, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

If Monsanto, its allies, and dupes have their way, this is what is going to happen:

A federal law will be passed, canceling the right of individual states and counties to ban or label GMOs. Companies and retailers will be permitted to voluntarily label their food products “non-GMO,” if they use approved labs for testing.

The obvious consequence? We will eternally co-exist with Monsanto and the other biotech giants. More GMO foods, more toxic pesticides.

The not-so obvious consequence? Paying several thousand dollars per product for testing and certification, some large companies in the natural-food industry will label their products “non-GMO,” thus creating an elite sanctuary for those consumers who can afford to shop at high prices.

And by the way, many of those non-GMO products won’t be organic.

For centuries, the poorest peasants ate non-GMO non-pesticide food. Now that will become a privilege for the relatively few.

Are there certain players in the natural-food industry who look forward to such an arrangement?

See The Food Navigator, 19 December, 2014, “5 GMO myths dispelled.” This magazine is the number-one staple for people in the natural-foods biz.

The article reports on a Natural Products Association webinar. The NPA is a huge trade group for the natural products industry.

The article states that, during the webinar, the NPA made room for a speaker, Greg Jaffe, from the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).

A lawyer, Jaffe (bio here) has logged stints with the EPA, FDA, DOJ, and World Bank—all groups that, in one way or another, have vigorously supported GMOs.

Jaffe proceeded to make a case for GMOs, “dispelling the myths” prevalent in the anti-GMO community.

This fact alone is highly significant. You have the leading magazine and the leading trade group for the natural products industry giving a heavy wink and nod to GMO foods.

According to the article, Jaffe explained that the process of using bacteria to carry foreign genes into a food plant is really quite natural. Which is like saying that a glass eye is natural.

Then Jaffe presents the tired generality: “Evidence is overwhelming that there is no harm from foods made from current GE [genetic engineered] foods.” As “evidence,” he cites the FDA approval of biotech crops. The FDA— which has basically stated that Monsanto, Dow, and the other mega-giants are responsible for assuring the safety of GMOs.

Notice again, all this cover for GMOs is being presented in a trade magazine vis-a-vis a trade group for the natural food products industry.

So yes, there are certainly players in the natural-foods business who would welcome a) co-existing with Monsanto, b) letting a law pass that would eradicate the possibility of GMO bans or required labels anywhere in the US, and c) use that situation to establish their own voluntary labeling programs (“this product is non-GMO”).

That last step would allow them to create a whole raft of elite food products for affluent customers, thus inflating their $$ bottom lines.

And in the process, with their bright shiny “non GMO” labels, they would essentially downgrade and partially obscure the organic food producers, which is to say the people who grow crops as they were grown for thousands of years, before the pesticide and GMO industries came into being.

Monsanto would win, the natural-food sellers would win, and we would lose.

The final coup de grace? Up the line, a federal regulation stating that the presence of GMOs in food is no deterrent to labeling that food product Organic.

End-game; especially since power players in the natural foods industry would have no objection.

With enemies like these, who needs more enemies?

Jon Rappoport