(NaturalNews) Perhaps you remember the ill-fated Just-Label-It campaign. A number of activist groups petitioned the FDA for a federal regulation that would make labeling GMO food mandatory.
The petition amassed over a million signatures. But the FDA decided only 394 of these were legitimate, because all the others were electronically submitted in one document.
Infuriating? Of course. But that was nothing. Let's get down to the core of the crime.
Imagine this. A killer is put on trial, and the jury, in a surprise verdict, finds him not guilty. Afterwards, reporters interview this killer. He says, "The jury freed me. It's up to them. They decide. That's what is justice is all about."
Then the press moves along to members of the jury, who say: Well, we had to take the defendant's word. He said he was innocent, so that's what we ruled.
That's an exact description of the FDA and Monsanto partnership.
When you cut through the verbiage that surrounded the introduction of GMO food into America, you arrive at two key statements. One from Monsanto and one from the FDA, the agency responsible for overseeing, licensing, and certifying new food varieties as safe.
Quoted in the New York Times Magazine (October 25, 1998, "Playing God in the Garden"), Philip Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications, famously stated: "Monsanto shouldn't have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job."
From the Federal Register, Volume 57, No.104, "Statement of [FDA] Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties," here is what the FDA had to say on this matter: "Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety."
The direct and irreconcilable clash of these two statements is no accident. It's not a sign of incompetence or sloppy work or a mistake or a miscommunication. It's a clear signal that the fix was in.
Passing the buck back and forth was the chilling and arrogant strategy through which Pandora's box was pried opened and GMO food was let into the US food supply.
In order for this titanic scam to work, the media had to cooperate. Reporters had to be a) idiots and b)sell-outs.
With few exceptions, reporters and their editors let the story rest there, as a "he said-he said" issue. No sane principled journalist would have cut bait at that point, but who said mainstream reporters are sane or principled?
Underneath the Monsanto-FDA buck-passing act, there was a conscious deal to give a free pass to GMO crops. This had nothing to do with science or health or "feeding the world." It was about profits. It was also about establishing a new monopoly on food.
Not only would big agribusiness dominate the planet's food supply, it would strengthen its stranglehold through patents on novel types of seeds which were technologically engineered.
It's very much like saying, "A cob of corn is not a plant, it's a machine, and we own the rights to every one of those yellow machines."
There was one reason and one reason only. Putting the world's food supply into fewer hands was, and is, a major item on the Globalist agenda. If it weren't, the FDA-Monsanto scam would have been exposed in a matter of weeks or months.
Major newspapers and television networks would have attacked the obvious con job like packs of wild dogs and torn it to pieces.
But once the scam had been given a free pass, the primary corporate-government tactic was to accomplish a fait accompli, a series of events that was irreversible.
In this case, it was about gene drift. From the beginning, it was well known that GMO plants release genes that blow in the wind and spread from plant to plant, crop to crop, and field to field. There is no stopping it.
Along with convincing enough farmers to lock themselves into GMO-seed contracts, Monsanto bought up food-seed companies in order to engineer the seeds...and the gene-drift factor was the ace in the hole.
Sell enough GMO seeds, plant enough GMO crops, and you flood the world's food crops with Monsanto genes.
Back in the 1990s, the prince of darkness, Michael Taylor, who has moved through the revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto several times, and is now the czar of food safety at the FDA---Taylor said, with great conviction, that the GMO revolution was unstoppable; within a decade or two, an overwhelming percentage of food grown on planet Earth would be GMO.
Taylor and others knew. They knew about gene drift, and they also knew that ownership of the world's food, by a few companies, was a prime focus for Globalist kings who intended to feed the population through Central Planning and Distribution.
"We feed these people; we hold back food from those people; we send food there; we don't send food here."
Control food and water, and you hold the world in your hand.
Here is evidence that, even in earlier days, Monsanto knew about and pushed for the Globalist agenda. Quoted by J. Flint, in his 1998 "Agricultural Giants Moving Towards Genetic Monopolism," Robert Fraley, head of Monsanto's agri-division, stated: "What you are seeing is not just a consolidation of [Monsanto-purchased] seed companies. It's really a consolidation of the entire food chain."
And as for the power of the propaganda in that time period, I can think of no better statement than the one made on January 25th, 2001, by the outgoing US Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman. As reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Glickman said:
"What I saw generically on the pro-biotech side was the attitude that the technology was good and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn't good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you're against it, you're Luddites, you're stupid. There was rhetoric like that even here in this department. You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view on some of these issues being raised. So I pretty much spouted the rhetoric that everybody else around here spouted; it was written into my speeches."
Glickman reveals several things in these remarks: he was spineless; people at the Dept. of Agriculture were madly buying into the Monsanto cover story about feeding the world; and there had to be a significant degree of infiltration at his Agency.
The last point is key. This wasn't left to chance. You don't get a vocal majority of Dept. of Agriculture personnel spouting the Monsanto propaganda merely because the fairy tale about feeding the world sounds so good. No, there are people working on the inside to promote the "social cause" and make pariahs out of dissenters.
You need special background and training to pull that off. It isn't an automatic walk in the park. This is professional psyop and intelligence work.
I've done some investigation of various groups on both the left and the right, and I've seen some pros in action. They're good. They know how to leverage ideas and slogans and ideals. They know how to defame opponents and find just the right words to sink them. They know how to turn high-flying but vague words about "humanity" into moral imperatives.
This isn't rinky-dink stuff. To tune up bureaucrats and scientists, you have to have a background in manipulation. You have to know what you're doing. You have to be able to build and sustain support, without giving your game away.
Truth be told, governments are full of these pros, who will take any number of causes and turn them into what falsely sounds like good science, good government, good morality, all the while knowing that, on the far shore, sits the real prize: control.
These psyop specialists are hired to help make overarching and planet-wide agendas come true, as populations are brought under sophisticated and pathological elites who care, for example, about feeding the world as much as a collector cares about paralyzing and pinning butterflies on a panel in a glass case.
Here is David Rockefeller, writing in his 2003 Memoirs:
Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
The Globalists play for keeps.
Owning the food of the world is part of their strike-force action plan, and Monsanto is the technocratic arm of that plan.
Meanwhile, the controlled press treats the whole sordid Monsanto story with its time-honored policy of "he said-he said." This policy dictates that stories merely present both sides of a conflict without drawing conclusions.
It applies across the board---except when it doesn't. For example, for reasons too complex to go into here, the Washington Post decided to suspend its policy in the Watergate case. Woodward and Bernstein were assigned to investigate what was going on behind White House denials and obfuscations.
The same thing could be done with Monsanto, and it would be far easier. The lies and crimes and cover-ups are everywhere. You could wear sunglasses and find them in the dark.
The NY Times and the Washington Post could sell millions more papers on the back of the Monsanto story alone. It would be a bonanza for them. But no. They don't care. They'd rather keep declining and losing readers. They'd rather die.
Normally, a business doesn't commit suicide, especially when it sees exactly how to resuscitate itself. But here we are dealing with an agenda which can't be disturbed. Globalism, and its agri-techno partner, Monsanto, are creating a planetary future. Major media are part and parcel of that op. They are selling it.
Even as their bottom lines erode, these newspapers and television networks have to stay on their present course. By pretending they're reporting the real news, they're giving the impression that Monsanto and the FDA are home free.
Again, we aren't talking about sloppy reporting or accidental omissions of fact or boggling incompetence or ignorance about science. We are talking about conscious intent to deceive.
Yes, now and then the controlled media will release a troubling piece about Monsanto. But placement and frequency are everything. How often do these stories run? Do they run as the lead or do we find them on page 7? Are reporters assigned to keep pounding on a basic story and reveal more and more crimes? Does the basic story gather steam over the course of weeks and months?
These are the decisions that make or break a story. In the case of Monsanto and the FDA, the decisions were made a long time ago.
Part of every new reporter's training, if he has any ideals at all, is marching into his editor's office with his hair on fire demanding to be given an assignment to expose a crime. The editor, knowing the true agenda of his newspaper or television network, tells the reporter:
"We've already covered that."
"It's old news."
"People aren't interested in it."
"It's too complicated."
"The evidence you're showing me is thin."
"You'll never get to the bottom of it."
"The people involved won't talk to you."
And if none of those lies work, the editor might say, "If you keep pushing this, it would be bad for your career. You'll lose access for other stories. You'll be thought of as weird..."
This is how the game works at ground level. But make no mistake about it, the hidden agenda is about protecting an elite's op from exposure.
If NBC, for example, gave its golden boy, Brian Williams, the green light, he would become an expert on Monsanto in three days. He'd become a tiger. He'd affect a whole set of morally outraged poses and send Monsanto down into Hell.
Don't misunderstand. Brian hasn't been waiting to move in for the kill. He's a neutral entity. Wind him up and point to a target and he'll go there.
But no one will point him at Monsanto or the FDA.
All the major reporters at news outlets and all the elite television anchors are really psyop specialists. It's just that most of them don't know it.
One outraged major reporter who woke up and got out of the business put it to me this way: When he was in the game, he looked at the news as a big public restroom. His one guiding principle was: Don't piss on your shoes. Stand closer to the urinal. Pissing on your shoes was covering a story that was considered out of bounds. If you pissed on your shoes and walked into the boss's office, he'd look at you and see the telltale sign. He'd say, "Hey, you pissed on your shoes. That's disgusting. Get out of here. You're fired."
Jon Rappoport The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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 www.nomorefakenews.com
About the author: The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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. www.nomorefakenews.com