Copyright David Icke, 2012. All Rights Reserved.
The David Icke Newsletter, November 11th, 2012
VOTING AGAINST PROPOSITION 37 ...
... A DEFINITION OF INSANITY
The potential for humanity to expand its consciousness and awareness is as infinite as reality itself, but within the eternal realms of All Possibility also lurks the opportunity to be solid concrete bloody stupid. It can be depressing sometimes to realise how many are up for that challenge.
The quest to be inexplicably, self-abusing, loved-ones abusing stupid was superbly met this week when millions voted against Proposition 37 in California. When anyone asks me from now on how stupid I think the human race can potentially be I will always reply: see Proposition 37.
This was a public referendum in California which gave people the chance to vote for genetically-modified food (GM or GMO) to be compulsorily labelled as such and to stop the Big Food and Big Biotech cartels, including the notorious Monsanto, from promoting genetically-manipulated Frankenstein food as 'natural'.
Now congratulations to the 4.2 million Californians who can see the obvious, but taking into account that rigging the vote to an extent is par for the course in the United States these days, the fact remains that large numbers of Californians (officially 4.8 million, but less with vote-rigging) actually voted against their right to know what is in the food that they and their families consume and even greater numbers - nearly 48 per cent of those eligible to vote - didn't feel the need to even participate. That is a shocking level of utter stupidity, idiocy and brain-cell deficiency.
Do they not know what genetically-modified food is doing to their health, their children's health and the health of virtually the entire American population?
Clearly not and ignorance is often fatal as well as stupid.
Genetically-modified food began in earnest in the decades that followed DNA discoveries between the 1950s and 1970s which allowed scientists to gene-spice between species and re-wire the genetic code. This has now reached extraordinary extremes in which cabbages are combined with scorpion venom, spiders with goats, fish with tomatoes and human genes with rice.
We also have cats genetically-engineered to glow in the dark and bananas, potatoes, lettuce and carrots manipulated to produce vaccines and release them when eaten. The 'professors' are no longer merely mad, but clinically insane.
The key moment came in 1980 when the US Supreme Court (a Cabal-controlled dial-a-verdict operation) ruled in Diamond v. Chakrabarty that genetically-altered life forms can be patented. It was a game-changing decision that gave corporations the right to patent life itself so long as they had tinkered with it to some extent.
Patenting life forms was unthinkable before the 20th century and indeed Article One of the US Constitution specifically excluded, for moral reasons, the patenting of 'life'. In the 1930s, plant breeders were allowed to patent seed varieties, but not to have rights to subsequent seeds that were produced from them by the growers.
Dr Ananda Chakrabarty gives his message to the world, but uses the wrong finger.
The 'slick-eater' was refused a patent by the US Patent Office, but Chakrabarty made history when the US Supreme Court awarded him, by just one vote, the first patent for a life form. With that judgement, the floodgates swung open.
Patents followed for animals, human genes and body parts during the Reagan-Bush years with the corporations insisting that if they own a gene in the animal or plant, they own the animal and plant.
They contend that this also applies to the genetic engineering of the human body. Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, said: 'It actually means giving corporations, incredibly, the power to own and control species of the Earth'.
The goal all along has been to put these laws in place, genetically tinker, get a patent, and then take out of circulation all other forms of the same species of life and replace them with a patented version. This allows you to seize legal control of life forms including eventually the human body itself.
We are already seeing this in relation to food in the United States and many other parts of the world where GMO crops are contaminating and replacing non-GMO varieties in the agenda to own all seeds and foodstuffs. The concerted attacks on organic farmers and growers are all part of this - supported by a compliant media equally as ignorant of the game as those who voted 'no' to Proposition 37.
Then there is the whole transhumanism movement which involves adding technology - yes, patented technology - to 'enhance' the powers of the human body. This is all connected, too.
This is like saying that a cow pumped full of growth-hormones, antibiotics and vaccines is 'substantially-equivalent' to one that has not been subjected to such a chemical onslaught. But the FDA would say that the cows both have four legs, a body and a head and so they are 'substantially equivalent'.
This is the level of mentality and mendacity that we are dealing with.
While the FDA chose not to require independent safety testing nor labelling of GMOs, its own scientists were privately voicing their concerns that genetically-modified organisms were substantially different from other foodstuffs and not 'substantially equivalent'. Louis J. Pribyl, a scientist with the FDA's Microbiology Group, said:
There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering which is just glanced over in this document ... several aspects of gene insertion may be more hazardous than traditional plant crossbreeding.
E.J. Matthews from the FDA's Toxicology group, warned that 'genetically modified plants could also contain unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants.'
Linda Kahl, an FDA compliance officer, also challenged the 'substantially equivalent' policy statement when she said in an internal memo: 'Are we asking the scientific experts to generate the basis for this policy statement in the absence of any data? There is no data that could quantify risk.'
But here's the point: they didn't want - and don't want - the public to have a choice because they know that large numbers of people would choose to reject GMO and the agenda is to devastate the health of the population as part of the global cull and genetically-transform the human organism for reasons that I have outlined at length for years.
So the choice of eating or not eating GMO is not on their can-do list - they want to force everyone to do so. Monsanto knew exactly what the outcome would be for human health and wellbeing and Americans that now eat massive amounts of GMO in their daily diet are already reaping the whirlwind.
I detailed some of the latest data in a recent newsletter ...
Cancer, heart disease, autism, obesity, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and food allergies have soared in the same period while the fertility of the land is being devastated, genetic diversity destroyed, and between 60 and 100 per cent of air samples taken by the US Geological Survey contain Monsanto's lethal Roundup herbicide used in vast quantities in essential conjunction with GMO crops.
One of the biggest of so many health dangers from all this is inflammation in various forms which can lead to a stream of diseases including kidney and heart disease, disorders of the digestive and immune systems, cancer, diabetes and Alzheimer's. This does not even begin to be a complete list.
It was the first study - note the FIRST - to investigate the long-term effects of GMO and Monsanto's Roundup and the researchers found that rats exposed to even the smallest amounts of Roundup-resistant GM maize developed cancer and severe liver and kidney damage in a matter of months.
There was a 200 to 300 per cent increase in big tumours and some were enormous. Fifty per cent of male rats and seventy per cent of females died prematurely while this was the case for only thirty and twenty per cent among those in a control group that were not fed GMO poisons.
Even rats given water over two years containing Roundup at levels permitted in human drinking water died significantly earlier than rats fed on a standard diet. I don't agree with experiments on animals, but the suffering that these rats went through should have served as a colossal wake-up call for consumers of GMO.
But it didn't. Well, not enough it didn't in terms of California and Proposition 37.
Secondly, so many people are equally naïve. It is being said that Proposition 37 was lost because the Big Food and Big Biotech giants like Monsanto, Dow, Kraft and PepsiCo, spent more than $45 million in support of the 'no' campaign.
This is true in the sense that the lies promoted in high-profile television advertising swayed a large number of people to change their minds and vote 'no' if the data in opinion polls throughout the campaign can be believed. But that is no excuse at all.
People have a mind and they can choose to use it no matter how much propaganda is hurled at them to influence their perceptions. The vast money difference between the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns may have been significant in the outcome, but it would not have been in the least influential if people were conscious.
The Los Angeles Times published a poll in September that had 61 per cent of registered voters supporting Proposition 37 and only 25 per cent in opposition (shocking as that figure still is when in a fully aware community it would have been 0 per cent).
So what on earth happened between September and polling day on November 6th?
The corporations said that passing Proposition 37 would increase food prices, bury farmers in red tape, cost the taxpayer unlimited amounts of money and make fortunes for lawyers issuing lawsuits like confetti against growers and sellers. No, it would simply have insisted that genetically-modified food was labelled as genetically-modified food.
Monsanto lied. Could that be one of the most written or spoken sentences in modern history?
Pro-37 campaigner Kristin Lynch, Pacific Region Director of Food & Water Watch, talked about an unprecedented campaign of falsehoods and deception funded by pesticide and junk food corporations:
In the face of unrelenting deceptive advertising funded by giant chemical and processed food corporations to the tune of nearly $50 million, California's Proposition 37 calling for a simple label on genetically engineered food narrowly lost with 47 per cent of the vote.
While support for GE food labels has never been stronger, the incessant drumbeat of misleading and outright false industry advertising was barely able to defeat this popular measure ... Pesticide companies led by Monsanto and DuPont, and processed food corporations led by Pepsi and Kraft spent an unprecedented amount of money to confuse and deceive Californians into voting against their right to know what's in their food.
But we should not be surprised - honesty and transparency are clearly not the priority of corporations that spend millions keeping consumers in the dark about whether or not their food has been genetically altered in a laboratory.
All that is true, but it misses the point that I am making here. The lies may be incessant, but we don't have to believe them.
Who benefited from the rejection of Proposition 37? The long list of corporations - Monsanto more than anyone - that funded the 'no' campaign. They can now produce and sell their cumulatively lethal concoctions and keep the public of California in ignorance of what they are eating while continuing to call their laboratory creations 'natural'.
People were persuaded to vote 'no' by a campaign funded by these people? A conscious society would have laughed in its face and not changed its mind in such numbers. The funding differences are a fact, not an excuse for terminal naivety and ignorance.
There is no excuse for ignorance of such matters now with so much information available on the Internet exposing the anti-humanity agenda of the corporations and their long and horrific record of lies and manipulation.
But so many remain child-like and are happy, even anxious, to be led and directed without ever allowing their consciousness to intervene. The story of Proposition 37 is such a metaphor for what most of humanity has become and how it became so.
How much further can humanity fall in terms of self-respect and dignity than to have their children go through full body radiation scanners that reveal them naked and now a significant number saying it would be fine to have someone stick a finger up their arse in order to make 8.05 to Chicago?
The survey also found that a majority of Americans think it reasonable to have a law that makes it illegal to disobey a TSA (fast-emerging US Gestapo) agent and 35 per cent said they would be willing or somewhat willing to wear an electric shock bracelet that could incapacitate them in an airport or on a flight.
These are people who would listen like good little children to whatever Monsanto said to frighten them about Proposition 37 and would somehow convince themselves that it was right to go to a polling station and actually vote against their right to know what is in the food that they eat.
The technique of giving them 'bread and circuses' is still very much with us, but it is waning, albeit far too slowly for me, and that is at least encouraging.
But there is no justification for complacency because Big Biotech and Big Food want to see Europe awash with GMO in the same way as North America and they are finding it harder and slower here in the wake of opposition from the public which even the Monsanto-compliant politicians like Tony Blair have to take notice of.
This is why I have said so many times that the Cabal push the gate and see what resistance they face. If none or little, they walk through to the next 'gate' and do the same. It is the resistance in Europe which has held the GMO line to where it is today and this must continue. Give them an opening and they will be in like a flash.
Unfortunately, while four million Californians stood firm at the ballot box, another four million and some stood aside and said 'after you'. It is a decision that a lot of people are going to pay for with their health and their family's health.
But then, that is life - choice and consequence, choice and consequence. If people would only get informed and open their eyes and minds they would make different choices and face different - and far nicer - consequences.
This, too, is just a choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment