Thursday, April 30, 2015
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
Good news from Tyson
NATION’S LARGEST CHICKEN PRODUCER TO STOP USING HUMAN ANTIBIOTICS
Top McDonald's supplier drops mega antibiotics
At least partially. As NPR reports:
“Tyson still will use a class of antibiotics called ionophores that are not used to treat humans. If bacteria develop resistance to ionophores, doctors don’t care, because they never use ionophores anyway.”
Tyson is the leading supplier for McDonald’s, whichalso announced a couple months ago that it will be ‘limiting’ its use of antibiotics in chicken. The key word in Tyson’s press release on the subject here though is ‘human.’ These are antibiotics given to chickens that are intended for human beings, and we’ve seen the effects of such farming practices.
Let’s flashback to the Purdue farmer who revealed in a viral video I shared with you months ago the true extent to which these chickens are bred into disease. Chickens that end up on your dinner plate, loaded with antibiotics and who knows what else. Checkout the video below:
As a contractor for Perdue, farmer Craig Watts states in the video that he is contractually obligated to ensure that the chickens destined for your dinner table do not receive any form of sunlight or fresh air. In addition, the chickens are forced to lay not only on their own bed of feces, but feces that has accumulated for around the past year. This is because the floors are not cleaned between each import of new chickens, leading to thick layers of feces, other bodily fluids, limbs, and other items accumulating to the point where the underbellies of the chickens are worn red and their feathers are rubbed clean off.
Is it any wonder that around 97% of all chicken products have been found to be tainted with harmful bacteria? Instead of dosing chickens with mega antibiotics in any form, perhaps we should be more concerned with them sleeping on piles of their ancestors’ feces.
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Don't stay at Motel 6
Motel 6 Sending Guests’ Personal Info to Police Every Night
Guests will not be informed about police list upon check-in
Avedisian confirmed the agreement to the Providence Journalafter a closed-door meeting with motel executives, Warwick’s police chief and a town administrator.
“We know everyone who is staying in the hotel tonight,” Avedisian remarked.
Upon receiving the list, police will examine the backgrounds of each motel guest in order to check for outstanding warrants, a policy Avedisian deems necessary due to suspected human trafficking in the area. Multiple motel guests have already been arrested Avedisian said, although details on the alleged crimes have been minimal.
Despite the policy making local headlines, Motel 6 confirmed that guests will not be informed of the new measure. The motel will also raise the renting age to 21 from 18 and begin sharing its list of banned patrons with other locations nationwide.
“If Motel 6 has identified someone who has caused trouble in their location, I think we want to be able to share that with other hotels,” Avedisian said. “So they don’t experience the same type of difficulty.”
Steven Brown, the Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, is calling the move a clear breach of privacy.
“When visitors go to a hotel for the night, they expect to be treated like guests, not potential criminals,” Brown said. “There are many ways to deal with illegal activities at the motel without engaging in such a wholesale invasion of patrons’ privacy.”
In response to the ACLU’s statement, Warwick Police Chief Col. Stephen M. McCartney argued that his department had not demanded the list, but had been offered the list by Motel 6.
“It was pretty clear that [Motel 6] corporate and the general manager had done an in-depth analysis of their business model and said: ‘What are things we can do to attract the right kind of people here and make sure the undesirable, criminal element doesn’t come?’” McCartney said to the Providence Journal.
As noted by Tech Dirt’s Tim Cushing, the Supreme Court iscurrently debating the legality of law enforcement’s warrantless access to hotel records.
“Motel 6 has just decided to make it worse,” Cushing wrote. “While warrantless access to motel records is being challenged in the Supreme Court, the chain has decided to preemptively strip away any privacy expectations that may result from court rulings and just hand it all over to law enforcement because sometimes criminals stay in motel rooms.”
Whether or not the company’s bottom line will be affected by privacy-conscious detractors remains to be seen.
Monday, April 27, 2015
RT interviews Paul Joseph Watson
‘US NATIONAL GUARD’S DRILLS IN PUBLIC AIMED AT DEALING WITH DOMESTIC ‘DISSIDENTS’’
Paul Joseph Watson, Infowars Editor at Large speaks with RT
US Army field manuals admit that public drills are aimed at dealing with political dissidents that need to be “reeducated to gain a new appreciation of US policies,” Paul Joseph Watson, Infowars Editor at Large told RT’s In the Now.
RT: The police in the US are accused more than ever now of militarization. A video has appeared online showing armed national guardsmen conducting exercises near a children’s playground in Virginia. We contacted the infantry brigade – here’s what they told us: coordination was made with the Staunton Police Department, these are freshers who are training on basic military subjects like drill and ceremonies, basic first aid, military courtesies and the guns they carry are replicas. What is wrong with it?
Paul Joseph Watson: What is wrong with that is the fact that they are doing it not on base but in public. And we have to put this in the context of a spate of videoswhich have emerged in the recent weeks with not only National Guard but US Army troops in some cases working with police conducting these public drills which in some cases, not in this case but others, are based around crowd control and civil unrest. And the line they always give us that it’s designed for overseas combat, foreign operations. But if you then read the US Army’s actual manuals that they release, it’s clear that it’s for dual purpose, it’s for “dissidents” on US soil. So the media regurgitate this claim that all these drills are just foreign operations. Yet they are doing it in public, in plain sight, while privately in their own field manuals admitting that it’s to take on “dissidents within the continental US.” That’s why people are concerned about it and a lot of our audience is National Guard or former or current US military. They are concerned about these public drills. They didn’t enlist to police the US people which is a lot of this seems to be geared towards.
RT: Why are we seeing such a rise in the methods riot police are using? How do you secure any kind of security in this state without these kinds of institutions to keep the peace so to say?
PJW: Keeping the peace is one thing, but when they identify, for example CNN reported a few days ago… demonstrators in Ferguson, Missouri are called “enemy forces”. No matter what you think about the motive behind those demonstrations – that’s of concern. When they identify people in New Hampshire, occupy activists, libertarians, ‘free staters’ as domestic threats and that’s why they are buying the armored vehicles and that’s why people are concerned. The police chief in New Hampshire said “We need to buy these armored vehicles to deal with domestic political activists,” not with genuine security threats, but with protestors and demonstrators. So that’s why this has caused such concern.
RT: But in Ferguson, Missouri we saw not just rioting, but looting and setting buildings on fire. How can it be dealt with without the National Guard involved?
PJW: I’m not against the National Guard providing security but you have to read their own manuals. For example Civil Disturbance Operations – this is US Army manual – which states that they will take on and “reeducate dissidents on US soil domestically,” as part of their wider training agenda for these civil disturbance operations. So this is not about dealing with violent threats, in their own manuals they say its political dissidents that need “to be reeducated to gain a new appreciation of US policies.” So this is clearly politically geared towards dealing with protestors both on the left and on the right, occupy activists as well as tea parties. And they admit that in their own manuals. So again this is not about just dealing with violent protest – nobody would be against that. It’s about political targeting of demonstrators.
RT: Why are we seeing such a rise in targeting of the so-called dissent in the United States? Is it the fear that the protests will worsen somehow?
PJW: That’s definitely the fear, that’s why they are buying all these bullets, as well as buying riot gear. The economist Robert Johnson at the Davos economic forum back in January said that the elite buying these secret hideaways in these remote places like New Zealand because they are expecting more events like Ferguson, Missouri because of the lack of faith in the political system, the lack of credence in the political system and wealth inequality. So they expect civil unrest in the US. That doesn’t mean they are about to impose martial law it just means they are preparing for it because of these factors- wealth inequality and a complete collapse in a faith in the political system – being prime amongst them.
RT: How much of accountability is there with these forces?
PJW: The positive thing about this is they handed it out surveys to US troops National Guard in the past stretching back ten years or more where they asked them “in an event of a national emergency will you fire on US citizens, in the event of mass confiscation program will you fire on US citizens?” And the vast majority of the US Army and National Guard have always said “no.” So that gives us hope if they are commanded to follow these orders they will refuse to do so. And again a lot of these videos are forwarded to us by our own listeners who are ex-military and even current military. So it shows that they don’t support in many cases what they are being ordered to do in terms of this potential domestic repression.
Sunday, April 26, 2015
Saturday, April 25, 2015
Joel Skousen's Historical Deceptions: George W. Bush
THE BUSH RECORD AFTER THREE YEARS GETTING WORSE
I keep wondering why each week it becomes harder to fit even a portion of the top news stories into my weekly analysis. The sheer quantity of bad news emanating from the bowels of government and brought to light by concerned libertarians and civil liberty watchdogs has become a flood, even as traditionally watchful conservatives choose to "see no evil, and hear no evil" by the Bush administration.
There are obvious signs of outright betrayal of our laws and culture, such as the administrations latest version of amnesty (euphemistically called a "guest worker" program) that even the most fervent Bush apologists are having trouble explaining away. But there are also many crucial signs that this administration is working silently and stealthily behind the scenes to undercut liberty and increase the size and power of government, contrary to its "conservative" pretensions.
We would have expected a truly conservative administration, with control over both houses of Congress, to create havoc among the opposition in its efforts to undo the historic evils of entrenched bureaucracy:
replacing old leftists at the State Department and firing extremist environmentalists entrenched in the forest service, BLM and EPA;
rooting out dark side agents in the CIA, FBI, DEA, INS, etc., who have been hiding US involvement in drugs, and underworld criminal protection;
eliminating Clinton cronies as federal prosecutors in higher ups in the Justice Department; and
reigning in the IRS to stop it from using tax audits as a tool to persecute governments perceived enemies.
Instead of reigning in the socialist drift of big government, this Republican administration continues to operate "government as usual," as reports from insiders attest:The FAA continues to harass and block airline pilots from becoming armed, as provided by law.
The INS still refuses to enforce immigration laws strictly regarding Mexicans, Muslims and Indians. Only white European aliens are vigorously pursued and deported.
The DEA continues to allow sealed trucks to cross the border from Mexico with cargos of drugs.
The IRS continues to harass small tax payers while letting the big fish like Enron go scot-free. (For all the hue and cry over the Enron accounting scandal, there were no audits of Enrons 800+ offshore tax shelters.) The IRS this week issued Revenue Ruling 2004-6 creating a broad new set of ambiguous standards which special interest groups like the principled Gun Owners of America, Conservative Caucus and others must follow or risk losing all or part of their tax-exempt status. If any alert is issued to Americans via letter or email (not just television or radio, as prohibited by McCain Feingold campaign finance reforms), which negatively mentions an issue or officeholder that is subject to an upcoming election (within 60 days), the alert would not meet the new IRS "balance test" and would be outlawed. The ruling is a convenient way to persecute principled organizations that publish information and viewpoints hostile to the establishment version.
The Justice Department, despite Ashcrofts verbal support of the Second Amendment, continues to allow the BATF to persecute legitimate and legal gun owners and dealers at gun shows for minor infractions and trumped-up charges. The feds continue to keep background records on gun purchases beyond legal limits. Neither does the DOJ press the Supreme Court to back crucial gun rights issues when they come before the court.
Russia and China continue to be given access to sensitive technology and military secrets.
Homeland Security continues to ramp up its control and surveillance of every passenger boarding a plane. The errors of Christmas day (US demanding that six Air France flights be cancelled), where the US made unsubstantiated and erroneous allegations about passengers whose names were similar to those on terror watch lists, will be amplified many times when the new Red/Yellow/Green passenger coding system is implemented soon. As is the case with watch lists, if your name gets in a yellow or red category, you will have no procedural rights to challenge that classification or purge your name from the blacklist. As Pastor Chuck Baldwin said, "Passengers would be assigned a red, yellow, or green color. A red coded passenger would be stopped from boarding; yellow would require additional screening at security checkpoints, and green would mean only standard security for boarding. The government plans to implement the new system next month. To any person familiar with the incremental methods used by totalitarian regimes to regulate and control their populations, this latest measure being enacted by President Bush can only be regarded as scary. By now, it should be obvious to every thinking person that the Bush administration is composed of a bunch of control freaks who are attempting to turn America into a police state!" Yes, but NOT because they are control freaks. A better explanation is the fact that this administration is controlled by globalists who must incrementally undermine US constitutional protections in order to merge the US into their evil New World Order the real future control system.
A week after pledging to "cut the budget deficit by half," President Bush unleashes another pie-in-the-sky boondoggle by announcing two new expensive space projects: a space station on the moon and a manned flight to Mars. Are these essential in a time of severe economic crisis and continual warfare? Bush deceitfully projects the cost of these projects to be a mere $12 billion. Even NASA is shocked at the understatement of costs.
There are obvious signs of outright betrayal of our laws and culture, such as the administrations latest version of amnesty (euphemistically called a "guest worker" program) that even the most fervent Bush apologists are having trouble explaining away. But there are also many crucial signs that this administration is working silently and stealthily behind the scenes to undercut liberty and increase the size and power of government, contrary to its "conservative" pretensions.
We would have expected a truly conservative administration, with control over both houses of Congress, to create havoc among the opposition in its efforts to undo the historic evils of entrenched bureaucracy:
rooting out dark side agents in the CIA, FBI, DEA, INS, etc., who have been hiding US involvement in drugs, and underworld criminal protection;
eliminating Clinton cronies as federal prosecutors in higher ups in the Justice Department; and
reigning in the IRS to stop it from using tax audits as a tool to persecute governments perceived enemies.
Instead of reigning in the socialist drift of big government, this Republican administration continues to operate "government as usual," as reports from insiders attest:
The INS still refuses to enforce immigration laws strictly regarding Mexicans, Muslims and Indians. Only white European aliens are vigorously pursued and deported.
The DEA continues to allow sealed trucks to cross the border from Mexico with cargos of drugs.
The IRS continues to harass small tax payers while letting the big fish like Enron go scot-free. (For all the hue and cry over the Enron accounting scandal, there were no audits of Enrons 800+ offshore tax shelters.) The IRS this week issued Revenue Ruling 2004-6 creating a broad new set of ambiguous standards which special interest groups like the principled Gun Owners of America, Conservative Caucus and others must follow or risk losing all or part of their tax-exempt status. If any alert is issued to Americans via letter or email (not just television or radio, as prohibited by McCain Feingold campaign finance reforms), which negatively mentions an issue or officeholder that is subject to an upcoming election (within 60 days), the alert would not meet the new IRS "balance test" and would be outlawed. The ruling is a convenient way to persecute principled organizations that publish information and viewpoints hostile to the establishment version.
The Justice Department, despite Ashcrofts verbal support of the Second Amendment, continues to allow the BATF to persecute legitimate and legal gun owners and dealers at gun shows for minor infractions and trumped-up charges. The feds continue to keep background records on gun purchases beyond legal limits. Neither does the DOJ press the Supreme Court to back crucial gun rights issues when they come before the court.
Russia and China continue to be given access to sensitive technology and military secrets.
Homeland Security continues to ramp up its control and surveillance of every passenger boarding a plane. The errors of Christmas day (US demanding that six Air France flights be cancelled), where the US made unsubstantiated and erroneous allegations about passengers whose names were similar to those on terror watch lists, will be amplified many times when the new Red/Yellow/Green passenger coding system is implemented soon. As is the case with watch lists, if your name gets in a yellow or red category, you will have no procedural rights to challenge that classification or purge your name from the blacklist. As Pastor Chuck Baldwin said, "Passengers would be assigned a red, yellow, or green color. A red coded passenger would be stopped from boarding; yellow would require additional screening at security checkpoints, and green would mean only standard security for boarding. The government plans to implement the new system next month. To any person familiar with the incremental methods used by totalitarian regimes to regulate and control their populations, this latest measure being enacted by President Bush can only be regarded as scary. By now, it should be obvious to every thinking person that the Bush administration is composed of a bunch of control freaks who are attempting to turn America into a police state!" Yes, but NOT because they are control freaks. A better explanation is the fact that this administration is controlled by globalists who must incrementally undermine US constitutional protections in order to merge the US into their evil New World Order the real future control system.
A week after pledging to "cut the budget deficit by half," President Bush unleashes another pie-in-the-sky boondoggle by announcing two new expensive space projects: a space station on the moon and a manned flight to Mars. Are these essential in a time of severe economic crisis and continual warfare? Bush deceitfully projects the cost of these projects to be a mere $12 billion. Even NASA is shocked at the understatement of costs.
WHOS REALLY RUNNING THE BUSH PRESIDENCY?
Its no secret that Bush was a know-nothing playboy businessman living off papas reputation and power prior to being allowed to move up the stepping stones of public office. After being interviewed by kingmaker George Shultz in San Francisco, and having been declared "ready" to serve the establishment, he still had to be briefed for weeks on foreign and domestic policy by the likes of Kissinger, Scowcroft and Talbot before he could face the cameras - something he has rarely done without a written script. Even now, savvy analysts still consider Bush only a step above a script reader. Whenever he tries to wing it on his own, his answers are grammatically incorrect, poorly worded, confused, or simply a rehash of overworn "tough guy" phrases he memorized previously. So, whos the real power behind the throne?
A rash of articles have been emerging in the alternative media lately on the topic, all pointing to VP Dick Cheney as the real power in the Bush administration. The details are generally correct, but the conclusions about Cheneys overall role and power are wrong. He is directing the president, but hes only a middleman. Heres a sampling:
Ritt Goldstein of the Sydney Morning Herald writes, "A former Pentagon officer turned whistleblower says a group of hawks in the Bush Administration, including the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, is running a shadow foreign policy, contravening Washington's official line." Karen Kwiatkowski, a former air force lieutenant-colonel in the Pentagon claims, "George Bush isn't in control . . . the country's been hijacked." She describes how key areas of neoconservative concern were strategically placed throughout the White House and in government agencies. She ought to know. She worked under one of Cheneys boys, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith. However, Kwiatkowski is wrong about the presidency being "hijacked." Bush is a knowing, but lower level participant.
Another significant article describing how Cheneys boys control the other key posts in the administration was written by Jim Lobe, a journalist for Alternet.org and other liberal publications. In todays world we often have to rely on the Left to do the initial critical analysis of Bush administration policies. Most conservatives writers either have gone to sleep or have become inveterate yes-men to Bush.
In general, keep in mind that Lobe and other leftists believe there is a natural tension between liberal-leaning Sec. of State Colin Powell (including the traditionally leftist State Department), and the "right wing" neo-cons of the White House and Pentagon. They believe the "right wingers" in power run a capitalist conspiracy for greed and power, which Powell and other token liberals in government try to resist. This is not true, in reality. They do resist a little, but few of the liberals at mid-levels of government are quiting in protest. All those in high position, without exception, are participants, to one degree or another, in a conspiracy of governmental control, for globalist purposes. The degree of difference between various players is in how much of the game plan they are actually aware of. Occassionally a nave and subservient conservative is given a top level agency to run, in order to help preserve the faade of conservatism in the Bush administration. They too know there is a powerful control system, but they think it is benevolent, with good intentions. I dont consider Attorny General Ashcroft as one of these nave conservatives. Hes told too many lies to qualify as an honest man any more.
Colin Powell certainly knows he is part of a powerful control system. The system brought him up the chain of military command as Powell fulfilled his "uncle Tom" role. He was a useful minority officer who could be relied upon to cover-up for military mistakes. Bush has been the recipient of a lot of favors from the establishment as well. The control system is what has covered for his errors and missteps throughout life, and provided him the wealth making opportunities that otherwise would have eluded someone of average abilities. Neither Powell nor Bush, I believe, are aware of the big picture. They only know they are part of the sytem and protected by it as long as they dont cross anyone higher up. As far as Cheney is concerned, I think he is the point man within the Bush administration for the real Powers That Be (PTB), who rarely hold public office. Taking his orders from others higher in the power structure, Cheney then directs the president, sometimes openly, but usually by suggestions. Besides directly influencing the president, Cheney was also in charge of selecting the staff of the White House, the Pentagon, and some positions within State Department.
Most of Lobes conclusions are wrong because he doesnt understand the over-arching conspiracy of power that is above the office of the President. He thinks narrowly only about people trying to "hijack the presidency." But his analysis is still useful. Ill insert my comments in [brackets] to give insight into whats really going on.
"While the mainstream media mostly continue to cast Bush as the captain of his ship, hints that Cheney is the dominant figure shaping Washington's diplomatic policy have become too numerous to ignore. A recent Washington Post article assessing Condoleezza Rices performance as national security adviser revealed a most stunning example of this lopsided state of affairs. According to the Post, Bush had ordered Cabinet officials not to give any preferential treatment to Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress (INC) when US forces moved into Iraq last spring. But soon after, in flagrant violation of his directive, the Pentagon flew Chalabi and 600 of his armed followers into southern Iraq in early April, with the approval of the vice president. [The facts are right, but Lobe doesnt have the whole story. The original Bush directive was only make a pretense of fairness for all of those staff members in the White House and Pentagon who still think our government tries to do whats right. The Cheney directive was Bushs intent all along. Cheney did and does assume the power to issue orders directly-which no other VP has ever exercised, to my knowledge.]
"It would not be the first or last time that Cheney simply ignored his commander-in-chief. The extent of Cheney's power is not surprising given the degree to which Bush relied on him during his presidential campaign and in the administration's early days. [Relied on is not correct. Whenever the PTB bring in a relatively nave and unqualified person such as Bush to serve as president, they assign him several advisors and one main "handler," whom the president knows he is never to disregard-despite his position as president. Cheney, I believe, is Bushs handler.] And the fact that Cheney, who was asked by Bush to recommend his running mate in 2000, picked himself for the job [a foregone conclusion anyway; the entire "selection process" was only for show] reveals that he expected to wield extraordinary power if Bush won the election.
"Cheney has played a much more important role than Rice since the early days of the administration, despite her closer personal relationship with the president. [True, and this will always be the case. Rice is a second rate academic still in training for higher things. She rarely thinks for herself. No previous National Security advisor has had this level of inexperience. Most, like Kissinger, Scowcroft and Talbot, were high level conspirators placed at NSA to control presidents like Nixon and Ford. Rice is a shamefully apologist for everything Bush says or does. She has little credibility when she does this, among the old guard of Kissingers group, and thus is not trusted with any crucial decisions. Llike Powell, she must be corrected often by Cheney and his plants within the State Department.] It was Cheney's choices that prevailed in the appointment of both cabinet and sub-cabinet national-security officials, beginning with that of Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary. Not only did Cheney personally intervene to ensure that Powell's best friend, Richard Armitage [a CIA drug smuggling spook, despised by the neo-cons], was denied the deputy defense secretary position, but he also secured the post for his own protg, Paul Wolfowitz. Moreover, it was Cheney who insisted that the ultra-unilateralist John Bolton be placed in a top State Department arms job - a position from which Bolton has consistently pursued policies that run counter to Powell's own views. [True. Thats because, while Powell is a "player" and yesman, he is not trusted to know the overall game plan. Only those who are high enough to know the big picture are capable of understanding why the US plays both sides in the wars on drugs, terror, and tyranny. Powell, being a nave liberal, is a natural pick to head the State Department, which is full of hard core leftists. Cheney had to put someone in State that the leftists there would tolerate and trust to some degree.]
"Moreover, Cheney's own national-security staff is the largest ever employed by a vice president. Its members have largely been chosen for both their ideological affinity with their boss and proven Washington experience. [Good point. The size of Cheneys staff is a huge indication of his hidden role as handler.] They play to win, said one State Department official. Cheney's chief of staff and national security adviser, I. Lewis Scooter Libby, a Washington lawyer and Wolfowitz protg, is considered a far more skilled and experienced bureaucratic and political operator than Rice. [This is a gross understatement. Libby is one of the real evil players to watch. Hes a ruthless operator-the kind the PTB bring up in the ranks to control others, but from behind the scenes. Libby has a Lenin type face and would never be trusted by the public. Cheney, on the other hand, has a cherubic expression capable of deceiving conservatives-so hes who they put out front nowadays.] With several of his political allies on Rice's own staff - including deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley and Middle East director Elliott Abrams - Libby is able to run circles around Condi [true, indeed], noted a former NSC official." [End of Lobe quote.]
Its no secret that Bush was a know-nothing playboy businessman living off papas reputation and power prior to being allowed to move up the stepping stones of public office. After being interviewed by kingmaker George Shultz in San Francisco, and having been declared "ready" to serve the establishment, he still had to be briefed for weeks on foreign and domestic policy by the likes of Kissinger, Scowcroft and Talbot before he could face the cameras - something he has rarely done without a written script. Even now, savvy analysts still consider Bush only a step above a script reader. Whenever he tries to wing it on his own, his answers are grammatically incorrect, poorly worded, confused, or simply a rehash of overworn "tough guy" phrases he memorized previously. So, whos the real power behind the throne?
A rash of articles have been emerging in the alternative media lately on the topic, all pointing to VP Dick Cheney as the real power in the Bush administration. The details are generally correct, but the conclusions about Cheneys overall role and power are wrong. He is directing the president, but hes only a middleman. Heres a sampling:
Ritt Goldstein of the Sydney Morning Herald writes, "A former Pentagon officer turned whistleblower says a group of hawks in the Bush Administration, including the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, is running a shadow foreign policy, contravening Washington's official line." Karen Kwiatkowski, a former air force lieutenant-colonel in the Pentagon claims, "George Bush isn't in control . . . the country's been hijacked." She describes how key areas of neoconservative concern were strategically placed throughout the White House and in government agencies. She ought to know. She worked under one of Cheneys boys, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith. However, Kwiatkowski is wrong about the presidency being "hijacked." Bush is a knowing, but lower level participant.
Another significant article describing how Cheneys boys control the other key posts in the administration was written by Jim Lobe, a journalist for Alternet.org and other liberal publications. In todays world we often have to rely on the Left to do the initial critical analysis of Bush administration policies. Most conservatives writers either have gone to sleep or have become inveterate yes-men to Bush.
In general, keep in mind that Lobe and other leftists believe there is a natural tension between liberal-leaning Sec. of State Colin Powell (including the traditionally leftist State Department), and the "right wing" neo-cons of the White House and Pentagon. They believe the "right wingers" in power run a capitalist conspiracy for greed and power, which Powell and other token liberals in government try to resist. This is not true, in reality. They do resist a little, but few of the liberals at mid-levels of government are quiting in protest. All those in high position, without exception, are participants, to one degree or another, in a conspiracy of governmental control, for globalist purposes. The degree of difference between various players is in how much of the game plan they are actually aware of. Occassionally a nave and subservient conservative is given a top level agency to run, in order to help preserve the faade of conservatism in the Bush administration. They too know there is a powerful control system, but they think it is benevolent, with good intentions. I dont consider Attorny General Ashcroft as one of these nave conservatives. Hes told too many lies to qualify as an honest man any more.
Colin Powell certainly knows he is part of a powerful control system. The system brought him up the chain of military command as Powell fulfilled his "uncle Tom" role. He was a useful minority officer who could be relied upon to cover-up for military mistakes. Bush has been the recipient of a lot of favors from the establishment as well. The control system is what has covered for his errors and missteps throughout life, and provided him the wealth making opportunities that otherwise would have eluded someone of average abilities. Neither Powell nor Bush, I believe, are aware of the big picture. They only know they are part of the sytem and protected by it as long as they dont cross anyone higher up. As far as Cheney is concerned, I think he is the point man within the Bush administration for the real Powers That Be (PTB), who rarely hold public office. Taking his orders from others higher in the power structure, Cheney then directs the president, sometimes openly, but usually by suggestions. Besides directly influencing the president, Cheney was also in charge of selecting the staff of the White House, the Pentagon, and some positions within State Department.
Most of Lobes conclusions are wrong because he doesnt understand the over-arching conspiracy of power that is above the office of the President. He thinks narrowly only about people trying to "hijack the presidency." But his analysis is still useful. Ill insert my comments in [brackets] to give insight into whats really going on.
"While the mainstream media mostly continue to cast Bush as the captain of his ship, hints that Cheney is the dominant figure shaping Washington's diplomatic policy have become too numerous to ignore. A recent Washington Post article assessing Condoleezza Rices performance as national security adviser revealed a most stunning example of this lopsided state of affairs. According to the Post, Bush had ordered Cabinet officials not to give any preferential treatment to Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress (INC) when US forces moved into Iraq last spring. But soon after, in flagrant violation of his directive, the Pentagon flew Chalabi and 600 of his armed followers into southern Iraq in early April, with the approval of the vice president. [The facts are right, but Lobe doesnt have the whole story. The original Bush directive was only make a pretense of fairness for all of those staff members in the White House and Pentagon who still think our government tries to do whats right. The Cheney directive was Bushs intent all along. Cheney did and does assume the power to issue orders directly-which no other VP has ever exercised, to my knowledge.]
"It would not be the first or last time that Cheney simply ignored his commander-in-chief. The extent of Cheney's power is not surprising given the degree to which Bush relied on him during his presidential campaign and in the administration's early days. [Relied on is not correct. Whenever the PTB bring in a relatively nave and unqualified person such as Bush to serve as president, they assign him several advisors and one main "handler," whom the president knows he is never to disregard-despite his position as president. Cheney, I believe, is Bushs handler.] And the fact that Cheney, who was asked by Bush to recommend his running mate in 2000, picked himself for the job [a foregone conclusion anyway; the entire "selection process" was only for show] reveals that he expected to wield extraordinary power if Bush won the election.
"Cheney has played a much more important role than Rice since the early days of the administration, despite her closer personal relationship with the president. [True, and this will always be the case. Rice is a second rate academic still in training for higher things. She rarely thinks for herself. No previous National Security advisor has had this level of inexperience. Most, like Kissinger, Scowcroft and Talbot, were high level conspirators placed at NSA to control presidents like Nixon and Ford. Rice is a shamefully apologist for everything Bush says or does. She has little credibility when she does this, among the old guard of Kissingers group, and thus is not trusted with any crucial decisions. Llike Powell, she must be corrected often by Cheney and his plants within the State Department.] It was Cheney's choices that prevailed in the appointment of both cabinet and sub-cabinet national-security officials, beginning with that of Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary. Not only did Cheney personally intervene to ensure that Powell's best friend, Richard Armitage [a CIA drug smuggling spook, despised by the neo-cons], was denied the deputy defense secretary position, but he also secured the post for his own protg, Paul Wolfowitz. Moreover, it was Cheney who insisted that the ultra-unilateralist John Bolton be placed in a top State Department arms job - a position from which Bolton has consistently pursued policies that run counter to Powell's own views. [True. Thats because, while Powell is a "player" and yesman, he is not trusted to know the overall game plan. Only those who are high enough to know the big picture are capable of understanding why the US plays both sides in the wars on drugs, terror, and tyranny. Powell, being a nave liberal, is a natural pick to head the State Department, which is full of hard core leftists. Cheney had to put someone in State that the leftists there would tolerate and trust to some degree.]
"Moreover, Cheney's own national-security staff is the largest ever employed by a vice president. Its members have largely been chosen for both their ideological affinity with their boss and proven Washington experience. [Good point. The size of Cheneys staff is a huge indication of his hidden role as handler.] They play to win, said one State Department official. Cheney's chief of staff and national security adviser, I. Lewis Scooter Libby, a Washington lawyer and Wolfowitz protg, is considered a far more skilled and experienced bureaucratic and political operator than Rice. [This is a gross understatement. Libby is one of the real evil players to watch. Hes a ruthless operator-the kind the PTB bring up in the ranks to control others, but from behind the scenes. Libby has a Lenin type face and would never be trusted by the public. Cheney, on the other hand, has a cherubic expression capable of deceiving conservatives-so hes who they put out front nowadays.] With several of his political allies on Rice's own staff - including deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley and Middle East director Elliott Abrams - Libby is able to run circles around Condi [true, indeed], noted a former NSC official." [End of Lobe quote.]
Friday, April 24, 2015
Will we be a technocracy?
IS THE NWO CHANGING AMERICA FROM A REPUBLIC TO A TECHNOCRACY? THE PUSH IS ON!
Technocracy: Old Fallacies in a New Disguise - A PRIMER ON THE CHANGE IN GOVERNANCE IN AMERICA
A distortion of truth can be as misleading as a downright lie. A new craze called Technocracy has swept America and is now being lapped up eagerly by all kinds of muddleheaded people in Great Britain. It is based on a distortion of the facts and leads to thoroughly unsound conclusions. The word itself means Government by technicians or engineers.
Technocracy, however, has come to mean much more than that. Some ten years ago a group of American engineers and scientists concluded that “scientific discovery and modern engineering skill have now armed mankind with powers which would insure it a life of leisure and plenty if only they were properly employed.”
Arguing from this sort of evidence the technocrats speak glibly of each man’s output increasing “thousands of times,” and they see this increase at work with special force in recent years. The flaw is that they have left entirely out of account the vast amount of labor needed for the construction of the modern flour mills and blast furnaces and for the provision of fuel, transport, etc., to supply them with raw material and distribute their products.
Without this information (and the United States Government Committee on Technological Unemployment has just reported that such information relating to separate trades is not available. See Industrial and Labour Information. I.L.O. January 2nd, 1933), the comparisons have little value and are in fact utterly misleading. Productivity does not increase at anything like the rate they claim.
Their false assumptions have led the technocrats to wildly extravagant conclusions which their admirers in Great Britain have promptly swallowed. They talk about production having reached the stage at which it can almost entirely dispense with human labor.
Now if it were true that the past 25 years have brought technical changes causing the labor needed in production to drop to “levels approaching zero,” we would be faced with unemployment in the neighborhood of 100 per cent. Instead of which the technocrats themselves place unemployment in U.S.A. at not more than 20 per cent. There is, of course, a displacement of workers going on, but the extent of such displacement is small compared with the unscientific guesses of these “scientific” investigators. contractions of capitalist trade and production, each in turn produces its new or revived distortions of theory.
The truth lies in neither camp. Capitalism plunges into periodic crises of “overproduction” and exhibits its permanent contradictions of extreme wealth and extreme poverty not because of machines or the lack of them, or because of high or low productivity, but because the means of production and distribution, including the machines, are privately owned and controlled by the capitalist class.
The remedy (vaguely glimpsed by some of the technocrats) is to make the means of life the common property of society and have goods produced solely for use instead of for sale and profit-making. The method (and this the technocrats entirely ignore) is the capture of political power by an organized Socialist majority.
One word in conclusion. It is obvious that the technocrats know nothing of the studies made by Marx. (They actually reject him as obsolete because they imagine that he advocated the continuance of the money system whereas in fact he recognized, as does every Socialist, that the money system will pass away with the passing of capitalism.) Marx's approach to this problem was really scientific and contrasts strikingly with the haphazard methods and hampering prejudices of these American engineers.
_______________________________________________
Source: Socialist Standard, February 1933.
Edgar Hardcastle
Transcription: Socialist Party of Great Britain.
HTML Markup: Michael Schauerte
Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2007). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
HTML Markup: Michael Schauerte
Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2007). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
Someday it will be every state
TOP 3 STATES THAT MAY BE NEXT TO REQUIRE GMO LABELING
Is yours one of them?
As Vermont’s monumental GMO labeling victory is fully realized by legislatures around the nation, it reminds us that it is within our reach to enact GMO labeling laws throughout the entirety of the 50 states. And even internationally.
In an underdog victory, Vermont was finally successful in requiring the mandatory labeling of GMOs within the state — an addition to their previously accepted GMO labeling laws that had some exceptions for manufacturers and were considered quite relaxed. This is after months and months of protest and legal battles with Monsanto, who even fought tooth and nail to repeal the original ‘relaxed’ GMO labeling law in the first place.
It was a major victory, and it reminds us of the coming states who may soon see similar legislation put into place. Here are the 5 states that may be next to require labeling of GMOs in the wake of Vermont’s precedent-setting ruling:
1. Minnesota
My personal choice for the next GMO labeling champion and an initiative that could ignite a legislation wave around the world, Minnesota is the most unlikely staging grounds for an all out legal assault on Monsanto and GMOs at large. But after the introduction of SB 335 back in April of 2014, locals went wild. The support for this bill is huge, and the Minnesota news papers can’t believe it. In areport on how citizens were protesting around the courthouse to show their support for the bill and GMO labeling at large, we see how even independent grocery stores are being pushed to start labeling:
“In the past six months, I’ve received numerous written and verbal requests to label GMO (Genetically-modified organisms) containing ingredients in our stores or discontinue a possibly GMO containing product,” said Liz McMann, consumer affairs manager at Mississippi Market in St. Paul. “My response is always the same. My hands are tied. Without mandatory labeling, it’s impossible to know if a non-organic product contains genetically modified organisms or not.”
2. Texas
As businesses move to Texas in what could be called an ‘intellectual exodus’ towards cities like Austin, there’s no question that the state could in fact be next on the list to enact GMO labeling laws that would help improve the lives of independent farmers and citizens alike. Farmers that have been fighting Monsanto’s GMOs for quite some time amid financial ruin. With HB 3499 and the support of farmers and activists alike, they may just get their wish.
Because after all, even Monsanto shareholders know that no one will buy their GMOs if they’re labeled! That’s why 96% of them admit they would vote against GMO labeling.
3. Massachusetts
In Massachusetts, Bill H.3242 has been the subject of much support and concern. Support by the general public, and concern for Monsanto. Websites like MARightToKnow.com and others have formed activist groups, reporting on the latest stages of the bill:
“What’s next for the Mass. GMO labeling bill? Next there’ll be public hearings (stay tuned for details). Various committees will then review and revise the details of the bill. There will be no shortage of possible roadblocks and attempts by special interests to influence our local democratic process before the end of the session in July 2016.”
Now Is The Time For Labeling
With the latest news on the agricultural battlefield from Vermont, now is a better time than ever for these states to rally their bill supporters and launch them into law. Monsanto will undoubtedly attempt to infiltrate these and other states with legal threats and continuous propaganda campaigns, but ultimately the goal of GMO labeling can be accomplished: we just have to decide we are going to achieve it.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
More of the same $#!?
GOP ESTABLISHMENT QUEEN MITCH MCCONNELL INTRODUCES PATRIOT ACT REAUTHORIZATION WITH ZERO NSA REFORMS
Late last week, I published a post about Patriot Act reauthorization that turned out to be extremely popular
Late last week, I published a post about Patriot Act reauthorization that turned out to be extremely popular. It was titled, Congress is Attempting to Reauthorize Key Patriot Act Provisions by Sneaking it Into “USA Freedom Act.” Here’s an excerpt:
June 1, 2015 is a very important day for American civil liberties and the Constitution. On that day, Section 215 of the Patriot Act, one of the most egregious pieces of legislation passed in U.S. history, will expire automatically without reauthorization from Congress. Naturally, this is causing a panic attack within the heart of the NSA, FBI and all the authoritarian lackey legislators in Washington D.C. With the chances of a clean reauthorization next to none, these crafty “representatives” and their puppeteers need to figure out a way to sneak it into another piece of legislation. What better way to do this than making it a part of something that ostensibly appears to be reining in surveillance powers. Enter the USA Freedom Act.
As mentioned, it is widely believed that there isn’t enough support for straight reauthorization unaccompanied by some sort of NSA reform, but that won’t stop GOP establishment queen Mitch McConnell from trying.
McConnell is amongst the most freedom hating, constitution trampling Republican members in the Senate, sharing this distinction with John McCain and Lindsey Graham. What makes McConnell far more dangerous is his position as Senate Majority Leader. Today, the Washington Post informed us how he’s wielding such power:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced a bill Tuesday night to extend through 2020 a controversial surveillance authority under the Patriot Act.The move comes as a bipartisan group of lawmakers in both chambers is preparing legislation to scale back the government’s spying powers under Section 215 of the Patriot Act.It puts McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the bill’s co-sponsor, squarely on the side of advocates of the National Security Agency’s continued ability to collect millions of Americans’ phone records each day in the hunt for clues of terrorist activity.
You gotta love how the Washington Postjust accepts the government talking point that the surveillance is to catch terrorists, despite the fact that Section 215 hasn’t stopped any attacks.
In filing the bill, McConnell and Burr invoked a Senate rule that enabled them to bypass the traditional committee vetting process and take the bill straight to the floor. No date has been set for such consideration.
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Truth is the Enemy
TRUTH IS WASHINGTON’S ENEMY
US Representative Ed Royce (R, CA) is busy at work destroying the possibility of truth being spoken in the US
US Representative Ed Royce (R, CA) is busy at work destroying the possibility of truth being spoken in the US. On April 15 at a hearing before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs of which Royce is chairman, Royce made use of two minor presstitutes to help him redefine all who take exception to Washington’s lies as “threats” who belong to a deranged pro-Russian propaganda cult.
Washington’s problem is that whereas Washington controls the print and TV media in the US and its vassal states in Europe, Canada, Australia, Ukraine, and Japan, Washington does not control Internet sites, such as this one, or media, such as RT, of non-vassal states. Consequently, Washington’s lies are subject to challenge, and as people lose confidence in Western print and TV media because of the propaganda content, Washington’s agendas, which depend on lies, are experiencing rougher sledding.
Truth is bubbling up through Washington’s propaganda. Confronted with the possibility of a loss of control over every explanation, Hillary Clinton, Ed Royce, and the rest are suddenly complaining that Washington is “losing the information war.” Huge sums of taxpayers’ hard earned money will now be used to combat the truth with lies.
What to do? How to suppress truth with lies in order to remain in control? The answer says Andrew Lack, Royce, et alia, is to redefine a truth-teller as a terrorist. Thus, the comparison of RT and “dissident” Internet bloggers to the Islamist State and the designated terror group, Boko Haram.
Royce expanded the definition of terrorist to include dissident bloggers, such as Chris Hedges, John Pilger, Glenn Greenwald and the rest of us, who object to the false reality that Washington creates in order to serve undeclared agendas. For example, if Washington wants to pour profits into the military/security complex in exchange for political campaign contributions, the politicians cannot say that. Instead, they claim to protect America from a dangerous enemy or from weapons of mass destruction by starting a war. If politicians want to advance American financial or energy imperialism, they have to do so in the name of “bringing freedom and democracy.” If the politicians want to prevent the rise of other countries, such as Russia, President Obama has to depict Russia as a threat comparable to the Ebola virus and the Islamist State.
Noam Chomsky summed it up when he said that Washington regards any information that does not repeat Washington’s propaganda to be intolerable.
Washington’s assault on truth as a threat helps to make sense of the gigantic National Security Agency spy system exposed by William Binney and Edward Snowden. One of the purposes of the spy network is to identify all “dissidents” who challenge Big Brother’s “Truth.”
There is, or will be, a dossier on every “dissident” with all of the dissident’s emails, Internet searches, websites visited, phone calls, purchases, travels. The vast amount of information on each dissident can be combed for whatever can be taken out of context to make a case against him, if a case is even needed. Washington has already successfully asserted its power over the Constitution to indefinitely detain without charges and to torture and to murder US citizens.
It was a couple of years ago that Janet Napolitano, head of Homeland Security, said that the department’s focus had shifted from terrorists to domestic extremists. Lumped into the category of domestic extremists are environmental activists, animal rights activists, anti-war activists which includes disillusioned war veterans, and people who believe in states’ rights, limited government and accountable government. Consequently, many dissidents, America’s best citizens, will qualify as domestic extremists on several accounts. Chris Hedges, for example, is an advocate for animals (see here ) as well as concerned about the environment and Washington’s never-ending wars.
The spying and the coming crackdown on “dissidents” might also explain the $385 million federal contract awarded to a subsidiary of Dick Cheney’s firm, Halliburton, to build detention camps in the US. Few seem to be concerned with who the camps are to detain. There is no media or congressional investigation. It seems unlikely that the camps are for hurricane or forest fire evacuees. Concentration camps are usually for people regarded as unreliable. And as Lack, Royce, et aliahave made clear, unreliable people are those who do not support Washington’s lies.
A perceived need by Washington, and the private power structure that Washington serves, to protect themselves from truth could also be the reason for the very strange military exercises in various of the states to infiltrate, occupy, and round-up “threats” among the civilian population. (see here) Even the presstitute CNN reported that the National Guard troops sent to Ferguson, Missouri, were programmed to view the civilian protesters as “enemy forces” and “adversaries,” and we know that the state and local militarized police are trained to view US citizens as threats.
As far as I can discern, not many Americans, whether Democrat or Republican, liberal, conservative, or super-patriot, educated or not, understand that Washington with the cooperation of its presstitute mediahas defined truth as a threat. In Washington’s opinion, truth is a greater threat than Ebola, Russia, China, terrorism, and the Islamic State combined.
A government that cannot survive truth and must resort to stamping out truth is not a government that any country wants. But such an undesirable government is the government that Clinton-Bush-Cheney-Obama-Hillary-Lack-Royce have given us.
Does it satisfy you? Are you content that in your name and with taxes on your hard-earned and increasingly scarce earnings, Washington in the 21st century has murdered, maimed, and displaced millions of peoples in eight countries, has set America on the path to war with Russia and China, and has declared truth to be an enemy of the state?
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is now available.
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
Um... No thank you!
PAYPAL HEAD WANTS BRAIN CHIPS TO REPLACE PASSWORDS
New technology will have to fit inside 'cultural norms' to be accepted
Paypal’s ‘Global Head of Developer Evangelism’ Jonathan LeBlanc is pushing implantable brain chips as a replacement for passwords, but insists that such technology must be made to fit inside “cultural norms” before it is accepted by the general public.
In a presentation called ‘Kill All Passwords’, LeBlanc admits that the future of authentication security is “going to get creepy” as traditional passwords are phased out due to their innumerable security flaws.
LeBlanc envisages using brain chips to measure thought patterns so that childhood memories could be invoked by the user to unlock their computer.
LeBlanc also discusses how bio-hacking companies are already using embedded NFC and RFID tags to unlock doors. In January, the BBC reported on a company in Sweden that was implanting its workers with computer chips under the skin in order for them to access the building.
“Daily ID chips” with wi-fi sensors could also be swallowed by employees to provide secure authentication, says LeBlanc.
Paypal is currently working with partners to get the ball rolling on such technology, a process LeBlanc says is part of the payment processor becoming a “thought leader” on the transition.
“I can’t speculate as to what PayPal will do in the future, but we’re looking at new techniques – we do have fingerprint scanning that is being worked on right now – so we’re definitely looking at the identity field,” LeBlanc told the Wall Street Journal.
“Realistically the ones that will succeed, whether it’s embeddable, ingestible, injectible or what have you, are the ones that are going to play into cultural norms, the ones that are going to meet the demands of the populace overall….and not be creepy, so even though they seem creepy at the current time, the future are gonna be the ones that hit those cultural norms,” said LeBlanc.
LeBlanc’s identification of “cultural norms” as a major hurdle to be overcome before the public becomes comfortable with wearable ID technology or implantable chips echoes similar sentiments made by Google executive Regina Dugan.
During a 2013 D11 conference, Dugan said that Google was working on an ingestible microchip that would turn a user’s entire body into a biological authentication system for cellphones, cars, doors and other devices. The company is also developing a wearable e-tattoo that can decipher a user’s thoughts by detecting the unvocalized words in their throat.
Dugan predicted that young people would want to adopt the e-tattoo if it was made to look cool and was seen as a form of rebellion against their parents.
Dugan’s role in developing such technology can be placed in a somewhat sinister context given that she is the former director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), an agency of the US Department of Defense, which many see as a pioneer of a dystopian big brother surveillance society.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt even suggested earlier this year that the Internet itself could one day disappear as an external concept, greasing the skids for the world wide web to exist inside people’s brains. In December 2013, Google engineering director Scott Huffman also predicted that within five years web users would have microphones attached to their ceilings and microchips embedded in their brains in order to perform quicker internet searches.
Would you swallow an identification pill or have one embedded in your brain for greater password security and convenience? How could such technology be abused by governments and corporations? Let us know in the comments below.
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet
Monday, April 20, 2015
There's alot of fools out there
MONSANTO AND OTHERS CAUGHT PAYING INTERNET ‘TROLLS’ TO ATTACK ACTIVISTS
Companies desperate to fool public
by ANTHONY GUCCIARDI | INFOWARS | APRIL 20, 2015
Have you ever seen a post, comment, or reply that absolutely reeked of behind-the-scenes compensation by corporations like Monsanto? In the growing age of internet activism, and the expansion of social media as a tool to spread the word on real issues, paid internet trolling is becoming a new career path.
Now, in case you’re not familiar with what ‘trolling’ really is, I think Wikipedia has a great definition. According to Wikipedia, an internet troll is:
“…a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.“
Does this sound like some posts you’ve seen before? Now, let’s be clear: there are tons of internet trolls out there that are absolutely not on the pay roll. Most of these people are genuinely just messing with others to get a laugh, a reaction, or whatever. Not arguing on behalf of multi-billion dollar corporations for up to 8 hours per day.
There’s the real difference. And, besides common sense dictating that corporations would surely hire a fleet of internet warriors to protect their brand reputation in the age of open source online communication, we now know for sure that companies like Monsanto have in fact dedicated ‘entire departments’ to trolling scientists and ‘discrediting’ those who oppose their GMO creations.
Monsanto Paying Fleet of Trolls to ‘Discredit’
Surprisingly, it was actually a Monsanto employee that unintentionally let the truth behind their ‘discrediting operation’ slip in a conference with students that he may have forgotten was open to the public. In a conversation with students, Dr. William “Bill” Moar raved that Monsanto had established:
“An entire department” (waving his arm for emphasis) dedicated to “debunking” science which disagreed with theirs.”
That’s huge news. We told you about this first back on the 6th of April — but I am absolutely shocked how it has not been covered to the extent it should have. Because, after all, how does a company ‘discredit’ and ‘debunk’ those who go against their destructive, cancer-linked products? By attacking them online through blogs, comments, and character assassination. In other words, by internet trolling.
It’s so much easier to say someone is a ‘quack,’ or create some fictitious and anonymous accusation to plague their search data than it is to actually have a scientific debate on issues like Roundup’sadmitted probable carcinogenic nature.
It also brings into question whether or not the Monsanto employee truly did ‘slip up’ or if he was attempting to help get the word out about the corporation he represents. You have to wonder if Dr. Moar was secretly passing off some information to the press in the form of a slip about his company.
This is a question I often wondered after hearing about Coca-Cola’s similar operations that extended deeper than just internet trolls. After reading the March 16th article in the Associated Press that broke down how Coca-Cola paid off health leaders in exchange for these ‘experts’ to back their chemical-laden sodas as health drinks.
The AP report reads:
“In February, several of the experts wrote online posts for American Heart Month, with each including a mini-can of Coke or soda as a snack idea. The pieces — which appeared on nutrition blogs and other sites including those of major newspapers — offer a window into the many ways food companies work behind the scenes to cast their products in a positive light, often with the help of third parties who are seen as trusted authorities.”
A mini-can of Coke as a ‘snack idea.’ What amazing health leaders these individuals truly are.
Next time you’re scrolling through social media, YouTube, or even this website’s comment section, remember that the trolls attacking you for no apparent reason may in fact be receiving an annual salary. Checkout my video report on Monsanto’s secret ‘discrediting’ department and what it truly means for the natural health and alternative news movement:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)