All posts by Rich Winkel

Stealth GMOs Rapidly Consuming Global Food Supply

Herr Kissinger is alleged to have said that if you control food, you control people.  But I’m sure our great leaders would only apply such machinations to the outer reaches of the empire.  It’s comforting to know that no matter what torture and murder and theft goes on in our names, we’re safely ensconced in the belly of the beast and can go on pretending to be noble “peace activists” while we pay for it all without questioning the ultimate conspiracy theory of how men armed with box cutters can symmetrically implode 3 skyscrapers, bring NORAD to its knees and and arrange for weapons-grade anthrax from a US military bioweapons lab to be delivered to congress just in time for the passage of the patriot act while conveniently providing the excuse to pursue the ruinous  foreign and domestic policies which our ruling oligarchs have been planning for years.   But there’s nothing to see here, only the key to taking back the country.   Where are our local community leaders on this?  Totally, utterly AWOL.

The public mind has been lobotomized by the enemies of humanity who control our mass media.

Anyway:

“Obviously there is no room for GMOs in truly healthy food products, which is why it is truly vital that you understand the nature of GMOs and how they are oftentimes hidden in commercial food products. It may very well shock you to know just how prevalent GMOs are within the food supply. It’s truly amazing that modified products continue to go unlabeled despite being linked to organ damage — among a barrage of other conditions — in a prominent review of 19 studies.

“In fact, nearly 93-95% of US soybeans are genetically modified in order to resist powerful weed-killers that were found to be killing the actual soybeans as well as the weeds. Following current trends, genetically modified food products will makeup the majority of the future food supply if a change is not made. For now, that change has been shot down by the FDA — the very organization tasked to defend public health. Just recently, the agency deleted around 1 million signatures from the GMO labeling campaign ‘Just Label It.’

“This move means that consumers will continue to stay in the dark about whether or not what they’re eating is compromised of genetically modified ingredients. And it’s not just corn and soybeans, other commonly modified food staples include:

  • Corn
  • Cotton
  • Soy
  • Sweet corn
  • Hawaiian Papaya
  • Rice
  • Potatoes

“Statistics show how GMO crops and ingredients have skyrocketed in even the past few years. Here are statistics as of 2009-2010:

  • Genetically modified soybeans currently make up for 93-95% of the US soybean supply.
  • Genetically modified corn currently makes up for 86% of the US corn supply
  • Genetically modified cotton currently makes up for 93% of the US cotton supply.
  • Genetically modified Hawaiin papaya currently makes up for 93% of the Hawaiian papaya supply.

“When viewing these statistics, it is easy to see how many consumers are being tricked into consuming genetically modified foods. Amazingly, in a poll conducted by ABC, more than 93% of Americans feel that products containing GMOs should be labeled – meanwhile, these individuals are actually unknowingly consuming GMOs on a daily basis. What it comes down to is that as long as the threat is not visible, many consumers will simply purchase commercial products without thinking about the consequences. This is exactly why Monsanto and others have been squelching attempts to label products that contain GMOs.”

“Our Goal is Clearly Not to Hire American Workers”

“In the video, a person identified as Lawrence Lebowitz, an attorney at Cohen & Grigsby, explains a method that can be used for hiring foreign workers under the U.S. government’s Program Electronic Review Management process. PERM stipulates requirements for placing help wanted ads to fill job vacancies, with the intent of either hiring U.S. workers or showing that no qualified Americans are available.

“However, Lebowitz focuses only on the latter in the video. “Our goal is clearly not to find a qualified and interested U.S. worker,” he said. “And that, in a sense, sounds funny, but it’s what we are trying to do here.”

“He added that while “complying with the law fully,” the objective is to get a prospective foreign worker a green card “and to get through the labor certification process.” He and other panelists go on to explain the ways in which employers can legally reject applicants to meet that goal.”

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9025268

 

Corporate Foundations and Social Control: Deconstructing Democracy

The Social Sciences and Social Control

The concept of ‘social control’ emerged from the developing field of sociology as a discipline in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As sociologist Morris Janowitz wrote in the American Journal of Sociology, “in the emergence of sociology as an intellectual discipline, the idea of social control was a central concept for analyzing social organization and the development of industrial society.”[28] Social control is largely viewed as forms of control which reduce coercion, and thus, enhance consent to the system or organizations in question. Even a society with an effective system of social control would require a structure of coercion, but depending on how advanced the social control system is, the less need there would be for coercion. Hence, the societies which are the most advanced in social control would also be less dependent upon internal methods of coercion. Thus, it was within liberal democratic states that both the study and implementation of social control became most effective. In this sense, the question was “whether the processes of social control are able to maintain the social order [hierarchy] while transformation and social change take place.”[29]

“Sociology largely emerged from the University of Chicago (founded by John D. Rockefeller), with the world’s first department of sociology founded in 1892. The sociologists who rose within and out of the University of Chicago made up what was known as the ‘Chicago School of Sociology.’ The school developed the most influential sociologists in the nation, including George Herbert Mead and W.I. Thomas, two scholars who had profound influence on the development of the concept of ‘social control,’ and sociologists became “reform-oriented liberals, not radical revolutionaries or conservative cynics.”[30]

“The new industrial elite accumulated millions and even hundreds of millions by the end of the 19th century: Andrew Carnegie was worth roughly $300 million after he sold Carnegie Steel to J.P. Morgan in 1901, and by 1913, John D. Rockefeller was estimated to have a personal worth of $900 million. It was with Rockefeller that we see the development of the scientific notion of philanthropy.[31] Rockefeller had founded the Institute for Medical Research in 1901, the General Education Board (GEB) in 1903, and the Sanitary Commission for the Eradication of Hookworm in 1909. Rockefeller, however, wanted to consolidate his philanthropic enterprise as he had his industrial oil enterprise, and so in 1909 he decided he wanted to establish one great foundation, which “would be a single central holding company which would finance any and all of the other benevolent organizations, and thus necessarily subject them to its general supervision.”[32] In 1913, the Rockefeller Foundation received a charter of incorporation from the State of New York.

“Between 1881 and 1907, Andrew Carnegie had contributed over $40 million to establishing more than 1,600 libraries in the United States alone, but it was after selling Carnegie Steel to J.P. Morgan in 1901 for $300 million that Carnegie began to look at philanthropy on a much larger scale. In 1902, he founded the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and in 1904, founded the Carnegie Corporation of Washington, of which the mission was, “to encourage in the broadest and most liberal manner, investigation, research and discovery, and the application of knowledge to the improvement of mankind,” much like the original mission statement of the Rockefeller Foundation created some years later, “to promote the well-being of mankind.”[33] Carnegie founded, in 1911, the Carnegie Corporation, chartered by the New York State legislature.[34]

“These philanthropic foundations, and the many others that appeared in and around the same time, and thereafter, were largely imbued with the idea of “science in the service of society” as a goal for the foundation, basing its actions upon a new rationality brought on by the scientific revolution, and by the notions of reform pushed forward in the Progressive Era, based largely upon the concept of scientific social planning “to problems that educators, the new sociologists, social workers, and political scientists found important.” However, as the wealth of the foundations and the positions of their patrons attracted criticisms, a Congressional commission was on industrial relations (founded to settle a matter related to a brutal repression of a mining strike by a Rockefeller-owned mining company) expanded its scope to deal with the general issue of the foundations. The Walsh Commission, as it was known (after its founder, Frank P. Walsh), was formed in 1914, and Walsh explained the inclusion of the foundations in the commission by postulating that:

the creation of the Rockefeller and other foundations was the beginning of an effort to perpetuate the present position of predatory wealth through the corruption of sources of public information… [and] that if not checked by legislation, these foundations will be used as instruments to change to form of government of the U.S. at a future date, and there is even a hint that there is a fear of a monarchy.[35]

“In 1916, the Walsh Commission produced its final report, the Manly Report (after the research director, Basil M. Manly), which concluded that the foundations were so “grave a menace” to society, that “it would be desirable to recommend their abolition.” No such actions were taken.[36]” …

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2012/04/14/the-purpose-of-education-social-uplift-or-social-control/