Podcast Review: Genetic Fallacy: How Monsanto Silences Scientific Dissent

via GIPHY

Genetic Fallacy: How Monsanto Silences Scientific Dissent James Corbett's podcasts are always articulate, clear, linear, and never waste listener's time or distract by emotionalism. The information is documented and hard-hitting evidence. He doesn't get fooled by disinformation and I feel I can count on his expertise. Speaking to us from Japan, he has an excellent grasp of International politics.

This December 2013 Corbett Report podcast discusses how an international research team headed by Dr. Gilles-Eric Séralini published a study in the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology: “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize,” proving negative effects on rats who consumed Roundup Ready corn. The biotech industry PR machine used social engineering to try to discredit the study.

"Amazingly, despite this concerted PR campaign to smear the Seralini study, seven “expert witnesses” were unable to rebut the study in a Filipino courtroom. In October, a Flipino court of appeals upheld a decision to ban BT eggplant from the country despite the efforts of seven industry witnesses attempting to rebut the substance of Seralini’s findings."

A similar study from Brazil showed damaging effects on mice from the core insecticide of Bt GMO.

Monsanto officials, lobbyists and consultants are ironically given government jobs as regulators of their company. For example, Linda Fisher was a senior EPA official and was appointed Monsanto’s Vice President of Government and Public Affairs. Michael Taylor, who was Monsanto’s Vice President for Public Policy became the FDA Commissioner.

Monsanto and similar biotech companies are able to thus engineer public opinion to accepting poisonous food and the Monsanto Protection Act which disallows Federal suites. Numerous countries are banning Monsanto and Genetically Modified foods, which tends to lead the US to cause them problems. The retaliation is fierce, and these countries are brave, though I've been told they don't necessarily actually regulate GMO crops as much as they claim after the bans.

It gives me hope though to see that there are intelligent, responsible people out there who care more about health than money and pressure from wealthy companies. But though people are fighting against Monsanto in the US, the behemoth prevails. This can be disheartening. Even the first step of just getting GMOs labeled has not been possible.

There wasn't time in this podcast, but I would like to see addressed some of the potential repercussions, based on historical paybacks, because progress will be hard as long as those threats stand. Our petitions to get laws passed are crippled by the very real chance of retribution by Monsanto/US government, which has no clear demarcation. What can be done to prevent attack and protect authorities who admit to the scientific proof and put a stop to pesticides and GMOs? Can the attackers be held responsible?

Perhaps the most likely way that could eventually happen would be for the public to realize, from listening to podcasts such as this, how regularly they are lied to by falsified science, how they can not trust publications and organizations in bed with the corporations they are publishing studies about. People must learn to think for themselves, looking more closely at the data and who its presentation is funded by.

What is it that prevents people from understanding that? If people can find ways to learn new cognitive patterns that prevent them from being as gullible, that would go a long way to putting a cap on this kind of corruption. The government doesn't want people to be able to think critically. What are you doing to keep your discrimination-muscles in shape?

People who care about these issues are demonized due to social engineering strategies funded by the Corporatocracy. How quickly do you judge people based on what authorities tell you to feel, before listening to what they have to say? How can we chance people's propensity to do that?

Podcast Review: Former member of Air Force Intelligence discusses his involvement in Operation Mockingbird (the disinfo program in the news)

via GIPHY

Podcast: "Former member of Air Force Intelligence, Jeff Long, discusses several of his many jobs during the Cold War, his own involvement in Operation Mockingbird, the U.S. government's disinformation campaign, and how the government and media create the "official stories" behind events like 9/11." You can click the link to hear the archive from this Oct. 9, 2014 podcast, which is level-headed, smart, direct, and informative, at No Lies Radio.

He was psychologically profiled by taking an aptitude test given by the military that students had to take in order to graduate from High School, from which he was picked to work in Intelligence. He describes being with Joint Military Intelligence -- NSA, DIA, CIA, Air Force Intelligence, FBI, NATO Intelligence. His focus in the 80's was disinformation to throw off the Soviet Union's military during the cold war, keeping them from knowing what was going on with US new advanced technology. 

He worked there for 6 years when he was young until he resigned in disgust. He worked with information from spy satellites and information from espionage airplane flights. He discusses Operation Mockingbird, which was started in 1947 by Frank Wisner, the CIA program of disinformation in the news.

He'd target the government's chosen enemy leader to make him look bad, such as Hussein during the Gulf war, and whip up patriotism for support of the war. The CIA owned thousands of publications, all the important newspapers and magazines that the masses paid attention to. Journalists could easily get into other countries that way. Many employees don't even know they are part of an Intelligence operation, while other reporters, editors, and publishers are knowingly CIA.
He mentions 117 CNN employees being CIA.

Many media employees are paid, trained CIA assets, and others are bought off to compromise their information, or are blackmailed or bribed by sex. He mentions Anderson Vanderbilt Cooper of CNN coming from one of the billionaire families that sets up these programs and claimed to just work in the mail room, yet then was found in the places where CIA coups were happening. . . . The controlling families do what's best for their corporation's interests.

"Leaked sources" are always putting out propaganda targeting the current proposed enemy. Character assassination is a major component of Mockingbird. The newscaster's methods of talking is the same across the board, using a proven speaking method to make people take in the information without question, considering it believable and authoritative.

He points out the newscasters on all networks immediately suggested Osama was behind 911, and assets in the field being interviewed jumping to the conclusion that must have been Osama. Jeff Long said those were red flags that it was Mockingbird. They paint all "conspiracy theorists" as oddballs. That is core to social engineering.

To learn more, listen to the podcast. A few interesting points he makes:

Other people in the media they mention: Julia Child was in the CIA. Chuck Barris of the Newlywed Show and the Gong show claimed to be a CIA assassin in the 60's. When author Philip Agee  withdrew as Station chief in the CIA, he was was then a victim of character assassination.

The Internet was developed by the Department of Defense so military personnel could talk quickly.

He calls our economy a "controlled demolition." Nicely put.

His superiors kept him from boarding a plane that then went down. Why did they know what was going to happen?

While I would have liked to have heard more detail about his time with Operation Mockingbird specifically, maybe his next visit with the show will cover what he is allowed to tell about things that made him leave. I'd like to learn more about the methods of propaganda that make people believe lies, such as what he mentioned with the voice similarity with newscasters. What is it about their voices that convinces? 

While I don't agree with the perspective on all the shows in the series, in general, I feel it is a sincere educational service.