by Jon Rappoport
November 5, 2012
You can go into a market and pick out organic vegetables and fruit. This isn’t something you do through magic or secret divination with a special wand. There are labels that tell you the food is organic.
“Experts” claim organic food is no better or safer than food drenched with pesticides. But still, you can choose organic.
You have a right to know. And then, knowing, you have a right to make your choice.
You can go into a market, pick out a food product, and read a list of its ingredients as long as your arm. But you’ll find no mention of whether someone shot insect genes into it.
For some reason, you have no right to know about that.
It’s no accident. The powers-that-be want it that way.
On Tuesday, the voters of California will cast the die on Prop 37. Yes on 37 means GMO food will henceforth be labeled.
The idea behind 37 is simple. If you’re eating food, you have a right to know what’s in it and what’s been done to it. Government scientists and corporate scientists can claim GMO food is “the same in all aspects” as non-GMO, but you still have a right to know.
Monsanto and it allies claim that you knowing is unfair, because you might be swayed, by your own prejudice, to leave that GMO food on the market shelf, when in fact there is no reason to leave it there.
They are telling you the companies who are selling you food are more important than your own judgment about what to put in your body.
You would be impeding commerce if you believe GMO food is bad for you, and in order to protect GMO companies and the economy, you must go into a market blind, to keep things “honest.”
That’s what they think of you: you’re an idiot. You can’t make reasonable judgments. Therefore, you need to be blind.
Let me draw an exact parallel. Let’s suppose you were part of a group that was rallying for a particular political cause, and the government had planted an FBI agent in your midst.
Now, if exposed and questioned, this FBI plant would say, “I wasn’t there to disrupt or influence the group in any way. I was merely trying to protect good Americans. I was there to observe, nothing more.”
Would you nevertheless have the right to know he was there? Would you have the right to decide whether you wanted him there? Or are you too stupid to know that he should be there because America is in danger and we need people like him to spy on us without our knowing, to keep us safe?
It’s the same situation. They tell you the genes planted in your food are neutral in every sense. They affect nothing. They’re good genes and they do good work. But because you might not think so, because you’re too stupid to know the truth, you have to be blind about what’s in your food when you choose it and buy it and eat it.
That’s the argument.
YES ON 37=you have a right to know.
NO ON 37=you need to be protected against your own stupidity.
According to this logic, the NO ON 37 people have a right, even a moral duty, to lie to you, to say whatever they need to, in order to move you in the direction of giving up your right to know. They should lie, they have to lie, since their “truth” wasn’t doing the job.
And they have lied.