1.AgBioView - Can you f@#$!*g believe that?
2.Two extracts from AgBioView - Oct. 24 2006
---
1.AgBioView - Can you f@#$!*g believe that?
GM Watch
For a flavour of the utter insanity of much GM promotion below we've reproduced a couple of extracts from the concluding paragraphs of two of the top items in CS Prakash's latest AgBioView - Oct. 24 2006.
The second item - 'Golden Genes' - declares that the long-range goal of all environmentalists is, 'frankly, man's extinction'. It even claims they are secretly opposed to the growing of all agricultural crops! It also warns, 'Never believe an environmentalist when he asserts a concern for humanity; it is humanity he hates and wants to erase from existence...'
The first item - 'Why We Need Genetically Modified Crops' - joins a long list of pieces published on AgBioView that rewrites what happened in Zambia in 2002 when the government asked for non-GM, rather than GM, grain as food aid - something which was successfully provided.
That is not, however, the view of things put forward by the lead item on AgBioView, which says that thanks to Greenpeace unleashing their political agenda in Zambia 'where people are starving to death', they 'probably killed many people.' Greenpeace managed to achieve this probable mass murder 'by convincing the leaders of these nations that the food was poisonous. Can you f@#$!*g believe that?'
Not easily is the answer. Firstly, as Charles Mushitu of the Zambian Red Cross, which was in the forefront of handling the situation, has noted, 'We didn't record a single death arising out of hunger, ' (GM lobbyists lies over Zambia exposed yet again)
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7092
Secondly, the actual facts about the Zambian government's decision making reveal a very different story. Before rejecting GM food aid, the government put together a team of highly qualified experts who travelled to the US, Europe and South Africa to meet a wide range of GM regulators, scientists and others in order to investigate the issues. On this basis, they then made their recommendation to reject GM food aid.
This is all a million miles away from AgBioView's implicit vision of daft darkies hoodwinked by western political agitators, operating out of Greenpeace, into committing crimes against humanity.
It's easy to dismiss the kind of rants and misinformation that turn up so frequently on AgBioView as mere loony toons that no one in their right mind could take seriously. But the reality is that this kind of black propaganda is a deliberate and sustained PR attempt, much of it orchestrated by PR people associated with Monsanto, to influence what AgBioView claims to be its several thousand subscribers, many drawn from scientific institutions around the world, and their social and professional networks.
http://www.gmwatch.org/p2temp2.asp?aid=55&page=1&op=2
And from the research of Guy Cook - Professor in Language and Education at the Open University in the UK, the kind of viral marketing that AgBioView propagates appears to have had considerable success, to judge by the language choices and views of pro-GM scientists. (Genetically Modified Language)
http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=68&page=1
---
2.Two extracts from AgBioView - Oct. 24 2006
AgBioView extract 1:
...Opposing GM crops is without a doubt one of the most idiotic things that a person can do. These foods can feed the world safely and cheaply. With over 20,000 people dying of starvation every day who are we to ignore the advancement that could save these people from suffering? People that are proponents of raw foods and the like seem to forget that most people don't have the luxury of deciding what to eat. It's selfish to oppose GM crops and everyone that does should think about the 20,000 lives lost every day. I bet starving people could care less if that bread was made from grain with a few transgenic genes.
In 2002 at the Environmental summit in Africa the US tried to give several tons of GM food to poor nations. Several groups including Greenpeace convinced the leaders of these nations that the food was poisonous. Can you f@#$!*g believe that? On this poor advice these nation turned down the offer. Of course there was nothing wrong with the food and those same crops have been grown elsewhere with success.
In Zambia, where people are starving to death, Greenpeace unleashed their political agenda and probably killed many people. It wasn't about the food really being dangerous (as I've outlined above) it's about Greenpeace having an ulterior motive”¦ politics. The world cannot be at peace when so many go hungry.
Why We Need Genetically Modified Crops - Hegemony in Science, Science Rants. Oct. 22, 2006 http://hegemony.wordpress.com/2006/10/22/why-we-need-genetically-modified-crops/
...
AgBioView extract 2:
Environmentalists opposed to GM crops claim they are concerned about their spread to, well, the environment. Environmentalism is their mystical calling. In this instance, their ostensive, short-range goal is to force farmers to grow crops by "traditional" methods, methods used in the 18th and 19th centuries until technology was brought into the business.
Their long-range goal is, frankly, man's extinction, since even fields of crops are "intrusive" and replace whatever grew wild on the land before men came to make it productive. Never believe an environmentalist when he asserts a concern for humanity; it is humanity he hates and wants to erase from existence for the sake of an "unaltered" earth. The same motive that prompts terrorists to destroy a dealership's SUV's or to booby-trap trees to protest forestry companies, prompts them to sabotage farms.
Golden Genes - Edward Cline, The Rule of Reason, October 18, 2006 http://www.objectivismonline.net/blog/archives/002052.html