Wikileaks: GMO conspiracy reaches highest levels of US Government

Once again Wikileaks posts something that has been in the blogosphere for a looooong time. Have they yet posted anything that hasn't been around for a long time? I'm sure there are a great many people out there for whom this, and many other Wiki-leaks are news, but most of what I have seen so far is not. Sure, the MSM hasn't reported it but it's been out there and discussed.
That's why I think Wikileaks is still a controlled intel setup, designed to push this stuff that is already out there, but with the added propaganda factor thrown in.

I remember reading about the pushing of GMO and copyrighted seed stocks on to the Iraqi farmers and added it to a thread about Monsanto back in 2005. Of course, back then, it was a crazy conspiracy theory, but isn't every dirty little deed they want swept under the rug!

Its kind of a coincidence .......

In 2007, then-U.S. ambassador to France Craig Stapleton conspired to retaliate against European countries for their anti-biotech policies. U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks reveal the Bush administration formulated battle plans to extract revenge against Europe for refusing to use genetically modified seeds.

"Exact revenge", is there any connection to the Bush family or companies there in to the companies and banks that caused the 2008 recession? A parting gift for the next incumbent to the Whitehouse and a double edged sword....... Europe?

reply to post by NoArmsJames


Great post!

It seems to me that the US is starting to walk on thin ice around its allies. Personally, I think Americans should slap their officials for trying to push their agenda on allies. Now what will happen when US's allies move closer to China and Russia? The dollar will get dropped pretty quickly, while the FEDs print more money to make it even more worthless. But by that time many of the citizens will NEED the genetically modified food because real food is going to cost an arm and a leg.

I am very glad Europe sees the dangers of GM products and the hazards it carries with it. Europe is not moving backwards but forward. I don't know why American leaders think Europe is moving backwards when they are clearly want improved health for their people. Improved health = less strain on hospitals and the financial system

While in the US improved health = bad for business. Pharmaceutical companies can't make any money off healthy people!

I think the US is more corrupt than many places in Africa.

People, the elites are already making seed bunkers - they know what GMO foods mean.....getting rid of most of us.


Also, every level of the government is corrupt, bought by the NWO. Just about everything the government does is to further their agenda.

And yet still, people believe the the FDA is there for their protection,.
Hmmm how the sheep still walk calmly as the wolves are killing them off one by one..

Monsanto is but one piece of this death trap.
People are eating the GMO Soy that has been put into everything, slowly castrating all males
The water you all are drinking is fluoridated,. making you dumb and non caring and sick with cancers
FFFannnntastic. the plan seems to be working well

reply to post by NoArmsJames


They are probably going to try stop farmers from selling their crops unless the government is able to inject their poisons into it first.

They are like drug dealers..or gangsters.

Originally posted by Maxmars

I think "...helping their industry push their own brand" is hardly what "they" (as in, "the government") are doing.

Certainly looks like it to me - hhte Govt is pushing Monsanto - how is that incorrect?

Monsanto would be quick to tell you they are not "the governments" anything.

I didn't say they weer - I said that the Govt is helping Monsanto.

It is something that all governments around the world do - they help their domestic industries - they fund trade delegations, they have ministers of trade, they negotiate agreements with other countries for trade acces, they indulge in tit-for-tat retaliation by way of tarrifs and subsidies and otehr trade distortions when they see fit.

These Ambassadors are not representing the American people, they are pushing forward, a transnational corporation's product. As with most mega-corporations , it can be assured that Monsanto stock, or interests, are those of the Federal Reserve Bank - yet another transnational corporation - if you go by ownership.

Monsanto is still mostly a US corporation AFAIK - the board are all Americans, monsanto's "product" is widely used in the USA, much of it's GM seed is grown in the USA - so the USA has a vested interest in ensuring that it (GM seed and crops grown from it) is freely accepted everywhere - this is also the interests of the farmers who have bought the seed ....who ARE US citizens....

Originally posted by Britguy
Once again Wikileaks posts something that has been in the blogosphere for a looooong time. Have they yet posted anything that hasn't been around for a long time? I'm sure there are a great many people out there for whom this, and many other Wiki-leaks are news, but most of what I have seen so far is not. Sure, the MSM hasn't reported it but it's been out there and discussed.
That's why I think Wikileaks is still a controlled intel setup, designed to push this stuff that is already out there, but with the added propaganda factor thrown in.

I remember reading about the pushing of GMO and copyrighted seed stocks on to the Iraqi farmers and added it to a thread about Monsanto back in 2005. Of course, back then, it was a crazy conspiracy theory, but isn't every dirty little deed they want swept under the rug!

But surely what you are saying, what was once conspiracy theory is now a fact. Or rather Wikileaks, by virtue of obtaining these cables, are ratifying what was once as you say, "a crazy conspiracy theory" I would have thought that would make you quite happy, and since Wiki is specific in naming names that can be attached to the crazy conspiracy theory, the theory is no longer such, but is a truth. So either the story is entirely true, and you imply that it is, and therefore not propagandist, or it is false and wholly propagandist, but you can't have it both ways. Which is it?

I have no connection in this fight but have discussed the issue in depth with a friend who is one of the "corporate insiders'. My friend has detailed how GM could solve most of the worlds food issues inexpensively while eliminating harmful chemicals used to increase crop yields. It seems anti corporate groups feel that keeping people hungry will forward their agenda and out weighs solving the worlds hunger issues. Research the groups opposing this. Look for connections. Start with an independent analysis of the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering and tell me they are truly "independent". Returning to a hunter gather society will not work. There are a lot of people that need to eat.

reply to post by smurfy


You misunderstand. The point I was making was that this issue, and many others, have been out there and discussed for years. It doesn't need Wikileaks to give it any credibility, it had that all along, but the MSM chose to ignore it, like they do so many times with big issues that have a national or perhaps even global impact.
I stand by my opinion that Wikileaks is nothing more than a controlled intel setup, especially given it's scope of information, which would not have all been stored in the same location, or even on the same network system.
Investigations by some of the bloggers, alternative media journalists and even some of the very few remaining MSM journalists with an ounce of ethics have put it out there, naming names, but have been ignored, ridiculed or even (in the case of one article on Monsanto) been sacked.
The ridiculing by the MSM always seems to include talk of "conspiracy theories", like it's something deserving of laughter and not at all credible. Yes, some of it is a bit "out there" (and I am sure some of it is deliberatly planted to derail serious investigation), but so much over the years that has been ridiculed and dismissed has turned out to be correct.

reply to post by Xcathdra


confirmation bias at it's finest. i was gonna do a thread on it(the subject of confirmation bias) but i thought it'd be met with much scrutiny and criticism. oh well.

Why would you believe this rubbish it is rational to know that Assenger is a CIA and NSA agent cause if anyone released this kind of information they would be dead. NSA and CIA special brunches do not leave lose ends behind trust me I know

maybe its because the Agriculture Head is former Monsanto... thanks Obama admin, thank you NWO

Originally posted by Britguy
reply to post by smurfy

 

You misunderstand. The point I was making was that this issue, and many others, have been out there and discussed for years. It doesn't need Wikileaks to give it any credibility, it had that all along, but the MSM chose to ignore it, like they do so many times with big issues that have a national or perhaps even global impact.

I don't misunderstand your point at all. However you can shout from the rooftops 'til you're blue in the face if there is no smoking gun evidence. In this case Wiki has it on a plate, and is handing it out to us all. Not only that, the subject matter, covert lobbying or non elected strategy designed to influence an outcome to the advantage of said lobbyist, is one of the hardest things to prove. Here, and if the cable is true, (and no-one has yet to say otherwise) is real proof straight from the horses mouth. I would be surprised if there is no fallout from this particular story. MSM we all know, does try to bury the dirt, even more, they will try to fabricate news where it suits, remember the Fox news chief who said he owned the news,

www.inmotionmagazine.com...

Fox sacked two reporters who refused to put out false news.

Assange you must remember, has his head on a plate, and we don't know what the outcome will be, and quite frankly I don't think the authorities know what to do with him, speculating on that could be a thread on its own.

Have a look here at more examples, if true, of corporate influencing. Much of this link goes back to 2001/2002,

www.globalissues.org...-13