THE GMO SCRAPBOOK: PRESIDENT PUTIN WEIGHS IN AGAINST VACCINES

Posted on March 14, 2016 by Joseph P. Farrell •http://gizadeathstar.com/2016/03/the-gmo-scrapbook-president-putin-weighs-in-against-vaccines/

This extremely interesting article was shared by Mr. A.K., and it's worth your consideration, and our usual high octane speculation. Indeed, I can almost hear the reaction of the lamestream media in the West, if it bothers at all to cover the story: "Mr. Putin is against vaccines? We'll we always knew he was an anti-science irrational troglodyte." But whatever he is, Mr. Putin is not an anti-science troglodyte, and there's something else altogether going on here, but we'll get back to that. Here's the article:
Putin: Human Evolution Under Threat By Big Pharma, GMO, Vaccines
I want to draw your attention to the following four paragraphs, which, apparently, are citing a report that landed on Mr. Putin's desk:

“We as a species have the choice to continue to develop our bodies and brains in a healthy upward trajectory, or we can follow the Western example of recent decades and intentionally poison our population with genetically altered food, pharmaceuticals, vaccinations, and fast food that should be classified as a dangerous, addictive drug.”
“We must fight this. A physically and intellectually disabled population is not in our interests,” the report states.
Describing the average government-controlled Westerner as an “intensively vaccinated borderline autistic fat man slumped in front of a screen battling a high-fructose corn syrup comedown,” the report states that such tactics used by governments to subjugate their citizens are not only “dark/evil” but “counter-productive in the medium to long term.”
Russia under President Putin has been giving away land for free in the past few years to people willing to farm organically and sustainably. The goal is to become the world’s “leading exporter” of non-GMO foods that are based on “ecologically clean” production. (All emphases added)

One of the things that caught my eye is the story - repeated in this article - that Mr. Putin's government has started a kind of Russian version of the American homestead act: giving land away to farmers who will tend it, but apparently as a part of a wider Russian government program to become a leading "exporter" of non-GMO foods. This development I have been predicting for years in my assertion that the BRICSA bloc would eventually make GMOs a geopolitical issue: I call it "GMO geopolitics". And the hint is supplied in this article: people - and farmers - should have the inherent right to GMO-free food. And that extends to a right to know what is in the food they purchase. That, in turn, requires accurate labeling. Russia, as I have pointed out in previous blogs on this subject, does not appear to be waiting for the rest of the BRICSA bloc, but appears willing to take the lead on the issue. Notably, its largest BRICSA partner, China, is less pessimistic - to put it mildly - about GMOs. But this policy may resonate ultimately with BRICSA partner Brazil, and ultimately with Argentina, where the pro-GMO policies of various governments have displaced many farmers and ranchers. And it will find a sympathetic ear in India as well, where the same has happened, and where there is significant political opposition to GMOs.
What is extraordinarily intriguing about the article, however, is that the Russian report apparently identifies a variety of nutritional and pharmaceutical causes for the dumbing down of the Westen population, and makes it clear that this is a result of deliberate policy, a policy which it intends to fight. As the article points out, the report apparently believes this to be an ultimately self-defeating policy, one that will prove to be "counter-productive in the medium to long-term," and that for Russia to remain competitive, it must have an intelligent general population. And in the list, the report ties vaccines to autism, a debate that has raged in the West, where the official narrative - that vaccines are not causally linked to autism - is increasingly under fire.
So what is really going on here? My high octane speculation is that this is deliberate Russian government policy to position itself as the state spokesman for these types of issues, when the issue itself is genuine, and has a certain degree of scientific support and merit. In short, Russia is positioning itself, quite deliberately, on the side of those in the West who have attempted to raise similar issues but who are shut out of the debate by a corporate media and bought-and-paid-for professional journals.
And with this high-octane speculation, comes a prediction, for the failing intellectual ability of the general population of the West, and of America in particular, must also be laid in part at the feet of the progressive education philosophy that have dominated American education, and that of the West in general. If this reading be true, then one may expect, eventually, for there to be some similar Russian criticism of the whole philosophy behind that education system, and of its institutions and favored "gimicks"(think the standardized test here, or its most recent manifestation, Common Core and its "individually adaptive standardized tests.")
Russia wants to own these issues, and if the West is to maintain pace, it must open up, rather than attempt to close, real awareness of them. The problem is, the "West" now has become nothing but a term of convenience for a collection of special privileges for the super-wealthy and their multinationals, and for an embedded corruption that once was the sole prerogative of the Communist nomenklatura. And that's the problem, and Russia wants to speak for them, because it knows that these things will never be objectively address by Faux news, See BS, CNN, or any other western outlet.

Proof that Ignorance Drives Hillary Clinton’s Voters   ~ hehe "only" u's kooky nattery fucked in the heads "voters" would "fall" fer that broom rid~in witch ...ole hellery or even fer that matter that buff~oon the d ~duck LOL  ...yea that's RIGHT ALL u's reg~is~terd "voters"     umm hum yea yup u's kooks, it's fucking going ON ...now what ...about 125 yrs of ....vote~in fer the lesser of 2 evils crowd & fucking  STILL ya's haven't fingered the fuck  out that... evil+ EVIL = fucking evil  ...ain't that right barr.. hey how's bout you ole billy the "dangler" hehe

Clinton, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEmjwR0Rs20&ebc=ANyPxKoMJS6w7aU3EUAepoE4TIILcERUNGAqROHRFFuERKNNWIsSqPZtDyH-0EVdsnVCYGh4ThCMIN5y79VLgiB-tgLFa3vqUQ

By Eric Zuesse

Global Research, March 14, 2016

Region: USA

Theme: Media Disinformation

In-depth Report: U.S. Elections

   Amereee~ kaaa~kookys~ville the "cream" ALWAYS rises & not just on the mons ...dresssss ...either  Oops

Although no organization that predictively polls the Democratic Presidential primaries has sampled the question (or its equivalent) “What is the most important reason why you prefer that candidate?” the assumption by political pundits has always been that, regarding Hillary Clinton voters, perhaps the most important reason for their choice of Clinton over Sanders is that she would be a stronger candidate against the Republican nominee in the general election than Bernie Sanders would be.

The widely presumed argument there is that Clinton “has more experience” and is more “mainstream” than Sanders, whom ‘too many people’ consider to be ‘outside the mainstream’ because he is ‘farther left’ than she, who is the more ‘centrist’ of the two Democratic candidates. 

By contrast, the exit polls  in the individual state primaries  consistently do  test for “Top Candidate Quality” explaining their vote; and, almost each time, “Honest” and “Cares” are very high for Sanders voters, while “Electability” and “Experience” are overwhelmingly high for Clinton voters. The exit polls are just about as definitive a confirmation as could possibly exist showing that Hillary Clinton is, to a large extent, preferred by her voters because they view her as being far more “electable” than is her opponent (Sanders). She is even more overwhelmingly viewed by them to be more ‘experienced’ than Sanders, and we’ll get to that later in this article.

However, whatever the argument is, that’s given for her to be stronger in the general election than he is (i.e., to be more ‘electable’), it’s a false argument, because its conclusion is demonstrably false: the data on that matter — the opposite-Party pairings in the predictive polls — are convincingly to the exact contrary: he’s far more electable than she is.

Look at the match-ups against Trump (and other potential Republican Presidential nominees), on the part of Clinton, and then in the same place the matchups on the part of Sanders (just click onto this link):

What has long been very clear there, for quite some time, is that in the general election, Sanders is overwhelmingly stronger against the Republican nominee (whomever that might turn out to be) than is Clinton.

In order to come to a less-shallow and more-truthful analysis of what explains the relative ability of each of the two Democratic contenders to defeat the Republican nominee, an examination of the perceived-honesty factor should play a large role. For example, in the shocking Michigan win by Sanders over Clinton, the answers on the “Top Candidate Quality” factor showed that Sanders was voted for by 78% who chose “honest” as the top trait, but only by 27% of those who selected “electability,” and by 18% of those who opted for “experience” as the top trait. He was also selected by 56% of those who chose “cares” as the top. Those are the only four factors asked in the exit polls, and they provide deep understanding of why  each candidate was winning or losing.

Other factors too might be significant, but, whatever the reasons for Sanders being the stronger of the two Democrats to win in the general election against the Republican nominee are, is not important in the present context, because the data consitently do show that the result  (whatever the reasons  for it) is that Sanders is the stronger general-election candidate against the Republican.

By the way, in the Hillary blowout win in South Carolina, Clinton was the candidate voted for by 51% of the voters who rated “honest” as the top quality, by 82% who rated “electability” top, by 94% who rated “experience” top, and by 68% who rated “cares” top. That’s why she received an unprecedented 74% to 26% blowout win against Sanders in that state.

In the general-election-tossup state of Virginia, exit polls showed that 78% of the voters who rated “honest” the “Top Candidate Quality” were Sanders voters, 86% of the voters who rated “electability” the “Top Candidate Quality” voted for Clinton, 95% who chose “experience” as the top, voted for Clinton — and, of these four traits, “experience” was overwhelmingly  the “Top Candidate Quality” for more voters than any of the other three, which is the main reason why Clinton won Virginia (i.e., because of her having been overwhelmingly viewed there to be the more ‘experienced’).

But the point is, yet again, that, in the general-election match-ups, Sanders really and authentically IS the more electable of the two Democrats to become the U.S. President. That’s just a fact, though consistently Clinton voters assume the exact opposite of the fact. Their assumption on that is plain false.

What, then, about “experience”? That’s not a factor which is decidable merely by means of numerical evidence. However, judgmental though it is, a stunningly strong case can be made that Sanders rates higher on “experience” than does Clinton, because she voted for the Iraq-invasion and she also has been extremely eager for other invasions such as in Lybia and Syria — all of which have been disasters. Specifically, her experience as Secretary of State was catastrophic. (Click on that for the evidence — which, of course, is non-numerical or “qualitative” regarding each one of her six catastrophes there.)

Furthermore, Sanders’s experience has been both lengthy and outstanding. (Unfortunately, he doesn’t talk much about it. He even didn’t talk much about his having been arrested in Chicago as a college student demonstrating peacefully for racial equality in the 1960s. Apparently, he doesn’t like to brag about his legislative achievements, nor even about his having a real record of fighting for racial equality, whereas Hillary has nothing but talk on racial equality and brags about whatever she possibly can, even if she needs to lie in order to do it.)

So, also on “experience,” Clinton’s voters assume to be true what’s actually false.

Finally, returning to our main topic, electability: there is also this: What Hillary did by destroying her federal records, her government emails on the private server she kept in her basement, was a federal crime, and she’s dependent upon Obama’s blocking the FBI from pursuing it in order for her to be able to make it all the way to electoral victory in November. So far as can reasonably be determined about Senator Sanders, there’s nothing criminally prosecutable in his record. So, his advantage in electability is  even higher than would appear merely by  today’s numbers.

The only reasonable conclusion, then, is this:

Overwhelmingly, her voters are ignorant, misinformed, deceived. They are suckers, the dupes of a practised liar. She is taking advantage of their gullibility. That’s the raw fact.

Perhaps they’ll be angry at me for reporting this fact to them; but, it’s the fact nonetheless, and the person they ought to be blaming for it is: Hillary Clinton. Not the messenger: not me. To get angry at the messenger is to choose  to remain  deceived.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Eric Zuesse, Global Research, 2016

Protecting America’s Bees. Bee Depopulation linked to Pesticides. Failure of the US Government

Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report

By Andrea Germanos

Global Research, March 14, 2016

Common Dreams 11 March 2016

Region: USA

Theme: Biotechnology and GMO, Environment

Echoing charges made by conservation organizations, a new report from the Government Accountability Office finds that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) need to step up their actions in order to protect bees.
The report, released to the public on Friday, was based on assessments from October 2014 to February 2016.
The report found that the USDA, “which co-chairs the White House Pollinator Health Task Force with EPA, has not worked with its partners on the task force to coordinate a native bee monitoring plan,” and that its efforts to promote bee habitat conservation may be thwarted by gaps in research and evaluation.
The EPA, meanwhile, has suffered from challenges in data collection and reporting on bee kill incidents that may be linked to pesticides, while its risk assessment guidance “does not call for EPA to assess the risks that pesticide mixtures may pose to bees.”
Among the report’s recommendations are “that USDA coordinate with other agencies to develop a plan to monitor wild, native bees, and evaluate gaps in staff expertise in conservation practices, and that EPA identify the most common mixtures of pesticides used on crops.”
“Ultimately this report reiterates what we’ve known for a long time,” stated Lori Ann Burd, Environmental Health director at the Center for Biological Diversity, “that the USDA and EPA are failing to do what it takes to protect our rapidly declining bee populations.”
“Despite their importance and evidence of dramatic declines, the USDA has failed to take measures to start protecting [native bees],” she continued. And “[f]or far too long, the EPA has turned a blind eye to the impacts of pesticide mixtures.”
In a related development, environmental group Friends of the Earth this week said in a statement:

“Recent allegations of the USDA’s censorship and suppression of scientific research on pesticides calls into question the agency’s ability to co-chair [the White House Pollinator Health Task Force] and develop a meaningful federal strategy that will truly protect bees, birds, monarchs, and other critical pollinators.”

The original source of this article is Common Dreams

Copyright © Andrea Germanos, Common Dreams, 2016

Monopoly Board Game Goes Cashless: Barcodes Introduced To Track Players And Transactions

Posted by George Freund on March 13, 2016  ~   hehe can u say fucking "conditioning"    ...any~1  :O

MARCH 9, 2016

By Kevin Samson

When events that were formally considered conspiracy theories become the foundation of popular culture, you know an entirely new reality is being created. The 5th bestselling board game in the world is now embracing the onset of the cashless society.

The war on cash in the real world is taking place on many fronts – from penalizing the holding of it through negative interest rates; eradicating large-denomination banknotes; surveillance of it through Suspicious Activity Reports; or outright banning larger transactions.

Perhaps recognizing that today’s children might very soon not understand how to even use cash – or maybe to help to speed up their education and acceptance – the Monopoly board game is certainly living up to its name by promoting a future of centralized bank surveillance and management. Fittingly, the new version calls itself “Ultimate Banking.”

Monopoly has always been a game of dominance through property acquisition, involuntary rent, and bankrupting the opposition to ultimately control every aspect of an economy. Its 100-year-plus popularity in more than 100 countries and nearly 40 languages speaks to its global role in either social commentary or social engineering.

Monopoly presented its first digital versions in the post-2005 era beginning with cash replaced by Visa-branded debit cards. Further modernization of gameplay replaced their iconic tokens with choices like a Segway, flat-screen TV or a space shuttle, instead of a ship, car, or wheelbarrow. This eventually morphed into a full electronic banking unit that digitized the scorekeeping, thus eliminating the “black-market element” of hidden cash and other means of presumably fudging the numbers.

Today’s version goes one step further, again in tandem with society at large taking its next steps toward a full cashless reality where surveillance is openly admitted to. Instead of the slower manual entering of transactions into the central keypad, all properties come with a scanable barcode that, when purchased, will be automatically deducted from a player’s funds. The same applies to rent payments – everything is done by barcode and automatic deduction. In this way, not only are transactions accounted for, but the players themselves are integrated into the central banking database.

According to PYMNTS.com, the transfer of traditional tabletop gaming has been trending toward the high-tech for some time, trying to keep pace with its video game counterparts. These platforms are being embraced by the public in record numbers:

According to an article from ICv2, a firm that reports on the “Business of Geek Culture,” the hobby board game industry climbed to $880 million dollars in 2014, which marked a 20 percent increase in year-over-year sales.
….
As an article by CNBC recently reported, board game projects are attracting tens of thousands of fans on online crowdfunding sites, some amassing millions of dollars in only a few weeks’ time. The strategy game “Scythe,” for example, began its Kickstarter campaign in mid-October with a pledge goal of $33,000 and ended with $1.8 million.
….
According to CNBC, BoardGameGeek.com, an online hub for board game hobbyists, was founded in Jan. 2000 with less than 5,000 users. By Nov. 2015, the site had grown to 1.15 million users, with roughly 55 million page views per month.

For now – just like in the real world – the cashless version of Monopoly is optional, but the trend certainly would indicate that at some point its traditional version will become a mere relic. And there is still much that can be done to advance its gameplay further in order to maintain parity with what is being introduced in modern real-world payment systems … I fully expect that it will be sooner rather than later when Monopoly will grace us with its “Biometric Banking” version. Wouldn’t it just be so much more convenient if facial recognition sped things up a bit more?Google is already working on a new digital wallet to do just that. After all, how much longer will it be that kids even know what a credit card is?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCdICCGecbU

Gary Franchi reports below on Monopoly’s further parallels to real-world banking.

Sources:

http://toyland.gizmodo.com/monopoly-ultimate-banking-eliminates-cash-with-a-tiny-a-1759240688

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_%28game%29

http://www.hasbro.com/en-us/product/monopoly-brand-electronic-banking-edition:9367A23C-6D40-1014-8BF0-9EFBF894F9D4

H/T: ZenGardner.com

http://www.activistpost.com/2016/03/monopoly-board-game-cashless-barcodes-introduced-to-track-players-and-transactions.html