Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Prop 37: Proposition or Propaganda? Remembering Prohibition 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Prop 37: Proposition or Propaganda? Remembering Prohibition
Qui bono?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibitio ... ted_States

beginExcerpt
As the prohibition years continued, more of the country’s populace came to see prohibition as illustrative of class distinctions, a law unfairly biased in its administration favoring social elites. "Prohibition worked best when directed at its primary target: the working-class poor." [43] Historian Lizabeth Cohen writes: “ A rich family could have a cellar-full of liquor, but if a poor family had a bottle of home-brew, there would be trouble.” Working-class people were inflamed by the fact that their employer could dip into a cache of private stock while they, the employee, was denied a similar indulgence.[44]

Indeed, before the date that the Eighteenth Amendment became national law, many of the well- to- do stockpiled alcohol for home consumption. They bought out the inventories of warehouses, saloons, club store rooms, they emptied out liquor retailers and wholesalers. American lawmakers themselves followed these practices at the highest levels of government. President Woodrow Wilson moved his own supply of alcoholic beverages to his Washington residence after his term of office ended. His successor, Warren G. Harding relocated his own large supply into the White House after inauguration.[45][46]

In October 1930, just two weeks before the Congressional midterm elections, bootlegger George Cassiday, "the man in the green hat," came forward and told how he had bootlegged for ten years for Congress. One of the few bootleggers ever to tell his story, he wrote five front page articles in The Washington Post. He estimated that eighty percent of congressmen and senators drank, even though these same people were the ones passing dry laws. This had a significant impact on the midterm election, which saw Congress shift from a dry Republican majority to a wet Democratic majority. The Democrats understood that Prohibition was unpopular and called for its repeal.[47]
end


Apart from the obvious consequences of prohibition, e.g. driving the market underground and into the clutches of the crime syndicates ... the salient fact is that the very Congresscritters that had legislated it were some of the greatest imbibers of hydroxyl groups. Disconnect? Or planned psychological operation by the power pyramid of the time? It should be noted that the Bronfman family - a powerful family in the power pyramid - made a fortune in bootlegging: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Bronfman

The same pattern of legislative manipulation preceded the Great Depression. For a great appetizer on the real causes behind the Depression, try: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgr ... ZrNvcb1BI/

FWIW, in the events leading up to the Depression, the banking crooks on the power perches would design a particular piece of legislation; then publicly denounce the legislation, which would then cause the public to support it (for the public loathed the banking classes as much back then as they do today); and voila, the crooks obtain the laws they want and that they themselves designed. Remember, false flag operations are standard operating practice for the bankster empire ... and have been ever since the falsely reported Napoleon victory (at Waterloo) legerdemain made Nathaniel Rothschild the de facto ruler of England.

To wit, if the power pyramid needs to enlist the public's support on a particular thesis ... they will publicly associate with the antithesis, e.g. to drive the popular opinion towards the thesis. Keep this in mind.

I'm still researching Prop 37, but so far in my research, it appears the power pyramid is strongly opposing Prop 37 ... which then tickles the question ... why?

I mean, the public is already aware and largely against GMO foods and Monsanto ... so where does Prop 37 fit in?
And why would Monsanto spend upwards of $4 million dollars on a thesis (Vote No Against Prop 37) knowing that the public would then seek the antithesis (Vote Yes On Prop 37)? Is it possible that they actually are in favor of Prop 37?

Stay tuned. I will unearth more things to provoke your neurons, as it were. For now, be guarded. Prop 37 could be a Trojan Horse to legitimize the dialectic surrounding GMO foods. I mean, taking the argument of GMO foods away from the issue of genetic modification and replacing it with the issue of labelling ... is a subtle attack against the truth and against the resistance to GMO foods. But one has to think outside the box to recognize the attack.

Pax Terra Nutria

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:37 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11843
Reply with quote
Post Re: Prop 37: Proposition or Propaganda? Remembering Prohibi
Zook, what does Prohibition really have to do with California Proposition 37? Prohibition had a complex origin with many contributing factors that you haven't even mentioned in your oversimplified presentation, including the fact that early Ford cars were designed to run on alcohol and not gasoline, much to the ire of the petroleum industry. Shouldn't you stick to the particulars regarding Proposition 37 and refrain from comparing it to legislation from nearly 100 years ago?

Monsanto and friends are clearly supporting a "No" vote, which in your estimation means they want the public to vote "Yes" and pass it. I'll grant you that this idea may have merit. The proposition is not exactly a straight-forward requirement to label all foods containing GMO plants and animals, even though it is being touted as such. Just a reading of the summary raises red flags (which I have underlined):

  • Require labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if the food is made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways.
  • Prohibit labeling or advertising such food as "natural."
  • Exempt from this requirement foods that are "certified organic"; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages.

The full text of Proposition 37 is hard to find, which is not comforting, though I did eventually find it (I think). Reading it makes it clear why it would be detrimental to Monsanto and friends. Clearly, the spirit and intent of the proposition is in the best interests of the public, and such a law is badly needed, especially given the current food labeling laws. Whether there are weaknesses and clever loopholes to be developed for the benefit of the GMO producers is not clear. However, based on the available evidence before me, I would definitely vote for it.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Tue Sep 18, 2012 10:10 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 5:40 pm
Posts: 2156
Reply with quote
Post Re: Prop 37: Proposition or Propaganda? Remembering Prohibi
UncleZook wrote:

Stay tuned. I will unearth more things to provoke your neurons, as it were.


Two things spring to mind here!

1. Why do you need to start a separate topic for "Prop 37" when it had already been brought up in another, perfectly suited for it's discussion? which Incidentally you chose to ignore, very odd!

2. I hope this "unearthing" to be more forthcoming than the evidence on Chavez you made reference to in your "Hugo Chavez: neoMarxist Phages vs the Sultans of Sage" topic, but for some unknown reason decided to keep to yourself!

_________________
Think twice before you speak, especially if you intend to say what you think.

QRK: QifUSqn6ygXK61pEkm2g4iBY9ZcLw4g4su
FCK: FettxKyQVhsSURZt1XQxUTypwxEeBbTgUQ

Please visit http://forum.qrk.cc/ for all things Crypto!


Wed Sep 19, 2012 2:46 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Prop 37: Proposition or Propaganda? Remembering Prohibi
Zook, what does Prohibition really have to do with California Proposition 37? Prohibition had a complex origin with many contributing factors that you haven't even mentioned in your oversimplified presentation, including the fact that early Ford cars were designed to run on alcohol and not gasoline, much to the ire of the petroleum industry. Shouldn't you stick to the particulars regarding Proposition 37 and refrain from comparing it to legislation from nearly 100 years ago?


The terms oversimplification and binary thinking ... are useful when used sparingly. When used as frequently as you use them, Chico, they lose their meaning and become the universal argument against all arguments. So let me give you an example where it is meaningful to use the word oversimplification. With my reference to Prohibiton, I was showing you a generic template by which politicians - for most intents and purposes, synonymous with minions of the powered elites - execute the wishes of those elites. The power elites study everything. As Alex Jones correctly points out, it is a scientific dictatorship that the elites are nefariously arranging in the duty of full spectrum dominance. In the study of everything, as it were, the power perches understand that the culture of alcohol is as old as the oldest profession. They understand that it is foolish to implement legislation against alcohol. So why do they attempt it, anyway? Well, for one, they recognize that by doing so, that will drive the culture underground where they already have control of the bootlegging machinery. So they win both ways ... by appearing to stand up for women and children reduced by the abusive hands and prodigal ways of drunken husbands and fathers ... and by making a handsome profit by owning the market at the supply end while avoiding the payment of taxes to the state treasury (of course, they have other protocols working to appropriate state monies, e.g. private Federal Reserve, graft, etc.). Also, they can publicly promote morality while demote it at the same time with illicit commerce (in the duty of ideological subversion). The culture and consumption of alcohol, studied properly, is a pot of gold for the power elites.

Getting back to the thrust of my argument, if the political minions know they are legislating for the benefit of the power elites, e.g. via illicit consumption mediated by tax-free liquor shops known as speakEasys (that purchase stock from the black distributors of the power elites and pay protection monies to their black protectors) ... and yet publicly denounce alcohol in the name of the public good ... then what is Prohibition
but a false flag operation on the common masses (both physical and psychological)?

This two-faced behavior is the common connection between Prohibition and Proposition 37.

On the one hand, implementing legislation via political minions, advertising machinery, and the support of the brainwashed masses ... and OTOH, ready to profit from it (in the case of Prohibition via illicit consumption ... and in the case of Prop 37, via the cunning shift of the debate over GMO foods, e.g. away from the health issues associated with genetic modification and towards the market issues of labeling. This extends legitimacy to GMO foods by handing over the important debate of genetically modified toxicity to the market analysts, after wresting it away from the health analysts. As it were.

So when you call my arguments oversimplified, it is actually you who are making the oversimplification, Chico ... for you automatically assume that the reported states (e.g. my conclusions, intermediate and otherwise) have no associated paths. I find no great need to report the paths unless requested to do so (and even then, only serious requests are entertained). And you find great need to report my method of reporting states (without necessarily reporting the various paths) ... as oversimplified binary thinking. So be it.

Quote:
Monsanto and friends are clearly supporting a "No" vote, which in your estimation means they want the public to vote "Yes" and pass it. I'll grant you that this idea may have merit. The proposition is not exactly a straight-forward requirement to label all foods containing GMO plants and animals, even though it is being touted as such. Just a reading of the summary raises red flags (which I have underlined):

  • Require labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if the food is made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways.
  • Prohibit labeling or advertising such food as "natural."
  • Exempt from this requirement foods that are "certified organic"; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages.

The full text of Proposition 37 is hard to find, which is not comforting, though I did eventually find it (I think). Reading it makes it clear why it would be detrimental to Monsanto and friends. Clearly, the spirit and intent of the proposition is in the best interests of the public, and such a law is badly needed, especially given the current food labeling laws. Whether there are weaknesses and clever loopholes to be developed for the benefit of the GMO producers is not clear. However, based on the available evidence before me, I would definitely vote for it.


Legerdemain doesn't work unless there are those born - usually every minute - to entertain it. Again, the reaper with the grim outlook on life ... usually gives something small to the masses in order to entice them closer to the reach of the scythe.

The only protection from the scythe, then, is outside-the-box thinking, e.g. complex thinking. To wit, fools rush in where wise men fear to tread. For your own benefit and edification, Chico, I implore you not to rush in with your fatally simplifed understandings of Prop. 37 (and also in many other matters broached here on United People).

Pax Discerni

ps: I cannot do more as a friend then warn those within earshot, that Prop 37 is not what it seems. Indeed, the most insidious aspect of Prop 37 is that it shifts the debate from toxicity and health issues ... and gives it - without prejudice - to the market (where labels, cloaks, fearmongering masks, and other instruments of the masquerade ... are worn as a second skin).

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:17 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11843
Reply with quote
Post Re: Prop 37: Proposition or Propaganda? Remembering Prohibi
UncleZook wrote:
The terms oversimplification and binary thinking ... are useful when used sparingly. When used as frequently as you use them, Chico, they lose their meaning and become the universal argument against all arguments.

What utter rubbish, Zook. Their usefulness is not a function of their frequency of use when used as called for. Perhaps it is the quality of your rationale that makes the frequent use of those terms necessary. Did you ever stop to consider that? But that would require calling your vaunted discernment into question, which is such a huge conflict of interest for you that it too would never be seriously considered.

Quote:
So let me give you an example where it is meaningful to use the word oversimplification. With my reference to Prohibiton, I was showing you a generic template by which politicians - for most intents and purposes, synonymous with minions of the powered elites - execute the wishes of those elites.

That is completely unnecessary. You know that we already know all about the deceit of the politicians.

Quote:
This two-faced behavior is the common connection between Prohibition and Proposition 37.

So now explain why Prohibition was overturned and is no longer in effect, and how that supports all the premises of your prior arguments for putting Prohibition in place.

Quote:
So when you call my arguments oversimplified, it is actually you who are making the oversimplification, Chico ...

If I recall, what I did was ask why you needed to invoke the complexity of Prohibition in order to analyze Proposition 37.

Quote:
To wit, fools rush in where wise men fear to tread. For your own benefit and edification, Chico, I implore you not to rush in with your fatally simplifed understandings of Prop. 37 (and also in many other matters broached here on United People).

:lol: As entertaining as always! Why don't you refrain from attacking the messenger, and also refrain from dragging up other issues like Prohibition, and actually provide real evidence, or even circumstantial conjecture, as to why you believe Proposition 37 is a false-flag effort designed to benefit Monsanto and friends. In other words, Mr. WiseMan, focus on the issue!

Quote:
ps: I cannot do more as a friend then warn those within earshot, that Prop 37 is not what it seems. Indeed, the most insidious aspect of Prop 37 is that it shifts the debate from toxicity and health issues ... and gives it - without prejudice - to the market (where labels, cloaks, fearmongering masks, and other instruments of the masquerade ... are worn as a second skin).

Let me explain it to you. Many ordinary people are fighting back in every way that they can. Issues of GMO toxicity and health are in the hands of corrupted government agencies that now serve big business and not ordinary people. Ordinary people can't seem to do anything to change that. Ballot initiatives, on the other hand, are still within their grasp, so if the people can't stop big business from putting GMO foods on the store shelves, at the very least they can perhaps force big business to divulge which foods they are poisoning. If the people fail, and big business can hide GMO ingredients in our food, then we the people are even more enslaved than ever.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Fri Sep 21, 2012 6:22 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11843
Reply with quote
Post Re: Prop 37: Proposition or Propaganda? Remembering Prohibi
UncleZook wrote:
Qui bono?

The most obvious party that benefits from the required labeling of GMO foods is the public. It gives them something slaves are usually denied -- choice.

Dennis Kucinich, one of the few Congressional representatives that doesn't toe the NWO line (he put his life and career at risk to introduce legislation to impeach George W. Bush in early 2008), has now introduced legislation similar to Proposition 37 for the House of Representatives to consider.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sat Sep 22, 2012 4:26 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 5:40 pm
Posts: 2156
Reply with quote
Post Re: Prop 37: Proposition or Propaganda? Remembering Prohibi
UncleZook wrote:
ps: I cannot do more as a friend then warn those within earshot, that Prop 37 is not what it seems. Indeed, the most insidious aspect of Prop 37 is that it shifts the debate from toxicity and health issues ... and gives it - without prejudice - to the market (where labels, cloaks, fearmongering masks, and other instruments of the masquerade ... yare worn as a second skin).


Zook,

you publicly made a complete fool of yourself and destroyed any credibility you had trying to defend Richard & Celine in the "Banning for dollars" topic!

Why are trying to continue this with mind numbing BS like this? Unless of course your instructions come from Washington and the basement you spend your days in isn't your Mother's after all, but in fact some where in Virgina!

_________________
Think twice before you speak, especially if you intend to say what you think.

QRK: QifUSqn6ygXK61pEkm2g4iBY9ZcLw4g4su
FCK: FettxKyQVhsSURZt1XQxUTypwxEeBbTgUQ

Please visit http://forum.qrk.cc/ for all things Crypto!


Sun Sep 23, 2012 7:00 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Prop 37: Proposition or Propaganda? Remembering Prohibi
UncleZook wrote:
Qui bono?

The most obvious party that benefits from the required labeling of GMO foods is the public. It gives them something slaves are usually denied -- choice.


Talk about hypocrisy masked as apparent wisdom.

Not long ago when I referred to Assange as being an obvious stooge of the power pyramid as revealed by the known facts of Rothschild connections; Soros funding of Wikileaks; comments on 9/11/2001 attacks; Wikileaks' virtual protection of the Zionist perspective; ease of personal access to heavily-controlled mainstream media portals collectively known as The Propaganda Ministry; hacking under the name Mendax; etc. ; etc. ... you, Chico, had the temerity to suggest that the obvious is the last place one should look when attempting to understand the complexity of the power pyramid game. Practically dismissed my exposition of the facts with your rubber reductionist habit hammer on the grounds of superordinate hidden realities over subordinated obvious realities.

And now, with equal temerity, you use the argument of the (immutable) obvious to validate your own surface understandings of Prop 37. You're too funny, Chico. I had you pegged as a high-end intellectual capable of deep cognitive function ... far too prematurely. My sincere apologies to you for loading on a high standard of expectation on your brain against its preference for finding safe passage beneath the limbo stick.
:jest:

So Prop 37 gives us slaves choice, huh, Chico? Selection through suffrage. Hmmm ... sounds neat and democratic, don't it? Now, pardon my inquisitive tone, but when did the ballot box ever deliver real choice on any major issue ... or in any club of members formed outside the tree house where Hobbes resides with Calvin and his newspaper hat and where Suzy is not allowed?

Free clue: virtual all ballot initiatives at the state level are sponsored by special interests and designed with special interests in mind. It's only the subterfuge that makes it appear that grassroots citizenry is involved in designing the initiative or executing an informed will.

Only when one begins to understand that democracy has never existed to benefit the people and has only existed (in mitigated degrees) to serve the power pyramid ... can one effectively bid goodbye to their plush animal toy and climb down from the treehouse.

To wit, stop wasting this forum's time with pedantic promenades about wishful possibility and overly simplified understandings ... the same kind you project on others, e.g. the real deep thinkers.

Quote:
Dennis Kucinich, one of the few Congressional representatives that doesn't toe the NWO line (he put his life and career at risk to introduce legislation to impeach George W. Bush in early 2008), has now introduced legislation similar to Proposition 37 for the House of Representatives to consider.


Oversimplified. Binary. Thinking. Do you really know who Dennis Kuchinich is ... or how much he has really done for the people? I mean, it's all good sound bites ... but Kuchinich and Ron Paul are still collecting paychecks on diddly done and diddly do ... while Cynthia McKinney - who made the bolder accusations on 9/11/2001 is out of a job.

Nay, the real revolution is in the mind ... not in political corridors. The men and women who walk those corridors may indeed be good people (like Kooch and Paul) ... but they cannot be expected to deliver anything that the system does not want delivered. <------------ That is the sobering reality.

In short, one woman on the street has done more for 9/11/2001 awareness - and the quest for truths - than two men in their high tower seats.

Pax Discerni.
Pax Cognitas.
Pax Veritas.

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Sun Sep 23, 2012 10:16 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 5:40 pm
Posts: 2156
Reply with quote
Post Re: Prop 37: Proposition or Propaganda? Remembering Prohibi
UncleZook wrote:

-Long post, nothing of any substance to do with the real issues surrounding "Prop 37", a few of his usual trademark ad hominems thrown in for good measure and of course the mention of 911 for distraction away from the topic!-

Pax Discerni.
Pax Cognitas.
Pax Veritas.

Can you explain how the mandatory labeling of GMO food around the word has benefited the likes of Monsanto n Co?

_________________
Think twice before you speak, especially if you intend to say what you think.

QRK: QifUSqn6ygXK61pEkm2g4iBY9ZcLw4g4su
FCK: FettxKyQVhsSURZt1XQxUTypwxEeBbTgUQ

Please visit http://forum.qrk.cc/ for all things Crypto!


Sun Sep 23, 2012 11:14 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11843
Reply with quote
Post Re: Prop 37: Proposition or Propaganda? Remembering Prohibi
UncleZook wrote:
I had you pegged as a high-end intellectual capable of deep cognitive function ... far too prematurely.

So... You were wrong about Chico. There's at least one chink in your discernment armor, isn't there? I wonder what else you are wrong about.

Good work making it all about the messenger, as usual. If you ever actually focus on the message with the same tenacity, we might all actually learn something from you.

Quote:
virtual all ballot initiatives at the state level are sponsored by special interests and designed with special interests in mind. It's only the subterfuge that makes it appear that grassroots citizenry is involved in designing the initiative or executing an informed will.

That does happen sometimes, but it doesn't always happen. I've seen grassroots efforts succeed and have actually been part of them, like this one.

Quote:
Only when one begins to understand that democracy has never existed to benefit the people and has only existed (in mitigated degrees) to serve the power pyramid ... can one effectively bid goodbye to their plush animal toy and climb down from the treehouse.

Oversimplified binary thinking again. Democracy has long existed to benefit the people. However, it can be easily and clandestinely gamed (especially simple-majority democracy) by scheming sociopaths, which is why democracy ends up having a bad name.

Quote:
they cannot be expected to deliver anything that the system does not want delivered. <------------ That is the sobering reality.

I agree that the system is very corrupted and has been getting steadily worse for many generations. Real solutions can come from the system, but they will not be allowed to fruition in uncorrupted form. The "Audit the Fed" legislation is an example.

Quote:
In short, one woman on the street has done more for 9/11/2001 awareness - and the quest for truths - than two men in their high tower seats.

Perhaps for 9/11 awareness, but what about overall? You are forced to oversimplify here because you are working with incomplete information, meaning you have no real idea what impact any of these three have had on our collective future. I can tell you that Kucinich and Ron Paul have had more impact on my life than McKinney, even though she has had an impact as well. There may be millions more that can say the same.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:38 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.