http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?page_id=161

Why Does Monsanto Always Win?:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/31/monsanto-powerful-influence.aspx

GMO victory within reach? Proposition 37 is ‘likely to pass’ declares LA Times (but your help still needed!):
http://www.prisonplanet.com/gmo-victory-within-reach-proposition-37-is-likely-to-pass-declares-la-times-but-your-help-still-needed.html

Pax Nutria

ps: The problem with Prop 37 is that good people like Alex Jones and Dr. Mercola - with all the best of intentions - are not looking at the subterfuge angle. The discussion on GMOs needs to focus on toxicity and malnutrition ... not be shifted to market force evaluations of GMO foods <----- for that will not solve a thing wherewhen the subjects involved are largely brainwashed masses (dim and bright) that will stampede at the slightest direct towards the purchase of cabbage patch dolls, Xboxes, slapChops, etc). The psychopaths know this. The gullible show this. And the intellectuals have flown the coop because the floodwaters are rising.

ps2: Good on those who can see beyond the legerdemain ... but we will drown too when the dam breaks. Such is the common fate of foolwits, droolwits, and schooled wits alike.

Nice bit of fear-mongering, Zook. I bet you lapped this stuff up like a kitten does warm milk.

Didn't you get that red-flag feeling when she started off with the following?


Isn't this how gatekeepers start out? If you write down (document) an untrue statement, does that make it true?

Here are the horrors of Codex Alimentarius, according to the good doctor:

1. In 1994, Codex declared nutrients to be toxins.
2. Codex mandates that every animal must be treated with antibiotics and growth hormone.
3. Codex mandates that all food be irradiated.
4. Codex has brought back 7 of the 9 forbidden Persistent Organic Pollutants.
5. 3 billion humans (nearly half the human population) will die from Codex.

So, rather that take all this as Gospel, I decided to try to verify just one of these claims. I picked number 3, thinking it would be easy. Here's all I could find.



So it looks like Codex mandates that any irradiated foods be labeled as such, which is quite different from mandating all processed foods be irradiated.

So, Zook, can you help me find where Codex mandates the irradiation of all processed foods? Anybody? If we can't find that, I'm going to suggest that we be very skeptical of the rest of Doctor Laibow's shocking claims. And maybe Zook's claims as well.

Now this should be interesting, will UncleZook be able to extract his foot from his lower intestine this time?

I doubt it, from what I've seen and that has been extensively documented here is that he will simply ignore the tough questions and continue on spouting his usual propaganda (Mind Numbing BS).

A quick run versus a comprehensive study <---------- know the difference and contribute to the discussion. Else subtract from it. Your choice, Chico. Laibow is not the source for a comprehensive study ... but a primer. If she exaggerates, further study of the facts will bear this out. She is but one window into the hidden library. It is telling that you would attempt to shorten the discussion of Codex Alimentarius by casting aspersions on those who are trying to raise awareness of a hidden sinister agenda to depopulate the world through starvation and terminator seed technology ... that you would seek out hyperbole in the duty of raising awareness and turn said hyperbole into a noose on a hanging tree.

Equally intriguing is that you would extend hyperbole, even accommodate the lies and legerdemain of Julian Assange (and not likewise hang him on his words of "false 911 conspiracy"). Your hypocrisy for the benefit of the establishment, and to the detriment of the anti-establishment ... is mind-numbing. Stick around, Chico, I will give you enough rope for a loop and a swing on your own hanging tree.




Nope. Mistakes made in the duty of uncovering hidden agendas are forgivable ... and not comparable with mistakes made in the duty of said hidden agendas. That you would compare the two is just more indication of your plastic shovel accessing depths it was built for ... shallow and inconsequential.

The rest of your post is just about chasing the hyperbole and making it a hanging tree for Laibow. As I'm not interested in trivial pursuits, I'll let you have at that at your own pleasure. You are already being inconsequenced by your subtle attempts to shift the focus away from the message of Codex Alimentarius to the messenger of Laibow.

How ironic is that, eh Chico?



Pax Postcard From India

ps: Btw, I keep hearing voices from the banana tree. Either there's a monkey stuck up there in the Bahamian fronds and howling for your assistance ... or the bananas are making like humans and talking again.

Come on, Zook, you're being disingenuous here. Where in the Codex Alimentarius does it require mandatory irradiation of processed foods? That question is hardly dependent on the messenger, though it has the potential to reflect somewhat on her integrity, and yours. But my main concern is not to discredit Dr. Laibow or Uncle Zook, but to get to the truth. Surely you would help me in this effort, for the benefit of all.

Food irradiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation



This knowledge in the hands of a sociopathic technocrat who loves his patriotism is deadly.

Just ask a supercomputer what mineral removed could do the most human tissue damage for starters...

Chico writes:

	Quote: Here are the horrors of Codex Alimentarius, according to the good doctor: 1. In 1994, Codex declared nutrients to be toxins. 2. Codex mandates that every animal must be treated with antibiotics and growth hormone. 3. Codex mandates that all food be irradiated. 4. Codex has brought back 7 of the 9 forbidden Persistent Organic Pollutants. 5. 3 billion humans (nearly half the human population) will die from Codex.

Wot? An error by Chico? Or deliberate narrative manipulation?

Here's what Laibow actually said in the video (~2:30 mark):

"Codex mandates that all food be irradiated unless it's eaten locally and raw."


Of course, Chico later corrects this mistake by shifting the lexicon to all processed foods ... but by then the reader already has doubts about Laibow's apparent absolute statement of all foods. An appearance which Chico created, not Laibow.

Should we allow Chico to get away with this narrative distortion? I mean, he certainly isn't giving Laibow any room for either making mistakes or baking hyperbole, never mind that inaccuracies are to be expected when gazing into hidden libraries through clouded windows.

Pax Postcard From India Par Avion

Still grasping at straws, are we? Falling back to the old habits, attack the messenger, ignore the message?

I copied that line of text off the video verbatim at 2:25. However, the qualifier that Laibow actually spoke was not lost on me, which is why I added the same equivalent qualifier later on.

The narrative distortion is in the video itself at 2:25, which is precisely my point -- the video is propaganda. Yet you fell for it hook, line, and sinker. And it's not the first time. In fact, this is a habit of yours which has led you to your digital conclusions that are so mistaken.

Now, back to truth-seeking. Where in the Codex Alimentarius does it require mandatory irradiation of processed foods?

Still distorting things, are we? The caution against attacking the messenger is your burden to bear, for it is your standard to bear - a standard without much merit at that (for the messenger and message are intimately linked as a rule and attacking one is attacking the other and vice versa). Of course, the social engineers have dumbed down the thinking processes of the average Jack and Jill, so that the latter believe that this linking is the exception when in fact it is the rule. So be it.

Of course, I have no such burden to bear because I understand the intimacy of the linkage (you know, superior discernment, that sorta thing) .... and attack the message jointly with the messenger and vice versa. I rarely attack
the messenger alone ... or the message alone. Par for the course for you to distort my approach by calling it an attack on the messenger with a concomitant ignoring of the message. While that happens from time to time on exception - I'm only human - my focus is primarily on the message, e.g. I attack the messenger as a side effect.



Once again, in case you overlooked the prescience of the point I had made in my previous post, Chico ... truthseeking wrt hidden agendas, obstructed views of the hidden libraries, and human mistakes are common minglings. It then takes a committed fool to attempt to unmingle them, e.g. by using human mistakes as the lynchpin of the counterargument. Where angels fear to tread, Chico.



I'm not sure the witch-hunt is necessary. I accept your concern that Laibow may have exaggerated that particular point in the passages of podium discourse. Not a big mistake, IMO; certainly not worth my time. Maybe yours, after all, gatekeeping has lower standards than truthseeking. As it were.

Pax Postcard From India

That was no exaggeration -- it was an outright lie. Unless, of course, it can be substantiated, which you say is not worth your time. So there we have it -- truth-seeking is not worth your time. And you make such a big to-do about your devotion to truth-seeking!

I spent some more time today searching the Internet in an attempt to substantiate Laibow's claim, and I have found nothing that does so. What I did find was others repeating this same apparent falsehood.

Needless to say, I find all this disappointing.