by Jon Rappoport

December 10, 2012

We’ve all heard about hidden agendas, divide and conquer, controlling the narrative, and problem-reaction-solution.  These are certainly time-honored and effective strategies for political elites.

To get simpler, we could just say lie-cheat-steal-kill.

But let’s approach all this from a somewhat different angle.

A powerful elite group first forms a goal, an objective.  It clarifies that goal.  For example: domination of the global food supply.

With that goal in mind, and with the technology to genetically modify food crops, huge corporations like Monsanto, along with their politicians firmly in their pockets, decide to patent every kind of food seed possible.

Soon, they own food.  They license/sell food seeds.  They expand the number of GMO food crops.

But they also realize they have to deal with opposition.

There are many people who oppose GMO food.  These people expose this food as nutrient-deficient and dangerous to human health.  They expose the fact that much more toxic pesticide is sprayed on this new Roundup Ready food.  They expose the fact that actual ownership of the food supply is passing into the hands of these elite corporations.  They expose the fact that the inserted genes drift from crop to crop, field to field, and contaminate non-GMO crops.

What to do?

Monsanto and its allies have a time table.  They believe they can accomplish, in a relatively short time, a fait accompli.  There will be so many licensed GMO food crops and so many drifting genes, the very idea of ridding the world of GMO crops will be seen as impossible.

In the meantime, they need to stall.  They need to divert attention away from the one action that could torpedo all their efforts: BANNING GMO CROPS.

This is the one thing that must not happen.

So…Monsanto covertly develops a plan: channel its opposition into lesser goals.

For example: labeling of GMO crops.

This is acceptable.

Monsanto “develops” two levels of labeling.  There is voluntary labeling (preferred) and mandatory labeling (less preferred).

It plants agents into large organizations who are directed to debate the labeling issue.  Debate it for a long time.

One such organization is the notorious Codex Alimentarius.  Created by the UN in 1961, with the mandate of guarding the health of consumers, Codex eventually became a go-to group for the World Trade Organization, whenever disputes between trading nations arose that impacted health issues.  Codex is also friendly with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

So for the past 20 years, the issue of labeling GMO foods has been debated at Codex.  This in itself has been a remarkable victory for Monsanto.

Finally, in the summer of 2011, Codex decided that labeling was acceptable if it was voluntary.  This grossly diluted standard was, of course, hailed as a victory by some anti-GMO activists.

With serious reservations, a huge non-profit called Consumers International, whose goal, like Codex, is “protection of consumer rights” weighed in: yes, this Codex victory was important, but not enough.

The labeling debate was going according to Monsanto’s plan:

Endless talking, exceedingly minor achievements.  And NO MAJOR BANS on GMO crops.

Both sides in the debate were operating as Monsanto wanted them to operate.  Labeling was the diversion.  It was the distraction sucking up huge amounts of time, energy, effort, and money…all along the wrong path.

The press was framing the whole GMO question in terms of labeling, reporting on the Codex debates, reporting on statements from Consumers International, reporting on activists and scientists who wanted labeling or claimed that labeling wasn’t necessary.

Then came a major effort to make GMO labeling mandatory in California.  It was called Prop 37.  Should all GMO food sold in California be labeled or not?

The world was focused on this battle.  Activists were focused on it.

Monsanto, quite satisfied, stood off to the side and poured major dollars to their PR people, who in turn campaigned against labeling.

But the victory was already in hand for Monsanto, before a single vote was cast.  One way or another, labeling was going to continue to be the only real issue under debate.

If Monsanto lost the Prop 37 election, they would acknowledge the defeat “graciously,” as they did in England, and support labeling.  Meanwhile, they would continue to spend millions of dollars, or even billions, convincing Californians that buying (labeled) GMO food was an easy decision: buy it; it’s healthy; there are no problems; who cares.

Another aspect of Monsanto’s master plan needs to be understood.  Monsanto encouraged the labeling debate at Codex and almost certainly threw covert support behind Consumers International because those organizations are ostensibly about CONSUMERS.

Monsanto wanted to make the whole GMO issue about people who buy products.  It wanted to frame the issue around that.

Why?  Because that trivializes the whole situation.  It isn’t about destruction of the natural food supply, it isn’t about the tonnage of poisonous pesticide sprayed on Roundup Ready GMO crops.  It isn’t about nutrient-deficient GMO food.  It isn’t about owning patents on the world’s food crops.  It isn’t about the health dangers of eating GMO food.  It isn’t about destroying the small farmer.  It isn’t about all that.  It’s really, you see, about the consumer’s right to know what’s in his food.

It’s about the buyer, the person who spends money at the check-out counter.  It’s about consumers, and aren’t we all consumers?  Aren’t we just people into whom are funneled all sorts of products?  Isn’t that who we are?  Aren’t we just the little creatures who buy stuff?

Prop 37 played right into that plan, because the leaders of YES ON 37 decided that the “right to know what’s in your food” was the prime message they would sell.  That would be the essence of the whole campaign.  A consumerist message.

Label GMO food?  Don’t label it?  That’s Monsanto territory.  That’s the territory they can live in.  They like that territory.  It doesn’t raise the specter of a BAN on GMO crops.

In circles of political power, in Washington DC, for example, there are people who are known as consultants, “go-to guys” who can tell you “how the real game is played.”  They are brought in to educate amateurs who want to win victories.

These consultants are mostly bent from the beginning.  They have their own agendas and allegiances.  They are bent and crooked and smart, and they sell their advice.

They could, for instance, show the YES ON 37 people that there was only one way to win a ballot initiative in California.  That way would be: talk non-stop about “the consumer’s right to know” what’s in his food.  Marginalize every other kind of talk.

Of course, this fits perfectly with Monsanto’s plan.

The more talk there is about the right to know, the less talk there is about banning GMO crops…until the day comes when an outright ban seems so far away it’s viewed as rather ludicrous.

This remoteness and ludicrousness is, you must understand, an artifact created by decades of talk about labeling.  Labeling was front and center for so long that it became the only visible opposition to Monsanto.

Which, again, is precisely what Monsanto wanted.

Monsanto is a criminal, but it isn’t stupid.  Those people are smart.  They know how to invent a debate on their terms and hide the real debate.  They know how to suck in people who otherwise would be pushing hard for an outright ban on GMO crops.

They know how to use proxies to advise anti-GMO forces, so those forces stay in the framework of labeling.

There are similarities here to the old FBI COINTELPRO program, in which the FBI planted agents inside anti-government groups, in the 1960s.  In that case, the FBI’s objective was to stir up those groups to commit violent acts, thereby discrediting their political positions.  It was an Operation Chaos.

In the case of GMO food, the objective has been to move in the opposite direction: dilute the message.  Make it weaker.  Make it more “sensible” and “pragmatic.”

“Listen, kid.  Let me tell you how the real game is played.  You’re in the big leagues now.  You can’t go off half-cocked and insist on a goal that nobody will support.  Forget attacking Monsanto.  You can do a little of that, just to keep your adrenaline flowing.  But you have to frame this whole thing around what Americans ARE.  Do you know what that is?  Americans are, first and foremost, consumers.  That’s how you reach them.  You tell them they have a right to know what’s in their food.  Then you have a chance of winning.  You pound on ‘right-to-know’ day and night.  That’s where I can help you.  That’s where you can find allies.  That’s how you raise money.”

And so it was, and so it is.

In the big-picture, YES ON 37’s most powerful ally has been…Monsanto.

And now here is where we are: we don’t really know where some of the most important anti-GMO activists are, in their thinking and action.  We thought we did.  But now we aren’t sure.

So we need them to step up to the plate and tell us, right now, whether they really want a ban on GMO crops or just labeling.

I’m talking about people who have done a great deal to educate us and show us the way: for example, Joe Mercola, who was the biggest funder of Prop 37, who has written extensively about GMOs; Jeffrey Smith, who has written a major book about GMOs; and Vandana Shiva, who has done heroic work to keep small farmers alive and expose the Monsanto agenda.

Reiterate your positions now.  Tell us where you stand.

Let’s put everything on the table.

Let’s pause and reassess.  Let’s consider how labeling is viewed by Monsanto in their master plan.

Let’s open up the vault on YES ON 37 and hear from their leaders, too.

Who is calling the shots over there?  Joe Sandler, Andy Kimbrell, Gary Hirshberg, David Bronner, Grant Lundberg?

Give us your best thinking.  Tell us what you’re doing and why.

There’s no reason this has to be a guessing game.

That’s old politics.  Let’s open all the windows and let in the light.

Or do those of us who have inquiring minds form too small a demographic to interest you?

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California.  Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe.  Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.  You can sign up  for his free emails at



Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

14 Responses to “Prop 37’s biggest supporter was… Monsanto”

  1. Sammy S says:

    What do you think Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and the men back then if this was the case then? One thing we can do is tell our friends and family. We can do that. All the people who keep going to the restaurants and who buy the junk in the stores will keep eating the crap, but what can you do? I can tell you this…You might think people know about this, but I run into damn few who know anything and if you tell them they look at you like what is wrong with you.

  2. Sammy S says:

    I sent the FBI an email suggesting they arrest the people at Monsanto for premediatated murder for creating GM food for the purpose of killing humans. Of course, I email them about once a week and also tell them about their boys who planted bombs in the Murrah building and killed little children and killing the children in Waco and I keep asking why they won’t arrest the guilty party for 9/11.
    I don’t know what else to do you make people aware, powerful people. I send email to about a dozen different field offices. Just so they know we know what they have done and what they are not doing.

  3. ooglah says:

    USDA Secretary Validates Agenda 21, Says Rural America “Less and Less Relevant”

  4. Sammy S. says:

    Corporations have really made a mess of the world. Look at what they did in Ecuador. They destroyed large tracts of land and the people won the lawsuit, but see if they collect. Then look at nuclear power plants. They one in Japan might destroy the whole Pacific Ocean. Look at the wars. They sink millions of tons of ships and all that oil and fuel goes right into the water, but if your bilge pumps water and it even leaves a sheen on the water you will pay dearly.
    We know corporations are all about money. Look what DOW did in India that gas leak. That oil spill in the gulf and then the government allowed that company to dump millios of gallons of stuff into the ocean so toxic it is banned in many countries, but not in the USA. They are probably going to destroy the whole world with GM plants, but they don’t care. When the oceans turn black after nuclear waste kills all the krill do they think you can filter the ocean or clean up that nuclear waste miles down in the ocean?
    The mafia dumps nuclear waste for these nuclear power plants. They dumped it off Somalia coast and it’s why those people started attcking ships there. Ships were fishing in their waters and since they don’t have any way to guard their waters the fish was taken and nuclear waste dumped off the coast washed up on shore. Now for barrels of nuclear waste dumped into the ocean washed up on shore it means that stuff was dumped near the beaches, because no other way those barrels could have washed up on shore and the people are getting sick. NO mention of this in the media.

  5. CINDY says:

    I believe the citizen’s of the world need to UNDERSTAND THE MECHANIC’S OF A CORPORATION!
    To make the MOST amount of MONEY with the LEST amount of TIME AND EFFORT! PERIOD!!,
    I DO NOT believe that nature and corporations can CO-EXIST!
    CORPORATIONS have reduced NATURE to DOLLAR’S AND CENTS, with NO REGARD for anything else but MONEY!
    IT’S an OXYMORON!! BECAUSE NATURE IS WHAT SUSTAINS AND KEEPS US ALL ALIVE!! And all those SHAREHOLDER’S HIDING in the BACKGROUND would be dead without the natural world!
    THEREFORE:In order for human’s to survive, CORPORATIONS must be ABOLISHED! And we the citizen’s of the WORLD, MUST NOT SUPPORT CORPORATIONS!
    Like SUSS mentioned:“to control opposition you must lead it”,
    And this is the direction WE MUST GO! WE MUST TAKE THE LEAD!!
    Once we reach “CRITICAL MASS” there is NO STOPPING US!!

  6. suss says:

    I love the people who come here and comment it gives me hope- i sometimes read comments on yahoo articles hopeing someone sees the psyops, and usually i read thru a few and in discust go to me emails and MY REAL NEWS ha ha ha ;), Ya it seems like the David and Goliath metaphor to me- HUGE! I always remember a quote i read somewhere i think from the art of war “to control opposition you must lead it”, so of course they are always way ahead on this grand chest board of life- it will be interesting going forward how this plays out.

  7. Abe says:

    I guess this is why I like Jon’s reporting so much, he sees the other side of the coin. We’ve been kicking this around at GMOFREEUSA yahoo chat group for a couple days now. Were seeing Red and want blood! I think were getting it together on a plan of attack.
    At this point all I can say is talk to your local law makers and tell them THIS IS A GAME ENDER!! Throw this rats prostate in there face and tell them if it’s a guy by proportions his would be the size of a beachball instead of a walnut!!;Itemid=5

  8. ChrisYAHanWatcher4YAH says:

    Not Monsanto? MO Satan (anagrammatic RE-SPELLing)! homage to their pagan gods: MO Loch Ba’al Ashtoreth “Lucifer the Morning Star” and Satan The Great deceiver, as Bill Gates?

  9. Russ says:

    It’s clearly true that nothing short of the abolition of the corporate form in general and food corporatism in particular will suffice. This can’t be done through government because government is inextricable from corporate oligopoly. They comprise one monolithic corporate state.

    Fortunately, we don’t need to continue with the false corporate/government dichotomy by talking in terms of a “ban”. That’s the same work-within-the-system path which is correctly criticized here. Instead, our goal is to turn corporate welfare into the wedge issue which can split the people on one side from corporations and government on the other.

    (The situation at the local government level is sometimes different, and wherever possible we must enact bans at that level, along with Local Food Sovereignty ordinances.)

    All big corporations, and Monsanto most of all, are completely dependent upon government money and thuggery. Render it politically impossible for the government to continue extruding these corporate extensions of itself, by convincing a critical mass of people to withdraw support and obedience from the system, and Big Ag will cease to exist.

    Food production and distribution are naturally for the most part local/regional. Food commodification could never have existed without cheap fossil fuels and massive planned-economy government engineering. The former is nearing its end. In the meantime we can focus our political struggle against the latter.

    The message is simple – food corporatism in general and GMOs in particular are the scourge of humanity. They’re at the core of all our problems. They’re 100% the program of an alien corporate/government system which is not of the people or the earth. Our liberation and future prosperity can be achieved only by resisting, rejecting, and abolishing this system and rebuilding our local/regional economies and polities, with Community Food at their core.

    We can start by completely rejecting the legitimacy and prerogative of food corporatism in principle and propagating this message, along with making every effort and taking every pain to build and support the Community Food movement.

  10. Susan says:

    Dear Lawrence,
    On the whitecoat researchers. It is important to recognize who they are. In the Late 70’s early 80’s many US scientist and biologist were replaced with immigrants educated to follow their masters, just as slaves were brought to this country to colonize. The Americans who no longer had status to deal with ethics issues on these matters did not just go silently as I listened to their angst in a community garden outside Los Angeles. This is how educated Phd’s were turned out. No more independent studies, just Art Kaplan setting the stage for food and drug hegemony. With people like Dan Glickman steering the FDA and food related policies that would poison millions with constructs based on human biology. Sometimes I wonder if the food system is so broken that cows need to fed to cows (bse)and chickens to chickens maybe the next step is for humans to consume humans. After all we have already been given a taste for our own biology through GMO’s

  11. Bert says:

    Insightful article .Of course the scenario is so true that any corporation can be inserted and the “cause ” changed it applies equally to all large and small America feeding at the trough of taxpayer handout. The Names can be changed to represent the Guilty. Monopolistic/militaristic corporate run government.

  12. pm says:

    Great article by Jon Rappoport. It explores the seldom considered game of false opposition, so common in an age in which so many complacently believe that they are awake and part of a meaningful grassroots movement. I just hope people realize how much control the elites have and truly wake up.

  13. Lawrence A. Oshanek says:

    Not one comment on how closely you in America are controlled?

    Admit it … you paid for most of these people’s education and instead of plumbers and tinsmiths and tinkers and tailors you got tons of white coated researchers taught to be indifferent to the consequences of what they do in exchange for getting their name on a ‘paper’ or two in a magazine nobody but advertisers actually reads and of course, a good middle class pay cheque.

    Never mind what the rabid dog Alex Jones spews about foreigner bankers .. it is you who and always has been you who are your own enemy.

    You are already the largest welfare state in the entire world … add in the payments you make to places like Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan and the many others, and something like 74% of all of the people receiving a US government ‘welfare’ check of all sorts are people who pay no income taxes in the United States what-so-ever.

    Want to challenge my figures? I caution you, my number is low because a lot of military payments to locals on your military bases around the world are not clearly identified and all of your black opts are payments are hidden and not found on any of the public records.

    I’m done here. If something like this article is unworthy of notice, this is a complete waste of my time.

    Merry Christmas.