Dear Allan, et. al., This is a discussion I don't join too often.
It should be obvious that we won't shake awake more than a slivver of our population to the demon agendas. Sure we can iterate the rule that if a thing CAN happen it WILL. And it can be that Monsanto has had a truly oppressive agenda and is maximumly exploitative. All the signs are there for this to be true, so maybe it is. Granted. But mostly people won't wake up. Not yet. Things will have to get a lot worse. It is fine to be awake and to do the right things within our lights. But we aren't a boil on the butt of the self-centered demons beseiging us. More like a pimple that may be scratched if it comes to the attention of it's host organism. I don't mean to discourage anyone. Let's keep building awareness, and rejection of the vogue agendas such as Monsanto's. But quite frankly I see little salvation in this alone. What will help us most is if things get a LOT worse. When our present president was annointed by the court of nine? On the one hand I could be disappointed that a nice guy, a little stiff and overly controlled but basically beneign, would not be at the rudder. But on the other hand, what could be better than to have a real S & M pervert ride this nation of hypnotized true believers with spurs on, forcing the pollution of coal and petroleum down everyone's nostrils and backing the GMO and irradiation denaturing of the food base? Like I said, things may have to get a LOT worse before they will get significantly better. So let us accept our lot philosophically and get set for when flag wavers and those on social insecurity realize en masse that their ikons are bankrupt, perverted, exploitative and cynically jaded. When things bottom out THEN we will need to be ready with our new and alternative teachings. Right now is growth and preparation for that. Not so? Something to think about. Best, Hugh Lovel >>"how much longer are we going to take this"....thats the statement >>of the new year. >> >>Perys situation is the (but one of many) story of 2003 and how do we >>stand with him/them? > >Bob - > >I'm at a loss. The response must be both powerful and persistent. > >I really believe that if the man or woman on the street really >understood that Monsanto was methodically contaminating the food >supply with their patented genes in what, according to the Schmeiser >experience, is a calculated attempt to legally control all seed >stock, there would be a great out cry that would affect the polls and >the ballot boxes in short order. > >Of course, I also believe that if a company like Enron was shown to >be manipulating energy prices at the expense of the many, that there >will be a similar quest for justice and security, but, if such a >thing is occurring, I haven't seen any sign of it in either my >neighborhood nor my newspaper. The recent US elections prove either >that American's are not uncomfortable with corporate corruption or >that the Democratic party is completely devoid of character, backbone >and ideas - -or both - - which makes it clear that the ballot box >is probably not the route to change. > >We get a lot of equivocation in our discussions on BD Now! The >situation with Monsanto's approach to GMOs is equivalent to our land >being on fire. The losses can be horrific and they can be final. When >you'r in a position to put a fire out before it has damaged >everything, that's the action to take. Knowing where to buy >fire-proof materials etc is good to have, but it's not the response >to take when the fire is still spreading. The approach to take is to >sound the alarm in a credible fashion to attract as many hands as >possible to stop the destruction. > >The thoughts above are drawn from assumptions that Monsanto is simply >acting in a business like fashion with a simple goal of owning the >sales of seed stocks of all the major cultivars around the world. >What if their goal were actual control of the food supply and, >conceivably, nature itself? It's amazing how much immorality we can >tolerate if we believe it is simply motivated by greed. What if gene >splicers who promote contamination of traditional stocks really do >have a more nefarious goal? Visit our website at: www.unionag.org
