The following is the first of a series of articles for a planned publication The Organic Revolution. This introductory article maps an activist information group and the often difficult relationship between criticism of corporate agricultural control, and an opposition which can often take an irrational, conspiratorial, and anti-scientific viewpoint.
The March Against Monsanto Facebook page
The page was started by Tami Canal to provide information behind the march against chemical companies, their products and consequences, with more focus on Monsanto, their products and monopoly over the global food system, in the run up to the May 2013 protests. By October 2013, many page supporters expressed depression and defeat, since all posted articles and graphics showed which food contained GMOs, which companies sold these products, and how expensive and scarce the alternative was at the time. They felt that resistance was pointless, since GMOs were almost everywhere, while activists involved were totally fine with this, as it encouraged us to keep fighting. Since then, the focus of the page changed to cover the problem, solution, prevention and potential recuperation of our bodies, to not foster the feeling that the war is already lost, while we are gaining ground against corporate parasites. Through this more holistic approach, sometimes one of the editors may post something which is way off base, based on their personal focus at that time, but this is not encouraged, and we try to keep the message within the bounds of what we are doing, whether highlighting the negative, positive alternative, prevention or possible bio-recuperation (of our bodies, ecosystems, etc.). Our message is not to people of a specific ideology, but people of all political and economic ideologies and apolitical people too. Plants, animals, insects, soil and water which are affected by multicidal corporations also have no ideology so we TRY to keep that topic at bay. Page editors focus against ecocidal corporations and for alternatives, whether based on peer-reviewed science or not, and the range is broad where impacts, vs. solutions and potential solutions may or may not be scientifically verified. If the potential solution may have possible negative consequences, activists will complain to have the post removed.
Activists act on peer-reviewed science, economic, ecological and/or consumer rights. Complaints by activists, including myself is due to always using accurate information, considering the requirements for getting permits, research, etc. as part of activism in our world of technicalities and facts, but have to discern between complaining about posts we find irritating and not mainstream enough, which would be a complaint against freedom of expression and speech; and complaints against fabricated rubbish or what could be seen as advice which may result in physical harm to the reader. Just as we had and have voluntary association by previous and current organizers while experiencing voluntary disassociation by some previous organizers (based on a different personal focus, personal obstacles, health reasons, job relocation, giving birth, death in the family, etc.) from time to time who re-associate when they are ready, the MAM page has purged editors who became inactive, retained those who remained active, and replaced the inactive editors with fresh ones. This regular regeneration resulted in me being “unadminned” a few times due to inactivity, and many activists who were editors being replaced with content-driven editors. Based on this experience, it seems that organising activists do not make good and committed editors, as I'm sure many of the best editors will not make good activist-organisers. Without this regeneration, there would be over 400 page admins, grown since before May 2013, most of whom would be inactive, and this creates security concerns if some of the old inactive ones become pro-GMO after long inactivity, or if their priorities changed, and they suddenly start posting about their personal political ideology or religion, while removing admins who disagree.
The potential for this has to be curbed, so if you miss an editor who did one or two really good posts, long periods of inactivity resulted in their replacement. The content may not always blend perfectly between the MAM page and global organizers, but we do try to mirror each other as best we can, and deal with misinformation as it creeps in. Just as the protest movement is not under central control, policing and monitoring, the editors of the MAM page are not either. If an activist brings the movement into disrepute, we simply voluntarily disassociate from the individual or group. Based on this association, the MAM page is not a news corporation where editors are policed, threatened and fired based on their posts, and scientism fundamentalists attempting to treat it and scrutinise it is as such is a great achievement in self-deception on their part. It is an information page, open to scrutiny, ridicule or praise, to the exclusion of trolls (scientism or other), as is the case on all Facebook pages. The freedom of opinion, expression and speech of the editor is respected, whether we agree with the point of view or not. The nitpicking of statements in articles, as if it was a news corporation, is an attempt by scientism fundamentalists at dogmatic mental uniformity among all to ensure that the replacement of biodiversity with monoculture in agriculture and the environment, is applied to all humans as well. They even nag about the freedom of expression and speech displayed by supporters on their posters, banners or t-shirts at events as a deviation from uniformity.
We hear and acknowledge concerns raised by "I love GMOs and vaccines" and no doubt, the MAM page attracted Historical Revisionists as well as paranoid conspiracy nuts who see the boogeyman in all shadows, but the latter are not the movement, and a few have acted against the it (and are documented for general disassociation). The movement against chemical giants is made up of all types of people so no one expects ordinary citizens across the world to become scientists walking around with peer-reviewed scientific papers on a daily basis, fighting pseudo-scientists who forged a new faith-based religion from PR campaigns, with their few corporate peer-reviewed papers from MAMyths. Complaints from supporters of the status quo for corporate domination, against people's pre-existing opinions and freedom of speech and expression thereof, are ignored. No statements on the MAM page, t-shirts, posters, banners or flyers, encourage harm to others, resulted in harm to others, and did not even hurt any human feelings. Since MAM is neither a news corporation, nor a full conspiracy theory page, the misapplied criticism is irrelevant, and the opinions of editors remain respected, together with their display of freedom of expression and speech which does not result in harm to others. Even if I did not agree with every article posted on the MAM Facebook page before, I do now, after realising that we are upsetting corporate worshippers, and that activists within the movement who complained, including myself, did so to end the ridicule of the scientism cult or for fear of such ridicule. If they see it as a sacrilege to their corporate gods' dominion over the planet, I fully support it. Let them get angry or ridicule us as heretics and blasphemers against their gods. We will not rest until deicide is achieved against their appeals to an invisible authority of thousands of unnamed scientists (as they claim), through our continued ethical and non-violent approach. Their request for uniformity is denied. MAM will not comply. May they continue to feel offended. We respect all religions, but not one which wishes to end religion and replace those with the worship of corporations in the name of it's PR, which they call science.
Solidarity and Historical Revisionism vs. Conspiracy theories
I am glad that Stephan Neidenbach, a teacher, husband, and father from Annapolis, of "I love GMOs" and Vaccines" distanced himself from MAMyths, their corporate ties and sociopathic tendencies towards people affected and inflicted by various causes. He demonstrated a high level of empathy at one of the MAM events, which I didn't expect from any pro-GMO person, despite knowing the obvious differences between MAMyths and the "I love..." crowd, when he said: "Just typing this is making me cry about one man I talked to. He lifted his hand to me so I would see it trembling. He explained to me how several decades ago he suffered a traumatic brain injury when the government turned him into a genetically modified super soldier.
Some of you will probably laugh when reading that last sentence. I probably would have laughed had I seen it written online. But to clasp this person's hand in my own and see the pain in his eyes is something that can only be experienced in person. I have no doubt in my mind that he suffered a traumatic brain injury at some point in his life, and afterwards he shook my hand and thanked me for speaking with him." 
COVVHA was established as a support, education and activist network, out of ex affected Vietnam veterans, their children and grandchildren genetically affected and illness inflicted by the dioxin carrier, Agent Orange. It was established by Kelly Derreks and Heather Bowser, both born with genetic deformities due to their father's exposure to Agent Orange, and are a part of MAM in the US. Many veterans who have found a home in COVVHA have joined the fight against Monsanto, whose products have not only destroyed the lives of Vietnamese and US soldiers and their descendants, but then went on to poison further American lives with PCB poisoning. Further ex veterans who were not affected by Agent Orange, but are disgusted by the fact that Monsanto made millions of dollars through the Vietnam War, which they put their lives on the line for, have joined their war-buddies in solidarity against a common enemy. Not all ex soldiers were exposed to Monsanto's products but also suffer from PTSD and other forms of trauma shared by those exposed to Agent Orange. MAMyths would've poked at fun them, based on the insults they have already made against people concerned about their children's health. I don't know if the man Stephen met was pumped full of earlier pharmaceutical steroids to create aggressive soldiers, suffered a head injury or if he was exposed to Agent Orange, therefore referring to himself as a GMO, but Stephen's empathy is appreciated.
Empathy and information is the driving force within the movement in protest and solidarity, when in support of ex and current poison victims, bullied farmers, affected employees, etc., but sometimes others in solidarity may sound like crackpots. If an ex soldier fell for the patriotic social meme or was conscripted to defend US interests, and found out that he endangered his life for US corporations using the war for product sales, corporate expansion, mineral extraction, etc., he is reminded to follow orders and not ask questions. When he gets home and expresses how he was sold out, lied to, used and abandoned for corporate interests, his children or family friends, who were not part of the direct experience, but relay the same message, may sound crazy. They are basing it on the experience their relative had, and sound disconnected from it, and paranoid.
Historical revisionism directs them to trace all instances the state did that to the people, and this is compulsory for any society. I discriminate in the huge difference between conspiracy theories and historical revisionism, but the line between those two became blurred by attention-seekers riding on the misfortune of others, and parasitically echoing their protest to being sold out, lied to, used and abandoned for corporate interest, discrediting the real experience of others, which cannot be ignored. What SEKIII calls Revisionist History , looks at historical inconsistencies or questions the official story when inconsistencies are found. Then there is historical negationism/denialism (demonising upliftment of the poor, in favour of the status quo) which is conspiracy theory. Revisionist History is more than important as a sceptical approach, in challenging the status quo; which justifies its wealth maintenance or expansion at the expense of others, who came out looking like heroes, when they were villains who they fought the real heroes, or victims on both sides under greedy power-mongers; using historical facts according to sequence.
Conspiracy theories is a religion of hate, paranoia, ignorance, and prejudice, to defend the status quo, started by the Jesuit, Augustin Barruel in 1797 in his Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism. He was angry that the society of Ignatius of Loyola who said, "I will believe that the white that I see is black if the hierarchical Church so defines it.", was suppressed in Portugal, France, Sicily, Parma, the Spanish Empire and by Pope Clement XIII in July 1773. He put blame outside of his religion, on the already defunct Illuminati by 1787 (by 3 years) as responsible for French Revolution in 1789. Apparently it had nothing to do with people suffering from hunger, malnutrition, rise in bread prices and bad harvests, while carrying the parasitic clergy and aristocrats which jointly rule over the French people. The Illuminati was destroyed by Karl Theodor, Duke Ernst of Gotha and Johann Christoph von Wöllner of the Rosicrucian Order . John Robison, a Scottish Freemason, was inspired by Barruel and quoted him in his new testament of evil called Proofs of a Conspiracy against all the Religions and Governments of Europe, carried on in the secret meetings of Freemasons, Illuminati and Reading Societies, influenced by Alexander Horn, a Scottish Benedictine monk who was angry that the French Revolution undermined his Holy Roman Empire and lobbied the British against Napoleon who separated church from state as he conquered. Like Barruel, he saw Satan in book clubs, educational theorists, philosophers, etc. because it threatened their last grip on the Dark Ages. Literacy and education was reserved for aristocrats and church parasites. The duty of the masses was to listen and follow. This blindfold stretches into the 21st century.
Discerning between conspiracy theories, and conspiracies with real evidence through Revisionist History, or revisionist journalism finding inconsistencies in the official story, is up to the individual reader and actual sceptics. The problem is that so many "sceptics" simply became the polar opposite of conspiracy theorists and only peddle the official story, while "debunking" the query (without conspiracy theory) in contrast to the official story. Since scepticism became pseudo-scepticism in rejecting historical revisionism for challenging the status quo, individuals have to split information into poop and facts, by using scientific method, testing hypotheses, research, etc.
My switch from pro-GMO to anti-GMO
I grew up in convenience and comfort created by a culture which signs away its rights to politicians, who sign those away to corporations funding their political campaigns, which created a false impression of advancement, where attitudes are that food grows off the supermarket shelf in plastic and boxes. Since high school, when I self-identified as an anarchist, I did not realise that I was merely a progressive who believed in conservation and protecting our environment and ecosystems, human rights, democracy, etc.
As someone who conflated science, technology, corporate branded idol culture, and civilisation, I saw those who not only spoke against oligarchies and corporate rule, but also against the convenience resulting from their rule, as a primitivists, Luddites or wannabe Amish. Such a broad prejudiced reaction is easy when corporations commercialise the technological advancement in barbarism as a need. I was worse than the pro-GMO groups who see a world where organic food and corporate poison-food coexist, as impossible as that is to the organic farmer, as we've seen with Steve Marsh, the Australian farmer who lost his organic certification when his neighbour's GMO canola infested his crops, which he paid for economically and legally. I used to be anti-organic. Before January 2013, if anyone spoke of organic food, I pictured maggots, worms and other insects crawling out of it, or in it if fruit or vegetables were cut open. I remembered swarms of locusts eating up entire crops on South African farms, as news footage showed during the 1980s, but never checked the trends and frequency of such infestations on organic farms before the introduction of warfare chemicals on crops, to see if these were locusts which developed resistance to synthetic pesticides. My opinion of organic consumers was that they were too lazy to wash the insecticides and herbicides off their food before consuming them, and their personal preference bankrupted farmers who keep those convenient supermarket shelves stocked. My addiction to engineered food where sweetness, saltiness or fattiness were enhanced, made organic food taste bland, despite my favourite organic and free-range lunch on Sundays.
The constant nagging against Monsanto by my fellow activist from Occupy East London, Chloe Menteath, who was a farmer in the Eastern Cape, was shrugged off, when I'd either literally close my ears or shut off my mind and think, "Conspiracy theories! Fear-mongering! Blah! Blah! Blah!". Only when I saw Food Inc. during January 2013, which is not an anti-GMO documentary, did I realise how bad things were and how deep the neoliberal imperialist problem ran. How could I have been part of the Occupy Movement when my reactionary attitude towards the need for change and decentralisation of food was an active application of keeping the 1% in power, to the detriment of the 99%? I was upholding the status quo. The convenience of the neoliberal global hegemony which I experienced as comfort and convenience, exists as a result of people elsewhere paying in blood, sweat and tears, including farmers in the country where I live. After February 2013, I noticed Zen Honeycutt posting videos on youtube that Tami Canal called for a March Against Monsanto across America, to be held in May 2013. I was angered by the "across America" part since this is a global issue with global impact affecting humans, animals, plants, water and soil, but if she never posted those videos, no one outside of North America might've heard about the March Against Monsanto.
Since Chloe moved to Cape Town a weeks before, she was the first person I contacted to insist that something should be done about the problem, as if she wasn't telling me that the whole time I pretended not to hear her. From this ex-Eastern Cape farmer, I learned about permaculture, biodynamic farming, agroecology, traditional, hydroponic and aquaponic organic agriculture, and before that, I only knew about conventional and GMO farming and saw everything else was experimental. My tunnel-vision was defined by, "If it is not backed up by corporate scientists it is not true." (while in public I would use the term independent scientist). I am a late arrival to this movement, did not influence it into existence or start it myself. I hated food movements and I am grateful for their request for my assistance at the international nexus.
Since when is science everything, where the auxiliary and aid which promotes corporate property, became the agricultural gospel? Do the facts about agriculture not come from farmers, economists, ecologists, environmental groups, etc., while corporate agronomists play an advisory role, as opposed to a dominant role in getting independent farmers to surrender to imperial domination? Through Chloe's part in NO GMO South Africa, Helen linked us up with food activists in African Centre for Biodiversity, La Via Campesina (also linking us to South American groups), a member of NO GMO South Africa who moved to Australia and helped establish GMO Free Australia, etc. I never fully understood their lingo or jargon and finally made a concerted effort to read all the peer-reviewed articles made available by pro-GMO groups like BioFortified, and their offshoots, like the Genetic Literacy Project and the myth factory, MAMyths, also linked to BioFortified, until information from both organic and corporate-defenders merged a new full picture. I finally understood what I fought for (and not just against) by 2014.
Concerned consumers, parents, scientists, children, etc. linked up as anarchists, libertarians, socialists, conservatives, liberals, the apolitical, etc., voluntarily associating to form a global network which counters poison-food companies together with the politicians in their pockets, in every part of the world where they are located. Since each organiser faces unique material, social, political, economic, etc. constraints or liberties, no orders are directed from above, but suggestions are made which organisers respond positively or negatively to, based on the reality which they face, and what can be done is done, even if ex organisers leave to return later, or whether they find replacements or individuals or groups volunteer to replace them in their absence.
This reflects the Individualist and Mutualist, Josiah Warren, based on his experience in Robert Owen's failed socialist New Harmony experiment, and the importance of the individual, who voluntarily associates and forms a free social bond through reciprocal self-interest (not greed or being self-centred) which feeds enlightened self-interest, with other individuals in any social experiment, "Suppose, now, that one man at the timber is informed that his house is on fire; he suddenly abandons the organization and the co-operation to rescue his family and preserve his property! Who censures him? Yet he has risen, so to speak, above the organization, above the institution, - broken his contract."  Thus, we put people above ideology and power in the hands of organisers, based on their daily real experience, using what they can, and leaving when they have to, since 2013.
 Instead of marching against myths, today I stood with science. May 21, 2016 http://welovegv.com/instead-of-marching-against-myths-today-i-stood-with...
 Samuel Edward Konkin III – An Agorist Primer, Chapter 7, Agorism, Two Words or so about National Defence
 The European Illuminati, by Vernon L. Stauffer Ph.D. Chapter III, The European Order of the Illuminati 2. The Legend of the Order and its Literary Communication to New England 1918
 True Civilization (1863) Chapter V. Organization and Co-operation Without Sectism or Clanship, and without Conflict with
Commenting on this Page will be automatically closed on November 30, 2016.