Note: before I launch into the main body of this diary, I want to draw readers attention to the response of one of the co-authors, Spiroux, of a well-known, damning, scientific study on GMO’s, that was forcefully retracted, recently. See Dr Spiroux, co-author of the shocking study, responds to criticisms: Medscape Oncologie
Backdrop: I’ve long been fascinated and dismayed (less fascinated, these last few years; more dismayed) about how ineffective activists are when opposing plutocratic agendas. And, it has occurred to me that the plutocrats probably view hapless activists with condescension, if not ridicule.
What is important, of course, is not whether a group of people are laughing at you, or not, but rather do they have any justification for their condescension, or not? Are activists setting themselves up for failure, or not? If so, is their incompetence readily discerned by the plutocratic class, or not? (If it is, that implies that the activists could learn to become strategically competent, comparitively easily.)
I believe the plutocratic class most certainly does have justification for their condescension wrt activists – they are whupping your asses, to put it bluntly – and hope that people will be sufficiently goaded by this ‘revelation’ to do whatever is necessary to not be strategic fools, no matter how well intentioned they may be. Good intentions and being a clever, resourceful political “guerrilla” are two different things. (“Guerrilla war” being my favored analogy for the struggle with the plutocratic class.)
On July 29, 2013, FDL carried a diary called Exposed: Stratfor’s 3-Step Plan To Conquer & Divide Activists which contained this quote:
Duchin and Mongoven were ruthless, and I think they were often amused by the naivete, egotism, antics and failures of activists they routinely fooled and defeated. Ultimately, this is war, and the best warriors will win.”
Whether their “amusement” rises to the level of audible laughter is also irrelevant. what is important is: are American activists ‘easy marks’, or not? Are they strategically foolish, or not?
If eating GMO’s doesn’t sicken you, noting the Nice Guy, Wimpazoid, Cream Puff tactics of the recent anti-GMO referenda will. I had inferred that anti-GMO activists in California, where a food labeling law was put up for referendum last fall were pulling their punches, simply because I hadn’t heard of an uproar that such an obvious path to victory would result in. (See my diary: What Would it Take for Stein/Honkala to Break Out of the 2% Ghetto? Hint: Go Nuclear.)
Fortunately, there are some people who possess enough common sense to reverse future attempts to sink GMO’s via referenda – at least until TPP passes, that is. Whether or not enough activist ‘leaders’ chose to start intelligently fighting their guerrilla like wars like wily, resourceful guerrillas do in a real military conflict, and whether or not the hoi polloi will hold their ‘leaders’ accountable, not just for their good intentions, but for their effectiveness and degree of strategic intelligence, remains to be seen.
The good news of this diary is that yours truly is not the only person that gets this.
Please check out the following 3 articles, specific to GMO’s, but also think about the larger problem of activists spinning their wheels, in general, when going up against the plutocracy. Do your activist ‘leaders’ exhibit all of the dynamicism and strategic competence of brain-dead cream puffs? If so, you may want to consider raising your voice, holding them accountable (if possible), and abandoning them in favor of more aggressive + intelligent organizations and leaders if you cannot hold them accountable.
Must Read References:
1) Tougher Tactics Desperately Needed to Win War on GMO Food by Jonathan Greenberg
2) Ten Grassroots Lessons From Monsanto’s Swift-Boating of the Prop37/Label GMO Campaign by Jonathan Greenberg
3) Why GMO labeling really failed in Washington State: stop whining by Jon Rappoport
From the second reference:
Mr. Nice Guy got dumped on Election Day. Grassroots progressives need to fight fire with fire. In 1988, Public Citizen and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) mounted a campaign to ban Alar, a chemical sprayed on apples to lengthen hang-time. The campaign to ban Alar focused on the substance’s health risks. The NRDC’s “Intolerable Risk” study was broadcast on 60 Minutes, while articles were featured in women’s magazines with headlines suggesting to mothers that their children were being unknowingly poisoned. This raised consumer concerns and resulted in a public outcry, forcing the EPA to ban the substance, which was voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturer before the ban went into effect.
Was it fear-based, negative messaging? Yes.
Were they fact-based health risks that consumers deserved to know? Yes.
Was the campaign successful? Yes.
Was the messaging simple? Poison apples. It doesn’t get simpler than that.