Organic Farmers Must Embrace GM Crops Says Scientist
'The organic movement should overcome its hostility to genetically modified crops and embrace the contribution that they can make to sustainable farming, one of the world’s leading agricultural scientists has told The Times. Although organic farmers are among the most implacable opponents of genetic engineering, it should be accepted as legitimate, according to Gordon Conway, Professor of International Development at Imperial College London and a former government adviser.
In an interview with The Times, he said that the ban on organic farmers using GM crops was based on an excessively rigid rejection of synthetic approaches to farming and a misconception that natural ways were safer and more environment- friendly than man-made ones.'
Read more...
See more about the 'Scentist' Sir Gordon Conway KCMG FRS FRGS and ex president of the Rockefeller Foundation,ex Ford Foundation and World Bank and current president of the Royal Society here and here...
Workers From the EU Claim UK Pensions
'Polish-owned companies with UK offices are encouraging self-employed people who live and work in Poland to switch their NI payments to Britain.
All that is required is a one-day visit to London for an appointment at a JobCentre Plus to get a NI number and open a UK bank account. They are lured by the promise of a British basic pension of £412.75, compared with just £130 a month in Poland.'
Read more...
Obama Advisor Promotes ‘Cognitive Infiltration’
'It’s easy to destroy groups with “cognitive diversity.” You just take up meeting time with arguments to the point where people don’t come back. You make protest signs which alienate 90% of colleagues. You demand revolutionary violence from pacifist groups.'
Read more...
Lies, Damned Lies and Mr Campbell
'Quite the most striking aspect of Alastair Campbell's evidence to the Iraq War inquiry is that most of it was untrue. Blatantly, breathtakingly untrue.
Take his claim that he was not making the case for war when he produced his dossier on Saddam Hussein's (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction.
Oh, yes you were, Mr Campbell. That was the whole point of the exercise.
Or take his assertion: 'I don't think we were ever saying, "look, Saddam has got these weapons and can whack them off to Cyprus in 45 minutes".'
Isn't that precisely what he was saying? Or if it wasn't, why didn't he set the record straight when the whole country 'misinterpreted' him?
Read more...
NO CONTRACT - RETURN TO SENDER
Posted December 16th, 2009 by John Harris
NO CONTRACT – RETURN TO SENDER
Article by: Rich Harrison and John Harris.
There are two simple tools of Lawful Rebellion: 1, the affidavits which basically tells the Boss of the Realm ‘No more nonsense’ and; 2, NO CONTRACT RETURN TO SENDER (NCRTS) which basically means that I have no wish to contract with you (to play along with the con)
Since April this year Rich joined me in using the process of NCRTS against the police, the courts (including the high court), credit card companies, the DVLA, councils and many others, in fact anyone who sends us ‘paper’ through the post we do not wish to receive. The objective is very clear; we do not want to or have to contract with anyone we wish not to contract with. After serving our affidavits on the queen we instructed Elizabeth that we no longer wish to play their game and this is all we needed to do. The NCRTS process is the action needed to show that we mean what we say, i.e. walking the walk rather that just talking the talk. We said ‘NO’ and we mean ‘NO’.
We have both seen over the last few months a number of people and groups who have started to dilute these simple processes which complicate the action of ‘lawful rebellion’ by adding far more complicated procedures that in essence are not necessary and can cause more problems. This is being done it seems by a certain number who wish to bring this into the political arena and are doing so because the only real form of control that can be asserted upon lawful rebellion has to emanate from a political foundation, as this is the only real mechanism they have at their disposal.
Anyone who goes against the political status quo, i.e. the policy of conformity it seems, has to be brought back into the political arena. This steers a movement back into a position they can control it from. Policies (contracts) are the only mechanism for this; they cannot do this without a policy to allow them to do it. Contained within this are all the legal processes they use to destroy a movement. To reject such allows for no form of control to be asserted, thus if you have a remedy that falls outside these parameters, attempts must be made to steer that remedy back into that political/legal arena. This also means that any attempts to change the system from within the political/legal arena are doomed from the start.
All corporations, such as courts, government depts. police, councils, banks etc, work under a political corporate structure, working under and directed by policy (contracts). Anything they do has to fall within this structure and cannot be outside of it. Anything they require you to do is only achieved by them getting you to agree to do it. They achieve your agreement by offering you documents (forms), by your acceptance of these documents it is seen by them that you have agreed to contract, usually upon their third application. Once you have agreed you are caught in the legal structure of such agreements, a consequence of this is that they only offer you a legal remedy and nothing else, even though it does exist i.e. the power to say ‘NO’.
On not accepting their documentation you have broken the process and maintain your original position and they cannot move forward. They have to get you to accept their forms (paperwork) for the process to be valid. Without validation all and any processes are halted, the con is simply not to tell you this fact.
This is where ‘NCRTS’ is very useful because when an offer is posted to you and you don’t wish to agree to their offer, you put their paperwork back in their envelope, re-seal it, and put a label over the address window and write on it “NOCONTRACT – RETURN TO SENDER”. Put the mail back into the post box and the postal service will have to send it back to the sender.
As Rich and myself maintain once you have said ‘NO’ stick by it, as ‘NO’ is non negotiable.
This would also be a great thing to do with junk mail which was recently suggested, anything that is put through our letter boxes coming from whatever means will be sent back and we will not pay for the privilege.
Europe in Crisis
'At the start of the last decade, in March 2000, the European Union heads of state announced the Lisbon Strategy. Its aim, by 2010, was to make Europe “the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion.” This would create “the conditions for full employment and the strengthening of regional cohesion in the European Union.”
As the second decade of the 21st century begins, the aspirations set forth in the Portuguese capital have evaporated. Instead of full employment, Europe is gripped by mass unemployment; instead of economic growth, there is stagnation; in place of cohesion, there is discord. Even the common currency, the foundation of the lofty plans of Lisbon, is in acute danger.'
Read more...
Re-Thinking Aids
See Here...
Posts
