Corporatocracy is an economic and political system controlled by corporate or corporate interests. It is a collective composed of corporations, banks, and governments. This collective forms a “Power Elite” composed of individuals that control the process of determining society's economic and political policies. According to economist Jeffrey Sachs, this form of government developed from four trends: 1) weak national parties and strong political representation of individual districts; 2) the large U.S. military establishment that developed after WWII; 3) big corporate money financing election campaigns, and 4) the weakening of worker's power as a result of globalization.
Corporatocracy has given rise to a number of networks or complexes, which include the Military Industrial Complex (MIC), the Prison Industrial Complex (PIC), and the Political Media Complex (PMC). MIC refers to policy and monetary relationships between law-makers, the military, and armament companies. This infrastructure involves political contributions from arms companies, lobbying, military budgets and their political approval. Put more succinctly, it is a tripartite relationship between defense contractors, the Pentagon, and the government. The PIC is a network that includes corporations that contract prison labor, construction companies, surveillance technology vendors, lawyers, and lobbyists. The promotion of prison building as a job creator and the use of inmate labor are also elements of the network. This complex has led to the rapid growth of the prison population. The PMC is a complex that describes the close, systematized, symbiotic-like network of relationships between a politics, powerful individuals, and the media. It involves the collusion between governments or individual politicians and the media industry in an attempt to manipulate and obfuscate information rather than inform the people. There is also recent evidence that suggest more recent media portals more readily use the PMC framework.
Starting with the 911 attack, which many argue was an inside job, employing two of the three complexes, the MIC and the PMC, the government passed the Patriot Act, which broadly defined terrorism. The Act greatly expanded the power of government to conduct secret searches of private homes, permitted the attorney general to detain aliens as security threats whenever he wanted, stipulated new rules enabling government to demand records of any person’s book purchases or borrowings from bookstores and libraries, and increased the government’s surveillance authority in many other ways. For example, the government has expanded both surveillance of private individuals and the collection of data about them. It has detained many American citizens, indefinitely, and without charge or access to a lawyer. It threatens to execute some of these detainees after trials before a special military tribunal where traditional safeguards to protect the “innocent until proven guilty” principle will not be applicable. Many of these policies that began during the Bush administration and have continued unabated under Obama, are unconstitutional or illegal under international law and they clearly violate civil liberties.
When you combine the growth of the various complexes and their effect on the democratic process, along with the political restrictions on civil liberties as a result of the War on Terror, it would seem that America is truly moving towards a fascist system. As early as 1936, Daniel Guerin in his Fascism and Big Business, spoke about growing interrelationship between government and industry. He defined Fascism as "an informal and changing coalition of groups with vested psychological, moral, and material interests in the continuous development and maintenance of high levels of weaponry, in preservation of colonial markets and in military-strategic conceptions of internal affairs." Although all aspects of a fascist regimes does not apply to the present state of the U.S. Corporatocracy, there are a number of features that people should be concern if not alarmed by. As a school teacher, I taught that Fascism was characterized by four tendencies: extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-communism, and state-sponsored capitalism. Through notions of American exceptionalism, “Tea-partyism,” the continued phobia towards Socialism/Communism, the various complexes and networks that work against democracy and governmental transparency, the Patriot Act, and the growth of the U.S. corporate state, America has embrace all of the basic elements of Fascism. More specifically, we can see American fascism in 1) the Corporative organization of the economy that suppresses unions, broadens the sphere of state intervention (as in the case of abortion rights), and the collaboration of the private sectors with the government the various complexes), while at the same time preserving private property and class divisions, and 2) a foreign policy inspired by the lure of national power and American exceptionalism jargon, with the goal of imperialist expansion (as in the case of the recolonization of Afrika). You can call it corporatism, neo-fascism or fascism, but in the end it is what it is!
Part 1 of 2: The founding of the Sokoto Caliphate
The principal reformer of Islam in Hausaland in Northern Nigeria, Usman dan Fodio, a Fulani, founded an Islamic empire at the beginning of the 19th century. Born in the Hausa state of Gobir, in what is now northwestern Nigeria, dan Fodio descended from the Toronkawa clan, which had emigrated from Futa-Toro in Senegal about the 15th century. While he was still young, he moved south with his family to Degel, where he studied the Qurʾan with his father. Subsequently he moved on to other scholar relatives, traveling from teacher to teacher in the traditional way and reading extensively in the Islamic sciences. He and his brother Abdullahi received a thorough education in Arabic, and Islamic law and theology, and by 1774 he began his career as an itinerant preacher and teacher. One powerful intellectual and religious influence at this time was his teacher in the southern Saharan city of Agadez, Jibrīl ibn ʿUmar, a radical figure whom dan Fodio respected and through whom he was admitted to the Qādirī and other Ṣufi orders.
About 1774–75 dan Fodio began his active life as a teacher, and for the next 12 years he combined study with peripatetic teaching and preaching in Kebbi and Gobir, followed by a further five years in Zamfara. Dan Fodio wrote more than a hundred books concerning religion, government, culture, and society. His writings addressed what he saw as the flaws and demerits of the traditional Afrikan and the nominally Afrikan Muslim leadership. He was critical of corruption at various levels of administration along with injustice regarding ordinary people's rights. He criticized the heavy taxation and obstruction to the business and trade of the Hausa states. He felt the existing Afrikan Muslim elites was greedy, and commingled paganism and Islam, in violation of Shari'a law.
During the 1790s, dan Fodio was allowed to establish a separate community at Degel, where he felt he would establish a model community. His teacher, Jibril ibn 'Umar, argued that it was the duty and within the power of religious movements to establish the ideal society free from oppression and vice. However, starting in 1797–98 the Sultan Nafata, realizing dan Fodio’s community represented a state within the state, reversed his liberal policies. In 1802, the ruler of Gobir Yunfa, who was a former student of dan Fodio's, turned against him and attempted to assassinate him. In 1808, Yunfa would be killed by the jihadis as they seized Gobir.
Dan Fodio and his followers fled into the western grasslands of Gudu. There, he was proclaimed the Amir al-Muminin (Commander of the Faithful), and acting as both political as well as religious leader, he declared and pursued a jihad, raising an army. His jihad against Gobir was only the beginning of a political and social revolution, which spread from Hausaland throughout modern Nigeria and Cameroon, and reverberated across West Afrika. This was the jihadist movement led by the Fulani. Dan Fodio's army was largely composed of Fulani nomads, who held a powerful military advantage with their cavalry, and the Hausa peasantry whose economic and social oppression by their rulers made them willing allies. Launched in 1804, the jihad lasted for six years, and had several purposes: it was meant to revive and purify Islam; to eliminate syncretist beliefs and rituals; to remove all innovations contrary to the Qurʾan and Shari'a; and to reduce taxation and remove trade restrictions. This religious revolution had political outcomes--it united the Hausa states under Shari'a and by 1812 the Hausa and lesser states became part of the Islamic State known as the Caliphate of Sokoto.
Despite dan Fodio religious fanaticism or devotion, depending on perspective, his understanding of Islam was not strictly based on Arab culture. We know this because dan Fodio's teachings encouraged literacy and scholarship among men as well as women and several of his daughters emerged as scholars and writers. Hence the misogyny of Arab culture did not invade dan Fodio interpretation of Islam. But to assume this is only partly true. Because the dualism in Islamic thought allowed him to make a clear distinction between Muslim and non-Muslims and his teachings only applied to Muslims. All those that refuse to submit were subject to what the Qurʾan prescribed for them--enslavement. Unfortunately with jihad comes slavery--that has been the history of Islam elsewhere so why would we expect it to be otherwise in Afrika.
Even dan Fodio's elevation of the status of women applied to Muslim women only--under the Sokoto State, which was a slave state, more than half of the enslaved were females (who according to the Qurʾan can be sexual exploited). So despite dan Fodio admirable qualities, his erudition, his piety, his faith, as a Muslim he accepted the Qurʾan, Hadith, and Shari'a, all of which would result in dire consequently for the Afrikans that refused to submit to Islam. As a practitioner of traditional Afrikan spirituality, I have a problem when assessing the role of Usman dan Fodio in West Afrikan history. Dan Fodio was the father of the jihadist movement that attacked traditional societies, established a slave society, exploited women, all based on dissociated worldview of Arabs. To Muslims he is often affectionately referred to as Shehu in Nigeria. Some followers consider dan Fodio to have been a mujaddid, a divinely inspired "reformer of Islam". But as a historian, a Pan Afrikanist, an Afrocentric teacher, and a follower of traditional Afrikan spirituality, my view of him is at odds with theirs. How can it be otherwise?
Anthropology and the games it plays
Hamitic is a linguistic classification. Allegedly, the Hamitic language provided the foundation for several ancient languages: Old Egyptian, Coptic, and Lybic. An example of contemporary Hamitic speakers, are the Berbers, who speak Kabyle and Tuareg. However, several Afrikan linguists, particularly, Diop and Obenga, have proven that Old Egyptian and Coptic belong to the Afrikan family of languages. Moreover, to classify a race based on language seems dishonest. At one point, when groups existed in isolation, this was possible. However, once an environment becomes culturally diverse, and there is cultural interchange over long durations, this becomes less likely. The area of the world where so-called Hamitic originated, Western Asia, was the melting pot of the ancient world. This was a “zone of confluence” according to Diop. In this area of the world, it was possible to have any skin color and speak any language. Many non-Greeks adopted Greek during the Hellenistic era, just as the enslavement of Afrikan people by Europeans has forced them to adopt the language of our enslavers. Can we identify the millions of people of Afrikan ancestry that speak English as members of the “English race”?
The Dream of Europeans is to transform the whole continent into South Africa or Kenya, where a white minority owns and controls the local economy, while Africans are just good like consumers or their servants. The subject is uncomfortable but we need to talk about it, otherwise we will wake up with more Robert Mugabe who is doing a great job redressing centuries of white minority domination and exploitation of Zimbabwean people.
Let’s take a look at South Africa, a country where the white minority makes less than 10% of the population but owns more than 80% South African lands and economy. They didn’t buy those lands.
In South Africa 64% of top senior management positions are filled by whites. 90% of the board of the Central Bank is made of the white minority. 90% of media is in the hands of Whites, who control content, project whiteness (local South African adverts have a 85% White representation) and marginalize and exploit Africans, with the exception of Africans being 86% represented in alcohol adverts. 97% of mainstream South African films are owned, produced and directed by non-Africans.
Africa without Africans is the dream of the local predatory, supremacist white minority. A recent report came to challenge the well spread idea that the West is pouring money into Africa through aid without receiving much in return. All in contrary, the report proved that Africa has lost up to $1.4 trillion in illicit financial flows to the West from 1980 to 2009. This amount is 233 times the 60 billions foreign “aid” Africa supposedly receives every year from the West.
The illicit financial flows involve the transfer of money earned through corruption, bribes, tax evasion, criminal activities and transactions involving contraband goods. In the end, the report concluded that those illicit financial flow are fast growing and are far exceeding money coming into the continent, therefore seriously undermining the continent’s development.
Now let’s be clear, those illicit financial flow are organized by the very same foreign people who claim they come to help build Africa, the same people you and me see and meet everyday in Africa. They might be your employers, your friends or neighbors but that doesn’t change the nature of who they are and what they are doing.
Of course the local rich subalterns helping those folks got their big houses and cars, but Africa as a whole has no sustainable future with that model of development.
This is not different from colonial times! but it’s nicely called “Africa is Rising”.
“Multinational Corporations are the New Colonisers in Africa”wrote Lord Aikins Adusei
60 years after the fictitious independence declarations, Africa is still controlled by European expatriates, oil companies, military forces, Banks, etc. Some Africans think that is good for Africa. They are the rich subalterns. Some others think Africans must free themselves from that European colonialism, and fight for more local ownership.
Now, comes a country like Kenya, which was not under any apartheid system like South Africa, but most corporations in Kenya have whole foreign boards. Most the country economical assets are in the hand of a tiny white minority helped but a horde of local subalterns.
A Kenyan friend shared with me the background tale: “One only needs to read about the origins and activities of the London Rhodesia Group (Lonrho) formerly run by Tiny Rowland to really appreciate the gravity of the situation in Africa. Lonrho perfected the art of acquiring valuable productive assets across the continent by targeting corrupt leaders with gifts and naive locals with confusing agreements and subterfuge.
One of the greatest beneficiaries of this approach was former president Moi of Kenya who pretty much gave up much of the country’s agricultural and hospitality sector crown jewels in exchange for accounts in the Caymans and gifts for his entourage of sycophants. Think about the major economic activities in Africa – Mining, Oil, Agriculture, Banking,Telecoms – Then think of the companies carrying out these activities – DeBeers, Anglo Ashanti, Shell, BP, Exxon, Barclays, Stanchart, Vodacom, Del Monte…. Get the picture?
Huge tracts of land in sub-saharan africa are owned by foreign agricultural companies paying low wages and repatriating the profits back to the western world in the form of dividends and management fees. The one country that is doing things a little different is Nigeria. A good number of Nigerian companies are bidding for oil services work in newly discovered oil fields in East and Central Africa and I am sure we all know about Aliko Dangote and his conglomerate of companies anchored by his cement production behemoth.” Concluded my friend.
Another Kenya friend commented “I am not sure why. Part of it might be a little bit of the colonial mentality–thinking foreigners are better than Kenyans. Part of it might be the foreigners represent the interests of multinationals that have invested in these companies (certainly the case with subsidiaries of multinationals like Safaricom, Barclays, Standard Chartered et al).”
A third Kenya came in “Look at modern Kenya today, sons of colonial chiefs and collaborators are now rulers and billionaires maintaining the status quo is genetically coded in them. Their children go to the best schools either in Kenya or abroad all run by the white, how can we redeem ourselves!”
Another friend brought to our attention what is called White Code in Africa. He said
“White people stand with the white code. They only praise Black people or go near Blacks who serve their interest.” The latter are in their medias, at their conferences, receive their Nobel prize and awards. This is how you know those who are working against the continent interest.
Can ego-less leaders be developed?
In the US, egotism has marred the Afrikan struggle for self-determination to a large extent. Our leadership has been unable to unify even when in the same camp espousing the same ideology or spiritual system. Even the Afrikan centered communities have suffered the same fate. This is extremely unfortunate, and particularly contradictory for the latter community because the essence of Afrikan thought is unity. The very organization of most Afrikan society, Kingship, developed from the idea of unity. And it was not simply an operational unity but a unity of worldview--a cosmological unity. It was a unity achieved through harmony and reciprocity.
Whenever our enemies have attacked Afrikan systems throughout history, it is the notions of unity, harmony, and reciprocity that they are actually attacking. But it is important to remember that Afrikan societies were not static utopias; they were living organisms subject to the laws of Nature. One of the first lessons learned is that people, and society, must be proactive, and make an effort to support the inherent order and harmony in Nature/Creation. So that even though Afrikan proverbs, the structure of society, communalism, and customs, the elders designed to lessen a person's over-evaluation of self or individualism, it lessened its development but did not eliminate it altogether. Hence, society had extra safeguards, such as secret societies or societies of secrets as Molefi Asante calls them, and new years celebrations that assisted in keeping these types of persons, who would be classified as "witches" (using a Western concept) in check. Again we are referring to people who have developed a greater sense of self-importance than communal society felt tolerant of.
As I showed in my blog on the nkang'a, an almost universal rite of many Bantu cultures, a central goal of the ritual was the sacrificing of the self-centered "person" (the child), to give birth to the communal person (the adult woman in this case). Afrikan initiation systems in general produce a communal-minded person, one who identified with an ancestral tradition, and ultimately with the Supreme Being. Discarded is the self- centered person associated with the world of animality and childhood. Therefore the "individualism," which Western culture so highly regards, Afrikan cultures equate to undisciplined adolescence. This brings us to our present problem: we live in a world that champions individualism, lacks rites of passages, stresses materialism. self-advancement, and glorifies the human ego. It is no wonder that people who develop from this system are unable to work with other people nurtured in the same system. Western culture produces egotists. Their idea of the human being is characterized by an individual who has an excessive sense of self-worth. For white people it results in white privilege, and for Black folks it results in the head-nigger-in-charge mentality, which only masks an inferiority complex among other complexes. If the West produces selfish and undisciplined individuals, and the pool from which its leadership arises, then why would we assume that Westernized Afrikans would act any differently?
But apart from the typical Afrikan person nurtured in white supremacy, even those persons who develop "positive" self-esteem and self-worth, us Afrikan centered people in particular, we will still suffer from egocentrism. Our Western education and the lack of an initiation and support systems, as well as a worldview that would produce a communal person has certainly overdeveloped our sense of self-worth--our egos. And as long as our potential leaders are egocentric, how can we expect them to unify, unless it is some flimsy so-called operational unity.
By Alexis Baden-Mayer, Esq., Political Director | Reprinted from Organic Consumers Association, May 23, 2012
At the Group of 8 (G8) meetings this past weekend, President Obama and the leaders of the rest of the world's richest nations abandoned their governments' previous commitments to donate $7.3 billion a year to end hunger in Africa, after disbursing only 58 percent of the total pledge of $22 billion and giving less than 6 percent in new money they pledged three years ago.
Instead, rich nations will leave the problem in the hands of the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition where private corporations will invest $3 billion over 10 years -- Monsanto has committed $50 million -- beginning in three countries, Tanzania, Ghana and Ethiopia. (Human-rights activists have questioned the inclusion of Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, noting that his authoritarian government has jailed dissidents and banned media access to hunger zones. The Committee to Protect Journalists said in a letter to President Obama that the Ethiopian government "routinely downplays the extent of the crisis by denying journalists access to sensitive areas and censoring independent news coverage.")
The main U.S. spokesperson for the New Alliance is USAID administrator Rajiv Shah. OCA opposed Dr. Shah's appointment because of his work for the Gates Foundation and his position as a board member of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), which actively promote expensive and unsustainable technologies like genetic engineering.
When I taught high school I use to give an essay asking students to evaluate the conditions that led to the fall of the Western Roman empire, and if any similar conditions were to be found in present-day America. Though the U.S. and the West in general like to evoke the ancient Greek when speaking of the origins of Western civilization. The Greeks supposedly gave the world, philosophy, theater, science, poetry, mathematics, history (writing of), medicine, jury trials, and democracy. Each of these contributions can be evaluated on their merit but that is not the scope of this blog. Though the Romans conquered the Greeks, it is often said that Greek culture conquered the Romans. In truth, the Romans had a far greater influence on the West. And what the West discovered about the Greeks it did so initially largely through Roman eyes. The Romans on the other hand gave the West, a bicameral legislature, Republicanism, language, Roman Catholicism, senators, constitution, and a legal code. It was the Romans that actually encountered and colonized the people of Europe. The Greek world was centered on the Mediterranean, while the Romans expanded northward into Europe proper. Moreover, the Greek had a very different mind set than the Romans. The Romans were more "secular," war-like, and even materialistic than the Greeks. The Romans took Greek achievements, exploited and adapted them to Roman mores. For example the Romans took Greek Theater, which consisted largely of religious matters based on Greek mythology, and turned it into a spectacles, which frequently included battle scenes staged in the coliseum, with water, ships, and real engagements providing the action. Comparing Greek theater to Roman is like comparing oranges to apples. Theater moved from being a vicarious mode of spiritual expression for citizens to a vehicle of secular debauchery and violence for mass entertainment.
Historians list a number of reasons Rome fell. I will offer 12 reasons divided into the following categories: Military, Political, Economic, and Social. ur categories. Militarily Rome fell because it 1) citizenry lost their warlike character 2) the military wanted to be masters of the state, rather than serve it 3) legion, which consisted of mostly mercenaries, who often had questionable allegiances, was constantly at war. The socially reasons Rome fell were: 1) the rise of Christianity softened the people 2) extreme class divisions destroyed the middle class-extremes of the very wealthy and the very poor remained 3) people became extremely materialistic. The economic reasons for the demise of Rome are as follows: 1) taxes were extremely high 2) inflation was extremely high 3) unemployment and slavery were both widespread. The political fall of Rome was due to: 1) corruption 2) weak leadership 3) widespread civil unrest, and political assassinations.
Are there any commonality between modern America and ancient Rome? Is America falling?
The following video is by a good friend of mine that I have known for 35 years. Listen and comment please.
Politics as usual
President Obama signed his name to H.R. 933, a continuing resolution spending bill approved in Congress several day ago. However, buried 78 pages within the bill exists a provision or rider that protects biotech corporations such as the Missouri-based Monsanto Company from litigation. Hence, the provision or rider has been dubbed “The Monsanto Protection Act.” Though the bill was ostensibly written by freshman Senator Roy Blunt, who according to The Center for Responsive Politics received $64,250 from Monsanto towards his campaign committee between 2008 and 2012, Monsanto practically crafted the exact language of the document. The maligned corporation will benefit greatly and directly from the bill, as it essentially gives companies that deal with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically engineered (GE) seeds immunity to the federal courts, among other things. Moreover, the bill states that even if future research shows that GMOs or GE seeds cause significant health problems, cancer, etc, that the federal courts no longer have any power to stop their spread, use, or sales. The one caveat concerning this bill is it will only remain in effect for a limited time.
Obama had no problem signing it into law and for reasons you will see in this blog. He was well aware of the controversy regarding the rider. Once a concerned public became aware of the rider, realizing that congressional approval was likely, more than 250,000 people signed a petition asking the president to veto the spending bill over the biotech rider tacked on. “But Obama ignored [the petition],” as the International Business Times (IB Times) notes, “instead choosing to sign a bill that effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of GMO or GE crops and seeds, no matter what health consequences from the consumption of these products may come to light in the future.”
There are those experts that argument not enough research has been done yet to accurately determine the effects that GMOs have on human and animal health. But much of the independent research done thus far should be cause for alarm. This bill sidesteps that completely though, and simply states that even if there are problems, that the federal courts can no longer do anything about it. And this bill is now law, thanks to President Obama and the U.S. Congress. Furthermore, while GMOs may or may not cause problems for human health, they present problems for a number of additional reasons. One being, that many do not even do that they were supposedly designed to do. For example, new research from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) has found that genetically modified Bt cotton crops, which contain the Bt toxin poisonous to the primary enemies of cotton, have considerably weaker defenses against their secondary enemies, when they were suppose to have more.
President Obama has made no efforts to lead America towards healthier food production. He has made no temporary halts to GMO foods while further comprehensive research is conducted to determine their long term side effects. In fact, he has not even pushed to simply label GMO to protect babies, pregnant women and those with chronic diseases. Moreover, his presidency has filled key posts with Monsanto people, many in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, such as the USDA and the FDA. The following are all Obama appointees along with their background and accomplishments thus far: at the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center; as deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. (Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone); as commissioner of the USDA, Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack (Vilsack had set up a national group, the Governors' Biotechnology Partnership, and had been given a Governor of the Year Award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto); as the new Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist; as the new counsel for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for another biotech giant, DuPont; as the new head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had preciously worked in key positions for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research; and we cannot forget that Obama's secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto. And last but not least, Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, had previously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the Supreme Court. It seems that from the very beginning, Obama was in Monsanto's pocket! Either he and Michelle were on different pages, or they both were lying. I believe they were on different pages.
I believe, Michelle Obama in earnest launched the Let's Move campaign, which gave facts, tips and advice on how schools and families can create healthier meals and incorporate more physical activity into their daily lives. Mrs. Obama has modeled behaviors such as planting gardens, exercising and talks about what she does at home to keep her children healthy. Eating wholesome organic food was part of her diet. In fact, Mrs. Obama insisted, during Obama's presidential campaign in 2008, that their family has been on an organic diet for the past few years. However, she was forced to change her tone. Just a few days after Michelle Obama invited local fifth graders to help plant the White House Kitchen Garden, the Mid America CropLife Association (MACA), a group which represents and is comprised of former executives from Dow AgroSciences, Monsanto and DuPont Crop Protection, sent the White House a letter expressing their disappointment that she had not “recognize[d] the role conventional agriculture plays in the US.” Moreover, the group went on to provide a dose of propaganda educational information, including little known fact that “technology allows for farmers to meet the increasing demand for food and fiber in a sustainable manner.” The lobbyists instructed Michelle Obama to use “crop protection products” meaning using Round Up, Monsanto GMO seeds and non-traditional chemicals. In effect Michelle Obama's organic crusade was squashed. We have to conclude from Mrs. Obama's run-in with biotech companies, that one cannot even have an organic garden. We commend the First Lady's efforts. And yes, exercise is good but you can't exercise off a bad diet, and especially one that contains GMOs, such as High Fructose Corn Syrup (made from GMO corn), which although it is a sugar, is metabolized as fat, and contributes to obesity and type 2 diabetes. I wonder what Michelle Obama said to Barack after he signed the bill. I guess nothing, after all, they had silenced her already.
In the final analysis, and incorporating an Afrikan centered perspective, we must beg the questions, “When did traditional methods of producing food stop working?” (Can't they be upgraded or improved rather than humans tampering with plant DNA?) “Why does Western science want to continue to play “God?” “Hasn't the Supreme Being done a superb enough job thus far?” “Why do some people believe they can do a better job creating food than the Creator?” (“How do you even think you can out-create the Creator?”) Oh well.