Revisionism Is The Restoring Of Truth To History

Bad moon rising: The truth behind a Holocaust hoax

Author Misha Defonseca often used to say that if she were in a
sinking boat with a dog and a human, she would rescue the dog
and toss the human overboard.

No doubt. Dogs aren’t sticklers for facts, and they hardly ever do
the kind of research that would expose a bestselling memoir of
the Holocaust as an international fraud.
That’s what happened last week when fact took down fiction and
Defonseca admitted that her book, “Misha: a Memoir of the
Holocaust Years,” which has been translated into 18 languages and
made into a feature film in France, was a hoax.
Defonseca’s story is a gripping World War II account that begins
when she is 7 years old and her parents, members of the Belgium
resistance, are arrested by the Nazis. Defonseca then sets out on a
five-year journey that takes her thousands of miles through war-torn
Europe as she searches for her parents. Along the way, she visits the
Warsaw Ghetto, travels for a while with a band of resistance fighters,
kills a German soldier and, oh yeah, hides in the forest with a
pack of wolves who adopt her as one of their own. The book was published in 1997, and from the beginning there were
some who questioned her story. But it was only over the past couple
months that Sharon Sergeant, a genealogist from Waltham, Mass.,
and two of her contacts in Europe dug through the records and
discovered that Defonseca had actually spent the war at a desk in a
small elementary school in Etterbeek, Belgium. They also found a
baptismal certificate that showed not only was this heroic story about a
child surviving against all odds a lie, Defonseca isn’t even Jewish. “The story is mine. It is not actually reality, but my reality,
my way of surviving,” Defonseca said in a statement to The Associated
Press last week. “I ask forgiveness to all who felt betrayed. I beg you
to put yourself in my place, of a 4-year-old girl who was very lost.”
It’s not clear yet if there will be much forgiveness for Defonseca,
simply because there are so many who do feel betrayed. Holocaust
historians, students and survivors not only feel angry and disappointed,
they worry about the possible fallout in a world where many continue
to insist that that death marches and concentration camps are a myth.
Meanwhile, writers and publishers are wincing at the potential effect
this latest literary hoax will have on readers who crave true accounts
and the book business that seems less and less capable of delivering them.
And Jane Daniel of Gloucester, the original publisher of “Misha,”
also has a story of betrayal to tell. Shortly after the book was published,
Defonsca and her co-author, Vera Lee, sued Daniel, claiming that she
kept royalties and hid the proceeds from international sales for
translations in offshore accounts. They also claimed that Daniel
didn’t do enough to market the book in the United States.
In 2000, a jury awarded Defonseca $7.5 million while Lee won
$3.3 million.A judge stepped in and found Daniel’s business practices
so egregious that she tripled the damages. Daniel, who has spent
the past eight years with a $33 million judgment hanging over her head
and no way to pay it, has always maintained that the facts of the case
do not support the complaint or the award. She now plans to head
back to court to have the judgment vacated.
A must-read Last summer, Daniel launched a blog called “Bestseller,” an online
real-time book that offers her behind-the-scenes account of how
“Misha” was written, published and promoted.
Daniel writes that she met Defonseca back in the ’90s while she
was doing some PR work for Jan Schlichtmann, the Beverly lawyer of
“A Civil Action” fame. One day, Schlichtmann happened to mention
that his brother had a business making commemorative videos from
family photos. He asked Daniel if she could help promote it.
Daniel decided the best place to start was with a client who had made
an unusual video. That led her to Defonseca, who had commissioned
a two-hour film tribute to her recently deceased dog, Jimmy.
Daniel recalls her first close-up impression of Defonseca on her blog. “Misha was a short, plump woman, somewhere in her 60s, with
pixie-cut platinum blond hair and icy blue eyes that glittered with
extraordinary intensity,”she writes. “She wore a dress patterned with
leopard spots and heavy Native American silver jewelry. Her eyes were
rimmed with startling yellow-green liner. Long glue-on nails, white,
tipped her fingers like claws.”
Over lunch, Defonseca told Daniel about her video but then began
an even more interesting story of how she was a Holocaust survivor.
When Daniel heard she had walked across Europe searching for her
parents and had spent time eating and sleeping with a pack of wolves,
she was sold.
Daniel had recently started a small publishing house called Mt. Ivy Press.
It was a one-woman show that had produced some cookbooks and
“a prurient but not hard-core tome, ‘Gigolos — The Secret Lives of
Men who Service Women.’”
When she heard Defonseca’s story, she immediately smelled not only a
book but a potential blockbuster. Defonseca has always said that she
never wanted to write the book, because the memories were too painful,
but that Daniel eventually talked her into it.
From the start nothing about the book was easy. Defonseca spoke
some English, but not enough to write her memoir. Daniel hired her
good friend and next-door neighbor, Lee, a former French professor
and chairman of the Romance Language Department at Boston College,
as a ghostwriter who would help translate Defonseca’s memories.
As the story began to take shape, there were more problems.
The three women all seemed to have different ideas of the direction
the book should take. Daniel wanted a straight narrative that would
offer a message of hope; Lee felt the book should be simple and geared
toward younger readers; and Defonseca wanted to include more about
her personal beliefs that animals were morally superior to human
beings. By the time the book was published in 1997, the disagreement
had turned ugly, and the lines were drawn for a legal battle. But along the way there were other concerns. Daniel sent the
manuscript out to several different Holocaust writers and scholars
hoping to score a couple blurbs for the back cover. And she did.
Holocaust survivor and Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel — who has
written more than 40 books, including the seminal Holocaust memoir,
“Night” — took a look at Defonsca’s story and wrote back that he
found it “very moving.”
Leonard Zakim, who was then the executive director of the New
England Anti-Defamation League, described “Misha” as “A scary
‘must read’ for anyone interested in the Holocaust. Humans acted
‘like animals’ and animals acted ‘humanely.’ Her story is
heartwarming and bone-tingling, all the more so for being true.”
And the wolf experts, including Joni Soffron — who runs Wolf Hollow,
a park on Route 133 in Ipswich, Mass., that features a pack of wolves
that visitors can watch safely from the sidelines of a big backyard pen —
were also on board. Although documented accounts of wolves raising
human children were extremely rare, Defonsca’s account was consistent
with what the experts knew about wolf behavior.
But there were others who weren’t quite as enthusiastic. Yale
Professor Deborah Dwok, an expert on children and the Holocaust,
told Daniel the book was a fantasy filled with historical inaccuracies.
Lawrence Langer, a history professor at Simmons College, also felt
the book was contrived.
“She just happens to get into the Warsaw Ghetto right before it
burns down, but she doesn’t have a tattoo. And she manages to escape
over a wall. Why didn’t everybody escape over that wall? You can’t
publish it as factual,” Langer told Daniel.
Now that the book has been exposed as a hoax, everyone seems to
be asking why there wasn’t more fact checking. Why didn’t Daniel
question Defonseca harder?
Daniel’s good friend Kathleen Valentine, a fellow writer from
Gloucester, says you have to remember what it was like back in the
’90s when the book was being written.
“Jane was being told by all these local Jewish organizations that
Misha was a hero,” says Valentine. “There were a couple of authorities
who said they didn’t believe the story, but you had to weigh that in the
balance with everyone who did.” And, as Valentine points out, you
don’t question a Holocaust survivor.
“I believed her, and a lot of people believed her at the time,” says
Daniel, who has been spending this week racing between her
lawyers and television and radio reporters, all asking why the book
wasn’t better vetted.
Daniel also says it was impossible to do specific background checks
since Defonsaca claimed she didn’t know her real name or birth date —
information she said her parents kept from her in case she was
taken by the Nazis.
“I didn’t have a true name, a birthplace or a single person who knew
Misha,” says Daniel. And Daniel believes it wasn’t her job to check all the facts. “As
the publisher, I was not responsible for being the gatekeeper of the
truth,” she says, adding that Defonseca signed a standard publishing
contract with a clause that stipulated all statements in the book
would be true.
Daniel believes that the proper stage for vetting a book is the
marketplace. And although it took more than 10 years,
“Misha: A Memoir of the Holocaust Years,” did finally receive the
attention that ultimately revealed it as a fraud.
A beautiful story? Unfortunately, the truth about Defonseca came a little too late
for a lot of people. Soon as the book was published, it became a
bestseller in France and several other European countries. Late last year,
French film director Vera Belmont released her full-length film,
“Survivre avec les Loupes” based on Defonscea’s memoir. In Italy,
the story was made into an operetta.
A spokeswomen for Belmont said this week that Defonseca’s recent
confession wasn’t really that important.
“No matter if it’s true or not — (Belmont) believes it is, anyway —
she just thinks it’s a beautiful story,” she says.
Daniel also says the fact that the book is fiction doesn’t mean it’s not good. “I still think it’s a beautiful story,” she says. “It’s a classic story of
good against evil — the Nazis against a child. You have to separate the
message from the messenger.”
But the question of whether or not it’s true, particularly when it was
billed as the truth, matters a great deal to others. Peabody’s Sonia Weitz
survived five concentration camps and knows a little about Holocaust memoirs. Her book, “I Promised I Would Tell,” is her own personal
testimony. In 1981, Weitz founded the Holocaust Center of the
North Shore Jewish Federation in Peabody, Mass., where she
continues to educate people, particularly young people,
about the Holocaust.
When “Misha: A Memoir of the Holocaust Years” first came out,
Weitz says she was very excited about the book.
“Some of it was sort of unbelievable, but I’ve learned that unexpected
things did happen during the war,” she says. However, after hearing
last week that the book was a hoax, Weitz said she felt angry
and disappointed.
“It’s hurtful and it’s harmful to the history of the Holocaust,”
she says. Still, Weitz has reserved any judgment on Defonseca.
“Am I angry at her? I can’t really say that. I guess I think that
maybe there’s more to it,” says Weitz, who wants to know more
about Defonseca’s true story during the war.
Weitz does agree with Rabbi David Mayer of Temple Emanu-El in
Marblehead, who feels Defonseca’s deception will be used against
other Holocaust survivors who have told their stories.
“What bothers me most aside from the unconscionable disrespect
for those who perished is that it fuels the flames for the Holocaust
deniers,” says Meyer. “That makes it even more heinous.”
Weitz says that’s a problem Holocaust educators will face in the
wake of the Defonscea story. But her greatest concern is the hundreds
of young students at the Holocaust center. Defonseca’s book was a
great story that engaged young people and now, it’s just a fraud.
“She should have been a role model,” says Wietz. “Young people
will be very disappointed to hear it’s not true. The book should have
been worthy of their attention, and it’s not.”
E-mail Barbara Taormina at btaormin@cnc.com.

You only makes things worse when you try to HIDE TRUTH FROM MY EYES.

This is a screenshot of Jane Daniel's blog, BESTSELLER! The Book, which details her simple wish to promote what she believed at the time to be a gripping tale of perseverance against all odds...ONLY TO FIND OUT THAT THE ENTIRE BLOODY STORY WAS AN ABJECT LIE.

Note one of the nested postings on the right, specifically the one titled Daily News Tribune: The Truth Behind a Holocaust Hoax.

Where does it go?

Are you surprised?!?

I'm not - when you look for Carl Cameron's 9/11 report for FOX, you will be told THAT IT DOESN'T EXIST...at least, not on FOX's archives...BUT NOTHING DISAPPEARS ON THE INTERNET.

The Pawnbroker - A Colossal Deception Upon America

From TCM: THE PAWNBROKER 

In New York City's Spanish Harlem, Sol Nazerman (Rod Steiger) manages a pawnshop owned by Rodriguez (Brock Peters), the neighborhood pimp. A concentration camp survivor, Sol lives an emotionally detached existence, appearing callous and insensitive to his customers and co-worker Jesus Ortiz (Jaime Sanchez). What they don't know is that Sol witnessed the rape of his wife by Nazi officers and the deportment of his two children to death camps where they died. Yet when Ortiz repeatedly tries to break through Sol's icy veneer and bring him out of his shell, he is treated with disdain. In anger, the assistant plots a store robbery that backfires in tragedy for both men.

"What they don't know is that Sol witnessed the rape of his wife by Nazi officers and the deportment of his two children to death camps where they died." Complete nonsense - if the object was to MURDER JEWS, they simply could have implemented what we know as the Morgenthau Plan. Over a million German soldiers were murdered in this fashion after the war.

The Pawnbroker (1964), directed by Sidney Lumet, was one of the first American films to address the Holocaust through the eyes of a survivor after the events. Highly influenced by the French New Wave of the early sixties, particularly its use of quick flashback cuts to reveal Sol's personal tragedy, the film explores the effect of memory and emotion on the human psyche while also recalling life-changing events from the objective present. In this, The Pawnbroker shares some stylistic and thematic similarities to the work of Alain Resnais, particularly Hiroshima mon Amour (1959) and his highly influential documentary, Night and Fog (1955). Aside from this, however, Lumet's film is uniquely American, with its harsh, unforgiving depiction of New York City, all of it brought to vivid life by Boris Kaufman's black and white cinematography and a dynamic cast highlighted by Rod Steiger's searing portrayal of the title role.

This was a colossal deception upon America - The Pawnbroker was merely the latest attempt to break the Production Code; and under the guise of being a "holocaust memoir", it succeeded.

Although Steiger was already recognized as a highly gifted "Method" actor (he was Oscar® nominated for Best Supporting Actor in On the Waterfront, 1954), The Pawnbroker was the film which earned him international critical acclaim and launched his career as an A-list actor in major films. Yet, at the time, he agreed to do the movie for a reduced fee (he was paid $50,000 - a much lower figure than his normal rate) because he trusted the director (they had worked together previously on the TV series, You Are There).
Steiger was barely forty when he played Sol Nazerman but immersed himself so deeply in the character that it's hard to believe he's not a sixty year old man. His tendency toward dramatic excess though was effectively curtailed by Lumet who later said, "Sure Rod has weaknesses of rhetoric, but you can talk them through with him. I explained that this solitary Jew could not rise to heights of emotion; he had been hammered by life and by people. The faith he had to find was in other people, because God had betrayed him" (from Rod Steiger: Memoirs of a Friendship by Tom Hutchinson).

The $50,000 Steiger was paid went a lot bloody farther than the $50,000 Mo'Nique was paid for Precious (I didn't see it, but it garnered an Oscar for her)

Steiger would later state, "I think my best work is in The Pawnbroker. The last scene, where I find the boy dead on the street. I think that's the highest moment, whatever it may be, with my talent." The actor's inspiration for this climactic moment, where his grief is expressed as a silent scream, was Picasso's famous painting of "Guernica" with its depiction of the war ravaged villagers. Even more difficult to film was Steiger's final scene when Sol's anguish finally erupts, causing him to drive his hand through the pointed metal spoke for shop receipts.

The "boy"? Don't you mean Jesus, your loyal dog?

Not surprisingly, The Pawnbroker had a difficult time finding a major U.S. distributor due to its grim and challenging subject matter. Producer Ely Landau shopped it around to every studio but was told it would never earn back its costs. He didn't have any better luck in England until he arranged for a booking of the film at a West End cinema in London where it had an enormously successful run. As a result, Landau was able to arrange a distribution deal with the Rank organization and open it theatrically in the U.S. where it was critically acclaimed by most major film critics.

 "I'LL GET THIS PROPAGANDA PAST THE PRODUCTION CODE, BY HOOK OR BY CROOK!"

The Pawnbroker also generated considerable controversy in several communities. Some Jewish organizations urged a boycott of the film due to its uncompromising presentation of the Jewish pawnbroker which they felt encouraged anti-Semitism. Black groups also accused the film of encouraging racial stereotypes of the inner city where everyone seemed to be a pimp, prostitute or drug addict. Even the Legion of Decency objected to the film for a scene in which Ortiz's girlfriend (Thelma Oliver) bares her breasts in an effort to get more money for a pawn item. All of these charges, however, seem unjustified when one views the film. What emerges is a realistic and devastating portrait of urban alienation.

All of the criticisms were wholly justified...but...MUH HOLOCAU$T!

Pauline Kael was one of the few critics to find fault with the movie, proclaiming the film "trite", but she also saw its merits, "You can see the big pushes for powerful effects, yet it isn't negligible. It wrenches audiences, making them fear that they, too, could become like this man. And when events strip off his armor, he doesn't discover a new, warm humanity, he discovers sharper suffering - just what his armor had protected him from. Most of the intensity comes from Steiger's performance."

 In other words, his propaganda pimp hand was STRONG.

Despite the many accolades The Pawnbroker received - the New York Film Critics award for Best Film and Director, the Golden Globe for Best Actor, the Silver Bear (Best Actor at the Berlin International Film Festival), among others - it only garnered one Oscar® nomination - for Best Actor. Steiger was practically certain he was going to win the Academy Award when he arrived at the Oscar ceremony. Right before the award was announced, the actor began to button his jacket in anticipation of leaving his seat and walking down the aisle. Instead he heard the name "Lee Marvin!" "I was absolutely shocked," said Steiger. "And Lee Marvin walked up and got a prize he probably and justly deserved, and I got a spanking from the forces of nature which said, 'Listen, jackass, never take happiness, never take your talent, for granted. Never, in any walk of life, take for granted your capabilities. Each minute a second of life is a challenge - so sit still, schmuck, and let this be a lesson to you. Happiness has to be earned and respected. Rewards must never be taken for granted.' I never forgot that moment" (from Rod Steiger: Memoirs of a Friendship by Tom Hutchinson).

Just more tear-jerking.

Producer: Ely A. Landau, Philip Langner, Roger Lewis, Herbert R. Steinmann, Joseph Manduke, Worthington Miner
Director: Sidney Lumet
Screenplay: Morton S. Fine, David Friedkin, Edward Lewis Wallant (novel)
Cinematography: Boris Kaufman
Film Editing: Ralph Rosenblum
Art Direction: Richard Sylbert
Music: Quincy Jones
Cast: Rod Steiger (Sol Nazerman), Geraldine Fitzgerald (Marilyn Birchfield), Brock Peters (Rodriguez), Jaime Sanchez (Jesus Ortiz), Thelma Oliver (Ortiz's Girl), Marketa Kimbrell (Tessie).
BW-116m. Letterboxed.
by Jeff Stafford

 I always give proper credit.

"Well, you seem unsympathetic to the plight of others..."; now, that's just a load of HOT GARBAGE. If anything, I care too bloody much.

This is my country, and I will protect it with my dying breath. What I can clearly see is that we have been attacked from WITHIN.

You're not getting it without a fight, (((HOMOSEXUAL BANKING MAFIA)))!

The GMO Debate: One Student’s Experience of Pro-GMO Propaganda at Cornell University (Re-Post From Independent Science News))

Thanks to Stephanie Seneff for the article.

The GMO Debate: One Student’s Experience of Pro-GMO Propaganda at Cornell University

My name is Robert, and I am a Cornell University undergraduate student. However, I’m not sure if I want to be one any more. Allow me to explain.

Cornell, as an institution, appears to be complicit in a shocking amount of ecologically destructive, academically unethical, and scientifically deceitful behavior. Perhaps the most potent example is Cornell’s deep ties to industrial GMO agriculture, and the affiliated corporations such as Monsanto. I’d like to share how I became aware of this troubling state of affairs.

Throughout my secondary education, I’ve always had a passion for science. In particular, physics and mathematics captured my fascination. My sophomore AP physics teacher, Mr. Jones, became my main source of motivation to succeed. He convinced us students that our generation was crucial to repairing humanity’s relationship to science, and how we would play key roles in solving immense global issues, such as climate change. Thank you Mr. Jones! Without your vision, I would have never had the chance to attend such an amazing university.

ROBERT SCHOOLER CORNELL

I came to Cornell as a freshman, deeply unaware of our current GMO agriculture paradigm, and my university’s connection to it. After two years of school, however, I was reluctant to continue traditional study. I never felt quite at ease, jumping through hoops, taking classes and tests that didn’t inspire me, in exchange for a piece of paper (degree) that somehow magically granted me a superior life. I know many undergraduates fit right in with the university education model, and that’s fantastic. I certainly didn’t, and my mental and physical health began to suffer as a result. I was left with no choice but to take a leave of absence, and pursue another path.

Instead, I began to self-study nutrition out of pure necessity. Luckily, I found Cornell Professor Emeritus T. Colin Campbell’s legendary epidemiological research on nutrition and human disease. His evidence was so clear that I quickly transitioned to a plant-based diet. This personal dietary shift had profound benefits, dispelled my depression, and led me to a deep fascination with the precursor to nutrition:agriculture. I became particularly interested in agroecology. I was astonished to learn that there existed alternatives to chemical-intensive, corporate-controlled models of agriculture, and that they were far safer, more effective, and more sustainable. During my time away from Cornell, I participated in three unique seasons of agroecological crop production, with incredible results. I am immensely grateful for these experiences.

It’s impossible to study and practice agroecology without becoming deeply aware of the other end of the spectrum: the genetic modification of our food supply, ruled by giant agribusiness corporations.

Currently, the vast majority of US commodity crops (corn, soy, alfalfa, sugar beet) are genetically engineered to either withstand Roundup herbicide or produce Bt toxin pesticide. These “technologies” are ecologically damaging and unsafe.The majority of these crops go to feed animals in factory farms. The remainder generally gets converted into corn syrup, white sugar, vegetable oil, or biofuels — you know,good stuff! This combined approach of growing GMO commodity monoculture crops, and feeding them to factory-farmed livestock, is one of the most ecologically destructive forces our planet has ever seen. It’s also a leading contributor to climate change. In fact, some experts believe it to be the leading cause.

As Professor T. Colin Campbell will tell you, the foods that come from this system (animal products and processed foods) are responsible for causing the vast majority of chronic disease. That’s a story for another day.

Cornell’s GMO Propaganda Campaign

I came back to Cornell a changed person, with a drastically different perspective. I was in for quite a shock, however: I sat in on a course entitled “The GMO Debate”. I was expecting members of an intellectual community coming together, with proponents and critics of GMO food each giving the best verified evidence they had to support their cause. Given all that I had learned about GMO agriculture, I was excited to participate for the “GMO skeptic” side.

The GMO Debate course, which ran in the fall of 2015, was a blatant display of unscientific propaganda in an academic setting. There were a total of 4 active professors in the course, and several guest speakers. They took turns each session defending industrial agriculture and biotechnology with exactly zero critical examination of GMOs. In spite of the course’s name, there was a complete lack of actual “debate”. Here are some of the more memorable claims I heard that fall semester:

• GMO food is necessary to feed the world

• there is no instance of harm from agricultural GMOs

• glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, is safer than coffee and table salt

• if you believe in science, you must believe in GMO technology

• the science of genetic engineering is well understood

• “what off-target effects?” … when asked about the proven biochemical risks of GE technology

• Vitamin A rice is curing children of Vitamin A deficiency (even though the IRRI, the research institute responsible for rolling it out, says it won’t be ready for some years: http://goo.gl/mHcsoJ)

• Current pesticides and herbicides don’t pose an ecological or human health risk

• Bt is an organic pesticide, therefore Bt GMO crops are safe and pose no additional risk

• Bt crops work just fine — but we are now engineeringinsects as a complementary technology — to make the Bt work better

• “Are you scared of GMO insects? Because you shouldn’t be.”

• GMO crops are the most rigorously tested crops in the history of food

• “If [renowned environmentalist] Rachel Carson were alive today, she would be pro-GMO”

It gets better. During the semester, emails were released following a Freedom of Information Act request, showing that all four of the professors in the class, as well as several guest speakers, the head of Cornell’s pro-GMO group “Alliance for Science”, and the Dean of the College of Arts and Life Sciences were all copied in on emails withMonsanto. This was part of a much larger circle of academics promoting GMO crops on behalf of the biotech industry. Jonathan Latham PhD, virologist and editor ofindependentsciencenews.org, documented this in an article titled “The Puppetmasters of Academia”. I highly recommend giving it a read, for further context.

Perhaps saddest of all was the inclusion of several visiting African agriculture-academics in the course. They were brought here by the “Cornell Alliance for Science”. This organization was completely funded by a $5.6 million grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and appears to espouse only pro-GMO rhetoric. For those of you who are unaware, Bill Gates is a proponent of using agricultural biotechnology in Africa, India, and other developing regions. So in essence, a group of African representatives got indoctrinated into the industrial and GMO agriculture framework, and were sent home to disseminate this information … after all, who could question the expertise of an Ivy League powerhouse such as Cornell?

I then learned of Cornell’s deep historic ties to the biotech industry, which explained what I witnessed in the “GMO Debate” course. Notable examples include the invention of both the controversial bovine growth hormone, and the particle bombardment (“gene gun”) method of creating GMO crops. Both of these cases are connected to Monsanto.

To say the least, I was completely stunned.

What I’m going to do about all of this

You didn’t think I was just going to complain about a pro-GMO, industry-sponsored Cornell all day, did you? Good, because I have come up with a plan to create actual, lasting change on campus.

A student-led, expert-backed, evidence-based GMO course

I have decided to host an independent course on the current GMO paradigm, in response to Cornell’s course. It will be held on campus, but will have zero influence from Cornell or any biotech organization. Every Wednesday evening, from September 7th to November 16, we will host a lecture. This lecture series is completely free, open to the entire Cornell community and broader public, and will be published online (for free, forever) at my project, gmowtf.com.

There will be several experts and scientists coming in to lecture for this course. Frances Moore Lappé, of “Diet for a Small Planet” and “World Hunger: 10 Myths” fame, will be introducing the course on September 7, via video presentation. She will be speaking on how GMO agriculture is unnecessary to end world hunger.

Steven Druker is a public interest attorney and author of the powerful book “Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public”, which Jane Goodall (in her foreword) hails as “one of the most important books in the last 50 years”. He will be giving two lectures that elaborate on the themes in the book’s subtitle and demonstrate that the GMO venture has been chronically and crucially dependent on deception, and could not survive without it.

Jonathan Latham PhD will be giving two lectures, on the dangers of Roundup Ready and Bt crops, respectively. He will also be participating in our special October 5 debate, representing the anti-GMO panel, alongside Michael Hansen PhD, a senior scientist for the Consumers Union. Jonathan has direct experience genetically modifying organisms, so his expertise is guaranteed.

Allison Wilson PhD is a geneticist and editor/science director of the Bioscience Resource Project. She will be giving a lecture on how GMOs are actually created, to dispel any industry myths of precision, accuracy, or deep genetic understanding.

Belinda Martineau PhD is a geneticist with an interesting history — she was on the team of genetic engineers that created the first commercial GM food crop, the Flavr Savr Tomato. She authored a book on her experience, titled “First Fruit: The Creation of the Flavr Savr Tomato and the Birth of Biotech Foods”. Her lecture will be a historical and personal account of the science, regulation, and commercialization of genetically engineered foods, effectively giving context for today’s GMO paradigm.

My personal scientific hero, T. Colin Campbell, who started me on this whole journey years ago, will not be speaking on GMOs per se … but will address some critically important, related topics: academic freedom and scientific integrity. He began his Cornell career over half a century ago, and has “seen it all”. He has fascinating anecdotes that will illuminate these campus-wide issues beautifully.

Jane Goodall, if you’re reading this, you are personally invited to take time out of your busy schedule to come and give the final capstone lecture. I know how passionate you are about saving our species, our planet, and all of its beautiful inhabitants. Your wise presence in this project would take it to the next level. Alternatively, please consider a short video interview. This offer stands indefinitely. Same for youVandana Shiva!

All in all, our independent GMO lecture series will focus onreal threats and real solutions to our current ecological crisis … and perhaps most importantly, will feature 100% less Monsanto influence than Cornell’s course! Sounds good to me.

Taking it further

I’m on my second leave of absence from Cornell to work on this project, and due to my experiences, I have somewhat given up on a Cornell degree … not that I was ever intensely focused on attaining one. This GMO course is by far the most important thing I can do with my Cornell “career”. However, it is just the beginning of my plan.

Remember the $5.6 million Bill Gates gave Cornell through his foundation, to push the pro-GMO propaganda? Well, to coincide with our course, we’re launching an initiative to raise the same amount of money or more to sponsor more appropriate forms of agriculture, educational outreach, and activism. Go to gmowtf.com for more information, but in essence, this would finance:

• Continued grassroots educational activism at Cornell, and similar programs in other compromised universities (UC Davis and Berkeley, University of Florida, etc.) across the country.

• A plant-based, NON-GMO independent dining hall for Cornell students. It would source as close to 100% organic and local food as possible. Ideally, it would be cheaper than Cornell’s plan (plant-based eaters won’t subsidize expensive meat and dairy for omnivorous eaters).

• gmowtf.com as a permanent, free, independent, constantly updated resource for GMO science, policy, news, etc. … also the GMO course would remain online

• My dream: a research farm focused on rigorous analysis of agroecological practices. There is an infinitum of fascinatingly effective agroecological techniques that are underrepresented in the scientific community (in favor of faddist, ineffective GMO “technology”).

• Completely paying off student debt for a group of 10-15 undergraduates who are willing to help spread this message to the Cornell community.

Mr. Gates, if you truly care about feeding the world in a safe and sustainable manner, and if you are truly dedicated to science and to the kind of open, fact-based discourse on which it depends, I implore you to learn the important facts about which you have apparently been misinformed — and which are being systematically misrepresented by the Cornell organization you are funding. You can easily gain illumination by reading “Altered Genes, Twisted Truth” by Steven Druker, one of the key contributors to our independent GMO course. You might find Chapter 11, on the ramifications and risks of altering complex information systems, of particular interest. You are, after all, the world’s most famous software developer!

As the chapter demonstrates, biotechnicians are significantly altering the most complex yet least understood group of information systems on earth — the ones that undergird the development and function of living organisms. Yet, they fail to implement the kind of safeguards that software engineers have learned are imperative when making even minor revisions to human-made systems. Can this be legitimately called science-based engineering?

Bill, feel free to reach out to any of the experts in our course, and don’t be hesitant to update your views on GMO agriculture in light of new understanding. A genuine scientist lives by this principle.

I Invite you all to go to gmowtf.com and explore my proposals more. Please bear with the construction of the site in the coming weeks, in preparation for our amazing GMO course!

We live in somewhat of a scientific dark age. Our universities have become extensions of corporate power, at the cost of our health, livelihoods, and ecology. This has to stop, yesterday. We cannot afford to spread lies to our undergraduate students. Cornell, please reconsider your ways. Until you do, I will be doing everything in my power to counter your industry GMO propaganda efforts with the facts.

With love,

Robert Schooler

contact (at) gmowtf.com

 I hope you all do go there.

We can win this battle. Starve the monster, and it DIES.