Connect with us

Agriculture

No farmers, no freedom: Why globalists want to control the world’s food supply

Published

19 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

Ultimately, the war against farmers is a war on the whole of humanity, one that threatens what it means to be free

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • A war against farmers has emerged, threatening to push them off the land they’ve farmed for generations.
  • As small and mid-sized farms close their doors, governments and corporate entities can scoop up the land.
  • Those in control of the land control the food supply and, along with it, the people.
  • Much of this threat is cloaked under Agenda 2030, which includes 17 sustainable development goals with 169 specific targets to be imposed across the globe, in every country, by 2030.
  • The push to eat insects is part of this plan; in 2021, the European Commission authorized mealworms as food, releasing a news release touting “the growing role that insects will play as part of a healthier, more sustainable diet”

Are green policies around the world, targeting everything from too much nitrogen to protection of endangered species, all part of a plan to get small farmers off the land, paving the way for totalitarian control of the food supply – and insects as part of your daily diet?

[Find the full documentary here.]

These and other tough questions are posed by Roman Balmakov, Epoch Times reporter and host of Facts Matter, in “No Farmers, No Food: Will You Eat the Bugs?” Balmakov says:

The people in charge of some of the most powerful organizations on the planet have determined that agriculture, specifically animal agriculture, is to blame for global warming, and global warming is to blame for the high prices of food as well as food shortages.

And so by switching our diets from beef, chicken and pork, to crickets and mealworms, we’ll be able to stop temperatures from rising, lower the price of food and possibly to even save the planet.

But in interviews with farmers around the world, including in Holland and Sri Lanka, a very different story is told, one that began with a decades-old environmental policy.

Agenda 2030 threatens farmers

In 1972, a United Nations meeting about climate change was held to come up with a plan to manage the planet in a sustainable manner. This led to the creation of Agenda 21 (Agenda for the 21st Century) – the inventory and control plan for all land, water, minerals, plants, animals, construction, means of production, food, energy, information, education, and all human beings in the world.

Agenda 21 is now more commonly referred to as Agenda 2030, the year the plan’s goals are slated to be met. In 2019, the World Economic Forum (WEF) entered into a strategic alliance with the United Nations, which called for the U.N. to “use public-private partnerships as the model for nearly all policies that it implements, most specifically the implementation of the 17 sustainable development goals.”

Agenda 2030 is composed of these 17 sustainable development goals with 169 specific targets, including ending poverty and achieving gender equality, to be imposed across the globe, in every country, by 2030.

“Very comprehensive document if you read it,” says international journalist Alex Newman. “We’re talking hundreds of pages governing really every facet of life, everything from education to land use policy to economics to law. Every area of life was found there.” But hidden underneath these green-sounding initiatives, Newman says, may be a more sinister motive:

There is absolutely no way for the sustainable development goals to be implemented, to be tracked, to be monitored, without the total obliteration of individual freedom. Some of the goals sound nice – ending hunger, who could possibly be against ending hunger? The problem is, when you set a nebulous goal like that, it requires total power from the state to be able to accomplish that.

And of course, they will never accomplish that, right? There is no way to literally eradicate all poverty from the face of the Earth, but it gives government and global institutions, like the U.N., an easy excuse to basically do whatever they want under the guise of meeting these goals.

Is the nitrogen crisis real?

Dutch farmers are in crisis as their government has stepped up plans to move them off the land. You can hear about this in-depth via Dutch investigative journalist Elze van Hamelen’s report and podcast for The Solari Report– Dutch Farmers and Fishermen: The People Who Feed Us.

“In 2021, the European Union’s Natura 2000 network released a map of areas in the Netherlands that are now protected against nitrogen emissions. Any Dutch farmer who operates their farm within 5 kilometers of a Natura 2000 protected area would now need to severely curtail their nitrogen output, which in turn would limit their production,” Balmakov explains.

Dutch dairy farmer Nynke Koopmans with the Forum for Democracy believes the nitrogen problem is made up. “It’s one big lie,” she says. “The nitrogen has nothing to do with environmental. It’s just getting rid of farmers.” Another farmer said if new nitrogen rules go into effect, he’d have to reduce his herd of 58 milking cows down to six.

Nitrogen scientist Jaap C. Hanekamp was working for a government committee to study nitrogen, tasked with analyzing the government’s nitrogen model. He told Balmakov:

The whole policy is based on the deposition model about how to deal with nitrogen emissions on nature areas. And I looked at the validation studies and show that the model is actually crap. It doesn’t work. And doesn’t matter. They still continue using it, which is, in a sense, unsettling. I mean, really, can we do such a thing in terms of policy? Use a model which doesn’t work? It’s never about innovation, it’s always about getting rid of farmers.

The ultimate agenda: no land ownership for the people

As farmers shut down, the government can swoop in and take the land, which may be what the agenda is really about. According to Eva Vlaardingerbroek, former member of Forum for Democracy and a political commentator:

I’ve always said that the nitrogen crisis is, first of all, a made-up crisis. It’s manufactured, and the only solution that has ever been proposed is forced expropriation. So, it is the government that will take hold of their land… We have a housing crisis in the Netherlands, as you know, this is a very tiny country. We have a lot of people, and we have a growing population because of immigration. And we need places to house those immigrants.

And I think that that’s partly why the government wants that land. They need houses, and they need to build houses, which is funny, because apparently building houses is also what emits nitrogen. But that’s not the people they’re coming after. They’re coming, specifically, after the farmers because they want the land. So that is the ultimate goal.

But it’s not only farmers in the Netherlands who are being affected. In 2020, California became the first U.S. state to commit to a 30 by 30 goal, pledging to put 30 percent of its land and water under government control by 2030. But as Margaret Byfield, executive director of American Stewards of Liberty, says, this paves the way for private land ownership to disappear:

The concept in America is self-rule. We the People will rule our government and our Founding Fathers understood that the small landholder is the most important part of the state. The idea was that the land would be distributed among the people so they could always control their government. California has developed a 30 by 30 plan. They’re pushing 30 by 30 in the state…

The ultimate agenda is that there is no ownership of land so that we don’t own anything. We either own property, or we are property. That’s really what we’re fighting from the global governance perspective. They have to eliminate our ability to control our government, which means they have to take our land.

Other seemingly sustainable government regulations may also be wrapped up in this plan. Rep. Doug LaMalfa, farmer and California representative, explains:

A lot of this came about in the early ‘70s Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, which were good things, you know, the Endangered Species Act, but it’s been abused from what the original intent was. Congress did not intend for it to be abused the way it is and manipulated. The way it is these days, when they wrote those bills, they would have never passed them.

The globalists have it all planned out

Much of the new world order’s plans are based on crisis management, and the idea that a great crisis will occur that will lead to the great transition, where globalists will swoop in to save the day, transforming society into the promised paradise. “At some point down the line, the narrative changed to be around climate,” Balmakov says.

“They came up with this incredible document where they actually said, We need a new justification for this all-powerful state,” Newman says. “So, the new excuse is going to be because the environment is going to be harmed and because climate is going to hurt us.” Balmakov continues:

I could not believe what I just heard, that world leaders really laid out this globalist plan in plain English in a physical book, way back in 1991.

I went on Amazon. And there it was. ‘The First Global Revolution,’ which states, and I quote, ‘In searching for a common enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like, would fit the bill. And therefore, the real enemy is humanity itself.’

Reading between the lines, the key players in this globalist agenda become clear. Newman says:

The World Economic Forum was actually a critical part of implementing this U.N. agenda. Some years ago, they became a strategic partner of the U.N. in the implementation of agenda 2030. And then you start looking at the connections between the World Economic Forum and China. Klaus Schwab and Xi Jinping, they’re like old buddies.

They put out press releases about how much they love each other. So, you’ve got the super capitalists, represented by the World Economic Forum, and then on the government side, you have communists. after Agenda 2030 was adopted, become the Party of China, put out through all their propaganda organs.

… you had Javier Solana, the head of NATO, saying this was going to be the next great leap forward, right? The last great leap forward in China killed millions of people. Why would we want another one of those? That’s crazy.

So, you have communists and super capitalists all coming together and working on this one, sustainable development agenda. And that should make us all pause and say, ‘Wait a minute, that doesn’t make sense on the surface. What’s going on here?’

Bring on the bugs

Globalists suggest eating bugs will protect the planet by eliminating the need for livestock, cutting down on agricultural land use and protecting the environment.  The U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization also encourages the consumption of insects and insect-based foods.

In June 2021, WEF also published an article, categorized under “food security,” in which they promote the use of insects, writing we “need to give insects the role they deserve in our food systems.” They justify this proposal by saying it will address an impending food crisis.

In 2021, the European Commission authorized mealworms as food, releasing a news release touting “the growing role that insects will play as part of a healthier, more sustainable diet, as well as the benefits for the environment for years to come.” Victor Davis Hanson, a military historian and almond farmer, notes:

There’s this top-down globalist idea that certain Western countries have diets that they do not approve of. In other words, they’re more meat-based. And they feel that humans don’t need meat-based protein. And they want to either force people to follow their paradigms, or they want to buy or accumulate farmland. And that’s how they’re going to farm it. It’s sort of like the Soviet Union or Mao’s Cultural Revolution. It’s top down. And it results in disasters.

Without farmers, there’s no food

If government and corporate entities are able to take control of the land, they can control the food supply and, with it, the people.

“Everywhere you look small and medium sized farms being gobbled up by these corporate mega farms, because they can’t keep up anymore. They can’t comply with these endless streams of regulations that are coming down,” Newman says.

“We’re seeing that in China now where these giant mechanized corporate, big government-controlled mega farms are displacing all these little small family farms that families have been farming for hundreds of years – in some cases longer.” Without land, people lose their autonomy, freedom and independence. Hanson says:

When the American nation was founded, 95% of the people were homestead citizens. They had their own land, and they were completely independent, autonomous. They raised their own food. They were outspoken, they were economically viable. Farming serves two purposes. It doesn’t just produce food, but it produces citizens.

Ultimately, the war against farmers is a war on the whole of humanity, one that threatens what it means to be free. “We are headed into, I think, a time of very significant food shortages. Can we expect to see massive increases in food prices next year? Oh, no question about it,” Newman says, adding:

I think the end goal of the war on farmers that we’re seeing, which is guided at every step by the sustainable development goals and Agenda 2030, is going to be a total consolidation of agriculture, a total consolidation of the food supply. And as every communist tyrant of the last 100 years understood, if you control the food, you control the people. That’s ultimately the end goal.

Reprinted with permission from Mercola.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Agriculture

EU Farmers Rise Against the Climate Cult

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

BY David ThunderDAVID THUNDER  

The EU Commission is playing a dangerous game. On the one hand, they are attempting to placate farmers by making expedient short-term concessions to them. On the other hand, they are holding fast to their commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions in Europe by 90% by 2040

Many major arteries connecting Europe have been obstructed or brought to a standstill in recent days by a wave of protests by farmers against what they claim are overly burdensome environmental targets and unsustainable levels of bureaucracy associated with EU and national farming regulations.

The warning shots of this showdown between policymakers and farmers had already been fired on 1st October 2019, when more than 2,000 Dutch tractors caused traffic mayhem in the Netherlands in response to an announcement that livestock farms would have to be bought out and shut down to reduce nitrogen emissions. Early last year, Polish farmers blocked the border with the Ukraine demanding the re-imposition of tariffs on Ukrainian grain.

But it was not until early this year that an EU-wide protest was ignited. German and French protests and tractor blockades made international news, and the blockades were soon replicated in Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Greece, Netherlands, and Ireland. Major highways and ports were blocked and manure was poured over government buildings, as farmers across Europe expressed their frustration at rising farming costs, falling prices for their produce, and crippling environmental regulations that made their products uncompetitive in the global market.

It seems the farmers have European elites rattled, which is hardly surprising, given that EU elections are just around the corner. While the European Commission announced Tuesday it was still committed to achieving a 90% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe by 2040, it conspicuously omitted any mention of how the farming sector would contribute to that ambitious target. Even more tellingly, the Commission has backed down or fudged on key climate commitments, at least temporarily.

According to politico, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced on Tuesday that “she was withdrawing an EU effort to rein in pesticide use.” The climbdown on this and other Commission proposals relating to farming was rather embarrassing for the Commission but politically inevitable, given that the protests were spreading rapidly and farmers were showing no signs of going home until their demands were met. As reported by politico,

A note on the possibility of agriculture cutting down on methane and nitrous oxides by 30 percent, which was in earlier drafts of the Commission’s 2040 proposal, was gone by the time it came out on Tuesday. Similarly excised were missives on behavioral change — possibly including eating less meat or dairy — and cutting subsidies for fossil fuels, many of which go to farmers to assist with their diesel costs. Inserted was softer language about the necessity of farming to Europe’s food security and the positive contributions it can make.

The EU Commission is playing a dangerous game. On the one hand, they are attempting to placate farmers by making expedient short-term concessions to them. On the other hand, they are holding fast to their commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions in Europe by 90% by 2040, while fudging on the fact that a 90% emission cut in 16 years would have drastic implications for farming.

It is clearly politically expedient, especially in an election year, to put out this fire of farming discontent as soon as possible, and buy some peace ahead of June’s European elections. But there is no avoiding the fact that the Commission’s long-term environmental goals, as currently conceived, almost certainly require sacrifices that farmers are simply not willing to accept.

Independently from the merits of EU climate policy, two things are clear: first, EU leaders and environmental activists appear to have vastly underestimated the backlash their policies would spark in the farming community; and second, the apparent success of this dramatic EU-wide protest sets a spectacular precedent that will not go unnoticed among farmers and transport companies, whose operating costs are heavily impacted by environmental regulations like carbon taxes.

The Commission’s embarrassing concessions are proof that high-visibility, disruptive tactics can be effective. As such, we can expect more of this after June’s EU elections if the Commission doubles down again on its climate policy goals.

Republished from the author’s Substack

Author

  • David Thunder

    David Thunder is a researcher and lecturer at the University of Navarra’s Institute for Culture and Society in Pamplona, Spain, and a recipient of the prestigious Ramón y Cajal research grant (2017-2021, extended through 2023), awarded by the Spanish government to support outstanding research activities. Prior to his appointment to the University of Navarra, he held several research and teaching positions in the United States, including visiting assistant professor at Bucknell and Villanova, and Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Princeton University’s James Madison Program. Dr Thunder earned his BA and MA in philosophy at University College Dublin, and his Ph.D. in political science at the University of Notre Dame.

Continue Reading

Agriculture

EU backtracks on key green agenda measures following widespread farmers’ protests

Published on

Ursula von der Leyen

From LifeSiteNews

By Andreas Wailzer

European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen announced that the EU will remove the provision to reduce emissions by 90% by 2040, as well as its plan to cut pesticide use by 50% by 2030 from its ‘Net Zero’ plan, among other concessions.

The European Union (EU) has backtracked on some of its green agenda measures in response to the large-scale farmers’ protests. 

On Tuesday, February 6, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen announced that the EU will remove the provision to reduce emissions by 90% by 2040, as well as its plan to cut pesticide use by 50% by 2030 from its “Net Zero” plan. To quell the rage of farmers, the EU also agreed to water down its plans for so-called animal welfare and the restrictions on land use for agricultural purposes. 

“Our farmers deserve to be listened to,” von der Leyen told the European Parliament on Tuesday, the Telegraph reports. 

“I know that they are worried about the future of agriculture and their future as farmers.” 

“But they also know that agriculture needs to move to a more sustainable model of production so that their farms remain profitable in the years to come,” the Commission President added. 

She admitted the plan to cut pesticide use had become a “symbol of polarization.” 

Last week, the continent-wide protests reached the heart of Europe as farmers arrived with their tractors in front of the European Parliament in Brussels. 

The protest in Brussels happened in the context of a continent-wide uprising, including in France, where 10,000 farmers erected more than 100 blockades on important roads across the country. Farmer protests also took place in various other countries, including SpainPortugalItalyGreeceGermanyScotland and Ireland. 

German MEP and president of the neo-conservative European People’s Party (EPP) Manfred Weber expressed his concern that farmers might vote for right-wing, anti-globalist parties in the upcoming election. 

“We always realized that farmers are citizens and don’t want Left-wing ideologies that dictate everything to them,” Weber said in the European Parliament on February 6. 

Dutch political commentator Eva Vlaadingerbroek wrote on X, formerly Twitter to say: 

This is good news because it shows that protesting WORKS and putting pressure on our overlords WORKS. However, just dropping the requirements for 2040 is not enough. The entire agenda has to go. The Green Deal and the NetZero scam has to go. We’ve won a battle, not the war. 

Continue Reading

Trending

X