Why Rockefellers Aim at Destroying Farmers Worldwide?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
FA Note:  The realities of agribusiness, as described below, put the lie to the need for “Sustainable Agriculture” as promoted by Agenda 21. Local farmers are told they must eschew any mechanized equipment, even a small tractor, for instance; and each community may only raise (and expect to eat) what can be produced in their local microclimate, without the aid of fossil fuels and coal- or hydro-generated electricity. Ultimately, under Agenda 21, agribusiness will control our access to food.

garden-tilling-4-22-300x189For the bet­ter part of the past cen­tu­ry West­ern pop cul­ture has sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly den­i­grat­ed and deval­ued what should be the most hon­ored pro­fes­sion of all. Those who labor with the land, day-in and day-out, to deliv­er the food that we eat have assumed a social sta­tus too often sim­i­lar to the dirt of the soil they till. No one stops to ask a sim­ple ques­tion: What do we do when we have killed off all our farm­ers?

Some of the more naïve city-dwellers would retort with lit­tle reflec­tion, “But we have indus­tri­al­ized food pro­duc­tion; we don’t need man­u­al farm labor today.”

Indeed, the num­bers are impres­sive.

Let’s take my home­land, the Unit­ed States of Amer­i­ca. In 1950, a time of gen­er­al pros­per­i­ty and strong eco­nom­ic growth, the total US pop­u­la­tion was 151,132,000 and the farm pop­u­la­tion was 25,058,000 mak­ing farm­ers just over 12% of the total labor force. There were 5,388,000 farms with an aver­age size of about 87 hectares. Forty years lat­er, in 1990, the year the Sovi­et Union col­lapsed and the Cold War end­ed, the USA had a total pop­u­la­tion of 261,423,000 of which the farm pop­u­la­tion num­bered just under three mil­lion, 2,987,552, mak­ing farm­ers a mere 2.6% of the total labor force. The num­ber of farms had shrunk to only 2,143,150, a loss of 60%, but because of indus­tri­al con­cen­tra­tion, aver­age size was 187 hectares.

Rockefeller’s Agribusi­ness Rev­o­lu­tion

What we are told, those of us whose rela­tion to meat, dairy, fruits and veg­eta­bles ends at the super­mar­ket, is that this is a great progress, the lib­er­a­tion of almost 23 mil­lion farm work­ers to get city jobs and live a bet­ter life.

It isn’t that sim­ple.

We are not told the true effects on food qual­i­ty that has been cre­at­ed by the mech­a­niza­tion and indus­tri­al­iza­tion of food pro­duc­tion in Amer­i­ca since the Har­vard Busi­ness School, on a grant from the Rock­e­feller Foun­da­tion, began what they termed “agribusi­ness,” the con­ver­sion of our food sup­ply into a pure for-prof­it ver­ti­cal­ly inte­grat­ed busi­ness mod­elled on the Rock­e­feller oil car­tel.

The rais­ing of hogs, dairy cows, beef cat­tle, chick­en all became indus­tri­al­ized grad­u­al­ly after the 1950’s in the USA. The baby chicks were con­fined to spaces so tiny they could bare­ly stand. To make them get fat faster, the own­ers would pump them full of antibi­otics and feed them a diet of GMO corn and soya meal. Accord­ing to the Nat­ur­al Resources Defense Coun­cil, 80 per­cent of all antibi­otics sold in the Unit­ed States are for use on live­stock and poul­try, not humans. The major­i­ty are giv­en to ani­mals mixed in their food or water to speed growth. After all, time is mon­ey.

The tra­di­tion­al fam­i­ly farmer, of the sort my late grand­fa­ther was in North Dako­ta pri­or to the First World War, was dri­ven large­ly from the land by USDA Gov­ern­ment pol­i­cy, pol­i­cy that favored indus­tri­al­iza­tion regard­less of the qual­i­ty of food nutri­ent that result­ed. Trac­tors became com­put­er­ized, mam­moth machines dri­ven by GPS. One such trac­tor could work remote­ly and do the work of many farm­ers of old.

The result was finan­cial­ly fabulous….for the indus­try owners—ADM, Cargill, Mon­san­to, for the pack­agers like Kraft Foods, Kel­log­gs, Nes­tle, Unilever, Toepfer, Mag­gi. The Amer­i­can Rock­e­feller-Har­vard “agribusi­ness” busi­ness mod­el was glob­al­ized, begin­ning with the GATT nego­ti­a­tions of the Uruguay Round of trade lib­er­al­iza­tion in the late 1980s where the EU dropped much of its tra­di­tion­al pro­tec­tion of domes­tic farm­ers in favor of free trade in agri­cul­ture prod­ucts.

Dur­ing the late 1980’s as the Uruguay Round of GATT trade nego­ti­a­tions was about to give US agribusi­ness giants what they wanted—freedom to rape the EU and oth­er pro­tect­ed agri­cul­ture mar­kets with their high­ly effi­cient prod­ucts, to destroy mil­lions of EU farm­ers who had farmed with a pas­sion for gen­er­a­tions, I went to Brus­sels to make a back­ground inter­view as a jour­nal­ist with a high-lev­el EU Com­mis­sion bureau­crat respon­si­ble for agri­cul­ture. He was an appar­ent­ly well-edu­cat­ed, mul­ti-lin­gual bureau­crat, Dan­ish-born as he not­ed. He argued in defense of free trade by declar­ing, “Why should I pay tax­es from Den­mark so that Bavar­i­an farm­ers on their tiny plots of land can remain in busi­ness?”

The answer, which I kept to myself then, was sim­ply because the tra­di­tion­al fam­i­ly farmer is unique­ly suit­ed to medi­ate with nature and us to pro­duce food that is healthy for humans and ani­mals to eat. No machine can replace the per­son­al ded­i­ca­tion or pas­sion that I have seen again and again in every farmer I have met who tru­ly cares about his live­stock or crops.

Now the very same very rich and very love­less peo­ple, I call them the Amer­i­can Oli­garchs, are sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly doing every­thing to destroy the human food qual­i­ty. Clear­ly in my view, they are doing so with a goal of mass pop­u­la­tion reduc­tion. There is no oth­er rea­son the Rock­e­feller Foun­da­tion would spend hun­dreds of mil­lions of (tax exempt) dol­lars to cre­ate GMO tech­niques, to sup­port Mon­san­to and oth­er chem­i­cal giants like DuPont, clear­ly know­ing they are slow­ly poi­son­ing the pop­u­la­tion to an ear­ly death.

Depress­ing pes­ti­cides

This has been demon­strat­ed in inde­pen­dent tests regard­ing the tox­ic effects on ani­mals and even human cells in an embryo. Now, inde­pen­dent even of GMO crops, new tests show that ordi­nary pes­ti­cide chem­i­cals sprayed by farm work­ers or farm­ers on crops cause neu­ro­log­i­cal damage—depression, Parkin­sons’ and even suicide—to the farm­ers or farm work­ers using the dead­ly chem­i­cals.

The US Nation­al Insti­tute of Envi­ron­men­tal Health Sci­ences in their land­mark Agri­cul­tur­al Health Study stud­ied a group of 89,000 farm­ers and oth­er pes­ti­cide appli­ca­tors in Iowa and North Car­oli­na. The mam­moth study con­clud­ed that, “use of two pes­ti­cide class­es, fumi­gants and organochlo­rine insec­ti­cides, and sev­en indi­vid­ual pesticides—the fumi­gants alu­minum phos­phide and eth­yl­ene dibro­mide; the phe­noxy her­bi­cide (2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)acetic acid (2,4,5-T); the organochlo­rine insec­ti­cide dield­rin; and the organophos­phate insec­ti­cides diazi­non, malathion, and parathion—were all pos­i­tive­ly asso­ci­at­ed with depres­sion in each case group.”

The study showed that farm­ers with the high­est num­ber of life­time expo­sure days to pes­ti­cides were 50 per­cent more like­ly to lat­er have a depres­sion diag­no­sis.

The research linked long-term use of pes­ti­cides to high­er rates of depres­sion and sui­cide. Evi­dence also sug­gests that pes­ti­cide poi­son­ing – a heavy dose in a short amount of time – dou­bles the risk of depres­sion.

After sup­press­ing the effects among farm fam­i­lies for years about the result­ing depres­sion and relat­ed neu­ro­log­i­cal symp­toms, farm­ers and their fam­i­lies have begun speak­ing out. Lorann Stal­lones, an epi­demi­ol­o­gist and psy­chol­o­gy pro­fes­sor at Col­orado State Uni­ver­si­ty says, “There’s been a shift – part­ly because there’s more peo­ple talk­ing about being men­tal­ly inca­pac­i­tat­ed.”

Epi­demi­ol­o­gist Freya Kamel and her col­leagues report­ed that among 19,000 stud­ied, “those who used two class­es of pes­ti­cides and sev­en indi­vid­ual pes­ti­cides were more like­ly to have been diag­nosed with depres­sion. Those who used organochlo­rine insec­ti­cides were up to 90 per­cent more like­ly to have been diag­nosed with depres­sion than those who hadn’t used them. For fumi­gants, the increased risk was up to 80 per­cent.

In France, farm­ers who used her­bi­cides were near­ly twice as like­ly to have been treat­ed for depres­sion as those who didn’t use her­bi­cides, accord­ing to a study pub­lished in 2013. The study of 567 French farm­ers found that the risk was even greater when the her­bi­cide appli­ca­tors had been doing it for more than 19 years.

In short, we are destroy­ing the nutri­tion­al val­ue of the food we eat and slow­ly destroy­ing the remain­ing farm­ers respon­si­ble for cul­ti­vat­ing that. It is a recipe for the ulti­mate extinc­tion of life on the plan­et as we know it. No, that is not an exag­ger­a­tion.

I firm­ly believe that hon­est, nature-con­scious organ­ic farm­ers ought to receive sig­nif­i­cant tax breaks to encour­age oth­er farm­ers to leave the grotesque agribusi­ness mod­el behind and return to grow­ing or rais­ing hon­est food again as they did only a few short decades ago. And severe­ly high tax­a­tion ought to be imposed on farm­ers who use proven tox­ic chem­i­cals like Roundup by Mon­san­to or the neon­i­coti­noids like Bay­er AG’s Con­fi­dor, Gau­cho or Advo­cate, or Pon­cho, or Syngenta’s Actara, Plat­inum or Cruis­er to name just the most sold.

Right now our reg­u­la­tors in the EU and USA do every­thing to dis­cour­age that, some­thing actu­al­ly quite stu­pid, unless, of course, some love­less, pow­er-addict­ed oli­garchs sit­ting atop their moun­tain, look­ing con­temp­tu­ous­ly down on us nor­mal folk, have decid­ed that’s just what they desire. If so, it’s up to us to stop look­ing up to those on the moun­tain and look at what we our­selves have accept­ed as nor­mal, that is slow­ly killing us and the farm­ers who feed us. Maybe the time has come to change that unhealthy sit­u­a­tion.