"Liberty consists in the division of power. Absolutism, in concentration of power." Lord Acton
In the race to the bottom, not all the runners and riders are proceeding at the same pace; some have barely left the starting gate and others are content to trot rather than gallop, hoping that the contest will soon be abandoned. The discerning will not be surprised to learn that, in general, the most enthusiastic advocates of the Green Agenda are also the countries that were in the vanguard of the Covid autocracy – namely, the West and their bosom buddies in the Antipodes, plus Japan.
It's tempting to conclude that this unevenness is due to the progressive bent of the globalists who dominate the governments of the G20 and the EU and who, whether nominally Left or Right, are uniformly of a personality type that is both forceful and amoral, akin to a collective sociopathy that won't take 'no' for an answer. They can glimpse the Promised Land in the middle distance – a place where they'll get to indulge themselves in whatever fashion they choose, while the rest of us pretend to be happy about the fact that we no longer own anything (the pretending part is the cherry on top for them) – and they're gearing up for the final push.
Elsewhere, across the smörgåsbord of other ruling entities, matters are not so clear cut. In some, Western influence holds sway due to the uniformly corrupting efforts of the IMF and the World Bank (amongst others), whose usual MO is to persuade/coerce the local ruling elite to mortgage their natural resources and state enterprises against an unsustainable national debt and then blackmail them into ESG compliance.
The precise method is as follows. First, send in an 'economic hit man', tasked with pressuring the president of a target country into accepting a vast loan from the World Bank or the IMF – both UN entities. The loan is to be spent on infrastructure projects that will be assigned to American firms. As such, the money never actually makes it as far as the country itself, although some of it will find its way into the offshore account of the president. Then the loan will prove impossible to service. This is because the hit man has written reports that deliberately overstate the future GDP of the country in question. Thus, come the time, there are insufficient funds to repay the interest.
The loan is reconfigured, with the result that more interest will eventually become due. In order to get out from under, the country is often forced to devalue its currency and then sell its valuable infrastructure, utility companies, healthcare system, education systems, sometimes even prisons to the overseas companies who performed the original work.
In others, ironically the more despotic, such tactics are often less effective, as the soft underbelly of 'democracy' cannot be so easily exploited. These are usually the countries which are most afflicted by repeated color revolutions, particularly if they are blessed with resources. Needless to say, unless they have little to no choice, there is little incentive to crater their own economies in pursuit of nonsensical 'climate change' goals (most people outside the Western bubble are not in thrall to the cult) and leave themselves vulnerable to a genuine coup attempt.
The disparity between the two groups (the captured and the yet to be captured) allows for the existence of what are, effectively, control samples. Most countries will find that these samples are positioned upstream and downstream – places where there are more disastrous effects of climate change policies and places where there are less. However, there are a handful of basket cases and several more heading rapidly in that direction and, as cautionary tales, they are hard to beat.
Of the many potential outcomes made possible by the global warming scam, as set out in my last offering, the most fundamental and immediate is the certainty of famine, either as a result of economic collapse or as a direct consequence of the actions of rapacious financial institutions that are using ESG requirements to impose austerity on those least able to survive it.
Two countries, in particular, serve as an example of the way in which ESG (and the drive to lower emissions) is wrecking economies and inflicting unnecessary hardship; Sri Lanka and Ghana. Both have outstanding scores on the Emissions Index – 98.1% and 97.7% respectively (100% would represent perfection) – and both are fubar.
Sri Lanka was still doing fine economically prior to 2020, with GDP growth of between 3% and 4%. However, in April 2021 the country's rulers instituted a chemical fertiliser ban on the advice of Western elites. There was no plan B, no gradual transition. The effects were, unsurprisingly, rapidly apparent. One third of the country's farm lands were needlessly dormant in 2021 – within six months rice production had contracted by 20% and prices had risen by 50%. The family farms in the most fertile areas reported a 50-60% shortfall in crop yield. As a result, the country was obliged to spend $450 million importing rice, having previously been self sufficient.
Yet even a disaster such as this wasn't the most impactful effect of the 'transition'. The biggest problem, in terms of the viability of Sri Lanka as a nation, came in tea production. The country exported $1.3 billion annually and this money paid for 71% of the food that Sri Lanka imported. But the fertiliser ban caused further shortfalls in tea production, which fell 18% between November 2021 and February this year. The knock on effect of that was to destroy the country's ability to pay for food and fuel and to service its debt.(1) The Sri Lankan government reversed the fertiliser ban in November 2021, but it was already too late.(2)
In May last year, it reneged on a foreign debt repayment and the sorry sequence of events that follows such a default played out in typical fashion – the government couldn't borrow money, it therefore devalued its currency, inflation rose 30% and the government ran out of cash anyway. So, in attempting to obtain the highest possible ESG emissions score – in order to attract investment, presumably – the government had, in fact, ensured that it was now unable to borrow any money at all.
Figure 1
The country is still not out of the clutches of the institutions that encouraged its downfall. In March this year, the IMF stepped in with a four year loan of $3 billion, although Sri Lanka still owes $51 billion in foreign debt, $28 billion of which is due by 2027.(3) Whenever the IMF starts bandying around phrases like “ambitious economic programme” and “reform momentum”, it's wise to have a close look at the fine print. Sure enough, as per the standard operating procedure, austerity measures and budget cuts are the weapons of choice. The country is still enmeshed in the debt trap, which is how the US backed international financial system likes it.
Ghana isn't having much luck either. Until 2014, it was one of the world's fastest growing economies and a net exporter of energy. Then the government made the fateful decision to accept a loan from the World Bank and things went rapidly downhill.(4) The country had already been obliged to sign up to the Paris Climate Accords, a sure-fire indicator that woke environmental policy was about to become entrenched. Sure enough, Ghana immediately began an 'energy transformation' towards renewables but, as with Sri Lanka, ideology trumped practicalities.
Fertilizer supplies are now scanty, due in large part to the government's refusal to pay its debts to the suppliers, plus its obligation to abide by the austerity measures imposed by the lender.(5) The result is the slow moving, looming disaster that threatens many nations – upcoming food shortages that will soon become obvious. This is on top of the energy grid shutdowns that are another inevitable result of chasing an ESG score. Once again, the IMF has intervened with a $3 billion loan, provided that the government institutes (wait for it) “ a wide ranging economic reform programme”,(6) otherwise known as an austerity drive against its own people. This on top of overall rate of inflation of 54.1%, a number which is still gilding the lily somewhat, given that electricity, water, gas and home prices were up 82.3% year on year.
It is axiomatic that affordable energy is the major prerequisite for economic growth – it therefore follows that limiting access to it ought to be anathema. Nevertheless, this is what the West is doing at the least propitious time. I say 'least propitious', but I should acknowledge the subjectivity of the statement; not everyone may think so. In fact, it's entirely possible that a significant number of globalists may, instead, see an opportunity although, once more, more precision of expression is perhaps required. 'Opportunity', in this context, tends to infer taking advantage of an unexpected gift-horse, akin to never letting a crisis go to waste, rather than it being the end stage of an orchestrated plan – the equivalent of taking advantage of a deliberately engineered crisis. How can it be anything else?
It's the oldest game in town and the globalists have so far played their hand to perfection. They have lent 'emerging' nations money at interest rates that are unsustainable and for purposes that add nothing of value to any continent's economies – the money has been used to service existing debt and to pay for current bills. When the inevitable manufactured crisis hoves into view – the 'pandemic' leavened with the apocalyptic 'global warming', on this occasion – countries flounder, especially when lock-downs are a feature.
But, while the World Bank and the IMF have used the climate change narrative with prejudice when it suits, they have also frequently elided it in the pursuit of profit;
“Since the Paris Agreement, $4 billion or 35 per cent of WBG fossil fuel assistance has gone to eight middle and high income countries, instead of the low-income countries they purport to be assisting.”(7)
Astonishingly, if one were to still be naïve enough to believe what they say, they are also financing two huge coal-burning power stations in South Africa, too;(8) while, simultaneously, Biden has a plan to pay the country $8 billion to shut down its existing power stations and replace them with green energy alternatives,(9) thus reducing an already diminished infrastructure still more – the country is already suffering from rolling blackouts of up to nine hours a day.(10) Further,
“... a new report released in March 2021 found that only 5 out of 37 energy-focused operations between 2017 and 2020 involved establishing new household connections to electricity.”(11)
Despite this heretical funding of fossil fuels,
“...a new analysis finds that since the Paris Climate Agreement, 75 percent of the World Bank Group’s gas project finance does not expand energy access.”(12)
None of which should be in any way surprising. This economic neo-colonialism has long been a feature in Africa, but now it just so happens that the club that is wielded currently is Net Zero (if profitable); another stick to beat the poorer nations with. Then again, when there is the possibility of accessing huge profits without the need for an IMF softening up first, Western fossil fuel companies are very keen to stand at the head of the queue. Just this weekend, news surfaced that ExxonMobil and Chevron are in advanced talks with the Algerians for exploration and production deals for the country's huge natural gas reserves and their estimated third largest global shale gas reserves.(13) If anyone thinks that the globalists truly believe in climate change, stories such as these ought to provide a compelling counterpoint.
If our lords and masters were truly interested in solving problems, rather than creating them, one of the actions they wouldn't undertake would be paying the African Union $2.5 billion to not produce fertiliser; but that's what the G7 countries are doing because, of course, investing in African energy development companies (the industry that creates the components for nitrogen based fertilizers) clashes with climate change goals.
So Africa will just have to content itself with a reliance on the largesse of the West, rather than attaining food independence. The latter is entirely possible and would mean that billions of dollars and pounds and euros could be diverted to the home front instead – or perhaps, not magicked into existence in the first place, thus reducing inflationary pressure.(14) I'm not making this stuff up;
“...the EU Commission explicitly opposed” any effort to enhance African fertilizer development, “warning that supporting fertilizer production in developing nations would be inconsistent with the EU energy and environment policies.”(15)
Because the EU gets to decide what happens in Africa, yes? They certainly seem to think so, as they are also trying to stop the construction of the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline between Tanzania and Uganda, a vital element in Uganda's transition to middle-income status. These actions are contemporaneous with what even Reuters (a shill for the Left) acknowledges is an unfolding disaster;
“Across Africa, from east to west, people are experiencing a food crisis that is bigger and more complex than the continent has ever seen, say diplomats and humanitarian workers.”(16)
Somalia, Ethiopia and parts of Kenya are particularly at risk. A prolonged La Niña event, which has compromised the past four years' worth of rainy seasons hasn't helped matters, either; naturally, the climate cultists' message to the wider world is that climate change is responsible, but it isn't. The following three charts offer some clues as to what the problem isn't and also part of what it is.
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
So, no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and rainfall and a big correlation between a relatively stable water supply and an exploding population. In such circumstances, efficient agricultural processes – which would necessarily utilize fertilizers – ought to be priority number one. But the West clearly doesn't want that to happen, nor do they want to spent money on famine relief. The UN held a pledging event last week, seeking $7 billion in extra aid, and only managed to wangle $2.4 billion out of its affiliates, even though the climate narrative was ironically turned against them. Apparently, the current orthodoxy holds that 92% of global CO2 emissions come from the Global North,(17) and the Secretary General was not slow to play the blame game:
“People in the Horn of Africa are paying an unconscionable price for a climate crisis they did nothing to cause. We owe them solidarity. We owe them assistance. And we owe them a measure of hope for the future. This means immediate action to secure their survival. And it means sustained action to help communities across the Horn adapt and build resilience to climate change.”(18)
It seems, however, that the West has short arms and long pockets. Or, if we wish to be charitable, the Americans have nothing left after shelling out $854 billion on their military and another $130 billion plus on their proxy war in Ukraine,(19) although this doesn't seem to have impacted their desire to meddle in the politics of the region, nor to take direct action when it deems it appropriate. Indeed, the US has been explicitly involved in Somalia since the 1970s, alternately supplying arms or humanitarian aid while the conflict that they were enabling displaced millions of people. None of this was altruistic, however:
“Throughout our involvement with Somalia, our overriding strategic objective was simply to acquire and maintain the capability to respond to any military contingency that could threaten U.S. interests in the Middle East, Northeast Africa and the Red Sea area.”(20)
Indeed, the US currently has 900 troops in the country (allegedly – it could be many more) and they are spending millions on military infrastructure, so there's clearly money available for projects viewed as priorities.(21) Other African countries have also attracted the US eye in the recent past, to the extent that American commandos have seen combat in at least 13 countries on the continent in the 2010s, including Tunisia, Cameroon and Kenya.(22) They've also been busy instilling their “core values” into tens of thousands of African military officers, a significant proportion of which have then gone on to stage at least eight coup d'état attempts, upon their subsequent return to their home countries.(23)
In short, it seems that neither America nor the rest of the West is in the slightest bit interested in the welfare of those most at risk of famine; in fact, their efforts serve to further undermine them. Rather, American involvement in Africa (both militarily and through their civilian proxies at international financial institutions - IFI's) is spurred by imperial ambition and power projection instead and the 'climate crisis' is deployed as leverage when needed and ignored when invoking it would neuter profits. The West has got Africa in a choke-hold currently and it's perfectly content to keep the pressure on.
While the African nations are caught in a debt-austerity trap, others (mostly Western, but including Indonesia, which somehow thinks that accepting $20 billion dollars worth of help from the likes of Denmark and Norway to transition to wind and solar is going to make the country economically viable)(24) find that their leaders are willingly committing national hari-kari. First amongst equals, in that regard, is the Netherlands.
In October 2022, the government announced that it would be obliged to close down 500-600 Dutch farms which had been identified as 'peak loaders' of nitrogen and which were also located near nature reserves, so designated by an EU that has taken it upon itself the right to assign protective status to 18% of Europe's land mass (Natura 2000), most of it privately owned; as you do – because, as we all ought to have realised by now, the environment is more important than humanity.(25)
And that's just the beginning; by 2030 the UN wants to up that figure to 30% of both the lands and the oceans.(26) This is considered a vital undertaking because the Earth's biodiversity needs our help, according to the UN – what they would like us to believe it definitely isn't, is simply a land-grab from self-sufficient rural communities. The following is an especially vacuous example of evidence-free progressive speak, which always seems devoid of both originality and any hint of a rhetorical flourish;
“Nature is declining at alarming rates. In 2019, a landmark report from the UN's expert nature panel found that up to 1 million land and marine species face extinction because of human actions. Some scientists say that the earth is entering the sixth mass extinction, driven by human actions including deforestation, burning fossil fuels and polluting rivers and oceans.”(27)
All of which is a prime example of the usual cult-like hatred of mankind, but is also more grist to the EU's mill. The Commission thus awards itself the prize of legislating away agriculture that abuts these habitats and the Rutte government has been identified as the tip of the EU spear, in that regard. For some reason time is short, which is a tediously common refrain among the cultists, but usually when referring to the looming onset of runaway global warming rather than the preservation of nature reserves, all of which gives rise to a suspicion that yet another Trojan horse is trundling onto centre stage;
“There are no longer any good routes available for the short-term approach. The least bad route is a targeted closure of 500 to 600 peak polluters within a year...”(27)
intoned the government appointed mediator. Within a couple of months, the number of farms slated for peremptory closure had risen to 3,000 in a textbook example of the mission creep beloved of political elites.(28) By way of a companion piece, there was also a fine example of doubling down, whereby the regime asserted that the relevant farms would be expropriated by the state if the farmers proved recalcitrant. The regime clearly believed that an offer of 120% of the farm's valuation was more than fair. That and a declaration that
“...the beneficiaries guarantee that the closure of their production capacity is definitive and irreversible, and that they will not start the same breeding activity elsewhere in the Netherlands or within the EU.”(29)
One would think that, if the government was unable to coerce a farmer into giving up a farm that has usually been in the family for many generations and “learn to code” instead, there would be an expectation of a battle in court – which might takes several years. It seems that the regime, which is tasked with upholding the rule of law, lest we forget, may be seeking to subvert it. It wouldn't be difficult to drown the farmers in yet more regulations and then refuse to renew their licenses, which is a tactic that is already being deployed.
As well as indulging their latent authoritarianism, Rutte and co are also guilty of incoherence in their advocacy, as they have somehow conflated the nature reserve nitrogen 'crisis' with the need to cut nitrogen emissions by 50% come a specific date, 2030.(30) 2030 is a frequently invoked year, lately – always in connection with the reduction in GHG emissions and the imposition of Agenda 21. So, it's obvious that this move has nothing much to do with Natura 2000 and everything to do with the usual Net Zero nonsense, which is deeply ironic given that Dutch farmers are the most advanced in the world, both in terms of innovation and in their husbanding of resources.
They had already reduced their nitrogen emissions by 70% while increasing meat production; they did the same for crops. Indeed,
“...since the early 1960s, the Netherlands has doubled its yields while using the same amount of fertilizer. While rich nations produce 70 percent higher yields than poor nations, they use just 54 percent more nitrogen.”(31)(32)
The Dutch countryside is littered with high tech farms, large numbers of them comprised of a sea of greenhouses.
Figure 5
They use LED lighting to permit 24 hour cultivation in climate controlled greenhouses. They use hydroponics instead of soil. Even the WEF was a fan, back in 2019. The farm illustrated in Figure 6 occupies 14 hectares, but still produces 100 million tomatoes a year. As per Schwab's website:
“Duijvestijn Tomatoes is an example of sustainable, innovative agriculture. Since 2011, it has been using geothermal energy to heat its greenhouses, and the plants grow in a hydroponic system to use less water.The tomatoes are grown in small bags of rockwool substrate, made from spinning together molten basaltic rock into fine fibres, which contains nutrients and allows the plants to soak up water even when moisture levels are low. No pesticides are used and the farm pipes waste CO2 into the greenhouses from a local Shell oil refinery, which the plants need to grow, and which reduces the carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere. The greenhouse has a double glass roof to conserve heat as well as LED lights, which means the plants can keep growing through the night.”(33)
Figure 6
You might think that, given all the above plus having the imprimatur “sustainable” bestowed upon it (and others like it), farms like these might prove immune to the cultists' dicta. And it is likely that plant food production may not be in the cross-hairs immediately; that dubious privilege is reserved for the dairy and livestock farmers who, within a handful of years, would find that around 11,200 (of the 35,000) would have to close entirely and a further 17,600 would have to reduce livestock – total livestock would be reduced by a third to a half.(34) But they'll come for all farms in the end, no matter how efficient, because urban living is a non-negotiable tenet of their ideology.
This for a nation that, in its desperation to prove its green credentials, has even introduced the concept of a floating dairy farm in Rotterdam harbor which is almost entirely self sustaining, using local restaurants food waste and which uses less water, less chemicals, and no land space. But, no. Still not good enough. The Dutch regime has no need of technological innovation – of a budget of $25.7 billion for pollution reduction, $24.7 billion is for seizing farms and shutting them down.(35)
Figure 7
The Dutch farmers protest that they are having to shoulder the burden of GHG emissions reduction, while industry gets a free pass. This is true, but misses the point on several levels.
Figure 8
In the first instance, the debate isn't about genuine climate change. There is no evidence that a detrimental relationship exists between man made GHG emissions and global warming. The unfailing historical trend is for temperatures to rise first, followed by the concentration of atmospheric CO2. The most likely source of this extra CO2 is the oceans, which disgorge carbon dioxide when they warm. Additionally,
“...what is usually overlooked though is that since the beginning of industrialisation, most of the CO2 emitted (57%)* has been taken up by natural processes. In fact, while emissions from fossil fuels, cement production and deforestation have been growing exponentially (at 1.65% a year since 1850), my own research has found that natural sinks on land and in the ocean have been almost exactly keeping up with growth.”(36)
In any event, more atmospheric CO2 would be a boon, as would a temperature rise of 1.5°C . We're in an interglacial; extra heat is good. Given this information (and the additional fact that the Earth hasn't warmed in over 20 years), the climate crisis is simply cover for another agenda. The farmers almost certainly know this and pretending otherwise does them no favors, as they are locked in a fight to the death but they're still pulling their punches.
They might also be well advised to observe that the entire narrative around methane and climate change is fundamentally untrue. Ruminant methane, as a GHG, is virtually irrelevant; methane is part of the biogenic methane cycle which has existed since time immemorial. It takes around 10 years to be converted into CO2 and is then recycled into grass. No new carbon is created.
Figure 9
Instead of complaining that industry ought to be compelled to do their bit with emissions reduction, they ought to be pointing out that a) anthropogenic climate change is a mirage and b) that the furore clearly isn't about emissions but about targeting farmers and national (and global) food supplies because, aside from the victimization of one segment of society for no valid reason, there is a further effect of arguably greater importance. The Netherlands is the second largest food exporter in the world, after the US, with well over $100 billion in sales in 2022.(37) Purely in terms of meat exports, the country is the Earth's biggest exporter, with its farms holding 97 million livestock animals.(38) It's clear, therefore, that severely curtailing Dutch productivity will have an impact far beyond its own borders.
So far then, in addition to introducing policies that inevitably resulted in huge increases in energy costs prior to the war in Ukraine (and then, in turn, in fertiliser costs as energy is the primary expense in its production) – which has had a disproportionate effect on low-income countries – the West's governments and IFI's have also been busy decarbonizing those economies and also doing their best to nobble food production in their own hemisphere. It's not just the Dutch being targeted; it's an EU plan at heart, after all. The Germans and Belgians aren't far behind.
Figure 10
The Irish aren't behind – they are jostling for the honour of leading the rest of us over the precipice. At present, they have plans to cull 200,000 cows over three years so that they might reach the same EU mandated climate change goals.(39) They also want to:
“Plant up to 86,500 acres of land for forestry per year, up from the current target of 20,000 acres per annum, bringing the country to a total of 875,000 hectares of land under forestry by 2050;
Re-wet 90% – or up to 302,000 hectares – of land that is reclaimed from peat lands for agricultural use;
Reduce by 30% the number of livestock such as cows, goats and sheep;
Increase by 30% the use of technology in the agricultural sector to reduce methane emissions.”(40)
As is usual in all Net Zero knee jerk policies, there is no attempt to conduct a risk/reward analysis, or to specify where the missing food might be obtained from instead. The Irish taxpayer has another little treat in store, too; $2.1 billion tax dollars will be spent, enabling the transfer of Irish farmland to investment funds for reforestation.(41) That's right – public funds will be squandered on transferring land to private businesses. Nice work if you can get it.
There is a postscript to the Dutch situation. It is well known that the UN and self-proclaimed experts like Bill Gates believe that we must reduce our meat consumption by 50% by 2050,(42) and replace it with a suitable alternative of their choosing:
“Crickets use 15x less water, 12x less feed and 14x less land than beef, while delivering 3x more protein and releasing virtually no greenhouse gases. Livestock production is one of the world's most environmentally damaging industries contributing more greenhouse gases than cars, planes and all other forms of transportation combined. Crickets have 3x more protein than beef, 1.5x more calcium than milk, 15% more iron than spinach, as much omega 3's as salmon and 30 times more B12 than beef.”(43)
And why is beef really in the cross hairs? Well, it's obviously a great provider of protein, which is a source of some disquiet to the climate alarmists and those who exploit them. Beef is an easy target for the cultists. So far, so predictable, even if we know how three different reasons for the assault on Dutch farming. There may very well be a fourth, though.
Plans are afoot for a cross border city called Tristate City, which will subsume much of the Netherlands, as well as part of Belgium and a small part of Germany. The regime denies it; it's already given its reasoning for the prospective farm seizures and, in their view, it is incumbent upon us to believe their patent BS, rather than utilizing our grey matter. I cannot say how far along this proposal is, but it has been in development for at least seven years.(44) Certainly, there doesn't seem to be much room in the plan for rural farming – the scheme calls for vertical farming in the area of Brabant -(45) and it also ticks a number of other boxes.
Figure 11
The drive towards Agenda 2130, urban living, transit villages and the like is well established. This involves, necessarily, the emptying of the countryside. Tristate city certainly looks like that is one of its aims, too. Removing autonomy and self-sufficiency from independent-minded country-dwellers is a goal of our globalist elites, as per UN directives. Coincidentally (not), there is also a scheme called Cities2030, funded by the EU, which is urgently seeking solutions to challenges that are either overstated, don't exist or have been deliberately manufactured, such as;
“...population overgrowth, rapid urbanization, vast migration phenomena, climate change and resources scarcity.”(46)
Apparently, this will entail the re-imagining of our consumption patterns and “futureproofing urban food systems”.(47) One would imagine this would include lab grown food, which is an enduring obsession of the ruling elites. It does seem somewhat unlikely that a number of stars are aligned; the proposed seizure of farms on a spurious premise, the exclusion of industry from any emission's sanctions, the existence of the Tristate city plan and the Cities2030 pilots; plus, of course, the fact that a cross-border city would be a globalist wet dream, inasmuch as it hammers yet another nail into the concept of national sovereignty, and Europe has long been a magnet for “undocumented asylum seekers” (illegal immigrants, to you and me) and they are all going to have to live somewhere. In short, it could easily turn out to be yet another 'conspiracy theory' that subsequently proves to have been true all along.
We should expect the situation in the Netherlands to degrade further, because there isn't any downside for the government, other than the vehement opposition of the farmers and their supporters. If the state can brutalize them, when the time comes, then they will. Electorally, they are near bullet-proof and here's why.
Political opposition in Holland is limited to the PVV, a right wing Eurosceptic party which favors small government and a policy on immigration which emphasizes a degree of control, as opposed to open borders; not, in any way, extreme political views worthy of ensure. Nonetheless, they will need to win 51% of the vote on their own in order to serve in government, as all the other political parties have refused to work with them.
The Rutte governments, allegedly center right politically, have formed various coalitions with three parties of the left or center left to remain in power. The result is policies such as being pro-EU, liberalism on the legalization of drugs, the expansion of euthanasia, universal health care and internationalism; none of which are center right policies. As long as, between them, they have enough seats for a majority, they will continually snub the Right and govern as socialists/globalists.
They've also been busy removing any other guardrails that might limit their power. In 2015, the government passed a referendum bill that worked much as the Swiss one does (with the voting public retaining the ability to nominate the laws they wish to challenge) and it wasn't long before it was put to the test. The next year over 400,000 signatories demanded a vote on the ratification of the EU agreement on Ukraine (more than double the number of signatures required). The law was voted down, 60-40, but that didn't have the impact it should have, as the government decided that they could interpret the reasons for the loss. They simply altered some wording and then passed the law again.
In 2018 there was a further referendum on the Intelligence and Security Act, a law (already passed, remember) which granted security agencies sweeping surveillance powers. Once again, the vote against the government. This time the response was to ignore the vote and repeal the Referendum Act on the grounds that it was not delivering what had been expected; presumably, the idea was that referendums would somehow rubber stamp laws that had been passed by the government in defiance of popular sentiment, rather than function as an exercise in direct democracy.
It's like leaving your dog outside when you go to work; you know your dog barks constantly, you know it's going to aggravate people because you know it would aggravate you, but you do it anyway, banking on the fact that no-one will complain. That's what 'after the fact' referendums are. It's not as if politicians couldn't utilize focus groups, polling and other measures to gauge the public view ahead of time, if they wanted to. But, they didn't and, instead, they passed unpopular laws and hoped they could get away with it. When that plan proved to be unsatisfactory, they simply emasculated the electorate by removing the right of referendum. A governing elite that behaves in this manner is not going to let a few farmers stop them, because they have gerrymandered the system to stifle dissent and there doesn't seem to be anything the people can do about it.
You may have heard tell of a farmer's political party, the BBB which, like the Brexit Party before it, came from nowhere and did very well. But, it won't make any difference to the regime, which will plough serenely on without them, as they don't have enough votes to form a government and nobody else will work with them. Plus, the BBB believes that cow dung is toxic and that nitrogen is a pollutant; they sound like a stalking horse or controlled opposition.(48)
Coalition government by the de-facto Left is not a phenomenon limited to the Netherlands, either. It's a consistent theme throughout Europe, regardless of the parties' alleged political hue, as political definitions have shifted sharply and what are now termed centrist parties are, in fact, liberal or socialist, whereas parties which espouse traditional conservative views are categorized as far right. Even if any conservative entity were to have the stones to challenge the Net Zero narrative, they wouldn't be doing so whilst in government. It is, therefore, unlikely that the climate change bandwagon will be halted politically. As long as the ruling class can cobble together a Leftist coalition of the willing, they will press on regardless.
In Europe, it is quite possible to get less than 20% of the vote (which can equate to 12-15% of the actual electorate) and yet be the senior partner in a coalition government. The more parties, the more the vote is split and it's not unusual for ten to fifteen parties to contest national elections, for five or more to form a government and for a very minor party to play king-maker, holding the balance of power. The proportional representation system can lead to some unlikely alliances and prolonged hiatus'.
Of the thirty seven European governments, thirty four of them are coalition. The progressives, by redefining political labels and moving the Overton Window considerably further left, have managed to strand mainstream political conservatism on the far right of the political spectrum. In reality, Christian Democrats are centrist, liberals and liberal conservatives are center left, not center right and almost all of the rest occupy the same territories. Those genuinely on the Right are ostracized, as happened explicitly in Sweden and continues in Germany to this day.(49)
And so, the Center Left and the Left circumvent democracy. They band three to five parties together and form a government, sometimes even a minority one, with parties which gather perhaps 5% of the total vote, while a right wing party with 20% stays in opposition. Right of center voters are not represented in the vast majority of European governments, with the exception of Hungary and, latterly (perhaps), Italy, which leaves a bunch of interventionist, authoritarian meddlers in power; the ones who know what's best for you, regardless. A multi party system can still become authoritarian if they are all reading from the same hymn sheet.
Even if these circumstances could be somehow overcome, the problem of the EU would still remain. The EU project is antithetical to conservative values, period; the entire enterprise is predicated on the abolition of the nation state and the centralization of governance, not to a representative parliament (that's just for show), but to the unelected Commission. Therefore, Leftist governments work hand in glove with the EU - they are all cut from the same cloth – but truly conservative governments find themselves between a rock and a hard place, as Viktor Orbán of Hungary knows to his cost.
In the rest of the West – the Anglosphere – food shortages should take longer to bite, given the relative affluence enjoyed by most residents. We tend to linger longer in the 'food is too expensive' dynamic, before graduating to the second stage of the process, which is 'the food is too scarce'. That's what should be happening; instead, we are bearing witness to attempts to jump-start the shortages and we are also beginning to feel the consequences of the progenitor of that condition – insufficient energy supply.
You may have been aware of the winter storm in Texas in February 2021. It was big news at the time, but it passed swiftly from the mainstream news as soon as it became obvious that it wasn't a good fit for the narrative. The storm trapped millions of people in their homes amid a welter of power outages that continued for days on end. It wasn't the worst weather event that has ever afflicted Texas; residents have become accustomed to hurricanes and winter blizzards. However, this time around, things were different. The state government says that 151 people died as a result of its shortcomings, but the true tally is 700 plus.(50)
And the reason? Well, according to the state, it wasn't due to an over-reliance on renewables, even though energy demand is bound to surge in cold conditions and backup is required – which they have enough of. It seems that pretty much all of the primary grid failed, including nuclear, coal-fired power stations and (in extremis) natural gas power stations – certainly, political leaders were keen to emphasize the truth of that. But wind and solar make up 26% of the grid and Texas is the state with the largest investment in wind turbines, by a factor of three or more. It doesn't take the brains of a grandmaster to work out that being heavily reliant on a technology that only works intermittently - and which is turned off in high winds, in any event – which produces electricity that cannot be effectively stored is not sensible; especially in a state that routinely attracts severe weather events.(51)
And, eventually, Texas politicians claimed to have come to their senses and refocused their attention on on-demand power supplies, although it took another unpleasant episode a few months later to force them see the light and, even then (this being the Texas legislature), was more performative politics than actual action. In June of the same year, it was summer temperatures that overwhelmed the energy grid. This time, Texas power companies had a solution; they simply turned up the temperature on some customers' smart thermostats. Apparently, in the small print of something called Smart Savers Texas – a sweepstake, with prizes that reduce bills – the company included a permission slip which allows them to adjust their thermostat during periods of high demand. In Texas, the solution to a failing energy grid is to reduce demand, rather than ensuring that there is sufficient energy to meet that demand.(52) Many other states have similar provisions and, usually, notification comes after the fact.(53)(54)
Figure 12
Smart meter manipulation has been a possibility/probability for years. Sure enough, 22,000 Colorado residents also got a taste of it last summer, when they were completely locked out of their meters and unable to alter the temperature. The energy company cited an “energy emergency” when the temperature hit 90°F, which isn't overly reassuring, as I imagine that temperature is reasonably common in a Coloradan summer.(55)
But California (inevitably) leads the pack in climate lunacy. By law, 33% of electricity must come from renewables, to be increased to 50% by 2025 and 60% by 2030,(56) which is already an interesting challenge given that the sun doesn't always shine (especially at night-time) and the wind doesn't always blow, facts which are apparent to a wide range of people, some of whom are also politicians. So, despite the Californian climate (146 days of sunshine per year) the grid is both expensive and hugely unreliable. In the past five years, electricity bills have risen by 40%,(57) but brownouts have become more frequent. Energy companies are also appealing for self-rationing during the period of most demand, at precisely the time that most voters are arriving home to dutifully charge their EV. I don't suppose it'll be long before any semblance of choice is removed via WiFi.
Figure 13
When they're not 'flexing', they're importing expensive gas from out of state;
“...when intermittent clean energy sources cannot keep up with demand, California power providers turn to natural gas and electricity imports that backstop the state’s grid, but which are now more expensive due to the insufficient storage and pipeline capacity created by the idealized rush to “cheap” clean energy.”(58)
Quite how that's going to work when other states 'transition' is not a question that anyone seems keen to answer. In the meantime, the Californian electricity companies - no doubt in league with the Democrats in the state government, who instructed them to “make electric bills more affordable and equitable”(59) – have decided to soften the blow/accelerate the tax payer exodus by proposing a fixed rate charging system, based on income, which will be adopted in 2025.(60)
North America isn't wholly focussed on decimating its energy grid, though. Both Biden and Trudeau have still found time to attempt a Netherlands-style assault on the farming sector, also. The Canadian regime plans to reduce nitrogen emissions by 30% by 2030.(61) Biden has been busy adding agricultural land to the Conservation Reserve Program, so that it might lie fallow – an American version of the EU's Natura 2000 – as part
“...of a broader, government-wide push to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. Interestingly, the Biden administration’s goal is very similar to the Dutch government’s goal.”(62)
It almost seems like an inter-continental, co-ordinated plan.
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Oddly enough, at the height of the cost of living crisis in the UK, a similar plan was unfolding. The UK government launched a scheme whereby farmers were paid to leave the agricultural sector, allegedly to benefit those already thinking of doing so and to allow for new entrants. There'll be a scheme for them, too; what's the betting that “sustainability” is a prerequisite and that growing biomass for fuel features prominently?(63)
Figure 17
Figure 18
The UK is coming at the food industry in (what it no doubt thinks is) a more nuanced way. Following the Mayor of London's ““who could possibly argue against clean air” playbook”(64), the regime launched a Draft Air Quality Strategy (65) – with a consultation period of a whole ten days – which focuses on (wait for it) nitrogen emissions, because the fine particulate matter in ammonia is a pollutant in Clown World, rather than a substance that breaks down into nitrogen, which makes up 78% of air in the real world.(66)
Smart meters are also weaponized on the sceptred isle, to a greater extent than elsewhere, at present. 'Switching by stealth' has become a go-to tactic of energy companies, who are forcing those who fall behind on energy bills (which must be a substantial number, given the exponential rise in energy costs in the past two years) onto pre-paid meters which are then cut off once the credit runs out.
“Before smart meters, if a household fell behind on energy payments, companies would have to request a warrant to enter a household to install a prepayment meter...However, if a household has a smart meter, energy companies can now disconnect them remotely without having already installed a prepayment meter.”(67)
And so the process of normalizing an uncertain power supply continues around the world, whether it be via brownouts and shutdowns à la California or South Africa, temperature manipulation in Colorado and other states across the US, or by simply switching off the meter in the UK.
The key here is control. If you control the resources that others rely on, you can switch them off at your leisure, just to concentrate the minds of the minions. Hence, the Nordstream sabotage. Who is now the biggest supplier of LNG to the Europeans?
Figure 19
That's around 47% of Europe's requirement, to be manipulated as necessary. And who has nearly 750 military bases around the world, including at least 192 in Europe alone? You guessed it.
Figure 20
There is one other element that must be brought to heel – food production itself. Well, remember the pandemic? And the part that the phrase 'non-essential' played in it? Millions of small business wrecked, while the big ones prospered because they were deemed 'essential'? That huge industrial subsidy – and simultaneous sabotaging of competition – merely accelerated a process that was already well under way in the agricultural sector. Control is exercised by a select group of Big Ag corporations who are, in turn, controlled by a small group of investment trusts who are majority shareholders. The identity of these trusts will not come as a surprise to anybody who has been keeping their ear to the ground; BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street.
Figure 21
In agrochemical sales, the leading four companies control 62.3% of the world market. In the Big Ag machinery sector, the top six supply 49.3% of the hardware. In animal pharma, the top four are responsible for 60.5% of global sales.(68) In the US, just four firms control 85% of the production market for beef, pork and chicken. In Brazil, another big supplier globally, just three companies control over two thirds of production for those same three products.(69) These near monopolies, there and elsewhere, allow for huge downward pressure to be applied to suppliers. In Ireland, for instance, while fertiliser prices are 94% higher than a year ago and meal is 33% higher, the producers simply refuse to raise the prices they will pay the farmers for their product.(70) This is swiftly throttling entire industries (the pig and sheep farmers, in particular). The net result?
“We find that the Food Barons – including giant traders, food processors, grocers, technologists and financiers – are continuing to (re)design and refine the Industrial Food Chain so that they can control it ever more effectively and leach ever more value away from producers and the natural environment. They are swelling their own coffers, whilst providing poor quality and mostly unhealthy food to people and animals, destroying soils and biodiversity along the way.”(71)
That's the mild version, the one that prefers not to notice that they aren't simply profiteering; they've always tried to test the boundaries on that score, as it's a feature, not a bug, of the West's version of unchecked, über-capitalism. But now, they are clearly acting in concert with Western regimes, with both responsible for putting the squeeze on farmers (especially livestock farmers) in their own way, either via regulation or ruinous pricing structures.
The globalists have enjoyed a position on the commanding heights of geopolitics for at least thirty years and they don't intend to surrender their hegemony now. They are able to enforce their will on developing countries via the global financial system, which they dominate. They fund the IMF and the World Bank and those institutions have inflicted a debt/austerity cycle via the imposition of loan conditions that are designed for default; if that doesn't work, Western globalists in government will sponsor coups and armed conflicts that will install a regime that is more Western-facing and/or undermine economies, the better to stymie debt repayments and make possible the sale of state owned enterprises.
In this way, potential rivals are suborned, the US dollar is continually propped up via loan repayments and the 'developed' world retains its pre-eminence. For the last little while, seemingly since the 2015 Paris Accords, the emphasis has been specifically on using the global warming canard as the justification for de-industrializing the Global South. When the pursuit of renewables is combined with deliberately sabotaged energy prices and an engineered recession – plus a UN led anti-fertiliser agenda - the result is a much increased risk of famine.(72)
In the European West, the fragmented electoral system has proved to be an effective vehicle for excluding the Right (as defined as nationalistic, rather than globalist) from office. Even the dissidents, notably Hungary and Italy, are still obliged to operate under the umbrella of the elite-controlled, undemocratic EU, thus severely constraining their freedom of manoeuvre. Hungary, in particular, is almost constantly under the Brussels cosh.
The progressive Left has mastered the deceptive arts in the rest of Europe, however, even if the people themselves are not necessarily onboard the federalist train. As is usually the case, it takes impending disaster to focus the mind and to contemplate whether it is worth risking opprobrium from the unhinged members of the opposition and, while that day is fast approaching, it's not here yet. Currently, the Commission is enforcing the Net Zero orthodoxy, which not only threatens food inflation and shortages in Europe, but also further afield.
The third leg of the globalist stool lies in the Anglosphere. Here resides the driving force behind globalization; the elites that have a controlling interest in Big Agriculture and in government, no matter what stripe the politicians are purported to be. The Americans and the British are to the forefront (with Trudeau and the Irish tagging along), between them seizing control of the food supply chain and then de-industrializing it.
'Climate change' has been their low key, long running scam. As we've seen, in their hands, it's a malleable 'crisis'. Policies that are allegedly necessary to combat it are enforced unevenly; they can bribe/blackmail the likes of Indonesia and South Africa into depth charging their economies for the sake of renewables, while simultaneously countenancing a huge investment in Algerian gas fields.
In general terms, however, the direction of travel is clear. In the West (and pretty much everywhere else) there is a concerted attempt to shrink economies, particularly in the agricultural sector, under the guise of Net Zero. Nitrogen, methane and carbon dioxide are demonized as the agents of potentially uncontrolled global warming and the vast bulk of us need to be led by the nose if we are to survive as a species. Although, the useless eaters amongst us might not make it, which won't cause the Malthusians to lose any sleep.
We've seen how this ends; tyrants from Stalin to Mugabe have always craved control of food production and the centralization of command that they achieved proved disastrous for their people. Shutting down Europe's best agricultural producer (which is responsible for 0.4% of the world's CO2 emissions)(73), at a time when food security across the world is diminishing sharply, is the globalist version of the same project.
“Historically, the role of utilities and governments has been to figure out how to meet citizens’ needs for energy. But that is changing: now the question is, how do we drive down the demand for electricity to align with the limited supply of wind and solar energy that we have intermittently available?”(74)
There is no conceivable way that any of this is an accident. The UN, while crying crocodile tears and try to shame the West into more aid contributions, is also part of the problem. They are anti-fertiliser and they advocate for a “circular economy”, a euphemism referring to economic de-growth via the medium of less productive food and energy production. They also favour agrocology, because it's “vital... for addressing poverty, hunger and (inevitably) climate change” by not using synthetic fertiliser, thus reducing food production which, obviously, increases poverty and hunger.(75) These people are so mendacious; they couldn't even lie straight in bed.
Figure 22
If any further proof were needed, there is this from September 2022:
“Russian diplomacy has repeatedly stressed that Moscow is ready to export 30 million tons of grain and over 20 million tons of fertilizer by the end of 2022. What is left unsaid in the west, is that only the importation of fertilizers to the EU is “allowed,” while transit to Africa is not.”(76)
The conventional wisdom is that the West wishes to limit Russian and Chinese influence on the African continent (which is reflexively accepted as a righteous course of action, such is the depth of historic antipathy towards Russia, in particular) and, no doubt, that's a big factor as it chimes with efforts elsewhere in limiting the reach of the Belt and Road Initiative. One gets the distinct impression, however, that African lives are to be viewed as collateral damage, rather like Ukrainian ones, all to be sacrificed on the altars of russophobia and climate change.
Millions of African fatalities would keep the global population in check, would it not? That being a perennial obsession of the globalists. Otherwise, the world is going to look a little different in short order and I would lay good odds, given their constant carping about the threat of swelling populations, that the Africanisation of the globe isn't part of their vision of the future.
Figure 23
Delineating what appears to be a deliberate attempt to depopulate the developing world (particularly Africa) is not a comfortable experience, but there is clearly virtue to be had from revealing compromising information, even if the majority of those that do so are unwilling to take the next step and speculate as to the why. The following is typical of the avoidance genre;
“What’s going on? Why is the United Nations promoting a kind of food production proven to reduce yields, raise prices, and topple governments?”(77)
I suspect that the writer knows precisely what is going on, but doesn't want to articulate it; perhaps, for fear of having the usual tired pejoratives hurled in his general direction (conspiracy theorist, denier etc). However, we're way past the theory stage now. The Great Reset is a many-headed hydra, but it's not a secret and hasn't been for a considerable time. Dearest Klaus has written books on the subject, governments have passed legislation enshrining its strictures in law, the global warming scam has been mainstream for thirty years, the elites into depopulation in a big way (although that is one subject about which they largely keep shtum) and they keep telling us that we shouldn't be eating meat. Why would we be even remotely surprised if they put all that together and did what they're currently doing?
The fact that much of what they espouse is patently BS cannot any longer be a revelation – not after the 'pandemic'. The suspicion that even they believe very little of what they say (except maybe the depopulation narrative) shouldn't be a shock, either; they're not all cultists. The ones in charge are pulling the strings of the useful idiots. And the fact that they are attempting to consolidate as much power in their hands as possible, at our expense, has previously been made explicit – by them. You remember? “You'll own nothing and be happy.” In fairness, they've told us what they're up to. We just didn't listen or, if we did, we haven't yet summoned up the cojones to do anything to prevent them getting away with it. Yes, they won't admit the specifics as we proceed towards their destination, but the outline has been broadcast.
They are going to squeeze the food supply; in fact, they already are. There will be mass famine, because some elements of the plan are already baked in. First, fertiliser gets expensive. Then it gets scarce, or banned, or both. The poorer nations will suffer most and millions will die, because the conditions are already dire – especially in Africa. The West will keep stirring the pot, as they have been doing for decades. More displacement, more coups, more defaults, less food.
Those of us in the West may not want to give up meat, but the elites are planning to take that decision out of our hands. It's already expensive enough to warrant an alarm on the packaging in a supermarket and that's before they've shut down the Netherlands and elsewhere. We probably won't starve; we'll just have our predilection for meat 're-directed'. The combination of Western controlled IFI's, the debt/austerity trap, Leftist coalitions, the EU, the UN and Big Ag covers all the bases, I believe. And the climate change scam is the bedrock upon which the entire edifice is constructed. If we don't risk the brickbats by denouncing it, we cannot win.
Citations
(1) https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/green-dogma-behind-fall-of-sri-lanka
(6) https://consortiumnews.com/2023/04/14/the-lying-imf/
(8) https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/08/world/africa/south-africa-coal-cop27-climate.html
(12) https://www.urgewald.org/sites/default/files/media-files/2021-04-WBGGasProjectsNotEnergyAccess.pdf
(13) https://www.wsj.com/articles/exxon-chevron-near-deals-to-drill-in-gas-rich-algeria-8aeed887
(16) https://www.reuters.com/graphics/AFRICA-HUNGER/lgpdkknwlvo/
(17) https://www.fairplanet.org/story/how-climate-colonialism-affects-the-global-south/
(18) https://consortiumnews.com/2023/05/31/rich-countries-skimp-on-famine-relief/
(19) https://www.commondreams.org/news/gop-pentagon-budget-profiteering
(20) https://consortiumnews.com/2021/08/18/in-somalia-us-bombs-the-terrorists-it-created/
(22) https://consortiumnews.com/2022/10/26/my-10-years-of-reporting-on-africom/
(23) https://www.rt.com/africa/573599-africom-coup-plotters-trained-gaetz/
(24) https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-announces-20b-move-indonesia-away-coal
(25) https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/index_en.htm
(26) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_by_30
(28) https://nos.nl/artikel/2447237-vraagtekens-bij-advies-om-piekbelasters-binnen-jaar-uit-te-kopen
(29) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/11/28/netherlands-close-3000-farms-comply-eu-rules/
(30) https://twitter.com/EvaVlaar/status/1653374067469156353
(31)
(32)
(33)
(34) https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/11/netherlands-dutch-farming-agriculture-sustainable/
(35)
(36) Ditto
(38) https://dutchreview.com/culture/innovation/second-largest-agriculture-exporter/
(39) https://expose-news.com/2023/05/06/netherlands-land-grab-what-is-driving-the-dutch/
(40) https://expose-news.com/2023/06/01/irish-government-proposes-culling-200000-cows/
(41) https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/irish-daily-mail/20230214/281487870518811
(42) https://expose-news.com/2023/02/15/irish-farmers-warn-of-an-uprising-net-zero-measures/
(43) https://twitter.com/UNEP/status/970923039402717184
(44) https://www.inc.com/joshua-spodek/why-youll-love-cricket-protein.html
(46) Ditto
(48) https://cities2030.eu/cities2030/
(49) https://expose-news.com/2023/03/18/netherlands-land-grab-dutch-farmers-are-not-safe-yet/
(50)
(51) https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/texas-winter-storm-power-outage-death-toll
(52) https://www.npr.org/2022/04/17/1093240540/why-is-texas-facing-so-many-extreme-weather-events
(53) https://www.vox.com/recode/22543678/smart-thermostat-air-conditioner-texas-heatwave
(55) https://www.nationalgridus.com/MA-Home/Connected-Solutions/Thermostat-Program
(57) https://www.hoover.org/research/california-brownout-disaster-manmade
(58) https://amgreatness.com/2023/04/15/californias-cautionary-clean-energy/
(59) Ditto
(61) https://ktla.com/news/local-news/california-power-companies-roll-out-fixed-rate-bill-proposal/
(62) https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/11/trudeaus-nitrogen-policy-will-decimate-canadian-farming/
(63) https://issuesinsights.com/2022/12/02/the-elites-war-on-food/
(66) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
(68) https://www.etcgroup.org/files/files/food-barons-2022-full_sectors-final_16_sept.pdf pgs 14, 82 and 69.
(69) https://www.etcgroup.org/files/files/food-barons-2022-full_sectors-final_16_sept.pdf pg 137
(70)
(71) Ditto
(72) https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/escobar-real-us-agenda-africa-hegemony
(73) https://dailysceptic.org/2023/04/21/the-great-food-reset-arrives-in-the-u-k/
(74) https://www.etcgroup.org/files/files/food-barons-2022-full_sectors-final_16_sept.pdf pg 95
(75) https://expose-news.com/2023/02/15/irish-farmers-warn-of-an-uprising-net-zero-measures/
(76) https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/netherlands
(77) https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/06/paid-to-keep-the-lights-off.php
Figure 1
Figure 3 Ditto
Figure 4 https://ourworldindata.com
Figure 5 https://www.thecivilengineer.org/news/dutch-greenhouses-have-revolutionized-modern-farming
Figure 6 https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/11/netherlands-dutch-farming-agriculture-sustainable/
Figure 8 https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/390dd28d-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/390dd28d-en
Figure 10 Trade Data Monitor; Green Markets, a Bloomberg company
Figure 11 https://www.irishpeople.ie/no-room-for-dutch-farmers-in-the-tri-state-plannedopolis/
Figure 12 https://windexchange.energy.gov/maps-data/321
Figure 13 https://twitter.com/California_ISO/status/1420172732382208007
Figure 14 https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058134932/build-back-better
Figure 15 https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international- news/canada/biden-keeps-border-closed-with-canada-but-not-mexico/
Figure 16 https://nyadagbladet.se/utrikes/world-economic-forum-vill-blockera-solen/?_unique_id=62de5b3d04dc3
Figure 17 https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-accused-two-screeching-21230258
Figure 19 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=53159
Figure 21 https://www.etcgroup.org/files/files/food-barons-2022-full_sectors-final_16_sept.pdf pg 11
Figure 22 https://ourworldindata.com
Figure 23 https://ourworldindata.com
Christ endurance every paragraph could do with a comment 😳 🙄 your writing is not only succinct it's actually scary. Talking as a
Paddy, a farmer once told me that farming is more addictive than cocaine "once you smell the grass growing in spring, it's all cows sheep don't know where they will go in the winter but give me them now" hopefully that attitude will triumph! the rutt cunt got an award off the swabnazi which says it all!!! I'm very much in line with your thinking on Europe re people thinking center are right-wing (right so far) but I also think that we will get hungry bellies quite soon and that will change everything in an instant. I will leave you with one word in my mind that is the cause (keep up the good work!).......aristocracy