Wednesday, July 6, 2022

The Dutch Farmers’ Protest and the War on Food/ Kit Knightly, Off-Guardian

This week, tens of thousands of farmers have gathered from all across the Netherlands to protest government policies which will reduce the number of livestock in the country by up to a third.

In a typical example of media weasel-wording, the press reports on this all headline something like “Dutch farmers protest emissions targets”, but this is a massive lie by omission.

The government policy being protested is a 25 BILLION Euro investment in “reducing levels of nitrogen pollution” true, but it plans to achieve this by (among other things) “paying some Dutch livestock farmers to relocate or exit the industry”.

In real terms, this ultimately means reducing the number of pigs, chickens and cows by about thirty per cent.

That’s what is being protested here – a deliberately shrinking of the farming sector, impacting the livelihood of thousands of farmers, and the food supply of literally hundreds of millions of people.

The big picture

While the scheme is allegedly about limiting nitrogen and ammonia emissions from urine and manure it’s hard not to see this in the broader context of the ongoing created food crisis.

The Netherlands produces a massive food surplus and is one of the largest exporters of meat in the world and THE largest in Europe. Reducing its output by a third could have huge implications for the global food supply, especially in Western Europe.

Perhaps more troubling is how this could act as a precedent.

This isn’t the first “pay farmers not to farm” scheme launched in the last year – both the UK and US have put such schemes in place – but a government paying to reduce it’s own meat production? That is a first.

That it is (allegedly) being done to “protect the environment” makes it a big warning sign for the future. Denmark, Belgium and Germany are already considering similar policies.

The Western world seems to be enthusiastically embracing quasi-suicidal policies.

I mean, paying farmers to reduce the amount of food they produce…while (notionally) threatened with war…in the midst of a recession…facing record inflation as the cost of living spirals.

Does that really make any sense?

That’s almost as crazy as refusing new oil and gas leases while the cost of petrol is going up.

Indeed, in a world beset by a shortage of fertiliser due to sanctions against Russia and Belarus, it would seem almost mad to complain about a manure surplus, let alone try to reduce it.

We’re well past the point where any of this could be considered accidental, aren’t we?

Put it this way – if the collective governments of the Western world were trying to impoverish and starve their own citizens, what exactly would they be doing differently?


Anonymous said...

Died from bad drug deal occasionally Kartel dirty spikes rather as Vernon Colman GP

We all know that the upper echelons of the US government are capable of some fucked up shit. I find it weird that fentanyl is only present in the US drug supply and that it is showing up in cocaine. Also, it's killing potential recurring customers and comes with huge legal ramifications if you're linked to an OD death. Anyone else think that this is some top secret CIA control operation. See Gary Webb Dark Alliance

Passing Observations 114
This is a long standing series of small items which have caught my eye or mind and which seem relevant, startling, amusing or all three. Occasionally, items which appear here may return as a longer piece. Mostly they will not.

Heroin is six times as powerful as morphine but too rarely prescribed for patients in pain because of its reputation as an illegal drug of abuse. So patients in genuine need suffer. (Amazingly, some addicts have been taking prescribed heroin for over 20 years. This is lunacy. I always thought the idea was to get addicted patients off their drugs. Still, I’m a bit old-fashioned.)

Century ago. Cocaine widely prescribed by physicians and before over the counter too

AC/DC’s Malcolm Young (r.) will not appear on the band’s next album. (Jorge Herrera/WireImage)
The album was originally going to be named "Man Down," paying homage to Young as the fallen solider.

Front man Brian Johnson explained about the album title, “And it was probably just straight from the heart. I like that."

This is apparently also cause of early depilating death of Malcolm Young crazy about man down album pulled for implications dirty cocaine deal operatives probably government controlled like Gary Webb research

Leaking Man Down hints FYI

Due to the likely unnecessary nature of Malcolm's condition, he will not be returning to the band."

AC/DC album Rock or Bust," set to release on Dec. 2, another announcement the rockers made alongside news of Young's departure. AC/DC's Malcolm Young has officially stepped off the Rock 'n' Roll Train.
Young, AC/DC founding member and guitarist, will not return to the band due to illness

Jean Michel Basquiat Worked with Andy Warhol who died amidst strange reports gall balder surgery similar to Joan Rivers with silencing comics ie Bill Cosby Rosanne Barr strange reports of Robin Willams putting watches in socks day he dies to deliver to friend make no sense too?? Deliberate botched surgery lawsuit paid too Andy Warhol

Anonymous said...
See end with CDC admits Vaccine Autism links??
Measles outbreak into a new California gold rush. When our work with the film came to a close, I recognized that even a committed movement of extraordinarily talented activists would never move the needle on this issue. The forces arrayed against us were just too powerful. We needed a paid professional staff who awaken every morning thinking of nothing except how to solve this problem. How to force a national debate and expose the phony science and CDC corruption. How to use the most sophisticated social media, and internet marketing and what Martin Luther King called the “tools of advocacy”: agitation, legislation, litigation, education, and media and grass roots activism.

Anonymous said...

The estimated lifetime risk of cancer for both men and women born in 1930 was 38.5% in men and 36.7% in women (Table 1). Over 30 years, the risks are projected to increase substantially in both sexes and the gap between sexes is predicted to increase. For men born in 1960, the lifetime risk is estimated to be 53.5% compared with 47.5% for women born in 1960. Table 2 presents the cumulative risk of cancer up to the 85th birthday (ages 0–84 years). For men born in 1930, the lifetime risk is considerably less than the cumulative risk 0–84, whereas for those born in 1960 the lifetime risk is greater: they are very similar for men born in the late 1940s. In women, the difference in risks for those born in 1930 is only slight, whereas the lifetime risk is much greater than the cumulative risk 0–84 years for those born in 1960. For both men and women, the increase in the cumulative risk over 31 years is considerably less than the increase in lifetime risk.