Food as a Weapon

 

As we continue our journey through the Pyramid, we have learned about the captured agencies within the FCC, taking their orders from Big Wireless. We have also explored the role of the Big Oil titans in shaping not only the oil industry, but finance, geopolitics, and even medicine. We have seen the names of the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds peppered throughout the histories of these institutions.

For the this chapter we are going to examine the claims made about these same characters’ involvement in the farming and food industry. There are researchers who believe these cartels are also attempting to manipulate, and maybe even control, the world’s food supply. We’re going to find out if there are truths to the concerns around genetically engineered foods, and whether or not governments of the world have and might again use food as a weapon.

The Current Paradigm of Food and Farming

The current paradigm of food production in much of the modern world typically involves growing food at a mass scale – what is often known as industrial or factory farming – while focusing on maximizing production and profits, and minimizing costs. This intensive agriculture often involves the heavy use of toxic pesticides on geneticallly engineered crops. Of the more than 9 billion animals raised for food in the US each year, the vast majority are raised on factory farms, the largest of which are also called Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations  or CAFOs. CAFO’s are large scale factory farms where animals are kept in confined enclosures, unable to freely move or graze on land. Chickens, pigs, and cows are raised in CAFOs.

In recent years critics have become increasingly vocal about the shortcomings of this type of farming. Not only are these farms demeaning and dangerous for the animals, but they greatly contribute to pollution in the local communities surrounding the farms.  The biggest source of this pollution comes from the estimated more than 440 million tons of poop generated by confined animals in the U.S. every year. Legally, CAFOs are not required to treat this waste at all. Despite clear evidence of harm to the environment and human health, CAFOs continue to use manure lagoon and sprayfield systems.  In 1972, US Congress passed the modern Clean Water Act, and directed the EPA to regulate CAFOs. However, current EPA standards allow lagoons to keep polluting due to loopholes that allows CAFOs to continue to exist.

Additionally, In the US, nearly every aspect of the industrial food animal production system is highly concentrated and controlled by just a few megaproducers. According to a 2019 report from Open Markets titled, “Food and Power: Addressing Monopolization in America’s Food System”, nearly all of the seeds, pesticides, and herbicides purchased by farmers comes from a handful of Big Agriculture corporations. The report states:

“For the past two decades, increased consolidation has coincided with the prices of farm inputs increasing faster than the prices farmers receive for their crops. Seeds are often designed to terminate—or, to fail to germinate—after one harvest, forcing farmers to purchase new seeds each season. Consolidated corporations also gain control over producers through seed and chemical product pairings that push farmers into a “pesticide treadmill,” in which they are dependent on both a corporation’s evolving seeds and chemical inputs to produce a healthy crop This combined seed and chemical regime also increases farmers’ costs of production, with USDA data showing that the per-acre cost of soybean and corn seed spiked dramatically between 1995 and 2014, by 351 percent and 321 percent, respectively.”

The current mainstream food paradigm, with its toxic, violent, and monopolized business, was born out of The Green Revolution of the 1950’s and 60’s. Mexican President Manuel Ávila Camacho invited the Rockefeller Foundation into the country to help study and modernize Mexico’s farming.  In 1943, Norman Borlaug, a plant geneticist, and his team of researchers traveled to Mexico and jumpstarted the so-called Green Revolution. Borlaug was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation, with both organizations having an interest in establishing international farming standards which benefitted their bank accounts.

While the Green Revolution is often touted as a success due to increases in crop yields and an apparent drop in infant mortality, there is also a growing body of evidence indicating that the abundant use of pesticides has caused a rise in adverse health effects, including cancer. Most infamously, the world’s most widely used herbicine, glyphosate – a product of Agri giant Monsanto, now owned by Bayer – has been linked to a number of cases of cancer and resulted in multiple billion dollar settlements against the company. Bayer is hoping to stem the tide of lawsuits by taking the matter to the Supreme Court. 

It’s important to note that the same megacorporations involved in the Oilgarchy and Big Pharma are also the same driving forces behind the Green Revolution. The Rockefeller Standard Oil network and their partners win the fertilizer industry, specifically DuPont, Dow Chemical, and Hercules Powder, benefitted handsomely from the apparent revolution in farming. However, when a struggling “third world” nation could not afford the new technologies needed to participate in the programs, the Rockefeller controlled Chase Manhattan Bank partnered with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to offer loans, which in turn granted the banks ownership over resources and financial assets should the nations fail to settle the debt.

Another outcome of the Green Revolution is the so-called Gene Revolution, which populaized the use of genetically modified organisms, GMOs, or genetically engineered foods. Once again, the cast of characters involved in the Gene Revolution are identical to the Green Revolution, the Big Pharma cartel, and the Oilgarchy. The Rockefeller and Nazi connected IG Farben has subsidiaries Bayer CropScience and BASF PlantScience working with Dow AgroScience, DuPont Biotechnology, and the infamous Monsanto. All of these corporations benefit from the funding of the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and similar organizations.

GMO’s: Safe Or Dangerous?

Before we go any further, let’s explain what a GMO is. A GMO is any organism whose genetic makeup has been altered using genetic engineering, and specifically, an organism that was altered in a way that does not occur naturally through mating or natural recombination. While the topic is much bigger than we have time for in this broadcast, the story is much the same as the Green Revolution: supporters say it increased yields and lifted farmers out of poverty, while critics say the Green Revolution generally, and GMOs specifically, lead to a rise in the use of pesticides and a range of potential health problems.

So how true are these claims? The mainstream consensus is pretty much that GMOs are absolutely safe and anyone who suggests otherwise is an anti-science bafoon. There are a number of science sites dedicated to debunking claims made about the harms of genetically engineered foods and one is not likely to be seen as a credible, intelligent person for questioning the safety of this technology.

Let’s take a look at the claims made by the anti-GMO movement. The concerns include contamination of the non-genetically modified food supply, the influence of BioTech and Big Ag companies on government regulators, control of the food supply by the same companies, concerns over the use of herbicides with glyphosate, and accusations of “playing God” by engineering the genes of various life forms. Some critics also fear the implications of patents and intellectual property rights applied to plants and seeds.

The resistance to GMO food and Monsanto culminated in the international March Against Monsanto actions taking place in hundreds of cities around the world on May 25, 2013. People all over the world called for labeling of foods containing GMOs.

(Bernie video :35-1:25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzMF2C1bAnU)

The opposition grew steadily during the Presidency of Barack Obama as the public grew weary of the revolving door relationship between Monsanto and the White House. The practice began before the Obama admin, with the Bush and Clinton administrations both having favorable relationships with executives from Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow, DuPont, and other Biotechnology, pesticide companies.

While much of the opposition to GMOs does center around captured government agencies and conflicts of interest, the majority of concerns appear to stem from fears of harm to human health resulting from eating food derived from genetic engineering. One of the major studies to show potential harms is the 2012 Seralini study, named for the lead researcher. The study, originally published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, made headlines when it reported that rats studied for 2 years while being exposed to Monsanto’s Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize died 2–3 times more than rats not eating GMO corn. The study also claimed female rats developed tumors more often than the rats fed non-GMO corn. The images of the massive tumors on the rats went viral and spread all over the internet.

The controversy was quickly followed by complaints from various pro-GMO companies and food regulators. The detractors claimed the scientists were engaged in fraud, or that the Sprague–Dawley rat used in the experiment has a high incidence of tumors and thus GMOs could not be blamed for the results. Before long, Food and Chemical Toxicology retracted the Seralini study and the public was told that GMOs were totally safe. And that was the end of the Seralini saga.

Well, actually, despite the corporate media reporting on the study’s retraction, the truth is a bit more complex.

While the editors of Food and Chemical Toxicology did say they believed the type of rat used would effect the experiment, they did not dismiss the results of the study altogether. In fact, the retraction states, “Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology.” Even the claim that inconclusive results are not ready for publication in the journal seems to be a lie based on other published studies which also reach inconclusive results – including other studies involving the same Monsanto GMO corn.

Researcher William Engdahl also pointed out obvious conflicts of interest which arose in the months following publication of the Seralini study. Engdahl writes:

“Then, out of the blue, in May 2013, six months after the Seralini study release, Elsevier announced that it had created a new position, ‘Associate Editor for Biotechnology’. The person they hired to fill it was Richard E. Goodman, a former Monsanto employee who in addition was with the Monsanto pro-GMO lobby organization, the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) which develops industry-friendly risk assessment methods for GM foods and chemical food contaminants and inserts them into government regulations.

Then on November 24, 2013, six months after Goodman took control of GMO issues at the Journal, Dr. A. Wallace Hayes, the editor of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology reportedly decided to retract the study by the team of Professor Séralini.”

After his study was retracted and his name tarnished, Professor Seralini won a defamation lawsuit against a magazine that called the research conducted by him and his team a “scientific fraud”. Further, In 2014, his team went on to have their study republished in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe. The researchers once again used the Sprague-Dawley strain of rat, a fact they acknowledge while also noting that the rat is “recommended for chronic toxicology tests bythe National Toxicology Program in the USA” and also used by Monsanto themselves in their own 90-day study.

In their final conclusion in the published study they write, “Taken together, the significant biochemical disturbances and physiological failures documented in this work… show that the conclusion of the Monsanto authors that the initial indications of organ toxicity found in their 90-day experiment were not ‘biologically meaningful’ is not justifiable.”

“We propose that agricultural edible GMOs and complete pesticide formulations must be evaluated thoroughly in long-term studies to measure their potential toxic effects.”

A Corruption of Science

Once again, we have an example of the corporate media misrepresenting a story – in this case a scientific study – and the corporations who stand to lose from the story lobbying the scientific community to make changes. As we have previously demonstrated in this series, the establishment media is a tool for the elite and intelligence agencies. Also, as with the corruption of science from Big Wireles and the Medical cartel, scientific studies can be altered, research can be defunded, and scientists outright threatened until a favorable result is acheived.

The simple fact is that the agencies we are told are meant to regulate or protect our food supply and environment – the USDA, FDA, and EPA in the United States, and similar agencies around the world – are largely captured in the same fashion as the FCC, the CDC, and other federal agencies.

For one reason or another these agencies seemed determined to ignore, silence, or discredit research pointing to potential dangers of GMOs or pesticides. For example, Jonathan Lundgren, an entomologist working for the US Department of Agriculture, filed a whistlblower complaint against his employer for suppressing his research which found that certain pesticides may be affecting bee and butterfly populations. The USDA sought to dismiss Lungren’s complaint as “frivolous” and based on “speculative and unsupported” allegations. However, the court’s ruled in favor of Lundgren.

Lundgren originally filed an internal complaint in September 2014 accusing the USDA of retaliating against him because of his research. The complaint was dismissed by the USDA and Lundgren was suspended in October 2014. He was suspended for three days after USDA investigators found emails among his research staff which included indecent jokes. On October 28, 2015, Lundgren filed a complaint with the federal Merit Systems Protection Board after his supervisors allegedly began to “impede or deter his research and resultant publications.” Lundgren’s complaint alleged that his supervisors suspended him in retaliation for his research on neonicotinoid pesticides and his calls for an investigation of both the USDA and the Environmental Protection Agency.

The experience of Jonathan Lundgren does not seem to be an isolated one. According to the the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the organization representing Lundgren, at least 10 USDA scientists have been investigated or faced other consequences arising from research that called into question the safety of certain agricultural chemicals. In 2015, PEER filed a legal petition with the U.S. Department of Agriculture seeking new rules that would enhance job protection for government scientists whose research questions the safety of farm chemicals.

In late December 2016, researchers with France’s National Institute for Agricultural Research confirmed the allegations of conflicts of interest involved in GMO research. The study found that nearly half of studies on genetically modified crops were found to have conflicts of interest. The study also concluded that GM studies with conflict of interest had an increased likelihood of drawing conclusions which favored genetically modified or engineered foods.

The researchers examined 579 published studies and found that around 40% showed at least one conflict of interest. In these cases the conflict was typically related to someone involved with the study also working as an employee of a GM company or having received funds directly from the company. The director of research at France’s National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA) told the media, “We thought we would find conflicts of interest, but we did not think we would find so many.”

It is these conflicts of interest which have caused much of the public to view official proclamations about the safety of genetically engineered foods with skepticism. Although the FDA has downplayed any efforts to label GM foods as potentially hazardous, previously unreleased FDA documents show the agency was aware of possible risks to humans as far back as 1991.

The documents were released through a lawsuit filed by Steven Druker, a public interest attorney and executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity (ABI). Druker obtained 44,000 pages of messages, memos, and reports from the FDA and released them in his book, Altered Genes, Twisted Truth.

One such document, the FDA’s 1992 “Statement of Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties,” stated the agency was “not aware of any information” showing that GMOs differ “in any meaningful way” from other food, despite memos showing researchers did, indeed, have questions about the safety of GE foods. One FDA compliance officer wrote that the agency “was trying to fit a square peg into a round hole … [by] trying to force an ultimate conclusion that there is no difference between foods modified by genetic engineering and foods modified by traditional breeding practices. The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks.”

It’s abundantly clear that there is more to the story when it comes to the saftey of genetically engineered foods and pesticides. When we look beyond the corporate media headlines, we can see the science is not settled.

Food as a Weapon of War

One final area of research which is extremely pertinent to the conversation around what might be termed “Big Food”, is the history of food being used as a weapon during times of war. Throughout modern and ancient history we have examples of warring nations using food as a way to destroy their enemy or empower their allies. Providing or withholding food during conflict is equally as powerful as guns, drones, and missiles. Controlling an opponents access to food is important during war and can also be a bargaining tactic.  Sometimes food is used as a weapon by destroying a harvest, or preventing a harvest from being shipped to other locations. The phrase “Salting the Earth” was borne out of the ritual of spreading salt in the soil of a conquered land in an effort to prevent crops from growing again.

The U.S. has historically used food as a tool of foreign policy, delivering aid to nations which follows programs favored by the U.S. and its allies, and initiating embargos and tariffs on food goods for nations which do not comply. In recent years, there have also been discussions on using food to blackmail nations into adopting population control programs. This might sound like insanity, but a 1974 memo drafted by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger outlines the entire plan. The memo is called “National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200)” and was drafted by Kissinger for the United States National Security Council.

The memo focuses on the “paramount importance” to population control measures and the promotion of contraceptive measures to 13 populous nations known as the “Least Developing Countries”. The argument was that the socio-political and economic growth of these countries is vital to national interests of the U.S. since the “U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad” and the countries can produce destabilizing opposition forces against the US.

The Kissinger report discusses how there already existed a precedent  for “taking account of family planning performance in appraisal of assistance requirements by US AID [U.S. Agency for International Development].” The report goes on to state that allocation of scarce resources should “take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production.” The document also notes that it is important to “avoid the appearance of coercion” while also discussing “mandatory programs”.

The document also considers whether or not food can be considered “an instrument of national power”. “Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can’t/won’t control their population growth?,”

Of course, it should be noted that Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State, is a longtime associate of the Rockefeller agenda.

Our conversation started with the Rockefeller driven Green Revolution and the Gene Revolution, and now we come full circle with the Rockefeller’s latest initiative, Reset the Table. The Rockefeller Foundation is now claiming that COVID-19 and the economic losses from lockdowns have “made the negative consequences of the food system worse and more obvious”. The Foundation notes that COVID-19 has presented the moment to “transform the U.S. food system.”

The Rockefeller document, titled Reset the Table: Meeting the Moment to Transform the U.S. Food System, outlines how the Rockefeller Foundation can once again use its money and influence to shape the direction of a major industry, this time, the food supply itself. Ironically, the Reset the Table document also notes that the Rockefeller Foundation “played a role in seeding and scaling” The Green Revolution, while also noting that the Rockefeller Green Revolution left a legacy of “overemphasis of staple grains at the expense of more nutrient-rich foods”, and  a “reliance on chemical fertilizers that deplete the soil, and overuse of water.​​​​​​​” With no hint of shame, the Rockefeller’s and their ilk will present themselves as the solution to problems they previously contributed to or outright created.​​​​​​​

Using the same flowery language and trendy buzzwords which allowed them to infiltrate and capture the education system, the Oil industry, and the medical field, they have managed to gain control over the large institutions which farm the world’s animals and crops in violent, destructive, and costly ways. This dangerous monopolistic cartel has captured many national and international regulatory bodies designed to protect the public and the food supply. The players involved in this piece of the Pyramid of Power also continue to use their wealth and connections to suppress research which paints their products and investments in a negative light, including GMOs and pesticides. Finally, these criminal elements have made it clear they believe food can be, and indeed SHOULD BE, used as a tool for negotiation, or a tool for forcing compliance from populations.

Solutions: Localized and Decentralized Food systems

Learning to identify the people and institutions which make up the Pyramid is only one vital component of this journey. The second, equally important step is to identify and implement solutions which can help the masses to break free from these immoral people and their corruption.

One solution which applies to all aspects of the Pyramid is to continue to question authority and official sources. As with previous investigations, we see that blindly trusting the government science or industry funded research is a mistake. It’s very easy to ignore the warnings from scientists and health professionals who warn about health concerns and environmental damage caused by factory farming, pesticides, and genetically engineered foods – especially when the corporate media and mainstream science organizations are telling you what to think. This is not to say that the corporate media or mainstream, governmental science should never be trusted, anymore than it should always be trusted. The focus should be employing critical thinking, using discernment, and taking a nuanced view as opposed to a simple black-and-white view.

Another empowering solution to break free of the industrial farming system and the inefficient food distribution system is to begin growing your own food. Whether you begin with a backyard or frontyard garden, or join a community garden or Community Supported Agriculture, the key is to localize your food supply. By supporting or building local and decentralized farming networks you are taking power away from Big Ag and Big Food. At the same time, you are building local food security by ensuring your communities are not dependent on supermarket grocery chains for all of your food. Local farming built on permaculture principles is also better for the environment and wildlife.

While some people might choose to find a group like minded people, leave the cities and towns, buy land, and build their permaculture paradise, others will stay in the cities and build urban farming and food distribution networks. The key is to sever any dependencies you have on the mainstream food production and distribution systems. If our international communities continue to allow the convenience of supermarkets with infinite options to distract us from the increasingly necessary work of building food security, we are going to remain beholden to the titans of industry who aim to manipulate the world via technology, energy, medicine, and food.

We must continue to question the agendas in front of us, and remember that what we put in our bodies, what we choose to use as nourishment for our vessel, will determine the direction of our mental, physical, and spiritual health. We cannot entrust our health to those who believe in using food as a weapon. We must remember to use our food as our medicine. We must support localized, decentralized neighborhood farms so that organic, nutrient rich crops can be grown and provided to communities which have historically faced food deserts. This is the key to escaping the destructive, genetically modified, and pesticide laden food system. This is the key to escaping from the Pyramid of Power.

For a deeper understanding on GMOs, pesticides, and the takeover of the food supply, check out the following reports: 

The World According to Monsanto documentary

The Technocratic, Transhumanist Total Takeover of Food by Ice Age Farner  https://www.bitchute.com/video/coIOEiX2mz3H/

Genetic Fallacy: How Monsanto Silences Scientific Dissent by James Corbett

To learn more about Permaculture visit:
Discover Permaculture

To learn about indigenous permaculture visit the International Institute of Indigenous Science