"If the collective governments of the Western world were trying to impoverish and starve their own citizens, what exactly would they be doing differently?"

 

That's the question asked by Kit Knightly at Off-Guardian.  Writing about the farmers' protests in the Netherlands, he points out:

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?

There's more at the link.

To that I'd add:  consider the anti-farm-animal and anti-meat propaganda being spouted by Bill Gates and his cronies . . . at a time when Mr. Gates is investing heavily in the production of artificial meat, made from plants, and has become the largest individual owner of farmland in the USA.  Interesting coincidence, isn't it?  Western Journal quotes him as saying:  "“I do think all rich countries should move to 100 percent synthetic beef. You can get used to the taste difference, and the claim is they’re going to make it taste even better over time ... Eventually, that green premium is modest enough that you can sort of change the [behavior of] people or use regulation to totally shift the demand.”  Aren't the regulations we're seeing European governments trying to impose on their farmers likely to achieve precisely that?  And isn't Bill Gates one of the biggest supporters of the so-called "Great Reset" and environmental causes?

Reading between these lines, it’s plausible that what we face isn’t moving away from the horrors of factory farming toward either lab-meat or regenerative agriculture. Rather, what we’ll see (like the restriction of aviation to the ultra-rich) is both, depending on social status. Vat-meat for the masses; and ethically raised, environmentally sustainable steak from the Bill Gates eco-pasturelands for those that can afford it.

One suspects the protesting farmers in Europe - the Netherlands protests have spread to Germany and Italy already, and will probably spread further - are all too well aware of that . . . as they should be.  It's only their livelihood, and the food needed by their fellow citizens, that's at stake, after all.

Peter