The WEF does not confine itself to transforming agricultural production by allowing corporate profiteers to feast at the trough of innovations, technologies, data-driven tracking, AI, and other chemical-churning initiatives to counter the carbon dioxide culprit: it has an urgent plan to transform what people eat. Unsurprisingly, the WEF focuses on climate, equity, and gender as part of its “Global Health Equity Network.”
Health equity requires communities, government, civil society, and the private sector to come together to drive systems change. Together they can target the root causes of disparity and the non-medical drivers of health to achieve health equity.
Only fascism can solve disparities, we are here told – a blending of all private and government entities with “civil society” (secular humanism?) to “drive systems change,” a/k/a the “Great Reset.” Aside from whether this is an open conspiracy, the cacophony of cockamamie climate claims against cows and in favor of GMO crops, pesticides, satellite and product tracking, and other techno-wizardy should be evidence enough that profits – not people, or the “root causes” of disparities – are the actual focus of this agenda.
“Studies” and “experts” cannot make a cow jump over the moon. Nor can they make GMO crops that are healtheir for soil and humanity than cows. And yet the barrage of anti-cow propaganda continues to sway climate-frightened ears. These organizations also continuously shift objectives to justify their sales pitches. Is food control necessary to save humanity from climate change, famine, wars, overpopulation, social injustices, or biodiversity loss? The answer is “whatever deceives the ears” – industrial agriculture has aggravated or caused all these problems!
Yet “studies” are constantly churned out to sing corporate lullabies to gullible humans. Consider this rationalization of how to usher in world peace from a “paper” titled “Can genetically modified (GM) crops act as possible alternatives to mitigate world political conflicts for food?”
According to our analyses, GM crops can improve food security and in broader way can alter political conflicts; thus, the food supply chain and policy decisions about safe GM crops should be the areas worth reconsidering. It can also be concluded that developing countries, especially those from Africa, but also India are particularly affected and being susceptible to drought or civil conflict by food insecurity that can lead to famine or near-famine conditions. According to our analyses, if the GM crop is not considered as factor to mitigate conflict, no positive effects on food insecurity can be expected.
This pseudo-scientific baloney concludes that people must abandon safety concerns regarding GMO crops to avert war – especially in those third-world nations over whom Henry Kissinger and the new globalists are so fond of crying crocodile tears. The sweet-sounding message is “give us total control and we will provide total security” – using the toxin-laden foods and rampant techno-manufacturing that are killing the ecosystem and sickening the human populations of developed nations. Niccolo Machiavelli’s warning for these times is harsh but apposite: “Men are so stupid and concerned with their present needs, they will always let themselves be deceived.”
The article ignores the science that GMO crops damage soils and give rise to superweeds that require even more potent herbicides (sold by Bayer), the risks to organic and heirloom crops, or the threat of corporate monopolization by unscrupulous or misguided human actors. Machiavelli offered an additional caution when predicting the future:
Past efforts to control food supplies to usher in Utopias bear recollection here, especially those of Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Pol Pot. These leaders expressed passions to end inequities and create wonderful new societies: all ended horribly, whether or not intentionally.
Humanity has depended on wheat as a staple food crop for thousands of years. Consider what one farmer has observed about the risks of GMO wheat:
“The other problem is stripping farmers’ control over the seed and agricultural system. Surrendering those choices to just a few agrochemical companies who prohibit farmers from keeping seed they grow for planting means that the companies will now provide all the seed and all the chemicals in a very controlled way. Farmers will have no say over price, they will have no say over what seeds they can use, and what chemicals they can spray with. Farmers will be sold a promise that this will make them more money but once they buy into it they will be worse off than they already are now, because they bought into a closed system which is totally dependent on the chemical company. When the prices of the commodities go down and the prices for the chemicals go up they are stuck in a system they cannot escape.”
The profit-driven motive of GMO seed and chemical suppliers is obvious. The chemical companies that have long pulled conventional farmers’ pursestrings seek to alienate organic from conventional farmers, and have additionally launched a propaganda war against cows that is equally unsupportable by basic animal and soil science. Yet the world’s largest scientific and media outlets have bought into the cow-bashing hook, line, and deadly sinker. Consider Scientific American’s consideration of cows as a problem:
Wouldn’t it be easier to ditch milk, cheese, and beef for plant-based alternatives? Why fight nature when there’s an easier solution, at least from a scientific perspective?
Achieving a cheeseburger-free America faces formidable challenges. Beyond overcoming cultural shifts — the country’s per-capita consumption of mozzarella, to name one example, averages one pound a month — lies the challenge of meeting nutritional demands and rebalancing the intricacies of an agricultural, food, and industrial economy inextricably linked to livestock farming.
There’s a fundamental disconnect, though, between our growing demand for animal-based protein and its enormous carbon footprint. Producing a pound of steak generates nearly 100 times more greenhouse gas than an equivalent amount of peas, while cheese production emits eight times the volume of making tofu.
As detailed throughout this and other fact-based books, the assumptions made about cows – particularly the fake “scientific” equivalencies fabricated about greenhouse gases versus cow burps – yield a perverse result. Why is Scientific American proposing that Americans must shift their preferred diets to save the world from climate-saving cows? Is this “real science” or real propaganda?
The WEF has long capitalized on Kissinger’s clever deception in 1974 that livestock were a “problem” because they required more grain than a loaf of bread. As explained, this is a double falsehood: cows naturally eat grasses, not industrially-produced grains, and industrially produced (not organically, regeneratively produced) grains are the biggest contributor to soil and water loss and pollution, loss of soil carbon, ecological harms and biodiversity loss – not cows. The Huxleyan industrialist conclusion of hucksters Kissinger and his WEF progeny is to eradicate cows by force and compel humanity to eat…. industrially produced plants and grains!
The WEF and its world-controlling corporate draftsmen are hard at it, cautioning how to overcome those peasants and farmers who might resist this forced improvement to their lives:
First-of-their-kind decrees meant to shield the health of people and the planet always encounter at least some resistance. Collective gains have to be tallied against losses that aren’t necessarily evenly distributed.
The fact that livestock is such a prominent source of emissions makes it an enticing target for innovation. If we can’t get sufficiently creative with regulation and taxes to address it, maybe entrepreneurs can find a way by fiddling with cow science.
Hold the phone here – the WEF is here justifying its imposed inequities of “unevenly distributed losses” as necessary for the collective good – that is classic Marxism, not Western liberal egalitarianism. It reeks of elitist disdain for the uneducated classes who “resist… first-of-their-kind decrees” (such as cow elimination, synthetic burgers, or cockroach brunches) that are “meant to shield the health of people and the planet.” The WEF is silent about the potential benefits of redirecting 800 million gallons of gasoline from American lawnmowers into food production or reducing chemical pollution caused by frivolous consumer goods. How about fireworks, Halloween costumes, or four-wheelers, all used for recreation? Instead of that easy-to-pick pollution fruit (or the GMO grains and industrial agricultural methods that are salient climate culprits), the WEF is championing attacks on cows, the farmers who raise them, and the consumers who wish to eat them.
The WEF was bashing cows long before Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez launched the Green New Deal’s attacks on cow farts. In a 2014 publication titled “The impact of livestock on climate change,” the WEF foretold what its current plans would be:
The livestock sector is responsible for nearly 15 per cent of global emissions – similar to that produced by powering all the cars, trucks, planes, trains and ships in the world – yet it is conspicuous by its absence from international or national strategies to reduce emissions.
by weight, the humble cow is probably the most preponderant species walking the Earth. By 2050, global consumption of meat and dairy is expected to have risen by 76 per cent and 65 per cent respectively against a 2005-07 baseline. Recent modelling has shown that dietary trends are simply incompatible with the objective of limiting warming to two degrees Celsius.
None of this is to say that shifting diets away from meat and dairy will be easy. Doing so will require different approaches in different contexts, but successful strategies are likely to involve government, business and civil society and go far beyond awareness raising to incorporate marketing strategies, campaigns and public policies. However if we are serious about avoiding dangerous climate change, this is a problem we cannot afford to ignore any longer.
Bill Gates has been an ardent cow-slanderer using bunk science. Gates is heavily invested in (force-fed?) meat replacements, and rates livestock as a threat equal to coal and steel. His “solutions” are borderline ludicrous but expose a non-farmer trying to tell non-farmers about agriculture:
Q: We fundamentally don’t have replacements that completely eliminate the highly potent emissions from burping livestock and fertilizer. How hopeful are you about agriculture?
A: ….There are advances in seeds, including seeds that do what legumes do: that is, they’re able to [convert nitrogen in the soil into compounds that plants can use] biologically. But the ability to improve photosynthesis and to improve nitrogen fixation is one of the most underinvested things.
In terms of livestock, it’s very difficult. There are all the things where they feed them different food, like there’s this one compound that gives you a 20% reduction [in methane emissions]. But sadly, those bacteria [in their digestive system that produce methane] are a necessary part of breaking down the grass. And so I don’t know if there’ll be some natural approach there. I’m afraid the synthetic [protein alternatives like plant-based burgers] will be required for at least the beef thing.
Now the people like Memphis Meats who do it at a cellular level—I don’t know that that will ever be economical. But Impossible and Beyond have a road map, a quality road map and a cost road map, that makes them totally competitive.
As for scale today, they don’t represent 1% of the meat in the world, but they’re on their way. And Breakthrough Energy has four different investments in this space for making the ingredients very efficiently. So yeah, this is the one area where my optimism five years ago would have made this, steel, and cement the three hardest.
All of these claims are demonstrably false. Gates’ companies have not been competent, let alone competitive, in their vaunted drive to replace cows economically – let alone with any improvement to environmental impacts. Gates is talking about “requiring” people to eat something that is 1) based on GMO plant cropping, 2) employs massive factories and chemical proliferation to process, and 3) has not and cannot be achieved at cost or scale. He is pushing to eliminate cows without a viable replacement and speaks techno-mystically of scientific innovations to “improve photosynthesis and nitrogen fixation.” Yet solar panels do not improve upon grass, and cows’ manure feeds soils and sequesters carbon dioxide and nitrogen far better than anything humankind has fabricated as replacements. Natural processes do not need more “fixing” by meddling billionaires with a God complex. Bill should stick with his “safe and effective” vaccines….
Note that Bill Gates has concurrently bought up hundreds of thousands of acres of US farmland – not for organic, but for industrial, food production:
Bill Gates, in addition to being one of the wealthiest men in the world, is now also the largest private owner of farmland in the United States. ….Over the past several years, the billionaire has amassed a portfolio of 242,000 acres of cropland across the country,
The shift of farm ownership to non-farmers and foreign entities has some very real implications for farmers, rural communities, and the environment.
For one, it has pushed up the price of farmland. ….As the value of farmland has skyrocketed, small-scale and beginning farmers have been priced out from purchasing their own land or even affording leases. In the absence of smaller buyers and lessees, the largest, wealthiest operations have been able to hoard land. As things stand, just 13 percent of operations rent or own 75 percent of U.S. farmed cropland.
At the WEF drafting table, Bill Gates sits beside John Kerry, Cargill, Syngenta, Pepsi-Co, Black Rock, and the World Wildlife Fund to denigrate innocent cows, who (like farmers) have no voice at this elitist, world-controlling corporate circus. Above the WEF is the UN, which also oversees the World Health Organization, another partner in the attack on cows in favor of industrial plant-foods for humans:
The head of the World Health Organization (WHO) has said a shift towards more plant-based diets is “essential” for the health of people and planet. Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO’s Director-General, made the comments in a video during COP28, the UN Climate Summit that took place in Dubai in December 2023.
He noted that food production is responsible for “almost one third of the global burden of disease” and 30 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. The majority of these emissions are from animal agriculture.
“Transforming food systems is therefore essential, by shifting towards healthier, diversified, and more plant-based diets.”
The WHO’s good doctor is not very reliable when he counsels an industrial plant diet and a need to eradicate cows. He lacks credibility for another reason – Ghebreyesus presided over the WHO’s emergency response in the Democratic Republic of Congo during that country’s 2018-2020 ebola outbreak when shocking sex trafficking by WHO personnel was rampant. Perhaps the WHO should demonstrate competence and trustworthiness in its chosen area of medical specialization before it seeks to tell the planet what to eat. The “global burden of disease” he references is caused by ubiquitous chemicals in industrial farming, food, processing, and packaging: these systems need to be transformed back to regenerative methods, not pushed further into techno-dominance. This doctor should know this, just as he should have been aware of the sex trafficking in Congo by his close doctor friends when he visited there more than a dozen times during the WHO’s tenure. Why is he still even heading the WHO?
Tedros’ mission creep has extended far beyond his failed ebola response. In a May 9, 2024 screed for the Brookings Institution that eerily echoes Kissinger’s 1974 warnings, he proclaimed that climate change was the major culprit threatening human health:
More than half of the public health events reported in Africa during the first two decades of the 21st century are identified as climate-related health emergencies, according to a recent analysis by the WHO.
Climate change is having increasingly disastrous effects on human health and well-being, especially in Africa, and protecting and promoting health is a powerful argument for climate action. Ultimately, the climate crisis is a health crisis.
Climate, health, equity, environmentalism – all roads lead to globalist food control “to help people” without voting, or democratic consensus. The elites in boardrooms have fashioned the “urgent” consensus – farmers and consumers need not apply: they will be told what to do to comply.
Ten corporations have been estimated to control some 80% of the world’s food supplies. Several of these sit at the WEF stakeholder table; other WEF partner companies control shipping, finance, housing, and energy supplies. Together, these corporate masters dominate a large portion of the world’s markets, resources, and policies. The UN and WEF provide them “liberty” to evade accountability to the human populations they control for profit
