Is Africa Facing a Bigger Threat Than Colonialism?

The impact of the G8 New Alliance For Food Security and Nutrition (New Alliance) does everything but accomplish what its title suggests. If anything, its false, repressive, spurious existence is a threat to food sovereignty and agro-ecology in Africa and elsewhere.  In other words, predatory capitalism under the pretense of  reducing poverty.

Oxfam found that "both the New Alliance and related policy reforms actually risk marginalizing small-scale agriculture, undermining land tenure security, and endangering the right to food of the most vulnerable people."

Simply put, New Alliance's agenda is the corporate takeover of Africa's food. African governments are reforming laws to benefit multinational corporations like Monsanto in return for western aid and investment. Farmers would be restricted from saving and swapping seeds, and many who buy them would end up in debt. Meanwhile, traditional seed varieties could be lost forever. The law actually says "farmers that use seed varieties claimed under new intellectual property rights by individuals and companies anywhere in the world risk hefty fines or even imprisonment."



According to Lauren McCauley,

“Under the specious claim of delivering "aid to Africa," western governments are backing an initiative—described by some as another form of "colonialism"—that is effectively enabling the corporate takeover of African nations by some of the world’s biggest food and agriculture companies."

Why do we allow the parasitic wealthy and powerful--those who live off the blood, sweat and tears of others, who talk openly about the horrors of third world overpopulation--free reign to decide what's in the best interest of third world people? They have clearly stated that we must reduce that population.  It's insane! Or, perhaps, most of us agree with these predators...as long as it's not us. 

“What small scale farmers need is investment in infrastructure that links them more locally and regionally...Where control and ownership over the means of farming, buying and selling food and the culture of food is held by farmers (and people)—not outside elites." -- Dan Iles, food sovereignty campaigner with Global Justice Now

Links:

Mycotoxins: The Cost of Achieving Food Security and Food Quality

Mycotoxin contamination of foods in Africa: Antinutritional factors

G8 New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition Not Supportive of Small-Scale Food Producers

Corporate influence through the G8 New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition in Africa

Read more...

Global Water Capitalists War for Our Water.

For thousands of years, water has been seen as a free public good, with no price attached, but that's changing right before our eyes thanks to insatiable corporate greed. Their monopolistic exploitation of water – the world's most important raw material – in order to provide fabulous returns to investors from a captive market of consumers will eventually make water, like gold, too expensive for everyone but the wealthiest of the psychopathic elite if this global water cartel gets its way.  Unfortunately, although, there is life without gold, there is no life without water...I bet you didn't know that.

And speaking of psychopaths--not to mention, disappearing lakes--here's a clear example of one: former CEO Nestlé, now Chairman of the Board, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, who strongly believes our food--GMO farming /Monsanto--and water supply should be entirely controlled by corporations like Nestle (Nestle Waters North America received permission to bottle up to 210 million gallons a year from an aquifer north of Grand Rapids that recharges the Muskegon River, a major Lake Michigan tributary), with over $65 billion--or 90 billion Swiss francs-- in profit per year.

What's more, by using a little-known loophole--the bottled water loophole-- in the 2006 Great Lakes Compact that allows water to be labeled a "commodity," our government supports the plundering of our water supply.  Not only does Nestle Company siphon water for it's bottled water brand, it exports  fresh water out of Lake Michigan and ships it to China at a "240 times markup!" Their profit: an estimated $500,000 to $1.8 million per day. That's right. Our government representatives are allowing these multinationals all the cheap water they can get in order to make large profits. If we don't fight to protect the most valuable resource we have, that is, water,

And guess how much Nestle pays for the millions, perhaps billions, of gallons of water it drains? One hundred dollars annually. And let's not forget Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens who is “the largest individual water owner in America, with rights over enough of the aquifer to drain an estimated 200,000 acre-feet a year, at least until the land goes dry.”

“Nestlé PURE LIFE has become in 2008 the largest bottled water brand sold in the world. The company is in 36 countries spanning 5 continents with 64 brands.

Other Nestlé products are Perrier, Vittel, Acqua Panna, Vera, Contrex, Aquarel, Poland Spring, S.Pellegrino, Vie Pure in Algeria and Nestle Pureza vital in some Latin American Countries. Nestlé, has been acquiring water companies since 1969 when it acquired its first 30 percent stake in the Société Générale des Eaux Minérales de Vittel, in France.

It gets even better. Not only is our government involved in this water securitzation scheme, the United Nations is the brainchild of this scam.  UNESCO's Intergovernmental Council of the International Hydrological Program's document HS 15322 explains how the "UN plans to secure resources to use at their disposal. Through the International Monetary Fund (IMF) under-developed countries are forced to sell their resources to the global Elite as “full cost recovery” to the global central bankers. Once those resources are under the complete control of the creditors, they become assets to be reallocated back to the enslaved nations for a price."

With the securitization of water  , it makes water sources under central privatization cost more and become less accessible to those who desperately need it. In other words, pursuit of water security means whoever gets the water, chooses who lives and who dies.

“The one water-export method that has been taking off is bottled water. It is among the fastest-growing and least-regulated industries in the world. In the 1970s, the annual volume of water bottled and traded around the world was 300 million US gallons (about 1 billion liters). By 1980, the figure had climbed to 650 million US gallons (about 2.5 billion liters), and toward the end of the decade, 2 billion US gallons (7.5 billion liters) of bottled water were being consumed in countries around the world.

But in the past five years [10 years ago], the volume of bottled water sales has skyrocketed, and in 2000, 22.3 billion US gallons (84 billion liters) of water were bottled and sold. Moreover, one-quarter of all the water bottled was traded and consumed outside its country of origin.

Among the brand name products are Perrier, Evian, Naya, Poland Spring, Clearly Canadian, La Croix, Purely Alaskan, and many more. Nestle is the world market leader in bottled water, with no fewer than 68 brands, including Perrier, Vittel, and San Pellegrino. As a past chairman of Perrier put it: "It struck me ... that all you had to do is take the water out of the ground and then sell it for more than the price of wine, milk, or for that matter, oil."

While bottled water may have started out as a pampered Western consumer affectation, Nestle has found a growing market niche for bottled water in nonindustrialized countries where safe tap water is rare or nonexistent. In these countries, its main product line is Nestle Pure Life, a low-cost purified tap water with added minerals. Marketed on a platform of "basic wholesomeness," Nestle Pure Life has sold well in Pakistan and Brazil, as have some of the corporation's other bottled water products in China, Vietnam, Thailand, and Mexico

[...]

“If the OPEC model were followed, the countries containing large supplies of fresh water in the form of lakes, rivers, and glaciers would constitute such a cartel.

Studies by the highly respected Russian hydrologist Igor Shiklomanov, described by Peter Gleick in his book Water in Crisis, identify the countries with the most fresh water in the world. Twenty-eight of the world's largest fresh water lakes, he writes, account for 85 percent of the volume of all lake water, including Russia's Lake Baikal, Africa's Lake Tanganyika, and Lake Superior on the U.S.-Canadian border.

As the world's largest lake system, the Great Lakes together account for 27 percent of global lake volumes. The world's largest 25 rivers include: 11 in Asia (the Ganges, Yangtze, Yenisei, Lena, Mekong, Irrawaddy, Ob, Chutsyan, Amur, Indus, and Salween); 5 in North America (the Mississippi, St. Lawrence, Mackenzie, Columbia, and Yukon); 4 in Latin America (the Amazon, Parana, Orinoco, and Magdalena); 3 in Africa (the Congo, Niger, and Nile); and 2 in all of Europe (the Danube and the Volga).

I'm not really sure what the protocol is when posting a quote from someone commenting through Facebook on another website.  For instance, should I post their name?  Or do I even have the right to post the quote in the first place?  So I'll just post the link for the article from where the quote [below] originated because I think this quote is very revealing.

“Out here in Oregon Nestle some how managed to wrangle access to the Columbia river for a new water bottling facility. My husband is a Water Rights Examiner, licensed in Oregon and Washington. I know how difficult it is for citizens to obtain water. In many areas water rights are not available to them. They are hotly contested and we've had guns drawn on us when out doing Water Rights surveys. Then along comes Nestle and they procure a Water Right for billions of gallons, for profitizing?!!! Oregon and Washington citizens have been raped by Nestle. Please don't buy Nestle water. If we don't unite to show our outrage now, they will get control of all the water."

Links:

Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation

Flow for Water Advancing Public Trust Solutions to Save The Great Lakes

Read more...

Are We On the Verge of a Perfect Storm?

I think we are; however, I believe it will come without any warning...especially from anyone connected to the IMF.

Dr. Robert Shapiro who advised Presidents Clinton and Obama and who currently advises the IMF predicts a cascading meltdown of the World's banking system starting with Sovereign debt in the Eurozone, affecting the UK then finally bringing down the global banking system.



"If they can not address [the financial crisis] in a credible way I believe within perhaps 2 to 3 weeks we will have a meltdown in sovereign debt which will produce a meltdown across the European banking system. We are not just talking about a relatively small Belgian bank, we are talking about the largest banks in the world, the largest banks in Germany, the largest banks in France, that will spread to the United Kingdom, it will spread everywhere because the global financial system is so interconnected. All those banks are counterparties to every significant bank in the United States, and in Britain, and in Japan, and around the world..."

Read more...

What Do North Dakota and Libya Have in Common?

We have a confused understanding of the federal money system because we base it on what we know about our own personal bank account, and we were never taught that the federal system does not operate in the same way. If you look at a chart of historical national debt and compare it to a chart of national money supply, they're the same. They both go up at the same rate. Why? Because the federal debt IS our money supply. Our money is credit and debt.

The federal government can initiate the supply of money by writing checks (debits in fed acct) that directly jumpstarts our economy. When the government writes checks to its employees, for real goods and services, that shows up as credits in real people's accounts that they, in turn, spend into the economy. The federal government can also write checks for infrastructure, which shows up as credits in commercial accounts, and creates jobs, thus creating credits in real people's accounts that they can spend into the economy.

States can create their own credit, as well. North Dakota is the only state that escaped the credit crisis. They own their own bank, which partners with the local banks and keeps credit moving within the state. So, why aren't all 50 states taking control of their money supply in the same way? Well, this would greatly threaten the international banking cartel (ibc). And, when you threaten the ibc, you end up like Libya, who had the nerve to create their own central bank that issues the money and issues credit for the nation's infrastructure, interest free; therefore, they had the lowest debt to GDP ration in the world.

However, unlike the political leaders in North Dakota, Khadaffi was trying to mobilize all of the African countries to follow his lead, while setting up an African monetary fund that would compete with the International Monetary Fund.

So, yes, we have the money to do anything we want to do. That's what money is: the credit of the nation, and the nation can advance the credit for what it needs to do.

Read more...

Gradual Subversion of the Democratic Party

Many of the traits that we either have or admire in other people...that make us human - loyalty, trustworthiness, faithfulness, a tendency to seek out heroes, etc. - unfortunately, also makes us more likely to ignore evidence that contradicts what we believe to be true. In fact, the evidence to the contrary can manifest itself as large as an elephant, yet we still ignore. In other words, our humanness makes us vulnerable to master manipulators who may very well be less than human.

This brings me to why I believe in the co-option of the left.  The modern liberal – typically associated with the Democratic Party - fears the extremes of wealth and poverty under unrestrained capitalism; thinks all citizens are entitled to the basic necessities of life; champions the protection of the environment, and puts the welfare of all people above the ability of a few to profit enormously from what we’ve been led to believe is the “free market”.

Unlike the Republicans - who,  regardless of their status in life, seem to support the less humanitarian, less "bleeding heart" values of those who dwell at the apex of society - the positions that the Democrats  usually take, make the Democratic Party, in particular, more threatening to the powerful and wealthy. Simply put, the Democrats [used to] believe in speaking truth to power, whereas the ruling class is not interested in truth...only in growing and keeping all of their their wealth and power to themselves.

Therefore, it makes sense, that if the elitists want(ed) to secure their power base, throwing the Democrats/progressives/liberals off their scent...even better, engaging them in the task of defending/supporting their "cause" just might make their road a little easier.  So, why not push their agenda through the Democratic Party; albeit, much more covertly than they do, through the Republican Party.

How?

That's simple, when you consider the aforementioned traits that make us human. It's all about making good use of timing; infiltration, semantics (Orwellian doublespeak); consensus making -  placement of "change agents" or "facilitators" and "divide and conquer" technique (Delphi technique), and let's not forget the Hegelian dialectic (problem-reaction-solution), and/or psychological warfare.  In other words, deceiving the liberals by embedding their operations in issues that appeal to the left.

The evidence for this transformation is right in front of our eyes.  Ever since President Clinton took office, the Democratic Party has gradually moved so far to the right that it's transformed into the Republican party. Moreover, from "the environment" to "family planning", the issues or causes that the Democrats have traditionally supported have been, more or less, co-opted by the ruling class to mask their true motives. 

“I think Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we’ve had in a while.”

MR. RUSSERT: Let me pick up on some interviews that you’ve given this week as you’ve been touring, talking about your book, “The Age of Turbulence.” You said this: “I think Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we’ve had in a while.” Republican?

MR. GREENSPAN: I’m sure he doesn’t like that joke, but if you look at his record compared to what I think appropriate policy ought to be, he’s for free trade, he’s for globalization, he was for welfare reform, fiscal restraint and—true enough, he’s not a Republican. I’m sorry, President Clinton, I didn’t mean to say that. But I must say, I had to follow an awful lot of your particular guidelines and found them very compatible with my own.

Remember DADT/DOMA-signing President Clinton promising that NAFTA wouldn't hurt a bit? Welfare Reform Act of 1996? Repeal of Glass-Steagall Act? DADT?

Fast forward a bit and we have President Bush 2.0 Obama who is a master at cloaking his almost neo-con "actions" in moderate, democratic rhetoric.  Obama, who Jeremy Scahill called "Blackwater's New Sugar Daddy" has upgraded America’s network of overseas detention facilities or ‘black sites’; approved the assassination of American citizens; signed a defense bill that blocks his bid to close Guantanamo Bay;  supports a 3-year extension of Patriot Act surveillance; extending the Bush-era tax cuts for two years, etc. Sure President Obama throws a bone to his base every once in a while, just like the Clinton administration did, but, for the most part, it's just a bone. Unless he's got some super secret strategy I'm unaware,  President Obama is as "Republican" as former President Clinton.

Regarding the co-opting of issues,  take global warming, of which a very strong argument can be made proving it's not man-made.  To be sure, the issue of global warming falls under the category of a "liberal" cause; however, if you dig deep enough and research Agenda 21, "sustainable development" and Global Biodiversity Assessment (the blueprint for Agenda 21) you will find a huge profit motive whose carbon reducing methods exploit all of us, but especially, those who have the least.

In the US, tighter controls on levels of consumption, and standards of living, intrusive carbon taxes, tolls, massive land grabs, conservation easement, zoning restrictions, energy audits, forcing small business to become energy efficient,  etc. are supposed to take place. Some already have.

"... an ‘agricultural world’ in which most human beings are peasants, should be able to support 5 to 7 billion people, probably more if the large agricultural population were supported by an industry-promoting agricultural activity. In contrast, a reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be one billion…” -- U.N. Global Biodiversity Assessment Report, states at page 773:””Whittaker and Likens (1975)

Former President Kennedy defined a liberal as the following:

“ ...someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal', then I’m proud to say I’m a 'Liberal'.

Granted, as a 'Liberal', he didn't make it far, and maybe that's why he was our second to last liberal president. Former President Johnson was probably our last.

Read more...

If Big Banks Are Terrorists, It's Even More Important We Don't Give In.

In an attempt to explain why the government needed to bail out the troubled banks, President Obama said that AIG is like a suicide bomber.

“We had to step in, it was the right thing to do, even though it is infuriating. The same is true with AIG. It was the right thing to do to step in. Here’s the problem. It’s almost like they’ve got — they’ve got a bomb strapped to them and they’ve got their hand on the trigger. You don’t want them to blow up. But you’ve got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger.

While that may be true, it is the policy of the United States not to give in to terrorism. We've already eased their fingers off the trigger. At this point, as we enter the second or third phase of the bailout, it's important that we, the people take a stand and tell the financial sector that they do not run this country. We can start by standing up to Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup and Bank of America.

Take Goldman Sachs, who wants to pay back the $10 billion it borrowed from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Sounds like a good thing, right?

Wrong, according to former International Monetary Fund chief economist, Simon Johnson, currently Professor of Entrepreneurship at MIT's Sloan School of Management, in addition to senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, co-founder of BaselineScenario.com, and a member of the Congressional Budget Office's Panel of Economic Advisers

Initially, the government wanted to carefully manage the flow of information regarding the results of the stress tests that Obama ordered on 19 banks, because any time that kind of sensitive information is revealed, the risk of destabilizing the markets becomes much greater, and increases the pressure on rival banks, who are not ready to pay back TARP funds, by undermining their business models and hindering thier ability to raise capital, possibly putting them in a position of needing more TARP money.

Goldman Sachs, by announcing that they plan to pay back the TARP money, contingent upon the results of the stress test, sent a strong signal that they were going to ace it. This, of course would greatly tilt the playing field to Goldman Sachs' advantage, something we don't want at a time when "too big to fail" is something we are trying to discourage, especially considering that big financial players are even bigger now that Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros. have been eliminated.

Goldman Sachs still receives government assistance created last Fall when the crisis came to a head, that take several forms - access to credit from the Federal Reserve made possible by government allowing them to change legal forms in the midst of the crisis; government (FDIC) backing or guarantee of loans; $13 billion dollars that they received through the AIG bailout, due to thier counter party status to AIG that Goldman will never have to pay back, etc. At the same time that Goldman Sachs receives the continuing support of the government, by paying the TARP money back, Goldman Sachs can remove all the constraints set by the government, including the restrictions on executive pay, the very thing that contributed to the current finanical meltdown.

The very nature of these compensantion schemes encouraged and greatly rewarded the risk taking that brought our financial system to the brink of disaster.

In Simon Johnson's article "The Quiet Coup" in the May issue of The Atlantic Monthly, Johnson explains that in order to improve our economy, we must break the power of the financial oligarchy that is blocking reform. If we do not break this power structure, and allow the financial sector to take back its authority America could face a crisis that in Johnson's words, "could, in fact, be worse than the Great Depression — because the world is now so much more interconnected and because the banking sector is now so big."

"We face at least two major, interrelated problems. The first is a desperately ill banking sector that threatens to choke off any incipient recovery that the fiscal stimulus might generate. The second is a political balance of power that gives the financial sector a veto over public policy, even as that sector loses popular support." - Simon Johnson

If we've learned anything from this financial crisis, it should be that big business is only interested in bigger business, nothing else, therefore we should ask Goldman Sachs, "What's in it for you, and what do we have to lose?" The answer is: everything... to both questions.

Read more...