The United Nations and World Hunger Satire

As is typical of the global ruling class, sometimes they say out loud things that should have remained unspoken or, in this case, unwritten.  An article by George Kent, currently an adjunct professor in the Department of Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney in Australia, Professor Emeritus at the University of Hawaii and Member of the Board of Directors of the International Peace Research Association Foundation as shown here:

 

...which appeared on the United Nations UN Chronicle website in 2008 ago has now resurfaced, much to the embarrassment and chagrin of the global ruling class.

 

Thanks to the Wayback Machine, here is a screen capture showing the entire article:

 

Here is another screen capture showing the article as it appeared in the United Nations Chronicle Edition Numbers 2 and 3 from 2008 as it currently appears on the University of Hawaii website which has also been archived on the Wayback Machine:

 

 

Since the contents of the article are protected by a copyright held by the United Nations, I am loathe to quote from the document, however, in general, the article takes the viewpoint that hunger is a great motivator of human beings and is fundamental to the functioning of the world's economy.  It is largely because people need to purchase food to assuage their hunger that they are willing to work essentially as slaves, earning subsistence level wages.  The author notes that hunger is caused by low-paying jobs, however, hunger also causes low-paying jobs to be created.

 

Here is a very brief quote:

 

"Much of the hunger literature talks about how it is important to assure that people are well fed so that they can be more productive. That is nonsense. No one works harder than hungry people. Yes, people who are well nourished have greater capacity for productive physical activity, but well-nourished people are far less willing to do that work."

 

He goes on to conclude that ending global hunger would be a disaster because it would leave the economy without the low-paying jobs like harvesting vegetables and cleaning toilets.  In fact, he concludes that "hunger is not a problem, it is an asset".

 

As I noted at the beginning of this posting, this brief article recently resurfaced after lying dormant for 14 years much to the chagrin of the United Nations.  When you click on the link to the article on the United Nations website (found here), this is what you now get:

 

 

On July 6, 2022, the United Nations Chronicle tweeted this in response to the discovery of their callousness:

 

 

Perhaps the United Nations is concerned that we don't realize that satire is part of their business model.  Now that they've been caught red-handed, the serf class must conclude that a future global government led by the United Nations will be a non-stop comedy show....at our expense, of course.

  

Oh yes, and if the braintrust at the United Nations was half as smart as they think that they are, they would realize that scrubbing this incriminating article from their website has been a complete failure given the existence of the Wayback Machine, not to mention the presence of the article on the University of Hawaii website.  Apparently, they need to learn that the internet never forgets anything!

 

Eating Chicken Bones - Our Dystopian Future

With the global shortage of food threatening to take down western society as we know it, one company has come up with a perfect solution as you will see in this posting.

 

With chicken shelves looking like this in many stores around the world:

 

...and with the self-appointed ruling class insisting that we need to wean ourselves from meat that is destined for the delicate palates of the oligarchs, the useless eater class is fortunate that one company has come up with a way to get us to eat ALL of the chicken, allowing for less chicken meat to go further.

 

Superground, a Helsinki-based food production company....

....founded by these two fellows:

 

...insists that by rethinking food, we can make food production more sustainable.

  

Here is their view on the company's chicken processing capabilities:

 

"Taste the future of meat.  It is delicious, efficient and sustainable."

 

And we all know how the global ruling class is all about sustainability (well, at least the sustainability of their use of private jets, yachts and supercars).

 

The company claims the following:

 

"Food production companies face rapidly changing food markets and accelerating climate change. SuperGround’s novel technology provides scalable solutions for previously unsolved food production challenges. Our holistic approach sustainably increases poultry-based food production volumes without major investments.

 

While helping reduce the food industry’s environmental impact, SuperGround is lowering emissions and food waste.

  

The patent-pending process which will turn the entire chicken (short of the entrails) will not compromise either the taste or safety of chicken.  The process will not compromise the taste of the processed chicken, it will improve the efficiency of processing chickens and is "sustainable to the bone".

 

The process uses heat, pressure and mechanical shear forces to transform chicken bones and other hard tissues into a "mass" with a "mouth feel, taste and smell that is indistinguishable from the real thing" when it is used to modify a 30 percent of a recipe's total mass.  Superground's technology can be used for many food items including nuggets, sausages and kebabs.  

 

When asked why it is beneficial for the environment, here's what Superground says:

 

"SuperGround’s process enables the entire use of whole gutted and plucked chicken without any loss in mass. The same chicken input yields up to 30% more food." 

 

Fortunately, the braintrust at the World Economic Forum have already provided us with their views on how meat is wasted on the organ donor class.  Back in February 2019, this article on the WEF website:

 

...stated that there are a total of 19 billion chickens living on Planet Earth at any one time and that an estimated 50 billion chickens are slaughtered every year for food (excluding male chicks and hens that are no longer egg producers).  The WEF views chickens as the fourth most nasty meat-based greenhouse gas emitters as shown here:

 

...and that chickens that are raised for meat are drinking way more than their fair share of water as providers of food for humans:

 

 

By adding ground chicken bones to the volume of meat produced, the useless eaters will find themselves satiated with a chicken nugget or other processed chicken-based product that could be up to 30 percent bone.  Mmmm mmmm good!

 

The thought of eating ground chicken bones kind of makes those 3-D printed meat substitutes look somewhat more appetizing, doesn't it?  And just think of the favour that you’ll be doing for the omnipotent ones who will now be able to avail themselves of all of the pure, unadulterated chicken that you will no longer be consuming!  

More nuggets per chicken.  It just doesn't get any better.

Given the subject of this posting, I have to close with this video from The Tragically Hip since the lyrics seem particularly pertinent:

Baby, eat this chicken slow

It's full of all them little bones

Baby, eat this chicken slow

It's full of all them little bones

Joe Biden and Climate Hypocrisy

Let's open this posting by looking at two of Joe Biden's recent tweets from July 22, 2022:

 

...and this one on July 23, 2022:

 

...and this one on July 24, 2022:

 

...and this one on July 25, 2022:

 

Just in case you missed it (just like the overpaid and incompetent White House staffers whose hands the poster passed through), you'll notice that the average American driver will spend $35 less per month for one "peson", whatever a "peson" is.

....and this one on July 26, 2022:

 

Well, from Biden's limited perspective, he has to believe that the recent drop in the price of gasoline has to be reassuring to motorists/voters who can now afford to consume more of the precious elixir.

 

On July 23, 2022, right in the middle of the tweets about dropping gasoline prices, the world was the beneficiary of these tweets:

 

....and, most importantly, this one:

 

So, apparently, you can have your cake and eat it too when it comes to lower gas prices (which lead to higher consumption) and battling the climate change "emergency" when you live in Bidenland.  One might almost think that the current Democratic administration is irony impaired.

 

The last tweet is a tad threatening.  When you search "Joe Biden climate emergency" on Google, here are some of the results:

 

Do you think that it is possible that we are being softened up for a climate lockdown where Washington (and for that matter other governments around the world) use their newfound powers of tyranny to lock us down just as they did during the "health emergency" of the past two years?

 

If we are experiencing such a significant climate emergency, we must ask ourselves why are the ruling class members still gadding about the globe using their government-provided, taxpayer-funded jets for meetings that are completely unnecessary and that accomplish absolutely nothing?  Apparently, there are no hypocrites like elected hypocrites who stage themselves on both sides of an issue, is there?

The Trudeau Government and Canada's Farmers - Reducing the Use of Fertilizers

While the farmers' protest in the Netherlands has received relatively little coverage in the Western dinosaur media, their plight is far from unique.  Governments around the world are pledging to reduce their emissions by forcing their farmers to reduce their use of fertilizers, a move that will cut significantly into crop yields.  Not surprisingly, one of the key players is Canada and its globalist lap dog, Justin Trudeau and his sidekick/leader Chrystia Freeland who have declared unilaterally that Canadian farmers will be "part of their solution" as outlined in last years "A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy" publication.

  

Here is the pledge as quoted from the publication:

 

"Set a national emission reduction target of 30 percent below 2020 levels from fertilizers and work with fertilizer manufacturers, farmers, provinces and territories, to develop an approach to meet it."

 

This absolute emissions reduction (not emissions intensity reduction) target of 30 percent is to be met by 2030, less than a decade from now.  Canada's plan is based on the European Union's plan to reduce the use of fertilizers by at least 20 percent by 2030, a move which is already proving to be very, very unpopular with farmers throughout the union.

  

In a report prepared for Fertilizer Canada, a group which represents manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers of nitrogen, phosphate, potash and sulphur fertilizers entitled "Analysis of Potential Direct Financial Impacts on Canadian Farmers’ Fertilizer Use - Macro Analysis" prepared by MNP LLP.  The report concludes the following:

 

"A straight-line reduction in fertilizer usage results in increased differences of actual yields versus potential yields if the status quo had been continued. By 2030, yield gaps for the three crops are estimated at 23.6 bushels per acre per year for canola, 67.9 bushels per acre per year for corn, and 36.1 per acre per year bushels per acre for spring wheat. Given constant prices, the total value of lost production grows to $10.4 billion per year by 2030."

 

Here is a graphic showing the impact of reduced fertilizer use on farm income:

 

Here is a map showing the agricultural lands that will be most impacted by the 30 percent reduction:

 

 

Revenue losses to Canadian farmers for these three crops alone will total $48.36 billion between 2023 and 2030.  According to the CEO of Fertilizer Canada, Karen Proud, the federal government unilaterally made the decision on the level of cuts without consulting either provincial governments or the agricultural sector and other key stakeholders.  This should come as no surprise given that the Trudeau Liberals have a history of being know it alls when it comes to just about every issue.

 

Fertilizer Canada has stated that farmers do not have to choose between the environment and the economy.  The group's 4R Nutrient Stewardship program is the foundation for a reduction in farm emission reductions and that farmers should not have to rely on the federal government to tell them how to use fertilizers properly.  Under the 4R program, farmers will follow the following four principles:

 

 

The 4R protocol results in a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 35 percent which , if implanted across Western Canada, would reduce annual CO2e emissions of 2 to 3 megatons per year.

 

Here is a graphic showing how the 30 percent rate reduction in the use of fertilizers will compare to the implementation of the 4R protocol:

 

It is estimated that a 30 percent absolute emission reduction for a farmer with 1000 acres of canola and 1000 acres of wheat will suffer a profit loss of between $38,000 and $40,500 annually.

 

One might think that the Trudeau government would have taken the opportunity to address this issue at the annual meeting of Federal-Provincial-Territorial ministers of agriculture during their three day meeting in Saskatchewan held in July 2022 but such was not the case with the issue not even appearing on the agenda.  Here is a press release from the Saskatchewan government about the issue:

 

Apparently, the Trudeau government has set the target and is intransigent about making any changes no matter how Canadian farmers may feel about the impact of the cuts in fertilizer use.  It's another case of "too bad, so sad, suck it up princess" when it comes to the globalist agenda being promoted in Canada by this individual among others who are directing Canada's role in the new order at the behest of their real leader:

 

Given the extremely high prices of input costs for Canadian farmers during the 2022 growing season, it should come as no surprise that food inflation will be painful for consumers, a trend that will continue if the Trudeau government continues with its plans to essentially box farmers into a corner where their incomes no longer meet the cost of reduced production.  Perhaps instead of picking on the agricultural sector, the Liberal ruling class should look at and reduce its own carbon footprint when it comes to gadding about the nation and the world using taxpayer-funded air and surface travel.  After all, as Justine has told Canadians, we're in a "climate emergency":

 

But, then again, maybe the federal government's attitude toward the future of food as it relates to the unwashed masses of Canadian taxpayers explains this:

If there's one thing that Canadians have learned about the Trudeau government over the past two years it's that stubbornly clinging to flawed ideology overrules common sense.

Vladimir Putin and the Failure of the Global Neoliberal Order

At the recent forum Strong Ideas for the New Times which was organized by the non-profit, autonomous Agency for Strategic Initiatives:

 

 

...Vladimir Putin made some very pointed and pertinent comments during his address to the plenary session.  

  

As background, the annual Forum acts as a crowdsourcing platform for Russia's most imaginative people whose ideas will be used to reboot Russia's economy, social and technology spheres. Let's look at some of the key excerpts.  The mission of the Agency for Strategic Initiatives is as follows:

 

 

At this year's Forum, 87,000 people from across Russia submitted more than 19,000 projects aimed at "... creating technological sovereignty, training personnel in demand, improving the quality of life, and driving regional growth...."

  

The projects were accepted in seven categories, such as HR, technology, social sphere, environment, regional development, and entrepreneurship, and there is also an Open Conversation (other proposals for the national development which do not fit into the specified topics).  Of the top 200 ideas that were discussed at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, 100 initiatives and projects were selected for the two-day face-to-face meeting held this past week with 10 of them being presented directly to the nation's leadership at the plenary session.  

  

With that information as background to the setting for Vladimir Putin's comments, let's look at a few quotes that are particularly pertinent given the evolution of the unipolar global world order also known as the international rules-based order which is predicated on American dominance with all bolds throughout being mine.

 

"National and global processes are underway to develop the fundamentals and principles of a harmonious, fairer and more community-focused and safe world order as an alternative to the existing world order, or the unipolar world order in which we lived, and which, because of its nature, is definitely becoming a brake on the development of our civilisation."

  

Before we look at the next quote, an explanation is in order. In Russian terms, the "Golden Billion" is "...an allegory intended to designate the most wealthy part of humans living predominated in the most developed nations and having all that is needed for a secure and comfortable life."  The "Golden Billion" term was coined by Anatoly Tsikunov in his book from 1990 entitled "The Plot of World Government: Russia and the Golden Billion".  In general, the "Golden Billion" can be thought of as the global elite who consume far more than their share of natural resources and that the wealth of Western elites is based on their exploitation of the lower classes, particularly those that live in former colonies whose resources were plundered by the elite.

  

Here is the next quote of interest given the explanation of the Golden Billion":

 

"The model of total domination by the so-called golden billion is unfair. Why should this golden billion, which is only part of the global population, dominate everyone else and enforce its rules of conduct that are based on the illusion of exceptionalism? It divides the world into first and second-class people and is therefore essentially racist and neo-colonial. The underlying globalist and pseudo-liberal ideology is becoming increasingly more like totalitarianism and is restraining creative endeavour and free historical creation.

One gets the impression that the West is simply unable to offer the world a model for the future of its own. "

After seeing the response of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States (among others) to the COVID-19 pandemic, there is little doubt that we have entered an era of neoliberal totalitarianism.

 

And, according to Putin, here is how the West attained its position of preeminence in the world:

 

"Indeed, it was no accident that the golden billion attained its gold and achieved quite a lot, but it got there not because it implemented certain concepts. It mainly got to where it is by robbing other peoples in Asia and Africa. That is how it was. India was robbed for an extensive period of time. This is why the elite of the golden billion are terrified of other global development centres potentially coming up with their own development alternatives."

 

Here is his comment on the existing global order:

 

"No matter how much the West and the supranational elite strive to preserve the existing order, a new era and a new stage in world history are coming. Only genuinely sovereign states are in a position to ensure a high growth dynamic and become a role model for others in terms of standards of living and quality of life, the protection of traditional values and high humanistic ideals, and development models where an individual is not a means, but the ultimate goal."

 

In closing, here is a quote where Putin tout's the "Russian advantage", a particularly interesting concept given the West's attempts to sanction Russia out of existence:

 

"I would like to emphasise that to move forward into the future we need to remember our great, glorious past, rely on our traditions and be proud of our achievements. And, once again, we must move forward by all means. It is absolutely unacceptable to rest on our laurels, look back to the past and be happy at recalling what our fathers, grandfathers and grandmothers did. No. We must certainly rely on this enormous experience and the achievements of our nation, our peoples – our advantage lies in the multi-ethnic and multi-religious nature of our country – but we must of course look to the future and move only forward."

 

If you wish to read Putin's entire speech, you can find it here.

 

How Much Does the United States Military Cost American Taxpayers?

With the current conflict in Ukraine in mind and Congressional leaders' insistence that Washington must arm Ukraine to fight against Vladimir Putin at all costs, a recent study by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) is particularly pertinent as it gives American taxpayers a sense of how much they are paying to the defense sector and how the funding of the military-industrial-intelligence complex compares to what Washington is spending on other important items.

 

Let's start by looking at IPS's "State of Insecurity: The Cost of Militarization Since 9/11" report.  The authors of the report included the following as part of America's military expenses:

 

1.) Department of Defense expenditures

 

2.) Department of Energy's nuclear weapons activities

 

3.) Intelligence expenditures including the Central Intelligence Agency

 

4.) International military assistance

 

5.) Military retiree/veterans' benefits 

 

6.) Most programs in the Department of Homeland Security excluding FEMA.

 

7.) Federal law enforcement programs

 

All data is sourced from the Office of Management and Budget budget authority data and are inflation-adjusted to fiscal year 2021.

  

Between fiscal year 2002 and 2021, the following military spending took place (in 2021 dollars):

 

Department of Defense - $14.14 trillion

 

Military retirement and other programs - $1.27 trillion

 

Nuclear weapons programs - $460 billion

 

Aid for foreign militaries - $267 billion

 

CIA and other intelligence - $28 billion

 

This results in total military spending of $16.26 trillion over the two decade period after September 11, 2001.  

 

Here is a graphic showing how military spending has grown (in constant 2021 dollars) since the mid-1970s and how it continues to remain at elevated levels:

 

Let's look at a breakdown of spending by the Department of Defense.  More than 70 percent or $9.9 billion of the Pentagon's spending over the past two decades was for operations, purchasing, research and development. Breaking this down further, operations and maintenance spending on operating, deploying and maintaining weapons including ships and aircraft plus training totalled $5.7 trillion.  Procurement costs which include purchasing and upgrading major weapons systems totalled $2.8 trillion.  Compensation for military personnel accounted for $3.3 trillion in spending, noting that the entry-level pay for an enlisted service member in 2021 was the equivalent of a $10.30 hourly wage.  The three biggest beneficiaries of Washington's military generosity over the two decades were Afghanistan at $91 billion, Israel at $57 billion and Iraq at $36 billion; these three nations accounted for nearly 70 percent of all military assistance over the period.

  

It is also important to note that around half of the Pentagon's budget goes directly into the pockets of the defense industry.  Over the last 20 years, the defense industry took in more than $7.2 trillion in taxpayer-funded purchases compared to only $4.7 trillion in the 20 years before that which, as you may recall, included the peak years of the Cold War.

 

Now, let's look at another analysis, again by the Institute for Policy Studies which looks at some tax facts for American taxpayers.  Here is a summary of their findings and how Washington's military spending compares to its other spending:

 

1.) the average taxpayer contributed about $2000 to the military in 2021 with almost half of that amount ending up in the pockets of corporate military contractors.

 

2.) the average taxpayer paid $929 just for Pentagon contractors in 2021 compared to $171 for Kindergarten to grade 12 education.

 

3.) the average taxpayer paid $62 for nuclear weapons compared to $27 for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

 

4.) the average taxpayer paid $62 for deportations and border control compared to $5 for renewable energy.

 

5.) the average taxpayer paid $18 for federal prisons compared to $7 for anti-homelessness programs.

 

As you can see from this data, Washington's spending on the military since September 11, 2001 has been profligate when compared to spending on the other key needs of society.  As I noted in this posting, the defense industry is well aware that Washington is for sale and the corner office dwellers in the military-industrial-intelligence community are well aware of that fact and have been in a long-term buying mood.