Globalists Target Farming

 In January os 2021 I posted this blog: Delphius' Debate: USA: Watch The farms (delphiusdebate.blogspot.com)

Where I expressed concern that farms were being bought out by large corporations.

Well, look what's happening now. In Sri Lanka a government has been toppled because of it's severe environmental restrictions. The Sri Lankan government banned fertiliser. Yes, it banned fertiliser use in farms. 

So yield dropped and farmers (and the people generally) revolted.

In The Netherlands, the Farmers are being teargassed for protesting against a government that is trying to bring in rules that limit nitrogen use. Banning fertiliser and also limiting livestock. That's strange, a government on the other side of the world doing exactly the same thing. It's almost like there's a plan being followed across the globe, like someone else is telling governments what to do.

I have said before that moves are afoot to corporatise the farms of the world. By banning essential things like fertiliser or limiting livestock numbers then the farms become unprofitable and ripe for the picking. Who will pick them up? Big corporations will. Big corporations will take them over and run them using their genetically modified crops that require less fertiliser. The move will be greenwashed around the globe as a triumph. 

Even those farms that hold out will eventually be forced to use the corporate GM crops as they will be the only ones approved by government. Available at huge cost no doubt. A cost high enough to bankrupt the private farms eventually. While the corporate farms get the GM goodies at preferential rates. It has to happen once the corporations get involved, because their whole reason for being is to maximise profits and remove competition.

I see what you are doing big corporations. I see what your end goals are you treacherous elites.

Reduce CO2 so that global yields will suffer, reduce nitrogen so they fall even further. Let the root of food production and the safety of the countryside fall into the hands of global corporations.

What could be scary about that?

What could be scary when you have no alternative then to swallow the corporate protein pill. 

What could be scary when food is limited or priced out of your reach?

Where do you go to eat if food is controlled by a corrupt cartel?

I can se far enough ahead to see what the farmers see already. A threat to the supply of food and along with it their livelihoods. 

This scorched Earth Environmentalism, backed by big business, corrupt corporations and corrupt government cronies need to be stamped out immediately.

I've said it before: Do these big businesses really have your welfare or the welfare of the world at heart? Do you believe that? Are you an idiot?

Globalism: The Short-Sighted Ideology

 I'm nearly 60. With that sort of maturity (I hate to say age, I'm still a teenager in my head) comes a certain perspective.

I tend to think more in strategic terms, rather than tactically. More long-term.

So to me, globalism seems very short-sighted, very tactical, very short-term. Why?

Well, because over the long term there will always be something that happens to eliminate the a short-term gain.

Hence we have the absolute global shitstorm after Covid. Something that we haven't recovered from six months or more after restrictions were lifted. Either countries are holding onto outdated medical advice and restricting travel and imports while other countries have opened up and are gobbling up the world's resources as their consumerist needs re-emerge.

During Covid, a lot of old container ships were scrapped. During the lull, companies preferred not to pay wages and mooring fees for hulls that were not earning. Instead they scrapped the least efficient ships and made their crews redundant.

Now we're all better and we want to buy stuff, there isn't enough capacity to bring it to us. So now instead of £1500, a 40ft container will cost £20,000 to £30,000 to ship from the far east to the UK. Supply and demand. You can't pay less because shipping it by rail across Asia would still be more. 

If what you're shipping is large and you can't get many of them into a container, that a massive price hike per unit. Even if you're shipping 30,000 items in that container, that could in effect be an extra £1 per unit on the landed price of the item. 30,000 items in a container: they can't be that big and by extrapolation that expensive. So you may have doubled the landed price per item of your product. 

Hence inflation. 

This is where Globalism falls down. Removing whole industries from countries and relying on a single country like China, or even a small handful of countries on the other side of the globe to make everything you consume is a risky strategy. Not risky for the manufacturer: they will move on to the next product, not risky for the shipper, they will just ship something else and still be paid, not risky even for the seller in the West: they just put the price up. It's the poor sap at the end of that supply chain that gets handed the shitty end of the stick. All the price increases get handed to the consumer. 

So Inflation.

Globalism also falls down when it comes to security. The Globalist mantra is we all trade together, so we can't go to war with each other. But look at what's happening in China: with vast amounts of money coming into the country for goods being shipped to the rest of the World, they are now investing that money in ever more capable military assets. They are not buying from abroad. They are making their own assets in-country. They can do that, because they have all the production capacity right there.

If the UK wanted to make a bespoke microchip in quantity in the UK, could it happen? I doubt it. Could we produce and supply ALL of our military assets in the UK? Nope, not a chance. 

Think we can? I'm sure all the chips in the electronics in our military kit are made in the UK. I'm sure the missiles our aircraft are armed with are made in the UK. I'm sure the sensors on the engines in our tanks and Army vehicles are not made in...China.

This is important. If it ever comes to a shooting war, logistics are key. EVERY general and field-Marshall in every historical war knows the importance of logistics. 

If the supply of sensors for our diesel engines or the supply of components to solder to our UK-made circuit boards dries up, then we cannot fight. 

Globalism hamstrings countries. It make them reliant on outside sources of supply. It works, until that source of supply is cut off by your enemy, or worse still your enemy is the source of supply. Or even of that source then becomes the sole source on the planet and increases prices.

Globalism doesn't work.

Where is All the Money Going?

 I do wonder why no-one has asked the question above before. Where exactly is all the money we give to government going?

Lets let's just step back a few decades, to the 1970s. Back then we paid a smaller proportion of our wage in overall taxation, but we got a lot more in services from the government.

Our armed services were massive. A vast Army was placed in Germany to counteract any threat from The Soviet Union, our Navy had several hundred ships available and on patrol around the World and our Airforce had a large number of aircraft available and several types of aircraft to chose from depending on the role.

We had a Nationalised Railway, Utilities (Gas, Electric, Water, and National Distribution Networks of all of those), a National Health Service, a Welfare System, a Civil Defence Network, etc.

But over the the decades, these have been whittled away. Some more silently than others. 

Gas, Electricity and Water were sold off during the Thatcher years, with the Railways following later.

So, we lost the need to subsidise those industries when they were privatised. Or that should be the case.

The Army, Navy and Air Force have been reduced by each successive Government since the Seventies. The "Peace Dividend" provided by the fall of the Soviet Union was supposed to reduce the cost of employing a standing Army in Germany and "Force Multipliers" in the shape of more capable ships and aircraft in the Navy and Airforce should have also provided benefits as well as general reductions in numbers.

Then we come to the more silent reductions: We used to have a vast Civil Defence Network across the UK in case of War. If the war came home, they would aid the defence of the UK and co-ordinate assets across the country to repel aggressors and also plot the attacks and their aftermath in the case of a nuclear attack. Not that there was much else to do after nuclear Armageddon. 

That whole civil defence network has disappeared. The bunkers are defunct, the communications network closed down and the airspace auctioned off to private companies.

So why I ask, is the tax burden still so high?

If we've sold off all the utilities and their associated liabilities, is we've reduced the armed forces to a fraction of their former strength and we've eliminated an entire civil defence network. All that expenditure is no longer required. 

So why did the tax burden not reduce?

Is the burden of the NHS so great that it's eaten into the spare cash? Is the privatisation of GP services a poorly implemented  attempt to reduce that burden?

Has repaying government borrowing done the same? Have we borrowed so much is using up all that spare cash in repayments?

Are we paying too much to supranational organisations? Are we paying the EU and the UN so much money we've had remove our defensive capabilities to almost zero?

Where exactly is all that money that we did spend on important stuff actually going? 

Or, is it that the tax take has reduced, it's just that wages have shrunk so much the tax burden appears the same or greater than before?

Does anyone have stats on this at all?