Our friends at the Daily Bell recently composed a thought-provoking piece on the integration - I call it "re-colonization" of Africa - into the Western Anglosphere, an effort that, as I have argued in previous blogs, is not without its own deep connections to the current ebola hysteria and evidences from Liberian and Ghanese doctors, who are noticing correlations between outbreaks and vaccination "tests." Here's the larger picture as The Daily Bell sees it:
Here's the basics of how it works:
"Our analysis rests on a trade mechanism that was tried in Japan in the mid-1980s and then possibly repeated with China. The idea with first China and then Japan, apparently, was to generate massive amounts of central bank money printing that would then be used to purchase US Treasuries.
"The Asian money would in turn allow the US to continue subsidizing consumers throughout the US who would be directed toward overseas goods and services. Money revolved circularly, in other words.
"The same sort of thing is now taking place, from what we can tell, in Africa. It has many facets, including a good deal of promotional material – articles and special features in mainstream media – plus considerable exposure on global media including facilities like the BBC.
"The idea is to portray Africa as a single nation with vast untapped opportunities. As hundreds of billions pour into Africa in "aid" money and from Western hedge funds and mutual funds, etc., the next stage of the process takes place, which is full-on Westernization to the degree it can be accomplished.
"The Westernization of Africa runs along the same lines as the installation of various Western financial systems and companies in China and Japan. Multinationals relocate offices, Western sociopolitical and economic processes are pursued and in the case of Africa, military conflict is engaged.
"The result, over time, is to be an Africa, on the surface anyway, that resembles Western societies. The nation-states of Africa will come to resemble the "states" of the US while a federal monetary and fiscal strata is grafted onto an emergent federal technocracy."
You'll note that here as in India and Latin America, however, the camel's nose in the tent is the Western "big Agriculture" model, a model once again being pursued at the expense of normal heirloom - and hence non-patentable - seeds:
"In this article, excerpted above, we notice that Africa's farming culture is forcibly manipulated to create a model that is similar to Western "big agriculture" models.
"Here's more from the article:
"Mariam Mayet of the African Centre for Biosafety in South Africa says that many countries are subsidizing farmers to buy fertilizer as part of the chemical-industrial model of agriculture, but that takes money away from public crop-breeding programmes that provide improved seeds to farmers at low cost. The Seattle Times quoted her as saying: "It's a system designed to benefit agribusinesses and not small-scale farmers." She added that so many institutions, from African governments to the World Bank, have 'embraced' the 'green revolution' that alternative farming methods are getting short shrift.
"... Anna Goren of The Seattle Globalist reported that panelists at the Summit discussed the loss of traditional diets and ways of life and were also concerned about the increased reliance on expensive inputs and the dramatic drop in price of crops. This has resulted in poverty for the small farmer.
Goren quoted Daniel Maingi as saying:
"What the World Bank has done, the International Monetary fund, what AGRA and Bill Gates are doing, it's actually pretty wrong. The farmer himself should not be starving".
He added that what AGRA is doing is "out of sync with the natural process" by bringing in imported seeds, which are not adapted to the land and require excessive fertilizer and pesticides.. AGRA is part of a global trend that is being driven by big agritech that seeks to eradicate the small farmer and undermine local economies and food sovereignty by subjecting countries to the vagaries of rigged global markets.
Giant agritech corporations like Monsanto with their patented seeds and associated chemical inputs are working to ensure a shift away from diversified agriculture that guarantees balanced local food production, the protection of people's livelihoods and environmental sustainability.
... The Gates Foundation, Monsanto and Western governments are placing African agriculture it in the hands of big agritech for private profit and strategic control under the pretext of helping the poor."
Of course, the ebola scare has provided the convenient mechanism and vehicle for a projection of the American military into the strategically important region of west central Africa, and we suspect, not without a long-term geopolitical target, indeed, the "fly in the African ointment": China.
China, as many here are already aware, has been targeting Africa as a region it wishes to cultivate, and indeed, with the admission of South Africa into the BRICSA bloc of nations, and the recent opening of the BRICSA development bank, Africa is in the crosshairs of the world's powers once again as a market to be cultivated and developed. In this respect, it will, we argue, become a testbed of which model will ultimately prevail: the US-Anglosphere model, whose psychopathological GMO-military-agricbusiness pattern basis we've seen in action in India, or China's "soft power" approach. Here, China's approach in Africa seems like a page out of John F. Kennedy's "Peace Corps" playbook, on steroids. China has been doing what the West claimed to do: invest in roads, infrastructure, hospitals, and schools. And with the recent Chinese rejections and restrictions of American GMO products, once again as I have been arguing, GMOs could easily become a geopolitical hotbed issue if the BRICSA bloc nations appear to make them such. Each of the BRICSA bloc nations - Brazil, India, China, Russia, South Africa, and particularly the latter four - have all expressed strong misgivings about GMOs.
So another prediction: it could be that Africa will become the testbed case, not only for the hard power approach of the West versus China's soft power approach, but also for the GMO issue at large, and China could easily leverage its position, and world opinion, on the GMO issue in the region by pointing out the long term lack of benefit of the big agribusiness approach to Africa's agriculture and poor farmers. The Daily Bell is understandably reluctant to offer an opinion as to who will win in the very long term on this one. But I am not; as the stench coming from the billionaire busybodies and big agribusiness continues to grow, so will the world opinion against it, and against the American unipolarism driving it, or as the old adage has it, you attract more honey bees with honey, than with horse puckey.
This is yet another one to watch folks.
See you on the flip side.