THE GMO WAR WITHIN THE WAR
I've been having difficulty during this Ukrainian war situation trying to remain objective. Frankly, I hate what the West is doing to, and through, the Ukraine, and I'm sickened at the degree of the corruption of the Ukrainian puppet governments. Really... there's no other way to qualify the post-Maidan governments other than as puppets. We do not need to re-rehearse here what has transpired already regarding the biolabs, what they were doing, the Azov battalions, and so on.
But one of the things lurking in the background of this unnecessary war - unnecessary because the west is ultimately responsible for bringing it about - is the issue of agriculture and GMOs, genetically modified organisms or food crops. I've been pointing out for some time that the policies of the Ukraine and of the Russian Federation are diametrically opposed on the issue, the Ukraine in favor of GMOs, and willing to allow the planting of GMO crops and willing to allow special corporate "privileges" for GMO companies like Mon(ster)santo, now owned by the German chemicals giant Bayer, and Russia, which has basically put a moratorium on GMOs until genuine inter-generational testing can be done. One has only to do a search on this website for my many blogs about the subject. Indeed, many years ago on the late George Ann Hughes' Byte Show, I mentioned the special privileges that the Ukrainian government had extended to Mon(ster)santo and other GMO corporations, including special port privileges along the Black Sea, including the recently hotly contested port of Mariupol on the Sea of Azov.
To put the point succinctly, one of the many agendas driving this war is the issue of GMOs, and finally, someone else is taking notice according to this article shared by V.T.:
The article pulls no punches and states this thesis with a much-needed clarity and concision. Referring to the reversal of a moratorium on farmland sales in the Ukraine, the article notes that a similar phenomenon is driving the consolidation of farmland into fewer and fewer private hands as is occurring in this country, and then it mentioned the culprit behind the scenes:
An earlier administration in Ukraine had instituted the moratorium in order to halt further privatization of The Commons and small farms, which were being bought up by oligarchs and concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. As documented in a series of critical reports over ten years by the Oakland Institute based in California*,* the moratorium on land sales in Ukraine aimed to prevent the acquisition and consolidation of farmland in the hands of the domestic oligarch class and foreign corporations.
The marketization of farmland is part of a series of policy “reforms” that the International Monetary Fund stipulated as a precondition enabling Ukraine to receive $8 billion in loans from the IMF.
Even amid the pandemic there has been “wide-ranging opposition from the Ukrainian public to reversing that ban, with over 64 percent of the people opposed to the creation of a land market, according to an April 2021 poll.”
Additionally, the IMF loan conditions required that Ukraine must also reverse its ban on genetically engineered crops, and enable private corporations like Monsanto to plant its GMO seeds and spray the fields with Monsanto’s Roundup. In that way, Monsanto hopes to break the boycott by a number of countries in Europe of its genetically engineered corn and soy.
It is the thesis of this essay that agricultural competition over land use between the U.S. and Russia—two gigantic capitalist countries with the most powerful nuclear arsenals in the world—is a neglected but important force driving the war in Ukraine. (Emphasis added)
The article then mentioned the concern behind GMOs, and incidentally, in so doing, reprises the statements of the Russian government in rejecting GMOs until genuine long-term intergenerational and impact studies can be done:
U.S. agriculture relies on two main inputs: migrant farm labor and the monocropping of genetically engineered corn, soy, and other crops designed to tolerate—and thus be saturated with—Monsanto’s cancer-causing herbicide Roundup. The government’s regulatory process is broken, if it ever worked properly at all: Corporations such as Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, DuPont, Syngenta, Novartis, BASF and the other pesticide and pharmaceutical manufacturers are allowed to mask the truth about the dangers of their products.
They are facilitated in this by the complicity of federal (and global) regulatory agencies, allowing them to intentionally thwart the Precautionary Principle. Where the introduction of a new product or process whose ultimate effects are disputed or unknown, that product or process should be rejected. We need to support the development of international movements opposing the subservience of government agencies to the giant corporations.
Six years ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to seize economic opportunities around the growing of food by opposing genetically engineered agriculture and Monsanto’s Roundup, the world’s most widely used herbicide; he initiated a program to eliminate pesticides and genetically engineered crops from Russia’s fields. The goal was to out-compete the U.S. and Canada as the world’s number one and two grain exporters by going organic, which mattered especially in Europe with its stricter laws regarding the import and planting of GMOs.
Monsanto had planned to open its first plant in Russia, but in June 2016 Russia’s State Duma adopted a government bill banning the cultivation and breeding of genetically modified plants and animals, except as used for scientific research purposes. A few weeks later, Putin signed federal law No. 358 prohibiting cultivation of genetically engineered crops. The law also made it illegal to breed genetically engineered animals on the territory of the Russian Federation.
Putin had said he envisioned a future in which Russia would become “the world’s largest supplier of ecologically clean and high-quality organic food.” He called on the country to become completely self-sufficient in food production: “We are not only able to feed ourselves taking into account our lands, water resources; Russia is able to become the largest world supplier of healthful, ecologically clean and high-quality food which the Western producers have long lost, especially given the fact that demand for such products in the world market is steadily growing.”
To put all this more succinctly, if I had my choice, walking into my local supermarket to purchase vegetables, between produce and grain grown in Russia and that grown here, I'd easily pick that grown in Russia. And to his credit, Mr. Putin recognized the essential need for "ecologically clean and high-quality food which the Western producers have long lost..."
The only problem with Mr. Putin's remarks is that they were far too kind. Ecologically clean and high-quality food was not "lost" in the West; it was deliberately killed by a corrupt corporatacracy, by big Agribusiness or, as we call it here on this website, "I.G. Farbensanto", and an equally corrupt and corporately-penetrated Federal bureaucracy, by legal fictions and pseudo-scientific nonsense like the doctrine of "substantial equivalence," a magical doctrine that simultaneously allowed corporations like Mon(ster)santo to bring their GMO seeds and products to market with a minimum of testing, by the argument (for example) that GMO corn looked and tasted like ordinary corn and was therefore "substantially equivalent" and need not therefore go through a laborious testing process, while at the same time allowing them to patent their products, sue farmers whose fields were infested with their products (through no fault of the farmer), and so on. You'll notice the parallel with the actions of Big Pharma during the covid planscamdemic. Indeed, in many cases the corporation names are the same, as the article notes.
For the Russians and their government, this is the issue with GMOs, their long term effects are unknown, and they - wisely adopting the Precautionary Principle - refused to put their population at risk just for the sake of increasing profits:
The 2016 laws were designed to implement Putin’s earlier proposals “to protect the Russian market and consumers from GMO products, as their use could have unforeseen consequences.”
As reported in Farmers Weekly in June 2015, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich announced that Russia would not use GM technology to increase productivity in agriculture. “Russia has chosen a different path. We will not use these technologies,” Dvorkovich said.
As a result of this decision, Russian products will be “some of the cleanest in the world in terms of technology use,” Dvorkovich continued. A bill for a full ban on the cultivation of GM crops is currently making its way through the Duma.
Farmers Weekly continues: “Russian agriculture minister Nikolai Fyodorov also believes Russia must remain a GM-free country. At a meeting of deputies representing rural areas organized by United Russia, he said the government will not ‘poison their citizens.’” United Russia is Russia’s largest political party, holding 2/3 of the seats in the state Dumas. (Emphasis added)
Just the opposite happened in the Ukraine, as it became captive to the almighty dollar, and the corruption that comes with it:
This was a far different response than provided by the government of Ukraine. Despite large protests against GMOs and the foreign corporate land grab, and despite the fact that Ukrainian law had prohibited private sector farmland ownership, Ukraine’s government negotiated a multi-billion dollar loan from the International Monetary Fund that stipulated a removal of the blocks to GMO production that was “transforming millions of pristine acres into [a] poisoned wasteland. Eco-genocide for profit. Monsanto’s dirty hands are hugely involved.”
Ukraine’s agricultural success is crucial for its economy and ability to reduce its dependence on Russia, the New York TImes explained in May 2014. The Times continued:
““Western interests are pressing for change… As part of (an IMF loan agreement), the country’s government must push through business reforms that” let agribusiness and other corporate sectors operate freely.
In a recent article for The Real Agenda News, Luis R. Miranda takes it a step further: “Big multinationals want to exploit Ukraine’s potential. Especially Europe’s richest farmland.”
In retaliation for Western sanctions over the Ukraine crisis back in August 2015, Russia extended its list of countries that it would subject to a food import ban. Far from the sanctions hurting Russia’s economy, as Monsanto and other pesticide-producing corporations expected (and hoped), over the decade Russia succeeded in its plan to become the world’s number one exporter of wheat and other grains. Putin claimed that Russia’s success in that regard was due in part to the preference of much of the world for non-GMO food.
The article continues by noting that GMOs have become a weapon in the USSA's arsenal and that GMO production has been imposed on nations as a result of US "police actions," and summarizes the long battle of Mon(ster)santo to penetrate the Russian market in spite of the positions of Mr. Putin's government.
When one turns to the Ukraine and the recent war, the financial motivations - billions of dollars for IG Farbensanto are at stake - become clearer:
“The World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) is [sic] helping biotech run the latest war in Ukraine,” writes Christina Sarich in Natural Society. “Make no mistake that what is happening in the Ukraine now is deeply tied to the interests of Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, and other big players in the poison food game.”
Exposed by the California-based Oakland Institute in 2014, the World Bank and IMF provided a loan of $17 billion to Ukraine.
Hidden from mainstream media exposure in the U.S., the World Bank and IMF loan “has opened up Ukraine to major corporate inroads,” writes Joyce Nelson in The Ecologist. “Loan conditions are forcing the deeply indebted country to open up to GMO crops, and lift the ban on private sector land ownership. U.S. corporations are jubilant at the ‘goldmine’ that awaits them.”
It is worth reading more from this 2014 report in *The Ecologist—*years before Russia sent troops into Ukraine in February 2022. The information provided is shocking—and unreported here in the U.S. While some in the U.S. understand that the 2014 political battles in Ukraine were over the expansion of NATO and control over energy pipelines to Europe, there was, and still is, an equally large but hidden global battle over GM grains, land ownership and usage, and “food pipelines.” (Emphases added)
One does not need to go much farther than this to understand the GMO component of the current war; at stake is a basic and fundamental vision of our world, and our food. It was Ludwig Feuerbach, I believe, who made the observation that man is what he eats, and for IG Farbensanto, man is a rough ashlar of DNA - a massa damnata of "raw" genetic material - to be genetically engineered and whipped into better shape, and one way to do so is through genetic manipulations of the food supply. So today's high octane speculation comes in the form of a warning: let us not forget that the monsters like the Baal Gateses at IG Farbensanto have also proposed putting their quackcines into GMOs, i.e., making GMO foods include their injections. Let us also not forget that the USSA and the Ukraine were caught red-handed doing bio-research in the biolabs concentrating on Slavic peoples, and there is no other way to interpret this than as a form of biowarfare research. So couple it all together: biolabs, biowarfare research, GMOs, quackcines and you end up with quite a few reasons for concern...
... and the Ukraine is once again the test bed for all this corruption, and the USSA is the source of it.
See you on the flip side...
Help the Community Grow
Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.