Let’s Get Rid Of Food – What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Despite months of enormous and widespread protests from Dutch farmers, the Dutch government will be confiscating 3,000 farms and closing them down in the interests of complying with EU environmental rules to decrease nitrogen emissions by 50% by 2030.

Of course, this means 3,000 farms’ worth of food production will be eliminated. The Netherlands is the world’s second-largest exporter of agricultural products and provides vegetables for much of Western Europe. Over half of Dutch land is used for agriculture, and that doesn’t count 24,000 acres’ worth of crops growing in greenhouses. What does the Dutch government think will happen to the price and availability of food after their “green” agenda is accomplished? What could possibly go wrong with their plans?

Next, Germany, at the behest of the EU’s green agenda, has banned farmers in one of its federal states from properly fertilizing large swathes of land. The farmers are furious; they know what will happen to yields if they reduce nitrogen fertilizer. But who cares what a bunch of peasants are bleating about?

Now Canada is doing the same thing, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pushing for a fertilizer reduction in the name of “climate change.” Let’s get rid of food. What could possibly go wrong?

Sri Lanka, of course, has been the poster-child for government interference in farming. In this island nation, the government banned synthetic fertilizers and forcibly ordered the entire country to switch to organic fertilizers instead. As a result, harvests nosedived and starvation is a very real possibility. But who cares? They’re just peasants.

Farmers the world over are already reeling from out-of-control fertilizer costs due to high energy prices. Even without government mandates, many are going out of business, unable to keep their heads financially above water. Each and every one of these losses contributes to the decline of future food availability.

“[This green extremism] is out of control,” says environmental writer Michael Shellenberger. “You would think that Sri Lanka would be a wake-up call. But we haven’t seen any slowdown.”

Having declared carbon an evil element, the global elites are now turning their attention to another incredibly common element, nitrogen. Despite the fact that it makes up 80% of the atmosphere, it’s scarcer in soil, which is why crops respond so dramatically to nitrogen fertilizers. Today, nitrogen-based fertilizers produce the food that feeds 4 billion people. But who cares if they starve? They’re just peasants.

This seems to be the modus operandi of the global elites. Growing and raising food is destroying the planet! Who cares if the peasants don’t have enough to eat? Let’s get rid of food! What could possibly go wrong?

But not to worry; the peasants can always eat crickets, worms and maggots. The elites, needless to say, are excusing themselves from consuming anything so revolting and are happily dining on opulent beef and seafood (as just happened at the United Nations COP27 climate conference).

In other words, a famine is being engineered, as it has been so many times in history. Tragically, controlling the masses by controlling the food supply is nothing new. However, this is the first time it’s being pushed on a global scale rather than a local or national scale. So who wins? Who benefits?

As author Robert Gore points out in an essay “Everybody and everything is more important than you,” we are all being urged to make sacrifices for the common good (in this case, climate change and saving the planet). “One day, out of nowhere, the question popped into your head: Who’s collecting the sacrificial offerings?” writes Gore. “Because that’s what all this is – sacrificial offerings – not to propitiate some unseen deity, but to line the pockets and to increase the power of … those telling you that you have to sacrifice! That’s the thought you’ve pushed down all these years: All this sacrifice is a damn scam, a racket! Once you gave it some thought, you realized it’s been going on for years, decades, centuries. Somebody telling people they must sacrifice for some greater good, and those same somebodies collecting the sacrificial offerings.” [Italics in original.]

He has a point. When farmers are being told, in essence, to stop growing food (and are having their farms forcibly confiscated lest they commit the unpardonable sin of feeding people), we must ask ourselves: Cui bono? Who benefits? Surely it’s not the peasants in Europe, Canada, or Sri Lanka.

We have Yuval Noah Harari, a cold-blooded World Economic Forum adviser who wants all of us dead (“We just don’t need the vast majority of the population” since modern technology renders human labor economically and militarily “redundant”). Since Mr. Harari is not personally volunteering to help the cause by committing suicide, I presume it’s the rest of us who are “redundant,” not Mr. Harari.

Or how about Les Knight of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, who wants humans to voluntarily die out (“Feed ’em, don’t breed ’em,” is his sage advice). No worries, Mr. Knight: If the present course of action continues, we won’t even be able to “feed ’em,” and a lot of the peasants will die. Isn’t that nice?

“The lie has always been that the sacrifices of you and your fellow sacrificers would build a better world for everyone,” continues Gore. “Now they no longer try to hide it: sacrifice gets you worse, not better. Bugs instead of meat; an urban apartment instead of a house and land; mass transit instead of a personal automobile; a guaranteed income instead of meaningful work; computer entries instead of money, surveillance instead of privacy; compliance instead of freedom; punishment instead of reward.”

This is why some are calling climate change the “new human sacrifice,” where the peasants are offered up as a sacrifice to the “gods” of climate change by the elites who reap the benefits.

But there is something called the Law of Unintended Consequences. Even the elites must eat. Once they’ve eliminated the food, who will feed them? What could possibly go wrong?