The Great Reset: 'Let them Eat Bugs'

Every dystopia has been always been sold as a utopia. From Green Revolution to Pandemic Vaccines. Are we moving to another totalitarian dystopian world order?

The Great Reset: 'Let them Eat Bugs'
“All utopias are dystopias. The term "dystopia" was coined by fools that believed a "utopia" can be functional.” ― A.E. Samaan

In 1789 when Antoinette was told that her peasants had no bread. She replied:

"Qu'ils mangent de la brioche"

This has been translated as "Let them eat cake"

(brioche was a luxury food made from butter and eggs)

Although the attribution and the historicity of this quote is disputed but it became the metaphor for the arrogance, control, and the complete disconnect of the rulers from the common people, who were mostly poor.

In the final years before the outbreak of the French Revolution, the hopelessness and the consequent anger of the people was at its peak.

That is what control and mindless greed lead to.

But it does not stop many from going down that road anyhow.

Is humanity on that road again?

Please Contribute to Drishtikone

What we do takes a lot of work. So, if you like our content and value the work that we are doing, please do consider contributing to our expenses. Choose the USD equivalent amount in your own currency you are comfortable with.

Insects as Cuisine

There is a new cuisine on the table.

Unbeknownst to us, a new food is being forced upon us all.


It has a new ideological force behind it. The Climate Change.

Yes, Climate Change is real and devastating. The idea is not to change the diet to bugs but to look at the consumption habits and ensure that things happen in moderation and of things that are aligned with nature.

Those pushing the idea of eating insects do it as a solution to climate change. It has gained traction due to their supposed low environmental impact compared to traditional livestock.

Insects like crickets, we are being told, are more efficient in terms of water use, space, and feed conversion, and produce significantly less methane.

The practice of entomophagy, or eating insects, has been part of many cultures worldwide.

For the prophets of this practice, it is seen as a sustainable alternative to meat due to the rising concerns over global food insecurity and environmental degradation.

The World Economic Forum and other organizations back this idea for its potential to provide a high-protein source with a smaller carbon footprint, promoting it as an innovative approach to addressing climate change challenges​

 In a world where we eat birds, mammals and even sea creatures such as prawns – themselves referred to as ‘insects of the sea’ – why does munching on an insect evoke such feelings of revulsion? And, more significantly, with two billion people on our planet happily consuming insects as part of their daily diets, why is this fare not served up more regularly on western plates? Humans across the planet were once hunter-gatherers, with insects widely featuring on the menu. Studies have shown that early hominins (an ancestor of humans who lived about two million years ago) used tools made of bone to dig into termite mounds, while many examples of insect-eating appear in religious literature in Christian, Jewish and Islamic faiths. (Source: "Why eating insects could help the fight against climate change and save the environment" / BBC\Discover Wildlife)

In the last few years, every mainstream liberal news outlet has been pushing this unabashedly.

Sounds a little fishy.. or buggy - isn't it?

Sources: Intelligencer / Green America / Time Magazine / The Guardian / BBC\Discover Wildlife

Toolkit climate activism!

The underlying current of this entire movement seems to be -

Meat is bad and harmful. Agriculture cannot sustain 10 billion. So lets go with the insects!

Maybe its just me but isn't a termite (yes! one journalist tasted termite too) and ants so much smaller than say a potato or eggplant? If the agriculture products won't be enough of take so much water and chemicals, then how do the corporates create bugs in gazillions to feed the 10 billion?!

Something is off.

And we need to sit back and think again. Because the course of the Rich and Powerful countries using agriculture to control economies and the polities of smaller countries in Global South has been on for a long time.

The minds that gave us the new world technologies were not really altruistic necessarily.

In fact, they were some of the darkest of minds.

Altruism and Death

There was a man called Fritz Haber. A Nobel Laureate German chemist who won his Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1918 for developing the Haber-Bosch process.

At that time, this technique revolutionized the industrial production of ammonia by synthesizing it from nitrogen and hydrogen gases. It was a collaboration with Carl Bosch at BASF.

By some estimates, this technique may have been responsible for providing 40% of the world's population with food.

Source: "How a century of ammonia synthesis changed the world" / Nature Geoscience

With the onset of World War I, BASF had ramped up ammonia production significantly, paving the way for a major shift in agriculture. At that time, Haber took a leading role at the newly established Kaiser Wilhelm Society in Berlin, heading the Institute for Physical Chemistry and Electrochemistry to foster groundbreaking research.

During World War I, Haber's expertise extended to the development of chemical warfare, notably the introduction of poison gases like chlorine and phosgene. He was also behind the creation of Zyklon A, initially intended as a pesticide. This technology later laid the groundwork for Zyklon B's production, infamously used in Nazi extermination camps, including Auschwitz Birkenau.

Source: “Fritz Haber: both sides of a Nobel Prize” / University of Barcelona

His own sons committed suicide because of his deeds.

Green Revolution: Some Food vs Full Control

The Green Revolution was funded by various US-based non-profit organizations like the Ford Foundation.

The foundation also provided early support for research to the Indian Institute of Technology in Kharagpur, and foundational support to the Indian Institute of Public Administration and the Punjab Agricultural University. Additionally, in partnership with other philanthropic foundations and the Indian Government, the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics was instituted. Collectively, these institutions have trained a large and diverse community of engineers, business professionals, legal experts, scientists, researchers, and civil servants. We have also supported many of India’s flagship socio-economic development initiatives like the Community Development program in the 1950s, the Intensive Agricultural Districts Program, and the beginning of the Green Revolution in the 1960s as well as the self-help group movement. (Source: History / Ford Foundation)

And, Rockefeller Foundation.

 The Rockefeller Foundation was an important agency in promoting the development of the new agricultural science. Its programs in Mexico and India, initiated in 1941 and 1956, were key building blocks in creating high yielding agricultural practices. (Source: "The Rockefeller Foundation and the green revolution, 1941–1956" / John Perkins)

Why would that have been an issue? Because at that time specifically, it was a considered CIA policy to use donor and non-profit organizations like Ford Foundation and Rockefeller for its covert activities so that they could hoodwink the target countries.

Source: "Who paid the piper? : the CIA and the cultural Cold War" / Saunders, Frances Stonor

As Jason Epstein - the Editorial Director at Random House, as well as a founder of The New York Review and of the Library of America - would remark in one of his articles in New York Review that it was common for the CIA to use such philanthropic organizations.

I don’t recall just when in the 1950s I began to suspect that the CIA together with the State Department, the Ford Foundation, and similar institutions had turned anti-Stalinism into a flourishing sub-profession for a number of former radicals and other left-wing intellectuals who were then and are still my friends in New York. No doubt the evidence was all around me well before I began to piece it together or before it popped into my head, as such discoveries do, that organized anti-Communism had become as much an industry within New York’s intellectual life as Communism itself had been a decade or so earlier, and that it involved many of the same personnel. An important difference, however, was that the new enterprise was far more luxuriously financed than its predecessor had been, involving branch operations in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America, together with subsidized publications in all these places, to say nothing of conferences and seminars on such a scale and in so many countries and with so much air travel to and fro that even the Ford Foundation, which was ostensibly paying for much of this activity, could hardly be assumed to be paying for it all. (Source: "The CIA and the Intellectuals" / New York Review)

You see, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been historically linked to various covert operations that extend beyond traditional espionage, including influencing cultural and academic institutions as part of the United States' broader strategy during the Cold War. One of the notable allegations is that the CIA used philanthropic organizations, such as the Ford Foundation, to funnel money into cultural and academic projects that aligned with U.S. foreign policy interests, particularly in countering Soviet influence.

This claim is supported by substantial research and investigations, including those by journalists and historians. For example, Frances Stonor Saunders in another book of hers "The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters" provides detailed accounts of how the CIA infiltrated and funded cultural organizations and initiatives to propagate anti-Communist sentiments. According to Saunders, this was part of a larger strategy to win the "hearts and minds" of intellectuals and citizens in both Europe and the developing world, using cultural diplomacy as a soft power tool.

Source: "The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters" by Frances Stonor Saunders Pg 139

Moreover, a New York Times article published on September 20, 1967, titled "Many Agencies Aided in the Cultural Effort," outlines the extent of involvement by various U.S. government agencies, including the CIA, in cultural diplomacy efforts. The article reveals how these agencies provided covert support to numerous cultural and educational programs to combat Communist ideology.

The linkage between the CIA and the Ford Foundation in this cultural warfare context is further elaborated in academic studies and reports that examine the intersection of philanthropy and U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War era. For instance, research by Volker R. Berghahn in "America and the Intellectual Cold Wars in Europe" delves into how American foundations, including Ford, played roles in the cultural and ideological battles of the period, often aligning with broader U.S. strategic objectives.

The financial history of the Congress for Cultural Freedom reveals a peculiar relationship with both American philanthropy and the CIA, continuing until its demise and conversion into the International Association for Cultural Freedom (IACF) in 1967. Before analyzing the CCF’s links with U.S. government agencies and with the Ford Foundation, however, a number of background factors must be introduced so as to make the subsequent account of CCF finances more comprehensible. (Source: Berghahn, Volker R. “The CIA, the Ford Foundation, and the Demise of the CCF Empire.” America and the Intellectual Cold Wars in Europe, Princeton University Press, 2001, pp. 214–49. JSTOR, Accessed 10 Mar. 2024.)

These examples underscore the complexity of the relationship between the CIA and cultural institutions like the Ford Foundation during the Cold War, highlighting a facet of U.S. foreign policy strategy that utilized cultural and academic initiatives as vehicles for ideological and geopolitical influence.

Since India was close to the Soviet Union, Ford Foundation and the other so-called philanthropic organizations became the front runners to increase India's dependence on the United States

The Green Revolution did bring great gains for the recipient countries, but this was achieved at the cost of using chemicals and technologies that the small farmers and poor countries rarely had.

It favored the large industrialized farms and farmers. Most of the farmers - small and medium - were relegated to the sidelines.

To anyone following farm news here at home, these reports have a
painfully familiar ring-and why wouldn't they? After all, the United
States-not Mexico-is the true birthplace of the Green Revolution.
Improved seeds combined with chemical fertilizers and pesticides have pushed corn yields up nearly three-fold since 1950, with smaller but still significant gains for wheat, rice, and soybeans. Since World War II, as larger harvests have pushed down the prices farmers get for their crops while the costs of farming have shot up, farmers' profit margins have been drastically narrowed. By the early 1990s, production costs had risen from about half to over 80 percent of gross farm income. So who survives today? Two very different groups: those few farmers who chose not to buy into industrialized agriculture and those able to keep expanding their acreage to make up for their lower per acre profit. Among this second select group are the top 1.2 percent of farms by income, those with $500,000 or more in yearly sales, dubbed "superfarms" by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In 1969, the superfarms earned 16 percent of net farm income; by the late 1980s, they garnered nearly 40 percent. Superfarms triumph not because they are more efficient food producers or because the Green Revolution technology itself favored them, but because of advantages that accrue to wealth and size. They have the capital to invest and the volume necessary to stay afloat even if profits per unit shrink. They have the political clout to shape tax policies in their favor. Over time, why should we expect the result of the cost-price squeeze to be any different in the Third World? (Source: "Lessons from the Green Revolution - Do We Need New Technology to End Hunger?" / Peter Rosset, Joseph Collins, and Frances Moore Lapp / University of California, Berkeley)

And this was seen in poor countries as well like India.

The Green Revolution in Punjab, India, introduced high-yield crops requiring significant water, leading to groundwater depletion and a cycle of debt for farmers due to the need for deeper wells and expensive pumps.

The intensive farming practices have also led to soil degradation and increased reliance on fertilizers, raising concerns about the sustainability of this approach amidst a growing population and the necessity for a new, sustainable agricultural revolution.

‘Green Revolution’ Trapping India’s Farmers In Debt
In the 1960s and ’70s, farmers in the Indian state of Punjab changed from traditional methods to American-style farming.

Farmers in a loan spiral started committing suicide in India. The Green Revolution had messed up the entire farmers' communities.

What was happening at the individual level with the farmers was no different than what was being unleashed at the national level.

The Loan Spiral

Worse was that these technologies were tied with funding from the World Bank. While this technology was provided, society would need continuous inputs of those technological solutions (Fertilizer, Pesticides, and Improved Seeds).

The green revolution has also been criticized by less developed nations for increasing poor people’s dependence on technological solutions created in the faraway laboratories and factories in the United States and other industrialized nations. In many cases, development loans from organizations like the World Bank are tied to spending on products from the donor nations. Critics argue this benefits the donors more than the recipients and puts poor farmers at risk when they become dependent on new technologies and then fail to earn enough with their crops to pay rising prices for seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides. Farmers in developing nations have been encouraged with generous loans to invest in expensive capital equipment they cannot afford when the loans disappear. Since the 1990s, more than a quarter million farmers in India have killed themselves because they cannot escape the cycle of debt created by their green-revolution involvement in high-tech agriculture. (Source: Green Revolution / Minnesota Library)

The mechanism was quite incredible!

And for all these "goodies", the World Bank would be there to provide loans to that country (creating debt for that country). Now, the target country was in a perennial circle of purchase of chemicals from, say the US, and stacking up debt to the World Bank and IMF. Once a country got into the ambit of debt, the "powers-that-be" in the world would help install corrupt rulers through various interventions. The most common was the democracy promotion drive. And it started a spiral. A society was put in motion where an honest leader could not even be a possibility. Even if one such person came, he would not have the financial wherewithal to fight the power that came to the corrupt ones through the ill-gotten wealth!

The circular debt would be inevitable. And then the Global South country would become a slave. A colony of the Global North.

Source: "World Bank, IMF turned poor Third World nations into loan addicts" / Thompson Rivers University

This is a control mechanism of the Global North against the Global South.

The Environmental Impact of Chemical Agriculture

In all this can we really say that the Global North truly succeeded in improving its own area, agriculture, and lands?

Yes, the chemical interventions went on to destroy the lands in India, Africa and other parts of Asia to a point where that poison penetrated into the water table as well.

But what about the situation in the Global North?

The degradation of soil will spare none! However, idyllic things may seem in Western countries.

70% of the topsoil, the layer allowing plants to grow, is gone

And this was in 2013.

A rough calculation of current rates of soil degradation suggests we have about 60 years of topsoil left. Some 40% of soil used for agriculture around the world is classed as either degraded or seriously degraded – the latter means that 70% of the topsoil, the layer allowing plants to grow, is gone. Because of various farming methods that strip the soil of carbon and make it less robust as well as weaker in nutrients, soil is being lost at between 10 and 40 times the rate at which it can be naturally replenished. Even the well-maintained farming land in Europe, which may look idyllic, is being lost at unsustainable rates. (Source: "What If the World’s Soil Runs Out?" / Time Magazine)

And whatever is being grown today has far fewer nutrients than before.

Mounting evidence from multiple scientific studies shows that many fruits, vegetables, and grains grown today carry less protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin, and vitamin C than those that were grown decades ago. This is an especially salient issue if more people switch to primarily plant-based diets, as experts are increasingly recommending for public health and for protecting the planet. (Source: "Fruits and vegetables are less nutritious than they used to be" / National Geographic)

No wonder there is talk of eating bugs.

Humanity is approaching a point where there will be no food left worthy enough to eat. That is how terribly we have screwed this planet up! And, we are not nearly done. We want to go further ahead and target even those insects that keep the balance of the remaining environment.

And this all began because of the greed to make more profits and control the very generation of food for humanity!

How a Small Farmer Fought Monsanto's Greed

Percy Schmeiser, a farmer from Bruno, Saskatchewan, became the center of a landmark legal case that highlighted the complex issues surrounding genetically modified organisms (GMOs), patent rights, and farming practices.

A farmer from a small town Schmeiser was now pitted against Monsanto, a multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation known for its genetically modified seeds and related herbicides.

In 1997, Monsanto accused Schmeiser of unlawfully growing its patented genetically modified (GM) canola without purchasing the seeds from the company. Monsanto's GM canola, known as Roundup Ready canola, is engineered to be resistant to its own brand of herbicide, Roundup. This allows farmers to spray their fields with the herbicide to kill weeds while leaving the canola crop unharmed.

The crux of the legal battle was Monsanto's claim that Schmeiser's canola field contained a significant amount of Roundup Ready canola, which the company alleged could only have happened if Schmeiser had planted seeds obtained from Monsanto or seeds harvested from a previous crop of Monsanto's patented canola.

Schmeiser, contention was simple - that the presence of Monsanto's GM canola in his fields was the result of accidental contamination. It was in all probability through pollen from neighboring fields or seeds blown over from passing trucks.

When the case went to trial in 2000 the Federal Court of Canada sided with the multinational and not Canada's own farmer!

It ruled in favor of Monsanto. The court found that Schmeiser had indeed infringed on Monsanto's patent by planting Roundup Ready canola without a license, regardless of how the seeds ended up in his field. Schmeiser appealed the decision, but the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the ruling in 2001.

Undeterred, Schmeiser took his case to the Supreme Court of Canada, which delivered its verdict in 2004. The Supreme Court acknowledged that Schmeiser's canola field contained Monsanto's GM canola but ruled that Schmeiser had not benefited financially from the presence of the GM crop since he did not spray his fields with Roundup herbicide to select for Monsanto's canola. The court concluded that while Schmeiser had technically infringed Monsanto's patent, he owed no damages to Monsanto because he had not gained any advantage from the infringement.

The Schmeiser v. Monsanto case became a metaphor.

A symbol for all that is wrong with the industrialized agriculture.

Everything was at stake - from the rights of farmers versus the patent rights of biotechnology companies, to the impact of GM crops on traditional farming practices, and the environmental as well as the ethical implications of genetic modification!

The case also raised questions about the control over the food supply and the ability of corporations to patent life forms.

Percy Schmeiser became an international symbol and spokesperson for farmers' rights and the movement against genetically modified crops.

Percy Schmeiser looks back 20 years at fight against Monsanto | CBC News
Twenty years ago, small-town Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser was launched into the spotlight for what was billed by many as a David-and-Goliath confrontation with biotech giant Monsanto Canada.

But this urge to control agriculture in the name of One World perspective is not confined to companies that make money via seeds, fertilizers and pesticides.

AgOne - Control or Philanthropy?

The narrative goes like this.

Gates Ag One, initiated by the Bill & Melinda Gates Agricultural Innovations LLC, represents a strategic extension of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's commitment to addressing global agricultural challenges. The initiative, formally known as The Bill & Melinda Gates Agricultural Innovations, LLC, aims to accelerate the development and deployment of innovative, sustainable, and equitable agricultural solutions that can significantly improve the productivity and livelihoods of smallholder farmers, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.

Apparently, the key strategy of Gates Ag One is to foster collaborations between research institutions, private sector companies, non-profit organizations, and government agencies. We know what that really means in terms of the Global South, which is where this whole thing is headed.

“South Asia – with a population of about 1.8 billion – and Sub-Saharan Africa- home to around 1 billion people.”

AgOne and AgTec where they work.png
Source: "Gates Ag One: The Recolonisation Of Agriculture" / Navdanya International

So what is AgOne really?

Basically, the Green Revolution, that devastated the Global South with a new name - AGRA (Alliance for the Green Revolution in Africa). On the left below are primarily the objectives of AgOne - and AGRA, the new Green Revolution bringing initiative is its partner.

Source: Agricultural Development by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

And guess who is partnering with the Gates Foundation in this new Green Revolution?

Rockefeller Foundation.

Deja vu?!

Even the tools have not changed - "expensive seeds, fertilizers and pesticides."

Source: Gates-funded ‘green revolution’ in Africa has failed, critics say / Seattle Times

The Africans are wising up to the whole agenda. Thankfully, not following the footsteps of the victims of the earlier Green Revolution.

Hunger in Africa derives from a single factor, CAS fellows argue: crop yields are relatively low. The reason is, first, that seeds bred and shared by farmers are unproductive, in their opinion; these should be replaced by GMOs. Second, African farmers do not use enough agrochemicals, a deficit that also needs remedy. And third, African farmers cultivate a multitude of crops to feed their families; if instead they focus on growing commodity crops for pan-African and global markets, they will get far better yields while addressing their nutrition and health concerns. Fortified by linkages with another organization funded by the Gates Foundation, the Open Forum on Agriculture Biotechnology (OFAB), CAS fellows end up narrowing the democratic space for discussion of food systems in African countries. Opposing points of view are irrational, unscientific and harmful, they often insist. OFAB is an offshoot of the African Agricultural Technology Foundation, which was born in 2001 out of negotiations to promote GM seeds in Africabetween the Rockefeller Foundation and corporations including Monsanto, Dupont, Pioneer and Syngenta. (Source: "Bill Gates Should Stop Telling Africans What Kind of Agriculture Africans Need" / Scientific American)

The new technologies that go to the root of the DNA and alter it such as the CRISPR technology are also being brought into the larger vision of the Gates Foundation's thrust for agriculture of the future.

The Gates Foundation also has a $7 million stake in AgBiome. It is a biotech start-up focused on "developing synthetic biological products through CRISPR technology for the agricultural sector".

The disconcerting part?

All the major actors that plan on controlling agriculture are swarming onto this start-up.

AgBiome, a US-based agricultural technology developer backed by corporates Monsanto, Bayer, Novozymes and Syngenta, collected $116m in series D funding yesterday. The round was co-led by venture capital firm Novalis LifeSciences and investment firm Blue Horizon while undisclosed new and existing investors also contributed to the financing. AgBiome has developed the Genesis platform, which is able to identify the gene sequences and strains of microbial life that could potentially protect agricultural crops from pests and disease. The company has also created a fungicide that can protect against more than 300 combinations of crop disease. It was spun out from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 2013. Scott Uknes, co-founder and co-CEO of AgBiome, said: “With this capital, AgBiome is well-positioned to execute on its strategic business model focused on developing proprietary products, fostering partner programmes, joint ventures and new company formations, all of which represent significant growth opportunities for AgBiome.” (Source: AgBiome cultivates $116m series D / Global Venturing)

But the real question that we all would be perplexed with is - when the soil and agricultural land is depleting all over the world, why are these organization, philanthropic as they are, so focused on agriculture in Africa and South Asia?

Why grow stuff in the Global South and not in the Western countries?

This brings us to another area of colonization. The Virtual Water Trade.

The Virtual Water Trade - Denuding Africa/Asia to Feed the Global North

The export of crops from Africa will lead to a significant outflow of virtual water, which is the water embedded in the production of these crops.

What is Virtual Water Trade?
The concept of "Virtual Water Trade" encapsulates the idea of water embedded in the trade of goods and services. Specifically, it refers to the amount of water consumed in the production process of various commodities that are then traded internationally. For instance, producing 1 kilogram of wheat necessitates the use of approximately 1,350 liters of water. This quantity represents the water footprint associated with wheat production. The virtual water trade becomes evident through the import and export of water-intensive goods like agricultural products, as well as those from forestry, industrial, and mining sectors. Therefore, when a nation imports 1,000 kilograms of wheat, it's indirectly importing 1,350,000 liters of water that was utilized to grow and process that wheat.

This phenomenon is particularly impactful in a continent like Africa, where water resources can be scarce and the competition for water between agriculture, industry, and domestic use is intense.

When African countries export water-intensive crops, they are effectively exporting the large volumes of water used to grow these crops. This exacerbates water scarcity in several ways:

  1. Depletion of Local Water Resources: The irrigation of export crops often relies on the withdrawal of large amounts of water from rivers, lakes, and aquifers. In regions where water is already scarce, this can deplete local water resources, reducing the availability of water for drinking, sanitation, and other agricultural uses that are crucial for local communities.
  2. Environmental Impact: Intensive irrigation can lead to environmental degradation, including soil salinization, reduced water quality, and the disruption of local ecosystems. These environmental impacts can further compromise the availability and quality of water resources in the region.
  3. Opportunity Cost: The water used for producing export crops could have been utilized for growing food crops for local consumption, potentially improving food security in the region. The export of virtual water, therefore, represents an opportunity cost, where water is used for commercial agriculture at the expense of addressing local food and water needs.
  4. Economic Considerations: While the export of crops can bring economic benefits through trade, the long-term sustainability of such practices is questionable if they lead to the over-extraction of water resources. The costs associated with water scarcity, environmental degradation, and potential impacts on food security may outweigh the immediate economic gains from crop exports.

Growing and exporting commercial crops at the expense of local food crops is the focus of all these philanthropic organizations.

We had written about the Virtual Water Trade and its significance on Drishtikone. It is worth reading.

Virtual Water Trade: Complete Guide on What it is and its impact
Water is a scarce commodity. It is not just needed for drinking purposes, but most importantly for agriculture. If you lose water or don’t have freshwater resources, you cannot have any crops. There is a trade going on – often unbeknownst to many countries which are the victims of these

We also looked at the Indian situation specifically.

Virtual Water Trade in India – A definitive guide
Virtual Water Trade is a game-changing flow that has been underway globally as it gets ready to disrupt societies, economies, and food security in many societies. Virtual Water Trade in India and from India is an important topic. Something that needs to be properly understood for correct public policy decisions.

What is most striking in this whole Virtual Water Trade business is that it is again the poor who get hit badly.

In a study along the Belt & Road (B&R) route, an interesting insight was that GDP and exchange rate were positively correlated with virtual water inflow.  Meaning - the higher the GDP in a country, the higher will be the virtual water inflows in that country.  Even when a country does not have a water shortage, the inflows in that country increase due to its ability to control and buy via its strong economic position.

The regression results indicate that GDP and exchange rate were positively correlated with virtual water inflow, while per capital water resources, arable land, geographic distance, and population were negative factors that hindered virtual water import. The most powerful driving force for grain virtual water trade is water endowment. GDP is an important driver on importing virtual water for countries without water shortage, and a large number of local water resources will not obviously inhibit the driving force of economic strength. (Source: ScienceDirect)

However, while the initiatives in agriculture are being "fine-tuned" in poor countries, the rich are also investing heavily in agricultural lands in the West.

In this video, Seamus Bruner discusses his latest work, "Controligarchs: Exposing the Billionaire Class, Their Secret Deals, and the Globalist Plot to Dominate Your Life."

The interesting thing is that these Controligarchs, as Bruner calls them have been growing their wealth despite millions dying. Specifically during COVID.

Source: Billionaire Wealth, U.S. Job Losses and Pandemic Profiteers / Inequality

Bruner shares the mechanism that folks like Gates may have used to profit from a pandemic.

You see he was ready.

With investments in mRNA vaccines. A technology that was pushed en masse on the hapless victims in Western countries.

Source: "Summary of Controligarchs by Seamus Bruner"

So, the question that one would be confronted with is - What the heck is a technology entrepreneur doing in the agriculture and health sector?

These are areas where control creates the most significant power.

And, what better area than the "Health Sector"?

WHO Pandemic Treaty

Currently, as we speak, there is a Pandemic Treaty being finalized.

The WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty.

As proposed, a legally binding treaty would see power given to the WHO to direct the global health management of pandemics. The treaty will define and classify what is to be considered a pandemic. Once a pandemic is declared, the WHO would require countries to adopt specific response measures. The working draft of the treaty also proposes a reporting requirement to the WHO and advises that there should be a “global peer review mechanism to assess national, regional and global preparedness capacities and gaps.” (Source: "The WHO Pandemic Treaty" / Leslyn Lewis)

And these so-called scientific measures are touted as scientific only because they can be pushed to be so. India's vaccine was pushed down by the WHO simply because it did not line the pockets of the rich as the Western vaccines did.

Drishtikone Newsletter #355: How India Battled the COVID Tragedy
How India battled various inimical and diabolical forces to survive through the COVID times is an epic worth reading again and again.

This treaty is being pushed through by May 2024.

In this video, Dr. Rocco Loiacono, a senior lecturer at the Curtin University Law School, shares the reasons why this treaty is dangerous.

Fundamentally, the WHO will work to overwrite the decisions and powers of local governments in countries across the world during a pandemic.

What if the pandemics are orchestrated?

As COVID was per some folks.

Covid Was Man-Made Virus, Says Wuhan Lab Scientist In New Book
In what appears to be an astonishing revelation, a US-based scientist, who worked at a controversial research lab in China’s Wuhan, has said that COVID-19 was a “man-made virus” that leaked from the facility.

The powers that will be provided to WHO will be immense.

Advocates for a treaty have variously argued that it should address—among other things—surveillance, outbreak notification, the sharing of pathogen samples and genetic sequence information, zoonoses, pandemic prevention, trade and travel measures, equitable access to health countermeasures, health capacities in low-income countries, universal health coverage, social determinants of health, intellectual property rights, misinformation and disinformation, financing for pandemic preparedness and response, human rights, and strengthening the WHO. (Source: "The Case Against a Pandemic Treaty" / Think Global Health)

Here are the powers that seem most dangerous.

  • surveillance
  • pandemic prevention
  • trade and travel measures
  • intellectual property rights
  • misinformation and disinformation
  • human rights

In one swoop, a pandemic can take away powers from local governments but also prevent the people from discussing anything that hurts them - in the name of misinformation and disinformation. Why?

Under former Twitter employees’ watch, Twitter devolved into a private company the FBI and federal government infiltrated to deliberately limit free speech, particularly conservative speech and news contrary to the mainstream narrative.  (Source: "The Cover Up: Big Tech, the Swamp, and Mainstream Media Coordinated to Censor Americans’ Free Speech" / Committee On Oversight and Accountability)

See this is not the first time it is happening.

This whole thing has played out before. To create one of the greatest wealth empires in the history of the world.

Rockefeller: The Greatest Controligarch in Human History

As the 19th century drew to a close, John D. Rockefeller had established an unprecedented stronghold on the oil industry, commanding 90% of America's petroleum refineries via his conglomerate, Standard Oil, which would later fragment into corporations like Mobil, Chevron, and Exxon.

This period also marked a burgeoning excitement within the scientific community, particularly concerning "petrochemicals" and their potential to spawn a multitude of novel substances from crude oil. The advent of plastics, one of the initial fruits of petrochemical research, hinted at the broader capabilities of oil-based products.

Simultaneously, groundbreaking strides were being made in the biosciences during the early 1900s, with a spotlight on unraveling the rudiments of life and health. This era witnessed the identification of crucial vitamins such as B1, B2, Biotin, Vitamin C, A, and D, which revolutionized medical treatment by offering simple, curative supplements for diseases like scurvy and rickets, previously rampant due to vitamin deficiencies. The synthetic production of these nutrients was not far behind, with Vitamin C being artificially synthesized in 1935 in Switzerland.

Rockefeller, with his astute business acumen, recognized a golden opportunity in the intersection of petrochemicals and pharmaceuticals. The potential to derive vitamins and medications from petroleum presented a lucrative venture that promised monopolistic control over the oil, chemical, and medical industries. The patentability of petrochemical-derived products meant exclusive ownership and high-profit margins.

Petrochemicals provide the chemical building blocks for most medicinal drugs: nearly 99% of pharmaceutical feedstocks and reagents are derived in some way from petrochemicals.8 For example, aspirin has been manufactured from benzene, produced in petroleum refining, since the late 19th century. (Source: "Non-Fuel Products of Oil and Gas" / American Geosciences Institute)

However, Rockefeller's vision met a significant obstacle. At the time, natural and herbal medicines, deeply rooted in European and Native American traditions, enjoyed widespread popularity in America. Nearly half of the nation's medical schools and practitioners were dedicated to these holistic approaches.

To consolidate his intended dominance over the medical sphere, Rockefeller purchased a share in I.G. Farben, a German pharmaceutical giant, and devised a strategy to undermine the holistic health sector. He commissioned Abraham Flexner to evaluate the state of medical education in the United States, resulting in the pivotal Flexner Report of 1910. Although the report made several valid assessments, its underlying motive was orchestrated by Rockefeller's monopolistic ambitions. It denounced the natural healing arts as unscientific and recommended the standardization of medical education, with the American Medical Association (AMA) holding the reins of medical school accreditation.

It was based on Flexener's recommendations, that Congress made far reaching changes to the medical practice laws. The main result was - endorsing allopathic medicine as the new standard.

Rockefeller Foundation used this report to completely change the medical profession!

Spurred by Flexner’s report, the General Education Board (GEB) and later, the Rockefeller Foundation (RF) called for a transformation of, and investment in, medical education in the US. Medical education, as Flexner described it, was mostly a for-profit enterprise undertaken by small schools staffed by a few, part-time doctors. In many cases medical education involved no laboratory work or practical training. Students were often admitted without a high school education, and curricula varied widely from school to school. General Education Board and Rockefeller Foundation officials well understood that the success of their program might shutter some of the worst medical schools, while the best, with their help, would compete with the finest schools in Europe. The RF mandated a relationship between hospitals and any medical school that the Foundation funded. The RF also required teaching staff to be under university control and devoted solely to teaching rather than balancing their duties with private, for-profit practice. (Source: Early 20th Century Reforms of Medical Education Worldwide / Rockefeller Archives)

In a strategic alliance with Andrew Carnegie, Rockefeller channeled generous endowments into medical schools, imposing a curriculum that exclusively favored allopathic methods, thereby eradicating the teachings of herbal and natural remedies. This reformation was further reinforced by a slanderous campaign against alternative medicines, employing media to discredit and even criminalize practitioners of natural healing.

Ultimately, this overhaul homogenized medical education, pushing drug prescription and creating pills as the basis in American medicine.

This not only redefined medical practice but also secured Rockefeller's monopoly, profoundly influencing the trajectory of health care in the United States.

The Great Reset: Health-based Financial and Tech Reset

We have seen that health and food have been a great mechanism to create a controlling mechanism for the rich over the poor.

The World Economic Forum has recently come out with the concept of a "Great Reset."

There are several things associated with this idea that come together in a way that leads to a chilling scenario.

  1. Technological control mechanisms: The way to get this will include:
    1. One digital global ID
    2. one Central Bank Digital Currency
  2. "Own Nothing Be Happy" - Nobody owns anything. They just rent.
  3. Travel, movement, and amenities are dependent on Vaccine records and conformity to health measures

The second point was made on the World Economic Forum site in 2016 in an article by Ida Auken, Member of Parliament of Denmark.

Welcome to the year 2030. Welcome to my city - or should I say, "our city". I don't own anything. I don't own a car. I don't own a house. I don't own any appliances or any clothes. It might seem odd to you, but it makes perfect sense for us in this city. Everything you considered a product, has now become a service. We have access to transportation, accommodation, food and all the things we need in our daily lives. One by one all these things became free, so it ended up not making sense for us to own much. (Source: "Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better" \ World Economic Forum)

People are trying to unpack all this and discussing what this really means.

Are we looking at One World Order?

A totalitarian world where a few rule.

Yes, it is being touted as a "conspiracy theory" and all the rest of it. And we are not saying this out of the blue. Summits and conferences are being held on this topic.

A "World Governments Summit" was held in 2023.

Source: World Governments Summit

It was left to Elon Musk to really call out the danger of what was being envisaged.

Billionaire Elon Musk on Wednesday gave brief remarks at the World Government Summit, warning attendees to avoid excessive cooperation because it could pose an existential threat. The 2023 World Government Summit commenced Monday in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Musk delivered his speech remotely via video call. "I know this is called the 'World Government Summit,' but I think we should be a little bit concerned about actually becoming too much of a single world government," Musk said. "If I may say, we want to avoid creating a civilizational risk by having — frankly, this might sound a little odd — too much cooperation between governments," the Tesla CEO continued.  (Source: "Elon Musk says 'single world government' could lead to end of civilization at World Government Summit" / Fox News)

Continuing Colonialism

Moreover, the intentions of the rich and famous have never been "pure". Even when countries were given independence, it was mostly merely in name.

The real independence never happened. Colonialism continued through backdoor. We have discussed this in a previous article.

Drishtikone Newsletter #360: Why is the West Rich?
Global North is rich and Global South poor. Peering into history we learn that plunder of India and Africa powered the industrial revolution and the riches of the North. Sobering and powerful investigation.

But what even we couldn't capture was the depth and the depravity of the Western Powers in destroying the countries in the Global South.

Listen to Dr. Arikana Chihombori-Quao, Former Permanent Representative of the African Union to the United States, to fully understand how the mechanisms that may seem innocuous to others actually work to devastate and enslave continents. Not just states.


So where are we headed?

Rich like to Dominate and Control

The greatest money-making mechanism is complete control over the population. With that, you can control whatever and however you want. There is no restriction.

That is why whether it was Rockefeller or the new Western powers or Bill Gates or today's powerfully rich - everyone wants to be in on the top floor of a One World Order.

Anything below that top floor is subject to enslavement.

Unfortunately, the elite few will do all to control and have the poor look up to them for the crumbs. They will control the food, the health and the money.

The question is how to ensure this fate does not fall upon all of us.

Great! You’ve successfully signed up.

Welcome back! You've successfully signed in.

You've successfully subscribed to Drishtikone - Online Magazine on Geopolitics and Culture from Indian Perspective.

Success! Check your email for magic link to sign-in.

Success! Your billing info has been updated.

Your billing was not updated.