Türk Siyaseti ve Türkiye Siyasi Tarihi - Video Projesi - Türk ve İslam Tarihi - Türk Dna'sı

20 Yıl Boyunca Tarımda Trilateral Entrikası

Birinci Dünya Savaşının galibi İngiltere'dir. İngiliz devletini yöneten unsur kraliyet hanedanlığıdır. Bilindiği gibi İngilizler, Almanlar, Hollandalılar ve Fransızlar gibi Cermen milletinin bir mensubudurlar.
Birinci Dünya Savaşından sonra Dünyayı yöneten unsurun Birinci Dünya Savaşının galibi ve baş aktörü olan ülkenin olduğunu anlamamız gerekir.
İşte bu İngiltere devleti, kendisinin bir uzantısı olan Amerikan devleti ve Almanya devletindeki bazı aile şirketlerini, şeytani tarikatları ve hükümet nezdindeki önemli kişileri kullanarak(ve ayrıca onları büyütüp, ünlü yapıp, sahneye çıkartıp ve sonrasındada besleyip), Devlet+Mafya-Tarikat-Gladyo sistemini İkinci Dünya Savaşı öncesinde ve sırasında kurmaya çalışmak istemiştir ve başarılı olmuştur.
Nasıl başarılı olmuştur ve bu Devlet+Mafya-Tarikat-Gladyo sisteminin içinde kimler var?
Devlet: İngiltere-Amerika.
Devleti Yöneten Hanedan(İngiliz/Cermen Milletine Hizmet Ediyor): Windsor(İngiliz Cermen Kökenli) ve Rothschild(Hazar Türk Kökenli) sülalelerinin karışımı
Mafya: Rockefeller-Rothschild-JP Morgan gibi sülale şirketleri
Tarikat: İlluminati, Mason, Bilderberg gibi şeytani tarikatlar
Gladyo: İngilizlerin kontrolünde olan Faşist İktidarlar: İngiliz Ajanı Kukla Hitler ve Kukla Nazi Devleti/Hükümeti, ve İngiliz Ajanı Kukla Stalin ve Lenin'in Sovyetler Birliği'nin Yıkımını Amaçlayan Yeni Sovyet Devleti/Hükümeti.
Bu konu hakkında ayrıntılı bilgileri bu forumdaki başlıklarda bulabilirsiniz.

20 Yıl Boyunca Tarımda Trilateral Entrikası

Mesajgönderen TurkmenCopur » 05 May 2011, 21:32

TWO DECADES OF TRILATERAL SCHEMING IN AGRICULTURE

In a previous volume, TRILATERALS OVER WASHINGTON, we pointed out that a Trilateral objective is to exaggerate and exacerbate world problems so that Trilateral power to control and order a new world may be magnified.

We pointed out that such magnified problems appear to be selected according to the following criteria:

• The problem must be important from a global viewpoint;
• The problem must be one that can be solved by some degree of Trilateral-Communist cooperation following a presumed unstated objective to merge the U.S. with a socialist structure.
• The venture must be one that can be pursued without undue intrusion into the internal affairs of the participating states.
An important problem area that fits the criteria for selective manipulation is that of world food. Food supplies are inadequate, people need food to live, and the technological and financial abilities for food production are heavily within Trilateral countries.

As Triangle Paper No. 13 puts it:

Prospects are somewhat more substantial for cooperation in the realm of increasing food production. Production increases require both more effective domestic agricultural policies on the part of developing countries and enlarged provision of outside capital and technology to them for agricultural development.

In particular, Triangle Paper 13 claims:

The prospects for cooperation are more promising with regard to the third objective: the development of adequate food (particularly grain) reserves. A reserve stock policy that could keep cereal price changes within a less disruptive range than in the recent past could make a considerable contribution not only to restraining inflation in the developed and developing worlds, but also to ensuring that adequate food supplies are available to developing nations at prices that will not impose an undue drain on foreign exchange...

In considering Trilateral targets for international food reserves and world agriculture, we need to consider what the Trilaterals say they want and compare it to what they really want. Fascinated by the idea of "food power" and "contrived shortages," the Trilaterals intend to use food as a weapon to bring about the New World Order. One stated objective is to create an "international system of national food reserves" by massive manipulation of recently acquired political power against private markets and initiatives.

It is proposed, for example:

• To keep grain prices in a "less disruptive range,"
• Restrain inflation,
• Ensure adequate food reserves for lesser developed countries (LDCs) and
• Overcome periodic food imbalances.

Trilateral intentions for a world grain storage program are published by the Trilateral Commission and the Brookings Institution, headed by Trilateral Commissioner Bruce K. MacLaury. Other Trilateralists on the Brookings Board of Trustees include Robert V. Roosa (partner in Brown Brothers, Harriman), Lucy Wilson Benson, and Gerard C. Smith (ambassador at large for non-proliferation matters.) In 1976 Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Philip H. Trezise, with the assistance of former Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Carroll Brunthaver, published Re Building Grain Reserves: Toward An International System. Brunthaver had previously been involved in a conflict of sworn testimony, investigated by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. (See Report, Russian Grain Transactions, 93rd Congress, 2nd Session, p. 33). In the Trezise book, the problems for multilateral agreement on grain reserves are considered to be "formidable." Going ahead is "compelling" because of the following: upward moves in grain prices have a "pervasive influence" on all food prices; they mean more worldwide hunger; and grain stocks can be used in periods of famine.

More specifically, Trezise proposed:

• An initial reserve of sixty million tons of grain, rising to between seventy-five and eighty million tons by 1981,
• Contributions from all industrial countries, including Argentina and South Africa,
• A program cost of $6 billion plus $640 million in annual storage costs,
• That stocks should be "national," bought at 10 percent above floor prices and sold at 10 percent below ceiling prices,
• That twenty million tons be set aside for famine reserve.

As in most Trilateral writings, Trezise includes only evidence in favor of proposed Trilateral policy. Trilaterals typically use an ideological procedure of gathering facts and opinion supporting their argument, never allowing a hint of serious counterargument.

Two glaring unstated consequences in Trezise's book are:

1. Any such massive stockpiling will raise the long-term price of grain, negating the objective of "restraining inflation";
2. The only way to stop the resulting inflation is through rigid government price controls and regimented farming.

The choice of food products as a means of reducing national sovereignty is emphasized in the following paragraph:

There are several reasons why commodities are treated differently than other products that enter into trade. Probably the most basic reason is that commodity supplies are linked to land, tying them to the concept of territory, over which nation-states exercise sovereignty. As a general proposition, the demand for, and the supply of, most commodities are rather unresponsive to changes in price over short periods of time, so that quite sharp fluctuations in price can be generated by fairly modest changes in overall market conditions. Moreover, the time required to expand supplies is often lengthy, although this property varies widely among individual commodities. Although the value of all commodity consumption represents no more than about ten percent of annual eco-nomic activity in industrialized nations, and even though substitutes exist for any particular commodity, commodities are sometimes distinguished as "core products."
The Trilateral elite, through control of the U.S. executive branch, will be calling the shots on a world basis to reduce producer control and indirectly national sovereignty.

The amount of political power possessed by world grain producers can be measured by comparing the area devoted to 1976 wheat production in Trilateral regions:

Thousand Hectares
European Economic 11,232
Community Japan89
United States28,700
U.S.S.R (for comparison)59,462


This U.S./Trilateral dominance is further reflected in world export figures of wheat plus flour for 1975-76:

Metric Tons
United States31,522,000
Canada12,136,000
Australia8,072,000
EEC7,729,000
Argentina 3,111,000
Japan38,000


If it were possible for other countries to substantially increase their wheat production, the quickest way to do so would be to raise government price support levels. However, except for Argentina, the U.S. already has the lowest support levels among the 30 or so wheat-producing countries in the world. Thus, one can see how the U.S. has acreage, yield, and production efficiency all working for it at the bargaining table.

This discussion of "food power" is not academic — it has major significance for any grain trader, farmer, firm, or individual in any way connected with grain products.

The Trilaterals propose international sanctions against any government, private firm, or producer (in or out of an association) that interferes with Trilateral objectives. These sanctions will not be applied in any principled way, but will be used pragmatically to achieve Trilateral goals. The key to this plan and associated sanctions is in Triangle Paper 10, "Seeking a New Accommodation in World Commodity Markets." Therein, the concept of "contrived shortages" is floated. A contrived shortage is any non-Trilateralist action in the market place that interferes with Trilateral objectives. For example, a farmer withholding grain from the market and waiting for a higher price, is guilty of contrived shortage. The paper further states that these contrived shortages can be informal, rather than brought about by a formal association of producers.

While all offenders are to be subject to effective international investigation and action, the penalties are not to be applied equally. A non-Trilateral developed country such as Argentina or South Africa will be dealt harsher penalties (i.e. sanctions) than underdeveloped Zaire or Zambia (phrased subtly as". . . in the case of non-industrialized countries, however, it is necessary to consider this issue from a broader political perspective").

Consequently, any informal or formal farmers group in the U.S. protesting price levels — and such protest will be inevitable when Trilateral objectives surface — will be subject to penalties. When can these individual firms and nonfavored governments anticipate Trilateral hostility?

Probably under the following conditions:

• If they attempt to stabilize or move market prices to non-Trilateral levels,
• If they respond to market imperfections or undertake any systematic withholding of supplies from the market,
• If they make any information exchange for these purposes.

Trilaterals are well aware that market fluctuations in agriculture are highly sensitive to supply changes, and that whoever controls the supply controls the market.

In Triangle Paper 14, "Toward a Renovated International System," two additional and interesting caveats relating to international grain reserves appear:

1. That the Soviet Union can benefit from fixed prices and guaranteed sources of supply, and
2. That if the U.S.S.R. doesn't see the wisdom of joining the Trilateral plan, the Trilaterals will go it alone.

On the other hand, the paper comments:

We have not sought ventures that would exacerbate Sino-Soviet rivalry. We have thus focussed, for the most part, on projects that would involve either the USSR or China, but not both. This does not mean that cooperation with the Soviet Union and China cannot be pursued simultaneously — only that it should not focus on the same projects.

The chances of Soviet or Chinese agreement are, of course, uncertain; our assessments are tentative, based on such limited evidence as exists. Only by seeking cooperation can its feasibility be ascertained Looking at the period since 1976 when these ideas were floated, agriculture has been used to promote New World Order, in some ways not too obvious.

The Soviet Union dictatorship was kept alive for decades by American wheat sold at below market rates—and butter and cheese subsidized by the American taxpayer. Furthermore Trilateral writer Philip Trezise was one of the most vocal Washington policy makers, promoting the downright false view that the Soviet Union was technically viable — all the while American grain companies and multinationals were preparing to exploit the Russian market.

When it came to Somalia however, a minor pawn on the New World Order scene, some two million Somalis were allowed to starve before U.S. came to offer help — then the help was a comic opera military excursion (network TV cameras were on Somali beaches filming U.S. Marines wading ashore — presumably the network crews got there first with dry feet). The Somali fiasco demonstrated that Trilateral objectives are political, not humanitarian. The humanitarian is merely an excuse for the military.

And while Trilaterals say they will not "exacerbate Sino-Soviet rivalry" they most certainly condone Chinese persecution of dissidents. Every time the Chinese demonstrate brutality towards their own people and the Western world calls for sanctions, the Trilateral forces urge restraint and caution. For what reason? Obviously, to protect investments in China.
Crisis Politics in Agriculture

As Trilateral policies are implemented, unrest among farmers surfaces — mostly in Europe, especially among French and Belgian farmers but also from time to time in the United States.

A nationwide farm strike was well underway in mid-1978, with participating farmers from all areas of agriculture. Demonstrations like "tractorcades" were common events covered on national T.V.

While some farmers in winter areas were not sure if they would be planting spring crops, others were already pressed to the wall with bankruptcy:

they had no choice but to refrain from planting as long as prices remained relatively low.

Once again the banks were in danger of becoming owners of real estate — farms. Since banks do not want that responsibility, every effort was made to support shaky farms and ranches. Recently, the Federal Land Bank (where most farmers have found an easy and inexpensive source of credit for decades) announced it would not foreclose on farmers in default. The implications of this are far-reaching, especially since no one knows just how many farmers are in serious trouble.

Big changes cannot be implemented only during periods of crisis. It appears the Trilateralists are pushing for a major farming crisis in the U.S. within the next year or so, one that can be manipulated for Trilateral ends. If the farming industry becomes bankrupt, the government's only choice will be to "institutionalize" the nation's food production in the same manner that Amtrak was "nationalized." On the other hand, if the government chooses to let prices rise to the point where farmers can realize a profit, it will be only with additional and far-reaching controls over the farmer.

Government-induced prosperity has always resulted in a trade-off: Profits for Controls.

The current situation in the U.S. plays directly into Trilateral hands. The grain or "cereal snake" will be a foregone conclusion when the Trilaterals find themselves caught in the vise between farmers crying for higher prices and consumers demanding lower food prices. But, of course, it will have been a "contrived" crisis in the first place.

How then will a national grain reserve — keyed to the international grain plan of the Trilateral Commission — affect the American farmer?
The carrot offered by the Carter administration, under Trilateral control, was stable and "high" prices. Farmers, suffering from four years of low prices, were eager listeners. Secretary of Agriculture Bergland (a Trilateral nominee) vowed "to even out the booms and busts" in agriculture. (To this, former Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz responded, ". . . you'll notice he's going to even out the boom first.")

In practice, the Carter grain storage program produced the following:

• A narrow grain price snake. The government supported the floor of the snake, while whipped-up consumer pressure, through a captive media, created a lid on the ceiling of the snake, making an ultimate government price ceiling inevitable.
• More — and more — government control.

If the government determines quantities produced and market prices, then ultimately, it will decree who plants what, and where. Farmers have yet to learn they cannot have traditional freedoms and security at the same time.

The summer of 1977 was favorable for grain farmers, due to increased yields and stocks; and then, worried over production and low prices, farmers asked for acreage cutbacks. By August 1977, Secretary of Treasury Blumenthal and Secretary of State Vance wanted no cutbacks: they argued increased production was needed for the storage program. It is not clear if this was a dispute between Trilateralists and non-Trilateralists in the cabinet, but it is not likely. Former Minnesota Congressman Bergland is not a Trilateral member, but he was sponsored by Vice President Walter Mondale — and Bergland has a longtime image to maintain of being "the farmer's friend."

President Carter made a contradictory decision by calling for Congress to legislate a 20 percent acreage cutback plus adding 30 to 35 million tons of grain for the national stockpile.

By 1994 the grassroots reaction by farmers could be identified but had not reached crisis proportions.
Finally American trade unions at the local level sensed they were being betrayed at the national level. In the days of Samuel Gompers and George Meany, American workers were represented with honesty in their struggle with management. The coming of Trilateralism changed that and it took many years for the unions to recognize they had been sold out. Lane Kirkland, boss of the AFL-CIO, was a long time Trilateral member (not in 1993). His place was taken on the Commission by Glen E. Watts, former President of the Communications Workers of America, and Albert Shanker, President of the American Federation of Teachers.

A remarkable article, "DDT in the Baby Food — and other threats posed by GATT" appeared in the San Francisco Examiner (February 2, 1994) by Jay Hopkins, a writer on labor affairs. Remarkable, because the article not only reflected labor's sense of betrayal, but that it appeared in a major city newspaper.

Here's a couple of quotes from Hopkins:

"U.S. workers are being told by their own governing elite that they must compete in the world market against the poor masses in the Third World."

The article points out that recent GATT sessions received delegations from "major corporations like DuPont, Monsanto, and Cargill, alongside U.S. government officials. There were virtually no representatives from small businesses, farms, churches, unions, environmental groups. Obviously the economic interests of multinational corporations including those based in the United States are frequently at odds with the welfare of average Americans."
Hopkins stated bluntly, "should the US Government defend American sovereignty, jobs and economic independence?" or "throw American workers and consumers into a downward spiraling global competition with nations that have nowhere near our quality of life?"

What is happening in many industries and certainly in agriculture and food processing, is that the American standard of living is being pulled down deliberately by the Trilateral process.

Whether enough American workers, who are notoriously sparse readers, will read these words and spread the message is unlikely. In all probability, we shall see the old time high standard of living of the American worker go by the wayside. The unions should be watching out for their members, but union leaders are too interested in the trappings of power. Why American Federation of Teachers, Communications Workers of America, and International Ladies Garment Workers Union would want to be represented on the Trilateral Commission can only be explained in terms of the limited vision and self-advancing greed of union leaders. We cannot imagine that Samuel Gompers or George Meany would give the Trilateral Commission even the time of day.

Trilateral Agriculture Under Clinton

By the early 1990s Trilateral policies had further reduced the small family farmer and magnified the global power of large multi-national agricultural corporations.

We find these global food firms heavily represented on the Trilateral Commission:

DWAYNE O. ANDREAS, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, a global agricultural giant, which has featured a joint merged U.S.A.-Soviet Union in its Russian advertising.

The formerly cited ROBERT MCNAMARA and JESSICA EINHORM of the World Bank, heavily involved in development of global agriculture.
WHITNEY MACMILLAN, Chairman of the Board and CEO of Cargill Inc., the largest grain operators in the world.

With the passage of NAFTA, where Clinton placed his total effort and prestige on the line, the doors were opened for U.S. global control of agriculture. The American consumer will not find lower prices but will see lower quality products in many cases (for example, in imported meat) and a loss of jobs in labor-intensive agricultural and food processing operations. Canning and meat processing plants are closing by the score in the United States and their operations moved overseas to lower wage costs.

The original objective of world "cooperation" in agriculture stated in Triangle Paper No. 13 had been heavily implemented by 1994. However, the impact on American jobs can only be generally estimated because so much low-paying labor in the U.S. has come from illegal immigrants.
Within another 20 years we project that all global agriculture and food processing will be under control of the international giants. This will give Trilaterals the power to create abundance or famine at will.

Kaynakça
Kitap: Trilaterals over America (1995)
Yazar: Antony C Sutton
Kullanıcı avatarı
TurkmenCopur
Genelkurmay Başkanı
Genelkurmay Başkanı
 
Mesajlar: 13983
Kayıt: 29 Eki 2010, 17:26

Dön İngiltere ve Amerika Birliği Faaliyetleri: 2. Dünya Savaşı ve Türk Soyumuzun Baş Düşmanı olan Cermen Menfaat Merkezi'nin Kuruluşu

Kimler çevrimiçi

Bu forumu gezen kullanıcılar: Hiç bir kayıtlı kullanıcı yok ve 2 misafir