I’ve been doing much thinking about the different things that are occurring on our planet and in this country. I’m not a former military tactician, although I did spend 21 years in the Army. I’m not an economist, and I really don’t know the difference between a deficit and spending money that you don’t have (which I think may be the same thing). All I know is that what’s going on in the world doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m not ignorant. I believe I read about everything that happens in the world from every source I can access. I rarely listen to the mainstream media because anyone with half a brain realizes they are owned by the same entities that wish to keep the American people fat, dumb and happy. These comprise the military defense contractors, GE and Westinghouse, as well as the banking interests that wish to keep things exactly as they are until the time is right to pull the rug out from everyone, save them, so as to buy up everything on Wall Street for pennies on the dollar.
This has been going on since the bankers took control of the world’s money supply. Most Americans don’t have any idea that most of our gold bullion has been taken from our country and sits in the Rothschild’s bank in London. We no longer print our own money; we let the Federal Reserve (owned by the Rothschilds, the Warburgs and the Rockefellers, among others) do that for us, and then we pay interest to the Federal Reserve on every dollar that we “borrow” from them, thus increasing our national debt.
Wars are big business for the banking cartel. They lend money to both sides and make handsome profits on the death and suffering of their fellow human beings. No war is a “bad” war for the banking cartel, just as no war is a “good” war for the average citizen.
Most wars since the 1700s have been implemented by the very same families that own the central banks in this world. The opium wars in China were a direct result of the Rothschild’s purchase of the British East India Trade Company. They imported opium to China and made addicts of the country. When the Chinese government tried to prohibit opium by burning opium seized, the British Navy came to shell their ports and invade their country. They rescinded the law and took Hong Kong. Meanwhile they made trillions in opium trade.
This all had to do with the bankers in collusion with the government of England. Fast-forwarding to the Second World War, we find that U.S. bankers supplied money to both sides of the war. The Union Bank, run by Prescott Bush (the President’s grandfather) and Averill Harriman, financed the Nazis through loans made to Fritz Thyssen, the man who ran the armament industry for Adolf Hitler.
IG Farben, the company responsible for munitions and Zyclon B, which was used to gas concentration victims, was funded by the U.S. government. The Vatican, the richest entity in the world, also is still under investigation for seizing the gold taken from the Jews that were persecuted by the Nazis. To show you where these Jewish bankers, like the Rothschilds, sympathies lie, much of this gold that rightfully belongs to the holocaust survivors and their relatives lies in the Rothschild’s banks in London and in their Swiss accounts.
The Catholic Church keeps their money with the Rothschilds for safe keeping. The truth is that it is indeed safe there. The Rothschild family is under no responsibility to have audits of their money. No government on earth taxes them or audits them. They are above the laws that you and I are under. The reason for this is that they control every nation they do business with, including our own.
The United States is no longer a free and independent country, but rather a corporation that is owned lock, stock and barrel by the Rothschilds, the Warburgs and the Rockefellers, as well as about nine other families. Canada and most of the British Commonwealth are in the same boat. These people are intertwined with the Royal House of Windsor, so if you think we really won the War of Independence, check the Treaty of 1787 that made the King of England the “Prince of America.”
Almost all wars have been instigated by the bankers. There is big money in war. The nations that are involved must borrow tremendous amounts from these central bankers. War is the greatest source of profit for these bankers. The other source of great wealth is to pull the plug on the stock market every so often: the Fed increases the money supply, which causes many to buy stock on margin and in the regular way; the bankers spread rumors that banks are failing, the people get scared and make runs on banks, and the markets collapse. Then these same bankers buy up failed banks and buy stocks for pennies on the dollar. This is a good trick, and they are at it again.
The Rothschilds and their cronies own the money supply of the United States, Great Britain, and countless other countries. The truth is that if they continue to own and operate the Federal Reserve, this country is at the beck and call of these insidious people. There is much more about these people I would like to discuss, but it’s hard to put it all in one article that people have the time to read to the end.
One thing I would like to mention is that these families intermarry, keeping all their secrets in the family. The Royal Family of Great Britain is also “part of the family.” The war in Iraq and Afghanistan could not proceed without these bankers; and the longer it goes on, the more money they make - they are principle shareholders in almost every defense contracting company in the U.S.
Woodrow Wilson’s greatest lament was that he agreed to a central bank, which became the Federal Reserve. He basically sold the independence of the United States to gain the Presidency, and he engineered our inclusion into WWI at the behest of the bankers.
Every dollar produced makes money for the Fed. There is no reason why we couldn’t print our own money from our Treasury except for the collusion between the bankers and the politicians. Vote for people that want to dissolve the Fed and regain America’s independence.
Baron David de Rothschild, the head of the Rothschild bank. The Rothschilds have helped the British government since financing Wellington’s army to fight the French in 1815.
By Rupert Wright, UAE National Originally Published on July 11, 2008
Among the captains of industry, spin doctors and financial advisers accompanying British prime minister Gordon Brown on his fund-raising visit to the Gulf this week, one name was surprisingly absent. This may have had something to do with the fact that the tour kicked off in Saudi Arabia. But by the time the group reached Qatar, Baron David de Rothschild was there, too, and he was also in Dubai and Abu Dhabi.
Although his office denies that he was part of the official party, it is probably no coincidence that he happened to be in the same part of the world at the right time. That is how theRothschildshave worked for centuries: quietly, without fuss, behind the scenes.
"We have had250 years or so of family involvementin the finance business," says Baron Rothschild."We provide advice on both sides of the balance sheet, and we do it globally."
The Rothschilds have been helping the British government -- and many others -- out of a financial hole ever since they financed Wellington’s army and thus victory against the French at Waterloo in 1815.
According to a long-standing legend, the Rothschild family owed the first millions of their fortune to Nathan Rothschild’s successful speculation about the effect of the outcome of the battle on the price of British bonds. By the 19th century, they ran a financial institution with the power and influence of a combined Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and perhaps even Goldman Sachs and the Bank of China today.In the 1820s, the Rothschilds supplied enough money to the Bank of England to avert a liquidity crisis.
There is not one institution that can save the system in the same way today; not even the U.S. Federal Reserve. However, even though the Rothschilds may have lost some of that power -- just as other financial institutions on that list have been emasculated in the last few months -- the Rothschild dynasty has lost none of its lustre or influence.
So it was no surprise to meet Baron Rothschild at the Dubai International Financial Centre. Rothschild’s opened in Dubai in 2006 with ambitious plans to build an advisory business to complement its European operations. What took so long? The answer, as many things connected with Rothschilds, has a lot to do with history. When Baron Rothschild began his career, he joined his father’s firm in Paris. In 1982 President Francois Mitterrand nationalised all the banks, leaving him without a bank. With just $1 million in capital, and five employees, he built up the business, before merging the French operations with the rest of the family’s business in the 1990s.
Gradually the firm has started expanding throughout the world, including the Gulf.
"There is no debate that Rothschild is a Jewish family, but we are proud to be in this region. However, it takes time to develop a global footprint," he says.
An urbane man in his mid-60s, he says there is no single reason why the Rothschilds have been able to keep their financial business together, but offers a couple of suggestions for their longevity.
"For a family business to survive, every generation needs a leader," he says. "Then somebody has to keep the peace. Building a global firm before globalisation meant a mindset of sharing risk and responsibility. If you look at the DNA of our family, that is perhaps an element that runs through our history. Finally, don’t be complacent about giving the family jobs."
He stresses that the Rothschild ascent has not been linear -- at times, as he did in Paris, they have had to rebuild. While he was restarting their business in France, his cousin Sir Evelyn was building a British franchise. When Sir Evelyn retired, the decision was taken to merge the businesses. They are now strong in Europe, Asia especially China, India, as well as Brazil.They also get involved in bankruptcy restructurings in the U.S., a franchise that will no doubt see a lot more activity in the months ahead.
Does he expect governments to play a larger role in financial markets in future?
"There is a huge difference in the Soviet-style mentality that occurred in Paris in 1982, and the extraordinary achievements that politicians, led by Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy, have made to save the global banking system from systemic collapse," he says. "They moved to protect the world from billions of unemployment. In five to 10 years those banking stakes will be sold -- and sold at a profit."
Baron Rothschild shares most people’s view that there is a New World Order.In his opinion, banks will deleverage and there will be a new form of global governance.
"But you have to be careful of caricatures: we don’t want to go from ultra liberalism to protectionism."
So how did the Rothschilds manage to emerge relatively unscathed from the financial meltdown?
"You could say that we may have more insights than others, or you may look at the structure of our business," he says. "As a family business, we want to limit risk. There is a natural pride in being a trusted adviser."
It is that role as trusted adviser to both governments and companies that Rothschilds is hoping to build on in the region.
"In today’s world we have a strong offering of debt and equity," he says. "They are two arms of the same body looking for money."
The firm has entrusted the growth of its financing advisory business in the Middle East to Paul Reynolds, a veteran of many complex corporate finance deals.
"Our principal business franchise is large and mid-size companies," says Mr Reynolds. "I have already been working in this region for two years and we offer a pretty unique proposition. We work in a purely advisory capacity. We don’t lend or underwrite, because that creates conflicts. We are sensitive to banking relationships. But we look to ensure financial flexibility for our clients."
He was unwilling to discuss specific deals or clients, but says that he offers them "trusted, impartial financing advice any time day or night." Baron Rothschilds tends to do more deals than their competitors, mainly because they are prepared to take on smaller mandates.
"It’s not transactions were are interested in, it’s relationships. We are looking for good businesses and good people," says Mr Reynolds. "Our ambition is for every company here to have a debt adviser."
Baron Rothschild is reluctant to comment on his nephew Nat Rothschild’s public outburst against George Osborne, the British shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nat Rothschild castigated Mr Osborne for revealing certain confidences gleaned during a holiday in the summer in Corfu.
In what the British press are calling "Yachtgate," the tale involved Russia’s richest man, Oleg Deripaska, Lord Mandelson, a controversial British politician who has just returned to government, Mr Osborne and a Rothschild. Classic tabloid fodder, but one senses that Baron Rothschild frowns on such publicity.
"If you are an adviser, that imposes a certain style and culture," he says. "You should never forget that clients want to hear more about themselves than their bankers. It demands an element of being sober."
Even when not at work, Baron Rothschild’s tastes are sober. He lives between Paris and London, is a keen family man --he has one son who is joining the business next September and three daughters -- an enthusiastic golfer, and enjoys the "odd concert." He is also involved in various charity activities, including funding research into brain disease and bone marrow disorders.
It is part of Rothschild lore that its founder sent his sons throughout Europe to set up their own interlinked offices. So where would Baron Rothschild send his children today?
"I would send one to Asia, one to Europe and one to the United States," he said. "And if I had more children, I would send one to the UAE."
Meyer Rothschild died on September 19, 1812. In his will he spelled out specific guidelines that were to be maintained by his descendants:
1) All important posts were to be held by only family members, and only male members were to be involved on the business end. The oldest son of the oldest son was to be the head of the family, unless otherwise agreed upon by the rest of the family, as was the case in 1812, when Nathan was appointed as the patriarch.
2) The family was to intermarry with their own first and second cousins, so their fortune could be kept in the family, and to maintain the appearance of a united financial empire. For example, his son James (Jacob) Meyer married the daughter of another son, Salomon Meyer. This rule became less important in later generations as they refocused family goals and married into other fortunes.
3) Rothschild ordered that there was never to be "any public inventory made by the courts, or otherwise, of my estate ... Also I forbid any legal action and any publication of the value of the inheritance."
1991 "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill." - Club of Rome 1991
July 6, 2007 David Rothschild's says he and his family (that own half of the world's wealth) have no plans for a global carbon dioxide (what we breath out) tax. Ow that's good news, no tax on breathing. Plants that breath in carbon dioxide will be happy as well...or will they...
April 21, 2009 Whoops, the same Rothschild family are setting up carbon tax "banks" here in Australia and abroad!!
Rothschild Australia and Australia-based environmental group E3 International have launched a fund which will allow highly polluting companies to offset their emissions by buying carbon credits from cleaner firms. With individual investments of no less than $100,000, the Consortium hopes to raise $2 million. It is expected that by June 2003 the carbon credits purchased will be ready for distribution among investors. "Rothschild, E3 Launch Carbon Credit Investment Fund," - National Energy Technology Laboratory, Carbon Sequestration Newsletter, October 2002
Reuters Originally Published on September 3, 2002
Billed as the first of its kind in the Asia-Pacific region and soon to be followed by other similar private investment vehicles, the Carbon Ring Consortium seeks to raise $2 million, with individual investors obliged to pay $100,000.
"With recent developments in international climate change policy, the question is no longer if, but when the global carbon trading market will emerge," said Richard Martin, chief executive officer of Rothschild Australia.
It would be wrapped up in June 2003, when the carbon credits purchased will be distributed to investors pro rata.
Trading environmental credits is an emerging market designed to allow firms that fail to meet emissions standards to buy credits from other firms that undercut their targets.
The Kyoto accord signed by developing nations in the Japanese city of that name envisages some carbon credit trade between countries with so-called carbon sinks - forests - and others that produce higher levels of pollution than they are allowed to.
The same applies to companies, and a nascent market has already emerged in the United States where some states have limits on acid rain components like sulphur dioxide and others have limits on carbon dioxide emissions.
Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are blamed by many scientists for rising world temperatures.
The investment bank said it was estimated that the global carbon trading market could be worth up to $150 billion by 2012.
It said it looked increasingly likely that the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gas emissions would be ratified by enough countries to come into effect, notwithstanding the decision of the United States and Australia to reject the accord.
The process of investing will involve workshops to allow investors to gain hands-on knowledge of the new market.
The unregistered, managed investment scheme will be the first in a series of private investment vehiclesthat Carbon Ring Pty Limited, a joint venture between Rothschild and E3 International,expects to launch in the coming years, the partners said.
Rothschild Australia and E3 International are set to become key players in the international carbon credit trading market, an emerging commodity market that analysts estimate could be worth up to US$150 billion by 2012.
In a move that will re-shape the fledgling emissions trading market, Rothschild Australia and E3 International today announced their intention to launch the Carbon Ring Consortium — an investment vehicle that will provide companies in the Asia Pacific Region with an innovative way of learning about and understanding their risks in the new carbon market.
The Carbon Ring Consortium is the first of its kind in the Asia-Pacific Region, and is the first in a series of private investment vehicles that Carbon Ring Pty Ltd will launch in coming years.
Richard Martin, the chief executive officer of Rothschild Australia said:
“With recent developments in international climate change policy, the question is no longer if, but when the global carbon trading market will emerge. Rothschild Australia, through Carbon Ring, intends to be at the forefront of this market, providing private investment vehicles to companies seeking to offset their greenhouse gas emissions liabilities.” [See The Rockefellers, Obama and the Carbon Tax Scam]
The Carbon Ring Consortium allows companies with a future carbon liability to purchase a range of carbon credits and obtain a practical insight into the operation of this new market. Carbon credits will be bought from domestic and international projects that achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. These carbon credits will be distributed pro rata to Consortium investors.
“The Carbon Ring Consortium is an important first step for Rothschild and for our clients,” said Mr. Martin.
“The Consortium should appeal to companies that are faced with a greenhouse liability and are significant users or producers of energy, such as electricity generators, heavy industrials, oil companies, major manufacturers or airlines, amongst many others.
“It provides investors with an opportunity to learn about the market through an investment in a low risk, low cost investment vehicle, created specifically to acquire a diverse range of carbon credits. Participants will also share in significant knowledge and intellectual property,” Mr. Martin said.
During its life, the Carbon Ring Consortium intends to purchase a range of carbon credits, in a range of jurisdictions and from a range of sources. In the process, the Consortium will expose investors to many of the most pressing issues that corporations will have to address if they are to participate in the emerging carbon market. It will also give investors a practical insight into the buying and selling of carbon credits in the present market, without the need to invest in significant trading infrastructure or to assume undue risk.
Mr. Martin believes that there are many reasons why an organisation would invest in the Consortium: gaining practical experience in an emerging market; offsetting their greenhouse gas emissions; hedging their investments in new infrastructure; or in response to the expectations of the public, customers or shareholders.
Craig Windram, the director of E3 International and a partner in Carbon Ring, said:
“A carbon liability brings with it considerable financial risk for organisations, and early planning to deal with this risk will add to an organisation’s competitive advantage — that’s where Carbon Ring comes in.
“Few companies have developed a practical understanding of the emerging carbon market. For companies on either side of the equation, as either buyers or sellers, the Carbon Ring Consortium will provide the opportunity to ‘learn by doing’. This experience will be vital in assisting businesses to formulate policy, to understand and identify their risks, and to demonstrate leadership in an area of growing public concern,” Mr. Windram said.
The Carbon Ring Consortium is an unregistered, managed investment scheme. Designed to be a tailored, limited-life vehicle, it will document the legal and accounting process involved in the purchase, settlement and distribution of various carbon credit assets.
Requiring an investment of US$100,000, with a portion returned to investors in the form of carbon credits, the Consortium is intended to provide investors with a low cost, low risk and structured entry into this new market.
About Rothschild
N M Rothschild & Sons has been at the centre of the world’s financial markets for more 200 years. Today, the firm is a global investment bank, which provides independent and quality advice to governments, corporations and individuals worldwide through a network of professionals in 40 offices across more than 30 countries. The firm employs 2,500 employees worldwide.
About E3
The E3 Group is a hybrid organisation dedicated to making the business case for sustainable development. It is part strategic management consultancy, part environmental think tank, part project developer and part investment manager.
The E3 Group comprises a number of companies that have developed around the business of sustainability. The Group includes a conventional consulting business, an environmental software company, a dedicated renewable energy project promoter and the Carbon Ring Consortium. The principal operating company in the group is E3 International Pty Limited, which is headquartered in Australia.
Carbon Advice Group Plc is pleased to announce the appointment of Oliver Rothschild as its chairman. Matthew Sullivan, Founder and CEO of Carbon Advice Group, welcomed the appointment saying:
“We are delighted that Oliver Rothschild has agreed to join Carbon Advice Group Plc as Chairman. We believe that Oliver will bring significant experience and international credibility to the Board of Carbon Advice Group Plc as it rapidly extends its carbon offsetting services and network of environmental entrepreneurs across Europe and the United States”.
Oliver Rothschild said:
“Carbon Advice Group Plc provides a unique way of engaging individuals and businesses in combating climate change across borders and nationalities. I am pleased to join Carbon Advice Group Plc at such an exciting stage in the company’s growth. I look forward to the exciting challenges of the future and working with my colleagues at Carbon Advice Group Plc to ensure the company provides a quality service to justify the public’s continuing support”.
Continued Carbon Advice Group founder Matthew Sullivan:
“We want to motivate the average person in the street to get online, join our global network, build their own carbon offsetting website and get the message across to everyone they know”.
“Everyday we see, hear and read about the catastrophic effects of global climate change. We all know we need to do something, and we need to do it now. We believe the appointment of Oliver Rothschild will help Carbon Advice Group Plc get closer to achieving our objective of bringing carbon emissions reduction and offsetting into the mainstream,” Sullivan continued.
The economic crisis is pushing the world’s hungriest people to the wall, but a fraction of the cost of financial rescue packages could make a huge difference, the head of the U.N.’s World Food Programme said on Tuesday. “I don’t think it is just an issue of compassion, it is an issue of global peace and security,” WFP Executive Director Josette Sheeran told Reuters in an interview.
If countries already suffering from the effects of high food prices do not get help now, there could be more instability and food riots around the world in 2009, perhaps on an even bigger scale than before, she said.
“Globally, hunger is on a march,” said Sheeran, visiting India for the first time to combat malnutrition there. “The food crisis itself has hit the world harder than I would have ever expected,” she added. “We expect the financial crisis will add to the pressure on the world’s most vulnerable.”
Sheeran, whose organisation will feed nearly 100 million of the world’s hungriest people this year, appealed to the United States and Europe to set aside just one percent of the cost of financial rescue packages to combat global hunger…
The WFP will start 2009 needing $5.2 billion to feed the hungry urgently in places like Ethiopia, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Afghanistan and North Korea. Without a rapid injection of funds, millions will run out of help by March when warehouses empty.
Rising food and fuel prices have already hit the poorest and hungriest hard. The Food and Agriculture Organization said in June that 75 million more people had been pushed into hunger as a result. Last week it added 40 million people to that list, meaning there are almost one billion hungry in total — nearly one sixth of humanity.
In 2008, there were even temporary limits placed on buying rice in the United States (see Rice and the Beginning of Sorrows). We will see what 2009 will bring.
But, of course, famines and related disruptions have long happened, and were even predicted:
Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked Him privately, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign when all these things will be fulfilled?” And Jesus, answering them, began to say: “Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He,’ and will deceive many. But when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be troubled; For such things must happen, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be earthquakes in various places, And there will be famines and troubles. These are the beginnings of sorrows. But watch out for yourselves, for they will deliver you up to councils, And you will be beaten in the synagogues. You will be brought before rulers and kings for My sake, for a testimony to them. And the gospel must first be preached to all the nations. But when they arrest you and deliver you up, Do not worry beforehand or premeditate what you will speak. But whatever is given you in that hour, speak that; For it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. Now brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; And children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. And you will be hated by all men for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end shall be saved…” (Mark 13:3-13)
Events seems to be lining up to fulfill the above and other biblical prophecies. But the end (meaning the great tribulation, which starts afterwords) is NOT yet:
And pray that your flight may not be in winter. For in those days there will be tribulation, Such as has not been from the beginning of creation, Which God created until this time, nor ever shall be. And unless the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh would be saved; But for the elect’s sake, whom He chose, He shortened the days…
And what I say to you, I say to all: Watch!” (Mark 13:18-20,37)
A period of persecution combined with successfully proclaiming the gospel to the world as a witness precedes the great tribulation (see also Persecutions by Church and State). And then the faithful church FLEES.
Until then, Jesus says to watch and pray.
Although those who trust in things on the earth will be disappointed, the wise may also wish to look at physical preparation scriptures, such as Proverbs 6:6-8, as they are certainly in the Bible for a reason:
Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, Provideth her meat in the summer, And gathereth her food in the harvest. (Proverbs 6:6-8)
The presiding evangelist of the Living Church of God (LCG), R.C. Meredith, publicly has taught:
Put aside some food and store some water…Bad times are coming, have some supplies (Prophecy Overview, Sermon, July 19, 2008).
And while spiritual preparation is most important, certainly physical preparation makes a lot of sense.
This report outlines the root causes of the global food crisis and addresses problems, such as trade conditions, biofuel production, and financial speculation.Further, the report points out that many people participate in “riots” against the conditions of the global food system (Institute for Food and Development Policy). Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush. "It would put the World Bank in a political hot-spot with the White House," said one yesterday.
Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% -- far more than previously estimated -- according to a confidentialWorld Bank reportobtained byThe Guardian. The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.
The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe, which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil.
Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush.
"It would put the World Bank in a political hot-spot with the White House," said one yesterday.
The news comes at a critical point in the world's negotiations on biofuels policy. It will also put pressure on the British government, which is due to release its own report on the impact of biofuels, the Gallagher Report. The Guardian has previously reported that the British study will state that plant fuels have played a "significant" part in pushing up food prices to record levels. Although it was expected last week, the report has still not been released.
"Political leaders seem intent on suppressing and ignoring the strong evidence that biofuels are a major factor in recent food price rises," said Robert Bailey, policy adviser at Oxfam. "It is imperative that we have the full picture. While politicians concentrate on keeping industry lobbies happy, people in poor countries cannot afford enough to eat."
Rising food prices have pushed 100 million people worldwide below the poverty line, estimates the World Bank, and have sparked riots from Bangladesh to Egypt.Government ministers here have described higher food and fuel prices as "the first real economic crisis of globalisation."
President Bush has linked higher food prices to higher demand from India and China, but the leaked World Bank study disputes that:
"Rapid income growth in developing countries has not led to large increases in global grain consumption and was not a major factor responsible for the large price increases."
Even successive droughts in Australia, calculates the report, have had a marginal impact. Instead, it argues that the EU and US drive for biofuels has had by far the biggest impact on food supply and prices.Since April, all petrol and diesel in Britain has had to include 2.5% from biofuels. The EU has been considering raising that target to 10% by 2020, but is faced with mounting evidence that that will only push food prices higher.
"Without the increase in biofuels, global wheat and maize stocks would not have declined appreciably and price increases due to other factors would have been moderate," says the report.
The basket of food prices examined in the study rose by 140% between 2002 and this February. The report estimates that higher energy and fertiliser prices accounted for an increase of only 15%, while biofuels have been responsible for a 75% jump over that period.
It argues that production of biofuels has distorted food markets in three main ways.
First, it has diverted grain away from food for fuel, with over a third of US corn now used to produce ethanol and about half of vegetable oils in the EU going towards the production of biodiesel.
Second, farmers have been encouraged to set land aside for biofuel production.
Third, it has sparked financial speculation in grains, driving prices up higher.
Other reviews of the food crisis looked at it over a much longer period, or have not linked these three factors, and so arrived at smaller estimates of the impact from biofuels. But the report author, Don Mitchell, is a senior economist at the Bank and has done a detailed, month-by-month analysis of the surge in food prices, which allows much closer examination of the link between biofuels and food supply. The report points out biofuels derived from sugarcane, which Brazil specializes in, have not had such a dramatic impact.
Supporters of biofuels argue that they are a greener alternative to relying on oil and other fossil fuels, but even that claim has been disputed by some experts, who argue that it does not apply to US production of ethanol from plants.
"It is clear that some biofuels have huge impacts on food prices," said Dr David King, the government's former chief scientific adviser, last night. "All we are doing by supporting these is subsidising higher food prices, while doing nothing to tackle climate change."
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations November 2008
Prices for most agricultural commodities have dropped significantly and swiftly in recent months. World grain prices have fallen by over 50 percent from their record highs earlier this year. International prices for other important foodstuffs, such as vegetable oils, oilseeds or dairy products have also drifted downwards, even if they still remain above their longer term trend levels. Rice is still expensive but prices may follow the path for other foodstuffs as the new crop comes on stream, export restrictions are relaxed and demand shifts further to cheaper alternatives.
At first sight, this is good news for the global food system.But the gradual return to equilibrium in food markets should not be taken to assume that the world’s food problems have been fixed, neither in the short-run nor with a view to the longer-term challenges.Cereal stocks still need to be replenished and lower prices will again divert more supply from food to fuel.
With only 433 million tons in opening stocks, the cereal stocks-to-use ratio in 2008/09 is at its second lowest in three decades. To bring stocks back to their pre-crisis levels will require 40 percent of the production increase in 2008. Bioenergy has already absorbed 100 million tons of cereals in 2007/08. Falling feedstock prices, and new bio-ethanol production capacities arriving, could stimulate new demand and thus moderate an otherwise more drastic decline in prices.
The recent decline in prices should neither be taken to mean that the world’s problems of hunger and poverty have been solved.A casual glance at the most recent production statistics reveals that most of the production increase of the last two years arose in developed countries. The benefits of higher prices have not accrued to producers in many developing countries, for their supply response was small in 2007 and virtually zero in 2008.
The reasons are manifold. Higher prices of key agricultural inputs such as fertilizers, seeds and energy, made it more difficult for all farmers to step up production. But particularly hard hit were poor subsistence producers who have been confronted with higher input prices without producing a marketable surplus that would earn them higher revenues. At the same time, export taxes and restrictions meant that high international prices were not always and not fully transmitted to domestic markets, burdening even commercial farmers with higher costs and stagnant output prices.
The policy response to soaring food prices in developing countries was indeed wide-ranging. A FAO survey found that nearly 40 countries reduced grain import tariffs and more than 20 countries imposed export controls of some kind – either in the form of taxes or quantitative controls such as outright bans and quotas.
Even more worrisome is the notion that falling prices have little to do with recovering global supplies but instead are being driven downwards by slowing demand.This is being evidenced by the fact that almost all commodity prices are declining in unison alongside a deteriorating global economic outlook. The entrenchment of the global financial crisis could mean that the economic slump may even be faster and more severe than currently anticipated. To the extent prices do reflect an anticipated slow-down in economic growth that constricts demand, lower prices may even be associated with more poverty and hunger rather than less.
Over the past few decades, well-known internationalist Zbigniew Brzezinski has bounced back and forth between government and academic posts. In 1970, he openly proposed world government in his 300-page book entitled Between Two Ages. Its recommendations led to the 1973 formation of the Trilateral Commission (TC), which he then led for many years. World government, he stated in his book, could be brought about in “piecemeal” fashion through “a variety of indirect ties and already developing limitations on national sovereignty.”
Four years later, another professor and occasional State Department veteran named Richard N. Gardner boldly suggested the same strategy in his article “The Hard Road to World Order.” Published in the April 1974 issue of Foreign Affairs, the journal of the world-government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations, Gardner lamented that a single leap into world government, which he preferred, wasn’t attainable. So he urged “an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece.” And he pointedly advocated a “piecemeal” transfer of power to such international organizations as the UN’s International Monetary Fund, the UN’s World Bank, the UN-led World Food Conference, the UN-led Population Conference, even a United Nations military arm.
The end sought by these two internationalist heavyweights — and many other likeminded globalists — would result in forced redistribution of the world’s wealth, termination of basic freedoms (religion, speech, publishing, property rights, etc.), and complete regimentation of all human activity right down to the local level.
It’s no surprise, therefore, to discover that the “piecemeal” process aiming toward this megalomaniacal goal appears in the UN’s Agenda 21. This enormous document emerged from the highly publicized 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero, Brazil. Its 1,100 pages supply a detailed program for social engineering on such a massive scale that it would, if fully implemented, accomplish complete regimentation of all life on the planet during the 21st Century. Hence the name Agenda 21.
Agenda 21 - This global contract binds governments around the world to the UN plan for changing the ways we live, eat, learn and communicate--all under the noble banner of saving the Earth. Its regulations would severely limit water, electricity and transportation--even deny human access to our most treasured wilderness areas. If implemented, it would manage and monitor all lands and people. No one would be free from the watchful eye of the new global tracking and information system. - Berit Kjos, "Local Agenda 21 - The U.N. Plan for Your Community"
Sustainable Development - The concept of Sustainable Development basically says that there are too many people on planet Earth and that the population of the world must be reduced in order to have enough resources for future generations. [Under the New World Order plan,] the UN should be the global custodian of the Earth and all of its resources. This means that we will be measured by how much we produce and how much we consume as found in the "family dependency ratio." Every person will be valued according to their usefulness. In addition, the UN will control the Earth's resources--energy, water, food and so on. The concept of sustainable development can be found in the Communisto Manifesto and the 1977 USSR Constitution. - Joan M. Veon, The Women's International Media Group, Inc.
The United Nations (UN) program for Sustainable Development is the most extensive and broad ranging social engineering project ever undertaken. Agenda 21, Earth's Action Plan, written by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1992, is the overall social engineering agenda for "sustainable development" with specified "objectives." America's participation is the result of George H.W. Bush signing Agenda 21 in Rio and the succeeding administrations' desires to implement its objectives.
The American public has been treated to a stready stream of articles and so-called studies on how, if we do not change our ways and adopt "sustainable" behaviors and patterns of economic growth, environmental disaster (global warming, deforestation, extinction of species, etc.) is right around the corner. (Steven Yates, "Thoughts on the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development")
Agenda 21 embraces virtually every aspect of human life; it is being implemented aggressively in the United States. Congress has never examined the totality of the Agenda. Instead, Congress is fed only bits and pieces in the context of "protecting the environment."
The ultimate objective of Agenda 21 is to establish "international norms" of personal behavior that are dictated by a handful of the world's enlightened elite who believe they know best how people ought to live. The UN Commission on Sustainable Development is not the result of a treaty ratified by the Senate: America participates in the UN organization by Executive Decree.
During the early 1990s a new set of terms began creeping into our lexicon; in addition to sustainable development or sustainable communities they included our global village, biodiversity, smart growth, habitats, urban boundaries, wildlife conservation zones, open space areas and many others. Many of the new terms seemed to involve local issues on urban and suburban planning in one way or another; others (such as lifelong learning) were turning up in edu-speak; others (e.g., public-private partnerships) spilled over into business, and still others (e.g., workforce development) seemed to cut across more than one area. Few Americans realized that the source of the new vocabulary words was the UN. (Steven Yates, "Thoughts on the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development")
Most have never heard of Agenda 21. This is a shame, because after the Bible and the Koran, Agenda 21 may be the most influential document in the world right now. It is definitely in the top five. (Steven Yates, "Thoughts on the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development")
Through the Clinton/Gore administration, America drove the agenda globally and made it possible for the UN to dictate, not only in America, but around the world, how all people must live. The full implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Commitments to the Rio principles, was strongly reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa from August 26 August to September 4, 2002. And Obama is bringing the Clinton/Gore team back together to finish the job.
Agenda 21 is the bible of the sustainable development movement. A horribly written, long-winded tract consisting of 40 chapters of various lengths covering everything from land, water and waste management to urban planning to biotechnology, it purports to offer a comprehensive new paradigm for life on planet Earth.
The basic idea behind sustainable development was spelled out back in 1987 by the little-known Brundtland Commission. The Bruntland Commission definition: "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
This innocent sounding phrase came to carry with it the implication that there are too many people living and working in an environment of finite resources to permit "unsustainable" economic freedoms.
Behind the idea of sustainable development is the idea that we have a choice: adopt "voluntary" central planning (with the UN at the helm) to integrate economics and ecology within a globalist perspective or face ecological disaster a few decades down the pike.
The United States has been a thorn in the UN’s side all along. Although President Bush has committed billions to every area the UN wants and has committed the U.S. to involvement in 14 "partnerships," Uncle Sam still doesn’t give the UN as much money as the globalist bureaucrats want, and Uncle Sam opposes such things as global taxation and the erosion of national sovereignty.
equity ("eradicating poverty through equitable and sustainable access to resources"),
rights ("securing environmental and social rights"),
limits ("reduction of resource use to within sustainable limits"),
justice ("recognition of ecological debts and cancellation of financial debts"),
democracy ("ensuring access to information and public participation"), and
ethics ("rethinking the values and principles that guide human behavior").
Here it comes:
Sustainable development decision making must be integrated in all policy areas, and at all levels, and made central to all environmental, social and economic planning and law. To rectify current imbalances, international sustainable development law must be strengthened and integrated into all national, regional and global legal instruments.
How to finance this?
Speculative financial flows and unsustainable investment patterns by the private and public sectors have contributed substantially to unsustainable trends … The WSSD must:
Initiate negotiations toward development of mechanisms to ensure financial markets contribute to sustainable development, such as the Tobin tax;
Recognize controls on the movement of capital as a legitimate instrument to ensure sustainable development; and
Agree [to?] global rules governing publicly financed investment, e,g., international financial institutions and export credit agencies to ensure it is tested against sustainable development criteria.
If this is not a call for an edifice of global law to be enforced by global government and financed by eventual global taxation, I cannot imagine what would count as such. The globalist bureaucrats prefer the term governance, of course. Governance involves partnerships. Partnerships are how the encirclement of controls envelops businesses and business organizations, hundreds of which have sent representatives to WSSD.
There is a distinct communist streak running through the UN agenda — with environmental issues having replaced exploitation of workers as the primary weapon against "capitalism." This, too, should really be no surprise; socialists founded the UN back in the 1940s, after all. Yesterday we had reds; today we have greens.
The post-cold war period has "become nothing less than a global experiment in international development." --Maurice Strong
If one wants to reduce poverty and help the environment, then the proper course of action is to promote economic liberty and private ownership of the land. Limit the power of government to interfere with private property rights and free interactions and transactions between individuals. Educate people in the "developing" world about the benefits of liberty and free enterprise.
As free enterprise began to create jobs, both educational levels and living standards would begin to rise, the physical environment would begin to improve through incentives by free property owners to take care of what they own, and the means of dealing with many of the health problems would emerge. The resulting actions and arrangements may not be "sustainable" as the sustainability agitators define it. After all, building a free and prosperous economy cannot be done without making use of natural resources, changing raw materials into usable goods. But the alternative is to remain mired in poverty — or accept transfers of wealth from "developed" nations, gradually impoverishing them.
It seems likely, however, that improving the human condition, whether in the "developed" or the "developing" worlds, is not what either the globalists or the greens have in mind. The globalists simply want power. As complete secularists (or secular humanists), they see themselves as having made God obsolete. They would replace God with an internationalist superstate. They are living out the realization that once our need for the transcendent is completely removed from our description of the human condition, there is no real reason why those in a position to do so should not attempt to seize the reins of power and rule as they see fit — on a global level, if they can pull it off.
The UN overlords thus clearly see themselves as an emerging world government — the New World Order. Communism was one of the more conspicuous failures of the last century, however. But utopians never give up: the globalists turned to environmentalism and "deep ecology" as the most useful weapons against the despised capitalist system. Hence the rise to power of the greens.
The greens aren’t exactly secularists, though; and they certainly aren’t humanists in any sense of that word that makes sense. They worship "Mother Earth" — Gaia — and in a fashion not unlike that of the pagan tribes that inhabited Europe prior to the rise of Christianity. I think the leaders of the green movement hate humanity, however. They resent the dickens out of a civilization that has largely succeeded without their contributions and which would ignore them completely if it were not for their political clout.
Much "deep ecology" seems to be motivated by a deep-seated hatred not merely of free enterprise but of the human race itself, which it often portrays as akin to a virus that has infected the once-pristine planet Earth. This would explain their welcome embrace of avid pro-abortionists (e.g., International Planned Parenthood) and advocates of so-called "gay rights" (homosexuals cannot have children) — all represented in NGO’s at WSSD. The greens have been useful tools for the globalists.
Now it is important to add that these two categories do not apply to everyone in the sustainable development movement. I have no doubt that there are sincere, dedicated people at the grass roots level of these sustainable-communities movements who believe they are doing the right thing; they may have been pulled in by the change-agents’ skilled use of the Delphi Technique or just fallen, hook, line and sinker for "green" scare tactics about global warming or environmental degradation. The same is likely true of the businesses and corporations who sent representatives to WSSD. The latter may have been sold on bogus, pseudo-ethical arguments about the "rightness" or "social justice" involved in international wealth redistribution. Lenin would have called them all useful idiots.
One should read and absorb everything Joan Veon and Henry Lamb have written on the UN, its threat to national sovereignty and the threat of the sustainable development movement to individuals’ rights to live where they want and do as they please with their own private property. One might even consider donating money to or even joining one of the organizations advocating that the U.S. get out of the UN while it is still possible to stop the global-government agenda. A fairly recent movement called Freedom 21 represents one possible alternative to Agenda 21 and WSSD.
The following is a post from the maya12-21-12 forum on The Venus Project, which claims we can have an utopia society by balancing man, technology and nature, "a sustainable state of dynamic equilibrium:"
The Venus Project ("Zietgeist: Addendum") presents a bold, new direction for humanity that entails nothing less than the total redesign of our culture.There are many people today who are concerned with the serious problems that face our modern society:unemployment, violent crime, replacement of humans by technology, over-population and a decline in the Earth's ecosystems.As you will see, The Venus Project is dedicated to confronting all of these problems by actively engaging in the research, development, and application of workable solutions. Through the use of innovative approaches to social awareness, educational incentives, and the consistent application of the best that science and technology can offer directly to the social system, The Venus Project offers a comprehensive plan for social reclamation in which human beings, technology, and nature will be able to coexist in a long-term, sustainable state of dynamic equilibrium.
The plans for The Venus Project offer society a broader spectrum of choices based on the scientific possibilities inherent in current technology and direct that knowledge toward a new era of peace andsustainability for all cultures. Through the implementation of a resource-based economy, and a multitude of innovative and environmentally friendly technologies directly applied to the social system, The Venus Project proposals will dramatically reduce crime, poverty, hunger, homelessness, and many other pressing problems that are common throughout the world today.
One of the cornerstones of the organization's findings is the fact that many of the dysfunctional behaviors of today's society stem directly from the dehumanizing environment inherent in the existing monetary system. Moreover, the currently utilized random implementation of automation and other technologies have resulted in a fragmented, self-defeating trend occurring throughout the manufacturing and high-tech sectors of today's global economy--namely the technological replacement of human labor by machines.The Venus Project proposes a social system in which automation and technology would be intelligently applied and integrated into an overall social design where the primary function would be to maximize the quality of life rather than profits.This project also introduces a set of workable and acceptable human values that are more appropriate and in balance with our present state of technology.
With the Western nations continuing their downward economic spiral, the advocates of the United Nations’ redistributionist schemes also continue to exploit the environmental agenda in their effort to fundamentally alter the global economy to serve their own ends.
Despite the failure of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December 2009 to achieve its goal of a treaty binding the industrialized world to an economic suicide pact, the "voluntary" agreements are still a threat to the West. The UN is engaged in an effort to use the imagined environmental crisis as the justification for a program of sweeping economic redistribution that would shift trillions of dollars from the industrialized nations to the Third World. The UN is now demanding an “investment” of $1.9 trillion per year in “green technology” to meet the goals that the internationalists have set for the nations of the world. An AFP story entitled “World needs $1.9tn a year for green technology:UN” sets forth the lament of an elite for whom “real money” is measured in tens of trillions of dollars:
"Over the next 40 years, $1.9 trillion (1.31 trillion euros) per year will be needed for incremental investments in green technologies," the UN Economic and Social Affairs body said in its annual survey.
"At least one-half, or $1.1 trillion per year, of the required investments will need to be made in developing countries to meet their rapidly increasing food and energy demands through the application of green technologies," it added. At the moment, "external financing currently available for green technology investments in developing countries is far from sufficient to meet the challenge," it assessed.
Over the last two years, climate change funds managed by World Bank disbursed about $20 billion, a fraction of the sum necessary for developing countries to build up clean energy technologies, sustainable farming techniques and technologies that help cut non-biodegradable waste production. Even though states agreed during a 2009 Copenhagen summit to spend $30 billion over 2010 to 2012 and $100 billion a year by 2020 in transfers to developing countries, these sums have not been realised.
In other words, the costly “feel good” language adopted at Copenhagen — though far from the crushing obligations a treaty would have imposed — still means the World Bank and the United Nations will be playing the role of an international collection agency, metaphorically beating on the doors of various heads of state until they “cough up” the demanded funds.
The cost of “going green” continues its steady upward climb with every new pronouncement from the UN. As reported for The New American in March 2010, the UN plan would eventually cost $45 trillion, with most of that cost coming from the First World:
According to the Earth Summit 2012 website, the goals of the conference will be in line with the Copenhagen agenda: Wrapping economic redistribution in a green mantle.
The United Nations General Assembly agreed to a new Earth Summit in December. The Summit will be in 2012 and will be hosted by Brazil. The themes are the Green Economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, the institutional framework for sustainable development, emerging issues and a review of present commitments.
The term “sustainable” in such a context is usually a buzzword for “governmentally controlled.” Although the plan is still wrapped in green, the dream of “poverty eradication” is coming to the fore.
And what will be the cost to the industrialized world for such “poverty eradication”?The inconceivable price tag is already at $45 trillion — and the conference is still years away. The ANI reports:
Documents written in advance of the meeting assume that the goal of the green economic transformation is the same as that of the ill-fated Copenhagen conference: a 50 percent reduction in global carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.
That, the paper says, will require a staggering 45 trillion dollars to accomplish. While the Copenhagen agenda was declared dead in December, the green road that leads to enormous cuts in carbon emissions by 2050 will require wealth tranfer [sic] from developed to developing country — same as the Copenhagen summit, according to documents.
Now, the $45 trillion has grown to an even more incomprehensible $76 trillion (based on the proposed 40 years of spending $1.9 trillion per year). Calling such a reckless demand “outrageous” and “unsustainable” still falls short — what is demanded is nothing less than the conversion of much of what remains of the economies of the developed world into a means of funneling wealth to the World Bank, which will, ostensibly, redistribute those funds to the Third World.
The human cost of such redistributionist schemes is regularly ignored. The shaky “science” of anthropogenic global warming is so full of holes than it has lost much of its credibility in the eyes of so many people that it is often perceived to be the pet theory of environmentalist fanatics, scientists who have staked their careers on the theory, and politicians (and others) who stand to profit either financially or politically from the schemes that have been hatched to ameliorate its supposed effects.
The problem for the environmentalists and the internationalists is that panicking nations may no longer be willing to sacrifice their future for the sake of a theory that is steadily unraveling.
The United States has yet to show any significant recovery from its own economic troubles, and the plight of Europe is steadily going from bad to worse. As reported previously for The New American, Portugal’s government bonds are now at “junk” status. As Bruce Walker wrote on July 7, the ramifications of the ongoing economic meltdown in Europe may threaten the entire EU:
The effect upon Portugal was immediate — but more ominously, in nearby Spain (the fourth of the so-called "PIGS" nations, the others being Portugal, Italy, and Greece), the stock market dropped 1.5 percent and the amount of interest required by bond purchasers rose. Spain's economy is significantly larger than that of the other PIGS — and only somewhat smaller than the economy of France. Even worse, stocks dropped 2 percent in Italy, affected not only by the ripple of the PIGS but also because spending cuts have not seemed to help its huge national debt.
It would be worse than irresponsible for American and European governments to continue to sacrifice the well-being of their nations to pursue costly “cures” for largely theoretical environmental problems. The plan to divert $76 trillion into “green technologies” ought to be greeted, first, with inquiries into precisely who would profit from such expenditures, and, second, with a resounding rejection of such an obscene effort to loot the economies of the developed world.
The second action plan (of Sustainable Development) is called Smart Growth. Smart Growth will increasingly herd Americans into regimented and dense urban communities. Smart Growth is Sustainable Development’s ultimate solution, as it will create dense human settlements subject to increasing controls on how residents live and increased restriction on mobility. In the words of one Smart Growth activist: “It will be the humans in cages with the animals looking in.” - Transforming America: Sustainable Development
Habitat II - The UN Plan for Human Settlements Bicycles instead of cars? Dense apartment clusters instead of single homes? Community rituals instead of churches? "Human rights" instead of religious freedom? The United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II), which met June 3-14 in Istanbul, painted an alarming picture of the 21st century community. The American ways — free speech, individualism, travel, and Christianity — are out. A new set of economic, environmental, and social guidelines are in. Citizenship, democracy, and education have been redefined. Handpicked civil leaders will implement UN "laws," bypassing state and national representatives to work directly with the UN. And politically correct "tolerance" — meaning "the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism" as well as "appreciation" for the world's religions and lifestyles — is "not only a moral duty, it is also a political and legal requirement." - Berit Kjos, Kjos Ministries, June 1996
The Habitat Agenda Goals and Principles (Exerpt from the Preamble to this UN Document) We recognize the imperative need to improve the quality of human settlements, which profoundly affects the daily lives and well-being of our peoples. There is a sense of great opportunity and hope that a new world can be built, in which economic development, social development and environmental protection, as interdependent and mutually reinforcing components of sustainable development, can be realized through solidarity and cooperation within and between countries and through effective partnerships at all levels. International cooperation and universal solidarity, guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and in a spirit of partnership, are crucial to improving the quality of life of the peoples of the world. The purpose of the second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) is to address two themes of equal global importance: "Adequate shelter for all" and "sustainable human-settlements development in an urbanizing world." Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development, including adequate shelter for all and sustainable human settlements, and they are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.
