Nobel Peace Joke: The Prize goes for the European Union

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | OCTOBER 12, 2012

The European Union is the newest recipient of the largely depreciated Nobel Peace Prize Award. Previous winners include current US president Barack Obama, whose extended wars continue to kill thousands of people around the world. The prize given to the EU is as unexpected as it can get.

The announcement was made Friday morning in Oslo by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, which praised the achievements of the EU for “the advancement of peace and reconciliation” in Europe and the establishment of “democracy and human rights” in the continent.

According to the Nobel Committee the award intends to highlighted the achievement of the banker controlled club, which is composed by 27 members. The EU is charged with building Europe after the Second World War, even though its creators kept its existence quite until late in the 20th century so that its operations and efforts to create a giant technocracy were kept under the radar.

The EU is also praised for expanding democracy and stability in the Eastern part of the continent, even though it has been a key to promote military invasions, genocide and death in that very region of Europe. Supposedly, the EU was relevant during and after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the subsequent collapse of the communist bloc. This assumption is false, because Communism never collapsed. The EU received one million euros as part of the Prize, which will be officially given to the globalist organization next December 10 in Oslo.

Ironically, Norway, the state that awarded the Prize to the EU has refused to become part of the corrupt political and economic bloc. Its people rejected the call to become part of the European Union twice; first in 1972 and later in 1994. According to the latest polls, Norwegians still refuse to join the EU today.

The Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union comes to crown a project born 55 years ago, which had the ambitious goal to integrate the whole continent in order to hand it over to the banking oligarchies. Just as it happened with the United Nations, the EU was an attempt to concentrate political and economic power into fewer hands. The EU creators fancy themselves as responsible for avoiding war in the continent, although the real reason for the lack of war is that all countries there are controlled by the same people, who found a better way to wage war against their people.

Instead of launching military attacks in order to conquer nations, the authoritarian control freaks adopted a fraudulent way to enhance and perpetuate their power which also includes soft kill mechanisms. That seed has a leafy tree, well-known today for its success in bringing down and destroying millions of lives around the old continent by collapsing the economy and robbing people of their livelihoods. That is what the EU is celebrating today.

The European Union is what the African Union is to Africa, or what the North American Union is for Mexico, the United States and Canada. The proposal to create an European Union is full of “good intentions” which are actually part of a list of bullet points that are a danger to the world’s society. The EU is not only a commercial or political alliance, but a project to consolidate nations into regional governments, in preparation to establish a one world government. The European Union is the precedent to having the people of the region give away their sovereignty in exchange for world peace

The EU model succeeded so well, that the same kind of continental engineering was planned for and implemented on all other regions of the planet. The same tools for implanting control through the slow and progressive use of false crises to bring about the ideal framework for law and order around the world originated from the globalist minds in Britain, the US, and other nations that sought to build a structure that promoted global interdependence.

The lies about free trade, lower prices and less limitations to traffic and commercial exchange made by the controllers were a political and economic hook to attract more fans. What has resulted from those promises is a system of control which has been put into written form and adopted in international conventions and agreements such as the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT and others.

Since the promises of bountifulness did not come true, the globalists in control of the EU had to implement another mechanism to find common ground in the pursuit of a One Europe project. First, they promoted the idea of making membership to the EU mandatory and later the decided to precipitate the financial fall of the continent as an excuse to call for more political and economic control. Even the leaders of member nations have now called for the concentration of power into the hands of supranational organizations as the only way to avoid financial Armageddon.

One of the clearest proposals contained in manuscripts that have been proposed for the EU is that countries will no longer have the option to leave the bloc. This move is meant to assure the controllers that every single measure created by the EU government will be absolutely binding for its members and that if a member state does not like a determined policy, its representatives cannot simply decide to leave the group. Right now, the global crisis — engineered by the same globalists who are behind the EU — has prompted its founders to call for the tougher controls over trade, higher taxes and homogeneous socio-communist solutions as the only way out of the crisis.

I told you. Communism wasn’t dead.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Less Sovereignty is the Central Bankers Solution for the Crisis

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JUNE 29, 2012

Everyone on the main stream seems to believe that the continuous meetings between European central bankers and government officials are seeking to save the Euro and to help the governments deal with their sovereign debts. It is common to hear on television how journalists and so-called analysts explain that their expectations include the proposal of real solutions to the crisis which immediately produce jobs and bring stability to the markets.

They just don’t get it. These meetings between central bankers and European leaders are nothing about stability, a solution to the debt problem or the creation of jobs around the euro zone. The latest agreement between the EU Council and the Prime Ministers of Italy and Spain is an example of how the bankers are in complete control. Although the media has painted the bailout of the Spanish and Italian banks as a triumph for both governments, which according to the reports “had their way” when negotiating with the bankers, the reality is they are simply following orders. It wasn’t the Spanish and Italian governments the ones who imposed the conditions that will rule the bailout, but the banks.

The rescue of the banking system in those countries is indeed a result of Italy and Spain submitting, accepting and supporting the idea that the European Central Bank will officially turn into the manager of all Euro economies. Only after Mariano Rajoy and Mario Monti accepted that condition, was that the central bankers gave the green light to ‘lend the money’ to the Spanish and Italian banks, not the other way around. The main stream media is portraying an outcome that is completely the opposite to reality by saying that Mr. Rajoy and Mr. Monti twisted German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s arm into accepting their conditions. The truth is that Merkel herself had to accept the centralization of economic planning sought by the banks as a condition not to let the EU zone collapse before the expected time, and with it drag every single nation including Germany into the rabbit hole they are all going towards in a controlled fashion.

Less sovereignty in exchange for solidarity; this is the latest talking point that emerged from European leaders to justify the loss of self-rule and the intervention of European bankers in the decision making process at the national level. Governments have publicly adopted what seems to be a socialist standing to try to sell their fiscal irresponsibility and to deviate attention from the acquisition of European nations by the central bankers who are the origin of the current financial crisis. But it is not socialism you see, it’s fascism. Countries must get more debt and surrender their sovereignty in order to solve a crisis that is not supposed to get solved, but that was created and planned to further centralize power in the hands of the bankers themselves.

Everyone who is well-informed is familiar with the World Bank and IMF’s plans to cause the current crisis, — and all the other ones that came before — how they’ve applied the same neo-feudal model throughout history to destroy economies and artificially recreate them using models for growth based on the acquisition of debt and the never-ending payments of interests on that debt. It needs to be said: This crisis is not accidental or unexpected. It was planned and executed for decades to seek a justification for a central government just as it has been promoted by the bankers and the media for the past 12 months. The result of the current negotiations in not to seek an exit to the debt problem or to encourage economic growth, but to hand even more power to the bankers.

The meeting held today where European Prime Ministers pose as the saviors is nothing else than window dressing. There is no solidarity on a proposal that intends to make nations less independent and more enslaved to the central bankers. The result that will came from the meeting held by Mariano Rajoy, Angela Merkel Mario Monti and François Hollande is further consolidation of financial power; nothing else. As explained by Joseph Stiglitz, the World Bank and the IMF pursue a policy of financial enslavement against every country by following four simple steps.

Privatization, which is more like ‘Briberization’, he told Greg Palast. Under this scheme, economies are collapsed from the inside while consolidating national assets for pennies on the dollar. Briberization yields then to the second step,  a one-size-fits-all rescue-your-economy plan, which in theory intends to rescue a country’s economy by using  capital market liberalization. This, again in theory, would allow the free flow of investment in and out of the country, but in reality it is the process through which the bankers complete the theft of resources and send them out every time a country buys into the “rescue your economy’ non-sense. As explained by Palast in his article The Globalizer who came in from the Cold, foreign monies come in to the countries for speculative acquisitions in various sectors of the economy and then leaves just as suddenly as it came. The result is the literal disappearance of a nation’s reserves in a matter of days. In order to get back some of those monies, entities like the IMF and the World Bank immediately demand that the country raise interest rates to anywhere between 30% and 80%.

Next, on step three, the bankers mandate that the government impose steep increases in the prices of basic needs such as food, water and gas. In the mid-term, the unexpected increases cause what Stiglitz calls the “The IMF riot.” During this time the bankers “turn up the heat until, finally, the whole cauldron blows up,” said Stiglitz. The bankers simply cut any and all subsidies to food and fuel for the poorest people as it happened in Argentina at the turn of the century and in Indonesia in 1998. Other examples of these riots were the ones in Bolivian riots over water prices last year and this February, the riots in Ecuador over the rise in cooking gas prices imposed by the World Bank.

Secret documents were also obtained by the BBC and The Observer which showed that the banks wanted to make the US dollar the official currency of Ecuador and by doing that, they would submit more than half of the population there under the poverty line. This is something similar to what was done in Argentina and what is being tried now in Europe. According to Stiglitz, although millions of people end up as losers under this system, there are indeed a handful of winners: The Banks. The western banks and the US Treasury make gigantic amounts of cash by infliction pain over developing nations. He cited the case of Ethiopia, where the World Bank and IMF ordered the government to ‘invest’ money on the Federal Reserve’s Treasuries which pays only 4 percent interest, while the country had to borrow money at 12 percent. Ethiopia was looted by the banks.

On step four of the bankers propose and impose the so-called Free Trade, as they did through NAFTA, CAFTA and other trade agreements. They call these programs “poverty reduction strategies”. However, all they do is open markets for a one way flow of products from powerful nations like the United States and China to the poor countries, while closing their own markets to foreign products. The almost automatic consequence of this free trade agreements is the destruction of the local production and farming since they cannot compete with the ridiculous low prices offered by corporations that have their products manufactured by slave labor in Asia and Africa.

As Greg Palast puts it, let there be no confusion about the role of the IMF, World Bank and World Trade Organization in the destruction of nation-states, private property and sovereignty, because they are just three masks that hide the faces of the monopoly men who seek to impose a centralized government model based on absolutist conditions.The results of the negotiations to supposedly save the euro zone are not such, they are just another step into the creeping arrival of world tyranny being sold as the only possible solution to deliver all of us from the consequences of “unbalanced economies”. The plans for the creation and implosion of economies were drafted long ago and the result of those practices is one and only one: World Government. This outcome, by the way, is not a solution or the solution to the current economic crisis.

When you have leaches sucking you dry, the only possible solution is to remove the leaches. The bleeding is the collapsing economy, the leaches are the central bankers, the solution is to remove them from our bodies. Nothing else has worked, nothing else will work.

América Latina infiltrada por Fascistas, Socialistas e falsos Capitalistas

POR LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | 22 JUNHO 2012

Os números e os tipos de socialistas, fascistas e corporativistas eleitos na América Latina tem crescido exponencialmente ao longo das últimas duas décadas, e assim também as massas de pessoas bem-intencionadas que acreditam em suas mentiras sobre a justiça social, a bondade do governo e as vantagens das economias de serviços patrocinadas pelas corporações mais poderosas do mundo. Algumas dessas corporações, é claro, têm rendimentos mais elevados do que muitas nações na região e do mundo. Como se o aparecimento desses movimentos não bastasse, recentemente, os chefes de grupos corporativistas, socialistas, fascistas e falsos capitalistas, se uniram para formar alianças comerciais e políticas facilmente controladas, que eles dizem, vão trazer desenvolvimento real a seus países e seus povos.

A mais recente dessas alianças é formada por Chile, Peru, Colômbia e México, chamada Aliança do Pacífico. De acordo com os procuradores que atuam como os criadores — os presidentes dos quatro países — a Aliança é um esforço para unir e buscar a realização de objetivos comuns. Chile, México, Peru e Colômbia são um punhado de economias latino-americanas com menos danos na região. Na verdade, o Chile tornou-se uma história de sucesso na última década, tendo em conta a implementação de políticas que permitiram um crescimento decente com base no apetite do país pela poupança. No entanto, Peru, Colômbia e México são uma história diferente, o que levanta a questão, porque o Chile se juntaria a Estados que estão controlados abertamente por corporações globalistas?

México tem trabalhado por muitos anos sob os auspícios dos Estados Unidos, e asociou-se ao infame Acordo de Livre Comércio (NAFTA), que tem sido acusado de deliberadamente destruir a produção industrial dos EUA, porque promove a circulação de pessoas — imigrantes ilegais — do sul para o norte, enquanto financeiramente recompensa as empresas para que deixem o solo americano e realizem suas operações fora do território dos EUA para evitar pagar impostos. Peru é uma história diferente. Seu passado sempre foi sublinhado pela pobreza, a corrupção,  e o governo com mão de ferro. O último aspecto não mudou um pouco. O país passou de Alberto Fujimori ao atual líder Ollanta Humala, que chegou ao poder em 2011. Ele é reconhecido como um extremista anti-mercado.

Enquanto isso, a Colômbia é, talvez, o aliado mais incomum em um grupo que supostamente visa o desenvolvimento e o livre comércio. Colômbia, como o México tem sido um amigo próximo dos Estados Unidos na guerra fracassada contra as drogas, que tem sido um esforço insuficiente e mal gerenciado para conter o tráfico de drogas e a violência que deriva da existência de grupos armados e governos que controlam o fluxo das drogas. Na verdade, a chamada guerra contra as drogas é uma fachada para ocultar a transferência das mesmas drogas, seus mercados e bilhões de dólares em lucros, que são lavados a cada ano nos maiores bancos do mundo.

Grupos como a Aliança do Pacífico são apenas dissidência controlada. Na América Latina, a criação de blocos econômicos e políticos de “desenvolvimento” não é novedade. Antes da Aliança do Pacífico, as nações formaram UNASUL, ALBA, MERCOSUL, CARICOM, CELAC, a Comunidade Andina e muitos outros. Os resultados destas associações, em ambas as esferas políticas e econômicas têm sido basicamente os mesmos: nada.

Quando consultados, sobre o impacto do MERCOSUL sobre as compras de matérias-primas ou as vendas de produtos acabados, em privado os empresários dizem que o MERCOSUL é uma iniciativa de fachada que tem feito pouco ou nada para melhorar o comércio entre os seus membros. Na verdade, tanto o Brasil como a Argentina estão em uma guerra comercial que ameaça danificar os principais acordos comerciais entre parceiros comerciais dos dois países. A Argentina adotou uma política protecionista forte, enquanto o Brasil se recusa a permitir o fluxo de produtos argentinos para os seus importadores.

Os líderes de países como Bolívia, Venezuela e Equador têm falhado miseravelmente em trazer o desenvolvimento para seus povos. Eles chegaram ao poder prometendo uma vida melhor aos seus seguidores, mas tornaram-se tiranos com idéias socialistas. Apesar desse registro, os membros da Aliança do Pacífico parecem acreditar que um novo grupo de países apoiados pela China, vai trazer riqueza e melhores condições de vida do que outros ex-presidentes e líderes comunitários não tem fornecido. Todos os membros da Aliança tem a intenção de atrair mais ajuda da China a seus países, tentando imitar os esforços do Brasil para abrir a porta para o regime comunista. Suas declarações oficiais afirmam que buscam ampliar o comércio com a Ásia.

Com a incorporação da China na equação, a Aliança do Pacífico espera atrair outros parceiros na região, mas apenas aqueles que podem demonstrar o compromisso histórico com o livre comércio e o desenvolvimento econômico. Sob esta premissa, outras nações menores, como Costa Rica e Panamá estão tentando entrar na Aliança. Ironicamente, tanto Costa Rica quanto Panamá têm sido aliados dos EUA na guerra contra as drogas e a implementaram políticas que silenciosamente deterioram os direitos dos cidadãos.

Por exemplo, Costa Rica, permitiu a chegada de militares dos EUA no seu território sob o pretexto de que iria ajudar na ‘guerra contra as drogas’. Como se isso não foi uma violação da soberania do país, os EUA foi autorizado a estabelecer uma base naval na costa do Atlântico. Durante os primeiros anos da construção do Canal do Panamá, o país renunciou sua soberania aos americanos, que mais tarde deram a posse do canal para a China em 2000. Esta é uma das maiores preocupações que os críticos manifestaram sobre a nova integração. Alguns destes países têm sido associados com grupos comunistas, fascistas ou marxistas no passado, mas agora promoven-se como patrocinadores dos mercados livres, livre comércio e da justiça social.

O anúncio oficial da Aliança do Pacífico foi feita há poucos dias pelo presidente chileno, Sebastián Piñera, que tentou falar em poesia sobre o novo bloco. “Das alturas de Paranal, no deserto mais árido do mundo sob o mais claro dos céus, este acordo oficial da à luz a Aliança do Pacífico”, disse ele. “Não há nenhuma incompatibilidade ou exclusão de outros esquemas de integração. Nós não somos contra ninguém, mas em favor de ainda mais integração.” Enquanto isso, seu novo parceiro, o presidente mexicano Felipe Calderón disse que “o potencial econômico da Aliança do Pacífico é importante.” Sua contra parte na Colômbia ecoou o mesmo tipo de visão sobre a nova parceria acrescentando que a Aliança do Pacífico é o “processo de integração mais importante da América Latina.”

Embora a existência de grupos de oposição à Aliança do Pacífico não foi citado como uma razão para formar este grupo, nos bastidores dos governos os lideres do Chile e da Colômbia têm demonstrado sua preocupação com o criação de sociedades secretas, como o Foro de São Paulo, uma organização de simpatizantes de Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez e Luiz Inácio da Silva, um dos fundadores do grupo. Esses líderes também subscreven-se a ideologias que são compartilhados no Equador, Nicarágua e Argentina, embora os três últimos países nao expressaram seu compromisso publicamente. A falta de reconhecimento público, no entanto, não impediu que os cidadãos dos países que sofreram na pobreza, criminalidade, insegurança e governos abusivos e repressivos, que é o que seus líderes se comprometeram a erradicar originalmente. O Foro de São Paulo também está ligado a traficantes de drogas e grupos armados revolucionários marxistas, do tipo dos Sandinistas nicaragüenses, e os governos russo e chinês.

Os cenários listados acima são os que a Aliança asinala como perigosos e indesejáveis. A integração dos países comprometidos com desistir de sua independência, sem consultar os seus cidadãos, a fim de abrir a porta para ideólogos fascistas, socialistas ou comunistas, que, supostamente, tem as melhores intenções em mente foi o resultado comum de tentativas anteriores de criar grupos de política comercial e estratégia como a Aliança do Pacífico. Foi o que aconteceu na Europa, Ásia, América do Norte e, definitivamente, na América Latina. A maioria, se não todos os grupos criados em nome do desenvolvimento e progresso eram impostores se escondendo atrás de homens e mulheres carismáticos que pregavam o evangelho que as pessoas queriam ouvir.

Assim como os acordos militares têm servido aos interesses daqueles que traficam armas em troca de dinheiro ou drogas, os acordos comerciais deixaram os países membros mais pobres e mais dependentes dos poderosos interesses corporativos. A pergunta a fazer é por que os líderes políticos continuam a renunciar à soberania, a fim de supostamente promover o comércio, quando ambos — soberania e comercio — não são mutuamente exclusivos? Na verdade, o mundo nunca teve um ambiente mais estável, economicamente e financeiramente, que quando os países estabeleceram acordos comerciais bilaterais e multilaterais sem abrir mão da propriedade dos recursos e leis sem os que os tecnocratas não-eleitos controlam o destino de todos.

Latin America Infiltrated by Statists, Socialists and Fake Free Marketeers

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JUNE 13, 2012

The numbers and types of Statist, Socialist and Corporate Capitalists in power around Latin America have grown exponentially in the last two decades, and with them so have the masses of well-meaning people who believe their lies about social justice, the goodness of big government and the advantages of service economies sponsored by the most powerful corporations in the planet. Some of these corporations, by the way, have bigger revenues than many nations from that region and the world. As if the emergence of those movements was not bad enough, lately, the heads of socialist, statist and false free market groups have united to form more easily controllable commercial and political alliances, which they say, will bring real development to their countries and their people.

The most recent of those alliances is the one formed by Chile, Peru, Colombia and Mexico, called the Pacific Alliance. According to the front men who act as the creators, — the presidents of the four countries — the alliance is an effort to unite and to seek the realization of common goals. Chile, Mexico, Peru and Colombia are a handful of Latin American states with the least damaged economies in the region. In fact, Chile has become a story of success in the last decade or so, given its application of policies which have allowed for decent growth based on the country’s appetite for saving. However, Peru, Colombia and Mexico are a different story, which begs the question, why would Chile go into business with well-known corporate controlled failed states?

Mexico has for many years worked under the auspices of the United States, partnering on the infamous North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which has been charged with eliminating the industrial production of the US by design, permitting the free movement of people — illegal aliens — from the south to the north, while rewarding companies that move their operations outside American soil and avoiding corporate taxes, among others. Peru is a different story. Its past has always been highlighted by poverty, government corruption, and statist rule. This last aspect has not changed a bit. The country went from Alberto Fujimori to the current Peruvian leader Ollanta Humala, who rose to power in 2011. He is recognized as a anti-market extremist.

Meanwhile, Colombia is perhaps the strangest ally in a group that supposedly seeks development and free trade. Colombia, just as Mexico has been a close friend of the United States in the failed war on drugs, which has proven an insufficient and poorly managed effort to curb drug trade and the violence that stems from the existence of armed groups and governments controlling the flow of narcotics. In reality, the so-called war on drug trade is a facade to hide the worldwide campaign for the control of illegal drugs, their markets and the billions of dollars in profits that are laundered  every year by the largest banks on the face of the planet.

Groups such as the Pacific Alliance are not more than controlled dissidence, easily manageable by their sponsors. In Latin America, the creation of economic or political blocs to “further development” is not new. Before the Pacific Alliance, nations formed UNASUR, ALBA, MERCOSUR, Caricom, CELAC, the Andean Community and many others. The results of these unions both in the political and economic realms have been largely the same: Nothing.

When asked about the impact of MERCOSUR in their purchases of raw materials or sales of finished products, companies in Latin America privately say that the MERCOSUR is just a window dressing initiative that has done little or nothing to improve commerce among its members. In fact, as we speak, both Brazil and Argentina are engaged in a trade war that threatens to bring down important business deals between commercial partners in both countries. Argentina adopted a strong protectionist policy while Brazil refuses to allow the flow of Argentinian goods to its importers.

The leaders of countries like Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador have failed miserably to bring development to their people. They arrived to power promising better living conditions to supporters to only turn into tyrants with socialist leaning ideas. Despite this record, the members of the Pacific Alliance seem to believe that a new group of countries supported by China, will bring about the riches and improved living conditions that past presidents and community leaders failed to provide. All members of the Alliance intend to attract even more Chinese aid to their countries, trying to emulate Brazil’s efforts to open the door to the communist regime. Their official statements allege that they seek to expand trade with Asia.

By bringing China into the equation, the Pacific Alliance seeks to attract other business partners from the region, but only those who can show historical compromise with free trade and economic development. Under this premise, other smaller nations such as Costa Rica and Panama are attempting to jump on the bandwagon. Ironically, both Costa Rica and Panama have been American allies in the war on drugs and have implemented policies designed to slowly and quietly crack down on citizens’ rights.

For example, Costa Rica permitted the arrival of US military men into its territory under the excuse that it would help fight the war on drugs. As if that wasn’t enough of a violation to the country’s sovereignty, the US has now been allowed to set up a naval base in the Atlantic coast. During the early years of the construction of the Panama Canal, this country basically surrendered its sovereignty to the Americans, who later yielded possession of the Canal to China in 2000. This is one of the biggest concerns that critics have expressed about the newest integration. Some of these nations have associated with communist, statist or marxist groups in the past, but now fashion themselves as sponsors of free markets, free trade and social justice.

The official announcement of the Pacific Alliance was made just days ago by Chilean president Sebastián Piñera, who got all poetic about the new bloc. “From the heights of Paranal, in the most arid desert in the world and under the clearest of skies, we have signed a pact officially giving birth to the Pacific Alliance,” he said. “There are no incompatibilities or exclusion vis-a-vis other integration efforts. We are against nobody but rather in favor of even greater integration.” Meanwhile, his new partner, Mexican president Felipe Calderon said that “The Pacific Alliance’s economic potential is significant.” His counterpart from Colombia echoed the same kind of prospects for the new association by adding that the Pacific Alliance is the “most important integration process in Latin America.”

Although the existence of completely opposing groups was not cited as a reason to form the Pacific Alliance, behind the scenes governments like the Chilean and the Colombian have shown their concern about the creation of secretive partnerships like the São Paulo Forum, an organization composed by followers of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and Luiz Inacio Da Silva, one of the founders of the group. These leaders subscribe to ideologies also shared by Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Argentina, although these last three nations do not express their adherence publicly. The lack of public recognition however, hasn’t prevented the citizenry of those countries from suffering from poverty, crime, insecurity and abusive, repressive governments, which are exactly what their leaders promised to eradicate. The São Paulo Forum is also linked to narco-traffickers and armed Marxist revolutionaries, of the likes of the Nicaraguan Sandinistas as well as the Russian and the Chinese governments.

The above mentioned scenarios are the ones critics of these alliances often warn against. The integration of countries that agree to surrender their independence without previously consulting their citizens in order to open the door to fascist, socialist or communist ideologues, who supposedly have the best of intentions in mind has been the common result of previous attempts to create strategic commercial and political groups. It happened in Europe, Asia, North America and definitely in Latin America. Most if not all of the unions assembled in the name of development and progress were just shams hidden behind charismatic men and women who preached the gospel that the people wanted to hear.

While military agreements have served the interests of those who traffic arms in exchange for cash or drugs, commercial accords rendered many nations poorer and more dependent on powerful corporate interests. The question that must be asked is why do political leaders continue to surrender sovereignty in order to have trade when they are not mutually exclusive? In fact, the world was never a more stable place, economically and financially, than when countries traded in a bilateral and multilateral ways, without surrendering the ownership of their resources and laws to unelected technocrats who are now in total control of everyone’s destiny.

Agribusiness: Food Safety’s Greatest Enemy

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
May 11, 2011

Misinformed people enjoy calling population growth the menace of the 21st century, especially when it is related to food availability. Although access to food is one of the most important issues that humanity faces today, the “food problem” has everything to do with its safety and nothing to do with the lack of it due to planetary overpopulation. The world has changed in many ways in the last fifty years and many of those changes have been for good, but many important ones for very bad. In the past, most countries produced their own food, and people were food independent. Today, a handful of corporations control the whole process of seed and food production and distribution. When it comes to food supply, perhaps there is a worse consequence than monopolistic practices and policies. Food, which is supposed to provide us with nutrition is actually making us sick and in many cases killing us.

In the United Kingdom, a bacteria called Campylobacter found in chickens causes diarrhea, fever, abdominal pain and cramping. Often times, it worsens and produces chronic, life-threaten­ing, conditions. It is estimated that 85% of the chickens in the UK are infected. Meanwhile, in the United States, the Norovirus, which is transmitted through manipulation of food with dirty hands, as well as Salmonella, that infects people who ingest food with feces, cause vomiting and diarrhea, fever and cramps. These are only two examples of poor food management in what we call the “developed world”. But it gets worse in third world countries, where rules for food safety are less clear or simply ignored by the food industry.

In China, for example, a 2008 case of food contamination with melamine caused the death of six babies and made 300,000 others ill. The contamination occurred when melamine, and industrial chemical got into the milk supply. Back in the “developed world”, Germany had its own case of massive food poisoning with dioxin in some 4,000 farms around the country. A German company sold 200,000 tones of animal feed contaminated with dioxins and this feed was given to thousands of animals. Dioxins are poisons that cause cancer.

Although there is not a formal process to record food poisoning cases and other health threats carried around by tainted food, the data made available shows that food contamination is a common affair in most nations. Even countries that manage to have their own system to keep food clean from chemicals and natural born bacteria and viruses cannot avoid massive cases of poisoning among its citizens. In Singapore, 3 million people die every year as a result of food poisoning.

Unsafe to Eat

A recent assessment issued by GRAIN, an international non-profit organisation that reports on food safety issues around the world and whether a crop is suitable to eat or not, described a series of reasons to consider when determining food safety. “Bad practices (poor hygiene, animal abuse, reliance on antibiotics and pesticides), unproven or risky technologies (ge­netic modification, nanotechnology, irradiation, cloning), deliberate contamination (such as tampering), or just poor supervision” are just a few of the reasons why food arrives contaminated to your table. That is why a relevant matter with food safety has to do with the size of the corporations that produce the things we all eat. It is a fact that the industrialized food scheme that governs food production and distribution is the main cause of today’s food pollution. It all comes to size. If a small producer of meat or vegetables provides contaminated food, the impact is small, but if a large company that produces and distributes food all around the world manages its processes badly, the result is more often than not, thousands of people ill and many others dying as a consequence of tainted food.

Big scale production and distribution is one of the main causes of massive food poisoning. Not only are standards more difficult to enforce when a company produces large amounts of packed meat or grains, but also it is likely those companies are not as concerned with enforcing practices that guarantee good hygiene and work security, for example. The quantity of product that enters and exits a meat packing plant or a grain processing facility makes it almost impossible to keep an eye on every single item that circulates in and out. The policies that govern large producing units are to receive, pack and send out as much of the product as possible.

Where are the regulators?

In one sentence, government regulators are usually in bed with Big Corp. It is not realistic to believe that bureaucrats who oversee food safety are simply unaware of problems with the production and distribution of food, although that is usually the excuse given by them and the government to justify their inaction. There is plenty of proof that both government agencies and corporations are continuously colluding to avoid enforcing the laws that protect consumers. Almost every new law passed regarding food safety opens a new door for the food industry to untie a regulation and produce food their own way. Take for example the case of raw milk. Milk is processed through pasteurization and homogenization literally everywhere. Countries that have not banned the sale and consumption of raw milk are currently working on legislation to do it. Milk processing is needed, governments and corporations say, to avoid the ingestion of bacteria that may exist in the milk when it is raw. However, it is also true that milk pasteurization and homogenization simply kills all nutrients that natural raw milk has. Did anyone say calcium deficiency pandemic? Osteoporosis? There is a pill to solve those problems of course.

Raw milk is one of the most important sources of nutrition for poor folks around the world. It is one of a few affordable sources of nutrition and it can be easily boiled at home to guarantee its safety. So why are governments enforcing laws or regulations that ban raw milk? They are effectively creating and imposing regulations sent to them by the World Trade Organization, an institution that works for the international food cartel that controls most of the production and distribution of food. Other reasons commonly given to justify banning the sale of raw milk is the idea that it will help modernize the dairy industry, which in turn will bring benefits because the companies will be able to compete with others that import and export milk and other products. None of this is true. The real reason is that countries affiliated to the WTO are mandated to adhere to its regulations if they want to have a chance to participate in so called Free Trade Agreements. Free Trade Agreements are tools used by the corporations to amass control over most if not all productive activities. Truly, food safety policies have little to do with public health and everything to do with complete control of market, monopolies, profits and dominance.

Free Trade Agreements are the materialization of monopolistic controls executed by multilateral organizations on behalf of Big Corp. The negotiation rounds that are held often within a country or at the WTO’s headquarters regarding food production, are dealt with as matters of commerce and not as issues related to science or food accessibility. Around the world, corporations dictate more and more what is allowed as a practice for food production and manipulation and what isn’t. GRAIN cites the cases of companies that feed cows with animal parts as a way to provide protein to them. This practice in many cases leads to Mad Cow Disease, but it is still permitted in countries like the Unites States and Japan. Another case is that of ractopamine, a substance given to pigs to promote their growth. This element is added to their feed. In a rare siding with food safety, even countries like China and whole regions like the European Union, that together produce around 70 percent of the world’s supply of pork, banned its use in meat. Other countries like the U.S. continue to use ractopamine in the feed given to pigs, turkeys, chickens and cows. The U.S. government not only allows its use but often times defends the producer of ractopamine, Eli Lilly and its meat exports from being banned in countries with whom it has trade agreements. Not only are American consumers being contaminated with this chemical, but also every person in every country that accepts American pork, beef, turkey and chickens.

Free Trade Agreements as Tools to Impose Corporate Regulations

In the last 3 decades, Free Trade Agreements have become the default tool used by Big Corp and enabled by the World Trade Organization and the World Health Organization to enforce their rules and carry out their game. It all began back in the 80’s with negotiations known as GATT. Later came the free trade agreements between Europe and Latin American countries and others between North America and Latin American countries such as ALCA, CAFTA and NAFTA. Contained in those agreements are all kinds of tricks written by the corporations to definitely manipulate and control markets. This is so, because there are few restrictions as related to what can be commercialized. The goal that all the previous negotiations had in common was that they promoted the exchange of the cheapest goods at the lowest prices. This would be positive if it wasn’t because cheap goods mean contaminated food, endless abuses to labor laws and laborers and the conquest of global markets by a few corporations that now decide what is produced, sold, bought, tariffed, quotaed, and who want to “protect” everything, including what is not theirs, against “theft” by using absurd intellectual property laws that are attached to all trade agreements.

Free Trade Agreements have nothing to do with free trade, benefiting consumers or enabling the growth of small or mid-size farmers. What the corporations that control governments around the world want is a free pass to invade all markets and produce everything we eat and use, so everyone else but them is dependent on products made across the world for their survival. As GRAIN cites it, free trade agreements are mechanisms to create backdoors used to limit market access. These agreements do nothing to promote or guarantee food safety or public health, but to assure the corporations unlimited growth and gigantic profit margins. Companies achieve market monopolies by creating policies that although inexplicably ridiculous, are accepted as the standard around the world. These policies are adapted to limit fair competition in every country in a way that only those countries where the big corporations run or have an interest in, are allowed to actually exchange anything.

The European Union banned Indian fish imports because the producers did not comply with European rules such as that fish processing facilities had to be sanitized with potable water, even though India lacks the infrastructure to provide clean water to most of its population. In Tanzania, fishermen had the same experience. They used to get 80 percent of their income from Europe, but after the E.U. banned their product, the fishermen had no market for it. Uganda also suffered a similar outcome. The Ugandan case cost the country $40 million in loses. So how did Europe manage to eat fish? Corporations such as Pescanova moved into Africa and began to serve the european market. Once it installed itself in the continent, the company acquired the whole production and distribution business.

The Case for Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

What could be more unsafe to eat than genetically modified organisms that have been proven, time after time, to be harmful to humans and animals. Regardless of conclusive evidence that GMO’s are dangerous to our health, government agencies around the world continue to authorize the use of genetically modified ingredients in the food supply. Not only that, they also refuse to label the products that contain GMO’s alleging it is unfair to the companies that manufacture them and that it may actually be confusing for consumers. In the case of GMO salmon, for example, the pro GMO industry says salmon should not be labeled because their product is identical to the wild salmon. The same is true for other products such as corn, soy, milk and vegetables. The thought that a well informed consumer is the best tool for strong businesses just doesn’t do it anymore for Big Corp. As far as they are concerned, a pool of consumers with the least information possible, is the best scenario to carry out their business practices. A diplomatic cable revealed by Wikileaks details how the Bush administration pressured the government of France to ease their concerns about genetically modified organisms. The cable read:

“we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this [acceptance of GMOs] is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits “. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory”.

This push to impose the use of genetically modified organisms is a clear example of how Big Corp exercises its control of governments so giants like Monsanto, DuPont, ConAgra, Cargill and other biotechnology corpo­rations have no interruptions in countries that may want to ban GM seeds or foods, or require labels that inform consum­ers. Along with France, the corporations that control the United States government also mine the sovereignty of third world countries that have no say over the safety practices utilized in the production, import and export of food crops in their own land. As it happens in developed countries, third world nations are also ordered to “relax” their opposition to GMO’s and to eliminate any “exageration” of the risks that come with the use and consumption of GMO’s. With the creation and implementation of Codex Alimentarius, Big Corp has been strengthened even more. The set of regulations contained in the Codex Alimentarius documents make it clear that neither the corporations nor the transnational agencies that govern food safety and global health are interested in healthy humans or safe food. In fact, it is through Codex Alimentarius that the corporations intend to control the natural foods and supplement markets, by banning natural food production and commercialization and substituting it with laboratory created pharmaceutical products labeled as “natural supplements”.

Codex Alimentarius is the United Nations and World Health Organization’s FrankenScience to push Restrictions on what you are allowed to eat. Since the 1960´s there is a concerted effort not only to limit the choices we as consumers and human beings have in order to take care of our health, but also to restrict the access to food itself as we know it. Codex Alimentarius (Codex for short) means “Food Code.” This world food code is a United Nations agency, jointly sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). It has existed for nearly 50 years and its international statute gives it a joint mission: protecting food safety and promoting world food trade. It is supposed to do so by adopting voluntary guidelines and standards (defining foods in international trade) and its decisions are enforced through the World Trade Organization (WTO) which considers its guidelines and standards as presumptive evidence in WTO trade disputes. It has become a creature of the Bigs – Big Govt, Big Agra, Big Pharma… etc.

In order to understand what Codex Alimentarius is, one needs to know it has nothing to do with consumer protection as its charter says. Such statement is just a catchy phrase to have the people and the nations approve its implementation. “Codex Alimentarius” means “food rules” in Latin. The plan was born in 1962 when the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) was founded by the U.N. to supposedly facilitate trade relations. In reality, it was created to regulate and control the way in which food and nutrition are guided and how products are sold to people. It is indeed all about the profits of multi-national corporations. The relation is very simple: the more natural products people use, the less profits the pharmaceutical corporations make. Codex Alimentarius was created to protect Big Pharma´s profits through the elimination of natural health products and treatments. What is more alarming at this point is that Codex was approved on December 31st, 2009. After this plan was signed, it was mandated on all member countries through its approval by Congresses around the world; a lot like the Copenhagen Treaty.

Superbugs within Big Corp

Superbugs are bacteria that developed an ability to fight antibiotics. Examples of superbugs first appeared in Europe in the 60’s and since then they spread freely around the world. In the United States, deaths from the MRSA superbug infections reached 17,000 in 2005. A survey conducted in 2007 found that ST398, a new version of MRSA, was present in 39% of pigs and 81% of local piggeries in the Netherlands. Further research has found that MRSA is in at least two thirds of the farms located in E.U. member countries. In studies conducted around Europe, researchers found that Spain and Germany were two of the countries with the highest incidence of MRSA in their farms; with over 40% of pigs testing positive for MRSA. That is why it does not come as a surprise that the Europeans send most of their pork meat overseas. According to the University of Guelph, a study of pigs in Ontario, Canada, showed that ST398 was present in a quarter of local pigs, and one-fifth of the pig farmers that were tested.

A Superbug’s ability to resist antibiotics, as it happens with humans, occurs due to the heavy use of this product in animals. According to the Union for Concerned Scientists, livestock in the United States consume about 80 percent of the antibiotics that are sold in that country. Meanwhile, in China the number ascends to 50 percent of the animals. A report from February 2011 on the Sydney Morning Herald reveals that in Germany, livestock are given three times more antibiotics than the amount humans consume. The existence and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria in the so called factory farms is the main cause of food poisoning cases, which are spurred by the use of antibiotics that are fed to animals.

The Walmartization of Food

If Monsanto, ConAgra, Cargill and other bio-tech giants are known for their desire to conquer the seed and food market, Walmart may be seen as their equivalent when it comes to the supermarket fad. Food that is delivered to most places today goes directly through and depends on the connections made by big chain supermarkets. Long gone are the days when the producer himself went out to sell his apples, bananas, pineapples or carrots. Today, transnational companies like Walmart and Carrefour control the supply of food to most areas of the planet. This corporations not only transport and distribute the food we eat, but also decide what is produced and what is not, where the products go, when they are shipped and what prices they will have when you grab them from your local supermarket shelf. Large supermarket chains indeed control global food markets.

Walmart’s annual sales reach $405 billion, which is more than the gross domestic product of nations like Argentina, Norway, Greece and Denmark. The corporate success that this number represents has prompted more supermarket chains to put their eyes in regions of the world they can exploit either as a production spot, usually by monopolizing the production and distribution of food, or by securing the purchase of food that is produced cheaply and under their own guidelines. Big retailers like Tesco, Walmart, Carrefour and Lotte are currently acquiring or negotiating their operations in India, China, Brazil and Indonesia. These and other third world nations that still rely on the traditional door to door, street fair sale of food staples, co-ops and local or regional wholesalers for the nutrition of their population. What the big chain supermarkets want to do is go in and cheaply buy their way into those markets by signing contracts with producers, distributors and local supermarkets so they can control the food production and distribution. Once they manage to absorb the markets, Big Corp chains impose their own models and establish the same standards and rules they mandated everywhere else. The direct and immediate consequence of this practice is the start of a new line of dependent consumers who will no longer be able to plant, pick or sell their food. Dependence is the name of the game.

As if one hungry supermarket chain wasn’t bad enough for the consumer, these large corporations also work as a cartel. They meet and define what the standards for the industry will be so that they continue to be what they are and continue to control it all. As Barry Harper puts it in his book “Breaking the chain: the antitrust case against Wal-Mart”, the power and size of the corporations are two of the many weapons they have to influence the global food system. Imagine what they can accomplish when working together against a country, a local supermarket in a third world nation or a small farmer. These companies simply have the power and ability to tell suppliers, farmers and food processors what the rules of the game are going to be. The power that food corporations have is so significant that governments are capable of putting their profit making scheme first, and the health of the people second, when it comes to food safety. An example of this is the ban the United States imposed on Mexican cantaloupes due to contamination with Salmonella in 2002. After a round of negotiations between the governments of both countries, which of course counted with the participation of Big Corp, the ban was lifted after a new “program” attached to a new bureaucracy was created. The creation of this new set of rules did nothing to guarantee the safety of the cantaloupes, because the farmers did not provide toilet facilities or water analyses as the new program requested. In fact 94 percent of the farms did not have portable toilets and 88 percent of them used water from rivers to supply their plantations.

Doing away with the local farmer

The agro-colonization of the world by a handful of corporations seems to have the same common denominator everywhere: the disappearance of the farmer. Supermarket giants have many ways to force themselves into new markets, or to increase their share of those markets. The invasion of Big Corp supermarkets in the southern hemisphere converted developing countries in sources of food for the rest of the world and in many cases made those very same regions dependent on big chain supermarket’s capacity and willingness to supply food to them. Because large supermarket chains have the prerogative to decide how much they pay for the food they buy, the standards producers must follow, the delivery timetables, the distribution procedures and so on, it is easy for them to manipulate local, regional and national markets. But when they don’t get their way, supermarkets are capable of importing fruit and vegetables from across the planet in order to drive small or mid-size competitors off the market. Many times, large supermarket chains use false advertising in order to maintain or increase the flow of customers to their shops. For example, when Walmart invaded Central America by purchasing local food chains, the company decided to maintain their original names due to the fact Walmart was already known in those places for its bad reputation abroad.

What this kind of falsehood allows is to keep controlling the demand and supply of food using different names. This practice gives large chains enough time to settle down and absorb more customers until they decide to reveal themselves. But controlling food markets is not only about window dressing. Large supermarket chains don’t even have to establish themselves in a country in order to control the food supply. So called partnerships with producers and distributors can be established from abroad so the food business is monopolized from within. A whole city or country may experience lack of rice or beans, for example, not because they aren’t available, but because they are stored in large supermarket bodegas where they await to be shipped overseas to whomever pays the price the supermarkets want. How does this practice affect farmers? Although the price farmers receive for their grains, fruit or vegetables may be considered fair at some point, in many cases those same farmers could have obtained better yields if they had sold them to local buyers instead of selling to the large supermarkets. The artificial scarcity that food corporations cause by storing food until someone decides to pay what they want is what causes price speculation, which in turn makes it more difficult for more people to feed themselves and their families. In addition, some farmers are held hostage to promises of future purchases while they wait to receive payment for current or older sales to the big chain supermarkets.

In many countries of Asia and Latin America, farmers do not have the cash to start a new planting season because the payment they received does not meet the new costs; and if it does, there is little money left as profit. When the large supermarket chains are not the ones exploiting local farmers, the local supermarket chains take on that role. The tough competition national or regional chains get when fighting against transnational corporations for a share of the market, turns local, regional and national supermarkets into the predators. Competition is such that the national companies that were business partners in the past, suddenly adopt Big Corp’s model and transform the farmers in a group of agro-colonized workers. This is the case with ShopRite of South Africa and DMA in Brazil.

In China, where supermarkets are expanding at a furious pace, these trends are biting hard. The major supermarket chains, both foreign and domestic, are working hand-in-glove with suppliers and local governments to develop farms to supply fruit and vegetables. As part of a drive to im­prove food safety and integrate its 700 million small-scale farmers into “high value food chains” with “scientific methods of farming”, the Chinese government has been pursuing the establishment of fruit- and vegetable-growing bases in partnership with the private sector. In each of these des­ignated production zones, local authorities negotiate deals with private companies whereby the company comes in, leases an area of land from the farmers currently occupying it, or acquires their land use rights, and then sets up large-scale production, hiring the displaced farmers as la­bourers or in contract production arrangements.- Food Safety Briefing

We don’t have to eat the way Big Corp says

The movement to firmly reject the current food safety policies and the corporate business model that is imposed on consumers is a reason for hope. United States produced meat is not accepted by people in Taiwan, Australia, Japan or South Ko­rea. The melamine intoxication in China woke up thousands of others in that country and millions outside the chinese land to reject melamine contaminated milk. In all of Latin America, Europe and some parts of the United States there are growing loud voices that ques­tion the current industrial system used to produce, distribute and sell food. The cases of food poisoning with Salmonella, mad cow disease, superbugs and genetically modified organisms spurred the creation and growth of grassroots groups that are becoming the guardians of food safety and that call for better agricultural practices that replace the current agro-colonial policies created by Big Corp and enabled by corrupt governments and international organizations. In Korea, the people’s resistance towards U.S. Beef resulted in massive questioning of their supposed representative democracy. In Oceania, Australians campaign to regain control of their food system as more people find out more and more consumers share their desire to manage their lifestyle, which of course includes their food supply. As for GMO, the number of citizen groups around the world are as numerous and diverse as the cultures they represent.

One, however, seems to be the common goal of most of these groups: overcoming the social, economic, health and environmental challenges that the industrial food system model has brought upon the populations. More co-ops of organic, locally grown food are appearing even in developed countries, where Big Corp has a strong handle on the food market. Local groups continue to organize campaigns to expose the dangers of genetically modified organisms, industrially produced pork, beef and turkey. Supermarkets that adopt a more environmentally friendly approach to agriculture, farms and farmers are attracting more customers. But perhaps more important than all of this is the fact that more people now understand that food independence is one of the main goals anyone should pursue. New educational campaigns are launched explaining the concept of food sovereignty and the right of the people to healthy food. One of the keys to food independence and safe environmental practices is to avoid agricultural models that promote the plantation and commercialization of one single crop, such as soy, corn, sugar and others. Food diversity in naturally fertilized soils is what proves to be the most effective model to guarantee that there will be food available for anyone who needs it. The creation and promotion of local associations or cooperatives that employ local workers for the cultivation and harvest of locally grown fruits, vegetables and meat continue to yield the best results for people around the world. Local food production is the only way to guarantee safety, fair prices and food availability that has the potential to end with hunger anywhere and everywhere.

For detailed information about food safety visit the following links:

 Institute for Responsible Technology

 Navdanya International

 GRAIN

 Food Safety for Whom

 En Español

 Folleto Riesgos a la Salud

 Guía de Compras No-OMG