THE ROCKERFELLER PLAYBOOK ON MANIPULATING FOOD SYSTEMS
The food and agriculture is among the 7 areas targeted by globalists, we addressed the corporations behind the war on food and agriculture. Well, today, we ought to begin our discussion with what has become a codified playbook on the war on this industry, from the Rockefellers. This is crucial as a focus because members of the Rockefeller family may carry more blame than anyone else in history for turning agriculture away from independent family farms towards corporate conglomerates. Essentially, in 1947, Nelson Rockefeller founded the International Basic Economy Corporation (also known as IBEC) to modernise and corporatise agriculture in South America, particularly in Brazil and Venezuela. The IBEC transformed farming to depend on expensive machinery and inputs that priced subsistence peasant farmers out of viability. The American International Association for Economic and Social Development (also known as AIA), which is a Rockefeller-funded philanthropic organisation, also helped build the market through which IBEC could enrich its owners. And while the IBEC’s promotional literature claimed that the company was generously assisting the “Third World” by providing necessary consumer products while turning a profit, on closer examination, it was simply a business enterprise built on the Rockefellers’ old Standard Oil model, in which smaller competitors are forced out using monopolistic practices before prices are raised!
However, this tactic was taken to a whole new level with the so-called Green Revolution, first in Mexico in the 1940s, then in the Philippines and India in the 1960s, as well as in the United States. Traditional farming practices such as the use of manure as fertiliser for heirloom native crops were then replaced with a model of mechanised chemical farming, using Rockefeller-funded new seed varieties which had been developed to require petrochemical fertilisers and pesticides to produce significantly increased crop yields compared to the traditional crops grown by peasant farmers in these countries.
And it is worth noting that the Rockefellers, as oil oligarchs, stood to profit from the petroleum-based fertilisers and pesticides that this new method demanded. The crops grown were almost all cereal crops like rice and unfortunately replaced more nutrient-dense, traditional crops like millet. And there were consequences for this. For example, India experienced an increase in food but a decrease in nutrition: with more empty calories but fewer fruits, vegetables, and animal proteins, micronutrients essentially disappeared from the diet. In addition, illnesses such as anaemia, blindness, fertility problems, low birth weight, and immune impairment increased in the country.
Therefore, while the Green Revolution was hailed as the solution to world hunger and poverty, it actually poisoned local water supplies, depleted the soil, and left farmers drowning in debt as they could no longer independently produce the fertiliser and seeds they needed. And I believe you would have also deduced that the latter Monsanto GMO Roundup-Ready seed model followed this playbook established by the Rockefellers. But this is a reminder to South American, Asian and African countries (as we are about to discuss) to sever themselves from these organisations especially because people who profit from your suffering, cannot be your helpers. In addition, these regions are wealthy and have intelligent people, enough for us to be self-sufficient.
However, the Rockefeller Foundation did not end in the Americas or Asia – they also launched an attack on the African continent. More specifically, in 2006, the Rockefeller Foundation, Bill Gates, and others pushed the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, or AGRA, and they again followed this proven playbook. Since AGRA’s launch, African biodiversity has been lost, and the number of severely undernourished people in sub-Saharan Africa has increased by nearly 50 percent, even by the UN’s own reports. Just as in India, farmers are being tricked into abandoning nutrient-dense, drought-resistant crops like heirloom millet in exchange for the empty calories of GMO corn. And in response, hundreds of African organisations have demanded that this neocolonial project end, leaving the future of African agriculture in the hands of the native farmers who know the land best.
And by the way, the Rockefeller Foundation has also set its sights on the US food system with its Reset the Table agenda, handily launched in 2020 just weeks after the Great Reset was announced. This is another sinister plan to watch, and pray against.
However, what is incredibly dangerous and important to note is that a number of these corporations waging a war on food tend to project themselves as pillars for good. They have invested a lot into curating a public image that makes their evil works either go unchecked or even be covered by the promulgated message that their actions are for the greater good. And to say this was intentionally done is not a mistake – their philanthropic (or more accurately, philantro-capitalistic) works are nothing more than a public image campaign. For instance, the corrupt wealth and influence of figures like John D. Rockefeller was resented by Americans who knew its source. And to counter that, John D. Rockefeller embarked on a campaign of so-called philanthropy, primarily to redeem his public image; and not because he is inherently a philanthropist.
SECRET MANIPULATIONS OF CROPS, TO MAKE THE PUBLIC CONSUME GMO FOODS
But let’s also talk especially about “GMOs”. In 1986, the federal government established the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology. This policy describes how the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and US Department of Agriculture (USDA) work together to regulate the alleged safety of GMOs. In 1992, the FDA policy stated that foods from GMO plants must meet the same requirements, including the same safety standards, as foods derived from traditionally bred plants. Then, the first GMO product created through genetic engineering—a GMO tomato—became available for sale after studies evaluated by federal agencies proved it APPARENTLY to be as safe as traditionally bred tomatoes in 1994. Following this, in the 1990s, the first wave of GMO produce created through genetic engineering became available to consumers: from summer squash, soybeans, cotton, corn, and canola. AND YET, concerns have been expressed regarding GM food safety.
These concerns, as well as the limitations of the procedures that were followed in the evaluation of their safety (by bodies like the WHO and the FDA) are presented as being quite dire. For instance, animal toxicity studies with certain genetically modified foods have shown that they may toxically affect several organs and body systems. In addition, the results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the haematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters. But, these effects are not surprising at all. There is a lot of damage done by companies that produce food, especially genetically modified foods today. In fact, just looking at Monsanto as an example, it began in part as a chemical company that polluted the environment of many areas where they operated their plants.
Well, GMOs are not just inherently bad – but they are also tied to another manipulative tactic that has been used in the war on food and agriculture – especially pertaining to wheat. Wheat itself in its organic form is not the issue in question; the issue especially relates to genetically modified wheat; and this is because the Big Fake Food Corporations are NOT ONLY dumping this GMO wheat in massive quantities into the food supply, but also that in doing so they have actually known for 40+ years now what gluten has been doing to the digestive system of consumers. More specifically, there is something that’s found IN the gluten that is VERY IMPORTANT to these fake food corporations: which is a protein called Gliadin. They discovered this protein in gluten was highly addictive. When you eat GMO wheat, the gliadin in the gluten goes straight to your brain and makes you CRAVE MORE FOOD, and also makes you HUNGRIER.
And once they discovered what this gliadin protein does to your brain, the Big Fake Food Corporations started dumping their GMO/gluten/gliadin-filled-
Well, similarly, some governments are not only NOT doing anything to prevent this harm to the public, but a number of lawmakers have all been bought off and are colluding with these big fake food corporations – the same food companies that do not care about you and have been selling you toxic, addictive fake food that they have tinkered with to make you constantly want to eat more of it in order to increase their profits. Obviously, this relationship between lawmakers and Big Food is diametrically opposed to the government’s mandate to act in the best interests of its people.
However, when you follow the development of the genetically modified week, what is utterly concerning is also the revelation that many believe that there was no genetically modified wheat, especially in northern America. And yet, people found illegal strains of wheat in different parts of North America.
CASE STUDIES: NATIONS ARE PUSHING BACK AGAINST BIG FOOD & GMOs
However, in this dispensation, not only are more people demanding an end to GMOs, not only are more people becoming aware of the dangers and ills of GMOS on their health and the environment, but numerous individuals and heeding to the call to use formal legal recourse options to hold parties like Monsanto accountable. In fact, you’d recall that we have discussed here on ‘The War Room’ that the state of Oregon in the US celebrated that it reached a historic settlement with Monsanto. And with a new law, it will be investing a portion of the settlement in improving the air, land, and water that was polluted for decades.
Similarly, despite recent talks about having GMOs in the country, Nigerians have a well documented history of emphatic resistance to GMO’s. For instance, in 2017, a coalition of civil society groups organised a rally in Abuja demanding an end to the planned introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms into Nigeria’s foods and farming scheme. They also petitioned the National Assembly seeking a repeal of the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) Act. In 2024, the Nigerian House of Representatives initiated a suspension of the introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) across the country. This decision follows a motion calling for an investigation into the potential risks associated with GMOs, particularly regarding food and environmental safety. The House is urging the federal government to halt the commercialization of GMO crops until a comprehensive investigation is completed by the Committee on Agricultural Production and Services; and this followed after Honorable Muktar Shagaya moved the motion to suspend the introduction of GMOs until investigations are carried out to ascertain the safety, on May 16, 2024.
Now, a number of nations still have long been trying to protect organic crops. However, they were often tricked into the planting and consumption of GMO crops (which is one of the things that let you know that this is a deliberately orchestrated tool in the war on food). For instance, in 1998, Mexico passed a law banning the planting of genetically modified corn. But, unfortunately, came a time when Campesino farmers in Mexico bought unmarked corn from the US from their local government store. They ate some and planted some, as most farmers do. Unfortunately, the genetically modified seeds crossed with the land raised organic corn and contaminated the corn of the farmers.
Well, on March 18th this year, Mexico’s lower house of Congress has officially approved a constitutional reform banning the planting of genetically modified (GM) corn. The ban has taken effect immediately and is a result of a process initiated by former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. A general ban on GM corn in Mexico seemed more complex after a trade dispute ruling in December ’24. This ruling deemed Mexico’s restrictions on GM corn a violation of the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), stating that it lacked sufficient scientific evidence and caused unfairly restricted US market access. Following the USMCA panel’s decision, Mexico has lifted its import restrictions on genetically modified corn intended for human, livestock, and industrial applications, a move that impacts approximately $5 billion in annual US GM corn exports, primarily for livestock feed
Despite the risk of economic repercussions, the current administration of President Sheinbaum took a next step in the process by ensuring GM corn cannot legally be planted in Mexico anymore, reaffirming its stance on protecting Mexico’s traditional agriculture and food security. The law will ‘guarantee biodiversity, food sovereignty, and the health of Mexicans’, according to the President.
The newly approved reform solidifies previous legal measures by enshrining the ban in Mexico’s Constitution. The decree aims at preserving native corn varieties, protecting biodiversity, and ensuring food sovereignty. The reform prohibits GM corn cultivation while mandating strict legal oversight to prevent risks to biosafety, public health, and Mexico’s biocultural heritage. This is in line with the focus of the Mexican government on rural development and the support of traditional agricultural systems.
WE ALSO HAVE A PART TO PLAY IN SUPPORTING LOCAL FOOD PRODUCERS
Then finally, while the issues we have discussed today are systemic and a consequence of the plans of sinister actors, we must also not miss an opportunity to compound on our activist efforts to ensure a clean, organic, cost-effective and functional food supply system. And honestly, it begins with supporting local food producers! First, we need to demand this on a legislative front though engaging the relevant stakeholders and policy makers, but also with the choices we make. It is jarring the extent to which consumers have also substituted the support for things like local farmers markets for convenience stores. And we saw this, for example, when American farmers across the country were reported to be struggling because the so-called elite class only wanted imported foods, instead of buying foods from American farmers and American companies.
Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso
