Corporate Charlatans In Sustainable Garb

Who hijacked sustainable growth?

Mar 22, 2024

∙ Paid

The aim of this article is not to explore forms of agorism, for which others qualify
'Sustainability' is a con to centralise control under corporations
Western growth model hasn’t changed; it’s just been bought
So-called sustainability is proposed by the same growth-hungry corporations
The tweak is they’ll take even more resources, while ‘you’ll own nothing’
The Western growth model hasn’t changed; it’s just been centralised
Fake sustainability comes form the same corporations that created the problem
Instead of decentralising, oiler-bankers hoard resources and power in their hands
‘Small is beautiful,’ de-growth or ecodevelopment is sidelined or ignored

(2,900 words or less than a quarter-hour of your company).

Mar 22, 2024

People or land

Lebensraum is the German imperative given to the challenge of a country whose industrial potential outstrips its ability to feed its population.

As Yale historian Timothy Snyder has written, “The risk is that a developed country able to project military power could, like Hitler’s Germany, fall into ecological panic, and take drastic steps to protect its existing standard of living.” [1]

Hitler, he argues, had little faith that hybrids and fertilizers could generate enough food for Germans and that only by conquest of land could the Reich feed the people.

A century later the billionaires and oligarchs own the technology that could feed billions more, but they have decided that only by conquest of the people can they retain the land and food for themselves.

Ironically, the corporations that were units of I.G. Farben, the chemical cartel of the Third Reich, are the leading owners of agricultural technology, including Bayer, formerly Monsanto.

Regular readers know well the corporations and bankers that enabled and armed the Reich. For those who don’t, read Edwin Black, beginning with “IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation” (2001) and Antony Sutton, “Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler” (1976).

The D in Population

It is common to cite the Kissinger Report, “NSSM-200,” which argued a rising global population was a threat to American interests.

The crux of Kissinger’s argument was not the people per se, but the resources on which they sat. This is why NSSM-200 took aim at developing nations, not the West.

At the same time Kissinger was a close associate of the Rockefellers, whose Population Council (founded in 1952 by John D. Rockefeller III) had as its target the “population problem.”

The oligarchs’ predilection for Malthus has always had this contradiction: they are committed to population reduction; yet their objective is control of land and resources.

Thus it matters not that Malthus has been proven wrong time and again — that standards of living have risen with the world’s population — “The real enemy... is humanity itself” (The First Global Revolution, Council of the Club of Rome, 1991)

To confirm that resources, not people and their wellbeing, are the oligarch’s concern see events in Ukraine. At the time of the Maidan coup of 2014, China was leasing one-tenth of Ukraine’s arable soil to grow grain for its own population. [2]

Ukraine is also central to China's Belt and Road Initiative. To what extent is blocking China an objective of the proxy war in Ukraine?

Further, why is population regarded as a matter of national security, and why did the U.S. military develop and implement the Covid “medical countermeasures,” aka the “safe and effective,” as evidenced by Katherine Watt and Sasha Latypova, and Dr David Martin?

What is the reason for the persistence of Malthus’ ideas in such brutal form?

We have an answer: resources, minerals and food.

Smallholder husbandry

Every countermeasure needs a pretext, and we have the overarching justification of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Where did sustainability come from or, rather, why this nefarious interpretation of what would, in a more healthy society, be defined by the term, husbandry?

In modern parlance they have different meanings: sustainability has become, in policy terms, The Great Shutdown (aka The Great Reset) in which society can only be improved by the slogan, “burn it down.”

Husbandry, as the smallholder’s “care, cultivation and breeding” or “management and conservation of resources” is supplanted by the corporation’s sustainability for one main reason: sustainability is still wedded to growth. The objective is sustaining the corporation.

Corporate interests

Sustainable development was not always so. Previous concepts included “Small is beautiful” and ecodevelopment. These were “reactions to the idea of development as a unidirectional, homogenizing, market- and growth-led process originating in the global North.”

“The Limits To Growth” (1972) hijacked the debate, skewing it in a neoliberal direction: commercial tools (the trade in carbon credits) over public regulation; the private sector and economic growth (innovation) as the answer to environmental problems; and a technocracy taking the lead role, pushing politicians aside.

“Sustainable development,” entered common currency with the Brundtland Commission (1983) which promised continued economic growth while rescuing the environment. This has become the dominant attitude — that generations can enjoy a world increasingly filled with digital gadgets and conveniences, while feeling righteous about having saved the Earth without any hit to their lifestyle.

This is no snarky jibe; the people are being conned and if they haven’t woken up after four years of the “safe and effective” it may be they never will.

The Covid response should have thrown open the windows to the great outdoors, bringing a much-needed draught of fresh air into the stale offices of computer modellers, whose exaggerated predictions of case fatality rates should have ended their careers (it was a fraction of 1 per cent, roughly the same as the flu.)

Covid was a masterclass in how not to run the world. Every error was copied and enforced globally: from quarantine, masking, lockdown, closing schools, forbidding university students admission without a jab, threatening soldiers and pilots with dismissal for not taking a contaminated injectable for what the Centers for Disease Control now admits was no worse than the flu.

Pluriverse

There is a school of thought that rejects universalism — a one-size-fits-all approach, the exclusive world view that dominates the supposedly diverse United Nations. See the World Health Organisation’s One Health; or its leading funder Bill Gates’ mission to vaccinate the entire global population with a “military countermeasure” — as if Gates is not following orders.

Keep reading with a 7-day free trial

Subscribe to Moneycircus to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.