Famers’ protests in Europe

Farmers in Germany are taking to the streets. They have already been protesting for over six weeks. Their marches and rallies are justified. They are not protesting alone. Many small and medium-sized businesses have joined them. They are reaping a wave of solidarity. Farmers have also taken to the streets outside Germany. We see similar pictures in the Netherlands, France, Spain and Scotland. In France in particular, the protests are taking on extreme forms. Yet – these images are not being shown in our mainstream media. The suspicion of forced media conformity is not unjustified, especially, since the references to the protests by Dutch farmers have also disappeared from our media. This should be pointed out once again, since cause, conditions and consequences of the measures announced by the government make us sit up and take notice.
  The Netherlands has its own nitrogen minister, Christiane van der Wal, who has announced a green plan to reduce nitrogen emissions by 50 % and intends to push it through despite months of fierce protests. The government wants to forcibly close or buy up 3,000 farms. For this purpose, she has made 24.3 billion (!) euros available. The farms’ owners are to be paid very well. This forced expropriation of farms clearly encroaches on property rights. Farmers are to receive more than the actual value of their farms. But in return, they are required not to set up and run a farm anywhere. Holland is driving out its cultivators and unabashedly interfering with freedom of trade. What is the agenda behind this? What is to happen to the arable and pasture land of the 3,000 farms?

Germany: “A recalcitrant farmer –
we know at first sight – must be
an extremist of the far-right”

And how did German politics and its affiliated media and the enforcedly financed public broadcaster ÖRR (Öffentlich-rechtlicher Rundfunk – public service broadcasting) react to the protests that have been going on for weeks? Right! Just as the farmers predicted on the posters they carried on their tractors: “A recalcitrant farmer – we know at first sight – must be an extremist of the far-right.” This method of sharp polarisation is a popular and well-known means of domination. Conversation and debate are refused. The interlocutor is stigmatised and branded. If someone engages in dialogue with them, this person is also branded. This is the mood in Germany, a country in which the governing parties are fighting the opposition in parliament with the help of the extra-parliamentary “opposition”. Anti-right-wing demonstrations are en vogue in the political mainstream. They are a staged distraction from the problems that actually need to be solved. They are smokescreens to divert attention from what is being done.

The decimation
of farms as a hidden agenda

What has incensed German farmers to such a degree? On the surface, the farmers’ protests began after the German government cancelled subsidies for farmers.¹ These were, on the one hand, that the reimbursement of the tax on agricultural diesel was cancelled, and on the other, the cancellation of the tax exemption for agricultural vehicles. These two measures were the straw that broke the camel’s back. Up to that point, a large number of regulations had already made it increasingly difficult for farmers to exercise their entrepreneurial freedom and professional work processes:

• stricter application of crop protection,

• stricter fertiliser regulations,

• reduction in area premiums,

• tightening of the GIRL Geruchsimmissions-Richtlinie (Odour Immission Directive),

• 4 % land set-aside,

• cancellation of investment subsidies,

• nonsensical controls and excessive bureaucracy.

Many of these measures have led to more difficult working conditions for farmers. And above all, these measures reduce crop yields. It is not uncommon for farmers to consider whether they would be better off giving up their farms. This has led to a decline in the number of farms by more than 50 % since the mid-nineties. The term “decimation of farms” has been bandied about and, looking back on history, is fatally reminiscent of the “peasant legend” of the Middle Ages and early modern times. The free peasant was a thorn in the side of the nobility. Free peasants are not subjects, and farms owned by the free secure their existence and thus really make them free.
  Many of the measures listed above cause small and medium-sized businesses to groan under their pressure just as much as farmers. And rightly so! The prescribed administrative work takes hours (40 % of working time) and forces craftsmen and farmers to sit at their desks. Large farms seem to be able to cope with this, but not the family-run, medium-sized farm. This has not improved the quality of work and has certainly not made it any easier.
  Another measure to combat the farms is the “Animal Husbandry Labelling Act”. With this law, which is of course – how could it be otherwise – due to climate protection, animal population in Germany is to be halved. Susanne Galle, spokeswoman for the Ministry of Agriculture, confirmed at the beginning of January this year that this is indeed the case. She explained that this law is a “centralised project” and that a reduction in livestock numbers had already taken place. When asked how many animals were involved, Galle refused to give an exact figure and said she would not comment on this.

The subsidy mechanism –
another nail in the farms’ coffin

A look at other European countries shows that the death of small and medium-sized businesses in favour of market concentration in the hands of large corporations has already taken place on a massive scale. And this is not in the spirit of “prosperity for all”, nor in the interests of the self-determined market participant. It is precisely the small and medium-sized agricultural businesses that have had to give up in recent years. But it is exactly these farms that have generated almost 75 % of their earnings themselves. Only the remaining 25 % is due to subsidies. Large farms, including agricultural groups, make their profits almost exclusively from subsidies. So where is the economic efficiency in this?
  If you listen to the politicians speaking out right now, you get the impression that farmers are being showered with money from state subsidies. But what is the truth behind this “shower of money”? Amongst the highest subsidies are the area premiums. Farmers receive premiums for maintaining grassland or arable land as part of the cultural land conversation. But if you look closely, the top ten recipients of these subsidies are not farmers, but ministries, dyke associations and NABU (German Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union). Anyone owning land receives subsidies. This includes the agricultural companies that secured huge areas of arable land in the eastern German states after reunification. So here, too, corporations are being financed with taxpayers’ money!
  The discussion points that are currently being propagandistically celebrated on talk shows and in other media distract from the actual political map exercises in the background. Why subsidies? In reality, those are dependency mechanisms that have been carefully planned for a long time. Once you are on the drip feed of subsidies, you are at the mercy of those who have the power to keep the subsidies flowing or let them dry up. And they do not exercise this power in the interests of the national or EU citizen, and certainly not in the interests of the farmer. As a rule, farmers love their profession. It rightly makes them proud to provide their fellow citizens with good food in all areas. We owe them a debt of gratitude.

Distortion of competition is
expediting the decimation of farms

If farmers were paid what they actually earned through their labour, subsidies would not be necessary. However, it is now claimed that farmers cannot survive on the market without subsidies. In competition with global producers worldwide, they would mercilessly lose out. This is probably true. But why is that so? Just one look at Ukraine makes it clear. Until 2020, there was a ban on selling the black soil (chernozem) in Ukraine. Currently, around 75 % of this black soil has been sold to US “investors”. Field labourers in Ukraine are paid a minimum wage of 1.45 euros per hour.² How are German farmers supposed to compete with such conditions? What is more, the flood of administrative regulations, nature conservation requirements, animal welfare regulations and fertiliser ordinances do not exist in countries like the Ukraine. Trade and import agreements are concluded with these countries, whether in South America and Eastern Europe, which are allowed to produce under catastrophic conditions without all these mandatory EU administrative standards. Here no one criticises the exorbitant ecological footprint left behind by the trade route around the globe. And animal welfare is also swept under the carpet.
  Real competition in a free economy can only take place under equal conditions for all. Everyone can see that. But with these conditions, especially in Germany, honest competition is not possible. If the German government decided to impose protective tariffs on foreign agricultural products, the subsidies could be cancelled. Then farmers’ products would realise their true value.

Further attacks
on rural family agriculture

This is where those who design and implement the business games in the background come into play. Many of them euphemistically call themselves philanthropists. But they are oligarchs who use their financial and market power to control the coveted farmland and seeds. Players in the global financial world, including BlackRock, JP Morgan Asset Management, the German Allianz AG, Swiss Re, HSCB Bank, Fidelity Investments, Edmond de Rothschild Asset Management, Credit Suisse, Rockefeller Assessment Management, UBS Bank and several others, who manage assets totalling 25 trillion dollars, have been involved in agricultural production for quite some time. If you believe their own statements, they are doing this to guarantee global food security. They buy up arable land covertly as “investors”. Once they have it, they also receive land premiums paid by taxpayers’ money. The world experienced the military destruction of old seeds during the Iraq war. One of the first bombing raids was flown on warehouses storing old seeds. Iraq, a great granary of the ancient world, had a lot of experience with agriculture and seeds. The Iraqis had guarded this gem like a treasure. So why did this granary and seed storehouse have to be destroyed in one of the first attacks?

Insects and worms

Even if the quote “Control oil and you control nations. Control foods and you control the people,” was wrongly attributed to Henry Kissinger, the occurrences that are constantly being created and the actions of the global financial elites make it clear that this war on agriculture is about nothing else. According to their plans, it can be done just as well without a farmer. “Vertical farming” with the help of “artificial intelligence” and synthetic biology (meat from laboratories) should make it possible to grow plant and animal products in multi-storey buildings in urban centres. The EU has already for some time authorised the addition of ground insects and mealworms to food. All of this is leading to a monopolisation of food production. And this in turn gives producers unprecedented power over consumers.
  It has been systematically prepared and staged for a long time that the so-called man-made climate crisis is being used to this end, and an accusing finger has repeatedly been pointed at conventional agriculture as an ostensible “climate killer”. This was also the case recently at the WEF in Davos, where there was talk of a necessary agricultural turnaround.
  It is to be hoped that the justified farmers’ protests will finally lead to the publication of these background plans. These above-mentioned schemes are not harmless, and they are quietly and secretly dismantling the democratic constitutions in Europe. Should this be stopped, the farmers’ protests, which are now in their seventh week, would have achieved something important.
  Unfortunately, the question also arises as to whether Farmers’ President Joachim Rukwiek advocates the interests of farmers and citizens as a member of a dozen systemically relevant organisations.³ Furthermore, Rukwiek supports the EU Green Deal and thus the new climate policy, although it is precisely this that has led to the decimation of farms. It remains to be seen what interests he really represents.  •

¹ From the government’s perspective, this had allegedly become necessary because, following a lawsuit by the Christian Democrats, the Federal Constitutional Court had declared the reallocation of the 60 billion Covid fund as additional budget funds for the current budget to be unconstitutional. In fact, as the Bild newspaper explained, these cuts had been initiated almost a year earlier.
² “To stop the complete sell-off of the country, the Verkhovna Rada – the Ukrainian parliament – passed Land Code 2768-III in 2001, a de facto moratorium that stopped further land sales. The law, which was originally valid for one legislative period, was extended several times and was only repealed in 2020.” (Hofbauer, Hannes. “Wem gehört die Ukraine? Der Kampf um die Schwarzerde-Böden” (Who owns Ukraine? The fight for black soil), in: Nachdenkseiten of 31 January 2024)
³ Effenberger, Wolfgang. “Wird 2024 als historisches Jahr in die Geschichte eingehen?” (Will 2024 go down in history as a historic year?), in: Apolut 2024 of 18 January 2024