WTO - World Trade Organisation
An organisation set up to control all international trade
The New Stürmer - Volume 8
Dear Friends and Kindred Hearts.
"I fear that Jewish banks with their craftiness and tortuous tricks will entirely control the exuberant riches of America… The Jews will not hesitate to plunge the whole of Christendom into wars and chaos, in order that the earth should become the inheritance of Israel."
-- Count Otto von Bismarck
HE SPEAKS
On Obstacles
" ... Obstacles do not exist to be surrendered to, but rather to be broken."
THE BOOK, I:2/20 (HM edition)
He was—and IS—right!
WTO - World Trade Organisation
An organisation set up to control all international trade
WTO was established in 1994, but started to work in 1995. It’s prime task was to get the GATT agreement operational.
GATT - General Agreement on Traffic and Trade, was an organisation set up October 30, 1947, but was first operational on January 1, 1948 by UNO - United Nation Organisation.
GATT was set up as an organisation which controlled all kinds of trade in order to avoid countries from agreeing on trade without going through the "official" Jewish banks of London. GATT was set up to avoid countries from doing what The Third Reich did before and during WWII - which was to barter.
Barter - the direct exchange of goods or services--without an intervening medium of exchange or money--either according to established rates of exchange or by bargaining.
All trade between The Third Reich and other countries was done though barter, giving no income from that form of trade to the Jewish money changers in London, depriving the Jewish money changers of income from currency between the trading countries. In this manner, The Third Reich had fixed exchange rates for all products she could export and for those she needed to import.
Import Duty - This being a duty most countries had introduced to protect their own industrial production by taxing people who want to buy imported goods as a sensible and profitable way for small industrial nations to protect it’s own industries.
Import duty further secured the currency of the small nations by discouraging their citizens from buying products from other countnries, when it’s own industry produce equal products since the import duty would make foreign produced goods more expansive then their own national products.
GATT’s first priorities
For the first 3 decades GATT operated, it forced industrial countries to lower their import duty on products from major industrial countries like USA and England. This was of course in order for USA and England to be able to keep her war time industry at a high level.
In a little/small article as this it will be impossible to discuss all sides of trade between nations for all kinds of products. I have therefore limited myself at least for the first part of this article, to Eastern Europe - as I do hold information about the Jews involvement there.
Trade of agricultural products and Jews
The Khazars or Jews as they are commonly known, have for the past 600 years been traders in anything that could be sold. They, the Jews, were not liked for their unfairness in trading with the farmers in Eastern Europe.
The Jews became disliked in Poland when Voltaire wrote a book about the Swedish King Karl XII (Charles XII) he said: "Unless the Jews change their behaviour towards the Polish peasant farmer they will some day get a disaster on themselves."
Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his book "200 Years Living Together" clearly shows that Jews were not interested in working as farmers, but wanted to trade in agricultural goods, and when they did they swindled the farmers by offering them low prices on their goods.
Food situation during the colonial times.
Once every country in the world, even in Africa, could grow food enough to feed themselves. Some of the African countries even exported some food to neighbouring countries. During the colonial time these countries, then colonies, exported good to their colonial powers, England was the leading country. This, of course, was at the time when England survived only because she had colonies that could "buy" the industrial goods England produced and the various "countries" in Africa were flourishing.
Food situation after the colonial times.
Since the former colonies had been bled clean by the colonial powers, foremost England, these countries were very poor at the time the colonial powers gave up their colonies. They had to turn to the World Bank for loans to build up the infrastructure every modern country needs to function. There were in most of these countries international mining companies there were given tax-benefits by the colonial powers. These new nations early learned that they received no help from UNO when they wanted to tax the mining companies to get revenue to build the nations. Once again the World Bank was the only source to give them money.
I guess you know the story from there. These poor nations got deeper and deeper into debt with the World Bank. Since this could not go on much longer, and the former colonies could not keep on loaning money, the UNO came up with the solution: "Each Western Country should start giving these countries ‘development aid’".
This ‘development aid’ was a new scram. That money was paid into the World Bank, and then the World Bank would only gave up the money when the recipient nations gave up some of their land to international companies wanting land for mining business and for oil-development.
Not many years ago Chile wanted a load from the World Bank. The World Bank set the following condition to give a loan: "an international company shall ‘own’ all water in Chile". The Chilean government gave in. The story for the international companies had a bad ending. As these companies started to deny the Indians in Chile to use rain-water the government had to step in and the World Bank helped out. The international companies did not own the rain-water. But all the pipelines for water used in towns and cities did belong to the international companies.
Part of the foreign aid that have been given to underdeveloping countries over the past 30 years came in grains from the developing countries. This free food led to less and less farming in the underdeveloping countries. After two decades many of the farmers moved to towns and cities looking for work. Why should they work their farm, a hard work with little payment, when they could find paid work? Now the real trouble started for the former colonies. Their revenue fell and fell and they needed more and more loans. To get these they had to submit to harder and harder demands from the World Bank. Now the underdeveloping countries had to give up land so international countries could set up farms. Some of those farms were cultivating flowers for the Western world. Other part of the land laid unused. The consequence of this was more people moving to the towns and cities.
Thirty years ago, Haiti raised nearly all the rice it needed.
What happened?
In 1986, after the expulsion of Haitian dictator Jean Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier the International Monetary Fund (IMF) loaned Haiti $24.6 million in desperately needed funds (Baby Doc had raided the treasury on the way out). In order to get the IMF loan, Haiti was required to reduce tariff protections for their Haitian rice and other agricultural products. Some industries had to open up the country's markets to competition from outside countries. The U.S.by far, was the largest voice in decisions of the IMF.
For those wanting to learn more here is a link:
http://www.counterpunch.org/quigley04212008.html
African Agriculture Uprooted by Economic Policies
People across Africa have taken to the streets in recent months to demand that their most basic need be met: access to food. The various states in which these protests have taken place, however, have reacted swiftly and brutally. The reason why millions of people are struggling to afford food is because of the huge disparities and inequalities that have been exacerbated by the current economic system. Over the last 30 years almost all states across Africa have adopted neo-liberal economic policies. These policies have favoured giant corporations' interests over those of the people and have enabled a handful of companies to gain a virtual monopoly over the human food chain.
Prior to the advent of neo-liberalism in the 1980s, many African governments, such as Tanzania, assisted small-scale farmers within their borders. This was done through providing these farmers with various forms of subsidies including research, transport, and processing services.
In the first few years of independence in Zimbabwe, the government even subsidised the seeds, compost and equipment that small-scale farmers needed. Across Africa, states also applied high import tariffs on staple foods such as maize, rice, and grain. The aim of this was to protect small-scale and medium-sized farmers from cheap imports and dumping. A number of states also played an active role during this period in assisting small-scale farmers in establishing co-operatives. The result was that between 1950 and 1980, small-scale and medium-sized farmers provided for most of the food needs of Africa. Indeed, until the end of the 1970s, Africa was a net exporter of food. This situation was turned on its head in the decade that followed.
In the early 1980s, the United States, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank used the debt stranglehold that they had over many African states to force them to adopt neo-liberal economic policies through Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAP). This saw most African governments being forced to sell off their public assets to multinational companies; allow foreign companies to move money in and out of their borders; end food subsidies; create export processing zones; smash workers' rights; dismantle environmental laws and implement wage freezes.
Under SAPs, almost all African governments were also forced to reduce their import tariffs on agricultural goods; thereby creating new export markets for multinational companies. Linked to this,African states were required to dramatically reduce the subsidies that they offered to small-scale farmers, who were producing for domestic needs. The result was that by the mid 1980s, small-scale farmers all over Africa were losing an unfair competition with subsidised agricultural products flooding into their countries from the U.S.and Europe.
Of course, the U.S. and European countries continued to subsidise their own farmers, mostly agribusiness corporations. The U.S. and European countries also maintained high tariffs on selected agricultural products – those that their farmers were producing.
Although the IMF, US and World Bank demanded that African states end any form of assistance to small-scale farmers, they encouraged these same states to continue assisting agricultural corporations and large-scale farmers producing for export.
From Ghana to Kenya, states were encouraged to grow certain export crops that were needed or desired in Europe and the U.S. For instance, Kenya was instructed to focus on growing flowers for export to Europe; while Ghana was told to focus on producing cocoa for export to the U.S. Through this, these states -- along with the IMF, World Bank and the multinational companies involved in these industries -- prioritised these export commodities over growing food for the people in these countries.
For more please read: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42872
The Doha Round of July, 2008
This round of talks crashed because the developing countries wanted a mechanism that could allow them to raise tariffs, import duty, on farm import when they reached a certain level and started to threaten the livelihood of poor farmers. China and India also demanded a safeguard to defend the food security and rural development for farmers in developing countries. USA as the protector of Jewish owned farms in USA opposed this.
For more information:
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/press-releases/press-releases/wto-talks-collapse-amidst-developing-countries-reluctance-to-sacrifice-food-security/
This is where the talks on lowering import duty between countries stand for the time being.
What will happen when the new patented grain, rice and potato and other vegetable will be part of the negotiations in WTO? Only heaven can tell. One thing is for sure, the Jews want to control the food situation in the world and they have a strong helper/protector: USA. It is sad that USA so totally has given in to the Jews and let herself be used as the oppressor of the world.
Back in 2005 I wrote an article "The biggest Theft of the Millenniums". You can reread that article here: http://www.thenewsturmer.com/gamleDrganger/TNS%202005/the_biggest_theft.htm
On this side you will find more links to the question on patented vegetables and food.
To overcome the outright lies and audacity - in Yiddish Chutzpah, the truth, in facts, must be spread, loud and clear ...
Please forward this article to all your friends, and to those who are aware that something is drastically wrong in this world, but can't understand what is happening; teach them, and they will learn.
Heil og sael
The New Stürmer - Volume 8
Dear Friends and Kindred Hearts.
"I fear that Jewish banks with their craftiness and tortuous tricks will entirely control the exuberant riches of America… The Jews will not hesitate to plunge the whole of Christendom into wars and chaos, in order that the earth should become the inheritance of Israel."
-- Count Otto von Bismarck HE SPEAKS On Obstacles
" ... Obstacles do not exist to be surrendered to, but rather to be broken."
THE BOOK, I:2/20 (HM edition)
He was—and IS—right!
WTO - World Trade Organisation
An organisation set up to control all international trade
WTO was established in 1994, but started to work in 1995. It’s prime task was to get the GATT agreement operational.
GATT - General Agreement on Traffic and Trade, was an organisation set up October 30, 1947, but was first operational on January 1, 1948 by UNO - United Nation Organisation.
GATT was set up as an organisation which controlled all kinds of trade in order to avoid countries from agreeing on trade without going through the "official" Jewish banks of London. GATT was set up to avoid countries from doing what The Third Reich did before and during WWII - which was to barter.
Barter - the direct exchange of goods or services--without an intervening medium of exchange or money--either according to established rates of exchange or by bargaining.
All trade between The Third Reich and other countries was done though barter, giving no income from that form of trade to the Jewish money changers in London, depriving the Jewish money changers of income from currency between the trading countries. In this manner, The Third Reich had fixed exchange rates for all products she could export and for those she needed to import.
Import Duty - This being a duty most countries had introduced to protect their own industrial production by taxing people who want to buy imported goods as a sensible and profitable way for small industrial nations to protect it’s own industries.
Import duty further secured the currency of the small nations by discouraging their citizens from buying products from other countnries, when it’s own industry produce equal products since the import duty would make foreign produced goods more expansive then their own national products.
GATT’s first priorities
For the first 3 decades GATT operated, it forced industrial countries to lower their import duty on products from major industrial countries like USA and England. This was of course in order for USA and England to be able to keep her war time industry at a high level.
In a little/small article as this it will be impossible to discuss all sides of trade between nations for all kinds of products. I have therefore limited myself at least for the first part of this article, to Eastern Europe - as I do hold information about the Jews involvement there.
Trade of agricultural products and Jews
The Khazars or Jews as they are commonly known, have for the past 600 years been traders in anything that could be sold. They, the Jews, were not liked for their unfairness in trading with the farmers in Eastern Europe.
The Jews became disliked in Poland when Voltaire wrote a book about the Swedish King Karl XII (Charles XII) he said: "Unless the Jews change their behaviour towards the Polish peasant farmer they will some day get a disaster on themselves."
Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his book "200 Years Living Together" clearly shows that Jews were not interested in working as farmers, but wanted to trade in agricultural goods, and when they did they swindled the farmers by offering them low prices on their goods.
Food situation during the colonial times.
Once every country in the world, even in Africa, could grow food enough to feed themselves. Some of the African countries even exported some food to neighbouring countries. During the colonial time these countries, then colonies, exported good to their colonial powers, England was the leading country. This, of course, was at the time when England survived only because she had colonies that could "buy" the industrial goods England produced and the various "countries" in Africa were flourishing.
Food situation after the colonial times.
Since the former colonies had been bled clean by the colonial powers, foremost England, these countries were very poor at the time the colonial powers gave up their colonies. They had to turn to the World Bank for loans to build up the infrastructure every modern country needs to function. There were in most of these countries international mining companies there were given tax-benefits by the colonial powers. These new nations early learned that they received no help from UNO when they wanted to tax the mining companies to get revenue to build the nations. Once again the World Bank was the only source to give them money.
I guess you know the story from there. These poor nations got deeper and deeper into debt with the World Bank. Since this could not go on much longer, and the former colonies could not keep on loaning money, the UNO came up with the solution: "Each Western Country should start giving these countries ‘development aid’".
This ‘development aid’ was a new scram. That money was paid into the World Bank, and then the World Bank would only gave up the money when the recipient nations gave up some of their land to international companies wanting land for mining business and for oil-development.
Not many years ago Chile wanted a load from the World Bank. The World Bank set the following condition to give a loan: "an international company shall ‘own’ all water in Chile". The Chilean government gave in. The story for the international companies had a bad ending. As these companies started to deny the Indians in Chile to use rain-water the government had to step in and the World Bank helped out. The international companies did not own the rain-water. But all the pipelines for water used in towns and cities did belong to the international companies.
Part of the foreign aid that have been given to underdeveloping countries over the past 30 years came in grains from the developing countries. This free food led to less and less farming in the underdeveloping countries. After two decades many of the farmers moved to towns and cities looking for work. Why should they work their farm, a hard work with little payment, when they could find paid work? Now the real trouble started for the former colonies. Their revenue fell and fell and they needed more and more loans. To get these they had to submit to harder and harder demands from the World Bank. Now the underdeveloping countries had to give up land so international countries could set up farms. Some of those farms were cultivating flowers for the Western world. Other part of the land laid unused. The consequence of this was more people moving to the towns and cities.
Thirty years ago, Haiti raised nearly all the rice it needed.
What happened?
In 1986, after the expulsion of Haitian dictator Jean Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier the International Monetary Fund (IMF) loaned Haiti $24.6 million in desperately needed funds (Baby Doc had raided the treasury on the way out). In order to get the IMF loan, Haiti was required to reduce tariff protections for their Haitian rice and other agricultural products. Some industries had to open up the country's markets to competition from outside countries. The U.S.by far, was the largest voice in decisions of the IMF.
For those wanting to learn more here is a link:
http://www.counterpunch.org/quigley04212008.html
African Agriculture Uprooted by Economic Policies
People across Africa have taken to the streets in recent months to demand that their most basic need be met: access to food. The various states in which these protests have taken place, however, have reacted swiftly and brutally. The reason why millions of people are struggling to afford food is because of the huge disparities and inequalities that have been exacerbated by the current economic system. Over the last 30 years almost all states across Africa have adopted neo-liberal economic policies. These policies have favoured giant corporations' interests over those of the people and have enabled a handful of companies to gain a virtual monopoly over the human food chain.
Prior to the advent of neo-liberalism in the 1980s, many African governments, such as Tanzania, assisted small-scale farmers within their borders. This was done through providing these farmers with various forms of subsidies including research, transport, and processing services.
In the first few years of independence in Zimbabwe, the government even subsidised the seeds, compost and equipment that small-scale farmers needed. Across Africa, states also applied high import tariffs on staple foods such as maize, rice, and grain. The aim of this was to protect small-scale and medium-sized farmers from cheap imports and dumping. A number of states also played an active role during this period in assisting small-scale farmers in establishing co-operatives. The result was that between 1950 and 1980, small-scale and medium-sized farmers provided for most of the food needs of Africa. Indeed, until the end of the 1970s, Africa was a net exporter of food. This situation was turned on its head in the decade that followed.
In the early 1980s, the United States, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank used the debt stranglehold that they had over many African states to force them to adopt neo-liberal economic policies through Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAP). This saw most African governments being forced to sell off their public assets to multinational companies; allow foreign companies to move money in and out of their borders; end food subsidies; create export processing zones; smash workers' rights; dismantle environmental laws and implement wage freezes.
Under SAPs, almost all African governments were also forced to reduce their import tariffs on agricultural goods; thereby creating new export markets for multinational companies. Linked to this,African states were required to dramatically reduce the subsidies that they offered to small-scale farmers, who were producing for domestic needs. The result was that by the mid 1980s, small-scale farmers all over Africa were losing an unfair competition with subsidised agricultural products flooding into their countries from the U.S.and Europe.
Of course, the U.S. and European countries continued to subsidise their own farmers, mostly agribusiness corporations. The U.S. and European countries also maintained high tariffs on selected agricultural products – those that their farmers were producing.
Although the IMF, US and World Bank demanded that African states end any form of assistance to small-scale farmers, they encouraged these same states to continue assisting agricultural corporations and large-scale farmers producing for export.
From Ghana to Kenya, states were encouraged to grow certain export crops that were needed or desired in Europe and the U.S. For instance, Kenya was instructed to focus on growing flowers for export to Europe; while Ghana was told to focus on producing cocoa for export to the U.S. Through this, these states -- along with the IMF, World Bank and the multinational companies involved in these industries -- prioritised these export commodities over growing food for the people in these countries.
For more please read: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42872
The Doha Round of July, 2008
This round of talks crashed because the developing countries wanted a mechanism that could allow them to raise tariffs, import duty, on farm import when they reached a certain level and started to threaten the livelihood of poor farmers. China and India also demanded a safeguard to defend the food security and rural development for farmers in developing countries. USA as the protector of Jewish owned farms in USA opposed this.
For more information:
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/press-releases/press-releases/wto-talks-collapse-amidst-developing-countries-reluctance-to-sacrifice-food-security/
This is where the talks on lowering import duty between countries stand for the time being.
What will happen when the new patented grain, rice and potato and other vegetable will be part of the negotiations in WTO? Only heaven can tell. One thing is for sure, the Jews want to control the food situation in the world and they have a strong helper/protector: USA. It is sad that USA so totally has given in to the Jews and let herself be used as the oppressor of the world.
Back in 2005 I wrote an article "The biggest Theft of the Millenniums". You can reread that article here: http://www.thenewsturmer.com/gamleDrganger/TNS%202005/the_biggest_theft.htm
On this side you will find more links to the question on patented vegetables and food.
To overcome the outright lies and audacity - in Yiddish Chutzpah, the truth, in facts, must be spread, loud and clear ...
Please forward this article to all your friends, and to those who are aware that something is drastically wrong in this world, but can't understand what is happening; teach them, and they will learn.
Heil og sael
No comments:
Post a Comment