A match made in Hell: Monsanto-Bayer merger gets the green light… farmers are worried, as they should be

Image: A match made in Hell: Monsanto-Bayer merger gets the green light… farmers are worried, as they should be

(Natural News)
As hundreds of lawsuits against Monsanto for personal injury and wrongful death move forward, German pharmaceutical company Bayer has been given the green light to acquire Monsanto in a deal surpassing $60 billion. The mega monopoly merger was approved by the U.S. Department of Justice in April. Instead of breaking monopolies up, the U.S. encourages monopolies to merge with other monopolies, as the agriculture and pharmaceutical elite clamor for domination over the world’s food and drug supply. The merger follows in the footsteps of the Dow-DuPont and Syngenta-ChemChina mergers.

Monsanto and Bayer announced the merger in September 2016, claiming the deal will “boost agriculture research and innovation.” This only means there will be more genetic modifications made to plant life to accommodate new agrochemical inventions. Many farmers aren’t buying into it. During the 2016 and 2017 growing seasons, farmers across the United States have been plagued by dicamba drift. Millions of acres of U.S. crops were damaged in 2017 by a dicamba-based herbicide, manufactured by Monsanto and BASF SE. In order to maintain yields of the most profitable crops, farmers are trapped into growing only the genetically modified seeds that have been engineered to withstand the herbicides. This corporate takeover of agriculture has put many small family farms out of business, consolidating farmland into the hands of the few. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, America continues to do away with smaller farms in favor of larger farms. In 1987, larger farms representing at least 2000 acres, controlled 15 percent of U.S. cropland. In 2012, large farms controlled 36 percent of U.S. cropland. The choking out of small farms and biodiversity has continued since.

In central Montana, fourth generation farmer Todd Enley says that when chemicals and seeds become more consolidated, the small farmer can’t compete. He, like other small farmers who struggle year-to-year, haven’t seen many benefits from GMOs and agrochemicals. He told Business Insider, “Our farm has been out here since 1935, and I’m 40 years old and I’ve watched a lot of small family farms in our area go under. They can’t compete because they can’t pay the price of input because of what these companies are wanting to charge for input now.” He iterated, “These corporate bigwigs, are they really going to do what they say?”

Despite Monsanto’s claims of feeding the world, the cost of healthy, nutritious produce has gone up over the years. This is because Monsanto is feeding the world synthetic chemicals, making nutritious, unpolluted foods harder to come by. Monsanto is not assisting farmers with sustainable growing methods, but instead forcing more farmers to rely on agrochemicals and monoculture growing practices that put the food supply and human health at risk.

As the U.S. tries to shut down chemical weapon manufacture in Syria, the country harbors its own chemical weapons facilities, an evil named Monsanto. It was Monsanto that manufactured Agent Orange, which was used on three million U.S. soldiers in Vietnam and on countless Vietnamese, inhumanely causing nervous system and genetic damage. A staggering 500,000 children were born with birth defects and an additional million people suffered health problems or disabilities due to Monsanto’s Agent Orange. It’s only fitting that Monsanto merges with Bayer, a company that manufactured and sold the chemicals that were used to kill Jews in Nazi Germany. Bayer, along with BASF and Hoechst, originally merged as IG Farben and contributed heavily to Adolf Hitler. In return, Hitler relied on the chemical manufacturers to create Zyklon B, a chemical weapon used in Auschwitz and other concentration camps to exterminate the Jews who were too old, too small, or too weak to work.

The Bayer-Monsanto merger is a match made in hell — two chemical weapons manufacturers that are  damaging biodiversity, bankrupting small farmers, and destroying human health with poisons like Roundup (glyphosate) and dicamba, all while taking over the world food supply with their genetic experimentation.

Read Monsanto.news for more coverage.

Sources include:









Source Article from http://www.naturalnews.com/2018-04-20-a-match-made-in-environmental-hell-monsanto-bayer-merger-gets-the-green-light.html

Farmers Are Now Using Flowers To Help Reduce Pests Instead Of Harmful Pesticides

Next Story

Pesticide use for agriculture is at an all time high. Not only is this disruptive to our health, but it is damaging the soil that we need to grow our food. Once the nutrient levels are depleted from the soil it becomes near impossible to grow a crop without the use of even more pesticides and chemical fertilizers.

Thankfully, as awareness grows, more and more people are switching to organic produce and starting their own gardens. The fact of the matter is, we don’t need to be using all of these heavy-duty chemicals. Alternative forms of agriculture such as a growing trend known as permaculture, are proving that point, and now, some farmers have opted towards using flowers; long strips of bright wildflowers in order to attract the natural predators of pests and cut down the use of pesticide spraying.

How Does This Work?

The strips of flowers were planted on 15 large arable farms in Central and Easter England last fall, they will be monitored for 5 years. This is part of a trial run by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH).

Using wildflower margins to assist and support insects like hoverflies, parasitic wasps, and ground beetles, has been shown to cut down pest numbers in crops and ultimately increase the yields.

Up until now, wildflower strips have only been planted around fields, which has meant that the natural predators were unable to reach the center of very large crop fields.  “If you imagine the size of a [ground beetle], it’s a bloody long walk to the middle of a field,” said Professor Richard Pywell, at CEH.

Harvesters guided by GPS technology now have the ability to reap crops in a precise manner, which means that strips of wildflowers that are planted amongst crops can be left untouched and continue to be used all year long. Initial testing done by Pywell show that planting strips of 100 apart means the predators have the ability to attack aphids and other crop-damaging insects throughout the field. The flowers that have been used include oxeye daisy, red clover, wild carrot, and common knapweed.

In the most recent trials, the strips are about six meters wide and take up only 2% of the total field area. The strips will be monitored all the way through a full rotation cycle from winter wheat to oil seed rape to spring barley.

“It’s a real acid test – we scientists are having to come up with real practical solutions,” said Pywell, who also led a ground breaking study which was published last year showing how neonicotinoids insecticides have been damaging bee population and not only individual insects.

We have seen similar trials take place in Switzerland; only they have been using flowers such as cornflowers, coriander, buckwheat, poppy and dill. Pywell hopes that the natural predators can cut down the pests enough from year to year so that there are never any major outbreaks, “That would be ideal – that you never need to spray.”

Why Are We Spraying So Much In The First Place?

Last September, a UK government chief scientific advisor warned that the vast majority of regulators around the world simply assume that it is safe to use pesticides at industrial scales across landscapes, and claimed that this was false. A UN report also recently denounced the myth that pesticides are necessary to feed the world, and yes, that means that genetically modified foods, which rely on pesticides to grow are not necessary to feed the world. Thankfully people in a position of power are beginning to realize this.

“There is undoubtedly scope to reduce pesticide use – that is a given,” said Bill Parker, director of research at the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. “There will be probably quite a lot of years when pests are not a problem and pesticide use could be vastly reduced. But there will be some years when a particular pest or disease will be extremely important, and those are the times when you really do need the pesticides.”

He also stated that a “huge cultural shift” was needed in agriculture because pesticides are being used whether or not pests have even been identified. “The majority of crop protection advice given in the UK is from agronomists tied to companies who make their money from selling pesticides,” he said. “There is a commercial drive and they will tend to take a prophylactic approach.”

Certainly there is some corporate interest at work here. But luckily with all this new awareness comes change, as people are going back to the basics and realizing that there are safe and effective methods for crops and we do not need to be poisoning our soil, crops and food in the way that we have been.

Much Love

Related CE Articles:

How To Remove Pesticides From Non-Organically Grown Produce

UN Calls For Worldwide Treaty To Phase Out Pesticides & Transition To Sustainable Farming

The Results Are In! These Fruits & Veggies Have The Most Pesticides In 2018

The 12 Most Chemically Ridden Produce Items You Should Buy Organic

The Shamanic Way of Healing

The Sacred Science follows eight people from around the world, with varying physical and psychological illnesses, as they embark on a one-month healing journey into the heart of the Amazon jungle.

This incredible true story details how ancient shamanic healing methods can work to shift our bodies and minds. here.

Read the incredible true story here.

The Shamanic Way of Healing

8 people with illnesses go into the jungle to heal naturally… read the incredible true story here.


Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Collective-evolution/~3/rx_7aq7zUSA/

Tigers found to assist farmers and livestock owners by protecting domesticated animals from other threats

Image: Tigers found to assist farmers and livestock owners by protecting domesticated animals from other threats

(Natural News)
There have been a lot of stories about tigers and other predators attacking people and livestock. While this may have created a negative perception of tigers, a new study asks us to reconsider: In a paper in the journal Biological Conservation, researchers from Bhutan found that farmers and livestock can actually benefit from having tigers live near them.

Tigers that live in the deepest habitats push two other predators — leopards and dholes (a type of wild dog) — away and closer to human villages and agricultural places. Despite the setup, this doesn’t endanger the people and the livestock. In fact, leopards and dholes prey on smaller plant-eating animals like wild pigs that consume the farmers’ crops.

The crops – and the farmers who planted them – win in the end.

It also allows livestock to thrive as well. In Bhutan, domestic animals usually roam the forests surrounding the villages. You’d think these tigers would prey on livestock when they enter forests, but there aren’t a lot of tigers left in the area. Moreover, leopards and dholes, which should be the main predators, have already been pushed towards croplands – where there are fewer livestock animals. The result – an overall reduction in livestock losses.

“Livestock and crop losses are two big issues faced by the agro-pastoralists in Bhutan,” explained lead author Phuntsho Thinley, who is also a principal research officer with the Ugyen Wangchuck Institute for Conservation and Environment Research in Bhutan. “I wanted to study the core underlying causes of the issues in order to devise pragmatic solutions.”

Thinley and his colleagues surmised that the presence of a tiger would drastically lessen crop damage due to herbivores. That means adding $450 a year in each family’s pockets. Livestock losses would also go down to an average of 2.4 animals per farm, or a savings of $1,120 a year.

Since per capita income of Bhutan is around $2,200, that’s an economic windfall from the tigers.

The good news is, the Bhutan government is using the results of Thinley’s studies to help local farmers. He says that the national government is including his recommendations in its environmental conservation plans.

John Goodrich, senior tiger program director for Panthera, a global wild-cat conservation organization, also finds the study useful and thinks it could be applied elsewhere.

For one, it could take the blame off tigers for livestock losses. It could also reduce the snares around crops which traps not just herbivores but anything that comes near.

The study is also a big boost to tigers, whose numbers are dwindling – no thanks to poaching and habitat loss. In the last 80 years, three of the original nine subspecies of tigers have become extinct: The situation has grown so bad, all wild tigers may become extinct in the next decade. (Related: Your toilet or tissue paper may be contributing to extinction of tigers.)

Practical ways to save the tiger

How then, do you save this big cat from the brink of extinction? Here are some ways you can help:

  • Spread the word – Let others know that the tiger and its habitat are in danger and that the animals need help. You can hold forums (or join existing ones) on the web to discuss and exchange ideas on tiger conservation.
  • Be a good tourist – Enjoy the wilderness, but don’t disturb or harm it in any way. Follow the rules and guidelines in tiger reserves.
  • Reach out to policymakers – Send polite emails to decision-makers who can help conserve the tiger population. Contact your local officials as well.
  • Reject tiger trade – Don’t buy tiger parts and items from tiger derivatives.

When you save tigers, you also help farmers and livestock growers earn more. You not only help save a species from extinction, but you also help an entire community.

Read Discoveries.news for more fascinating scientific discoveries.

Sources include: 






Source Article from http://www.naturalnews.com/2018-04-12-tigers-found-to-assist-farmers-and-livestock-owners-by-protecting-domesticated-animals.html

More snowfall could negatively impact farmers in Wisconsin



The cold weather and snow could impact when local farmers start to harvest their crops.

SkyWarn 13 Chief Meteorologist Darren Maier says the snow probably won’t be leaving anytime soon.

“Until this pattern breaks to where we can get temperatures consistently back to normal or above, that possibility of seeing additional snow I’d say is likely still in the forecast,” says Maier.

Agriculture Agent, Mark Hagedorn, at UW-Extension in Eau Claire says this time of year, the snow is usually gone and farmers are getting ready to do field work.

“We are sort of just sitting and waiting right at the moment,” says Hagedorn.

Hagedorn says while colder weather is actually better for livestock, it can negatively impact the farmers’ work. He says farmers usually begin to work toward the end of April.

“We’ve still got a few weeks for things to change,” says Hagedorn.

He says ideal soil temperatures range from at least 50 to 60 degrees.

If farmers continue to be delayed, Hagedorn says this will impact produce prices as they will have a shortage of inventory.

Source Article from https://www.sott.net/article/382610-More-snowfall-could-negatively-impact-farmers-in-Wisconsin

Chefs are bypassing the farmers’ market for the farm

Rather than compete for the same pretty market vegetables, the newest locavore trend is to go straight to the source.

There was a time when sourcing ingredients at the farmers’ market was seen as the epitome of local, seasonal eating. The restaurateurs who did it were at the forefront of an exciting new movement that embraced farmers and sustainable food production methods. But soon everyone started doing it, and competing for the same heirloom carrots, organic kale, and baby zucchini at the market lost its lustre. Chefs began to question whether there was a way to take farm-to-table eating to the next level.

Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Elizabeth Dunn describes a movement among chefs to establish closer ties with farmers and buy whatever they’re growing, even if it wouldn’t meet market standards. Some are buying land and starting their own farms to provide ingredients for their restaurants. Dunn describes this as “farm-to-table 2.0.” Going straight to the source enables chefs to provide a menu that is more aligned with seasonal offerings and can accommodate whatever the farmers are needing to sell. It’s unpredictable, but it’s more flexible:

“It’s one thing for a restaurant to slap some locally grown kale on the menu and call itself farm-to-table, or to refuse to serve strawberries in winter as a nod to seasonality; it’s quite another to shape the menu according to the quirks and vicissitudes of an actual farm.”

Dunn gives the example of Matthew Accarrino, chef at SPQR in San Francisco, who has developed a close relationship with farmer Peter Jacobsen. Accarrino uses whatever Jacobsen grows, sometimes asking for unusual crops like finger limes and habenada peppers, and making use of cover crops (a mix of arugulas, mustard greens, pea shoots and bell beans) in salads.

Restaurateur Kristin Canty of Concord, Massachusetts, began raising her own animals, every part of which is used by chef Charlie Foster in Canty’s restaurant, called Woods Hill.

“Beef tartare, Bolognese sauce and charcuterie are some of the ways Mr. Foster works his way through entire pigs and cows. ‘That structure, though it may seem limiting, is actually extremely liberating because there’s a larger purpose to why I’m serving what I’m serving,’ he said. To make even better use of all the ‘off cuts’ and trim, Ms. Canty and Mr. Foster recently opened a Mexican restaurant called Adelita, where these flavorful bits come tucked inside tacos.”

The really wonderful thing about this new evolution of farm-to-table eating is how it tackles the issue of food waste. When chefs are willing to work with whatever a farmer has to offer, and use every part of a vegetable or animal, it creates an eating experience that’s as kind to the environment as it is delicious. Perhaps most importantly, it gives long-term, unconditional support to farmers, who are no longer subjected to the aesthetic whims of market buyers and can pursue less profitable crops and growing methods, knowing they’ll be bought and appreciated — kind of like a CSA share on a restaurant level.

Source Article from https://www.treehugger.com/green-food/chefs-are-bypassing-farmers-market-favor-farm.html

Arkansas court rules with Monsanto, grants farmers right to spray toxic Dicamba herbicide that causes horrific crop damage to nearby farms

Image: Arkansas court rules with Monsanto, grants farmers right to spray toxic Dicamba herbicide that causes horrific crop damage to nearby farms

(Natural News)
Millions of acres of U.S. crops were damaged in 2017 by a dicamba-based herbicide, manufactured by Monsanto and BASF SE. Dicamba herbicide is specifically designed to be sprayed on genetically modified, dicamba-resistant soybeans and cotton. These GM crops have been genetically engineered to withstand dicamba; however, the herbicide is very volatile. Dicamba drifts in the wind and can destroy neighboring crops.

After dicamba is sprayed, its toxic chemistry carries through the wind and causes damage to nearby crops that aren’t genetically modified to withstand the chemical. It was originally intended to be sprayed as a pre-emergent, before the crops are planted, but farmers began to use it throughout the entire growing season. Not only is dicamba destroying the biodiversity of plant life in the ecosystem, but it is also taking out natural crops, forcing more farmers to depend on Monsanto for the specific GM seeds that can withstand dicamba.

Six Arkansas farmers granted rights to spray dicamba after April 15

There is very little recourse for the farmers impacted by dicamba drift. They are losing upwards of 30 to 50 percent of their yields due to dicamba drift. Federal crop insurance doesn’t cover damage caused by dicamba drift. As the crop damage worsened in 2017, many farmers began to sue the manufacturers. Many states have taken action to limit the use of dicamba. Arrogantly, Monsanto has been fighting back. Six Arkansas farmers, now dependent on Monsanto’s technology, are suing the state of Arkansas so they can continue to use dicamba in 2018.

Backing Monsanto’s takeover of U.S. agriculture, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox just granted the six farmers the right to spray toxic Dicamba after the April 15 cut off date. This decision will inevitably force more farmers to depend on Monsanto, because many won’t be able to stop dicamba’s encroaching crop damage.

Monsanto blames the farmers for dicamba’s destruction

Monsanto asserts that when dicamba is used properly, it doesn’t cause damage to nearby crops. In the end, Monsanto blames the crop losses on the farmers, because the farmers didn’t apply the chemicals correctly. This shifting of blame highlights the sociopathic nature of Monsanto’s organization. In this realization, many farmers are beginning to realize that Monsanto’s agrochemicals are the pestilence. Monsanto’s herbicides are the real menace, plaguing their farms and livelihood. (Related: Dicamba “drift” destroying crops downwind from application sites of Monsanto’s toxic herbicide.)

Monsanto still has the upper hand over U.S. farming, though. Once farmers begin using GM technology, they become trapped in a cycle of dependence. Natural crops do not thrive in an environment that has been consumed by herbicides. In order to maintain yields of the most profitable crops, farmers are trapped into growing only the genetically modified seeds that have been engineered to withstand the herbicides. Any surrounding farms are at the mercy of these herbicides. The toxic chemistry of these herbicides drifts and causes damage to natural crops. This forces more farmers to accept Monsanto’s technology as the answer to continue their operation. And so the cycle of corruption continues.

For more on Monsanto’s destruction, visit GMO.News.

Sources include:






Source Article from http://www.naturalnews.com/2018-04-05-arkansas-court-rules-with-monsanto-grants-farmers-right-to-spray-toxic-dicamba-herbicide.html

Working with nature to reduce pesticide use: Farmers around the world are rediscovering the increased yields offered by biodiversity

Image: Working with nature to reduce pesticide use: Farmers around the world are rediscovering the increased yields offered by biodiversity

(Natural News)
The face of agriculture has changed dramatically over the past century. Instead of working with what nature has provided, encouraging biodiversity and companion planting to ward off pests, farmers have been encouraged to use chemical fertilizers and pesticides, with disastrous results. Despite being promised greater crop protection and increased yields, the results have been low-yielding soil, an increase in soil pathogens, poor water utilization and devastating harm to insects, including the honeybee.

A study published in the journal Nature in 2013, found that pesticides cause “broad biodiversity loss,” damaging the habitats of invertebrates like mayflies and dragonflies in soil and streams, even when farmers stick to “safe levels.”

The tide is slowly starting to turn, however. Science Daily recently reported that farmers around the world have returned to working with nature instead of against it. (Related: Global food security at risk as crop biodiversity is lost.)

A study by researchers from Michigan State University (MSU) has determined that farmers who have taken proactive steps to increase the number of birds and other vertebrates on their land have been able to increase their crop yields, decrease their use of chemical pesticides, and provide a safe haven for endangered species. The study was published in the journal Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment.

“Our review of research shows that vertebrates consume numerous crop pests and reduce crop damage, which is a key ecosystem service,” noted Catherine Lindell, an MSU integrative biologist and the study’s lead author. “These pest-consuming vertebrates can be attracted to agricultural areas through several landscape enhancements.”

The same research team earlier conducted a study in which they successfully lured American kestrels to some of Michigan’s cherry orchards and blueberry fields by installing nest boxes in strategic places. Kestrels hunt many of the species that cause the most harm on these types of farms, including European starlings, rodents and grasshoppers. They also chase away other smaller birds that damage fruit in cherry orchards.

This movement towards utilizing nature to increase crop yields is bearing fruit around the globe. (Related: Natural bacteria, fungi, found in plants boost crop yields without pesticides.)

In Indonesia, for example, farmers have been able to document increased cacao yields of 290 pounds – worth $300 – per acre. They have done this by encouraging more birds and bats to make their homes on their farms.

In Spain, farmers erect roosts close to rice paddies, increasing the local bat population, thereby reducing the need for chemical pesticides by reducing pests naturally.

Jamaican farmers actively encourage birds in their fields, which in turn eat pests that destroys coffee crops. This has enabled them to save between $18 and $126 per acre, each year.

Farmers in New Zealand have taken this a step further, not only reducing the need for pesticides and increasing crop yields, but in so doing, protecting their only falcon species, which is endangered. Farmers have collaborated with the Marlborough Falcon Trust to reestablish these birds in grape-growing regions of the country, protecting their vineyards and the birds at the same time – a mutually beneficial arrangement for the farmers and the environment. (Related: If you are passionate about the environment be sure to bookmark Environ.news.)

“These scientists have demonstrated a win-win situation for farmers and birds,” said Betsy Von Holle, a director with the program that funded the MSU research. “Increasing native predatory birds in agricultural areas can help control insect pests that damage crops, potentially reducing costly pesticide use. For declining bird species, these efforts can increase the birds’ reproductive success while producing fruit crops attractive to consumers.”

The MSU team hopes that there will be “broad interest” shown by both farmers and environmentalists in refining and implementing these types of programs more comprehensively throughout the country.

Sources include:







Source Article from http://www.naturalnews.com/2018-03-25-reduced-pesticide-use-farmers-around-the-world-are-rediscovering-the-increased-yields-offered-by-biodiversity.html

South African land grab from white farmers: Correcting injustice or perpetuating racism?

South Africa man


Black South Africans need to take their land back from white ‘foreigners’, the leader of Black First Land First told RT. However, the president of the Transvaal Agricultural Union says this will lead to an ‘Arab Spring’.

South Africa’s parliament voted on Tuesday in favor of new legislation that could see land from white farmers seized without providing any compensation.

The motion brought by the leader of the radical Marxist opposition party Economic Freedom Fighters, Julius Malema, passed by a wide margin of 241 votes for to 83 against.

RT discussed this move with Andile Mngxitama, president and founder of Black First Land First (BLF), and Louis Meintjes, president of the Transvaal Agricultural Union.

RT: The leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters party said that the land was stolen. Who stole it and when?

Andile Mngxitama: White people do not own the land inside Africa legally, white people arrived here from Europe in 1652, they killed our people, stole our land, oppressed us. All the land they have was taken from us by force and in many instances by massacres. We are in fact correcting an injustice and a massive illegality which has happened in this country since the arrival of white people. As a black person in this country I speak to you now, I am a foreigner, I am a landless person in my own country. Ninety percent of us black people have now agreed that finally we must resolve the matter which even Nelson Mandela did not resolve, that the land of black people must be returned to the rightful owners so that we can become citizens and the country can return to us.

RT: Why do you think this law is unfair?

Louis Meintjes: The history of South Africa is well documented by various people over the 365 years. We are all visitors to South Africa, including the black tribes of South Africa that came from the north, that is well documented. They came in, they killed each other for the land and took the position of other black tribes. They were the first occupants of South Africa, were the Khoisan. So, if there is argument who owns the land, that should be the Khoisan. If we talk about colonists, who is the colonist? I did not arrive here in 1652, my forefathers came very late in the 1800s. My father-in-law came here in 1953, he bought land here, he was issued title for this land. Currently, the last 20 years a lot of land has been bought and issued by the new government to people that gives them legal right to the land. If anybody’s got an issue that goes back to the history and put the history in place, but it is well documented.

RT: Why is this legislation necessary now?

AM: Our movement Black First Land First is absolutely clear: a person like the one who is now my opponent, is a foreigner in South Africa and a land thief. Talking about Khoisan, I am Khoisan, he can’t say my surname Mngxitama – he can’t because he is a foreigner. The Khoisan are Africans, like all the Zulus, the Vendas, the Xhosas… all the tribes of this country. White people have in fact massacred and genocided [sic] the Khoisan and they have not paid reparations nor have they acknowledged this. The Khoisan will get land.

We are tired – 23 years of the democracy, we remain landless in our own country. As black people, finally we agreed: we are going to take back our land. We as BLF are even worried that parliament is moving slow and we don’t trust politicians. They are using this land thing as a political ball instead of addressing the issue. We have given the parliament two months to amend the constitution. If they don’t do so, BLF will escalate land occupation. When our land was taken, there was no law, there was no constitution, there was no consultation.

RT: The law is meant to correct the historical injustice against black farmers. Why are you against that? How would you ‘correct’ the injustice? Could the law be changed in a way that would be satisfactory to white farmers too?

LM: There have always been plans on the table put to government to have them to solve the land issue. At the moment these laws in place for people who have been dispossessed. And that process is in the hands of the government. The problem with this government is that is it not dealing with it properly. There is a lot of corruption involved and that is why the whole process … is not going as it should go. It is a government problem, it is a capacity problem within government and it is a money problem. We have invested a lot of money in the properties and we need to be paid if government takes it back. But at the moment, corruption is a big problem. This is not farmers’ problem. This is a government problem not dealing with the issue as stipulated by the laws that they made.

RT: Doesn’t this kind of legislation undermine property rights? Isn’t this a governmental issue?

AM: Our government must provide support. But that is not part of the conversation. We don’t have the land, the land is in foreigners’ hands, who are colonialists, who are arrogant and racist …We are talking as a black majority who have been wronged and now we are addressing this question. You are wrong to say land occupation is wrong. This is the best way to get back our land. We are not going to wait for politicians. The time is over for white people in this country to continue to steal our properties.

RT: What about what happened in Zimbabwe where the farms that were transferred to black farmers ended up being unproductive? Isn’t there a danger of that repeating in South Africa?

LM: It is not just the production levels that dropped down...If this goes on, investment in this country would stop, people won’t invest in the country. We will go the same way as Zimbabwe, there won’t be production. Then we’ll have ‘Arab Spring’ in South Africa about food that is not available to the people of South Africa. And that is our issue. We are there to produce food. The commercial farmer in South Africa does not put a tag on his food, he produces for the whole of South Africa. And we should look at that. There are opportunities to solve this problem, but not in a way comrade Andile says. That is racist. It is not good for South Africa, it will destroy it.

Source Article from https://www.sott.net/article/380943-South-African-land-grab-from-white-farmers-Correcting-injustice-or-perpetuating-racism

South Africa’s white farmers reportedly being murdered & tortured off their land

RT–Violent attacks against South Africa’s white farmers are on the rise, according to Paul Toohey, a reporter from Australia’s Daily Telegraph, who traveled to the country.

Last month, South Africa’s parliament voted to allow white-owned land expropriation without compensation. That followed South Africa’s new President Cyril Ramaphosa’s pledge to return the lands owned by white farmers since the 1600s to the black citizens of the country. He claimed the land was “taken under colonialism and apartheid.”

This is normal in South Africa to be attacked on a farm,” a 39-year old farmer Berdus Henrico told the reporter.

Berdus and his 51-year old partner Estelle Nieuwenhuys have been raided in the Limpopo province. The farmer has three bullet wounds – two through his shoulder and one through his face that came out the back of his neck.

“They took my hunting gun, my shotgun, two cell phones, our DVD player, our TV,” said Berdus, adding that Estelle was praying, out loud, begging them to stop.

“They want money and they want guns. They want the people off the land so as they can go on like they want to. They want it here like it was in Zimbabwe a few years ago when they chased all the whites out and let it go to the ground.”

According to AfriForum, a group that was set up to draw attention to the farmers’ plight, there were a record 404 farm attacks in 2017, four times the number recorded in the country a decade ago. The 2018 figures are expected to easily top last year’s numbers.

AfriForum is trying to work with police and government to raise awareness.

“If we see a white farmer being tortured, being burned with torches or clothing irons, gang-raped, we don’t see any focus on these cruel crimes,” said Ian Cameron, head of AfriForum Community Safety.

The organization’s statistics show the number of commercial farmers in South Africa declined from more than 60,000 to 35,000 during the past two decades. More than 60 percent of farm attack victims were over 50 years old.

Cameron explained that the government views farm attacks as “normal” crime.

“The cruelty that goes with farm attacks is disproportionate compared to other crime,” he said. “An urban crime might last 10 minutes, but [on farms] people can be tortured for up to nine hours.”

There is something warlike in the country, according to Cameron. “This country is damaged. We are psychologically damaged,” he said.

South Africa has a population of over 50 million people. According to a 2017 government audit, white people own 72 percent of farmland.

The leader of South Africa’s radical Marxist opposition party (the Economic Freedom Fighters) Julius Malema said recently the mayor of Port Elizabeth should be removed because he is white.

“We are cutting the throat of whiteness,” said Malema.

Source Article from http://govtslaves.info/2018/03/south-africas-white-farmers-reportedly-being-murdered-tortured-off-their-land/

Seizure of White Farmers’ Land in S Africa ‘Severe Infringement on Human Rights’


Last week the South African parliament adopted with an overwhelming majority of 241 votes in favor versus 83 votes against the motion to change the country’s constitution in order to pave the way for a planned expropriation of land from white farmers without any financial compensation.

Sputnik has discussed this issue with Kallie Kriel, the CEO of AfriForum. Before the establishment of AfriForum, Kallie was the Head of Marketing and member benefits at Solidarity.

Sputnik: How would you characterize the land expropriation motion in South Africa dubbed by some as reverse apartheid? How legal is this initiative?

Kallie Kriel: Expropriating property without paying for it would be a severe infringement on the human rights of property owners and should be condemned by the international community in the same way they condemned apartheid. If the South African constitution is changed as planned to allow for expropriation without compensation, it would be impossible the challenge it in South African courts as the courts function according to the constitution. In our view this does, however, not make it legal. Theft of property cannot be seen as legal simply because the constitution is changed to allow it. South Africa should also be bound by international law and treaties that don’t allow property to be stolen by the state.

Sputnik: Why is the government doing it now? Why has land redistribution become the key talking point in South Africa?

Kallie Kriel: The South African government has failed South Africans through corruption and incompetence. They are now trying to evade responsibility for this and retain support by making whites the scape goat for what went wrong in the country. They are desperate.

Sputnik: Some liken the situation in South Africa with that in Zimbabwe that led to economic challenges. What immediate and long-term repercussions could the land expropriation have? If implemented, how is this initiative to be handled?

Kallie Kriel: The immediate effect would be polarization and the drying up of much needed international investments. International and local investors don’t invest in places where there is disrespect for property rights. This will ultimately destroy South Africa’s economy, leading to the extreme poverty we see in Zimbabwe with a 90% unemployment rate. The difference is that people in Zimbabwe fled to South Africa after Mugabe destroyed that country, but South Africans have nowhere else to go.

The views and opinions expressed by Kallie Kriel are those of the speaker and do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.



Did you like this information? Then please consider making a donation or subscribing to our Newsletter.

Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEuropeanUnionTimes/~3/NkEfvs9999A/