Latin American Revolutionary Francisco de Miranda

Episode 17: Foreign Reactions: A Divided Europe

Living the French Revolution and Age of Napoleon

Dr Suzanne M Desan

Film Review

Europe’s reaction to the French revolution was divided. Revolutionaries from Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland and Belgium (as well as the Venezuelan revolutionary Francisco de Miranda) poured into the country hoping to copy the French example. Meanwhile 100,000 monarchists (most aristocrats and clergy) fled abroad, where they set up a shadow government in Koblenz (Prussia).

Europe’s oldest constitutional monarchy, Britain initially supported the French revolution. They had experienced two revolutions themselves (the British civil war and the Glorious Revolution, when the Dutch prince William of Orange replaced James II as king) in the 17th century.

British opinion would drastically shift under the influence of British parliamentarian Edmund Burke, the so-called father of modern conservatism. In his most famous work Reflections on the Revolution in France, Burke argued that hierarchy was essential to hold society together and that government was meant to control people for their own good.

A number of prominent British intellectuals, including feminist Mary Woolstonecraft and scientist Joseph Priestly, openly rejected Burke’s views. Burke’s most prominent opponent was English-born philosopher and political activist Thomas Paine. The latter came to the US in 1774 to support the American revolution. In 1791, he refuted Burke’s work with the Rights of of Man. Arguing that all men are equal with an innate entitlement to natural law and representation in government, the book was immediately condemned as treasonous. After fleeing to France he was tried in absentia and sentenced to death.

Determined to stamp out all revolutionary sentiment in the UK, the British government tried numerous other political reformers for treason and prosecuted pamphleteers under laws. They eventually banned all large meetings were banned, forcing English and Irish revolutionaries underground.

Inspired by the French Enlightment, radicals led revolutions in Switzerland, the Dutch Republic and the Austrian Netherlands (Belgium) in the 1780s. Those who took over the Dutch cities (from Austria*) in 1784 formed militias that pushed for elections to replace the Orangist aristocrats who ruled them. After 1787, when the prince of Orange called in Prussian troops to crush the Dutch revolution, 10,000 Dutch revolutionaries fled to France.

Swiss Revolutionaries

In 1777 Swiss republicans, demanding broader voting rights in choosing the Swiss Confederation of Cantons, were also forced to flee to France.

Belgian Revolutionaries

By 1788, Belgian patriots drove Austrian troops out of most of Belgium (Austrian Netherlands) and in 1790 ten provinces created a Belgian constitution modeled on the 1776 Articles of Confederation. A few months later, Leopold II (Austrian king and Holy Roman Emperor) reinvaded, and Belgian revolutionary leaders also fled to France.

Prussian Revolutionary Jean Baptiste de Clouts

The Prussian baron Jean Baptiste de Clouts, also emigrated to France, where he renounced his title, became leader of the foreign revolutionaries and called for “transnational” revolution.

Declaration of Pilnitz

Meanwhile in 1791, the Austrian and Prussian kings (previously enemies) signed the Declaration of Pilnitz, which called the other monarchs of Europe to help restore the king of France as absolute monarch.

*In the 18th century, Austria’s vast empire (known as the Holy Roman Empire) included Belgium, Hungary, Bohemia, Poland, the Balkans and parts of Italy.

Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/149323/149355

By Peter Allen and Perkin Amalaraj

Daily Mail

Hannah Ellis-Petersen

Former Pakistan prime minister condemns trial as ‘a joke’ amid crackdown on his political party in run-up to general election.

Pakistan’s former prime minister Imran Khan has been sentenced to 10 years in jail for leaking official secrets, amid a crackdown on his political party prior to upcoming elections.

The sentence is the harshest yet against Khan, who has been held in jail since August.

The case relates to a diplomatic cable that allegedly went missing while in his possession. Khan had publicly cited the cable as proof there was a conspiracy behind his fall from power in 2022 but had denied taking it from the ministry of foreign affairs.

The legal proceedings were highly unusual. They were held not in a courtroom but in the prison in Rawalpindi where Khan is being held, and were conducted behind closed doors, which Khan’s lawyers protested was unconstitutional.

The trial was described by Khan as “a joke” and a sham, as both the prosecution and defence teams were government-appointed lawyers and Khan’s lawyers were not allowed to cross-examine witnesses. Khan’s request that senior army figures testify as witnesses was also refused by the court.

“It was obvious that it was a predetermined decision and verdict, Imran Khan’s legal team was not even given a chance to speak,” said Syed Zulfiqar Bukhari, Imran Khan’s former adviser. “This was only done in such a rush to convict Imran Khan prior to the upcoming election. The hearings were not done lawfully and we will challenge it in the high court.”

Khan’s deputy, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, who had also pleaded not guilty in the same case, was sentenced to 10 years under the official secrets act. Their lawyers said they would be appealing against the ruling.

The 10-year sentence handed to Khan on Tuesday is just the latest saga to befall the former prime minister since he was toppled from power in April 2022 and began publicly blaming Pakistan’s powerful army generals for orchestrating his downfall.

After accusing the army establishment of having a grudge against him and ordering his imprisonment, Khan was sentenced to three years in jail in August in a separate corruption case and was arrested. A judge later suspended the sentence but Khan was kept in jail after more charges were brought against him relating to the missing diplomatic cable.

Khan has denied any wrongdoing and alleged that the cases against him were to prevent from running in the general election, which will be held on 8 February but has already been tarred by accusations of pre-poll rigging.

Khan and his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party remain highly popular among voters. However, Khan’s convictions mean he is barred from running while PTI has faced a months-long crackdown by the government and the military which has prevented it from being able to freely campaign.

Thousands of rank and file members have been detained, harassed and prevented from holding rallies while almost all senior leadership were arrested or allegedly pressured into leaving the party.

In the buildup to next week’s election, the election commission banned PTI from using its signature symbol of the cricket bat – which the party has alleged is a ploy to obstruct its campaigning – and rejected PTI candidates from running. Instructions have also been issued to journalists and television news channels not to mention PTI as part of their election coverage.

With Khan behind bars, critics and analysts say next week’s election is likely to be undemocratic and lack legitimacy.

The frontrunner is widely accepted to be the three-time former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, who is said to have the backing of the country’s powerful military establishment. The courts recently cleared Sharif of a lifetime ban from politics, paving the way for his return to power for a fourth time. The military has denied any involvement and said it remains apolitical.

[…]

Via https://themuslimtimes.info/2024/01/30/imran-khan-handed-10-years-in-prison-for-leaking-state-secrets/

Colin Toddhunter

The world is experiencing a micronutrient food and health crisis. Micronutrient deficiency now affects billions of people. Micronutrients are key vitamins and minerals and deficiencies can cause severe health conditions. They are important for various functions, including blood clotting, brain development, the immune system, energy production and bone health, and play a critical role in disease prevention.  

The root of the crisis is due to an increased reliance on ultra processed foods (‘junk food’) and the way that modern food crops are grown in terms of the seeds used, the plants produced, the synthetic inputs required (fertilisers, pesticides etc) and the effects on soil.

In 2007, nutritional therapist David Thomas noted a precipitous change in the USA towards convenience and pre-prepared foods often devoid of vital micronutrients yet packed with a cocktail of chemical additives, including colourings, flavourings and preservatives.

He noted that between 1940 and 2002 the character, growing methods, preparation, source and ultimate presentation of basic staples have changed significantly to the extent that trace elements and micronutrient contents have been severely depleted. Thomas added that ongoing research clearly demonstrates a significant relationship between deficiencies in micronutrients and physical and mental ill health.

Prior to the Green Revolution, many of the older crops that were displaced carried dramatically higher counts of nutrients per calorie. For instance, the iron content of millet is four times that of rice, and oats carry four times more zinc than wheat. As a result, between 1961 and 2011, the protein, zinc and iron contents of the world’s directly consumed cereals declined by 4%, 5% and 19%, respectively.

The authors of a 2010 paper in the International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development state that cropping systems promoted by the Green Revolution have resulted in reduced food-crop diversity and decreased availability of micronutrients. They note that micronutrient malnutrition is causing increased rates of cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes and osteoporosis in many developing nations. They add that soils are increasingly affected by micronutrient disorders.

In 2016, India’s Central Soil Water Conservation Research and Training Institute reported that the country was losing 5,334 million tonnes of soil every year due to soil erosion because of indiscreet and excessive use of fertilisers, insecticides and pesticides over the years.  On average, 16.4 tonnes of fertile soil is lost every year per hectare. It concluded that the non-judicious use of synthetic fertilisers had led to the deterioration of soil fertility causing loss of micro and macronutrients leading to poor soils and low yields.

The high-input, chemical-intensive Green Revolution with its hybrid seeds and synthetic fertilisers and pesticides helped the drive towards greater monocropping and has resulted in less diverse diets and less nutritious foods. Its long-term impact has led to soil degradation and mineral imbalances, which, in turn, have adversely affected human health.

But micronutrient depletion is not just due to a displacement of nutrient-dense staples in the diet or unhealthy soils. Take wheat, for example. Rothamsted Research in the UK has evaluated the mineral concentration of archived wheat grain and soil samples from the Broadbalk Wheat Experiment. The experiment began in 1843, and their findings show significant decreasing trends in the concentrations of zinc, copper, iron and magnesium in wheat grain since the 1960s.

The researchers say that  the concentrations of these four minerals remained stable between 1845 and the mid 1960s but have since decreased significantly by 20-30%. This coincided with the introduction of Green Revolution semi-dwarf, high-yielding cultivars. They noted that the concentrations in soil used in the experiment have either increased or remained stable. So, in this case, soil is not the issue.

A 2021 paper that appeared in the journal of Environmental and Experimental Botany reported that the large increase in the proportion of the global population suffering from zinc and iron deficiency over the last four decades has occurred since the Green Revolution and the introduction of its cultivars.

Reflecting the findings of Rothamsted Research in the UK, a recent study led by Indian Council of Agricultural Research scientists found the grains eaten in India have lost food value. They conclude that many of today’s crops fail to absorb sufficient nutrients even when soil is healthy.

A recent article on the Down to Earth website reported on this study that found that rice and wheat, which meet over 50% of the daily energy requirements of people in India, have lost up to 45% of their food value in the past 50 years or so.

The concentration of essential nutrients like zinc and iron has decreased by 33% and 27% in rice and by 30% and 19% in wheat, respectively. At the same time, the concentration of arsenic, a toxic element, in rice has increased by 1,493%.

Down to Earth cites research by the Indian Council of Medical Research that indicates a 25% rise in non-communicable diseases among the Indian population from 1990 to 2016. Estimates show that India is home to one-third of the two billion global population suffering from micronutrient deficiency. This is because modern-bred cultivars of rice and wheat are less efficient in sequestering zinc and iron, regardless of their abundance in soils. Plants have lost their capacity to take up nutrients from the soil.

Increasing prevalence of diabetes, childhood leukaemia, childhood obesity, cardiovascular disorders, infertility, osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis, mental illnesses and so on have all been shown to have some direct relationship to diet and specifically micronutrient deficiency.

The large increase in the proportion of the global population suffering from zinc and iron deficiency over the last four decades has coincided with the global expansion of high-yielding, input-responsive cereal cultivars released in the post-Green Revolution era.

Agriculture and policy analyst Devinder Sharma says that high yield is inversely proportionate to plant nutrition: the drop in nutrition levels is so much that the high-yielding new wheat varieties have seen a steep fall in copper content, an essential trace mineral, by as much as 80%, and some nutritionists ascribe this to a rise in cholesterol-related incidences across the world.

India is self-sufficient in various staples, but many of these foodstuffs are high calorie-low nutrient and have led to the displacement of more nutritionally diverse cropping systems and more nutrient-dense crops.

The importance of agronomist William Albrecht should not be overlooked here and his work on healthy soils and healthy people. In his experiments, he found that cows fed on less nutrient-dense crops ate more while cows that ate nutrient-rich grass stopped eating once their nutritional intake was satisfied. This may be one reason why we see rising rates of obesity at a time of micronutrient food insecurity.

It is interesting that, given the above discussion on the Green Revolution’s adverse impacts on nutrition, the paper New Histories of the Green Revolution (2019) by Prof. Glenn Stone debunks the claim that the Green Revolution boosted productivity: it merely put more (nutrient-deficient) wheat into the Indian diet at the expense of other food crops. Stone argues that food productivity per capita showed no increased or even actually decreased.

With this in mind, the table below makes for interesting reading. The data is provided by the National Productivity Council India (an autonomous body of the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry).

As mentioned earlier with reference to Albrecht, obesity has become a concern worldwide, including in India. This problem is multi-dimensional and, as alluded to, excess caloric intake and nutrient-poor food (and sedentary lifestyles) is a factor, leading to the consumption of sugary, fat-laden ultra processed food in an attempt to fill the nutritional gap. But there is also considerable evidence linking human exposure to agrochemicals with obesity.

The September 2020 paper Agrochemicals and Obesity in the journal Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology summarises human epidemiological evidence and experimental animal studies supporting the association between agrochemical exposure and obesity and outlines possible mechanistic underpinnings for this link.

Numerous other studies have also noted that exposure to pesticides has been associated with obesity and diabetes. For example, a 2022 paper in the journal Endocrine reports that first contact with environmental pesticides occurs during critical phases of life, such as gestation and lactation, which can lead to damage in central and peripheral tissues and subsequently programming disorders early and later in life.

A 2013 paper in the journal Entropy on pathways to modern diseases reported that glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup) and the most popular herbicide used worldwide, enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins. The negative impact is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body, resulting in conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.

Despite these findings, campaigner Rosemary Mason has drawn attention to how official government and industry narratives try to divert attention from the role of glyphosate in obesity (and other conditions) by urging the public to exercise and cut down on “biscuits”. In a recent article, Kit Knightly on the OffGuardian website notes how big pharma is attempting to individualise obesity and make millions by pushing its ‘medical cures’ for the condition.

To deal with micronutrient deficiencies, other money-spinning initiatives for industry are being pushed, not least biofortification of foodstuffs and plants and genetic engineering.

Industry narratives have nothing to say about the food system itself, which sees ‘food’ as just another commodity to be rinsed for profit regardless of the impacts on human health or the environment. We simply witness more techno-fix ‘solutions’ being rolled out to supposedly address the impacts of previous ‘innovations’ and policy decisions that benefitted the bottom line of Western agribusiness (and big pharma).

Quick techno-fixes do not offer genuine solutions to the problems outlined above. Such solutions involve challenging corporate power that shapes narratives and policies to suit its agenda. Healthy food, healthy people and healthy societies are not created at some ever-sprawling life sciences park that specialises in manipulating food and the human body (for corporate gain) under the banner of ‘innovation’ and ‘health’ while leaving intact the power relations that underpin bad food and ill health.

A radical overhaul of the food system is required, from how food is grown to how society should be organised. This involves creating food sovereignty, encouraging localism, local markets and short supply chains, rejecting neoliberal globalisation, supporting smallholder agriculture and land reform and incentivising agroecological practices that build soil fertility, use and develop high-productive landraces and a focus on nutrition per acre rather than increased grain size, ‘yield’ and ‘output’.

[…]

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/sick-death-unhealthy-food-failed-technologies/5847886

Did none of the Masters of the Universe take Marketing 101? I know it’s a quasi-discipline, much déclassé, for the peons in flyover country who sell widgets to live, but it does determine the world. What do you want to buy with your disposable income? What food, what house, what car, what do your children lust after?  Shopping decisions determine the shape of the real world, where real things happen. For some people, it’s their only opportunity for self-determination, and take it they will. This fundamental human characteristic is described perfectly by a graph, a chart. The Marketing Curve has been around for fifty years, and its one assumption is that human desire is the primary driver of the economy.

We are divided into forerunners, innovators, early adopters and late adopters and it holds true for digital products, politics, vacations, and health decisions, across the board. You cannot overturn it, you cannot say, “people must like this and do this because I am willing to spend a few billion to brainwash them.” No. Because some renegade soul will say, “I want to move to the country and raise heritage beef rather than swan around New York, London, Paris, Munich going to night clubs and working for a multinational where I destroy the weak and help the strong.”

And then all of a sudden there are handfuls of people hiving off the swarm and starting their own thing. And then, presto, like last year, 66 percent of Americans would, if they could, move to the country or a rural subdivision and become more independent of the murderous cabal that forgot the marketing curve. That this is the exact opposite of what the U.N./W.E.F. want –  which is to force people into fifteen minute prison cities with rural areas left to carbon sinks – is just another example of reality flowing like water around fascist-erected obstacles.

How on God’s green earth, did central planners miss the food revolution of the past twenty years? Did they think only they were foodies? Did they miss the restaurants, the farmers’ markets, the parade of cooking shows, the pallets of new cookbooks shipped every year?  The geometric growth of nutritional experts? The armies of food stars?

I guess they did, because who needs market research when you have the W.E.F/U.N, the CIA, Fifth Generation warfare, obedient Hollywood and the New York publishing industry all turned towards propaganda?

Recently, Netflix released — just in time for the Season of the Diet — “You Are What You Eat,” a series that via hectoring, pleasure-starved, women, tells us why we should all be vegan.  But that ship has sailed. Vegan may work for pre-modern peasants, or for the ill, but the innovators and forerunners in food have embraced full fat dairy, grass fed beef, pasture raised chicken, free range eggs and local vegetables. They don’t even eat supermarket organic anymore, because it is grown wrong.

Did the WEF drones really think those people were going to eat bugs and fake meat?  Jordan Peterson may have made the all-meat diet breakthrough, but he has shown that the nutrients we most need today, are within meat, within traditional food. The beefcake community, gym rats, performance addicts, the ambitious have all followed suit. Even the Gwyneth people are re-integrating healthy meats, full-fat dairy, preferably raw. Supermarket milk is called dead milk. That means, according to the marketing curve, that within ten years, every middle class person on earth will be eating that way.  And what does that mean for the land?

Instead of the now emptying and desiccating countryside, it means making the deserts bloom. For the past twenty years, a host of new rancher/scientists have been experimenting with soil restoration using cattle. Starting with Allan Savory in Zimbabwe, and migrating swiftly to America, where Savory has two experimental ranches, and flowing out like a hundred tributaries, ranchers and farmers, young and old are restoring the earth. By which I mean, the soil. It took Savory a good decade to discover the process of restoration, how to turn the denuded lands of Africa to proliferating vegetation and health, but he, and others think that our ruined earth, the deserts created by man by over-production, even the great deserts of the Americas, the deserts of the once-fertile crescent, can be brought back to life, to the hanging gardens of Babylon.  Seventy percent of desertification happened before the modern age. Savory et al think they can bloom again.

Wouldn’t it be lovely?

One has to pause and pay a little grief tribute to the fiendish and death-dealing turn of the environmental movement. Ireland’s dictate to kill 200,000 cows over the next three years being an excellent example. The functionaries of the movement have ranged through the earth destroying one rural economy after another, turning one forest or range to wildfire and invasive weed. In sharp contrast, soil restoration will not only bring back a healthy bio-system, turn food into its once nutritious self, restore rural life and ground water. Individual farmers and ranchers, not bureaucrats with failed ideas that are fifty years old and require bullying and gun-toting BLM rangers.

This is how broken the earth is: denuded, poisoned, and packed tight by industrial agriculture, rainwater streams off to the sea, and tons of fertilizer must be added every year. Farmers must till deeper and deeper to find live earth to plant. In contrast, restoration means no weeding, no fertilizer, just the hooves of cattle and sheep that break the crust, and over years, with their manure, restore a lost community of arthropods beneath us.

In county after county, young men and women are doing just that. It means more cattle, grazing in a new way, requiring actual cowboys. As an example, what a new rancher will do, is section his rangeland, allow the cows into graze a 50-acre plot, then move them before they eat the roots, into another. The former pasture has been fertilized, the earth broken by hooves, and it starts to live again, without expensive additives. The soil substructure begins to rebuild itself. Productivity soars. The aquifers are restored.

While neither I or any of my associates accept the catastrophic anthropogenic “climate change” narrative, if only 11 percent of current farmland were turned to restoration, all of the supposed excess carbon emissions of man would be absorbed. And food would be nutritious again. Note to the WEFers: get on board or go extinct.

[…]

Via https://elizabethnickson.substack.com/p/all-their-stupid-ideas-can-be-reversed