UN Previously Published 'The Benefits of World Hunger' - Now Netherlands, US Have Potential Food Crisis

“For those of us at the high end of the social ladder, ending hunger globally would be a disaster. If there were no hunger in the world, who would plow the fields? Who would harvest our vegetables? Who would work in the rendering plants? Who would clean our toilets? … For many of us, hunger is not a problem, but an asset.” —UN article

University of Hawaii Prof. George Kent wrote an article over a decade ago for the United Nations (UN) titled, “The Benefits of World Hunger.” Yes, you read that right. Apparently starvation can be good! The UN tried to claim just recently that the article was a satire, but Kent confirmed that it was not. Strange that this was uncovered just as nearly 100 food facilities were damaged or destroyed in the US and the Netherlands are sabotaging their own food production, forcing farmers to cut livestock drastically.

In fairness to the author, there seem to be sentences where he is presenting the wealthy’s dependence on hungry people as a bad thing, or trying to sting rich people into realizing that this is a problem; for instance, by talking about “slaves to hunger.” On the other hand, there are other sentences that seem less negative, as when he notes that hungry people are actually more productive than well-fed people. So perhaps, objectively, George Kent was truly trying to present this situation as bad, as he now claims—but if he was, he did a very unclear job of it (and remember he said it wasn’t a satire). Not only that, his premise that people’s productivity is dependent on their misery is false—as successful capitalism has demonstrated.

That said, regardless of what Kent himself thought at the time, and thinks now, looking at the actions of the UN and other globalists shows that while Kent may well have seen downsides as well as benefits to world hunger, the UN is not necessarily in agreement with him. The UN is the originator of the 2030 Agenda, whose goals would, if achieved, essentially create an authoritarian dystopia.

World Economic Forum (WEF) laid out the world of the 2030 Agenda in its article, “Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy And Life Has Never Been Better.” It describes a world where you have to ask the government even to borrow cooking equipment and living space on a day-to-day basis, and where “everything I do, think and dream of is recorded.” Hungry people may not be more productive, but they are more easily controlled. If the UN wants to achieve its 2030 Agenda, wouldn’t world hunger be a useful tool? Worldwide Covid lockdowns already created famines in Africa and elsewhere, for instance. Even the UN admitted, “2.3 billion people [were] severely or moderately hungry in 2021.” Yet globalists are still presenting lockdown measures as positive.

From the George Kent/UN article, courtesy of Wayback Machine:

“We sometimes talk about hunger in the world as if it were a scourge that all of us want to see abolished, viewing it as comparable with the plague or aids. But that naïve view prevents us from coming to grips with what causes and sustains hunger. Hunger has great positive value to many people. Indeed, it is fundamental to the working of the world's economy. Hungry people are the most productive people, especially where there is a need for manual labour.

We in developed countries sometimes see poor people by the roadside holding up signs saying ‘Will Work for Food’. Actually, most people work for food. It is mainly because people need food to survive that they work so hard either in producing food for themselves in subsistence-level production, or by selling their services to others in exchange for money. How many of us would sell our services if it were not for the threat of hunger?

More importantly, how many of us would sell our services so cheaply if it were not for the threat of hunger? When we sell our services cheaply, we enrich others, those who own the factories, the machines and the lands, and ultimately own the people who work for them. For those who depend on the availability of cheap labour, hunger is the foundation of their wealth.”

It’s true that cheap labor benefits the rich and powerful. China is able to control so much of the world’s economy because it essentially uses slave labor. The pre-Civil War South based its wealth heavily on slave labor. The question is—why it is it so unclear whether Kent and the UN see hunger as more a “scourge” or a “benefit?”

“The conventional thinking is that hunger is caused by low-paying jobs. For example, an article reports on "Brazil's ethanol slaves: 200,000 migrant sugar cutters who prop up renewable energy boom". While it is true that hunger is caused by low-paying jobs, we need to understand that hunger at the same time causes low-paying jobs to be created. Who would have established massive biofuel production operations in Brazil if they did not know there were thousands of hungry people desperate enough to take the awful jobs they would offer? Who would build any sort of factory if they did not know that many people would be available to take the jobs at low-pay rates?

Much of the hunger literature talks about how it is important to assure that people are well fed so that they can be more productive. That is nonsense. No one works harder than hungry people. Yes, people who are well nourished have greater capacity for productive physical activity, but well-nourished people are far less willing to do that work.”

Now, as it happens, workers are actually more motivated when they see a chance of getting ahead than if they’re essentially slaves. That’s why the economic theory of capitalism has worked so well when it was tried. That’s one of the reasons 18th-century Americans had more money and prosperity on average than European counterparts. So why were Kent and the UN seemingly pushing the idea that people are productive in proportion to their misery?

“The non-governmental organization Free the Slaves defines slaves as people who are not allowed to walk away from their jobs. It estimates that there are about 27 million slaves in the world, including those who are literally locked into workrooms and held as bonded labourers in South Asia. However, they do not include people who might be described as slaves to hunger, that is, those who are free to walk away from their jobs but have nothing better to go to. Maybe most people who work are slaves to hunger?

For those of us at the high end of the social ladder [notice he says ‘those of US’], ending hunger globally would be a disaster. If there were no hunger in the world, who would plow the fields? Who would harvest our vegetables? Who would work in the rendering plants? Who would clean our toilets? We would have to produce our own food and clean our own toilets. No wonder people at the high end are not rushing to solve the hunger problem. For many of us, hunger is not a problem, but an asset.”

An asset indeed. If induced famines were not somehow beneficial to someone in power, why did the globalist elites care so little for lockdown-induced food shortages? Why have over 96 food facilities been partially or wholly destroyed in the US since Biden became president? And why is the Netherlands, the world’s second-biggest agricultural exporter, trying to kill a third of its livestock production?

The Guardian reported that the Dutch government is planning to force farmers to sell land and reduce livestock by a third, supposedly to help “climate change.” CNSNews also reported, “To reach the country’s 2030 [note the year] climate goal of cutting emissions by 40 percent, it is estimated that farmers will need to have around a 30 percent reduction in the total number of cattle.” Unsurprisingly, dispossessed Dutch farmers are angrily protesting the government wokeness that is ruining their livelihoods and threatening the world’s food supply. Gateway Pundit reports:

“Farmers’ protests in the Netherlands have reached the royal palace at Dam Square in Amsterdam. 16-year old Jouke, who was shot at by a police officer on Tuesday, was released without charges.

Opposition leader Geert Wilders released a bombshell letter showing the globalist Dutch government wants to use expropriated agricultural land for asylum centers. . .In an incident near the blockaded food distribution center at Heerenveen in Friesland, police officers shot at 16-year-old Jouke’s tractor, which was already turning away from the roadblock, missing the boy’s head by an inch (Gateway Pundit reported). Jouke and two other protestors were arrested on suspicion of ‘attempted manslaughter’. . .

A farmer in Leeuwarden told Canadian journalist Keean Bexte that the Rutte government had ‘created a climate where the police think they can shoot.’ Dutch farmers are being dispossessed and committing suicide, the protester said, while China, for example, fails to meet any environmental regulations.

Protestors charged that undercover police officers from so-called ROMEO units are infiltrating demonstrations and fueling violence, as videos on Twitter document, similar to the Jan. 6 Ray Epps operation. . .

Opposition leader Geert Wilders published a letter from the provincial government of Flevoland, stating that the government will set up ‘a registration center for asylum seekers’ on agricultural land expropriated by nitrogen laws.”

So the Dutch government plans to damage the world economy, dispossess its farmers, and potentially cause a famine. . .so as to house more “asylum seekers.” There’s nothing like starving your own people to give benefits to others.

So do the UN and other woke globalists think world hunger has benefits? I’d say their actions give a resounding YES.