The Rockefeller Foundation issued a document shortly after 'Event 201' called ‘Reset the Table’ which predicted food shortages “unlike any this country has seen in generations.”

Although the report cited within this article was primarily focused on the U.S, we must highlight that this is a proposed global program linked to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and Healthy Cities Global Program.

The document goes on to say that the U.S. food system must be seized and reorganized in the name of “social justice,” “environmental protection” and “fairness.”

Notably, though "the document describes the need for 'Americans' to have a “healthy diet” through “sustainable agriculture,” it makes no mention of the word “organic,” and the word “natural” is only used in relation to “natural disasters.” (Brian Mitchell) Sustainable agriculture in their terms means highly controlled corporate and technology based farming and food production, including plant based food, alternative proteins such as insect meal and 3D printed food, plastic food as developed by Darpa, reduced carbon and artificial growing conditions.

Artificial farming - no longer science fiction

So what does the Rockefeller Foundation mean by a “healthy diet”?

If the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) “Great Reset” is any indication, a “healthy diet” is the globalist euphemism for a diet of plants, insects, and reclaimed drinking water, including reclaimed sewerage waste water and the plan to wipe out the meat industry in favour of fake foods.

“By 2050, the world’s food supply will need to feed another 2 billion people. Insect farming for food and animal feed could offer an environmentally friendly solution to the impending food crisis,” a WEF article from 2021 stated.
Kate Mason unpacks the UN Zero Hunger agenda. The Hard Truth About The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals- Goal 2: Zero Hunger

The Rockefeller Foundation 25 page Article PDF found here

Meanwhile in New Zealand.....

Are you prepared for these predicted food shortages?

Rockefeller Foundation's ‘Reset the Table’ Report Predicted Virus-19 Related Food Crisis — 2 Years Before It Happened

We’re told looming food shortages are primarily the result of climate change, trade issues and the Russia-Ukraine conflict. However over the past few years there has been multiple stories of destruction of crops, livestock and food production warehouses, laws implemented which inhibit farmers and even backyard gardens.

Yet in July 2020, The Rockefeller Foundation had already predicted it, and was calling for a revamp of the global food system as a whole to address it, the foundation described the food situation as; “a hunger and nutrition crisis, unlike any this country has seen in generations.” Enter the Hunger Games.

Just a few months into the COVID-19 pandemic — and almost two years before global health officials warned of a food shortage crisis — the Rockefeller Foundation issued the report predicting the crisis and offering up solutions, including “shifts to online enrolment, online purchasing of food.”

Brian Mitchell

Old News Re-invented

The authors of 'Reset the Table' blamed the crisis on the "virus", but apparently, we have always had a food crisis in some countries and continue to do so according to reports, even prior to covid. Why in this day and age is this even an issue? Because any money raised or donated to poorer nations often funnels into the wrong hands, or gets gobbled up in administration fees. With all of the food wastage from over production, over manufacturing and gluttony that goes on in most first world countries, it's no surprise that they would say there is a crisis. But is there really?

And if these so called global shapers are so concerned about food security then why haven't they come up with plans to beat hunger and fair food production decades ago? Why hasn't products like meat and produce production based on pre-ordering, become a thing way before the world became excessive gluttons of ready to buy convenience? If greed and pillaging of the earth had not been the main goal, perhaps leaders would have been wise enough to be like the ancient indigenous, only slaughter or harvest what is needed and waste nothing.

If they REALLY were philanthropists by nature rather than by economics, then they wouldn't clamour to make money off feeding the world's needy, programs would have been put into place long ago to ensure that every community has the ability to grow their own food gardens, that the country has the agricultural and manufacturing infrastructure needed to feed themselves with healthy non-GMO nutritional food as the very basics.

But this hasn't been the case, instead the governments and the shapers who shadow govern, discourage community self-sufficiency, discourage organic heirloom seeds and instead replace it with genetically modified highly treated terminator seeds (Monsanto/Bayer). They replace real food with insect protein, and plastics and chemical cocktails.

In 1985 Live Aid was organised to feed the worlds most hungry, the starving children of Ethiopia. With hundreds of the most famous musicians volunteering for the concerts, the shows raised a huge (£150,000,000 or approx. $278,728,322 AU). In todays money that 1985 £150,000,000 is equivalent to £445,765,279 or $828,316,056 AU. In 1985 that amount of money could have solved many problems and set up small farming communities, clean water projects and self sufficient projects for communities, if it had actually gone to them.

Philanthropy via NGO's and stakeholder partnerships such as spouted by the WEF and Rockefeller Foundation act as the honey in the hidden trap when it comes to public perception spin. Like Live Aid, these saviours put on the show but the ones who are misled on the re-routed promised benefit are the most vulnerable.

Misdirection trussed up as Philanthropy

The Rockefeller report concluded the food crisis would have to be addressed not by strengthening food security for the most vulnerable, but by revamping the entire food system and associated supply chain — in other words, we would need to “reset the table.”

The Rockefeller Foundation called for this food system “reset” less than two months after the World Economic Forum (WEF), on June 3, 2020, revealed its vision for the “Great Reset.”

Precision nutrition is provided via personal biosensor implants and data collection. (IoT)

Some of the contributors to the Rockefeller Foundation report are WEF members; a few of which, along with other proponents of “resetting the table,” also have ties to entities pushing vaccine passports and digital ID schemes.

The WEF describes the Rockefeller Foundation as a “science-driven” philanthropic organization that “seeks to inspire and foster large-scale human impact that promotes the well-being of humanity around the world” and which “advances the new frontiers of science, data, policy and innovation to solve global challenges related to health, food, power and economic mobility.” Rockefeller Foundation is simply the arm of the empire which rules the world banking and shapes social change and global social existence, originally based on Eugenics.

In the foreword to its 2020 “Reset the Table” report, foundation President Dr. Rajiv J. Shah, who is a former administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), states:

“America faces a hunger and nutrition crisis unlike any this country has seen in generations.

“In many ways, the "virus" (used a a springboard excuse) has boiled over long-simmering problems plaguing America’s food system. What began as a public health crisis fuelled an economic crisis, leaving 33 percent of families unable to afford the amount or quality of food they want".

The Elephant in the room being ignored here regarding the reasons behind this is high unemployment, high taxes, rises in cost of living, corporate junk food takeover via making junk food cheaper than fresh food and compounding poverty due to the mechanics of the economic system.

In its report, the Rockefeller Foundation proposes a series of solutions, derived from “dialogues with over 100 experts and practitioners.” One can conclude that these experts are requisitioned and funded by the Foundation.

One recommendation calls for moving away from a “focus on maximizing shareholder returns” to “a more equitable system focused on fair returns and benefits to all stakeholders — building more equitable prosperity throughout the supply chain.” It is important to remember that the Rockefellers own the World Bank, Reserve Bank, IBS (International Bank of Settlements) and IMF (International Monetary Fund) and have zero interest in sharing the wealth and prosperity with the little people.

This equitable system may sound like a good idea, until one considers “stakeholders” in this case refers to “stakeholder capitalism” — a concept heavily promoted by the very same large corporations that have been the beneficiaries of the shareholder capitalist system. These include the three largest venture capitalist corporations of Vanguard, State Street or Blackrock, along with Bayer/Monsanto, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, environmental NGO's such as the WWF, and other corporate giants.

The WEF heavily promotes “stakeholder capitalism,” defining it as “a form of capitalism in which companies seek long-term value creation by taking into account the needs of all their stakeholders, and society at large.” It is unclear how the “needs of society at large” are determined — or by who.

For some context into the "partnership model', economic fascism, as personified by the regimes of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy, encompassed government-mandated “partnerships” between business, government and unions organized by a system of regional “economic chambers,” and a philosophy where “the common good comes before the private good.” an altruistic catchphrase that is anything but. You can see this in action below, with the Debt-for-Nature schemes in place for participating high debt countries. Will America be next in entering into debt-for -nature to pay off their debts?

Kate Mason unpacks the Corporate-food-takeover-episode-2.

The Rockefeller Foundation report declares, “Success will require numerous changes to policies, practices, and norms.” What does such “success” entail?

The report names three main objectives:

Data collection and digitization: The report calls for “shifts to online enrolment, online purchasing of food, direct farm-to-consumer purchasing, telemedicine, teleconsultations, as well as [broadband access that is essential to] education, finance, and employment.”

The report describes the lack of universal broadband access in this context as “a fundamental resiliency and equity gap.” We are struggling to see how a lack of internet broadband contributes to a lack of healthy accessible food. The role internet plays here is via the Internet of Things (IoT) which is being used as an 'accounting tool' to track and trace food, carbon footprints, humans, livestock and data, including the development and dissemination of synthetically engineered food, and total control of what 99% of the worlds population have access to.

“Stakeholders” working together with the goal of forming a “collaborative advocacy movement.” This really means that these stakeholders of government, corporations and NGO's exercise authority over your diet and health.

These objectives, dressed up in “inclusive” language, are further described in the report as being beneficial to human health, ensuring “healthy and protective diets” that “will allow Americans to thrive and bring down the nation’s suffocating health care costs.” Understand that medical access in the US is a 'user pays' scheme, they do not have Medicare, so just how are the health care costs suffocating the country? If anything, this would apply to Australia and Britain which do have a publicly taxpayer funded Medicare scheme. This initial report focuses on the U.S, however it is a global initiative via the Healthy Cities global programme.

The report goes as far as to predict that doctors will “prescribe” produce for patients". This leads into the Healthy Cities, which is linked to the WHO and the Smart Cities, where the authorities takes over your health.

According to the report:

“One of 'virus' legacies should be that it was the moment people realised the need to treat nutritious food as a part of health care, both for its role in prevention and in the treatment of diseases"....“By integrating healthy food into the health care system, doctors could prescribe produce as easily as pharmaceuticals and reduce utilization of expensive health services that are often required because of nutrition insecurity.”

Hypocritical wouldn't you say? Considering that most countries promoted only vaccines and pharmaceuticals for the pandemic response and healthy options such as Vitamin D, C, Zinc, sunshine, exercise, fresh produce, and even safe effective treatments such as Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine were banned and demonised.

This all sounds prosocial, compassionate and humanitarian, but what should be questioned is, why now? WHY NOW, when they have spent decades poisoning the food with carcinogenic pesticides and herbicides, creating over-processed food with chemical additives, creating self terminating seeds, controlling the cost of fresh food, making organic food cost prohibitive for most people, pumping livestock full of vaccines and growth hormones.

For over 100 years, they heavily promoted Allopathic/scientific formalised medicine, making $trillions pushing the synthetic pharmaceuticals, surgery and formalised health care. Herbalism, naturopathy and natural remedies have been demonised and maligned, Doctors have been trained for decades not to treat the cause with healthy natural based solutions but instead poo poo natural therapies and treat the symptoms with side-effect causing drugs and surgical intervention.

What does appear in the Foundation's report is the phrase “alternative proteins,” in this case referring to proteins derived from the consumption of insects — another concept promoted by the WEF. In 2021, for instance, the WEF published a report titled “Why we need to give insects the role they deserve in our food systems,” suggesting that “insect farming for food and animal feed could offer an environmentally friendly solution to the impending food crisis.”

Make no mistake, Australia is well and truly involved and information on the synthetic and insect based food as a staple in our diets is well under way by Australia's CSIRO and can be found via this link.

Yet again, an “impending food crisis” is forecast, which may lead some to ask how entities such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the WEF even knew what was coming.

“The "virus" was declared a pandemic in March 11, 2020, so by the time this Rockefeller report was published, the pandemic had only existed for four months, and while certain high-risk groups did experience food insecurity, widespread food shortages, in terms of empty shelves, were not widely prevalent or particularly severe in the U.S, Australia, or other first world countries, apart from number limitations of packet or tinned food to two per customer, some delays in certain products and the toilet paper fiasco of course.

“It seems nothing escapes the prophetic minds of the self-proclaimed designers of the future. They accurately foresee ‘natural disasters’ and foretell coincidental ‘acts of God’. They know everything before it happens. Why is this? It appears that they have a playbook from which they magically predict the problem and conveniently present the solution in record time.

“Perhaps they truly are prophets. Or, perhaps they’re simply describing the inevitable outcomes of their own actions.”

The foundation’s “philanthropic” activities have been described as “de facto colonialism in countries including China and the Philippines.”

Furthermore, the Foundation helped give rise to the first global public health entities, the International Health Commission (1913-16) and the International Health Board (1916-1927). They were instrumental in the creation of the United Nations, have strong links to the World Health Organisation, World Economic Forum, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Bill Gates's GAVI to name but a few. Essentially a global empire stronghold of epic proportions, one that would make the previous Roman and British Empires look like amateurs.

The Rockefellers also helped finance the earliest public health programs at universities such as Harvard and Johns Hopkins — today home to the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Brian Mitchell

DEBT-for-NATURE schemes - a stealth foreign invasion strategy

The World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), both run by the Rockefellers have been instrumental in the debt-for-nature swaps,” in which nations would repay their debt by handing over their biodiversity or resources to (globalist) banks. Debt-for-environment swaps, including debt-for-development or debt-for-equity take advantage of countries who have been herded into high debt situations by the very same World Bank who calls in the debt. This program which is also linked to the Paris Accord, a wolf in sheep's clothing for poorer nations, lends itself to foreign takeover of a countries ownership of it's own resources, which can include energy, water, land and agriculture.

Choose your poison

  • "Debt-for-aid (development) swap – the cancellation of external debt in exchange for local currency paid, for development projects (e.g. health, agriculture, natural assets, education) in the debtor country;

  • Debt-for-equity swap – the cancellation of external debt in exchange for local currency invested in equity (shares) in a domestic firm or a privatised public enterprise but also in natural resource stocks;

  • Debt-for-nature (environment) swap – the cancellation of external debt in exchange for local currency used to finance conservation (“green”), i.e. preservation of biological diversity or environmental protection (“brown”) projects, i.e. pollution abatement, development of environmentally-related infrastructure. Debt-for-environment swaps can also be designed to alleviate poverty and foster economic development."

"To pursue more ambitious environmental policy, developing nations often require a financial incentive that allows governments to shift their priorities. Debt-for-nature swaps are financial mechanisms that allow portions of a developing country’s foreign debt to be forgiven, in exchange for commitments to invest in biodiversity conservation and environmental policy measures". Read more here.

Debt-for-nature swaps are as the name suggests- a debtor country is allowed substantial discounts on the debt owed to its creditor in exchange for investments towards conservation and enacting environmental protection measures. A swap for a debtor country’s foreign debt can involve a creditor country, a creditor commercial bank or an environmental non-governmental organisation acting as a broker. 'The NGO then sells the debt back to the debtor country for a higher price than it was bought by the NGO but still significantly lower than the original payment the debtor country would have had to make.' Resembling a money and resource laundering scam intent of taking advantage of the debtor country.

A 2012 study examined the negative social fallout of the 1987 Bolivian swap deal, a 1989 bilateral swap between the US and Madagascar and a 1990 three-party swap in Costa Rica. In each country, the binding nature of the swap deals left many indigenous peoples and sustenance farmers landless and mired in poverty. In Costa Rica, displaced farmers had to resort to illegal poaching, logging and mining to support themselves. In addition to the current health crisis and the ever-present climate crisis, the pandemic is placing unprecedented strain on the fiscal institutions and budgets of countries worldwide. Debt skyrocketed in 2020, adding an estimated $19.5 trillion to global deficits.  Tristan Bove.

Negative effects were also enforced on the people in Bolivia, Niger and Ecuador. Moral duties to the people in the participating debtor countries may be also sold off in the transaction, depending on the deal and what the purchaser of the debt has outlined in the conditions, eg: they might have been given absolute private rights to the countries water source, or crown land, or health services.

The Covid pandemic created an increase of national debt for many countries, especially those already in debt, especially those who are signatories to the WHO, the WEF and the UN, as these agreements made between countries and these unelected overlords required them to engage in the pandemic response, including the vaccine passports, vaccinations, PPE, PCR tests, authorised medical treatment and lockdowns. This legally obligated requirement in turn has increased the swap of debt noose to be pushed as an attractive solution, what this scam allows for is for external/foreign ownership/infiltration, profit theft, eg carbon sequestrian, ownership of natural resources, business opportunities the foreign company wouldn't normally have access to countries resources and this can easily lead to increased poverty for the population.

This program is ripe for being abused by environmental companies to implement their plans/programs/developments in foreign third world countries where rules and policies may not be as tied up up with red tape bureaucracy or civil rights constitutions as most first world countries do.

A Prime Example

Sri Lanka protests in July 2022 were over huge increase in cost of living as well as the country enforcing an overnight switch to organic farming which led to a 50% decrease in available food and left people starving. The unrest and protests occurred just a few months after the IMF started talks with Sri lanka in April 2022, who is $8bn in debt, with a bail out using the Debt-for-Nature scheme. The UN has asked Sri Lanka to introduce a temporary basic income and negotiate “debt-for-nature” swaps tied to environmental conservation as part of measures to mitigate the country’s economic meltdown...PROBLEM, REACTION, SOLUTION.

How much of the debt was incurred trying to meet Net Zero /UN SDG requirements? Was this country an example of how the IMF and World Bank create debt and unrest then swoop in with their bail out strategy that then pulls the country into the NWO and UBI which then effectively creates total control of the people, and whilst the debt for nature purchasing partner than has more negotiation power and able to rape and pillage that country...what choice does Sri Lanka have?

The web of greed and totalitarianism over the worlds food security runs deep. Clarity on the tentacles of the big picture for non-insiders is akin to a trying to complete 10,000 piece puzzle of muted storm clouds.

Keywords to take notice of on main stream media (MSM) include: Health, food security, debt for nature, reserve bank, net zero, stakeholders, partnerships, healthy cities, smart (anything), sustainable housing, sustainable agriculture, plant based food, insect protein, philanthropy, digital ID, sustainable development goals (SDG's) and resilience.

One comment on “Reset the Table - A Food Shortage Prophecy”
  1. Fantastic article Kate. I knew about the contrived food shortages and seizure agriculture but had no idea of the coercive tactics used on the developing world to seize their land and resources. As the article says it's colonialism all over again - though looking worse than the original this time round!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Similar Posts from DYK

| | |

× Read More ×
× Read More ×
× Read More ×
× Read More ×
× Read More ×
× Read More ×
× Read More ×
× Read More ×
× Read More ×
× Read More ×
× Read More ×
× Read More ×

Subscribe to Our Newsletter