From Kissinger to the World Economic Forum: Food, Climate and Population Control, By James Reed

John Klar has an article tracing the origins of globalist policies regarding food, climate, and population control to Henry Kissinger's 1974 Population Report and his ties to the Rockefeller family. He argues that organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations (UN), the World Bank, and the World Economic Forum (WEF), are pursuing a coordinated agenda to control global food systems, promote alternative diets (such as eating insects), discourage meat consumption, and centralize food production under the control of multinational corporations. It is the New World Order.

The Rockefeller family has been funding and influencing climate research since the 1950s and shaping climate policy since the 1980s. In 2014, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund announced it would divest from fossil fuel holdings, despite their immense wealth being built on oil. The motive behind this shift was to reshape the global economic, ecological, and cultural landscape through policies framed as climate initiatives but ultimately aimed at global control over resources and human behavior.

Kissinger had deep ties to David Rockefeller, whom he praised for his ability to fund and organize influential action groups. Kissinger was instrumental in early globalist gatherings, such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Bilderberg Group, which sought to shape world affairs. The Rockefellers and their allies have had a significant role in developing climate action plans and food system transformations.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) has a vision to transform global food production through its "Incentivizing Food Systems Transformation" initiative. The Rockefeller Foundation plays a key role, alongside major corporations such as:

• Bayer Crop Science
• Cargill
• Nestlé
• PepsiCo
• WWF International

Key Goals of This Transformation:

1.Shifting Diets – Promoting "healthier and more sustainable" diets, which often include plant-based substitutes and alternative proteins (like insects).

2.Reducing Food Waste – Implementing regulations to change consumer behavior regarding food choices.

3.Sustainable Farming Practices – Moving away from traditional small-scale farming in favor of corporate-controlled, industrial agriculture.

4.Supply Chain Overhaul – Using technologies like blockchain and biometric tracking to monitor food production, distribution, and consumption.

5.Government and Corporate Coordination – Utilizing government policies to shape the food market, mandating certain products while discouraging others.

Governments are urged to increase taxes on certain foods, including a proposed "water tax" on food production. They are encouraged to control procurement policies (such as school lunches and public food programs) to force the adoption of new diets. Since changing consumer preferences is difficult, the WEF argues that financial incentives and social engineering techniques must be used to shift behavior.

The WEF acknowledges that people are resistant to changing their diets, citing culture, affordability, habit, and taste as key barriers. To overcome this, they propose:

• Raising food prices to make traditional diets (such as meat-based diets) unaffordable.
• Using government subsidies and incentives to encourage consumption of "approved" foods.
• Applying behavioral economics to reshape how people perceive and value food.

The Klar article links these policies back to Kissinger's 1974 Population Report, which suggested that controlling food supplies could be an effective tool for population control. The WEF and globalist organizations are now using similar methods by manipulating food supply chains and dictating consumer behavior through economic incentives. The WEF's plan places multinational corporations (like Bayer, Nestlé, and Cargill) in charge of food systems. Gene-editing, synthetic biology, and lab-grown meats are being pushed as sustainable alternatives to traditional farming. Pesticides, synthetic additives, and processed foods are increasingly being marketed as necessary innovations despite concerns over their health effects.

The USDA recently decided to reduce its focus on chronic disease risks in dietary guidelines, aligning with WEF-backed initiatives. This coincides with corporate lobbying from companies like Bayer, which argues that pesticides are "sustainable."

Klar's article argues that globalist organizations, led by figures like Kissinger and the Rockefellers, have been working for decades to centralize control over food production and consumption. By framing their efforts as necessary for climate action and sustainability, they are pushing for policies that:

• Restrict local food production in favor of corporate-controlled agriculture.
• Increase food prices to discourage certain diets.
• Use government regulations to dictate consumer choices.
• Promote alternative foods (such as insects and lab-grown meat) while phasing out traditional diets.

The ultimate goal is to control the global food supply as a means of shaping economies, societies, and populations themselves for the depopulation agenda, one of the key bases of the New World Order.

https://johnklar.substack.com/p/henry-kissingers-plan-to-rule-the

"The roots of the current globalist structures at the WHO, UN, World Bank, and WEF — all of which say humans must eat bugs, cows are bad, meat is bad, and local food production is bad — are easily traced back to Henry Kissinger's 1974 Population Report, and to Kissinger's strong ties to the Rockefeller and other families who took an interest in climate change long before humans heard of it:

Why had the Rockefeller family funded and influenced climate research since the 1950s and helped shape climate policy since the 1980s? And why did Rockefeller Brothers Fund in 2014 announce that they would divest from all of their fossil energy holdings? Why attack the very industry on which their immense wealth was founded? What was their motive in their own words – and how did it all begin?

….the Rockefeller family's long-standing battle against climate change contains elements of sophisticated propaganda techniques, futurism and New Age philosophy, aiming at a complete transformation of the whole earth system, including economy, ecology, culture and even humanity itself.

The Rockefellers funded the Transportation Climate Initiative (TCI), which "studied" commuter traffic and argued that people should pay more for gasoline in their commutes, compressing people into urban centers to "save the climate." Rockefeller fingerprints are all over globalist climate action plans and climate policies… and all over Henry Kissinger.

In a passionate tribute on March 30, 2017, titled "Henry Kissinger: My friend David Rockefeller, a man who served the world," Kissinger gushed about what a great person this billionaire philanthropist was:

David Rockefeller ….saw his life as an obligation to enable the consequential issues of our time to be pursued by the most talented and committed men and women, for the sake of our society and the peace of the world. David devoted his long life to identifying the able, forming them into a study or action group, and then supplying the means, often by a combination of financial contributions and assistance in fundraising efforts.

We met 60 years ago as part of a study group at the Council on Foreign Relations, among the first such efforts to discipline the ominous aspects of nuclear technology by moral and political purposes. Shortly afterward, he encouraged a discussion group, which later was developed into what is now known as the Bilderberg Group, an annual meeting of European and American leaders to explore their challenges and common purposes.

All Roads Lead to Food Control

The WEF is not shy in its massive policy prescription to transform the world's agricultural system into an industrially based, monitored, and controlled alliance between unelected global organizations, multinational corporations, and member nations. Its "Incentivizing Food Systems Transformation" (of which The Rockefeller Foundation is on the "Stewardship Board on Shaping the Future of Food," along with Bayer Crop Science, Cargill, WWF International, Nestlé SA, and PepsiC, Inc.) lays the plan out boldly:

Driven by rapidly growing concerns about diet-related health impacts, damage to the ecosystem, links to climate change and distress among several million small-scale food producers, recognition is growing that immediate action is required to transform the way in which food is produced, accessed, distributed, valued and consumed if we are to achieve the 2030 United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). An important aspect of this transformation is a growing recognition of the need for the realignment and repurposing of current incentives to encourage food system actors to pursue an agenda for change.

This report highlights how achieving such a change will require critical transitions that support: the adoption of healthier and more nutritious diets; the reduction of food loss and waste; a higher value on more sustainable and healthier food products; more sustainable farming practices; and the protection and restoration of natural resources. This report is consistent with the umbrella document developed for the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit entitled A Framework for Food Systems Transformation. This umbrella document provides a definition of efficient, inclusive and sustainable food systems, as well as identifying the challenges and potential trade-offs.

The Food Systems Initiative is part of the Platform for Global Public Goods, which enables leaders from the public and private sectors and civil society around the world to form innovative, cross-cutting communities of action that collaborate at speed and scale, harness the opportunities of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and trigger systems change to deliver integrated outcomes in line with meeting the SDGs and the Paris Climate Agreement

These transitions necessitate a fundamental change in the way our food is produced (including in agri-industrial operations as well as in the practices of more than 500 million smallholder farmers around the world) and in the way food is consumed (including the consumption patterns of 7.7 billion individuals).

This voluminous roadmap to "transform" the entire world's agricultural production includes a myriad of suggestions to control what humanity eats, including a "water tax" (p. 9) and other "incentives to catalyze progress along pathways":

The influence governments have on agri-food systems is vast, extending across land use policies, trade policies, consumer protection policies, finance policies and more.

Governments could also use national and local agency procurement policies to affect what type of food is being purchased, provided and distributed. By mandating and incentivizing specific requirements, these policies can help drive demand for and improve the availability of healthy and sustainable foods, as well as shift supply chain practices accordingly. These policies can help shape consumption behaviours – not only by introducing consumers of all ages and in many different public settings to foods that meet specific nutritional and sustainability standards but also by encouraging them to use such standards when making their own food purchases.

The WEF has just the prescriptions needed to thwart human appetites and cultures:

There are two important barriers to unlocking consumer behavioural change at scale:

Deeply rooted consumer preferences: Consumer food patterns and behaviours are deeply rooted in habit and culture. For behaviour change to happen, consumers need to understand why they should place a higher value on sustainable and healthier foods and the tangible effects of inaction on their life and health.

Increasing evidence in behavioural economics, however, suggests that awareness building campaigns are necessary but not sufficient to bring about behavioural change. Many factors shape behaviour and preference, including social norms, affordability, taste, culture, habit, lifestyle and convenience. Therefore, changing deeply ingrained dietary choices is arduous and expensive.

This harkens back to Kissinger's suggestion that mandatory population controls might be required, according to many "experts." The WEF then explains the "stakeholders' roles in changing consumer behavior" through Government Development coordination with the Private Sector to alter people's eating habits because "Innovative approaches to behavioural change are required":

Affordability of food: The increased costs, at least in the short term, of delivering sustainable and nutritious food products will inevitably raise the price of foods. Developing sustainable and nutritious products is expensive. Significant product development costs are required in some cases, such as sugar and salt substitutes or low cost proteins. Also, investments in infrastructure and technologies that enable identity preservation in supply chains – such as blockchain or low-cost sensors – will be required to create more transparent supply chains that enable consumers to know that the products they are buying are delivering social and environmental benefits.45 Hence, the affordability of food products must be addressed. Strengthening public safety nets and anchoring demand for healthy foods through governments' procurement policies are ways to mitigate this trade-off in outcomes. Figure 4 outlines the actions that governments, donors or development agencies, private sector participants and civil society organizations can take to stimulate shifts in consumer behaviour.

Foods will become more expensive, and so giveaways are advised to "incentivize" people to eat these new "products" – yet poverty and famine were the justifications to take over peasant farms and replace them with industrial agriculture. It is a globalist carrot-and-stick schtick:

[I]ncentivizing food systems transformation will not be straightforward and will require substantial investment and effort. In addition, constructing and delivering incentives requires a deliberate approach that ensures incentives are appropriately designed and sequenced, mutually reinforcing, complementary, innovative and adaptive. Five action areas can help the global food systems community incentivize transformation.

Food system participants need to align on a vision that meets the need of people and the planet. An alignment among stakeholders on this vision and what it means for action is the first step towards developing an agenda at the global, regional and country level. Building on this vision for food systems transformation and reimagined incentives is a vital priority for food system participants,

And who is to organize and oversee (control) this "just" transition? Why, the chemical, pharmaceutical, and financial behemoths who populate the WEF, or course:

To truly unlock their power to incentivize transitions, companies must take a broader approach and re-evaluate their strategy, products and services. They must restructure their organizations and business models to focus on maximizing the triple bottom line – the company's return on people, planet and profit. The private sector has a responsibility to measure its performance based on the impact on all stakeholders and to move past incremental steps to update corporate social responsibilities (CSR) and comply with regulations.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which is expected to identify $12 trillion in business opportunities, will only accelerate the trend towards developing business models that maximize the triple bottom line. ….Future developments in technologies, like gene-editing and direct carbon-capture, have an immeasurable potential to reduce emissions.

The WEF notes that "Dietary guidelines affect federal nutrition policy and programmes, health initiatives, and organizational and industry choices that influence consumers' behaviour." This is very true, and quite notable – the USDA recently announced plans to tone down its nutrition advice to "reduce focus on chronic disease risk reduction" – that is, it is essentially abandoning efforts to warn Americans about the chemical contaminants and other risks of ultra-processed foods. This accords with Bayer's arguments that pesticides are "good" and sustainable.

Not all human diners will agree…."