By Stan Szymanski
Thank you to David Dubyne at Adapt 2030 for bringing the original story to my attention at his Patreon channel.
On July 5, 2022 the magazine of the United Nations, the ‘UN Chronicle’, posted an article by Professor George Kent of The University Of Hawaii entitled ‘The Benefits Of World Hunger’ (originally printed in the mag in 2008). On July 6, 2022 the UN Chronicle deleted the article after public outcry. The UN claims it was ‘satire’. Even though the UN Chronicle deleted the article, I was able to find an archive of it here for your examination. For the United Nations to promulgate the Machiavellian juxtaposition of the image of hunger in contrast to whom it benefits is itself a picture so repulsive that it shows the United Nations for who it really is: A tool to be used by the elite globalists to subjugate the people of world for the benefit of the oligarchical class that George Orwell referred to as ‘The Party’. The goal of ‘The Party’ has one main goal: To keep the citizens under their -complete- control. In the year 2022 when food is disappearing from grocery store shelves and over 100 food processing plants have been attacked or destroyed just in the USA, Kent’s article ‘The Benefits Of World Hunger’ is a current day version of Orwellian ‘doublespeak’ meant to confuse the populace by calling evil ‘good’ and good, ‘evil’.
Kent begins the UN condoned manifesto this way:
…’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.’…
Can you believe what you are reading? If we, as ‘normal’ God-fearing people, believe that hunger is a scourge, then Kent calls us ‘naive’. His thesis statement is …’Hungry people are the most productive people, especially where there is a need for manual labour’…
Hungry people are the most productive people when they are the -only- ones doing the work. This it how it works when there is a ruling or a ‘Bourgeoisie’ class, as the online dictionary.com defines it:
…’(in Marxist theory) the class that, in contrast to the proletariat or wage-earning class, is primarily concerned with property values.’…
Whether that property be machinery, factories, real estate or some other hard asset-that is what holds the attention and hearts of the Bourgeoisie.
The Bourgeoisie are never hungry. The Bourgeoisie never want for the necessities of life. By Kent’s own definition of ‘productive people’, the Bourgeoisie are not productive. In fact, the Bourgeoisie have a symbiotic relationship with the hungry. The small percentage of the overall population that make up the Bourgeoisie represent the ‘parasite’ in the relationship while the hungry masses represent the ‘host’.
Elsewhere In his opening paragraph, the author states…’ Hunger has great positive value to many people.’…’The ‘many’ are actually ‘the few’. This is a current day example of Orwell’s ‘newspeak’. Book Analysis describes ‘Newspeak’ this way:
…’Newspeak is the fictional language Orwell invented for his novel 1984. It is used to control what people are capable of thinking.’…
The ‘few’ is another name for the Bourgeoisie. The Bourgeoisie is another name for who Orwell called ‘The Party’ in 1984-more specifically, the ‘Inner Party’.
Book Analysis elucidates the ‘Inner Party’ this way:
…’The Inner Party is the top two percent of citizens from Oceania in George Orwell’s 1984. ’…
In more detail from Book Analysis:
…’The existence of the Inner Party is entirely dependent on the suffering of the Outer Party and the Proles. The former does the labor that the Inner Party gets to avoid, and they keep tabs on those below them through the use of the Though(t) Police and the telescreens around the city.’…
In ‘The Benefits of World Hunger’ Kent goes on to say:
…’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.’
…and at the end of the next paragraph opines:
…’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?’…
On no he di’int…In his view, Kent (and his ilk-i.e. the UN, Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab et. al.) believe that Commie-Capatalism works best when you have a destitute population who have no dreams of their own and are more than willing to swallow any bait (job or vaccine payment) that comes along to which they will swear their fealty to for a few scraps of food. Mr. Kent identifies this as ‘The Benefits of World Hunger’.
It didn’t work for the Soviets. It has apparently stopped working for the Chinese when we look at the situations of Covid lockdowns, Evergrande (Chinese Real Estate) and major Red Banks that are in later stages of insolvency and bank runs.
If what you have seen so far from Professor Kent seems incredulous, hold onto your EBT cards.
…’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.’…
Yes Professor Kent, this thesis of calorie distribution worked so well for the Third Reich as the Jews and Polish who purchased a train ticket with their lives from their ‘betters’ and headed east to Treblinka, Birkenau, Auschwitz and other Eastern European vacation destinations (turn sarcasm off-I’m Polish). Just how much ‘work’ did the hunger victims in the ‘work’ camps accomplish? Can the thought process of Kent, the UN and Schwab be any different than Hirohito or Himmler when their propaganda mouthpiece, The UN Chronicle, espouses this same kind of disinformation and brainwashing?
In Professor Georges’ communistic closure:
…’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? 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.’…
This guy is nothing more than a member of the ‘outer party’ who talks like he is a member of the ‘inner party’. When the food becomes scarce on the islands and it comes down to growing your own food to survive, I wonder if Kent will still think of hunger as an asset? I wonder if the UN will come to his rescue while still spewing this compost?
Kent states that he is at the ‘high end of the social ladder’. If the situation of a faltering economy, high inflation, falling college enrollment (not so good for your job Professor) and war persists, I believe that the -not so esteemed- ‘Professor’ may find that the only food he can find to eat will be humble pie when he apologizes to Hawaiians as he gladly cleans their toilets at the university. Who knows? Perhaps he can cobble together some poi and pork so he has enough energy to write his next non-productive totalitarian article for the party he will never be part of because he is only insane enough to write this type of essay about people suffering starvation. The truly insane are those who say ‘you will own nothing and be happy’ and are deranged enough to write it into a business plan.
———-
If you appreciate this article can you consider a gift to Encouraging Angels for the intelligence we provided today? Click this link to give. We need the support. Links to this article are encouraged. Reproductions of this writing are only allowed by written permission of the author.
All rights reserved.
Stan Szymanski (or Encouraging Angels) is not a medical doctor. This is not medical advice. In all matters pertaining to the health and care of a human being consult a medical doctor. This is not legal, financial or personal advice. Consult appropriate professionals in those fields for that type of advice.
