Canada’s Repressive State

We ought not to be surprised at Canada’s treatment of the truckers and those who oppose vaccine mandates. Canada has form for the kind of repressive measures we’ve seen recently that would once have been the preserve of a totalitarian state.

For over 25 years, the Our Farm Our Food group have been campaigning for the freedom of people to eat what they want. Since 1994, a co-operative of about 150 families, has owned a farm in Ontario from which Michael Schmidt, an outspoken advocate of unpasteurised milk waged a campaign to be allowed to sell to the public the milk the farm produced. It is unlawful in Canada to sell any dairy produce that has not been pasteurised.

Schmidt and the co-operative tried to get round this by using the fiction of ‘cow-sharing’ agreements. A person could buy a share in a cow, have it looked after by the farmer, who milked it for the owners who then consumed the milk from their own cow. This arrangement had been accepted in various US states as lawful and the rather naïve Schmidt believed it would work in Canada. He had underestimated the repressive instincts of the Canadian state which turned its full force against Schmidt as the figurehead of this defiance of the Canadian ‘health’ regulations.

In 2010 he was acquitted by a magistrate of 19 charges of distributing unpasteurised milk. But the Canadian authorities did not accept the magistrate’s decision and instructed the prosecution to appeal to the Ontario Court of Justice. The higher court found him guilty of thirteen charges of breaching the ban on selling and distributing raw milk, fined him $9,150, put him on probation for a year and issued a perpetual injunction preventing him from distributing raw milk in the state. The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal.

He embarked on a five-week hunger strike in 2011 to protest against the injustice of his treatment. In 2013 he was found to be in contempt of court for breaching the injunction and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment suspended for a year. Again an appeal was dismissed.

Schmidt refused to keep his head down, making it quite clear that he believed people ought to be free to eat and drink what they want, particularly if it is good for them. The authorities raided his farm numerous times, seized computers and business records and destroyed milking equipment. The health enforcement agencies even installed secret CCTV cameras in trees around the farm and bugged Schmidt’s house.

 One particularly oppressive raid and stand-off in October 2015 resulted in a trial of four of the owners of the farm. The police put on a great show of force with four heavily-armed police officers in court during the ten-day trial and three more stationed outside. Eventually, after various adjournments over nearly two years, the court found Schmidt guilty of obstructing a ‘peace’ [sic] officer and sentenced him to 60 days which he was allowed to serve at weekends. This was later reduced to a month’s house arrest.

The police did their best to blacken the defendants’ reputations by wrongly claiming (deliberately, the defendants said) they were members of the Freemen of the Land, a libertarian organisation classed as ‘extremist’ by the Canadian state. The Freemen are treated as a serious threat to the state’s increasingly repressive totalitarian grip, probably because in their hearts lives the same yearning for liberty that originally attracted their forebears to the New World. Smearing them in this way caused a great deal of trouble for them and their families. Their names were added to a national database of people, such as jihadists, who pose a violent threat to the state. All the state agencies and enforcers were alerted to their dangerous proclivities, which affected their lives in a host of damaging ways. The authorities were determined to make an example of them.

The onslaught against unpasteurised milk producers has not abated. On October 27 2021 Schmidt’s farm, along with two others, were subjected to a great show of force in pre-dawn raids by armed police. Although Schmidt’s wife bravely refused entry to the police who wanted to search the house and seize computers and records, they broke into the locked dairy barn anyway and seized some dairy products and other things. So far no charges have been brought.

Even though there is a strong demand for unpasteurised milk in Canada and considerable support for Schmidt, the state will go to almost any lengths to prevent its distribution, even if it has been tested for pathogens and proved to be safe. The embargo is necessary, say the authorities, to ‘maintain a strong food safety system’. Unpasteurised milk ‘may contain harmful bacteria and cause serious health conditions’. The state is determined to treat untreated milk as if it were poisonous. Anybody producing it risks more oppressive treatment and heavier penalties than if they were busted for drugs. Just as they have done with the truckers, the government threatened to take the farmers’ children into care if their parents gave them unpasteurised milk to drink.

Until Trudeau’s state set about destroying the lives of the ‘extremist’ truckers one might have been forgiven for believing Canada to be a less violent, more benign version of its southern neighbour. But in its government’s response to events of the last two years it has bitten with the teeth of repression that it has been sharpening for a long time. Just like Australia and New Zealand, the Canadian state’s inclination to force conformity on its people reveals the dark side of the Anglophone countries’ obedience to the rule of law.


Letter to Right Hon Anne-Marie Trevelyan MP about Julian Assange’s extradition

I am writing to express my extreme disquiet at the decision of the court to allow Julian Assange to be extradited to the US.

I would like you to pass this letter to the Home Secretary to ask her to overrule the court and prevent his extradition.

I have no axe to grind for Julian Assange. My objection to his treatment is entirely based on principle and has nothing to do with him personally.

This is a wholly political case which should have been rejected on that ground alone as contrary to Article 4 (1) of the 2003 Anglo-US Extradition Treaty.

But it goes much further than that. The Treaty, agreed during the Blair era is unfair, weak and almost wholly one-sided. It allows the US to demand the extradition of UK citizens and others for offences committed against US law even if the alleged offence was committed in Britain by a person living in the UK. In effect it allows the US authorities to demand that we hand over anyone they want to punish, whether or not the alleged offence is unlawful in Britain.

This is a violation of our sovereignty and in Assange’s case amounts to a threat to the freedom of the press. It is unimaginable that the US would hand over to the British state one of their own citizens accused of publishing leaked documents. But any British journalist who embarrasses the US government by exposing any of the truth that the US state hides from its people faces the same fate. It must be remembered that he has committed no crime according to our law. The real reason the US government wants Assange’s extradition is to extract revenge for his having embarrassed the state and shown its government to have lied to the people and to Congress.

Assange revealed many things the US state did which were in themselves illegal and, frankly, wicked: injustice, brutality, secret imprisonment, torture and ‘extraordinary rendition’.

Publishing large numbers of confidential US government files is not illegal under US law. He was acting as a journalist when he published the documents he had received. Had he been a US citizen he would be immune to prosecution because of the First Amendment to the US Constitution which protects the freedom of the press.

If extradited, Julian Assange will be tried in the US and,if convicted (which looks almost certain) faces a US style prison sentence, which could last the rest of his life It is repugnant to any fair-minded person’s sense of justice that Julian Assange should face the rest of his life in the US prison system, first as an unconvicted person and then almost certainly as a convicted criminal. He is neither a terrorist nor a spy nor a murderer. None of his actions has harmed anyone. That he should face the prospect of spending the rest of his life in an American prison with terrorists, murderers and other violent criminals amounts to unimaginable cruelty and cries out for clemency.

I beg the Home Secretary to exercise her power to prevent this injustice and overrule the decision of the court.

22 April 2022

Green & Peasant Land

French Vaccine Resisters

It has been reported this week that a large proportion of French people will refuse to be vaccinated with the Covid vaccine. The French are right to be suspicious. France is the land of Bechamp, the great reproach to Pasteur, whose work has been ignored (even suppressed) by the western world for over a century, but it is truer to reality than anything Pasteur said.

Essentially – and I apologise if this simplification does too much violence to their respective theories – Bechamp held that a living organism, in good health, was capable of defending itself against assaults of illness. It was only when the health of the organism was compromised that disease naturally attacked it. That our bodies are teeming with bacteria good and bad, and the purpose of medicine is to get the body back into balance so it can repel disease and return to health.

Pasteur, on the other hand, held that ‘germs’, ie bacteria and viruses range around ready to attack and unless they are destroyed they will be dangerous to everybody irrespective of their health and habits.

This superficial ‘germ theory’ animates the western scientific establishment and ‘big pharma’. It has driven the last hundred years of vaccination and emphasis on ‘science’ being needed to protect us from disease. It has culminated in this currrent COVID hysteria.

Any mention of Bechamp now brings down a torrent of vitriol. He was subjected to all manner of attacks in his lifetime by Pasteur’s followers, many of whom stood to profit from Pasteur’s theories. A good many of Pasteur’s theories were plagiarised from the more subtle research of Bechamp and passed as truth, when at best they were partial and at worst downright false.

If Bechamp’s insight into the complexity and self-sustaining nature of life were to be accepted by big pharma and the medical establishment, they would be left high and dry. That’s why they are so fierce in their denunciation of Bechamp and to this day, anybody who expresses even mild support for his theories.

But when people talk of ‘herd immunity’ and the efficacy of Vitamin C or D, or zinc, or fresh air and exercise, or washing your hands, they are relying, whether they know it or not, on the natural processes that Bechamp identified as sustaining life.

A quick Google search will show the bitter insults that Bechamp attracts: he is a ‘crank’, in bed with ‘anti-vaxxers’, and ‘those who believe that food is medicine’, practitioners of ‘alternative medicine’, ‘climate change deniers’ and ‘Covidiots’.

This begs the question why modern ‘scientists’ are so keen to rubbish and ‘cancel’ Bechamp?

Might it be that he’s on to something that threatens them? And might it be that if we took notice of his advice most of the scientific establishment and their big-business accolytes would not only look foolish, but would find themselves in need of alternative employment?

I ask one simple question of the followers of Pasteur’s germ theory. If Bechamp is wrong, as these ‘expert scientists’ claim, how is that most people not only survive, but are mostly not affected by the myriad bacteria and viruses that assail us daily?

Green & Peasant Land

Antoine Béchamp -v- Louis Pasteur

Is the West’s almost complete acceptance of Pasteur’s ‘germ theory’ damaging our economy and our health and driving us mad?

Throughout all the hysteria over corona virus, hardly any scientific voice has been raised to question the Pasteurian theory of disease that has been the dominant narrative in the West for the last hundred and fifty years. Not only is there astonishing unanimity among the ‘experts’ over ‘the science’, but any attempt to question it is either suppressed or ridiculed. All those advising various governments only have one point of reference – Louis Pasteur.

Pasteur’s ‘germ’ theory is that microorganisms – pathogens – are liable to attack anybody at any time irrespective of whether or not the individual is in good health and takes care of himself. Pasteur discounted this and said that to protect us from harmful organisms they must be destroyed or we must be kept away from them.

But there is another way of looking at it which makes a good deal of sense and seems to accord with the reality of living. Throughout the nineteenth century Pasteur’s great rival was Antoine Béchamp. Béchamp contended that microorganisms, Pasteur’s ‘germs’, are not so much the cause of illness and disease as its result. Béchamp held that what he called ‘microzymas’ of the body, which he found to be the ultimate units of life, present throughout the cells of the body, both maintain its life (metabolic) and aid in its disintegration (catabolic) if it is injured or dies. These microorganisms are capable of changing themselves into different kinds of pathogens when their normal functions and conditions of life are disturbed. This happens in disease and in the decay that follows death.

Béchamp accepted that external microorganisms may contribute to illness and decomposition, but that was only half the story. The destructive and morbid influence of these is in addition to that already faced by an organism’s internal microorganisms which have the power to initiate decay or maintain health. A healthy body is protected against infection and illness unless something goes wrong with it to cause it to succumb. This is the crucial distinction from germ theory. If it were otherwise we would have no protection against the myriad pathogens and microorganisms that assail us throughout our lives. Béchamp showed that bacteria also develop internally in an organism without any external influence by using the example of a bruised apple whose internal cells started to rot without its skin being broken.

This ‘holistic’ view lays the responsibility for his own health squarely upon the individual, who must take measures to protect himself from illness. This is in stark contrast to the prevailing modern approach in the West that makes a person a victim to be saved by medical science and drugs. It is one of the reasons why the medical profession is largely ignorant of nutrition and there is almost no concern in Britain and the US over the quality of food served in hospitals. Germ theory ignores or denies the benefit to the health of the patient from proper cooking and eating well.

Pasteur’s theory suggests that the body is simply a collection of inert chemicals, and therefore after death there ought to be nothing living in it. When it was pointed out to him that there was life in dead organisms, he was forced to the erroneous conclusion that it resulted from pathogenic invasion from without, even when the organism was isolated from any source of contact. Either he understood, but would not admit, or he simply could not fathom, that microorganisms are inherent in all life on the planet – all of which are composed of and have developed from living microzymas.

The people of the broadly Protestant countries in the West seem to be those most attracted by Pasteur’s germ theory. The medical establishment in Britain and North America, in particular, talks about ‘waging war’ on viruses and diseases, ‘battling’ against illness and so on. And this attitude has been eagerly exploited by the pharmaceutical industry to make vast profits from medicalising the population by frightening them that its products are necessary to keep them free of illness. It is hard to understand why a theory that has delivered so many people into the hands of the medical profession and kept them there, should have gained such widespread acceptance.

Over the decades the Pasteurian approach has not gone unchallenged. There has always been an undercurrent of alternative health treatment that promoted Béchamp’s ideas even if its practitioners didn’t quite know where they came from. Osteopaths, chiropractors, homeopaths, herbalists and so on, whose aim is to make the body healthy to protect itself from disease, have made great strides to shake off the criticism of conventional doctors that their treatment is little more than witchcraft. People are beginning to grasp that what we eat affects our health and our immune system. The trouble is that big food manufacturers and the pharmaceutical industry are aware of this and have started to cater to the mood but not to the need behind it.

At the bottom of all this lies Pasteur’s superficial research which, tragically, was preferred over Béchamp’s profound, often mystical and subtle understanding of the workings of life and pathology. Even now, those who dare to question the prevailing narrative based on Pasteur’s germ theory are attacked as being ‘germ theory denialists’ even though most of Pasteur’s theories were plagiarized from Béchamp’s early research work. The irony is that towards the end of his life, Pasteur himself doubted the germ theory and is supposed to have declared on his deathbed that Béchamp was right all along: ‘The terrain is everything.’

It is not too much of an exaggeration to say that Pasteur’s influence on Western scientists and our clueless politicians has turned out to be such a disaster for our economy and our society.

Green & Peasant Land

Is Glyphosate safe?

Is Glyphosate safe?

Last November, Thailand resolved to ban glyphosate because its government was not convinced that the weedkiller is safe. Certain countries are certain it’s a carcinogen and pollutant, others are not too sure, while USDA (the US Department of Agriculture) insists it’s completely harmless. But USDA can hardly be classed as disinterested because the herbicide is a fantastic money-spinner for its manufacturer, the US chemical giant Monsanto, owned by Bayer, and brings in billions of dollars a year to the US economy. It is the most widely used weedkiller and crop desiccant in the world, sold under a number of proprietary names – Roundup in Britain – and is routinely sprayed on genetically modified crops to kill every green thing in the field except the crop. Its use eliminates the need to control weeds by any other means, such as hoeing or rotational cropping. Almost all the crops of soy beans in both north and south America are sprayed with glyphosate first to kill weeds and then to desiccate the stems and leaves to make it easier to harvest the beans.

But Bayer was not about to allow the Thai public health authorities to kill off one of their highly lucrative markets. By doing nothing they would be tacitly admitting there might be some danger to health. The US Under-Secretary in USDA, under pressure himself from Bayer, applied heavy pressure – some would say blackmail – to the Thais to reverse their proposed ban, even though the country’s health authorities advised a ban was necessary to protect the public. The Americans made it clear that a ban would ‘severely impact’ imports into Thailand of American soybeans, wheat and other agricultural products. In other words, if Thailand banned glyphosate it would be unable to import American crops which are laced with residues of glyphosate.

There is growing concern around the world that glyphosate is a dangerous chemical whose residues are being found in almost every part of the globe due to its routine use on staple crops that make up a large part of the diet of every person in the world. There is hardly any soya, wheat, palm oil, maize or sugar cane, grown in westernised nations that has not been sprayed with glyphosate. It is noteworthy that Russia has banned its use, not just for political reasons. Bayer is fighting hard against growing evidence that the product is far from ‘completely safe for human consumption’. There are tens of thousands of lawsuits pending against the company claiming that glyphosate causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of blood cancer. And if it should be shown to be a harmful substance, America has too much invested in this weedkiller and the GM seed Monsanto has patented to be sown in combination with it, for the financial, agricultural and public health repercussions to be anything other than catastrophic for the US economy and society.

That USDA is prepared to act as Bayer’s enforcer in suppressing other countries’ opposition to glyphosate hardly inspires confidence in its integrity or the honesty of its assertion that it is safe. But American agriculture is so far down the road of dependence on glyphosate and GM seed that it would be ruined by a ban.

Green & Peasant Land

Clapping for the NHS

We’ve seen some strange things over the last few months. One of the oddest was the weekly nationwide clapping and banging of pots and pans on doorsteps during the early part of the ‘lockdown’. It resembled nothing more than the rituals that took place in pagan times to chase away evil spirits from a village, to protect them against some epidemic, or to expel demons from the fields before the sowing of crops or before harvest. On a certain day, the whole community was expected to turn out to make as much noise as possible, shouting, blowing horns, ringing bells, clattering pots and pans and parading through the streets to make what the Irish call a hullabaloo. This was a common ritual in many societies across the world. The noise was believed to frighten off the evil spirits and protect the community.

It struck me that the banging and clapping was a remarkable revival of this practice, taking us right back to pagan times. The nation had been terrified by the government into believing that hundreds of thousands of people were going to die from an evil spirit, a plague the like of which we hadn’t seen since the Spanish flu a century earlier. Hundreds of thousands were destined to die. Then someone suggested we come out to ‘clap for the NHS’ which is the nearest thing we have to a deity in modern Britain. The clapping was then accompanied by banging pots and pans, exactly the thing our pagan ancestors did to chase away demons that might do them harm. People came out in their droves all across the country and those failing to appear on their doorstep in solidarity with their neighbours were subject to public disapproval, just as they were in pagan times.

It was a remarkable demonstration of a pagan practice we might have thought we had grown out of, but that lives on, just below the surface of our modern world, ever ready to resurge.

Green & Peasant Land

Welcome to the Blog!

Introducing the “Green and Peasant Land” of Philip Walling!

Green & Peasant Land