Why did the United Nations delete this post 5 minutes ago?

web.archive.org/web/20220705153241/https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/benefits-world-hunger

We made it bros, we made frens.

Attached: 1614886137216.jpg (837x945, 381.06K)

Hungry slaves work for even less, GET WAGING BOYO!

>You VILL eat nothing and you VILL be happy!

because they realized the mistake of calling hungry people productive because africans are hungry but they are also lazy as fuck

>fat person talks about the benefits of hunger
what is the logic here

The article was a humble brag. The writers was claiming to be at the 'high end of the social ladder' and inviting his readers to think they are as well and that is in their interests to let world food insecurity build. Who reads that sort of shot? NGO and academic leaches who might decide to protest for social cred. He's discouraging them from doing so on the grounds that they are leachs and a sick hungry host is less likely to scrape them off.
As soon as it spread outside the target audience it was deleted.

Based.

Here is the oldest archive
archive (.) ph/zKzzH

I onestly don't understand how the globalists still think they can win. Their stupid rules say they have to announce their intentions beforehand, but that just ends up red-pilling more normies. Ffs the nwo are a bunch of smooth rains.

>archive (.) ph/zKzzH
only post that matters itt

Don't forget his contact info
www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/contact.htm

Holy shit. They actually did it!

Nah ... they intentionally conflating individual hungriness as a motive to work with mass starvation. It is designed to justify their retarded policies.

this had to be a hack/sabotage or rogue/crazy writer, no way this was authorized

Aka “[insert major serious problem here], and that’s a good thing”

I tought it was sarcastical in tone, in the sense that people in power gain from world hunger cause lower wages so they are not incentivized to to something about it.

The elite frequently say shit like this lately. They just back down when it gets bad publicity.

Did you even read the last paragraph?

I've read some dumb shit but that takes the cake.

Attached: 1656594184550.jpg (1024x533, 100.09K)

>when you publicly publish a private memo

Attached: biden-fails.gif (220x245, 785.45K)

Way too basedandredpilled to leave up.

nice. i just called his cell and left a message ha ha. his out going message says something like "hope to hear some good news" looool what a turbo kike

>un.org/en/chronicle/article/benefits-world-hunger
Some please got an archive on this.

>IT WAS ALL SATIRE

I would post the link to the article about this article but Any Forums is gay and doesn't allow me. 99% it's satirical you dumb niggers.

Attached: From the article.png (679x765, 192.89K)

Go on archive site
Search url

>damage control

They're here.
Say hi!

>these people are stupid

>The article argues that people work to fight hunger, and if there is no hunger, there will be nobody to do the manual jobs. Kenk shockingly says, “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.”
Come the fuck on.

Imagine their reaction if you made a "sarcastic" video calling for the eradication of the jewish race.

I gotchu senpai
archive (.) ph/zKzzH

Still there on Google Cache too
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3iM-_rd9Z8EJ:https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/benefits-world-hunger &cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Attached: 1637093591926.jpg (479x361, 54.79K)

Well so much of thier shit contradicts other shit.
>hard left policy including gay shit
>u vill starve and eat ze bugs
>society reverts back to basics and traditions in hard times, eliminating hard left and gay shit

I didn't realize that the UN was in the business of publishing satire. Is it normal to publish satire as though it is a perfectly normal article, and a view that you actually endorse? Right next to other articles and views that you endorse? Would (((Stephen Bank))) defend it if it were the Babylon Bee "satirically" pointing out that jews are the cause of all the world's problems?

>and ultimately own the people who work for them
utterly based by the UN

The article is on researchgate. I'm reading it right now and if you actually are taking it seriously you are fucking braindead.
>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 and the machines and the lands and, ultimately, own the people who work for them. For those who depend on the availability of cheap labor, hunger is the foundation of their wealth.
>The conventional thinking is that hunger is caused by low-paying jobs. For example, one report tells about “Brazil's ethanol slaves:200,000 migrant sugar cutters who prop up renewable energy boom (Phillips 2007; also see Simoes 2008).” While it is true that hunger is caused by low-paying jobs, we need to understand that at the same time hunger 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 many people would be available to take the jobs at low pay rates?

>99% it's satirical you dumb niggers.
What's the matter, did the Canada VPN go down you fucking glowfag?

>be snopes
>did he fall?
>mostly false

It was of course a feel good kind of article where they just eat caviar and drink champagne near their private lake while lamenting on the sad state of the world and that each should do more to better the world.

The best way to do it is of course trough public fund taken from the tax of middle class while they get to exploit loophole and fiscal paradise in order to shelter their own tax base.

And if you dont like it YOU are the egoist retarder right winger.

Checked. You misunderstand. They won't put you in active starvation unchecked. They will make you reliant upon the government for food, and they will primarily feed you bugs. There will be no reversion to agricultural or pastoral living, because we will all be rats in an urban cage for jews. Doped up on poisons and fed bugs. How would anybody revert? The best you'd get would be black neighborhood-style reversion into violence and decadence. But there will not be a return to tradition; the kike wants nothing more than control over you.

>Glowfag
Have you actually read the article? It's avalible on Research Gate, and it's literally one and a half of A4 page that ends with:
>The nongovernmental organization Free the Slaves estimates there are about 27 million slaves in the world (Free the Slaves 2007). They define slaves as people who are not allowed to walk away from their jobs. Their count includes people who are literally locked into workrooms and bonded laborers in south Asia. However, they do not include those who might be described as slaves to hunger, people who are free to walk away from their jobs, but have nothing better to go to. What are their numbers? Maybe most people who work are slaves to hunger?
>For those at the high end of the social ladder, ending hunger in the world would be a disaster. If there were no hunger in the world, who would plow the fields? Who would harvest the vegetables? Who would work in the rendering plants and the canneries? There are many things that those at the high end would not want to do themselves. When poor people work cheap, others get inexpensive food and shirts and televisions. Of course the people at the high end are not rushing to solve the hunger problem. For them, hunger is not a problem, but an asset.
You faggots get fucking giddy over stuff that you don't check at all.