More Ways to Deal With Climate Change

Bioethicist Proposes Engineering SMALLER Humans With Beef Intolerance to Fight “Climate Change”

skynesher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

North Korean defector Yeonmi Park recently said that America has, unbelievably, become even crazier than her native country. A reality evidencing this is that factual articles about real stories too often now sound like satire. Thus is the case with the subject here: a New York University “bioethicist” who has a solution to climate change, which he and his collaborators call “arguably one of the biggest problems that confront us today.”

To wit: engineer humans who are smaller, smarter, and beef-averse.

Mathew Liao, an immigrant born in Taiwan, has all the “right” credentials, having attended Princeton University and boasting a Ph.D.in philosophy from Oxford; he also holds the Arthur Zitrin Chair of Bioethics at New York University. In other words, he’s the kind of pseudo-elite to whom other pseudo-elites listen.

This is why his pronouncements matter. And perhaps this is why Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson brought his human engineering scheme to light yesterday evening.

Focusing on insanity committed in science’s name, Carlson’s segment opened discussing how it wasn’t just British zoologist Peter Daszak funding coronavirus gain-of-function research in China’s Wuhan lab — using tax dollars provided by Dr. Anthony Fauci — but also monopolistic corporation Google. Daszak and the tech leviathan then conspired to hide from the public information indicating that SARS-CoV-2 likely escaped from the lab.

Google’s complicity was essentially admitted some days ago by one David Feinberg, who heads up the company’s “Health Division.” Answering a reporter’s question, he said that the tech giant was censoring information because it didn’t want to “lead people down pathways that we would find to be not authoritative information”

Yet Liao is also authoritative; in fact, Carlson claims he’s “among the most influential bioethicists in the world.” And that’s why his comments, made years ago but largely ignored, matter.

“My view is that what we need is a really robust ethical framework … to solve big world problems” such as “climate change,” said Liao at an event called the World Science Festival (WSF) in 2016. It “turns out we can use human engineering to help us address climate change.”

Now, “anyone who uses the phrase ‘robust ethical framework’ wouldn’t know ethics if they got in the shower with them,” warned Carlson. This is because such people virtually never know much about what’s a prerequisite for understanding good ethics: morality. Beware those loath to use the term “morality” — for this is usually because they don’t believe in its reality.

But “[h]uman engineering?” stated Carlson rhetorically. “The name alone should make you pause. People aren’t bridge improvements. You can’t just add rebar, pour a few yards of concrete, and improve the human condition, much less the human soul.”

“People are living beings,” the host continued. “They’re alive. They can’t be engineered.”

But don’t tell Liao, who, with collaborators in a 2012 paper titled “Human Engineering and Climate Change,” wrote that “existing solutions such as geoengineering might be too risky … to mitigate climate change.” So we’re instead proposing “human engineering, which involves biomedical modifications of humans so that they can mitigate and/or adapt to climate change,” the scientists continued, also stating that the ethical concerns “can be addressed.”

As for Liao’s proposals, he said at the WSF that people’s consumption of meat was often due to just a “weakness of will.” “So here’s a thought…we have these [sic] intolerance,” he explained. “For example, I have milk intolerance, and there’s, some people are intolerant to crayfish. So possibly we can use human engineering to make it the case that we’re intolerant to certain kinds of meat, certain kinds of bovine proteins. …So that’s something we can do through human engineering.”

 

But Liao wasn’t done. He also suggested at the WSF that we could create smaller humans. “So it turns out the larger you are, think of the lifetime of greenhouse gas emissions that are required, the energy that’s required to transport larger people rather than smaller people, right?” he elaborated. “But if we are smaller just by 15cm…I did the math and that’s about mass reduction of 25%, which is huge. And 100 years ago we’re all on average smaller, exactly about 15 cm smaller, right? So think of … the lifetime greenhouse gas emissions if we had smaller children, right? So that’s something we can do” (video below).

Liao has also argued that we could engineer people to be more intelligent, as higher IQs correlate with lower fertility.

Last week I wrote about how our society is beset by “credentialed morons,” but Liao isn’t dumb. Listening to him makes clear that he’s also not a man of ill will. Yet this perhaps makes him more dangerous. We all know what the road to Hell is paved with, after all.

His ideas aren’t new, either. Using science to improve man was all the rage a century ago in the form of “eugenics,” the science of improving humanity via selective breeding. It’s now associated with the Nazis, whose embrace of it discredited it. But prior to the National Socialists’ rise (in 1933) and till World War II’s conclusion, eugenics was quite popular among American and British pseudo-elites. In fact, the scientist who coined the term “eugenics” was an Englishman, Sir Francis Galton.

And now we’re coming full circle; only, we’ve graduated beyond selective breeding since we now can directly manipulate life genetically. This history repetition was predictable, too, as it’s “what science looks like when it’s been completely decoupled from wisdom, decency and Christianity,” said Carlson.

He’s correct about faithlessness lying at this problem’s heart. Upon concluding that we’re just “cosmic accidents” — the result of godless, unguided evolution — it follows that perhaps we should facilitate that evolution. (Note here that Galton, a half-cousin of famed evolutionist Charles Darwin, acknowledged that he was building on his relative’s work.)

Consider here that people would be very unlikely to fiddle with what they view as God’s design, but they’ll be very likely to try to correct “accidents.” When not believing in God, it’s tempting to play god.

The bottom line is that we should take Liao’s ideas seriously, especially since he has scientific allies in promoting them. For the Critical Race Theory march, “transgenderism,” and so many other destructive movements began with an idea, propounded first by one person and initially dismissed as crankery. And we know what happened with them.

from:   https://thenewamerican.com/bioethicist-proposes-engineering-smaller-humans-with-beef-intolerance-to-fight-climate-change/

What is in Those Things?

COVID Shots, DNA & Transhumanism, With Dr. Madej

In this presentation with The New American magazine’s Alex Newman, Dr. Carrie Madej explains that the elites peddling the COVID shots are also pushing transhumanism… and the two are closely related. Genetic modifications and new technologies are on the verge of changing what it means to be human, and the elites are really pushing the boundaries. Don’t miss this critically important presentation by one of the most important doctors speaking out on these issues publicly.

from:   https://thenewamerican.com/covid-shots-dna-transhumanism-with-dr-madej-2/

Let’s Tackle the Sun…

June23,2021

https://prepareforchange.net/2021/06/05/china-fires-up-artificial-sun-at-120-million-degrees-celsius-in-quest-for-nuclear-fusion-media/

China fires up ‘artificial sun’ at 120 MILLION DEGREES Celsius in quest for nuclear fusion – media – Prepare For Change Chinese media have reported that researchers working on a nuclear fusion project have succeeded in holding plasma of 120 million degrees Celsius for close to two minutes. Chinese daily Global Times reports that the so-called artificial sun as the Chinese nuclear fusion project is known also succeeded in maintaining plasma at 160 million degrees Celsius for 20 seconds. = Lucretia 

from:

Ah, Klaus You Are Doing It/Trying It Again

The Next FALSE FLAG Will Be A CYBER ATTACK ON GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAINS!! Cyber Polygon EXPOSED!!!

In October of 2019 The World Economic Forum (WEF) organized a simulation called “Event 201” to test what a global reaction to a global pandemic might look like just a few months before the exact same scenario played out in real life. Now, the WEF along with Russia’s Sberbank and its cybersecurity subsidiary BI.ZONE have announced that they will be running a new simulation called “Cyber Polygon” which simulates a supply-chain cyberattack similar to the recent SolarWinds hack that would “assess the cyber resilience” of the exercise’s participants. In this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth speaks with James Corbett of The Corbett Report about the upcoming Cyber Polygon simulated event, how society is being conditioned for a real cyber attack to come and most importantly what you can do about it NOW to protect yourself and your family from this coming cyber catastrophe!

WATCH ON ➜ ODYSEE

WATCH ON ➜ BITCHUTE

WATCH ON ➜ FLOTE

WATCH ON ➜ RUMBLE

WATCH ON ➜ YouTube (meh)

from:   https://pressfortruth.ca/the-next-false-flag-will-be-a-cyber-attack-on-global-supply-chains-cyber-polygon-exposed/

Time to Honor the Soil

Toxic Corporations Are Destroying the Planet’s Soil

Colin Todhunter

Anewly published analysis in the journal Frontiers in Environmental Science argues that a toxic soup of insecticides, herbicides and fungicides is causing havoc beneath fields covered in corn, soybeans, wheat and other monoculture crops. The research is the most comprehensive review ever conducted on how pesticides affect soil health.

The study is discussed by two of the report’s authors, Nathan Donley and Tari Gunstone, in a recent article appearing on the Scientific American website.

The authors state that the findings should bring about immediate changes in how regulatory agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assess the risks posed by the nearly 850 pesticide ingredients approved for use in the USA.

Conducted by the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth and the University of Maryland, the research looked at almost 400 published studies that together had carried out more than 2800 experiments on how pesticides affect soil organisms. The review encompassed 275 unique species or types of soil organisms and 284 different pesticides or pesticide mixtures.

Pesticides were found to harm organisms that are critical to maintaining healthy soils in over 70 per cent of cases. But Donley and Gunstone say this type of harm is not considered in the EPA’s safety reviews, which ignore pesticide harm to earthworms, springtails, beetles and thousands of other subterranean species.

The EPA uses a single test species to estimate risk to all soil organisms, the European honeybee, which spends its entire life above ground in artificial boxes. But 50-100 per cent of all pesticides end up in soil.

The researchers conclude that the ongoing escalation of pesticide-intensive agriculture and pollution are major driving factors in the decline of soil organisms. By carrying out wholly inadequate reviews, the regulatory system serves to protect the pesticide industry.

The study comes in the wake of other recent findings that indicate high levels of the weedkiller chemical glyphosate and its toxic breakdown product AMPA have been found in topsoil samples from no-till fields in Brazil.

Writing on the GMWatch website, Claire Robinson and Jonathan Matthews note that, despite this, the agrochemical companies seeking the renewal of the authorisation of glyphosate by the European Union in 2022 are saying that one of the greatest benefits of glyphosate is its ability to foster healthier soils by reducing the need for tillage (or ploughing).

This in itself is misleading because farmers are resorting to ploughing given increasing weed resistance to glyphosate and organic agriculture also incorporates no till methods. At the same time, proponents of glyphosate conveniently ignore or deny its toxicity to soils, water, humans and wildlife.

With that in mind, it is noteworthy that GMWatch also refers to another recent study which says that glyphosate is responsible for a five per cent increase in infant mortality in Brazil.

The new study, ‘Pesticides in a case study on no-tillage farming systems and surrounding forest patches in Brazil’ in the journal Scientific Reports, leads the researchers to conclude that glyphosate-contaminated soil can adversely impact food quality and human health and ecological processes for ecosystem services maintenance. They argue that glyphosate and AMPA presence in soil may promote toxicity to key species for biodiversity conservation, which are fundamental for maintaining functioning ecological systems.

These studies reiterate the need to shift away from increasingly discredited ‘green revolution’ ideology and practices. This chemical-intensive model has helped the drive towards greater monocropping and has resulted in less diverse diets and less nutritious foods. Its long-term impact has led to soil degradation and mineral imbalances, which in turn have adversely affected human health.

If we turn to India, for instance, that country is losing 5334 million tonnes of soil every year due to soil erosion and degradation, much of which is attributed to the indiscreet and excessive use of synthetic agrochemicals. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research reports that soil is becoming deficient in nutrients and fertility.

India is not unique in this respect. Maria-Helena Semedo of the Food and Agriculture Organization stated back in 2014 that if current rates of degradation continue all of the world’s topsoil could be gone within 60 years. She noted that about a third of the world’s soil had already been degraded. There is general agreement that chemical-heavy farming techniques are a major cause.

It can take 500 years to generate an inch of soil yet just a few generations to destroy. When you drench soil with proprietary synthetic agrochemicals as part of a model of chemical-dependent farming, you harm essential micro-organisms and end up feeding soil a limited doughnut diet of toxic inputs.

Armed with their multi-billion-dollar money-spinning synthetic biocides, this is what the agrochemical companies have been doing for decades. In their arrogance, these companies claim to have knowledge that they do not possess and then attempt to get the public and co-opted agencies and politicians to bow before the altar of corporate ‘science’ and its bought-and-paid-for scientific priesthood.

The damaging impacts of their products on health and the environment have been widely reported for decades, starting with Rachel Carson’s ground-breaking 1962 book Silent Spring.

These latest studies underscore the need to shift towards organic farming and agroecology and invest in indigenous models of agriculture – as has been consistently advocated by various high-level international agencies, not least the United Nations, and numerous official reports.

from:   https://off-guardian.org/2021/06/23/toxic-corporations-are-destroying-the-planets-soil/

Fear, False Narratives, and Control

Manufacturing (New Normal) “Reality”

CJ Hopkins

The ultimate goal of every totalitarian system is to establish complete control over society and every individual within it in order to achieve ideological uniformity and eliminate any and all deviation from it.

This goal can never be achieved, of course, but it is the raison d’être of all totalitarian systems, regardless of what forms they take and ideologies they espouse.

You can dress totalitarianism up in Hugo Boss-designed Nazi uniforms, Mao suits, or medical-looking face masks, its core desire remains the same: to remake the world in its paranoid image … to replace reality with its own “reality.”

We are right in the middle of this process currently, which is why everything feels so batshit crazy. The global capitalist ruling classes are implementing a new official ideology, in other words, a new “reality.” That’s what an official ideology is. It’s more than just a set of beliefs. Anyone can have any beliefs they want. Your personal beliefs do not constitute “reality.”

In order to make your beliefs “reality,” you need to have the power to impose them on society. You need the power of the police, the military, the media, scientific “experts,” academia, the culture industry, the entire ideology-manufacturing machine.

There is nothing subtle about this process. Decommissioning one “reality” and replacing it with another is a brutal business. Societies grow accustomed to their “realities.” We do not surrender them willingly or easily. Normally, what’s required to get us to do so is a crisis, a war, a state of emergency, or … you know, a deadly global pandemic.

During the changeover from the old “reality” to the new “reality,” the society is torn apart. The old “reality” is being disassembled and the new one has not yet taken its place. It feels like madness, and, in a way, it is. For a time, the society is split in two, as the two “realities” battle it out for dominance. “Reality” being what it is (i.e., monolithic), this is a fight to the death. In the end, only one “reality” can prevail.

This is the crucial period for the totalitarian movement. It needs to negate the old “reality” in order to implement the new one, and it cannot do that with reason and facts, so it has to do it with fear and brute force. It needs to terrorize the majority of society into a state of mindless mass hysteria that can be turned against those resisting the new “reality.”

It is not a matter of persuading or convincing people to accept the new “reality.” It’s more like how you drive a herd of cattle. You scare them enough to get them moving, then you steer them wherever you want them to go.

The cattle do not know or understand where they are going. They are simply reacting to a physical stimulus. Facts and reason have nothing to do with it.

And this is what has been so incredibly frustrating for those of us opposing the roll-out of the “New Normal,” whether debunking the official Covid-19 narrative, or “Russiagate,” or the “Storming of the US Capitol,” or any other element of the new official ideology.

And, yes, it is all one ideology, not “communism,” or “fascism,” or any other nostalgia, but the ideology of the system that actually rules us, supranational global capitalism. We’re living in the first truly global-hegemonic ideological system in human history. We have been for the last 30 years. If you are touchy about the term “global capitalism,” go ahead and call it “globalism,” or “crony capitalism,” or “corporatism,” or whatever other name you need to.

Whatever you call it, it became the unrivaled globally-hegemonic ideological system when the Soviet Union collapsed in the 1990s. Yes, there are pockets of internal resistance, but it has no external adversaries, so its progression toward a more openly totalitarian structure is logical and entirely predictable.

Anyway, what has been so incredibly frustrating is that many of us have been operating under the illusion that we are engaged in a rational argument over facts (e.g., the facts of Russiagate, Literal-Hitlergate, 9/11, Saddam’s WMDs, Douma, the January 6 “insurrection,” the official Covid narrative, etc.) This is not at all what is happening. Facts mean absolutely nothing to the adherents of totalitarian systems.

You can show the New Normals the facts all you like. You can show them the fake photos of people dead in the streets in China in March of 2020. You can show them the fake projected death rates. You can explain how the fake PCR tests work, how healthy people were deemed medical “cases.”

You can show them all the studies on the ineffectiveness of masks. You can explain the fake “hospitalization” and “death” figures, send them articles about the unused “emergency hospitals,” the unremarkable age-and-population-adjusted death rates, cite the survival rates for people under 70, the dangers and pointlessness of “vaccinating” children.

None of this will make the slightest difference.

Or, if you’ve bought the Covid-19 narrative, but haven’t completely abandoned your critical faculties, you can do what Glenn Greenwald has been doing recently. You can demonstrate how the corporate media have intentionally lied, again and again, to whip up mass hysteria over “domestic terrorism.” You can show people videos of the “violent domestic terrorists” calmly walking into the Capitol Building in single file, like a high-school tour group, having been let in by members of Capitol Security.

You can debunk the infamous “fire-extinguisher murder” of Brian Sicknik that never really happened. You can point out that the belief that a few hundred unarmed people running around in the Capitol qualifies as an “insurrection,” or an “attempted coup,” or “domestic terrorism,” is delusional to the point of being literally insane. This will also not make the slightest difference.

I could go on, and I’m sure I will as the “New Normal” ideology becomes our new “reality” over the course of the next several years. My point, at the moment, is … this isn’t an argument. The global-capitalist ruling classes, government leaders, the corporate media, and the New Normal masses they have instrumentalized are not debating with us. They know the facts. They know the facts contradict their narratives. They do not care. They do not have to. Because this isn’t about facts. It’s about power.

I’m not saying that facts don’t matter. Of course they matter. They matter to us. I’m saying, let’s recognize what this is. It isn’t a debate or a search for the truth. The New Normals are disassembling one “reality” and replacing it with a new “reality.” (Yes, I know that reality exists in some fundamental ontological sense, but that isn’t the “reality” I’m talking about here, so please do not send me angry emails railing against Foucault and postmodernism.)

The pressure to conform to the new “reality” is already intense and it’s going to get worse as vaccination passes, public mask-wearing, periodic lockdowns, etc., become normalized. Those who don’t conform will be systematically demonized, socially and/or professionally ostracized, segregated, and otherwise punished.

Our opinions will be censored. We will be “canceled,” deplatformed, demonitized, and otherwise silenced. Our views will be labeled “potentially harmful.” We will be accused of spreading “misinformation,” of being “far-right extremists,” “racists,” “anti-Semites,” “conspiracy theorists,” “anti-vaxxers,” “anti-global-capitalist violent domestic terrorists,” or just garden variety “sexual harassers,” or whatever they believe will damage us the most.

This will happen in both the public and personal spheres. Not just governments, the media, and corporations, but your colleagues, friends, and family will do this. Strangers in shops and restaurants will do this. Most of them will not do it consciously. They will do it because your non-conformity represents an existential threat to them…a negation of their new “reality” and a reminder of the reality they surrendered in order to remain a “normal” person and avoid the punishments described above.

This is nothing new, of course. It is how “reality” is manufactured, not only in totalitarian systems, but in every organized social system. Those in power instrumentalize the masses to enforce conformity with their official ideology. Totalitarianism is just its most extreme and most dangerously paranoid and fanatical form.

So, sure, keep posting and sharing the facts, assuming you can get them past the censors, but let’s not kid ourselves about what we’re up against. We’re not going to wake the New Normals up with facts. If we could, we would have done so already.

This is not a civilized debate about facts. This is a fight. Act accordingly.

CJ Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing and Broadway Play Publishing, Inc. His dystopian novel, Zone 23, is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. Volumes I and II of his Consent Factory Essays are published by Consent Factory Publishing, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amalgamated Content, Inc. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org.

from:   https://off-guardian.org/2021/06/21/manufacturing-new-normal-reality/

Of Human Chimeras, Embryos, Family, & DNA

France adopts bioethics law that will introduce chimeras, genetic engineering of ‘human material’

In its latest revision, the law will also allow access to artificial procreation to all women, including women in same-sex couples and single women.
Fri Jun 11, 2021 – 12:50 pm EST
Featured Image
Lab work with petri dish Shutterstock

June 11, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — The French National Assembly adopted a radically transgressive bioethics law that will likely enter into force at the beginning of July, once it has passed its last legislative hurdles after this third reading. It is truly revolutionary in its conception of the world and of society. It marks the end of the recognition of paternity, but also the beginning of legally manufactured chimeras, and other kinds of genetic engineering of “human material.”

France’s first bioethics law dates back to 1992; from the start, provisions were made for its periodic revision, and over the years, it has increasingly legalized embryo research. In its latest mutation, the law will allow access to artificial procreation to all women, including women in same-sex couples and single women, as had been promised by French president Emmanuel Macron in his election campaign.

Access to “medically assisted procreation for all” (“PMA pour toutes”) was rejected by the French population during public consultations before the draft law was set up, and was also taken out of the text by the Senate in February, leading to a further discussion by the National Assembly which reintroduced the measure. The newly adopted version will go back to the Senate for a third debate within a few weeks, but whatever happens there, the lower chamber will have the definitive vote which is expected to take place by the end of the month at the latest. This is in keeping with the government’s recent actions to force the text through Parliament.

The law will introduce other significant changes. For the first time, destructive research on the human embryo up to 14 days will be allowed in principle: until now, such research required special prior dispensation. The new law will also liberalize research on human embryonic stem cells, and allow the creation of artificial gametes, copies of human embryos, chimeric embryos (which can be implanted in animals), and transgenic embryos (including in vitro fertilization with “three parents”).

Access to abortion will be even easier than it already is. The new law is scrapping the cooling-off period of “at least one week,” and also provides a new justification for abortion: “the partial voluntary interruption of a multiple pregnancy.” At the same time, it does away with the obligation to consult a person holding parental authority when young women under 18 are having a “medical interruption of pregnancy:” abortions beyond the legal term of 12 weeks’ gestation and up to birth for health problems affecting the mother or the child validated by at least two doctors and a medical team.

Another barbaric provision introduced by amendment was rejected by the National Assembly. It aimed to introduce a new motive for “medical” abortions: “psycho-social distress.”

On the other hand, the specific conscience clause attached to the practice of medical abortions has been dismantled.

The most publicized aspect of the law, however, was that of fatherless procreation, as mentioned above. Old-fashioned law — law that organizes reality without contradicting it, that almost all of humanity has understood since the dawn of time — calls the woman who gives birth “mother,” and “father” the man who has begotten the new individual who was just born (such law even allows the unborn child to inherit from its deceased father, if orphaned in utero). French law assumes that the mother’s husband is a child’s father, unless proved otherwise.

All this is over. When the law enters into effect, begetting a child can become merely symbolic, and parenthood will be adapted to the woman’s desire. And if you dare say that a child needs a father, it must be because you are irremediably stuck in gender stereotypes, in hatred of the LGBTQI+ community, and that you are a supporter of the “patriarchy” that, as Antonio Guterres, U.N. secretary general, said in the middle of the pandemic, is the root of all our ills.

These are the words he used last August, according to a UN tweet: “The #COVID19 pandemic is demonstrating what we all know: millennia of patriarchy have resulted in a male-dominated world with a male-dominated culture which damages everyone – women, men, girls & boys.”

This is more important than it seems. It shows that the pandemic, “bioethics,” and promoting “LGBT rights” are all linked as facets of a same ideology.

France is presently facing a severe crisis consecutive to the restrictions imposed on its population in the name of COVID. Personal freedoms have been torn to pieces, often in absurd and contradictory ways, unemployment is at a height and public spending has gone through the roof, and despite all these major problems, the French government has been focusing on forcing the bioethics law through Parliament at high speed.

Remember that “bioethics” has nothing to do with natural law or respect for human life and the human person. When it was first developed, it was presented as a form of “ethics of life” at the service of life in general and of its improvement. Understood thus, bioethics considers man as a species living among other species, while the individual is less a person than an element of humankind, that is usable, interchangeable, and modifiable.

In its logic, the new French bioethics law is a eugenicist law: It allows for the turning of man into a genetically modified organism, the crossing of the barrier of species, choosing embryos for implantation in order to “use” them as “medication” for an older sibling, and editing them using the CRISPR-Cas9 technique. To be sure, the law prohibits the implantation and gestation of genetically engineered embryos, but allows the first steps that one day might lead to the nightmare of designer babies.

Besides the negation of the truth of filiation, this urge to make tampering with the human genome legal is the most terrifying aspect of the law.

According to French geneticist Alexandra Henrion-Caude, there is a direct relationship with the COVID crisis and the pushing through of the transgressive law: As she pointed out during a January interview on Radio Courtoisie, France’s historic independent associative radio station, there is a link between the drive to use experimental “vaccines” to make human cells produce proteins by introducing mRNA, “augmenting” their capacities, and allowing modification of the DNA of embryos. The purpose is clearly “transhumanist,” she argued. The idea of augmenting the capacities of the body and mind are also central to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, as the World Economic Forum founded by Klaus Schwab sees it.

Over the last year, most decisions in France have been made by executive orders, which Parliament was allowed, at best, to comment upon. The bioethics law, instead, is being pushed down Parliament’s throat, as if the government “needed” the approval of the nation’s representatives but was at the same time prepared to force their hand.

Many opponents of the planned law complained that the conditions for a proper democratic debate were not present. Only a small proportion of deputies and senators actually assist at the parliamentary debates: In the case of the bioethics law, 130 out of the 577 were present at voting time. Also, the issue goes way beyond the population’s present concerns: getting out of the COVID quagmire, keeping jobs, reuniting with family and friends.

The government imposed the debate anyway, going out of its way to prevent ordinary hearings of the parliamentary commissions involved in the issue. Time for amendments and discussion at the National Assembly were also severely restricted, and the whole text took less than three days to discuss: the opposition “Republicains” party and independent members were for the most part unable to explain their (over 1,500) amendments and obtain a rational debate on measures that have such far-reaching consequences.

The text garnered 84 votes in favor and 43 against (as well as abstentions), with a few courageous representatives doing overtime to try to weigh in on the debate. Emmanuelle Ménard, an independent representative from the south of France, explained why she would vote against it, accusing the government and its majority party of “opening Pandora’s box:” “You are false gods in training, who believe you are above everything: common sense, reality, our fleshly nature, and especially, and this is the most serious, the best interest of the child.”

The French Bishops’ Conference published a statement condemning the new bioethics law, saying: “Once again, the law claims to authorize new transgressions by setting them within a framework. But a framework never holds. Inevitably, it ends up being erased. To frame is to authorize. Humanity has grown by imposing prohibitions on itself: the prohibition of killing an innocent person, of incest, of theft, of rape. Mixing human cells and animal cells cannot be simply set within a framework: what must be forbidden must be clearly stated; what can be authorized must also be clearly stated. This is only possible with reference to a thoughtful vision of the human person and his or her filiation.”

On the day of the vote, Bishop Olivier de Germay of Lyon issued a call for prayer during the month of June, including fasting on Fridays, to ask God to help legislators to discern the true good of society and children. A miracle could still happen in the coming days …

from:   https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/france-adopts-bioethics-law-that-will-introduce-chimeras-genetic-engineering-of-human-material

Time To Act for the Earth = For Yourself!!!

Please!!!

Send your intentions and prayers to the planet for healing, for overcoming all the planetary engineering activities — drought, lack of moisture, HAARP, planetary heaters.

Prayers and good intentions ae powerful, even more p[owerful than the evil that people are trying to do in terms of killing the planet, killing the population, killing the animals, killing the ecosphere.  

Corporate based organizations and charities are not the answer when their concern is the bottom line and not us, not what they refer to as “Useless Eaters.”

Its is time to take action before it truly is too late:

Take a listen:

https://rumble.com/vi9o25-climate-engineering-causing-drought-and-earthquakes-dane-wigington.html

Stand Up For Your Local Farmers

Support local food sources!

Support local food sources!

When the conventional food system showed its fragility during the COVID shut-downs, local producers kept feeding their communities with high-quality meat, eggs, dairy, and produce.  Artisanal small businesses provide fermented foods, kombucha, and many more foods vital for nourishing our communities.

Yet these local farmers and artisanal producers all too often face unnecessary difficulties created by government regulations, policies, and programs.

Now we have a rare opportunity to urge USDA to change!  The disruptions in the food system over the last year have led President Biden to direct the USDA to submit a report that assesses the supply chains for the production of agricultural commodities and food products.

As part of developing that report, USDA is accepting public comments on “Supply Chains for the Production of Agricultural Commodities and Food Products” until June 21.  The agency will also consider the public comments in its decision on how to spend stimulus funds, since it has been directed to increase durability and resilience within the U.S. food supply.

This is an important opportunity to talk about the significance of localized, decentralized food systems – and to give the agency specific action steps that would help move us to those systems!

In writing your comments, please try to include (1) examples of the challenges farmers and other food producers face in raising, processing, and marketing their products; and (2) specific action items that would help small-scale and diversified producers to build resilient, diversified systems.

Note that the USDA cannot change statutory law.  So issues such as the requirement that meat be processed in an inspected slaughterhouse are outside the scope of this comment period.  But the agency can change its own regulations, policies, and where it directs funding – so there is a lot that it can do to address problems with that meat inspection program, for example.

Topics to consider including in your comments:

  1. Meat processing: USDA should take steps to support the continuation and establishment of new small- and mid-sized operations.
    1. Share your own story about meat processing. Farmers: Were you able to provide meat during the meatpacker shutdowns last spring? Or have you been unable to because of a lack of processing? Consumers: What did you see during the pandemic? From whom did you get meat?
    1. As a small farmer or processor, what changes do you think are needed? Remember to focus on things that are in the regulations and policies, as well as direct relief funding for financial support, not statutory changes that are beyond the agency’s ability to change.
    1. Consider expressing support for these policy changes:
      1. Revise USDA’s policy governing multiple owners of animals that are processed in custom-exempt slaughterhouses. The USDA currently requires that the custom slaughterhouse record each owner and do the division of the meat, which makes it impractical for more than 4 people to co-own an animal. But the statute and regulations merely provide that the meat must be for the personal or household use of the owners. If USDA modified its policy, then “animal shares” could be far more flexible, allowing farmers and consumers to agree to use custom processors.  In effect, we could implement the Wyoming herd share law without the need for new state statutes if USDA makes a simple policy change.
      1. Reform the scale-prejudicial regulations and policies on small-scale slaughterhouses, including: (1) prioritize inspector availability for small-scale processors and provide training specific to small-scale processors; (2) revise the pathogen testing and process-control testing to ensure that small plants are tested proportionally to large plants; (3) reduce the difficulty and expense in developing HACCPs by providing model HACCPs, posting applicable peer-reviewed research, and identifying the control points for different types of products.
  • The agency needs to stop adopting regulations and policies that are scale-prejudicial.  For example, electronic animal ID is much more expensive for small-scale producers, yet the benefits flow to the large players and exporters.
    • Share your concerns about electronic ID, both its impact on you and on others in the industry. Do you run your animals in pasture conditions where they are more likely to lose tags, increasing the time and monetary expense? Does your local sale barn have infrastructure for running all electronic ID or would it be forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars to install it? Would your veterinarian have to buy new equipment to deal with an electronic system?
  • Other areas of needed infrastructure, whether physical (such as commercial kitchens and storage) or logistical (support for food hubs, farmers markets, etc.): What do you see as needed to build resilient, vibrant local food systems? Again, this can involve changing regulations, policy and guidance documents, or providing funding through USDA programs.

You can submit your comment online at

https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/AMS-TM-21-0034-0076

DEADLINE: Monday, June 21

from:    https://www.westonaprice.org/support-local-food-sources/

Solar Cycles

The Termination Event

June 10, 2021: Something big may be about to happen on the sun. “We call it the Termination Event,” says Scott McIntosh, a solar physicist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), “and it’s very, very close to happening.”

If you’ve never heard of the Termination Event, you’re not alone.  Many researchers have never heard of it either. It’s a relatively new idea in solar physics championed by McIntosh and colleague Bob Leamon of the University of Maryland – Baltimore County. According to the two scientists, vast bands of magnetism are drifting across the surface of the sun. When oppositely-charged bands collide at the equator, they annihilate (or “terminate”). There’s no explosion; this is magnetism, not anti-matter. Nevertheless, the Termination Event is a big deal. It can kickstart the next solar cycle into a higher gear.

Above: Oppositely charged magnetic bands (red and blue) march toward the sun’s equator where they annihilate one another, kickstarting the next solar cycle. [full caption]

“If the Terminator Event happens soon, as we expect, new Solar Cycle 25 could have a magnitude that rivals the top few since record-keeping began,” says McIntosh.

This is, to say the least, controversial. Most solar physicists believe that Solar Cycle 25 will be weak, akin to the anemic Solar Cycle 24 which barely peaked back in 2012-2013. Orthodox models of the sun’s inner magnetic dynamo favor a weak cycle and do not even include the concept of “terminators.”

“What can I say?” laughs McIntosh. “We’re heretics!”

The researchers outlined their reasoning in a December 2020 paper in the research journal Solar Physics. Looking back over 270 years of sunspot data, they found that Terminator Events divide one solar cycle from the next, happening approximately every 11 years. Emphasis on approximately. The interval between terminators ranges from 10 to 15 years, and this is key to predicting the solar cycle.

Above: The official forecast for Solar Cycle 25 (red) is weak; McIntosh and Leamon believe it will be more like the strongest solar cycles of the past.

“We found that the longer the time between terminators, the weaker the next cycle would be,” explains Leamon. “Conversely, the shorter the time between terminators, the stronger the next solar cycle would be.”

Example: Sunspot Cycle 4 began with a terminator in 1786 and ended with a terminator in 1801, an unprecedented 15 years later. The following cycle, 5, was incredibly weak with a peak amplitude of just 82 sunspots. That cycle would become known as the beginning of the “Dalton” Grand Minimum.

Solar Cycle 25 is shaping up to be the opposite. Instead of a long interval, it appears to be coming on the heels of a very short one, only 10 years since the Terminator Event that began Solar Cycle 24. Previous solar cycles with such short intervals have been among the strongest in recorded history.

These ideas may be controversial, but they have a virtue that all scientists can appreciate: They’re testable. If the Termination Event happens soon and Solar Cycle 25 skyrockets, the “heretics” may be on to something. Stay tuned for updates.

from:    https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2021/06/11/the-termination-event/