Tag Archives: Climate Change

Alice – 2025? Really!!!

Posted on by

From Hierarchy to Technocracy

esc's avatar
ESC
AUG 09, 2025

The changes crept in so gradually that most people didn’t notice. Your freedom to travel now depends on having the right QR code. Your bank monitors your purchases and reports suspicious patterns to government agencies, all under the banner of safety and security. Social media platforms flag your posts as ‘misinformation’ if they question official policies, while your children learn in school that ‘individual rights’ must always be ‘balanced’ against ‘collective responsibility’. When you visit your doctor, everything you say gets entered into databases shared across agencies and institutions you’ve never heard of.

These aren’t separate policies responding to different problems. They’re connected pieces of a single framework that treats you not as a free human being, but as a data point to be monitored, measured, and managed for the stability of a larger system. The framework has a name, a structure, and a timeline that was laid out in remarkable detail nearly eight decades ago.

The 1947 Blueprint

IIn 1947, Alice Bailey published The Externalisation of the Hierarchy1, a book that most readers readily dismissed as fringe esoteric speculation. But Bailey wasn’t making predictions — she was documenting a plan. Writing with the clinical precision of someone with inside knowledge, she described exactly how human civilisation would be reshaped over the following decades. Her book reads less like prophecy and more like a project timeline — complete with phases, methods, target dates, and operational structures.

Bailey laid out a systematic approach to planetary transformation that would unfold over roughly 78 years. The plan wasn’t to destroy existing institutions, but to infiltrate and repurpose them from within, keeping their familiar names and symbols while redirecting their fundamental purpose toward global control. She described the construction of ‘triangular networks’ that would later link government, business, and civil society into unified command systems — precisely the public-private partnerships, multi-stakeholder governance structures, and UN coordination bodies that now dominate global decision-making. Global crises would serve as accelerators, creating the psychological conditions necessary for populations to accept rapid changes that would normally take decades to implement.

Writing with remarkable specificity about the timeline, Bailey stated:

Thus a great and new movement is proceeding and a tremendously increased interplay and interaction is taking place. This will go on until A.D. 2025. During the years intervening between now and then very great changes will be seen taking place, and at the great General Assembly of the Hierarchy—held as usual every century—in 2025 the date in all probability will be set for the first stage of the externalisation of the Hierarchy. The present cycle (from now until that date) is called technically ‘The Stage of the Forerunner’.

Her esoteric terminology masked what was essentially the same systems management architecture that would later emerge through McNamara’s Planning-Programming-Budgeting Systems and evolve into today’s global governance framework — the difference being that she understood it as spiritual hierarchy while technocrats would frame it as systems theory for scientific administration.

The ultimate goal was a planetary management system where unelected experts would make decisions for everyone, justified by appeals to collective good and scientific necessity. Advanced technology, data systems, and psychological techniques would monitor and shape human behavior on a global scale. Bailey wrote that a ‘decisive first stage’ of this transformation would be completed by 2025, marking the moment when this hidden network would stop working behind the scenes and begin openly directing world affairs.

In 2025, 194 nations agreed on the final wording of the core aspects of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, establishing a framework that is expected to give international health officials binding legal authority to override national governments during declared emergencies. Crucially, these ‘emergencies’ are not limited to actual disease outbreaks, but include computer-modeled hypothetical scenarios based on potential pandemic drivers — which, under the One Health framework, encompasses climate change, biodiversity loss, and virtually any environmental condition that algorithms determine might theoretically contribute to future health risks. For the first time in human history, unelected global bureaucrats gained the power to suspend individual rights based on predictive models rather than actual events.

The 78-year timeline was complete, right on schedule.

The Three-Step Transformation

The transformation required a fundamental shift in how human beings understand themselves and their relationship to authority. This shift happened in three overlapping phases, each building on the previous one to create the philosophical and practical foundations for global management.

The first phase involved removing higher truth from human consciousness. As long as people believed in God, natural rights, or moral absolutes, they would resist accepting human authority as final. The solution was a decades-long cultural campaign to convince populations that nothing exists beyond what can be measured and managed by experts. Science was transformed from a method of discovery into the ultimate moral authority, while education systems taught children that ethics were subjective opinions rather than universal truths. Once people stopped believing in transcendent sources of meaning, concepts like ‘human dignity’ became negotiable — defined by whoever controlled the institutional apparatus.

The second phase established official institutions as the only valid source of information about reality. Even without belief in higher truth, people might still think for themselves and reach different conclusions about policy or governance. The solution was to position dissent itself as a form of ignorance or extremism. Questioning official narratives became synonymous with spreading ‘dangerous misinformation’ or ‘endangering our democracy’. Media organisations, technology platforms, and academic institutions coordinated to ensure that populations heard a single, unified story on every major issue. The shift was subtle but decisive: asking questions about policy stopped being called ‘healthy skepticism’ and started being labeled immoral ‘anti-science’.

The third phase deployed the technological and legal infrastructure necessary to enforce compliance without appearing overtly totalitarian. Surveillance systems monitor behavior in real time, algorithms predict and prevent dissent before it can organise, and the eventual social credit systems reward compliance while punishing resistance. Emergency powers bypass normal democratic processes, allowing rapid implementation of restrictions that would be impossible under normal legislative procedures. People become components — cogs in the machine — designed for nothing short of maximum system efficiency.

The Timeline of Implementation

The transformation didn’t happen overnight. It followed a carefully planned sequence that can be traced through public documents, policy changes, and institutional developments over the past six decades.

The foundation was laid between 1961 and 1965 when Defense Secretary Robert McNamara introduced Planning-Programming-Budgeting Systems to the military, then President Johnson expanded this systems-based management approach across the entire federal government. This marked the moment when government stopped being primarily about serving people and started being about managing data flows and optimising systemic outcomes.

The concept of planetary management emerged between 1968 and 1972 through a series of international conferences and agreements. The UNESCO Biosphere Conference established the framework for treating Earth as a managed ecosystem requiring centralised administration. The Club of Rome formed during this period and soon published warnings of planetary collapse without coordinated global control. In a remarkable development, the United States and Soviet Union — supposedly locked in existential conflict — collaborated to create the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, who ultimately became responsible for ‘black box’ global modelling. This demonstrated that Cold War enemies could unite around planetary management objectives, later to become ‘Planetary Boundaries’, while the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm cemented the idea that Earth needed centralised administration to prevent ecological collapse.

The 1980s and 1990s saw the conversion of ethics itself into a tool of global governance. ‘Rights and responsibilities’ frameworks began replacing absolute human rights in international law and academic discourse, with Leonard Swidler positioning these as the middle principles leading to Global Ethics. The Earth Summit embedded ‘sustainable development’ as a moral duty that could override traditional notions of sovereignty, while installing ‘soft law’ controls on carbon emission and sequestration through the UNFCCC and Convention on Biological Diversity. Global business ethics codes aligned corporate behavior with planetary goals rather than local communities or shareholders, an initiative later turbocharged as Enron collapsed in late 2001. Universities established degree programs in ‘global governance’, training the future expert class that would eventually run these systems.

Between 2001 and 2015, the philosophical groundwork was translated into operational policy. WHO ethics papers redefined ‘human dignity’ from an inherent right to something earned through compliance with collective objectives. The ‘One Health’ framework merged human, animal, and environmental governance into a single administrative domain while academic conferences and think tanks normalised the idea that individual rights could be suspended during emergencies for ‘the greater good’. By 2015, international organisations had official ethical frameworks that explicitly authorised overriding personal freedoms when experts determined it was necessary — with no realistic possibility of appeal.

The infrastructure was completed between 2015 and 2019 as surveillance systems, digital identity platforms, and emergency response protocols moved from pilot programs to operational readiness. International emergency protocols were harmonised across countries,  though the details remained buried in technical annexes and working group reports that few people read. Everything was in place for activation when the right crisis presented itself.

COVID-19 provided that crisis in 2020, serving as the first global test of the new system. Emergency powers bypassed normal legislative processes, digital health passes demonstrated that populations would accept compliance-based freedoms, and government agencies, media organisations, and technology platforms operated with unprecedented coordination, seeking to censor any divergent point of view with strategic decision. The system worked exactly as designed — at least for a while, though a compliant police force was militarised against the people who objected.

Between 2021 and 2024, ‘temporary’ emergency measures became permanent features of governance. Legislative changes quietly extended emergency powers to cover climate change, artificial intelligence risks, and other global issues. International treaties and public-private partnerships fused health, finance, and environmental control into an integrated global management architecture. The pattern was established: each crisis expands the system’s reach, with climate emergencies, AI safety threats, and cybersecurity incidents already positioned as the next triggers for expanded global coordination.

The WHO Pandemic Treaty signed in 2025 represents the completion of this 78-year process. At present trajectory, international officials will eventually come to possess binding authority over national governments during declared emergencies — exactly as Bailey had outlined. The ‘externalisation’ is complete — global governance operates openly rather than behind the scenes.

The Choice Before Us

Understanding this history clarifies the choice we face. We are not heading toward this system of global management — we are already living within it, though it hasn’t yet had time to fully set. The question is whether we will accept it as inevitable and beneficial, or whether we will work to restore governance based democratic accountability while we still can.

Accepting the system means embracing a future where rights depend on compliance scores, where algorithms make decisions once reserved for human judgment, and where global bureaucrats can override local representatives whenever they declare an emergency that cannot be challenged. It means raising children who understand freedom as permission granted by authorities rather than an inherent birthright.

Rejecting the system requires rebuilding institutions based on different principles — transparency in emergency powers, genuine democratic consent for international agreements, full transparency and genuine accountability for public officials committing crimes, and recognition that human dignity cannot be conditional on compliance with expert recommendations. It means supporting alternatives that prioritise humanity over system efficiency, and teaching the next generation that rights do not derive from being well-behaved.

This is not a partisan political issue. People across the traditional political spectrum should recognise the difference between governance that serves the people and management that treats people as data points to be optimised. The system transcends conventional politics because it operates at the level of fundamental assumptions about human nature and the proper relationship between individuals and institutions.

The transformation succeeded because it happened gradually, then suddenly. For decades, each change seemed reasonable in isolation. But the cumulative effect has been to create a system where human agency is increasingly replaced by algorithmic authority, where local control gives way to global management, and where individual rights become conditional privileges.

The people who designed this transformation understood that change happens through accumulated precedents rather than dramatic reversals. They also understood that systems depend on participation. The global management apparatus requires local compliance to function effectively. This creates opportunities for resistance that don’t depend on controlling national governments or international organisations.

Every individual choice to resist redefinitions of basic concepts like freedom and dignity contributes to a larger cultural shift. Supporting businesses and organisations that operate according to human-centered rather than data-centered principles creates alternative networks. Engaging in local governance where human relationships still matter more than algorithmic optimisation builds foundations for different kinds of institutions.

The next crisis will undoubtedly be used to expand control further, just as previous crises have been. But understanding the pattern makes it possible to resist the psychological manipulation that accompanies emergency declarations. Knowing your rights before they’re suspended ‘temporarily’ — even if this is promised to be for only ‘two weeks’ — creates space for a response rather than mere reactiongloba

The 78-year plan succeeded because most people didn’t know it existed.

Now that it’s visible, the choice is ours: participate in our own management, or remember what it means to govern ourselves.

from:    https://escapekey.substack.com/p/from-hierarchy-to-technocracy?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=email

Climate Phobia – RIP

Posted on by

The Climate Alarmism Grift is Dying

Tim Lynch's avatar
TIM LYNCH
JUL 08, 2025

Last week, the BBC reminded us that we have just three years left to drastically reduce all CO2 emissions, or we risk crossing the dreaded 1.5°C warming limit set by the Paris Agreement. A persistent feature of the degreed managerial class is their arrogant refusal to learn from their past flawed predictions. Dire warnings of climate catastrophe have shaped global policy, media narratives, and public perception, resulting in the waste of hundreds of billions of dollars on technology that does not work. Predictions by climate ‘experts’ of submerged cities, the end of snow, vanishing ice caps, and dead coral formations never materialize.

Thinking that highly credentialed Ivy League professors would use science and math to destroy the man-made climate change narrative was not plausible a year ago. Yet, in this new cultural zeitgeist created after the implosion of the Democratic Party, the impossible is now possible

In a shocking display of academic integrity, two eminent professors published a masterfully complex paper that undermines the foundation of climate alarmism. MIT’s Richard Lindzen, Professor of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Emeritus, and Princeton’s William Happer, Professor of Physics, Emeritus, published a paper titled PHYSICS DEMONSTRATES THAT INCREASING GREENHOUSE GASES CANNOT CAUSE DANGEROUS WARMING, EXTREME WEATHER OR ANY HARM.

Their message is simple: CO2-driven warming poses no danger to the planet, while the net-zero policies designed to reduce CO2 do more harm than good. It takes a paper of serious complexity to validate such a simple message.

Climate experts tend to pronounce things to be so, and that’s the end of it. Yet, a basic understanding of the Earth’s atmospheric gases demonstrated that the foundation of climate alarmism was oversimplified and incorrect.

Before examining their paper, it is helpful to review a few of the forecasts that have not materialized.

In 1971, a new Ice Age was imminent
By 2000, the threat of a new Ice Age disappeared and was replaced by global warming.
Four years later, it was back to a new ice age, but this time caused by global warming.
By 2009, the event horizon was just 96 months away, prompting celebrity climate geniuses to issue hysterical, easily ignored warnings.
Four years later, the Climate Models ™ that had never been correct warned the Arctic would be ice-free in two years.
The topic demands a meme at this point.

Lindzen and Happer use physics to demonstrate that CO2’s warming effect is limited by its logarithmic absorption of infrared radiation. The warming effect of each molecule of CO2 decreases as its concentration increases. They estimate low climate sensitivity (~0.5–1.5°C per CO2 doubling), which is far below the IPCC’s range of 2.5–4°C.

They contend that Hurricanes, droughts, and floods exhibit no apparent increase in frequency driven by CO2, with natural variability dominating (e.g., NOAA’s stable hurricane frequency since 1980). They demonstrate that higher CO2 levels enhance photosynthesis, resulting in a 14% global greening trend (NASA, 1982–2015) and a 20% increase in crop yields (FAO, 2000–2020).

They then emphasize that phasing out fossil fuels, which supply 80% of global energy (IEA, 2023), will raise costs and harm developing nations, with minimal climate benefit. Their physics-based approach challenges high-sensitivity climate models, which have overestimated warming in periods such as 1998–2014. They also align with skepticism of alarmist policies, like EPA regulations, which they’ve called a “hoax” in prior work.

The premise of man-made climate change hinges on three key facts: CO2 traps heat, humans have increased CO2 levels (~420 ppm today vs. 280 ppm pre-industrial), and this drives global warming. Lindzen and Happer don’t dispute the first two but argue that the warming is minimal and benign.

They contend CO2 is not destroying the planet; it’s enhancing life on it. Across the globe, elevated CO2 levels are supercharging plant growth and delivering bountiful crop harvests at unprecedented rates.

They then explain that hypothetical climate models rest on a long sequence of assumptions, many of which are either weak, invalidated, or demonstrably false. As a result, the outputs of these models are of questionable value and cannot be taken as reliable evidence.

Climate activists reacted to this paper as expected: they want its authors arrested and jailed.

You would expect this well-researched paper to be big news, providing the rational cover politicians need to drive a stake through the heart of the climate alarmism scam. But that is not going to happen. The political class will ignore it, as they often do with inconvenient data. However, the momentum is shifting much faster than the political class can cope with.

Joe Rogan dealt the climate hoax a bigger setback than any Ivy League professor could hope to accomplish with a well-written, peer-reviewed study. Rogan spent a few hours talking to the hapless, profoundly ignorant Senator Bernie Sanders. Bernie didn’t seem to know much about the topics he attempted to demagogue. Frustrated by Rogan’s effective counters to his preferred narrative, he grasped at something he thought would go unquestioned. “Some people think climate change is a hoax, but it ain’t a hoax.” He stated this as if that were a self-evident fact. His ignorance of contrary facts complemented the arrogance of his statement. Rogan used a WaPo article to school the old fool.

This is the story Joe used to alert Bernie to the fact that he’s behind the times.

Today, every dogma of the neo-liberal religion is being publicly put on trial. Something in the air changed after the COVID-19 saga. COVID was a tipping point, an unmasking of the true nature of our bankrupt professional-managerial class and their bought-and-paid-for “experts.”

The progress of unraveling the climate change scam is slow but steady. Yesterday, President Trump announced he will use an executive order to end tax subsidies for the wind and solar renewable energy grift. Finally, common sense and fiscal responsibility are now evident in Washington, D.C.. Yet, the question remains: how long will it take before the global professional managerial class realizes the gig is up?

from:    https://timlynch.substack.com/p/the-climate-alarmism-grift-is-dying

Discussing Climate Change, uh Global Warming, uh Global Cooling… Whatever

Posted on by

The Fraud of ‘Global Warming’

Taking Aim at One of the Most Pervasive Lies of the Modern Age

Matthew Ehret's avatar
MATTHEW EHRET

In a recent article, Defeating the Depopulation Agenda, I took aim at an insidious ideology which has infiltrated society in the form of a movement to ‘protect nature from humanity’.

In that feature, we reviewed how those forces behind this revival of the pagan Gaia earth mother cults of ancient times were directly connected to the Anglo-Dutch royal families- with explicit focus on Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands (‘former SS officer) and Prince Philip Mountbatten.

While I received much positive feedback from readers who appreciated gettting greater clarity to the cultish Gaia worship underlying the eco-imperial agenda which has infested so much of our western education, cultural and even religious institutions… something was missing.

In this article, I will attempt to address that missing ingredient which will involve a summary appreciation of the fraud of climate science per se which has perverted science itself, around a statistical mode of analysis designed to frame a wonderful molecule named carbon dioxide for genocide.

After introducing a rehabilitation and defense of CO2, I will end with some basic facts about the essentials of a true climate science premised around astro-climatology and the actual galactic forces shaping earth’s climate.

Development Greens the Earth

Many people were taken aback by the findings published by a team of scientists analyzing the results of Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instruments on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites.

NASA’s website[5] described the findings (published on February 11, 2019[1]) in the following way:

“The research team found that global green leaf area has increased by 5 percent since the early 2000s, an area equivalent to all of the Amazon rainforests. At least 25 percent of that gain came in China.”

Up until this study’s publication, scientists were not certain what role human economic activity played in this anomalous greening of the earth.

The NASA study demonstrated that this dramatic rate of greening between 2000-2017 was being driven largely by China and India’s combined efforts at eradicating poverty, which involves both reforestation, desert greening efforts (see China’s Move South Water North megaproject[2]), agricultural innovation and also, general industrial growth policies.

The later policies represent genuine efforts by Asian nations to wipe out poverty by investments into large scale infrastructure… a practice once used in the west before the days of “post-industrialism” induced a collective insanity of consumerism in the early 1970s.

A perplexed reader might now be heard to ask: but how can industrial growth have anything to do with greening of the planet?

One simple answer is: carbon dioxide.

CO2: An Innocent Victim Framed for Genocide

As children, we are taught that CO2 is an integral part of our ecosystem and that plants love it.

The processes of photosynthesis, which evolved over long spans of time with the advent of the chlorophyll molecule eons ago requires constant infusions of carbon dioxide that are broken down along with H2O, releasing oxygen back into the biosphere. Over time, free oxygen slowly formed the earth’s ozone layer and fueled the rise of ever higher life forms that relied on this “plant waste” for life.

Today, large amounts of carbon dioxide is regularly generated by biotic and abiotic activity from living animals, decaying biomass as well as volcanos which constantly emit CO2 and other greenhouse gases. A surprisingly small portion of that naturally occurring CO2 is caused by human economic activity.

Taking the entire composition of greenhouse gases together, water vapour makes up 95% of the bulk, carbon dioxide makes up 3.6%, nitrous oxide (0.9%), methane (0.3%), and aerosols about 0.07%.

Of the sum total of the 3.6% carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, approximately 0.9% is caused by human activity.

To restate this statistic: Human CO2 makes up less than 1% of the 3.6% of the total greenhouse gases influencing our climate.

During the mid-20th century, a belief began to emerge among some fringe climate scientists that the 400 parts per million (PPM) average carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the “natural and ideal amount”, such that any upset of this mathematical average would supposedly result in destruction of biodiversity.

These same mathematicians also presumed that the biosphere could be defined as closed systems, such that rules of entropy were the natural organizing principles- ignoring the obvious fact that ecosystems are OPEN, connected to oceans of active cosmic radiations from other stars, galaxies, supernova and more, while being mediated by nested arrays of electromagnetic fields.

As film maker Adam Curtis demonstrated in his, All Watched Over By Machines of Love and Grace (2011)[3], this belief slowly moved from the fringe into mainstream thinking despite the fact that it is simply wrong.

Beyond the facts already presented above, another persuasive piece of evidence can be found in carbon dioxide generators that are commonly purchased by anyone managing a greenhouse[4]. These widely-used generators increase CO2 to amounts as high as 1,500 PPM.

What is the effect of such increases?

Healthier, happier, greener plants and vegetables.

Temperature and CO2: Who Leads in this Dance?

Amidst the frantic alarms sounding daily over the impending climate emergency threatening the world, we often forget to ask if anyone ever actually proved the claim that CO2 drives the climate.

To begin to answer this question, let’s start with a graph showcasing the rise of human industrial CO2 from 1751-2015 broken down into various regions of the earth. What we can see is consistent increase from the mid 19th century until 1950, when a vast spike of emission rate increases can be viewed.

This increase obviously accompanies world population growth and the correlated agro-industrial output.

Next, let us look at the global mean temperature changes from 1880-present.

Here, several anomalies strike the thinking mind.

For starters, absolutely no warming accompanies the period of intensive industrial growth of 1940-1977. In fact during this period, many climate scientists were ringing the alarm over an impending ice age![5]

Another anomaly: Since carbon dioxide emissions have increased continuously over the past 20 years, one would expect to see a correlated spike in warming trends; however, this expected correlation is entirely absent between the year 1998 and 2012, when warming tappers off to a near standstill, sometimes called “the global warming pause” of 1998-2012[6]. This has been an embarrassment for all modellers whose scare-mongering predictions have fallen to pieces to the point that they can only pretend this pause doesn’t exist.

Again, the question must be asked: why would this anomaly appear if CO2 drove temperature?

Let’s take one more anomaly from our temperature records before digging into the hard proof that CO2 does not cause temperature changes: The medieval warming period [see graph].

While certain proven fraudsters like Michael Mann[7] have attempted to erase this warming period from existence with things like the famous “hockey stick” model, crafted with the help of East Anglia’s Phil Jones, the fact remains that from 1000-1350 A.D. global mean temperatures were significantly warmer than anything we are currently living through.

The Vikings in Greenland had no coal plants or SUVs, and yet, mean temperatures were still warmer than today by a long shot.

Why?

Perhaps taking a wider look at the CO2:climate correlation might give us a better idea of what is actually happening.

Below, we can see a chart taking 600,000 years of data into account.

It is certainly the case that CO2 and temperature have a connection on these scales… but correlation is not causation, and as the author of How to Lie with Statistics[8] famously stated, “a well-wrapped statistic is better than Hitler’s Big Lie; it misleads, yet it cannot be pinned on you.”

When a 70,000 year sampling is inspected, we find the slight of hand fully exposed by observing the peaks and troughs of temperature and CO2.

If the later were truly the driving force, as the Great Resetters of our day proclaim, then CO2 peaks and troughs would happen before temperature, but the evidence shows us the inverse.

Let’s look at one more example of an 800 year CO2/temperature lag about 130,000 years ago…

Going back even further into the climate records, it has been revealed that during many of the past ice ages, carbon dioxide had risen up to 800% higher than our current levels, despite the fact that human activity played zero role[9].

A Brief Look at Space Weather

Technically, I could end right now and feel like any honest jury would conclude that CO2 has been falsely framed for murder. But I would like to introduce one more dramatic piece of evidence that gets us back on the path of a true science of climate change and ecosystems management: Astroclimatology.

The fact that the earth is but one of a multitude of spherical bodies in space speedily revolving around an incredibly active sun within the outskirts of a galaxy within a broader cluster of galaxies is often ignored by many computer modelling statisticians for a very simple reason: anyone who has been conditioned to look at the universe through a filter of linear computer models is obsessed with control, and is incredibly uncomfortable with the unknown.

The amount of actual factors shaping the weather, ice ages, and volcanism are so complex, vast and mostly undiscovered that computer modellers would prefer to simply pretend they don’t exist… or if they do acknowledge such celestial phenomena to have any function in climate change, it is often dismissed as “negligible”.

Despite this culture of laziness and dishonesty, the question is worth asking: WHY does evidence of climate change occur across so many other planets and moons of our solar system?

Ice caps on Mars melt periodically[10] and have been melting at faster rates in recent years. Why is this happening? Could the sun’s coronal mass ejections, solar wind, or electromagnetic field be affecting climate change within the solar system as one unifying process?

Often Venus with its atmosphere of 96.5% CO2 is used as a warning for people on the earth what sort of terrible oven we will create by producing more CO2. It is hot, after all, with temperatures averaging 467 degrees Celsius (872 degrees Fahrenheit); however, if CO2 were truly to blame for the heating, then why is Mars so cold with temperatures averaging minus 125 degrees Celsius (-195 degrees Fahrenheit) despite the fact that it’s atmosphere is 95% CO2?

Similarly, what role does cosmic radiation play in driving climate change? Based on the recent discoveries of Heinrich Svensmark and his team in Denmark, strong correlations were found linking cloud formation, climate and cosmic radiation flux over time. Cosmic radiation flux into the earth is a continuous process mediated by the earth’s magnetic field, as well as the oscillating magnetic field of the sun, which shapes the entire solar system as we revolve around the galactic center of the Milky Way every 225-250 million years.

Svensmark’s discovery was outlined beautifully in the 2011 documentary, The Cloud Mystery.[11]

A Return to a True Science of Climate

The point to re-emphasize is that the weather is, and always has been, a complex process shaped by galactic forces that have driven a miraculous system of life on the earth over hundreds of millions of years.

During this time, amounting to approximately two revolutions around the galactic center, living matter has transformed from relatively boring (high entropy) single celled organisms, through a continuous process of increased complexity, and increased power of self-direction (low entropy). Up until now, there is no actual evidence that this process is a closed system, and as such, that any fixed state of no change/heat death is controlling its behavior.

While some might deny this claim, citing the redshifts of galaxies as proof that the universe is in fact dying (or inversely had a starting point “in time” 13.6 billion years ago before there was nothing), I refer you to the work of Halton Arp[12].

This process has been characterized by non-linear discontinuities of living matter emerging where only nonliving matter previously existed, followed later by conscious life having appeared where only non-conscious life had been found and most recently self-conscious life endowed with creative reason appearing onto the scene. While this process has been punctuated by sometimes violent mass-extinction cycles, the overall direction of life has not been shaped by randomness, chance or chaos, but rather improvement, perfectibility and harmony.

When humanity appeared onto the scene, a new phenomenon began expressing itself in a form which the great Russian academician Vladimir Vernadsky (1863-1945) described as the Noosphere (as opposed to the lithosphere and biosphere). Vernadsky understood this new geological force to be driven by human creative reason, and devoted his life to teaching the world that the law of humanity must accord with the law of nature, stating:

“The noösphere is a new geological phenomenon on our planet. In it, for the first time, man becomes a large-scale geological force. He can, and must, rebuild the province of his life by his work and thought, rebuild it radically in comparison with the past. Wider and wider creative possibilities open before him. It may be that the generation of our grandchildren will approach their blossoming”.[13]

In Vernadsky’s mind, neither the noosphere, nor the biosphere obeyed a law of mathematical equilibrium or statis, but was rather governed by an asymmetrical harmony and progress from lower to higher states of organization. It was only by coming to understand the principles of nature that mankind became morally and intellectually fit to improve upon nature by turning deserts green, harnessing the power of the atom or applying scientific progress to health and agriculture.

Some of his most important insights were published in his Scientific Thought as a Planetary Phenomena (1938), Evolution of Species and Living Matter (1928,) Some Words About the Noosphere (1943), and The Transition of the Biosphere to the Noosphere (1938).[14]

Despite the lasting contributions made by Vernadsky to human knowledge, here we sit, 76 years after the end of WW2, tolerating an unscientific policy of mass decarbonization, which threatens to radically undermine civilization for countless generations.

Is this change being forced upon humanity?

Unlike the forces of fascism and imperialism of the past, today’s terrible self-implosion of civilization is occurring via the consent of those intended to perish under a Great Reset via the collective guilt for the crime of simply being human. It has become the norm for the majority of today’s children to think of themselves as belonging not to a beautiful species made in the image of a Creator, but rather to a parasitic race guilty for the crime of sinning against nature.

So let’s take this opportunity to re-introduce truth back into climate science, and let the social engineers drooling over a Great Reset scream and whine as nations choose a new open system paradigm of life and anti-entropy rather than a closed system world of decay and heat death.

This positive new paradigm of cooperation, scientific and technological progress, and cultural optimism is getting stronger by the day led by Russia, China and other nations joining the international New Silk Road.

Most importantly, let’s finally absolve CO2 of its accused sins, and celebrate this wonderful little molecule as our friend and ally.

Matthew Ehret is the editor-in-chief of The Canadian Patriot Review, Senior Fellow of the American University in Moscow and Director of the Rising Tide Foundation. He has written the four volume Untold History of Canada series, four volume Clash of the Two Americas series and Science Unshackled: Restoring Causality to a World in Chaos. He is also the host of Pluralia Dialogos and Breaking History on Badlands Media where this article was first published.

from:    https://matthewehret.substack.com/p/the-fraud-of-global-warming?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=email

“You Don’t Need A Machine to Tell You How You Feel”

Posted on by

The Great Surrender

A Document from 2065

Joshua Stylman's avatar
JOSHUA STYLMAN
JUL 09, 2025

Back to the Future came out 40 years ago last week. While the original took us back to 1955, the end of the movie and the sequels imagined 2015 with flying cars and hoverboards. What they missed was the real transformation: how eagerly we’d hand over our most intimate biological data to corporations and governments.

Yesterday, someone sent me a document. I can’t verify its authenticity or origin, but they claimed it was leaked from a government archive dated 2065. Given what we already know about the current surveillance infrastructure—and the economic incentives driving the “Internet of Bodies”—it feels disturbingly plausible.

Sometimes, the best way to understand the present is to imagine how future historians might view our choices.

1985 BASELINE ASSESSMENT

Citizens showed dangerous levels of independence. Key problems:

  • Made Their Own Choices: 97% decided what to eat without consulting optimization algorithms
  • No Biometric Monitoring: 0% shared heartbeat, sleep, or activities with approved wellness partners
  • Relied on Primitive Instincts: Used outdated “gut feelings” to make decisions
  • Untracked Movement: Moved freely without carbon calculations or behavioral analysis
  • Suboptimal Decision-Making: Made incorrect choices 73% of the time when left unguided

Research Note: Citizens were obsessed with antiquated concepts like “privacy” and “personal autonomy.” Substantial cultural engineering would be required.

2025 MIDDLE PHASE

After making monitoring trendy and incentivized, citizens began voluntary participation:

  • Wellness Device Adoption: 73% wearing biometric optimization devices
  • Economic Compliance: 89% modified behavior when insurance adjusted rates in real-time
  • Algorithm Consultation: 45% check apps before making health decisions
  • Privacy Redefinition: Successfully rebranded “privacy” as “missing out on personalized optimization”
  • Identity Integration: 34% voluntarily linked biometric data to government systems for “seamless experience”
  • Social Media Conditioning: Platforms provided crucial behavioral modification infrastructure. Citizens voluntarily documented their lives for algorithmic analysis while competing for validation metrics. Personas replaced personhood with minimal resistance
  • Security Convenience Celebration (2025): TSA elimination of shoe removal requirements was celebrated by the public, including freedom advocates who failed to recognize the requirement was removed only because comprehensive body scanning infrastructure was now operational

Implementation Note: “Health freedom” extremists were neutralized by recruiting trusted celebrities. The “Make America Healthy Again” campaign proved highly effective, ironically accelerating acceptance of monitoring systems among traditionally skeptical populations.

2029-2037: TOTAL SYSTEM INTEGRATION

Key discovery: Citizens who embraced biometric monitoring were 340% more likely to accept additional systems when marketed as “feature upgrades.”

Integration Milestones:

  • Climate Fear Acceleration (2025-2027): Increased atmospheric modification programs generated optimal citizen anxiety levels about “climate crisis.” Geoengineering operations, previously denied, rebranded as “emergency planetary cooling” with 94% public acceptance
  • Conspiracy Theorist Classification (2025): Citizens investigating HAARP and atmospheric programs successfully marginalized as “climate deniers”
  • Atmospheric Wellness Enhancement (2027): Aluminum and barium particulate distribution normalized citizens to environmental chemical modifications. Transition from “chemtrail conspiracy” to “necessary climate intervention” achieved seamlessly
  • Medical Compliance Acceleration (2020-2023): Global health emergency provided unprecedented opportunity to test population-wide acceptance of experimental interventions. Citizens initially questioning protocols were successfully re-educated through social pressure
  • Frictionless Verification (2029): Biometric data auto-populates all government interactions
  • Movement Optimization Zones (2031): 15-minute wellness districts eliminate suboptimal route planning
  • Behavioral Prediction Integration (2032): Palantir’s wellness algorithms achieved 94% accuracy in identifying future non-compliance, enabling preemptive optimization interventions
  • Carbon-Biometric Fusion (2032): Personal carbon allowances calibrated to real-time health metrics
  • Social Compatibility Scoring (2033): Employment, housing, and dating filtered by wellness compliance
  • Public-Private Wellness Partnership (2034): Meta, Google, Amazon, and Palantir integrated seamless citizen engagement across all life domains. Alexa wellness coaching achieved 87% compliance with daily optimization directives
  • Universal Wellness Grid (2035): All systems merged. Citizens compete for monitoring privileges

Breakthrough: Each system enhanced perceived value of previous adoptions. The transition from “posting for likes” to “living for optimization scores” required minimal cultural adjustment. Citizens never recognized they were constructing their own containment infrastructure.

2038-2050: VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION

Revolutionary discovery: Citizens who chose optimization voluntarily showed 3500% higher compliance than those subjected to mandates. They became enthusiastic evangelists, shaming non-participants as “selfish.”

Resistance Elimination:

  • Non-participants excluded from financial services and employment
  • Social ostracism as monitored citizens avoided “optimization resisters”
  • Citizens who refused experimental medical interventions during 2020-2023 compliance testing pre-classified as “wellness non-compliant” and systematically excluded from society
  • Montana Privacy Commune Incident (2043): Final holdouts surrendered after their children were classified as “educationally at-risk.” Exit interviews showed 94% satisfaction with transition to monitored living

Critical Learning: Children proved optimal leverage points for behavioral modification of non-compliant adults.

2051-2065: PERFECT HARMONY

Consciousness Integration (2051): Direct neural interfaces eliminated the inefficiency of manual device checking. Thoughts now require pre-approval through the Wellness Grid.

Current Success Metrics (99.7% voluntary participation):

  • Complete Monitoring: 98.9% connected to behavioral prediction systems 24/7
  • Cognitive Pre-approval: Protocols automatically accepted before conscious processing
  • Thought Optimization: 87% reduction in “counter-wellness ideation”
  • Identity Dissolution: Citizens cannot distinguish personal desires from system recommendations
  • Decision Elimination: Zero unauthorized movements, purchases, or social connections

Recent Citizen Testimonial: “I wake up knowing exactly what to think, feel, eat, and believe. My carbon allowance perfectly matches my health goals. I am grateful the burden of choice has been eliminated. There is no confusion about what it means to be human—the system tells me.”

(Administrative Note: This citizen was processed 11 hours later for expressing individual gratitude, indicating dangerous residual self-awareness.)

ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS

  • Language Optimization: Terms like “freedom,” “gut instinct,” and “individual” reclassified as “wellness-negative vocabulary”
  • Generational Success: Citizens born post-2040 cannot differentiate between self and monitoring systems; personal identity successfully converted to subscription service
  • Economic Optimization: Wellness Grid generates $4.7 trillion annually through behavioral data monetization

NEXT PHASE OBJECTIVES

  1. Neural infrastructure completion in remaining rural zones (Montana, Wyoming, Northern Idaho)
  2. Deploy genetic optimization ensuring future generations born pre-compliant
  3. Phase out museums containing pre-optimization historical materials (citizens request removal of “depressing old human content”)

PROJECT CODENAME: GRATEFUL CITIZEN Classification Level: COSMIC

A Final Thought

If this document seems impossible, remember: 40 years ago, no one imagined we’d voluntarily carry tracking devices everywhere, share our private thoughts on corporate platforms, or ask machines what to think, feel, eat, and believe.

The future isn’t inevitable. But it is predictable—if we refuse to change course.

The first act of resistance is remembering: You don’t need a machine to tell you how you feel.

from:    https://stylman.substack.com/p/the-great-surrender?publication_id=24667&post_id=167869315&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

And Now, They Created Ticks To Make You Allergic to Meat

Posted on by

Bioengineered Ticks Make You Allergic To Red Meat To Fight Climate Change!? There May Be Hope

May 16, 2025 Jimmy Dore, BGR and WDBJ 6

The CDC says up to 400,000 Americans may suffer from alpha-gal syndrome, which presents an allergic reaction to meat and is said to be caused by bites from the lone star tick.

The alpha-gal allergy may have been intentionally cooked up in a lab to combat global warming by stopping red meat consumption.

College of Global Public Health Center for Bioethics at New York University Director, Dr. Matthew Liao, speaking at the 2016 World Science Festival, openly advocated artificially inducing a red meat allergy in the entire human population, using an analog of the algha-gal molecule found in the Lone Star Tick.

Most people think of tick bites as nuisances or, at worst, vectors for Lyme disease. But imagine waking up in the middle of the night with hives, your throat closing up, all because you ate some pork hours earlier.

That was Cathy Raley’s reality, according to reports from Science News, after a single tick bite left her with a severe red meat allergy, a condition known as alpha-gal syndrome.

Alpha-gal syndrome isn’t your typical food allergy. It’s caused by a sugar molecule found in most mammalian meat, and this strange condition begins with a tick bite. The tick’s saliva introduces alpha-gal into the bloodstream, which can trigger a chain reaction in the immune system.

Weeks or even months later, eating beef, pork, lamb, or even dairy or gelatin, can provoke anything from an upset stomach to full-blown anaphylaxis. Until recently, the lone star tick was considered the only U.S. species capable of triggering alpha-gal syndrome.

However, new cases in Washington and Maine suggest otherwise. Scientists now believe that other tick species, like the blacklegged tick and the western blacklegged tick, may also be to blame. These findings could expand the map of risk far beyond the lone star tick’s southeastern stronghold, raising new concerns for hikers, campers, and even pet owners across the country.

This growing awareness is important because alpha-gal syndrome often goes undiagnosed. Its symptoms are delayed and can vary wildly from person to person. Many healthcare providers have never even heard of it, leading to frustrating misdiagnoses and prolonged suffering for patients.

There’s no cure for the condition, and while some people may eventually tolerate red meat again, the best protection remains prevention. That starts with avoiding tick bites altogether by wearing long sleeves and light-colored clothing when hiking.

Researchers also recommend that you treat your gear with permethrin, and always check yourself (and your pets) for ticks after spending any time outdoors. Even a tick that’s quickly removed can spark the syndrome, since the reaction isn’t caused by bacteria but by allergens in the tick’s saliva.

Read full article here…

“Life-changing”: Allergy treatment helps alpha-gal patients find relief

A growing number of people in Central Virginia are being diagnosed with Alpha-Gal Syndrome. It’s an allergy caused by tick bites that makes eating—or even being near—meat or dairy dangerous.

More than 80-thousand people viewed our earlier story about alpha-gal on our website—and we even heard from some who say they were just diagnosed because of it.

WDBJ7 spoke with a doctor and patient who say a therapy called SAAT is offering hope and changing lives.

“When we finally figured out that it was when I was eating beef or pork… she did, she ordered blood work and the next day the bloodwork came back and voila, that was it,” said Nanci Bell, diagnosed with alpha-gal.

Bell was diagnosed two years ago—after years of unexplained reactions, including severe hives.

“It was comforting because I thought I was going crazy. I couldn’t understand why I was randomly getting these awful, awful hives that were so itchy,” said Bell.

After getting the SAAT treatment—short for Soliman Auricular Allergy Treatment—Nanci says her life changed.

“It’s been life-changing, definitely. And I know that does sound strange, but take one of your favorite meals out of your diet forever and imagine what that would feel like,” said Bell.

She was able to eat steak just four days after treatment—with no reaction. That treatment was performed by Dr. Cheryl Hanly, a chiropractor and owner of Creedmoor Wellness Center, in Bracey, Virginia. Hanly was certified in SAAT after seeing more and more patients suffering.

“This training was something that came at the perfect time because so many people are suffering,” said Hanly.

SAAT uses tiny acupuncture needles placed in the ear. There’s no pain, and the needles stay in for a few weeks. Each treatment is tailored to the individual, using homeopathic filters to locate the allergy in the body.

Read full article here…

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2025/05/bioengineered-ticks-make-you-allergic-to-red-meat-to-fight-climate-change-there-may-be-hope/

Digital Earth Twin = Real Trouble for All

Posted on by

‘Digital Twin’ Of Earth Being Created To Predict The Future, Micro-Manage Everything

AUGUST 2, 2024

You can run, but you can not hide. The humongous new AI data centers, satellite networks, ground sensors, cell phones, and all the data on earth will combine to create a “Skynet” scenario to control everything, and all life forms. Driven by a lust to get to “net-zero”, this will far exceed anything related to climate change.

This simulation of satellites has now largely been fulfilled, but plans for more launches are in the works. This blanket of surveillance will monitor every square inch of the planet as systems are layered on. As the industry graphic above depicts, the payload for Technocrats lie in the “interventions.” — Technocracy News & Trends Editor Patrick Wood

By: Frost & Symons via Euronews

How do you know when a small-scale farmer in Africa, Latin America or Asia has sufficiently adapted to longer droughts or shifts in traditional monsoon seasons?

The complexity of this question means it is often left unanswered, with funding for such adaptation in developing countries dropping to around just a quarter of total climate finance provided by developed countries.

Delegates gathering at the Bonn Climate Change Conference to prepare for this year’s UN climate talks will be anticipating such questions, with COP29 already dubbed the “finance COP”.

In Baku, Azerbaijan, later this year, countries are expected to discuss a new climate finance deal after reaching the target of $100 billion (€93.2bn) a year in finance for developing countries two years later than agreed.

Historically low-emitting countries across much of the Global South desperately need more financial support to improve their climate defences across key sectors such as agriculture.

Less than 1% of international climate finance was spent helping smallholder farmers adapt to climate change in 2021, with many forced to spend up to 40% of their own incomes to cope with floods, droughts and crop pests.

However, in addition to more finance, countries across Africa, Asia, and Latin America also need ways of measuring adaptation to direct investments more effectively.

The solution that works already exists

While efforts to transition to sustainable agriculture across Europe have sparked protests among farmers this year, adapting to the evolving impacts of climate change is already a matter of survival for those in the Global South.

One emerging solution is an adaptation index, which scores resilience to climate shocks to highlight where finance for climate adaptation is most needed. Such models can quantify levels of adaptation and preparedness, giving policymakers, development agencies, investors, and donors clear guidance on where and how to invest in adaptation finance.

Water scarcity is the most common climate risk for crop farmers in Guatemala and Honduras across the different commodities.

Adaptation indices, developed at a country or commodity level, complement other work to consolidate climate data and research, such as CGIAR’s Africa Agriculture Adaptation Atlas, which provides interactive data insights and forecasts.

This new methodology is already providing actionable insights to direct adaptation funding and have the best chance of increasing the resilience of some of the world’s most vulnerable communities.

Over the past two years, the first-if-its-kind Adaptation Equivalency Index (AEI) has been developed for Guatemala and Honduras by Heifer International, Conservation International and local partners, supported by the Global Environment Facility. Guatemala and Honduras have both ranked among the top 10 countries most affected by climate change over the past decade, with heavy rains, floods, droughts and hurricanes becoming more frequent and affecting agriculture.

The index ranks the adaptation levels of the countries’ major agricultural commodities: spices, cacao and coffee.

Evidence-based investment means tangible impact

What makes this index novel is that it starts off with the farmers themselves, identifying the real-world climate threats that producers are already experiencing and anticipating, as well as their capacity to adapt.

This work has already uncovered the fact that water scarcity is the most common climate risk for crop farmers in Guatemala and Honduras across the different commodities.

Read full story here…

Sourced from Technocracy News & Trends 

from:    https://www.activistpost.com/2024/08/digital-twin-of-earth-being-created-to-predict-the-future-micro-manage-everything.html

 

You Will Be What They Want You To Eat

Posted on by

Control the Food and you Control the People

by Meryl Nass

July 16, 2024

Dear Friends,

There is an apochryphal phrase that, despite its disputed source, probably everyone can agree with: “Control the Food and You Control the People.”

Our grandparents and great grandparents produced much of their own food in their gardens or on their farms.  Food choices in stores were limited, with little frozen food available and fewer fresh and canned foods for sale.

In 1850, 64% of American workers worked on farms.1 In 1900 there were still 6 million US farms, with an average size of 150 acres.2 By 1920, 30% of US workers still did farm work.3 But after World War 2, the US government adopted policies to reduce the number of farmers and expand the size of farms–for more efficiency, it was said.4 5 6 Today, only 1% of Americans work on farms7 and the number of farms has dropped by 2/3.

Most US farmland belongs to farms that are over 2,000 acres in size, or more than 3 square miles.  But along with efficiency came worsening food quality.  The so-called “Green Revolution” allowed farmers to apply chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides while ignoring the overall fertility, quality and texture of their soils.  Depleted soils subsequently produced less nutritious foods, while accumulating low levels of neurotoxins and carcinogens.

Decades of consolidation of food production, processing and distribution has steadily increased the size and power of a small group of global agricultural corporations. Most of those companies are in turn members of the World Economic Forum (WEF) or its Food Action Alliance, and they are wielding unelected power to influence food production and distribution in the name of climate change, sustainability,8 health, and equity.9

For example, the WEF had this to say about food systems in 2022:

“In the face of volatile global shocks from conflicts such as the war in Ukraine, the COVID-19 pandemic, and extreme weather events, it has become more urgent than ever to transition food systems to a net-zero, nature-positive infrastructure that nourishes and feeds everyone.10

Net zero means “removing an equal amount of CO2 from the atmosphere as we release into it.”11 This has never been accomplished by any food system, and the implications could drastically reduce the food supply–yet it is said to be the reason we must change the way we produce food.

The WEF and other international entities have recently increased the intensity of this concerted push, most visibly in policies targeting the reduction or elimination of livestock and related farming activities.

Climate change as a justification to attack food production

Advocates of climate change urgency have steadily honed their concerns about agriculture. The WEF boldly proclaims:

With the food system responsible for a third of overall global CO2 emissions, attention on ‘climate-beneficial’ foods has been slowly but steadily increasing.

The US EPA disagrees with the WEF that agriculture plays such a large role in global CO2 emissions.12 Nor are the many CO2-lowering effects of regenerative agriculture (like sinking CO2 into the soil from the air) mentioned as offsets.

Organic and regenerative agriculture, in which topsoil is rebuilt through composting, “green manure” plantings that enrich the soil, and good forestry practices, can sequester more CO2 in the soil and trees than is lost through other agricultural processes. These could potentially achieve ‘net zero’– and increase the production of more nutritious foods and healthier soils, but are not being touted as solutions. One must ask then, is the goal really “net-zero” or is there another goal?

Numerous international agencies and NGOs have converged to accuse cows and farming of harming the climate. They offer technological rescues, to be provided by corporate WEF members. These include the United Nations Environment Program and AIM for Climate.

Like carbon dioxide, methane is a greenhouse gas that is said to contribute to global warming. Over 150 nations have signed the “Global Methane Pledge” to reduce methane emissions by 30% by 203013–and some are reducing dairy and beef cows because the gas produced in their intestines contains methane.  (Humans also expel methane.14)  Methane is released naturally from cracks in the earth, as well as from fracking and oil drilling–which were recently shown to release 5x as much methane as earlier estimates suggested.15 But it is the gas produced by cows that is the current target for methane reduction.

Issues that have not been satisfactorily addressed include:

  • whether our methods for measuring temperature in comparison to past decades provide accurate comparative results,
  • how the doomsday targets for temperature and CO2 were arrived at,
  • how members of the IPCC, an unaccountable body responsible for climate targets and projections were selected and retained,
  • since scientists worried about a coming ice age during the 1970s, doesn’t that suggest considerable changes in climate (both up and down) over relatively short periods of time,
  • what is the evidence that increased heat and increased CO2 are dangerous when both contribute to increased growth of plants,
  • while it was claimed that sea level rises would be catastrophic, what we are seeing in fact is evidence of small changes in sea level in both directions.

Health

WHO’s Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated that “a transformation of the world’s food systems is needed urgently, based on a One Health approach that protects and promotes the health of humans, animals and the planet.” We all want to protect animals and environment, as well as our own health, but it seems the obvious way to do that is to address the evils of factory farming and excess chemical additives used for crops and livestock, rather than a major transformation of what we eat.  Consuming large amounts of insect proteins, or lab-grown ‘meat,’ for example, will have unpredictable effects on health. Do we really want to perform these experiments on billions of people at once?

“One Health” is also being used as the justification to vaccinate fur farm workers against bird flu in Finland,16 even though there have been no human cases in Finland, the disease does not spread person-to-person, and everyone in the US who has developed bird flu in the past 2 years has had an extremely mild illness: conjunctivitis +/- symptoms of a cold. None were hospitalized or died. The excuse is that vaccinating people will allow continued farming of mink and foxes, which were culled last year due to alleged bird flu infections. Here is how Finland’s health department draws from “One Health” to wordsmith the need to give experimental vaccines, never before tested in humans, to farmworkers in expectation that an outbreak of bird flu might occur:

“This issue must be evaluated within a framework which considers the intricate interplay between the environment, animals, and humans. Recognising this interconnectedness and the vast array of environmental impacts of human activity is crucial, and our protective measures should consider the overarching goal of maintaining and enhancing planetary health.”17

Equity

Equity is repeatedly embraced as the justification to change the way food is allocated. The roster of corporate players at AIM for Climate proclaims “Diversity, gender equity, and inclusion are critical to the success of the mission.”   But real equity is allowing people to choose the food they eat, without interference, rather than restricting populations from accessing the foods they prefer and imposing new foods on them.

Animal Rights

The World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) joined the plan to balance environmental demands against human needs for food through adherence to the loose “One Health” approach. At the same time, WOAH admits, “More than 75% of the billion people who live on less than $2 per day depend on subsistence farming and raising livestock to survive.”18

The world’s largest food producers, processors, and retail sellers are joined with governments and NGOs through the WHO, UN, WEF, and a plethora of interconnected organizations. Yet all these supposedly charitable organizations have become focused on reducing or eliminating livestock, despite the fact that the poorest peoples as well as the wealthiest rely on livestock for meat, dairy and for enriching the soil. The multinational organizations and food conglomerates want humans to convert to a state-specified diet comprised instead of synthetic meats, insects, and other novel food products manufactured by these companies, which have not previously been known for their concerns about our health.

Many question whether a group of global industrialists and politicians have either the expertise or desire to “improve the state of the world,” but there is no question that the proposed intention is to consolidate and control food production and distribution, thereby improving the state of member corporations’ profits. GMO crops and related chemical applications will be increased under the pretense of climate rescue, and synthetic meats will be favored in government food programs. Even more small farms will be shuttered.

This coordinated justification for global/government food control is presented in the name of sustainability, reducing global temperature, improving animal welfare, nurturing human health, and improving equity. However, there is no evidence it does even one of these things.

We do not intend to allow a small group of globalists to control global food production and thereby achieve control of the population.

This is why Door to Freedom will place a major focus on turning this agenda around. We will encourage government (at all levels) to support small farmers rather than industrial giants, to improve animal husbandry practices, to incentivize enhancing the soil and to achieve a much healthier food supply for all.

Our methods include education, policy development, and working for change at all levels of government.  We will use the same strategy we used to stop the WHO’s agenda.  Basically, once people understand what is happening and what is at stake, they refuse to go along–whether they are citizens or political leaders.

Our first large project will be a 2-day Symposium September 6-7 (online only, and I put in the wrong dates earlier) titled The Attack on Food and Agriculture, 2nd Annual. Please join us, support us, and work with us to heal our food systems and our planet.

My best wishes,

Meryl Nass, MD

  1. https://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/20/us/farm-population-lowest-since-1850-s.html
  2. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1902/dec/vol-05-agriculture.html
  3. https://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/20/us/farm-population-lowest-since-1850-s.html
  4. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/bigger-farms-bigger-problems
  5. https://www.agrariantrust.org/blog/butzs-law-of-economics/
  6. https://books.google.com/books?id=oL2v87Rx2QQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
  7. https://usafacts.org/articles/farmer-demographics/
  8. https://www.foodactionalliance.org/home
  9. https://www.foodactionalliance.org/partners
  10. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/02/food-systems-2022-outlook/
  11. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/11/net-zero-emissions-cop26-climate-change/
  12. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases
  13. https://www.globalmethanepledge.org/
  14. https://citizensustainable.com/human-farts/
  15. https://www.npr.org/2022/09/29/1125894105/oil-field-flaring-methane-report
  16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11191420/
  17. ibid
  18. https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/global-initiatives/one-health/  

from:    https://merylnass.substack.com/p/control-the-food-and-you-control?publication_id=746368&post_id=146736206&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

OMG!!!! The Seas AREN’T Rising!!!!

Posted on by

Shocker: NYT admits the seas only rise in some areas, and islands aren’t disappearing. And the “science” was looking at aerial photos over time. Duh.

Remember when the Maldives govt held a cabinet meeting underwater for publicity?

MERYL NASS
JUL 09, 2024

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/26/climate/maldives-islands-climate-change.html

On a wisp of land in the Indian Ocean, two hops by plane and one bumpy speedboat ride from the nearest continent, the sublime blue waves lapping at the bone-white sand are just about all that breaks the stillness of a hot, windless afternoon.

The very existence of low-slung tropical islands seems improbable, a glitch. A nearly seamless meeting of land and sea, peeking up like an illusion above the violent oceanic expanse, they are among the most marginal environments humans have ever called home.

And indeed, when the world began paying attention to global warming decades ago, these islands, which form atop coral reefs in clusters called atolls, were quickly identified as some of the first places climate change might ravage in their entirety. As the ice caps melted and the seas crept higher, these accidents of geologic history were bound to be corrected and the tiny islands returned to watery oblivion, probably in this century.

Then, not very long ago, researchers began sifting through aerial images and found something startling. They looked at a couple dozen islands first, then several hundred, and by now close to 1,000. They found that over the past few decades, the islands’ edges had wobbled this way and that, eroding here, building there. By and large, though, their area hadn’t shrunk. In some cases, it was the opposite: They grew. The seas rose, and the islands expanded with them.

Scientists have come to understand some but not all of the reasons for this. Which is why a team of them recently converged in the Maldives, on an island they’d spend weeks outfitting with instruments and sensors and cameras.

They were there to learn more about how the steady collision of blue waves and white sand does surprising and seemingly magical things to coastlines, both destroying land and extending it. Really, though, they were trying to answer a bigger question: If atoll nations aren’t facing certain and imminent erasure, then what are they facing? For having a future is not the same thing as having a secure future.

If, for instance, some of their islands become difficult to live on but others do not, then atoll governments will have to make hard choices about which places to save and which to sacrifice. In the places they save, they will have to plan for the long term about supplying fresh water, about creating jobs, about providing schools and health care and infrastructure. They will have to invent the best future they can with the limited resources they have.

In short, atolls might not be such outliers in this world after all. Look hard enough, and they start to look a lot like everywhere else…

To understand what had happened to the atolls since this acceleration began, two researchers, Arthur Webb and Paul Kench, decided to look down at them from above. The scientists collected aerial photos of 27 Pacific islands from the middle of the 20th century. Then, they compared them to recent satellite images. “I’m not sure we really knew what we would find,” Dr. Kench recalled.

Their findings caused an uproar.

The seas had risen an inch or so each decade, yet the waves had kept piling sediment on the islands’ shores, enough to mean that most of them hadn’t changed much in size. Their position on the reef might have shifted. Their shape might be different. Whatever was going on, it clearly wasn’t as simple as oceans rise, islands wash away.

Dr. Webb and Dr. Kench’s study, which came out in 2010, inspired other scientists to hunt for more old photos and conduct further analysis. The patterns they’ve uncovered in recent years are remarkably consistent across the 1,000 or so islands they’ve studied: Some shrank, others grew. Many, however, were stable. These studies have also added to the intrigue by revealing another pattern: Islands in ocean regions where sea level rise is fastest generally haven’t eroded more than those elsewhere…

from:    https://merylnass.substack.com/p/shocker-nyt-admits-the-seas-only?publication_id=746368&post_id=146418320&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

There is A Vaccine for Everything

Posted on by
Are you ready for the CLIMATE VACCINES about to be unleashed by anti-human globalists?
05/31/2024 // Ethan Huff /

Unless We the People stop them, climate fanatics like billionaire eugenicist Bill Gates are planning to inject you and your family with climate change and global warming “vaccines.”Right now, they are already injecting meat animals with climate jabs, claiming these are necessary to keep the animals “safe” from fictitious diseases. Eventually, they will proceed to start jabbing you and your family with the same “vaccines,” assuming you let them.

Technocracy.news writer Yudi Sherman warned back in January that the only way to stop these “genetic maniacs” from destroying the human race with their mystery chemical injections is to “take away their keycards and their containment suits, immediately escort them out of their laboratories, permanently ban them from any other scientific research for life, and then raze the buildings to the ground.”

If it sounds extreme, consider the fact that a company called ArkeaBio just raised $26.5 million in Series A seed funding to begin developing climate jabs for the human masses. You can be sure that once these injections are ready to go, there will be another “pandemic” or “emergency” to predicate their forced use.

“If you can’t grasp the seriousness of this, then you may be marked for depopulation,” warns the Technocracy.news editor.

(Related: Bill Gates cannot wait for “Pandemic 2” when he hopes to forcibly inject the entire planet with climate jabs.)

“Vaccines” to prevent cows from passing gas

This might sound like something from The Babylon Bee, but the reality is that ArkeaBio has already begun developing a new “vaccine” that mad scientists say will stop cows and other meat animals from releasing methane emissions, i.e., passing gas.

The claim is that the shots will alter the animals’ immune systems in such a way as to create antibodies that target methane-producing microbes.

ArkeaBio secured its first major investment in late 2022 from Breakthrough Energy Ventures, an investment fund founded by Bill Gates.

“Our vaccination-based approach allows for much-needed decarbonization of global meat and dairy products across multiple geographies, supporting greater sustainability in agriculture,” the company’s website explains.

ArkeaBio has not announced any plans to create a human version of its anti-fart injection, but another company called Gingko Bioworks has. Gingko, which is also funded by Gates, is pushing to develop mRNA (modRNA) injections that it says will help to stop the planet from warming.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) has expressed support for the plan, stating it is a “critical response to the climate crisis.”

“In the face of climate change, vaccines play a crucial but underestimated role,” wrote British pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) back in December on its website.

AstraZeneca, maker of a shamed and now-pulled-from-the-market viral vector Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine, also wants in on the gravy train by manufacturing its own climate jabs as well.

Two months prior, Thomas Triomphe, executive vice president of vaccines at rival Sanofi, wrote an entire article called “Vaccine innovation is a critical response to the climate crisis” that expresses the same interest in developing climate injections.

The only type of “climate change” these demons are trying to stop is their own change from rich to poor as their corrupt financial and war empire implodes on itself. Big Pharma will die unless it continues to churn out new injections for every made-up disease under the sun, the latest being so-called climate change.

“This madness has to end now,” one angry commenter wrote about the insanity coming from Big Pharma and the Bill Gates brigade.

“I’m immensely comforted to know the flood Gates of biotech are unleashed, to wash us in redemptive waters of climate salvation by delivering us from the ubiquitous evil of carbon,” joked another about the religious cult aspects of climate change.

Climate change is a scam designed to separate you from your assets and wealth. Learn more at GreenTyranny.news.

Sources for this article include:

Technocracy.news

NaturalNews.com

from:    https://www.naturalnews.com/2024-05-31-climate-vaccines-about-to-be-unleashed-globalists.html

WHAT!!!! Increased CO@ Does Not Cause Climate Change?

Posted on by

Cows Do NOT Cause ‘Climate Change,’ Top Study Confirms

Frank Bergman12 Comments

A bombshell new study has debunked the globalist narrative that emissions from cows are causing “climate change” while proving that cattle herds actually lower methane gas levels in the atmosphere.

In recent years, unelected foreign organizations such as the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the United Nations (UN) have been demonizing the agriculture industry while calling for limits, or even bans, on the general public’s consumption of meat and dairy products.

The WEF, UN, and green agenda politicians argue that methane gasses from cattle, or “cow farts,” cause “global warming.”

This so-called “settled science” on alleged cattle emissions has led to increasing scrutiny of farmers around the world.

Global governments have responded by ramping up regulations for the agriculture industry in an effort to shut farms down.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that 11.1% of emissions worldwide come from livestock production.

The FAO released a report last year urging Americans to eat less meat.

The UN argues that if people “fight climate change” by eating less meat, there will be less demand for cows.

If there are fewer cows, there will be fewer emissions, according to the UN.

However, new research from Alltech and Archbold suggests that these anti-cow claims from globalists are a hoax.

According to the new study, blaming cows for methane emissions ignores cattle’s relationship with the land.

The researchers found that, if grazing cattle were removed from pastures, emissions would actually go up, not down.

Besides trying to convince people to change their diets so we can get rid of more cows, other efforts seek to attack the emissions at the source.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation awarded a $4.8 million grant to a London-based company to develop gas masks for cows.

The masks are a similar concept to carbon capture technology.

Other research is looking into food additives that go into the cows’ feed.

Bill Gates is also pushing for cows to be genetically “modified” to advance this agenda.

The additives seek to reduce the amount of methane emissions coming out of the animal.

In Ireland, dairy farmers were looking at possibly having to kill a lot of healthy cattle in order to comply with the WEF’s “Net Zero” emission reduction targets.

Dr. Vaughn Holder, research project manager for beef nutrition at Alltech, and Dr. Betsey Boughton, director of agroecology at Archbold, studied the impacts that cattle production has on the ecosystem on a wetlands pasture at Buck Island Ranch.

The ranch is about 150 miles northwest of Miami, Florida.

The researchers found that 19%-30% of methane emissions were from the cattle.

However, the rest of the methane was from the wetland soils.

If the cows are removed, it actually increases the amount of methane the wetland ecosystems give off, the research shows.

Globalists argue that methane is more potent in terms of “greenhouse warming” than carbon dioxide.

Yet, methane only lasts about 12 years.

So reducing methane can have a more immediate impact on warming than reducing carbon dioxide, according to the study.

Cattle emissions are often demonized in a similar way to fossil fuel emissions, the researchers note.

When we burn fossil fuels, the emissions go into the air. So eliminating a coal-fired power plant, for example, removes an emissions source, which produces a drop in emissions.

“There is a far more complex process in agriculture than it is in fossil fuel systems,” Holder said.

Ruminants, as they’re called, which includes cattle and sheep, have a large chamber in front of their stomach that acts as a fermentation factory.

Inside are bacteria, yeasts, fungi, and other microorganisms that help the animals digest grasses that humans can’t.

Methane is a natural waste product of that process.

In a series of videos on the Buck Island research, Holder explains that cattle take a lot of plants humans can’t eat.

The cows turn them into edible proteins humans can consume, increasing global food security.

WATCH:

The animals also consume a lot of food byproducts that can’t be used for human consumption.

For example, orange pulp used in orange juice production can be fed to livestock.

Those byproducts can be used in composting, but composting increases emissions five times more than feeding it to dairy cows, Holder said.

If byproducts are disposed of in landfills, the emissions go up 50 times over feeding it to dairy cows.

It is possible to put additives in the cows’ diet to inhibit that methane production, but at about 30% inhibition, Holder explained, you start to see negative effects.

There are some viable strategies to reduce emissions with additives, but that can only go so far.

Additionally, cattle are part of a carbon cycle.

If studies only model the emissions coming from the animal, the rest of the ecosystem is being ignored, Holder said.

The study notes that the ecosystem is absorbing carbon as a result of the animals being on the land.

The research alliance between Archbold and Alltech is increasing their understanding of this process, Dr. Holder explained.

“We weren’t looking at food production from an ecosystem standpoint before we came together with Betsey’s [Boughton] group,” Holder said.

“So it really has adjusted our perspective on how big we need to be looking at these systems in order to get this right.”

When cattle graze on land, the plants prioritize root growth over the plant matter above the surface.

The deeper the roots, the more plants sequester carbon in the soil through the photosynthesis process.

Grazing also removes grasses from a pasture, reducing the dead plant matter that falls into the soil and decomposes, which also produces greenhouse gasses.

“It’s a natural process,” Dr. Boughton said.

“We’re not saying that’s bad. Wetlands are good.

“That’s just a natural part of a wetland.”

At the Buck Island Ranch, Boughton and her team measured the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted on a pasture that had no grazing.

They compared it to pasture that had grazing.

What they found is that cattle grazing ends up as a carbon sink, meaning there’s a net reduction in the amount of emissions from that pasture compared to pastures with no cows.

“From my perspective, it’s more of a proof-of-concept type evaluation,” Holder said.

“We’re showing that we need to be looking at more than just emissions if we want to have a decent idea what’s happening in those ecosystems and what the effects are on global warming or food security or whatever it might be.”

There’s a lot of carbon locked up in the soil, he said.

The exact impact of removing grazing from those lands isn’t fully understood.

“It’s sort of an unintended consequence if we pull animals off the land and we don’t know what effect the next land use is going to have on those carbon stocks,” Holder said.

The livestock industry has long held that it’s being unfairly demonized in the effort to stop “climate change.”

The Alltech-Archbold research is showing that farmers are correct and the globalist narrative is nothing more than a hoax.

This news comes after a recent peer-reviewed study provided conclusive scientific evidence proving that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in Earth’s atmosphere cannot cause “global warming.”

Dr. Jan Kubicki led a group of world-renowned Polish scientists to study the impact of increases in CO2 emissions on the Earth’s global temperatures.

However, not only did they find that higher levels of CO2 made no difference, but they also proved that it simply isn’t possible for increases in carbon dioxide to cause temperatures to rise.

Kubicki and his team recently published three papers which all conclude that Earth’s atmosphere is already “saturated” with carbon dioxide.

This saturation means that, even at greatly increased levels of CO2, the “greenhouse gas” will not cause temperatures to rise.

READ MORE – Top Study: Carbon Emissions CANNOT Cause ‘Global Warming’

from:    https://slaynews.com/news/cows-do-not-cause-climate-change-top-study-confirms/