Todd Hayden

Kate Middleton has cancer. The King of England has cancer. Every day we hear of more and more people diagnosed with cancer—many of them quite young. And not a single report we hear, unless coming from alt media, will suggest that the Covid vaccines are a possible cause.

There is no guarantee that any particular case is definitely attributed to the jabs. But considering the radical upswing of cases recently, you would think more people would be scratching their heads and connecting the dots. The rise in cancer cases pretty clearly correlates with the release of the vaccine.

That alone should get most thinking folks questioning. But they aren’t, and they won’t.

It is much easier to blame the usual suspects—pollution, bad water, unhealthy food, toxins in general, messy lifestyles, no exercise, and now, of course, climate change. Not only is the Covid vaccine not a suspect, but no vaccine is. In fact, no FDA-approved medication is. Big Pharma can once again hold the bloody dagger behind their back with a big grin on their face, “What, me worry?” Nope, you’ve played the game well Mr. Big Pharma, you’ve got us all (or most) under your spell. No matter how obvious your implication may be, you are off the hook.

If you believe in data from mainstream sources, they tell you that in 2019, one in ten deaths worldwide was caused by cancer. Over 10 million people in that year succumbed to the dreaded “C” word. I would be curious to know what the number was in 2023, the official figures for 2022 were not much different from 2019, which indicates to me that none of these statistics can really be trusted. Most mainstream reports are not reluctant to say cancer diagnoses are on the rise, but they say that every year, and of course the incentive is to frighten people into early diagnosis and early treatment, thus filling the coffers with even more gold coins.

Oooo, did that hit a nerve? As with most confusing things these days, this is confusing. There is no doubt in my mind that some cancers, at some stages, can be successfully treated through conventional methods. How they treat these cases in the conventional world may not be as safe as how they treat them in the alternative world, but nonetheless, there have been successful treatments using conventional methods.

Of course, that conventional world will do everything it can to convince you that their interventions are the only ones that can be effective and that anything the “safe” alternative world has to offer is bogus. I personally do not believe this, but I have to say, I have not experienced alternative treatments saving many lives. And I have experienced conventional, extremely invasive, treatments doing just that, saving lives. So, what can I say? This is from personal experience, and I have had a bit of it, considering my first wife died of cancer 20 years ago.

I’m off on a tangent, my apologies.

So, back to the question, what is causing the uprise in cancer cases? In my humble opinion, the culprit is most definitely the Covid vaccine. Of course, I am just an observer and have no medical data to back up my personal opinion. From what I understand, however, the data is out there. It may be difficult to find, but there are many quite learned, experienced, and credentialed folks (as in MDs) out there who would support my statement with medical data.

Although I do believe the upswing in cancer diagnoses is largely attributed to the Covid vaccine, it cannot possibly be the only reason. And the vax is certainly not the only answer to the ubiquitous cancer diagnosis question, “Why did this happen to me?”

As we all know, the agenda has more than one way to skin a cat. mRNA in injections is only one of them. mRNA is showing up everywhere anyway, not just in needles, and in nearly every form of bodily intake. So the mRNA method can get us, even if we avoided the jab. There are known cancer-causing elements in places other than mRNA and gene therapy as well. How about 5G, Chemtrails, GMO products, cricket meal, fluoride, any number of approved pharmaceuticals, need I go on?

As they add to their wicked mix of lethal concoctions, the cancer rate just continues to climb. And there is no way to put the proverbial finger on any one thing as “the” cause.

So, we all know this. When I say, “we all” I mean those of you reading this. No one would have gotten this far in this essay if they were not already in the choir I am preaching to. We are again left with the sheep, who will probably never “get it.” Here goes the broken record skipping back into the same groove over and over again. If people, I mean sheep, actually could accurately identify the enemy and stop chasing ghosts like climate change into the woods, guaranteed never to catch them, we would possibly have a fighting chance.

I have read at least a half dozen articles, some of them even a bit alternative, about the rise in cancer cases, particularly among young people, and not a single one mentioned the Covid vaccine as a cause. Yes, all of us have been hearing since day one about the proliferation of “turbo cancer” among the vaxxed, but no one else seems to make the connection. Of course, the horse is out of the barn to some degree with all this, at least for the folks already pin-cushioned by multiple needles. It is still a battle worth fighting considering the continuation of the vaccine as a “reasonable deterrent” against Covid, for adults, the elderly, and for children. It does seem to me that it is not worth getting cancer to avoid getting Covid.

And, as you know, I am only speaking of cancer as a side effect of the vaccine, what about heart disease, blood clots, and a myriad of other known Covid vaccine side effects? And that is only to mention the ailments we have scientific support for. What about the loss of cognition, loss of empathy, depression, and suicide, along with a plethora of other mental and physical maladies that are at the moment only speculations and anecdotal observations?

[…]

Via https://off-guardian.org/2024/05/25/and-the-cancer-keeps-rolling-in/

Ross Clark

In China, electric vehicles have been assigned to vast graveyards of unsold vehicles. While ride-share services bought the vehicles at subsidised prices, private buyers are not so keen.  So last year China began dumping its electric vehicles in Europe, where they are filling up the ports at Rotterdam and Antwerp.

The US also has unsold stocks of electric cars.  And in Britain, the momentum for electric vehicles has slowed.

The great electric revolution that was promised just three years ago is already failing – and it will bring the car manufacturers down with it.

China is often characterised as a copycat when it comes to industry and technology but in one way it has proved to be a pioneer. It was China which saw the first boom in electric cars – and it was China that was the first to suffer when demand for them collapsed. The vast graveyards of unsold vehicles found in Hangzhou and other Chinese cities are the result of a huge, subsidised push to manufacture electric vehicles, demand for which has never caught up with supply. Ride-share services bought the vehicles – in a rerun of the great cycle-share fiasco of 2018, which led to piles of unused and unwanted bikes. But private buyers have been notably less keen.

Where China leads, the rest of the world seems doomed to follow. With China’s manufacturers struggling to sell their electric cars at home, last year they started shipping them in large numbers to Europe – where many are now accumulating in ports at Rotterdam and Antwerp. The window in which to sell them may prove small, as the EU is considering measures to prevent the ‘dumping’ of cheap Chinese cars in Europe. The Biden administration has already taken action, increasing tariffs on cars imported from China from 25 per cent to 100 per cent. While that may put paid to Chinese imports, it won’t do anything to alleviate unsold stocks of US-made electric cars. The great electric revolution that was promised just three years ago is already failing – and it will bring the car manufacturers down with it.

If there ever was a real-world demonstration of the old proverb ‘you can lead a horse to water…’, it is electric cars. Elon Musk’s visionary work with Tesla panicked the old combustion engine firms, which set themselves ambitious targets to phase out petrol completely: Fiat, Ford, Jeep, Nissan and Lexus by 2030, Vauxhall by 2028, Jaguar by 2025. One of the most dramatic announcements came three years ago when Hertz declared that a quarter of its entire rental fleet would be electric by 2025. ‘The new Hertz is going to lead the way as a mobility company,’ it said. It certainly did lead the way – into headlong retreat.

At the time, Hertz signed a $4 billion deal with Tesla and announced plans to buy 175,000 EVs from General Motors. In January it went into reverse and said it would instead start selling 20,000 EVs (later raising this to 30,000). It has pledged to ‘re-invest a portion of the proceeds from the sale of EVs into the purchase of internal combustion engine vehicles.’ Its share price (down 80 per cent since the Tesla announcement) has made it a case study.

In Britain, things don’t look much better. The slowing EV momentum led Rishi Sunak to drop his target of banning new petrol car sales by 2030 and push it back to 2035. The number of electric cars sold to drivers (as opposed to companies) was falling by 20 per cent as of last month. The UK’s market for EVs is being propped up by fleet companies which, spurred on by government incentives, now buy five in every six EVs sold.

‘Urgent action is needed to re-enthuse private buyers into switching,’ said the UK Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) in its last update. It pointed out it’s not just driver demand that is flat: the infrastructure is an issue. The ratio of charging points to EV drivers has not improved since last year. The cost of electricity from a rapid charger is up by about 10 per cent, according to the RAC. So not only are EVs themselves 40 per cent more expensive to buy than petrol cars, but they are also costlier to run. The average charge for refuelling at a rapid charger is 22p per mile, compared with 17p for petrol.

Even those figures don’t really provide a fair comparison. Around half the price of a litre of petrol is tax; the tax on electricity is just 20 per cent (in the form of VAT) or 5 per cent if you charge at home. Nevertheless petrol remains cheaper. But the government is not going to sit by and watch as £25 billion of revenue from fuel duty disappears – which will happen if electric cars do take over from petrol. So at some point it is going to devise some way of recouping lost fuel duty revenue, most likely through road-charging. Early adopters who bought electric cars have effectively been treated to a generous introductory offer, which is now stealthily going to be withdrawn. When electric cars come to be taxed like petrol ones, it is going to become obvious that they cost a lot more to buy and run. That is especially true if you live in one of the 30 per cent of UK households which do not have off-street parking.

Sunak drew outrage from the green lobby when he delayed what was an obviously unworkable target. But few seemed to have noticed that he had left in place an initiative called the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate. This came into force in January and obliges car manufacturers to ensure that 22 per cent of the vehicles they sell in Britain this year are fully electric (as opposed to hybrid). If they fail, they will have to pay a fine of £15,000 for every vehicle by which they fall short. This target ratchets up. It will rise to 28 per cent next year and go up steadily until it hits 80 per cent by 2030.

But what to do if the public are refusing to buy? In the first four months of this year, according to the SMMT, electric cars had a market share of just 15.7 per cent, hardly up on the 15.4 per cent share in the same period of last year. Unless sales soar, manufacturers are going to be facing enormous fines in just a few months’ time.

Earlier this month Carlos Tavares, the chief executive of Stellantis (the parent company of Vauxhall, Peugeot-Citroën and Fiat) warned that the ZEV had the potential to bankrupt car-makers. He complained that the ZEV had been set at ‘double the natural demand of the market.’ He said he wouldn’t be selling cars at a loss – suggesting that, if electric car sales do not pick up soon, the company might have to restrict sales of petrol and diesel cars. (It would be easier to sympathise had Stellantis not cheered on government efforts to turn the car industry fully electric by 2030.)

Petrol-car owners have reservations that may be hard to budge. Even among households which have off-street parking, only 8 per cent say that it’s likely they would buy an electric car as their main vehicle during the next five years – although 20 per cent said they would consider one as their second vehicle. Electric cars have found a niche as second cars for relatively wealthy, environmentally aware households. But the market is beginning to run out of those kinds of buyers.

This leaves Sunak with a dilemma. The US wants to repel China’s incoming electric cars, while Germany wants to welcome them and cut all tariffs (hoping Beijing will reciprocate – BMW now sells a third of its new cars in China). What will the UK do? If Sunak wants to prioritise net-zero targets and help with the cost of living, the logical thing would be to leave the ZEV in place and welcome China’s low-cost cars (made by MG and BYD). This could be billed as using Brexit powers, lowering motoring costs with other carmakers forced to compete. But this is Stellantis’s nightmare scenario. ‘If you go and cut pricing disregarding the reality of cost,’ Tavares said in January, ‘it’s a race to the bottom and that will end up with a bloodbath.’

Forcing consumers to pay over the odds for cars would lead to an electoral bloodbath, however – which is why, unless there is a sudden rush of interest in electric cars over the next few months, the government is likely to yield. The ZEV will probably be relaxed, just as the 2030 target was relaxed last year, which will mean yet another watering-down of net-zero promises, possibly just before the election. The price will be more outrage from environmentalists, and inevitable legal challenges. Last time Sunak relaxed net-zero measures, the former minister Chris Skidmore resigned his seat and triggered a by-election.

Could the outlook suddenly improve for British EVs? It’s hard to see how. The biggest single cost is batteries, and China has built up a dominant position in the global market. About 80 per cent of EV batteries are made in China, and the West’s efforts to catch up often end in debacle. The Britishvolt factory in Northumberland went bust before its foundations were even laid. But the situation is even worse when you consider that China has near-total dominance in LFP batteries, which are cheaper to produce than the lithium manganese cobalt (NMC) batteries made in Europe. They also come with fewer ethical objections as they do not require cobalt, which is often mined by child workers under terrible conditions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The traditional carmakers have responded by scaling back. Aston Martin has delayed its first electric model from 2025 to 2027 because of falling demand. Bentley has deferred its all-electric deadline. Fiat was going to phase out the petrol-powered Panda in 2026, then 2027, but now that date has been pushed back to 2030. Tesla’s deliveries fell 20 per cent in the first quarter of this year and market value has halved since the 2021 peak.

Last week, Stellantis announced a deal with the Chinese electric carmaker Leapmotor, which might just help it put off the day of reckoning with the ZEV: some of Leapmotor’s cars will be sold through a Stellantis subsidiary based in Amsterdam. In reality, this won’t do much for the planet. Making electric cars is a much more carbon-intensive business than making petrol ones, with the result that they have to be driven at least 15,000 to 20,000 miles before they can be said to have emitted less carbon. Worse, Chinese-made cars are manufactured with a far dirtier mix of electricity than UK-made cars are. Three-quarters of electricity in China is still generated by fossil fuels, 55 per cent of it from especially filthy coal. The government may well tinker with the ZEV before the year is out, but it is unlikely to admit to this greater folly, that the much-heralded switch to electric cars is likely to destroy our car industry, drive up costs for motorists – and fail to cut global emissions.

[…]

Via https://expose-news.com/2024/05/25/failing-ev-industry-is-a-lesson-to-businesses/

Dr Mercola

A new EPA regulatory rule that will force small meat and poultry producers to invest heavily in new water filtration systems while letting industrial factory farms off the hook is an attack on the local food movement and domestic agriculture, critics say.

Story at a Glance:

• A new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulatory rule will harm local food producers by forcing small meat and poultry producers to invest heavily in new water filtration systems or face closure.
• This rule threatens to have long-term repercussions on the food supply and benefits factory farms and multi-national beef producers by punishing small domestic producers and incentivizing imported meat and poultry products.
• The Kansas Natural Research Coalition, American Stewards of Liberty and a myriad of smaller coalitions have denounced these rules as a departure from the EPA’s constitutional and statutory authority.
• Federal regulators have evaded accountability in court for decades by using their interpretation of ambiguous statutes. Consumers are best served buying beef products with American Grassfed Association Certification rather than a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) stamp.

A new EPA regulatory rule is an attack on the local food movement and domestic agriculture. It will force small meat and poultry products (MPP) producers to invest heavily in new water filtration systems or face closure.

The EPA moved quickly to implement new rules on wastewater generated by the domestic MPP industry. This effort to regulate wastewater was not without opposition though.

The Kansas Natural Resource Coalition (KNRC), American Stewards of Liberty and smaller coalitions argue this is an example of federal overreach. The rule incentivizes meat importation, which may force small businesses to close.

Effluent limitations guidelines and standards

Effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs) were first defined in the Clean Water Act of 1974.

These wastewater standards are developed by the EPA based on the current technological performance of treatment and control technologies. The goal was to prevent the discharge of harmful pollutants at levels that could adversely affect human health and the environment.

ELGs vary by industry, reflecting the unique characteristics and pollution profiles of different types of industrial activities. For the MPP industry, ELGs are designed to minimize the release of nutrients, pathogens and organic matter that could deplete oxygen levels in water bodies, harm aquatic life and compromise water quality.

The standards for meat and poultry producers were last updated in 2004. Currently, they apply to approximately 150 of the 5,055 MPP facilities in the U.S.

As the KNRC pointed out, “The history of EPA’s regulation of MPP effluent guidelines and standards has never extended beyond direct discharge facilities. The proposed rule seeks to significantly expand EPA regulatory reach.”

EPA rules previously covered only direct discharge facilities

EPA rules for the MPP did not previously cover direct discharge facilities. A direct discharge facility in this industry refers to a plant or operation that releases treated or untreated effluent directly into surface waters, such as rivers, lakes or estuaries.

This contrasts with indirect discharge facilities that release effluent into municipal sewage systems for further treatment before being released into the environment.

Direct discharge facilities are subject to stringent regulatory oversight because their effluents enter the water system directly, where they can have immediate impacts on water quality and aquatic ecosystems.

EPA shifts enforcement priorities away from factory farms

The new effluent guidelines represent a major change. The EPA’s proposed amendment establishes strict limitations on nitrogen and phosphorus while adding E. coli bacteria limitations for direct discharge facilities. But they have also greatly expanded the reach of their regulations.

The EPA’s proposal, at a cost of an estimated $232 million annually, is designed to reduce pollutant discharges by 100 million pounds per year. It is just part of an aggressive plan to update effluent guidelines nationwide, applying a wave of new industry-specific standards.

Waters of the United States expanded to include private sources

Most water used in meat and poultry farming is from well sources or privately owned water sources. Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA’s authority extends to the regulation of pollutants discharged into the Waters of the United States, a term that encompasses the scope of waterbodies under federal jurisdiction.

The definition of Waters of the United States has been subject to change and legal battles, which significantly impacts regulatory scope.

These waterbodies typically include major rivers, lakes and coastal waters, along with their tributaries and adjacent wetlands. Expanding EPA rules to include private water sources represents a massive expansion of federal reach.

Moreover, as the KNRC noted in their comment to the EPA, the stringent requirements under the updated ELGs for the MPP industry raise concerns among smaller producers about the financial and operational feasibility of meeting these enhanced environmental protections.

New clean water rules fast-tracked

With something as important as the expansion of federal authority over private water sources and laws that could shutter domestic meat producers in an era of inflation and supply chain issues, you should expect a period of deliberation.

The Clean Water Act Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category rule was proposed by Biden Administration regulators on Jan. 23.

The public hearings were held Jan. 24 and Jan. 31. The minimum for public comment closed on March 24 and the new rules took effect on March 25.

The EPA public comment process requires a minimum of 60 days following the publication date. Considering the initial Clean Water Act was last updated in 2004, the stakeholders impacted by these rules hardly had time to mount a defense before they took effect.13

New meat and poultry regulations, an EPA power grab?

The KNRC argues this rulemaking’s proposal to regulate indirect discharge facilities strikingly stray from constitutional and statutory grounds, threatening to upend the delicate balance of power between state and federal governments. While it took immediate effect, it is certain to face legal challenges.

The Clean Water Act was crafted by Congress with a clear intent — to keep the primary control over land and water use firmly in the hands of the states.

As KNRC noted in their comment, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., highlighted the dangers of stretching the Clean Water Act’s scope too far, warning it could infringe on this critical state authority.

Nitrogen and phosphorous pollution turned up by EPA field tests

In the case of MPP producers, EPA field researchers failed to find much in the way of viruses, bacteria, heavy metals or traditional toxins. What they did find were significant quantities of two nutrients — nitrogen and phosphorus.

Nitrogen and phosphorus, while essential for the growth and health of aquatic plants, are damaging in excessive quantities. For meat and poultry producers, controlling the discharge of these nutrients within acceptable EPA guidelines can pose a major challenge.

High concentrations of nutrients in bodies of water lead to eutrophication. This is a process characterized by the overgrowth of algae that depletes oxygen levels, harming fish and other aquatic species, as has happened in Florida.

This imbalance not only disrupts ecosystems but also compromises water quality, affecting the wildlife and human populations depending on these water resources.

Concerns about new EPA restrictions

Reducing pollution of public or private water sources is an admirable goal on paper. But there is more here than meets the eye. The rules list 17 species of endangered animals, setting the table for future lawsuits by environmental groups citing the Endangered Species Act to sue the EPA and private businesses.

In their comments in the federal comment register, the KNRC stated the new rules “gives priority to environmental justice goals and emphasizes ecological benefits, but the EPA jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act is not based on ecological importance or environmental justice.”

Rules are silent about greenhouse emissions and future carbon taxes

One method of reducing nitrogen and phosphorus is anaerobic wastewater treatment.

This method uses microorganisms that consume biodegradable organic compounds, reducing organic matter and biooxygen demand in wastewater. The process generates CH4 and CO2. This combination of gases, predominantly CH4, is commonly referred to as biogas.

The new guidelines are silent on the topic of future carbon taxes and the financial toll of biogas produced by newly mandated anaerobic wastewater facilities. This is especially relevant considering the new carbon credit/taxes introduced by the Biden Administration through the Commodities Credit Corporation.

States like Oregon, California and Washington have taken the lead, implementing their own Cap and Trade laws, which require businesses to buy carbon credits to keep their doors open. This marks a significant shift in how environmental regulation and corporate responsibility are approached.

BEEF Act introduced to protect local meat processors

Reps. Ron Estes (R-Kan.) and Eric Burlison (R-Mo.) introduced the Banning EPA’s Encroachment on Facilities (BEEF) Act, H.R.7079 in response to the new EPA guidelines on Jan. 26.

This law would, “Prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from finalizing, implementing or enforcing certain changes to regulations regarding meat and poultry products effluent discharges and for other purposes.”

However, supporters of the bill are not optimistic about the odds of the BEEF Act ever passing out of committee and plan legal challenges to the EPAs authority.

Fall of Chevron doctrine means legal challenges are now possible

Until recently, this is where this story would end due to Chevron deference. This is a principle of administrative law that compels federal courts to defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous law that the agency administers unless the interpretation is unreasonable.

The Chevron deference stems from the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Historically, cases against new EPA rules would advance to federal court and the judge would not consider the case on its merit due to the precedent of Chevron.

Landmark 2022 SCOTUS ruling hobbled EPA

This principle significantly impacts how environmental regulations, among others, are interpreted and implemented, affecting the balance of power between the judiciary and federal agencies. Chevron deference made it nearly impossible for private businesses to sue or slow the expansion of federal regulatory power.

Chevron deference has been largely dismantled by recent Supreme Court decisions. West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency has put the deference into question, particularly when it concerns significant questions of economic and political impact that Congress did not clearly delegate to the agency.

This shift in judicial thinking suggests that the EPA’s new regulations on meat and poultry producers could face significant legal challenges, especially where authority under the Clean Water Act is interpreted to include broad regulatory actions that have substantial economic consequences.

Critics long argued that such expansive interpretations by the EPA need more explicit congressional approval, reflecting a judicial recalibration of the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches in environmental regulation.

Chevron deference circumvents the legislative process and consolidates power within federal agencies, raising concerns about the separation of powers and the democratic accountability of regulatory actions.

Beef Checkoff Program is another obstacle for local producers

Small beef and poultry producers are also facing other challenges to their businesses. Apart from the new EPA rules that are likely to cripple small local farms, the mandatory USDA Beef Checkoff program has also been structured to benefit the concentrated animal feeding operation, or CAFO, model.

The program requires cattle producers to pay a $1 fee per head of cattle sold. This fund pays for the marketing of beef in the U.S., including messaging contrary to the interests of small producers who adhere to more exacting standards. The American Grassfed Certification represents a far higher standard than the USDA’s Grass-fed Beef Label.

The Supreme Court denied a 2022 petition to hear a case brought by a group of Montana-based cattle producers called R-Calf, ending years of legal challenges. R-Calf contended the Beef Checkoff program was “unconstitutionally compelled subsidies of private speech.”

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/local-food-movement-under-attack-new-epa-rule-cola/

Dr Eddy Betterman

The globalist-led World Bank issued a report recently that proposes the idea of making drastic cuts to global agriculture production in order to achieve “net zero emissions.”

The plot involves centralizing the world’s farms in the hands of just a few wealthy individuals who plan to cut almost one-third of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions by radically altering the way food is grown.

The report touts the proposed changes in nice-sounding terminology that claims food production will continue in such a way as “to feed a growing population.” The reality, though, is that the proposal threatens to eliminate large swaths of agricultural production that in turn could lead to famine and starvation.

“While the food on your table may taste good, it is also a hefty slice of the climate change emissions pie,” claims Axel van Trostenburg, a World Bank figure.

The good news is that the global food system can heal the planet – making soils, ecosystems and people healthier, while keeping carbon in the ground. This is within reach in our lifetimes, but countries must act now: simply changing how middle-income countries use land, such as forests and ecosystems, for food production can cut agrifood emissions by a third by 2030.”

The end of food

Instead of promoting diverse agricultural practices that local family farmers have been honing for centuries – such practices are good for the environment rather than bad – the World Bank wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater by getting rid of agriculture entirely in some areas.

We are seeing that push in the Netherlands and other parts of Western Europe. And now the World Bank is proposing even more agriculture reductions because it claims the climate is warming from all the food people are growing.

“Action should happen across all countries to get to net zero, through a comprehensive approach to reducing emissions in food systems, including in fertilizers and energy, crop and livestock production, and packaging and distribution across the value chain from farm to table,” the World Bank says.

As usual, the globalists are proposing a one-size-fits-all solution to standardize farming practices even though local ecosystems vary widely from place to place. It does not matter to them, though, because the investment returns from their proposal are massive.

“Annual investments will need to increase to $260 billion a year to cut in half agrifood emissions by 2030 and to reach net zero emissions by 2050,” the World Bank says.

“Making these investments would lead to more than $4 trillion in benefits, from improvements in human health, food and nutrition security, better quality jobs and profits for farmers, to more carbon retained in forests and soils.”

Greed is once again ruling the day, and the shortsightedness of these globalists will spell their own undoing. Once they, too, run out of food, all that money they are stealing will be worthless because there will be no food left for them to buy with it.

“Ultimately, the World Bank’s ambitious project to restructure global agriculture underestimates the risks of unintended consequences, including food shortages, economic disruption, and increased hardship for the most vulnerable,” warns Watts Up With That.

“History teaches that centralized interventions in complex systems such as global agriculture often lead to outcomes opposite those intended, driven by a failure to account for the organic and evolved nature of these systems. The portrayal of these interventions as low-risk and high-return is not only misleading but potentially dangerous, paving the way for a future where the global food supply is less secure and more susceptible to the whims of bureaucratic mismanagement.”

[…]

Via https://dreddymd.com/2024/05/24/world-bank-decimating-global-farming-carbon-emissions/

Blocks Horemheb Recycled from Ankenaten’s Temple

Episode 23 The End of Dynasty XVIII

The History of Ancient Egypt

Professor Robert Brier

Film Review

Ay, the former vizier (prime minister) who succeeded Tutankamen by marrying his widow. ruled from 1325-1321 BC. His reign continued to steer away from Ankenaten’s monotheistic heresy (see Egypt’s Ankenaten: The World’s First Montheistic Ruler). Ay buried west of the Valley of the Kings in a tomb originally built for Tutankamen.

His successor Horemheb (1320-1292 BC)  was a military man who served Tutankamen’s father Amenhotep (as King’s Deputy). He stayed behind in Memphis when Ankenaten moved the capitol to Akhetaton. Under Tutankamen, he served as Recorder of Royal Laws. He married Mutnedjme, believed to be the sister of Nephriti. As a commoner, it’s likely he used military force to seize the throne.

Associated with Tof, the god of writing, Horemheb ruled for 28 years, trying to erase all temple inscriptions pertaining to Ankanaten, Tutankamen and Ay.

The new policies he initiated were

• integrating the priests (owing to their immense power) into the military to bring them under closer control
• appointing a separate military commander for northern and southern Egypt
• launching an immense program of building projects, include pylons at Karnak constructed from the blocks of Ankenaten’s temple (which he disassembled).*

Horemheb also usurped all Tutankamen’s monuments (which was why it took Egyptologists so long to learn Tutankamen existed), carving out Tutankamen’s name to replace it with his own.

*A virtual model of this temple has been created via computer to reconstruct the original inscriptions.

Film can be viewed free on Kanopy with a library card.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/1492791/1492846