Author Archives: marcia

USE CASH – or Become A Slave to The System

Posted on by
Babylon's Bankers

PROGRAMMABLE CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL “CURRENCY”

23 Comments / Babylon’s Banksters / By

For some time now, people like former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Catherine Austin Fitts and many others – including yours truly – have been warning about the dangers of crypto-currencies, and more especially, of Central Bank Digital Currencies or CBDCs. Our warnings have consistently centered around three basic dangers they carry with them: (1) they are not energy efficient, and as electronically based systems can be subject to outages such as electro-magnetic pulse and so on, and additionally as cyber-systems, suffer from the lack of integrity in such systems. Indeed, when I first heard about them, one of my own personal warnings was that in spite of claims to the contrary, they could be hacked. Stories have finally appeared to this effect. (2) Contrary to claims of privacy and to the early claims that crypto-currencies spelled the end of central bank private money monopolies, such technologies in the hands of central banks, with the power to mandate their use and to outlaw others, would spell the end of privacy.  Finally and most importantly (3) such currencies in the hands of central banks, coupled with social credit scoring systems, would effectively not be a currency at all, but more like corporate coupons whose value (or lack thereof) could be adjusted on a case-to-case basis, depending on your behaviour and your thinking.

These may seem like outlandish ideas, but the following article shared by V.T. provides confirmation of these basic theses:

Let us be clear about the developments outlined in this article: while these “currencies” may be new, they are not normal nor are they currencies. Note the following statements:

For those who have never heard of them, “Central Bank Digital Currencies” (CBDCs) are exactly what they sound like, digitized versions of the pound/dollar/euro etc. issued by central banks.

Like bitcoin (and other crypto), the CBDC would be entirely digital, thus furthering the ongoing war on cash. However, unlike crypto, it would not have any encryption preserving anonymity. In fact, it would be totally the reverse, potentially ending the very idea of financial privacy.

Now, you may not have heard much about the CBDC plans, lost as they are in the tangle of the ongoing “pandemic”, but the campaign is there, chugging along on the back pages for months now. There are stories about it from both Reuters and the Financial Times just today. It’s a long, slow con, but a con nonetheless.

The countries where the idea progressed the furthest are China and the UK. The Chinese Digital Yuan has been in development since 2014, and is subject to ongoing and widespread testing. The UK is nowhere near that stage yet, but Chancellor Rishi Sunak is keenly pushing forward a digital pound that the press are calling “Britcoin”.

Other countries, including New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Malaysia, are not far behind.

The US is also researching the idea, with Jerome Powell, head of Federal Reserve, announcing the release of a detailed report on the “digital dollar” in the near future.

And here’s the rub, and it directly confirms the warnings of Catherine Fitts and others regarding the true nature of CBDC’s: they are not money nor currency in any sense:

The proposals for how these CBDCs might work should be enough to raise red flags in even the most trusting of minds.

Most people wouldn’t like the idea of the government monitoring “all spending in real-time”, but that’s not the worst it.

By far the most dangerous idea is that any future digital currency should be “programmable”. Meaning the people issuing the money would have the power to control how it is spent.

The article then links a video of Agustin Carstens, head of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), and in case one missed it, actually cites him a little later in the article:

Here’s that quote again, with some emphasis added:

The key difference [with a CBDC] is that the central bank would have absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that expression of central bank liability, and the have the technology to enforce that.”

…which tells you not only that they want and are seeking this power, but how they justify it to themselves. They transform other people’s money into an “expression of their liability”, and so consider it’s only right that they control it.

An article in the Telegraph, back in June, was just as candid [our emphasis]:

Digital cash could be programmed to ensure it is only spent on essentials, or goods which an employer or Government deems to be sensible

The article goes on to quote Tom Mutton, a director at the BoE:

You could introduce programmability […] There could be some socially beneficial outcomes from that, preventing activity which is seen to be socially harmful in some way.

It does not take a particle physicist to understand that if central banks can program their digital “currency” on a case-by-case individual basis to be spent only on certain things, the same capability also gives them the ability to determine the value of that “currency” on a case-by-case individual basis. In short, the same technology enables both the end of financial privacy and makes the “currency” into a corporate coupon. This is a one way mirror behind which the banksters can operate with impunity, and is tailor-made for even more financial fraud.

Q.E.D.

So how does one combat this? There are two simple solutions: do not bank with the big banks, use cash as much as possible in transactions, and start building networks with the realization that sooner or later, those networks might have to create currencies of their own.

See you on the flip side…

from:    https://gizadeathstar.com/2021/10/programmable-central-bank-digital-currency/

On Vaccine Shedding

Posted on by

Pfizer document describes vaccine “shedding” from person to person

by Jon Rappoport

August 6, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Pop quiz: During their clinical trial…

If Pfizer insists that certain unvaccinated persons who come into contact with a vaccinated person creates a…

SAFETY SITUATION that must be reported to Pfizer within 24 hours…

Would you say that implies…

The transfer of vaccine components from person to person can occur?

If you answered YES, you win four tickets to Oobladee, a little-known island nation where vaccines are forbidden and the people naturally remain healthy and live to a ripe old age.

Here is a Pfizer document, admitting and warning of person-to-person transfer of dangerous vaccine components [1]: “A PHASE 1/2/3, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, RANDOMIZED, OBSERVER-BLIND, DOSE-FINDING STUDY TO EVALUATE THE SAFETY, TOLERABILITY, IMMUNOGENICITY, AND EFFICACY OF SARS-COV-2RNA VACCINE CANDIDATES AGAINST COVID-19 IN HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS,” (see page 67).

I’m going to take this in small chunks, and translate the fake-speak clinical language as we go along.

“Exposure to the study intervention under study during pregnancy or breastfeeding and occupational exposure are reportable to Pfizer Safety within 24 hours of investigator awareness.”

The “study intervention” means the RNA COVID shot. That’s what the study is FOR—intervening with a jab. “Hi, I’m your intervener, you’re a volunteer in the clinical trial, and I’m going to hit you in the arm with this needle and inject you.”

“Exposure” to the shot doesn’t mean injection. It means somebody who hasn’t been injected gets physically close to somebody who has been injected. Or it could mean an un-injected person touches vaccine-liquid from a vial.

And that un-injected somebody would be a woman who is pregnant or breastfeeding. For example, she could be a lab worker, or a person who is giving the shots.

If THIS exposure event happens, it’s a safety situation, and it has to be reported within 24 hours.

A lab worker who is pregnant or breastfeeding gets physically close to a person who has received the vaccine and BANG, it’s serious, and it has to be reported.

Why? Because, obviously, there is a potential danger to the unborn baby. Or the mother, who is already breastfeeding her baby, could pass this danger to the baby through her breast milk.

The woman just came physically close to a person who already received the vaccine. That’s all. That’s all that happened. But it’s enough. It means THERE CAN BE A TRANSFER OF VACCINE COMPONENTS FROM PERSON TO PERSON, AND THIS IS NOT GOOD, THIS IS DANGEROUS TO PREGNANT AND BREASTFEEDING MOTHERS AND THEIR BABIES.

Here is the next piece of the Pfizer document. It’s crucial:

“An EDP [exposure to the vaccine during pregnancy] occurs if a male participant who is receiving or has discontinued study intervention exposes a female partner prior to or around the time of conception.”

This is a dangerous situation, too. A man who did get the shot then gets physically close to his female partner, who didn’t get the shot. This doesn’t necessarily mean sex. It means close physical contact. But the warning is obviously all about danger to the woman who is going to conceive a child or has just conceived, and the warning is also about a danger to that child. Some kind of severe injury. Or a miscarriage. Again, the document is obviously referring to the transfer of vaccine components from a vaccinated to unvaccinated person.

And then, in the Pfizer document, we find an example of this dangerous, immediately reportable situation: “A female family member or healthcare provider reports that she is pregnant after having been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact….”

Here, as plain as day, we see two meanings of “come in close contact with.” Inhalation, and skin contact. Do not assume this has to mean physically rubbing up against or breathing in the liquid in the vaccine vial. Go back and read the other quotes I gave you from the Pfizer document. They are clearly talking about something much different. They’re talking about close contact between PEOPLE, one of whom has ALREADY had the shot, and one who hasn’t.

They’re talking about vaccine components passing from the inside of one person’s body to another person.

Call it shedding, call it transfer, call it transmission, call it whatever you want to. Pfizer was clearly worried about it, because they insisted that any such occurrence had to be reported to company safety personnel.

They were aware that damage could be the result. Damage to mothers conceiving, mothers pregnant, mothers who are breastfeeding, and damage to babies.

Through person to person passage of components in the vaccine.

A person might object, saying, “Well, maybe the pregnant woman had skin contact with someone who was just vaccinated, and the vaccinated person has a small amount of vaccine on his skin, because that tiny amount of liquid somehow escaped from the needle during injection.”

That’s highly doubtful. And if you go back and read the Pfizer statement about the man who received the vaccine and then had close contact with his female partner, there is no time line mentioned. A) He received the shot and then b) at some point later, he came into close contact with his female partner. It could be days later, weeks later. There would be no amount of vaccine left on his skin.

We ARE talking about the passage of vaccine components from the inside of one person’s body to another person.

SOURCES:

[1] https://cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/2020-11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020.pdf

from:    https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/08/06/pfizer-document-describes-vaccine-shedding-from-person-to-person/

CASH Friday!

Posted on by

Let’s Do It!

Bring Back Cash!

#CashFriday

July 2, 2021

 

 

 

 

By the Solari Team

As the saying goes, “money makes the world go around,” but today’s battle of digital currencies, inflation, and paper currency has humanity at a tipping point between freedom and fascism.

The pandemic and accompanying lockdowns have been wildly successful, creating the right environment for total control of society, health, money, and food. Huge portions of the population, influenced by fear and mind control, are in complete submission. Every aspect of life and how it functions is now approaching Mr. Global’s grasp.

Why the need for total control? Who knows…. People like Catherine and Dr. Joseph Farrell have spent decades trying to figure it out; no doubt they are close. The reality is, however, that we have no more time to figure out why. Humanity is in the middle of the train tracks, and the train is coming through the tunnel and toward us at full force.

There is an overwhelming feeling of “what to do?” I can understand how a deer gets stuck when the headlights are coming at it. Fear can be paralyzing. But we all can do something and that something is pretty simple: use cash, especially on Fridays.

Some of us are Christians, some not. We don’t all know the purpose of eating only fish on Fridays, but it seems to many that Fridays are a day to prep for something bigger, such as Good Friday. In American culture, we have a lot of Friday events: summer Fridays, half-day Fridays, dress-down Fridays. When Mary Holland from Children’s Health Defense suggested Cash Fridays, it made perfect sense to Catherine.

Why cash? Because in order to have a full digital monetary system with complete central control, the circulation of paper currency has to end. (See the above video of Bank for International Settlements General Manager Agustín Carstens in October 2020, telling you exactly where the central bankers intend to go.) We’ve already heard there are coin shortages. Some are saying that the Fed has stopped printing paper currency. That can’t be confirmed, but it doesn’t really matter. We know the game. To slow this train down, we can keep paper currencies and coins circulating. This is a very easy thing for all of us to do.

There are a lot of divide-and-conquer politics out there. People are fighting for the stupidest reasons. We bet a dollar, however, that the one thing we ALL can agree on is stopping our money from being stolen or controlled—keeping our money safe. It wouldn’t shock us if even the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) or Black Lives Matter (BLM) could agree on that. So it’s simple: We don’t need 100% of the population to do this; 10% of the population is enough.

Keep cash floating through the system.

ACTION PLAN

1. Use cash whenever you can, but on Fridays use cash ONLY.

2. Download the #cashfriday slogan and spread it on all your social media platforms. It’s especially important not to type out #cashfriday because of algorithms and censorship.

3. Keep it going for as long as it takes.

It’s as simple as 1, 2, and 3. But if you really want to take it further, we are including links on how to find a local bank and other reports on how to take big bank and corporate tyranny out of your life. We are making these reports available to the public to add strength to the momentum.

So, let’s make Cash Friday the preparation for something bigger—and that something bigger is sovereignty and freedom for all humanity.

from:   https://home.solari.com/cash-friday/

Everything Old…

Posted on by

Vintage Early-Warning Pandemic Cartoon – Amazing!

Jul 4, 2021
Griffin, G. Edward
0

Here is a motion cartoon from the earliest days of motion-pictures that likely was made at the time of the 1918 Spanish-Flu epidemic. So far, we have been unable to verify its origin, but there is no reason to think it is a counterfeit. Its value will be immediately recognized, not in its rarity or as a collector’s item, but its editorial commentary that is stunningly contemporary to our present day. Popular sentiment a hundred years ago clearly was far more aware of an agenda behind the propaganda and, as you will see in the final message of the cartoon, folks knew who was behind it and what the end game was. An amazing time capsule of truth. Republished 2021 June 1. Source: Early-Warning Cartoon the Plan

 

You can view this video from several sources. Cached versions are adjusted for optimum quality, if needed, and they provide access if original sources fail.
from:    https://redpilluniversity.org/vintage-early-warning-pandemic-cartoon-amazing/

More Ways to Deal With Climate Change

Posted on by

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

skynesher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is in Those Things?

Posted on by

COVID Shots, DNA & Transhumanism, With Dr. Madej

by Alex Newman

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

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

Let’s Tackle the Sun…

Posted on by

Nuclear fusion, the philosopher’s stone , , ,

June23,2021

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

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

from:

Ah, Klaus You Are Doing It/Trying It Again

Posted on by

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

  1. The Next FALSE FLAG Will Be A CYBER ATTACK ON GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAINS!! Cyber Polygon EXPOSED!!!
  • Posted on

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

WATCH ON ➜ ODYSEE

WATCH ON ➜ BITCHUTE

WATCH ON ➜ FLOTE

WATCH ON ➜ RUMBLE

WATCH ON ➜ YouTube (meh)

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

Time to Honor the Soil

Posted on by

Toxic Corporations Are Destroying the Planet’s Soil

Colin Todhunter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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