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.
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.
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.
“The next pandemic is not a matter of if but of when,” says WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.
Klaus Schwab, the WEF, and the so-called global elites gathered for a 5-day annual meeting in Davos from January 15-19. One of the topics on their agenda that raised some eyeballs was “Preparing for Disease X.”
COVID has been reported, although likely inflated, to have claimed approximately 7 million lives worldwide, but “Disease X,” on the other hand, they warn, “could result in 20 times more fatalities than the coronavirus pandemic.”
Dr. McCullough Responds
“The first question we’d ask is, well, how do they know?” contested esteemed cardiologist and epidemiologist Dr. Peter McCullough on Real America’s Voice. “We know that the SARS-CoV-2 virus came out of the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Probably the next biological threat — there’s manuscripts published on this — again, will come out of these biolabs,” he added.
As such, Dr. McCullough argued, “Shouldn’t we shut down these dangerous biological programs so we don’t have another worldwide disaster?”
However, he claimed, “They [WHO and WEF] are dreaming about more vaccines, antibodies, therapeutics, and worldwide control based on Disease X, as opposed to eliminating Disease X or any potential biological threat that could come our way.”
Why is that? “The short answer is,” Dr. McCullough says, “there’s too much money in it.”
“The money now in this biological threat countermeasure world is enormous,” he continued. “We found that out with COVID-19, and we see all kinds of runaway programs. Moderna has 31 messenger RNA vaccines — 31,” Dr. McCullough stressed.
“The first sets of messenger RNA vaccines, Pfizer, Moderna, have not turned out well at all. They didn’t stop Covid, and they haven’t been proven to be safe. 31 [messenger RNA shots] coming our way now … So this biopharmaceutical complex that’s formed has really figured out how to run the table.”
Power Grab
On the topic of Disease X, Dr. McCullough was asked, “How much of this is just a power grab by big pharma and globalists?”
“I think it is a power grab,” he answered. “Look at what happened with COVID, then right into respiratory syncytial virus, right into Disease X, and it doesn’t stop there. A climate crisis by which all kinds of things are happening.”
Dr. McCullough added that farmer protests are sweeping across Europe because farmers are fed with crippling policies based on “a theoretical climate crisis.”
“This is all,” Dr. McCullough thinks, “prima facie evidence that we see a worldwide power grab going on — one-world government coming our way.”
If C40 Cities’ climate aims are carried out, people will die.
EVITA DUFFY-ALFONSO
Fourteen major American cities are part of a globalist climate organization known as the “C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group,” which has an “ambitious target” by the year 2030 of “0 kg [of] meat consumption,” “0 kg [of] dairy consumption,” “3 new clothing items per person per year,” “0 private vehicles” owned, and “1 short-haul return flight (less than 1500 km) every 3 years per person.”
C40’s dystopian goals can be found in its “The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World” report, which was published in 2019 and reportedly reemphasized in 2023. The organization is headed and largely funded by Democrat billionaire Michael Bloomberg. Nearly 100 cities across the world make up the organization, and its American members include Austin, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and Seattle.
Media coverage of C40 Cities’ goals has been relatively sparse. The few media personalities and news outlets who have discussed it have been heavily attacked by the corporate “fact-checkers.” In a “fact check” aimed at conservative commentator Glenn Beck, AFP Fact Check claimed that the banning of meat and dairy and limits on air travel and clothing consumption were actually “not policy recommendations.”
AFP quotes a paragraph from the original “The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World” report, which reads, “This report does not advocate for the wholesale adoption of these more ambitious targets in C40 cities; rather, they are included to provide a set of reference points that cities, and other actors, can reflect on when considering different emission-reduction alternatives and long-term urban visions.”
But this paragraph, likely included in the report as a liability in the case of pushback, seems to directly contradict the meaning of “target,” which in this context can be defined as a “desired goal.” The target of eliminating meat, dairy, and private vehicles by 2030 is “based on a future vision of resource-efficient production and extensive changes in consumer choices,” the report notes — something its authors clearly hope to bring about. If these were not their goals, they would not have labeled them “ambitious targets.”
The “fact-checker’s” insistence that C40 Cities’ explicitly stated climate goals are somehow insincere is even more unconvincing, given that we are watching them start to unfold right now. This year, in lockstep with C40 Cities’ 2030 aims, New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced that the city will place caps on the amount of meat and dairy served by city institutions, such as schools and prisons. Meanwhile, the U.K. has banned the sale of new gas-powered vehicles after 2030, and France has banned short-haul flights “to cut carbon emissions.”
In 2020, the World Economic Forum (which promotes C40 Cities on its website) introduced “The Great Reset,” which seeks to use the Covid-19 pandemic as a point from which to launch a global reset of society to supposedly combat climate change. This reset, however, has far more to do with social control than it does with the climate. If globalist leaders truly cared about the environment, they wouldn’t be chartering private jets or owning massive, energy-consuming mansions on the coast in California, which, by climate fanatics’ own calculation, will soon be underwater.
As the WEF plainly stated in a 2016 promotional video, by 2030 “You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy.”
Right now, hedge funds and private billionaires are buying up residential homes and farmland all over the world. At the same time, unrealistic zero-emissions policies are impoverishing Westerners and annihilating the middle class, which is fueling reliance on centralized government. Such intentional steps backward also, ironically, harm the earth because wealthier nations are proven to have cleaner environments and put less strain on natural resources.
Climate activists are also advocating for “climate lockdowns,” in the same way there were Covid lockdowns. Ideas floated for a climate lockdown have ranged from shuttering people in their homes and restricting air travel to providing a Universal Basic Income and introducing a maximum income level.gene
Climate dystopianism doesn’t end there. WEF-linked “bioethicist” Dr. Matthew Liao has proposed the idea of scientists genetically modify humans to be allergic to meat. Liao has also discussed shrinking the physical size of humans via eugenics or hormone injections so they consume fewer resources.
All of these policy proposals appear even more unreasonable and illogical when we actually evaluate the data. According to the International Disaster Database, deaths related to extreme heat, floods, storms, and droughts have plummeted as C02 emissions have risen. The fossil fuel economy has provided billions of people with heating, air conditioning, weather warning systems, mass irrigation, and durable buildings.
This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t try to limit carbon emissions. Environmentally friendly nuclear energy, which is safe and more reliable than wind and solar energy, is a great way to wean our society off of our reliance on fossil fuels. The globalist climate activists, however, oppose nuclear energy, further undermining their supposedly good intentions.
Ultimately, the climate coalition’s goals are inherently anti-human. People generally need meat and the protein it provides to flourish. Banning meat and dairy, restricting calories, genetically altering the human body, and impoverishing the masses will hurt the planet and people. More likely than not, it will do more than hurt people — it will kill many of them.
Evita Duffy-Alfonso is a staff writer to The Federalist and the co-founder of the Chicago Thinker. She loves the Midwest, lumberjack sports, writing, and her family. Follow her on Twitter at @evitaduffy_1 or contact her at evita@thefederalist.com.
A new vaccine technology that delivers vaccines through microneedles on patches is known as vaccine microarray patches (VMAP). It is backed by global players including the World Health Organization (WHO) Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The patches have yet to be approved by regulators, but are still being promoted. VMAPs are easier to deliver, especially to children, than traditional needle jabs. The head of the National Vaccine Information Center said that vaccine ‘hesitancy’ “has never been about how the product is delivered.” Instead, “it has always been about the lack of evidence demonstrating safety.”
The claimed benefits of such “vaccine patches” — for everything from measles and rubella (MR) vaccines to various mRNA vaccines — are being widely promoted even though few clinical trials have been completed and no such vaccine has yet been approved by regulators.
Scientific and medical experts who spoke with The Defender raised questions about the technology and warned of potential dangers.
“Whether it is delivered by a needle or a patch, a VMAP is a biological product that atypically manipulates the immune system to provoke strong inflammatory responses that can lead to injury or death for some who receive it.
“If you look at the medical literature describing microneedle vaccine patches, what you see is a lot of hype about how much easier it will be for the vaccinators to slap a patch on a child’s skin instead of using a needle, and how the ‘painless’ patch can reduce vaccine hesitancy.”
Fisher said vaccine hesitancy “has never been about how the product is delivered.” Instead, “it has always been about the lack of evidence demonstrating safety.”
Brian Hooker, Ph.D., P.E., senior director of science and research for Children’s Health Defense, said that the term “vaccine patch” may also be misleading, as it might be confused with nicotine patches for smokers.
Hooker told The Defender:
“The term ‘vaccine patch’ is misleading in that this microarray technology is nothing like other patch-based delivery systems for nicotine or hormones. This ‘patch’ still breaks the skin in order to deliver the liquid vaccine that is contained in the microarray’s matrix.
“As such, I don’t quite understand how this injection system will be delivered to patients and parents to administer the vaccine directly. That seems quite risky.
“Unfortunately, repackaging the same vaccines in this different platform does nothing to improve their safety — as this seems more a ploy to convince consumers otherwise.”
VMAP backers seek to ‘turn vaccines into vaccinations’
VMAPs can “overcome many obstacles and bottlenecks faced by intradermal vaccine delivery, thus maximising the reach of vaccines to the most remote locations to turn vaccines into vaccination,” according to an article published last week by Gavi.
According to UNICEF, “VMAPs can increase vaccine coverage by increasing acceptability by caregivers and recipients, and administering vaccines more rapidly and easily with minimally trained health care workers” and can “substantially improve the productivity and resilience of governments to expand immunization coverage.”
UNICEF’s position mirrors that of the WHO, the Gates Foundation and the Clinton Health Access Initiative — “The Big Catch-up” — described as “the largest childhood immunization effort ever,” intent on reversing “declines in childhood vaccination recorded in over 100 countries since the pandemic.”
UNICEF said it is “focusing on driving the research, development and scale of VMAPs,” including “identifying barriers for scaling and investigating the need for market pull incentives to spark interest and endorsement by vaccine manufacturers.”
Nevertheless, no VMAPs have yet been approved by regulators, according to Gavi, which states that, at present, “one measles and rubella vaccine patch has completed Phase 1/2 clinical trials. Two additional phase 1/2 clinical trials are planned.”
“Some COVID-19 and flu vaccines are also entering Phase 1/2 trials, and other vaccines such as HPV are undergoing preclinicalassessment,” Gavi added.
The trial, conducted in Gambia with 45 adults, 120 toddlers 15-18 months of age, and 120 infants 9-10 months of age, “evaluated the safety, immunogenicity, and acceptability” of an MR vaccine delivered by micro-array technology developed by Atlanta-based Micron Biomedical.
The vaccine itself was developed by the Serum Institute of India, the world’s largest vaccine manufacturer by number of doses produced and sold. The Serum Institute produces the COVISHIELD COVID-19 vaccine, as well as over half of the world’s vaccines administered to babies.
The Serum Institute, along with Bill Gates, are named as defendants in a pair of lawsuits filed by family members of deceased vaccine injury victims in India.
Envisioning a future where ‘vaccine patches could be mailed directly to peoples’ homes’
The lack of any successfully completed clinical trials has not stopped the proponents of VMAPs from claiming this technology will deliver a broad range of benefits.
According to Gavi, VMAPs are “needle-free and pre-dosed,” simplifying the administration of vaccines, which can then “be carried out by minimally trained volunteers.”
Gavi also claims VMAPs “are safer as they overcome the risks related to operational errors” during administration, such as dosage errors and needle-stick injuries.
VMAPs are “easier to distribute,” according to Gavi, due to their light weight and “enhanced thermostability” which addresses “the problem of vaccine storage requirements” and removes “the need for cold-chains.”
Moreover, Gavi claims “The lower level of pain experienced during administration with MAPs would help reduce vaccine hesitancy and increase vaccine acceptability.”
“There are difficulties in reaching the last mile with the current injectable vaccines since they depend on a functional cold-chain and administration by well-trained staff … Furthermore, most vaccines are administered via injection that may cause pain, and discomfort that leads to hesitancy,” UNICEF states.
Healthcare consulting firm Avalere said VMAPs provide “the potential for lower healthcare costs,” “increased compliance due to convenient and pain free application,” are “ideal for patients with needlestick phobias or difficulty swallowing,” and are “easier for children, older people and patients requiring complex care.”
According to CEPI, VMAPs “could enable a future in which vaccine patches could be mailed directly to peoples’ homes, workplaces and schools, avoiding the delay and inconvenience of traditional needle-and-syringe vaccine scheduling and administration.”
CEPI describes itself as “an innovative global partnership between public, private, philanthropic, and civil society organisations launched in Davos in 2017 to develop vaccines to stop future epidemics.”
VMAPs proposed for wide range of vaccines, including mRNA injections
Proponents of VMAP say the purported benefits of this technology can ultimately translate to acting as an “advantageous delivery route for existing vaccines,” including influenza, tetanus toxoid, MR, hepatitis B and “biologics and small molecules.”
According to the WHO, a VMAP for the MR vaccine may be “potentially favourable,” with “perceived operational advantages that could ultimately increase equitable coverage and facilitate vaccine administration in inaccessible areas.”
For the same vaccine, a Jan. 16 article in the Frontiers in Public Health journal states that as vaccination coverage for measles and rubella “has stagnated,” VMAPs “are anticipated to offer significant programmatic advantages to needle and syringe” options and lead to increased vaccination coverage, with “significant demand expected for MR-MAPs between 2030 and 2040.”
And on Jan. 17, CEPI launched preclinical testing for a “high-density microarray patch … to assess its stability, safety and immunogenicity and to evaluate its potential as a rapid-response technology for heat-stable, dried-formulation mRNA vaccines.”
According to CEPI, this initiative was borne out of its January 2022 call for proposals, as part of its “wider strategic goal of harnessing innovative technologies to improve the speed, scale and access of vaccine development and manufacturing in response to epidemic and pandemic threats.”
Gates, World Bank, World Economic Forum connected to VMAP proponents
While Gavi states that “There is a need for investments to fund pilot-scale manufacturing facilities” for VMAPs, Gavi and other entities that are actively promoting this technology are themselves backed by or connected to some of the world’s most prominent investors, as well as major global organizations.
Gavi says it “helps vaccinate almost half the world’s children against deadly and debilitating infectious diseases.” It was established in 1999, with the Gates Foundation as one of its co-founders and one of its four permanent board members.
Gates-related connections extend to PATH president and CEO Nikolaj Gilbert, who is a member of Challenge Seattle, described as “an alliance of CEOs from Seattle area’s largest employers including Microsoft, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Starbucks, and Boeing.” He previously served as director for Big Pharma firm Novo Nordisk.
According to PATH’s 2021 annual report, the organization is funded by organizations including the Gates Foundation, the Schwab Charitable Fund and the Vanguard Charitable Endowment, in addition to the United Nations, Gavi, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Bank and the WHO.
PATH has also received funding from the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, Google and the World Bank for vaccine projects in countries such as India.
Several CEPI board members are also connected to entities like the Gates Foundation.
For instance, Dr. Anita Zaidi is the president of gender equality, director of vaccine development and surveillance, and director of enteric and diarrheal diseases programs at the Gates Foundation, while non-voting member Gagandeep “Cherry” Kang, M.D., Ph.D., is chair of the foundation’s Joint Working Group.
Νon-voting member Dr. Juan Pablo Uribe is the global director for Health, Nutrition and Population and director of the Global Financing Facility for Women, Children and Adolescents at the World Bank.
Dr. Mike Ryan, also a non-voting member, is the executive director of the WHO’s Health Emergencies Programme who gained global prominence during the COVID-19 pandemic through his participation in WHO briefings.
And non-voting member Dr. L. Rizka Andalucia is the director-general for Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices at Indonesia’s Ministry of Health. In November 2022, Indonesian Minister of Health Budi Gunadi Sadikin, at the G20 meeting in Bali, called for a “digital health certificate acknowledged by the WHO” that would allow the public to “move around.”
Sweden Dumps Climate Agenda, Scraps Green Energy Targets
Frank Bergman10 Comments
Sweden has just dealt a severe blow to the globalist climate agenda by scraping its green energy targets.
In a statement announcing the new policy in the Swedish Parliament, Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson warned that the Scandinavian nation needs “a stable energy system.”
Svantesson asserted that wind and solar power are too “unstable” to meet the nation’s energy requirements.
Instead, the Swedish Government is shifting back to nuclear power and has ditched its targets for a “100% renewable energy” supply.
The move is a major blow to unreliable and inefficient technology.
Countries are being pushed toward “renewable energy” to meet the goals of the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) green agenda.
The group argues that the Swedish decision is “an important step in the right direction, implicitly acknowledging the low quality of unstable wind and solar, and is part of a general collapse of confidence in the renewable energy agenda pioneered in the Nordic countries and in Germany.”
Under its new direction, Sweden now views nuclear power as being critical to the nation’s “100% fossil-free” energy future.
Sweden can “afford to reject fossil fuels, relying on nuclear and hydro and biomass,” Net Zero Watch suggests.
Svantesson also sent a warning to other Western nations who are blindly pushing to meet the energy requirements of the WEF’s green agenda.
In “substantial industrialized economies… only a gas to the nuclear pathway is viable to remain industrialized and competitive,” Svantesson noted.
Experts have argued that lowering carbon dioxide emissions is not really a worthwhile goal for an individual country or globally.
The potential harms of the gas are uncertain and exaggerated while the benefits are overlooked.
Dr. John Constable, Net Zero Watch’s Energy Director, said that “living close to Russia focuses the mind.”
The Swedish people wish to “ground their economy in an energy source, nuclear, that is physically sound and secure, unlike renewables which are neither,” he explains.
Other world governments are continuing “to live in a fantasy” about meeting the green agenda goals, Constable added.
“But we are coming to the end of the green dream.’
WEF Calls for AI to Rewrite Bible, Create ‘Religions That Are Actually Correct’
Frank Bergman17 Comments
A top official with the World Economic Forum (WEF) has called for religious scripture to be “rewritten” by artificial intelligence (AI) to create a globalized “new Bible.”
Yuval Noah Harari, the senior advisor to the WEF and its chairman Klaus Schwab, argues that using AI to replace scriptures will create unified “religions that are actually correct.”
Harari, an influential author and professor, made the call while giving a talk on the “future of humanity.”
According to Harari, the power of AI can be harnessed and used to reshape spirituality into the WEF’s globalist vision of “equity” and inclusivism.
Speaking with journalist Pedro Pinto in Lisbon, Portugal, Harari told the elitist audience:
“It’s the first technology ever that can create new ideas.
“You know, the printing press, radio, television, they broadcast, they spread the ideas created by the human brain, by the human mind.
“They cannot create a new idea.
“You know, [Johannes] Gutenberg printed the Bible in the middle of the 15th century; the printing press printed as many copies of the Bible as Gutenberg instructed it, but it did not create a single new page.
“It had no ideas of its own about the Bible: Is it good? Is it bad? How to interpret this? How to interpret that?”
Harari then revealed that he and his allies at the WEF have a solution to the supposed problems he’d just highlighted.
“AI can create new ideas; [it] can even write a new Bible,” he declared.
“Throughout history, religions dreamt about having a book written by a superhuman intelligence, by a non-human entity,” he added.
“In a few years, there might be religions that are actually correct … just think about a religion whose holy book is written by an AI.
Harari noted in another recent gathering that software like ChatGPT has mastered human languages and can harness that function to influence culture, the Times of Israel said.
“For thousands of years, prophets and poets and politicians have used language and storytelling in order to manipulate and to control people and to reshape society,” he said, according to the paper.
“Now AI is likely to be able to do it.
“And once it can… it doesn’t need to send killer robots to shoot us.
“It can get humans to pull the trigger.”
Harari also said that “contrary to what some conspiracy theories assume, you don’t really need to implant chips in people’s brains in order to control them or to manipulate them,” the paper noted.
He also warned that “we need to act quickly before AI gets out of our control” and that “governments must immediately ban the release into the public domain of any more revolutionary AI tools before they are made safe,” the paper added.
Harari frequently pushes ideas that involve humanity being replaced by machines.
As Slay News previously reported, Harari gloated last year that “we just don’t need the vast majority of the population” in today’s world.
According to Harari, most of the general public has now become “redundant” and will be of little use to the global elite in the future.
Harari argues that modern technologies like artificial intelligence “make it possible to replace the people.”
“If you go back to the middle of the 20th century — and it doesn’t matter if you’re in the United States with Roosevelt, or if you’re in Germany with Hitler, or even in the USSR with Stalin — and you think about building the future, then your building materials are those millions of people who are working hard in the factories, in the farms, the soldiers,” Harari said.
“You need them.
“Now, fast forward to the early 21st century when we just don’t need the vast majority of the population,” he added.
“The future is about developing more and more sophisticated technology, like artificial intelligence [and] bioengineering.
“Most people don’t contribute anything to that, except perhaps for their data, and whatever people are still doing which is useful, these technologies increasingly will make redundant and will make it possible to replace the people.”
In the words of the WEF, “story-based media can shift social norms, values and beliefs more effectively than traditional, fact-based messaging”
When a story is based on a lie, it takes a significant effort to maintain that lie, and the tyrants work day and night to keep their lies “alive”
The definition of “normal” came from math, and its contemporary meaning was shaped by the father of eugenics and Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton
Today, there is an effort on the part of the “human parasites” to induce the condition of “arrested development” on as many people as they can
No matter the circumstance, it’s on us to stand tall
I would like to start with a stunning example of the World Economic Forum telling the truth. Here is factual quote by them from 2018:
“There is now a compelling body of evidence to support the idea that, with the right research and theoretical grounding, story-based media can shift social norms, values and beliefs more effectively than traditional, fact-based messaging [emphasis mine]. What is even more exciting is how digital technology is bringing compelling stories to millions of people at increasingly lower costs.”
Are they telling the truth? Yes, they are — and the past three years offer immediate proof. The story-based media, sponsored by their masters from BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, has shifted the social norms alright! Here is a scary SNL skit that — I think — was supposed to make somebody laugh. I don’t usually watch the SNL, and I didn’t laugh:
“Social Norms”
Why do the social norms exist? We are social creatures, and our communities have customs. We are wired from birth to look at what others are doing and compare notes. We are also wired to “adjust” our behavior depending on the reactions we get. In the traditional wilderness, most adults can’t survive without being mature and living by natural and spiritual laws. And even here and how, in the urban jungle, our basic survival may depend on how well and how quickly we “read the room.”
As it goes with most things in life though, human qualities that exist in us with the purpose of helping us survive and thrive, can be turned on their heads and abused. It is kind of like what the parasites in nature do when they take advantage of the instincts and various natural biological functions in their target host — and make those features work for themselves, to the detriment of the host.
Our love of being in harmony with our community can be abused, too — and it has been abused throughout centuries and in the past three years — by committing acts of mob-like terror to create the initial shock and lasting collective fear, and thus corrupting the “base line” — and then by enforcing “arrested development” and preventing children from emotionally growing up until they are ready to be consumed by the Machine.
Here is a fine bit of inverted storytelling for the child-like adults that is intended to make them feel “smart.”
See, a mature and soul-oriented adult can “read the room” and then intelligently choose what to, based on what’s spiritually sound to do under a circumstance. On the other hand, an individual who is not particularly mature or soul-oriented tends to react in a mechanical way. Such a person is usually easy to consume by the not-so-benevolent masters at the top.
Thus, the “mechanically reactive” mode of living is typical for those who are yet to find themselves: children and child-like adults. And the effort to induce the condition of “arrested development” on as many “worker ants” as possible is the ambition of the human parasites.
What Is “Normal,” Anyway?
Enter the notion of “normal.” Before we proceed, let us look at the history of the term.
“The word normal entered the English language in the mid-1840s, followed by normality in 1849, and normalcy in 1857 … When normal was first used it had nothing to do with people, or society, or human behavior. Norm and normal were Latin words used by mathematicians. Normal comes from the Latin word norma which refers to a carpenter’s square, or T-square. Building off the Latin, normal first meant “perpendicular” or “at right angles.”
Normal was first used outside a mathematical context in the mid-1800s by a group of men … in the academic disciplines of comparative anatomy and physiology. These two fields, by the 19th century, had professional dominion over the human body … They used the term “normal state” to describe functioning organs and other systems inside the body.
The anatomists and physiologists, however, never did find or define the normal state. Instead they studied and defined its opposite — the pathological state. They defined normal as what is not abnormal …
The idea of the average as normal goes way back to 1713 to a Swiss mathematician named Jakob Bernoulli, who many consider to be the founder of modern day calculus and statistics …
Bernoulli created an equation known as the calculus of probabilities, which became the foundation of all statistics … The calculus of probabilities specifically, and statistics generally, made many seemly random events more predictable …”
Then Adolphe Quetelet took the calculus of probabilities and “applied not to gambling but to human beings … Quetelet was a true believer that statistics should be applied to all aspects of society … In 1835, he put forth the concept of the ‘average man.’
His plan was to gather massive amounts of statistical data about any given population and calculate the mean, or most commonly occurring, of various sets of features — height, weight, eye color — and later, qualities such as intelligence and morality, and use this “average man” as a model for society …”
Anyone can smell eugenics in the air at this point? Quetelet “used regular, average, and normal interchangeably. In 1870, in a series of essays on ‘deformities’ in children, he juxtaposed children with disabilities to the normal proportions of other human bodies, which he calculated using averages. The normal and the average had merged.”
The formal “father” of normality (and eugenics), however, was Francis Galton, Charles Darwin’s cousin. Galton was an anthropologist and the founder of eugenics known for his “pioneering” (per Encyclopedia Britannica) studies of human intelligence. He started out as a doctor and then left medicine for the budding field of statistics. He was knighted in 1909.
Pet LitHub, “as Lennard Davis described in his book Enforcing Normalcy, Galton made significant changes in statistical theory that created the concept of the norm, as we know it. Galton was into the idea of improving the human race and believed that statistics could help. He loved Quetelet’s whole ‘average man’ thing but had one minor problem.
In the center of Quetelet’s bell curve were the most commonly occurring traits, not the ideal bodies and minds Galton believed everyone should have.”
“To solve this problem, Galton, through a complicated … mathematical process … took the bell curve idea, where the most common traits clustered in the middle and the extremes, and created what he called an ‘ogive’ … which, as Davis explains ‘is arranged in quartiles with an ascending curve that features the desired trait as “higher” than the undesirable “deviation.”
According to Peter Cryle and Elizabeth Stephens, authors of Normality: a Critical Genealogy, “Galton was not only the first person to develop a properly statistical theory of the normal … but also the first to suggest that it be applied as a practice of social and biological normalization.”
By the early twentieth century, the concept of a normal man took hold. The emerging field of public health loved it. Schools, with rows of desks and a one-size-fits-all approach to learning, were designed for the mythical middle.
The industrial economy needed standardization, which was brought about by the application of averages, standards, and norms to industrial production. Eugenics, an offshoot of genetics created by Galton, was committed to ridding the world of “defectives” … and was founded on the concept of the normal distribution curve.”
Eugenics
Gene Editing
Is “Gene Editing” the New Spelling of “Eugenics”?
Speaking of eugenics — I mean, gene editing — here is a TED talk by Paul Knoepfler, a mainstream researcher at UC Davis School of Medicine, from a few years ago. It is fascinating to watch. I say “fascinating” because I like to observe other people’s train of thought. And in some cases, people’s thinking is a wild mix of possible good intention, actual science, fantasy, and hubris (remember DDT?).
In his case, in 2018, he called for a temporary moratorium on “designer babies,” and then in 2020, at a time when nearly every mainstream scientist was compliant or trusty or both, he published a piece supporting mRNA vaccines. What is his opinion on the mRNA vaccines today? I don’t know. But since he still seemingly has a job, whatever his opinion is, he is probably keeping it to himself.
Even more fascinating is this bit of storytelling. In real life, the scientists — even the well-intended ones — who hope to “improve humanity” by genetic modification are more like a very ambitious elephant in the china shop than anything else. Perhaps they are an elephant who identifies as a very graceful ballerina — but they are an elephant, and no amount of fantasizing about genetic modification can change that.
But it is fascinating to watch propaganda videos. Words are cheap, anything can be said with great conviction, including blatant lies. There is even a flying car briefly making an appearance in this propaganda video! Perhaps, a hint?
When something is based on a lie, it takes a significant effort to maintain that lie. Because of that, for centuries, there have been very powerful lie-maintaining institutions in place. The people employed at the lie-maintaining institutions have been very skilled at the art of deceit, at the art of confusion, at the art of seduction, and at the art of fear.
The middle managers could be just foot soldiers, the apprentices of the Machine. They often have no idea what they are really doing, and they typically prefer not even think about ways to find an accurate mirror because they are not looking to shatter their own worldview.
The ones at the top though know exactly what they are doing, and they put a lot of work in maintaining their lies. They are in perpetual search of new victims and new ways to sell their lies. They are in perpetual search of new abuse markets, so to speak. And so they swap stories and marketing brochures without even blinking, as often as they need, to replenish their victim supply.
Cycle of Abuse and the Story of Superiority
It dawned on me: the way institutional abusers play “divide and conquer” and treat different groups of people differently is as if they were delivering the experiences of different phases of abuse to those groups at the same time.
The “temporarily elevated,” i.e. the demographic targeted to be temporary supporters and loyal soldiers of the dark ones, are shown the “honey moon” phase — while the ones who are targeted for immediate destruction, receive the unmasked boot, the phase of abuse when the gloves of the abuser are off.
Of course, both groups are targeted to be eaten, just at different times — and during Phase One, Group One is supposed to not know that they are enthusiastically digging not just the graves for Group Two, but also their own graves.
That makes perfect sense as far as the art of warfare goes. Seduction, including sugar-covered storytelling and some practical perks, is required to pull the victim in. It’s very important for the abuser to first pull some wool over the victim’s eyes and ears and some cotton candy over the victim’s mouth.
The ones who are targeted to be supporters, are told that they better, smarter, more handsome, and more spiritually righteous than the ones targeted to be food. What’s hidden from the “next phase” victims though is the fact that the abuse is on its way. Inevitably, on its way.
The Not-so-Great Reset
What’s really happening in regards to the not-so-great reset role swapping, a reshuffling in the game of the musical chairs. We in the West have gotten used to the role of “honey moon” people, the ones who are shown the “honey moon” phase. And who could blame us? It is easy to get used to good things. Hey, this Soviet expat is very grateful for those good things and got used to them right away!
And it is also true that for all practical purposes, while Phase One lasts, it is much better to belong to our “western” group. Big houses, big TVs, material abundance, freedom of expression — or at least relative freedom of expression — all those things have been sweet, and having them makes a dramatic difference in our quality of life. As someone who grew up at the tail end of the USSR, I passionately attest to that.
However, it is important to be honest. And for the sake of being honest, it is better to separate the underlying reality from “storytelling.” For example, we decry — rightfully so — the forced closure of places of worship during the COVID lockdowns. But how many people know that, for example, the original people of this land could not legally practice the spiritual traditions of their ancestors until 1978, when American Indian Religious Freedom Act was passed?
This reminds of a Soviet-era joke. A Russian and an American are having a conversation, and the American says: “We in America have freedom. For example, I can go up to the White House and say loudly, ‘Reagan sucks!” The Russian laughs and says, “Big deal. I, too, can go to Red Square and say loudly, ‘Reagan sucks!’”
Modus Propagandi
When the poorer and less socially elevated people are used as pawn in a coup, they are propagandized in a particular way — which is something that I observed in the Soviet Union, and something that I am observing, to my chagrin, in America today.
The dejected ones are handed a fake new “respect” and the satisfaction of “righteously” humiliating the ones who annoy them, in this case, the “privileged” folks. It is that game of musical chairs, the redistribution of the crumbles of respect, again.
From the standpoint of the dark individuals on top, it’s just another reiteration of “divide and conquer,” reshuffling of Phase One and Phase Two people and values, a matter of different groups of ants swapping roles. But it feels very serious to the dignified people on the ground for good reasons as we can feel our dignity just slipping away, the sound of propaganda of the day.
They Do It Again and Again
This topic is close to my heart. When the generation of my grandparents in the USSR found themselves on the receiving end of the not-so-great reset of the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, the “foot soldiers of the Machine” were the poor ones, the compliant ones, and the village drunks.
This is not how I learned history at school, however. When I was a kid, I was told a story of horrible pre-1917 life and the Bolsheviks riding in on a white horse (like a Robin Hood, although I am not sure if Robin Hood had a white horse). It was later, gradually, that I figured out that it was just a story, and that it was a vicious lie.
Then when the Soviet Union fell apart, I was still a kid, and I remember how exciting and prestigious it was for anyone to be in any way involved with anything “from the West.” Glamorous things were: joint enterprises, foreigners, Western music, Western values, and this song.
What a sweet fairy tale it was. And despite the sweetness of that story, and the tremendously fond memories I have of those times, that, too, was just “storytelling.” In reality, it was a loveless market grab by the key investors in multinational companies. It was a social restructuring that for us, at that time, felt awesome because we, the people of the Soviet Union, were temporarily made to believe that were the benefiting group.
The “Russian Doll” of Lies: Letting Go
I have spent many years pondering this dynamic, and came to the conclusion that until we reject all fake stories — even the ones we imbibed with mother’s milk, even the ones that allow people like us to continue our comfortable slumber — we are not “safe” from being on the receiving end of the not-so-great reset.
That is a very tall order and a very tough spiritual and intellectual challenge even for the best of us, and it’s hard work. But our sweet freedom is worth all the hard work in the world, isn’t it? I think so.
About the Author
To find more of Tessa Lena’s work, be sure to check out her bio, Tessa Fights Robots.
Destructive food policies in the name of climate are weapons in the war on food. Reduction of methane emissions from livestock animals, especially beef and dairy cattle, is planned, along with switching from current farming practices to undefined “innovative” methods. 13 countries have committed to the Global Methane Pledge to transform their farm policies include the United States, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Germany, Panama, Peru and Spain.The UN, World Economic Forum and other NGOs have been promoting meatless diets and the consumption of insect protein for years. There has been heavy investment in insect factories to add processed bugs into foods. It is doubtful that labels will inform people of what they are eating. Cancer cells from cows, chickens and pigs are used to quickly grow artificial meat in laboratories. Meanwhile, the UN’s World Bank is warning of a global famine.
.The global climate cult is getting ready to kick its war on food into overdrive with 13 nations – many of them major cattle and food-producing states led by the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Spain – signing onto a commitment to place farmers under new restrictions intended to reduce emissions of methane gas.
The Global Methane Hub announced in a May 17 press release that agriculture and environmental ministers and ambassadors from 13 countries, including the United States, have signed a commitment that pledges to reduce methane emissions in agriculture. The U.S. was represented by Biden’s climate czar, John Kerry.
What does this mean and why should you care? We’ll break it down.
According to the press release issued by these nations and posted at Global Methane Hub:
“Last month (in April 2023), the Global Methane Hub collaborated with the Ministries of Agriculture of Chile and Spain to convene the first-ever global ministerial on agricultural practices to reduce methane emissions. The ministerial brought together high-ranking government members to share global perspectives on methane reduction and low-emission food systems. The gathering led to a statement in which the nations committed to support efforts to improve the quality and quantity of, and access to, finance for climate change adaptation and mitigation measures in the agriculture and food sectors and to collaborate on efforts aimed at lowering methane emissions in agriculture and food systems.”
Conference participants included the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Climate & Clean Air Coalition, Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture, the World Bank, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, and the Inter-American Development Bank.
The World Bank, another creation of the post-World War II, U.S.-led liberal rules-based order, has been talking a lot lately, along with the U.N., about a coming famine. The World Bank issued a white paper just last week, on May 22, titled Food Security Update: World Bank Response to Rising Food Insecurity.
So it’s curious to me that, at the very time the globalists are warning about food shortages and famine, their mouthpieces at the World Bank, the U.N., and within the administrations of the U.S. and its allies (notice China and Russia are nowhere to be found in these preposterous anti-food policies), are talking about converting over to a new and unproven form of “sustainable” farming that’s focused more on reducing methane than it is on producing the highest yields of food.
Modern food production is bad, they tell us, because it produces methane which supposedly harms the environment.
“Food systems are responsible for 60% of methane emissions,” said Marcelo Mena, CEO of Global Methane Hub. “We congratulate countries willing to take the lead in food systems methane mitigation and confirm our commitment to support this type of initiative with programs that explore promising methane mitigation technologies and the underpinning research of methane mitigation mechanisms to create new technologies.”
John Kerry is also very excited about taking valuable, productive farmland offline, reducing the size of cattle herds, and turning our food-production systems over to technocrats and globalists offering vague promises of “new technologies.”
World Economic Forum Behind Sudden Push to Ban Gas Stoves
Frank Bergman14 Comments
Details have emerged to suggest that Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum is behind the recent sudden push from the Democrats and President Joe Biden’s administration to ban gas stoves from American homes.
As Slay News reported earlier, the Biden admin is considering a nationwide ban on gas stoves over claims they emit “harmful pollutants.”
According to a report by Bloomberg, Biden officials claim that a ban on the appliances being used in American homes “is on the table.”
The far-reaching admission was made by U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) commissioner Richard Trumka Jr.
Trumka reportedly told Bloomberg that gas stove appliances are a “hidden hazard” that “can be banned.”
“Any option is on the table,” Trumka told the outlet during an interview.
Reports on the possible ban quickly spread on social media, causing outrage and confusion among baffled citizens.
Several Democrats and “woke” media figures were quick to voice their support for the ban.
Radical Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) responded by taking to social media to speak out in support of banning gas stoves.
Ocasio-Cortez argues, without evidence, that gas stoves cause brain damage.
“Did you know that ongoing exposure to NO2 from gas stoves is linked to reduced cognitive performance?” AOC wrote in a post on Twitter.
Controversial California Democrat State Senator Scott Weiner also put out a statement on Twitter saying he is in favor of the ban, as Slay News reported.
“Gas stoves are toxic to people’s health,” he alleged.
“They cause asthma in children, cardiac problems & other disease,” Weiner claimed, without evidence.
“They need to be phased out.”
The sudden push for banning the household appliances, which have been used in American homes without issue for decades, has left many questioning the true motivation.
Florida’s Republican Governor Ron DeSantis fired back by arguing that the Biden admin is considering the ban to meet the “green agenda” goals of Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum (WEF).
“You see, the Biden administration wants to nix gas stoves,” Gov. DeSantis said during a press conference in Bonita Springs, Florida.
“Are you kidding me?”
DeSantis may be right, however.
A new report by Red State points out that prominent Democrats and liberals never demonstrated an iota of concern over gas stoves before.
Despite claiming that gas stoves cause brain damage, AOC had never even mentioned it before this week.
As Slay News highlights in a previous report, the statements put out by AOC, Wiener, and other leftists, eerily echo an article published by the WEF in February last year.
The article argues that gas stoves are a “climate threat” that should be “phased out.”
The WEF claims that “gas stoves have been found to be a bigger contributor to the climate crisis than previously believed.”
A major Twitter leftist named Max Kennerly also got in on the act, pushing the supposed dangers of cooking with gas.
Like AOC, he had never tweeted about gas stoves before this week.
Aside from never mentioning this supposed “threat,” several high-profile Democrats have been pictured using gas stoves before.
A tweet from Libs of TikTok shows images of Kamala Harris, Jill Biden, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and AOC all cooking on gas stoves.
Yet, none of them appear concerned over the potential impact on their health.
“Regardless, it’s worth asking where this is all coming from, right?
“Why did Democrats all start moving in lockstep to ban gas stoves, seemingly with no prior concern at all?
“And sure enough, with a little digging, it’s been revealed that this isn’t just idle science taking place.”
“The company behind the study is called ‘Carbon-Free Buildings.’
“That company is a partner of the World Economic Forum and has a true-believer CEO who wants to rid the world of all carbon emissions (which is impossible and would lead to mass extinction).”
It appears that all of this sudden, manufactured hysteria about gas stoves may have been orchestrated by the WEF.
The WEF and the Democrats both share a common goal of eliminating fossil fuels for the public while they fly gas-guzzling private jets across the globe.
The elimination of gas stoves qualifies as another step toward meeting the goals of the organization’s “green agenda.”
Over the past two years or so, the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) influence over governments and institutions of sovereign nations has become increasingly apparent.
Founded in 1971 by German economist Klaus Schwab, the WEF has remained fairly under the radar for decades.
However, the organization has been quietly expanding its icy grip around the throats of the world’s population by installing operatives in the upper echelons of governments and corporations.
This influence has expanded so far that Schwab and his allies appear to have given up trying to conceal their agenda and even openly gloat about controlling nations’ leaders.
When the Covid pandemic emerged, it opened the floodgates for the WEF agenda as the public begged their leaders to take away their basic freedoms.bank accounts
It’s not just happenstance that the world’s banks and financial institutions are freezing the accounts of those who do not share the same political ideologies that they choose to live by.
The freezing of bank accounts comes directly from the BIG STEAL promoted by the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” – “You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy.”
In February, Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau froze the bank accounts of thousands of truckers in the Freedom Convoy—and their supporters.
As Slay News reported in November, we saw the same tactics used in Brazil when people who questioned the presidential election results had their bank accounts frozen.
In early 2022, Trudeau’s sidekick supporter, Ontario Premier Doug Ford, swooped in to confiscate the millions of dollars the public sent to GoFundMe and GiveSendGo for the protesting truckers.
Three months later, when the World Economic Forum (WEF) Annual Meeting took place May 22nd through 26th, in Davos, Switzerland, 50 heads of government and thousands of corporate, philanthropic, and scientific leaders were in attendance. (National Pulse, May 20, 2022)
Twenty-five American officials, including two White House representatives, and an additional 12 Democrat and 10 Republican politicians, accompanied them.
The panel discussions included:
Economic Weaponry: Uses and Effectiveness of Sanctions
Safeguarding Global Scientific Collaboration
Blue Foods for a Sustainable Future
The Journey towards Racial Equity
“Economic Weaponry” is the WEF’s latest weapon in the take-down-the-enemy arsenal.
“Candace Owens reported on Wednesday that entertainer Kanye West has been removed as a client from Chase Bank. (Post Millennial, Oct. 12, 2022)
“Owens shared the letter from the multinational banking company, which was headed “Closing of Our Banking Relationship.”
“Addressed to Ye, it read “We are sending this letter to confirm our recent discussion with [redacted] that JPMorgan Chase Bank… has decided to end its banking relationship with Yeezy, LLC and its affiliated entities.”
“The bank gave West until November 21 to move his accounts to another financial institution.
“No reason appears to have been given in the bank’s decision to stop servicing the accounts of the multi-millionaire entertainer and fashion designer.
“This comes after a spate of criticism was heaped on West for an apparent antisemitic post on Twitter which led to West being locked out of the platform. West wrote: “I’m a bit sleepy tonight but when I wake up I am going death con 3 On JEWISH PEOPLE.”
“In a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, West said “When I say Jew, I mean the 12 lost tribes of Judah, the blood of Christ, who the people known as the race black really are. This is who our people are. The blood of Christ. This, as a Christian, is my belief.”
“Owens recently joined West during Paris fashion week, where both of them wore controversial shirts emblazoned with the words “white lives matter.”
“West told Carlson that the reason he had the shirts made is because it was “obvious.” He went on to say that the Black Lives Matter movement is a “sham.”
“West has publicly discussed his mental health struggles and revealed several years ago that he has been diagnosed bipolar disorder.”
PayPal can still steal your $2,500
Then there’s PayPal, which Ken LaCorte points out backtracked on fining people for “misinformation”, but it can still fine users for promoting “intolerance”.(Ken Lacorte, Oct. 12, 2022
“PayPal users rebelled after learning the company’s policy allowed it to fine them $2,500 for spreading “misinformation,” deducting that money directly from user accounts. The company swiftly reversed itself amid the fallout, saying the policy was posted in error.
“While it backtracked from “misinformation” it still maintains that if you promote “intolerance” or “hate” they can steal $2,500 of your money. Per infraction.
“All you need to do is read through the company’s 23,478-word User Agreement, and then click on its Acceptable Use Policy, section 2(f), which makes things clear:
“Prohibited Activities … the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory.”
So who gets to decide what’s hateful or intolerant?
“Violation of this Acceptable Use Policy … may subject you to damages, including liquidated damages of $2,500.00 U.S. dollars per violation, which may be debited directly from your PayPal account(s).”
“When the original story broke, the company’s former president called the policy “insanity,” and co-founder Elon Musk agreed.
“The company explained it was all a big mistake: “PayPal is not fining people for misinformation and this language was never intended to be inserted in our policy.” (Notice that they don’t say anything about promoting “hate” or “intolerance.” That can still cost you a lot of dough.)
“Of course, hate is bad, assuming we’re not talking about hating Nazis or Russians or Trump or fundamentalists or Republican candidates or … you get the idea.
If we believe that you’ve engaged in any of these activities, we may take a number of actions to protect PayPal, its customers and others at any time in our sole discretion.
Why do we call the Great Reset The BIG STEAL?
Meanwhile, the WEF BIG STEAL carries on with their next Davos gathering scheduled for the end of January.
Why do we call the Great Reset The BIG STEAL?
It’s because they will greedily confiscate everything the masses own and tell you that, when you are left with nothing, “you’ll be happy!”
12 Comments
