Oct 10, 2022·edited Oct 10, 2022Liked by Kyle Young
"They" need centralised energy, "centralised money, banking", "centralised id", "centralised food production and supply", and "centralised communications" in order to centralise control! Their game is simplicity in itself: centralise in order to centralise control in their hands.
Perhaps you could do an article on why people are so apathetic in this infor age. I don't mean the usual reasons of jobs, mortgages, families.
I am wondering why people don't ask questions among their circles; don't ask of their pollies and other authorities. Why people invoked China approvingly. Yes! I met one Aussie zero-covid head online and traffic mgt worker in person. He said we needed to learn from the experiences of others when I sneezed at his China invocation. He literally shut his mouth when I dropped "Sweden" on him. Why did he attempt to snow me? As a parting jab, I said this to him:
"Look at you: you work in the Sun; fit and strong. Covid would be half a flu to you."
He was thoughtfully silent.
Why people in Australia in May 2022 kicked out the Federal conservative govt when the state leftist govts were so harsh with their measures.
Why people repeated the lines/lies. When I exposed those lies, they remained silent. They never inquired about my sources of infor.
And the hardest one is: why did/do people support measures which curtailed their fellows freedom of choice, movement and livelihood? I am 100%, not 95%, certain that those same people would not have liked it if measures which they opposed were imposed on them!
Indeed. This is exactly correct and recognizing it enables one to see through many lies, including the economic ideology lies.
At one of the spectrum you have freedom - completely free markets. Gradually these free markets are "improved" by practices which create monopolies (unfree, more centralized markets). Licensing laws, Intellectual property, limited liability, central banking, and regulatory law. All of these practices centralize wealth and power (land ownership belongs on the list too, but that's a more complex issue and some type of land ownership may be necessary) and quickly result in a very unequal allocation of wealth to those who lack sufficient morals to refrain from leveraging these institutional mechanisms for theft.
Then comes the bigger, fatter lie. "Oh look people, capitalism has created an unequal society. That isn't fair - the solution must be to centralize power even more into a fascist/socialist/communist state. That's the only way we can guarantee to share things out fairly." But of course it does exactly the opposite - the more power is centralized, the fewer people can get their hands on the levers. And the people who get their hands on the levers always make sure they get the lion's share of everything.
The process of centralization of anything and everything is always and only about consolidating power and wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people.
The belief in VIRUSES as bioweapons has resulted in Biden launching $88B national biodefense strategy. Is this what the Wuhan Virus Bioweapon theorists wanted? Is there no stopping the Germ Theory from destroying humanity? Will Congress, continue to balk at further at funding? Will Congress give the president control of responding to future pandemics? Until the Germ Theory and Virology are exposed as the frauds they are, the insanity will continue.
Now there's a term I don't often encounter on Substack -- "spiritual warfare". I'm not a regular reader and I didn't know, but thank you for mentioning it. It's a term I use too, not so much as a blogger but in conversation, and usually in reference to how it is that many are able to see "what" is going on but few offer solid explanations for "why". Puzzlement over why we now find ourselves on this particular trajectory, however, is a good thing. It invites us to look beyond our current beliefs and assumptions.
2 year ago when I began writing this blog I was cautious about using that kind of terminology for fear of losing subscribers. Guess I got over that because if you go back and look through my posts you'll find that language appearing more and more often. And yes, I almost always lose subscribers when I use that type of language. But then people like you come along who understand and make it worth the risk. Thank you Clear Middle.
You have to tell the truth. And you are helping even the people who leave you, because you are planting seeds. Even if the seed is not yet able to flourish it is still there, germinating somewhere in their subconscious. And perhaps in future someone else will shine a light for them (or they will do it themselves), and another provide a shower of rain and the seed will sprout and grow. It's like the wise advice you provide to teenagers - you are not providing it for today because you know it will be ignored for the forseeable future, you are providing for a later date when the teenager has matured sufficiently to reflect, understand and act upon what you told them fifteen years earlier.
Very few phenomena have just a single cause. Did WW I have a single cause? It was not ONLY for want of a nail that a kingdom was lost, so why this self-destructive conflict between germ theory and terrain theory? Can't both contribute to infection and disease?
I'm going to assume you're referring to a recent dialogue I had in another forum with someone who disagrees with the ever growing faction of those who question germ theory. Truth be told, I regret letting myself get sucked into that conversation. But my primary gripe with him and everyone else who stands firmly by germ theory is, if the covid virus is a physical entity that exists and is causative of disease, why has nobody ever seen it or proven it to be causative?
Conversely, it HAS been proven with terrain theory that bad food, 5G, toxins, stress, drugs etc. cause disease. Why can that not be done with germs? In numerous studies, taking snot from a sick person and placing it in the nostrils of a well person has not made them sick. Just saying...
Your third paragraph mentions germ vs terrain and publicizes a site taking a side on the issue. My point is that BOTH are important and this controversy, spurred on by both "sides" of the issue, is destructive.
If there's no virus, why does the spike protein from the virus cause such damage after the inoculation? If terrain isn't important, why are there an average of 3 comorbidities in 94% of deceased patients?
Those who argue that a complete SARS-Cov-2 viron has never been isolated are correct. The virus was identified "in silico," meaning a computer constructing a virus from genetic fragments that were actually observed in those sick, like a jigsaw puzzle. Could the computer have put those parts together in a different order, or plus or minus a few fragments? Good question worthy of discussion, but we shouldn't obsess about it. It's not central to the scamdemic. What's the difference whether there was a relatively mild virus except for those with comorbidities, or on the other hand no virus at all? The crime lies in the deliberate exaggeration and stampeding of the public into an unnecessary, dangerous gene therapy. There's clearly clinical evidence that early treatment using hydroxyghloroquine, zinc, zPak, Ivermectin and fluvoxamine, all off-label, reduces the death toll. Do we really care whether those drugs prevent viral replication or simply improve the terrain? The crime was suppressing the use of those life-saving drugs and vitamin D and the promotion of gene therapies instructing the cells to make a toxin. Grinding axes over germs vs terrain distracts from those crimes.
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
As far as the long term discussion of germ vs terrain, I certainly agree that allopathic medicine erred in dismissing terrain theory for decades, but there is growing understanding of the importance of the immune system (terrain). On the other hand, those who argue that pathogens don't exist are just as deranged as those who ignore terrain.
Another book about germ theory, the first book I read on this subject, a book that reviewed the history of vaccines from contemporary records, the book that convinced me viruses don't cause the diseases attributed to them and vaccines are therefore pointless or frequently worse, was DISSOLVING ILLUSIONS by Suzanne Humphries.
Thanks to Horace, who provided a link to DISSOLVING ILLUSIONS, I’ve taken a second look at this book that 2-1/2 years ago was decisive in convincing me that vaccines were as bad as or worse than the disease they were purported to prevent.
DISSOLVING ILLUSIONS is not an attack on the Germ Theory. Rather, it’s a history of diseases and their vaccines. Dr. Donegan says in her Foreword: “In their meticulously researched book, Dr. Suzanne Humphries and Mr. Roman Bystrianyk take you right back to the roots of disease and the connection between living conditions, nutrition, and health. They systematically piece together the information you need to pierce the myth that vaccination is what saved us from the infective scourges of the past.”
Do the authors say a virus is the root of the different diseases they discuss? Well, they don’t say it ISN’T. To say THAT would ruin any chance the book had to influence doctors that everything they had been taught in med school about disease and vaccines was wrong. Are the authors in the Terrain camp? Yes, they are. They promote the Terrain concept that a strong immune system will fend off disease. In the measles chapter they emphasize the importance of nutrition for prevention:
“Before the general nutrition status of European children reached the high level it is today, measles infection was something to be feared.” (pgs337-338)
“High measles death rates are still reported in countries where children are undernourished and lack the vitamins and nutrients necessary to support the immune system.” (Pg340)
“Statistics on measles mortality never distinguish the countries with good nutrition from those without … Child mortality due to measles is 200 to 400 times greater in malnourished children in less developed countries than those in developed ones.” (pg340)
The Introductions by Bystrianyk and Humphries tell of how they came to question vaccines. Humphries, a kidney doctor, writes of her experience in hospitals: “When I pointed out the connection between vaccines and worsening or new-onset kidney failure to a couple of open-minded colleagues, they understood, started taking vaccine histories, and saw what was happening. Yet they remained silent. Most doctors continue to practice with comfortable indifference. Some see the errors, damage, and limits of their practices but still walk lockstep with the herd and protect the brotherhood. I don’t know what it will take to get these doctors to resist the dictates who rule over them.” Brr. Chilling.
Bystrianyk writes: “I was stunned that no one I knew, including my sons’ doctors, had carefully examined this fundamental belief that vaccines were responsible for the massive decline in deaths from measles and whooping cough. I now realized that the belief that vaccines were essential in eliminating the threat of at least these two diseases was based on a myth. There must have been other factors that led to such a dramatic decline in mortality before vaccine introduction. … That belief [in vaccines] is maintained by a public that remains foundationally subservient and obedient to governmental and medical hierarchies that may not deserve their trust. … How often do we believe in something, not because we have done in-depth research on it, but because authority figures tell us it is the truth?”
Bystrianyk searched for data about disease, mortality, and vaccines. The data was difficult to find. That he found data and that he and Humphries then organized the material and published it, makes this book a valuable information resource. This book is essential reading in order to be an informed consumer who knows enough to say NO to vaccines and have the confidence to stand firm in that decision.
Mostly agree. Especially the part about pathogens, which I never said don't exist. In fact, over the past two years I've said several times that pathogens like bacteria and single cell organisms like giardia can be problematic... I've drank enough bad water in third world countries to know that. So yes, pathogens definitely exist and are causative. Guess I'm just not as sure as you are about the pathogenic capabilities of viruses.
I just put Cowan's book on my reading list. No telling when I'll get to it as my list is several pages long. If they question viruses, why not say so instead of talking about "germ theory" as though bacteria don't exist or aren't a causative agent for many diseases. I just don't think the dispute is germane to fighting the agenda and is a distraction from our politico-economic problems;.
1. I agree with your stated position on the narrow issue of germ theory vs terrain theory. I do think both play a role.
2. Specifically wrt to viruses, my view is that
- viruses themselves remain a hypothesis, they are very far from proven as a disease causing mechanism (unlike bacteria, or parasites).
- some diseases attributed to viruses are almost certainly explicable by terrain theory alone (e.g. AIDS)
- nevertheless, there are reasons to believe that terrain theory alone is not a sufficient explanation for some other diseases currently attributed to viruses. I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation consistent with terrain theory for the effectiveness of the measles vaccines in reducing the incidence of measles for example. (Note here: I have had this debate several times in one forum or another, and I always get posters who immediately point me at graphs which show measles was causing very few serious effects and fatalities prior to the vaccine. I know that. I'm not arguing that measles was a dangerous disease, or that the vaccine was beneficial or necessary. BUT it seems pretty clear to me from the data that it reduced the incidence of the disease very significantly in a very short period of time.) This doesn't prove that "viruses" are the cause of measles or any other disease for that matter, but it is something which requires proper explanation by any alternative theory.
A vaccine was NOT effective in reducing the incidence of measles. A chapter in DISSOLVING ILLUSIONS discusses the virus/vaccine history of measles. The measles history is similar to that of smallpox. After a wave of recurring smallpox epidemics and vaccine campaigns and govt mandated vaccines in the late 1800s in England, the city of Leicester revolted. It voted out its local governing body and embarked on a system of sanitation and quarantine and no mandated vaccines.. The result was only 1 death during the 1870-72 epidemic, while multitudes of smallpox victims died in other towns. What is an observer of these facts to conclude?
Agree that science needs to investigate whether or not viruses cause disease. Perhaps the growing number of vocal Germ Theory doubters will be able to penetrate the mind fog of the masses and the brainwashed scientists and doctors so that an investigation - or at the least, a public debate - about this all important issue will take place.
Kyle, I just received from interlibrary loan the book 'Growing Food In A Hotter, Drier Land' by Gary Nabhan. He's your neighbor. Do you know him? Have you read this book?
I met him in 1984 or 5. We once talked about editors at his house and talked about farming issues at a conference. I have a number of his older books here, but haven't yet read that one.
Great re White Oak! Yup, I learned about them with the Mercola story too. Though I'm not sure 'bout how they turn the compost into energy but I believe there were maybe 3 consecutive containers--pretty large--that are kept outside and there were some tubes and some sort of little metal generator that it all went into--the tech was beyond me (not my wheelhouse) but it was pretty cool and (from all I could gander) not exceedingly complex--I think he custom-made the bits 'n' pieces that made the thing run. Seems to be doable though maybe not yet on a large scale (darn, wish I could recall the name as I don't have a link but the thing worked!).
I enjoy your essays and the usually unmuddied viewpoints, however, there is one major issue which makes you appear to be no more than controlled opposition. You repeat many of the talking points and unscientific rubbish pushed by the global warmunists. Carbon dioxide is not carbon nor is it pollution.
Wake up! The game is afoot and driven largely by phony climate crisis narratives. Simple logic and math will tell you that humankind increasing CO2 by 1/10000 cannot possibly lead to anything resembling a catastrophe.
If I implied anywhere that I believe CO2 to be a catastrophe, I apologize. That certainly is not my position. What I was trying to do was point out the fallacy of those who do take that position and are wrongly using that to impose ever more centralized control.
'Integral Fast Reactors' aka: IFR reactors burn nuclear waste as fuel. There is enough nuclear waste in storage to power the planet for 1000 years. The standard 'Stage 2 Light Water Nuclear reactors' use Zirconian rods with 100 nuclear material Pucks or 'donuts' that slide onto these Zirconian rods. 99 of the 'donuts' are Uranium-238. 1 is Uranium U-235. The only 'donut' that gets used is the 1 U-235 one. The rest is stored as nuclear waste. IFR reactors, also called 'Breeder Reactors' EAT the U-238 as fuel, producing only 1% waste as a byproduct. IFR reactors were ready to go into service, after getting approval, after testing at the Lawrence Livermore Labs, in the early '90's. But then, Vice President Al Gore saw that the program was defunded. His reason ? He was concerned that the U-238 could be stolen by terrorists and create nuclear proliferation. We could be carbon free right now if not for Al Gore.
But... I kinda like carbon. It makes my garden and the forage on the landscape here grow really well for my livestock:)
But seriously, I know there are some up and coming forms of nuclear power. I would want to see them tested in small setting for 5 or 10 years before being deployed on a large scale. We've seen what happens when untested jabs get deployed on a large scale.
There has never been a new technology replacing an old one that has not proven to be problematic. Test, and test some more.
Yes Carbon is awesome and never the problem. The real problem is the 800+ chemicals in Air, Water and Soil. But as long as the carbon hoax is believed by most then, the real problem never gets addressed.
Surprise those that profit by pollution make carbon the target. They laugh all the way to the bank.
I like this site https://lppfusion.com/ Their way of doing fusion is not scalable. So big money won't fund the research. It is done by true believers that limp along like the Wright brothers. That doesn't mean they will be successful. It does mean the public will not be on the hook if they fail.
You are clearly unaware of the the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory testing protocols. They tested the IFR reactor design for many years before approving it. It passed muster. It was ready to go into service when it was defunded by Al Gore when he was Vice President. This was the 1990's. It's now almost 30 years later. Are you aware of the 'TerraPower' new design, molten salt based small nuclear reactor that Warren Buffet & Bill Gates are building in Wyoming ? There are many new design, compact, quick build, 'stage 5' (current reactors are 'Stage 2') reactors. New Nuclear could be a serious game changer.
Personally I don't see it that way at all. We have had abundant energy for nearly 200 years. When I say abundant it is relative to the energy generally available before. Because of the abundance slavery became less obvious etc.
But having abundant energy in no way makes us better humans. Have we evolved? If anything we are in the beginning of devolving. We have become very spoiled life forms.
John Michael Greer said it as clearly as anyone could...
DECLINE AND FALL by John Michael Greer
I’ve talked elsewhere about the way that this nascent vision helped guide the first promising steps toward technologies and lifestyles that could have bridged the gap between the age of cheap abundant energy and a sustainable future of relative comfort and prosperity.3 Still, as we know, that’s not what happened; the hopes of those years WERE STOMPED To a BLOODY PULP by the Reagan counterrevolution, Imperial America returned with a vengeance, and stealing from the future became the centerpiece of a bipartisan consensus that remains welded into place today.
Thus one of the central tasks before Americans today, as our nation’s imperial age stumbles blindly toward its end, is that of reinventing America: of finding new ideals that can provide a sense of collective purpose and meaning in an age of deindustrialization and of economic and technological decline. We need, if you will, a new American dream, one that doesn’t require promises of limitless material abundance, one that doesn’t depend on the profits of empire or the temporary rush of affluence we got by stripping a continent of its irreplaceable natural resources in a few short centuries.
Wilnav... some time ago R. Buckminster Fuller said: 'You can't change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.' I agree with him. Is our current 'system' hopelessly corrupt, damaging and dangerous ? Yes. This said, a full frontal attempt to bring about large scale change seems a poor choice. Kind of like identify yourselves to the omnipotent power structure so they can crush you. Instead, I'd look for small scale developments around the globe for hope for a new way. And if these small scale alternative ways are valid, people will disconnect from the large scale nightmare to connect with them... and a transition will come to pass.
I admire R. Buckminster Fuller. Sadly his ideas never made the main stream.
I seems my comments have not been clear. I refer to John Michael Greer, because in fact he shares very much your "look for small scale developments around the globe for hope for a new way."
I have been following a small company developing fusion reactor. I have invested in it. Just one share I can't afford more. I don't expect a return as the whole effort may fail. But I admire the energy and self sacrifice these folks have. They can't get big money to invest in the method they follow as it won't scale. It will always be small and local. I love that and no waste radiation at all.
So I am aware of the nuclear approach to our current problem. But solving it (I hope we can't as nature would no doubt be pointing in another direction) remains a dream. Solution means cleaning up the mess we've already made.
As you say "and a transition will come to pass." Of that there is no doubt.
Oct 11, 2022·edited Oct 11, 2022Liked by Kyle Young
Interesting thoughts. I think that small scale changes will occur as more and more people are just disgusted with what is. I'm not a farmer. But realizing that fresh produce, eggs, chickens, . maybe be in short supply soon... I'm working on starting small organic food collective here on Vieques, a tropical island that I live on. As far as nuclear fusion, are you familiar with Taylor Wilson ? he was the high school kid who created nuclear fusion in his parents garage. In his TED talk, he recommended small, molten salt, fission reactors. These are ready now. Enabling us to exit a dependence on fossil fuels which enables those who own the fossil fuels to rule the world. I'll check out John Michael Greer. Maybe he has some ideas I'll connect with. Oh... and regardless of the mainstream adoption of Fuller's ideas or not... the quote I shared is spot on in my opinion. I believe that when a global community of individuals get a different idea about things, or a singular thing... change is the result. I hope that the Fusion project you've invested in has a great breakthrough. Who knows ?
Have you seen the TV miniseries "V?" Though most consider such fables as parables on modern life on Earth, there are those who know how close to real some of these stories are. According to the ET Airl in Alien Interview, the Old Empire rampaged around the universe taking over planets and pillaging the settlements there and enslaving the inhabitants. A few planets managed to pull together and back off the invaders. Most were lost. The planets that survived required some sort of planetary organizational structure. But of course, the Old Empire operated on such a structure, too.
The planets I know about that survived were populated by people who were capable of - or perhaps cultivated the ability of - sharing each other's thoughts. This gave them the ability to coordinate instantly and plan without the overlords finding out. I don't know for sure to what extent this was a factor in their liberation.
Thus, I am arguing that the people of a planet need something to inform and coordinate their activities. My guess that a totally decentralized system would perish in the face of an organized attack. This has always been a problem for people who prefer to live free.
Part of the problem is just keeping sane leaders in power and insane "leaders" out. Another part is finding a form or organization that will support individual initiative without dropping the connections between the various parts of the group. We have examples of such systems on Earth. They are rare in this universe, it seems.
Your basic arguments about the relative robustness of a decentralized system are well taken. It reminds me of the information I was exposed to about they we could not win the war in Vietnam. The Vietnamese had a very decentralized organization. Yet they somehow had ways of staying connected.
But we do have a special problem on Earth, and it IS a spiritual problem. We have been subjected to electronic technologies that are millions of years old that are designed to break our spiritual will to remain free. The electronics operate on a spiritual level, imitating the types of signals that we as spiritual beings are innately capable of producing. Here on Earth, the Old Empire put in place an electronic system that is designed to keep those sent to Earth reincarnating here. Thus, Earth is designed to be a spiritual prison. And the spiritual war, at its highest level, is between the remnants of the Old Empire that still exist here, and their human operatives, and the people who have become aware enough to want to have the option to leave and to live without the mind control technologies that are incorporated into the prison system.
It should be noted that, according to the information in Alien Interview and validated by Courtney Brown, the oldest organizations in this galaxy are centralized and stratified organizations. Some of them seem to operate more on a federated structure and others on a more imperial structure. The Old Empire seems to rely more heavily on electronics, while the current group relies more on real psychic abilities among their ruling and managerial classes.
So if "sustainability" is your goal, then centralized organizations have the best track record. On Earth it is the corporation that most closely resembles this structure. Therefore I think the challenge is to make these structures sane and not to abandon them. In the Old Empire there is practically no reverence for freedom or human rights. The current dominant power may not be that much better. So we have a long way to go to make this work.
As far as power systems go, the old political powers seem to have discovered technologies that are quite long-lasting. It's not clear to me exactly how they work. Some people here claim they have some of those here but that they are being suppressed. It is very difficult to learn the truth of this. The planet is not ready to abandon its electrical grid. But a more resilient technology is needed.
In the short term, it may prove valuable to have a sector of Earth people who detach from the mainstream culture (like the Amish?) and learn to fend for themselves. In the longer run, we will have to learn to organize the planet in a more sensible manner.
If any of the more amazing information that I am exposed to on the internet is accurate, we are already in the process of being pulled into the off-world community, taking sides and making economic alliances that will influence our future in many amazing and sinister ways. The best among those who are "in the know" want the planet to survive as a sovereign entity. But the weaker among them have no such ambitions. We are seeing reflections of that struggle all around us now. I wish we could be more certain of what is really going on.
No TV here, but it sounds like an interesting program.
I think what is needed is for the human race to evolve a bit more before taking on things it does not know how to handle morally or spiritually.
In my mind, ultimately, there seems to be things happening on a scale way beyond our human ability to fully grasp. This is why I take a rather conservative approach to some of this - slow and steady.
I heard about "V" online and got the DVD. No TV in my house, either, but do have a DVD player.
I can sympathize with the idea of slow and steady. But my teacher tells his students that we are running out of time. We either get it right sometime early this century or "the future will make today look like a picnic."
Kudos for your wise stewardship of land. If all land was managed that way, there would be no global warming. Soil can hold three times the carbon as the air and above ground vegetation combined. The billionaire class, most are old money banksters that stay hidden, are pathological narcissists that look upon the 99% as inferior beings. They have no empathy; are most important and only need to make sure the 99% stay asleep. Their greatest nightmare is that the 99% will awaken. They know that there is a world wide catastrophe approaching relentlessly. The .00001% could halt the coming disaster, but they won't. To do that would be to lose control of the inferior beings.
A perfect example is radioactive waste. Deep sea bed disposal was considered a good option until the 80s. It has not been considered since in official documents. The waste could be stored in screw shaped metal or plastic containers, taken to near deep ocean rift zones and dropped overboard. The screw shaped containers would bury themselves in sediment. The deep ocean is already oxygen depleted. The sediment is oxygen free. The containers would not corrode and sediment would pile on top and bury the waste deeper and deeper. Eventually the pressure would create shale and other sedimentary rock. The oceanic plates would gradually move to continental plates and be subducted back into the mantal. Problem solved for humanity but not for the .00001%. That waste, as it is now handled, is a steady revenue stream for thousands of years.
The .00001% are not concerned about radioactivity no matter the source. They all have havens in the Southern Hemisphere. The air and water masses, because of the coriolis effect, do not mix much. The Russians confirmed this 18 months ago. They said they had developed a nuclear powered cruise missile that could stay aloft indefinitely. The stated purpose was so that any criminal who might start a nuclear would know he could not escape to the Southern Hemisphere without retribution.
The Bush family are a good example. In 2006 in the midst of W's second term, 25 year old Jenna was sent to Paraguay to seal the deal on 300,000 acres over the Guarani Aquifer, the largest fresh water reservoir on the planet. That is the size of LA. The only reason we know about it is that Jenna being Jenna went bar hopping with her Secret Service escort in Asuncion. Her purse was stolen so it made the news. The taxi drivers in Asuncion were laughing and dancing about it. 300,000 acres is larger than most feudal estates. It could be self sufficient with its own infrastructure including airport. Be assured the Bush family is not alone. One of the greatest concerns of the billionaire class is how to keep their Navy Seal protectors from turning on them. Such a concern that the 99% do not have.
Heard about the Bush purchase in Paraguay. Back in the 80's I had a friend who was once in army intelligence. He told me things about the senior president Bush when he was cia chief that would make any red blooded Americans blood boil. Haven't trusted the Bush family since then.
Tee-riffic how you renewed your own land and provide your own fuel. I too have not one iota of trust for the current "centralized" methods. Also, returnin' to the old ways shows the path to usin' the land we got far more efficiently (for farming, food, fuel, and more). I've been seein' how grassfed cows can even renew land that is too hilly to plant on --deemed unusable-- but the cows thrive on it and then stuff grows and animal and plant life returns. A while back White Oak Pastures did some studies to prove how traditional manure based practices raisin' grassfed beef (and chickens) scored better "environmentally" than even just farming vegetables organically. Cows chompin' grass renew grass ('course you know this already but some don't!). I fer one am mighty curious about two things in energy land--one seems possibly doable (?) which has to do with turning your own compost into energy--I'm not sure how that works but Clif High is on this as are others. I saw a video of a fellow in the UK who did this and ran his computer, heat, and basics (one bedroom shack type living) this way. So there's that on the horizon. Then I keep hearing about cold fusion and/or similar free energy that is non-nuclear but does use fusion with no radiation or ill effects. Don't know enough 'bout it yet to opine but I'm open to new discoveries--or (as may be the case) old ones that got suppressed! (I read Tesla developed the free / safe energy method and he was possibly killed fer doin' it too) All good points--we do NOT want Big Energy as we can now SO clearly see whar it's got us today!
Been following Will Harris since his first interview with Mercola some years back.
Twenty five years ago when I first began farming on a larger scale I was making compost in 3 large bins. I would rotate material from one bin to the next with the loader on my tractor. Maybe 3 or 4 tons every two weeks. On cold winter days, the steam coming from the pile when turning with the tractor was impressive. I often thought about ways to harness that, but the compost pile was never intact long enough to make use of the heat. I couldn't see any way to install a heat collector system that would not interfere with the need to turn the compost every two weeks and then remove it for use.
George Washington Carver, Henry Ford and many others showed how plant matter could replace every use of fossil fuels from plastics to gasoline and of course medicine. The problem was that it was too democratic and not prone to centralized control so was suppressed or eliminated. In the US 40% of food is wasted. Gavin is so proud of his food waste recycling program that he set up in SF. That food could be fermented and turned in ethanol fuel but he prefers to mandate another centralized solution, EVs. The waste after the fermentation could be animal feed or just compost. A win -win-win for the environment, the people and the planet but it is not centralized and controllable.
"They" need centralised energy, "centralised money, banking", "centralised id", "centralised food production and supply", and "centralised communications" in order to centralise control! Their game is simplicity in itself: centralise in order to centralise control in their hands.
That's it in a nutshell.
Kyle,
Perhaps you could do an article on why people are so apathetic in this infor age. I don't mean the usual reasons of jobs, mortgages, families.
I am wondering why people don't ask questions among their circles; don't ask of their pollies and other authorities. Why people invoked China approvingly. Yes! I met one Aussie zero-covid head online and traffic mgt worker in person. He said we needed to learn from the experiences of others when I sneezed at his China invocation. He literally shut his mouth when I dropped "Sweden" on him. Why did he attempt to snow me? As a parting jab, I said this to him:
"Look at you: you work in the Sun; fit and strong. Covid would be half a flu to you."
He was thoughtfully silent.
Why people in Australia in May 2022 kicked out the Federal conservative govt when the state leftist govts were so harsh with their measures.
Why people repeated the lines/lies. When I exposed those lies, they remained silent. They never inquired about my sources of infor.
And the hardest one is: why did/do people support measures which curtailed their fellows freedom of choice, movement and livelihood? I am 100%, not 95%, certain that those same people would not have liked it if measures which they opposed were imposed on them!
An interesting topic, one I've touched on in early pieces, but I haven't dedicated an entire article to it.
It's now on the list.
We can now stop wondering how the poor Germans went for Hitler. At least there’s that.
"At least there’s that."
There is no there, there. (If only we fight over politics instead of over people's health and lives.)
Da!
Indeed. This is exactly correct and recognizing it enables one to see through many lies, including the economic ideology lies.
At one of the spectrum you have freedom - completely free markets. Gradually these free markets are "improved" by practices which create monopolies (unfree, more centralized markets). Licensing laws, Intellectual property, limited liability, central banking, and regulatory law. All of these practices centralize wealth and power (land ownership belongs on the list too, but that's a more complex issue and some type of land ownership may be necessary) and quickly result in a very unequal allocation of wealth to those who lack sufficient morals to refrain from leveraging these institutional mechanisms for theft.
Then comes the bigger, fatter lie. "Oh look people, capitalism has created an unequal society. That isn't fair - the solution must be to centralize power even more into a fascist/socialist/communist state. That's the only way we can guarantee to share things out fairly." But of course it does exactly the opposite - the more power is centralized, the fewer people can get their hands on the levers. And the people who get their hands on the levers always make sure they get the lion's share of everything.
The process of centralization of anything and everything is always and only about consolidating power and wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people.
The belief in VIRUSES as bioweapons has resulted in Biden launching $88B national biodefense strategy. Is this what the Wuhan Virus Bioweapon theorists wanted? Is there no stopping the Germ Theory from destroying humanity? Will Congress, continue to balk at further at funding? Will Congress give the president control of responding to future pandemics? Until the Germ Theory and Virology are exposed as the frauds they are, the insanity will continue.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/biological-weapons-biden-biodefense-strategy/?itm_term=home
Here's an article on Germ Theory published in the WAPF quarterly journal (and online) 6 mos before the Wuhan virus appeared: https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/notes-from-yesteryear/germ-theory-versus-terrain-the-wrong-side-won-the-day/#gsc.tab=0
Now there's a term I don't often encounter on Substack -- "spiritual warfare". I'm not a regular reader and I didn't know, but thank you for mentioning it. It's a term I use too, not so much as a blogger but in conversation, and usually in reference to how it is that many are able to see "what" is going on but few offer solid explanations for "why". Puzzlement over why we now find ourselves on this particular trajectory, however, is a good thing. It invites us to look beyond our current beliefs and assumptions.
2 year ago when I began writing this blog I was cautious about using that kind of terminology for fear of losing subscribers. Guess I got over that because if you go back and look through my posts you'll find that language appearing more and more often. And yes, I almost always lose subscribers when I use that type of language. But then people like you come along who understand and make it worth the risk. Thank you Clear Middle.
You have to tell the truth. And you are helping even the people who leave you, because you are planting seeds. Even if the seed is not yet able to flourish it is still there, germinating somewhere in their subconscious. And perhaps in future someone else will shine a light for them (or they will do it themselves), and another provide a shower of rain and the seed will sprout and grow. It's like the wise advice you provide to teenagers - you are not providing it for today because you know it will be ignored for the forseeable future, you are providing for a later date when the teenager has matured sufficiently to reflect, understand and act upon what you told them fifteen years earlier.
Thanks for reminding me of that Horace. I'll try and always keep that in mind.
Very few phenomena have just a single cause. Did WW I have a single cause? It was not ONLY for want of a nail that a kingdom was lost, so why this self-destructive conflict between germ theory and terrain theory? Can't both contribute to infection and disease?
I'm going to assume you're referring to a recent dialogue I had in another forum with someone who disagrees with the ever growing faction of those who question germ theory. Truth be told, I regret letting myself get sucked into that conversation. But my primary gripe with him and everyone else who stands firmly by germ theory is, if the covid virus is a physical entity that exists and is causative of disease, why has nobody ever seen it or proven it to be causative?
Conversely, it HAS been proven with terrain theory that bad food, 5G, toxins, stress, drugs etc. cause disease. Why can that not be done with germs? In numerous studies, taking snot from a sick person and placing it in the nostrils of a well person has not made them sick. Just saying...
Your third paragraph mentions germ vs terrain and publicizes a site taking a side on the issue. My point is that BOTH are important and this controversy, spurred on by both "sides" of the issue, is destructive.
If there's no virus, why does the spike protein from the virus cause such damage after the inoculation? If terrain isn't important, why are there an average of 3 comorbidities in 94% of deceased patients?
I guess I see the debate as being scientifically important and needed, not destructive.
As for the existence and proof of a spike protein, that's a whole 'nuther can of debatable worms. But there are others who are much better informed on this than I am. https://truthcomestolight.com/dr-tom-cowan-dr-andrew-kaufman-show-me-the-virus-answering-questions-about-variants-wuhan-lab-creations-vaccines-what-really-makes-us-sick/
Those who argue that a complete SARS-Cov-2 viron has never been isolated are correct. The virus was identified "in silico," meaning a computer constructing a virus from genetic fragments that were actually observed in those sick, like a jigsaw puzzle. Could the computer have put those parts together in a different order, or plus or minus a few fragments? Good question worthy of discussion, but we shouldn't obsess about it. It's not central to the scamdemic. What's the difference whether there was a relatively mild virus except for those with comorbidities, or on the other hand no virus at all? The crime lies in the deliberate exaggeration and stampeding of the public into an unnecessary, dangerous gene therapy. There's clearly clinical evidence that early treatment using hydroxyghloroquine, zinc, zPak, Ivermectin and fluvoxamine, all off-label, reduces the death toll. Do we really care whether those drugs prevent viral replication or simply improve the terrain? The crime was suppressing the use of those life-saving drugs and vitamin D and the promotion of gene therapies instructing the cells to make a toxin. Grinding axes over germs vs terrain distracts from those crimes.
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
As far as the long term discussion of germ vs terrain, I certainly agree that allopathic medicine erred in dismissing terrain theory for decades, but there is growing understanding of the importance of the immune system (terrain). On the other hand, those who argue that pathogens don't exist are just as deranged as those who ignore terrain.
Another book about germ theory, the first book I read on this subject, a book that reviewed the history of vaccines from contemporary records, the book that convinced me viruses don't cause the diseases attributed to them and vaccines are therefore pointless or frequently worse, was DISSOLVING ILLUSIONS by Suzanne Humphries.
Thanks to Horace, who provided a link to DISSOLVING ILLUSIONS, I’ve taken a second look at this book that 2-1/2 years ago was decisive in convincing me that vaccines were as bad as or worse than the disease they were purported to prevent.
DISSOLVING ILLUSIONS is not an attack on the Germ Theory. Rather, it’s a history of diseases and their vaccines. Dr. Donegan says in her Foreword: “In their meticulously researched book, Dr. Suzanne Humphries and Mr. Roman Bystrianyk take you right back to the roots of disease and the connection between living conditions, nutrition, and health. They systematically piece together the information you need to pierce the myth that vaccination is what saved us from the infective scourges of the past.”
Do the authors say a virus is the root of the different diseases they discuss? Well, they don’t say it ISN’T. To say THAT would ruin any chance the book had to influence doctors that everything they had been taught in med school about disease and vaccines was wrong. Are the authors in the Terrain camp? Yes, they are. They promote the Terrain concept that a strong immune system will fend off disease. In the measles chapter they emphasize the importance of nutrition for prevention:
“Before the general nutrition status of European children reached the high level it is today, measles infection was something to be feared.” (pgs337-338)
“High measles death rates are still reported in countries where children are undernourished and lack the vitamins and nutrients necessary to support the immune system.” (Pg340)
“Statistics on measles mortality never distinguish the countries with good nutrition from those without … Child mortality due to measles is 200 to 400 times greater in malnourished children in less developed countries than those in developed ones.” (pg340)
The Introductions by Bystrianyk and Humphries tell of how they came to question vaccines. Humphries, a kidney doctor, writes of her experience in hospitals: “When I pointed out the connection between vaccines and worsening or new-onset kidney failure to a couple of open-minded colleagues, they understood, started taking vaccine histories, and saw what was happening. Yet they remained silent. Most doctors continue to practice with comfortable indifference. Some see the errors, damage, and limits of their practices but still walk lockstep with the herd and protect the brotherhood. I don’t know what it will take to get these doctors to resist the dictates who rule over them.” Brr. Chilling.
Bystrianyk writes: “I was stunned that no one I knew, including my sons’ doctors, had carefully examined this fundamental belief that vaccines were responsible for the massive decline in deaths from measles and whooping cough. I now realized that the belief that vaccines were essential in eliminating the threat of at least these two diseases was based on a myth. There must have been other factors that led to such a dramatic decline in mortality before vaccine introduction. … That belief [in vaccines] is maintained by a public that remains foundationally subservient and obedient to governmental and medical hierarchies that may not deserve their trust. … How often do we believe in something, not because we have done in-depth research on it, but because authority figures tell us it is the truth?”
Bystrianyk searched for data about disease, mortality, and vaccines. The data was difficult to find. That he found data and that he and Humphries then organized the material and published it, makes this book a valuable information resource. This book is essential reading in order to be an informed consumer who knows enough to say NO to vaccines and have the confidence to stand firm in that decision.
Added to list, right after Cowan book. TY.
Mostly agree. Especially the part about pathogens, which I never said don't exist. In fact, over the past two years I've said several times that pathogens like bacteria and single cell organisms like giardia can be problematic... I've drank enough bad water in third world countries to know that. So yes, pathogens definitely exist and are causative. Guess I'm just not as sure as you are about the pathogenic capabilities of viruses.
Have you read The Contagion Myth by Dr. Tom Cowan, who I interviewed here - https://secularheretic.substack.com/p/interview-with-dr-tom-cowan-4a9
Or What Really Makes you Ill? or Good Bye to Germ Theory, or The Invisible Rainbow, or Béchamp or Pasteur? All question germ theory.
I just put Cowan's book on my reading list. No telling when I'll get to it as my list is several pages long. If they question viruses, why not say so instead of talking about "germ theory" as though bacteria don't exist or aren't a causative agent for many diseases. I just don't think the dispute is germane to fighting the agenda and is a distraction from our politico-economic problems;.
1. I agree with your stated position on the narrow issue of germ theory vs terrain theory. I do think both play a role.
2. Specifically wrt to viruses, my view is that
- viruses themselves remain a hypothesis, they are very far from proven as a disease causing mechanism (unlike bacteria, or parasites).
- some diseases attributed to viruses are almost certainly explicable by terrain theory alone (e.g. AIDS)
- nevertheless, there are reasons to believe that terrain theory alone is not a sufficient explanation for some other diseases currently attributed to viruses. I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation consistent with terrain theory for the effectiveness of the measles vaccines in reducing the incidence of measles for example. (Note here: I have had this debate several times in one forum or another, and I always get posters who immediately point me at graphs which show measles was causing very few serious effects and fatalities prior to the vaccine. I know that. I'm not arguing that measles was a dangerous disease, or that the vaccine was beneficial or necessary. BUT it seems pretty clear to me from the data that it reduced the incidence of the disease very significantly in a very short period of time.) This doesn't prove that "viruses" are the cause of measles or any other disease for that matter, but it is something which requires proper explanation by any alternative theory.
A vaccine was NOT effective in reducing the incidence of measles. A chapter in DISSOLVING ILLUSIONS discusses the virus/vaccine history of measles. The measles history is similar to that of smallpox. After a wave of recurring smallpox epidemics and vaccine campaigns and govt mandated vaccines in the late 1800s in England, the city of Leicester revolted. It voted out its local governing body and embarked on a system of sanitation and quarantine and no mandated vaccines.. The result was only 1 death during the 1870-72 epidemic, while multitudes of smallpox victims died in other towns. What is an observer of these facts to conclude?
Agree that science needs to investigate whether or not viruses cause disease. Perhaps the growing number of vocal Germ Theory doubters will be able to penetrate the mind fog of the masses and the brainwashed scientists and doctors so that an investigation - or at the least, a public debate - about this all important issue will take place.
Kyle, I just received from interlibrary loan the book 'Growing Food In A Hotter, Drier Land' by Gary Nabhan. He's your neighbor. Do you know him? Have you read this book?
I met him in 1984 or 5. We once talked about editors at his house and talked about farming issues at a conference. I have a number of his older books here, but haven't yet read that one.
Great re White Oak! Yup, I learned about them with the Mercola story too. Though I'm not sure 'bout how they turn the compost into energy but I believe there were maybe 3 consecutive containers--pretty large--that are kept outside and there were some tubes and some sort of little metal generator that it all went into--the tech was beyond me (not my wheelhouse) but it was pretty cool and (from all I could gander) not exceedingly complex--I think he custom-made the bits 'n' pieces that made the thing run. Seems to be doable though maybe not yet on a large scale (darn, wish I could recall the name as I don't have a link but the thing worked!).
I enjoy your essays and the usually unmuddied viewpoints, however, there is one major issue which makes you appear to be no more than controlled opposition. You repeat many of the talking points and unscientific rubbish pushed by the global warmunists. Carbon dioxide is not carbon nor is it pollution.
Wake up! The game is afoot and driven largely by phony climate crisis narratives. Simple logic and math will tell you that humankind increasing CO2 by 1/10000 cannot possibly lead to anything resembling a catastrophe.
If I implied anywhere that I believe CO2 to be a catastrophe, I apologize. That certainly is not my position. What I was trying to do was point out the fallacy of those who do take that position and are wrongly using that to impose ever more centralized control.
I apologize if I have taken your comments out of context.
You have said it well and thoroughly.
As always, thanks Joanne.
'Integral Fast Reactors' aka: IFR reactors burn nuclear waste as fuel. There is enough nuclear waste in storage to power the planet for 1000 years. The standard 'Stage 2 Light Water Nuclear reactors' use Zirconian rods with 100 nuclear material Pucks or 'donuts' that slide onto these Zirconian rods. 99 of the 'donuts' are Uranium-238. 1 is Uranium U-235. The only 'donut' that gets used is the 1 U-235 one. The rest is stored as nuclear waste. IFR reactors, also called 'Breeder Reactors' EAT the U-238 as fuel, producing only 1% waste as a byproduct. IFR reactors were ready to go into service, after getting approval, after testing at the Lawrence Livermore Labs, in the early '90's. But then, Vice President Al Gore saw that the program was defunded. His reason ? He was concerned that the U-238 could be stolen by terrorists and create nuclear proliferation. We could be carbon free right now if not for Al Gore.
But... I kinda like carbon. It makes my garden and the forage on the landscape here grow really well for my livestock:)
But seriously, I know there are some up and coming forms of nuclear power. I would want to see them tested in small setting for 5 or 10 years before being deployed on a large scale. We've seen what happens when untested jabs get deployed on a large scale.
There has never been a new technology replacing an old one that has not proven to be problematic. Test, and test some more.
Yes Carbon is awesome and never the problem. The real problem is the 800+ chemicals in Air, Water and Soil. But as long as the carbon hoax is believed by most then, the real problem never gets addressed.
Surprise those that profit by pollution make carbon the target. They laugh all the way to the bank.
I like this site https://lppfusion.com/ Their way of doing fusion is not scalable. So big money won't fund the research. It is done by true believers that limp along like the Wright brothers. That doesn't mean they will be successful. It does mean the public will not be on the hook if they fail.
You are clearly unaware of the the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory testing protocols. They tested the IFR reactor design for many years before approving it. It passed muster. It was ready to go into service when it was defunded by Al Gore when he was Vice President. This was the 1990's. It's now almost 30 years later. Are you aware of the 'TerraPower' new design, molten salt based small nuclear reactor that Warren Buffet & Bill Gates are building in Wyoming ? There are many new design, compact, quick build, 'stage 5' (current reactors are 'Stage 2') reactors. New Nuclear could be a serious game changer.
Hi Richie,
Personally I don't see it that way at all. We have had abundant energy for nearly 200 years. When I say abundant it is relative to the energy generally available before. Because of the abundance slavery became less obvious etc.
But having abundant energy in no way makes us better humans. Have we evolved? If anything we are in the beginning of devolving. We have become very spoiled life forms.
John Michael Greer said it as clearly as anyone could...
DECLINE AND FALL by John Michael Greer
I’ve talked elsewhere about the way that this nascent vision helped guide the first promising steps toward technologies and lifestyles that could have bridged the gap between the age of cheap abundant energy and a sustainable future of relative comfort and prosperity.3 Still, as we know, that’s not what happened; the hopes of those years WERE STOMPED To a BLOODY PULP by the Reagan counterrevolution, Imperial America returned with a vengeance, and stealing from the future became the centerpiece of a bipartisan consensus that remains welded into place today.
Thus one of the central tasks before Americans today, as our nation’s imperial age stumbles blindly toward its end, is that of reinventing America: of finding new ideals that can provide a sense of collective purpose and meaning in an age of deindustrialization and of economic and technological decline. We need, if you will, a new American dream, one that doesn’t require promises of limitless material abundance, one that doesn’t depend on the profits of empire or the temporary rush of affluence we got by stripping a continent of its irreplaceable natural resources in a few short centuries.
Wilnav... some time ago R. Buckminster Fuller said: 'You can't change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.' I agree with him. Is our current 'system' hopelessly corrupt, damaging and dangerous ? Yes. This said, a full frontal attempt to bring about large scale change seems a poor choice. Kind of like identify yourselves to the omnipotent power structure so they can crush you. Instead, I'd look for small scale developments around the globe for hope for a new way. And if these small scale alternative ways are valid, people will disconnect from the large scale nightmare to connect with them... and a transition will come to pass.
Good day Richie,
I admire R. Buckminster Fuller. Sadly his ideas never made the main stream.
I seems my comments have not been clear. I refer to John Michael Greer, because in fact he shares very much your "look for small scale developments around the globe for hope for a new way."
I have been following a small company developing fusion reactor. I have invested in it. Just one share I can't afford more. I don't expect a return as the whole effort may fail. But I admire the energy and self sacrifice these folks have. They can't get big money to invest in the method they follow as it won't scale. It will always be small and local. I love that and no waste radiation at all.
So I am aware of the nuclear approach to our current problem. But solving it (I hope we can't as nature would no doubt be pointing in another direction) remains a dream. Solution means cleaning up the mess we've already made.
As you say "and a transition will come to pass." Of that there is no doubt.
Interesting thoughts. I think that small scale changes will occur as more and more people are just disgusted with what is. I'm not a farmer. But realizing that fresh produce, eggs, chickens, . maybe be in short supply soon... I'm working on starting small organic food collective here on Vieques, a tropical island that I live on. As far as nuclear fusion, are you familiar with Taylor Wilson ? he was the high school kid who created nuclear fusion in his parents garage. In his TED talk, he recommended small, molten salt, fission reactors. These are ready now. Enabling us to exit a dependence on fossil fuels which enables those who own the fossil fuels to rule the world. I'll check out John Michael Greer. Maybe he has some ideas I'll connect with. Oh... and regardless of the mainstream adoption of Fuller's ideas or not... the quote I shared is spot on in my opinion. I believe that when a global community of individuals get a different idea about things, or a singular thing... change is the result. I hope that the Fusion project you've invested in has a great breakthrough. Who knows ?
Have you seen the TV miniseries "V?" Though most consider such fables as parables on modern life on Earth, there are those who know how close to real some of these stories are. According to the ET Airl in Alien Interview, the Old Empire rampaged around the universe taking over planets and pillaging the settlements there and enslaving the inhabitants. A few planets managed to pull together and back off the invaders. Most were lost. The planets that survived required some sort of planetary organizational structure. But of course, the Old Empire operated on such a structure, too.
The planets I know about that survived were populated by people who were capable of - or perhaps cultivated the ability of - sharing each other's thoughts. This gave them the ability to coordinate instantly and plan without the overlords finding out. I don't know for sure to what extent this was a factor in their liberation.
Thus, I am arguing that the people of a planet need something to inform and coordinate their activities. My guess that a totally decentralized system would perish in the face of an organized attack. This has always been a problem for people who prefer to live free.
Part of the problem is just keeping sane leaders in power and insane "leaders" out. Another part is finding a form or organization that will support individual initiative without dropping the connections between the various parts of the group. We have examples of such systems on Earth. They are rare in this universe, it seems.
Your basic arguments about the relative robustness of a decentralized system are well taken. It reminds me of the information I was exposed to about they we could not win the war in Vietnam. The Vietnamese had a very decentralized organization. Yet they somehow had ways of staying connected.
But we do have a special problem on Earth, and it IS a spiritual problem. We have been subjected to electronic technologies that are millions of years old that are designed to break our spiritual will to remain free. The electronics operate on a spiritual level, imitating the types of signals that we as spiritual beings are innately capable of producing. Here on Earth, the Old Empire put in place an electronic system that is designed to keep those sent to Earth reincarnating here. Thus, Earth is designed to be a spiritual prison. And the spiritual war, at its highest level, is between the remnants of the Old Empire that still exist here, and their human operatives, and the people who have become aware enough to want to have the option to leave and to live without the mind control technologies that are incorporated into the prison system.
It should be noted that, according to the information in Alien Interview and validated by Courtney Brown, the oldest organizations in this galaxy are centralized and stratified organizations. Some of them seem to operate more on a federated structure and others on a more imperial structure. The Old Empire seems to rely more heavily on electronics, while the current group relies more on real psychic abilities among their ruling and managerial classes.
So if "sustainability" is your goal, then centralized organizations have the best track record. On Earth it is the corporation that most closely resembles this structure. Therefore I think the challenge is to make these structures sane and not to abandon them. In the Old Empire there is practically no reverence for freedom or human rights. The current dominant power may not be that much better. So we have a long way to go to make this work.
As far as power systems go, the old political powers seem to have discovered technologies that are quite long-lasting. It's not clear to me exactly how they work. Some people here claim they have some of those here but that they are being suppressed. It is very difficult to learn the truth of this. The planet is not ready to abandon its electrical grid. But a more resilient technology is needed.
In the short term, it may prove valuable to have a sector of Earth people who detach from the mainstream culture (like the Amish?) and learn to fend for themselves. In the longer run, we will have to learn to organize the planet in a more sensible manner.
If any of the more amazing information that I am exposed to on the internet is accurate, we are already in the process of being pulled into the off-world community, taking sides and making economic alliances that will influence our future in many amazing and sinister ways. The best among those who are "in the know" want the planet to survive as a sovereign entity. But the weaker among them have no such ambitions. We are seeing reflections of that struggle all around us now. I wish we could be more certain of what is really going on.
No TV here, but it sounds like an interesting program.
I think what is needed is for the human race to evolve a bit more before taking on things it does not know how to handle morally or spiritually.
In my mind, ultimately, there seems to be things happening on a scale way beyond our human ability to fully grasp. This is why I take a rather conservative approach to some of this - slow and steady.
I heard about "V" online and got the DVD. No TV in my house, either, but do have a DVD player.
I can sympathize with the idea of slow and steady. But my teacher tells his students that we are running out of time. We either get it right sometime early this century or "the future will make today look like a picnic."
Kudos for your wise stewardship of land. If all land was managed that way, there would be no global warming. Soil can hold three times the carbon as the air and above ground vegetation combined. The billionaire class, most are old money banksters that stay hidden, are pathological narcissists that look upon the 99% as inferior beings. They have no empathy; are most important and only need to make sure the 99% stay asleep. Their greatest nightmare is that the 99% will awaken. They know that there is a world wide catastrophe approaching relentlessly. The .00001% could halt the coming disaster, but they won't. To do that would be to lose control of the inferior beings.
A perfect example is radioactive waste. Deep sea bed disposal was considered a good option until the 80s. It has not been considered since in official documents. The waste could be stored in screw shaped metal or plastic containers, taken to near deep ocean rift zones and dropped overboard. The screw shaped containers would bury themselves in sediment. The deep ocean is already oxygen depleted. The sediment is oxygen free. The containers would not corrode and sediment would pile on top and bury the waste deeper and deeper. Eventually the pressure would create shale and other sedimentary rock. The oceanic plates would gradually move to continental plates and be subducted back into the mantal. Problem solved for humanity but not for the .00001%. That waste, as it is now handled, is a steady revenue stream for thousands of years.
The .00001% are not concerned about radioactivity no matter the source. They all have havens in the Southern Hemisphere. The air and water masses, because of the coriolis effect, do not mix much. The Russians confirmed this 18 months ago. They said they had developed a nuclear powered cruise missile that could stay aloft indefinitely. The stated purpose was so that any criminal who might start a nuclear would know he could not escape to the Southern Hemisphere without retribution.
The Bush family are a good example. In 2006 in the midst of W's second term, 25 year old Jenna was sent to Paraguay to seal the deal on 300,000 acres over the Guarani Aquifer, the largest fresh water reservoir on the planet. That is the size of LA. The only reason we know about it is that Jenna being Jenna went bar hopping with her Secret Service escort in Asuncion. Her purse was stolen so it made the news. The taxi drivers in Asuncion were laughing and dancing about it. 300,000 acres is larger than most feudal estates. It could be self sufficient with its own infrastructure including airport. Be assured the Bush family is not alone. One of the greatest concerns of the billionaire class is how to keep their Navy Seal protectors from turning on them. Such a concern that the 99% do not have.
Heard about the Bush purchase in Paraguay. Back in the 80's I had a friend who was once in army intelligence. He told me things about the senior president Bush when he was cia chief that would make any red blooded Americans blood boil. Haven't trusted the Bush family since then.
Tee-riffic how you renewed your own land and provide your own fuel. I too have not one iota of trust for the current "centralized" methods. Also, returnin' to the old ways shows the path to usin' the land we got far more efficiently (for farming, food, fuel, and more). I've been seein' how grassfed cows can even renew land that is too hilly to plant on --deemed unusable-- but the cows thrive on it and then stuff grows and animal and plant life returns. A while back White Oak Pastures did some studies to prove how traditional manure based practices raisin' grassfed beef (and chickens) scored better "environmentally" than even just farming vegetables organically. Cows chompin' grass renew grass ('course you know this already but some don't!). I fer one am mighty curious about two things in energy land--one seems possibly doable (?) which has to do with turning your own compost into energy--I'm not sure how that works but Clif High is on this as are others. I saw a video of a fellow in the UK who did this and ran his computer, heat, and basics (one bedroom shack type living) this way. So there's that on the horizon. Then I keep hearing about cold fusion and/or similar free energy that is non-nuclear but does use fusion with no radiation or ill effects. Don't know enough 'bout it yet to opine but I'm open to new discoveries--or (as may be the case) old ones that got suppressed! (I read Tesla developed the free / safe energy method and he was possibly killed fer doin' it too) All good points--we do NOT want Big Energy as we can now SO clearly see whar it's got us today!
Been following Will Harris since his first interview with Mercola some years back.
Twenty five years ago when I first began farming on a larger scale I was making compost in 3 large bins. I would rotate material from one bin to the next with the loader on my tractor. Maybe 3 or 4 tons every two weeks. On cold winter days, the steam coming from the pile when turning with the tractor was impressive. I often thought about ways to harness that, but the compost pile was never intact long enough to make use of the heat. I couldn't see any way to install a heat collector system that would not interfere with the need to turn the compost every two weeks and then remove it for use.
George Washington Carver, Henry Ford and many others showed how plant matter could replace every use of fossil fuels from plastics to gasoline and of course medicine. The problem was that it was too democratic and not prone to centralized control so was suppressed or eliminated. In the US 40% of food is wasted. Gavin is so proud of his food waste recycling program that he set up in SF. That food could be fermented and turned in ethanol fuel but he prefers to mandate another centralized solution, EVs. The waste after the fermentation could be animal feed or just compost. A win -win-win for the environment, the people and the planet but it is not centralized and controllable.
Is Gates investing in nuclear power plants? Or isn't nuclear energy part of the Globalists plan to Save The Planet?
Both.
Why do my instincts tell me that at least two of the three named in "proof of corruption" are dudes/trans?
Corruption knows no bounds.