Touting a supposed “new study,” mainstream media is advocating globalist prescriptions for climate change that would utilize existing public school lunch programs to compel children to eat unhealthy processed vegetarian alternatives to wholesome grass-fed meats or fresh local foods. The audacity and misinformation of these proposals reflect elitist disconnect from basic nutrition and soil health.

This supposedly salvific solution to the world’s carbon problems is less a “study” and more of a globalist New World Order propaganda plug. The proposal is that school lunches “may be the key to changing our food systems worldwide.” How is this to be achieved? – by sourcing artificial meats manufactured profitably by the new would-be food purveyors from chemical-saturated, environmentally-destructive agricultural production of soy and other GMO plants, to thereby wean children from having a palate for meats.

As MSN.com proclaimed:

“Offering more plant-based protein such as vegan burgers and nuggets, and also beans and soy products like tofu could help to “shift social norms around meat consumption,” reads the report. ….The shift would help to reduce heat-trapping gases and pollution generated by factory farms which produce most of the meat on the planet. Livestock farming accounts for 8% of these gases, the report notes.”

The sins of factory farms are here employed to throw the cows out with the formaldehyde hoof-bath. Shifting farm critters back to rotational grazing would sequester more carbon than all the EV cars, solar panels, and soy-burgers combined. As Joel Salatin explains in The Sheer Ecstasy of Being a Lunatic Farmer:

“If every farmer in America practiced this prehistoric system, in fewer than ten years we would sequester all the carbon that’s been emitted since the beginning of the industrial age. ….One of the most environmentally-enhancing things that you can do is to eat grass-finished beef. That sequesters more carbon than soybeans or corn or any other annual.” (p. 28).

The so-called “study,” created by a biased ally of the World Economic Forum, claims this beneficent shift in diet to vat-hatched meats would avoid compulsion by simply altering what kids desire:

“According to Mark Meldrum from Systemiq and co-author of the report, none of the recommended shifts are about banning the old ways.

“They are about supporting and lifting the new, to help them be as competitive and attractive as possible,” he says. “So we get to a place where we don’t need a ban, because everyone wants the new thing anyway.” ”

How un-scientific can a con-job get? Using public funds to process soy into fake-burger allocates profits to patent holders like Bill Gates, while soaking kids’ guts with microbiome-killing glyphosate. Soy farming depends not just on GMOs (and thus glyphosate) but upon synthetic fertilizers and massive amounts of fossil fuels. Allowing cows to roam grasslands is organic, and uses far less energy. And grass-fed meats are healthy for children.

Bellies of the Rich Swell Further on the Back of Hunger

The January 19, 2023 “study” carries the cutesy think-tank title “The Breakthrough Effect”:

“The three super-leverage points are: mandates for the sale of electric vehicles, mandates requiring “green ammonia” to be used in the manufacturing of agricultural fertilisers, and public procurement of plant-based proteins. These changes could trigger a cascade of tipping points, leading to cheaper batteries to help solar and wind scale-up in the electricity sector, cheaper hydrogen opening up decarbonisation for the shipping and steel industries, and reduced pressure for deforestation.”

“Systemiq” is a “partner” of the WEF, together with hundreds of bad corporate actors determined to profit from food at the expense of human and ecological health. Bayer, Syngenta, Dow and Cargill all boast their involvement.

The proposed “New World Food Order” is in plain-if-shameless sight: “Reducing emissions to net-zero by 2050 is possible if the right technologies are brought to commercial scale within the next decade.” These “right technologies” can’t compete without government compulsion. Never mind that the majority of the world’s food is provided by local peasant agriculture – more chemicals and magical (patented) technologies of the would-be corporate food-masters are proposed as the only way to save humanity.

The WEF’s Orwellian, earth-saving moniker is the “First Movers Coalition”: corporations offering to be the saviors from their own pollution:

“The First Movers Coalition’s unique approach assembles ambitious corporate purchasing pledges across the heavy industry and long-distance transport sectors responsible for a third of global emissions. For these sectors to decarbonize at the speed needed to keep the planet on a 1.5-degree pathway, they require low-carbon technologies that are not yet competitive with current carbon-intensive solutions but must reach commercial scale by 2030 to achieve net-zero emissions globally by 2050.”

A better plan would be to reduce “heavy industry and long-distance transport sectors” by sourcing food locally and regeneratively. A better plan would employ cows to rebuild soils, sequester carbon, avoid synthetic fertilizers and chemicals, disperse profits equitably to local producers, and feed children food that doesn’t cause cancer, obesity, diabetes, and endocrine disruption.

Instead, the proposal is to increase dependency on corporate food provision using government compulsion and citizen tax dollars. The name coined to summarize this Shwabian malarkey is “agritech”:

““Agritech” is a natural evolution of precision agriculture, realized through the automated analysis of data collected from the field via equipment sensors and other sources. An emerging set of smart technologies, coupled with new digital skills and enhanced data control, can help foster more forward-looking decision making and positively shape the future direction of the value chains connecting farmers to consumers. This new paradigm calls for a comprehensive evolution from traditional to digital systems, in order to reduce costs, increase efficient production, and inject greater environmental and social sustainability into agricultural activity.”

Ah, the utopian promises of those who don’t read their own Kool-aid recipes! Technomystical faith in Big Ag to “feed the world” is the folly that has created the agricultural and health quagmire in which humanity is embroiled: now the same failed systems are paraded as cure. This will surely compound corporate hegemony, food insecurity, soil erosion, water depletion, and declining human health – all in the name of “data control,” “digital skills,” “automated analysis,” and “social sustainability.”

This is labeled a “new paradigm,” but it is just old glyphosate in shiny new globalist vessels, “evolving” in a forward-profit-looking fraud that will negatively shape humanity’s future. This is the expected product of “the views of a wide range of experts from the World Economic Forum’s Expert Network and is curated in partnership with the Smart AgriFood Observatory.”

Readers are told that this corrupt path will save the planet, and that it has been fashioned by philanthropic stakeholders who only seek the public good for meat-loving youngsters:

““Cooperation in a fragmented world” was chosen as the theme of the gathering of the great and the good at Davos this year. ….EU policies should not simply be aimed at securing access, but also at minimising critical raw material needs. They must examine ways to decrease the use of all materials, improve resilience and minimise the negative environmental, health and social impacts associated with the extraction, use and end of life of these resources.”

What would most minimize critical raw material needs would be to nurture local regenerative agricultural production, not increase scale, corporate domination, and long-distance transport. Minimizing glyphosate, synthetic fertilizers, and confinement feed operations would decrease toxic raw material use. Nothing would do that more than by restoring cows and other animals to rotational grazing. (And then there is the “end of life” of solar panels and EV cars….)

Janez Potocnik, partner at Systemiq, ironically observes:

“….too few policymakers take the time to examine the root causes of a problem and to address the drivers and pressures behind it. They fail too often to see how our current system does not incentivise sustainable resource use, but encourages quite the opposite.”

Ain’t that the truth! How about the world stops subsidizing destructive monocultures like soy and corn production; stops feeding children high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated fats; and stops calling such barbaric and demonstrably harmful practices enlightened and world-saving?

Instead, these miscreants advise children to gobble more chemicals at school lunch tables. This is the “key to changing our food systems worldwide” …for the worse.

 

John Klar is an Attorney, farmer, and author. Mostly farmer… And Regular Contributor to GraniteGrok and VermontGrok.

The post Solution to the World’s Carbon Problems appeared first on Granite Grok.

State Senator Kevin Avard was a guest on Rock, Paper Hand Grenades, and the topic of the Diestch list raised its amusing little head. If you missed it, former state Senator Jeanne Dietsch had been compiling a list of New Hampshire residents labeled as anti-democracy extremists (with the help of your ‘neighbors’).

We were alerted to it and made a copy before our report inspired Dietsch to ditch the list, by which I mean make it private (it had been publicly accessible as a Google Doc). Be that as it may, the current list presents opportunities for ridicule and our amusement, but when it came up on the podcast, Sen. Avard suggested that it was akin to doxxing, and he imagines that non-public citizens on the list could do a class action lawsuit against Dietsch.

That would be interesting.

Here’s the clip.

!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/u359331"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");

Rumble("play", {"video":"v49rqax","div":"rumble_v49rqax"});

I’m not a lawyer and do not play one on the internet, but if you are on the list and not a public person and like talking to your lawyer, get their opinion. You might have a case.

 

The post Sen. Avard Says, Dietsch List is Doxxing, Citizens Could Sue appeared first on Granite Grok.

The “special counsel” report, although it is being treated as a bombshell, did NOT tell us anything that we did not already know. Biden, OBVIOUSLY, does not have and for some time now (I would say well BEFORE he became the Democrat nominee in 2020) has not had the capacity to function as President.

So why is nobody asking the obvious question … WHO IS ACTUALLY RUNNING THE BIDEN-REGIME?

I believe it is Obama … albeit indirectly … through the “advisors,” “etceteras,” surrounding Biden. Your thoughts? The CIA? The WEF?

Another obvious question: Why did NeverTrump Republicans … Sununu, Mikey Graham, Kelly Ayotte, Mitch McConnell, etc., etc., etc., go along with the ruse for so long; indeed, until the “special counsel” report made it virtually impossible to continue the ruse? Perhaps Mikey Graham would like to explain to us why, despite Biden claiming he has been talking with long-dead European leaders, it took the “special counsel” report to get him to acknowledge that Biden is unfit.

And an extremely obvious conclusion: Those who continue to support the ruse … the Ray Buckleys, the Kathy Sullivans, Shaheen, Hassan, Pappas, etc., etc. etc. … neither care about America nor about “democracy.”

They care about maintaining/expanding their power and their grifts.

 

 

 

The post Nobody Is Asking The Obvious Question … Who Is Actually Running The Biden-Regime? appeared first on Granite Grok.

If you’d forgotten, the State of Florida impaneled a Grand Jury to determine “whether pharmaceutical companies and other medical organizations engaged in criminal activity or wrongdoing’ in their participation in the rollout of COVID-19 “vaccines.” They’ve released their first interim report.

We don’t have details on any criminal activity by big pharma yet, but don’t be surprised if further reports find a connection. The most recent release tells us that based on the Grand Jury Investigation, most, if not all, of the things you’ve been saying, reporting, or sharing about masks, distancing, lockdowns, and hospitalization are true.

We knew you knew, and we also know the folks clinging bitterly to their non-pharmaceutical interventions will say something like, this is from Florida, so it doesn’t matter. It does. The report makes time to address the makeup of the Grand Jury (random selection, like any jury) and explain their approach and process. Let’s say it appears they were more thorough than the FDA.

For reporting context, they explain cooperation issues, safety, efficiency, and the five levels of risk, including infection, hospitalization, and death. The report discusses pandemic modeling and pharmaceutical interventions, the problems with lockdowns, masks, and distancing. There’s a good bit of actual science in there, so our more progressive lurkers might want to stay away. It could damage your pandemic paradigm.

You should read it, but to generalize, lockdowns appear to have done more harm than good (surprise!). Masks, almost impossible to be worn correctly by the average Jane or Joe, did not prevent infection or spread (sort of like the COVID-19 vaccine, eh?), and while N95s were capable of some good, multiple potentials for failure likely made them useless. If you recall, we reported on OSHA rules that required training for mandating N95 and K95 masks in a workplace (ignored, of course) and how, even then, the avenues for failure were enormous.

The report also does a great job on two other points. A full review of infection and hospitalization data suggests inflation on both counts. In other words, as you suspected, the data was so incomplete as to be incapable of meaning. This problem also plagued the data on the risk to children, who were never at risk, as was often reported based solely on the skewed data provided by states. You could see it but somehow they could not.

To summarize, this is another repudiation of the experts who ignored their own science in nearly every respect.

As for their effect on overall SARS-CoV-2 risk, we cannot ignore the fact that these NPIs were not administered based on the best available scientific data. In fact, many public health recommendations and their attendant mandates departed significantly from scientific research that was contemporaneously available to everyone: Individuals, scientists, corporations, and governments alike. Often, this research was ignored by institutional policymakers. Occasionally it was even attacked. It is a sad state of affairs when something as simple as following the science constitutes an act of heresy, but here we are. Importantly, while some of these NPIs may have shifted risk to later in time or from one group to another or had some speculative efficacy against viral spread when used in perfect laboratory conditions, comparative evidence suggests they did not significantly change the overall risk profile presented by the SARS-CoV-2 virus in terms of excess death, especially once collateral consequences are taken into consideration.

The Grand Jury will release additional reports as investigations develop or are completed.

22nd-Statewide-Grand-Jury-First-Interim-Report (covid response)

The post Florida Grand Jury Finds COVID Response Likely Did More Harm than Good appeared first on Granite Grok.