There’s Something in the Water
It’s a story as old as modern industry itself. An industrial process creates huge amounts of largely worthless byproduct, so what do the manufacturers do? They find a way to add value to it and create a new product, marketing it as “essential” or “healthy” or both. A period of years or decades pass, and the product is firmly established as precisely that—“essential,” “healthy” or both. But in truth, it’s the opposite.
Of course, it’s not surprising that companies do this—the aim of companies in the capitalist system is to maximise profit, after all—but that doesn’t change the fact that, again and again, the enterprising nature of business has helped to create a public-health disaster.
This is exactly what happened around the turn of the 20th century with the worthless oil byproducts of the cotton industry. Producers had enormous quantities of cottonseed oil and nothing to do with it apart from sell it as an industrial lubricant or paint thinner. Using new hydrogenation technology, the cottonseed producers created margarine, a spreadable fat, which they marketed to the public as a “healthy” alternative to the animal fats humans have eaten since the beginning of time. Eventually, with the help of big money and gerrymandered science—the so-called “lipid-heart hypothesis”—these novel fats and oils displaced butter and lard and tallow, and seventy years later everyone is unhealthier and unhappier than it would ever have been possible to imagine. Instead of the renewed health we were promised, we were made subject to a terrible new kind of physical bondage, under the domination of big food, big pharma and big government.
The same is true of the products that are used to fluoridate water, especially fluorosilicic acid in its various different forms. It wasn’t until the middle of the twentieth century that public fluoridation campaigns, with the backing of producers of fluorosilicic acid, began, but today in the US about 75% of people receive a fluoridated water supply through their taps. The main justification for this is the prevention of dental caries.
For decades, campaigners against fluoridation have been portrayed by governments, scientists and the media as cranks—the more so, in fact, as evidence of the harmful effects of fluoride exposure has stacked up. Animal studies show, unequivocally, that high levels of fluoride exposure can cause serious neurobiological changes, especially in the offspring of pregnant animals that are exposed, because fluoride can pass the placental barrier from mother to child.
But it’s not just animals. In recent years, credible studies from Canada and Mexico have linked fluoridation to lowered IQs and cognitive impairment in children. And now a new study, from the US, shows that the standard concentration of fluoride in tap water across the US may be enough to double the risk of a child displaying neurobehavioural issues—including diagnosable conditions like ADHD—at the age of three, if it was exposed during gestation.
The indisputable truth is this: when fluoridation was introduced, we simply didn’t know what effects it would have, not really, in the same we didn’t understand the full effects of substituting novel vegetable and seed oils for the animal fats man evolved eating and to eat.
Instead we found out. But part of the problem with f***ing around and finding out is that things become complicated. Much more complicated. All of a sudden, decades later, you have enormous vested interests—commercial, scientific, governmental—whose sole purpose is to protect their profits and reputations and prevent any kind of change to the new status quo. Causality becomes diffuse, and now you’re not just talking about polyunsaturated fatty acids but other lifestyle factors like smoking, lack of exercise, exposure to harmful chemicals, stress and a thousand other things. Untangling those threads becomes very hard indeed. How convenient.
The alternative, of course, is to reject the attitude of “safe until proven otherwise.” That’s the attitude, driven by the laws of commerce and the desire to maximise profit, that allows minimal testing of new products and partisan, corporate science to be put forward, often in secrecy, behind closed doors, in support of a new product’s safety. The FDA’s system for licensing new foods and drugs has been described as “the foxes guarding the henhouse.” It’s hard to disagree.
As I’ve said elsewhere, I believe the attitude towards innovations needs to be a conservative one: harmful until proven otherwise. The evidence—not least of all the potentially species-ending reproductive effects caused by exposure to thousands of different plastic chemicals, herbicides and insecticides, fire retardants, and so on—fully justifies me in saying this.
Dazzled by the miraculous properties of plastics, we’ve created a world where in less than two decades’ time, the median man will have a sperm count of zero: one half of all men will produce no sperm, and the other half will produce so few they might as well produce none. What then? Extinction? Does man simply go gentle into that good night?
We keep making the same mistakes. Instead of adding fluoride to the water, we could have encouraged better diet. The pioneering dentist Weston A. Price showed, in the 1930s , how traditional societies that continued to eat their diets of primarily nutrient-dense animal foods barely suffered tooth decay at all, even if they didn’t brush their teeth. What mattered was the massive quantities of protein, fat and most of all fat-soluble vitamins, minerals and co-factors they consumed on a daily basis. That’s what protected their health and their dentition, not a contaminated water supply.
But getting people to eat more butter and cheese and organ meat wasn’t in line with the emerging scientific-corporate agenda that has captured our food supply and much more besides—so we got fluoridation instead.
It’s time, I think, to admit that fluoridation needs to be rethought. At the very least, urgent, honest, unpoliticised research must take place and be presented to the public, who should be allowed to decide—on the basis of the facts, without any reference to profits—whether they want their water to have fluoride in it.
Of course, this won’t happen, because it would call into question so much more than what is or isn’t in the water today.
MUST-WATCH VIDEO: Ben Carson Exposes The Plan For One World Government With Tucker Carlson
Former HUD Secretary Dr. Ben Carson and Tucker Carlson discuss the New World Order agenda that’s gone mainstream and how the key to its defeat it a well-informed and involved citizenry.
MUST-WATCH VIDEO: Ben Carson Exposes The Plan For One World Government With Tucker Carlson pic.twitter.com/rpXgttLqyv
— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) July 26, 2024
Cattle Farming: Food for Thought
Today I was a guest on InfoWars’ American Journal to speak with adamantine news director/guest-host Rob Dew (who temporarily took the reigns from the ever-insightful Harrison Smith). The topic at hand was a dangerous scam: ‘edible’ insects (see my article Sick from ze Bugs?).
I had intended to discuss how cattle farming is actually—as the kids say these days—a low-pesticide-use, low-input type of farming, even though globalists such as Bill Gates are now trying to portray cattle as being bad for the environment, in their effort to push their ‘environmentally friendly’ insect products. Rob made a great point in this regard at the beginning of our segment, and then I still managed to forget to back up his idea. The gist of what he said is that cows are able to efficiently convert grass into protein, with little inputs needed. (Here is a link to the segment.)
Nomadic tribes have traditionally raised cattle, allowing the animals to eat various wild plants, and continuously driving them onward to new territory. These plants are frequently species that are not edible for humans. Similarly, on private property, cattle are rotated between different fields to allow them to graze on grass and weedy herbs. I’m no expert on cattle farming, but let’s compare it to vegetable farming: I know that raising cattle doesn’t require as much material input. For example, irrigation is not typically utilized in cattle farming, but is always used for cultivating vegetables.
Even organic vegetable farming occasionally requires fungicides, such as neem oil, copper-based sprays, etc. Naturally derived pesticides are allowed per the USDA Organic program labeling law. Third-party certifiers, such as the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI), approve pesticides, fertilizers, cleaning agents (bleach is allowed for cleaning microbial buildup in irrigation lines, for example), and other ‘materials,’ for use in organic farming. These are not necessarily safe for people and the environment, albeit they are generally less harmful than materials used in conventional production—but per academic indoctrination at University of Florida, I’m not supposed to say this! If I tell you that conventional production is less safe than organic production for humans and the environment, that implies that the regulations for conventional production are insufficient to protect consumers and the environment. Don’t say that! That’s blaspheming the state!
Insecticides, such as insecticidal soaps, neem oil (from the neem tree; it’s a fungicide/insecticide/miticide), pyrethrins (nerve toxin extracted from chrysanthemum), Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) bacterial toxins (activated by the alkaline digestive tracts of insects), and so on and so on, are also relied upon in organic vegetable production.
Even if we look at agronomic grain crops such as wheat, oats, field corn, etc., which are grown on vast acreage compared to vegetables and other horticultural crops, and require less inputs, the plants are nonetheless domesticated varieties that cannot grow and yield well without human intervention.
When you go to the grocery store, think about the standards that consumers expect in their produce. They will turn up their noses at the slightest imperfections. Presenting produce to buyers in such pristine condition takes a lot of effort and typically requires significant fertilization, irrigation, and, often, pesticide applications.
Contrast this with the demands of the lowly, lowing cow. She’ll eat wild-type grass happily, and it need not be unblemished. The microbial biome in her stomach will breakdown the grass’ cellulose (a.k.a. fiber), and release nutrients that humans could not obtain from grass. The cow in-turn becomes a source of healthy meat. This is essentially the point Rob made.
Interestingly, Herodotus, in his Histories (published circa 425 BC; it took him 35 years to write), discusses Ethiopians living to be on average 80 years old, and often as old as 120! They achieved this amazing longevity on a diet almost exclusively comprised of boiled meat, cattle blood, and milk. Meanwhile, for Persians and Greeks, who depended on bread, living to be 80 years old was a rarity.
In the context of our discussion on insects, cattle farming is being demonized as harmful to the planet, but meanwhile, no one demonizes vegetable farming. Which one is really more harmful? I submit to you that neither presents obstacles that can’t be overcome without governmental intervention. In-fact, Big Government’s intervention will stymie the innovation that we need individual freedom to cultivate.
The message being pushed is that cattle farming is an existential threat, and that we must switch to eating disgusting bugs. This is nothing more than a thinly veiled money grab, using state policing to push out the old cattle industry and bring in the new insect industry. The people investing in the new insect industry are harnessing state power, under the guise of ‘the common good,’ to regulate out their competitors—supposedly to stop climate ‘change’—the nebulous, ambiguous boogeyman. Are people really going to buy into this frass?
God bless you. Thanks for reading, and please share the link to this article.
The Globalists Are Incompetent Scum — We Give Them All Their Power
Alex Jones breaks down how the globalists use divide-and-conquer tactics to keep us in line and prevent us from organizing against them and their anti-human New World Order agenda.
The Globalists Are Incompetent Scum
We Give Them All Their Power pic.twitter.com/P28eZ7ISwr— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) July 26, 2024
BREAKING: Kamala Caught In Giant New Lie — Now Claims She Never Bailed Out Rioters
Alex Jones breaks down how Kamala Harris, with the help of the corporate media, is in overdrive gaslighting the American people, falsely claiming she never donated to a radical Minnesota bail fund that helped release violent criminals. But we have the receipts — share this important link!
BREAKING: Kamala Caught In Giant New Lie— Now Claims She Never Bailed Out Rioters pic.twitter.com/9FvsPVy8SJ
— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) July 26, 2024
Rockefeller CIA Connections to Deagel Depopulation Forecast
Deagel.com was officially operated by Dr. Edwin A. Deagle Junior. In 2014, Deagel.com published predictions of massive population declines happening abruptly before the year 2025, mostly in Western countries.
For over five years the mysterious depopulation predictions on Deagel.com were regularly updated. But after the 2020 lockdowns, this page was removed from the website, but can still be found archived on the Wayback Machine.
Deagel.com has always been a very stark website. With all the appearances of being an intelligence agency website. It claimed to be the personal website of Dr. Edwin A. Deagle Jr., who recently passed away in February of 2021.
Rockefeller CIA Connections to Deagel Depopulation Forecast pic.twitter.com/OPfkkSA76a
— Greg Reese (@gregreese) July 26, 2024
In their recent article, “Uncovering the CIA & Rockefeller Foundation’s Role in the Depopulation Forecast released by Deagel,” the Exposé connects the dots that many of us have assumed existed.
Declassified FOIA documents from the nineteen-seventies reveal Deagle’s direct communication with Stansfield Turner, the director of the CIA at the time.
In 1976, Dr. Edwin Deagle moved to New York to become deputy director of the international relations program at the Rockefeller Foundation.
The Rockefeller Foundation was created on May 14th 1913, just a few months after the Rockefeller family helped setup the Federal Reserve Banking system, which gave them unlimited funds while enslaving future generations with debt.
The Rockefeller Foundation funded eugenics programs that decided who should live and who should die. They outlawed natural medicine and fuel, including one of America’s number one cash crops, Hemp, and replaced it all with chemical compounds derived from their oil company’s toxic waste. The Rockefeller Foundation created the United Nations and have their tentacles in NGOs throughout the Western world. In 2019, they funded ‘Event 201,’ the blueprint for the COVID lock-downs that were executed weeks later.
Officially we are told that Dr. Edwin A. Deagle Jr., a deputy director of the Rockefeller Foundation and an associate of the CIA, retired in 2005. The depopulation forecast was published in 2014.
The Deagel.com forecast predicted that by the year 2025, the UK would see its population decline by 77%, Ireland would see its decline by 72%, the United States by 68%, and Germany by 65%, while other countries like Russia are predicted to experience practically zero decline. And official data is now showing that the extreme Deagel.com predictions may be accurate.
Official figures, which we can assume are rather conservative, are showing that government shutdowns and mandated deadly shots have caused staggering levels of excess death. According to official UK Government data, the Covid-19 vaccines were the main cause of excess death. And the more shots you got, the more likely you were to die. Many are saying that over twenty million have died as a result of the Covid lockdowns and experimental shots. And while that number is historically epic in size, it still does not amount to what Deagel predicted by 2025. But we still have time.
A 2014 letter that was published along with the depopulation forecast stated that they predict this decline because “the collapse of the Western financial system will wipe out the standard of living of its population.” And that “the population will be hit so badly… that the migration engine will start to work in reverse… leading to the demise of the (United) States.”
They wrote that “historically a change in the economic paradigm has resulted in a death toll that is rarely highlighted by mainstream historians.”
With the end of the Petro-Dollar, and with the rise of resource backed BRICS, the Federal Reserve’s USD Ponzi scheme is likely at its end. And without factoring in a smart recovery plan, this would make Deagel’s predictions a reality.