[Image via Max Wilbert’s page, Biocentric]
Biomedical. Dr Sam Bailey with her best refutation yet of the “bio-weapon” nonsense which seems to play well in the “Freedom” community, for some reason. One that got away, i sure thought i included this in Lockdown Times but apparently i spaced it out. And sure enough, since my decision last night to include it in the next LT, a couple of “Freedom” media outlets have pushed this nonsense again.
When You Wish Upon A "Bio-Weapon” Dr Sam Bailey, 4/2/24, 26 minutes.
[Link to show notes page. From it,….]
"The longer that the COVID-19 Fraud has been pushed onto the world the more people are waking up to the reality that there was no pandemic. Virology has been dismantled from every possible angle and for many of us the entire virus model has been bid a final “Farewell”.
However, the notion of “pathogens” and “bio-weapons” that are being created through “gain of fiction” experiments continues to strike fear in those yet to realise that the entire concept is based on anti-scientific premises. Unfortunately, stories about “bio-labs” continue to drive unwarranted fears and act to keep people on the germ theory plantation. As a result they remain trapped inside a false paradigm and unable to fully appreciate what really makes people ill.
In this video we will once again outline the complete lack of evidence that bio-weapons exist and how the corporate media has overtly pushed these fear-based narratives since early 2020 to help sustain the “pandemic” industry and all the evil that comes with the biosecurity surveillance state."
My comments: SUPERB! Anyone who still believes the bio-weapon disinformation will hopefully be forced into self-examination. Anyone who still supports and funds those who PUSH this narrative is guilty of aiding the implementation of the control apparatus’s goals.
And, a comment at Bailey’s Substack page where this is also posted,
Allen, Apr 2
Hard to get people off the viral porn. When they move into “gain of function” or “lab leak” theories relating to this fictional virii those stuck in that eddy are only shifting gears and moving from one preposterous notion to another. Some ‘establishment’ Covid skeptics have and/or are building cottage industries on the ‘lab leak’ mythology. If the ‘lab leak’ theory is refuted then their credibility and financial interests take a big hit. Specific to “SARS-CoV2” as a lab created virus this story has so many holes in it that it is hard to comprehend that anyone with an iota of critical thinking skills would not walk this back if they had posited this sophistry at some point.
As far as the shrill and evasive position that, "The "no virus" contingent is a controlled op trying to keep gain of function research from being investigated/ended", quite the opposite is the case if you take a moment and think about it. The controlled opposition argument would be SUPPORTED MUCH BETTER by the Lab Leak Theory as it maintains the Covid Narrative as a deadly pathogen for which draconian measures including the suspension of basic civil liberties were "necessary."
It maintains the notion the "novel" virus was "unprecedented" and therefore a "New Normal" raft of invasive policies would be justified (like mandatory vaccines, vaccine passports, condemnation of using cash, the systematic attack on free speech in the form stopping "misinformation", truly unprecedented censorship, the roll out of CBDC's and justifies the “pandemic preparedness industry” which allows big corporations and investment houses to siphon trillions from taxpayers.
However, if there was no pandemic, no evidence for a virus, what do we do then? Well, we'd have to hold our government, our health regulatory agencies and our Media to account. The whole system would collapse as the corrupt house of cards it is. So, no, the Lab Leak Theory keeps the whole charade alive and well. The "lab leak" story is an “approved” story to keep you obsessing over "origin." It’s a distraction from the policy-related slaughter of the last 4 years.
The "lab leak/targeted spraying/GoF" theories do not hold water and cover up what actually happened which was straight forward mass murder in nursing homes and hospitals. This had nothing whatsoever to do with a "viral event" and all to do with administrative slaughter and hospicide. All of the “Covid deaths” are fraudulent and inventions from the Pharma/medical/media cartel. The vast majority are medical murder.
And, as if on cue, two major celebrity “movement” outlets move to push anew this lie.
First, Del Bigtree and the HighWife, with guest Rand Paul. Bioweaponry brotherhood.
And now, CHD. It is also pushing the bird flu panic which my lead item in yesterday’s edition was about, a bunch of admissions in responses to Christine Massey’s FOIAs requests project, made by major global health entities that they have no proof for the isolation and purification of any “avian flu virus.” Note: this is NOT a “matter of opinion” or a "belief,” these admissions are facts, pure and simple.
"Bird Flu: What You Need to Know ‘Disease X,’ or rather ‘the next pandemic’ — what will it be? Some warn it could be the bird flu, but only time will tell. Host of ‘Defender In-Depth,’ Michael Nevradakis, welcomes on this week’s guest, Dr. Richard Bartlett, for an engaging conversation about future outbreaks, the bioweapons industry and zoonotic pathogens."
EDITORIAL: Dear “movement” member: This is YOUR fault, since you continue to send these people money and help spread their programs, in the face of their spreading disinformation and helping to facilitate the "Pandemic"/"COVID-19"/"SARS-Cov-2” mega-fraud narrative. The hell with your pathetic excuses about “the wonderful work they’ve done.” Whatever they’ve done, they are now part of the Operation. Your assistance to them makes you complicit, period. This is NOT a distraction from the shots. Focusing entirely on the shots without questioning the fraud at the core of the narrative just keeps us bouncing from one set of shots to another, from one alleged “pandemic” caused by an alleged “virus” to the next ones
4IR. Right after Genocide Joe exhorted Bibi Netanyahu to demonstrate some restraint, allow more humanitarian aid, and express an increased willingness to compromise, Israeli forces responded with a areal attack upon a car carrying Hamas chairman Haniyah’s three sons and three of their sons, killing everyone in the car. Meanwhile, the latest Electronic Intifada weekly show.
Breaking news and analysis on day 187 of Gaza's Al-Aqsa Flood | The Electronic Intifada Podcast, 4/10/24. Two hours and 38 minutes.
00:00 Introduction
01:21 Weekly news roundup with Nora Barrows-Friedman
18:08 Antony Loewenstein on Israel's use of AI during its genocide in Gaza
01:10:22 Jon Elmer on resistance ambush in Khan Younis and Hizballah downing Israeli drone
02:00:39 A discussion on regional and political developments
My comments. I’ve listened so far through the Loewenstein segment. That particular segment is excellent. He is an Australian writer and political activist, the author of The Palestine Laboratory, which details how Israeli is using the results of the use of AI, facial recognition and other such tech to make surveillance products which it markets to the world, The buyers include the elite governments of Arab nations in the region which fear their own populations. Do not remotely think you can’t be the next target.I’ll report on the rest in the next edition.
And, a reminder of how Electronic Intifada has its severe shortcomings too.
Why Iran supports Palestine, with Ali Abunimah and Mohammad Marandi, Electronic Intifada, 4/7/24.
The guest is an American-born (to Iranian parents) Iranian academic, whose father became health minister when the familty moved back to Iran in 1979. He basically provided the Tehran line. The most significant segment, though, was towards the very end. He stated “we” need a new multi-polar world order. Abunimah strongly agreed. Neither one mentioned that Iran, as well as Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E, are as of this year members of the BRICS+, the expanded version of the bloc which included the five core members plus the three just mentioned, Egypt and Ethiopia. BRICS is a full participant in implementing the 4IR. U.A.E. is in fact one of the most important centers for its promotion vis the promotion of digitizing all facets of society.
Ending this segment and this edition, a drastically edited version of an excellent item as to the mainstream environmental movement becoming an cheering squad for the continuation of the global capitalist industrial system, which is itself THE problem at the heart of the global ecological crisis.
The mainstream environmental movement is unintentionally re-creating Dr. Strangelove, a cautionary tale about the perils of unexamined beliefs and one of the greatest films in cinematic history. Max Wilbert, 4/9/24.
[Photo, it’s the one at the top of this edition]
In Spring of last year, I was sitting on top of an excavator in Nevada as part of a protest against the destruction of a biodiverse and sacred Native American cultural site and wildlife habitat. That’s me in the photograph on the right. I’ve climbed on top of the machine as part of a prayer action led by Northern Paiute and Western Shoshone indigenous elders seeking to protect Thacker Pass, known in Paiute as Peehee Mu’huh, from an open-pit lithium mine. Because lithium is a key ingredient in batteries for electric cars, this fight has represented a flashpoint in the environmental movement.
At the same time as we were sitting in front and on top of the machinery, Mother Jones Magazine was publishing the polar opposite message on its cover. I know I have a few sight-impaired readers, so allow me to explain. The cover of the May/June 2023 issue of Mother Jones features a title story called "Yes in Our Backyards: It's time for progressives to fall in love with the green building boom," written by Bill McKibben.
The cover of the magazine shows a woman standing in the bucket of an excavator that closely resembles the one I climbed on top of at Thacker Pass. But this woman is not protesting. Instead, she is embracing the machine lovingly, a rapturous expression on her face. Around the same time, the Economist magazine published a similar image to accompany their cover story titled, “Hug pylons not trees: the growth environmentalism needs.” The artwork shows another person embracing a machine — this time, the bottom of a high-voltage electrical transmission line pylon — a similar expression of bliss on their face.
The dichotomy between these images represents a profound division within the environmental movement.
On one side, mainstream environmentalists and large organizations (such as McKibben’s 350.org, Mother Jones, the Economist, The Sierra Club, and many others) are advocating for a wholesale transition of the industrial economy as it currently exists to being powered with renewable energy technologies. This would entail a gargantuan expansion in solar and wind energy production (and electrical transmission lines to carry this energy), a wholesale shift from gas and diesel vehicles to electric cars, and the electrification of everything from steel and concrete production — both very dependant on fossil fuels and highly polluting — to the heating of homes and office buildings. [wishful thinking anyway, trucks, construction vehicles and ships cannot be powered by electricity.]
They tell a tempting story: by swapping out the energy sources powering society, we can solve global warming while simultaneously boosting business, creating jobs, and achieving prosperity. But like most fairy tales, the story is not just false — it obscures a grim reality.
Perhaps the most prominent scientist promoting this energy transition is Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford, who has created detailed plans on how to transition to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030.
I wrote about Mark Jacobson and his proposals in my book, Bright Green Lies, How the Environmental Movement Lost its Way and What We Can Do About It. There are two main problems with his work. The first is that his research, in the words of a group of 21 scientists and engineers who reviewed it, “involves errors, inappropriate methods, and implausible assumptions.” In one of Jacobson’s models, hydropower increases by 15x in the United States by 2055. Critics say that would be disastrous for aquatic creatures and also point out that this is “physically impossible.” Jacobson’s response has generally not been to prove his critics wrong, but rather to sue them for millions of dollars (his lawsuit was ultimately dismissed as frivolous and he was ordered to pay attorney fees).
The second problem? This vision of a green energy transition isn’t green at all Producing wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles, geothermal power plants, and other forms of green technology requires huge amounts of steel, aluminum, copper, composites, balsa wood, rare earth elements, cobalt, nickel, and other materials. Extracting these raw materials causes significant habitat destruction and pollution, and is entirely dependant on fossil fuels. One study — the most comprehensive ever conducted on the topic — found that “Extractive industries are responsible for half of the world’s carbon emissions and more than 80% of biodiversity loss.”
Around the world, grassroots environmentalists, frontline communities in the Global South and the hinterlands of the Global North, and indigenous peoples are standing up against “green” industrial projects which represent further destruction of habitat, pollution of air and water, and extinction of species. Here’s 21 examples: [US, Russia, China, all included]……
Bill McKibben’s answer? Buy off the opposition.
The work that Bill McKibben (author of the Mother Jones article) has done to publicize the dangers of global warming is incredibly important. But our disagreements are profound. For example, McKibben proposes that we overcome local and grassroots resistance to “green” energy and mining projects by giving “locals a stake in the economic success of the enterprise.” In other words, he thinks corporations and government should bribe them. The great American scholar Lewis Mumford, in his book “Authoritarian and Democratic Technics,” wrote of the moral decline that comes when a society invests all its energies toward industrial production.
People in energy-addicted societies receive “every material advantage, every intellectual and emotional stimulus {they} may desire, in quantities hardly available hitherto even for a restricted minority: food, housing, swift transportation, instantaneous communication, medical care, entertainment, education,” Mumford wrote. This, he says is “a magnificent bribe… that threatens to wipe out every other vestige of democracy.”
“More of this,” says McKibben: bribe populations so they don’t fight when their mountains are blown up, their deserts paved with solar panels, their water poisoned for lithium mines, and their oceans dotted with skyscraper-sized wind turbines. As “green” energy projects proliferate, their impacts become more obvious and resistance becomes more common……
The “green economy” is a case of the Shock Doctrine coming to life
In his Mother Jones article, Bill McKibben writes:
“I’m an environmentalist, which means I’ve got some practice in saying no. It’s what we do: John Muir saying no to the destruction of Yosemite helped kick off environmentalism; Rachel Carson said no to DDT; the Sierra Club said no to the damming of the Grand Canyon... In a world where giant corporations, and the governments they too often control, ceaselessly do dangerous and unnecessary things, saying no is a valuable survival skill for civilizations……..
There are two premises being slipped past us here. First, McKibben is arguing that building out renewable energy is going to require “intruding on” (aka destroying) land. And second, that renewable energy is necessary to stop the climate crisis.
The first argument is unequivocable. The planet is already paying a price for green technology, and the bill is set to rise steeply. Electric vehicles still only account for 15-20% of new car sales (and most car sales are used; in the U.S., about three times as many used cars are sold as new cars), and wind, solar, and geothermal energy make up just 5.8% of U.S. energy consumption. As those numbers rise, more desert habitat will be bulldozed, more forests cut down for wind turbines, and more mountains will be blown up for minerals. As a Vox headline put it, “Reckoning with climate change will demand ugly tradeoffs from environmentalists — and everyone else.” This, to paraphrase Mumia Abu Jamal, “is the Shock Doctrine come to life.”
Can renewable energy stop global warming?
McKibben’s second and core argument is that replacing fossil fuels and solving global warming requires building renewable energy out as quickly as possible, and therefore some destruction is justified. Setting aside the human-supremacist thinking inherent in this (nature, after all, would prefer to neither be bulldozed for solar energy or destroyed by global warming. And nature does not give a damn about whether or not we have electricity), the premise doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
Around 2014, a team of Stanford scientists hired by Google to research green energy technologies came to a startling conclusion. “Even if every renewable energy technology advanced as quickly as imagined and they were all applied globally,” they wrote, “atmospheric CO2 levels wouldn’t just remain above 350 ppm; they would continue to rise exponentially due to continued fossil fuel use.”
Real world data backs this up. After analyzing data from 128 nations, Richard York, a researcher at the University of Oregon, found that: “the average pattern {in energy use} ... is one where each unit of total national energy from non-fossil-fuel sources displaced less than one-quarter of a unit of fossil-fuel energy use and, focusing specifically on electricity, each unit of electricity generated by non-fossil-fuel sources displaced less than one-tenth of a unit of fossil-fuel generated electricity.”
In other words, when you build solar panels and wind turbines, it barely reduces the amount of fossil fuels being burnt. York concludes: “These results challenge conventional thinking ... they indicate that suppressing the use of fossil fuel will require changes other than simply technical ones.” We can see this in the world today. As the deployment of renewable energy technologies have increased dramatically over the past decade, carbon emissions have only risen higher. Fossil fuel emissions are at record-highs, and oil industry is backing out of prior energy transition plans.
McKibben’s plan—building out green energy as quickly as possible, and don’t worry about harm to the natural world—isn’t working. Instead, we're getting all of the catastrophic harms of global warming and the fossil fuel industry combined with the massive ecological damage associated with mining raw materials, manufacturing, and installing an entire new “green” energy infrastructure in a fatally-flawed and ultimately doomed attempt to replace keep industrial civilization running “business as usual” for just a little while longer.
As my friend Erin Remblance wrote in her newsletter, Protecting the Future , belief in s-called “green growth” is a new form of climate denial. “Instead of denying the science of climate change,” she says, “'green growthers' are now denying the mitigation required to avoid the worst impacts of a hotter planet.” In other words, green energy will not solve global warming and will not save the world. Far more is needed. Global warming is a very serious issue, and the fossil fuel industry — along with logging, industrial agriculture, and steel and concrete production — account for vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions. But we should never forget that greenhouse gases are just one of the industrial assaults levied on the living planet by modern industrial culture.
We are living in the 6th great mass extinction event in Earth’s history. Ecological studies have demonstrated that by far, most of the species extinctions on the planet are being driven by habitat destruction and direct killing of wildlife, not global warming (at least, not yet). Environmental groups and governments today focus overwhelmingly on climate change. Overfishing, soil erosion and desertification, urban sprawl, oceanic dead zones due to fertilizer and factory farm runoff, and the felling of the last old-growth forests often seem forgotten. In our rush to reduce carbon, precious wildlife habitat is being sacrificed to “green growth.” This forgetting is a real danger.
A recent headline reads: “Like fracking under Obama, mining poised to grow during Biden years.” Three years into Biden’s term, that prediction is coming true. In Nevada, the driest state in the union, scarce groundwater is being depleted at a rapid pace to serve the mining industry, and new lithium mines to serve the EV and battery energy storage market are destroying thousands of acres of old-growth sagebrush habitat, and the golden eagles, pygmy rabbits, pronghorn antelope, burrowing owls, and sage-grouse who depend on this land. And if the mining industry consumes mountains and water, it excretes toxic waste – more than any other industry on the planet.
Can we mine our way to a sustainable world? I think not. Ultimately, it matters little whether habitat is paved over for roads that will be traversed by electric vehicles, or fossil fuel ones. Destruction is destruction, and we won’t drive—or buy—our way out of this crisis. Only by addressing the roots of the problem can we begin to find real solutions.
This is exactly what McKibben fails to do. As my friend Suzanna Jones, who was among those arrested protesting Enbridge’s Lowell wind energy project in Vermont in 2011, wrote:
“sadly, McKibben studiously avoids criticizing the very economy he once fingered {in his 2008 book Deep Economy} as the source of our environmental crisis. During his talk he referred to Exxon’s ‘big lie’: The company knew about climate change long ago but hid the truth. Ironically, McKibben’s presentation did something similar by hiding the fact that his only ‘solution’ to climate change – the rapid transition from fossil fuels to industrial renewables – actually causes astounding environmental damage. Solar power, he said, is ‘just glass angled at the sun, and out the back comes modernity.’ But solar is much more than just glass.
More than just glass, indeed. To supply one silicon smelter in Washington State, permitting documents revealed a supply chain including “900 million kilowatt hours [of electricity], 170,000 tons of quartzite rock (silicon dioxide), 150,000 tons of blue gem coal and charcoal, and 130,000 tons of wood chips” resulting in “766,000 tons of greenhouse [gas emissions] per year, plus tens to hundreds of tons of other coal toxins”. And that’s just to produce the silicon component of solar panels. The supply chains for the steel, aluminum, lead, silver, copper, and other materials found in PV panels, substations, and transmission lines are similarly polluting and extractive. [SNIP]…..