Facebook’s latest policy update supported violence against Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones.

zuckerberg-death-threat
Facebook Condones Violence Against ‘Dangerous Individuals’ Before Reversing Itself.
Facebook’s latest policy update supported violence against Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones.

By Ian Miles Cheong

Facebook Condones Violence Against ‘Dangerous Individuals’ Before Reversing Itself.


July 12, 2019

Facebook issued, and later deleted, a new policy stating its position supporting violence against banned figures like Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones, both of whom have been banned from the platform.

The update went live on the site’s Community Standards page before being retracted, following widespread online backlash.

The update read:
“Do not post: Threats that could lead to death (and other forms of high-severity violence) of any target(s) where threat is defined as any of the following:
Statements of intent to commit high-severity violence; or
Calls for high-severity violence (unless the target is an organization
or individual covered in the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations
policy),
or is described as having carried out violent crimes or sexual offenses, wherein criminal/predator status has been established by media reports, market knowledge of news event, etc.” (Emphasis added).

In May, Facebook issued bans for a number of conservative political pundits including Paul Joseph Watson, whom they designated a “dangerous individual.”

“[It] is now “progressive” to allow a handful of corporate monopolists to control who has free speech and what opinions they can communicate,” wrote Watson of his ban. “What was the point of the trials of humanity over the past 300 years if we were just going to end up with some little nerds in California dictating the terms of human civilization to us from behind their MacBook screens?”
pjw
Paul Joseph Watson

With the recent update, Facebook ostensibly deemed it permissible for its users to issue threats against Watson and other “dangerous individuals,” who have been cast alongside ISIS and other terrorist organizations, some of which continue to maintain large presences on the platform, including jihadist organizations like Hezbollah and Boko Haram, and the left-wing Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Pages dedicated to these organizations can be easily found by typing their names into Facebook’s built-in search engine.

“The largest social media company in the world with over 2 billion users literally says its fine to incite violence against me, despite this being illegal. They are painting a target on my back.” – Paul Joseph Watson

As Watson says, violent threats issued against him on the platform are still considered illegal under U.K. law regardless of Facebook’s stance on the matter.

“The largest social media company in the world with over 2 billion users literally says its fine to incite violence against me, despite this being illegal,” he wrote. “They are painting a target on my back.”

Following a backlash on social media, Facebook has modified the policy update. The company issued a statement to explain that the language it previously used was “imprecise.”

“The language we previously used to describe our policies against violence and incitement was imprecise. We have since replaced it to more clearly explain the policy and underlying rationale,” Facebook stated. “In some cases, we see aspirational or conditional threats directed at terrorists and other violent actors (e.g. Terrorists deserve to be killed), and we deem those non credible absent specific evidence to the contrary.”

It’s worth noting that in addition to its tacit support of violence against “Dangerous Individuals,” the company also deemed it acceptable to threaten anyone “described as having carried out violent crimes or sexual offenses, wherein criminal/predator status has been established by media reports.”

In other words, if you’ve been judged guilty in the court of public opinion, you’re fair game.

Ian Miles Cheong is the managing editor of Human Events

Advertisements

NaturalNews.com: Why is the U.S. government importing thousands of migrants from Ebola-stricken nations and distributing them across U.S. cities?

Ebola-Spreads-World-Travel-Lines-Globe
Image: Why is the U.S. government importing thousands of migrants from Ebola-stricken nations and distributing them across U.S. cities?
https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-06-15-government-importing-migrants-from-ebola-stricken-nations.html

Why is the U.S. government importing thousands of migrants from Ebola-stricken nations and distributing them across U.S. cities?

Saturday, June 15, 2019 by: Ethan Huff

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-06-15-government-importing-migrants-from-ebola-stricken-nations.html

Image: Why is the U.S. government importing thousands of migrants from Ebola-stricken nations and distributing them across U.S. cities?

(Natural News) Health authorities have been warning the public about a new African ebola outbreak that they claim is on the verge of “leaping the border to other countries.” So why, then, are officials in the United States quietly importing — and distributing to communities all throughout America — potentially-infected migrants from these same high-risk areas?

InfoWars‘ Owen Shroyer recently attempted to get some answers about this, only to be forcibly removed from a makeshift processing center in San Antonio, Texas, where African migrants are, in fact, being dropped off before being loaded up in vans and shipped across the U.S. Watch the below video of Shroyer being flipped off, verbally-berated, and forced out of the building simply for trying to find out what’s going on, and why.

220px-Ebola_virus_virion

https://www.infowarsmedia.com/js/player.js

Even though Dew wasn’t able to get any clear answers about the situation, we do know that hundreds of illegal aliens from the Democratic Republic of Congo have already been brought into the U.S. under the cover of darkness – and many more are expected to arrive in the coming weeks.

Local news in San Antonio also reported on these incoming migrants, confirming based on information obtained from Border Patrol that another 200-300 asylum-seekers from both Congo and nearby Angola are headed to the U.S. in the coming days.

“We didn’t get a heads up,” stated Interim Assistant City Manager Dr. Collen Bridger about his city’s forced reception of these migrants.

For more related news about the illegal invasion of America by potentially disease-ridden migrants, be sure to check out InvasionUSA.news.

The power of the elements: Discover Colloidal Silver Mouthwash with quality, natural ingredients like Sangre de Drago sap, black walnut hulls, menthol crystals and more. Zero artificial sweeteners, colors or alcohol. Learn more at the Health Ranger Store and help support this news site.

Rob Dew and InfoWars crew physically, verbally assaulted by employees at Kimura Japanese restaurant
As Shroyer and his crew continued to seek answers about this unusual and highly disturbing situation taking place in San Antonio, they were physically and verbally assaulted by employees at Kimura, a Japanese restaurant located at 152 E. Pecan St. #102 in downtown San Antonio.

Watch the shocking video footage of the incident, which involved a Kimura waitress throwing chopsticks and Shroyer, as shared by Rob Dew on his Twitter page.

As usual, these deranged individuals at Kimura are heard accusing Shroyer of being “racist” simply for asking questions about why potentially ebola-infected individuals from Africa are being secretly brought into the U.S. and distributed across the country, without the knowledge or consent of the American people.

It’s further unclear who’s behind this illegal import of high-risk people, which is costing local charities “roughly $14,000 a week [for] bus tickets.”

The whole thing reeks of a planned invasion by the hidden movers and shakers who seem to be desperately trying to destabilize this country by unleashing a deadly ebola pandemic throughout North America – and at this point, there doesn’t appear to be any way to stop this from happening.

Despite being kicked out of a city building and falsely accused of “racism,” Shroyer was able to find few folks on the streets of San Antonio who agree that what’s going on with this continued import of Congolese and Angolan migrants; most think it is unacceptable and needs to be brought to light for public safety.

“Our government is trying to kill us off,” wrote one InfoWars commenter about the situation.

“They allow in ebola victims, antibiotic-resistant TB (tuberculosis) patients, diseases we had eradicated in this country, criminal illegals, and Islamic jihadists. If the ‘leaders’ cared about the American people, they wouldn’t do that.”

“Is it possible that the U.S. government actually wants to introduce disease vectors into the U.S. for the purpose of population control?” asked another. “Think about it…”

For more news about the threat of weaponized disease in America, visit Outbreak.news.

Sources for this article include:

AllNewsPipeline.com

InfoWars.com

KENS5.com

NaturalNews.com

Glyphosate found in popular brands of beer and wine, including organic

5ee3dc4b4c57b114a6da8c7ccf203163143adbed5054754d762c-640-beer-15

Glyphosate found in popular brands of beer and wine, including organic
by: Lori Alton, staff writer | May 24, 2019

https://www.naturalhealth365.com/glyphosate-found-in-wine-2937.html

Glyphosate found in popular brands of beer and wine, including organic(NaturalHealth365) It seems there’s no escaping glyphosate – the primary ingredient in Roundup, a weed killer manufacture by Monsanto. In 2017, the FDA raised alarm with a bombshell report acknowledging the presence of the pesticide in everyday foods such as breakfast cereals, honey and ice cream. Now, a new report from the California Public Interest Research Group (CalPIRG), reveals that glyphosate residue has also been found in a variety of common wines and beers sold in the United States – including those certified as organic.

As you probably know, scientific studies have linked glyphosate with a host of illnesses, including liver disease, reproductive damage and cancer. In fact, the chemical is currently the subject of thousands of state and federal lawsuits linking it to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Glyphosate found in organic beer and wine, research reveals
To conduct the test, researchers evaluated 20 samples of domestic and imported wines and beers, all sold in the United States. Sampled wine brands included conventionally-grown varieties such as Barefoot, Beringer, and Sutter Home.

And, yes, two organically grown wines, Frey and Inkarri Estates, were included.

In terms of beer, researchers looked at Coors, Corona, Heineken, Sam Adams, Stella Artois and Tsingtao. A pair of organic beers, Peak and Samuel Smith, were tested as well.

Disturbingly, all samples of the beverages contained glyphosate – albeit in varying levels.

Did you know? The liver is the most important detoxifying organ in the body. When the liver can’t effectively neutralize and dispose of toxins, they accumulate in the body. Two essential nutrients for healthy liver function are milk thistle and glutathione. These two ingredients – plus much more – are now available in an advanced liver support formula. Click here to learn more.

Sutter Home Merlot was the “high-ringer” for glyphosate found, with 51 parts per billion. Not far behind was Beringer Cabernet Sauvignon, with 42.6 ppb.

Among the beers, Tsingtao – with 49.7 ppb – was most contaminated. Budweiser, Coors, Corona and Miller had less glyphosate found, but many brands still averaged over 20 ppb.

And, while the organic beverages had the lowest levels of glyphosate, they were not devoid of the chemical – as one would expect.

Inkarri Malbec: Certified Organic had 5.2 ppb, Frey Organic Natural Wine contained 4.8 ppb, and Samuel Smith Organic Lager had 3.5 ppb. Only one sample – Peak Organic Beer – did not contain detectable amounts of glyphosate.

While these readings are all below the EPA’s tolerance for glyphosate in beverages, the CalPIRG authors point out that even infinitesimal amounts of glyphosate may be hazardous. In one study, as little as one part per trillion of glyphosate was capable of stimulating the growth of breast cancer cells and disrupting the endocrine system.

In addition, ingestion of amounts as small as 0.1 ppb can destroy beneficial gut bacteria, thereby disrupting the balance of the all-important gut microbiome.

Natural health advocates call for total ban on glyphosate
Roundup – the most commonly used agricultural chemical in the world – is currently heavily sprayed on food crops in the United States, including wheat, soybeans and corn.

The development of Roundup Ready seeds – GMO seeds engineered specifically for use with glyphosate – has caused use of the pesticide to skyrocket in recent decades. For example, the U.S. applied close to 275 million pounds of glyphosate in 2016, compared to less than 10 million pounds in 1992.

Although glyphosate was originally billed as a ‘healthy alternative’ to more dangerous pesticides, a growing body of research is drawing attention to the health risks. Currently, many natural health advocates and experts – including CalPIRG, who authored the report – call for the banning of glyphosate until/unless it can be proven safe.

Of course, many natural health experts, physicians and researchers maintain that “glyphosate safety” is the very epitome of an oxymoron, along the lines of such famous examples as “jumbo shrimp.”

In 2015, the World Health Organization classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen – and went on record as saying that the chemical could pose “significant risks” to human health. In 2017, the state of California agreed, officially listing the pesticide as a likely carcinogen as well.

And some California communities have completely banned the use of glyphosate-based pesticides on city property. No doubt, the growing backlash against glyphosate appears to be reflected in the courts.

Last year, a California jury ruled that Monsanto pay $289 million to a man dying of cancer, who said his illness resulted from repeated exposure to glyphosate in his job as a groundskeeper.

Use as a weed killer and drying agent allows glyphosate to enter food and drink
It’s really not much of a stretch to see how glyphosate enters foods made from conventionally-grown crops.

Roundup is routinely sprayed on agricultural fields, including on barley and wheat crops used in brewing, and in vineyards that yield grapes for wine. In addition to being used to kill weeds, glyphosate is sometimes used as a preharvest “dessicant,” or drying agent – and is sprayed directly on plants!

In addition, contamination can occur from water used to irrigate fields. Although we rarely hear about the issue of toxic water being used on our food supply.

Glyphosate easily enters waterways, runoffs, rivers and streams. In one study, glyphosate was found in 70 percent of rainwater samples tested.

Other studies detected glyphosate in several Midwestern streams at the height of the growing season. But, organic contamination is harder to explain – as organic brewers and vintners are prohibited from using glyphosate.

But possible culprits could include overspray from neighboring farms, toxic water supplies and contamination from airborne drift – which can occur over several hundred feet.

And, because glyphosate residue can linger in soil and water for years, contamination can occur in organic fields which have been converted from conventional farming.

Shocking fact: There are currently no safety limits for glyphosate in beer and wine
CalPIRG recommended that the United States follow the lead of countries such as France – and American communities such as Irvine, California – and outlaw glyphosate outright. Click here to sign the CalPIRG petition calling for a ban on glyphosate.

At the very least, CalPIRG asks that food tolerance levels for glyphosate be reconsidered – and that the EPA set limits for beer and wine (currently, safety limits for these beverages are non-existent. Also, items should be tested by the USDA for glyphosate before they appear in stores – not after the fact.

In addition, the report urged growers to stop spraying glyphosate on and near fields and between vines – and instead explore alternate methods of weed control, such as ground cover. To prevent cross-contamination of organic fields, there should be a wide buffer between these and neighboring conventional fields.

Health tip: If you still want to enjoy wine, but want a safer option, listen to Jonathan Landsman’s NaturalHealth365 podcast: “The Wine Industry Exposed.”

Continue to remind stores, breweries and vineyards in your area to look for sustainable ways to grow produce – and, as always, buy organic beers and wines. While not always free of glyphosate, these to contain much smaller amounts.

According to CalPIRG representative Laura Deehan, it is “incredibly difficult to avoid the troubling reality that consumers will likely drink glyphosate at every happy hour and backyard barbecue around the country.”

Glyphosate, warns Deehan, could prove a “true risk” to many Americans’ health.

It is up to us to try to stop the “horror show” of skyrocketing glyphosate use – and we can do so by working together to ensure that environmental agencies do their jobs – and that corporations such as Monsanto are held accountable for their actions.

Sources for this article include:

Sustainablepulse.com
Calpirg.org
NaturalHealth365.com

Actor Jeffrey Wright on Wednesday appeared to warn that when the political left in America “get the power” back from Republicans, “everybody else” should “fucking duck.”

Jeffrey-Wright1-640x480
(Photo by Cindy Ord/Getty Images for Tribeca Film Festival)
Cindy Ord/Getty Images for Tribeca Film Festival

Actor Jeffrey Wright: When We Get the Power, Everybody Else F**king Duck

Jeffrey-Wright1-640x480

NEW YORK, NY – APRIL 19: Jeffrey Wright speaks at the premiere of “Westworld” during the 2018 Tribeca Film Festival at BMCC Tribeca PAC on April 19, 2018 in New York City.
JEROME HUDSON29 May 201915,717
1:52

Actor Jeffrey Wright on Wednesday appeared to warn that when the political left in America “get the power” back from Republicans, “everybody else” should “fucking duck.”

“Message from the @GOP:” Jeffrey Wright began, “There are no principles — not ethical, moral, legal, constitutional, religious, spiritual — NONE. There’s only power. And when we get the power, everybody else fucking duck.”

“Lesson for everybody else: Get the power,” the Westworld star’s message concluded. It came as former Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivered remarks at the Justice Department on Wednesday about the conclusion of his election interference investigation.

“If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Robert Mueller said, Wednesday echoing the conclusions made in his 800-plus page report. “Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge. So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated.”

“And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime,” Mueller said. “That is the office’s final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president.”

Indeed, Jeffrey Wright was merely among the many Hollywood celebrities who demanded that Congress began to take steps to impeach President Donald Trump

“Robert Mueller shorter: Impeach. The process was designed for this,” Wright said on Wednesday, joining the chorus of Hollywood figures calling for Trump’s impeachment.

Follow Jerome Hudson on Twitter @jeromeehudson

EntertainmentPolitics

Why didn’t California’s vaccine mandate stop the measles? By Ethan Huff

Patient-Sick-Measles-Chick-Pocks-Red-Marks-Spots
Why didn’t California’s vaccine mandate stop the measles?
05/02/2019 / By Ethan Huff

https://www.newstarget.com/2019-05-02-why-didnt-californias-vaccine-mandate-stop-the-measles.html

On June 30, 2015, then-California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the infamous Senate Bill 277, an authoritarian legislative bill proudly sponsored and aggressively pushed by Senator Richard Pan of Sacramento that eliminated all vaccine exemptions throughout the Golden State, save for those considered to be medical in nature – meaning only licensed doctors are allowed to sign off on them.

Co-sponsored by Sen. Ben Allen of Redondo Beach, SB 277 was supposed to eliminate all measles outbreaks, or so we were told, like the one that occurred at Disneyland back in 2014, which Pan blamed on children who hadn’t been vaccinated with Merck & Co.’s MMR vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella.

But if Pan’s claims about unvaccinated children causing measles outbreaks like this are actually true, then why is California right now experiencing what the mainstream media is describing as a “serious” measles outbreak, more than four years after SB 277 became law, that’s reportedly already led to at least two public college campuses having to quarantine their students and faculty?

According to official news reports, more than 200 students and faculty members just in the Southern California area have been confirmed to have measles, and all of them were recently ordered to stay home and avoid all contact with others – but how is this scenario even possible with Pan’s disease-preventing vaccine legislation in place?

The only reasonable and logical answer, of course, is that, even when vaccines are mandated basically at gunpoint, they don’t actually stop disease outbreaks. And in the case of measles, anyway, the MMR vaccine, which has repeatedly been shown to cause autism, doesn’t even work as claimed at preventing measles.

100% organic essential oil sets now available for your home and personal care, including Rosemary, Oregano, Eucalyptus, Tea Tree, Clary Sage and more, all 100% organic and laboratory tested for safety. A multitude of uses, from stress reduction to topical first aid. See the complete listing here, and help support this news site.

For related news, be sure to check out Vaccines.news.

Merck is right now being sued for publishing fake efficacy data about its MMR vaccine
We now know that Merck has been falsifying vaccine safety and efficacy data for a very long time, publishing fake research data about the MMR vaccine, in particular suggesting that it provides some protection against measles, mumps and rubella, without causing harmful side effects.

In truth, however, the MMR vaccine doesn’t actually work, and isn’t at all safe, despite what fake news outlets, including Fox News, are now claiming in an attempt to scare the public into rushing out and getting jabbed with MMR.

Children’s Health Defense, a health freedom child advocacy group, is actually in the process of suing Merck over its falsified MMR data, which continues to harm and kill innocent children whose parents have been falsely led to believe that the MMR vaccine is both safe and effective – when it’s actually neither.

“If you’re wondering why so many people who were vaccinated against measles, mumps and rubella are now being infected with the measles, you have to remember that Merck faked its MMR vaccine efficacy data by spiking human blood samples with animal antibodies, according to two former Merck employees who say they were ordered by Merck management to carry out the massive science fraud,” warns Mike Adams, the Health Ranger.

So-called “herd immunity” is a total fraud
Another massive science fraud being foisted on the masses is the concept of “herd immunity,” which maintains that vaccines only work if everybody gets them. Not only is such an idea completely preposterous from a medical standpoint, but it’s patently false in every way. Vaccines don’t even provide real immunity, it turns out, but rather temporary, or artificial, “immunity,” at best, that wanes over time, leaving patients susceptible to not only contracting future infections, but also spreading them.

This is exactly what we saw happen during the Disneyland measles outbreak, as only 14 percent of those affected were unvaccinated, according to a JAMA Pediatrics study. The other 86 percent of those who contracted measles at Disneyland had previously been vaccinated with MMR.

It’s important to also keep in mind that those who contract diseases like measles naturally obtain permanent, lifelong immunity once the disease subsides, which is what occurred for the 14 percent of unvaccinated people at Disneyland who contracted measles. The other 86 percent, on the other hand, not only weren’t protected against measles, but are now vaccine-damaged to the point where they’ll never have permanent immunity to measles, and will likely contract it again and again.

Fake news media constantly creates mass hysteria over disease “outbreaks” in order to push more vaccines that don’t work
But because millions of Americans still believe everything they’re told by corrupt politicians and the lying fake news media outlets and industries that control them, many folks are being successfully fear-mongered into getting themselves and their children vaccinated as a way to “protect” society against measles outbreaks – which isn’t even all that big of a deal, by the way, as it’s basically like contracting chickenpox.

Millions of Americans also remain woefully unaware of the fact that many vaccines, including MMR, are loaded with harmful adjuvants like aborted human fetal tissue and deadly chemicals – and that’s because many of them simply won’t read the manufacturer-issued ingredients lists that come with vaccines, and that are republished by the CDC, for themselves.

It’s a truly sad state of affairs where everyday folks who are fully capable of doing a little homework are refusing to do so, instead choosing to believe their favorite politicians and fake news media outlets that continue to claim that legitimate safety and efficacy concerns about vaccines are just “Jenny McCarthy-inspired conspiracy theories.”

To learn more about how the fake news media and “health authorities” are deceiving the public about vaccines, be sure to check out Propaganda.news.

Sources for this article include:

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

CNN.com

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

FoxNews.com

ChildrensHealthDefense.org

NaturalNews.com

NYT editorial argues that extinction of the human race would be good for planet Earth

Planet-Earth-Blue-Human-Eye-Elements

NYT editorial argues that extinction of the human race would be good for planet Earth

https://www.depopulation.news/2019-01-07-nyt-editorial-argues-extinction-of-humans-good-for-planet-earth.html

01/07/2019 / By Vicki Batts

The mainstream media is now trying to “normalize” the depopulation agenda. In a recent NYT editorial, Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?, Clemson University professor Todd May argues that the end of humanity wouldn’t be so bad after all. The left-wing has been using the global warming narrative to conjure up fear about imminent human extinction for years now, but declaring that the end of humanity would be good for the planet is taking the global depopulation agenda to a whole new level.

It would seem that the left-wing media is now launching the next phase of this grand extinction scheme. By publishing the opinion of Mr. Todd May, The New York Times is at the very least showing that this point of view is worthy of such a lofty platform, if not a full-blown endorsement. As Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, recently reported, there are many, many signs that the “extermination agenda” has already begun — and with headlines like Mays’ NYT piece floating around, it’s clear that the media is trying to push depopulation as the new “normal.”

What starts off as a “fringe” idea can very quickly become mainstream thought, if its publicized the right way. And it looks like the globalist Left is moving towards adopting depopulation as the next big thing on the party line.
NYT editorial says human extinction is “good”

In a recent opinion piece for the Times, Mr. Todd Mays states, “Human beings are destroying large parts of the inhabitable earth and causing unimaginable suffering to many of the animals that inhabit it.” He notes that humans are destroying the Earth through at least three different means: Factory farming and animal suffering, climate change, and an increasing human population. None of these things are going away any time soon, Mays contends.

“Humanity, then, is the source of devastation of the lives of conscious animals on a scale that is difficult to comprehend,” the chemistry professor states.

Throughout the article, Mays compares and contrasts the sins of humanity against the greatness our species has also managed to achieve, asking if the things some select humans have accomplished have been worth the price our planet has been forced to pay.

While Mays does not come to an official conclusion on the matter, he does state, “It may well be, then, that the extinction of humanity would make the world better off and yet would be a tragedy.”
Advancing the depopulation agenda

As writer Michael Snyder notes, Mays’ arguments also seem to insinuate that only cultures which have contributed something worthwhile are worth preserving. While other academics have pointed to population control or population reduction, Mays is jumping straight to total extinction.

In a recent article, Mike Adams, founder of Natural News and creator of Brighteon.com, revealed that many of the events happening in our world today are tied to one ultimate cause: Ending humanity. Adams writes:

Inescapably, a core feature of everything happening today is an anti-human agenda to exterminate humankind. Every major trend taking place today is preparing humankind for a mass extermination event, making sure humans cannot fight back, think for themselves or even reproduce.

Adams points to the aggressive calls to disarm citizens, cultural attacks on fertility and masculinity, poisoning of the food supply and other key issues as signs that there is a plan to take down the human race — and it’s already been put into action.

You can see more coverage of the globalist agenda at Depopulation.news.

Sources for this article include:

InfoWars.com

NYTimes.com

Homomutatus

500px-Homogenitus-and-Homomutatus
(Photo Courtesy of https://cloudatlas.wmo.int/homomutatus.html)

You might wonder what the hell a Homomutatus is.

a0971204103-16
(Photo Courtesy of https://theunabombermanifesto.bandcamp.com/album/homomutatus)

Homomutatus Cloud: Caused By Human Activity
https://whatsthiscloud.com/other-clouds/homomutatus/

cirrus-fibratus-homomutatus
https://whatsthiscloud.com/other-clouds/homomutatus/

homomutatus-cloud

Now for stupid question of the day…

Who are we supposed to trust enough with our lives, to just sit back and let the likes of Bill Gates and several other nazi-types decide what they are going to pollute us with????

Radical plan to artificially cool Earth’s climate could be safe, study finds
Experts worry that injecting sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere could put some regions at risk
Emily Holden in Washington
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/11/solar-geoengineering-climate-change-new-study

Mon 11 Mar 2019 15.09 EDT Last modified on Fri 15 Mar 2019 16.45 EDT

Study co-author says: ‘There is the possibility that solar geoengineering could really substantially reduce climate risks for the most vulnerable.’

clouds2
(photo: https://www.popsci.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-geoengineering)

A new study contradicts fears that using solar geoengineering to fight climate change could dangerously alter rainfall and storm patterns in some parts of the world.

Published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change, the analysis finds that cooling the Earth enough to eliminate roughly half of warming, rather than all of it, generally would not make tropical cyclones more intense or worsen water availability, extreme temperatures or extreme rain. Only a small fraction of places, 0.4%, might see climate change impacts worsened, the study says.

Many climate experts have warned that cooling the Earth but keeping twice as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as before industrialization could put some regions at risk.

One scientist who read the paper published on Monday said it was not comprehensive enough to conclude that solar geoengineering – most likely involving spraying sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere, thereby mimicking gas from volcanoes and reflecting the sun’s heat – would be safe.

Some climate advocacy groups argue that banking on an unproven technology could hamstring efforts to reduce carbon dioxide still spewing from power plants and cars.

But study co-author David Keith, a Harvard professor who works in engineering and public policy, said researchers should not rule out geoengineering yet.

“I am not saying we know it works and we should do it now,” he said. “Indeed, I would absolutely oppose deployment now. There’s still only a little group of people looking at this, there’s lots of uncertainty.”

Keith said the study’s main message was that “there is the possibility that solar geoengineering could really substantially reduce climate risks for the most vulnerable”.

Sign up to the Green Light email to get the planet’s most important stories
Read more
The findings come as Nairobi hosts a United Nations Environment Programme meeting on limiting climate change. A UN-approved report last year – the 1.5 degree report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – said that geoengineering by injecting sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere may be necessary but would come with major uncertainties.

Keith hopes to dispel what he believes may be unsupported worries. Another scientist, however, said he was overstating the new study’s findings.

The analysis used climate modeling to project what could happen if the heat of the sun was turned down. Alan Robock, a geophysics professor and researcher at Rutgers University in New Jersey, said it did not examine the potential effects of doing that with the most likely method: spraying aerosols into the atmosphere.

“They focus in this paper on temperature and water availability in different regions,” Robock said. “Those are only two things that would change with stratospheric aerosols.” He added that previous studies have made similar conclusions.

Robock said one of his studies contains a list of 27 reasons why Earth-cooling aerosols might be a bad idea. And he added that the technology could cost hundreds of billions of dollars a year and would pose complicated ethical questions, such as whether people have a right to see a blue sky.

“We’re not able right now to say whether, if global warming continues, we should ever decide to start spraying this stuff into the stratosphere,” Robock said. “Would solar-radiation management, would geoengineering make it more dangerous or less dangerous?

“That’s the question we have to answer, and we don’t have enough information.”