Jump to content

kj35

Members
  • Posts

    2,411
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by kj35

  1. What was pleasing about this story was the congregation was up in arms showing that the masses can be pushed too far.
  2. It says season one but looks like just one episode? Season 2 is on prime. I'll take a look and report back. I've even got a photo of me on Hitler's main headquarters stairs, the same stairs they did tons of photos from. The building they're in in Munich is owned by a private company now. I didn't know until after the photo was taken.
  3. Thanks for this I've just downloaded it. Will watch later. I've been in Hitler's tunnels in Munich so it'll be interesting to see what they say about them.
  4. Copy of the open letter Open Letter to Bill Gates from AGRA Watch & 50 Co-Signers Posted on November 11, 2022 An Open Letter to Bill Gates on Food, Farming, and Africa AGRA Watch drafted this letter in response to two recent articles we found very troubling. We are joined by 50 organizations focused on food sovereignty and justice worldwide, who want Bill Gates to know there is no shortage of practical solutions and innovations by African farmers and organizations. We invite him to step back and learn from those on the ground. Published November 10, 2022 on Common Dreams: https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/11/10/open-letter-bill-gates-food-farming-and-africa Share the Instagram story Dear Bill Gates: You were recently featured commenting on the global state of agriculture and food insecurity, in a recent New York Times op-ed by David Wallace-Wells and also in an Associated Press article. In both articles, you make a number of claims that are inaccurate and need to be challenged. Both pieces admit that the world currently produces enough food to adequately feed all the earth’s inhabitants, yet you continue to fundamentally misdiagnose the problem as relating to low productivity; we do not need to increase production as much as to assure more equitable access to food. In addition, there are four specific distortions in these pieces which should be addressed, namely: 1) the supposed need for “credit for fertilizer, cheap fertilizer” to ensure agricultural productivity, 2) the idea that the Green Revolution of the mid-20th century needs to be replicated now to address hunger, 3) the idea that “better” seeds, often produced by large corporations, are required to cope with climate change, and 4) your suggestion that if people have solutions that “aren’t singing Kumbaya,” you’ll put money behind them. First, synthetic fertilizers contribute 2% of overall greenhouse gas emissions and are the primary source of nitrous oxide emissions. Producing nitrogen fertilizers requires 3-5% of the world’s fossil gas. They also make farmers and importing nations dependent on volatile prices on international markets, and are a major cause of rising food prices globally. Yet you claim that even more fertilizer is needed to increase agricultural productivity and address hunger. Toxic and damaging synthetic fertilizers are not a feasible way forward. Already, companies, organizations, and farmers in Africa and elsewhere have been developing biofertilizers made from compost, manure, and ash, and biopesticides made from botanical compounds, such as neem tree oil or garlic. These products can be manufactured locally (thereby avoiding dependency and price volatility), and can be increasingly scaled up and commercialized. Second, the Green Revolution was far from a resounding success. While it did play some role in increasing the yields of cereal crops in Mexico, India, and elsewhere from the 1940s to the 1960s, it did very little to reduce the number of hungry people in the world or to ensure equitable and sufficient access to food. It also came with a host of other problems, from ecological issues like long-term soil degradation to socio-economic ones like increased inequality and indebtedness (which has been a major contributor to the epidemic of farmer suicides in India). Your unquestioning support for a “new” Green Revolution demonstrates willful ignorance about history and about the root causes of hunger (which are by and large about political and economic arrangements, and what the economist Amartya Sen famously referred to as entitlements, not about a global lack of food). Third, climate-resilient seeds are already in existence and being developed by farmers and traded through informal seed markets. Sorghum, which you tout in your interview as a so-called “orphan crop”, is among these already established climate-adapted crops. You note that most investments have been in maize and rice, rather than in locally-adapted and nutritious cereals like sorghum. Yet AGRA (the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa), which your foundation (the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) created and financed, has been among those institutions that have disproportionately focused on maize and rice. In other words, you are part of creating the very problem you name. The AGRA initiative, which your foundation continues to fund, has also pushed restrictive seed legislation that limits and restricts crop innovation to well-resourced labs and companies. These initiatives don’t increase widespread innovation, but rather contribute to the privatization and consolidation of corporate monopolies over seed development and seed markets. Finally, your assertion that critics of your approach are simply “singing Kumbaya,” rather than developing meaningful (and fundable) solutions, is extremely disrespectful and dismissive. There are already many tangible, ongoing proposals and projects that work to boost productivity and food security–from biofertilizer and biopesticide manufacturing facilities, to agroecological farmer training programs, to experimentation with new water and soil management techniques, low-input farming systems, and pest-deterring plant species. What you are doing here is gaslighting–presenting practical, ongoing, farmer-led solutions as somehow fanciful or ridiculous, while presenting your own preferred approaches as pragmatic. Yet it is your preferred high-tech solutions, including genetic engineering, new breeding technologies, and now digital agriculture, that have in fact consistently failed to reduce hunger or increase food access as promised. And in some cases, the “solutions” you expound as fixes for climate change actually contribute to the the biophysical processes driving the problem (e.g. more fossil-fuel based fertilizers, and more fossil-fuel dependent infrastructure to transport them) or exacerbate the political conditions that lead to inequality in food access (e.g. policies and seed breeding initiatives that benefit large corporations and labs, rather than farmers themselves). In both articles, you radically simplify complex issues in ways that justify your own approach and interventions. You note in the New York Times op-ed that Africa, with the lowest costs of labor and land, should be a net exporter of agricultural products. You explain that the reason it is not is because “their productivity is much lower than in rich countries and you just don’t have the infrastructure.” However, costs of land and labor, as well as infrastructures, are socially and politically produced. Africa is in fact highly productive–it’s just that the profits are realized elsewhere. Through colonization, neoliberalism, debt traps, and other forms of legalized pillaging, African lives, environments, and bodies have been devalued and made into commodities for the benefit and profit of others. Infrastructures have been designed to channel these commodities outside of the continent itself. Africa is not self-sufficient in cereals because its agricultural, mining, and other resource-intensive sectors have been structured in ways that are geared toward serving colonial and then international markets, rather than African peoples themselves. Although you are certainly not responsible for all of this, you and your foundation are exacerbating some of these problems through a very privatized, profit-based, and corporate approach to agriculture. There is no shortage of practical solutions and innovations by African farmers and organizations. We invite you to step back and learn from those on the ground. At the same time, we invite high profile news outlets to be more cautious about lending credibility to one wealthy white man’s flawed assumptions, hubris, and ignorance, at the expense of people and communities who are living and adapting to these realities as we speak. From: Community Alliance for Global Justice/AGRA Watch Signatories:- Skip to content 1322 S Bayview Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98144 (206) 405-4600 Menu Open Letter to Bill Gates from AGRA Watch & 50 Co-Signers Posted on November 11, 2022 An Open Letter to Bill Gates on Food, Farming, and Africa AGRA Watch drafted this letter in response to two recent articles we found very troubling. We are joined by 50 organizations focused on food sovereignty and justice worldwide, who want Bill Gates to know there is no shortage of practical solutions and innovations by African farmers and organizations. We invite him to step back and learn from those on the ground. Published November 10, 2022 on Common Dreams: https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/11/10/open-letter-bill-gates-food-farming-and-africa Share the Instagram story Dear Bill Gates: You were recently featured commenting on the global state of agriculture and food insecurity, in a recent New York Times op-ed by David Wallace-Wells and also in an Associated Press article. In both articles, you make a number of claims that are inaccurate and need to be challenged. Both pieces admit that the world currently produces enough food to adequately feed all the earth’s inhabitants, yet you continue to fundamentally misdiagnose the problem as relating to low productivity; we do not need to increase production as much as to assure more equitable access to food. In addition, there are four specific distortions in these pieces which should be addressed, namely: 1) the supposed need for “credit for fertilizer, cheap fertilizer” to ensure agricultural productivity, 2) the idea that the Green Revolution of the mid-20th century needs to be replicated now to address hunger, 3) the idea that “better” seeds, often produced by large corporations, are required to cope with climate change, and 4) your suggestion that if people have solutions that “aren’t singing Kumbaya,” you’ll put money behind them. First, synthetic fertilizers contribute 2% of overall greenhouse gas emissions and are the primary source of nitrous oxide emissions. Producing nitrogen fertilizers requires 3-5% of the world’s fossil gas. They also make farmers and importing nations dependent on volatile prices on international markets, and are a major cause of rising food prices globally. Yet you claim that even more fertilizer is needed to increase agricultural productivity and address hunger. Toxic and damaging synthetic fertilizers are not a feasible way forward. Already, companies, organizations, and farmers in Africa and elsewhere have been developing biofertilizers made from compost, manure, and ash, and biopesticides made from botanical compounds, such as neem tree oil or garlic. These products can be manufactured locally (thereby avoiding dependency and price volatility), and can be increasingly scaled up and commercialized. Second, the Green Revolution was far from a resounding success. While it did play some role in increasing the yields of cereal crops in Mexico, India, and elsewhere from the 1940s to the 1960s, it did very little to reduce the number of hungry people in the world or to ensure equitable and sufficient access to food. It also came with a host of other problems, from ecological issues like long-term soil degradation to socio-economic ones like increased inequality and indebtedness (which has been a major contributor to the epidemic of farmer suicides in India). Your unquestioning support for a “new” Green Revolution demonstrates willful ignorance about history and about the root causes of hunger (which are by and large about political and economic arrangements, and what the economist Amartya Sen famously referred to as entitlements, not about a global lack of food). Third, climate-resilient seeds are already in existence and being developed by farmers and traded through informal seed markets. Sorghum, which you tout in your interview as a so-called “orphan crop”, is among these already established climate-adapted crops. You note that most investments have been in maize and rice, rather than in locally-adapted and nutritious cereals like sorghum. Yet AGRA (the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa), which your foundation (the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) created and financed, has been among those institutions that have disproportionately focused on maize and rice. In other words, you are part of creating the very problem you name. The AGRA initiative, which your foundation continues to fund, has also pushed restrictive seed legislation that limits and restricts crop innovation to well-resourced labs and companies. These initiatives don’t increase widespread innovation, but rather contribute to the privatization and consolidation of corporate monopolies over seed development and seed markets. Finally, your assertion that critics of your approach are simply “singing Kumbaya,” rather than developing meaningful (and fundable) solutions, is extremely disrespectful and dismissive. There are already many tangible, ongoing proposals and projects that work to boost productivity and food security–from biofertilizer and biopesticide manufacturing facilities, to agroecological farmer training programs, to experimentation with new water and soil management techniques, low-input farming systems, and pest-deterring plant species. What you are doing here is gaslighting–presenting practical, ongoing, farmer-led solutions as somehow fanciful or ridiculous, while presenting your own preferred approaches as pragmatic. Yet it is your preferred high-tech solutions, including genetic engineering, new breeding technologies, and now digital agriculture, that have in fact consistently failed to reduce hunger or increase food access as promised. And in some cases, the “solutions” you expound as fixes for climate change actually contribute to the the biophysical processes driving the problem (e.g. more fossil-fuel based fertilizers, and more fossil-fuel dependent infrastructure to transport them) or exacerbate the political conditions that lead to inequality in food access (e.g. policies and seed breeding initiatives that benefit large corporations and labs, rather than farmers themselves). In both articles, you radically simplify complex issues in ways that justify your own approach and interventions. You note in the New York Times op-ed that Africa, with the lowest costs of labor and land, should be a net exporter of agricultural products. You explain that the reason it is not is because “their productivity is much lower than in rich countries and you just don’t have the infrastructure.” However, costs of land and labor, as well as infrastructures, are socially and politically produced. Africa is in fact highly productive–it’s just that the profits are realized elsewhere. Through colonization, neoliberalism, debt traps, and other forms of legalized pillaging, African lives, environments, and bodies have been devalued and made into commodities for the benefit and profit of others. Infrastructures have been designed to channel these commodities outside of the continent itself. Africa is not self-sufficient in cereals because its agricultural, mining, and other resource-intensive sectors have been structured in ways that are geared toward serving colonial and then international markets, rather than African peoples themselves. Although you are certainly not responsible for all of this, you and your foundation are exacerbating some of these problems through a very privatized, profit-based, and corporate approach to agriculture. There is no shortage of practical solutions and innovations by African farmers and organizations. We invite you to step back and learn from those on the ground. At the same time, we invite high profile news outlets to be more cautious about lending credibility to one wealthy white man’s flawed assumptions, hubris, and ignorance, at the expense of people and communities who are living and adapting to these realities as we speak. From: Community Alliance for Global Justice/AGRA Watch Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA) Biodiversity and Biosafety Association of Kenya (BIBA) Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI) GRAIN African Centre for Biodiversity Kenya Food Rights Alliance Growth Partners Grassroots International Agroecology Fund US Food Sovereignty Alliance National Family Farm Coalition Family Farm Defenders Oakland Institute A Growing Culture ETC Group Food in Neighborhoods Community Coalition Detroit Black Community Food Security Network Sustainable Agriculture of Louisville Haki Nawiri Afrika Real Food Media Agroecology Research-Action Collective Environmental Rights Action/ Friends of the Earth Nigeria (ERA/FoEN) Les Amis de la Terre Togo/ Friends of the Earth Togo Justiça Ambiental/ JA FoE Mozambique Friends of the Earth Africa Health of Mother Health Foundation (HOMEF) Committee on Vital Environmental Resources (COVER) The Young Environmental Network (TYEN) GMO Free Nigeria Community Development Advocacy Foundation African Centre for Rural and Environmental Development Connected Advocacy Policy Alert Zero Waste Ambassadors Student Environmental Assembly Nigeria (SEAN) Host Community Network, Nigeria (HoCON) Green Alliance Nigeria (GAN) Hope for Tomorrow Initiative (HfTI) Media Awareness and Justice Initiative (MAJI) We The People Rainbow Watch and Development Centre BFA Food and Health Foundation Corporate Accountability and Public Participation Africa (CAPPA) Women and Children Life Advancement Initiative Network of Women in Agriculture Nigeria (NWIN) Gender and Environmental Risks Reduction Initiative (GERI) Gender and Community Empowerment Initiative Eco defenders Network Urban Rural Environmental Defenders (URED) Peace Point Development Foundation (PPDF) Community Support Centre, Nigeria
  5. I know Russell Brand is not everyone's cup of tea however this video on Bill Gates and farming is quite good ( and short). https://rumble.com/v1ufqas-the-dark-truth-about-bill-gates.html
  6. It's interesting. If you put yourself in a position where you are responsible for the whole world and without some semblance of order anarchy breaks out and murder and violent disorder runs everything, which appears to me to be where most humans devolve to without external moral pressure then how do you control the world? Religion has been useful so has moral blackmail, same thing.
  7. I'm not articulating well. Apologies not massively well today with pain. WE know there's excess deaths WE know what's causing it. But Coventry news isn't covering the excess deaths story it's saying a bloke had a medical emergency and died. Something that is ordinarily so run of the mill it wouldn't make your local town Facebook page and yet it's not seen as odd by anyone. So are the press warming up to start reporting on these excess deaths ? Because it's now so obvious to the vaxxed Joe Public that everyone they know has heart issues? I do hope so. And as you say to cover up they're using this new phrase to hide it for a bit longer.
  8. Yes. But why on earth would Coventry news even report this ? WE know there's more of it going on but it is still an everyday occurrence surely? People die of heart attacks or whatever every day.
  9. I don't get why that's even news though ? It's like " woman gets out of bed and has shower" . That stuff happens multiple times a day every day. Am I missing something?
  10. The wechat also has total verification so they know exactly who is posting what. See also Musk's fuss re bots and verified users as part of the sale.
  11. kj35

    A HUMOUR THREAD

    How to avoid 'trick or treaters' this year
  12. Hi x I've put a translation on the war thread
  13. Literally one week later my own mother in law had an episode of uncontrolled bleeding and different paramedics asked the same question about vaccine. " have you been vaccinated recently? " "which one? " and I was there. They know. This is 2 weeks ago.
  14. God. That's so good. I now know someone personally who has died as a result of the latest 2 in 1 vaccine . Paramedics attending asked specifically which vaccine she had had and confirmed they were attending extra call outs because of it.
  15. Putin openly discusses global world order in speech 27/10/22 There are 'tectonic shifts of the whole global order', Putin says, as questions turn to Ukraine Vladimir Putin is then asked what has changed in the world in the last year, for, as some suggest, it has been turned upside down. He said: "What's happening in Ukraine in particular, these are not changes that are currently under way or are under way since the start of the special military operation. "These changes have been happening for many years now. Some have been paying attention. "These are tectonic shifts of the whole global order. "First, it's all very calm, very tranquil... these plates are on the move constantly and then they come up against one another, the tensions build up and an earthquake happens. "This is what happens here. First, an accumulation of tensions and then an earthquake. "These tensions used to happen in the past. New centres of powers are emerging - I'm not the only one to say that. "These changes are happening due to objective reasons." Mr Putin said it is the "West that has driven us to this point" in Ukraine. However, he said what is happening in Ukraine will "benefit Russia and its future" because it will "help reinforce its sovereignty - in all domains but in particular in its economic fields." "In the past we were thinking we were turning into some kind of Islamic colony because we couldn't do anything without or Western partners," he said. Mr Putin insisted Russia can "replace those who are leaving our markets" in the wake of the war in Ukraine.
  16. If all you have is minor ligament dysfunction I agree. But it can be almost impossible to spot without an MRI. Thd hospital missed my broken neck a further accident prompted investigations which revealed a previously broken neck which had self healed. Osteos had tried a few osteo techniques thankfully unsuccessfully as there was a tiny amount of undamaged spinal cord left at one place which if osteo techniques had succeeded would have paralysed me from the neck down. So I'm naturally cautious . If you've had everything checked with an MRI and no cause can be found and osteos bring some relief...fill your boots.
  17. The best book I have found for teaching the basics including remote viewing is ingo swann "Everybody's Guide to Natural ESP: Unlocking the Extrasensory Power of Your Mind'
  18. What an incredible way to get the message across.
  19. 100% do NOT do this. You need to see a qualified physiotherapist. Of someone had tried to manipulate my back without an MRI they'd have paralysed me.
  20. It only recently dawned on me that the apple with a bite out of it represented the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge pushed on humans by the 'devil'. I can be a bit slow.
  21. This book was recommended in my stay in spinal rehab by the physios.
  22. Aahh..dunno. right place right time. I wish I'd done black and often say I'm black belt anyway ( pride) . There's 2 brown belts. 1st brown and 2nd brown. 2nd brown is pretty identical to black but to be awarded black you have to commit to take a class and teach and I just couldn't/ didn't have the time to to that. It's a good rule.
×
×
  • Create New...