It is known

[Taomeow]

24 minutes ago, Nungali said:

( what the f**** is that human woman       'partner' ?      ' so amused about  ? ? ?    )

 

Who knows.  Maybe she's on the same page with me and knows that this, too, shall pass and that the future is bright.  

 

[Taomeow]

 

Biden Picks “Mr. Monsanto” Tom Vilsack to Head the USDA

DECEMBER 29, 2020 AT 4:03 PM

 

Under Obama, Vilsack brought us cloned farm animals, lab-grown meat and more GMOs than any Agriculture Secretary before or after him

 

 

“No More Malarkey” Joe Biden just nominated one of Monsanto’s best friends to head the US Department of Agriculture.

During his eight years under Obama, Tom Vilsack earned the nickname “Mr. Monsanto” for approving more new genetically modified organisms than any Agriculture Secretary in history, and for making gobs of money for every approval.

The Organic Consumer’s Association has compiled a list of GMOs we have to thank him for:

 

• Roundup Ready sugar beets. A judge ruled Monsanto’s sugar beets would inevitably contaminate other crops, eventually “eliminating a consumer’s choice to eat non-genetically engineered food.”

• Roundup Ready alfalfa. Monsanto’s first genetically modified perennial went wild, costing alfalfa growers millions.

• Monsanto’s DroughtGard corn. The GMO seeds actually ended up yielding 11% LESS corn than conventional corn during the 2012 drought.

• Dicamba-tolerant Xtend soy and cotton.  Several states have banned Monsanto’s dicamba herbicide since its approval in 2015, after it drifted and destroyed millions of acres of conventional soy, as well as nurseries, vineyards, vegetables, trees and native plants.

• Roundup Ready lawn grass. Vilsack told the Scotts Miracle-Gro it didn’t need permits to sell genetically engineered grass commercially.

• Agrisure corn. Vilsack allowed Syngenta to sell corn seed with genetically engineered traits that were illegal in China to U.S. farmers. The corn crop was rejected by the markets, costing farmers $1.5 billion.

• Ethanol-only corn. Unsuitable for human or animal consumption, Syngenta’s ethanol corn has the potential to destroy the genome of edible corn where cross contamination occurs.

• 2,4-D-tolerant corn, cotton and soy. A known endocrine disruptor, Dow’s 2,4-D is linked to cancer, thyroid disorders, decreased fertility and birth defects. Vilsack’s approval of the crops increased the use of 2,4-D as much as 600%.

• Innate potatoes. The former Monsanto scientist who invented this “RNA interference” GMO exposed the dangers of his work four years after Vilsack approved it. He found an accumulation of toxins in the potatoes,  and even scarier, he found their double-stranded RNA enters the human bloodstream, where it can influence our own cell function.

• Arctic Apples. These ever-green apples don’t turn brown when they bruise or start to rot, and even retain their bright green pigment when they are juiced. These GMOs were also created using RNA interference technology.

• Cloned animals. When Vilsack was asked in 2010 if cloned cows or their offspring had made it into the North American food supply, he claimed he “didn’t know”. Needless to say, this aroused alarm. While Europe responded with an embargo, Vilsack left the door open for cloned animal products to be labeled “USDA Organic.”

“It is very likely that the offspring of cloned animals are now being used to produce organic milk and other food,” the Organic Consumer’s Association says.

• Synbio dairy substitutes. Vilsack allowed companies like Perfect Day to begin using genetically-altered yeast cultures to manufacture synthetic dairy substitutes. Most vegans have no idea their non-dairy cheese is a product of genetic engineering.

• Lab-made meat. Vilsack gave companies like Memphis Meat the green light to engineer cell-cultured meat without requiring USDA inspection or labeling. A former USDA staffer of his ended up lobbying for the company.

Edited December 30, 2020 by Taomeow

[old3bob]

WTF Joe B.?

Edited December 30, 2020 by old3bob

[old3bob]

14 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

Who knows.  Maybe she's on the same page with me and knows that this, too, shall pass and that the future is bright.  

 

 

or maybe zombies for real?  (thus have all the zombie movies been to forewarn us?  Btw. I don't believe it's possible to transform into a zombie in minutes, seems like it would take at least a few days?     )

[Taomeow]

3 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

or maybe zombies for real?  (thus have all the zombie movies been to forewarn us?  Btw. I don't believe it's possible to transform into a zombie in minutes, seems like it would take at least a few days?     )

 

Of course zombies are real, and of course it's not possible to transform people into zombies in minutes like in a movie, it takes many years of very thorough preparation, and trillions of dollars mindfully invested toward accomplishing the task.  But the rewards make it worth it for the investors.

 

The official CDC website has all the information regarding preparedness for a zombie apocalypse -- you may want to check it out, they give very sound advice.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/cpr/zombie/index.htm?fbclid=IwAR28kKWfsd4X2RdWhvy5ikHFd-jiDzgAqNCUIhtb6etpB6z3-SErcM0uLec  

 

 

[silent thunder]

[steve]

4 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

Of course zombies are real, and of course it's not possible to transform people into zombies in minutes like in a movie,

 

Are you sure about that?

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

[Taomeow]

11 minutes ago, steve said:

 

Are you sure about that?

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

Ah yes, I stand corrected. 

Although it was also in development for a long while before approaching its full zombifying potential.  

[steve]

 

8 hours ago, old3bob said:

WTF Joe B.?

 

Spoiler

 

 

[Nungali]

5 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

Of course zombies are real, and of course it's not possible to transform people into zombies in minutes like in a movie, it takes many years of very thorough preparation, and trillions of dollars mindfully invested toward accomplishing the task.  But the rewards make it worth it for the investors.

 

The official CDC website has all the information regarding preparedness for a zombie apocalypse -- you may want to check it out, they give very sound advice.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/cpr/zombie/index.htm?fbclid=IwAR28kKWfsd4X2RdWhvy5ikHFd-jiDzgAqNCUIhtb6etpB6z3-SErcM0uLec  

 

 

 

 

I dont think it takes that long  ... probably a few months .

 

The Zombie Apocalypse started many years back ;

 

 

 

   

 

[old3bob]

well now if we have a deadly disease like Brad Pitt did (which can be cured later) then the zombies will pass us by, so there is hope.

 

Btw, what is the name for that kind of medicine in using one poison to get rid of another?

Edited December 30, 2020 by old3bob

[Taomeow]

26 minutes ago, old3bob said:

Btw, what is the name for that kind of medicine in using one poison to get rid of another?

 

Allopathic.  

[old3bob]

On 12/30/2020 at 2:15 PM, Taomeow said:

 

Allopathic.  

 

right, and chemo would seemingly be in a similar ballpark?

 

"The term "allopathy" was coined in 1842 by C.F.S. Hahnemann to designate the usual practice of medicine (allopathy) as opposed to homeopathy, the system of therapy that he founded based on the concept that disease can be treated with drugs (in minute doses) thought capable of producing the same symptoms in healthy people as the disease itself."

Edited January 1, 2021 by old3bob

[Taomeow]

On 12/30/2020 at 4:33 PM, old3bob said:

 

right, and chemo would seemingly be in a similar ballpark?

 

Actually, allopathic is referred to as "science-based, modern medicine" if you google the definition, so all we need to do in order to understand what it is is define "science-based" and "modern."  That's easy.  Every year the FDA recalls 50% of all drugs it had approved 15 years earlier, so "modern medicine" must mean "medicine created no more than 15 years ago."  As for "science-based," they usually cite "double blind placebo controlled randomized trials" as the criterion of medicine being "science-based."  By that definition chemo is not part of it, since no chemo drug has ever undergone such trials.

 

  

[old3bob]

5 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

Actually, allopathic is referred to as "science-based, modern medicine" if you google the definition, so all we need to do in order to understand what it is is define "science-based" and "modern."  That's easy.  Every year the FDA recalls 50% of all drugs it had approved 15 years earlier, so "modern medicine" must mean "medicine created no more than 15 years ago."  As for "science-based," they usually cite "double blind placebo controlled randomized trials" as the criterion of medicine being "science-based."  By that definition chemo is not part of it, since no chemo drug has ever undergone such trials.

 

 

sounds to me like some contradictions in definitions and practices.  As for chemo no healthy person is going to volunteer to be in trials for that so I see your point there.  Btw I asked a chemo nurse/tech how much the chemo drugs had changed over the years and was surprised to hear that most chemo drugs are still the same after decades,  although making limited choices in the type of chemo used and or changes in getting doses "correct"  via diagnostics (and studies) and monitoring has improved, along with the use of certain secondary drugs in conjunction with chemo or in case  of more serious reactions to an already and inherently dangerous process to one's health!  

[Taomeow]

It is known that Marie-Antoinette said, "Let them eat cake."  To those who also know history rather than just the Queen song, it is also known that she wound up losing her head to the guillotine.

 

How very unenlightened of them to behead her.  Today we know better.  We gratefully and enthusiastically take our multiple blessings from the guy who says, "Let them drink shit."  That's what I call progress!!  

 

From Bill Gates's blog:

https://www.gatesnotes.com/development/omniprocessor-from-poop-to-potable

[Taomeow]

A tweet from Caitlin Johnstone: "The last time we saw anything like this Victoria Nuland was masturbating to it."

 

Anyone know what she means?

 

I do.  

[sagebrush]

yes possibly sabbe dhamma anatta

 

good grief charlie brown time for chores

Edited January 6, 2021 by sagebrush

[Taomeow]

 

 

 

In the history of Rome there were many usurpers or not very legitimate rulers.  The army and the subjects under clientela -- clientele or dependent people -- decided the basis of imperial power.  Clientela was the relationship between a man of wealth and influence (patron) and a free client.  The client acknowledged his dependence on the patron and received protection in return.  The reason for this was territorial losses, confiscations from the disgraced, but the main thing was the policy of the state against the increase in the power of the "strong ones."  The metropolitan poor in Rome was a political constant.  They are the ones mentioned by all the authors who wrote about the fall in morals -- they did not work, but received legal payments (first in grain, then in grain and oil, then in grain / flour, oil and wine) and emergency handouts from usurpers and those of little legitimacy.

 

It was very difficult to find work in those days, because everything was done by slaves, clients, and in the case of a small business, also by family members.  Sometimes there were public works (all sorts of aqueducts require excavation) and many went there if they were called.  But their main income was distributions and handouts.  The crowd was easily bought with handouts and warmed up by clients (whose main task was - always! - to spread rumors) and could lead to power a person who had no legal rights.  But if this person lost some battles, lost face, or allegedly committed some immoral act (for example, the deposed emperor was always accused of sleeping with his daughters), then the poor never supported him.  Even if he kept paying.

The reason for this is simple and obvious - the poor were emotional and irrational.  And if the usurper was mowed down, the crowd did not care how much bread, money and circus he had given them.  They immediately withdrew their support in favor of the competitor, especially if the latter somehow had something to do with the once-ruling families. The one going to the throne was also generous at first, but under the legitimate emperor, the poor people were doomed to a gradual return to only subsidies and the gradual refusal of handouts.  

 

In the courts, no evidence could be given by patron and client against each other.

  

[Nungali]

On 03/01/2021 at 4:49 AM, Taomeow said:

It is known that Marie-Antoinette said, "Let them eat cake."  To those who also know history rather than just the Queen song, it is also known that she wound up losing her head to the guillotine.

 

How very unenlightened of them to behead her.  Today we know better.  We gratefully and enthusiastically take our multiple blessings from the guy who says, "Let them drink shit."  That's what I call progress!!  

 

From Bill Gates's blog:

https://www.gatesnotes.com/development/omniprocessor-from-poop-to-potable

 

To those that know history ... she probably DID NOT  say that .   Although it is  probably one of the most famous quotes  in history

 

May I suggest it is yet another male dominated slur on womanhood ... or the monachy in general  ?

 

At some point around 1789, when being told that her French subjects had no bread, Marie-Antoinette  supposedly  said, “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche”—“Let them eat cake.”  But did Marie-Antoinette really say those infuriating words? Not according to many  historians.

 

Lady Antonia Fraser, author of a biography of the French queen, believes the quote would have been highly uncharacteristic of Marie-Antoinette, an intelligent woman who donated generously to charitable causes and, despite her own undeniably lavish lifestyle, displayed sensitivity towards the poor population of France.

 

That aside, what’s even more convincing is the fact that the “Let them eat cake” story had been floating around for years before 1789. It was first told in a slightly different form about Marie-Thérèse, the Spanish princess who married King Louis XIV in 1660. She allegedly suggested that the French people eat “la croûte de pâté” (or the crust of the pâté). Over the next century, several other 18th-century royals were also blamed for the remark, including two aunts of Louis XVI. Most famously, the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau included the pâté story in his “Confessions” in 1766, attributing the words to “a great princess” (probably Marie-Thérèse). Whoever uttered those unforgettable words, it was almost certainly not Marie-Antoinette, who at the time Rousseau was writing was only 10 years old—three years away from marrying the French prince and eight years from becoming queen.

 

- history.com

 

Edited January 9, 2021 by Nungali

[Taomeow]

@Nungali  Well, anything is possible.  If she didn't say it first, she may have quoted someone who said it earlier, allusions happen.  In any event, none of the "many historians" were there, and there's no recording and no video -- so it's always been hearsay one way or the other. 

 

The significance of the utterance is in its hitting home in so many situations showing an undeniable (far as I'm concerned) truth.  To wit, that the "patricians" despise the "plebeians" and couldn't care less about people's suffering, in the best case scenario -- and in the worst case scenario, they revel in it just as they inflict it.  Which IMO is indirectly confirmed by the fact that the number of the movers and shakers (1%) and the number of sociopaths (1%) in society happen to coincide.

 

In any event, I hope you looked at Bill Gates's blog page I referenced -- Marie Antoinette, whether she was nice or horrible, is not the one I worry about right now.  

[Nungali]

I dont mean to be argumentative  and I mostly agree with the above . Generally  its correct with  the 'ruling class ' /  'Lords'  but not always .  The people's general greed also plays a part .

 

Eg . In the Good 'ol Days when America was great , and one could start off as a  worker and end up as a millionaire , one guy ( whose name I forget unfortunately  )   did that .  So  much money it was stupid  ..... and probably a surprise to him as well

 

[ Aside ; did you see Elon Musk commenting on his new elevation to the worlds richest man ? He commented  " How strange  ! "   and looked confused about it ]

 

Anyway, above old school millionaire and wife could not have kids, so they adopted some , and some more , and some more , before long they ran an orphanage , a hospital to care for them, a school, a live in university , scholarships for the poor, etc etc .  It was HIS money and he could do what he wanted with it .  So he did .  Time passed , he died and so did his wife . It passed  to a Board of Directors , who fiddled with it , but it went on .  Until about 3 years ago , the 'shareholders'  voted to close it all down cash it all  in as it wasnt making them enough money . It wasn;t supposed to be about making in the first place !

 

I also  think about those rich  British mega rich    that set up  built  for their workers , in improved conditions with a little yard out the back for a milking cow and some chickens and veggie  growing and  medical facilities  .... that all got pretty much stomped on .

 

Its a bot like politics for me ,  the best form is 'benevolent dictatorship '  ... but you have to be damn lucky to get one  and they are few and far between .

 

(I better not say any more less a mob storms the cabin and chops my head off )

[Taomeow]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

I dont mean to be argumentative  and I mostly agree with the above . Generally  its correct with  the 'ruling class ' /  'Lords'  but not always .  The people's general greed also plays a part .

 

Eg . In the Good 'ol Days when America was great , and one could start off as a  worker and end up as a millionaire , one guy ( whose name I forget unfortunately  )   did that .  So  much money it was stupid  ..... and probably a surprise to him as well

 

[ Aside ; did you see Elon Musk commenting on his new elevation to the worlds richest man ? He commented  " How strange  ! "   and looked confused about it ]

 

Anyway, above old school millionaire and wife could not have kids, so they adopted some , and some more , and some more , before long they ran an orphanage , a hospital to care for them, a school, a live in university , scholarships for the poor, etc etc .  It was HIS money and he could do what he wanted with it .  So he did .  Time passed , he died and so did his wife . It passed  to a Board of Directors , who fiddled with it , but it went on .  Until about 3 years ago , the 'shareholders'  voted to close it all down cash it all  in as it wasnt making them enough money . It wasn;t supposed to be about making in the first place !

 

I also  think about those rich  British mega rich    that set up  built  for their workers , in improved conditions with a little yard out the back for a milking cow and some chickens and veggie  growing and  medical facilities  .... that all got pretty much stomped on .

 

 

This sort of dovetails with the brief history of Roman clientela I posted in this thread earlier today.  The corrupt rich corrupt the poor, the poor stay corrupted -- and seemingly irrational, although there's a rationale behind treating with zero respect things one got as handouts.  No one stomps their own garden though...  We had a lot of illustrations of the principle " 'people's common property' means nobody's responsibility" in the Soviet Union taken to the height of lackadaisicalness bordering on surreal.

 

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

 

Its a bot like politics for me ,  the best form is 'benevolent dictatorship '  ... but you have to be damn lucky to get one  and they are few and far between .

 

(I better not say any more less a mob storms the cabin and chops my head off )

 

  Benevolent dictatorship is the only reasonable form of government in the shape and form our species was practicing it since the beginning of its time and up till the end times we call civilization -- just as some other highly functioning (in natural habitats) animals still do -- elephants, killer whales, lions, hyenas.  It is called matriarchy.   Key word "mother."  (Not just any random woman wearing a crown, ruling over way more than she could possibly handle with any semblance of competence.  Queens -- including Marie Antoinette -- are not matriarchs, nor are female presidents, female prime ministers and the rest of those anatomically female patriarchal overlords.) 

 

Edited January 9, 2021 by Taomeow

[Taomeow]

[old3bob]

Hey Nungali, I believe the T.T.C. describes and goes well beyond of just having a "benevolent dictator"... although even that would be a big leap up from a lot of what is in the world right now!