Blogger Comment: To fully understand what is going on, you have ‘first’ to understand that all political leaders of western nations, except those of the USA, Hungary, Slovakia and Italy are controlled now by the Davos Globalist elites and where these people follow the Globalists of old starting world wars, global pandemics and mass anti-humanity international disasters continually…False Flags being their specialist subject to kick of all crimes against humanity across the world…and of course they are totally insane and mad these people, so there is no compromise..EVER…
Global power brokers are inching the Western world closer to a catastrophic conflict as NATO officials now openly admit the alliance may fire the first shot against Russia.
In a stunning escalation, Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, chair of NATO’s Military Committee, warned that the alliance could soon abandon its long-standing defensive posture and move toward preemptive attacks on Russian targets.
The revelation is a dramatic shift that risks plunging Europe into a full-scale war engineered by globalists who have been agitating for direct confrontation for years.
Dragone told the Financial Times that NATO is now reviewing options that would allow the bloc to strike before Russia does, declaring:
“We are studying everything […] On cyber, we are kind of reactive.
“[The questions are] legal framework, jurisdictional framework, who is going to do this?”
For years, Western leaders and their media allies have portrayed Vladimir Putin as waging a “shadow war” across Europe, pointing to fires, unexplained explosions, sabotage of undersea infrastructure, cyberattacks, and alleged airspace violations.
Some incidents, including a blaze at a Ukrainian-owned warehouse in East London and severed Baltic Sea cables, have been immediately pinned on Russia despite limited public evidence, allowing NATO governments to justify new escalations.
Now those incidents are being used to rationalize aggressive new doctrines that would allow NATO to strike first.
A Baltic official, pushing for a more confrontational strategy, told the FT:
“If all we do is continue being reactive, we just invite Russia to keep trying, keep hurting us.
“Hybrid warfare is asymmetric — it costs them little, and us a lot.
“We need to be more inventive.”
Countering Aggression
NATO officials are increasingly echoing the same message, warning that the era of a purely reactive posture is ending, and “preemptive” cyber or military actions could soon be labeled “defensive.”
Dragone even admitted that what amounts to a first strike could still be framed as defense:
“Being more aggressive compared with the aggressiveness of our counterpart could be an option.”
This shift is exactly the scenario many analysts have warned about: Western governments manufacturing a justification to “respond” to a threat they define, even if that means igniting a war that ordinary Europeans do not want.
Russia’s ambassador to Belgium, Denis Gonchar, blasted NATO’s rhetoric, arguing the alliance is deliberately stirring panic:
NATO is “intimidating its population with the Kremlin’s non-existent plans to attack.”
He accused member states of beginning “preparing for a major war with Russia.”
Peace Talks Ongoing
Meanwhile, diplomatic maneuvering continues behind the scenes.
High-level U.S. and Ukrainian envoys met in Florida this weekend in what officials described as productive negotiations.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he remained cautiously optimistic:
“We continue to be realistic about how difficult this is, but optimistic…
“There’s more work to be done. This is delicate.”
Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff is now heading to Moscow to meet Russian counterparts, signaling the White House is pushing for a framework.
The Trump administration is continuing to push for peace even as Zelensky faces internal collapse and growing pressure from Washington to accept realities on the ground.
Sunday’s meeting was also the first without Andriy Yermak, Zelensky’s powerful chief of staff and chief negotiator, who abruptly resigned amid corruption allegations, further destabilizing Kyiv’s already weakened position.
Globalist War Machine
NATO leaders are no longer hiding it as the globalist war machine is preparing Europe for direct conflict with a nuclear superpower.
“Preemptive strikes” are now being marketed as “defensive,” while diplomats scramble to piece together a peace deal that Western elites seem determined to undermine.
This is how world wars start:
Manufactured crises
Shadowy sabotage blamed on political enemies
Unelected bureaucrats quietly rewrite the rules of engagement while the public is distracted
The warnings are getting louder.
The question now is whether anyone will hit the brakes before the West sleepwalks into a catastrophe of its own making.
Blogger Comment: Ever wondered how these technology and social media titans become the richest people in the world, well it is all planned and these front people come from relative global obscurity like Gates, Brin, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Fink, Ramji, Page, Ellison, Huang, Ballmer, Musk et al and where they were all created and developed by the unseen globalists behind the scenes and in our face ironically and continually, but where we did not know, who are their masters forever and the mechanism they use is Control…and through their opeatives such as BlackRock, Vanguard, the FED, BIS etc…
The former wife of one of Silicon Valley’s most powerful elites has just blown the whistle to expose the true “culture” that controls Big Tech from the shadows.
The stunning new insider account is sending shockwaves through Silicon Valley after Nicole Shanahan, the former wife of Google co-founder Sergey Brin and once a central figure in elite progressive philanthropy, publicly dismantled the culture that drives Big Tech’s political influence, globalist activism, and ideological enforcement machinery.
Shanahan, who previously moved in the highest circles of Democrat megadonors, Davos-tier foundations, and six-figure philanthropy networks, is now openly calling the system what it is.
She warns that Big Tech is rigged, weaponized, and controlled by a small cluster of unelected elites pushing the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) agenda under the guise of “philanthropy” and “science.”
Shanahan did not hold back.
“…the whole model is broken… the whole model makes everybody worse off…” she said, describing the philanthropic and political ecosystem that wealthy tech families were pressured into funding.
Shanahan argues that the wealthy “tech wife mafia,” the spouses of Silicon Valley executives who collectively oversee billions of dollars in political giving, were unwitting tools in a globalist campaign that concentrated power in NGOs, international foundations, and corporate governance schemes like ESG and DEI.
According to Shanahan, this wasn’t charity. It was engineering.
Shanahan: WEF Used Big Tech Elites as “Useful Idiots”
Shanahan alleges that the World Economic Forum and its political satellites effectively commandeered Big Tech money to bankroll their broader ideological project, including initiatives associated with “The Great Reset.”
In addition, Silicon Valley executives used their unprecedented control over the public information flow to advance the WEF’s agenda by manipulating narratives to favor globalists.
“They were used to set the groundwork for what Klaus Schwab calls The Great Reset,” Shanahan declares.
She says their wealth and social pressure networks were steered by NGOs, Hollywood influencers, Davos consultants, and corporate “advisors” aligned with globalist policy goals.
Shanahan goes on to express concerns over the level of control that a small number of people can have over so many.
“A really small group of people… completely blind to how their groundwork is being used to enable these Great Reset policies,” she notes.
Shanahan describes the system as one where “science” became a political shield, debate was silenced, and corporations were transformed into ideological enforcers through ESG scoring and DEI compliance.
“Useful Idiots”: Meaning, Philanthropy, and the Shocking Reality
Shanahan points to the way philanthropic work was positioned as a kind of moral identity for Silicon Valley families, even as the communities they sought to “uplift” only deteriorated.
“These women find their meaning through philanthropic work.
“I really believed I was helping black communities and indigenous communities rise up…”
But the truth, she says, was painful.
“My version of success is those communities are actually uplifted. Not just more money pumped into them,” she explains.
After years of elite-driven “solutions,” Shanahan admits the outcomes are undeniable:
“Crime worse. Mental health worse.
“The whole model is broken.”
Instead of helping ordinary Americans, the system produced higher energy costs, inflated currency, an affordability crisis, shrinking job markets, and accelerating constraints on speech and daily life.
Shanahan’s blunt revelations break one of the most powerful taboos in elite circles by acknowledging that the globalist philanthropic-political complex was never about uplifting communities.
It was about consolidating influence.
Her whistleblowing confirms what critics have warned for years:
• Big Tech money was being funneled into global ideological projects.
• “Philanthropy” masked political engineering.
• Corporate ESG and DEI frameworks served as compliance tools.
• A small unelected elite, not voters, set the agenda.
Shanahan’s conclusion is the most damning of all:
“The whole model is broken.”
For someone who sat at the very top of the system and bankrolled it, this is one of the most explosive insider admissions to emerge from Silicon Valley in years.
A New Jersey organ harvesting organization is under intensifying scrutiny after nearly a dozen whistleblowers accused the group of alarming misconduct.
The organization, New Jersey Sharing Network, is accused of harvesting organs from patients who showed signs of life and then covering it up.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO) and Oversight Subcommittee Chair Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) sent a blistering letter on November 19 demanding documents and more than 30 transcribed interviews from the New Jersey Sharing Network.
The lawmaker letter cites what they called “several egregious actions and potential violations of federal and state statutes.”
– Advertisement –
The allegations, supplied by multiple insiders, upend years of industry assurances that misconduct claims were overblown.
Or as reform advocate Greg Segal put it, “the call is coming from inside the house.”
Patient “Reanimated” as Organ Recovery Began
The most explosive allegation says that during a circulatory-death organ recovery, a procedure requiring irreversible loss of heart and respiratory function.
The whistleblowers allege that the patient “reanimated” after the recovery process began.
According to the letter, when the administrator on call notified leadership, the Sharing Network allegedly told staff to continue with the recovery despite clear signs of life.
However, the hospital intervened and halted the procedure, saving the patient’s life.
Whistleblowers also say the organization “deleted or otherwise manipulated” documents related to the incident.
The letter further alleges:
• The Sharing Network skipped hundreds of patients on the transplant wait list
• Dozens of those patients later died
• The group harvested organs without proper consent
• It operated a fraudulent taxpayer-funded research program
• Leadership may have lied to Congress
• Staff worked under a “culture of fear and retaliation”
Lawmakers warned that under the current Medicare reimbursement model, OPOs may be incentivized to allocate organs out of sequence “to ensure reimbursement and can provide a quid pro quo to transplant hospitals.”
Claims of Manipulated Metrics: 100 Pancreata Thrown Out in One Day
In another allegation, the group is accused of discarding 100 pancreata in a single day, allegedly processed for “research.”
The committee says the volume appears engineered to boost CMS performance metrics by inflating organ recovery numbers.
“While organ research has driven remarkable innovations that improve and save lives, it is concerning that [the Sharing Network] is alleged to have taken advantage of a loophole in the current framework,” the letter said.
Congressional Leaders: Subpoenas Coming if Necessary
Rep. Smith said he is prepared to issue subpoenas if the organization does not comply.
“The allegations these brave whistleblowers have brought forward are some of the most disturbing we have seen in our ongoing investigation into organ procurement organizations,” Smith said.
“If this OPO or any of its senior officials attempt to mislead Congress, destroy records, or obstruct our efforts to get the truth, subpoenas are on the table.
“Compliance is not optional.”
He added that the behavior described “puts the integrity of America’s organ procurement system at stake.”
Experts Warn of Systemic, Premeditated Abuse
Organ reform advocate Greg Segal said the findings suggest the abuses were not isolated or accidental:
“This letter was informed by a dozen whistleblowers who shared documentation regarding specific abuses and potential crimes,” Segal said.
“This is a watershed moment and, I believe, moves these investigations squarely into criminality and corruption, rather than just incompetence or bad federal policy.”
Jennifer Erickson, a senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists, called the allegations “a public health emergency.”
“The Ways and Means Committee documented shocking allegations of cover-ups at the highest levels of New Jersey Sharing Network, including the attempted harvesting of organs from a patient who was still alive,” she said.
Federal Agencies Begin Review
The letter was copied to HHS, CMS, the HHS Office of Inspector General, and the New Jersey attorney general.
HHS said the Health Resources and Services Administration has directed the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network “to investigate these allegations,” adding:
“These reforms are essential to restoring trust, ensuring informed consent, and protecting the rights and dignity of prospective donors and their families.”
Blogger Comment: These lab-made long-term “death sandwiches” are an insane eating product that has been authorised by the Establishment and where western people should fully realise and understand that truthful fact that should stimulate the question of why…but where my clear recommendation is to follow the money…and not the science
Fake “bacon” is set to flood the American food supply soon, as a California biotech startup takes the next step in the global push to replace real meat with lab-grown “substitutes.”
However, convincing the public to accept the new hyperprocessed “food” may not be so difficult, as the corporate media is ecstatic about it.
Mission Barns, a Bay Area company specializing in lab-grown “pork,” is now rolling out what leftist outlets like Mother Jones and Grist are breathlessly celebrating as “bacon without killing pigs.”
The company claims it has developed a form of “cultivated pork fat,” grown in bioreactors, that can be mixed with plant proteins and sold as “real meat.”
Corporate outlets are framing this as a triumph of sustainability and compassion.
But critics warn it looks far more like another coordinated attempt to push Americans away from traditional food systems and toward lab-created, corporately controlled “meat.”
Not Farming, But Manufacturing
Mission Barns starts by taking a tiny biopsy from a pig named Dawn on a farm in upstate New York.
They feed the sample a nutrient slurry of plant sugars, proteins, and vitamins inside an industrial cultivator.
Over two weeks, the fat cells multiply in tanks instead of in an animal.
Once “grown,” the fat is combined with plant protein to create a hybrid product.
It is not a pork chop, but an unstructured, moldable substance closer to ground meat.
Mission Barns markets it as a base for bacon, meatballs, sausages, and other foods that can be reshaped without resembling an actual animal part.
This isn’t farming, however.
It’s food manufacturing, and globalist-aligned interests are already calling it the future of eating.
FDA Approval Opens the Door to the Food Supply
The FDA quietly approved the company’s lab-grown fat in March, making Mission Barns only the third U.S. firm cleared to sell cultivated animal products.
With regulatory barriers removed, critics say the path is now open for rapid expansion into grocery stores, fast-food chains, and restaurant supply systems.
It is just what happened with earlier globalist-backed fake “meat” brands.
Corporate Media Cheers as Costs Drop and Scale Expands
The new products come with a hefty price tag, costing $13.99 for eight lab-grown meatballs.
Yet, despite the product’s high price, liberal media outlets are encouraging Americans to treat this as the next big food revolution.
They point to how plant-based meat was once extremely expensive before eventually appearing nationwide, in everything from grocery shelves to Burger King Whoppers.
The implication is clear: the goal is mass adoption.
Global Food Agenda Disguised as “Sustainability”
To critics, Mission Barns is simply the latest example of a coordinated agenda promoted by global elites, Silicon Valley, and left-wing activists:
• Replace traditional farming with patented lab-grown protein.
• Transfer control of food production from ranchers and farmers to biotech corporations.
• Normalize synthetic food while demonizing natural agriculture as “unsustainable.”
Corporate media is already echoing that narrative, portraying lab-grown pork as humane, liberal, and inevitable.
Will Americans Embrace Lab Meat?
Whether Americans want to eat lab-grown “pork fat” is another question entirely.
So far, public interest remains low.
Nevertheless, the global food industry has poured billions into synthetic “alternatives,” aiming to shift eating habits whether consumers asked for it or not.
Mission Barns insists its product will eventually taste like bacon and help the environment.
But many Americans see something else entirely:
A future where the food supply is synthetic, centralized, and controlled by a handful of powerful biotech and globalist institutions.
Meanwhile, the obedient corporate media cheers it on as “progress.”
Blogger Comment: Canada is now undertaking wholesale terminations of Canadians as the figures state that fact, but where although they are people with health problems, they are not those who are “deemed terminally ill”, which is the very big difference and has to be stopped, as this is now edging towards an industrial scale per capita compared to the population of Canada and that of the population of Europe and what happened in Nazi controlled Germany throughout Europe in WW2…but where very strangely, western MainStreamMedia are not telling us anythuing about this crime against humanity…not one iota
A chilling new leak has exposed a disturbing effort inside the Nova Scotia RCMP Veterans Association to push retired police officers into being euthanized under the Canadian government’s “assisted suicide” program.
The email reveals that police veterans are suffering from PTSD, and even those battling cancer, are being pushed into euthanasia.
The veterans’ group sent out an email on November 20 inviting members to attend a presentation promoting Canada’s so-called “medical assistance in dying” (MAiD) program.
The event, held two days later at St. John the Evangelist Anglican Parish, was led by Dr. Gordan Gubitz, a prominent euthanasia provider and the Clinical Lead for MAiD in Nova Scotia.
The invitation wasn’t just a mass email.
A veteran with cancer says he was personally contacted and urged to attend.
“I believe I was directly targeted,” the former Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer revealed.
The whistleblower veteran told CAF veteran and author Kelsi Sheren that he received a phone call pressuring him to go to the MAiD session:
“Not only did I receive that email, I received a phone call asking if I was going to attend.
“Based on the severity of my illness, I believe I was directly targeted.”
Sheren blasted the presentation as nothing short of state-aligned coercion:
“This is a state-aligned institution normalizing death as a service to the very people they already failed to support in life.”
She noted that the RCMP veterans being targeted include many suffering from PTSD, the exact group the government should be helping, not steering them toward suicide.
A National Push to Euthanize Veterans
The cancer-stricken veteran also warned that this wasn’t an isolated Nova Scotia event and believes it is part of a nationwide push:
“This is part of a country-wide initiative.
“There is significant concern in our organization.
“The fact they are now pushing MAiD to our vets, most of whom suffer from PTSD, is of grave concern.”
Adding to the unease, he said the federal government appears to be preparing to move RCMP veterans’ healthcare and disability benefits away from Veterans Affairs and into a new government-run entity, raising fears of reduced oversight and increased MAiD promotion.
A Pattern of Abuse: Veterans Offered Suicide Instead of Help
This scandal follows multiple reports of Canadian caseworkers attempting to nudge ill or traumatized veterans toward state-sponsored euthanasia.
Earlier this month, Sheren testified before Parliament that at least 20 of her colleagues were offered MAiD unprompted, as Slay News reported.
Last year, it was revealed that the federal department responsible for veterans tried to suppress documents after caseworkers were caught suggesting euthanasia to struggling service members.
Sheren, a former Canadian artillery gunner, recently told Dr. Jordan Peterson that MAiD’s lethal drug protocol effectively “waterboards a person to death.”
Canada’s MAiD Program Has Already Killed 90,000 People
A new report from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition confirms the staggering human toll:
Since Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government legalized assisted suicide in 2016, more than 90,000 Canadians have been euthanized.
And now, whistleblowers say, the government and institutions aligned with it are targeting the very veterans they abandoned long ago.
An alarming new report has exposed an unprecedented surge in the number of citizens being euthanized by their government in Western Australia, a spike so steep that critics warn the state is sliding toward a culture where suicide deaths are normalized, encouraged, and dressed up as “compassion.”
The shocking rise in medically assisted deaths was revealed in a new government report.
The WA government’s latest assisted-suicide data reveals a 63% jump in just one year for deaths executed under the government’s voluntary assisted dying (VAD) program.
The number of state-sanctioned deaths rose from 293 in 2023–24 to 480 in 2024–25.
VAD now accounts for 2.6% of all deaths in Western Australia, and the youngest victim was just 23 years old.
This is only the fourth annual report since the 2019 Voluntary Assisted Dying Act took effect.
However, the trend is unmistakable as assisted death is rapidly becoming a routine “solution” rather than a last resort.
A Government Report Wrapped in Poetry, Papering Over Reality
Instead of sober analysis, the report begins with a strange poetic metaphor, likening euthanasia to a pebble dropped into a tranquil pond:
“When a pebble drops into a pond of still water, there is an initial splash followed by a series of concentric waves…”
The syrupy language attempts to present state-approved death as gentle, meaningful, and even therapeutic.
But beneath the sentimental veneer, the report pushes for more resources, more VAD practitioners, navigators, pharmacists, and bureaucrats.
In other words, the government wants to expand the system.
Why Patients Are “Choosing” Death
For years, activists claimed assisted suicide was about extreme, unmanageable pain.
Yet, the government’s own data says otherwise.
The top reason patients gave for ending their lives was related to concerns about growing old:
“Less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable, or concerned about it.”
This was cited by 68.3% of patients.
Concerns about autonomy and dignity ranked second and third, both at 58%.
Meanwhile, less than half said inadequate pain control was their primary motivation.
The real picture is far more disturbing, as many patients are being euthanized over their fears about the natural losses that come with aging and illness, not because they are suffering uncontrollably.
Chilling Testimonials: Caregivers Railroad Patients Toward Death
The report openly includes testimonials that, intentionally or not, reveal how caregivers and medical staff often guide patients toward being euthanized by the government instead of seeking treatments.
One friend recounted convincing a suicidal patient to choose VAD over taking his own life:
“Much of my discussion with [my friend] was trying to convince him that the VAD process… would be a far better outcome for the family.”
Another testimonial positions VAD as superior to “illegal” suicide:
“The horrors of illegal procedures are best avoided…
“Thank goodness VAD is now available in WA.”
This is not a system protecting life; it’s a system smoothing the bureaucratic path to death.
The Myth of a “Peaceful, Painless” Death
“Assisted suicide” lobbyists insist VAD is serene and painless.
But global data contradicts that narrative.
Oregon has documented cases of patients taking up to 47 hours to die in agony after ingesting assisted suicide drugs.
Yet, this horrifying reality was never mentioned in WA’s glossy, euphemistic report.
Push to Destroy Conscience Rights
Some testimonials appear crafted to pressure lawmakers to strip doctors and hospitals of conscience protections:
“Conscientious objection… seems to be causing distress to patients…”
Another complains about Catholic hospitals blocking VAD access.
Victoria has already forced doctors to participate in referrals for VAD, making them complicit.
WA is now laying the rhetorical groundwork to follow the same path.
The Metaphor They Shouldn’t Have Used
The report’s saccharine pond metaphor accidentally reveals a truth its authors likely didn’t intend:
When the government turns death into “care,” the ripple effect doesn’t stay contained.
Families, institutions, and entire communities begin to absorb the message that life with difficulty isn’t worth living and that a quick state-approved death is the dignified alternative.
This is how a culture of life becomes a culture of disposal.
Western Australia’s massive spike in assisted suicide deaths isn’t compassion; it’s a warning sign.
Behind the bureaucratic poetry and emotional manipulation sits a system that is:
Normalizing suicide
Fast-tracking death for non-pain reasons
Pressuring caregivers to encourage VAD
Undermining conscience protections
Positioned for major expansion
The numbers are rising because the barriers are falling.
Meanwhile, the message being broadcast to vulnerable people is that their lives are less worthy of protection than the convenience of a sanitized, state-administered death.
Politicians, scientists, and celebs assure us the apocalypse is tomorrow, and if not, the day after will do. Buckle up for a look at 50 years of cataclysmic predictions (a brief lesson in history of science by the Globalist elite’s deceivers, telling their Net Zero lies that have been totally disproved for our sane education) by Hunter Fielding
The apocalypse is tomorrow, and if not, the day after will do. Declarations of the world’s demise are a dime a dozen, the fare of dignitaries, politicians, scientists, and celebs: The end is nigh—and getting nigher.
Coupled to the certainty of doomsday is the fall of farming. Hand in hand, Armageddon and agriculture are bedmates. On March 20, 2023, the United Nations warned of humanity’s ticking “time-bomb,” and released a “report of reports” enumerating a multi-trillion-dollar plan to implement climate policies across the globe. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres proclaimed the report a “survival guide for humanity” and called for the phase-out of fossil fuels: “Dear friends, humanity is on thin ice—and that ice is melting fast.”
Guterres’ remarks were particularly ironic, considering only a month earlier a Global Energy Monitor report revealed China’s expansion of coal capacity to unprecedented levels—six times larger than the rest of the world combined—via the construction of two new coal plants per week.
Despite Guterres’ pronouncement, there is nothing new under the sun—no matter how hot or cold it burns. A quick look at 50 years of cataclysmic predictions is in order.
Goodnight, Irene
In the 1960s, overpopulation and famine forecasts were all the rage. Despite the Green Revolution, which spurred crop yields across the globe, Paul Erlich, a Stanford biologist and end times prophet, preached a starvation gospel: “The Green Revolution…is going to turn brown.”
In 1968, with world population at 3.5 billion (7.9 billion as of 2023), Erlich penned The Population Bomb and lobbed an incendiary grenade in the opening lines of his prologue: The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate…
Lauded by the press, Erlich amplified insistence on a “dying planet” and ramped up his warnings.
August 10, 1969, Erlich in the New York Times: “We must realize that unless we are extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.”
April 1970, Erlich in Mademoiselle: “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
Erlich was not alone. In the early 1970s, a host of voices supported his beliefs.
Harvard biologist and Nobel Prize winner George Wald, speaking at the University of Rhode Island in November 1970: “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
Dennis Hayes, key organizer of Earth Day, in The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970: “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
Kenneth Watt, UC Davis ecologist: “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
Next up, the Ice Age cometh.
Big Cold
In 1970, as greenhouse theorists pushed a rise in average temperature, plenty of prognosticators asserted a big freeze. Kenneth Watt sounded the ice alarm, speaking in Pennsylvania at Swarthmore College: “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
Also in 1970, the Boston Globe ran with a chilling headline, “Scientist Predicts A New Ice Age By 21st Century.” In the associated article, researcher James Lodge warned, “Air pollution may obliterate the sun and cause a new ice age in the first third of the next century if population continues to grow and earth’s resources are consumed at the present rate…”
The Guardian, Jan. 29, 1974, echoed the Globe: “Spy Satellites Show New Ice Age is Coming Fast.”
Time joined the cooling trend June 22, 1974: “Telltale signs are everywhere, from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7 F.”
Newsweek weighed in on April 28, 1975, warning that global cooling would significantly impact agriculture. “There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production…”
“The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the Earth’s climate seems to be cooling down,” the Newsweek article continued. “Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.”
Following Newsweek, the New York Times piped in on July 18, 1976, with additional gloom on agriculture’s demise attributed to global cooling. “… the news for the future is not all good. The climate is going to get unreliable. It is going to get cold. Harvest failures and regional famines will be more frequent. Weather will probably make history—again.”
“The relationship of global climate to food supplies is a case in point: climatic researchers are becoming alarmed that in the next 10 to 100 years humanity will be unable to feed itself—not through technological insufficiency or political mischief—but because of climatic changes that it can barely understand or control.”
Even in 1978, global cooling was a “No End” fact, according to another New York Times article: “An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.”
However, just a year after the global cooling article, the New York Times predicted catastrophe via global warming in a February 1979 story: “Climatologists Are Warned North Pole Might Melt,” featuring a jarring opening paragraph: “There is a real possibility that some people now in their infancy will live to a time when the ice at the North Pole will have melted, a change that would cause swift and perhaps catastrophic changes in climate.”
It was the end of the 1970s and big cold failed to arrive. Bring on big heat.
Baking and Burning
Acid rain concerns kicked off the 1980s, but generally were replaced late in the decade with a flood of headlines on heat, greenhouse effect, and sea levels.
In 1982, Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN’s Environment Program, pointed to the possibility of widespread devastation in less than 20 years. He cited “an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.”
On June 30, 1989, the Associated Press squeezed decimation into a tight, 11-year window, with an ominous article, “Rising Seas Could Obliterate Nations,” containing a jaw-dropping opener: “A senior UN environmental official (Noel Brown) says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”
In 1990, aware the apocalypse was stalled, Mostafa Tolba, doubled down: “We shall win or lose the climate struggle in the first years of the 1990s. The issue is as urgent as that.”
In February 1993, Thomas Lovejoy, assistant secretary for Environmental and External Affairs at the Smithsonian Institution, stressed the world had one remaining decade of opportunity to avoid calamity. “I am utterly convinced that most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late.”
The 1990s was a steady chain of doomsday assurances, but the heaviest hyperbole was yet to be unleashed.
Cannibals, Toast, and Chaos
In 2006, former vice-president Al Gore projected that unless drastic measures were implemented, the planet would hit an irreversible “point of no return” by 2016. Game over.
Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN Climate Panel, one-upped Gore in 2007, insisting 2012 was the year of irreversibility. “If there is no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”
In April 2008, media mogul Ted Turner provided far more detail than either Gore or Pachauri, emphasizing the consequences of climate inaction. “Not doing it will be catastrophic. We’ll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not 10 but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals. Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state like Somalia or Sudan, and living conditions will be intolerable. The droughts will be so bad there’ll be no more corn growing.”
The acclaimed godfather of global warming, James Hansen, drew a line in the sand testifying before Congress in June 2008, on the dangers of greenhouse gases: “We’re toast if we don’t get on a very different path. This is the last chance.”
A year later, in July 2009, then-Prince Charles chimed in, asserting the planet had 96 months to avoid decimation: “…irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.”
Only three months later, UK prime minister Gordon Brown urged nations to pull a historical handbrake ahead of a climate conference: “There are now fewer than 50 days to set the course of the next 50 years and more. If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement, in some future period, can undo that choice. By then, it will be irretrievably too late.”
In 2014, French foreign minister Laurent Fabius upped Brown’s 50 days to 500. “We have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”
Twelve years to 2031. In January 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez put her chips on 2031 as the potential end of days. “Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we’re like: ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it? And, like, this is the war—this is our World War ll.”
Eleven years to 2030. Echoing Ocasio-Cortez in March 2019, but shaving off a year, UN General Assembly President Maria Garces declared an 11-year window to escape catastrophe: “We are the last generation that can prevent irreparable damage to our planet.”
In June 2019, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden threw his support behind Ocasio-Cortez’s dozen-year projection: “Science tells us that how we act or fail to act in the next 12 years will determine the very livability of our planet.”
Full circle back to 2023, and the UN’s latest “time-bomb,” released March 20, as described by the Associated Press: “Humanity still has a chance close to the last to prevent the worst of climate change’s future harms…”
In step with near annual UN declarations from the past 50 years, Secretary-General Guterres once again sounded the alarm: “The climate time-bomb is ticking.”
But therein lies the beauty of doomsday predictions: When one fails, make another.
Canada’s Liberal government has been forced into an embarrassing retreat after attempting to push through a quiet policy change that would have allowed unlabeled cloned “meat” to flood the general public’s food supply.
Health Canada, the government’s regulator, gave the green light for Canadian grocery shelves to be filled with unlabeled cloned “beef” and “pork” without any public debate, transparency, or even basic disclosure to consumers.
The agency has now been forced to indefinitely suspend the plan after an explosion of national outrage, as thousands of Canadians, scientists, farmers, food-industry leaders, and elected officials condemned what many described as a reckless experiment on the public.
In a notice quietly posted on the agency’s website, Health Canada admitted the public backlash was impossible to ignore.
“The Government of Canada has received significant input from both consumers and industry about the implications of this potential policy update,” the statement said.
The department has “indefinitely paused the policy update” and confirmed that cloned cattle and swine products will remain under “the novel food assessment” for now.
A Secret Policy, Revealed Only After Canadians Discovered It Themselves
As Slay News first reported earlier this month, Health Canada quietly approved a plan to remove mandatory safety reviews and labeling from “foods” derived from SCNT-cloned animals and their offspring.
The Canadian government made the change in late October without informing the public.
It meant every Canadian household could have been purchasing cloned “meat” without ever knowing it.
The move blindsided both the public and major stakeholders, and for good reason, as no long-term human safety studies exist.
Cloning research is plagued with biological abnormalities, high mortality rates, immune disorders, and heavy antibiotic use in the animals.
Officials insisted the offspring of clones, not the clones themselves, would enter the food supply.
But this assumption offers no reassurance when no comprehensive studies exist on long-term human consumption.
Researchers Warn of Unknown Human Risks
Cloning research has documented high failure rates, large offspring syndrome, organ defects, placental abnormalities, and early death among cloned animals.
Animals are commonly administered heavy antibiotics because of chronic immune problems.
Despite these warnings, Canada nearly became one of the only Western nations to allow cloned “meat” without labels, without public debate, and without disclosure.
Backlash Erupts Nationwide
After Slay News shone a light on the issue, the public response was immediate and ferocious.
Canadians flooded social media, promising to boycott grocery chains and switch to local farms.
Food policy expert Sylvain Charlebois warned on X:
“By authorizing the sale of meat from cloned animals without mandatory labeling or a formal public announcement, Health Canada risks repeating a familiar and costly failure in risk communication.
“Deeply disappointing.”
Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis said the move would leave consumers in the dark:
“That means, soon you could buy beef or pork and have no idea how it was bred.”
She noted that in other countries, cloned meat is openly debated, with the EU considering strict labeling and the U.S. acknowledging cloned-offspring “meat” is already in circulation.
“But here in Canada, the public wasn’t even told.
“This is about informed choice,” Lewis said, adding:
“What else are we not being told?”
Major suppliers also blasted Ottawa for pushing the policy behind Canadians’ backs.
Organic pork producer duBreton declared:
“Canadians expect clarity, transparency, and meaningful consultation on issues that directly touch their food supply.”
A duBreton survey found 74% of Canadians reject cloned meat and genetic editing in the food system.
Dangerous Pattern with Zero Public Consent
This controversy fits the same pattern Canadians have watched unfold in recent years as top-down technocratic decisions are pushed through quietly.
Meanwhile, ordinary families are expected to accept the consequences after the fact.
The attempt to normalize unlabeled cloned “meat” is not “modernization.”
It is a breach of trust.
Canadians are rightfully asking:
Why was this not announced publicly?
Why remove labels when 74% of Canadians oppose cloned meat?
Who benefits from keeping consumers in the dark?
And how many other food policy changes have been made without public disclosure?
Plan Is Frozen but Not Gone
Health Canada’s suspension of the plan only confirms that the government felt the public pressure.
However, the plan is not forgotten as the policy remains alive inside the bureaucracy, awaiting a quieter moment or a more compliant public.
Europe’s political class just took another leap toward a system of mandatory digital identification for the general public after passing a sweeping new bill in the European Parliament.
However, despite widespread concerns about surveillance and centralized control, European Union elites are packaging the bloc-wide digital ID rollout as “protecting the children.”
The European Parliament voted overwhelmingly to endorse EU-wide age-verification rules that would apply to every major social platform, video service, and AI chatbot.
The measure is technically “non-binding,” but the vote, 483 in favor, 92 against, signals that the EU’s long-planned digital identity system is no longer theoretical.
– Advertisement –
It is becoming the precondition for participating in digital life.
Behind the soft language of safety is something far more sweeping: the architecture of a permanent digital checkpoint state.
The EU’s “Child Safety” Plan Requires Constant Identity Checks
The new framework would force every internet user to re-identify themselves every 90 days just to keep accessing everyday platforms.
Children under 13 would be banned outright; teens aged 13 to 16 would lose access unless their parents continually grant permission.
The new system will be controlled by unelected bureaucrats at the European Commission, the same executive branch pushing the digital ID program.
To make this possible, the resolution pushes two pieces of infrastructure that the EU has been quietly building for years:
• The EU Digital Identity Wallet, which attaches government-verified identity to online accounts
• A mandatory age-verification app controlled by the European Commission
Together, the digital ID and wallet systems erase the last remnants of online anonymity.
Even for adults, using the internet would require continuous authentication, not once, not occasionally, but as a recurring condition of access.
This is not a safety policy.
It is the normalization of digital papers at every doorway.
Platforms Would Be Forced Into Compliance or Banned
The text demands sweeping corporate obedience: restrictions on “addictive” or “manipulative” design, bans on engagement-based algorithms, prohibitions on gambling-style features, and penalties for platforms that fail to comply.
The Parliament even endorsed holding individual executives personally liable for violations.
Companies that don’t obey could be barred entirely from operating in the EU.
And while the measure is branded as a shield for minors, it also targets adult spaces, from deepfakes to “companionship chatbots” to AI agents and nudity apps.
In other words, nothing online escapes EU regulation.
Real Agenda: Universal Identity-Permission System
Behind every line of legislation hides the same dangerous core: Access becomes conditional on identity.
Once digital ID becomes tied to browsing, posting, messaging, or even reading online content, anonymity disappears.
And once anonymity disappears, speech becomes fragile, visible to governments, corporations, political enforcers, and anyone else who stands behind the digital gate.
The new system will usher in a new set of globalist-approved rules where:
• Every login is a checkpoint
• Every user is a traceable data trail
• Every opinion is connected to a verified legal identity
This is a future where dissent becomes punishable, privacy becomes suspicious, and online life becomes a fully monitored space.
EU Lawmakers Admit They Want to End the Internet as We Know It
Danish MEP Christel Schaldemose, who led the proposal, defended the crackdown by portraying the Internet as a chaotic experiment controlled by global tech powers.
“We are in the middle of an experiment, an experiment where American and Chinese tech giants have unlimited access to the attention of our children and young people for hours every single day, almost entirely without oversight,” she told Parliament.
In her statement, Schaldemose continued by calling out Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and “China’s Communist Party and their tech proxies at TikTok.”
“With this report, we finally draw a line,” she added.
“We are saying clearly to the platforms, ‘Your services are not designed for children, and the experiment ends here.’”
The rhetoric is emotional, but the mechanism is authoritarian.
EU Creating a System Where Privacy Becomes a Privilege
The “age verification” excuse is the same tactic used globally to justify digital IDs:
First, claim it’s to protect children.
Then link access to identity.
Then expand the system to all users.
Then normalize surveillance as the price of participation.
If this resolution becomes policy, Europe will have built the world’s first continent-wide identity-controlled Internet, where everything you say and do ties back to a government-verified profile.
Once that architecture exists, the temptation to weaponize it for censorship, financial control, political enforcement, or “emergency” restrictions is inevitable.
The Parliament’s vote may be non-binding today.
But the digital ID infrastructure it endorses will not be optional tomorrow.
Blogger Comment: “My Thoughts”…Things like this and the release of the Epstein files leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth about Trump and if he does not realise this, he should seek help, as something appears to have changed with him and the only things that I can think of is either,
a threatened exposure by Israeli Mossad and their accomplices with something from Epstein that they can blackmail Trump with ?
or the Davos Globalists have threatened his imminent assassination because globalists aligned Washington’s House and Senate senators and congressmen and congresswomen have become too fearful of exposure of what Trump is and has found out…a cover-up assassination plan that Trump knows about, to teach all others (Vance, Rubio et al) that they cannot cross the Globalist elites and what happened to several US presidents since the United States of America was created in 1776…?
But if either is the case, it may be that Trump is biding his time secretly and has been formulating a massive counterattack that involves unprecedented military force and action by the US (even far greater than WW2 and in tandem with the other Globalist’s greatest threat against the Globalist elites with Joint stikes with Putin)…I sincerely hope so for the future of humanity and that it is not either 1. or 2. above is the outcome for future humanity…
President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has been abruptly shut down, well before its scheduled end.
In brief, DOGE was the Trump administration’s flagship effort to gut government waste.
It was launched when Trump returned to office and was previously led by Tesla CEO Elon Musk.
However, despite saving taxpayers billions of dollars, DOGE has ceased operations eight months early.
Its tasks are now handed off to other federal offices, the Daily Mail reported.
The end of DOGE comes after Musk reappeared in Washington, D.C. and was reunited with Trump last week.
From the get-go, DOGE was unveiled with bold promises via executive order at the start of Trump’s second term, set to run until mid-2026.
Led by Musk, DOGE charged forward, slashing budgets and reshaping federal agencies to match the administration’s vision.
Musk was its loudest cheerleader, even swinging a chainsaw at a conservative gathering to dramatize the mission of cutting government bloat.
“This is the chainsaw for bureaucracy,” Musk proclaimed at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
It was a catchy soundbite that now rings a bit empty, given DOGE’s silent exit.
Despite the early hype from Trump, Musk, and top officials on social media, DOGE’s collapse came without a whisper of acknowledgment from the White House.
Scott Kupor, head of the Office of Personnel Management, didn’t mince words.
“That doesn’t exist,” Kupor said when pressed on DOGE’s current standing.
Kupor and internal reports confirm that many of DOGE’s roles have shifted to the OPM, while other duties are now scattered across the federal landscape.
As DOGE faded, its staff didn’t just sit idle.
Key players like Zachary Terrell landed as CTO at Health and Human Services, while Rachel Riley took a top spot at the Office of Naval Research.
Others, including Jeremy Lewin, moved to oversee foreign aid at the State Department.
Some also joined the newly formed National Design Studio under ex-DOGE member Joe Gebbia.
Gebbia’s studio, focused on polishing government websites, got a shout-out from DOGE alum Edward Coristine.
Coristine urged followers online to apply for roles there.
The National Design Studio isn’t just window dressing; it’s launched platforms to recruit law enforcement for D.C. streets and promote Trump’s drug pricing efforts.
Meanwhile, the battle against red tape continues, with former DOGE staffer Scott Langmack building AI tools at HUD to target regulations for elimination.
For those of us rooting for a leaner government, DOGE’s unannounced demise, especially after Musk’s public clash with Trump and exit from Washington, feels like a fumble.
Nevertheless, the fight against bureaucratic overreach still shows signs of life elsewhere.
World Freedom 